‘Jihad and martyrdom are mainstream Islam.’ Ayaan Hirsi Ali Explains How To Combat Political Islam…

From Quillette

What happens when we let fear, muddled thinking, ignorance, and political correctness guide us in confronting a threat to our constitutional freedoms?

We lose everything.

In the United States, our ability to enjoy our rights to liberty and the pursuit of happiness rests largely on the protection the First Amendment accords to freedom of speech and its corollary, the freedom to exercise the religion of our choice – or, of course, to profess no religion at all. It follows, then, that we should both vigorously defend the First Amendment and subject to withering criticism any challenges to it. If we begin dodging or concealing the truth about a threat to free speech, whether out of fear of appearing improper or even of knowing the consequences, we place ourselves at risk of losing our freedom of speech – and everything else we cherish in a democracy.

Speech consists of words. Words and how we use them matter. So, in the annals of self-defeating political inanities, the Obama administration’s term for Islamist terrorism – “violent extremism” – stands out as unusually obfuscatory, semantically unsound, and craven. (The phrase encompasses other kinds of terrorist doctrines as well, but no one can fail to see which one in particular is being addressed.) Originating as ISIS-inspired attacks were starting to hit the United States, it baldly omits their motivating ideology and purports that “extremism” can exist as a rootless, groundless, free-floating phenomenon. The term was so patently contrived to avoid mention of Islam that Republican candidate Donald J. Trump, during last year’s presidential campaign, could appear courageous to many just by saying “Islamic terrorism.” Yet coining the insipid phrase “violent extremism” was just par for the course. Former President Obama’s repeated declarations that the faith in question had nothing to do with all the bombing, beheading, and machete-slashing carried out to the cry of “Allahu Akbar!” looked, at best, cowardly – and at worst, complicit. Hillary Clinton followed Obama’s lead on the matter – all the way to a historic loss at the polls.

Progressives should act like progressives  — even when Islam is concerned…




The Hijab and the Regressive Left’s Absurd Campaign to Betray Freethinking Women

The first woman in a hijab to anchor a television news broadcast!  To dance as a ballerina!  To fence in the Olympics!  To — cue for gasps at the sheer progressive splendor of the moment — pose in Playboy!

Headlines proclaiming such “firsts” — performed by Muslim women living, nota bene, in the United States and Canada — have appeared often in the press over the past couple of years. Surely by now you’ve seen them.  The associated coverage is frequently gushing, but when it is not, it is not probing, and certainly not critical.  It is, in fact, part and parcel of the regressive left’s insidious attempt at brainwashing well-meaning liberals into lauding what should be, in our increasingly diverse societies, at best a neutral fact: freedom of speech means freedom of religion.  Women should be free to dress as they please.  Some Muslim women wear hijabs and are the first to do so in various endeavors.

By no means does freedom of religion, however, confer on religion or religious customs exemptions from criticism, satire, or even derision.  The American revolutionary Thomas Paine, among others, established that.  Too much is at stake.  Unsupported by evidence, at odds with science, and frequently deleterious to the common good, religion and its attendant customs deserve intense, sustained rationalist scrutiny.  Our fellows, of course, are free to base their lives on ancient claptrap ideologies entailing uncritical acceptance of absurdities (talking snakes, virgin births, flying horses, and so on), but they should not expect the rest of us to ignore or let pass without comment the intrusion of said claptrap into the public arena.  In the United States, for example, the faith-addled — though, thankfully, dwindling in number — use their votes to the detriment of, inter alia, reproductive rights, the right to die with dignity, and public education. With religion losing its grip on the young, progressives of all ages need to seize the initiative and speak out.  The established trend is toward nonbelief.

Hence, few spectacles are more puzzling, disturbing, hypocritical, and potentially damaging to women’s rights — and therefore to human progress as a whole — than the de facto campaign in some purportedly liberal press outlets to normalize the hijab and portray it as a hallmark of feminist pride and dignity, and not as a sartorial artifact of a misogynistic, seventh-century ideology, forced upon its wearers by law in some countries and by hidebound cultural norms and community and familial pressure, even violence, elsewhere.

It should shock true progressives that the hijab’s media champions are, in the majority, non-Muslim women residing in the West, working for secular publications, and enjoying the protections afforded by a secular legal environment: no one is going to force them into a hijab, or threaten or murder them if they refuse to wear it.  They may well hold that they are promoting the right of a mostly nonwhite minority to dress as they please and follow the faith of their choosing, but in fact they are traducing freethinking women in this same minority — and, what’s worse, with the implicit backing of thugs, acid-throwers, and assassins.  Their campaign reeks of betrayal of the most craven kind — inadvertent though it may be.

Continue article here

‘Atheist Muslims’ could be the key to defeating Islamic terror…



From New York Post Opinions

I was raised in three Muslim majority countries — Libya, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan — and arrived in North America in my mid-20s. Two years after I settled in Canada, September 11 happened. Nineteen hijackers acting in the name of my parents’ religion — 15 from a country I grew up in — flew fuel-laden airliners into the World Trade Center, killing thousands.

From the ashes, two opposing narratives began to emerge, as it happens with most issues in the US: one on the right, and one on the left.

And today, in a nation more divided than ever after a rancorous election season, the differences couldn’t be more stark.

The right is clear: We’re at war with Islamic terrorists. They started it, and we must respond. We know the common denominator here, so enough with the political correctness — we must keep our country safe, and if that means profiling Muslims, restricting Muslim immigration or even “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States,” as President-elect Donald Trump proposed last year, so be it.

No, says the left. We need to be nuanced. Read through our history. Islamists are simply responding to America’s atrocities around the world. We’re the imperialists who colonized them, held them down under the boot of the military-industrial complex and built our civilization at their expense. We must look at the underlying grievances and root causes driving this. The “biggest terrorist operation that exists,” according to uber-leftist hero Noam Chomsky, is actually the one being run by Obama.

Want to hear about Islam? Why not hear it from a woman who grew up as Muslim in the Middle East?



Saudi-Born Atheist Rana Ahmad: My Family or the State Would Have Killed Me If I Hadn’t Fled; The Hijab Robbed Me of My Childhood… 




See clip here…

Rana Ahmad, an atheist who renounced her Sunni Muslim upbringing and fled Saudi Arabia for fear of execution, talked about her previous life and her “awakening” in a Deutsch Welle TV interview on August 16. Forced to wear the hijab at age 9 and the niqab at age 13, Ahmad said that this “robbed her of her childhood.” She said that she was living “in a stupor” until she became aware of the world of knowledge through the Internet and began to read and do research. “How come the education systems in Islamic countries do not provide this information?… What are they afraid of?” she asked.

Following are excerpts

Rana Ahmad: “I come from a Sunni Muslim family, which is an extremist family, compared to other families in our society. I studied English and worked in hospitals, did some secretarial work…”

Interviewer: “So you acquired an education?”

Rana Ahmad: “Yes.”

Interviewer: “You went to girls-only schools?”

Rana Ahmad: “Right.”

ISIS/ISIL: Why We Hate You & Why We Fight You…



From The Clarion Project
Thanks to Sam Harris

This is what ISIS believes, in their own words, unfiltered by clueless political pundits, which they have published in their magazine Dabiq:

“Shortly following the blessed attack on a sodomite, Crusader nightclub by the mujahid Omar Mateen, American politicians were quick to jump into the spotlight and denounce the shooting, declaring it a hate crime, an act of terrorism, and an act of senseless violence. A hate crime? Yes. Muslims undoubtedly hate liberalist sodomites, as does anyone else with any shred of their fitrah (inborn human nature) still intact. An act of terrorism? Most definitely. Muslims have been commanded to terrorize the disbelieving enemies of Allah. But an act of senseless violence? One would think that the average Westerner, by now, would have abandoned the tired claim that the actions of the mujahidin – who have repeatedly stated their goals, intentions, and motivations – don’t make sense. Unless you truly – and naively – believe that the crimes of the West against Islam and the Muslims, whether insulting the Prophet, burning the Quran, or waging war against the Caliphate, won’t prompt brutal retaliation from the mujahidin, you know full well that the likes of the attacks carried out by Omar Mateen, Larossi Aballa, and many others before and after them in revenge for Islam and the Muslims make complete sense. The only thing senseless would be for there to be no violent, fierce retaliation in the first place!

Many Westerners, however, are already aware that claiming the attacks of the mujahidin to be senseless and questioning incessantly as to why we hate the West and why we fight them is nothing more than a political act and a propaganda tool. The politicians will say it regardless of how much it stands in opposition to facts and common sense just to garner as many votes as they can for the next election cycle. The analysts and journalists will say it in order to keep themselves from becoming a target for saying something that the masses deem to be “politically incorrect.” The apostate “imams” in the West will adhere to the same tired cliché in order to avoid a backlash from the disbelieving societies in which they’ve chosen to reside. The point is, people know that it’s foolish, but they keep repeating it regardless because they’re afraid of the consequences of deviating from the script.

Tamina Mirza, a schoolteacher, has been leading anti-terror protests in Lahore, Pakistan…



From Clarion Project

Tamina Mirza, a schoolteacher, has been leading anti-terror protests in Lahore, Pakistan, on every 16th of the month, against the Taliban.

On the 16th of every month, come rain or shine, Tamina Mirza takes to the streets of Lahore in Pakistan to stand against terrorism.

She was moved to act in 2014 after “things changed for all of us” when 145 children were massacred at an army school in Peshawar by the Taliban.

“I just took it upon myself to start a series of protests against the Taliban and terrorists, “ she told Clarion Project. “I did them on every 16th of each month as a mark of remembrance and to pay my debt to those kids who were ruthlessly slaughtered.”


One of their vigils for the murdered children of Peshawar.

Arrested For Cartoon Mocking ISIS…



From Clarion Project

Eminent Jordanian satirist and political cartoonist Nahed Hattar posted the cartoon to Facebook, featuring Allah talking to a jihadist in paradise.

An eminent Jordanian cartoonist and political satirist Nahed Hattar has been arrested for a satirical cartoon depicting a conversation between a jihadist and Allah in paradise.

Hattar, of Christian origin who personally professes non-belief, has been a respected satirist in Jordan for many years.

The cartoon was posted to his anti-Islamic State Facebook page and purported to show how jihadists “envision heaven.”

Hattar was arrested for insulting religion. His cartoon twisted Islamic vocabulary about God and paradise for comedic effect, such as changing the word “Subhanallah” (Glory be to Allah) into the second person “Subhanekh” (your gloriousness) which also prompted criticism of his cartoon as being an insensitive way to discuss God.

The cartoon is translated below by by Clarion Project Arabic Affairs Analyst Anwar el-Iraqi.

In Green: In paradise…

Allah: “May your evening be joyous, Abu Saleh, do you need anything?”

Jihadist: “Yes Lord, bring me the glass of wine from other there and tell Jibril [the Angel Gabriel] to bring me some cashews. After that send me an eternal servant to clean the floor and take the empty plates with you.”

Jihadist continues: “Don’t forget to put a door on the tent so that you knock before you enter next time, your gloriousness.”


Liberalism’s Great Challenge: How Can We Critique Ideas while Protecting People?



From Valerie Tarico

Secular and reformist Muslims plead that we learn to tell the difference between analyzing ideas and attacking people.

When Islam is at question, members of the American Left and Right race into opposite corners. After the Orlando nightclub massacre, to cite one recent example, conservatives spewed anti-Muslim invective to the point that ordinary American Muslims were afraid to leave home. Donald Trump implied that Muslims, broadly, know when a fellow believer is going to shoot up a nightclub or government office but fail to act (as if gun-loving men, broadly, know when one of their fellows is going to shoot up a political rally or Black church or abortion clinic).

From their corner, liberals denied that Allah-blessed homophobia, or Islam’s concept of martyrdom, or the rallying cries of Jihadis might inspire a self-loathing, bipolar believer to redeem his soul through mass murder. Staff for U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch actually edited the shooter’s words of Islamic fidelity out of audio recordings for fear of inciting racist reprisals.

In the weeks that followed, as men claiming Islamist loyalties or shouting “Allahu akbar!” went on bloody rampages in IstanbulNiceBaghdadDhaka and Ansbach, the rhetorical divide simply got sharper. Left-leaning commentators talked about mental illness, domestic violence, gun access and economic disparities—all valid causal factors—but desperately avoided acknowledging the prayer mat in the room. The DNC put the Muslim parents of an American serviceman on display at their convention, and then waited for the inevitable insults from He Whose Toupee Cannot Hide His Missing Frontal Lobe. They were not long in coming.

Ex-Muslim: President Obama Not Saying “Radical Islam”?



Islamist Extremism’s Hate Relationship With Music…


From The Clarion

It is no coincidence that one of the targets of the November 2015 attacks in Paris was a rock concert at the Bataclan.

When Elvis Presley started performing and recording in the mid-1950s his music, movements, attitude and dress made him the first icon of rock & roll. He changed the course of popular music and with it American youth culture.

He was also regarded as a threat to morality. Radio stations banned his music and municipal authorities refused permits for his concerts. His music was branded by Christian fundamentalists in the Deep South as “the devil’s music.”

The tide of cultural history proved his detractors wrong and the revolution started by Elvis and other rock & roll artists heralded the beginnings of a movement that has led to the hedonistic and permissive culture that is now the norm not just in Western societies but in Japan and elsewhere.

The hatred of popular music of those Christian fundamentalists is now rearing its head again, this time from radical Islamists. It is no coincidence that one of the targets of the November 2015 attacks in Paris was a rock concert at the Bataclan.

Sarah Haider, ExMuslim: Criticism of Islam and Anti-Muslim Bigotry against people are two very different things…




The Bullshit Myth that Most Muslims are Peace-Loving…



From Daily Beast

Bill Maher: Hundreds of Millions of Muslims Support Attack on ‘Charlie Hebdo’

The comedian responded to the deadly attack on a French satirical magazine by renewing his recent criticisms of the Islamic faith.

Bill Maher didn’t hold back Wednesday night, blasting “hundreds of millions” of the world’s Muslims for allegedly supporting the Islamic terrorist massacre of cartoonists, writers, and editors at a Parisian satirical magazine that has mocked the Prophet Muhammad.

“I know most Muslim people would not have carried out an attack like this,” the host of HBO’s Real Time With Bill Maher said on ABC’s Jimmy Kimmel Live. “But here’s the important point: Hundreds of millions of them support an attack like this. They applaud an attack like this. What they say is, ‘We don’t approve of violence, but you know what? When you make fun of the Prophet, all bets are off.”

“Hundreds of millions of Muslims?” a clearly skeptical Kimmel asked his fellow comedian, an out and proud atheist who in recent years has targeted the adherents of Islam for harsh criticism.

“Absolutely,” Maher insisted. “That is mainstream in the Muslim world. When you make fun of the Prophet, all bets are off. You get what’s coming to you. It’s also mainstream that if you leave the religion, you get what’s coming to you—which is death. Not in every Muslim country… but this is the problem in the world that we have to stand up to.”

He continued, “I’m the liberal in this debate,” adding that he grew up in a family that supported John F. Kennedy over racist Southern governments in the fight for civil rights. “The reason we were liberals is we were against oppression.”

Terrorism Is A Form Of Islam And We Can’t Deny It, Says Salman Rushdie…



I disagree with my father that Islam is a religion of peace…



What About The Victims Of Islam?



From The Ex-Muslim

This is a guest post by Soran Tarkhani. He is of Kurdish origin from Iraqi Kurdistan. In addition to working as an assistant lecturer at Salahaddin University in Erbil and is currently pursuing his PhD in political science.

Growing up in “Kurdistan” which is often affiliated with secular philosophy I was naturally aligned with the political left and in opposition to conservative views, views that I considered being religious and looking backwards instead of to the future.

When I came to the United States to study, I continued that aspect of my life, joining various campus groups and associating with liberals with the resultant majority of my social circle avowedly left-leaning.  Excluding my deep support for the Iraq war and liberation of Kurdistan, I felt a shared sense of belonging w/my liberal colleagues and our shared ideals.

After the terrible terrorist attacks in Paris that sense of solidarity and belonging started to crumble. Due to expressing my opinion on the dangers of the religion of Islam I was shunned by my peers and accused of bigotry and racism. I have spent my entire life speaking up about issues related to the separation of Mosque and State within my home of Kurdistan but standing up against religious supremacy within the United States was somehow different. Apparently only certain religions were kosher to be criticized while others were still regarded as sacrosanct. As a result of my speaking up I was excommunicated from various leftists’ forums and Facebook groups that I had long been a welcome participant in. The situation devolved to such an extent that I was afraid of honestly speaking out about my opinion, something which I never experienced even in Iraq.

Free Speech and Islam — The Left Betrays the Most Vulnerable…


From Jeffrey Tayler

 When surveying the ill-informed, shoddy work that at times passes as in-depth journalism regarding Islam these days, a rationalist may well be tempted to slip into a secular simulacrum of John Bunyan’s Slough of Despond.  In reputable press outlets, articles regularly appear in which the author proceeds from an erroneous premise through a fallacious argument to a fatuous conclusion.  Compound all this — especially in the main case I’m about to discuss, that of the British former Islamist turned reformer, Maajid Nawaz — with the apparent intent to defame or cast aspersions, and you get worthless artifacts of journalistic malfeasance that should be dismissed out of hand, but that, given the seriousness of the subject, nevertheless merit attention.

For starters, a few words about premises and some necessary background.  Those who deploy the “stupid term” (see Christopher Hitchens) “Islamophobia” to silence critics of the faith hold, in essence, that Muslims deserve to be approached as a race apart, and not as equals, not as individual adults capable of rational choice, but as lifelong members of an immutable, sacrosanct community, whose (often highly illiberal) views must not be questioned, whose traditions (including the veiling of women) must not be challenged, whose scripturally inspired violence must be explained away as the inevitable outcome of Western interventionism in the Middle East or racism and “marginalization” in Western countries.

Fail to exhibit due respect for Islam — not Muslims as people, Islam — and you risk being excoriated, by certain progressives, as an “Islamophobe,” as a fomenter of hatred for an underprivileged minority, as an abettor of Donald Trump and his bigoted policy proposals, and, most illogically, as a racist.

Islam, however, is not a race, but a religion — that is, a man-made ideological construct of assertions (deriving authority not from evidence, but from “revelation,” just as Christianity and Judaism do) about the origins and future of the cosmos and mankind, accompanied by instructions to mankind about how to behave.  Those who believe in Islam today may — and some do — reject it tomorrow.  (Atheism has, in fact, been spreading in the Muslim world.)

Free Speech and Islam — In Defense of Sam Harris…



From Jeffrey Tayler

The controversial atheist needs a fair hearing

“It’s gross!  It’s racist!” exclaimed Ben Affleck on Bill Maher’s Real Time in October 2014, interrupting the neuroscientist “New Atheist” Sam Harris.  Harris had been carefully explaining the linguistic bait-and-switch inherent in the word “Islamophobia” as “intellectually ridiculous,” in that “every criticism of the doctrine of Islam gets conflated with bigotry toward Muslims as people.”  The result: progressives duped by the word shy away from criticizing the ideology of Islam, the tenets of which (including second-class status for women and intolerance toward sexual minorities) would, in any other context, surely elicit their condemnation.

Unwittingly, Affleck had confirmed Harris’ point, conflating religion with race.  In doing so, the actor was espousing a position that can lead to a de facto racist conclusion.  If you discount Islamic doctrine as the motivation for domestic violence and intolerance of sexual minorities in the Muslim world, you’re left with at least one implicitly bigoted assumption: the people of the region must then be congenitally inclined to behave as they do.

There was a disturbing irony in Affleck’s outburst.  Few public intellectuals have done as thorough a job as Harris at pointing out the fallacies and dangers of the supernatural dogmas of religion, for which far too many are willing to kill and die these days.  An avowed liberal (who plans to vote for Hillary) Harris is the author of, among many books, the groundbreaking The End of Faith.  Yet Affleck seemed predisposed to regard him with hostility, possibly because Harris, at least for some on the Left, has acquired a toxic reputation — one stemming from what amounts to a campaign of defamation involving, by all appearances, a willful misrepresentation of his work, plus no small measure of slipshod “identity politics” thinking.

Harris has been lambasted as, among other things, a “genocidal fascist maniac” advocating “scientific racism,” militarism, and the murder of innocents for their beliefs, as well as racial profiling at airports, a nuclear first strike on the Middle East, plus, of course, Islamophobia and a failure to understand the faiths he argues against.  (This is just a partial list.)  The result?  Harris has had to take measures to ensure his personal security, with negative ramifications in almost every area of his life.  “I can say that much of what I do,” he told me in a recent email exchange, “both personally and professionally, is now done under a shadow of defamatory lies.”

Spiritual, Not Religious?



Saudi Journalist backs up Bill Maher and Sam Harris arguments against Islam…


Saudi journalist and TV host Nadine Al-Budair, who operates out of Qatar, is becoming a viral sensation in her homeland and abroad, thanks to a three-minute editorial tirade she gave on air a week ago. Far from pretending that terrorist attacks on soft Western targets have nothing to do with Islam,  Al-Budair argues the opposite:

Whenever terrorism murders peaceful civilians, the smart-alecks and the hypocrites vie with one another in saying that these people do not represent Islam or the Muslims. Perhaps one of them could tell us who does represent Islam and Muslims…

It is we who blow ourselves up. It is we who blow up others. … Why do the sheikhs, the pundits, the journalists and all the Arab officials insist upon not using their conscience when they point to the perpetrators? Don’t these perpetrators emerge from our environment? Don’t their families belong to our society? …

After the abominable Brussels bombings, it’s time for us to feel shame and stop acting as if the terrorists are a rarity. We must admit that they are present everywhere, that their nationality is Arab, and that they adhere to the religion of Islam. We must acknowledge that we are the ones who gave birth to them, and that we have made them memorize all the teachings of the Salafi books. We must admit that it is the schools and universities we established that told them the others are infidels. We must admit that we all — the different sects and faiths, the Sunnis and the Shia — adhere to one school and one school only: the “freezing of the mind” school. Don’t ask! Don’t think! Don’t resist orders! Welcome to the Arab Mashriq. …

Why don’t [the sheikhs] have the courage to declare that they are the ones who said that jihad is obligatory, and who legalized political wars, using futile and disgraceful exegeses which permit killing, enslavement, and destruction?

Yup, pretty much refutes Ben Affleck, Glenn Greenwald, Reza Aslan, and the Regressive Left who called Maher and Harris ‘racist’ and ‘gross’ for using the same arguments…

[See history of this here.]


Sam Harris: The so-called ‘Golden Age’ of Islam and the great harm of religion on a culture…




Islamism: Honor Diaries — Culture is No Excuse for Abuse…



From Honor Diaries

Honor Diaries, a film about women’s rights, features nine courageous women’s rights advocates with connections to Muslim-majority societies. These women, who have witnessed firsthand the hardships women endure, are profiled in their efforts to affect change, both in their communities and beyond.

The film gives a platform to exclusively female voices and seeks to expose the paralyzing political correctness that prevents many from identifying, understanding and addressing this international human rights disaster. Freedom of movement, the right to education, forced marriage, and female genital mutilation are some of the systematic abuses explored in depth.

Life Under Islam…



Rescuing Ex-Muslims: The Desperation of a Young Woman Leaving Islam…


Faith To Faithless

Freethinkers: People have been talking about hijab a lot lately…



From Ophelia Bensonmon
The Freethinker

You Can’t Do Both

The Associated Press reported:
On the night of the California mass shooting, Asifa Quraishi-Landes sat on her couch, her face in her hands, and thought about what was ahead for her and other Muslim women who wear a scarf or veil in public.

The covering, or hijab, often draws unwanted attention even in the best of times. But after the one-two punch of the Paris and San Bernardino attacks by Islamic militants, Quraishi-Landes wanted to send a message.

‘To all my Muslim sisters who wear hijab,’ Quraishi-Landes, an Islamic law specialist at the University of Wisconsin, wrote on her Facebook page. ‘If you feel your life or safety is threatened in any way because of your dress, you have an Islamic allowance (darura/necessity) to adjust your clothing accordingly. Your life is more important than your dress.

h2Well that’s nice, but notice what it implies: that if you don’t feel your life or safety is threatened, then you don’t have “an Islamic allowance” to stop wearing hijab. In other words, you are required to wear hijab unless you think it’s putting you in danger. That’s in direct contradiction with the claim we so often hear, that it’s a choice to wear hijab. If it’s really a choice, why did Quraishi-Landes feel the need to go on Facebook to remind her Muslim sisters of the safety exemption? If it’s really a choice, why do women need any such reminder or permission?

Fundamentalism is the Tragedy of all Religions…



From Dave Smith
Ukiah Blog
Redwood Valley

Christianism (Christian Fundamentalism), like Islamism, sexism and racism, denotes a bigoted and culturally agressive mindset, in this case the assumption that everyone is or should be Christian — and that being Christian is superior to being an adherent of other faithways. In its governmentally intrusive form, Christianism is the basis of Christian Dominionism.

Islamism (Islamic Fundamentalism), also known as Political Islam, is an Islamic revival movement often characterized by moral conservatism, literalism, and the attempt “to implement Islamic values in all spheres of life.” It utilizes certain Muslim “doctrines, beliefs and values as the foundation of a political structure that supporters of that ideology have called ‘the Islamic State’.”. Islamists can have varying interpretations on various Quranic suras and ayahs. Islamist views emphasize the implementation of Sharia (Islamic law); of pan-Islamic political unity; and of the selective removal of non-Muslim, particularly Western military, economic, political, social, or cultural influences in the Muslim world that they believe to be incompatible with Islam.

Jewish Fundamentalism: Militant religious Zionism, and both Ashkenazi and Sephardic versions of Haredi Judaism.

Deny, Denigrate, and Resist.

Maajid Nawaz Defines and Condemns Islamism…



Sam Harris: Sleepwalking Toward Armageddon…



From Sam Harris (9/10/14)

In his speech responding to the horrific murder of journalist James Foley by a British jihadist, President Obama delivered the following rebuke (using an alternate name for ISIS):

ISIL speaks for no religion… and no faith teaches people to massacre innocents. No just God would stand for what they did yesterday and what they do every single day. ISIL has no ideology of any value to human beings. Their ideology is bankrupt…. we will do everything that we can to protect our people and the timeless values that we stand for. May God bless and keep Jim’s memory. And may God bless the United States of America.

In his subsequent remarks outlining a strategy to defeat ISIS, the President declared:

Now let’s make two things clear: ISIL is not Islamic. No religion condones the killing of innocents, and the vast majority of ISIL’s victims have been Muslim…. ISIL is a terrorist organization, pure and simple. And it has no vision other than the slaughter of all who stand in its way…. May God bless our troops, and may God bless the United States of America.

As an atheist, I cannot help wondering when this scrim of pretense and delusion will be finally burned away—either by the clear light of reason or by a surfeit of horror meted out to innocents by the parties of God. Which will come first, flying cars and vacations to Mars, or a simple acknowledgment that beliefs guide behavior and that certain religious ideas—jihad, martyrdom, blasphemy, apostasy—reliably lead to oppression and murder? It may be true that no faith teaches people to massacre innocents exactly—but innocence, as the President surely knows, is in the eye of the beholder. Are apostates “innocent”? Blasphemers? Polytheists? Islam has the answer, and the answer is “no.”

More British Muslims have joined the ranks of ISIS than have volunteered to serve in the British armed forces. In fact, this group has managed to attract thousands of recruits from free societies throughout the world to help build a paradise of repression and sectarian slaughter in Syria and Iraq. This is an astonishing phenomenon, and it reveals some very uncomfortable truths about the failures of multiculturalism, the inherent vulnerability of open societies, and the terrifying power of bad ideas. 

Maajid Nawaz: ‘We Cannot Shoot Our Way Out of This Problem’ of Muslim Extremism…


From Maajid Nawaz

“We cannot shoot our way out of this problem. We are in the midst of a global jihadist insurgency and we have to render the appeal of this Islamist ideology as unattractive as Soviet Communism has now become for young people today.”

Sam Harris: Islamism Must Be Confronted And Changed As Relentlessly As Christianism Is…



Why I Left Islam…



From Reddit

I’m sharing my story with you of how I left Islam. I’m a Saudi, born and raised. My whole family and society are religious. As I grew older I got interested in reading about sciences particularly Physics. Since I was little I had to believe every rumor and myth that made the local believe a defence for it like witchcraft, evil eye, and other many superstitious stuff. I tried many times to speak rationaly with my family and friends and the answer I only get is that “Islam scholars say it so how do you deny that!”.

Second thing is how Islam is forced here EVERYONE has to be a muslim or they’re gonna get abandoned by the society and their family and if they’re lucky, the government will not execute them if they agreed to get back.

Also, I travelled to many countries around the world where I met many good friends and questioned, are all of these innocent people doomed just because they happened to not be born in the exact right system of believe. I mean, there are thousands if not millions of religions out there!

Sorry for the long post but I’m having a really hard time here and have to put a mask in front of everyone I know except my close friend.

Missing the Point of Charlie Hebdo. Again.



From Maajid Nawaz

The French satirical magazine stands accused of racism and anti-refugee bias when, in fact, it was mocking both.

Offense is not given. It is taken.

Few other outlets bring this truth to life better than besieged left-wing satirical magazine, Charlie Hebdo. Once again, this magazine finds itself at the center of a global furor for depicting the dead refugee child Aylan al-Kurdi in two searing images. The first features the washed up image of poor little Aylan next to a McDonald’s happy meal sign, and the other features Jesus walking on water next to a caption stating that while Christians float, Muslims drown.

Ladies and gentleman, Charlie Hebdo. That’s why i was not and will never be Charlie. How can you mock that poor kid??
— Zariyab Mhd (@iZariyab) September 13, 2015

The outrage began when Arab and Turkish newspapers decided that Hebdo must be mocking little Aylan.

But soon, non-Arab media also joined the fray and eventually certain race-equality activists, such as barrister Peter Herbert—chair of the U.K.’s Society of Black Lawyers and former vice chair of the Metropolitan Police Authority—were threatening legal action, stating that ‘Charlie Hebdo is a purely racist, xenophobic and ideologically bankrupt publication that represents the moral decay of France. The Society of Black Lawyers will consider reporting this as incitement to hate crime and persecution before the International Criminal Court.’

Islam and the Necessity of Liberal Critique…



Presented at the American Humanist Association 74th Annual Conference, May 7-10, 2015, in Denver, Colorado. #ahacon15

Reformists in Muslim countries are routinely silenced, through persecution or violence, which has been increasing over the last few decades as Islamism gains traction. Liberals are in a unique position to make a nuanced and compassionate critique of harmful conceptions of religion- a position which we are ceding. As a result, the only visible voices are those of hate-mongers from the far-right, Islamists and outright apologists. It is of the highest priority that liberals exert pressure on both groups towards positive change.

Sarah Haider is a co-founder of Ex-Muslims of North America, a community building organization for Ex-Muslims across the non-theist spectrum, for which she currently works to reduce discrimination of those who left Islam.

We Need to Talk About Islam’s Jihadism Problem…


From Maajid Nawaz and Sam Harris
Daily Beast

It’s time to confront Islamism head on—without cries of Islamophobia. Holding Islam up to scrutiny, rationally and ethically, must not be confused with anti-Muslim bigotry.

Ours was an inauspicious first meeting. Nawaz, a former Muslim extremist turned liberal reformer, had just participated in a public debate about the nature of Islam. Though he had spent five years in an Egyptian prison for attempting to restore a medieval “caliphate,” Nawaz argued in favor of the motion that night, affirming that Islam is, indeed, “a religion of peace.” Harris, a well-known atheist and strident critic of Islam, had been in the audience. At a dinner later that evening, Harris was asked to comment on the event. He addressed his remarks directly to Nawaz:

Harris: Maajid, it seems to me that you have a problem. You need to convince the world—especially the Muslim world—that Islam is a religion of peace that has been hijacked by extremists. But the problem is that Islam isna religion of peace, and the so-called extremists are seeking to implement what is arguably the most honest reading of the faith’s actual doctrine. So the path of reform appears to be one of pretense: You seem obliged to pretend that the doctrine is something other than it is—for instance, you must pretend that jihad is just an inner spiritual struggle, whereas it’s primarily a doctrine of holy war. Here, in this room, can’t you just be honest with us? Is the path forward for Islam a matter of pretending certain things are true long enough and hard enough so as to make them true?

Nawaz: Are you calling me a liar?

Harris: What?

Nawaz: Are you calling me a liar?

It was good that we weren’t seated at the same table, because we were now more apes than scholars. The conversation ended abruptly, and with bad feelings. Happily, the room quickly erupted with dozens of parallel conversations, diffusing the tension.

Talking about Islam today is a dangerous business. Disagreements about the role this religion plays in the world have become a wellspring of intolerance and violence. Cartoonists have been massacred in Paris to shouts of “We have avenged the Prophet!” Secular bloggers have been hacked to death in Bangladesh. Embassies have burned over YouTube videos. And young men and women by the thousands have abandoned their lives in free societies to join the apocalyptic savagery of ISIS. For years, Western politicians and commentators have struggled to understand this phenomenon. And many have struggled not to understand it, denying any link between “Muslim extremism” and the religion of Islam.