| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Jihad Watch director Robert Spencer's take on moderate Muslims, from Human Events:
Imam Siraj Wahaj is in great demand. Last week he was a featured speaker at the Mosque for the Praising of Allah in Roxbury, Massachusetts. A few days before that, he addressed four hundred people at a Muslim Students Association gathering at Western Michigan University. His star has shone for years: in 1991, he even became the first Muslim to give an invocation to the U.S. Congress. And why not? Not long after 9/11, he said just what jittery Americans wanted to hear from Muslims: "I now feel responsible to preach, actually to go on a jihad against extremism."But what he thinks actually constitutes extremism is somewhat unclear; after all, he has also warned that the United States will fall unless it "accepts the Islamic agenda." He has lamented that "if only Muslims were clever politically, they could take over the United States and replace its constitutional government with a caliphate." In the early 1990s he sponsored talks by Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman in mosques in New York City and New Jersey; Rahman was later convicted for conspiring to blow up the World Trade Center in 1993, and Wahaj was designated a "potential unindicted co-conspirator."
The fact that someone who would like to see the Constitution replaced has led a prayer for those sworn to uphold it is just a symptom a larger, ongoing problem: the government and media are avid to find moderate Muslims -- and as their desperation has increased, their standards have lowered. Unfortunately, it is not so easy to find Muslim leaders who have genuinely renounced violent jihad and any intention, now or in the future, to impose Sharia on non-Muslim countries. The situation is complicated by many factors, including:
1. Taqiyya and kitman. These are Islamic doctrines of religious deception. They originated in Shi'ite Islamic defenses against Sunni Islam, but have their roots in the Qur'an (3:28 and 16:106). Many radical Muslims today work hard to deceive unbelievers, in line with Muhammad's statement, "War is deceit."
2. Since most Muslims today are not Arabs but all Islamic worship must be in Arabic, and because the Qur'an itself is in difficult classical Arabic, a significant number of nominal Muslims in the U.S. and around the world have no clear idea of what the Qur'an actually says, or what the traditions of their religion in fact do teach.
This group, of course, is the radicals' largest recruiting ground: again and again -- notably in the case of the Al-Qaeda cell in Lackawanna, New York -- they have radicalized such "moderates" simply by teaching them what the Qur'an says.
The smallest number is a third group: Muslims who know that the Qur'an and other Muslim sources teach violence against unbelievers but are ready to set that aside in all circumstances. "Moderate Islam" as a viable entity is still in an inchoate state theologically; it is largely a cultural habit that is ever vulnerable to being overturned by by-the-book radicals.
Of course, another moderate Muslim spokesman, Stephen Schwartz, vehemently denies this. He recently reacted with contemptuous indignation to the claim "that Bosnian moderation has no basis in Islamic tradition, and that the absence of such means the country will always be susceptible to extremist infiltration." But it isn't that it's not traditional; it's that it's not theological: in the same piece he notes that he "was alarmed during my recent trip to see a resurgence of 'street Wahhabism' among young people and others easily swayed by superficial influences." No doubt these "superficial influences" included copious references to the Qur'an and Sunnah. Schwartz ascribes their appeal to, among other things, poverty and hopelessness. But this fails to explain why places that are relatively untouched by poverty and hopelessness -- most notably, Wahhabism's birthplace of Saudi Arabia, but by no means limited to the Kingdom -- have not been able to stop resurgences of "street Wahhabism." The appeal to "pure Islam" has proven strong.
Where is moderate Islam? How can moderate Muslims refute the radical exegesis of the Qur'an and Sunnah? If an exposition of moderate Islam does not address or answer radical exegeses, is it really of any value to quash Islamic extremism? If the answer lies in a simple rejection of Qur'anic literalism, how can non-literalists make that rejection stick, and keep their children from being recruited by jihadists by means of literalism?
So far, all self-proclaimed moderate Muslims have left such questions unanswered. But until they are answered, it would be wise to be wary of the likes of Siraj Wahaj.
Posted by Robert at November 25, 2004 6:43 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
What else can you expect?
Of course this moderate Muslim, whoever and wherever he is, is elusive. And I can't blame him.
If he pops his head up, death Fatwas will be issued against him.
Posted by: Uhller_Isshaytan![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at November 25, 2004 7:05 AM
OT:
I've posted about this before,but since we are getting a steady influx of new "regulars" it seemed like a good time to repeat it.
SusanB and I have compiled a list of JW/DWers who wish to make their e-mail addresses available for contact with other JW/Dwers. This is how it works: if someone wishes to have interpersonal contact with another member (exchange personal e-mails), they contact SusanB who will then request authorization from the other party for his/her e-mail address to be shared on a one-time basis, only with the individual requesting contact. No e-mail addresses will be given out without authorization of the parties involved. Sometimes individuals prefer to network offsite and this provides an opportunity to correspond privately and perhaps in greater depth than would be appropriate posted at JW/DW.
If you would like to be included in our database, please e-mail SusanB at susan_b356@yahoo.com. Please don't forget to include your JW/DW screenname so that we know who you are.
CGW
Posted by: CGW at November 25, 2004 7:29 AM
Dunno but seems to me that the term 'moderate muslim' is an oxymoron i.e. a contradiction in terms. Not to mention that death loving cultist would be a moron too, in addition to being an oxymoron.
Hey folks, fellow jihadwatchers,
Want to take this opportunity to say (to all those in America)
"Happy thanksgiving! And know that we have a lot to thank the good lord for, just like the pilgrims did.
Don't hesitate on the turkey...:-D"
at November 25, 2004 8:03 AM
"They seek him here, they seek him there,
Those Frenchies seek him everywhere.
Is he in Heaven, or in Hell,
That demmed elusive.." --- very well,
We can't here offer "Pimpernel."
[So let's rephrase it for the nonce,
Observing most prosodic wants.]
Our fading hopes are looking dim,
The evidence is bleakly grim.
Imperil more than life and limb
All those who trust in "mod'rate Muslim."
Leslie Howard, Merle Oberon, Alexander Korda,
Baroness Orczy, forgive us that extra syllable in the last line. Ars longa, vita brevis, especially in drear November. We know exactly what we do.
I am a gentleman in a dustcoat trying.
Posted by: Hugh at November 25, 2004 12:29 PM
Tomas Iriarte was a brilliant late-8th century Spanish poet who made animals speak to deliver messages of moral content such as in the “The two rabbits” fable, one that portrays a couple of these sweet rodents discussing whether the two dogs who already were in hot pursuit of one of them and were fast approaching him when he came across a friend, were “galgos o podencos”, that is, greyhounds or a supposedly non-threatening canine variety. So enthusiastically were both defending their opinions that they forgot all about the impending menace. Needless to say, they both were finally caught by whatever kind of dogs the two from the tale were, for, having made his point, Iriarte doesn’t bother to clarify this aspect.
Similarly, I notice a disturbing disposition on the part of many of us Dhimmi Watch regulars to engage in endless discussions to make a distinction between moderate and radical islamists. Since we all agree on the dangers posed by the latter, let’s conclude that by trying to establish the possible differences between one and the other, we are wasting our time and efforts and, even worse, doing little to advance the main cause here, which can be summarized by asking you all the following question: are we going to wait until there is an open Islamic-related civil conflict within our Western Societies to finally check the trustworthiness of the non-threatening variety? Just in case any of you have some sort of reservations, let me remind everyone that there is a clever military tactical advice prompting the commander who calls the shots to always contemplate in his battle plans the most possible foreseeable action of the enemy… and the most dangerous one too, even if not probable. It will be at our own peril that we disregard this advice.
As I presume it happens in the English language, in Spanish we term “byzantine discussion” the one that leads nowhere, the epitome of which is a debate about the gender of angels. Male or female, galgos o podencos, all are silly questions that besides making good examples of futile endeavours, distract us from other important tasks, one of them being to expose first and get rid afterwards of the collaborators in our midst.
As for the Iriarte “fábula” itself, I shall be more than happy transcribing it here if so requested by any of you guys who can understand Spanish, at least in its written form.
at November 25, 2004 4:12 PM
Yes, if you would post the fable here, many will be grateful, from Guadalcanal to the Guadalquivir.
Posted by: Hugh at November 25, 2004 10:36 PM
Cid Campeador:
I realize that I am just further making your point, but rabbits are lagamorphs, not rodents.
Posted by: CGW at November 26, 2004 7:48 AM
My pleasure, Hugh:
-Por entre unas matas, seguido de perros -no diré corría-, volaba un conejo.
-De su madriguera salió un compañero, y le dijo: «Tente, amigo, ¿qué es esto?»
-«¿Qué ha de ser? –responde. Sin aliento llego... Dos pícaros galgos me vienen siguiendo».
«Sí -replica el otro-, por allí los veo... Pero… no son galgos».
-«¿Pues qué son?»
-«Podencos».
-«¿Quéee? ¿Podencos dices?
-«Sí, como mi abuelo. Galgos y muy galgos; bien vistos los tengo».
-«Son podencos, vaya, que no entiendes de eso».
-«Son galgos, te digo».
-«Digo que podencos».
-En esta disputa, llegaron los perros y pillan descuidados a los dos conejos.
-Los que por cuestiones de poco momento dejan lo que importa, llévense este ejemplo.
at November 26, 2004 2:51 PM
CGW: Thanks for your correction. However, the defintion for 'rabbit'in the Webster's Encyclopedic Unibridge Dictionary says: ' Any of several rodentlike lagomorph...' so lets admit I was not off the mark by much.
Posted by: Cid Campeador at November 26, 2004 2:57 PM
Umm, hehe, erm, I didnt' understand that story of yours El Cid. ¿Puedes traducirlo al inglés para algunos de nosotros? Gracías.
Posted by: Ibn Rushd at November 26, 2004 11:57 PM
Ibn Rushd:
I have explained this poetic story above and posted it in its original, Spanish form upon been requested by Hugh to do so. Anyway, it would be difficult for me to translate it literally and, in any case, it would lose much of its poingnant freshness in the process. I shall repeat below, for your perusal, what it is all about.
"Tomas Iriarte was a brilliant late-8th century Spanish poet who made animals speak to deliver messages of moral content such as in the “The two rabbits” fable, one that portrays a couple of these sweet 'rodentlike lagomorphs' discussing whether the two dogs who already were in hot pursuit of one of them and were fast approaching him when he came across a friend, were “galgos o podencos”, that is, greyhounds or a supposedly non-threatening canine variety. So enthusiastically were both defending their opinions that they forgot all about the impending menace. Needless to say, they both were finally caught by whatever kind of dogs the two from the tale were, for, having made his point, Iriarte doesn’t bother to clarify this aspect."
By the way, I have visited your "faithfreedom" website and found it very attractive. However, I am overstretched by just posting here every other day and unfortunately cannot dedicate more hours to this altruistic though, to me, very important endeavour.
Finally, while I presume my 'Cid Campeador' nickname sounds a bell to you, I cannot say the same about your Ibn Rushd one. Will you oblige?
Posted by: Cid Campeador at November 27, 2004 6:45 AM
I cannot make my point with the same elan as Hugh or Cid Campeador, but the moderate muslim issue doesn't sit well with me. I have as a close acquaintance a "moderate muslim," from Malaysian. My wife and his are close, I've even trusted them with my children. He is a thoroughly Western-educated epidemiologist, very well-published and to my understanding, considered one of the world's leading experts on some highly contagious diseases of interest to us all (I am regrettably obtuse in order to conceal this man's identity.) When Uncle Sam recently re-examined the threat of smallpox, my friend was one of the experts they recruited. He terrifies me.
Why does he terrify me? Because he truly believes angels follow him everywhere except to the marriage bed and the toilet, and I've been lectured gently on the need to pray incessantly while in the toilet to drive away bad djinni. Because he never offered an apology to me for the 2001 atrocities, but led prayers asking for Allah's mercy because of the awful effects the attacks would have on muslims. Because he led other young men, including his sons, to the local shooting ranges in the months following the atrocities (he said to me that he thought it was a duty of a man to know how to protect his family and home). Because in the wake of the anthrax hysteria, he casually mentioned to me how overrated the threat of chemical attacks were, and that the real danger lay in biological attacks. Because he can deliver long, carefully argued arguments from Sharia that would seem to thoroughly outlaw any violent action from a muslim, and the arguments may be valid, but only in an ivory tower, theoretical way. Because he repeatedly says the Koran says, "Whosoever kills a man, it is as if he has killed the whole world; and whosoever saves a man, it is as if he has saved the whole world," assuming I don't know the context.
Because he appears so truly moderate, so thoroughly disgusted with the poor scientific and intellectual climate of his homeland, because he wants US citizenship and is in the process of getting it, and because he has more potential as a muslim to harm the US than Iraq, al Qaeda, or any combination of external jihadist threats. I often can't sleep at night because of him.
Posted by: longtime lurker at November 27, 2004 9:20 AM
Longtime Lurker:
Nor that we JW'ers need any sort of accolades for our candid input, but I thank you anyway for reinforcing my point as portrayed in my previous post above (The two rabbits fable). The question you invite me to enphazise is: Shall we wait until one of our supposedly moderate Mohammadians plant a biological bomb or whatever manslaughtering device by our door, so to speak, to finally conclude he was an untrustworthy SOB?
Shall we them send him to jail and wait until he promises not ever do it again? How it lifts one's spirit to know that when in ten years time or so the legal system that prevails in all EU countries decrees he is ripe to be released, our liberals (we call them socio-communists around here)will rejoice and say to the world how wonderful it was to see a rascal recant.
In my argument before I resorted to the example of the wise military advice consisting in always contemplating the most possible threat and, after having done so, to pay attention to the most damaging too, even if not probable.
Let me round it off by adding that once taken into account the true, implacable and fanatically blind nature of Mohammad's belief-system, the threat posed by the fith-column possibilities of the moderate mussies in our midst is, besides the most damaging imaginable, the most probable aswell.
Let me finally ask you: Do you know which actually is the most immediate of all threats worth contemplating? You were wrong if answered 'the Muslim extremists'. The right answer was: 'Our PC, tree-huggers fundamentalists'
Posted by: Cid Campeador at November 27, 2004 1:30 PM
Just a correction: Tomás Iriarte epoch is not 8th century but 18th, not a small difference!
Posted by: Cid Campeador at November 27, 2004 1:39 PM
Exactly. He may be a perfectly honorable man with sound, decent instincts. He came to this country decades ago, before the 3rd Jihad had really begun, and his children are US citizens by birth. I have seen him defend America against many wayward brethren, and he's often claimed that before muslims can point any fingers at anyone else, they need to clean up their own house. He actively defends muslim women, usually Pakistani, by providing them legal and emotional counsel against abusive husbands. He is, by any measure provided, the moderate muslim.
Worse, I've been debriefed more than once by JTTF agents due to my contacts with questionable individuals. What stunned me was that I had to explain everything, literally everything, about these individuals and their islamic practices, about what was unusual, what drew attention and what didn't. Three years ago I directed them to look into a foreigner who disappeared shortly before 9/11 from an engineering college. Nothing ever came of it. Strictly by chance I stumbled across the individual on the internet a few months ago, and ascertained that the individual had fled mohammedans who were looking to cause him serious trouble when he went home. No hint from him that our government had ever located a foreign-born muslim on visa who had fled his university only weeks before 9/11.
Posted by: longtime lurker at November 27, 2004 5:45 PM
(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.)