William Henry Quilliam was born on 10th April 1856 to a wealthy family in Liverpool. He was brought up as a Methodist and converted to Islam in 1887 after visiting Morocco. Quilliam opened Britain’s first mosque, on Christmas Day 1889, with funding he received from Nasrullah Khan, Crown Prince of Afghanistan.
He changed his name from William to Abdullah after converting to Islam, and he argued for a global caliphate and swore allegiance to the Ottoman Empire. Nice guy, clearly.
In 2007, three former members of Hizb-ut Tahrir established a “think tank” called The Quilliam Foundation. For those who don’t know, Hizb-ut Tahrir is an Islamic supremacist group operating in dozens of countries around the world, and banned in some. They employ subversive tactics to infiltrate governments and military institutions in order to bring about an Islamic revolution, with the express ambition of turning the entire globe into a totalitarian Islamic caliphate, ruled under Sharia law. Presumably, this is something that Mr Quilliam would have approved of.
One has to ask exactly what “thinking” was going on, if any, when the founders of The Quilliam Foundation stumbled upon the idea of naming their think tank after a man who wanted a global caliphate. Was it in homage to what Mr Quilliam advocated? Or did the founders merely like the name?
I first heard about The Quilliam Foundation through one of its founders, the former Muslim extremist Maajid Nawaz, who I followed on Twitter. I purchased his book Radical, as I was interested in reading about the experience of other Pakistanis who had grown up in Britain.
Although our upbringings were different, I learnt that we had both experienced racism from white people. Nawaz was lucky that he did not receive any racism from Pakistani people, whereas I did, simply for being the white woman’s daughter.
I was inspired by Nawaz and believed that he could help bring about change. Like many others who placed their hopes in him and his foundation, though, I have been sorely disappointed. I have even come to dislike them and — worse still — distrust them.
It is not Nawaz’s fault that he is hated and loathed by his fellow Muslims, and so I don’t dislike or distrust him for that reason; if anything, I have sympathy with him on that front. It shows how difficult and futile his task is. No, I have come to question the priorities and even the motives of Nawaz and Quilliam.
To learn something of his background, let’s refer to a speech he gave on stage at Ted Talks.
“At the age of 16 I joined Hizb ut-Tahrir. At 17 I was recruiting people from Cambridge University to this organisation. At 19 I was on the national leadership of this organisation in the UK. At 21 I was co-founding this organisation in Pakistan. At 22 I was co-founding this organisation in Denmark. By the age of 24 I found myself convicted in prison in Egypt, being backlisted from three countries in the world for attempting to overthrow their governments, being subjected to torture in Egyptian jails and sentenced to five years as a prisoner of conscience.”
Prisoner of conscience?! What a pleasant, human rights-laden description of someone who sought to overthrow governments through coercion and espionage and usher in a global caliphate. How conscientious indeed. Describing his behaviour as a matter of conscience should tell you something of his character. How is that any different from terrorists sitting in prison cells right now? Perhaps we should sympathise with their predicament too?
His talk goes on:
“If we look at Islamists, if we look at the phenomenon of far right fascists, one thing they’ve been very good at is communicating across borders, using technologies to organise themselves, to propagate their message and to create a truly global phenomena.”
Although Quilliam’s focus is on “counter-extremism against Islamism”, strangely enough, their most well-known and tangible “achievement” to date concerns Tommy Robinson, the founder and former leader of the English Defence League. Robinson established the English Defence League in response to the alarming Muslim extremism he witnessed in his hometown of Luton, England and many other areas.
Following a series of discussions with Robinson, in October of 2013 The Quilliam Foundation proudly boasted of its success in “decapitating” the English Defence League of its leader – which is a conspicuous choice of words considering only a few years previously, Nawaz was devoted to implementing sharia, which includes actual beheadings, and considering also that this “achievement” of Quilliam’s came shortly after the grisly, medieval butchering of the soldier Lee Rigby on the streets of London. Robinson’s head is metaphorically sitting in Nawaz’s trophy cabinet.
A think tank tackling “Islamism”, yet they tackle the “far right”? Makes sense, I guess, when you see the number of far right churches and organisations calling for the death of Muslims. I mean they are opening up all over the UK.
When they’re not “decapitating” the most vocal anti-Islam group the West has seen to date, in their spare time I am told Quilliam are also looking to “reform” Islam. A think tank named after a convert who wanted a caliphate are hoping to reform Islam?
Consider this during the four years he spent in an Egyptian prison, Nawaz committed half the Koran to memory. Imagine the devotion necessary to memorise 40,000 words! Following his release he was quoted as saying, “I can now say that the more I learn about Islam, the more tolerant I become.”
Does that sound like someone who believes Islam is in need of urgent reformation? Does that sound like someone who can say clearly, unapologetically and unequivocally that the problem we face today is Islam?
Quilliam ask us to accept their preordained language, consisting of a never-ending list of definitions, -isms and –isations, and replete with euphemism and vague platitudes about the “need to reform,” labelling anyone who strays outside of these definitions or dares to question the feasibility of reformation as bigots, racists, populists, white supremacists, fascists, xenophobes and far right extremists – which coincidentally is the very thing they accuse the so-called “regressive left” of doing to stifle debate. These labels marginalise and discredit anyone with the audacity to hold Muslims accountable for their beliefs and who wish to point the finger directly at Islam, and indeed these labels also marginalise and discredit anyone with the audacity to ask Quilliam questions beyond kindergarten levels of difficulty.
As a matter of fact, Nawaz applied this very tactic while a member of Hizb-ut Tahrir at university in Britain, as the following quote from his book Radical verifies:
“We knowingly presented political demands disguised as religion and multiculturalism, and deliberately labelled any objections to our demands as racism and bigotry.”
Ask Nawaz or Quilliam the mildest probing questions, or politely query whether a 1,400 year old religion of war and conquest can indeed “reform”, or at least reform in a reasonable timeframe, and you will be treated by Nawaz to a masterclass in aggressive, petulant, narcissistic behaviour. You will be guilt-tripped into a reminder that Nawaz and Quilliam staff face physical risks in what they do (as though they are the only ones – just ask Tommy Robinson, Anne Marie Waters, or Robert Spencer), and they will conveniently lump you into the same category as the “Far Right” and Muslim extremists. It’s safe to say that Nawaz and Quilliam don’t take very kindly to criticism, no matter how delicately or constructively it is put to them. It doesn’t take much to stoke them into playing their Muslim Victim Card.
Non-Muslims look at Nawaz and see a smartly dressed, well-spoken man, not displaying any overt signs of his Muslim faith. They see him rubbing shoulders with the likes of Sam Harris, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Douglas Murray and a host of other notable and respected public figures. They hear him speaking out against the myriad of Islamic terrorist groups and simply assume that he must be a trusted voice in the fight against Islamic extremism. What’s concerning to me is that they also see him as the unquestionable reference point of acceptability in this debate: “Saint Maajid said X, so X must be the reasonable position”; “Saint Maajid approves/disapproves of person X and so I will approve/disapprove of person X, too”.
When exactly did everyone start thinking it was a good idea to let former Muslim extremists set the terms of debate for combatting Muslim extremism or speaking about Islam? Shall we also let former rapists set the rules for discussing the problems of rape?
Like the spoilt kid in the playground who shouts “My ball, my rules”, with the threat of taking it away and sulking in the corner, Nawaz has set a rigid and uncompromising strategy which is entirely reliant on decoupling Islam from its evil “political” twin “Islamism”. Whether intentional on his part or not, this exploits Western liberals’ desperation, ignorance and gullibility to believe that Islam is inherently good and is being “misinterpreted” or at the very least is benign and merely in need of some nips and tucks by way of “reformation”, and that instead all the nasty things are attributable to “Islamism”. The general public comes away a bit bamboozled and punch-drunk from definitions and post-modern language games, with some Z-list celebrity stardust sprinkled upon them, with a warm glow in their stomach that Nawaz and Quilliam have set western civilisation on the right path to save itself, and that “Islam good/ok, Islamism bad”. Again, whatever Nawaz’s intentions, this hapless army of anaesthetised, clueless and desperate non-Muslims then go on to misinform more non-Muslims. And all this is supposed to be a good thing?
There are many Muslims and non-Muslims who publicly speak out against ISIS, but who profess that ISIS and similar groups have “nothing to do with Islam”. Nawaz’s rhetoric is different, and better (which isn’t exactly difficult). In fairness to him, he does acknowledge the link between the holy texts and the actions of terrorists groups. However, he immediately rows back and then attempts to balance with one toe on a pinhead: Muslim terrorism isn’t “nothing” to do with Islam; nor is it “everything” to do with Islam, he will plead. No, it’s merely “something” to do with Islam, according to Nawaz. His explanation is that extremism is simply one of an infinite number of possible “interpretations” of Islam, and that Islam is a bit like a slinky spring or jelly: you can play around with it and come up with whatever “interpretation” you want. If you want to use Islam as the basis to cut off heads, or gang-rape girls, or give gay people flying lessons from rooftops, then sure, you can do that – it’s a “plausible” interpretation of the texts. But if you want to interpret Islam in such a way as to be totally compatible with the 21st century liberal secular democracy, then hey, you can do that, too, so stop being a racist and get out of my lane while I do this reform thing.
On Quilliam’s website they ask the question, “What is Islamism?” and provide the following answer: “It is the belief that Islam is a political ideology, as well as faith. It is a modernist claim that political sovereignty belongs to God, that Shari’ah should be used as state law, that Muslims form a political rather than religious bloc around the world and that it is a religious duty for all Muslims to create a political entity that is governed as such.”
This isn’t an off the cuff remark. This is their official position. The premise of this definition is categorically false and misleading.
Everything about the words contained in the Koran and the example of Islam’s prophet Mohammed is the antithesis of free will, autonomy, freedom and democracy. If you sat down at a desk today to design an ideology with the express intention of being as hostile towards and incompatible with Western civilisation as possible, you would produce Islam. The literal translation of the word Islam is “submission”.
Islam is a highly structured system of governance with roughly 6,000 sharia laws that dictate the actions and behaviours of its followers, both in public and private life. It’s a holistic system that commands Muslims to obey the will of Allah and follow the example of Mohammed as the path to eternal salvation.
Secularism is a betrayal of Islamic teachings, those teachings being unambiguously detailed in the Koran, Sura and Hadiths. Those instructions make clear that each and every Muslim should strive to live in accordance with Islamic law. To reject, criticise, or attempt to undo codified Islamic jurisprudence is considered highly blasphemous – a crime carrying the death penalty. This is the main reason the majority of Muslims are so hostile to any talk of reformation.
In essence, Islamic “reformers” such as Nawaz are asking Muslims to denounce the life and teachings of the prophet of Islam and the words of the creator of the universe.
The Koran is believed to be the literal and perfect word of Allah. The text is said to be immutable (unchangeable), timeless.
Said to be God’s final messenger, Mohammed is revered by Muslims, and hailed as the exemplar for human behaviour. A man who coordinated 67 armed battles, beheaded 600 Jews in a single afternoon, raided towns and looted travelling caravans, raped the widows of his victims, had 15 wives in total, the youngest being six years old, sanctioned spousal necrophilia, and ordered the stoning to death of adulterers, apostates, homosexuals and blasphemers. This is the man Muslims are supposedly meant to emulate? This is the highest standard of human behaviour?
Mohammed is said to be an example for ALL times, not merely the pre-modern era. If his teachings aren’t fit for the 21st century and beyond, did Allah choose the wrong person?
This debate is far too important to concern ourselves with sparing Nawaz’s feelings. His proposals are counter productive and extremely dangerous. In effect we are being asked to place a huge bet: we are expected to bet Western civilisation on the likelihood that a totalitarian ideology which has wreaked havoc for 1,400 years wherever it has gone and which has now positioned itself perfectly to conquer the West will choose this moment in human history to “reform”. Nawaz in his narcissism believes he can bring this reformation about, and dumb desperate liberals are soothed into thinking that his plan will work because, well, Nawaz says so. These smug, dumb liberals will lecture you on the supposed differences between Islam and “Islamism” like a parrot sitting on Nawaz’s shoulder, while wearing Quilliam’s latest #solidarity t-shirt merchandise.
While Nawaz’s plans continue to fail spectacularly, thousand of sharia-compliant Muslims flood into the West each week. Nawaz and Quilliam remain silent about and even hostile towards any de-Islamization policies, which might help stop the rot, such as restricting or stopping Muslim immigration to the West, or having a moratorium on the building of new mosques.
Using Nawaz’s definition “An Islamist is someone wanting to impose a version of Islam over society” would encompass anyone in favour of Sharia law. Polling data indicates two-thirds of Muslims globally want to live under Sharia law. This means there are roughly 1.1 billion Muslims who fall under Nawaz’s definition of an “Islamist”.
This idea that Muslims will quickly and en masse adopt Nawaz’s new age, spliff-smoking, liberal version of Islam is absurd – and dangerous. Considering the widespread hate and mistrust Muslims have for him and his organisation and the zero credibility he and Quilliam have amongst Muslims, unfortunately I have to reluctantly ask: who is his target audience?
Exactly what, or who, are you actually trying to reform, Mr Nawaz?
George says
Unlike the Christian reformation, reforming Islam would involve a need to change the Qur’an or have its adherents never read it.
Where as the Christian reformation was the exact opposite. Christian’s actually being able to read the Bible and actually following biblical doctrine.
mortimer says
Georg, ‘The Reformation’ of Luther and others concentrated on RETURNING TO THE SOURCES TEXTS of Christianity. This would be the same idea in an Islamic ‘reformation’.
However, such a ‘RETURN-TO-THE-SOURCE’ reformation has already occurred in Islam led by the 18th Century, Sheikh Muhammad Bin Wahhab was a religious leader who was adopted by the tribal leaders who later became the Saudi Royal Family.
Wahhab’s ideas, which are a revival of the general principles of the Hanbali mahab (school) of Sharia (i.e. Muslim law) jurisprudence, hold that sharia law is based exclusively on the Koran and the hadiths (i.e. sayings of the prophet Mohammed). These ideas are commonly referred to as Wahhabism, although a more accurate description would be Salafism (following the path of the pioneers).
Wahhabism is declared by many Muslim and Western scholars to be ‘The Reformation’ in Islam. Thus, ISLAM CANNOT BE REFORMED in the sense that modernists suppose in their wishful and delusional fantasies.
George says
exactly!
Jimbo says
i wonder if Mohammed knew just how clever and cunning his little ‘no reformation’ plan was for islam and how enduring it was going to be, keeping its vile murderous supremacist ideology unchanged for centuries.
its CANNOT be reformed, lest those that try do, are labelled blasphemers, and must be killed. its clever. so what is the solution apart from total annihilation of islam. and how would that ever get up.? we’d need someone as bad as all the muslims combined to totally wipe them all out. its dangerous times ahead
Linnte says
If you read all the Biblical prophesy of the nations that will be destroyed in the end times, and as Jesus returns, ALL the Nations are Islamic. There are no non Muslim countries mentioned. Ethiopia is one, but correctly translated, Ethiopia is called Cush which is in reference to Somalia and Sudan.
There is no Reformation of Islam. Only Islams death.
gravenimage says
Some have argued–I believe persuasively–that Islam *has* had a “reformation”, and this this was Wahabbism and other forms of fundamentalism.
J D S says
A wolf in sheep’s clothing is still a wolf..be it a man or a religion even if the religion is being double dressed or cross dressed. A wolf is a wolf. The best of wolves are dead or extinct.
tj says
An anonymously-penned product of a largely ignorant age, promoting as fact: talking animals, blood magic, abominable shellfish, foreskin cutting, wedding dowries, child sacrifice, slavery, incest, and a superhero whose power depends on hair length.
roger woodhouse says
Why have Western governments stood by and allowed this islamic takeover?Was it deliberate or total niavety?.Are they still in denial?.Is a civil war and the culling of our population part of a plan.Why are they all without exception ‘singing from the same song sheet’?We need answers from these people and soon.
Benedict says
Mr Nawaz’s engagement in the The Quilliam Foundation is just a sophisticated way of collecting extortion money. He is just parasitizing on the Islamic menace.
mortimer says
Quilliam Foundation’s goals are to whitewash jihad and deceive British people to think Islam is not a supremacist or intolerant or misogynistic ideology.
Benedict says
I don’t know about that,m. Whitewashing militant jihad would not go unnoticed neither by the government nor the public, and public funding to the organization would immediately be cut in that case.
Anyhow, the only logical and respectable reaction from Muslims, when confronted with the violence, terror and repulsive duplicity exuding from Islam, is to dissociate themselves totally from this fraud and menace to a civil society. Any successful attempt to reform a lie will only result in another lie more malevolent and difficult to discern and dismiss.
gravenimage says
Benedict, many in the West do indeed believe the whitewash of Islam from groups like the Quilliam Foundation.
roger woodhouse says
Benedict.There is no ‘repectable reaction from muslims when faced with violence and terror and repulsive duplicity from Islam’.They are nothing short of sleeper cells waiting for the right moment.
Michael Copeland says
Quilliam himself was a solicitor (a lawyer). He was struck off, and prevented from practising.
duh swami says
Since Allah perfected the religion, any attempt to reform it is calling Allah a liar…
mortimer says
Thank you, ds. What is ‘perfect, complete, and eternal’ cannot be revised without implying that it was previously ‘imperfect, incomplete and temporary’. That would be blasphemous and punishable by imprisonment, flogging and/or death under Sharia law.
Many caliphs in the pasta tortured and crucified Muslims who tried to promote such doctrines.
Nolan says
The only way to reform the Islamic so called religion of peace, is to ban it from all western culture.Sadly that will never happen.Also the Mosques must be surveilled & anyone who attends one.If peaceful Muslims really are concerned about violence, then they will accept being surveilled.Yes being surveilled will never happen either, but it should. We can just hope some violence is prevented as usual.
Nolan Diamond says
The only way to reform the Islamic so called religion of peace, is to ban it from all western culture.Sadly that will never happen.Also the Mosques must be surveilled & anyone who attends one.If peaceful Muslims really are concerned about violence, then they will accept being surveilled.Yes being surveilled will never happen either, but it should. We can just hope some violence is prevented as usual.
roger woodhouse says
These brainwashed creatures are now flooding into Europe expecting the imminent takeover of our countries and all the booty that goes with it.Be afraid.Be very afraid.
Keys says
Oh the irony with Allah being the greatest of deceivers.
R Russell says
Just some more taqiyya to fool the gullible
mortimer says
Islamic terrorists killed 305 Sufi Muslims at a mosque in the Sinai Peninsula on Friday, November 24, 2017. They sprayed gunfire at the panicked worshipers.
The Sufi Muslims must have tried to REFORM Islam.
gravenimage says
Even though Sufis love Jihad, they are still considered “heretics” by orthodox Muslims.
Gen Jones says
Ms Hobbs, it’s wonderful to see your writing here at JW. You present your thoughts so clearly, from a position of personal experience that they cannot be refuted. And your occasional slip of sarcasm is delicious. Thank you.
Michael Copeland says
Hear hear.
gravenimage says
Seconded, Gen.
RichardL says
I like how the article ends: with questions about Nawaz. While I also agree with Ms Hobbs that Nawaz’ and Jasser’s islam is one that doesn’t exist and that their hopes to change it into something not malign are close to nil, I am not so sure that it is wise to attack them.
About a year ago Muhammad al Husseini actually engaged people as a commentator on JW and he was attacked. He teaches at a Jewish college, he wants islam to become more Jewish and Christian, he is a real intellectual who speaks at least five languages and he argues against jihad. And he gets attacked on JW. I find that frustrating. He, and I assume Jasser and Nawaz too, want the same thing that we here want. They just want to achieve it by different means. From the inside. So they are allies: we try to enlighten non-Muslims about the dangers of real islam and they try to enlighten Muslims about the same thing. Our job is easier and more likely to succeed, but if they are successful the effects will be much better than if we succeed because islam would be tolerant.
Jack Diamond says
He wasn’t attacked, he was challenged.
Jasser & Nawak tell infidels what they want to hear, they have no following among the Muslim masses
and they are reforming nothing. How are they enlightening Muslims about the real Islam? They hold Muhammad and the Qur’an blameless. To do that, such “moderates” have fallback positions for where everything went wrong, “Islamists”; the jurists who came up with shari’a law; Wahhabism or the Brotherhood…or maybe it’s the hadiths, we’ll be Qur’an-only. The hateful verses of the Qur’an? Mistranslated or misunderstood. Anyway, don’t follow them, YET Muhammad was still the prophet of God and perfect man, and the Qur’an the holy word. And if you kaffirs do not going along with their pretty picture of the true moderate, peaceful, tolerant Islam, they will accuse you of being as bad as the Islamist extremists! Witness Nawaz’s constant references to anti-Islam bigotry among us.
The fiction there is a moderate, tolerant Islam (hijacked by radicals) is a very harmful illusion being peddled for the benefit of infidels, rightly called a whitewash. The kind of illusion that has allowed the mass migration of Muslims into our countries, a belief that the average Muslim is “just like us.” That he is either a wishy-washy Muslim (who doesn’t take the Qur’an or Allah’s laws seriously), or a Muslim filled with notions of co-existence, democracy, and freedom of conscience (taught no where, no how by Muhammad) that he derives from Islam, like Jasser & Nawaz claim they do. Any Muslim who can read the Qur’an and Tafsir knows the correct way to understand Islam. That’s what makes them dangerous.
Ex-Muslim Ali Sina knows better:
“What is the point of reforming a religion founded by a mentally deranged man who committed so much evil on Earth, lied, deceived, raped, tortured, raided, looted, massacred and committed the most despicable crimes? Why keep his cult alive and his memory honored? He deserves scorn, not recognition?
Reforming Islam is impossible. It is either a dilution or a ruse. Jihad is based on two pillars, war and deception. I don’t want anyone to be fooled by the soothing promises of Muslim reformers. Moderate Islam does not exist. It’s a myth.
I do not trust Muslims who are against Sharia. I do not understand them. What they say does not add up. I don’t know what they are up to. I do not trust people who say, I am a follower of Muhammad, but I do not follow Muhammad. There is something fishy, something dishonest and hypocritical about their claim.
If you are a Muslims, be a Muslim. I don’t agree with you but at least I know where you stand and where I should stand to be safe from you. But if you are a Muslim and against Islam and the Sharia, I don’t trust you. You are either a fool or a crook. ”
A fool or a crook. But not to be challenged because we can’t upset such an “ally”?
Here is some gospel truth:
“All Muslims believe in every word of the Quran. No Muslim will denounce a single word of the Quran. You don’t have to be Aristotle or an expert in syllogism and deductive reasoning to put the two together and come to the conclusion that you should not trust Muslims. All of them lie. All of them are deceitful. They even lie to me and think they can get away with it. For Muslims lying to advance their faith is a holy deed. It is woven in their psyche. They grow with it and do it naturally. Just as you are taught to smile when your eyes lock with the eyes of a stranger, Muslims are taught to lie to non-Muslims.
There are no moderate Muslims. There are also no radical Muslims. All Muslims believe in the same book, every word of it. They just practice it to different extents. We call those who follow their faith to the letter radical and the wish-washy ones moderate. There is only one Islam: The Islam of Muhammad and the Quran. It is the only Islam that matters. The rest is a bunch of lies. This Islam is violent. It instructs the believer to lie to the unbelievers, to cast terror in their hearts and to murder them.”
kuriakose says
Well said. Let’s hope people who fall for the sweet words about reforming islam take heed.
Moe lied from the begining to create his religion, and as he wove more and more deceit into his words, his lies only get more exposed to any objective rational person. Walter Scott:
Oh what a tangled web we weave,
When first we practise to deceive!
Quran should open with: O ye who enter islam, abandon all rational thought!
roger woodhouse says
Wouldnt it help if for once we heard any member of our government make a ‘critical comment re the religion of peace’.Untill that happens we must assume that they are either in denial or just plain ignorant of this currosive and dangerous(to our way of life) cult called Islam
tj says
there are many cultural muslims, sina is wrong on that
eduardo odraude says
Sina does not deny that there are cultural Muslims, i.e., people whose tradition is Islam but who are barely if at all religious and who do not believe in Islam. It’s just that Sina considers such people, strictly speaking, as not Muslims, because they do not follow Muhammad’s example or the core Islamic texts. Merely “cultural” Muslims are basically apostates, though they might claim otherwise. But denying that one is an apostate is not established merely because someone with a Muslim background makes the denial. What Islam is, and whether one follows it or not, is determined only by the teaching and example of Muhammad in the Qur’an, Hadith, and Sira. Sina’s point in the comment that quotes him above is that he considers the project of reforming Islam as a religious teaching a foolish or dishonest project that can have no effect on true Islam and serious Muslims. Of course he would not deny that there are people who call themselves Muslims but who mean that only in the sense of their background, not in the sense of actual belief in the core texts and teachings of Islam.
Jack Diamond says
Sina points out that most every jihadi was also once a wishy-washy or “cultural” Muslim. Here is his point.
“I was also an ignorant Muslim. When I read the Quran I had had to make a choice. The choice was to become a terrorist or to leave Islam. There is no middle ground and you better believe me that even then it was a difficult choice. Many Muslims leave Islam after they learn the truth about it but the vast majority don’t. Instead they become radicalized.
“Thousands of young Muslims join ISIS. They all come from moderate Muslim families. It is easy to radicalize them. You ask them whether they believe in the Quran. To which they respond yes. Then you read it to them and show them that God enjoins jihad, that their parents who prefer this world to the next are hypocrites, and the Quran orders true believers to not associate with the hypocrites nor take them as friends and guardians, even if they are their father and brothers.
“Kids understand this. It is a no-brainer. Their parents also understand it. But they want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to live in comfort and at the same time enter the Islamic paradise.
“Muslims can be classified in three categories, the good, the bad and the ugly.
The good Muslims are those who follow the Quran and the examples set by Muhammad and become terrorists.
The bad Muslims are those wishy-washy Muslims who don’t practice Islam completely, don’t read the Quran, don’t pray and rarely, if ever, go to mosque. Their knowledge of Islam is deficient even though their faith may not be necessarily weak. However, because of their lack of understanding of Islam they don’t harbor ill feelings towards non-Muslims, although they are often suspicious of them. They strive to improve their lives and live like others.
Many of these bad Muslims will admit that they are not good Muslims and hope that eventually they will summon enough faith to become good Muslims. These are the majority.
The ugly Muslims are those who know the truth about Islam but lie about it. They try their best to portray Islam in a good light. They even agree with you that the good Muslims are bad, and claim that Islam has been hijacked by the good Muslims.”
Which brings us back to the original point and the problem with even “cultural Muslims”: “All Muslims believe in every word of the Quran. No Muslim will denounce a single word of the Quran.”
gravenimage says
Will any of these “cultural Muslims” stand with us against Jihad? Damn few will.
Nolan Diamond says
Excellent post Mr. Diamond. The prophet of Islam or doom, went into a trance and was possessed by Satan.Only that explains why the curse of Islam has fooled so many people.Satan hates believers of the Old Testament(the Jewish) & the Christians,who accept both Old plus the New Testament.Countries controlled by Islam usually have civil war, restricted freedom of women,sexual mutilation of female girls, barbaric sharia laws & political prisoners.
gravenimage says
I disagree that we should just accept Taqiyya whitewash of Islam.
Naildriver says
This is an excellent paper that well describes Islam and why it is impossible to reform.
The article shows clearly the core rationalizations so many apologists and leftists so fervently, yet with pretended airs of annoyance to those whom they consider ignorant and uninformed, pull out of their bag of reasons to accept the current policies of certain disaster with the acceptance of Muslims into the West.
Even many Muslims I have spoken to will present this lie that Islam isn’t held to sharia and that the Koran allows a much more liberal take and implementation of Islam and can easily be included.
As the author explains even if the two thirds of Muslims who revere sharia don’t count Islam’s history of authoritative interpretations, Koran and hadiths are clear in a Muslim duty to forever seek a supremacist political domination of Islam throughout the world. It is ridiculous to presume the sharia will ever be cut from Islam’s game plans; particularly by Muslims.
They will point usually first how well behaved most Muslims are in the West and assert that even the terrorist episode are far less numerous than crimes by rightwing white supremacists. Nevermind they try to conflate crime s of individuals with Christianity; such arguments fail to point out how the Islamic system works, for example three days of rage we see now over a embassy move already exhibits numerous civil unrest and threats clerics and Mullahs can incite upon a moments notice backed with the Koran’s directives, and it’s also game of numbers where Muslims are content to wait for their political clout and population expansion before bad Islamic demands are expressed — in all sorts of horrific ways. It also doesn’t address the crime or intolerable behavior of many Muslims toward their non Muslim neighbors owing to official Islamic directives to bully and intimidate their hosts.
They will then enumerate those passages overridden by the Koran itself, such as the line about how the murder or one person as if it were an assault upon all humanity — never mind that that passage has long ago been abrogated by the Koran’s subsequent assertions that this only applies to Muslims and that jihad against the non-Muslims is Allah’s highest calling.
The West should collectively ‘reform’ Islam with laws specific to those Muslims who infest it. I understand China actually forbids Koran’s to some segments of the Muslim population — sheesh, can the USA at lest deny Korans and clerics to our inmate population?
Some day I’m sure the West, or if too Islamized, some countries in the West will have to implement a militant effort to cap this enemy’s invasion and intent to destroy us with such restrictions.
I think it would be naive to assume Islam is incapable of literally implanting itself so firmly in countries as England and France, where they defend this vile system, Islam, with military force … but wait! they already have in the Balkans, and the USA, with Clinton helped.
People, it’s later than you think.
Keys says
At best, the reform of Islam is based on ignorance and false hope.
Therefore, even the hope of reforming Islam is destructive to the human spirit.
Troybeam says
Reforming Islam, is to change its tactics to seduce the general public to appear non violent. There is not one line item that is allowed to be changed in the Koran according to Mohammed to do is means death, so in reality Islam has not changed, will not change. What needs to change is how the world needs to stop accepting Islam and its followers. What needs to also change is the way the world fights Islam, stop worrying about collateral damage to building, roads and infrastructure, to people caught in the crossfire as Islam does not worry about such things, the more damage the better.
Time to fight fire with fire, protect our nation when our government fails to do so should it come that :example as it is in Europe right now.
roger woodhouse says
These brainwashed creatures are now flooding into Europe expecting the imminent takeover of our countries and all the booty that goes with it.Be afraid.Be very afraid.
RodSerling says
Hobbs has a sensible and sober take on the whole “reform” racket. Not only is reform of Islam not feasible within the necessary time frame in the West, it is dangerously reckless to even attempt it:
“In effect we are being asked to place a huge bet: we are expected to bet Western civilisation on the likelihood that a totalitarian ideology which has wreaked havoc for 1,400 years wherever it has gone and which has now positioned itself perfectly to conquer the West will choose this moment in human history to “reform”.” — Hobbs.
In other words, why should be expect Muslims in large numbers act contrary to their own interests, goals, and values just to help the dying West–a dying enemy from their perspective–survive the next few decades?
RodSerling says
typo: why should we expect…
Mark Swan says
QUETTA, Pakistan (Reuters) – Pakistan’s army chief on Thursday criticized madrassas that have mushroomed nationwide for mostly teaching only Islamic theology, saying the country needs to “revisit” the religious school concept.
“We need to look (at) and revisit the concept of madrassas…We need to give them a worldly education.”
Pakistan has over 20,000 registered madrassas, though there are believed to be thousands more unregistered ones. Some are single-room schools with a handful of students studying the Koran.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-pakistan-religion-army/army-chief-says-pakistan-should-revisit-islamic-madrassa-schools-idUSKBN1E12F6
gravenimage says
Rod and Mark, good comments.
Glad to see you posting again. Hope you both are well.
RodSerling says
Thanks Graven, hope all is well with you too.
Mark, thanks for the link.
gravenimage says
🙂
Michael Copeland says
The Quilliam Foundation (as it was then called) was set up with torrents of taxpayers’ money. It was as if the UK government wanted a convenient source of independent-seeming spokesmen to articulate fine-sounding utterances. It was never a “foundation” on the lines of an educational or charitable foundation. Perhaps to deflect criticism along these lines it has re-styled itself simply as Quilliam.
The expensively dressed Maajid Nawaz stresses the difference between “Islamism” (nasty, dangerous, political, wrongly understood) and Islam (not stated, but by inference none of these things). There is, however, no mention of “Islamism” in the Manual of Islamic Law, “Reliance of the Traveller”. It is a fiction invented for Western consumption, and busily marketed by Nawaz.
Reform of Islam is a source of endless waffle and tying up of management time. It is a non-starter. Islam is perfect: Allah said so in his Koran – “This day I have perfected for you your religion” (5:3), “None can change his words” (18:27).
Let Anjem Choudary have the last word, “We are an ideological political movement”.
Enough said.
Benedict says
?
Voytek Gagalka says
How Mohammed converted whole of Arabia to Islam? By example as a RUTHLESS leader and conqueror. When he started in Mecca, almost no one wanted to listen to him, and they chased him out. He returned there in force. Plenty of beheadings. I think that if ANYONE can dream to “reform” Islam, it must be done the same way: MASSIVE SLAUGHTER, instituting TERROR in “hearts of the believers,” and survive opposition (not that I would ever recommend such a solution). Otherwise, the pipe dreams.
Crusader says
White-washing will occur in Minnesota with replacement of Senator Franken if the Governor there inserts Lt Gov Tina Smith, who seems to be infected by dhimmitude, herself…. CREEPING SHARIA article below on her from 2016: the unfair and unequal conduct given in favor of Muslims but not so much other faiths.
https://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/2016/03/04/minnesota-governor-tours-mosque-burglarized-by-career-criminal/
Sam Topeka says
1) The Sufis are the only Muslim sect I can think off which do not advocate establishing Islamic states as a tenet of faith. Some three hundred were recently butchered in Sinai by Jihadists.
2) Western civilization has been dying for decades, and Islam is filling the gap. Only return to an appreciation of Judeo- Christian traditions and a recognition of Christendom’s contributions to civilization can save Europe. Secular humanism and moral relativity are not the answers.
marc says
1. I belive that is incorrect, they also belive in subjugating us under sharia http://www.differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/difference-between-islam-and-sufism/, but yes, the sunnis still hate them and blow them up,
2. I think we are starting to see that now, Trump clearly set a new front line in Jerusalem, my Chabad friends are seeing this as a significant move, and they are loving him for it.
gravenimage says
Sam, you are unfortunately mistaken in your belief that Sufis reject violent Jihad.
lebel says
Lets be honest, the only Muslim jwatch will ever accept is an ex-Muslim who wants to destroy Islam and will accept and support any policy, including genocide, directed against Muslims.
Eventually, that very same “Muslim”, will be accused of taqqiya.
Keys says
Oh the irony with Allah being the greatest of deceivers.
Warren Raymond says
If it comes down to a choice of submission to Islam or the defence of Western civilisation I choose to defend Western civilisation. If the Muslim is proud to kill and die for his imaginary ‘Allah’ I shall be proud to do whatever it takes to stop him from achieving his goal. The genocidal ideology is all yours just like your projection, which is, as you well know, a form of taqiyya.
Michael Copeland says
A young reporter questioned Lt.-Col. Allen West about what if jihadis are willing to die?
His reply?
“We grant them their wish.”
gravenimage says
The repulsive Muslim apologist lebel is slandering Jihad Watch, claiming it calls for genocide.
In fact, Jihad Watch has *never* called for violence–just condemned Jihad violence. Of course, this is something lebel himself would never do. *Ugh*.
eduardo odraude says
If one accepts the UN definition of genocide, the core texts of Islam are genocidal:
Genocide is defined in Article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948) as
For example:
Muhammad says your “lives and property” are not safe from him unless you become a Muslim
In Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim, the two most canonical hadith collections:
Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 2, Number 24:
https://muflihun.com/bukhari/2/24
Sahih Muslim, Book 031, Number 5917:
https://muflihun.com/muslim/31/5917
Walter Sieruk says
On the topic of a reformation within Islam, a very different yet possible valid and true view on this had been explain by the Christian, Nabeel Qureshi ,who was in the past was a Muslim .He wrote in his book which is entitled ANSWERING JIHAD wrote about the suggestion “that Islam needs a reformation .What they may not realize is that radical Islam is the Islamic reformation. This might sound shocking, but consider: Just as the Protestant Reformation was an attempt to raze centuries of Catholic tradition and return to the canonical text, so radical Islam is an attempt to raze centuries of traditions of various schools of Islamic thought and return to the canonical text of the Quran and Muhammad’s life. This desire to return to the original form of Islam can be seen not only in the words of Sayyid Qutb, but also in his method. He focused almost entirely on references to the Quran. it is true also of the Muslim Brotherhood and ISIS today, whose publications and proclamations are punctuated by references to the Quran and Hadith literature. Radical Muslim organizations are explicit in their aim to reform Islam.” page 75. Further on pages 79,80 the author makes his case clear by writing that “Radical Islam is the Islamic reformation . The endeavor to modernize Islam and make it relevant to the twenty -first century is called progressive Islam. Progressive Muslim thought leaders, though few in number and limited in influence are present and are working to recreate Islam’s religious framework from within. Indeed, that is what it would take for Islam to become devoted to peace – not reformation but reimagination. “
Fred H says
Reforming Islam is mission impossible – like trying to cleanse Nazism of Jew-hate and the lust for world domination. Islam is fundamentally evil. The solution therefore is the same as for Nazism – it must be totally destroyed.
Sarah says
I have been criticized many times for being highly, deeply suspicious of Maajid Nawaz. Frankly, I don’t trust him as far as I can throw him. And I admire Douglas Murray greatly, yet I was always perplexed at his friendly working relationship with Nawaz.
Quillaim is an interesting think tank. I used to visit it, in my early days of first reading the Quran and learning more about Islam and what it really is all about. I used to think that it was helpful as an institute. Because I too, used to think Islam was capable of reform. If I look at the articles and reports they have released today, I get a cold shiver up my spine. They are not reformers. Not in the way they’re pretending to be, to the rest of us.
The very idea of reforming Islam is a stupid fantasy. By their own admittance, Muslims will say, Islam cannot be reformed, the Quran is the perfect and unalterable word of God and Mohammed was the perfect man in all ways, to be emulated.
So if you can’t change the words, if you can’t change the rules and if you can’t criticize and thus abandon tenets laid out by Mohammed, since he’s so perfect and all – then how in the holy hell are you supposed to reform Islam?
I have said it before, I will say it again. Nawaz is not to be trusted. He is a snake in the grass, mark my words.
Diane says
You’re right, Sarah. You can’t change the words that are in that book….. Therefore, the ACTIONS that SOME people take, to IMITATE THOSE WORDS, will be never-ending…
RodSerling says
I think the most important reason that Douglas Murray, Sam Harris, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and others, “work with” Maajid is to quell charges of racism and Islamophobia. Like many relationships, it’s based on pragmatic considerations, more than principles. Ask yourself this: If there were no leftist-Islamic policy of tarring critics–especially white critics–of Islam as racist Islamophobes, do you think a guy like Sam Harris would bother trying to work with Maajid Nawaz? I doubt it, especially considering how critical Sam used to be of religious moderates. Sam and Ayaan only got working with Maajid after each of them had received major blows to their public image, where they were accused of racism and bigotry etc., by leftists and Islamists. (Sam’s crises involved Glenn Greenwald and his Muslim associate Murtaza Hussain, followed by the famous Affleck tantrum on Bill Maher’s show. Ayaan’s crisis involved Brandies University’s withdrawal of the honorary degree they were going to give her and thus the cancellation of the speech she was going to make there).
Harris, and other white critics of Islam can impress and reassure a certain percentage of their audience, or potential audience, that they are not racist, anti-Muslim, or Islamophobic because they work with or associate with someone who’s not white, is Muslim, and is involved not in rejecting Islam but purportedly reforming it. Of course, leftists and Islamic propaganda jihadists will not be deterred from using their favorite and highly effective tactic of accusing Harris and other white critics of Islam of racism, bigotry, and Islamophobia. Instead, they simply extend their attacks to include Maajid, claiming he is a tool of “white supremacy.”
Sarah says
Rod – that makes perfect sense, but it makes me feel dirty. Its just more slick political maneuvering.
I guess I’m sick to the back teeth of all the insincerity, the shallow words and deeds, people smiling while sticking in the knife, promising one thing whilst merrily doing another. There is absolutely zero honour in any of it.
I know its incredibly naive for me, in this day and age, to get upset over honourable behaviour in politics and culture. Hell, its not just naive of me, its verbal masturbation, its just pointless to get upset over it.
I am a very straightforward woman. I am generally very honest and I am very trustworthy to everyone who knows me, because I say what I mean, I do as I say and I never break my word or betray anyone’s loyalty. I have so many faults that I could spend all day listing them, I’m not perfect. But my word is my bond.
I guess I expect the same from people like Sam Harris, Aayan Hirsi Ali and Douglas Murray. I don’t expect them to be perfect, not at all. But I expect honesty and I expect people to stick to their values without compromise for such an insignificant gain.
Its rigid of me. And I guess it makes me an idiot. I can’t respect someone who is deliberately dishonourable. I can’t respect someone who can discard their own values for inconsequential profits as easily as someone can discard their recycling.
I’m just disappointed, I guess. I have my ideals and it hurts me deeply when I note people that I admire, failing to stand strong with their own ideals and values.
RodSerling says
Thanks Sarah,
Confronting Islam honestly is the only way to deal with it.
I think the best strategy for Sam and Ayaan would have been to honestly stick to their guns.
gravenimage says
Thank you, Sarah. Agreed.
Flavius Claudius Iulianus says
The writer of this article failed to tell the full story of Quilliam and Tommy Robinson. This makes me suspicious. For the record, when Robinson realized that he had been duped by some very slippery taqquya he turned on Quilliam with a vengeance!
The author wasted my time: the first half of this article was an unneeded, drawn out bio followed a long sequence of rhetorical questions that just don’t need to be asked. The second half, the crux of the article, could have been summarized in one paragraph!
The truth is MOHAMMADISM IS NOT REFORMABLE! IT NEVER WILL BE!
The only cure is for all Mohammadans to stop teaching their kids and grand-kids that Mohammad was the greatest guy who ever lived, and that he is the ultimate example to follow. Do you think that’s going to happen any time soon? (An example of a useful rhetorical question.)
Until then the non-Mohammadan world can protect itself by maintaining low (as low possible) Mohammadan populations within its nation states; by maintaining strong borders; by maintaining a ready military and by never trusting a Mohammadan, no matter what they say.
End of story.
gravenimage says
I found this article very useful.
Warren Raymond says
The founder of the Ahmadiyya sect set out to destroy Christianity. That, and nothing else, was and is the actual purpose for the existence of that cult.
William Henry Quilliam converted to Islam and built the first mosque in England to bring the kingdom into the fold of Islam. Has the mission changed? Obviously not.
Maajid Nawaz is a slick taqiyya gigolo. He sounds far better than the (quite primitive) Tariq Ramadan, he’s almost as slick as the well spoken Zuhdi Jasser. But all of them are united when it comes to flooding the western world with Mohammedans. And all of them stand together as one against any criticism of the actual doctrine of Islamic eschatology, jihad warfare and the subjugation of the disbelievers. We cannot coexist.
Mockingjay says
The truth again, is hiding in plain sight – naming this foundation after this Quilliam character really does say all you need to know about its true goals.
– So – can someone forward this excellent and enlightening article to Sam Harris?
WorkingClassPost says
Is it possible to reform an ideology?
A criminal might change and repent, and still be the same person, albeit a reformed character.
But surely an ideology, if changed becomes another, different ideology e.g., if fascism is reformed, it is no longer fascism, it becomes whatever it is changed into. Even if the new ‘fascists’ try to keep the name, when others follow the old ways, they are then real fascists in the old sense of the word.
If islam is reformed it becomes something other than islam, maybe islam lite, who knows, or even cares?
What interests me more is the notion that we should not talk about islamism as separate from islam, but why not?
I personally don’t give one hoot what people believe or do in the privacy of their own homes, provided that they don’t hurt or impose their ‘system’ on others, including their innocent children.
So if islam is believing in flying donkeys and camel smoothies, then provided they keep it to themselves, more fool them, let them have it. The moment they try to impose it on others, it then becomes an -ism, and fair game for destruction. Even if they believe in the koranic violence, provided they keep it as their private fantasy, who gives a damn, or are we now the thought police too?
Of course we all know that islam does not exist without imposition, conquest and subjugation, but for those who practise it as though it were benign, good luck.
What’s more important is that talking about islamism allows us to also talk about islamists rather than using the blanket term of Muslims, which is a gross over generalization because it includes many, possibly millions or hundreds of millions of muslims who would leave islam tomorrow, given the chance and security. There are probably many more who would leave if they knew the truth about their ‘perfect’ POS called mohamed.
Remember, for the many muslims who don’t speak arabic, all they know about islam is what their imam tells them.
gravenimage says
Ideologies can change to some extent. But Islam would have to toss out virtually every tenet in order to become even marginally civilized.
Moreover, a central article of faith in Islam is that it, the Qur’an, and the “Prophet” Muhammed are completely perfect and that any changes are “blasphemous”.
I don’t see any practical chance of Islam ever reforming.
Damien Santiamo says
Thank you so much for this key information, Shazia. I consider myself adept at stiffing out taqiyya, but this one slipped past me. Thank you for blowing the whistle and lending your deep insight. A humorous and sharp wit is also appreciated.
Wellington says
As many in sundry ways have already indicated on this thread, any attempt to reform Islam is a fool’s or rogue’s errand.
There’s no reforming the one major religion (and, yes, Islam is a religion but a profoundly malevolent one) which is also a totalitarian ideology. Islam started out rotten and there’s no reforming rot. Frankly, I have no time for anyone who wants to reform rot. Why should I? Why should anyone? After all, sometimes being completely out of patience is justifiable.
One last thing: William Henry Quilliam was both a fool as well as a traitor to his country. Anyone brought up in the West and who converts to Islam deserves description as both fool and traitor. Interesting too, just coincidentally, how similar the name “Quilliam” is to “Quisling.” Fitting.
Karen says
“A think tank named after a convert who wanted a caliphate are hoping to reform Islam?”
This, and all the points made is the article are gems.
gravenimage says
Yep.
gravenimage says
Reforming Islam
…………………….
Yes–the idea that the Quilliam Foundation is out to “reform Islam” is ridiculous.
Xero_G says
So, the Koran is considered by Muslims to be PERFECT Perfect for all people, for all time. Criticism of the Koran invites the death penalty under Sharia.
Muhammad is considered by Muslims to be PERFECT. The perfect man for all to emulate for all time. Criticism of Muhammad invites the death penalty under Sharia.
So how can something believed to be “perfection” ever be reformed?
eduardo odraude says
And not only is the Qur’an deemed the perfectly preserved, verbatim word of Allah. In addition, the elements of Islam that need to be discarded are not just surface aspects. A great many core elements of Islam need to go, so much so that any “reform” would in fact be a transformation. Thus, to ask Muslims to accept any real reform is in fact tantamount to asking them to convert to what in effect would be a different religion.
The whole idea that Islam needs to go through a Reformation as did Christianity shows a frightful ignorance about the Christian Reformation and about Islam. The Christian Reformation did not jettison any elements of Christ’s teaching. The Christian Reformation rejected corruptions like “indulgences” and priestly control of the Gospels. By contrast, if an Islamic Reformation did not reject key aspects of Muhammad’s teachings and behavior, Islam would not change in the ways too many Westerners are ignorantly hoping for.
As others have pointed out, something analogous to the Christian Reformation has already happened in Islam. Wahabism returned to the core texts of Islam and sought to get rid of accretions and corruptions that came later. And thus you got Saudi Arabia’s totalitarian social system.
Jack Diamond says
Exactly. ISIS and al Qaeda represent the reformation of Islam, with a sound foundation in the Qur’an and Sunnah. The transformation of Islam, however, is an act of pure magic, a real sleight of hand, making all the menace (and meaning) of Islam vanish into thin air. If you can’t stand Islam, if you can’t stand the shar’ia, if Muhammad shames you, leave Islam. Much simpler than trying to “civilize” something that has never been civilized in 1400 years. Unless your motives lie elsewhere…
Secular Humanist says
Interesting and well written piece. I have been skeptical of this Maajid Nawaz ever since he was brought to my attention by a dedicated user on the alt-left website reddit.com
This user has been banned many times from the islam and religion forum pages for pointing out Nawaz’s inconsistencies.
https://www.reddit.com/user/hexag1/submitted/
I am sure this gentleman and scholar is a member of this website was well going by the list of forums that he manages on reddit.
TheBuffster says
“If you want to use Islam as the basis to cut off heads, or gang-rape girls, or give gay people flying lessons from rooftops, then sure, you can do that – it’s a “plausible” interpretation of the texts. But if you want to interpret Islam in such a way as to be totally compatible with the 21st century liberal secular democracy, then hey, you can do that, too, so stop being a racist and get out of my lane while I do this reform thing.”
Whenever I hear someone saying that you can interpret Islamic texts, or any other texts, any way you please, I’m annoyed by the sloppy use of the word “interpret”.
There is such a thing as a valid interpretation or interpretations of a text – that’s when a text is ambiguous and, *without ignoring any part of it or adding anything to it* you can find more than one meaning in it and you can choose which one you prefer.
If you have to subtract or add something to it in order to get a meaning you can agree to, then you’re *re-writing*, not interpreting, that text.
This is not to say that some Muslims don’t do this. People can and do re-write their religious texts in their heads and even form their own heretical sects based on wishful re-writing. They create their own religion that way, even if they pretend that they’re only interpreting it. You could say that they use the original religion as a leaping-off point, but to be accurate, you cannot call this an interpretation or even a version of the religion. It’s a departure.
If people cherry-pick and re-write a religion, let’s not be euphemistic and go along with the delusion that they are merely engaging in valid interpretation. If they prefer their re-write, fine. But let’s call it what it is – and they should admit to it themselves rather than get offended when honest people can’t go along with them.
A failure of clarity tends to work in favor of those trying to pull wool over eyes.
gravenimage says
+1
Guy Macher says
The Koran is without error. Islam is the perfection of religion. Mohamed is the model for mankind. Allah is greater than other gods. Nawaz is apostate to think that Islam needs reforming! What’s the penalty for backsliding Muslims, Mr Nawaz?
Kasey says
Taqiyya is the complete tactic for Islamic domination of the world. Narwaz knows that too.
The only solution to Islamism is the total obliteration of Islamic ideology. Once that it done the whole Islamic religion will collapse like a house of cards.
Manny says
Great article! God bless you for having the courage to write it. I completely agree. Islam isn’t going to be reformed because it cannot be reformed.
Adam says
“I can now say that the more I learn about Islam, the more tolerant I become.”
I’m not sure why that is such revealing statement? Judging by his growing liberalism, I assume he is saying the more he learns about Islam, and questions the bases of its many intolerances, the more tolerant he becomes. We know that he finds his holy books deeply contradictory (or at least if he doesn’t, he has failed to be convinced by his own words on this), so I expect this is why he has had to develop his own internal moral compass, that has led him towards secular liberalism.
Peter Grimshaw says
Thanks for a really thoughtful article Shazia
Dustin Koellhoffer says
Reforming Islam from Muhammad is as absurd as reforming Christianity from Christ:
https://liberalsbackwardsthink.com/2015/05/26/reforming-islam-is-as-absurd-as-reforming-christianity/
FYI says
And this quilliam.
Is he resting in peace with his allah and muhammed do you think?
I mean,as an ex-Methodist,did he seriously expect to be saved?
The wrong path chosen leads to bad consequences..
Bill Christian says
There was a reform attempt in the 1980s
In January 1985, A Sudanese theologian, Mahmud Muhammad Taha, was executed for apostasy (a total desertion of or departure from one’s religion), by the Sudanese government. He proposed that the messages Allah gave Muhammad had two sections of Holy Commands. The first was while he preached in Mecca; religious forewarning (610 – 622) the second when he lived in Medina; both political and religious (622 – 632). In Mecca, Allah gave Muhammad (PBUH) the religious principles for all to live by. The messages of Medina, were only to apply to that time and place, no other times or places.
Mohammad’s teachings demand his followers to engage in warfare. “And when We wish to destroy a town, We send Our commandment to the people of it who lead easy lives, but they transgress therein; thus the word proves true against it, so We destroy it with utter destruction.” (Qur’an 17:16) “There is no blame for the blind, nor is there blame for the lame, nor is there blame for the sick (that they go not forth to war). And whoso obeyeth Allah and His messenger, He will make him enter Gardens underneath which rivers flow; and whoso turneth back, him will He punish with a painful doom.” (Qur’an 48:17) Many contemporary apologists claim that Jihad means ‘spiritual struggle.’ Why than are the blind, lame and sick exempted? This verse also says that those choose not to fight will go to hell. Among other similar verses Qur’an 2:191-193, 2:244, 2:216, 3:56, 3:151, 4:74, 4:76, 4:89, 4:95, 4:104, 8:12, 8:15, 8:39, 8:57, 8:67, 8:59-60, 8:65, 9:5, 9:14, 9:29, 9:30, 9:38-39, 9:41, 9:73, 9:88, 9:111, 9:123, 18:65-81, 21:44, 25:52, 33:60-62, 47:3-4, 47:35, 48:17, 48:29, 61:4, 61:10-12, 66:9
Under Sharia law Christians and Jews are permitted to follow their faiths as non-Muslim subjects that agree to ‘willingly pay’ the Jizya or tribute in exchange for protection and safety, and are subject to all Islamic laws. Non-Muslims are not allowed to testify against Muslims in court (Qur’an verses 3:110, 4:141). Among the laws they are regularly accused of breaking are blasphemy of Islam or Muhammad and Ghiba (slander). Ghiba means to mention anything concerning a Muslim that he would dislike, “whether about his religion, body, everyday life, self, disposition, property, son, father, wife, servant, turban, garment, gait, movements, smiling, dissoluteness, frowning, cheerfulness, or anything else connected with him”. (‘Umdat al-Salik, r2.2) It doesn’t say anything about these ‘disliked’ statements having to be true or false only that one has to dislike it being exposed or alleged. (Reliance of the Traveller r2) “One must go on jihad at least once a year. One may use a catapult against them when they are in a fortress, even if among them are women and children. One may set fire to them or drown them. If Jews and Christians are enslaved, their marriage is revoked. One may cut down their trees and must destroy their useless books. Jihadists may take as booty whatever they decide.”
ron leblanc says
Free speech in Canada comes from the government; it can givith, it can takith away; unlike your first amendment. So, if the Koran is the ‘word of god’ how in heavens name can Shazia Hobbs or Zuhdi Jasser hope to reform Islam?
tj says
shazia is an ex muslim, zuhdi is a reform muslim that served the us military.
Carolyne says
I was in Morocco and it certainly didn’t have that effect on me. In fact I left utterly disgusted with the country, the customs and most certainly the religion.
Aussie Infidel says
I’ve always been suspicious of Quilliam and Nawaz. He is either deluded that reform of Islam is possible, or even desirable, or he is using it as a smokescreen to con ignorant and gullible western leftists into thinking that ‘all will be OK’, and that Islam will become the much vaunted ‘religion of peace’
I’d like to give Nawaz the benefit of the doubt, but where is the evidence? How far has he got with reforming Islam? Where are the hordes of Muslims who have ‘seen the light’ and abandoned Islam for Christianity or become atheists? When has he spoken out publicly and condemned the daily atrocities committed in the name of Allah? It seems more like just another case of Al-Taqiyya, from another too-smart-by-half Muslim.
“It is religiously precautionary in all cases to employ words that give a misleading impression, meaning to intend by one’s words something that is literally true, in respect to which one is not lying (def: r1O.2), while the outward purport of the words deceives the hearer.” (Reliance of the Traveller, r8.2).
And from the Hadith, “The Prophet said, ‘War is deceit’.” (Bukhari 52:269).
Linnte says
“You can’t reform something that’s already perfect” Dr. Bill Warner.
Ray Jarman says
Maybe Quilliam should have read the political philosophy of Thomas Hobbs and Jacque Rousseau. He may have learned something about civilization and why democratic governments are so important.
Paula Cohen says
Although Maajid Nawaz doesn’t meet Ms Hobbs admirable principles he certainly does not deserve this unfair attack even suggesting some hidden agenda. Maajid is the courageous voice of moderate Moslems & is targeted by the likes of Al Qaeda.
gravenimage says
Maajid is the courageous voice of moderate Moslems
……………………..
I’m afraid not, Paula. He has been working to prevent any real defense by Britain against Jihad for years now, calling it “racist” or “Islamophobic”.
This is what Jihad Watch contributor Hugh Fitzgerald refers to as the “slow Jihad”.
Linde Barrera says
Thank you, Ms. Shazia Hobbs, for this excellent article because its truthful accuracy has made me smarter.