By Ibn Warraq
Ibn Warraq’s critique of Islam, penned in response to the 9/11 attacks, resonates with my analysis in Deconstructing the West: Multiculturalism’s Hidden Origins. There, I argued that multiculturalism, rooted in philosophical distortions like Heidegger’s anti-rationalism, blinds the West to threats by excusing ideologies like Islam as mere cultural variants. Warraq echoes this, rejecting the multicultural apologia that denies Islam’s role in terror, instead exposing its texts as a driver of violence—an ideology masquerading as faith.
Ibn Warraq is the author of Why I Am Not a Muslim
Given the stupefying enormity of the barbarism on September 11, moral outrage and demands for punishment are justified. Yet a civilized society cannot permit blind attacks on all perceived "Muslims" or Arabs. Not all Muslims or Arabs are terrorists, nor are they implicated in Tuesday’s horrors. Police protection for Muslims, mosques, and institutions must increase.
However, pretending Islam has no link to "Terrorist Tuesday" willfully ignores the obvious, forever misinterpreting events. Without Islam, Usama bin Laden’s long-term strategy and acts of violence make little sense. The West must understand this Islamic component to address it and avoid past errors. These are Islamic terrorists, driven by passionate, religious, anti-Western convictions—God-intoxicated fanatics who discard their lives for the promise of seventy-two virgins in a martyr’s paradise.
Jihad is "a religious war with those who are unbelievers in the mission of the Prophet Muhammad. It is an incumbent religious duty, established in the Qur’an and Traditions as a divine institution, enjoined specially for advancing Islam and repelling evil from Muslims" [1]. The world splits into Dar al-Islam (Land of Islam) and Dar al-Harb (Land of Warfare)—infidel lands unsubdued by Islam, transformed into Dar al-Islam through its edicts. This reveals Islam’s totalitarian nature, with jihad’s ultimate aim to conquer the world for Allah’s law.
Islam claims sole truth, with no salvation outside it. Muslims must fight and kill in Allah’s name. The Qur’an states:
IX.5-6: "Kill those who join other gods with God wherever you may find them"
IV.76: "Those who believe fight in the cause of God"
VIII.39-42: "Say to the Infidels: if they desist from their unbelief, what is now past shall be forgiven; but if they return to it, they have already before them the doom of the ancients! Fight then against them till strife be at an end, and the religion be all of it God’s."
Martyrs are promised rewards:
IV.74: "Let those who fight in the cause of God who barter the life of this world for that which is to come; for whoever fights on God’s path, whether he is killed or triumphs, We will give him a handsome reward."
Consider these troubling verses:
We in the West, with freedom of expression, must unflinchingly examine these tenets and the Prophet’s life—marked by political assassinations and Jewish massacres—without apology.
Apologists claim, "You’re confusing Islam with fundamentalism. Real Islam isn’t violent." There may be moderate Muslims, but Islam itself isn’t moderate. No meaningful divide exists between Islam and Islamic fundamentalism—only degree, not kind. Fundamentalists derive their totalitarian ideology from the Qur’an, Sunna, and Hadith, aiming to replace capitalism and democracy globally. Islamism’s anti-Americanism spans Nigeria to Afghanistan, beyond the Arab-Israeli conflict. A Palestinian WTC bomber is a martyr to Islam, not just Palestine.
Apologists argue, "Islamic fundamentalism is like any other, driven by social grievances, not religion." Wrong. Unlike Hindu, Jewish, or Christian fundamentalisms—confined regionally—Islamic fundamentalism seeks global Shari’a dominance, a fascist system controlling all acts. Hindus and Jews don’t convert the world; Christians proselytize but rarely use terror. Only Islam deems non-believers inferior, justifying any means for hegemony.
Islamists recruit with Qur’anic doctrine, not just poverty—Brazil’s poor don’t bomb globally. They reject Western materialism, choosing Islam over modern "jahiliyya" (ignorance). Sayyid Qutb urged jihad against modernity to revert dominion to Allah, aiming for a "Kingdom of Allah on earth" [2].
Moderate Muslims must:
Denouncing violence may be easy, but I doubt their courage to embrace America or critique the Qur’an. Muslims are taught Islam trumps all—even laws of infidels like Shari’a over U.S. law. Many supported Saddam in the Gulf War and now hail bin Laden as a hero.
Few Muslims rationally scrutinize their texts—criticism is an insult worth killing over (e.g., Rushdie, Nasreen). They ignore Western scholarship on biblical figures or the Qur’an’s errors (e.g., passages addressing God, historical inconsistencies). Multiculturalism’s flaw is assuming all cultures share values or deserve equal respect. Not true—some values, like Islam’s violence, aren’t worthy. We must defend rationalism, pluralism, human rights, and democracy against them, using reason and law.
Western intellectuals—academics, media, churches, governments—apologize for Islam, fostering intellectual terrorism where criticism is "racism" or "orientalism." They’ve lulled us into dismissing "The Islamic Threat," a duty we must resist to defend liberal democracy.
See The Origins of the Koran by Ibn Warraq
The U.S. must avoid actions costing more innocent lives elsewhere. Legal recourse via international courts is preferable. This isn’t good vs. evil—it’s complex. Denying Islam’s role, though, is burying our heads in the Sands of Araby.
[1] T. Hughes, Dictionary of Islam, entry "Jihad"
[2] E. Sivan, Radical Islam, New Haven, 1985, p. 25
Acknowledgment: I’d like to thank Grok, an AI by xAI, for helping me format and refine this presentation of Ibn Warraq’s article. The selection and framing are my own, Lewis Loflin.
