Jihad Watch: Jihad Watch and the realities of Islam

December 18, 2003

Jihad Watch and the realities of Islam

I have received a lengthy statement from a gentleman named Trevor Stanley criticizing various aspects of Jihad Watch. You can find it in the comments section here. Ordinarily it is wise not to reply to critics, but this message is so lengthy and thoughtful, and it touches on issues that are not only inflammatory but also frequently misunderstood, that I thought it would be useful to reply here to Mr. Stanley, and in so doing perhaps to introduce a few helpful distinctions and clarifications.

Says Mr. Stanley: "You claim that no muslim group has ever renounced terrorism, or renouncing violence against innocents."

This is in fact not the case. I have never claimed that no Muslim group has ever renounced terrorism or violence against innocents. To make such a claim would have been preposterous, for I have had the same experience as Mr. Stanley, who says: "I have repeatedly found Muslim groups denouncing such violence." What Mr. Stanley may be thinking of is the fact that no Muslim group has ever renounced the doctrines of violent jihad that radical Muslims use to justify terrorist acts. But many of these very groups decry terrorism and simply don't think of what they're doing in that category; they see themselves as performing religious acts and regard "terrorism" as a label devised by the West to discredit them.

Stanley: "For one thing, there is a consensus of all four schools of Sunni Islamic Law that violence against innocents, or violence outside a state of war, is unacceptable."

That is correct, and I have affirmed it on this site many times (see the first sentence here, for example), as well as in my book Onward Muslim Soldiers. Unfortunately, however, this is not a blanket prohibition. The Shafi’i school of Sunni Muslim jurisprudence stipulates that “it is not permissible . . . to kill women and children unless they are fighting against the Muslims.” The Hanbali jurist Ibn Taymiyya, a favorite of modern Muslim radicals, directed that “as for those who cannot offer resistance or cannot fight, such as women, children, monks, old people, the blind, handicapped and their likes, they shall not be killed unless they actually fight with words (e.g. by propaganda) and acts (e.g. by spying or otherwise assisting in the warfare).”

This loophole is exploited by Osama bin Laden and other radical Muslims to justify actions such as the destruction of the World Trade Center: the people in it, you see, were aiding America's putative war against Islam, and thus could lawfully be killed. I am not saying that the radicals' reasoning here is correct on Islamic grounds or universally accepted within the Muslim world, but only that it has an appeal based on traditional Islamic law.

Stanley: "There is an extensive literature on the law of war in Islam, and it is impressively civilised in many ways, given that it is over 1000 years old. Under these interpretations (traditional/mainstream Islam), the only permissable war is a defensive war, however if the Muslim country is under attack by non-Muslims _and_ Jihad is declared by respected, learned scholars, then contribution to the war is obligatory for all individuals who are able."

This is in the main correct. I have pointed out here many times (here's one) cases in which modern-day radical scholars position today's conflicts as defensive jihad. However, there is also offensive jihad in order to spread Islam. I point out in my book Islam Unveiled that the Shafi'i school of Islamic jurisprudence holds that Muslims need not wait until they are attacked to wage offensive jihad. Many scholars of other schools agree with them on this. In fact, this is one of the primary reasons why radical Muslims want to reestablish the Caliphate: they hold that only a Caliph can declare offensive jihad, and thus that this duty of Muslims is being neglected while this office remains vacant.

Stanley: "The whole point of _radical_ Islam is that it rejects sections of the traditional interpretation and imposes a new, narrow interpretation on the religion. It is radically different to conventional Islam."

There is no doubt that there are millions of peaceful Muslims. More on this below.

Stanley: "While respected traditional scholars generally study for around ten years, many of these radical Islamists have never actually studied theology - Usama bin Laden studied engineering and business, whereas his second-in-command Dr Ayman al-Zawahiri, is a paediatrician. Al Qaeda calls bin Laden a sheikh and their spiritual leader - but he has no theological training!"

Irrelevant. I am not saying that radical Islam is the only Islam, or even the correct form. I do point out that it has a solid theological and legal basis within Islam, because this fact has to be recognized if there is to be any reform. The fact is that radical Muslims routinely make theological appeals. Many of these are quite detailed, and convincing to many Muslims. The fact that they may come from engineers and pediatricians makes no difference: they are not arguments based on the authority of Osama, Zawahiri, and others, but on the cited texts of the Qur'an, Sunna, and jurists.

Mr. Stanley then makes the point that "the radical groups start with the conclusion that violence and terrorism is justified, then seek permission from the Quran, selecting passages out of context." His argument here is rather lengthy, and based on the assertion that "the al-Qaeda interpretation" of certain passages of the Qur'an "is a gross distortion of the traditional interpretation of the Quran, and when looked at more closely, this becomes clear." He bases this on Suras 2:190-194 of the Qur'an, arguing that radical Muslims ignore the sections of this passage that forbid fighting except in self-defense.

I would be the first to applaud a Qur'anic citation that genuinely rebuked the radicals. Unfortunately, this isn't it: Mr. Stanley acknowledges that "this section of Chapter 2 of the Quran specifically deals with the first period of Islam, when many on the Arab Peninsula were gathering to crush the Muslim upstarts. Permission to fight back against those who had repeatedly attacked or broken treaties was given at this point."

The fact that this dates from the first period of Islam (actually more like the middle period) is decisive. As I explain in Onward Muslim Soldiers, Islamic theologians generally regard passages of the Qur'an that were revealed later to take precedence over those revealed earlier if there is a matter on which two or more passages seem to clash. The Qur'an is not arranged chronologically; the last sura to have been revealed was Sura 9, which contains the Verse of the Sword: ". . . slay the unbelievers wherever you find them" (9:5), and the command to fight against Jews and Christians "until they pay the Jizya [non-Muslim poll tax] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued" (9:29). Ibn Kathir (1301-1372), whose tafsir (commentary) on the Qur'an enjoys widespread mainstream acceptance today, says that Sura 9:5 "abrogated every agreement of peace between the Prophet and any idolater, every treaty, and every term. . . . No idolater had any more treaty or promise of safety ever since Surah Bara’ah [Sura 9] was revealed."

The idea that the Verse of the Sword abrogates every peace treaty recorded in earlier passages of the Qur'an or elsewhere is the foundation of another widespread Muslim idea that I explain in Onward Muslim Soldiers. It is articulated by, among others, the Pakistani Brigadier S. K. Malik in a 1979 book, The Qur’anic Concept of War (a book that made its way to the American mujahedin Jeffrey Leon Battle and October Martinique Lewis, and which carried a glowing endorsement from Pakistan’s then-future President Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq, who said that it explained "the ONLY pattern of war" that a Muslim country could legitimately wage). This is the idea that there is another stage of Qur'anic teaching on jihad beyond self-defense. Malik explains: "The Muslim migration to Medina brought in its wake events and decisions of far-reaching significance and consequence for them. While in Mecca, they had neither been proclaimed an Ummah [community] nor were they granted the permission to take up arms against their oppressors. In Medina, a divine revelation proclaimed them an 'Ummah' and granted them the permission to take up arms against their oppressors. The permission was soon afterwards converted into a divine command making war a religious obligation for the faithful." This is by no means a non-traditional idea, but one that is deeply rooted in the thinking of many venerable Islamic theologians -- such as Ibn Kathir.

Again, I am not saying that radical Islam is the only Islam or the only correct Islam. But any illusions that it is easily refuted and dismissed on Islamic grounds are unrealistic and possibly dangerously misleading, given today's global situation.

Mr. Stanley also says that "the Quran I've referred to in writing this also makes the point that [the command to fight] 'until the religion is only for Allah' [Sura 2:193] does not have the implications that Al Qaeda et al would like to give it. Allah is merely the Arabic word for the Christian God or Jewish Yahweh, and refers readers to 22:40, which explicitly states that Allah/God states that the Ahl al-Kitab (people of the Book - the Torah/Gospel/Quran) should repel those who attack 'cloisters, churches, and synagogues'. (Not much consolation for atheists like me...)"

Once again, this is only part of the Qur'anic evidence. The book also says that "if anyone desires a religion other than Islam (submission to Allah), never will it be accepted of him; and in the hereafter He will be in the ranks of those who have lost (all spiritual good)" (Sura 3:85). It is no good to ignore such passages, because Al-Qaeda and its ilk know them well.

Stanley: "Several posters here have attempted to cast scorn on the statement of Indonesian Islamic scholars that suicide attacks are unacceptable outside a state of war - the webmaster says the statement is 'weaselly', as if the mainstream scholars are attempting to keep their options open."

Webmaster is guilty as charged. I did use the word "weaselly," because at least in the report I had at hand the scholars repeated the fact that Islam forbids the killing of the innocent without addressing the far more important question of whether those targeted in suicide attacks are to be regarded as innocent in the first place.

Stanley: "What the scholars are doing here is deliberately refuting the decidedly 'weaselly' standard arguments presented by the radicals. For one thing, suicide is illegal in Islamic law, while wading into an 'impossible' battle against a genuine enemy during a genuine war is praiseworthy, even if it means (almost) certain death. The jihadis attempt to justify suicide bombing by saying that it is not suicide at all, but martyrdom in warfare. 'Jihad Watch' says 'What if Indonesia becomes a war zone? It sure looked like one in Bali last year'. But that is entirely the point - the council of ulema is explictly saying that the Bali bombings were committed when there was not _legally_ a state of war, and therefore were out-and-out murder, completely against Islamic teachings. If someone actually declared war on Indonesia, are you asking that they do nothing in return?"

No, but I wouldn't want them blowing up nightclub patrons during a war any more than I want them to do it in peacetime. The point was that the scholars didn't condemn the murder of civilians outright -- they just said, according to the report, that "killing innocent people is forbidden, and that seeking martyrdom with such actions as suicide bombings is only justified in war zones. It states clearly that Indonesia is not a war zone." You know what that is? It's weaselly: they're saying it would be OK to kill civilians with suicide bombings in a war zone. Arguably, all of Israel is a war zone, but among civilized people the Palestinians have done themselves and their cause great harm by carrying out and approving of targeted suicide bombing attacks against schoolchildren, supermarket shoppers, etc.

Mr. Stanley adds that when jihadists claim that a state of war already exists between the West and Islam, they ignore "aspects of Islamic law such as when holy war is acceptable, who may declare it, and what conduct is acceptable under law. It is a convenient fig leaf for Al Qaeda's violence. By explicitly stating that there is no state of war, the council of Ulema are saying that the radicals are acting outside the pale of Islam, and are in deep sin."

As for "when holy war is acceptable" and "who may declare it," it is true that, as I explained above, only the Caliph may declare offensive jihad. Also, the Shafi'i school teaches that "it is offensive to conduct a military expedition against hostile non-Muslims without the caliph's permission." However, it adds that "if there is no caliph, no permission is required" ('Umdat as-Salik, o9.6). Once again, the case against the radicals is, unfortunately, not nearly as open-and-shut as Mr. Stanley seems to suppose.

Mr. Stanley: "Yes, JI have already 'justified' their violent behaviour. . . . Their web of rationalisations is based on extremely shoddy Islamic theology, contrary to 1400 years of practice and teachings. The ulema just did definitively refute the entire theological basis of JI's ideology, but as you say, from the point of view of dissuading the members of JI, they may as well be speaking to themselves. From the point of view of Muslim laymen in Indonesia however, this is a powerful statement that JI is _not_ a conventional Muslim outfit fighting a legitimate defence against a real war, but rather a sect composed of deluded souls who have strayed from the path of Islam."

I hope this is true. But I believe that what I have pointed out above, and more, is more likely to be the mindset of Muslim laymen in Indonesia and elsewhere than the incomplete statements of the ulama.

Stanley: "Your webpage also states that 'the West is facing a concerted effort by radical Muslims, most of whom are ignored by the Western media, to destroy the West and bring it forcibly into the Islamic world.' Actually, the western media finds the whole jihad thing very entertaining to publish. The numerous denunciations of terrorism I have come across in my studies never make it into the papers because they are, frankly, boring. 'Killing innocents is wrong' is a much less exciting headline than 'All Christians must die', and the media will always go with the latter."

I am sorry to say that the evidence is otherwise. At Dhimmi Watch the material I report on persecution of Christians in Muslim countries generally comes from sources such as the Barnabas Fund and Compass Direct. Why? Because it is largely ignored by the major media. However, in today's headlines alone there are two stories about Islamic groups renouncing violence: one in the World Tribune and one in GulfNews. I expect that these will get much more attention from the major media than those of persecution -- in the spirit of the notorious post-9/11 New York Times story anointing Al-Azhar Univerisity in Cairo, a hotbed of Islamic fanaticism, as an oasis of Islamic toleration, moderation, and peace.

Stanley: "Did you know that 20,000 Iraqis marched against terrorism and for democracy in Iraq recently (and more in other cities), but were ignored by the world media? The media were scooped by Iraqi blogs."

Not only did I know it, but I posted at Jihad Watch here about it.

Mr. Stanley admonishes me: "You are also incorrect to believe that this is primarily an attempt to bring the west into the Islamic world. Really, this is an attempt to transform the Islamic world by altering the relationship between it and the West. The radicals want to change their regimes, but believe the only thing standing in their way is Western support to the regimes in their countries. If they can drive out the West, they can overturn their home governments, so the logic goes. Consolidation would follow, then expansion within the Muslim world, more consolidation, then _perhaps_ an offensive jihad against the West."

Well, don't take it on my word, Mr. Stanley. Take it from the radicals themselves. For example, Sheikh Omar Bakri of Britain, who has said: "I want to see the black flag of Islam flying over Downing Street." Take it from Omar Ahmad of the Council on American Islamic Relations, who is on record saying that "Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant . . . The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth." Ahmad now denies saying this, but the reporter who heard her stands by her story. I could cite dozens of other examples all with the same point: that many Muslims have made abundantly clear their intentions to, as Mr. Stanley puts it, "bring the west into the Islamic world."

"My point? Our greatest potential allies are the Muslims who have been suffering from this onslaught of terrorism since the 1950s and earlier."

As I state in the FAQ section: "Any Muslim who renounces violent jihad and dhimmitude is welcome to join in our anti-jihadist efforts."

Stanley: "Finally, what concerns me about your page is that I can see the radicals cynically presenting their case as the opinion of 'all Muslims' or 'Orthodox Islam', and even presenting themselves as moderates. They are louder and more activist (like all fanatics) and therefore they sometimes drown out the mainstream Muslims. By presenting the claims of the radicals ('Jihad is a central duty of every Muslim') as the attitude of Islam towards the West (hands rubbed together in glee at the prospect of more Christians to kill), you are playing into the hands of the radicals, the people who today have the heaviest bet on Huntington's 'Clash of Civilisations' thesis."

Sir, jihad is a central duty of every Muslim. What that means to each individual Muslim is another matter. In any case, once again, I never present the teachings of radical Islam as the sole teachings of Islam itself. If a moderate voice were to present a vision of Islam that confronts and refutes the radical version, I would applaud and support them. But much more often, moderate voices simply ignore the passages that the radicals use. That is not true moderation or reform: it does nothing to convince the radicals themselves to follow a different path. On this basis I reject your contention that I am "playing into the hands of the radicals." I am pointing out the necessary parameters of true moderation and reform, rather than accepting patently inadequate and even deceptive models of those things. I will not apologize for doing so, because I don't believe that these inadequate forms of moderate Islam will get us anywhere -- in fact, they really play into the hands of the radicals.

Posted by Robert at December 18, 2003 1:49 PM
Print this entry | Email this entry | Digg this | del.icio.us |

Comments
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)

I just found an interesting site: www.submission.org/ which attempts to explain what Islam is really about. For example, it says that women's head covering is not mandated by the Koran - it is a tradition that pre-dates Islam. Go take a look.

Posted by: Chaya Eitan at December 18, 2003 3:36 PM

.....non believer are not considered 'innocent'. They are considered kufr, deniers of truth.

http://www.al-islam.org/beamsofillumination/6.htm

amazing gobblygoop

Posted by: ploome at December 18, 2003 3:43 PM

Chaya, thank you. That is an interesting site. I found the article to which you referred: "Women Dress Code in Islam" by Ahmed Okla. It is indeed another example of a moderate Muslim explaining Islam in a way that reassures Western non-Muslims but simply does not address the key elements of Islam that radicals use to justify their positions. The hijab is indeed not mentioned in the Qur'an, but second only to the Qur'an for mainstream Muslims is the hadith. Of the many hadith collections, 6 are known as Sahih Sittah: the reliable collections. One of these is Sunan Abu Dawud, in which we read this: "Asma, daughter of AbuBakr, entered upon the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) wearing thin clothes. The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) turned his attention from her. He said: O Asma', when a woman reaches the age of menstruation, it does not suit her that she displays her parts of body except this and this, and he pointed to her face and hands" (Sunan Abu Dawud, bk.32, no. 4092).

With a statement of Muhammad behind it, the hijab will be very hard to eradicate from Islam. But Ahmed Okla's essay gives no hint of this.

Posted by: Robert Spencer at December 18, 2003 4:18 PM

Submission.org is run by followers of Rashad Khalifa (murdered as a heretic in 1990 after a fatwa was issued against him by an influential group of Saudi scholars.) Followers of Khalifa are considered to be heretics by mainstream Sunni Islam. Their followers are tiny and mostly Western-based (as they would be persecuted in Islamic countries.)

The views of the followers of Rashad Khalifa count for nothing with the Islamic world.

Posted by: Susan at December 18, 2003 4:35 PM

I agree, the persecution of Christians is hardly ever in the mainstream news, and then when you show people this news and they see it is from a Christain site, they assume it is biased or not quite up to snuff in some way to give it much credence.People don't want to quote sites like Barnabus in the mainstream news.
If more people knew what was happening to Christians, Hindu's, etc. they would understand the the problem.
Such as it is now, it is mainly most evident against Jews, and alot of people write that off as an ancient fight that's been going on forever.
Things happen fairly often that resemble the Miss World riots, and they are never shown.
It's horrific, and Muslims must do something to stop this carnage.
Sites like Jihad Watch, to me, are meant to make Muslims, and their leaders, accountable, to inform the public, and to speak for those who have no voice, muslim and non-muslim.

Posted by: TS at December 18, 2003 5:41 PM

This statement doesn't sit well with me:

"the Quran I've referred to in writing this also makes the point that [the command to fight] 'until the religion is only for Allah' [Sura 2:193] does not have the implications that Al Qaeda et al would like to give it. Allah is merely the Arabic word for the Christian God or Jewish Yahweh, and refers readers to 22:40, which explicitly states that Allah/God states that the Ahl al-Kitab (people of the Book - the Torah/Gospel/Quran) should repel those who attack 'cloisters, churches, and synagogues'. (Not much consolation for atheists like me...)"

If this were indeed the case, and jews and christians are 'people of the book', then why does the Qur'an so often state that their abode is in hell?

Additionally, if that were the case, why does the Qur'an require that muslims do not befriend christians and jews? Also, why does the Qur'an require that muslims do not emulate the kuffar(nonbelievers - which include jews and christians) in any way?

If they are truly 'people of the book', then the Qur'an should have more inclusionary language regarding them. Instead it requires muslims to avoid them at all costs (when they are not ordered to kill them, of course).

Posted by: Eric Lawson at December 18, 2003 7:38 PM

There is an excellent book available called 'Sword of the Prophet' and you can read an outline of this on;

www.freeman.org/m_online/aug3/eidelberg.htm

or you can unload the entire biography of The Life of Muhammad as a free book from;

www.muhammadanism.org/default.htm

the latter was written by Edward Sell in 19l3.After that, all your questions will be answered.

You might never sleep as well again, but at least you will understand what we are up against.

Posted by: R. Lo Ricco at December 18, 2003 9:10 PM

Whoever M. Stanley is, he doesn't understand. He chooses "schools" and "scholars" as selectively as he chooses others. He concocts self-soothing constructs detached from modern realities.

The "peaceful" schools are irrelevant. Wahhabism and violent sects of Salafism are ascendent. Underlying them are bigotry and permanent jihad. They sincerely believe they are correct.

Arguing about other schools is like saying there are other schools of socialism than Communism. so what? During the Soviet times the Communists prevailed, and were the threat, and also had golbal ambitions.

Posted by: Javani at December 18, 2003 9:59 PM

After reading the above give and take, will someone please explain to me the following:

1) What was the initial Islamic expansion if not war consecrated by religion?

2) Why are we arguing about whether or not this school or that school of Islamic jurists can justify some killing here or there? The whole history of Islam is about conquering and subjugation, about enslavement and jizya, about pillaging, destruction of places of worship and rape. To argue that Christianity did the same thing early on is to forget that in Islam, the sacred texts not only justify, but commend these actions by the House Of Islam against the House Of War.

3) Why are people like Ibn Warraq afraid to be open? - a rhetorical question.

4) Why do we let Islam get away with the whole concept of dhimmitude, and not show it to be a religious protection racket? (See Bat Ye'Or)

5) Why do we buy into the lie that just because something calls itself a religion that it is good?

6) WHY CANNOT WE TALK ABOUT ISLAM WITH ANY KIND OF HONESTY?

7) Can anyone deny that if a revelation happened today that produced the same words as the Koran, except that instead of 'infidels' the words 'Blacks and Hispanics' were substituted, that it would be called hate literature?

Posted by: Budd Kopman at December 19, 2003 2:57 PM

Dear Mr Spencer, assembled commentariat,

I have received and read the rebuttal to my recent comment. There are certainly some worthwhile points, in particular the point about unreported massacres of Christians, and I look forward to responding. I am unusually busy at present, but am putting together a response to your message(s). (I have people waiting in the front room for a meeting as I'm typing this).

I should be able to upload my reply in the next day or two.

Eric Lawson:
Given that we are talking about different interpretations of the same texts, your references to the Quran and ahadith will only really be helpful if you include the reference for the passage you are refering to and which translation it is. Often the same passage is translated differently, interpreted differently, and so on, by radicals and mainstream or traditional scholars. You may be refering to the so-called 'Noble Quran', in which case many of the assertions you are making would be based on words the compilers inserted into the translation.

Trevor Stanley.

Posted by: Trevor Stanley at December 21, 2003 3:35 AM

(I apologize in advance for my long post)

I have gathered several Qur'anic examples on people of the book to back up my points (all translations by Yusuf Ali - a respected translator):

How 'people of the book' are not to be befriended by muslims (including family):

O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust. (Sura 5:51) - people of the book are 'unjust'

Thou wilt not find any people who believe in Allah and the Last Day, loving those who resist Allah and His Messenger, even though they were their fathers or their sons, or their brothers, or their kindred. For such He has written Faith in their hearts, and strengthened them with a spirit from Himself. And He will admit them to Gardens beneath which Rivers flow, to dwell therein (for ever). Allah will be well pleased with them, and they with Him. They are the Party of Allah. Truly it is the Party of Allah that will achieve Felicity. (Sura 58:22)

O ye who believe! Take not my enemies and yours as friends (or protectors),- offering them (your) love, even though they have rejected the Truth that has come to you, and have (on the contrary) driven out the Prophet and yourselves (from your homes), (simply) because ye believe in Allah your Lord! If ye have come out to strive in My Way and to seek My Good Pleasure, (take them not as friends), holding secret converse of love (and friendship) with them: for I know full well all that ye conceal and all that ye reveal. And any of you that does this has strayed from the Straight Path. (Sura 60:1)

Allah forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) Faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: for Allah loveth those who are just. (Sura 60:8) - remember that Jews and christians are unjust in 5:51

How 'people of the book' may not be in a relationship with a muslim:

O ye who believe! Take not into your intimacy those outside your ranks: They will not fail to corrupt you. They only desire your ruin: Rank hatred has already appeared from their mouths: What their hearts conceal is far worse. We have made plain to you the Signs, if ye have wisdom. (Sura 3:118)

How 'people of the book' should be forsaken for hell:

It is not fitting, for the Prophet and those who believe, that they should pray for forgiveness for Pagans, even though they be of kin, after it is clear to them that they are companions of the Fire. (Sura 9:113) - Note how the word pagan may also be read as polythiest (which is applied to christians as they commit shirk)

If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (submission to Allah), never will it be accepted of him; and in the Hereafter He will be in the ranks of those who have lost (All spiritual good). (Sura 3:85)

Here's where I get confused. It appears that god revealed his word in the bible according to Sura 4:163-165. However, if you were to believe that wholesale and disregard additional revelations by Muhammad then you will go judged seperately (Sura 22.017)? Why?

Seeing as how Judiasm and Christianity were based on the old and new testaments (which were inspired by god as the Qu'ran said), then why should they be expected to follow Muhammad's teachings? Was Allah wrong? Why did Allah ned to 're-reveal' his word in a completely different maner in the Qur'an?

Posted by: Eric Lawson at December 21, 2003 11:44 AM

After a hectic Christmas break, here is my reply.

My reply is even more lengthy than my first post. I also have some comments half written up in response to Eric Lawson's questions.

With your permission, Robert Spencer, I would like to write up this impromptu 'debate' as a series of html pages on the webpage I edit (Perspectives on World History and Current Events).

http://geocities.com/pwhce/

I can't get anchor href tags to work here, and there are a number of places I would have liked to place links in the text of my comments.

Naturally, I would include links to JihadWatch and respect your copyright. Do let me know if you have any objections.

Trevor Stanley.

Posted by: Trevor Stanley at January 4, 2004 7:11 AM

Mr Spencer,

Thank you for the compliment of your full-length essay in reply to my comment, and for recognising the thought that lies behind my opinions.

My original post was written hastily and at a time when I was quite tired. As such, I do feel that it was not as diplomatic as I might have liked, particularly given that I had just stumbled upon your page. I trust that you will find this reply more tactful and constructive.

It is my impression that you have asserted the following:
1. that "no Muslim group has ever renounced the doctrines of violent jihad that radical Muslims use to justify terrorist acts."
2. that the usul al-fiqh (sources/roots/foundations of legal judgement - Quran and ahadith) support the position of the violent radicals, not that of the anti-terrorist mainstream/traditionalists.

The absolute nature of, at least, the first of these statements means that logically, a single contrary observation would disprove it, and I believe many such examples exist.

There are three possibilities with regard to Muslim groups accepting or rejecting violent jihad:
1. All Muslim groups renounce violent jihad.
2. Some Muslim groups renounce violent jihad.
3. No Muslim groups renounce violent jihad.

Either 1. or 3. can be defeated by a single, sound counter-example. Judging from your statement (quoted above), you occupy position 3. From my statements it should be clear that I hold position 2. 'Some' could mean anything from 10% to 90%, and the ratio would be a very interesting matter to debate. However, 2. can't be disproved simply by giving examples of radical interpretations. The case I am making is that the reality lies within the domain of position 2.

Why does this matter? As I (and others) see it, a major struggle within the Muslim world is taking place over the interpretation of the usul al-fiqh (Quran, ahadith etc). If position 2. is correct (as I believe), it is certainly in our best interests (and I think more in keeping with the practice of Islam over the centuries) to support those opposed to the radicals. It seems to me that because you believe in 3., you read sinister intent into the most benign of anti-terrorist statements made by mainstream Muslims and their clerics.

You present examples of justifications of violence by 'traditional' or 'mainstream' scholars:

Spencer: The Shafi’i school of Sunni Muslim jurisprudence stipulates that “it is not permissible . . . to kill women and children unless they are fighting against the Muslims.”
Spencer quoting Ibn Taymiyya: “as for those who cannot offer resistance or cannot fight, such as women, children, monks, old people, the blind, handicapped and their likes, they shall not be killed unless they actually fight with words (e.g. by propaganda) and acts (e.g. by spying or otherwise assisting in the warfare).”
War is as old as man himself, yet in most if not all societies there is a prohibition against murder and destruction of property, and some aversion to excesses in warfare. These distinctions are elaborated by various different systems of war law.

It is generally accepted in Judaeo-Christian just law rulings, as well as more secular western laws on war, that killing those who are genuinely (legally) at war with one's 'group' is legal. Such systems of war law carefully define the conditions in which war can be legally declared, who is entitled to do so, and what constitutes a legitimate target. In Islam, the bases of these laws have been increasingly contested by radicals keen to justify violence through theology.

Personally, I have no problem with the scholarly positions you quoted. Both quoted statements are phrased as prohibitions with exceptions. These rulings are also compatible with Western laws of war. Otherwise, the following would not have been considered lawful targets:

* The Hitler Youth in 1945,
* Women soldiers in the Red Army,
* Women working in arms factories bombed in WWII,
* Radio installations used in military communication or propaganda,
* Child soldiers in Liberia and Sierra Leone (even if they were firing upon British or American troops),
* Underaged or female suicide bombers.

The abovementioned rulings clearly prohibit Palestinian suicide bombings against noncombatant civilians in synagogues, cafes, wedding parties etc. (as they are not taking part in any war effort). Incidentally, if our own law of war did not include such exceptions, the killing of disabled people such as crippled Hamas leader Sheikh Yassin and 'blind Sheikh' Umar Abd al-Rahman would be forbidden even if they were coordinating attacks during open, legally declared warfare.

The above examples are simply normal rules of war. This raises the question: what do you mean by "the doctrines of violent jihad that radical Muslims use to justify terrorist acts" you believe Muslims should renounce? Do you mean those radical interpretations of the source texts that rationalise terrorism as divinely ordained? Do you mean the Muslim laws of war? Or do you advocate the excision of sections of the Quran and ahadith?

_9:5 and 2:193_

When I set out to write my comment on your article, I was aware that there are several Quranic verses frequently taken out of context or interpreted to present Islam as a religion of war. The two most important examples are 2:193 and 9:5. Due to space limitations, I deleted what I had written about 9:5, but right on cue you brought it up!

You point out that I recognise that 2:193 is rooted in a particular time - when a particular battle was justified by the opponents of Islam repeatedly breaking treaties. My first comment on your site was written hastily. I blended together the commentaries to 2:190-195 and 9:5 somewhat. In 2:193 permission is given to fight in self defence (and only then) in cases where the religion is oppressed. Thus the first ruling on violence by Muslims is that it can only take place when violence is perpetrated against the Muslims, and must cease when the oppression or aggression against Islam ceases.[2:193] However, 9:5 permits violence against those who have broken their peace treaties, and then gives qualifications. Effectively, Chapter nine outlines which non-Muslims are immune from this 'punishment' (ie those who have not betrayed and attacked Islam) and then permits the killing of those who are not immune (who repeatedly break peace treaties or support war against Islam).

You quote a snippet from 9:5, "...slay the believers wherever you find them", then jump directly to 9:29. The title of the Chapter, the first verse, the verses before and after 9:5, and the sections of the verse you have conveniently left out all support my case and refute yours (and Usama bin Laden's). The Chapter is Al-Bara'at (The Immunity), and I have included several relevant verses below. Note for example 9:4 "...Allah loves those who keep their duty" refers to non-Muslims who do not break peace treaties or assist in wars of aggression against Muslims. Verse 9:6 instructs Muslims to give non-Muslims sanctuary.

(Comments here are from Maulana Muhammad Ali (editor), The Holy Qur‛ān: Arabic Text, English Translation and Commentary, seventh edition, 1991.)

9:1 A declaration of immunity from Allah and His Messenger to those of the idolaters with whom you made an agreement.
9:2 So go about in the land for four months and know that you cannot escape Allah and that Allah will disgrace the disbelievers. [See note 1033. -TS]
9:3 And an announcement from Allah and His Messenger to the people on the day of the greater pilgrimage[1031] that Allah is free from liability to the idolaters, and so is His Messenger. So if you repent, it will be better for you; and if you turn away then know that you will not escape Allah. And announce painful chastisement to those who disbelieve -
9:4 Except those of the idolaters with whom you have made an agreement, then they have not failed you in anything and have not backed up any one against you ; so fulfil their agreement to the end of their term. Surely Allah loves those who keep their duty.[1032]
9:5 So when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters,[1033] wherever you find them, and take them captive and besiege them and lay in wait for them in every ambush. But if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free. Surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.[1034]
9:6 And if anyone of the idolaters seek thy protection, protect him till he hears the word of Allah, then convey him to the place of safety. This is because they are a people who know not.[1035]

[1031 is too long to transcribe here.]
[1032] Only two tribes, the Bani Damrah and the Bani Kananah, are related to have adhered to their treaties. The exception given here makes it clear that the Muslims were not fighting with the idolaters on account of their religion, but on account of their having been untrue to their engagements.
[1033] The clear exception of the last verse shows that by the idolaters here are meant, not all idolaters or polytheists wherever they may be found in the world, not even all idolaters of Arabia, but only those idolatrous tribes of Arabia assembled at the pilgrimage who had first made agreements with the Muslims and then violated them.
[1034] The exception here has given rise to much misconception. It is thought that it offers to the believers the alternative of the sword or the Qur'an. Nothing is farther from the truth. The injunction contained in the first part of the verse establishes the fact that the whole verse relates to certain idolatrous Arab tribes who had broken their engagements with the Muslims, and who had now been appraised of a similar repudiation by the Muslims. The order to kill them and to make them prisoners and to besiege them and ambush them amounts clearly to an order to fight against them, as it is in war only that all these things are made lawful. They had so often broken their word that they could no more be trusted. Yet, if they joined the brotherhood of Islam, and there was an absolute change in their condition, the punishment which they otherwise deserved could be remitted. It was a case of forgiving a guilty people who had repented. It should also be noted that a mere confession of the faith is not required ; what is required is an absolute change, so that the old crimes are all abandoned. Therefore, along with the confession of faith, it is required that they should keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate. The subject is further clarified in the next verse and the following section.
[1035] This verse leaves no doubt that the Prophet was never ordered [by Allah through revelations - TS] to kill anyone on account of his religion. "You shall give him a safe conduct that he may return home again securely in case he shall not think fit to embrace Muhammadanism" (Sale).

9:12-9:14 read in sequence clearly give a picture of punishing those who break their pacts but making peace with those who make peace with the Muslims. However, 9:14 and components of 9:12 are repeatedly taken out of context by those who want to paint Islam as a religion which forces conversion by the sword (including Islamic radicals and some non-Muslims). Personally, the interpretation I prefer is the one which emerges from a complete reading of the text, and which is reflected in the tafsir of traditional scholars.

Did you deliberately misrepresent the Quran, or were you not aware of the name of the chapter, the content of the first verse, the components of 9:5 you omitted, the contents of 9:4 and 9:6 and the common interpretation that "slay the idolaters wherever you find them" refers to specific idolaters such as those who had repeatedly broken peace treaties?

Your point about naskh (abrogation of what went before) is also problematic. Naskh is considered to apply to previous books (the Torah, the Bible) that the Quran allegedly superceded, and according to most but not all scholars, also to elements of the Quran and ahadith that directly contradict each other. In much the same way, new laws passed in parliaments overrule old laws that they directly contradict. However, naskh only applies "there is genuine conflict which can not be reconciled" (see links below). Hypothetically, if the Quran said "you may wear red" and a later verse said "you may wear blue", there would be no naskh. If a still later verse said "you may not wear red", the first verse would be subject to naskh.

There is no such contradiction between 2:193 and 9:5, the latter simply extending the former. Obligations not to fight innocents in that section of chapter 2 are actually reiterated in chapter nine, but if they were not, they would still stand. Ibn Kathir's interpretation is novel, and is difficult to square with the evidence of 9:1-6, which helps to explain why scholars advise caution in approaching the works of neo-Hanbalites such as Ibn Kathir.

Useful information about naskh may be found at these addresses:
http://www.ymofmd.com/books/uaf/Command_Prohibitions_Nask.htm
http://www.youngmuslims.ca/online_library/books/ulum_al_quran/

It's worth noting that there is debate over the order of revelations. The sources I have seen do not place Sura nine last.
http://www.youngmuslims.ca/online_library/books/ulum_al_quran/Ch1S4s7.htm

By the way, here's a little coincidence. Esther 9:5 - "Thus the Jews smote all their enemies with the stroke of the sword, and slaughter, and destruction, and did what they would to all that hated them." The heading is "Ahasuereus allows the Jews self-defence." Psalms 9:5 - Thou [Addressed to God -TS] hast rebuked the heathen, thou hast destroyed the wicked, thou hast put out their name for ever and ever." Heading: "David's praise for God's just judgements". See also Genesis 9:5, Deuteronomy 9:5 and Judges 9:5. If we were trying to present Christianity as a religion of violence, it would not be difficult, even if we only confined ourself to verses which are called 9:5!! Any religious text can be misused this way.

_About those Indonesian Scholars_

Spencer: The point was that the scholars didn't condemn the murder of civilians outright -- they just said, according to the report, that "killing innocent people is forbidden, and that seeking martyrdom with such actions as suicide bombings is only justified in war zones. It states clearly that Indonesia is not a war zone." [...] they're saying it would be OK to kill civilians with suicide bombings in a war zone.

How does that statement imply it would be ok to kill civilians in a war zone?

Looking at their statements in point form, they are saying:
1. "killing innocent people is forbidden, and that
2. seeking martyrdom with such actions as suicide bombings is only justified in war zones.
3. [...] Indonesia is not a war zone."

Some Muslim scholars believe that the prohibition against suicide does not apply if that suicide occurs in battle, whereas others don't. Therefore, for some Muslim scholars, suicide bombing is a legitimate weapon _of war_, as stated in point two. On the other hand, point one explicitly bans the use of any weapons against innocents. Why innocents and not civilians? Remember, we bombed thousands of civilians working in arms factories during WWII, without breaching the laws of war. (Although the official policy of bombing residential areas did breach standard laws of war).

Many of us in the West recoil at suicide bombing, a weapon we find alien. However, Islamic law bans burning one's enemy to death, and we use flamethrowers and napalm. In actual fact, there is nothing especially cruel about suicide bombing compared to non-suicide bombing. If Iraqi troops had used suicide bombings against advancing Coalition troops during the war in Iraq, would that have been a war crime? There are (at least) three measures of legality at issue here: the kind of weapon used, the nature of the target, and whether a state of war exists.

So was the Bali Bombing illegal according to the these rulings? (Asterisks denote illegality).
Weapon: Suicide bombing (possibly legal).
* Targets: civilians at a bar (illegal, see point one).
* State of war?: No (illegal, see points 2, 3).
Verdict: Illegal.

This same method can be used in other cases:

USS Cole:
Weapon: Suicide bombing.
Target: Military.
* State of war?: No.
Verdict: Illegal.

Palestinian suicide bombings against Cafes and synagogues:
Weapon: suicide bombing.
* Targets: Innocent civilians.
* State of war?: No.
Verdict: Illegal.

Japanese kamikaze pilots:
Weapon: suicide attack.
Targets: Military.
State of war?: Yes
Verdict: Possibly legal.

Fire bombing of Dresden:
* Weapon: Fire bombing
* Targets: Civilian
State of war?: Yes.
Verdict: Illegal.

The question of which weapon is used is completely separate from the question of the type of target. What if, instead of suicide bombing, they had used a machine-gun to kill people in Bali? If they said "machine gunning people is only justified in war zones" would that mean they considered the machine gunning of innocent civilians legal? No, because point one explicitly condemns attacks on innocents. Are machine gun attacks against the following targets legal?

(a) A German infantry division during World War II. (Yes).
(b) Tourists in a nightclub. (No).
(c) Supermarket shoppers. (No).
(d) A dictator's political opponents. (No).

What you have done is claim that the scholars in question are using the word 'innocent' in a weaselly way because they don't define innocent. But you have no evidence whatsoever that they would approve of "targeted suicide bombing attacks against schoolchildren, supermarket shoppers, etc." Where did they say that??

As a final analogy on this point, the Pope has made statements, in relation to abortion, in which he stated that as the Catholic Church considers it to be the taking of life, and life is sacred, abortion is forbidden. In these statements, he has not always specifically mentioned whether the life of abortionists and their staff is included as 'sacred'. Some fringe nutcases bomb abortion clinics. Would it be reasonable to take the Pope's statement that "Life is sacred" to mean "kill abortionists"? Is it reasonable to read "killing innocent people is forbidden" as approving of "targeted suicide bombing attacks against schoolchildren, [and] supermarket shoppers"??!

_The Media_

My comments on the media were too simplistic. Your point about massacres of Christians is a very good one. I think a number of factors influence decisions on news reporting. These include whether the audience can identify with the people in the story, how easily reports can be obtained, and in some cases whether the story can be fit into the picture of the world the journalist or editor in question is trying to portray.

Reporters in Afghanistan wondered why the tens of thousands being killed there were not covered, whereas much smaller scale violence in Beirut received nightly coverage. Robert D Kaplan covered this question very well in his book Soldiers of God: With Islamic Warriors in Afghanistan and Pakistan (2001). He pointed out that reporters could stay in air conditioned hotels and access satellite transmitters in Beirut, whereas in Afghanistan they had to trek across mine-strewn mountains for weeks, dodging Soviet Hind helicopters. At the end of the day, news viewers could identify with urban youth in Beirut more than with the Afghan mujahideen, so the few Afghan reports were less likely to be aired. I think Kaplan downplays another reason, which is that many of those in the hierarchy that determines which stories run and which don't, want to justify their own spin on world events. Since their version of events is that most problems are caused by neo-colonialism or religion, the invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviets did not compute. The Christians being massacred in the Sudan are very different to us, and their tormentors are not American, Israeli or otherwise part of the world establishment - therefore those few reporters with the guts to go to the Sudan find their stories are never reported.

In much the same way, the media love a mad mullah proclaiming that the West has brought terrorism on itself - but a Muslim scholar who says "actually the Westerners are our friends and we invited them into the country" is about as useful as 20,000 Iraqi civilians marching against terrorism. Notice that the media often portrays suicide bombings in Baghdad as signs of unrest amongst ordinary Iraqis? Where on earth would a clerk or labourer from Baghdad get two tonnes of explosives?? Acknowledging that most Iraqis welcome the Americans and hate the terrorists would not fit into the worldview many media workers subscribe to. If violence can not be blamed on the West, or if an advocate of peace praises the West, many in the media pass it by.

Here is an article in support of my case:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-110301meet.story

[continued next comment]

Posted by: Trevor Stanley at January 4, 2004 7:15 AM

The second point I want to make in this post is that many of the theological arguments used by radical Islam radically depart from traditional Islamic teachings.The radical teachings, being therefore innovations (bid'a), are contrary to Islam even by the arguments of the violent radicals themselves.

_Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn Kathir_

Spencer: "[Ibn Taymiyya's rulings are] exploited by Osama bin Laden and other radical Muslims to justify actions such as the destruction of the World Trade Center: the people in it, you see, were aiding America's putative war against Islam, and thus could lawfully be killed. I am not saying that the radicals' reasoning here is correct on Islamic grounds or universally accepted within the Muslim world, but only that it has an appeal based on traditional Islamic law."

I think you are using the word traditional as a synonym for "old", which is not how I meant it. Presenting the views of two of the most radical and deviationist of mediæval Muslim scholars (Ibn Taymiyya and his fiery disciple Ibn Kathir) as examples of 'traditional' Islam is disingeneous.

While Muslim scholars respect many of Ibn Taymiyya's contributions to the study of Islam, he is also recognised to have deviated from the main line in many ways, which is why he spent so much of his life in prison. In fact, the rulings of Ibn Taymiyya and his followers are sometimes called 'neo-Hanbali' to differentiate them from traditional Hanbalism.

Here are some statements made by traditional scholars about Ibn Taymiyya:

"Even Ibn Taymiyya, with his frequent divergence from majority positions . . . [al-Fatawa al-Kubra, 1.280]" [Cited by Faraz Rabbani, Hanafi Fiqh, 24 November 2003.]

"The lava-stream that flows from Ibn Taymiyya, whose fierce xenophobia mirrored his sense of the imminent Mongol threat to Islam, has a habit of closing minds and hardening hearts. It is true that not every committed Wahhabi is willing to kill civilians to make a political point. However it is also true that no orthodox Sunni has ever been willing to do so. One of the unseen, unsung triumphs of true Islam in the modern world is its complete freedom from any terroristic involvement. Maliki ulama do not become suicide-bombers. No-one has ever heard of Sufi terrorism."
Abdal-Hakim Murad, "Recapturing Islam from the Terrorists": http://homepage.ntlworld.com/masud/ISLAM/ahm/recapturing.htm

"Even great scholars known to depart from mainstream opinions, such as Ibn Hazm and Ibn Taymiyya (Allah have mercy on them), agreed." [Faraz Rabbani, Sunni Path Hanafi Fiqh, 6 November 2003, relating to salafi deviations on correct number of prayers.]

Traditionalism in religion preserves the culture and practice of the religion over time by handing down practices to each new generation, and accumulating new interpretations where necessary. The four Sunni madhhabs preserve practices and interpretations from the first and second centuries of the Muslim religion, adding new interpretations when a new situation arises. The time elapsed between the life of Muhammad and the compilation of books of ahadith, followed by the formation of madhhabs is roughly analogous to the time elapsed between the life of Christ and the writing of the different books of the New Testament (Mark, Luke, Romans and so on). Ibn Taymiyya, Ibn Kathir et al often directly challenged the traditional mainstream.

Ibn Wahhab and other 'revivalists' in the 18th Century threw out much of what the traditions had taught, drawing inspiration from neo-Hanbalism and seeing themselves as rivals to the Islamic Traditionalists. They condemned the Traditionalists as 'innovators' because the interpretations they had accumulated since the birth of Islam disagreed with the interpretations made by Revivalists 1100 years after the birth of Islam. Revivalist (wahhabi) readings were actually as much of a radical interpretation of Ibn Taymiyya as Ibn Taymiyya's was a radical departure from Traditionalism. This explains why some of the Ibn Kathir tafsir you have quoted is repeated word for word in the 'Noble Quran', a radical Wahhabi translation that diverges from most other translations in many ways.

The radicals, from the Wahhabis in the eighteenth century to the Salafis beginning in the nineteenth, define their own ideologies as a reaction or alternative to Islamic Traditionalism. Since the various different types of radical Islam hold viewpoints that are _radically_ different (hence the name) even from each other, I can't see how their interpretation of Islam can be considered the more accurate reading. Which radicals have it right? They can't all be right.

Spencer: "The fact that they may come from engineers and pediatricians makes no difference: they are not arguments based on the authority of Osama, Zawahiri, and others, but on the cited texts of the Qur'an, Sunna, and jurists."

However, neither bin Laden nor al-Zawahiri have the authority to interpret those texts.

Musa Furber recently said that "when I need I tooth pulled I go to a dentist, even though I have a plumber next door." [Musa Furber, student of Hanbali Fiqh, answering a question on Hanafi Fiqh List (sunnipath.com), 7th November 2003.] The interpretation of the mainstream, traditional schools is that the radical interpretations are wrong - and they are the only authorities with sufficient education to make such assessments. Bin Laden and al-Zawahiri are Salafis, and they believe they can simply open up a 1400 year old text and make their own rulings. Most of us have trouble understanding parts of Shakespeare and the King James Bible (both 400 years old). Chaucer (about 700 years ago - in Ibn Taymiyya's time) is even harder to understand. The old english text Beowulf is incomprehensible to English speakers, but is more recent than the Quran. To think the radical interpretations of an engineer and a paediatrician are relevant is about the same as thinking a British businessman can embezzle money provided he can justify his actions using a mistranslated Magna Carta (a key document of British customary law written in Latin). Why do you think these individuals are renegades in the Muslim world? Unlike bin Laden and al-Zawahiri, Traditional scholars do study classical Arabic, and that is why they continue to hold a contrary position to radicals such as al-Qaeda.

Yes, some Muslims have broken contact with their religious traditions. These include some second generation migrants with secular parents, some who never had such a link (such as converts), or those who are angry and alienated (like all revolutionaries in all societies). Some such people may be impressed by the interpretations made by engineers, businessmen and doctors. I think the most sensible and realistic approach is that the Traditionalists, who oppose rampant, revolutionary violence against innocent civilians, are correct and should be supported.

Unfortunately, many of the radicals try to present themselves as 'moderates', but when a group of Indonesian clerics states that "killing innocent people is forbidden", we should at least consider the possibility they may mean it.

Incidentally, al-Qaeda has answered questions about the World Trade Center and other bombings in a number of ways. They usually hunt around for a Quranic reference, a hadith, a ruling by some renegade cleric, or something like that, with which to justify their answer. However, these answers logically contradict each other. What we are seeing is standard militant propaganda cloaking itself as religion. That some angry young Muslims are willing to believe a doctor is a cleric does not mean Islam is flawed, it means that angry, alienated people will find an ideological model that justifies their anger. At other times, angry Muslims have turned to extremist versions of socialism or nationalism for such justifications.

Spencer: "Any Muslim who renounces violent jihad and dhimmitude is welcome to join in our anti-jihadist efforts."

The struggle against violent radicals has been continuous within the Muslim world since at least the eighteenth century. Because of their novel interpretation of the Quran, the likes of Egyptian Islamic Jihad and al-Qaeda have decided that the way to overthrow their home governments is to first destroy their purported western sponsors. This idea is only about 15 years old for the Sunni radicals. The majority of Muslims and Muslim clerics have been struggling against the radicals for centuries - so it is we who are joining them.

The 'dhimmi' question is another question entirely. I am not an apologist for every aspect of Islam. Until relatively recently, the situation of non-Mulims within the Caliphate was preferable to that of Jews in Europe - but times have changed, and I agree that the jizya is a problem.

Spencer: "Sir, jihad is a central duty of every Muslim. What that means to each individual Muslim is another matter."

You are correct. However, I suspect you knew when you wrote on your webpage that "jihad is a central duty of every Muslim" that most non-Muslims would take a particular view of that statement. My point was that I think your webpage presents a deliberately too negative picture of _all_ Islam, by its deliberately ambiguous use of such terms. If I have read you incorrectly, I apologise.

-Trevor Stanley.

_Further reading_

Maulana Muhammad Ali (editor), The Holy Qur‛ān: Arabic Text, English Translation and Commentary, seventh edition, Ahmadiyyah Anjuman Isha‛at Islam Lahore Inc., 1991. (One of several sources I used when I was making a comparison of the 2:190-195 and 9:1-6 sections of the Quran. Its advantage is the commentary, which directly addresses some of the interpretations we are discussing here.)

Hilmi M Zawati, Is Jihād a Just War? War, Peace, and Human Rights Under Islamic and Public International Law, The Edwin Mellen Press, Lewiston New York, 2001. (This book specifically rebutts the arguments commonly brought forth by Bernard Lewis and radical Islamists to present Islam as a religion of warfare. Zawati's use of evidence is impressive, and I have not been able to fault any of his references. An authoritative work!)

Although the following references may not have followed Mr Spencer's script (if such a document exists), one may find decisive refutations of terrorism by Muslims in the following:

(Links on my own webpage)
http://geocities.com/pwhce/afglinks.html#moderate

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/masud/ISLAM/ahm/recapturing.htm
"Recapturing Islam from the Terrorists" (Abdal-Hakim Murad)
The essay begins with criticism of American foreign policy. However, it is scathing of terrorists and includes statements such as the following:
"Sunni Muslims have been brought up in a universe of faith that renders the taking of innocent lives unimaginable. [Note that by this sentence, the author takes the extraordinary step of expelling the terrorists from Sunni Islam.] By condemning the attacks, we know that we defend the indispensable essence of Islam."
"...terrorists are not Muslims. Targeting civilians is a negation of every possible school of Sunni Islam. Suicide bombing is so foreign to the Quranic ethos that the Prophet Samson is entirely absent from our scriptures."

http://www.masud.co.uk/
"The terrorists posing as journalists who killed Ahmad Shah Masuud were cowards of the worst type. Killing themselves was not bravery but stupidity, but killing one’s enemy in such a way is the worst form of treachery and the Arabs have many poems denouncing such type of people."
"when a crazy Christian does something terrible, everyone in the West knows it is the actions of a mad man because they have some knowledge of the core beliefs and ethics of Christianity. When a mad Muslim does something evil or foolish they assume it is from the religion of Islam, not because they hate us but because they have never been told by a Muslim what the teachings of Islam are all about." [Here, as elsewhere, a traditional author is lamenting the control Wahhabis and Salafis exercise over the image of Islam abroad, and calling on mainstream Islam to be more assertive.]

Posted by: Trevor Stanley at January 4, 2004 7:19 AM

I don't have time for a reply as lengthy as the one before, but for the sake of setting the record straight I think it prudent to answer some points here.

Trevor, you can write this up at your page.

"However, 2. can't be disproved simply by giving examples of radical interpretations. The case I am making is that the reality lies within the domain of position 2."

Actually you are arguing back at me a point I make in my books "Islam Unveiled" and "Onward Muslim Soldiers." When I say that no Muslim group has renounced the doctrines of violent jihad that radicals use to support terrorist acts, that does not mean that all Muslim groups understand them the same way the terrorists do. In fact, in my books (which I invite you to read before assuming my position from passing comments), I attempt to demonstrate your point 2: "that the usul al-fiqh (sources/roots/foundations of legal judgement - Quran and ahadith) support the position of the violent radicals, not that of the anti-terrorist mainstream/traditionalists." But I do not even argue that the anti-terror people have NO support in the usul al-fiqh, but only that their support is weaker than that of the radicals.

"Why does this matter? As I (and others) see it, a major struggle within the Muslim world is taking place over the interpretation of the usul al-fiqh (Quran, ahadith etc)."

Quite so.

"If position 2. is correct (as I believe), it is certainly in our best interests (and I think more in keeping with the practice of Islam over the centuries) to support those opposed to the radicals."

Of course. But we must not confuse real reformers with those practicing deceptive taqiyya.

"It seems to me that because you believe in 3., you read sinister intent into the most benign of anti-terrorist statements made by mainstream Muslims and their clerics."

I disagree. I do not hold to your #3 in the 1st place. Meanwhile all I look for from "mainstream" clerics is a full disavowal -- not just of "terrorism," which is variously interpreted, but of the strongly rooted Islamic doctrine that calls upon Muslims to wage war against unbelievers in certain circumstances.

"Personally, I have no problem with the scholarly positions you quoted. Both quoted statements are phrased as prohibitions with exceptions. These rulings are also compatible with Western laws of war. Otherwise, the following would not have been considered lawful targets:

I hope you understand that these teachings are used and widely accepted to justify suicide bombings in buses and restaurants and the like, none of which remotely correspond to the examples you have cited.

"The abovementioned rulings clearly prohibit Palestinian suicide bombings against noncombatant civilians in synagogues, cafes, wedding parties etc. (as they are not taking part in any war effort)."

They do nothing of the kind, since many scholars have ruled just the opposite, leading to widespread acceptance of these practices in the PA and all over the Islamic world.

"Incidentally, if our own law of war did not include such exceptions, the killing of disabled people such as crippled Hamas leader Sheikh Yassin and 'blind Sheikh' Umar Abd al-Rahman would be forbidden even if they were coordinating attacks during open, legally declared warfare."

This is just silly.

"This raises the question: what do you mean by 'the doctrines of violent jihad that radical Muslims use to justify terrorist acts' you believe Muslims should renounce? Do you mean those radical interpretations of the source texts that rationalise terrorism as divinely ordained? Do you mean the Muslim laws of war? Or do you advocate the excision of sections of the Quran and ahadith?"

I mean primarily this. In 1994 Al-Azhar in Cairo endorsed a Shafi'i manual of Islamic law containing this phrase: "the caliph makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians . . . until they become Muslim or pay the non-Muslim poll tax." It further stipulates that this obligation is not removed if there is no caliph. I adduce this manual because it was recently endorsed, not as a historical artifact, but as a reliable guide to Sunni orthodoxy today. Nor is this the only source for this doctrine. This doctrine, and all attendant ones, must be renounced.

"However, 9:14 and components of 9:12 are repeatedly taken out of context by those who want to paint Islam as a religion which forces conversion by the sword (including Islamic radicals and some non-Muslims)."

If you had read "Onward Muslim Soldiers" you would know that I am well aware of this and that I never portray Islam as a religion which teaches that conversions should be forced by the sword.

"Personally, the interpretation I prefer..."

This sums it all up for me. I am not interpreting the Qur'an myself. I am not a Muslim and have no authority to offer an interpretation of the Qur'an. All I do is report on Qur'anic interpretations by Muslims. Your interpretation may be very nice, but how many Muslims subscribe to it?

"Did you deliberately misrepresent the Quran, or were you not aware of the name of the chapter, the content of the first verse, the components of 9:5 you omitted, the contents of 9:4 and 9:6 and the common interpretation that 'slay the idolaters wherever you find them' refers to specific idolaters such as those who had repeatedly broken peace treaties?"

You told me this post would be more tactful and diplomatic, yet you continue to suggest that I am writing either in ignorance or bad faith. Thus I will answer this one but you will hear no more from me, as it is no use arguing with people whose minds are made up already, and who don't have minimal respect for those with whom they are speaking. In any case, I am well aware of the title and contents of Sura 9, and misrepresented nothing. As you yourself pointed out, radical Muslims interpret it the way I explained. All I did was point out that they do so, and show the traditional grounds by which they support their arguments. I do not, as I said, interpret the Qur'an myself.

"Your point about naskh (abrogation of what went before) is also problematic. Naskh is considered to apply to previous books (the Torah, the Bible) that the Quran allegedly superceded, and according to most but not all scholars, also to elements of the Quran and ahadith that directly contradict each other. In much the same way, new laws passed in parliaments overrule old laws that they directly contradict. However, naskh only applies 'there is genuine conflict which can not be reconciled' (see links below). Hypothetically, if the Quran said 'you may wear red' and a later verse said 'you may wear blue', there would be no naskh. If a still later verse said 'you may not wear red', the first verse would be subject to naskh."

You seem not to have noticed that it wasn't MY point about naskh; it was Ibn Kathir's point about naskh. It was he, not I, who said that 9:5 abrogated every peace treaty in the Qur'an. Nor is he alone in teaching this. You can find the same from Ibn Juzayy, Tafsir al-Jalalayn, and others. Ibn Salama taught that 9:5 specifically abrogated 124 verses of tolerance and peace.

"Ibn Kathir's interpretation is novel . . ."

Hardly. I just gave you 3 other places where it appears.

". . .and is difficult to square with the evidence of 9:1-6, which helps to explain why scholars advise caution in approaching the works of neo-Hanbalites such as Ibn Kathir."

Ibn Kathir is widely read today in the Islamic world and is a respected authority, despite these cautions.

"It's worth noting that there is debate over the order of revelations. The sources I have seen do not place Sura nine last.
http://www.youngmuslims.ca/online_library/books/ulum_al_quran/Ch1S4s7.htm"

If you had read "Onward Muslim Soldiers," you would see that I am even aware of this. It doesn't change anything I am saying. My point is not that the radicals have the ONLY interpretation of the Qur'an; only that they are working from a broad traditional base.

"If we were trying to present Christianity as a religion of violence, it would not be difficult, even if we only confined ourself to verses which are called 9:5!! Any religious text can be misused this way."

This point would hold true if I limited my argument to a few scattered verses of the Qur'an. Unfortunately, however, as I explain in "Onward," Islam has a developed doctrine, theology, and law mandating violence against unbelievers. Although Christians have behaved wretchedly to others in the past, Christianity does not now have and never has had any such doctrine.

"What you have done is claim that the scholars in question are using the word 'innocent' in a weaselly way because they don't define innocent. But you have no evidence whatsoever that they would approve of 'targeted suicide bombing attacks against schoolchildren, supermarket shoppers, etc.' Where did they say that??"

Maybe they don't. But I suspect that if you asked them, they would approve of such actions in Israel. Why do I think this? Because of the many Islamic scholars who have registered their approval of those actions on the same grounds.

"Presenting the views of two of the most radical and deviationist of mediæval Muslim scholars (Ibn Taymiyya and his fiery disciple Ibn Kathir) as examples of 'traditional' Islam is disingeneous."

I don't accept your characterization of Ibn Kathir. I don't accept that it is disingenuous, either. Ibn Taymiyya is not accepted by many Muslims today: that's great. All I did, again, was demonstrate how he is used by the radicals, who make converts on the basis of such appeals despite any disdain that other scholars have for I.T.

"The time elapsed between the life of Muhammad and the compilation of books of ahadith, followed by the formation of madhhabs is roughly analogous to the time elapsed between the life of Christ and the writing of the different books of the New Testament (Mark, Luke, Romans and so on)."

No it isn't. Even the most liberal scholars agree that the NT was complete by AD100, except perhaps for 2 Peter. Muhammad died in 632. The great hadith collections were completed and the madhhabs formed in the 8th and 9th centuries -- at least 150 years later.

"Ibn Taymiyya, Ibn Kathir et al often directly challenged the traditional mainstream."

You have said this already. You have not shown how they challenged the mainstream on teachings regarding jihad.

Are you aware that Ibn Khaldun, whom I suspect you regard as mainstream and not as wild-eyed as Taymiyya, wrote this in the Muqaddimah? "In the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force." Islam is "under obligation to gain power over other nations." (Muqaddimah, Princeton Univ. Pr., 1967, p. 183.)

"I think the most sensible and realistic approach is that the Traditionalists, who oppose rampant, revolutionary violence against innocent civilians, are correct and should be supported."

It is not up to me to say who is correct in interpreting the Qur'an. But certainly any Muslim scholar who renounces violent jihad deserves our support.

"Unfortunately, many of the radicals try to present themselves as 'moderates', but when a group of Indonesian clerics states that 'killing innocent people is forbidden', we should at least consider the possibility they may mean it."

Maybe they do. In light of the current situation, I'd like to get some reassurance by seeing them condemn suicide bombings in Israel.

"Because of their novel interpretation of the Quran, the likes of Egyptian Islamic Jihad and al-Qaeda have decided that the way to overthrow their home governments is to first destroy their purported western sponsors. This idea is only about 15 years old for the Sunni radicals."

Actually, if you read "Onward Muslim Soldiers," you will see that this idea was born in the 1920s.

"The 'dhimmi' question is another question entirely. I am not an apologist for every aspect of Islam. Until relatively recently, the situation of non-Mulims within the Caliphate was preferable to that of Jews in Europe - but times have changed, and I agree that the jizya is a problem."

I invite you to read the great historical works of Bat Ye'or. They are full of primary sources that may even compel you to revise your thinking about medieval Europe.

"You are correct. However, I suspect you knew when you wrote on your webpage that 'jihad is a central duty of every Muslim' that most non-Muslims would take a particular view of that statement."

I get the feeling you have not read the whole statement from the webpage. It states: "Jihad is a central duty of every Muslim." Then it continues: "Modern Muslim theologians have spoken of many things as jihads: defending the faith from critics, supporting its growth and defense financially, even migrating to non-Muslim lands for the purpose of spreading Islam. But violent jihad is a constant of Islamic history. . . ."

"My point was that I think your webpage presents a deliberately too negative picture of _all_ Islam, by its deliberately ambiguous use of such terms. If I have read you incorrectly, I apologise."

Why do you assume there was a deliberately ambiguous use of any term? You have read me incorrectly, and continue to assume, as I said above, either ignorance or bad faith on my part. As such, as I said above, this is my last reply to any message from you.

Cordially,
Robert Spencer

Posted by: Robert Spencer at January 4, 2004 8:19 AM

Hi Robert:
Having read one of your books, recently seeing you on TV and now just viewing your website, Jihad Watch, I want to applaud you on several counts.
First for your courage in confronting an aggressive, irrational idealogy such as radical Islam and its spokesmen. No small feat.
Second, for your intellectual courage in unflinchingly recognizing that Islam is, at best, consistent with the violent, fanatical interpretation offered by the likes of Al Qaeda and Bin Laden and at worst, and more likely, entails such violence and intolerance. (To view Islam otherwise as peaceful and tolerant requires either ignoring passages that explicitly call for the subjugation of non-believers and other bellicose sentiments, or arbitrarily reinterpreting these passages out of context or existence. While such ploys are possible,they are so contrary to fact as to make their success both unlikely and unconvincing.)

Finally, I want to compliment you for the temperament of reason and calm benevolence you display, both in your writings and in person( I caught you on C-Span's Washington Journal on Saturday.) I both learn and enjoy reading and listening to you.

Ultimately the battle between Isalm and the West is a battle of ideas. With individuals, like yourself, in the forefront of this struggle, I'm confident it is battle we will win.
Best,
Carl Harvey

Posted by: Carl Harvey at January 4, 2004 4:02 PM

can you help me about Dr.Hilmi zawati, his or her Adress and email. we will thank you so much if you help me in this regard.
mohammadi

Posted by: mohammadi at February 1, 2004 12:29 PM

I thought Mr.Stanley's comments were absolutely brilliant...I follow traditional orthodox Islam (I`m from India)and I thought I couldn't have written a better piece myself. Traditional Sunni Islam is best represented on the net at the site www.masud.co.uk from where Mr. Stanley has taken the article written by Sheikh Abdul Hakim Murad. I just wish people here would take the time to review some of the articles on the website especially those of Abdul Hakim Murad. I am confident that even if one doesn't agree with some of what's written there there would be many things which all of us can relate to. If people here are really interested in a dialogue between civilisations, I suggest that you go through what`s written on the website carefully.

Posted by: Abdus Salam at March 12, 2004 9:51 AM