• Why Jihad Watch?
  • About Robert Spencer and Staff Writers
  • FAQ
  • Books
  • Muhammad
  • Islam 101
  • Privacy

Jihad Watch

Exposing the role that Islamic jihad theology and ideology play in the modern global conflicts

Raymond Ibrahim: Islam’s ‘Protestant Reformation’

Jun 30, 2014 8:21 am By Raymond Ibrahim

Luther[The following article was originally published by PJ Media in two parts]

In order to prevent a clash of civilizations, or worse, Islam must reform. This is the contention of many Western peoples. And, pointing to Christianity’s Protestant Reformation as proof that Islam can also reform, many are optimistic.

Overlooked by most, however, is that Islam has been reforming. What is today called “radical Islam” is the reformation of Islam. And it follows the same pattern of Christianity’s Protestant Reformation.

The problem is our understanding of the word “reform.” Despite its positive connotations, “reform” simply means to “make changes (in something, typically a social, political, or economic institution or practice) in order to improve it.”

Synonyms of “reform” include “make better,” “ameliorate,” and “improve”—splendid words all, yet words all subjective and loaded with Western references.

Muslim notions of “improving” society may include purging it of “infidels” and their corrupt ways; or segregating men and women, keeping the latter under wraps or quarantined at home; or executing apostates, who are seen as traitorous agitators.

Banning many forms of freedoms taken for granted in the West—from alcohol consumption to religious and gender equality—can be deemed an “improvement” and a “betterment” of society.

In short, an Islamic reformation need not lead to what we think of as an “improvement” and “betterment” of society—simply because “we” are not Muslims and do not share their reference points and first premises. “Reform” only sounds good to most Western peoples because they, secular and religious alike, are to a great extent products of Christianity’s Protestant Reformation; and so, a priori, they naturally attribute positive connotations to the word.

—–

At its core, the Protestant Reformation was a revolt against tradition in the name of scripture—in this case, the Bible. With the coming of the printing press, increasing numbers of Christians became better acquainted with the Bible’s contents, parts of which they felt contradicted what the Church was teaching. So they broke away, protesting that the only Christian authority was “scripture alone,” sola scriptura.

Islam’s reformation follows the same logic of the Protestant Reformation—specifically by prioritizing scripture over centuries of tradition and legal debate—but with antithetical results that reflect the contradictory teachings of the core texts of Christianity and Islam.

As with Christianity, throughout most of its history, Islam’s scriptures, specifically its “twin pillars,” the Koran (literal words of Allah) and the Hadith (words and deeds of Allah’s prophet, Muhammad), were inaccessible to the overwhelming majority of Muslims. Only a few scholars, or ulema—literally, “they who know”—were literate in Arabic and/or had possession of Islam’s scriptures. The average Muslim knew only the basics of Islam, or its “Five Pillars.”

In this context, a “medieval synthesis” flourished throughout the Islamic world. Guided by an evolving general consensus (or ijma‘), Muslims sought to accommodate reality by, in medieval historian Daniel Pipes’ words,

translat[ing] Islam from a body of abstract, infeasible demands [as stipulated in the Koran and Hadith] into a workable system. In practical terms, it toned down Sharia and made the code of law operational. Sharia could now be sufficiently applied without Muslims being subjected to its more stringent demands… [However,] While the medieval synthesis worked over the centuries, it never overcame a fundamental weakness: It is not comprehensively rooted in or derived from the foundational, constitutional texts of Islam. Based on compromises and half measures, it always remained vulnerable to challenge by purists (emphasis added).

This vulnerability has now reached breaking point: millions of more Korans published in Arabic and other languages are in circulation today compared to just a century ago; millions of more Muslims are now literate enough to read and understand the Koran compared to their medieval forbears. The Hadith, which contains some of the most intolerant teachings and violent deeds attributed to Islam’s prophet, is now collated and accessible, in part thanks to the efforts of Western scholars, the Orientalists. Most recently, there is the Internet—where all these scriptures are now available in dozens of languages and to anyone with a laptop or iphone.

In this backdrop, what has been called at different times, places, and contexts “Islamic fundamentalism,” “radical Islam,” “Islamism,” and “Salafism” flourished. Many of today’s Muslim believers, much better acquainted than their ancestors with the often black and white words of their scriptures, are protesting against earlier traditions, are protesting against the “medieval synthesis,” in favor of scriptural literalism—just like their Christian Protestant counterparts once did.

Thus, if Martin Luther (d. 1546) rejected the extra-scriptural accretions of the Church and “reformed” Christianity by aligning it more closely with scripture, Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab (d. 1787), one of Islam’s first modern reformers, “called for a return to the pure, authentic Islam of the Prophet, and the rejection of the accretions that had corrupted it and distorted it,” in the words of Bernard Lewis (The Middle East, p. 333).

The unadulterated words of God—or Allah—are all that matter for the reformists.

Note: Because they are better acquainted with Islam’s scriptures, other Muslims, of course, are apostatizing—whether by converting to other religions, most notably Christianity, or whether by abandoning religion altogether, even if only in their hearts (for fear of the apostasy penalty). This is an important point to be revisited later. Muslims who do not become disaffected after better acquainting themselves with the literal teachings of Islam’s scriptures and who instead become more faithful to and observant of them are the topic of this essay.

—–

How Christianity and Islam can follow similar patterns of reform but with antithetical results rests in the fact that their scriptures are often antithetical to one another. This is the key point, and one admittedly unintelligible to postmodern, secular sensibilities, which tend to lump all religious scripture together in a melting pot of relativism without bothering to evaluate the significance of their respective words and teachings.

Obviously a point by point comparison of the scriptures of Islam and Christianity is inappropriate for an article of this length (see my “Are Judaism and Christianity as Violent as Islam” for a more comprehensive treatment).

Suffice it to note some contradictions (which will be rejected as a matter of course by the relativistic mindset):

  • The New Testament preaches peace, brotherly love, tolerance, and forgiveness—for all humans, believers and non-believers alike. Instead of combatting and converting “infidels,” Christians are called to pray for those who persecute them and turn the other cheek (which is not the same thing as passivity, for Christians are also called to be bold and unapologetic). Conversely, the Koran and Hadith call for war, or jihad, against all non-believers, until they either convert, accept subjugation and discrimination, or die.
  • The New Testament has no punishment for the apostate from Christianity. Conversely, Islam’s prophet himself decreed that “Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.”
  • The New Testament teaches monogamy, one husband and one wife, thereby dignifying the woman. The Koran allows polygamy—up to four wives—and the possession of concubines, or sex-slaves. More literalist readings treat women as possessions.
  • The New Testament discourages lying (e.g., Col. 3:9). The Koran permits it; the prophet himself often deceived others, and permitted lying to one’s wife, to reconcile quarreling parties, and to the “infidel” during war.

It is precisely because Christian scriptural literalism lends itself to religious freedom, tolerance, and the dignity of women, that Western civilization developed the way it did—despite the nonstop propaganda campaign emanating from academia, Hollywood, and other major media that says otherwise.

And it is precisely because Islamic scriptural literalism is at odds with religious freedom, tolerance, and the dignity of women, that Islamic civilization is the way it is—despite the nonstop propaganda campaign emanating from academia, Hollywood, and other major media that says otherwise.

—–

Those in the West waiting for an Islamic “reformation” along the same lines of the Protestant Reformation, on the assumption that it will lead to similar results, must embrace two facts: 1) Islam’s reformation is well on its way, and yes, along the same lines of the Protestant Reformation—with a focus on scripture and a disregard for tradition—and for similar historic reasons (literacy, scriptural dissemination, etc.); 2) But because the core teachings of the scriptures of Christianity and Islam markedly differ from one another, Islam’s reformation has naturally produced a civilization markedly different from the West.

Put differently, those in the West uncritically calling for an “Islamic reformation” need to acknowledge what it is they are really calling for: the secularization of Islam in the name of modernity; the trivialization and sidelining of Islamic law from Muslim society.

That would not be a “reformation”—certainly nothing analogous to the Protestant Reformation.

Overlooked is that Western secularism was, and is, possible only because Christian scripture lends itself to the division between church and state, the spiritual and the temporal.

Upholding the literal teachings of Christianity is possible within a secular—or any—state. Christ called on believers to “render unto Caesar the things of Caesar (temporal) and unto God the things of God (spiritual)” (Matt. 22:21). For the “kingdom of God” is “not of this world” (John 18:36). Indeed, a good chunk of the New Testament deals with how “man is not justified by the works of the law… for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified” (Gal. 2:16).

On the other hand, mainstream Islam is devoted to upholding the law; and Islamic scripture calls for a fusion between Islamic law—Sharia—and the state.   Allah decrees in the Koran that “It is not fitting for true believers—men or women—to take their choice in affairs if Allah and His Messenger have decreed otherwise. He that disobeys Allah and His Messenger strays far indeed!” (33:36).   Allah tells the prophet of Islam, “We put you on an ordained way [literarily in Arabic, sharia] of command; so follow it and do not follow the inclinations of those who are ignorant” (45:18).

Mainstream Islamic exegesis has always interpreted such verses to mean that Muslims must follow the commandments of Allah as laid out in the Koran and Hadith—in a word, Sharia.

And Sharia is so concerned with the details of this world, with the everyday doings of Muslims, that every conceivable human action falls under five rulings, or ahkam: the forbidden (haram), the discouraged (makruh), the neutral (mubah), the recommended (mustahib), and the obligatory (wajib).

Conversely, Islam offers little concerning the spiritual (sidelined Sufism the exception).

Unlike Christianity, then, Islam without the law—without Sharia—becomes meaningless.   After all, the Arabic word Islam literally means “submit.” Submit to what? Allah’s laws as codified in Sharia and derived from the Koran and Hadith.

The “Islamic reformation” some in the West are hoping for is really nothing less than an Islam without Islam—secularization not reformation; Muslims prioritizing secular, civic, and humanitarian laws over Allah’s law; a “reformation” that would slowly see the religion of Muhammad go into the dustbin of history.

Such a scenario is certainly more plausible than believing that Islam can be true to its scriptures in any meaningful way and still peacefully coexist with, much less complement, modernity the way Christianity does.

Share this:

  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)
  • Click to print (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • More
  • Click to share on Skype (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)

Follow me on Facebook

Filed Under: Islamic reform


Learn more about RevenueStripe...

Comments

  1. John C. Barile says

    Jun 30, 2014 at 10:20 am

    As a Catholic Christian I rather resent any implication that Scripture has less import for me than for my Protestant counterparts, in all their multiplicitous interpretations and differing emphases of the same.

    • Ernie Banks says

      Jun 30, 2014 at 1:39 pm

      I didn’t take the author’s comments that way. I thought he was trying to make a distinction between Christianity and Islam. In Islam, Muslims are required to submit to lots of rules about what is permitted and what is not. In Christianity, Christians make choices based on how they believe God wants them to live.

      • John C. Barile says

        Jun 30, 2014 at 6:09 pm

        I understand that Mr. Ibrahim implied no such thing. I referred to an unspoken assumption among many devout non-Catholic Christians that Catholics somehow devalue Scripture, or that the Catholic Church somehow empties the written Word of God of its substance.

        • John C. Barile says

          Jul 5, 2014 at 1:51 pm

          Please understand, that I’m not referring to Mr. Ibrahim at all. Rather, I refer to what some others are inclined to read-into the historic context which Mr Ibrahim is examining.

    • Bill says

      Jul 6, 2014 at 12:48 pm

      The Catholic Church does not view Scripture the same way that Protestantism does. “Sola Scriptura” is condemned by the RCC. Sorry that the west was profoundly politically influenced by Protestantism, but that is the fact of it. This article had nothing to do with promoting Protestantism over Catholicism. It had everything to do with comparing the influence of “Sola Scriptura” in Islam and in Christianity. Stop the bashing of Protestants who want to protect your right to be a Catholic and who (like me, a Protestant) who is happy that you have the freedom to condemn us. If the Muslims continue all of our crosses and all of our churches and all of us will be destroyed.

      • John C. Barile says

        Jul 6, 2014 at 4:59 pm

        Who’s condemning you?

      • John C. Barile says

        Jul 6, 2014 at 5:07 pm

        Or bashing you? Not I.

        • Bill says

          Jul 6, 2014 at 6:43 pm

          Here’s a quote from your comment as it refers to Protestants:
          “in all their multiplicitous interpretations and differing emphases of the same.”

          This is a standard disparaging criticism of Protestantism from Catholics. There was not even the hint in Mr. Ibrahim’s article of attempting to promote Protestantism over Catholicism. Yet you have filled these pages with Catholic apologetics. I have no problem with that when the topic is Protestantism v. Catholicism. But when the topic is narrowly the influence of “sola scriptura” in Christianity as compared to Islam your comments are both unwelcomed, inappropriate and divisive. You should be careful to look to Protestants, atheists, Mormons, Buddhists and anyone else as an ally in the fight against the great evil of Islam.

        • John C. Barile says

          Jul 7, 2014 at 10:28 am

          And yet these things are so. And it’s the standard Protestant disparaging criticism of Catholic Christianity that it is “unbiblical.” To not a few Protestants (whom I have known), it follows that Catholics are somehow ignorant or dismissive of Scripture, inasmuch as they are Catholic.

        • John C. Barile says

          Jul 7, 2014 at 10:31 am

          Besides, I’m not the only one here who lapses into sectarian apologetics. If that were my primary concern here, I would be far more tenacious and unyielding.

        • John C. Barile says

          Jul 7, 2014 at 10:52 am

          Time out for a hudna.

  2. Kepha says

    Jun 30, 2014 at 10:34 am

    As a Protestant Christian, I thank Mr. Ibrahim for pointing out that the content of the Scripture being read is the all-important issue here. The Qur’an is absolutely not a retelling of the Old and New Testaments or a reiteration thereof, and anyone who thinks it is is simply ignorant. Ever since the Iranian Revolution of 1979, I have been sick and tired of confident, self-assured liberal spokespersons pontificating about how we need a Muslim “Reformation” to counter Islam’s supposed “fundamentalism”, and making themselves and the whole United States look foolish in doing so.

    • Ernie Banks says

      Jun 30, 2014 at 1:50 pm

      I liked the article a lot as well. But I don’t know anyone that thinks the Koran is a retelling of the Bible. Rather, it is clear that the Koran’s author(s) had access to the Bible, and rejected much of it.

      But this article causes me to rethink the issue too. I have thought that a spiritual battle for the future of Islam was going on, that the Islamists had cowed moderate Muslims with their violence, and that the moderates needed to confront the problem instead of avoiding it.

      I may be wrong. As Ibrahim points out, we may be watching a reform movement and not like what we see. If this view is correct, the situation may yet get a lot worse.

      • Kepha says

        Jun 30, 2014 at 9:34 pm

        @Ernie Banks: I’m probably considerably older than you (I’m a grandfather, 61 years of age), so my comment on people taking the Qur’an for a retelling or reiteration of Biblical material reflects a commonplace I heard growing up. You, of course, are correct that the author of the Qur’an rejects much (most) of the Bible–although I’d respectfully quibble with you that the author of the Qur’an probably got most of his “biblical” material from oral sources rather from the text; and mostly in folkloric retelling.

        I guess my biggest disagreement with people who hold out for an “Islamic Reformation” is that they seem to forget that Martin Luther, Huldrych Zwingli, and such people were not “moderates” compared to Rome, but men who disagreed with Rome over where the Christian can hear the Word of God: Scripture alone, or Scripture AND Church Tradition? Further, I’m of the mind that when a religion reforms along lines suggested by its Scriptures, the content of those Scriptures that people are reading is extremely important.

        For example, William Tyndale, the Father of the English Bible and one of England’s first Protestants, came out of his reading of the Scriptures, especially the New Testament, warning the church of his day that there is no indulgence for those who die fighting in a holy war; that this “Crusading” ideal was foreign to Jesus and the Apostles (although Tyndale did not quibble with Augustine’s just war theory). However, in Islam, the more seriously someone takes the Qur’an, the more likely he is to take up arms to fight.

        • John C. Barile says

          Jul 5, 2014 at 2:01 pm

          If tradition is not consonant with Scripture, then it is not Tradition.

          The very canon of Scripture is an authoritative Tradition.

          Apart from an authoritative Apostolic Tradition, I wouldn’t even begin to understand Divine Revelation, nor rightly understand Scripture.

        • John C. Barile says

          Jul 5, 2014 at 2:10 pm

          The Apostolic Tradition to me is analogous to Philip asking Queen Candace’s minister if he understood the book he was reading–Isaiah–and then proceeding to instruct and to baptize her courtier.

  3. ECAW says

    Jun 30, 2014 at 10:48 am

    Many thanks to Mr Ibrahim for this magnificent article, clarifying the issue in such detail.

  4. RCCA says

    Jun 30, 2014 at 11:25 am

    Isn’t it true that the majority of Muslims worldwide are illiterate?

    Holy Islam: Holy Illiteracy, Holy Poverty, Holy Backwardness
    by Sujit Das

    “In Islam, pure illiteracy is divine. The uneducated prophet of Islam called himself ‘a guardian of the illiterates sent by Allah’ (Bukhari, 3:34:335). Another hadith (Sunaan Ibn Majah V:4290) reveals that Allah loves illiterate people and hates educated people and he had promised the first entry to Paradise to the illiterate Muslims and the last entry to the educated Muslims. The reason was simple. Muhammad wanted to keep his followers away from education because he knew that his newly established religion could not survive if criticism is allowed…” http://www.islam-watch.org/sujitdas/holy-islam-illiteracy-poverty-backwardness.htm

    As you said, “a ‘reformation’ … would slowly see the religion of Muhammad go into the dustbin of history.”

    • BW022 says

      Jun 30, 2014 at 12:42 pm

      About 800M out of 1.4B Muslims are said to be illiterate. That is still over 40% who are literate. This was far more than the literacy rates during the Protestant Reformation. More importantly, modern printing and the internet means that the Koran is readily available for anyone who can read.

      You don’t need super-high literacy rates for a reformation. At 40% and easy access to books/writings, it is no longer possible for any central authority to gain control. Enough people can read it and tell people directly what it says that you don’t have to rely on authority figures.

      Islam doesn’t have any central authority to break away from. Enough can read it themselves — or pass that on to small groups/communities — that you can’t hold central authority.

      The issue with reforming Islam that you can’t refer to the Koran/Hadith to bypass central, authoritian rule. It isn’t like there is an equivalent of the Catholic Church in Islam which has the nasty trials, political influence, in-fighting, etc. and that doing away and going back to the books gets you secular governance, peace, tolerance, etc. Muslims have already broken away from any central authority and each of its sects have all simultaneously come to the same direction for Islam — all agreeing with jihad, martyrdom, theocracy, etc.

      The Protestant Reformation worked because it allowed people to leave the theocratic rule and led to secular and more tolerant governance. The Catholic Church then slowly followed.

  5. Gene says

    Jun 30, 2014 at 11:48 am

    The reformation was an attempt to get back to the original religion. This is the same for Muslim movements. During its first three hundred years, at least until the Romans took it over, Christian gains were made through peaceful persuasion. During its first three hundred years (until the present day), Muslim gains have been made thought war, murder, lying, threats, and destruction. So, what should one expect from a Muslim reformation? It’s not the peaceful, tolerant world that progressive Muslim apologists imagine.

  6. Reality Check says

    Jun 30, 2014 at 12:53 pm

    Islam cannot and will not be reformed – believing in the opposite is wishful thinking of the most delusional kind.

    Instead Muslims must be punished and punished hard for any transgression against Christians, Jews or other people who were kind (or stupid) enough to give them a chance for a much better life outside their native Muslim messes.

    Only fear of the infidel law and infidel retaliation will teach them sufficient respect for other civilizations.

  7. dlbrand says

    Jun 30, 2014 at 1:23 pm

    “The ‘Islamic reformation’ some in the West are hoping for is really nothing less than an Islam without Islam.”

    Indeed. Well stated.

    Those who call for and expect reform in Islam call for tossing out Islam as we know it.

    The Islam, which is Islam just as, according to the assertion of the “sacred texts,” the “Prophet” received it thus brought it. Scrap that. Garbage it, rewrite a new agreement for man and his Creator—of course the “Believers” are embracing our suggestion there with alacrity.

    Thus, we can all dream on, Islam will reform.

    Thank heavens.

  8. Jovial Joe says

    Jun 30, 2014 at 2:00 pm

    As an atheist I am happy to concur that Christianity is superior to Islam in all respects except one. Let’s face it, it isn’t hard for any other religion or indeed any other ideology on earth to be superior to Islam – the most damnable creed ever put forth by man – so no real kudos to Christianity that it ranks higher on the value scale than that which sits at the very bottom. The one respect in which Islam is superior, however, is in its warring and aggression which we as it’s opponents need to engender to an even greater extent; something Christianity, with its central command to ‘resist not evil’, is liable to detract from. Thankfully, however, we here at JW don’t take that particular tenet seriously.

    • Foolster41 says

      Jun 30, 2014 at 4:23 pm

      “The one respect in which Islam is superior, however, is in its warring and aggression which we as it’s opponents need to engender to an even greater extent; something Christianity, with its central command to ‘resist not evil’, is liable to detract from. Thankfully, however, we here at JW don’t take that particular tenet seriously.”

      So Islam is superior than Christianity in one aspect of it being more violent? Huh? To be honest, you don’t understand the quote that you are refering to. Matt 5:39 is about not taking revenge for personal injury. Self-defense of yourself and your family is not anti-scriptural.

      No, we don’t need to “engender” the violence in the Quoran. We need to speak the truth honestly and bravely. Yes, as a nation we have to be willing to defend against enemies, both foreign and domestic, but you are confusing the distinction between the two, as you are in your interpitation of Matt 5:39.

      • Jovial Joe says

        Jun 30, 2014 at 4:44 pm

        Thank you for that clarification my friend. I only suggest that we fight the good fight and that might of course include resistance by means of arms and not simply the intellect. While Ibrahim is correct to credit Christianity with the best of the West’s virtues of tolerance, it is the same culture that, for the mainstream at least and not you or I, which currently bends over backwards in accommodating execrable Islam. This must end and I don’t doubt that it will end.

    • John C. Barile says

      Jun 30, 2014 at 6:16 pm

      Jovial, most Christian denominations are not, historically speaking, pacifist. I think that your characterization that “resist not evil” is a Christian tenet simply isn’t so.

  9. Foolster41 says

    Jun 30, 2014 at 2:48 pm

    Excellent Article. It always irked me when people (generally liberals) talk of Islam being reformed and pointing to the Christian reformation. Of course, it has the loaded assumption (that this article points out) that Christianity was just as bad as Islam is and changed, which is false.

    I always pointed out, as this article points out how the Christian reformation wasn’t a rejecting but a returning to what scripture said. I’m going to be linking to this article instead.

  10. dumbledoresarmy says

    Jun 30, 2014 at 10:06 pm

    Conor Cruise O’Brien, back in 1995.

    He identified what was getting under way as “an Islamic revival”.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/the-lesson-of-algeria-islam-is-indivisible-1566770.html

    CONOR CRUISE O’BRIEN
    Friday 6 January 1995
    The lesson of Algeria: Islam is indivisible

    ….”All the great religions are the same” is the idea.
    “Only they aren’t.
    “The Clintonian world view [O’Brien quoted a particularly fatuous speech by ol’ Bill – dda] observes [sic: probably this should be “obscures” – dda] the hard specificity of Islam.

    “The Prophet Mohamed did not offer his followers a chance to live in harmony with their neighbours. He taught them to fight their neighbours, if they were unbelievers, and kill them or beat them into submission. And it is futile to say of those Muslims who faithfully follow those teachings today that their actions are “not intrinsically related to Islam”.

    “We are facing an Islamic revival. …”.

  11. smart guy says

    Jul 1, 2014 at 2:20 am

    If there is a God it must be remembered that he chose to communicate with man
    by mans of the written word. He wrote the Ten Commandments on stone not
    pyprus or scrolls.
    The idea that such a God would send a prophet that was illiterate is absurd.
    How can you communicate with God if you cannot read? You have to rely on preists to read for you. If you have to rely on others to read for you how can you possibly be a prophet?
    The cardinal said to the monk. “The Pope is above scripture and above councils.” the name of the monk was Martin Luther. Today no cardinal would ever say such things because the Catholic Church has become ‘Reformed’.
    In philosohy, time is needed to prove which philosophy is the greatest.
    All Moslems that want to become civilized will in the end abandon Islam.
    Pastors and preists of Christianity need to realize that we are in a Holy War against Islam, but appeasment is not the answer.
    “I am the God that brought you out of the house of slaves,
    You must have no other gods. against my face”
    Freedom brothers, freedom. Islam means Submission. You will be the head
    you will not be the tail. “Moses” America was the greatest world power but is losing its power because it is losing its freedom.

FacebookYoutubeTwitterLog in

Subscribe to the Jihad Watch Daily Digest

You will receive a daily mailing containing links to the stories posted at Jihad Watch in the last 24 hours.
Enter your email address to subscribe.

Please wait...

Thank you for signing up!
If you are forwarding to a friend, please remove the unsubscribe buttons first, as they my accidentally click it.

Subscribe to all Jihad Watch posts

You will receive immediate notification.
Enter your email address to subscribe.
Note: This may be up to 15 emails a day.

Donate to JihadWatch
FrontPage Mag

Search Site

Translate

The Team

Robert Spencer in FrontPageMag
Robert Spencer in PJ Media

Articles at Jihad Watch by
Robert Spencer
Hugh Fitzgerald
Christine Douglass-Williams
Andrew Harrod
Jamie Glazov
Daniel Greenfield

Contact Us

Terror Attacks Since 9/11

Archives

  • 2020
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2019
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2018
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2017
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2016
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2015
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2014
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2013
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2012
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2011
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2010
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2009
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2008
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2007
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2006
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2005
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2004
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2003
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • March

All Categories

You Might Like

Learn more about RevenueStripe...

Recent Comments

  • James Lincoln on Erdogan: ‘Turks must defend the rights of Jerusalem, even with their lives’ for ‘the honor of the Islamic nation’
  • Carol on Greece, Cyprus, Egypt, France and UAE conduct joint military exercises amid rising Turkish threat
  • James Lincoln on EU Parliament members call for firing of border agency director for preventing illegal migrants from entering Europe
  • Jayme on Canadian Mental Health Association studies Muslim women’s mental health due to ‘discrimination’ and ‘hate crimes’
  • GreekEmpress on EU Parliament members call for firing of border agency director for preventing illegal migrants from entering Europe

Popular Categories

dhimmitude Sharia Jihad in the U.S ISIS / Islamic State / ISIL Iran Free Speech

Robert Spencer FaceBook Page

Robert Spencer Twitter

Robert Spencer twitter

Robert Spencer YouTube Channel

Books by Robert Spencer

Jihad Watch® is a registered trademark of Robert Spencer in the United States and/or other countries - Site Developed and Managed by Free Speech Defense

Content copyright Jihad Watch, Jihad Watch claims no credit for any images posted on this site unless otherwise noted. Images on this blog are copyright to their respective owners. If there is an image appearing on this blog that belongs to you and you do not wish for it appear on this site, please E-mail with a link to said image and it will be promptly removed.

Our mailing address is: David Horowitz Freedom Center, P.O. Box 55089, Sherman Oaks, CA 91499-1964

loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.