NY Times: Rauf is a Sufi, so Ground Zero mega-mosque is A-OK

Contrary to his claims of moderation, the Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, leader of the mega-mosque initiative, is an open advocate for Sharia, and calls for restrictions on the freedom of speech in his book What’s Right with Islam. He has (like CAIR) refused to denounce Hamas. He has lied about his commitment to religious dialogue. He has lied about whether the Islamic center planned for the Ground Zero site will contain a mosque or not. And he has lied about whether or not the project is getting foreign funding. He is part of a group that helped fund the jihad flotilla against Israel.

But never mind all that! He’s a Sufi!

“The Muslims in the Middle,” by William Dalrymple in the New York Times, August 16 (thanks to Ralph):

[…] Feisal Abdul Rauf of the Cordoba Initiative is one of America’s leading thinkers of Sufism, the mystical form of Islam, which in terms of goals and outlook couldn’t be farther from the violent Wahhabism of the jihadists. His videos and sermons preach love, the remembrance of God (or “zikr”) and reconciliation. His slightly New Agey rhetoric makes him sound, for better or worse, like a Muslim Deepak Chopra. But in the eyes of Osama bin Laden and the Taliban, he is an infidel-loving, grave-worshiping apostate; they no doubt regard him as a legitimate target for assassination.

Do they, now? Does William Dalrymple have any actual evidence of that, or is it just wishful thinking on his part? When Feisal Abdul Rauf goes on his State Department-sponsored tours of the Islamic world, does he have to travel with armed guards? Has he received specific threats?

For such moderate, pluralistic Sufi imams are the front line against the most violent forms of Islam. In the most radical parts of the Muslim world, Sufi leaders risk their lives for their tolerant beliefs, every bit as bravely as American troops on the ground in Baghdad and Kabul do. Sufism is the most pluralistic incarnation of Islam — accessible to the learned and the ignorant, the faithful and nonbelievers — and is thus a uniquely valuable bridge between East and West….

In reality, Sufis from al-Ghazali to the present day have taught the necessity of jihad warfare, and have participated in that warfare. And in January 2009, Iraqi representatives of the Naqshabandi Sufi order met with Khaled Mashaal of Hamas, praised his jihad, donated jewelry to him, and boasted of their own jihad attacks against Americans in Iraq.

But never mind all that. The Sufis are peaceful!

General Manager of Al-Arabiya TV on Ground Zero mosque: "It will be turned into an arena for promoters of hatred, and a symbol of those who committed the crime"
WaPo columnist: Ground Zero mega-mosque should be built because it bothers us
FacebookTwitterLinkedInDiggBlogger PostDeliciousEmailPinterestRedditStumbleUponPrint


  1. says

    Whatever gives anybody the idea that Sufis are a-ok??? The Sufis of Chechnya, Kashmir, Balakns, commit genocide just as easily as the other Muslims, sunnis, shias, and every other branch of Islam.

    So NYT just shut the hell up. The more you open your mouth, the more you prove your stupidity!!!

  2. says

    ! He’s a Sufi!

    Does this mean that the mosque he builds (if he actually builds it) will be open to Shia, Sunni, or any of the other 71 or so sects of Islam, who often have no use for each other including Sufi’s who are pretend Mahoundians…How often will 911 be called?…Will these various sect-ers have to check their swords at the door? Go through a full body scanner?
    Will there be trouble in Paradise? I certainly hope so as long as they keep it inside…

  3. says

    Looks like it’s been a very busy day for the proponents of the GZ mosque – Romesh Ratnesar, Kathleen Parker, William Dalrymple..

    And they’re just warming up.

  4. says

    About Sufism:-

    “One should not think Sufi militance was an affair of the Middle ages and has been given up in modern times. Today there is an effort by Sufis to appear more liberal, not only in India but in the West, but if we look deeply this is often a public relations ploy. Ask such Sufis to criticize traditional Islamic militance. Ask them to honor the use of images in religious worship. Ask them to criticize traditional Islamic law with its cruel anti-blasphemy and anti-apostasy rules. Let their answer be your guide….

    …even great Sufi poets like Attar and Sanai wrote in praise of Sultan Mahmud’s destruction of Somnath as a great victory of Islam over idolatory. … Some earlier teachers, like the great Persian poet Rumi, were used by Sufi orders as a mystical support for their more militant agendas.

    Sufism hides the same old fundamentalism and militance Hindus oppose. Hindus bow down at the grave of a Sufi saint without inquiring about what made the particular person holy. In a number of instances it was his slaughter of the infidels that was responsible for his sanctity, including the ancestors of these self-same Hindus. A prominent sufi of the Suhrawardi order, Saiyid Nuruddin Mubarak of the thirteenth century exhortation of Muslim rulers to “make every effort to disgrace and humiliate Hindus. They should not tolerate the sight of Hindus… they should exterminate… the leaders of heretics and the disseminators of heresy.”

  5. says

    But does Islamic mysticism in general preclude a proclivity for jihad warfare? Unfortunately, no. Here is a quote from the pioneering Sufi mystic Al-Ghazali:

    [O]ne must go on jihad (i.e., warlike razzias or raids) at least once a year…one may use a catapult against them [non-Muslims] when they are in a fortress, even if among them are women and children. One may set fire to them and/or drown them…If a person of the Ahl al-Kitab [People of The Book – primarily Jews and Christians] is enslaved, his marriage is [automatically] revoked…One may cut down their trees…One must destroy their useless books. Jihadists may take as booty whatever they decide…they may steal as much food as they need…

    [T]he dhimmi is obliged not to mention Allah or His Apostle…Jews, Christians, and Majians must pay the jizya [poll tax on non-Muslims]…on offering up the jizya, the dhimmi must hang his head while the official takes hold of his beard and hits [the dhimmi] on the protruberant bone beneath his ear [i.e., the mandible]… They are not permitted to ostentatiously display their wine or church bells…their houses may not be higher than the Muslim’s, no matter how low that is. The dhimmi may not ride an elegant horse or mule; he may ride a donkey only if the saddle[-work] is of wood. He may not walk on the good part of the road. They [the dhimmis] have to wear [an identifying] patch [on their clothing], even women, and even in the [public] baths…[dhimmis] must hold their tongue…. [2] (From the Wagjiz, written in 1101 A.D.)

    There are other Sufi authorities who speak in the same vein. http://www.jihadwatch.org/2005/02/bostom-sufism-without-camouflage-beyond-stephen-schwartz.html

  6. says

    Two postings following my article “The History Boys”

    “the execrable William Dalrymple…”
    — from a posting just above

    That would be the man who has entered history — just google — as “Okkidental Dalrymple” — named as such (by me) for his mispronunciation of the word “Occident” in the famous London debate between two teams of three, “Okkidental” Dalrymple and two other apologists for Islam (one was Tariq Ramadan), against Ibn Warraq, Douglas Murray, and David Aronovitch.

    You can still listen to the debate, and to “Okkidental” Dalrymple’s performance, including his immortal pronunciation, on the web.

    But even before that telling aural display, I thought he, not-yet-Okkidental Dalyrymple, deserved a tribute:

    Fitzgerald: A tribute to William Dalrymple

    Very early on Christmas morning I happened to tune in the BBC World Service. I thought there might be something, perhaps King’s College Choir, or the aptly-named Raniero Cantalamessa in Rome, or perhaps someone musing on the fate of Christians in Iraq, other than that moral idiot and historical nitwit, the current Archbishop of Canterbury.

    But that would have been a different BBC. This BBC, the BBC of John Simpson and Judy Swallow and Robin Lustig and Barbara Plett of the ready tear for Arafat, is a very different BBC from that of Huw Weldon. And it lived up to my grim expectations. It did not disappoint.

    For on the air was someone telling mournfully about “the Wall.” And of course I knew which wall he was talking about. He did not mean the Wall of John Hersey, not the Great Wall of China, not the wall being built by Saudi Arabia for many hundreds of miles right through the desert, though no one threatens Saudi Arabia or its inhabitants with their total destruction, nor any other wall being built or being contemplated. No, this “wall” was the wall being built by the Israelis, as a modest measure forced upon them out of desperation as a way to prevent homicide bombers from easily entering their cities, to there set themselves off on busses, in restaurants, and at Passover celebrations. And this “wall,” the smooth speaker said, was built right through the usual “uprooted and destroyed” olive groves — a staple of “Palestinian” propaganda, those “uprooted olive groves,” and so important to their propaganda machine that they have been caught uprooting their own olive trees, for the world press to come and cover and bewail.

    There was not a hint in this lachrymose tale by this teller of tales of any indication as to why the Israelis might have felt it necessary to build such a wall. There was not a hint of the endless terrorism to which Israel’s Jews have been subject, a terrorism of which only now is the rest of the Infidel world is getting a small taste, and which the people of England will be getting a larger and larger taste. There was not a hint as to whether or not this wall was justified in its building. Nor was there any mention made of the fact that it is being built through territory to which Israel has a very large historic, legal, and moral claim. The drawback of this wall is that it appears to lessen this claim. It appears to recognize, although there is no need to do so, the armistice lines of 1948 rather than those of June 1967 as the ones that must prevail.

    And the speaker went on. He went on about the travails of the Christians of Bethlehem, with no hint of understanding that the Christian population of Bethlehem, some 80% of the total in 1948, has gone down and down not when under Israel’s control, but when it has been under the control of the Arabs. Never has the situation been more grave than now, under the “Palestinian Authority.” Local Christians seldom speak out. They are fearful. The Christian Arab strategy, long ago internalized, has been to never complain, and always to parrot the Muslim line, to do the bidding of the Muslims, to be good “Palestinians” always, and therefore always, even when it is absurd and seen by all sensible people to be absurd, to blame — with no evidence and no logic — the Israelis, that is, the Jews. To swallow this, one would have to ignore the entire history of Islam, the history of conquest and subjugation of Christians in wide areas of the Middle East and North Africa, and what became of those Christians, and what are the rules, set down clearly in the Shari’a, for the treatment of Christians as dhimmis. The speaker apparently thought he did not have to take note of that. He was under no obligation, he must have thought, to have read or at least to know the contents of The Decline of Eastern Christianity Under Islam or a thousand other possible articles and books that formed the basis for that magisterial study of a major subject in world history. None of that mattered. He longed to go back, to go back one day to see the “Christians of Bethlehem” unoccupied (but they haven’t been “occupied” — even if one were to accept that meretricious and inaccurate word, which I do not — for more than ten years, but have been under the total control of the “Palestinian Authority”).

    One longed to ask him what he thought would have happened to the “Christians of Bethlehem” if the Israelis had had the intelligence to insist on retaining Bethlehem as part of Israel, and never surrendered it to the “Palestinian Authority.” He could look around at how the Arab Christians have fared in what is Israel, Israel diminished, Israel dimidiated within the 1949 armistice lines (the Arabs refused to recognize them, as they were once offered, as permanent borders; that offer does not remain open forever, to be accepted whenever the Arabs feel like it).

    Well, how have they fared?

    Can they worship freely? Are they subject to harassment, persecution, even murder as the Christians of Gaza and the West Bank have been, despite their best efforts to further the “Palestinian” cause? Does this speaker know about this? Does he think it relevant to his teary tale?

    And who was this speaker, anyway? I waited to the end, enduring the nonsense of it all just to find out. It turned out to be William Dalrymple. Ah, of course. William Dalrymple, described here long ago, quite accurately, as an up-market Barbara Cartland, whose tales of trans-racial passion at the Mughal Court, or at this or that princely court in the time of the Mughals, has it all: star-crossed lovers, and of course the Splendor That Was India, or rather the India of the Muslim rulers who lived off of their Hindu subjects, the subjects who were killed by the Muslims in numbers without any historical parallel. (The historian K. S. Lal and others estimate that 60-70 million Hindus were killed by the Muslim conquerors and masters). Now a love of luxe, and of luxe combined with heaving breasts, is the kind of thing that the Barbara-Cartlands of this world love, including even the plausible sort who put in a bit more history and a little less of the Romance-novelette lord or duke or Arab prince (see “The Sheik”), who picks up the girl in her swoon at the very end (the promise of sex has always been just beyond what Nabokov calls “the skyline of the page”) — that is, William Dalrymple. He’s as vulgar and stupid as they come, behind the plummy voice and the pretense of being a historian.

    And what is funniest about the Dalrymples and their admirers is that these are the same people who find nothing wrong with the late Edward Said’s complaint about Jane Austen in Mansfield Park, the complaint that she does not specify that a main character lives off his revenues from his West Indian plantation, a plantation with slaves.

    But here is Dalrymple singing the tale of Mughal India, and its luxe and volupte if not its calme, all of it based on the ruthless enslavement and oppression of the Hindu masses by their cruel Muslim masters. (Of course, there were a few exceptions, such as syncretistic Akbar, his memory revered by Hindus for his temporarily lifting the Jizyah, and his memory despised by the Muslims, for his softness toward Hindus.)

    If anyone should be complained about, it is not that subtle miniaturist Jane Austen, who after all was not singing the praises of slaveowning in the West Indies, whereas William Dalrymple has written endlessly about, made his heaving-breast passionate high-toned nonsense out of, nothing but a slave-state.

    With his marks — so inapposite, and yet so typical of the current BBC with its current management and current personnel — on the hideous Israelis and the woes of the “Palestinian” Christians, William Dalrymple simply showed he was all of a piece. His love-affair with the Muslims of India, his love affair with the Muslim Arabs, his complete indifference to the plight of the Jews in Israel trying, desperately, simply to defend themselves against terrorists and doing the absolute minimum they can — all this goes together. What does Dalrymple think any other country — Great Britain for example — would do if it faced the same kind of endless torment and threats and attempts on the lives of its citizens and of the state, that Israel does as it confronts what it has so far failed to name, and even to recognize, as a Lesser Jihad?

    He, William Dalrymple, singer of The Wonder of Mughal India, so far coheres. He coheres, and he nauseates.

    [Posted by Hugh at December 26, 2006]

    Hugh | June 10, 2008 10:09 AM:

    A little more on “Okkidental” Dalrymple:

    William Dalrymple, Received Pronunciation, and “Okkident”

    A debate was held in London last year between two sets of opponents. Arguing on behalf of the proposition that We Should Not Be Reluctant to Assert the Superiority of Western Values were Ibn Warraq, Douglas Murray, and David Aronovich. Arguing against that proposition were William Dalrymple, Charles Glass, and Tariq Ramadan.

    If you wish to hear the whole debate, or to re-hear it, you can click on this link — Here it is in mp3.


    Right now you might want simply to listen to William Dalrymple, quoting, and misunderstanding, and misapplying, a statement by the historian of the Crusades Stephen Runciman. Fifty-one minutes and 31 seconds (51:31) into the debate, Dalrymple quotes Runciman on the interaction and fusion and so on “between Okkident and Orient.” You heard right. Okkident.

    As the Italians say: Accidenti.

  7. says

    Following the battle of Hattin in 1187, the captured Christian knights that refused to embrace Islam were ordered to be beheaded by Saladin. The sufis who were attendant upon Saladin begged to be permitted to behead at least one of the Christians and were obliged in their request.

    Of course, we know that Islam has evolved since then, eh?

  8. says

    Dalrymple is a typical asymptotic analyst of the problem of Islam. Following the asymptotic template, he divides the problem into “Islam is bad” / “but many if not most Muslims are decent peaceful people”.

    His artificial and hypothetical division quickly becomes preposterously paradoxical, when he implies that the innumerable harmless Muslims are such through following their Islam.

    Thus, in this 2006 essay, he wrote:

    The week following the Muslim protests in London against the Danish cartoons”with marchers carrying signs calling for the beheading of infidels”other Muslims demonstrated to claim that Islam really meant peace and tolerance. While their implicit recognition that peace and tolerance are preferable to strife and bigotry did these Muslims personal honor, the claim regarding Islam was both historically and intellectually preposterous. Only someone ignorant of the most elementary facts could believe such a thing. From the first, Islam was a religion of pillage, violence, and compulsion, which it justified and glorified.

    This would be the “Islam is bad” part of the division. He follows that quickly with:

    It is important, of course, to distinguish between Islam as a doctrine and Muslims as people. Untold numbers of Muslims desire little more than a quiet life; they have the virtues and the vices of the rest of mankind. Their religion gives to their daily lives an ethical and ritual structure and provides the kind of boundaries that only modern Western intellectuals would have the temerity to belittle.

    This would be the “innumerable Muslims are harmless and their Islam is a good influence on them”.

    This is just one of the typical knots of incoherency which Western analysts tie themselves into when trying to intellectually save Islam to assuage their own ethical anxiety at what the problem portends for the exigencies of our own pragmatic self-protection against Muslims.

    This incoherent paradox at the heart of his analysis doesn’t stop Dalrymple from advocating concrete policies based upon it: thus, the GZ mosque is harmless, because it represents the good part of the divide.

    Were Dalrymple to assimilate the list of facts about Imam Rauf (and Gamal) Spencer details above that indicate that they represent the bad Muslims on the bad part of the divide, he may then change his mind about the GZ mosque — but his asymptotic incoherency would remain intact, and he will thus say and advocate stupid stuff in the future on other issues related to the problem of Islam.


  9. says

    Woops, my previous comment was about Theodore Dalrymple, not William. Theodore Dalrymple writes for New English Review (which has on its writing staff among others Hugh Fitzgerald and former Jihad Watch editor Rebecca Bynum).

    Are they related?

  10. says

    It doesn’t matter to me whether self-proclaimed “Sufis” consider themselves to be “mystics.” The well-known Sufis historically were affiliated with one or other of the major schools of Islamic jurisprudence, endorsing both the harsh sharia and its legislation of perpetual jihad warfare against non-Muslims who refuse to embrace Islam. Even today, some Islamic terrorist groups have Sufi members and leaders. Rauf also endorses sharia, and wants to establish it in the West, in the U.S.

    It does concern me that some non-Muslims project their own prejudices and stereotypes onto the so-called Sufis, as William Dalrymple does when he makes his fatuous comments about Feisal Abdul Rauf’s “slightly New Agey rhetoric {that} makes him sound, for better or worse, like a Muslim Deepak Chopra.” These prejudices and stereotypes are, I think, confabulations derived from examples of non-Muslim mystics, people who at best recommend possibly healthy activities such as meditation, and who at worst are cranks and charlatans dedicated to separating fools from their money.

    Feisal Abdul Rauf is a dedicated and influential advocate of sharia law and wants this to be imposed on non-Muslims. He is a jihad apologist, blaming America for 9/11. I’m not sure what Deepak Chopra thinks of 9/11, but I’m reasonably sure that neither he nor non-Muslim mystics generally are advocating that sharia law be established in non-Muslim countries.

    Regarding another influential Sufi who advocated (and got) sharia law, Judith Miller, p. 137 in “God Has Ninety-Nine Names” writes {my brackets added}:

    “Finally, Nimeiri {former leader of Sudan} sought the advice from a Sufi Muslim Sheikh, a man known, as Sufis often are, for his magical powers. * “The son of a bitch told him that if he imposed sharia and returned to the true path of Islam, he would have a son! And Nimeiri, who also turned out to be a stupid son of bitch, believed him!’
    The Saudis, who loved to promote the concept of Islam, were nevertheless appalled by Nimeiri’s imposition of sharia; so was Egypt, which shared the waters of the Nile. * “Once sharia was imposed, we all knew there was no way to prevent a resumption of civil war,’ Selim confided. “I tried to dissuade him from his lunacy, but Nimeiri ignored everyone. And he never did have a son!’ ”

    *Miller’s quotation of Selim Issa, a former senior advisor to Nimeiri.
    The chapter goes on to describe the civil war and the brutal sharia regime implemented by Nimeiri.

    Also, Taslima Nasrin writes:
    “We had a relative, a pir, a learned Sufi holy man, who issued fatwas to prevent our women from leaving the house, fatwas against his own family for years. He declared me an apostate who would burn in Hell, along with my entire family, including Taslima. She was only nine years old.””
    [Source: dhushara.com]

    Another “great” Sufi, still highly regarded in Islam today:

    al-Ghazali (d. 1111) “[O]ne must go on the jihad (i.e., warlike razzias or raids) at least oncea year…one may use a catapult against them [non-Muslims] when they are in a fortress, even if among them are women and children. One may set fire to them and/or drown them. …If a person of the ahl al-kitab [People of the Book”Jews and Christians, typically] is enslaved, his marriage is [automatically] revoked….One may cut down their trees….One must destroy their useless books.”

    Quoted on p.199, as it appears, in Andrew Bostom’s The Legacy of Jihad.

    Also see the article (May 15, 2005) “Sufi Jihad?” By Andrew G. Bostom

    Hassan al-Banna, a hero of the modern-day jihadists, one of the founders of the (20th century) Muslim Brotherhood, also considered himself a Sufi:

    “Hassan al-Banna was taught to memorize the Koran at a young age, and trained to be a teacher. He started teaching in 1927. It was in March 1928 that Hassan al-Banna, his younger brother Gamal and five others gathered at his home and made a pledge to live and die for Islam. Thus was founded the Muslim Brotherhood (al-Ikhwanu I-Muslimin or Hizb al-Ikhwan Al-Muslimoon). In its initial years, the Ikhwan functioned as a youth oranization engaged in daw’ah or missionary work. It political philosophy grew as its membership increased. Al-Banna considered himself to be Sufi, which is essentially apolitical, and belonged to the Hasafiya Sufi order.
    Despite this, there were global political issues that concerned him. On March 23, 1924 the last Caliphate, that of the Ottomans, was dissolved by Kemal Ataturk, the Turkish secularist. This system had been an institutional hub of the Muslim world since 1290 AD. In 1919, al-Banna had participated in demonstrations against British rule in Egypt. It has been suggested that al-Banna was a Wahhabist, perhaps confusing a movement from Saudi Arabia called the Ikhwan (Brotherhood), which had been employed by Abdul Aziz al-Saud to establish his rule over Arabia.”
    [source: Westernresistance.com]

  11. says

    New York State already has a history of peaceful muslim outreach projects(they tend to fizzle out by themselves). Look at Bridges TV, it almost collapsed under it’s own weight. Their lofty goals of bringing peace and understanding over the airways became too much for the founder and CEO of the TV channel. Last year, he cut his wife’s head off in the studio.

  12. says

    Sufis are indeed a innovation(bida) who have taken teachings from the Neoplatonists, Central Asians and Vedanta and given them a Islamic patina.

    Their popularity in the West is due to two elements.
    1) Idries Shah who presented a non-Islamic version of Sufism. He gave many the idea that Sufism is non-threatening to us Westerners and has nothing to do with Islam per-se.

    2) Rumi’s poetry. And which people confuse with Sufism and Sufis. If they bothered to examine Sufis of the Mevlana order today they’d find them to be pro-shariah and view Mo as the “perfect man”.

  13. says

    I beg to differ with the misinformation presented here as fact/evidence.

    a) I’ve read a bit on the Sufis in Chechnya: 1) First, the wars in the 1800s were against an invading Russia; these were attempts to keep out invaders–hardly a jihad; and of course, if the word “jihad” is your word for sacred war, you are going to fight a war of national independence from an invader and call it a jihad. Our own war of independence was just such a jihad.

    b) There is a long history of governments throwing weight behind Sufism when they want to eliminate radical Islam. The overwhelming weight of Sufi writings and philosophies, in all the orders, is on personal union with God, on meditative practice (i.e., the dancing & whirling)–and not jihad. That’s what makes it Sufism; if it veers from that, it is not by definition Sufism.

    c) The “Mevlana” order is the order founded by Rumi. The last poster appears to be unaware of that fact.

    d) Many fundamentalist Muslims claim that Sufism, with its emphasis on personal union with God and meditative prayer (versus fundamentalist emphasis on action and jihad) is in fact “not really Islam,” just as some fundamentalist Christians claim that some liberal Christian sects “arent’ really Christianity.” Fundamentalist Muslims have been trying to stamp out Sufis for a very long time.

    e) Discounting Rumi as if he is unimportant to Sufism is unwise at best. Rumi is revered by most Sufis, as are the other mystic Sufi poets. And all of them stress personal union with a loving Allah. Try reading the stuff if you doubt it.

    f) I can find one or two wayward examples in ANY philosophy, so quoting the rants of one wayward Sufi does not entail that Sufism itself is hiding jihadists. There are wacko Unitarians out there too, folks; seeing one example as representative of the whole simply exposes your own need to lump Sufis with other Muslims.

    I wish you all the best; read more than the skewed opinions of fellow fear-mongers if you want to find out what Sufism really is.

  14. says

    There was a piece on TV tonight which showed Sufi Muslims in Chechnya doing their communal dancing. The commentary indicated Jihadists would undertake these ceremonies before leaving to attack Russians during the recent civil war that devastated the country. The Sufi Muslim President made clear that he was implementing Shariah law in the Republic (he is a client of Putin and co), including polygamy and strict dress codes for women.

  15. says

    Chechens are inspired by beautiful Sufi Islam, eh?

    This is what Chechen Muslims did to Russian Christians, early in September, six years ago, in Beslan.


    Anyone here who does not know what happened at Beslan, read that article. I think the link still works. Very long and detailed and based on masses of first-hand testimony from the hostages who survived.

    And it would be worthwhile also pointing out that when the Tsars originally invaded and took control of Chechnya and other Muslim lands to the south of Russia proper, they did it primarily in sheer self-defence: because for *centuries* Muslim jihad raiding parties based in those Islamised territories had gone deep into *Russian* territory, carrying off thousands and thousands of non-Muslim Slavs to be used as slaves; the famously-beautiful girls to be used as sex toys and breeding stock in the harems; the men to be worked to death.

  16. says

    Zulu and Kinana, above, and Crows & Cows, have offered some examples of thoroughly-nasty Sufis.

    I can add more.

    Here, to start with, is one from North Africa, Morocco, to be precise.

    In this article –


    Losing Our Soul to the Islamintern
    By Andrew G. Bostom
FrontPageMagazine.com | 3/24/2008

    Mr Bostom writes –

    ‘The depressing spectacle of our great nation’s supplication before the OIC”expressed so vividly in the very first pronouncements of our fawning Muslim American envoy to this de facto “Islamintern””brings to mind a remarkably candid assessment by

    ‘the 18th century Moroccan Sufi “master” Ibn Ajibah from his Koranic commentary, a work I was made aware of by my colleague, Dr. Mark Durie.

    ‘Describing unabashedly the purpose of the humiliating Koranic poll tax (as per Koran 9:29) of submission for non-Muslims brought under Islamic hegemony by jihad, Ibn Ajibah makes clear the ultimate goal of its imposition was to achieve what he called the death of the “soul”, through the dhimmi’s execution of their own humanity:


    “[The dhimmi] is commanded to put his soul, good fortune and desires to death.

    “Above all he should kill the love of life, leadership and honor.

    ” [The dhimmi] is to invert the longings of his soul, he is to load it down more heavily than it can bear until it is completely submissive.

    “Thereafter nothing will be unbearable for him. He will be indifferent to subjugation or might. Poverty and wealth will be the same to him; praise and insult will be the same; preventing and yielding will be the same; lost and found will be the same.

    “Then, when all things are the same, it [the soul] will be submissive and yield willingly what it should give.

    [Tafsir ibn “Ajibah. Commentary on Q9:29. Ahmad ibn Muhammad Ibn ‘Ajibah].

    That passage from Ibn Ajibah is a recipe for soul-killing.

    It reminds me of Orwell’s ‘Ministry of Love’ in 1984, or the agenda of the pimp, the slaver, the sadist, the serial killer/ ritual abuser: to so completely destroy the self-hood and will of his victim, as to render that victim a nonreactive THING that he may use and abuse at will (or even worse: to so mess with the victim, that the victim says to the abuser who is killing his or her body and soul – “you are wonderful! You are good! I love you!’ even while being tortured and destroyed}.

    The demonic Will to Dominate expressed in Ajibah’s words is so sadistic, so empty of any awareness of the dhimmi’s humanity and personhood, that it makes one feel violently ill.

    Here, from M Scott Peck’s ‘People of the Lie’, is a definition of Evil that exactly describes the Islamic project vis a vis the dhimmi, as outlined by Ibn Ajibah.

    “When I say that evil has to do with killing, I do not mean to restrict myself to corporeal murder.

    “Evil is also that which kills spirit. There are various essential attributes of life – particularly human life – such as sentience, mobility, awareness, growth, autonomy, will.

    “It is possible to kill or attempt to kill one of these attributes without actually destroying the body…
    “Erich Fromm was acutely sensitive to this fact when he broadened the definition of necrophilia to include **the desire of certain people to control others – to make them controllable, to foster their dependency, to discourage their capacity to think for themselves, to diminish their unpredictability and originality, to keep them in line** {my emphasis – dda).

    “Distinguishing it from a ‘biophilic’ person, one who appreciates and fosters the variety of life forms and the uniqueness of the individual, he demonstrated a ‘necrophilic’ character type, whose aim is to avoid the inconvenience of life **by transforming others into obedient automatons, robbing them of their humanity** (my emphasis – dda).

    “Evil, then, for the moment, is that force, residing either inside or outside of human beings, that seeks to kill life or liveliness. And goodness is its opposite. Goodness is that which promotes life and liveliness.”

  17. says

    And now for an Indian Sufi Muslim, the so-called ‘saint’, Sirhindi, d. 1624.

    Two sets of excerpts from his writings.

    Here is one.


    “The violent truth behind the Sufi Mask’ – “Sita Ram Goel’s collection of specimens from letters by Sirhindi’.

    ‘On the desirability of harbouring hatred toward the kafir, whether secretly or openly.

    ‘Therefore, it is necessary that infidelity should be cursed in order to serve the faith (Islam).

    ‘Cursing unbelief in the heart is the lesser way.

    ‘The greater way is to curse it in the heart as well as with the body.

    ;In short, cursing means to nourish enmity towards enemies of the true faith, whether that enmity is harboured in the heart when there is fear of injury from them (infidels), or it is harboured in the heart as well as served with the body when there is no fear of injury from them.

    ‘In the opinion of this recluse, there is no greater way to obtain the blessings of Allah than to curse the enemies of the faith (be impatient with them). For Allah himself harbours enmity towards the infidels and infidelity…”.

    “It is said that the Shariat prospers under the shadow of the sword (al-Shara’ tahat al-sait). And the glory of the holy Shariat depends on the kings of Islam ….

    “Islam and infidelity (kufr) contradict one another. To establish the one means eradicating the other, the coming together of these contradictories being impossible.

    “Therefore, Allah has commanded his Prophet to wage war (jihad) against the infidels, and be harsh with them.

    “The glory of Islam consists in the humiliation and degradation of infidels and infidelity.

    “He who honours the infidels, insults Islam.

    “Honouring (the infidels) does not mean that they are accorded dignity, and made to sit in high places.

    “It means allowing them to be in our company, to sit with them, and talk to them. They should be kept away like dogs.

    “If there is some worldly purpose or work which depends upon them, and cannot be served without their help, they may be contacted while keeping in mind all the time that they are not worthy of respect.

    “The best course according to Islam is that they should not be contacted even for worldly purposes.

    “Allah has proclaimed in his Holy Word (Quran) that they are his and his Prophet’s enemies. And mixing with these enemies of Allah and his Prophet or showing affection for them, is one of the greatest crimes…”…

    “The abolition of jizyah in Hindustan is a result of friendship which (Hindus) have acquired with the rulers of this land… What right have the rulers to stop exacting jizyah?

    “Allah himself has commended imposition of jizyah for their (infidels’) humiliation and degradation.

    ” What is required is their disgrace, and the prestige and power of Muslims.

    “The slaughter of non-Muslims means gain for Islam…”…

    “To consult them (the kafirs) and then act according to their advice means honouring the enemies (of Islam), which is strictly forbidden…

    “The prayer (goodwill) of these enemies of Islam is false and fruitless. It should never be called for because it can only add to their numbers. If the infidels pray, they will surely seek the intercession of their idols, which is taking things too far…

    “A wise man has said that unless you become a maniac (di-wanah) you cannot attain Islam. The state of this mania means going beyond considerations of profit and loss.
    Whatever one gains in the service of Islam should suffice…”

    Now, here’s a different translation of some of this material, as included in Andrew Bostom’s “Legacy of Jihad”, pp. 200-201.

    “Shariat can be fostered through the sword…

    “Kufr and Islam are opposed to each other. The progress of one is possible only at the expense of the other, and co-existence between these two contradictory faiths is unthinkable.

    “The honour of Islam lies in insulting kufr and kafirs. One who respects kafirs, dishonours the Muslims. To respect them does not merely mean honouring them and assigning them a seat of honor in any assembly, but it also implies keeping company with them or showing any consideration for them. They should be kept at an arm’s length like dogs.

    …If some worldly business cannot be performed without them, in that case only a minimum of contact should be established with them but without taking them into confidence. The highest Islamic sentiment asserts that it is better to forego that worldly business and that no relationship should be established with the kafirs.

    “**The real purpose of levying jizya on them (the non-Muslims) is to humiliate them to such an extent that, on account of fear of jizya, they may not be able to dress well and to live in grandeur. They should constantly remain terrified and trembling** {my emphasis – dda; dear God, talk about shameless sadism! – and remember, this guy’s a Sufi}.

    “It is intended to hold them under contempt and to uphold the honour and might of Islam.”

    And to Lala Beg, Sirhindi wrote:

    “Cow-sacrifice in India is the noblest of Islamic practices. The kafirs may probably agree to pay jizya, but they shall never concede to cow-sacrifice.

    “The execution of the accursed kafir of Gobindwal [Sikh leader] is an important achievement and is the cause of great defeat of the accursed Hindus.

    “Whatever might have been the motive behind the execution, the dishonor of the kafirs is an act of highest grace for the Muslims…

    {Got that, everyone? Sirhindi, this Sufi saint, absolutely *revels* in cruel humiliation of non-Muslims; what he just *loves*, is to *hurt* them, not just physically, but in every other way. Pure sadism. – dda}.

    “Whenever a Jew is killed, it is for the benefit of Islam”. END QUOTES.

    Not having access to the full text in the original language, I’d really like to know whether the passage that in one version reads ‘the slaughter of non-Muslims means gain for Islam…” is the same passage that another translator renders as “whenever a Jew is killed, it is for the benefit of Islam”. Either Sirhindi wrote ‘Yahood’ ‘Jew’ (perhaps doing so because the Jew is the ‘arch-Kafir’) or he wrote something more general'; I think we really need to find out which.

    Bostom used the translations of Sirhindi’s letters that appear in Saiyid Athar Abbas Rizvi, ‘Muslim Revivalist Movements in Northern India in the 16th and 17th Centuries’ (Agra, Lucknow, 1965) p. 247-59, and in Yohanan Friedman, “Shaykh Ahmad Sirhindi: an Outline of His Thought and a Study of His Image in the Eyes of Posterity” (Canada, 1971) pp. 71-74.

  18. says


    Thanks for the those references; I’ll update my file on Sufism, which was getting dusty.

    Some Muslims may indeed think the arch-Kafirs (among humans) are Jews. The arch-kafir (including non-humans) according to the Quran was Iblis, e.g., 2:34 “And when We said unto the angels: Prostrate yourselves before Adam, they fell prostrate, all save Iblis. He demurred through pride, and so became a disbeliever.”
    “Wa-ith qulna lilmala-ikati osjudoo li-adama fasajadoo illa ibleesa aba waistakbara wakana mina alkafireena”

    (Note: “Disbeliever” or kafir in Islam is someone who, among other things, refuses to obey the dictates of Islam and Allah.)

  19. says

    “A Muslim Deepak Chopra”? Hilarious. Actually, DeeQuack Chopra is no Hindu. He takes a dump on India and the Hindus at every available opportunity. He appeared on Larry King live during the Jihadi attack on Mumbai of 26th Nov, 2008 – and laid the blame on Hindus for “oppressing” Muslims! Deepak Chopra has built a multi million dollar empire selling what he claims is his original
    “spiritualism”, plagiarizing aspects of Hinduism , without so much ad acknowledging their source!

    That apart, Sufis were the most devious and wretched practitioners of Jihad butchery, especially in India. They served as proselytizers and espionage agents in areas where Islam was still not in complete control. Contrary to popular misconception, the Mughal emperor Akbar was also a hateful bigot, only relatively better than other Mughals. There are instances of him ordering the massacre of as many as 100,000 Hindus after being frustrated in battle.

    This William Dalrymple fellow is a fake scholar, a paid apologist for Islam and a scoundrel.
    His hatred of Hindus and love of Pakistanis is quite well known.

    His false derivation about Sufism has no credibility. Thanks to Jihad Watch for pointing out Dalrymple’s idiocy.

  20. says


    Now that your website is attracting millions of viewers, I think the time is appropriate to educate most of them with regards to Taqqiya. Americans do not know about taqqiya.

    Educate is the key word.

  21. says

    there is only one way to win against stealth jihad – every other way will fail – just like it has been doing all these years that these cultural and RELIGIOUS savages have been making fools out of the entire western world: And that is to FOLLOW THE MONEY AND FIND OUT WHERE IT IS COMING FROM – NOTHING ELSE WORKS. MANY DO NOT BELIEVE ME, BUT OUR COUNTRY IS RUN BY OIL MONEY BRIBES RIGHT NOW BECAUSE PEOPLE DO NOT KNOW HOW INCREDIBLY EASY IT IS TO OPERATE AN ORGANIZED AND LAWYER CONTROLLED BRIBE SYSTEM – ESPECIALLY WHEN THE UNDER THE TABLE STUFF EXCEEDS ONE MILLION DOLLARS! The only thing that has a chance in hell of stopping it is by exposing when and where the money behind these crazy projects comes from. If the question of how the Victory Mosque was going to be financed had not been brought out by Pamela, you can be sure they would already have the 100,million U.S. bucks in hand, plus another 100 million in a secret bribe fund just sitting there waiting to buy off the majority of Democrats and a really impressive number of Republican who worship the invisible hand. Added to this badly overlooked FACT is the painful but obvious truth that people with big big vast fortunes are hugely more tempted toward sexual adventures with questionable people than any other group of people in the world, and so a great percentage of them are now being BLACK MAILED BY THE SAME BACKROOM JIHAD. THE MUSLIMS ALWAYS USE THIS CARROT AND STICK PROGRAM TO GET ANYTHING THEY WANT – IF WE DO NOT USE INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALISTIC TACTICS TO REVEAL THESE THINGS TO EVERYONE WHO IS CIVILIZED WE WILL BE DEFEATED FOR SURE BECAUSE THERE ARE NOT ANY FORMAL CATHOLIC CRUSADERS TO SAVE THE WORLD FROM THE MUSLIMS THIS TIME. EVERYONE NEEDS TO LEARN TO BE ONE OF THE “NEW CRUSADERS” OR REAL CIVILIZATION DIES AND THE SPOILS GO TO THE MURDERING SAVAGES – FOLLOW THE MONEY OR DIE!

  22. says

    His videos and sermons preach love, the remembrance of God (or “zikr”)

    The most common phrase chanted during “Zikr” (or Dhikr) is “Allahu Akbar””the same baleful phrase shouted by the 9/11 terrorists”and so many other Jihadists…

  23. says

    Ah, Richard Thompson is one Sufi who wouldn’t hurt a flea, I’m sure. But it’s one of those little nagging sadnesses of life for me that any member of Fairport Convention of the Liege and Lief era would have “reverted,” even if it was to what he probably thought was some hippy dippy version of Islam. I’ve always wondered if he found that he could check in, but couldn’t check out. Cat Stevens, at least, appears to have gone the whole honest jihadist hog.

  24. says

    Robert Spencer, not unlike co-Saudi owned properties FoxNews and the Weekly Standard, is – idvertently, at least – shilling for the Wahhabists. Of course America has no monopoly on ignorance. There is, no doubt, someone in a Muslim country who foolishly conflates neo-Cromwellians like Spencer with Quakers. He and Geert Wilders will likely be exchanging autographs at a planned “No Mosque in My Back Yard” rally planned for Sept. 11th. Further exploitation of a tragedy directly related to the 200 year old Wahhabist cult, definitely, but to come out and say as much would offend our dear Saudi “allies.” Many thanks to Spencer, Pam Geller, George Will, Bill Kristol and neo-Roundhead Cal Thomas for continuing to muddy the waters and, in short, Keep America Stupid.

  25. says

    Do Sufis consider a different child-raping, slave-owning, wife-beating, murderer to be a perfect man?

    No, they don’t.

  26. says

    I don’t know about being a fearmonger with skewed opinions, Miss know-it-all Gordon, but I nearly got my head bitten off by a charming Sudanese sufi when I innocently questioned him about the character of Mohammed. The peaceful sufi transformed into a savage dervish in an instant.
    The sufis of Sudan wanted the head of the Englishwoman who allowed her students to name the teddy bear “Mohammed”. They have a lot of power in that moderate, peaceful Islamic country which is a model of tolerance for all peoples…

  27. says

    Lisa Gordon,

    Not one of your points indicates that Sufis are significantly less inclined than the majority of Muslims to support sharia law, or that they are less likely than other Muslims to sympathize with or materially support or carry jihad terror attacks, or that Sufis don’t read the Quran in light of the Hadith and Sira, and so on. Not one of your points indicates that Sufis are less hostile in their attitudes and policies toward non-Muslims than are other Muslims.

    Why then should any of what you say there matter to the average non-Muslim? How does any of what you say there refute anything anyone’s said in this thread?

  28. says

    “Then, when all things are the same, it [the soul] will be submissive and yield willingly what it should give.

    [Tafsir ibn “Ajibah. Commentary on Q9:29. Ahmad ibn Muhammad Ibn ‘Ajibah].

    “That passage from Ibn Ajibah is a recipe for soul-killing.”

    Not merely soul-killing: soul-killing as preparation for the hopeful reversion of that dead soul to Islam. Ajibah’s description of the goal of dhimmitude, to the extent it was effectively applied, is one reason why so many Persians, Hindus, Copts, etc., over the centuries joined the zombified army of Islam.

  29. says

    Hesperado wrote:

    Woops, my previous comment was about Theodore Dalrymple, not William. Theodore Dalrymple writes for New English Review (which has on its writing staff among others Hugh Fitzgerald and former Jihad Watch editor Rebecca Bynum).

    Are they related?

    Hesperado, Theodore Dalrymple is the nom de plume of Dr. Anthony Daniels. He picked the name because he thought it “sounded suitably dyspeptic, that of a gouty old man looking out of the window…”

    Theodore Dalrymple is”overall”an excellent writer, and quite clear-eyed about Islam.

    I have him to thank, incidentally, for my discovering Jihad Watch. In the first years after 9/11, I was desperate for any even somewhat sane writing about the threat of Jihad. I found Dalrymple through some reference by Christopher Hitchens, and then found Jihad Watch through some now long forgotten link following a Theodore Dalrymple piece.