By David Solway
“Reform Islam or Live the ‘New Normal’ Forever,” Roger Simon argues that Donald
Trump’s often frustrated travel ban on problematic countries, though not
illegal, is insufficient. “It's only a meager beginning in dealing with a
situation that has not changed in any real sense since 9/11, as the events in
New York Tuesday testify. If we do not move even more seriously to prevent
them, they will indeed become the ‘new normal.’ ” The violence, he continues,
“will never be squelched until the ideology is defeated and reformed… We must
all now be obnoxious, politically incorrect busybodies and get in Islam's face,
demanding reform in every way possible, economically, socially, theologically
and, yes, militarily.”
is a bravely unpopular stance to adopt Vis à vis Islam that will surely be
opposed and condemned by progressivists and offended Muslims. In fact, however,
it does not go nearly far enough. Islam is a notoriously resistant and
tentacular faith. I have long argued in book and article that Islam cannot be
reformed. For starters, it features no single “pontifical” authority that could
institute real change. Moreover, the canonical network is too intricate and too
vast to admit of effective modification. Expurgating the Koran, were it even
possible, is only the tip of the sand dune. The hundreds of thousands of
Hadithwould need to be reviewed and amended, as would the Sunnah and Sirah, the
five schools of jurisprudence, Twelver Shia, centuries of ulemic literature,
and the underlying cultural predispositions, beliefs, ideals, and orthodox
practices that form the bedrock of 57 Muslim nations and the West’s Muslim
immigration protocols, as Trump is valiantly trying to do, may be a welcome
step in the right direction, but it cannot meaningfully address the problem of
jihadist violence or creeping Islamization. Ilana Mercer reminds usthat
“Religion is The Risk Factor, not chaotic countries-of-origin... The data show
that young, second-generation Muslims are well-represented among terrorists
acting out almost weekly across the West.”
initiative, then, would not have prevented truck-ramming Sayfullo Saipov, a
legal Uzbek immigrant, from killing eight Americans; nor would it have
prevented American Muslims, immigrant or native-born, such as the Fort Hood
shooter, the San Bernardino couple, and the Orlando gay nightclub killer, from
wreaking carnage and mayhem. The “new normal” will persist for the soldiers of
Islam are already among us. Their agenda has been materially facilitated by a
treasonable left-wing constituency and pandering political class in Europe and
America, by the sentimental tolerance of current liberalism, and by the general
ignorance of the tenets, doctrines and usages of Islam.
is to be done? To begin with, we should stop all Muslim immigration to our
shores for the foreseeable future, not just a selective minority from
terror-sponsoring countries. Additionally, every mosque must be scrupulously
investigated and many permanently closed, for it is among these putative houses
of worship, as David Yurashalmi and Mordechai Kedar have shown in a Middle East
Quarterly essay “Shari’a and Violence in American Mosques,” that terror breeds
unabated. Of course, there are peaceable and “moderate” Muslims who wish only
to get on with their lives. But as Bruce Bawer has cogently argued in an
article treating of the Tariq Ramadan rape case, the “codes of Islam” are
endemic and those who continue “to identify as a Muslim” while rejecting
fundamental aspects of Islam are engaging in “sheer delusion.”
like the much maligned Geert Wilders, who distinguishes between the private
individual and an ideological machine, is right. It is not a question of
individual Muslims, who may be decent people and law-abiding citizens, but of the
faith they profess or nominally acknowledge, a faith whose “codes,” teachings
and dogmas are conquest-oriented and which is materially sustained by its
adherents, whether they know it or not. A militant and supremacist theology is
thus reinforced by its communicants, no matter how innocent of malice they may
be. Such is the Dar al-Islam, a theo-imperialist establishment which is
sustained by its “moderates” no less than by its “radicals.” As Mercer points
out, “The fact that there are moderate Muslims doesn’t mean there is a moderate
who contend, like Clifford Smith, Director of the Middle East Forum Washington
Project, that a more discerning vetting process, a “holistic approach regarding
applicants’ ideology,” can resolve the problem of distinguishing between “bona
fide Muslim migrants” and those “placing violent ideologies over American law,”
reveal a profound misunderstanding of the ancestral resilience of Islam. This
approach merely fudges the issue and does not account for home-grown jihadists,
as well as being vulnerable to the Islamic principal of taqqiyah, officially
approved lying. Canonical Islam would still remain intact and continue to pose
a threat to a pluralistic democracy with which it is incompatible. As former
Israeli Consul General to the U.S. Yoram Ettinger writes, acts of terror are
“not an aberration, but an integral episode of… 14 centuries of
Quran-sanctioned terrorism against the abode of the ‘infidel’.” Jihad is “a
fundamental pillar of Islam… which commands Muslims to emulate previous
struggles against the enemies of Islam, within the context of an eternal
those proponents of the “new normal” who frivolously claim, for example, that
more people are killed, say, by lightning than by jihad, the rebuttal is
obvious. Simon points out that TheReligionofPeace website documents “34
jihadist attacks in 13 countries over just six days this past week (Oct.
21-27), resulting in 444 killed and 114 injured. That doesn't include the
horrific suicide bombing in Somalia on October 28 that took over two dozen
lives -- including three children and a beheaded woman.” On the other hand, how
many were killed by lightning in the last six days?
be realistic. The “New Normal” is indeed here to stay -- the invasion has become
too expansive to be reversed -- but its ravages and incidence can be reduced if
we repudiate the cultural sedatives of the day and proceed, as Ettinger urges,
to “pre-empt, rather than react,” that is, to act decisively on several related
fronts: a recognition that reform cannot succeed, a strict moratorium on
immigration, a relentless surveillance of terror-fostering mosques, and a
refusal to succumb to the Kumbaya rhetoric of the politically correct.
to be realistic, a sea-change of this nature is highly unlikely -- since we
appear to be as unamenable to reform as is Islam. Nevertheless, unless we come
to our senses, realize that we are in the midst of a 1400-year civilizational
war, and take appropriate measures, the sequel is a foregone conclusion. As the
Gullah song goes, “Someone’s laughing, Lord, kumbaya” -- but it won’t be
Dear Naseer Saheb, I agree that the understanding of the term “kafir” is of utmost importance and if there is a possibility that it does not mean un-believer, it should be explored fully and taken through rigorous examination
"if there is a possibility that
it does not mean un-believer, it should be explored fully." Shahin
“Shahin Sb endorses my
approach and its significance”
That is an approach and what I said is accurate.
Only a perverted and committed troll like you will
twist the same. You are only trolling GM Sb and nothing more.
I am not aware that Yunus sb is also trying to say
that Kafir does not mean un-believer in the Quran in his 9 year old book. Is
that so? Did he say that to you in an email? What I know is that he first
vehemently disagreed with me then agreed and then disagreed and finally half
agreed much like you.
You are following the same path repeatedly:
Deny the Problem
Deny the Solution
When the above two fail, deny that it
Is this all about supporting Yunus sb and denying
others who have better answers? Both you and Yunus sb have been consistently engaged
in denying its significance and trying to take the discussion away from the
Looks like you are on a path that will take you into
your grave resisting, denying and discounting the truth and trolling anyone
other than Yunus sb for anything significant they come up with. Envy, thy name
is Ghulam Mohiyuddin.
clearly Shahin Sb endorses my approach and its significance.
Dear Naseer Saheb, I
agree that the understanding of the term “kafir” is of utmost importance and if
there is a possibility that it does not mean un-believer, it should be explored
fully and taken through rigorous examination so that Muslims could be convinced
that contrary to all the Muslim scholars from the time of Khulafa-e-Rashidin
till now no one has understood it and defined it properly. This would be a
discovery of momentous proportions and needs to be explored fully. This is why
I am surprised that none of the scholars like Ghulam Ghaus or Ghulam Rasool
Saheban are engaging with the debate. However, for me, this is a hypothesis of
such momentous importance that no matter how lengthy the debate, we should
engage in it.
How else do you think Shahin sb can further it except by
getting people to discuss and debate it? Are you blind to the fact that he
goaded everyone (except you) to join the discussion/debate? Ghulam Ghaus sb
joined reluctantly, GRD sb made half-hearted efforts in another thread and
stayed away. Why do you think Yunus sb made excuses if he was not expressly
invited to join the discussion? Hamza Sb
who has long ceased to comment joined the discussion on Shahin sb’s express invitation
if I am not mistaken. And what do you know of his efforts outside of NAI?
The Churlish and hollow character that you are, you can
think only in terms of applause, taking/denying credit. Your envy and heart
burn is obvious.
Stop being a lazy troll and read those articles.
Shahin Sb’s comment is addressed to you GM sb not to me. He is telling you what he thinks is important. He has no personal interest in any of us except in his own agenda of what he wants NAI to be. Shahin sb does much more than just endorse my view. He actively tries to further it. Your personal agenda is to oppose me in which Shahin sb has no interest.
About your other agenda which you think is more important, why don’t you pursue it yourself? Why don’t you write articles to further your cause? I am not standing in your way nor is Shahin Sb. It just shows your hollowness and incapacity for doing anything positive. Else, you wouldn’t have spent so much energy on opposing a good cause with which nobody can find any fault.
Read the following articles on the principles of war:
he Much discussed and debated Medinian Verses Relating to Fighting
Dr. Muhammad Farooq Khan On Jihad VersusTerrorism - Part 1: The Four Principle Of ‘Jihad As War’
Dr. Muhammad Farooq Khan on Jihad versus Terrorism - Part 2: Refutation of the Excuses or Justifications Offered By the Terrorist Groups
Dr. Muhammad Farooq Khan on Jihad versus Terrorism - Part 3: The Purpose of Jihad
GM sb, a committed troll, talks about deviousness for ignoring his nonsensical response. He is the one who is truly devious. In another thread, Shahin sb ended his comment with:
It may thus appear to be a hopeless case. But we simply cannot afford to lose hope. That's why I keep hoping that the struggle for correctly understanding terms like Kufr, Shirk, Jihad, etc., continues, and that proponents of a change in mindset do not tire and get exhausted with the stupendous effort required. We are living in critical times. There is no scope for complacency.
By Sultan Shahin - 11/15/2017 4:15:04 AM
To which he responded with:
Excellent synopsis by Sultan Shahin sahib of the enormous and stupendous task facing those who want to put Islam back on the track. The focus will have to be on a critical re-examination of the compilation of the Quran and the priority given in it to the battle verses. A religion of peace and virtuousness has no need for extensive tafsirs on concepts such as kafir, shirk and jihad. These discussions will not lead to any resolution. It would be best to skirt them and plunge into what Shahin sab calls, "the real, foundational verses of Islam that were naturally being revealed in peace-time in Makka".
By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 11/15/2017 12:50:40 PM
Is he not trying to shove in his own agenda which is not part of Shahin Sb’s comment at all and discounting what Shahin sb says is most important? And yet this devious character tries to fool people into thinking that he agrees with Shahin sb and that both are saying the same thing!
The art of appearing to agree while disagreeing as in the example above, and disagreeing only to disparage while not having the courage to take the opposite position while commenting on my articles, is what this devious character resorts to all the time. Is he not a consummate hypocrite?
Our scholars have made Islam a religion without principles which is what we need to address. My comment on Yunus Sb’s article is reproduced:
The article is based on the "Qur’an’s Fighting Verses". The comment is therefore necessarily on the principles of war.
The Principles of war that are derived by considering all the verses on fighting are clear and free from ambiguity. None of the verses make an exception based on the times and circumstances of the Prophetic mission of Muhammad (pbuh). The principles are therefore eternal and based as these are on Divine guidance and inspiration, are common to all the scriptures and may be taken as guidance by all the people whether they follow the religion of Islam or not. The clear, unambiguous principles are:
1. There is no compulsion in religion. Any form of coercion in religion or prevention from following one’s religion peacefully, constitutes persecution.
2. War is mandated to end any kind of oppression against any people. The oppression may be religious persecution or any other form of oppression. The faith of the oppressor and the oppressed is immaterial.
3. Only a ruler with a territory and people under his political authority can wage war. Civil war is not permissible. And only people in the territory ruled by such a ruler can participate in the war effort. People residing in territory under the control of the oppressor, must migrate from that territory first, if they wish to join the war effort against the oppressor.
4. The only justifiable cause for making war is to fight against the oppressors to end oppression. There is no other justifiable cause.
Once the principles are understood, and it is seen that every verse on fighting confirms the same, and no verse contradicts these principles, then there is no longer any need to resort to rhetoric and defense based on the spurious argument of exceptionalism or historic relativism. The unending arguments are because the Quran is not understood based on its underlying principles.
By Naseer Ahmed - 10/20/2017 11:00:20 PM