| FrontPageMag.com | Articles By Robert Spencer | Articles By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Robert Spencer Bio |  |
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
I have written a great deal about Islamic reform, Islamic moderation, various self-proclaimed and actual Islamic moderates, and the prospects for a large-scale renunciation of the Islamic theological and legal principles that fuel the global jihad.
Everyone is looking for Islamic reformers and attaching massive hopes to Islamic reform. The thirst to find such people is so great, and the ignorance of Islam so widespread, that Westerners are ready to embrace and trumpet anyone who says some reassuring things -- even if he has no following, or only a tiny following, in the Islamic world, or if he is hounded and hunted as a heretic by the adherents of various Islamic orthodoxies, or if his prescription for reform is self-contradictory and unworkable.
Here is an example of the latter. I post it not because I do not wish Malek Chebel well. In fact, I wish him all success. But I am aware that if what is below is an accurate summation of his views, he has little chance of success, because what he says must be done cannot be accomplished in the way that he outlines. I present this, as I have presented all criticism of Islamic reformers, in the hope that they will begin to address these antinomies, recognizing that the principles "We must return to the original Islam" and "Jihad should be declared illegitimate" are in irreconcilable opposition. Once they recognize that, perhaps they will be able and willing to sketch out a prescription for reform that will not so readily founder upon its own self-contradictions.
"Algerian Reformist Malek Chebel: 27 Propositions for Reforming Islam," from MEMRI, with thanks to all who sent this in:
Malek Chebel, a renowned anthropologist focusing on the Arab world, is one of today's prominent French-speaking North African intellectuals. In 2004, he established, in France, the Foundation for an Enlightened Islam.Chebel has published some 20 books on Islam, in which he has frequently dealt with sensitive and uncommon subjects, such as love in Islam: He claims that Islam is a sensuous religion and condemns the strict fundamentalist approach to relations between men and women. He has also tackled such taboos as wine and homosexuality in Islam. His publications include a Love Dictionary of Islam (Plon, 2004) and an Encyclopedia of Love in Islam (Payot, 1995). His other main focus is reform of Islam, to which he has dedicated two major books: Islam and Reason: The Struggle of Ideas (Perrin, 2005), and Manifesto for an Enlightened Islam (Hachette, 2004).
In his Manifesto for an Enlightened Islam (Manifeste pour un islam des lumières), Chebel puts forth 27 proposals for extensively reforming Islam. He turns to the values of the 18th-century European Enlightenment for guidance, when rationalism and secularism guided the drive towards cultural, social and political progress. Chebel's first two propositions set the principles of reform: a new interpretation of the Koran, and the preeminence of reason over creed. However, he dismisses atheism, noting that "nothing very important is achieved outside the framework of religion." [1]
Chebel calls for putting an end to violence in the name of Islam; for renouncing Jihad, which is, in his eyes, immoral; for abolishing all fatwas calling for death; and for abolishing Islamic corporal punishment. Chebel stands against female genital mutilation and for banning slavery and trafficking in human beings in the Arab world; for strict punishment of the perpetrators of honor crimes and for promoting the status of women.
[...]
Returning to the Original Islam to Combat Islamism
Islam used to be modern, whereas today it is backward, says Chebel. He explains that only a return to the "intellectual heritage" of Islam will counter Islamism: "This disgusting ideology [Islamism] is fed by a kind of complicity, of indifference, of fatalism [...] We must provide Muslims with an alternative solution to which they can adhere. In order to achieve this, we should go back to the intellectual heritage of original Islam [...] This is what I am trying to do when I advocate a true and therefore modern Islam. As a matter of fact, [true] Islam has always carried [within it] modernity." [8] He says that as a "modern" religion, the original Islam did not deprive Muslims of their freedom of choice: "The Islam I love is freedom. But current Islam is not. It is controlled by a certain number of structures [societal, political, educational, and religious structures] aiming at destroying freedom. They impose one vision, one judgment, one outlook. They prevent any kind of free choice." [9]
The "enlightened Islam" Chebel advocates is based on the values of secularism. But, he explains, today the Arab world considers secularism to be a Christian threat: "Muslims have associated the concept of secularism with Christian aggression against Muslims. The word 'secular' sounds derogatory in the preaching of several preachers, like an insult." [10]
[...]
In addition to basic comprehensive reforms, Chebel proposes specific changes within Islam, in an effort to put an end to violence in the name of religion. He also suggests specific political reforms aimed at promoting democracy in the Arab world, and a set of social reforms meant to increase well-being and general happiness in Islamic countries.
Declaring Jihad Useless and Obsolete: "Is it possible to replace war with peace?" asks Chebel, and answers: "Jihad should be declared illegitimate since it entails death, which is not a noble thing in the eyes of the Koran, and also because it is used to justify all kinds of aggression." On the other hand, peace initiatives from outside or from within the Muslim world should be promoted. Chebel suggests the establishment of a Muslim NGO, with sufficient resources, to promote peace between people, in Islamic lands and everywhere needed. Chebel writes: "I believe no other region spends as much money for its armament, relatively, as does the Islamic world." In addition, Chebel notes that "there is no redistribution of wealth, and when there is, it only concerns the construction of mosques."
Chebel's other recommendations are excellent. I hope they are adopted. But will a return to the original Islam really result in an intellectual flowering and enable the idea of violent jihad to be discarded? The Qur'an considers death "not a noble thing"? Yet it instructs Muslims to "kill the unbelievers wherever you find them" (9:5), promises Paradise to those who "kill and are killed" for Allah (9:111), and taunts the Jews that if they are really chosen of Allah, they will love death: "Say (O Muhammad): O ye who are Jews! If ye claim that ye are favoured of Allah apart from (all) mankind, then long for death if ye are truthful" (62:6).
And Muhammad, of course, was a warrior. He fought in battles, he ordered the assassinations of his enemies, and he blessed those who carried out his wishes by killing those enemies. This is all readily established from Islamic sources -- and you can't get any more "original" in Islam than the example of Muhammad himself.
I have discussed here before the fact that I am considering writing a biography of Muhammad. I set it aside for awhile, but now I have a proposal in with a publisher; they're considering it. More and more I think such a book is necessary, since we hear from good people like Chebel that a return to original Islam will solve the problems of the Islamic world, and yet we also hear from the jihadists that it is they who are following the mandates of true, original Islam. Accordingly this is a question that needs to be resolved, and has large implications for public policy. I'll keep you posted.
Posted by Robert at May 6, 2006 6:59 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
Malek Chebel is dishonest to the bones.
This guy holds four doctorates, not counting his Islamic studies. He knows perfectly well that what he is proposing cannot be grounded on the Koran. His public is the West. He is selling us an «enlightened» Islam fitted into our values with not the slightest correspondence with the content of the Islamic scriptures and history. To give him credit is helping Islam along in the West, but it doesn’t change Islam any bit. It is but mendacious publicity.
![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at May 6, 2006 7:55 AM
real islam?..go to www.faithfreedom.org and read the muslim letters there,the hate and insanity there will give you a good idea about islam.
Posted by: campingman1 at May 6, 2006 8:18 AM
At first I thought Malek Chabel was ignorant of Islam. This is the case of many, especially non-arabic speaking muslims.
But further inquiry reveals that this is not the case. He even holds 4 doctorates.
He is as ajm says "dishonest to the bones'.
Any informed person can see he is selling a dud.
We must refuse and oppose these nonsensical but dangerous and devious manipulations of the "muslim moderates".
Watch the money in Malek Chabel's case. This guy is trying to cash in on the wests desire for a "moderate" Islam.
at May 6, 2006 8:22 AM
Malek Chebel is trying to bring in logic to something that has no logic. When the original is corrupt and condones killing, raping, how do you say that it would be acceptable in a modern civilization? Chebel and many others like him are not being honest with the teachings of the Koran. They would have to conclude that Mohammud was not a holy man such as Jesus, Budda, etc. but that Mohammud was a war monger that was illerate to boot. Islam is totally debunked when one is truly honest with it's writings. It would be a challenge for more, but Chebel should just denounce Islam for what it truly is, and tell others to do the same. The more l as a Westerner learn about Islam, the more l am agreeing with Hugh, that Islam needs to be marginalized by what ever means taken. (humanely if possible)
Posted by: Lulu at May 6, 2006 8:23 AM
There is no dichotomy in Islam, only a spectrum of activity.
Every Muslim is either a jihadist or a potential jihadist.
Just because some Muslim has been a decent upstanding citizen and family man for years is NO guarantee that he cannot or will not suddenly take up the reins of jihad and ensure his arrival in Muslim heaven.
If a Muslim is truly moderate then it is because he sees that the violence rife within the Koran as incompatible with true civilisation. Failure to adhere to this doctrine of violence renders him an apostate in theory if not in actuality.
Therefore there can be no truly moderate Muslims.
I could be generous enough to call moderate any nonviolent Muslim who ACTIVELY fights jihad but just how many of these actually do in fact and not in theory? No!! NO moderate Muslims.
Posted by: Zathras at May 6, 2006 9:09 AM
Robert, if you do write a book about Mohammed, please highlight his responsibility for the massacre of hundreds of men and boys by beheading after the siege of Medina.
In my view, one of his most damnable actions and one which is unfortunately not widely talked about.
Posted by: Celsius at May 6, 2006 9:32 AM
Returning to the roots is the opposite of what is needed.
The origins need to be reformed, first.
By putting the twisted thoughts of a warlord pedophile onto a higher plane, through rigorous "peaceful" re-interpretations of the Koran's baldly violent suras.
And by reading them as metaphors of inner struggle, only.
This has to be done to render the Koran humane.
If the text of the "Recitation" can be softened by Reason into an entirely different work,- transformed into something as "Compassionate" (as the book itself constantly claims Allah to be), then Muslim reformers could build a "peaceful Islam" from that re-newed, purified, more decent foundation.
Mohammad's "perfection" must go, as one more symbol that was misunderstood from the first- and to be grasped as: Mohammad not as perfect in his life, but in his ultimate vision.
A faith of shared love.
That Islam has apparently distorted this core message, for personal gains, for over a thousand years, is nothing too unfamiliar from the behavior of State religions, West and East.
Reform is only possible it the Koran is re-told.
Radically.
Purged with love, empathy, humor, and humility.
Or Islam will become another death cult that failed.
Posted by: profitsbeard at May 6, 2006 9:46 AM
"Reform is only possible if the Koran is re-told."
(Of course.)
Posted by: profitsbeard at May 6, 2006 10:00 AM
profitsbeard...to not agree with or to ignore ONE word of the Koran is to apostasise as I am sure you know.
To try to present its bloodthirsty author as a man of peace by rewriting it will never work as too many have had the violence ground into them.
Almost all major islamic attempts at moderation have led to the death and/or recanting of the source. In this current climate no Muslim would live long enough to finish it.
There is already a peaceful islamic sect and look at how the rest treat it.
NO true moderation is possible unless muslims all reject 1450 years of violence.
Can you really see that after it has won so much for them?
All muslims are potential jihadists.
Posted by: Zathras at May 6, 2006 10:00 AM
“Painted Horses”
"Noted Beijing University economist Zhang Weiying uses a particularly trenchant
allegory to describe China’s reform process. The story involves a village in which the
primary work animals are horses, creatures that – at least as the story goes – complain
unrelentingly and continually demand food, but provide precious little labor in return. In this allegorical world, zebras are just the opposite sort of animals – efficient, tireless, loyal, and unflappable. After years of extolling the virtues of horses, the village chiefs finally concluded that it would be better for everybody if the community’s horses could somehow be replaced by zebras. Yet, such a switch constituted no small challenge. For decades, the village heads had harangued citizens with, and indeed staked the legitimacy of their rule upon, the idea that horses are wonderful and that zebras are evil, that horses mark the road to salvation, and zebras the path to perdition. Whether through
indoctrination, fear, or just force of habit, the villagers had come to accept that horses
were right and zebras wrong.”
“Faced with such a delicate situation, the village heads came up with a solution. Under the cover of darkness each night, they began painting black stripes on a few of the village horses. Each morning at daybreak, the villagers – aghast at seeing zebras in their midst – were repeatedly assured that these animals were nothing more than the same old horses of yore, albeit with a few harmless stripes painted on. Night after night, a few more horses would be painted, and ultimately, people grew accustomed to life among these oddly decorated animals. Everybody could rest assured that for all the painting going on, these were just the same familiar horses, and certainly not zebras. After another long interval, the leaders, again under the cover of night, slowly began replacing the painted horses with real zebras, wonderful animals that quickly proved their worth in the fields. Village life clearly improved as a result, but all the while, the leadership maintained that these zebras were just horses, albeit with artfully applied stripes. Just as they had with the painted horses, people adjusted to life with real zebras, and though they dared not utter it, they started to conclude that these animals might indeed be real zebras, and that zebras were not so bad after all. Only many years down the road, well after all the horses had been replaced, and well after many seasons of prosperity had passed, did the leaders gather the citizenry and proclaim officially that this was a village of zebras, that zebras were good, and that horses were bad.”
Malek Chebel is basically painting horses. Problem is that unlike in the original story, someone is bound to come along and shoot the creatures.
Posted by: Caroline at May 6, 2006 10:06 AM
Like the old belief that the earth is flat, Mohamed and the Koran has to be dumped. Then invent a new Islam without the Koran and Mohammed.
We can have a peaceful Islam.
at May 6, 2006 10:12 AM
I don't think islam can be reformed. To reform something, people must want change. Men are in control in islam and they don't want to lose that control. And those men sure don't want to lose their virgins in heaven. If those muslims still believe satan lives in their nose at night, the sun sets in a mud puddle, the world is flat, sperm comes from their spine and women should be beaten, islam will never reform.
Posted by: freewoman at May 6, 2006 10:22 AM
It is hard to be a "reformer" when a mob of crazies has a knife ready to "srike your neck"...
Posted by: stephen lodahl at May 6, 2006 10:22 AM
We have to discredit the Koran.
For that, we have to have people reading it, in a light that will prove them as fast as possible that the whole thing is but crap. I think that the best such reading is to look for hate mongering (the “other” is bad at heart, will stay so forever, is damned by God since all eternity anyway, did and does the worst crimes ever, death to him!). This is the true leitmotiv of the book; it is present almost in all surah longer than 20 lines. AND: it is illegal in most countries. So that we can launch legal actions, and have jurists check it out and release judgments confirming that.
Of course, we won’t be able to have people heavily condemned. But think of the public debate we get, and the number of people who will read the Koran with open eyes, then.
For example, in France, it is possible (although intricate) – we can sue a printer or editor. A French lawyer told me that, so I jumped on that train and prepared a document grounding such an action – that is how I came to the idea (here the document: http://www.ajm.ch/liberty/plainte_18.3.06.pdf).
Now, maybe the law will not allow suing at all. Or the right move will be hard to find. It has to be checked with lawyers. But in the US, half of the States could make use of direct democracy, for example.
Posted by: ajm at May 6, 2006 10:29 AM
Congratulations Malek Chebel, you're an apostate!
The thing he talks about would be something new - it would not be some version of the true, old, progressive Islam. That thing is a figment of fantasy and modern imagination.
Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at May 6, 2006 10:30 AM
This one works:
http://www.ajm.ch/liberty/plainte_18.3.06.pdf
at May 6, 2006 10:32 AM
About Malek Chebel: Here’s part of a revealing interview, published in “Le Point”, September 2005 (“quick and dirty” translation!).
“The future is with Islam”
The Point: Of Jesus and Muhammad, who is strongest?
Malek Chebel: The man of the Qur’an. Jesus is a great character, but he died too young. Not only, according to the synoptic gospels, did he preach only one year, but also this messenger of loving one’s neighbor died crucified. Muhammad is a more accomplished character, a trader, a warmonger, a negotiator, a lover, a husband, a father.
The Point: Is it not a handicap to be a prophet who resembles your average Joe?
Malek Chebel: Ah, here’s the argument number one of the Fathers of the Church with respect to the religion of Muhammad: how could an illiterate Bedouin claim to be the equal of the son of God? Us Moslems do not speak about the Prophet, we speak about his message. It is the message which makes the prophet, not the opposite.
The Point: Precisely, Christ’s message is of an amazing force: “Love one another”. Nothing better has been proposed in order to help people to live, isn’t it?
Malek Chebel: The force of Jesus, but also his Achilles' heel, is to have promoted a religion of kindness, of mercy, but also of suffering. You are struck the cheek, you tighten the other. It is a religion full of compassion. In the East, those are feminine virtues. What does Muhammad propose? To strengthen patriarchy, even if he respects woman and restores her statute. Strong values like wealth, force, war are not questioned. It is a male religion by definition.
The Point: … but not very attractive if it rhymes with jihad, intolerance, terrorism… Perhaps that explains why there is nearly 2 billion Christians for 1.2 billion Moslems…
Malek Chebel: Yes, but Christianity has the benefit of anteriority. Today, churches are emptying, whereas mosques fill. The future is with Islam. Between 2020 and 2050, because of its demographic force, Islam will be the first monotheist religion.
The Point: Why would someone convert to a religion which oppresses women and preaches violence?
Malek Chebel: I’m always very surprised by the strong conviction of Christian converts to Islam. What do they find? Some virility and some safety that are not in Christianity anymore. In Islam, they do not have to think anymore. The word comes from above. The obligations of the believer are strict but limited: profession of faith, five prayers a day, obligatory alms, fast and pilgrimage in Mecca. They can regress in all peace of mind. New convert are taken in hands. They are found a wife if they don’t have one. They are circumcised if they are men. Islam offers to them a community, physical and moral safety, an orientation, a destiny. All is marked out. Islam does not doubt and does not know, like Christianity, the anguish of the empty church. (…)
Posted by: Pistache at May 6, 2006 11:47 AM
Sorry... "The Point" should read "Le Point" (name of this weekly newspaper)
Posted by: Pistache at May 6, 2006 11:48 AM
Pistache....re the last paragrapoh by Chebel:
he defines muslims quite well >>> robots or zombies...yes the religion of man...mindless man with his daily plan and doctrine dominates both reason and emotion and inculcates violence.
Almost every "born again", whether christian or Muslim is just as fanatical.
However the inverse of what he describes is nicely ignored by him. Muslims who apostasise do not necessarily take up any other religion and it does not seem to be a prerequisite to doing so.
But whether they do change to another religion or not, the one thing that is blatantly obvious is not their love of their new state althought they will tell you so if asked, but the absolute HATRED of islam that they have. They often sound like a married man of many years who has just discovered his spouse's chronic infidelty such that his ten children are not his own, there is such a degree of outrage. The anger and the hatred are far greater in intensity than any korankissing neophytic exchristian convert's vomitlike oozings.
Posted by: Zathras at May 6, 2006 12:05 PM
Very telling also, one of Malek Chebel's reaction during this television show, last year...
http://www.dailymotion.com/relevance/search/dantec/video/26809
Context: Maurice Dantec, a french writer now living in Quebec and very concerned with Islam, was invited (for the release of a new book). But this was a set-up: Instead of talking about his book, Dantec has been confronted and ridiculed for his views about Islam... Chebel, unexpected by an unprepared Dantec, come in around 00:09:00.
Anyway... When, around 00:18:40 (near the end), Dantec tells Chebel that jihad will not be able to swallow the West, and Chebel reacts by saying: "It will not be able to!? Your certainties are so conceited!" Then he begin the usual speech about "and on top of that you're confused when you talk of "jihad", "jihad" means inner struggle blah blah blah...".
"Moderate"? Or just plain "full of shit"!?
Posted by: Pistache at May 6, 2006 12:06 PM
ajm,
Welcome!
"I think that the best such reading is to look for hate mongering (the “other” is bad at heart, will stay so forever, is damned by God since all eternity anyway, did and does the worst crimes ever, death to him!). This is the true leitmotiv of the book; it is present almost in all surah longer than 20 lines."
Regarding Koran's insults, see this (not complete yet, but many examples):
http://islamwatch.forumup.in/post-486-islamwatch.html#486
Also, The Ultimate Goal of Islam here:
http://islamwatch.forumup.in/post-444-islamwatch.html#444
at May 6, 2006 12:08 PM
(a better link to the above video is http://www.dailymotion.com/fdesouche/video/26809 ; this guy - fdesouche - has lots of other related french-speaking videos, by the way).
Posted by: Pistache at May 6, 2006 12:10 PM
Any effort at reform will have to excise from the Koran the verses of rape (for starters), as well as remove their descriptions form the ahadith and sira, and from Islamic law, and from current practice in many parts of the world. Read it all here (takes a few seconds to load):
http://www.islam-watch.org/Archemedez/RebutMuslimRape.htm
Posted by: Archimedes at May 6, 2006 12:13 PM
Pistache: "Islam does not doubt and does not know, like Christianity, the anguish of the empty church. (…)" (from the Chebel interview)
He conveniently forgets to mention the number of Christian parishioners who are absent due to having been exterminated by the Muslim hordes.
There is not a word in this interview that has anything to do with Truth or real Spirituality. He merely acknowledges that in the real world, love and compassion are handicaps in the face of those who ruthlessly extoll the virtues of war. War wins. That may be true. But what, in the end, has been "won" precisely?
Also, in this interview we can see the regard he has for the virtues of "love". He is disdainful of them. Yet in the original article, he speaks of Islam as celebrating "love".
“Islam is originally a very sensuous religion which advises man to fully live his earthly life… Some texts even explain that divine love is conveyed through physical love, and when the Prophet was asked about what he had loved in this world, he would answer: 'women, perfumes and prayer.'”
I am not in disagreement with the claim that “divine love is conveyed through physical love.” But in the case of Islam, all it knows is physical love, the carnal, the sensuous, as Chebel basically acknowledges. So the prophet’s great loves were “women, perfume and prayer”? This love of women includes women he took from men he had killed! That’s not love! It’s lust!
And this is a reformer? ? Oh forget it. Muslims are really and truly hopeless.
at May 6, 2006 12:25 PM
On Ishard Manji's Web Site she circulates a petition for people to sign to stand with herself, Salman Rushdie, Ibn Waraq and the other twelve who originally signed the Manifesto Against a New Totalitarianism.
She provides evidence of threats of violence against her and appeals to the world to come forth.
The signatories are displayed on the Web Site. There are around 1500 names now. A quick scroll reveals no names from Muslim countries (I saw one from Bosnia). No signatories from the Middle East except Israel. Most are thoroughly Western names from Europe and the United States.
Manji is indeed a real reformer. She is also a Muslim extremist in the true sense of that term: she hold views that are 'extreme' (unpopoular, distateful, hated) for the vast majority of Muslims.
Muslim reformers and non-Muslims should take note of these brutal facts.
Posted by: JTF at May 6, 2006 12:25 PM
Now we're getting somewhere; the koran is HATE speech. Isn't that illegal in America?
I believe Wet Willie (may oral sex be upon him) tried to make hate speech illegal, but mostly targeting christians, not muslims.....go figure.
Posted by: stephen lodahl at May 6, 2006 12:37 PM
Folks must read the article by Archimedes above at:
http://www.islam-watch.org/Archemedez/RebutMuslimRape.htm
Off topic, but I could not read this passage from the Sirat by Ibn Ishaq (in Archimedes article) without thinking about the hypocritical, evil attacks on Camp X-Ray in Gitmo. The United States at some cost to taxpayers sets up a detention center for jihadists whose lives are sworn to destroy America; they live is conditions that go beyond international standards on the treatment of prisoners of war and are even allowed indirectly to carry on the jihad, reading the Qur'an and inspiring attacks against the American military and justice system. But, unbeknownest to many critics (although perfectly known by good Muslims who so strenuously condemn Gitmo), in the heart of Islam, in the living example of Mohammad himself, the perfect man, a very different fate awaits those who make war against Islam and have the misfortune of being taken prisoner:
From the Sirat by Ibn Ishaq (the earliest biography of Mohammad)
“Kinana, the husband of Safiya, had been guardian of the tribe's treasures, and he was brought before the apostle, who asked where they were hidden. But Kinana refused to disclose the place. Then a Jew came who said, 'I have seen Kinana walk around a certain ruin every morning.' The apostle asked Kinana, 'Art thou prepared to die if we find thou knewest where the treasure was?' And he replied, 'Yes.' So the apostle ordered the ruin to be dug up, and some of the treasure was found. After that Kinana was asked again about the remainder, but he still refused to tell. The apostle of Allah handed him over to al-Zubayr, saying, 'Torture him until he tells what he knows', and al-Zubayr kindled a fire on his chest so that he almost expired; then the apostle gave him to Muhammad b. Maslama, who struck off his head.”
And, as Archimedes points out, Mohammad had ulterior motives for killing Kinana as well; he wanted his wife, Safiya, whom Mohammad 'married' and raped...
at May 6, 2006 1:03 PM
A famous hunter and explorer (I forget the name, read the book a long time back) about antelope steaks which he used to eat on his expeditions to Africa. "One eats the stuff, but one does not have to watch the post mortem". A hunter saying this. Point is - going to a deli and getting sausages is one thing. And killing one's own pig with a knife, and then butchering it,is not a task for me.It was not for this big hunter too.He used his African coolies for the job. And muslims make their kids do this in mosques every bakreed,one of their morbid festivals besides moharrum. Can we hope to reform them ?
Posted by: arjun.sevak at May 6, 2006 1:08 PM
Robert wrote above: " And Muhammad, of course, was a warrior. He fought in battles, he ordered the assassinations of his enemies, and he blessed those who carried out his wishes by killing those enemies. This is all readily established from Islamic sources -- and you can't get any more "original" in Islam than the example of Muhammad himself."
How true Robert. I am very skeptical when I hear about Islam being reformed by Muslim intellectual reformists.
Islam is rotten at its inner core because its "prophet" was never a prophet in the truest sense of the word.
FACT:Muhammad was a warrior who relished in violence and PROMOTED violent jihad.
Sorry Muslims but jihad does not just refer to "spiritual struggle."
Jihad is based on Muhammad's violent actions and the belief that violent jihad is the preferrable way to advance Islam.
FACT:Muhammad was a pedophile who married a 9 year old girl, Aelisha, and had multiple wives.
These facts can never be altered or re-interpreted.
These facts are clearly stated in the Koran.
It is obvious that what Muslims believe about Muhammad is completely false.
According to Muslims, Muhammad is Allah's prophet for all of humankind.
But Muhammad was not God's final messenger.
Muhammad was an imposter.
Islam is one big lie.
Islam can't be reformed.
In case you want a picture of Chebel.....
Here is a link that shows a picture of Chebel and his works
http://www.ideesdefrance.fr/agenda/agenda_personne.php?lang=en&id=728
at May 6, 2006 1:13 PM
I am talking of the mainstream sunni islam. When the early sunnis gained power in the 9th century they made their case based on Quran and Hadith. They won and the Abbasid calips became the nominal rulers of islam and the islamic scholars were the ones holding real power.
Any kind of innovation within islam can easily be dismissed as heresy and therefore ignored by the mainstream islam. There is no hope for the reformers, period.
Posted by: Saatanan Islam at May 6, 2006 1:31 PM
I know for a fact Islam can never be reformed--Islam will never be able to escape its origins.
First of all Islam is a human sacrifice cult derived from Babylonian (straight from the ziggurats) and Sumerian pagan religious beliefs and practices. Islam wears a Judeo-Christian mantle but as any reasoned analysis will show these elements are a well-conceived facade of fabrications that mask Islam's true identity as a killing machine. Islam is conceived and designed to kill people. Its deity al-lah even demands that human beings be killed en masse to sate its hunger for human flesh. The violence we see in Islam is built in and cannot be excised. Notice the passage of 14 centuries has done nothing to make Islam less violent.
Islam is probably the most brutal of all towards those who believe that killing is inherently wrong except in self-defense. The fact that the Kuran calls for the extermination of all followers of Judaism has no factual or historical justifications--except for the offense taken by these people who believe that killing of human beings is directed by the divine one, al-lah. Judaism and Christianity have pre-empted the practice of human sacrifice which undermines al-lah's directives and therein lies the REAL explanation for Islam's violence and vilification of non-violent societies such as these.
Then there is the theological problem with attempts at reforming Islam. Al-lah supposedly is the voice of the Kuran and all its directives for man are believed to emanate from him. To delete the violent commands from the Kuran and to live in peace with non-Muslims is a direct and severe violation of Al-lah's commands that could result in punishment. To make Islam less violent would also give non-Muslims power over Islam and its religious practices, something that would never receive support from Islamic clerics.
In short, Islam is doing what it is designed to do. Any attempt at reformation would simply make Islam less of what it is supposed to be. To my mind, reforms are corrective in nature. So, how does one correct something that is achieving its intended goals and living up to its founding principles?
Those who think that Islam can be defanged mean well but are living in a glass house and do not or maybe will not see Islam for what it really is. I maintain with the strongest conviction that Islam will remain the ultimate in religious violence, to its very core until it is consigned to the dustbin of history where it belongs.
ps-As for Christianity, its reformation period was truly correctional in nature. Christianity was thanks to the reformation brought in line with its founding and guiding principles. This does not apply to Islam as it is ALREADY applying its founding and guiding principles. Is the problematical difference between reforming Christianity and reforming Islam now clear and why, of the two, only Christianity was reformable?
at May 6, 2006 1:47 PM
Re: Getting back to the roots.
If a gardener is cultivating a specific crop, and this crop provides nourishment and goodness to others, he will want to protect it. If this life sustaining crop is allowed to become weakened by disease, drought, or invaded by weeds the replinishment of the lost crop must begin at once, and/or weeds removed to further its life giving cycle or it will die. If the weed in this case is Islam, and the proposed solution to its constricting and killing force,as given by one who "believes" in the product he represents (Islam), why would a farmer believe in this solution? A weed does not change its characteristics, only its path of growth. It will continue to grow and choke life. Is the salesman attempting to sell a snake oil solution to that which is natural and predetermined? Similarly, a diseased tree, if not receptive to a medicinal cure, eventually will die and become dangerous to other plants in the area. One must rip it out completely, ROOTS and all. The soil will be contaminated and possibly vector disease to other life.
Re: Demographics.
"Western" nations reproduce at a much lesser rate than that of the Third World. China, South and Central America, Africa, and Islamic countries. Not to mention poligamy etc. Head to head, the west dominates ANY adversary. It is foolish to attack a numerically superior adversary one on one. Yet, the smaller opponent will ALWAYS triumph if he attacks the heel of Achilles...western white guilt. He will use this cancer afflicting so many, i.e. western liberalism and laws, to create his own mob; and after all, democracy is based in mob rule.
P.S. Don't believe me about the gardening? Ask anyone with a St. Augustine lawn about crabgrass. Or Citrus growers about chancre.
at May 6, 2006 2:13 PM
Dude, Mr Robert Spencer, Sir...
What do you think of Maxime Rodinson's Mohammed, I have a Pelican paperback edition which I got used for $3.99? Is it a Dhimmi book, or is it a realistic book? Or is it somewhere in between? I haven't had a chance to start it yet, but since you're planning to start your own bio, I was wondering if you were familiar with this one?
Posted by: doolz at May 6, 2006 3:42 PM
Spencer wrote: "I post it not because I do not wish Malek Chebel well. In fact, I wish him all success."
In light of the information certain posters have put up (particularly Pistache), I think Spencer should consider revoking those wishes. Chebel's sinister taqiyya is transparent; as such, we should not wish him well at all.
at May 6, 2006 4:02 PM
Doolz:
I know Rodinson's book well and recommend it highly.
Television:
I don't support any taqiyya artist. I was giving Chebel the benefit of the doubt. My problems with his assessments are clear.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at May 6, 2006 4:44 PM
Mr. Spencer,
Giving people the benefit of the doubt is a good thing, but perhaps should be re-examined when new data comes in. The data evident in Pistache's links seem to indicate that Chebel is even less clever than Tariq Ramadan (but perhaps hopes that people won't look up his paper trail); and I'm sure you don't give Ramadan any benefits.
Posted by: Television at May 6, 2006 5:56 PM
Robert, if you do write a book about Mohammed, please highlight his responsibility for the massacre of hundreds of men and boys by beheading after the siege of Medina.
In my view, one of his most damnable actions and one which is unfortunately not widely talked about.
Posted by: Celsius
It is questionable if there ever was a Muhammad.
The name is a title and it means "Praised one" and was conferred on a bandit from that part of Arabia called today Jordan whose name was Ubal Qassim, named for the Chief god of the Arabs, the moon God Ubal (Hubal) whom they referred to as Al Ilah (The (principal or Chief) God).
Ibn Warraq has edited a couple of good books, relying on scholars, they are an edited compilation.
The Quest for the Historical Muhammad
The Origins of the Koran.
The Koran itself was a work in progress for about 120 years after the death of Ubal Qassim, and the first Caliph (Abu Bakr) displaced "Muhammad's" origins to Mecca, which was the origin of Abu Bakr. The much touted hagiography of "Muhammad" by Ibn Ishaq was written a couple of hundred years after the death of Ubal Qassim, and under the Caliphate as well, so it backdates and accomodates the evolved myth of "Muhammad".
By the way Ali ibn Abu Talib (the first Shi'a Imam and fourth Sunni Caliph) name means Exalted son of the Father of the Student, self referential and circular (as Arab names and logic are) his name refers to himself, as he was Muhammads first student (convert). An analogy would be calling Dubya, George the son of the Father of Dubya.
Odds are that Ali ibn Abu Talib is a fiction, and if he existed the name is not his real name, but only a Title and conferred to give him legitimacy.
Certainly Muhammad was a title and not a name.
I have no doubt that the slaughters, raids, booty, beheadings depicted by Ibn Ishaq took place, but recording them outright and in those equally querulous ahadith, served two purposes the first of which was to justify the murderous piracy and rapine of the Arabs as they inflicted their will and ways on the world, the second was to terrorize the subjects of the Arab conquest.
Posted by: Nariz at May 6, 2006 6:46 PM
Pistache --
Please send your email to Robert, so that a long-delayed reply to a query made many months ago may be answered.
Posted by: Hugh at May 6, 2006 6:48 PM
Islam is totalitarianism. You cannot reform totalitarianism, only abolish it.
Posted by: Voltaire at May 6, 2006 8:09 PM
TV
I see where Robert is coming from - even though it's an impossible task, he takes the position of taking at face value wanna-be reformers of Islam. It gives him an opening against those who want to paint him as an Islam hater (not that it'll ever stop them).
It's like if somebody wanted to disprove the fact that two parallel lines never meet, there are two things that people who know better can do in response:
When (not if) the time comes that we all get serious about this (I believe it'll only be after another terror attack similar to 9/11 - nothing short since then has done, and therefore nothing short will do) - this is one of the things we need to dispatch off. Ban the "moderates" from their exercises in sophistry in dar-ul-harb: let them do it in dar-ul-islam, if they have to.
Posted by: Infidel Pride at May 7, 2006 2:26 AM
Well, moderates are (potentially) useful in Islam, and less so in the West. But they cannot express themselves in Islam now. No way. Thus a genuine “moderate Islam” project has to be supported by the West. But the West is the place where most dishonest apologists (like Chebel) are at work. Hard nut.
As a solution, I think that we, in the West, should work harder towards banning Islam by law. For example as the main source of the most dangerous hate speech of our time.
If we succeed, Islamists will miss their infrastructures in the West and will go down. That will free the place for genuine reformers, that is, people who love those regions where Islam has taken root and truly want to open the future for them, whatever the name of the aim.
Islam, its texts, must disappear, be forgotten, of course, but it won’t happen in a day, in a year or in a decade – it will take a whole generation at least. For a start, it has to be called a reform, and why not take example on formal propositions like Chebel’s. Why, once people genuinely will try and think and debate on the concrete modernization of Islam, they will see that they have to go beyond the divinity of the Koranic scriptures. That is just the evidence apologists still are trying to cover under some thin icing. But if the reform is launched, as a real, massive, serious, popular project, the Koran will go down.
And a clear-cut refusal of old Islam by the West would strongly foster that project. So we have to refuse Islam. And in order to do that, we have to make clear that Islam is not acceptable. Well, it may sound weird to say that here; where so many people are doing their best at it already. But I really think that we should work on that aspect more, or in a more focused manner. For example, look at Archimedes’ splendid work:
http://www.islam-watch.org/Archemedez/RebutMuslimRape.htm
That’s ten times what it takes to have Islam banned from any place reasonably managed! We have to act much more aggressively on that plane. We should put hundreds of lawyers at work, try and find the right ways to enforce the necessary banning of that total disgrace of a religion, albeit accepting Muslims just as plain people.
We have to use our knowledge of Islam in a focused, targeted way toward one clear and simple goal: Ban it. By law. Until it will have been deprived, by Muslims, in Islam, of its intolerable attributes.
at May 7, 2006 7:13 AM
Mr Spencer,
Thanks, I'm looking forward to reading it once I finish my current selections.
Posted by: doolz at May 7, 2006 1:03 PM
Has anyone read a book titled The Crusades, by Harold lamb? The book was written in 1929 the copy I have is from 1965. It is a fascinating read. After all that I have read and learned about Islam in the last five years, this book takes you back to the accounts of the crusaders themselves, and Islam if nothing else is unchanging. The jihad is mentioned and Mohammeds call for no lasting peace with non Muslims.
So, there hasn't been anything changed in Islam for 1400 years, will they really start now?
at May 7, 2006 1:17 PM
AS is well known, there are big bucks in the huge tell-the-nonsense-people-want-to-hear industry that thrives in religion, race, politics, popular science and revisionist history. Malek Chebel is not stupid so probably he is aiming for lucrative book deals and lecture tours (if he’s not a paid Islamic disinformation agent). Too bad this kind of charlatan can do harm by slowing the wakeup rate of the public (typically too lazy to research Islam for themselves) with his ridiculous disinformation.
Posted by: Odysseus at May 7, 2006 1:49 PM
Al - "the" or "this"
lah - "not"
i.e. Not this
Which is about right
Posted by: M. Simon at May 7, 2006 7:45 PM
Glad to see that everyone is well. I've not posted here in a while (very busy!) but still an avid follower of this forum. I too believe Islam is unreformable. The term 'lost cause' comes to mind. Mr. Chebel, please go back under that rock that you crawled out from under and don't bother us again. We have you figured out. Now go away!
Posted by: Johnny Cash at May 7, 2006 8:35 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.)