Is Islam the Problem or Has the West Become Weak? | Raymond Ibrahim | PBD Podcast #869

You are to be put to death. That's the law. Mass and slavery. Mass mass occurs. Systematic destruction of churches and synagogues. Exponential atrocities. You have the option to either join us or we're killing you. Yeah, that's black and white. Yeah. Either convert or die. Tell me more. Are we two judgmental towards Muslims? How they're presented today is literally the opposite of what they work. A long long ago. Nothing changed because their life was about raiding the other and slaving and killing. Fake history is much more dangerous than fake news. It's fake. Fake news. It does its mischief and then it's gone. But fake history is truly dangerous to our democracy. Why are they doing it? And how are they so successful? Horrible. How dare you? How can you say this about a whole religion of two billion people? I get this all the time. It's the fact. How has he been so successful at spreading his message worldwide? Us became Muslims. And it didn't matter if they're your relatives or not. Think of ISIS, right? But on steroids. Tell us about Ladda and Peler, you know. What is the true story of this guy? Was this your good guy? Was he a villain? Was he a bad guy? Who was he? Who was he? Well. So I'm going to ask an indirect way of helping our guys. Our production team that works so hard get a raise. Do you want to help them get a raise? This is how you can help us out. 49% of you watch our podcast. That our editors work so hard. Producers, cutters, all of them. Our production team, 32 of them that work here. They work very, very hard to deliver a good quality to you. If you enjoy our show and you want to help this thing get bigger. So we can take our talent that we have in house that support this production all the time. And maybe even give them a raise. Then please subscribe to the channel. That allows us to get more viewership and indirectly. It makes bigger opportunities for our current team that we have. Thank you so much. You've written a few big books, OK? Of course, the Sword and Cimitar, which, massive book, and the forward, you know, Victor Davis Hansen, who was just-- we just talked about a couple of weeks on the podcast. We're going to put the link below to go order this book. Well, we got a lot of different things to talk about. Some of it's going to piss off some people because you're one of these guys that's not just an opinion. You study these things. And I think it's important for the audience to know this before we get into this. And we'll kind of give the background a little bit. But I want to start off with, you know, the first question to see how you would address this, which, to me, it's a question I think a lot of us aren't asking enough. Is Islam the problem, or has the West become weak and tolerant? Wow, well, I often address that specific question. And the answer is yes to both. So Islam is inherently intrinsically not compatible with Western civilization. Let's just be honest, as a religion, as an ideology. And again, this is not-- I'm putting Muslims aside for now. This is not an artificial distinction. I think I can speak about the religion. And then we can talk about how Muslims fit into the religion. But the religion, in and of itself, is inherently incompatible with Western civilization simply because it teaches and expects things of Muslims that are antithetical to Western norms, OK? No religious freedom as understood in the West. If you're born to a Muslim father, you're a Muslim. If you, in any way, shape or form, try to break away, especially by converting to a religion, say Christianity, you're an apostate, and you are to be put to death. That's the law, OK? There's no nuance to it. There is no-- the only nuance is one idea is that women shouldn't be killed. They should be imprisoned and starved until they come back to Islam, which doesn't make it a whole lot better. Same thing with the idea of blasphemy. If you speak against Islam, put to death. This is all-- this isn't radical. In Muslim majority countries. Not if I'm a Muslim in a different country. No, no, I'm now talking about what Islam teaches, OK? And then we'll look at how it manifests in various countries and epochs and how people treat it. But what I'm trying to say is the religion itself, OK? As it is, it just doesn't work with the West. There's no religious freedom. So if you're a Christian or a Jew, you're called Ahliketeb, people of the book, you have limited rights. You don't know where near the same rights of a Muslim. So you can live in an Islamic country. But there's all sorts of restrictions on you about churches, about what you can do, what you can say, what you can wear. Your word has no validity at a court of law against the Muslim. So things that, of course, by Western standards, would be considered completely discriminatory, OK? So that's why I say it's not compatible, Islam itself. Now, we can talk about how different countries allow there Islam to be expressed, how different people, the vast continuum, and we can talk about that. But the religion itself, it's just simply-- it's a black and white. This isn't a hard question. People try to complicate it, but it's just-- it's not. It's not compatible. But the question is, is the West become into-- Oh, right. The second power. Yes, yes. --and the weak, where we're like, we lack paranoia. So maybe the question is, are we too judgmental towards Muslims and Islam, or are we not paranoid enough? And we're like, it's OK, nothing's going to happen here. Much more the latter. And so I forgot your original question, which was, is it this or is it that? So first, I said, Islam is inherently a problem. And yes, the other problem is the West is just like an ostrich. Has its head in the sand doesn't want to acknowledge it. Like you said, we're not too judgmental. We're actually trying to be too naive. We don't want to acknowledge it. Everything I just said about Islam, no mainstream source would ever want to say that openly. This is horrible. How dare you? How can you say this about a whole religion of 2 billion people? I get this all the time, OK? But it's just the fact. So the combination now is this. And we'll get into the history because it's relevant to what I'm going to say now, but as just as a quick precursor. So what Muslims did historically was they would invade and conquer all throughout the world. Christian lands, Persian and Hindus all around. But the people fought back, the Christians, let's say. The difference is now, and Islam was a powerful force. Now, Islam is really, believe it or not, a very weak force. But it's being enabled and empowered by, let's say, the West. OK, so now when people, for example, in Britain, it's very common to hear people complain, Muslims are invading our land to which I often say they're not invading, they're being invited. It's a whole different ballgame. They're not coming with swords and forcing their way in while your police and your armies are trying to hold them back. It's quite the opposite. They're bringing in them in. They're giving them everything they want. And they're shutting you down when you speak and they put you in jail. So that's-- it's a double whammy. Yes, Islam is inherently what it is. And the West, for whatever reasons which we'll get into, is doing everything impossible to enable and empower it. OK, so when did we become soft? What was the turning point of us becoming soft and no longer being paranoid? Was it because of how powerful we became? Was it because of how strong the military is? The paranoia went away, but when did we become the soft? Yeah, that's a good question. And there's some multi-layered, depending on when. I would say, first of all, it starts in many ways with a Protestant reformation in the 16th century. And the reason for that is-- and this is well known to this historical point. I'm not-- a lot of people get upset. They think I'm attacking Protestantism. I'm not. I think as a historical development, because the Protestants broke away from the Catholics, everything that the Catholics did at that time was seen as bad. And all of Catholic history is bad. And one of the main things that, for example, the Protestants would point to were the Crusades. So all of that was completely demonized in Western countries, Protestant nations. So that was the first kernel. And oftentimes, hand in hand with that, came a sort of rehabilitation of Islam amongst Protestants. In fact, Protestants during the wars with the Catholics would often side with Muslims against the Catholics. So there became a sort of a softening towards Islam. So that's the beginning. Then you have all sorts of other things that are also the Enlightenment and kind of rising above, seeing things through a religious prism. And you keep moving fast forward with this sort of secularization, the more secular you are. Because when we talk about the history, you'll see when Christians were actually Christians, they would not do what we're seeing today, which is basically capitulate before Islam. I mean, a day doesn't pass when I don't hear about or see a video of a church, Catholic, Anglican, Protestant, inviting Muslims in and having them declare chronic verses that actually condemn Christianity, that would have not happened. So I think also it really revs up and really speeds up around the '60s, because that's where everything kind of starts, the sexual freedom, the liberalism. That's what we call liberalism, leftism, all those thoughts come. And you see it also in the academic world and how books are written. So I deal with history. And when you read books from that era on, what we call woke history, it's all there. Where all of a sudden Muslims are the good guys. Oh, it was Europe's medieval Christian ancestors who were horrible because of what they did. And if anything, we need to learn from Islam and we need to be good to them and we need to make up for the sins of our ancestors. That's become the sort of general mood amongst many Western people, including Christians, okay? Even in movies, a lot of that, of course. You look at movies, it's like, you know, the West is the enemy, the Muslims were in the same week. It came and took over their land, and that's not fair what we did to them. So you think the root of it of us becoming soft is liberalism? If you want to call it, for lack of a better word, but liberalism goes hand in hand with secularism and secularism in many ways is a sort of abnegation of religion. In this case, we'll be Christianity. So in other words what I'm saying is when when when Christianity was a dominant force in Europe None of this would have happened you can't Christians were you know were were wise to Islam. They were they weren't cruel to them But you know they they're not gonna they knew what it was about. They got it. They understood it They resisted it they fought it But once that left and and it was supplanted with this idea that oh Religion is bad especially Christianity because as you mentioned that's the main thing It's in the movies always and movies of course are intentionally made to mold how we think that's always the case People think it's just no attainments. Yeah, I'm sure they make money via entertainment But it's ultimately about molding our epistemology and how we understand the world so then but but stay there So if it's liberalism secularism and movies and Hollywood entertainment to shape the mindset Who ran the entertainment industry? So if the entertainment industry is ran by they would say a lot of these Jews Jewish executives Why would they paint a picture of Muslims being the victims and the West being the aggressor? Why would they paint a picture that way? Well, I think that's a very prominent picture that that particular demographic would want Because it it serves them too because they're the minority and they want you to think and remember and believe that the medieval era When Christianity was a force was a horrible thing because look what it did to everybody ever had persecuted Jews persecuted Muslims That's why we need Christianity out. Okay, because it's just a horrible horrible force So yeah, I do believe that's that's a factor in okay So so so I want to go to a bunch of different places for the average person that doesn't know what makes you Qualify to speak on this and why did you choose your career path to be a writer and just study this topic? Yeah Okay, so my family comes from Egypt and I'm what's known as a coptic coptic Christian the original inhabitants of Egypt who were native Christians, I was born in the United States and I so I grew up bilingual speaking Arabic and I also studied Arabic in In college, so I know the language very well. I they'd Fresno, right? You went to Fresno. Yeah, I went to California State Fresno but I also later on went to Georgetown University Catholic University in America to study Semitic languages and all sorts of things, but yeah my primary education is at Cal State University of Fresno where I majored in history and Also philosophy and I got a master's degree and I was always interested in history and especially pre modern history Especially the history that revolves around you know, it's normal to be interested in your own people your culture So I studied ancient Egypt Mesopotamia But I really started developing interest because of my Christian background and my family from Islam I was really interested in that nexus of Islam and Christianity and so That became a focal point for me. So my master's thesis when I was at Fresno State chaired by Victor Davis Hanson He was a chair. This is a long time ago was the first major battle between Muslims and Christians Which I and I did in a very scholarly way based on Arabic and Greek texts which I translated So it has a very academic field, but since then I've been very much interested in that connection Okay, historically, but for a long time then I worked at the Library of Congress I worked in the Near East section where I dealt with all these Arabic books and all all the languages of the Middle East actually including Armenian, Georgian, Syriac and Long story short when I was there. I found writings in Arabic by Al-Qaeda. This is when Al-Qaeda was a big deal I found I found this in around 2004 So three years after 9/11 and because the Library of Congress gets all these books from around the world and most pre-social this is pre-social media. This is pre-catchy beauty. This is pre-all of that. This is card catalog days So this is brilliant like you work was the motive of working there for you independently to get smarter? Yeah, yeah, yeah, I mean that it was my field of interest. I was at Georgetown University studying Islam Working on a PhD. I got this job. It was an internship at the Library of Congress. Then it became a full-time job Then I found the writings in Arabic. There weren't a bin. Just laying around. I'm looking at these Arabic books and all of a sudden I see Oh, so I'm a bin Laden's the author. Oh, amen Zawahri. Who was the number two is the author? So long story short I actually went to Victor Davis-Headson because we were still in touch as we are now and I told him about my my findings and he Connected me with this literary agent and I got a book deal out of it which became the Al-Qaeda reader Okay, and what was important about that book which what I wanted to get the message out is that before I came across these writings Al-Qaeda had 9/11 happened and Al-Qaeda was sending all these communicates that were being disseminated by Western media BBC CNN And in these communicates he would constantly present his attack as a product of Reciprocal treatment we did that to you 9/11 because of what you're doing to us the Muslim world and he would list grievance after grievance after grievance Okay, and the grievances were anything from Colonialism of a crusade support for Israel, of course not signing the Kyoto Protocol You know blasphemy against Muhammad people speaking up cartoons. It was everything, right? But what I found and why I wanted to translate was this Arabic stuff that was directed to Muslims and it didn't mention any of that It sounded more like ISIS. Okay, it was more kind of like their infidels There's we have nothing to talk about whether they're good to us or bad to us as a relevant We have to attack them according to the Quran. We have to subjugate them kill them, etc etc. So that anyway, I put all that together and came out in a book which was the al-Qaeda reader came out finally in 2007 and then I continued I went back to what I was interested in. I'm a cop to Christian and There's a mass persecution going on of Christians In fact, just yesterday where the day before Donald Trump was speaking before the UN and he mentioned it He actually I was glad to hear him say it He said you know the the hypocrisy of the UN They're trying to push for the human rights of transgenderism by forcing you know children to be mutilated But they won't say a word about something like 400 million Christians around the world are being persecuted brutally Okay, so I ended up really focusing on that and I wrote another book the crucified again, which came out in 2013 and that was based on Persecution that subtitle is exposing Islam's new war on Christians Okay, in that book. I don't know if it's out of print, but it's supposed to come back to available on Kindle Anyway, after that I started gravitating back to my interest my historical interest Going back to my colleges, and that's when I started what's known as my historical trilogy writing these these books I wrote sword and cimitar that came out in 2018 and that is the main book that I really recommend because it looks at the subtitle is 14 centuries of war between Islam and the West and that's what I do I I felt that there was this thing going on where a lot of anti-Islam people They were many work were always making the doctrinal argument Okay, which is to say they would say well look at the Quran what it says and you know this this verse and the Hadith And I thought that's fine. I do that too But it was kind of a superficial argument in many ways because it was always people were saying the same handful of mocking the religion No mocking it on the one hand, but also trying to show how it's violent Okay, so they would quote you know the the various verses which is good to quote I agree But the reason I thought it wasn't as effective. I think it's good and I still do it. I'm not against people Actually pointing out and quoting the Quran to show the violence or the intolerance of Islam But it because of one of the responses would be well What about the Bible? You know the Old Testament's full of violence in Joshua and you know genocides and does that mean Christians and Jews are all Involved in all that so that was one of the arguments So that's why I wanted to show okay? So let's look at the historical record and that's what I did in this book sword and cimitar I said let's see how did muza it was it is jihad just something in the book or did it manifest its own historically and in sword and cimitar Which is basically a continuation of my maithesis, which was the battle of Yarmuk the first military battle and it's chapter one of the book But that book shows I go through from you know from the times of Muhammad up until the United States founding And I show you battle after battle expansion after expansion how it was Muslims literally acting on the concept of jihad And I look at their text so I'm most of the damning evidence comes from their writings where they present what they're doing as a jihad Where they boast of enslaving infidels where they boast of burning churches and break in the cross Of course, I also quote from the Christian and European side as well, which Corroborates what they say And the long story short in that book what you find out is what most people don't know you know this because of your background like me But you know when you in the dawn of Islam in the seventh century When Muhammad came into being and Islam came into being If you looked at the world Christianity which was huge at that time most of Christianity or Christendom was in North Africa in the Middle East Okay, people now they hear the word Christendom. They think you're up It was actually the bulk of it was from Morocco to Egypt all of North Africa The Middle East it was known as greater Syria, which encompassed all the modern states today of Jordan Lebanon Israel Iraq and what we call Turkey is your minor Okay, and then you had Europe, but that part of the world was was more Christian more populated and more advanced This is why Constantine the great the first Christian emperor moved the capital from Rome to Constantinople What what came to be known as Constantinople And what people don't understand is that whole of region was conquered in one century by Islam So from the year 632, which is when Muhammad dies Till 732 one century if you look at a map all of the Middle East Persia, which was not Christian. It's Sessanian Persia was conquered All of the Middle East that I mentioned greater greater Syria that whole region Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco and Spain Okay, conquered and I gave you the date 732 632 732 because in 732 you have the pivotal battle of tours in the middle of France Where they're finally stopped Okay, and they and and the raids continue, but they get pushed more or less south of the Pyrenees mountains into Spain Okay, and that's just the first iteration of Islam now When I mentioned that, a lot of historians, they call that the great Arab conquest. And if you read a sort of, you know, modern day rendition or historical account of it, the Islam is not even in the picture. It's just raids and Muslims just happened to as a dynamic conquest. When you look at these Islamic sources as I did, well, it's presented absolutely as a G-Hod. It's presented as the commandment of Allah, we are enforcing and doing what our holy book, the Quran says, what the Hadith, Muhammad proclaimed, and that's why we're doing this. And like I said, it's full of what you would expect. But on steroids, essentially, like exponential atrocities, where the systematic destruction of churches and synagogues, and what are Buddhist temples, Hindu temples when they would go in the east, mass enslavement, mass massacres, okay? The Allah Akbar that we hear and we've come to associate with terrorism, constantly even in the writings. You have the Christians early on, they would say things like, yeah, and they scream that horrible sound they always make because they didn't understand what it was, but later on they understand. So I think it's important to point out that this conquest was literally seen by Muslims and within Islamic historiography, it's presented as a G-Hod. So that's what Muslims learn, that's what they believe, okay? It's important to keep that in mind, I think. And that's just the first wave. So, and again, this is all in my book, Sorting Symmetar. Then, later on, you have what's known as the Turks, they come in from the steps and they come in as originally as slave soldiers. The Arabs bring them in, Islamize them and they make them really powerful slave soldiers. Long story short, they rise up in the ranks and basically they control the caliphate and the caliphs will pop it. But there's Sunni Muslims, just like the caliphs, the most of them. And you have the Seljik Turks, that's one particular dynasty, which now starts running, you know, among all throughout Asia Minor, okay? Which is still primarily Christian. Remember, Asia Minor, Turkey, is one of the really oldest Christian churches. This is where the book of Revelation, Jesus, you know, talking to the various churches in Asia Minor. Now, it's of course Turkey, it's almost 100% Islamic. And because of these Turkic invasions in the 11th century and the sources, the way they talk about what happened, the contemporary sources written by Armenians, Matthew of Odessa, for example, literally he talks about tens of thousands of Christians being massacred, hundreds of thousands, women, children enslaved and being taken back into the Islamic world, systematic destruction of churches. And one in Ani, which was one of the main cities, or one of them was called the city of a thousand one churches. And every single church was desecrated and torched during this time. And these are the events that people don't know led up to the first crusade. - So why though, what's there why? I mean, when you think about every single Muslim majority country today, every one of them, whether it's Iran, previous state, I was orasterianism, right? Egypt, Croft, the Christian kind of like yourself. Turkey, Christians, Pakistan, Hindu and Buddhism, Bangladesh, same, Afghanistan, same. Iraq, Christians, orasterian, Syria, Christian, Lebanon, Christian, Jordan, Christian, Palestinian territory, Major League, Christian, some of them are in South America, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Morocco, Sudan, Somalia, Indonesia, Malaysia, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan. These are Muslim majority countries that they came in and now took over. They were not previously to that. One is why, two is the following. One has to sit there and say, well, as much as some people fear the Jews or hey, what's their motive, what are they trying to do? They haven't conquered countries the way the Muslim religion has done, right? What's their strategy? - Well, the difference is the main difference between the Muslims and the Jews is just first of all sheer number and strength. The Jews, if they get accused of anything, it's undue influence and behind the scenes and machinations, generally, because how can they look? What do they point zero, one percent of the world? Islam is a physical force, right? It's we're talking about two and growing, two billion people. So Islam was always seen as a physical, a real tangible threat that can come and conquer through sheer numbers and take over your land. All those countries that you mentioned were literally conquered by force. I spoke about North African Middle East, but you mentioned the Kazakh stand and how did they become Islamic? It was through the same mechanism, just violence and conquest. India, people are aware of the conquest of India by the Arabs. According to one well-known, reputable is an Indian historian. I think his name is, we can look it up, something called. But he wrote a very methodical history and he came up with some insane number, like in five centuries of non-stop jihad, something like a hundred million Hindus were killed. Okay, just because they're not Muslim, all right? So that is known that you have the option to either join us over killing. Yeah. And is that how it was from the beginning? Yeah, so from the beginning, according to Islamic teaching, if you're a Hindu or a pagan, yeah, you're supposed to either convert or die, but if you're a people of the book, a Christian or Jew, you can actually pay tribute to Jizia and live as a second-class citizen, as I was mentioning earlier, with all these restrictions and you're supposed to be humiliated as part of the ritual. But then it became elastic and later on, even the Muslims realized, rather than keep slaughtering these Hindus, let's get money out of it and they gave them the same status where they could just pay and maintain their religion. Did any one of them that converted decide to retaliate against them? Well, yeah, there were oftentimes lots of, I'll tell you one interesting story. Successful retaliations. Except from, we'll get to Spain here in a minute. Yeah, I'll get there. I'm talking about these Muslim majority countries. Okay, that converted. That are still Muslim. Was there any internal generals, leaders, defectors out? Like, you know what? I'm sick of what they did. You killed my dad, you killed my mom, you killed my wife. I'm gonna retaliate. Was there any successful stories? They're not successful, obviously, 'cause they're still Islamic, but there definitely were uprisings, even the cops. Why did they fail? They, well, that question goes hand in hand with why were the Muslims in the Arab so successful in one century as the conquer that humongous region that I described, all of North Africa, Spain and the Middle East. That remains a mystery amongst historians. The Muslim answer, of course, is Allah was with them. And the Christian answer, the historic Christian answer is not unlike it because they said yes, Allah was with them because he was punishing us for our sins. Can you put that video up, please? Can you put the video up that shows in 60 seconds, just turn off the audio? This kind of paints a picture, and I want you to elaborate on this with the audience. Go for it. This is Spain, so Muslims take over, and then gradually, Spain fights against them, goes, keeps going south until they retake Spain over, but at the end of the day, fatalities end up being around seven million people. So maybe walk us through how did Muslims Islam take over Spain and what did Spain do to reconquer their country? Spain, in many ways, is a very important topic, because it's a microcosm of what we're talking about, because it's a very self-contained environment of everything we're talking about. It has all the ingredients. It has the Muslims, the Christians, the conquest, and it has a very telling history that's very applicable actually. Every time I try to explain events today, I can't help but come back to Spain because there's a relevant pressivance to talk about. So as we saw in the map, and as I pointed out, the Muslims, the Arabs invade with a massive Berber army, all Muslims, though, they invade Spain in 711 and essentially conquer it, okay? And but except for a small group of Christians. So there's a battle of Guadalete in 711, where the King himself of Spain, the Christian King, Viscophic King, Rodric or Rodrigo, he also went out to try to stop them and was killed, and it was really brutal savage battle. I'd talk about it in sword and cimitarpe. Then after that, there was this kind of like peace, and a lot of people started to submit to Islam. Like I said, you pay tribute, you don't have to convert if you're a Christian, and you can live in peace. One of them was actually, he's the sword bearer of the king that was killed, so he's a noble, and his name is Paleo. And apparently he at first, he agreed to it. And but then one of the governors tried to basically rape his sister and he resisted and the governors that would dare you and tried to arrest him, and Paleo fled, and went up, if you look at the map of Spain, the Iberian Peninsula, and the Northwest Quadrant, you have what's called the Asturia Mountains, a very rocky region, and he basically went up there, and all the other Christians who just did not want to deal with the Muslims all went up and hid in this mountain. And there weren't very much. And at one point, a vast Muslim army came to put an end to it, and they had with them one of the many Christians who had, you know, submitted to Islam. So he's basically talking on their behalf, his name is Opal. He might have been an archbishop. And he goes up to the cave of the mouth of the cave where Paleo and these fugitives are hiding, and he says, look, you already tried to fight them at the battle guadal, and you know what happened. And the whole army got killed in the king, and you think you, with your small band, are going to make a difference. Submit to Islam, bow the knee, take the knee, and think good things will happen to you. And it's a very interesting, I have the quote in the book, but he just, it's really a nice quote where he basically just completely defies it. He says, I will not cooperate with these invaders. I will not, and back then they don't call the Muslims or the Ishmaelites or the Sarasans or whatever. And he says, this mountain that you see here, we have faith in Christ that this is the mustard seed, the parable of the mustard seed, something small that grows. And from this mustard seed, you know, [BLANK_AUDIO] the freedom of Spain will be regained. And lo and behold, so that's where the Ricanquist, the Ricanquist begins, right there, very soon in the eighth century, not long after the Muslim conquest. And as you saw in the map that showed, you know, how many people were dying, it was, it started slowly coming south, right? So various kingdoms were developed next from this mutton, you know, mustard seed, castile, arrogant and so forth. And they started it, this is when you have the Ricanquist in, it's constant warfare back and forth. And Muslims would constantly call for aid from Africa and you would get these really brutal jihadist, literally jihadist, like just like ISIS, in fact, they would dress like them, pure black, okay, with only their eyes showing. But they were, the first iteration was the, known as the El Moravids. - El Moravids. - El Moravids, which comes from an Arabic word, "Rabat" El Morabitun, which means, "Rabat" is basically the jihadists who live and operate on the frontier against the Infidel. Okay, so they formed these bands. So that's what these guys name was. They came there, they won various battles, but the Christians persevered. So it was, you know, it was like an ebb and flow. They'd lose, they'd fight. As we saw, it was many centuries. And then another or even fiercer group, El Moravids, which comes from the word Talheed, Moha, have you seen ISIS when they do this? - Mm-hmm. - Or any Muslim. What that, that's a reflection of Talheed, meaning the absolute staunch oneness of Allah. So the El Moravids were named after that. They were al-Talheed, basic ISIS organization. They too came, engaged in all sorts of a creative pyramids of Spaniard Hell, heads, you know, they would, you know, even before that, I didn't tell you, but they would try to make the Muslims earlier after the Paleo and the Masjid, they gave them some room for peace, but they had to actually submit, they had to send a hundred of the prettiest virgin girls to the caliphates, okay, every year, as one kind of tribute. So that's the sort of thing that it was when there was peace, and when there wasn't, there was what I'm describing, okay? So it went on and on and on until, you know, long story short, in 12, 12, 12, we have a major final battle, Lawson of Oste to Lusso, which is one of the chapters in my book, and the Christians finally prevail. And at that point, there's still a lot of Islam in Spain, but it's mostly in the Southern tip in Granada, okay? And that's hard to conquer, and it's very isolated, and basically kind of lives on its own, until finally in 1492, Ferdinand and Isabella, who basically unify the spains, they go, and they finally after that. - How did they unify them? - Well, she was, he's from Aragon, I think she was Castilian, and these are different kingdoms. This is why, historically, when people say, there is no Spain, it was called the Spains, 'cause you had different Spanish kingdoms, but with the marriage of these two, essentially it all became one, before that Portugal also was created. But anyway, they finally take Granada, and the Muslims, now here's where it gets really, I'm almost done with the story, but then I'll show you how it connects it today. They take Granada, and they give the Muslims who are half a million, they give them the ability to just stay Muslim, enforce your Sharia, but be good citizens, don't come and wage jihad. - They allow them to enforce their Sharia. - On themselves, in Granada, and Christians aren't there. This is like, we're letting you stay, do your things, what do you have 1492? - This is before 1492, okay. But the Muslims would constantly rebel, and they'd be uprisings, and they were conniving and working with other Muslims, the Barbary Muslims in North Africa, the Ottoman Turks, so they were trying to subvert Spain back to Islam. And that's when, basically, they conquered it, finally, in 1492, and they finally told the Muslims, okay, this is, now here's the interesting part, this is where they told the Muslims, okay, you either convert, become Catholic, essentially, or you leave the country and go back to Africa, where you came from Morocco, right? So, a fatwa comes out, a fatwa is an Islamic decree by a learned jurist, and this fatwa says, "Are you familiar with the concept of takea?" - No. - Okay, so takea is a well-known concept, it's a basic long story short, it's in the Quran, and what it is, it allows Muslims, if they feel they're under duress by the infidel, they can conceal their identity. They can, oh yes, yes, it's takea, so I can conceal and lie just to make sure I'm able to move the agenda forward. - Okay, so it's primary, a Muslim will tell you, no, no, it's okay, is about I can lie and conceal my, I can say I'm not a Muslim, I can become baptized, I can go to church, in a partake of communion, but as long as my heart is with Islam, it's okay. And I'm doing it because if I don't, you're gonna hurt me. But you're right, it's out of fear or it's out of conviction. Well, takea the word itself is even connected to the concept of fear, okay? And so it's supposed to be legally only if you feel you're under duress. Having said that, there's other, many other doctrines and elasticity that do allow Muslims to just lie in general if it's good for Islam, okay? And we can get into that. But strictly speaking, if you wanna use the word takea, it's meant to be only when you feel like you're in danger. But that doesn't negate the fact that there's other teachings that do allow Muslims to lie in general because they want to defeat the infidel. Anyway, the story's almost over. So they get this basically a decree you can do takea. So all these half million Muslims after being threatened to convert to Christianity or leave convert overnight. And they go to church and they partake of mass and communion. And this goes on decade after decade. And it reaches the point that the Christians are like, these people are better Christians than we are. But in reality, at home, there were still Muslims, they were still working to subvert Spain. They committed decades of their rights. There's too manipulate. I have a quote in Sword and Simitar from a priest, a Spanish priest who said, these people, you know, we couldn't believe it. They were better Christians than us. And generation after generation, they would teach their kids how to act, how to talk to seem like ideal Christians. But at home, they were jihadists, okay? So that went on for what's the outcome of doing that? Well, they out convert them to their suckers. That's the outcome. Well, they're doing that because, like I said, in the concept of takea, they're allowed to stay Muslim and stay in Spain as long as their heart is still with Islam and they're working for the Islamic cause. Then they can pretend to be Christians because that's what they need to do, not to get kicked out. Okay, so they're doing that. Isn't there a risk of somebody, like remember back, they want the, some say the second most influential, influential Muslim Razali, who he was worried at one point where a lot of Muslims started studying math and logic and geometry and philosophy. It's like, whoa, whoa, whoa, you guys are starting to, you know, when you become too logical, you're going to question what we're doing, what are motives, we don't need that. We want you to just study Quran. So weren't they worried that some of it could rub off and they can actually truly convert to Christianity? Yeah, that's been a concern then and today, okay? So even today, someone like Sayyid al-Qutbah who was one of the chief theoreticians of the Muslim brotherhood, he's Egyptian and he came to America in the 1950s and he basically was scandalized by how liberal American culture was women and men were freely talking and dancing. He goes back to Egypt and he writes all these very influential tracts and his long story short, what he says is, okay, these Western people, contrary to what we thought, yes, let's learn from them science, technology, anything that's useful for them physically but their culture is crap, basically. And the only true culture and civilization is to go back to Islam. So this has always been a concern and you find emanations of it historically as well, including in the concept of Takeda. So of course it was a fear, you know, well, you're gonna convert to Christianity, maybe you're gonna become a real Christian and maybe it even happened at some times. But to the all I'm at, to the scholars, that was worth it because we want to keep a base of Muslims in this area and hopefully we can reconquer it again. And if we lose a few, you know, and they become Christian, well, that's their problem because all I will send them to hell eventually, okay? So anyway, finally the Christians find this out and this is when they just expel them and say, okay, so and by the way, this is the context of the Inquisition. Now we hear about the Inquisition, right? It's this horrible monstrous thing and even the Inquisition itself, now modern historians have shown you it was actually. If you were a prisoner, you'd rather be tried by the Inquisition than by a secular court, it was more humane. But the context of the Inquisition is because you had all these people who pretended to be Christians, but they weren't and they were working actively against the Spanish crown. So they all got evicted, okay? Now, I've told you this long story, but I wanna now show you how it's applicable to today, all right? So let's look at the lessons. First, Islam invaded and conquered. Christians tried to fight back, it didn't work. Finally, you have the mustard seed and they start the reconquest, okay? And it's kind of like, you know, from being at a great level, you start from ground zero again, you have to build up. And we saw that map, right? And it took literally, for a start in the eighth century and it doesn't end until the 16th century. So we're talking about 800 years, okay? And all those lives lost. Seven million, yeah, they were taking. Exactly, I think that's a conservative number, okay? And so that's what, that was the price of getting rid of Islam. And we also saw, well, but there was this other issue where kind of like, if a Muslim comes and says, "No, no, I'm on your side. I'm a Christian in this context that they could be lying and they're actively working to the brink." And that still goes on today, by the way. In Spain. No, all over the world. Yeah, all over the place. Do Spaniards look at it as it was worth the lives of seven million? How did they view it? Well, it's, well, today, this is what's ironic. Spain, at least some of the government there, that you have so many left. as they call them, who want to bring in Muslim migrants and Muslims are doing the same thing over again. There's terrorist attacks or desecration of churches because in many places it's not being taught. Just like it's not being taught here. There's a concerted effort. The reason I wrote these books in many ways is because all this information has sort of been banned. When you talk about, we haven't even gotten to the crusades. But if we do, how they're presented today is literally the opposite of what they were. And this is all intentional. I always say that fake history is much more dangerous than fake news because fake news is ephemeral. But fake history creates these overarching narratives in our mind and we see reality through them. So that's why they're very dangerous and they've been very much weaponized and most people, this is what I was saying. A lot of people, if you're anti-Muslim or whatever, you can, you memorize a few Quran verses and say, "See? It's bad." But it's very hard to do it from a historical point. You have to go do all the research and no languages and this and that. But having done that, as I have, you will find that almost so much of what we're told, remember how I told you that Islam, just in the first century, what it did. It conquered literally two thirds of the Christian world. That continued, as I showed you with the Turks and what happened, and then you get a historian like John Esposito, who I knew him in Georgetown University, well known at the time. He recently passed away very old at the time. He was the editor of the Oxford Encyclopedia of Islam, for example, a very prestigious thing. This guy writes in one of his books called "Islam of Straight Path." He says, "Five centuries of peaceful coexistence between Muslims and Christians, elapsed before the Crusades came and ruined it all." So that time that I told you about when there was nothing but conquest, he calls that peaceful coexistence. I didn't even tell you the other things that happened in the year 1009, this is now still before the First Crusade. One caliph destroyed, according to the Muslim sources, 30,000 churches, because that's how Christian that region was, Egypt and Syria. And he destroyed the Holy Sepulchre, the holiest site in Christendom, which is built over where Christ is buried and resurrected. He calls all that peaceful coexistence, and then the problem starts with the First Crusade. This is how history has been so weaponized. What's the pattern? To me, sometimes you hear people say they start off with being peaceful religious leaders, so then they gain power, then they use the military against you, right? Do you notice a pattern of how they do to conquer places? Yeah, yeah, and this is actually based on the life of Muhammad and how the Quran was revealed to him. So if you look at the Quran amongst the scholars, the Muslim scholars, they divide it into one Quran, of course, but they call it, there's the Mecca Quran and the Medina Quran. What they mean by that is Muhammad's life, it begins in Mecca, this is where he's born, and then he goes to Medina, right? And there's a difference. So when he's in Mecca, his early years, and he's preaching Islam, he's weak, he's outnumbered, he's being mocked, and he has very, very few followers, most of them are just relatives and friends, and he has no political power whatsoever. During that time, he starts getting revelations from Allah, which are in the Quran, and this is where you get all these peaceful verses, okay? Nothing militant, it sounds, these are the verses that the Muslim apologists will constantly quote to you, okay? And there's so many of them, all right? Then he goes to, and he also, you know, he wouldn't, he even, some of the verses are about not fighting back, sounds very Christian. Then he goes to Medina, and he becomes essentially a warlord, and this is, he starts becoming more powerful, and at that point, he starts getting revelations that now if you're attacked, you can fight back. Then he gets really powerful and starts conquering various tribes, and then he gets the final revelation, which is now you have to go on the offensive, and he does go on the offensive. So even if someone doesn't attack him, you have to go conquer them, all right? Now, based on that, the Allama, the scholars have come up with two views. One is, it's in Arabic, it's called al-Nesikh Wil Mansooh, which means the abrogated and the abrogate Torah, which means when you look at the Quran, because if you don't understand this, their verses contradict one another. Some verses sound like pure bloodshed and murder, go slaughter, like nine-five is known as the sword verse, and it's just basically, you know, whenever the pagans lay, lay and wait and ambush for them, you know, attack them, kill them and slave them. And then you have the, the peaceful verses that I mentioned. So they concluded that the newer revelations that came into Muhammad's life have abrogated, which is a canceled, the older. So the final word on the matter is go on the offensive, okay? The other view, which is very pertinent to today, is that, okay, no, the whole Quran still applies depending on your situation. So if you find yourself in Muhammad's situation, when he was in Mecca, outnumbered and surrounded by infidels, yeah, you can preach the tolerant verses. If you find yourself now in a position where you're stronger, then yeah, you should go on the offensive and do the jihad, okay? And this actually has been unwavering. I've seen this all the time. In Syria, I remember when ISIS came about in Iraq, you had all these multiple stories of Christians who basically said, we lived side by side with our Muslim neighbors for generations. We've known each other. We used to help them and take care of them because they were poor, the Muslims. And the moment ISIS came, they completely betrayed them. And you know, they put, remember the noon, like the end for Nasarah, Christian, they went and put it on the houses to identify where the infidels Christian lives. And this isn't just one account, it's multiple accounts. So, and this goes back to another idea in Islam, which is circumstance, circumstance dictates behavior. So of your week and outnumbered, I'll close with a funny story I've given before. And it was with me and a Muslim colleague when I worked at the Library of Congress, you know, 20 years ago. And I basically, I had this, I was learning this stuff and I was telling him, and he was like, he's always maudering, claiming to be moderate, but I saw a radical streak in him. I know better. And he would tell me, I told him about wall, what about obligation, what about this and the final word is, you're supposed to do jihad and this and that. And finally he got frustrated and I made the point, I said, the Mecca versus our tolerance, but the Medina say, and then he threw his hands up and said, yeah, but I'm in Mecca. So his point is, I'm in the circumstances of when Muhammad was in Mecca, week and outnumbered. So of course I'm talking this way. I got what an interesting thing to say. I went outnumbered, seemed peaceful and, okay, so do you see a pattern of the same strategy that they took in America or, you know, parts of the West taking place right now? What's happening now is, I don't, there's no historical precedent to it because historically what happened is, the Muslims would come and nobody was going to capitulate to them, okay? Let's talk about the West, for example, okay, the Christians of the West fought back, right? This is what these books are. These are all constant warfare, constant battles, you know, a constant bloodshed and nonstop war, Spain is just one of the microcosms, like I said, but it's all around. What's happening now though, and we go back to this, you're questioning like how do our mind change, it's all being enabled, okay? So for example, I'll give you an idea. The word jihad, jihad in Arabic, it used to be that people would translate it simply as holy war, old orientalists as they were known scholars, they would just translate jihad into holy war. And that made sense because that's what it was. It was warfare in the name of Islam. But you will always get a lot of Muslim apologists who'll tell you, yeah, you guys don't understand the Arabic, it doesn't mean holy war, it means striving, struggling, you know, for a good endeavor, striving to do something. And they're absolutely right, but that also really underscores how dangerous jihad is because so historically, if you want to strive for Islam, you could only do it through holy war because nobody was going to just give in to you, okay? But there's always been other forms of jihad, other forms of struggling. And they have, they gave them, you know, jihad al-Lisan, that means jihad of the tongue, which means lying, jihad al-Kalam, jihad of the pen, which means propaganda, jihad al-Mal, jihad of money, which means I'm a rich Saudi, I finance, you know, jihadist organizations. And they even have a baby jihad, which is basically overwhelmed and flood the world with babies, all of them named Muhammad, which, and if you look now in Europe, you have various capital cities, then the number one newborn baby name is Muhammad, okay? So, but that wouldn't have happened historically because that requires, in this case, the West to be so appeasing and accommodating. So, Europe would have not done that, Christendom did not do that, nobody did that, it's the Indians and do that, Persians didn't do it, everyone fought back. But it's happening now and this, you know, the soft jihad is actually being successful only because the brains of Western people have been so adult and, you know, primed to accept it, to accept it, to be naive and just accept anything and, you know, oh, he just wants his religion, oh, who might, you know, all that sort of thing has made it very ripe for that particular soft jihad to become even more dangerous than the hard jihad. We're not worried about Muslims conquering America with swords, it's not going to happen, but it's happening through stealth, uh, surreptitiously and through all these various other forms of jihad lies, probably. You don't think they have any intention of long term taken over US? This is the way of life, it's a way of life, it's a way of life, for those who move through life differently, from some that dex to nights that never need an occasion, every detail is considered, every step, effortless, crafted from fine swayed and built with builder technology designed to move with you, because true luxury isn't about being noticed, it's about how feel. when you arrive. The FLB icon loafer made for the life you've earned. No, no, they would love to conquer by the sword. How would they do it? Conquest with me? Yes. Well, so the sword, and here's the thing. Keep in mind, we talked a little bit about history, and it's important to remember, because when you look at these countries, okay, nobody would have thought Egypt would have been Muslim. Egypt was more Christian than Europe. No one would have thought Turkey, Asia Minor, would become Turkey, okay? And these things happened very slowly and gradually, through conquest and slow conversions, because the Christians or whoever was being subjugated got tired of paying tribute, or couldn't afford it, or got tired of being mistreated, and they all converted. So, you have to remember that this, the jihad, the conquest, this is not an overnight thing. If you step back and zoom out and you look, it's a very slow gradual thing. Now, in the West, it's happening through, like I said, a sort of replacement and demographic change. I think it's more noticeable, let's talk maybe about Europe, Western Europe, where, okay, for the longest time, historically, as I show in these books, the Muslims tried to conquer Europe through force, and they got very far. In the West, they got to France, in the East, they got to Vienna, right, in 1683. America's first war, keep in mind, as a nation after independence, was with Muslims, who were operating exactly like ISIS, pirates, they're known as barbery pirates, and they actually would capture American vessels, sailors, and slave their crew. And I have a great quote in my book, Thomas Jefferson, at the time, what was an ambassador, and he met him and John Adams, they met with one of the ambassadors from barbery, and to try to negotiate a release of the American sailors. And Thomas Jefferson, he writes a letter to Congress, describing what happened in the meeting. And he says, we told this guy, the ambassador, one Abdul-something, that why don't we just cooperate, let's be friends, we can do trade and business, you know, why are you attacking us? And literally, this guy says, because our holy book, the Quran, calls you in infidel, our holy prophet Muhammad says, we have to attack you in slave you. He basically paraphrases that verse, I told you, Quran 9.5. Where's that document at this exchange with Jefferson? Well, it's in my book, I can read it to you, but it's in Congress, they have it, it's a letter that he sent. You found this in the Library of Congress. Yeah, yeah. No, no, I can, you want me to read you a little paragraph? Absolutely. I'll read you a little paragraph. And why I think this is very interesting is because, you know, people don't realize that, you know, even here it is. All right, so Jefferson, John Adams, they met with Tripoli's ambassador to Britain, Abdul Rahman, in an effort to ransom the enslaved Americans and established peaceful relations. So in a letter to Congress dated March 28, 1786, we still have the letter, the American ambassadors laid out the source of what was provoking the animosity of these Muslims, the barbary states. So he writes, quote, this is Jefferson talking now, we took the liberty to make some inquiries concerning the grounds of their pretensions, to make war upon nations who had done them no injury. And we observed that we considered all mankind as our friends who had done us no wrong, nor had given us any provocation. The ambassador answered us that it was founded on the laws of their profit, that it was written in their core on, that all nations who should not acknowledge their authority were sinners. He might, he probably used the word kef or infidel, that it was the right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners. And that every Muslim who should be slain in battle was sure to go to paradise. That's pure ISIS, right? In what year is this? This is 1786. That's unbelievable. This is well over a thousand years since the jihad that I described in this book. This is why it's at the end. And here you have the same exact logic that ISIS would say, and that we're told today, oh, that's not Islamic. It permeates the whole book, right? From the very beginning, this is how the Muslims were talking to the Byzantine emperor, the Muhammad talked to him this way. And here we are at the end, literally 1200 years later, and they're still talking that way. And what I very, most people are not aware of this. But if you look up Quran 9.5, that is what this man, which is the sword verse, that is what this Muslim was, was paraphrasing, okay? Because he says that, you know, the ambassador answered us that it was founded on the laws of the prophet, reign of the Quran, that all nations should not, who have, who don't acknowledge or authority were sinners. That means if you're a non-Muslim and you don't submit, you're a sinner, you're an infidel. And here it is, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners. And here's Quran 9.5, commands, when the sacred months have passed, kill the polytheists, wherever you find them, capture them, besiege them and sit and wait for them at every place and ambush. So he was paraphrasing the sword verse, which as I was telling you, the one that is abrogated, all the peaceful verses. So you see how ironclad this is from from the beginning to the end. But we've lost this knowledge. They don't want to, people don't know this anymore. And we're told on opposite story. We haven't even begun to talk about the crusades. And that, for example, has been so demonized through the fake history to make Christians feel like they own Muslims. What did you major in? What was your major in? History. History? Yeah. And specifically Islam or history? Well, my master's thesis was Islam and Christendom in Christianity. Did any professor in school teach you this exchange with Jefferson? Or you have to find out about it later on when you went to the library? No, no, almost everything I found is my own research. If it was when I was in Georgetown, especially they were trying to teach a very fluffy version of Islam. In fact, I had some conflicts there. Georgetown, when I was a Victor Davis-Handsome president, say that there was more freedom of thought there. But when I went to Georgetown, I didn't understand this at the time. I was very young. I didn't understand about how politically correct and woke is permeates. But Georgetown especially was, you know, getting, I think it still does, millions of dollars from Saudis. So it was very much compromised. And they did not like what I was saying and what I was writing. And I would get reprimanded. I still got A's, you know, but it was that's one of the reasons I had enough and essentially stop going there. So again, if you go back to the West, right, if they're, if Qatar is spending $7.4 billion into our universities, China's number two has $6.3 billion, right? What are they trying to do? They're trying to rewrite history because when you think about the model of communism, what is the first thing that they do? They get rid of all the books and they get rid of any material that says anything bad about communism and they keep anything that says anything good about it, right? So there's a similar model that some say, you know, communists took that playbook from Islam when they came in, right? Was there, was there a moment where, you know, you're asking yourself, what's, what's their motive? How are they seeing this money that they're putting it? Is it, is there an outcome? If I make an investment into property and I'm buying thousand acres of land and a city in Arkansas, I have to have an outcome. I'm planning on building XYZ. Why are they spending so much money? What is their outcome? Well, especially when you realize, okay, I mean, here, I'm looking at Saudi Prince, you know, donate 40 million to, okay, think of the culture and the society and the civilization of Saudi Arabia, okay, very draconian, very sharia-minded, okay? Or Qatar, same thing, or China, they're not sharia, but these are not, these are not patrons of the arts, okay? These are not people who just want intellectual freedom to flow and they're just giving money. Obviously, they're giving money for a reason because they want to influence what's being taught, okay? And that, that's what I was telling you about Georgetown. I experienced it firsthand because it was receiving, I'm looking at it right now, it got nearly 1.1 billion from the cuts of the government since 2005, and I was there actually right around 2000, I think four, when they were getting even more money. So that impacts, obviously, how they present Islam and how do they present it? Well, I just showed you that John Esposito, he was the head of that center, and he's the one who says, "Oh, before the first crusade." Before the first crusade, Muslims and Christians were living in peace in Germany, when it's actually, it was like, like I said, ISIS on steroids for three, four centuries. Let me ask you, if we just judge it based on success, one has to say they've been successful. If you just judge it on success of expansion, one would say they've been successful. So now that the question becomes, the founder of it is Prophet Muhammad. You know, I think, I think what makes Islam very successful, and this isn't an original idea to me, it's actually a lot of Christian theologians historically, not today, but I mentioned them in the books, was basically what the genius of Muhammad is that he basically created a religion that catered to man's most primordial desires and lusts, okay? So he basically created a religion that, so this is what they would say, they would say that the Christians would say, the reason Islam is so popular amongst these people is it's the easy religion. Today we have the conception that it's so hard, it's actually not. It was easy because, okay, all you have to do is say a few words. Now you can be a pirate in a plunderer, and you can go fight, and you can go kill, and you can rape, and you can enslave, okay, and you could get rich, and you either get all that, and if you die, well, you get the same stuff in heaven because you're going to go straight to heaven, okay? The greatest martyr is the one who dies in the G-Hod, and he goes to heaven where he has non-slops sex with supernatural women known as al-Huris, okay? And this is all in the Quran, this is Islamic doctrine. So to the simple Bedouin's mentality and other nomadic people, this was very appealing. And also, the other genius of Muhammad is what he did is he took his tribalism, right? A rabia seven century, immensely tribal, and he re-articulated it in a way that he basically threw a theological paradigm. So tribalism is, you know, you and me, okay, we're brothers, and everyone's our enemy, right? And that's tribalism, we're one tribe, and everyone out is, we're hostile against him, and it keeps extending, and you and me, and well, then our cousins also and etc. Okay. So here's the question. He took that idea, which was just innate to tribal peoples, like the Arabs, but he changed it subtly. And he said, okay, so now that your loyalty, and that's the word in the Quran, well, that is to fellow Muslims. And as far as non-Muslims, you have to hate them, and you have to disavow them. Even if they're your fathers, and your brothers, and your sons, and your wives. And he said, this is in the Quran, okay? So he made a very distinct line, just like tribalism does. Tribalism is very distinct. It's us against them. But now us became Muslims, the Ummah, as it's known. And them became the Qafar. And it didn't matter if their relatives are not. You know, many caliphs and companions of Muhammad in the various wars were praised because they killed their relatives, who were not Muslim, because that's what made them enemies. So that idea became very popular, and it resonated with tribal peoples. So first the Arabs, but then the Turks, also, who came from the steps, like I said, these are nomads. And also lots of the Mongols, not all of them, but some of them converted to Islam, the Burbers in North Africa. So the idea was that these nomadic people, nothing changed because their life was about rating the other and slaving and killing, right? And plundering. So Islam gave those peoples the same right to do all that. So it fit very normally. And at the same time, it was even better, because now, oh, if I die, I'm a holy martyr, and I get more of this in paradise. And whereas to be a Christian was hard. Christianity, you're supposed to curtail your violent impulses. You're not supposed to go rape and that sort of thing. So that, I think, is one of the reasons that explains its popularity then and now. It's weird to just have that make it this big, but who was Prophet Muhammad? Who was he? Who was he? Well, he was born from the Kudiyish clan in the dates that are given for him, or 570, he's born there. He was an orphan raised by his uncle, and then some time around, I think 610, he starts getting revelations. So he supposedly goes to a cave where the angel Gabriel appears to him and tells him, which means recites. OK, now it means read, but it meant basically recite, because he was ignorant or illiterate. And he would supposedly recite what Gabriel was telling him, which became the Koran. I'm giving you the Muslim version, because the non-Muslim version, the scholarly Western version, says all of that is nonsense. There's even one theory that Muhammad never existed, that he was made up by Arabs, because they needed some backstory for themselves. I personally believe, by and large, I believe, the Islamic traditional. So what is the Western, if you want to go a little bit deeper, what is the Western idea of who Prophet Muhammad was? Well, it's not consistent. Some would agree with the traditional Muslim. I think most people would. But there's different theories about, OK, well, actually, because if you look at the traditional Islamic canon, we have so much information about Muhammad. The Hadith is supposed to be what he said and what he did, and people recorded it through oral traditions, and then it gets sifted towards authenticity. And there's like literally volumes, thousands and thousands of pages of what he said and what he did, OK? And there's the Syrah, which is the biography of Muhammad, also very thick and compendious. Now, if you take all that at face value, then we know more about Muhammad than anyone from the seventh century. That's for sure. But modern Western historians will tell you a lot of that is just not accurate. It was some of it is outright forgery. And one, fringe school of thought says he never even existed. OK, that this he was made up. I don't-- How was he able to persuade and win over so many people? Well, it was a tactic. Well, his tactic, his initial tactic-- OK, so it didn't work. He was enemies, to his allies, to his followers. Well, OK, so as we saw when he was in Mecca, he didn't persuade much of anyone, because he had no power. So it was only when he became powerful that he was able to persuade people. And he persuaded them by literally putting a sword to their throne, saying, join me or die. I mean, that's what it was. To be a Muslim, the word Muslim, it's an Arabic word, and Islam. Now they have a pious veneer, oh, I'm a Muslim in Islam. All I mean is Islam just meant it comes from the same Arabic word for submit, OK? And a Muslim is one who has submitted. Well, what are you submitting to? Well, initially you were submitting to the sort of Muhammad. You were saying, OK, I'm going to join your bandwagon. I'm going to work for you. You're my captain, OK? But it also came to mean, in the Islamic context, I'm submitting to Allah through Muhammad, because Muhammad is his representative. He's his vice, or he's the spokesman for Allah. So Islam means submit to Allah, which in effect meant submit to Muhammad. And the Muslim is someone who submits to Allah, which, again, in effect means he's submitting to the teachings of Muhammad, OK? So there was nothing really special or pious or holy about that word. Only now we ascribe that to it. It's very hard for me to believe that a simpleton man like that with the sword build the second biggest religion in the world. It's very hard to comprehend. Well, it depends on the paradigm. You know, sometimes when you see pictures of Jesus, and it looks like a white guy, just a nice guy, what a nice guy. He would never lose his-- you know, he would never go do anything and there's documentation of what he looks like. And this guy was a driver. He was intense. He had certain moments that he would push people around. You're not just going to be a peaceful man at that era, and that's all it was for. You have to be tough. So what do we, as Westerners, get wrong about Prophet Muhammad because we have on set of blind spots? Well, I don't get anything wrong. I don't think you are, but we, as in Westerners in general-- again, our blind spots is, OK, I think, again, the main premise is this total misunderstanding of history and seeing the opposite of the truth. So the idea is, OK, if there's anyone bad, it's Christianity. This has been ingrained in our thoughts, as we mentioned earlier. And if anything, it's also connected. Are you familiar with the noble savage myth? So this comes into being. It's basically when Americans or Europeans are entering America and colonizing it. And before long, the natives, the Indians, Native Americans, become romanticized. And amongst people, they're the noble savage, which is, yes, they're impoverished, they're poor. But they live off the land, they're honorable, they're clean, they're not corrupt. And I think that-- so that idea has also come to, I think, apply to every non-Western person. If you're brown or black or yellow, you have this sort of romanticized veneer, which I think also applies to Islam, the way it's presented often. So all of these, like I said, these warped ideas have just become solidified in our head. And in 1999, a group-- because it was the 1,000 anniversary of the conquest of Jerusalem by the Crusaders, which was in 1099. And so I guess I would make it 900 years. Anyway, a bunch of Germans, Christians, did a mass walking pilgrimage to the Islamic world, wearing shirts in Arabic saying, I'm sorry, because they're apologizing for the first crusade. And again, so that just shows you they have no idea what the first crusade is. I didn't get into the point that the first crusade was actually a response to one of the worst emanations of Islamic atrocities against Christians that were going on at the time. So people don't know that. And they feel we have to be accommodating to the other. We have to be nice to Muslims. Look what we've done to them historically. And it's actually the opposite. It's Muslims did horrible things to you historically. And those evil crusaders were actually trying to write that wrong. So a lot of it, like I said, is historical amnesia. But it's also these warped philosophies that come especially into the '60s, what we call the left, which is just this Western civilization, Christianity. That's the source of all evil. And everyone else is good. And now it's our job to make up for it and apologize. What do they fear? What does their religion of Islam fears that the world figures out? What is their enemy? What is their fear? I think at this point, it's just amazing. I think the Muslims have so much contempt for Western people. I'll give you an example. It used to be when you have Christians and Muslims have like an interfaith dialogue. The Muslims would come and they would talk about, they would use the Mecca Quran. They would quote the peaceful, tolerant, favourable verses. Just a few days ago, this month, in Belgium, a Catholic church invites Amwaazan, a Muslim to recite from the Quran right before Holy Mass for them. And I listened to it in Arabic. And he literally chose a verse that's all about attacking idolatry and saying it's evil. And these Christians, probably if they know what he's saying, we'll think, we all agree with you, idolatry is evil. They don't realize that he's actually pointing to the crosses, to the statues, the icons in that Catholic church. And he's basically making a statement. So my point is, Muslims have become very emboldened. And it's just a reaction to how craven Christians have become. I call it Dormat Christianity. It's this idea that to be a Christian, I have to just lay down and-- Well, what did they fear? They have to fear-- The Muslims? Muslims. What did they fear? What is their concern? What did they worry that they don't want you to know about? Well, I think they fear that Westerners wake up. If Westerners wake up and know what I know, what I'm saying, yeah, that won't go well for them. Simply because it's so easy, like I said, physically and materially, they're weak right now. OK, you're probably familiar in Europe of all the problems that Western Europe is having with Muslim migrants and Muslims in general, in Great Britain, in France, in Sweden, in Germany. I know it's caught, you know, the Sweden has become like the rape capital of the West, and in all those countries, crimes have just skyrocketed based on the influx of Muslims, okay? But guess what? There's countries that, like, hungry and Poland that don't have this problem whatsoever. Why? Is it because Muslims didn't want to invade them? No, it's because those governments said, "No, thanks. We don't want it." So it was that simple. So this is what I mean. We're still in a point where Islam is actually weak, but if Western leaders and Western leaders are weak right now? Physically, of course. Imagine if the Western world had a jihadist mentality and said, "Okay, we are in war." I know, but I'm saying if they did, they could obliterate the Islamic world. I know, and I don't want it to happen. That won't happen. So then which of the denominations of Christianity are more aware of the history than others? And which one is a little bit naive? If I were to put them in order, I would say the orthodox is the best aware, then second would be the Catholic, and third would be the Protestant. And the reason for that is the orthodox are the ones who literally live our neighbors to Muslims, Eastern Europe, right, Greece. These are countries, Russia, that dealt with the brunt of the Islamic invasions. If you look at Egypt and Syria, those are orthodox Christians, Armenia is orthodox. So they know about it. The Catholics, because they have a long historical memory, and most of the wars and the crusades were Catholics, of course. So they too understood Islam, and this book, Defenders of the West, I chronicle eight lives, the lives of eight Christians, and I didn't pick it intentionally, I just wanted to get the best heroes, as I call them, and seven of the eight are Catholic, okay? But that's because that was it, Catholicism was really out war. The Protestants, like I said, they're the latest, they're the newcomer, and the problem is part of their founding stories is that Catholicism is horrible. And therefore, the enemies of the Catholics, maybe we're actually not so bad, who are they? Well, they were the Muslims. And like I said, this is why even in the early years, you had Protestants working hand-in-hand with Muslims. This is why I also believe if you look at historically Protestant nations, they're the ones with the biggest Muslim problem, right, Britain, Scandinavia, Sweden, Germany, they really have the issue. Because they are the most clueless about Islam. But again, there's good ones in all the religions, there's the smart Protestants, and there's who gets them the most, forget about not Christian, who gets them, who knows their playbook and their vision the most, out of all the religions in the world, who understands them the most? Well, themselves, obviously, outside of them, out of all the religions, out of all the religions in the world, who's out there to say, "We know exactly what their playbook is, we know exactly what they're doing." I would probably say Jews know best. Tell me why. Well, I mean, they have their issues with them, they live in the area, they tend to be smarter in general, not naive, again, it's a sweeping statement to make about a whole people. But if I were to say one religious group that gets, but of course there's liberal Jews as well, who would say the exact opposite, "No, we love Islam." But if you're asking me if I have to pick, it wouldn't be the Christians, well, like I said, it might be the Orthodox, it might be the Catholics, not their hierarchy, especially the Catholic hierarchy, because it's very pro-Islamic, it's very diplomatic. But if I talk to a Catholic, they know, okay, if I talk to an Orthodox, they know. But I also think if I talk to a Jew, they know too. I wonder. I wonder what. Jews too. I mean, there's a lot of Hindus who, like I told you, there was that, yeah, Hindus, there was that massive. There was that massive bloodbath, there's no people who suffered more and were massacred more in the name of Jihad than the Hindus over the centuries. They too know a lot about this. But again, it's hard to make a categorical statement about a whole people, but you'll find amongst them a lot who are. Best case scenario, worst case scenario, what happens by 2050? 45 years from now. What happens? Well, if you look at, you know, Pew Polls and about demographic changes, it shows that even if you stop migration in certain Muslim, German, certain European countries, there's going to be eventually a Muslim, a significant massive population, and it's going to essentially possibly even be the majority of certain countries. I think Germany was one that I remember seeing in one study that said something like by 2070 would be like half Muslim, and the thing is, game over at that point, all right? At that point, it's, let's put it this way, places like Britain have, I don't know, they say you'd less than 10%, they say, I think let's say 10%. And look at the problems that are happening there. So if that reaches, if that becomes 50%, yeah, I think they're done, okay? Because first of all, they're not allowed to fight back. They don't want to fight back a lot of them. They're already capitulated one way or other, demoralized. And the Muslims are very aggressive, very assertive, very confident, okay? So just 20%, 30% would be a game changer, so something like 50. So that's why even Muslims themselves boast and say, we don't have to do anything except just keep having sex and have babies. That's one of their claims, okay? And was. Are they wrong? No, they're not wrong, because again, again, the problem is too many Western people are myopic. They just, they care about the moment and they look at things and go, it's not that bad. And if you, like I said, I'm a historian. I look at things from a long view and no, these conquests that I'm talking about and a lot of them didn't happen overnight. It was gradual, it took centuries of infiltration and subversion. And that's exactly what we're seeing today. But people, because again, they're fixated on the moment. They can't step back. They're not thinking about what's going to happen to their children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren. So mathematically, purely mathematically, it's inevitable that it eventually happens. Well, mathematically. Well, Western people are in a decline, birth rate, okay? And Muslims are having a lot. So yeah, mathematically, given enough time, and that's why they boast that we will conquer you without anything. We're just going to take over, overwhelm you. There's nothing you can do about it. Well, I mean, there's, like I mentioned, there's a country that just can say we don't want you here, like Hungary and Poland. That was something to do. But these Western countries, even if they stop migration, a lot of them want remigration. I don't think that's very plausible. I don't think they have the spine to do something like that. So they're always going to have a Muslim population there, which is probably going to be outbreeding them, which means yes, it might take a long time, maybe 100 years, but just based on that alone, without them doing anything illegal, they will take over. Where have they failed the most to try to infiltrate? What countries and why? Muslims? Muslims. So I think China, Russia, where have they failed to infiltrate? Basically everywhere. The only place this is happening is in the West. The West has been primed for this. It's been so weakened. It's amazing. I was in Greece, and they were telling me all these Muslims come there, and I thought they would have a Islamic migration problem, but he was telling me, no, it's not so bad because they come there. They don't want to stay there. They want to go to Germany. They want to go to a Scandinavian country. They want to go to Belgium, because that's where they can get all the money. And they're going to, so it's not just like there. These aren't refugees just hoping to make it to some Western country. They have a plan. They're going to go to the rich country that's going to give them everything they want, OK? So that kind of situation doesn't exist outside the West. There's no non-Western nation that's going to do that for Muslims, and that's why they don't go there. OK, that's why they're going to the West, because it's just ripe for conquest. It's doing everything possible to kill itself. And the Muslims, I don't know, I can't blame them. They're exploiting the situation to their advantage. Have they failed in China? Have they failed in Japan? Have they failed in some of those countries? And if yes, why? If you are comparing it to what's happening in the West, absolutely, they've failed. And the reason why is because those countries are not idiots. They're not naive. They're not going to be taken over by the soft jihad, the one about, oh, human rights and oh, we have to help Muslims, oh, look at our crimes historically. They don't think that way, because they're normal. Their brain hasn't been adult by generations of, you're saying they're normal. Of course. Tell me more. Because they're not, they don't think the way we think, which is not, we, you and me, the Western way, which is, it's my job to take in, you know, millions of Muslims and it's my job to appease them and it's my job to suppress my religion and culture and heritage. Let's say I offend them. Nobody outside the West thinks that way, okay, especially Muslims, of course. And that's why the West is dying. And that's why China doesn't have this problem. India is not going to have this problem. It's only in the West that Muslims are focused because that is the weak victim that is easily exploited. We go a little bit deeper why they fail to expand in countries like China and India. Because, okay, and this goes back to what I'm saying, Muslims are weak, which means they're not going to expand in any of these countries the way they did historically. The way the way Islam expanded historically was with the sword, okay, that was it. And now a country like China or India, they're not, they can't go in with the sword and conquer. So, and, but they can't do that in the West either. So why are they doing it in the West and not in China? Because the West is allowing them and this is one of my main mantras. Everything that's happening to the West by Muslims is 100% being enabled and the ways being paid for them by Western policy, by Western politicians, by the Western, by the academics who prime our mind into thinking this way, being receptive to and apologetic to and wanting to appease Islam. All of that none of that exists outside the West. It's, it's insanity actually. Yeah, this, this concept, I read somewhere where they, they tried to, and I'm trying to see if it was Japan or if it was China. they try to spread the word and they try to expand and there was no interest and it wouldn't land at all culture like there's nothing we can do with the Japanese people i don't i don't know which one it was it was one of them and i wonder why is it more the pride is it more knowing is it more like this is not a serious religion or is it what the reasoning is why it's because those people have pride confidence and a desire to maintain their own civilization okay the Chinese there it's only in the west that you have this idea that i have to accommodate the other okay you're so in the west oh i have to give you the same rights you have to have your mosques oh i better not talk about christmas it might offend you oh i better not do this that okay that mentality which is sick doesn't exist outside the west you're not going to go to china and say oh i expect you guys to you know i don't offend me and you you have to like make room for my ways nobody's going to do that Muslims are not going to do that for you okay Hindus are not going to do that for you and rightfully so so the problem is that these countries because islam is inherently weak on the one hand and these countries all this is our way this is our country what do you want and islam can't force its way it makes no inroads in the west islam is again inherently weak but the west is in is weak on a metaphysical level which means they just they they're they they're capitulating left and right okay there was another if you're if you're not aware in the church of england the the angle can church just a couple of weeks ago they give they gave an award some talk about cooperation and tolerance or something and the awards named after a crusader right and they give it to a Muslim cleric on 9/11 the ceremony was on 9/11 summer 11 and this cleric it turns out wait this cleric it turns out was a fan of bin Laden and praise the bin Laden okay and it was only after a massive backlash that the you know like a week later they took the award back from him but this is what I mean and and the archbishop is a woman of course this is what I mean by the west is just primed for conquest everything about it is just it's opening its door it wants to be essentially raped and dominated and Muslims see that have a sense for that and they're coming in to take over and and what are and a lot of people are noticing it a lot of people are angry I don't know if you saw in England so after the people made their will known which is no more migration we want re-migration and after the authorities were more or less saying okay well you know just appease the people then it turns out there's video footage of in France French authorities escorting an illegal boat of migrants escorting them at night across the channel into Britain even though Britain supposedly pays them like a billion pounds to make sure that the the the crossings are clear and then they're met by an English authorities who bring them on the shore and give them food and shelter to the point that English people have to come and riot and fight saying what are you doing you're breaking the law because they are but then those English people are demonized the Patriots essentially in the media as you know the racist homo or Islamophobes you know the whole nine yards even though it's the authorities who are breaking the law legally and once again helping bring in a demographic that is openly saying it wants to conquer okay so that's the problem with the West that's why no other civilization has these problems because Islam can't do that to them and they're not going to let it be done to them whereas Islam can't do this to the West but the West has grown out of its way to let it be done to them what percentage of these guys are extremist in your in your opinion what percent because I know a lot of good Muslims and I work with them and I have no problem with them what percentage of them believe it to the point with their fundamentalists I'm not talking about the modern you know moderate or just say what percentage would you say obviously that's a hard question to answer I think it's a lot it's a bigger percentage than most people think however I have an analogy where I'll show you that even okay so I think everyone will agree I the smallest percentage I've heard very conservative is 10 okay that's very small I think it's more than that but let's say 10 percent okay and the analogy I like to give I call it the 100 Muslim candies so imagine if I give you a jar and has a hundred candies okay and I tell you but 10 percent of them might kill you right are you gonna eat from that and they're mixed up you don't know which is the candy are you gonna give it to your kids are you gonna give it to anyone are you giving it to your friends are you gonna give it to anyone a short of someone you hate no so I submit to you that that is exactly the situation when you bring large Muslim migrants populations millions at least 10 percent are gonna be bad for you okay they're gonna do what we've seen which is go stab people kill little kids crash trucks uh bomb churches rape women okay it's gonna happen you're accepting that you are openly saying this is okay all right whereas a normal person a normal a person would never give that jar to anyone because he knows in it's not all of it and I get it yes most of them are not gonna do that most of the candies taste great but at what point it does having the good candies does having the good Muslims does that outweigh the fact that you're gonna get the bad candy that will kill you or the bad Muslim that will go on a on a terrorist attack so that's the way I see it it's not a question about is the majority that way I don't think the majority is that way but it's really just just 1% is a problem right yeah so so you know if you say that way then that means you know regardless it's inevitable that some I just looked at what percentage of China is Muslim and it's a good percentage India 14% of the country is Muslims 24 of their MPs are Muslims added the 543 selected seats so if you go through the system first they bring the religion to your country then they get involved in politics then they go into the military China they have a major example in Erickin Tunis and ethnic Ugar he is currently the chairman of G Ugar autonomous region government and deputy secretary of Jampang's Communist Party committee so they're also gradually infiltrating politically there as well how did it happen in America I mean I've read some stories about how they started all of a sudden growing and you know how the first mosque was built but how did it happen in America how did it get in here well in America it's still actually very small if the numbers that I've seen are accurate something like 1% are only Muslim and a lot of something like half of them are African blacks who convert in prison okay or at least that was the number I remember a few years ago so the numbers okay so here's an interesting thing that people don't know in Islamic law very well known teaching if you as a Muslim you can't go willingly live in a non-Muslim country okay you can't go willingly and willingly historically that's what it was because of non-Muslim country by nature it's the infidel it's the enemy yeah why would you live with them okay but like I told you Islam is very elastic when it comes to the welfare of Muslims themselves and so once the west basically said oh yeah freedom of religion you can come build mosques you can come you know do whatever you want yeah then they started sending them and one of the other caveats that you can go live in a non-Muslim country is if you actually engage in what's called dawa which is preaching Islam trying to you know over converts way over the goodwill of people so that was so if you look in the you know if you're looking at 60s and 70s the people who are coming from the Middle Middle East and the Arab world most of them are actually Christians okay but it really started picking up with Muslims later on 80s 90s and increasingly so and it's being articulated again remember we talked about the takea and we talked about Spain and I told you I had lessons and one of the lessons that they wanted to keep that base Muslims in Granada and have them pretend to be Christians was to have to have a force there to try to reconquer so a lot of the Muslims are being sent to America and in Europe they have that idea in their head we are essentially we're jihadists okay again in the good term we are struggling we are striving on behalf of Islam and here we are in an infidel country and we're trying we're engaged in dawa we're trying to do whatever okay you see places in Texas where they're having this you know mosque problem sharia law problem and this is with a 1% minority so imagine in places like in Europe where they have like 10% the how aggressive it is and I've talked to those people and they tell me it's like a nightmare you know there's so many cities they don't even want to enter or go near because they're essentially taken over you know their Islamic enclaves literally please don't enter there and that's that too is coming to America it's it's happening slower because the population of Islam here is nothing like in Europe but it's the same trajectory yeah the president was given a speech at the United Nations you were kind of quoting it earlier I saw that part where he talked about what's going on with some of these places and and you see you know when you say Muslim Islam is weak right now with manpower right we see Hooties 10 years ago they had 30,000 people in their military they're at 350,000 right now they have you know taken over a handful of places already on the complete other choke point that we have you have the straight of Hormuz here and the other side is what Ben Al-Madeb or you know if I'm not pronouncing it correctly a mandat yeah well mandat straight and so Hooties are there you got IRGC on this side and every time we say are we eliminated ISIS we eliminated Al-Qaeda we eliminated they reappear in a different way somewhere else right so when you're saying they're weak and you see how Hooties and IRGC have control of two straights at least it seems like it to the world no matter how many times we say we own the straight we control it everybody is still waiting to see what Iran is going to be doing how did they have so much power right now in that region well okay so when I see say they're weak just so we understand, what I mean is, if let's say Islam, the Islamic world versus the rest of the world, and it's an all-out war, okay, they're gonna be done. If it's just Islam versus the West, okay, in an all-out war, just based on the technology that the West have, they're gonna be done, okay, it's just that the West doesn't think that way, it's never gonna try to attack them, that way. But they have it in the particular cases you were mentioning, they have that kind of power because it's local, it's there, they're, Iran's been there, the, you know, the Hormuz straits been, it's thing, right, for what, centuries, millennia, so they, they have that particular power due to their local proximity, right, they have the power due to the local proximity, no, no, they have control over these things just because they're, how should, how should U.S. and the rest of the world handle that as they're expanding, because if Houthis went from 30 to 350,000, they're twice the size of Israel, Israel's at 165, whatever their numbers, and they now have the third largest military in the, in the Middle East, I think Iran's number one at 610, and who was number two, Egypt was two or four, Egypt's number two, and then you have them at number three, should, should the rest of the world just kind of mind their own business and not intervene or should, what's your position based on the history? Well, okay, so this is a good question because you're, you're trying it in with Islam, I'm talking about Islam, right, history, and you're bringing this in. If the threat is that big, should we look side and will be fine? No, no, if there's a serious threat, of course, the threat, you know, it needs to be handled one way or the other, but here's my, my problem with that paradigm that you're presenting, which a lot of people do, is this, okay, we can talk about it as a real, politic issue, which means, you know, it's Iran, not from an ideological, religious point of view, we can just say Iran's the enemy for whatever reason, and it should be dealt with. But the question that you're asking, I think a lot of people are suggesting is, well, Iran is an Islamic power, and you are here talking about Islam, and then obviously Iran is horrible and we have to do something about it. Now, the issue I have with that is, and I hear this often, is, well, I still think it's a real, politic thing because historically, the West's problems with Islam came from Sunni nations, okay? It was the Sunni, all the people that I talk about in these books, historically, the caliphates were all Sunnis, okay? The Muhammad's followers, the Umayyids, the Abbasids, the Seljiks, the Ottomans, these are the Barbary pirates. All of these were Sunnis who terrorized. Now, I look at the West, and I see America, and right now, today, the most radical in my opinion, nations are Saudi Arabia, or this is the home of Wahhabism and celophism. I know everyone gets shocked because they've had a great PR campaign going on, but they're the home. That's the head of the snake. People of Islam, actually, they're the ones who use all their money to fund Wahhabi, which is the same thing, a radical literature, okay, all around the world, in the mosques, for example, they're the ones who funded terrorist organizations. Turkey is a Sunni nation, okay? The one country we didn't have a problem with historically, we're the Shias, the Persians, okay? It's kind of ironic, there were times, believe it or not, there was a time when Jews and Persians were attacking Christians, historically, like in the year 614 AD, all right? So I tell you all this because I look, and you can't tell me this is a religious thing when I see that Israel and America is allied with the really terrorist nations, okay? The Sunnis, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, okay? That's actually the existential war was from there, that's where the ideology comes. So if you can ally with them, then this is not a religious war, because when I think of the grand jihad, it's not Iran. Iran is a terrorist state, I'm not arguing that, and it does what it does, and it should be attacked or should be neutralized for that. But if someone wants to make the argument that, oh, that's the head of the snake, and we can just neutralize Iran, everything's great, and we're friends with Saudi Arabia and with Egypt and with Pakistan and with Turkey, yeah, then this is not about Islam at all. This is actually diplomacy and real politic, and that's fine by me, I'm not arguing that. But I think we need to really clarify and get our terms correct and understand what this is. So is America and Israel at war with Iran? Yeah, they are. Is there a legitimate reason? Yeah, there is. It's not going to, it's not because Iran is Islamic, I don't think that. Because America and Israel's friends with even more radical Islamic nations is what I'm trying to say. So your concern is more Saudi than Iran? Yeah, from a historical perspective, from an ideological perspective, the West has been not war with the Sunnis. So one may say, well, look at what MBS is doing. He wants to bring business in, he wants to invest, you got, you know, even the most basic thing somebody would say is Ronaldo chose to go play over there. They want to bring sports, golf, soccer, all this stuff. Maybe they're realizing, Raymond, maybe you have a blind spot. Maybe they want to westernize and maybe they want to kind of become partners. Maybe that's what they're trying to. Maybe they just want to make money. What would you say to them? I would say remember the doctrine of Takeda and all the lies that we talked about and all the deception and all the, you know, all the leeway Muslims are given to actually deceive. Yeah, on the surface, they're doing all these reforms that's not changing what their religion is about, which is what I described earlier, okay, which is hatred for the infidel, which is biting your time until those circumstances right and then you expand and then you attack and then you subjugate. It makes perfect sense for the descendants of Muhammad, in this case Saudi Arabia, to be, to be friends with the West because he would have done the same thing when he was weak and outnumbered. That doesn't change the long term plan, okay, so that's why if you want to be, and here's my point, if you want to be enemies with Iran because it's Islamic, well, you should be enemies with all these countries. That would be more sincere and honest. But if we're friends with these countries, then whatever beef we have with Iran, it's not because of religion, it's not because of Islam, okay, because we are actually friends and in bed with the guys who are the historic and contemporary problem from a, look at the West in Europe, all the terrorist attacks, they're all Sunnis, I never hear of Iranians in Europe committing terrorist, nothing they don't exist, but it's it's always Africans from sub-Sahara, that's Sunni, it's always Arabs, Sunnis, it's always whoever, these are all Sunni nations. So, if our problem in the West was actually, if we wanted to get serious about the war against Islam, we wouldn't be buddy buddy with the, the countries that I mentioned Saudi Arabia, for example. All right. Again, this isn't to say that Iran is good, it's to say that if that's the case, then whatever issue we have with Iran, it's not about religion. I don't think Trump is the current president, I don't think he views it that way. I don't think he's a religious guy, I don't know, I know, study and say anything. But there's a lot of people who use that rhetoric and what they're doing is they're conflating different things. I agree, I think he's a businessman that's trying to broker deals and, you know, even, even just yesterday when the comment most, most made about, hey, somebody said, "Beebe's not happy with you selling F-35s to Turkey," and he says, "I don't report to that guy, I do whatever I think is right." So, what do you think about how close we are with Turkey right now and even empowering them? You think the long term they're a bigger threat than Iran in your eyes? So Turkey was the historic, you know, all the battles I talk about here towards the end in these books. It's Turkey, it's the Ottoman Empire, okay? This was Armenians, the Syrians, Koreans, the genocides, right? And they don't even want to admit it at this point, you know, everyone knows. But they were like, they were the scourge of the Christian world in Europe for centuries and they still have those designs, someone like Erdogan, you know, styles himself as some sort of neo-Autaman caliph or he wants to be. So Turkey is definitely a dangerous nation as far as its potential. And so, yeah, this is what I mean. If you want to be allied with Turkey, but then you say Iran's a bad guy, okay, that's fine, but that tells me the issue is not ideological. All right. This is an important reason. It definitely isn't. He's not a true believer like you are in this sense. This isn't something he's studied. Right. Last thing for the audience to have some fun with. You know, what can you tell us about Vlad the Impaler, you know? Was is he a good guy? Was he a villain? Was he a bad guy? You know, Vlad the Impaler is actually a perfect dimension in the context of what we're talking about fake history. And so he's in this book, actually, the chapter eight's all about him. And what's interesting about him is, okay, so we, Vlad the Impaler, we know he's Count Dracula, right? Count Dracula is a book written in, I think, 1890, something by Bram Stoker, some Irish guy. And he just, he needed a name and he got the name from this guy, Vlad the Impaler, whose real name is Vlad Dracula. Dracula means son of the devil or son of the dragon. It's really, his father was a member of the order of the dragon, which was actually a Christian nightly Vlad's father, Vlad's father and his father. So he was the Dracula, the order of the dragon, Vlad is Dracula, meaning son of the dragon, okay? So that's just his name. Now what happened is he just wanted, he wanted a name of some fierce guy and some guy told him, oh, use that name Dracula. So he put it on his book and now lo and behold Dracula is a blood sucking vampire who sleeps in the day and comes up at night. Okay. So back to the actual dragon, and why this all happened is, so he, what he was was basically Romanian, Wallachia, and he was taken, he was a, he was a prince, he should have been, they're known as boy voids, which means like warlord of Romania or Wallachia. He was taken, him and his brother would taken as captives because that's what the Ottoman Muslim Turks would do. They would take the most powerful men, the kings, they take their sons as captives to make sure, or hostages to make sure they behave. And so that the two sons were taken, Muhammad the Conqueror, Muhammad the Second who conquered Constantinople in 1453 was a young man then. and basically he turned his brother, Vlad's brother, Radoo into his boy toy. Yeah, he, because Muhammad II was bisexual and he forced, he forced the brother of Vlad to become basically a catamite. Like his second was a bisexual? Yeah, oh yeah, absolutely, and a pedophile and everything. And he's a hero in Turkey by the way. But Vlad would not relent to that kind of thing and he was very rebellious and he was always being whipped in the Ottoman prisons. Anyway, he somehow escapes the brother. No, the brother stays there the whole time and he's just basically the sex slave of Muhammad. Intentionally, like he enjoys it. So, while the original story is the first time Muhammad tried to make a sexual advance in him, he tried to kill him, Radoo, the brother. He freaked out, but then in this as he finally succumbed and gave in, and Vlad would not, Vlad escaped, and eventually he becomes finally the boy vote of Wallachia. Now, the situation's a mess there, okay? You have Hungary, which is a powerful Christian force and you have the Ottomans and Wallach is right in the middle. And the leaders, his predecessors, including his father are being deposed every year, okay? And his father was actually murdered by his own people and his brother was buried alive, okay? And he, while he was in prison, saw all the torture, experience of torture, saw Ottomans impaling people. So, when he finally comes back, he just, he becomes so ruthless. His logic is the only way I'm going to, I'm going to have any semblance of order is extreme draconian, you know, just law. Anyone who makes one false move, you're impaled, okay? And what he was doing, but then, of course, most of his wars against the Ottomans. And they, so they send, and they ask him for tribute. They say, okay, this is what, this was the normal behavior. The Ottomans would go to a Christian power if they couldn't conquer them and say, pay us. Basically, pay us and we'll leave you alone. Become a vassal. And they would also take their children, there were boys, and they would turn them into janissaries, okay? Which is, so they would take the strongest young Christian boys and convert them to Islam, forcibly, and raise them into jihadists, essentially. And they would become the most feared force of the Ottoman army. Then they would unleash them back on the Christians, and it would be like a perpetual cycle. So they went to Vlad and said, okay, you owe some back money, you've been on this throne, and we also want like 500 Romanian boys. And he said, no, and when the ambassadors came, it's got a funny, they climbed all these steps to see him, and they were wearing turbans. And he gets really annoyed with them, and he basically says, and by the way, why don't you remove your turban when you're in front of me, as a sign of respect? And they said, well, we're all religion, and our custom says we can't. So he had, he had his men nail the turbans on their heads and sent them back to Muhammad, not us true, and sent them back to Muhammad, saying, well, here, to make sure your turban never falls off your head, I'll help you. And then he sent them to Muhammad and said, and tell him, you're not taking our sons, nail the turban to their heads. They die when they just bleed from the blood. It says small nails. So I'm sure they were very damaged, and they're sent off. And at that point, Muhammad II, who is raping his brother, yeah, declares a massive jihad, and he goes, and invades Wallachia, and as usual, this Ottoman war machine, he outnumbered Vlad by something like 1 to 15, and then all that Vlad had were just like farmers with farm tools to fight. So they engage in guerrilla warfare, they can't meet the Ottomans head on, but they engage in terror tactics. Okay, that's what guerrilla fighters do. So at one night, Vlad, at the head of a couple thousand men, actually go into the Ottoman tent, the Ottoman camp, which is like 100,000 men, looking for Muhammad II to kill him. They wanted to assassinate the Sultan. Vlad went with Vlad, oh, he led the charge. Okay, and they killed a lot of people, but they couldn't reach the Sultan. And Muhammad was really shook by this. And anyway, after that, they continue, and they finally come to Vlad's castle, and what they see is what's called the forest of the impaled, literally thousands of Ottomans Turks impaled on stakes. Okay, and it's like very horrific site. So, and eventually, the Muhammad leaves at that point, and he leaves as the gay brother, Rado, who eventually over time, convinces the Wallachians to give up the war, and Vlad gets thrown in jail, but then he comes back out and et cetera. But now to the real story is, so later on, this is Vlad's life coincides with the Gutenberg press, and he was one of the first people who had a lot of propaganda by his enemies done, and he had various enemies, so they created this myth about him as just this extreme sadist who impales and kills, and there's some truth to it, but what we're not told is that's what others were doing too. That's what the Ottomans were doing. So he got really demonized, and then when you look in his actual correspondence and letters, and I have them in the book, in defenders of the West, he sees himself as a Christian knight, defending-- - He's the North of that, right? - Yeah, he's the North of that. Defending his land from the Muslims, from the terrorists, and he was known to be friends with monks, and he would hang out up monastery, he's all the time. In fact, after he was killed and decapitated, a group of monks took his body and buried it. He was a generous patron to monks. So he actually was a Christian in that sense, and he saw his crusade, as a crusade, against invading Islam. But it's funny because that's not the image we have, right? First, he's a vampire. But then even if you look at the historic source, he's often presented as one of the most evil men, but again, his historians know it's based on propaganda that was created at the time by his enemies, 'cause yeah, a lot of enemies. And that, yes, he was draconian. Yes, he engaged in what would be considered cruel, but so did everyone else at the time. That's what, see, that's the trick of history, where they make you think that, oh, like no one else was doing that. Everybody, lots of people were engaged in it. Did he have kids? Did he end up having kids that ended up becoming leaders and seek vengeance or no? No, I don't, there's not much he had, he had two wives, and there's very little known about him having kids, actually. I don't think he did. But when he died, was he a hero to his people? He's a hero to all today in Romania. So yeah, that's an interesting thing. In Romania, Vlad is one of the top, I think five most respected figures in their history for the reasons that I gave you. But to us, he's just a monster, right? Has there ever been a depiction, has there ever been a movie or documentary that tells a story the right way? Not the way that I tell it, chapter eight. So you have two Vlad, you have the Dracula, which is pure fictitious vampire. Then you have the one we're talking about. And I've seen some movies that engage in some of it, but it doesn't come out the way I read it from the book, who killed him, how did it kill him? But finally, with the Ottomans, the Turks, they finally, it's supposed, it's unclear what happened, but it seems to have been betrayal, like some Ottoman spy went there pretending to be a Romanian, and he worked with them and eventually stabbed them in the back. And they got his head, and they put it on the gates of Constantinople, which by then were conquered by Muhammad II. As a statement for all the impaling that he did to others. And what is the number to 20,000 or something I've read that, yeah, he impelled a lot of people, Ottomans. As a way of making a statement to his people, or as a way of fighting fire with fire, which means, look, I'm outnumbered, I'm weak, you're this Ottoman behemoth war machine, and I'm gonna terrify you. So worry your mindset to do, so he knew he was gonna eventually get killed. Oh yeah, no, his story is fascinating. Well, you're fascinating, man. I can sit here and talk to you for hours, and I'll look forward to our next visit, because I think two hours is not enough, but this has been incredible, sitting down with you. And if you're watching this, if you haven't yet gone and ordered a book, sword, and cemetery, we're gonna put the link below to go place the order for the book and support it, and we want this message to spread for more people. So if you enjoy the content as well, share it with others and ask them what they took away with this conversation with the great Raymond Ibrahim. Brother, appreciate you. Thanks, Patrick. - I am crafted across five Italian factories with build or technology underfoot. It may be the most comfortable shoe you will ever own. Introducing the all-new FLB shoe, finished a new chocolate curates a leather, made to move, built to endure, designed to impress.