Not long ago I replied ([1] here and [2] here) to two National Review pieces by the Turkish writer Mustafa Akyol, showing how they were inadequate to refute the radical Islamic understanding of jihad, which so desperately needs refuting. Now Andrew Bostom marshals an impressive array of evidence from Islamic sources and respected pre-Edward Said scholars to show that those mujahedin who behead captives are acting entirely in accord with Islamic norms.

This is the material that must be refuted by any moderate if he really intends to create a form of Islam that is not given to violence and fanaticism. Bostom's article is also valuable for showing the incredible disingenuousness of world-renowned scholar Bernard Lewis in misleading the public about the Islamic character of these actions.

From [3] FrontPage:

The spectacle of jihad terrorism on display in Beslan, Russia, culminating September 3, 2004, with the murder of at least 350 innocent Russian non-combatants, including 156 children - highlights an ongoing debate about the links between such bestial acts, and the core theological and juridical teachings of Islamic jihad.

In two recent articles, the latter responding to a rebuttal by Andrew McCarthy, based largely on an earlier essay of my own, Mustafa Akyol has attempted to demonstrate that the killing of prisoners of war and non-combatants violates “Islamic principles”. Despite Mr. Akyol’s interesting discussion and noble intentions, his omission of voluminous evidence amounts to yet more stifling apologetics. Akyol’s arguments, which ignore a vast array of writings, Muslim and non-Muslim alike, regarding Islamic sacred texts, law, and history, undermine his own stated goal of reform. The crux of Mr. Akyol’s thesis, is reiterated at the outset:

“…my position — that killing noncombatants or captives is against Islamic principles — still holds.”

Robert Spencer has posted a very lucid summary analysis of the flaws in Akyol’s essays, focusing on sacred texts from the Koran and hadith. I will review some of the enormous amount of evidence indicating that Akyol’s thesis is untenable when one studies the uniquely Islamic institution of jihad war from an historical perspective, based on both primary and secondary sources.

Akyol begins with a novel example of jihad, as “…an intellectual endeavor against atheism…”, before acknowledging that there is “also [emphasis added] military jihad in the Koran”, which we nevertheless need to “redefine”. A specific Koranic source for this non-military campaign against atheism is not provided, nor, importantly, does Akyol discuss what follows if the non-military jihad fails to persuade the atheist. Regardless, Akyol should not have ignored an unequivocal Koranic verse-Q.9:5, which states that all infidels (“atheists” certainly included), other than “People of the Book” (the latter, i.e, Jews and Christians, are referred to in Q.9:29, a verse also omitted by Akyol), must accept the call to Islam, or face the sword. Indeed, Akyol omits any discussion of Sura (chapter) 9, which Richard Bell, in his authoritative1937 translation and exegesis of the Koran, demonstrates “…is a chapter of war proclamations…”, verses Q.9.29 to Q.9-35, for example, being

“…in effect a proclamation of war against Jews and Christians, and probably belong to the year IX [9-years after the Hijra] when an expedition was designed for the North which would involve war with Christians and possibly also with Jews.” 1

Moreover in classical exegesis, sura 9, both its individual verses, and as an overall chapter, abrogates the pacific Koranic verses like those Akyol cites in his article section subtitled, Discovering the Good Unbelievers. Ibn Warraq summarizes the Muslim concept of abrogation:

“Contradictions do abound in the Koran, and the early Muslims were perfectly well aware of them; indeed they devised the science of abrogation to deal with them. It is a very convenient doctrine that, as one Christian unkindly put it, ‘fell in with that law of expediency which appears to be the salient feature in Muhammad’s prophetic career’. According to this doctrine, certain passages of the Koran are abrogated by verses revealed afterward, with a different or contrary meaning. This was supposedly taught by Muhammad himself, at Sura 2, verse 105: 'Whatever verses we cancel or cause you to forget, we bring a better or its like.' …Now we can see how useful and convenient the doctrine of abrogation is in bailing scholars out of difficulties- though, of course, it does pose problems for apologists of Islam, since all the passages preaching tolerance are found in Meccan (i.e., early suras), and all the passages recommending killing, decapitating and maiming, the so-called Sword Verses are Medinan (i.e., later); ‘tolerance’ has been abrogated by ‘intolerance’. For , the famous Sword verse, Sura 9, verse 5, 'Slay the idolators wherever you find them,' is claimed to have canceled 124 verses that promote tolerance and patience.” 2

Writing over six decades ago, Arthur Jeffery belittled as “the sheerest sophistry” attempts

“..made in some circles in modern days to explain away all the Prophet’s warlike expeditions as defensive wars or to interpret the doctrine of Jihad as merely a bloodless striving in missionary zeal for the spread of Islam…The early Arabic sources quite plainly and frankly describe the expeditions as military expeditions, and it would never have occurred to anyone at that day to interpret them as anything else…To the folk of his day there would thus be nothing strange in Muhammad, as the head of the community of those who served Allah, taking the sword to extend the kingdom of Allah, and taking measures to insure the subjection of all who lived within the borders of what he made the kingdom of Allah...[Muhammad] did at least propose that all Arabia should be the land of Allah and planned vigorous measures to insure that within its borders the religion of Allah should be supreme. Communities of the People of the Book [Book= Bible; thus referring primarily to Jews and Christians] might remain within the land, but they must be in subjection….deriving their rights from the supreme Muslim community, not from any recognized rights of their own. As the Arabs did not accept this without struggle, it had to be forced on them, and that meant war. But war in the cause of Allah is Holy War, and so even in the Prophet’s lifetime we have the question of Jihad…” 3

Within several centuries of Muhammad’s death, Muslim theologians and jurists, Sunni (including all four main schools of jurisprudence), Shi’ite, and Sufi (both Sunni and Shi’ite), constructed from Koranic verses, the hadith collections, and the sacralized biographies (sira) of Muhammad, a remarkably consistent body of law describing jihad war as a permanent institution to Islamize the known world. Ibn Khaldun (d. 1406), jurist (Maliki), renowned philosopher, historian, and sociologist, summarized these consensus opinions from five centuries of prior Muslim jurisprudence with regard to the uniquely Islamic institution of jihad war:

“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... The other religious groups did not have a universal mission, and the holy war was not a religious duty for them, save only for purposes of defense... Islam is under obligation to gain power over other nations.” 4

There is much more to this much-needed article. Read it all.