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.

Smile 2 Janna, as we have seen in Part 1, falsely asserts that the Qur'an does not permit sex with pre-pubescent girls. He well knows that it does, and is just doing taqiyya (rather amateurishly, one might add). 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.

However, Smile 2 Janna not being what Sheikh Dr Yasir Qadhi calls "an advanced, advanced student of knowledge," he is less likely to be aware that Shari'a is quite unequivocal about the matter. Muhammed Hijab is quite right that, going by the Qur'an, a man may have sex with a five-year-old girl. This horrifies many Muslims, who refuse to examine the text of the Qur'an. But had Hijab said that sex with a two-year-old is permitted in Islam, would he have been any more right or wrong? Down to what age, exactly, does Islam permit a grown man to have sex with a girl? Shari'a clears this up in no uncertain terms:

“if one of several guardians of an infant, wbo are all upon an equality, in point of guardianship, contract the infant in marriage, the marriage is valid and binding upon all the other guardians, and no one of them is at liberty to annul it.” Al-Hidayah Volume II, p155.

“A waiting period is obligatory for a woman divorced after intercourse, whether the husband and wife are prepubescent, have reached puberty. or one has and the other has not. ...Intercourse means copulation.” (Reliance of the Traveller, Book N9.1-2)

A husband who accuses his wife of adultery is disciplined by the magistrate ...when adultery is impossible, such as when the person accused is a mere infant," (Book N11.2).

In other words, it is not permitted for a Muslim husband to accuse his wife of adultery if his wife is a baby, i.e., incapable of having a sexual interest in anyone. Just to be absolutely clear, Shari'a distinguishes “infant” in the following ways: “an infant in the cradle,” (Book M13.0); “the infant is able to suffice with another [woman]’s milk,” (Book O3.6).

The point here is that Shari'a permits a man to marry and have sex with a baby, all of this while Muslims want to argue the toss over whether the Qur'an says or doesn't say that sex with a five-year-old is permitted. More than that, Shari’a has rather a lot to say about the ins and outs of grown men marrying and having penetrative sex with infants. In the Shari'a manual, Reliance of the Traveller, under the title, “The Penalty for Fornication or Sodomy,” we read:

If the offender is someone with the capacity to remain chaste, then he or she is stoned to death. ...A person is not considered to have the capacity to remain chaste, if he or she ...is prepubescent at the time of marital intercourse. (Book O12.2)

In other words, Shari’a recognises that children are incapable of sexual motivation and, by implication, as such can only be raped, a point reinforced elsewhere:

When a woman who has been made love to[2] performs the purificatory bath [ghusl], and the male's sperm afterwards leaves her vagina, then she must repeat the ghusl if two conditions exist: (a) that she is not a child, but rather old enough to have sexual gratification; (b) and that she was fulfilling her sexual urge with the lovemaking, not ...forced. (Book E10.3)

"Forced", dear reader. Let us dwell for a moment on the word forced. Since the wives we are discussing here are children, possibly “in the cradle”, possibly still suckling, they suffer severe, crippling and fatal injuries from male penetration. Many end up with painful, life-long, debilitating fistulas, their lives ruined. Yet, Islam is not barbaric, as so many Islamophobes allege, no-no-no, because, “A full indemnity is paid ...for injuring the [peritoneal] wall between vagina and rectum so they become one aperture.” (Reliance of the Traveller, Book O4.13).

But the generosity and compassion of the Islamic state does not end there. Shari’a, being first and foremost concerned with the wellbeing of the child, goes the extra mile and stipulates that:

When a man has had sexual intercourse with a girl under the age of nine years, and has ruptured the parts, it is unlawful for him to have further connection with her, but she is not released from her ties, if connected with him by marriage or slavery. If no rupture has taken place, the prohibition is not incurred according to the most valid opinion. (Neil B. E. Baillie, A Digest of Moohummudan Law, Smith, Elder, & Co., London, 1887, p26).

In other words, if the Muslim husband has not physically destroyed his child-wife's or child-slave's vagina and anus, then there is no harm done. Go right ahead, brother. She is halal for you. Muslim "scholars" all know this. When Mohammed Hijab got Muslims arguing over what the Qur'an permits, was he, in fact, doing kitman, i.e., lying by omission?

"We now recognise that Mr Hijab went on to explain how other Islamic texts prohibit such conduct." In other words, the Qur'an doesn't say that. And number two, he's actually talking about texts that are prohibiting it, Islamically.

Smile 2 Jannah goes on to quote GB News's retraction and apology and then revels in humiliating them. But a Muslim would not be a Muslim if he did not seize the opportunity to claim the moral high ground:

But we'd like things to be consistent, whether it's for Christianity, whether it's for Judaism, whether it's for Islam, Hinduism. If something like this that is big, that is detrimental to the masses takes place, then there should be equal outrage rather than selective outrage.

We all owe Mohammed Hijab a debt of gratitude for pulling the secretive Shari'a out of the shadows and into the open. It just needed critics of Islam to not get carried away with schadenfreude so much that they fail to notice that the safe is cracked and Shari'a, Islam's heart of darkness, can be dragged into the open on the backs of Mohammed Hijab and his brilliant accomplice, Smile 2 Jannah. It is now up to us to stop the infantile ping-pong with the religious texts and get to what really matters: killers being made ready like steeds of war.

Finally, we would like to close by republishing the profile we wrote on Mohammed Hijab during his Leicester agitation in 2022, the same incident that prompted Douglas Murray to write his article in The Spectator that became the subject of Hijab's lawsuit against the magazine and Murray.

“Here lies one of the most intelligent animals who ever appeared on the face of the Earth.”

Violence is the fuel of fascism. Mussolini’s gangsters, Fasci Italiani di Combattimento, generically known as the Squadrismo, affectionately called the Black Shirts, recruited from the violent nether layers of Italian society, similar to the Ansar (helpers), who got Islam off the ground by exactly the same means.

ANJULI PANDAVAR

12 Sep 2022 • 5 min read

The title is the undying words Mussolini wanted on his grave. Benito Mussolini was haunted by the fear that he might be thought weak and that he might be thought stupid. He tried to compensate for the first by bedding countless women, often violently, and by nurturing thugs who assaulted and murdered at his whim, and for the second by cultivating theatrical oratory. Mussolini, “Il Duce,” the Leader, was the role model for Adolf Hitler, “Der Führer,” the Leader (the infamous “Hitler salute” is actually a Mussolini salute, faithfully adopted by Hitler). Mustafa Kemal, later Atatürk, was the role model for both Mussolini and Hitler. If Il Duce was good enough to be the role model for Hitler, he was good enough to be the role model for lesser sociopaths the world over, then and now. “Mussolini becomes a role model for every would be dictator of the 20th century and beyond.”

It is hard not to notice the risible rise of a certain Musulmano, Mohammed Hijab, nagged by the fear of insignificance, of being perceived as weak and stupid, doing all he can to project strength and intelligence, as he sees it, from roaring lion video intros (oh, what it is to live as a lion roar intro for a hundred years) to ripping off his shirt in public to convince himself of his virility, the only significance such men can know.

Mohammed Hijab has an inferiority complex viv-á-vis kafir academics and resents having to submit to them. He cultivates an air of intellectual authority in the only way he understands this is done: by theatrical bombast in imitation of Il Duce, by peppering his tortured syntax with long words he does not understand, and by name-dropping authors of journal articles like confetti. Hijab even boasted of challenging his lecturer, “a big shot,” for having written sources only, and no chain of narration. “You’ve got no chain! NO CHAIN!” On another occasion, he claimed to have memorised the whole of John Stuart Mill's Utilitarianism (pronounced “utalitarianism”) the way a Muslim memorises the whole Qur’an, which means you’re really, really, really clever. He expects people to take notes when he speaks, because, “You’ll get a lot from that, I’m sure,” and is given to rebuking those he wishes to put down with, “I’m your teacher, boy!”

It is not important to Mohammed Hijab that he does not understand the clever words he memorises. What counts is that Muslims, who do not understand them either, are impressed, and "Muslim" being the highest and only standard he cares about, he imagines that he impresses everyone else, too, or at the very least, intimidates them. Don’t bother sending in the clown. He is here, and he is extremely dangerous. This is the stuff dictators are made of.

Benito Mussolini whipped up a population in dire straits and ready to follow anyone who would put bread on the table (or make the trains run on time, as glib journalists would have it). The Italians have not lived as sheep for 1400 years. They lacked the inculcated ignorance and readiness to obey of the Muslim crowd, and as soon as the depravity their society had been sinking into exceeded their destitution, they turned on Il Duce. The Muslim admiration for Mohammed Hijab’s big words nurtures his self-obsession, and the theatrical showmanship that convinced Benito Mussolini that others were as impressed with him as he was with himself, works the same magic on Hijab. His squeaky Sancho Panza is unable to advise him that clever glasses are put on to read a text in front of you, and are removed to more clearly see an audience a little further away. They do not go on and off at random moments as a mark of cleverness.

One can easily be lured into sympathy for someone who needs to go to such lengths for significance, except that a few weeks ago, an altogether darker side to this clown came explicitly to the fore to squash any stirrings of sympathy: violence.

You don't think we have gangsters? We have Muslim gangsters as well. And when you go ahead and attack the sacred symbols of Islam – although our approach is not to do so – we can't stop the gangsters from dealing with you or anyone else. We can't stop the Muslim gangsters from dealing with you or anyone else, just like if you go to Colombia and you speak about a particular cartel in a specific manner. (“Salman Rushdie & Douglas Murray (Response),” Mohammed Hijab, YouTube, 18 Aug 2022 https://youtu.be/Qn9UJgEKWRg)

Violence is the fuel of Islam. It is also the fuel of fascism. Mussolini’s gangsters, the Combat Squad, affectionately called the Black Shirts, recruited from the violent nether strata of Italian society, similar to the Ansar (helpers), who got Islam off the ground by exactly the same means. In the wake of a young Muslim attempting to murder Salman Rushdie a few weeks ago, many Muslims had something to say about it, especially, “We don’t have to say something about it.” But the murder attempt had signalled to the wannabe Mussolini of Hyde Park that it was safe to drop all pretence and send in the Black Shirts. “We have Muslim gangsters,” he assured his audience in the wings, striking another Duce pose. Egyptian fascist Hassan al-Banna’s Muslim gangsters were the Green Shirts, and Adolf Hitler’s thugs the Brown Shirts. Fascists are nothing if not fashionable. Blasphemers, apostates, politicians who fail to do the Muslims’ bidding – let alone oppose them – Jews, Christians, homosexuals… “We have Muslim gangsters.” We are violent and we are on the move. And I, the Clever One, the Best of People, the Most Intelligent Ever, need but take off my glasses. In fact, here, write that on my grave.

In the wake of Pakistan's loss to India in a cricket match on 28 August 2025, Mohammed Hijab's Muslim gangs seized the opportunity to launch a pogrom against Hindus in Leicester and then Birmingham. "Chop up the Hindu community!" "Clean them out like we cleaned them out of Kashmir!" ("Drive them out from where they drove you out," Qur'an 2:191) "Put those dogs down!" According to the Henry Jackson Society's ever-so-cautious Charlotte Littlewood, speaking on the never-mention-Muslim-violence GBNews, "There is absolutely an organised gang of Islamists ...fronted by ...extreme Islamist influencers," not Muslims, but "Islamists," organised not by Muslim agent provocateurs, not by Muslim terrorist instigators, not by Muslims on jihad, not even by Mohammed Hijab and his gangs, no, but by "extreme Islamist influencers."

In his video titled, Armed Hindutva Extremists Threaten Anti-Muslim Violence in Leicester, Hijab declared to the police that he tried to commandeer, "I'm a community leader," while openly provoking Hindus on a peaceful march. In his video below, he calls them "fascist Hindu thugs" at the same time as deriding them for being too weak and pathetic to be gangsters, unlike the "community" he leads, who vow to never allow such wannabe gangsters on the street again.

Most Western du'at (singular, da'i - Muslim propagandist) are disillusioned and depressed. Their sheikhs promised them that the kufaar will flock to embrace Islam the moment they hear how wonderful Islam is. These poor idiots memorise exactly the right things to say, practise the most disarming body language, the perfect balanced tone to strike, and yet can put their heart and soul in it for years without converting a single kafir.

The root cause of their failure to impress Western people as they have been taught to expect is three-fold: firstly, even the smartest, most highly-educated Muslims are unable to defend Islam, because by the standards of any society more civilised than theirs, Islam is indefensible; secondly, compounding the indefensibility of Islam is that those who rise to "give da'wah" are the stupidest of Muslims, just one step above the wives they import to the West from Muslim countries. Their sheikhs only know how to deal with people who hear and obey and cannot teach the du'at how to persuade people capable of free thought. Unfortunately for them, thirdly, enough Western people today know enough about Islam to be able to run rings around Muslim sheikhs and "scholars", people capable of recognising when they are cornered, and to turn any encounter with the cretinous du'at into a comedy show.

The outcome is that almost every da'i is a walking disaster for Islam, Muhammed Hijab is just one of the most obnoxious. Du'at of his ilk, by their manner alone, have lost before they've even started. They way they conduct themselves gives ample warning of what to expect of a society that places people like them at the top. Themselves are what they want the West to replace its civilisation with.

Muslims are renowned for seeing only what they can bear to see. The phenomenon of smitten Western women, deluded Christians, ignorant liberals and troubled souls, such as ego maniacs, drug addicts and prisoners, converting to Islam they perceive as "Islam is the fastest growing religion" and chalk up each conversion as a da'wah success story. Even "thinking Muslims" – a distinct category of Muslims differentiated from the rest by Muslims themselves – are eager to embrace every conversion, even Cat Stevens, Sinéad O'Connor or Andrew Tate.

This eagerness for converts is what is most revealing about how Muslims sit with their own religion. Muslims, especially those who grew up exposed to Western norms, labour under the delusion that Islam is a religion of peace, grants them rights and freedoms, and respects women. In this they conflate Islam with Western civilisation and impute to the former the attributes and benefits of the latter. But daily they are confronted with the contrary: everywhere Islam goes, it destroys. Aside from this, of they have grown up with any exposure to Western norms, the chances are that despite their madrassa experience, their humanity, rather than shattered, survives deeply buried. The result is that Muslims are not convinced that their religion is good. Converts, any converts, validate their religion for them.

These, of course, are also your "moderate Muslims," and when they claim or demonstrate by their theatrical kindness that Islam is a religion of peace, it has less to do with the kafir they are lavishing their attentions on, than that they are trying to convince themselves that Islam is a religion of peace. Du'at such as Muhammed Hijab not only repel non-Muslims away from Islam, they also propel Muslims out of Islam. Alhamdulillah!

The real danger to Western society comes from Western governments that dismantle the West's fine education systems to reduce, generation by generation, their own populations to the mental and moral condition of Muslims (political correctness, multiculturalism, identity politics, diversity-equity-inclusion and wokeness, together amount to the Islamic doctrine of Al-wala’a w’al-bara’a - Loyalty and disavowal). At the same time, they either retrain their Judiciaries police forces to protect only Muslims or enfeeble the police to ineffectiveness. They dismantle and tie the hands of their military forces. They break down their economies to burden their populations with the struggles of everyday life. With their populations reduced to such a depressed condition, Western governments can then safely dismantle all the gains of the Enlightenment, all rights freedoms and protections, starting with free speech, and ready the country for Islamic take-over, without fear that the native population will stop them and save their civilisation.

Three developments are racing against the same clock: Islam taking over the West; apostasy from Islam eroding it from within; and Western populations rising from their stupor, breaking free of their delusions and saving themselves not only from what's coming, but from what their rulers have done to them over the course of decades. Only Muslims and ex-Muslims know this.