| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Robert Spencer | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog |  |
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
Muslim reformer Edip Yuksel starts out at this Frontpage symposium sounding as if he is full of reason and good will. He introduces us to his “reform” efforts, and sets out, in exhaustive detail -- this symposium was conducted not as a live discussion, but as a submission of texts and answers to texts -- in what ways the Hadith are a danger. He suggests that the path to the reform of Islam lies in recognition that the Hadith cannot be simply interpreted away, or assigned levels of putative “authenticity” different from those assigned to them by the most authoritative muhaddithin in the past so as to render them less noxious, but rather in simply refusing to recognize their validity altogether. For Yuksel sees the Hadith, correctly, as a post-Qur’anic invention, and he wishes not only to demystify them, but also to jettison them altogether, so that his goal of “sola scriptura” in the Muslim context -- that is, reducing the canonical text to the Qur’an alone -- may be achieved.
He tells us, for example, that the Hadith are later concoctions, some woven out of whole cloth, and others only partly so. But in all cases they reflect, he claims, the desire of this or that Muslim ruler or tribe, or of some other special pleader, for the authority they could obtain for this or that act. Or possibly they represent an attempt by those personages to increase their own prestige by concocting, manipulating, or promoting certain Hadith.
All this while, Yuksel fails to display any recognition of several things.
The first is that the Qur’an itself, as Robert Spencer points out, contains many passages that are disturbing, for women, and for Infidels, and that the removal of the Hadith would do nothing to correct the problems in the Qur’an itself. The second is that while Yuksel is apparently willing to see the Hadith as a product of history, as subject to the kind of study and criticism that, for example, the texts of both Christianity and Judaism have been subjected to ever since the Higher Criticism began in the nineteenth century, he is not willing to consider for one minute that the Qur’an itself may exist not outside but within history, as a product of its age, and so be susceptible to the same kind of study. For him the Qur’an must remain sacrosanct, uncreated and immutable, and he does not recognize that just like the Hadith, the Qur’an could be subjected to similar rigorous study -- of the kind, for example, that Christoph Luxenberg, and not only Luxenberg, have started to offer.
The second is that Yuksel almost comically fails to recognize is that his time-line is quite different from what the age, and the situation, demands. He complacently explains that in Turkey, over the past 30 years, his “reforming” methods have attracted the support of “tens of thousands.” Now let us assume those tens of thousands are, for the sake of arithmetic, 30,000. That would mean that over 30 years, he has been converting Muslims to the notion of relying solely on the Qur’an at the rate of 1,000 a year. Given that there are at least a billion Muslims, at the same rate we should have to wait a million years to persuade all Muslims that they can safely do without the Hadith, and perhaps even the Sira. Can we wait a million years? A thousand? A hundred? Fifty? We can’t wait even twenty years for the Western world, or the larger world of Infidels, to take drastic measures to protect ourselves from the menace to our own societies, and wellbeing, that the Islam Jihad presents, and from the instruments of Jihad that have been most effective -- not “terrorism” but rather the Money Weapon, Da’wa, and demographic conquest of the Dar al-Islam, or parts of it.
The third is that he fails to recognize that because the disturbing texts are not to be found in the Hadith alone, it is better to try to find ways to allow Muslims to re-think the Qur’an, to see it not as an uncreated and immutable text, but as a fallible human document, not outside but inside of history.
The fourth is that he fails to explain how Believers, those who rely on the Qur’an and the Sunna, will simply manage to do without the Sunna, when it is the Sunna that provides all the rules for daily life, what is commanded and what prohibited. It has frequently been observed that the Sunna is at least as important as the Qur’an.
But Yuksel cannot meet a single one of these objections. For he remains a Believer, and so there is a limit to what he can, intellectually and emotionally, permit himself. He simply cannot bear to contemplate the idea that the Qur’an is not the literal word of God, uncreated and immutable, and while he cannot refute Spencer when Spencer adduces the evidence from the Qur’an of support for the mistreatment of women and the even more horrendous mistreatment of non-Muslims, he simply becomes angry. How dare, he seems to say, Spencer be so ungrateful for the effort that he, Yuksel, has put into his “reforming Islam” project? Can’t Spencer simply be glad that the Hadith will be, in time, undercut? Why does he insist that Spencer is acting in bad faith by continuing to point to problems with the Qur’an?
Spencer is merely pointing out what is there, and not inventing a thing, but Yuksel’s tone quickly degenerates -- first when he invites Spencer and Warner to become Muslims, and gives the usual Muslim view about the universe in essence being Muslim anyway. And then, still more telling, he erupts into that hysterical display that those raised as Muslims, even the “reformers,” so often exhibit, no matter how even-tempered and moderate they at first appear to be, whenever they are confronted with objections to which they have no answer, and their whole enterprise is exposed to Infidel view as faintly, or greatly, beside-the-point and even hopeless.
Let me simply let Yuksel speak for (or write for) himself:
I will attempt to clarify my statement. I meant what I said. Either Muhammad was one of God's messengers or he was an impostor. Since, I am convinced because of substantial evidence that the Quran is the word of God, it follows that I should consider those who have devoted themselves to distort the truth about the Quran and its messenger, to be on the wrong path. Unlike Sunni or Shiite Muslims, I support their freedom to choose any path they wish and express their faith or conviction without fear. I will side with them against any group that would try to deprive them from their God-given right to freedom.So, if these gentlemen have the right to depict Muhammad to be an evil guy and his supporters being as evil or duped, then I should also have the right to expose their so-called scholarly work, which is merely based on hearsay books and distortion and contortion of the Quranic verses by the followers of those hearsay stories. For instance, brother Spencer generously uses the hearsay stories fabricated centuries after Muhammad's life to assassinate Muhammad's character, while he knows well that according to the same sources which he trusts, Muhammad reportedly split the Moon causing half of it to fall in Ali's backyard, or Muhammad reportedly made trees walk, Muhammad ascended to the seventh heaven with his body, and many other stories. Scholarly integrity requires consistency and honesty in using sources in evaluating a historic personality. But, your gentlemen pick and choose from those books as they wish. They take advantage of the crazy noises created by Jingoists, Crusaders and Jihadists, and hideously try to justify a bloody imperial Crusade with its resurrected Spanish Inquisition mentality against Muslims. I consider the work of these gentlemen a dishonest or ignorant attack against one of the most progressive and peaceful leaders in human history. I would like to repeat my invitation to Spencer to discuss his book about Muhammad at the Celebration of Heresy Conference, which we are organizing in Atlanta by the end of March. See: www.hereticmuslims.com.
That is Yuksel. He will not give up his Muhammad, who is either the Messenger of God or he is nothing, an impostor. He cannot conceive of Muslims investigating the nature of the historical Muhammad, as Western scholars study the historical Jesus, attempting to separate fact from fiction. It is, for Yuksel, all or nothing at all. So while he is willing to jettison the Hadith, he is not willing to see Muhammad as anything other than the Model of Conduct, uswa hasana, the Perfect Man, al-insan al-kamil.
And furthermore, Yuksel does not touch the details of Muhammad’s life that we Infidels are becoming familiar with: the mass decapitation of the bound prisoners of the Banu Qurayza, the attack on the Khaybar Oasis, the assassinations of Asma bint Marwan and Abu Afak, the marriage to little Aisha, the deliberate breaking of the treaty made with the Meccans in 628 A.D. “Ne touche pas a mon prophete” appears to be his motto. And do not change one diacritical remark in the Qur’an. No doubt Yuksel would be appalled by the work of Ibn Warraq, who notes that there is more than one received version of the Qur’an, for this is a delicate matter for all True Believers.
He disappoints far more than the other reformer in this symposium, Thomas Haidon, who is simply a Western convert who has created his own private Islam which he allows himself to believe has something more than wishful thinking to back it up. And yet at the same time he can recognize many -- but not all -- of the disturbing sentiments that Islam inculcates. I presume he feels caught, and thus his bizarreries are emotionally comprehensible, if intellectually unacceptable.
Spencer's criticisms of Yuksel were offered in a spirit of sympathetic realism: just how are we to handle what is in the Qur'an? Pretend it isn't there -- or simply, as Yuksel does, become furious when anyone dares to notice what is there? And just how likely is it that a billion Muslims will now be willing to jettison the hadith? And would they be willing to concede that the first biography of Muhammad, that of Ibn Ishaq, was not written down until 150 years later? Would they then attempt to simply read out all the unpleasant bits -- the Banu Qurayza, Asma bint Marwan, the Khaybar Oasis, little Aisha -- as later interpolations that have nothing to do with the real, the good, the perfect Muhammad, on the theory that since Muhammad was so perfect, he couldn't possibly have lead a raid on the inoffensive Jewish farmers of the Khaybar Oasis, couldn't have decapitated the helpless prisoners of the Banu Qurayza, couldn't have expressed delight at the murder of Asma bint Marwan, couldn't possibly have had sexual intercourse with little Aisha when she was nine?
That's a way out, but Yuksel showed no signs of presenting that.
Recently, on MEMRI, a dignified Saudi reformer expressed his pessimism about Muslims. He said they were mired in myth, and were "regressing." He did not have much hope left. Clearly, he understood that the minds of men on Islam are not like the minds of men who were adherents of other religions, but were much more akin to the minds of those men who had been raised up in societies suffused with the ideology of such political Total-Belief systems as Nazism and Communism.
It's a pity. A pity for them, and a pity for us. But it is us we must care for, us we must protect. They will have to fend for themselves.
Posted by Hugh at March 15, 2008 7:27 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
An interesting and thought provoking article, but also depressing in its conclusion.
I want to believe positive change is possible.
If it isn't then we're heading towards Balkan style problems in Europe; within one generation.
We need another JW-Interlude(c)!
Posted by: Big Luke![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at March 15, 2008 7:49 AM
"But it is us we must care for, us we must protect."
And here's the problem - we are being prevented from protecting ourselves by our own leaders.
Posted by: chrisse at March 15, 2008 7:56 AM
While it's great to read Hugh, as a sort of trip down reality lane, how many people out there are willing to do the investigation and then be honest about what they find, with themselves, and with the rest of us? There's that Saudi, and some exceptional apostates, like Ali Sina, but they're few. Maybe the misery that Islam brings will finally stimulate enough popular dissent to get rid of it. Not anytime soon.
Posted by: jewdog at March 15, 2008 8:44 AM
''I want to believe positive change is possible."
There are too many here among us who believe positive change is possible. But the Muslims are stuck with the immutable Koran and the perfect man, uswa hasana, insane like a camel....
Yes: it is us we need to protect. Wanting to believe otherwise causes problems, and we have enough already.
Posted by: sheik yer'mami at March 15, 2008 8:53 AM
"We need another JW-interlude..."
-- from a posting above
I've been putting them up, one by one, steadily, so just click on "Jihad Watch Interludes" (to be found under the photograph of Oriana Fallaci) for the latest dozen, or two.
Posted by: Hugh at March 15, 2008 10:31 AM
I have found that sincerely religious people cannot possibly view their religion in an objective manner, unless they begin to doubt it in the first place. Then, most of those will eventually abandon that religion for another flavor or else abandon all religion. Yuksel can look at the hadith objectively because they are undisputedly the works of humans. However, he cannot look objectively at the Quran because it is the actual word of Allah; he knows this because it is written in the Quran, and the Quran tells him that it is the actual word of Allah. Going in circles?
Take special notice of the word most in the preceding paragraph; it means not all, as in a slight majority.
Posted by: Pelayo at March 15, 2008 10:52 AM
Hugh -
Delightful piece, as always - as informative as it was cogent. yet, I feel there's something being overlooked in the picture ... there's something about the semitic mindset that allows a superposition of two conflicting things to remain unquestioned. It's out-of-the-norm for us in the West, but it's very real.
I'm not quite how to "best-phrase" the concept, but do you get my drift? (thanks)
Posted by: Occupant at March 15, 2008 10:58 AM
"something about the semitic mindset..."\
-- from a posting above
This remark is at best incomprehensible, at worst deeply disturbing. The very phrase "semitic mindset" evokes all kinds of things, none of them good. I trust I have misunderstood.
Posted by: Hugh at March 15, 2008 11:07 AM
yep - (responding via the site)
Posted by: Occupant at March 15, 2008 11:14 AM
I think Mr. Yuksel's quest cannot hold up to intellectual scrutiny, though I also think Mr. Fitzgerald's commentary has its share of problems as well.
With regard to Mr. Yuksel, to try to stake out a position of sola Quran would appear to be profoundly not in keeping with Islamic tradition, as well as pose a number of ontological impossibilities.
If the Quran instructs Muslims to listen to the Prophet Mohammed, how can they disregard what is authoritatively established as to what Mohammed said and did, at least in his capacity as a Prophet? And, as Mr. Fitzgerald pointed out, if the Sunnah, and in essence Mohammed, are expounding on interpretation of the Quran, how can Muslims just ignore that?
Also, to take one example, the Quran, in Al Baqara, changes the kibla from Jerusalem to Mecca. Since the Quran, as far as I understand it, nowhere ever established the original kibla as being Jerusalem, this attests to Islamic authority existing outside the bounds of the Quran.
Yet, there are issues with Mr. Fitzgerald's points here as well.
The idea that religionists may have some obligation to embrace 'scholarship' to the point of fundamentally revolutionizing their normative religious beliefs is simply not acceptable. To paraphrase Rev. Fr. Richard Neuhaus, he who controls the facts gets to control the beleifs and values as well.
Normative Orthodox halachic Judaism categorically rejects all Pentateuch higher criticism of the past 200 years.
And in Christianity, I fail to see how one pursues the so-called historical Jesus outside the lens of faith. One only comes up with what one wants to see. If Mr. Fitzgerald believes that Christianity has to embrace the 'findings' of Michael Servetus, Albert Schweitzer, and Hans King then Christianity is effectively finished.
So, in fairness to Muslims, they should not have to accept the 'fruits' of 'scholarship' any more than the adherents of any other religion.
Also, in fairness to Muslims, there are no Islamic armies poised at the gates of Western Europe or North America ready to invade and overrun us. The threats we do face are from people we have unwisely allowed to enter our country. In the old days, we never gave permission to Japanese Zeros to enter our airspace.
Posted by: fairuzfan
at March 15, 2008 12:23 PM
Hugh and Robert find fault with even the most promising reformers of Islam. The problem is with Islam and the so called prophet Muhammad. You can't make a silk purse from a sow's ear. Also take a look at the non-chronological and illogical Koran
The material these modernizers have to work with is too illogical, too murderous, too mad to mold into something the logical scientific secular West can live with.
I am not an atheist. I appreciate the good teachings found in Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism and Christianity. Islam and its Muhammad are too murderous and far off the charts to take seriously
Posted by: dennisw at March 15, 2008 1:21 PM
I've been putting them up, one by one, steadily, so just click on "Jihad Watch Interludes" (to be found under the photograph of Oriana Fallaci) for the latest dozen, or two.
----from a posting by Hugh
Using a Sherlock Holmes size magnifying glass I found it.
Posted by: Big Luke at March 15, 2008 3:33 PM
Also, in fairness to Muslims, there are no Islamic armies poised at the gates of Western Europe or North America ready to invade and overrun us. (From a poster above)
True, strictly speaking. No armies yet, in the usual sense. But this is irrelevant and misleading, as the Muslims here in North America and elsewhere in the West can, and should, necessarily be viewed as soldiers of Allah. Many wear the uniforms of jihad - the burka, the hijab, the dishdashi - and their war manual is the Koran. Their general is Muhammed. Yes, they are here through our own foolishness and ignorance. But they are here, and they threaten us. They are not only at the Gates of Vienna, they are within the city itself. And growing in numbers, and in influence.
at March 15, 2008 5:06 PM
Fascinating post by Hugh Fitzgerald.
Posted by: traeh at March 15, 2008 5:29 PM
"...something about the semitic mindset that allows a superposition of two conflicting things to remain unquestioned..."
-- from a posting by Occupant, above
------------------------------------------
I think what you're saying is Muslims have learned (ie, been taught) to ignore the discomfort of "cognitive dissonance"; they disengage their brains when they stray across ideas in the Quran that are mutually exclusive but are nevertheless right there in Allah's perfect book. They read that Allah demanded peace and mercy, then later he requires violence and retribution. Allah reveals verses to Mohammed, then changes his mind, saying "sometimes I think up something better" ... this from a giver of eternal truth? They read that Mohammed thought it was Allah revealing the Satanic Verses ... do they ever question in their heart-of-hearts if Satan might have sneaked more "error" into the perfect book? What about those long lists of terrible punishments from Allah, who is then called Most Compassionate and Merciful? I'm relatively sure any of these questions would be strongly discouraged in the local madrassa. Voila, there you go: train the locals to not think too much...
Posted by: A_Nonny_Mouse at March 16, 2008 1:16 AM
The significance of setting aside the hadiths [sic] depends on the basis of of this setting aside. The rationale attributed to Yuksel is that the hadiths are historically undtrustworthy, but there is a more fundamental reason, according to the fundamental principles of Islam itself, to set them aside. If Yuksel is amenable to this deeper reason, the results could be profound, underwriting a rejection of the doctrine of abrogation.
The deeper reason for discounting the hadiths is that, even when they are accurate, they are accounts of Muhammad the man. The Koran is supposedly the word of God, given to Muhammad by the archangel Gabriel. Muhammad the prophet (Muhammad as the vehicle for delivering this supposed word of God) is not supposed to be conflated with Muhammad the man. That is idolatry, which is the fundamental sin in Islam: worshipping other than Allah. Muslims are in some ways very alert to this, erasing Muhammad's face from paintings, even raging at the most benign Muhammad cartoon depictions, supposedly over a concern that people will mistakenly worship Muhammad's image.
When the biography of Muhammad is used to interpret the Koran, Muhammad the man is in effect placed over the supposed word of God. The man becomes the measure of the book, which is the most fundamental idolatry possible, and this is what traditional Islam does. It makes Muhammad the man into an idol.
If it is THIS that is being rejected, then that is very profound, because the whole scheme of abrogation, where the later violent verses of the Koran abrogate the earlier peaceful verses, was developed by Muhammad's first biographer, Ibn Ishaq, in order to square the Koran with what Ishaq was claiming about the life of Muhammad. According to Ishaq, Muhammad abandoned the early peaceful verses (which may well be historically accurate). It is because of Muhammad's changing behavior that Ishaq came up with the scheme of stages of revelation, with the later verses abrogating the earlier.
The Koran itself insists the opposite, that nothing in the Koran is ever abrogated: "None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar." 2.106. The implication is that conflicting later verses CLARIFY, or elaborate for particular situations. They do NOT abrogate. That is explicit. It is only the force Muhammad's biography that allows this prohibition on abrogation to be twisted into the doctrine of abrogation.
Other verses of the Koran insist that the Koran contains NO contradictions, that nothing is said what was not said in Torah and Gospel, that these earlier revelations are affirmed, not contradicted. It goes on and on and on. The doctrine of abrogation uses the biography of Muhammad to overturn ALL of these verses. It is direct idolatry, putting the man over the clear language of the book: the supposed word of God. If that idolatry were rejected, it really would change everything. The genuinely peaceful verses of the Koran would have to be taken at face value and the later violent verses would have to be interpretted as applying in circumstances where violent actions can be consistent with peaceful principles. That is, they would all have to become conditional on genuinely defensive war.
That is the conversation I would like to have with Yuksel: can Islam purge itself of the idolatry of using Muhammad the man as the measure of the book. I disagree with Hugh's characterization of Yuksel as furious. At least in what is quoted, Yuksel seems quite interested in thinking and talking about what real reform is possible within the basic principles of his religion. Would it be even better if he was willing to question even the most basic principles, and relinquish certainty over whether the Koran is actually the word of God? Not necessarily. Yes, Muslims should question that too, but the first step is to proceed with the reform that is possible within the basic principles of Islam. Profound such reform is textually not just possible, but demanded. If Yuksel is willing to work in that direction, this is someone to welcome. Don't dismiss what reform is possible within belief until looking into it. There is a lot that can be achieved in this direction.
Posted by: Alec Rawls at March 16, 2008 11:20 PM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(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.)