The Eradication of Islam:
A Response to JihadWatch.com
By Ali Sina
I sent my article “Fighting
Against a phantom” to Jihad Watch for publication. They declined.
Mr. Hugh Fitzgerald, one of the directors of that site brought up two
He said: “'any Muslim' and 'overnight'? I think too
much is claimed”.
He also said: I should remove the word
I already responded to the first point in “How
Much Islam is Responsible for Making Muslims Terrorists”. I
think this point is clear enough and does not require further
As for the second point I told them that my entire
site is about eradication and asked whether they are telling me to shut
down my site.
Mr. Robert Spencer responded:
Ali, most certainly not. Absolutely not. I
think I can safely speak for Hugh and say that both of us greatly
admire and support your work. The "eradication of Islam"
is problematic in my view because to American ears it may sound
genocidal. How can this eradication be affected?
You have said that I am in a fantasy world to
call for reformation in Islam, and I would agree with you if I
thought that that reformation could actually happen in any
significant way. I have called for reformation primarily to call
attention to the sources of the problem, which Americans continue to
ignore, and to call false "moderate Muslims" to account.
Also I don't see eradication as in the slightest practical or
possible. Neither choice, in sum, is realistic in important ways.
The governments of the world are never going to recognize Islam as
the problem and unite to stamp it out. And if they did, how would
they do it? What penalties would be levied for possession of the
Qur'an etc.? What punishments would be meted out? What prisons would
hold the resulting malefactors? How is it that there would be
"no bloodshed" when we see every day the fanatical
attachment some Muslims have to Islam?
These questions are meant only to explain why
Hugh thought, and I agreed, that we should not put up that article
at Jihad Watch. We have different audiences and different
approaches; we both do what we can to meet this enormous challenge
and to come to a viable solution, and I am grateful for your
generosity -- unfortunately rare in this field -- in making room for
approaches that may differ from your own in some ways. No, of course
we don't want you to remove your site. We want your site to grow and
prosper a thousandfold.
All the best
Later Hugh wrote:
“The word "eradicate" to most
Americans would sound not like "pulling up from the roots"
as is its etymological meaning, but to crush, destroy completely. It
sounds much too sinister. And does one "eradicate"
anything? Were the Nazis "eradicated"? Were the
Communists? No. They continue, but they have been reduced, by
constant vigilance, that must continue, to manageable
“Would not Ali Sina possibly allow those two
very slight changes - which are only to omit one word
("eradicate") and instead of calling all Muslims capable
overnight of becoming terrorists, simply phrase it differently, as I
I thought I publish our exchanges since obviously
there is a huge amount of misunderstandings that needs to be clarified. If
people like Hugh and Robert who, as they say, are familiar with my site
are so much confused about my goals and what the real message of FFI is,
then there is certainly something seriously wrong in the way I have
I have already clarified the role of Islam in making
Muslims terrorists. I am not sure whether Hugh saw it. I don’t think
there is need for further explanation as the point is clearly made. I am
now going to clarify the question of eradication.
We are talking about the eradication of a belief
system. There is nothing wrong in the word eradication. We use this word
for things such as eradication of poverty, eradication of illiteracy,
eradication of violence, eradication of discrimination, or wars, etc.
Islam represents all these things and needs to be eradicated.
Although we can say eradication of communism” or
“eradication of Nazism”, I never heard eradication being used for
people such as eradicating communists or Nazis. It is always used for
undesirable things such as cancer, crime, prostitution, etc. You can’t
even use it for good things. For example you can’t say eradication of
health, eradication of wealth, eradication of happiness. Have you ever
heard these expressions? I don’t think I have.
I suppose we are confusing the word eradication with
extermination which is entirely a different diction.
Here are some synonyms of eradication:
annulment, cancellation, destruction, dissolution, elimination, end,
ending, extirpation, invalidation, negation, nullification, obliteration,
overthrow, overturning, quashing, repeal, repudiation, rescinding,
rescindment, rescission, revocation, subversion, suppression, termination,
Compare them to the synonyms of extermination:
blitz, blood, blood bath,
bloodshed, butchering, butchery, crime, croaking, gore, havoc,
hecatomb, holocaust, homicide, internecion, killing, liquidation,
manslaughter, mass murder, murder, offing, rapine, shambles, slaughter,
slaying, warfare, wasting
See the difference?
The word eradication is the most appropriate word to
use when dealing with a social ill especially a belief system and Islam is
a social ill and a belief system. Note that we are not calling for the
“eradication of Muslims”. Apart from being an error in syntax, this is
not our call. Muslims are people and Islam is an ideology. We are talking
about the eradication of an ideology not the extermination of a people.
Americans speak English and the word eradication
should not present any problem for them. If people who are less fluent in
English have difficulty in interpreting this word, now, they too know the
meaning of this word.
1 2 >