Dr Anjuli Pandavar is a British writer and social critic who holds a PhD in political economy. She was born into a Muslim family in apartheid South Africa, where she left Islam in 1979. Anjuli is preparing to convert to Judaism. She is one of the staunchest defenders of Israel and a constructive critic of the Jewish state when she believes it is warranted. She owns and writes on Murtadd to Human, where she may be contacted.
Forceful expression is required to correct the pernicious erosion the English language has been subjected to of late, in an onslaught that can only be described as linguistic vandalism, all in the service of rendering language a “safe space” in which lies may be dressed up as truth and truth vilified as lies, victims may be presented as perpetrators and perpetrators may masquerade as victims. The impact of this vandalism on the English language is far-reaching.
Let us consider the word extremism, for example: “The holding of extreme political or religious views; fanaticism.” No problem there, except when it is distortedly applied to Muslims. On a spectrum of the world’s religions, Islam is as extreme as it gets, making anyone who adheres to Islam an adherent of an extreme religion, regardless of which parts they practise and which parts they ignore. There is no getting around this. The important point about a “moderate Mafioso” is not that he is moderate, but what service he is rendering to the “extremist Mafiosi” that they continue to tolerate him in the Mafia. By the corrupted meaning of extremism, only those Muslims who commit terrorism, mass murder, take sex-slaves or toss living babies into ovens, are extremists.
Muslims who merely beat their wives are not extremists. Muslims who merely cut off the daughters’ clitorises and sew up their labia are not extremists. Muslims who merely marry off their underage daughters to adult strangers are not extremists. Muslims who merely want to impose a barbaric system of law are not extremists. Muslims who would merely want to see apostates killed and homosexuals thrown to their deaths off high buildings are not extremists. Muslims who merely believe a Muslim’s life is worth more than a kafir’s are not extremists. Muslims who merely feel they have nothing to explain when one of their own beheads a teacher in the street or an old woman praying in a church are not extremists. Muslims who merely have God on their mind for the entirety of their waking hours are not extremists. Muslims who merely send their young children for indoctrination are not extremists. Muslims who merely teach the Qur’an are not extremists. Muslim parents who merely pressure their traumatised daughters to return to their violent abusive husbands are not extremists. Muslims who murder their daughters for being “too Western” are not extremists. Muslims who insist, “I do not have to respect the laws of the land,” are not extremists. All these lovely moderate Muslims are highly sensitive and we must take great care never to offend them lest we “drive them into the hands of the extremists.”
Thus have we been co-opted, through corruption of our language, to the cause of Allah. Of course Western feminists were not going to come out against Hamas for all the barbaric rapes, mutilations and murders they had perpetrated on Jewish women and girls on October 7 and thereafter. They know that “not all Muslims, etc.,” and in any case, they are still mulling whether Muslim wife-beating, paedophilia, infanticide (almost always daughters), clitoridectomy, instant divorce, pimping reconciliation (nikah halala), automatic paternal child custody, etc., are really iniquities.
The impact of pressing the word extremist into service for sinister political ends corrupts our measure of ethics well beyond the cynical expediency of supporting “our moderate Muslim allies,” you know, the ones who lovingly share pastries, against “the extremists,” the ones who sling living babies into ovens. Thus, for example, Western observers and commentators, especially law-enforcement officers and judges, do not seem to think it odd that Muslims who murder their wives and daughters “to restore their honour,” do so in front of their little children, if they can, and rarely go on the run. On the contrary, such honour-restoring murderers go to relatives, friends, and even the police, covered in blood, murder weapon in hand, and calmly declare their deeds.
Understand this, dear reader, please, in their mind they have done nothing wrong, indeed, they have done a virtuous deed that, fortunately, their little children could learn from. It is responsible and thoughtful for a father to kill a mother in front of her children.
In the meantime, those Australians who, in order to show their disapproval of those “extremists” who shouted “Death to Jews” and attacked a bishop, send their daughters for brainwashing to snake-oil salesmen in mosques, are making the same mistake as so many well-meaning but misguided people in Europe and North America. Those innocent daughters you send to mosques to “do the right thing” will become the very instruments by which much worse things are done to your society later.
Note two things, especially Americans and Australians, every piece of land you sell to Muslims, for whatever ostensible purpose, is on its way out of your jurisdiction, and after that, out of your sovereignty. They start by practising Shari’a there, i.e., the laws of the land are no longer observed, and end up imposing no-go zones, where the authorities may no longer enter, i.e., the law of the land can no longer be enforced, hence becoming de facto Islamic micro-states. If you want to see your future, look at France, Sweden, and the UK.
This process has just taken a step into that second stage in East Plano, Texas, where Sheikh Dr Yasir Qadhi’s “moderate Muslims” are expanding and transforming their EPIC masjid into an EPIC Islamic micro-state. Other Sunni mosques and Islamic centres around Texas, and there are many, will effectively become exclaves of this micro-state. The northern end of the pincer is Ontario-Michigan-Minnesota. Thankfully, the authorities in Texas are finally waking up to the seditious activities of Sheikh Qadhi and his fellow “moderate” subversives at the East Plano Islamic Center. The quotation above, “I do not have to respect the laws of the land,” are the words of this Dr Qadhi, who reassures Muslims that he “hates” the laws of the land and that he will do everything to change them. In Australia, Muslims are at the stage of buying up large tracts of land outside of cities.
And now to my beloved Israel. Some are dismayed at the level of crime and lawlessness in the “Arab sector”. They put this down to criminal networks and reluctance on the part of the police to go in and clean it up, making the Muslim Arab towns and villages effectively micro-states. This is true, but it is not the whole truth. Overlooked is the shocking fact that Shari’a is permitted in Israel. Even “a remnant” of Shari’a is all the green light the Muslims need to impose themselves wherever, whenever and however they want. Shari’a stipulates that:
“Areas where Muslims reside and there is a remnant of Islam’s rules, even if this is limited to marriages and what pertains to them, are considered Muslim lands. A Muslim land does not become an enemy land except under three conditions: …that not a single one of Islam’s rules remains therein. [This] effectively means that none of the lands that Islam has spread to and in which something of it remains can be considered an enemy land. As for other countries, enemy lands (Dar al-harb, “abode of war”) consist of those with whom the Muslim countries (Dar al-Islam) are in a state of war, in light of which, it is clear that there is virtually no country on the face of the earth where a Muslim has an excuse to behave differently than he would in an Islamic country.” (Reliance of the Traveller, Appendix W43.5.c)
As far as Muslims are concerned, if the Jews claim Israel as their ancestral homeland and at the same time allow Muslims to practise Islam in the very homeland they claim, then they are not serious. Both the Muslim Brotherhood’s Islamic Movement, and the criminal gangs in the Arab sector, are enabled by Israel indulging the Arab Muslims with Shari’a. But worse, by boasting about Arabs in the Knesset and an Arab judge putting a Prime Minister in jail, Jews are digging their own graves. They are sending the message that the land belongs to Muslims, you know, the people religiously obligated to kill all Jews. Shari’a in Israel, together with such catastrophic virtue signaling, confirm “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.” It is just a matter of time. Sabr.
The biggest mistake on the part of those either too ignorant or too timid to ban Shari’a, is that they convince themselves that Shari’a is for Muslims only, and in any case, applicable only to family matters. This, by the way, is what Yasir Qadhi played on when he campaigned state by state to get a Shari’a foot in the US door. In the UK, it was interfaith Christians who threw that door wide open.
The cowardly, the deluded and the dishonest will all advance the same argument: we have freedom of religion. Alternatively, if the Jews can have their religious laws, why not Muslims? No one looks at what that “freedom of religion” has led to when it is bestowed on Muslims. For Muslims, freedom of religion means only freedom of sedition. Where only “a remnant of Islam’s rules obtain,” such as where Muslims are permitted to practise any Islam at all, they are obligated to undermine and take over that society, because that one remnant, be it one tiny prayer room, one halal food outlet or a single hijab, makes your country theirs. The rest is a mopping-up operation. Think of how far you are from dealing with this, if you are still losing sleep over Muslims who do not commit terrorism or mass murder, take sex-slaves, or toss living babies into ovens, and you continue to indulge Muslims with “interfaith dialogue”.
There is hope, even in Shari’a itself, if you know how to use it against Muslims. In a country where it becomes impossible for Muslims to practise even “a single one of Islam’s rules therein,” Shari’a obligates them to leave that country:
“Rather, a Muslim in such a case should emigrate from his country, if he can find a better one, fleeing with his religion, which is obligatory if he is prevented in his home country from openly performing acts of worship.” (Reliance of the Traveller, Book O25.3.a)
To clear Gaza of Muslims, Donald Trump is not required. Simply seize the whole territory, make sure that no Muslims holds any public office, make it impossible to practise anything of Islam and Shari’a will take care of the rest.
In kafir lands, i.e., non-Muslim lands, Muslims tolerate other religions only because they have no choice, but will work tirelessly to undermine those religions, some by terror, others by indoctrinating children in mosques and schools, and other by sharing pastries. In Muslim lands, they dispense with the niceties. If the end result is the same, does it matter that some kill, while others make pastries?
Whether killers or pastry-makers, Muslims are obligated to:
“Fight those who believe not in Allah and the Last Day and who forbid not what Allah and His messenger have forbidden, who do not practice the religion of truth [Islam], being of those who have been given the Book [Jews and Christians] until they pay the poll tax [jizya] out of hand and are feel themselves subdued,” (Qur’an 9:29)
And in the noble execution of this duty, “Muslims may not seek help from non-Muslims allies, unless the Muslims are considerably outnumbered and the allies are of goodwill towards the Muslims.” (Reliance of the Traveller, Book O9.7)