Table of Contents                                      IslamicSupremacism.org - A Short Course                                   

Previous Page

Next Page

University Dogma on Islamic Supremacism & Jihad


  1. I found only 1 university class on IS&J offered in the U.S..


  1. Raymond Ibrahim testified before Congress 12/2011 about why the rise in Islamic supremacism you see today in Egypt is not new. Excerpts here.


  1. John Esposito, Ph.D., described by the Wall Street Journal as “America’s foremost authority and interpreter of Islam.” Professor of Religion and International Affairs, and Islamic Studies at Georgetown U, founding and current (2012) Director of Georgetown’s bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding™, named after the Saudi sheik who gave $20 million to Georgetown. He hosts major conferences there like in 2008 Is There a Role for Shari'ah in Modern States? with many celebrated Scholars™, but the presenters are screened to be sure no one hears the 80+ authoritative opinions on IS&J you have seen, or what Reliance of the Traveller or a mountain of other evidence says about sharia norms that violate the human rights articulated in the St Petersburg Declaration (SPD).


Esposito once wrote that the genocidally intolerant Sheik Qaradawi has a


  1. “mainstream... kind of reformist interpretation of Islam and its relationship to democracy, pluralism and human rights.


From his book Unholy War:


  1. “The religious rationale... for conquest and expansion was not to force conversion to Islam upon other faiths who had their own prophets and revelations - the Quran states clearly, There is No Compulsion in Religion(K-2:256) - but rather to spread its Righteous Order™ so that Ignorance™ and unbelief could be replaced by Just Societies™ throughout the world.”


That’s the same deceptive language you saw Qutb use to explain IS&J. Next, Esposito confirms what you have seen here is true, then makes it all disappear with unsupported claims in bold:


  1. “Islamic law stipulates that it is a Muslim’s duty to wage war not only against those who attack Muslim territory, but also against polytheists, apostates, and People of the Book... who refuse Muslim rule. Muslims gave these people two choices: conversion or submission to Muslim rule with the right to retain their religion and pay a poll tax... If they refused both of these options, they were subject to war. Muslim jurists saw jihad as a requirement in a world divided between what they called the dar al-Islam (land of Islam) and the dar al-harb (land of war). The Muslim community was required to engage in the struggle to expand the dar al-Islam throughout the world so that all of humankind would have the opportunity to live within a Just™ political and social order.”

    [...]

  1. “Other Quranic verses, sometimes referred to as the “sword verses,” are quoted selectively to legitimate unconditional warfare against unbelievers and were used by jurists to justify great expansion. The argument... was that the sword verses abrogated all the earlier verses that limited jihad to a defensive war: [He repeats Koran 9:5]. Yet the full intent of this verse, if it is used in isolation, can be overlooked... Although this verse has been used to justify offensive jihad, it has traditionally been read as a call for peaceful relations unless there is interference with the freedom of Muslims. The same is true of (9:29).”


Qutb & others have written in detail how these verses fit with the more peaceful verses in the context of the entire Koran as “the final ruling” of jihad in stages, and says Muslims who quote selectively are “defeatists”. The only alternate peaceful interpretations that you saw in Efforts to Reform Islam have no support in the 5 schools.  He says the “full intent of the verse, if it is used in isolation, can be overlooked” in theory, and that it has “traditionally been read as a call for peaceful relations” but doesn’t give 1 example of anyone with the authority of the 80+ you have seen. Traditionally read by whom?


  1. “Terrorists™ can attempt to Hijack™ Islam and the doctrine of jihad, but that is no more legitimate than Christian and Jewish Extremists™ committing their acts of Terrorism™ in their own unholy wars in the name of Christianity or Judaism.”


Of course IS&J is more legitimate in Islamic theology because Islam was founded on a doctrine of supremacist holy war articulated by Muhammad in the core texts, and bin Laden wasn’t hijacking anything, he quoted classic jurists and core texts and tried to emulate his prophet. Over 400 years of IS&J preceded the 1st Christian Crusade in the 11th century, which actually was defensive, and unholy because Christianity was not founded on a doctrine of holy war articulated by Jesus. And as Professor Walid Phares noted, “In the Christian world, modern Christians outlawed crusading; they did not rewrite history to legitimize themselves. Those who believe that the jihad holy war is a sin today must... outlaw it as well.”   Esposito continues,


  1. Therefore, looking at what Islamic history, law, and tradition have to say about jihad and warfare becomes critical both in trying to understand the mind of a bin Laden and in forging future relations between Islam and the West.


That is a great recommendation, but how can anyone take him seriously as a Scholar™, since the way he tries to do that is to smear and exclude people from speaking at his conferences who do exactly that?


  1. “While most Muslim Scholars™ have agreed that it is never justified to wage jihad against non-Muslims simply because of their faith or to convert them, some bluntly state, as Ibn Khaldun... "In the Muslim community, holy war is a religious duty.” (John L. Esposito, Unholy War: Terror in the Name of Islam, pp. 31-35, 62-65)


He doesn’t name these majority scholars, maybe he is talking about journalists, politicians, and Georgetown grads (Islam Three). Are they the same ones he claims have traditionally read 9:29 and 9:5 as “a call for peaceful relations”? If one of his students or an associate reads this, and he means scholars and jurists with Ph.D.’s from al-Azhar, please send the info to put on TIny Minority of Extremist page.


  1. Noah Feldman is a Harvard law Professor and Carnegie Scholar™, and architect of Iraq’s shariah based constitution. Keynote speaker in 2008 at Esposito’s conference 'Is There a Role for Shari'ah in Modern States?. In 2008 he wrote “Why Shariah” in NY Times Magazine, here is a small sample:


  1. "In fact, for most of its history, Islamic law offered the most liberal and humane legal principles available anywhere in the world. Today, when we invoke the harsh punishments prescribed by Shariah for a handful of offenses, we rarely acknowledge the high standards of proof necessary for their implementation. Before an adultery conviction can typically be obtained, for example, the accused must confess four times or four adult male witnesses of good character must testify that they directly observed the sex act."   


I think he means if an adulterer gets death by stoning, per Reliance of the Traveller (o1.0, o12.2, o12.6), it's still an admirable “liberal and humane” system since guilt is certain because of the “high standards of proof necessary” like 4 male witnesses or a confession. That’s the same "high standard of proof" that caused this Australian rape victim in modern Moderate™ Dubai to be jailed for 8 months as an adulterer after she reported the rape by 3 males. That’s why this Pakistani Islamic party leader says a woman should not report rape unless she has 4 male witnesses. And the Malaysian Islamic reformist group Sisters in Islam says,


  1. In Pakistan, it is reported that three out of four women in prison under its Hudud laws [what it forbidden and permitted by Allah] are rape victims. Because rape is equated with unlawful sexual intercourse..., rape victims are required to produce four pious male witnesses. It is of course nearly impossible for the rape victims to produce the four male witnesses required to prove their allegation. Therefore their police report of rape was taken as a confession of illicit sex on their part and they were duly found guilty.”


Four male eyewitnesses or the accused confessing 4 times, stonings, “the most liberal and humane legal principles” - Feldman is hilarious, where is Gloria Steinhem?


Other examples: a Muslim rape victim ostracized in India; the charging of a rape victim in Pakistan with adultery; Islamic clerics in Pakistan opposing attempts to end the equating of rape with adultery; a rape victim marrying her attacker in order to avoid being shunned; another rape victim converting to Islam in order to marry her attacker for the same reason; the sentencing of a victim of gang rape in Saudi Arabia to 200 lashes; the sentencing of another victim of gang-rape, a pregnant woman, to 100 lashes; the stoning of a rape victim in Somalia; nine-year-old rape victims in Iran rejected by their families and living on the streets; a Muslim rape victim in India ordered by Islamic clerics to leave her husband; a rape victim in Jordan murdered by her uncle to cleanse the family's honor, a Norwegian woman on business trip raped in Dubai and jailed for 16 months, and on and on.

Spencer summarized that Feldman’s Why Sharia is:


  1. “an inviting portrait of Shariah as the rule of law and a legitimate basis for order in an Islamic society. Glaringly absent from his lengthy paean to Shariah, however, is any mention of how Islamic law institutionalizes discrimination against non-Muslims – which makes it anything but a stable foundation for a genuinely pluralistic republic.”

Feldman’s sharia based constitution is not working out well in Iraq for Christians, where half of the 1 million left since Saddam fell because of kidnappings, murder, and churches being burned down. In Afghanistan, the other Sharia based constitution US citizens bled and paid for, where public stonings on video don’t get prosecuted, the last remaining church was destroyed in 2010, and Taliban leader Mullah Omar, who gave the order to destroy the largest carved Buddha statues in the world and harbored Bin Laden, is coming back. In 2013 while completely ignoring the alarming human rights abuses under the new Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood government, Feldman denounced anti-Brotherhood protesters as counterrevolutionaries for protesting that Morsi forced out the military chiefs, granted himself sweeping new powers, and drafted and passed the new sharia constitution. Feldman is supporting totalitarian sharia and a Muslim majority’s right to institutionalize universal human rights abuses of minorities and women in those societies.


  1. Professor Nathan Brown is another Carnegie Scholar™ who presented at Esposito’s 2008 conference. He co-authored Do Constitutions Requiring Adherence to Sharia Threaten Human Rights? concluding


  1. a progressive court can effectively develop and apply a theory that interprets Islamic Legal Norms™ to be consistent with Democracy, International Human Rights™ and Economic Liberalism™.”


Yet nowhere in 57 pages is there any mention of the threat that the most authoritative Muslim theologians want to enforce Islamic supremacism, and what a many authoritative sources say are Legal Norms™ that violate the human rights articulated in the St Petersburg Declaration (SPD). He said “develop and apply a theory...”, but it was a short lived theory, a blip in a 1300+ year old history, only possible as long as Mubarak and his predecessors were able to hold back those theologians by force, and removing him cleared the way. With Brotherhood President Morsi you see what kind of Sharia Norms™ are coming now that theologians don’t have to answer to a secular man made government that wants to pick and choose like what Qutb called defeatists. The Egyptian Islamic Revolution is the latest example that shows that except for experiments in Islam Three with a Sharia Light™ like Egypt’s constitutional court tried, only in theoretical wishful thinking was it ever true that Islamic Legal Norms™ are “consistent with democracy, International Human Rights™ and Economic Liberalism™.” Tabandeh, Qutb, Qaradawi, Maududi, and many others have argued exactly the opposite once you specify those rights. International Human Rights™ is vague, because the Cairo Declaration is an International Human Rights™ document.


Brown is considered an Expert™ on the Muslim Brotherhood, and often defends the them. They like him so much they have a Nathan Brown page with dozens of his papers on their English website. But in 2007 Brown testified in defense of the leaders of the Holy Land Foundation, who were shut down for funding Hamas, and under cross-examination Brown admitted he was not an expert on Hamas or terrorism, but that he was “in the process of becoming one.” Since Hamas claims it is part of the Brotherhood, how can he be an Expert™ on the Brotherhood? In one of his articles on the MB he said: (bold added)


  1. "...In this short article we are seeking to explain to Islamist movements the reasons for the lingering suspicions about Islamist movements in the West. We will not address all reasons for suspicion - we will ignore arguments based on ignorance and preconceived notions of Islam and Islamist movements, because there is not much to explain there. We will, however, seek to address what we consider to be valid concerns..." Hamzawy, Ottaway, Nathan Brown, What Islamists Need to be Clear About: The Case of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, p. 2.


In his article he doesn’t mention anything about what all the most recent Brotherhood GL’s say about IS&J and the sharia norms they want to revive that violate the SPD, or anything else you saw in the 3 Key Ideologues or Muslim Brotherhood page. So I guess that is what he thought was “ignorant and preconceived”. But history has already proved he was as wrong as he could have been about where the Arab Spring™ was going, and what the Brotherhood would do if given the chance, and now suddenly all those ignorant preconceived notions ended up ruling Egypt for a while until the military threw them out - again in 2013. Was he that incompetent to not understand what was happening because he consciously ignored the most “valid concerns”? Or is he a deceiver because he got what he expected with how they governed?


Just before the Arab Spring™, in May 2010 Brown wrote,


  1. “the Brotherhood claims its dalliance with revolutionary activity has definitively ended. The movement's ideologist for a more combative path, Sayyid Qutb, was executed in 1966. When the Brotherhood climbed back to viability in the 1970s and 1980s after years of harsh repression, it left violent ideas behind in the grave with him. Or so it says. Is it telling the truth? Largely, yes. The Brotherhood has Renounced™ violence.”


Without quoting how they Renounced™ violence, or explaining why its top leaders say that jihad and revolutionary activity will continue, he is asking you to believe people simply forgot about Qutb’s ideas like last years fashion. A man whose influence is “impossible to exaggerate” and revered as a martyr, whose plan of gradualism just succeeded in taking over Egypt, apparently died in vain after all. If you didn’t bother to read the Qutb page, you may not appreciate how hilarious Brown is. Not to mention what Maududi said, whose influence is also “impossible to exaggerate”, or what the genocidal Brotherhood Spiritual™ advisor Sheik Qaradawi says - who Esposito named the 6th most influential Muslim in 2009, and was twice offered title of G.L., and drew over 2 million to Tahrir sq, the largest crowd of the Arab Spring™ 2011.


  1. Reza Aslan, Islam Expert™, celebrated deception artist, fake scholar, and author adds to the fog:


  1. "There's really no such thing as just Sharia, it's not one monolithic continuum - Sharia is understood in thousands of different ways over the 1,500 years in which multiple and competing schools of law have tried to construct some kind of civic penal and family law code that would abide by Islamic values and principles, it's understood in many different ways..."


Hand Jive


Stealth Islamic Supremacist


This is the myth that Islam is too complicated with too many interpretations for regular people to understand. Then when you hear about Extremists™ you won’t pay any attention because it’s just one of those thousands of different interpretations by a Tiny Minority of Extremists™ who are Misunderstanding™ their religion. The “thousands of different ways” he mentions may be true in Islam Three, as Warraq explained in the Introduction, but in the “multiple and competing schools of law”, or Islam Two, Reliance says (page Vii) there is scholarly consensus on 75% of sharia in the 4 Sunni schools, including the “one monolithic continuum” you have seen about IS&J and certain aspects of Islamic Human Rights™ that violate the SPD & UDHR.


Spencer 2012:


  1. “in Egypt and other Muslim countries, everyone seems to know exactly what Sharia is and what it involves: stonings, amputations, the death penalty for apostasy, the subjugation of women, the oppression of non-Muslims, etc. That's why [Salafi leader and preacher] Yasser Borhamy addresses fears of Sharia coming to Egypt not by saying "We're going to implement a benign, expansive, human-rights-respecting brand of Sharia" but by telling people that they shouldn't fear Sharia, because it is the law of Allah. He takes for granted that his audience knows exactly what Sharia is, and that he is referring to the same thing that they have in mind.” Egyptian Salafi leader: Muslim Brotherhood has agreed that Sharia will be the main source of legislation


Here a feminist blisters Reza Aslan for claiming women have equality in many Muslim countries.


  1. You can see what Reliance of the Traveller says about family law like honor killing (o1.1-2) and wife beating (m10.11). This is reflected in the real world. In Spring 2005, when the East African nation of Chad tried to institute a new family law that would outlaw wife beating, Muslim clerics led resistance to the measure as un-Islamic. The Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences has said that over 90% of Pakistani wives have been struck, beaten, or abused sexually for offenses like cooking an unsatisfactory meal to failing to give birth to a male child. In 2011 there were almost 1,000 honor killings in Pakistan according to the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, and because of its Islamic character, 91% of honor killings worldwide are perpetrated by Muslims. In 2003 the Jordanian Parliament voted down on Islamic grounds a provision designed to stiffen penalties for honor killings. Al-Jazeera reported that "Islamists and conservatives said the laws violated religious traditions and would destroy families and values." The Palestinian Authority gives pardons or suspended sentences for honor murders. Iraqi women have asked for tougher sentences for Islamic honor murderers, who get off lightly now. Syria in 2009 scrapped a law limiting the length of sentences for honor killings, but "the new law says a man can still benefit from extenuating circumstances in crimes of passion or honor 'provided he serves a prison term of no less than two years in the case of killing.'"


Concerning child marriage, in 2011 Dr. Salih bin Fawzan, a prominent cleric and member of Saudi Arabia’s highest religious council, issued a fatwa asserting that there is no minimum age for marriage and that girls can be married “even if they are in the cradle.” Not only that girls as young as nine can be married based on Muhammad’s example, but rather that there is no age limit whatsoever.  The only question open to consideration is whether the girl is physically capable of handling her “husband.”  Fawzan documented this point by quoting Ibn Battal’s authoritative exegesis of Sahih Bukhari:

  1. The ulema [Islam’s scholars and interpreters] have agreed that it is permissible for fathers to marry off their small daughters, even if they are in the cradle.  But it is not permissible for their husbands to have sex with them unless they are capable of being placed beneath and bearing the weight of the men.  And their capability in this regard varies based on their nature and capacity.  Aisha was six when she married the prophet, but he had sex with her when she was nine [that is, when she was deemed capable].

You can see what Sheik Qaradawi and Reliance of the Traveller say about apostasy (o1.0, o8.1). Yet many Experts™ insist the death penalty for leaving Islam is an Extreme™ view. Former Muslims United is an org with Board members Nonie Darwish, Ibn Warraq, and others who all live with death threats, that sent the 2009 “The Freedom Pledge” to over 125 leaders of American Muslim orgs, and Muslim leaders like U.S. Representative Keith Ellison (D-MN). It asked them to repudiate the punishment – and in most cases execution under sharia law of former Muslims, and was sent with quotes of Islamic authorities to show the death penalty really does exist. Only 2 people signed, Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, and Dr. Ali Alyami. A few years later in 2012 Darwish, Warraq, and others spoke at a conference called "A Summer Night for Human Rights" to protest the pending death penalty sentence for Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani in Iran for apostasy. CAIR and other Muslim Civil Rights™ groups protested the conference - on the side in favor of a Muslim’s Human Right™ to put apostates to death.

  1. You can watch the few debates Spencer has had, but the ones with Muslims were so one sided that afterwards, The American Muslim’s Sheila Musaji asked them to stop debating him. Here are 25 respected Experts™  who smear him but will not debate him.


  1. This clip shows a blurry line in the war of ideas in the West at an Islamic Apartheid Conference at Temple University.

  2. Benazir Bhutto, in her book Reconciliation: Islam, Democracy, and the West, said Robert Spencer does not “differentiate between Moderate™ Muslims and violent Islamists”. Actually the quote she attributed to him was a quote of her fellow Pakistani and scholar of Islam Ibn Warraq, but Spencer responded anyway:

  3. “It’s about Islam, not Muslims. What people continually fail to grasp is the distinction between the texts and teachings of a faith, which are matters of record, and the many different ways in which people understand those texts and teachings. To say that all the schools of Islamic law teach violent jihad and the subjugation of unbelievers under the rule of Islamic law is simply a statement of fact. It can be proven or disproven with reference to the actual teachings of the schools. But if they do all teach this, and they do, that doesn't mean that every Muslim follows those teachings, any more than the fact that the Catholic Church teaches against contraception means that every Catholic opposes contraception. There is a spectrum of belief, knowledge, and fervor among Muslims as there is among believers in every belief system, religious or not.”

  4. Columbia professor Hamid Dabashi said,


  1. “You can sit here and talk about jihad from here to doomsday, what will it do? Suppose you prove beyond any shadow of doubt that Islam is constitutionally violent, where do you go from there?”


  1. Here is the telegram to General MacArthur in 1945 after Japan’s surrender that summarized our policy towards State Shintoism there.


  1. This 2007 speech takes a close look at a rational approach based on the Japanese model after WWII and the morality of it, No Substitute for Victory: The Defeat of Islamic Totalitarianism, by John D. Lewis, Ph.D., who said:


  1. “This is Islamic Totalitarianism... State Islam..., The enemy is not Muslims, if you people refuse to hear this sentence, I can’t help what’s in your ears, it is those who promote the imposition of this political religious ideology through an enforced religious law by force, the core message of my talk today is to uphold separation of church and state.”


  1. If Robert Spencer were President 2016 - steps he would take


Forward to Government & Media on IS&J