Stealth Jihad

 

 Stealth Jihad [43:00m]: Play Now | Play in Popup

Western Word Radio Interview with
Robert Spencer

Original Air Date
01/28/2009 11:00 am

Synopsis

In this interview AFA President Avi Davis conducts a discussion with New York Times best selling author Robert Spencer, author of “Stealth Jihad” on the insidious creep of fundamentalist Islam into American society. In the course of the interview, they address the nature of fundamentalist Islam in the United States, the desire to cater to Muslim sensitivities in the United States and abroad, the drive to accommodate those Muslim organizations whose true agenda is hidden from public view and who increasingly insist on a separation from mainstream American identity.

Introduction

Avi Davis: Hello, this is Avi Davis, Senior Fellow of the American Freedom Alliance, and welcome to the first edition of Western Word Radio, we’re very happy to be here. As many of you may know, American Freedom Alliance has been working for a number of years, on issues central to the defense of western civilization and values, and we are pleased to now bring a series of interviews with people whom we think are essential to, and working closely in the fight for defense of those values.

Today, we are very fortunate to have with us, Robert Spencer, who is a New York Times best selling author, and is the recent author of the work “Stealth Jihad; How Radical Islam is Subverting America without Guns or Bombs.” Robert, welcome. As many people may know, Robert is also an Associate Fellow of the American Freedom Alliance, and has been with us from the very beginning, so we’re very, very happy to have you inaugurate our first show.

Robert, we’re going to talk today a little bit about the work you’ve been doing. You’ve now written eight books on issues revolving around the Islamic threat to western civilization. And your most recent book, “Stealth Jihad” is probably one of the most powerful, because it identifies a threat that most people don’t seem to be aware of in this country. So, we’d like to begin by just having you outline the purposes of the book, your general theory behind it, and then I want to get into some of the crucial points you make during the course of the work.

What is Stealth Jihad?

Robert Spencer: Sure, Avi. The stealth jihad is something that is, in the first place, one of the most serious threats to the United States and to the western world in general at the moment, and yet it is something that is almost completely under the radar screen, completely beyond the notice of law enforcement and government officials, to our great detriment and to our great peril. The stealth jihad is an attempt to advance the same goal that terrorists have, by non-terrorist means. The terrorists are trying, ultimately, not just to sew mayhem and blow things up and terrify people, they are trying, by their own admission and their words, to assert the supremacy of Islamic law as a political system, not just as a religious understanding, but as a political system and a societal order. They’re trying to assert the primacy of Islamic law over every other law, over every other system of laws.

So, what we have, in the western world, is an attempt to do exactly the same thing, to assert the primacy of Islamic law, to establish Islamic law over the West, not by means of weakening the West by terrorist acts, but by means of weakening the West socially and culturally, by chipping away at our freedoms, chipping away at our self understanding, chipping away at our ideas of human rights, and our ideas of the equality of dignity of all people, the equality of rights of all people, and trying to assert, little by little, piece by piece, on a discreet, separate, case by case basis, on the small scale; every initiative is small scale, trying to assert the idea that when Islamic law and American law conflict, it’s American law that has to give way. Now, precisely because all these stealth jihad initiatives asserting the primacy of Islamic law over American law are all so small scale, many people think this is just a matter of hysteria, a matter of an exaggerated xenophobia, or even of bigotry and hatred and racism and so on.

Special Privileges for Muslims

Now, it’s very important to understand that that is not the case, and that is not the case, demonstrably, for several important reasons. One of them, one of the chief ones being that these initiatives, which take the form of asserting special privileges for Muslims, special provisions for Islamic religious practice in schools, in businesses, in workplaces, in financial institutions and so on, all of them, really remarkably, go back to a single organization, the Muslim Brotherhood. And the Muslim Brotherhood, which is an international Islamic organization that operates in the United States under several different names, is avowed, in its own words,  to eliminating and destroying western civilization from within, and sabotaging its miserable half, so that it is eliminated. And the last religion is made victorious over other religions.

Catering to Muslim Sensitivities in Public Schools

Now, that agenda of sabotaging the miserable haves of the West, is something that we can see and it’s running like a golden thread through all these small initiatives. I’ll give you an example: One very, very small incident that probably nobody would ever have taken notice of, and probably most people would think, “well, that’s no big deal”, is that there was a school district in the Chicago area that banned Jell-O. Now, why did they ban Jell-O in this public school? Because there was a sizable number of Muslim students in the school and they were offended by the Jell-O, because the Jell-O, I didn’t know this actually until I started researching this book, the Jell-O is made from gelatin that contains pork products and, of course, Islam forbids the consumption of pork.

Now, the funny thing about this is, I went to public schools in the United States, and it was a few years ago to be sure, but I remember very vividly that there were plenty of days on which the school lunch served things I didn’t want to eat. And I felt free not to eat them. And many times I would bring something from home in a bag to eat at lunch, and this was no problem. And I don’t know why this would be different today. But the difference here is that Brotherhood linked organizations were behind this initiative, to not only say that the students should be exempt from eating this, which of course is commonsensical and obvious, but not only that, but that the school district had to stop serving it. And in other words, all the students, Muslim and non-Muslim, had to conform to Islamic dietary requirements. And so, that is the precedent that was set there. That not only must Muslims be free to practice their own religious particularities, but that they must assert them over non-Muslims. And so, even though it’s a small incident, the fact that it’s linked to the Brotherhood, as all these initiatives are, and that the Brotherhood is trying to sabotage western civilization from within, by it’s own words, and the fact that all these initiatives, I can give you many more examples and I’m sure I will in the course of the next few minutes, the commonality between all the examples I can give you, is that they all assert that Islamic law must reign supreme, and that non-Muslims must not only accommodate it, but they must change their own behavior in order to avoid offending Muslims by their non-Muslim practices and behavior. And so, this is an assertion of a hegemony for Muslims that actually is the agenda of Islamic law.

Avi Davis: Let me ask you about some of the vulnerabilities of the west. In your book, you write that “Many of the highest levels of State Department and the Pentagon believe instead that they hate us simply because they don’t know us well enough to love us. They’ve been taught to hate us, you see, by sinister, anti-Western Islamic preachers. Americans have tried to counter this by directing US soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan to conduct initiatives to win Muslim hearts and minds.” Now, I’m very interested in that observation. Are you saying that Americans essentially believe that there is no threat, that even the highest levels of government believe there is no threat, that, in fact, we have to apologize to the Muslims for having offended them?

Are We Responsible for Muslims Hating Us?

Robert Spencer: Yes. Look at the President of the Untied States. He has now, twice, in a week and a day in office; he has now twice said that he wants to build relationships with Muslims, with the Islamic world on the basis of mutual respect. And he has strongly implied, both times he said this; that the respect has been lacking from America. Not that the Muslims don’t respect Americans, but that Americans don’t respect Muslims, and that he’s going to change that, he’s going to depart from the example of his predecessor, and show respect to the Muslims. And this just plays into the hands of the kind of thing you’re talking about, the assumption that Obama and so many in Washington share, is that the conflict between the West and the Islamic world is the result of misbehavior by the West. Foreign policy errors, foreign policy blunders, cultural blunders, that have offended and angered Muslims.

Now this is completely to buy into the Muslim Brotherhood, Islamic Jihadist characterization of the conflicts, and yet it is something that has completely won sway in Washington, such that we have at the highest levels. People who think that all we need to do is to usher in a new era of peace and harmony with the Muslim world is to adjust our foreign policy in various particulars. Abandon Israel, withdraw from Iran, withdraw from Iraq, withdraw from Afghanistan, and then somehow a new era of peace will dawn. Well, this is Pollyannaish in the extreme, but is also extraordinarily naïve and ignorant. And it’s based on the assumption that the Islamic world is essentially the innocent party in this conflict, that they have no reasons of their own to hate the West, we have just made ourselves hateful.  And the Islamic world would be very happy to live in peace with the West, with the non-Muslim world, were we simply to stop bothering them.

Imperative to Wage War Embedded in Islamic Tradition

And this completely ignores and glosses over the fact that the imperative to wage war against and subjugate unbelievers is embedded within Islamic tradition, is taught by all the sects that are considered orthodox in Islam, all the schools of jurisprudence. This is not something that heretical province of a tiny minority of extremists who have hi- jacked the religion; it’s quite the contrary. The tiny minority of extremists, I’m sorry to say, are Muslims who denounce and oppose sincerely, this initiative. Obviously there are many millions of Muslims who neither do one nor the other, but are simply people who bear the name of Muslim, and are trying to live their lives, and take care of their families and so on.

But ultimately, the people who hold the ideological vanguard in the Islamic world are the Islamic jihadists, and they ground their appeal in Islamic tradition in the teachings of the Koran and Mohammad.  But in the State Department, in the Obama Administration, and likewise, in the Bush administration that preceded it, this is nowhere on the radar screen, nobody has any idea of this, and they continue to proceed on the assumption that if they just find the right mix of concessions and adjustments to foreign policy initiatives, then everything will be alright, and all manner of thing will be well.

Avi Davis: I’m very interested to know how the Muslims advocacy groups, CAIR, MPAC, Muslim Student Association, have facilitated this willful blindness, how have they played into it, and manipulated it, in the American populace, and the American political culture?

Impact of Muslim Advocacy Groups

Robert Spencer: You know, Avi, do you remember the cartoon, the graphic novels called “Maus”, by Art Spiegelman

Avi Davis: Of course.

Robert Spencer: where he details his father’s experience in Europe during the Holocaust? Very harrowing novels, and he characterized every nationality as an animal, every group that was involved in the conflict. The Nazis were cats, and the Jews were mice, and the Americans were puppy dogs. And that’s the point I’m trying to get to, the Americans he characterized, and I think quite rightly, as kind of affable, openhearted, innocent types who believe the best about other people, and are willing to help and eager to be assertive, you know, like a dog, man’s best friend. And I think that this is kind of a cultural trait among Americans, that they think that somehow it’s kind of improper to impute dishonesty or think ill of other people, and even to acknowledge the possibility that they might be being shanghaied, that they might be being fooled, that they might be being deceived, because that would impute bad motives to the deceiver. And Americans are decent folk who don’t want to do that kind of thing.

Manipulation by CAIR and MPAC

Now, CAIR, and MPAC, the chief Islamic advocacy groups in the United States, are really extraordinary in their sophistication, and their ability to exploit this aspect of the American character. They are able to play upon the American sense of decency, by, in the first place, carrying out an elaborate campaign of deception that obfuscates the reality of Islamic jihad, whether violent or stealthy, and that falsely portrays Islam as a religion of peace, and Muslims as the aggrieved victims in the war on terror since 9/11. And meanwhile, to vilify and to defame anybody who speaks about the elements of Islam that are used as justifications for their actions by the Islamic jihadists, as being bigoted, hateful, Islamophobic and so on. And Americans, by and large, because they shun bigotry, they shun racism, they know that these things are evil, they tend to fall into line with this kind of manipulation, and not even realize that they are being manipulated, and to even considered it would be in poor taste to suggest that they are being manipulated.

But they are being very skillfully manipulated, because what on earth is possibly bigoted; I’ll give you an example, I was speaking at East Tennessee State University and there was a large contingent from the Muslim Student’s Association, which is a Muslim Brotherhood organization, in the audience, and at one point I read out from an Islamic legal manual, a quote from the Koran, “Slay the unbelievers wherever you find them”, which is chapter 4, verse 89, of the Koran, also repeated at 9:5, and 2:193, and the Islamic legal manual was portraying this as a responsibility of Muslims to wage jihad warfare against non-Muslims. And one after another, questioners got up and accused me of hating Muslims, and hating Islam, and misrepresenting Islam, and I would again and again ask them, how is it that it’s hateful when I’m just quoting from your books? What on earth is hateful about that? But see this is the way that the Islamic advocacy groups of the United States have been able to cloud men’s minds about these issues.

If it’s written in the Koran to slay the unbelievers, and then Muslims read it and quote it to other Muslims, and exhort one another to slay unbelievers as is manifestly true around the world today, and then unbelievers are slain, in this initiative, then none of that is pointed to in the Islamic advocacy groups in the United States as being hateful. But when I, or somebody else in this field, dares to quote the same verse, and to point out how Muslims use it to justify violence against unbelievers, even in the today, then we are hateful, then we are bigoted. And so, they’ve been able to manipulate and control the discourse in this way, and to marginalize and largely silence voices that are trying to call attention to this problem so we can mount an effective resistance against it.

Avi Davis: You give many examples, Robert, in the book, of accommodation, and essentially, appeasement of Muslim demands. For instance, at the Indianapolis Airport, the installation of special foot baths, and University of Michigan also has accommodated Muslim students, as have many other universities, with special prayer rooms. Now, I’m wondering, where does this lead us?  Are these isolated events, or is there a general fear of Muslim retaliation if these demands are not met, and appeased?

Effects of Muslim Accommodation

Robert Spencer: I think there is a fear, certainly Avi, I think there’s a great fear among university administrators, airport officials and so on, when they installed these foot baths in their institutions, and they’re making special accommodations for Islamic religious practice thereby, that they would never extend to Christian religious practice or Jewish religious practice or Hindu religious practice, they’re doing so because they know that if they don’t, they will be subject to possibly violent retaliation, and even short of violent retaliation, it goes back to what we were discussing just now, that even without that they will be subjected to claims that they are being bigoted, that they hate Muslims, and that they are trying to impede the free practice of the Islamic religion in a way that violates the first amendment and it’s guarantee that there should be no infringement upon the free exercise of religion.

And so, they don’t want to risk these things, and so they’re willing to accede to these demands, and in a sense, it’s just an example of the old adage ‘the squeaky wheel gets the grease’. The Islamic advocacy groups in the United States, in this case, the Muslim Students Association, which actually has an organized initiative, called “The Accommodations Task Force”, they are pushing for this kind of accommodation, and because they’re the ones pushing, (whereas Jewish groups and Christian groups would never dare ask for this kind of thing), they get it. And they get it also, because, behind the push for these accommodations, is the unspoken reality of the fact that Muslims have been violent, and are being violent around the world today, and of course, university administrators not being known for their moral courage in even the best of circumstances, are especially likely to quail before the prospect of having violent clashes on their campus because they refused to accede to these demands.

Avi Davis: You mention in the book that a lot of the Muslim advocacy groups equate themselves to an NAACP, as sort of a civil rights organization for Muslims, however, you say it’s very ironic that the civil rights movement calls for equal consideration for black Americans, but the Muslims are actually looking for a separate identity, and I’ll quote you from the book, on page 176,“ By the MSA’s lights (that’s the Muslim Student Association), the Muslim Rosa Parks would insist on sitting in a separate place on the bus, and Muslim students would demand the right not to have to eat at infidel lunch counters.” So, it’s an inversion of the entire civil rights movement, and I’m just wondering what you have to comment on that demand for separatism.

Muslims Looking For A Separate, Non-American Identity

Robert Spencer: Well, see, you know what it is Avi, it’s essentially a return to Jim Crow, or an attempt to do that. The civil rights movement was all about integration and equality, but the Muslim accommodations movement is all about separation and supremacism. The Koran says, in chapter 9, verse 28, that the unbelievers are unclean. Now, it’s a theologically fraught, a theologically pregnant, a theologically weighted concept, that the unbelievers are unclean, means, obviously, that the believers don’t want to associate with them. The unbelievers, according to chapter 98, verse 6 of the Koran, are the most vile of created beings. Now, you know, if somebody were to walk into the room today, where you are right now, and he’s the most vile of created beings, you might want to move aside. You might not want to sit down and have lunch with him.

And so this is the understanding that fuels the Islamic accommodations movement in the United States. They’re trying to get, in universities, the Muslim Students Association, is trying to get separate gym facilities, separate cafeteria facilities, separate chapels, separate dorm facilities, and all in the name of civil rights, when actually it is just the opposite, and is a manifestation here again of Islamic supremacist assumption.

Avi Davis: A critic of this book, Robert, would say that these are all isolated incidents, it doesn’t add up to a major movement, the Muslim population in the United States is relatively small, only I think around 2 million, and of that percentage you only have a small sect that are really concerned with these activities. How would you respond to them?

Are Muslim Accommodations Isolated Incidents?

Robert Spencer: In several ways; in the first place, this is not a matter of numbers. The Russian Revolution was affected by the Bolsheviks. The Bolsheviks were never a majority, they never even won a majority in the Russian parliament, in the Duma, they never commanded an allegiance of the Russian citizens before the revolution, but they were the energized vanguard. They were the ones who had a complete agenda for what the planned to accomplish, and a very specific understanding of how they planned to accomplish it. And so the other parties in Russia that were not so well organized, and not so focused, laser beamed onto this particular goal, they were defenseless against them ultimately. There was nothing they could do to stop them because they were completely outflanked in so many ways. So, it’s not a matter of numbers, it’s a matter of what the agenda is, and how the agenda is being put into practice. And that’s what’s happening. Now, the other and very key aspect of my response to that, is that they appear to be isolated incidents, but one thing, I knew this before I wrote the book, but researching the book brought it home to me even more vividly, that every one of these incidents, whether it be the accommodation for Jell-O that I mentioned earlier in the hour, banning of Jell-O in the school district, or whether it be the cab drivers who refused to carry people who had alcohol with them, or the Target store clerks who refused to check out people who were buying pork, or the public school that teaches Islam and Koran classes on school grounds, and is now actually being sued by the ACLU, which is a very positive development.

All of these and many, many other initiatives, the meat packing plants in Nebraska and Colorado, where the Muslim workers demanded, and received, a special break time for Islamic prayer, and then non-Muslim workers complained that they were being discriminated against, all of these initiatives go back to the Brotherhood. The Muslim Brotherhood is behind them all. The Muslim Brotherhood is involved in them all. And so I found that to be a really stunning piece of information, that this international Islamic organization, that vows to destroy western civilization from within, is pursuing, all over the United States now, all these little separate incidents that all have the effect, all have the result of reinforcing the primacy of Islamic law over American law.

And so I think that the fact of the Brotherhood involvement in them indicates that they are not all just separate, isolated incidents, but that they are part of coordinated plan. And it’s not a conspiracy theory, because a conspiracy theory is based in fiction and surmise. You know, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is something people throw at me a lot, and they say, well you’re just making a protocols for the Muslims, well that’s ridiculous, because the Protocols were a forgery, a fiction, there never was a meeting of the leading Jewish rabbis plotting to take over the world. It never happened. This was something that was invented by Czarist propagandists in the 19^th century. Now the Muslim Brotherhood agenda to destroy western civilization from within comes from the Brotherhood itself. I didn’t make it up, you didn’t make it up, it was not a forgery, it is a reality that comes from Brotherhood documents, and there are many other corroborating pieces of evidence, that I detail in the book, that show that this is indeed what the Brotherhood is about.

Avi Davis: Now, I’m very interested to hear you say something about Europe, because as you know, the American Freedom Alliance has run two major international conferences to address the problems of Europe, and the very problems that we’re talking about in the United States, have been seen on a much wider scale on the European continent. So, we believe that the likely course, or the likely tangent of the United States, is to follow Europe unless something serious is done here. How do you think the European situation informs us today?

Will America Follow Europe’s Example?

Robert Spencer: Well, the European situation is simply an indication of where we’re headed, if we don’t head it off, if we don’t do something to change course. The Muslim populations in Europe are much larger than they are in America, and they are consequently more assertive. You pointed out, quite rightly, that the Muslim population in the United States right now is very small. But, with the Bush administrations plans, actually realized plans, to import large numbers of Iraqi and Somalian Muslims en masse into the United States, and no attempt to made to restrict Muslim integration, even from countries that are hotbeds of jihadists activities, this is something that is not going to stay the same. The Muslim population in the United States is going to grow, and consequently we can see from Europe, from the European example, what that is going to entail.

And it’s going to entail, in the first place, the increasing assertiveness that will ultimately result in a denial of sovereignty, of the non-Muslim nation state. We already see that. There are enclaves all over Europe, in Malmo, in Sweden, which is continual hotbed of unrest, and in places like Antwerp, even in east London. There are areas all over the continent where Muslims are the vast majority, if not the totality of the population of the area, and they essentially ignore, and openly flout the laws of the land, wherever they are, and they assert the primacy of Islamic law in those areas. And we just recently had a Muslim leader in the UK call for separate Muslim enclaves, that would be subject to Islmaic Shair’a law, and not to British law. But this is, de facto, the case already in many areas. And while it’s  a very remote thing in the United States, it’s one of the things we’re going to see, if something is not done.

Avi Davis: Well, just talking about Europe again for a moment, how did the Archbishop of Canterbury’s call for  separate laws regarding divorce and commercial matters in England and, which was backed up by the former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court,  affect the situation in England?

Separate Law for Islam

Robert Spencer: The Archbishop of Canterbury calling for that is certainly a great blow to those who wanted to resist it, because, for all his looniness, his does command a great following, he has immense stature and influence in the British public square. And so, it’s a shame that he seems to have made his statements out of ignorance and a naiveté so all encompassing as to completely darken his understanding. The idea that you can have private arbitration that involves Islamic Shair’a, it’s a misunderstanding and an error on so many levels, I hardly know where to begin. In the first place, if you’re saying that it’s for marriage and family law only, then it’s all very well, and that it’s voluntary only, that’s all very well, but given the status of women in Islam as essential commodities, as the possessions of their husbands, and or, fathers, and given the fact that Muslim law institutionalizes discrimination against women in so many ways, notably even in inheritance law, giving them half the share that their brothers would have in an inheritance, how free is a Muslim woman to say she wants to opt out of Islamic arbitration and go to the British courts? I mean, we have to be realistic about that.

And, not only that, but there have already been cases, where the line which British authorities stoutly insisted would be observed, has been blurred. The line that is between the British law, and where criminal law kicks in, and the law of the land takes precedence over this private Islamic arbitration. For example, there have been spousal abuse cases that have been referred, instead of being referred to the criminal courts; they have been referred to the Islamic law courts. Now, that is a scandal of immense proportions, because the Koran, in chapter 4 verse 34, counsels that a disobedient woman ought to be beaten. And, while spousal abuse is cross cultural, Islamic law is the only legal system in the world that gives it, not only approval, but actually divine sanction. And so the idea that spousal abuse cases would be referred to the local Imam, instead of to the British criminal courts, is to abandon the women who are abused to the mercies of a system that approves of their abuse. And so, that’s a human rights outrage that ought to have been taken up by human rights officials, human rights leaders. Instead, it’s been almost completely ignored.  But, in any case, it gives the lie to the Archbishop of Canterbury’s assertion, and to other British officials’ assertion that this would be no problem, it’s just a matter of private arbitration, and British law will always take precedence over Islamic law whenever there is a case that comes under the purview of both, or appears to do so.

Islam as an All Encompassing System

Islamic law is also an all-encompassing system. There is no aspect of human life that it does not cover, and it covers the governance of the state, covers the place, the status of non-Muslims, and so as such, it is impossible, ultimately, to separate out what it teaches about marriage and family life from the rest of it. And so to give it a place as a matter of private arbitration in British public life, is only to open the door for finding a place for the rest of it in British public life, and that would mean the end of the British social order, and its replacement by an Islamic one.

Avi Davis: Much has been said, Robert, about the alliance between the far left, and the Islamists, who seem to have diametrically opposed worldviews. I’m very interested to know how it’s possible that American civil rights organizations, and human rights organizations, and other advocacy groups on the left are unaware of the terrible danger of allying themselves with a movement which maintain views essentially inimical to their own points of view.

America Unaware of the Danger

Robert Spencer: I think that they’re so consumed by hatred of the West, hatred of America, hatred of the Judeo-Christian tradition, that they are happy to ally with any group that is non-western, non-Christian, non-white. And that is one of the main things that fuel it. I also think that the thesis that Jamie Glasov of Front Page Magazine has put forward in his forthcoming book, which is an excellent book that is coming out very soon, he postulates and argues very persuasively, that there is an ideological convergence between the hard Left and the Islamic jihadists, because both envision establishing an earthly utopia, and both envision enforcing that earthly utopia by force and terror. And so, that they see in one another, ideological kin. And I think that there’s a great deal to that; that it’s well worth exploring.

Avi Davis: That’s a very, very interesting point. We in the United States, those of us, and we’re both of foreign extraction originally, we are the beneficiaries of multi-culturalism. We’re able to practice our religion, we’re able to express our identity, our cultural identity, without fear of being condemned or oppressed. But has multi-culturalism been taken to an excessive level? For ordinary Americans, who would see an attack upon Muslims almost as an attack upon themselves, how do you answer that question?

Excessive Emphasis on Multiculturalism

Robert Spencer: Multiculturalism has become, essentially, an anti-Western, anti-Christian instrument. Any culture is good as long as it’s not Western. Any religion is good, as long as it’s not Christianity. And maybe your assertion that you and I are beneficiaries of multiculturalism is true only with a very different understanding of what multiculturalism involves. American has always been, in the old sense, the old expression, a melting pot, that people came here, my family, your family, came here and were accepted as American, but we became Americans. And while we retained, you’re right, we practiced our religions, we maintain aspects of the culture of the places from which we came, and yet nonetheless, we have accepted constitutional pluralism, and non-establishment of religion, all the parameters of American constitutional law.

The difference with the large number of Muslims who are now coming into the country, is this; that, while there are many, I have no doubt, who do accept the idea of non-establishment of religion, constitutional rule, the equality of rights of all people, and so on, there are also many who are here, demonstrably, as the Muslim Brotherhood documents, that details their plan to sabotage the West from within indicate, there are many here who believe that Islamic law is the only legitimate form of government, and are in order to subvert our own form of government and our own society, and replace it with their own model. This is the only immigrant group that’s ever come into another land with a ready made model for society and governance; that they wanted to replace the model of society and governance to which they had come with their own. And this has never happened before, in history.

All other immigrant groups have come, understanding that they were going to have to change, to some degree, some of their behaviors and assumptions in order to accommodate the sensibilities of their new land, and they were happy to do so because they were becoming Americans. Unfortunately, there are large numbers of Muslims in the United States, particularly those involved in this Muslim Brotherhood initiative, who have no such intention.

Avi Davis: Let’s also talk about moral and cultural relativism, Robert, because moral relativism in general which really concentrates on, or gives the right of individuals to express themselves as they wish, is at odds with, in my view at least, with the idea of social cohesion, of one society moving forward under certain unified ideas of morality and cultural and national identity. Where do you think that plays into this whole problem?

Moral and Cultural Relativism

Robert Spencer: You mean in terms of the freedom of speech?

Avi Davis: Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of conscience.

Robert Spencer: Obviously I believe in the U.S. Constitution, I believe in freedom of speech, and so, I have no problem with Islamic organizations calling for Islamic law in the United States. Just as the American Communist party used to call for communist rule in the United States, and they ran a presidential candidate every four years, and they were trying to work for change, trying to convince their fellow citizens. But there also was an underground communist party that was subversive, and that was trying to destroy American constitutional government, and that one was illegal and was proscribed. And I think that’s the kind of line we can draw here. I’m not saying that Muslims should not be free to practice their religion, or not be free to call for it to be adopted by others in the United States. If they’re here, then they ought to be accorded exactly the same freedoms as anyone else. But when one crosses the line into calling for the overthrow of United States government, and its replacement by another model, as we have seen Muslims leaders in the United States do; Omar Achmed said to a Muslim gathering in California ten years ago, that Islam is not in the United States to co-exist with other religions, Islam is in the United States to become dominant, and the Koran, the holy law of the land.

Now that’s not the kind of thing that I think should go unnoticed. He’s certainly free to say it, but we’re also free to note that that is subversive and seditious speech, and that there are laws against sedition in the United States, in the books now that need to be enforced.

Avi Davis: In the last remaining minutes, I want to talk a little bit about Geert Wilders, the Dutch parliamentarian who’s recently been prosecuted by the courts in Holland for having, based on, I think it’s incitement charges against Muslims in his country. How do you see his case as affecting the United States? Do you see it as a portent of something to come?

How Does Geert Wilders’ Case Affect the United States?

Robert Spencer: It’s very serious, it’s very serious. It is a portent of things to come, and Geert Wilders’ case is something that ought to be international news, it ought to be something that all lovers of freedom are rallying to his defense, it’s extraordinarily serious and important. Because he is on trial, he is being prosecuted, for insulting Islam. And so this is an indication that the Dutch government is already adopting Islamic Shari’a sensibilities, and governing according to Islamic law, which is extraordinary in itself. But the idea that an insult can criminalized, if indeed he has insulted Islam, which I do not accept, because all he’s done is tell the truth about Islamic teachings, even if he has insulted them; I mean, I’m insulted all the time, can I bring charges? It’s a ridiculous idea, and it indicates that the idea of criminalized hate speech is a tool in the hands of the powerful to silence their opponents. And that’s what this is about.

Now, what’s really ominous about it is that, the Obama Administration, with its avowed intention to draw the United States closer to Europe and to the United Nations, and to strengthen hate crimes legislation, I think that it’s very, very easy to envision a scenario wherein our own ability to speak freely about the threat that we face, is restricted. And hate speech laws such as those that are now ensnaring Geert Wilders will ensnare us all, and render us mute and defenseless in the face of the Islamic jihadIST threat.

Avi Davis: Well, that’s a very, very worrying development, I must say. Geert Wilders, as you know, will be our Hero of Conscience at this year’s AFA annual dinner, and Hero of Conscience here on May 17^th. So, we’re looking forward to seeing him here, and having him relate his experiences. Robert, what other books on in the pipeline for you?

Robert Spencer: I’m working on a book now that will be out late in 2009, late this year, called “The Infidel’s Guide to the Koran”, which is an explanation of what the Koran actually teaches, as opposed to what people tell you on television that it teaches.

Avi Davis: Very good. Robert, I want to thank you very, very much for joining us today. Robert Spencer, the author of “Stealth Jihad”, New York Times bestselling author, it’s terrific to have you with us. Next week we’ll be joined by Chris Horner, the author of “Red Hot Lies”, and we’ll be talking about global warming, together with James Taylor, from the Heartland Institute. Thank you very, very much for joining us today.