The modern age is the age of revolution, and the Eurabian Revolution is but a continuation of a process that hearks back to before the French Revolution of 1789. Today’s Eurocrats are on the verge of accomplishing what previous generations of revolutionaries, with all their evil genius, failed to bring about: the destruction of Europe as a distinct civilization. Perhaps the most remarkable aspect of the Eurabian Revolution is that it is being effected so completely from within the halls of power, which is perhaps why so few seem to be aware that a revolution is afoot at all. But a genuine revolution it is, which, like its predecessors, can only culminate in a similar spiritual and material oblivion.
We have today, in the opening years of the 21. century, front-row seats to what is surely one of the most astonishing revolutions ever to transpire on the face of the earth. Like the spectacular upheavals of 1789, 1848, and 1917, this one has been simmering for decades, but is still in its progressive rather than explosive stage (the latter may not be far off). The revolutions of past each professed a glorious future just beyond the horizon, and while those utopic visions differed, the intent and consequence of those revolutions was primarily destructive. They destroyed rather than created; they left behind not shining cities on a hill, but valleys of woe, carnage, and landscapes of unprecedented material and spiritual wreckage. As it was then, so it is today.
What is happening in Europe is that in the heartland of the leading civilization of the past 500 years, the dominant political culture is being supplanted by an alien invader, hitherto inferior in every dimension. Western Europe, whose influence on the course of modern world history is second to none, is today deliberately welcoming into its midst a civilizational force that strove, unsuccessfully, for a thousand years to destroy it. What that force was unable to accomplish through force of arms is now being accomplished through Europe’s own suicidal policies. The temperate, tolerant Western Europeans are handing themselves over to the leading progenitor of war, slavery, and civilizational disaster of the past fourteen centuries: Islam.
While analysts of recent years have observed the social difficulties facing Europe by its growing Muslim population, few have been willing or able to grasp the bigger picture. In 1945, there were perhaps a few hundred thousand Muslims in Western Europe; today there are twenty-five million. If one includes Russia in the calculation, the figure is fifty million. The societal shift underway in Europe today is nothing short of seismic. While Muslims press into Europe in huge numbers and continue to have children at levels far above the European average, the native European populations are collapsing. While Western Europe’s Muslim population is expected to double during the decade 2005-15, the native population will actually decline by several percent. Perhaps most significantly, it appears that Islamic identity is actually stronger among second and third generation Muslims, a fact that contradicts all of the sanguine hopes about assimilation. And these tendencies are no mere blips on the screen but have shown themselves of transgenerational robustness, dating back roughly forty years, and only seem to be accelerating.
Europe and the Religion of Peace—Major demographic shifts have occurred before, of course, but, in the case of Islam growing in a non-Islamic society, it is more than just a matter of “there goes the neighborhood.” While there have been major shifts of power in Europe before (the Spanish being supplanted by the Dutch being supplanted by the French, the English, the Germans, the Americans, etc.), the major players have -all been grounded, at least loosely, in a Greco-Roman-Christian universe. Not so with Islam, whose inspiration lies not in Athens and Jerusalem but in Mecca and Medina. Thanks to the indiscriminateness of contemporary academic and political assumptions, Islam was casually tossed into that garbage-can rubric, “religion,” and enough said. But far from merely a religion in the personal sense, Islam is a political ideology that has never recognized a distinction between the secular and the spiritual.
Islam is in fact a system of government ordained by Allah to comprehend the planet; any individual or society that does not submit (Islam translates best as “submission”) to Allah’s governance (Islamic law or Sharia), places itself in an ipso facto state of rebellion. While many Muslims (like many Christians, Jews, etc.) are slack in the practice of their faith, orthodox Islam, Sharia and all, is once again asserting itself around the globe and, now, in Europe. From the terrorism that struck London and Madrid to the brazen demonstrations of European Muslims calling for the deaths of European statesmen during the Muhammad cartoon and Koran-commode crises, to the increasing number of “honor” killings against wayward Muslim girls, to the expanding no-go areas off-limits to non-Muslim police and government authority, the violent calling-cards of Islam, seen previously only in the Third World, are now internal phenomena. Yet, whenever a bus or a plane and its occupants are blown to smithereens by a devotee of the “religion of peace,” we hear repeated in ever patient, reasonable tones that Islam has nothing to do with violence and that “extremism” is to be found in every religion. While it is not really so remarkable that there are people who would engage in such transparent sophistry, what astonishes is that so many seem to listen to them.
Europe’s fight against Islamic imperialism is its salient, perhaps defining, historical achievement. It has only been in the post-war, post-revolutionary, post-Christian era that Europe lowered its guard to let in the ancient enemy. For a thousand years (roughly the seventh through seventeenth centuries), Europe existed on the knife-edge of destruction at the hands of Islamic jihad. A quick historical refresher is here in order. Following the death of Muhammad in 632 AD, Islam burst out of Arabia with unprecedented violence. In a centuries’ time, the Muslim Arab armies had crushed Christian North Africa, the Holy Land, overrun Spain and Portugal, and were hammering at the gates of Paris. It was at Poitiers-Tours, in 732 AD, that Charles, King of the Franks, turned back the tsunami—and earned the sobriquet, Martel, “the Hammer.” Following the Islamic destruction of the most holy site in Christendom, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, and the defeat of the Byzantine Empire at Manzikert by the Muslim Turks, the Vatican in 1095 commissioned the First Crusade, the first serious counter-offensive against Islamic predations during 450 years of jihadi aggression. Unhappily, the Crusades were as much about Rome’s desire to wrest Jerusalem from the Byzantines (following Rome’s split from the Eastern Church in 1054, the Great Schism) as it was about preserving Europe from the jihad. The Fourth Crusade of 1204, far from helping the Eastern Christians to stop the tide of Islam, culminated in the Latins’ sack of Constantinople, rendering the split between Eastern and Western Christianity permanent and fatally crippling the main bulwark against Islamic aggression, the Byzantine Empire. In 1453, Constantinople, the jewel of Eastern Christendom, having held out against Muslim attacks since the eighth century, finally succumbed. In less than a hundred years, the Muslims would be at the walls of Vienna. They were decisively turned back on their second attempt to take the city by the King of Poland, John Sobieski, on a date that ought to be among the most famous in history: September 11, 1683. Still, Muslim raiders would be abducting Europeans into slavery from as far away as Ireland into the 19. century.
But the high priests of multiculturalism today would have us believe that Europe’s thousand-year struggle for survival against Islamic jihad was just a bad dream. When presented with contemporary instances of the Muslim penchant for violence, they tell us that, you see, the situation is very complex, one mustn’t jump to conclusions, etc. The world is a complex place, of course, but there is no need to complicate something that is actually fairly straightforward.
Let us propose, as a competing hypothesis to the convoluted platitudes about how Muslim terrorists are “disenfranchised” or “undervalued,” about how Europe mistreated them for all those years, about the problems of the inner city, lack of health care, feelings of “isolation,” etc., etc. (all of which possess their grains of truth), the following simple, limpid idea: Islam, as a creed and ideology, is violent. If terrorism is a function of poverty, why have so many Muslim terrorists—from 9/11 to 7/7 to the archjihadi himself, bin Laden—been from wealthy, educated backgrounds? Why so few impoverished Hindu suicide bombers or shamanist jihadis? Where are all those poor, disenfranchised Appalachian Baptist martyrs’ brigades? Why no air piracy waged by radical Christianists? A continent that has in living memory experienced the horrors of Communism and National Socialism should not have so much difficulty appreciating that certain ideas are fully capable of motivating large numbers of people to do very ugly things. If the French salons produced the ideological underpinnings of the Terror, and the most cultured Western nation could hatch National Socialism, what do we expect from a religion forged in seventh-century desert Araby, not exactly the most genteel environment? We have become so domesticated by “experts” and men in white coats as to what to eat, drink, and whom to vote for that we can no longer discern the elephant in the room, even when it’s wearing a suicide belt.
The dominant Islam-is-peaceful crowd would have us reject the plain evidence of our eyes. Of the myriad post-Cold War conflicts in the world, the overwhelming majority of them are Islamic in nature. Of course, we are usually not told what is the common element of the terrorism in the Philippines, the “unrest” in Thailand, the low-grade strife in Western China, Kashmir, Chechnya, Bosnia, Kosovo, Algeria, Nigeria, the Ivory Coast, Sudan, Mauritania, as well as of course Lebanon, Israel, Iraq, and global terrorism from Bali to New York, Washington, London, Madrid, Moscow, Luxor, etc., etc.: it is Islam. Indeed, it is easier to enumerate the wars of today which do not involve Islam than the other way around. Should this tell us something?
The violent nature of Islam is not some recent innovation that distorted an otherwise peaceful religion; rather it is confirmed throughout the life of Muhammad and the Koran. We have not here the space to attempt a full-fledged discussion of the textual origins of Islamic violence, so we shall just mention one illustrative example in the life of al insan al kamil, the “ideal man,” Muhammad, excerpted from the Sira, the canonical biography of the Prophet. The episode is taken from the last ten years of Muhammad’s life, after he set up shop in Medina and had waged several successful battles against his Mecca rivals.
Then they [the Jewish tribe of Qurayza] surrendered, and the apostle confined them in Medina… Then the apostle went out to the market of Medina and dug trenches in it. Then he sent for them and struck off their heads in those trenches as they were brought out to him in batches. Among them was the enemy of Allah Huyayy bin Akhtab and Ka’b bin Asad their chief. There were 600 or 700 in all, though some put the figure as high as 800 or 900. As they were being taken out in batches to the Apostle they asked Ka’b what he thought would be done with them. He replied, ‘Will you never understand? Don’t you see that the summoner never stops and those who are taken away do not return? By Allah it is death!’ This went on until the Apostle made an end of them. (Ishaq 463-4, The Life of Muhammad, trans by A. Guillaume)
A single example cannot be said to establish a general rule. But it is worth bearing in mind, next time one hears about the similarities between Islam and Christianity, that Jesus Christ and the Apostles never cut anybody’s head off.
The only reasonable objection to the idea that Islam as a rule is violent is the fact that so many of its adherents are peaceful (there are now, apparently, more Muslims than Roman Catholics worldwide); but then because there were urbane Communists and pleasant Nazis hardly meant that their ideologies were benign. The question remains as to whether peaceful Muslims are that way because of their religion or in spite of it. In any religion or ideology there are some very faithful adherents who will go to great lengths to fulfill its precepts—the Christian ascetics, for example—while others make greater compromise with the world. Some Muslims with the zeal and opportunity become mujahideen, others encourage jihad with word and checkbook, others are tacitly sympathetic, and still others indulge in hot dogs and beer, attend mosque once in a blue crescent moon, and guffaw at Jewish comedians. Just as not all Christians love their neighbor, so not all Muslims have the inner fortitude to kill the infidel while screaming “God is great!” (“Allah Ahkbar!”)—but this hardly means that Islam is therefore peaceful. Indeed, as the Muslim populations in Europe have grown, we have seen a corresponding increase of their violent minorities. What do we make of the creed of Hamas, that leading social-services and terrorist organization of the Gaza strip, that “the Koran is our constitution, Muhammad is our example, jihad is our path”? Do all those martyrs-in-waiting, reciting the Koran and siting in their Kalashnikov’s, misunderstand their own religion, or—utterly removed from Islamic culture—do we? Do the Western politicians who insist on Islam’s peacefulness do so because they are so knowledgeable of the origins, history, and doctrines of Islam, or because the alternative (now that Islam is inside the walls) is too terrible a reality to accept?
Islam and the Euro-Mediterranean Dream—Having attempted to bring some clarity to the issue of Islamic violence, we come to our next question: If Islam is such bad news, how on earth was it let into the European heartland? A question of paramount importance but one that has only recently received any serious attention. It took Bat Ye’or’s seminal Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis to explain in cogent fashion the actual process of bringing Islam into Europe. While many observed only the outward movements of the Eurabian organism—the increasing commingling of the European and Muslim-Arab polities—yet remained largely oblivious to its internal workings, Bat Ye’or dived in with her scalpel and forceps.
What she revealed was the tangled web of European officialdom in its full mind-bending madness. Eurabia documents the imbroglio of conferences, position papers, cultural exchanges, official declarations, partnerships, etc. that are effecting a quiet revolution that is slowly but surely removing Western Europe as a distinct political region. The picture Eurabia paints is one of officials who took it upon themselves to recast Europe’s destiny without much consulting those they govern (hardly the first time). The policy-making nexus of individual national governments, the European Parliament, the Council of Ministers, the European Commission, etc. along with the vertiginous layers of international finance, NGOs, academia, etc., etc., is effectively unaccountable to the European public by virtue of its own impenetrable complexity. It took someone of Bat Ye’or’s scholarly patience to undertake the gigantic task of political geology required to figure out what has actually been going on.
The upshot is that the opening of the EC and later EU countries to Islam was no accident or natural development; rather it was—and continues to be—a deliberate policy of the EU shared to varying degrees by its member governments. Significantly, Bat Ye’or did not coin the term “Eurabia.” It was the title of a journal of the mid-1970s that had the political union of Europe and the Arab world as its theme. “Eurabia,” in other words, was not originally the term of alarm that Bat Ye’or has made it; rather, it was a positive reference to a new era of Euro-Islamic integration. This fact in itself is enough to lend credibility to the idea that the creation of a Euro-Muslim bloc has been very much intentional and is seen by some as a positive good.
[amazonify]097789844X[/amazonify]The EU’s principle instrument for building Eurabia has been the Euro-Arab Dialogue (EAD), a group of European and Arab-Muslim officials that guides integration at the highest levels; but the proliferation of organizations and bodies devoted to the “Euro-Med” project (as it is now openly referred to) are too many to name. Some of the more significant ones are the Parliamentary Association for Euro-Arab Co-operation (PAEAC), the European Institute for Research on Mediterranean and Euro-Arab Co-operation (MEDA), the Facility for Euro-Mediterranean Investment and Partnership (FEMIP), and the European Committee and Coordination of Friendship Associations with the Arab World (EURABIA—I kid you not). Normal people, of course, have difficulty imagining that obscure bodies composed of career bureaucrats would have the wherewithal to accomplish much of anything. But, like a slowly expanding glacier, one day, after generations of incremental movement, one awakes to a landscape utterly transformed. And now that some are awakening to the burgeoning Eurabian catastrophe, the labyrinthine Eurabian infrastructure effectively forestalls any remedial action.
But the hypothesis that the opening of Europe to Islam has somehow been deliberate runs afoul of many. To them, it seems impossible that the transformation of Europe into Eurabia could wind up somehow being intentional—how on earth could any sane European mind actually want to see Europe absorbed into Eurabia? But the alternative, conventional wisdom, that the ongoing Islamization of Europe is the result of some big accident, that it was the unforeseen consequence of wholly well-intentioned policy, is a non-explanation that provides no insight into the phenomenon itself. Bat Ye’or’s scholarship, like all serious inquiry, takes as its point of departure the assumption that things happen for a reason. While there certainly are coincidences and accidents, it does violence to the spirit of serious inquiry to suppose that an entire continent can, in the course of several decades, be set on its way from a collection of republics with Christian overtones to an Islamic superstate all by accident. Perhaps the reason that people recoil from that idea that Islamizing Europe has been a choice is because the implication is that it didn’t have to happen. It is always tempting after the fact to imagine that it was all “inevitable”—then there is no one to blame and we can all lament the grim inevitability of fate over out espresso. But if there is nothing “natural” or “inevitable” about replacing Europe with Eurabia, the implication is that someone, somewhere is to blame for having brought it about and the rest of us in having lacked the vision and resolution to forestall the disaster.
A criticism of the deliberate theory is that it smacks of “conspiracy,” which for some reason is a distasteful word. Of course, “conspiracy” is a widely recognized legal concept, a crime regularly prosecuted by governments all over the world, yet it is supposedly impossible for government officials themselves to engage in it. But if the Eurabian thesis attests to a “conspiracy” of some kind, it is one that lacks methodical surreptitiousness. Like many of the revolutions beforehand, the Eurabian revolution is occurring, for the most part, out in the open. Thanks to Bat Ye’or, we can see quite plainly that the policies leading to Europe’s ongoing Islamization stem from rational—if highly questionable—perceptions of self-interest. The seminal event appears to have been the oil embargo following the 1973 Israeli-Arab war. It became vividly apparent to Europe at that point that it would be more expedient to play nice with the Arabs if it meant more oil. It did. And playing nice entailed two points: 1) dump Israel and her patron, the United States; and 2) open Europe economically and culturally to the Arab-Muslim states. Right or wrong, shrewd or foolish, this was the calculation the European governments made.
The oil-driven decision of the early 1970s was reinforced by numerous jihadist terror attacks on European interests in the succeeding years. The Europeans chose the well-worn path of greater appeasement in the form of support for the PLO, hostility to Israel and the US, and ever greater openness to penetration by Muslim-Arab finance and culture. The jihadist attacks ceased. Little in the way of Islamic terrorism occurred in Europe pre-9/11.
The Eurabian project has in fact been underway for some time albeit in different forms. Since Napoleon landed in Egypt in 1798, France has dreamed of a broad Mediterranean empire, which she pursued pre-WWII with some success. With the loss of Algeria in 1962, France has attempted to recover her influence in North Africa and throughout the Arab-Muslim world by less imperious means. Germany has also had Eurabian dreams. German penetration into the Balkans in WWII developed contacts with Muslims for whom Nazi fascism meshed nicely with Islam, the oldest global fascist movement in history. Nazi Germany was an obvious ally for Muslims throughout the Middle-East longing to put dhimmis (Jews and Christians, relegated by the Koran [9:29] to semi-slavery) back in their place.
The assumption in Europe, of course, has been that in any political accommodation with the Islamic world, Europe will remain the senior partner. Thus, an emergent “Euro-Med” bloc will serve as a magnified platform for European voices to counter American, Russian, and Chinese ascendancy. But the foundations of that assumption have been steadily eroding since WWII. While the Eurabian project proceeds apace, increasingly it is less a matter of Europeanizing the Arabs than in Arabizing Europe—indeed, Islamizing it. For it is with Islam that Europe has failed to reckon. It is one thing to secularize (Western) Christians, as was done successfully in Europe following the wars of religion, but it is another thing to secularize Muslims. Whereas Christianity seeks a kingdom “not of this world” and is thus compatible with many forms of government, Islamic politics are explicitly prescribed by the Islamic holy texts. Christianity recognizes Caesar as the earthly law-giver; Islam only Allah. Europe was able to pacify Christianity because Christianity is naturally pacific; its violent manifestations a distortion of its doctrines. Islam is another matter entirely. The Eurabian institutional framework is serving—knowingly or not—as the new vehicle for jihad in Europe. What the irreligious, champagne-sniffing Eurocrats have not counted on is having to blunt the religious feelings of millions of Muslims accustomed to having their political religion central in their lives.
Yugoslavia: Nation of the Future—The form the new European jihad is taking and the complicity of Western institutions in their own destruction is nowhere more visible than in the wars of the Yugoslav succession of the 1990s, which continue into the present day in the imposed breakup of Serbia-Kosovo. The conventional wisdom of these wars is that blood-thirsty Serbs (regularly equated during the 90s war with Nazis—in fact the Serbs had fought the Nazis tooth and nail while suffering a genuine genocide at the hands of an Axis power, Croatia, to the tune of a million dead), seizing the opportunity of the breakdown of Communism, unleashed their designs for a “greater Serbia” that involved the destruction of the Croat and Bosnian ethnic groups. Serb aggression was only halted, so the story goes, by the overdue involvement of NATO. This fiction serves a variety on interests (not least of all NATO, looking for something to do in the wake of the Soviet Collapse), but neatly inverts much of what really happened. In fact, Western Europe, had long wanted to bring the historically independent Yugoslavia to heel. The Germans in particular, wanted to pull Croatia (their WWII ally) into the EU system and isolate Serbia (their WWI and WWII enemy). The Americans, ever eager to appear the friends of Islam to their Saudi petro-benefactors, egged on the Muslim president of Bosnia to reject a settlement with the Serbs in Bosnia that would have prevented the ensuing civil war. The Bosnian declaration of independence in April 1992 and Muslim attacks on Serb civilians left the Bosnian Serbs little choice but to defend themselves. What they never learned during the years of war, however, was that the real battlefront lay on American and European television sets, and here the Bosnian Muslims, with multiple star-studded Western PR firms in their arsenal, proved themselves superior. Despite committing just about every sort of war crime imaginable—from rape to ethnic cleansing to wholesale murder, all the while enriching themselves personally through almost unbelievable levels of corruption—the Muslims in Bosnia, like the Albanian Muslims in Kosovo (world leaders in drug and human trafficking) came out as the “good guys.”
Like the throwaway line parroted by nearly every Western leader since 9/11 that “Islam is a religion of peace,” a similar mantra was promoted to explain the war in Bosnia: as Richard Holbrooke put it, “the Serbs started this war, the Serbs are the original cause of the war”; a similar story is being told today about the amputation of Kosovo from Serbia. Those interested in a serious critique of the standard, vicious oversimplification, should read John Schindler’s Unholy Terror. Schindler details how the two leading jihad-exporting countries, Iran and Saudi Arabia, vied for position in the Balkans under the conniving eye of the American and European governments, who, in short, wanted the Muslims to win. Prior to 9/11, the West pursued pro-jihadist policies not only abroad but in Europe proper. Thanks to the thousands of mujahideen imported into Bosnia to fight the infidel Serbs during the 90s, major terrorist attacks against domestic Western interests became possible. In fact, every major Muslim terrorist attack since the time of the Bosnian war—from World Trade Center I (1993) to the “millennium plot” against Los Angeles airport, to 9/11, to Madrid, to 7/7—may be traced to the mujahideen brought in to wage the Bosnian jihad with the connivance of the Western powers. The shape of things to come.
The smashing up of the independent nation-state of Yugoslavia was the logical result of policies currently at work throughout Western Europe. During the Sarajevo Olympic games of 1984, no one imagined that, less than a decade hence, the whole place would come apart with tens of thousands killed in a civil war; just as it seems unimaginable today that London, Paris, Rotterdam, or Malmo could disintegrate into urban warfare. Setting off a Muslim jihad in Bosnia was made easier thanks to the relatively large Muslim population and the contradictions of Yugoslav Communism, but the circumstances that fed the Yugoslav breakup—a growing Muslim minority at odds with the secular government and a decomposing welfare state—are fast taking hold in France, Holland, Britain, and elsewhere.
Why Eurabia—But—like the victim in some horror movie pleading with the monster-villain, we are compelled to ask—why? Why support Muslim terrorism in Bosnia and Kosovo against Christians? Why permit Islam to grow with geometric speed within Europe’s borders and set the stage for civil war? Answer: because the millennial project of integrating Europe—a project agreed on by all mainstream parties on both sides of the Atlantic—and the larger project of globalization of which it is a part, cannot proceed as long as political opposition, centered on individual national identities, persists. As long as France is French, Germany German, Spain Spanish, Britain British, and as long as there are independent countries such as Yugoslavia that resist falling into the Western orbit, the dream of an integrated Europe will be impossible. Ergo, national identities must be dissolved, and Islam is the solvent. The integrationists’ object is only possible if the old nation-states are rendered too weak to resist their progressive destruction. The ever-growing millions of alienated Muslims in Europe, deliberately encouraged by EU policy to retain a Muslim identity across borders, thus serve as a means of smashing up the old social and political identities based in territorial nationhood. The tradition-minded Europeans, disorganized, unrepresented, and—increasingly—terrorized by their Muslim minorities, have been rendered politically helpless, which suits the integrationists just fine. Indeed, the logical result of their policies, civil war, would leave a handful of crippled nation-states utterly dependent on the emerging supranational Euro-Med authority—just what they want. The European people have always been suspicious of programs to unite Europe (see Napoleon, Hitler, Stalin), which is why they had to be taken out of the political picture. The growing numbers of Europeans leaving Europe for good (usually well-to-do and educated), the decline of native European birth rates to below replacement levels, and the rising number of suicides in an age of unprecedented prosperity testify to the integrationists’ efficacy in effacing the European national identities.
[amazonify]B000PE0GQO[/amazonify]The modern age is the age of revolution, and the Eurabian Revolution is but a continuation of a process, hearkening back to before the French Revolution of 1789, to eradicate the old ways of doing things in Europe. Today’s Eurocrats are on the verge of accomplishing what previous generations of revolutionaries, with all their evil genius, failed to bring about: the destruction of Europe as a distinct civilization. Perhaps the most remarkable aspect of the Eurabian Revolution is that it is being effected so completely from within the halls of power, which is perhaps why so few seem to be aware that a revolution is afoot at all. But a genuine revolution it is, which, like its predecessors, can only culminate in a similar spiritual and material oblivion.
Gregory M. Davis received his Ph.D. in political science from Stanford University in 2003. He has written for Human Events, World Net Daily, FrontPage Magazine, and JihadWatch, and has appeared as a guest commentator on FOX News and numerous radio programs across America. He is author of Religion of Peace? Islam’s War Against the World and producer and director of the feature documentary Islam: What the West Needs to Know.
Leave a Reply