The Enemy From Within: Unveiling Shadows of Islamic Teachings

Ignoring the incompatible values of Islamism in the name of progressivism risks self-destruction, much like the "useful idiots" of history who empowered their own executioners.

Drawing from personal experiences, historical precedents like the Iranian Revolution, and direct Quranic interpretations, this montage of experts highlight how this unholy convergence threatens national identities, women's rights, and Western freedoms.

This serves as a stark warning to the West: ignoring the incompatible values of Islamism in the name of progressivism risks self-destruction, much like the "useful idiots" of history who empowered their own executioners. Maral Salmassi, an Iranian activist and critic of Islamism, has been vocal in dissecting the so-called "red-green alliance" between Western left-wing ideologies and Islamist movements, attributing their unlikely partnership to a shared disdain for national identity and self-determination.

In a recent discussion with Nuriyah Khan, she explains that "both movements have a deep aversion to national identity. That's what unites them," highlighting how the left, influenced by "postmodernism and postcolonialism etc etc. These actually outdated ideas which promise freedom of guilt through dissolution," seeks to absolve historical burdens like colonialism or, in Germany's case, the Nazi past by promoting relativism and fluid identities.

Salmassi argues that this worldview renders national identity "outdated and dangerous," as it posits "if all cultures are equal then no one can be blamed. If all truths are subjective then no one can be defended. If all identities are fluid... then national identity becomes outdated and dangerous."

Salmassi further elaborated on the convergence with Islam, describing the religion's foundational ethos as "a supra national project" that "denies national identity and rejects customs, secularism, ethnic traditions," having historically Arabized the Middle East in pursuit of a unified ummah governed by Sharia law. "They want just an ummah. That's what they want. And the UMA is ruled by Sharia law. That's what they want. Global UMAH," Salmassi stated, warning that the Western left remains "completely oblivious to the fact."

Drawing from Iran's history, Salmassi pointed to the 1979 revolution as a cautionary tale, where leftists allied with Islamists to topple the Shah but were ultimately betrayed. "We Iranians know that because we saw what happened with the left in Iran once [Khomeini] seized power. Thousands and thousands were executed... The Islamists aren't their friends. They don't understand it. They will kill them."

Salmassi characterized both ideologies as demanding submission to an abstract moral order—"for the left, it's a global humanity and for the Islamists is the will of Allah"—while erasing national self-determination, a dynamic she described as the "classic example of the red green alliance" where leftists acted as "useful idiots," propping up Islamists only to be devoured, as evidenced by the executions that followed within two years of the revolution.

In a compelling episode of the New Culture Forum podcast titled "Violence Against Women: Islam's History to the Streets of Modern Britain," the host engages in a candid discussion with Nuriyah (Nia) Khan, an ex-Muslim women's rights activist. Khan, drawing from her personal journey and deep knowledge of Islamic doctrine, sheds light on the systemic subordination of women within Islam and its ripple effects in contemporary Western society.

The conversation explores Quranic prescriptions, historical precedents, and modern-day manifestations of gender-based violence, highlighting a stark clash between Islamic values and Western norms. Khan asserts that the treatment of women in Islam inherently positions them as secondary to men, rooted in the religion's foundational texts. "If you look at the main tenets of Islam, there's a very rigid set of rules for the definition of marriage and in fact the definition of what a male and a woman should kind of adhere to within that marriage," she explains. This dynamic, she notes, stems directly from the Quran, which grants men superiority and authority as providers, rendering women "second class citizens within their own marriage but also within a wider Islamic society itself."

Khan points out troubling absences in Islamic law, such as the non-recognition of marital rape, which she describes as a "legal here and criminal activities" that "doesn't exist within the Islamic literature itself." Divorce, too, is unilateral for men, with women historically unable to seek it independently under traditional narratives, though some countries now allow court appeals via khul'a—a recent innovation not endorsed by core Islamic teachings. This imbalance, Khan emphasizes, creates a "power dynamic... completely off from the get-go."

Sharing her personal story, Khan recounts her upbringing in a conservative Sunni Muslim family in London, where alongside regular schooling, she attended mosque and Quran classes. "You'd be encouraged to do things like wear hijab or follow kind of the tenets of Islam as you get older," she says. Her exposure to stricter interpretations abroad, particularly in Saudi Arabia and the UAE, revealed "wahhabi elements of Islam" and the realities of life in a rigid Islamic state.

At age nine, influenced by her Quran teacher, she chose to wear the hijab "because that's what my Quran teacher at mosque encouraged me to do... and obviously naturally as a Muslim young Muslim woman I wanted to go to heaven."

A pivotal moment came during her own divorce, where "the full force of Sharia kind of fell down on me," prompting her to scrutinize Islamic sources critically. Living in the Middle East, she faced restrictions on accessing information, as "everything was kind of policed... you couldn't even Google actual Islamic sources or valid criticisms of them."

Delving into specific Quranic verses, Khan highlights provisions that perpetuate inequality. Women inherit less than men, their testimony is valued at half a man's—requiring additional female witnesses "just in case one of them forgets"—and husbands are instructed on disciplining wives, alluding to domestic violence in Surah 4:34, known as the "verse of women." "It tells you exactly how to discipline your wife,"

Khan states, noting that this "discipline" can stem from mere "fear of disobedience... a general paranoia that a husband could have." Custody automatically shifts to the father at age seven, regardless of the child's best interests. In Sunni Islam, derived from the Quran and the Sunnah (Prophet Muhammad's way of life), women are further demeaned as "impure" due to menstruation—barring them from prayer or fasting—and "deficient in intelligence," justifying the halved testimony value. "They take something as simple as like a normal bodily function and they turn it into the most loathsome... thing that women should be vilified for," Khan laments.

The discussion extends to non-Muslim women, where Khan reveals Quranic directives primarily addressing Muslim men to veil their own women for protection, implicitly leaving non-veiled non-Muslims vulnerable. "It says to veil your women and make sure they're covered so as to not be harassed... which allows for all of this leeway where non-Muslim women who aren't covered... are... fair game to be kind of harassed or intimidated in the streets." She ties this to Islamic history, where the hijab served as a marker during raids and battles to identify and target non-Muslim women for sexual violence.

Contemporary scholars like Dr. Zakir Naik echo this, with Khan quoting his banned broadcasts: "If a woman is not wearing the Muslim veil... it's okay to harass her or she should not complain if she is molested or harassed." This mindset, she argues, manifests in UK grooming gangs, where "disproportionately we see white working-class girls being targeted," with abusers invoking Quranic verses to justify violence, often calling victims "kuffar" (infidels). Khan links these doctrines to rising sexual violence in the UK amid migration from Muslim-majority countries.

Statistics show trends of increased harassment and rape correlating with such influxes, which she attributes to a "massive culture clash" where concepts like marital rape and consent are absent in Islam. Indoctrination plays a key role: Young Muslim men view uncovered women as "asking for it," reinforced by Muslim women covering up to avoid "moral sin," creating a cycle of entitlement. "You've got... young men who have... absolutely no regard for a woman's body or autonomy or agency," Khan says, noting that even in fully veiled Islamic societies like Mecca, abuse persists. This "Stockholm syndrome" among Muslim women further entrenches the ideology, leading to heightened risks when "people with such starkly different and... diametrically opposed views come into the country."

Whittle questions why middle-class white women, often champions of tolerance, overlook these issues. Khan agrees they "have definitely got Islam wrong," criticizing their push against "Islamophobia" legislation without understanding the "true Islam." "If they knew... things that are extremely problematic within it, then they wouldn't be so... readily holding up placards," she remarks.

Peeling back "the bigotry of low expectations" reveals coercion in Muslim households, stripping women of agency through emotional manipulation and community policing. Movements from theocratic states like Afghanistan, where women are erased from society—"we don't even have the right to... speak loudly or laugh loudly"—underscore the global threat, warning that unchecked infiltration could bring similar oppression to Western society.

Khan addresses the exoticization of white women in Muslim communities, influenced by history, porn, and doctrine. "This starts from... the grassroots level... denigration of white women in their eyes... we can mess around... with all of these women but then we'll marry a good Muslim wife," she reveals, tracing it to Muhammad's expeditions targeting "blond-haired women." Porn reinforces stereotypes, portraying white women as "looser" or morally lax, projecting fantasies into reality.

These attitudes are "very prevalent" in the UK and West, fueling scandals like grooming gangs, where religion justifies targeting vulnerable non-Muslim girls. "That's not a time to be worried about being called racist or islamophobic; that's where you need to tackle the problem head on," Khan urges.

For solutions, Khan calls for clamping down on Islam's societal infiltration and ending decades of pandering. While the government treats violence against women as a "national emergency" akin to terrorism, she criticizes lip service without addressing Islam's role. "We really really need to clamp down on how Islam is kind of infiltrating every aspect of society," she insists, advocating monitoring mosque sermons—insisting they be in English, as in France and Italy—to counter radicalization among second- and third-generation immigrants.

Rejecting terms like "Islamophobia" is crucial, as is confronting religious endorsements of violence: Muslim men often quote the Quran "verbatim as their right to... beat their wives black and blue." A famous Hadith from Aisha, Muhammad's child bride, laments that "no women suffer more than the believing women because they are allowed to be disciplined in that way."

Khan emphasizes protecting both non-Muslim and Muslim women, who lack escape routes under Sharia. Post-apostasy, Khan faces intensified harassment from her community, treated as "fair game" like non-Muslims. "The level of... sexually perverted threats became more commonplace because I'm no longer in the fold," she shares, including dark threats of rape to "bring her] back to Islam" or forced marriage as a "fourth wife." The host shares her own experiences of increased street harassment in West London over recent years, particularly as a blonde woman, likening it to a "siren call."

Khan concurs, noting a "metamorphosis" in London, where even modest dressing feels unsafe. Muslim men, assuming her as "one of them" by appearance, limit to comments, but push boundaries with white women due to perceived differences. Porn's influence exacerbates this, with many Muslim men viewing white women through a distorted lens.

Khan illustrates Sharia's grip with the guardianship system (wali), where women remain perpetual minors. In one UK case, a Jordanian woman seeking Islamic divorce had to obtain permission from a seven-year-old male cousin in Jordan before a Birmingham Sharia Council approved it. "A woman has to go to... somebody way down in your family tree... a random seven-year-old boy could have more agency over your life... than you do yourself," Khan decries, warning that such councils perpetuate subjugation, denying women equal legal footing.

The West's liberal elite, blinded by guilt and relativism, forges a suicidal pact with Islamism, mistaking it for a progressive ally against nationalism. History—from Iran's bloody revolution to Afghanistan's erasure of women—proves Islamists devour their enablers, executing leftists, subjugating women (Muslim and non-Muslim alike), and imposing Sharia's supremacist order. Woke activists and tolerance crusaders, if you truly value freedom, LGBTQ+ rights, or gender equality, heed this: Supporting Islamist causes today invites your own oppression tomorrow. Peel back the veil of hypocrisy; confront the doctrinal dangers before your societies are Arabized, relativized, and ruled by an Ummah that brokers no dissent. The crocodile is hungrier than you think—don't feed it.