|
7. Islam's attraction to
Nazism
Curiously enough, in the 19th century, long
before the rise of Nazism, in Europe the attraction
flowed the other way: many German and English
intellectuals admired and romanticized Islam and
the Arabs; they were known as "Arabists." Many of
these Europeans also tended to favor fascistic or
"Prussian" systems of government. Perhaps it was
the theocratic absolutism of Islam that attracted
them.
The ideological magnet that seems to draw
Muslims to a sympathetic view of Nazism has been
quite evident in the 20th century. It is well known
that during WW II the Allies could not count on the
loyalty of any of the Muslims in the Near and
Middle East. No doubt, during the Nazi period, it
was the shared hatred of everything Jewish that
made Nazism attractive for the Muslims and
vice-versa. But even before Hitler's ascension to
power, Muslim rulers, including Reza Shah Pahlevi,
admired the authoritarian and disciplinarian
characteristics of the Prussians.
Amir Taheri reports that sympathies in the
Muslim countries for the Nazis were strong already
in the mid-1930s and continued during the war
years:
- The second major political current with
which Khomeini came into contact in Najaf was
Nazism which, with its star rising in Europe,
was proving very attractive to some sections of
Muslim society in the Middle East. In
Mesopotamia an anti-British movement led by
Rashid Ali Guilani was openly pro-Nazi. In Egypt
the movement called Young Egypt harbored similar
sentiments. In Iran Reza Shah shared with many
of the mullahs a deep admiration for Adolf
Hitler. [6] p. 97.
-
- [During WW II] on a number of visits
to Tehran [Khomeini] made contact with
Ayatollah Abol-Qassem Husseini Kashani, an
openly political mullah who had been exiled by
the British to Palestine in 1941 because of his
pro-Nazi activities. Also in Tehran he deepened
his relations with the Fedayeen of Islam's
network of "holy killers." [6] p.
107.
and Irshad Manji writes that,
- In 1943, Haj Amin [Mufti of
Jerusalem] addressed imams in the Bosnian
SS, assuring them that Islam and Nazism shared a
commitment to social order, family structure,
hard work, and a perpetual struggle --
especially against the Americans, the English,
and the Jews. From the capital of the Reich, Haj
Amin broadcast Nazi propaganda to the Arab
world. "Kill the Jews wherever you find them,"
he hissed into a microphone at Radio Berlin on
March 1, 1944. "This pleases God, history, and
religion. This saves your honor. God is with
you." [12] p. 112.
-
Islam's
Attack Against the West
1. Islam's festering
grievances
Now it is time to ask why Islam is so mad at the
West today. The short answer is that Muslims hold
the West responsible for destroying their empire,
and they want it back.
It is not uncommon for a people who at some time
in history have possessed an empire and then lost
it to express a nostalgic longing for its
resurrection in all its past glory. Along with this
nostalgia and a wish to turn back the clock many
such people also harbor a deep resentment and even
hatred for some external powers or foreign states
whom they perceive as having been the agents
responsible for their loss of empire.
The French still consider the British
("perfidious Albion") to be largely responsible for
the demise of the Napoleonic empire; quite a few
Britons still rue the passing of their own empire,
on which, once upon a time, "the sun never set." A
few of them still remember with bitterness that the
policies and actions of Presidents Franklin D.
Roosevelt and Dwight D. Eisenhower hastened the
dismantling of the British empire in the name of
de-colonization.
In Europe, the Germans have been the angriest
about the loss of their empire and the most
insistent on re-establishing it. They consider the
Holy Roman Empire, which existed from about the
year 900 to 1806, to be their First Reich; the
Second Reich was proclaimed by Kaiser Wilhelm I in
1871 and lasted until Germany's defeat in 1918. The
Third Reich was proclaimed by Adolf Hitler in 1933
and lasted until 1945 when Germany was once again
defeated.
The Muslim empire was once one of the largest in
the world and it lasted from the 7th until the
early 20th century. The ruler of the Islamic empire
was the Caliph, who wielded absolute power
comparable to the combined powers of both the Pope
and Caesar of Christendom. Beginning with their
conquest of Constantinople in 1453, the Muslim
empire was ruled by the Ottoman sultans who also
fulfilled the role of the caliph.
The Ottoman empire went into a decline already
in the 19th century. Then, in the first World War,
the Ottoman sultan unfortunately chose to side with
Germany and Austria. At the end of that war the
Ottoman empire was dismembered by the victorious
allies -- the United States, Britain, and France.
In the remnant of the Ottoman empire -- Turkey,
Kemal Attaturk seized power and abolished both the
sultanate and the caliphate.
There is a corollary to the Muslim belief that
they are destined by Allah to eventually rule the
whole world: if a territory has at some time come
under Muslim rule they claim it as theirs forever
after, even if they have been subsequently evicted
from it. Osama Bin Laden and his Al Qaeda
associates have declared that all territories which
have been under Muslim rule at some time in the
past are rightfully theirs today. In Europe that
would include Spain, Greece, Bulgaria, and most of
the Balkan region.
The Muslim obsession to reclaim lost
territories, i.e. to reconstitute the Islamic
empire, may be even stronger than what inspired the
German people to try to reconstitute the Reich. In
light of their glorious past, the Muslims have
found defeat particularly hard to accept, and their
thirst for renewed triumph so much the stronger.
Fregosi observes that,
- . . . for many of the faithful, whose
history and lives had flourished in perpetual
victories, the experience was an emotionally
shattering one that many Muslim minds were not
able to accept. Defeat and humiliation was not
the stuff of which Islam was made. It had always
triumphed in the past, and it awaited triumph in
the future. Today, with de-colonization and with
the backing of its immense oil riches, the hour
of Islam has perhaps come around again. The
Jihad, begun by Mohammed in the seventh century,
is required to persist until the whole world
belongs to Islam. [8] p. 379.
Furthermore, the Islamic empire can only be an
empire if ruled by a caliph. Therefore, the Muslims
make the additional demand that the caliphate be
restored. The Western public remains woefully
ignorant of these Muslim demands. Paul Berman is
one of very few in the West to understand what
feeds the Muslims' anger and fury. He
says:
- . . Al Qaeda [is] not a political
movement in any conventional sense. It
[is] a chiliastic movement, and its goal
[is] the Caliphate or nothing.
[2] p. 116.
He caught the nuances in the following statement
by Bin Laden:
- . . in that first video after 9/11 . . .
Some of Bin Laden's comments were, to anyone
without a background in Islamic thought,
incomprehensible. Bin Laden said that America,
as a result of the attacks, was "filled with
horror," which was certainly true. But he added
a puzzling remark. He said, "Our Islamic nation
has been tasting the same for more than eighty
years, of humiliation and disgrace, its sons
killed and their blood spilled, its sanctities
desecrated." But what was the terrible thing
that had taken place more than eighty years
before - the terrible thing that had continued
ever since, humiliating and disgracing what he
called "the Islamic nation"? An event from 1921
or before - what could that have been? I think
that television viewers around the world,
staring at CNN or even at Al Jazeera, wondered
about that remark and silently surmised that bin
Laden was raving incoherently. But the readers
of Sayyid Qutb would have understood. Bin Laden
was speaking about the crimes of Kemal Ataturk -
the plunge into secular modernity that
culminated in 1924 in the abolition of the
Caliphate. Bin Laden was speaking about that
initial, devastating attack on the Islamic
nation - the attack that signaled the beginning
of Islam's "extermination," in Qutb's fearful
words. [2] p. 117.
In the eyes of Muslims, and the Arabs in
particular, the West inflicted a further
humiliation on them when it dismembered the Ottoman
lands of Middle and Near East in a quite arbitrary
manner. Entirely new states were created and
boundaries drawn without consulting the will of the
inhabitants. Muslims consider these states to be
illegitimate entities and their rulers apostates
from Islam. Among the Muslims of the world the
desire to eradicate these illegitimate regimes is
as strong as the desire to restore the Islamic
caliphate.
2. Islam's resurgence
Organized Muslim underground resistance
movements against the Western colonial powers began
soon after the dismemberment of the Ottoman empire
and abolition of the caliphate. There were also
public protests in newspapers and street
demonstrations against the Western powers in many
Muslim countries.
It is well documented by history, and already
mentioned above, that Muslim hostility towards the
Western powers festered in more or less muted
fashion during the inter-war years and throughout
the Second World War. Sometimes a short statement
serves to make the point just as well as lengthy
commentaries:
- [In the 1920s] . . an Egyptian
founded the Muslim Brotherhood, the Al Qaeda of
his generation. Rites of initiation into the
brotherhood's terror cells featured two props ;
the Koran and a revolver. [12] p.
74.
As should have been foreseen (but was not),
Islam's opportunity to reassert itself on the
world's stage came in Iran -- a quasi-democratic
ally of the West, but never a colonial servant of
Western imperialism, during the then prevailing
Cold War with the Soviet Union. In Iran there were
just enough democratic freedoms, honored by
Muhammad Reza Shah Pahlevi, to provide wiggle room
for an Islamic insurrection to flourish. And
Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who we have met
before, took full advantage of this opportunity. He
overthrew the shah in 1979 and established in Iran
the first Islamic republic of modern times. From
then on Islam has been on the offensive again. Some
insightful observers have noted this fact; for
example,
- Iran's Islamist revolutionaries spread their
inspiration across wide regions of the Arab and
Muslim world, even where the majority of people
were Sunni and not Shiite. For the Iranian
revolution was large and deep and inspiring,
and, with the Iranian example in everyone's
eyes, the Islamist movement became a greater
phenomenon than ever before, and the newly mass
movement began to achieve success across the
wide arc from Afghanistan to Algeria, and
beyond. [2] p. 110
-
- The terrorist Jihad that exists today is a
topical, political reality. The advent of the
Ayatollah Khomeini on the international scene
has strikingly heralded the return to the world
of an aggressive Islam after more than a century
of quiet: Western imperialism and colonial
domination shackled Islam to the West for a
century and stifled the Jihad until the
mid-twentieth century. [8] p. 20.
-
- . . . the Islamic Revolution was to end
liberties taken with the divine law and to
restore men to their bondage with Allah. The
Islamic Revolution also rejected the notion that
men of all creeds could be equals and brothers.
Women can never be treated as equals under Islam
and non-believers can never enjoy the same
rights as believers. The very concept of human
rights was "a Judeo-Christian invention" and
inadmissible in Islam.[6] p. 20
-
- The objective of the Imam
[Khomeini], who considers all existing
governments in Muslim countries to be
illegitimate, is the creation of a single
universal Islamic state which can emerge as a
world power . . . [6] p.22
Many of his supporters called for Khomeini to be
elected Caliph soon after he came to power in
Iran:
- In August 1983 an international Islamic
seminar financed by the Islamic Republic in
London called on Muslims throughout the world to
follow Khomeini as their sole leader, but
stopped short of declaring him Caliph as some
delegates had apparently demanded. [6]
p. 283.
Khomeini echoed the Prophet Muhammad in his
inspirational sermons and messages. Robert Spencer
gives an example of Khomeini's fiery
language:
- Islam makes it incumbent on all adult males,
provided they are not disabled or incapacitated,
to prepare themselves for the conquest of
[other] countries so that the writ of
Islam is obeyed in every country in the world. .
. . But those who study Islamic Holy War will
understand why Islam wants to conquer the whole
world. . . . Those who know nothing of Islam
pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those
[who say this] are witless. Islam says:
Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill
you all! Does this mean that Muslims should sit
back until they are devoured by [the
unbelievers]? Islam says: Kill them [the
non-Muslims], put them to the sword and
scatter [their armies]. Does this mean
sitting back until [non-Muslims]
overcome us? Islam says: Kill in the service of
Allah those who may want to kill you! Does this
mean that we should surrender [to the
enemy]? Islam says: Whatever good there is
exists thanks to the sword and in the shadow of
the sword! People cannot be made obedient except
with the sword! The sword is the key to
Paradise, which can be opened only for the Holy
Warriors! There are hundreds of other
[Qur'anic] psalms and Hadiths
[sayings of the Prophet] urging Muslims
to value war and to fight. Does all this mean
that Islam is a religion that prevents men from
waging war? I spit upon those foolish souls who
make such a claim. [7] p. 35.
Although the Islamic revolution in Iran was
carried out by Shi'ite Muslims, their revolution
inspired all Muslims everywhere to raise the flag
of Jihad; Islam was on the march once
again:
- Iran's Islamist revolutionaries spread their
inspiration across wide regions of the Arab and
Muslim world, even where the majority of people
were Sunni and not Shiite. For the Iranian
revolution was large and deep and inspiring,
and, with the Iranian example in everyone's
eyes, the Islamist movement became a greater
phenomenon than ever before, and the newly mass
movement began to achieve success across the
wide arc from Afghanistan to Algeria, and
beyond. And what was the mark of that success? .
. . Piety spread. Religious devotion deepened.
Women hid behind their veils. And as piety,
devotion, and patriarchy bloomed, in every
country a new kind of politics came into flower.
It was the politics of slaughter - slaughter for
the sake of sacred devotion, slaughter conducted
in a mood of spiritual loftiness, slaughter
indistinguishable from charity, slaughter that
led to suicide, slaughter for slaughter's sake.
It was a flower of evil. And this new politics,
in its bright green Islamic color, proved to be
sturdy. [2] p. 110.
Ayatollah Khomeini sounded the trumpet for a new
Jihad against everything Western. Iran became an
exporter of revolutionary fighters, such as the
Hezbollah, to other Muslim countries. On the
ideological front, the teachings of men like Sayyid
Qutb also started to spread through the Muslim
world and helped to recruit large numbers of new
fighters. Paul Berman writes:
- The single most influential writer in the
Islamist tradition, at least among the Sunni
Arabs, is generally recognized to be Sayyid Qutb
(1906-1966) of Egypt, a formidable person.
[2] p. 60.
-
- Saudi Arabia embraced Sayyid Qutb's younger
brother, Muhammad, and the other exiles from
Nasser's repression because Islam in its Sunni
branch, rather like Judaism, is a scholarly
religion: there is no priesthood, only the
scholarly interpreters of Islamic law. But Saudi
Arabia was not brimming with scholars. The
Egyptian scholars could do a lot for Saudi
Arabia's religious credentials, then, and they
could do so at a moment when, because of the oil
boom, Saudi wealth was creeping upward into the
realms of the spectacular. The Saudis
established a missionary program abroad, which
eventually constructed a full 1500 mosques
around the world. . . . And from the pullulating
mosques, a new mix of ideas, the traditional
puritanical doctrines of Saudi Wahhabi Islam,
reinforced now by the dynamic new Koranic
readings from Qutb and Egypt's Muslim
Brotherhood, radiated outward.[2] p.
104.
-
- And from all this al Qaeda emerged - from
the early example of the Ayatollah in Iran, from
the jihad in Afghanistan, from King Abdul Aziz
University in Saudi Arabia, and from the
Egyptian theologians.[2] p.
114.
3. Islam declares war
Islam's declaration of war against the West was
delivered in a spectacular fashion, on September
11, 2001. In psychological shock value on the
American population, the surprise attack on the
World Trade Center and the Pentagon exceeded that
of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.
At the time of this writing, we have been at war
with Islam for two and a half years. During that
interval conventional warfare has been going on in
Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq; let us also not
forget the war in Palestine between Islam and the
Jews of Israel. In addition, there have been
bombings by Islamist agents in too many places in
the world to count them all; the most effective of
these was carried out in Madrid, Spain not long
ago.
Islam's resumption of open warfare against the
West should not come as a surprise, nor be seen as
unusual. Islam, being what it is, could not act
otherwise; many centuries of past behavior testify
to that fact. Here are comments from writers who
are aware of the nature of Islam:
- The jihad that aims to increase the size of
the dar-al-Islam at the expense of
dar-al-harb is not a conventional war
that begins at a certain point and ends at
another. Jihad is a "permanent war" that
"excludes the idea of peace but authorizes
temporary truces related to the political
situation (muhadana)." [7] p.
169.
-
- No one seems to have told the modern-day
warriors and apostles of Islam from Bosnia to
the Philippines that jihad is a dead letter, and
that Islam isn't doing any more expanding. . .
Jihad will no more end with Osama bin Laden than
it began with him. As the Encyclopedia of
Islam put it in 1913, "Islam must be
completely made over before the doctrine of
jihad can be eliminated." If anything about the
future is certain, it is that whatever the
ultimate outcome of the war on terrorism may be,
there will be more jihads as long as there are
people who take the Qur'an as the word of Allah
and the Sunnah as second only to the Qur'an as a
reliable guide to behavior. [7] p.
170.
-
- So long as Islam remains Islam (which it
will) and the West remains the West (which is
more dubious), this fundamental conflict between
two great civilizations and ways of life will
continue to define their relations in the future
even as it has defined them for the past
fourteen centuries. [1] p. 212.
-
- Western political leaders, including the
German chancellor and the French prime minister,
expressed ... concerns, with the secretary
general of NATO declaring in 1995 that Islamic
fundamentalism was "as least as dangerous as
communism" had been to the West, and a "very
senior member" of the Clinton administration
pointing to Islam as the global rival of the
West. [1] p. 215.
-
- If the Muslims allege that the West wars on
Islam and if Westerners allege that Islamic
groups war on the West, it seems reasonable to
conclude that something very much like a war is
underway. ... During the fifteen years between
1980 and 1995, according to the U.S. Defense
Department, the United States engaged in
seventeen military operations in the Middle
East, all of them directed against Muslims. No
comparable pattern of U.S. military operations
occurred against the people of any other
civilization.
- The underlying problem for the West is not
Islamic fundamentalism. It is Islam, a different
civilization whose people are convinced of the
superiority of their culture and are obsessed
with the inferiority of their power. The problem
for Islam is not the CIA or the U.S. Department
of Defense. It is the West, a different
civilization whose people are convinced of the
universality of their culture and believe that
their superior, if declining, power imposes on
them the obligation to extend that culture
throughout the world. [1] p. 217.
The West
Refuses to Recognize Islam as the
Enemy
In spite of its technological and military
superiority, the West may lose and it certainly
cannot win the current war. You do not defeat the
enemy if you pretend that he does not exist. The
official line, maintained by virtually all the
statesmen, political leaders and the religious
establishment in Western countries is that we are
being attacked by "terrorists." Most of the time no
clear ideological or religious affiliation of the
"terrorists" is given. Yes, there is the nebulous
Al Qaeda and its even more nebulous leader Osama
Bin Laden, who are sometimes called "Islamic
fundamentalists," and lately we are also told that
"insurgents" are causing trouble in Iraq. But we
really have not moved much beyond how President
Bush identified the attackers on September 11,
2001; he called them simply your no-name, generic
brand "terrorists." This is how Robert Spencer
remembers it:
- "Islam is peace." George W. Bush went to a
mosque to say it late in 2001. The September 11
terrorist attacks, he averred, "violate the
fundamental tenets of the Islamic faith." In his
September 20 address to Congress, he elaborated:
"The terrorists practice a fringe form of
Islamic extremism that has been rejected by
Muslim scholars and the vast majority of Muslim
clerics -- a fringe movement that perverts the
peaceful teachings of Islam." . . .
-
- Is George Bush right in saying that the
terror of September 11 represented only a
"fringe form of Islamic extremism"? [7]
p. 7.
-
- Besides the now-infamous Palestinians
dancing in the streets for CNN's cameramen at
the news that the World Trade Center towers had
collapsed, demonstrators around the world
chanted their approval. These people were not
all Wahhabis or uneducated mobs. "Reporters from
Arab shores," according to Johns Hopkins
University professor Fouad Ajami, "tell us of
affluent men and women, some with years of
education in American universities behind them,
celebrating the cruel deed of Muhammad Atta and
his hijackers." A Libyan told the New York
Times: "September 11 was the happiest day of
my life." [7] p. 16.
-
- Not only George Bush and Tony Blair, but
Westerners in general misunderstand Islam on a
massive scale because they persist, probably
without realizing it, in viewing the religion of
Muhammad in light of Christian categories and
experience. The most prominent indication of
this is the constant reference to Islamic
"fundamentalists." . . . Inside and outside the
umma (the worldwide community of Muslim
believers), Muslims agree that [the Five
Pillars] are at the heart of their religion:
the confession of faith, daily prayer,
almsgiving, fasting during Ramadan, and the
pilgrimage to Mecca. In this sense, virtually
all Muslims are fundamentalists. [7] p.
22.
and Paul Berman makes the same
observation:
- It ought to have been obvious that, sooner
or later, the United States and its allies were
going to look into the Lebanese Hezbollah, which
meant looking into the Syrian government and the
Iranian mullahs. It ought to have been obvious
that something would have to be done about Saudi
Arabia -- the biggest problem of all, arguably.
Peace and safety may not be compatible, in the
end, with the existence of a fanatical,
obscurantist, intolerant, anti-Semitic,
obsessively patriarchal, polygamous,
terror-minded, theocratic, supremely wealthy
petro-monarchy that insists on spreading its
missionary message to the world. But in Bush's
discussions of the Terror War, none of this was
even broached. [2] p. 200.
This absolutely insane refusal to acknowledge
that on September 11, 2001, America was not
attacked by just a gang of "terrorists," but that
on that date Islam itself renewed the Jihad against
the West, leads to a very dangerous underestimate
of the potential number of fighters Islam can
mobilize for this war. Robert Spencer
writes:
- Middle East analyst Daniel Pipes estimates
[the number of terrorist sympathizers in
Muslim countries] as between 100 million and
150 million people. This doesn't mean that the
remaining 850 to 900 million Muslims around the
world are all peace-loving. [7] p.
36.
-
- In this light, the number of terrorists and
their sympathizers is likely to grow beyond
Pipe's 100 to 150 million. . . . "When liberal
Muslims declare that Sept. 11 was an atrocity
contrary to the Koran," observes Farrukh Dhondy,
"the majority of Muslims around the world don't
believe them. They accept the interpretation of
fundamentalists, whom liberal Muslims have
allowed to remain unchallenged." That is why the
Bush/Blair cure for terrorism may end up being
worse than ineffectual. The Islam that the West
embraces in order to co-opt bin Laden today may
be the Islam that assaults the West tomorrow.
[7] p. 37.
The United States (with the other Western
countries reluctantly in tow) has responded to
Islam's challenge by setting off on a fool's errand
into fantasy land. President Bush stormed into
Afghanistan and Iraq not so as to compel Islam to
live by the civilized norms of the Western world.
Rather, Bush's intention in Afghanistan and Iraq is
to embrace Islam and - of all things - to
democratize it!
All over the Muslim world, the ayatollahs,
imams, and mullahs must be having a good laugh in
private over Bush's idiotic notion, even as they
continue to preach to their followers the vilest
sermons of hate imaginable against the West in
their mosques. In the countries of the West, where
they enjoy the luxury of religious freedom, their
message to the faithful Muslims is more subdued,
more muted, but it is there.
Exactly how ridiculous the situation has become
is illustrated by a recent incident (26 March,
2004) in Iraq. While U.S. troops (who ostensibly
are there to fight for Iraqi "democracy") were
engaged in a full-scale fire-fight with
"insurgents" in the town of Fallujah, an
influential Shiite cleric in Iraq called Israel's
targeted killing of the spiritual leader of Hamas a
"dirty crime against Islam" and the terrorist
attacks of September 11, 2001, "a miracle from
God." Moqtada al-Sadr delivered a charged sermon
Friday at a mosque near the holy city of Najaf,
blasting Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon for
the killing of Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, founder of
Hamas.
Here we are: the Shi'ite cleric, who Americans
liberated from Sadam Hussein's brutal oppression at
the cost of their own lives, calls the attacks of
September 11, 2001, "a miracle of God." That brings
us up to date as of this writing. If the West
remains on the idiotic course it is on now, it
cannot win the war with Islam, but it can surely
lose it.
The End
References
[1] The Clash of Civilizations,
by Samuel P. Huntington, Simon &Schuster,
1997
[2] Terror and Liberalism, by
Paul Berman, W. W. Norton & Co., 2003
[3] The Seed of Abraham, by
Raphael Patai, Charles Scribner's Sons,
1987
[4] Mohammed, by Maxime Rodinson,
Pantheon Books, 1971
[5] Among the Believers, by V.S.
Naipaul, Vintage Books, 1982
[6] The Spirit of Allah, by Amir
Taheri, Adler & Adler, 1986
[7] Islam Unveiled, by Robert
Spencer, Encounter Books, 2002
[8] Jihad, by Paul Fregosi,
Prometheus Books, 1998
[9] Reliance of the Traveler: A
Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law,
translated from Arabic by Nuh Ha Mim Keller, Amana
Publications, 1994
[10] The Messianic Legacy, by
Michael Baigent et al., Corgi Books, 1993
[11] Al-Imam al-Mahdi, by
Ayatollah Ibrahim Amini, translated by Dr.
Abdulaziz Sachedina, Ansariyan Publications,
1999
[12] The Trouble With Islam, by
Irshad Manji, Random House, 2003
Questions/Comments? Post them in The
Radical Academy Forum
Mr. Irbe's Website: Classical
Liberal George
E-mail Address: George
J. Irbe
A
Brief Autobiography of George J. Irbe
|
