| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
There is a fascinating exchange at FrontPage today (thanks to EPG for the link) on this question between the great (and often unjustly maligned) ex-Muslim scholar Ibn Warraq, author of Why I Am Not A Muslim, and Thomas Haidon, a convert to Islam and President of the New Zealand Chapter of the Free Muslim Coalition Against Terrorism.
A segment of Ibn Warraq's piece:
Islam is a totalitarian ideology that aims to control the religious, social and political life of mankind in all its aspects -- the life of its followers without qualification, and the life of those who follow the so-called tolerated religions to a degree that prevents their activities from getting in the way of Islam in any manner. And I mean Islam. I do not accept some spurious distinction between Islam and “Islamic fundamentalism” or “Islamic terrorism.” The terrorists who planted bombs in Madrid on March 11, 2004, and those responsible for the death of approximately 3000 people on September 11, 2001 in New York, and the Ayatollahs of Iran, were and are all acting canonically. Their actions reflect the teachings of Islam, whether found in the Koran, in the acts and teachings of the Prophet Mohammed, or in Islamic Law that is based upon them.
In reply to this, I think Haidon, for whom I have great respect, somewhat misunderstands Ibn Warraq's first point. Says Haidon in his piece, which he has given the anti-Warraqian title "Why I Am A Muslim":
While Ibn Waraq's frustrations with the Muslim tradition and contemporary Islam may be understandable, I strongly disagree with Ibn Waraq on his implicitly overbroad generalisation of all Muslims. I take ultimate issue with the statement: "I do not accept some spurious distinction between Islam and "Islamic fundamentalism" or "Islamic terrorism". By implication, no distinction need be made between the terrorists of Al-Queda, Fateh, Hamas and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's Tawhid Group and great number of Muslims who love their religion and believe in peace and modernity. Such a conclusion is overbroad and destructive. Nonetheless, at a rudimentary level it is a perspective that needs to be understood and appreciated by moderate and peaceful Muslims (who don't exist according to Mr. Warraq's implicit rationale).
But Ibn Warraq didn't say that peaceful Muslims didn't exist. He said that the 9/11 terrorists and other Islamic terrorists acted canonically -- that is, according to core teachings of Islam. That is not to say that all Muslims are terrorists, or even that all Muslims approve of terrorism. Ibn Warraq is only saying that the terrorists are not hijacking Islam, but acting within the bounds of its traditional teachings. This is a point that Muslim reformers like Haidon must ultimately face, if there is to be genuine reform in Islam.
Haidon's reply is refreshing in one respect: he doesn't pretend that the moderate Islam he envisions already exists. He even goes so far as to say:
In brief, the most significant barrier between Islam and reform is the perceived duality of the Qu'ran and Sunnah. Most of the issues raised by Ibn Waraq in his article are compounded by aspects of the Sunnah (particularly Jihad) or are a result of direct contradiction between the Qu'ran and Sunnah (apostacy).
This is a significant admission, because most Muslims would not admit even of the possibility that the Sunnah could contradict the Qur'an. It is not all that must be done, but it is a beginning.
Haidon continues:
If Muslims derived their inspiration exclusively from the Qu'ran, and formulated a new authoritative moderate and liberal tafsir, terrorism and extremists would be minimalised. As Daniel Pipes aptly pointed out in a recent article, Muslims have the opportunity to create a new slate and turn what Islam has become into a religion consistent with humanity, liberalism and modernity (as I believe was intended) or continue the status quo of totalitarianism.
Yes. They have the opportunity, but they have not yet grasped this opportunity. The American government and law enforcement establishment, abetted by the media, tries to ascribe to "bigotry" the idea that this moderate Islam does not yet exist -- but here is a Muslim acknowledging as much.
Read the whole exchange.
Posted by Robert at October 18, 2004 9:13 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
You can support this great man by visiting his website, http://www.secularislam.org/ , and by buying some of his books, especially "Leaving Islam", which is excellent:
"Leaving Islam - Apostates Speak Out" edited by Ibn Warraq
"Why I am not a Muslim" by Ibn Warraq
"The Quest for the Historical Muhammad" by Ibn Warraq
"What the Koran Really Says: Language, Text, and Commentary" by Ibn Warraq
Posted by: Ali Dashti![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at October 18, 2004 9:38 AM
As always, the old list of websites by ex-Muslims:
http://www.middleastwomen.org/
http://www.apostatesofislam.com/
http://www.ladeeni.net/english.htm
http://www.muslimsandislamic.faithweb.com/
http://www.geocities.com/freethoughtmecca/
http://www.webspawner.com/users/hfali1/
http://www.geocities.com/ibn_rushd2
Posted by: Ali Dashti at October 18, 2004 9:40 AM
If one must throw out all the hadith and rewrite the tafsir of the Quran to make it say something that it doesn't really say, then what good is it? There is nothing left of Islam at that point. Methinks Thomas Haidon is merely in love with some of the trappings of Islam rather than its true beliefs.
Posted by: Suzan at October 18, 2004 11:27 AM
Suzan has beat me to the punchline. Mr. Haidon is an apostate by their own criteria.
We also hear the bleat of the 'Islam is a religion of peace' refrain from the Meccan suras without mentioning that they are abrogated by the Medinan suras that enjoin violence. And when they do mention both, they have to invent a sort of pre-abrogation doctrine to substantiate the fiction. This is done in dialogue with Infidels (kufar) with the impunity granted by the doctrine of taqiyyah, but is impossible to promote among themselves, thus negating the validity of the approach for Muslims with a sincere desire to reform the ideology.
Western converts are dangerous because they are mere parrots of the doctrines that are selectively presented to them to affect their conversion. Mr. Haidon explicitly admits that "most Muslims do not understand" classical Islamic sources. If that is true of the incumbent Muslims, what subset of the partial truth is then conveyed to the newbies like Mr. Haidon? The problem is that the perpetrators of violence in the name of Islam claim that they do understand the classical sources. In fact, the more they understand, the more violent is their behaviour.
Posted by: Hulegu Khan at October 18, 2004 12:14 PM
This business of distinguishing inoffensive Qur'an (peaceful) and bad Sunna (hadith and sira) appears to be the same sola scriptura remedy offered by Mustafa Akyol in his defensive attacks on Robert Spencer's daring to connect that which Muslims read, and hear in khutbas, and memorize in madrasas -- in short, the basic texts and stories of Islam -- with their attitudes, and their acts, toward non-Infidels through time and space.
But it is nonsense. The Qur'an alone has enough, has more than enough, to justify and to promote attacks on Infidels, and the world-wide Jihad (world-wide because its aims are not limited geographically). Some hadith may reinforce, but are by no means essential, to develop the attitudes that we see all around us. The latest attempt to avoid this, by claiming that there are only a small group of limited conflicts, defined as examples of "oppression of Muslims," instead of as local examples of what is, in fact, a universal phenomenon, and expressed not only in attacks on Infidel states (Israel, Russia, America, India) but also on Infidel peoples within the dar al-Islam (Christians in Iraq, Sudan, Nigeria, Pakistan, Hindus in Bangladesh, Pakistan and Kashmir, and so on).
That handful of Muslims who at least recongize that there is a problem still cannot face the fact that it is everywhere in the canonical texts -- including, most obviously, the Qur'an. It took a long time to gather and classify the hadith; long before then the Qur'an had prompted jihad conquest, and the sujugation of non-Muslims everywhere that Islam conquered.
Posted by: Hugh at October 18, 2004 12:25 PM
As much as moderates wish that Islam can be completely reformed, it is just a hope and not borne in fact.
You can argue that the Hadiths can be ignored, as the Qu'ran does not specifically state that they must be followed, but it can also be argued that the Hadiths are also the word of Allah, as they document the life of the prophet Muhammed and must be followed. Then you also have the contradictory quotes in the Qu'ran which can further justify the arguments of the extremists in their destructive views.
Thus, the violent interpretation of the doctrines can never be disproved, and there will always be an element (at present a majority) of muslims in the world who will follow such teachings. In fact, even arguing that most the hadiths should be discarded would result in death in parts of the Middle East, which shows how far away reformation is at this time.
Ultimately, it is up to the Muslims themselves which path they will take. And if they choose the path of violent jihad, then it should be they that pay the price for their choice and not those that they wish to subjagate and kill. And it is clear from the daily news what choice is being made.
Posted by: Amicus at October 18, 2004 6:54 PM
I've run into Haidon's type on another forum, apologists whom reject the Hadiths. Hadith rejection is in itself irtidad or apostasy. And whomsever does it, according to Islamic ideology, becomes a murtadd (apostate) and "leaves Islam".
Alas Muslims will not criticize each other in public, and I only met one (a Muslims scholar) who had the balls to call a Hadith rejector an apostate.
Muslims fear public criticism, because they fear doing damage to the image of Islam (what they fall fitnah - fitnah has many other meanings as well, but it is used to describe anything that jeopardizes the propaganda of Islam, and brings harm or embarassment to the umma).
Muhammad said: Fitnah is worse than slaughter (better to slaughter people than to allow harm to his ideology).
Problem is that it isn't only the ahadiths that are the problem. The Quran itself, without any Hadiths, is a horrible, incomprehensible, contradictory, vicious, threatening, intolerant and misogynistic collection of the thoughts of a psychopath.
Anyway there seems to be a Protestant movement within Islam, especially by converts from Christianity. The antagonist I mentioned above is one such, he has his own web page, is an activitist,constantly obfuscating for Islam, and a convert at age 17, from Catholicism, so he says.
Islam has been good to him, it has provided him with a docile submissive wife, and a job earning a healthy 6 figures working for Aramco in Saudi Arabia.
Posted by: Giaour at October 18, 2004 7:20 PM
(Note: Comments on articles are unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Jihad Watch or Robert Spencer. Comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying may be summarily deleted. However, the fact that particular comments remain on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Robert Spencer of the views expressed therein.)