| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
The Hamilton Spectator has published an excerpt from The al-Qaeda Reader, translated by Raymond Ibrahim and with an introduction by Victor Davis Hanson. The book will be published in early 2007 by Doubleday. The paper, meanwhile, assures us: "Radical Muslims claim to be acting out the words of God, Moderate Muslims have competing interpretations." Unfortunately, like so many hundreds of other articles that casually invoke the presence of a significant non-jihadist vision of Islam that is competing with jihadism within the Islamic world, they give no example of those "competing interpretations," or any indication of how successfully they are competing. Thus the moderates' competing interpretation of Islam remains the great unicorn, the wonderful kingdom of Prester John, the thing that everyone knows is there but no one can quite find.
Raymond Ibrahim is a bit more realistic in his introductory remarks in the Spectator:
While the West battles al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, the Taliban and other radical organizations and individuals, its more challenging task will be to marginalize the underlying ideology of radical Islam.
Right. And this is not being done today, not least because so many analysts dogmatically assume that it has already been done, and thus no more work remains to be done in this area.
Long dormant, but always alive, this ideology, based on literalist readings of Islam's texts, is history's latest and perhaps greatest incarnation of anti-Westernism.
Ibrahim doesn't point out, however, that "literalist readings of Islam's texts" have always been mainstream in the Islamic world, and consistently triumphed in Islam's early centuries over competing understandings.
Radicals claim to be acting out the words of God. Moderate Muslims may have their competing interpretations of their Islamic texts, but whether their version will win out over that of the radicals is an unanswered question.
It would be nice if someone could point to even one place in the world where moderates are successfully competing with jihadists on Islamic grounds.
Then the Hamilton Spectator quotes from Ibrahim's translation of "The World Islamic Front's Declaration to Wage Jihad against the Jews and Crusaders," which first appeared in al-Quds al-'Arabi on February 23, 1998. Note the strong religious appeal. A few excerpts:
Praise be to Allah, who revealed the Book (Koran), controls the clouds, defeats factionalism and says in His Book: "Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever you find them -- seize them, besiege them and be ready to ambush them" (9:5). And prayers and peace be upon our Prophet, Muhammad bin 'Abdullah, who said: "I have been sent with the sword between my hands to ensure that no one but Allah is worshipped -- Allah who put my livelihood under the shadow of my spear and who inflicts humiliation and scorn on those who disobey my commandments."Never since Allah made the Arabian Peninsula flat, created its desert and encircled it with seas has it been stormed by any force like the Crusader hordes which have spread in it like locusts, consuming its wealth and polluting its fertility. All this is happening at a time in which nations are attacking Muslims in unison -- as if fighting over a plate of food! In face of this critical situation and lack of support, we are all obliged to discuss current events, as well as reach an agreement on how (best) to settle the matter.
[...]
All these crimes and sins committed by the Americans are a clear declaration of war on Allah, His Messenger and the Muslims.
Ulema throughout Islamic history are unanimously agreed that the Jihad is an individual duty whenever the enemy tears into the lands of the Muslims. This was related by Imam bin Qudama in al-Mughni; Imam al-Kisa'i in al-Bada'i; al-Qurtubi in his commentary; and the Sheik of Islam (Ibn Taymiyya) in his chronicles, where he states: "As for defensive warfare, this is the greatest way to defend sanctity and religion. This is an obligation consensually agreed to (by the Ulema). After faith, there is nothing more sacred than repulsing the enemy who attacks religion and life."
On that basis, and in compliance with Allah's order, we hereby issue the following decree to all Muslims:
The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual obligation incumbent upon every Muslim who can do it and in any country -- this until the Aqsa Mosque (Jerusalem) and the Holy Mosque (Mecca) are liberated from their grip, and until their armies withdraw from all the lands of Islam, defeated, shattered and unable to threaten any Muslim. This is in accordance with the Word of the Most High -- "(F)ight the pagans all together as they fight you all together" (9:36) and the Word of the Most High, "Fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and (all) religion belongs to Allah" (8:39).
And the Most High said: "And why should you not fight in the cause of Allah and on behalf of those oppressed men, women and children who cry out, Lord! Rescue us from this town and its oppressors. Give us from Your Presence some protecting friend! Give us from Your Presence some defender!" (4:75).
By Allah's leave we call upon every Muslim who believes in Allah and wishes to be rewarded to comply with Allah's order to kill the Americans and seize their money wherever and whenever they find them.
We also call on Muslim Ulema, leaders, youths and soldiers to launch the raid on the Devil's army -- the Americans -- and whoever allies with them from the supporters of Satan, to rout those behind them so that they may learn (a lesson).
Allah Most High said: "O you who have believed! Respond to Allah and the Messenger whenever He calls you to that which gives you life. And know that Allah comes between a man and his heart, and that it is He to whom you shall (all) be gathered" (8:24).
Allah Most High said: "O you who have believed! What is the matter with you? When you are asked to go forth in the cause of Allah, you cling so heavily to the earth! Do you prefer the life of this world to the Hereafter? But little is the comfort of this life, in comparison to the Hereafter. Unless you go forth (and fight), He will punish you with a grievous torment, and put others in your place. But He you cannot harm in the least; for Allah has power over all things" (9: 38-39).
Allah Most High said: "So do not lose heart, nor fall into despair. Have faith and you shall triumph" (3:139).
Posted by Robert at August 19, 2006 8:03 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
Satan, as allah is showing his ugly face again.
Posted by: bigcatgirl13106![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at August 19, 2006 8:59 AM
""Radical Muslims claim to be acting out the words of God, Moderate Muslims have competing interpretations."
-- from the article above
What is that "competing interpretation"? If that "competing interpretation" is only about the hudud, or criminal penalties, or only about the level of mistreatment of women, how does that effect the view, so central and essential to Islam, its reason for coming into being in the first place (to justify and promote conquest), of the Infidel? For that is what we, the Infidels, must worry about. It is all very well for that pseudo-reformer Shirin Ebadi to defend the rights of women in the Islamic Republic of Iran, but it is not all right for that same Shirin Ebadi (see the article on her by Amber Pawliik at the website of the Homa Darabi Foundation) to continue to defend Islam by claiming that the mistreatment of women is merely a "cultural" phenonmenoin and has nothing whatever to do with Islam. That is false, and that is a falsehood that helps to put off Infidel understanding of Islam.
What is that "competing interpretation"? What exactly are the texts that are interpreted differently? Precisely what passages in the Qur'an, of the kind compiled in the Calcutta Qur'an Petition, the more than 120 Jihad verses, are either thrown out or have been, for so long, and so widely, interpreted differently? Could the author of this book, or anyone else, tell us exactly how they expect "moderate Muslims" to interpret away the entire division of the world between Believers and Infidels, with which all of the Qur'an (unless you are reading the expurgated, politically-based bowdlerization, the nursery version -- "Approaching the Qur'an" -- produced by Michael Sells, the one assigned in so many college classes on Islam or on that hottest topic "Islam and the West" (instead of, much more accurately and tellingly, the true topic: "Islam and the Rest").
And how have those perfectly straightforward crystal-clear acts and words of Muhammad, recorded in the Hadith, the Hadith that a thousand years ago had been carefully winnowed, and then after study of isnad-chains, assigned to one of four levels of authenticity by the reliable, the authoritative muhaddithin, with the names Bukhari and Muslim leading, like Abou Ben Adhem, all the rest.
And what about Muhammad? What "interpretation" is, will be, could ever be available to render this Perfect Man, uswa hasana, al-insan al-kamil, whose every act is beyond reproach, somehow no longer beyond reproach? How could this conceivably take place? And what is to be done with Muhammad and the murder of Asma bint Marwan and Abu Akaf, the marriage to little Aisha, taken from her swings and her dollies and her other toys, the unprovoked attack on the inoffensive Jewish farmers of the Khaybar Oasis, the mass decapitation of the Banu Qurayza (while Muhammad looked approvingly on), the constant exhortations to kill the unbeliever who refuses to submit, the treachery, now a model for all Muslim treaty-making with Infidels (see Majid Khadduri), the Al-Hudaibiyya agreement made by Muhammad with the Meccans in 628 A.D., supposed to last for ten years, and by him broken, as soon as he felt strong anough to breaak it, 18 months later. How will this all be subject to different interpretation?
This kind of lazy allusion to supposed differences that do not and cannot exist in Islam, whatever other differences (as between Sunni and Shi'a, or Sufi and non-Sufi) may exist, but that confuse the idea of a different "interpretation" with, simply, inaction or failure to participate in Jihad which may reflect any number of things: laziness, fear of Infidels who are as yet too powerful especially if one is living in their countries, laxity of observance, fear of what Infidels can do in return, even an unstated falling away from Islam altogether. But some of those not participating in Jihad actively support it financially, or defend it,or attempt to explain it away.
There is not a differing "interpretation" of Islam, and the author of the book, or of any such book, in order to make such a statement, would have to present us, the readers, with a clear demonstration of those passazges in Qur'an and Hadith and Sira that are given a literal interpretation by some Muslims, and then a differnt kind of interpretation, that manages to remove their sting, by other Muslims. This they cannot do.
But they can pretend they have done it, or still worse, take the other tack: pretend they are not required to do it, because the fact that not every Muslim is running around with a bomb or a gun surely must, they would have us believe, that they have "interpreted" Islam differently. This shows, among other things, the failure to realize that the instruments of Jihad are many, and that in any case, it was not until the arrival of the OPEC trillions, and all that they could buy in the way of arms, and in the economic power (boycotts, bribery) that money conferred, and in the ability to conduct Da'wa (mosques, madrasas, propaganda) and support the millions of Muslims so foolishly, so negligently, so dangerously, permitted to settle deep behind what they, those Muslim immigrants, are taught to regard as enemy lines, in lands settled by, and for now still controlled by, the Infidels, and where Infidel nation-states, with their silly and unbearable legal and political and social institutions, their art and their music and their free and skeptical inquiry, for now -- but only for now -- still dominate.
In Christianity we have the Sermon on the Mount and the Golden Rule.
In Islam we have "war is deception" and "smite the Unbeliever, wherever you find him."
Can you detect the difference?
Posted by: Hugh at August 19, 2006 9:29 AM
The plain truth is that so-called moderate Islam is to radical Islam as moderate Nazism is to radical Nazism in Nazi Germany. Islam will reform when Muslims see mushroom clouds over the Mideast, reform after a nuclear response to a disastrous Muslim attack on Infidel people in Dar-al-Harb.
"Moderate Islam" will find a very loud voice after a nuclear catastrophe descends on the Muslim Mideast. There are many prophetic voices warning that this catastrophe is coming to the Muslim Mideast, but the sad reality is that too many Muslims have "eyes to see, but they do not see, and ears to hear, but they do not listen". Islam will not reform by choice-it will reform by necessity.
Posted by: Frank at August 19, 2006 9:42 AM
The plain truth is that so-called moderate Islam is to radical Islam as moderate Nazism is to radical Nazism in Nazi Germany. Islam will reform when Muslims see mushroom clouds over the Mideast, reform after a nuclear response to a disastrous Muslim attack on Infidel people in Dar-al-Harb.
"Moderate Islam" will find a very loud voice after a nuclear catastrophe descends on the Muslim Mideast. There are many prophetic voices warning that this catastrophe is coming to the Muslim Mideast, but the sad reality is that too many Muslims have "eyes to see, but they do not see, and ears to hear, but they do not listen". Islam will not reform by choice-it will reform by necessity.
Posted by: Frank at August 19, 2006 9:43 AM
Bravo Hugh.
Memo to moderate and devout American Muslims: Here are some ACTION-ORIENTED, non-lip service suggestions for pursuing a true anti-jihad and anti-jihad ideology policy:
Refute, in public and through all forms of media, the passages in the Quran, Sunnah, and Hadith that relate to, address, or encourage violence against non-Muslims. Voice them. Publicize them. Print them on your websites.
Use your influence and media platforms to condemn and refute Sharia law and any aspirations to implement it here in the United States.
Start a “Rewards for Jihadists” campaign to help encourage capture of jihadists here in America and across the world. CAIR could establish a television and web version of “Islam’s Most Wanted” based on “America’s Most Wanted” to help and inform the public about jihadists and their theology. Call on wealthy Muslims to fund this effort instead of funneling money to Hezbollah and Hamas. Make them accountable.
Educate non-Muslims and Muslims alike on the true nature of the warrior Muhammad. Teach people of his military and sexual conquests and how they formed a model of Islam for the next 1,400 years.
Stop seeking new adherents and followers in American prisons and amongst American gangs. I can assure you these will never be your “peaceful” Muslims.
If you cannot pledge to take action against jihad, its ideology, and those who practice it, then I suggest a plan to close up shop and leave America. As Americans of Judeo-Christian tradition we simply will not tolerate future attacks against our countrymen. We will not tolerate the spread of militant Islam in our borders. We will not tolerate forked-tongued imams calling for the destruction of Israel and America while hiding under the civil rights provided by our Constitution.
We do not believe Islam is a religion of peace. Listening to imams, sheiks, mullahs, and other hotheads proclaim this is about as painful as listening to Hollywood starlets dole out voting advice. We will never believe Islam is anything but a death cult UNTIL your adherents make constructive changes to those tenets of the religion that espouse violence, hatred, intolerance, and armed jihad. And we will never be subject to the humiliating dhimmitude to which so many non-Muslims are subjected worldwide.
at August 19, 2006 9:51 AM
Just sent this email to the editor at letters@thespec.com:
In the August 19, 2006, edition, in the article "Jihad against the Jews and Crusaders," Raymond Ibrahim writes: "Moderate Muslims may have their competing interpretations of their Islamic texts." Yet Ibrahim does not explain where such competing interpretations can be found.
Indeed, many moderate Muslims may be ignorant of Islam or individually decide to ignore many of its teachings. However, if moderation is defined in this context by tempering the aggressive tenets of Mohammad's teachings toward non-Muslims, there simply are no mainstream moderate interpretations of Islam to be found.
Perhaps the most famous Islamic scholar to advance such an interpretation was Mahmoud Muhammad Taha of Sudan. In the 40s and 50s he argued for a less literal intepretation of the Quran, and, for example, opposed any attempt to ratify Islamic laws in Sudan. Taha was ultimately tried and publicly executed in the Sudan in 1985 after refusing to repent for his deemed apostasy. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Muhammad_Taha for more.
Today there is no mainstream Muslim group anywhere that endorses Taha's perspective on Islam or any other more moderate interpretation of Islam.
Clearly this letter won't get published, but I think it's important for newspaper editors to face the reality about Islam. Remember again that this is not a statement about race, nor is it even a statement about the many wonderful Muslims who are Muslim based on circumstances beyond their control (e.g., birth to Muslim parents) and simply personally ignore or reject much of Islam. The point is that Islam itself is not moderate and that there are simply no mainstream, moderate, identifiable interpretations of Islam.
Posted by: kamala at August 19, 2006 10:00 AM
As my letter to the editor indicates, I believe the only "competing interpretations to Islam" today exist within some individual Muslims' minds--those who personally reject Islam and are indeed apostates but for various reasons can't or won't say so publicly.
Posted by: kamala at August 19, 2006 10:09 AM
bcore1973-
Too many Muslims are blind and deaf to your appeals. They do not sense the catastrophe that will descend on the Muslim Mideast because of what it is in Islam that makes Muslims so prone to dehumanize Infidels, or feel the chill in the air as non-Muslims contemplate your sensible suggestions. They are blind to the Golden rule that is the core of the other religions on earth.
As noted above, in a good example:
"In Christianity we have the Sermon on the Mount and the Golden Rule.
In Islam we have "war is deception" and "smite the Unbeliever, wherever you find him."
Posted by: Frank at August 19, 2006 10:23 AM
kamala-
Brilliant comment. Sadly, you are right that the letter will probably not be published.
Posted by: Frank at August 19, 2006 10:36 AM
"Moderate Islam" will find a very loud voice after a nuclear catastrophe descends on the Muslim Mideast. There are many prophetic voices warning that this catastrophe is coming to the Muslim Mideast, but the sad reality is that too many Muslims have "eyes to see, but they do not see, and ears to hear, but they do not listen". Islam will not reform by choice-it will reform by necessity. "
Frank, it will not reform at all. Simply because there is going to be no nuclear catastrophe on the muslim Mideast. It will be on infidel soil. And even then it will take our leaders a lot of time to spell the enemy. Like you once said, I do not wish this to happen, I do not want this to happen, but this will happen.
at August 19, 2006 12:26 PM
Frank, I hear ya and I know they have no intention of ever doing anything other than payig lip service through the likes of CAIR and MPAC. What I am trying to do is place the onus back on them since the media and special interest groups here in the US and elsewhere are constantly putting it on non-Muslims to disprove themselves as Islamophobes, warmongers, etc. If Muslims indeed are as peaceful and magnanimous as they claim, then let's see and feel it. If not, then the day will come when we can say: "We told you so. We gave you every opportunity and every idea to fix this disastrous belief system. Now get out. And don't let the burka catch in the door on the way out."
Posted by: bcore1973 at August 19, 2006 2:29 PM
""Moderate Islam" will find a very loud voice after a nuclear catastrophe descends on the Muslim Mideast."
##I think, if they want their moderate voices heard at all they should start speaking up NOW. When you first heard about these "moderate moslems" did the writings start with "once upon a time...?"####
"nor is it even a statement about the many wonderful Muslims who are Muslim based on circumstances beyond their control (e.g., birth to Muslim parents) and simply personally ignore or reject much of Islam."
##The only problem for these kinds of moslems is that if they are found to not believe wholly in Islam they'll be branded apostates and, quite probably, hunted down and killed.###
""We told you so. We gave you every opportunity and every idea to fix this disastrous belief system. Now get out. And don't let the burka catch in the door on the way out.""
##But we HAVE given them every opportunity to straighten up and act human, they seem to just throw it back in our faces and laugh. We all know what the moslems respect most on earth and that is force, but our governments have to try their foolish PC half measures for war. There can be no winning of hearts and minds when the hearts are made of stone and the minds haven't had an original thought since the 7th century. ##
Posted by: Anti-Jihad-Crusader at August 19, 2006 3:22 PM
AJC, you're right - I should have articulated better the politician's perspective I was postulating. Readers of JW, like us, and a minority of others in our society understand the Islamistas. But our leaders and policymakers aren't there yet, at least not in public. The day will come, and I wish it had 30 years ago, when the people, backed by the government, will finally expel Muslims by force. Being the liberal democracy we are, the politicians will want to take this, "Hey guys, I told you so" position as this occurs (probably after LA or NY gets cooked). In a reactionary culture like ours that is unfortunately what it takes to effect real solutions. Of course, our people may totally lose their will by then and just roll over under the Sharia bus. That wouldn't be too shocking either. We did elect Jimmy Carter.
Posted by: bcore1973 at August 19, 2006 5:55 PM
If they kill all of us they win.
If we kill all of them they still win (at least in their minds).
I like the second scenario better.
at August 19, 2006 6:19 PM
"Ulema throughout Islamic history are unanimously agreed that the Jihad is an individual duty whenever the enemy tears into the lands of the Muslims."
Hamas Constitution, Article 11:
[...] This is the law governing the land of Palestine in the Islamic Sharia (law) and the same goes for any land the Moslems have conquered by force because during the times of conquests, the Moslems consecrated these lands to Moslem generations till the Day of Judgement.[...]
at August 19, 2006 6:59 PM
"And the Most High said: "And why should you not fight in the cause of Allah and on behalf of those oppressed men, women and children who cry out, Lord! Rescue us from this town and its oppressors. Give us from Your Presence some protecting friend! Give us from Your Presence some defender!" (4:75)."
In Islam, "oppression" does not just mean physical coercion but also means, more specifically, any impedence to full unrestricted practice of sharia law. Anyone who criticizes or mocks Islam, refuses to follow an aspect of Islam, or leaves Islam, is "oppressing Muslims" and therefore must be fought and killed or subdued.
Posted by: Archimedes at August 19, 2006 9:00 PM
One of the most significant hurdles the West faces, in this war on Islam, is the belief by members of the press, politicians, educators, military and police leadership, and the general public that Islam has been hijacked.
I think this stems, in great measure, from the unchallenged belief that the Islam of Muhammad Ali, Kareem Abdul Jabar, Yusuf Islam, and Grandma Fatima in Dearborn is the correct version of Islam, and that Muslims, and 'reverts' get to select the 'version' of Islam they'd like to follow from a menu of those versions, and that ex-boxers, basketball players, muscians, and kindly old grandmothers just simply wouldn't ever select the perverted 'version' that extremists like UBL and Ayman al Zawahiri have 'chosen'.
Here are just a few of the 'journalists' and talking heads who've recently stated that Islam has been perverted or hijacked, or that Islam is a 'religion of peace'. Please feel free to add your own favorite morons to this list, and do please note that my entries all Fox News regulars.
Greta Van Sustern
Sean Hannity
John Kasich
Moderate Muslims come in only two flavors, and kamala laid it out quite precisely:
"Indeed, many moderate Muslims may be ignorant of Islam or individually decide to ignore many of its teachings. However, if moderation is defined in this context by tempering the aggressive tenets of Mohammad's teachings toward non-Muslims, there simply are no mainstream moderate interpretations of Islam to be found."
They either don't know what Islam actually teaches, or they are ignoring those teachings; and those personal failings do not make the Islamic interpretations of Muslim fundamentalists and jihadists wrong.
Posted by: PRCS at August 20, 2006 2:37 AM
I know the verse about a fearsome eagle cleansing the land of Arabia is just an urban legend, but maybe it's time to make it a reality. Along with the eagle could be the mascots of other countries ie, the British Bulldog, the Indian Tiger, other countries add your own.
Posted by: Balrog at August 21, 2006 10:25 AM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(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.)