| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
In "Jihad Means Much More Than Violence" in the Emory Wheel, Emory University senior Will Caldwell, a Muslim, objects to the David Horowitz Freedom Center's Terrorism Awareness Program for the ad it placed in the Wheel, "What Americans Need to Know About Jihad." (Other campus newspapers are simply refusing to run it.)
After reading the advertisement in last Friday's Wheel, "What Americans Need to Know About Jihad," I was outraged. Then I laughed.David Horowitz, the man who paid for half a page of space to "educate" Americans on the threat of jihad, is clearly as much of an extremist as the terrorists he feels compelled to fight. It's easy enough to take hatred like Horowitz's in stride. What continues to upset me is that the Wheel allowed the ad to run.
Ad hominem attack and call for censorship. Good start, Will.
Emory is the last place in America that I would expect such propaganda to have any real effect. Most in our community are educated enough to understand that statements like "The goal of jihad is world domination" are completely ignorant and intentionally provocative. However, this does not mean the Wheel should offer its complicity in spreading ignorance.
Unfortunately, jihad as warfare against unbelievers in order to institute Sharia worldwide is not propaganda or ignorance, or a heretical doctrine held by a tiny minority of extremists; instead, it is a constant element of mainstream Islamic theology. Islamic law contains unmistakable affirmations of the centrality of jihad warfare against unbelievers. This is true of all four principal schools of Sunni Muslim jurisprudence (madhahib): the Maliki, Hanafi, Hanbali, and Shafi’i, to which the great majority of Muslims worldwide belong, as well as of all the other schools.
These schools formulated laws regarding the importance of jihad and the ways in which it must be practiced, centuries ago. Ibn Abi Zayd al-Qayrawani (d. 996), a Maliki jurist, declared:
Jihad is a precept of Divine institution. Its performance by certain individuals may dispense others from it. We Malikis maintain that it is preferable not to begin hostilities with the enemy before having invited the latter to embrace the religion of Allah except where the enemy attacks first. They have the alternative of either converting to Islam or paying the poll tax (jizya), short of which war will be declared against them.
Likewise, Ibn Taymiyya (d. 1328), a Hanbali jurist who is a favorite of Osama bin Laden and other modern-day jihadists:
Since lawful warfare is essentially jihad and since its aim is that the religion is God’s entirely and God’s word is uppermost, therefore according to all Muslims, those who stand in the way of this aim must be fought. As for those who cannot offer resistance or cannot fight, such as women, children, monks, old people, the blind, handicapped and their likes, they shall not be killed unless they actually fight with words (e.g. by propaganda) and acts (e.g. by spying or otherwise assisting in the warfare).
The Hanafi school sounds the same notes:
It is not lawful to make war upon any people who have never before been called to the faith, without previously requiring them to embrace it, because the Prophet so instructed his commanders, directing them to call the infidels to the faith, and also because the people will hence perceive that they are attacked for the sake of religion, and not for the sake of taking their property, or making slaves of their children, and on this consideration it is possible that they may be induced to agree to the call, in order to save themselves from the troubles of war… If the infidels, upon receiving the call, neither consent to it nor agree to pay capitation tax, it is then incumbent on the Muslims to call upon God for assistance, and to make war upon them, because God is the assistant of those who serve Him, and the destroyer of His enemies, the infidels, and it is necessary to implore His aid upon every occasion; the Prophet, moreover, commands us so to do.
And so does the Shafi’i scholar Abu’l Hasan al-Mawardi (d. 1058 ), who echoes Muhammad’s instructions to invite the unbelievers to accept Islam or fight them if they refuse:
The mushrikun [infidels] of Dar al-Harb (the arena of battle) are of two types: First, those whom the call of Islam has reached, but they have refused it and have taken up arms. The amir of the army has the option of fighting them…in accordance with what he judges to be in the best interest of the Muslims and most harmful to the mushrikun… Second, those whom the invitation to Islam has not reached, although such persons are few nowadays since Allah has made manifest the call of his Messenger…it is forbidden to…begin an attack before explaining the invitation to Islam to them, informing them of the miracles of the Prophet and making plain the proofs so as to encourage acceptance on their part; if they still refuse to accept after this, war is waged against them and they are treated as those whom the call has reached…
Underscoring the fact that none of this is merely of historical interest is another Shafi’i manual of Islamic law that in 1991 was certified by the highest authority in Sunni Islam, Cairo’s Al-Azhar University, as conforming “to the practice and faith of the orthodox Sunni community.” This manual, ‘Umdat al-Salik (available in English as Reliance of the Traveller), after defining the “greater jihad” as “spiritual warfare against the lower self,” devotes eleven pages to the “lesser jihad.” It defines this jihad as “war against non-Muslims,” noting that the word itself “is etymologically derived from the word mujahada, signifying warfare to establish the religion.”
It spells out the nature of this warfare in quite specific terms: “the caliph makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians . . . until they become Muslim or pay the non-Muslim poll tax.” It adds a comment by a Jordanian jurist that corresponds to Muhammad’s instructions to call the unbelievers to Islam before fighting them: the caliph wages this war only “provided that he has first invited [Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians] to enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they will not, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam by paying the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya) . . . while remaining in their ancestral religions.” Also, if there is no caliph, Muslims must still wage jihad.
Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406), a pioneering historian and philosopher, was also a Maliki legal theorist. In his renowned Muqaddimah, the first work of historical theory, he notes that “in the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force.” In Islam, the person in charge of religious affairs is concerned with “power politics,” because Islam is “under obligation to gain power over other nations.”
Extremists? Propaganda? No, this is the Islamic mainstream.
Will Caldwell continues:
As journalists, it is your job to provide the community with reliable and useful information. Using time and resources to help spread hateful rhetoric while it could be spent providing real knowledge - or just a fast food ad - is simply a poor choice.
I just provided some reliable and useful information about jihad. I'd be happy to discuss or debate it, and what can be done about it, with Will Caldwell or anyone else.
As a Muslim, I feel it is my duty to correct Horowitz's claims about jihad - if for no other reason than to provide the Wheel the opportunity to correct its mistake.Jihad, the struggle to preserve Islam in a Muslim's day-to-day affairs, as well as from those who would oppress it, is something binding upon all Muslims. Using the words of a few extremists like Bin Laden and Nasrallah to pass off terrorism as jihad is nothing short of libel.
Note that the people I quoted above were venerable Islamic jurists, not modern-day "extremists." Yet they support the meaning of jihad presented in the ad.
By helping Horowitz spread such misinformation, the Wheel has allowed itself to become an accessory. I urge you to be more conscientious when choosing ads in the future.
In other words, censor ads that report uncomfortable facts.
Posted by Robert at February 16, 2007 4:15 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
Jihad = http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
Posted by: Carolyn2![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at February 16, 2007 4:57 PM
Jihad in America....a Beslan style attack planned?
http://www.killology.com/art_mass_slaughter.htm
at February 16, 2007 5:13 PM
Emory is where Jimmee Carter got his hatchlings to do all the writing for his books and serve in his Carter Center. The Jews have abandoned him for the most part from Emory.
Rhetorical question, but is this affirmative action where Carter gets Jews to make him look informed in using them and Emory has a kook like Will Caldwell on staff.
Where are the kids getting their mind washed from all this brain washing.
Posted by: Lame Cherry at February 16, 2007 5:28 PM
"Unfortunately, jihad as warfare against unbelievers in order to institute Sharia worldwide is not propaganda or ignorance, or a heretical doctrine held by a tiny minority of extremists; instead, it is a constant element of mainstream Islamic theology. Islamic law contains unmistakable affirmations of the centrality of jihad warfare against unbelievers. This is true of all four principal schools of Sunni Muslim jurisprudence (madhahib): the Maliki, Hanafi, Hanbali, and Shafi’i, to which the great majority of Muslims worldwide belong, as well as of all the other schools."
Robert,
You have to admit that if you remove that bit of truth you provided above, and OK, all the other accurate historical evidence contained in this post, Mr. Caldwell might have a point.
/Sarc off
So it appears that it is not only non-Muslims who cannot properly interpret Islamic texts. Bin Laden is guilty as well.
I absolutely love:
"Jihad, the struggle to preserve Islam in a Muslim's day-to-day affairs, as well as from those who would oppress it, is something binding upon all Muslims."
That statement basically gives the green-light for jihad to every Muslim 24, 7, 365. Oh....the taqiyya.
Posted by: awake at February 16, 2007 5:39 PM
It seems we have three basic enemies, each of which subscribes to a particular philosophy:
Muslim apologists leverage our tolerance for PC restrictions against us, and fools like Mr. Caldwell, who know very little of what they speak, use it to advance their utopian notions. None of these adherants will benefit much from the education which Robert offers, but the rest of us will.
We need an integrated strategy to engage each of these enemies.
Posted by: Extraneus at February 16, 2007 5:58 PM
"By helping Horowitz spread such misinformation, the Wheel has allowed itself to become an accessory. I urge you to be more conscientious when choosing ads in the future."
Sounds like a threat to me. In becoming an "accessory", is the Wheel no longer "innocent"? What if they conscientiously run more such ads by David Horowitz or by Robert or Hugh or others in the future? Will the Wheel become an enemy to Islam and thus no longer innocent, making any attack on them conform with the dictates of Islam?
Posted by: PMK at February 16, 2007 6:32 PM
Isn't this inner struggle deal completely discredited by now? Also, while technically, the genocidal verses in the Quran may not be spelt Jihad per se, isn't their very existence a confirmation of the Terrorism Awareness Program?
Jihad, the struggle to preserve Islam in a Muslim's day-to-day affairs, as well as from those who would oppress it, is something binding upon all Muslims.Ah, the Fitnah deal again. In other words, if anyone is a distraction from the 'struggle to preserve Islam in a Muslim's day-to-day affairs', they would be guilty of oppression. And once that happens, all Muslims are bound to join that struggle.
Tell us a new one, Mr Caldwell
Posted by: Infidel Pride at February 16, 2007 6:45 PM
Extraneus,
"We need an integrated strategy to engage each of these enemies."
Actually, I would say we need to first neutralize Political Correctness, before we can do anything substantive about the Problem of Islam. Political Correctness is dominant and mainstream, and is currently crippling our ability to publically analyze and take rational actions against the dangers of Islam. In that capacity, Political Correctness is worse than Islam: as long as Political Correctness stands in our way of doing what we need to do about the Problem of Islam, Political Correctness moves to the front burner of problems we need to deal with.
Tragically, it seems too broadly pervasive and too deeply entrenched to dissolve through mere applications of rational debate and dialogue, and it is likely that only horrific attacks, widely dispersed throughout the West and far worse than 911, will be sufficient to dislodge that obscene mass of pathological viscosity that is Political Correctness.
at February 16, 2007 6:59 PM
Carolyn2,
That was one scary scenario mostly because it is possible.
at February 16, 2007 6:59 PM
People, the illustrious Emory is SO PC that it censors many comments having negative content about Muslims!
Try and post!
Posted by: darcy at February 16, 2007 7:23 PM
"By helping Horowitz spread such misinformation, the Wheel has allowed itself to become an accessory. I urge you to be more conscientious when choosing ads in the future."
PMK - Sounds like a threat to me too. And I take it personally because I'm an accessory. Who knew?
After Robert posted the inaguration of the Terrorism Awareness Program's web site a couple of weeks ago I paid them a visit and left $100 in the kitty. I'm going to dig around and see if The Daily Texan student newspaper at the University of Texas is refusing to run the ad, if so they'll be getting a letter from me.
Additionally, I offer to organize a group in Austin to pass out handbills of the advert on campus if the 'Deadly Texan' has refused and doesn't reconsider.
See you on campus Will Caldwell! Oh and I plan on getting myself one of those new designer tasers cleverly disguised as a video camera, so no funny business buster!
Posted by: Malinois at February 16, 2007 7:36 PM
Terrorism Awareness Program AD and list of schools that refused to run the ad.
Posted by: Malinois at February 16, 2007 7:54 PM
David Horowitz, the man who paid for half a page of space to "educate" Americans on the threat of jihad, is clearly as much of an extremist as the terrorists he feels compelled to fight. It's easy enough to take hatred like Horowitz's in stride
We see this type of equivalence getting more currency with Islamists. Whenever there is any criticism of Islam, Islamists immediately start out by accusing the person of being a hate-monger of the same sort as the Jihadist or the "uncovered meat" Islamic cleric in Australia. It is much the sort of "there are extemists in all religions" or "there are objectionable parts in all religious texts. I particulary dislike it when Muslim clerics state that they venerate the great prophets - Moses, Jesus and Mohammed. They do this deliberately to confuse those who not know about Islam, and thus to sell them the line that Mohammed is comparable to Jesus. To put Jesus in the same sentence as Mohammed, that murdering, thieving paedophile, is contemptible.
Posted by: DP111 at February 16, 2007 7:57 PM
I am surpirsed this guy still is alive in Hollyweird.
Robin Williams's plan...
"I see a lot of people yelling for peace,
but I have not heard of a plan for
peace. So, here's one plan.
1) "The US will apologize to the world for our 'interference' in their affairs, past & present. You know: Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Tojo, Noriega, Milosevic, Hussein, and the rest of those 'good ole boys;' we will never 'interfere' again.
2) "We will withdraw our troops from all over the world, starting with Germany, South Korea, the Middle East, and the Philippines. They don't want us there. We would station troops at our borders. No one allowed sneaking through holes in the fence.
3) "All illegal aliens have 90 days to get their affairs together and leave. We'll give them a free trip home. After 90 days, the remainder will be gathered up and deported immediately, regardless of who or where they are. They're illegal!!! France will welcome them.
4) "All future visitors will be thoroughly checked and limited to 90 days unless given a special permit!!!! No one from a terrorist nation will be allowed in. If you don't like it there, change it yourself and don't hide here. Asylum would never be available to anyone. We don't need any more cab drivers or 7-11 cashiers.
5) "No foreign 'students' over age 21. The older ones are the bombers. If they don't attend classes, they get a D, and it's back home, baby.
6) "The US will make a strong effort to become self-sufficient energy-wise. This will include developing nonpolluting sources of energy, but will require temporary drilling for oil in the Alaska wilderness. The caribou will have to cope for a while.
7) "Offer Saudi Arabia and other oil-producing countries $10 a barrel for their oil. If they don't like it, we go someplace else. They can go somewhere else to sell their production. (About a week of the wells filling up the storage sites would be enough.)
8) "If there is a famine or other natural catastrophe in the world, we will not 'interfere.' They can pray to Allah, or whomever, for seeds, rain, cement, or whatever they need. Besides, most of what we give them is stolen or given
to the army. The people who need it most get very little, if anything.
9) "Ship the UN Headquarters to an isolated island someplace. We don't need the spies and fair-weather friends here. Besides, the building would make a good homeless shelter or lockup for illegal aliens.
10) "All Americans must go to charm and beauty school. That way, no one can call us 'Ugly Americans' any longer. The language we speak is ENGLISH...learn it...or LEAVE."
"Now, isn't that a winner of a plan?"
"The Statue of Liberty is no longer
saying, 'Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses.' She's got a baseball bat, and she's yelling, 'You want a piece of me?' "
at February 16, 2007 8:30 PM
Scrualla - Nice moniker.
Robin's Plan for Peace is a powerful howler and new-to-me.
Thanks for posting it.
Fatti vivo!
Posted by: Malinois at February 16, 2007 8:38 PM
The problem I see is too much evaluation of an un-assimilating religion: Islam. They get more popularity then the Pope ! Negative news sells just as much as positive news, I betcha China doesn't allow that ?! Hell, there, they sentence "Scammers" to death.
To me, I'm for the war against terrorism, not speculating on how a religion looks at it; "kill the criminal and be done with it !"
Posted by: Jeff at February 16, 2007 9:08 PM
"Actually, I would say we need to first neutralize Political Correctness, before we can do anything substantive about the Problem of Islam. Political Correctness is dominant and mainstream, and is currently crippling our ability to publically analyze and take rational actions against the dangers of Islam. In that capacity, Political Correctness is worse than Islam: as long as Political Correctness stands in our way of doing what we need to do about the Problem of Islam, Political Correctness moves to the front burner of problems we need to deal with.
Tragically, it seems too broadly pervasive and too deeply entrenched to dissolve through mere applications of rational debate and dialogue, and it is likely that only horrific attacks, widely dispersed throughout the West and far worse than 911, will be sufficient to dislodge that obscene mass of pathological viscosity that is Political Correctness."
remote_control, permit me to direct your attention to a blogger named Fjordman. For those unfamiliar with the author, I invite you to read his (as always) excellent piece on Political Correctness:
Political Correctness — The Revenge of Marxism
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2006/06/political-correctness-revenge-of.html
An excerpt:
"I have heard people who have grown up in former Communist countries say that we in the West are at least as brainwashed by Multiculturalism and Political Correctness as they ever were with Communism, perhaps more so. Even in the heyday of the East Bloc, there were active dissident groups in these countries. The scary thing is, I sometimes believe they are right.
But how is that possible? Don’t we have free speech here? And we have no Gulag?
The simple fact is that we never won the Cold War as decisively as we should have. Yes, the Berlin Wall fell, and the Soviet Union collapsed. This removed the military threat to the West, and the most hardcore, economic Marxism suffered a blow as a credible alternative. However, one of the really big mistakes we made after the Cold War ended was to declare that Socialism was now dead, and thus no longer anything to worry about. Here we are, nearly a generation later, discovering that Marxist rhetoric and thinking have penetrated every single stratum of our society, from the Universities to the media. Islamic terrorism is explained as caused by “poverty, oppression and marginalization,” a classic, Marxist interpretation."
Another:
"Not only has Marxism survived, it is thriving and has in some ways grown stronger. Leftist ideas about Multiculturalism and de-facto open borders have achieved a virtual hegemony in public discourse, their critics vilified and demonized. By hiding their intentions under labels such as “anti-racism” and “tolerance,” Leftists have achieved a degree of censorship of public discourse they could never have dreamt of had they openly stated that their intention was to radically transform Western civilization and destroy its foundations.
Fjordman is one of the most articulate writers on modern day jihad and Muslim colonization of the West. It is impossible to praise his piece on moderate Muslims enough:
Why We Cannot Rely Upon Moderate Muslims
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2006/09/why-we-cannot-rely-on-moderate-muslims.html
Any comments on either of these essays would be very much welcomed.
Posted by: Zenster at February 16, 2007 9:43 PM
These articles by Muslims chastising the infidels always treat the infidels as children who have done something foolish out of their ignorance and should be reprimanded and warned that it won't that such foolishness won't be tolerated. Amazingly, a lot of infidels just take it and apologize.
Posted by: John Sobieski at February 16, 2007 9:58 PM
Zenster, I agree with what you quoted of Fjordman to a great extent; however, I would not merely subsume Political Correctness under Marxism, but would rather locate a broader disease than Marxism, which I call "modern Gnosticism" -- which itself subsumes Marxism along with other modern pathologies (including Nazism and Fascism) --, following the analysis of Eric Voegelin.
Posted by: remote_control at February 16, 2007 10:00 PM
Hijabs, burkhas, niqabs, jilbabs, a sharp raise in crime, fear and intimidation, rape-epidemics and riots on our streets and beaches are only the beginning: Houari Boumédienne, Algeria’s undisputed ruler until his death in 1978, said it clearly in a 1974 UN speech:
“One day, millions of men will leave the Southern Hemisphere to go to the Northern Hemisphere. And they will not go there as friends.
Because they will go there to conquer it. And they will conquer it with their sons. The wombs of our women will give us victory.”
at February 16, 2007 11:49 PM
A blast from the past, along similar lines...
From http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3827/is_200401/ai_n9367627
we have the following nice quote:
"Apologizing for Stating What Jihad Really Means
Hooper hits Harvey: On December 5, the New York Times ran an interview with a jihad fighter in Iraq, who declared: "We are fighting for freedom and because the Americans are Jews. . . . The Prophet Muhammad, peace be on him, said, 'Hit the infidels wherever you find them.'" What he represents as a saying of Muhammad is actually the Qur'an's "Verse of the Sword": "Slay the unbelievers wherever you find them ..." (Sura 9:5).
Two days later, the chief of a banned radical Muslim group, Jaish-e-Mohammed, Maulana Masood Azhar, said: "In Islam the only meaning of jihad was killing," and as if that weren't enough, "it was a conspiracy against Islam to say that Jihad was not killing."
Around the same time, Ibrahim Hooper of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) demanded that radio giant Paul Harvey apologize for saying that Islam was "a religion which encourages killing." Harvey obliged by affirming that Islam is a "religion of peace" which terrorists have "hijacked."
Similar contents from http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/000357.php
So, if celebrated Pakistani folk-heroes give us what the definition of Jihad - what's wrong in us quoting them...
Posted by: AJack at February 17, 2007 1:36 AM
Interesting posts on political correctness. Obviously, it's been and continues to be used against us, but I wonder, is it possible to use it against Muslim bigots? I found this thing about the basketball player who said "I don't like gays" on a radio interview possibly relevant. Over the past couple of days, various breathless headlines have been on the wires about it, and this morning we have this from a Drudge link:
NBA bans Hardaway from weekend All Star game after anti-gay comment
The justification?
NBA commissioner, David Stern, explained why, "We acted immediately, we told him he couldn't do anymore work for us because his views don't represent our views."
Wouldn't that also mean that professing a belief in the Koran disqualifies one from working for the NBA, at least unless one is willing to repudiate much of the text?
Posted by: Extraneus at February 17, 2007 8:45 AM
Mr. Spencer, others who dislike my article, Salaam Alaykum:
I would like to begin by commenting on the title of your response, which is a modified version of my article's title. In it, you admit that jihad is much more than violence. Thank you. You also note that it means violence as well. I agree fully.
Let me lay a few things on the table before I get into it. I'm a convert (in case you couldn't tell... Will Caldwell isn't the most Islamic name ever). It's been about six months since my conversion. So, concerning technical points of Sharia, I admit that you, Mr. Spencer, may know more than I do. I'll do my best to reply anyway.
"Ad hominem attack and call for censorship. Good start, Will."
Yes, you caught me. That was ad hominem. I find it ironic that Horowitz would put a statement like "The goal of jihad is world domination." next to Nasrallah's statement, "The Jews are a cancer..." and expect to be taken seriously. Both are hateful statements assuming their subjects, jihad and jews, are monolithic entities that can be dealt with by blanket generalizations. I thought it worth noting that Horowitz speaks more like his enemies than he may realize.
You also noted that other campus newspapers are refusing to run the ad. I agree with this decision. No, I do not advocate cencorship. But I don't advocate complete freedom of speech either. Lies and insider information are both forms of free speech; and I doubt you would condone either. Hateful rhetoric can be just as harmful. What I advocate is responsible speech. This is a point I made quite clear. I did not see you respond to it.
Let's move on to jihad. You limited your argument to the rulings of Sharia -- what Muslims should do -- rather than what some Muslims often do. I thank you for judging us by our ideals rather than our shortcomings. I will stay in the same vein. The glaring omission I noticed in your response, however, is the primary cause for jihad. As I stated in my article, "Jihad, [is] the struggle to preserve Islam.. from those who would oppress it..." Jihad is intended to be a defensive action:
"Permission to take up arms is hereby given to those who are attacked because they have been oppressed – Allah indeed has power to grant them victory – those who have been unjustly driven from their homes, only because they said: “Our Lord is Allah.” -Quran 22:39-40
"And fight in the way of Allah with those who fight against you and do not transgress bounds [in this fighting]. God does not love the transgressors." Quran 2:190
As Muslims, we are only allowed to fight if we are oppressed or if others fight against us. The rulings you cited from the Maliki, Shafi'i, and Hanafi schools give the stated permission as long as they are defensive actions (the Hanbali scholar you mentioned, Ibn Taymiyya, was considered an extremist even in his day and was jailed for his writings. His doctrines were later adopted by the Wahabbis, a group who destroyed many Muslim shrines in order to "purify" the faith. Yes, the Wahabbis are prevalent today, but you cite the work of an extremist when you cite Ibn Taymiyya. I cannot let it go unmentioned.)You omitted this information about the essential nature of jihad, rather conveniently, though a hint did turn up in the Shafi'i ruling you cited:
The mushrikun [infidels] of Dar al-Harb (the arena of battle) are of two types: First, those whom the call of Islam has reached, but they have refused it and have taken up arms.
Now, assuming a non-Muslim party has provoked a group of Muslims, the Muslims may fight them if they refuse both conversion and dhimmitude. These may seem like harsh rulings but let us remember that the Muslims had to first be provoked. Then the offending party is given a choice of conversion (often forced by other conquerers) or dhimmitude. Dhimmitude, I believe, is often misunderstood and made out to be much worse than it actually was. First of all, dhimmitude, in its most basic form is a status reserved only for Jews and Christians (though it was often extended to other peoples such as the Hindus). In the Islamic understanding, Jews and Christians are people of the book. They are considered to have received their own valid revelations from God and therefore conversion cannot be forced upon them. So in Islamic society they were given a special status. In exchange for the jizya tax they were offered protection under Islamic Law. Second of all, the tax was not levied as a penalty for being non-Muslim. Muslims are required to pay an annual zakat (charity tax). A non-Muslim in a Muslim society could not pay this tax but they were still expected to be contributing members of society; therefore the jizya was put in its place. In exchange, they are to be allowed to live peacefully and they are to be protected. This means that they do not have to go to war when an outside force threatens the Islamic state. Admittedly, in real life, the quality of life for a dhimmi varied from place to place. But more often than not, it was a good arrangement for the non-Muslim. In fact, there are documented letters (not at my disposal, unfortunately) from Jews living under Islam written to family living in Christian Europe inviting them to move because they found dhimmitude to be so good.
You ended your reply with these words:
"In other words, censor ads that report uncomfortable facts."
This was not my point at all. Perhaps I was not clear enough in my article. I will restate my point: Be responsible with your words. I do not believe David Horowitz speaks responsibly and still do not believe the Wheel's decision was responsible. I'll tell you why.
Using gross generalizations to speak about a fifth of the world's population is a fallacy. Jihad is a religious obligation of all able Muslims that manifests itself in many different ways. I do it, the female imams of China do it, and the old man who sold my prayer rug to me does it. Bin Laden and Nasrallah also believe they are committing jihad when they kill innocent people. I disagree with them but they are, unfortunately, in a position to call their actions "jihad". However, when someone like Horowitz says, "The goal of jihad is world domination", he is not talking about terrorists only; he is talking about me and many decent people as well. He generalizes to too great of an extent and is therefore not only wrong, but irresponsible too.
Now I'd like to say a word to you, Mr. Spencer. I believe you picked the wrong battle in replying to my letter. I, and many other Muslims in America, are just as concerned about extremist Islam as you are. We don't like it. We would like to see it end. When I wrote that article for the Wheel, the people I spoke for are the ones with level heads. We exist not only in America but in many places all over the world as well. When you seek to refute moderates like myself (and yes, I do believe my article was very moderate), you are alienating the wrong people. We are your friends. We have the same cause. How can you be sure of this? Because I extend no threats to you when you offend me. I will fight you with words only. Then I will ask you to be my ally. This is my jihad. I say to you the same thing I said to the Wheel: please be responsible with your words. Needless division is not going to help anyone.
Salaam Alaykum.
Posted by: Will Caldwell at February 17, 2007 5:23 PM
Will Caldwell, with friends like you, who needs enemies?
'Dhimmitude, I believe, is often misunderstood and made out to be much worse than it actually was.' As a budding scholar, I assume you have read (or plan to read) Bat Ye'or several works on the subject. (?)
Well, let this humble, non-university mind ask you a question, regarding your statement, "As Muslims, we are only allowed to fight if we are oppressed or if others fight against us." How do you square the 9/11 attacks with that?
at February 17, 2007 9:56 PM
Mr. Caldwell,
I was deeply impressed with the congenial, relaxed tone of your open letter at JihadWatch. Even though you are a mere kit in the den of Da'ee training, I expect you will rise to prominence. In fact, I would like for you to consider writing an article for a new start-up magazine for dhimmis called "Whipped"™.
You could gain nation-wide name recognition overnight with a feature article on the benefits of dhimmitude. We'll give you top billing on the front cover. Your political future would get a major jump start. Oh, The Places You Will Go Among Peoples in the Know.
"Why Jizyah is Good for Your Health" by Will Caldwell
Other featured articles written on various topics of interest to dhimmis will include:
"Be Your Own Boss - When Muslims Not Around" by Eric Schmidt
"Time Management - How You Can Clean House and Still Work 24/7 for the Ummah" by Martha Stewart
"Coping With the Loss of Your Friends, Property and Life Savings" by Cindy Sheehan
"This Month's Tips For Keeping Imams Happy" by Ellen Goodman
PLUS!
"Learning to Drink Water INSTEAD of Wine" by Robert Parker
"Each Month 72 New Things To Do on Fridays" by Rosie O'Donnell
James W. Wagner's photo will be on the cover of the First Issue of
"Whipped"™ alongside that of the infamous Georgian Dhimmi Missionary for Justice and the 39th President of the United States.
I'm looking forward to receiving your congenial, responsibly worded reply.
M. Malinois, Editor in Chief
"Whipped"™ - The Magazine for Men & Women Who Do Not Express Their Global Jihad Doubts Because a Whip of "Responsible" Political Correctness Strangles Their Voice".
© Cheeky Dogs Media Group
at February 18, 2007 9:35 AM
Caldwell's post above is the reason why I have strongly suggested that we Infidels should demand that Muslims give up all notions of "self-defense", for the following reasons:
1) The idea of "self-defense" can easily be used, and abused, in Orwellian fashion so that the person claiming their actions are in self-defense could in truth be acting offensively. This is not merely a theoretical and logical possibility; it is also a demonstrable propensity in Islamic history, beginning with many if not most of Mohammed's militant actions.
2) a broad notion of "self-defense" should not be within the province of any religion, any cult, any group, any organization: all religions and groups within nation-states should (and in fact do) entrust all their self-defense concerns to the secular authorities -- local law enforcement (police), regional law enforcement (national guard), and national protection (army). Within this broad limitation, the only legitimate form of self-defense occurs in criminal emergencies when the life of an individual or the lives of a family or group of people happen to be threatened by criminals and the secular authorities are for one reason or another unable to step in at the critical time of the emergency.
At the pragmatic root of all our problems with Islam is the Muslim belief in their right of "self-defense". They must completely abandon this sense of entitlement that no other religion or group has in the modern secular world, and join the rest of us who have learned to compartmentalize our spiritual concerns without burdening them with politico-military obligations, thereby inevitably disconcerting and threatening our fellow planet neighbors.
Of course, it is highly unlikely that Muslims will, in fact, abandon this sense of entitlement to "self-defense", since it is rooted in the very heart of their religion, in the Qur'an and in Mohammed's commands -- both of which confuse the offensive expansion of Islam to dominate the world as a divine right and any significant resistance to this expansion thereby defined as an "offense" against Islam that has to be resisted in "self-defense". The Infidel world likely will, therefore, sooner or later, have to deal with this problem by cutting into that heart and into those roots.
at February 18, 2007 2:43 PM
Will,
First, a few questions I like to ask Muslims whenever I get the chance, and I would much appreciate receiving your responses:
1. Do you believe that the Koran is perfect?
2. Do you accept the death penalty, or any penalty, for apostasy from Islam?
3. Do you accept the death penalty, or any penalty, for blasphemy against Islam or Muhammad?
My answers are no, no, and no. And yours?
You continue to claim, without citing any support, that it was not the goal of jihad to make Islam dominate the world. I claim that it is, according to the Koran, hadith, Sira, Islamic jurisprudence, Islamic history, and to a significant number of major respected Islamic scholars today. I provide my support here. I do not claim that every Muslim follows this, believes it, or even knows about it. The claim is that the view is supported by the Islamic texts and by mainstream scholars and has been pursued throughout Islamic history.
Some additional comments:
You claim that being a dhimmi wasn't so bad, yet you admit that you have no evidence of this on hand. I suggest, as one other poster has, that you read Bat Ye'or's important works on this subject. There is also material on this subject in Andrew Bostom's The Legacy of Jihad. If you want to be able to address the claims of critics, you've got to read their claims and the sources upon which they base their claims.
I also recommend that you read the Sira if you haven't already done so. Guillaume's (Oxford Press) translation of Ibn Ishaq's biography, which is used in Islamic studies departments, is useful because it shows the context for many of the verses of the Koran. This also describes some of the early forms of the dhimma (prior to the pact of Umar), such as the agreement made between Muhammad and some of the Khaybar Jews, after the Muslims had conquered them.
One of the conditions of the dhimma was that the dhimmis were not permitted to make any statements that could be perceived (by Muslims) as insulting to Islam; in particular, they were not permitted to say anything that might be perceived (by Muslims) as insulting to Muhammad. To criticize Islam or Muhammad meant that the dhimma agreement had been broken, the "protected status" removed, and the dhimmi would generally be put to death. For that matter, Muslims could also be put to death for criticizing Islam or Muhammad. But whereas Christians, Jews, Hindus, etc., today, do not generally penalize those who criticize the religion, Islam in most cases where it is implemented does give out such penalties today, up to and including death.
You talk about jihad being purely a defensive response. That is actually not true, according to Islamic jurisprudence and according to the Koran, Hadith, and Sira. A rebuttal to that "jihad is defensive only" claim is provided here. The people addressed in verse 9:29 had never attacked Muslims (the immediate context was the expedition to Tabuk), yet the verse ordered Muslims in no uncertain terms to fight them.
I see in your conception of "defensive" you include forcibly converting people to Islam or subjugating them under Islamic rule. You classify that as defensive? I'm not sure why you cast yourself as moderate, when you make statements like this:
"Now, assuming a non-Muslim party has provoked a group of Muslims, the Muslims may fight them if they refuse both conversion and dhimmitude. These may seem like harsh rulings but let us remember that the Muslims had to first be provoked. Then the offending party is given a choice of conversion (often forced by other conquerers) or dhimmitude."
1. False, because of what you have omitted. The main options are conversion, dhimmitude (or else slavery), or death. Verse 9:5 states that the polytheists in question had to convert to Islam or be put to death. That is forced conversion. Verse 9:29 also gives the dhimmitude "option," but here again it is under the threat of death and dhimmitude was intended to be a humiliating, uncomfortable existence. That constitutes forced conversion. Jizya and the other conditions of the dhimma were punishment for not accepting Islam (i.e., conversion). The Sira shows that Muhammad forced the Meccans to convert to Islam.
2. There is nothing moderate in what you are advocating. Moreover, subjugating someone or forcing them to convert are acts of extreme aggression (not to mention imperialism, supremacism, intolerance, etc.), not defence.
Define "oppression"--not according to Amnesty International or the U.N. or other modern standards derived from the western traditions--but according to Islamic ideology (or, if you like, your conception of Islamic ideology as derived from Koran and Sunnah. If you reject the Sunnah and are Koran-Only, that's fine; we can deal with those arguments too). If, and if so where, your position deviates from those of the mainstream of Islamic jurisprudence, perhaps you should indicate explicitly. You criticize Spencer for overgeneralizing, but in fact he has cited those mainstream schools and has not even remotely stated that all Muslims follow those schools to the letter. Yet you yourself are making extreme generalizations about Islam when you say that the goal of Islam is not world domination. Did you take a survey of Muslims all around the world and find that the vast majority do not believe this? Without such a survey, you have no basis for your conclusions. Meanwhile, we must deal with what the Koran, Hadith, Sira, Islamic history, and the schools of jurisprudence show, and that is that Islam is a complete way of life that is to be imposed on all humankind, the whole world. At least Robert cites support for his claims. Why don't you?
at February 18, 2007 4:47 PM
In his letter, Will Caldwell wrote:
“Using the words of a few extremists like Bin Laden and Nasrallah to pass off terrorism as jihad is nothing short of libel.”
In his post in this thread Will wrote:
“Bin Laden and Nasrallah also believe they are committing jihad when they kill innocent people. I disagree with them but they are, unfortunately, in a position to call their actions "jihad".”
Will, first you say that claim is libelous, and then you imply that Bin Laden and Nasrallah are not wrong to call their actions jihad?
Will says to Robert:
“When you seek to refute moderates like myself (and yes, I do believe my article was very moderate), you are alienating the wrong people. We are your friends. We have the same cause.”
Robert refuted you because you were factually incorrect. If you are as committed to this cause of fighting against terrorism, tyranny, and sharia, then you should be willing to accept valid criticism. You should also be willing to admit when you’ve made a mistake—and I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt by assuming you made a mistake. Your mistake was stating that the goal of Islamic jihad was not world domination.
Posted by: Khaybar Oasis at February 18, 2007 10:27 PM
remote_control:
I agree with you almost entirely. But allow me to make explicit what you left implicit: Muslim self-defense must be eradicated on a national and political level. I believe the secular authorities of a fair democratic state can provide Islam all the protection it needs, as it has in the US. In fact, I am against a religious Islamic state altogether.
I disagree with you on one main point. The idea of religious self defense does not need to be uprooted from Islam. Any attempt to do this by non-Muslims would be extremely ill-advised. As you said, it is simply rooted at the heart of the religion, going back to the time of Muhammad. It would be like uprooting the last supper from Christianity. I believe it must remain for two reasons:
1)Religious self-defense can be expressed in meaningful ways other than on the state level. Sikhism, for example, requires its baptized men to carry a ceremonial knife to symbolize their dedication to defending the faith. They also have a special order of men called "nihang" who are armed guards placed at their Golden Temple in Amritsar. They hold a mostly symbolic position but will indeed fight to protect the Temple if necessary (as they proved in 1984). I believe Muslims can learn a lot from the Sikhs.
2) Should a time come that a state which formerly protected Muslims' rights begins to oppress Islam, the Muslims must be prepared to resist. This is obviously true of any interest group, be it Black, gay, or otherwise. Resistance does not even have to take a violent form (though it should, if necessary). If you take religious self-defense out of the Muslim vocabulary, we would be a great loss in finding the religious justification for protecting ourselves. Self preservation is a right and we deserve it just as much as anyone else.
One final word: As a non-Muslim, you cannot possibly expect to fully understand jihad (in the form of self-defense or any other form). You speak from an outsider's perspective. You may therefore disagree with it all you like. But telling a Muslim, or a person of any other faith, that a part of their religion must be dropped because you just don't understand how it could exist in the modern world is honestly getting a little too big for your britches. Try to stay within your bounds.
Khaybar:
First, a correction: I did not criticize Spencer for over-generalizing; I criticized Horowitz for this. Perhaps I would think Spencer does over-generalize, but I haven't seen it yet.
Second, I have a big problem with the nature of your reply to me.
Your statement that I "continue to claim... that it was not the goal of jihad to make Islam dominate in the world" is false for at least one reasons. Maybe two. First, I'm not sure if your use of the past tense "was" was intentional. If you think that I have claimed jihad was not used to proliferate Islam throughout the world (by military means, I assume you intended), you are wrong. I think it most certainly has. Second, if you think that I do not believe the ultimate goal of jihad, in all its forms, is to make Islam dominate the world, you are again wrong. But this, my friend, is homiletics -- not a military strategy. I would like to see Islam spread because I believe it to be the best way of life on earth. But I will not kill anyone to meet this end. I will only be a good Muslim, pray, and defend my right, as well as anyone else's right, to practice Islam. This is the exact reason I say Horowitz over-generalizes when he equates jihad with terrorism. If you do not like this, I suggest you criticize the Christians for awaiting Christ's coming in glory, and the Jews for expecting the Messiah. No difference.
You also criticize me for not providing sources for my claims. You have done essentially the same thing. When you suggested I read the Sira, you gave a recommendation of a translation used in academic departments. This would suggest you place value on credible sources. However, to support your claims about world domination and defensive jihad, you cite islam-watch.org. Their tag line is "Telling the truth about Islam: Islam under scrutiny by ex-Muslims". You cannot possibly expect me to believe this website is unbiased. On their main page, they claim Islam is "false", though what they mean by "false" and by what standard this is so, they leave unclear. But let's assume for a moment I give them the benefit of the doubt and read what they have to say. This is what I see:
1) Verses taken out of context: They accuse apologists of "cherry-picking" the verses they use and yet they do the same thing by choosing violent verses and providing no context whatsoever.
2) Bad sources: Though they do cite hadith and Islamic jurist, these excerpts are again taken out of context. Most of their sources, however, are other pages on their own website (!) or answering-islam.org, another academically incredible website. How can you convince me that this is not just one big circle of misinformation?
I apologize for mentioning documented letters that I can't provide a source for.
Regarding Spencer's claims about jihad, I was only providing much needed context to sources he already cited.
As for the claims I made about dhimmis without sources, I likewise ask you: where are your sources? You mention Bat Ye'or but provide no specific references. Her work, however, has been criticized, quite fairly, as being biased. One such criticism has come from Michael Sells of U. Chicago, a very respected scholar at a very respected center of Islamic studies. He says: "by obscuring the existence of pre-Christian and other old, non-Christian communities in Europe as well as the reason for their disappearance in other areas of Europe, Bat Ye’or constructs an invidious comparison between the allegedly humane Europe of Christian and Enlightenment values and the ever present persecution within Islam. Whenever the possibility is raised of actually comparing circumstances of non-Christians in Europe to non-Muslims under Islamic governance in a careful, thoughtful manner, Bat Ye’or forecloses such comparison." Sells said that in a book named "The New Crusades: Constructing the Muslim Enemy". The book was praised by other respectable scholars from places like Duke and Harvard.
So far my claims have come from what I was able to recall from university classes and credible books written by scholars --in other words, academia. Furthermore, I have already admitted my ignorance on many of these topics. Your claims have come from incredible websites with very obvious bias, your criticisms have been unfair, and your disposition has been dishonest.
I am open to fair criticism and I always will be. However, it is not hard to see that this website, in its very premise, as well as from most of the people who post on it, is not fair at all. Please tell me how am I not wasting my time here.
Posted by: Will Caldwell at February 19, 2007 1:15 AM
"Now, assuming a non-Muslim party has provoked a group of Muslims, the Muslims may fight them if they refuse both conversion and dhimmitude. These may seem like harsh rulings but let us remember that the Muslims had to first be provoked"
......The mere refusal to convert or submit will provoke a Muslim into a violent reaction....
"I'm a convert"
...You have made a bad decision....
at February 19, 2007 8:19 AM
Will Caldwell,
When a group is causing too much social disruption, disorder, mayhem, murder and misery, then the surrounding society has to take away whatever rights and powers that group enjoys in order to restore the peace. Islam is increasingly causing such disruption, disorder, mayhem, murder and misery -- not to mention extraordinary expense on the part of the West in proactively defending itself (one example out of scores to pull out of a turban: every airport in the world has to spend millions annually to protect itself not from Buddhists, Hindus, Christians, Jews, atheists, Zoroastrians, pagans, witches, Eskimos, or Druids -- but only from Muslims.)
It's up to Muslims to transform themselves into a group that ceases to cause these kinds of problems -- and the best way to do that is to completely abandon "self-defense", not leave it open through the sly loopholes you provide. If Muslims will not do this (and they likely won't), the day will come when the spectacularly superior non-Muslim West will do what it has to do constrain Muslims and their Islam -- and the longer we wait, and the longer Muslims refuse to change, the worse it will be for Muslims. The only thing currently hampering the West is political correctness.
It is highly likely that in the coming years or decades, Muslims will -- through their own deeply ingrained penchant for ghoulish barbarity and ferociously savage acting out of their perverse sense of righteous privilege and pathologically wounded pride -- sufficiently provoke the West and dislodge the hold political correctness has on the West currently preventing the West from rationally exercising its overwhelmingly superior power. And when those days come, the microscopic minority of slyly, or naively, elliptical Muslim intellectuals such as yourself will prove insignificant in that larger kinesis.
Posted by: remote_control at February 19, 2007 3:43 PM
Will,
Let me start by noting that you didn’t answer my first three questions. You call yourself a moderate. Does that mean you reject the blasphemy and apostasy penalties? Do you admit that there might be some flaws, here or there, in the Koran? These are not difficult questions, are they?
Will (W): “First, a correction: I did not criticize Spencer for over-generalizing; I criticized Horowitz for this. Perhaps I would think Spencer does over-generalize, but I haven't seen it yet.”
Wrong, and you are not making a correction. You accused both Horowitz and Spencer of overgeneralizing in their claim that the goal of jihad is to establish Islamic rule world-wide. I will show it to you. Spencer lampooned your claims with this: "In other words, censor ads that report uncomfortable facts." You specifically quoted that statement of Spencer’s, and then you replied with this:
W:“This was not my point at all. Perhaps I was not clear enough in my article. I will restate my point: Be responsible with your words. I do not believe David Horowitz speaks responsibly and still do not believe the Wheel's decision was responsible. I'll tell you why.
(W, continued):“Using gross generalizations to speak about a fifth of the world's population is a fallacy. Jihad is a religious obligation of all able Muslims that manifests itself in many different ways. I do it, the female imams of China do it, and the old man who sold my prayer rug to me does it. Bin Laden and Nasrallah also believe they are committing jihad when they kill innocent people. I disagree with them but they are, unfortunately, in a position to call their actions "jihad". However, when someone like Horowitz says, "The goal of jihad is world domination", he is not talking about terrorists only; he is talking about me and many decent people as well. He generalizes to too great of an extent and is therefore not only wrong, but irresponsible too.”
Spencer also made the same point about jihad to set up sharia over the whole world. Now you are admitting that your goal, through your jihad, is also world domination, through your self-proclaimed non-violent jihad (but see below). You are defeating your own claims, one-by-one, as we go through this. You accuse them of overgeneralizing, then you admit (below) that you are a member of the category of people who think Islam should dominate the world and that your jihad is toward that goal.
W:“Second, I have a big problem with the nature of your reply to me. Your statement that I "continue to claim... that it was not the goal of jihad to make Islam dominate in the world" is false for at least one reasons. Maybe two. First, I'm not sure if your use of the past tense "was" was intentional. If you think that I have claimed jihad was not used to proliferate Islam throughout the world (by military means, I assume you intended), you are wrong. I think it most certainly has.”
That is much more than many apologists will admit. Thank you for the admission.
W:“Second, if you think that I do not believe the ultimate goal of jihad, in all its forms, is to make Islam dominate the world, you are again wrong.””
Not wrong; nor was I wrong in the first instance, based on what you wrote previously. I’m making judgements on your beliefs judging from your own statements, made prior to my previous post. You dismissed the whole concept of world-domination out of hand, and chastised Robert and Horowitz for their claims about the goals of jihad. Indeed, you referred to Horowitz’s “hatred” in making that claim. Anyways, now that you have clarified what is to me a surprising admission, I will duly update my view of your view: You believe in jihad in the pursuit of world domination under Islam.
Also, you did not rule out violent means, because you have already stated in your previous post that you permit violence with the aim of converting or subjugating someone who has allegedly instigated conflict against Muslims. You do not provide examples of what constitutes instigating conflict against Muslims; yet you believe that forced religious conversion to Islam is part of an appropriate “defensive” response. You are, therefore, in my books, not moderate.
W: “But this, my friend,”
You think Islamic religious belief should be imposed by force if Muslims are “provoked”. I do not include people who hold such views among my friends.
W: “is homiletics -- not a military strategy. I would like to see Islam spread because I believe it to be the best way of life on earth. But I will not kill anyone to meet this end.”
Now you are contradicting yourself. You already stated that when Muslims are provoked, they could force people to convert to Islam or be subjugated under Islam. These are utterly fanatical views, yet they are also Islamic mainstream, as Robert’s post shows and as my linked post (Islam’s Goal) shows.
W:“I will only be a good Muslim, pray, and defend my right, as well as anyone else's right, to practice Islam.”
Define “defend.” (We’ve already seen that you accept forcibly converting people to Islam when Muslims are provoked). Define “practice Islam.”
W: “This is the exact reason I say Horowitz over-generalizes when he equates jihad with terrorism.”
He “equated” jihad with terrorism? Please provide the evidence for your claim.
W:“If you do not like this, I suggest you criticize the Christians for awaiting Christ's coming in glory, and the Jews for expecting the Messiah. No difference.”
Christians are not currently blowing up civilians in the aim of bringing about the Messiah. If they start doing that, I’ll start criticizing them for it. Meanwhile, I do have priorities. I will criticize the jihadist terrorist groups, and their supporters, sympathizers, and apologists, who are attacking non-Muslim and Muslim civilians alike right now.
W: “You also criticize me for not providing sources for my claims. You have done essentially the same thing.”
You are making the tu quoque fallacy, but it is a failed attempt because, while you did not provide sources, I, in fact, did provide them. I provided you with two links, and a multitude of sources are quoted at those links. One of the links contained a rebuttal to your implication that jihad was only defensive (i.e., that Muslims had to be provoked). That argument cites the evidence: The actual statements from the different Islamic schools of jurisprudence, from the Koran, and sahih Hadith, and some statements from major Islamic scholars today, stating that some jihad warfare was specifically offensive, waged in order to establish the religion, that Muhammad waged offensive jihad (as told in the Sira and verified in the sahih Hadith), etc. The other link also contains quotes from the Koran, sahih Hadith, Sira, Islamic law, present-day scholars, etc., supporting my claim that the goal of Islam is to bring the whole world under Islamic rule. You can’t simply ignore the evidence and pretend I didn’t present any. I could post the entire thing here, but that isn’t necessary. I provided the link above and it is you who is refusing to even respond to the evidence presented at those links.
W: “When you suggested I read the Sira, you gave a recommendation of a translation used in academic departments. This would suggest you place value on credible sources.”
Well, good. Will you read it or not? Read it, and then you might have some clue about what we are talking about. And as I said, the Sira provides the context for the Koran. If you read the Koran without the Sira you are reading it out of context.
W: “However, to support your claims about world domination and defensive jihad, you cite islam-watch.org.”
False. The material is posted at Islam-Watch (the host), but I am not citing Islam-Watch (the host) as a primary source. By linking to those posts, I am citing the Koran, sahih Hadith, Sira, Islamic law, Islamic history, present-day Islamic scholars quotes, and so on, as sources.
W: “Their tag line is "Telling the truth about Islam: Islam under scrutiny by ex-Muslims". You cannot possibly expect me to believe this website is unbiased. On their main page, they claim Islam is "false", though what they mean by "false" and by what standard this is so, they leave unclear.”
You believe that Islam is true, they believe it is false (and they have read the Islamic texts; you have not), and to test which side is correct you would actually have to read their claims beyond the headings. You claim their site is incredible, but you believe the Koran, don’t you?
At any rate, those slogans are not my claims and are not statements contained in the posts which I linked to. You appear to be doing everything except actually reading and responding to the contents of the links which I posted.
W: “But let's assume for a moment I give them the benefit of the doubt and read what they have to say.”
It is evident that you haven’t read what they say in any depth beyond the heading statement, but that is irrelevant because those slogans are not the claims that I’m citing.
W: “This is what I see:1) Verses taken out of context: They accuse apologists of "cherry-picking" the verses they use and yet they do the same thing by choosing violent verses and providing no context whatsoever.”
You are merely naming an argument instead of providing one. Show where the verses are inappropriately removed from their context in the posts which I linked to, or withdraw your claim.
W: “2) Bad sources: Though they do cite hadith and Islamic jurist, these excerpts are again taken out of context. Most of their sources, however, are other pages on their own website (!) or answering-islam.org, another academically incredible website. How can you convince me that this is not just one big circle of misinformation?”
Again, you are naming an argument (“bad sources”) instead of providing the argument. In any case, most of the sources in question in the posts to which I linked are the Koran, hadith, Sira, and respected commentaries (Tafsir), not other Islam-critical websites. The Koran is a bad source? Ibn Kathir’s commentary is a bad source? In this case, what we are talking about here is content that is quoted, not the identity of the host website. Will you respond to the Koranic verses or not? Will you address substance, content, or will you continue to try and use this “poisoning the well” fallacy, dismissing websites out of hand as tainted, without even addressing one shred of content in the posts to which I had linked? Will you continue to dodge content?
Much of the context is provided by the Sira, which you have not read, but which is quoted extensively at the post to which I linked.
I can’t convince you of anything if you don’t read the material—not the website headings but the material—which is quoted there at the link I gave you. Apparently you are preventing yourself from being convinced of anything because you refuse to read it, refuse to respond to any of the substance of what is posted there.
W: “I apologize for mentioning documented letters that I can't provide a source for.”
I would much rather that you just provided some support, any support, for what you are claiming.
W: “Regarding Spencer's claims about jihad, I was only providing much needed context to sources he already cited.”
But you admit that you don’t know the context. All that you are providing are vague generalizations without any support.
W: “As for the claims I made about dhimmis without sources, I likewise ask you: where are your sources? You mention Bat Ye'or but provide no specific references.”
The claim I made was that you should read her works on the dhimma before making claims about it. My claim still stands, even as you cite secondary sources in a bid to avoid the trouble of actually reading Bat Ye’or’s works. The claims that I made about the dhimma, including that dhimmis could be put to death for criticising Islam or Muhammad, are quoted in both Bat Ye’or’s work and Andrew Bostom’s work, which, again, are quoted at the Islam-Watch site in the Resources Forum to which I referred you. But you won’t look at it, or at least will not acknowledge any content quoted there.
W: “Her work, however, has been criticized, quite fairly, as being biased.”
Fairly? You have not read any of Bat Ye’or’s works, so how can you judge whether or not some second-hand opinion is fair?
W: “One such criticism has come from Michael Sells of U. Chicago, a very respected scholar at a very respected center of Islamic studies. He says: "by obscuring the existence of pre-Christian and other old, non-Christian communities in Europe as well as the reason for their disappearance in other areas of Europe, Bat Ye’or constructs an invidious comparison between the allegedly humane Europe of Christian and Enlightenment values and the ever present persecution within Islam. Whenever the possibility is raised of actually comparing circumstances of non-Christians in Europe to non-Muslims under Islamic governance in a careful, thoughtful manner, Bat Ye’or forecloses such comparison." Sells said that in a book named "The New Crusades: Constructing the Muslim Enemy". The book was praised by other respectable scholars from places like Duke and Harvard.”
So what? To determine if Sells is correct (not "respected"--which would only matter within Islam, where such appeals to authority do matter), you would actually have to read what Bat Ye’or says. You present an opinion on Bat Ye’or, I can present another, by Andrew Bostom:
“Bat Ye’or’s seminal contribution to the study of jihad and dhimmitude has been her unique ability to accomplish two related tasks: (1) methodically pooling a vast, rich array of primary source data; (2) providing a brilliant synthetic analysis of these data to demonstrate convincingly the transformative power of jihad and dhimmitude, operating as designed, within formerly Christian societies of the Near East and Asia Minor. Mary Boyce, emeritus professor of Iranian studies at the University of London, has confirmed the external validity of Bat Ye’or’s analytical approach in her description of how jihad and dhimmitude (without the latter being specifically identified as such) transformed Zoroastrian society in an analogous manner. Boyce has written comprehensive assessments of those Zoroastrain communities that survived the devastating jihad conquests of the mid-seventh and early-eighth centuries…” –Andrew Bostom, (2005) The Legacy of Jihad. pp. 35-36.
Bat Ye’or and Andrew Bostom present the evidence upon which they base their opinions. If Bat Ye’or has her facts wrong, point that out and show evidence. Bat Ye’or and Andrew Bostom are reporting from the original sources.
Bat Ye’or is not perfect (who is?), but based on my reading of her, strikes me as reasonable and fair. Here’s an example, where she urges Muslim scholars to acknowledge the past history of jihad conquest and violence (much as the West, for example, has acknowledged and criticized its past excesses) and reform within Islam:
“This effort cannot succeed without a complete recasting of mentalities, the desacralization of the historic jihad and an unbiased examination of Islamic imperialism. Without such a process, the past will continue to poison the present and inhibit the establishment of harmonious relationships. When all is said and done, such self-criticism is hardly exceptional. Every scourge, such as religious fanaticism, the crusades, the inquisition, slavery, apartheid, colonialism, Nazism, and, today, communism, are analyzed, examined, and exorcized in the West. Even Judaism—harmless in comparison to the Church and the Christian empires—caught, in its turn, a great modernization movement, has been forced to break away from some traditions. It is inconceivable that Islam, which began in Mecca and swept through three continents, should alone avoid a critical reflection on the mechanisms of its power and expansion. The task of assessing their history must be undertaken by the Muslims themselves.” –Bat Ye’or, (1996). The Decline of Eastern Christianity under Islam, p. 220.
W: “So far my claims have come from what I was able to recall from university classes and credible books written by scholars --in other words, academia. Furthermore, I have already admitted my ignorance on many of these topics. Your claims have come from incredible websites with very obvious bias,”
My claims about Islam are based upon the Koran, Hadith, Sira, Islamic history, Islamic jurisprudence, statistics on Muslims’ present-day attitudes and opinions, present-day mayhem and intolerance throughout the world carried out by extremists acting in the name of Islam as documented in the news world-wide, statements of present-day Islamic scholars, present-day attempts by significant Muslim groups to implement sharia in non-Muslim countries, policies of present-day Islamic governments, etc. My claims do not “come from” any websites which you regard as “incredible.” The websites which you are attempting to smear with your overgeneralization—or prejudice—are irrelevant. All of the sources of evidence which I cited still exist, and must be addressed.
W: “your criticisms have been unfair,”
Which ones? I think that it is perfectly fair to judge that you are not the moderate that you claim you are. In my books, a ‘moderate’ does not permit the use of force for the purpose of religious conversion.
W: “and your disposition has been dishonest.”
I have given you my honest opinions and have supported them with extensive evidence which you have apparently refused to read. If your claim is that I am dishonest (not merely mistaken, but dishonest), please point to a single example where I have been dishonest, and please demonstrate your case and don’t just give me more unsupported claims.
W: “I am open to fair criticism and I always will be.”
That’s a platitude. Present fair criticisms, right here where we can see them, and respond to contents and substance of our posts.
W: “However, it is not hard to see that this website, in its very premise, as well as from most of the people who post on it, is not fair at all. Please tell me how am I not wasting my time here.”
Again sweeping statements with no examples, no support whatsoever. Either respond in a substantive manner to content, or stop wasting our time.
I suggest you direct your criticisms towards those extremists within your religion, not at legitimate critics like Robert Spencer, Bat Ye’or, et al. And if you are going to criticize the latter, you should at least take the time to provide support for your claims. If you think supporting your claims is too difficult or too time-consuming, then the honorable thing would be to not make the claims in the first place.
I will leave you with a quote from Maimonides on the dhimma which you think was not so bad:
“The Arabs have persecuted us severely, and passed baneful and discriminatory legislation against us….Never did a nation molest, degrade, debase, and hate us as much as they.” –quoted in Bat Ye’or, (1985) The Dhimmi. p. 351.
at February 19, 2007 7:11 PM
Will,
You said to my fellow poster remote:
W: "One final word: As a non-Muslim, you cannot possibly expect to fully understand jihad (in the form of self-defense or any other form). You speak from an outsider's perspective. You may therefore disagree with it all you like. But telling a Muslim, or a person of any other faith, that a part of their religion must be dropped because you just don't understand how it could exist in the modern world is honestly getting a little too big for your britches. Try to stay within your bounds."
I will remind you of what you (Will) said earlier:
W: "Now, assuming a non-Muslim party has provoked a group of Muslims, the Muslims may fight them if they refuse both conversion and dhimmitude. These may seem like harsh rulings but let us remember that the Muslims had to first be provoked. Then the offending party is given a choice of conversion (often forced by other conquerers) or dhimmitude."
Remote's criticism is therefore more than justified. Let me also remind you that we do not live under your Islamic laws and there are no bounds on what we can or cannot criticize in regards to Islam. (Yes, Islamists are trying to restrict us through threats and intimidation but that will not stop us). You imagine that remote has boundaries. No he doesn't; at least, not with regard to what we're talking about. If you don't want people to criticize Islam, then hide it away somewhere, away from the public, where we don't have to hear about it or read about it, much less be subjugated or killed by someone motivated by it. If the ideology is expressed in the public domain, it's fair game for criticism just like any other political or religious ideology. You permit yourself the right to criticise beliefs that are non-Islamic (e.g., you have done so in this thread), even though you are not a non-Muslim. Hence, your statement telling Remote to stay within his bounds is simply a statement of chest-puffing Islamic supremacy, chauvinism, intolerance, etc. It is also a rather cheap, transparent trick to try and delegitimize criticism of Islam from non-Muslims, simply on the grounds that they are non-Muslims. Again, you avoid substance and rely on logical fallacies.
Posted by: Khaybar Oasis at February 19, 2007 10:36 PM
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.)