The Menace That Is Islam

This article is a compilation of quotes found in The Islam in Islamic Terrorism by Ibn Warraq with my comments added. 

I acknowledge that there are Muslim scholars and other knowledgeable persons who do not accept the view of Islam as a fundamentally violent religion whose goal is to convert or subvert every person on Earth. Many point out the peaceful nature of Islam and go to great lengths to prove their point using as many passages from the Koran and the Hadiths as others use to prove the opposite. Those of the “peaceful religion” camp have a valid point and are justified by some of the Muslim history and literature to which they refer. That does not absolve the religio-political milieu that comprises a large number of followers of Mohammed from the charge that Islam was born in violence and intolerance and has continued in violence and intolerance to the present day. 

As Douglas Murray has pointed out in his book, The Strange Death of Europe, the majority of Cambodians were peaceful people, but they were totally irrelevant when the Khmer Rouge slaughtered over a million people. The majority of Russians were peaceful people, but the were totally irrelevant when Stalin began the purge of dissidents and everyone who might possibly stand in the way of his vision of the Soviet Union, killing millions in the process. The majority of Chinese were peaceful people, but they were completely irrelevant when Mao began his Red Revolution, causing the deaths of millions. 

Those who practice a peaceful version of Islam cannot cancel out the uncountable millions who believe the religion is a license granted by Allah to kill and destroy all “infidels” in his name. 

The speakers and writers quoted herein are all respected leaders of their branch of Islam or scholars who have devoted their lives to studying Muslim history and philosophy. Theirs is not the only view, but theirs is the only view that matters when confronting jihadi terror being propagated around the globe.

It is imperative that we know and acknowledge the behavior of Islam’s founder, Muhammad. Among fundamentalists and radicals, those who are at the core of the problems of Islam in the modern world, Muhammad is acknowledged as the perfect example for all Muslims. According to this view, held by millions, his behavior, in all respects, should be imitated. It is then equally imperative that we acknowledge Muhammad was not by any stretch of the imagination a model of tolerance, kindness, or compassion. The Koran and accepted Hadiths enumerate countless examples of his cruelty, intolerance, and hatred of Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians, and Arabs of other faiths. Social norms of relationships between men and women, to say nothing of men and girls have changed dramatically over the decades, but fundamentalist Muslims can still justify their literally medieval behavior by referring to the example of Muhammad. Based on their belief that this man was the perfect example of behavior and thought, those who use his example to guide their own behavior and thought feel completely justified and honorable in the eyes of Allah. 

What is a person of the twenty-first century to think of a person who believes the following is a valid example to be followed concerning apostates (those who have turned from the true path of Islam)?

When some people from the tribe of Ukl, who had reverted from Islam, while trying to steal some camels had killed a shepherd… were captured, Muhammad ordered their hands and legs to be cut off, their eyes to be branded with heated pieces of iron, and that their wounds not be cauterized until they die.

(Bukhari, The Book of the Punishment of Those Who Wage War Against Allah and His Messenger, trans. M. Muhsin Khan, vol 8, book 82 of Sahih, Hadith 794 (New Delhi: Kitab Bhavan, 1987)519-20)

The origin of the Muslim religion is in a seventh-century, nomadic, illiterate culture; raiding of one tribe by another was the rule of the day. In those raids men were murdered and women and children were taken as slaves. Yet, a conservative Muslim of the 21st century can still see this behavior of Muhammed as a model for waging jihad today. We see this in recorded videos of brutal beheadings of those the fundamentalists see as their enemies. This stems from a world view that sees non-Muslims, infidels, as less than human. In the following passage, a non-Muslim is compared with “unclean things” by one of the most revered of modern day Muslim leaders, Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran:

“Eleven things are unclean: urine, excrement, sperm, blood, a dog, a pig, bones, a non-Muslim man and woman, wine, beer, perspiration of the camel that eats filth.” (Emphasis added)

(Quoted by Bat Ye’or, The Dhimmi: Jews and Christians Under Islam (London: Associated University Presses, 1996), 396. S.R. (Ayatollah) Khomeini, Principes, Politiques, Philosophiques, Sociaux et Religieux, trans and ed J.-M. Xaviere (Paris: Libres-Hallier, 1979)59.)

A leading Muslim leader of the 20th century compares a non-Muslim with excrement, dogs, pigs, and a camel that eats filth. No matter how many peaceful passages of the Koran one can quote, this public pronouncement of a leading Muslim of the 20th century cannot be ignored.  

While the Western world developed through centuries of self-examination, arriving at some semblance of toleration, the conservative Muslim World refuses to modify any understanding of the inter-relationships of humans and the concept of our relationship to spiritual or cosmic concerns. The extent of toleration of other creeds and lifestyles is still a matter debate in the Western world, but the fact remains that debate is not only allowed but encouraged. On the other hand, 

“The reason Islamic fundamentalists receive such enthusiastic endorsement in the Islamic community lies in the community’s attitude to its own romanticized past, perceived as a period of righteousness. Since all humanity is seen as sacred matter, any change in behavior, manners, or dress is seen as an unacceptable innovation that represents a falling away from the norms established by the Prophet and his companions. As a tradition (hadith) reminds us, every innovation is heresy, every heresy is error, and every error leads to hell.” (Emphasis added.)

(Madeline C. Zilfi, The Politics of Piety: The Ottoman Ulema in the Postclassical Age (1600-1800) (Minneapolis, MN: Bibliotheca Islamica, 1988), 14)

Here Ms. Zilfi refers to a period of over 200 years ago, but because Muslim fundamentalists continue in the belief that any and all innovation is heresy deserving of eternity in Hell, this pattern of belief and action continues.  

That the Muslim faith is compatible with Western society is believed, or if not believed then  proselytized, only by Western apologists who, for whatever reason, refuse to acknowledge the very nature of fundamentalist Islam. 

Muhammad the Prophet also made it clear that Islam cannot coexist with any other religion, and He dutifully informed his successors that Arabia must be cleansed of Jews and Christians.

(Ibn Warraq, The Islam in Islamic Terrorism (Nashville, TN, New English Review Press, 2017), 79)

[T]heir (Islamic terrorists) ultimate goal is to subjugate the globe to Islam, so that the world is governed by the Sahi’a and not, for instance, by the various secular constitutions in the Western world. Muslims cannot accept any other religion or any other constitution.

(Ibn Warraq, The Islam in Islamic Terrorism (Nashville, TN, New English Review Press, 2017), 79)

Because the ultimate goal of Islam is the subjugation of the entire globe to Allah and Sharia law, and violence toward, and murder of infidels are acceptable components of this goal, Western policy makers must, for the preservation of their own societies, realize cooperation and coexistence are completely unrealistic goals. 

No one, least of all the Islamic fundamentalists themselves, will dispute that their creed and political program are not compatible with liberal democracy.  

(Bernard Lewis, “Islam and Liberal Democracy,” Atlantic (February, 1993)

Also,

Muslims must not integrate themselves into a non-Muslim society. It would constitute an act of apostasy. According to many Islamic scholars, it is a Muslim’s duty to emigrate from the land of the Infidels to the land of the Believers—the land of Islam.

(Ibn Warraq, The Islam in Islamic Terrorism (Nashville, TN, New English Review Press, 2017), 55)

Islam is incompatible with liberal democracy because the rule of man by man is anathema to the spirit of Islam; only Allah may rule through the words he has already spoken through His prophet and in the Hadith.

The radical spirit of the Kharijites, an early 7th-century movement, inspires modern day Wahhabis and the Muslim Brotherhood. The slogan of the Kharijites is “No judgment but God’s.” [Many Kharijites take it] literally to mean any rule laid down in the Koran must be applied: humans cannot make their own decisions on questions already settled by God.

(Warraq, P 161)

Our European civilization developed a philosophy of separation of church and state. We also came through centuries of strife, even violence leading to death at the stake, to arrive at a level of tolerance for differences of opinion regarding religion among other social and philosophical matters. To the modern Western mind what one believes or does not believe, especially in matters of religion, is of no concern to anyone but the individual. After so many generations of believing this way, we find it impossible to understand just how much the religion, the government, the way of life of Islam controls every single facet of a conservative Muslim’s life. 

The centrality of religion in the Islamic world is something that Western liberals fail to understand or take seriously. Since most liberals are, in this postmodern world, agnostic, atheists or simply indifferent to religion, they have trouble understanding that Muslims really do take the Koran literally as the word of God, and really do believe that Muhammad, their Prophet, received God’s message through angels or occasionally directly.

(Ibn Warraq, The Islam in Islamic Terrorism (Nashville, TN, New English Review Press, 2017), 23)

Also,

Modern Western man, being unable for the most part to assign a dominant and central place in religion in his own affairs, found himself unable to conceive that any other people in any other place could have done so and was therefore impelled to devise other explanations of what seemed to him only superficially religious phenomena… This is reflected in the recurring inability of political, journalistic, and academic commentators alike to recognize the importance of religion in the current affairs of the Muslim world and in their consequent recourse to the language of left-wing and right-wing, progressive and conservative, and the rest of the Western vocabulary of ideology and politics.

(Bernard Lewis, Islam and the West (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 1994), 134-135.)

And so we find ourselves at odds with the “religion” of Islam. Through the centuries, European civilization developed into a tolerant, accepting society that believed all people could be integrated and live together. Our political leaders push the idea that anyone can come to our shores and adopt our lifestyle and outlook on religion, politics, and social norms. This turns out to be a naive view of the world of other societies that developed completely outside of the milieu of Europe and its Christian and Greco-Roman heritage. 

The fact is, most Muslims do not want to integrate into European society. They seem to want to leave their countries that are each to some degree social and economic nightmares. They want to leave the societies they have created and come to a Western country to take advantage of what we have developed. But they want to take advantage of our material benefits without adopting the philosophy and outlook on religion and politics that has, through centuries of development,  enabled the lifestyle and economic benefits we enjoy today. 

Current UN intelligence sources find that seven percent of Muslims are involved in either planning or carrying out violent jihad. At a current world population of more than one and a half billion Muslims, this equates to over one-hundred million who wish to conquer the planet for Allah using violent means. In spite of what we know about the radical Muslim philosophy and that there are well over one-hundred million who are involved in either the planning or execution of violence around the world, we continue to invite Muslims into our countries. It goes without saying, of course, that there is no way to discern the violent from the peaceful.   

Imagine ten Muslims at your door. They would like to be invited into your house. There is a seventy percent chance that one of them has the means and desire to kill you and your family and take your home. Would a rational adult, concerned with the safety of his family allow even one of them in? 

Make no mistake; when a conservative Muslim speaks of jihad, he speaks of violence against non-believers. 

In reading Muslim literature—both contemporary and classical—one can see that the evidence for the primary of spiritual jihad is negligible. Today it is certain that no Muslim, writing in a non-Western language (such as Arabic, Persian, Urdu) would ever make claims that jihad is primarily nonviolent or has been superseded by the spiritual jihad. Such claims are made solely by western scholars, primarily those who study Sufism and/or work in interfaith dialogue, and by Muslim apologists who are trying to present Islam in the most innocuous manner possible.”

(David Cook, Understanding Jihad (Berkely: University of California Press, 2005)165-66.)

By abandoning Jihad (may Allah protect us from that) Islam is destroyed and the Muslims fall into an inferior position; their honor is lost, their lands are stolen, their rule and authority vanishes. Jihad is an obligatory duty in Islam on every Muslim, and he who tries to escape from this duty does not in his innermost heart wish to fulfill this duty, dies with one of the qualities of a hypocrite.

(Footnote to Hadith 36 by Muhammad Muhsin Khan, translator, endorsed by the Saudi government.)

“…jihad and the rising up in arms in particular is obligatory for all-bodied [believers], exempting no one, just as prayer, pilgrimage, and [payment of] alms are performed…”

(Al-Shafi, Risala: Treatise on the Foundations of Islamic Jurisprudence, trans. Majid Khadduri (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1961: Cambridge: The Islamic Texts society
, 1987), 84)

“…since God had ‘ordered jihad by word and deed against the unbelievers and hypocrites, the believer had no choice but to wage it.”

Ghannam, Ta’rikh Najd al_Mussmma Rawdat, 1:189, quoted in Crawford, Ibn ‘And al-Wahhab, 69) (Michael Crawford, Ibn “And al-Wahhab (London: Oneworld Publications, 2014)

So we find that over one-hundred million Muslims are actively involved in the overthrow of Western society. Again, the peaceful, quiet Muslims are irrelevant to the discussion at hand if we are concerned with our own survival. 

It should be obvious to sentient person that Islam and Western society are not compatible. Plainly stated, Europe and The United States should immediately halt all immigration of anyone who claims to be Muslim. Additionally, the practice of the Muslim religion should be outlawed in Europe and The United States. This may seem to fly in the face of the United States Constitution and the laws of European countries, but no country allows its violent overthrow. And violent overthrow is exactly what the conservative Muslims have in mind. 

Even those who do not call for violent overthrow of Western governments plan the same through our democratic processes. “By means of your democracy we shall invade you. By means of our religion we shall dominate you.” Karl Ericson, the author of the article from which that quote was taken also writes, Reza F. Safa, a Shiite Muslim who converted to Christianity after fleeing Iran and author of “Inside Islam: Exposing and Reaching the World of Islam” explained that:

The goal of Islam is to produce a theocracy with Allah as the ruler of society, a society with no separation between religion and the state. This society would have no democracy, no free will and no freedom of expression…

Also,

A survey of 600 US Muslims conducted in June 2015 by pollster Kellyanne Conway revealed that 51 percent agreed that Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to Shari’a. Even more alarming 25 percent of those polled agreed that violence against Americans in the United States is justified as a part of the global jihad.

(As reported by Andrew Bostom, “Shocking Polls Show What US Muslims Think of US Laws,” PJ Media, July 1, 2016.)

If the practice of Islam were illegal in The United States and Europe those for whom the daily practice of prayer and attending mosque would not be able to live in Western society. Alternatively, those who are Muslim in name only, and who do not adhere to the tenets of Islam would have no problem migrating to Western countries and living as westerners without the practice of their religion. We must recognize that Islam is more than a religion and more than daily rituals; Islam is a way of living, thinking, and reasoning. No conservative Muslim will stop until the Earth is one caliphate. The truth is apparent for any willing to accept reality and cease living in a wonderland of rainbows and unicorns. 

If we do not take radical and rational steps now, we will soon find it too late. 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.