This is the state of the free press today: if you write a book that dares to suggest that Islam and the theology and ideology of jihad might have something to do with today's terrorism (which, of course, the terrorists themselves insist), the New York Times and the lemmings that follow in its wake will ignore you, unless they are planning a feature on "Islamophobia." So will National Review, at least for now.
Why will they ignore you? Because even to have a public debate with you will be to grant legitimacy to your perspective, and make them have to answer it. Since it is true, they can't answer it, so instead they resort to attempting to delegitimize it by treating it as if it were beneath notice and unworthy of discussion.
This is an extraordinarily irresponsible stance for the New Duranty Times to take. Why? Because it cuts the ground out from under the moderate Muslims they profess to be supporting. By forbidding discussion of the violence in the Qur'an and Muhammad's career, they prevent the moderate Muslims they support from coming to grips with the enormous challenge that the global jihadists have presented to them. The jihadists make recruits daily by referring to Qur'an and Hadith; but the moderates have no convincing response that will keep Muslims from becoming radicalized. And no one is pressing them to try to formulate such a response, because both left and right are pretending that the problem does not emanate from Islam's core texts.
So the entire moderate Muslim project today is a fruitless exercise in deception of others or self-deception, and the responsibility can be laid at the feet of every media type who has bought the line about "Islam is a religion of peace that has been hijacked by a tiny minority of extremists."
But we will never know why the Times is doing this -- because they will not discuss it. Instead, the Times is energetically boosting the Bright Young Muslim Thing Reza Aslan, whose shallow and distorted depiction of Islamic teachings I discussed here.
"The Jihad Is a Civil War, the West Only a Bystander," from the New Duranty Times, with thanks to all who sent this in:
For many in the West, the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center turned a page in world history. They signaled the onset of a monumental struggle between fundamentalist Islam and modern, secular democracy, what the Harvard scholar Samuel P. Huntington has called a "clash of civilizations."Not so, Reza Aslan argues in "No god but God." "What is taking place now in the Muslim world is an internal conflict between Muslims, not an external battle between Islam and the West," he writes. "The West is merely a bystander - an unwary yet complicit casualty of a rivalry that is raging in Islam over who will write the next chapter in its story."...
He's right that there is an internal conflict, and that the West is unwary.
Mr. Aslan is, in a certain sense, a fundamentalist. The Christian sense of the word is meaningless in Islam, of course, because Muslims believe that the Koran was dictated by God and, therefore, that its words are literally true. But like the puritanical Wahhabists of Saudi Arabia, whom he reviles, Mr. Aslan looks to the first Muslim community in Medina, established by Muhammad 1,400 years ago, as a model for reform today. His Medina, though, is a communal, egalitarian society dedicated to pluralism and tolerance. The problem with Islam, Mr. Aslan argues, is the clerical establishment that gained control over the interpretation of the Koran and the hadith: the anecdotes describing the words and deeds of Muhammad, passed on by his followers and their descendants. Less than two centuries after Muhammad's death in 632, there were some 700,000 hadith circulating throughout the Muslim world, "the great majority of which were unquestionably fabricated by individuals who sought to legitimize their own particular beliefs and practices by connecting them with the Prophet." The stoning of adulterous women, to take a notorious example, originated not in the Koran, but in the virulent misogyny of Umar, one of Muhammad's first converts and later the ruler of the caliphate, who simply claimed that this form of punishment had accidentally been left out of the Koran. Although women in the Medina community were given the right to inherit the property of their husbands and to keep their dowries as their own personal property, later scholars decided that the Koran, when instructing believers "not to pass on your wealth and property to the feeble-minded," had women and children in mind.One of Mr. Aslan's most important chapters deals with the centuries-long struggle between traditionalists and rationalists over the proper interpretation of the Koran. The outcome weighs heavy on the world today. The rationalists saw the Koran as both the word of God and a historical document whose meanings change through time. For the traditionalists, the Koran is fixed and eternal. Therefore, "what was appropriate for Muhammad's community in the seventh century C.E. must be appropriate for all Muslim communities to come, regardless of the circumstances."
The traditionalists won. The power to interpret the Koran came under the control of religious scholars, collectively known as the ulama, who ended the era of consensus and free reasoning that, up to the 10th century, had defined Koranic inquiry.
If this sounds like a remote quarrel, it is not. Mr. Aslan says it is now being played out again throughout the Muslim world. This, he argues, is the real jihad, not holy war against the West, but the internal struggle for Islam's soul, with reformers pitted against reactionaries in Tehran, Cairo, Damascus and Jakarta, as well as in Muslim communities in the West. "Like the reformations of the past, this will be a terrifying event," he writes. "However, out of the ashes of cataclysm, a new chapter in the story of Islam will emerge."
This has a heroic ring to it, but Mr. Aslan acknowledges that the outcome is in doubt. He places his hopes in the like-minded liberals who, he suggests, constitute Islam's silent majority. "The fact is that the vast majority of the more than one billion Muslims in the world readily accept the fundamental principals of democracy," he writes. Like the reformers in Iran, they are committed to "genuine Islamic values like pluralism, freedom, justice, human rights, and above all, democracy."
This may be, but Mr. Aslan, in his polemical conclusion, tends to assert rather than present evidence. His impassioned plea for an Islamic form of democracy, although moving, sounds sophistical. Religion and the state, in his view, cannot be separate. The very concept is alien to Islam. "At its most basic level, the Islamic state is a state run by Muslims for Muslims, in which the determination of values, the norms of behavior, and the formation of laws are influenced by Islamic morality," he writes. Yet somehow pluralism, human rights, equality of the sexes and religious tolerance would prevail, because, ultimately, these values already exist in Islam.
As Mr. Aslan acknowledges, Iran's halting steps toward a synthesis of Islam and democracy have been discouraging. The example of the Taliban casts a very dark shadow over the idea of an Islamic state. But the tide of history, Mr. Aslan insists, is moving in the right direction, sweeping Islam back, after 1,400 years, toward Medina.
Well, I have to give Mr. Aslan credit for novelty. Violence? Misogyny? Yes, he says, it's all there in Islam, but it's because the "traditionalists" got an early stranglehold on the interpretation of the Qur'an, and fabricated Hadith in support of their views. I don't doubt that there is a huge number of Muslims that accept democratic ideals, but the idea that these ideals are "genuinely Islamic" has a hollow ring to it. If the fiendish "traditionalists" really wrested control of the Qur'an and Sunnah from those who believed in the "true Islam" early in Muslim history, what happened to the latter group? It would seem that if the Qur'an really taught all these things (democracy, pluralism, equality for women, tolerance of non-Muslims), the "traditionalists" would not have been able to stamp them out altogether without forbidding people to read the Qur'an. But the Qur'an has been widely read throughout Islamic history -- indeed, lionized and memorized and held up as the Muslim's primary guide -- and yet there has never been, anywhere in the Islamic world, a tolerant, pluralistic democracy that respected non-Muslims as equals and upheld equality of rights for women. (Don't talk to me about Turkey, which established a democracy in the context of a war with Islam.)
Also, Aslan's evident belief that Muhammad's community in Medina was "a communal, egalitarian society dedicated to pluralism and tolerance" is laughably ahistorical. The Qur'an fourth sura (enjoining wife-beating, 4:34) and its ninth (enjoining perpetual warfare against Jews and Christians and their subjugation as inferiors under Islamic rule, 9:29) are both Medinan suras. It was while living in Medina that Muhammad massacred the Jewish Qurayza tribe, ordered the assassination of many of his opponents, and performed other acts of cruelty and barbarism. Does Reza Aslan not know all this? I know Pinch Sulzberger doesn't, but does young Reza just not know anything about Muhammad, or does he hope we don't know?
If he were a genuine Muslim reformer, he would speak honestly about the contents of the Qur'an and Muhammad's career, and not pretend they are something they manifestly are not.
But this is the sort of thing that gets you into the New York Times these days. For a corrective, watch for my forthcoming book The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam and the Crusades, which I sent off to the publisher (Regnery) Monday night. It is scheduled to be out August 1. Watch for updates on it here: it will not be reviewed in the New York Times.
"Mr. Aslan looks to the first Muslim community in Medina, established by Muhammad 1,400 years ago, as a model for reform today. His Medina, though, is a communal, egalitarian society dedicated to pluralism and tolerance."
So why chose Muhammad's Medina as a model, if it wasn't, in fact, "...a communal, egalitarian society dedictated to pluralism and tolerance."?
Just how stupid and gormless are some people anyway?
And if any place was, at its inception, genuinely trying to be a communal, egalitarian society dedicated to pluralism and tolerance, it was probably the modern State of Israel until the activities of the PLO and neighbouring Muslim states precipitated the current state of affairs.
Robert, you are a very patient man!
I couldn't read myself through more than half of this hogwash and I don't think anyone should give him the light of day.
These people are from another day and age and any form of discourse appears to be a waste of time.
See Ali Sina's site: I have yet to see one Muslim make a valid argument, or proof any relevance of this idiotic cult.
I want to see deportations au masse, I want their publications dumped in the garbage where they belong and I want the mosques shut, where they preach nothing but hatred.
They have no right to demand and we have no obligation to give, period. Let's make an end to it, sooner the better!
Book out on August 1st?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
Surely we'll have all been dirty nuked by then!
I have always found Mr. Huntington's phrase "a clash of civilizations" to be conceptually sloppy and intellectually misleading.
A clash of cultures would express what he implies more clearly, since "civilization" (especially subconsciously) implies that both sides are equivalent and behave in a 'civilized' manner.
While the word "culture" can include such antithetical concepts as a "culture of death and stagnation and anti-liberty and cruelty" clashing with a "culture of expansion and progress and freedom and life-affirmation".
The clash is undeniable.
Those who want a global theocratic alsolute tyranny based on 7th century patriarchal mindcontrol cannot live peacefully alongside anyone who disagrees with their dark vision of human potential.
So the war will be to the end of one or the other.
The sooner it is acknowledged, the safer the future will be.
And, by confronting it consciously, there will actually BE a future, and not a paralyzed past revolving around a ka'aba of dead dogma.
OT
Islamists in the White House
Is Grover Norquist an Islamist?
http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/451
http://www.citizensoldier.org/norquist.html
http://www.mediatransparency.org/people/grover_norquist.htm
Paul Sperry, author of the new book, Infiltration, in an interview calls Grover Norquist "an agent of influence for Islamists in Washington." When asked by FrontPageMag.com why a Republican anti-tax lobbyist should so passionately promote Islamist causes, Sperry implied that Norquist has converted to Islam: "He's marrying a Muslim, and when I asked Norquist if he himself has converted to Islam, he brushed the question off as too ‘personal.'" As Lawrence Auster comments on this exchange, "Clearly, if Norquist hadn't converted to Islam, or weren't in the process of doing so, he would simply have answered no."
Indeed, Norquist married Samah Alrayyes, a Palestinian Muslim, on April 2, 2005, and Islamic law limits a Muslim woman to marrying a man who is Muslim. This is not an abstract dictum but a very serious imperative, with many "honor" killings having resulted from a woman ignoring her family's wishes.
Alrayyes has radical Islamic credentials of her own; she served as communications director at the Islamic Free Market Institute, the Islamist organization Norquist helped found. Now, she is employed as a public affairs officer at the U.S. Agency for International Development – and so it appears that yet another Islamist finds employment in a branch of the U.S. government.
Norquist has for some years now been promoting Islamist organizations, including even the Council on American-Islamic Relations; for example, he spoke at CAIR's conference, "A Better America in a Better World" on October 5, 2004. Frank Gaffney has researched Norquist's ties to Islamists in his exhaustive, careful, and convincing study, "Agent of Influence" and concludes that Norquist is enabling "a political influence operation to advance the causes of radical Islamists, and targeted most particularly at the Bush Administration."
But if Norquist is indeed a convert to Islam, it could be that he is not just enabling the Islamist causes but is himself an Islamist. (April 14, 2005) Permalink
Agents of influence. Germ warfare...Norquist seems to fit the profile...
A lot of funny stuff going on the old US of A!
Mr. Spencer makes too many excellent points for me to single out for repetition and comment. And there’s little for me to add.
I still don’t get those who say Muslims can change their culture without coming to grips and taking responsibility for the short comings of their religion and current cultural practices. Recently, I read an insightful writer, Jack Wheeler, who points out how the Russians feel no regret for the carnage wrought by Communism and how that is keeping them from going forward. I quote Jack and ask: what if someone in the mainstream press wrote that way about Islam? It would read something like … http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/2005/05/no-apology-no-future.html
JasonP I had the misfortune of quoting Jack Wheeler to a friend.
Here was his response:
Jack Wheeler is a fruitcake. Among other things, he takes personal credit for the collapse of the Soviet Union. He also claimed knowledge of WMDs located in underground bunkers beneath Saddam's palaces. He predicted that oil field location equipment would be used to discover them. He also proudly claims to have been an active participant with Ollie North in the Iran-Contra fiasco
I went to high school with Jack Wheeler, whose real name is Jackson Wheeler. For old times'sake, he has put me on his email list for his ridiculous articles. After reading a few of them, where he made claims like the ones I mentioned, I now delete them on sight.
If you read his bio on his webpage, one can see that. His claims are incredible, and incredible claims require extraordinary proof.
Thanks for the warning about Mr. Wheeler. I don’t know much about him and haven’t formed much of an opinion. I did notice he was quite a self-promoter and that was disconcerting. In any case, the article I quoted was purely polemical and I thought he had made a good point. After all, anyone can write an editorial. However, I’ll take your advice and find out more before I trust him with factual information. High school? I’d ask you about your stories but this is not the appropriate venue.
Be careful JasonP. How do you know that 'Gaiour' is telling the truth? I am not saying that he isn't. Just don't go around believing everything people say so easily. Otherwise you might have "the misfortune of quoting" someone called 'Gaiour'. I mean, for all you know, I could calim that I am Jack Wheeler's mother and post things about him here.
Here is a suggestion however. Why don't you go to Jack Wheeler's site and ask or email him about this particular comment?
I am not saying anything against 'Gaiour' or anything for Jack Wheeler. All I am saying is to be careful. Maybe 'Gaiour' is just a muslim pretending to know Jack and saying bad things about him because some of Jack's assessments of islam are politically incorrect (i.e. factually correct).
As for me, I find that Jack advertises about himself a bit too much. But I do agree with some of his assesements however.
Point well taken, Informed Christian. Actually, after I wrote the above, I remember that Wheeler has a Ph.D. in philosophy with a specialty in Aristotle. What’s more important, I remember reading an article he wrote about Aristotle some years back and it was quite cogent (I’ve read my share of Aristotle). So Wheeler didn’t misrepresent his expertise there. I can’t speak about his political career or his adventures.
All in all, he wrote a damn good article that speaks to the problems we all can see in today’s Russia. And I have to give him credit for a point well-expressed and ask why few people (aside from our esteemed host) are raising similar concerns with the daunting challenge facing Islamic societies today. How can change occur if you don’t confront the deficiencies of your past?
"Like the reformations of the past, this will be a terrifying event," he writes.
Linda: It already IS a 'terrifying even't' which has been thrust upon the West.
"However, out of the ashes of cataclysm, a new chapter in the story of Islam will emerge."
Linda: Yes, the last chapter will be, "The extinction of a world-wide death cult once known as islam".
Reza Aslan is right when he says that the main battle is going on amongst Muslims themselves. Islamicist radicalism gained its hearing because the politics of too many Muslims states and regions were bankrupt.
Identifying "fundamentalism" as the "literal" interpretation of religious texts or their divine "dictation" is a grand red herring of secularist discourse. The modernist theology that sees the Bible as a simply human book and holds that Jesus was simply human and remained safely dead is either dying or abandoning any pretense to being meaningfully Christian. This will leave a "fundamentalist" (actually traditional and historic) Christianity for which the Bible represents the words of Holy men who spoke as the Spirit of God moved them (it's in II Peter).
Further, I smell in the _Duranty Slimes_ more of an idiotic moral equivalence between so-called "fundamentalisms", regardless of what the contents of the sacred books and doctrines are. The distinctions are crucial when God's "Last Word" is seen on the one hand in the death and resurrection of Christ as reported by men without political power at the end of a process of revelation seen as the unfolding of God's mysteries over thousands of years and a one-time, one-shot collection attributed to a bizman-cum-successful-warlord whose major concern seems to be justifying his own raids and conquests.
I am not the only one who has noted the differences between the Scriptures and the QU'ran here; so the _Duranty Slimes'_ continued moral equivalence approach is obscurantist, bigoted, and irresponsible.
Wait a moment. Am I translating that name right... 'Raisin Lion'?