| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Back on New Year's Eve I posted a few comments on a Wall Street Journal piece by the former President of Indonesia, Abdurrahman Wahid. My point at that time was that despite the full-throated enthusiasm that greeted Wahid's piece, it was not in fact the heartening indication of Islamic moderation that many took it to be.
I have repeated many times a point that evidently is nearly impossible for some people to grasp: that while it is easy to convince Westerners who know nothing of Islam that Islam is peaceful, it is ultimately a fruitless exercise to do so. What peaceful Muslims like Wahid need to do is not spend their time writing articles in Western media outlets, but convincing the mujahedin. I am all for real moderate Muslims, but if I can see that a moderate's account of Islamic teaching is inaccurate, a mujahid will certainly be able to also. And if that moderate's moderation won't convince Muslims, what's the point of it? To make non-Muslims feel better? I would rather have the truth than feel better on the basis of half-truths, thank you.
Reform isn't accomplished by deception or self-deception. Reform is accomplished by acknowledging the problem and coming up with ways to deal with it. Let Wahid confront the specific Qur'anic passages, Hadith passages, examples from the life of Muhammad, and rulings of the madhahib that the mujahedin use to recruit and motivate Muslims to commit violence and attempt to subvert Western societies, and find new ways to understand those passages that will be convincing to Muslims. He didn't do that in the Journal, and he doesn't do it in this WaPo (Bandar Beacon) piece (thanks to all who sent it in), "Extremism Isn't Islamic Law":
...Does Islam truly require the death penalty for apostasy, and, if not, why is there so little freedom of religion in the so-called Muslim world?The Koran and the sayings of the prophet Muhammad do not definitively address this issue. In fact, during the early history of Islam, the Agreement of Hudaibiyah between Muhammad and his rivals stipulated that any Muslim who converted out of Islam would be allowed to depart freely to join the non-Muslim community. Nevertheless, throughout much of Islamic history, Muslim governments have embraced an interpretation of Islamic law that imposes the death penalty for apostasy.
Wahid ignores, of course, evidence that both the Qur'an and Muhammad do address this issue. Qur'an 4:89 says: "They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): but take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (from what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks..." The verse is clear: those who "turn renegades" and "reject Faith" are to be killed by the believers.
Meanwhile, Muhammad's statement baddala deenahu, faqtuhulu -- if anyone changes his religion, kill him -- is amply attested in the Hadith, and is accepted as authentic by all except the most disingenuous Islamic scholars. It appears in various forms in Bukhari, Ibn Majah, An-Nasai, Tayalisi, Malik, Tirmidhi, Abu Dawud, and other authorities.
Nor does Muhammad make any exception when enunciating the principle in this way: "The blood of a Muslim who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Apostle, cannot be shed except in three cases: In Qisas for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam (apostate) and leaves the Muslims" (Bukhari, vol. 9, bk. 83, no. 17).
But Wahid gives his readers no hint that this material exists, and in fact leads them to believe that it doesn't, and that somehow "Muslim governments have embraced an interpretation of Islamic law that imposes the death penalty for apostasy" in defiance of the Qur'an and Muhammad.
It is vital that we differentiate between the Koran, from which much of the raw material for producing Islamic law is derived, and the law itself. While its revelatory inspiration is divine, Islamic law is man-made and thus subject to human interpretation and revision. For example, in the course of Islamic history, non-Muslims have been allowed to enter Mecca and Medina. Since the time of the caliphs, however, Islamic law has been interpreted to forbid non-Muslims from entering these holy cities. The prohibition against non-Muslims entering Mecca and Medina is thus politically motivated and has no basis in the Koran or Islamic law.
Here again, Wahid breezily ignores contrary evidence. The prohibition of non-Muslims entering Mecca is based on Qur'an 9:28: "O ye who believe! Truly the Pagans are unclean; so let them not, after this year of theirs, approach the Sacred Mosque." Only the Hanafi school of Sunni Muslim jurisprudence interpret this verse as referring only to the pre-Islamic Arabian pagans, and not to all unbelievers.
In the case of Rahman, two key principles of Islamic jurisprudence come into play. First, al-umuru bi maqashidiha ("Every problem [should be addressed] in accordance with its purpose"). If a legal ordinance truly protects citizens, then it is valid and may become law. From this perspective, Rahman did not violate any law, Islamic or otherwise. Indeed, he should be protected under Islamic law, rather than threatened with death or imprisonment. The second key principle is al-hukm-u yadullu ma'a illatihi wujudan wa adaman ("The law is formulated in accordance with circumstances"). Not only can Islamic law be changed -- it must be changed due to the ever-shifting circumstances of human life. Rather than take at face value assertions by extremists that their interpretation of Islamic law is eternal and unchanging, Muslims and Westerners must reject these false claims and join in the struggle to support a pluralistic and tolerant understanding of Islam.
Great. But al-hukm-u yadullu ma'a illatihi wujudan wa adaman is not absolute, and no Muslim would take it to be so. There could never be a circumstance, for example, that would allow a Muslim to set aside tauhid, or Islamic monotheism. The principle must in the case of apostasy law compete with the proposition that Muhammad must be obeyed -- "He who obeys the Messenger, obeys Allah" (Qur'an 4:80, and there are many, many other verses enjoining this obedience). And the Messenger who must be obeyed said that someone who leaves Islam should be killed.
I am glad that Wahid disagrees with the Muslim Prophet Muhammad on this. His case would be stronger if he stated this clearly, explaining why Muhammad's words must be set aside today. But by pretending that these words of Muhammad don't exist, he opens himself to suspicions that he is engaged more in deception than in actual reform. For nothing can be repaired that one does not admit is broken, and Islamic law cannot be reformed simply by pretending that it is other than what it is.
All of humanity, whether Muslim or non-Muslim, is threatened by the forces of Islamist extremism. It is these extremists, masquerading as traditional Muslims, who angrily call for the death of Abdul Rahman or the beheading of Danish cartoonists.
Great, Wahid. Prove that their traditionalism is indeed a masquerade, please. Show us the traditional Islam that rejects their position. Claiming that the Qur'an and Muhammad don't say what they say isn't enough.
Their objective is raw political power and the eventual radicalization of all 1.3 billion Muslims worldwide. Western involvement in this "struggle for the soul of Islam" is a matter of self-preservation for the West and is critical given the violent tactics and strength of radical elements in Muslim societies worldwide.
Indeed. I totally agree. That's why I am writing this. You must realize, Wahid, that any young "extremist" who reads your piece will know that what you say about Muhammad and the Qur'an isn't accurate. What will you say to him then?
Muslim theologians must revise their understanding of Islamic law, and recognize that punishment for apostasy is merely the legacy of historical circumstances and political calculations stretching back to the early days of Islam. Such punishments run counter to the clear Koranic injunction "Let there be no compulsion in religion" (2:256).
There are many Muslim interpretations of 2:256 that harmonize it with the death penalty for apostasy. Therefore, merely invoking 2:256 isn't enough. Those interpretations must be confronted and refuted.
People of goodwill of every faith and nation must unite to ensure the triumph of religious freedom and of the "right" understanding of Islam, to avert global catastrophe and spare millions of others the fate of Sudan's great religious and political leader, Mahmoud Muhammad Taha, who was executed on a false charge of apostasy. The millions of victims of "jihadist" violence in Sudan -- whose numbers continue to rise every day -- would have been spared if Taha's vision of Islam had triumphed instead of that of the extremists.
Yes. People of good will must unite. Yes. Good will. Please show your good will by addressing the inaccuracies I noted above.
The greatest challenge facing the contemporary Muslim world is to bring our limited, human understanding of Islamic law into harmony with its divine spirit -- in order to reflect God's mercy and compassion, and to bring the blessings of peace, justice and tolerance to a suffering world.
I wonder if that last sentence is a veiled statement of Islamic supremacism. After all, the mujahedin are fighting to impose Sharia on the world, a struggle which they envision as bringing peace, justice, and tolerance to the world. It is a pity that Wahid doesn't further clarify exactly where he stands.
So great is the thirst for Islamic moderation in the West that even FrontPage Magazine has posted this piece by Wahid. And so more non-Muslims will be comforted and reassured. But not a thing has been accomplished that would actually make mujahedin peaceful.
Posted by Robert at May 25, 2006 8:40 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
READ WALIDS TESTIMONY......:This prophecy in fact is documented in Mohammed's Book of Traditions which states the following:
"The day of judgment shall not come to pass until a tribe of Muslims defeat a tribe of Jews." (Narrated by Abu Hurairah, Sahih Muslim, Hadith #6985; Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 4, #177)
When Mohammed was asked of the place this would take place, he said:
"In Jerusalem and the surrounding nations."
During my youth, like my father, I was always tuned to Islam and what our Muslim teachers taught. Believing in Muhammad's prophecy, I offered my life to 'Jihad' or 'Holy War' as the only means to obtain either victory or martyrdom. In Islam martyrdom is the only way you can ensure salvation and enter into heaven -- especially since Allah and his prophet Mohammed promised it. As the Quran states it:
"Do not think of whom are killed for the cause of Allah (in a Holy War), to be dead but living with their Lord receiving his blessing". -- Sura: The Family of 'Imran ('Al-'Imran, verse 169)
http://answering-islam.org/Testimonies/walid.html
Posted by: storagemanager![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at May 25, 2006 10:00 AM
Bob;
The lies and distortions tell us where he stands. If not then the room wouldn't be filled with all of that smoke and have fewer mirrors.
Posted by: Ironman Hondo at May 25, 2006 10:19 AM
He can't do it. How can he? To take apart Qur'an and Hadith, to throw out this verse, then that verse, then a few dozen stories about Muhammad over here, would make him, in the eyes of Muslims, an apostate. And he knows, even if he will not tell his unwary Infidel readers at The Bandar Beacon, what happens to apostates.
They are tying themselves in knots, that handful who present themselves, so deceptively and sometimes self-deceptively, trying to avoid the real problem: the actual texts that cannot be changed for one cannot change the immutable word of God. And at this point, how could anyone dare to question what the most authoritative muhaddithin constructed a thousand or more years ago, as they winnowed and studied the isnad-chain, and slowly, carefully, established a hierarchy of "authenticity" for the Hadith.
It is a vain hope. And in most cases, those presenting it are perfectly aware that the effort is phony. But they are not directing themselves to Muslims, as Robert notes above. Their intended audience consists of Infidels. They want to make sure that the Western world remains open to Muslims -- literally open, so that they can continue to move here, to settle in, to rise high. It is an extraordinary thing, really. Here is a belief-system that originates in the need to offer something, not entirely strange, to those who have been conquered by Arabs. Those advanced and settled and wealthier peoples, Christians and Jews and then Zoroastrians, are presented by their conquerors with a belief-system concocted of pre-Islamic Arab lore (from the time of the "Jahiliyya"), as well as stories, and figures, appropriated and frequently distorted into unrecognizable "Muslim" versions of their original Jewish or Christian selves, and this belief-system (possibly based, as Christoph Luxenberg suggests, on a Christian lectionary written in Syriac, and originating in Edessa), strangely familiar or familiarly strange, to the Christians and Jews whose lands were conquered, both promoted and justified such conquest.
Now, however, it is 2006. Millions of Muslims still clinging to that aggressive and divisive belief-system, that inculcates hatred for all Infidels, that punishes apostasy by death, that divides the world between Believer and Infidel, Dar al-islam and Dar al-Harb, are now living deep within or rather behind what they themselves have been taught to regard as enemy lines. Were they all to abandon Islam, or to annoucne clearly that they are having none of it as a political-military-ideological doctrine, that would be one thing. But they do not. By all the observable evidence, and by so much of what ex-Muslims -- as useful to us as were defectors from the KGB and the rest of the Soviet system, in setting us straight about Soviet Communism -- offer as their own testimony, as from Mohammad Rasoel (way back in 1989, with his astonishing warning to the Dutch about their insouciant attitude toward the Muslim invasion of their country, a work subsequently suppressed in Holland), and Anwar Shaikh (who from Wales has written about Islam as the Arab national religion), and ibn Warraq ("Why I Am Not a Muslim," "Leaving Islam"), and Ali Sina (tireless at www.faithfreedom.org).
Would that, instead of or following upon Walid, The Bandar Beacon would seek out pieces by these ex-Muslims, as to the real nature and teachings of Islam, so that the continued denials of reality, the miscomprehension, the dreamy refusal of so many, beginning with Capt. Queeg with his naive "war on terrorism" and his Iraq the Light Unto the Muslim Nations Project, all the way to local editors at local papers who haven't a clue, and what's more don't want to be given one, for it would upset them too much, about the reality of that belief-system (or as Bush likes to call it, a "religion" and therefore automatically worthy, in his limited world-view, of "respect").
Posted by: Hugh at May 25, 2006 10:42 AM
The problem with "moderate Islam" is that non-Muslims view them with a view of "too-little-too late" viewpoint and those Muslims, those "mujahedin" Muslims whom Mr. Wahid tried to address would view the "moderate" Muslims as being not true Muslims. Such as the difficult world of the moderate Muslim.
Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at May 25, 2006 11:02 AM
robert, you give two perceptions (which i will slightly misquote, probably), and i wonder if you are not refusing to state the implication.
first, you welcome real reformers.
second, you ask that those reformers address the islamic statements --- the holy writ --- that are used to justify the destructiveness of this political system; and you ask that in addressing those statements, the reformers justify how a truer islam would redefine or ignore those statements.
you agree that such reformers would be derided as apostates, but is it not possible that your call cannot be fulfilled? the simple truth seems to be that a reformer who fulfills your requirement would be an apostate. isn't that true?
i don't think you can say (if you saying this) that you are qualified to ask the questions but are not qualified to make a judgment about my last question, given the islamic understanding that the koran is God's dictated truth. if an important requirement is that muhammed to be revered as the model of human behavior -- muhammed, who sought "social justice" and committed murder and thievery when "social justice" wasn't even involved -- what kind of islam could say that its founder was contemptible?
is your position a kind of public lie, similar to what military leaders say of their enemies: "yes, we seek peace and are open to working with you." it seems as if you position yourself as the good guy, while hugh uses the platform of jihadwatch to say a less palatable truth.
here is my interpretation of hugh's point of view: one part of the remedy is to steep people in the truth about islam, so they understand the extremity of what is required. the extreme part of the remedy is to stop the immigration of muslims to the west; to isolate whole populations; and to offer protection to those who convert from islam.
perhaps what seems to be true ... is true:
o the only good in islam is its simplicity of worship and its calls for charity and non-corruption
o whatever good that comes from this belief system is necessarily overridden by the poverty, discord, and violence that islam brings
o islam is best understood as a political system akin to communism or fascism
o islam respects other cultures only as is politically expedient
o reform is not possible
please advise.
Posted by: StillBreathing at May 25, 2006 11:56 AM
StillBreathing,
One major tactic Robert seems to be employing is that of relentlessly posing a rhetorical question: the question is posed to reformist Muslims, but not expecting a workable answer. The question time and again bereft of a reasonable & assuaging answer highlights the intellectual poverty (at best) or deceptive obfuscation (at worst) of those reformists.
The question is published, repeatedly, for the benefit of non-Muslims, to educate them about the intrinsic inability of Islam to be reformed and to disabuse them of the naive notion that it can -- or worse, that it already is in the main "moderate".
Posted by: Television at May 25, 2006 1:45 PM
All this talk of Wahid's is in vain.
Ultimately it boils down to this: There is no moderate Kuran. Just the Kuran. All Muslims are tethered to the Kuran what this book commands. Period.
However, the ideology advocated by the Kuran is ABSOLUTELY and ALMOST WHOLLY VIOLENT. And explicitly spelled out.
As the Kuran is held by Muslims to be the supreme pipeline to humanity from al-lah it may not be tampered with. Wahid, with his many sins of omission, is left out to dry by his own 'faith'.
And what the world is stuck with is the violent ideology of Islam running loose with apologists telling us stuff like this that makes no sense and helps no one.
Either Wahid is kidding us or he's kidding himself--or both.
Here's yet another figure who is wearing blinders and evidently thinks they're sunshades.
Posted by: pythagoras at May 25, 2006 1:47 PM
"Islam must either change as did Christianity and Judaism in the renaissance or be destroyed." Quoted above...
Christianity as the word did not change, only the ways of the church's sects, mans ways. The basic text is still as it was written.
To compare this to islam, is at best a war that you will loose in that the texts of Islam are closely followed by muslums, I.E. you want them to change, and follow a non text version of islam.
That is a 100% polar change to what was done with men who followed Christ.
Moderates of Islam are more like spys, giving the enemy bad information to lead astray. This makes Islam sink further into the host, in so far that it can destroy it.
This moderation of Islam only serves to weaken the host, like a HIV infection.
Posted by: Islofob IS-1 at May 25, 2006 1:54 PM
Real Christianity is the BIBLE....like real islam is the koran.....It is not the BIBLE's fault if the church teachs something differant than the book it was based on!
Posted by: storagemanager at May 25, 2006 2:47 PM
This exercise by Wahid is like pasting little deco daisies on the covers of the al-Qur'an.
It doesn't change the contents.
As putting a smiley face on the front of "Mein Kampf" wouldn't turn it into a tract for tolerance and good fellowship.
It's the Koran, stupid!
Sura 9:29-30, et al.
Posted by: profitsbeard at May 25, 2006 6:41 PM
Why is it so hard to understand why the BIBLE could never embrace the koran....its written on the last page of the BIBLE.........For i testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, GOD shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this BOOK.Revelation 22:18...........I MIGHT BE WRONG...BUT DOESNT THE KORAN ADD TO GODS WORDS?
Posted by: storagemanager at May 25, 2006 7:22 PM
Wahid gives me the creeps. He is the prototype of the deceiving taqqiya masters. He came to power because the 'ummah' wanted more Islam and that's what he gave them. When he was accused of embezzlement, he threatened to let the dogs out, in other words: Let his fanatical followers wreck havoc. Indonesia feared him, just as we fear the grinning Bali-bombers and that haggard old swine that instigated it and only got a few years in jail for it.
He is essentially no better or worse than Malaysia's Mahatir Mohammed, who may differ when it comes to violent jihad 'now'
-which is what OBL and all those impatient ones are doing-
but altogether they clearly make no beef about 'the cause', which is world-domination.
Their differences are only strategic.
Posted by: sheik yer'mami at May 25, 2006 10:18 PM
"The Koran and the sayings of the prophet Muhammad do not definitively address this issue." --from Kyai Haji Abdurrahman Wahid, commenting on the apostasy issue.
Not definitive? I find that the Koran is not all that definitive about most topics. I find it to be frequently vague and inconsistent. Of course, one clear and consistent principle is that disbelievers (non-Muslims) who refuse to convert (or revert) to Islam are to be hated, fought, destroyed; and that Allah himself destroys them, etc. Last time I checked, apostates fit into the category of disbelievers.
BTW, isn't it odd that Wahid is attempting to defend Islam by saying that the Koran is "not definitive" on this critical issue? Wahid would have us believe that there is no inconsistency between 2:256 (no compulsion in religion) and 9:5, 9:29, 9:33, etc. (much compulsion!).
at May 26, 2006 1:52 AM
"Reform isn't accomplished by deception or self-deception. Reform is accomplished by acknowledging the problem and coming up with ways to deal with it."
The kid's story Rumplestilskin's moral: We must know the demon's name and then addreess the demon by name to have power over it. This is obvious but usually ignored wisdom.
Posted by: Frank at May 26, 2006 6:23 AM
geez and to think I thought the southern baptist were hard on people
Posted by: AMartinez at May 27, 2006 1:08 AM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: Comments on articles are unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Jihad Watch or Robert Spencer. Comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying may be summarily deleted. However, the fact that particular comments remain on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Robert Spencer of the views expressed therein.)