December 1, 2025
Topic Islamophobia Topic Abraham Topic Cspii-monitor
On October 14, 2025, HSToday.us published an article titled “Weaponizing Islam: How Both Sides Get It Wrong,” authored by Mubin Shaikh, Editor-at-Large for the Intervention vertical at Homeland Security Today (HSToday).
Unfortunately, the article contains numerous factual inaccuracies. We contacted HSToday to request publication of our commentary; however, we have not received a response to date.
We urge media outlets to ensure that goodwill is matched by rigor and that public understanding of Islamic doctrine is not compromised for the sake of idealistic narratives.
— CSPII Monitor Team
↓ Read our full response and documentation here ↓
From: CSPII Monitor <[email protected]>
Date: Oct 30, 2025 8:58 PM CET Time
Subject: Weaponizing Islam - Correction Request
Dear Executive Editor,
HSToday article, “Weaponizing Islam: How Both Sides Get It Wrong” (October 14, 2025), raises multiple concerns:
The article perpetuates several of the most common Western-Islamic apologetic tropes: it frames violent jihad as a fringe distortion rather than a natural expression of Islamic primary doctrine, it defines Islam as purely spiritual, detached from law and politics, and it casts legitimate criticism of Islamic political ideology as morally equivalent to terrorism.
Mohammed’s own campaigns, recorded in the Sira (his life story), included offensive wars and execution of captives — precisely the model emulated by modern jihadis. The Sira also relates how several men and women were killed for merely mocking Mohammed, as well as captive women being taken as sex slaves.
Sharia law codifies warfare, apostasy punishments, and subjugation of non-Muslims — doctrines central to Political Islam, not marginal distortions. The Islamic doctrine has political instructions to Islamize all non-Islamic societies, with both violent and non-violent means of jihad.
Classical scholars consistently justified these rules as divinely mandated, not as historical incidents.
By omitting these facts, Shaikh presents a non-existing version of de-historicized and de-doctrinized Islam detached from its law, politics, warfare, and statecraft. It’s even detached from parts of its own doctrinal narratives — a presentation of a religion that never existed, except in modern apologetics.
Critics of Islamic doctrine portrayed as dangerous haters of people
By lumping together critics of Islamic doctrine with actual hate crime perpetrators, the author paints legitimate critics as extremist criminals. The author refers to anyone that disagrees with his interpretations as “Anti-Muslims” and “extremists”. The truth, however, is that criticizing Political Islam (the political parts of the Islamic ideology) is not the same thing as being anti-Muslim (against people).
Shaikh’s claims that critics of Islam are "twisting the same texts", "thrive on ignorance / texts they do not understand / take religion out of context". We ran a semantic analysis, a political discourse analysis, a critical discourse analysis, and finally a statistical analysis of the Islamic Trilogy (Koran, Hadith and Sira) This resulted in following: the Trilogy devotes more than 1/3 of its content to some form of jihad. Almost 1/10 is anti-Jewish. Therefore, Shaikh’s claims are not based on solid data and mislead the audience, which may result in endagering homeland security – the main reason your outlet exists..
The “Khawarij” argument
The article compares violent jihadis to Khawarij, a sect in the Islamic narrative that is described as extremists - Historically, however, doctrines of offensive jihad, execution of apostates, enslavement of captives, and subjugation of unbelievers were not Khawarij innovations but core components o primary Islamic doctrine (incl. Koran). By conflating ISIS with the Khawarij, the article immunizes Islamic doctrine from critique.
Denial of classical jihad law
The author claims: “Literally no classical Islamic source disputes” the prohibition on killing women, children, the elderly, non-combatants, forbade torture, mutilation, the use of fire as punishment, and desecrating bodies. This is demonstrably false.
In Islamic doctrine:
Koran 5:33 (mutilation)
The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom;
Hadith, Bukhari 3012 (killing women, children, non-combatants)
The Prophet passed by me at a place called Al-Abwa or Waddan, and was asked whether it was permissible to attack the pagan warriors at night with the probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet replied, "They (i.e. women and children) are from them (i.e. pagans)."…
Sira, Ibn Kathir p.172 (killing women, non-combatants, prisoners of war)
“He [Mohammed] only executed one of their women. She was talking with me and laughing heartily all the time the Messenger of God was executing her menfolk in the market-place…
In Islamic jurisprudence:
Al-Mawardi (d. 1058) allows the killing of non-combatants in siege or when they assist the enemy (al-Ahkam al-Sultaniyya p. 65).
Ibn Qudamah (d. 1223) explicitly authorizes killing of non-Muslim men and the enslavement of women and children (al-Mughni 9/186).
Al-Shafi‘i (d. 820) justifies offensive jihad to expand Islam’s domain (Kitab al-Umm 4/234).
Shaikh’s categorical denial contradicts this well-documented jurisprudence and Islamic doctrine itself.
Selective Citation of Scholars
Shaikh quotes al-Qurtubi’s pacifist statement forbidding retaliation, but omits the same author’s commentary on Koran 9:29, where al-Qurtubi upholds the obligation to fight Jews and Christians until they pay the jizya.
He quotes Ibn Kathir condemning the Khawarij, but does not mention Ibn Kathir’s endorsement of jihad verses commanding war against unbelievers.
Shaikh’s use of Imam al-Qurṭubī’s statement (“it is not permissible for us to retaliate…”) takes the quote completely out of context and presents a disputed matter as if it were doctrinallly settled. Qurṭubī in the same piece of text explicitly upholds offensive jihad and the subjugation of unbelievers.
Such selective choice of excerpts converts legal-political authorities into modern humanitarians — a false historical portrayal.
Non-existent equivalence of critique and terror
By asserting that “anti-Muslim extremists” and jihadis are “the same disease,” Shaikh equates ideological violence with analytical criticism.
This moral equivalence delegitimizes anyone who examines Islam’s political doctrine as if they were participating in hatred.
To label scrutiny of Islamic ideology as bigotry, insulates Islamic political doctrine from accountability. This presents a major problem for national security as any political ideology must be open for analysis, evaluation and criticism.
Making up a non-existing symmetrical “cycle of violence”
Shaikh makes the argument that anti-Muslim hate crimes are what gives jihadists the proof they need to go out and commit acts of violent jihad. This downplays the weight of doctrinally prescribed violence and hostile politics.
Invokes "The Abrahamic religion" label for Islam
The article presents Islam as an Abrahamic religion, which it is not. This is explained in CSPII’s article here.
In light of these issues, we kindly request that you: Publish our commentary as an amendment to the published article.
We believe your readers would benefit from a more accurate portrayal of the situation at play.
About CSPII Monitor:
https://www.cspii.org/learn-political-islam/new-articles/announcing-cspii-monitor-promoting-accurate-and-objective-discourse-on-islam/
We would be happy to provide additional sources and references upon request.
Sincerely,
[Signature]