Moderate Muslims have been an ongoing preoccupation of this site. I have repeatedly asked that they confront and refute the Islamic arguments of jihadists -- which is the one thing they must do if they are going to prevail in the Islamic community, and which shouldn't be difficult in light of their insistence that Islam is fundamentally peaceful.
But despite a great deal of bluster, there is no large-scale organized movement of Muslims countering the jihadists, and no coherent moderate Muslim theology that teaches against jihad and the subjugation of unbelievers on Islamic grounds, with the possible exception of academic constructs that have no roots in Islamic tradition and no following among Muslims, and the certain exception of deceptive pieces that make unbelievers feel great but likewise have no acceptance among Muslims.
And there are a lot of those deceptive pieces. Yesterday after Jihad Watch reader James alerted me to Dean Esmay's latest defamatory comment, about which I wrote here, I ventured again into the fetid waters of the Esmay site. I found that Esmay was commenting on a post by Ali Eteraz entitled "How The Death Penalty For Apostasy Will Fall."
This is just the sort of thing that we need to see, right? Islamic arguments against the death penalty for apostasy! Here then is a small sign of the Islamic reform that everyone (except those who believe that Islam is essentially peaceful and needs no reform) wants to see, right? And it starts out well: Eteraz acknowledges that there is a death penalty for apostasy, which many Islamic apologists in the West have denied, and promises an "almost airtight legal argument against it."
Classical Islamic Law — where national citizenship was based on one's religion — mandated a death penalty for converting out of Islam. This medieval remnant has too long been part of modern Islamic Law. There is now a palpable cultural movement against this. We knew that. Here, for edification, is an almost airtight legal argument against it. I posted this is on my blog and I am copying and pasting it.*
A hadith narrative from Bayhaqi's Book of Hadith, regarding the Prophet's directive to kill an apostate woman, falls to critical evaluation.
It is interesting to note that the scholars did not even engage in a matn (textual) analysis. The hadith was lacking on isnad (chain of narration) grounds and they didn't even have to proceed to evaluating its text. Assuming the hadith would have passed the isnad test, the matn test would have involved looking to see if the hadith was a) logical and b) consistent with the Quran.
Click on Eteraz's link. This is no breakthrough. This is an examination of a hadith about killing apostate women. The fact that it is a weak hadith has long been noted, and that's why the schools of Islamic law are not unanimous about the necessity of killing female apostates -- as I noted in passing here. This is not a new development, and hence it is no sign of any evolution in the Islamic legal understanding of the death penalty for apostasy.
My prediction: one by one (here is another one revealed as weak) all of these tertiary apostasy hadith will be discredited. Then we'll be left with nothing but a couple of hadith which satisfy the isnad test — but which won't be able to satisfy the matn analysis. Why? Because the Quran does not legislate an earthly punishment for leaving Islam, so when a hadith contradicts that, it has become inconsistent with the Quran, and therefore questionable.
Click on the link again. It's a hadith about giving the apostate a chance to repent -- not about the death penalty for apostasy itself. Does Eteraz think people will not click on his links? Moreover, he asserts that the death penalty for apostasy contradicts the Qur'an -- funny how all the many Islamic jurists who have upheld the death penalty for apostasy over the centuries, in all the schools of Islamic law, never seem to have noticed that.
UPDATE: Even as I say that, here is THE authoritative hadith on the issue of apostasy (cited in both Muslim and Bukhari), becoming highly questionable in light of a matn (textual) analysis. You may not realize it now, but this is big.
Yes, click the link. See anything in there about this hadith, in which Muhammad says "Whoever changes his religion, kill him" (من بدل دينه فاقتلوه), being inauthentic? I don't either. In fact, its multiple attestation is affirmed:
This narrative or a part of it with some variations has been reported in Bukhari (narrative no. 2854, 6524 and 6525), Muslim (narrative no. 1733), Mu'atta of Imam Malik (narrative no. 1413), Ibn Hibban (narrative no. 4475 and 5606), Abu Dawood (narrative no. 4351 and 4354), Tirmidhi (narrative no. 1458), Nissaiy (narrative no. 4059, 4060, 4061, 4062, 4063, 4064, 4065 and 4066), Ibn Maajah (narrative no. 2535), Nissaiy's Sunan al-Kubraa (narrative no. 3522, 3523, 3524, 3525, 3526, 3527, 3528 and 3529), Bayhaqiy (narrative no. 16597, 16598, 16599, 16635, 16636, 16637, 16654, 16658 and 17841), Ahmad ibn Hanbal (narrative no. 1871, 2551, 2552, 2968, 19681 and 22068), Abu Ya`laa (narrative no. 2532 and 2533), Humaidiy (narrative no. 533), Abd al-Razzaq (narrative no. 9413, 18705 and 18706), Ibn Abi Shaybah (narrative no. 28992, 29006, 32728, 33143 and 36491). The preferred text is reported in Bukhari's narrative no. 2854.
What's more, the article affirms the traditional rules of jihad and dhimmitude, which I have pointed out many times:
...In short, the Qur'an says that it is the unalterable law of God that when He sends His messenger to a people, the polytheists among these people are left with no option, but to accept His message or to face the punishment of death and sometimes complete annihilation.The Qur'an goes further to tell us how this punishment was implemented on the polytheists from among the rejecters of the Prophet (pbuh). It tells us that although the previous nations of the messengers of God were annihilated, because of their rejection, through (apparently) natural calamities, the believers of Muhammad (pbuh), because God has given them rule in a land (Madinah), shall fight the rejecters and, thereby, through these believers shall God implement His punishment (Al-Tawbah 9: 14 - 16). It directs them that the Mushrikeen should be killed, without any exception. They should only be allowed to live if they accept Islam (Al-Tawbah 9: 5). On the other hand, it also directs them that the Jews and the Christians (because they were not polytheists - i.e. Mushrik), even if they do not enter the folds of Islam, they may be allowed to live if they accept to live under the Muslim rule and agree to pay the appointed Jizyah (Al-Tawbah 9: 29).
All it has are some textual variants: in some versions, Muhammad doesn't say "kill him," he says, "break his neck." Oh, I feel so much better! Reform is at hand!
But the weakness of his argument doesn't stop Eteraz from rushing on to some sweeping conclusions:
Let me say it again: there is no Quranic basis for an EARTHLY punishment for apostasy. (Maududi tried to find one but he failed). As such, the death penalty for apostasy is rooted in the hadith. Within the three links above, the single most important apostasy hadith, and a couple of corollary hadith, have been discredited. It becomes really difficult, in light of this information, to persuasively argue that Islamic Law should permit a death penalty for apostasy.Now, the issue is to spread these opinions so more people can get out of their ignorance.
Yes, it's all about ignorance, isn't it? Those poor ignorant Islamic scholars, all over the world, blundering in darkness and relying on this hadith in which Muhammad says "If anyone changes his religion, kill him" to legislate a death penalty for apostasy. If only they knew that Ali Eteraz has declared this a weak hadith on the grounds that in some versions Muhammad says to break the apostates' necks!
If this is the bandwagon of Islamic reform that we are all supposed to jump on, on pain of being called "traitors" and "liars" and "hatemongers" and everything else Dean Esmay has called me, I will take a pass. The problem, of course, is not that I am not convinced. It is that no Muslim who can read and check Eteraz's links will be convinced. No one who believes in the death penalty for apostasy will be convinced. And they are the ones who need to be convinced.
Reminds me of a story I heard in Israel years ago.
A group of Arabs were travelling home and stopped to camp for the night. They lit a fire and cooked their meal. Then they gorged till they could eat no more. A few morsels of meat remained which they discarded by tossing them into the fire. Then, before retiring for the night, they stood by the campfire and pissed on the flames, as boys will do.
In the morning they woke up hungry. Naturally they remembered the food thrown into the fire. One by one they reached into the wet ashes and found the morsels of meat. When they were finished only one morsel of meat was left uneaten.
"On this we pissed!" they said.
Yes, and I could probably come up with a "near airtight" case against the Christian biblical doctrine of loving my neighbor, if I was willing to violate every established law of non-contradiction and responsible scholarship.
Sadly, many who are unwilling to deal with the Islamism problem either because of leftist politics, or simple fearful denial, will still buy this crap. From my vantage point as an education professional, it appears the general public has been robbed of critical reasoning skills by the shift from oral and written tradition to the media arts as the primary means of receiving and processing information.
Robert Spencer posted : In short, the Qur'an says that it is the unalterable law of God that when He sends His messenger to a people, the polytheists among these people are left with no option, but to accept His message or to face the punishment of death and sometimes complete annihilation.
I have been watching Stargate Series 10. In this series, there are group of people, who are followers of the Ori. The Ori are very powerful - almost godlike in their mastery of the universe, and have a similar message for unbelievers- convert or die.
Well thats the least of our/ their problems
What is mischief and why is it importent?
http://www.kafirnation.com/WOTD.htm#fas
It would be unduly optimistic to think that Islam, or the majority of Muslims, might ever rise in a body against the death penalties for apostasy, heresy, or blasphemy. Intellectual, historical, and legalistic arguments on either side of the "question" miss the central point: Islam is so repressive and life-denying a creed that without coercive instruments, it would bleed membership until it was outnumbered by Aum Shinrikyo.
The most important face of Islam was the one presented to us by the late Ruhollah Khomeini when he said that there is no room for humor in Islam: "Islam is deadly serious...about everything." The late ayatollah might have been a real fun guy at parties, but we may take it as written that he didn't want anyone else in attendance.
The more I read about the Islamic world and its crazy theology the more I am convinced that Mohammed made the whole thing up. He needed to corral warring tribes to support him in his goal to take lands and wealth and increase his power. He also needed a belief system that would continually recruit warriors, gain the support of the populace at large, and provide carrots (paradise) and sticks (loss of head). Islam is the most successful brain-washing scheme in the history of mankind. I don't know who the Muslims worship but it ain't God. Maybe the most successful aspect of Islamic theology is that there is no room for moderates.
"From my vantage point as an education professional, it appears the general public has been robbed of critical reasoning skills by the shift from oral and written tradition to the media arts as the primary means of receiving and processing information."
Clive-you're absolutely right, scholarly inquiry has been replaced by the Micheal Moore type video education we are bombarded by. However as a self professed educational professional you must see first hand what has happened in our institutions of higher learning.
I don't know where you were educated, but I can tell you here in Canada we have been overwhelmed by leftist and socialist teachings and philosophies. We've basically been brain washed for years up North, and have been taught the most common types of revisionist history available in the world today.
Political correctness which started in socialist Britain spread like a virus to Canada and has been so ingrained in us, all of our public policy is shaped by it. I could easily as a result of the conversations I have at work be charged with hate crimes. It is unlikely still, but always a possibility. Political correctness I have stated many times over is INSTITUTIONALIZED CENSORSHIP, it is fundamentally against freedom of speech, and is a result of our new found way of thinking thanks to our education system.
It is ultimately this way of thinking that does not allow us to fully or truthfully examine issues like death to apostates in Islamic law.
Niv
Just as agnosticism hasn't the spiritual power to defeat Judeo-Christianity in the long run, so too moderate Islam is destined to be overwhelmed by, and therefore to become radical/ true Islam.
Three things we'll never see in this lifetime:
1)Unicorns
2)Free oil
3)Moderate Muslims
I am sick and tired of these moderates trying to hijack Islam and turn it into some touchy-feely new age Kumbaya-religion. This tiny minority of extremists will destroy one of the worlds truly great mind control cults.
Post By Robert: "....there is no large-scale organized movement of Muslims countering the jihadists,"
Want to know why?
Moderate muslims are not sure of their true allegence. They are lying low in the reeds.
They know that someday they will have to make a choice and when that day comes they will side with jihad.
I don't know where you were educated, but I can tell you here in Canada we have been overwhelmed by leftist and socialist teachings and philosophies.
It's not just a problem in Canada. Here's my admittedly ill-developed take on this:
University actually means unity in diversity. It is perfectly understandable why educators of the last few decades, faced with impending globalism, would introduce epistemological systems that differ from western style, either/or, syllogistic reasoning. The Hegelian idea, for example, of bringing together the thesis and the antithesis, and finding the synthesis, sounds like a reasonable picture of what higher education has to be, in a global context. One can also see how difficult it would be to suggest that a particular worldview (besides Christianity) would be inferior to another in a setting like this.
There are much smarter people than myself who've written about this, but from what I've seen, relativistic systems of thought have been accepted among academicians as "advanced," and the either/or paradigm has been associated with parochial, black and white, right and wrong hyper simplicity. Hence the sense of superiority one perceives in the rhetoric of the liberal political leaders trained in elite universities, when they are arguing with right-leaning opponents.
The problem is, right now is not a time for a philosophy class. It's a time for plain old, binary solution set, crisis management thinking, as in, are we going to allow ourselves to be overrun by jihadist Islam, or not?
"Maybe the most successful aspect of Islamic theology is that there is no room for moderates."
gordo - Interesting point.
Sounder said, "They know that someday they will have to make a choice and when that day comes they will side with jihad."
I have spent a fair amount of time with "average" muslims in the middle east and north africa and, sounder, you nailed it. When forced to decide the average muslim will support Islam no matter how violent. In fact, I believe that to be true of many Muslims living here in America. What a waste.
Ali Eteraz said
I don't mean to besmirch the good name of Ali Eteraz, or befoul the respectful relationship that he and Esmay share with JW/DW, but can he read? The link that he gave solidly supported the Qur'anic justification for the death penalty for apostasy. It was completely in line with what Robert has explained about the penalty for apostasy. It proved the exact opposite of what Eteraz was claiming.
Mmmm, hang on a minute, I, Ali Eteraz, am receiving a live update. I believe, ... I believe, ... YES! The hadith is becoming highly questionable. I repeat, the hadith is becoming highly questionable. You heard it here, live, folks, as history was made and 1350 years of Islamic jurisprudence were overthrown by me, Ali Eteraz. Pay no attention to the nightly news, because I, Ali Eteraz, have decided that the Qur'an teaches peace.
Clive thanks for your response, my post was not intended to be a philosophical lesson. It was simply pointing out one of our biggest obstacles in reaching this binary solution.
We need to overcome some of these ideals before we can expect the masses to tune in to the arguments and threats that they ultimately face.
No solution will ever be possible if the masses are deaf to the message, ultimately education methods have to shift to help this process along.
Niv
Niv, you're right on the money. I couldn't agree more.
BLOCK THE OLYMPIC MOSQUE
http://www.christianvoice.org.uk/mosque.html
I applaud all moderates who have created their own private Islam which doesn't threaten my life or culture. But I'd be a complete idiot to think someone like Reza Aslan is going to change the mind of one sheikh in Saudi Arabia. And the sheikhs in Saudi Arabia have all the influence while Reza Aslan serves as a powerful opiate for people in the United States who would like to ignore the sahwa Islamia until it knocks on their door.
And I thought I was delusional. Oh wait, I am!
Special_Guest, I think Eteraz's logic is that while the hadith has the proper chain of narration (isnad), it fails textual consideration. My understanding of this piece, according to Eteraz, is that it must be logical and consistent with the Koran. Now, the hadith, based on the explanation given, appears to be logical. Now that leaves Koranic consistency. Here is where I think Eteraz's logic breaks down. Where is it inconsistent with the Koran? If it is inconsistent with the Koran, why do several different authors attribute it to Mohammed?
Correction, Eteraz actually states that the author is vaguely arguing against death of apostates. I admit the text is vague. It is written by an Islamic Lawyer, a man whose first language is not English and who writes in the arcane language of hadith-analysis. How he can say this, I don't know. What the man wrote is pretty clear. My question for Eteraz, as Spencer noted, is does Eteraz deny that the hadith supports the subjugation/death of non-believers who reject the call of Islam.
BTW, an important point to consider is that once a religion has been around for centuries, it is rare to find an argument that hasn't been tried before. If you look back a criticism of Christian belief, virtually all of the so-called "new arguments" against Christianity were tried and addressed in the past. Most likely someone has already tried this line of reasoning and it was rejected.
For tonight's, and apparently every night's performance in this long-running spectcle, the dramatis personae are as follows:
Road-Runner Robert Spencer
Wile E. Coyote Dean Esmay (weekdays)
Ali Eteraz (weekends and
matinees)
If only the Muslims who read the Koran and its commentaries could see it as most of us see it.
In fact, I believe that to be true of many Muslims living here in America. What a waste.
Posted by: gordo at November 9, 2006 06:41 PM
.... muslims belong to the brain-washed umma outside of which, they have to face the daunting challange of reason, which we know the brain-washed cannot face up to. And just in case any muslim is brave enough to try, a quick death is assured for leaving Islam. Slimy Mo made sure of that.
Sadly, many in the Wahhabist camp are arguing that modern Christians (as opposed to Jesus himself, who was Muslim) are polytheists (via the doctrine of the Trinity). This seems like an abstract debate over theology until one understands that this distinction gives full justification (as cited in the above article) to slay Christians (as polytheists) who do not repent and convert to Islam.
I want to see some Muslim theological debate on this point. It must be argued by reputable Islamic scholars that Christianity is NOT polytheistic lest this new and twisted interpretation of the Qur'an and hadiths become normative for vast numbers of Muslims both in the United States and overseas.
Heh. Well, as a DW contributor I haven't found the waters there all that fetid. Rhetoric like that tends to be ironically self-referential, or at least telling. By their fruit ye shall know them...
Anyway Ali has posted a substantive response, which you might read.
I try to keep in mind as a Christian that tolerance is relatively new, historically speaking, for us as well. Yes, Islam is overly violent, perhaps uniquely so among religions, and badly needs an Enlightenment. Responsible Muslims like Eteraz are trying to lead the way, and we ought to support them.
Responsible Muslims like Eteraz are trying to lead the way, and we ought to support them.
Posted by: TallDave
Responsible for what? Does he have a worldwide following who wait patiently for his next call to jihad? Does he have the power to order thousands to go on week long riots? Does he have followers who will kill people who disagree with him or insult him? So why are we supporting him again? Oh, all his followers are Christians, now that makes sense. People like him are dangerous because they give non muslims a false sense of security. When he gets his world wide following then I will support him, until then he is not even amusing. If he wants to help he should translate muslims texts for the FBI, be a US translator in Iraq, or move to a radical muslim country and test his theory. At least Robert’s books serve a purpose, people who want to understand why islam is the way it is can read his books and let muslims explain it in their own words. I think they do a fine job of explaining it, most of us are just not listening to them.
Well, I am at least more righteous than a polytheist. I am more righteous than a monotheist. I am a atheist.
Until G-d calls me on the phone I will deny his existance.
Of course if Muslims assert the right to murder polytheists and atheists, because they are polytheists and atheists, then the correct counter to that is the right of polytheists and atheists to murder Muslims, because they are Muslims. The more devout, the higher the Muslims should be on the priority list.
Wait until the Muslims find out that the polytheists and atheists are far superior to them in the ability to perform industrial scale murder, too.
Historically, moderate Islam was invented by the Turks because the Caliphs wanted to make laws that would let them rule more oppressively than the Quran permitted. Not what I would hope for.
Long before moderate muslims show up on the map, I hope that the governments of polytheists and atheists figure it out.
In Africa, Christianity gains a hundred thousand converts from Islam every year, no matter what the Jihadis say or do. It has a lot to do with the good example of prosperity shown by the Westerners in contact with Africans.
I apologize for reposting this piece from an article on the recent Hilaly affair that I mentioned the other day, but I think the point bears repeating in the present context. Note the boldface sentences.
I'll see if I can spell out even more clearly what Mr. Sali is saying -- although I think he says it quite well. In his opinion, there does not exist a person who is:
* an eminent scholar of Islam;
and either
* able to play the role of Grand Mufti -- the highest official of (Sunni) religious law -- to Muslims in Australia,
or
* to speak to English-speaking (and non-muslim) Australians (on behalf of that Muslim community),
* in a way that is positive and constructive;
or, at least, among all of Australia's Mulsim community there is no such person.
I gather that he means to say that every Australian (Sunni, at least) Muslim, to a man (or woman) is either
(i) not well versed in Islam, or
(ii) has too much of a tendency to extremist views to attempt to represent the Islamic community to the non-Islamic community without causing friction and "misunderstanding".
That is, being well-versed in Sunni Islam does not correlate to being a moderate (here, I am using "moderate" to mean "not offensive to western sensibilities about things such as rape and murder").
Now, before we start labelling Mr. Sali an Islamophobe, let us remember that he is a well-known and respected Muslim himself, a member of the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils, and arguably as well-positioned as anyone could possibly be to make such a judgement.
I'd say that he sounds a bit like Mr. Spencer himself. I'd say that their messages are, essentially the same. I'd say that they both are waiting, with bated breath, to see if anyone will rise to the challenge of presenting and representing an authentically moderate position on the contentious points of islam (such as the penalty for apostacy) that is properly grounded in Islamic tradition and jurisprudence.
So am I.
To radical Sunnis, all Shiites are apostates, worse than Dhimmi. The Shiite majority in Iraq was prevented from practicing their religious traditions under Saddam's regime. We have given that right back to the Shiites, along with the right to participate in their own government. If the Sunnis prevail, the Shiites go back to being treated as people without rights. The Shiites are associated with Persians in the minds of most Arabs, and therefore leads to ethnic discrimination as well.
Muqtada al-Sadr is funded by Iran, and probably sees himself becoming a religious dictator along the lines of Khomeini, but most Iraqi Shiites don't want that kind of government.
Anyway, the reason the sectarian violence is so difficult to suppress is that Shiites are fighting to retain their rights and Sunnis see them as apostates worthy of death. This could lead to civil war among Muslims throughout the Middle East and South Asia.
Hmmm...Islam...so confusing!
They wish death upon "polytheists"? But isn't their god Allah, the moon god, just the head of the 365 Arab pagan gods, kind of like Zeus?
So many other confusing things... they say the Holocaust never happened, but then they say Hitler was right and the want to finish what he started.
They call the USA the Great Satan, yet they say Israel (the little satan) / Zionists / Jews control the world and the USA.
They say they believe in Abraham, Moses, and Jesus, but they want to murder Jews and Christians who believe in those people too!
They claim their Allah is the god of Abraham, but want to kill me (as a Jew) for praying to the G-d of Abraham on the Temple Mount!
As the "King of Siam" said: etcetera etcetera etcetera...
Err... NOW I'm Archimedes2. Sorry Archie...
Look, most Christians and Jews are moderates too, and yet even when faced with a common threat as we are by Islamic terrorists, we cannot unite to face the threat either together, or independently. Most Jews and Christians either want to ignore the global Islamic threat entirely, or claim that it doesn't exist, or if it does exist it isn't as bad as it sounds, or believe that someone else will confront the baddies instead of them. There are even Christians and Jews who are entirely willing to minimize the Islamic terror threat in order to achieve political or financial ends, just look at the most recent mid term elections in America. The entire Democratic senior and junior leadership ran on a platform that Islamic terrorism is just a Bush and Republican excuse to steal Iraq's oil, or to enter another Haliburton war against Iran, or the result of Jewish neo con job on the American government. The Islamic leadership in Western countries is largely radical, fundamentalist, hate filled,and organized and their followers follow and support them, alas, we Christians and Jews are mostly moderate, peace loving, charitable, and unable to fight even a common foe like radical Islamists who want to kill us and destroy our way of life and it's freedoms.