Will There Ever be a Moderate Islam?

As we reported here earlier this week, on November 2 a group of Counterjihad activists spoke at an event in Copenhagen hosted by Trykkefrihedsselskabet (the Danish Free Press Society). The occasion was the commemoration of the tenth anniversary of the assassination of Theo Van Gogh.

The two most prominent speakers were Geert Wilders, the leader of the Party for Freedom (Partij voor de Vrijheid, PVV) in the Netherlands, and Daniel Pipes, the founder of the Middle East Forum.

After Mr. Wilders’ speech there was a question and answer session that included a debate between Dr. Pipes and Mr. Wilders about the possible existence of a “Moderate Islam”. The audio track in the original video, which began with Mr. Wilders’ speech, was hard to hear, especially during the Q&A session. Thanks to the efforts of Apollon Zamp — who transcribed the responses of the two men — and Vlad Tepes — who subtitled the excerpt — we now have a six-minute video of this debate.

The issue of a hypothetical “Moderate Islam” is a crucial one in our movement. It offers a siren song of hope to those who would dearly love to escape the dreadful choices that lie ahead of us if Western Civilization is to be salvaged. Actually, all of us would dearly love to avoid the horrors that lie ahead. However, after long experience, the hard-nosed realists among us have come to understand that such eventualities are sadly unavoidable.

To grasp at the straw of “Moderate Islam” is to risk drowning in the rising flood of the Great Jihad.

I had a few things to say about this the other day, and I have a few more tonight. But first, let’s watch the video:

Geert Wilders is clear and forthright in his explanation of the Doctrine of Abrogation. He is also correct: the later verses of the Koran abrogate and nullify the earlier verses. As it happens, all the peaceful verses were later abrogated by the violent verses, which exhort the faithful to behead infidels and take their property as war booty.

Daniel Pipes has studied Islam for forty-five years. He is able to quote “there is no compulsion in religion” in Arabic. Yet oddly enough, he seems completely unfamiliar with the Doctrine of Abrogation, which is the juridical backbone of all four schools of Sunni Islamic law.

The following abbreviated explanation of abrogation is drawn in large part from the comprehensive research of Major (ret.) Stephen Coughlin, the pre-eminent American expert on Islamic law.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

This is what Imran Ahsan Khan Nyazee has to say about abrogation in Islamic Jurisprudence:[1]

The law was laid down in the period of the Prophet (peace be unto him) gradually and in stages. The aim was to bring a society steeped in immorality to observe the highest standards of morality. This could not be done abruptly. It was done in stages, and doing so necessitated repeal and abrogation of certain laws.

As you can see, Nyazee acknowledges that the Koran contradicts itself. It is well understood among Islamic scholars that the Koran contradicts itself. This fact is explained, and taken into account. There are methods for dealing with it.

This becomes significant when non-Muslims approach a Muslim cultural expert or “moderate” to ask about certain verses of the Koran that are cited by radicals to justify their violent jihad. The cultural expert or “moderate” will respond with something like this: “You (infidel) must read from the entire body of the Koran to understand the true meaning. Those radicals cherry-pick from the back of the Koran.”

With this reply the cultural expert gives the impression that he does not agree with the radicals, but he never actually says that what they cherry-pick is wrong.

So what is the Koranic basis for the doctrine of abrogation?

It is a Qur’an which We have divided into parts from time to time, in order that thou mightest recite it to men at intervals: We have Revealed it by stages. (Qur’an 17:106)

Concerning this verse, the Qur’an commentator Yusuf Ali says:[2]

The marvel is that these parts, revealed at different times and in different circumstances, should fit together so closely and consistently as they do. All revelation is progressive. The previous revelations were also progressive. Each of them marked a stage in the world’s spiritual history. Man’s mind does not take in more than his spiritual state will have prepared him for. Allah’s revelation comes as a light to illuminate our difficulties and show us the way in actual situations that arise.

Here is another verse covering the same subject:

When We substitute one revelation for another — and Allah knows best what He reveals in stages — They say, “Thou art but a forger”: But most of them understand not. (Qur’an 16:101)

And once again, a comment by Yusuf Ali:[3]

The doctrine of progressive revelation from age to age and time to time does not mean that Allah’s fundamental Law changes. It is not fair to charge a Prophet of Allah with forgery because the Message, as revealed to him, is in a different form from that revealed before, when the core of the Truth is the same, for it comes from Allah.

The final Koranic verse on progressive revelation:

None of Our revelations do we abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but we substitute something better or similar; knowest thou not that Allah hath power over all things? (Qur’an 2:106)

Thus we have three different citations from the Koran in which Allah says he reveals things in stages, and that with each stage he abrogates the previous stages. We would expect — because it is the uncreated word of Allah — that what was said later would overrule what was said earlier. And any Islamic law which did not reflect this fact would be suspect.

That means that if the radicals are cherry-picking chronologically from the back of the Koran, they are correct.

In Outlines of Muhammadan Law, Asaf A.A. Fyzee remarks:[4]

The Koran according to this theory is the first source of law. … It is for this reason that the verses of the Koran (ayat), although only a few of them deal specifically with legal questions, are held to be of paramount authority. In interpreting the Koranic verses, one important principle has to be observed. Some verses are deemed to be the abrogating (nasikh) verses and some to be the abrogated (mansukh) ones. Generally speaking the earlier verses are deemed to be repealed by the later ones.

Thus, because the later Koranic verses are always considered to be the valid and binding points of Islamic law, it becomes important to arrange the Koran chronologically.

When the Koran is arranged chronologically, it is divided into the early, middle, and late Meccan periods, and the Medina period. Surah 2 is generally understood to be the first surah of the Medina period. Surah 9 is the penultimate surah of the Koran and, 5 is the last surah of the Koran. However, there is some disagreement among scholars about the ordering, and different orderings exist. Some authorities name 110 as the final surah, rather than 5, and some say 9 is the last.

What is important in this context is the general agreement that Surah 9 is the last to talk about jihad, 5 is the last to talk about relations with non-Muslims, and 3 is understood to come after 2. All four schools of Sunni Islamic are in general agreement on abrogating/abrogated texts, and on the major issues they are in general agreement.[5] 75% of Sunni Islamic law is recognized in common across all four schools.

So a Muslim jurist does not read Islamic law and decide what is or is not abrogated. These issues have already been decided. If you are a Hanbali, or Hanafi, or Shafite, or Maliki Islamic scholar, you will refer to your school’s books on abrogated texts. No one can become a judge unless he knows them by heart; they are that important.

How are the surahs in the Koran arranged? When you open the Koran, you see Surah 1, which is very brief, and serves as an introduction. Next comes Surah 2, which is the largest surah in the Koran, about a hundred and fifty pages long. Surah 3 is the second largest, Surah 4 is the third largest, and so on. It becomes obvious that when the scholars constructed the Koran, they put the introductory surah first, but after that the Koran was ordered by the size of the surahs, from the largest to the smallest chapter. The Koran is not arranged chronologically.

When you look at the entire body of the Koran, the Meccan period seems much bigger than the Medinan period. But surahs 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, and 9 — all from the Medinan period — comprise about 80% of the Koran, while surahs 109, 112, 113, and 114 — from the Meccan period — occupy less than entire pages. In other words, the number of a surah does not refer to its order in the chronology, but to its size.

Islamic law is entirely derived from the Medinan period. Anything said during the Medinan period overrules anything on the same subject that was said in the Meccan periods. And anything said in the later part of the Medinan period overrules anything said in the earlier part.

Whenever a moderate finally concedes that there is such a thing as jihad, he will quote Surah 2 (with some support from Surah 8), because the first jihad was mentioned in Surah 2, and can reasonably be expected to be defensive jihad. But remember: the last surah that talks about jihad is Surah 9 — the Sword Surah, which mandates jihad in the path of Allah for all Muslims.

So how does this affect our understanding of Islam?

Surah 2 says:

Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy handhold. (Qur’an 2:256)

Virtually any Westerner who knows anything about Islam has heard this. It says let there be no compulsion in religion. But what most people have not heard is this:

Whoever seeks a religion other than Islam will never have it accepted of him, and he will be of those who have truly failed in the hereafter (Qur’an 3:85)

So if you have not come to Islam, what is going to happen to you? You are going to go to Hell.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

An afterthought from Vlad, in answer to the question in the title of this post:

To quote Hillary Clinton, but this time in an appropriate context: “What difference, at this point, does it make?”


00:01   As you know, I admire your courage and your clear analysis. But I also disagree, as you know,
00:07   with one thing you’re saying. You said there will never be a moderate Islam. I don’t know how
00:14   you know that. Islam has changed — I’m a historian, and a historian studies change over time.
00:22   Everything human changes over time. I took up the study of Islam in 1969, 45 years ago.
00:29   Islam is very different and much worse than it was in 1969. If it can get worse, it can get better.
00:36   Islam changes. I could spend an — we could have a summit on it. I’ll tell you about how Islam has
00:41   changed. How do you know it can’t get better? How do you know there can’t be a moderate Islam?
00:46   Why are you rejecting this possibility beforehand? Lars is skeptical. I accept that.
00:52   But you’re saying, “Absolutely, no, it can’t happen.”
00:57   Well, Daniel and I have known each other for a long time. We do respect each other
01:04   and we have had the discussion many times before, and sometimes we can agree to disagree.
01:09   But, indeed, I don’t believe that Islam will ever change. Islam is the word — look at the Koran.
01:15   The Koran is, together with the Hadith and the Life of Mohammed, the Sira, the Koran is the way,
01:22   the basis of Islam. And the Koran, Muslims believe, is the word of God.
01:30   It cannot be changed. And of course people change, Daniel. I believe that. I don’t believe
01:37   that Islam has ever changed in the past. When it got worse — and indeed it did,
01:42   it’s worse every day — then it’s because people changed. And people changed
01:47   unfortunately for the worse, not for the better. So yes, I believe that even though today,
01:54   it gets worse every second — look at the Islamic State, look at what is happening in your country,
01:59   my country — and that will not change. But the people can change. And I’m not a theologian.
02:05   I believe that once again, why people, and why people believe in Islam is none of my business.
02:12   But I am a politician. I’m a lawmaker. And I’ll tell you I just told you before,
02:17   that I’m not interested in changing [them] or not. I’m interested in the people. And if you adhere
02:22   to our values, you are welcome and if you do not adhere to our values, you have to go.
02:29   You have to leave. I don’t care if it will change, or it will not. I care about the people in my society:
02:36   Will women in Copenhagen, in Amsterdam be free to walk the streets or will they be harassed?
02:43   Will children be free to walk our streets? Will homosexuals be beaten up in Amsterdam
02:50   by Moroccan youths or not? This is the question we should answer, and if the [answer] is “no”,
02:55   we should send them away and stop the immigration [from] countries where we have this aggression.
03:01   That is the only question that I want to answer.
03:10   Daniel, do you want to comment on that?
03:15   Yes, we have argued this for decades and more. And I agree with your point about the actions
03:26   being unacceptable and people changing, so we agree on that. Still, you made very clear
03:33   in your opening remarks that Islam, moderate Islam can — there’ll never be a moderate Islam.
03:39   So let’s put aside the actions of people. Why can there not be a moderate Islam?
03:45   It’s — the Koran remains the same, but interpretations of it change. Let me give you one example.
03:51   There’s a short phrase in the Koran, [la ikraha fiddin], meaning “there should be
03:56   no compulsion in religion.” This is a phrase which over the millennia has changed in its
04:03   understanding, its interpretation. I wrote an article in which I showed some
04:08   dozen different historical understandings of what this term means,
04:12   from the most rigid and limited to the most liberal. Now, every aspect of the Koran
04:18   can be dealt with in this same way. For example, the contradictions in the Koran.
04:22   As it is now, it tends to be the more severe that are accepted and the less severe
04:27   which are rejected. That could change. This is human. This is not divine;
04:31   this is interpretation of the Koran. Interpretation of the Koran has changed and is changing,
04:37   and it has changed for the worse and the more severe. Why don’t you admit the possibility
04:41   of a change for the better? – Well, you know, the Koran,
04:45   in Islam there is a rule called “abrogation”. And abrogation means that the latest verse in the Koran
04:54   is valid and invalidates everything that was written before. That’s a rule that even moderates
05:00   in Islam agree with. So indeed, yes, there are passages in the Koran that were saying
05:05   maybe not the harshest things but they were, at the end of the day, replaced through abrogation
05:13   by many parts of the Koran, which I don’t believe but many Muslims believe in,
05:17   that this the fact today. Second point: it’s the word of God. It’s the word of God
05:23   [that] there are not interpretations today about; there are no Arab or Islamic yeshivas
05:31   being active today, but where people study and interpret the parts of the Koran,
05:35   they are non-existent. So please, let us once again agree to disagree; just let us not focus
05:43   on something that I believe will never happen, and you believe that it might happen
05:47   in five thousand years. But I am interested in what will happen today, and tomorrow,
05:51   and the day after tomorrow, and our countries should be safe, and safe from the brutality of Islam.


1.   Imran Asham Khan Nyazee, Islamic Jurisprudence, (Kuala Lumpur: The Other Press, 2003), 319.
2.   Yusuf Ali, Qur’an, Comment 2317.
3.   Yusuf Ali, Qur’an, Comment 2140.
4.   Asaf A. A. Fyzee, Outlines of Muhammadan Law, 4th ed. (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1974), at 19-20.
5.   Nuh Ha Mim Keller, Reliance of the Traveller (Revised Edition,1991, amana publications, Beltsville, Maryland), vii.

24 thoughts on “Will There Ever be a Moderate Islam?

    • I have been a bit confused about the relationship between the exegetic notion of abrogation (Naskh) and the issue of expediency–which also relates to Taqqiya (deception). Despite Raymond Ibrahim’s claim below, I don’t see how being “Meccan” when/where Islam is in a position of weakness, and “Medinian” when in a position of strength relates to abrogation, which implies the application of the chronologically last (always the most extreme) teaching exclusively.

      I think this has to do with abrogation/naskh not relating to all aspects of Islamic faith and law.

      Nevertheless, this issue of expediency (and taqqiya) speaks directly to the Wilders/Pipes discussion about ‘moderate’ Islam in two respects:
      1) It explains why Islam “has gotten much worse” in the past 4o years (as circumstances have changed: Islamic revolution in Iran, decolonization/independence of many Islamic peoples, etc.)
      2)It supports Wilders position that Islam can never be trusted; it is in perpetual war against the Infidel, using different modes and strategies. This, then, is why Ahmadi Islam (which is not mentioned in the video, nor in either the Bukay or Ibrahim article) cannot be approached as a moderate alternative.

      “However interpreted, the standard view on Koranic abrogation concerning war and peace verses is that when Muslims are weak and in a minority position, they should preach and behave according to the ethos of the Meccan verses (peace and tolerance); when strong, however, they should go on the offensive on the basis of what is commanded in the Medinan verses (war and conquest). The vicissitudes of Islamic history are a testimony to this dichotomy, best captured by the popular Muslim notion, based on a hadith, that, if possible, jihad should be performed by the hand (force), if not, then by the tongue (through preaching); and, if that is not possible, then with the heart or one’s intentions.”


      Islamic Jihad and the Doctrine of Abrogation by Raymond Ibrahim
      FrontPageMagazine.com March 6, 2014

  1. For our understanding of Muhammad’s career it is important to know what was contained in his preaching in the earliest days. Unfortunately this is not such a simple matter as it might appear, since the Qur’an is not arranged in chronological order.

    W. Montgomery Watt. Muhammad: Prophet and Statesman (p. 22). Kindle Edition.

    Islamic orthodoxy has always recognized that some passages of the Qur’an containing rules for the Muslims were abrogated by later passages, so that the original rules ceased to be binding.

    W. Montgomery Watt. Muhammad: Prophet and Statesman (p. 18). Kindle Edition.

  2. In any case, statements in the Koran have to be read according to the doctrine of “abrogation,” which was developed early in Islamic jurisprudence to deal with the Koran’s many contradictory statements. Muslims believe that wherever verses contradict each other, the verse from later in Muhammad’s career cancels out the verse from earlier. Allah himself justifies abrogation in the Koran: “Whenever we abrogate a verse or cause it to be forgotten, we replace it by a better or similar one. Know you not that Allah has power over all things?” (Koran 2:106; see also 16:101, 13:39, and 17:86). As it happens, the few verses that speak tolerantly of Christians are from early in Muhammad’s career, when he had no political power, whereas the hostile verses that name Christians “infidel” enemies occur towards the end, near the height of his career. Thus the later hostile verses cancel out any tolerance for Christians expressed in the earlier verses.

    Ibrahim, Raymond (2013-04-29). Crucified Again: Exposing Islam’s New War on Christians (p. 19). Regnery Publishing. Kindle Edition.

    As it happens, the few verses that speak tolerantly of Christians are from early in Muhammad’s career, when he had no political power, whereas the hostile verses that name Christians “infidel” enemies occur towards the end, near the height of his career. Thus the later hostile verses cancel out any tolerance for Christians expressed in the earlier verses. The Koran’s final word on the fate of Christians and Jews is found in Koran 9:29. There Allah commands believers, “Fight those among the People of the Book who do not believe in Allah nor the Last Day, nor forbid what Allah and His Messenger have forbidden, nor embrace the religion of truth, until they pay the jizya with willing submission and feel themselves subdued.” In Islamic parlance, “People of the Book” is a reference to those pre-Islamic peoples who had their own scriptures—chief among them, Christians and Jews. This verse gives divine sanction to the perpetual subjugation of Christians under Islam. Koran 9:29 and its equally bellicose counterpart Koran 9:5, known as “the Sword Verses,” appeared as Muhammad’s armies were preparing to invade the Christian territories of the Byzantine empire. To this day, mainstream Islamic jurisprudence holds that the Sword Verses have “abrogated, canceled, and replaced 124 verses that called for tolerance, compassion, and peace. ”26 A year after proclaiming these anti-Christian verses, Muhammad was dead, revelations ceased, and the Islamic jihad against the surrounding infidels, most of whom were Christians, erupted from Arabia.

    Ibrahim, Raymond (2013-04-29). Crucified Again: Exposing Islam’s New War on Christians (pp. 19-20). Regnery Publishing. Kindle Edition.

    Always good to have some highly respected sources at your fingertips whenever you get a chance to explain to someone that the currant isn’t written in order & you need to read it all then apply the principle of abrogation to understand it.

  3. Hear hear, Gert Wilders, and to Baron and Dymphna.
    Excellent as I have also developed this point of abrogation and debating it with others.
    So I do notice that I have an overlap in parts of your thoughts and quotes, Baron. This is the opportunity that we must make of getting the public to take notice of how the muslim scholars and imans work us, and their own people with the kitman and taqiyya.

    All the peaceful verses that come from the Meccan time period of Mohammad are ABROGATED as said by the leader when he traveled to Medina. From there he pursued a course of raiding for looting and enrichment for himself and easy lifestyle of his followers for 8 years. Then at the head of a 10,000 army he returned and took Mecca.
    With in the month he continued from Mecca with 12000 men and engaged in Battle of Hunayn where they were able to capture huge spoils, consisting of 6,000 women and children were taken prisoners and 24,000 camels were captured.
    A brilliant post, thanks baron, and I will file a way into my abrogation file.


    Classical scholars argued that anyone who studied the Qur’an without having mastered the doctrine of abrogation would be “deficient.”[15] Those who do not accept abrogation fall outside the mainstream and, perhaps, even the religion itself. The Ahmadiyah sect, for example, today concentrated in Pakistan, consistently rejects abrogation because it undercuts the notion that the Qur’an is free from errors.[16] Many Muslims consider Ahmadis, who also see their founder as a prophet, to be apostates.

    A further issue of what should be done to apostates.
    The Ahmadis (10-20 million) the only sect I would trust, though severely perscuted by the other 4 schools of jurisprudence. The only fault I have with them is that in the overall mix of politics about islam, is that they often appear to run as apologist interference for islam, even if they are genuine.


    The law of abrogation is taught by the Qur’an in sura 2:106,108, stating: “We substitute one revelation for another…” This is echoed in sura 17:86, which reads, “If it were Our Will, We could take away that which We have sent thee by inspiration.” In sura 16:101 the law of abrogation is clearly defined as one verse being substituted by a better verse. Verse 101 read, “None of our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar- Knowest thou not that Allah hath power over all things?”


    The raids and looting were all ok as revelations, and inspired so it was something better or similiar, though I do find that I guess it may be similiar if you can be alive as a concubine or slave, instead of dead.

    Then there are the hadiths and sira , the life, times and practices of Mohammad that are used as confirming the abrogations of the koran and used as a tasfir exegegis which reinforces the meaning as used by the ulama , those islamic scholars.

    There is a real hunger for this knowledge, by the general public, as security laws, intelligence gathering laws, are all being urgently revamped in many different western countries.
    So as we must learn, focus, simplify it, and can fire back questions, knowing the answers already, so can not be diverted and so “attack attack” repeatedly, on those points. that can not be denied. The room for obfuscation becomes apparent to the general public, and exposes the ugly truth of islam.

    Apologies for doubling up on links and urls, sort of training and can not prove until the point of no return, of “Post Comment”.However “I think I have got it” (now can I remember how and to be able to confirm before I post) and recall how to check and prove in doing it. If the links work then delete this paragraph if you wish. It all used to work before, don’t we all say? 🙂

  4. We had Jay Smith as our guest at Calvary Chapel Chino Hills, both this September and last September. During his visit last September (2013) he held a special session that went into detail about the Qur’an, its origins and apparent contradictions. In discussing the caliphs that succeeded Mahomet special attention was given to Abu Ali Malik (please forgive me if the name isn’t spelled correctly) who reigned from about 875AD until c.915AD. During his reign he order the codification of the various versions of the Qur’an into one approved and unified text. The manuscripts that Ali Malik did not approve of were burnt. Thus any textual critique of the Qur’an that may have existed was destroyed, and that almost 250 years after Mahomet’s death. As Jay Smith is well-respected in the Islamic Scholar community, he was allowed to be present and participate in the study of the master copy of the Qur’an that is stored in the Museum in Ankara, Turkey. When the manuscript was placed under ultraviolet light it was discovered that 7% to 10% of the words had been bleached out and then written over. Also, about the same time of Abu Ali Malik’s reign the orientation of the front door of the mosques was changed from Petra to Medina, giving the adduced appearance of an Islam that had been totally made over 250 years after Mahomet’s death.
    During the Q&A session I asked about the doctrine of abrogation in light of what had been done to the other manuscripts by Abu Malik. Jay Smith’s answer was that the Qur’an as it was codified allowed the Muslim to have a convenient answer. The doctrines of taquiya, tariya and fitman (deceive, dissemble and misdirect) all answer to the use of those verses as needed in the waging of jihad in debate. Jay Smith has since debated Dr. Ally in Toronto and did a very good job pointing out how Islam makes ready use of those contradictions.

    • Jay Smith has a few good videos up on youtube, as well. I put one up over at the Patriot’s Corner not long ago.

      The Calvary Chapel Chino Hills website has a few pretty good videos on the “Media” section btw – I’ve watched everything they have with Amir Tsarfati, for example. Again, he has a few good videos out there.

      That’s a great post, acuara – some great stuff there, well worth chasing up.

  5. No, no, no. Of course Daniel Pipes understands the Doctrine of Abrogation. Pipes makes the point that we know Islam is capable of change since, viewed historically, Islam has changed. Modern Islam is substantially different from the Islam of 1,000 years ago. If it has changed before it can change again.

    The issue as I see it, and as Wilders alludes, is rather different. Change may well come to Islam, but at what cost? Christianity experienced wrenching changes that came at great cost. The hideously destructive European Wars of Religion come to mind. And what we are witnessing right now looks awfully like a civil war in Islam. The Islam that comes out of this civil war might look quite different from the Islam that went into it, and there is going to be a whole lot of death and destruction in the meantime.

    Wilders is asking why should we have to suffer the Muslim civil war? Let them fight it out for themselves and leave us out of it. This sounds to me like very wise advise.

    In other words, they are both right. Pipes is right as an historian, and Wilders is right as a practical politician.

    • Perhaps we should remember John Stuart Mill’s argument in On Liberty, which is that change (in someone’s beliefs) can only be brought about by hearing other views being expressed – so if a full and open discussion of Islamic doctrines and practices ist vertoben, then the necessary change will not happen.

    • Sorry, Haim, no sale. Down through its 1400 year history, for the most part the only times when islam has been at relative peace with the Infidel are when muslims are weak and the Infidel is strong, as has been the case for the past several hundred years. Of course, over the past 40-odd years we have seen a resurgence of true (i.e., militant) islam as their financial power has skyrocketed with the influx of trillions of $ from the sale of oil to the West. In behaving peacefully when weak, muslims are merely following the example of mohammed, who entered into the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah with his enemies, who were relatively stronger at the time. Several years later, after muslim forces gained sufficient strength, mohammed unilaterally broke the treaty and resumed his bellicose ways.

      As for your suggestion that a new, peaceful islam might emerge after the smoke from the muslim civil wars has cleared, puhleeze. If islam ever works out its internal squabbles (almost certainly through bloodshed rather than reconciliation), muslims will then turn their destructive energies on the Infidel. Of that there can be no doubt because the quran commands it.

      You write that “Wilders is asking why should we have to suffer the Muslim civil war? ” No, he’s not. His concern is not protecting the West from muslims’ internecine conflict, but protecting the West from islam itself. In a past life I think you were Sam Grant.

      • History is much more understood when the principles of hudna temporary truces/ceasefires/ which is closer to an appeasement, so time is allowed to build up resources for another attack, to maintain the faith of hatred to the enemy

        Following the terrorist attacks on the United States of 11 September 2001, a group of prominent Muslims wrote a letter to Americans saying that Islam is a tolerant religion that seeks to coexist with others.

        Bin Laden castigated them, saying: “As to the relationship between Muslims and infidels, this is summarised by the Most High’s Word: ‘We renounce you. Enmity and hate shall forever reign between us – till you believe in Allah alone’ [Quran 60:4]. So there is an enmity, evidenced by fierce hostility from the heart. And this fierce hostility – that is battle – ceases only if the infidel submits to the authority of Islam, or if his blood is forbidden from being shed [a dhimmi – a non-Muslim subject living as a “second-class” citizen in an Islamic state in accordance to Quran 9:29], or if Muslims are at that point in time weak and incapable [a circumstance under which taqiyya applies]. But if the hate at any time extinguishes from the heart, this is great apostasy! Such, then, is the basis and foundation of the relationship between the infidel and the Muslim. Battle, animosity and hatred, directed from the Muslim to the infidel, is the foundation of our religion. And we consider this a justice and kindness to them.”

        So that is how a hudna is suppose to work, and maintain the hate in your heart, so that you can be kind.
        You can never be a true muslim if you allow any change in your heart, as this means there is a fitna (temptations, decadence) that leads to apostasy.

        From the 4 schools of jurisprudence;- Penalty of apostasy, ranges from instant death, to a chance of being recalled to submitting to allah’s demands, which means that you must do your duty in becoming allah’s slave, unquestionably.

        That is why fitna which if allowed, would be the downfall of islam and so is pursued rigorously and desperately by faithful, dutiful muslims.

        Al-Qaradawi says that apostasy – Muslims leaving Islam – is a grave danger to the Muslim community and that it is the duty of all Muslims “is to combat apostasy in all its forms and where from it comes, giving it no chance to pervade in the Muslim world”……….

        ……..In February 2013, on an episode of Shariah and Life show, which broadcast on Al-Jazeera, Qaradawi stated since the 15th century, the application of the death penalty for those who leave Islam is a necessity, stating, “If they had gotten rid of the apostasy punishment Islam wouldn’t exist today.” Qaradwai also cited several speeches and writings by Muhammad and his followers, such as Surah Al-Ma’idah 5:33, which Qaradawi quoted as “The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His apostle is that they should be murdered or crucified.” Qaradawi further explained, “… many hadiths, not only one or two, but many, narrated by a number of Muhammad’s companions state that any apostate should be killed. Ibn ‘Abbas’s hadith: ‘Kill whoever changes his faith [from Islam].’


        An interesting character to pin down, as he often seems contradictory, as he stated that, perhaps a lapsed muslim was allowed, then was supposed to be not noticeable, though I think depending on his audience and what message he wanted to leave them.
        Always hate is kindness, always contradictory; yet notice by their actions what is really the truth.

  6. Let us consider the hypothetical situation that Muslims at present living in the West, accepted the call to clean up their communities of extremism. They even went further and made the changes in their teachings of the Koran and the jihad. That is, they made Daniel Pipe’s assertion come true. Such an outcome would no doubt come as a relief to many on this site, the government, the MSM, and elsewhere. But I counter, that all such changes were being done merely to protect the Ummah while it grows at ever-increasing pace in the West via a high birth rate and family re-unification . Once a near majority is achieved, that future generation of Muslims will simply revoke any changes, and return to the traditions of the unchanging and unchangeable Koran i.e., the canonical texts of Islam that cannot be changed, but only protected when under duress (Taqqiya). That future generation of Muslims in the Western world, will even praise this generation of Muslims for having done what was necessary to protect Islam.

    Therefore, from a practical viewpoint, a “reformed” Islam sometime in the future, is meaningless as far as our survival as historic Western nations are concerned.

    • You are right DP111, as all part of hudna and taqqiya, are tools to be used.

      It is a cult, and one of the measures that I use of a cult is how relatively easily is it to leave, and how afterwards what the main body does as in trying to affect your life.

      It is more than just banishment or ignoring you.

      It is the hold on your mind and body and actively becomes like “pointing bones” at you or a cursing (an extension of mind control), or giving you bad messages, going through the range to the point of detaining you, to torture physical or mind, hostages, blackmail which terror becomes very pronounced to actively killing you.

      Yes you are right that it may ease off, but at a later time, move to bring in all the levers, nothing is limited, as it is classed as a natural war by its very political being, so it can use in bringing it’s adherents to the one true islam for the supposed peace.

      Also islam is a political ideology, so it would only be a fine tuning of its manifesto, as a political party does, to gain votes, then once the numbers are in, then back to their real agenda. Just look at the Trojan horses, moderates and innocents and the slaughter when communism took hold in Russia, Nazism in Germany, Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran, Mao in China, as they all started following their already written manifestos. “Moderates” “Lapsed” and “easy going” plus any opponents were all swallowed up and “became grist for their bloody mills”.

      In the mean time the west’s social welfare systems, many muslims will feel they are owed the benefit/jizya, and so also help keep islam ticking along, even if there is a bit of fitna and moderation. There will be mosques to build, schools to be built, teachers and imans to be trained, of course all moderately.
      Then there is effect on education, judiciary, government departments, immigration controls, prisons, security, police, armed forces, etc. will all be infiltrated so more easily to be re-powered in the name of allah for a latter time.

      You are right DP111 as you and I have the knowledge of “the 2% then… 4% then ….10% then and so on” is known in the mosques, then success would be more assured if muslims can just relax back a bit, and not get ahead of them selves, until the real numbers are over whelming.

      The risk of ”fitna” ( temptation and decadence) leading to apostasy. I think be easily kept under control, as it will be in their own groups and politics where a bit of infidel applied taxes, pc and mc jobs will be the sweetner,

      Still it can be seen ( that though the jury may be out for present day ISIS), they have in the past whipped Iran back into shape. Afghanistan also, until the Americans slowed down the Taliban effect. Pakistan is well down the track and that will flow onto India, which Islam was doing ok until the British arrived.

      I actually believe like you that they will become more canny and skilled, as although they have got in deep in Western systems, they only need to just bide a bit more time, so that blow back as we may awaken will not happen and then it if any we will be too little and too late. The more time they hold back the more sure they will win, and gain control of their own too.

      It is a political ideaology, that we are unaware of, as we must take note how it is just not a religion of the poor.

      We will never know where they will come from
      Just notice how Osama bin laden was a wealthy man,
      Then 3 (intelligent?) doctors that attempted the London car bombings and Glasgow air port attack in 2007.
      The well paid and educated army doctor at army base Fort Hood shootings.
      The failed underwear bomber came from one of the wealthiest families in Nigeria, where his father was chairman of the First Bank of Nigeria, studying in University College London he resided in a pricey £4 million ($7 million) apartment.

      Still we must take the opportunity of the moment,as the general public has become aware of something, and very curious of just what is driving such things as ISIS. The truth of Mohammad must come out, how abrogation works and defining the medinan verses and meccan verses, then the tafsir from the hadiths and sira.

      Thank you also DP111 as over the years I have read many of your comments elsewhere too.
      Thanks to Baron and Dymphna and may this “enlightenment” of truth shine through the world

  7. Pipes agrees that the Muslim problem has become worse, but advocates just sitting back to see if it will become more moderate, doing nothing in the meantime.
    The equivalent of your veterinarian telling you “Yes, your dog has become rabid, but if we do nothing and just wait, it may become less rabid.
    Western civilization is doomed if we follow the “Feel Good” path of people like Mr. Pipes.

  8. Simpleton

    Thank you for your kind words.

    You wrote: Still we must take the opportunity of the moment,as the general public has become aware of something, and very curious of just what is driving such things as ISIS. The truth of Mohammad must come out, how abrogation works and defining the medinan verses and meccan verses, then the tafsir from the hadiths and sira.

    We do have an opportunity of the moment. In terms of historic time, 50 years is but a moment, and that is all we have. For the last 13 years, post 9/11, blogs have spent considerable effort in educating the public on the nature of the enemy we have in our midst. Do you have any ideas how we can take advantage of this moment, apart from the excellent work of this blog and others like it? Is there something we can do, but missed?

    • DP111 —

      I’ll horn in here.

      There is plenty that can be done, and much of it is already underway. Most of what is happening cannot be written up here or in any other public forum, but it is indeed happening.

      If all we were doing at this blog were fulminating and bloviating, there wouldn’t be much point to paying all the expenses associated with it, now, would there?

        • It is with thanks to Baron and Dymphna dedication, to be able to draw on these resources, and for me in learning a lot of background philosophy, of understanding my own thinking and thoughts, about our civilizations.

          The other part is as you are DP111 in supporting with your good comments so they can keep heart with their efforts, and B&D even go to higher action levels, knowing they are getting a grass roots feeling as well to bounce and tease out where to aim for the best effect, short term and long term.

          Ok, what can we do, First it is like my self and you already, begin commenting, first like baby steps, on blogs thanks to B&D and others forbearance, It helps us to get a real grasp of the truth, particularly of the koran and then sira and hadiths, and so establish, and be able to say what we know.

          That knowledge that gives truth, gives us confidence, and that is powerful.
          Not long ago I was at a dinner table of a dozen people that a discussion came up about world’s happenings with terrorism. A fair share of liberal people. I drew back from some that wanted to “slam dunk” all muslims, and a lot of argument with multi culture type, debate and multi conversations.
          At a certain point , as best as I could, sort of the cuff, drawing on the koran, about the chronological order and abrogation, and comparing old and new testament, (there were some Christians and nor did I want to preach to them) I realized that everybody was listening to what I was saying, even though I was talking passionately, and answering their questions from all round the table.
          Afterwards being surprised to be the centre of constructive debate, I realized they were hungry to know what? and how? drives muslim thinking. Sure they know of said “radicals” = bad. As you and I know if I may presume , that it is a difficulty of defining good and bad muslims and in whose eyes, . That part is not essential and is really for another time.
          It was they who wanted to know what was islam, and were very surprised when I kept relating to the koran and how it was to be read.
          The overall tone of questions to me, was not disparaging, but can that be right?, is that for real? where did you get that from? that can not be right? Islam was great for the knowledge that they gave to Europe, etc. and Crusaders did this and that.
          For me I did not want to get involved with the politics of right and wrong, left or right politics, but just the bare truth from the koran that shows Mohammad for what he really was and for them to figure the rights and wrongs.
          Later queries to me seems to be back on the basis of what made the koran and mohammad, so it seems that is the right track, as also you and I seem to be.
          The group was for an engagement party of well wishers, and it was a good mixed age, the parents and older relatives and plus the younger peers of bride and groom, that will be looking to the future.

          Then to comment on more general blogs, in particular, keeping it concise and succinct (I fear my weak point) and then with links, as close to the truth as the koran, hadiths and sira, and wikipedia. ( a sort of neutral source, trusted by liberals)

          I do not know of any simple answer and like you wish to do more. Where it comes up , I have always mentioned what I know, and now looking to polish and sharpen it, particularly to go out into other general forums, and staying with koran sira and hadiths.

          I am sadly more than aware of the march through the institutions, even the effects on my society, and the lone fighters against it.
          http://tinyurl.com/lag5xzk a teacher college trainee’s experience of cultural change that does parallel the main topic of this blog.

          I think like you I wonder how to do “more”, what will it cost me? just time? physical? finances? security? job? assets? family?, and how to “more”? so as to get the best bang for your buck.
          Nor do I want to be just an “arm chair general”, but the steps of a journey start with the first step, the first mile.
          I fear I going into a philosophy so will stop now, as there is plenty of good philosophy to support and motivate one on this blog.

          I do relate to Winston Churchill, and his thinking, and through any errors of his time and mistakes he may have made, he did what he could from what knowledge he had, and lived with it.

          Above all we must guard “free speech” and challenge on the ideas/arguements.

          • Simpleton

            You are courageous indeed. I would not dare to open such a conversation in a dinner party, as my good wife would be looking at me, as wives look at you, for hogging the conversation, and much else besides.

            But still, good stuff.

  9. When I saw this at the Daily Caller:

    Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber said that lack of transparency was a major part of getting Obamacare passed because “the stupidity of the American voter” would have killed the law if more people knew what was in it.

    I came back here to compare it to your quotes about abrogation beginning with

    The law was laid down … gradually and in stages. The aim was to bring a society steeped in immorality to observe the highest standards of morality. This could not be done abruptly. It was done in stages, and doing so necessitated repeal and abrogation of certain laws.

    What connects the proponents of each scheme is their mutual 1) reliance on dishonesty and 2)derision for their victims.

    When the EU insists on tolerating Islamic immigrant excess while cracking down and native self defense to those excesses, it would be wise to remember this mutual affinity the two have for each other. When the tactics of one tyrant are so similar to those of the other, the victims must be forgiven for noticing and then complaining that there’s little difference which tyrant is demanding their enslavement.

  10. Simpleton, Baron

    The last 50 years has seen militant atheism, and its cousins, Marxism and liberalism, advance in our societies to an extent, that the faith that founded Western civilisation, is marginalised, and confined to within church walls. Even the priests avow PC ideas.

    God ordained morality is now regarded as mere bunkum, to be laughed at. But a spiritual vacuum can never stay as it is. We now see how unprepared we are to face a politically inspired militant and violent religion, that makes clear its intent. We have no tools to oppose it. Even when we speak the truth about Islam, we are likely at best, laughed at, or at worst, imprisoned, such as Tommy Robinson or Paul Weston. What had changed in the last 50 years was the landscape of the West. The PC liberals have shot themselves and us, and their weapons of ridicule, so useful on Western man, have no effect on Islam and its followers.

    Alexander Solzhenitsyn, a visionary, saw this coming for the West as well.

    Men Have Forgotten God – Alexander Solzhenitsyn


    Simpleton spoke of of the “opportunity of the moment”. I see the opportunity of the moment, cynical though it may sound, the horrendous persecution of Christians in the entire Islamic world. This persecution is hidden from view by a thoroughly corrupt, and possibly blind MSM.

    A few weeks ago, we had an invited speaker from “Open Doors” – an organisation that tries to alleviate, in a small manner, the suffering of Christians worldwide. What I had failed to do in several years, telling the truth about Islam, was achieved in less then 20 minutes. The congregation was galvanized into action by the speaker. In humility and love, he achieved what I could never hope.

    My efforts failed, as I spoke in a language that the mindset of the people would not accept. The geo-political landscape would not let my words be translated in the minds of the hearers. They had been conditioned by 50 years of relentless propaganda, to accept only liberal PC views, spoken in a PC manner.

    For those who are not taking an active part in groups such Counter-Jihad, but would still like to do something – invite people from Open Doors, Barnabus Fund, or equivalent organisations in America, to your church. Bit by bit, we have to change this landscape. This is how Christianity grew, not by conquest or big action programs, but one individual by individual, until Caeser realised that the political landscape had changed under his feet, while he was looking at the horizon. If we start this process and pray, then God will not leave us. The rest, I hope and pray, will follow.

    Thank you Baron and Dymphna for allowing me to post.

Comments are closed.