Leaving Islam




U.S. leadership  considers the U.S. Fatwa a victory for the U.S. in the ideas aspect of the world war.   Notably, the President can rely on  U.S. Muslims.  They would be bound  by the U.S.   Fatwa. U.S. Muslims would  thus join U.S. Christians and Jews in defending against any criminal Muslims who attack American civilians with  future terrorism and extremism.  Circumstances of the U.S. Fatwa peace effort  frame the two parallel universes.





July 7, 2005, was the genesis of the U.S. Fatwa. The present war’s WIFront commandoes then achieved a great and bloody victory against British enemies just 21 days  before birth of the U.S. Fatwa.  It had been  the destructive Germans 67 years earlier.  After Prime Minister Chamberlain’s optimism had then been dashed by reality, London was bombed.  Muslim terrorists were the first to re-bomb London in the new world war.  The bombers  were  home-grown WIFront  commandoes.  They  slaughtered scores of enemy civilians on trains and a bus.  [10]   The British promptly cracked down.  New laws and regulations restricted Muslims. The U.K. ’s Islamic brotherhood were then seen as facilitating radical World Islamic Front aggression against the U.K. ’s Christians and other  non-Muslims.


 July 15, 2005, found  U.S. Muslims properly deciding to distance themselves from the U.K. slaughter.    They took notice of  the oppressive new British policing of Muslims.  U.S. Muslim leadership were prudent.  They decided to announce opposition to  such extremist Muslim terrorists as the subway and bus-attack commandoes.  The U.S. Fatwa announcement would be one prompted by the WIFront’s dramatic  victory in London .  The world war was four years old.  U.S. Muslim leadership had not, since the dramatic U.S. defeat on September 11, 2001,  issued any fatwa against WIFront aggression.   They and everyone now know that such opposition to Muslim terrorists is dangerous.  U.S. Muslim leaders yet decided to be prudent and patriotic as well.  They would disclaim Islamic responsibility for London ’s bloody attacks.


July 28, 2005, was publication date.  The U.S. Muslims’ courageous Fiqh Council of North America   thus went public.  They published to television network-level news coverage  their  U.S. Fatwa Against Terrorism. Fatwas against terrorism and extremism can provoke retaliation from the terrorists. Unbeknownst to the pro-peace Muslim leaders,  however,  the WIFront literalists  curiously would not harm them for their ideas-war support to the U.S. enemy.

The Muslim Fiqh Council could not have known this.  Hence, the Fiqh Council must be considered courageous.  Fortunately, no agents of the radical WIFront have reportedly killed  any of the forthright U.S. Fatwa jurists. 


September 2, 2005, was the day of the U.S. President’s first publicized  involvement with the U.S Fatwa.    The prominent  Islamic Council of North America (the ICNA) soon convened.  Their site was in the U.S. heartland  in Rosemont , Illinois . The ICNA’s Muslims  “had invited [U.S. President] Bush to attend its national convention,”  but he had “sent Hughes…recently confirmed [by the U.S. Senate] as [ U.S. ] undersecretary [of State].”  [11] 


September 2nd was 37 days after the President had received and analyzed the U.S. Fatwa.  At just one page, the U.S. Fatwa in English is easy to read. The President and his  envoy to the ICNA had their own copies in English of the Qur’an.  Muslim booksellers have flooded the U.S. with English translations.   [12]


As the President’s personal envoy in Illinois ,  Karen Hughes  thus spoke for the President.  She faced  the gathering’s assembled newspaper and radio-television reporters.  She publicly spoke  to the courageous, pro-peace U.S. Muslim leadership.  Mrs. Hughes for the President soon proclaimed to confused non-Muslim Americans.   The U.S. Fatwa, she announced,  “says there is no justification in Islam for terrorism.”  She properly praised ICNA leaders.  She lauded them as “credible voices…of Muslims.”   Ambassador Hughes also made a promise.  She  would  “help amplify” the U.S. Islamic Council. A voice against terrorism is what she justly called the ICNA.  Print, radio and television news of her September 2nd statements were transmitted to Americans and to the world at war.  Such as Sheik Bin Laden surely received the news with great interest. 


September 9, 2005, is when the U.S. Ambassador to Islam was formally sworn.   On September 9th,  President Bush swore in his “friend and confidante” Karen Hughes.  [13]  She became “Undersecretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs and Ambassador.”  Her audience was to be the Islamic brotherhood.  She was to convince the world’s 1.2 billion Muslims, or some of them, not to become terrorists and Islamic extremists. The President restated his confidence in his Texas friend and confidante.  New Ambassador Hughes, he assured Americans,  is  a woman with a “brilliant mind.”   Were quiet smiles on faces and muted laughter in the air?  News of the  political and Muslim diplomatic achievement was received by WIFront cadres.  They were and remain in U.S. cells and scattered world-wide.  Despite this pro-peace U.S. Fatwa, the WIFront and other radical, extremist terrorists since  (a) have not obeyed the U.S. Fatwa, instead continuing to be terroristic and to be extremist, and (b)  they would have discredited the 2005 Fatwa and perverted the pro-peace objectives of U.S. leadership.


The U.S. Fatwa had yet drawn  the U.S. President and his envoy into reading the Qur’an.  Their sight was and remains inattentive.   There is the Muslim Saudi Arabian obligation.  A U.S.   President must not read their Qur’an literally.  Does oil and Muslim money demand this?  Important meanings, in this war, were missed in the readings by the President and his personal envoy.   Below, these meanings are recalled.




In these times, one may write of differing mindsets.  Parallel universes are another concept.  Such a frame of reference is wireless.  Parallel universes are familiar, even to non-intellectual television devotees.  Even older fans are well trained to recognize parallel universes.  They have studied  televised lessons from  Twilight Zone and the Outer Limits.   Two parallel, different universes are seen in this case of the U.S. Fatwa. 


The U.S. Fiqh Council, and the radical World Islamic Front, are in different parallel universes.  However, the WIFront are engaged in lethal warfare in their universe.  The U.S. President, in the case of the U.S. Fatwa, is shown to be in the parallel universe occupied by the U.S. Muslims’ Fiqh Council.  The President and his Ambassador to the Islamic brotherhood do not  think as do the leaders, foot-soldiers and homicide martyrs in the WIFront universe. 


A disconnection between the two universes is shown, dramatically, in the remainder of this chapter.  U.S. leadership believes the Qur’an eschews terrorism and extremism.  The President joins hands with the U.S. Muslims to believe this crucial fact.  Through his envoy, the President instructed U.S. citizens, as Ambassador Hughes put it on September 2, 2005, that “there is no justification in Islam for terrorism.”  This is the U.S. President’s belief.  The foot-soldiers and homicide martyrs of the WIFront are in the other universe.  They read the same Qur’an that the President can read.   However, they read the literal meanings of the words in the sacred text.  The U.S. President does not believe the literal words.  Sheik Bin Laden, a literalist as to the Qur’an and a terrorist and extremist, would advise Americans to believe him, not the President or the scholarly and patriotic Muslims who wrote the 2005 Fatwa.  Osama would argue that misinformation is at work.  Independent  analysts agree with Sheik Bin Laden[14]                 





The literate non-Muslim world can know exactly how Islam’s bellicose Prophet Muhammad reasoned.  His words are recorded in English translations in the Ahadith.  These are various books containing Muhammad’s laws and guidance to Muslims.  Muslim leaders actively discourage non-Muslims reading of the Ahadith and of the Qur’an.   [15]


Yet just as a non-Muslim can read the Ahadith, a non-Muslim can understand Sheik Bin Laden’s reasoning as to the Qur’an.   Osama’s writings and reasoning are availed Internet-free  and are in books.  [16]   WIFront leaders are literal readers of the Qur’an.  [17]  They are very different from such as  pro-peace U.S. Muslims, as Irshad Manji has stated. 


“…Literalism is a commitment to strict exactness of words or meanings in reading or interpretation. Every religion has its share of literalists. But the difference is that only in Islam,  today,  literalism is mainstream.

“We Muslims, even here in the West, believe that because the Koran comes after the Torah and the Bible, it is therefore the final and perfect manifesto of God's will. Even moderate Muslims will say to one another that the Koran is not like any other holy book.

 “It’s like a God 3.0 and there shall be nothing after it. It’s a dangerous supremacy complex, because when abuse happens under the banner of religion most Muslims, included those with University degrees, have no clue how to challenge Islam. They don't have to think and critical thinking skills need not apply. We were never able to question the Koran.”   [18]


WIFront propagandists, as literalists, would particularly direct their propaganda to a billion Muslims in the Islamic brotherhood who do not speak English.  Sheik Bin Laden and other leaders of the WIFront are skilled in cutting-edge Internet communication.  The U.S Army War College concludes as follows on this point.


“…Islamists constantly point out on their PR-oriented websites…their efforts…to distract [the U.S. ] from the business of stabilization [in Iraq and Afghanistan ]  and test public confidence in… the ‘will of the people,’ whether in the United States or Iraq ….”  [19]


By the Internet, they would communicate to the Islamic brotherhood.  They would convince the brotherhood that the U.S. Fatwa shows that U.S. leadership is usefully misinformed.  Sheik Bin Laden’s reasoning would follow the steps below.


back     next  > 





Articles Op-ed Authors Debates Leaving Islam FAQ
Comments Library Gallery Video Clips Books Sina's Challenge

  ©  copyright You may translate and publish the articles in this site only if you provide a link to the original page.