Great civilizations are not murdered. They commit suicide.
—Historian Arnold Toynbee
This is a book on Islam, the second-largest religion in the world with 1.6 billion adherents. More precisely, it is a polemic against Islam.
I want to make clear at the outset that I am not a Muslim or an Arab. I do not speak Arabic, and I have no formal academic training in religious studies in general or Islam in particular.
I was born into a middle class Hindu family in Hyderabad, India, nearly 60 years ago. My father was a secular Hindu and my elder brother a Marxist. The culture I grew up in was essentially liberal to the core. For last 50 years or so of my life I have scarcely ever visited a Hindu temple unless to attend a wedding or to meet a business client (i.e., “Let’s meet at the temple on Sunday, it’s more convenient”). I have never been to a Hindu pilgrimage or participated in Hindu rituals. Religious Hinduism is no part of my life and in no way informs this polemic.
Instead, I am a secular humanist. I believe in “free minds and free markets” rather than supernatural beings and religious rituals. In American terms I am what one might call a secular conservative. I believe that reason, not mysticism, is what frees the human spirit. In this, my opinions are not far different from those of America’s Founding Fathers, for whom I have great respect.
My encounter with Islam was purely accidental. In 1976, I was 22 years old, poor, and unemployed with no meaningful prospects in Hyderabad. I heard there were good jobs in Iran, which at that time was still governed by the Shah. Through the help of a fellow Indian, a Hindu who was living in Iran, I got a job in Bandar Abbas with an Italian company which was constructing a seaport (the largest in Iran at that time). The job was good; the Iranians were good; life was good. I was earning around $300 USD a month with no expenses to speak of. I lived in a desert trailer park owned by the company which was more or less a work camp. Many businesses in the Middle East provide similar accommodations.
I was happy with my work. Bandar Abbas was not that far from my home, about 1,600 miles away. My daily routine brought me from camp to work and back to camp again six days a week with Fridays off, so I had little interaction with Iranian society. Employees at the company were divided into Iranians, Europeans, and Asians. The last group numbered several hundred mostly Pakistanis, Filipinos, Indians, and Bangladeshis. My job was to maintain the timesheets for the Asian immigrant employees.
While working for this company, I noticed a curious fact. A group of Pakistani and Indian workers there, including about 10 or 12 from my own home town, treated me as a personal enemy. I was subjected to insults, humiliation, intimidation, and threats. There were constant interferences with my work. For a while I thought there was something inherently wrong with me that I received this treatment. Then I realized this group of people all had one thing in common: they were Muslims.
I was not the only victim. Other Indians were subjected to the same treatment. In every case they were Hindus or Sikhs. I began to realize that this was religious bullying. This came as a complete shock to me because I had never considered myself religious or even Hindu. There were no Hindu temples in Bandar Abbas, and I had no interest in practicing the religion even if there had been. But the Indian and Pakistani Muslims in Bandar Abbas branded me as a Hindu whether I wanted the label or not.
This abuse went on for nearly two years. At no time were local Iranians or Italians from the company involved—it was always Indian and Pakistani Muslim immigrants, particularly the Indian Muslims from Hyderabad. It took me nearly a year to understand the theological dynamic of their vendetta. They hated me and the other Hindu immigrants simply because we were Hindus (whether practicing or not did not matter). I slowly came to identify myself as a Hindu. Even though I rejected the metaphysics and theology of Hinduism, I was by race, by heritage, by culture, by language, and by nationality a Hindu in the eyes of the Muslims. I had no way to escape from their branding.
I worked in Bandar Abbas for nearly two years until January, 1979, when the secular monarchy of the Shah was overthrown. Ayatollah Khomeini returned to Iran from exile in February, and with his arrival the new Islamic government of Iran cancelled all contracts with foreign companies and revoked the work and residence permits of most of the foreigners living in Iran. I went to Italy in the hope of getting another job with the same company, but while I waited to see if they had a job for me I got my visa for the United States.
I came to New York City in November, 1979. For a young man who grew up in a small village near Hyderabad, this was an incredible experience. The energy, the freedom, and the opportunity to assimilate into society were all remarkable. I found surprisingly many New Yorkers who were more accessible and friendly—and also less class-conscious—than the people of India or Iran. The Iran Hostage Crisis was at this time in full swing, following the capture of the embassy on November 4th. Jimmy Carter had just lost the presidential election, and Ronald Reagan was poised to succeed him.
When I first arrived in the United States, I found I had no need to fear the Islamic intimidation I had experienced in Iran. The Muslims from Pakistan and India living in New York at that time were neither aggressive nor intimidating; they were just another immigrant group. At the same time, I noticed there was a pronounced cultural divide between Indian Hindus and Indian Muslims. Even in New York, the Indian Muslims were closer culturally and intellectually to Pakistani Muslims than they were to other Indians. This prompted a number of questions about Islam, Muslims, and India. At that time, I had no answers to these questions.
I lived in New York until 1986, which was a remarkable time to be in that city. I worked entry level jobs in restaurants, in the garment industry, and at a prestigious law firm. These jobs offered me enormous opportunities to meet people from all walks of life and from all over the world.
During my stay in New York City I had three remarkable opportunities to meet with leading Indian politicians. Such meetings would have been almost impossible in India, where all three were enormously important men with no time for such as me. But in New York, they were nothing more than three more visiting third-world politicians. Few took them seriously. Therefore it was much easier for me to meet them and even to question them at a close and personal level. In India, such men are never questioned—one simply listens to their wisdom. In New York, I dared to raise the controversial issue of Islam.
The first meeting came in early 1980. I went to attend a lecture at the Indian Consulate in Manhattan. P.V. Narsimha Rao was visiting. He would later become the tenth Prime Minister of India (1991 to 1996), but at that time he was India’s Foreign Minister, having been awarded the position for his loyalty to then-Prime Minister Indira Gandhi and his well-respected scholarship. Meeting with Rao was a big deal for me. He was a native of my hometown; he was also well known to me as a scholar, poet, and freedom-fighter who had opposed the tyrannical Nizam of Hyderabad.
There were nearly 200 people at this meeting, which lasted over an hour. Afterwards, I introduced myself to Rao as a fellow native of Hyderabad who had recently moved to the United States. He was very gracious to me and asked about my well-being. After a few minutes conversation I told him that Iranians and Muslim immigrants did not like me because I was a Hindu and that I had noticed a great deal of anti-Hindu sentiment in Islamic nations. I asked him, as Foreign Minister of India, what was he going to do about the anti-Hindu and anti-Indian apartheid taking place in the Middle East? With that question he became visibly angry and began to speak with me in our native tongue, Telugu (so that few others would understand the rudeness of his words). “You can’t do anything,” he said, “I can’t do anything. Just get a job, support your parents, and now you leave this place.” Then he walked away.
In 1984 I had another encounter, this time at a friend’s house on Staten Island. The man was the great Morarji Desai, the fifth Prime Minister of India, a Gandhian and a Stoic. He had come to the United States at the advanced age of 88 to take part in a lawsuit against veteran journalist Seymour Hersh over Hersh’s accusations that Desai had been a paid CIA agent. Desai would later lose his case, but at the time of my meeting he was supremely gracious and kind both to me and to my wife. Our meeting was intimate, with only about 20 people (including our hosts) at the mansion. I asked Desai a simple question: How can Hindus and Muslims live together in India peacefully? His response was pure Gandhian. He told me to turn the other cheek, follow dharma, don’t be angry, and everything will be all right.
The third encounter came later in 1984 or in 1985. Jyothi Basu, the Chief Minister of the State of West Bengal was in New York looking for investment capital. Basu was a leader of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) and a leading Marxist intellectual. When I was growing up in India, I had been sympathetic to Marxist egalitarianism in my late teens and early twenties. Living in the deeply unequal caste system of India and facing the violent class conflicts of Indian society, I had regarded the Marxist vision of a classless society as more humane. I came to a dinner hosted at a motel in Queens for him. There were about 50 people at this meeting. I introduced myself to him and gave him a book on Islam written by a Bengali friend of mine. Then I asked him why his party supported Muslims in India given that Marxist philosophy was diametrically opposed to Islam (and vice versa).
Basu became enraged. He told me he knew everything that I was saying about Islam and Hindu-Muslim conflicts and that he had come to raise money for industry not to discuss theology or philosophy. If I wanted to discuss those topics, he said, I should write a letter to him and he would answer my questions. I wrote a letter asking him the same questions and sent it to his Calcutta address. He never bothered to reply. Had I asked him such a question in India, it is entirely possible that I would have been jailed on trumped-up charges; Indian politicians do not like to be challenged.
Not one of these men, all powerful and influential politicians, had a complete understanding of Islam’s imperialist ambitions. They knew only a part. Rao had fought the Muslim tyrant of Hyderabad. Basu was chief minister of West Bengal, a Hindu-dominated area next to the Muslim-dominated East Bengal (which had just become the Republic of Bangladesh in 1971). Desai had been a freedom fighter and close associate of Mahatma Gandhi, during which time he witnessed the partition of India into the modern states of India and Pakistan. From the depth of their experience with Islam these men should have known better how to answer my questions. Most likely they thought they were being wise and diplomatic in offering such responses to me; instead, they were showing their apathy, their fear, and their cowardice.
It was not my meetings with these men, however, which drove me to write this book. Instead, it was the terrorist attacks of 9/11 and the subsequent western response which instilled in me a determination to tell the truth about Islamic imperialism. I saw the U.S. making the same mistakes the Indians made with regard to Islam. I saw Western countries exposing themselves to the same demographic conquest which has been so fateful to India’s history.
For the last 40 years the West has had no better answer to Islamic imperialism than those three Indian politicians. The same apathy, fear, and cowardice is called “political correctness.” From Ronald Reagan to Barack Obama, America’s presidents have without exception been apologists for Islamic imperialism. Many Western politicians take Desai’s approach, thinking that appeasement and good thoughts will provide a solution. They do not realize the history of Islam shows that such an approach ends in destruction for the appeaser. Others, most notably politicians and academics on the Left, take Basu’s approach and completely ignore the contradictions between their own beliefs and those of Islam. They ally with what they think is a disadvantaged minority group to further their own political goals. Leftists did the same in Iran in 1979, and the Islamic Revolution destroyed them once it attained power. Sadly, too many who see the threat Islam poses take Rao’s approach and worry that nothing can be done to stop it.
Since 9/11 the U.S. government has tried to steer a contradictory course in the Islamic world. On the one hand, it offers appeasing words to Islam, calling it one of the great religions and assuring everyone that jihad does not mean what it clearly does mean—to kill others on behalf of the Islamic religion. On the other, it wants to fight some of the more radical jihadists, calling them political extremists and ignoring the Quranic roots of everything they say and do. Ultimately, the U.S. approach to the war against Islamic imperialism amounts to putting a Band-Aid on leprosy. The problem is not “radical extremists” or “fundamentalists” like Bin Laden; the problem is Muhammad, the Qur’an, and Sharia, period.
The consequences of this failed approach are all around us. The financial burden of our disastrous adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan exerts a drag on our economy. Families mourn the loss of soldiers, workers, and diplomats lost in the struggle. In the vacuum of power created by the removal of Saddam Hussein and the Taliban an even greater threat has arisen in the form of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. We have seen an alleged pro-democracy movement called the Arab Spring give way to a Sunni Winter. The Muslim world is in the midst of a global Sunni fundamentalist revolution, and few in the media or the academy or the political establishment are willing or able to call it what it is.
Those who try to warn the world about Islam are immediately attacked by Muslims and their enablers. This can take any form, from petty criticism and accusations of racism to death threats and actual murder. Hinduism, Christianity, Buddhism or Atheism may be openly criticized in Western media, but not Islam. Those who dare to challenge the so-called religion of peace are often likely to find their lives and property in danger. At the very least, their integrity will be called into question and their arguments dismissed as “Islamophobic.”
Given such a situation I must make some preemptive defense against the attacks critics will use against me to distract attention from the threat of Islam. The first line of attack is usually to dismiss any critic who is non-Muslim or who does not know Arabic. This approach is absurd on its face, given that the majority of the world’s Muslims themselves have little understanding of Arabic. Non-Arab Muslims who do learn Arabic writing often learn only enough to recite from the Qur’an—often without knowing what it is they are saying. Despite this, Muslims do not argue that such people do not understand Islam. As Ali Nawaz Memon has observed, “mosques are often full of worshippers who do not understand what has been said in the [Arabic] prayer.” If it is not necessary to understand Arabic in order to be a Muslim, it is not necessary to understand Arabic in order to criticize Muslims.
There is plenty of information about Islam available to English speakers—more than enough to come to an informed judgment. Whole shelves of library space can be found in a typical university library full of publications on and about Islam. The curious English speaker can learn more about Islam than many Arab-speaking Muslims ever bother to learn in their lifetimes. Anyone who wishes to accuse me of ignorance on the subject of Islam should consider his own situation first. All too often those who accuse others of ignorance are themselves steeped in abominable ignorance about the history and practices of their own faith.
Furthermore, a great deal about Islam can be learned by simple observation of how it operates in the world. As the Biblical saying goes, “By your fruits you shall know them.” I was born in Hyderabad, India, a city with a sizable Muslim population, and I lived and worked for several years in Iran. During my life I have had ample opportunity to see the fruits of Islam all around me. In 2014 I was not at all surprised by the Rotherham sex scandal which broke in Yorkshire in the United Kingdom. An investigation determined that over a period of nearly 20 years more than 1,400 children were sexually exploited by men of “Asian” heritage (in context, this means primarily Pakistani Muslims). Local police and the town council did nothing, and may even have conspired to cover up the scandal out of fears of racism. Over that same 20 year period the UK has been introduced to the phenomenon of honor killings, beheadings in broad daylight, and mass murder plots for the greater glory of religion. From my own experience with Islam I can say that what is happening in the UK is not unique.
A second line of attack often taken against those who criticize Islam is to argue that academics are the only non-Muslims who are qualified make such a critique. I refuse to accept such a dismissal. The standard by which my work should be judged is truth and accuracy, not academic qualifications. Let my arguments and my claims be judged on their own merit. If they are true and accurate, why should it matter whether or not I hold a degree in Islam or religious studies? The Qur’an is a logically inconsistent work; do I need a degree to notice them? Islamic doctrines are demonstrably inconsistent with American and Western principles; are only scholars permitted to point out the inconsistencies? Let my arguments be considered and weighed carefully on their own merits.
With Islam, academic qualifications are no guarantee of quality of argument. Big financial donations from countries like Saudi Arabia have turned many Islamic Studies departments from areas of objective inquiry to little better than Islamic propaganda centers. Across America, many so-called experts on Islam and the Middle East are full-time apologists for Islam who offer a deceptively whitewashed picture of Islamic history and culture. In today’s climate, the scholar who takes rabidly anti-American and pro-Islamic positions can find a secure path to tenure. As a result, intelligent outside observers can often be surer guides to Islam than scholars who hold distinguished Saudi-funded chairs of Islamic Studies.
A third line of attack often taken against criticism of Islam is to play the racism card. This approach is absurd on its face because Islam is not a race. To criticize Islam is to reject a doctrine of Arab supremacy. It means, really, to oppose Arab racism—the worst form of racism there is. Opposing Arab racism is the very opposite of being a racist.
Many Muslims make the charge of racism for completely cynical reasons. They know that Westerners fear being labeled racist more than almost anything else. As soon as someone is charged with being a racist he must go on the defensive. Muslims therefore level this accusation in order to draw attention away from any criticisms they cannot answer. This is ironic given that Islam itself is one of the most powerful imperialist movements, as well as the most successful racist movement in human history.
In the Islamic world, non-Arab Muslims from South Asia, East Asia, and Africa are required to despise, reject, and subordinate their culture, their language, and their own nationality to the Arabs. Wherever Islam has become dominant this pattern can be seen. Although Muslims pay lip service to the idea of an Islamic ummah, or community of believers, in reality non-Arabs are second-class persons in Islam. All Muslims must listen to, read, and recite Arabic words they do not understand and genuflect toward Arabia as part of the practice of their faith. They are taught to regard their pre-Islamic cultural heritage as a period of ignorance and evil. Let those who doubt this situation ask one of the millions of non-Arab Muslims who has had the misfortune of working in an Arab country. Across the Arabian Gulf, non-Arab Muslim workers are commonly treated with contempt as modern-day slaves fit only to serve the needs of their Arab masters. For example, those who claim to be descendants of Prophet Muhammad are called Sayyids, and they are considered almost a “master race” within the worldwide Islamic community. On the Indian subcontinent it means someone who is not a Hindu convert or a native but someone who is a natural master, superior to the native converts to Islam (i.e., former Hindus). In South Asia, these Sayyids number in the hundreds of thousands.
Another possible line of attack which may be taken against me is to depict me as a Hindu fanatic or as a right-wing Hindu nationalist. Let me say this unequivocally: I have never been a Hindu nationalist. In fact, when I was growing up my sympathies were with Marxism and the political Left. I appreciated the egalitarian utopia Marxism advocated, where race and ethnicity, class and religion were transcended. Even today, I still share its materialist interpretation of history.
I believe Marx went wrong in his theory of class struggle. His doctrine of a “Dictatorship of the Proletariat” has proven to be a disaster in practice. One of the most fundamental and axiomatic elements of Marxist theory is the contradiction between capitalist and proletariat, yet it is a serious error. The conflict between “haves” and “have-nots” is not immutable. We see in life that there are capitalists who lose their wealth and become members of the working class and there are workers who become capitalists through business acumen and determination. Not all capitalists are blood-sucking leeches, nor are all workers angels on the earth. Marx’s dichotomy between capitalists and the working class has its roots in rabbinical thinking. It is similar to the sort of split made by the Semitic religions, i.e., Jew and Gentile, believer and heathen, Muslim and kafir. By prohibiting the free and independent thought of the individual, Marxism becomes reinforced dogmatism: static, sterile, and frozen in time. Bertrand Russell explains this phenomenon further when he says:
The whole of his [Marx’s] theory of economic development may
perfectly well be true if his metaphysics is false and false if his
metaphysics is true; and, but for the influence of Hegel, it would
never have occurred to him that a matter so purely empirical
could depend upon abstract metaphysics.
The Marxist idea of class struggle is unworkable. That is one of the foremost reasons for the collapse of the former Soviet Union and the nations of the Soviet Bloc. It’s also the reason why both China and Vietnam have abandoned Communist orthodoxy and embraced free-market reforms.
I believe capitalism and democracy provide a viable path to the same egalitarian outcomes Marxism claims to establish. The methodologies are different, with Marxism seeking to impose a classless society through struggle and proletarian dictatorship, while a secular conservative looks for one to develop out of the exercise of free minds and free markets. I consider myself such a secular conservative. I believe in class harmony, or rather in the abolition of social class through free minds and free markets.
Far from being a Hindu nationalist or religious fundamentalist of any kind, I identify as a secular humanist. My philosophy and epistemology is logical empiricism. My heroes are Bertrand Russell, Rudolf Carnap, Alfred Ayer, and physicist Stephen Hawking. I am no religious partisan—I regard metaphysics and theology as absurd.
Most importantly, I am an American citizen who has lived in the United States for the past 35 years. I renounced my Indian citizenship long ago; I have no property in that country, and both of my parents are gone. My ties are to America. My wife is an American (her family has lived in this country since the time of the Jamestown colony), and our children are Americans. I have no divided loyalties.
One of the most fundamental rights we have as Americans is the right to self-preservation. My respect for the rights of others does not extend to allowing others to call for or seek my death. This is one of the main reasons behind my leaving Hinduism—Hindu leaders and Hindu society have forgotten how to address the problem of evil. They do not face it, they sidestep it through apathy and silence. They call this non-violence, tolerance, and open-mindedness. (Apathy, thy name is ahimsa [non-violence]!) They have no sense of self-preservation.
As a former Hindu and a secular humanist I am twice condemned to death by Islam—an unbeliever both by birth and by choice. I have only to look at how ISIS treated the Yazidi refugees it captured on Mount Sinjar in August 2014 to learn how Islam deals with such people. United Nations observers confirmed that Yazidi refugees were “lined up, shot dead, then bulldozed into mass graves.” In all, about 5,000 men were executed and 7,000 women seized as concubines for ISIS fighters. As this book will show, the behavior of ISIS is no anomaly; it is an imitation of actions taken by none other than Muhammad himself. It is not only ISIS which treats non-Muslims this way. Saudi Arabia has gone so far as to declare atheists to be terrorists who can be treated accordingly. No less an authority than the Qur’an encourages Muslims to act aggressively in this way when they have the advantage: “So be not weak and ask not for peace (from the enemies of Islam), while you are having the upper hand.” Before Islam gains the upper hand in America, therefore, I will speak out against it.
I wrote this book for a simple reason: I do not want America or Western civilization to make the same mistake about Islam which India made. India and Hindu civilization were conquered by Islam over a very long period of about 1,350 years. Before this happened, the countries we now call Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Afghanistan were all part of India. When Islam arrived in the 7th century, Hindus thought they were confronting a rival religion or metaphysical system. They were wrong, and they have paid an enormous price for their error. Today, 1,350 years later there is still an unresolved conflict between Hindus and Islam. It is entirely possible that there will be a nuclear war between India and Pakistan in the near future. The very possibility of such a disaster is rooted in Muhammad Bin Qasim’s invasion of Sindh in 711 AD. The conflict between Hindus and Muslims on the Indian subcontinent has never been theological—it has been a civilizational conflict, pitting Arab imperialism against Hindu civilization.
After the 9/11 attacks, I noticed that Americans were asking the same questions I had asked of those three Indian politicians in 1980s. Above all, they wanted to know why we had been attacked by Islam. In this book, I hope to keep Americans from falling into the trap of thinking that their fight is against a particular individual like Osama bin Laden or any one group of jihadists like ISIS. The enemy is Islamic imperialism, an Arab supremacist ideology. If Islamic imperialism is not defeated, India’s past will become America’s future. The non-Muslim world needs a lasting, permanent, and comprehensive solution to the Muslim question once and for all.
Muslim apologists say that there are nearly 1.6 billion Muslims in the world. I say that of this number 1.5 billion are only the first victims of Arab imperialism. No more than 50 million or so of the Muslim elite benefit directly from the doctrine and religion of Islam. These are some of the most hedonistic human beings you could ever come across.
The greatest flaw in Islam is not terrorism or even hatred for non-Muslims. Instead, it is the inability of Muslims to engage in self-criticism or introspection. Muslims are very able when it comes to criticizing unbelievers, but they cannot look at themselves in the mirror. If they could only examine their religion and their societies closely, it would go a long way toward reducing Islam’s role in global conflict. Show me someone who believes in the Qur’an literally and I will show you one of the most unaware and intolerant persons in the world.
The Qur’an is not only a religious treatise, it is also a political document that defines the relationship between Muslims and the non-Muslims world. As such, the contradiction between the Qur’an and the U.S. Constitution is absolute and eternal. The two cannot peacefully coexist. This is a fact Americans have no choice but to confront.
More generally, in this book I will present just part of the overwhelming evidence that Islam is not a religion but an ideology of death and destruction. To call it a religion of peace is to pacify people with a pleasing lie. The country of my birth can bear witness to this. Over centuries the ancient and peaceful civilization of India was slowly worn away by constant massacres, looting, slavery, and tyranny. The most lasting destruction of all, one which I see in its nascent form in Europe and America today, was demographic conquest. Today, what was once India has been shattered and parts of it are now called Pakistan and Bangladesh—exclusively Muslim lands. The eternal jihad against India is still ongoing, 1,300 years later.
I have witnessed firsthand what Islam has done to India. I have spent a long time studying what Islam has done everywhere that it spread. I do not want the past of my civilization to become the future of yours. That is why I have written this book. I want America and the West to fully wake up to and confront the clear and present danger Islam poses to your families, your nations, and your very civilization. You must do so, or join the long list of civilizations destroyed by Islam.
For the West to experience such a thing would be no murder but a suicide. We have all the facts needed to perceive the threat. We have all the resources and the skills we need to defend America and the West. There are no more than 50 million or so people who directly and materially benefit from Islam, and these are some of the most degenerate persons you could ever hope to meet. Nevertheless, this is a winnable war, and there is reason to hope for success. Let it not be said that America and the West saw the danger and failed to act.
I want to be perfectly clear about my intentions. We need a global revolution to defeat Islamic imperialism worldwide. It must be defeated absolutely, globally, and forever. In this book, I will make the case that Islamic imperialism is infinitely more dangerous than Nazism and Communism combined. Unlike the Nazis or the Communists, Islam operates by demographic conquest—the most permanent form of conquest there is. In the following pages I will show you the necessity for war against Islamic totalitarianism and how that war can be won.
 Malik, A Perspective on the Signs of Al-Quran, 19.
 Memon, The Islamic Nation: Status & Future of Muslims in the New World Order. [need page number for this]
 BBC News, “Rotherham child sexual exploitation report: At a glance.”
 Russell, Freedom and Organization, 220.
 Hopkins, “Full horror of the Yazidis who didn’t escape Mount Sinjar.”
 Withnall, “Saudi Arabia declares all atheists are terrorists in new law.”
 Qur’an 47:35. All quotations from the Qur’an in this book are taken from Al-Hilali and Khan, trans., The Noble Quran.