The "tributes" published at Jihad Watch by Jihad Watch Board Vice President Hugh Fitzgerald (you can find them in the articles list here) have up to this point been of the deconstructive variety. Not this one.
Ibn Warraq is one of the most meticulous, articulate, amusing and altogether delightful writers of the present age. It is a privilege to have him on the Jihad Watch Board. His books are at last selling widely (Why I Am Not a Muslim is a best-seller in Denmark). At least one or two of them should be assigned in any course on Islam that purports to be something other than the usual apologetics, with the sanitized-by-Sells-Qur'an and the rest of it. Indeed, students -- and faculty, and administrators -- should be wary indeed of anyone offering instruction on Islam who deliberately leaves Ibn Warraq or Bat Ye'or off the syllabus entirely.Why I Am Not a Muslim is one of the most acute analyses available of Islam as an intellectual system. It also discusses the misdeeds that are committed in its name (misdeeds which logically follow from its teachings); the variety of apologetics made on its behalf (including that of Montgomery Watt, the Anglican clergyman, who believed that faith in Islam was better than no religion at all); the exaggerated claims made for the achievements of "Islamic civilization"; the baleful model of Muhammad (whether he existed or not); the real significance of those figures who, routinely invoked as representatives of Islamic achievement, in fact were often skeptics, close to apostasy themselves -- Ibn Rushd (Averroes), Ibn Sina (Avicenna), and Al Razi. And there is much more.
His other books are anthologies of scholarly writings, together with his own lucid, meticulous, and enlightening introductory essays and appendices: The Quest for the Historical Muhammad, What the Koran Really Says, and The Origins of the Koran. His articles all deserve to be read. One of the most amusing is his dismemberment of the "intellectual thug" Edward Said, which can be found in Spencer’s The Myth of Islamic Tolerance. Even more important is his essay on what a real reformation in Islam would entail. This is vital, given that an "Islamic reformation" seems to be the pet project of breezy young American law students, unaware both of the near-impossibility of its being achieved even by Muslims. For if it could have been achieved, it would have been, in the many centuries of trying, by perfectly intelligent Muslims who understood what needed to be done but kept coming up against the wall of text, the reality of immutable doctrine. Ibn Warraq, who as a child attended a madrasa, and who understands the effect of Islamic teachings from within, is properly skeptical.Admirers of assorted "reformers" of Islam -- Soroush or Noah Feldman or others -- still in the afterglow of their year of teaching at Harvard Divinity School, or giddy with expectation for their coming year at Yale Law School (and if the little matter of reforming Islam can't be achieved, oh well -- perhaps as a consolation prize someone can be awarded tenure instead), would do better by immersing themselves in Ibn Warraq, Bat Ye'or, Reza Afshari, Ali Sina, and many others, including the scholars who can be easily retrieved from the CD-Rom of the Index Islamicus.
The idea that Westerners can "create the conditions that will empower the reformers" to achieve the "reformation" that has eluded Islam for 1350 years is startling. And more recently, at least one Muslim scholar now entrenched at an American law school appears to believe, or to want her audience to believe, that somehow the Qur'an can be treated like the American Constitution, and she will be the Chief Justice Marshall of her day ("It is a Qur'an we are expounding..."). No, the Qur'an is not the Constitution, still less the hadith and the sira. Back to the old drawing board -- preferably the one that Ataturk used.
One would do better to read and reread Ibn Warraq. And to his books, add those of Reza Afshari (on human rights and Islam), of Bat Ye'or (on the institution of dhimmitude), and of others who have a less sanguine view, informed by long study, of Islam's compatibility with human rights.
Those who read Ibn Warraq's The Origins of the Koran, What the Koran Really Says, and The Quest for the Historical Muhammad, all of them splendid anthologies of scholarly articles, with his own introduction and other glosses, will not be disappointed. Then there is the vitally important Leaving Islam, a clarion call for the freedom of conscience. And coming soon are two more: Which Koran?: Variants, Manuscripts, And the Influence of Pre-islamic Poetry and Defending the West: A Critique of Edward Said's Orientalism. No one who reads any of Ibn Warraq's books with attention will regret it. And now he is doing groundbreaking work on the origins of Islam, which will help Infidels (and some Muslims) to understand how this belief-system, concocted to justify and promote conquest of far more civilized, settled, wealthy, advanced, and numerous peoples by primitive Arab tribes, became fixed and immutable. It will help them understand how and why it now threatens -- with its blend of thwarted world-conquering ambition and fury that the "religion" which is supposed to dominate in fact seems to everywhere bring failure -- to damage all the rest of us, as it has been damaging Infidel peoples and polities, for 1350 years.
Great news! Does this mean that playing the "racist" card against this site will cease? Probably not, but it will demonstrate the absurdity of this claim all the more clearly.
Hugh, ...
And what happened to "once a muslim ...always a muslim"....can you trust Ibn to the hilt...is there a possibility of a slide back?
What if Ibn finds & falls in love with a muslim partner....and sort of re-converts....are you gonna know?
What is your take on this?
Naseem,
Interesting attempt at divergence. However, Warraq's previous work would remain, and he would have to find means to refute it. Why don't you save us the wait and do it yourself? Maybe he could advance you a copy of "Which Koran?: Variants, Manuscripts, And the Influence of Pre-islamic Poetry" so you can get to work. I'm dying to read it myself.
"Naseem,"
Ibn Warraq's rejection of Islam is one of intellectual conviction, not emotion or prejudice. Consequently it is inconceivable that it would be effaced by such an event.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
Ibn Warraq's personal life is unknown to me, and certainly none of anyone's business. His rejection of Islam, like that of so many others, is based on deep conviction, a conviction born of thought and observation from within, and that conviction has no doubt been reinforced by his study of the origins of the early Qur'an.
I don't know of any ex-Muslims who have returned to Islam. I know of some who have been fearful of letting their family membrs know. I know of Salman Rushdie's attempt to re-declare, some years ago, his supposed fealty to Islam in order -- quite understandable -- to have the death sentence removed. But he hasn't repeated that declaration.
Most ex-Muslims with whom I am acquainted are quite content with their choice. Once they managed to make it, they have felt a great mental, and even emotional, relief. Constantly trying to explain away, or justify, or deliberately ignore, so much in Islam, that is now becoming so widely known even to Infidels, forces the issue where once it might be finessed. All those "Muslim-for-identification-purposes-only" Muslims are finding that the mixture as before will not satisfy either Infidels, or themselves.
And the more we repeat that the causes for the distempers and failures of Muslim societies -- political, economic, social, moral, and intellectual -- are directly related to Islam itself, the more difficult it will be for intelligent people, born into Islam, to avoid recognizing, and then acting in ways consonant with, that truth.
excelent rebuttal of Ibn Warraq's writings
Trends and Flaws in Some Anti-Muslim Writing as Exemplified by Ibn Warraq
http://www.city-net.com/~alimhaq/text/warraq.htm
Naseem, why don't you read Ibn Warraq's book for yourself and form your own opinion? You might find chapter 12, "Women and Islam" interresting. If your husband lets you read it, that is.
"It was like being slammed in the head with a brick or a hard plank of wood. I was stunned."
Jeremiah D McAuliffe, Jr, Ph D.
From the fabulously esoteric and uncritical "reversion" experience of the author of "Trends and Flaws ..." above, on reading the Qur'an.
A lot of infidels have the same sensation upon reading it. And some actually do get hit on the head (or worse).
There will always be the certifiably crazy who will convert to Islam, and the slightly off are always fair game. But the kind of conversions one might have seen twenty or even ten years ago will diminish among the Spiritual Searchers; they've learned their lesson.
A few of them are now stranded on an island of their own making. They can't get out of Islam, either out of fear, or confusion, and instead to prefer to cling to their own private Islam, an Islam in which everythiing could only be so good if only all those other Muslims saw what you saw in Islam, and interpreted it the way you interpret it, and ignored the figure of Muhammad as you manage to ignore it. A lobsterman on Prince Edward Island showed me how a lobster enters into what, he told me, used to be called by older lobstermen the "parlor," and then couldn't get out. Akin to what converts to Islam, changing their minds, also discover.
Have a look at what an admiring poster ("truth speaker") above describes as an "excellent rebuttal" of Ibn Warraq by Jeremiah McAuliffe, Jr., Ph.D. to which a link is given above. See what you think.
Ibn Warraq's meticulously written "Why I am not a Muslim" occupies a prominent place on my bookshelf. JihadWatch/DhimmiWatch is very fortunate to have him on board. As for the rebuttal of Jeremiah McAuliffe referred to by "Truth Seeker", I found it typical of the type of rebuttals by Islam apologists who engage in nothing more than obfuscation.
Hugh, despite having a Western name. He is still a Mohammedan. A wolf in sheep's clothing. Caveat Emptor.
"the more we repeat that the causes for the distempers and failures of Muslim societies -- political, economic, social, moral, and intellectual -- are directly related to Islam itself, the more difficult it will be for intelligent people, born into Islam, to avoid recognizing, and then acting in ways consonant with, that truth."
Still, we mustn't be over-optimistic and not expect that there will continue to be millions who will remain obdurately irrational to the end.
How many times I have seen this restated in different ways, especially by the likes of Evangelical Christians, Traditional Catholics, and Orthodox Rabbi's as well as Muslims. The biggest threat to belief is unbelief, disbelief and at that juncture the religious of all faiths unite against the secularist, the infidel, the atheist, the skeptic. I know because I have been attacked by the faithful of all faiths, and for the moment they abandon their own petty squabbles to unite in an attack against the unbeliever, then back to the usual business of their battle for god.
Frankly, I doubt that. Some doubtless. However, it's certainly true to say that Islamic apologists target Christian and Jewish religious leaders with smarmy apologetics - just as they target many other groups in particular ways.
(If they would only out half so much effort into examining their premises as they do into constructed elaborate targeted lies!)
It only works if one has no idea what Islam actually teaches. Serge Trifkovic, himself an Orthodox Christian, is devastating in his criticism of the "ecumenical" religiosity of one of President Bush's advisors:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=5237
"Nothing this evil could be religious" is a moronically stupid comment, and shows that Forte is fitting his understanding around a preconception rather than making it evidence based. The humanities can be prone to this kind of nonsense. If you did similar things in engineering, your bridge would fall down.
Time Bush stopped listening to this idiot, I'd say.
Robert
I've read Ibn Warraq's articles in your book, "The myth of Islamic tolerance". From that, I don't think anyone can doubt his scholarly credentials. As for the above linked article by Jeremiah McAuliffe, it would take a book twice as long as his to refute each of his errors.
P.S. I loved your application of quotes around Naseem. Reminder to do that myself going forward.
tokyo rose Naseem....you are another reason i am sure Robert is right...it is 1938 again!
I´m sorry, here we are all wrong, it is not 1938 again (yeah, i know, I loved to use the phrase myself..) But alltogether it is much worse: It is 2006 !!
I don't think the men in Naseem's family would give her their permission to read Ibnm Warraq's book. MIght lead to dangerous things like free thought and wanting to be free instead of kept on a short leash.
Jeremiaha McAuliffe is - to my mind - precisely the type of convert Hugh referred to above as "stranded on an island." I once had an extensive correspondence with him.
He is a good, decent, honorable man who is indeed stranded, alienated from many of his fellow Muslims (which he made no attempt to hide), and yet prone to all the intellectual gymnastics we've come to expect from moderate Muslims. Still, he is also forthcoming and introspective in a way most of his fellow-Muslims are not. I got the disinct impression he was struggling with his faith.
As for Ibn Warraq, he's a giant. I have nothing but the greatest respect for the man. 'Why I Am Not a Muslim' was the first real anti-Islamic tract I ever read and it was powerfully validating for me. I had been carrying-on about the dangers of Islam at parties and family gatherings since the early 90s...much to the consternation of my family and friends. Thank God, so many, many others in the gullible West have now caught on and become initiated. But one need only visit the Left-wing blogs to know how much work we still have to do.
truth speaker,
That critique is a useful example of non-responsive argumentation, unsupported theories for Qur'anic analysis, and typical academic cheap shots at the end. Even the factual matters, pre-Islamic beliefs being subsumed within Islam being one, doesn't change the facts on the ground (jihad against the unbelievers) one iota.
What's missing? ANY substantive rebuttal of Warraq's many points based in the texts themselves. Concrete real-world examples of Islamic clerics following that convoluted theory would be helpful. But there aren't any forthcoming because the ulema (on the whole) takes all those commands to violence very seriously.
There are so many, but this paragraph of claptrap is perhaps the worst:
Yes, perhaps I would like to feel superior over all those around me, tax my neighbors, steal from them, have higher standing in court than others, and kill when the sacred months are over, but probably not. If I find myself thinking that way, I'll voluntarily commit posthaste.
Mohammed Arkoun [La Pensee Arabe, Paris: PUF 1975] reports that material left out of the Caliph Uthman's canonical Quran was destroyed and that Ibn Mas`ud's version was eliminated, although his "corpus" was kept in Kufa until the 10th century [p10].
This subject is one of Ibn Warraq's interests as well.
Several years ago the Atlantic monthly had a long article about old Quranic texts, different from those commonly used today, which were discovered in Yemen and submitted to certain German scholars. What happened to this material? Was it part of the material used by Christoph Luxenberg? Does anyone know?
Have a look at what an admiring poster ("truth speaker") above describes as an "excellent rebuttal" of Ibn Warraq by Jeremiah McAuliffe, Jr., Ph.D. to which a link is given above. See what you think.
Posted by: Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 22, 2006 11:51 AM
=============
I tried to do this, but only made it about 10% down the page when I ran into this:
"Islam presents what we might call the tawheedian world-view. Anti-Muslims do not grasp this, or realize what it means, or ignore it. Many Muslims who have been influenced by other types of world-view such as the ethnocentric, nationalist or Newtonian-Cartesian also fail to truly grasp this.
What this means in this context is that we cannot even accurately discuss Islamic views on topics such as gender relations or warfare without also, at the same time, discussing Islamic views on economics, social justice, sexuality, political relations, etc. In Islam, the whole illustrates the parts, and the parts, in turn, illustrate the whole. Any discussion of particular ayats that may appear to countenance aggressive violence or sexism must also, at the same time, refer to other seemingly unrelated topics. In Islam, many topics that may seem unrelated to some people are in fact related and shed light on each other and cannot be discussed apart from each other."
If you're a zealot, then it all makes sense and is perfectly OK.
Hyman, all you have is one Mohammedan patting another one on the back and echoing the party line. A "Howdy Doody" act.
Howdy Doody, a marionette, would tell the kids in the Peanut gallery how great Wonder Bread was, then Buffalo Bob, would say "That's right, Howdy!" What the kids didn't realize was that Buffalo Bob WAS Howdy doody.....
I'm not a betting woman, but I'd give it 10:1 odds that Truth Seeker and Jeremiah McAuliffe are either one and the same, or truth seeker is personally acquainted with McAuliffe. Truth Seeker's screen ID suggests a certain grandiosity, but McAuliffe's florid writing style alone suggests is way out of his depth in taking on Warraq in any substantive way, but then I can't say I've run into too many people who have converted to another faith who weren't a little loosely acquainted to reality.
waterdragon52, it's Truth Speaker, not Seeker. However, you may very well be right. Since some of the basic tenets of Islam are lying, treachery and deceit (after all, Mohammed (Pigs Be Upon Him) said "War is deceit"), this appears to be nothing more than the same old taqiyyah and kitman.
McAuliffe: "What this means in this context is that we cannot even accurately discuss Islamic views on topics such as gender relations or warfare without also, at the same time, discussing Islamic views on economics, social justice, sexuality, political relations, etc. In Islam, the whole illustrates the parts, and the parts, in turn, illustrate the whole. Any discussion of particular ayats that may appear to countenance aggressive violence or sexism must also, at the same time, refer to other seemingly unrelated topics. In Islam, many topics that may seem unrelated to some people are in fact related and shed light on each other and cannot be discussed apart from each other."
I read this years ago and it made the same impression on me then as now. What he seems to be saying here is that exposition (and rejection) of the intolerant verses of the Quran is impossible because they are "integrated" and "consonant" with the whole.
Hence, we have a built-in mechanism designed to preclude deconstruction and rational analysis. If the violence and sexism of the Quran can only be understood within the broader context of the economics, politics, and social justice of Islam, then the entire discourse ascends to esoteric heights that hover beyond the comprehension of anyone but a Quranic scholar. It's an absurd premise, but its purpose is not absurd...it is designed to squelch criticism of content that even Mr McAuliffe conceeds "may appear to countenence aggressive violence or sexism...."
I previously wrote Jeremiaha was prone the same intellectual gymnastics we've come to expect from moderate Muslims. This is a perfect example. He's just a little more dexterous than most.
McAuliffe's logic explained by Cornelius: "the violence and sexism of the Quran can only be understood within the broader context of the economics, politics, and social justice of Islam"
This strikes me as the same logic by which Noam Chomsky and the Leftist lawyer Lynn Stewart defend brutal tyrannical measures undertaken by "revolutionary" governments (whether Castro or Cambodia, etc.): sometimes they have to do what must be done, in order to further the laudable goal of the Socialist/Communist Paradise on Earth while it is being constantly threatened on every side by the evil Capitalist-Zionist-Masonic cabal spearheaded by a wicked, ruthless, technologically superior America.
Ibn Warraq makes excellent points on Islam in “Why I am not a Muslim” yet he also makes unjustified and disparaging remarks about Christianity. I would like to remind Mr. Warraq that the decline of the Christian Faith that he disparages is one of the reasons Islam is such a threat. In other words, Mr. Warraq, the dominance of secular humanism and all its corollary’s—relativism, post modernism, civilizational self flagellation, materialism —is no match against Islam. As Oriana Fallaci correctly mentioned to pope Benedict, “without a Christian revival the West is doomed”
Mr. Warraq also seems to forget that the civilization that he so admires and benefits from—i.e. the West—would have never come into being without the Judeo-Christian moral order. And, Mr. Warraq needs to be reminded that human rights are not “based on reason”, as he claims in his book; they are predicated on the transcendent dignity of the human being, and this can only be based on a transcendent moral order that exists independent of human reason. If Mr Warraq wants to use reason as a guide, than it could reasonably be argued that social Darwinism, which is an eminently reasonable theory, should be the basis of our moral order.
Interesting analogy Television.
Yes, many a Leftist has resorted to such apologetics, that "revolutionary violence" is dictated by exceptional threats from "counter-revolutionaies" or "foreign interventionists"...and will thus disappear once the threat has been overcome. Hell, the veritable name of the first Communist secret police, the CHEKA (Extraordinary Committee to Combat Counter-Revolution and Sabotage), had an obviously ad-hoc, temporary connotation. Yet, its violent methodology was later incorporated and even expanded upon by its permanent successor agencies, the GPU, the OGPU, the NKVD and finally the KGB.
I've been hanging out in various Left-wing blogs (primarily European) as of late, learning about the mindset of these deluded souls (know thy enemy). One of them recently wrote that - by virtue of their frontline struggle against American Imperialism - the Taliban and Al Qaeda represent "the forces of freedom" in the world.
This sort of twisted myopia is as bad as anything coming from the Muslims themselves. At least most of THEM maintain the prestense of trying to disassociate themselves from terrorism.