Eye On Islam Arrives At Twitter!

As you might have noticed, posting isn't exactly non-stop around here these days. This stems in large part from my own laziness, as well as lack of time. But it also comes down to the fact that there are so many great anti-jihad websites out there already, that it is difficult to post original material that hasn't been already covered in extensive detail by one or many of the other great commentators on the subject that are out there.

That said, I really do want to keep sharing content with the anti-jihad movement, even if I can't post detailed articles every day, or even every week. And so, for that reason, Eye On Islam now has a Twitter account. I am aware there is already an account with a similar name out there, and hopefully it won't cause any confusion.

Tweeting will allow me to post links to external stories and analysis on a more regular basis (i.e. every day), since it doesn't take long to do, and it will also allow me to interact a bit more with the anti-jihad community, as well as the world's various Islamic apologists, who will be receiving hefty doses of reality from me whenever they post deceptive nonsense for the credulous to swallow.

I will still post here when I can - and when I feel the subject is worthwhile - and will link any new blog posts to the Twitter feed. So if you are one of the single-digit count of people who read the blog, please feel free to follow me (I already have one follower!) and let's go out and spread the word.

Newsweek Smears PEGIDA Leadership As "Far-Right"

Warriors of truth will be needed in the war to come

This recent article at Newsweek abut the PEGIDA phenomenon spreading across Europe is just bizarre.

Its headline is: "ANTI-ISLAM ORGANIZATION PEGIDA IS EXPORTING HATE ACROSS EUROPE".

And yet, despite this inflammatory and misleading headline, the article itself takes nowhere near as hostile a tone throughout (although don't get me wrong, it's still rather hostile), and fails to substantiate the premise it sets out at the beginning.

The author's attempts to prove that PEGIDA are a far-right hate-filled group fall short every time he tries. Take this paragraph describing the recent PEGIDA rally that took place in the UK:

It’s not often you see the words “Trump is right” on protest banners in Britain, whose Parliament recently debated banning the Republican front-runner from entering the country. But as the freezing rain drives down on an industrial estate on the outskirts of Birmingham, what stands out above a huddled mass of silent marchers are dozens of iterations of Donald Trump’s lurid visage, born aloft and plastered with the slogan. Another popular banner reads, “Protect our children.” A third: “Nazism=Islamism.”

If we assume that the "Trump is right" banners were referring to his call for a moratorium on Muslim immigration to the West, then as I have written here before, that call had absolutely nothing to do with racism or bigotry against Muslims, and everything to do with national security concerns. Trump was indeed right. And what about "Protect our children"? Even the mainstream media could not sink so low as to declare that sentiment "far right", could they? As for "Nazism=Islamism", the two ideologies do indeed share a close ideological affinity, dating back to Adolf Hitler himself. I plan to write in more detail about this here some time in the not-too-distant future.

In other words: no, there is nothing "far-right" about any of this. It is all simply the truth.

The article later quotes Tommy Robinson - who seems to be regaining his anti-jihad credentials after an ill-advised flirtation with the Great Enigma Maajid Nawaz - thusly: “I’m not far-right. I’m just opposed to Islam. I believe it’s backward and it’s fascist,” Robinson, 33, says. “The current refugee crisis is nothing to do with refugees. It’s a Muslim invasion of Europe.”

Again: all true (Islam as a totalitarian ideology - see here; the "refugee crisis" as an invasion of Muslim economic migrants - see here), not hateful, and not far-right.

Another of PEGIDA’s leaders in Britain, Anne Marie Waters, is also quoted, and Newsweek shamelessly editorializes that she is "keen to present [PEGIDA's] arguments as almost moderate. [emphasis mine]"

“It is what we share as Europeans, as Westerners. Democratic civilization, that is what we’re there to defend,” she says.

"Almost moderate"???? Still Newsweek has not demonstrated that anything about PEGIDA's UK branch is anything but moderate and democratic. It simply presents the words of the group's leaders as if they are self-evidently extremist - and implies that even when what they say is perfectly reasonable and harmless, well, that's just what they want you to think. Thus it quotes an "expert on the far-right" as saying that “They immediately make themselves look more legitimate.”

Maybe that's because they are legitimate, and not "far-right"? Newsweek doesn't want you to consider the possibility.

Anyway, we also get a summary of some of Robinson's other positions:

Robinson, meanwhile, is keen on segregating Britain’s male prisons into Muslim and non-Muslim inmates; he has alleged that during his own prison stay, Muslim inmates threatened and physically assaulted him. He also wants to close down any Islamic courts operating in Britain. (No legally binding Sharia courts exist in Britain, but an estimate in 2009 by British think tank Civitas said there were at least 85 Sharia bodies offering religious guidance, family mediation and other services.) Rather than try to prevent British jihadis from leaving for Syria and Iraq, Robinson would cheerily wave them off: “Send them all, mate. I'd be chartering jets for ’em.”

Clearly, the death camps are just around the corner.

The piece adds near its conclusion: "One quiet protest does not make a revolution, or even a Trump-sized political movement. But PEGIDA hopes that a new wave of anti-Islam dissent will swing the political conversation its way and attract the moderate supporters that a traditional far-right group could never hope to gain."

Maybe that's because PEGIDA is not a traditional far-right group, or in fact a far-right group at all. But Newsweek doesn't want you to consider that.

Don't Believe Your Lying Eyes

First, read this insubstantial, evidence-free piece of puffery published today at the Independent:

"You don't need to look much further than the Quran for proof that Islam is a peaceful religion"

Then read the following extracts from the Qur'an itself:

2:191-193 – “And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers...And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah.” 

4:95 – “Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons. Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit (at home). Unto all (in Faith) Hath Allah promised good: But those who strive and fight Hath He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward.” 

8:38-39 – “Tell those who disbelieve that if they cease (from persecution of believers) that which is past will be forgiven them; but if they return (thereto) then the example of the men of old hath already gone (before them, for a warning). And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is all for Allah.” 

9:5 – “Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.” 

9:29 – “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book [Jews and Christians], until they pay the Jizya [non-Muslim poll tax] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” 

9:111 – “Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth...”

Game over.

No, Maajid Nawaz: Islam Is Not "Native" To The West

I have written of my skepticism about the "Muslim reformer" Maajid Nawaz before. On top of that, it is also worth reading this piece over at Gates of Vienna, dissecting some of the claims made about Islam by Nawaz in his much-publicized book Islam and the Future of Tolerance: A Dialogue, which he co-authored with atheist Sam Harris. Please note that I do not personally agree with all of the author's conclusions about Nawaz and his motivations, but I do think it is a useful overview of how deceptive - willfully or otherwise - he can be when he discusses specific elements of Islamic theology and law.

All of that can then serve as illuminating background for Nawaz's latest musings about Islamic reform, from a talk he gave in Sydney this weekend.

After answering a range of questions at an event at Sydney University, including on his former membership to extremist group Hizb ut-Tahrir and how to prevent radicalisation in young people, Nawaz told the largely Caucasian crowd to "own" the problem of Islamic extremism.

"When we finally realise that Muslims are here to stay, that they are native to the west, their version of Islam is native to the west, we will own that conversation on equal terms," he said. "When we look at it like that, we stop 'other-ising' and we will feel like we own the problem and therefore own the conversation, as we do with Christianity. No one sees Christianity as alien to the west. They feel like they own the debate because Christianity is viewed as native to the west."

What on earth is Nawaz talking about? Islam is not "native to the West". Muslims are not "native to the West". Islam only has a significant presence in the West at all because of immigration, and because marauding Muslim armies brutally invaded Spain and the south of France in the eighth century, subjugating and persecuting the indigenous peoples.

Ultimately it is ridiculous to say that any religion is "native" to anywhere, since no religion has existed forever, but if anyone has the impression that Christianity is native to the West, that would be because it has been present here for all of modern history, and because it has shaped and cultivated so much of our culture and traditions. In a very real sense, it created the West. It did not spread throughout the Western world by violent conquest, as Islam did, and Western culture has not been directly shaped by Islam at all, despite propaganda aimed at convincing us to the contrary.

So Nawaz's formulation here is based on an utterly absurd supremacist lie, that Islam is "native" to Western civilisation. But more than that, his suggestion just makes absolutely no sense as any part of a solution. How will Westerners accepting that Islam is native to the West facilitate Islamic reform? If we stop "otherising" Muslims and Islam, will the likes of ISIS respond by beating their guns into plowshares and reinterpreting the verses of the Qur'an that they use to justify their atrocities? Once we "own" the debate on extremism, will Muslim clerics be convinced that the Qur'an should not be taken literally and that Muhammad's example is not an acceptable model to follow in the modern world?

Maajid Nawaz's "wisdom" here is just pure pretentious nonsense. He has been around for years now, and despite all his talk of deradicalisation, and his otherwise sensible suggestion that Muslims should desist from taking the Qur'an completely literally, I have still never seen any evidence that he actually has any kind of cohesive plan for Islamic reform, or understands the steps that would be required in moving Muslims away from Qur'anic literalism. I cannot possibly claim to know his true thoughts or motivations, but it seems to me that he is simply a terrible reformer, at best.

And at the same time, while I don't personally subscribe to this view, Nawaz's tendency to serenade us with ridiculous nonsense like this  - and his failure to answer important questions about his methods - gives me some sympathy with those who see him as something in fact much worse than an incompetent reformer: as a stealth jihadist, waging an incredibly sophisticated campaign of deception in service of insidious ends.

Churchill Was The Prototypical Anti-Dhimmi

It was reported recently that Italian authorities covered up naked statues exhibited at a world-famous museum in Rome for an official visit of Iranian President Hassan Rouhani. The vast censorship effort was reportedly implemented as a show of "respect" to Rouhani (because he really deserves it), out of fears that the exposed private parts of ancient Roman gods could offend Iranian (i.e. Shi'ite Islamic) sensitivity. Wine was also banned from official receptions.

Starting in the latter half of the twentieth century, the Western world has lost appreciation for its values, heritage and culture, and seems to express a deep shame - and even hatred - for it on a regular basis. Consequently, we seem to have adopted a general rule of thumb that goes something like this: "When in Islamic countries, observe Islamic values; when in our own countries, observe Islamic values". Hence, the kind of fawning, self-abasing dhimmitude we have just seen in Italy.

Winston Churchill, on the other hand, was a man who loved Western civilisation, and knew that Islam was a threat to it, and that kowtowing before Muslim demands and "sensitivities" was a disastrous thing to do. He wrote eloquently of the weaknesses of the Islamic outlook, and clear-sightedly compared the Qur'an to Mein Kampf.

He also had a marvelous response when confronted with supremacist Muslim demands to "respect" their values even when they were the ones who were visiting him, and should have been respecting his values.

Prior to a meeting in Egypt in 1945, the Saudi King Abdul Aziz ibn Saud sent word to Churchill that “the King could not allow drinking or smoking in his presence”. Churchill replied:

I was the host and I said that if it was his religion that made him say such things, my religion prescribed as an absolute sacred ritual smoking cigars and drinking alcohol before, after and if need be during, all meals and the intervals between them. Complete surrender.

Such bold defiance in the face of religiously-inspired intolerance stands in stark contrast to the Western leaders of today - who allow Islam unlimited access into the West before inviting it to trample on our customs and heritage.

The Other Choice

With all the mania surrounding Donald Trump, it can be easy to forget that there are, in fact, other candidates in the US Presidential race, and that some of them have useful, rational things to say.

Today, Republican candidate Ben Carson pointed out that eradicating Islamic State will not stop jihad terrorism. “The Islamist threat is now like a hydra, and cutting off the head that is ISIL will not kill the beast,” he said. “The defeat of the Islamic State and elimination of its caliphate is necessary but insufficient to ending our broader conflict against radical Islam, A Carson administration will wage war against radical Islamic terrorism as a global movement, not just as discrete entities.”

Today it is very rare to hear anyone talk about this being a global jihadist movement driven by common motives and goals (which is what it is), so Carson's understanding is very welcome. He also added: “In short, our enemies are transnational jihadist organizations. Based on their understanding of the tenets of Islam, these enemies are intent on imposing a supremacist and totalitarian form of government on others."

Exactly right. Carson has already shown in previous comments that he has a deeper understanding of Islam than any of the other candidates. While Trump steamrolls everyone and everything in his path with fire and bluster, Carson seems to be the calmer, more rational option. I don't know too much about him or his views, if I'm honest, but I've seen enough of Trump (because how can anyone avoid him at the moment?) to know that while he is coming up on the right side of many issues that ordinary Americans feel strongly about, his overall comprehension of the world around him seems to be only held in place at the moment by his sheer charisma and fire-breathing self-confidence. Give him any real political power, and his lack of intelligence would show through all the more.

I'm not one of those folks who is going to sit here and demonise Donald Trump until you never want to hear his name ever again - I don't like him, but I don't think he's a Nazi either - and it seems inconceivable that he now won't win the Republican nomination for the presidency, but if you're a conservative American voter, and have deep concerns about the future of Islam in your country, there is no better alternative in the running than Ben Carson.

Is This How You De-Radicalise A Muslim?

In a piece published recently at the Huffington Post, Asma Afsaruddin - a Professor of Near Eastern Languages and Civilisations at Indiana University - claims to have "deradicalised" (she doesn't use that word, but it's essentially what she means) one of her students by telling him how his "monolithic" view of Islam was all wrong. Some of the points she makes are worth further examination.

The professor says her student - who she calls Fulan - was indoctrinated in Wahabbism while being educated in Saudi Arabia, and came back with a huge amount of respect for Ibn Kathir, a 14th-century Muslim scholar whose work is readily available in most Muslim bookshops and mosques even in the UK. She says that Fulan was preoccupied with Ibn Kathir's discussion of the so-called "Verse of the Sword" from the Qur'an: "When the sacred months have passed, then slay the polytheists wherever you may encounter them." (9:5)

Having already told us that we should never get the impression that Islam and the Qur'an are monolithic and only subject to a single valid interpretation, Asma immediately tells us, in black and white terms, that the correct interpretation is that this verse "was directed specifically at the Meccan polytheists who had attacked the Prophet Muhammad and his small community of Muslims in the seventh century." End of story, apparently. She also adds towards the end of the piece: "One could conclude that Ibn Kathir and Ibn Taymiyyah's [another famous Muslim scholar who mentored Ibn Kathir] views were as strident as they were because of the dangerous times they lived in. The Islamic world was under siege during their period by foreign aggressors who could only be effectively repelled by a military counterattack. These two scholars were not speaking for all Muslims everywhere for all time."

The claim that the Verse of the Sword was only ever intended to apply to the Muslims Muhammad was fighting in the seventh century is entirely the professor's interpretation, and is not backed up by centuries of exegetical and juristic tradition. But more than that, she is also not even telling the truth when she says that these renowned Islamic scholars only ever meant to apply the verse's strictures to their own military situations.

Here is part of what Ibn Kathir says about the verse:

These Ayat [verses] allowed fighting people [not just Mongols or any specific group, just 'people' ~ Ed] unless, and until, they embrace Islam and implement its rulings and obligations...This honorable Ayah (9:5) was called [i.e. BEFORE Ibn Kathir! ~ Ed] the Ayah of the Sword, about which Ad-Dahhak bin Muzahim said, "It abrogated every agreement of peace between the Prophet and any idolator, every treaty, and every term.'' Al-`Awfi said that Ibn `Abbas commented: "No idolator had any more treaty or promise of safety ever since Surah Bara'ah [chapter 9 of the Qur'an] was revealed [i.e. in perpetuity ~ Ed].

Clearly, then Ibn Kathir was not just talking about fighting any specific enemies the Muslims might have had in his day, but about all infidels who do not yet "embrace Islam and implement its rulings and obligations" - especially since he also says in his commentary on this verse that idolaters should be killed "on the earth in general", indicating that he envisioned jihads being waged against people who had never even made contact with Muslims, let alone threatened them.

The same thing is evident in the writings of Ibn Taymiyya. For example:

Since jihad is divinely instituted, and its goal is that religion reverts entirely to Allah and to make Allah's word triumph, whoever opposes the realisation of this goal will be fought, according to the unanimous opinion of Muslims. Jews and Christians, as well as Zoroastrians (Magians), must be fought until they embrace Islam or pay the jizya without recriminations. Jurisconsults do not agree on the question of knowing if the jizya should be imposed on other categories of infidels; on the other hand, all consider that it should not be required of Arabs [hence they should convert to Islam or be killed or expelled].

Note that he doesn't say that only Mongols should be fought, but that "whoever" stands in the way of the total domination of Islam should be fought, including Jews and Christians.

Asma says that she managed to convince Fulan not to listen to Ibn Kathir or Ibn Taymiyyah by reading the writings of "many different scholars" who apparently disagreed with their interpretation of the Qur'an, but she does not mention who they are or what kind of influence they had, or continue to have.

Next, she goes on to lament the fact that Fulan was ignoring "other scholars who emphasized spiritual and intellectual striving as important components of jihad. After all, jihad in its basic meaning signifies 'struggle' or 'striving,' which can be carried out in different ways." That is true, of course, when it comes to jihad as a mere Arabic word, but it remains the case that jihad of the sword was always the predominant meaning of the term within Islamic theology. The nineteenth-century British Orientalist E.W. Lane, whose work is admired by both native Arab and non-Arab speakers, carefully studied the etymology of the word jihad, and concluded that it “came to be used by the Muslims to signify generally he fought, warred, or waged war, against unbelievers and the like.” Even Al-Azhar University, the highest educational and spiritual authority in Sunni Islam, has emphasised the same thing:

The word 'Jihad' means exerting all efforts. It means also struggling hard until you feel exhausted. To strive against the enemy is to fight him. Jihad – from the viewpoint of religion – means exerting all efforts in repelling the enemies and in fighting them. Jihad is an Islamic word which other Nations use in the meaning of 'war'.

Interestingly, the professor cites another contemporary of Ibn Kathir - Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, who she says "wrote a beautiful moving treatise describing the inner spiritual struggle as a continuous feature of jihad. Needless to say, this particular work is ignored by militants and apparently was not part of the texts that my student had been exposed to in Saudi Arabia."

The problem with this is that whatever Ibn Qayyim wrote about spiritual jihad, he still also wrote that "jihad is obligatory until the word of Allah reigns supreme, and until all are of the religion of Allah, until the religion of Allah triumphs over all religions and until they [infidels] pay the poll tax while in a state of inferiority.” It is entirely possible for Muslims to believe passionately in the importance of both spiritual and violent jihad without contradiction. Needless to say, Asma Afsaruddin ignores this fact, and this text of Ibn Qayyim's.

Next she observes that "Interpretations of law, whether religious or secular, are always influenced by specific historical and cultural contexts." That might be true, but it also ignores the fact that the jurists of Islamic law long ago declared its interpretation to be fixed and unalterable, in line with the idea that the "gates of ijtihad" - independent reasoning and reform of sharia - are closed and will remain forever thus. The professor might disagree with that, and that's fine, but it will do no good to just pretend that "mainstream Muslims" all believe that we can reinterpret Islamic law however we want as the cultural and social winds change, because that's just not the case.

At the end of the day, if the professor truly did manage to convince her young Muslim student to look at Islam in a less radical way by using these arguments, that's all to the good. However, I can't help thinking that her dishonest presentation of the facts wouldn't stack up well against someone better informed, and that if I can pick holes in her argument, then a slick, sophisticated jihadi recruiter would probably be able to pick ten more.