Is it possible, Robert, that the knowledge and charm of your presentation made it difficult for some Muslims in your audience to openly oppose what you said, and even to demonstrate, for public consumption, in the emotion of the moment, a willingness to consider the "renaissance" of Islam which, when one sobers up, seems utterly unlikely. It may be, of course, that some of those Muslims, born or raised in the West, simply do not know their own religion fully, although others may simply wish to deny what they know full well is in Qur'an, hadith, and sira. Irfan Khawaja, for one, seems in his articles to own up to ineluctable difficulties with Islam; Ibn Warraq, an ex-Muslim, has set out a list of things without which any reform of Islam is impossible.

How would it, could it, happen? Can dozens of passages in the Qur'an, and hundreds of hadith in the most accepted collections, be jettisoned? Can the doctrine of abrogation be overturned? Can the gates of ijtihad swing open, as Irshad Manji naively proposes? Is it possible that Muslims will permit open discussion about the origins of Islam in time, not necessarily in the Hijaz, not necessarily with a historical Muhammad as he has come down from Ibn Ishag and others (perhaps not even having existed), and see Islam as the geopolitical ideology that it has been, constructed largely out of distorted bits and pieces of the prior ideologies, or religions, of those whom it first conquered -- the Christians and Jews of the Middle East and North Africa (with an admixture of Zoroastrianism and Manichaeism coming a bit later)? It all seems implausible.

And furthermore, given the vast numbers of Muslims well-versed in taqiyya (kitman), how would we ever be able to tell if such "reforming" impulses were genuine, or simply a means to buy time, while da'wa and demogrpahic conquest from within can proceed unhindered, or by certain individuals, to insure their own climb up some academic greasy pole, which would be made much easier if they could present themselves as brave fighters for (take your pick): 1) women's rights in Islam -- Leila Ahmad, Shirin Ebadi 2) separation of mosque and state -- a host of Iranians 3) "reformers" -- Khaled Abou El Fadl etc. On close inspection it can be said for most of these people there is a lot less here than meets the eye; the "reforms" and battling for justice take place in an atmosphere of essential apologetics, that do not admit of serious criticism of either Jihad or the 1350-year history of dhimmitude (this sets even most reformers on edge, if not pushing them over that edge into a furious defensiveness).

The Infidels have no sure mechanism to distinguish those born into Islam whom they can trust, and those whom they cannot trust. Under those circumstances, a better strategy seems to me not to attend upon the "reformation of Islam" (if such were possible) but in encouraging a movement of people out of Islam altogether -- like the people who testify on Ibn Warraq's website, www.secularislam.org, or that of the Iranian Ali Sina, at www.faithfreedom.org. And, of course, just as the Muslim Arabs have, through the Euro-Arab Dialogue and suchlike, exploited for the purposes of splitting Europe off from the United States the pre-existing mental conditions of anti-Americanism and antisemitism, we in the West, if we only had our wits about us, could exploit the pre-existing animosity between Arab and Turk, Arab and Persian, Arab and Berber, Arab and Kurd -- an animosity nicely described by Anwar Shaikh, Ibn Warraq, and others as arising from the perceived use of Islam as a vehicle for Arab imperialism, the most successful imperialism in the isotry of humanity. The cult of Massoud, "killed by Arabs," in Afhganistan is a start. Encouraging a free Kurdistan would be another. Encouraging Berber rights in Morocco and Algeria (and who is to say that even Khaddafy might be persuaded that he is a "Berber, not an Arab"--mercurial as he is, anything is possible), including the right to use Tamazight, and appealing to "les Kabyles"(Berbers) who live in France (and from whose ranks have come a number of the most enlightening ex-Muslims). The Arabs are too tied to Islam as part of their identity, for one to expect anything from them, but this is not to say that non-Arab Muslims, to one degree or another, may be persuaded that their own problems -- from the PLO's role in installing the Khomeini regime, to the sinister effect of largely Muslim Arab terrorism, which should be blamed entirely for what is now very likely, the rejection of Turkey's application by the EU. Pakistanis should understand that those millions of graduates from Saudi-financed madrasas are now fit for nothing but Jihad, unable to fit into real employment, and that they are tools of "rich Arabs" who, unlike the Pakistanis, will never have to work for a living -- their wealth comes entirely from an accident of geography. And finally, in Indonesia, where Islam was spread first by Hadrami traders, not by outright conquest, economic disarray, including the withdrawal of foreign investors scared off by violence, can be laid -- not completely accurately, but effectively -- at the door of chiefly outsiders, Arab Jihadis. It will require persistence and cunning to split the umma wherever possible, but not impossible. Any dinner conversation with Westerners present, in Istanbul or pre-Khomeini Teheran, was likely to include the assurance, by the Turks or Persians present, that "we are not Arabs, we hate the Arabs." A sentiment to be played upon, on any keyboard available. That kind of realpolitik, and not some dream of reform within Islam (the Ahmaddiyas, the only considerable group of "quasi-Muslims" who have abjured Jihad, and from whose ranks have come the solitary Nobel Prizewinner in science from the Muslim world, Abdus Salam, as reviled by mainstream Muslims as the sinister A. Q. Khan is hero-worshipped, are not regarded by mainsteram Muslims as Muslims at all, and they are defined as "Infidels" formally, in Pakistan.

Should not wariness and skepticism and a sense of the Sisyphean nature of the task of "Islamic reform" (were it possible), be the order of the day?

Mr. Spencer --

First, Nice post. Second, (apologies for the OT) I enjoyed (and learned from) our debate at ObWi. Third (and finally), I have a question for you regarding a project that is just beginning to get off the ground. Please e-mail me (provided) if you're interested in hearing more.

von

"Can the gates of ijtihad swing open, as Irshad Manji naively proposes?"

I have concluded that, regrettably, Hugh is correct.

I must say that I agree with Hugh. Islam would have to stop being Islam, which is a religious justification for world domination. The very core of Islam would have to be ripped out and discarded, which must include the hate of the non-believer first and foremost, and the vile treatment of women second. What would be left? If Muhammad is reduced to a very imperfect man, why follow the Hadith or look upon the Koran as perfect?

I would love to read a discussion with an 'open-minded' or 'moderate' Muslim, questioning him or her about the very nasty core of Islam, all the time trying to find out what it is that they DO believe. The general beliefs are not different than Judaism or Christianity, so they might as well convert (ah, yes, death for apostasy would have to go also). But then again, maybe they really like living like 7th or 8th (or 11th, take your pick) century Arabs or they like the smug superiority that Islam projects, or they really under deeply feel that the non-believer is doomed. I find incomprehensible and unreconcilable living the Islamic 'way of life' and living in the U.S. How do they bank (we are userers)?

it was mentioned in your article of the young muslims present at your lecture. this is all well and good, until they return to their world and listen to the hate that comes from their religion.

Dear Hugh,

Your perspicacity and intelligence are boundless, except perhaps that you overestimate my charm. In any case, I am all for wariness and skepticism in this regard. I have spoken and written abundantly of taqiyya, sham reformers, and false moderates. In "Onward Muslim Soldiers" they get a chapter. What I saw at UNC last night that I have never seen before was a group of Muslims who seemed willing to acknowledge that radicals are using these elements of the religion, and that reform is necessary. Will it be easy? No. Should we naively accept proclamations of reform without assuring ourselves that they have substance? Certainly not. I have been very clear about what is needed in this reform: a forthright acknowledgement and jettisoning of the doctrine, theology, and legal structure of violent jihad against unbelievers, and the resulting dhimmitude. This will be very difficult, and I have no illusions. But I have seen enough glimmers that I do not think it is impossible, even though I doubt any of us will live to see it come to full fruition.

In his book " The two faces of Islam", Author Stephen Schwartz repeatedy points out that the greatest source of Radical Islam has come from Saudia Arabia`s Wahhabism. It has been the main instrument of support for this extremism within the Islamic world. Wahhabism comes into conflict with more moderate muslims. Unfortunatly Wahhabist fundalmental teachings have found their way into Madrassis`and many mosques though out the world an America. Stephen Schwartz points out that these radical Wahhabist clerics in Saudia Arabia fax their Hamas type laden friday sermons to these mosques in America. Mr. Schwartz has testified to commitees on terrorism on the hill, and he believes that as many as 80 percent of the mosques in America are under wahhabi control. He himself has converted to being a Sufi Muslim.

Sorrily this conversation was truncated too soon to come to full fruition, but this is a friend of mine who is a 16 year old from United Arab Emirates. Apparently, they are showing Yassin's body all over the media there, which is quite alarming. She was apalled that his gory remains weren't shown on our news.

Here is the link her father showed her. I warn you it is quite graphic, and I wouldn't imagine showing this to someone my daughter if I had one.

http://www.emanway.com/con/ahmed/index.htm
boogie_132: did u see that guys body?
duke_musta_got_hacked: what guy's body?
boogie_132: Ahmed yassins
duke_musta_got_hacked: no
boogie_132: you knnow what iam talking abt?
duke_musta_got_hacked: I was about to ask you what you thought about it
duke_musta_got_hacked: there are pictures of his body?
boogie_132: f*** ya
boogie_132: you didnt see them on the news
duke_musta_got_hacked: where did you see them?
duke_musta_got_hacked: hell no
duke_musta_got_hacked: they don't show that on the news typically
boogie_132: my father left it open yesterday and sat oon the pc and i saw them now
boogie_132: but i don't get it why don't they show his body on your news?
boogie_132: don't you have international news other than ur stupid local one?

-btw feel free to add that yahoo screename up there if you use messenger, I've tried to add a few of you, I'd like to have some real-time discussions with you all :)

I have an idea ..... why not take the Koran and Haddiths and the sunnahs too and actually really do it. Edit out all the passages that promote hate, intolerance and the superioriy of Islam and lets see how it reads. I personally have a hypothesis that Mohammad was mentally ill. From the accounts I have read, written by early Muslim scholars, Mohammed suffer from severe depressions to the point of being on the verge of suicide, his hearing voices etc and all the other manifestations described would today indicate a severe mental problem -- it could be argued he was delusional -- He was enabled by his wife, and it was only because of his wife, his first convert that he didn't succeed in carrying that out. He was a kept man, as well. Of course he had time to sit around and contemplate everything. Perhaps instead of a prophet, he was a delusional grandiose mental case. His wife kept telling him he was the next prophet to explain his bizzare behavior and experiences, if she hadn't we probably wouldn't even know he existed because he would have killed himself.

A followup to my previous comment.
This Mohammed "comic strip" just illustrates how crazy the guy really was.

http://davidsonpress.com/islam/overview.htm

The only solution is for Muslims to leave Islam, to come out and separate themselves.

Paul wrote in his second letter to the Corinithians (ch 6):
14Don't team up with those who are unbelievers. How can goodness be a partner with wickedness? How can light live with darkness? 15What harmony can there be between Christ and the Devil[4] ? How can a believer be a partner with an unbeliever? 16And what union can there be between God's temple and idols? For we are the temple of the living God. As God said:

"I will live in them
and walk among them.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.[5]
17
Therefore, come out from them
and separate yourselves from them, says the Lord.
Don't touch their filthy things,
and I will welcome you.[6]
18
And I will be your Father,
and you will be my sons and daughters,
says the Lord Almighty.[7] "

Footnotes

6:15 Greek and Beliar.
6:16 Lev 26:12; Ezek 37:27.
6:17 Isa 52:11; Ezek 20:34.
6:18 2 Sam 7:14.

(http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&passage=2+cor+6&version=NLT)

If one were not dealing with the pseudo legitamacy of a "religion" called Islam, one would be dealing with mass mental illness. What the Koran calls for is the same as Hitler's SS...the submission, death and dismemberment of those "infidels" who do not become Moslem.

Islam has not been "hijacked," that statement is only made by those who have not read the Koran. The Koran states very clearly (paraphrased) in 21 places to: kill, crucify, cut the hands off of...enslave all who do not submit to Islam. The Koran, and the Islamic religion/cult is very clear about their goals and objectives. What is the problem with understanding this? We are not dealing here with benign Methodists or Baptists here.

Judy

All religions, including the Koran were written by human beings. The first step in changing Islam, is to understand the psychology of who wrote it."

Islam was written by a "nut case"...who often lived in a cave, suffered paranoide delusions,probably from sensory deprivation and smoking hashish. From an examination of the Koran it is obvious he plagiarzed his materials from other travelors, who spoke to him of the Talmud, Christianity, Persian mythology and other myths of the time. He obviously hated his older rich wife, who he plotted and planned through the creation of his "cult" to take her money away, which he successfully did, and then "veiled" her, and marginalized her by sending her, and all women to the back rooms.

Worse yet he was "bisexual" and was "given a 15-year old "boy toy" as a wedding gift." (source: Ling's "Life of Muhammad" (1981) SUNY Press-translation of Persian observations of Muhammad's life). Muhammad's last wife was a six-year old girl, who he had sex with with when she was nine-years old.

This "cult" is about hating, and controlling women...with edicts from Allah. The entire 4th chapter of the Koran is about controlling, dominating, and how to "beat" women if they do not submit to men.

To change this "cult" one has to believe that the Koran is a Comic Book. Islam is growing, and becoming more radicalized...it is not changing or moderating its position.

There is no way civilized peoples are going to be able to live side-by-side, or allow this "cult" to live in situ with this cult, who will use our freedoms to destroy us.

Judy

The followers of the Koran...an instruction book in warfare on many levels will use the Koran and the "civilized world's" good will against us. They have no good will toward us. And, as a previous writer has stated, Islam will bide their time to take us apart piece meal on many levels: They will take us apart legally, by gaining new converts, through education, working in our school systems, and government institutions, there are now 7,000-15,000 Moslems in the US Military, in public relations, some 2,000 instructors and teachers, 3,000 Madrassas in the United States, 100,000 Moslem-owned businesses, 6-7 million Moslems in the United States, 30,000 Moslem college students. After 9-11, Moslems filed 5,000 EEOC complaints, and have clogged the court systems with their complaints most of which are without merit.

Wealthy Moslems, not even citizens of the United States are using their money to influence political elections...and donating huge amounts of money to such campaigns as Cynthia McKinney, who might as well work as an agent for Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda.

Ergo, Moslems are exercising their political muscle...and as such acting as "victims" thus attracting a certain segment of the US population who are always for the "under dog" regardless if the "under dog" has teeth and has the destruction of the United States as its over riding ideology.

The guy on here:

http://jihaad.blogspot.com/

is attacking Jihad Watch

Harry,

He praises Hizb-ut-Tahrir and Al-Muhajiroun, which means he is a hardcore radical jihadist who is, like Al-Muhajiroun, likely to be in sympathy with Osama, Yassin, and other mass murderers.

I am proud to receive such attacks.

Best,
RS

We applaud all efforts to move toward a greater comprehension between Muslims and non-Muslims, and the desire for reform is hopeful, at best. But calls for reform have and gone, and Jihad remains forever.

What will happen to all those young Muslims, and those that are cowed into silence by radical Imams and their enforcers, when they join together express a desire for reform? Will they also be silenced by the requirement of the Koran? What will those that fear to seem un-Muslim do when a hate fatwah is issued. Will they not heed the call and risk the condemnation of their commmunity where the sentence of being un-Muslims is akin to being sentenced to hell?

As long as clerics can dictate hate through fatwahs and demand and expect to be obeyed, they hold the power to prevent the reform some desperately want.

As long as Islam requires strict adherence and unalterable adherence to those tenents which chain them to hate and violence, there can be no
expectation that the reforms will stick. With the radicals bearing down on all sides, I can't trust our future to the hopeful "what if" of idealism.

It is ironic that I have been called a fascist because of the hard defensive stand I have taken against Islamofacism.

I pray that you are right, but I will plan for the opposite. It is the only logical conclusion to draw at this juncture in history. You gave the
impression that these young Muslims didn't understand the threat that radicals pose for them and for all of us. I don't understand how that is
possible. I'm not a Muslim, and I fully understand that threat.

My friends,

I think some of you are misunderstanding what I wrote. I have never used the word "hijack" in relation to Islam and violence, as I have argued in my books that the jihadis are working from a broad tradition within Islam -- a position that I take for granted above, or otherwise there would be nothing to reform.

Also, nothing I wrote is to suggest that we should let our guard down. In any case, as a nation, our guard is already down.

Best
RS

From AMIR (from that blog on the other side of the galaxy)do we need non-muslims trying to teach us islam?

AoA. I hope there isn't a Muslim in the whole world who stumbles across "Jihad Watch" and falls for the crap Robert Spencer is pumping out. Him and his loyal band of anti-Islamics (who flood his article comments with Islamaphobic preaching)

They vilify Islam and become the "message-boys" for their governments, who really are warring against Islam.

WS - AMiR
// posted by Amir @ 12:05 PM

To Amir: Your feeble attempts to smear the director of this site and its following clearly show your skewed view of right and wrong.

I'm sure you'll check in at Jihad Watch today to see how much attention you've gotten, so here you are:

You're a hater, and a disgrace to moderate Islam. You're a perfect example why I wish we could have some of these altercations in person, instead of in type. By what you wrote, you're obviously a supporter of violent jihad. I'm a supporter of violent jihad elimination.

Your question " do we need non-muslims trying to teach us Islam?'

My answer: Until you practice Islam in a peaceful fashion, instead of trying to bomb your way to success (which by the way isn't working), and realize that the world should live in peace, not pieces, then yes, you should be taught your religion, because it's apparent that you're blind to many issues, which will eventually be your end.

I'll throw in my two cents on this:
In the eighties I slowly became certain that Communism would collapse b/c it was based on a faulty view of human nature. I think radical Islam is the same way and I ascribe the current unrest in Iran to the fact that people are unwilling after all to live with a boot in their face for ever- pace George Orwell.
I do not think that Islam as it is written is as benign as Judaism or Christianity. However, most Muslims practice a watered down form of the religion that is not at odds with the religious thirsts of human nature nor with objective morality.
I don't see a reform of Islam happening any time soon, but I don't think it categorically impossible. Judaism under went a tremendous reform from the nation outlined in Leviticus to the religion of the Talmud. Once Israel ceased to be an independent nation it changed to adapt to its new circumstances. Maybe Islam can adapt, too, and create a solid theoretical foundation for a moderate form of the religion. I think it would be hard to do, but not impossible. If Muslims adopted the view that hadith and Koran were appropriate for the seventh century but not the contemporary world that would be a significant start- but Muslims themselves may be able to come up with a way I could not even imagine to reject violent jihad. All I ask is that they don’t lie and say jihad has never been violent.

Mr. Spencer,
I'm glad that you had meaningful interactions with some Muslims at Chapel Hill. I would like to reassure you that the frame of mind which you encountered among those Muslim students is not isolated to that campus, but is a growing movement throughout Muslim communities today. It certainly is much too early to be calling it a "rennaisance" but I feel this might be the beginnings of something similar. Websites such as http://www.muslimwakeup.com/ and http://www.progressivemuslims.com/ are examples of this movement. Granted, their interpretation of Islam is probably not what you would want it. However the crucial point about these movements is that they are committed to tolerance, they abhor fundamentalism, and they claim to be self-critical. Therefore they would be willing to entertain your arguments and engage in some sort of a discourse. It is very likely that they will not agree with everything you have to say, but you can be sure that having a different point of view will not be injurious to your health.

I do hope you continue to recognize and acknowledge this as a growing movement amongst Muslims.

Best,
jc

Another note, I just wanted to add that among some of the issues that the "progressive Muslims" have taken a stand on is the issue of Jews being barred from Saudi Arabia. See here for details:
http://www.muslimwakeup.com/mainarchive/000601.php

I thought I'd add one more link to a satirical Muslim news website, which also belongs to this growing movement of 'self-aware' Muslims, among the Western Muslim youth.
http://www.islamicanews.com/

Jimmy, thanks. Are you in Indonesia? If so, what do you think of Ulil Abshar Abdulla?

Robert,
No I'm not in Indonesia. Currently I'm based in the Boston area, but I used to live in the Gulf countries and South Asia. I don't know enough about Ulil Abshar Abdulla to be able to comment on him personally. But I do know that he is affiliated with the Liberal Islam Network (http://www.islamlib.com/en/ ). Although some of the articles posted on that website are sometimes typical of Muslims apologetic views, they have made significant attempts to try to reinterpret the texts with regards to some sensitive issues today (eg. status of dhimmis).

Thanks, Jimmy. I don't know where I got the idea that you were in Indonesia. I think I am thinking of someone else. In any case, yes, I found some of Ulil's writings and others there to be relatively honest, and free of deception and apologetics.

So long as Islamic scriptures are held as immutable and unerring, reform will remain extremely difficult. To counteract these ideas, modern textual analysis tools, archaeology, etc. must be brought to bear. But these are expressly forbidden. Even the recently discovered Yemeni documents are being withheld from the public, most likely because of what they reveal.

But the Sufi Islamic version shows that it is possible to tame the beast. However, it remains also an Arab problem. Are there any Arab Sufis? Is not the Sufi doctrine considered heretical by nearly 100% of Arabs? The Arabic core will always be the prime mover of Islam.

Islam can change? Several postings above have alluded, descriptively, to Aristotle's "Law of Identity."

If Islam should ever redirect itself towards reason, as it was beginning to do in Baghdad centuries ago, and had it continued on the path traveled by Ibn Rushd prior to his suspicious death, it would be a far different world indeed.

These very intelligent and energetic people would be winning Nobel Prizes instead of blowing up other human beings. They would still be participating in the sorts of activities that led to their "Golden Age."

The "Law of Identity" cannot be broken or evaded. A thing is what it is. Period.

The only way all these people will ever be free to be innovative, creative, constructive, productive, and above all, to be happy, is if they start all over again, and eliminate those features of their belief system that guarantee that they will forever be unhappy underachievers who inspire nothing but contempt from other human beings.

But when they have finished redesigning their religion, they themselves will have destroyed Islam.

I must agree with those who think that this is unlikely.