Tuesday, November 10, 2009

Myth or Lie? The Fallacy of a Peaceful Islam in the West

Jacob PraschBy Jacob Prasch

Lie upon lie, politicians in most Western countries from Gordon Brown and Tony Blair to Bill Clinton, George Bush and Barak Obama continue to lie each time another act of Islamic terror is perpetrated against the West with the protest that Islam is a tolerant religion. The biased media machine is always prepared to propagate this myth as is the left wing academic establishment. In a recorded video Barak Obama even once referred to his “Muslim faith”, irrespective of whether that was an error or not, and it thus remains unclear if he indeed is a Muslim or not.

George Bush went on television singing the praises of Islam after September 11th and placed a Koran in the White House to honor it, commissioned celebrating Ramadan in the White House, and extended the express visa program to Saudis for a full year despite most of the 9-11 hijackers being Saudi and connected to the House of Saud who are, effectively, the Saudi government who funded Al Qaeda. As the UN ignores the Islamic genocide of Christians, choosing instead to condemn Israel’s self-defense against Islam, both the Bush and Obama administrations as well as James Baker acted against the interests of the families of the September 11th victims murdered by Islam by demanding that members of the Saudi government not be litigated against for funding Al Qaeda.

Now Barak Obama fails to call the Ft. Hood attack an act of terror and orders an investigation as to how a military medical officer could perform such an act of murder. The fact that the murderer was a fundamentalist Muslim yelling, “Allah hu akbar” already, of course, provides the reason why this devout Muslim psychiatrist with a penchant for sex shows murdered 13 Americans in an act of terror. Meanwhile Obama attempts to engage Iran even as Iran provides hardware to kill Americans and Israelis in Iraq, Lebanon and elsewhere and suppresses the human rights of its own internal opponents.

The fact that the oil whore liars of Washington, White Hall, the BBC, Harvard, and the Bush Ranch cannot produce a single Islamic country that is either peaceful or tolerant is something they expect us to ignore as they also expect us to turn deaf ears to the Christian church persecuted in heathen Islamic countries such as their beloved Saudi Arabia, where their true loyalty appears to rest. And once again a number of these popular myths are debunked by Muslims themselves.

First: Like the attempted airport attacks in Glasgow, Scotland by Muslim medical doctors, we again witness that terror is an integral component of fundamentalist Islamic belief to the degree that even the most educated Muslims in supposedly humanitarian professions are more than willing to perpetrate such acts. It is NOT only uneducated Muslims who are prone to terror. In a poll taken in 16 countries after September 11th, 63% of Muslims responded that they believed the suicide attacks were justified.

The Islamic doctrine of “Tahwid” teaches it is permissible to lie in order to advance jihad against non-Muslims. They can falsely claim to believe in peace and tolerance when they do not because of a religion that allows them to lie to non-Muslims whom they want to conquer or murder. Such Muslims do not often have to lie, however; there is a usually a President of the United States (either a Democrat OR a Republican) or a Prime Minister of Great Britain more than ready to lie for them.

Second: Once again we are witness to the implausibility of the ridiculous claim that there are Westernized or even Americanized Muslims who are like the rest of us. The Ft. Hood murderer and the Imam of his mosque are both American-born U.S. citizens. A fundamentalist Muslim can never be accepted or trusted as an American in the way people of other faiths can. Their faith is in a god of hate and requires a commitment to a religion of murder and terror which does not allow them to elicit such trust.

One of our expressed fears for some time is that in countries such as the United Kingdom, because the mainstream political parties will not defend Britain from the fundamentalist Islamic invasion, ordinary people are being driven into the clutches of the BNP (British National Party) as the only voice of honesty available and the only ones apparently willing to protect them and their country from this ugly cancer of violence, terror, murder, forced marriages of under-age girls, honor killing of women, and intolerance. It is a sad day when people are forced to support racists, some of whom are virtual Neo-Nazis fully capable of executing their hate against Asians, Blacks, Jews, Arabs, Gypsies and others because of mere skin color or ethnicity, in an act of desperation because of the failures of their own governments.

We are prepared to recognize that there may be individual, cultural Muslims who are not fundamentalists and who do, in fact, wish to live in peace with other communities, who are not Jew-haters or anti-Christian, and only wish to be good citizens. These too, however, are among the first victims of fundamentalist radicals as we can presently witness in contemporary Iran. The actions of Islamic fundamentalists can too often result in moderate Muslims being unfairly placed into the same category as the fundamentalists in the climate of fear the Saudi-funded CAIR organization creates. At least twice the U.S. Justice Department identified CAIR (Council for American Islamic Relations) officials with Islamic terror groups. Yet this organization is allowed to continue to operate inside the U.S. by our corrupt government.

There are two lessons of Ft. Hood that should have already been learned long ago but have not been, and if our corrupt government has its way still will not even in the face of this event. The first is that there is no such thing as a peaceful Islamic fundamentalism that is socially and politically compatible with Western values of pluralism, democracy, and tolerance. The second is that the politicians, left-wing academics, biased media, and Islamic spokesmen who say it is peaceable, tolerant and compatible with our values are liars.

Related Links


Thousands Honor Fort Hood Fallen - Wall Street Journal
What's behind America's politically correct 'love' of Islam? - WND
Obama Addresses Memorial Service Honoring Fort Hood Shooting Victims - FOX News
Obama: No religious faith justifies Fort Hood shootings - The Washington Times
Israel, the Church and the Jews - James Jacob Prasch (Book)

Daniel: On the Times of the Gentiles

David ReaganBy David Reagan

Let's take a look at the prophecies God gave Daniel about the end times, especially concerning "the Times of the Gentiles."

Two years after Daniel's arrival in Babylon, when he was about 17 years old, God gave Nebuchadnezzar a dream that greatly disturbed him. The king demanded that his wise men tell him two things — first, what he had dreamed and second, the meaning of the dream. Needless to say, the wise men were confounded.

When Daniel heard of the king's unusual request, he turned to God in prayer seeking a revelation of both the king's dream and its meaning. God responded by revealing these mysteries to Daniel. And Daniel, in turn, responded to the Lord with a psalm of praise (Daniel 2:20-23a):

Let the name of God be blessed forever and ever,
For wisdom and power belong to Him.
And it is He who changes the times and the epochs;
He removes kings and establishes kings;
He gives wisdom to wise men,
And knowledge to men of understanding.
It is He who reveals the profound and hidden things...
This psalm is very important for it summarizes the theme of the whole book of Daniel — namely, that God is sovereign, that He has a purpose in history, and that He has the wisdom and the power to orchestrate the affairs of men and nations to the triumph of His divine will.

Later in the book, Nebuchadnezzar makes a similar proclamation about the sovereignty of God after he had experienced the chastisement of God's discipline (Daniel 4:34b-35):
[God's] dominion is an everlasting dominion,
And His kingdom endures from generation to generation.
And all the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing,
But He does according to His will in the host of heaven
And among the inhabitants of earth...
Nebuchadnezzar's Dream

In chapter 2, beginning with verse 31, Daniel begins to reveal to Nebuchadnezzar both his dream and its meaning. He tells the king that in his dream he saw a magnificent and awesome statue with a head of gold, a chest of silver, thighs of bronze, and legs of iron. The feet of the statue were made of a mixture of iron and clay. He reminded the king that as he was admiring the statue, a large stone suddenly appeared — a stone that had not been cut by human hands. This supernatural stone suddenly struck the feet of the statue and the entire statue was destroyed. The stone then quickly grew into a great mountain that "filled the whole earth."

In verse 36 Daniel begins to explain the meaning of this mysterious dream, and what ensues is a breathtaking overview of Gentile empires from the time of Nebuchadnezzar to what we now call the Second Coming of the Messiah. Daniel reveals that the parts of the statue represent a succession of empires:
  1. Head of Gold — Nebuchadnezzar and his Babylonian Empire.
  2. Chest of Silver — The kingdom that will supplant Babylon, which Daniel later identifies in chapter 8 as the Medo-Persian Empire.
  3. Thighs of Bronze — The next kingdom in the series which, again, Daniel identifies in chapter 8 as Greece.
  4. Legs of Iron — The fourth kingdom in the series which we know from history was the Roman Empire which ultimately split into two parts.
  5. Feet of Clay and Iron — The last Gentile empire of history. The unstable combination of clay with iron suggests a loose confederation of nations that will exist in the area of the old Roman Empire.
  6. The Supernatural Stone — Symbolic of the return of the Messiah who will destroy the last Gentile kingdom and will put an end to Gentile rule by establishing the kingdom of God on earth.
The Age of Gentile Rule

As you can see, this prophecy is amazing in its scope, stretching thousands of years from the time of the Babylonian Empire to the establishment of the Millennial reign of Jesus upon this earth.

It is a period of time that the Bible refers to as "the times of the Gentiles" (Luke 21:24). It begins with the fall of the last king of Judah, Zedekiah (586 BC), and will continue until Jesus returns and re-establishes the throne of David in Jerusalem.

I think it is very interesting to note that this period of Gentile domination of the world is emphasized in the very language of the book of Daniel. In chapter 2, verse 4, the language shifts from Hebrew to Aramaic, the language of the Gentile nations at that time. And the text continues in Aramaic until the end of chapter 7. It switches back to Hebrew at chapter 8 because the focus shifts at that point from the times of the Gentiles to the ultimate fate of the Jews.

A Time Gap

Another interesting thing to note is that from our historical perspective, we can clearly see that the prophecy has a major time gap in it, something that is often characteristic of Bible prophecy. The gap comes between the fourth and fifth empires — between the legs of iron and the feet of clay mixed with iron.

The gap is obvious because there is no Gentile empire in history that corresponds to the empire of iron and clay, which Daniel tells us in chapter 7 will be a confederation of ten nations that will come together as a revived Roman Empire.

The Roman Empire ceased to exist in 476 AD. The eastern branch of it continued as the Byzantine Empire until 1453. Over the centuries there have been many attempts to restore the Roman Empire, the two most notable efforts being those of Napoleon and Hitler. But all efforts failed until the aftermath of World War II when it became obvious to European leaders that their only hope for rebuilding Europe was to reach across national boundaries and begin cooperating to build a European superpower.

That effort has produced the European Union, a revival of the old Roman Empire currently consisting of 27 member states which I believe will ultimately be divided into ten administrative regions.

Daniels' Dream

This prophecy about the succession of world empires was reconfirmed to Daniel 48 years later when the Lord gave him a dream. It is recorded in chapter 7.

Daniel saw a series of terrifying beasts that arose out of the sea, the sea being a prophetic symbol for the Gentile nations.

The first was a lion that had the wings of an eagle. The second was a bear that was raised up on one side and had three bones in its mouth. The third was a leopard with four heads and four wings. The fourth was a beast which Daniel described as "dreadful and terrifying and extremely strong." It had large iron teeth and ten horns.

What Daniel is seeing in this dream is the same succession of world empires that Nebuchadnezzar saw in his dream. The difference is that Nebuchadnezzar saw them from Man's viewpoint, as something magnificent and glorious. God reveals them to Daniel as He sees them — a series of ravenous beasts.

As Daniel stares in horror at the last beast, he suddenly notices that another horn — "a little horn" — rises up among the ten horns and pulls three of them out by their roots. This little horn has the eyes of a man and a mouth that is uttering "great boasts." In verse 24 of chapter 7, Daniel is told that the ten horns represent ten kings and that the little horn will subdue three of them and will then begin to speak blasphemies against the Most High God. This is the first appearance in the book of Daniel of the Antichrist who will head up the last Gentile Empire that will encompass the whole world. The fact that the last empire of 10 horns grows out of the head of the fourth beast is a clear indication that the final Gentile empire will begin as a revival of the old Roman Empire.

Related Links

Daniel: His End Time Prophecies - Lamb & Lion Ministries
EU officials consider nominees for new top posts - PRESS TV
Czech signs the Lisbon Treaty making European Union the world's super power - Examiner.com
Daniel: The Key to Prophetic Revelation - John Walvoord (Book)
Understanding End Times Prophecy: A Comprehensive Approach - Paul Benware (Book)

The Goldstone Report

Jack KinsellaBy Jack Kinsella

The United Nations Human Rights Council has formally endorsed the conclusions of the UN-commissioned "Goldstone Report" that accuses the government of Israel of war crimes during the Operation Cast Lead assault on Gaza Strip terrorists.

The 574-page report included accusations that Israeli forces indiscriminately attacked universities, mosques and civilian areas. Its pages are full of testimony from witnesses, or partial witnesses or, more accurately, non-witnesses who heard stories from their brother-in-law who knows someone who was almost there.

As South African jurist Richard Goldstone himself described it,

"We had to do the best we could with the material we had."
But if the Goldstone Report represents all the evidence they had, they didn't have much. One example of a non-finding contained in the report concerning the Israeli attack on Gaza's Islamic University read this way:
"These were civilian, educational buildings and the mission did not find any information about their use as a military facility."
They didn't look very hard. The evidence they were looking for was in the Palestinian Broadcasting Authority archives.

The Islamic University was previously featured as the site of clashes between Fatah and Hamas gunmen, with Fatah soldiers identifying it as a weapons laboratory for the new and improved Qassam rockets that Hamas fires by the thousands into Israel. Palestinian Authority television had a full display of the weapons cache found in the Islamic University at the time.

The report also condemns the destruction of several mosques in Gaza by Israeli fire, finding no basis for the Israeli allegations that mosques were used as launching points for Hamas attacks and as weapons storage facilities.

Israeli soldiers testifying at Tel Aviv's Rabin Academy after the war displayed first-hand photographs – not hearsay accounts from a friend of a friend – showing weapons stored in Gaza mosques and Hamas gunmen using mosques as firing platforms.

Goldstone complained that the Israelis did not cooperate with the mission, but, like the Palestinian television archives, the IDF testimony is publicly available for anyone, including the UN's "fact finders," to see.

One of the most damning condemnations against Israel centered around the disproportionate number of Palestinian vs. Israeli casualties. The Palestinians claim that some 1,414 Palestinians were killed during the operation, whereas Israel lost only three Israeli civilians and ten Israeli soldiers.

The UN's Principle of Proportionality is very important to the clueless diplomats on the East River. The major goal of any war is to inflict more casualties on the other side than the other side inflicts on yours.

That's how wars get won - one side runs out of fighters.

Under the UN's Principle of Proportionality, no developed nation is allowed to win. That would put the diplomats whose only job is conflict-resolution out of work. Instead, the Principle of Proportionality guarantees there will be enough terrorists to keep the conflict alive well into the foreseeable future.

The Goldstone Report alleges that Israel fired indiscriminately into Palestinian civilian areas, constituting a war crime.

Israel defended itself with well-photographed accounts of Hamas forces concentrating themselves in civilian populated areas. But the Goldstone mission couldn't confirm it because they couldn't get any of the locals to talk to them.
"The mission notes that those interviewed in Gaza appeared reluctant to speak about the presence of or conduct of hostilities by the Palestinian armed groups."
But if they couldn't get locals to talk, and if they didn't want to look at Israeli evidence, they could have paid attention to Hamas spokesman Fathi Hammad, who when interviewed described his organization as being at one with the people of Gaza:
"This is why they have formed humans shields of the women, the children, the elderly and the mujahideen, in order to challenge the Zionist bombing machine."
Israel says they hid behind civilians. Hamas says they hid behind the civilians. The civilians they hid behind were too scared to cooperate, according to the Goldstone Mission's own admission contained within the report.

But the Report concluded that Israel was to blame for the civilian deaths and that constituted a war crime.

Adding insult to injury, the Goldstone Report totally ignored the most relevant part of the entire Israeli operation: the reason it was launched in the first place.

Gilad Shalit was a nineteen-year old Israeli corporal kidnapped by Hamas forces in June, 2006. Hamas didn't kidnap Shalit inside Gaza during an Israeli military incursion. Hamas crossed the border into Israel where they ambushed an Israeli army border post.

During the attack, they killed two Israeli soldiers and kidnapped Shalit, who was incapacitated by a broken left hand and a shoulder wound sustained when his tank was hit by a Palestinian rocket-propelled grenade. Hamas is using Gilad as a hostage to pressure Israel into releasing legally-convicted Palestinians serving time in Israeli prison.

In September, Israel traded 20 Palestinian prisoners in exchange for a videotape that proved that Shalit had not yet been murdered by his captors.

In 1983, the United Nations passed an International Convention against the taking of hostages, titled General Assembly Resolution 146.

Article 1, paragraph 1, makes the taking of hostages an international human rights violation.
Any person who seizes or detains and threatens to kill, to injure or to continue to detain another person (hereinafter referred to as the "hostage") in order to compel a third party, namely, a State, an international intergovernmental organization, a natural or juridical person, or a group of persons, to do or abstain from doing any act as an explicit or implicit condition for the release of the hostage commits the offence of taking of hostages ("hostage-taking") within the meaning of this Convention.
To date, the UN has openly acknowledged that Gilad Shalit is a hostage, seized from foreign soil by agents of Hamas, for the express purpose of compelling a State (Israel) to bargain for Shalit's release. The UN acknowledges it as fact, but to date, has not issued a single word of condemnation against either Hamas or the Palestinians.

In the years between Israel's unilateral withdrawal from the Gaza Strip and the beginning of Operation Cast Lead, agents of Hamas within Gaza fired more than six thousand 'blind' rockets into Israeli cities and towns.

The rockets are fired 'blind' - those firing them have no idea precisely where they will land, whether on a kindergarten or in a civilian market crowded with housewives and their children. There is no discernible effort on the part of Hamas to target Israeli military facilities - the only possible targets are civilian homes and markets.

That was the provocation for Israel's Operation Cast Lead, but the Goldstone Report assigned it little relevance. The UN Human Rights Council wasn't interested in Palestinian atrocities - the target of the investigation was Israel.

After all, the Council's "investigation" into Israel’s response to the shelling of its southern communities by Hamas was preceded by an announcement of the opening of the investigation that found that Israel was responsible for “massive violations of the human rights of the Palestinian people."

("You're guilty, but first we'll give you a fair trial. And then we'll hang ya.")

The Goldstone Report is the UN Human Rights Commission's version of a fair trial.

The UN Human Rights Commission was replaced in March 2006 with the current Human Rights Council in response to complaints from the US and European Union of anti-Israel bias. The new Human Rights Council voted in its first session to make Israeli human rights violations a permanent part of the HRC's agenda.

Despite the HRC's anti-Israel bias was unashamedly carried over into the new Council, President Obama decided to rescind the US boycott and joined the Council in March, 2009.

The Goldstone Report doesn't just accuse Israel of war crimes, it also says that if Israel doesn’t conduct an investigation satisfactory to the Council, the UN reserves the right to prosecute Israel before the International Criminal Court in Geneva.

Since the Council had already reached its conclusion that Israel is guilty of war crimes, and has endorsed the Goldstone Report as having confirmed that assessment, it is clear that the only Israeli internal investigation the Council will accept would be one that reaches the same conclusions Goldstone did.

The international communities hatred for Israel is as white-hot as it is baffling. Israel has never started a war with her neighbors. There is no historical record of Israel ever attempting to provoke conflict with any nation - Israel's responses are historically reactive.

It is as if Mexico sent agents into the US to blow up supermarkets and kill civilians unless America surrenders Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California - and the UN condemned America. (Come to think of it, that isn't such a far-fetched premise, after all.)

There is NO reason that anyone can logically point to that explains the world's obsession with Israel. Israel came into being the way that the rest of the world's nations did. She was granted territory by Britain by virtue of the Allied conquest of the Ottoman Empire in WWI.

The same Allied authority that created Israel also created the modern states of Iraq, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Iran and drew the borders of the modern Middle East. If Israel's existence is questionable, then it is no more questionable than any other existing Middle Eastern state.

But nobody is questioning the legitimacy of Syria or Lebanon. Only Israel, whose land grant dates to 1917 and therefore actually predates the existence of any other modern Middle Eastern state to be carved out of the Ottoman Empire by the Allies.

It makes no sense in the natural. But it makes all kinds of sense from the spiritual perspective. Apart from proving the Divine inspiration of Scripture by its very existence, Israel is an offense to the world body for its status as the Chosen People of God.

Even though the UN is officially atheist, it cannot stand the idea that Israel is the Chosen People of God, even if they were chosen by Israel's God. The world rejects Israel's God in favor of the concept that God is whatever the rest of the world wants Him to be.

The existence of Israel is a constant reminder to the god of this world that his time is limited. The God of Israel cannot be reinvented to conform to the world's perspective - the God of Israel does not bow down to men - He demands that men bow down before Him.

If the god of this world has a 'church' headquarters, it would be the United Nations. The continued existence of Israel is a constant reminder to the god of this world that he has failed.

And that his time is almost up.

Related Links

UN chief to pass Goldstone report to Security Council shortly: spokesperson - Xinhua
The U.N. Human Rights Council: No Better for Obama's Engagement - The Heritage Foundation
Shalit advocates planning to renew campaign - Ha'aretz
Obama-Netanyahu meeting shrouded in secrecy - Israel Today
Israelology: The Missing Link in Systematic Theology - Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum (Book)

The Demon of Diversity

Dave WelchBy Dave Welch

"Everybody's looking for a 'why' answer, and I'll be honest with you, I don't think there's a 'why' answer. And that's probably part of the frustrating thing about being human," stated Army Chaplain Col. Frank Jackson at an "interfaith" service on Fort Hood.
With all due respect to Col. Jackson, he unwittingly illustrated precisely what the "why" is.

The Problem: A vital institution responsible for the safety and protection of the citizens of the nation incapable of making a moral judgment based on an absolute standard that left those within its ranks and within its protectorate vulnerable to predators. Who is this?

The Army – yes. The church – yes.

Army chief of staff Gen. George Casey Jr. appeared to express that the demon of diversity was of equal concern to military brass as the first order of national security in stating,
"As great a tragedy as this was – it would be a shame if our diversity became a casualty as well."
When did diversity take precedence over "protect and defend"?

I would certainly concur that prudence and restraint are appropriate, vengeance is not in order, and not all Muslims are represented in the heinous act of Army major-turned-terrorist Nidal Malik Hasan. The fact remains, however, that there is such significant evidence proving his previous links to a radical mosque, his open and consistent hostility toward this country and the theaters of action in Iraq and Iran, and erratic behavior that it can only be described as dereliction of duty by those in command above him for allowing him to remain in military service.

In addition, the "religion of peace" is inseparable from this incident regardless of how frantic our president and the pointy-headed bureaucrats in media, governmental and military circles are to deflect the truth.

We are again "material witnesses" to the chaos brought by religious pluralism and radical multiculturalism that functionally creates a standard of antagonism and hostility toward the "untouchable" caste religions of Judaism and Christianity. Even religious leaders and many, if not most, pastors are fearful of being branded as intolerant by preaching or speaking clear biblical standards of absolute truth.

The unwillingness of Army brass to remove the potential terrorist in a critical position of authority and influence over our sons and daughters is little different from the unwillingness of most pastors to stand against the "wolves" preying on the minds, souls and bodies of the men, women and children God has entrusted to us.

One of the reasons God admonishes us to be cautious about aspiring to be a teacher or leader is the solemn responsibility that leadership carries, because of the authority it wields and the dependence that proper submission to legitimate authority fosters. When leaders fail to believe and act on right principles, the people they are charged with protecting are as vulnerable as … well, as sheep.
"They were scattered for lack of a shepherd, and they became food for every beast of the field and were scattered" (Ezekiel 34:7).
Theodore Roosevelt warned:
"The things that will destroy America are prosperity-at-any-price, safety-first instead of duty-first, the love of soft living and the get-rich-quick theory of life."
We are guilty on all four counts in this generation, and the lack of courageous pulpits challenging such destructive life choices is a root cause of the disease.

The philosophy governing our army is a reflection of that governing our federal government, which is a reflection of that governing the people. I know, there I go again, blaming we the people.

Ideas have consequences, worldviews matter, and our decisions or non-decisions regarding governing authorities will bear fruit, either good or bad. We have this nonsense in our military system because we have it in our political system, educational system, the formerly major media and, most tragically, in the church, the very institution most charged with the protection of Truth.

When I wrote last week about the catastrophic consequences coming if Obama succeeds in creating affirmative action for sexual diversity in our military, I did not in my worst nightmare think that a horrendous illustration of this asinine thinking would explode within days.

We had better decide what we as God-fearing, freedom-loving Americans – particularly those who claim to be followers of Jesus Christ – are willing to die for so we can stand effectively against those willing to kill for their beliefs.

We should also fire every politician and military leader who won't do the same.

Related Links

Deadly denial - New York Post
Senate Panel Conducting Hasan Probe Warned of 'Homegrown' Threat - FOX News
Obama Travels to Texas for Service at Fort Hood - New York Times
What does the Bible say about a Christian serving in the military? - GotQuestions.org
The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) - Robert Spencer (Book)