The worst of non-Muslims convert to Islam, the best of Muslims leave Islam. Part 2

Special Series on Apostasy: There's no better time than Ramadan

Not all converts to Islam are deluded, ignorant, or troubled souls that have hit rock bottom in their lives. Some are downright evil, such as Andrew Tate mentioned in Part 1, and find themselves drawn to the unbridled sadistic power that Islam offers to males over not only women, but over all living things, divinely so ordained: "Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other," entitling him to "beat them" (Qur'an 4:34). Shari'a makes it practically impossible for anyone to gain legal redress against a Muslim male who has wronged them, unless they are themselves Muslim. Male prerogative and impunity over women, slaves, children, dhimmis, animals and apostates are particularly egregious, worsening in that order. Iranian dissident Mansour Hekmat offers this glimpse: "In Islam, the woman is a slave. In Islam, the child is on par with animals." V S Naipaul, in his Beyond Belief: Islamic excursions among the converted peoples, describes the divine outcome of this arrangement in Pakistan: 

So the women who had come to see the pir [saint] that day had to wait, and they were squatting like chickens in his courtyard in the sun. They were peasant women, serf women, chattel of their landlords and their husbands, unprotected by law, custom or religion. They lived with cruelty and their minds had half gone.

This edifice of horror is built upon Shari'a, a barbaric, extremely cruel and intensely misogynistic legal system specifically designed to secure a life of savage pleasures for the male who cares to join up, and an Afterlife of abounding of the same. One such male is American convert Dr Jonathan Brown, who did his PhD on the hadith and Shari'a. Clearly, Dr Brown's signing up to barbarism is not down to simple naïvety. There are no details that were concealed from him. He is well beyond what Sheikh Dr Yasir Qadhi would describe as "an advanced-advanced student of knowledge", i.e., someone well-versed in the darkest secrets of Islam that it is "not wise" for lay Muslims to know. No sheikh duped Dr Brown into saying the shahada. He did it in full knowledge of what he was doing. It takes a very special kind of evil to do something like that not only to yourself, but to your children and to the society that nurtured you in freedom and gave you the education that you now wield against it.

As if Shari'a is not grotesque enough and Muslims are not adept enough at imposing it on others, Dr Brown puts at the disposal of his adopted faith his unique selling point: the combination of an acute legal mind; complete commitment to Islam; superior knowledge of the inner workings of the West; especially the United States; and lacking the mind-crippling effects of a Muslim upbringing. This combination places Dr Brown in the near-unique position of being able to out-Muslim Muslims, a quality not always appreciated by his adoptive bothers.

In February 2020, eight months before a Muslim beheaded French schoolteacher Samuel Paty, Dr Brown pronounced to a stunned Muslim audience, “I fully support the right of people to actually insult the prophet in the United States, because I think that’s the best regime for human happiness.” Dr Brown's intellectual vanity precluded him from appreciating just how profoundly offensive his pronouncement was to his fellow Muslims, raised from a very young age to supplicate at the mere mention of his name, always and without fail. That was pretty forthright for a “revert”, but at the same time, Brown was floundering all over the place, both lecturing Muslims and submitting to them at the same time, with his host having to work hard to shield both him from the ummah and the ummah from him.

It took quite a bit of Shari'a acrobatics to keep Dr Browns head attached to his shoulders. The common da'wah thug, Mohammed Hijab, deigned to hear Professor Jonathan Brown’s case. Yet the sinner did not bow in abject gratitude and walk five steps backwards. Instead, this was a peculiar mea culpa in which the heretic presumed to offer the Inquisitor a piece of strategic advice:

I do not think that Muslims should advocate laws that restrict speech …because the first people who will be restricted in their speech …will be Muslims. [If hate speech becomes illegal, then] the Qur’an itself becomes an article of hate speech.

This is the problem with 'reverts'. They lack the hardwiring that makes Muslims Muslim. Things that a raised Muslim would be incapable of thinking, a reverts is able to shout from the rooftops. In taking in Western academics in its scramble for Western converts, Islam has ingested a poison capsule. Dr Jonathan Brown could be an Islamic psych-ops wunderkind, the American equivalent of Sheikh Mohammed al-Issa, Secretary General of the Muslim World League, if he could just get through to the myopic brute taking his confession, or in a wider context, circumvent the Muslim upbringing.

Jonathan Brown is saying to Muslims, play the Enlightenment system, let Muhammad take the hit, and you can without hindrance continue indoctrinating your children with Islam and teaching them the Qur’an. He is right, of course, but obviously fails to appreciate what Muhammad means to people damaged by a Muslim upbringing, particularly a madrassa childhood: Muhammad is Allah. In fact, should Dr Brown put his own children through madrassa mind-warping, they could eventually come for him as one who advised insulting their beloved prophet. Besides, only Allah can advise on happiness, and he has already advised the Afterlife as the only happiness.

Inquisitor Mohammed Hijab, true to form, was having none of Dr Brown’s brilliant advice, insisting that the Shari’a was clear on such things. Islam indulges no quid pro quo with kufr. It offers neither equality nor reciprocity; Islam does not negotiate, it dominates. Islam alone decides who may and who may not say what. When Muslims promise career politicians that they will deliver the “Muslim vote”—what a curious notion—it is only because that politician is the conduit through which Muslims will embed their Shari’a demands in the democratic body politic and hollow it out from the inside. Concepts such as parity, equality, fairness, agreement, balance, non-discrimination, etc., are all alien to Islam; that is what domination means.

Dr Jonathan Brown giving a grovelling account of himself before a notorious Muslim da’wah bruiser was a sight to behold. Mohammed Hijab is a British wannabe academic who would not qualify to enrol onto any of Dr Brown’s most elementary classes. It was an unedifying spectacle. How much do those who grow up under Islam have to sacrifice to gain their dignity, their freedom, and a decent education? Here this pampered clown from the freest and richest society in history was throwing it all away for the privilege of submitting to a brutish enforcer of barbarian law.

Dr Brown knows the kafir presumptions better than his new masters do, and is better able to achieve Islam’s barbaric ends without resorting to the brutish impulses of Muslims. The same fallacious presumptions underlie, for example, Western notions of persuading Muslims that they should reform Islam. To most Muslims, and certainly to Islam itself, such presumptions are an affront. It is extremely inappropriate for a kafir to presume reciprocity from a supremacist on whose sufferance he lives. An analogy would be a slave saying to his master, “OK, master. Here’s the deal…” That is what Brown’s advice about the benefits of insulting Muhammad sounds like to Muslims. The same goes for non-Muslims presuming to propose "interfaith dialogue" to Muslims. It is absurd.

Dr Brown is fully aware that he has signed up for supremacism and is unlikely to be unaware of the barbarism that white supremacism perpetrated on his black compatriots a mere hundred years ago. The Western “revert-Muslim” academic who does not immediately adopt supremacism still has some way to go before being accepted as properly Muslim. Jonathan Brown’s unbridled sophistry is quite safe from his Muslim audiences, who would not know what constitutes an argument in the first palce, let alone distinguish a good argument from a bad one.

It becomes a matter of how long the Mohammed Hijabs of this world will put up with all the presumptuous coaching. Dr Brown sees his role as that of taking Muslim supremacism to the next level, Islam 2.0, and putting the inculcation of hatred into children onto a more sophisticated footing. He advises his adopted co-religionists to tolerate the lesser evil of insulting the prophet, to gain the greater good of freely spreading Qur’anic hatred through Western madrassas. Dr Brown is blissfully unaware that in a different place, this is the point at which a blade would be making its way through his neck.

Part 3/...

Picture credit:

Screen shot from "Controversial Questions to Prof.Jonathan Brown and Dr. Shadee ElMasri (MH Podcast #6), Mohammed Hijab, YouTube, 6 Jul 2020. https://youtu.be/7jXye1-Wbug