On Tuesday, February 10, I appeared before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government to testify about Sharia. I gave a five-minute statement and then took questions from various representatives. Rep. Chip Roy (R-Tex.), Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), Rep. Mark Harris (R-N.C.), Rep. Harriet Hageman (R-Wyo.), Rep. Glenn Grothman (R-Wis.), and Rep. Brandon Gill (R-Tex.) asked incisive and illuminating questions.
As you’d expect, Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon (D-Pa.), and Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.) were deliberately obfuscatory, constantly nattering on about a fictional “white Christian nationalism” (for which Grothman finally called them out), assuming in the teeth of the evidence that Sharia is purely private religious law, and likening it more than once to Project 2025 as they attempted to shift the focus to the alleged misdeeds of the Trump administration in enforcing immigration law. At one point I referred to the success that Muslim Brotherhood operatives have had in getting U.S. non-Muslims to do their bidding and make them think they were righteous in doing so; of course I meant Raskin, Scanlon, and Cohen.
Here is my five-minute statement as prepared. When I read it there were very slight differences.
Robert Spencer
Testimony before Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government
February 10, 2026The US constitution and Sharia are incompatible, and the conflict between the two legal systems will grow as Sharia adherents increase in number in the West. This fact has been obscured by misinformation about what Sharia is. When the city of Keller, Texas scrapped an anti-Sharia resolution in January 2026, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, CAIR, stated that “like canon law for Catholics and halacha for Orthodox Jews, sharia refers to the rules that Muslims follow, including praying five times a day, fasting in Ramadan, giving in charity, and following the laws of the land in which they live.”
If that were really all that Sharia was about, no reasonable person would have any problem with it. CAIR doesn’t mention, however, that Sharia is inherently political, supremacist, expansionist, and violent. Far from being the “Islamophobic conspiracy theories” of CAIR’s imagining, these are facts that Muslim authorities on Sharia openly attest.
Reliance of the Traveller, or Umdat al-Salik, is a classic manual of Islamic sacred law, that is, Sharia. In 1990, Dr. Taha Jabir al-Alwani, President of the International Institute of Islamic Thought and president of the Fiqh Council of North America, stated that this Sharia manual was useful as “a textbook for teaching Islamic jurisprudence… or as a legal reference for use by scholars, educated laymen, and students.”
The most prestigious institution of Islamic learning in the world, al-Azhar in Cairo, stated in 1991 that the same manual of Sharia “conforms to the practice and faith of the orthodox Sunni Community.”
We read in this guide to Sharia that “Jihad means to war against non-Muslims,” and that jihad is a communal obligation upon the Muslim community. When a Muslim land is attacked, even in defense against its aggression, it becomes personally obligatory upon every Muslim. The object of this war is to establish the hegemony of Sharia over the conquered land. For non-Muslims, this means an institutionalized, highly codified second-class status that denies them basic rights.
Non-Muslims living under Sharia must “pay the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya)” that is specified in the Qur’an. This religion-based tax is designed to indicate, as the renowned Islamic scholar Ibn Kathir explained, that the non-Muslims who are paying it are “disgraced, humiliated and belittled.”
The non-Muslims in this state of disgrace and humiliation are not allowed to build new houses of worship or repair old ones, so their communities are in a perpetual state of decline. They are forbidden to make any public display of their religion. They are relegated to the most menial jobs in society, for they are forbidden to hold authority over Muslims. If they say anything critical about Islam, Muhammad, or the Qur’an, they are liable to be put to death.
From all this it is clear that Sharia is not simply Muslim personal religious law. On the contrary, Sharia law-based legal and civic institutions are contrary to America’s founding principles and may violate federal law and the Constitution.
The death penalty for mentioning what Reliance of the Traveller terms “something impermissible about Allah, the Prophet, or Islam,” that is, blasphemy, is directly at variance with First Amendment protections of the freedom of speech. The Islamic imperative to establish the hegemony of Sharia as the law of the land, as it is today in the Islamic Republic of Iran, Afghanistan, and elsewhere, is at variance with the First Amendment principle that the United States will not have an established religion.
Even in its personal aspects, Sharia contradicts U.S. law. The Qur’an states that a man should “beat” a woman from whom “he fears disobedience.” Domestic violence is a crime in U.S. law, but it is not a crime under Sharia. Britain began establishing Sharia courts several years ago, with the understanding that cases that came under the purview of British criminal law would be referred to the British courts. Instead, the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal on its website urged the Crown Prosecution Service to “reconsider” bringing criminal charges brought against Muslim men who had been accused of domestic violence.
This was no aberration. As Sharia is considered divine law, those Muslims who adhere to it consider it always to take precedence over the laws of the land.
Moreover, emigration to a new land to bring Sharia to it is also an Islamic imperative. The Qur’an promises a reward from Allah to those who “emigrate for the sake of Allah,” which means for the purpose of bringing Sharia to a non-Muslim land. Thus the conflict between Sharia and the U.S. Constitution will only grow as the Muslim population in the U.S. grows, for among that population will always be some Muslims who take these imperatives with the utmost seriousness.
Hank says
Wonderful. Congratulations. Now you need to do the same thing and testify in the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Sweden and the EUseless Parliament. Hopefully your next invitation will come from shattered, staggering, dhimmi Britain.
jerry glenn says
Right on.
Gonzalo Federico Cuñarro Podesta says
The UK is so bad that it banned Robert years ago, more than a decade, I think.
gravenimage says
Grimly true–he and Pamela Geller were banned because Muslims threatened to attack them, not because they preached any violence themselves.
࿗Infidel࿘ says
David Wood was also added to that ban, I think last year?
gravenimage says
Yes, in 2025–another brave and peaceful man. He presents no threat to Britain–it is Muslims who have threatened to attack *him*, and authorities who take the side of the violent thugs in banning him.
John1 says
Vetting Muslim immigrants is a finger in the dike, because they breed once here. Just ask Salman Rushdie.
Daniel Triplett says
Right. ANY Muslim can be vetted by examining the Quran & Sunnah, the sacrosanct, immutable Islamic Doctrine to which every Muslim pledge his soul.
Even with no more “sword” jihad, the Ummah will win this war just through “womb” jihad and hijrah emigration alone. Sword jihad will hasten this fate.
The global non-Muslim White race is literally going extinct: For every 20 who die each day, only 13 are born. Meanwhile, Muslims are intentionally multiplying exponentially like cockroaches.
OLD GUY says
David you are correct: The muslim/islamic migration invasion of the west will succeed as they will out breed us in a couple of generations and become the dominate population. If the western civilization is to survive we must stop the invasion NOW.
DIanne Mueller says
It’s no longer a surprise to me that today’s Democrats are so brazenly anti-truth. At least we still have a few Americans (like Robert Spencer) who are willing to take a beating for the rest of us when they speak the truth. I remember being a child and when caught doing something wrong saying, “It wasn’t me!” But what is the real game plan here, now, when people lie so blatantly? Even in the face of the obvious facts they still lie? As dangerous Shar’ia law is to nonMuslims, why do these liars not see that their necks are on the chopping block too? I thank God that we have a Robert Spencer to keep speaking out on these dangers. Do they not see the imminent death of Europe at the hands of Islamic jihadis? Do they think that their current power will save them from the same fate?
Daniel Triplett says
Today’s Democrats are not rational, reasonable people. If they were, they wouldn’t be voting Democrat in the first place.
Huh?!? says
This is a good start but more needs to be done. The U.S. must understand that Islam is a parasite. Islam must no longer be recognized as a religion in the U.S. It was interesting that a smoke screen of referring to ICE was brought up. That is a different topic. The statement was made that what is going on with ICE is happening in America and ” we are talking about Sharia.” Sharia is happening in the U.S. and must be stopped.
ME Infidel says
“..I referred to the success that Muslim Brotherhood operatives have had in getting U.S. non-Muslims to do their bidding and make them think they were righteous in doing so;..”
Do they really think they’re “righteous” or are they, in fact, Muslim Brotherhood accomplices and enablers? I choose the latter.
Hoi Polloi says
Well done, Mr. Spencer. You gracefully endured and persevered through all their attempts to shut you out of public and government decision-making forums. You continued to speak truth out of concern for real Americans, those Americans who speak truth and love this country. Thank you for your persistence through everything they robbed from you for all those years. Great will be your reward, and I hope this is just the beginning.
gravenimage says
+1
Timmy says
Freedom of religion is also at stake, for children born in America into Muslim families, they cannot leave Islam, they have no choice, no freedom of religion. America cannot afford to provide 24/7 security for Muslims who choose to leave Islam and live under a death threat for the rest of their life.
࿗Infidel࿘ says
Yeah, this is one aspect of sharia that needs to be covered. That if a muslim in the US chooses to leave islam for something else, that s/he is protected by the law. In other words, sharia can’t be used as a pretext w/ which to bully, much less kill him/her
Pray Hard says
“Can’t be used” is utterly meaningless to moslems. It will be used regardless of what we think, say or try to enforce.
࿗Infidel࿘ says
Pray Hard
Right, and when they do, they should then be arrested for violation of the law
Hoi Polloi says
And as I understand it, “If they say anything critical about Islam, Muhammad, or the Qur’an, they are liable to be put to death.” includes quoting their book directly and truthfully in a manner that exposes the truth of their beliefs and practices. Whether they admit this or not, this is definitely their practice in sufficient numbers as to be very dangerous to infidels.
rubiconcrest says
The 5 minute introduction by Rober Spencer touched on the many ways Sharia is in conflict with the Constitution. It was brief but a grand slam for the time allowed. He stated that with increasing Muslim population and political power ‘conflict will only grow.’ That was an understatement.
What the short hearing could not do is explore in detail the multiple ways ‘conflict will grow.’
Future hearings can explore these:
How sharia creates jihad terrorists.
Womens rights under sharia.
Minority rights under sharia.
How sharia driven immigration slowly changes societies.
How sharia is enforced in the Muslim community.
If a city council and Mayor in the USA was majority Muslim and did not protect individual rights guaranteed by the Constitution what should be done?
Even if sharia is banned and institutions cannot promote it what is to stop Muslims from continuing to believe they are governed by it and use intimidation to enforce it?
Since sharia obligates Muslims to engage in jihad terror it is not merely a lone wolf problem. Islam requires jihad. Does freedom of religion under Constitution protect jihad as a religious belief?
Chip, please feel free to add these topics for future hearings.
James Lincoln says
Robert Spencer:
Fantastic testimony before the U.S. Congress!
God bless.
GE says
+💯
gravenimage says
Hear, hear!
Taffy says
Many moons ago, I was the Government Relations Chair for a prominent US Engineering Society, and I took Society sponsored courses on communicating with Congress, and I applied that knowledge to advance certain engineering policy interests before Congress.
Your testimony was excellent in content. Addressing Congress, however, is not the same thing as addressing us on this blog. You should have assumed that the representatives and their aides know NOTHING about Islam or Sharia law. Don’t use more than middle school vocabulary. And turn your allotted 5 minutes into an effective half-hour by providing nicely bound written materials (so it’s less likely to end up in the trash can) that supplement your address, that they can take back to their offices and read and refer to. Also, name-dropping is usually not a good idea. Your congressional audience does not know the difference between Taha Jabir al-Alwan and Abdul Abulbul Amir. Also, I doubt that they read Reliance of the Traveller or know anything about the Shafi’i school of Islamic jurisprudence.
Remember that YOU are the expert testifying for their benefit! As such expert, state your conclusions as to why Sharia is incompatible with our Constitutional form of government. For example, the preamble to the Constitution states its purpose:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
In contrast, Islam and Sharia breeds violent radicals. Instilling fear in the infidels (those that do not follow Islam), to spread its teachings, is one of Islam’s tenets coming straight from the Qu’ran. [insert a few quotes here]. A goal of Islam is about conquest of the non-believer rather than our Constitutional purpose of advancing the general welfare. Contrary to our Constitutional purpose, Sharia pushes domestic tranquility aside in favor of violent acts against innocent people further instilling fear in the non-believers to advance the “religion.” [e.g. Boston Marathon bombings]. There is no freedom of religion for non-Muslims in Islam [Christmas parade vehicle jihad, attacks on synagogues and churches, etc.] In fact the Qu’ran states that Jews are lower than pigs, and Allah forbids a Muslim to take Jews and Christians as friends because they are the enemies of Islam and its people, may Allah curse them.
Its idea of justice and basic human rights is incompatible with our Constitutional form of government. [give the example of wife-beating and the shift from criminal courts to Sharia courts]. Anyway, you get the idea.
The most important point is that YOU are the expert who was invited to advise them. Imagine that you are a research physician invited to advise Congress on spending for lung cancer research. No one on that panel comprehends or cares about the molecular biology of mutated genes that cause adenocarcinoma of the lung. Rather, they want to hear your expert opinion as to what research is a good approach, likely to yield benefits that is worthy of funding. Draw the parallels!
Rooster says
Thanks for testifying to the truth about Islam, Robert. All Muslims ought to be deported out of America, no exceptions. What morons we have in Congress that believe Islam is a peaceful religion and Muslims will assimilate as Americans. The Crusades continue!
rubiconcrest says
The 5 minute introduction by Rober Spencer touched on the many ways Sharia is in conflict with the Constitution. It was brief but a grand slam for the time allowed. He stated that with increasing Muslim population and political power ‘conflict will only grow.’ That was an understatement.
What the short hearing could not do is explore in detail the multiple ways ‘conflict will grow.’
Future hearings can explore these and how they create dual societies in conflict:
-How sharia creates jihad terrorists.
-Womens rights under sharia.
-Minority rights under sharia.
-How sharia driven immigration slowly changes societies.
-How sharia is enforced in the Muslim community.
-If a city council and Mayor in the USA was majority Muslim and did not protect individual rights guaranteed by the Constitution what should be done?
-Even if sharia is banned and institutions cannot promote or Imams preach it what is to stop Muslims from continuing to believe they are governed by it and use intimidation to enforce it?
-Since sharia obligates Muslims to engage in jihad terror it is not merely a lone wolf problem. Islam requires jihad. Does freedom of religion under Constitution protect jihad as a religious belief?
Chip, please add these topics for future hearings.
࿗Infidel࿘ says
Shouldn’t the Dems have put Ilhan and Rashida on that committee, since they’d presumably know more about islam than Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), Mary Gay Scanlon (D-Pa.), and Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.) Putting a Jew out there – Steve Cohen – was pretty much inviting Robert to talk about muslim attacks on Jews, and their underpinnings in qur’an and sunnah
Some observations about the video:
⮞ 8:00 Tom McClintock used to be a respected conservative back in the day, when Arnold was more Liberal than him, but he’s changed in a big way. He talks here about the freedom of speech and criticizing the constitution, but would wife-beating then fall under the First Amendment covering religious freedom, since the qur’an recommends it in 4:34?
⮞ 9:00 Steve Cohen went totally off tangent in talking about the US constitution being violated by the President. The Pardon powers have been abused by even Democrat presidents, such as Obama w/ Bradley Manning. Even if one were to grant him that, how is the threat of shariah law supplanting US law not something worth discussing? As for his attacks, Steve Cohen is one of the reasons that an increasing number of people on the Right are at least considering, if not embracing, antisemitism
⮞ 13:00 Jamie Raskin raising Anders Brevik was typical tu-quoque arguments. Brevik was citing the documentary “Islam: what the West needs to know”, and criticizing the speakers for not following their recommendations to their logical conclusions
⮞ 18:00 The question by Mark Harris about balancing religious liberty w/ protecting people is precisely the reason that many people have called for de-recognizing islam as a religion. One could semantically argue that it is, but I have also seen communism classified as one. islam’s comparison needs to be consistently made w/ communism, particularly Soviet or Maoist communism, than w/ mainstream religions like Christianity or Judaism. Only then can intelligent conversations happen about it
⮞ 19:00 Brandon Gill, good as he is, is doing a disservice trying to separate “political islam” from islam. As Robert pointed out, all the ways in which islamic law violates the US constitution is pretty much there in the qur’an, as well as accompanying literature such as hadiths, tafseer and umdat al saliq. I know that he doesn’t want to attack the “religion”, and that’s precisely what my above point was: as long as islam is given the recognition of a religion, such as Christianity or Judaism, as opposed to a geopolitical ideology like communism, nobody will be able to safely criticize it
⮞ 21:00 One slight clarification here: while there are 56 members of the OIC, as well as the Pali Authority, some of the OIC members are actually non-muslim countries where muslims are a minority – Ivory Coast, Guyana, Gabon, Mozambique, Suriname, Togo and Uganda. That would make it about 50 countries, since these above 6 do not have sharia
⮞ 23:00 CAIR’s funding comes from Qatar as well, so if that were to dry up, so would CAIR. Sure, US muslims might pay them some zakat, but that dwarfs in comparison to what they get from abroad. Also, one appeal to Chip Roy and others on his committee: please avoid using fictitious terms like “islamism”: there is no equivalent of that word in Arabic, Urdu, Turkish or in other languages that are native to muslims, that is different from their words for islam
It’s good that such things were finally heard in Congress. Hopefully, they get more traction w/ a majority of Congressmen sooner rather than later i.e. before we are in the same predicament as Canada or Britain
Hoi Polloi says
Cohen, I see is a descendant of Jewish immigrants; he should well understand how islam views him. I’m surprised that his poor showing, if typical, doesn’t lead to his being voted out. There’s still time for his constituents.
As to the OIC, I thought they addressed the issue that not all of its members formally administers sharia, but allow muslims freedom to do so within the countries’ borders. By that standard, the UK (with its sharia courts) should be eligible, sad a statement as that is.
࿗Infidel࿘ says
Hoi Polloi
There are 5 countries that are observers at the OIC – Russia, Bosnia, “Turkish Cypriot state” (a little more real than “Palestine”), Central African Republic and Thailand. Of these, Russia allows its muslim provinces like Chechnya, Bashkortostan and Tatarstan to have sharia for muslims only, while northern Cyprus is a de-facto part of Turkey that no one recognizes. Not sure whether they allow sharia for their muslim citizens. Not sure about Central African Republic either, but I do think Thailand has no such provisions
Incidentally, India, which has the 3rd or 4th largest muslim population after Indonesia, Pakistan and Bangladesh, did have sharia for its muslim until recently, when the government dismantled much of it in the name of empowering muslim women. Also, India did try to join the OIC in 1969, but thankfully, Pakistan successfully blocked the attempt – the only good thing they’ve probably done in their history. One disapponting thing I saw was that a number of non-muslim countries have applied there either for full membership or for observer status: have no idea why?!?
Wellington says
Unfortunately, Mary Gay Scanlon is my representative in Congress. She is a well educated fool who is a total Leftist and a sterling representative of what has happened to the Democratic Party. I count on her to get virtually nothing correct, including what Sharia intends for all of us. And thank you, Robert Spencer, for all you have done to alert America and the West at large to just how inimical to freedom Islam truly is.
somehistory says
Back in the years, there was a group of entertainers who were called “the Rat Pack.”
The *real* “rat pack” was right there, trying to derail the whole issue….asking a question of Mr. Spencer, but then not allowing him to give a complete answer, talking over him and the one fool attempting to insult by saying Mr. Spencer is not “Ms. Bondi.” ICE and the rioters who caused such trouble that they were killed as a result, had nothing to do with the discussion.
And, if muzzies were successful, there would be no more real ‘law and order’ for these goons to pretend to consider as threatening the Constitution….which muzzies do on a daily basis.
The talk Mr. Spencer gave for the five minutes should be printed and handed out to all members of Congress, including the Senate.
Good for Mr. Spencer and good for those men who asked sincere questions.
GE says
What was it Jesus said somehistory?
“He who has ears, let him hear”?
Too bad Raskin and Cohen won’t listen.
somehistory says
Darn-tootin, GE.
They absolutely refuse to listen and believe themselves to be really smart.
And they likely have no idea what Jesus meant by what He said, if they ever heard or read it..
Pray Hard says
Based on the fact that this testimony was more than 20 years after 9/11 and over 30 years since the trade center bombing, tells me that we are in deeper doo doo than ever. Islam marches on and we’re still scratching our heads and waiting for our “leaders” to do something.
James Lincoln says
All tragically true, Pray Hard.
Walter Sieruk says
When Robert Spencer spoke before congress, he is a clear reminder that there is the sly and subtle as well as disingenuous non-violent methods of the goal of advancement of Islam with its Sharia in the United States by the means what is known and called the “Stealth jihad.” By this technique the Muslims who are the stealth jihadists are able to infiltrate the United States, and gradually, “inch by inch” and likewise “step by step.” Further, archive progression for their Islamic agenda for the advancement of Islam and to establish Sharia in the United States in place of the US Constitution.
To put this in another way, with America they would like to, if they can, enact Sharia as the law land instead of the US Constitution. Realistic or not, this is their objective.
To this end the stealth jihadists will and do use the Islamic of Taqiyya, which the modus operandi of speaks and printing lies that are very deceptive.
As explained in a more detail by a former Muslim and Hezbollah member who now a Christian .In his book he reveals” Lying , treachery and deception became Islam’s key tactics in conquering others. Those tactics are gathered in a doctrinal statement called “Taqiyya” which is one of the most effective arms for the spread of Islam. It means “Holy Deception” which means the use of every lie you can in order to spread Islam or to win the war against the enemy.” [1]
]1] Islam and the Son of God by Daniel Shayesteh , page 41.
Walter Sieruk says
Robert Spencer is right on the mark when he revealed information concerning the truth of the incomparably of Sharia and the US Constitution. this is something that the American public needs to know about.
Likewise., Americans should be aware of those stealth jihad- minded Muslims who are living in the United States ,and attempt to have Sharia law enacted in this country. Those facts that this is the United States, and has something that is far better than Sharia law. It’s the US Constitution. This is America, not Saudi Arabia or Iran.
As the former US President, Theodore Roosevelt, had well-spoken when he declared in a speech “There can be no fifty-fifty Americanism in this country. There is only room here for only hundred percent Americanism, only for those who are Americans and nothing else.”
Further, one subject about this is that stealth jihadists “are attempting to establish Sharia-based institutions in the U.S. This of course, is called is called the “stealth jihad” which is which by insidious infiltrate o the United States government both dangerously subversive to the US Constitution which Muslim who are engaging in the stealth jihad want to replace the US Constitution with Islam’s Sharia
This, in some ways, is very similar to the instruction printed in the book entitled THE ART OF WAR by Sun Tzu. Which reads, “At first, then, exhibit the coyness of a maiden, until the enemy gives you an opening; afterwards emulate the rapidity of a running hare, and it will be too late for the enemy to opposes you”
Furthermore, those stealth jihadists with their goal the furtherance of Sharia in the United States. one misconception that many Americans have is that of the tern used in the West, which is “political Islam.” That term is nonsensical and redundant as well as unknown in the Islamic world.
Therefore, it needs to be made clear as to why that Western term is nonsensical and redundant. As explained by two statements.
First, as for that term being nonsensical one devout Muslim who, truly, proclaimed “Islam is Islam.”
Second. as for that term being redundant, has been well explained by none other Ayatollah Khomeini who declared” All Islam is politics.” [1]
[1] THE ISLAM IN ISLAMIC TERRORISM by Ibn Warraq page 332
Mo says
God bless you, Sir!
Westman says
It seems congresspersons only recognize the future results of their delusional beliefs after the warnings become true and the, “We told you so, but you didn’t listen”, phase begins.
At least it is on record that the US has been warned multiple times about Islam, its conquering intentions, and Sharia law.
I didn’t see anything in the prepared introduction mentioning Islam’s penchant for persecuting Jews and the Quranic claim that Islam’s “god” approves of it.
————
It’s common to find a successful social organization that has no basis in religion and conversely no religion can succeed in permanence without an adjacent social life built into the religion. No, “worship only”, religion will last.
Muslims will not leave the religion unless there is at least another social sphere of equal or greater value available. No one should be surprised that actual belief in Muhammad and Allah may not be the reason for much of the adherence, particularly for the fearful dependent women, who know there is a general welfare system inherent in Islam.
In the West, where many Muslim families are on state assistance programs, the opportunity for females, particularly girls of college age, to leave, is much increased, resulting, for some, sadly, in hazing and honor killings.
Still, non-religious social organizations for Muslim women would be the most successful means to give them a path to self determination. Once, reaching critical mass, the organizations would be self-sustaining, offering a social life and emotional support during the transition to a nation’s normalcy and opportunities.
gravenimage says
There is *already* a social sphere in the West superior to that of Islam.
Westman says
Superiority is not the point. It’s a matter of support during transition, specifically for Muslim women wishing to leave Islam. The closest welcoming group would be a Christian church but that is beyond transitioning out. For safety, Muslim women would need to transition out of Islam and into self determination, first.
gravenimage says
I mean that non-Muslims societies, whatever their shortcomings, are better than Islam. This is especially true of the West.
Gonzalo Federico Cuñarro Podesta says
Robert is the warrior who never quits, therefore he can’t be beaten.
gravenimage says
+1
Gonzalo Federico Cuñarro Podesta says
Robert, please joing you efforts with TPUSA, Daily Wire, or someone with the guts to speak up. Don’t carry all the burden alone!
࿗Infidel࿘ says
I agree. The David Horowitz Freedom Center should pool together efforts w/ TPUSA and similar organizations. Two major things should be on the mission:
⮞ To make opposition to sharia and islamization of this country mainstream, so that it becomes difficult, if not impossible for the Ilhan Omars and Rashida Tlaibs to get elected
⮞ To oppose attempts to marginalize other non-Christian groups, in particular Jews, but also Hindus, Buddhists and others
That way, there needn’t be a fissure on the Right. I’m happy to let the Dems take all the antisemites out there
More than one threat says
It’s always the Left who make excuses for Islam; who try to appease Islam; who enable Islam; and who act as proxies for Islam.
Anyone who votes Left is the problem.
Without Leftist voters, there would be no Left Wing – Muslim alliance.
gravenimage says
Robert Spencer testifies before Congress about Sharia
………………………………………………….
So good to see Mr. Spencer advising America in an official capacity again! I was not sure we would see this. Kudos to him, and I hope a lot of these Representatives listen to his wise words about the threat of Islam.
࿗Infidel࿘ says
Yeah, I’m glad that his message is getting out there, and from neutral observers, can at least be watched on C-SPAN and similar platforms, as opposed to our echo-chambers
gravenimage says
+1
Ralph says
Robert Spencer is this old Marine’s hero. Well done, sir, for so long and so faithfully.
Eduardo Garcia says
If I had the same opportunity that Spencer had I will ask the Congress and Senate of USA to declare ILLEGAL, BAN the insidious, pernicious POLITICAL IDEOLOGY of Islam=Submission disguised like “religion”?, as is the Communism, with the same urgency that President Roosevelt did in Congress and Senate of USA December 8 1941. To allow Islam=Submission in USA is an INFAMY
Chatillon says
It is noteworthy that Robert Spencer was asked to testify in front of Congress. Some short years ago this would have been unthinkable. May it signify a growing awareness.
If the inherent political nature of Islam can be established, particularly its calls for supranational allegiance to the ummah or caliphate should that be re-established, then one solution might be to eliminate recognition of multiple citizenships. Muslims would then reside in the country only as resident aliens, subject to deportation for infraction of US Law.
gravenimage says
I hope so. Chatillon.
somehistory says
Mr. Cohen should be sent this where a muzzie says exactly what the ‘law’ of islime is.
“In a recent video one of ISCAP’s leaders, Bonge La Chuma, denounced the M23 rebels as “infidels,” emphasizing ISCAP’s aim of establishing sharia (Islamic law) in DRC.
In July 2025 the Islamists demanded that Christians either convert to Islam or accept dhimmi status as subjugated people and pay the jizya tax to their conquerors.
“Let the Christians of Africa know,” the group declared, “that there is no security for you except by Islam or jizya.”