Yashiko Sagamori in Arutz Sheva says there are no moderate Muslims, and explores the strange dhimmitude that comes over respected analysts when they look at Islam. I would make one clarification: there are in my experience many moderate Muslims, but a moderate Islam is harder to find — and this is a significant weakness that is a primary cause of the persistence of terror. Unless and until it is corrected, terrorism will continue. (Thanks to "Allah.")
The official, politically correct point of view says that Islam is just another monotheistic religion, not that different from Judaism or Christianity. If that is true, then moderate Muslims must exist, just like moderate members of other faiths. However, moderate members of other faiths do not require sacrificial mollification - that's basically how we tell moderates from extremists. Therefore, either moderate Muslims are mythical creatures, or we need substantially different criteria to identify them. That dilemma alone should make us suspicious as to whether Islam is "just another religion". Obviously, it is important that we determine how a moderate Muslim can be distinguished from a Muslim extremist.Why not ask Muslims themselves? Irshad Manji, a young Canadian author, has published a book titled "The Trouble With Islam." Since we don't hear too many Muslim voices criticizing their religion, her book deserves our attention. This is what the author herself says on her promotional website
(http://www.muslim-refusenik.com/the_book_index.html):
"I appreciate that every faith has its share of literalists. Christians have their Evangelicals. Jews have the ultra-Orthodox. For God's sake, even Buddhists have fundamentalists. But what this book hammers home is that only in Islam the literalism is mainstream."Apparently, the terms "literalism" and "fundamentalism" in the quotation above are used interchangeably, as synonyms of religious extremism. Unfortunately, the author fails to mention the most important difference between "literalists" in Islam and other religions. Evangelical Christians may believe that heaven is reserved for them alone. Ultra-Orthodox Jews may display intimate understanding of the murkiest places in the Talmud. I have no idea what extreme fundamentalist Buddhists do that sets them apart from their moderate coreligionists. What I do know however is that no religion except Islam pursues the idea of physical extermination of those who believe differently. The concept of holy war is unique to Islam. Jihad is the absolute monopoly of Muslims. There is no parallel to it in any other religion in the world (Yes, I have heard about Crusades, but Christianity does not mandate them, and do you know when the last Crusade ended?).
So, here we have it in plain English, as simple as A, B, C:
A. According to the Koran, holy war against the infidels is a sacred duty of every Muslim.
B. According to Ms. Manji, mainstream Muslims interpret Koran literally.
The conclusion is inevitable:
C. Mainstream Muslims perceive war against the infidels - meaning you and me - as their sacred duty.Once you understand that, you don't need books to explain to you what exactly the trouble with Islam is. The trouble with Islam derives from the fact that mainstream Islam openly calls for murder of all infidels. That's why Islam is not "just another religion". That's what, in my view, allows to classify all its followers as extremist.
What then, besides our stubborn, groundless faith in the general goodness of our fellow human beings, leads us to believe that moderate Muslims are not just a figment of our imagination? How do they manifest themselves in the real world?
It would be utterly useless to look for them in Gaza, Judea, or Samaria. Unlike bin Laden, terrorists occupying Israeli lands do not live in caves. They live in small towns, villages, and crowded refugee camps where everyone knows everything about everyone else. They couldn't survive for a day without popular support. When someone gives them a reason to doubt the sincerity of his support, they label him a collaborator and murder him on the spot. Indeed, the PA-sponsored educational system guarantees that innocent children are indoctrinated in the most murderous variety of Islamic extremism - thereby losing their innocence - at the earliest possible age. Therefore, in Israel, a moderate Muslim is a dead Muslim, which is bad news for those who want us to believe that there is a peaceful solution to the continuing Arab war against Israel.
Let's look elsewhere. Afghanistan, liberated by the United States from the medieval tyranny of the Taliban is about to publish the draft of its first constitution. Their new constitution is going to be firmly based on Islamic principles. The country itself is soon to be renamed the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. We wouldn't call a Jew or a Christian who wanted his religion to become the basis of his country's constitution a moderate, would we? Here, in the United States, we value the separation of church from state so much that we launch court battles to remove the Ten Commandments and every reference to God from everything that is even remotely related to the government. If Islam is "just another religion", shouldn't the same criteria apply to Muslim countries? And if the same criteria do apply, we have to conclude that President Karzai installed in Afghanistan by the American military and unable to survive now or in the foreseeable future without the American military presence, is not a moderate Muslim, but an outright religious extremist. His "Very correct" remark to Mahadir's call for the extermination of Jews shows that he is a political extremist as well. Therefore, the only practical question regarding Afghanistan is why did the United States have to waste lives of its soldiers and tens of billions of dollars in order to replace one bunch of Muslim extremists with another? It might have been worthwhile had it improved our security at home, but, as we know, that didn't happen. Therefore, we have to conclude that the United States has once again won a battle but lost the war. The same will inevitably happen in Iraq.
The desperate search for moderate Muslims goes all around the world. It is especially urgent in Europe, whose face is being irreversibly altered by mass immigration from Islamic countries. Recently, the British government appealed to the growing British Muslim community to isolate extremists in their midst. It's not hard to predict the response. Actually, there will be no response, because everyone in any Muslim community is an extremist. Such is the nature of Islam, and the only thing that I find hard to comprehend is the self-imposed blindness of the British government. Apparently, such is the price of liberalism and political correctness. Bye-bye, Europe. We are next.
I don't think World War II could be won if the Allies, instead of eradicating Nazism, attempted to replace Nazi extremists with moderate Nazis. Actually, nobody was looking for moderate Nazis during World War II. But those were simpler, purer times. Today, the mythical moderate Muslim remains the focal point of the US foreign policy in the Middle East. The blind faith in his existence has already led the United States to many monumental failures, and many more are to be expected in the future. Meanwhile, the moderate Muslim, along with the Big Foot, the unicorn, and the Loch Ness monster, remains more elusive than a cure for cancer. There is at least a theoretical possibility that a cure for cancer can be found one day, unless of course Islam takes over and drags us all down into its own endless Dark Ages.
Again, what Sagamori is really searching for is moderate Islam: a version of Islam that is both peaceful and convincing to Muslims in its full harmony with the Qur'an and Hadith. What we have instead in the world are many peaceful Muslims who are such because they simply want to live ordinary lives, and can't be bothered with religious fanaticism. But their lack of a theoretical foundation makes all of them vulnerable to a wily terror recruiter, as was established not long ago in Lackawanna, New York.
Good minds work in tandem. I couldn't have said this better myself. I was waiting to hear from moderate Muslism. Not in this lifetime.
Someone who says that "I am a Muslim" is really saying that have given their whole mind and body over to the Koran, the Hadith and the Sharia.
They might look at you and smile, but lying for the faith is an established principle in Islam, and inside they hate you.
Now, let's assume that there is a self-professed Muslim that does not hate the 'infidel'. What does that mean?
1) they do not know what is in the Koran. Then what is it that they believe, and what would happen to their mind if they did learn?
2) they do know, but ignore it, or bury it and do not outwardly act on it "in order to live an ordinary life." Would you trust such a person?
I do not trust a word from any Muslim's mouth.
There never was and can never be 'moderate' Islam, because it would not then BE Islam. Without the 'extremist' parts it becomes a me-too mess of pseudo-religious babble that looks even more ridiculous than its progenitors.
Muslims have a personal stake in the supposed superiority of their 'religion'. Deep down they know it is hogwash, but it has been embedded into the very fiber of their beings, and hence this deadly cancer is incarnate in them.
Quote from article: Irshad Manji, a young Canadian author, has published a book titled "The Trouble With Islam."
Irshad is a lesbian and as such is certainly not considered a muslim by true muslims. Period. They do not listen to her, but the West does with the grand hope that, just perhaps, Islam can be changed! Islam is rotten to the core because the core belief is to convert or kill infidels and apostates.
What other religion requires the followers to kill unbelievers or to kill one who left the faith? I know of none except for Islam!
The moderate muslim exists in our minds only. These so-called moderate muslims are heretics, apostates! The muslims following the tenets of the muslim faith are the jihadis! That is the very reason why we never hear a muslim criticize a jihadi killing an infidel or express outrage at a homicide bomber.
Islam is a death cult with a growing arm - but it certainly does not have anything to do with either Judaism or Christianity!
That is just another lie being told the West to calm nerves as these muslims gain ground to attack the West again and again.
jihan
Well said, Bud!
And this is exactly what I have been saying for years also.....whilst it is true there are many many fine mellow muslims, this is in spite of Islamic doctrine proper!
You simply cannot make Islam itself moderate unless you become dishonest in the handling of its primary sources the Quran or Sahih Hadiths......if one wants to allegorize the Quran, yes, then you can have a peaceful islam but this is totally absurd and dishonest..........I can allegorize Das Kapital and Mein Kampf also and make them to be lovey dovey fairytales also but that would not be honest to the vision of the original author and there demented worldview.....ala Muhammed and his Islam!
Thanks
Let's see, an honest Muslim is a dangerous Muslim. Que' barbaridad! Sure puts a different spin on the word "honest," sort of like Islamic "peace and tolerance."
It's a crying shame.
Crusades - Oh yes that military response to an Islamic invasi0n of Europe a thousand years ago. Islamist started the so called crusades DON"T EVER FORGET IT!!!!!!!!!! and don't let them forget it either.
Malcolm
the article confirmed my belief, that there is not such thing as a moderate muslim. the hatred of christians and especially americans runs in all muslims. thank you for clearng this up for me. hope this truth will be read by all americans.
GOD help us if this truth about muslims is not listened to by all americans. there is no moderate muslims; just hateful ones.
It seems that since 9/11 any idiot who wants to make a buck or two writes a book about how evil Islam is. This stupid writer claim that Muslims may smile at you, but deep inside they hate you, and you people believe that? This idiot claims the she can tell what's in the hearts of 1.4 billion people, and that sounds convincing to you?
For anybody who cares to open their mind a little, Islam DOES NOT allow the killing of anybody ( Muslims or non-Muslims ) Fighting against non muslims is only allowed in one case, If the non Muslims started the war. it's written in the Quaran:
"Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for God loveth not transgressors. (The Noble Quran, 2:190)"
and if they want peace, then Muslims are ordered to accept peace. How do I know that, it's in the quaran also:
"But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in God: for He is One that heareth and knoweth (all things). (The Noble Quran, 8:61)"
So our problem isn't the religion of Islam, it's the criminals who kill people in the name of Islam
Just like christians who kill abortion doctors in the name of jesus.
for intelligent people in the world, don't let hatefull websites and books control your mind
My dear SAMI,
Thanks for the note.
In regard to this: "Fighting against non muslims is only allowed in one case, If the non Muslims started the war," I have one question:
How do you refute the Muslim teachers and interpreters of the Qur'an who say that offensive jihad to spread Islam is part of the responsibility of the umma? They say that the Qur'an's teachings on jihad were revealed in three stages, and that while the second stage was the war for self-defense to which you refer, the third stage was offensive warfare against non-Muslims until they become Muslim or pay the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya). Cf. Sura 9:29 and Sahih Muslim 4294.
Since radical Muslims use such explanations of the Qur'an to justify jihad terrorism, I'd be most interested to hear how you show such readings of the Qur'an and Sunnah to be false. In fact, such an explanation could be used to refute radical Islam around the world.
Eagerly awaiting your reply,
Robert Spencer
Dear Robert,
People who choose to interpret this verse the way you refer to are gravely mistaken. Muslims can’t force Islam on anybody and it’s stated clearly in the Quaran:
"Let there be no compulsion in religion” Verse 2:256.
This verse you mentioned was directed toward non muslims who live in Islamic country, Muslims pay a tax called Zakah which is a part of their religion. This tax is used for welfare, military, police, schools, medicalcare etc. Like muslims, Non muslims who live in muslim countries are obliged to pay a tax too after all they’re considered part of this nation. Everybody in the United States pay taxes, American, non Americans, jews, christinans, Muslims, etc. is there anything wrong with that? Of course.
If the Mormons refused to pay their taxes for example, wouldn’t they be put in jail? And if they use arms to avoid capture, wouldn’t the government use arms against them? Same idea.
The only different between the Muslim tax and the non-Muslim tax is only the name. One is called Zakah the other Jiziah.
This verse should not be interrupted as a license to attack people outside of the Muslims countries, and I know that many Muslims think so, but they’re mistaken. There’s something wrong with them not with Islam.
With regards to the Hadith, I can tell you that one the biggest mistakes that Many Muslims do is their belief that those sayings are Authentic. Both Sahihs were written more than 300 years after the death of the prophet. I and many like me don’t believe most of the hadiths in those books. Anybody could claim that the prophet said this or that to justify their actions and that got Muslims in a lot of trouble and gave Islam a bad name.
So, for all those so-called Muslims who use this verse to justify terrorism I tell them the following:
1. "Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for God loveth not transgressors. (The Noble Quran, 2:190)"
2. "If thou dost stretch thy hand against me, to slay me, it is not for me to stretch my hand against thee to slay thee: for I do fear God, the cherisher of the worlds. (The Noble Quran, 5:28)"
3. Those who invoke not, with God, any other god, nor slay such life as God has made sacred except for just cause, nor commit fornication; - and any that does this (not only) meets punishment. (But) the Penalty on the Day Of Judgement will be doubled To him, and he will dwell Therein in ignominy. (The Noble Quran, 25:68-69)"
4. But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in God: for He is One that heareth and knoweth (all things). (The Noble Quran, 8:61)"
5. "Except those who join a group between whom and you there is a treaty (of peace), or those who approach you with hearts restraining them from fighting you as well as fighting their own people. If God had pleased, He could have given them power over you, and they would have fought you: Therefore if they withdraw from you but fight you not, and (instead) send you (Guarantees of) peace, then God Hath opened no way for you (to war against them). (The Noble Quran, 4:90)"
I do understand the frustration that all of us feel since 9/11, but blaming all muslims for the actions of 18 or 19 criminals is wrong. Bashing a religion that has so many followers around the world does nothing but spread hate and resentment. You have to understand that the problem of some muslims (especially terrorists and extremist) that they’re not following the true Islam that called for equality and brotherhood between all races.
if you like to discuss this any further, please feel free to e mail me.
My dear Sami,
"People who choose to interpret this verse the way you refer to are gravely mistaken. Muslims can’t force Islam on anybody and it’s stated clearly in the Quaran: "Let there be no compulsion in religion” Verse 2:256."
Read my note above again. I didn't say anything about forcing Islam on anyone. Even radical Muslim writers like Sayyid Qutb insist there is no compulsion in religion, but maintain that Muslims must wage jihad to institute Sharia. That is not forcing anyone to become Muslim, but it is establishing the hegemony of Islam.
"The only different between the Muslim tax and the non-Muslim tax is only the name. One is called Zakah the other Jiziah."
That is by no means the only difference. Paying zakat brings a blessing on the payer; paying jizya is a sign of humiliation. Sharia also mandates numerous other forms of discrimination against non-Muslims, so that they "feel themselves subdued" (Qur'an 9:29). Also jizya was usually much higher in history.
These are matters of fact, attested abundantly in Islamic sources, as I show in my book "Onward Muslim Soldiers."
"This verse should not be interrupted as a license to attack people outside of the Muslims countries, and I know that many Muslims think so, but they’re mistaken."
How will you convince them they're wrong on Islamic grounds?
"With regards to the Hadith, I can tell you that one the biggest mistakes that Many Muslims do is their belief that those sayings are Authentic."
The Sahih hadiths are accepted as authentic by most Muslims, as I'm sure you know.
"I do understand the frustration that all of us feel since 9/11, but blaming all muslims for the actions of 18 or 19 criminals is wrong."
That's true. I've never done that.
"You have to understand that the problem of some muslims (especially terrorists and extremist) that they’re not following the true Islam that called for equality and brotherhood between all races."
My problem is that I don't see that equality and brotherhood extended to non-Muslims in the Islamic sources, which I have studied extensively.
"if you like to discuss this any further, please feel free to e mail me."
Thanks, but I'd rather do it in public, so that people can see the points and the responses.
Cordially,
Robert Spencer
Dear Robert,
Obviously you’ve been reading the writings of radical Muslims more than moderate Muslim writers. So what if Sayyid Qutb wrote this crap, does not make it right. His writings are no more than opinions, and in this case his views are against the quaran. Lot of other Muslims disagree with him. Clearly, the likes of Sayyid Qutb disregard many verses in the quaran that commands Muslims not to transgress their limits or start wars with peaceful neighboring countries weather they’re Muslims or not.
You asked how would I convince them that they’re wrong on Islamic grounds? That’s easy. I suggest they read the quran carefully and not to take it out of context. Read the verses like the ones I wrote in my earlier post. About not to be transgressors, not to kill the souls that god made sacred, about god telling the prophet to argue with people nicely, other verses that orders muslims to accept peace if it’s offered to them, and most importantly to trash all the alleged prophet saying that don’t agree with the Quaran, even if they’re from the sahihs. Those people should also understand that you don’t have to turn everybody into Muslims, all they have to do is come to an understanding with non muslims especially Jews and Christians and it’s stated in the Quaran:
"Say: 'O People of the Book (i.e., Jews and Christians)! Come to common terms as between us and you: That we worship none but God; that we associate no partners with Him; that we erect not, from among ourselves, Lords and patrons other than God.' If then they turn back, say ye: 'Bear witness that we (at least) are Muslims (bowing to God’s Will).’ (The Noble Quran, 3:64)”
You said that most Muslims accept that the Sahihs authenticity. Unfortunately, that’s true. However, that’s starting to change. It will take time, but I’m optimistic that it will happen. God describe the Quaran as perfect, complete and detailed, that means it’s all Muslims need. I argued with a lot of muslims about the hadith, some were receptive some were not, some called me an infidel, some said I made a lot of sense.
With regards to the jizya, I believe you made quite few errors. One, jizya is not meant to humiliate anybody, what’s meant by the Arabic word “sagiron” is willingly or unwillingly, and that goes for Muslims as well. I’m sure a man of your background knows that Abu Baker Fought Muslims who refused to pay zakat after the prophets death. Two, the jizya was not higher than the Zakat. It may look that way at the first glance but if you look deeper, you’ll find out that it’s the other way around. there is no jizya due from women or children while the Zakat was paid for all the members of the Muslim family regardless of age or sex some even go as far as paying zakat for unborn fetuses. jizya is only taken from men who have reached puberty. Also, Non Mulims didn’t have to pay jizya on any of their property, livestock, produce or crops while Muslims did. So if you do the math, Muslims were paying more in most cases.
Robert, you don’t think good relations between muslims and non muslims exist in Islam?
I’m sorry, but that’s not true. Muslims men are allowed to have Christian and Jewish wives. That’s more than brotherhood and friendship, that’s family. Her family and his family become one family. Verse 3:64 in the Quaran is a clear invitation to Jews and Christians to be friends and brothers to the Muslims. Hurting a non muslim in anyway is forbidden and I’m sure you know that. One of the few Hadiths that I believe states the following: "One who kills a non-Muslim person under protection (dhimmi) will not even smell the fragrance of Paradise.". On a personal level, I have a lot of close friends who are Christians that I consider brothers.
You said that you don’t blame all Muslims for the actions of those 9/11 criminals, but this website gives a different impression totally.
I guess what I don’t understand is what are you standing against? Is it the way Muslims practice Islam, or is it Islam itself? If it’s the first one, then I agree with you. Many Muslims in the world don’t practice Islam the way they suppose to, and they’re in need of a reform badly. It breaks my heart to see what’s happening in places like Sudan and Afghanistan. If you against Islam as a religion, then we can talk about it as much as you like. The reason I suggested you e-mail me, is that I don’t visit this website very often, not because I have anything to hide. If you feel more comfortable this way, that’s fine by me.
Best regards,
Sami
My dear Sami,
"So what if Sayyid Qutb wrote this crap, does not make it right."
Indeed. I am not saying it is right. I am not a Muslim. It is not place to say what is Islam and what isn't. All I have done is note that Qutb's views are not unique to him, but represent a broad tradition within Islam. This presents an immense challenge to moderate Muslims.
"You asked how would I convince them that they’re wrong on Islamic grounds? That’s easy. I suggest they read the quran carefully and not to take it out of context."
What do you do, then, when a tafsir (like Ibn Kathir's, and others) says that Surat At-Tawba, and specifically the Verse of the Sword, abrogates every peace treaty in the Qur'an? Wahhabi scholars and others teach that jihad was revealed in 3 stages, and that At-Tawba was the last. This is based on its context -- on the fact that it was the last or almost the last sura revealed. How can you refute this? I am not saying it can't be done. I am asking you sincerely how to do it, because it is an important key to refuting radical theology and thus defusing the radical threat.
"However, that’s starting to change. It will take time, but I’m optimistic that it will happen."
Good. I hope so.
"With regards to the jizya, I believe you made quite few errors. One, jizya is not meant to humiliate anybody, what’s meant by the Arabic word 'sagiron' is willingly or unwillingly, and that goes for Muslims as well."
Here is just one of a great many examples, from the Shafi'i jurist an-Nawawi: "The infidel who wishes to pay his poll tax [jizya] must be treated with disdain by the collector: the collector remains seated and the infidel remains standing in front of him, his head bowed and his back bent. The infidel personally must place the money on the scales, while the collector holds him by the beard, and strikes him on both cheeks."
Sami, that's not humiliation? This is in line with the Qur'anic injunction that the People of the Book must pay the jizya "and feel themselves subdued" (Sura 9:29).
"Two, the jizya was not higher than the Zakat. It may look that way at the first glance but if you look deeper, you’ll find out that it’s the other way around. there is no jizya due from women or children while the Zakat was paid for all the members of the Muslim family regardless of age or sex some even go as far as paying zakat for unborn fetuses. jizya is only taken from men who have reached puberty. Also, Non Mulims didn’t have to pay jizya on any of their property, livestock, produce or crops while Muslims did. So if you do the math, Muslims were paying more in most cases."
Sami, this is historically false. Non-Muslims didn't have to pay jizya on their property, etc., but they had to pay kharaj. This was double what Muslims had to pay. "It is lawful to require twice as much of a dhimmi [a Christian, Jewish, or other non-Muslim subject in an Islamic state] as of a Muslim." (Hedaya, I.vii.)
"Robert, you don’t think good relations between muslims and non muslims exist in Islam?"
Of course they do. But that doesn't change the realities of Sharia provisions for non-Muslims. Good relations existed between slaves and masters in the old American South, too.
"I’m sorry, but that’s not true. Muslims men are allowed to have Christian and Jewish wives."
Why aren't Muslim women allowed to marry Christian or Jewish men? That is a clear example that Islam does not consider Christians and Jews to be equal in dignity to Muslims.
"You said that you don’t blame all Muslims for the actions of those 9/11 criminals, but this website gives a different impression totally."
Please specify where and when I have said anything of that kind.
"I guess what I don’t understand is what are you standing against?"
Jihad ideology is a threat to the peace and human rights of non-Muslims as well as Muslims worldwide. If it is not confronted and resisted, it will prevail.
"Is it the way Muslims practice Islam, or is it Islam itself?"
Neither one. It is violent jihad.
"Many Muslims in the world don’t practice Islam the way they suppose to, and they’re in need of a reform badly."
Indeed.
Cordially,
Robert Spencer
Dear Robert,
You’re not against Muslims or Islam. You’re kidding right? “Some people think the Islam is a peaceful religion but in fact it’s not” aren’t those your own words? In all the messages I read on your web site, I didn’t read one intelligent post, it’s all about profanities directed toward all Muslims, Islam and Prophet Mohammad. No matter how offensive or tasteless those remarks are, you keep posting them and not commenting on any of them, except of course the ones that try to defend Muslims. I read a message posted by some pig calling all Muslims homosexuals and child rapists and you allowed it to be posted when you specifically stated that all offensive posts would be deleted. That leads anybody to believe that you don’t think it is offensive. I can give hundreds of examples. Now you won’t meet a more moderate Muslim than me, and the more stuff I read in your website the more rage I felt. You’re doing nothing but provoking Muslims (moderates too), felling common people with hate (not awareness, HATE). You know what else you’re doing? You’re giving Muslim extremist all the ammo they need to shut moderates up by simply saying, “look who you think is innocent, people attacking your religion and insulting your prophet”. So if you think you’re helping the war on terrorism, you’re mistaken, you’re only increasing the number of terrorists.
“They had to pay kharaj. This was double what Muslims had to pay”
Don’t mislead your readers Mr. Spencer; Kharaj was a state decision from the ummay dynasty, which led to a revolt latter. It has nothing to do with Islam.
“Of course they do. But that doesn't change the realities of Sharia provisions”
What provisions?
“And dispute ye not with the People of the Book, except with means better (than mere disputation), unless it be with those of them who inflict wrong (and injury): but say, "We believe in the revelation which has come down to us and in that which came down to you; Our Allah and your Allah is one; and it is to Him we bow (in Islam)." Quran.
“Invite (all) to the Way of thy Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching; and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious: for thy Lord knoweth best, who have strayed from His Path, and who receive guidance” Quran.
The one who kills a dhimmi without right he will not smell the fragrance of Paradise even if its smell was forty years travelling distance" Prophet saying
"Surely, whoever oppresses a person under covenant (dhimmi) or imposes upon him more than he can afford and humiliates him or takes anything from him without his consent I will challenge him (i.e. the oppressor) on the day of judgment." Prophet saying
Those are the sharia provisions that I was taught. I don’t care what Al Nawawi said, he’s wrong and I hope god will forgive him for such an absurd statement.
You want to talk History Robert? Lets do that. Answer me this question and be honest. Did minorities fare better in Christian Europe than in the Islamic countries all through history? Is paying a tax worse than the inquisition or the holocaust? Let’s take a look at some Christian publication, shall we:
"Though the Greeks were numerically superior to the Turks in all the European provinces of the empire, the religious toleration thus granted them, and the protection of life and property they enjoyed, soon reconciled them to prefer the domination of the Sultan to that of any Christian power. The treatment of their Christian subjects by the Ottoman emperors-at least for two centuries after their conquest of Greece-exhibits a toleration such as was at that time quite unknown in the rest of Europe. The Calvinists of Hungary and Transylvania, and the Unitarians of the latter country, long preferred to submit to the Turks rather than fall into the hands of the fanatical house of Hapsburg; and the Protestants of Silesia looked with longing eyes towards Turkey " T. W. Arnold (Christian missionary).
“Islam has historically been the most tolerant of the three monotheistic religions" (professor Edward said god rest his soul)
You’re saying you’re not against Islam or Muslims –assuming that’s true-. You’re against violent Jihad. Great, that makes the two of us. Waging religious wars for no reason is not acceptable in Islam or in any other religion I know.
The biggest challenge we have is to convince those radical Muslims that what their doing isn’t allowed in Islam and it doesn’t serve their religion. It can be done in many ways. First, I don’t know of any verse in the quaran that cancel another. The quaran in perfect and should be taken as a whole. According to ulema, when more than one verse deal with the same subject, the unconditional verses serve as guideline only, and they’re always tied to the conditional verses to provide the details. So, as the matter of fact, the verses that tell Muslims no to transgress provide the ground rules of the verses in Al Tawba chapter.
Second, Ibn Kathir failed to mention that before prophet Mohammad went to war with both the Persians and the Romans, he sent them messengers to invite them to consider learning about Islam and allowing Muslims to preach Islam in their land. The Persians killed the Muslim messenger, and the Romans refused. So war wasn’t the first option. I don’t see this happening in this day and age. There are more than 600 Mosques in America, thousands more in Europe. I don’t know of any country that forbids Muslims from preaching their religion, so Jihad shouldn’t be even considered.
Third, rational people can’t argue with results and numbers. India was under the Muslims rule for hundreds of years, what’s the result? India today is more than 85% non-Muslims, and many Indians feel nothing but hate and resentment toward Islam. On the other hand, no Muslim army ever reached Indonesia, Islam reached there through traders and preachers, the result: Indonesia has the biggest Muslim population in the world. Same example can be used for countries like Nigeria and Singapore.
Robert, let’s be frank. Do you honestly believe that America being a non-Muslim nation is what’s causing terrorism and anti American sentiment in the Muslim World?
Don’t you think our foreign policy has a lot to do with it? Our total support for Israel although they’re violating the human rights of the Palestine as well as the international law against colonization. Our president keeping a straight face when he called Sharon (a.k.a the bulldozer) a man of peace on national T.V. Providing Israel with F-16’s and Apache helicopters which are used on Palestinians everyday. Making all kinds of movies that always show Arabs and Muslims as evil people. The sanctions that we imposed on the Iraqi people for 12 years, which was responsible for the death of millions of children? Those are the real reasons for terrorism and anti-west attitude not because Muslims want to dominate the world. I never heard any Muslim calling for jihad against China or Denmark or Sweden or Thailand etc. If you’re theories were correct, muslims would be waging war against nations that don’t believe in god first and then turn toward the people of the book, but that’s not happening.
My dear Sami,
"You’re not against Muslims or Islam. You’re kidding right?"
No.
"'Some people think the Islam is a peaceful religion but in fact it’s not' aren’t those your own words?"
This is simply a fact. Islam is the only religion with a developed doctrine, theology, and law mandating warfare against unbelievers. Cf. Qur'an 9:29, Sahih Muslim 4294, Umdat al-Salik o9.8, etc. To point this out is not to be "against" Muslims. It is simply to state a fact. Cf. also Ibn Khaldun: "In the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the [Muslim] mission and [the obligation to] convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force." From his Muqaddimah.
"I read a message posted by some pig calling all Muslims homosexuals and child rapists and you allowed it to be posted when you specifically stated that all offensive posts would be deleted."
I missed that one. I can't read all the posts. Please point out to me where it is and I will delete it. I have deleted many posts using similar language and calling for nuking Mecca, etc. Just this morning I deleted one referring to "diaper-heads" and emailed the poster that he would be banned if he kept it up. Your monitoring of the site is evidently selective.
"That leads anybody to believe that you don’t think it is offensive."
Nope. It says "MAY be deleted." I never said that all the posts that remain up I find inoffensive. If that were true, yours would not remain.
"I can give hundreds of examples."
Go ahead. If they use foul language or talk about ALL Muslims, I'll delete them.
"So if you think you’re helping the war on terrorism, you’re mistaken, you’re only increasing the number of terrorists."
Rubbish. You are trying to silence someone who is pointing out terrorist activities by saying that to do so creates terrorism. I don't buy it. That is as hollow an argument as the one that goes, "Don't respond to terrorism. It'll only provoke the terrorists." But if I don't respond, they will certainly win. So I'll take my chances.
"Don’t mislead your readers Mr. Spencer; Kharaj was a state decision from the ummay dynasty, which led to a revolt latter. It has nothing to do with Islam."
I notice you do not respond to my quotation from The Hedaya.
"What provisions?"
As quoted above.
"I don’t care what Al Nawawi said, he’s wrong and I hope god will forgive him for such an absurd statement."
I hope so too. Unfortunately, he was not singular in this; many other Muslim jurists said the same.
"You want to talk History Robert? Lets do that. Answer me this question and be honest. Did minorities fare better in Christian Europe than in the Islamic countries all through history? Is paying a tax worse than the inquisition or the holocaust?"
The tax wasn't all. According to the Shafi'i school, dhimmis "are distinguished from Muslims in dress; ... are not greeted with 'as-Salamu alaykum'; must keep to the side of the street; may not build higher than or as high as the Muslims' buildings;...are forbidden to openly display wine or pork, ... recite the Torah or Evangel aloud, or make public display of their funerals or holidays; are forbidden to build new churches" (Umdat al-Salik o11.5). All that is hardly tolerance and equality of rights.
You quote Edward Said? Hardly an objective historian.
Anyway, whatever happened in history, what chiefly concerns me is that radical Muslims want to impose Sharia today, including dhimmi laws. I oppose them.
"You’re saying you’re not against Islam or Muslims –assuming that’s true-. You’re against violent Jihad. Great, that makes the two of us."
I'm happy to welcome you to the struggle.
"Waging religious wars for no reason is not acceptable in Islam or in any other religion I know."
Indeed. Islam states a very good reason: to establish the hegemony of Sharia. As Maududi, Qutb and others argue, no one has a right to govern a state by any law other than Sharia, and Muslims must fight against such governments.
"The biggest challenge we have is to convince those radical Muslims that what their doing isn’t allowed in Islam and it doesn’t serve their religion. It can be done in many ways. First, I don’t know of any verse in the quaran that cancel another. The quaran in perfect and should be taken as a whole."
What about Qur'an 2:106, and the doctrine of abrogation (naskh) that flows from it?
"I don’t know of any country that forbids Muslims from preaching their religion, so Jihad shouldn’t be even considered."
Great. But it is being considered. What will you say to those who are considering it to convince them that they're wrong?
"Robert, let’s be frank. Do you honestly believe that America being a non-Muslim nation is what’s causing terrorism and anti American sentiment in the Muslim World?"
No.
"Don’t you think our foreign policy has a lot to do with it?"
No. Our foreign policy doesn't explain all the jihads that were waged according to the same Islamic principles long before there was an American foreign policy.
"I never heard any Muslim calling for jihad against China or Denmark or Sweden or Thailand"
Watch out. It's happening in Thailand.
"If you’re theories were correct, muslims would be waging war against nations that don’t believe in god first and then turn toward the people of the book, but that’s not happening."
No doubt radical Muslim hatred of American policies is a contributing factor. But it is not the root cause. Otherwise today's jihads in Nigeria, Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand, Kashmir etc. would have no purpose. What do they have to do with Israel?
Cordially,
Robert Spencer
Part me for butting into this dormant thread but as long as you have revived it...
I have spent lots of time in China but I don't know if Muslims are calling for violent jihad there or not because it is a COMMUNIST COUNTRY EINSTEIN. However, I have wondered about the Muslims of China. China seems to have coopted their Muslims but you never know what is simmering beneath the surface. Anyone out there have the straight dope? I know you can't believe the Chinese, so is there an objective source for this, commrades?