What's a drzz?
Annika of the French-language blog drzz recently interviewed me, and the interview, in French, is now posted there. And here is an English translation of the interview:
ANNIKA: Fundamentalist Islam claims to find its roots in the Koran, therefore the holy book itself could be said to harbor directives irreconcilable with democratic values, the first amendment, equal rights for men and women, and the judicial system. Do you perceive this as correct?SPENCER: Certainly the way the Koran has been understood throughout the history of Islam by the vast majority of orthodox commentators and theologians, and by the schools of Islamic jurisprudence and its various sects, harbor directives that are irreconcilable with democratic values, the first amendment, equal rights for men and women, and the judicial system. This enables contemporary jihadists to make the case successfully among peaceful Muslims and cultural Muslims that they represent pure and true Islam, and that if one wants to live Islam authentically, one must do as they do. Muslims who profess not to share their view have not yet formulated an effective Islamic comeback to that claim. It may not be utterly impossible for them to do this, but they have not done it yet, and it would involve an explicit rejection of Koranic literalism in many particulars.
ANNIKA: There has been some effort to prove "irreconcilable differences" between democratic values and the Koran. There were constitutional decrees written by the Turkish court as well as the European court. What else must be done to establish this as truth -- and how?
SPENCER: It will never be established as truth unless the current political and cultural environment changes radically. But if objective truth were the only or primary criterion, which it certainly is not now, one would be able by appeal to various Koranic verses and to the ways they have been understand in Islamic theology and law to establish that Islamic law, Sharia, is an all-encompassing system that has no room for democratic values in many particulars. It denies equality of rights before the law for women and non-Muslims. It denies the freedom of conscience and the freedom of speech.This debate should ultimately be held in the public square, and Muslims in Western countries called upon to reject explicitly these elements of Islamic tradition, and to back up their rejection with deeds, instituting transparent and inspectable programs to teach against political Islam. But whether or not this debate is ever held, Europeans, and Americans also, will be faced sooner or later with the confrontation between democratic values and the Koran, because the bland denials of Islamic apologists will ultimately give way to the pressure of reality.
ANNIKA: "Jihad" is a term mentioned repeatedly in the Koran. Is the meaning of the word an "inner struggle" over temptation, as some Muslim apologists claim? Or what is the exact meaning of the word?SPENCER: The word means “struggle,” and has as many connotations as the English word struggle does. The Islamic Republic of Iran has a Department of Agricultural Jihad, which has to do with the struggle to increase crop yields. But the primary meaning of “jihad” in the Qur’an, Hadith, and Islamic law is warfare against unbelievers in order to subjugate them under the hegemony of Islamic law. This effort can involve hot warfare, but need not. Muhammad explains in a hadith (Sahih Muslim 4294) that Muslims should invite non-Muslims to convert to Islam or to enter the Islamic social order as inferiors, paying the poll tax (jizya) and submitting to various forms of institutionalized discrimination. If they refuse both, the Muslims should go to war with them.
Jihadist theorists such as Hassan Al-Banna and Abdullah Azzam have criticized as inauthentic the tradition of Muhammad establishing that jihad is primarily an inner struggle against temptation. And indeed, it does not appear in any of the collections of hadith (traditions of Muhammad’s words and deeds) that Muslims deem most authentic.
ANNIKA: The Koran states explicitly (2:106, 16:101) that Mohammed’s earlier words (deemed peaceful) are overruled by his later writings (deemed hostile). Is this analysis accurate?
SPENCER: Certainly the chronologically earlier passages of the Koran, such as sura 109, teach tolerance of other religions, while chronologically later passages teach warfare against unbelievers – even Jews and Christians, as in 9:29. And it is a central Islamic doctrine, shared by all orthodox sects and schools, that the chronologically later parts of the Qur’an take precedence over the earlier ones if there is any disagreement between the two.
ANNIKA: Since 9-11, Islam has been referred to as "the religion of peace" in the West. Would you characterize Islam as the "religion of peace"? And could you explain how you came to this understanding.
SPENCER: No, Islam is not a religion of peace. It is the only religion in the world with a developed doctrine, theology and legal system mandating warfare against unbelievers. Of course, there are many millions of Muslims who have no interest in pursuing any of this, but those who do can and do claim the mantle of Islamic authenticity. I came to this understanding through study of Islamic texts and teachings.
ANNIKA: Western Islamic experts as well as some Muslims, advocate for reformation (modernization) of the Koran. After all, other monotheistic religions from the Middle East have grown and changed over time. Do you think that Islam can be modernized? And if so, how?
SPENCER: It will be very difficult, since the Koran claims for itself many times that it is the perfect and unalterable word of God. Islam could only conceivably be modernized by an explicit rejection of Koranic literalism.
ANNIKA: What is your opinion on the said secret archive of ancient Islamic texts, claimed to have surfaced after 60 years of suppression (Andrew Higgins' Wall Street Journal Report (The Lost Archives)). Are they real?
SPENCER: I haven’t seen them, but I see no reason why they wouldn’t be real. Islamic apologists frequently claim that there are no variant Koranic texts, and that this is a manifestation of the divine protection of the Koran, but this is factually false. There are already some known variants. There is no reason why more couldn’t be discovered.
ANNIKA: Is there any empirical evidence that Mohammed did in fact exist?
SPENCER: No. The earliest biography of him dates from 150 years after his death. The Koran contains almost no details about him. It is possible that he himself was cobbled together from traditions about other people, in order to give the new Arab religion a founding and unifying figure.
ANNIKA: There is relative "anarchy" in the clerical system (Ulemas) and it is difficult to identify a real hierarchy or organization. Is it Al Azar in Egypt, Mecca, Nadjaf, Qom? Where are the central places of Islamic influence? What power do they hold, and for whom?
SPENCER: There is no single hierarchy with one head, a la the Catholic Church. Rather, there are centers of scholarship – Al-Azhar for Sunnis, Najaf and Qom for Shi’ites – and centers of piety – holy cities such as Mecca. All are influential, but no single voice can command the loyalty of all the Muslim faithful. In Islamic theology there is a premium placed on ijma, or consensus: an agreement among the scholars gives great weight to a particular teaching. And unfortunately, there is consensus among the classical scholars on the necessity of jihad warfare against unbelievers.
ANNIKA: European integration problems are not racial in nature but rather symptomatic of a clash between civilizations. Do you agree with this statement?
SPENCER: Yes. They have nothing to do with race, and everything to do with the Islamic supremacist ideology that regards European culture and civilization as inferior and to be supplanted by Islamic Sharia.
ANNIKA: As a group, Muslims who immigrated to Europe often collide with each other (Turks/Arabs, Kurds/Turks, Arabs/Maghrébins, etc.). Why do you think this happens? After all, they share the same religion.
SPENCER: Sure, but a religion is one thing, and how it is received and lived out in the life of any given individual is quite another. There are many loyalties and priorities in everyone’s life. These conflicts stem from cultural and political conflicts back home, which are being imported into Europe.
ANNIKA: Was there ever in history, groups of Muslims who willingly integrated and adopted the cultural standards of a non-Muslim host nation?
SPENCER: No.
ANNIKA: What will the future hold for Europe? And do you have a message for our European leaders on a long term approach for the harmonious integration of Muslims?
SPENCER: Europe will be Islamic by the end of this century, as Bernard Lewis has predicted, unless European leaders reverse their present policies on many issues. European leaders will ultimately find that Muslims in the aggregate will reject harmonious integration on any terms except the full implementation of Islamic law in Europe.ANNIKA: Thank you, Mr. Spencer, for having taken time to answer us. It is a privilege to interview you….
And thank you, Annika and everyone at drzz, for the opportunity.
Robert,
I remain completely flummoxed as to why there is such a consensus in the West to deny these things. As we listen to them talk to each other and preach, everything you said in this interview is undeniable. Then, when one Muslim apologist turns to us and says the words don't mean what they seem to mean, we believe them. I was accused by a liberal Holocaust expert/"theologian" of being unfair and intolerant for suggesting that most Muslims did not wish to enter into "interfaith dialogue" with Jews. What is it in the Koran or the entire history of Islam that makes this hard to understand?
Yours
Excellent interview!
Cyril: I share your flummoxedness. Hopefully Robert, Hugh, Marisol or Raymond will weigh in.
I'd say it's the question, the question of the decade at least. Why, indeed? What's the matter with these people? At any rate it looks like an uphill battle for quite some time into the future. Prepare for more derision and insults from our progressive betters.
ANNIKA: Was there ever in history, groups of Muslims who willingly integrated and adopted the cultural standards of a non-Muslim host nation?
SPENCER: No.
And there it is: NO. N.O. Get it?
i find the need the say "good job, spencer."
Goob and Cyril Lucar--
Robert can answer this one much more thoroughly, but for the moment, you're stuck with me.
First, you know you're getting closer to an unpleasant truth when the lies and dissimulation get more frantic and emotional. And the Islamic texts themselves are truly the missing link in what remains for many people a curious inconsistency between Islam "as advertised" and Islam as observed where its laws come into prominence.
Not that the apologists don't keep trying-- both those active in the deception and those who have never had a chance to witness a challenge the "Religion of Peace" dogma. And there are two common angles to resisting the evidence of Islamic texts:
One is tu quoque: The idea that all religions are equally prone to violence, so criticizing Islam for it is unfairly singling it out. And frequent companion to that argument is that that argument is the notion that violence in the name of religion is always a departure from the central tenets of the religion. The way people try to avoid a contradiction there is to condemn "extremism" without addressing the core texts.
The other angle is that of "authenticity," and pleading for insider-vs.-outsider credentials: More specifically, the Edward Said era has ushered in a trend in Middle Eastern Studies that is also being fought out in other areas of scholarship (though because of people other than Said):
What is at issue is whether or not an "outsider" can ever truly or accurately understand and assess a value system they're not a part of, or whether they can or should even try. It tends to discourage critical evaluation, and glosses over agendas on the part of the insider. A sub-category here is the "You don't speak Arabic" argument.
Again, the Islamic texts are the missing link in understanding jihad and sharia, but the reasons above are why so many will still take the word of an "expert" over their lyin' eyes.
But you're not out of options. Part of the battle is establishing that the damaging texts exist, but the other part is how they're used and interpreted by Muslims themselves here and now (this can also let the air out of some tu quoque arguments). Here, familiarity with Qur'anic commentary (tafsir) and jurisprudence manuals (like Umdat al-Salik, approved by Al-Azhar University) are very handy.
I hope that helps a little.
I believe that most of the West and the non-Muslim world is in a complete state of denial.
It's too much bear to think that a "religion" could be anything but "wonderful" and "peaceful."
It's too much to bear to think that here and now a billion cohabitants of our world label themselves as followers of a doctrine that has world domination as its explicit goal.
It's too much to bear given that many Muslims have "darker skin" despite the complete illogic of tying Islam to race.
In this setting, more facts only increase the denial; I'm sure some psychologist could help us sort this all out.
And of course it's too much to bear for everyone, unfortunately, except for the Jihadists and Islamists themselves -- and a tiny number of others who come and read this site.
Marisol,
Thanks for the response. Right now I'm relying upon my Pickthall Koran and my King Fahd study Koran and haven't been able to pick up some of Robert's recommended Hadith resources. Though I wonder how much good it would do. The presuppositions drive everything. Somehow we've made "Islam is a violent religion" the equivalent of "[name a racial/ethnic group] are violent people." I've even heard people define criticism of Islam as "racism." It wouldn't matter if it were Buddhists we weren't allowed to criticize.
In my post-graduate program, I've run into a version of "all religions are prone to violence" truism - "all fundamentalism promotes violence." And, of course, the only fundamentalist Muslims are active terrorists and fundamentalist Christians are all Bible-believing Christians. To me, this is an amazingly bold attempt at deception. It ignores what should be self-evident: Fundamentalists tend to imitate their religion's founder. Christianity produces Mennonites and Islam produces Wahabbis (and these are only modern examples).
I understand why some people would make these kind of arguments; it is an opportunity to tarnish Christianity with the misdeeds of Islam. What still gets me is the suicidal nature of an enterprise which places Islam in a protected status in order to do this. As a conservative pastor, I'd have a place (as a dhimmi) in the new Islamic society. The liberals would be absolutely crushed. After the execution of the homosexuals, the closing of the universities and the covering (and silencing) of the women, would they then figure out that this was a bad idea?
And by the way, as an aside to Robert, good job on that interview. Very clear.
-Cyril
From above: In my post-graduate program, I've run into a version of "all religions are prone to violence" truism - "all fundamentalism promotes violence."
'The Christians do it too'. Or are just as violent or prone to, as above, is a false statement.
It fails to separate the Christian from Christianity, and fails to apply 'personal responsibility', so that when a Christian kills,
it is blamed on Christianity.
It could be that Christianity failed that person, but usually it is that person failing Christianity.
Killing in the name of God, is a selfish act devoid of God, so it is a lie.
The reverse of that is true of Islam. Killing in the name of Allah, is not only respected, it is expected. It is not usually a selfish act, and it is not a lie.
I try to put this in perspective by simplifying it this way:
When Christians act up it is in spite of Christianity, not because of it.
When muslims act up it is because of Islam, not in spite of it...
If any Mohammedan were to claim that the physical evidence of his existence, and that of his successors - Abu Bakr, Umar I and Uthman - are their tombs in Medina, how exactly would one refute that? Challenge that they be dug up and demonstrated accordingly? Also, if he did not in fact exist, why would people put together a composite that had such vile character traits, such as the authorization to murder critics irrespective of gender, his lust for women, et al?
I'm not doubting your suggestion that he didn't exist, but just wondering how such a line of rebuttal might be refuted.
The Arab conquests, and Umar and Uthman who led the early ones, cannot be doubted. What we lack is solid evidence that they carried with them a fully formed Islam. I actually think that Muhammad did exist, mainly because of the stories about him that have always embarrassed Muslims (especially the Zaynab incident), which I don't think would have been invented. But I respect the scholars who say he didn't, and am going to do more work on this issue soon.
Those who say he didn't speculate that Muhammad as we know him may have been cobbled together from stories about several people, and that this was done to give the conquering Arabs a religion to rival the religions of their enemies the Byzantines and Persians.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
Il y a de l'espérance pour La France, après tout!
Frankly, after reading the ayas from the "Meccan" period and the ayas from the "Medina", it could be surmised that there were two prophets and that their words and actions were combined into one by later "scholars".
Will the real Mohammad please stand up...No one stands...
The story is probably twisted a lot, and no version is completely reliable, but I think Mo did exist. This is because it seems unlikely that anyone would create a religious hero with that many negatives.
It was amazing to me when I first started reading hadith that the compilers made little or no effort to cover up for Mohammad's deviant behavior.
They faithfully recorded Mohammad's most dastardly deeds. If you were selling a lie, why would you include that stuff?
What does it all mean??? Darned if I know. I will leave it to the experts like RS to determine these fine points. When you find out for sure, please let us know...
Inquiring minds want to know, but are too lazy to do the work...
Great interveiw. I only hope that people all over Europe listen to it. They need to tell their governments to stop laying down for oil.
Infidel Pride, read 'The Quest for the Historical Muhammad' by Ibn Warraq. And 'The Origins of the Koran' for any questions about it. Ol' Boy's done his homework. I tend to think that there had to be a real Muhammad just because nobody would create somebody so opportunistic, or include provisions against marrying his wives after his death or how to behave in the presence of his wives, or any other teachings which are that short-sighted and only apply to a handful of people. You just don't do that retroactively.
I also think that they would have checked the Bible so as to not screw up every historical reference he ever made on the record, and maybe investigated the 'science' too so as to not screw up every scientific reference he ever made on the record. He uses Galen's science, for God's sake, which was obsolete 200 years before the advent of Islam. They probably would have thrown in a miracle or two as well. In order to be a prophet you have to not be an idiot, but actually superhuman. He was patently subhuman in every imaginable way, he produced no prophecy, and he produced no miracles. It just seems like if he were invented they would have actually made him a prophet.
Plus, after reading Ali Sina's 'Understanding Muhammad,' it really does make sense. The whole psychological profile comes together, as does the agromegaly, which of course led to him smelling bad, hence the plucking the pit hair, the obsession with washing, etc., and the increased sex drive coupled with impotence. There's no way they oculd have known about agromegaly, and they had every characteristic down pat, except for AIsha's lying about him being able to get it up the last 10-15 years of his life. I also think that Rayhana would have agreed to marry him and that they would have made Aisha older and with all her mental faculties. It's one thing to rape a little girl; it's something else to rape a little girl who's your niece and who's obviously retarded.
jdamn
While I haven't read Ali Sina's book, I have read his synopsis, and the way I read him, he doesn't question whether Mohammed existed, but rather states that he did exist and was a repugnant character. That's different from the scholars who speculate that he didn't exist, and that his character is just a composite that Arabs put together to counter the Christians and the Zoroastrians.
On Robert's point above that it's an open question as to whether Islam was fully formed at the time of the first few Caliphs (Hadrats Abu Baqr, Umar I, Uthman and Ali), it didn't need to be, and there didn't need to be any Hadiths: the Muslim conquerors who overran first Arabia, and then Syria, Palestine, Persia and Egypt knew exactly what Mohammed's message was. Therefore the non-existence of the Bukharis, Jalalayns, Ibn Ishaqs, Tabaris, Ibn Khatirs, Hilalis and Mohsin Khans doesn't mean a thing: these Muslim conquerors knew what Mohammed's message was, and they ran with it from Granada to Multan. And they did all the things we see today in the Sunnah - slaughtering the civilian populations, raping the women, destroying churches, monasteries and temples, enforcing Shariah laws discriminating against Infidels - and all that without(!) any of the Islamic texts that followed centuries or so later.
So much for the geniuses who think that it was these scholars who corrupted what Islam originally was meant to be.
Proof-read, IP, proof-read!!!!
Proof-read, IP, proof-read!!!!
Well done and thank you, Mr Spencer.
This can't be said enough. I know this blog is read by movers and shakers who CAN make political decisions, as our letters to our PM just merely get a photocopied letter back (we can't send e-mails any more). Proof for example, that the British government isn't a servant of the majority of its citizens is the fact that our Government has allowed a 2 tier law, Sharia, which, no, is not like the Beth Din as our laws are based upon the Bible and not the Qur'an. Some of our women are NOT now equal under the law, their status as half a man is now formally recognised contrary to the Magna Carta 1215 which states all must be equal under the law (including the King/govt) and is a covenant FOREVER to the heirs (us).
Keep on saying this, maybe even decent moderate Muslims (whom are under threat too from jihadist Islam) will see that religion is not genetic and doesn't have to be inherited.