Ibn Warraq, the celebrated apostate, author of Why I Am Not A Muslim and of scholarly works on the Koran, Muhammad, and early Islam, as well as polemical works in defense of the West, has now written The Islam in Islamic Terrorism, showing, in the words of the Islamic fundamentalists (or, more exactly, revivalists) themselves, what really motivates Islamic terrorists today, and what has motivated them since the time of the Kharijites in the first century of Islam: the belief in the need to recover the pristine Islam of the time of Muhammad, by removing all innovations (bid’a), the further belief that it is the duty of Muslims to wage Jihad against all Unbelievers until Islam everywhere dominates, and to bring about the resurrection of the caliphate, and the imposition of Islamic Law, or Sharia, all over the globe.
Ibn Warraq’s The Islam In Islamic Terrorism is a brilliant series of reported echoes down the corridors of Islam, where the same complaints about bid’a, the same insistence on regulating every area of a Believer’s life, the same refusal to allow freedom of religion or thought, the same duties of violent Jihad and Commanding Right and Forbidding Wrong, the same demands for a return to the same pristine Islam of Muhammad, the same virulent antisemitism, the same quotes from the Koran and Hadith, the same hatred of Infidels, the same insistence that “we love death more than you love life,” the same call for bloodshed and Muslim martyrdom, the same dreary fanaticism, are thoroughly described and dissected, and above all the various violent manifestations of this revivalism over the centuries are linked to one another, as Ibn Warraq brings to bear the massive research he has been conducting over many years, in primary and secondary sources, and here deploys to splendid effect.
Ibn Warraq has performed a service for all those who are at last ready to look beyond the present platitudes about socioeconomic and other putative “root causes” of Islamic terrorism — Israel, the Crusades, European colonialism, American foreign policy, all held up for dissection and dismissal one after the other. He cites the studies that reveal Muslim terrorists to be both better off economically, and better educated, than the average Muslim. Most of the terrorist leaders have received solid educations in Islam, giving the lie to those apologists who claim that only those “ignorant of the true Islam” become terrorists.
He notes that Jihad against the Infidels started more than 1300 years before Israel came into existence, that the Muslims paid little attention to the Crusades until very recently, and that American foreign policy has often favored the Muslim side, rescuing Arafat from Beirut when he was besieged by the Israelis, supporting Pakistan despite its collusion with terrorists, looking away when Turkey invaded Cyprus, putting troops in Saudi Arabia to protect that kleptocracy from Saddam Hussein, and lavishing hundreds of billions in foreign aid on Muslim countries, and more than four trillion dollars on military interventions and “reconstruction” in Iraq and Afghanistan, in the hope, likely forlorn, that those countries could be made less barbarous than before.
Having dispatched these factitious “root causes,” Ibn Warraq returns us to the o’erweening fact of Islam, and begins commonsensically with the Koran, hadith, sunna, and sira, showing how violent Jihad, including the weapon of terrorism, is deeply rooted in the texts of Islam and the example of the Prophet. Muhammad was the first Islamic terrorist. Ibn Warraq then introduces readers to a course in Islamic history, bringing to bear an enormous amount of research — every vein is mined with ore — on a succession of violent revivalist movements that wished to return Islam to its pristine state, ridding it of any innovations (bida’). He begins this story in the first century of Islam with the Kharijites, with stops in ninth and tenth century Baghdad, sixteenth century Istanbul, and eighteenth-century Arabia, right up to those ideologues and thinkers who inspire the terrorists today, including Mawdudi, Qutb, Azzam, Faraj, and Khomeini. He gives considerable attention to the other duty of Muslims, that of Commanding Right and Forbidding Wrong (he tentatively suggests that “Jihad” might be considered as coming under the duty of “Commanding Right”), and what that duty has meant for activists and terrorists. His account of Commanding Right and Forbidding Wrong appears to be the most extensive treatment to date of this duty outside of the specialist literature.
He is a Great Debunker. He calls into question the “greater Jihad” of spiritual struggle, so beloved of Muslim apologists, quoting extensively from the modern ideologues who insist it is based at most on a single weak hadith (and some claim even that does not exist), but in any case, the non-spiritual kind of Jihad remains a duty incumbent on all Muslims. He debunks, too, the common perception of Sufis as pacific, showing how, both in Safavid Persia and, later, in India, Sufis eagerly promoted, and participated in, violent Jihad. This matters, because the myth of the “peaceful Sufis” holds out a false hope — a peaceful sect of Muslims! Maybe they can all become Sufis! — that gets in the way of recognizing a much grimmer reality.
His detailed treatment of Haj Amin Al-Husaini is an example of his thoroughness, and his ability to see what others have overlooked. He shows how Al-Husaini’s fanatical antisemitism had nothing to do with the Nazi version, but was rooted in Koran and hadith. He rejects, that is, Matthias Kunzel’s claim that Al-Husaini learned his antisemitism from the Nazis. Ibn Warraq insists that there was no need; Islamic antisemitism predated that of Hitler by 1350 years. He does offer new revelations about Al-Husaini’s role in the Holocaust. It was he who convinced Hitler not to let German Jews leave Germany, because he was afraid they would move to Palestine. Several hundred thousand Jews were thus condemned to die because of Al-Husaini. Furthermore, in order to keep Jews from elsewhere in Europe entering Palestine, Al-Husaini pressed the British to undertake a blockade so that Jewish refugees could not land in Palestine. The British, wanting to curry favor with the Arabs, agreed to this demand. How many Jews from all over Europe, who might have been saved, died as a result of Al-Husaini’s action? Possibly a million might have escaped Europe through the Black Sea port of Costanza, that remained open during the war, but only if they had a place – Palestine – that would take them in. Haj Amin Al-Husaini made sure they would not be allowed to land in Palestine.
The discussion of this is unique to Ibn Warraq. Also unique is his suggestion that it was Al-Husaini who, from 1948 to his death in 1973, kept the Islamic fundamentalist movement alive. He was the key figure linking the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt to other Islamist groups. He helped organize the assassination of government officials deemed too secular. He also brought 4000 Nazi war criminals to the Middle East, helping them find jobs in the security and intelligence apparatus of several Arab states, and even converted some to Islam. It is both his role in the Holocaust, cutting off an escape route for Jews, and in his postwar work at the very center of the Islamist movement for 25 years, that only Ibn Warraq has discussed.
The book is well-sourced, with copious citations from Koran, hadith, sunna, and sira. Ibn Warraq allows the terrorist ideologues to speak for themselves, and at length. Everyone will have his own favorite examples of fanaticism: two of mine were the rant of Sayyid Qutb about American decadence, prompted by his 1951 attendance at a distinctly modest church square dance, and Khomeini’s remarkable speech about how he “spit on those” who denied the centrality of bloodshed in Islam. Finally, Ibn Warraq has read, thoroughly assimilated, and fittingly deployed, excerpts from dozens of scholars of Islam, from C. Snouck Hurgronje and Joseph Schacht to Michael Cook and Patricia Crone. The comprehensive bibliography is divided into primary and secondary sources, for those who wish to pursue the subject further.. It will be impossible for Muslim apologists to rebut any part of this incredible work. What they will do is try to have it ignored, or to dismiss a work of solid scholarship as merely an apostate’s “Islamophobia.” We must not let those efforts succeed. Buy and read this book, see that libraries order it, that those in the media and the government who make or influence policy are sent copies. For Ibn Warraq’s sake, and for our own.
Benedict says
The entrance to “Why I am not a Muslim” by Ibn Warraq deserves to be iterated also here:
“Muslims are the first victims of Islam. Many times I have observed in my travels in the Orient, that fanaticism comes from a small number of dangerous men who maintain the others in the practice of religion by terror. To liberate the Muslim from his religion is the best service that one can render him.”
—E. Renan
mortimer says
Jihadism is the IDEOLOGY that Islam spreads by jihad…which involves… kinetic/military jihad, verbal jihad, legal jihad and financial/sabotage jihad.
Jihadism declares that ALL Muslims have a duty to conduct jihad. Most Muslims conduct the JIHAD OF THE TONGUE (verbal jihad) by LYING ABOUT JIHAD (taqiyya).
Islamic terrorism is based on the IDEOLOGY derived from Islam’s primary sources ‘The Islamic Trilogy’.
Jihadism is normative Islam, rather than an aberration.
The HATRED of the dirty KUFAAR is the MOTIVATION of jihad. All Muslims are called by this essential doctrine to HATE the dirty KURAAR or not enter Islamic paradise.
JIHAD IS AN IDEOLOGY BASED ON HATE.
Counterjihad motto: “It’s the IDEOLOGY, stupid.”
mortimer says
Jihadism is the IDEOLOGY that Islam spreads by jihad…which involves… kinetic/military jihad, verbal jihad, legal jihad and financial/sabotage jihad.
Jihadism declares that ALL Muslims have a duty to conduct jihad. Most Muslims conduct the JIHAD OF THE TONGUE (verbal jihad) by LYING ABOUT JIHAD (taqiyya). They lie about jihad to cover up its nefarious and vicious character.
Islamic terrorism is based on the IDEOLOGY derived from Islam’s primary sources ‘The Islamic Trilogy’.
Jihadism is normative Islam, rather than an aberration.
The HATRED of the dirty KUFAAR is the MOTIVATION of jihad. All Muslims are called by this essential doctrine to HATE the dirty KURAAR or not enter Islamic paradise.
JIHAD IS AN IDEOLOGY BASED ON HATE.
Counterjihad motto: “It’s the IDEOLOGY, stupid.”
Michael Copeland says
Impose Sharia Law on All Mankind – I.S.L.A.M.
efoc says
I like that one – thanks Michael.
TheBuffster says
Well done, Michael!
Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY) says
Where does the prohibition of bida (innovation) come from? Please cite the relevant Quran or hadith passage. Does bida include any departure from the practices of the Prophet (pbuh)? Since he is the model we should follow (uswa hasana, al insan al kamil), do we have to adhere to his fashion sense as well? He explicitly prohibited isbaal, but he never wore ocular prosthetics either. Are Muslims free to practice innovations like this?:
https://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&q=eyeglasses%20elton%20john
blitz2b says
@Mark Span “…the practices of the Prophet (pbuh)? ..”
(pbuh)?…. Really? Are you another duped, brainwashed westerner?
Crimelord Canada says
Are you dim? Bid’ah refers to doctrine and only tangenitally to technology.
mousey says
it is btw 396 pages and $25.
Hector Archytas says
I disagree that the aim of Mohammed is about enforcing Sharia law. Sharia law appears 200 years after Mohammed. The law in the Koran are just a mean for the purpose, the discipline of the army and not the aim in itself.
Mohamedanism is apocalyptic as Chritisnism and apocalypse is the coming of a second flood aimed to clean the earth of infidelity.
In christianism, the aim is to be good to eneter into the Kingdom. In Mohamedanism, it is to serve Allah by helping Allah to kill unbeliever. Allah is also expected to help the genocide. There, the stone obeying to Allah will denounce the jews. And, the western politician under the controlled of Allah helped to finance the breeding jihad against their own people.
Therefore, the regain of faith is also partly the result of the absurb tolerance toward those debating about our own genocide.
Allah is in action!!! And Mohamedan will therefore win.
Dacritic says
Ibn Warraq’s next possible book: Why I Am A Christian.
Research would be on a simple topic: Jesus of Nazareth died on the cross.
Which is another damning vote for Islam by the way.
Crimelord Canada says
That would be strange considering that Warraq is an atheist.
“Today I am an atheist. But of course I can not deny my Muslim origin. You know the old joke: Peter stands at the heavenly spot and asks everyone who wants to be pure, which religion he belongs to. A man says, “I am an atheist.” And Peter replies, “I know, here are all atheists. Are they a Christian atheist, a Jewish atheist or a muslim atheist?” ?? So, I, Ibn Warraq, am a Muslim atheist. I have not been indoctrinated with religion.” (translated via google)
http://www.spiegel.de/kultur/gesellschaft/islamkritiker-ibn-warraq-dieser-kalte-krieg-kann-100-jahre-dauern-a-499223.html
ibrahim itace muhammed says
Hugh Fitzgerald,if this ibn waraqa is real not fake he must be very stupid ignorant writer reproducing the same lies concocted by filthy christian evangelists of old.i have not seen any thing new in his fictitious work.christians,you are confused seing that your pagan religion is being rejected as stupidity ,you resort to blackmailing islam with fictitious stories. i dont think anyone who tastes Islamic monotheism worshiping only one God with no partner would descend so low to accept pagan christianity invented by the satan cloned from pagan mithraism of old.mr fitzgerald,let that ibn waraqa present his work by himself for our scrutiny for us to debunk it .idiots!!
Forgiving says
Islam is a religion of hate as you have so clearly demonstrated with your comments. In stark contrast, Christianity is a religion that worships a loving God full of grace and mercy. Not a difficult choice. May the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob be merciful to you.
blitz2b says
Ibrahim,
Worship on one God is not exclusive to Islam. It begs the question though, which “one” god are you worshipping?
If you are truly convinced that Islam points to that one true God, then you know nothing of the revelation that Jesus Christ brings.
Realistically, Islamic worship is rote and ritualistic. The direction of worship is questionable because that in itself is idol worship..
The kissing of the black stone in the corner is historically pagan, and other hajj rituals were the ones that pagans of Mohammed’s day part took of. And yet you have the audacity of condemning Christianity which you’ve never investigated with honesty.
What a shame
Jack Diamond says
You simply must join “Allah Made Me Funny: The Official Muslim Comedy Tour” right away,
“for our scrutiny for us to debunk it”…LMAO
TheBuffster says
Ibrahim, why don’t you read Warraq’s book and then come back here and debunk it for us? You have said nothing that could convince any reasonable mind that Warraq is either a fake or is a “…very stupid ignorant writer reproducing the same lies concocted by filthy christian evangelists of old.”
High Fitzgerald, in the present review of Warraq’s new book, states that the book uses primary sources to make Warraq’s case – that means it will be using *Islamic* texts, original sources – not Christian evangelical sources.
Ibn Warraq is an actual scholar. He knows better than to use secondhand sources from a competing religion to support his work.
You said: “i have not seen any thing new in his fictitious work.”
Have you read the book already? Or are you just going by Fitzgerald’s book review of it?
“christians,you are confused seing that your pagan religion is being rejected as stupidity ,you resort to blackmailing islam with fictitious stories.”
Ibn Warraq himself is not a Christian, but an atheist. I’m not a religious person either. I have no interest in defending a given religion but only in seeking the whole truth and nothing but the truth *whatever it may be*, which is the job of every honest, virtuous mind. My proper job as a mind – and your proper job, too, by the way – is to do my best to sift truth from falsehood not based on what I *want* to believe, but on a conscientious gathering of facts, understood with strict and honest reasoning. An honest mind does not expect other minds to believe or agree with its own conclusions unless it can convince those minds with evidence and sound reasoning. And the honest mind knows that other minds have to think things through for themselves – they would be wrong to just accept unproven assertions or threats of punishment as evidence.
It’s hard work to be a virtuous mind.
By the way, having read the Koran I know that neither Allah nor Muhammad respected honest minds who require proof and sound, non-fallacious reasoning before they believe a thing. Even if Islam didn’t command it’s followers to subdue the non-believers through violence, I still wouldn’t be able to accept the religion because it damns those who can’t accept assertions without proof, and what it offers as “clear signs” are anything but. It requires thinking, honest minds to put their mental virtue aside and follow the leader. This is not good, but the foundation of evil.
You said: “i dont think anyone who tastes Islamic monotheism worshiping only one God with no partner would descend so low to accept pagan christianity invented by the satan cloned from pagan mithraism of old.”
There are many pagan roots in Islam. Aside from that black stone that everyone kisses, there is the idea of the Seven Heavens, which goes back to both Hindu and Zoroastrian scriptures.
You know the story where Muhammad ascended to Heaven where he met Moses and Jesus and other prophets of Islam? There is a similar account in the Zoroastrian “Book of Arda Viraf”, which came along hundreds of years before Muhammad, where Arda goes from heaven to heaven, meeting various heavenly beings. He’s given a tour of the heavens and of hell. Sound familiar?
Here’s from Wikipedia: “In religious or mythological cosmology, the seven heavens refer to the seven divisions of the Heaven, the abode of immortal beings, or the visible sky, the expanse containing the Sun, Moon and the stars. This concept dates back to ancient Mesopotamian religions and a similar concept is also found in some Indian religions such as Hinduism, and in some Abrahamic religions such as Islam, Judaism and Catholicism. Some of these traditions, including Jainism, also have a concept of seven earths or seven underworlds.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Heavens
But I’m not asking you to take Wikipedia’s word for it. I’m recommending that you read the texts of various religions pre-dating Muhammad’s birth and see for yourself how much paganism is in Islam.
There are many other aspects of Islam that are inheritances from pagan religions. Reading the texts of various religions dating back to Mesopotamia makes it clear that all religions originating in the Middle East share versions of some of the same stories. Islam is no different in this regard.
You said: “mr fitzgerald,let that ibn waraqa present his work by himself for our scrutiny for us to debunk it .idiots!!”
Ibn Warraq *has* presented his work “by himself” in the book that Mr. Fitzgerald has reviewed in this article. If you’re asking for Ibn Warraq to write an article presenting his work, that could not be as footnoted and referenced and complete as if you just read the book and then come back to Jihad watch to debunk parts of it.
But your method of engagement in your post is mere assertion. You haven’t taken even one point that Fitzgerald presented to argue against. You haven’t made one convincing argument. And then you assert that someone, Fitzgerald and Warraq and anyone who takes them seriously, I suppose, are “idiots!”, which the body of your post does not support with anything but assertion.
If you read the book and come back to debunk it, you’ll have to do better than that.
Rebecca Bynum says
Thank you Hugh for this excellent review. Sales are off to a brisk start! This book is truly the gold standard – the most effective rebuttal to the Nothing-to-do-with-Islam crowd there is.
dumbledoresarmy says
And Hugh’s review – whether here or on New English Review – is *gold*. It’s a good summary. I would recommend that Jihadwatchers share it far and wide on any social media platform to which they have access.