'I don't think Matthew is a fan': Glenn responds to writer bashing his newest bestseller

September 18, 2015

WRITER

Glenn thanked his audience on radio Friday for helping spread the word about something nobody in Washington seems to understand or care about — the difference between a Muslim and an Islamist.

In his newest book, It IS About Islam, which has topped The New York Times bestseller list for the past three weeks, Glenn drew on quotes from the Koran and the hadith, as well as from leaders of ISIS, Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood to expose the true origins of Islamic extremism.

"You need to know the difference between a Muslim and an Islamist," Glenn said.

He went on.

"As I was thinking about this the other day, and I got the call that we were number one on The New York Times list again, I thought to myself, 'Hmm, isn't it weird that the leftists in America is so quiet on a book that's number one?'"

That was before Glenn found a Salon article written by Matthew Pulver, entitled "Glenn Beck’s terrifying new book: 300 pages of Islamophobia dressed up as scholarship."

"When I finished with the article, I started to realize, 'I don't think Matthew is a fan,'" Glenn said.

Glenn proceeded to set the record straight on every false claim brought up in Pulver's article.

Listen to the entertaining radio segment here, or read the full transcript below.

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it might contain errors.

GLENN: I want to thank you for making -- I think this is the third week in a row that we're number one for It Is About Islam.

This is the exposing of the truth about ISIS, al-Qaeda, Iran, and the caliphate, and it is important for you to understand it because nobody in Washington seems to understand it or seems to care. And there is a difference between a Muslim and an Islamist. And you need to know the difference between Muslim and Islamist.

And as I was thinking about this the other day, and I got the call that we were number one on the New York Times list again. I thought to myself, "Hmm, isn't it weird that the leftists in America is so quiet on a book that's number one?"

It kind of makes me and my security detail a little nervous. Why are they so quiet about this? Usually I -- I mean, they should have tried to put me out of business by now. Called me all kinds of horrible names.

PAT: Death threats. All kinds of fun things.

GLENN: All kinds of fun things. But then I found Matthew Pulver's gem, if I can call it -- truly wonderful. Just terrific.

PAT: It's a special article.

GLENN: It's a special article. Terrific.

STU: Is it phenomenal?

GLENN: Yeah, it is phenomenal. And this comes from Salon. And the headline is Glenn Beck's terrifying new book. Three hundred pages of Islamophobia dressed up as scholarship.

Now, it's interesting that he used Islamophobia Because I show you the root of the word "Islamophobia" in the book, where it came from, who started it, why they're doing it.

And he executes it perfectly. If he'd read the book, he would see exactly how he fits right perfectly into the game. But when I finished with the article, I -- I started to realize, "I don't think Matthew is a fan."

(laughter)

GLENN: Really.

PAT: I got that impression too.

GLENN: Did you read the article too?

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: Weird. And it starts out subtle. It starts out with: Glenn Beck would like to tell you about Islam. Sure, he's a walking conspiracy generator who has been wrong, nearly every time he parts his lips. Which is a lot -- I mean, that seems strong.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: But he gives me a couple of examples. He writes: Wrong about Obama's SS-like civilian national security force, which is interesting that he put civilian national security force in quotations because it's such a crazy quote. You've got to quote -- you have to put that quote in there because --

PAT: Then you know --

GLENN: Civilian -- how crazy.

PAT: He was actually quoting you.

GLENN: No. Actually, no. He was actually quoting, not me, but Barack Obama.

OBAMA: We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.

GLENN: Okay. So never had an explanation on that. And I have mused a few times on, "What the hell is that?"

Now we can argue all day over what he was talking about. But I can't be wrong about Obama's civilian national security force because he's the one who said they were going to build it. So I don't know what it is. But he continues and he says: Beck was wrong about Obama's FEMA camps, which is really an interesting one. We heard the rumors about the FEMA camps. And then we wanted to find out if there was anything about the FEMA camps. Is there any truth to that rumor at all? Have my staff, you know, go and do the work. Get on TV and say, hey, I just want to tell you, at 5 o'clock today, we're going to tell you the truth about FEMA camps. Let me tell you about FEMA camps. There's no FEMA camps. They don't exist.

STU: You didn't by any chance use your own resources and send cameramen to the actual location to show that --

GLENN: Of course not.

STU: You didn't invite someone from popular mechanics to disprove --

GLENN: No. To disprove the existence of -- yeah, that's exactly what I did.

STU: Okay.

GLENN: So then he says: Beck was wrong about Obama using the Postal Service as an evil spy network.

STU: I don't remember that show.

PAT: What?

GLENN: Okay. I don't remember that one. It's hard to say that I was wrong about something that I never even heard of, let alone promoted. But maybe I said it. I mean, I've said a million things times 1,000 over the last few years. The Postal Service being used as an evil spy network seems really stupid because, I mean, you know, you've got all the phone companies being used as a spy network. So why -- why would you go to the Postal Service? But, you know, I don't know what the story was. It might have made me say something like that.

PAT: You didn't.

GLENN: Are you sure?

PAT: Yeah. I've never --

GLENN: Well, anyway, he got the phone companies using as a spy network. I know that I've said under George W. Bush, I didn't like the fact that he was calling for people to spy on their neighbors and call us if you see something, call DHS. But hang on just a second. He actually said that, and Barack Obama tried to institute it through the White House. If your neighbor says something, you let us know at whitehouse.gov. So Post Office, I don't remember. But the other stuff was actually being done or was seriously debated. So if he's okay with the NSA monitoring of all email and phone conversations and saving up of all of that information. Okay.

Then he wraps up his slanderous -- sorry, what did I say? Then he wraps up his slanderous nonsensical accusations with this, quote: And the seemingly countless, breathless alarm warnings over the years.

The breathless alarm warnings over the years.

Now, he doesn't print this out. But I'm going to give you some of these warnings that's so breathless and nonsensical that I don't even know why I would say -- for instance, in 1999 when I said, quote, there would be blood and bodies in the streets of New York if we don't pay attention to Osama bin Laden. He means what he says. End quote.

In 2006, '7, and '8, when I warned people to get their money out of the stock market because there was a housing crash that was coming and it would be bad.

The breathless, alarmist warnings like encouraging the uprising in Egypt would lead to a destabilizing of Europe and the Middle East. And the destabilization would spread throughout the Middle East, and a caliphate would be established and then it would spread to Europe and destabilize all of Europe.

Or probably I was out of breath when I warned that Greece was about to collapse. That Germany wouldn't be willing to continue to lend Greece the money. That was crazy. Or my breathless warnings when I said Nazis will come back and you will find them in Greece, and you will find them, Nazis and fascists all over Europe. I was out of breath when I said that because that was a long sentence. Or the breathless alarmist when I said the fed would print money and then they would print more money. And then they wouldn't be able to stop printing more money. Or when I said that Russia would lead the world into a plan to dedollarize the rest of the world. And that China would stop buying our debt. That was breathless and alarmist. Because I remember them telling us, that China needs us. They will never do that. Or when I said that progressives would become so bold that they would admit finally, yeah, you know what, we are socialists because this capitalist thing doesn't work. So, yeah, there's nothing wrong with being a socialist.

Now, that warning is crazy too because isn't an avowed socialist leading the party in at least two primary states right now? Just wanted to point that out.

So I don't know Matthew Pulver at all, but he apparently has such blind rage, that he obviously didn't bother checking into a single fact. And the people at Salon are so sloppy and such hacks, that it doesn't -- they don't lose any sleep at night because that's what they do for a living. The hatred is so complete that this author finds himself enraged with the phrase "all lives matter." Now, I want you to think about that. All lives matter enrages you. He writes, all lives matter concludes the book as if Christian nationalism throughout needed a final splash of racism.

PAT: Jeez.

GLENN: Could I ask, when did the proclamation that all lives matter become racist? Because all, at least in my book, includes white, black, brown, yellow, red. All includes all. If I tell my kids, pick up all of your toys, if they only pick a few of their toys, I'm kind of pissed off at them. And I ask them, do you understand that I just said, pick up all of your toys? All means all. But maybe -- maybe it would have had a point if I concluded in my book that some lives matter or a few lives matter. Or only American lives matter. But I said all lives matter.

Then he goes into this. In a nice symmetry between the final white reactionary note recalls the scene on which the book opens. The Thomas Jefferson prophetically consulting the Koran before he became, quote, the first American president to go to war with Islamic radicals, end quote.

In the 1801 war with North American Barbary States, essentially the United States' first foreign war, Beck shocks his reader with a revelation by the Barbary ambassador in 1786 to Jefferson and his eventual presidential predecessor John Adams. The Islamic Barbary armies used Koranic scripture to permit the enslavement of a portion of enemies captured in battle.

Enslaving Americans, Africans doing that? But that's the wrong way around. And relying on pro-slavery scripture that isn't the Bible? Beck is so eager to construct a narrative in which Islamic hordes have always pounded the innocent American gates. Casually he overlooks the horror of the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade, of which Jefferson was no small beneficiary in the biblical means of its defense.

Now, Matthew, I have to tell you, I didn't -- what is it, casually overlook the horror of the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade. It's just, this isn't a book about the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade and its horrors. If you want a book about that, one that's been on the market for a long time is Roots. Great story. Not exactly true. It didn't actually happen to Alex Haley's family.

PAT: Still riveting.

GLENN: Still riveting and still basically true

STU: Why would you think Salon needed it to be true?

GLENN: You're right. You're right.

So he doesn't dispute the facts. He doesn't allege that I'm wrong about going to war in 1801 against Muslim pirates. He just thinks that I should talk about something else.

Throughout the rest of the article, Pulver vents obvious disdain and lack of understanding for both me, Christianity, and the Bible. And did I mention his disdain for me? And he doesn't cite a single fact that's inaccurate. This writer could apparently get past the fact that it is about Islam, rather than just some person or some group. But, see, that's the whole point of the book. It's not a nice -- I hate to boil it down to something so simple. It is about Islam, as we painstakingly documented in the book. The persons and the group get their ideology from the Koran and the Hadith, which we checked and rechecked with leading scholars and imams in the Middle East to verify that every word we said was true. Which is why I said and stand by, it is about Islam. An important book. One that you will not find anywhere else. But we're done mincing words. The truth has to be told. Available in bookstores everywhere. It Is About Islam.

'Rage against the dying of the light': Charlie Kirk lived that mandate

PHILL MAGAKOE / Contributor | Getty Images

Kirk’s tragic death challenges us to rise above fear and anger, to rebuild bridges where others build walls, and to fight for the America he believed in.

I’ve only felt this weight once before. It was 2001, just as my radio show was about to begin. The World Trade Center fell, and I was called to speak immediately. I spent the day and night by my bedside, praying for words that could meet the moment.

Yesterday, I found myself in the same position. September 11, 2025. The assassination of Charlie Kirk. A friend. A warrior for truth.

Out of this tragedy, the tyrant dies, but the martyr’s influence begins.

Moments like this make words feel inadequate. Yet sometimes, words from another time speak directly to our own. In 1947, Dylan Thomas, watching his father slip toward death, penned lines that now resonate far beyond his own grief:

Do not go gentle into that good night. / Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Thomas was pleading for his father to resist the impending darkness of death. But those words have become a mandate for all of us: Do not surrender. Do not bow to shadows. Even when the battle feels unwinnable.

Charlie Kirk lived that mandate. He knew the cost of speaking unpopular truths. He knew the fury of those who sought to silence him. And yet he pressed on. In his life, he embodied a defiance rooted not in anger, but in principle.

Picking up his torch

Washington, Jefferson, Adams — our history was started by men who raged against an empire, knowing the gallows might await. Lincoln raged against slavery. Martin Luther King Jr. raged against segregation. Every generation faces a call to resist surrender.

It is our turn. Charlie’s violent death feels like a knockout punch. Yet if his life meant anything, it means this: Silence in the face of darkness is not an option.

He did not go gently. He spoke. He challenged. He stood. And now, the mantle falls to us. To me. To you. To every American.

We cannot drift into the shadows. We cannot sit quietly while freedom fades. This is our moment to rage — not with hatred, not with vengeance, but with courage. Rage against lies, against apathy, against the despair that tells us to do nothing. Because there is always something you can do.

Even small acts — defiance, faith, kindness — are light in the darkness. Reaching out to those who mourn. Speaking truth in a world drowning in deceit. These are the flames that hold back the night. Charlie carried that torch. He laid it down yesterday. It is ours to pick up.

The light may dim, but it always does before dawn. Commit today: I will not sleep as freedom fades. I will not retreat as darkness encroaches. I will not be silent as evil forces claim dominion. I have no king but Christ. And I know whom I serve, as did Charlie.

Two turning points, decades apart

On Wednesday, the world changed again. Two tragedies, separated by decades, bound by the same question: Who are we? Is this worth saving? What kind of people will we choose to be?

Imagine a world where more of us choose to be peacemakers. Not passive, not silent, but builders of bridges where others erect walls. Respect and listening transform even the bitterest of foes. Charlie Kirk embodied this principle.

He did not strike the weak; he challenged the powerful. He reached across divides of politics, culture, and faith. He changed hearts. He sparked healing. And healing is what our nation needs.

At the center of all this is one truth: Every person is a child of God, deserving of dignity. Change will not happen in Washington or on social media. It begins at home, where loneliness and isolation threaten our souls. Family is the antidote. Imperfect, yes — but still the strongest source of stability and meaning.

Mark Wilson / Staff | Getty Images

Forgiveness, fidelity, faithfulness, and honor are not dusty words. They are the foundation of civilization. Strong families produce strong citizens. And today, Charlie’s family mourns. They must become our family too. We must stand as guardians of his legacy, shining examples of the courage he lived by.

A time for courage

I knew Charlie. I know how he would want us to respond: Multiply his courage. Out of this tragedy, the tyrant dies, but the martyr’s influence begins. Out of darkness, great and glorious things will sprout — but we must be worthy of them.

Charlie Kirk lived defiantly. He stood in truth. He changed the world. And now, his torch is in our hands. Rage, not in violence, but in unwavering pursuit of truth and goodness. Rage against the dying of the light.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Glenn Beck resurrects the 9-12 Project to support Charlie Kirk's family

Glenn Beck is once again calling on his loyal listeners and viewers to come together and channel the same unity and purpose that defined the historic 9-12 Project. That movement, born in the wake of national challenges, brought millions together to revive core values of faith, hope, and charity.

Glenn created the original 9-12 Project in early 2009 to bring Americans back to where they were in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. In those moments, we weren't Democrats and Republicans, conservative or liberal, Red States or Blue States, we were united as one, as America. The original 9-12 Project aimed to root America back in the founding principles of this country that united us during those darkest of days.

This new initiative draws directly from that legacy, focusing on supporting the family of Charlie Kirk in these dark days following his tragic murder.

The revival of the 9-12 Project aims to secure the long-term well-being of Charlie Kirk's wife and children. All donations will go straight to meeting their immediate and future needs. If the family deems the funds surplus to their requirements, Charlie's wife has the option to redirect them toward the vital work of Turning Point USA.

This campaign is more than just financial support—it's a profound gesture of appreciation for Kirk's tireless dedication to the cause of liberty. It embodies the unbreakable bond of our community, proving that when we stand united, we can make a real difference.
Glenn Beck invites you to join this effort. Show your solidarity by donating today and honoring Charlie Kirk and his family in this meaningful way.

You can learn more about the 9-12 Project and donate HERE

The critical difference: Rights from the Creator, not the state

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

When politicians claim that rights flow from the state, they pave the way for tyranny.

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) recently delivered a lecture that should alarm every American. During a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, he argued that believing rights come from a Creator rather than government is the same belief held by Iran’s theocratic regime.

Kaine claimed that the principles underpinning Iran’s dictatorship — the same regime that persecutes Sunnis, Jews, Christians, and other minorities — are also the principles enshrined in our Declaration of Independence.

In America, rights belong to the individual. In Iran, rights serve the state.

That claim exposes either a profound misunderstanding or a reckless indifference to America’s founding. Rights do not come from government. They never did. They come from the Creator, as the Declaration of Independence proclaims without qualification. Jefferson didn’t hedge. Rights are unalienable — built into every human being.

This foundation stands worlds apart from Iran. Its leaders invoke God but grant rights only through clerical interpretation. Freedom of speech, property, religion, and even life itself depend on obedience to the ruling clerics. Step outside their dictates, and those so-called rights vanish.

This is not a trivial difference. It is the essence of liberty versus tyranny. In America, rights belong to the individual. The government’s role is to secure them, not define them. In Iran, rights serve the state. They empower rulers, not the people.

From Muhammad to Marx

The same confusion applies to Marxist regimes. The Soviet Union’s constitutions promised citizens rights — work, health care, education, freedom of speech — but always with fine print. If you spoke out against the party, those rights evaporated. If you practiced religion openly, you were charged with treason. Property and voting were allowed as long as they were filtered and controlled by the state — and could be revoked at any moment. Rights were conditional, granted through obedience.

Kaine seems to be advocating a similar approach — whether consciously or not. By claiming that natural rights are somehow comparable to sharia law, he ignores the critical distinction between inherent rights and conditional privileges. He dismisses the very principle that made America a beacon of freedom.

Jefferson and the founders understood this clearly. “We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights,” they wrote. No government, no cleric, no king can revoke them. They exist by virtue of humanity itself. The government exists to protect them, not ration them.

This is not a theological quibble. It is the entire basis of our government. Confuse the source of rights, and tyranny hides behind piety or ideology. The people are disempowered. Clerics, bureaucrats, or politicians become arbiters of what rights citizens may enjoy.

John Greim / Contributor | Getty Images

Gifts from God, not the state

Kaine’s statement reflects either a profound ignorance of this principle or an ideological bias that favors state power over individual liberty. Either way, Americans must recognize the danger. Understanding the origin of rights is not academic — it is the difference between freedom and submission, between the American experiment and theocratic or totalitarian rule.

Rights are not gifts from the state. They are gifts from God, secured by reason, protected by law, and defended by the people. Every American must understand this. Because when rights come from government instead of the Creator, freedom disappears.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

POLL: Is America’s next generation trading freedom for equity?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

A recent poll conducted by Justin Haskins, a long-time friend of the show, has uncovered alarming trends among young Americans aged 18-39, revealing a generation grappling with deep frustrations over economic hardships, housing affordability, and a perceived rigged system that favors the wealthy, corporations, and older generations. While nearly half of these likely voters approve of President Trump, seeing him as an anti-establishment figure, over 70% support nationalizing major industries, such as healthcare, energy, and big tech, to promote "equity." Shockingly, 53% want a democratic socialist to win the 2028 presidential election, including a third of Trump voters and conservatives in this age group. Many cite skyrocketing housing costs, unfair taxation on the middle class, and a sense of being "stuck" or in crisis as driving forces, with 62% believing the economy is tilted against them and 55% backing laws to confiscate "excess wealth" like second homes or luxury items to help first-time buyers.

This blend of Trump support and socialist leanings suggests a volatile mix: admiration for disruptors who challenge the status quo, coupled with a desire for radical redistribution to address personal struggles. Yet, it raises profound questions about the roots of this discontent—Is it a failure of education on history's lessons about socialism's failures? Media indoctrination? Or genuine systemic barriers? And what does it portend for the nation’s trajectory—greater division, a shift toward authoritarian policies, or an opportunity for renewal through timeless values like hard work and individual responsibility?

Glenn wants to know what YOU think: Where do Gen Z's socialist sympathies come from? What does it mean for the future of America? Make your voice heard in the poll below:

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism comes from perceived economic frustrations like unaffordable housing and a rigged system favoring the wealthy and corporations?

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism, including many Trump supporters, is due to a lack of education about the historical failures of socialist systems?

Do you think that these poll results indicate a growing generational divide that could lead to more political instability and authoritarian tendencies in America's future?

Do you think that this poll implies that America's long-term stability relies on older generations teaching Gen Z and younger to prioritize self-reliance, free-market ideals, and personal accountability?

Glenn's Show Prep