“Nobel laureate: Don’t ‘muddle up’ terrorism with Islam,” by Edith M. Lederer, Associated Press, September 2, 2016:
Nobel Peace Prize winner Wided Bouchamaoui urged people everywhere on Thursday [September 1] not to “muddle up” terrorism with Islam.
The Tunisian businesswoman, who co-founded the Tunisian National Dialogue Quartet which won the 2015 peace prize, said Muslims who practice their faith calmly and respectfully are “victims of a semantic problem” when “terrorists” are described as “Islamic terrorists.”
In other words, don’t ever describe terrorism as “Islamic terrorism,” because that will make the good, moderate, Muslims, the ones who do not engage in or support terrorism, feel bad, make them the real victims. And who knows what they might do in response?
In 2015, the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to four Tunisian groups that had been engaged in a “national dialogue” to head off violence between the secularists and the Islamists in Tunisia. The reason such an effort succeeded in Tunisia, while failing everywhere else in the Muslim Arab world (think of the continued violence in Libya, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Bahrain, which began with the “Arab Spring”), is that the Arab secularists have always been strongest in Tunisia, and once the French left, the redoubtable Habib Bourguiba and his Destour Party took power. Bourguiba was careful to constrain the forces of militant Islam in Tunisia, fearing a relapse back into the medieval Muslim mire. The French-educated Tunisian elite gave him their full support; his successor Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, though secular also, was extremely corrupt, and it was that which undid his rule. This gave the Islamic party of Ennahda a chance to share power, but after some terror attacks by Muslims even more extreme than those in Ennahda, a convinced secularist, 89-year-old Beji Caid Essebsi, was voted in, as a representative of the French-educated and secular Tunisian elite. They have been among the main beneficiaries of France’s mission civilisatrice, and wanted to ensure that Tunisia would not relapse into a medieval Muslim mire.
Ms. Bouchamoui, having insisted that “we should call a spade a spade,” as she told the U.N. General Assembly’s high-level forum on “The Culture of Peace, proceeded to call a spade a pitchfork: “A terrorist is a killer, a murderer, a criminal and I would even say an imposter who is manipulating Islam.”
What does this mean? It means that this distinguished member of the Tunisian National Dialogue Quartet, that was cited by the Norwegian Nobel Committee for making a “decisive contribution to the building of a pluralistic democracy in Tunisia” after the Jasmine Revolution of 2011, remains, despite all these accolades, and her presumed “moderation,” an apologist for Islam. For how do these “terrorists” manage to “manipulate Islam”? Do they make up violent verses in the Qur’an that really aren’t there? Do they make up stories about an aggressive Muhammad and falsely ascribe them to an “authentic” collection of Hadith? How exactly do these terrorists “manipulate” Islam? Bouchamaoui doesn’t say. And she can’t, because the “terrorists” – from ISIS on down – are scrupulous about quoting textual authority for their acts. It’s the “moderates,” trying to convince Infidels that Islam is not a threat, who are the ones engaged in textual manipulation.
Bouchamaoui said Tunisia is still considered “the exception” to the Arab Spring because it has been able to avoid conflict and to promote dialogue and compromise. It has also been able to promote democracy and is taking steps to counter “terrorism,” she said.
She fails to answer the obvious question: why is Tunisia the “exception” to the Arab Spring? Isn’t it because the secularist heritage of Bourguiba and his Destour Party remained strong enough to stare down the Islamists, and to recover from the overthrow of Ben Ali (whose crime was not secularism, but corruption), and to suppress the would-be Islamists, retake power, and put Tunisia back on its secularist track? .
After deadly attacks in Tunisia and elsewhere carried out by extremists, she said “it is absolutely crucial to review and reconsider the solutions the international community can provide to the complex issue of terrorism in order to stem as best as possible the evil.” But she fails to follow the obvious trail: what ideology is it that prompts these acts of terrorism? Is Muslim terrorism really so complex an issue? Doesn’t it have a long history, that unsurprisingly shows us that the True Believers take seriously the command to “strike terror in the hearts” of the Infidels? And even Muslims who become “decadent” in their Western ways can make up for it, cleanse themselves of that decadence, precisely by engaging in Jihad, which is not something Westerners understand, determined as they are to believe that a “bad Muslim” (one who drinks alcohol, or eats pork, or doesn’t go to the mosque) could not then become a Jihadist. Of course he could, thereby making amends for his previous behavior, by now killing Infidels, which is the surest guarantor of attaining Paradise.
Beyond the immediate victims, Bouchamaoui said “terrorism seeks to strike public opinion, to intimidate it by instilling a climate of fear and terror — and they have achieved this in some places.”
Again, why does she never use the words “Islam,” “Islamic,” or “Muslim”? This theme, the same one John Kerry has been pitching, is that we should refuse to publicize acts of Islamic terrorism (“that’s what the terrorists want”), and instead keep quiet about these terrorist acts. If they don’t get the publicity they are said to seek, terrorism will level off. Where is the evidence for this? Isn’t it more likely that an insufficiently informed public, one not aware of the full extent of Muslim terrorism, will not support new security measures that need to be taken, may even come to believe that the whole business of Muslim terrorism is “exaggerated beyond belief” and there’s really nothing to worry about, if only those intolerable “racists” and “Islamophobes” would just shut up? When Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson announces that terrorist attacks are foiled “all the time” and news of them never reaches the public, we know that the Muslim threat is already being grossly under-reported. When you misinform the public as to the scope of the threat, that public may misjudge the security measures that might need to be taken. The public needs a full and fair account of the terrorist threat, rather than attempts to minimize it so as “not to scare people.”
The Nobel laureate said she and others intend to join forces to fight “extremism,” which she said knows no borders. But that is true of only one kind of “extremism” – the very one she doesn’t want to name. The I.R.A. set off bombs only in Northern Ireland and the U.K. The Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka limited their attacks to Sri Lanka. The Baader-Meinhof Gang limited itself to West Germany. The Red Brigades attacked only in Italy. The only kind of “extremism” that “knows no borders” is Islamic extremism. For the field of battle is everywhere that the Infidels have not yet been subdued. “It [‘extremism’] must be considered as a priority of the U.N. agenda on the culture of peace and non-violence,” Bouchamaoui said.
Stressing the importance of international action, she said, “I would like to urge each and every one of you not to muddle up terrorism (with) Islam.”
But it is not “muddling up terrorism (with) Islam” that is the problem; it’s the refusal of so many in high places, including certified “Muslim moderates” like Ms. Bouchamaoui, to state publicly the obvious connection between the texts and teachings of Islam and Muslim terrorism. It is Ms. Bouchamaoui who, having pocketed her share of a Nobel Prize for Peace, turns out to be, disappointingly, a Defender of the Faith, claiming – as so many others do – that the Muslim killers “have twisted” (or “misunderstood”) “a great religion,” “muddling up terrorism” (with) Islam when these terrorists Have Nothing To Do With Islam,
By referring to terrorists as Islamic, Bouchamaoui insists,”confusion is created in people’s minds between the Muslim faith and a team of Jihadists who are prepared to blow themselves up by killing innocent people.” In other words, even where a team of Jihadists are prepared to blow up innocents, whatever else you do, don’t refer to those terrorists as connected to Islam, because that creates “confusion in people’s minds.” What “confusion” is that? Are we incapable of distinguishing between those Muslims who take the Jihad to heart, and act upon it, from those who do not? The only “confusion” that arises comes from such remarks as those by Ms. Bouchamaoui, who refuses to concede that terrorist acts by Muslims are mandated by the Muslim faith. Isn’t what we endure now the worst possible kind of “confusion,” where we are inveigled into believing nonsensically that Islamic terrorism has nothing to do with Islam; and that no one should be uncharitable enough to bring up the little matter of what is in the Qur’an, Hadith, and Sira, for fear of making things “worse”? And where we are uncertain of the true extent of the Muslim terrorism, because Jeh Johnson tells us that plots are thwarted all the time, and the public never learns of them. How, one wonders, could things be made even “worse”?
Tunisia is doing all right on its own, “a year of success for its democratic transition,” but Bouchamaoui doesn’t recognize that it was the strength of the secularist forces, a legacy from the Bourguiba period, who managed to stand fast against Rachid Ghannouchi’s Islamist Ennahda Party, that explain this success. That is, in Tunisia, the secular class is sufficiently numerous and powerful to hold the Islamists in check. But there is still the effect on Tunisia of the conflict in neighboring Libya and its “disastrous management.” “We are very much paying a very high price,” says Bouchamaoui, “for the instability in Libya. It affects our country every day, and our neighboring country [Libya].”And where does the instability come from in Libya, if not from the various Islamist armed groups in Libya, and especially from the forces of the Islamic State in Sirte, which even has Boko Haram fighters now in its ranks? And then there is the instability resulting from the constant infighting by a half-dozen other Islamic groups, some tied to Al-Qaeda and some to the Muslim Brotherhood, and including Ansar al-Sharia. These are the sources of the “instability in Libya” that affects neighboring Tunisia, and which Bouchamaoui chooses not to name. She might have said that Libya’s hope lay in the secular militia of General Khalifa Heftar (a possible savior of Libya from the Islamic groups and local militias still fighting), who could be Libya’s Bourguiba, and that Tunisia, and possibly Sisi’s Egypt, and the Western powers, should be helping him to secure Libya, to give secularism a chance. She did not. Instead, she simply said that while 2015 was a year of success for Tunisia’s democratic transition, it was also “ a terrible year for Tunisia and the world” because of extremist attacks, uncertainties, and “a lack of vision.” All very vague, for still she manages not to mention Islam, or name those Islamist militias in Libya.
It is disappointing that Bouchamaoui dared not state that those who linked Islam to terrorist attacks were not muddled; that there was indeed an obvious connection, and it was up to those who considered themselves “moderates” to find ways, if such ways can be found, to interpret away the Qur’anic passages that are most dangerous for Infidels, or at least to weaken the power of Islam as a political and social force. It has been done before – it’s exactly what Ataturk did in Turkey in the 1920s and early 1930s (and Erdogan’s undoing of some of Ataturk’s reforms doesn’t mean that Ataturk’s revolution was doomed to ultimate failure, but only that the class of secular Turks he helped create ought to have been more vigilant and ruthless in defending his legacy against the likes of Erdogan), and there is no reason why Ataturk’s example could not be followed by Arab secularists in Tunisia, where the legacy of Habib Bourguiba remains potent.
Ms. Bouchamaoui is herself in the camp of Bourguiba:
Indeed, the political Islamists in Tunisia deny the major role that Habib Bourguiba played in the national movement and in bringing about Tunisian independence. And they detest his secularism. Hence their desire to erase his memory by changing the name of “Avenue Bourguiba” to the “Avenue of Liberty” and posthumously demonizing him, impugning his own antecedents, describing him as ‘a Jew[a charge also levelled at Ataturk], a traitor, an agent working for France, someone who detested Islam and Arabization,’ charges made by, among others, the former minister of higher education, Moncef Ben Salem, in a video dated January 20, 2011.
Meanwhile, what if Ms. Bouchamaoui stopped being a Defender of the Faith, left off her worrying about the “muddling” of “terrorism” and “Islam,” and instead said something like this: “The attempt by Islamists in Tunisia to seize power fortunately failed. With the corrupt regime of Ben Ali out of the way, and Ennahda’s Islamist rule rejected, our people have wisely chosen to return to power a determined secularist, and lifelong supporter of Bourguiba, Beji Caid Essebsi; thus we are again being led by one of Bourguiba’s faithful. We realize, as Habib Bourguiba did, that Islam today has to adjust to the modern world, and we cannot expect the West to continue to endure, in a kind of reverse colonialism, the attitudes and behavior of many Muslims now living in Europe. Muslims should not expect to change the laws and customs of the countries of Dar al-Harb to which they have been so generously admitted. They should be prepared, rather, to show the same respect to non-Muslim laws and customs in Europe as they expect non-Muslims living in our lands to show to our laws and customs.. Meanwhile, in Tunisia, Bourguiba’s legacy needs to be strengthened, and the forces of Islamic fanaticism held in check.”
It’s not really much to ask of her, or of other Tunisian secularists. And she should not confuse matters by inveighing against those who “’muddle up’ terrorism with Islam.” It’s Islam itself that, with its 1400-year history of promoting terrorism in the service of Jihad, that long ago “muddled up” terrorism with Islam. And when Bouchamaoui says that “Muslims who practice their faith calmly and respectfully” are “victims of a semantic problem” when “terrorists” are described as “Islamic terrorists,” she is wrong: the phrase “Islamic terrorists” does not make victims of moderate Muslims, any more than the phrase “white racists” includes all “whites,” or the phrase “Japanese militarists” includes all Japanese. It is a useful phrase, because the prompting for such terrorism is to be found in the Islamic texts, the terrorists in question are all Muslims, their targets are all non-Muslims. Why shouldn’t the phrase “Islamic terrorists” be used? The adjective informs us that these terrorists share an ideology, and that that ideology can be found in Islam’s holy texts, texts we are free to study ourselves, to understand what motivates these terrorists.
In the context of Tunisia, Ms. Bouchamaoui is a secularist on the side of the angels. But she continues to present to the world’s Infidels an apologist’s view of Islam. When she, an obvious “moderate” Muslim, eventually shows herself prepared to publicly discuss the connection between Islam and terrorism, instead of continuing to insist that such discussion merely “muddles” things or, still worse, tell us that Islam is being “manipulated” to justify terrorism (how? With what textual authority?), then non-Muslims will be happy to recognize that Ms. Bouchamaoui has become part of the solution. Until then, however, she remains, though a moderate in the Tunisian context, and despite that Nobel Prize, a disturbing part of the problem.

Wellington says
She’s manifesting ignorance, delusion or deception about Islam. Take your pick.
Jay Boo says
Hillary is also “manifesting ignorance, delusion or deception about Islam.”
She looks like a daughter of Hillary.
Chelsea’s sister?
Michael Laudahn says
She’s manifesting even more: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HoBL7fqOVcQ
Bob says
She’s been chatting to Theresa May…
Angemon says
I’m going with deception.
Michael Laudahn says
Call me what you want, but if I’d win a presidential election, I would consider closing
the MSM for a while, in order to make them change their course. The problem is – as we all know – that only a minority of people have understood the nature of our problem, and the MSM carry the blame for it. This situation must be changed.
As further proof, I just read on http://www.uriasposten.net/archives/76085 that only 33 % of the above-average ‘xenophobe’ danes support the ‘right-wing populist’ Danish Folk Party’s suggestion to stop mohammedan immigration and suspend the UN’s convention on ‘refugees’.
If even the danes don’t see what’s in the pipeline, then this is the end. Only the MSM can turn it around.
eduardo odraude says
You could only succeed in “shutting down” the media if you shut down Congress and the Supreme Court, and democracy, and made yourself dictator. Honestly now, do you really think you have the virtues and intelligence that you’ll need in order to be the source of law for everyone else? It is no doubt unconscious and unintentional, but that’s pure megalomania.
Democracy (as opposed to communism, fascism, and Islam) means the non-megalomaniacs get the upper hand as to how society is ruled. It means a critical mass of people realize that society should be based on law, not on the dictates of some individual or party that supposedly knows better than everyone else and can supposedly command the “correct” thoughts to everyone else.
Michael Laudahn says
You throw out the baby with the bath water. Usually, whenever the military putsches in a democracy, a return to democracy after a certain time is being promised – usually after a clean-up of the mess caused by the non-functioning politicians, judiciary etc has taken place.
So why shouldn’t a forced course correction for the MSM be imaginable, before they are allowed to return to busness?
You clearly still haven’t comprehended in what kind of mess we are. Even if you can’t read danish, read again the bottomline of the article quoted by me, then have 2nd thoughts about what you said. That’s at least what I would suggest.
Bob says
Michael Laudahn – translation, please!
Jay Boo says
She is a RACIST
Her country is building a BORDER WALL
She wants to keep out Muslim migrants.
Her North African neighbors are doing the same.
Shame, shame, shame
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xME1zw8-Soo
Also
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVDyciOQCak
http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/libya-algeria-509293117
http://www.moroccoworldnews.com/2016/08/194702/algeria-erects-fence-along-border-morocco/
http://www.dw.com/en/the-other-side-of-the-moroccan-wall/a-18753807
Jay Boo says
Oops
I did not intend to post the youtube with Hillary
(youtubecomwatch?v=FVDyciOQCak)
abel & solomon says
The only way to stop the terrorism, the child marriages, FGM, anti-Semitism and all the other nasties that come with Islam is to ridicule it into extinction. The Koran is full of lies, we have to prove that to them and when would be suicide bombers start to doubt that they will really get to heaven then we will see it stop. For a full understanding of this read Islamic Apocalypse https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01AS09LYW or Islam Undone https://www.amazon.com/Islam-Undone-Abel-Solomon-ebook/dp/B01FKR0782
Here’s some short extracts
A World Caliphate
Surveys have consistently shown that a clear majority of Muslims around the world want to live under a Caliphate governed by Sharia Law. In Europe, 65% of Muslims immigrants thought Islamic rules were more important than the laws of the country they were living in. Every day the news media carry stories of the Islamic State beheading enemy fighters, brutal executiing gays, enslaving and raping non-Muslim women and more. Thousands of Muslim volunteers from around the globe have rushed to be part of this new Caliphate. The Islamic State openly tries to emulate Mohammed’s original Islam. This is not surprising given the millions of dollars of oil revenue that Muslim countries have invested around the world in building mosques and funding preachers who are actually just spreading true Mohammedan Islam. The ultimate aim of Islam is to bring the whole world under Islamic government and Sharia law, to be governed by the Koran.
666 – The Mark of the Beast
The Book of Revelation (13:15) says that the False Prophet causes those who will not worship the image of the Beast to be killed. Isn’t that what the Koran does; (9:5); “Kill the unbelievers…”? Are you aware of any other religion which orders its followers to kill everyone else? Revelation (20:4) even says the Christian martyrs will be “beheaded”, which is what the Koran commands in verse (8:12) “I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads… ” Another clue to the identity of the Beast comes from Revelation verses (13:16-18); “Here is wisdom. Let him who has understanding calculate the number of the Beast, for it is the multitude of a man and its number is 666”. The Greek symbols for 666 were handwritten on St John’s original manuscript of the book as well as in early copies such as the Codex Vaticanus and they are uncannily similar to the Arabic word “Bismillah” meaning “in the name of Allah”. In fact, the handwritten Greek symbols are its mirror image accompanied by two crossed swords, a symbol for both Islam and jihad. Google “666 Allah” and see!
World War III and Satan’s Throne
It seems like the Apocalypse is very near, an end time prophecy that is materialising now talks about Iraq, Isaiah (13:16) says; “Their children will be smashed to death before their eyes; their houses will be looted, and their wives raped.” This is exactly what the Islamic State have been doing. We also now know from recently discovered documents that both Al Qaeda and the Islamic State have deliberately sought to provoke a worldwide military conflict between Islam and the rest of the world. There are a number of Islamic nations too which are being driven by Apocalyptic theology. These Muslims deeply believe that it is their duty to Allah to push the world towards a final great Armageddon; “Proclaim this among the nations: Prepare for holy war; rouse the warriors; let all the men of war advance and attack! …Let the nations be roused…. Multitudes, multitudes in the valley of decision! For the day of the LORD is near in the valley of decision.” (Joel 3:9,12,14)
Armageddon; the Valley of Decision
Indeed, we are already in that war, it is wrongly called the “war on terror” but it really is a sort of war between Islam and the “West”. As the true Islam of Mohammed and his Koran are the very root of this “terror”, (and don’t forget that over 95% of all terrorism in the world is Islamist), we are currently in a World War III of ideas and ideals under another name. A spiritual and intellectual war of ideas and ideals. But a physical one too.
eduardo odraude says
Excellent piece by Mr. Fitzgerald with a lot great questions asked.
She would be risking her life if she attributed any imperfections to Islam. We cannot expect much direct resistance to Islam in the Islamic world. People in the (sort of) free world need to find ways of creating more freedom in the Islamic world. The (somewhat) free world is probably the only place where a fulcrum can be based for a lever of change to alter the unfree world. We in the sort of free world must create the conditions that will allow people to criticize Islam in the Islamic world. Western governments should, for example, start using more economic sanctions, and if those don’t work, start using physical force against notable individuals in the Islamic world who urge or use violence as a means to silence criticism of Islam in Islamic nations. The playing field of violence must be a bit leveled in support of freedom of speech, otherwise reformers in the Islamic world will almost always pretend that Islam itself is not a problem.
Ted Tyler says
Each time a terrorist attack occurs, the thinking and the motivations of the terrorist must be made clear. Is it:
A. I am a crazy German pilot. I am totally insane and I think that it would be really a lot of fun to fly my airplane into a mountain and kill everyone. or is it:
B. I believe that Islam must conquer the world. I can do my part by killing as many non-believers a possible. Then I will receive great rewards in the afterlife.
There are many variations of A and B, but it appears that the Bs significantly outweigh the As.
Most people are easily motivated to do what an authority figure tells them to do. So where do the terrorists get their information to become terrorists. That information needs to be known, published and widely distributed. As of now I see water spilling from a sink and a few people mopping up the spill. It would be far better to turn the water off at the sink before it gets on the floor.
Ren says
She’s totally fucked up for not recognizing islamic terrorism for what it is.
E. Deploribus Unum says
Do you still think it’s possible, Hugh, for an Islamic reformation? I think it might if religious leaders dropped their posture of Mohamed-worship and considered him a man corrupted by power. Consider the Jewish explanation of the loss of the Davidic kingdom to the sexual iniquities of David and the economic and religious iniquities of his son, Solomon. Do you know of anyone making headway in that direction?
Keys says
EDU, Google “Zuhdi Jasser”
“The American Islamic Forum for Democracy’s (AIFD) mission is to advocate for the preservation of the founding principles of the United States Constitution, liberty and freedom, through the separation of mosque and state.”
What he is advocating is impossible in Islam because one must revise the immutable word of Allah in the Koran; reject the life of Mo (as relatd in the Sunna) as the perfect model; reject Islamic history and teaching; reject the teachings of current Muslim religious leaders and scholars; reject sharia law for all ….
Keys says
Link to article by Dr. Bill Warner about your reform question.
http://www.citizenwarrior.com/2011/05/golden-rule-in-islam.html
Dacritic says
Exactly. Hugh has written another excellent piece, but I sometimes wonder if people like this Bouchamaoui or Tarek Fatah or Bassam Tawil can keep a straight face and tell us terrorism has nothing to do with Islam. In one way, these people are more dangerous Muslims than the terrorists themselves.
dumbledoresarmy says
“In one way, these people are more dangerous Muslims than the terrorists themselves.”
Yes.
They are playing ‘good-cop’ to the jihadists/ terrorists’ ‘badcop’. One poster here, years ago, argued that Islam = thuggery + image management. The allahu-akbaring stabbers/ exploders/ runners-over/ shooters provide the thuggery; the likes of this female, so disarmingly unbehijabbed, provide the image management.
Alternatively, persons like this woman could be seen as ‘human-shielding’ the jihadis… whether knowingly or unknowingly.
Either way, they create confusion; they make it difficult to see and understand what is going on.
If all Muslims everywhere were as openly brutal as the jihadists of Islamic State (or Al Qaeda, or Hamas, or Abu Sayyaf, etc etc) it would be easier to see what the ummah is about.
Hugh says
I don’t know how one would get the world’s Muslims to agree to edit the Quran and Hadith and Sira. Or to interpret out of existence the relentless hostility toward Infidels in those texts. Or to adopt the Golden Rule. But the Camp of Islam can be weakened from within if non-Arab Muslims were able to understand all the ways that Islam is a vehicle for Arab supremacism, that might help win some of them — e.g. Berbers, Kurds — away from Islam. Numbers count, and 80% of the world’s Muslims are not Arabs.
Jay Boo says
Donald Trump deserves a Nobel Peace Prize.
Mubarak says
“And even Muslims who become “decadent” in their Western ways can make up for it, cleanse themselves of that decadence, precisely by engaging in Jihad, which is not something Westerners understand, determined as they are to believe that a “bad Muslim” (one who drinks alcohol, or eats pork, or doesn’t go to the mosque) could not then become a Jihadist. Of course he could, thereby making amends for his previous behavior, by now killing Infidels, which is the surest guarantor of attaining Paradise.” –
This is the core evil of Islamic theology: that evil deeds construed as good can make a person an indisputable candidate for heaven. And it is foreseen in the bible: “Indeed, the hour is coming when whoever kills you will think he is offering service to God.” That is how poisonous the Muslim religion of law/shariah is.
What a striking contrast to Christianity where no works – especially good works – can secure your eternal salvation.
Paul Clark says
Where are the Christians ? Have they all fled the cross? Are they all CINOs? ( Christian In name Only)