What’s the Difference Between a Habit and a Headscarf?

Citizen Warrior, Sept. 3, 2017:

Why are some people vehemently against a Muslim headscarf but have no objection to a nun’s habit? What’s the difference?

The main difference is the ideology represented by the clothing. Islam’s ideology is 61 percentpolitical and only 39 percent religious. That is, 61 percent of the Koran is about what Muslims should do with non-Muslims.

A Muslim is obligated to strive to establish the law of Allah in all nations, imposing it against the will of non-Muslims if necessary. Islamic law is very detailed and specific, and includes the death penalty for apostatesand gays, women are legally only worth a half a man, etc. The Muslim headscarf is one of the few visible signs of a commitment to the fundamental principles of Islam. That’s why people are bothered by it.

But aren’t Christians are obliged to “establish the rule of Christ in all nations?” Isn’t a nun’s habit a visible sign of commitment to the fundamental principles of Christianity?

That’s seems like a legitimate counter-argument, but are there “Christian countries?” That is, a country where the “laws of Christianity” are imposed on everyone in that country?

So far, there are 58 Muslim countries, and orthodox Muslims are dedicated to expanding that. These countries have joined together to form the largest global organization outside the UN, and they form the largest voting bloc in the UN. They have been pushing to legally impose Islamic blasphemy laws on the entire world, which means legally nobody would be able to have this conversation, even in “free nations.” It would be illegal to criticize Islamic doctrine. It is already illegal in many countries.

Islam is having a huge and growing influence on world affairs. Everyone should learn more about this ideology. It isn’t like other religions. The closest religion to it is Scientology, and it’s not even close.

The assumptions people make about Islam are mostly wrong. But those assumptions are guiding our legal policies, and that is dangerous.

But wait a minute. Doesn’t all this only apply to the most extreme and fundamentalist followers of Islam? Wouldn’t the views of extreme and fundamentalist Christians be just as disturbing? It isn’t fair to paint all Muslims with this same brush, is it? We could say all Scientologists are bad people, but that isn’t the case either.

First of all, we’re not talking about Muslims. We’re talking about Islam, which is a set of written documents. It is a written ideology. When we say “orthodox Muslim,” we mean someone who follows the principles written in Islamic doctrine. Yes, of course, there are many Muslims who do not follow the doctrine, just as there are Christians who don’t follow the written doctrine in the Bible.

But what this argument obscures is that the orthodox Muslims are not misguided. They are doing what it says they must do in their written holy book. It says in the Koran 91 times that a Muslim should follow the example of Muhammad in every aspect. And Muhammad (according to biographies of Muhammad written by Muslims for Muslims) raided caravans, led battles, tortured people, ordered assassinations, and personally oversaw the beheading of 800 Jews. He captured and held slaves. He raped women. He started having sex with his favorite wife when she was nine years old. This is not horrible, slanderous rumor aimed to discredit Muhammad. This is taught with a straight face in Islamic universities, without any hint of embarrassment. This was the messenger of Allah and he could do no wrong.

A fundamentalist is one who follows the teachings closely. So the actual teachings make a big difference. And all we’re saying is that the teachings of Islam are dangerous to non-Muslims. In Islamic doctrine, Muslims are the best of people and non-Muslims are the worst of creatures. This is not a conspiracy theory. This stuff is very easy to find out. You don’t have to trust anyone’s opinion. Just read the Koran. The Muslims who are true believers (orthodox) are counting on people not wanting to know.

In a conversation about this, the other day, someone brought up a good example: the Amish. They have special dress and customs but they don’t seek to impose it on anyone else. That’s the difference. And it’s a big difference.

Look up the Holy Land Foundation trial. The FBI raided the house of a member of the Muslim Brotherhood in America and found a document laying out their plan for our country. So far they have 73 legal organizations in America bent on replacing our laws with Islamic law. One organization has been altering the way Islam is portrayed in school textbooks. One organization puts pressure on Hollywood to make sure Islam is portrayed positively in movies. One organization sues people who try to educate others about what Islam is, or gets them fired from their jobs.

Scientologists aren’t bad people, by the way. Most people who read the statements above would think I was slandering Scientologists. But I was talking about Scientology, the ideology. Specifically, I was referring to the “fair game” policy of Scientology. Again, it is a written document, and followed by the true believers. It says that if someone leaves Scientology (becomes an apostate), they are fair game. They can be tricked, lied to, sued, harassed.

But that’s not as bad as Islamic doctrine. Islam says the penalty for apostasy is death.

Think about something for a minute. If someone says they’re a member of a group that has a written ideology, would you assume they believe in at least some of the tenets of that ideology? Of course. Otherwise, why claim your membership? It’s not always the case, of course. Oskar Schindler was a member of the Nazi party, after all.

But if you could choose who would be your next door neighbor or who would date your daughter, would you voluntarily choose someone who claims membership in a dangerous ideology? They might not be “true believers.” But on the other hand, many Muslims who were perfectly nice people and not true believers were reached by the more orthodox who educated them on their obligations as a Muslim. They said, “You say you’re a Muslim, but have you read the Koran? Do you know what you should be doing?” And they are “radicalized” which is a politically correct way of saying they began following the written doctrine and the example of the founder of Islam.

By the way, I’m not a Christian. I’m’ not any religion. And I’m not out to slander any particular religion. All I did was read Islamic doctrine and biographies of Muhammad. I wasn’t trying to find out that Islam is evil. I just wanted to know what was really true because we’ve got some people saying it’s a religion of peace and some people saying it’s a religion of violence. I wanted to know for myself rather than listen to the opinions of others.

I went on a decade-long program of reading, including lots of pro-Islam books and the Koran, which I read twice from beginning to end. It’s a fascinating subject to study. Especially the life story of Muhammad. It is completely mind blowing that someone like that founded a religion. And that the religion (the doctrine, not the people) reflects his personality. I would never have believed it, and I can tell many people don’t believe it and don’t want to believe it. But if they want to be well-rounded, if they want to be an educated member of the modern world, it seems to me that one of the things they should really know about is Islam as it is, and not how they wish it was or how others want them to think about it. They should find out for themselves.

Oh yeah, back to the headscarf. The reason people don’t like it is that the headscarf says, “I believe in the tenets of Islam” and any non-Muslim who knows what those tenets are will not like them. Also, researchers have discovered that when the women in an area with a high Muslim population begin wearing headscarves, it is a signal that the Muslims in the area are becoming more devout (more “extreme,” more fundamentalist). It is a visible sign of increasing devotion to the fundamental principles of Islamic doctrine, which includes an intolerance for non-Muslims and non-Islamic laws, and usually foreshadows violence to non-Muslims and those Muslims who are “insufficiently Islamic.” That’s why people make such a big deal about Islamic head and face coverings. That’s why France and other countries have banned them and many are considering it. 

I personally think it’s foolish. If you have a  visible sign of growing fundamentalism, why would you ban it? To blind yourself? On the other hand, maybe it would help weaken the fundamentalism. And it would certainly help women be free of the obligation to do it in those countries.

What about the nun’s habit? Being a nun is voluntary. Catholic men are not likely to beat nuns if they don’t wear their habits, but orthodox Muslims have been known to beat Muslim and non-Muslim women who don’t cover up, and I have yet to read a report of a Catholic man throwing acid into the face of a woman because she was not wearing her habit. Orthodox Muslim men have done that in many places in the world.

People who are relatively ignorant of Islam are puzzled by the push toward banning headscarves, and would like to write it off as just ignorant bigotry. But if they looked a little deeper, they might find sensible reasons for it.

Twitter Flags Saying ‘Islam Is NOT a Religion of Peace’ as Possible ‘Hateful Conduct’

The logo of social network site Twitter reflected in a pair of glasses. Twitter says it suspended more than 375,000 accounts for violations linked to the promotion of terrorism in the last six months of 2016. Dominic Lipinski/PA Wire URN: 30627884

PJ Media, by Robert Spencer, Sept. 6, 2017:

A few weeks ago I noticed that the hashtag #ConfessYourUnpopularOpinion was trending on Twitter. So I thought I would have a little fun, posted the tweet below, and forgot about it — until this weekend, when I received this email warning me that the tweet was being evaluated for possible violation of Twitter’s “hateful conduct policy”:

Dear Twitter user,

We are writing to inform you that certain content on your Twitter account @jihadwatchRS has been flagged, for possible violation of Twitter’s hateful conduct policy (https://support.twitter.com/articles/20175054), specifically:

We are sending you this notification to allow you to evaluate it.

If it is determined that the flagged content does not violate our hateful conduct policy, Twitter may still withhold content in France if the content appears to violate the laws of France.

For more information on our Country Withheld Content policy please see this page: https://support.twitter.com/articles/20169222

If you believe we have contacted you in error, please reply to this email and let us know.

Sincerely,

Twitter

“We are sending you this notification to allow you to evaluate it,” said Twitter.

All right. Let’s do that.

I could quote violent passages from the Qur’an, but those might be waved away with the dismissive and erroneous claim that the Bible contains similar exhortations to violence. Let’s focus instead on what Islamic authorities say — because one should get the impression that Islam is not a religion of peace from the authoritative sources in Sunni Islam, the schools of Sunni jurisprudence (madhahib).

Shafi’i school

A Shafi’i manual of Islamic law that was certified in 1991 by the clerics at Al-Azhar University — one of the leading authorities in the Islamic world — as a reliable guide to Sunni orthodoxy stipulates about jihad that:

[T]he caliph makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians … until they become Muslim or pay the non-Muslim poll tax.

It adds a comment by Sheikh Nuh Ali Salman, a Jordanian expert on Islamic jurisprudence: the caliph wages this war only:

… provided that he has first invited [Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians] to enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they will not, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam by paying the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya) … while remaining in their ancestral religions. ( ‘Umdat al-Salik, o9.8).

Of course, there is no caliph today, unless one believes the claims of the Islamic State, and hence the oft-repeated claim that ISIS, et al are waging jihad illegitimately, as no state authority has authorized their jihad. But they explain their actions in terms of defensive jihad, which needs no state authority to call it, and becomes “obligatory for everyone” (‘Umdat al-Salik, o9.3) if a Muslim land is attacked.

The end of the defensive jihad, however, is not peaceful coexistence with non-Muslims as equals: ‘Umdat al-Salik specifies that the warfare against non-Muslims must continue until “the final descent of Jesus.” After that?

“ [N]othing but Islam will be accepted from them, for taking the poll tax is only effective until Jesus’ descent” (o9.8).

Hanafi school

A Hanafi manual of Islamic law repeats the same injunctions. It insists that people must be called to embrace Islam before being fought, “because the Prophet so instructed his commanders, directing them to call the infidels to the faith.” It emphasizes that jihad must not be waged for economic gain, but solely for religious reasons. From the call to Islam:

… the people will hence perceive that they are attacked for the sake of religion, and not for the sake of taking their property, or making slaves of their children, and on this consideration it is possible that they may be induced to agree to the call, in order to save themselves from the troubles of war.

However:

“[I]f the infidels, upon receiving the call, neither consent to it nor agree to pay capitation tax [jizya], it is then incumbent on the Muslims to call upon God for assistance, and to make war upon them, because God is the assistant of those who serve Him, and the destroyer of His enemies, the infidels, and it is necessary to implore His aid upon every occasion; the Prophet, moreover, commands us so to do.” (Al-Hidayah, II.140)

Maliki school

Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406), a pioneering historian and philosopher, was also a Maliki legal theorist. In his renowned Muqaddimah, the first work of historical theory, he notes:

[I]n the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force.

In Islam, the person in charge of religious affairs is concerned with “power politics,” because Islam is “under obligation to gain power over other nations.”

Hanbali school

The great medieval theorist of what is commonly known today as radical or fundamentalist Islam, Ibn Taymiyya (Taqi al-Din Ahmad Ibn Taymiyya, 1263-1328), was a Hanbali jurist. He directed:

[S]ince lawful warfare is essentially jihad and since its aim is that the religion is God’s entirely and God’s word is uppermost, therefore according to all Muslims, those who stand in the way of this aim must be fought.

This is also taught by modern-day scholars of Islam.

Majid Khadduri was an Iraqi scholar of Islamic law of international renown. In his book War and Peace in the Law of Islam, which was published in 1955 and remains one of the most lucid and illuminating works on the subject, Khadduri says this about jihad:

The state which is regarded as the instrument for universalizing a certain religion must perforce be an ever expanding state. The Islamic state, whose principal function was to put God’s law into practice,sought to establish Islam as the dominant reigning ideology over the entire world. … The jihad was therefore employed as an instrument for both the universalization of religion and the establishment of an imperial world state. (P. 51)

Imran Ahsan Khan Nyazee is an assistant professor on the Faculty of Shari’ah and Law of the International Islamic University in Islamabad. In his 1994 book The Methodology of Ijtihad, he quotes 12th century Maliki jurist Ibn Rushd:

Muslim jurists agreed that the purpose of fighting with the People of the Book … is one of two things: it is either their conversion to Islam or the payment of jizyah.

Nyazee concludes:

This leaves no doubt that the primary goal of the Muslim community, in the eyes of its jurists, is to spread the word of Allah through jihad, and the option of poll-tax [jizya] is to be exercised only after subjugation [of non-Muslims].

All this makes it clear that there is abundant reason to believe that Islam is indeed inherently violent.

It would be illuminating if Twitter produced some quotations from Muslim authorities they consider “authentic,” and explained why the authorities I’ve quoted above and others like them are inauthentic. While in reality there is no single Muslim authority who can proclaim what is “authentic” Islam, and thus it would be prudent not to make sweeping statements about what “authentic Islam” actually is, clearly there are many Muslims who believe that authentic Islam is inherently violent and not a “Religion of Peace.”

Are they all hateful “Islamophobes”?

Is Twitter going to drop this tweet, and probably soon enough ban me altogether, for telling unwelcome truths? Have at it, you simpering millennial totalitarians with your horn-rimmed glasses and your lattes. Before too long, the evil that you are enabling will turn its attention to you.

Is a Tolerant Culture Being Replaced by an Intolerant One?

Gatestone Institute, by Saher Fares, August 18, 2017:

  • One need not go back centuries to the Muslim conquest of the Christian late classical world — the medieval Barbary corsair raids, the Ottoman yoke in Central and Eastern Europe or the slave markets of Kaffa in Tatar Muslim Crimea — to understand that this violence clearly predates the European colonial era, the creation of the modern state of Israel, or the issue of climate change.
  • Countries such as China, Nigeria or Kenya that are not Western, not “imperialist”, notwhatever the excuses that Islamists make, are still spectacularly attacked by similar stabbings. Month on month, there seems almost nowhere that Islamic terror did not strike.
  • Volumes of revered Islamic texts establish in great detail the grounds of violence and oppression of non-believers and those deemed heretical. These supposed grounds — made alive daily in madrassas and mosques across the world before being acted upon by religiously-trained terrorists — are childishly dismissed by Western liberals as immaterial.
  • The first step towards a solution is to question the received knowledge tirelessly dished out by media pundits in the West. What is lacking is simply seeing a huge body of evidence of theological justification for Islamist terror.

How thin can excuses wear every time an atrocity is committed in the name of Islam?

When 13 people were killed and scores more injured this week in a vehicle-ramming attack in Barcelona, Spain, and stabbing men shouting “This is for Allah!” on London Bridge and in Borough Market in June, what the victims least cared about was the Western elite pontificating that the latest atrocity “had nothing to do with Islam”.

British Prime Minister Theresa May said, “It is time to say enough is enough” and promised a review of her country’s counter-terrorism strategy.

In the absence, however, of an honest and tempered look at the root causes of this terrorism, sacred or not, and a painful soul-searching by Muslims themselves of the grounds in their religion that give rise to such violence, it will never be “enough”.

On June 4, British PM Theresa May said, “It is time to say enough is enough” and promised a review of her country’s counter-terrorism strategy. In the absence, however, of an honest look at the root causes of this terrorism, and a painful soul-searching by Muslims of the grounds in their religion that give rise to such violence, it will never be “enough”. (Photo by Leon Neal/Getty Images)

One need not go back centuries to the Muslim conquest of the Christian late classical world — the medieval Barbary corsair raids, the Ottoman yoke in Central and Eastern Europe or the slave markets of Kaffa in Tatar Muslim Crimea — to understand that this violence clearly predates the European colonial era, the creation of the modern state of Israel, or the issue of climate change.

Only a fortnight ago, 29 Christian Copts were killed for refusing to say, “There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is his prophet” while on a trip to an Egyptian monastery on May 26. Separately, an unconfirmed number of Christians were killed and taken hostage by a mix of Saudi, Pakistani, Chechen, Moroccan and local jihadists in the southern Philippines during the past few weeks. In addition, 90 people were killed in a bombing in Kabul on May 31, and 26 people were killed at an ice cream parlor in Baghdad during Ramadan. None of these massacres had anything to do with “Bush’s war” in Iraq or U.S. President Donald J. Trump’s proposed “Muslim ban”.

Countries such as China, Nigeria or Kenya that are not Western, not  “imperialist”, not whatever the excuses that Islamists make, are still spectacularly attacked by similar stabbings. Month on month, there seems almost nowhere Islamic terror did not strike. In January 2014, there the kidnapping and forced conversion of Christian Chibok girls by Boko Haram in Nigeria. In March 2014, there were stabbings at China’s Kunming Railway Station in by eight terrorists of the East Turkestan Islamic Movement — male and female attackers pulled out long-bladed knives and stabbed and slashed passengers. In May 2014, there was the shooting at the Jewish Museum in Brussels. In June 2014, there was the murder of 48 people in Mpeketoni in Kenya, and the list goes on for just the first half of 2014 alone.

The slaughter at London’s Parliament Square; the Manchester Arena; the St. Petersburg Metro; Paris’sBataclan Theater and sports stadium; the three bombings targeting travelers in Brussels; last Christmas’s truck-ramming attack on a packed festival market in Berlin, to name but a few of the further incidents — all really had nothing to do with avenging the Congolese from the onerous legacy of King Leopold.

Rather, volumes of revered Islamic texts establish in great detail the grounds of violence and oppression of non-believers and those deemed heretical. These supposed grounds — made alive daily in madrassas and mosques across the world before being acted upon by religiously trained terrorists — are childishly dismissed by Western liberals as immaterial.

Meanwhile, men, women and children are being offered as human sacrifices on the altar of political cynicism. Divine justice will doubtlessly judge not only the murderers and a creed that often seems bloodthirsty, but also those who insist, against all evidence, that this creed has nothing to do with those deaths.

The first step towards a solution is to question the received knowledge tirelessly dished out by media pundits in the West, and confirmed by too many supposed Muslim “moderates” both at home and abroad. What is lacking is simply seeing a huge body of evidence of theological justification for Islamist terror. 

Have the statements by politicians in the 1990s (for example, at the time of Sheikh Omar Abdul-Rahman’s plot against the World Trade Center) changed from those uttered in the wake of 9/11, or again from those repeated after the San Bernardino attack in 2015? Do politicians give their “Islam is a religion of peace” platitudes out of political expediency or even the slightest knowledge of the ideology of Islam? Do they know actually know more about Islam than many of Islam’s learned ulema (scholars), including Ibn Taymiyyah, or the authentic hadith (actions and sayings of Muhammad)? One says:

“Allah’s Apostle said, ‘I have been sent with the shortest expressions bearing the widest meanings, and I have been made victorious with terror.'” (Sahih Al-Bukhari 122)

How does one read verses in the Quran such as:

“I will instil terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers. Smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them. This is because they contended against Allah and His Messenger. If any contend against Allah and His Messenger, Allah is strict in punishment.” (8:12-13)?

When it is said that Islam has nothing to do with verses such as these, is that meant to appease Muslims, comfort the victims of Islamic terror or support the comfort of the non-Muslim community? If it is the first, well, as history teaches, appeasement simply does not work. Besides, it would be an offensive to presume that Muslims, all Muslims, are to be held responsible for a creed that, in their own understanding of it, greatly varies from one individual to another. If the denial is intended to comfort victims, it does not. And as for the comfort of the non-Muslim community, what is being served up has to be based on what is visibly true. Should such arguments not first be pitched to try to convince those who are willing to kill and be killed in the name of Islam, rather than to those out to have a good time on a Saturday evening?

Will the time come when reformers in the Islamic world will have louder voices in scrutinizing Islam — despite the obvious dangers to their lives — than Western elites, who are merely afraid of being falsely accused of being “Islamophobes”? Why should it be “Islamophobic” to want to defend yourself? 

For nearly two years, a prime-time TV program by a young Egyptian reformist, Islam el-Beheiry, has called for an overhaul of the millennium-old compilation of hadithsHe argues that much of it is incompatible with modernity and the best understanding of divinity and prophethood:

“Such tradition has very little good amid a multitude of evil, least of which is the insistence by all the Four Schools of Sunni Islam that Christians can be killed with impunity. A Muslim life is ‘superior’ to that of a non-Muslim. Such is the Ijmaa’ (jurisprudence consensus).”

Beheiry was sentenced in May 2015 to five years in prison with hard labor for “defamation of religion” — thanks to Egypt’s blasphemy law. The sentence was reduced in December 2015 to one year. After serving most of his sentence, he was released on a presidential pardon.

Still, this Ramadan 2017, Beheiry was back again on the screen with a program he calls “The Map”, in which he is trying to build a scientific way of judging what he thinks is divine and what is not in the mass of Islamic literature.

Egyptian President Abdel-Fattah el-Sisi, an army general who in 2014 came to power following vast street protests against the short-lived rule of the Muslim Brotherhood, said it was no longer feasible that the Muslim World would set itself “in enmity against the whole world”.

Now, in Europe, some rightly ask: If one in a thousand is a bad apple, why should we judge all the apples. One also needs to ask: If one in a thousand apple blows up in my yard, how many more violent incidents will Europe get after bringing in a cartload of millions more? Or, what if the problem is not really with the fruit, but with the tree itself?

Why is a desire to preserve one’s own culture deemed racist? I do not believe that I am better because I am or am not a Muslim. Is it “xenophobic” to ask such questions when the violence keeps edging closer and closer to home? Why should it be “Islamophobic” to want to defend yourself? 

I do not fear Muslims, but I fear that a tolerant culture is being replaced by an intolerant, misogynistic, anti-Semitic and supremacist one — espoused, even semi-consciously, by much of the Islamic world today. It is a world that is being assured by its scholars that such intolerant, misogynistic, anti-Semitic and supremacist manifestations are, in all ages, in the best spirit of Islam.

Is it “Islamophobic” to be angry at such atrocities committed every day, or to be angry at politicians who lie about what Islam is and is not, and merely call their challengers names while failing to do anything to stop the atrocities?

Should European courts and parliaments criminalize free speech that criticizes this understanding of Islam among the bulk of Islamic jurists, when those jurists stand at the head of an assembly-line of suicide bombers targeting Western nationals?

Should those who ask questions about Islamic terror be ostracized by the mainstream media and academia, while those institutions themselves give no answers to the jihadist problem of “holy hate” in our midst?

I do not wish the world to turn against Muslims. I only wish the sages would stop and think if all this really has “nothing to do with Islam.” Can we not say, “stop justifying murderers in the name of your religion”? 

Can we not simply say that such creeds will not be allowed here in the West, will not be whitewashed, glossed over, or explained away by Westerners through a mixture of cultural cringe and a misguided sense of guilt? Can we not reject jihad, accept apostasy, and be able freely to ask questions in our public spaces, on our television shows, in our schools and on our streets?

Saher Fares is an Arabic linguist and researcher from the Middle East.

How Mainstream Islam Threatens Jewish Existence

FILE – DECEMBER 25, 2013: The Egyptian interim goverment has declared the Mohammed Morsi led ‘Muslim Brotherhood’ a terrorist organisation. The action was taken in response to the bombing of the police station in Mansoura earlier this week, which the government has stated was the responsibility of the Brotherhood, despite denials from the group itself. CAIRO, EGYPT – DECEMBER 14: Supporters of Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi and members of the Muslim Brotherhood chant slogans during a rally on December 14, 2012 in Cairo, Egypt. Opponents and supporters of Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi staged final rallies in Cairo ahead of tomorrow’s referendum vote on the country’s draft constitution that was rushed through parliament in an overnight session on November 29. The country’s new draft constitution, passed by a constitutional assembly dominated by Islamists, will go to a referendum vote on December 15. (Photo by Daniel Berehulak/Getty Images)

PJ Media, by Andrew Bostom, Aug. 17, 2017:

Whether one considers the masses of Muslims flowing into Europe as (primarily economic) refugees, proud hijra colonists “quietly” Islamizing the continent, or both, these newly arrived votaries of Islam express an unabashed Islamic Jew-hatred. Germany’s failed attempt to mollify this Muslim immigrant animus toward Jews by “sensitivity” visits to Nazi-era concentration camp memorials, demonstrates its deep-seated intractability.

The spectacle of brutality on display at Sachsenhausen did not awe [Syrian Muslim] Jamo, a former photographer who had known daily violence in Syria. No matter the direct perpetrator of the violence Jamo had witnessed, the greatest cause of conflict in the region, he said, was Israel…“The Arabs think what Hitler did was a good thing, because he freed them from the Jews.”

As I will elucidate under three subheadings [(I) Canonical Islam is Rife with Jew-Hatred, and Mainstream Islam’s Most Authoritative Theologians and Institutions Actively Promote This Bigotry; (II) Mainstream Islam’s Inculcation of Canonical Islamic Jew-Hatred is Mirrored by the Pandemic of Global Muslim Jew-Hatred; (III) Non-Muslim Religious and Political Leaders—Including Jews—Remain in Abject Denial About the Direct Causal Link Between the Mainstream Inculcation of Canonical Islamic Jew-Hatred, and the Pandemic of Global Muslim Jew-Hatred], the evidence is overwhelming, and irrefragable, that contemporary mainstream Islam foments the global scourge of annihilationist Islamic Jew-hatred in a simple, powerful manner: invoking Islam’s most important canonical sources, and their most authoritative interpretations.

But who best represents “mainstream Islam”? By Islamic consensus, The Royal Islamic Strategic Studies Centre [RISSC], Amman, Jordan has defined, and further epitomizes, the phenomenon. The major aims of this mainstream Islamic organization, which each year puts out the “The Muslim 500—The World’s 500 Most Influential Muslims“, per its 2007 Charter, are:

  • “to protect, preserve and propagate traditional, orthodox, ‘moderate’ Islam as defined by the international Islamic Consensus on the ‘Three Points of the Amman Message’ arrived at over the years 2005-2006.”
  • “to spread knowledge of the ‘Amman Message’ of November 2004 and the principles it contains in so far as these best represent traditional, orthodox, ‘moderate’ Islam.
  • “to establish, propagate and publicize the religious and legal positions of traditional, orthodox, ‘moderate’ Islam on key issues relevant to life in the modern world.”

The RISSC’s 2017 iteration of “The Muslim 500” maintains that traditional Muslims (96%) and “fundamentalists” (3%) comprise 99% of the world’s Muslims, while modernists represent ≤1%. The biting dismissal of the ≤1% “modernists” and their “scant knowledge of traditional Islam,” explodes a comforting fiction about “reform,” and “reformists”, long propounded by delusive Western apologists, across the political spectrum:

Islamic modernism is a reform movement started by politically-minded urbanites with scant knowledge of traditional Islam. These people had witnessed and studied Western technology and socio-political ideas, and realized that the Islamic world was being left behind technologically by the West and had become too weak to stand up to it. They blamed this weakness on what they saw as ‘traditional Islam,’ which they thought held them back and was not ‘progressive’ enough. They thus called for a complete overhaul of Islam, including—or rather in particular—Islamic law ( sharia ) and doctrine (aqida). Islamic modernism remains popularly an object of derision and ridicule, and is scorned by traditional Muslims and fundamentalists alike.

Sharia supremacism—and its intrinsic bigotry—represent the mainstream in Islam, as affirmed once again in 2017 by the RISSC.

(I) Canonical Islam is Rife with Jew-Hatred, and Mainstream Islam’s Most Authoritative Theologians and Institutions Actively Promote This Bigotry

 Grand Imam of Al-Azhar University, Ahmed al-Tayeb, is the number 1 ranked Muslim figure for 2017 in “The Muslim 500”. His “The Muslim 500” profile states,

Influence: Highest scholarly authority for the majority of Sunni Muslims, runs the foremost and largest Sunni Islamic university.

School of Thought: Traditional Sunni

During an interview with Al-Tayeb, which aired on Channel 1, Egyptian TV, October 25, 2013, he gave a brief explanation of the ongoing relevance of the Koranic verse 5:82 which has been invoked—“successfully”—to inspire violent Muslim hatred of Jews since the advent of Islam:

A verse in the Koran explains the Muslims’ relations with the Jews… This is an historical perspective, which has not changed to this day. See how we suffer today from global Zionism and Judaism  Since the inception of Islam 1,400 years ago, we have been suffering from Jewish and Zionist interference in Muslim affairs. This is a cause of great distress for the Muslims. The Koran said it and history has proven it : “You shall find the strongest among men in enmity to the believers to be the Jews…”

Less than a year later—consistent with his belief in (and promulgation of) Islam’s “sacralized,” conspiratorial Jew-hating canon (see Koran 5:3233 and 5:64; Muhammad’s poisoning to death by Jews in the “traditions”)—Grand Imam al-Tayeb insisted that the scourge of jihad terrorism, ravaging the Middle East, epitomized by IS/IL, is due to the machinations of “Global Zionism,” i.e., Jews. During a televised statement which aired on Channel 1 Egyptian TV, September 8, 2014, al-Tayeb intoned:

All the [fundamentalist terrorist groups] are the new products of imperialism, in the service of global Zionism in its new version, and its plot to destroy the [Middle] East and tear region apart.

Since its founding in 973 C.E., Al Azhar University (and its mosque) have represented a pinnacle of Islamic religious education, which evolved into the de facto Vatican of Sunni Islam. Unfortunately, over that same millennium, through the present era, Al Azhar and its leading clerics have represented and espoused the unreformed, unrepentant jihad bellicosity and Jew-hatred at the core of mainstream, institutional Islam. Islam’s canonical texts—the Koran itself (see here), and the “traditions” of Islam’s prophet Muhammad (the hadith, and sira; see here)—are redolent with Islamic Jew-hatred. This hateful material was catalogued—and extolled—by Ahmed al-Tayeb’s immediate predecessor as Sunni Muslim Papal equivalent, the late  Sheikh Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi, who served as the Grand Imam of Sunni Islam’s Vatican, for 14 years, from 1996, till his death in March, 2010. Voice of America’s report on his sudden demise from a fatal heart attack, noted that he “was the head of Sunni Islam’s most prominent seminary, the Cairo-based Al-Azhar institute,” and further declared “Tantawi led a moderate branch of Sunni Islam.” Tantawi’s “academic” magnum opus, a 700 page treatise entitled, “Jews in the Koran and the Traditions”, includes this summary Koranic rationalization for Muslim Jew-hatred:

[The] Koran describes the Jews with their own particular degenerate characteristics, i.e. killing the prophets of Allah [see Koran  2:61  3:112  ], [and see al-Azhar  Sheikh Saqr’s contemporary Koranic citations , “Jews’ 20 Bad Traits As Described in the Qur’an”] corrupting His words by putting them in the wrong places, consuming the people’s wealth frivolously, refusal to distance themselves from the evil they do, and other ugly characteristics caused by their deep-rooted lasciviousness…only a minority of the Jews keep their word…[A]ll Jews are not the same. The good ones become Muslims [Koran  3:113  ], the bad ones do not.

More ominously, Tantawi’s exhaustive modern analysis of Islam’s defining, canonical sources concluded by sanctioning these bigoted—even violent—Muslim behaviors towards Jews:

[T]he Jews always remain maleficent deniers….they should desist from their negative denial…some Jews went way overboard in their denying hostility, so gentle persuasion can do no good with them, so use force with them and treat them in the way you see as effective in ridding them of their evil. One may go so far as to ban their religion, their persons, their wealth, and their villages.

As Grand Imam of Al-Azhar, Tantawi’s public statements on “dialogue” (January 1998) with Jews, the Jews as “enemies of Allah, descendants of apes and pigs” (April 2002; from Koran 5:60), and the legitimacy of homicide bombing of Jews (April 2002), made his personal Muslim Jew-hatred eminently clear. Tantawi’s comments on dialogue, which were issued shortly after he met with Israel’s Chief Rabbi, Israel Meir Lau, in Cairo, on December 15, 1997, provided him another opportunity to re-affirm his ongoing commitment to the views expressed about Jews in “Jews in the Koran and the Traditions”, (his published Ph.D. thesis):

…anyone who avoids meeting with the enemies in order to counter their dubious claims and stick fingers into their eyes, is a coward.  My stance stems from Allah’s book [the Koran], more than one-third of which deals with the Jews…[I] wrote a dissertation dealing with them [the Jews], all their false claims and their punishment by Allah.  I still believe in everything written in that dissertation. [i.e., Jews in the Koran and the Traditions, cited above]

Mainstream Shiite Islam—the “Twelver” Shiites being the largest branch of this Muslim minority, representing some ~10% of the world’s Muslims—expresses concordant “understandings” of Jews. Muhammad Husayn Tabatabai’s, The measure of balance/justly held scales in the interpretation of the Quran,”is regarded as the most important 20th century Shiite Koranic commentary. Indeed the Islamic Studies academy—both Western and Iranian—has designated Tabatabai (d. 1981) the leading modern Shiite religious scholar and philosopher, dubbing him a “theosopher.” Allameh [Allamah] Tabatabaei [Tabatabai] University, named in honor of this celebrated Shiite authority and “theosopher,” is the largest specialized state social sciences university in Iran and the Middle East, with 17,000 students and 500 full-time faculty members. Affirming his continued lofty stature, and relevance, an Iranian national conference was held on May 3, 2012, in Qom, dedicated to “recognizing the interpretative methods and principles used by Allameh [Allamah] Tabatabaee [Tabatabai] in [his Koranic] exegesis.”

A Vademecum On Islam: Five Pillars, Qur’an, Hadith, Sira

PamelaGeller.com, by Hugh Fitzgerald, Aug. 2, 2017:

Islam is an all-encompassing ideology. It offers a Complete Regulation of Life. It divides the world uncompromisingly between Muslim and non-Muslim and, in territory,  between Dar al-Islam, where Muslims rule, and Dar al-Harb, where non-Muslims for now prevail. Muslims must show loyalty only to fellow Muslims, and must disavow, reject, hate  non-Muslims. This is the doctrine of Al-wala’ wa-l-bara’, an Arabic term meaning “loyalty and disavowal.” It signifies loving and hating for the sake of Allah. The observant Muslim holds  fast to all that is pleasing to Allah, including all true Muslims, and at the same time withdraws from, and opposes,  all that is displeasing to Allah, that is,the Kafirs (non-Muslims), who are to be hated for the sake of Allah.

While Islam is open to all, many of its practices promote the idea of Arab supremacism. The message of Islam was given to a seventh-century Arab, and in the Arabic language. The Qur’an must ideally be read and recited in Arabic. Muslims prostrate themselves in prayer five times a day, obligatorily turning in the direction of Mecca, in Arabia. Muslims must, if able, perform the Hajj once in their lifetime, a pilgrimage to that same Mecca in Arabia. Muslims should emulate the behavior of seventh-century Arabs — that is, of Muhammad and his Companions. Given the primacy of the Arabs in the texts and teachings of Islam, it is not surprising that many non-Arab Muslims often take Arab names; some adopt a false Arab lineage, or even, by calling themselves “Sayyid,” suggest that they are descendants of the Prophet himself.

In Islam the required rituals of worship are known as the Five Pillars of Islam. These five are: Shahada(Profession of Faith), Salat (five daily prayers), Zakat (giving of alms), Hajj (the pilgrimage to Mecca to be performed at least once in a lifetime, by those physically and financially able), and Sawm (daytime fasting during the month of Ramadan). These Five Pillars are said by Muslim apologists to be akin to Christian rituals, but they overlook two important differences that should be noted. First, zakat, or charitable giving, is only for other Muslims or, rarely, for those who are in the process of “reverting” to Islam and may need encouragement. This is quite different from the omnidirectional charity of Christians, given unstintingly to all. Second, the five requisite daily prayers recited by all observant Muslims include the Fatihah, the first surah of the Qur’an. The final two verses of the Fatihah ask Allah: “Show us the straight path, the path of those whom Thou hast favoured; not the (path) of those who earn Thine anger nor of those who go astray.” The traditional Islamic understanding of this is that the “straight path” is Islam. “Those who earn thine anger” are the Jews, while those who “go astray” are the Christians. This is the view of the Islamic apologist John Esposito in his book “Islam: The Straight Path,” of the famed Qur’anic commentator Ibn Kathir, and of many other Muslim commentators, including Al-Tabari, Zamakhshari, Ibn Arabi, and in the Tafsir (Qur’anic commentary) of al-Jalalayn, among many others. In saying their ritual prayers, Muslims curse the Kuffars seventeen times a day.

There is one other duty, a duty so great that it has been called the Sixth Pillar of Islam. This is the duty to participate, directly or indirectly, individually or collectively, depending on certain circumstances, in the struggle, or Jihad, to remove all obstacles, everywhere in the world, to the spread, and then to the dominance, of Islam. It is this duty of Jihad that animates Muslims, including but not limited to, terrorists today. It is part of mainstream  Islam. The weapons of Jihad are many: combat (or qitaal), terrorism, propaganda (“pen, speech”), money (“wealth”), and of course, sheer numbers — the demographic jihad, which — with 44 million Muslims in Europe — is by far the most effective and dangerous weapon of Jihad.

The main texts of Islam are the Qur’an, the Hadith, and the Sira. The Qur’an is the Uncreated and Literal Word of God. It cannot be changed. It contains contradictions within itself, which long ago were resolved in favor of what are thought to be the later, and harsher verses. The “harsher” verses are said to date from Muhammad’s time in Medina, after he conquered that city. No longer needing to curry favor with anyone, as he had had to do in Mecca, he could afford to be as harsh as he pleased. The interpretive vehicle for dealing with contradictions in the Qur’an, and favoring the later verses, is “abrogation” or naskh. The doctrine dates back more than a millennium. Nonetheless, some have suggested that the doctrine be abandoned, so that the harsher verses no longer would be held to abrogate the softer verses from Muhammad’s “Meccan” period. This is unlikely to be accepted by more than a handful of would-be “reformers of Islam.”

The Hadith are the written records of what Muhammad said and did. In the centuries immediately following the death of Muhammad, tens of thousands of Hadith were recorded by imaginative Muslims. It became the job of specialists – muhaddithin – to study the existing Hadith, so as to determine with what degree of confidence to believe in the reliability of any given Hadith.  These muhaddithin in the main relied on the study of the isnad-chain – that is, study of the transmission through time of each Hadith. Thus if  A heard a story from B, who heard it from C, who heard from D, back as far as possible, and the closer that chain reached to  the time of Muhammad and an eyewitness to what he said or did, the more “authentic” that story was deemed to be.

The muhaddithin did make the study of isnad-chains into a laborious and, by our lights, sterile pseudo-science, and in so doing did manage to winnow the tens of thousands of existing Hadith down to about 4,000 (the number of Hadith in the two collections deemed most reliable). There are many collections of Hadith. But six collections of them, identified by the word “Sahih,” by different muhaddithin, are regarded as the most reliable. And among those six, the two compiled by Al-Bukhari and Muslim are treated with the greatest respect. Rather than employing an Accept/Reject system, the muhaddithin established categories of likely authenticity, and proceeded to rank each Hadith according to four levels of reliability, based on study of each Hadith’s isnad-chain. A Hadith that is assigned a high rank of authenticity by Al-Bukhari or Muslim will have much greater authority for Muslims  than a Hadith  that is assigned to the lowest rank of authenticity by them, or given a middle rank by one of the muhaddithin deemed less authoritative.

The Sira is the name given to the traditional Muslim biographies of Muhammad. The Hadith, which are stories, not in chronological order, about the acts and sayings of Muhammad,  also contain miscellaneous information about everything from the treatment of women, to the origin of the universe, to music and musical instruments, to the correct methods of bathroom hygiene, to views on dogs and statues, and much more. The Sira, by contrast,  tells the story of Muhammad, in chronological order, and in particular, it tells of the progressive revelation, over 23 years, by the Angel Gabriel, of Allah’s Message to Muhammad, Messenger of God, Seal of the Prophets. The very first, and indispensable, contribution to “the Biography of Muhammad” is believed to be that by Ibn Ishaq, who lived some 150 years after Muhammad had died. And that biography is preserved thanks to one Ibn Hisham, who copied it down and incorporated it into one of his own works. Non-Muslim scholars differ as to how much faith can be put in a biography composed 150 years after the death of its subject, and preserved in a copy written by someone else (and possibly subject to scribal error), but Muslims do not question what is contained in the Sira, just as they believe in the Hadith and in the ranking systems for the Hadith by those they consider the most authoritative muhaddithin.

All the biographies of Muhammad by Muslims are hagiographical; no matter what he did, Muhammad could do no wrong. He is for Muslims the Model of Conduct (“uswa husana”) and the Perfect Man (“al-insan al-kamil”). The Sira is, in large part, based on the information contained in the Hadith, but aside from its chronological organization (lacking in the Hadith), the Sira offers other information, not to be found in the Hadith, about the times in which Muhammad lived, just as the Hadith contains much information not to be found in the Sira. There is considerable overlap between the Hadith and Sira, but they are not the same.

The texts – Qur’an, Hadith, and Sira – have been the subjects of generations of commentators. A commentary  on the Qur’an is called a tafsir, and the commentaries are particularly important because the language, and meaning,  of much of the Qur’an require elucidation; some passages are simply unfathomable. The scholar Christoph Luxenberg (an alias), is a philologist who is a native speaker of Arabic, and a great authority on Syriac (the version of Aramaic spoken in the region of Edessa). For years he has been startling the world of Qur’anic studies by claiming that 20% of the Qur’an is incomprehensible even to native speakers familiar with classical Arabic. Luxenberg believes that the Ur-text of the Qur’an is Syriac, possibly the language of a Christian lectionary; he argues that many of the knottiest philological problems in the Qur’an are susceptible of solution if one posits such an Ur-text, written not in Arabic but in Aramaic, or rather in that version of Aramaic known as Syriac. He has been winning converts to this view among non-Muslim Qur’anic scholars, but few Muslims, obviously, can allow themselves to accept Luxenberg’s view. Even without the Luxenberg controversy, It is not possible to read the Qur’an, even its seemingly least difficult verses,  and grasp their meaning without making use of the most authoritative Muslim commentators. They serve as the indispensable guides to the meaning of many passages that cry out for exegetical glosses.

The Sunna – essentially, the manners and customs and ways of being of the Arabs in the days of Muhammad – matters to Muslims, or most Muslims, as much as the Qur’an. It has even been said that the Sunna could exist without the Qur’an, but not the Qur’an without the essential gloss of the Sunna. And the Sunna is founded on, consists largely of, what is in  the Hadith and the Sira, that is the life – words, deeds, and stories about – Muhammad. He, not Allah, is the central figure in Islam. Muhammad is mentioned four times as often as Allah in the Qur’an. He is the Model of Conduct – uswa hasana – a phrase used in the Qur’an exactly three times, the other two times both used to describe Abraham. He is, furthermore, the Perfect Man, al-insan al-kamil, and everything he did, as a consequence, was Perfect. Whatever he did was right. Some of what he did is exclusive to him – he had nine wives and two concubines, but ordinary mortal Muslims are allowed four wives only. However, much of what he did is not limited to him but is worthy of emulation. Little Aisha caught his fancy when she was six,  the daughter of his good friend, and was considered betrothed at that point, but Muhammad contained himself, waiting until she reached the reasonable age of nine before consummating, with sexual intercourse, his marriage to her. That might have been thought one of the details of his life – such as nine wives – that ordinary Muslims would not have been allowed to emulate. But it turns out that the age of the child bride, little Aisha, is not regarded by Muslims as embarrassing – though with Westerners who raise the matter of Aisha, in a manner that suggests dismay or horror, they have started to offer various strategies of pretend denial: she wasn’t really nine years old, but possibly as old as nineteen, we are told, offered preposterously by apologists as the age at which she reached puberty. But we know from reliable Hadith that she was called by her mother when she was on her swings with playmates, and then later,  when she went to Muhammad’s house, she brought her toys with her. Swings and toys suggest nine years, not nineteen.

If the subject of little Aisha comes up – and in any conversation or discussion of Islam between Muslims and non-Muslims the latter should be sure to raise the subject,  non-Muslims should understand that Aisha matters because she is not merely a figure in the distant and unrepeatable past. Her example affects Muslim girls today. Under the secularizing Shah, the marriageable age of girls in Iran had been raised to eighteen. That learned theologian of Islam, the Ayatollah Khomeini, managed in 1982 to lower the marriageable age of girls from thirteen to nine years. Since Khomeini died in 1989, the legal age has again been raised, to thirteen. A piquant detail: Khomeini married his wife when she was ten years old. And if it worked for him, and for Muhammad, why not allow it for everyone?

Also see:

Winning with Precise Words: A guide to understanding Islam

Political Islam, by Bill Warner, July 27, 2017:

It is very difficult to have the right thoughts if you don’t have the right words. Almost all of the words used in talking about Islam are subjective. What do words like moderate Islam and radical Islam actually mean? They are subjective terms. We need to use the objective names that are found in the doctrine of Islam.
The logic and correct naming must come from Allah and Mohammed, the Koran and the Sunna, the Trilogy. Just as there are two Korans, Meccan and Medinan, there are two kinds of Islam and Muslim. Instead of moderate Islam/Muslim, it is Meccan Islam/Meccan Islam. Instead of radical Islam/Muslim, the correct name is Medinan Islam. Don’t say terrorist, say jihadist.
Don’t get involved with Islam, the religion, only deal with political Islam, the Islam for Kafirs.

EXCLUSIVE: Interview With Prominent ‘Ex-Muslim’ Activist Hazem Farraj, Part II

Daily Wire, by Frank Camp, July 24, 2017:

In part one of my interview with Hazem Farraj, the ex-Muslim spoke about his conversion story, the concept of “real” Islam as it relates to ISIS, and how the West has been deceived by Islamist propaganda. In part II, Farraj continues to talk about the blindness of the West, as well as what makes Islam so uniquely violent.

How The West Was Won (Continued)

Farraj continued to detail how westerners are deceived by Islamic propaganda:

“How do the ignorant, western, non-spiritual, and non-philosophical folks get lied to? They’ll have a guy on the news, and he’ll say: ‘Osama bin Laden doesn’t represent us; he represents the Wahhabi.’ All that is saying is that Osama bin Laden is a Muslim who follows the teachings of Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab.”

“Apologists will say ‘Osama bin laden wasn’t a Muslim, he was a Wahhabi Muslim.’ In our western, Judeo-Christian thinking, we treat it as though it’s akin to different denominations. It’s not.”

This lack of understanding is incredibly dangerous, according to Farraj:

“If we don’t look at Islam for what it is, a political ideology no different than Nazism, we can’t get to the root of it. The only difference is that Hitler wasn’t declared a prophet.”

The Islamic State, Mohammad, & Abrogation

“Whenever you study world religions or cults, you’ll hear about a thing called circumstantial revelation. This is when a faith leader will create a scapegoat, a way out of responsibility, usually at the 11th hour. Similarly, the law of abrogation is an Islamic principle in which new revelations that come from Mohammad’s mouth overwrite previous revelations,” noted Farraj.

“The only way Mohammad could reconcile the peaceful Meccan verses with the more violent Medinan verses was to have circumstantial revelations. By the time he was in Medina, he was such an amazing figure that he could get away with it.”

“People who claim that Islam is peace are reading the Meccan verses, which are outdated and nullified. It’s the equivalent of the way Christian’s see the Old Testament.”

Citing chapter 2, verse 106 of the Quran, which states: “Whatever message we abrogate or cause to be forgotten, we bring one better than it or one like it. Knowest thou not that Allah is possessor of power over all things?” Farraj claimed that because of the law of abrogation, “ISIS is aware that what they are doing is completely sanctioned.”

“Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of ISIS, has a doctorate in Islamic Sharia. He knows exactly what he’s doing.”

“Christians say ‘What would Jesus do?’ Well, what would Mohammad do? Before Mohammad died, in the most chronological Surah that he revealed – which would be the most pure message he could give – what did he say? Did he say: ‘Love your neighbor?’ No. Did he tell them to take care of the poor and innocent? No. He said: ‘Go and fight.’ Chapter nine, one of the bloodiest chapters in the Quran. Surah 9:5 is known as the verse of the sword.”

Intellectual honesty is paramount if the West is to tackle the real issue with any success, said Farraj. Without that, delusion can and will dominate:

“To create a culture that facilitates this lie is detrimental to American foreign policy. Part of the reason the Middle East is burning right now is because we haven’t done the hard work of self-reflection. And it’s not racist to question religious beliefs; it’s not racist to question ideas.”

Further, he noted: “The idea that the Islamic State’s loss of territory means success is nonsense. It’s the ideology. So if ISIS is gone, we have Al-Nusra; if Al-Nusra is gone, we have Hamas. The list goes on and on, and all because we don’t want to deal with the monster.”

Going Forward

“The only way to dismantle the bad guys is to secularize the governments of the Middle East,” said Farraj. “We don’t promote state religion in the U.S. government, yet we promoted Nouri al-Maliki in Iraq. We need to secularize middle eastern governments; we need to export the ideas and values that make America incredible. Some ideas are better than others, and American values are better than Sharia.”

“We need a counter-information war in the Middle East,” he added. “We need to make it look so sexy to be completely human rights oriented, and we need to make the other guys look crazy. Unfortunately, the regimes over there can muzzle that effort. We should look at the Sharia-infused ‘Cairo Declaration,’ which was supposed to offer another version of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights (UNDHR). We need the United Nations, and specifically the OIC, to abandon any and all tribal culture based on shame or honor and commit to the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights as the standard.”

How It All Collapses

“There’s a group in America called Quranist Muslims. They say they don’t follow the life of Mohammad; they don’t follow the Hadith; they only follow the Quran. But the Quran is littered with amazingly violent things. If you remove those things, there is no identity for the Islamic culture. That’s how you dismantle the radicalism. You repeatedly show the legitimacy of the law of abrogation historically and contextually. You talk about it again and again.”

Final Thoughts

At the end of my interview with Farraj, I opened the floor so that he could offer up whatever he wanted. He concluded with a consequential message:

“If I could say one thing to Americans, it would be to not stop this struggle with radical Islam. We live in an historical moment that we will read about in history books. We are experiencing a clash of civilizations, and may the best ideas and values win.”

“Americans need not cower from what made them great. At the end of the day, people like myself flock to America because of what it stands for. It would be a disaster to see that we are upon a crossroads of history and we don’t follow it through.”

Check out Hazem Farraj’s YouTube channel here, and follow him on Facebook and Twitter for more information.

For a primer on Farraj’s content, here’s one video in a must-watch series in which the ex-Muslim explores Islam and the Quran:

***

Playlist “I.S. Islam”