What is the doctrine, and why is it impossible to change it through reform?
Most people, in Israel and worldwide, have almost no knowledge of Islam. They know there is Allah, Muhammad, and the Quran—that’s it.
Islamic doctrine and its original scriptures—its primary doctrine—are found in the Quran, which is considered the direct words of Allah, and in the Hadith and Sira, which detail the life and actions of Muhammad. The Hadith is a collection of thousands of rulings, statements, and actions attributed to Muhammad, while the Sira is his biography, written by Ibn Ishaq about 130 years after his death.
At the institute, we conducted a scientific analysis of these texts and found that the Quran constitutes only 14% of Islamic scripture, while the Sira and Hadith make up 86%. In other words, Islam is 14% Allah and 86% Muhammad.
Why is this significant? Because in 91 Quranic verses, Muhammad is presented as the perfect example of how all human beings should live. This means that the texts detailing his actions and words are inseparable from Islam itself.
Furthermore, at least 51% of Islamic doctrine focuses on non-Muslims. But to understand the connection between the focus on the non-believers and the focus on Muhammad's Persona, one must study Muhammad’s life and his biography, which is divided into two distinct periods:
- The Mecca period (610-622) – a time of preaching, during which certain Quranic chapters were revealed.The Medina period (post-622) – after Muhammad was expelled from Mecca, and when he transitioned from being a preacher to a jihadist, military leader, and politician.
The Quranic verses and rulings from the later Medina period were far more violent than those from the early Mecca period. His success was also far greater as a military leader than as a preacher.
In 12 years of preaching in Mecca, he gained only 150 followers. However, in 9 years of violent jihad in Medina, the number of believers grew from 150 to 100,000.
but does this establish the idea that violence is a virtue in Islam?
Well, this shift is so significant that the Islamic calendar does not begin with Muhammad’s birth or his first revelation from Allah, but rather with his migration to Medina—the moment jihad became a central component to the Religion.
How does this relate to the doctrine of Islam and the possibility of reform?
If I may continue, we refer to this division of Muhammad’s life as dualism at the heart of Islam. Dualism is the phenomenon in which one verse may contradict another—one verse appears tolerant, while another commands fighting infidels.
One verse was written in Mecca, when Muhammad had only 150 peaceful followers. The other was written in Medina, when he had 100,000 followers, many of them warriors, and engaged in jihadist campaigns every six and a half weeks on average.
So does this prove that reform is impossible?
Yes. Reform is impossible because 51% of Islamic doctrine concerns infidels, and 31% is about jihad. The Quran defines Muhammad as the final prophet and the perfect example of how to live. You cannot change or improve something that is considered perfect. Hence it's a fixed paradigm.
Muhammad is Great. The infidel is an object of war by Muhammad. Hence to live a godly life once must see the infidel as an object of war.
if so, how do you explain the peace agreement with the UAE or Morroco?
As I explained, there is no "moderate Islam" versus "radical Islam." The real question is whether there are moderate Muslims and whether the citizens and rulers of the UAE are an example of that.
At CSPII, we don’t use terms like "moderate" and "extremist"—we use percentages. Those who strictly follow what is commonly called "radical Islam" are 100% Muhammad, while others who are less strict in following his teachings may be 70%, 50%, or even 10% Muhammad.
There are two main factors that lead to a more "moderate" Islamic society: attrition and external force. As long as there is no genuine Islamic grassroots movement for reform and no ideological pushback against political Islam, attrition remains temporary (as seen in Turkey), and external force is self-explanatory.
A deeper discussion on why the UAE's situation differs, why Morocco has good relations with Israel while Tunisia, Algeria, Libya, Jordan, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Turkey do not, is more of a geopolitical question rather than evidence of reform in the doctrine of political Islam.
Let's move on to the Israeli-Arab conflict. What are your thoughts on it?
First of all, we need to understand that this is not an ethnic Israeli-Arab conflict but an ideological one, rooted in political Islam. Islam, 61% of whose Quran is political, 81% of Muhammad’s biography deals with non-Muslims, and 37% of the Hadith addresses non-Muslims, cannot allow itself to reconsider its stance towards the non-Muslim. You would have to change 51% of the text and contradict 91 verses in the Quran, which are Allah’s words, stating that Muhammad’s way is the way to live—then, now, and in the future—and that it is the eternal and perfect example.
So essentially, the question is not about the Israeli-Arab conflict but rather about Islam versus the infidel?
It is essential to understand that this conflict is between the entire Islamic world and the Jews, as well as the non-Muslim world. Islam is currently focusing on Israel using a divide-and-conquer strategy, just as Muhammad did in Khaybar.
When Mohammed struggled to fight Mecca, which was allied with Khaybar, he used deception through the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah to divide them.
He pretended to seek peace with Mecca, then conquered Khaybar while the Meccans avoided helping their ally, the Jews of Khaybar, thinking they're safe because they have a treaty with Mohammed. later he took Mecca, which was left without an ally. In the same way, Israel is being isolated from the West. Once it is taken over, the West, which is already turning against Israel, will be next in line.
What about the seemingly more moderate sects, such as the Ahmadis and Sufis? Haven’t they adopted pacifism?
Do they have countries that are at peace with the Jews? Do they have religious freedom? Are they fighting political Islam? Can one criticize Islam, Allah, and Muhammad without being murdered or facing threats or severe punishments?
So, in summary, you’re not very optimistic?
I am very optimistic. If we have managed to survive and even thrive while being completely ignorant of the ideology that seeks to destroy our culture, imagine what we could achieve if we knew what we needed to know about it. However, we must stop telling a story about Islam in the hope that reality will conform to the story.
I also believe that the idea of interfaith dialogue and interfaith bridges is an illusion. Likewise, so is the concept of moderate Islam—it simply does not exist.
