On January 7th Jihad Watch published my article titled “93% of Muslim Public Officials Would Not Express Support for the Constitution They Swore to Uphold.”[1] This article was a result of a survey of four questions I had sent to eighty Muslim public officials across the United States. With each of the four questions the Muslim public officials were presented with scenarios and asked to choose between the United States Constitution and American laws, or Islamic Doctrine. The results were dismaying because although each of the eighty had taken an oath of office that included swearing to support that Constitution, only six Muslim public officials would specifically state that they supported that Constitution and American laws over Islam Doctrine.
As the results from that survey were coming in, I thought it would be interesting to present the same type of questions to some of the prominent Muslims who have been publicly aspiring to reform Islam. Such aspiring reformers are found both in the United States and in Canada. Their reformation goals seem to focus on making the religion of Islam more compatible with modern times and Western laws and values.
For the American Muslim reformers I used the same questions I had sent to the eighty Muslim public officials. For the Canadian Muslim reformers, I used three questions that involved the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and one question that involved the 1833 Act for the Abolition of Slavery throughout the British Colonies.[2]
If the goals of these Muslim reformers actually are what they are claimed to be, then in theory one would think that there would unanimous support among these reformers for the Western laws of their respective countries over Islamic Doctrine. Unfortunately, the reality turned out to be quite different.
American Muslim Reformers
There are a number of aspiring Muslim reformers in the United States. I chose the following seven:
Qanta Ahmad
Soraya M. Deen
Mike Ghouse
Zuhdi Jasser
Rabia Kazan
Asra Nomani
Shireen Qudosi
On January 1st I sent the following e-mail to the each of the above listed American Muslim reformers:
Since you are a Muslim who has expressed concerns about some of the current teachings found in Islamic Doctrine, I am interested in your responses to each of the following questions:
No. 1: Will you go on record now and state that our 1st Amendment right to freedom of speech gives the right to anyone in the United States to criticize or disagree with your prophet Muhammad, and will you also go on record now and state that you support and defend anyone’s right to criticize or disagree with your prophet Muhammad, and that you condemn anyone who threatens death or physical harm to another person who is exercising that right?
No. 2: Our 1st Amendment guarantees freedom of religion in the United States. As part of that freedom, anyone in the United States has the right to join or leave any religion, or have no religion at all. Will you go on record now and state that you support and defend the idea that in the United States a Muslim has not only the freedom to leave Islam, but to do so without fear of physical harm, and will you also go on record now and state that you condemn anyone who threatens physical harm to a Muslim who is exercising that freedom?
No. 3: According to the words of Allah found in Koran 5:38 and the teachings of your prophet Muhammad, amputation of a hand is an acceptable punishment for theft. But our U.S. Constitution, which consists of man-made laws, has the 8th Amendment that prohibits cruel and unusual punishment such as this. Do you agree with Allah and your prophet Muhammad that amputation of a hand is an acceptable punishment for theft in the United States, or do you believe that our man-made laws prohibiting such punishments are true laws and are to be followed instead of this 7th Century command of Allah and teaching of Muhammad?
No. 4: According to the words of Allah found in Koran 4:3, Muslim men are allowed, but not required, to be married to up to four wives. Being married to more than one wife in the United States is illegal according to our man-made bigamy laws. Do you agree with Allah that it is legal for a Muslim man in the United States to be married to more than one woman, or do you believe that our man-made laws prohibiting bigamy are true laws and are to be followed instead of this 7th Century command of Allah?
I look forward to your responses.
Soraya Deen and Asra Nomani soon responded. They individually addressed each of the four questions and unambiguously expressed their support for the U.S. Constitution and American law over Islamic Doctrine in all four questions.
Having received no other responses, on January 8th I sent the above e-mail again to each of the five who had not responded. That same day I received a response from Zuhdi Jasser.
Zuhdi Jasser: Over the years Zuhdi Jasser and I have had numerous public disagreements about the nature of Islam. Here is his reply to my January 8th e-mail:
Steve- your reporting on our reform work in the past has been far less than objective and far less than professional fit only for the NYT. This quiz out of left field (after years of your false reporting on our work) is obvious anyways to any honest broker with regards to what my answers would be if you look at the body of my (our) work. But God only knows what the malign intent is of your quiz so no i [sic] will not engage with you on this after your track record with us.
Regardless I believe Asra answered you what our answers would be providing you far more courtesy than you deserve apparently not knowing who you were and all the ignorant damage you’ve tried to inflict on our work in the past few years. I’ve copied…so you don’t misrepresent my response.
good day. [sic]
Later that same day I replied, asking Jasser to provide the “facts” to support his libelous claim that I had falsely reported on his work. With regard to the four questions, I looked at some of his “work” and found:
- Criticizing Muhammad: Jasser was on record as stating that everyone had a right to criticize “Islam.” I pointed this out and asked him if he was also then willing to specifically state that everyone had the right to disagree with and/or criticize his prophet Muhammad, and would he condemn anyone who threatened death or physical harm to another person who was exercising that right?
- The Right of Muslim Americans to Leave Islam: Jasser was on record as supporting the right of individuals to have a religion or not have a religion; he also believed that apostasy was not a crime. I pointed this out and asked him if he would then specifically support and defend the idea that in the United States a Muslim had not only the freedom to leave Islam, but to do so without fear of physical harm, and to also go on record and state that he would condemn anyone who threatened physical harm to a Muslim who was exercising that freedom?
- Amputation for Theft: Jasser was on record as stating that this punishment “may be reinterpreted as a metaphoric severing from society.” I pointed this out, stating that it may be interpreted that way, or it may be interpreted literally. I then asked him if he believed that our man-made laws prohibiting such punishments were true laws and were to be followed instead of this 7th Century command of Allah and teaching of Muhammad, regardless of how it was interpreted?
- Muslim Men can have up to Four Wives: Jasser was on record as stating that all of his “Muslim friends” (and by inference Jasser too) considered this verse of the Koran to apply only to the 7th Century. I pointed this out and stated that it therefore would be very easy for him to state that our man-made laws prohibiting bigamy are true laws and are to be followed instead of this 7th Century command of Allah.
I did not receive a reply from Jasser. Although I did discover that at some point he had blocked me from his Twitter account.
Shireen Qudosi: The second time I sent the e-mail to Qudosi it could not be delivered. So I decided to contact Qudosi on her Twitter account. I was unable to do so because at some point she had blocked me from her account. I have not received any reply from Qudosi.
I have not received any replies from Qanta Ahmad, Mike Ghouse, or Rabia Kazan.
Canadian Muslim Reformers
There are Muslims in Canada who aspire to reform Islam. I chose these six:
Tarek Fatah
Tahir Gora
Hasan Mahmud
Raheel Raza
Sohail Raza
Salma Siddiqui
On January 1st and again on January 8th I sent the following e-mail to each of the above Canadian Muslim reformers:
Since you are a Canadian Muslim who has expressed concerns about some of the current teachings found in Islamic Doctrine, I am interested in your responses to each of the following questions:
No. 1: The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms consists of man-made laws. Section 2(a) of that Charter states: Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: freedom of conscience and religion. In the 1986 court case Edwards Books and Art Ltd. the Canadian Supreme Court noted that freedom of conscience included the right not to have a religious basis for one’s conduct. The Canadian Supreme Court also has ruled that Section 2(a) protects atheists, agnostics, and skeptics. Will you go on record now to support and defend the idea that under the man-made laws of Canada a Muslim in Canada has the freedom to leave Islam without fear of physical harm, and to also condemn anyone who threatens physical harm to a Muslim who is exercising that freedom?
No. 2: According to Koran 33:21 your prophet Muhammad is the timeless example and standard of conduct for Muslims and Koran 59:7 commands Muslims to obey him. Your prophet Muhammad said that beheading and crucifixion are acceptable punishments for Muslims who leave Islam. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom consists of man-made laws, and Section 12 of that Charter prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. Do you agree with your prophet Muhammad that beheading and crucifixion are acceptable punishments for Canadian Muslims who leave Islam, or do you believe that Canadian man-made laws prohibiting such punishments are true laws and are to be followed instead of this 7th Century teaching of Muhammad?
No. 3: According to the words of Allah found in Koran 5:38 and the teachings of your prophet Muhammad, amputation of a hand is an acceptable punishment for theft. But Section 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom, which consists of man-made laws, prohibits cruel and unusual punishment such as this. Do you agree with Allah and your prophet Muhammad that amputation of a hand is an acceptable punishment for theft in Canada, or do you believe that Canadian man-made laws prohibiting such punishments are true laws and are to be followed instead of this 7th Century command of Allah and teaching of Muhammad?
No. 4: According to Koran 33:21 your prophet Muhammad is the timeless example and standard of conduct for Muslims and Koran 59:7 commands Muslims to obey him. Your prophet Muhammad bought, sold, and possessed slaves, and allowed the Muslims around him to do the same. But in 1833, the Act for the Abolition of Slavery throughout the British Colonies, a man-made law, received royal assent and became law throughout the British Empire. Do you agree with your prophet Muhammad that Canadian Muslims are allowed to buy, sell, and possess slaves, or do you believe that the Canadian man-made law prohibiting slavery is a true law and is to be followed instead of this 7th Century teaching of Muhammad?
I look forward to your responses.
On January 8th Hasan Mahmud replied. He addressed each of the four questions and unambiguously expressed his support for the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and Canadian law over Islamic Doctrine in all four questions.
Salma Siddiqui: On January 8th I also received the following response from Salma Siddiqui:
I did receive your 1st message, choose [sic] not to respond! Your message was curt, no introduction and why you are approaching me?
I am on record as to where I stand, don’t [sic] need to be tested by you. If you choose to have decent dialogue, I am ready to engage? [sic]
That same day I replied:
I have written extensively about Islam over the years (six books and numerous articles and brochures) and think it is important for non-Muslims to get a better understanding of Islam.
I started out the e-mail explaining why I was contacting you. It would no doubt take many hours to research your positions on particular issues, so I thought it would be easier to simply ask you for your position on these four specific questions.
I look forward to your responses.
I have not heard back from Siddiqui.
I have not received any replies from Tarek Fatah, Tahir Gora, Raheel Raza, or Sohail Raza.
Conclusion
We constantly hear from aspiring Muslim reformers the claims that their goals are to modernize the religion of Islam and make it more compatible with Western laws and values. Although there appears to be virtually no support for this in the Muslim American community,[3] it has nevertheless created an expectation among many non-Muslims that Islam is a religion that can be truly adapted to Western laws and values and consequently can join Christianity and Judaism as a religiously integral part of Western society.
With these claims of Muslim reformers in mind, one would think that all of these reformers would therefore have no qualms about choosing Western laws over Islamic Doctrine. Unfortunately, the reality is quite different. As we have seen, of the thirteen prominent Muslim reformers contacted, only three responded specifically stating that they supported Western laws over Islamic Doctrine in each of the four questions.
Zuhdi Jasser and Salma Siddiqui took the “check my record” approach. I went along with that approach for Jasser because I have written numerous articles about him and his understanding of Islam, and had those resources ready at hand. With Siddiqui I realized that, as I stated in my e-mail to her, it could take hours to research her positions. In contrast, any of these Muslim reformers should have been able to provide a definitive answer to each of these questions so there would be no doubt about the nature of their choices between Western laws and Islamic Doctrine. After all, if one’s “record” showed support for Western laws over Islamic Doctrine, answering so for each of the four questions would have been simple, left no room for ambiguity, and taken little time.
The fact that in addressing these four questions only three of the thirteen prominent Muslim reformers would go on record categorically supporting Western laws over Islamic Doctrine is rather curious. It makes one wonder if some of the ideas of reforming Islam are predicated on a certain amount of Western accommodation to certain unique aspects of Islamic Doctrine.
Dr. Stephen M. Kirby is the author of six books about Islam. His latest book is Islamic Doctrine versus the U.S. Constitution: The Dilemma for Muslim Public Officials.
[1] https://www.jihadwatch.org/2020/01/93-of-muslim-public-officials-would-not-express-support-for-the-constitution-they-swore-to-uphold
[2] The questions I used for the American and Canadian Muslim reformers are from Chapter 10 and the Appendix of my book, Islamic Doctrine versus the U.S. Constitution: The Dilemma for Muslim Public Officials (Washington D.C.: Center for Security Policy Press, 2019); https://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/2019/12/03/csp-press-releases-primer-on-islamic-doctrine-versus-the-u-s-constitution/.
[3] Stephen M. Kirby, “Muslim Reform Group Reached Out to 3,000 US Mosques, Got Only 40 Responses,” Jihad Watch, February 24, 2017, https://www.jihadwatch.org/2017/02/muslim-reform-group-reached-out-to-3000-us-mosques-got-only-40-responses.
CogitoErgoSum says
How can Islam be reformed if it is already “perfect?” The Koran itself says that it is perfect in verse 11:1: “Alif, Lam, Ra. [This is] a Book whose verses are perfected and then presented in detail from [one who is] Wise and Acquainted.”
Who else should Muslims use as the perfect example of a man but Muhammad. The “perfect” Koran tells Muslims this in verse 33:21: “There has certainly been for you in the Messenger of Allah an excellent pattern for anyone whose hope is in Allah and the Last Day and [who] remembers Allah often.”
So if Muslims wish to lead a life according to Allah’s wishes they should follow the words of the Koran and imitate the life of Muhammad. That seems easy enough to understand.
But most compelling of all regarding what Muslims should do to please Allah is contained in verse 9:29: “Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture – [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.”
Verse 9:29 makes it clear that Muslims are to FIGHT everyone who does not believe in Allah until everyone on Earth does believe or is humbled and pays the Jizya willingly. It says that whatever Allah considers lawful is to be made lawful and whatever Allah considers unlawful is to be made unlawful. All laws made by men must be in conformity with the words of the Koran. Fighting to make this happen is what Allah wants. This seems quite clear to me. Those who accept the Koran as perfect, who consider Muhammad to be the perfect example and who believe that all human beings are to obey Allah understand these things.
Muslims also understand that accomplishing what Allah wants is made more difficult if EVERYONE understands these things. Knowledge can be your weapon.
FYI says
if allah is so wise and his koran so “perfect”,perhaps muslims can explain to us the following..
1]Why is allah Theologically wrong?
in koran 5:116 the Theology of the Christian Doctrine of the Trinity is ludicrously misrepresented:apparently in islam,The Trinity consists of allah,Jesus and….. MARY.
But Mary is not part of the Trinity:what sort of god gets Theology wrong?
2]Why is allah so linguistically challenged?
allah can only write and be understood through Arabic
{Compare the Judeo-Christian God who knows and reveals Himself in ALL languages and thus is a universal God,not a silly parochial Arab god like allah}
“What!A FOREIGN TONGUE and an Arab?” koran 41:44 is a statement so parochial that it could only come from an Arab astonished at the idea that a fellow Arab could possibly know another language{and so the author of the koran is obviously an Arab}
3]allah says he gave the Gospel to Jesus koran 5:46 and at the time the koran was written down,confirms the Gospel as being TRUE koran 3:3
So,how then did allah completely miss the Golden Rule{Matthew 7 v 12}?
Why does the koran’s teachings violate God’s Commandments?
The denial of God’s Wisdom{the Holy Spirit} is the reason the koran is full of errors k4:171:imagine that allah wants you to think he is the same as the Biblical God and yet either has no idea of{or doesn’t want muslims to know about}the source of God’s Wisdom.
The truth is that the ‘perfect’ koran is an ARAB book,written by ARABS and for ARABS and we know a great deal of it was taken from Biblical/Jewish sources.
william carr says
A correction. For many centuries it was a crime punishable by death, usually burning alive, to publish translations of the bible into other languages. The bible could only be read in Latin, the official language of the former Holy Roman Empire. The biblical books had of course been translated from the original Hebrew via Greek into Latin. This involved mistranslations, misinterpretations and alterations. I believe it only became acceptable in to translate the bible the 17th century, though earlier attempts were made, notable John Wycliffe
FYI says
True.
Thanks for the Correction.
Which is why it always a good thing to see if it possible to read books yourself.In all religions{including historically in christianity},’holy’ men often have had a vested interest in NOT letting the people have access to what they consider their books.
So Latin was used to keep that distance.
{I’m no fan of religious hierarchies,usually repelled by them :consider that St Joan of Arc was murdered by a Bishop…did he not read the Gospel himself?}
What side would Jesus Christ be on?Wouldn’t Jesus want people to know the Gospel?
But the ‘holy’ men stood in the way just as today they do it in islam.
It was surely a good thing the Bible was translated into other languages.
CogitoErgoSum says
If the early Church leaders had wanted to keep the Bible from being read and understood by the public why did they bother to have it translated into Latin at all? The early translation of the Bible into Latin was called the Vulgate Bible. Vulgate refers to the speech of the common people and at the time Latin was more common than Greek and Hebrew in Europe. It seems to me Church leaders at first actually wanted the Bible to be more accessible to the common man but that became more difficult over time with the development of nation states and the evolution of various languages. Controlling translations of the Bible was more of an effort to keep the Bible from being mistranslated and not so much about keeping men from learning what it says.
BTW, until the 1960’s I could have gone anywhere in the world and understood the Roman Catholic Mass because it was celebrated in Latin but now it is said in the language of the local people – which I think decreases a feeling of unity in the Church. Strangely enough, that is something the early Church Fathers wanted – unity – in keeping with what Christ wanted.
gravenimage says
Note that you have to go back centuries to find this sort of moral equivalence.
Honest Ali says
The so called “reformers” are really just disinformation agents, perpetuating the Big Lie that Islam can be reformed. Their loyalty lies with Islam.
Savvy Kafir says
Most Muslim “reformers” are basically taqiyya artists, striving to put non-Muslims at ease so the Islamization of the West can proceed unhindered. And millions of hopeful, ill-informed infidels are eager to buy the BS these posers are selling.
PRCS says
“How can Islam be reformed if it is already “perfect?”
Bingo!
PRCS says
No. 3: According to the words of Allah found in Koran 5:38 and the teachings of your prophet Muhammad, amputation of a hand is an acceptable punishment for theft. But our U.S. Constitution, which consists of man-made laws, has the 8th Amendment that prohibits cruel and unusual punishment such as this. Do you agree with Allah and your prophet Muhammad that amputation of a hand is an acceptable punishment for theft in the United States, or do you believe that our man-made laws prohibiting such punishments are true laws and are to be followed instead of this 7th Century command of Allah and teaching of Muhammad?
A good question which doesn’t go far enough.
IMO, it should also be addressed to Muslim candidates for elected and appointed U.S. offices, in addition to the ‘reformers’ you noted, and should ask:
Where on the planet are Allah’s barbaric punishments morally acceptable to you?
gravenimage says
PRCS, Stephen Kirby did indeed place similar questions to Muslim elected officials–and most of them would not confirm that they supported the Constitution.
“93% of Muslim Public Officials Would Not Express Support for the Constitution They Swore to Uphold”
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2020/01/93-of-muslim-public-officials-would-not-express-support-for-the-constitution-they-swore-to-uphold
PRCS says
Nope.
“Where on the planet are Allah’s barbaric punishments morally acceptable to you?”
Westman says
Didn’t a reformer go on record to, “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s”? It seems quite likely that this famous person was not a reformer of Islam. It also seems the likely reason that Islamic nations are always in the rearview mirror.
Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY) says
A rabbi is asked what one should do when instructions from the government (Caesar) conflict with instructions from God. He answers, “If you should do what the government says, do that; if you should do what God says, do that.” What a weaselly, evasive, politician’s reply! It’s no more instructive than “Do the right thing.”
tim gallagher says
I agree with the other comments. I’m sure that even if Muslims did tell you that they would support our western laws as opposed Islam, they would definitely be lying. When it came to the crunch, they’d follow Islam’s barbarous garbage and not our western laws. And the point made by CogitoErgoSum, that this deeply flawed, evil ideology called Islam is “perfect” is the core of the problem. Islam’s the last word, god’s last revelation and all that crap. It is such a warped view that Muslims have to think this backward, barbaric ideology is “perfect”.
Wellington says
Tending to prove once again that the most insidious danger from Islam comes not from its most “enthusiastic’ followers but from that pseudo-category often referred to as “moderate Muslims.”
For further elucidation and confirmation of this hypothesis of mine I would suggest that one reflect upon the “worthiness” of “moderate KKK members,” “moderate Marxists,” “moderate anarchists,” ” moderate Neo-Nazis,” “moderate Antifa members,” “moderate Aryan Nation members,” et al.
Arguably, no greater breach of ethics is that of shilling for evil by making excuses for it. So called “moderate Muslims” in our time are at the “top of the pack” here. No doubt. No doubt whatsoever.
gravenimage says
Grimly true, Wellington.
James Lincoln says
Strongly agree gravenimage.
Cornelius says
I think we need to be cautious here. Qanta Ahmad for example has gone out of her way to support dialogue and friendship with Israel and Jews and has traveled to the Jewish state on more than one occasion. She also just recently vociferously denounced those American liberals who attacked Trump for killing Soleimeni. Her positions have engendered considerable hostility from Muslim extremists. It could be that others on the list are just as hospitable to the aims and aspirations of many here at Jihadwatch. Just because they chose not to respond to a specific query doesn’t make them fifth-columnists or taqiyya artists.
CogitoErgoSum says
Muhammad himself told his followers to look to the Koran for guidance after he was gone. He did not name a successor who had the power to change things. Muslims were to look to the Koran. The Koran has the final say on everything in Islam. No matter how hospitable a person may be to changing Islam it can not be done if the change contradicts the Koran. If Islam was “perfect” at the time of Muhammad, it is “perfect” today and “perfect” forever because the original Koran exists in Heaven safe from all tampering by men. To say differently would be calling Allah and Muhammad liars.
Islam is an all or nothing proposition when it comes to being “perfect.”
Wellington says
Seconded, CES. No wiggle room here.
Either Islam gets its way or freedom gets its way. Hoping or pretending otherwise, at best, only delays the final struggle between Mo’s creed and liberty.
Wellington says
But, Cornelius, such Muslims are still defending totalitarian rot. And the fact that they have to be in still free Western nations to assert what they state (which, frankly, is just covering for evil though I admit they don’t think so—but then who should rely upon any such person who is so confused?) itself speaks volumes.
I look upon Islam as the spiritual proto-type for secular Nazism. One preached a master race as Islam to this day still preaches a master faith. Just as one should never defend Nazi rot, so is it the case with Islam I would vigorously argue.
The “only option” is the discarding of Islam. Trying in any way to rescue it only gives further cover to the best disguised and longest lived evil ideology of all time.
No quarter asked. No quarter given. This is how Islam, all of it, should be treated.
eduardo odraude says
I agree with both your points: 1) Islam must be discarded, and any “reform” worthy of the name would be so thoroughgoing as to remove the very core of Islam: Muhammad; and 2) the reformers are not all liars. Many are just confused or self-deceived (recall Irshad Manji’s foolish claim that the Qur’an speaks not of virgins but of raisins. Recall how David Wood easily demolished that stupidity as a completely impossible interpretation.)
The claim that all Muslims are liars and are secretly supportive of Islamic totalitarianism is false. Many Muslims know relatively little about their own texts, according to David Wood. This seems like it may be esp. true of Muslims born and raised in the West and the esp. in the US.
But I think we can say that virtually all of the leadership of the Umma does indeed know about and support (if only sotto voce) Islamic totalitarianism.
gravenimage says
Agreed, Wellington and Eduardo.
gravenimage says
Cornelius–isn’t this the same sort of thing we hear regarding Muslims all the time–that we should not dare question them lest they become enraged and turn to waging Jihad terror?
rubiconcrest says
I for one agree with your sentiment. We have had this discussion many times on these pages between the absolutists and the democrats. There are cultural Muslims and faithful Muslims. We should be virtuous in defense of our hard fought liberties. We know that Islam stands in stark contrast to those liberties. To the extent that Muslims try to impose Islam’s corrupt ideas on others they should be opposed in every possible way.
Rarely says
There are lots of comments on how incompatible islam is (and must always be) with American laws and values. The commenters leave little room for peaceful coexistence.
Do these commenters view it as an impossibility for a devout muslim to live peacefully and be just as law abiding as a non-muslim — even when he didn’t agree with some of those laws?
Is it impossible for a devout muslim to sit on the bench of an American court?
Is it impossible to believe in polygamy but practice monogamy?
Are muslims inherently disloyal to the U.S,? Some commenters seem to think so.
Is it possible for a Christian who believes strongly in Judeo-Christian values to obey the laws of the muslim country he lives in? Wouldn’t you expect him to try to change those laws if he had the opportunity? Or is he inherently disloyal to that country?
Lots of arrows being fired but does anyone have a solution short of extraditing all the muslims in the U.S.? That has been suggested more than once by commenters on this site.
eduardo odraude says
Extraditing? I don’t think that is the word you are looking for.
For those who are already citizens, there is no solution. That is a done deal, except perhaps if the US gets hit by a jihad attack that is, say, at least 3 times as large as 9/11.
What can be done is to have a moratorium on immigration — not of Muslims, but from any nation that does not protect freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Such a policy would not even need to mention Muslims, and it would not merely exclude immigration from most Muslim nations, but also from China and even from parts of Europe.. The policy could make exceptions, of course, for oppressed minorities who support freedom and perhaps for scientists. And since the policy would not mention any particular ethnic or religious group, it would not be politically impossible. It would not only help secure freedom in the US. It would also put salutary pressure on authoritarian nations to start protecting freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
eduardo odraude says
Rarely,
Do you think peaceful coexistence with a large Muslim population is possible? I’d say Robert Spencer has experienced otherwise, since he needs bodyguards just to go places and speak. And he is just the tip of the iceberg. Think of all the people who self-censor about Islam, in part out of fear that their criticisms will become public and they will have a target on their backs perhaps for the rest of their lives. Think of what happens to all those who publicly criticize Islam. I’m not talking about leftist slander now. I’m talking about the need for heightened security. So, yes, with some Muslims peaceful coexistence is possible, but large Muslim populations always entail an erosion of free speech, because such populations always have within them a substantial percentage ready to do violence against anyone who publicly criticizes Islam. Have you noticed that France is enjoying peaceful coexistence with the large population of Muslims there? I’ve noticed that France has become much more of a security-state than it used to be, and that serious and massive terror attacks happen there with a certain regularity. Remember Charlie Hebdo and the massacre of journalists there who had made cartoons about Islam and Muhammad? Remember the French academic who suggested that part of France be ceded to Islamists, because he thought no rapprochement was possible? The Muslims with whom peaceful coexistence is possible are for the most part the non-devout Muslims or the Muslims who know and care relatively little about their own core texts. Also Muslims when they are still but a small part of a population and are therefore too weak to impose their will. Western Europe in the coming years will tell us the answer to your question. I think peaceful coexistence of a kind may be possible in some parts of Europe, but only at the expense of an erosion of Western civil liberties and a compromise with the sharia ethos. We are already seeing that compromise in some of the cities of Europe where Muslims are in the majority.
eduardo odraude says
To be clear, I was implying in my 8:06 pm comment that peaceful coexistence with a large Muslim population is not really possible, no, not unless one compromises with the violent authoritarian ethos of Islam. But such a compromise should not really be called “peaceful coexistence,” should it.
Rufolino says
Parallel situation occurred in 1940.
Hitler wanted what he called “peaceful co-existence” with Britain. Churchill pointed to the truth: this meant submission.
Churchill’s genius was to enable the population to see the truth, and to mobilise them in opposition to it when almost no one else was ready to do it.
Few Western politicians in power today are willing to stand up like this.
gravenimage says
It took a while, Rufolino–Churchill had been attacked as hysterical and even a “warmonger” for years for pointing out the danger of Fascism.
gravenimage says
+1
gravenimage says
Rarely wrote:
There are lots of comments on how incompatible islam is (and must always be) with American laws and values. The commenters leave little room for peaceful coexistence.
………………………….
Wait–noticing that Islam is incompatible with civilized laws and values leaves little room for peaceful coexistence? Don’t you think that Islam *itself* leaves little room for peaceful coexistence? Why are you blaming the ‘filthy Infidels’?
What do you consider compatible with civilized values about any of the things Stephen Kirby brings up? Crushing freedom of speech with Islamic blasphemy laws? The death penalty for leaving Islam? Amputating the limbs of petty thieves? Stoning rape victims to death?
Will allowing any of these horrors in our own civilized lands add to peaceful coexistence? How about slaughtering the Infidels wherever you find them?
More:
Do these commenters view it as an impossibility for a devout muslim to live peacefully and be just as law abiding as a non-muslim — even when he didn’t agree with some of those laws?
………………………….
Note that all but one of these Muslim “reformers” refused to say that they rejected these core tenets of Islam–what is the chance that ordinary devout Muslims would do so?
More:
Is it impossible for a devout muslim to sit on the bench of an American court?
………………………….
If they are intent on replacing civilized American laws with the horrors of Shari’ah–as every orthodox Muslim must be–then how is this a good idea?
More:
Is it impossible to believe in polygamy but practice monogamy?
………………………….
Well, this is just absurd. Stephen Kirby himself notes that Muslims are not *required* to marry four women. But are you fine with Muslims encouraging its practice? If so, what about forced marriage? Child marriage? The “Triple Talaq” divorce for men only? Wife beating? “Honor Killing”? H9ow about keeping sex slaves? Why not?
More:
Are muslims inherently disloyal to the U.S,? Some commenters seem to think so.
………………………….
If they adhere to the tenets of their vicious creed they are. Only lax Muslims and virtual apostates are not. How can we identify which Muslims are bad Muslims? And what to do if they suddenly become more devout, as one sees on a regular precursor to Jihad terror? We see this here all the time.
More:
Is it possible for a Christian who believes strongly in Judeo-Christian values to obey the laws of the muslim country he lives in? Wouldn’t you expect him to try to change those laws if he had the opportunity? Or is he inherently disloyal to that country?
………………………….
Are you referring to dhimmis living under the Muslim heel? They have to obey such laws, on penalty of death, and are often targeted for persecution and murder anyway.
Comparing civilized laws to the barbarism of Shari’ah is quite disturbing.
More:
Lots of arrows being fired but does anyone have a solution short of extraditing all the muslims in the U.S.? That has been suggested more than once by commenters on this site.
………………………….
Stopping more Muslims from flooding into the US and the rest of the civilized West is actually a good thing–as is deporting Muslims, beginning with the worst Jihadists.
I notice that you do not offer a solution–save the implication that we ignore the savagery of Jihad and Shari’ah, and simply hope that some Muslims, at least, do not decide to practice them here.
CogitoErgoSum says
Rarely, you ask if a person who strongly believes in Judeo-Christian values would be expected to try to change the laws of the Muslim country in which he lives. Yes, I would expect that and the fact that most Muslim countries place limits on Christians’ and Jews’ participation in government indicates to me that Muslims think that too. Muslims are not supposed to view Christians and Jews as being equal to Muslims. Muslims, according to the Koran, are the best of people, and non-Muslims are vile and dirty creatures who may appear to be human but just aren’t quite as human as Muslims … so treating those people like dirt is good because it will make them want to become Muslims.
If many Muslims do not believe in treating other people like dirt, why do they follow Islam and defend it? Could it be that they do not want to be treated like dirt themselves if they leave Islam? I can’t say I admire people who think that way and no, I don’t want people like that in positions of authority in my country’s government.
gravenimage says
Another point–Jews and Christians are not waging violent Jihad in Muslim countries in order to impose Judeo-Christian laws on Muslims. But Muslims do this to impose Shari’ah law.
CogitoErgoSum says
No, Christians who fight back would be called Crusaders and branded racists, bigots and Islamophobes and treated like … guess what … dirt.
Wellington says
“Lots of arrows being fired but does anyone have a solution short of extraditing all the muslims {sic} in the U.S.?”
Yes, I do. Just expose Islam for the heinous ideology which it is, a mortal enemy of freedom most surely, and then let freedom take care of the rest, which would include ostracism of Islam and Muslims much as the KKK and KKK members, while still being free to spew its and their nonsense, are nevertheless ostracized and scorned.
We don’t need to extradite Muslims anymore than we need to extradite Marxists, anarchists, Neo-Nazis, KKK members, etc. (the exception being non-citizens who commit crimes). But what we do need to do is not pretend something is good when it most certainly isn’t. This would, of course, include not allowing for more Muslim immigration to America anymore than we allow self-professed Neo-Nazis, anarchists, Marxists, etc. to come here.
Once again, the Constitution is not a suicide pact but what is imperative is to properly identify inveterate enemies of freedom and thereafter, while still allowing such error to exist among us, proceed accordingly.
This is MY solution, Rarely. Your turn if you care.
James Lincoln says
Wellington,
Another excellent post, keep up the great work!
gravenimage says
Good post, Wellington.
gravenimage says
The Adventures of Asking Muslim Reformers to Categorically Choose between Western Laws and Islam
………………………..
Thank you so much for this, Mr. Kirby. We are always finding that “moderate” are often anything but. I have often wondered to what extent this is true with “reformers” as well.
That only one of these supposed reformers unequivocally affirmed civilized values is *very* disturbing.
mortimer says
Seconded. I also thank Mr. Kirby for exposing the duplicity of Muslim politicians.
They have all fled from him when put on the spot. This is a NOLO CONTENDERE … they express approval through silence. They already know that Islam is incompatible with ‘man-made’ legal systems. ‘Islam must dominate and is never dominated.’
Koran 9.33 “It is he (Allah) who has sent his Messenger (saw) with guidance and the DEEN of truth, in order for it to be dominant over all other DEENS, even though the Mushrikoon (wrong-worshipers) hate it.”
Note: a ‘deen’ is a ‘system of governance’, but ‘deen’ is often mistranslated as ‘religion’ in English, perhaps intentionally so that the dirty kufaar will not catch onto the threat in this verse.
gravenimage says
+1
Terry Gain says
A lot of thought and hard work must have been used to develop Stephen Kirby’s questions which are excellent. I too do not believe Islam can be reformed, for reasons stated by others. It is interesting that none of the people to whom Mr. Kirby wrote replied that Islam doesn’t need reform, as it is perfect. That is, after all, Islam’s official position. The reformers are apostates. Not that are honest enough to admit it.
James Lincoln says
Spot on Terry Gain !
Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY) says
These questions were not composed by a skillful deposition lawyer. One questions asks, “Will you go on record now and state that you support and defend the idea that in the United States a Muslim has not only the freedom to leave Islam, but to do so without fear of physical harm?” This is not a question about preferences, but about actual social conditions. In my opinion, a Muslim who leaves Islam cannot do so without fear of physical harm from an enthusiastic jihadi, so the correct answer is No. (Notice that the question speaks of “freedom”, not “right”.) I would not participate in this poorly worded survey.
Terry Gain says
Mark Spahn
As someone who was praised by his colleagues for his cross-examination skills I couldn’t disagree with you more. The questions are excellent and offer an opportunity for the people being questioned to reveal themselves. And their answers, whatever they are, can’t disturb the truthful premises underlying the questions.
gravenimage says
Agreed, Terry.
mortimer says
A key phrase in the US oath of allegiance reads, “I make this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion”.
Clearly, then, most Muslim politicians who take this oath have very real MENTAL RESERVATIONS and they are EVADING to admit their conflict in swearing allegiance to the secular,egalitarian principles of the US constitution.
Terry Gain says
Mortimer
You may be interested to know that Raymond Ibrahim has a new article on AWWB. (Let me know if you have a better acronym for the Loving And Hating Doctrine)
https://www.raymondibrahim.com/2020/01/17/hating-and-loving-for-islam/#respond
gravenimage says
+1
Patriotliz says
Thank you Mr. Kirby, I too was blocked by Dr. Mohamed Zuhdi Jasser on twitter. He supposedly says he’s in favor of freedom of speech but not when you challenge him about his fantasy of reforming Islam. Reformists can be dangerous if infidels listen to them and assume that there is a “kinder and gentler” form of Islam just because these particular Muslims say so. (They won’t specify that peaceful Islam only applied to Meccan Islam which was later abrogated when Muhammad then became the first Jihadist terrorist after his hijrah to Medina.) Even if the reformers say that they would put Constitutional law above Sharia…that doesn’t really amount to much…since they would be branded as heretics and have no influence among their Ummah. And so it goes…the never ending battle between Muslims which has been going on for 14 centuries along with the never-ending Islamic Mohammedan jihad against infidels.
Terry Gain says
Patriotliz
I am glad to see your criticism of Jasper. He gives the non-Muslims who listen to him a reassuring – but completely fallacious – version of Islam. This is why I have referred to him as the most dangerous Muslim in America. He has caused many to be deceived about Islam.
Giacomo Latta says
A day or two after 9-11 an enlightened local radio station where I lived in Canada sought the opinion of 17 imams from across the country concerning the slaughter of some 3300 innocents. Of the 17 only 2 replied that it was a terrible thing and worthy of condemnation. From the other 15 came the precise or approximate response, ”yes, that was a terrible thing, but the Israelis yadda yadda yadda.” For those of you who fear change, you should be happy to see that some things never change. If an imam ever sets his eyes on you, be worried. Very worried.
Terry Gain says
If a politician, such as Obama or Trudeau, embraces Islam be more worried. We have two enemies. Islam and Ourselves.
Carl A Goldberg says
No, NOT “ourselves”. The second enemy are the non-Moslems who favor Islam. THEY are not US, and I do not consider myself to be one of THEM.
janwog says
The 6 who agree to the American constitution, can be kept the others should be deported. With regard to Canadians, taqyia is the usual behaviour.
Terry Gain says
When I criticize Islam or Iran (and Joe Biden for his corruption) in the National Post, a former newspaper I am usually censored.
janwog says
Ask the question if Allah worshiped by Jihadists is the same as Allah of peaceful Muslim. In Jordan a caricaturist was condemned in believing that and let be executed by Islamists.
janwog says
Correction the caricaturist believed it was different but then he was killed, because there is no difference.
Carl A Goldberg says
These Moslems claim to be “Muslim reformers”, not ISLAMIC reformers! There is a big difference. ISLAM cannot be reformed, and any Moslem who dares to suggest it will lose his status as a Muslim according to standard Islamic law and practice. Muslims, as people, can be “reformed” in the sense that they can change their attitudes and behavior so as not to follow Islam the way Islam is supposed to be followed according to the Islamic religious authorities. That is why these “Muslim reformers” have a hard time publicly choosing between following Muhammad and following American or Canadian law. If they dare to deny Muhammad, they forfeit their right to call themselves Muslims.
Walter Sieruk says
The idea and quest to attempt have a “reformation of Islam” trying to do so is a waste of time and effort. This is because “reforming Islam” is not actually possible, it’s an action of futility. For It should be noted that Islam can’t be changed from violent and deadly to non –violent and peaceful because the very core essence of Islam is that of violence and killing. As found in the Quran 9:121, 5:33, 9:5, 111, 47:4. The very best that may be realistically hoped for would be a watered-down type of Islam is mild and non-violent.
This is in contrast to hard core Quran based Islam which is the violent and murderous Islam practice Muslim jihad terror organizations, as ISIS ,Al Qaeda , Hezbollah ,Hamas and so forth .
To put this in another way, the Bible informs its reader “What is crooked cannot be made straight, and what is lacking cannot be numbered.” Ecclesiastes 1 :15. [N.K.J.N.] Therefore this verse may be understood when applying it to the idea of folly of “reforming Islam” As in, “What is crooked cannot be made straight in. “The violent nature can’t be straightened to be made non-violent” and “what is lacking cannot be numbered” may be understood as “Such a violent and hate-filled religion is lacking in love and compassion and thus can’t be numbered or counted as a truly peaceful religion.”
staffsgt7 says
A few years back, after listening to a few of Jasser’s and another Canadian reformer whose name I cannot remember, debates with non-moslems , I came to the conclusion that these are tricksters. Taqiyya dribblers. They talk and talk and talk about their stuff with non-moslems but not with the moslem world. And they follow sharia just like other ‘moderate’ moslems (or moslems that are in a minority).
I don’t trust them.
Mike Ramirez says
Dr. Kirby, No real surprise regarding Zuhdi Jasser. I emailed a letter to him in 2018 asking how he actually plans to “reform Islam.” His response then was that he would not engage in the discussion. This is the Open Letter that I posted to Zuhdi Jasser:
A Question Regarding “A Battle for the Soul of Islam – An American Muslim Patriot’s Fight to Save His Faith” by M. Zuhdi Jasser
“Is Muslim Reform Possible?” An open response to Zuhdi Jasser
by Mike Ramirez, San Antonio, TX – September 17, 2018
With all due respect, Mr. Jasser, the only way that Islam can be reformed, worldwide, is to abrogate each and every verse from the Qur’an and each and every documented sayings and actions of Muhammad (Ahadith/Sunnah) that compel believers in Allah to hate, persecute and murder Jews, Christians, Atheists and Apostates.
Additionally, each and every account in the Qur’an and Ahadith promising that martyrs will be immediately rewarded with wide-eyed voluptuous women (virgins) in paradise also needs to be abrogated. These changes, however, would then bring Muhammad and Allah into question as to the “divine and perfected teachings” that Islam claims were revealed by the angel, Jibreel (Gabriel). Muslims would need to then accept and agree that Allah, Muhammad and Jibreel gave mankind the wrong information to live by as a code of conduct which is found in Sharia law. Any decision to abrogate, invalidate and strike Muhammad’s violent and sexually-motivated teachings from Islamic thought would automatically put the legitimacy of his prophet hood into question. Would One-Hundred Percent of Muslims be capable of coming to this conclusion? As long as the present teachings from the Quran and Sunnah remain intact and believed by fundamental Islamic scholars and taught in madrassas, Muhammad’s Islam will never be reformed.
Regarding the Christian Reformation: The New Testament teachings of Jesus Christ did not need to be reformed, literally. It was the reformation that took place in the attitude of church leaders who had gone astray from the Biblical principle of “Love God and Love Your Neighbor” and who had introduced heretical teachings that imposed religious control, fleeced the flock, and strayed from Biblical Truths and from the Spiritually Divine guidance of God’s Wisdom.
“Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits…”
(Matthew 7:15-16) King James Version (KJV)
And, no marvel: “For such people are false apostles, deceitful workers, masquerading as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. It is not surprising, then, if his servants also masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve…”
(2 Corinthians 11:13-15) New International Version (NIV)
Thank you,
Mike Ramirez
San Antonio, TX
Starman3000m@netscape.net
gravenimage says
Good letter, Mike! Not surprised that Jasser did not reply.