| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Jihad Watch reader A. M. frequently writes to me to tell me how wrong, wrong, wrong I am about Islam, which, he maintains, has within it none of the features that I keep asking Muslims like him to confront and reform. If they don't exist at all, considerably less work needs to be done -- although it remains to be explained how those pesky jihadists keep getting Islam so wrong, wrong, wrong themselves, and what stout fellows like A. M. plan to do about it.
But anyway, A. M. took exception to the post below, writing this:
...this "Montreal man killed by his brother for being a bad Muslim" (and all other similar posts) is another example of how you try to make Islam look bad for bad acts done by Muslims. Just blame Islam for every bad act done by a Muslim, just why don't you?!
Well, thanks for the offer, my good man, but no thanks. In reality we do not do that at Jihad Watch, and never have. Practically every day people send me stories of crimes involving Muslims that I do not put up, because there is no discernable jihad angle. These days lots of people keep sending me the story about the Muslim in Florida who dragged a woman four miles with his car. I will not put it up unless he says something like "I did it because she was a filthy kuffar." Otherwise, well, people of all races, colors and creeds commit heinous crimes every day, but they have nothing to do with our work here in defense of human rights unless they were committed by people who are out to destroy those rights and subjugate us if they can.
And that's why I put up the story to which A. M. objected -- because Najib Bellari killed his brother because he was a "bad Muslim." However, A. M. also sent me a link to this, a Sunni anti-Shia polemic site of which A. M. is fond, where it is argued that "extra-judicial vigiliante justice was not permitted in Islam." A. M. argues on that basis that Najib Bellari's murder has nothing to do with Islam, and is an example of my egregious anti-Muslim bias.
In reality, however, as with so many issues in Islam, it all depends on the meaning of words. What's a vigilante? The Shafi'i Sharia manual 'Umdat al-Salik says that "an expiation is due to Allah Most High from anyone who kills someone unlawful to kill..." (o5.1). However, "there is no expiation for killing someone who has left Islam" (o5.4). In other words, someone who kills is liable to punishment, but he isn't liable to punishment if he kills an apostate. And nothing at all is said about state authority.
Now, Al-Azhar in Cairo, which has been praised for its moderation, endorses 'Umdat al-Salik as conforming to the "practice and faith of the orthodox Sunni community." And it, among many other authorities (which I will produce upon request) asserts that there is no penalty for killing an apostate -- which seems to be something close to what Najib Bellari thinks he did.
Here it is again, the same old story: instead of acknowledging the elements of Islam that are at variance with universally accepted norms of human rights, we get denial and obfuscation. So I post this as it may be instructive, and to call upon all self-proclaimed moderates like A. M. to stop their denial and to work for positive change within Islam, first by acknowledging that change is needed. For the culture that produced Najib Bellari will produce many more like him, unless the assumptions that led to his act are confronted and combatted within the Islamic community.
Posted by Robert at June 7, 2007 6:58 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
A.M.
If islam is not to be "judged" by the bad acts of it's adherants, acts committed specifically in the name of islam and under authority of islamic law...then I suppose any "good" acts committed by an adherant should also be excluded.
For example, a muslim hears that there is to be an attack on Christians who live in a nearby village and young Christian girls are to be beheaded in an act of intimidation or terror. I would be able to judge muslims favorably if someone stepped forward to warn or help to protect their Christian neighbors.
This example is certainly hypothetical because although this sort of violent attack happens frequently, I have no evidence that any muslim has done anything to help a neighbor who wasn't a muslim..before or after the fact.
A.M. If the shoe fits you must wear it.
![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at June 7, 2007 8:24 PM
Except perhaps for local news, there has been nothing in Canadian news about this. It appears to be a clear case of 1st degree murder and a hate crime given the religious dispute. Had a Southern Baptist killed his brother for becoming methodist, I am confident it would have made the front page of the Globe and Mail (this morning the front cover was about some Creationist Museum in Western Canada ... go figure).
The steadfast denial of Muslims to connect the Koranic narrative (Islam) with the production of murder and mayhem is of great concern to me. Sure one can always say that the behaviour of particular Muslims is not Islam, but then one could say that about any religion. Religions give rise to narratives which guide how people see and act. Unless Muslims are intentional about denying and repressing supposedly deviant and violence producing Muslims theologies, one must conclude that their inaction is an affirmation of these theologies. From the words and actions of this particular Muslim, it appears he killed his brother (if guilty) because his brother was not conservative enough.
As a Christian, I would anticipate a widespread condemnation of a similar act by Christian leadership across Canada. The problem however is that Muslims appear more concerned with protecting their their collective image than dealing with violent people within their group.
If Islam is so great, then one should anticipate to see a blossoming of kindness, love and goodness from it. We see the opposite, and when outsiders critique the religion,in a cultish manner most Mulims go on the offensive and claim their are being persecuted. This reaction I believe is created through the Islamic narrative created by the Koran itself. The Koran blinds Muslims into believing they are central, superior and deserving. This is the worldview of violent supremacists of all stripes. If I am wrong about this, then why are Muslims so reactive to outside criticism. Humble people and humble cultures will welcome external criticism.
God bless Robert Spencer,but I think he is too generous in not stating that Islamic is inherently violent. On this point,I disagree with him. God is so radically transcendent and the Koran so far from criticism that its narrative can only produce endless war and violence. One of the reasons I love Christianity and became a devote Christian is the profound power of a crucified God. God's power is ultimately expressed in the self-giving sacrifice of God. I am thinking of the first few chapters of the book of Philippians. Paul quotes an early christian hymn when he writes "Though he was in the form of God, he did not regard equality with God to be exploited, but being found in human form took on the form of a slave". I think I got the quote a bit wrong, but the meaning is clear. The cross (which Muslims deny according to the Koran) is an ongoing corrective which will in history trouble any move to Christian supremicism and ultimately destabilize any moves to this sort of power. The more one explores that Islamic hadith and the Koran, the more you discover power over others and repression of the other (non-Muslim) as the core of the Islamic god. Christianity is ultimately about service to the other and Islam about submission of the other. This is my conclusion regarding the competing narratives. A religion that lacks any strong expression of the golden rule (all great religions in the world teach this except Islam ... there is some obscure references to this, however it is an obvious conclusion that there is one rule for Muslims and another for non-Muslims ... we are less deserving) is not from the Divine but from another realm altogether.
Posted by: James Martel at June 7, 2007 8:30 PM
A.M.
What exactly is your point? Are you saying that Muslims shouldn't kill apostates?, or are you denying that this is central and core doctrine in Islam?
Your objection doesn't make any sense.
James Martel - A good post, thanks.
Posted by: Ozi_bloke at June 7, 2007 9:07 PM
A.M.,
If you have any evidence from the Quran, Hadith, or Islamic law that specifies a punishment for those Muslims who take it upon themselves to kill apostates, heretics, hypocrites, or blasphemers, please present it.
Posted by: Khaybar Oasis at June 7, 2007 10:00 PM
a.m. is a regular at Umar Lee's blog. Instead of engaging him directly here on this topic, I encourage all to lurk and read what his real position is there, in more comfortable surroundings, to him.
For Robert, it is no more than debating a child, a rather insolent one to boot. His attempt, commonplace by Islamists today, is to suggest that Muslims who act in the name of Allah are not practicing correct Islam, merely mis-interpreting the true religion itself.
It is a hollow offering. I don't know if a.m. is a "traditional" Muslim, AKA, Arabic. He is probably a convert, but that is irrelevant. Islamic texts are an impetus for jihadist motives by Muslims, that much has been proven true by Robert and at this point is irrefutable, contrary to a.m.'s suggestion otherwise.
Judge for yourself, as suggested, but I think you already know the answer.
Posted by: awake at June 7, 2007 10:15 PM
Robert said
the Muslim in Florida who dragged a woman four miles with his car. I will not put it up unless he says something like "I did it because she was a filthy kuffar."
Unless he says it and the media disclose that he said it.
In the case of the San Francisco SUV jihadist, only one local paper (and none of the national mainstream media) reported his self-appellation as a jihadist.
Posted by: special_guest at June 7, 2007 10:22 PM
Is there not a man amongst the lions of islam?Not one man that can stand up and say "my religion is broken"?
Try as you may morons like me are not easily fooled and you people of the religion of peace try really hard.Who is the more foolish?
Just admit it, say:
My religion loves murder
My religion loves rape
my religion loves to abuse
My religion loves rapeing innocent minds
My religion loves pedophilia
My religion loves to hate
With drug addicts and alcoholics murderers and rapists they first have to admit they have a problem.
With you people it's everone elses problem,people just refuse to stand and take it.
Get used to it there is much more "resistance" on the way.The ships of fools will outride the stormy ocean.And every time one of you speaks up to defend the true islam it makes the justification for the purge all that more sound.
Allah wasn't very smart else he would have put the muslim female in charge she could have invented better crap.
Posted by: Dar al-harb at June 7, 2007 10:39 PM
"...this "Montreal man killed by his brother for being a bad Muslim" (and all other similar posts) is another example of how you try to make Islam look bad for bad acts done by Muslims. Just blame Islam for every bad act done by a Muslim, just why don't you?!"
When the Mafia took a contract out on someone for breaking the Mafia code, we called the killer a "hit man." No one cared if the Mafia looked bad, Or if other gang members looked bad because of the acts of one gang member.
We simply assumed from the Mafia code that that the "hit man" was doing his job as a loyal member of the organization. Other members were equally obligated to kill in defense of the code they lived by. They all look bad because they all abide by the same code as the hit man, and they all give their moral, and sometimes, material support to him for his faithfulness to the code.
The same for Islam. 1400 years ago Muhammad put out a contract on all those who insulted him or strayed from his teachings. If a Muslim kills in obedience to Islamic teachings, he is only enforcing the God-given code of Islam as revealed to him by Mohammad. And chances are that most Muslims admire and support him for his faithful service to the code.
If Islam, as with the Mafia, look bad because someone reports on the actions of one man, it's because the whole rotten system, including the moral code that motivated the man , is bad.
Period.
Posted by: rational at June 8, 2007 12:44 AM
When do they ever say love? They don't even say they love allah nor mohammed nothing?!
Posted by: MZ at June 8, 2007 1:12 AM
So I post this as it may be instructive, and to call upon all self-proclaimed moderates like A. M. to stop their denial and to work for positive change within Islam, first by acknowledging that change is needed.
I don't think this can really be done. If you acknowledge that Islam is inherently violent and so forth, how can you continue to believe in it? If you don't make this acknowledgement, then reform is not really possible.
As far as I can see the only way to truly reform Islam is to simply discard good portions of its holy texts. But what kind of a Muslim is going to do that, and how could a project like that succeed?
The fact that no reform has yet occured probably means that it's never coming.
Posted by: Jesus Christ Supercop at June 8, 2007 4:33 AM
The notion that a doctrine alien to Western tradition might contain unacceptable elements is itself unacceptable to persons hostile to the Western tradition. You will note that such persons are endlessly willing to excoriate Christianity whenever a self-nominated Christian commits a heinous act, even though nothing Jesus of Nazareth said or did could possibly be cited as justification.
There's no point in arguing with such persons. They already have their conclusion, and no conceivable evidence or argument will budge them from it.
Posted by: Francis W. Porretto at June 8, 2007 5:39 AM
James Martel, totally agree with you.
As for the incident in Florida, could I be so bold as to ask the question, would he have done that if the woman had been wearing a burkha?
But then again the woman would most probably not have tried to stop the car?
Its social conditioning based on being taught not to value most of humanities life, in doing so they lose the ability to value any human life and that includes fellow Muslims...
Posted by: Daffersd at June 8, 2007 5:59 AM
Hugh, in your honest opinion, how much more of this will there need to be before the West loses its patience? For five years after 9/11 I was one of those fools who thought "Oh, Islam can't be all bad. It's just been hijacked by a few loose cannons. Sooner or later the moderates will win over." But in the last few months I have seen the light, and had my PC blinders removed - thanks to a certain cleric in my country comparing rape victims to uncovered meat, my muslim friends who rant about 9/11 conspiracy theories instead of owning up to the problems in their society, that poll about the "mainstream" attitudes of U.S. muslims, just to name a few reasons. But getting back to my original question, when do you think enough people will undergo that same change in their attitudes so that something can be done?
Enough with the Chamberlains... we need a Churchill!
Posted by: EnricoDandolo at June 8, 2007 7:22 AM
When I compare the symbols of Christianity and symbols of Islam I see, for Christianity, two lines intersecting to a point signifying perhaps the value of the individual in the grand scheme. One might also see the x & y axis representing focus and real time cause and effect. For islam the two symbols I see are a book and a sword. The book (koran) suggests to me more of a hive form which is inherantly exclusive and defensive. Also the hive does not value each individual, only the whole hive (emphasize 'only'). If one cares to take the analogy a bit further,the sword could be the stinger.
Posted by: volsella at June 8, 2007 9:47 AM
All followers of Islam are termed Muslims. It is an undeniable fact, the correlation between the two.
If one Muslim kills another for being a "bad" Muslim in their estimation, the same correlation exists, it's direct tie to Islam.
If A Muslim kills another Muslim for an extraneous reason, like a defense from an attempted robbery for example, while the initial perpetrator stil might be deemed a "bad" Muslim, the proper identification would be a "bad" person, with the motive being dramatically different.
Many Muslims embrace Islam as an all-encompassing guide on how to live, pray, adjudicate, eat, etc. They are proud of this distinction and many boast of the blessing that it is to serve and be a slave to Allah. Muslims generally eschew their ethnicity and choose to define themselves as Muslims first with all other attributes secondary.
it is here that we see the Muslim attempting to "eat his cake and have it too". It is all about Islam to them,unless of course the association is something not quite as glorious as they would like.
They just can not have it both ways.
Posted by: awake at June 8, 2007 10:59 AM
The Christian symbol of the cross represents the tragic interesection of the human will with the divine will. It of course, also, represents the instrument of the divine passion.
The Islamic symbol of the crescent moon represents the hastiness and sloppiness of Satan who cobbled together a FAKE Bible to help him destroy the world and stupidly forgot to cover his tracks. Islam is like a very amateurish play where the masks and costumes keep slipping off.
Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at June 8, 2007 11:21 AM
Amateurish or not, tracks covered or not, the constant and seemingly inexorable increase in the adherents of this Islamic nonsense tells me that the disguise is working way too well.
Posted by: Godefroi at June 8, 2007 11:48 AM
EnricoDandolo said
when do you think enough people will undergo that same change in their attitudes so that something can be done?
You have as much ability to predict the future as anyone.
Look around at the people you know, and judge their (hopefully growing) level of awareness about what Islam really teaches. Watch the news and see if there is any movement among Muslims to end the violence being committed in the name of Islam. Extrapolate.
In my opinion, and watching attempts such as the JFK pipeline jihadists, I think it likely that a major event will occur that will change the public's attitude, and also the media coverage of, and the government's reaction to, jihad.
Posted by: special_guest at June 8, 2007 2:48 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.)