My piece about the Oriana Fallaci/Qur'an/Mein Kampf controversy is up today at Front Page:
Last week in New York, Oriana Fallaci stated that the Qur’an was the Mein Kampf of the Jihadi movement. She pointed out that Islam’s holy book demands the annihilation or subjugation of the other, and that it wants to substitute totalitarianism for democracy.Her statement, as you may imagine, has caused considerable controversy. A few of the statements I have seen:
"Calling the Koran Mein Kampf is muddle headed and hysterical.....deserves a rebuttal.""There are moderate Moslems.....I lived among them in Turkey while my Bulgarian relatives went to concentration camps..."
"Tarring the whole religion is counterproductive.....Arab Moslems are terrorists in training but many non Arab Moslems are not jihadists....."
"If there are no moderate muslims, as Fallaci says, then we are doomed.....Is it not better to call them Islamofascists or Jihadists?"
"The Koran is 'Mein Kampf'.....oh come on...."
"In order to be a moderate Moslem does one have to renounce the Koran? I think that as usual, Oriana goes too far."
There is a muddle in these comments that needs sorting out. Fallaci said that there was no moderate Islam; she did not say that there were no moderate Muslims. This is a crucial distinction.
As Ibn Warraq has said, "There may be moderate Muslims, but Islam itself is not moderate." In other words, there are manifestly peaceful people who have no intention of working by violent or subversive means to impose Sharia on the West, and who identify themselves as Muslims. This simple fact does not mitigate the other fact, that some high-profile moderates, such as Cleveland Imam Fawaz Damra, who signed the recent Fiqh Council of North America's fatwa against terrorism, turned out to be deceivers.
No one can claim that all peaceful Muslims are deceivers without being able to look into the soul of each one -- although I know that some ignorant and intemperate writers on Islam have made just such a claim. And to say that the Qur'an is the Mein Kampf of the jihad movement is not to deny the reality that many, if not most, people who identify themselves as Muslims are primarily interested in living ordinary lives, making a living, providing for their families, etc.
How could it be that the Qur'an could be the Mein Kampf -- that is, the inspiration and guidebook, the motivating force -- of the jihad movement, and yet there could be peaceful Muslims? In the first place, because jihadists themselves routinely invoke it as the justification for their acts of violence, and as a means to recruit other Muslims into their movement. Hundreds of photos are available online of jihad terrorists brandishing the Qur'an, often along with rifles or other weapons. And any cursory glance at the statements of jihadists shows them to be filled with Qur'an quotes and appeals to other Muslims that they represent "pure Islam."
Nor are these jihadists misrepresenting, twisting, or hijacking what the Qur'an says. Indeed, they are fiercely literalistic, taking the book's many martial verses at face value. There are over a hundred verses in the Qur’an that exhort believers to wage jihad against unbelievers. “O Prophet! Strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites, and be firm against them. Their abode is Hell, an evil refuge indeed” (Sura 9:73). “Strive hard” in Arabic is jahidi, a verbal form of the noun jihad. This striving was to be on the battlefield: “When you meet the unbelievers in the battlefield, strike off their heads and, when you have laid them low, bind your captives firmly” (Qur’an 47:4). This is emphasized repeatedly: “O ye who believe! Fight the unbelievers who gird you about, and let them find firmness in you: and know that Allah is with those who fear Him” (Qur’an 9:123).
This warfare was to be directed against both those who rejected Islam and those who professed to be Muslims but did not hold to the fullness of the faith: “Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their home: an evil fate” (Qur’an 9:73). This warfare was only part of the larger spiritual conflict between Allah and Satan: “Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah, and those who reject faith fight in the cause of evil: so fight ye against the friends of Satan” (Qur’an 4:76). “Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them captive, and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is forgiving, merciful” (Qur’an 9:5). The “poor-due” in this verse is zakat, which is a central obligation for Muslims. Thus the verse is saying that if the “idolaters” become Muslims, leave them alone.
Jews and Christians were to be fought along with “idolaters”: “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued” (Qur’an 9:29).
Jihad is the highest duty of Muslims: “Do ye make the giving of drink to pilgrims, or the maintenance of the Sacred Mosque, equal to the pious service of those who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and strive with might and main in the cause of Allah [jihad fi sabil Allah]? They are not comparable in the sight of Allah: and Allah guides not those who do wrong. Those who believe, and suffer exile and strive with might and main, in Allah’s cause [jihad fi sabil Allah], with their goods and their persons, have the highest rank in the sight of Allah: they are the people who will achieve salvation” (Qur’an 9:19-20). In Islamic theology, jihad fi sabil Allah refers specifically to taking up arms for Islam.
Paradise is guaranteed to those who “slay and are slain” for Allah: “Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth” (Qur’an 9:111).
One may attempt to spiritualize such verses, but there is no doubt from the historical record that Muhammad meant them literally. They are also backed up by numerous passages of Islamic tradition and law. Nonetheless, the fact that warfare against unbelievers is not a twisting of Islam, but the Islamic mainstream, and is repeatedly affirmed in the Qur’an, Hadith, example of Muhammad, and rulings of every school of Islamic jurisprudence, still does not make every Muslim a terrorist.
There are several principal reasons for this. One is that because the Qur’an is in difficult, classical Arabic, and must be read and recited during Muslim prayers in that language only, a surprisingly large number of those who identify themselves as Muslims actually have scant acquaintance with what it actually says. Although the media establishment continues to use the words “Muslim” and “Arab” as if they were synonymous, most Muslims worldwide today are not Arabs. Even modern Arabic, much less classical Qur’anic Arabic, is foreign to them. They often memorize the Qur’an by rote without any clear idea of what it actually says. A Pakistani Muslim once proudly told me that he had memorized large sections of the Qur’an, and planned one day to buy a translation so that he could find out exactly what it was saying. Such instances are common to a degree that may surprise most non-Muslims.
Other cultural factors have up until recent times also militated against Muslims, particularly in Eastern Europe and Central Asia, acting on or even knowing much about Islam’s actual teachings on how to deal with unbelievers. However, that is changing: in those areas and elsewhere around the world, Muslim hardliners, though not always financed by Saudi Arabia, have made deep inroads into peaceful Muslim communities by preaching violent Islam as the “pure Islam” and calling Muslims back to the full observance of their religion. And they are doing it by means of the Qur'an.
So is the Qur'an the Mein Kampf of the totalitarian, supremacist movement that is the global Islamic jihad? If we take seriously the words of the book itself and how they are used by jihadists, then it clearly is their inspiration and justification. Are we to ignore the jihadists' clear statements on this because they offend contemporary sensibilities? The challenge for genuinely peaceful Muslims today is to confront this fact, rather then deny it as Islamic apologists in the West so often do, and try to formulate strategies for a large-scale rejection of literalism in the Islamic community in America and worldwide, so that Muslims can coexist peacefully as equals with non-Muslims without the continuing recrudescence of this supremacist impulse.
Can it be done? The odds against it are prohibitive. But we do not do genuine Muslim reformers any favor whatsoever by denying that there is any work they need do with the Qur'an and Islamic tradition, or by pretending that the source of the problem is other than what it is.
Like so many of Mr Spencer's articles, the above can be found at Frontpagemag.com...
Meanwhile, here's an interesting exchange between FPM founder David Horowitz and President Bush:
"My wife an I attended the Chanukah Party at the White House last night. Bush is the first president in American history to hold Chanukah parties along with the traditional White House Christmas parties. The White House is magical during the Holiday Season and there were many old friends in attendance. It had a special importance to me now that we have become in effect two political countries -- one supporting a war for freedom in the Middle East and one at war against us (and yes I realize there are a lot of good people in the middle who don't have a stomach for this war but don't want us to lose it either). I was of course thinking of the wretched lies of Kerry and Dean from the day before.
"I hadn't been at an event with the President (who is looking slim and trim) in four years and didn't know if he would recognize me. But the minute he saw ,me in the line he called out "Horowitz" with a big smile on his face, then embraced me in a bear hug. In the moment I had his ear I said, "Thank you for taking all those arrows for the rest of us." Graciously, he said "You take more than I do," which I don't and said so. Then as I was walking away he called out, "Don't let them get to you." I called back, "Don't you either," and he replied in a strong voice. "I won't."
"It was a one day cross-country trip for me and my wife to attend this event but those few seconds made it worth it. I left energized for this battle which is so crucial to the future of our country and the freedom of others."
Cornelius, you beat me to it on Mr. Horowitz.
As to the Koran, it is up to Moderate Muslims (Naseem, Mr. Haidon et al) to make it work. So when does the Reformation begin?
Today’s Extras on Jihad’s 5th Column:
Aid and Comfort to the Enemy:
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/ToddManzi/2005/12/08/178110.html
http://www.techcentralstation.com/120705G.html
Terror Rising:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=20412
Belgian Waffle:
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/chuckcolson/2005/12/06/177920.html
Cornelius, that's very encouraging that Bush knows Horowitz so well. It renews my slender hope that Bush has been practicing counter-Taqyah all this time.
Dr. Pepper:
I've always suspected Bush is not nearly as dumb as he at times is made to look and sound. He's a politician and by definition a practioner of the art of the possible. Look at all the flack he catches for what little he does say about our greatest concern from the usual dissembling opposition. Imagine what he'd stir up if he was frank and open with his opinions.
Actually, we don't have to imagine. Look at all the furor over the "Why don't we bomb Al-Jezerah?" story!
Cornelius thanks for posting that excerpt about Pres Bush and David Horowitz. It's scary to think what condition this country would be in if Gore or Kerry had been elected.
I ask the following in good faith:
We are supposing that there are peaceful people living in the US that call themselves Muslim.
We further assume that they do not/cannot know what is really in the Koran (ah, we do, but they don't) because of this or that excuse of language, just pure laziness or lack of any kind of curiosity despite what is happening in the world. If they go to a mosque (80% of which have been radicalized, eh?) what do they hear in the sermon, which presumably they CAN understand?
We further assume that their children will be kept ignorant about the real Islam because their parents are. But that is a dangerous assumption on which to base our future. What if the children, who have been implictly taught that they are Muslims (and oppressed, I guess because of all the bad stuff that is being said about Islam these days), want to find out about their 'faith', and go to a mosque (probably 'radicalized') and find out the truth, probably wrapped in lies? Do they run away? Do they become intrigued of the "religion of the Allah and his Prophet"? Do they start hating the Infidel? Do they start agitating against our "immoral" society?
Why can't we say to nominal Muslims, "Here is the truth, directly from the mouths of Muslims. The terrorists that murder other Muslims quote the Koran left and right. Here is the life and doings of Muhammad. Would Muslims like to be treated as the Koran says to treat non-Muslisms? You don't really believe anyway, so leave Islam, leave this lie."
Islam is an evil ideology, started by Muhammad who was evil man. Any "Islam" that cuts out the evil must cut out Muhammad and hundreds of Koran verses and even more hadith. We do not have the time to wait for Islam to fix itself, however slight that chance is.
Robert:
You have again presented a fair challenge to truly moderate Muslims. It is battle against literalism. To date there is no cohesive, comprehensive framework aimed at achieving this. There are a few scholars like Ahmed Subhy Mansour (a colleague of mine at FMC) and Dr Tarek Abdel Hamid, and the late Kassim Ahmed (the brave Malasyian) (Qur'anics) who are heading in this direction. These scholars need to work on developing this contextual, not-literalist tafsir, and of course it needs to be marketed and conveyed to Muslims.
The true scourge on Islam (as a Muslim) is the Sunnah and the so called traditions of the Prophet. These traditions, do not clarify the Qur'an (which is already replete with inconsistencies), but confound it further.
But anyway I digress. You have aptly laid down the challenge again. It has yet to be answered.
Wa salam
TH
Gary, Pepper, Roxanne,
I'm hoping Bush can pull himself together and salvage his second term. It troubles me that he's so vilified, even in a forum like this. Too bad he's so inarticulate.
Roxanne, your point is well-made. Remember prior to the historic elections in January when Iraqis first voted on a Constitutional Assembly, the UN, the EU, the Arab League and even members of Iraq's interim gov't were all getting cold feet and pleading for a postponement. Had Kerry been elected, as part of his "sensitive" war on terror, he would undoubtedly have accommodated our friends (and enemies), there would never have been a vote and Iraqi Democracy would have been still-born. God knows what the situation would be today.
Bush had the resolve to plow ahead.
I understand Mr Spencer's skepticism regarding the transplanting of Democracy in the Muslim world. It is indeed a tall order and antithetical to the autocratic traditions of that part of the world. But human nature doesn't stop at the borders of Dar ul Islam. I'm not entirely pessimistic.
I also distinguish the nuance of Robert's position from that of his VP. Hugh seems absolutely eager for Democracy to fail in Iraq...under what I believe is his convoluted premise that chaos and civil war there will somehow benefit the West.
Hugh Fitzgerald to me, appears to be blinded (at times) by hatred not only for Islam (which is understood), but Muslims as well, that wants mass chaos in the hopes that the Shia and Sunni will kill each other. He has in the past, argued that only non-Muslims in Iraq are worth protecting.
While reform is probably impossible, it is also probably the last thing that Hugh wants. His daily commentaries, which basically repeat the same themes over and over, are designed to ingrain his sense of (not just healthy skepticism of Muslims), but general hatred of Muslims. Afterall if we can dehumanise all Muslims (even the ones who arent radical), it will be that much easier to eradicate them without emotion.
I generally agree with what Hugh says. I agree with his inherent mistrust of Islam, but I prefer the approach of others like Robert ( I don't think Daniel Pipes is critical enough).
Hugh's sentiments about moderate Muslims are as dismissive as are the sentiments of Islamists. Although to be fair, I have read on one particular instance where Fitzgerald does give some credit to Farog Foda (the secularist) and Subhy Mansour...
The focus should be on Islam. Can you, or anyone else rewrite Mein Kampf? Can it be done in a way that will be accepted by those who now may follow it as it was first written? Although sales were initally bad, by the time of Hitler reaching full power it had given him a needed cash payoff.
Can Islam be rewritten? Sure. Can it be done so as the muslums will then follow?
Yeah, well, I've heard it before on Jihad Watch! Some of you have a pious, albeit,
faint hope that the musbots will become moderate (read sane)! But what the hell
are you saying here? There is only one way Muslims are going to become moderate,
and that is just one way and it is not two ways and you all must know it! The Koran
needs to be reinterpreted correctly! No one really knows what it says because the
ancient thing is covered in such intrigue. It has become canonized in war after war,
and rebellion after rebellion. The historical etymologies (I should say,
archeological etymologies have never been adequately explained - to do so engenders
fear and hatred and hostile actions. But someone is going to have to do it or the
world is going to have to destroy a lot of Muslims. So, what is your position?
Moderation is impossible for them; let loose the dogs of war! Extermination for
those who will not be apostates to this intrinsically evil religion? Suppose, as you
all suspect, that the Koran really does say all those irredeemably horrific things?
Suppose it can't be made more tolerant by the cold and scientific light of
scholarship? Might be, but can you really just pass up the chance because you all
have a hunch that it is the unenlightened work of a madman? Ok, please tell us what you plan to do instead! And, you, Hiadon, what happened to our conversation, and
our new friendship? Did you let it die just cuz I'm a Crusader? I think working
things out with us is harder for you than you are willing to admit. Do you feel more comfortable with your own kind? Well, no matter, just tell me what the program is so I can begin to get with it - everyone needs to know, what is it?>????