Dr. Ahmed Abdu‘ Maher, an Egyptian scholar with a long history of being relatively straightforward about Islamic history and doctrine in his many books and lectures—to the point that he was sentenced to five years imprisonment, but pardoned at the final moment—has apparently had enough.
In a recent video, Maher lashed out at his accusers:
All these people are complaining about my videos, saying they incite hate. But everything I say is directly contained in your books, the very books you believe in. I’m not calling for killing or bloodshed, or anything like that. I’m totally against such talk. So why are you complaining? Why are you ashamed of what is yours? I don’t say this one or that one is a kafir [infidel] or not a kafir. Nor do I call for this one or that one to be killed or whatever. I never use such language, ever! But that is what’s in your books! So when I confront you about it, you go and complain against me so that the video can be removed [off YouTube]. … Why are you so ashamed of your fiqh [Islamic jurisprudence], you who want to have me removed?… Am I the one who said those words of yours? Am I the one who said enslave women?… Am I the one who’s saying kill the murtad [apostate]? Did I ever say such things, or are these things in the books? Yes, they’re in the books, and you are keeping, protective of, and find such books important. Fine then, but be sincere with yourself, man, be honest, be clear…. Don’t be so two-faced!
Anyone aware of the current political climate should have a good idea what Maher is talking about: he quotes problematic texts—killing apostates, beating women, terrorizing infidels—directly from Islam’s scriptures, mostly hadith, sira, and tafsir; but, rather than dealing with it—such teachings are, indeed, in Islam’s books—certain Muslims go on to accuse him of spreading hate in an attempt to have him “canceled.”
Such a sequence of events should be very familiar. For long now, anyone in the West who, by merely quoting directly from Islamic scriptures, makes Islam look anything less than peaceful and tolerant is quickly canceled.
This tactic has so metastasized in Western society that it is now used against anyone who contradicts any narrative being promulgated by the so-called “Left”—for example, Libs of TikTok, which exposes leftist insanity by merely letting the left speak for itself.
American readers are left with an applicable sampling of Maher’s approach. In early 2017, when the Muslim world was outraged after the announcement of Donald Trump’s so-called “Muslim ban,” Maher posted a video on YouTube (since removed, naturally, though not before I had translated relevant excerpts, which follow):
Friends, in regards to … Donald Trump, we wanted to ask our brothers—the fuqaha [jurists of Islamic law] and the ulema [scholars of Islam]—a question: if this man … were to coerce, through the power of arms, the greater majority of Muslims living in America … to become Christians, or pay jizya, otherwise he takes over their homes, kills their men and enslaves their women and girls, and sells them on slave markets; if he were to do all this, would he be considered a racist and a terrorist or not?
Of course, I’m just hypothesizing, and know that the Bible and its religion do not promote such things, but let’s just assume: Would he be a racist or not? Would he be a terrorist or not? How then [when one considers] that we have in our Islamic jurisprudence, which you teach us, and tell us that all the imams have agreed on, that the Islamic openings [i.e., conquests] are the way to disseminate Islam? This word “openings” [futuhat]—we must be sensitive to it! The Islamic openings mean swords and killing. The Islamic openings, through which homes, fortresses, and territories were devastated, these … [are part of] an Islam which you try to make us follow.
So I wonder O sheikh, O leader of this or that Islamic center in NY, would you like to see this done to your wife and daughter? Would you—this or that sheikh—accept that this be done to your children? That your daughter goes to this fighter [as a slave], your son to this fighter, a fifth [of booty] goes to the caliph and so forth? I mean, isn’t this what you refer to as the Sharia of Allah? … So let’s think about things in an effort to discern what’s right and what’s wrong.
Clearly one can see why the strict practitioners of Islam hate Maher—even if all he’s doing is quoting the words and teachings they hold sacred, which is all anyone ever needs do to expose Islam, to say nothing of “wokism.”