| FrontPageMag.com | Articles By Robert Spencer | Articles By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Robert Spencer Bio |  |
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
Ed Husain is the author of The Islamist, a book about how he entered and then left the jihadist group Hizb ut-Tahrir. He recently debated Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and has now written a piece in The Guardian, "Stop supporting Bin Laden," about how Hirsi Ali, Ibn Warraq and I are -- unwittingly, of course -- playing into the hands of Osama bin Laden himself.
This is, of course, a familiar canard, and one that I have dealt with before, when Dinesh D'Souza made the same charge. The contention is that because I -- and Hirsi Ali, and Ibn Warraq, and others -- point out that there is a broad and deeply rooted tradition of violence and supremacism within Islam, therefore we are marginalizing other Islamic traditions and legitimizing bin Laden. In saying this, Husain (and D'Souza) implies that jihadism is a clear Islamic heresy, and that there is a broad tradition within Islam that rejects violence against non-Muslims and Islamic supremacism -- and that Hirsi Ali, Ibn Warraq and I are ignoring or downplaying it out of some base motives. Bin Laden or someone like him invented jihadism and grafted it onto a religion that has otherwise peaceful teachings.
In reality, however, while there are a few courageous reformers out there, all -- not just one, or a few, but all -- the orthodox sects and schools of Islamic jurisprudence teach that it is part of the responsibility of the Islamic community to wage war against unbelievers and subjugate them under the rule of Islamic law (references can be found here). There is no sect or school recognized as orthodox that rejects this. It is not playing into bin Laden's hands to point it out; in fact, it is playing into bin Laden's hands to deny it and denigrate those who point out that it is so, for there can be no reform of what one will not admit needs reforming. There are some disagreements between modern jihadism and traditional jihad theology: modern jihad is all defensive, as there is no caliph authorized to call offensive jihad, and some assert that only the state authority can call jihad in any case. But these disagreements do not touch on the central point: that it is legitimate to wage religious war. If Ed Husain wishes to pretend to the world that the situation of Islamic theology and jurisprudence is other than what it is, how sincere a reformer can he be? Wouldn't a genuine reformer acknowledge the existence of problematic passages and doctrines and formulate new ways to understand them, rather than pretending that they don't exist at all -- except in the minds of violent fanatics and those he would have you believe are merely hatemongers?
Husain's account of the debate at the Centre for Social Cohesion (before which he appeared, like Ayaan, as an invited speaker, not a representative) is revealing:
...Organised by the thinktank the Centre for Social Cohesion, and masterfully chaired by Douglas Murray, a capacity crowd of politicians, journalists, Muslims, civil servants, authors, thinktankers, publishers, police bosses, Islamists, and feminists questioned Hirsi Ali and me on issues not ordinarily raised in public. Was the Prophet Mohammad responsible for the murders committed by some of his companions? Was the prophet a military leader? Is political sovereignty for God, or humans?
Good questions. Can we get answers from this reasonable reformist? Alas, no, for the questions themselves are ignorant and hostile:
These, and other, questions stem from a deep ignorance of, and hostility towards, a complex, millennium-old Islamic tradition.
Maybe they do. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't be answered. Maybe he answered them in the debate, but he certainly doesn't do so here. And since there are Muslims who say Muhammad ordered his companions to kill prisoners and to murder his opponents, and that he was a military leader, and that political sovereignty belongs to Allah, not to humans, why are non-Muslims ignorant and hostile when they ask these questions?
Just as Wahhabites and Islamists bypass scholarship, context, and history in the name of "returning to the book", Hirsi Ali and others such as Robert Spencer and Ibn Warraq commit exactly the same error. What do I mean? Let's take the question of apostasy. At an Evening Standard debate the other night, Rod Liddle had no qualms in declaring Islam, with a barrage of other baseless abuse, "a fascistic ideology". Why? Because the Qur'an commands the killing of those who abandon it. Really?
Actually, no, but read on:
Well, here are a few facts that might help the new coterie of Islam-bashers retract ill-informed statements: a) there is no verse in the Qur'an that calls for the killing of apostates;
Actually, there is no verse in the Qur'an that calls clearly and unequivocally for the killing of apostates. But Al-Shafi'i, the jurist who founded the school of Sunni jurisprudence that bears his name, held that Qur'an 2:217 called for the killing of the apostate: "And they will not cease from fighting against you till they have made you renegades from your religion, if they can. And whoso becometh a renegade and dieth in his disbelief: such are they whose works have fallen both in the world and the Hereafter." Others point to Qur'an 4:89 -- "But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them" -- as calling for the execution of apostates. The Qur'an interpreter Baydawi explained this verse this way: "Whosoever turns back from his belief (irtada), openly or secretly, take him and kill him wheresoever ye find him, like any other infidel."
Is it ill-informed Islam-bashing for me to quote Baydawi and al-Shafi'i in their interpretations of these Qur'an verses? I don't see why. Is it not rather disingenuous of Ed Husain to assert flatly that no verse in the Qur'an calls for the killing of apostates, without bothering to inform us that leading Islamic thinkers have said otherwise? I am all for reform and the rejection of the idea that apostates should be killed, but I seriously doubt it can be affected by denial that a problem exists rather than by confrontation of the problem.
b) the Prophet Mohammed did not kill several people who freely left Islam;
Here again, Husain doesn't mention the reason why that fact would be notable: because Muhammad himself directed that apostates be killed:
"If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him." (Bukhari 4.52.60)
"Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him." (Bukhari 9.84.57)
(Nor is it just a couple of texts in Bukhari. Muhammad's statement "Whoever changes his religion, kill him" -- من بدل دينه فاقتلوه -- is attested in whole or part, with some variations but no change of substance, also by Muslim, Malik's Muwatta, Ibn Hibban, Abu Dawud, Tirmidhi, An-Nassai, Ibn Majah, the Sunan al-Kubraa, Bayhaqi, Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Abu Ya`laa, Humaidi, Abd al-Razzaq, and Ibn Abi Shaybah.)
So did he not kill apostates on some occasions? Great. But unfortunately, he didn't direct his followers not to kill apostates. In fact, he did just the opposite. When Muhammad conquered Mecca, according to his ninth-century biographer Ibn Sa‘d, he ordered the Muslims to fight only those individuals or groups who resisted their advance into the city -- except for a list of people who were to be killed, even if they had sought sanctuary in the Ka’bah itself. One of those was Abdullah bin Sa’d, a former Muslim who at one time had been employed by Muhammad to write down the Qur’anic revelations; but he had subsequently apostatized and returned to the Quraysh. He was found and brought to Muhammad along with his brother, and pleaded with the Prophet of Islam for clemency: “Accept the allegiance of Abdullah, Apostle of Allah!” Abdullah repeated this twice, but Muhammad remained impassive. After Abdullah repeated it a third time, Muhammad accepted.
Did he thus reject the killing of apostates? Not quite. As soon as Abdullah had left, Muhammad turned to the Muslims who were in the room and asked: “Was not there a wise man among you who would stand up to him when he saw that I had withheld my hand from accepting his allegiance, and kill him?”
The companions, aghast, responded: “We did not know what you had in your heart, Apostle of Allah! Why did you not give us a signal with your eye?”
“It is not advisable,” said the Prophet of Islam, “for a Prophet to play deceptive tricks with the eyes.”
Apostasy from Islam had always been for Muhammad a supreme evil. When he was master of Medina, some livestock herders came to the city and accepted Islam. But they disliked Medina’s climate, so Muhammad gave them some camels and a shepherd; once away from Medina, the herders killed the shepherd, released the camels and renounced Islam. Muhammad had them pursued. When they were caught, he ordered that their hands and feet be amputated (in accord with Qur’an 5:33, which directs that those who cause “corruption in the land” be punished by the amputation of their hands and feet on opposite sides) and their eyes put out with heated iron bars, and that they be left in the desert to die. Their pleas for water, he ordered, must be refused. That's also in Bukhari, the Hadith collection that Muslims consider most reliable.
It stains credulity, in light of all this, for Ed Husain to give the impression that Muhammad disapproved of the murder of apostates. This kind of assertion may be comforting to non-Muslims who would prefer to believe that the notorious capital charges levied in early 2006 against the Afghan convert from Islam to Christianity, Abdul Rahman, were some sort of anomaly. Unfortunately, this claim simply does not accord with the facts of Muhammad’s life. And here again, if Ed Husain really wishes to work for reform within Islam, he can't stand before his fellow Muslims and pretend that those stories about Muhammad don't exist. They know they exist. He has to deal with them for what they are.
c) Sufyan al-Thawri, a second-generation Muslim, clearly stated that ex-Muslims should be free to exercise their will;
Great. And who is Sufyan al-Thawri? He was a renowned ascetic, but why do all the schools of Sunni jurisprudence -- Shafi'i, Maliki, Hanafi and Hanbali -- as well as the Shi'ites teach that the apostasy of a male adult merits death, if Sufyan al-Thawri's word is so authoritative? How can Muslims be persuaded to follow Sufyan al-Thawri rather than virtually all the mainstream Islamic jurists? It is easy to impress non-Muslims with a statement like this, when they don't know Sufyan al-Thawri from a hole in the ground, but unfortunately it is Muslims who today must be convinced that Islam doesn't mandate death for apostasy, and invoking Sufyan al-Thawri isn't going to accomplish that.
d) the four schools of Muslim jurisprudential thought that endorsed the killing of apostates did so on grounds of treason and sedition, not theology;
Yet another misleading point. It is true that the four schools of Sunni jurisprudence endorsed the killing of apostates because the apostate was seen as a threat to the stability of the Islamic state. But in that same Islamic jurisprudence, there is no separation between matters of state and theology, between the sacred and the secular. That is a Western, Judeo-Christian distinction. Islam has been since Muhammad moved from Mecca to Medina a political and social system as well as an individual religious faith. To say that something is political rather than theological is essentially meaningless in terms of traditional Islam.
And in any case, the death penalty for apostates is based on the statements of Muhammad quoted above, and so have his prophetic seal. To say they're not theological is simply false.
e) the 1843-44 Ottoman reforms enshrined the right of Muslims to accept other religions without state punishment.
Indeed, but under heavy Western pressure, and with resistance from the Islamic clerocracy. These reforms, in other words, were not affected by Islam or from within Islam, but in spite of Islam. Here again, this is not to say that a form of Islam could develop that teaches that the apostate should not be harmed, but the Ottoman reforms did not come about because such a form of Islam had actually developed. It had not.
I could go on.
Oh, please do. And I hope it will be in a debate with me.
Hirsi Ali vociferously objects to the Prophet Mohammed being a moral guide. For me, it is his guidance, compassion, humanity, warmth, love, kindness that rescued me, and others, from Islamist extremism. He warned against religious extremism. His was a smiling face. His tomb in Medina today radiates the peace and serenity to which he was called.
These are lovely greeting-card sentiments, but they do not mitigate the force of Muhammad's statements above, or of his call to his followers to offer non-Muslims conversion, subjugation, or war. I'm glad that Ed Husain has apparently rejected such calls. How can he persuade more of his fellow Muslims to do so?
I concede that there is a problem with extremism among sections of the Muslim population - a context-vacuous literalism continues to threaten the very spirit of Islam.
"A context-vacuous literalism"? So it would appear that Ed Husain is now granting that the Qur'an and Sunnah, taken literally, mandate warfare against unbelievers. It is only by a rejection of that literalism that their force for incitement can be mitigated. If that is what he means, I am with him. But I find this rather odd after he strongly implied above that the Qur'an and Muhammad, taken literally, do not command death for apostates.
That same extremism has unleashed what is called "al-Qaida": an operation that adopts Islamism as its political ideology and Wahhabism as its theology. Mainstream Muslims have common cause with the west in defeating this hybrid beast. Just as Christian fundamentalists threaten the fibre of the Christian spirit (see Chris Hedges' recent book)
Yes, do, and see also my book responding to his hysteria about "Christian theocrats."
...Muslim extremists with petrodollars seek to impose a new, bastardised, soulless, rigid religiosity on the world's Muslims.As with the issue of apostasy, there is, and has always been, much disagreement and debate within Islam on this and other contentious topics. It is by rediscovering the Muslim pluralist past that we will defeat literalism-based claims of exclusivity in our midst. There is no stronger argument against religious fanatics than to illustrate the scriptural weaknesses of their case.
Here again, Husain seems uncertain as to whether Islamic scripture bears out the jihadist case -- albeit in a literalistic, context-free way -- or not. If their case has scriptural weaknesses, it is odd that no school of Islamic jurisprudence has noticed them and modified its teaching on warfare against unbelievers and apostasy.
Hirsi Ali and others also frequently cite Muslim scripture to support their claims of a mythical "monolithic Islam". In my debate with Hirsi Ali, I was struck by the simple anecdotes she forwarded to illustrate her case. In Hirsi Ali, I see the same selective use of scripture as those that she opposes. Her objections to the Qur'an should also lead her to object to the Bible - after all, Leveticus has more references to stoning and burning sinners than ever found in the Qur'an. That's not to say it makes it right: it's about fairness in criticism....
Fairness in criticism? Physician, heal thyself! Leviticus may indeed talk more about stoning than the Qur'an, but in reality neither Jews nor Christians stone adulterers today, and both have evolved interpretative traditions that reject the literal application of such commands. Meanwhile, in Saudi Arabia and Iran, where Islamic law is still in force, stonings are still practiced. Eight women are awaiting death by stoning in Iran today, and Iranian authorities justify this by quoting Islamic law, not the statements of Ayaan Hirsi Ali. If she is employing a "selective use of scripture," so are they, and yet Husain's ire is directed at her, not at them. In my own books I've explained at length how Islamic authorities interpret Islamic texts to justify warfare against unbelievers and other atrocities: it is not my interpretation, or Ayaan's, but theirs.
Will Ed Husain confront it as such and work in good faith for Islamic reform, or will he continue to attack those who, if he really rejects jihad and Islamic supremacism, should be his allies?
When ex-Muslims such as Hirsi Ali ignore the nuances, complexities, and plurality inherent within Islam and allow the actions of a minority of Wahhabite-Islamists to speak for a billion Muslims, then she plays into the hands of extremists and allows their discourse to dominate one of the great faiths of our world. Worse, it creates a public space in which attacking all Muslims and Islam becomes acceptable, even fashionable. Demonising Europe's second largest minority helps nobody. No good can come of ratcheting up the prejudice against them. Yes, identify and combat extremists and in that fight you will find orthodox Muslims as partners. But continue to attack with ignorance, spite and hatred our history, our prophet, our scriptures, our scholars: then you confirm the al-Qaida narrative of a war against Islam. No, there is no moral equivalence between Bin Laden's murderous worldview and his critics. But a damage is being done that may take generations to repair.
When Muslims such as Ed Husain ignore the deep scriptural, theological and legal foundations of Islamic violence and supremacism, rather than acknowledging those foundations and calling for reform and reinterpretation of those aspects of Islam, then he plays into the hands of extremists and allows their discourse to dominate one of the great faiths of our world. For it will continue to dominate as long as it goes unchallenged, and Ed Husain and others like him hinder genuine reform by attacking those who are trying to call attention to these aspects.
Then he plays the basest "Islamophobia" card, suggesting that Ayaan is creating an environment in which "attacking all Muslims and Islam becomes acceptable, even fashionable." No. If anyone is doing that, it is Ed Husain: if he really wants to end "ignorance, spite and hatred" directed at Muslims, he could start by ending his sly disingenousness, his evasions, his half-truths and finger-pointing in the face of the biggest crisis of our time.
Posted by Robert at November 28, 2007 5:48 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
I've been waiting all day for this. Worth the wait. And then some.
Posted by: Hugh![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at November 28, 2007 5:54 PM
"Don't get Hitler pissed-off. Try to be nice". Maybe the Chinese have the right attitude on this.
http://dalesdesigns.net/kidnap.htm
Posted by: Frank at November 28, 2007 6:13 PM
Sorry about overusing the "and then some." It's the inner Paul-Muldoon in me.
Posted by: Hugh at November 28, 2007 6:14 PM
Great Robert! Thanks for putting this up. I already did a take on this here:
Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right…
It is laughable, but also scary that educated people like Ed Husain or the Glasgow doctors believe they can pull the Islamic wool over our ears and eyes.
Unhinged fanaticism, or in Churchills words: 'a fanatical frenzy, more dangerous than...'
http://sheikyermami.com/2007/11/27/pali-arabs-defend-their-readiness-for-statehood/
Posted by: sheik yer'mami at November 28, 2007 6:16 PM
I didnt know you were a Wrathchild America fan Shiek.
:-)
at November 28, 2007 6:19 PM
Robert,
I wonder where Thomas Haidon would differ from Ed Husain and from Ayaan Hirsi Ali? How would he confront both the need for a genuinely reformed Islam open to the larger world and the larger world's engagement with Islam?
Posted by: John C at November 28, 2007 6:35 PM
I guess we can play "moral equivalence" with Ed Husain, D'Souza, and others like them, saying if the media, Muslims, etc. would just quit bringing up stuff like "Abu Ghraib", "Gitmo-torture", "Bagram abuse", etc., it wouldn't play into those minority-extremist American soldiers who are drooling for a chance to humiliate another al-Qaeda goon, all while keeping the majority-moderate American soldiers from being demoralized into wanting to do the same. But somehow, this kind of equivalizing doesn't seem to play out the same way.
at November 28, 2007 6:37 PM
Spencer has the patience of Job. Great.
OT:
I took a Polling Point Poll the other day. It wandered through various subjects then asked about how favorable I felt toward various groups on a sliding scale - jews, blacks, hispanics, evangelicals, christians, muslims. I was idly hitting a reasonably positive on all of them but when I came to Muslim I couldn't decide whether they meant a self identifying Muslim who never gets past a couple or five of the pillars (matching the several Muslims I know personally) or whether they meant Islam's definition of Muslim as one believing Mohammid is a great example and all his words and all verses of Quran are true and revealed and that anyone who disbelieves a single verse is apostate. I decided to go with Islam's definition in which case most of our Muslim friends are not Muslims and my favorable rating was not high.
How should I have interpreted this poll?
at November 28, 2007 6:53 PM
As usual, Mr. Spencer has given a brilliant scholarly presentation.
However, it matters not one whit whether or not the Qur’an contains a clear explicit command to kill apostates.
Because I do not possess the expertise that Mr. Spencer does, I would just point out what I like to call, “The Qur’anic Catch-all.” (Patent Pending) The Verse of the Sword,9:5, clearly calls for Muslims to slay the infidel wherever they find them. Logically, this would include apostates.
Posted by: patagonianplato at November 28, 2007 7:05 PM
Just heard Charlie Gibson telling about another nuclear deal.
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=3925750&page=1
at November 28, 2007 7:12 PM
No, there is no moral equivalence between Bin Laden's murderous worldview and his critics. But a damage is being done that may take generations to repair.
In other words, even when the leader of the most powerful nation on earth says so many positive things about Islam and has these sentiments broadcast across worldwide media, somehow Ed Husain believes the criticisms of Islam from obscure websites like JW, harassed apostates like Hirsi, and little-known authors like Warraq manage to overshadow even that....to the point of causing generations' worth of damage! Pitifully, this says more about the frailties and weaknesses of Islam than anything, which should embarass any Muslim. Then again, is it any wonder why it's such a crime to criticize Islam in an Islamic country, if only to spare Muslims such embarassment and "hurt feelings"?
at November 28, 2007 7:20 PM
Sounds like Husain is waking up from his long islmophobic nightmare.
Posted by: GrennBeck at November 28, 2007 7:39 PM
not sure where Muslims get their warm-fuzzy from concerning Muhammad and the Islamic past.. If there is anything that is clear from the life of Muhammad, the Quran, the Hadith and history in general is that Muhammad was a military leader who spread his insidious faith by the sword! Yes, it seems Ed slipped up by admitting that a strict-literalist interpretation of the Quran leads to violence..... This is exactly the point! This is why there has been 1,400 years of Muslim expansionism and aggression. Muslims like Ed need to get their heads out of the sand and take a long hard sobering look at their religion, their book, and their founder. Only then will they be able to break with their violent past & present...............
Posted by: Peaceful_Muslims? at November 28, 2007 7:41 PM
A powerful essay.
Per Husain, "Demonising Europe's second largest minority helps nobody."
Telling the truth about Europe's second largest minority is quite helpful, making it more likely that this minority will become a smaller minority. Who is helped? First, the infidels, who are disdained by the Religion of Predatory Behavior and Universal Harm (PBUH); but second, the Muslim who wants to grow out of his supremist tradition and to avoid the reinforcement of tradition that comes from having more and more Muslims nearby: "No, no, you can't assimilate; "no, no, you can't convert; no, no, you can't breathe."
And here is the important thing to understand about Muslim immigration: a small number is a small problem or even (seemingly) a non-problem. Professor Mohammed may in truth be a fine guy, with a fine family. But a larger number of Muslims is a larger problem far out of proportion to the increase in numbers. The descendants of the small or large number are quite likely, in times of trouble, to stick it the infidels in a way that seems unlikely to those who see only the first generation.
Is hatred of Islam inappropriate? Perhaps it is essential.
Posted by: StillBreathing at November 28, 2007 7:52 PM
"Generations worth of damage"? I think Islam has been there and done that already. They are currently working on a few more Century's.
Posted by: flowerknife_us at November 28, 2007 8:05 PM
Nobody tells me what to like or dislike, love or hate. I can judge for myself, thank you.
And I hate ISLAM, MOHAMMED, QUR'AN.
Any questions? Hi Osama! How you doing, you MASS-MURDERER, LIKE YOUR IDOL, MOHAMMED.
Posted by: darcy at November 28, 2007 8:23 PM
Thanks Robert, for exposing this islamist head-fake.
Magooey
Posted by: magooey at November 28, 2007 8:26 PM
I have NEVER trusted this Ed Husain ever since I saw a video of him being interviewed by the British media after he "left" his former jihadist group. His face, his body language - everything showed him to be lying. At least it was clear to me then, but I couldn't quite put my finger on why I felt that way.
It's great to watch Robert pick Husain apart with his examining glass under the dry white light of reason and demonstrate what I have long suspected. Why, Husain is running interference.
And we are not as dumb as he thinks we are. Thanks Robert!
Posted by: rishika at November 28, 2007 8:32 PM
Yeah, jihadism is a heresy. Then when will this crowd do something about this? 1400 years of waiting for reform, or killing these "heretics" or apostizing them and yet none of these things have been done. This is why infidels look at ALL Koranists with a wary eye-they can't or won't clean up this heresy so it looks like we'll have to do it for them. The fact that thousands or millions must die in order to bring about a cleansing of Islamania for them doesn't seem to trouble the "moderates" very much at all. It appears that the Koran has jaded all of its followers (heretics or otherwise) to death.
Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at November 28, 2007 8:33 PM
Ed Husain's claim that Islam is really a religion of peace that has been misinterpreted sounds a lot like the State Department, Bush or Rice. I just hope he isn't working for the government, lest I have even more of my tax dollars squandered on hearts-and-minds jizya projects for misunderstood Muslims.
Posted by: jewdog at November 28, 2007 8:38 PM
No, there is no moral equivalence between Bin Laden's murderous worldview and his critics. But a damage is being done that may take generations to repair.
The damage that has been done has been done by Bin Laden, Hamas, Hezbollah and the global jihad along with the failure of so-called "moderates" to stand up against violent jihad.Muslims will march in the streets at the drop of a hijab over a wet Koran or a Mohammed cartoon, yet have nothing to say when Jihadis fly planes into buildings, blow up teenagers in pizza parlors or rape and murder Russian school children. Don't blame the infidel for rejecting your words and believing his "lying eyes" instead.
Posted by: Roxane at November 28, 2007 9:04 PM
The damage that has been done has been done by Bin Laden, Hamas, Hezbollah and the global jihad along with the failure of so-called "moderates" to stand up against violent jihad.Muslims will march in the streets at the drop of a hijab over a wet Koran or a Mohammed cartoon, yet have nothing to say when Jihadis fly planes into buildings, blow up teenagers in pizza parlors or rape and murder Russian school children. Don't blame the infidel for rejecting your words and believing his "lying eyes" instead.
Posted by: Roxane at November 28, 2007 9:04 PM
Wonderfully put! I call this "damage" the Legacy of Bin Laden. The Islamaniacs will indeed have to live with this legacy for a long time, for it stains them far worse than it stains infidels-no shifting of blame will erase that fact. And deep down they know it.
Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at November 28, 2007 9:20 PM
Looks like we have a misunderstander of Robert Spencer?
gambit57
Comment No. 956215
November 28 23:59
USA
I wholeheartedly agree with shockawe's early post above. A response to this article was posed by an Islamophobe, Robert Spencer here:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/018947.php
and would only add this: It is really a sad day when an open racist and hater of all things Muslim and Islam has a better grasp on issues than you do. It not only reflects how bankrupt your understanding and "scholars" are but is an indictment of how deluded those who support and promote you and your thinking -- repackaging secularism with a thin veneer of Islam vis-a-vis "academic sufism" will somehow miraculously paper over huge political and ideological differences.
G.W. Bush wasn't the only one believing in delusions when he wanted to convert Muslims to the "democracy" faith via invasions and wars.
regards,
G57
at November 28, 2007 9:23 PM
Mr Spencer, for me that was one of your most cogent writings among contributions that are always cogent. Thank you.
The undiluted arrogance of almost all Islamic reps never fails to impress. It is as if all of our arguing, revelations and assertions, with careful documentation by Mr Spencer, Hugh and others, cannot penetrate the Muslim mind because the members of the group in question believe deep down that the triumph of Islam is inevitable. Absolutely, unquestionably inevitable.
This mindset makes sincere and productive dialogue between Muslims and non-Muslim critical thinkers effectively impossible at this time. This leaves us educating each other, a good thing, but the prospect that a more accurate understanding of Islam will be recognized by the mainstream West continues to be faint.
Posted by: lycaste at November 28, 2007 9:55 PM
Ed hussein seems to think that Muslims are all in a perpetual child-like mindset. We as educated westerners need to trick muslims into being moderate, by promoting a sanitized, revisionist history of Islam.
Apparently Muslims are to primitive to handle the truth.
But in no way must this standard be held to other religions such as Mormonism with its orthodoxy of polygamy and racism, Shintoism with its militarism and ethnic supremicism, or Hinduism with its caste system.
We must fool the muslim ito believing Islam is perfect and peaceful, unlike other religions, so that the potential jihadist doesnt have to swallow his pride like the rest of us, and so we don't have to treat them like responsible adults.
Posted by: Jimmy the Dhimmi at November 28, 2007 10:05 PM
Re-interpreting the Quran will require the elimination of the hadith collections, all of them. As has been pointed out many times the commandment to kill apostates is very clear from the collection by Bukhari. It is obvious that the intent of the Quran was to kill them, the hadith clarifies this. Certainly Mohammed would not have said it if Allah did not command it. Mohammed did not say, "Give 'em a wedgie."
It will perhaps take a few hundred years to reform Islam, if that can happen at all, and I do not believe it will ever, ever happen. The Protestant Reformation lasted about 130 years, with wars, civil wars, and more wars. Even if a reformed Islam attracts half the Muslim population, there will still be 500,000,000 untamed Muslims. These feral, untamed Muslims will contain all of the worst of the imams, ayatollahs, and mullahs. The unreformed madrassas and mosques will be spewing the densest and most virulent form of Islamic hatred. An Islamic reformation will not be peaceful, and every last human on this planet will be directly affected. Within three hundred years, either the human race or Islam will disappear. Doomsday? Yep.
Posted by: Pelayo at November 28, 2007 10:27 PM
Great write-up. I have respect for active Muslims who seek to spread their faith. They are doing what they are supposed to do. I normally wouldn’t respect someone who dodges and weaves like Ed Husain. But since Islam allows him to dodge and weave and lie to us, I guess I still respect Ed Husain.
I think we’re slowly rising to the challenge. While the Democratic Party is still at the ‘profiling is bad’ stage, the Republican Party seems to have now officially arrived at the ‘tiny minority of extremists’ stage. It’s a big step really. Republicans will make advances with an electorate that has been at the ‘something is wrong with Muslims’ stage for the last few years. A gateway to further reading.
CAIR has pissed off Savage by going after his advertisers and it seems that Savage has been doing some reading and talking with Horowitz in response. Rumor has it that the legal response will seek to uncover CAIR’s funding sources in discovery. Savage is tough, an excellent communicator, and seems to be pretty worked up. His show referenced Jihadwatch and Greg’s ‘Islam 101’ write-up tonight.
It all starts with the facts, and this is a great place to learn them. Thanks Robert and crew.
at November 28, 2007 11:04 PM
Essentially, then, it seems that Husain and D'Souza are making a PC/multiculti-oriented argument. Husain as an Islamist cum jihadi is obviously making it for propaganda purposes knowingly to appeal to PC/multiculti crowd (the classic sCAIR tactic), while D'Souza may actually believe it (or not - who knows? - but he is not a jihadi and probably an earnestly misguided apologist, so a "useful idiot").
They wish to confine criticism to the "tiny minority of extremists" and divert any culpability from orthodox Islamic doctrine itself. They wish to blame individuals and their insanity, rather than any aspect of the religion itself. They wish to then make any criticism of Islam itself appear to be an expression of "Islamophobia."
The next step in this "logic" is that not only is this "Islamophobia" but that it actually helps the "tiny minority of extremists" by encouraging a hardening of Western attitudes that will lead to a true culture clash between the West and Islam as a whole.
Balderdash.
Only an idiot or apologist (virtual synonyms) or an Islamist engaging in deceit would make such arguments.
It is patently obvious that jihad and Islamic supremacism (Dar al-Islam vs. Dar al-Harb and all that crap) is rooted in orthodox Islam.
Only when Muslims acknowledge that and bring about a reformation, by chucking a huge part of what the orthodox Imams call Islam (and a significant chunk of the Koran and Hadiths) will there be any change. They will then be - perhaps - able to part ways with their unappeasable rage, desire for expanding their realm and confused feelings of superiority (made all the more acute and psychologically intolerable by the own obvious inferiority at Western technological, scientific, economic, etc superiority). Until then, there will be bin Ladens, Anglo-Pakistani suicide bombers, Franco-Algerian ragers, CAIR lawsuits, and all the rest.
Posted by: Wimbledon Womble at November 28, 2007 11:07 PM
Robert,
SUPERB post. When Ed decides to take on the scholarly interpreatations of the Islamic texts of the four mainstream schools of Islamic jurispredence and begin to attack the message as opposed to the messenger, then maybe we all can talk.
Maybe.
Posted by: awake at November 28, 2007 11:39 PM
not sure where Muslims get their warm-fuzzy from concerning Muhammad and the Islamic past..
Who knows, because the facts show he was a bandit chieftan, fanatic, liar, mass murderer, pederast, slaver, evil personified.
I guess when one has a religous leader that sucks that bad you gotta make shit up.
And the supposed moderates of the Islamic world - the Sufis see him as the Perfect Man worthy of emulation. The Sufis go so far as to use him as their ur-model of spiritual perfection as well.
Posted by: waltc at November 29, 2007 12:35 AM
In the words of Hyman Rickover:
"I believe it is the duty of each of us to act as if the fate of the world depended on him. Admittedly, one man by himself cannot do the job. However, one man can make a difference. Each of us is obligated to bring his individual and independent capacities to bear upon a wide range of human concerns. It is with this conviction that we squarely confront our duty to posterity. We must live for the future of the human race, and not of our own comfort or success."
Robert Spencer and company have made a difference. People are learning.
http://www.limes68.blogspot.com/
at November 29, 2007 12:39 AM
Husain is a complete and utter fraud. He has kitman and taqiyya written all over him. His sly disingenousness, his evasions, his half-truths and finger-pointing are nauseating, but for him it is his Islamic duty to do what he perceives as 'defending his faith'- to prevent people from learning too much of the unpleasant, disturbing ideology called Islam that masquerades as a religion.
When Husain sez "damage is being done that may take generations to repair" then he simply worries about the damage done by the truth-tellers, by us, who are already resisting, defending ourselves and our culture against the sly Islamic jihad-conquest from within, which worked so well for them in the past.
No, Husain is not kosher.
And please spare me from this 'one of the great faiths of our world' claptrap. Islam is a blood-cult, an ideology of hate with a global mission for conquest, to enslave, annihilate or forcibly convert us.
All we have to do is wake people up to this ugly truth and we'll be alright.
Shalom!
at November 29, 2007 12:47 AM
Is Ed Husein saying that calling attention to the "Dark Side" of Islam, rather than waking up the West, is having an adverse effect on Muslims like bin Laden? Were Muslims like bin Laden less motivated to carry out the dark teachings of Islam before non-Muslims started making them known? You mean to say that if the non-Muslims will stop openly declaring the dark teachings of Islam, the Muslims like bin Laden will stop following them? This seems highly unlikely, if you ask me.
Posted by: Joe61 at November 29, 2007 1:10 AM
In the end, Ed Husain, Dinesh D'Souza, and others analyze wrongly in part because they're thinking too hard. Just tell the truth, guys! Let the chips fall where they may. This will doom Islam. Or at least Islam at its worst.
When it comes to crushing jihad and the jihadis, Hussain, D'Souza, and other "clever" folk need to stop over-thinking and "strategizing" so much. Promote the pure truth and expose Islam for what it is -- and all good things will result!
Posted by: Ky'Zan' at November 29, 2007 2:49 AM
Whenever the subject of koranic violence is brought up, apologists will always say "Ah, but there's a lot of violence in the Bible too you know". Thus demonstrating their in depth knowledge of all things theological.
Perhaps the Nazis could have used the same argument. "Nothing wrong in murdering Jews, mohammed did it after the siege of Medina". Case closed M'lud!
To be fair to the Nazis, I don't think they actually murdered those who resigned from the party though.
Posted by: Celsius at November 29, 2007 3:08 AM
I think that Ed Husein is a fake, he is the reformed moderate Muslim that the Elites so much want to see and he is giving them what they want.
Excellent response.
Posted by: Daffersd at November 29, 2007 3:27 AM
"there is a broad and deeply rooted tradition of violence and supremacism within Islam"
- from Robert's commentary
The tradition of violence and supremacism within Islam IS deeply rooted.
Seriously though, Ed Husain is one smooth operator.
Credit where credit is due: there are no greater masters of the art of deception than Muslims, but then again, they have a master teacher in Satan.
Bukhari:V4B52N268 "Allah's Apostle said, ‘War is deceit.'"
Bravo, Ed, bravo.
at November 29, 2007 3:54 AM
Why is he called 'Former' Jihadist?
He still seems to practice Jihad, albeit in its non-violent form.
Posted by: Henrik at November 29, 2007 5:14 AM
Husain:
It's simply another version of..
"be nice to us or else,,and it will be your fault when bad things happen!"
at November 29, 2007 5:40 AM
In reality, however, while there are a few courageous reformers out there, all -- not just one, or a few, but all -- the orthodox sects and schools of Islamic jurisprudence teach that it is part of the responsibility of the Islamic community to wage war against unbelievers and subjugate them under the rule of Islamic law (references can be found here). There is no sect or school recognized as orthodox that rejects this.-Robert
Husain represents the most loathsome aspect of Islam: its permissions to deception. Those permissions warp the sharp eye needed when it comes to seeing reality. Deception alters perception. Deception is the devil mocking the deciever as his mind becomes crippled.
Ultimately, deception will create a culture of hustlers, frauds and people who defend that. There is no "thou shall not bear false witness" nor Jesus' condemnation of all deception-hypocrisy as coming from "the evil one" in Islam. Islam foot binds the mind when it comes to any self-criticism of its dogmas because the truth is devastating to Islam. The permissions to deception in Islam will destroy Islam. Deception is Islam's "inner contradiction" and must result in violence and suicide as collective farming resulted in mass starvation. It is not what humans need.
at November 29, 2007 6:31 AM
Great job Robert! I'd love to read Mr Husain's response (though I doubt he has the courage).
One question:
Above, John C asks for your thoughts on the Muslim reformer Thomas Haidon. I was also curious.
Is he the type of Muslim reformer you would consider credible?
Posted by: Cornelius at November 29, 2007 6:41 AM
...Ed Husain ....just what the world needs...another Muslim comedian.....
Posted by: exsgtbrown at November 29, 2007 6:44 AM
Hey, just be glad the guy left violent Islam behind him. Small steps. Can't expect him to change all at once.
Posted by: RoobartSbunsar at November 29, 2007 6:59 AM
Intolerant Malaysia, tolerant faith?
28 Nov 2007, 1136 hrs IST,Tarun Vijay
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Tarun_Vijay_Intolerant_Malaysia/articleshow/2577230.cms
When Hindus gathered courage and protested in an unprecedented solidarity on November 26 in Kuala Lumpur, they were crushed brutally by the Malay police using chemicals in the water cannons. None of those who had put up a united front against a cartoon created in Denmark felt anything bad or condemnable in the injustices meted out to the Hindus in an Islamic country. When it's a question of Hindus getting unfair treatment in a Muslim majority region, the 'civil, sophisticated and articulate' Muslim intellectuals take refuge in the statement that it's a matter concerning a foreign country. But when it's a question regarding a cartoon or a fatwa for beheading a writer, they say -we are a global Ummah, anything happening anywhere to Muslims is our common concern! All big lies and a bigger hypocrisy traded in the name of a religion.
This year Diwali was not celebrated openly by Malaysian Hindus in protest against the demolition of one of their most revered shrines, the hundred-year-old Maha Mariamman temple in Padang Jawa. In the last fifteen years, hundreds of Hindu temples have been demolished and the number of forcible conversions and unfair treatment on religious grounds has been constantly increasing. The tragic case of Revathi was just a recent one.
Moorthy Maniam was a Malaysian Hindu hero. After he died, a group of Muslims claimed he'd made a deathbed conversion. Despite his widow's protests, the Sharia courts declared that he should be buried as a Muslim. “They used Moorthy to show that in this country, Islam is supreme", complained his lawyer.
In the 1980s, Malaysia's Sharia courts were given equal power to the civil courts, creating two parallel legal systems. But while the Sharia courts are constantly trying to extend their authority, secular courts are reluctant to challenge them.
Malaysia which tries to woo Indian tourists with an aggressive media campaign claiming-it's a 'truly Asian' destination, has become a hotbed of Islamic intolerance and barbarities on non-Muslims. It has sixty per cent Malay Muslim population with Chinese, mostly Buddhists, comprising twenty-five per cent. Malays of Indian origin constitute about eight per cent and Tamil Hindus are ninety per cent amongst the Indian origin population. There is a fair number of Indian Muslims too.
Indian Malays were taken there by the British as plantation workers in the late nineteenth century and have now become an inseparable part of Malay life. In fact, from the second century to the 14th century, Malay Peninsula has seen Hindu kingdoms and a way of life beautifully expressed in arts, culture, language and Shaivite values. Sanskrit's influence over their language is visible all over, yet the Malay Muslims choose to express their affinity with the Arabs and deny their ancestral heritage.
Politically, Indian-origin Malays follow the Malaysian Indian Congress (MIC), established in 1946 as an instrument of independence from the British rule. Malaysia, freed in 1957, remained a practising pluralistic society till Islamic fundamentalism grew in the last two decades bringing Arab money and intolerance with it. Now it has parallel Islamic courts, functioning along with the civil ones, which are obviously more influential.
Malay Hindus have their leader in Datuk Seri Samy Vellu, president of the MIC and a minister in the14-party coalition government who mustered courage to protest against temple demolitions by declaring a 'private' Diwali this year. However, instead of being supported by the country’s Muslim intelligentsia, he was booed, and in a rally addressed by Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, people demanded his ouster from the cabinet as a 'trouble maker'.
Hindus seems to be losing hope on all fronts and are making last-ditch efforts to attract attention by any which way to their sorry state of affairs. An umbrella organisation of thirty Hindu NGOs has been formed under the banner of Hindu Rights Action Force or HINDRAF that had called for the successful demonstration on November 26. Earlier a court had banned the rally – but HINDRAF workers – gathered in an unprecedented number – twenty thousand by a modest count –defied the ban and had their voice heard throughout the world. A nation, which has seen centuries of Hindu influence nurturing its socio-cultural milieu, suddenly turned against her own people when Arab-Islamic influence grew, resulting in the dispossession of minority rights. It has tried now to completely eradicate its Hindu history being taught in the schools, including the descriptions regarding ancient Ganga Negara (2nd to 11th century), Langka Asuka(2nd to 14th century) and Sri Vijaya empire(3rd to 14th century) in different parts of the earlier greater Malay Peninsula.
It's a reflection of India's secular government that the Malay Hindus of Indian origin chose to knock at the British doors, strangely petitioning the British government, Malaysia's former colonial ruler, to pay two million dollars each to every Indian-origin Malay as compensation for 'putting them in a situation of darkness and exploitation' which was a result of bringing their ancestors as indentured labourers a century before. They are discriminated on religious grounds and economic opportunities are not available to them.
"Over the years Indians have been marginalised in this country and we now want the same rights as enjoyed by other communities," M. Kulasegaran, opposition lawmaker with the Democratic Action Party (DAP), told the media. "This gathering is unprecedented, this is a community that can no longer tolerate discrimination." said HINDRAF leader P. Uthayakumar. The demonstrators had gathered at Batu Caves Hindu temple and many of them carried posters of Mahatma Gandhi. But, sadly, there was no murmur amongst the Indian authorities in Delhi or in their High Commission in Kuala Lumpur about it.
dian secularism prevents South Block to go vocal on injustices meted out to Indian-origin people if they happen to be Hindus. Only Muslim sensibilities are deemed fit to be entertained by Indian envoys abroad. This message further emboldens the jihadi intolerant rulers to take Hindus in their country for granted as a forlorn people for whom none would bother. Malay Chinese are given a voice by Singapore's influential leaders of Chinese origin like Lee Kuan Yew and Christians get full support from the US, UK and other European governments. Only Hindus, who have no other country on this earth but India to look upon for any moral support, are left abandoned.
Sometimes I feel amazed to see that how highly educated people who shine in politics and academics can be so ruthless towards their own fellow citizens as to deny them basic human rights. Like a place of worship and a choice to adhere to a faith of choice. Why have the societal ruptures been so visibly strong in countries where Islamists form majority? We have enough such examples from Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi and Malaysian incidents that have a common thread – wherever the Muslims are in majority the rights and freedom of the non-Muslims are severely curtailed.
Take for example Kashmir. It's the only state in India which is a Muslim majority and see what happened there. Hundreds of temples were razed, Hindus were forced to flee, their women were raped, children were killed and houses forcibly occupied. The Muslims in Kashmir have been enjoying a special status under Constitution's Article 370, hardly any central law is enforced there, the number of income-tax payers is among the lowest and unlike other poor states, J&K gets 90 per cent central financial assistance as grants and only 10 per cent as loans. Still there are complaints that a 'Hindu central government discriminates'. The other minority, Buddhists mostly located in Ladakh , too, are harshly treated and discriminated against by the mainly Sunni Muslim governance in Srinagar. The Buddhist Association, Leh, has been submitting memorandums to the central government about how Buddhist youths are denied jobs and a fair chance to join the Kashmir Administrative service and professional colleges in spite of clearing the entrance exams. The number of Buddhist minorities is fast decreasing causing concern amongst their leaders. Even their dead are not allowed to be buried in Muslim-majority Kargil area and monasteries have been denied to be built.
If that can happen in a Hindu majority India's Muslim majority state, one can imagine the position of Hindus in a Muslim majority country like Pakistan. A report of the United Nations Committee on the International Convention on Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD Committee) says, 'The Constitution of Pakistan segregates its citizens on the basis of religion; and provides preferential treatment to the Muslims. While Article 2 of the Constitution declares Islam as "the State religion of Pakistan" and the Holy Quran and Sunnah to be "the supreme law and source of guidance for legislation to be administered through laws enacted by the Parliament and Provincial Assemblies, and for policy-making by the Government", under Article 41(2) only a Muslim can become President. Further, Article 260 of the Constitution differentiates "Muslim" and "Non-Muslim" thereby facilitating and encouraging discrimination on the basis of religion.
The Constitution is so glued to providing preferential treatment to the majority Muslims that even a Hindu judge has to take the oath of office in the name of "Allah". On 24 March 2007, Justice Rana Bhagwandas, a Hindu, while being sworn in as Acting Chief Justice of Pakistan, being the senior most judge after the suspension of Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, had to take oath with a Quranic prayer - "May Allah Almighty help and guide me, (A'meen)".
The Hindus and Hinduism have been maligned and hatred against them is propagated in the text books approved by the National Curriculum Wing of the Federal Ministry of Education. Among others, Hindus have been stated as "enemy of Islam" in the textbooks of Class V.
I hate to look disillusioned and always try to see something positive and hopeful for my columns but to avoid the smoke around your neck is as calumnious as to see bad where everything is otherwise resplendent with nobility. Last week I met an important Malaysian foreign dignitary over lunch at Taj Chambers, when during the course of our discussion about Asians, I mentioned the plight of Malaysian Hindus. He simply rubbished all that had appeared in the international newspapers and channels saying 'small matters are presented hundred times larger than the real quantum of gravity'. 'We are a very tolerant society'. Really?
The author is the editor of Panchjanya, a Hindi weekly brought out by the RSS. The views expressed are his personal.
at November 29, 2007 7:11 AM
I read Ed's book, an autobiography. I was very struck by three things; firstly, the Sufism of his parents' tradition which came from India where it was clearly influenced by non-Muslim traditions, mainly Hinduism but also Buddhism. Secondly, his own spiritual journey which took him to Damascus, Syria, where he saw Christian and Muslim Arabs praying together at the same shrines, both calling 'God' 'Al-lah' because that's Arabic for 'God'. Thirdly, his spiritual characterisation of Muhammad, which he learned in Syria, is entirely Christ-like. Ed has a beautiful inspiration in his faith and, according to a friend (a sceptic and non-believer, who saw Ed at a literary event here in Edinburgh this summer) positively radiates goodness. I'm glad he has found a true inspiration. But I'm left wondering just how much of it he owes to the supposed Prophet of God, when one reflects on the fact that in the first three centuries of Arab-Islamic dominion, Muslims were a minority in the Islamic Empire, during its supposed Golden Age. I'm left with the conclusion that all that is 'good' about Islam comes from Sufi spiritual traditions which were simply native forms of spirituality with their roots in Christianity, Hinduism and Buddhism, which operated undercover during the Muslim onslaught. Today most orthdox Muslims reject Sufism as a foreign enculturation, and I'm afraid I agree!
Posted by: devorgilla at November 29, 2007 7:22 AM
I guess this explains why we haven't seen Osama's promised and much awaited cave video yet.
He's revising it to include thanks to Robert et all for their support of his misunderstanding of Islam.
LOL
at November 29, 2007 7:24 AM
Dear Mr. Spencer,
Is there any chance at all that you and Mrs. Ye’or will team together for a doubles match against Mr. Esposito and Mrs. Armstrong? Although I admit it would not be a fair match, it would be highly enjoyable. And assuming that the other side could be brought to behave, (audience as well as debaters) it would be something that future historians would write about. If my schedule permitted it, I would gladly fly internationally to be present at this event.
at November 29, 2007 8:19 AM
"Dear Mr. Spencer,
Is there any chance at all that you and Mrs. Ye’or will team together for a doubles match against Mr. Esposito and Mrs. Armstrong? Although I admit it would not be a fair match, it would be highly enjoyable. And assuming that the other side could be brought to behave, (audience as well as debaters) it would be something that future historians would write about. If my schedule permitted it, I would gladly fly internationally to be present at this event."
...a good old-fashioned dhimmi-versus-kuffar smackdown? I'm there!
at November 29, 2007 8:23 AM
I've read a number of books on the psychology of serial killers, but never would have bought them had I known the authors were the real culprits all along.
Posted by: rational at November 29, 2007 8:31 AM
"If anyone is doing that, it is Ed Husain: if he really wants to end "ignorance, spite and hatred" directed at Muslims, he could start by ending his sly disingenousness, his evasions, his half-truths and finger-pointing in the face of the biggest crisis of our time".-Robert
In logic it is considered that the exception proves the rule, but this gentleman would peddle the exception as being the rule. The dammed permissions to deception in Islam cripples the Muslim mind. For Husain to say that Robert or Hirsi Ali and Ibn Warraq are unwitting allies of Bin Laden and Co. is absurd. Without such critics we would have no contrast and no reality on the matter and would be lost in a mater-less-starless universe with no point of reference to measure reality. They are vital for contrast, thought and reality. Husain fears such sunlight.
at November 29, 2007 8:32 AM
Excellent informative post by Rajesh.
Posted by: devorgilla at November 29, 2007 8:34 AM
I was very interested in reading Ed Husain's book but after reading what Robert has posted he looks to me like just another Muslim apologist trying to deflect Infidel attention from Islam's deeply rooted hate and intolerance of all non-Muslims. He neglects to mention that Muslims started terrorizing people long before Spencer or Ali came along. The notion that pointing out Islam's deeply rooted hate of everything not Islamic and how it inspires murder and mayhem will cause more radicalism among Muslims is an insult to every thinking person's intelligence. Sadly, it's just more taquiya to deceive Infidels.
I won't waste my time reading The Islamist.
Posted by: Proud Infidel at November 29, 2007 10:34 AM
I used the Protesant Reformation as an example, but it was not really a reformation. By the time 1650 rolled around, the Catholic Church was basically unchanged. I said basically unchanged; if the Catholic Church changed in some way, it is not important in an historical sense.
The Reformation did not reform anything of significance coming from Rome. The Reformation was actually a rebelion, and a new church was created by the splinter groups.
I do not see anybody in Islam doing anything as bold as what Martin Luther did in 1517. Will any Muslim "reformer" go to Mecca and nail a new version of "Ninety-Five Theses" to the front door of the kabala?
So far reform in Islam is just a debating society, accomplishing absolutely nothing.
Posted by: Pelayo at November 29, 2007 12:20 PM
We all know it was people like that "Germanophobic" Winston Churchill that fattened the ranks of the nazis. Don;t we ?
Posted by: CJK at November 29, 2007 7:53 PM
Ed Husain's book is well worth reading, don't let Robert put you off! It gives fascinating insights into how these groups work and shows Husain's progressive disenchantment with them for a whole host of reasons, not the least of which was inauthenticity. He realised that Islamist thinkers like Qutb or Mawdudi were NOT original but had derived much of the evil twisted discourse from secular European thinkers and ideologues. Then there was the issue of feminism, which he supports. He realised that some of these folk were complete mysogynists (referring to women as 'the plague'). Ed has a mother and sisters and is very fond of them. Another thing was spiritual search; none of these political Islamists prayed; they used to talk about 'dropping prayers' like they had something better to do than pray: in short, he saw they were sick, and phonies.
What none of you guys seem to get is the NOBODY controls Islam. Though many like to think they do. Islam is unsponsored religion. There are NO institutions, no hierachies. Nobody is 'responsible'. There are pluses to this as well as negatives. All over the world progressive Muslims like Ed are trying to rationalise their religion and take the best bits and leave out the bad bits. But certain powerful taboos still exist. One of these is the idea that the Qu'ran is the perfect pure unadulterated word of God and in no way corrupted by human hands. Hence the equivocation, hence the mendacity over the 'difficult' bits. Once it becomes accepted that maybe human agency crept in there somewhere, in either 'hearing' or 'writing down' God's word, we will make some serious progress. But this is at least 20 years away.
Posted by: devorgilla at November 29, 2007 8:15 PM
devorgilla,
D:"Ed Husain's book is well worth reading, don't let Robert put you off! It gives fascinating insights into how these groups work and shows Husain's progressive disenchantment with them for a whole host of reasons, not the least of which was inauthenticity."
Perhaps. I haven't read it. I have read some of his articles published since he made his change. That said, I see no indication that he's done anything more than switch from one expression of jihad to another (da'wa, and jihad of the pen and tongue).
I don't see that he's doing better than Walid Shoebat, who also rejected jihad terrorism. Then again, as I understand it, Shoebat also rejected Islam, no?
Also, I believe that Spencer, Hirsi Ali, and Warraq are having a positive impact on Islamic reform in that, as critics, they are basically lighting a fire under the butts of the would-be reformers and moderates (i.e., the criticism helps motivate the latter 2 groups). It should also be kept in mind that the role of Islamic critics is not limited to prodding the moderates into action but rather to educate non-Muslims about Islam, helping them to navigate through the PR and PC smoke and mirrors.
D:"He realised that Islamist thinkers like Qutb or Mawdudi were NOT original but had derived much of the evil twisted discourse from secular European thinkers and ideologues."
You say "realised" as though you are accepting as fact the premise that Qutb and Maududi derived their ideology from European thinkers. Perhaps they were influenced to some extent by European thinkers or, alternatively, wanted to express old ideas in language that was fashionable for the times and appealing to a wide audience. However, that's largely irrelevant because such influence (if it existed) did not change their views on apostasy, jihad, etc., which are consistent with the Islamic texts, Islamic law, and Islamic history.
Also, "secular" does not mean unIslamic. After all, in Islam there is no clear separation between secular and religious.
"Then there was the issue of feminism, which he supports. He realised that some of these folk were complete mysogynists (referring to women as 'the plague'). Ed has a mother and sisters and is very fond of them."
No doubt bin Laden et al are fond of their female and male family members. So what?
Has Ed advocated that verses such as 4:34, 4:24, 70:29-30, 23:5-6, and 64:5 be removed from the Quran? (Probably not).
"Another thing was spiritual search;"
...which can be conducted without attaching oneself to the negative baggage of ideologies such as Islam.
If this guy is so enlightened, why is he doing apologetics for an ideology that is largely barbaric and, at its core, imperialistic and supremacist? I don't see him on a spiritual search; what I see is him engaged in public relations, Islamic image management.
"none of these political Islamists prayed; they used to talk about 'dropping prayers' like they had something better to do than pray:"
Perhaps because they had read Quranic verses such as 4:77, 4:95, 9:20, 47:31, 3:141-143, etc., and the ahadith which state that fighting in jihad is better or more valuable to Allah than prayers, that the mujahid is rewarded even for the footsteps of his horse, that a brief time on the jihad is better than the world and all that is in it, that there is no deed greater than jihad, that the hadith referring to "Greater Jihad" as an inner struggle is weak and dubious (not to mention contrary to 4:77 and 4:95) whereas the hadith commanding fighting in the name of Islam is ranked mutawatir, and so on.
"in short, he saw they were sick, and phonies."
But not necessarily contrary to Islamic core principles.
"What none of you guys seem to get is the NOBODY controls Islam. Though many like to think they do. Islam is unsponsored religion. There are NO institutions, no hierachies. Nobody is 'responsible'."
You are exaggerating. There's plenty of evidence at this site to support
"There are pluses to this as well as negatives. All over the world progressive Muslims like Ed are trying to rationalise their religion and take the best bits and leave out the bad bits."
There's too few of them (of the genuine reformers) and they have too little power.
"But certain powerful taboos still exist. One of these is the idea that the Qu'ran is the perfect pure unadulterated word of God and in no way corrupted by human hands."
Does Ed reject this taboo proposition?
"Hence the equivocation, hence the mendacity over the 'difficult' bits. Once it becomes accepted that maybe human agency crept in there somewhere, in either 'hearing' or 'writing down' God's word, we will make some serious progress. But this is at least 20 years away."
We don't have that much time. By then, if present trends continue, Islam will be much further entrenched in the West, Russia, and India, and it will therefore be much more difficult to defeat Islam as a political/social/legal entity.
at December 1, 2007 7:31 PM
...and devorgilla,
Anyone who would accuse Spencer, H Ali, and Warraq of "supporting Bin Laden" is either deluded or is engaged in deceiving the public.
Posted by: Khaybar Oasis at December 1, 2007 7:34 PM
(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.)