My thoughts on Cage’s recent Press conference on the unveiling of ‘Jihadi John’.


Cage’s recent unveiling of “Jihadi John” as Mohammed Emwazi at their recent press conference has opened the floodgates to questions of “what if?” Many commentators, particularly CAGE, are now pointing the finger at British security services as playing a key part in the radicalisation of Mohammed Emwazi. During the press conference Asim Qureshi, director of CAGE, became emotional, as he spoke of Mohammed Emwazi describing him as an “extremely kind” and “extremely gentle” man, who had been radicalised by the harassment of the British security services. “He (Emwazi) was such a beautiful young man, really. It’s hard to imagine the trajectory, but it is not a trajectory that’s unfamiliar with us” (Asim Qureshi). According to Qureshi, Emwazi was a victim of the harsh treatment of UK security services which subsequently drove him from a ‘beautiful man’ into an ISIS executioner. I was left perturbed, to say the least, as to why Qureshi was describing Emwazi (who has beheaded seven innocent people, some of whom were aid workers) in such a way. I tried to follow Qureshi’s logic for why Emwazi was radicalised; blame was solely to be allocated to British security services for their harassment of Emwazi, and I felt such rationalisations simply didn’t add up. In the first instance, it’s important to highlight that British intelligence services harassment of Emzami was not without cause. Emwazi may have contacted Cage for help regarding treatment at the hands of British intelligence services, but the journey of radicalisation does not begin there. Prior to this in 2009 Emwazi travelled to Tanzania with others, he claimed they were holidaying and going on a safari. However, MI5 were monitoring the group and had reason to believe that they intended to travel on to Somalia, possibly joining Al-Shabaab – an extremist organization and jihadist group that had orchestrated terrorist attacks in Somalia. Emwazi wasn’t, therefore, simply an innocent safari enthusiast, but someone suspected of joining a terrorist organisation. One could argue that the evidence MI5 had was spurious and their actions were too quick to brand Emwazi as a threat; but given that Emwazi did actually end up becoming a terrorist, doesn’t that prove that the intelligence services were right in pursing Emwazi? Qureshi would say disagree, because in his view it was the “harassment” that was the cause of radicalisation.

So here’s a “what if” scenario to put my point in perspective: suppose Tim is accused of abusing minors by a neighbour and consequently his local police, who prior to this allegation believe Tim to be a respectable member of the community, incessantly question him and trace his movements. The press catch wind of these allegations and harangue him and brand him as a predator in the local newspaper headlines. After some time, the charges are dropped against Tim due to a lack of evidence. Tim, who is deeply affected by all this, decides to travel to the Philippines to escape his troubles. Many years later, British police are sent video footage by the Philippian authorities of Tim sexually abusing seven children. Would anyone in their right mind blame the British police or the local papers and argue that it was their harassment that had led to Tim’s transformation? Probably not. So how then can such a case be made for Emwazi?
If the British intelligence agencies are responsible for Emwazi’s radicalisation, it can also be argued that Cage are also partially responsible. Upon being made aware of Emwazi’s grievances why did they not take the necessary steps to ensure that Emwazi’s anger and frustration did not turn into him being radicalised? Perhaps, there are some questions that need to be answered here.

The press conference was an attempt to explain how a young man had morphed from a genuinely nice person into a monster. So what may have caused Emwazi’s transformation? We can perhaps answer this question by referring to Hannah Arendt’s (correspondent for the New Yorker) writings on Adolf Eichmann, the chief architect and executioner of Hitler’s genocidal plans. During the Second World War, Eichmann planned the murder of millions of Jews from every part of Europe under Nazi control by placing them in concentration camps. After Germany’s defeat, Eichmann fled to Argentina. By 1960, however, he was discovered and kidnapped by Mossad agents, smuggled out to Jerusalem and made to stand trial for mass murder. He was found guilty, and later hanged. Hannah Arendt who attended the trial wrote that Eichmann did not give the impression of being a monster, a sadist or violent individual nor was he a psychopath or a sociopath, but an ordinary, reasonable man. Arendt’s observation that someone so innocuous could become one of the most notorious criminals of the Nazi regime, coined the phrase “the banality of evil” to characterise Eichmann. Her characterisation of these actions as “banal” was not to claim Eichmann’s obscene actions were merely every day. Rather, to argue that evil can emanate from the ordinary. How was this evil possible? Arendt concluded that Eichmann lacked the faculties of sound thinking and judgement, which would have instilled in him a sense of empathy towards the suffering of his victims. Eichmann was devoid of the intellectual ethical resources to question his actions; he simply operated without thinking, following orders, with no consideration of the consequences on his victims. For Eichmann signing off the murdering of Jews was simply an ordinary day at the office. Which leads us to ask, was Eichmann’s problem simply a case of lacking moral facilities?   Many have challenged Arendt’s conclusions, more recently the German political philosopher, Bettina Stangneth, with use of newly discovered documents including Eichmann’s own notes / transcripts of conversations with fellow Nazi. Based on these documents, Stangneth paints a different picture and gives a different perspective on how Eichmann could be complicit in such evil acts. She showed that Eichmann wasn’t just a pen pushing bureaucrat just taking orders, but an unrepentant ideological warrior for the Nazi cause. Eichmann had internalised Nazism, he backed his actions with philosophical ideas and lacked any self-doubt. His condition was not of moral lacking, but of moral deception driven by Nazi ideology and a firm belief in the “Final Solution” of the Jewish question.

How do these insights help us? When considering what caused Emwazi’s transform we should not underestimate the role noxious ideas play in radicalising an individual. If it’s not apparent- you’re not looking in the right place. I too attended Westminster University, as did Emwaz, many years ago and I recall it very well. This was the time I was introduced to the ideas that I now hope to change. There were two camps: one camp political in nature which was a type of Islamofascism (which ran the Islamic society) and the other Theofacsitic, a pro-Saudi Wahabism. The two camps were deeply critical of one another and were constantly at each other’s throats, but both totalitarian. The plus side of their disagreements was that at least there was a degree of critical introspection and intro-dialogue. However, that’s not to say they were not damaging for young Muslim minds in their own right. Both camps consisted of ‘lovely, kind’ young men who didn’t have a mean bone in their bodies, they were smart and intelligent who were misled in adopting such ideas. Today, as a result of a growing victimhood mind-set the two camps have now merged as one, often cooperating with one another. Consequently, no longer are their views challenged and reflected upon but the sole focus is on the other, namely the West and non-Muslims. Perhaps, a more worrying reality. It is no coincidence that we can trace back Emwazi to such views. Perhaps the British intelligence services frustrated Emzani, angered him to the extent that he resented them for the ‘harassment’ he received, but that would not explain the choice and conviction to join ISIS and commit his horrendous crimes. This is beyond disproportionate. Emwazi wasn’t a mere victim lashing out at the British intelligence agencies, but someone who internalized the ISIS ideology; an ideology that consists of a toxic theological backcloth that underpins his outlook of the world, splitting the world into crude dualistic good and evil. Emwazi didn’t behead those innocent people because it was some warped form of payback against the British intelligence services / British government. He believed that his actions were Godly and justified by his faith. Extreme social conditions can transform good people into behaving in a way that they would not normally do, the Milgram experiment is a prime example of this. In the end, it seems, it is noxious ideas that transform banal people into unrepentant monsters.

A love lost in translation


Muslims talk a lot about how to be the perfect Muslim, far far more than they do about God’s love. I have always felt a sense of God’s love – that welling of the heart when you are in prayer or a spiritual place. That feeling no words ever seem to be able to do justice to, like your soul is coming alive with God at its very essence. So when I decided to start exploring God’s love in Islamic teaching I was shocked to find that in the main when Muslims talk of love, it is usually in the context of ‘God loves those who…’ as a way of showing how we must act for God to love us. An obsession with attaining perfection through our actions to earn the approval of God. I even found Islamic websites telling people that if they felt like God didn’t love them, then He probably didn’t! At face value Islam appears to stand in stark contrast to the modern day Christian narrative that ‘God is love’.

I became so desperate to hear more about God’s love that I started listening to Christian sermons about love because I couldn’t get what I needed from Islamic sources and it had started making me pretty depressed. Maybe this ‘love’ I thought I was feeling wasn’t real after all? This was not me doubting my faith or indeed thinking that maybe it would be better to believe that Jesus (as) had come to die on behalf of my sins. None of that entered my mind for a second. I was just so hungry to hear people talking about God’s love and instead kept finding articles saying that unless I did x,y or z, God wouldn’t love me. And I’m rubbish at perfection – the more I strive for it the more I seem to fall short. I didn’t know where else to turn.

And then just as I started to despair it struck me. The love of God the Christians were preaching about was something that is in every chapter of the Quran. The very same love that we remind ourselves of it in every single rakah of prayer when we recite surah al-fatihah. It’s just that this love has got lost in translation – quite literally.

When Christians say ‘God is love’ what they mean is, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” [John 3:16]. So when Christians are talking about God’s love, what they are actually talking about is God’s mercy. Infinite mercy that requires nothing more than acknowledgement that He has given it to you via belief in the death of the ‘son’.

God tells us in the Quran that He is the most merciful, the oft-merciful at the beginning of all but one chapter. He is telling us that it is the lens through which His words should be read. He tells us “do not despair of God’s mercy. God forgives all sins: He is truly the Most forgiving, the Most Merciful. Turn to your Lord, submit to Him…” [39:53-54]. In a Hadith Qudsi we are told “O son of Adam, if your sins were to reach the clouds of the sky and then you would seek My forgiveness, I would forgive you”. And “Allah has divided mercy into 100 parts, and He retained with Him 99 parts, and sent down to earth 1 part. Through this one part creatures deal with one another with compassion, so much so that an animal lifts its hoof over its young lest it should hurt it.” [Al-Bukhari].

If you look at the Arabic origins of the word translated as love, and that of mercy it becomes even clearer. Love in Arabic is defined as ‘affection’, ‘attachment’, ‘desire’, ‘friendship’. The word translated as mercy means ‘compassion’, ‘kindness’, ‘understanding’, ‘respect’, ‘sympathy’, ‘relief or saving from suffering’ (Hans Wehr Arabic Dictionary). If we think about what we mean by love, surely the latter is far more of a powerful and accurate description of what is in our hearts when we think of the love of God. To Say ‘God is mercy’ would encapsulate the Islamic understanding of God, and that mercy is the greatest love imaginable.

As Muslims I feel like we need to reclaim love as something that applies as much to our faith as it does to the Christian faith. Not only might it help us with our public image, but it might make us all feel a bit happier. We must stop this fixation on perfecting ourselves for fear of Allah withholding His love, instead seeing our character improve as a consequence of His love. You will never be the perfect son or daughter but your relationship with your mother is one of beauty because her love has mercy at the heart of it. Imagine how your relationship might look if she reminded you every day of how you fall short of perfection and therefore are not deserving of her love? That wouldn’t feel very much like love at all!

Rather than feeling guilty all the time and thinking we are unlovable because we get stuff wrong, we must realise that God loves us. He is infinitely merciful towards us and His love –His mercy – is not conditional on the perfection of our actions, but on the state of our hearts. Our beloved Prophet (as) told us even he would not enter heaven except by the grace and mercy of Allah. (Bukhari, Muslim). And so it is through our humility that we might let His love wash over us in every prayer, every dhikr, let it flow through the fibers of our being because God, Allah, is love. The greatest Love of all time.

By Hibah Al-Amal





My response to “Sh Haitham Al-Haddad responds to this week’s BBC Panorama”


In this article I would like to address three main points raised in Haitham Al-Haddad’s reponse:
i) his claim to mainstream Islam
ii) his comments regarding Panorama documentary causing divisions
iii) and the fueling of Islamophobic attacks

In an attempt to respond to allegations made on Panorama, Haddad tries to shield himself by using the term “mainstream Islam”.  This common tactic is used to imply that an attack on him i.e. his ‘Islamic’ views, is a direct attack on Islam itself. Thus, the reason Haddad gets attacked because ultimately Islam is under attack.  Haddad knows very well that if he plays on the feelings of everyday Muslim persecution it will result in Muslims rallying around him.  Haddad and supporters often use and abuse such terms when on the back foot.  A similar tactic is to appeal to the dogma of unity, the ‘Ummah” and its abuse amounts to nothing more than a form of Muslim-tribalism. Such terms serve well to divert the attention from noxious views acting as a get out of jail card. But, what of his claim to mainstream Islam? For those that are not acquainted with Haddad, he was student of Abd al Aziz Ibn Baz, a leading advocate of the Wahabism form of Islam, which has a sinister history.   The foundations of Wahhabi theology were established by the eighteenth-century by the reformist Muhammed bin ‘Abd al-Wahhab (d. 1206/1792).  When Haddad refers to Mainstream Islam, is he referring to his Wahhabi Islam training?   If so, given its origins, it’s rather far fetched to claim it so. It may be gaining ground, but it cannot be considered orthodox Islam nor is it practiced by the majority of Muslims.

What about comments regarding the Panorama documentary creating divisions? Well this I find ironic. The founder of Wahabism was vehemently Schismatic, the fastest Takfiri in the East so to speak. ‘Abd al-Wahhab sought to rid Islam of what he deemed ‘corruptions’, opposing mysticism, rationalism and Shi’ism. If a Muslim weren’t a ‘true believer’ according to his strict standards, he would have no hesitation in calling that Muslim an infidel and such a judgment meant that they could be killed.  His writings repeatedly refer to jurists who did not fall within his understanding of Islam as “devils” or “spawns of Satan”.  ‘Abd al Wahhab’ held that the juristic tradition spanning over many centuries (bar a handful of jurists) was corrupt and heretical.  All jurists who were not strict literalists and employed reason in their jurisprudence were by default considered heretics (see my article on Intellectual apostasy). It is documented that ‘Abd al-Wahhab and his followers even ordered the execution or assassination of large number of jurists with whom they disagreed with.  Wahhabism by definition is fervently sectarian and divisive.   In similar fashion, Haddad follows suit.  He considers the beliefs of the Asharite and Maturidi schools of theology (which make up the majority of Muslims past and present) heretical and yet he claims to represent mainstream Islam   Given the origins of Wahabism and its schismatic nature, it is extremely ironic that he speaks of those who took part in the Panorama documentary in terms of division and seduction and a attack on Mainstream Islam.  They, Haddad and his followers have a right to practise their religion how they deem fit.  However, the claim he represents mainstream Islam is simply not true.

Probably the most disturbing part of his response is his exploitation of Nahid Almanea’s death, who was murdered in an unprovoked attack.  His point here is to say that if we demonize everyday ‘orthodox’ Muslim practice then every day Muslims will be attacked for their normative Islamic practices.  Firstly, Haddad makes a comment regarding Nahid Almanea’s appearance, namely that she was wearing the Hijab and Islamic dress.  But I must point out here that the documentary did not regard Muslims who wear the Hijab as extreme in any shape of form. This poor example is gratuitously playing on Muslim sensibilities.  The documentary was about non-violent extremist views and attitudes that act as a precursor to violent extremism.   Moreover, Islamophobes aren’t as selective as Haddad makes out.  I have personally interviewed dozens of Muslims across a spectrum of practicing degrees who have been victims of Islamophobia and anti Muslim hate crime.   One Muslim sister, who comes to mind, didn’t even wear the Hijab. She was incessantly bullied at work for months on end for simply having a Muslim name.  Also, his argument that normative Islam is being labeled as ‘extreme’ and as a result Muslims who practice orthodox Islam are becoming victims of Islamophobia is flawed. Haddad simply begs the question here, and assumes that his views and practices are wholly representative of orthodox/mainstream Islam. Surely it’s important that he prove his mainstream credentials before concocting such an emotive ‘argument’ about demonization of normative Muslim practice? Using the example of segregation is hardly the hallmark of mainstream Islam, especially the way in which Haddad understands it. Thus, the main thrust of his argument that Panorama presenting genuine orthodox Islamic beliefs as criminal and that it fuels Islamophobia simply breaks down.

Furthermore, I very much doubt Islamophobic attacks spiked after the Panorama documentary.  They do however increase when Muslim extremism rears its ugly head. Islamophobia is fueled by ignorance, hatred and fear.  Our part in these precarious times is to minimize that ignorance by representing Islam in its true light and making a clear distinction from extremism, which evidently fuels Islamophobia.

الردة الفكرية

غالباً ما نسمع الإسلام يوصف بأنه أسرع الأديان انتشاراً ويشاد به على هذا النحو من قبل بعض الدعاة الإسلاميين، أو على شكل احتجاج هستيري من قبل مثيري التوترات السياسية.

من منظور عالمي، يبدو هذا الادعاء مستبعداً جداً بالنظر إلى ملايين المعتنقين الجدد للدين المسيحي من خلال العمل التبشيري واسع التمويل في أفريقيا والصين. أياً كان الأمر فإن السؤال الأولى بالطرح هو: أي نوع أو “نسخة” من الإسلام هي التي تحظى بالانتشار؟

بناءً على ملاحظاتي الشخصية،فإن نسخة معينة من الإسلام هي التي تهيمن على المشهد. وتقف هذه النسخة – بافتقارها إلى الإخلاص للرسالة الإسلامية – في حالة فصام مع تراثها الفكري الثري والمتنوع. يروج لهذه النسخة من الدين الإسلامي من قبل الدعاة ذوي الحضور المؤثر في الحرم الجامعية، وهي تسعى إلى غرس فكرة مفادها أن الإسلام دين عقلاني مدعم بحجج فكرية ومنطقية. يأخذ هذا المنظور عادةً شكل الفلسفة الدينية المعاصرة معتمداً على الفلاسفة المسيحيين الغرب وخاصةً حجج وجود الله. ويجادل أصحابها أن الإنسان – مسلحاً بمنطق و رؤية متحررة- سيتجه إلى الإيمان بالله. وعندما يتم عرض مثل هذه النقاشات بشكل مناسب- وإن كانت في معظم الأحيان تفهم ويعبر عنها بمحدودية – فأنها تزود المسلمين “بالتأسيس الفكري” اللازم لفهم عقيدتهم، متجنبة عبثية الإيمان الأعمى، والذي يخالف تعاليم القرآن. وهكذا، فإن ” التأسيس الفكري ” يمنح المسلمين إحساساً قوياً بالاعتزاز بأنفسهم والثقة في دينهم.

عندما تحدثت في الجامعة الأمريكية في بيروت منذ عدة سنوات، واجهت الكثير من المسلمين ممن كانوا يشعرون بالحيرة وعدم الأمان تجاه معتقداتهم، إلا أنه بمجرد الاطلاع على الحجج العقلانية من هذا النوع، تجددت لديهم الثقة في عقيدتهم.

وعلى صعيد شخصي، فقد كانت رحلتي الخاصة شبيهة للغاية بما سبق. فعندما واجهت هذه المقاربة للمرة الأولى منذ سنوات بعيدة كان لفكرة أنه “من الممكن أن يشكل الإسلام رحلةً فكرية” وقع مؤثر علي، وكانت بحد ذاتها دافعاً لي للالتزام وتطبيق تعاليم الإسلام بجدية أكثر.

إذا أين تكمن المشكلة؟ القضية هي أن الزخم الفكري المستثمر في تعزيز الأساس العقلاني للعقيدة الإسلامية يتم كبته فوراً إبان قبول المرء تعاليم تلك العقيدة، وهنا يكمن مفترق الطرق الفكرية بيني وبين هؤلاء الدعاة. فمن المتوقع منك بمجرد دخولك “داخل الدائرة” أن تهجر في النقاشات الداخلية المتعلقة بالفكر والتوحيد والقانون والسياسات الإسلامية المنطق العقلاني المتماسك الذي اتبعته في الأصل لبناء الأسس اللازمة لاعتناقك الإسلام. عند اعتناقك الإسلام عليك أن تترك عقلك و فكرك عند الباب في تصرف أصفه بأنه شكل من أشكال الردّة الفكرية.

إن التفكير المتناسق والدقيق منطقياً في العقيدة داخل دائرة الإسلام هو شبه معدوم حالياً، الأمر الذي له أثر كارثي على مجتمعنا. فحالة كهذه تؤدي إلى اعتناق وتطبيق وجهات نظر عبثية وتبني قوانين مرفوضة أخلاقياً في انقياد أعمى ينظر إليه كأمر محمود ومشرف.

عندما يقتل الفكر عن طريق المغالاة في طرح مفهوم الطاعة مدعوماً بالمقولات الطهرانية، مثل “الحكم لله وحده” أو ” العقول البشرية محدودة، وبالتالي فالله وحده قادر على إقرار القوانين” ، فإننا نقاد إلى دين من التبسيط المخل.

لقد أدرك الإسلام التقليدي أن هناك درجة كبيرة من “المجهود الذاتي” ينطوي عليها تحديد أحكام الشريعة الإسلامية والتي تم تحجيمها اليوم بشكل كبير بسبب الإفراط في التبسيط. دعونا لا ننسى أن أصواتاً مشابهة انتقدت واغتالت الإمام علي، ابن عم الرسول بزعمها عدم إتباعه لحكم الله!

إن الخلاف بين الإمام علي والخوارج يعكس الصراع الموجود في وقتنا هذا، بين من يفهمون الطبيعة غير المحددة للنص المقدس (القرآن) والتي تعطي أهمية كبيرة للدور الإنساني، وبين أولئك الذين ينكرون الدور الإنساني في تطبيق القوانين، مع التعصب والتطبيق الحرفي غير المتماشي مع روح الكتاب المقدس. وكما يجادل خالد أبو الفضل، فإن الفرضيات التقليدية التي بنيت عليها أحكام الشريعة الإسلامية، والتي ساهمت بشكل هام في ازدهار الحضارة الإسلامية قد تم تفكيكها وتجاهلها منذ ذلك الحين . إن ما لدينا اليوم هو إسلام طهراني، يتم فيه تحجيم المسلمين الذين ينخرطون في النقاشات الأخلاقية المعقدة والدقيقة إلى ما سمّاه ” قاذفوا الأحاديث “. حيث يتناول الدعاة الإسلاميين – الجاهلون بقواعد علم الأخلاق- القضايا الأخلاقية من خلال اجترار مجموعة كبيرة من الأحاديث المعزولة عن سياقها ذات الإسناد، مما يخلص بهم في النهاية إلى طرح الرؤى التي لا يمكن الدفاع عنها أخلاقياً أو عقلانياً.

حينها تصبح السمة البارزة للداعية هي عبثية آرائه، وليس من مثال أفضل على هذا من القضايا الراهنة المتعلقة بالمساواة بين الجنسين والتي تعبر عن عدم الوضوح والطبيعة غيرالأخلاقية لهذه النسخة من الإسلام. في هذا المجال كما في غيره، يغدو إسلام كهذا كياناً مشلولاً فكرياً ويعاني من فجوة فكرية تمنع الفكر الإسلامي المعاصر من أن يكون جزءاً من أي نقاش يتصف بالمصداقية الأخلاقية في مجالات عدة كالفلسفة، وعلم الاجتماع، وعلم النفس، وعلم الأحياء.

أكد عدد من الأكاديميين و الخبراء من المملكة العربية السعودية مؤخراً على الحاجة الملحة لبذل جهود جدية لاحتواء الإلحاد في المملكة من المحتمل أن يكون الإلحاد نتيجة صراع داخلي بين إيمان الشخص و الشرائع الأخلاقية سببه الافتقار إلى الإجابات المتسقة إخلاقياً مما يؤدي في النهاية إلى الإلحاد .

نقطة أخرى جديرة بالذكر: على الرغم من أن الإسلام ربما يكون الدين الأسرع انتشارا ، كم من عدد المسلمين الجدد الذين حافظوا على إيمانهم حقا؟ بالنظر إلى نسخة الإسلام السائدة حالياً والتي يتم تقديمها للمهتدين الجدد، فلن أكون متفاجئاً إذا كانت النسبة ضئيلة جداً. هنالك أسباب تدعو للاعتقاد بأن الردة تعد اليوم ظاهرة متنامية، ولكن لا شك في أنه من المهم الإقرار بأن الأمر المقلق حقاً هو الردة الفكرية الحاصلة ضمن إطار الإسلام والتي تشكل أساس الدوافع المؤدية إلى الارتداد عن العقيدة.

لابد أن يمتد التناغم الفكري ليشمل جميع مراحل الالتزام بالدين الإسلامي و جوانبه لا أن يتم التخلي عنه بمجرد دخول الفرد في الإسلام. إن كنا حقاً ندعي أننا كمسلمون باحثون عن الحقيقة فلابد أن يقود البحث الموضوعي عن الحقيقة جميع حواراتنا سواءً الداخلية منها أو الخارجية، وإلا فإننا سنظل عرضة للهشاشة والتشكيك.

يبين هذا بجدارة , القول المأثور لصامويل تايلور كوليريدج ، “من يبدأ رحلته بحب المسيحية أكثر من حبه الحقيقة، سيؤول به الطريق إلى حب طائفته أو كنيسته أكثر من المسيحية، وسينتهي به الأمر إلى حب نفسه أكثر من كل ذلك”.

للأسف، هناك دعاة إسلاميون يتصرفون كقادة فكريين و يروجون لنسخة معينة من الإسلام تتطلب ردة فكرية بمجرد اعتناق العقيدة: عقيدة بعيدة كل البعد عن تاريخها، ومفتقرة إلى الترابط الفكري والفهم العميق والمصداقية الأخلاقية.