Connect with us


The Danger in Letters to a Young Muslim



I was browsing the bookstore, and this book caught my eye — Letters to a Young Muslim

by Omar Saif Ghobash. I literally froze. Literally, my entire body was shaking. This is a whole new method of Islamization. It gave me insight into why a lot of western youth are converting to Islam.

This author is from United Arab Emirates. He is a westernized, suit-wearing Muslim. He is the Ambassador of the U.A.E. to France, and former Ambassador to Russia.

He studied law at Oxford, and math at the University of London. He is educated, westernized, wealthy, and now as an author, he is telling young people how to be a Muslim in the 21st Century.

This book is basically a masterful work of Taqiyya. It opens a scary new methodology to promote Islam, in a way that non-Muslims can easily become confused into not knowing whether to listen to people like Aynaz Anni Cyrus, or to the imam, or to mainstream media, or to any other self-styled voice for Muslims.

Without calling himself a reformer, the author reminds me of Zhudi Jasser, who is a westernized Muslim seeking to reform Islam. I have had my private debates with Dr. Jasser, while he was on our show. Dr. Jasser would like to persuade everybody that Islam is a religion of peace, but that bad people have hijacked it. And so, Islam must be somehow rescued back from them.

This author almost has the same point of view.  At the end of the day, the Islam that is being practiced in the Middle East is not the true Islam. So, he pretty much made up his own Islam in this book — an Islam that is so beautiful.

This book consists largely of purported letters and essays that he wrote to his youngest son, who decided at some point to become what he calls “an extremist” and what we call “a devoted Muslim.”

When the author saw his son shift toward embracing “extremist” war faring doctrine (hopefully most of my readers understand it to be simply adherence to the “excellent example” set by Muhammad), he decided to start writing letters to the son, to try to explain to him that the way he is going is the wrong way, and is not the true Islam. He gathered all those letters and published them as this book.

On page 69 begins the chapter titled, “Who on Earth Told You That?” he asks, “Where does religious knowledge come from? Who has the right to talk about Islam?” He is asking the question of who holds authority — who gets to speak for Islam.

So, he brings us right back to typical Islamic defender claims of, “Hadith was hijacked. Quran was mistranslated. Imams don’t have authority to make the ruling.” So then, if those are true, then what is Islam? Who exactly knows the truth about Islam?

Jihadis think they have it right. So-called moderate Muslims think they have it right. Reformers think they have it right. Ex-Muslims like me think we have it right.  What then is the true Islam?

If his young son is not supposed to listen to an imam, or to a scholar, or to a Supreme Leader, or anything of, as he calls them, “authorities,” then who specifically is he supposed to listen to?

We simply end up in a circular argument with such Islamic defenders who avoid definitions and authorities.  This is what we often see regarding the unpleasant practices of Islam. That is not the true Islam, simply because we find it unpleasant.

His position comes down to saying that everything that everybody else of authority in Islam is saying is wrong, or questionable.

And that is where it becomes ironic. His argument, if convincing to his son, could very well get his son killed by those who do adhere to a long, established scholarship of Islamic definitions and Islamic authorities. No matter what type of Muslim you are, if you start questioning Islam, you will become dead, at the hands of those adherents. You are not supposed to question Islam. But he is telling his son to do that.

Next, he brings us to a very interesting part. He asks, “What is the true Islam?”

He brings up two possible alternatives. One is that there once existed a true Islam, which somehow got distorted by foolish human beings who added all sorts of innovations and distortion to it.

I have never heard of this type of Islam. I have heard of the idea that Islam was hijacked by Shia, an accusation from Sunnis. And Shia say Sunni hijacked it. But this was the first I have heard of any “perfect” or separate existence of Islam.

The author acknowledges that this is a very abstract idea. It suggests that there is an Islam which exists without people to practice it. It is a very odd concept, and one for which he offers no citation to explain its background basis in any Islamic tradition.

The second way in thinking about true Islam, he says, is the way in which Islam is practiced in the specific community to which Muslims each belong. He suggests that true Islam is not a set of doctrine but is instead the way it is practiced in different cultures.

So, this argument goes, it is not about the religion. It is about the culture. Islam changes based on culture, is the claim being made. And that is a typical argument that is made by defenders of Islam, every time they need to deflect from problematic practice of the doctrine, by adherent Muslims in the world.

By word definition, Islam is submission. The definition of Islam is control by Allah, to whom a Muslim must submit. That is an obligation that even reformers would agree to. So, what is going on here, in the worldview that the author is presenting?

He is saying that there are many expressions of Islam, and each is bound within each Muslim’s own culture, and that all those world expressions together make up the true Islam. To that end, his basic premise is that all Muslims of all culture types should unite. And that is what makes this book scary.

This book is being sold all over America. The publisher is in New York. Islamization is taking place in that mass media publishing realm. I have a feeling that pretty soon this book is going to be in all our colleges and schools and universities, as suggested or required reading.

This is a new method of attack by the Islamic Movement. So far, we have had Shia, Sunnis, imams, reformers. What is scary in this new approach is that he is the first one who says to them all, “Let’s put our differences aside.” He is the first one to try to unite all Muslims.

He is very powerful. He has influence, money, education, connections, his ambassadorships. He comes from the most moderate Islamic country, the U.A.E. That whole combination is very dangerous to us as a non-Islamic civilization.

He uses language that is very calming about Islam. Somebody without knowledge of Islam can easily walk into that trap. The language he uses is soothing to our young generation. A lot of them may decide to convert, by this book.

It is becoming critical that we must find ways to counter this new methodology. We must reach that same audience with the basic facts about the doctrine. And those facts always start by exposing the intolerant words of Quran, and the militant life of Muhammad as a conquering warlord.

By Aynaz Anni Cyrus, National Director of American Truth Project. Anni was sold for $50 as a child bride in Iran. Rebelling against a life of sex slavery, she escaped to America. Now an American citizen, she is a leading spokeswoman against the evils of Islam.
Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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


Have We Forgotten What Happened On 9/11?



Continue Reading


Sharia in the U.S. Judicial System?




The U.S. Senate’s recent confirmation of Zahid Quraishi as America’s first Muslim federal judge to a lifetime position on the District Court of New Jersey raises some concerning questions.

First and foremost, there is the question of his faith. Does it matter if Zahid Quraishi is a Muslim? The Left would, of course, maintain that raising the Muslim identity of Quraishi is racist, bigoted and “Islamophobic.” But those who understand the reality of Sharia – and the fact that Islam is not a race — understand that this matter is more complicated than what might first meet the eye.

It may very well matter if Quraishi is not just a Muslim “by name” – or just a “secular Muslim” by birth heritage. Indeed, if, as an adult adherent to Islam, he devoutly recites the Shahada — “There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah” – then Quraishi’s Muslimness could matter very much. That’s because it could indicate whether or not Quraishi would ever uphold aspects of Sharia – Islamic law – in his legal rulings.

As a survivor of Sharia law, I can tell you: Sharia matters — and in the most horrendous and painful of ways.

It is vital to understand that in Islam, Allah’s Law is supreme for Muslims, above all other laws and legal systems. And that poses a problem for America when Islam resides on its territory, because Sharia is completely incompatible with the U.S. Constitution and the foundations of a free society.

Quraishi’s relationship to Islam, therefore, matters a great deal — seeing that his new position entails significant power and influence in America.

So let’s dig a little bit deeper on Quraishi.

The Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) surprisingly did not come out and cheer Quraishi’s appointment — as one might have expected them to do. Instead, the Muslim “civil rights” organization appeared to be quite furious about him. Zahra Billoo, head of CAIR’s San Francisco branch, issued a statement affirming that she “would much rather have a white Christian judge with progressive values… It’s not enough that he is Muslim. In fact, it’s insulting.”

It appears that the problem for Billoo and CAIR is that Quraishi is not a Muslim from an apparent “list” of “20 to 50 Muslims who have been in the fight” for “social justice.” One unnamed Muslim politician who complained to Slate magazine about Quraishi’s appointment echoed the same theme: “We don’t know what his stances are on civil rights because you can’t find one article or anything that he’s written publicly about the Muslim struggle in the last 20 years post-9/11.”

For those concerned about Quraishi’s potential ties to Sharia, this negative disposition from the “Sharia camp” toward the Muslim judge might appear to be good news. But is it?

CAIR’s concern about Quraishi’s supposed lack of support for “progressive values” appears to be a good sign in light of CAIR’s own record of opposing counterterror measures and slandering opponents of jihad and Sharia tyranny. However, CAIR’s disposition toward Quraishi tells us little, if anything, about the key issue at stake: does the judge hold Islamic values or not?

The narrative takes another peculiar twist when we examine what transpired during Quraishi’s questioning before the Senate Judiciary Committee: When asked by Committee Chair, Democrat Senator Dick Durbin: “What do you know about Sharia law?” Quraishi answered that he knew “nothing about Sharia.


Quraishi knows “nothing” about Islam or Islamic Law?

Christine Douglass-Williams has commented on Quraishi’s dubious answer:

“Virtually everyone knows something about the Sharia. In his position, Quraishi is likely to know a lot, and was probably fibbing, and not in an intelligent way, either. It isn’t possible that a man of his standing, who ‘has served as a military prosecutor and Army captain in Iraq, as an assistant U.S. Attorney who has tried cases of public corruption, organized crime and financial fraud, and as a white-collar criminal defense lawyer’, would know ‘NOTHING’ about Sharia.”

True indeed.

What makes the matter even more peculiar is that when one pulls up Quraishi’s questionnaire answers for the Senate Judiciary Committee, one finds that he is mentioned as a “Muslim” many times in his “Honors and Awards” list. So Quraishi is praised, rewarded and held in acclaim by the Muslim community for his achievements in light of his Muslimness, but he personally doesn’t know anything about Islamic law at all?

Could it be that Quraishi might actually not be the incidental Muslim he postures as being? Could it be that he has been recognized and awarded by important prominent Muslim organizations because they gauged that, among other things, he actually is somewhat of an adherent Muslim after all?

Is it possible that CAIR might really not be as upset as it is claiming to be about Quraishi’s appointment? Or maybe it is upset, but not for the reasons it has given? Could it also be that certain players involved in this narrative are engaging in some form of taqiyya – the command in Islam for Muslims to deceive non-Muslims?

Would it also be out of bounds to ask: even if Quraishi is not an adherent Muslim, is it legitimate to be concerned that he one day could become one?

It is vital to stress at this point that Islam is not just a “religion” the way that Christianity and Judaism are religions. Islam is much more than a “faith.” For example, like Judaism, Islam has a legal system — but Islamic Law extends far beyond any Judaic (or even secular) legal system. Sharia embodies all the commands of Allah and all the examples of Muhammad-as divine law that must be implemented in all areas of life.

Qur’an 33:21 is just one verse of many that confirms that Muhammad is “an excellent pattern” for Muslims to follow. It would do well for people to keep in mind that the “excellent” examples that Mohammed set for his followers included the following: marrying a six-year-old girl, A’ishah, and having sex with her when she was nine (Sahih al-Bukhari 5134); encouraging rape of female captives (Qur’an 4:24); stating that women are stupid (Qur’an 2:282) and that hell is comprised of mostly women (Bukhari 29); commanding men to beat their wives (Qur’an 4:34); and being merciless to a woman who had been beaten so brutally that her bruise was green (Bukhari 5825).

Muhammad also disparaged black people (Bukhari 7038). He murdered between 600 and 900 Jews in one battle, and then distributed the captive women as sex slaves (Ibn Ishaq, pp. 464, 511-512).

With some of these matters in mind, the question surfaces: would or could an American Muslim federal judge consider such material as a basis for his rulings? According to Islamic law, a Muslim judge must do so. Sharia mandates that no true Muslim is obligated to obey the laws of a non-Muslim country. Qur’an 33:1 commands to “not obey the disbelievers and the hypocrites.” Qur’an 4:60 says that those who “refer legislation” to the non-Muslims are led “far astray.” And Qur’an 9:3 says that “Allah is disassociated from the disbelievers, and [so is] His Messenger.” According to Islamic tradition, the revelation of that last verse allowed Muhammad to break the Treaty of al-Hudaibiyah.

Let us be clear: an American judge who follows Muhammad’s example can take an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution, and not really mean it. In fact, Muhammad instructs such a judge exactly what to do in this situation: “if I take an oath and later find something else better than that, then I do what is better and expiate my oath.” (Bukhari 5518)

The supremacy of Islamic Law over all other laws still applies today. The Islamic website International Shariah Movement is run by certified Islamic scholars. Its post “Obey the Law of the Land?” cites Qur’an 33:1.

Under Sharia, if a woman is raped, a Muslim judge must disregard any forensic or non-witness evidence, because Qur’an 24:13 requires “four male witnesses” for a rape conviction.

A beaten woman may also easily be denied divorce, because Qur’an 4:34 commands that “Men are in charge of women,” and so may “strike them.”

That is exactly what a Muslim judge in an Iranian Islamic court told me personally when I was a 15-year-old child bride, desperate for a divorce to escape the beatings. In fact, a beaten woman who leaves Islam must be hunted down and murdered, according to Islamic law, because Muhammad said, “Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.” (Bukhari 6922)

With all these realities in mind, it is clear that if we cannot at least ask Judge Zahid Quraishi some questions regarding his adherence, or non-adherence, to Islamic law, or even understand that the issue of Quraishi’s Muslimness is an important one to address, then America is in deep trouble.

As an individual who suffered under Sharia, and was able to escape its monstrous clutches, I strongly encourage my fellow Americans to ask the right questions in this vital – and troubling – narrative about America’s new federal judge.

Continue Reading


Iran Elects Mass Murderer as Next President




The ‘election’ for president is over in Iran. The grand ayatollah handpicked Ebrahim Raisi who was then ‘elected’. He’s not just a hardline jihadist, but he’s a mass murderer and a big-time one. And more importantly, he’s very proud of his background.

He’s accused by the world of having personally supervised the trials and executions of somewhere between 5,000 and 40,000 Iranians in the 1980s. He has personally been sanctioned by most of the world, including the United States, who cannot even legally talk to him.

Meanwhile, Raisi calls himself a defender of human rights when asked about the mass executions. The guy is a world-class war criminal. He ran the death panel that sentenced and executed tens of thousands of political prisoners at the end of the 1980s. He is now the leader of the world’s most notorious state sponsor of terrorism.

The first thing we have to know about Ebrahim Raisi is that these charges of mass murder as far as the Iranian mullahs are concerned, are not a problem but rather they are a bonus. It’s not that they picked him in spite of his terrible record. They picked him because of his terrible record.

Domestically, the ayatollah is sending a message to the Iranian people who remain discontented in large part with the Islamic regime. The message is simply put, “ you are not going to be able to dissent. There will be no ability to protest. Anybody who expresses any kind of public disagreement, it’s very clear what kind of treatment they’re going to get with Ebrahim Raisi as the President of Iran.”

Keep in mind, Raisi was not elected. He was selected. He was selected by the supreme leader of Iran, who is the real power in the country, and he is going to execute the policies of the supreme leader. The supreme leader’s disposition toward his own people and toward the world is revealed by the person he selects to be the President of Iran.

By picking Raisi, Ayatollah Khamenei is not only showing that he’s going to crack down harshly on dissent within Iran, but he’s showing that he understands that with Biden’s handlers running the United States, that the United States is weak, is not going to stand up to him and this is his time to step up Iran’s support for terrorism worldwide, supporting Hamas, supporting Hezbollah, supporting Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

The Iranian regime has also in the past supported al-Qaida and the Taliban, and other jihadi groups as well as and this is much less known. It’s clear that Iran understands that leftism is corrosive to Western civilization, and they want to destroy Western civilization. Therefore Iran will support both the leftists and the Islamists around the world who are anti-America and anti-Israel.

From now on, we can expect to see increased belligerence on the part of Iran. And Raisi’s ascension to the presidency means that Iran is going to be strutting around and sponsoring terrorism around the world and cracking down on its own people within the country.

By Barry Nussbaum, Son of Auschwitz survivors, Founder American Truth Project, Foreign and Domestic Policy Commentator

Continue Reading
Subscribe For Free - To Enter Our MacBook Give Away

Subscribe to our weekly newsletter below and never miss the latest videos. By providing your phone number, you are consenting to receive SMS/MMS msgs, including automated texts, to that number from American Truth Project. Msg&data rates may apply. Terms & Conditions/privacy policy apply TextTerms