| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
This is an exceedingly vexed question. Everyone wants to encourage moderate Muslims and make common cause with them, but no one is agreed on what exactly constitutes one. Most non-Muslim Westerners assume that all Muslims who are not saying or doing anything publicly to the contrary are moderate, and that they accept the parameters of Western pluralism. Maher Hawash and a myriad of others have shown this to be naive. Daniel Pipes offers some useful criteria for distinguishing moderate Muslims here, and Hugh Fitzgerald has made some important observations about moderate Muslims in light of what is in the Qur'an and Sunnah here. I myself have addressed various aspects of this question in several articles, including this one, in which I ask: "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?"
Of course, as I have pointed out many times, traditional Islam itself is not moderate or peaceful. It is the only major world religion with a developed doctrine and tradition of warfare against unbelievers. (Those who claim that Christianity is equivalent should read that sentence over carefully before invoking the Crusades.) The Qur'an and Sunnah teach warfare against unbelievers until they are converted or subjugated as dhimmis. See Qur'an 9:29 (bearing in mind the traditional Islamic theology that holds that sura 9, as the last revealed, takes precedence over other Qur'anic passages that appear to counsel tolerance rather than war), Sahih Muslim 4294, etc. etc.; I explain this at length with reference to Islamic texts in my books, including the latest, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades). I have been harshly criticized for not going farther than this and denying that any peacefully-inclined Muslims even exist. Some have even claimed that such people are all deceivers, which I think is an impossible position to hold, as it claims a knowledge of other people’s hearts that no one really has. It also betrays a strange unawareness of the fact that a wide spectrum of belief and practice exists within all religious traditions.
Others have said that moderates must be either deceitful or ignorant of their own religion, since their primary texts so clearly teach supremacism and violence. While there is no doubt that the mandate that the Qur’an must be read and recited in Arabic limits the understanding of it to a tremendous degree, not only among non-Arab Muslims but also among Arabic speakers who have not mastered seventh-century Qur’anic Arabic, that is not the only source of Islamic moderation. There are some who are genuinely trying to frame a theory and practice of Islam that will allow for peaceful coexistence with unbelievers as equals. Certainly there are many more who claim to be doing this than are actually doing it or doing it as honestly or fully as they would like the world to believe, but nonetheless, the world situation and the dignity of each individual requires that every such claim be treated with respect -- and examined forthrightly and searchingly.
And now Stephen Schwartz, himself a Muslim, offers some criteria for how to identify a moderate Muslim in “What Is a Moderate Muslim?,” published at Tech Central Station. There are some useful elements to his analysis, and some not so useful. He begins by saying that “Muslim moderation is defined by attitudes and conduct, not by abstractions or historical precedents, which, as with all religions, may be interpreted to support any ideological position.” This appears to mean that Muslim moderation need concern itself only with actions, not with reforming core texts or working to overhaul the traditional understanding of those texts, since later Schwartz adds: “Moderate Muslims admit there is a problem in the body of the religion -- not in the principles and traditions of the faith, but among the believers themselves.”
So how are we to eradicate these problems from among believers? No problem, says Schwartz:
Observing and analyzing Sunni Muslims by such positive, practical criteria is extremely easy. There are more than a billion Sunnis in the world, and they are not all jihadists or fundamentalists, so telling them apart should not be difficult with a little effort.
Well, certainly they are not all jihadists or fundamentalists. Unfortunately, the world has not so far found it all that easy to distinguish those who will never turn out to be jihadists or fundamentalists from those who will – Hawash, the Lackawanna Six, Fawaz Damra, Ahmed Omar Abu Ali, and on and on. Perhaps we have not made the proper effort. Schwartz offers more specific direction as to how that effort can be made as he goes on. But almost immediately his guidance becomes problematic:
Identifying moderate Shia Muslims is harder, but one thing may be said immediately: those who follow Ayatollah Ali Sistani in Iraq prove their moderation daily, by their silent but effective support to the U.S.-led liberation coalition.
No word from Schwartz on what he thinks of Sistani’s classification of unbelievers as unclean on the level of blood, sweat, and feces. Is that a “moderate” view conducive to the peaceful coexistence of Muslims with non-Muslims as equals? I rather think it isn’t. Has Sistani changed these views? No; the list is up on his website now. Does the fact that he has supported the U.S. in Iraq mean in itself that he is moderate? Not when it is so patent that the Shi’ites have an opportunity to gain the upper hand in Iraq by means of the electoral process. Sistanti’s website shows nothing if it doesn’t show a man deeply concerned with following Islamic laws. Are we to believe that he will cheerfully acquiesce in the setting-aside of certain of those laws regarding the subjugation of women and non-Muslims in an Islamic state in order to establish a Western-style secular republic? If he does intend to so acquiesce, why did Auxiliary Bishop Andraos Abouna of Baghdad describe the situation of Christians in Iraq after the elections as a “nightmare,” particularly because Iraq is teetering on the brink of establishing an Islamic state?
Schwartz then turns back to the Sunnis, asserting that “moderate Sunni Muslims may be recognized in person by asking a simple question: ‘what do you think of Wahhabism, the state Islamic sect of Saudi Arabia?’…If a Sunni Muslim is asked about Wahhabism and states that it is a controversial, extreme doctrine that causes many problems because of Saudi money, the respondent is probably moderate.” In contrast, “If a Sunni denies that Wahhabism exists by saying ‘there is only Islam,’ or tries to cover Wahhabism with an ameliorative term like ‘Salafism’ -- a fraudulent effort to equate Wahhabism with the pioneers of the Islamic faith -- the individual is an extremist.”
But is opposing Wahhabism enough to make one a moderate? After all, the Deobandis in Afghanistan are Hanafi Muslims, not Hanbalis like the Wahhabis — but they had no trouble making common cause in jihad with the Wahhabis. What’s more, the passages of the Qur’an and Hadith that jihadists invoke to justify their actions weren’t invented by the Wahhabis; they have always been there and were exploited by Muslims fighting violent jihads long before Muhammad Ibn Abd al-Wahhab was born.
After all, the primary difference between Wahhabi Islam and more traditional variants of the religion is not jihad warfare against unbelievers, but the Wahhabis’ practice of takfir, or the classification of Muslims of other sects as among those unbelievers. Schwartz accordingly eschews takfir: “Moderate Muslims may also be identified by what they do not do, to contrast them with radicals. And at the top of that list comes the practice of takfir, or declaring Muslims unbelievers over differences of opinion. Takfir also includes describing the ordinary, traditional Muslim majority in the world as having fallen into unbelief.” Very well, but what of jihad against non-Muslims? Schwartz says: “Islam is not, and never was, a radical or fundamentalist religion in its mainstream practice, regardless of the fantasies of Islamist fanatics and Islamophobes alike.” Maybe not, but I’d like to see him define “radical” and “fundamentalist.” Even the Ottoman Empire, of which he is fond, waged aggressive jihad against Christian Europe over a period of centuries. Not radical or fundamentalist? Pardon me if I am not reassured.
Not that Schwartz doesn’t attempt this reassurance:
Moderate Muslims, including Shias as well as Sunnis, also do not refer to followers of other religions, especially Jews and Christians, Zoroastrians, Hindus, and Buddhists, as unbelievers. The Koran never refers to Jews and Christians as unbelievers, but as People of the Book, worthy of respect and protection. Moderate Muslims adhere strictly to this outlook.
In fact the Qur’an does refer to Christians — at least orthodox Christians who believe in the divinity of Christ — as unbelievers: “They indeed have disbelieved who say: Lo! Allah is the Messiah, son of Mary” (5:17). The Arabic word used here is kafara, a verbal form related to the noun kafir, or unbeliever. What’s more, the “protection” to which Schwartz refers is none other than the dhimma, or the mafia-style contract of protection mandated for the People of the Book under traditional Islamic law: in exchange for the security of their lives, the non-Muslims (originally Jews, Christians, and Sabeans, with Zoroastrians and Hindus added later) accepted an onerous tax (jizya) and humiliating second-class status. As Schwartz himself has acknowledged in another piece, “The provisions of the dhimma were restrictive in some ways. They included a bar on the construction of new religious structures, whether monasteries, convents, churches, or synagogues.” While he points out that “in most Muslim dominions, this regulation was not strictly enforced,” this is cold comfort: since such laws (and others Schwartz enumerates, including the fact that “The contract also required Jews and Christians to show respect for Muslims by standing in their presence, and to refrain from dressing or parting their hair in the manner of Muslims. They could not ride horses, carry arms, or lift their hands to threaten Muslims”) remained part of the Sharia, they were always available to be enforced by any ruler with the will and means to do so.
But there is no need to be concerned. Schwartz also rejects the jihad that enables the imposition of the dhimma in the first place: “Moderate Muslims do not employ the rhetoric of jihad, including attempts to split hairs over the meaning of the term.…Jihad vocabulary does nothing to advance the cause of Islam; it creates obstacles to it.” Does that mean that he renounces all religion-based violence? No: “This does not mean moderate Muslims do not defend themselves when attacked. They do.” Although Schwartz enumerates various apparently justified struggles, he does not offer any criteria for evaluating on what basis a Muslim might determine whether a conflict is legitimately defensive or defensive in the way Osama bin Laden thinks of 9/11.
Schwartz also maintains that “moderate Muslims also do not reject allegiance to non-Muslim governments” and that “moderate Muslims do not proclaim public loyalty to such governments while privately counseling that Western governments are inferior to Muslim religious decrees.” In a jab at the Council on American Islamic Relations and other such groups, he adds: “They do not invent civil rights violations as a political means of fighting Western authorities.” This is all laudable. It would be even more so if he detailed a way for Muslims to determine which Muslim religious decrees are to be set aside in Western states, and for how long, and how they are to manage this in the face of Wahhabi opposition that presents itself as the more authentic Islam precisely because it does not set aside those decrees.
For such challenges are certain to come, and then if Schwartzian moderates really “recognize that radical ideology and terrorism threaten the future of Islam and must be stopped,” they will have to confront the use those radicals and terrorists make of the “principles and traditions of the faith.” It is good that these moderates reject the “perfunctory statements stating that terror is incompatible with the religion” that have been issued by the likes of CAIR; but if they really want not only to “publicly identify, denounce, and combat radicals,” but to limit their influence in the Islamic community, they will have to show that their use of the Islamic texts is wrong. Schwartz asserts that “moderate Muslims know that the foundational texts, commentaries, and legal, philosophical and theosophical works of the religion suffice as a bulwark against extremism; that is why today’s extremism is a new and radical, not a traditional or conservative, phenomenon.” However, it is the extremists, like Zarqawi, who are issuing closely-argued Islamic arguments, citing “the foundational texts, commentaries, and legal, philosophical and theosophical works of the religion” to justify their actions. I look forward to Schwartz’s refutation of such arguments.
Schwartz concludes by saying that “moderate Muslims concentrate on devotion to their religion, not on politics or public relations…” Yet traditional Islam has never known a distinction between devotion to the religion and political action: the sacred/secular distinction is unknown in Islam. If Schwartz wants to import this distinction into Islam from the Judeo-Christian West, more power to him; but he will have little or no success persuading his fellow Muslims that his point of view on this and other matters is correct unless he confronts the uncomfortable questions about the Islamic texts that so far he has answered only with insults and haughty silence.
The prospects for a change on that front are dim. “Karastjepan” (Black Stephen, i.e., Stephen Schwartz), apparently Schwartz himself, offers these ripostes to commenters on his article at Tech Central Station: “Go back and hide in your hole… Have you considered checking into a mental hospital permanently?...Don’t try driving a car when you don’t have the mental equipment to walk upright….” Renouncing the will to demean and developing the ability to discuss important issues without resorting to personal insults and attacks would be important steps forward for Schwartz and the moderate Muslim cause he so vocally avows.
ADDENDUM: An apposite illustration of the hazards of identifying moderate Muslims and distinguishing them from radicals, and of the insufficiency of a condemnation of Wahhabism as an identifying marker of moderates, comes with this morning's headlines. Sheik Fadhel al Sahlani says the Holocaust has been exaggerated -- a fair indication that his views on other matters are similarly skewed. But this is what Stephen Schwartz said about him in 2003:
Sheikh Fadhel Al-Sahlani, an Iraqi American and president of the largest Shia Muslim congregation in North America, speaks perfect English. He sits with quiet dignity in his mosque, the Imam Al-Khoei Islamic Center in Queens, New York. Middle aged and slender, with a neat salt-and-pepper beard, he is draped in robes and wears a turban. Yet his words are anything but alien--rather, they are startlingly direct, articulate, and even familiar, at least to supporters of President George W. Bush and his vision for the future of the Middle East....I told Sheikh Al-Sahlani how much his comments resembled those of President Bush himself and of Paul D. Wolfowitz, deputy defense secretary and point man for the strategy of regional transition to democracy. He nodded, with a smile. "We understand them," he said....
A good start would be to bring Sheikh Fadhel Al-Sahlani, Sheikh Kedhim Sadiq Mohammed, and others like them to Washington, to meet with the men and women guiding our efforts in Iraq, and to meet with the capital's press, the better to explain the future of Iraq as envisaged by Iraqis themselves. With or without our aid, they will always march in the footsteps of Imam Hussein, ready to confront evil. Let us give them the tools that may permit them to prevail.
SECOND ADDENDUM: Elizabeth Kantor of the Conservative Book Club has alerted me to this reader review (scroll all the way down) of my book The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades):
This book as in any case an example of being freely able to promote ones personal views and interpretations. Islam IS a religion of peace however due to the ingnorances of the Muslims they did conquer some of the European world not at all in accordance to the ways of Islamic Teachings. These so called Muslims were the very same Muslims who tried to destroy the true Islam via the Caliph system and they did succeed in killing the grandchildren of the Prophet in Karbala IRaq during the month of Muharram. SO yes you can blame Muslims but YOU CANNOT BLAME ISLAM. This book does a great job filled with fabrication to blame Islam. Please read it with open eyes and warning and with great caution !! Jesus teaches love this book teaches hate.
The idea that the ignorance of Muslims led them to conquer parts of Europe makes me smile. I don't doubt that religions can actually be misunderstood on a large scale; the violence committed by Christians, as well as the schisms within Christianity, attest to this. But when this happens, one may legitimately seek causes within the religion. For this writer to insist that "YOU CANNOT BLAME ISLAM," rather than searching for the cause of this "ignorance" in order to eradicate it, is absurd. And it is absurd in the same way that Schwartz's contention -- "Moderate Muslims admit there is a problem in the body of the religion -- not in the principles and traditions of the faith, but among the believers themselves" -- is also absurd. How did that problem arise? How can it be addressed? How is it that those whom Schwartz considers part of the problem make such copious use of the "principles and traditions of the faith"? These questions must be answered, not brushed aside.
Posted by Robert at January 14, 2006 1:30 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
Robert, great post.
Minor comment: you have a formatting error... "Not that Schwartz doesn’t attempt this reassurance:" and what follows should be outdented...
Posted by: kamala![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at January 14, 2006 1:45 AM
kamala:
Fixed. Thank you.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at January 14, 2006 1:49 AM
I have a suggestion as part of the elusive search for the "moderate Muslim":
Create a petition (perhaps even online at www.petitiononline.com) that goes something like this:
1. I am a Muslim
2. I believe in equal rights for men and women.
a. I believe men do not have the right to beat women and thus reject Qur'an Sura 4:34
b. I do not believe women must cover most of their bodies, despite Muhammad’s alleged words otherwise (Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 32, Number 4092)
c. I believe a woman’s testimony is worth as much as a man’s, despite the implication otherwise in Qur’an (2:282).
d. I believe a daughter’s inheritance should be the same as a son’s, despite directions in the Qur’an otherwise (4:11).
e. I reject the notion of husbands treating their wives as property. I reject the metaphor relating a wife to a tilth (field, or cultivated land) in the Qur’an (2:223).
a. Jews and/or Christians should not be demonized, cursed, insulted, or threatened due to their religion. I reject such sentiment as expressed toward Jews and/or Christians in the Qur'an (9:30, 5:13)
b. Non-Muslims living among Muslims should be subject to neither violence, nor explicit inferiority/subjection, nor a non-Muslim tax—despite the words of the Qur’an (9:29).
c. Muslims should be able to give up their belief with no threat of punishment, certainly not death. I reject Mohammad's alleged calls to kill apostates of Islam (Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 33)
a. I reject calls to terrorize, wound, or kill non-Muslims in the Qur'an (8:12, 8:7, 8:39)
a. I believe homosexuality is not a crime, let alone a crime punishable by death. I reject Muhammad’s (alleged) words in the Hadith to this effect (Sunan Abu Dawud 38:4447).
I could go on, but isn't that already interesting? (Maybe even include the actual excerpts from the Qur'an and Hadith?)
What percentage of Muslims would put their names such a petition?
at January 14, 2006 2:05 AM
Best discussion of this slippery subject yet. If Stephen Schwartz is an example of a moderate Moslem--what with his resorting to insults when he has no valid comebacks to critics of his interpretation of moderate Islam--then his case is weak.
To be considered moderate, Moslems must openly denounce jihad and the ideology's intent to subjugate non-Moslems. Until then, there are only Moslems and those who have shaken off the shackles of this primitive cult--the apostates.
Posted by: unicorns62000 at January 14, 2006 2:19 AM
The great secret of course is that ISLAM has NEVER been moderate
For many centuries, even back as far as when the islam was a small minority of the population in the middle east, they were also well known for their abilities to kill,steal, and lie from any non-belivers becauase even as far back as the 12th century they were taught that there was little wrong with commiting these crimes against non-belivers according to the teachings of Muhammad.
This bit of history is very instructive today, it's from the great explorer Marco Polo's Diary when he traveled around in the area of what is known today as the middle east (The Travels of Marco Polo, pp57-58 Peguin Books 1958):
"The Muslims in Persia are wicked and treacherous. The law which their propehet Mohamet[Muhammad] has given them lays down that any harm they may do to one who does not accept their law, and any appropriation of his goods, is no sin at all.. And if they suffer death at the hands of Christians, they are accounted martyrs. For this reason they would be great wrongdoers, if it were not for the government. And all the other Muslims in the world act on the same principle. When they are on the point of death up comes their preist[Mullah] and asks whether they believe that Mahomet was the true messenger of God; if they answer "Yes" then he tells them that they are saved."
Marco Polo saw the THE SAME scary things about Islam we see today and this was more than 800 EARS AGO!
-There is no "new" radical islam
-There has never been a "moderate" islam
-Muslims are incompatible with living among ANYONE else
Man we will never learn from history about this death cult of evil?
Posted by: Han_Solo at January 14, 2006 2:59 AM
Kamala
Good suggestions. For item 4, I'd add one more:
My bet - any Muslim who dares openly sign such a petition would invite a fatwa.
Posted by: Infidel Pride at January 14, 2006 3:16 AM
Whew!
What an informative post. So much to absorb.
But at the end of the day, shouldn't the issue really be that, as RS and other have noted, moderate Muslims aren't the problem.
It's after they've crossed the moderate/fundamentalist line that their behavior becomes a problem for others.
The problem is Islam.
There's no significant difference between the Qur'an that Usama bin Laden reads, and the ones in America's public libraries.
And no one knows when a moderate Muslim will cross that line.
Muhammad Atta, as I recall, and many others who've 'martyred' themselves, were moderate Muslims in their youth.
Posted by: PRCS at January 14, 2006 3:23 AM
...We can build mosques on neutral ground without perpetuating the desecration of temples of other religions that were historically destroyed.
Just in case it is unclear, I meant the temples that were destroyed, not the religions
at January 14, 2006 3:35 AM
This is the most interesting post I've read here so far, (only a week or so, I'm sure past posts have been just as informative!)
I've despaired at news coverage in the UK, timid and dhimmified, but it wasn't until I found you people that I got the other side of the story. I'd like to say thanks for this site, and please keep up the good work.
One minor quibble though, addressed to Han_Solo:
Marco Polo saw the THE SAME scary things about Islam we see today and this was more than 800 EARS AGO!
Surely more than 800 ears have passed since Marco Polo's day?! I've seen that many pass my window in one lunchtime.
Otherwise, a great post!
Posted by: religion_of_peas at January 14, 2006 7:06 AM
I would also point out that Christians are often classified by Muslims as "polytheists" due to the Trinity doctrine. Since Islam began as a revolt against polytheism and for the militant establishment of monotheism, Christians can actually be seen as further down the Islamic food chain than Jews and thus deserving of worse treatment.
Posted by: Rebecca JW at January 14, 2006 8:19 AM
What's a moderate Muslim?
A Western invention. Something many in the West insist that exists, to make us all feel good and safe. It fits in nicely with our "all people & cultures are nice and wonderful" philosophy.
It's also a wonderful tool used by Islam. To fool us into a false sense of security.
Moderate Muslims aren't the fire-and-brimstone types, roaring their hatred at all within earshot. They keep it all inside, while smiling on the outside, and feeding us nice-sounding explanations and excuses for their more fundamental brethren. They're the Front Desk. The facade. The Public Relations department. I liken them to the talking heads of the tobacco companies throughout the ages. The ones making the great commercials with the rugged, healthy men on horses, or the beautiful, sexy models, all vibrant and appealing. Meanwhile, the reality is a painful, miserable, ugly, prolonged death.
One of our Muslim talking heads here in Oz, likened being called a moderate Muslim to being called a moderate intellectual. Not the nicest thing you could call someone obviously.
Moderate, extreme - they both have the same agenda. The latter one doesn't mind getting their hands dirty, taking risks, giving up their lives. The first one is more patient, and offers support to the latter, and a cover. All for the same evil agenda.
Posted by: feralee at January 14, 2006 8:32 AM
As long as participating in, and supporting jihad, is an 'obligation, incumbant on every muslim, and refusal is apostacy, there can be no such thing as a moderate muslim.
I am posting this again to make the point:
Book of Jihad, on page 580 of Maktba Dar-us-Salam’s publication of Sahih Al-Bukhari: “Jihad is holy fighting in Allah’s Cause with full force of weaponry. It is given the utmost importance in Islam and is one of its Pillars. By Jihad Islam is established, Allah is made superior and He becomes the only God who may be worshiped. By Jihad Islam is propagated and made superior. By abandoning Jihad Islam is destroyed and Muslims fall into an inferior position. Their honor is lost, their lands are stolen, and Muslim rule and authority vanish. Jihad is an obligatory duty in Islam on every Muslim. He who tries to escape this duty dies as a hypocrite.”
Note the last two sentences.
Find some moderation in that.
Posted by: duh_swami at January 14, 2006 8:46 AM
Humouring these "moderate" Muslims is pointless. We never get a straight answer from them, just more taqiyya and obfuscation. Is it any surprise that none of them deal with the immutable laws of the Qu'ran, Hadith, or Sira? Is it any surprise that none of them see anything wrong with the inital Islamic conquests of the Middle East and North Africa? Is it any surprise that they think that Muslims treated Jews and Christians well and that Bat Ye'or is just an Islamophobic polemicist? No it is not.
While the despicable Schwartz can prattle on and on about "Sufi wisdom" (much of which goes against orthodox Islamic teaching, but nevermind that), he cannot bring himself to discuss that which concerns us infidels most, jihad and dhimmitude. Schwartz is not ignorant like Irshad Manji, he doesn't have this idea of "My Own Personal Islam", he has the real thing and he has studied it well. So instead of feigning ignorance on some of the more difficult subjects such as the dhimma, he offers apologia of the Esposito kind to placate the infidels. Does he think that the informed infidels cannot see that? So he doesn't like the Wahabbis, big deal, most Muslims don't like them either but that doesn't automatically make them "moderate". It doesn't make Schwartz moderate either. Let's make no mistake about it, if sharia was established in America, do you honestly think that Schwartz would protest in favour of secularism? Why would he? Sharia would make it easier for him to practice his religion and give him more benefits that secularism could not. The same goes for any Muslim. The "moderate" Muslims may "like" secularism, but they "love" sharia, and if given a choice between the two, most pious Muslims would choose sharia. There's no denying that.
There is no moderate Islam because in order to moderate Islam one would have to change Islam so radically that it would not be Islam anymore (any respectable Islamic scholar could tell you this). The only moderate Muslims are the hypocrites and apostates. So let's stop wishing and hoping that we'll see a Muslim Martin Luther in the near future who will defeat the "extremists" in a theological debate. It won't happen.
Posted by: igor at January 14, 2006 9:31 AM
Robert, great post.
Rebecca,
Mohammad definitely misunderstood the Christian concept (or concepts) of the trinity, but he (Allah) also said Jews worship "Ezra" and place their rabbis as partners to Allah (it's in Sura 9). Given Sura 9 is taken as the words of Allah, then this would make Jews polytheists too. Verse 3:85 also makes it clear there is only one religion acceptable (Islam); everything else would be regarded as assigning false deities or attempts to assign partners to Allah.
Posted by: Archimedes at January 14, 2006 9:35 AM
PRCS,
I got errors when I sent the email to you. Maybe spelled incorrectly? I tried "global" in place of "glogal" and re-sent it.
at January 14, 2006 9:38 AM
Rebecca, the "Ezra" verse is 9:30.
9:29 Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.
9:30 And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah, and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah. That is their saying with their mouths. They imitate the saying of those who disbelieved of old. Allah (Himself) fighteth against them. How perverse are they!
9:31 They have taken as lords beside Allah their rabbis and their monks and the Messiah son of Mary, when they were bidden to worship only One God. There is no God save Him. Be He Glorified from all that they ascribe as partner (unto Him)!
9:32 Fain would they put out the light of Allah with their mouths, but Allah disdaineth (aught) save that He shall perfect His light, however much the disbelievers are averse.
at January 14, 2006 9:44 AM
Moderate Islam doesn't exist as a meangingful movement in Islam. There is only a hope that it will someday emerge.
Although one may be tempted to think the openness of the west would be fertile ground from which such a movement might emerge, the opposite is in fact true. Western licence seems to be ensuring that Islam radicalizes.
Contrast this rabid western Islam to the subdued Islam of Southeastern Europe. I am yet to hear of an imam in, say, Serbia, call for the destruction of Serbia the way imams routinely do in western Europe and America.
Of course, such a subdued Islam will only remain subdued for as long as there exists the will to subdue it. Islamic immigration, of course, plays a key role: the more Muslims there are, the harder to subdue them.
This doesn't exactly jive with liberal sensibilities. However, those liberal sensitivities will have to be eventually discarded, anyway; either in effort to defeat Islam, or as a reaction to a defeat by Islam.
As for Schwarz's points, we need to realize that it's not just "Jihadists" we should be worried about. "Shariahists" are actually the much greater long-term threat. How does he propose we identify who is or isn't a "Shariahist"?
Posted by: spect8or at January 14, 2006 9:51 AM
On the one hand, I would like to see the truly well-intentioned moderate/progressive reformists succeed, though I have difficulty distinguishing sometimes distinguishing whether or not they are truly well-intentioned. If moderates continue to seemingly ignore the violent, intolerant, imperialistic, and misogynist passages, is it because they are deluding us (deliberately) or deluding themselves (by denying what's right there in front of them on the pages)?
On the other hand, I would much rather see them turn apostate, frankly, without penalty. I'd like to see them focus on certain key conceptual, legal, and moral issues as pertaining to
freedom to leave the religion (i.e., no penalty for apostacy, and laws protecting apostates in Islamic countries),
freedom to criticize the religion (i.e., no penalty for blasphemy, "mishief", sedition against Islam, etc.)
equality for women
regard non-Muslims as human beings, rather than as criminal unclean beasts who are guilty of the worst crime possible
end to the doctrines of imperialism (e.g., 9:33)
end of violent jihad policies
end of social-religious apartheid viz. non-believers vs. Muslims
etc.
To solve these problems, major parts of the Koran must be acknowledged as problematic and rejected. No amount of apologetic gymnastic contortions can rescue the bad verses in the Koran. For true moderates, the Koran has to be re-written from the ground up.
As for the rest of Muslims, they will continue to follow the Koran's violence and intolerance, unless there are strong social, legal, and policing/military measures to counteract the tendencies toward traditionalism and revivalism.
Posted by: Archimedes at January 14, 2006 10:12 AM
Lost in admiration. Trying to think of something to add, can't.
Posted by: Hugh at January 14, 2006 10:29 AM
Moderate this:"Lo! those who disbelieve in Allah and His messengers, and seek to make distinction between Allah and His messengers, and say: We believe in some and disbelieve in others, and seek to choose a way in between; Such are disbelievers in truth; and for disbelievers We prepare a shameful doom. 4:150
Gotta hand it to ole Mo', he sure covered all the bases.
Posted by: spect8or at January 14, 2006 10:32 AM
Okay, just one question.
Is the Schwartz whose article prompted your remarkable response any relation to the Schwartz who apparently gave his name to the Weiss-Schwartz Syndrome (google "Weiss-Schwartz" and "Jihad Watch"), and for which, according to the Merck Manual, no treatment exists? Youth wants to know.
Posted by: Hugh at January 14, 2006 10:40 AM
You know, I think I'll save those interested enough in the Weiss-Schwartz Syndrome to look further the enormous time and, since time is money, the expense, of googling for Weiss-Schwartz, and simply paste a relevant past post -- talk about peter piper picking a pack of pickled peppers, whew! -- below:
"The very word "Sufi" conjures up for many, especially the young, images of the unworldly: the gentle mystic Rumi with his poetry, a bit more dignified and up-market from Kahlil Gibran, Jonathan Livingston Seagull, and Robert Fulghum's classic, "All I Really Need To Know I Learned in Kindergarten" and other offerings on display in the Self Help/Feelgood/Timeless Spirituality section of your local bookstore, just to the right of Wellness, and just to the left of Self-Esteem Studies.
But Sufis, as the article linked to shows, can emphasize both a "mystical" relation to God (whatever that means) and still promote the Jihad. Al-Ghazzali, the most famous theologian in Islamic history, was a Sufi who insisted that Muslims ought to participate in Jihad at least once a year. It is only the the innocent incoherence of his incoherent followers that causes them to ignore that fact, in their desire to make "mystical" Islam over into some kindof dreamy combination of Hermann Hesse's Siddhartha, a Hindu faker in a trance, and St. Teresa of Avila attaining a "little death" in the arms of her Lord, or was that Sor Juana Ines de la Cruz? I forget.
For more on this matter, at Jihadwatch for March 31 on one thread you will find, among the postings, this excerpt re recent converts to "Sufi" Islam:
"...one might google the name "Leopold Weiss" who became a Muslim early in the 20th century, took the name "Muhammad Asad" and was made so much of by Muslims so desperately eager for converts slightly beyond the usual Richard Reid-Jose Padilla level of comprehension. That Asad is now a figure of fun (do check out his description of his "blonde, Nordic wife" etc., his friendship with assorted Saudis, his stint in New York as a diplomat, and all the rest of his life) might give those who have converted to Islam and are making the most of their quasi-celebratory status some pause.
Still, being Muhammad Asad brought him more psychic satisfaction than being plain old Leopold Weiss.
Possibly a deep-seated desire to stand out, to be someone special, to be an "interesting" human being, to be made more of than one would otherwise have any right to expect, to lay claim to just a bit more of the world's attention -- are what prompted a Weiss many decades ago, or a Schwartz more recently, which goes to prove the words of the old ballad: "Every white must have its black/And every sweet its sour/Thus learned the Lady Christabel/In an untimely hour."
Look high or look low or look Trendelenburg in the Merck Manual, and still you will not find a remedy for this white-black mental oscillation, this pathological condition which is famously named here, for the first time, as the "Weiss-Schwartz Syndrome."
Sufism, whirling dervishes, and all the mysteries of Mevlevistan beckon. Who, on a Spiritual Search, could resist? And who cares if along with this "mystical" version of Islam the Jihad cannot be far behind.
Posted by: Hugh at April 2, 2005 09:15 PM (and slightly emended on April 10, 2005)
Quaere: Whatever happened to Muhammad Asad?
Posted by: Hugh at January 14, 2006 10:48 AM
Whatever happened to Lady Christabel?
Posted by: Interested at January 14, 2006 10:52 AM
"Whatever happened to Lady Christabel?"
-- from a posting above
You know the answer to that.
Posted by: Hugh at January 14, 2006 11:11 AM
"Possibly a deep-seated desire to stand out, to be someone special, to be an "interesting" human being, to be made more of than one would otherwise have any right to expect, to lay claim to just a bit more of the world's attention -- are what prompted a Weiss many decades ago, or a Schwartz more recently..."
Or the elephant in Hugh's foyer: Hatred of the West, cultural self-hatred on the part of Westerners.
Posted by: Dr. Pepper at January 14, 2006 11:22 AM
A moderate Muslim is one who can't find a weapon.
And who practices Mohammad's dictum "War is deceit" until he can.
Posted by: profitsbeard at January 14, 2006 11:40 AM
Schwartz:"The Koran never refers to Jews and Christians as unbelievers, but as People of the Book, worthy of respect and protection. Moderate Muslims adhere strictly to this outlook."
This statement is either a lie or a mistake due to ignorance.
See my citation above of the 9:29-9:32 passage; 9:32 explicitly refers to Jews and Christians as "disbelievers."
The Koran says those of the Jews and Christians who accept Islam and reject all partners (and accept Mohammad's validity as a prophet) are accepted. Note to Schwartz: That means Jews and Christians who convert to Islam. (Indeed, Sahih Bukhari v 4, b 52, n 255 reports the prophet promising a double reward from Allah to those people of the book who convert to Islam). Otherwise, they're not accepted; they're going to hell because they disbelieved. Only Islam is accepted (3:85). 30:12-16 says Christians on the Last Day will be divided among those who believe in Islam versus those who do not. Those who do not will go to hell. As for the Jews, I believe Robert has already cited the accepted hadiths regarding what's supposed in store for Jews viz. the approach to the last day (i.e., extermination).
Those of the Christians, Jews and idolaters who disbelieve in Islam are “worst of created beings” (98:6). Anyone who denies Mohammad’s revelations is evil (7:177).
They (people of the book) disbelieve in Allah and confound truth with falsehood (3:70-3:71). Christians lie when they talk about the son of God (18:4-5).
Allah will mock Christians when they burn in Hell, asking them Where are the partners (e.g., Jesus) now? (40:73, 28:62-64).
Also, the 9:30 verse shows that Mohammad/Allah thinks the Jews are polytheists for worshipping Ezra and assigning rabbis as partners to Allah. This is polytheism, which is one of the main forms of disbelief in Islam. Polytheism (shirk) is worse than killing of Muslims; it is the worst crime. Over 250 verses condemn the disbelievers to hell-fires.
"respect and protection" ?
Respected only as Muslim property (slaves or dhimmis) or as potential converts. Protected in the Al Capone sense--or thereabouts.
at January 14, 2006 11:45 AM
...and, as is often the case when Muslim apologists try to claim that their religion is tolerant of Christians and Jews, they neglect to provide a complete answer to the question of 'What about everyone else?'
The three-part choice remains: convert, be subjugated (if you're a Christian or Jew), or be killed. The Koran does not make provisions for anyone else. They ultimately must convert or be put to the sword (Sura 9). Moderate Muslims can talk all they want about tolerance, but they should not pretend that they have scriptural support for it. Until they admit to the problems in the Koran, they will get nowhere. Sura 9 is still on. Moderate Muslims are in no hurry to remove it or reject it.
Posted by: Archimedes at January 14, 2006 12:06 PM
If only Schwartz had the courage to take up each and every issue Robert has broached. We'd no doubt witness a telling display of intellectual gymnastics.
Moderate Muslims exist, by the millions, but they do so as a testimonial to human tolerance, not Islamic.
Posted by: Cornelius at January 14, 2006 12:41 PM
Archemides,
After unprecedented slaughter, the Moghuls finally accepted Hindus as dhimmis.
Probably the sheer numbers of Hindus made it impractical to impliment the Quranic injunction demanding conversion or death for pagans. But this IS evidence of at least a degree of interpretive flexibility in matters of faith because as you correctly point out, the Quran offers no such latitude.
Posted by: Cornelius at January 14, 2006 12:49 PM
Muslim Moderate Reviewer (who apparently didn't read Robert's book or the Koran): "Islam IS a religion of peace however due to the ingnorances of the Muslims they did conquer some of the European world not at all in accordance to the ways of Islamic Teachings. These so called Muslims..."
Again, is it lies or ignorance (or a combination of both)? All the regular readers here know the above quote is nonsense, but here are some of the verses which refer to Islam's imperialistic goal of conquering the world.
9:33 He it is Who hath sent His messenger with the guidance and the Religion of Truth, that He may cause it to prevail over all religion, however much the idolaters may be averse.
48:28 He it is Who hath sent His messenger with the guidance and the religion of truth, that He may cause it to prevail over all religion. And Allah sufficeth as a Witness.
61:9 He it is Who hath sent His messenger with the guidance and the religion of truth, that He may make it conqueror of all religion however much idolaters may be averse.
58:20 Lo! those who oppose Allah and His messenger, they will be among the lowest.
58:21 Allah hath decreed: Lo! I verily shall conquer, I and My messengers. Lo! Allah is Strong, Almighty.
8:39 And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is all for Allah. But if they cease, then lo! Allah is Seer of what they do.
2:193 And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah. But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against wrong-doers.
110:1 When Allah's succour and the triumph cometh 110:2 And thou seest mankind entering the religion of Allah in troops,
110:3 Then hymn the praises of thy Lord, and seek forgiveness of Him. Lo! He is ever ready to show mercy.
at January 14, 2006 12:51 PM
It's arguable that perhaps most Muslims who are deemed, by their behaviors, to be "moderate", are really merely de facto moderate Muslims -- behaving moderately due to
1) more or less accidental circumstances of geopolitical inferiority (surrounded by the rise of Western dominance)
as well as
2) socio-psycho-cultural complexities involving the common human tendency toward
a) internecine and trans-tribal quarrels (which can dilute the stark totalitarianism of canonical Islam)
b) human vices such as laziness, corruption, addictions (which can dilute the stark totalitarianism of canonical Islam)
c) human appetites for freedom (for sex, for artistic expression, for simply being one's own man sometimes) in its myriad forms (which can dilute the stark totalitarianism of canonical Islam).
These de facto moderate Muslims, however, belong to a trans-national super-tribal community which has far-reaching, complex and intense structures based on Laws deemed immutably and directly issued from God and, therefore, Muslims have, in effect, a "dual citizenship" or "dual psychology":
1) they are humans de facto, influenced by universal human tendencies and accidental historical circumstances that dilute the the stark totalitarianism of canonical Islam
but
2) they are also Muslims de jure -- the "jure" (from the Latin "jus" for "law") in this case being the Koran-based Sharia rooted in immutable divine commands; and since Islamic Law is such a dominant cultural edifice of far-reaching, complex and intense structures designed to construct an obsessively regimented Chosen People who are given a divine mandate based in the Koran to dominate all other peoples of the world, there is the socio-psycho-cultural constant in the Muslim worldview to fall back to the "gold standard" of what a Muslim is, de jure.
The psychological pressure caused by the psycho-cultural dissonance for the moderate Muslim, of being simultaneously de facto and de jure, can only be relieved in one of two ways (short of apostasy):
1) pretend that their moderation is not mostly due to Western geopolitico-cultural dominance of the world, as well as due to common non- and pre-Islamic human factors; and in pretending, elevate (with little canonical evidence) this de facto moderation into an Islam more "authentic" than the pure de jure Islam
or
2) cross over to the psychologically empowering de jure Islam that has the advantages of
a) resembling the original Islam of Mohammed and his Companions as reflected in the Koran
b) having a Total and Absolutely Irrefutable and Clear Explanation for the annoying and perplexing and often tragic Mysteries of Life -- including the humiliating tragedy of living in a corrupt, incompetent and brutal Muslim World surrounded by the global dominance of superior (Western) non-Muslims whose culture embodies a brazen indifference (even when we are bending over backwards in trying to be PC "sensitive") to Islamic mores.
at January 14, 2006 1:00 PM
Cornelius,
You're right; the actual implementation of the Koran is impractical, so flexible interpretation was used, for better or for worse. (And the text often lacks the necessary clarity). For the dhimmi option, the Reliance of the Traveler adds "Zoroastrians" along with Christians and Jews, even though the former are not mentioned in the Koran.
Note: 9:29 could be interpreted to include disbelievers, in addition to Jews and Christians, who reject one or more of the Islamic tenets of faith listed there.
Posted by: Archimedes at January 14, 2006 1:02 PM
All Things Beautiful TrackBack The Rules Of Engagement
at January 14, 2006 1:23 PM
The Sistani Web site also reveal clearly the traditional Islamic status of law and authority: almost every aspect of life is subject to divine law, total regulation. And the way life is regulated comes right out of the Qur'an and Sunnah, of course. Just browse the Web site and say it ain't so.
Also, here is the definition of 'jihad' in the fiqh glossary of the Web site:
"Jihad : is a holy war (striving or fighting in the way of Allah) by the order of the Imam."
So, holy war is simply a matter of declaration from the Imam, whoever that might be. Then, all the traditional principles of religious warfare apply. Or should the mechanics of jihad be understood differently? You know, kill, dismember, the obligation to fight and die in battle as a martyr, the most noble of deaths and the best of life.
Yes, indeed, Sistani is quite a moderate.
Posted by: JTF at January 14, 2006 1:34 PM
Excellent post as usual. I do not consider myself a rabid Islamophobic. I read up on as many sides of this issue as time and resources allow. Including the usual Islamic apologists. I think we’ve all run across Mr. Schwartz and his tact of positioning himself as a moderate spokesperson as defined by his Sufism compared to Wahhabism. But again, as it is with most apologists that try to defend Islam Mr. Schwartz resorts to the “You, as a non-Muslim can’t understand.” defense when asked to explain the obvious discrepancy between what is said about Islam from those within Islam and the heinous acts perpetrated in the name of Islam that happens daily world-wide. Just as disturbing is the almost blithe acceptance of violence as a way to settle belief differences within Islam.
Isn’t it a bit condescending and presumptive for Muslims (Mr. Schwartz) to believe that there is no way for non-Muslims to understand Islam except by the one way street of conversion? What kind of meaningful dialog between Islam and the Non-Islamic world can take place when the basic teachings of Islam relegate non-believers to an inferior state? Mr. Schwartz claims that dhimminitude is passé and only a figment of, and possible created by, the Islamophobes. His statement that “We can’t understand” and his unwillingness to discuss Islam with non-believers, except in a proselytizing manner aimed at conversion show very clearly that dhimminitude is not passé but alive and well.
Islam might have been appropriate for a nomadic pre-agricultural society 1,500 years ago where it was essential to conquer and convert your neighbors to insure survival. Islam has no place in the 21st century unless it undergoes a fundamental change in its core beliefs. And we all know that is not going to happen peacefully by sitting around a hookah sipping tea singing “KOOM BAI AH”
at January 14, 2006 1:38 PM
Some have even claimed that such people are all deceivers, which I think is an impossible position to hold, as it claims a knowledge of other people’s hearts that no one really has...
It's impossible to have knowledge of what Moslems believe? I don't think so. The syllogism goes like this:
1) Moslem proclaims belief in Islam
2) Islamic scripture calls for hatred & destruction of all infidels
3) Therefore all self-described Moslems are immoderate
Traditional Islam itself is not moderate or peaceful.
A more informative statement would read as follows: Non-traditional Islam cannot and does not exist because of the central tenet that the Koran is the literal word of God, not to be adulterated by human interpretation. Thus, given that traditional Islam is immoderate, it is also established that moderate Moslems cannot and do not exist.
Unless, of course, you believe that hate and violence and terror and rape and sex slavery and murder and kidnapping and misogyny and pedophilia and robbery and the like are reasonable and moderate things.
But, if you believe that then you're probably already a Moslem, in which case you don't give a damn about Moderate Moslems except as a con.
POT O' GOLD AT END O' THE RAINBOW POT O' GOLD AT END O' THE KORAN FRAUD
This endless scavenger hunt for the elusive Unicorn is both silly and dangerous. Time is running out on us. We've got Australian cops dressing up as Moslem soilders, and we're gonna go on a Vision Quest looking for something that can't exist?
A better use of our remaining years would be to conduct a worldwide search to find out why we can't come to grips with what Islam really is.
The Moslems know; why can't we?
at January 14, 2006 1:42 PM
Since no one is agreed on what exactly constitutes a moderate Muslim, how can any one ever…oh never mind…
"red next to yellow can kill a fellow; red next to black is a friend of Jack."
For the color blind, both are poisonous.
at January 14, 2006 2:19 PM
Islam should adopt the poster that used to grace Mulder's wall on the X-Files: "I Want to Believe"
... that "moderate" Islam really exists without mothballing numerous hadiths and Koranic verses
... that the Wahabbis will recognize the error of their ways by themselves and reform to "moderate" Islam
... that those who call themselves moderates aren't part of the problem by their silence and/or lame defense/rationalization of fundamentalists' behavior
... that if, heaven forbid, the fundamentalists ever come to power where they live, they won't find themselves squelched, oppressed and abused alongside the nonbelievers they sold down the river.
http://xfiles.wearehere.net/images/office.jpg
Just superimpose the Dome of the Rock in under the UFO.
Posted by: Shinoliite at January 14, 2006 2:36 PM
red next to yellow can kill a fellow; red next to black is a friend of Jack."
For the color blind, both are poisonous.
Posted by: butterfly at January 14, 2006 02:19 PM
The only way we can protect ourselves from muslim snakes is to assume they are all poisonous. There is absolutely no way to distinguish the deadly vipers from the harmless garden variety.
Personally, I believe that anyone who claims to be a muslim is either lethal or has the potential to be.
Butterfly, I like your analogy.
Posted by: Susanp at January 14, 2006 4:20 PM
I've been mulling over the question of whether so-called moderate Muslims, whatever that means, can seize hold of their religion & undertake a much-needed reformation. I've come to the following conclusions:
1.) The fact that a presumably relatively small percentage of Muslims are jihadists willing to kill in the name of their religion while the great majority of Muslims refuse to engage in such acts in no way means that the few have hijacked Islam. I assume that in most religions, only a small percentage of adherents live their lives in strict accordance with their religion's precepts. For example,the number of Christians who strive to follow Jesus' example and devote their lives to alleviating the suffering of others, etc. is relatively small. Yet I am sure that the vast majority of the remaining Christians admire and support one way or another these most pious people. So in Islam, it's entirely possible that the jihadists represent the most devout Muslims, and the majority of the other Muslims support the jihadists in thought, deed, or both.
2.) I've never read the Koran. But I've learned from this Web site that there are passages that condone, even encourage, believers to deceive the kafir in order to advance their cause. Perhaps, then, those verses that preach peace & love toward non-Muslims are merely part of this deception. In other words, when non-Muslims protest that Islam encourages violent conquest of unbelievers, Muslims say, "No, no. You've got it all wrong. See, here in our holy book, we are exhorted to respect other religions and live among them in peace." Meanwhile, the Muslim understands that these verses are mere window-dressing intended to deceive the unbeliever into thinking that Islam is a religion of peace.
3.) Reinterpreting the Koran to excise the violent ideology simply won't work. Why? Because the actions of Mohammed himself, as well as his followers for several hundred years after him, make it crystal clear that violent conquest of unbelievers is permissible, even desirable. Reinterpreting the Koran, as part of an effort to reform the religion itself to condemn violent jihad, would constitute an implicit renunciation of the life and works of Mohammed. The insurmountable obstacle to reforming Islam, to my mind, is you have the words of the Koran preaching violent jihad and the historical actions of the religion's founder confirming each other. One might as well ask a Muslim to renounce Mohammed himself as ask them to let unbelievers live in peace. To illustrate this point, is there a single region of the present Islamic world, apart perhaps from Indonesia, that became Islamic through peaceful conversion in the same manner as the Roman Empire, Ireland, Sandinavia were converted to Christianity?
Posted by: sheik Dji(r) bouti at January 14, 2006 4:43 PM
Archimedes, I see your point and thanks for the references.
"If only Schwartz had the courage to take up each and every issue Robert has broached. We'd no doubt witness a telling display of intellectual gymnastics." - Cornelius
That is certainly true, but I doubt it would differ much from what he has offered to start with. Muslims tolerate the most enormous and profound contradictions as a matter of course. They must of course, because the goal of Islam is the erasure of the individual. The individual must be subsumed into the collective in order for Islam to function in the neverland of the perfect system. The oiling of the cogs requires those nasty rough edges of personality and the burrs of free will to be polished away. It may hurt a little at first as you lose your moral will, but once this occurs you can easily dispense with that silly will to resist.
Posted by: Rebecca JW at January 14, 2006 4:45 PM
Wonderful post, Robert and so many well reasoned comments. Thanks all.
Here's a poem from a while back but my sentiments are the same now.
To Stephen Schwartz
Does your pir keep you whirling, turning,
bowing, chanting, repeating the name allah
til fana obliterates your rational mind
until reason flees and frees you
from all those rules and regulations
imposed on all those baser men
imprisoned in the box of islam?
It is your fate to keep on dancing
as fast as you can on the back of the beast,
so it won't turn and scream Apostate!
and sever the heads of the American sufis
with its swords of hate. For that seed
is always there, that seed of hate,
ready to explode and bring pain again.
Show me the sufi love of your allah.
Show me his kindness and compassion,
his love for All Creatures Great and Small,
through the ages, One and All.
Tell me, meccan, about your perfect prophet.
In your sacred books I read that
he was a pedophile, murderer and thief,
a lusty power-monger tribal chief.
You say this was only the custom of the time,
while other of your medinan brothers say,
"No,this is the way it must be always,
allah said so."
Is this the pattern you seek to imitate?
Is this this the pattern to which you aspire,
nihilism, the kiss of death,
the death not only the ego,
but also of your sacred foe?
Ecstatic states can never take the place
of a universal, unitary ethic, oh no.
So keep turning and whirling
in your dance of duality
led by the sufi shadow sheiks
who draw the line in the sand
and stand in its name, islam.
at January 14, 2006 4:51 PM
sheik Dji(r) bouti - my mother in law was born on the SE Asian strip of Islands. And I can tell you, not everyone converted to Islam willingly. She herself says that men arrived at her village and said "convert or else" (me paraphrasing of course) - so they did. There may not have been a war of land and killing en masse, but there was a forced war of spiritual conversion.
I know it is all “here-say” but that's what she has told me. SE Asia’s saving grace has been their ignorance on the whole of Arabic.
When my mother in law actually got hold of a Koran in English - she was horrified that this was the belief system and god that both her, and tragically that her family still worship (she is now Christian).
That's the whole tragic situation in the West. If our politicians just told the truth about Islam, and took a leadership role - how many would actually abandon Islam en masse???? Most people don’t like worshipping a death cult. Most people love life.
Most people want peace. The Asians of SE Asia are the same. Unfortunately while our politicians lie, more and more SE Asians are learning what the Koran really says. Combine that with "trendy anti- USA sentiment", a 100% Islamic upbringing with no critical analysis of different belief systems, and we have a volatile mix.
Ain't it sad that the European Christians looked at Indonesia and said, "It's too hard", whereas the Muslims took up the challenge! Imagine what Indonesia would be today if it were not Muslim but rather Christian, Buddhist, or Hindu or even atheist.
at January 14, 2006 5:08 PM
I motion that feralee's definition be entered into Wikipedia.
I particularly liked the term "Front Desk".
at January 14, 2006 5:09 PM
It's also sad that Islam aggression in Thailand, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, and the Phillipines has gone unreported.
Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at January 14, 2006 5:10 PM
Henry,
Yes.. Islam is evil. There's no doubt about that. You can take that to the bank and cash it.
The followers of islam collectively comprise a worldwide deathcult presently masquerading as the Religion of Peace. Their stated intent is to conquer and convert the entire world, reorganize it into a single caliphate, and impose Sharia Law. Jews and Infidels who are captured and NOT killed in the process of taking over the world will be given a choice. You can convert to islam or get beheaded.
If you're wealthy, they might let you live as a second class citizen (dhimmi) in their society so long as you can pay your jizya taxes, don't disrespect muslims in any manner at all, and you aren't caught practicing your religion. Otherwise, you're sold into slavery. If no muslim master is willing to buy you as their slave then your head comes off.
Any questions?
Posted by: Mahdi Al-Dajjal at January 14, 2006 5:13 PM
Ain't it sad that the European Christians looked at Indonesia and said, "It's too hard", whereas the Muslims took up the challenge! Imagine what Indonesia would be today if it were not Muslim but rather Christian, Buddhist, or Hindu or even atheist.
My grandparents tried, and I'm proud of that. They were missionaries in Indonesia among the Dayaks from roughly 1950-59; these were people who were still animists, and, literally headhunters. Even while they were still able-bodied in their retirement, they'd have Indonesian students for the university over for dinner-- I didn't understand at the time why my grandfather ate with the men in a separate room.
After their term in Indonesia, they were sent to work in the Netherlands... I just hope their message "stuck" better in the former country than it apparently has in the latter. ;)
Posted by: Shinoliite at January 14, 2006 5:32 PM
Poetess, I love that one. I hope you sent it to the man himself. He deserves many more such clear-eyed homilies.
Posted by: Rebecca JW at January 14, 2006 6:09 PM
Hello all,
Looking after hubby, haven't had time to read any of the posts ...but "crack this one and we have cracked it".
So I'm sure you covered the post have covered all of the "Islam cannot be reformed and that's it's takiya etc"....ofcourse none of which helps us....and your conclusion...that there is no solution ...none....but I am not so sure.
Here is my take on it. The concepts of talking to the experts in the ME about moderation will always result in your confusion....ofcourse to muslims of the ME ..ISLAM is ISLAM...what's the problem, why is there even a need to ask infantile questions.
Christians had to to move out the old guard to achieve reformation of christianity so we need the same for Islam.
So who are these people....whay we need Wuslims (Western Muslim)...lots of them. A swathe of muslims who have been christians or other but converted ...who understand what the West will lose but at the same time cannot think to be any thing other than muslims...
As Wuslims grow and become influential it is possible that a leader emerges ...who has the influence and the charisma to modernise.
It maybe even that he has to be declared as a Calipaha (for a bit) to get things done...most likely to happen in Amrika I feel....(the US administration must play along) to help him get things done....help Islam moderate.
Posted by: Naseem at January 14, 2006 7:08 PM
My, naseem what long ears you have.
The better to hear you with my dear.
And naseem, what long sharp teeth you have.
The better to eat you with my dear.
So nasreen, amrika just needs
pots and pots and lots and lots
of wuslims, warm fuzzy wuslims.
naseem, you fox!
Thanks for the laugh.
Rebecca, thank you.
at January 14, 2006 9:46 PM
lots and lots
of wuslims, warm fuzzy wuslims.-- posted by The Poetess
So it's not just me: "Wuslim" sounds to me like a discount store's imitation of the Furby... it could be the cuddly Christmas gift that foams at the mouth!
Visual reference:
http://www.hasbro.com/furby/default.cfm?page=fun
Hehheh... kafir furbi. Infidel toys.
On that note, goodnight! :)
Posted by: Shinoliite at January 15, 2006 1:25 AM
Let's pray for the day that Islam becomes Waslam.
Posted by: Dr. Pepper at January 15, 2006 1:38 AM
Perhaps the simplest explanation is correct: that moderate Islam is a falling away from Islam. We keep hearing that Islam has been more successful than Christianity at resisting secularism. Maybe so, but I'm not convinced that it has been as successful as people say. It seems to me than en masse Muslims are gradually finding better things to do.
Another explanation is that moderate Islam is cowed Islam.
These two explanations may point to two overlapping groups of moderate Muslims.
Posted by: Jonathan David Carson, Ph.D. at January 15, 2006 1:56 AM
POSSIBLE SIGHTING OF A GENUINE MUSLIM MODERATE
I wonder if anyone here is aware of Mahmoud Mohamed Taha, whom I just came across (see www.alfikra.org, mostly in Arabic but with a bit of English material). Apparently this Sudanese thinker, executed for his views 20 years ago, developed a so-called "Second Message of Islam", according to which, for example, the orthodox principle of *abrogation* of the early tolerant Quranic verses is replaced by a principle of *temporary postponement*. The idea seems to be that the primitive Arabs of Muhammad's time were not yet ready for the genuine, tolerant message of Islam and could only accept the watered-down intolerant variety that constitutes orthodoxy. But I haven't seen enough information to be able to say that Taha's followers are actual "moderates".
Posted by: snowpea at January 15, 2006 4:50 PM
Taha, executed in his late seventies, is mentioned by Ibn Warraq in "Why I Am Not a Muslim" and by other apostates. His "reform" could not have worked, for there was no possiblity of ensuring that Muslims would have accepted it, or any similar efforts. He was hung, and his hanging gave the extreme form of the answer that Muslims elsewhere would have given. And will continue to give, until the conditions of life for Muslims become such that they are no longer cossetted by the West, no longer protected from confronting their own economic, political, social, and intellectual failures -- that all are attributable to Islam itself.
Posted by: Hugh at January 15, 2006 5:21 PM
The definition of a moderate Muslim (1)as enunciated by Islamophobes: "A moderate is is one who sells his 15 year old daughter to a Jew for $5.00, and after she has been raped by the Jew, does not accept payment for fear of being called an anti-Semite."
Definition (2): "A moderate Muslim would not hesitate to handover his teen-aged daughter to be gangraped by a platoon syphlitic Marines in the interest of Democracy, Human rights, gender equality, separation of Mosque and State, and most of all in recognition of America's great service to Muslims by helping control Muslim population by killing millions of Muslim children."
Posted by: Batilshikan at January 17, 2006 12:40 AM
The definition of an Islamophobe, according to Batilshikan:
(1) One who expects a Muslim not to sell his 9 year old daughter to another Muslim, or kill her to protect family honor
(2) One who expects Muslims to respect Human rights, gender equality, separation of Mosque and State - which is the same as controlling the Muslim population by killing millions of Muslim children (as opposed to selling them for sex for $50 instead of $5)
Posted by: Infidel Pride at January 17, 2006 1:09 AM
"...the orthodox principle of *abrogation* of the early tolerant Quranic verses..."
Snowpea,
thanks for that example from the (late) Sudanese thinker. A common claim among moderate and progressive Muslims that the early Meccan verses are tolerant. If only Islam could get rid of that darned principle of abrogation, the tolerance could be brought back into Islam. Unfortunately, the principle of abrogation is approved in the Koran itself.
Unfortunately, the idea that the Meccan verses are tolerant is largely false. Fully 86-88% of Meccan Suras contain at least one statement of intolerance (e.g., condemning disbelievers to hell-fire, threats to disbelievers, mockery of other religions, etc.). There are ten Meccan Suras that do not involve an intolerant statement, but these are mostly very brief semi-poetic verses that often do not even refer to people. Moreover, some of the verses that appear to be tolerant are ambiguous.
Here are the first five revealed Suras:
From the First Revealed Sura
96:13 Hast thou seen if he denieth (Allah's guidance) and is froward?
96:14 Is he then unaware that Allah seeth ?
96:15 Nay, but if he cease not We will seize him by the forelock -
96:16 The lying, sinful forelock -
96:17 Then let him call upon his henchmen!
96:18 We will call the guards of hell.
96:19 Nay, Obey not thou him. But prostrate thyself, and draw near (unto Allah).
From Second Revealed
68:15 That, when Our revelations are recited to him, he saith: mere fables of the men of old.
68:16 We shall brand him on the nose.
68:45 Yet I bear with them, for lo! My scheme is firm.
From the Third.
73:9 Lord of the East and the West; there is no God save Him; so choose thou Him alone for thy defender -
73:10 And bear with patience what they utter, and part from them with a fair leave- taking.
73:11 Leave Me to deal with the deniers, lords of ease and comfort (in this life); and do thou respite them awhile.
73:12 Lo! with Us are heavy fetters and a raging fire,
73:13 And food which choketh (the partaker), and a painful doom
From the Fourth.
74:16 Nay! For lo! he hath been stubborn to Our revelations.
74:17 On him I shall impose a fearful doom.
74:18 For lo! he did consider; then he planned -
74:19 (Self-)destroyed is he, how he planned!
74:20 Again (self-)destroyed is he, how he planned! -
The Fifth (or Sixth)
111:1 The power of Abu Lahab will perish, and he will perish.
111:2 His wealth and gains will not exempt him.
111:3 He will be plunged in flaming Fire,
111:4 And his wife, the wood-carrier,
111:5 Will have upon her neck a halter of palm-fibre.
No wonder they called him a "mad poet"!
at January 17, 2006 8:00 AM
What is a moderate Muslim? Sounds like a setup for a joke...
A Jew, a Hindu, and a "moderate Muslim" walk into this bar ...
The Jew says "Come my brothers, let's discuss the nature of G-d over a drink of wine..."
The Hindu says "I will not drink the wine, but I welcome a discussion about the nature of God, or in my faith the nature of the Gods, for that is what we believe in..."
The "moderate Muslim" says "This place is haram -- Alcohol is haram -- Jews are haram -- Hindus are haram -- making friends with the infidel is haram!!! You, evil Jew! You, Evil Hindu! YOU are enemies of Allah and Islam... The prophet has stated it, and the prophet knew Allah's will, Allah's thinking on all of these matters... These topics are immutable! I now take my reward from Allah and destroy you and this evil place as he wills -- Allah is merciful! Allah is Greater! Allahuakbar!"
and he pushes the button on his bomb vest...
Later, the soul of the Jew while returning to G-d encounters the soul of the the Hindu on his way to be reborn... they stop for a brief chat...
"To each his own belief!" says the one...
"Yes indeed!" says the other. "But I guess we now know there's no such thing as a "moderate Muslim"?"
"How true! How true" says the one, and each goes on his way...
at January 17, 2006 12:47 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.)