Jihadis do not stop at killing non-Muslims. Muslims are killing Muslims in Yemen and Saudi Arabia currently; Muslims killed Muslims in Iran and Iraq from 1980 to 1998; Muslims killed Muslims in Libya; Muslims are killing Muslims in Pakistan and Afghanistan. On August 2, 2026, in Pakistan, a Muslim murdered at least 14 Muslims in a jihad suicide bombing at a peace rally. Muslims bomb mosques, killing hundreds. (See here, here, and here).
Is it irrational or “Islamophobic” to consider this deeply abnormal? Should we not observe that Hindus do not attack their own temples, Christians do not demolish their churches, Jews do not bomb their synagogues? Are we to accept such violence as unremarkable, all the result of “Western foreign policy” or “socio-economic deprivation,” or even consider that “climate change” can “cause an environment where terrorism can thrive”? Are we to passively accept that Muslims have no agency at all, and the violence they inflict on others is always someone else”s fault, some “misinterpretation of Islamic belief,” some unappreciated “context” or some “conspiracy”?
Perhaps Muslim-on-Muslim bloodshed is not historically surprising, as three of the four Rashidun caliphs (unironically called “the Rightly Guided because they ruled according to the Quran”) were assassinated (Umar, Uthman, and Ali, while Abu Bakr died of natural causes) and that the thirty years they ruled were “filled with political intrigue, corruption, assassination, and civil war.”
Pointing out all this will inevitably draw accusations of “Islamophobia.” However, conclusions about the sanguinary nature of Islam are not new, but merely Islamofactist. Gandhi and Churchill, who seldom saw eye-to-eye on anything, agreed on Muslims and Islam. Gandhi wrote, “there can be no doubt that they are too free with the knife and the pistol” and that “his experience but confirms the opinion that the Musalman as a rule, is a bully.” Winston Churchill described Islam as “the religion of blood and war” and stated, “The Mahommedan religion increases, instead of lessening, the fury of intolerance. It was originally propagated by the sword, and ever since its votaries have been subject, above the people of all other creeds, to this form of madness.” Dr. BR Ambedkar, the eminent Dalit Indian leader, and a guiding force in the drafting of the Indian constitution, remarked upon “the adoption by the Muslims of the gangster”s method in politics.”
In another continent and age, US President Thomas Jefferson “took time to read the Quran and concluded that Muslims are commanded to “plunder and enslave” non-Muslims.” President John Adams wrote that Islam’s founder and prophet was “a military fanatic,” while describing Islamic law as “contemptible.” President John Quincy Adams, America’s sixth President, later wrote that Islam is “violence and lust: to exalt the brutal over the spiritual part of human nature.” He argued, “The precept of the Koran is perpetual war against all who deny that Muhammad is the prophet of God.”
Alexis de Tocqueville, the celebrated French political philosopher and author of Democracy in America, wrote, “I studied the Quran a great deal. I came away from that study with the conviction that by and large there have been few religions in the world as deadly to men as that of Muhammad… its social and political tendencies are in my opinion more to be feared.” A scholarly ex-Muslim, Ibn Warraq, has authored The Islam in Islamic Terrorism, that meticulously explains “the importance of beliefs, ideas and ideology.” And Muslims themselves can speak candidly about the violence they would use to impose Sharia, including executing homosexuals, stoning adulterers, and torturing apostates to death.
Despite the overwhelming evidence on the role of Islamic texts in causing terrorism and crime, Muslims will rail against any proposal to acquaint security professionals with Islamic texts. Such objections are best addressed proactively.
They will assert “it will hurt Muslim sentiments” and claim “victimhood.” The truth is that Islamic texts hurt the sentiments of non-Muslims, characterizing them as worse than animals. They will say it “others” Muslims, when, in fact, non-Muslims are the ones othered by Islam, as it has divided the world into Dar ul Islam and Dar ul Harb, or the House of Islam and the House of War; they will say it “stereotypes millions of peaceful Muslims,” when there is hard evidence in surveys that show large minorities of Muslims supporting violence and terrorism (called “non-violent extremists” by a former Muslim Home Secretary of the UK, Sajid Javid).
They will object that non-Muslims have “no right” to study and comment upon the Quran, whereas the fact is Muslims distribute millions of free Qurans annually to any non-Muslim who might wish to have one; they will object that this amounts to “defamation of religion,” whereas no such right exists under international law that protects only individuals. They may say that these are “extreme interpretations” of their sacred texts. However, an extreme interpretation is still an interpretation, and so that claim offers hardly any comfort to the victims. They will assert that such terrorists are not Muslim, overlooking the fact that such terrorists frequently flaunt Islamic religious motives for their acts that are documented in UN Security Council reports. It records the terrorists asked the persons “why they had not converted to Islam and showed the Quran to one of them.” After the killing, they shot in the air twice, saying they had killed the all the “kaffir” (“infidels” in Arabic).
Root cause analysis, (RCA), useful in the business world, has direct applicability here. AI stated, “studying foundational texts for root cause analysis is important as they provide essential methodologies and frameworks that help in effectively identifying and addressing the root causes of problems.” The utility of root cause analysis extends to Islam. We reject all attempts to place Islamic texts beyond rational scrutiny and factual analysis, as well as impose de facto blasphemy laws.
Let us not forget the victims of terrorism. The UN has “deeply deplored the suffering caused by terrorism to the victims and their families, expressed its profound solidarity with them,” and noted that “terrorism clearly has a very real and direct impact, with devastating consequences.” When will we think of a better way to protect the lives of countless persons who could become the future casualties of terrorism other than mourning for those already gone?
The answer, in part, lies in teaching the violent, aggressive, expansionist, and misogynistic Islamic texts to Indian security forces that will help them better understand the motivation behind terror offences, identify potential suspects, gather evidence, develop effective investigative strategies, and present a fuller dossier for courts to consider. Just as the medical profession cannot be barred from studying a rare disease because it is “too dangerous,” geologists cannot be forbidden from studying earthquakes because they are “too destructive,” and law enforcement cannot be obstructed from studying Islamic texts because they are “too extreme,” despite the fact that such texts are the inspiration, springboards and enablers of terrorism, based on the confessed motivations of terrorists themselves.
The demand is not for a ban on any Islamic texts, but merely for their study by professionals whose fundamental duty is to protect, prevent, and detect crime. Terrorism is, as the UN Security Council has frequently stated, “one of the most serious threats to international peace and security in the twenty-first century.”
To that end, we request you to immediately convene a high-powered committee of retired security professionals, victims of terrorism, ex-Muslims, Hindu and international scholars critical of Islam to develop a training curriculum for Indian security forces. India, of all the countries in the world, should not dare be ignorant about those seeking our destruction.
John1 says
Well said!