Daily Signal Article Propagates Common Misunderstandings of Islam

In August, the Daily Signal published an article entitled ‘Sharia Takeover’? What Conservatives Miss in the Debate Over Airport Foot Washing by Tyler O’Neil.   The article misapprehends the true nature of Islam and is oblivious to Islamic war doctrine. 

‘Islamism’

Islam seeks world domination and imposes a religious duty to wage violent jihad as the means to achieve it.  These are standard Islamic doctrines, not flights of fancy tacked on later by ‘fundamentalists’ or ‘extremists’.  They come straight from the pages of the Quran.  The Quran says 164 times in various ways ‘slay the infidel’.  Here are two representative passages:

•  Make war on them until idolatry shall cease and God’s religion shall reign supreme. Quran 8:40
• I shall cast terror into the hearts of the infidels. Strike off their heads; strike off the very tips of their fingers. Quran 8:12

Such passages cannot be airbrushed away.  Muslims believe the Quran is direct transcription of the word of Allah and, as such, no human being can change them.

As President Erdogan of Turkey put it, “There is no moderate or immoderate Islam. Islam is Islam and that’s it.”

Thus, the source of the problem is Islam itself.  Those who try to separate ‘political Islam’ from ‘religious Islam’ are on a fool’s errand.  Moreover, the legions of observers who join the author of the Daily Signal article in referring to “Islamists” (as opposed to ‘peaceful Muslims’) commit fundamental error.

To underscore the point, the threat is not ‘Islamism’ or ‘radical Islam’.  The threat is Islam.  The author of the Daily Signal article completely misses the mark in writing: “We should condemn any attacks motivated by radical Islam as we condemn attacks on peaceful Muslims who seek to exercise their faith.  Preserving that distinction is not weakness—it’s essential to winning the argument against Islamism.”  But the argument cannot be against “Islamism”.    The argument has to be against Islam itself.

This is the elephant in the room nobody wants to talk about.  But until Islam ceases to exist, the rest of humanity is in mortal danger from self-declared enemies who adhere to Islam’s tenets.  All who consider themselves faithful observant Muslims are a threat, whether they’ve ever cracked a Quran or not.  The Quran is what they profess to believe, giving license to militant actors to wage war on all nonbelievers.  There is no other religion that imposes a doctrinal duty to subjugate and kill nonbelievers.

Mohamed Zuhdi Jasser

The article refers favorably to hi-profile figure Zuhdi Jasser, calling him a “Muslim reformer” who has “has long warned against the threat of Islamism, the political approach to Islam that aims at conquest and subjugation.”  Jasser, like the author of the article, attempts to distinguish ‘political Islam’ and ‘Islamism’ from ‘real Islam’.   The folly of this is apparent from the inarguable case presented above.  Moreover, Jasser cannot square the circle and ‘reform Islam’.  Islam cannot be reformed.  There can be no Reformation in Islam as there was in Christianity.  As noted above, the Quran is the direct word of Allah and cannot be changed or interpreted away.  The reformers are painted into a corner and there is no escape.  If they try to change the word of Allah, they would become apostates and would be  subject to the penalty Islam imposes for apostasy – death. 

Accommodation

In discussing the airport foot washing issue, the author writes: “Conservatives who are serious about combatting the threat of Islamism need to be very careful not to undermine our case by attacking reasonable accommodations for peaceful Muslims.”

The author is naïve about Islamic war doctrine.  In the Explanatory Memorandum, the Muslim Brotherhood laid out their plan for America – in short, civilizational jihad.  The Memorandum was discovered by the FBI in 1991 and used as evidence in the largest terrorism financing trial to-date.  The airport foot washing issue fits neatly into three of the Memorandum’s strategic imperatives: Demand accommodations, Claim victimization, and Occupy and expand domination of physical space.  [Center for Security Policy, Sharia: The Threat to America – An Exercise in Competitive Analysis, Report of Team B II at pp. 125-126.

The Daily Signal author opines: “I’d hesitate to describe the foot-washing stations as an example of Islamic conquest.”  Only a person ignorant of Islamic war doctrine and the techniques of civilizational jihad could make such a blithe assertion.

Query

How much should we accommodate people who want to subjugate and kill us?  How many special privileges does a pushy, aggressive, in-your-face doctrine of total conquest deserve?  Especially when you consider that foot washing stations are neither constitutionally nor statutorily  required.  Moreover, foot washing before prayer is not mandatory in Islam while on a journey.  Carry a pocket stone or put on some wudu socks, and you’re good to go.

Thus, demands that airports provide foot washing stations for Muslim are beyond the bounds of Islamic scripture and devoid of legal basis and, therefore, constitute what has been called ‘conquest by fixture’.

An overstatement?  Consider this:

The airport in question — DFW — already has two ablution stations at the Terminal D interfaith chapel near Gate D40.  And now Muslims demand more stations inside Terminal D restrooms?  If that’s not pure naked aggression, what is it?

©2026 SPIDER & THE FLY The False Allure of Communism. All rights reserved.