Video: Robert Spencer on The History of Jihad From Muhammad to ISIS
…………..
Of all of Robert Spencer’s books, this is probably the most important–and that is saying a great deal.
Joeynsays
Just ordered the book. Expected to arrive on Friday.Thus grateful for the timeliness of this video.
jimsays
Why people are willing to believe in the goodness of the religion of peace. Perhaps for the same reason they vote for the Democrat party and Compassionate Joe Biden.
James Lincolnsays
Voting by pure emotion, jim.
It was rampant during the 2020 US Presidential election…
DEMOC-rat Voter…?
1) low info and easily led
2) very poor grasp of commonsense
3) no compass in a Principled sense of moral values
Infidelsays
Indic means what – non-muslim of the entire Indian subcontinent? Not familiar w/ this term
2:30 For someone who openly supported the Taliban jihad after 9/11, Imran Khan has always clearly lied whenever he claimed that there are no links b/w Islam and terrorism: it’s that he doesn’t consider everything he supports terrorism
9:30 Reason Mohammed bin Qasim’s proposal didn’t stop muslim invaders in India from being particularly violent was that Mohammed bin Qasim was the first and last Arab conqueror of any part of India. Every invasion of India after that starting from 1000AD was done by Turkic invaders, who found nothing of Mohammed bin Qasim’s proposals in the texts, so merrily went about their genocides and pillaging of Hindu, Jain and Buddhist temples
14:00 Mahmoud of Ghazni was notorious for destroying and plundering temples, but didn’t convert any into mosques, since India was merely his happy hunting ground, there to be looted and plundered. It was about a century later, when the sultanate of Delhi was established, that the policy of building mosques on the site of demolished temples was started. Incidentally, it was in Delhi that destroyed idols were used as steps to newly built mosques near the Qutb Minar, and those were made w/ the remnants of Jain temples
21:00 Akbar – the Mughal emperor – started his own religion Deen-i-Ilahi, which had just 40 people who followed it. Early in his life, he was guided by a shi’a general Bairam Khan, which may be why he tended to favor shi’a Islam, despite officially being a sunni. However, it’s a myth that he was tolerant: he massacred 30,000 people after capturing Chittor, and his abolition of the Jiziya was never really implemented in several parts of his empire
32:00 The issue that Hindus have w/ Christian conversion of Hindus is the first commandment – particularly the clauses – “Thou shalt have no other gods before me” and “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image”. Normally, many Hindus would have no issues adding Mr Christ to the suite of deities that they have, and worshiping him alongside other deities, such as Krishna, Ganesh, Rama, Kartikeya, et al, since Hinduism is a polytheistic religion (contrary to what many Hindus seem to think). However, doing that violates the First Commandment, or at least those parts of the first commandment, and when Christian missionaries try to get them to stop, they react just like Christians would if asked to stop worshipping Jesus. The issue ain’t so much one of violence, although there is sometimes bribery involved. But essentially, the first commandment is the root of the issues that not just Hindus, but Buddhists in Burma and Sri Lanka, have w/ Christian missionaries. In India, there’s also the factoid that Christian missionaries don’t try to convert muslims, but instead target marginalized tribes, which makes Hindus even more suspicious of them
39:00 You attracted Dr Koenrad Elst to this conversation? Congratulations ?
52:00 UK’s only hope is Tommy Robinson replacing both the Queen as well as Boris, and becoming the God-emperor of that country!
52:30 While Aparna is right about the Left, the main enabler of islam was President Bush, when he kept propping up the myth that Islam is a good religion. Had he done the opposite and made the war on ‘terror’ instead a war on islam, and designed policies accordingly, the Left wouldn’t have dared gang up w/ islam, just out of fear of electoral setbacks alone. Remember how in October 2001, the entire Congress (except Alameda County’s Barbara Lee) voted for authorizing the war in Afghanistan? That included the Left, and they would have been compelled to side against islam, and wouldn’t have had the opportunity to gang up w/ islam
1:00:00 Interesting prediction – that the pendulum may swing back and that Saudi Arabia and UAE may become Shariah-driven once again. I actually was under the impression that the Saudis and other Arabs are seeing the non-Arab part of the ummah try and grab the leadership – countries like Turkey and Pakistan – and therefore, they’ve decided to stop trying to spread islam to non-Arab people, which will more likely strengthen the claims of a Turkey or Pakistan rather than the claims of a Saudi Arabia
1:02:30 Anybody in Africa wanting to declare a caliphate will have to at least fake that their leader is a Quraysh Arab, like the Qardash guy who now leads ISIS. Like al Qaeda didn’t give Ayman al Zawahiri the top job until they had lost everyone major who was from the Arabian peninsula. Incidentally, I think al Qaeda – Arabian peninsula is all that is left of al Qaeda, and that outside Arabia, ISIS has replaced it everywhere, while groups like Boko Haram and Abu Sayyaf have sworn allegiance to it
1:04:30 The only people who think that jihad violence should be allowed if it’s a part of their religion are people who regard islam as a legitimate religion. Those who see it as an ideology or a cult certainly don’t share that opinion
1:14:00 Tanya asked a great question about ex-Muslims who embrace Atheism. People can’t, in the long term, be dedicated to nothing! Yeah, it’s fair to be skeptical about whether an almighty deity (or more) exist or not, but when the value system that one inherits from one’s faith is not there – be it Christian, Hindu, Jewish, Buddhist, and so on, then the chances of such people reverting to their original faith, which is islam, is pretty high. Which is why she was right in wondering whether it’s taquiyya. Otoh, someone who leaves islam and then embraces a value system of one of the alternatives, w/o necessarily embracing the existence of a deity (indeed, Buddhism is an atheistic religion), is more likely to never return to islam
Most of the famous ex-Muslims went on to embrace some religion or the other, or became at worst agnostic, but certainly not atheist, since that would potentially set the stage for a return to one’s original religion. I had read about quite a few Bengali communists who after the end of Marxist rule in Left Bengal discarded their atheism and became Hindu. Similarly, a muslim who leaves islam but doesn’t embrace an alternative risks relapsing back into islam
1:21:00 Best question – how to tell a genuine ex-muslim from a fake one. My litmus test – see above – is if that person embraces another religion after studying it, or even for emotional reasons (like an Iranian ex-muslim embracing Zoroastrianism b’cos that was the original religion of Iran). RS’ recommendations are good as well, but here’s a qualification on that: if one is talking to an Indian ex-Muslim, don’t ask him his opinion on Hindus: of course, he won’t oppose them openly. Ask him his opinion on some group that Hindus have nothing to do w/ but who Muslims oppose, like maybe Israel, or Serbia. If it’s a Western ex-Muslim, don’t ask hm his opinion on Israel: ask him his opinion on India or Burma or Sri Lanka. A real ex-muslim will assume that there’s something wrong w/ the muslims in all these cases b’cos of what he knows about islam and why he left it, and instinctively state that he supports the non-muslim group. The fae one could let down his guard and support the foreign muslim group that the local anti-jihadists might not be opposed to
1:23:30 Reason some Christian groups take the muslim side is that they think they are Abrahamic fellow-travellers and therefore more similar to them than these polytheistic heathens. Note that in Kerala, after a few cases of marriage jihad, a major church there has dropped that alliance and turned to the BJP
Surprised that SangamTalks hasn’t been booted from YouTube
Onesaffronladoftherisingsunsays
Dharmic ecosystem is on the rise.Intensifying very rapidly.
john smithsays
Another excellent and informative video from Robert Spencer.
JOEYNsays
Yes one of the best I have seen. Robert Spencer was superb in this. Blew a lot of Islamic BS right out of the water especially in first half of the video.
Walter Sieruksays
About that Sharia law based tyrannical Islamic regime of Iran which has the official title of “The Islamic Republic of Iran” and also about the chief and head Imam, Ayatollah Khomeini, who had a strong hand in establishing this so called “Republic “
The very actual essence of that Islamic tyranny ,Ayatollah Khomeini had made in known that “The Islamic Republic of Iran would be Islamic and nothing but .He declared ‘What the nation wants is an Islamic Republic . Not just a Republic, not a democratic Republic, not a democratic Islamic Republic. Do not use the word “democratic” to describe it. That is the Western style. ‘” [1]
[1]`THE HISTORY OF JIHAD FROM MUHAMMAD TO ISIS by Robert Spencer, page 318.
Walter Sieruksays
In the book written by the scholar and expert on subjects of Islam and Islamic terrorism , Robert Spencer, which has the title of THE HISTORY OF JIHAD FROM MUHAMMAD TO ISIS on pages 367, 368 it’s revealed that “The early twenty –first century saw a sharp rise in jihad massacres perpetrated all over the West by individuals or small groups of Muslims : in London ,Manchester , Paris, Toulouse, Nice, Amsterdam , Madrid, Brussels, Munich, Copenhagen Malmo, Stockholm, Turku [in Finland] ,Moscow, St. Petersburg, and Beslan ,among other places.”
The jihadist or jihadists attacks in Western nations be the Muslim terrorists in the city of ,Strasbourg, Stockholm, London, Manchester ,Brussels , Paris, Nice, Berlin ,Madrid. Those jihad-minded Muslim terrorists who engage in those vicious Islamic terror attacks cannot be and will not be reasoned with. They will not respond to either logic or reason. They aren’t interested, at all, in reason or logic. So they have to be dealt with by a strong force of might; either by the police or the use of force by the military.
As Thomas Jefferson had,so wisely written “With every barbarous people…force is law.”
Discover more from
Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.
Dude says
SEDITION SEDITION SHARIA SEDITION SEDITION SEDITION SHARIA SEDITION SHARIA SEDITION SEDITION SEDITION SEDITION SHARIA SEDITION SHARIA SEDITION SEDITION SEDITION SEDITION SEDITION SEDITION SEDITION SEDITION SHARIA SEDITION SEDITION SEDITION SHARIA SEDITION SHARIA SEDITION SEDITION SEDITION SEDITION SHARIA SEDITION SHARIA SEDITION SEDITION SEDITION SEDITION SEDITION SEDITION
It’s obvious – why do we take chances?
gravenimage says
Video: Robert Spencer on The History of Jihad From Muhammad to ISIS
…………..
Of all of Robert Spencer’s books, this is probably the most important–and that is saying a great deal.
Joeyn says
Just ordered the book. Expected to arrive on Friday.Thus grateful for the timeliness of this video.
jim says
Why people are willing to believe in the goodness of the religion of peace. Perhaps for the same reason they vote for the Democrat party and Compassionate Joe Biden.
James Lincoln says
Voting by pure emotion, jim.
It was rampant during the 2020 US Presidential election…
mtman2 says
DEMOC-rat Voter…?
1) low info and easily led
2) very poor grasp of commonsense
3) no compass in a Principled sense of moral values
Infidel says
Indic means what – non-muslim of the entire Indian subcontinent? Not familiar w/ this term
2:30 For someone who openly supported the Taliban jihad after 9/11, Imran Khan has always clearly lied whenever he claimed that there are no links b/w Islam and terrorism: it’s that he doesn’t consider everything he supports terrorism
9:30 Reason Mohammed bin Qasim’s proposal didn’t stop muslim invaders in India from being particularly violent was that Mohammed bin Qasim was the first and last Arab conqueror of any part of India. Every invasion of India after that starting from 1000AD was done by Turkic invaders, who found nothing of Mohammed bin Qasim’s proposals in the texts, so merrily went about their genocides and pillaging of Hindu, Jain and Buddhist temples
14:00 Mahmoud of Ghazni was notorious for destroying and plundering temples, but didn’t convert any into mosques, since India was merely his happy hunting ground, there to be looted and plundered. It was about a century later, when the sultanate of Delhi was established, that the policy of building mosques on the site of demolished temples was started. Incidentally, it was in Delhi that destroyed idols were used as steps to newly built mosques near the Qutb Minar, and those were made w/ the remnants of Jain temples
21:00 Akbar – the Mughal emperor – started his own religion Deen-i-Ilahi, which had just 40 people who followed it. Early in his life, he was guided by a shi’a general Bairam Khan, which may be why he tended to favor shi’a Islam, despite officially being a sunni. However, it’s a myth that he was tolerant: he massacred 30,000 people after capturing Chittor, and his abolition of the Jiziya was never really implemented in several parts of his empire
32:00 The issue that Hindus have w/ Christian conversion of Hindus is the first commandment – particularly the clauses – “Thou shalt have no other gods before me” and “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image”. Normally, many Hindus would have no issues adding Mr Christ to the suite of deities that they have, and worshiping him alongside other deities, such as Krishna, Ganesh, Rama, Kartikeya, et al, since Hinduism is a polytheistic religion (contrary to what many Hindus seem to think). However, doing that violates the First Commandment, or at least those parts of the first commandment, and when Christian missionaries try to get them to stop, they react just like Christians would if asked to stop worshipping Jesus. The issue ain’t so much one of violence, although there is sometimes bribery involved. But essentially, the first commandment is the root of the issues that not just Hindus, but Buddhists in Burma and Sri Lanka, have w/ Christian missionaries. In India, there’s also the factoid that Christian missionaries don’t try to convert muslims, but instead target marginalized tribes, which makes Hindus even more suspicious of them
39:00 You attracted Dr Koenrad Elst to this conversation? Congratulations ?
52:00 UK’s only hope is Tommy Robinson replacing both the Queen as well as Boris, and becoming the God-emperor of that country!
52:30 While Aparna is right about the Left, the main enabler of islam was President Bush, when he kept propping up the myth that Islam is a good religion. Had he done the opposite and made the war on ‘terror’ instead a war on islam, and designed policies accordingly, the Left wouldn’t have dared gang up w/ islam, just out of fear of electoral setbacks alone. Remember how in October 2001, the entire Congress (except Alameda County’s Barbara Lee) voted for authorizing the war in Afghanistan? That included the Left, and they would have been compelled to side against islam, and wouldn’t have had the opportunity to gang up w/ islam
1:00:00 Interesting prediction – that the pendulum may swing back and that Saudi Arabia and UAE may become Shariah-driven once again. I actually was under the impression that the Saudis and other Arabs are seeing the non-Arab part of the ummah try and grab the leadership – countries like Turkey and Pakistan – and therefore, they’ve decided to stop trying to spread islam to non-Arab people, which will more likely strengthen the claims of a Turkey or Pakistan rather than the claims of a Saudi Arabia
1:02:30 Anybody in Africa wanting to declare a caliphate will have to at least fake that their leader is a Quraysh Arab, like the Qardash guy who now leads ISIS. Like al Qaeda didn’t give Ayman al Zawahiri the top job until they had lost everyone major who was from the Arabian peninsula. Incidentally, I think al Qaeda – Arabian peninsula is all that is left of al Qaeda, and that outside Arabia, ISIS has replaced it everywhere, while groups like Boko Haram and Abu Sayyaf have sworn allegiance to it
1:04:30 The only people who think that jihad violence should be allowed if it’s a part of their religion are people who regard islam as a legitimate religion. Those who see it as an ideology or a cult certainly don’t share that opinion
1:14:00 Tanya asked a great question about ex-Muslims who embrace Atheism. People can’t, in the long term, be dedicated to nothing! Yeah, it’s fair to be skeptical about whether an almighty deity (or more) exist or not, but when the value system that one inherits from one’s faith is not there – be it Christian, Hindu, Jewish, Buddhist, and so on, then the chances of such people reverting to their original faith, which is islam, is pretty high. Which is why she was right in wondering whether it’s taquiyya. Otoh, someone who leaves islam and then embraces a value system of one of the alternatives, w/o necessarily embracing the existence of a deity (indeed, Buddhism is an atheistic religion), is more likely to never return to islam
Most of the famous ex-Muslims went on to embrace some religion or the other, or became at worst agnostic, but certainly not atheist, since that would potentially set the stage for a return to one’s original religion. I had read about quite a few Bengali communists who after the end of Marxist rule in Left Bengal discarded their atheism and became Hindu. Similarly, a muslim who leaves islam but doesn’t embrace an alternative risks relapsing back into islam
1:21:00 Best question – how to tell a genuine ex-muslim from a fake one. My litmus test – see above – is if that person embraces another religion after studying it, or even for emotional reasons (like an Iranian ex-muslim embracing Zoroastrianism b’cos that was the original religion of Iran). RS’ recommendations are good as well, but here’s a qualification on that: if one is talking to an Indian ex-Muslim, don’t ask him his opinion on Hindus: of course, he won’t oppose them openly. Ask him his opinion on some group that Hindus have nothing to do w/ but who Muslims oppose, like maybe Israel, or Serbia. If it’s a Western ex-Muslim, don’t ask hm his opinion on Israel: ask him his opinion on India or Burma or Sri Lanka. A real ex-muslim will assume that there’s something wrong w/ the muslims in all these cases b’cos of what he knows about islam and why he left it, and instinctively state that he supports the non-muslim group. The fae one could let down his guard and support the foreign muslim group that the local anti-jihadists might not be opposed to
1:23:30 Reason some Christian groups take the muslim side is that they think they are Abrahamic fellow-travellers and therefore more similar to them than these polytheistic heathens. Note that in Kerala, after a few cases of marriage jihad, a major church there has dropped that alliance and turned to the BJP
Surprised that SangamTalks hasn’t been booted from YouTube
Onesaffronladoftherisingsun says
Dharmic ecosystem is on the rise.Intensifying very rapidly.
john smith says
Another excellent and informative video from Robert Spencer.
JOEYN says
Yes one of the best I have seen. Robert Spencer was superb in this. Blew a lot of Islamic BS right out of the water especially in first half of the video.
Walter Sieruk says
About that Sharia law based tyrannical Islamic regime of Iran which has the official title of “The Islamic Republic of Iran” and also about the chief and head Imam, Ayatollah Khomeini, who had a strong hand in establishing this so called “Republic “
The very actual essence of that Islamic tyranny ,Ayatollah Khomeini had made in known that “The Islamic Republic of Iran would be Islamic and nothing but .He declared ‘What the nation wants is an Islamic Republic . Not just a Republic, not a democratic Republic, not a democratic Islamic Republic. Do not use the word “democratic” to describe it. That is the Western style. ‘” [1]
[1]`THE HISTORY OF JIHAD FROM MUHAMMAD TO ISIS by Robert Spencer, page 318.
Walter Sieruk says
In the book written by the scholar and expert on subjects of Islam and Islamic terrorism , Robert Spencer, which has the title of THE HISTORY OF JIHAD FROM MUHAMMAD TO ISIS on pages 367, 368 it’s revealed that “The early twenty –first century saw a sharp rise in jihad massacres perpetrated all over the West by individuals or small groups of Muslims : in London ,Manchester , Paris, Toulouse, Nice, Amsterdam , Madrid, Brussels, Munich, Copenhagen Malmo, Stockholm, Turku [in Finland] ,Moscow, St. Petersburg, and Beslan ,among other places.”
The jihadist or jihadists attacks in Western nations be the Muslim terrorists in the city of ,Strasbourg, Stockholm, London, Manchester ,Brussels , Paris, Nice, Berlin ,Madrid. Those jihad-minded Muslim terrorists who engage in those vicious Islamic terror attacks cannot be and will not be reasoned with. They will not respond to either logic or reason. They aren’t interested, at all, in reason or logic. So they have to be dealt with by a strong force of might; either by the police or the use of force by the military.
As Thomas Jefferson had,so wisely written “With every barbarous people…force is law.”