In a world of accessible critics and vocal apostates, da'wah destroys Islam, Part 1

Editorial note: Murtadd to Human was not going to join in the Great Mohammed Hijab Schadenfreude Fest currently entertaining the Internet, but former Muslims have to be ever alert to opportunities to harm the religion that wants them dead, especially when Muslims themselves provide such opportunities and more especially when they are denying something particularly damaging to Islam.

After Mohammed Hijab lost his own libel case against The Spectator Magazine and its associate editor, Douglas Murray, and was ordered to pay the defendants £670,000, one might have thought that the man whose testimony is worth less than even that of a woman, causing him to lose to a gay, white kafir—let that sink in—would gather his monosyllabic followers and quietly retreat to somewhere behind a very solid door. Some, like his own star witnesses in his defamation case, had enough nous to find whatever excuse to not turn up in court. Others of stronger faith, who know that the ummah is divinely protected from error, came back out swinging.

Most of the online schadenfreude fest revolves around the personal humiliation of Mohammed Hijab and the fallout for da'wah, especially while the world is still feasting on Hijab's secret hotel-wife scandal. What everyone seems to be missing is the role of and implications for Shari'a in all this.

The way Mohammed Hijab speaks to the police is the way Shari'a entitles every Muslim to speak to every kafir. It is a daily humiliation to Muslims that "man's law" compels them to treat the kufaar as equal to Muslims. Shari'a mandates that Muslims discriminate against non-Muslims. To deny them their right to discriminate against you is to discriminate against them. Conversely, to not discriminate against Muslims is to acquiesce in Muslims discriminating against you. It is a zero-sum situation.

The same holds true for court cases. According to Shari'a, someone who is not a Muslim is, by that fact alone, not a credible witness and therefore not permitted to testify in court, even in their own defence. The judge must seat the Muslim higher than the kafir. The judge must deal leniently with the Muslim and harshly with the kafir. Shari'a does not permit the judge to find against the Muslim in favour of the kafir.

The judge obligatorily treats two litigants impartially, seating both in places of equal honor, attending to each, and so forth, unless one is a non-Muslim, in which case he gives the Muslim a better seat. (Reliance of the Traveller, Book O22.12)

Legal testimony is only acceptable from a witness who is religious, meaning upright and Muslim, for Allah Most High says, "Let those of rectitude among you testify," (Qur'an 65:2) and unbelief [not being Muslim, AP] is the vilest form of corruption, as goes without saying. (Book O24.2)

Hijab's obnoxious court antics during his Spectator trial are not only down to his multiple personality disorders and the toxic da'wah culture of which he is so much a part, they are also down to what Shari'a expects of him. Remember that when a kafir land allows a Muslim to practise even the slightest bit of Islam, then that Muslim must behave as if he is in a Muslim land. So when Hijab, after the trial, claimed that the judge was biased against him, discriminated against him, etc., he was not playing the victim, as some contend, but simply asserting his Muslim privilege.

One of Mohammed Hijab's many unfortunate sidekicks is Smile 2 Jannah (the Sancho Panza role already went to the squeaky Ali Dawah). Mohammed Hijab's successful intimidation of the British TV and radio news channel GB News into a retraction and apology for their accurate reporting of what Hijab had said about the Qur'anic teaching on paedophile sex, The genius, Smile 2 Jannah, saw as an opportunity for some hard-hitting da'wah and decided to claim the GB News capitulation as proof that the Qur'an has no such paedophile teaching. According to Smile 2 Jannah:

He has taken GB News to court and exposed them for their anti-Islamic rhetoric beautifully. So we know GB News loves to pedal disinformation and dangerous lies since its inception. One such filthy way they did it, was taking a clip of Muhammad Hijab and then claiming that the Qur'an allowed sexual intercourse with 5-year-olds. Hijab took them to court and forced them to retract. They retracted on their website. They retracted on their Twitter and they had to apologise at the end of their show.

The Qur'an does, indeed, permit sex with prepubescent girls and GB News capitulating only encouraged Muslims to double down on their da'wah. So, what is da'wah and how does it connect to the Qur'an and Shari'a?

Non-Muslims who learnt about Muslims from Muslims will have been told about the "five pillars" that set Muslims apart from non-Muslims. They: 1. proclaim the creed about Allah being the only god and Muhammad being his messenger; 2. pray five times a day; 3. give zakat (purportedly "alms for the poor"); 4. fast during Ramadan; and 5. undertake a once-in-a-lifetime pilgrimage to Mecca, if they can afford it. Well, that is the least important thing you can know about Muslims, because Shari'a stipulates:

There are three spiritual stations a servant [of Allah, a Muslim] may have in his worship:

(1) to worship in a way that fulfils its obligations, by observing all its conditions and integrals;
...

All three of these are of the perfection of faith (ihsan), but the perfection required for the validity of worship is only the first, while perfection in the latter senses is the mark of the elect, and not possible for many. (Book U4.2)

In other words, in order to officially qualify as a Muslim, at the very least, the person must pray five times a day and correctly do all of it and all that is associated with it. It is enough for such people to follow what their sheikhs tell them the Qur'an says and Muhammad, their prophet, said and did. To these lay Muslims, this is all there is to Islam: it is a religion with the only god worthy of worship, Allah, a prophet, Muhammad and a scripture, the Qur'an. Beyond that, most of them are ignorant of their own religion and pointedly kept in that condition by the lower ranks of what Shari'a designates as "the elect", namely, imams and sheikhs.

Beyond the five pillars threshold where Islam is a religion, lies the vast domain of Islamic law, totalitarian control and warfare. The Muslims who dwell in this domain are a very different kind of people: killers and the recruiters and deployers of killers; people whom Western liberals cannot bear to associate with their nice, "moderate" Muslim friends and prefer to relegate to what they call "Islamism". As it happens, their division is correct, but misconceived.

The "five pillars" are the personal obligations on every Muslim, but beyond them lie Islam's communal obligations (that under special circumstances may devolve into additional personal obligations). The most important communal obligation is jihad, obligatory warfare to advance Islam at the expense of whatever is not Islam. It is the defining feature without which Islam is not Islam.

Shari'a expressly forbids lay Muslims from accessing this side of Islam on their own. They are only permitted to do so through the mediation of a sheikh, who will assess their suitability for initiation into what is to lay Muslims forbidden knowledge. The sheikh will nurture them through several stages to the point where they are ready to be exposed to the real Islam: the undoing of the soul, and its remaking to a single purpose of pure evil, seek death in killing.

For the purpose of jihad, Muslims are divided into categories: the first and by far the more important are: a) "those who give of their wealth and their blood" in the cause of Allah; and b) "those who sit still [or sit at home]". Those in category a) are the killers, the rapists, the torturers, etc., who kill all who will not convert to Islam on the spot (except Christians and Jews, who may choose to do so after their souls have been crushed), while those in category b) are your lovely Muslim friends who show the gullible kufaar how wonderful Islam is by inviting them to their fast-breaking rituals, their weddings and their girlie-fests of henna and hijabs. Both sides are performing jihad, because both sides are advancing the cause of Islam towards "all worship is for Allah", i.e., a Muslims-only world.

Where or when the Muslims are not strong enough to simply invade a non-Muslim land and put to the sword whoever refuses to immediately surrender to Islam, they must first ideologically enfeeble such populations, which they do by psychological warfare, hence jihad of the sword and jihad of the tongue, i.e., da'wah, propaganda, psychological warfare. In jihad of the tongue: writing, speeches, political campaigns, "debates", court cases, proselytising, "influencing", etc., the two categories of Muslims overlap in that both can do da'wah, thereby creating a jihad continuum extending all the way from nice Muslims who help old ladies carry their shopping, thereby "proving" Islam is harmless, to Muslims who toss live babies into ovens and rape their screaming mothers as they lose their minds. The further we move away from the killers, the more significant becomes preparing the ground for the killers. That is your "moderate" Muslim's role in jihad.

Communal obligations are so contrived that only some Muslims have to do it on behalf of a whole community for the obligation to be discharged. If no one does it, however, then everyone has sinned. "Those who sit at home" then, have a vested interest in "those who give of their wealth and their blood" actually going out and doing the killing. In other words, the "moderate" Muslims are as much invested in the "Islamists/jihadists/extremists/radicals/fundamentalists..." (pick you pacifier) committing jihad mass-murder, "even though it is something you do not like," and will ensure that, at the very least, they look the other way. This is the main reason, though not the only one, for "moderate" Muslims never speaking up against the atrocities that Western liberals convince themselves are being done "in the name of" Islam, rather than in compliance with Islam.. Why would they?

We may now circle back to what Smile 2 Jannah is doing. He quotes GB News and then complains:

"On 8th of April, 2024, we broadcast a video which appeared to suggest that Mr. Mohammed Hijab believed the Qur'an justified sexual intercourse with five-year-olds." Look at the disgusting lie. You know, as Muslims, we read the Qur'an regularly. If intercourse with 5-year-olds was something that was permitted, you'd see Muslims doing that flipping everywhere.

This is where the distinction between the religious domain of Islam (the Qur'an and the "five pillars") and the legal domain of Islam (Shari'a and the communal obligations) become crucial. Islam is so designed that contained completely within the religious domain is every claim that can be made about Islam and the refutation of each claim. Some claim/refutation couplets occur within the Qur'an, other within the Hadith, and others still with the claim in one text and the refutation in the other. In the Qur'an they are "abrogations", while in the hadith they are a hierarchy of grades of "authenticity". The result is that in the religious domain, every claim can be endlessly argued over without ever reaching resolution. This arrangements shields the legal domain from unauthorised trespass.

But the sheikhs, the imams, the mullahs, the ayatollahs, the "scholars" dwell in the legal domain, where the lay Muslim is barred from entry, because, as Sheikh Dr Yasir Qadhi infamously urged during the holes-in-the-narrative fiasco, "it is unwise for the masses to know". Well, on this point of paedophile sex, what do the "scholars" know that lay Muslims would not be able to cope with? It turns out, the scholars' secrecy is well-justified.

On the religious side, cases can be made that marriage between a grown man and a pre-pubescent girl: was permitted; was not permitted; is permitted; is not permitted; did take place; did not take place; is harmful to the children; is not harmful to the children; was sexual; and was not sexual, all at the same time. Yet Muslims and their acolytes have been completely silent about Shari’a, the law of Muhammad, which in all this time has been more than explicitly clear in so many different ways that it is lawful for grown men to have sex with pre-pubescent girls. Down to what age, exactly? Let Shari'a speak.

Part 2/...