11-3 faith

The Center for Literate Values ~ Defending the Western tradition of responsible individualism, disciplined freedom, tasteful creativity, common sense, and faith in a supreme moral being.

P R A E S I D I U M

A Common-Sense Journal of Literary and Cultural Analysis

11.3 (Summer 2011)

 

FAITH AND CULTURAL MELTDOWN

prae-205

courtesy of artrenewal.org

 

Islamic Neighborhoods—Not Koranic Societies

John R. Harris

Several readers appear to have misconstrued the assertion I made in “Livable Spaces (Part Two)” (Praesidium 11.2) that Muslim Americans should be permitted to rid their neighborhood of Christian churches if they so desire.  My intention was not to advance the cause of Islam’s supplanting Christianity, either in the United States or anywhere else.  In fact, I had hoped that my argument would be understood as working in the opposite direction insofar as the stated goal of many Muslim fundamentalist organizations is to undermine Christianity and other faiths bit by bit, unnoticed by the average citizen.  (On this topic, see the fourth and fifth chapters of Brigitte Gabrielle’s They Must Be Stopped.)  My plan for neighborhoods would draw the tastes and values of their inhabitants explicitly forth for all to see.  European architecture would not have to be mixed with Near Eastern styles,  Christians would not have to listen to the muezzin five times a day, Muslims would not have to hear the bells of matins or nones or vespers, atheist ears would not be chafed by any call to prayer whatever, and parents of all such groups would not have to explain the constant and rival presence of “falsehood” beside “truth”–all in the holy name of tolerance.  For that matter, I should be fully content to see homosexual communities outlaw heterosexual marriages in their midst.  The world is quite big enough now, its people mobile enough, and their employment possibilities flexible enough that anyone profoundly out of sympathy with the disposition of a community’s majority may pull up stakes and move elsewhere.

Of course, those who crave “multiculturalism” for some reason intricately connected (as I have no doubt) to an insurmountable superiority complex may always plant themselves in whatever situation most contradicts the values familiar to them: a free society cannot allow any individual to be chased into exile.  I say merely that it should also not allow the non-aggressive expression of collective judgment found in communal design, workplace schedules and habits, manner of dress, and so forth to be outraged by the occasional counter-conformist who greets each new day with a subversive agenda.  People may always make “gay” love in the privacy of their own home or drift about their property wrapped in sheets.  A communal business, however, should have every right to deny service to a walking vestment penetrated by two tiny eye-holes, just as it may do to customers who are unclad but for a pair of shorts.  It should not be harassed by predatory attorneys just because, in accord with the reigning local taste, a manager asks two kissing males to vacate the premises, any more than it would be so harassed if said manager demanded two heterosexual lovers leave once their busy hands began to grope beneath clothing.

Such people can find more compatible places to live.  If they cannot, let them create their special place; and if they find their numbers too few for the creative endeavor, then perhaps they should seriously ponder the nature of their isolation from general civilized practice.

I am largely libertarian, you see, when it comes to manners and customs–but I strongly believe that neighborhoods should enjoy the same freedom of choice that we extend to individuals, since such collective freedom is indeed an extension of the individual’s.  After all, the individual currently cannot choose to raise children in an environment where his most cherished convictions (e.g., that premarital sex is damaging to the soul, or that the material world is not the ultimate reality) are honored: such convictions may very well be patently repudiated by the curriculum of the public school whose bills he pays.  Libertarianism in its most current sense (whose shining exemplar one might call the “West Coast libertarian”) protects only the freedom to erode social norms in pursuit of something like the anomia of the jungle.  Where is there any shelter for those who desire the freedom to live by rules without perpetual ridicule, and to pass those rules along to their children?

A devout Muslim whose dedication to self-disciplined behavior is sincere and complete will well recognize the pressures I describe: any Christian community in a radical-Muslim society will know them even better.  We cannot do much about the oppression of dhimmi in Egypt, Syria, or Iran (for details of which, see the works of Bat Ye’or); but we can ensure the Muslim or the Sikh or even the Druid in our own society the right to raise his or her children as faith demands within the generally accepted standards of decency.

Yet so far am I from intending to create inlets for Islamic expansionism through this plan that I will declare here and now (perhaps at some personal risk), my alarm over that faith’s evolving role in many of our neighborhoods.  I have known good people who are Muslims–but I do not believe that a good person can be a good Muslim, if by the latter is meant a rigid adherent to the Koran’s strictly literal interpretation.  The Koranic text as we know it has several unique qualities which make it wholly unlike any other supposedly holy book in world history, and which are all cause for worry:

*    Its mood is overwhelmingly imperative.  It does not narrate sacred history in chronicles; it does not offer instructive vignettes about the great teacher or anagogical parables from the teacher’s lips; it does not frame commandments from on high in any sort of historically or culturally conditioned context.  It flatly tells the audience what and what not to do, and it often assigns explicit punishments to the disobedient.  For instance, “Believers, kill no game while on pilgrimage.  He that kills game by design shall present, as an offering to the Ka’bah, an animal equivalent to the one he killed, to be determined by two just men among you…” (“The Table” 5:95).  This passage (like most of those cited below) was chosen by opening the Koran quite randomly, which I mention to underscore that the stylistic points at issue are ubiquitous.

     To equate such imperious and minute law-giving with the rare passage in the Gospels where Jesus consigns a certain type of evil-doer to “outer darkness” would be either perverse or obtuse.  Not only the rarity of these passages in the Gospels, but above all their context, highlights the major distinction involved.  For instance, Jesus remarks that anyone who should cause the child-like to lose their faith in him were better off at the bottom of the sea (Matthew 18:6, Mark 9:42, Luke 17:1).  His condemnation is transparently directed at traducing innocence, not at daring to question or parse this or that line of holy writ; while the phrase “faith in me” draws auditors into a deeper consideration of just who Jesus is–what he represents that is not reducible to words–rather than riveting them, precisely, upon a chain of words.  Contrast with such Koranic warnings as this: “Fight against such of those to whom the Scriptures were given as believe neither in God nor the Last Day, who do not forbid what God and His apostle have forbidden, and who do not embrace the true faith, until they pay tribute out of hand or are utterly subdued” (“Repentance” 9:29).  Having been exposed to the Koran, that is, he who does not eat the right food, fast and pray properly, etc., will either be put to the sword (“subdued”) or forced to pay the jizya of the infidel Christian or Jew.

     As for Jesus’ cursing of the fig tree (in Matthew 21:18-22 and Mark 11:12-14), it is part of an ongoing kerygmatic metaphor in the text (e.g., Matthew 24:32-35).  Need we stress that a tree is not a person; or, for those who insist otherwise, that the tree is condemned only to infertility–a state much coveted by productive scholars–and not death?  Koranic curses don’t elicit such absurd quibbling.  Every reader of any translation can see where the chips are falling, and the book’s style plainly strives after such clarity.  “If you renounced the faith, you would surely do evil in the land and violate the ties of blood.  Such are those on whom God has laid His curse, leaving them deaf and sightless” (“Victory” 47:22).  In plain modern English, waver on obeying the Word (for the reference is not to formal renunciation of Islam) and you lose your hearing or your sight.

 *    Of course, the true biblical parallel to the Koranic passages above would have to be sought in the Old Testament.  Dire prophecies hammer the reader of Isaiah or Jeremiah until his head pounds.  God sees all, His wrath is certain, none can escape without his mercy… yes, and so the Jew or Christian continues to believe, along with the Muslim.  Yet these prophets are sequestered in their own section of the Torah: they do not veer in and out of a Mosaic lawgiving mode as they bemoan human fickleness, nor will the reader understand them as more than pieces of a complex puzzle.  The Koran is a perfect and continuous fusion of dire prophecy with the dictation of minute duties.  Ezekiel becomes Moses, and vice versa, from end to end of this curious compilation.

    It is also true (as our president has observed in grand oratory) that parts of Hebraic law are quite Draconian.  Deuteronomy 22:18-21 counsels believers to stone a wayward, drunken son to death; and in the chronicles of I Samuel 15:3, God commands Saul to commit genocide by wiping out the Amalekites (an order which Saul disobeys only by covetously rounding up the slaughtered tribe’s animals for himself).  This is disturbing stuff.  No one in the modern civilized world, however–not Jew or Christian, Buddhist or Zoroastrian–would suggest that such counsels be followed.  They have been allowed to fall by the wayside innocuously, relics of primitive tribalism that they are.

    In stark contrast, the Koran repeatedly extols immoral or brutal behaviors which no other influential religion has countenanced without qualification for centuries.  Malefactors are to be physically, permanently mutilated.  Good Mulsims are to lie and cheat in their dealings with infidels for the sake of spreading the faith.  Husbands are to beat their wives under certain conditions, and at all times have absolute rights over their bodies.  Women are to be considered an inferior species of lesser spiritual worth.  Slavery is not only acceptable, but is one of the recommended states to which non-believers (dhimmi) should be reduced.  If people of other faiths are left free and alive, they are to be very heavily taxed each year for their infidel ways (the jizya).  Converts from Islam to any other faith must be put to death.  None of these elements of Koranic doctrine is merely implicit in an historical account or buried in a mass of legalisms wherein it has lain benignly neglected for centuries.  Rather, the injunctions are direct, explicit, unequivocal, and reinforced by several passages.  While the text also frequently recommends such virtuous behaviors as sobriety and honesty (to fellow believers), the indiscriminate stirring of right and wrong into one brew leaves the heavy consumer unable to distinguish the taste of one from the other; and, naturally, any attempt at such discernment would itself be a reprehensible lapse of faith in Scripture.

*   For the questioning of revealed doctrine is treated, repeatedly and aggressively, as deplorable blasphemy: what the book says goes, without qualification.  The believer is not invited to indulge any manner or degree of doubt, or indeed to counter the doubts of others with calm answers aimed at rationality or humane sentiment.  On the contrary, the recommended response, when not belligerent intimidation, often appears to be wildly indifferent to any sort of logical coherence.  It seems to be ostentatiously crazy.  Take the following, which the Prophet offers as a model reply to those who may doubt God’s absolute power:

    Say, “Think!  If God should enshroud you in perpetual night till the Day of Resurrection, what other god could give you light?  Will you not hear?”

    Say, “Think!  If God should give you perpetual day until the Resurrection, what other god could bring you the night to sleep in?  Will you not see?”  (“The Story” 28:71-72)

    As a kind of mystical ecstasy, these instructions enjoy a certain poetic elevation–and one may quickly find examples of them by searching the margin of any translation for the word “say”, for they abound.  What they wholly fail to be, most of the time, is an effective strategy for explaining belief to a doubter.  To what facet of this doubter’s intelligence, exactly, would we appeal if we were to reason, “Suppose God made everything dark… who else could make it light?  Suppose God made everything bright… who else could make anything dark?”  If one were idly to imagine a day-making god, then why could one not just as well (or perhaps even better, on the basis of aesthetic balance) imagine a night-making god in competition with him?  Such passages are at best mere tautologies: God is obviously God  because only God could be God.  There is really no attempt in such textual moments to reach out to the vacillating; and that so many passages feign such an attempt calls into question the sanity of the whole undertaking.

    If another major religious text dabbles in this variety of artificial persuasion, I should like to know its title, for I have yet to find it.

*   The Koran’s text itself has an incredibly tortured history.  Muhammad (who was himself illiterate) typically dictated a verse or two as the spirit took him to an available scribe, who might record the utterance on a palm leaf or a camel bone (see the seventh chapter, “Of Bones and Stones”, in Paul Fregosi’s Jihad).  The compiling of these stray and various epiphanies into a single text was naturally attended by bitter dispute during Islam’s formative years.  The victors of the contest were motivated by political ends far more than by scholarly rigor.  Even if there were reason to suppose that the context of the verses might somewhat mitigate their frequent ferocity, therefore, we can never have the advantage of that orientation now.  Yet the utter disruption of context itself–a devastating confusion reminiscent of the Sibyl’s releasing a whirlwind on her prophetic leaves–begs more than ever the importing of some rational principle of interpretation.  Muslim traditionalists prefer the whirlwind of the crazed dervish.  One suspects that they are indeed more in love with incoherence than with the words of the Prophet, whom they insist on reducing to a fount of energetic non-sequiturs.

*   Every copy of the Koran is a cult object, itself regarded as consecrated paper, ink, thread, and glue.  The distinction is highly significant.  To be sure, other faiths cherish their sacred texts and regard wanton damaging of the physical work as deplorable.  Anyone with the least sense can see why: the book inevitably symbolizes the message it conveys, just as a nation’s flag symbolizes a culture and a set of values.  At the end of the day, however, a marked-up, dog-eared Bible is no tragedy at all.  Not so a creased Koran: there will be hell to pay for its careless upkeep.

   In this inseparability of object and meaning we find a sure sign of the pre-literate mentality.  Writing itself partakes of the mystical, for the masses ill comprehend how the spoken word has been captured by elegant scrawls on parchment.  They venerate the miracle of the word’s eternal presence as a tribe of hunter-gatherers might adore a stone changed into glass by a lightning bolt.  The glass IS the Spirit, the Presence, descended from heaven into a little part of earth.  One can hardly expect those who share such a mindset to stand by passively while an alien researcher grinds their stone in performing a chemical analysis.  The stone is not subject to the examination of any terrestrial power.  It just is, and it is what it is.

    We can understand how people in such a state might be eager to murder anyone who desecrates the Book, and even how they might regard discussing the Book’s contents critically as an act of desecration.  Think of a simple, patriotic people in whose grand assembly some rash person burns the national flag.  Such a display would be a direct attack, an act of war.  Muslim Africans have been known to urinate and defecate on prized European art objects and at entrances to cathedrals (rather abundantly in Florence, as Oriana Fallaci testifies in The Rage and the Pride).  They intend such expression as a mortal insult: this is how a tribal people thinks.  When I spit on the totem that you revere, I call down death upon all that the totem represents–your customs, your culture, your values, your gods.  Similarly, when one of us dares to question the Koran’s easy acceptance of slavery, we blaspheme against Allah himself.  We are fit for a bullet in the back, like an unclean animal.  This is the mentality which foolish Western politicians seek to woo with elegant arguments.

        I submit that sufficient cause exists within this combination of extraordinary circumstances for a Westerner to despair of a peaceful socio-political collaboration with Islam.  After all, when the very act of my publishing these words potentially makes me a target for a jihadist’s bullet, to say that the same jihadist unprovoked would do just fine as a neighbor seems perfectly idiotic.  Normal, civilized, literate people don’t kill other people over a hairstyle or an article of clothing, let alone over a word of principled and impersonal disagreement.  Life among ticking human time-bombs is the lot of an attendant in a lunatic asylum: when has it ever been expected of a sane adult human being conforming to the laws of a reasonably just society?

I therefore reject—with outrage and contempt—any suggestion that the reservations expressed above reflect “Islamophobia”.  The very word is inane.  A phobia is an irrational fear.  My aversion to a social system that parts thieves from their hands and decapitates believers who would change faiths is neither fearful nor irrational.  The concoction of such “phobic” species to designate ideological opponents is genuinely stupid, in the word’s true sense.  The Latin stupere means “to gape, to stare without expression”.  One may gape for various reasons: one may be mesmerized, shocked, or intoxicated as well as simply lacking in sufficient wit to comprehend.  The hoarse-throated herd that shrieks such words as “Islamophobe” is gaping in the paroxysm of a mass ritual’s climax (see Peter Singleton’s article above,  “Mass-Hysteria and Name-Calling”).  Everyone must dance and chant to demonstrate membership in the tribe—the progressive tribe, in this case (i.e., that brotherhood of believers for whom utter human harmony is a mere act of will).  Let us shout louder: let us drown dissenting voices in our din!  No more fighting, no more arguing—dance and shout, shout and dance!  And the few who will not dance, who resist, who keep the vision from becoming delirious reality?  Nazis!  Racists!  Islamophobes!  Trample them!  Kill them!

What a drug; what gaping stupidity.  Another tiresome word, “tolerance”, is perhaps less gaping than simpering these days, less stupid than hypocritical.  If the head-hunting bacchanal of New Age name-callers is energetically mindless, the sanctimonious refrain of the self-styled tolerant is lazy.  To tolerate in the most ordinary manner, you must understand (and these peaceniks of Sixties provenance intend nothing very out of the ordinary), is to do nothing.  One looks on.  Indeed, one desists even from looking, lest indifferent study be mistaken for “judgmental” scowling.  So lazy have we of the West become in the lap of high-tech pampering that effortless virtues are the only ones within our reach.  The Faith recommends beating one’s wife?  We shouldn’t lift a finger: only thereby can we demonstrate our liberation from cultural prejudice.  The Faith demands that adherents of “false faiths” be “subdued”?  Again, best to show our love by closing our eyes.

Sometimes this laziness disguises itself as industry, especially in academe.  Oriana Fallaci reviews early on in La Forza della Ragione her moribund European culture’s perpetual Olympiad of historical revisionism.  Conference succeeds conference, and seminar anticipates anthology and Zeitschrift, as scholars stumble over each other trying to explain away every triumph of European rationalism and objective analysis as the offshoot of some Islamic or Arabic Tree of Life.  In this country, too, textbooks have been energetically rewritten to portray the Crusades as a plundering expedition hypocritically sanitized in pieties.  Paul Crawford’s piece, “Four Myths About the Crusades”, in a recent edition of The Intercollegiate Review (Spring 2011: 13-22), is a good thumbnail sketch of some of the predominant algarabes (an Arabic word which I am happy to borrow here).  Yet as much effort as has been absorbed by the redesign of the past, the implications for the present are but a makeshift a scaffolding for self-indulgent do-nothingness: the motive for so much “research” is to avoid the heavy weight of moral compulsion.  If rapine, slaughter, and imperialism (goes the argument) are simply standard operating procedure in the practice of any religion, why make a fuss about the enslavement and butchery of Sudanese Christians or the Wahhabi financing of American mosques?  Only the other day on the radio I heard, for the umpteenth time, the “moral equivalency” fallacy being worked to the detriment of Israel.  Two schoolboys are fighting in the lunch line: one was screaming at the cooks for offering the same casserole again, shaking his fists, and throwing trays; the other told him to knock it off.  Clearly, the second boy’s remark was provocative.  Ergo, both are equally culpable for their fight, and we should refrain from judging either more harshly than the other.  We should do nothing–or we should, like the superior intellects that we are, stand safely back and soothe in polite tones, “Boys, boys!  This is no way to behave!”

Whether this moral spinelessness also conceals substantial guilt—whether, that is, the omni-tolerant Westerner’s conscience may be nagged by multiple occasions of cheating on the job, cheating on sexual partners, cheating on dependent children, so that indifference to all foul play around him is seen as winning grace for his own foulness—is anybody’s guess.  I rather like the theory myself, but think it unnecessary.  Westerners are quite lazy enough in their slack, anemic souls that they need no other motive to shrug while a man shoots his daughters for the way they dress.

I taught a student two years ago who actually attended high school with one of the girls in Richardson, Texas (a suburb of Dallas), who were gunned down by their cabby-father, a devout Muslim from Pakistan.  The girl had often confided to my student that she could scarcely wait to leave for college—that she and her sister lived in constant fear of their father’s doing something crazy and dangerous.  Alas, how justified was her foreboding… and may God grant her a gentle rest forever free of the mad dog who begot her.

To be sure, I sympathize with the father who waxes indignant at his daughter’s low neck-line and “paint an inch thick” make-up (a habit known in Hamlet’s day, apparently).  American popular culture seethes with tasteless vulgarity, and even blunt obscenity, on every quarter.  Our society is a degenerate one.  We haven’t become addicted to mass hysteria in sport and politics and otherwise lulled into the laziness of hypocrisy by leading the good life.  Our pursuit of any possible shock effect for another buck is unsightly.  Our equivocating compromise with every sybaritic self-indulgence is a disgrace.  There have been many times in my life when, frankly, I was not proud to be an American (the only sentiment I partially share with Michelle Obama, as far as I can tell).  I recall succumbing, as an adolescent, to a brief flirtation with Islam.  While everyone else around me was needy and whiny, and while organized Christianity itself seemed eager (not just willing) to let “love” be translated into debauch and “fervor” into various “highs” and “trips”, my young imagination clung for stability to images of sun and wind and sand.  I discovered the poetry of the anchorite—of the pilgrim making a straight line through mirages for a mountain as yet invisible.  I grew fascinated with Saint-Exupéry’s final novel, Citadelle, whose central character is a North African caïd.  (I ended up dedicating a scholarly book to all of the French aviator’s novels, but this one most riveted me.)  I suspected absolutely nothing of the squalor lurking within the alien way’s “adjusted” routine: multiple wives all readily divorced, child brides, female genital mutilation… the watered down credo of a Charles Manson.  I was just a young man looking for the key to manliness—looking for chivalry—in a society no longer capable of defining adulthood.

I am beholden to Islam, then (if I may so express myself), for its poetry.  Human beings do not merely think in images: they survive on them.  I found one or two notions that allowed me to be lonely without being weak, though I eventually found, as well, that the same notions could lead to unwholesome places (such as martyrdom through suicide).  Perhaps this is what the multiculturalist cultists mean, if they mean anything at all, when they speak of one way’s enriching another.  I became a better Christian for learning how to resist the trends in my day’s organized Christianity—and Islam was one small spark within my inspiration.  I certainly do not believe that seeking out and destroying every scintilla of Islamic thanatophilia is the Christian’s holy obligation.  I cherish the hope, rather, that Muslims living among Christians may learn to control the monomaniacal devotion always at a slow burn within their own faith, just as Christians might do well to remember that they, too, are meant to scoff at death.

When I say, therefore, that we should permit Muslims to arrange their own communities in their own manner here in the United States, I mean–to repeat with emphasis–within the law of the land.  Personally, I should not even object to polygamy: I am informed that it draws a blind eye sometimes among Mormon settlements in Utah.  Our sexual peculiarities have become so numerous that one would scarcely know where to stop if one started ruling this or that union out of bounds.  The wives in question, however, must be women, not girls.  The wife-beater must do hard time.  The child-murderer must spend the rest of his life in a cage, or else (preferably) find his way quickly to a lethal injection.  The imam who preaches violent overthrow of the government and mass-slaughter of fellow citizens must be considered a subversive and dealt with as a criminal.  I recall that a man was led off in manacles recently for raising the vague suggestion in a townhall meeting that President Obama should be assassinated.  Should we shrug and turn away when an influential preacher explicitly urges his congregants to bomb infidel women and children?

Once practicing Muslims observe with what rigor those are treated who consider the Faith a license to maim and kill, they will be free to chart a new course for Islam.  In a profound sense, Muslims need the United States to stand up and be itself—not Muslims halfway around the world living in their own insular and desperate societies, a life they have inherited and to which they have every right to cling, but Muslims who have chosen to come to America.  When we suspend our humane principles and allow communities in our midst to grow into concentration camps harrowed by tinpot dictators, we seal the doom of Islam.  Only through a benign nurturing of universal, metaphysically based human rights can the higher utterances within the Koran emerge clearly from a thick encrustation of adversarial, vengeful, unreflective tribalism.

Select Bibliography

    The list below is very select indeed.  It does include the abundant testimonies of people (mostly women) who have lived behind the “iron veil” of Islamic society and then found a way to publish their story.  The Princess Sultana books–narratives of an aristocratic Saudi woman transcribed by Jean Sasson–are perhaps the best known of these.  Such works may tend to be a little “gossipy”, to use one reviewer’s word.  While not all of the books below are free of this quality, all indeed have a much broader thesis; and the element of personal testimony, after all, has much relevance–particularly when the witness is borne (as it so often is) by women, a distinct underclass in traditionalist Islamic society yet, shockingly, a group of victims largely ignored by academic feminism and elite opinion.

For instance, when reporter Lara Logan was brutally raped by approximately two hundred men during the “freedom demonstrations” in Cairo, CNN ignored the story, and one blogging professor proclaimed that she “deserved it”.  Subsequent stories from major news outlets, when they exist at all, assure us that Ms. Logan has “recovered”.  Even the fearless Italian journalist Oriana Fallaci was once threatened with immediate execution for awaiting an interview in Iran with no one else in the room but her male chauffeur.  Her salvation, as she disclosed in La Forza della Ragione, was a Muslim law which allows marriages of one day (to bring the licentious one-night stand under the umbrella of respectability).  This law, of course, is not Koranic; its creation, however, should caution anyone foolish enough to maintain that contemporary Islam is tending to carry old laws in a more civilized direction.

    Virtually all of these authors have been menaced with reprisal by the European Union’s politically correct Gestapo, by Islamic theocracy through fatwa, or by both.  It cannot be stressed enough that these people have risked their freedom and their lives to speak out.  One must most urgently wonder if societies of the future–Western societies, especially–will passively look on or actively collaborate in the bullying of writers who bear an inconvenient message.

Nonie Darwish

Cruel and Unusual Punishment: The Terrifying Global Implications of Islamic Law.  Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2009.

Now They Call Me Infidel: Why I Renounced Jihad for America, Israel, and the War on Terror.  New York: Sentinel Trade, 2007.

 

Oriana Fallaci

La Rabbia e l’Orgoglio.  Milano: Rizzoli, 2001.

La Forza della Ragione.  Milan and New York: Rizzoli, 2004.

 

Paul Fregosi

Jihad in the West: Muslim Conquests From the 7th to the 21st Centuries.  Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 1998.

 

Brigitte Gabriel

Because They Hate: A Survivor of Islamic Terrorism Warns America.  New York: St. Martin’s Griffin, 2008.

They Must Be Stopped: Why We Must Defeat Radical Islam and How We Can Do It  New York: St. Martin’s Griffin, 2009.

 

Robert Spencer

Stealth Jihad: How Radical Islam Is Subverting America Without Guns or Bombs.  Washington, D.C.: Regnery, 2008.

The Truth About Mohammad: Founder of the World’s Most Intolerant Religion.  Washington, D.C.: Regnery, 2007.

 

Wafa Sultan

A God Who Hates: The Courageous Woman Who Inflamed the Muslim World Speaks Out Against Islam.  New York: St. Martin’s Griffin, 2011.

 

Bat Ye’or

Eurabia: The Euro Arab Axis.  Madison, NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson UP, 2005.

Islam and Dhimmitude: Where Civilizations Collide.  Madison, NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson UP, 2001.