I have expressed skepticism about the compatibility of Islam and democracy on many occasions.
Now Azzam Tamimi, a collaborator with John Esposito whom Martin Kramer has identified as a "Hamas extremist," expresses the same misgivings from the opposite side. From The New Nation of Bangladesh, with thanks to Anthony:
Islam is not being challenged by democracy, it is liberal democracy that is today challenged by Islam. It is not Islam that needs reforming, it is democracy that needs urgent attention to repair the severe damage caused by the liberal democratic states in America and Europe.
Tamimi also takes Khaled Abou El Fadl, whose own "moderation" I discuss in Onward Muslim Soldiers, to task for daring to suggest that the commands of the Qur'an and the Prophet be revised. This is a problem I have identified many times (and at length in Islam Unveiled) that Muslim reformers face: when they challenge Islamic principles, their Islamic loyalty is challenged in turn by hardliners. Thus their reform attempts are essentially discredited before those who identify themselves as Muslims but are relatively uninformed. This makes the prospects for Islamic reform — as again I have pointed out many times — exceedingly dim.
Tamimi says of El Fadl:
He gives an example how Shari'ah may be re-interpreted so as to conform to the values he believes to be absolute and universal. For example, El Fadl would like to abrogate the Qur'anic rule (Al-Ma'idah, 5:38) concerning the penalty for theft El Fadl, because he thinks it is inhumane and unjust even if his view is contrary to the understanding and practice of the Prophet, Sall-Allahu alayhi wa sallam, himself and of his Companions and the scholars of Islam through the ages.
Tamimi further takes a shot at those who, like the increasingly shrill Islamic apologist Stephen Schwartz, blame all the troubles of Islam on the "Wahhabis" -- another position that I have shown to be wanting from the standpoint of Islamic history and theology.
Betraying a political stance, El Fadl does not hide his disdain and contempt for the 'Wahhabis' and what he calls the 'fundamentalists'. Both terms have become tools in the anti-Islamic propaganda to attack a broad spectrum of people, including some of the most respectable personalities in the Muslim world. Bandying about such labels only makes his work less likely to be appreciated by Muslim readers, though it may be music to the ears of people on the other side of the divide.
Unless and until self-proclaimed Muslim moderates face and deal somehow with the fact that Tamimi is right -- that their use of such labels, and of such argumentation as he criticizes above from El Fadl, will indeed make their works "less likely to be appreciated by Muslim readers" -- they will not make any significant headway in the Muslim world.
Does anybody have any books by Muslim "reformists" they would like to recommend? And I notice that if you remove the Tariq Ramadan taqiyya-Islamist type, there aren't that many real ones left. People like Bassam Tibi spring to mind.
The only reason islam has not and it is not being exposed for what it is ,is our liberal media,liberal politicians,liberal organizations
that scream "racism" and "islamophobia"each time someone wants to challenge islam....
What we have here,in this particular article,is a clear islamic challenge of the LIBERAL democracies of the west.
If we could somehow bring this article to the attention of the media ,the liberals would finally realize that they will be the first targets of islam,when the time comes.
Adela, I almost entirely agree except for the possibility that any democracy is viewed as 'liberal' by these people. Of course the only solution in their eyes being the collapse/destruction of democracy, anywhere and everywhere.
Yeah, Gary, I agree that democracy in any form would be difficult, since laws made by people are not valid, only laws derived from the Koran (and thus from Allah).
Ali Dashti, Irshad Manji, author of "The Trouble With Islam," would like to see reformation rather than destruction. She seems to be genuine about it, and as a lesbian, she has a lot of reasons to want reform.
Adela, unfortunately, the collectivists of all types all around the world are in substantive agreement; "Bring American down" is their goal, and until it is achieved, they will continue with a common, if tenuous, alliance. The Collective will first try to bring us down; if that succeeds, then Islam will separate itself from its former friends and allies such as the Liberals, and move on to the next step, which will be to destroy them too, until Islam is "the last man standing."
Cubed nails it.
Islam, democracy and compatibility
Does anybody know about the ant climbing the elephants leg with the intent of rape
Ofcourse that democracy in any way ,shape or form is incompatible with islam,but this Azam Tamimi guy talks specifically about LIBERAL democracy,and this is something that we should try to somehow use to get liberals` attention.
Liberals are the ones that control the media and they are the ones that can set the tone of the public opinion IN FAVOUR or AGAINST islam.
This is something that can be used to set the homosexual community against islam ,the feminist community against islam,the infamous ACLU against islam,the liberal politicians against islam,the liberal media against islam,etc.
I know that Robert Spencer has had a number of intellectual run-ins with Stephen Schwartz and he belittles him above but whether one believes Islam is ultimately reformable or not, Schwartz has been providing an invaluable service in calling attention to the particularly rabid strain of Islam represented by Wahhabism and its chief exponent, the House of Saud. Wahhabism remains the greatest long-term threat to the West not only because it is virulently inimical to our values and culture, but because it is well-funded by the Saudis and entrenched as the premier strain of Islam in mosques and madrassas in Europe and the US.
Ali Dashti:
I've not read Bassam Tibi, but fully agree with Cubed that Irshad Manji is absolutely genuine and expect there may be a number of others like her.
Unfortunately, while I prefer to think that history will prove me wrong, I expect some time down the road, Irshad and other like-minded Muslims will be compelled to throw in the towel because Islam is so fundamentally flawed (by its xenophobia and triumphalism) that it is beyond reform.
Dear Mr Spencer:
In the oft debates you have with muslims on islam, do you ever get the feeling of the futility of engaging with debaters, who are in essence, dishonest to the core.
I sometimes feel that seeking to destroy an ideology as insane, non-sensesical, and irrational as islam, by using truth and logic, is going to fail. As an example, a scientific theory that has some rationality behind it, can be deposed by using logic or experiment. If however the theory was totally non-sensesical, it is futile to use the scientific method to depose it. It will not work, and in many instances, may actually give credence to it among the gullible. In that sense, such debates enhance the visibilty of islam, which is the goal of islamists.
We are fighting an ideology that is irrational in the extreme, with rationality and logic.
I look forward to your views on the subject.
DP111
I live in London and have followed your posts here and on LGF for quite awhile. Does Susan B have your email address and can I drop you a line?
#Ali Dashti
Refomist Islam is a very vague term and needs to be given a more full explaination - of what you personaly see as reformist islam.
reformist islam can include persons such as Afgani and Rasid Rida!
for reformist islam in the modern world, you can tab anyone from Usama bin-Laden to Saad Eddin Ibrahim!
if what you want to know is te most liberal view of islam today then that is possible!
or even the conservative, normative or radical view.
One of the reasons Islamo-Fascists are so strong and growing in numbers is due to America's foreign policy. Who armed and funded the Mujahideen in Aghanistan, in Bosnia and Kosovo? America. Who props up Saudi Arabia, even goes to war on their account?America. Who is giving billions to Eygpt,Indonesia,Pakistan and other Muslim American hating countries? The growing rift between America and Europe is playing right into Al Quaeda's hands.AMERICA MUST STOP FUNDING
THESE COUNTRIES WHOSE OPENLY DECLARED AIM IS TO
DESTROY HER! You, the people of America must lobby
against funding Global Terrorism and helping to pay for the bombs that are going to be used against you, against all Western Democracies.
As for the excuses of 'poor persecuted Muslims' that's bullshit. Do you see Armenians,East Timorese, Assyrian Christians, Greeks, Bulgarians exploding themselves despite being the victims of most horrendous MUSLIM MASSACRES!
Amazing. Every once in a while, the taqiyya is set aside and a Muslim actually writes what they really believe. I love this bit:
"This publication does not serve the cause of democracy in the Muslim lands as it will be seen by the Muslims as another attempt to undermine Islam. It is as if they have to pay a price for democracy with their own faith and culture or their freedom and dignity as is happening to the peoples of Afghanistan and Iraq. If democracy is compatible with Islam, which is what most Muslims today believe, they need not be told they have to abandon a doctrine or a principle of their faith in order to be 'democratic'."
Wow. This guy really does see things clearly. This is exactly what we in the West are saying - you have to give up some your fanatical ideology if you want to join our civilization. If you do not want to give up parts of Islam and want to fight it out with us, prepare to meet your 72 white raisins. I hope you enjoy eating them.
The topic of democracy is one that is particularly fraught with pitfalls when discussing it with Muslims. A Muslim can honestly say that they support democracy, provided the discussion is narrowed to encompass only the electoral process for choosing leaders. The standard Muslim retort to the charge that Islam is incompatible with democracy is that the tribal shura mechanism is "democratic".
It is quite another matter however when the democratic process is used to legislate, as in the original Greek and Roman systems upon which modern democratic systems are modeled. It is the use of democracy to legislate that is anathema to Islam. In this regard, democracy is fundamentally incompatible with shariah.
Having elections for leaders by using popular democratic voting systems does not make a democracy. Even a truly clean democratic election may do nothing more than install a fascist despot. A democratic society is one in which sovereignty is vested in the people and in which self rule is operationalized through democratic public choice mechanisms in matters of legislation, not just choice of leadership.
'IT IS THE NATURE OF ISLAM TO DOMINATE, NOT TO BE DOMINATED, TO IMPOSE ITS POWERS TO THE ENTIRE PLANET.'
Shaik Hassan al;Banna, founder, Muslim Brotherhood.
'ISLAM IS NOT CHRISTIANITY...ISLAM IS THE RELIGION OF AGITATION,REVOLUTION,BLOOD, LIBERATION AND MARTYRDOM.'
Shaik Morteza Motahari
'ISLAM SAYS ; WHATEVER GOOD THERE IS EXISTS THANKS TO THE SWORD AND SHADOW OF THE SWORD! PEOPLE CANNOT BE MADE OBEDIENT EXCEPT WITH THE SWORD.THE SWORD IS THE KEY TO PARADISE, WHICH CAN ONLY BE OPENED TO HOLY WARRIORS!'
Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini
...'WHEN I HEAR AN IRANIAN LEADER DESCRIBED AS A MODERATE, IT REMINDS ME OF THE DEFINITION THAT AN IRANIAN MODERATE "IS A MULLAH THAT HAS RUN OUT OF AMMUNUTION."
Edward Badaloto, Director of Counterterrorism & Security Professionals.
Nathan:
How do you propose to "destroy" Islam?
What penalties do you suggest state authorities impose upon its practice?
Will these penalties be in effect for anyone who plots violence against the US, or simply for anyone who reads the Qur'an and prays Muslim prayers?
Cordially,
Robert Spencer
Esposito's close ties to Azam Tamimi(a frequent guest, incidentally, on the BBC, where he is treated with deference) need to be examined. For just a few weeks ago Tamimi, who has collaborated with Esposito in the past, told an English television interviewer that he, Tamimi, would be delighted to become a suicide bomber himself. Martin Kramer called for Esposito to publicly distance himself from Tamimi; this Esposito has so far failed to do.
Esposito's history of presenting a grossly sanitized version of Islam and of Islamic history, his minimizing of "Jihad" and his failure even to address the treatment of non-Muslims under Muslim rule, his receipt of Arab millions for his Center for Muslim-Christian --or is it Christian-Muslim -- Understanding, his ties to such men as Al-Faruqi (he of the "Islamic Knowlege" undertaking) and now to Tamimi, with whom he has collaborated, his highly skewed "studies" and coffee-table books (with pretty pictures of mosques, and a handful of Islamic artifacts, to provide local color that diverts attention from the absence of analysis of Qur'an, hadith and sira), his attacks on anyone wand everyone, beginning with Bernard Lewis, who might find his efforts wanting, his quick rewriting of some passages in earlier editions of his works to hide his own glaring howlers and omissions, his reference to the "so-called terrorists" of 9/11, his reply, on an Islamic website, to an inquiry about the effects of the 9/11 attack on the rate of Western conversion to Islam, in which he wrote that he was "pleasantly surprised" to discover that that rate had not gone down ("surprised" yes, but why "pleasantly"?), all of this paints a picture that many Infidels will find, at the least disturbing, and some will find downright sinister.
That the Administration at Georgetown, that the Georgetown alumni, have not yet realized what damage an institutional connection between Esposito's "Center" and Georgetown is doing to the the image, and name, of the latter, is a pity. When the Administration, and other faculty, perhaps prompted by expressions of alumni displeasure, do come to their senses, one hopes that all institutional ties between Georgetown and Esposito's Center, which benefits so much from the legitimacy confeered by the name "Georgetown," will be severed.
Perhaps a good place to begin is for the President and Trustees and alumni of Georgetown to educate themselves by reading, and assimilating, the articles on Islam by a real scholar at Georgetown -- Professor James V. Schall, S. J.
Professor Schall is neither an Arab hireling, nor an apologist for Islam, nor a sycophantic supporter of Muslim causes, nor a recipient of Arab Muslim support, and lionizing. For James V. Schall, S. J. answers to a Higher Authority, and has no truck with an Arab tycoon in Beirut, a Hamas-supporter in London, or a gaggle of Saudi princelings, all daggers-and-dishdashas, with their sneers of cold command, performing some celebratory dance in Riyadh and Jeddah.
Robert
Nathan:
How do you propose to "destroy" Islam?
That Question was a bit below the belt when the obvious answer is taboo on this site
Charles Martel
I have read your posts here and at LGF with interest. Is Susan B the same person who was offered an academic post by Andrew Bostom because of her knowledge of islam?
Are there any reasons why we cannot communicate via JW/DW or on LGF?
cubed, ali dashti, waterdragon,
I have misgivings about Irshad Manji, the darling of the PC and Left intelligentsia.
The interesting thing about Irshad Manji is, when pressed as to why she does not leave Islam, considering all she knows of Islam, replies in an apologetic and devious way, that there are many good things in Islam and she hopes for a more peaceful interpretation of the Koran or a Reformation. On both counts, she well knows that this is not possible. As long as she continues to define herself as a Muslim, ipso facto, she believes that mohammed is the messenger of allah and is the role model for mankind. How on earth anyone can honestly regard mohammed as a role model for mankind, beats me.
A similar argument holds for Stephen Schwartz. To me there is a lurking suspicion that this is all part of the war. Deception and disinformation have always been part of a major war and both Schwartz and Manji are practising it. In the last two years there has been a hue and cry in the West, trying to find the Moderate Muslims (MM). This desire to find MM is crucial to the continuation of multi-culturalism. Without MM, the whole project dies. The MSM thus gives these two individuals, far greater space then honest ex-Muslims such as Ali Sena and Ibn Warraq.
And so here they are, Schwartz and Manji, for their own reasons, willing to satisfy the panic search for MM. But these two do it for their own reasons. As confessed Muslims, they realise that the Muslim project in the West is at a dangerous pass. No MM and the PC multi-culti LLL media will begin to come to conclusions that endanger the ummah in the West. So the multi-culti crowd and the Ummah need each other for their own particular projects. However, given the exponential growth of the Ummah in the West, all it requires is for Manji, Schwartz and others who may follow them, to lull the West for another 30 years or so. By then it will be too late, according to their way of thinking, for anyone to do anything about it.
I think we would be far better relying on Ali Sena of Faithfreedom.org, when he states that Islam cannot be reformed. He probably has far more knowledge and understanding of Islam then Manji. Honesty is the one single attribute that seems to be missing from the writings of Manji and Schwartz. It is what damns them.
adela:If we could somehow bring this article to the attention of the media, the liberals would finally realize that they will be the first targets of islam,when the time comes.
I remember all those liberals both, Iranians and Westerners, who were gushing at the prospect of a genuine liberal democracy in Iran after the fall of the Shah. I never shared their sentiment and warned them at the time, that Khomeini would usher in the Dark Ages. And so it was. The first victims of the revolution were those same liberal students who were lined up and shot.
Nathan
Good post.
The problem still remains - how to destroy islam.
Logic and rationality work when dealing with a semi-rational ideology, theory or hypothesis. It does nothing to an ideology that is irrational and without sense whatever. Islamic ideology is immune to rational criticism, as a virus is to anti-biotics.
Islam seems to appeal to the emotional part of the mind - in fact the basest part of it, maybe the id, as islam seems to have a strong component of bestial sexuality to it. We need to devise an agent that targets that.
Abrogate Abrogate
While we are the subject I can think of a few more things which could be 'Abrogated' from the Quran - but then would it still be called Islam?
Reformist though should have our backing.