Nuking Dakdok in Six Minutes

The anti-Islam activist Usama Dakdok has regularly declared that Koran Chapter 5: Verse 48 makes it impossible for the Christian New Testament to have been abrogated by the Koran, because it declares it is a guardian over previous revelation. Usama Dakdok further proclaims that no Muslim would ever believe that Islam abrogates previous faiths. These claims are utterly and demonstrably false.

Recently, I called out Usama Dakdok for what I categorized as his hate speech when he declared that no Muslim should be allowed to carry a gun and serve in law enforcement in the United States. He immediately went on the offensive when I asked him to apologize to all of the Muslims who are serving and have served the United States with honor. Dakdok rejected the idea of ever apologizing and chose instead to double down on his rhetoric, saying that it should be unconstitutional for a Muslim to serve in a security post in the United States.

Since that encounter, for two weeks running, Dakdok has reviled, slandered, belittled, and attacked my character, my faith, my scholarship and the intent of my message to the anti-Islamization and the Counter Jihad Communities.

Why? Because I dared to teach the truth according to Islamic teaching and belief, that Islam annexes all previous faiths and the Koran abrogates all previous scripture.

Dakdok has called me a propagandist, a useful idiot, and lavished a host of other colorful insults in his contrived diatribes, which are designed as a long frame shaming campaign to pull me into a debate setting with him, all so that he can continue to spew this vile and unwarranted rebuke, empty of any refutation. He has stated that we have no common ground because I am a Deist and he is a Christian, which is nothing short of naked bigotry masquerading as righteousness.

In the end, Dakdok’s claim that Chapter 5: Verse 48 of the Koran guards the Christian and Jewish holy texts rather than abrogates them is a complete denial of reality and refusal to recognize that Islamic Supremacism exists. Strangely, then, in that frame, if you think about it, Usama Dakdok is actually apologizing for Islam in an effort to justify the erroneous notion that the New Testament remains the Truth, according to the Koran which he regularly states is chock full of contradictions.

After listening to Usama’s tirades and invective against my person for two weeks solid, I chose to confront Dakdok with the truth on his GPR program.

In six minutes, I nuked his ministry’s approach to Koran Chapter 5: Verse 48, which is in line with the Christian Apologist position on the matter.

I called into Dakdok’s show and asked for 10 minutes to make my case rather than equal time. Usama was so overwhelmed by my retaliatory strike that he interrupted me after only six minutes. He couldn’t stand the flame for a full 10 minutes. He then attempted to destroy me by saying that I hate Christians, that I was defending Islam and that one day I would admit that I am a Muslim in the media – three outrageous calumnies that amount to nothing more than desperate claims wrought from the devastating shock that the entire foundation of his ministry could be torpedoed by anyone, much less that such a feat could be accomplished in six minutes.

My question is this – if Usama Dakdok can’t stand up to my defensive strikes for more than six minutes, how could he possibly believe he could stand up to my offensive strikes in a full debate setting?

The fact is Usama is not qualified to debate anyone, much less me. Watch any of his previous “debates” on youtube and you will see that his style is always the same. He has only one gear – to belittle, insult, berate and attack his opponent. That is, the Dakdok debate method is to destroy the man he is facing rather than to counter that man’s arguments with constructive proof, argument or evidence. Dakdok’s debate style does not amount to a cordial exchange of ideas in a professional manner, it amounts to childish preening and peacocking.

Why would anyone debate such a jackass?

To be clear, my goal is to defeat Islamic Supremacy. That will never change. I am and will always be an American Deist. Personally, I think organized religion is a crock. But, so long as they are law abiding citizens, I respect others if they choose to partake in man’s religion because faith can provide meaning, structure, beauty, fellowship, as well as a sense of belonging and security to their lives.

The reason that I am showing people that Muslims believe Islam annexes Christianity and Judaism and all other faiths and their holy scriptures is that I find such a belief to be offensive and supremacist. I am defending Christianity and Judaism by awakening everyone to the fact that Muslims are taught that the current Christian and Jewish sects are nothing but rogue cult remnants rather than true religions. In this, Islam does not accept the validity of current religions apart from Islam. I find this to be an objectionable and an abominable element of Islamic thought.

If I have to debunk a Christian Apologist or Christian Polemicist argument to get this message across, it is not because I hate the Bible or Christianity, it is because I resent the fact that Muslims are required to believe that Islam is the only religion left on the planet due to the fact that Muhammad was the Seal of the Prophets. That is not propaganda. That is what Muslims are required to believe.

I nuked the framework of Usama Dakdok’s ministry with a simple statement of fact that included only two pieces of evidence. Of course, he interrupted me at the second to last paragraph of my short statement, so I continued to speak over him and then left his show that he and his co-host might button up for the evening in disarray.

Here is how I nuked Dakdok in six minutes:

First off, I think Usama would claim his position on abrogation is in line with the Christian Apologist Community’s. Therefore, if I debunk his case against my position and defeat his position, I will summarily defeat that entire community. Realize that.

I would make a wager with anyone that I can defend my position, which accurately teaches what Muslims believe by the way; and, I can also nuke the whole of the Christian Apologist position on abrogation, using only two pieces of evidence.

Usama kindly offered me equal time. With respect, I don’t need equal time – Usama has been talking about this for two or three hours on this and his last show. I ask only 10 to 12 minutes or so to put this issue to bed, starting now.

Usama’s central argument is that Chapter 5: Verse 48 of the Koran guards pre-Islamic scripture from abrogation and that Muslims have no cause to claim the Koran abrogates previous faiths or their texts. In this, I take Usama’s point, but my position disagrees for solid reason and with unshakable proof.

In Saudi Arabia, back in 2000, the question arose whether it would be ok to publish a unity testament of faith, including the Jew[ish], Christian and Muslim holy texts. The result was a fatwa.

21 Saudi clerics in The Standing Committee on Academic Research and Issuing Fatwas, issued Fatwa 10213: The Ruling on the call to Unite all Religions, which found such a text would be kufr to produce.

The fatwa has 10 points – the first 3 defend my position.

  1. One of the basic principles of belief in Islam…on which all the Muslims are agreed (via the scholarly consensus of ijmaa) is that there is no true religion on the face of the earth apart from Islam. It is the final religion which abrogates all religions and laws that came before it. There is no religion on earth according to which Allah is to be worshiped apart from Islam. As proof, the clerics issued Chapter 5: Verse 3 Today I have completed my religion for you and have fulfilled on you my grace. And Chapter 3: Verse 85 And whoever desires any other religion except Islam, so it will not be accepted from him.
  2. One of the basic principles of belief in Islam is that the Book of Allah, the Holy Quran, is the last of the Books to be revealed from the Lord of the Worlds. It abrogates all the Books that came before it, the Tawraat, Zaboor, Injeel and others, and it is a Muhaymin over them [Muhaymin means that which testifies the truth that is therein and falsifies the falsehood that is added therein]. The Saudi clerics then issue Chapter 5: Verse 48 as proof for this abrogation claim, the very same guardian verse central to the Christian Apologist argument.
  3. It is obligatory to believe that the Tawraat and Injeel have been abrogated by the Quran, and that they have been altered and distorted, with things added and taken away. The clerics issue Chapter 5: Verse 13 and others as proof, which I am sure Usama would agree have not been abrogated.

Now, in a smoke screen argument, Christian Apologists tend to say only Ahmadis believe abrogation refers primarily to pre-Islamic scripture, arguing that rather than using the word ‘Ayah’ to indicate a verse to verse substitution, the word ‘Kitab’ or Book would’ve been used if that had been the intent.

But, as you see in Fatwa 10213, the Saudi Kingdom’s clerics agree that abrogation of previous faiths is a basic obligatory principle of the faith – they are Sunni and represent 85% of Muslims.

I now continue my defense with evidence drawn from Reliance of the Traveler.

Turn to page 846 of the Sharia manual Reliance, Appendix W 4.1 #2, and you will read:

Previously revealed religions were valid in their own eras, as is attested to by many verses of the Holy Koran, but were abrogated by the universal message of Islam, as is equally attested to by many verses of the Koran. Both points are worthy of attention from English-speaking Muslims, who are occasionally exposed to erroneous theories advanced by some teachers and Koran translators affirming these religions’ validity but denying or not mentioning their abrogation, or [mentioning] that it is unbelief (kufr) to hold that the remnant cults now bearing the names of formerly valid religions, such as Christianity or Judaism, are acceptable to Allah Most High after he has sent the final Messenger to the entire world. This is a matter over which there is no disagreement among Islamic scholars, and if English-speaking Muslims at times discuss it as if there were some question about it, the only reason can be that no one has yet offered them a translation of a scholarly Koranic exegesis (tafsir) to explain the accord between the various Koranic verses, and their agreement with the Sunna.

One line could have been written specifically for Usama Dakdok – Sentence 2 begins “Both points are worthy of attention from English-speaking Muslims, who are occasionally exposed to erroneous theories advanced by some teachers and Koran translators affirming these religions’ validity but denying or not mentioning their abrogation…” It goes on to define the Christian and Jewish sects of today as cults, because there is only one religion left – Islam…

[In this frame,] Jews screwed up when they did not accept Jesus. Christians screwed up when they did not accept Muhammad. Jews doubly screwed up when they did not accept Muhammad.

All previous religions and their texts are abrogated, according to this Sharia Law appendix manual narrative account. Hence my claim Islam annexes previous faiths is proven sound by Reliance – which virtually all Sunnis pay heed.

With two pieces of evidence – the Christian Apologist position has now officially been NUKED.

My position stands tall, because my goal has been to describe what Muslims believe, not what we would wish them to believe, which is what the Christian Apologist argument is geared to achieve.

Now, for those keeping score, if Usama cannot produce a unity testament in Arabic from a Sharia guided country or a paper he has already written refuting Reliance appendix W 4, then it is safe to say his position is utterly demolished by virtue of the Koran, the Sunna, the Sharia and the Ijmaa consensus as evidenced via the tafsir.

My position is solid. Moreover, it is obligatory for a Muslim to take the position I describe; but, if they so choose to take that position beheld by Christian Apologists, they will be labeled apostate for committing the crime against humanity of Kufr – a crime whose penalty is death.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide this clarifying position, today. To my mind, there is no debate – I am not going to say the Christian Apologists are liars – I am going to say they are grasping at straws to defend their faith; and as you have all just witnessed, their position stands in defiance of reality. Good night. God bless.

You can find this Saturday August 12, 2017 show on Blog Talk Radio here – the call begins at about the 1 hour and 43 minute mark. From the time I say “starting now” to the time I said “My position is solid” was exactly 6 minutes.

Here is a link to a site with the Fatwa 10213, if you would like to read all 10 points.

Without doubt, if they ever expect to completely debunk the CAIR claims that hate and Islamophobia are rampant within their activist efforts to defeat the advance of Islamic Supremacy, it is essential that the anti-Islamization community’s thought leaders openly rebuke and purge the naked bigotry of Usama Dakdok, and soon.

It is long past time for Dakdok to retire.

Usama Dakdok’s “Allah is Satan” argument is a lunatic fringe position that should be roundly rejected by the anti-Islamization community’s leadership. Beyond this, the simple truth is that Dakdok’s mercenary hate speech and destructive bully tactics are not helpful in this war of ideas on any level. Dakdok offers his audience righteous rage without any solutions rather than reasoned resentment with achievable remedies.

Ironically, rather than seeking remedy via reconciliation, which is what his claims about Chapter 5: Verse 48 of the Koran were originally designed to achieve by the Christian and Islamic Apologist communities, Dakdok rejects interfaith conflict resolution and dialog and launched a weeks long shaming campaign against James White of Alpha & Omega Ministries on his GPR program because James White had the audacity to sit down with a Muslim leader in America and have a friendly exchange of ideas.

What Usama Dakdok has failed to realize is that when he went to war with James White for engaging in interfaith dialogue, he opened the whole of the rationale and the entire foundation of his ministry up for scrutiny.

By going to war against James White, Usama Dakdok effectively put himself on trial!

Suddenly, the basis of Dakdok’s claims regarding Koran Chapter 5: Verse 48 were in question. To be sure, James White was keeping with the spirit of the assertion that the guardian verse of the Koran allowed Christianity and other faiths to retain their full nature and validity. In this, even if James White’s efforts to move beyond debate to a respectful conversation could be construed as misguided, it is clear that the two talks were constructive and productive because both parties to the discussion agreed to disagree when appropriate in perfect amity. However, in the aftermath, because he made the volitional choice to launch an attack on James White for engaging in interfaith dialog with a Muslim, Usama Dakdok revealed his entire ministry to be a sham.

Ask yourself: Is Reliance of the Traveler, the Sharia Law manual, propaganda?

I submit a salvo from Reliance from Appendix v2.1 (p822), just so there is no confusion:

Allah Most High sent Muhammad (…), the Qurayshite unlettered prophet, to deliver His inspired message to the entire world, Arabs and non-Arabs, jinn and mankind, superseding and abrogating all previous religious systems with the Prophet’s Sacred Law, except the provisions of them that the new revelation explicitly reconfirmed. Allah has favored him above all the other prophets and made him the highest of mankind, rejecting anyone’s attesting to the divine oneness by saying “There is no god but Allah,” unless they also attest to the Prophet by saying “Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah.” He has obliged men and jinn to believe everything the Prophet (…) has informed us concerning this world and the next, and does not accept anyone’s faith unless they believe in what he has told us will happen after death.

Now, I would ask you a simple question: Did the Koran confirm that Jesus was God or that Allah had a Triune nature as described in the New Testament? Of course not. It explicitly denied these assertions of the New Testament.

You see, the confusion arises on the question of abrogation. Christian apologists and others who reason the Koran upholds previous scripture either (a) do not understand Islam’s reckoning of the line of prophets, (b) do not accept the idea that Muhammad is a prophet, or (c) reject the Koran as a book revealed by God. One, two or all three of these in combination yield natural blind spots to Islam’s articles of faith, which includes the Hadith backed belief that all of the previous prophets would acknowledge Muhammad is the final Messenger of Allah and that his revelations in the Koran surpass their own in value and perfection.

To be blunt, Islamic belief holds that Muhammad’s universal message abrogates all previous messages. This belief has nothing to do with the Doctrine or the Principle of Abrogation, in which verses within the Koran and between the Sunna and the Koran are abrogated. Rather, the belief is an affirmation of the Prophet Muhammad as the seal of the line of prophets down from Adam and a re-affirmation that Muhammad’s revealed message was the final testament of Allah that made all previous testaments and religions into things of bygone eras, into clear proofs and reminders of Allah’s Mercy on humanity before the advent of Muhammad’s ministry.

Just to clarify, I do not deny that Sunni Muslims in particular hold that the mastery of the principle of abrogation is paramount in the establishment of the faith. Moreover, I am perfectly willing to concede that David Bukay’s Fall 2007 piece at the Middle Eastern Quarterly, “Peace or Jihad? Abrogation in Islam” is accurate. And I have on multiple occasions. But, this apologist and polemicist driven claim that Koran Chapter 5: Verse 48 somehow guards the New and Old Testament from being abrogated by the message of Islam in the Koran is absolutely and demonstrably false in that it wrongly posits that the Doctrine of Abrogation has the power to overrule the basic articles of the Islamic faith, namely, that Muhammad is the Seal of the Prophets.

This is not in any way a defense of Islam, it is merely a clarification of reality. Islam is inherently supremacist in this regard. And, in this instance, the Christian Apologist instinct to proselytize on behalf of Christ in Muslim communities obfuscates reality by masking the affirmation of Islam’s supremacy and muddying the waters.

In a consistently breathtaking show of vanity, Usama Dakdok seems to believe he has some supernatural anointed powers of knowledge because he can read the original Arabic script of the Classic Tafsir. It is time to let the air out of Dakdok’s inflated ego.

Having the capacity to understand Arabic does not in any way guarantee or in any real sense automatically translate into the capacity to understand Islam. Dakdok may be able to read Kathir and Qurtubi and Tabari and a host of other classic Islamic jurists in unvarnished and unabridged Arabic volumes, but that capacity does not in any way mean that he either fully understands Islam or that he is willing to truly comprehend Islam’s basic obligatory principles of belief. And, in that regard, if Dakdok does fully understand the basic articles of the Islamic faith as he claims, then he is nothing more than a scam artist and misinformation specialist of the lowest order, peddling lies to delude others into accepting his cult of personality in the name of Jesus.

It is time to isolate and purge this element of hate and bigotry from our movement of reasoned resentment against the accommodation of Sharia and Islam.

The Straight Way of Grace Ministry led by Usama Dakdok does not in any way represent my views on either Muslims or Islam. Moreover, for the record, Usama Dakdok’s rhetoric should not in any way be considered synonymous or in accord with the views and the aims of the anti-Islamization community’s activists in relation to Muslims and Islam.

We have a war of ideas to wage, to compete in, and to win, my friends.

The simple fact is that Usama Dakdok’s righteous rage, his naked bigotry, his unhinged paranoia, and his internally conflicted approach to Islam represent a black mark that must be acknowledged and disavowed in the days, months and years ahead.

The anti-Islamization movement must purge the Dakdok scourge.

Victory requires it.

Mack Zed, The Hammer of Providence (8/14/2017; 5:40pmEST)

Linda Sarsour’s Resounding Notes on Tyranny

Linda Sarsour’s Resounding Notes On Tyranny

By Mack Zed | July 14, 2017

Many if not most of the counter-jihad theorists and anti-Islamization activists in the West, today, believe Islam is a radical totalitarian political ideology – akin to Nazism, Fascism or Communism – rather than a religion. The phrase ‘Radical Islam’ is a shorthand variation of this assessment of modern Islamism, or political Islam. The theorists and activists find fault with the dualism Sharia Law exhibits; that is, they find it problematic that Islamic Law treats Muslims and non-Muslims differently. While the classification of Islam as a political ideology is not wholly accurate, it would be a mistake to categorize the concerns of these activists and theorists as irrational fears, since over 100 verses in the Koran relate to the utter destruction and conquest of the non-Muslim through Jihad. These thinkers do not hate or fear Islam, they resent it. There is a difference between animosity and enmity. Western counter-Sharia activists do not hate Muslims, they resent Islamists who espouse Radical Islam and Jihadists who carry out terrorist attacks and insurgencies in the name of Allah. That is, they resent the tyranny advanced by these individuals at the behest of a radical vision of supremacy. And, the last time I checked, it is more than reasonable to harbor animosity for tyranny in its every form; indeed, it is unlikely that you could find a Muslim who disagrees with this sentiment. Knowing this, it is from the vantage of this perceived agreement in the arena of tyranny that western activists and theorists should consider the nature of their ‘Radical Islam’ discourse.

Ask any observant Muslim and he or she will tell you that the tyrant is a social scourge, a test of suffering on this earth, best confronted with Jihad. According to one popular Islamic tradition, Tariq ibn Shihab reported that a man once asked Muhammad, “What is the best jihad?” And the Prophet of Islam responded, “A word of truth in front of a tyrannical ruler.” By most accounts, this is a Sahih saying, an authentic Hadith tradition. Every non-Muslim thinker can appreciate the strength of will and character required to straighten one’s shoulders and speak the truth aloud without flinching in the face of death or torture should a tyrant in audience find the sentiment objectionable, treasonous or criminal. However, when analyzed in terms of the revelations in the Koran, it becomes clear that tyranny holds a radically different connotation in the Muslim psyche than that beheld by the mind of the patriotic defenders of Freedom in the West, who would find this Islamic stance against the tyrant appealing, in principle.

In the Koran the term that skewers the idea of tyranny and the concept of a tyrant is Taghut. In Islamic thought, a taghut is one who misleads. More specifically, a taghut is a leader who crosses the limits of acceptable or permissible behavior and thus displays his rebellion against Allah’s Law. In the worst case, a taghut is a tyrannical leader who sets himself on par with Allah. In all cases, the taghut is led to delude the people by the whispers of Iblis, and is among the rebellious party of Satan. Muslims are presented with three major examples of the taghut in the Islamic tradition. Abraham and Moses are depicted as standing firm for Allah’s Law in the face of tyrants. And Muhammad, too, was forced to face down a taghut.

According to the Islamic tradition, Ibrahim, or Abraham, was a bit of a troublemaker in his day. The Koran delivers a number of tales in which Abraham destroys the idols of his people. But, when his exploits land him before the high king Nimrod, Abraham was forced to outwit a taghut that had misled his subjects into worshiping idols. When quizzed about Allah by Nimrod, Abraham spoke his word of truth, “My Lord is He Who gives life and causes to die.” At this statement, Nimrod ordered his servants to bring forth two prisoners. Nimrod, asserting he was the Lord of the earth rather than Allah, ordered one prisoner to be put to death and the other to be freed and said, “As you see, I hold the power to give life and cause to die in this domain.” To counter the taghut, Abraham then said, “Allah causes the sun to rise from the East. Do you possess the power to make the sun rise from the West?” This episode is visible in the Koran in Verses 2:256 through 2:258. Here is the Saheeh International interpretation:

[2:256] There shall be no compulsion in [acceptance of] the religion. The right course has become distinct from the wrong. So whoever disbelieves in taghut and believes in Allah has grasped the most trustworthy handhold with no break in it. And Allah is Hearing and Knowing.

[2:257] Allah is the Ally of those who believe. He brings them out from darkness into the light. And those who disbelieve – their allies are taghut. They take them out of the light into darknesses. Those are the companions of the Fire; they will abide eternally therein.

[2:258] Have you not considered the one who argued with Abraham about his Lord [merely] because Allah had given him kingship? When Abraham said, “My Lord is the one who gives life and causes death,” he said, “I give life and cause death.” Abraham said, “Indeed, Allah brings up the sun from the east, so bring it up from the west.” So the disbeliever was overwhelmed [by astonishment], and Allah does not guide the wrongdoing people.

Similarly, in the Islamic frame, Musa, or Moses, is depicted as squaring off with a taghut, the Pharaoh of Egypt, who refused to obey the command of Allah to free the Israelites from slavery. In this case, Moses actually prays for Allah to destroy the riches of the Pharaoh and his chiefs and to harden their hearts for the crime of believing themselves to be blessed with godly power on the earth due to their wealth and adornment until such time as they see their chastisement from Allah. When it was clear that the sea would swallow him and his men, the taghut Pharaoh would at last relent and submit to the god of Moses, Allah. But rather than having mercy on the taghut, Allah killed him and cast his body to shore as a portent for those tyrants who would follow and remain heedless of Allah’s signs. The episode is found in the Koran in Verses 10:88 through 10:92.

In Islamic thought, while the pre-Koranic Messengers of Allah, Abraham and Moses, with only faith as their shield, opposed the corrupting power of tyrannical kings with the weight of armies and sorcerers at their command, the taghut of Muhammad’s time was an influential man named Amr ibn Hisham of the Makhzum clan, who was referred to by the Quraysh as Abu al-Hakam, a kunya which meant “Father of Wisdom”. At the battle of Badr, the first military confrontation between the Muslims and the Quraysh idol-worshipers in 624 AD, Muhammad’s main antagonist, the taghut Abu Jahl, was killed. In many ways, the lessons in the Koran about the Pharaoh were directed squarely at this figure. The Islamic concept of Jahiliyyah refers to an age of ignorance that ended with the death of Abu Jahl on the fields around the wells of Badr; that is, the age of false belief ended when the supreme Truth of the Koran was made manifest to the world when Allah defeated the taghut which oppressed the earliest Muslim community. Thus, for Islamic fundamentalists, salafi-wahhabists, and Islamist activist elements of the Muslim Brotherhood, which take cues from supremacist teachings of Sayyid Qutb and Maulana Maududi among others such as Ibn Abd al-Wahhab and Ibn Taymiyya, the taghut and jahiliyyah are constructs of lasting importance in the establishment of a just social order. By the same token, non-violent and reform-minded Muslims, often referred to as moderate Muslims, who seek to advance a pluralistic interpretation of Islam, look to the oppression and torture of the earliest Muslim community at the hands of the taghut Abu Jahl and evoke a purely social justice minded form of Islam. That is, psychologically, peaceful Muslims are just as wedded to the Islamic teachings surrounding the taghut as the activist Islamist and violent jihadist elements of the faith community, if not more so.

It is for this reason that Linda Sarsour’s recent speech at ISNA, the Islamic Society of North America, should be regarded as a teachable moment for the anti-Islamization community in the West. The non-Muslims of the western world, by and large, are befuddled by the constant refrains of “Death to America” that arise from the Muslim World amid conflict, and have grown numb to the ubiquitous characterization of the United States of America as “The Great Satan” by Muslim leaders for the last half century. Linda Sarsour’s speech, while directed at the Trump Administration, sheds light on this phenomenon. More importantly, Sarsour’s resounding notes on tyranny have brought the question of the compatibility of Islam and the West to the forefront of our modern discourse in striking tones.

Radicalization vs. Weaponization

In our current discourse on the topic of Islamic Supremacy, it is clear that the idea of radicalization no longer holds meaning for the western audience. No one ever asks what radicalization is, or by what process it occurs. The term ‘Radical Islam’ is inflammatory to the progressive left, who refuse to accept that the religion of Islam is connected to the jihadist terrorism carried out in its name. The term ‘Violent Extremism’ is much more palatable to Islam’s apologists in academia and defenders in the press, and too, for the politically correct policy wonks and spineless leader class in Europe and the Americas, today. What is lost in the debate is the nature of ‘radicalization’. The word ‘radical’ has been used to describe progressive, liberal and socialist leftists for well over a decade. The term is usually associated with an ideology, not a religion. And, for the anti-Islamization activists in the West, that is precisely the point. In their estimation, Islam is not a religion, it is a political ideology intent on establishing a global caliphate. But, whether they would agree or no, Islam is a religion with 1.7 billion adherents.  It is likely that 170 million of these Muslims (10% worldwide) are radicalized. The question that no one can answer with a research poll or cultural study is: How many Muslims have been weaponized? This unasked question in the main offers the Counter-Sharia crowd an opportunity to lend Providence a hand and win the war of ideas at long last. However, to do so will require a leap of humility, namely, the recognition that they have been right in their identification of the threat yet wrong about the nature of the threat.




Muhammad’s Criterion:

A Koran Commentary


Mack Zed


Islam is a language unto itself. If you learn nothing else from this American’s treatment of the Koran, this singular perception shift is worth the price of all the pages that follow; for, the Koran is a testament revealed in the language of Islam with the specific role of guiding those who are willing to submit to Allah’s divine discernment of the difference between truth and falsehood, between right and wrong, between good and evil, between friend and foe until the end of time.

After well over a decade in constant study of the religion known as Islam, its holy texts, bios of its key personalities, the geographic and societal impact of its imperialist expansion, the thought of its classical scholars across its wide ranging sciences, and the modern conflicts and the terror nodes that plague the faith, what I can say for certain is I have embarked on a life long journey toward rendering an intelligible Koran for those western minds that seek to achieve a lasting peace in the decades ahead.

Muhammad’s Criterion is a necessary commentary on the Koran written by a non-Muslim with an express aim: to help others make sense of the bewildering holy text that serves as the central proof of Allah’s existence, as the central theophany of the religion of Islam. The commentary represents the first book length manuscript of a man who has spent a quarter of his life in pursuit of resolutions to the problems generated by the rise of Islamic Supremacism in our current information age.

By no means is Muhammad’s Criterion intended to be an exhaustive accounting or anything nearing a comprehensive appraisal of the Koran, of the prophet Muhammad’s life or the religion of Islam. Charting new avenues toward an intelligible Koran is my only province in the creation of this directed commentary on the sacred text of what is all but destined to be the world’s largest religion by 2060. This exercise in exegesis is geared to present a balanced appraisal of a uniquely Islamic concept referred to in Arabic as “al-Furqan” and often translated into English as “the Criterion”.

Continue reading

APRIL 12, 2016

By and large, the leading scholars and activists of the counterjihadist and anti-Islamization movements now languidly gelling in the West have focused their educational vignettes on the specter of Shariah Law. In so doing, they have formed their core arguments against the glaringly apparent dualism of the political ideology within Islam, itself, via the tenets and injunctions of the faith wrought by the Koran, the Hadith, the Sira and Sunna traditions. However, though it is clear in the minds of the jihadists and Islamists the world over that a clash of civilizations is hotly on, the valid concerns of liberty’s champions spelled out in both domestic and international spheres continue to fall on deaf ears at the highest levels of governance in the West. As such, to fully arm the mounting opposition to Islamic Supremacy with the capacity to break out of the echo chamber of resentment and thereby mobilize onto the stage of dissent with an effective revolt, I give you Dhimmipolitik.

Dhimmipolitik defined:The statecraft of ethically, economically, politically, diplomatically, or militarily submitting to the dictates of Shariah Law; accepting the supremacy of Allah’s Rights over Individual Rights and National Sovereignty via policies of appeasement and surrender.