Yes, I'm Afraid Lots of Muslims Do Hate the US

The circus of ridiculously ignorant commentary surrounding Donald Trump's recent statements that "Islam hates us [i.e. America]" continues apace.

In a piece at Christian Today, Harry Farley, a "junior staff writer" (obviously not ready for the big time yet), claims that Trump's assertions have been "discredited" by research that was published before the Republican frontrunner even made them.

Farley claims that the study by the Pew Research Centre shows that "there is little anti-American sentiment in Muslim countries." But actually it does not bear this out at all.

The piece says:

Countries such as Burkina Faso and Senegal, which have an overwhelming Muslim population, view the USA favourably (80 per cent and 79 per cent respectively), the 2015 research showed.  

Indonesia, which has the largest Muslim population in the world, has a broadly positive opinion of America with 62 per cent saying they viewed the country favourably. 

Muslim countries in the Middle East tend to have more negative views of the US with 83 per cent of those in Jordan and 70 per cent in Palestine viewing America unfavourably. However there has been a "gradual rise in positive sentiment since President Barack Obama came to power"...

That's great and all, but the problem with it is that Donald Trump was speaking about this in the context of its implications for Muslim immigration into the US, and the likelihood that Muslim immigrants will bring hatred of America with them. And the majority of America's Muslim immigrants are not coming from Burkina Faso or Senegal. Of the countries contributing the most foreign-born immigrants to the United States, the most common Muslim-majority countries are Iran, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Iraq and Egypt.

Assuming the research in question refers to this study from June 2015 (the numbers look similar), four of those five countries were not even part of the research, and hence have no results, while the one that is - Pakistan - has a 62% unfavourability rating towards the US. Almost every Muslim country on the Pew list has a significantly higher unfavourability rating than the median across the board, which was 24%. If we are generous, and assume that the absent Muslim countries that provide the bulk of Muslim immigration to the US all have ratings in line with the median, instead of much higher, then this means that in Iran, there are almost 18 million Muslims who have an unfavourable view of America, over 33 million in Bangladesh, over 7.5 million in Iraq, and almost 18 million in Egypt.

Should Americans therefore be concerned about how many of these people might end up coming to the United States? Many would say so, and they wouldn't necessarily have to be Donald Trump supporters to believe that.

The biggest blunder Farley makes is in the final sentence, when he attempts to soothe us about the huge amount of anti-American hatred in Pakistan by reminding us that "Pew data pointed to anti-American feeling spiking around key political events. In Pakistan it spiked in 2011, the year a US raid killed Osama Bin Laden."

Aren't you comforted to know that when America killed the evil terrorist mass murderer Osama bin Laden, the first reaction of Pakistani Muslims was to be angry at America?

Overall, the entire focus of this article is overwhelmingly stupid. Donald Trump's remarks were characteristically crude and non-specific, but he was careful to say that no one really knows the extent of the anti-American sentiment among Muslims entering the United States. He certainly did not say it was a majority, which means that the Christian Today piece is debunking a claim that no one ever made. The article also ignores the massive numbers involved even in minority amounts that might have unfavourable views of the US, and makes no mention of the hatred that is inculcated in the Qur'an itself - something that Donald Trump has at least shown a dim awareness of.

In other words, just par for the course in media "analysis" of Islam these days.

Why NY Daily News McCan't Explain Islamic Jihad

In a piece today at the New York Daily News, Will McCants spins the line that "Trump and Obama are both wrong about Islam":

Donald Trump is certain that “Islam hates us,” as he said in an interview with CNN host Anderson Cooper and repeated in Miami’s debate. “There’s tremendous hatred.” President Obama is certain that “Islam is a religion that preaches peace.” 

Both men are equally wrong. Islam neither hates nor preaches — its followers do. Islam is what people make of it, and they have made it many different things.

McCants goes on to provide a number of examples of where the Qur'an says certain things (some violent and intolerant), followed by examples of Muslims both affirming and contradicting those teachings. He concludes from this that if we define Islam nebulously as simply whatever individual Muslims want it to be, then all will be well.

But his argument is severely flawed. Firstly, it is simply illogical to say that, for example, when Muslims behave tolerantly towards non-Muslims despite the Qur'an's admonition to “Kill the polytheists wherever you find them” (9:5), they are just practicing Islam "in their own way". Rather, the correct way to understand this behaviour is that they are not practising Islam, and they are ignoring the commandment of the Qur'an. It makes no sense to say that this tolerant behaviour is a form of Islam that politicians should be talking about (which is what McCants suggests in the piece), when actually it is not Islam at all, but simply human beings behaving in a certain way.

Secondly, and building on the first point, the insistence on defining Islam not by its foundational texts and written teachings, but by how Muslims might behave in any given time and place, means that we cannot realistically work to solve problems that lead to misery and suffering in the world. If, for example, we follow Will McCants' line of thinking and decide that the Qur'an's command to "kill the polytheists wherever you find them" doesn't really matter, because some Muslims might not obey it, then we cannot possibly develop a strategy to change the minds of the Muslims who do want to obey it.

The Muslims who commit savage acts of barbarity every single day regularly quote and cite specific verses of the Qur'an, specific behaviours and teachings of Muhammad, and specific tenets of Islamic law to justify their behaviour (see a few examples here, here, here, here and here). On the other hand, Muslims who behave tolerantly or otherwise "normally" rarely invoke specific Islamic teachings to justify their behaviour - they can't, because such teachings don't really exist. Their "niceness" is due to an absence of Islam, not the presence of a coherent version of it. As a society, we need to understand why the violent and intolerant teachings of Islam continue to have such widespread appeal, and how this can be countered. Will McCants' ideas do not, and cannot, do that.

He also uses odd logic when he says that Obama's Islam-is-a-Religion-of-Peace schtick is still preferable to Donald Trump's view, because "America stands more to gain by denying the jihadist propaganda of its adversaries than by ratifying it." Really? America stands more to gain by ignoring the ideological basis of its adversaries' hatred than by assessing it honestly, and understanding it to a sufficient level in order to combat it more effectively? That is nonsense.

There is also this:

When we attribute human beliefs and behaviors to ancient, immutable scripture, we can’t explain change over time... 

The Arabian Peninsula was once home to mystics and music; today it is governed by an austere form of Islam that frowns on religious rapture and playing instruments. Turning to scripture to explain these reversals won’t get you very far.

Actually scripture is the only way to explain the reversals. It is not as if the prohibition on music and playing instruments arose only recently. Reliance of the Traveller, a mainstream manual of Islamic law that was written in the fourteenth century, says that there is “explicit and compelling textual evidence that musical instruments of all types are unlawful” in Islam. It quotes hadith with Muhammad saying things like the following:

“Allah Mighty and Majestic sent me as a guidance and mercy to believers and commanded me to do away with musical instruments, flutes, strings, crucifixes, and the affair of the pre-Islamic period of ignorance.” 

“On the Day of Resurrection, Allah will pour molten lead into the ears of whoever sits listening to a songstress.” 

“Song makes hypocrisy grow in the heart as water does herbage.” 

“'This Community will experience the swallowing up of some people by the earth, metamorphosis of some into animals, and being rained upon with stones.' Someone asked, 'When will this be, O messenger of Allah?' and he said, 'When songstresses and musical instruments appear and wine is held to be lawful.”

The manual repeats: “It is unlawful to use musical instruments – such as those which drinkers are known for, like the mandolin, lute, cymbals and flute – or to listen to them.” The only exception is that the tambourine may be played at weddings and circumcisions.

These are the actual foundational teachings of the religion of Islam. Simply put, they fell into abeyance in some parts of the world for a time due to non-adherence to Islam. Now religious purists are calling for Muslims to return to these foundational principles. That call could not and would not happen without the ancient scriptures to point to; therefore it is quite apt to use them to explain the resurgence of an "austere form of Islam" in many parts of the world.

I can see what Will McCants is trying to do here. He's trying to take the "reasonable" middle ground in a complex debate that is full of heightened emotions and touchy subjects. But his take on all of this has no practical value and just adds confusion to a topic that really doesn't need it. Most importantly, it prevents us from being able to take positive steps to improve the current situation, and consequently plays into the hands of groups like ISIS - who will continue to use the Qur'an to justify their violence, even as Will McCants continues to tell us that it doesn't matter.

Neo-Ottoman Turkey Exposing EU's Suicidal Idiocy

European Union leaders are currently holding a key summit with Turkey in Brussels on ways of dealing with the migrant crisis.

The EU is pressing Turkey, through which many migrants transit, to take some back in return for $3.3bn in aid. Turkey is reportedly asking for that sum to be doubled, and is also seeking a faster path towards EU membership and the speeding up of plans to allow Turks visa-free travel in Europe as part of the deal.

Only a willfully blind moron could fail to be wise to the fact that this is a deal that plays entirely into Turkey's sharia supremacist hands. In demanding extortionate amounts of money in return for stemming the migrant invasion, Turkey is literally demanding jizya as per its Ottoman forebears, whereby the Jews and Christians of Europe were forced to pay for their protection from marauding Muslim armies.

What's more, adding faster EU membership into the mix and potentially allowing greater Turkish travel inside Europe is a surefire way of replacing one Islamic invasion of the continent with another.

Turkey's slide into sharia has long been a cause of alarm for many secularists. Islamic religious schools are increasingly threatening the secular educational system; a popular musician was arrested and given a suspended jail sentence for blasphemy against Islam; and numerous military generals – who have traditionally been the guardians of secularism in the country – have been imprisoned on trumped up charges of planning alleged coups against the government. The ruling AKP party has also introduced new laws in recent years designed to restrict the sale and advertising of alcohol in line with sharia provisions. Antisemitism is rife throughout the country, as is the violent abuse of women (sound familiar?), and the Turkish government has been accused - quite credibly - of collaborating with ISIS in numerous ways.

It should also be noted that even before the migrant crisis that began last year, Turkey has long been known to be majorly responsible for the mass movement of Muslims from the Islamic world into Europe: regular flights have been organized for years between Rabat in Morocco and Algiers in Algeria to Istanbul so as to bring a sizeable number of nationals from those countries to Turkey and transport them thereafter to Greece-Bulgaria, en route to the EU. Turkey has also lifted travel regulations and visas with those countries, whilst it has no visa with Iran, thus promoting in effect the movement of Afghans and Pakistanis, as well as Iranians, into Europe.

And all of that time, PM Erdogan has actively encouraged those Muslim migrants NOT to integrate into their new European host countries.

Allowing freer movement for Turks within Europe, and ultimately the admittance of Turkey into the European Union, would be nothing less than an invitation to almost 75 million Muslims to proceed with a further mass invasion of Europe, driven surely by some secularists and minorities, but undoubtedly by many devoutly religious types holding to values that will culturally impoverish the continent forever.

In service of the Eurabia project, European leaders - who are certain to agree to some variation of the proposed pact of dhimmitude being reported today - seem willing and eager to sign the suicide note of our continent in exchange for the public appearance of doing something about a problem they caused in the first place.

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.