Who’s the Bigger Threat: The Moderate Muslims or the Jihadists?

 by Amil Imani  

| View comments |  Print This Post

Is “Moderate Islam” an illusion? Amil Imani takes on Zuhdi Jasser and Stephen Schwartz.

Humanity has suffered horrific wars in the past. Yet, the present multi-form and multi-front war waged by Islamists has the potential of inflicting more suffering and destroying more lives than ever before. Ruthless Islamic forces are advancing rapidly in their conquests while those of freedom are acquiescing and retreating. Before long, Islamism is poised to achieve its Allah-mandated goal of cleansing the earth of all non-Muslims. Any and all means and weapons are to be enlisted in the service of this final holy war that aims to establish the Islamic Ummeh.

Is “Moderate Islam” an illusion? Moderate Islam is a wedge that will jam open the door to Jihad, and "evil will triumph when good Muslims do nothing." The great majority of Muslims are not adherents of the radical line. Yet, because the Islamists wage their war under the name of Islam, they receive immense direct and indirect support from the rank-and-file ordinary Muslims. It is this support of moderate Muslims that keeps the Jihadists alive. And it is the Jihadists who intend to show no mercy to any and all who do not share their theology, be they Muslims or not.

For the record, all Muslims, moderates, radicals, Shiite, Sunnis and other sects and sub-sects of Islam are in unanimous agreement that the Quran is the word of “Allah.” All Muslims are also in agreement that “Allah” spoke through the Angel Gabriel to Muhammad. Allah declares, “The book is not to be doubted." 

To be a loyal and faithful Muslim, one must adhere to and perform many rituals, as specified in the Quran by Allah and the Hadiths/Sunna, every waking moment of his entire life. Disobeying these rituals does not make one a moderate Muslim, but rather it would make him a non-Muslim, facing an uncertain future.

[They who deny the Quran:] They have incurred Allah's most inexorable wrath. An ignominious punishment awaits the unbelievers . . .
– Quran 2:89

If you doubt what We have revealed to Our servant, produce one chapter comparable to it. Call upon your idols to assist you, if what you say be true. But if you fail (as you are sure to fail) then guard yourselves against the Fire whose fuel is men and stones, prepared for the unbelievers.
– Quran 2:23-5

Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their home: an evil fate.
– Quran 9:73

That which is revealed to you from your Lord will surely increase the wickedness and unbelief of many among them. But do not grieve for the unbelievers.
– Quran (5:69)

The jihadists have searched the scripture and have selectively chosen those statements and precedents that they could use to legitimize their violent and primitive agenda. The Jihadists, for instance, claim that the Quran itself urges them to make jihad, “jahedoo fee sabeil-u-llah,” (make jihad for the cause of Allah). The word “jihad” has at least two vastly different meanings. It means exertion. It also stands for making war, and it is the latter that the jihadists invoke as their mandate.

While the so-called moderate Muslims are generally silent, either out of fear, lack of organization, or apathy, the Islamists work around the clock and around the world to further their agenda. Hardly a week passes without a Grand Mufti or an Ayatollah issuing pronouncements in support of radical Islam. The rank-and-file Islamist clergy, for their part, transmit these fatwas and edicts to their flocks in mosques and hammer them into the minds of impressionable children in madressehs. Through this grassroots process, radical Islam is recruiting greater and greater numbers of adherents. On the one hand, the Islamists engage in acts of violence to disrupt the functioning of societies, while on the other they cleverly exploit the freedom they enjoy in non-Islamic lands to subvert them from within.

Issuing death threats and finishing the job are part of the modus operandi of the Islamists who disagree with them. It is not surprising that Salman Rushdie's Satanic Verses received a fatwa because it appeared to mock Muhammad.

The Iranian historian, Ahmad Kasravi, on March 11, 1946, while being tried on charges of "slander against Islam," was shot to death along with one of his assistants in open court in Tehran by followers of  Navvab Safavi, a Shi'a extremist cleric who had founded a terrorist organization called the Fadayan-e Islam (literally, Devotees of Islam).

The Egyptian novelist Naguib Mahfouz was stabbed because one of his books was thought to be sacrilegious. And when the Arab scholar Suliman Bashear argued that Islam developed as a religion gradually rather than emerging fully formed from the mouth of the Prophet, he was injured after being thrown from a second-story window by his students at the University of Nablus in the West Bank. Even many broad-minded liberal Muslims become upset when the historical veracity and authenticity of the Quran is questioned.

Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh was killed November 2, 2004, by a 26-year-old extremist Muslim of Dutch-Moroccan descent for creating a 10-minute movie Submission. The movie deals with the topic of violence against women in Islamic societies. The voices of the moderate Muslims have again been effectively silenced.

Anwar-as-Sadat signed the peace agreement with Israel in 1979; four assassins from the Muslim Brotherhood assassinated him in September, 1981.

Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. Qur'an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.
– Muslim Brotherhood

During the Muslim Brothers' seventy-plus years of existence, there have been cycles of growth, followed by divisions into factions, including clandestine financial networks, and violent jihad groups, such as al-Jihad and al-Gama'at al-Islamiyya in Egypt, HAMAS in Palestine and mujahideen and Al-Qaida groups in Afghanistan.

The mainstream American media continues to indulge in the fantasy that “radical Islam” can be reformed by everybody realizing that we are at war with this minority of devils.  They are Islam revisionists because they think all the “bad stuff” in the Quran was inserted there after Muhammad’s death.  Naturally, they are vague on this point, as to precisely which suras were ex-post. 

Presently, fanatical Islam is lashing out with mad fury before its own final demise. The “infidel” world has been complicit in the surge of Islamism through its mistakes, complacency, and greed.

Unfortunately, even some Islam-realists fall short. When they are put in front of the camera, they refuse to acknowledge that it is Islam that is the source of evil, so they resort to a redundant phrase of how “moderates” can reclaim the faith.  The whole thing is truly bizarre.  I have yet to hear, whenever a moderate Muslim is asked about the true nature of Islam:

Hold on here!  I do not agree with your revisionist thinking.  I am an Islam-realist. We believe Islam is in and of itself a religion of evil, and I declare it, not from the view of a particular religious dogma, but from a humanistic and common sense definition of morality, not because of what some belief was inserted into the Quran but because of: 

1. What Muhammad said that remains unabrogated.
2. What Muhammad did (and said while he was doing it).
3. What Muhammad did not say or command or support that is good.
4. What Muslim consensus has been for every century afterwards.
5. What the governing code of Muslim terrorists is today.

Islam is, therefore, in total, universally, and innately evil.  It actively encourages some of the most debased, inhumane treatment of people known to man, regardless of which dogma you compare it to (religious or secular).

While I desire freedom in Iran, I am a committed anti-Islamist and anti-communist in general.  My beliefs have matured over the years. I now think that God has a set of values that are absolutely right and good, rebellion against which is wrong (sinful), and about which the commitment to deceive others is evil, as is the commitment to deny the existence of anything absolutely good or bad.

I believe communism is an expression of materialist naturalist philosophy that is atheistic, representing a desire by man to dominate both nature and man.  To me, it is Satan’s “denial” play . . . that there is no God.  But Satan works in multiple theaters simultaneously. I believe Islam is Satan’s chief “deception” play.  Rather than deny God exists, it asserts that God does in fact exist, but that God does not desire that men worship out of love or free will, but through rote, fear, and guilt, and through the sins of pride, envy, and chauvinism. 

It is a mentality of enslavement that drives Islam . . ."submission" in which man subdues other men in order to establish a kingdom of oppression and hatred on earth.  Both atheism/materialism and Islam appear as contradictions with respect to each other, but when you peel away the veneer of their pretense, you see that their aims are the same.  Fascism is fascism.

Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, a former U.S. Navy Lieutenant Commander and an American devout Muslim, wrote in an article ("Islamism, not Islam is the Problem"): “Most should understand that strategically, identifying ‘Islam as the problem,’ immediately alienates upwards of one-quarter of the world’s population and dismisses our most powerful weapon against the militant Islamists — the mantle of religion and the pulpit of moderate Muslims who can retake our faith from the Islamists.”

Well, of course it does.  Shaming the devil incites the devil, calling the USSR an “evil empire” did not win Ronald Reagan points for diplomacy, but nonetheless, it was an evil empire.  Calling Nazis evil did not help endear the Germans to the Americans either, but they were slaughtering the Poles down to the last child.  This is not a reason to be restrained in advocating the removal of evil.

This is also why liberal appeasers in 1938, who refused to call Hitler “evil,” got the world into so much trouble by creating a similar confused intellectual forum about the Nazis.  They tried to build bridges to the “moderate” Nazis; they lectured clear thinkers about the dangers of inciting German hatred by pointing out the truth. They accused conservatives of being “just as fascist” as the Nazis; they sent ambassadors and made treaties and trusted that the moderates would come out and “reform” their zealous leadership.  And they were wrong.

Dr. Jasser:

The process of theological renewal and interpretation in the light of modern day thought — ijtihad — as it is known in Islam is in many ways hundreds of years behind Western enlightenment today, arrested around the 15th century. This process can either be facilitated by non-Muslims or hindered by the belief that it is impossible.

This author betrays any knowledge of western enlightenment and its causes.  He also presupposes a process of change that simply does not exist in the scripture of Islam, as defined in the Qur’anic codex.  In short, he’s making this all up.  Islam is a fully hardened religion because that is how Muhammad configured it.  You can’t build an empire from slaughter and violence by making your ethics variable.  Would you now have us believe you think Muhammad was a fool?

Dr. Jasser:

. . . the majority of voices in the middle, the non-Islamist and anti-Islamist Muslims, who understand the problem, have to be on the frontlines. They cannot be on the frontlines in an ideological battle being waged that demonizes the morality of the faith of Islam and its founder, the Prophet Mohammed.

Opponents of Islamism demonize Islam with Muhammad’s own words and deeds.  You cannot be a serial murderer and complain that it is unfair for the DA to constantly harp about all those people you killed!

He continues: “We cannot win this war only on the battlefield.”

Yes, but tell that to the Viennese who in 1632 defeated the marauding Muslims to save Christian Europe from slaughter and annihilation.  Explain that to the Sudanese Christians of 2007.  How about the Coptic Christians in Egypt?  Does anyone know where all the Christians and Hindus in Pakistan went?  Ask the French and Spanish how Charlemagne and Castile unceremoniously removed the Moors from Spain and France.  And what happened in 1948, the day Israel was legally declared a nation?  Oh, the battlefield is an ugly place, but it seems to have been the only way militant Islam has been repulsed. Most loving Christians believe that “love conquers all.” Well, I have news for you too, love does not conquer Islam.

Dr. Jasser:

In debate, it can become easy to lose the focus of the argument when resorting to criticism based on identity rather than on ideology. For example, so many Islamists locally and nationally resort to attempting to demonize me as an individual rather than deal with my anti-Islamist ideas as a Muslim and as an American. Our Islamist enemy dreams about uniting all Muslims under one nation — the transnational Muslim ummah.

This is exactly as Muhammad desired: “Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): ‘I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instill terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them.” Quran 8.012. 

Also, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220: Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah's Apostle said, "I have been sent with the shortest expressions bearing the widest meanings, and I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy), and while I was sleeping, the keys of the treasures of the world were brought to me and put in my hand." Abu Huraira added: "Allah's Apostle has left the world and now you, people, are bringing out those treasures (i.e. the Prophet did not benefit by them, but Allah wants Islam to prevail through war and intimidation)."

4:162b Muhammad said, "My livelihood is under the shade of my spear, and he who disobeys my orders will be humiliated by paying Jizya." ("Jizya" is the poll tax paid by subjugated peoples in return for the protection of the Islamic government.)

4:196 Mohammad said, "I have been ordered to fight with the people till they say, ‘None has the right to be worshiped but Allah,’ and whoever says, ‘None has the right to be worshiped by Allah,’ his life and property will be saved by me except for Islamic law, and his accounts will be with Allah (either to punish him or to forgive him.)"

Dr. Jasser:

But academically, when dealing with the faith of one-quarter of the world, and with its history, a central morality of individual Islam (the personal character of most Muslims) has generally demonstrated synergy with Judaism and Christianity.

Synergy?  You mean like this:

O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust.
– Quran 5.051

[From Muhammad the Messenger of Allâh to Negus, king of Abyssinia (Ethiopia): Peace be upon him who follows the Guidance. I am grateful to Allah, there is no god but Him, and I bear witness that Jesus son of Mary was no more than a spirit created by Him, and His word («Be!» - and he was) which He bestowed on Mary, the Virgin, the good, the pure, so that she conceived Jesus. Allah created Him as He created Adam by His Hand. I call you to worship Allah Alone, and not to associate any partner with Him and (I call you) to His obedience and to follow me and to believe in that which was revealed to me, for I am the Messenger of Allah. I invite you and your men to Allah, the Exalted. I bear witness that I have communicated my message. I invite you to listen and accept my advice. Peace be upon him who follows true guidance.]

Christ made it a particular point of foundation 600 years before Muhammad when he said, “love thy enemy.” In return 600 years later, Muhammad said:

O ye who believe! Retaliation is prescribed for you in the matter of the murdered; the freeman for the freeman, and the slave for the slave, and the female for the female. And for him who is forgiven somewhat by his (injured) brother, prosecution according to usage and payment unto him in kindness. This is alleviation and a mercy from your Lord. He who transgresseth after this will have a painful doom.
– Quran 2.178

When Christ specifically said, “let he who is without sin cast the first stone; forgive as my father has forgiven you.” Doesn’t sound too “synergistic” to me, dear Doctor.  Or how about this:  “Thou shalt not murder.”  When Muhammad said: “Fight (in wars of aggression) those who believe not in Allah nor the Last day, nor hold the forbidden (that) which hath been forbidden by Allah and his messenger, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth from among the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission. And feel themselves subdued.” Quran 9:29.

But before we set aside the emotionally-exciting comparison notion to Hitler, let’s compare which doctrine is the more instructive to violence and oppression, Nazi-ism or Islam. And in conducting a rational inspection, what we find is not whether Islam should be compared to Hitler, but that Hitler never got out of the minor Leagues, whereas Islam is truly a major League all-star team of depravity.

Here’s Jihad’s legacy since the very early days of Medina, when the prophet of Islam went on an eternal rampage of bloodlust throughout the world, and based his religion on the utter destruction of every other belief system through force and fraud:

Jihad destroyed a Christian Middle East and a Christian North Africa. Soon it was the fate of the Persian Zoroastrian and the Hindu to be the victims of jihad. The history of political Islam is the destruction of Christianity in the Middle East, Egypt, Turkey and North Africa. Half of Christianity was lost. Before Islam, North Africa was the southern part of Europe (part of the Roman Empire). Around 60 million Christians were slaughtered during the jihadic conquest. Half of the glorious Hindu civilization was annihilated and 80 million Hindus killed. The first Western Buddhists were the Greeks descended from Alexander the Great's army in what is now Afghanistan. Jihad destroyed all of Buddhism along the silk route. About 10 million Buddhists died. The conquest of Buddhism is the practical result of pacifism. Zoroastrianism was eliminated from Persia. The Jews became permanent dhimmis throughout Islam. In Africa over 120 million Christians and animists have died over the last 1400 years of jihad. Approximately 270 million nonbelievers died over the last 1400 years for the glory of political Islam. These are the Tears of Jihad which are not taught in any school.
– Jamie Glazov, 2007

Let’s see.

I have asserted in the past there is no such thing as a moderate Muslim.  This truth is not escaping intellectual blogs because politically correct media cannot bring themselves to rank religions or admit that some things are truly good or bad.  They do not want to offend their liberal or Islamic audiences.  But in this great argument, they are way behind the curve.  The people are anxious for the truth. The people must know the truth so that they can defend themselves against a deadly and powerful adversary.

I believe this is the most important argument facing us right now, but as long as fence-sitters feel capable of condemning “all forms of extremism” unchecked, most people will not take sides.  Only when it is clear that (whether or not people will admit it overtly) Islam is unjust and dangerous, will we get support for a number of tough measures that should send Islam back to its cage where it belongs.

A word of caution, never rely on the source of moderates’ logic.  Muhammad was evicted from Mecca in a much more polite and humane way than Muslims have ever treated Christian, Hindus, Buddhists, Persians or pagans.  He was threatened with death if he did not leave, for it was he who mocked and disrespected the pagan Meccan religion.  21st-century Muslims would cut your throat for a fraction of Muhammad’s offenses, apparently belying the notion that people were generally less civilized in the 7th century.  So off he went to Medina, holding a grudge that would be eventually settled in Meccan enslavement and slaughter.  It was in Medina, where Muhammad positioned himself between two rivals, warring families to establish himself as ruler. 

From that point on, it was as if he had sold his soul to the devil.  There were no Wahhabists telling Muhammad to order mafia-style hits on poets and women who parodied him. Muhammad went from raiding caravans to creating an anti-Jewish, anti-Christian warrior culture that was sanctioned by Allah.  It was a system in which you either joined up to fight the next city-state, or you were slaughtered, your wife raped, and your children and women sold into slavery.  If you enlisted into this dark cult, which you did by uttering a simple chant, “there is no other god but Allah, and Muhammad is his prophet,” you were entitled to steal, rape, and enslave in like manner to what happened to your village, as long as you gave 20% of your booty to Muhammad for governance and personal wealth.  It was a bloody Ponzi scheme that even Hitler could not have conceived of.  None of this can be denied, as it is codified (probably by Muhammad’s eunuchs since in all probability he was illiterate).

It is on this ethical and political paradigm that some revisionists have invented a brave new world of lies upon which to rest their revisionist insanity.  Some revisionists claim it is just as likely as not that “orthodoxy” does not exist in Islam.  Does this sound like the mind of a scholar?  Since the definition of “orthodoxy” is: “approved form of any doctrine, philosophy, ideology,” he is literally saying Islam as a doctrine has no meaning whatsoever, since nobody has figured out what it means.  I’ll leave it to more creative intellectuals to come up with an “orthodox” description of that kind of nihilistic thinking.

Here’s what Muhammad said about the “rigidity.”

None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that Allah Hath power over all things?  [Also translated as:]  Whatever divine communications We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We (without fail) bring one better than it or like it. Do you not know that Allah has power over all things?
– Quran 2.106

Could this mean that the angel of Allah (ostensibly Gabriel) was delivering divine revelation to Muhammad? A revelation such as,

The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter.
– Quran 5.051

The only way in which this and each former or subsequent message could be changed or abandoned is if it was specifically replaced with another verse that contradicted it . . . then the former would be modified or removed from ORTHODOXY!  This is how all Muslims understand the principle of abrogation, and it is the only way to comprehend Islam as a coherent theology.  Since everybody understands this, one has to wonder if some revisionists are either wholly unqualified to be discussing the doctrine or are purposely deceiving the reader.  I’ll tell you what, let’s get real Muslim clerics (as opposed to apologists pretending to understand Islamic Law) to see if they agree with Mr. Stephen Schwartz. And if they don’t agree with him, I’d expect that we should ask him to henceforth study other “peaceful” religions, perhaps Aztec culture.

Unfortunately for Mr. Schwartz, the foundational principles of Islam are not contained in “Aqida al-Tahawiyya.”  They are codified within the Quran and Hadith.  This is why Stephen Schwartz failed to invite the reader to browse the Quran, available here.  And while Mr. Schwartz parses these texts (like WC Fields, when asked why he of all people was reading the Bible, he replied, “looking for loopholes” — you provide the accent), such as taking the words of the Quran as loose allegories and recommendations, or scripture applicable only to limited time spans, Muhammad had already anticipated such apostasy, when he said:

He it is Who has sent down to thee the Book: In it are verses basic or fundamental (of established meaning); they are the foundation of the Book: others are allegorical. But those in whose hearts is perversity follow the part thereof that is allegorical, seeking discord, and searching for its hidden meanings, but no one knows its hidden meanings except Allah. And those who are firmly grounded in knowledge say: "We believe in the Book; the whole of it is from our Lord:" and none will grasp the Message except men of understanding.
– Quran 3.007

Muhammad was referring to the scripture he was delivering to the people, which he referred to as “the discrimination,” or the way to determine what prior scripture was truth and what was false, and in both this and the previous verse mentioned, he was condemning Jews and Christians for what he felt was their aptitude for verse-shopping (a valid criticism by the way) and mis-applying revelations.  But what Muhammad did was to shut down any argument over what is being said for all time.  If Muhammad told the tribal men to stone unchaste women to death, he damn well meant it.  Even as Jesus, some 650 years prior in a book well established all over Africa and the Arabian Peninsula said . . . nobody may stone an unchaste woman to death unless he is without sin himself . . . period.  So we have Schwartz’s opinion, or we have Muhammad’s clear commandments about how to accept orthodoxy.  Hmmm.  I don’t know.  Sorry, Mr. Schwartz, I’m going with Muhammad on this one . . . you remember him?  Or is he left out of the “Aqida al-Tahawiyya” too?

Stephen Schwartz:

As to the rejection of "moderate" as "impl[ying] that Muslims who are more orthodox are somehow backward and violent," Asma Khalid provides no evidence for this absurd assertion, which exists exclusively in the minds of people seeking to combat moderation.  Moderate Muslims oppose the radicalism of the Saudi-financed Wahhabis and the extreme Shias because these developments are destructive of Islamic tradition.  Moderate Muslims argue over aspects of the Islam existing from Morocco to Malaysia and from Bosnia-Herzegovina to Botswana, and may seek progressive changes in aspects of the faith.  But they, not the "orthodox," represent the majority of believers, and, with some exceptions, do not fight against classical Islam.

Asma Khalid goes on to complain that ‘To be a ‘moderate' Muslim is to be a ‘good,' malleable Muslim in the eyes of Western society.’   Does this mean that an "orthodox" Muslim should be "bad" – again in the manner of some African American protest — and refuse to adjust to the customs of the West, if that is where one lives?  Or seek to preserve an intransigent Islamism in the Muslim world?

Such views would be profoundly un-Islamic.  Islam is a religion and enjoins doing good.

But it is the definition of “good” that is what we need to understand, Mr. Schwarz.  Don’t make me quote Bill Clinton on definitions.  Tell me how the following clear, unabrogated commandments can be considered “good” by an impartial witness?

Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): ‘I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instill terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them.’
– Quran 8.012

Allah who we are told is all-knowing, all-wise, most compassionate, and omnipotent, commands the Muslim to put Allah’s terror into effect by cutting off the fingertips of the Nonbeliever!  What should ring in your ears forever is the promise “I will instill terror” and asking Muslims to commit acts so brutal as to be the agents of Allah’s terror mentality.

Thus (will it be said): ‘Taste ye then of the (punishment): for those who resist Allah, is the penalty of the Fire.’
– Quran 8.014

O ye who believe! When ye meet the Unbelievers in hostile array, never turn your backs to them.
– Quran 8.015

If any do turn his back to them on such a day - unless it be in a stratagem of war, or to retreat to a troop (of his own)- he draws on himself the wrath of Allah, and his abode is Hell,- an evil refuge (indeed)!
– Quran 8.016

The above three suras are in uninterrupted succession, meaning Allah is declaring that the way he will punish the unbelievers for “striving against” . . . meaning those resisting his onslaught.  His punishment is effected by the faithful Muslim taking the battlefield.  He exclaimed these things as a rallying charge to his storm troopers who were attacking innocent villages!  And this is how history records that within 70 years of his death, the Muslim hordes conquered all of the Middle East and Africa, as well as Spain!  Is this all just a coincidence?  Did all these nations attack Islam and lose?  Or is Stephen Schwarz being consistently foolish in his interpretation of Islamic doctrine?

How about this one?

Against them (the unbelievers) make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know. Whatever ye shall spend in the cause of Allah, shall be repaid unto you, and ye shall not be treated unjustly.” Quran 8.060

Or these two concurrent verses:

If any of your women are guilty of lewdness, Take the evidence of four (Reliable) witnesses from amongst you against them; and if they testify, confine them to houses until death do claim them, or Allah ordain for them some (other) way.
– Quran 4.015

Here’s how they really feel about women’s rights.  Starve the little harlots to death.  Has this passage been abrogated?  And if so (and if not) how can the Quran be divine?

If two men among you are guilty of lewdness, punish them both. If they repent and amend, leave them alone; for Allah is Oft-returning, Most Merciful.
– Quran 4.016

These two verses above prove a different system of justice for men as opposed to women.

Islam can’t be good, for crying out loud!  This is evil we’re looking at.

Stephen Schwartz:

Why would the good conduct of Muslims be wrong because, by opposing violence, they elicit the approval of Westerners?  Good is good, and nothing else, in all religions, promotion of peace, mutual respect for one's neighbor, and personal dignity.

Respect?  You mean like these holy words?

Those who reject our Signs, We shall soon cast into the Fire: as often as their skins are roasted through, We shall change them for fresh skins, that they may taste the penalty: for Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise.
– Quran 4.056

Hadith: 4:73: Muhammad said, "Know that Paradise is under the shades of swords."

Volume 4, Book 52, Number 48: Narrated Abu Huraira: I heard Allah's Apostle saying, "The example of a Mujahid in Allah's Cause — and Allah knows better who really strives in His Cause — is like a person who fasts and prays continuously. Allah guarantees that He will admit the Mujahid in His Cause into Paradise if he is killed, otherwise He will return him to his home safely with rewards and war booty.

Volume 4, Book 52, Number 179: Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Turks; people with small eyes, red faces, and flat noses. Their faces will look like shields coated with leather. The Hour will not be established till you fight with people whose shoes are made of hair.

How tolerant and respectful are your standards, Mr. Schwartz?

Here’s a little news flash for you:

. . . the Imam of the Mosque of Mecca in Saudi-Arabia called Jews "pigs and monkeys."  Even though Islam no longer has a caliph — a figure of eminence like the Catholic Pope — the imam of the mosque of Mecca would seem to come close.   After calling Jews "pigs and monkeys," he took after the West in general:

Their course is supported by the advocates of credit and worshippers of the Cross, as well as by those who are infatuated with them and influenced by their rotten ideas and poisonous culture among the advocates of secularism and Westernization.
– News article by John Gibson - June 4, 2002

But where did the Imam get such an idea to insult an entire group of people?  Could it be this sweet little thought?

Say: ‘Shall I point out to you something much worse than this (referring to the previous verses), as judged by the treatment it received from Allah? Those who incurred the curse of Allah and His wrath (Jews), those of whom some He transformed into apes and swine, those who worshipped evil;- these are (many times) worse in rank, and far more astray from the even path!’
– Quran 5.060

And this from a religion that erupts in a worldwide pretense of vicious violence when one Dane publishes one cartoon of Muhammad with a bomb on his head.  Mr. Shwartz, that is sickening.

Mr. Schwartz:

Further, traditional Islam calls on the Muslim immigrant to a non-Muslim land to accept the customs of the country to the degree they do not directly conflict with Islam — and no country in the world either bans the practice of the Muslim religion, or compels people to drink alcohol or eat pork.  From the legitimate Islamic viewpoint, Muslims are required to show a positive example of themselves and of the faith if immigrating to a non-Muslim country.

Oh, and I might add they’re doing an exemplary job of showing their true colors.  If there are so many moderate Muslims out there, why do we need a man named Stephen Schwartz to explain their perfect record of moderation to us?  One million French Renault owners want to know!

Mr. Schwartz:

Continuing with her anti-moderate polemic, Khalid states, "True orthodoxy is simply the attempt to adhere piously to a religion's tenets."  It thus becomes clear that Khalid has no conception of basic Islamic beliefs.

Khalid is perfectly correct on this point.  And as such, an extremist with respect to orthodoxy would be Mr. Schwartz, who masquerades as a “moderate,” a term which represents a nonsensical, chimerical absurdity.  Mr. Schwartz is confused, again.

Mr. Schwartz:

No Muslim except a radical speaks of "true" Islam, because the judgment as to whose Islam is "true" was always believed to rest with God, not men.

See the above.  The Quran was delivered according to the man who wrote it (as opposed to the authority who presumes to speak for all of Islam (Mr. Stephen Schwartz), as a way for men, humans, people, mankind to know what is true and what is false.  It doesn’t sound like a group therapy session here.  It’s black and white. And that is exactly what Islam is.

Mr. Schwartz:

This is why, in its classic period, Islam fostered pluralistic debate and discouraged accusations of heresy.  In two of the best-known hadith or oral comments, the Prophet Muhammad himself compared the illumination of Muslim scholars to the heavenly bodies in the night sky.  He said, "The simile of the scholars of knowledge on the earth is the stars in the sky by which one is guided in the darkness of the land and the sea."  He also said, "my Companions are equivalent to the stars in the sky; whichever of them you point to, you will be guided, and the differences among my Companions are a mercy to you."

. . .

In addition, the call for "piety" in Islam represents a non-mainstream conception.   Since the time of the 11th-12th century Islamic thinker, Abu Hamid Al-Ghazali, considered the greatest Muslim theologian after Muhammad, Muslims have recognized that intentions — the beliefs of the heart — are superior to punctilious observance of religious rituals.  Asma Khalid demands to be called "orthodox," not "moderate," and such a message is complacently conveyed to the Western public by mainstream media like The Christian Science Monitor, but the arguments presented in her anti-moderate op-ed are those of a fundamentalist, not of a traditional Muslim.

Why is Schwartz constantly avoiding quoting Muhammad, you know the man who invented Islam?!  Is he trying to avoid something . . . something terrible, dark and disgusting?  He strains himself.

Mr. Schwartz:

Deterioration of Muslim discourse is further visible when Asma Khalid writes, "The public relations drive for ‘moderate Islam' is injurious to the entire international community. It may provisionally ease the pain when so-called Islamic extremists strike."  Islamic extremists are merely "so-called"?  Does this mean they do not exist?  Khalid blares on, repeating her tortured and illogical claim that moderate Islam "indirectly labels the entire religion of Islam as violent."  These exercises in mental acrobatics become, eventually, tedious.  How could distinguishing the category of moderates within a religion label the entire faith?”

If you tire of acrobatics, Mr. Stephen Schwartz, take off your leotards and begin to define terms.  Stop distorting words and start quoting the long list of current and past Islamists who would completely disown your metaphorical burning of the entire Quran in a quest to purify the religion of hate.

Mr. Schwartz:

Khalid wants it both ways, suddenly announcing, "The term moderate Muslim is actually a redundancy.  In the Islamic tradition, the concept of the ‘middle way' is central. Muslims believe that Islam is a path of intrinsic moderation, wasatiyya. This concept is the namesake of a British Muslim grass-roots organization, the Radical Middle Way. "Here we proceed from truth straight to disinformation.  It is quite accurate that Qur'an defines Islam as seeking moderation.  Why then, attempt to disavow the term "moderate"?  But the infamous “Radical Middle Way" project, which was financed by the British government, consisted of a roadshow in which "ex-radicals" and other fundamentalists attempted to ameliorate extremism among young Muslims.   A laudable goal – but why define it in terms of a self-contradictory title like the "Radical Middle?"

Whose semantical pretzel is worse?  Yours for denying every unabrogated verse in the Quran and quoting other prophets over Muhammad, while you define “good” as “good,” or Khalid?  The term hypocrisy comes to my mind, but that’s just my own mental gymnastics.

Mr. Schwartz:

Asma Khalid, also an exhibitionistic ally, describes herself as "hijab," i.e. a woman who covers her head.  But hijab is a practice among those who go out in public, not a matter for boasting about in print.  Ideas, including Islamic ideas, should not he defined by the garments around the skull, but by the contents of the mind.

Actually to deny this notion is to once again eradicate what is written in the Quran.  Schwartz is now appointing himself arbiter over what is and is not official Islam.  Can you say megalomania?

Please go back and paste these pages into your rather abridged version of the Quran, Sir. And say to the believing women that they lower their gaze and restrain their sexual passions and do not display their adornment except what appears thereof:

a- And let them wear their head-coverings over their bosoms.
 
b- And they should not display their adornment except to their husbands or their fathers, or the fathers of their husbands, or their sons, or the sons of their husbands, or their brothers, or their brothers’ sons, or their sisters’ sons, or their women, or those whom their right hands possess, or guileless male servants.

c- or the children who know not women’s nakedness. And let them not strike their feet so that the adornment that they hide may be known. And turn to Allah all, O believers, so that you may be successful.
– Qur’an 24:31

The head-covering required by Islamic law conceals the arms, the neck and the bosom, as also the ornaments worn in the ears or on the neck or over the bosom.

Mr. Schwartz:

Khalid concludes with an emotional endorsement of Sheikh Abdullah Ibn Bayyah, a Mauritanian participant in the "Radical Middle Way" hoax alongside alleged "moderates" like the well-known Tariq Ramadan and the ultra-extreme speechifier-turned-"Sufi" Hamza Yusuf Hanson.  Ibn Bayyah is Mauritanian by origin, but now teaches in Saudi Arabia, the bastion of Wahhabi bigotry, enthusiasm for Al-Qaida, and incitement to terror in neighboring Iraq.  Concluding a maudlin evocation of the sheikh, Asma Khalid declares, "The sheikh, not bin Laden, is the authentic religious scholar. But to call him a moderate Muslim would be a misnomer."   Still, to emphasize, what of the many respected Muslim scholars, from North Africa to Indonesia, who choose that title for themselves?

. . .

Since Asma Khalid, with her chatter about "orthodoxy" and "piety," and her self-advertising hijab, turned to the Mauritanian-born Ibn Bayyah for guidance, let me conclude by citing Tierno Bakar, one of the greatest of the West African Sufis, and born in 20th century Mali:

The conduct of which I most disapprove and for which I have the most pity is that of the ridiculous hypocrite.  Such are those individuals who, with turbans carefully wound eight times around their heads, and a miniature copy of Qur'an in a fine case around their necks, walk with unnecessary dependence on the shoulder of a disciple and wave a cane that appears more like a fetish than a pilgrim's staff.  Such a person pronounces the declaration of faith with more noise than fervor, and preaches with an ardor motivated by nothing so much as immediate attention.  Such an individual corrupts the spirit and perverts the heart.  He is a thousand times worse than the murderer who only kills the body.

Haters of Islamic moderation may not slay Muslims or non-Muslims physically, but they may kill the soul of a great world religion.

Lying apologists who are either hideously ignorant or desperately deceitful, are killing everyone everywhere, as Islam continues the perpetual world war it started when Muhammad felt the need to seek revenge and satisfy his lust for blood.

According to the Historian al-Baladhuri, writing only 200 years after Muhammad, the prophet said:  "Peace be upon the one who follows the right path! I call you to Islam.  Accept my call, and you shall be unharmed. I am God's Messenger to mankind, and the word shall be carried out upon the miscreants. If therefore, you recognize Islam, I shall bestow power upon you. But if you refuse to accept Islam, your power shall vanish, my horses shall camp on the expanse of your territory and my prophecy shall prevail in your kingdom."

I have a suggestion for people like Stephen Schwartz:  Open the Quran and take a black permanent marker and remove all the passages you believe are not part of the “good” that is Islam . . . like the ones quoted above, and hundreds more like it.  Then show your handiwork to the average Muslim in Dearborn, Michigan and see what kind of consensus you receive.  You’ll want to update your legal papers before attempting this.

Fascism is exactly what Political and religious Islam was crafted to be.  It is no coincidence that Islam has historically been so cozy with the fascist Left.

This gentleman is either a true-believing ignoramus or a plant . . . a stalking horse set out to distract vapid Americans about the true dangers of mainstream Islam.  Anyone who presumes Islam is benign and that terrorist Jihadists are “radicals” can never be written off as a “healer,” a mere “secularist,” or even just a naive gentleman.  He cannot presume to be intelligent, learned, and worldly and also be so blind without the rest of us treating him with a good measure of suspicion.

I also nominate someone to slam shut the ridiculous argument that “true Islam” was corrupted by a doctored strain of Islam that altered scripture after Muhammad’s death . . . that true Islam was uplifting and peaceful, but what we see today was corrupted.  If it was originally peaceful, someone forgot to mention it to Muhammad, who was, as the historical record shows, a bloodthirsty tyrant.  His followers have never been peaceful.

In 1992, Islamic assassins had gunned down our good and brave friend Farag Foda, a professor and columnist, a human-rights activist, and an outspoken critic of the Islamic militants. The murder had shocked Cairo and terrified intellectuals. Egypt's most popular preacher, Abdel Hamid Kishk, a blind sheikh constantly attacked both the government and its official religious establishment. Kishk had been telling his audience that Muslims who entered paradise would enjoy eternal erections and the company of young boys draped in earrings and necklaces. Some of the ulama, the religious scholars at al-Azhar University, the government's seat of Islamic learning, had disagreed. Yes, they said, men in paradise would have erections, but merely protracted, not perpetual. Other experts disputed the possibility of pederasty in paradise.

"Is this what concerns Muslims at the end of the 20th century?" [Farag] Foda asked in a column in October magazine. "The world around us is busy with the conquest of space, genetic engineering and the wonders of the computer, while Muslim scholars," he wrote in sadness and pain, "were worried about sex in paradise." He was killed.

Culture: Religion

Read more articles by Amil Imani