Customer Reviews

Onward Muslim Soldiers: How Jihad Still Threatens America and the West

5 star:		(21)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

Robert Spencer's meticulous research and documentation, complemented by a lucid writing style, has yielded a remarkably informative work that transitions seamlessly between classical Islamic theology, jurisprudence, and sociopolitical history, and contemporary events, especially modern manifestations of jihad war ideology.

Moreover, Spencer's analyses are devoid of politically correct, ahistorical dithering. This is apparent from the opening chapter (in the first of the books three main sections), and the illustrative example of the infamous grenade and small arms attack by American sergeant Hasan Akbar, an African-American convert to Islam, which killed two of his senior officers and wounded 15 others, in northern Kuwait on March 22, 2003. After reviewing statements by designated spokespersons (an Army chaplain and a Pentagon official) dismissing (reflexively) Islamic ideology as a potential motivating factor, and the predictable defense counsel and family attempts to portray religious and/or racial discrimination against Akbar as precipitating the arrest, Spencer cites sacred texts from the Qur'an and hadith (putative deeds and utterances of Muhammad as recorded by his pious followers) prohibiting Muslims from fighting their co-religionists.

The author's provocative analysis is supported by a succinct introduction to the unique Islamic institution of jihad (including jihad war), its central obligation to pious Muslims, and how jihad is linked inextricably to the corollary institution of "dhimmitude." He then makes further disquieting observations germane to contemporary jihad "campaigns" and the basic human rights of all non-Muslims living in societies whose legal codes are inspired either in full or part by the Shari'a (Islamic Holy Law). Subsequently, Spencer returns to the Akbar case, specifically, to review evidence of the funding and related ideological orientation of the mosque attended by Sergeant Akbar.

Jihad was pursued century after century, because jihad, which means "to strive in the path of Allah," embodied an ideology and a jurisdiction. Both were formally conceived by Muslim jurisconsults and theologians from the 8th and 9th centuries onward, based on their interpretation of Qur'an verses and long chapters in the hadith. As Spenser notes, appropriately, the consensus on the nature of jihad from all four schools of Sunni Islamic jurisprudence (i.e., Maliki, Hanbali, Hanafi, and Shafi'i) is clear.
Spencer then reviews the historical implications of the Qur'an's injunction in verse 9:29:

"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of The Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, feel themselves subdued."

For example, al-Mawardi (d. 1058), a seminal Shafi'ite jurist during the Abbasid-Baghdadian Caliphate, elucidated the regulations pertaining to the lands and infidel (i.e., non-Muslim) populations subjugated by jihad. The vanquished non-Muslims were compelled to adhere to this pact ("dhimma"), which acknowledged their submission, or face the threat of having the jihad against them resumed. If the payment ceases, then the jihad resumes. This is the origin of the system of dhimmitude- a vast, uniquely Islamic institution of religious apartheid, implemented for over a millennium across three continents- Asia, Africa, and Europe- from the Indian subcontinent to Portugal, north through the Balkans, and south to The Sudan. The native infidel populations had to recognize Islamic ownership of their land, submit to Islamic law, and accept payment of the poll tax (jizya).

Spencer provides this reasoned, sobering assessment of the modern predicament created by the living institutions of jihad and dhimmitude, which is consistently obfuscated by his timid or uninformed peers in modern Western intellectual circles:

"...the simple fact that jihad remains a vital part of Islamic theology is insufficiently appreciated in the West. In stark contrast to apologies for the Crusades issued by the Pope and various Protestant groups, no major Muslim group has ever repudiated the doctrines of jihad. The ideology of jihad, with all its assumptions about unbelievers' lack of human rights and dignity, is available today as a justification for anyone with the will and the means to bring it to life...

The author segues from the Akbar case to a host of other chilling examples which illustrate the pervasive influence of jihad and dhimmitude in both the U.S. and European Muslim communities- primarily mosques expounding these institutions, but also intermediate school textbooks, and college student organizations (for e.g., chapters of the Muslim Student Association).

Spencer's carefully referenced, but concise, thoughtful discussions address a truly impressive array of issues critical to an informed understanding of international jihad conflicts and terrorism. Most importantly, he describes how seminal 20th century Muslim ideologues- the Shi'ite Ayatollah Khomeini, and four Sunnis - Hasan al Banna, Sayyid Qutb, Sayyid Abul A'la Maududi, and Abdullah Azzam - revitalized and implemented the classical Islamic institutions of jihad and dhimmitude. Since the 1930s, their teachings and actions have had a profound impact on every major jihad campaign across the globe (including, but not limited to Israel, India, Bangladesh, Iran, Sudan, Indonesia, former Yugoslavia, and Algeria). Osama bin Laden, who orchestrated the September 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center, was influenced deeply and directly by Abdullah Azzam, with whom he studied and fought alongside, in Afghanistan.


Sadly, as Robert Spencer demonstrates, dhimmitude is still ignored or obfuscated, and most Muslim (and many Western) intellectuals continue to justify the jihad concept as an inoffensive spiritual engagement with one's own evil instincts, or purely "defensive" combat for "justice." Let us hope the author's elegant, uncompromising analyses prompt intellectual and media elites in general, and the Muslim intelligentsia and media, in particular, to begin the long overdue process of a (self-) critical reflection on the uniquely Islamic institutions of jihad and dhimmitude. Only then can meaningful interfaith dialogue begin to facilitate sincere efforts at reconciliation between Muslim and non-Muslim societies and peoples.

In this book Robert Spencer argues that violence and terrorism are not necessarily out of place for a Muslim. The Koran, Islamic law (Sharia), the example of Muhammad and Islamic history all provide support for these sorts of activities. With a wealth of documentation, the author shows that the concept of jihad (holy war) and dhimmitude (the subjugation of non-Muslim minorities), continues to strongly influence many Muslims today.

Consider the doctrine of jihad. Just what does it mean and involve? Because there is no ultimate central authority in Islam, argues Spencer, disagreement exists as to interpreting the Koran, the weight of tradition (Hadith), and the example of Muhammad. But the Koran (Sura 9:29), Islamic history and jurisprudence all hold that there are three choices for the non-Muslim in a Muslim land: conversion to Islam, dhimmitude, or death. "The goal of jihad is thus the incorporation of non-Muslims into Muslim society, either by conversion or submission."

Koranic injunctions to fight are numerous, as they are in the various collections of Hadith. And Muhammad himself set the example of violent conquest. The idea of complete submission to Islam, even to the point of death, argues Spencer, "remains a vital part of Islamic theology". Thus jihad is very much concerned with the concept of holy war, and even terrorism.

Hand in hand with jihad is the notion of dhimmitude. Non-Muslims in Muslim countries are considered dhimmis, or protected peoples. Such protection however often results in second-class citizenship (and worse) for the minority groups. Various social, political and religious restrictions, along with the mandatory payment of a poll-tax (jizya) effectively spells the gradual liquidation of the minority groups.

Apologists for Islam often claim that these practices may have been true in the past, but are no longer so prevalent. But Spencer amply documents how both jihad and dhimmitude are alive and well in most Muslim nations today.

September 11 was, to a great degree, a logical outcome of the concept of jihad. Some however argue that as the ultimate suicide bombing, Sept. 11 cannot be reconciled with Islam, since suicide is sinful in Islam. But many Muslims defend suicide bombing, arguing that it is not really suicide but martyrdom for Allah, something much praised in the Koran. They insist that the bombers simply use their bodies to kill others, not themselves. And those who are killed while fighting for Allah are promised a one-way ticket to Paradise. Interestingly, in Islam, no other action guarantees one's eternal destiny in Paradise.

A good part of this book documents how radical Islam is at war against not only the West, but moderate Muslims as well. He offers detailed, referenced accounts of how militant Muslims are at work in the West, and how many Western sympathisers have been duped by their words of peace and tolerance. Yes, the Koran does speak of these ideas, but it also contains many verses devoted to violent intolerance.

He documents how Western leftists have been silent on Muslim atrocities, presumably because only America is capable of evil. He details how leftist apologists for radical Islam in the West have distorted the evidence and closed their ears to the facts of history. This attempt to blame America first and justify Muslim jihad are having serious repercussions in the West, says Spencer.

And the truth is, he argues, for the radical Muslim, Islam is at war with the world, and until all the earth is brought under Dar al-Islam (the house, or rule, of Islam), terror, fighting and suicide bombings will continue. That is why the West needs to be ever vigilant, and needs to continue to encourage moderate Islam to gets its own house in order, and disassociate itself entirely from the extremist elements.

While we must do all we can to encourage Muslim moderation, we dare not ignore Muslim extremism. This books helps us to do both, and deserves a wide reading.

This follow-up to Islam Unveiled focuses on jihad, a concept embedded deeply in Islam which makes peaceful coexistence with the West difficult.
Spencer outlines the lives and thought of the twentieth century theologians who elaborated the theories of radical Islam. His wide ranging perspective shows that the war on terror is much more than a Wahabbi problem. Shiites, Egyptian Sunnis and even Sufis are part of the mix. Some of this includes very entertaining stories of a radical Muslim theologian who spent some time in American suburbia - as you can guess the radical hated it!
Spencer reports how the increasing Muslim population has already changed Europe. He explores the truly weird alliance between the libertine American left and religiously strict Islamic radicals. He shows how history has been utterly distorted for political ends. He reports how Islamic extremists have embedded themselves among Islamic leaders right here in America and around the world.
Most importantly, Spencer implores us to realize that we are fighting a jihad whether we like it or not, because that is what our enemies have thrust upon us. They are motivated by a desire to brutally make the world conform to their vision of truth.
Onward Muslim Soldiers is important to anyone trying to make sense of history's latest turn. It is well written and quite well documented; it is both a great read and a great source book on radical islam.

The author says that some areas in the world are undergoing demographic changes. For example, the Netherlands may have a Muslim majority by the year 2040 (then again, it may not). Should that worry those of us who are Christians, Muslims, Jews, or Pagans? As well as those of us who are not?

Well, if we're going to live together in peace, I think it all sounds really good. The newcomers probably will contribute greatly to Holland. And those Dutch who convert will make their society more diverse. But what if the Muslims are led mostly by extremists? What if we get a society led by something more like the Mafia, or the Ku Klux Klan, or the Stalinists, or the National Socialists, or the Maoists, or simply the Taliban? Then I think we have less reason to be optimistic. And the author of this book agrees.

In the first part of this book, Spencer discusses Jihad now. He explains that dhimmitude is a direct challenge to the proposition that all people are created equal with unalienable rights. He points out that the Wahhabis, the majority in Saudi Arabia, are one of the most extreme of the Islamic sects, and that they routinely identify their enemies as "Jews and Christians." He gives examples of hatred taught to schoolchildren from Wahhabi texts, not just in Saudi Arabia, but right here in Muslim schools in the United States. Typical of the preaching is the claim that Wahhabi dead go to Paradise while Jewish dead go to Hell. Given the company each would have there, I suspect that if this is true, the Jews are getting the better deal.

I think a very revealing comment is a quote from two eleven-year old Arab girls. They were asked which they would prefer, to have peace and full rights for all Arab people or for the two of them to die as martyrs. Interestingly, they immediately chose martyrdom: peace and justice were not important to them, even on their terms.

The second part of the book deals with the history of Muslim Jihad. Here, Spencer exposes the myth that non-Muslims were treated well in Islamic lands. Some non-Muslims did indeed do well, but none had the rights of Muslims. And he also points out a very interesting statistic. Fifty years ago, Christians were 15% of the total population of the Middle East. They are now 2% of that population. And it is pressure from radical Islam that has caused this.

As Spencer says, "the problem of radical Islam is not a liberal or conservative issue. It is a human rights issue." But many people on the political Left seem to apologize for radical Islam. Why? The author gives the answer: it is because radical Islam is anti-American.

I think it is a big mistake for anyone who has any sympathy for liberalism to support reactionary terrorism, but it seems that many people strongly disagree with me about this. As for the author, he regards those who ally themselves with America's enemies as having chosen sides in a war we're in. I agree with him about this.

Well, what is to be done about the threat of radical Islam? Spencer comes up with three main suggestions: monitor mosques, control immigration, and encourage moderate Islam at home and abroad.

As a liberal, I'm nervous about monitoring mosques. But I do think that we need to have some way to give law-abiding and loyal Muslims a way to demonstrate that they are not the problem. Otherwise, I fear that all Muslims will be treated with suspicion here.

The author thinks that Muslim organizations in this country need to renounce a theology of jihad and dhimmitude. Once again, I think we need to find out which organizations are openly and explicitly willing to do this. And finally, Spencer warns us that we do not encourage moderate Islam by being "politically correct" and pretending that extremists are in fact moderate. The author concludes that those of us who love freedom need to oppose jihad.

I highly recommend this book to everyone.

First of all, lemme state that I am an ardent follower of Robert Spencer's work: I have read, I think, most of his books, and I try to keep abreast of his doings.

Nevertheless I don't recommend reading "Onward Muslim Soldiers." At least not if it's gonna be your first book on this issue.

I don't say this because the thing is poorly researched, poorly written, poorly argued, or anything like that. No, no: it's fine. It's up to Spencer's usually high standards of lucid expression and careful documentation.

The thing is, though, this book doesn't really tell you anything you need to know if you've already read "Islam Unveiled," which I would certainly recommend tackling first, as THAT book is far more disturbing, wide-ranging, and meaningfully informative.

Of course, what "Onward Muslim Soldiers" sets out to do, it does just fine. Expect nothing less from Spencer. It's an examination of Jihad, you see: it lays out a history of Jihad, its theological underpinnings, its modern incarnations, etc. All of that is necessary work and I'm glad it was Spencer who stepped up to the plate.

But the thing that makes "Onward Muslim Soldiers" largely a waste of time (at least for the average Joe) is that all that history and catechism is either, I suspect, immaterial or wasn't seriously being questioned. It's really not the kind of vital, immediate information needed in the West. The excesses of history, you see, can always be dismissed as excitability.

Hence I wouldn't recommend reading "Onward Muslim Soldiers" unless you've more than a passing interest in these issues. For the casual reader, Spencer's "Islam Unveiled" is more than adequate -- and far more accessible. (And if you have any questions, Bub, read it again!) It's a real eye-opener, and manages to cover the essential material of "Onward Muslim Soldiers" in a far more efficient yet more disturbing way. (E.g. the current Western immigration quagmire, the fate of Holland, oil money, etc.) That information, I should think, will prove far more immediately useful, harrowing, and harder to dismiss than most of the contents of "Onward Muslim Soldiers."

(Incidentally, if you do try "Islam Unveiled" and find it disturbing, you oughta then try Trifkovic's "The Sword of the Prophet," a book which can outstrip even Spencer in repeatedly dropping your jaw to the floor! Trifkovic hasn't the writing agility or structural skills given to Spencer, but he sure beats him in research -- and that's no mean feat.)

So, in short: if you wanna start reading up on this stuff, I would first recommend "Islam Unveiled," which is all the lay reader really needs, and needs yesterday. The next step would be Trifkovic. After that, you'll probably be too deeply shaken to just sit around reading books, but if you do, that would be a good time to come at last to "Onward Muslim Soldiers." But sadly, while it is a worthwhile read, it won't really have anything new to say to you.

This incredibly insightful book dares to speak the truth about Jihad. A work of caution: this book is not for the faint of heart, or for those happily living in a world of political correctness. This is a courageous book and is meant for those courageous enough to want to know the unvarnished truth about the threat of Jihad.
Robert Spencer's research is thorough, his conclusions are reasoned, and his work is brilliant, if sobering. I am not a Muslim, but like many, after 9/11, I was eager to learn more about Islam and Jihad. I am grateful to Robert Spencer for his work. He supports his position by relying almost exclusively on Muslim sources which are generally unknown in the West but are fundamental to the Islamic faith. Further, he has meticulously referenced his sources so that anyone that takes issue with his writing can check the truth of the book for themselves. This is a story that needs to be told. Kudos to Robert Spencer for spelling it out for us!

As a former member of Joint Task Force Guantanamo, one who had occasion to speak with our detainees of all nationalities, I find this book startlingly reminiscent of my interaction with those detainees. If what author Spencer is saying is true (and I suspect it is), western civilization could be in a world of hurt unless we find a way to delete the political correctness attitude of our press and our liberals. If even a quarter of this world's Muslims think like the detained folks we have in Gitmo, our civilization is in trouble. Our society has taught us not to judge people by their color, creed or religion. I still believe that principle, but we should still remain open minded enough to be vigilant.

Probably the most truthful and "politically incorrect" argument on the evilness of Koran itself. Groundbreaking in boldly showing that the evil of Islamic terrorism we see today is neither new nor unusual in 1400 years of Islamic history but is firmly rooted in the brutal and repulsive life of its founder- Mohammad, and the nauseatingly abhorrant verses in the Koran. Because of Islam we have lost the beautiful old cultures of Egypt(coptic), Babylon, Syria, Byzantium(Christan and Jewish), Persia (Zoroastrian), Afghanistan (Buddhist), India, Malaysia, Indonesia( Hindu, Buddhist.)India has been struggling against this cancer for last 800 years and still continues to fight Islamic terror today despite serious obstacles put up by the west. Books like this are urgently needed to wake us all up and begin the fight to seriously reform Islam...if not eradicate it. I have a lot of Muslim friends and even the most moderate amongst them openly and secretly consider non-muslims as infidels, therefore inferior.

Thank G-d Spencer avoided Middle East Studies Departments. Spencer whose degree is in Religious Studies approaches the problem of Islam from a religious angle, and tries to examine the theology of jihad on the Muslims' own terms. His book is blessedly free of academese and it is not only well-written but a well-organized look at how jihad threatens the West. (Contrary to what reviewer Seth Franzman thinks, Nigeria is neither part of America nor the West).
Daniel Pipes who is a professor of Mid East Studies (but a good guy nonetheless) writes on the book's cover, "To understand the ideological sources of the terrorist enemy, read Robert Spencer's succinct, knowledgeable, and important book, Onward Muslim Soldiers. His systematic survey of such vital topics as radical Islam's aspirations, its unlikely alliance with the far left, and the need to encourage a moderate Islamic alternative are all valuable. But Spencer's signal contribution is his focus on the 'global threat to the West' that so many Western analysts and policymakers persistently refuse to see: jihad, or sacred war for Islam. There is no more important topic for citizens to comprehend."
Anyone who reads both Daniel Pipes and Robert Spencer will understand both the politics (Pipes) and the theology (Spencer) of the jihad terrorists who threaten us all.

Robert Spencer's seminal study of Islamic fundamentalism is as valuable to scholars of Islam as it is accessible to the average untutored reader.

He carefully reviews events of the last few years. But most critical, he ties the actions and comments of radical and moderate Muslims alike to sacred Islamic texts and jurists considered central by many if not all.

That Spencer, a Melkite Christian and the grandson of dhimmis, has studied Islam for decades could hardly be in doubt. For his grasp and understanding Islamic texts and liturgy is truly breathtaking. His examination is not spiritual in nature, of course.

Yet Spencer turns ably from al-Mawardi's Laws of Islamic Governance to verses of the Qu'ran to Ibn Khaldun's Muqaddimah: An Introduction to History without blinking. Always, he relates critical passages of these historical and sacred documents and texts to current events.

I have read many histories and analyses of Islamic history in recent years, and say without reservation that Spencer's book is one of the most useful of the lot. For he explains, unlike virtually any other scholar, the religious lynchpins, or triggers, for much that is happening in our world.

Policymakers especially should take heed, as Spencer zeros in on the persistent reality Western civilization cannot afford to ignore: the Islamic religious imperatives to jihad, or sacred war.

Whether readers are just beginning to ask makes Islam tick, or advanced in their studies, Onward Muslim Soldiers offers salient and critical material not to be missed.

--Alyssa A. Lappen