Is Islam a Religion?
Part 1, Chapter 1
The [Muslim Brotherhood] must understand that their work in America is a kind of Grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within, and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers.
Islam wishes to destroy all States and Governments anywhere on the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology and program of Islam regardless of the country or the Nation which rules it. The purpose of Islam is to set up a State on the basis of its own ideology and program … Islam requires the earth—not just a portion, but the whole planet.
—Abul A’la Maududi
Non-believers or atheists in Muslim countries do not have “the right to life”; all the major law schools, whether Sunni or Shia, agree that they are to be killed … Slavery is recognized as legitimate in the Koran. Muslim men are allowed to cohabit with any of their female slaves, and they are allowed to take possession even of married female slaves.
Ever since the religion of Mahomet [Islam] appeared in the world, the espousers of it … have been as wolves and tigers to all other nations, rending and tearing all that fell into their merciless paws, and grinding them with their iron teeth … that many countries, which were once as the garden of God, are now a desolate wilderness; and that so many once numerous and powerful nations are vanished from the earth! Such was, and is at this day, the rage, the fury, the revenge, of these destroyers of human-kind.
Muslims are the first victims of Islam. Many times I have observed in my travels in the Orient that fanaticism comes from a small number of dangerous men who maintain the others in the practice of religion by terror. To liberate the Muslim from his religion is the best service one can render him.
Islam was not a torch, as has been claimed, but an extinguisher. Conceived in a barbarous brain for the use of a barbarous people, it was—and it remains—incapable of adapting itself to civilization .Wherever it has dominated, it has broken the impulse towards progress and checked the evolution of society.
And whoever seeks a religion other than Islam [submission to Allah], it will never be accepted of him.
Can any system of faith be rightly called a religion when it is clearly intent on the conversion, enslavement, or murder of everyone who holds different beliefs? All other globally recognized religions today accept, in practice at least, the right of all faiths to coexist peacefully with others. As any glance at the news will reveal, Islam alone does not recognize that right.
Islam does not qualify as a philosophy, either. Philosophy means the love of wisdom, as gained through free and rational inquiry into the nature of things. Islam, as even its followers readily insist, means submission to the will of Allah—and in particular to that will as it was revealed to and interpreted by the Prophet Muhammad. Rational inquiry doesn’t enter into it.
If Islam is neither a religion nor a philosophy, what is it? The answer provided by this book is that Islam is above all a militant, imperialist ideology of Arab supremacy. Its agenda is world conquest. For 1,400 years its goal has been the same: the establishment of a global caliphate and the conversion, enslavement, and humbling of the people of the world.
In its relentless pursuit of this goal, Islam has caused death and suffering on a massive scale. One conservative estimate of the non-Muslims killed in the cause of Islamic jihad puts the number at 270 million—a number which the Nazis and Communists combined could not reach. Approximately 23% of the global population today is subjugated to Islamic rule. Under Sharia law, the threat of death hangs over anyone who dares to question or leave Islam. A recent clerical ruling in Saudi Arabia reaffirmed this subjugation, and extended it further to include any who dare to call themselves atheists. Vast numbers of people in Islamic countries are impoverished and uneducated; according to the New York Times, nearly 60% cannot read and write.
In its 1,400-year campaign for world domination, Islam has invaded and laid waste to proud and thriving civilizations. The Islamic Republic of Iran was once the great nation of Persia, renowned throughout the East for the beauty and attainments of its culture. The Persian city of Ctesiphon was at one time the largest city in the world and the home of a vast library of priceless manuscripts. In 637, Ctesiphon was overrun by Islamic hordes which destroyed the manuscripts and depopulated the city. Today, its former glories are all but forgotten.
Grand and romantic Egypt was ruled by pharaohs for over 3,000 years and served as the breadbasket of the Roman Empire for centuries. Mark the Evangelist established the Christian Patriarchate of Alexandria as early as AD 42. Under the Byzantine Empire, Egypt was still primarily Coptic Christian until Muslims invaded and ransacked the country, beginning in 639. Inhabitants were subjected to the discriminatory Islamic tax (jizya) on unbelievers to enforce obedience and conversion. Today, Egypt is over 90 percent Muslim and wracked by revolutions and sectarian violence.
The Islamic state of Pakistan was once Hindu land, home to the Indus Valley civilization. Its inhabitants formerly prized wisdom and practiced the arts of non-violence. Today, Pakistan is a fragmented nation, a training ground and hideout for Islamic terrorists, and one of the primary centers for the teaching and export of Sharia law.
Afghanistan was once Hindu and Buddhist, with a history stretching back as far as 3,000 years before Christ. It was the home of the legendary scholar Panini, who has been called the father of linguistics. The Islamic hordes turned toward Afghanistan after their conquest of Persia, and by 870 they had decimated and subjected the Hindus and Buddhists, destroying their temples or converting them into squalid command posts. Forced to convert to Islam or die, the population gave in. Today, Afghanistan’s chief exports are heroin and terrorism.
Turkey was formerly a Christian and Hellenic nation. Northern Africa was once part of a bustling and bright Mediterranean civilization. Like the others, these nations too collapsed in the face of Islamic encroachment. Some civilizations were conquered by military force; others were deceived by fraudulent religious claims and welcomed the invaders only to discover the bitter truth too late. This pattern of conquest by force and fraud was established by Islam’s founder, Muhammad, and is even today the classic style of Islamic jihad.
MUHAMMAD—ISLAM’S WARLORD FOUNDER
Islam was founded by a seventh century Arabian general named Abū al-Qāsim Muhammad ibn Abd Allāh ibn Abd al-Muttalib ibn Hāshim. Today, we know him simply as “Muhammad.” He got his start as a caravan trader before experiencing visions at the age of 40 which induced him to become a prophet. His first years as a prophet were not particularly successful, providing him only with one or two hundred followers, mostly from the dregs of Meccan society. Muhammad achieved far greater success not as a street preacher but as a military commander.
Through caravan raids and kidnappings, Muhammad and his followers acquired wealth and influence. These achievements, together with his personal charisma, soon made him a power broker in central Arabia. Success followed success, as there were far more converts to be found for a war leader than for a mere prophet. Less than ten years after he first picked up the sword, Muhammad’s forces had conquered the Arabian Peninsula. The tribes of Arabia—formerly a mix of polytheistic Arabs, Christians, and Jews—had either submitted to the new Islamic hegemony, or been subjected to exile, slavery, or death.
When Muhammad’s actions are compared with those of the other great religious leaders, there are noticeable differences. Jesus did not lead raids against Roman trade caravans, nor did he condemn anyone to torture and death. Instead, his followers believe he endured these things himself for the sake of human salvation. Likewise, there is no record of the Buddha, or Confucius, or Lao Tzu, or Socrates robbing and killing merchants or burning crops. None of them ordered whole tribes to be beheaded or enslaved. Yet Muhammad did all these things and more.
Through metaphysics—the part of Islam which does resemble other religions—Muhammad accomplished what other mere military commanders could not. He found a way for his empire to persist after his death. But the notable thing about Islam’s metaphysics is that in itself it is hardly new. Much of it was actually taken from existing religious and cultural traditions. Allah was the name of a pagan god who had a well-established cult of worshippers long before Muhammad’s time. Muhammad’s own grandfather provided water for the pilgrims who came to visit Allah’s shrine, known as the Kaaba, in Mecca. Stories told by the various Jewish and Christian tribes living in Arabia in Muhammad’s time can also be found woven into the Qur’an. Muhammad would then claim that Allah was actually Yahweh (or vice versa), and that this was the god who had begun talking to him—not directly, of course, but through another supernatural creature borrowed from Judeo-Christian tradition, the archangel Gabriel.
Even many of the rituals and rites of Islam are borrowed from pagans, Christians, and Jews. One of the Pillars of Islam, the five most basic requirements of all Muslims, is the Hajj (pilgrimage to Mecca). In one of the hadith, the stories of Muhammad’s life which are accepted as true and religiously binding, an early Muslim follower complains to Muhammad about the pagan origins of the Hajj. After this complaint was lodged, the story goes, a new verse of the Qur’an was revealed to Muhammad, assuring Muslims that the pagan practices of the Hajj were completely acceptable. In another hadith, Muhammad’s wife Aisha explains how the fasting on the day of Ashura was a pagan ritual which Muhammad kept, but made voluntary.
Most Western scholars agree that Muhammad borrowed words and phrases from other traditions for the Qur’an. Words such as injil (derived from gospel), taurat (Torah), and Iblis (Devil) appear in the Qur’an though they are not of Arabic origin. Scholars also agree that there are numerous stories and teachings borrowed from the many religious traditions existing in Arabia in Muhammad’s time. Most of the borrowings, however, are likely to have come from oral traditions, stories told by merchants around the oasis before Muhammad and his men came for them. Muhammad most likely did not read the Old Testament to learn about the story of Noah (called “Nuh” in the Qur’an), but instead heard stories about him which he weaved into Qur’anic verses.
Religions have borrowed from one another before, but with Muhammad the borrowing reaches a new level. It was even noticed by Muhammad’s contemporaries and included in the Qur’an itself: “And they say: “Tales of the ancients, which he [Muhammad] has caused to be written: and they are dictated before him morning and evening.” Muhammad denies the claim that he is merely copying “tales of the ancients,” but scholars are not convinced. His “borrowing” is even more troubling given that he used his claims to divine agency as justification to kill or enslave pagans, Jews, and Christians alike.
ISLAMIC CLAIMS TO TRUTH AND COMPETITION WITH SECULARISM
Despite overwhelming evidence of extensive Quranic borrowing from Jewish and Christian religious texts and traditions, Muslims from Muhammad on down have long maintained that the Qur’an was divinely revealed to Muhammad alone. Furthermore, they claim that the revelation to Muhammad is the final revelation of God to man, and is thus the last word on all issues. Because the revelation comes from God, it is infallible and immutable.
Dr. Shabbir Akhtar, a Muslim and philosopher at the University of Oxford, in his 2008 book The Qur’an and the Secular Mind expresses what can be called the orthodox traditionalism Muslim opinion on this topic:
Normative Islam’s self-estimate as climactic and ultimate (Q:45:6),
a meta-religion revealed to correct and perfect all religious as such,
dictates its attitudes towards change and towards rival faiths. The
scripture is self-described as the final revelation (Q:7:185), a
protector-guarantor (al-muhaymin) of all revelation (Q:5:48), and
a confirmation of previous revelations (Q:3:3), a finality that
corresponds to Muhammad’s status as the seal of all prophecy
(Q:333:40) … By implication, the Quran authorizes Muslims
to view Islam, once it has appeared on the historical plane, as
complete, as the culmination of religion. No crucial new
development is hidden in the womb of Islam’s future.
Furthermore, Islam is not only the final revelation, it is the one true religion, as Akhtar explains:
The Quran conceives of Islam not merely as another religion
among religions but rather as the decisive religion, a meta-
religion (al-din), a self-image that was bound to encourage
universal expansion. The word al-din occurs only in the
singular and with the definite article in the Quran since there
is only one true religion (the plural adyan) never occurs).
The implications of Akhtar’s statements here are profound and revealing. Not only does Islam understand itself as the final word, and the only true word when it comes to religion—this understanding is at the heart of its drive to dominate and destroy all other religions. Although Islam may acknowledge some partial and imperfect truth in Judaism and Christianity, the scriptures of which Islam has certainly borrowed from, only the Qur’an and Islam are completely true. In addition, this attitude makes Islam incredibly hostile and resistant to any attempts at change or accommodation of other viewpoints. There are no “new developments” to look for, as Dr. Akhtar says:
Islam’s self-image as meta-religion explains the Muslim
decision to confront rather than accommodate secularism.
[Both] Islam and secularism compete to be considered the
culmination of history … the last rung on the historical
Islam’s response to the changes and challenges of modernity, in other words, is to demand a return to 7th century Arabia. This view is not merely Dr. Akhtar’s, but has been the orthodox Muslim approach since Muhammad’s time. Again, Dr. Akhtar provides insight into the struggle this approach creates in the minds of thoughtful people:
Reflective modern believers cannot ignore the tension
between the accumulated weight of tradition and the
immediacy of the present moment. Many Muslims want
to achieve co-existence with the secular world but they
refuse to disown problematic parts of the Quran. Why
do they hesitate to make this sacrifice at the altar of
secularism when other religious believers, with equally
proud inflexible attitudes sustained by huge deposits of
traditional faith, have gradually genuflected to the
infant god of secularism? The main reason is that
Muslims see themselves, from the earliest times, as
alone in carrying the torch of pristine monotheism …
The second reason is rooted in the traditional tendency
to condemn all religious innovation (bid’ah) as
heretical. The Quran interdicts hypothetical
speculation and speculative curiosity in religious
doctrine and practical religious conduct (Q:17:36;
In other words, the traditional attitude of Islam is to believe that Islam alone is the truth and resist all efforts to alter or change that truth in any way.
However sympathetic one may be to the traditionalist point of view, we must ask whether the attitude Dr. Akhtar describes is justified, rational, and supportable in the modern world. Dr. Akhtar himself admits that “no religious tradition can avoid ossification or death if its frozen or arrested in time.” He recommends a vision of Islam which is open to modernity and confronts secularism without taking refuge in dogmatic traditionalism. At the same time, he admits that that Islam tends to become frozen in time, unable to respond to the needs of a changing world. This has been a recurrent problem with Islamic thought, one which has been noted by its critics from the beginning. In his 1904 book Religion, its Origin and Forms, John Arnott MacCulloch observes:
More than any other religion Islam has shown itself unable
to develop from within an to adapt itself to the varying
needs of successive ages. The absolute authority of the
Quran is the cause why, as [William Gifford] Palgrave
says, “Islam is lifeless, and, because lifeless, cannot grow,
cannot advance, cannot change, and was never intended
to do so.”
DEMOGRAPHIC CONQUEST—ESTABLISHING A STATE WITHIN A STATE
Unable to coexist with other religions, Islam’s approach has always been to conquer them. Where it cannot conquer all at once, it seeks instead to establish a token presence—a toehold or foothold from which a different approach can be taken. The favored strategy here is called demographic conquest, the time tested and approved approach when direct military attack is infeasible.
Demographic conquest begins with the establishment of a de facto state within a state. It is a small enclave of Muslims run according to Islamic law within which the number of Muslims is increased by steady breeding rather than by conversion or slaughter. Over time, the number of Muslims comes to overtake the original host citizenry. This is how Kashmir, and many other Indian regions, were turned from Hinduism to Islam. And it is how the Muslim Brotherhood hopes to establish an Islamic state in the United States, as their own documents describe:
Establishment [means]: That Islam turns into firmly-rooted
organizations on whose bases civilization, structure and
testimony are built … Rooting [means]: That Islam is
resident and not a passing thing, or rooted ‘entrenched’ in
the soil of the spot where it moves not, a strange plant to it.
The Islamic “plant” described here sounds like the parasitic Strangler Fig. The Strangler likewise attaches itself to a host tree, then grows along with it until finally the Strangler chokes all the life out of the host plant. The host dies and falls away, leaving only the Strangler standing in the rough shape of its original host.
This strategy originated with Muhammad himself. During Islam’s earliest years in Mecca, he was a minor annoyance—going to the temple to rave like a lunatic, insult the pagan gods, ridicule the locals’ religious beliefs, and engage in arguments. His behavior was so bizarre the Meccans largely dismissed him as a madman, at one point asking the city elders to find help for this man whom they regarded as possessed with a foul spirit. Afraid that the Meccans might seek to kill him, Muhammad fled and hid in the nearby hills for three days. He then decamped for Medina with about 70 followers. In Medina, Muhammad took root like a Strangler Fig, making himself useful and even necessary as a power broker among the different factions in the city. Over time he built up wealth and power through this activity (and caravan raids), eventually turning his small band of followers into a potent military and political force. That done, he one by one destroyed or exiled the previously existing powers of Medina and took sole control of the city.
DO ALL MUSLIMS BELONG TO A SINGLE NATION?
The Muslim world is loosely held together through the concept of the ummah, an Arabic word which means ‘nation’. The idea is that all Muslims are truly members of this nation and no other. The Islamic Constitution of Iran contains an explicit statement of this basic idea, declaring that “all Muslims form a single nation.” This notion discourages Muslims from assimilating into other nations, encouraging them instead to see themselves as a people apart.
The creation of the ummah dates back to December 11, 629 AD. On that day, Muhammad and an army of 10,000 men stormed the gates of Mecca, overthrew the government, and occupied the city. Dressed in his military garb, Muhammad walked to the Kaaba and delivered a famous speech to both the vanquishers and the vanquished:
Every claim of privilege, whether that of blood or property,
is abolished … I reject all claims relating to life and property
and all imaginary honors of the past, and declare them to be
baseless … A Muslim is the brother of another Muslim and
all the Muslims are brothers or one another and constitute
one hand as against the non-Muslims. The blood of every
one of them is equal to that of others and even the smallest
among them can make a promise on behalf of others.
These words inaugurated a new social and political system based on submission to the revealed will of Allah. They bound all of Muhammad’s new subjects into a single nation united against all those who had not yet submitted to Allah. Muhammad concluded his speech by destroying the idols and religious art that had previously existed around the Kaaba.
The supremacist nation Muhammad established that day, based in stolen superstition and ancient mysticism, still exists. It still seeks to invade the cities of the world, pronounce its new brotherhood, and destroy the existing social and political orders. Like its founder, this nation has nothing but contempt for man’s law or geopolitical boundaries. It does not measure its territory using maps. Instead, it exists as a transnational body of more than one and a half billion people, many of them impoverished and illiterate. Each member of this ummah has sworn slavish devotion to the nation and its leaders. Many will follow its orders without question, including orders to kill unbelievers or to die on behalf of Islam.
THE QUR’AN AS POLITICAL MANIFESTO
The Qur’an is a political document. Whatever claims the text might make about itself, the way it actually functions in the lives of its followers is the decisive point. That function is supremely political. Islam holds up the Qur’an as the source and final authority on all law, all politics, all human interaction, and all acceptable behavior. Not only that, but Islam insists that the Qur’an is the supreme authority not only for Muslims but for every human being on earth. Any other political document must be subjugated to the Qur’an. The United States Constitution claims its authority derives from “we the people.” Islam cannot accept this. The authority of the people is nothing compared to the ultimate authority of Allah.
The Qur’an and the sayings and practices of Muhammad (collected in the Hadith) form the basis of many Islamic governments, such as those of Saudi Arabia Iran, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and both Iraq and Afghanistan (following the U.S. occupation). All these countries establish Islam as the state religion, and most of them recognize Sharia as their supreme law.
Some Muslim countries are nominally democratic, but the conception of democracy in Islam is radically different from western notions. Secularism, which is viewed as an integral part of most western democracies, is viewed with suspicion and hostility by Islamic cultures. Any democratic or secular idea must be subordinated to Islamic dogma. Popular will is placed under the correction and guidance of Islamic clerics, who ensure that that will remains in conformity with Islamic orthodoxy. Democracy as it is commonly understood requires freedom of thought and freedom of speech—both of which are anathema to the Qur’an. It is not democratic will but the will of Allah which governs in Islamic countries. Properly speaking, it is the 7th century dictates of Muhammad, the founder of Islam, which govern Islam.
THE MEDIEVAL CODE OF SHARIA
Wherever the Qur’an becomes the basis of government, laws are enforced and administered according to the medieval code of justice known as Sharia. There is no completely written canon of Sharia law, no one text which comprises the sum total of what Muslims mean by the word. Instead, it is more of a patchwork of ad hoc laws, collected over centuries, and interpreted according to the whims of Islamic officials and clerics. Essentially, it is whatever Islamic judges, jurists, scholars, dictators, monarch, ayatollahs, secret police, and terrorists decide that it is in each individual case. There is no consensus among either Muslims or non-Muslims as to what Sharia is in terms of where it begins, where it ends, where or when it should be applied, where or when it cannot be applied or on how to apply it. In other words, it is a rather vague term.
Because of this vagueness, Muslims will often deny that they are actively seeking to implement Sharia law in any particular country or jurisdiction. Instead, they resort to the subterfuge that they seek only “free exercise of religion.” They will persist in these claims right up to the point where Sharia is being enforced in secular courts, as has already happened in England. Once this door is opened, it is only a matter of time until Sharia in its totality is recognized and written into the constitution. Once this happens, Sharia can be used to justify anything from laws to hang homosexuals and requiring Islamic prayers.
The truth, however, is that Sharia is not completely vague and arbitrary. There is broad agreement among Muslims concerning many of the core principles of Sharia, and these principles are universally accepted and practiced by Muslims. Confusingly, these principles are not always explicitly called or recognized as Sharia. But they do exist. For example, mandating that the government may not make a law contrary to the established provisions of Islam is a principle of Sharia. This principle is even enshrined in the current constitutions of both Iraq and Afghanistan.
Many of Sharia’s principles are directly contrary to the fundamental premises of the U.S. Constitution and its Bill of Rights. In practice, Sharia recognizes Islam as the one true religion, and even in those Islamic countries where other religions are allowed to be practiced, Islam remains under special protection due to this status. Therefore, First Amendment protections of freedom of religion are simply impossible in Sharia. Sharia contradicts Eight Amendment protections against cruel and unusual punishments by permitting 7th century stoning and torture. Even the fundamental Constitutional assumption that “we the people” have come together to form a more perfect union is contradicted in Sharia, which gives the people no authority to go against the will of Allah.
A MODERATE ISLAM?
Many westerners stubbornly cling to the idea that Islam only needs to be guided by “moderate” voices in its communities. Their reasoning presupposes that Islam is a peaceful religion which has only been hijacked by a vocal and militant minority of extremists. While such notions may be comforting and politically expedient to pronounce, they are based on a complete misunderstanding of the nature of Islam. There is only one Islam, not a moderate and a radical one.
The truth about Islam must be found in its three authoritative scriptural sources. These are the Qur’an, the Hadith, and the Sira (which are authorized biographies of Muhammad’s life). The first of these is the most fundamental and well-known in the West. The Hadith and Sira are massive collections of biographies, stories, and sayings which were derived from oral traditions. They contain vast stores of information about what Muhammad said and did in various situations. They are also considered religiously valid, though they include everything from how to wage war to Muhammad’s prescription for an upset stomach.
There are many disagreements among Muslims concerning these three sources. Some Hadiths are considered more authoritative than others. Some biographies are more authentic than others. Some Islamic scholars do not distinguish between Hadith and Sira and refer to the entire collection as the Sunnah. Some consider the Sunnah to refer only to the biographies. Some say the Sunnah is only the sayings and stories. These varying opinions are significant because the Qur’an is only one source of authoritative information about Islam—and not even the largest source.
As the Center for Political Islam points out:
You probably think that the Quran is the bible of Islam. Not true.
The bible of Islam is the Quran, the Sira and the Hadith; these
three texts can be called the Trilogy … The Quran is a small part,
only 14% of the total words, of the doctrine that is Islam. The
text devoted to the Sunna (Sira and Hadith) is 86% of the total
textual doctrine of Islam. Islam is 14% Allah and 86%
Within Islam, a Muslim is one who follows or attempts to follow the rules and way of life laid out in the Trilogy. For guidance as to how to act and what to believe, Muhammad is considered the supreme teacher and exemplar. While there are dilettante Muslims who pass themselves off as moderates because they perform the basic rituals (sometimes known as the Five Pillars), these are not what people in the Islamic world understand as Muslims. Real Muslims are those who understand Islam and practice it in the way it was practiced by Muhammad. Real Muslims are always accorded greater religious authority among the common people than moderate dilettantes. It is the real Muslims who fill the news daily with stories of violence, threats, riots, and all the rest. What moderate Muslims practice is not authoritative because it goes against what is prescribed by the three authoritative texts which define Islam. In sum, there is only one Islam, not an Islam with moderate and radical varieties.
TWO RADICALLY DIFFERENT PATHS
Today, a large part of the world follows the path of freedom and individual rights. People are free to follow and practice their religion, but there is a separation between church and state which is accepted on both sides. People are allowed full scope to express and create beauty through art, literature, and music. Ideas are debated, even fiercely contested, but for the most part no one is killed or sentenced to die for a belief.
Since Islam’s inception, its goals have been markedly different. The individual is expected to submit to the state. The express goal of the Islamic religion is the subjection of every man, woman, and child on earth to the way of life proscribed by its founder in the 7th century. Under Islam, no one is free to create. Certain forms of expression, such as personal depictions of Muhammad, are forbidden; others, such as music and dancing, are severely restricted. Some ideas may be debated, but Islam and its founder are not up for debate—in many places, trying to question either can get you killed.
Clearly, the goals of Islam are radically opposed and contradictory to the goals of humanity. This is why Muslims believe themselves to be engaged in a life-or-death struggle with an implacable enemy. Since co-existence is not their aim, if they continue not to accept the notion of reform the rest of the world must join to stop their advance before, one by one, they consume us all.
 Muslim Brotherhood, “An Explanatory Memorandum,” 21.
 Maududi, “Jihad in Islam.”
 Warraq, “The Two Faces of Feisal Rauf.”
 Wesley, The Works of John Wesley Volume 12: Doctrinal and Controversial Treatises, 186.
 Quoted in Roelle, Islam’s Mandate: A Tribute to Jihad, 454.
 Servier, Islam and the Psychology of the Musulman.
 Warner, “Tears of Islam.”
 Churchill, “Saudi Arabia’s New Law Defines Atheism As Terrorism.”
 Haqqani, “Muslims: Scant cause for respect.”
 See Axworthy, A History of Iran: Empire of the Mind, op. cit.
 Alon, “Dhimma,” 703-4.
 Ibn Ishaq, 341-2.
 Sahih al-Bukhari 2:26:710, and compare Qur’an 2:158.
 Sahih al-Bukhari 5:58:172.
 See Shamoun, “Muhammad the Borrower Still!”
 Qur’an 25:5.
 Akhtar, The Quran and the Secular Mind, 43-44.
 Ibid, 44.
 Ibid, 45.
 Ibid, 48.
 Quoted in Masuzawa, The Invention of World Religions, 197.
 Muslim Brotherhood, “An Explanatory Memorandum,” 19.
 Iran Const. art. XI.
 Quoted in Subhani, The Message.
 Warner, Sharia Law for Non-Muslims.