Introduction: The Final Word
The Abrahamic religions share a family resemblance. Judaism rooted itself in the Torah, built upon by centuries of rabbinical debate. Christianity adopted those texts, added the Gospels, and proclaimed a new covenant. Both fractured into many forms, often contradicting each other, but in doing so allowed change and adaptation.
Islam arrived in the 7th century and declared itself the last word. Muhammad was not simply a prophet, but the seal of prophecy. The Quran was not merely inspired, but the direct, perfect dictation of God. Its words are unalterable, eternal, and complete. Where Judaism and Christianity had space for interpretation and reform, Islam declared the book closed.
This immutability is not a side note. It defines the entire religion. It is the reason Islam has historically fused religion and politics, why Sharia is not optional, why blasphemy is a capital crime, why apostasy is forbidden, and why attempts to reconcile it with secular modernity so often fail.
Christopher Hitchens saw the danger clearly:
“Islam makes very large claims for itself. It is not enough to say that it is a religion like the others. It is the total solution, and it insists that it be accepted as the total solution.”
To treat Islam as simply one faith among many is to ignore its own claim to totality.
History and Origins
To understand Islam’s rigidity, we must return to its birth. Muhammad was not only a preacher but a ruler. In Medina, he built not just a congregation but a state. Islam from the beginning was inseparable from governance, law, and conquest. Unlike Jesus, who said “My kingdom is not of this world,” Muhammad established a kingdom in this world, armed and expansionist.
Richard Dawkins observed the difference:
“Christianity began with a man who said ‘Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s.’ Islam began with a man who took Caesar’s place.”
From its earliest days, Islam expanded through political dominance. Within a century of Muhammad’s death, vast territories from Spain to India were ruled under Islamic law. This origin story matters because it explains why Islam cannot easily separate mosque from state. Religion and political power were born together.
The Doctrine of Immutability
The Quran is held to be the literal speech of God, uncreated and eternal. It cannot be doubted, amended, or questioned. For believers, to challenge even a single verse is to reject the divine.
Christopher Hitchens underlined this:
“At least the churches and the synagogues admit that their texts were written by men. Islam will not allow even that much honesty. The Quran is held to be a dictation. It cannot be improved upon, only obeyed.”
Sam Harris echoed the same concern:
“Islam, more than any other religion human beings have devised, has all the makings of a thoroughgoing cult of death.” (The End of Faith)
Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who lived inside Islam before rejecting it, was blunt:
“You cannot liberalise Islam. It is built on the assumption that the Quran is the literal word of God. Once you accept that, you cannot change it. The only path is to leave it.”
Richard Dawkins, though often careful with Islam, has admitted the unique problem:
“If you base your beliefs on a book that is supposed to be the literal, unchangeable word of God, then any attempt at reform will look like heresy. That is the problem with Islam, far more than with Christianity.”
The immutability of Islam locks it in permanent collision with modernity. Other religions may bend. Islam must not.
Sharia as Endgame
Sharia is not a moral suggestion but a comprehensive legal system. It dictates criminal punishments, inheritance rules, family structures, diet, dress, banking, and governance. It is not something Muslims can pick and choose. It is presented as God’s law.
Ibn Warraq summarised it succinctly:
“There may be moderate Muslims, but Islam itself is not moderate.”
Where Islam gains political power, Sharia follows. Iran after 1979, Taliban Afghanistan, and Saudi Arabia are not deviations from Islam but expressions of it. Even in countries where secularism prevails, pressure grows to accommodate elements of Sharia. In the United Kingdom, parallel Sharia councils handle marriage and divorce. In France, the veil is fought over in schools. In Sweden and Germany, enclaves resist secular integration.
Hitchens put it plainly:
“The jihadist, faced with the strongest military power in the world, knows one thing with absolute certainty: we will not stand up for our own values. We will sue for peace, apologise, and offer concessions.”
To make concessions to Sharia in the West is not tolerance but surrender.
Women in Islam
The Quran explicitly subordinates women. Surah 4:34 declares: “Men are in charge of women, because Allah has made the one superior to the other… As for those from whom you fear rebellion, admonish them, and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them.”
Inheritance laws allocate women half the share of men. Court testimony by women counts for half that of a man. Guardianship systems in countries like Saudi Arabia still prevent women from travelling, working, or marrying without male consent.
Hitchens’ verdict was damning:
“To terrify children with the image of hellfire, to tell women they are second class, to tell homosexuals they are abominations — this is not just a religion. This is a cruelty.”
Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s testimony is more personal:
“I was a Muslim woman. I know what it means. You are owned. You are not free. Islam tells you that your mind is weaker, your faith less, your rights fewer.”
For Western feminists to defend this as “culture” is hypocrisy. If any other ideology preached female subordination, they would condemn it.
Islam and LGBTQ+ Persecution
Islam’s stance on homosexuality is explicit. The story of Lot is cited as proof of divine wrath on same-sex acts. The Hadith prescribe execution for homosexual behaviour.
In many Islamic countries this is enforced by law. Iran executes gay men. Saudi Arabia imposes flogging and prison. The Taliban has reinstated death sentences. In Pakistan, vigilante killings occur under the banner of “honour.”
Sam Harris noted:
“When you meet someone who says they are a moderate Muslim, what they mean is that they ignore parts of their religion. The texts themselves are not moderate.”
Hitchens again:
“The mandate to see gay people as subhuman is not incidental to Islam. It is written into the text. To excuse this is to excuse the inexcusable.”
Western activists often remain silent, fearful of offending religious sensibilities, while the victims are abandoned.
Blasphemy and Free Speech
Islam does not tolerate dissent. Apostasy is considered a crime in many Muslim-majority countries, often punishable by death. Blasphemy laws exist in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and beyond.
The fatwa on Salman Rushdie in 1989 made the point brutally clear. A novelist, for writing fiction, was sentenced to death by a theocracy — and millions of Muslims around the world supported it.
Rushdie himself later warned:
“The moment you declare a set of ideas to be immune from criticism, satire, derision, or contempt, freedom of thought becomes impossible.”
When Charlie Hebdo published cartoons of Muhammad, journalists were murdered in Paris. Yet much of the Western reaction was not to stand firm but to call for restraint.
Hitchens was scathing:
“To say you may publish but must not offend Muslims is not to defend freedom of speech. It is to abolish it.”
Freedom of expression cannot coexist with a religion that demands immunity from criticism.
The Multicultural Illusion
Western societies, eager to be tolerant, have welcomed Islam under the banner of multiculturalism. Yet this tolerance has too often meant turning a blind eye to intolerance.
Douglas Murray observed:
“Europe is committing suicide. Or at least its leaders have decided to commit suicide.” (The Strange Death of Europe)
The illusion is that Islam will adapt to pluralism. But Islam sees itself as the final revelation. It does not come to coexist, but to prevail.
Hitchens pointed out the weakness:
“The problem with multiculturalism is not diversity, but the refusal to defend Enlightenment values against those who would destroy them. To surrender free speech out of deference to religious sensitivity is not tolerance. It is cowardice.”
By refusing to confront Islam directly, the West undermines its own foundations.
The West’s Weakness
Why has the West failed to confront Islam honestly? Fear of violence plays a role. Fear of being labelled intolerant plays another. Political correctness has turned critique of Islam into a thought crime.
Richard Dawkins lamented this trend:
“It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about Christian fundamentalism, but Islamic fundamentalism is the real threat. And yet, to say so is to be accused of bigotry.”
The result is self-censorship. Newspapers that refused to publish cartoons. Universities that cancel speakers. Politicians that apologise rather than defend.
As Hitchens warned:
“The barbarians never take a city until someone holds the gates open from within.”
Can Islam Reform?
Some hope that Islam will experience a reformation. But this misunderstands the problem. Christianity fractured because its scriptures were human, contradictory, and open to interpretation. Islam holds the Quran to be perfect. To reform is to deny perfection, which is itself heresy.
Hitchens concluded:
“There will be no reformation of Islam. The book is held to be perfect. The very idea of improvement is forbidden. Those who call for reform are in effect calling for apostasy.”
Ayaan Hirsi Ali added:
“The only true reformer in Islam is the apostate. To change Islam you must leave it.”
Sam Harris agreed:
“The only people who can reform Islam are those who are willing to risk their lives doing it. And that should tell you everything.”
The hope of a liberalised Islam is an illusion.
Conclusion: Defending Enlightenment Values
Islam is not simply a private faith. It is a total system, claiming divine perfection, demanding Sharia, enforcing subordination of women, punishing homosexuality, silencing critics, and resisting reform. It does not adapt to modernity. It collides with it.
The West has failed to confront this truth. Out of fear and misplaced tolerance, it has opened its gates to a doctrine that does not compromise. Multiculturalism, when applied to Islam, becomes appeasement.
The task is not to hate Muslims, many of whom live peacefully and reject extremism. The task is to be honest about Islam as a doctrine. Freedom of speech, equality before the law, and the rights of women and minorities are not negotiable. They are the legacy of the Enlightenment. If we surrender them out of fear of offending Islam, we surrender everything.
Hitchens’ words remain the sharpest warning:
“Religion poisons everything. But with Islam, the poison is injected with a special fury, because it does not admit the possibility of coexistence.”
The gates are open. Whether the West has the courage to close them is the question of our age.