Fitzgerald: Islam is not monolithic

Jihad Watch Board Vice President Hugh Fitzgerald discusses the oft-repeated assertion:

We are told again and again, in various ways, that "Islam is not monolithic." Yes, we know. But we also know that the same passages in the same Qur'an, the Uncreated and Immutable Qur'an, the one dictated by Gabriel and taken down by an Arab amanuensis, are those which all Muslims read as the Word of God. And the Hadith (which is at least as important, to many Muslims, as the Qur'an), were long ago winnowed by the most authoritative muhaddithin, and have been ranked by them (e.g., Al-Bukhari and Muslim, as the two most authoritative of the Sahih Sittah, the six tippety-top ones). And what do those Hadith say about "Infidels" or "Jews" or "Christians" or "polytheists" or "jihad"? We can find out, easily. It is all online.
And we can find out as well what interpretive doctrines may exist -- in this case, that of "naskh" or "abrogation" -- which permits a reconciling of passages seemingly contradictory, which doctrine, alas, tells Believers that the earlier softer (so-called "Meccan") verses are cancelled, overruled (just as Plessy v. Ferguson is overruled by Brown v. Bd. of Education) by the much harsher, much more hostile and menacing later verses -- e.g. Sura 9. Are we to ignore the canonical texts of Islam because of local differences in food or dress or in the degree of syncretism (e.g. the marabouts of West Africa, or the syncretism of the much-persecuted "Anbangan" -- Geertz's word) among quasi-Muslims?

Not only are the texts the same, but when one examines, for example, the differences between the major sects -- Sunni and Shi'a and Ibadi -- one finds no difference in the topics that we must concern ourselves with. No difference in the necessity, the rightness, the duty of Jihad to spread Islam until obstacles to its dominance, all over the world, are removed, for Islam is to dominate and Muslims are to rule. That is right. That is just. That is in the nature of things. For all of us were born Muslims, and somehow were raised wrongly, so that when we become Muslims officially we do not "convert" but rather "revert" to Islam. For Western Infidel consumption, Muslims will also speak demurely now not of "reversion" but rather, nominally, of "New Muslims" -- use of the word "reverts" would raise awkward questions from Infidels that at this point Muslims would prefer not to answer.
And of course there are not only differences between Sunnis and Shi'a and Ibadi Muslims, but also in the role of a mystic approach -- that of Sufis, or those more recent sects deemed doubtful, by orthodox Muslims, such as the Ahmadiyyas (Qadianis), now forced in Pakistan to list themselves on official forms as non-Muslims, or the most interesting group, the followers of the Aga Khan, the Ismailis. I remember those weigh-ins, when the Aga Khan would then be presented with his weight in diamonds from loyal followers -- the kind of thing that used to be shown on a Gaumont newsreel, with the plummy-voiced announcer from yesteryear: Time Marches On! And furthermore, there are four schools of Jurisprudence in Sunni Islam -- Maliki, Hanbali, Hanafi, and I forget the fourth because I'm having so much fun.

Shafi’i. That’s it.

But here is the main point. They have differences -- for example, as to the kinds of hudud, or codes of punishment, to observe. They have differences based, for example, on whether or not Islam has been affected by, its edges worn down a bit by, the presence of a large number of non-Muslims. It is probably true to say that some Lebanese Muslims, because of the Christians, and some Indian Muslims, are less menacing in outlook then those of, say, Saudi Arabia or Pakistan or the Sudan. But the teachings that we care about are those which are all about Infidels. And those teachings do not and have not changed.

Of course there are some Muslims who do not subscribe to those teachings. But how do we know who they are? Of the ones who claim to be "moderates," which ones are and which ones are feigning? Which ones are telling the truth, but may, for reasons having only to do with personal setbacks (it need not be some element of foreign policy, or of politics at all, to trigger a reaction and a return to the full Islam, the Islam which divides the world between Believer and Infidel), become the "immoderate" Muslim who so rightly alarms us? Think of Hanif Kuraishi's "My Son the Fanatic." Funny when it first came out, not so funny now. We can't take that risk. We shouldn't be expected to.

Besides, we have a duty to preserve or own legacy. We may all be rotten to the core. Many are. But we were handed certain things. Artifacts. Works of art. A tradition of free and skeptical inquiry that might yet allow us to survive. We have no right to simply throw over whatever was created by and for Western civilization, by people -- Spinoza and Hume, Michelangelo and Balthus, Jefferson and Lincoln and ten thousand others. Just look at the index alone in Jacques Barzun's "From Dawn to Decadence" and realize that those names are only a small fraction of those who created the West, and then compare that list with the usual Muslim dozen -- Avicenna, Averroes, Al-Razi, etc. For god's sake, look at the mental desert of Islam, the desertification every which way, the narrow channeling of artistic expression into Qur'anic calligraphy and architecture, with no sculpture, no painting of living creatures, hardly any music (certainly no equivalent to Western church music). Look at how the keepers of the belief-system of Islam discourage, and punish, the efforts of some at free and skeptical inquiry.

You may be willing to find solace in the obvious -- that Muslims are not prefabricated beings, identical in language, clothing, food, schools of Muslim jurisprudence, and so on. That is no consolation for me.

Because the Jihad duty remains the same, and the hostility -- inculcated by those Qur'anic passages, those Hadith stories, that example furnished by Muhammad. And what do you make of the role of Muhammad, clearly the main figure in Islam, with 83% of the texts devoted to him, 17% to Allah? What do you make of the fact that he married a nine-year-old girl? What "context" would you like to put that in? Are you aware that virtually Khomeini's first act, when he came to power, was to lower the marriageable age of girls in Iran to nine? Do you know why? And what about the assassination of those who mocked Muhammad -- Asma bint Marwan, Abu Akaf? What about the beheading of the 600-900 bound prisoners of the Banu Qurayza? The attack on the inoffensive Jewish farmers, tilling their fields in the Khaybar Oasis? Or a hundred other grim details, of that Perfect Man, uswa hasana? What do you make of all that, since there are not various versions of Muhammad which various communities of Muslims accept -- there is only one, as there is the same Qur'an, and the same authoritative collections of "authentic" Hadith?

The assertion that "Islam is not monolithic" misses entirely the point. Islam, in everything that pertains to Infidels, is in fact remarkably "monolithic." And you can test this with the evidence of 1350 years of Jihad conquest. No matter where that conquest took place, no matter whether those conquered were Christians (of all kinds), or Jews, or Hindus, or Buddhists, or Jains, or Confucians, or anything else in this sublunary world, the treatment meted out to those subjugated non-Muslims was always and everywhere quite similar. Oh, a decent ruler, a ruler who was syncretistic, might make a difference. Akbar, for example. But why is gentle Akbar, who removed the Jizyah on Hindus and who no longer massacred them (some 60-70 million Hindus were massacred by Muslims), not revered but rather ignored or reviled by Muslims -- precisely for his mildness? It is Aurangzeb and Mahmoud of Ghazni who are revered. And in Iran the Shah and his father tried to, and for a while succeeded, in elevating the status, or at least protecting, Jews and Christians -- a protection that is hardly to be seen now that the Shah is gone.

No. Islam is not monolithic. But when it comes to the attitudes toward Infidels, and the observable treatment of Infidels by Muslims, it is disturbingly monolithic enough.

And that is what we, the Infidels, are worried about. And we see no reason to risk our societies, our advances, our art and our science, and our everything, on the slender and entirely foundationless notion that some "reformation" will somehow -- how, exactly? -- be achieved by Muslims living in, protected from retribution by other Muslims --- in the West.

The immutable and canonical texts, the 1350-year history of conquest and subjugation, and the observable behavior of so many Muslims in so many countries today, all tell us otherwise.

Sorry.

No can do.

« Previous Entry | Home Page | Next Entry »

28 Comments

Celsius | June 24, 2006 2:02 PM

I always found it an amazing coincidence, that the Koran gets more violent and intolerant just when Mohammed's fortunes have changed and he is a lot more powerful and so does not have to be as conciliatory.

Also, why does the Creator of the universe, need to correct himself by abrogating previous verses. Surely, Allah could have got the message right at the first time of telling?

storagemanager | June 24, 2006 2:04 PM

Thank You Hugh...I needed this one.

Quijybo | June 24, 2006 2:13 PM

Thank you Hugh, this is an excellent piece, and a great starting point for discussing the significance, or lack thereof, of the great variety there is throughout the world in the practice of Submission. It is worth noting, because I as an American am constantly hearing about how we as a nation are so diverse. But this also misses the point. America is remarkably uniform on certain cultural and social values, namely that of mutual tolerance, secularism and equality in the eyes of the law. These and not the great rainbow are what make America the greatest nation in the history of the world; in fact they are what allow us to be so diverse and not shake ourselves apart. That Islam is united everywhere against these very tenets is critically important, and the most important thing for infidels to understand.

igor | June 24, 2006 2:16 PM

Attn: Robert & Hugh

Have you heard about the theory that Ataturk's father may have been a Donmeh? Steve Sailer has been doing a series of posts on this with references to a few articles. Why is this important? Well, the Donmeh are still in Turkey today and they make up the backbone of Turkey's secular elite.

http://isteve.blogspot.com/2006/06/was-mustafa-kemal-ataturk-founder-of.html

"He explains that "the Sabbateans believe that God is the creator of the world, but has underneath his authority the God of Israel. I discovered there are 50 `ogans' - spiritual leaders - of the Sabbatean movement. They have trained in 12 kabbalistic colleges in Turkey, which are underground. They are experts in the Zohar, in `Sefer Bahir' and `Sefer Yetsira,' prominent kabbalistic works which are accepted and respected by Orthodox Jews, but not revered [to the same extent]. They also know the Five Books of Moses, the Prophets and other writings, but very little or no Talmud as this had been transcended by Shabbtai Tzvi."

According to Ross, the secretive Sabbatean community, with an estimated 20,000 members, is known to security forces in Turkey, but not to the general public. Most of them live in Istanbul in large blocks of luxury flats in the Shishli Jewish quarter - unbeknownst to their neighbors.

"It's like a well-known secret. But the Sabbateans don't want to be exposed. I have been asked by four members of the community not to publish my book. They fear reactions from extreme Islamic elements."

To help substantiate his claims, Ross brought to Israel one of the members of the community who was willing to "come out of the closet" in order to be converted formally by rabbis: "Ilgaz Zorlu is his name. But the rabbis [in Israel] said he can't be converted because he doesn't accept all of the Talmudic law. They accepted that he knows more kabbala than they do. He prays; he practices Conservative Judaism. But, he's not bothered about Talmud so they said he had to do a nine-month conversion."

Meanwhile, Zorlu, a young accountant from Istanbul, has written his own book, which is mostly historical in nature. Entitled "Yes, I am a Salonikan," it has been printed six times.

Ross believes that there are a number of secret Sabbateans who hold key positions of influence in the Turkish parliament, legislature and executive branches of government, including the foreign minister himself. This, he observes, may help explain the close relations that exist today between Israel and Turkey."

-Orly Harpen in Haaretz

As for Ataturk, Hillel Halkin writes:

The Doenme were an underground sect of Sabbetaians, Turkish Jews who took Muslim names and outwardly behaved like Muslims but secretly believed in Sabbetai Zevi, the 17th-century false messiah, and conducted carefully guarded prayers and rituals in his name.

The encyclopedia's version of Ataturk's education, however, is somewhat at variance with his own. Here is his account of it as quoted by his biographers: "My father was a man of liberal views, rather hostile to religion, and a partisan of Western ideas. He would have preferred to see me go to a * lay school, which did not found its teaching on the Koran but on modern science. "In this battle of consciences, my father managed to gain the victory after a small maneuver; he pretended to give in to my mother's wishes, and arranged that I should enter the [Islamic] school of Fatma Molla Kadin with the traditional ceremony. ... "Six months later, more or less, my father quietly withdrew me from the school and took me to that of old Shemsi Effendi who directed a free preparatory school according to European methods. My mother made no objection, since her desires had been complied with and her conventions respected. It was the ceremony above all which had satisfied her."

Who was Mustafa Kemal's father, who behaved here in typical Doenme fashion, outwardly observing Muslim ceremonies while inwardly scoffing at them? Ataturk's mother Zubeyde came from the mountains west of Salonika, close to the current Albanian frontier; of the origins of his father, Ali Riza, little is known. Different writers have given them as Albanian, Anatolian and Salonikan, and Lord Kinross' compendious 1964 "Ataturk" calls Ali Riza a "shadowy personality" and adds cryptically regarding Ataturk's reluctance to disclose more about his family background: "To the child of so mixed an environment it would seldom occur, wherever his racial loyalties lay, to inquire too exactly into his personal origins beyond that of his parentage."

Did Kinross suspect more than he was admitting? I would never have asked had I not recently come across a remarkable chapter while browsing in the out-of-print Hebrew autobiography of Itamar Ben-Avi, son of Eliezer Ben-Yehuda, the leading promoter of the revival of spoken Hebrew in late 19th-century Palestine. Ben-Avi, the first child to be raised in Hebrew since ancient times and later a Hebrew journalist and newspaper publisher, writes in this book of walking into the Kamenitz Hotel in Jerusalem one autumn night in 1911 and being asked by its proprietor:

"'Do you see that Turkish officer sitting there in the corner, the one* with the bottle of arrack?' "

"'Yes.'"

"'He's one of the most important officers in the Turkish army.'"

"'What's his name?'"

"'Mustafa Kemal.'"

"'I'd like to meet him,' I said, because the minute I looked at him I was startled by his piercing green eyes."

Ben-Avi describes two meetings with Mustafa Kemal, who had not yet taken the name of Ataturk, 'Father of the Turks.' Both were conducted in French, were largely devoted to Ottoman politics, and were doused with large amounts of arrack. In the first of these, Kemal confided: "I'm a descendant of Sabbetai Zevi - not indeed a Jew any more, but an ardent admirer of this prophet of yours. My opinion is that every Jew in this country would do well to join his camp."

During their second meeting, held 10 days later in the same hotel, Mustafa Kemal said at one point:" 'I have at home a Hebrew Bible printed in Venice. It's rather old, and I remember my father bringing me to a Karaite teacher who taught me to read it. I can still remember a few words of it, such as --' " And Ben-Avi continues: "He paused for a moment, his eyes searching for something in space. Then he recalled: "'Shema Yisra'el, Adonai Elohenu, Adonai Ehad!'

"'That's our most important prayer, Captain.'

"'And my secret prayer too, cher monsieur,' he replied, refilling our glasses."

Although Itamar Ben-Avi could not have known it, Ataturk no doubt meant "secret prayer" quite literally. Among the esoteric prayers of the Doenme, first made known to the scholarly world when a book of them reached the National Library in Jerusalem in 1935, is one containing the confession of faith: "Sabbetai Zevi and none other is the true Messiah. Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one." It was undoubtedly from this credo, rather than from the Bible, that Ataturk remembered the words of the Shema, which to the best of my knowledge he confessed knowing but once in his adult life: to a young Hebrew journalist whom he engaged in two tipsily animated conversations in Jerusalem nearly a decade before he took control of the Turkish army after its disastrous defeat in World War I, beat back the invading Greeks and founded a secular Turkish republic in which Islam was banished - once and for all, so he thought - to the mosques.

Foehammer | June 24, 2006 2:24 PM

This is an important piece by Hugh, given birth right here in the talkbacks. And who says that the forums serve no justifiable purpose? Debate breeds revelations.

The Pig Loving Maldivian | June 24, 2006 2:26 PM

Dear sir,
I was born to muslim parents in a 100% muslim country. But it was "Spinoza and Hume, Michelangelo and Balthus, Jefferson and Lincoln and ten thousand others" who made me the person I am.
I may be from another part of the world but my identity is with "whatever was created by and for Western civilization" because I believe they belong to my race, the human race.
And you are once again right on target. Reformation of islam is impossible. Islam is a one way tunnel leading to the sewer.

scaramouoche | June 24, 2006 2:29 PM

The other one we always hear is how the terrorists and their inciters have taken passages from the Koran "out of context."

As if these words--the same ones that have inspired the faithful throughout the ages to vanquish the infidel are somehow more benign and less threatening if you leave them where they are, in context.

Also--"Islam is a peaceful religion."

That's a good one.

night_side_eclipse | June 24, 2006 3:07 PM

"Of course there are some Muslims who do not subscribe to those teachings. But how do we know who they are?"

That's true Hugh. I think the real question should be: are they even accepted as muslims by muslims? as a former muslim, who converted to athiesm since the age of 16, these words are terrible flash backs to me. It's funny how strong the come back would strike any muslim who suggests that Jihad isn't a necessity. It varies according to where you live of course, there are always those who think that AS LONG AS YOU'RE MUSLIM, nothing could kick you out of your faith if you do believe in Allah and Mohammed.Nevertheless, even those, believe that the lack of belief in the necessity of Jihad, would mean the lack of faith to Allah and Mohammed. So you go back to the texts to find out that the real question should be : does Allah and Mohammed accept any muslim without being a Jihadist? without even wishing that he could endulge in it? the answer is no.

Television | June 24, 2006 4:14 PM

"this also misses the point. America is remarkably uniform on certain cultural and social values..."

Yes, a relative lack of diversity (i.e., a relative state of cultural uniformity) is not by itself a bad thing: it only becomes bad if that relative uniformity imposes a bad ideology -- which it does through Islam.

On a related note, I find the sight of basically the same shopping malls and the same chain stores, as one travels from city to small town and even to rural areas, then from state to state, throughout the USA -- I find this relative uniformity of cultural infrastructure that is rather new in American history (only about 50 years old, increasing exponentially with passing time) rather comforting; I don't have that typical knee-jerk response that seems so common, that decries this phenomenon as "crass" and as some kind of terrible deterioration from the "good old days". To me, it's not only a manifestation of the strength and stability of the USA, able to make this incredibly sprawling and vast land of over 300 million people so relatively cohesive and orderly -- it's also an ingenious way to maintain that cohesion. This isn't to say there aren't unfortunate aspects to this uniformity of cultural infrastructure: nothing's perfect in life; but some things are on balance better. It would probably be impossible to keep a vast sprawling geographical land mass like the USA with its 300 million people as cohesive and orderly as it is if one were to permit a centrifugal Balkanization of cultural infrastructure. And of course, the relatively uniform political philosophy behind all this is on balance beneficent, not malignant as is the common ground of ideology throughout Islam.

Television | June 24, 2006 4:22 PM

That story about Ataturk is interesting. One little feature of it caught my eye:

In this battle of consciences [between Ataturk's devoutly Muslim mother and his more freethinking father], my father managed to gain the victory after a small maneuver; he pretended to give in to my mother's wishes, and arranged that I should enter the [Islamic] school of Fatma Molla Kadin with the traditional ceremony. ... "Six months later, more or less, my father quietly withdrew me from the school and took me to that of old Shemsi Effendi who directed a free preparatory school according to European methods.

If the situation of Ataturk's parents had been reversed -- if the mother had been the freethinking one and the father had been the stickler for upholding Islamic values, Ataturk would probably not have stood a chance to receive the freethinking pedagogy that eventually opened his mind, since the father in Muslim families always exerts more dictatorial control over the family.

That's why, incidentally, Islam allows a Muslim man to marry a non-Muslim woman (with the chauvinistic expectation that he will be able to dictatorially compel her one way or another to "revert"), but Islam does not allow a Muslim woman to marry a non-Muslim man (for the same reason: they fear the non-Muslim man, being, as any man is in their minds, a macho man with the natural right to be dictator of the family, will over time cause his wife, being a weakwilled being as any woman is in their minds, to apostasize).

ummahnewslinks | June 24, 2006 5:02 PM

Hugh says,

And of course there are not only differences between Sunnis and Shi'a and Ibadi Muslims, but also in the role of a mystic approach -- that of Sufis, or those more recent sects deemed doubtful, by orthodox Muslims, such as the Ahmadiyyas (Qadianis), now forced in Pakistan to list themselves on official forms as non-Muslims...

Speaking of the Ahmadiya -

15 injured in anti-Ahmadiya violence

Ummah News Links

Ronin | June 24, 2006 8:26 PM

Ok, I never understand what Hugh is saying but I love to read his stuff

Kepha | June 24, 2006 8:31 PM

Yes, the Qu'ran is the same across sectarian lines in Islam. Coincidentally, the sameness of the Bible across Christian sectarian ones (and of the OT across the Christian-Jewish divide) is one of the reasons I cannot buy the Muslim argument that the Christians and Jews falisfied the Scriptures.

The point about Islam not being monolithic, though, is that it is not necessary for the USA, or any Western power, to be in conflict with all Muslims from Mauretania to Mindanao. This is not to deny that there are dangerous Muslims out there, but to ask if a wholesale civilizational war is really necessary.

Television | June 24, 2006 9:38 PM

Kepha,

"it is not necessary for the USA, or any Western power, to be in conflict with all Muslims from Mauretania to Mindanao. This is not to deny that there are dangerous Muslims out there, but to ask if a wholesale civilizational war is really necessary."

The avoidance of such a wholesale civilizational war, and even the delimitation of the conflict in general, is up to the Muslims, not us, insofar as they would heed Bush's original formulation: If you're not with us, you're against us. Then, all Bush (and all who are in charge of our safekeeping) would have to do is educate himself sufficiently to recognize all the less conspicuous signs that Muslims are, in fact, not with us.

sheik yer'mami | June 24, 2006 10:49 PM

Islam is a cult and not a culture, it is not a civilization but a destructive monster. There is no 'clash of cultures', neither is there a 'clash of civilizations...' This kind of description is only putting lipstick on a pig. As for not being 'monolithic', why should we care? All of it is based on the Koran, the Koran demands total submission and every Moslem who doesn't heed the call to jihad is an apostate...

We don't need to declare war on all Islam from Mauritania to Mindanao, we just have to disengage:

No aid, no immigration, restrict trade to an absolute minimum (which should be no problem with the countries mentioned above) and sell them western products only at the highest prices!

Intern and deport all Mohammedans that display the slightest belligerence or seditious activities, strip them of citizenship, even if they spit on the sidewalk, close the mosques one by one, forbid madrassahs, no 'clerics'- which means no imams, no muftis and no to all Tariq Ramadan characters...

Make it hard, make it impossible to practice their cult, forbid da'awa, (proselytizing) and stop all welfare payments.

jsla | June 25, 2006 12:09 AM

This essay strikes a near perfect balance. One of the best so far at this site.

profitsbeard | June 25, 2006 12:24 AM

Hugh-

Striking through the veil of gauzy p.c. b.s. brilliantly.

Thanks for concise dissection of this common disinformation tactic!

sheik yer'mami-

"Repatriations NOW!" you mean.

(Sounds so much nicer, doncha think? Makes them seems "patriotic", in a sense. To the Ummah, of course, but, if that's what it takes to send them to Mecca, one-way, so be it.)

Frank | June 25, 2006 3:25 AM

Better headline..