Download Stripping the Gurus PDF



SAM HARRIS and the Islamist-turned-liberal-Muslim Maajid Nawaz have recently written a book together, on Islam and the Future of Tolerance. The gist of it being that Islam has reformed and exhibited tolerance (with jizya?) at times in the past, and therefore it has the potential to reform again in the future.

Well, one can only hope. But a more reasonable perspective comes from elsewhere:

A meaningful or permanent reformation of Islam is impossible, because a new generation of fanatics, wielding the unexpurgated Qur’an and Hadith as their weapons, will always declare the reformists to be apostates and murder them. In Islam, the fanatics who are holding the unalterable Qur’an in one hand and a sword in the other always stand ready to seize complete power and exterminate their enemies.

Cf. London Imam who expressed desire to counter extremism forced to resign after physical threats.

In the words of the writer Douglas Murray:

Maybe Islam can reform ... but maybe it won’t, and I for one don’t want my society’s future to be predicated on a bet which is likely to be lost.

Indeed, a Protestant-like reformation of Islam, restoring it to its original roots, was already effected in the eighteenth century. We know it today as Wahhabism—the most puritanical and virulent branch of the Islamic death-cult, as Robert Spencer explains (44:19):

A companion video to Harris and Nawaz’s talk was recorded at Harvard University (whose press also published the book):

But still, heart-warming though that exchange may be, the phrase “Too little, too late” comes to mind. It should certainly not have taken a decade and a half since 9/11 for the idea of reform to be publicized, if it was known to moderate/secular Muslim scholars the whole damned time. In the interim, nearly a generation’s worth of freedoms, won only through great (and largely forgotten) bloodshed, have been lost, at an ever-increasing rate.

And how long would it take to reform not merely Islam, but the Regressive Left which has not merely allowed but encouraged “oppressed Muslims” to increase their power in the West? Multiple generations, surely. The ones who are youths and adults now will not change their attitudes, any more than Christians would change theirs upon learning the details of the theory of evolution. How many more good-hearted refugee-centre workers will be murdered by asylum-seekers in the meantime?

As one reviewer of that book noted: “All Harris and Nawaz seek is to give voice to the spirit of rebellion and reformation smoldering in the lands of Islam. Forcing it into flame will doubtless be a long time coming.”

And by then it will be too late, for both the Middle East and the West:

As of 2015 America has 3,186 mosques, the largest numbers are in Texas, California and [New York], between [300 and 525] in each state.
And, to give you some idea of the rate and exponential growth of mosques and with them Islam and Muslims, here is an interesting point.
The overall number of mosques in the United States quietly rose from 1,209 in 2000 to 2,106 in 2010, an increase of 74%. So, in only ten years there was an increase of 74%. Clearly, this exponential increase [sic: an exponential increase is one in which the number consistently doubles in a given period of time] will only speed up the rate even further as more mosques and [M]uslims enter the US and outgrow the American birth rate. And, so will the demands of the Muslims grow with their increasing numbers.
What this shows is that America is gradually heading the same way as Europe and is only a few years behind. It is only the size and population of the US which tends to camouflage the gradual Muslim invasion. But, make no mistake, it is happening....
Just think of 9/11, Boston, Fort Hood, San Bernardino and as the number of Muslims grows in the US, you can expect further terrorist attacks. And, that does not include the attacks on American interests around the world either.

By contrast, Sam Harris has some extremely retarded ideas concerning the silence of moderate Muslims in the face of the terrorism of their religious compatriots:

The problem we run into globally is that so many Muslims are afraid of being the target of intolerance [i.e., by right-wing whites] that they do not want to lend any credence to the idea that there is something special going on in the Muslim community, or within the religion of Islam.

A similar statement would provide a reasonable explanation for the silence of moderate second-wave feminists in the face of the literal insanity of their radical, explicitly man-hating sisters (e.g., Valerie Solanas). The closest I have ever seen to a condemnation of Solanas’ founding of the Society for Cutting Up Men (SCUM) and life-destroying attempt to assassinate Andy Warhol, for example, is the ditzy statement that the behaviors of radical feminists made the demands of supposedly moderate feminists seem reasonable by comparison. (SCUM’s goal, BTW, was to literally “eliminate the male sex.”) When applied to Muslims, however, the analogous, apologetic excuse-making is more than a little incongruous, if not outright disingenuous and downright stupid.

In terms of reprisals, the people whom moderate/secular Muslims should be afraid of are quite obviously the radicals within their own communities. The conservative, far-right white men (“clinging bitterly to their guns,” etc.) would surely celebrate any moderate Muslim who spoke out against terrorism: Any Muslim who reported terrorist activities and/or connections to the police or even to social media would be a hero to the conservatives, and even to the neo-Nazis. (Personally, I have no sympathy whatsoever for the fact that Nawaz was assaulted by neo-Nazis during his self-admitted “extremist” [i.e., latent or action-taking terrorist] days.) Only the Muslims’ own radicals (and the Regressive Left) would move to silence such heroes, either temporarily or “permanently” (as the Godfather would say). That becomes obvious if one simply considers the behavior of Sharia-loving radicals toward women in their own communities who refuse to wear the niqab ... or even toward establishments outside of their no-go communities whose owners and staff are in danger of receiving forty lashes for serving alcohol. None of those dangers come from the far-right.

Further, consider this:

Mohammed Shafiq of the Ramadhan Foundation stated the following: “There is a significant over-representation of Pakistani men in on-street gang grooming of which the majority of the girls that are groomed are white. We as a community have to be honest and open about that.”
To which [English Defense League founder Tommy] Robinson retorted: “You’re saying what we say but you’re ok to say it. You’re a ‘heroic moderate’ for saying it and I’m a ‘far-right hooligan.’”

Conversely, as Raheem Kassam put it:

[I get excoriated] daily by Islamists on Twitter. Why? Because I’ve integrated and I love my country. Because I refuse to believe that an Islamic caliphate is the best thing for Britain, or anywhere, quite frankly. Where is my white (or brown) knight? Where are the voices of the moderate Muslim world defending me?

That such an obvious point, fully consonant with even a minimal understanding of human nature, can be completely lost on Sam Harris, is astonishing. Perhaps the most charitable interpretation (toward Harris) is that moderate Muslims have actually expressed that dubious concern (of right-wing intolerance for heroism) to him personally, and he has credulously believed that obvious taqiyya (i.e., “lie for Muhammad”), like the good little liberal he is at heart.

Plus, if moderate Muslims were genuinely concerned about provoking the intolerance of the far-right, they wouldn’t be showing up by the thousands to publicly protest the ideals that the very same “intolerant far-right” hold most dear:

[In early February of 2015] thousands of British Muslims gathered in Whitehall to protest against Charlie Hebdo—the magazine that had recently had eleven of its staff slaughtered and another eleven injured for the crime of exercising its fundamental right to freedom of expression. To argue that these hordes of Muslim protesters were “extremists” would seem to somewhat undermine the common argument that extremists represent only a tiny, insignificant minority.

Then again, one out of every five Muslims in America comprise a comparable “tiny, insignificant minority” as the above:

Nineteen percent of American Muslims ... theoretically support suicide bombing in defense of Islam. Of a total population of 2.6 million American Muslims, that’s approximately four hundred and ninety-four thousand people....

For global statistics on the Muslim support of terrorist acts, see “Muslim Opinion Polls: A Tiny Minority of Extremists?

And if the world’s cowardly, silent moderate Muslims instead try to hide behind the idea that they are protecting other moderates from far-right abuse, there is one word for that: Bullshit. The far-right in Europe is organizing into political parties and vigilante mobs, and indulging in arson (of mosques and refugee centres) and the like, precisely because of the “conspiracy of silence” between “oppressed minorities” (incl. a huge percentage of first-world feminists) and the mainstream media that reflexively excuses the literally bloodthirsty crimes of immigrants, for fear of being called “racist” or at minimum of encouraging racism against the same unapologetic criminals. Since the police will not protect them and their families, including their vulnerable daughters, those “soccer hooligans” are (predictably) the first ones to take the law into their own hands. Can you blame them?

As it stands, Harris and Nawaz’s hopes for reform are not shared by a large number of the current moderate groups within the Islamic death-and-repression cult, even in the West:

The concept of “moderate Islam” became practically impossible to believe in Australia this week when 45 Muslim groups refused to engage with reformed Islamist extremist and founder of the Quilliam foundation, Maajid Nawaz....
Maajid staunchly defends the rights of what he calls the “minorities within minorities,” e.g. a gay Muslim, or a transgender Muslim, who he believes receive disproportionate levels of persecution within Islamic communities. Furthermore, Maajid campaigns against anti-Muslim bigotry.
In summary, Maajid seems like exactly the person the so-called “moderate” Muslim groups would wish to engage if they were going to demonstrate earnestness for countering extremism. The fact Australian Muslim groups have plainly refused to engage in such constructive discussion should be deeply concerning for all Australians. This concern is only heightened as the organizations refusing to engage in counter-extremism discussion included schools within Australian communities. Moreover, some of these groups were even reported as saying Maajid is not even welcome in Australia.
Maajid’s promoter Think Inc. says the Lebanese Muslim Association and the Muslim Students Australia NSW were also among the organizations that declined to meet him.

Indeed, Muslim groups attempting to reform their religion in the U.S. have fared no better than Nawaz did in Australia:

In December 2015, a small group of Muslims met in Washington, DC to discuss the reform of Islam. With media fanfare, they named themselves the Muslim Reform Movement (MRM)....
Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, one of the MRM founders ... was asked about how many mosques the MRM had initially approached for support in 2015 and the nature of the responses from those mosques. Jasser’s answer was eye-opening:
“We spent significant resources on this outreach over a period of ten months. We reached out through snail mail, e-mail, and telephone to over 3,000 mosques and over 500 known public American Muslims. We received only 40-plus rather dismissive responses from our outreach, and sadly less than ten of them were positive. In fact, one mosque in South Carolina left us a vicious voice mail threatening our staff if we contacted them again.”

Even Ayaan Hirsi Ali, like Harris, has bought into Maajid Nawaz’s “style without substance” and utterly ineffectual attempts at effecting a “dialog” with radical, Nazi-like Islamists ... while collecting, in his most financially rewarding years, a $200K US salary. (No, nobody expects Nawaz to do the work for free. Duh. But neither is he even remotely justified in fleecing his monetary sources to that tune, any more than James Randi was justified in drawing a fully comparable salary, as head of the non-profit [!] JREF prior to his retirement.)

All of that notwithstanding, the odds are very good that both Harris and Hirsi Ali have been taken in by a faux-secular Islamic apologist, in the form of Nawaz.

First, consider that, in “The Self-Invention of Maajid Nawaz: Fact and Fiction in the Life of the Counter-Terror Celebrity,” Nafeez Ahmed and Max Blumenthal question many of the key points in Nawaz’s purported transformation from youth to radical Islamist to secular Muslim reformer:

We asked [a former classmate of Nawaz] why he thought Maajid Nawaz would lie....
“Me and Maajid were like the best of friends,” he explained. “We used to hang out with each other all the time. The problem with Maajid is he was always trying to be the big man, the leader. He was so good at lying because he used to mix his lies with partial truths”....
The saga of Nawaz’s imprisonment forms the heart of his inspiring coming-out story. But like many other chapters he has written about his life, this one is filled with apparent distortions and is challenged by claims from former close associates who describe his account as essentially false.

And what was Nawaz’s response to that article?

Another “Hello” magazine style 13,000 word gossip piece on me just got posted by a 911 “troofer.”
Disguised as “investigative journalism,” it trawls Islamist close family and former associates for personal attacks, smear and smut, drags my estranged son into it, and attacks my mother.

A few points, for the madly hand-waving Nawaz: (i) The position of the article’s author(s) on 9/11—not “911”! unless they were calling an ambulance, FFS—is irrelevant to their critiques of him (except if one wishes to take it as a penchant on their part for seeing conspiracies even where there are none); (ii) the article is legitimate investigative journalism, not mere “gossip”; (iii) interviewing Nawaz’s former associates and close family is not “trawling,” but is rather what any competent investigative journalist would do; (iv) there is no reason for the authors of that piece to shy away from mentioning Nawaz’s estrangement from his own son, or the reasons for that; and (v) if Ahmed and Blumenthal have “attacked” Maajid’s mommy, well, who is it who taught him to behave in the way he does? Who taught him that it was okay to bend the truth into pretzels, if it benefits him (and/or Islam)?

Summary: nothing I ever said, ever, is true, and I’m a secret agent. You must hate me.

The above is obvious wild misrepresentation, on top of being suspiciously defensive, almost laughable hyperbole by Nawaz. The clinical narcissist Ken Wilber reacted in exactly the same way, when his “integral edifice” was being rapidly dismantled, by myself and others, a decade ago.

The #RegressiveLeft transition to the tabloid Right is complete.

Notice exactly what isn’t there, in Nawaz’s feeble, intellectually vacant response: Not a demand for retraction, which would be trivially easy for him to make. Not a threat of a lawsuit for defamation, to at least clear his name of what he deems to be false accusations. Not even a single denial of the numerous solid debunkings of his autobiographical claims. Not even a single pointing-out of errors on the part of the authors of that supposed gossip piece.

Compare Nawaz’s craptastic response with how much effort Sam Harris puts into clarifying his position(s), when they are (deliberately) misrepresented by his critics.

The reality is that, given the importance of the work which Nawaz purports to be doing, if the allegations against him were false he would have a moral obligation to disprove them, for the good of “the cause.” Yet his response contains not a shred of counter-evidence or rational thought.

His pathetic silence, on those many damning points, speaks volumes.

All of which brings to mind a quote from Albert Einstein: “Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.”

Blumenthal has since shown himself to be an anti-Semitic thug; but that does not invalidate his research into the fictional aspects of Nawaz’s narrative.

Nathan Lean raises similar reasonable doubts, in “What Does Maajid Nawaz Really Believe?”:

Buried beneath the adulation ... are the sighs of those who have long maintained that Nawaz’s dramatic tale of redemption isn’t all that it’s cracked up to be. Interviews with his friends and relatives suggest that his account is riddled with inconsistencies and inaccuracies—indications, they say, of a turncoat who cares more about being a well-compensated hero than he does about the cause he champions.
“Most in my family who witnessed his life outside home, religious or irreligious, find his story at least exaggerated or embellished for his agenda, if not absolutely false,” Nawaz’s elder brother, Kaashif, said.
Ashraf Hoque, a friend from Nawaz’s college days, is more blunt.
“He is neither an Islamist nor a liberal,” he said. “Maajid is whatever he thinks he needs to be.”

As with Blumenthal, Lean may well be an “Islamophobia addict,” but that does nothing to blunt his valid criticisms of Nawaz.

Further, Nawaz’s claimed background is directly relevant to his message, since that message boils down to “I was a radical and I reformed, therefore other radicals (and hence Islam overall) can too.” Or do you imagine Nawaz would have the same cachet, with Sam Harris and others, were it not for his “former life” as a radical Islamist? And if the key points of that alleged former life turn out to be either fabricated or opportunistic ... well, what is sauce for the Muslim goose is sauce for the infidel gander. By which I mean, consider a statement made in the leftist Guardian newspaper regarding David Cameron after the Panama Papers fallout: “Like it or not, his personal credibility affects the credibility of his message on Europe.”

(Ex-Muslims who pretend that only Nawaz’s present message matters, and who proudly state that they not interested in his past, have an additional obvious motivation: If Nawaz’s radical past, whether fictionalized or not, is still relevant today, then so is theirs. Should one dare to point that out, however, one will quickly find that, per the 80/20 rule, 80% of the world’s competence and ability to recognize pertinent truths comes from 20% of its people.)

Then contemplate Sheik Yer’ Mami’s insightful commentary at “Here’s why Maajid Nawaz is a taqiyya gigolo & a da’awa merchant.”

For the taqiyya practiced by Nawaz in his book with Harris, see “Maajid Nawaz: Stealth Jihadist Exposed.”

When the gay-rights supporting Sadiq Khan was elected Mayor of London, Maajid Nawaz averred that “being Muslim bears absolutely no relevance to how Sadiq Khan intends to run London—for Islam is as ambivalent on the difficulties of London’s housing crisis as it is on the human gene sequence.” He also feebly excused the “prolific flirtation with Islamism” evinced by the former chair of the Muslim Council of Britain’s legal affairs committee, as being simply a strategy of “trying to gain votes.” Finally, he vouched that Khan, in his personal life, was “pretty much a liberal Muslim. So much so that his old friends, the extremists, are already classifying him as a traitor for not being anti-Israel enough.”

Yet as Anne Marie Waters has noted:

Khan himself has referred to moderate Muslims as “Uncle Toms”—a derogatory term describing non-white people who act subserviently to white rule. This alone would be considered unforgivable for most candidates, and would render them unelectable, but with Khan, it actually gets much worse.

While celebrating Khan’s mayoral victory as a triumph over “right-wing anti-Muslim bigotry,” Nawaz has simultaneously lamented the “left-wing bigotry of low expectations that holds Muslims to lesser, illiberal standards.” Yet it must be obvious even to one as utterly unworthy of respect and trust as Maajid Nawaz, that were it not for precisely those same lowered expectations, Khan would never have been in the running to begin with.

[A]ccording to Daniel Johnson in Standpoint, [Khan] has supported incorporating sharia law in to the British legal system. He has argued that there are “uncontroversial” aspects of sharia that we ought to permit....
In other words, [polygamous/forced] marriage, divorce, child custody, domestic violence, and other family areas that are increasingly dominated by known Islamists in Britain and across Europe.

That alone puts the lie to Nawaz’s claim that “being Muslim bears absolutely no relevance to how Sadiq Khan intends to run London.”

De facto family law jurisdiction gives Islamists power over Muslim communities and their personal lives, effectively removing them from the realm of British laws in this vital legal area. Power in family law is one of the Islamists’ favourite and most potent tools. That Khan supports the sharpening of these tools is a serious matter, and should cause us grave concern.
Furthermore, the new London Mayor has given “three cheers” to the Islam Channel. This TV channel has been censured by Ofcom for advocating violence against women. Nevertheless, Khan praised it at a conference while the black flag of jihad flew freely in his audience.

All of that, from someone whom Nawaz touts as being “pretty much a liberal Muslim.”

And how has Khan behaved since taking office?

London’s first ever Muslim Mayor is set to ban images of “unrealistic” scantily clad women from ads on public transport, which could see the city adopt some of the most censorious policies in the Western world....
The announcement comes five years after suspected Islamists began painting over images of bikini clad women in Tower Hamlets in East London, and last year after feminists began similarly defacing images of women in bikinis on London transport.

It gets worse:

On a trip to New York City, London’s Muslim Mayor Sadiq Khan has said terror attacks are “part and parcel” of urban life, just hours after an Islamic terrorist bombed the city....
Earlier on Sunday, Mr. Khan had spoken at a “meeting for Muslim community leaders” where he also addressed the attacks.
“It is a reality I’m afraid that London, New York, other major cities around the world have got to be prepared for these sorts of things,” he said, the Evening Standard reports....
He then appeared to draw an equivalence between people who say offen[sive] things and terrorists who commit violence.
He slammed “some people who try and divide our communities,” people who “say things they shouldn’t be saying,” along with “people who try to commit acts of terror.”
“We are the West,” he asserted, insisting that it is “compatible to be someone with Western liberal values ... [and] to be a mainstream Muslim”....
Mr. Khan also attacked those who raise concerns about his connections with radical Islam, claiming his Conservative opponent in the London mayoral election ran a “negative” and “divisive” campaign containing “some of the worst sorts of Islamophobia you have ever seen.”
During the campaign, it emerged Mr. Khan had shared a platform with numerous anti-Semites, defended 9/11 terrorists as a barrister, and had a brother-in-law who was a member of banned jihadi group Al-Muhajiroun.
And since taking office, he has appointed an extremism-linked “Integration Deputy Mayor.”

Again, all that coming from a “liberal Muslim,” in Maajid Nawaz’s unbelievable words.

Khan further outlined his “liberal” vision for London in a September, 2016 speech:

Mayor Khan added that he would like more “asylum seekers” and “refugees,” and advocated “social integration.” “I don’t mean assimilation,” he stressed; “I mean social integration.” He loosely defines social integration as “a level playing field” with a clear set of values and laws, but he left the difference between social integration and assimilation—perhaps intentionally—unclear. Doesn’t Britain already have clear values and laws?
What Mayor Khan seemed to be saying by advocating “social integration” rather than “assimilation” is that he not eager for Muslims to become more like the British (“assimilation”) but that he would be comfortable with the British adapting to the Muslim way of life. The presence of more Muslims might accelerate this process of the British having to adapt to the way of life of a Muslim majority (“social integration”)....
The Mayor never explained why assimilation—along the lines of the common culture melting pot of the United States—would not provide a level playing field and an even more harmonious society.
Every time a social problem arises, one can randomly assign blame to a host country for not providing enough social support to newcomers. That benchmark, however, creates a shifting goalpost: how much is “enough”? This lack of clarity leaves the door open for perpetual unrest. No matter how much support a welcoming society provides for newcomers, it can always be accused of not doing “enough.” Khan focused only on what Britain should provide to newcomers, not on what newcomers should initiate on their own to fit into a country they entered willingly....
Mayor Khan touts a fatwa [against him, for his support of same-sex marriage] as if it validates his liberal credentials, but he is far too coy about enumerating the dangers of flinging open one’s borders to people who issue fatwas, much less to their followers who may fulfill them. Mayor Khan says being a Muslim is compatible with Western culture, but either he does not know Islam, a probability that is questionable, or he is misleading the British.

After a wave of Islamic terrorist attacks in London in early 2017, analysts further began to reasonably call into question Khan’s commitment to fighting terror:

Khan has ties not just to organizations associated with ISIS, but also groups such as Hamas, Al-Nusra, Al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood. During his time as mayor, London has seen an increase in terror incidents with concerning indications that terror groups wish to stage a major attack on the City of London. Rather than focusing on combatting terror, Khan has used his forum to tell Londoners as well as citizens in other parts of Europe and the United States that the West must learn to live with terrorism as a part of daily life. Khan’s extreme flirtation with radical Islamic extremism raises serious questions about his commitment to fighting a wave of extremist fueled terrorism that only continues to spread after a number of attacks and police operations in London and other areas of the UK.

Jihad Watch’s Robert Spencer offers much additional reason for concern, regarding Nawaz and his well-worn yet false narrative of a “tiny minority of extremists who have hijacked an otherwise peaceful religion”:

Nawaz’s attacks on me on Twitter were not the first time I had been attacked by someone from the Quilliam Foundation. In fact, at the time of its founding, its founder Ed Husain went out of his way to launch a gratuitous attack on Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Ibn Warraq and me. At that time I had been quite interested to determine whether Quilliam was really the sincere reformist organization it claimed to be—but this unexpected and unwarranted attack made me doubt it immediately. I know Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Ibn Warraq. I know their work quite well. I know that neither is a “racist, bigoted Islamophobe,” just as I know that I myself am not one either. I know that they’re deeply concerned about how Islamic jihadists use the texts and teachings of Islam to justify violence and supremacism, as I am, and want to preserve Western pluralistic societies with their freedom of speech and equality of rights for all people, as I do.
It seemed to me then that if Quilliam were really sincere in wanting Islamic reform, it would not have counted Hirsi Ali, Ibn Warraq and me as enemies, but as allies—just as now I believe that if Usama Hasan and Maajid Nawaz were sincere about Islamic reform, they would not count Pamela Geller and me as enemies, but as allies....
[Nawaz’s repetition] of the familiar claim that Islamic jihadists have “hijacked” Islam, in defiance of the abundance of evidence that they win converts among peaceful Muslims by appealing to chapter and verse of the Qur’an and numerous incidents in the life of Muhammad as depicted in the earliest Muslim sources, strongly suggests that he isn’t really interested in Islamic reform anyway, but just in more deception.

Hassan Butt, former spokesman for the radical Islamic group al-Muhajiroun, effectively confirms the latter claims:

When I was still a member of what is probably best termed the British Jihadi Network, a series of semi-autonomous British Muslim terrorist groups linked by a single ideology, I remember how we used to laugh in celebration whenever people on TV proclaimed that the sole cause for Islamic acts of terror like 9/11, the Madrid bombings and 7/7 was Western foreign policy.
By blaming the government for our actions, those who pushed the “Blair’s bombs” line did our propaganda work for us. More important, they also helped to draw away any critical examination from the real engine of our violence:
Islamic theology.

So, you see, in this rare case, Sam Harris got it right the first time.

Now meddling in American politics as well, Nawaz has endorsed the Muslim Keith Ellison as ostensibly being “the Man to Lead the Democrats Into the Future”:

Keith Ellison is an African-American and currently co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. Despite being elected in a post 9/11 world, he was the first Muslim Congressman. And all of this sends a perfect message to President-elect Trump, symbolizing the opposite of the worst excesses of the Trump campaign....
His selection would be a beautiful reminder to concerned citizens everywhere that the USA is not only the inward-looking America of Donald Trump, but that it is also the America of this outward-looking, progressive black Muslim from Minnesota, who swore his Congressional oath of allegiance on the Holy Qur’an [once owned by Thomas Jefferson].

As Ellison explained his use of that particular copy: “It demonstrates that from the very beginning of our country, we had people who were visionary, who were religiously tolerant, who believed that knowledge and wisdom could be gleaned from any number of sources, including the Qur’an.” A much more reasonable explanation, however, would follow the principle of “know thy enemy,” i.e., that Jefferson read that book not for its “wisdom,” but rather to understand the religious motivations of the slave-trading Barbary pirates who were preying on American ships. It was Jefferson, after all, whose refusal to submit to the increasing monetary demands (a.k.a. extortion) of the ruler of Tripoli resulted in the breakdown of the Treaty of Tripoli:

After agreeing to pay 10% of the new nation’s dismal GDP in exchange for passage, attacks continued. Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and Benjamin Franklin were sent as representatives to mediate the problem. It was there that they discovered that the Islamic law the pirates followed made it their duty to attack non-Muslims.
“The ambassador answered us that [the right] was founded on the Laws of the Prophet, that it was written in their Qur’an, that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise,” Jefferson wrote to Secretary of State John Jay, explaining peace was not possible....
By the time Jefferson became president the Barbary coast was extorting 25% of U.S. GDP and attacks were still occurring. Jefferson wasted no time in signing a war powers request which launched the U.S.’s entire naval fleet to wage war on the Barbary pirates. Jefferson saw the fleet off, ordering the U.S. sailors to chase the pirates all the way to Tripoli, giving rise to the famed verse from the U.S. Marines’ anthem.

So again, contra Ellison’s deceptive claims, Jefferson was not exhibiting “tolerance” in reading the Qur’an, much less would he have been scouring its pages for anything resembling “knowledge and wisdom.”

Ellison has further averred that black people in America don’t have an obligation to obey their government:

Democratic congressman and DNC chair front-runner Keith Ellison once said that “black people don’t live in a democracy” and “don’t have an obligation” to obey the government.
Ellison made the comments at a 1992 protest after white police officers were acquitted in the beating of Rodney King. At least 63 people died in the racially charged riots following the verdict.
Minnesota newspaper the Star Tribune quotes Ellison as telling a group of protesters in Minneapolis that “Black people do not live under a democracy.”
“You don’t have an obligation to obey a government that considers you to be less than human,” Ellison said.

Additionally, Ellison has called the U.S. Constitution the “best evidence of a white racist conspiracy to subjugate other peoples.”

In his college days, Ellison actually went so far as to call for a separate country for blacks. In his own words:

[B]lacks would have the option of choosing their own land base or remaining in the United States. Since black people toiled most diligently in the southeastern section of the United States, this land, quite naturally, would be most suitable. That means Arkansas, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana and Mississippi. Blacks, of course, would not be compelled to move to the black state, and, of course, peaceful whites would not be compelled to move away.

That is nutty at a comparable level to the overwrought Huffington Post writer who proposed that the USA be divided with a wall at the 36th parallel, giving the north to Leftists and the south to supposed “white nationalists” (e.g., Trump voters).

In the same college years, Ellison also defended the racist, anti-Semitic, terrorist Nation of Islam—an organization which he has since denounced. (He was never actually a member.)

Numerous other standard criticisms of Ellison, including the allegation that he considers 9/11 to have been an inside job, have been thoroughly debunked. Consequently, anyone who claims that Ellison “said 9/11 was an inside job, and was a member of the Nation of Islam” is either inexcusably ignorant or outright dishonest.

And yet, as Robert Spencer notes, in Keith Ellison’s Hamas Ties:

Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) has called his previous defense of Louis Farrakhan “the mistake in my past,” but those who are ready to proclaim him a “moderate” and anoint him head of the Democratic National Committee should consider carefully the fact that he is the keynote speaker for Muslim American Society (MAS)/ Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA) annual convention next week. The ties to Hamas are numerous....
The Investigative Project’s John Rossomando noted that “the MAS convention Ellison will address will hear from radical speakers such as Ali Qaradaghi (alternately spelled Al-Qurra Daghi in the MAS-ICNA program), the secretary general of the pro-Hamas International Union of Muslim Scholars (IUMS), which is one of the world’s most influential groups for Sunni Islamist clerics. It counts former Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh as a member.”
Yet Ellison has longstanding ties to MAS: in 2008, he accepted $13,350 from MAS to go on a pilgrimage to Mecca. It isn’t surprising that he would have no trouble sharing the MAS stage next week with Hamas supporters, in light of the fact that he has been caught on newly-released audio of Ellison speaking at a fundraiser for his 2010 Congressional reelection campaign, saying that a vote for him was a vote against Israel’s supposed control of U.S. foreign policy. “The message I want to send to you by donating to this campaign,” he declared, “is positioning me and positioning Muslims in general to help steer the ship of state in America…. The United States foreign policy in the Middle East is governed by what is good or bad through a country of seven million people. A region of 350 million all turns on a country of seven million. Does that make sense? Is that logic? Right?”....
He offered an alternative [to] aiding Israel: “We should be building the bilateral business relationships between the United States and the Muslim world.... Morocco, we gotta build it up. Saudi Arabia, we gotta build it up. The Gulf countries, we gotta build them. Pakistan, we gotta build them.” (Saudi Arabia?) This would be done so that ultimately Muslims in the U.S. would be able to make demands upon the government: “We need to have so much goods and services going back and forth between this country and the Muslim world that if we say we need this right here, then everyone is saying, OK. Understand my point? You’ve got to be strategic…. These business relationships can be leveraged to say that we need a new deal politically”....
The links between MAS and Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood are not simply the conjectures of “right-wing” counter-jihad activists. A Muslim scholar, al-Husein Madhany, wrote this in a 2010 email to fellow Muslim and Leftist activists: “When I said that I believe MAS halaqas [religious meetings] to be a national security threat, it was only part in jest. My caution comes from what I have personally heard said at MAS halaqas during my time in graduate school and based on what I know about their ideological (but financial) ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas.”
It doesn’t end with MAS, either: there is abundant evidence of Ellison’s links to other anti-Semitic groups as well. Ellison has spoken at a convention of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA). Yet ISNA has actually admitted its ties to Hamas, which styles itself the Palestinian arm of the Muslim Brotherhood. The Justice Department actually classified ISNA among entities “who are and/or were members of the US Muslim Brotherhood.”
Also, CAIR raised large amounts of for Ellison’s first campaign, and he has spoken at numerous CAIR events. Yet CAIR is an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas terror funding case—so named by the Justice Department. CAIR officials have repeatedly refused to denounce Hamas and Hizballah as terrorist groups.

Compare Ellison’s cheerleading for the building-up of financial relationships with Muslim countries, for economic leverage, with the effect that the thirst for Middle-Eastern petro-dollars has already had on universities in the United Kingdom:

Baroness Ruth Deech, a cross-bench peer who formerly held the highest office dealing with student complaints, said that institutions may be failing to combat hatred against Jews as they “afraid of offending” their potential benefactors from Gulf states.
Her comments come after a series of high-profile incidents at top universities where Jewish students claim they were verbally abused or physically attacked. The academic community is at the forefront of calls to boycott Israel.
In an interview with The Daily Telegraph, Baroness Deech said that the extreme levels of hostility towards Israel at universities across the country can at times go so far as to equate to anti-Semitism.
“Many universities are in receipt of or are chasing very large donations from Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states and so on, and maybe they are frightened of offending them,” she said. “I don’t know why they aren’t doing anything about it, it really is a bad situation.”

If you’re still tempted to consider Maajid Nawaz as more than an opportunistic shill for an irreformable religion and its most-presentable practitioners (e.g., Keith Ellison!), consider his ludicrous attempts at arguing that Islam is a “religion of peace”:

Further, regarding token attempts at reforming Islam, the UK’s National Secular Society stated in their summary of The Casey Review:

There are now wards, in Blackburn, Birmingham, Burnley and Bradford with between 70% and 85% Muslim populations. At one school the review team visited, pupils estimated that 50 to 90 per cent of the UK’s population was Asian, such was the segregation of their area....
Efforts to “reform” and “reinterpret” Islam are welcome, but they are surely received more warmly among secularists than among Muslims. And the hope that younger Muslims will become more secularized, liberal and tolerant is only realistic if they are exposed to wider society. As long as self-segregation is an option, and as long as Muslims can live in wards which are almost entirely Islamic, there will be a great number, a significant minority at least, who will hold regressive, separatist views.

When so many Muslims choose to live among their own religious kind, and quickly turn their once-beautiful surroundings into no-go zones, what possible initiative could any government take to prevent “ghettoization,” in the hope of curbing radicalization?

[H]owever unpalatable it may be to British liberals, the fact is that many Muslims here only want to live with those from their own culture.
Indeed, some of the few remaining non-Muslim residents [in Savile Town, Yorkshire] say they are regularly targeted by members of the local Islamic community who want to buy their houses.

Plus, countries with high percentages of Muslims, who thus cannot hide behind the excuse of being marginalized or ghettoized, suffer no less from radicalization than does the West. Consider the disturbing points below, adapted from Peter Hammond’s (2005) book, Slavery, Terrorism and Islam:

As long as the Muslim population remains around or under 2% in any given country, they will be for the most part be regarded as a peace-loving minority, and not as a threat to other citizens. This is the case in:

United States—Muslim 0.6%
Australia—Muslim 1.5%
Canada—Muslim 1.9%
China—Muslim 1.8%
Italy—Muslim 1.5%
Norway—Muslim 1.8%

At 2% to 5%, they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups, often with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs. This is happening in:

Denmark—Muslim 2%
Germany—Muslim 3.7%
United Kingdom—Muslim 2.7%
Spain—Muslim 4%
Thailand—Muslim 4.6%

From 5% on, they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. For example, they will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature halal on their shelves—along with threats for failure to comply. This is occurring in:

France—Muslim 8%
Philippines—Muslim 5%
Sweden—Muslim 5%
Switzerland—Muslim 4.3%
The Netherlands—Muslim 5.5%
Trinidad & Tobago—Muslim 5.8%

At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves (within their ghettos) under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islamists is to establish Sharia law over the entire world.

When Muslims approach 10% of the population, they tend to increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions. In Paris, we are already seeing car-burnings. Any non-Muslim action offends Islam, and results in uprisings and threats, such as in Amsterdam, with opposition to Mohammed cartoons and films about Islam. Such tensions are seen daily, particularly in Muslim sections, in:

Guyana—Muslim 10%
India—Muslim 13.4%
Israel—Muslim 16%
Kenya—Muslim 10%
Russia—Muslim 15%

After reaching 20%, nations can expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings, and the burnings of Christian churches and Jewish synagogues, such as in:

Ethiopia—Muslim 32.8%

At 40%, nations experience widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks, and ongoing militia warfare, such as in:

Bosnia—Muslim 40%
Chad—Muslim 53.1%
Lebanon—Muslim 59.7%

From 60%, nations experience unfettered persecution of non-believers of all other religions (including non-conforming Muslims), sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia law as a weapon, and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels, such as in:

Albania—Muslim 70%
Malaysia—Muslim 60.4%
Qatar—Muslim 77.5%
Sudan—Muslim 70%

After 80%, expect daily intimidation and violent jihad, some State-run ethnic cleansing, and even some genocide, as these nations drive out the infidels, and move toward 100% Muslim, such as has been experienced and in some ways is ongoing in:

Bangladesh—Muslim 83%
Egypt—Muslim 90%
Gaza—Muslim 98.7%
Indonesia—Muslim 86.1%
Iran—Muslim 98%
Iraq—Muslim 97%
Jordan—Muslim 92%
Morocco—Muslim 98.7%
Pakistan—Muslim 97%
Palestine—Muslim 99%
Syria—Muslim 90%
Tajikistan—Muslim 90%
Turkey—Muslim 99.8%
United Arab Emirates—Muslim 96%

100% will usher in the peace of “Dar-es-Salaam”—the Islamic House of Peace. Here there’s supposed to be peace, because everybody is a Muslim, the madrassas are the only schools, and the Qur’an is the only word, such as in:

Afghanistan—Muslim 100%
Saudi Arabia—Muslim 100%
Somalia—Muslim 100%
Yemen—Muslim 100%

Unfortunately, peace is never achieved, as in these 100% states the most radical Muslims intimidate and spew hatred, and satisfy their blood lust by killing less radical Muslims, for a variety of reasons.

“Before I was nine I had learned the basic canon of Arab life. It was me against my brother; me and my brother against our father; my family against my cousins and the clan; the clan against the tribe; the tribe against the world, and all of us against the infidel.”—Leon Uris, The Haj

It is important to understand that in some countries, with well under 100% Muslim populations, such as France, the minority Muslim populations live in ghettos, within which they are 100% Muslim, and within which they live by Sharia law. The national police do not even enter these ghettos. There are no national courts, nor schools, nor non-Muslim religious facilities. In such situations, Muslims do not integrate into the community at large. The children attend madrassas. They learn only the Qur’an. To even associate with an infidel is a crime punishable with death. Therefore, in some areas of certain nations, Muslim Imams and extremists exercise more power than the national average would indicate.

Today’s 1.5 billion Muslims make up 22% of the world’s population. But their birth rates dwarf the birth rates of Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, and all other believers. Muslims will exceed 50% of the world’s population by the end of this century.

As of 2016, Sharia courts already exist in the UK; France is the target of regular terrorist attacks (Bataclan, Nice, etc.); Swedish ghettos are ablaze; and Germany, thanks to its welcoming of adult male economic migrants, has suffered mass sexual assaults on its festive days. Italian hotel owners are being forced to house migrants with little compensation, and second homes are now being confiscated for refugee use. In the U.S., post-9/11, we have seen the mass killings by Muslims in Orlando, San Bernardino, and the Boston Marathon; and schools in Canada that have generously welcomed Syrian refugees (including the typical scam of adults in their twenties pretending to be children) are no longer safe for non-Muslims to attend.

Molly Norris founded “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day” in 2010. In response to credible death threats (per the FBI), she changed her name and went into hiding. “As of 2015, Norris is still in hiding and jihadist threats against her life continue.”

In May of 2015, Pamela Geller staged a “Draw Mohammed” event in Garland, TX. There, two jihadist gunmen injured one man before being killed by an off-duty police officer. How many would have died were it not for the fortunate presence of that officer?

Salman Rushdie has lived in the U.S. since 2000. The bounty payable to his future killer in the fatwa against him was recently increased. “Hitoshi Igarashi, his Japanese translator, was stabbed to death on 11 July 1991. Ettore Capriolo, the Italian translator, was seriously injured in a stabbing in Milan on 3 July 1991. William Nygaard, the publisher in Norway, was shot three times in an attempted assassination in Oslo in October 1993, but survived. Aziz Nesin, the Turkish translator, was the intended target in the events that led to the Sivas massacre on 2 July 1993 in Sivas, Turkey, which resulted in the deaths of thirty seven people.”

Ayaan Hirsi Ali was originally invited to the “Four Horsemen” atheist meeting with Hitchens, Dawkins, Dan Dennett, and Sam Harris. She had to decline the invitation because of threats on her life.

Sam Harris travels with bodyguards. Precautions like that are all that prevent him or any of the above persons from being killed for being prominent critics of Islam, even in America.

And outside of the U.S., Theo van Gogh, Pim Fortuyn, and members of the staff of Charlie Hebdo were murdered for their criticisms of Islam. Attempts have been made on cartoonist Kurt Westergaard’s life; he currently lives under constant police protection.

And anyone who dares to notice any of that, or to question whether it really has “nothing to do with Islam,” can only be a supposed racist (against a religion!) and a xenophobe.

Further, regarding the above-mentioned fertility rates:

Globally, Muslims have the highest fertility rate, an average of 3.1 children per woman—well above replacement level (2.1) due to young age of Muslims (median age of 23) compared to other religious groups. Christians are second, at 2.7 children per woman. Hindu fertility (2.4) is similar to the global average (2.5). Worldwide, Jewish fertility (2.3 children per woman) also is above replacement level. All the other groups have fertility levels too low to sustain their populations and would require converts to grow or maintain their size: indigenous and tribal religions (1.8 children per woman), other religions (1.7), the unaffiliated (1.7) and Buddhists (1.6).

In the USA today, the combination of evangelical Christianity from the political right, and stifling political correctness from the left, is a greater threat to cherished freedoms than is Islam. By contrast, in contemporary Europe, thanks to their open borders and higher percentage of Muslim residents, exactly the opposite is true. For, leftists are the first to provide excuses for jihidi terror attacks, sending otherwise-liberal voters to the far-right as the only practical means of preserving their First World way of life, in protecting themselves and their families. That is what happens when the choice is between white (demographic) genocide, civil war, and the Fourth Reich.

* * *

Maajid Nawaz has made much of the notion of himself being a “secular Muslim.” And one can easily find transparently wrong explanations of what such a state would entail, e.g., that it might mean believing in the Qur’an as the Word of Allah, but simply not putting those beliefs into practice.

Alternatively, one can put some actual thought and research into the subject:

Secularity ... is the state of being separate from religion, or of not being exclusively allied with or against any particular religion.
For instance, one can regard eating and bathing as examples of secular activities, because there may not be anything inherently religious about them. Nevertheless, some religious traditions see both eating and bathing as sacraments, therefore making them religious activities within those world views. Saying a prayer derived from religious text or doctrine, worshipping through the context of a religion, and attending a religious school are examples of religious (non-secular) activities.
A related term, “secularism,” involves the principle that government institutions and their representatives should remain separate from religious institutions, their beliefs, and their dignitaries....
According to cultural anthropologists such as Jack David Eller, secularity is best understood, not as being “anti-religious,” but as being “religiously neutral” since many activities in religious bodies are secular themselves and most versions of secularity do not lead to irreligiosity.

If merely supporting the separation of Church and State makes one “secular,” there are a veritable multitude of “secular Christians” and “secular Muslims” in the world. Indeed, any American who accepts the United States Constitution and its First Amendment is thereby “secular,” regardless of how much of a raving evangelical lunatic they may be in other aspects of their lives. Even Christian abortion-clinic bombers could thus qualify as “secular Christians” ... just as Islamic terrorists could consider themselves to be “secular Muslims,” so long as they weren’t advocating for the governmental enforcement of Sharia law, or of other laws (e.g., regarding interest on loans) dictated by their religion.

Beyond that hopelessly watered-down meaning, however, secular Jews, for example, can exist because they are members of a race, and even racial members who do not practice the religion of Judaism are still viewed, by themselves and by others, as being Jewish. There is no corresponding state for Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, or Hindus, etc., even if each of those religions may produce their own “culture.”

Among secular Jews, traditional Jewish holidays may be celebrated as historical and nature festivals, while life-cycle events such as births, marriages, and deaths, may be marked in a secular manner.

An atheist can be a “cultural Christian,” in enjoying the holidays and Christmas carols, say, while rightly viewing the beliefs as primitive superstitions. But a Christian believer does not become “secular” merely by failing to observe the Ten Commandments or by having pre-marital sex or getting drunk, for example. Nor does a believing Muslim become “secular” merely by renouncing Sharia, supporting gay rights, failing to pray five times a day, or the like.

That is, one does not become “secular” by believing in God but failing to put the beliefs into practice; nor does one become secular merely by accepting a liberal interpretation of one’s holy scriptures! The adjective “secular” in connection with any religion has meaning only in terms of the separation of Church and State, and says nothing about whether a believer holds a liberal or fundamentalist interpretation of his/her scriptures, or about the scrupulousness of his or her religious practices.

So when Maajid Nawaz touts himself as being a “secular Muslim,” always keep in mind that any Islamic terrorist who (temporarily) accepted the separation of Church and State could make the same deceptive claim.

* * *

In one of his more-honest moments, Quilliam’s senior researcher in Islamic Studies, Usama Hasan, admitted: “It’s a 90 percent proportion [of UK Muslims] supporting right wing, conservative Islam and a Sharia state, and only 10 percent with a moderate and modernist British viewpoint.”

However, in mid-December of 2016, Quilliam finally showed its true colors in claiming that “far-right terrorism is becoming a bigger threat, at the moment, than jihadist terrorism.” No surprise to those of us who long ago saw through Nawaz’s charismatic/narcissistic/manipulative character, and his nauseatingly self-serving “#Solidarity” tweets after even the most horrific Islamic attacks.

Usama Hasan followed that up, on the heels of the New Year’s Eve Islamic terrorist nightclub massacre in Istanbul, with this gem:

Please be more careful in your choice of language to avoid Islamophobia. “Islamist” terrorists is more accurate.

That same “reformer” has claimed that “Aisha was 16-19 [rather than six or seven] when she married the Prophet.” Nawaz himself responded to criticism of that (provably false) reading with the defense: “what’s the job of a reform theologian if not to ... reform interpretation?”

And yet more bald-faced, despicable taqiyya from Quilliam’s CEO, Haras Rafiq:

The prohibition of domestic violence in Islam - technical paper for those that think verse means to hit your wives.

Further, the Managing Director of Quilliam, Adam Deen, when faced with pertinent questions regarding Mohammad, gave the following answers (in square brackets):

  1. Do you agree that Mohammad personally beheaded hundreds of Jews? Y/N [Deen: No]
  2. Do you agree that Mohammad married a six-year-old and had sex with her when she was nine? Y/N [Deen: No]
  3. Is Mohammad a good moral guide? Y/N [Deen: Yes]
  4. Was Mohammad an “Islamist” Y/N [Deen: No]

Finally, when the same Twitter account politely asked Maajid Nawaz about the moral example of Mohammad, while specifically acknowledging Nawaz’s bravery, he was:

  • Referred to as an “anti-theist”
  • Called a “git,” and “desperate”
  • Likened to a Wahhabi Muslim
  • Accused of “baiting”
  • Castigated for remaining anonymous
  • And muted, by Nawaz

After all of which, the weasel Nawaz still refused to answer the straightforward questions initially put to him.

Given that such indefensible drivel is now coming out of his own foundation (and mouth), Maajid Nawaz should be more worried about its transition into a mouthpiece for the #RegressiveLeft than about anything the tabloid Right is doing in exposing his own probable biographical fabrications.

The reality is much closer to this:

Quilliam’s strategy rests on 2 things:

  1. Islam will reform
    (It won’t)
  2. There’s a difference between Islam and “Islamism”
    (There isn’t)

The very name “Quilliam” is taken from “a 19th-century convert from Christianity to Islam, noted for founding England’s first mosque and Islamic centre,” who further called for a worldwide Caliphate. That fact alone suggests strongly that Nawaz and his foundation have been dealing in deceptions from the beginning.

As Anne-Marie Waters (a former elected member of the National Secular Society governing council) further observed:

Leftist “secularists” will allow you to talk about Islamism (or even Islam if they’re feeling particularly generous), but as soon as you mention immigration, or the impact [e.g., in “jihadist terrorism”] Islamic immigration is having on Western nations (most significantly, secularism in Western nations) you are to be permanently shunned. The Left wants to keep its naïve borderless utopian fantasy alive at all costs, and it will sink to any depths to do so.

Sam Harris is not unaware of those issues: Immediately following Donald Trump’s victory in the 2016 U.S. election, he addressed them in a podcast, hitting every point with insight:

Even a decade earlier, in a 2006 Los Angeles Times column critical of the Left’s attitude towards Islamic radicalism, he had written:

[T]he failure of liberalism is evident in Western Europe, where the dogma of multiculturalism has left a secular Europe very slow to address the looming problem of religious extremism among its immigrants. The people who speak most sensibly about the threat that Islam poses to Europe are actually fascists. To say that this does not bode well for liberalism is an understatement: It does not bode well for the future of civilization.

Yet, for all his attempts at initiating dialogues with Maajid Nawaz and Noam Chomsky, Harris will not extend the same invitation to the likes of Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller, Geert Wilders, or the post-Quilliam Tommy Robinson—counter-jihadists who are regularly smeared as being “fascists.”

In order to mitigate the inevitable outcome of Muslim immigration and their high fertility rates, you have to control your borders and give immigrants no option but to assimilate. And the only politicians and parties that will even dare to speak those truths are on the “far-right.” If one will not strategically ally with imagined (and real) fascists, then logically the only remaining way to do anything about Islamic terrorist attacks on the West even from its own citizens is to hope Pollyannaishly for a reformation in Islam ... which will never come. As Taslima Nasreen pointed out:

I don’t find any difference between Islam and Islamic fundamentalists. I believe religion is the root, and from the root fundamentalism grows as a poisonous stem. If we remove fundamentalism and keep religion, then one day or other fundamentalism will grow again. I need to say that because some liberals always defend Islam and blame fundamentalists for creating problems. But Islam itself oppresses women. Islam itself doesn’t permit democracy, and violates human rights.

Or consider this:

In the thirteenth chapter of Nomad, Ayaan Hirsi Ali identifies and lucidly demonstrates an important difference between Islam and Christianity, and specifically between “moderates” from each faith. She writes that “Anyone who identifies himself as a Muslim believes that the Qur’an is the true, immutable word of God. It should be followed to the letter. Many Muslims do not actually obey every one of the Qur’an’s many strictures, but they believe that they should.” Conversely, moderate Christians acknowledge that the Bible had many authors. “They don’t seek to live exactly as Jesus Christ and his disciples did. They are actually critical of the Bible, which they read in their own language and have revised several times. There are parts they find inspirational and parts they deem no longer relevant.” Even fundamentalist Christians have rationalized the barbaric laws of Deuteronomy and Leviticus so as to no longer apply following Christ’s “new covenant.” It is in Hirsi Ali’s contention that Muslims believe that they “should” follow the Qur’an to the letter, that a significant appeal to Salafism and Jihadism is found.
“Extreme” is the wrong word as it denotes an exaggeration. Jihadism is neither infra nor ultra; it sits (granted, at an end, but certainly) within our visible spectrum of Islam. And what’s more; it holds the advantage of requiring no interpretation or context in order to be lifted plausibly from the scripture. Jihadism can arise from a literal reading of the Qur’an with none of the cognitive dissonance which comes with believing that the Qur’an is the unadulterated word of the creator of the universe, and having to contextualize it so as to live within a democratic society. It advances a challenge to Muslims on the grounds of their faith, asking how true they are to the teachings of a man who recorded the word of God perfectly. If Hirsi Ali is right on the point of distinction between Islam and Christianity, a very serious question arises: to what degree will Muslim immigrants, born and raised in Muslim countries, be committed to common Western values such as free speech, democracy, equal rights between sexes and liberalism?
In the interest of falsifiability, I propose to word the question as follows: what would Europe look like if Muslim immigrants did have issues with accepting and embracing such Western values? I submit that it would look very much like it actually does....
It is also important to note that Islam is inextricable from politics. The religion boasts to be the final revelation from God, and seeks to do away with any need for questions by providing the answers for everything—sex, marriage, finance, inheritance, justice and punishment. It isn’t sufficient to do right by one’s version of Abraham’s overlord in this life in some expectation of a round to follow; the Qur’an contains instructions to subjugate the unbelievers in this life....
Any calls for completely open borders, as some have made quite loudly, are calls for a race to an ultimate and undesirable equilibrium. People will continue to emigrate from less prosperous areas to areas which are more so, until there is nowhere more prosperous left to aim for. In the meantime, economies will no doubt collapse, justice systems will be eroded into abasement and corruption and any notion of peace will be non-existent.

Indeed, as the Christmas attacks of 2016 have proved, it is only by addressing border issues, and ultimately fighting alongside those whom liberals and academics reflexively deem to be “fascists,” that anything resembling the secular West can be preserved. In the words of the besieged Chaldean Catholic Archbishop of Mosul:

Your liberal and democratic principles are worth nothing here. You must consider again our reality in the Middle East, because you are welcoming in your countries an ever growing number of Muslims. Also you are in danger. You must take strong and courageous decisions, even at the cost of contradicting your principles. You think all men are equal, but that is not true: Islam does not say that all men are equal. Your values are not their values. If you do not understand this soon enough, you will become the victims of the enemy you have welcomed in your home.

If Islam can be reformed, let that happen in the Muslim world first. When it has succeeded there, the same theological steps can be taken in the West. Until then, Maajid Nawaz and his foundation are offering false and dangerously deceptive hope. Unfortunately, that is all that the liberal Sam Harrises of the world will embrace, since to take actual steps to stem the Muslim takeover of the West would, in practice, be to align themselves with fascists. And like those on the political right a few decades ago who would rather have been dead than Red, he and his fellow liberals would rather be dead than nationalistic.

As Anne-Marie Waters observed:

However vocal people might be about “Islamism,” unless they oppose mass migration, they are aiding Sharia in the West. And they know it.

Prev   Table of Contents Next

Download Stripping the Gurus PDF