Read more

We moved into a new house this week. I had forgotten to call ahead and arrange internet service before moving day, and when I finally applied, I was told the earliest installation date was ten days away. Both my wife’s work and mine depend almost entirely on being online. Our phone hotspots burned through their data almost immediately, so I texted our next-door neighbor, a white American Christian whom I had spoken with only briefly. I explained the situation and asked whether we could use his Wi-Fi until ours was installed. As a thank-you, I offered to pay his internet bill for the month. He apologized and said no.

As someone who grew up as a Muslim in the Islamic world, lived in several Muslim countries, and traveled to perhaps twenty more, I can say with confidence that I would be surprised to find a Muslim who would refuse that request from a new neighbor.

When I was ten years old, I lived in Jerash, Jordan, a city filled with Roman ruins because ancient Gerasa was one of the cities of the Decapolis. We saw tourists constantly. I still remember an Italian tourist who seemed lost. I found him a cab, explained where he needed to go, and paid the entire fare out of the small allowance I had, even though no one expected me to. Hospitality was simply something we were taught to do.

I doubt many cultures can compete with Arabs and Muslims when it comes to hospitality. Knock on the door of a Muslim family and, before they ask why you have come, there is a good chance they will invite you inside, offer you food and something to drink, and only then ask what brought you there. Stop a Muslim on the street and ask for help, and he will never brush you off the way people often do in the West. He may spend an hour with you if that is what it takes to make sure you find what you need.

Last week, during the CAIR summit, several speakers talked about the need for Muslims to spend more time with Americans so that Americans could see how nice Muslims are and thereby combat what they described as “Islamophobia.” I can see why they think that strategy will work.

Last year, I was invited to speak at a synagogue about Islam. Afterward, a Jewish woman objected to what I had said because, as she explained, her daughter had a very nice Muslim friend.

This is where many people in the West become confused. They hear Muslim clerics speak about Islam’s global ambitions, they see what Muslim terrorists do around the world, they remember the beheadings, the persecution of minorities, the grooming and rape gangs, and other acts committed by Muslims. At the same time, they personally know Muslims who are kind, generous, decent people. Faced with that contradiction, many resolve it by separating the Islam of their nice Muslim friends from the actions of violent Muslims and treating the latter as a fringe phenomenon with little or nothing to do with Islam itself.

When a Muslim man stopped two ISIS terrorists in Sydney, his religion was immediately emphasized. He was not “the human who stopped the Muslim terrorists” but “the Muslim who stopped the terrorists.”

The World Beneath the Surface

Read more

I do not oppose the Islamic caliphate because it is Islamic. Yes, I left Islam and believe it is the most destructive ideology that has ever existed, but my objection to the caliphate is political. An Islamic government would never treat all men as equal citizens under a common law. It sorts people by religion and by sex, elevates religious law above private conscience, and gives the state enormous power over belief, family, law, and public life. Systems built this way shape people to be slaves, train them to obey, and eventually produce subjects who celebrate their submission as virtue.

But Islam did not invent this system. Throughout human history, this was simply the political order, the human default, not the exception. From the pharaohs to the kings of Mesopotamia to the Roman emperors, rulers repeatedly wrapped political authority in divinity, and European monarchs later claimed that their thrones rested on God’s appointment. When the modern world began pushing God out of politics, totalitarian movements kept the same structure and changed only the source of authority. The Party took God’s place, or the revolution, or the race, or the leader.

Under all of these systems, ordinary people were never truly free, never equal before the law, and never collectively prosperous. Rights, where they existed at all, were distributed according to class, religion, sex, caste, tribe, or proximity to power. Discrimination was built into the political order, dissent could be punished as disloyalty or heresy, and the individual possessed few protections against the ruler. Wealth might accumulate around courts, temples, armies, party elites, or ruling families, but the population as a whole remained politically subordinate, economically vulnerable, and dependent on those above them. Some empires were rich, some were powerful, and some produced great art, architecture, and learning, but none produced the combination of individual rights, equality before the law, religious liberty, political participation, social mobility, widespread prosperity, and longevity that emerged under the American constitutional order.

American Exceptionalism

Every other political order in history failed to deliver what the American political order delivered. Monarchies concentrated power in dynasties. Aristocracies made political privilege hereditary. Theocracies subordinated citizenship to religious status. Empires divided conqueror from conquered. Communist regimes abolished private concentrations of wealth only to create political elites with vastly greater power. Fascist regimes subordinated the individual to the state and murdered millions in the process. Even Europe’s liberal democracies did not grant their people the degree of political and religious freedom Americans enjoy. The French Revolution itself followed the American Revolution and drew on its language and ideals.

America became the largest economy in the world by the end of the nineteenth century and then the dominant industrial power of the twentieth. It became the destination of tens of millions of immigrants. It produced unprecedented levels of mass homeownership, consumer abundance, technological innovation, private philanthropy, higher education, and upward mobility. It created enough wealth not merely for kings or merchants, but for ordinary workers, forms of material abundance that would have been unimaginable luxuries throughout human history and that remain beyond the reach of much of the world today.

America’s superiority is not only economic. It is also political, legal, and personal. Americans enjoy protections for freedom of speech, religious liberty, political dissent, private association, due process, and protection from arbitrary government that are not found even in the other developed democracies.

America is a country where a citizen can insult the government, mock religion, denounce the president, start a movement, open a business, lose everything, fail publicly, and rise again. That freedom creates a kind of human dignity that cannot be measured by GDP alone. America built something people across the world still aspire to join. It is the envy of the world not only because of its wealth, but because of the kind of person its political order builds: free. Those of us who came here as immigrants understand this more than people who were born into it. We know what it is to live outside this order and then to be received into it, shaped by it, and made one of its own. For those who truly escaped to America both physically and culturally, that creates a debt of gratitude that lasts a lifetime.

A Brief Desperation

In 1929, the American economy began to fall apart. By 1933, millions of Americans had lost jobs, savings, homes, farms, or businesses. For a generation raised to believe in the basic tenets of the American political order, individual freedom, limited government, private property, free enterprise, personal responsibility, and the idea that people should largely be free to build their own lives, the Depression was more than an economic catastrophe. It shook their confidence in the system itself. For the first time, millions of Americans began to wonder whether the political and economic order that had produced so much freedom and prosperity could still keep its promises.

By the early 1930s, the Soviet Union was already showing the brutality of forced collectivization, repression, famine, and political terror. But the full historical record had not yet accumulated. Stalin’s purges, the Gulag on its later scale, Mao’s Great Leap Forward, the Cultural Revolution, and decades of economic failure were still ahead. To an unemployed American worker in 1932, socialism could still be sold as a glamorous promise.

That crisis of confidence became the central issue of the 1932 presidential election. The incumbent Republican president, Herbert Hoover, still believed that the American system could recover without permanently transforming the role of the federal government. His Democratic challenger, Franklin D. Roosevelt, argued that the scale of the collapse demanded a far more aggressive response from Washington, and proposed a much larger federal role in banking, labor, welfare, agriculture, and economic regulation.

Hoover described the election as something larger than a choice between two candidates; he called it a contest between “two philosophies of government.” What frightened him was the possibility that economic desperation would persuade Americans to surrender powers to Washington that would never fully be returned. He feared that once citizens began looking to the federal government for economic security, the relationship between the individual and the state would be permanently altered.

Roosevelt won overwhelmingly, and once in office he began expanding the federal government on a scale Americans had never seen before. Social Security created a permanent federal role in retirement security. Washington became more deeply involved in banking, financial markets, labor relations, unemployment relief, and agriculture. Even after the immediate crisis passed, much of this new machinery remained. To Hoover and many conservatives, this confirmed exactly what they had feared: measures introduced as emergency responses were becoming permanent institutions, moving responsibility away from individuals, families, communities, and states and toward Washington.

What Roosevelt called necessary reform, his opponents saw as the beginning of dependence on the federal government and a dangerous movement toward socialism that could eventually threaten the liberty the American system had been built to protect.

Roosevelt saw the danger differently. He understood that if millions of Americans came to believe that capitalism meant nothing more than the freedom to lose everything, socialism would become harder and harder to resist. You could not protect the American system simply by telling desperate people to trust it. You had to show that the system could correct itself. That is what Roosevelt tried to do. He was willing to experiment with policies that many conservatives considered socialist, but he never embraced the socialist project itself. He did not abolish private property, nationalize American industry, replace elections with one-party rule, or hand the economy over to central planners. He looked at the grievances that made socialism attractive and asked which of them were legitimate.

If an elderly man could work his whole life and still end up destitute, perhaps some form of old-age insurance made sense. If millions of men were unemployed because the entire economy had collapsed, perhaps unemployment was not always a moral failure. If a bank could gamble recklessly and wipe out the savings of thousands of families, perhaps banking needed rules strong enough to restore public trust.

Roosevelt was playing with fire, and Hoover was right to warn that fire can spread. But Roosevelt was also a product of the political order he was trying to save. The divide in America at that moment was not between one camp that loved America and another that saw America itself as evil. Roosevelt did not believe the Constitution had to be replaced, that the American founding was fundamentally illegitimate, or that capitalism had to be destroyed and replaced with a new political order. He believed America was great and worth preserving, and his reforms were intended to preserve it. That made experimentation with ideas drawn from another political order far less dangerous.

The Desperation of the Prosperous

Nearly a century later, America is again living through a crisis of confidence. But this crisis comes after generations of Americans have lived within an economic order that made levels of comfort once reserved for kings available to ordinary people. Entire generations have come to regard that abundance not as a historical miracle, but as the normal starting point of life. When a society has been prosperous for long enough, even a setback can feel like total failure, because people compare their lives not with the rest of human history, or even with most of the world today, but with the unusually favorable conditions enjoyed by the generation immediately before them.

Read more

In New Jersey, Adam Hamawy won a crowded Democratic primary and is effectively headed to Congress from a safely Democratic district, regardless of years of association with Omar Abdel-Rahman, the Blind Sheikh, the Islamic cleric convicted for his role in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Hamawy met him, traveled with him, translated for him, shared a hotel room with him during a 1991 conference whose real subject was jihad, and later appeared as a defense witness at the sheikh’s trial. Hamawy also volunteered with the Benevolence International Foundation, which was later designated for providing logistical support to al-Qaeda.

Abdul El-Sayed, the Democratic nominee for U.S. Senate in Michigan is scheduled to appear at the Islamic Society of North America’s convention alongside Pakistani cleric Tariq Masood, a preacher who has publicly praised Hitler for killing Jews. Masood invoked the Qur’an while repeating the story that Hitler intentionally left some Jews alive so the world would eventually understand why he killed the rest.

Hasan Piker said that “America deserved 9/11,” called some Orthodox Jews “inbred,” declared that “Hamas is a thousand times better” than Israel, and said that reports of Hamas sexual violence on October 7 would not change his view of the conflict. He has said he has “no issue” with Hezbollah and has used his enormous platform to normalize the Houthis and other movements the United States designates as terrorist organizations.

Democratic leaders found themselves in front of a choice. They could resist the movement taking over their coalition and pay the electoral price, or go with it and keep their hold on power. They chose power.

The Democratic Party, at this point, absorbed an Islamo-left alliance that sees the Jewish people, the Jewish state, and the West’s civilizational inheritance as problems to be overcome. Anti-Zionism is the vehicle. Third-worldism, repackaged in the language of justice, provides the moral cover. The is a party that now poses an existential danger to America in general, and to Jews everywhere in particular.

A Loyalty That Outlived Its Purpose

Read more

• English:
  US: https://amazon.com/dp/B0FP16RQW8
  UK: https://amazon.co.uk/dp/B0FP16RQW8
  DE: https://amazon.de/dp/B0FP16RQW8
  FR: https://amazon.fr/dp/B0FP16RQW8
  ES: https://amazon.es/dp/B0FP16RQW8
  IT: https://amazon…

Read more

There is a simple reason for that limited footprint.

Before coming to the United States, I spent many years living and working in the Middle East. I was involved in Christian ministry and eventua…

Read more

German psychologist Erich Fromm was born in Frankfurt in 1900 to Orthodox Jewish parents. He studied under Talmudic teachers and was active in Jewish student organizations and Zionist youth groups, advocating in his early years for Zionism and Jewish national restoration. The young Fromm was not drawn to Zionism as a secular nationalist project on the European model, a people simply wanting a state, a seat at a table of nations. He understood Zionism as restoration: the Jewish people reconstituting its own national life on its own soil, under its own law. It was national particularity.

But Fromm turned away from Zionism, because, according to him, it conflicted with what he called his ideal of a universalist Messianism and Humanism. A messianism, a hope for the final redemption of the world, that had simply stopped being about the redemption of a particular people and started being about the redemption of humanity as such.

Once Fromm’s highest moral commitment became the human being as such, not his people specifically, but humanity as a whole, every smaller loyalty started to look like a kind of theft. A person only has so much devotion to give, and if all of it is already owed to humanity in general, then giving any of it to one particular nation means taking something that belonged to everyone else and handing it to a part. Even one’s own people. That is what made national loyalty, for Fromm, a moral problem rather than a neutral fact of life.

Fromm called nationalism “group narcissism,” the mechanism by which a person’s sense of worth transfers onto his collective, and “idolatry,” the worship of something less than God, given the devotion only God is owed.

What possibly could have caused a passionate Zionist who once advocated for the restoration of the Jewish nation to become an enemy of nationalism itself?

Particularism vs. Universalism

Read more

I clearly remember many times when, as a Muslim, I would enter the bathroom, take off my pants, and then realize that I was not sure whether I had entered using my left foot. In Islam, you are supposed to enter the bathroom with your left foot, or demons may remain there with you while you are defecating. So I would pull my pants back up if I knew there…

Read more

Money told the parents that gender was plastic in the first years of life, that a child raised consistently as a girl would become one, and that the surgery should proceed. Bruce was castrated at twenty-two months and renamed Brenda. The family was instructed never to tell.

Money published the “twins case” in 1972 as an unqualified triumph: the genetically male child was developing a female identity, therefore nurture ruled and nature was negotiable. Time magazine carried the news, feminist theorists cited it, and textbooks canonized it for twenty years. The case seemed to demonstrate that the deepest fact about a human being, boy or girl, was not discovered but installed.

There was one problem.

Brenda tore off the dresses. She refused the dolls, fought the boys who mocked her, insisted on urinating standing up, and told her therapists year after year that something was wrong in a way she had no words for. By her teens she was suicidal. Money’s published papers described a happy, well-adjusted girl during the exact years the child was threatening to kill himself. When Brenda was fourteen, her father finally broke and told her the truth in a parking lot. Her reaction, recounted for the rest of her life, was relief. Everything clicked. For the first time, the child understood why the identity assigned by the world’s leading expert had never fit: it had been false from the first day, and the body had known all along.

The patient took a new name and lived as a man. In 1997, the researchers Milton Diamond and Keith Sigmundson tracked him down and detonated the case in the medical literature; the journalist John Colapinto then told the full story to the public.

The Nation on the Operating Table

Read more

Do the Jews living today retain a distinct place within God’s purposes, or did that place expire with the coming of Christ? Does Christianity create any particular obligation toward the Jewish people and their state, or does the gospel eliminate every distinction between Israel and the nations?

The anti-Israel movement in the U.S. understood that American support for Israel does not ultimately rest upon AIPAC or intelligence cooperation. Tens of millions of Bible-reading Christians who open Genesis, read God’s promise to Abraham, and believe that the Jewish people still occupy a particular place in the biblical story.

Destroy that belief, and the political alliance will not survive another generation.

Christian Zionism is under attack as not authentically Christian at all, but a nineteenth-century invention created by John Nelson Darby, popularized through the Scofield Reference Bible, and later exploited by Zionists seeking Christian political support. I responded to that claim here.

The deeper attack, however, is the weaponization of a theological doctrine that argues the Church replaced Israel, that every covenant and promise given to the Jewish people was fulfilled spiritually in Christ and transferred to the Church, and that Jews today possess no continuing standing within God’s covenantal purposes. Until an individual Jew believes in Jesus, he is said to stand before God exactly as any other unbeliever does, with no remaining distinction inherited from Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob. The academic name for this school of thought is supersessionism, more commonly called replacement theology.

Unlike the crude conspiracies circulating through podcasts and social media, Replacement theology possesses a long ecclesiastical pedigree and many adherents who intend no hostility toward Jews. That is precisely why this essay will not be another catalogue of land promises, prophetic passages, or arguments over the rapture and the millennium. My purpose is not to defend dispensational theology. I intend to examine the premise beneath the entire dispute, the premise on which replacement theology rests its case against Israel.

Before I do, a word to each of my readers.

If you are a Christian, I am asking you to withhold your verdict until the final paragraph. Some of what follows may initially sound like heresy. Do not reach for the accusation before the argument has been made. I will defend every step from Scripture, but the evidence must be considered as a whole.

If you are Jewish, read this to understand what is being fought over inside Christianity right now. The fight is about you, but it is taking place without you. Its outcome may determine whether tens of millions of Christians continue to regard themselves as your allies or are persuaded that their support for Israel was founded upon a theological mistake.

And if you are neither Christian nor Jewish, stay anyway. You are about to watch a dispute nearly two thousand years old shape the geopolitics of the twenty-first century.

Faith In Whom?

Read more

Protagoras, the most famous among them, advertised that he could make the weaker argument beat the stronger. He also taught that “man is the measure of all things,” a doctrine with obvious commercial advantages: if truth exists, the paying customer might be wrong. If truth is whatever persuades, the customer is always one purchased speech away from being right.

The sophist Gorgias of Leontini, in his Encomium of Helen, a showpiece in which he argues that the most condemned woman in Greek mythology bore no blame for running off to Troy, compares speech to a drug. As different drugs act on the body, he writes, different words act on the soul: some end grief, some produce courage, some poison and bewitch. The Greek word he chose, pharmakon, means both medicine and toxin. The Helen speech wasn’t really about Helen. It was an advertisement: watch me take the guiltiest name in Greece and dissolve the guilt with nothing but language.

In Plato’s dialogue, Gorgias tells a story from his youth. He used to accompany his brother, a physician, on house calls, and when a patient refused surgery, it wasn’t the doctor who changed the man’s mind. It was Gorgias. Put a rhetorician and a doctor before any crowd, let them compete for a medical post, and the rhetorician wins every time. The man who knows nothing beats the man who knows everything, provided the audience knows nothing too.

The trade paid. Gorgias grew rich enough to erect a statue of himself at Delphi, in gold.

Socrates charged no fees, wrote no books, built no following. He worked the same agora with the same instrument, dialogue, pointed in the opposite direction. His method was to question a man who claimed to know something, expose the contradictions in his answers, and leave both of them staring at their shared ignorance. He lost arguments gladly, because losing removed an error, and a man who discovers he doesn’t understand justice is closer to justice than a man whose eloquence conceals that he never did.

Everything separating the two trades fits into two questions. The philosopher asks: what is true? The sophist asks: what can I make this audience believe?

The New Sophists

Read more

Even Athens, the birthplace of democracy and supposedly of free expression, had its limits. The playwright Aristophanes, the father of political comedy, was hauled into court by Cleon, the most powerful politician in the city, for the crime of making Athens look bad in one of his plays. And the same democracy that invented satire forced Socrates, its greatest philosopher, to drink poison, for disrespecting the gods of the city. Further east, the Great King of Persia required every man who approached him to perform proskynesis, to throw himself face-down on the ground, the posture of worship. When Alexander the Great conquered Persia and adopted the practice for himself, his own court philosopher, Callisthenes, refused to bow. He did not survive the refusal.

In 1579, an English writer named John Stubbs published a pamphlet objecting to Queen Elizabeth’s plan to marry a French Catholic prince. For that, the state laid his right hand on a block and severed it with a cleaver. Fifty years later, a lawyer named William Prynne wrote a book attacking the theater as immoral, at the very moment the Queen of England happened to be enjoying performing in court plays. Reading his book as an insult to her, the state cropped off his ears. And in France, a young writer was thrown into the Bastille, the royal prison, for circulating verses that mocked the man ruling the country. His name was Voltaire, the future giant of the Enlightenment, and his career in free thought began in a cell for the crime of a joke. Europe had a legal name for this crime: lèse-majesté, literally, “injured majesty.” To mock the ruler was treated as sacrilege, as violence against something holy.

Power has never feared the sword as much as it fears the joke. An assassin can kill a king, but the king dies a king, a martyr, even. A satirist makes the king ordinary. He drags the throne down to eye level, where everyone can see that the man sitting on it sweats, lies, lusts, and fears like everyone else. Armies can be defeated and replaced. Awe, once punctured, never fully reinflates.

This is why every despotism in history has criminalized laughter. Ridicule is a solvent. It dissolves the invisible substance that authoritarian power is actually made of, not tanks, not treasuries, but sanctity.

The Civilization That Sanctified No One

Around the tenth century before Christ, the king of Israel took another man’s wife, impregnated her, and arranged for her husband to be killed at the front to cover it up. This was standard behavior for a Bronze Age monarch; the pharaohs and the kings of Babylon did worse before breakfast, and their court scribes recorded only their glory. But into David’s throne room walked a prophet named Nathan, a man with no army and no title, and he told the king a story about a rich man who stole a poor man’s only lamb. When David burned with anger at the thief, Nathan pointed at him and said: “You are the man.”

Read more

Read more

Michel Foucault went to Tehran in 1978 and described the revolution as “political spirituality,” the first great insurrection against the global order. The Iranian left, the Tudeh communists, the Fedayan, the secular nationalists, supplied the street muscle that brought Khomeini to power, confident that the mullahs were a phase, a vehicle, a temporary ally against the Shah and the Americans. Between 1981 and 1988 the Islamic Republic hanged, shot, and tortured them nearly out of existence, culminating in the 1988 prison massacres. The useful idiots were exterminated by the movement they had translated into respectability.

Read more

For most of the twentieth century Yellowstone National Park had no wolves. They had been hunted and trapped out by the mid-1920s. As a result, the elk, with nothing left to hunt them, grew numerous and calm. They no longer had reason to move. They stood along the rivers and in the open valleys and ate at their leisure, year upon year.

The willow and aspe…

Read more

The reflex is to blame money, infrastructure, the Jews. Yes, I am not kidding, many videos circulated in Arabic of people explaining how the Jews control FIFA and that is why Arab countries always lose.

I grew up inside that world, Israel was not merely blamed for the wars and the politics. Israel was the explanation for the failure of everything. The economy, the corruption, the broken health system, the broken education system, somewhere behind each one stood the Jew, arranging our humiliation. It was the master key. It unlocked every door, and so no other door ever had to be examined. The failure was never ours. It was done to us.

In a culture organized around that grievance, success becomes the real treason. The moment an Arab country decides to actually walk away from this sad state of affair, to normalize with Israel, to build with the West, to stop performing the role of the eternal victim and start producing something genuine, it is not celebrated. It is attacked. It becomes a Zionist puppet, a traitor, a sellout, bought. Breaking the model of grievance is treated as a crime. Because the grievance is load-bearing. Remove it and the entire architecture of excuse-making collapses.

The Minimum Necessary & The Maximum Possible.

Read more

To make the case, the scholars handed ordinary Muslims a set of “scientific miracles”, verses said to contain knowledge a 7th-century man could not possibly have had. The most famous is how the Quran describes the creation of the embryo: God makes the lump into bones, and then “clothes the bones with flesh.” For decades Muslims were taught that this was miraculous, how could an illiterate man in the Arabian desert have known the stages of embryonic development unless the knowledge came from God?

Then came the internet.

It turns out the verse describes something that does not happen. Bones are not formed first and then wrapped in muscle. Bone and muscle grow from the same tissue, at the same time, there is no stage in which a little skeleton sits waiting to be clothed. Worse, the “bones then flesh” sequence wasn’t new knowledge at all. It matches what the Greek physician Galen taught five centuries before Muhammad. The “miracle” was a recycled error.

Verse after verse that had been sold as scientific prophecy, the sun setting in a muddy spring, the mountains as pegs holding the earth steady, the sky as a solid canopy, turned out to be the cosmology of late antiquity, not the voice of God.

The ordinary Muslim did not have the option of quietly letting the claim go. He had been told his faith depends on it. So he had to defend the indefensible, even when defending it made him look foolish. There is a clip that went viral a few years ago of an imam standing before a hall full of people, trying to prove the earth is flat and motionless. He told the audience that if a helicopter rises and hovers over Saudi Arabia for a few hours, he said, China does not come around underneath it, so the earth cannot be turning. Millions laughed at that clip, but what they were watching was simply a man defending what he sincerely believes is true, cornered into absurdity because his scholars built his faith on a claim that could not survive contact with reality.

The Christian Zionist’s Dilemma

Read more

Read more

It wasn’t any of these that made me throw the Quran, literally, into the garbage in my parents’ house that night. It was something called the occasions of revelation. Islam has an entire science devoted to it, a respected branch of scholarship called asbāb al-nuzūl, the genre that helps Muslims understand the context in which each verse of the Quran was revealed. And thanks to generations of Muslims, those circumstances were preserved as carefully as the Quran itself.

By the end of this article you will understand why this is the most damning evidence against Islam there is. Honestly, I can’t fathom how anyone can read what follows and remain a Muslim.

Come on, menstruate already!

Read more

Read more