“only if you were able to remove the Koran from Muslims’ hearts.”

“O America,” Adnani said. “Would we be defeated and you be victorious if you were to take Mosul or Sirte or Raqqa? . . . Certainly not! We would be defeated and you victorious only if you were able to remove the Koran from Muslims’ hearts.”

Thus reports Robin Wright in her latest New Yorker piece, After The Islamic State, without comment. I am wondering whether this is her clever way of getting the message out there without falling foul of the censorship that Western media have imposed on themselves in respect of Islam, or laying herself open to attack by the “Islamophobia” mobs.

Adnani was a terrorist and, alhamdullillah, he is now working his way through his allotted 72 virgins. As this blog, and so many others have been saying repeatedly, if you want to see Islam, look no further than ISIS. No one knows Islam better than ISIS. No one is more honest about Islam than ISIS. And Adnani, evil as he was, was right. There have been may ISISes down the centuries. One by one they’ve been defeated, and one by one they arose again. Why? Because the victors had failed to, “remove the Koran from Muslims’ hearts.”

If you are not wondering about how to achieve that, then you cannot claim to be serious about solving the problem of Islam, its terrorism obviously hasn’t affected you too badly yet, and you’ve not yet tasted Shari’a.


  1. No longer a muslim says

    I agree with you that you need to “remove the Koran from people’s hearts”. HOW do you do that, though?

    I thought that the solution was education: substitute faith schools with non-religious ones, teach science and skepticism, promote views which are in contrast with the awful message of the nonsensical book of the Koran.

    However even in my relatively secularized community people are defending islam, saying that it’s only “ignorance of the Koran” that leads people to implement what’s really there in the Koran. People believe all sorts of stupid things about Mohammed and the Koran when Mohammed actually was a pedophile warlord and the Koran is his agenda on how to kill and enslave and still be thought of as a great, magnanimous leader. And no amount of secular education seems to change that in the long run. Ataturk tried to fight islam to its core, but today even Turkey is slowly and steadily inching towards muslim theocracy.

    So what should we do? How do we really fight islam? I find myself at loss.

    • says

      Dear No Longer a Muslim,

      I am so pleased to receive your post. Thank you.

      I’m also relieved that you’ve escaped the severe disorientation that seems to have overtaken most otherwise sensible progressives in the wake of the recent US election. Just because a right-wing demagogue has unleashed a campaign against Muslims entering the US, Islam is suddenly OK and must be defended. How fickle. How damn fickle. Granted, his campaign is a blunt instrument, which brings us to a similar question to the one you’re raising: Is there a sharper instrument with which to excise Islam from the world?

      Like you, I have no clear answer to this question, but it is slowly taking shape. Religion has a stubborn hold on people’s minds, but Islam is a uniquely tenacious shackle. I don’t know as much about Ataturk’s modernisation efforts as you do, but I wonder how he went about fighting Islam to its core. Perhaps you can say more on this. I’ll look into it, too. But whether we’ve as yet correctly identified it or not, the core is where Islam needs to be fought.

      In my opinion, our best route to identifying the core of Islam is ISIS, which shows us the religion in its pure form and the Qur’an at its logical conclusion. Of course its only ignorance of the Qur’an, or a desire to mislead, that leads people to say things like, “it’s only ignorance of the Qur’an” or “the problem is not the religion; it is people” (or some variation of that). As you will have read in so many places on this blog, I think that core is: (i) the Qur’an for those who are not ignorant; and (ii) blind submission for who are ignorant. I agree with you that it is necessary to substitute secular schools for faith ones, to teach science and skepticism (and critical thinking), and to promote views that are contrary to the awful message of the Qur’an.

      But I think there is more. We need to ask ourselves, what, exactly, does it mean to “promote views that are contrary to the awful message of the Qur’an?” Here there’s the danger of slipping into a “battle of ideas” trap, as if adherence to the Qur’an, or defence of Islam, are merely points of view. I think this is the biggest mistake made by even the most prominent Western opponents of Islam. If it were a matter of winning an argument, then we’ve already lost, because all susceptibility to debate has been firmly shut off by the age of six. No. Islam itself needs to be firmly subjected to secular Western law and values without compromise or accommodation of any kind, regardless of whose feelings are involved. Islam (and Muslims) must pay dearly and be seen to pay dearly for each and every violation of this. Only when there is no equivocation about the subjection of Islam to civilised values, whether in education, law, ethics or custom, and there is no opportunity for Islam to be inculcated into children before they can think for themselves, then will there be the possibility of promoting views that are contrary to the awful message of the Qur’an. And that will be only the beginning, for the Qur’an will still be caste into every stone heart that defends it and finds it “glorious” and “noble”.

      I share your frustration, but I think we need to think in terms of generations, rather than lifetimes. The work that we do now lays the basis for those who come after us to build on. We make it easier, through efforts like this public conversation, for not only individuals, but also governments, to do what needs to be done to rid the world of Islam, and to face up to those who would frustrate their efforts. I suspect that the secularism of your relatively secularised community is an accommodation that enables them to live with themselves without having to face up to the contradiction of adhering to a cast-iron murderous faith without practising the murderous injunctions of that faith. I’m not sure you’re going to get much further with them. If you try, you are likely to find yourself at a further loss.

      I think the best we can do, for now, is to help equip those who can be put in a position to do something about Islam, and to embolden those who fear sanction from those who dare not. I doubt whether you or I will still be around when humanity is finally freed from this scourge. When people talk about how this globalised world and information age have enabled Islam to sweep the planet and infect its every corner, I say that it is the first time ever that everyone in the world is in a position to know what Islam actually is. There is reason for optimism.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *