Jihad Watch: Charging "ignorance" to fool the ignorant

March 8, 2007

Charging "ignorance" to fool the ignorant

Jihad Watch, as Hugh Fitzgerald has pointed out many times, is primarily a pedagogical site. We are trying to educate people about the nature, magnitude, and sources of the jihad threat. In the course of that effort, we must from time to time work to clear away misconceptions, false assumptions, and false claims about a variety of subjects.

And in the course in turn of doing that, we have more than once remarked upon and explained common arguments that apologists for jihad and Islamic supremacism make. My new book Religion of Peace? Why Christianity Is -- and Islam Isn't (coming later this year from Regnery Publishing) is dedicated to confronting one of the most common tactics in this line: excusing the actions of contemporary jihadists by pointing to the historical sins of Christianity. Hugh Fitzgerald has written about two common rhetorical tricks, taqiyya and tu quoque, and others here, here, here and here. Another Jihad Watch Board member, Ibn Warraq, offers tips on how to debate a Muslim here and here -- including a rational evaluation of the assertion that one can only understand the Islamic texts in Arabic, and much more.

Anyway, I've had a couple of recent experiences lately that made me think it might be useful to spell out another common device: charging "ignorance" to fool the ignorant. In both cases, assertions of points about Islam that are generally taken for granted as true by Muslims were sharply contradicted by Muslim spokesmen, who not only claimed the contrary but charged that the non-Muslims making the statements were "ignorant." I have seen this frequently in the past -- I suspect that the presumption here is that the genuinely ignorant and credulous will naturally assume that the Muslim knows his faith better than the "ignorant" non-Muslim, and so will take the charge as evidence that the non-Muslim in question is indeed ignorant of Islam. Insofar as that is indeed the result, it is an effective tactic.

The two recent cases in which I was involved had to do with the closure of the gates of ijtihad and the arrangement of Qur'anic suras. I am not going to name any names or give any links here, as the Muslim spokesman I was debating has since published a vile ad hominem attack against an associate and friend of mine, establishing that that spokesman is not as interested in honest and mutually respectful dialogue as he had claimed to be; I see now that linking to him and discussing matters with him is useless, and am not raising these points to continue anything with him -- which I will not do. However, I do think that the incident involving him and the other incident were both instructive, as they are illustrative of this tactic.

1. The gates of ijtihad are closed.

Ijtihad (اجتهاد) is the process of arriving at a decision on a point of Islamic law through study of the Qur'an and Sunnah. In a recent exchange, a Muslim writer took issue with my assertion that most Muslims consider the gates of ijtihad to be closed -- that is, independent study of the Qur'an and Sunnah are discouraged, and Muslims are instead expected to adhere to the rulings of one of the established schools of jurisprudence (madhahib, مذاهب). He said, "Mr. Spencer’s reply is littered with major and minor forms of inconsistency. These inconsistencies are casual reminders that Mr. Spencer is not a scholar on Islam." His primary illustration of my inconsistency was that I was calling for Islamic reform while saying that the gates of ijtihad are closed; how can there be reform if the mechanism for reform is ruled out?

Anyway, there was no inconsistency here, as I was obviously calling for the gates of ijtihad to be reopened, if that is needed in order to allow for reform. But the point is that all of this was intended to establish ignorance on my part, yet I was merely repeating something that is common knowledge. He has done this in other contexts also: about another non-Muslim writer, the same Muslim writer sneered, "He probably believes the gates of ijtihad are closed."

So: are they closed? Here is some material from Muslims:

...Therefore it is said that "the door of ijtihad is closed" as of some nine hundred years, and since then the tendency of jurisprudence (fiqh) has been to produce only commentaries upon commentaries and marginalia.

That's from Cyril Glasse's New Encyclopedia of Islam. Cyril Glasse is a graduate of Columbia University and a practicing Muslim. His published work includes a translation of Margaret Von Berchen's study of Islamic Jerusalem, a Guide to Saudi Arabia (Berlitz, 1981) and The Pilgrim's Guide to Mecca written for the Hajj Research Centre, King Abdul Aziz University, Jeddah.

Then there's this from Muslim-Canada.org:

Thus the schools of the four Imams remain intact after a thousand years have passed, and so the 'Ulama' recognize since the time of these Imams no Mujtahid of the first degree. Ibn Hanbal was the last....Since their Imam Qazi Khan died (A.H. 592), no one has been recognized by the Sunnis as a Mujtahid even of the third class.

A mujtahid is someone qualified to perform ijtihad. Ahmed ibn Hanbal died in 855 AD. Qazi Khan died in 1196.

This is from The Principle of Ijtihad in Islam by the Shi'ite scholar Murtada Mutahhari:

The right of ijtihad did not last for long among the Sunnis. Perhaps the cause of this was the difficulty which occurred in practice: for if such a right were to continue [for any great length of time], especially if ta`awwul and the precedence of something over the texts were to be permitted, and everyone were permitted to change or interpret according to his own opinion, nothing would remain of the way of Islam (din al islam). Perhaps it is for this reason that the right of independent ijtihad was gradually withdrawn, and the view of the Sunni `ulama became that they instructed people to practice taqlid of only the four mujtahids, the four famous Imams - Abu Hanifa [d.150/767], al Shafi`i; [d.204/820], Malik b. Anas [d.179/795] and Ahmad b. Hanbal [d.241/855] - and forbade people to follow anyone apart from these four persons. This measure was first taken in Egypt in the seventh hijri century, and then taken up in the rest of the lands of Islam.

Then there's this from a U.S. Institute of Peace report on ijtihad, referring to Imam Hassan Qazwini, director of the Islamic Center of America:

One of the gravest mistakes Muslims have committed, according to Qazwini, is closing the doors of ijtihad. They have limited legal interpretation to only four prominent scholars: Malik Ibn Anas, Abu Hanifa al-No'man, Muhammad Ibn Idris al-Shafi'i, and Ahmad Ibn Hambal—the heads of the Maliki, Hanafi, Shafi'i, and Hambali schools of thought. The motivation for this was political. During the Abbasid Dynasty (750–1258 CE), the Abbasids decided to outlaw all other sects in order to strictly control religion and worship, as well as political matters.
Closing the doors of ijtihad has had extremely detrimental ramifications for the Muslim world. According to Qazwini, this decision has resulted in chronic intellectual stagnation, as thousands of potential mujtahids and scholars have been prohibited from offering workable solutions to newly emerging problems. Muslim thinkers have become captive to rules that were made long ago, leaving little scope for liberal or innovative thought.

There are many, many more where those came from, but you get the idea. How is it that something assumed to be true by Muslims including Glasse, Mutahhari, and Qazwini, as well as the Muslim Canada staff, becomes false? When a non-Muslim asserts it. The Muslim debater who plays this game evidently thinks he can score points, and fool the credulous and uninformed, by denying what is universally taken to be true and charging ignorance on the part of the one who asserts it. And he is probably right.

One more example:

2. The Qur'an is arranged from the longest to the shortest chapters.

This is another commonplace assertion that recently came up in my ongoing kerfuffle with Dinesh D'Souza, although I wasn't involved in it initially. Here again, however, after a non-Muslim asserted that the Qur'an was thus arranged, a Muslim called this a "false argument" and said that the claim "that the Quran is ordered by size seemed to me a doubtful proposition and contradicted my practical experience."

Here again is a denial of what Muslims freely acknowledge in other contexts. The Qur'an is indeed arranged longest chapter to shortest, with the exception of the first chapter, but this is not a scientifically determined ordering. So it is true that the longest-to-shortest trajectory is somewhat jagged. However, it is a common way for Muslims to speak of their holy book:

The Qur'an is made up of 114 chapters, called suras, which are roughly organized, from the second chapter onward, in order of length, beginning with the longest and ending with the shortest chapters.

That's from here.

And here's another:

For the most part, the suras of the Qur'an are read in reverse order, with the shortest and most easily memorized suras first.

That's from here, referring to the practice in a school; so if they're not read in reverse order, the longest will come first.

And here's yet another:

The Qur'an is divided into 114 chapters, suras. Each sura is divided into verses, ayas. The number of ayas in a sura determines, with a few exceptions, their order of appearance in the Qur'an. The longest, which has 286 verses, stands at the beginning of the book, while the shortest, having three verses, concludes the writing.

That one is from here.

In summary, then: Muslims deny this kind of thing only when an Infidel asserts it in a context that makes the the Muslim spokesman uncomfortable.

Now, if the people who say these things were to acknowledge the dominant view and then explain why they dissented from it, that would be an entirely different matter. But what they are doing is claiming that the dominant view is false and that anyone who affirms it is ignorant -- demonstrating that all they are really trying to do is score points.

The moral of the story is that, in debate with a jihad apologist, anything you assert, no matter how commonplace, may be taken as a manifestation of your "ignorance." Be armed with support from Islamic sources for virtually everything -- everything -- you assert.

Posted by Robert at March 8, 2007 4:13 PM
Print this entry | Email this entry | Digg this | del.icio.us

Comments
(Note: Comments on articles are unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Jihad Watch or Robert Spencer. Comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying may be summarily deleted. However, the fact that particular comments remain on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Robert Spencer of the views expressed therein.)

It can be difficult trying to converse with people with 7th century brains....

Posted by: exsgtbrown

at March 8, 2007 4:33 PM

Very important to have concise arguments at your fingertips for the most common arguments that apologists for jihad use. The "do you know Arabic" and "out of context" are amongst the most common and your new book Robert, will take care of the most common one I hear, "well the bible is violent too".

Posted by: cathkins

at March 8, 2007 4:54 PM

As to the gates of ijtihad being closed, it is those Bright Young Reformers who, having failed to keep us from noticing that they are indeed closed, and have been for almost a thousand years, now go on to tell us that if we only give them money, money, money (and the Carnegie and other foundations, and universities, and Western governments, have been shelling out like crazy to every Muslim "Reformer" with his hand out) they, those Bright Young Reformers, will just swing those gates wide open, wide enough for the quadrivas of these brave gladiators (oops, those details come from the time of Rome, and therefore of real universal and deep-seated Jahiliyya or Ignorance) straight on through.

As to the arrangement of the suras, the point on which Trifkovic caught out Dinesh D'Souza (who propmtly wrote about it as a mere matter of "Trivial Pursuit"), why do they matter? Well, if you are attempting to find out which suras are unlikely to have been subject to "naskh" or "abrogation," you will naturally wish to find out which are later in time. And in finding out which are later in time, you might think, if you did not know differently, that those suras with low numbers -- such as Sura 9, the most violent of them all -- were surely the ones that had been abrogated by later ones.

But you would be wrong. Sura 9 is numbered 9 not because it is one of the earliest, but because of its length. In fact, Sura 9 is either the last or second-to-last of the Suras, which means it is of very great authority indeed.

That's why it matters. And that's why D'Souza's attempt to dismiss his lack of such knowledge, as "trivial," is so wrong. That he then goes on to say that Trifkovic didn't answer his, D'Souza's own question in reply -- "When did Iran become Shi'a" -- though Trifkovic was singlemindedly at this point pursuing his quarry, and was not going to let go of his hot pursuit until D'Souza had, for god's sake, answered the question, in truth the answer to that question is not nearly as important as questions about the Qur'an, the alpha and omega of Islam.

The question of when Iran became Shi'a is of interest, but it is not indispensable to one's understanding of Islam, as is a comprehension of how the Qur'an works, how it is arranged, what parts of it can be taken as immune to abrogation, and which parts subject.

No doubt when one first reads, as D'Souza did, somewhere in Bernard Lewis that Shi'ism begins with Arabs, not Persians, and was embraced late by the Iranians, is of interest. But what does it tell us? How does it affect, say, our understanding or appreciation of the Shi'a-Sunni split in Iraq, and beyond Iraq, today? In fact, it has no bearing on the matter. But if Infidels thinkg that because there are 114 Suras numbered consecutively, a certain Sura 9 must surely be among the earliest and therefore among those most subject to abrogation, then we have a problem, and not only in Houston, but everywhere that innnocent Infidels may reside.

Shi'ism could once be found in places were it is now virtually extinct, and in the earliest centuries was not dominant in Iran (Persia) as it now is. But knowing or not knowing that is not more important than knowing exactly when Calvin and Zwingli existed, or where, or finding out when this or that place became predominantly Protestant during or after the Reformation. Or it might be akin to not knowing exactly when the Gallicanism came into the French church, or when Henry VIII destroyed the monasteries, and got his divorce. Not knowing when the Council of Nicaea took place is no doubt a fault, and so is not knowing exactly in what century Christianity was brought to England, or for that matter to China, but it would be far more scandalous if someone were teaching in a diviinity school who did not know the most elementary doctrines of Christianity. D'Souza doesn't see that, because he can't make sense of Islam, Islam as a belief-system, Islam as a politics and geopolitics, Islam as a working-out, in time, by Muslims of the exigencies of their demanding, and dangerous-to-Infidels faith.

Posted by: Hugh

at March 8, 2007 5:00 PM

This is why I read Robert and Hugh's postings on JW/DW, and buy and read Robert's books. Superb.

Not a personal attack, obfuscation, tu quoque, or unfounded personal belief in the whole thing. Superb.

Posted by: special_guest

at March 8, 2007 5:45 PM

I don't see how anyone can equate the violence of contemporary Muslim fundamentalists with contemporary Christian fundamentalists. If we are going back in time to the Roman Empire then I guess a case could be made if you were keeping some sort of atrocity ledger. But we are talking about what is going on NOW.

Personally, I don't have any interest in the coming book, as I don't believe that the God of either book is a moderate if you read the text literally, and I have heard all sorts of symbolic interpretations to the point that the both texts means whatever the reader thinks it means.

At this point in time I will stick with the consequences of the ideologies and the resultant behaviors. Again, I don't see a bunch of Christians, Buddists, Hindus, or Atheists burning flags, blowing themselves up, murdering or maiming women and children because it is their duty to kill the infidel.

Posted by: amana39

at March 8, 2007 6:41 PM

On the January 22, 2006, edition of the weekly religious program "Al-Shariyah Wa Al-Hiyat" (Shariah and Life) on Al-Jazirah TV the title of the show was "Haqq Al-Akhtilaf al-Faqhi" (loosely translated: the right to religious differences). Moderator 'Abd al-Samad Nasir's guest for the program was Qutb Mustafa Sanu, who was introduced as a member of the International Association of Islamic Fiqh and a professor at the International Islamic University of Malaysia.

When the moderator announced that the subject of the edition would be the differences between the main Islamic schools and the possibilities of resolving these differences through Ijtihad, I listened with great interest. But throughout the entire program, the only practical example Dr. Sanu gave of Ijtihad being practiced was in a discussion of resolving the difference in the way Shia and Sunnis pray - should the hands be folded across the chest, or extended down the side. There was absolutely no indication of Ijtihad being used to discuss some of more significance than that.

So be prepared for a string of comments from people claiming that Ijtihad is alive and well---if you are talking about issues as trivial as positions in prayer. If any Muslim can give an example of Ijtihad recently being used anywhere in the Muslim world to deal with a conflict more significant than that, I would like to see it posted.

Posted by: ed

at March 8, 2007 6:48 PM

It is due to the fact of a mindset Mr. Spencer.

For a reason yet to be researched, most of the Islamic leadership as well as individuals like Mr. D'Souza have a feminine deduction.
This is no slur on females, but in reasoning most females decide for example to purchase a car and then build back for reasons they should buy a car no matter how illogical the reasons.

The male mind builds to an action by reasons. My car get's bad gas mileage, it has too many miles etc... and it convinces him to take action.

Islamic males and apologists have already decided upon a thought or outcome and then everything else in fact and truth is discarded. It is just the way the mind works in 2 different psychological spheres. For a reason to be explored, many of these people operate in this mindset and is why it is impossible to deal with them as they have based their ideas not on deduction, but on bias.

Posted by: Lame Cherry

at March 8, 2007 7:03 PM

Mr. Spencer, history will be written, and you will be remembered as one of the greatest theological philoshophers of the 21st century.

Posted by: astuddis

at March 8, 2007 7:06 PM

meaning the minds of all the umma remains imprisoned and void of anything good.

Circle the rock,slay the infedel,praise allah,circle the rock,slay the infedel,praise allah......

Posted by: Dar al-harb

at March 8, 2007 9:19 PM

Lame Cherry, Most men and women buy a new car because they WANT one. Maybe men just come up with more sensible justifications (uh, yes, the increased oxygen intake in the carburetor will enhance fuel performance and, as a result, the United States will be less dependent on dhimmi-oppressing oil vendors) whereas women just tell it like it is (I want a purple car because I'm bored with my red one). FYI, whenever you preface a thought with "no slur on XXX," it almost certainly is!

Posted by: former liberal WF

at March 8, 2007 9:22 PM

I'm sorry to divert attention from the lovely article above, so full of necessary guidance for those wanting to win public debate over Islam. I love this site; it is the reason I am addicted to the internet. My reading today ranged from from the gates of ijtihad to the literary merits of Tirante el Blanco en español. What could be better?

Posted by: former liberal WF

at March 8, 2007 9:54 PM

"Muslims deny this kind of thing only when an Infidel asserts it in a context that makes the the Muslim spokesman uncomfortable." --Robert.

Great post. There are certain classes of Islamic apologetics that arise again and again, and that is one of them. I suppose it fits under the general category of ad hominem; making a distracting accusation against the person instead of the substance of the argument.

"The moral of the story is that, in debate with a jihad apologist, anything you assert, no matter how commonplace, may be taken as a manifestation of your "ignorance." Be armed with support from Islamic sources for virtually everything -- everything -- you assert." --Robert

Absolutely. I think most Muslim apologists assume that (their ideal of) Islam is perfect and the Koran is perfect, therefore any alleged problems with the Koran or (ideal) Islam must be purely in the mind of the critic. Thus, the critic is to blame. This appears to be how Muhammad understood the non-Muslims' rejection of his message and system: They were either (1) ignorant, deaf, dumb, blind, etc.; (2) malicious/evil, liars, etc.; or (3) ill, perverse, etc.

1. "ignorant"

--foolish (6:35); deaf, dumb, and blind, and have no sense (2:171); deaf and dumb and in darkness, Allah sends them astray (6:39); have no sense (5:103, 10:100); a folk who do not understand (9:127); their fathers were unintelligent and had no knowledge or guidance (2:170, 5:104); are “a folk without intelligence”/ “most ignorant” (8:65, 6:111); losers who are deceived by Allah (2:6), and deceived by Satan (4:60).

2. "bad/evil, liars, etc."

--“evil” is upon them (16:27), evil (2:91, 2:99); “wicked” (80:42, 9:125); the “wrong-doers” (42:45, 2:254, 5:45); evil-doers (42:44); evil-livers (5:59); they have no good in them (8:23); are “guilty” for disbelieving (45:31, 83:29); on the side of Satan and are fighting for him (4:76-77); of the party of Satan (58:19); Allah assigns them devils for protecting friends (7:27); they choose devils for protecting friends (7:30); are partisan against Allah (25:55); "enemy" (63:4); ungrateful traitors (31:32).

--liars/they lie (2:10, 4:50, 6:28, 9:42, 16:39, 16:105, 59:11); foolish and liars (7:66), liars and losers (58:18-19),

3. "sick, perverted, etc."

---“perverted” (63:4); disgraced lives (22:9); are ill (84:20); have a “diseased heart” (2:10, 9:125); in false pride and schism (38:2), in schism (2:137, 2:167).

There couldn't possibly be anything wrong with (ideal) Islam or the Koran, oh no.

Posted by: Khaybar Oasis

at March 9, 2007 6:11 AM

former liberal WF:

(Is WF = White Female?)

Yes, I agree LameCherry could have better described this thought process as backward reasoning- starting with a conclusion and then working backwards to gather evidence to support it. There never was any inquiry since the conclusion was already a done deal anyway. Inquiry is blasphemy and can't be allowed.

The "ignorance" accusation is supposed to cast the debate as a civil rights issue. It's the 1960's all over again. The oppressed Blacks are now the Muslims and the oppressive ignorant Southern racists are the infidels. Many social movements have successfully ridden the moral coattails of the Black Civil Rights Movement (Feminism, Gay Rights, Animal Rights, etc.) Muslims know there is still a lot of mileage left in this strategy.

Posted by: TheVeiledThreat

at March 9, 2007 1:01 PM

Thanks Robert for sharing this propaganda ploy

Posted by: UK Infidel Lover

at March 9, 2007 6:32 PM

Your post was certainly Lame, Cherry.

I, a female of the species, buy a car only when the current one fails to be reliable, or starts to nickel-and-dime me to death.

I do agree with your observation of Islamic "thought" consisting of finding rationalizations for an Allah-commanded outcome. However, characterizing it as "feminine thinking", is clearly wrong. As evidence, you need only peruse the posts of such as Caroline here at JW.

Posted by: Vee

at March 11, 2007 12:02 PM

Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.