Yesterday a Muslim named Alykhan Velshi was given space at NRO's The Corner to accuse me, in the course of attacking the Pope's remarks, of "not giving moderate Muslims any wiggle room in which to offer an internal-Islamic critique of the bin Ladenists." I responded here, and now Velshi has written "A response to Robert Spencer" at his website; his response is also linked at The Corner.
Robert Spencer replies to my post in the Corner.Essentially, Robert challenges me, as he does all moderate Muslims, to "renounce definitively, the elements of Islamic theology that jihadists are using to wage war against non-Muslims around the world."
I do. Though the ease with which I do so will probably dissatisfy Robert Spencer.
It doesn't. Why do you think it would?
Robert wants me to admit there is a problem with Islam. Of course there is - thousands, possibly millions, are willing to commit suicide in its name. That's a very serious problem. But admitting there is a problem doesn't mean I'm agonising at the (minor) epistemological leap it took for me personally to renounce violent jihad. I think Robert Spencer and people who support him consistently trumpet the most violent interpretations of Islam, and then go on to make it seem as though those Muslims who are not violent are somehow betraying the essence of the faith.
"...make it seem as though..." Let's stay on firmer ground, shall we, Velshi? In fact, I have never said this. What I have actually said, many times, is that there is no universally recognized authority in Islam that can say what is true Islam and what isn't, but that jihadist Muslims will accuse and do accuse moderates of "betraying the essence of the faith."
Although I concede that those who advocate violent jihad point to actual texts in the Quran and early and subsequent Islamic practice, I believe their interpretation is wrong and the historical examples they cite are opportunistically chosen. This doesn't mean I'm denying the violent aspects of Islam that come from a literal reading of religious texts, just that I, as Muslims have for centuries, reject that literalism is the only way to interpret religious documents - in fact, I'll readily admit that the bin Ladenists aren't creating doctrine out of thin air, but they are distorting what is there considerably through their weirdly post-modern focus on literalism, which has less of a basis in Islam than common intuition would suggest. I don't want to get into the weeds of Islamic history and Quranic exegesis on a Friday evening, though.
All right. Now it's Saturday afternoon. When do you want to get into it? Not for me, mind you, but for those Muslims who are falling prey all around the world to this erroneous jihadist exegesis. If you could show them that it is erroneous, Velshi, you would be doing the world a great service.
I hope my response still satisfies Robert: I admit that there is much violence and intolerance inherent in verses in the Quran and elsewhere (although I disagree that it's as bad as Robert says it is) - still, I "renounce [it] definitively."
I couldn't possibly be more satisfied. Thanks. But in fact, it isn't all about me. I am still looking for a group of Muslims to mount some viable Islamic challenge to the jihadists, so as to curb their violence and combat their recruitment. I am assured by people all the time that it exists, but no one has ever managed to show it to me.
I can't speak for other Muslims - indeed, I refuse to do so, cherishing as I do my individuality and respecting theirs - but I can say that the doctrines of my particular subsect of Islam, the Shia Ismailis, make it easy for me to renounce violent jihad.
Great. Is there any chance that the Ismailis might be accepted as orthodox Muslims by the larger bodies of Sunnis and Shi'ites at any point in the near future, which would be an indispensable prerequisite for the wider dissemination of this perspective?
I don't know - maybe I should agonise over it more, but somehow I don't. With respect to my religious faith, I agonise more over memorising difficult prayer verses and singing religious songs in tune.I don't however agonise over whatever it is that bothers the violent jihadists.
With respect, sir, maybe we do need a bit more agonizing, in the sense that we need more active challenges to the jihadists from Muslims who claim to reject their deeds and perspective. I hope we will see more in this vein from you in the future, and in the meantime I thank you for taking the time to write this reply, which in itself suggests that you have modified your earlier erroneous view that I leave Muslim reformers and would-be reformers no "wiggle room."
Robert Spencer next Secretary of State ?
Robert, I have been struck often by your reasoned and patient responses to attacks on your views and mischaracterizations of your comments.
This is what will bring the victory, eventually, over the hysterical and emotional outbursts that seem to emanate from the other side. Just keep it up. You are making a difference, and I thank you from the bottom of my heart.
What appears to be holy and pleasing to a holy God? The calm, rational discussion of differing points of view? Or the irate threats, violence and screams of insulted believers?
I think we can each be the judge of that.
What a shit stick. I don't do it, but if others are doing it I could careless. What a great defense from a "Moderate Muslim".
Of course, it is fantastic that one Muslim has renounced the evil aspects of Islam. I presume Mr. Velshi also understands that Muhammad's "marriage" to Reyhanna was in fact sexual enslavement, and that his extermination of her family was a vile crime which no good man could possibly condone, and if she indeed did poison him as so many Muslims allege, it was a justified act for a woman denied justice and forced to live a life of incomprehensibe anguish and subjugation, indeed "submission" to the will of Muhammad and his diabolical hallucination of God. I assume Mr. Velshi knows that Muhammad's pedophilic relationship with Ayesha was appalling, and is the source of so much suffering throughout the Islamic world, for so many young women. I presume he knows that God cannot be as Muhammad characterized him, a scheming, hateful, sadistic monster that creates non-Muslims so he can punish them for all eternity.
If Muslims want "wiggle room" they must make it themselves; thusfar they have done so with violence and tyranny, and crushed those who dared criticise - what is it that Muhammad enjoins Muslims to do, in word and deed, if not kill critics? Now, the truth has escaped and good people who happen to be Muslim are in the teeth of a painful dilemma. We owe Mr. Velshi only one thing, honesty. Anything less would not be respect but patronization, and cowardice at its worst.
Isnt this guy Ali Velshi from CNN? In that case, he is a Shiite.
Robert,
Could you please provide some background on the Ismailis? What is their history? What makes it easy for them to reject Jihadi doctrine? How have they been treated for this attitude?
The question is not does he reject violent jihad in his personal life. The questions should be: what will he do to try and keep fellow muslims from following the path of violence and does he believe that different faiths can coexist peacefully, or does he believe that islam will one day dominate the world by any means necessary?
sorry but I cannot be optimistic.
"I can't speak for other Muslims - indeed, I refuse to do so, cherishing as I do my individuality and respecting theirs - but I can say that the doctrines of my particular subsect of Islam, the Shia Ismailis, make it easy for me to renounce violent jihad."
wow, and now there are 0.00021% of moderate muslims, I am impressed.
Too bad that they count like 0.00000000000000000001%
Alykhan Velshi is disavowing part of Islam? Sounds to me like innovation, which is un-Islamic and possibly fatal.
Alykhan Veslsi commented on my website and referred my to this reply. Here is my reply:
http://moneyrunner.blogspot.com/2006/09/alykhan-velshi-responds-to-robert.html
Robert,
As a Muslim, Velshi admits that Islam is open to interpretation.
Given that Allah's literal word, as written in the Qur'an, is unchangeable, I can't envison individual Muslims, or Muslim groups, mountng an authoritative challenge to the religious beliefs of Muslim literalists and jihadists.
What is your position concerning the potential success of such a challenge?
So he renounces "violent jihad". Does he renounce Sharia law as well? Otherwise, sorry...not good enough. It's little consolation given the demographics of nonviolent, demographic jihad. The outcome is still the same. And there's nothing "moderate" about Sharia law.
"Robert Spencer next Secretary of State ?"
Actually, the next President should create a new Cabinet position -- Islam Czar. Oh wait, I take that back: if such a position were created, chances are it would be filled by a "moderate" Muslim or an Esposito or an Armstrong, which would only make things worse.
Did anyone notice that Velshi implied that he thinks literal interpretation is a "post-modern" phenomenon? That must mean, according to Velshi, that Muslims did not take the Koran literally for the 13 centuries prior to the post-modern era. I'd like to see some evidence of that.
"but they are distorting what is there considerably through their weirdly post-modern focus on literalism, which has less of a basis in Islam than common intuition would suggest. I don't want to get into the weeds of Islamic history and Quranic exegesis on a Friday evening, though."
In other words you aint got a pot to piss in, no a hook to hang your're logical argument on .So you want to kick the jihad down the road a bit,
Sorry dead end. We have lost interst in the myth you promote ,the muslim street ,or the sudden jihad,
you cannot make chicken salad out of chicken shit.
If a literal interpretation causes jihad mayhem the whole thing must go.
Period.
"but they are distorting what is there considerably through their weirdly post-modern focus on literalism"
So what this guy is saying is that for 1400 years the "pre-modern" and even "modern" Muslims correctly interpreted jihad from a purely metaphorical perspective, while they somehow accidentally? exterminated millions of people in the name of jihad? Okee Dokee...
I posted at NRO -- and I'm posting here too about Velshi's comments.
"I hope my response still satisfies Robert" is immaterial.
I have posted elsewhere that this man may indeed have a highly personal interpretation of Islam which is non-violent, and compatible with Western precepts. Then again, he may not. We now know there's no way to tell. But this too has sadly become immaterial to me after all the subterfuge we've received from Western Muslims.
What men like Velshi and all the other possible 'moderates' are doing is preaching to almost solely to US -- we happy few challengers of their stories. How much good does this do? Sure, it may make their lives a little better in infidel lands -- great for them. But if their time is spent trying to convince we non-Muslims that Islam is non-violent but never confront their bombing maiming murdering cohorts, then what's the point?
Why even listen to such people if all they say comes to naught? If their arguments don't start reforming the vast majority of misunderstanders then they're simply handing us placebos for their and our edification. This is malignant.
Why? Because it continues our confusion -- allows Islam to continue to insinuate itself into the fiber of our society, and does NOTHING to change the trajectory of Islam's continuing Jihad.
What good will talking to a bunch of scared, angry, or confused 'infidels' do if such arguments do nothing to contravene the interpretations of Islam which causes all the violence?
I also noted in Velshi's first response how he minimalized the ugly nature of connate Muslim rage by comparing it to the anger a woman told her clothes made her look fat. It's a groteque whitewashing and only serves to attempt to soften the reality of the rage of his Muslim brethren in our eyes.
If one ponders this -- one must wonder why, if the raging Muslims are something he disavows -- he goes to great pains to minimalize their misbehavior? By the logic he tries to create, this makes no sense. Either he disavows their behavior and calls it aberrant and makes no other excuse or minimalization, or he calls his disavowals into question.
Today we are treated to another deliberate understatement: "Robert wants me to admit there is a problem with Islam. Of course there is - thousands, possibly millions, are willing to commit suicide in its name."
Not "possibly millions", Velshi. Definitely millions are willing to commit suicide in [Islam's] name." (And it may be 10s or 100s are willing. What then?
Further, why such careful clever parsing? Why distinguish those who are "willing to commit suicide", whatever their number, from the assuredly much MUCH larger number who tacitly or actively support their willingness, fund their willingness, and run interference so they're able to "commit suicide in [Islam's] name"?
Another curious understating of the true menace. So, perhaps he's sincere -- I have no way of knowing -- but these curious minimalizations, these curious parsings, even when viewed in conjunction with what appear to be clear disavowals call those supposed disavowals into question in my mind.
We need to recognize that this guy, like some others, Eteraz comes to mind, simply assert their conscience over the jihadists, and over the texts these murderers know so well.
They are not referring to the texts, and it's too bad because they are exhibiting faith that god is not one of violence (hmmmm, sems to be similar to the what the pope had to say), and saying their faith that texts are there to back them up means the justifying texts MUST be there,...frankly the crux of the entire thing is...just that.
That after 5 years there is nothing or next to nothing literal to drive back the jihadistas is a very unoptimistic fact.
I am glad that folks like Velshi are out there, but they don't have the microphone, the weapons, the pulpit, the quttbas, the mosques, or the madrassas. They don't have the untrammeled conscience of these others, and they don't have the means short of organized western societies and their force of arms to reverse the horror
Velshi: preach it in your mosque to your fellow headbangers.
It is of no use to tell us how moderate you are - you still are not confronting an evil ideology.
until you do you are just another untrustworthy taquiyya mouthing muslim mouthpiece like Ibrahim.
I do not think that even the moderate of Muslims should be allowed in the West. One reason is that surely they must resent the suspicion with which they're regarded. Why do we need the stress caused by their presence, and why do they need the stress caused by ours? Their presence is simply an unnecessary complication of our lives.
But a more important reason is that there is no guarantee (it is actually quite likely) that their children will not turn to 'true' Islam and engage in terrorism. The more moderate the parents, the more radical the sons--it happened in the UK.
Velshi doesn't want to get into exegesis.
Well, for what it is worth, exegesis is spin, that is all it is, just like apologetics.
Truth, if it be truth, needs no apolgetics or exegesis. Every hear of exegesis or apologetics for the laws of thermodynamics?
There will always be a small percentage of religous people who taken their religion literally and seriously. Let's call them the radical one percent. In Judaism, they are Hasidic Jews. In Protestant Christianity, the fundamentalists (including snake handlers and poison drinkers).
No religious authority or "reform" can change the views of the radical 1%. They have the holy texts, they know how to read, and they call a spade a spade. Their beliefs cannot be modernized or reformed; they reject the dishonesty of the mealy-mouthed moderates.
We know from 7/7 that moderate islam, and moderate muslim parents, were the seeds that grew violent jihad. It is difficult to see how one can oppose terrorism while supporting the religious root cause of terrorism.
I would bet that Velshi thinks 911 was a conspiracy planned and executed by the American government or some cabal of Americans in high places and Zionists.
Rubbish. All of it. Irrelevant rubbish!
"...I think Robert Spencer and people who support him consistently trumpet the most violent interpretations of Islam, and then go on to make it seem as though those Muslims who are not violent are somehow betraying the essence of the faith..."
How is it Robert Spencer 'who trumpets the most violent interpretations?'- The 'radicals' are doing that and NO 'moderates' ever come up with any relevant argument against it. Neither does this guy Velshi. As far as I can see, the texts are also crystal clear and leave no room for 'interpretation'...
Look at this for example: 009:038-039: [9.38] O you who believe! What (excuse) have you that when it is said to you: Go forth in Allah's way [to Jihad], you should incline heavily to earth; are you contented with this world's life instead of the hereafter? But the provision of this world's life compared with the hereafter is but little. [9.38] If you do not go forth [to go on Jihad], He will chastise you with a painful chastisement and bring in your place a people other than you [to go on Jihad], and you will do Him no harm; and Allah has power over all things."
And this one, my personal favorite:
002:216-218: [2.216] Fighting is enjoined on you, and it is an object of dislike to you; and it may be that you dislike a thing while it is good for you, and it may be that you love a thing while it is evil for you, and Allah knows, while you do not know.
There are another 111 verses right here, and I don't see room for 'interpretation' anywhere!
To kill and to be killed to spread 'Allahs religion'- thats what its all about, end of story.
Prove me wrong!
This will prove to be the straw that figuratively broke the camel's back. How does a civilized person talk with mad people. We don't have a mental institution nor the resources to incarcerate them. The answer is staring us in the face!
Velshi contributed to a discussion about "Islamic Fascism", at Foundation for Defense of Democracies, with which he is associated:
http://www.defenddemocracy.org//in_the_media/in_the_media_show.htm?doc_id=395496
"The ideology of the jihadists has deep roots, and these do not stretch back to the Koran, but to an age-old Dionysian project that, in seeking to create (or recreate) “heaven on earth,” is prepared to rationalize any act of brutality and savagery."
He is opposed to violent jihad, but is unwilling to link the ideology of jihad to islam per se.
As such, it seems unlikely that he has a real interest in reforming islam (i.e. the problem, from his perspective, is not in islam, rather, it is in misunderstanderers of islam). And his view of "misunderstanderers "of islam is seemingly without the ironic humor of Robert Spencer.
Additionally, he avoids mention of non-violent strategies, such as da'wa and demographics, of muslim supremacists. Based upon his background and current station (FDD, AEI, NRO, NER), I doubt that he has any desire to live in a sharia state, but by misleading non-muslims about islam, he is part of the problem, more than part of the solution.
First time poster, long time and daily lurker.
Robert (and Hugh), I appreciate what you're doing here. After 9/11, I was among many who believed President Bush when he said Islam is a "religion of peace".
As attacks continued, I started to look further into what Islam was about and this site was a big part of that. There's no question that the texts and "prophet" that are the foundation of Islam are far from peaceful, and that the world would be a much better place without Islam being a part of it.
That said... 1.2 billion Muslims aren't going to decide anytime soon to agree with our sentiments and abandon their regressive death cult.
We NEED people like Velshi; he has written the words that we've been seeking from Muslims for far too long. Even if he's only one of a small number of outspoken, truely moderate Muslims, the focus should be on building bridges with him and his ilk- otherwise we hand them the ammunition with which to fire the the nonsensical label of "Islamophobe" at those of us with like minds.
Kudos to you Mr. Spencer for all you've done, but your response above did too little to welcome anti-jihad Muslims into our fold, while sending the message that they won't be accepted even if they do renounce a very fundamental part of their religion known as Jihad.
If one does not interpret scripture 'literally' then just how should it be interpreted? Every man for himself? Whatever turns you on? If the Quran is the very word of Allah, and muslims are bound to follow them or pzz Allah off, there is nothing to be interpreted. The Quran is a 'perfect' book is it not?
Allah is God, is he not? He means what he says, does he not? One of a muslims greatest fears is that he might offend Allah, and not get into heaven (space there is limited). Islam has cultivated that fear into an art form. Mohammad started the 'I might not get in', phobia with muslims, when he said only 'one in a thousand' would get in, and the limit was seventy thousand. So the result is that muslims must believe that the world is flat, even though they know it is round. Mohammad also told them they had to fight even though it disagreed with them, but Allah knows what is good for them, so they fight. What 'moderate' muslim is going to come forward and oppose the words of Allah and his messenger/Prophet?
Velshi is trying to duck that issue by claiming this:" This doesn't mean I'm denying the violent aspects of Islam that come from a literal reading of religious texts, just that I, as Muslims have for centuries, reject that literalism is the only way to interpret religious documents".
Not wanting to be 'alone' he invokes centuries of nameless muslims who agree with him. Not only that but he refers to the Quran as a religious 'document', Allah is really pzzed about that.
This guy might mean well and believes what he says, if he does, he is an apostate... Allah is watching...
Hollowpoint,
The problem, IMO, is that while Velshi believes the Qur'anic interpretations of his violent co-relgionists are wrong, the jihadists, and plenty of everyday Muslims, don't.
I wonder which specific chapters and verses he, as a Muslim, would be willing to challenge the bin Ladensist on, without being laughed off the podium; or worse.
That so many Muslims do not know what Islam teaches, or that they selectively deny or ignore what it teaches, or that some simply lie about what it teaches, doesn't negate what it teaches.
I personally believe that the jihadist version is as Islam was intended to be, which leaves the door open to external violent jihad.
I'm not optimistic about this.
r/
PRCS
eternal
Hollowpoint:
I disagree. What part of "I couldn't possibly be more satisfied" is unclear?
Cordially
Robert Spencer
Velshi's position is analogous to that of a Nazi who condemns neo-Nazis and skinheads, but at the same time thinks the original Nazism and Hitler and his Koran "Mein Kampf" were good and peaceful. We are not supposed to yank this clown off the stage?
Hi Robert,
You owe an apology to Mr. Velshi on one point.
Mr. Velshi's did not contend that "Muslim" need not be modified by "moderate" because it is redundant. The term he finds "redundant and somewhat offensive" is "compassionate conservative", and I agree completely. He specifically chose not to "get into" why he dislikes the term moderate Muslim, and offered no alternative. Personally, I'd love to hear his objections to the term and any alternatives he feels might be more accurate.
Among the first battles that must be won is conquering this asinine notion that any discussion or criticism of Islam is somehow a racist and bigoted slur against all Muslims.
While your first date didn't go so well, I hope "I couldn't possibly be more satisfied" extends to welcoming Mr. Velshi as an ally in at least this battle.
Robert,
Alykhan Velshi is an Ismaili. This syncretistic sect rejected Jihad long ago. They interpret the Quran "spiritually" and put more authority in the teachings of their Imam, the Agha Khan. They also reject Sharia, rarely attend Mosques, and don't even consider the Hajj to Mecca to be essential.
Their classification as "Muslims" is linked with certain historical events, but considering their faith today Isma'ilism is better identified as an independent religion which officially has accepted the status of belonging ot Islam, by employing taqiyya. Their actual theology is a survival of ancient Gnosticism.
Ever since the 8th century, Isma'ilism has identified the outward expressions of mainstream Islam within their own context, making the taqiyya only outward. The believing Isma'ili could perform central Islamic rituals, not as a disguise, but as an expression of the inner realities of the faith. The shahada was a recognition or knowledge of the imam, prayer was directed at the imam, zakat was given for the imam, fasting in Ramadan was an expression of knowing the secret truth, hajj was the same as visiting the imam.
Very, very few Sunnis would consider them to be Muslims at all and the majority of Twelver Shia would also consider them to be heretics. If all Muslims were to convert to this sect, then we'd have no more problems from them.
See: http://lexicorient.com/e.o/ismailis.htm
thewilliam:
I most certainly do not owe Mr. Velshi an apology.
He only brought up "compassionate conservative" to make the point that he objected to "moderate Muslim" on the same grounds.
Cordially
Robert Spencer