Jihad Watch: <em>The American Muslim</em> and Islamic moderation

October 11, 2008

The American Muslim and Islamic moderation

You can't win! At The American Muslim last week, Sheila Musaji asked, "What exactly is required to be considered a “moderate” Muslim?" Ever ready to be helpful, I gave Musaji ten points for Islamic moderation here. But now in a new article, "Robert Spencer’s 10 Points of Obfuscation," Musaji complains, "Why is it that Islamophobes continue to come up with 'tests' that American Muslims must pass in order to be considered moderate, or for that matter to be considered real Americans[?]" Well, Ms. Musaji, I am not an "Islamophobe," which is a trumped-up, propagandistic, manipulative concept in any case, and I came up with this "test" -- which, incidentally, said nothing about being a "real American" -- because you asked what would make a moderate Muslim. I was just answering your question. No good deed goes unpunished!

Anyway, in her new article Ms. Musaji answers, after a fashion, my points on Islamic moderation, and so out of respect for her, I will reply to her response -- even though she complains that she has "no real hope that the response will be seriously considered." That is an extremely odd statement, given my repeatedly stated willingness to discuss and debate these issues. Here is a partial list of the Muslim and non-Muslim Islamic apologists who so far have either ignored or declined my invitation to debate (or have agreed to debate in principle but never yet quite gotten around to agreeing to any specifics of when or where the debate would happen). Apologies to anyone I have inadvertently left off:

Ahmed Afzaal
Akbar Ahmed
Karen Armstrong
Jamal Badawi
Robert Crane
Dinesh D'Souza
Carl Ernst
John Esposito
Suhail Khan
Mark LeVine
Khaleel Mohammed
Grover Norquist
Omid Safi

So it appears that it is not I who am unwilling to discuss these issues seriously, Ms. Musaji. Rather, it is your friends and allies who are unwilling to do so. What are they afraid of? If I am really the "satanic ignoramus" of Khaleel Mohammed's febrile imaginings, it ought to be easy to dispatch me in a debate and thereby put an end to my wicked influence. But no one seems willing to try.

And so now to your remarks:

Why is it that Islamophobes continue to come up with “tests” that American Muslims must pass in order to be considered moderate, or for that matter to be considered real Americans. Daniel Pipes has a test and I’m proud to say, that I like Hamza Yusuf would fail.

That's telling.

David Horowitz has a petition for Muslim students to sign to prove their “moderation” as part of his recent “Islamo Fascism Awareness Week” whose four key principals any Muslim could agree with, but which would require any Muslim signing the petition to agree with the mischaracterization of terrorists and extremists as “Islamo Fascists” thus blaming the religion of Islam for their criminal acts. [...]

Hogwash. The term "Islamo-Fascists" no more blames the religion of Islam than the term "Italian Fascism" blames Italy for fascism. It merely refers to those Muslims -- who obviously really exist -- who invoke Islam to justify violence and supremacism, whether they are invoking Islamic doctrines correctly or not. I suspect Ms. Musaji knows enough basic English grammar to know this. She certainly appears to know about logic, quoting no less unimpeachable a source as Wikipedia to argue that "tu quoque is only a fallacy when one uses it so as to divert attention from the issue at hand, or to avoid or fail to respond to an argument that non-fallaciously gave one the burden of proof. By accusing me of using a tu quoque argument Spencer is suggesting that I am arguing that an action is acceptable because your opponent has performed it. I have never made such an argument."

Actually she has, as we shall see. But here she goes on:

What I assert is that if an action is wrong, it is wrong no matter who commits the action, and it is inconsistent to label the action as wrong only when it was carried out by a Muslim. [...]

Quite so. But her claim that I am doing that is false. If there were a Jewish or Christian group committing acts of violence and justifying them by reference to Biblical teachings, and vowing to conquer and subjugate the U.S. in accord with religiously-based doctrines of supremacism, I would oppose it no less strenuously than I oppose jihad and Islamic supremacism. But there isn't, despite Ms. Musaji's valiant attempts to pretend otherwise.

My best guess is that Spencer will play more word games and use such inanities as Muslims are lying (using taqiyyah) when they state their position, or all Muslims believe that the gates of ijtihad are closed, or that all Muslims agree that some verses are abrogated (theory of naskh). In the past he has even criticized Muslim scholars who have attempted to clarify that a particular understanding of an issue is not Islamic by insisting that their position is not the “genuine” Islamic position. I am not a scholar, just an ordinary American Muslim, so I certainly cannot expect to fare better. [...]

It is general Muslim belief that religious deception, taqiyya, is allowed under certain circumstances; that the gate of ijtihad is closed -- that is, that innovation on matters settled in Islamic law is forbidden or at least discouraged; and that some verses of the Qur'an are abrogated (Ms. Musaji, does alcohol have "some profit" for mankind (Qur'an 2:219) or is it an "abomination, of Satan's handiwork" (Qur'an 5:90)?). If you follow the links, you will see that it is Islamic scholars who say these things, not I -- but Ms. Musaji doesn't tell her readers that. And her "all Muslims agree" formulation is a red herring: "all Muslims" don't agree on much of anything, and I have never asserted otherwise. You can find people who call themselves Muslims asserting all sorts of things, but that is ultimately beside the point. The question here is what do the sources that most Muslims recognize as authoritative say, and on that score, as I show in the links above, there is no significant disagreement among them about taqiyya, ijtihad, or abrogation.

But anyway, I am not going to be intimated out of invoking those things if Ms. Musaji's remarks call for it. We shall see.

1. Acknowledge the existence of and repudiate the traditional Islamic imperative, taught by all the schools of Islamic jurisprudence that Muslims recognize as orthodox, to impose Islamic law upon non-Muslims, whether by force or by stealth.
I’m not a scholar so I won’t get into historical discussions by various schools of thought regarding their interpretations. I can only say that as an American Muslim I believe that the Constitution and its protections of religious freedom, separation between church/synagogue/mosque/temple and state is the best system of government for a multi-cultural society that has been developed anywhere. I don’t want to see Islamic law or any religious law imposed on anyone anywhere against their will. As an American, this country is my first priority and for that reason I would oppose anyone who wished to impose their particular religious belief on others. That includes not wanting my children to be taught creationism in school as science. I would hope that all Americans of all faith groups would take this stand in defense of our Constitution against those from any religion who wish to impose their religion on others, for example:

Musaji then continues with a series of quotes from Christian Fundamentalists, saying this like "we should take this nation back for Christ." Of course, it is very common to equate these "Christianists" with "Islamists" -- so common that I wrote a book refuting that equivalence last year. The problems with this equation are many. One is that none of the sources Musaji quotes, with the possible exception of Gary North, actually want to replace the Constitution with Biblical law; their statements are only assertions that Christians should be allowed a role in public life, not entirely marginalized in the name of the separation of Church and state. Moreover, there are no armed groups of Christians around the world attempting to impose Biblical law by force or other means, or justifying acts of violence by reference to any Christian teachings.

So in short, Musaji's answer here is another example of the tu quoque fallacy. She says nothing about the abundant evidence of the supremacist and expansionist imperative within Islam. Nothing at all. And she ends up with another red herring, quoting the tired old warhorse "There is no compulsion in religion" (Qur'an 2:256), when the Islamic legal imperative is not to compel non-Muslims to become Muslim, but to subjugate them under the rule of Islamic law, but otherwise allow them -- "no compulsion"! -- to practice their religions as long as they submit to Islam and pay the jizya in accord with Qur'an 9:29.

2. Renounce any intention, now or in the future, to replace the U.S. Constitution with Islamic law.
I do not want to live under any theocracy. I am an American and will defend the Constitution from anyone belonging to any religion who wishes to undermine or replace it with any other system at any time. That would include all of the following:

Then follows more tu-quoque quotes from Christians. Will Ms. Musaji really defend the Constitution from Muslims who want to undermine it and replace it with Sharia, in accord with the Muslim Brotherhood's "grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and 'sabotaging' its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions"? Time will tell.

3. Clarify, and call upon other Muslims in America to clarify, what is meant by the words “terrorism” and innocent” in Muslim condemnations of terrorism, so that it is clear that what is being condemned is the murder of American and other non-combatants by Muslims acting in the name of Islamic jihad.
Muslim condemnations of terrorism go well beyond condemning acts of terrorism by Muslims against non-Muslims, they condemn all acts of terrorism against any civilians whether carried out by individuals, groups, or state agencies. These condemnations include acts of torture, pre-emptive attacks on other countries, colonialism, covert assassinations of political leaders, and the use of WMD’s. That it is possible to find some Muslims who hold a different view is tragic, but not surprising when we see that there are members of all faith groups who seem to have a sort of split personality when it comes to ethics and morality. Read my article “Spiritual Jihad Against Terrorism” for my views. [...]

Musaji here completely sidesteps the point. I asked that Muslims clarify what they mean by words like "terrorism" and "innocent" because some Muslims deny that any non-Muslim can be innocent. Bland blanket statements do not address this issue -- and following this she throws in still more tu quoque.

4. Repudiate the idea that Muslims have a divine mandate to force, when possible, Jews, Christians, and other “People of the Book” to pay a special religion-based tax from which Muslims are exempt (Qur’an 9:29).
This is a red herring. There is no Caliphate and there has not been since the end of WWI. There is no reason in the modern world under any existing forms of government for a separate tax on non-Muslims (jizya from which Muslims were exempt) or for a State enforced collection of a different tax from Muslims (zakat from which non-Muslims were exempt). [...]

A red herring?! Yet the fact there is no caliphate is one of the principal reasons why jihadists are fighting today -- to restore the caliphate so that Muslims can wage offensive jihad and collect the jizya. Right now all the jihads that are being fought are cast as defensive, because there is no caliph. And simply to say that there is no caliphate today does not constitute repudiation or rejection of this expansionist, supremacist imperative.

Musaji then quotes the old dissembler Robert Crane explaining that jizya was simply compensation of the dhimmis' being exempt from military service, and claiming it was lower than zakat, the tax Muslims are required to pay. That claim is flatly false, as I demonstrate here.

5. Call upon Muslims in America to institute comprehensive, honest, and transparent programs in mosques and Islamic schools, teaching the virtues of the non-establishment of religion, and teaching directly against Islamic supremacism and the idea that Muslims must fight against Jews and Christians until they “feel themselves subdued” (Qur’an 9:29).
I don’t know any American Muslims who are not staunch defenders of the separation of church and state (the non-establishment of religion).

Really? Here's one who isn't. Here's another. Here are some more. There are others. I am glad Ms. Musaji opposes them.

I have heard many Friday sermons (khutbas) praising the non-establishment of religion and religious freedom in the United States. And, in fact it is only evangelical Christians who I have heard making statements about breaking down this wall of separation. (see the response to question 1 above).

I trust Ms. Musaji will retract this claim after perusing the writings at the three Muslim sites I linked above.

All the American Muslims that I know, myself included would fight against anyone who wanted to destroy our Constitution by attempting to establish a state religion.

Good. I welcome Ms. Musaji's help against the Muslim Brotherhood's stealth jihad.

Whatever is taught in religious schools or in any other schools comes under the laws of the United States. If anyone is teaching anything that would encourage the overthrow of the government then they should be prosecuted under the law.

I trust, then, that Ms. Musaji would support the prosecution of the operators of this school.

I am uncertain what you mean by Islamic supremacism - if it means that Muslims believe that they are following the true religion, then there is no problem, everyone of any faith believes that they are following the true religion. If you mean that Muslims believe they are superior to other people, then that is not something that I believe or have ever heard taught in any mosque. If there are individuals who hold such a view they are simply bigots.

I mean those who are pursuing the Muslim Brotherhood's "grand jihad" to ensure that in the U.S. "God's religion" -- that is, Islam -- "is made victorious over all other religions." I am glad Ms. Musaji opposes them and considers them to be bigots, although they include members of ISNA, ICNA, MAS, and MSA -- all groups named as allies in that same Muslim Brotherhood memorandum. It will be interesting to see what happens when word gets out that Ms. Musaji has condemned these groups.

As for Qur’an 9:29 - it is only Islamophobes and Muslim extremists who hold the interpretation of this verse that you hold and who refuse to look at other verses of the Qur’an.

How interesting! So please tell me, Ms. Musaji: are venerable Islamic authorities such as Ibn Ishaq, Ibn Kathir, the two Jalals, Ibn Qayyim, as-Suyuti and Zamakhshari "Islamophobes" or "Muslim extremists"?

6. Call upon Muslims in America to institute comprehensive, honest, and transparent programs in mosques and Islamic schools, teaching against honor killing, and against the idea—which is enshrined in Islamic law—that a parent faces no penalty for killing his or her own child (see ‘Umdat al-Salik o1.1-2).
“For that reason, we ordained for the Children of Israel that whoever kills a soul for other than murder or spreading corruption in the land, it is as if he has killed the whole of humanity…” (Qur’an 5:35)

I know of no Muslims who are teaching anything but condemnation of honor killing.

A manual of Islamic law certified by Al-Azhar as a reliable guide to Sunni orthodoxy says that "retaliation is obligatory against anyone who kills a human being purely intentionally and without right." However, "not subject to retaliation" is "a father or mother (or their fathers or mothers) for killing their offspring, or offspring's offspring." ('Umdat al-Salik o1.1-2).

I am glad Ms. Musaji condemns the practice. Now: will she advocate institution of programs that teach against it, so as to counter those who believe as does this manual of Islamic law?

7. Call upon Muslims worldwide, including in Saudi Arabia, to end all institutionalized discrimination against and harassment of non-Muslims, and to allow churches and other houses of worship to be built in majority-Muslim countries with an ease comparable to that with which mosques are currently built in Western countries.
I don’t believe that as an American citizen I have any influence on Saudi Arabia or other countries. I can state my opinion, and have that all houses of worship should be allowed in all countries and should be shown respect. I am a firm believer in democracy, and as the citizen of a democracy I can attempt to make my voice heard by my elected officials, Saudi Arabia is not a democracy it is an absolute monarchy (a system of government that is outdated to say the least) and attempting to influence a dictator, tyrant, or absolute monarch would have to be a matter for all the governments of the world and world public opinion to attempt.

We can't call for justice because we have no influence? I refuse to be so defeatist.

8. Repudiate the idea that a Muslim who renounces Islam and adopts any other faith or no faith at all should be killed—as is the teaching of Muhammad and all the schools of Islamic jurisprudence—and call upon Muslim groups in America to teach the freedom of conscience as a God-given right in American mosques and Islamic schools.
I was one of the initiating signatories to the statement ”On Apostasy and Islam: 100+ Notable Islamic Voices affirming the Freedom of Faith” and the front page of TAM has an appeal for others to sign on to this statement. We have also published numerous articles by scholars and community leaders who have made the same appeal.

This statement acknowledges that "Undeniably, the traditional position of Muslim scholars and jurists has been that apostasy [riddah] is punishable by death." Yet when I have noted that fact in the past I have been called an "Islamophobe" and worse. I trust Ms. Musaji will drop that hateful and defamatory rhetoric now. I am glad that she has signed that statement, and look forward to her signing on to more than just one of these elements of genuine moderation.

9. Call upon Muslims in America and worldwide to drop the traditional and authoritative Islamic prohibition of marriage between non-Muslim men and Muslim women, and to repudiate and teach against the idea of divinely sanctioned wife-beating (Qur’an 4:34).
There are reasons for the prohibition of marriage between non-Muslim men and Muslim women (although marriages between Muslim men and non-Muslim women are allowed) and that is a matter for scholars to consider and issue fatwas about, and for individual Muslims to decide upon for themselves. [...]

Of course there are reasons for this, and those reasons are supremacist. If a Muslim man can marry a non-Muslim woman, but a Muslim woman cannot marry a non-Muslim man, this means that the non-Muslim community always diminishes, because the law envisions the woman becoming a member of her husband's household. Thus women can always join Islam, but they can't leave it.

The translation and interpretation of Qur’an 4:34 has been very much controversial over the centuries....

Musaji then goes on to try to obfuscate the fact that the verse calls for the beating of a disobedient woman. But it is clear that that's what the verse does say. For the Arabic word adriboo to mean "to forsake, to avoid, to leave," as Musaji wishes it to, it would require the preposition 3an (عن). But it doesn't carry that preposition here. It is worth noting how several translators render the key part of this verse:

Pickthall: “and scourge them”
Yusuf Ali: “(And last) beat them (lightly)”
Al-Hilali/Khan: “(and last) beat them (lightly, if it is useful)”
Shakir: “and beat them”
Sher Ali: “and chastise them”
Khalifa: “then you may (as a last alternative) beat them”
Arberry: “and beat them”
Rodwell: “and scourge them”
Sale: “and chastise them”
Asad: “then beat them”

Sheikh Syed Mahmud Allusi in his Qur'an commentary Ruhul Ma’ani gives four reasons that a man may beat his wife: “if she refuses to beautify herself for him,” if she refuses sex when he asks for it, if she refuses to pray or perform ritual ablutions, and “if she goes out of the house without a valid excuse.”

Also, Muhammad’s example is normative for Muslims, since he is an “excellent example of conduct” (Qur’an 33:21) – and Aisha reports that Muhammad struck her. Once he went out at night after he thought she was asleep, and she followed him surreptitiously. Muhammad saw her, and, as Aisha recounts: “He struck me on the chest which caused me pain, and then said: Did you think that Allah and His Apostle would deal unjustly with you?”

Aisha herself said it: “I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women.”

10. Condemn Hamas and Hizballah as terrorist organizations, and the Islamic Republic of Iran for its continuing the barbaric practice of stoning people to death. Call upon Muslim groups to teach against stoning as a punishment for adultery or anything else in American mosques and Islamic schools.
Nonsense. You are mixing political issues with other issues. My opinion of Hamas and Hizballah is a political opinion just as an Irish American’s opinion of the IRA (the military wing or the charitable wing) or a Jewish American’s opinions about Israeli settler groups, the Jewish Defense League or other groups is a political opinion. I will and have condemned particular actions of these organizations,

Where?

but to be required to make a blanket condemnation of an entire organization is to oversimplify the issues.

Oh, really? How very revealing.

As for Iran’s method of capital punishment, I am against capital punishment in any form whether it is stoning, the gas chamber, shooting, the guillotine, or lethal injection. I stand with Tariq Ramadan who has appealed for a moratorium on capital (hudud) punishments. [...]

A moratorium, but not an outright prohibition? A moratorium until what conditions change?

And, for the matter of teaching stoning as a punishment for adultery in American mosques and Islamic schools, I have never heard of such a thing being taught...

Here is some news.

Anyway, I am sorry that Ms. Musaji apparently found her way clear to accept only one of my ten points for moderation. But her response certainly helps clarify where she and The American Muslim really stand.

Posted by Robert at October 11, 2008 11:19 AM
Print this entry | Email this entry | Digg this | del.icio.us |

Comments
(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.)

I quickly grow tired of Muslims who think they are accomplishing by "condeming all..." or "condeming anyone who..." or "disagreeing with any..." and etc.

I know they think they are somehow accomplishing more by phrasing things this way, but they are actually accomplishing much much less.

Posted by: Monte Gardner

at October 11, 2008 12:14 PM

"I [Sheila Musaji] have heard many Friday sermons (khutbas) praising the non-establishment of religion and religious freedom in the United States."
-- from the article above

But this means nothing. Or rather, it means only that Muslims in an Infidel land are delighted to find that the Infidels do not treat Muslims as Muslims treat Infidels, and the absence of an established church -- unlike the situation in some other Infidel lands -- pleases Muslims as well.

That is very different, however, from Muslims supporting the idea of pluralism, or doing a thing to try to persuade Muslims in Muslim-dominated lands to imitate the American system, and to do away with all of the burdens borne by, the discrimination against, and persecution of,non-Muslims (Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, the few Jews who remain, and others) in every single Muslim land, from Saudi Arabia and Iran and the Sudan and Pakistan at one end, and at the other, systematically-secularized-by-Ataturk Turkey.

Musaji does not say that Muslims believe in the universal application of the First Amendment. Nor does she say that Muslims would wish forever to retain the First Amendment, and the rest of the Bill of Rights. Indeed, she knows perfectly well in what ways the Muslim view of human rights differs so very much from the non-Muslim view, and she knows this because she can compare, easily (we all can) the rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the "Muslim version" intended to fool others, the one that is known as the Cairo Declaration -- which flatly contradicts, as does the Shari'a, not only the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but the American Bill of Rights.

Her sly meretriciousness knows no bounds. It's her stock in trade. She is defending the indefensible -- at least, the indefensible from the viewpoint of civilized, advanced, Western democracies. From the viewpoint of Muslim propagandists, she's doing the best she can.

Posted by: Hugh

at October 11, 2008 12:32 PM

Spencer:

"Repudiate the idea that Muslims have a divine mandate to force, when possible, Jews, Christians, and other “People of the Book” to pay a special religion-based tax from which Muslims are exempt (Qur’an 9:29).

Musaji:

This is a red herring. There is no Caliphate and there has not been since the end of WWI. There is no reason in the modern world under any existing forms of government for a separate tax on non-Muslims (jizya from which Muslims were exempt) or for a State enforced collection of a different tax from Muslims (zakat from which non-Muslims were exempt). [...]
-- from the article above

The fact that there has not been a "Caliphate" since it was dissolved by Ataturk in 1924 tells us only about the effective power of Muslims to impose the Jizyah and other disabilitities on non-Muslims. It does not constitute a clear rejection by Musaji -- it constitutes no rejection at all --of the treatment, according to the Shari'a or Holy Law of Islam, of non-Muslims in a Muslim state.

And indeed, we find many examples of the mistreatment -- the official, legally-sanctioned mistreatment by the state or its judicial organs, and also informally meted-out mistreatment, by private parties and institutions -- of non-Muslims in Muslim-ruled lands.

And in order to make things even harder, let's not take the Sudan, where nearly 2 million Christians and animists have been murdered by Muslims, let's not take Pakistan and Bangladesh, where non-Muslims have been subject to every kind of humiliation and persecution (those "blasphemy" trials of Christians), even being beaten to death for the crime of being near a mosque at the end of Friday Prayers, let's not take Iran where when Khomeini came to power among his first acts was to set Khalkali, the "hanging judge," on the leaders of the Baha'i, Jews, and Christians.

No, let's take Turkey, at the supposed height of its Kemalist secularism, just a few years after Ataturk died in 1938. During World War II the Turkish government imposeed a confiscatory tax, the Varlik Vergesi, but a tax imposed not on all citizens of Turkey, but only on the non-Muslim communities.

Or let us take "advanced" and "multicultural" Malaysia. There the Bumiputra ("Sons of the Land") system is a forcible economic burden or -- a disguised Jizyah -- imposed on the non-Muslim Chinese and Indians who, being much more industrious and lively, have succeeded, but who are forced to share their wealth, not with the native tribes (the real "Sons of the Land" -- the indigenous tribes -- are mostly Christian or pagan) but with Muslims, apparently to continue to be supported by non-Muslims as in the traditional Muslim state.

About this Sheila Musaji says not a word.

It would be easy, after all, and obvious, for her simply to declare that in her view the dhimmi system, that system which forced non-Muslims into a permanent state of humiliation, degradation, and physical insecurity (and that is exactly the state that most non-Muslims are in, in every state where Islam dominates and Muslims rule, even if the Shari'a is not the law of the land), is morally unacceptable, intolerable.

This she does not do.

Why not?

Posted by: Hugh

at October 11, 2008 12:54 PM

She is a perfect example why Muslims shouldn't allowed to immigrate to the U.S. given her so-called answers which as nothing more than evasions and double-talk.

Posted by: waltc

at October 11, 2008 1:00 PM

Muslims like Ms. Musaji cannot logically sign those ten points, then they would be called apposates by their pious muslims family. These Muslims like to treat islam like a buffet, take only what you can live with, especially when living in the West. Let her go back to a Muslim country and feel all that muslim love of life. Let her be a kept women like her Sowdi sisters, and grow crazy with age. Ms. Musaji cannot defend the undefendable cult of hers, as we can all see through it.

Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess

at October 11, 2008 1:21 PM

The crimes committed under the 1400 jihad against humanity are so sociopathic that any normal human being would condemn them WITHOUT condition.

I will admit that I have no idea how you would tell a "moderate" Muslim from a jihadi. But self-proclaimed "moderates" have this in common with jihadis.

They cannot bring themselves to condemn the inhumanity that occurs when jihad is loosed against the infidel.

Posted by: tanstaafl

at October 11, 2008 1:25 PM

The PDF file to be found on Khilafah.com is a good read. http://www.khilafah.com/images/images/PDF/Books/IslamicReformation.pdf

I read the entire article, but this stood out.

"Apostasy should be discussed by explaining that what is being discussed is an alternative
ideology, an alternative conception of life and an alternative way of organizing life’s affairs to
the current secular model. There exist some fundamental differences between the two models -
the secular and Islamic models are not the same. They do not overlap as they do not stem from
the same fundamental ideas. They will therefore have entirely different impressions of how
society should look."

Then the Author goes on to say.

"No ideological state would allow its basis to be
openly questioned in society as this would lead to the weakening and possible removal and
replacement of the ideology by another.
Apostasy is a question of what kind of person would openly and publicly abandon Islam with
full knowledge that they will be killed for it, rather than either keeping it to themselves or leave the Khilafah. Hence, the death penalty only applies on those who in the Khilafah openly leave
Islam, and choose to remain in the state despite knowing the law; this is considered an open
attack on the basis of the state which is Islam, essentially it is viewed as treason and a political attack on the Khilafah in order to undermine it. No ideology would tolerate this."

So, by using his argument Islam openly advocates an, "alternative way of organizing life’s affairs to the current secular model", and that the Islamic model and the secular model do not overlap. Then he asserts that leaving Islam is considered "treason", and is punishable by death. I ask this question.

1-Why would any western society allow this to grow within it?

2-How is it possible for Islam to have a positive effect on western secular society?

3-How is it considered an attack from the west to demand the same equalities Muslims enjoy in the west be afforded non-Muslims in the Islamic world?

4-Shouldn't western societies be allowed to defend themselves against such ideological aggression?

Essentially all the west wants from Islam is reciprocity of freedom of thought and action. If the secular west and Islam can not live together it isn’t due to the intolerance of the tolerant who wish to be treated as equals, but rather the intellectual rigidity of the intolerant against the tolerant, which would force the tolerant away from its tolerant nature in order to preserve its tolerance, against those that would undermine and attack it from within in order to destroy it and replace it with an intolerant model. In effect outlawing Islam in the west would be justifiable in order to preserve tolerance. By using Islamic apostasy concepts the west should consider advocacy of Islam as intolerance of our tolerance. Such a declaration should be considered as treason against the foundation of our existence.

Posted by: ethoman

at October 11, 2008 1:31 PM

I will admit that I have no idea how you would tell a "moderate" Muslim from a jihadi.

i don't care about looking for a difference anymore. its because i'd don't find a difference among them, they both belong to the same religion.

Posted by: theygottago

at October 11, 2008 1:35 PM

When are we going to get tired of this endless dance of blowing smoke from Muslims? Only after a few million of us get mass-murdered, I guess. (It'd be nice if we got tired before, wouldn't it?)

Posted by: DenverRodeo

at October 11, 2008 2:40 PM

Totally. However since Islam is not a religion per-se but a total political belief system, with their intolerance of our laws protecting freedom from religious intolerance (why we have a separation of church/mosque and state), it is automatically treasonous to our laws. Imagine a whole population by definition as treasonous, and yet allowed to live here? This is what happened, and none dare call it treason. Ms. Musaji obfuscates by claiming that she never heard such ideas within the Islam she knows. She lies to protect her total belief system from inquiry and scrutiny.

The point is rather than courting Sharia, Islam should be outlawed wholesale in any democratic nation of the West, by constitutional law. All religions are tolerated in the West, but Islam is treasonous, so it must be outlawed as a supremacist 'political' belief system while its members choose to live in our societies. First focus on their "death for apostasy" and Sharia, then go after their other treasonous activities in our countries, like their support for Jihad and its organizations both here and abroad. The first is more dangerous, since it goes directly counter to our system of equality and freedom of conscience, while the second is dangerous merely on political grounds. That includes all the so-called 'moderate' Moslems who call for a Caliphate.

Let them pray quietly to their Mecca in their mosques if they wish, but any violation of our laws, or call for Sharia, or support for punishing apostates, or other threats to our freedoms, including their Jihad, they must be called on it as treasonous. Then their prayers are silenced for treason, and they must be booted out. We may not tolerate treason.

Posted by: Battle_of_Tours

at October 11, 2008 3:14 PM

Ms Musaji must not ever go to the mosque if she has not heard any anti-American sermons. The fact that she essentially denies the existence of Muslim extremists that she needs to oppose.

Posted by: Axel Foley

at October 11, 2008 3:18 PM

Musaji is not from abroad. She is, I suspect, an American convert or "revert," who has grown up in the United States, is used to Western modes of thought and freedom, which is why her mental disarray -- no doubt born of emotional disarray that led to her involvement with someone, and her confusing the Muslim object of her affection with the felt need, even duty, of defending Islam, no matter how many intellectual knots she is forced, as a consequence, to tie herself up in.

Whitman wrote "Specimen Days." She's one more reverted specimen of daze.

Posted by: Hugh

at October 11, 2008 3:45 PM

Now this is real work, and invaluable. Musaji reveals very plainly the kind obfuscation and vague simple-mindedness that passes, and is the only thing that will pass, as an answer to Robert.

She avoids the real issue in almost every instance and demonstrates as clearly as Robert does that he is not answered.

How I wish this kind of thing could be put on film as a live debate, and given the attention of a Hollywood movie. But wishes are vain.

Robert's presence of mind and focus on the issue, and his gift for incisive discussion, are
remarkable and something to be thankful for.

Posted by: Novalis

at October 11, 2008 4:14 PM

Robert is a very patient man. Once again he deconstructs a dishonest peace of Islamic propaganda and denial.

What strikes me is that all these Islamo agit-props (that's what these Musaji's really are) sound like clones of each other. They are so indoctrinated that they all use the same excuses and prevarications.

"Muslim condemnations of terrorism go well beyond condemning acts of terrorism by Muslims against non-Muslims, they condemn all acts of terrorism against any civilians whether carried out by individuals, groups, or state agencies."

Translated and analyzed, this standard line is duplicitous crap: : Musaji, (like all of these Islamic apologists) condemns in reality any action by infidels to preotect themselves, to retaliate, to resist jihad or Islamic terrorism or the spread of Islam. She doesn't 'condemn' Hamas, Hezbollah or AQ or the mad mullah's in Iran, she condemns what she believes is state terrorism by Western governments who fight back against Islam-terror. She uses the same prevarications, obfuscations and taqiyya that the MCB, uses, all the Islamic agit props Robert names above, and I have heard the same from the frantic, obsessed Yusuf Irfan, who is a vile and defamatory character.

All Muslims, like all dogs, share certain characteristics. We don't need to concern ourselves what "all Muslims believe" .

“Islam is not a monolith” and “we can’t tar one billion people with the same brush..”“Not All Muslims are the Same” is the same as “Not all Nazis are the Same. Not all Communists are the Same. Not all Cannibals are the Same. Not all murderers are the same. * Excuse me, but why should we give a s#*t???”

* Sophistry= subtly deceptive reasoning or argumentation

Once again I note that no image of Musaji is available, there is no CV of her, in case any Jihad Watchers can get hold of one, please post it.

Posted by: sheik yer'mami

at October 11, 2008 5:13 PM

"The fact that there has not been a "Caliphate" since it was dissolved by Ataturk in 1924" --posted above.

"Islam, this absurd theology of an immoral Bedouin, is a rotting corpse which poisons our lives."

Mustafa Kemal Ataturk

Posted by: darcy

at October 11, 2008 5:59 PM

Musaji : I’m not a scholar so I won’t get into historical discussions by various schools of thought regarding their interpretations.

Second confession: I am not a scholar, just an ordinary American Muslim, so I certainly cannot expect to fare better.

She said it twice so I believe her.

She just identified her own problem. She has little idea what she is talking about, but that does not stop her from talking a lot about it.

Some of what she said was blasphemy, or at least If I was Allah that's what I would call it.

So she stands with Tariq Ramadan on putting a moratorium on some of Allah's words and instructions.

Has she considered Allah in this at all? What hurt feelings he must have that some of his muslims want a moratorium on his words.
Allah will get the last laugh...He always does...

Posted by: duh_swami

at October 11, 2008 6:10 PM

Sheik yer'mami: your post was excellent.

I, too, have noted how Muslims such as Musaji issue such vague and general condemnations when it comes to opposing terrorists.

Indeed, her comment that "Muslim condemnations of terrorism go well beyond condemning acts of terrorism by Muslims against non-Muslims, they condemn all acts of terrorism against any civilians whether carried out by individuals, groups, or state agencies." is just an excuse for her to keep berating countries like Israel who are at the forefront of fighting jihadists.

Muslims like Musaji sneakily adds this addendum so gullible Westerners are supposed to think and feel "Hey, look at Musaji! She just said she condemns all acts of terrorism so she must be one of the good ones!". However, her comments are just garbage and for her, her comments leave it open for her to denigrate the US & Israel for fighting back against jihadists.

I get so tired of people like Musaji. Once again, Robert has destroyed her fluffy talk.

And good posts on Irfan Yusuf. I also live in Australia and have unfortunately been exposed to the idiocy of this man. It's interesting that for a lawyer he always threatens to sue other people when they disagree with him.

Either way, Musaji needs to really stand up to jihadists, including the stealth jihadists, and try to answer Robert's piercing questions. She won't be able to honestly.

Posted by: S Perry

at October 11, 2008 8:15 PM

Musaji wants to have it both ways. She wants to appear to be a "moderate" Muslim so that when the west wins she can appear to be on our "side". If the jihadis win, she is just being a pious Mulsimah practicing taquiyya.

The duality of Islam is always present.

Posted by: tanstaafl

at October 11, 2008 9:43 PM

Mr. Spencer, I'm trying to figure out whose side you're on.

We both know that there are plenty of ordinary, peaceful Muslims who are not violent, who do not abuse women, who just want to get along with their neighbours, and who have no interest in taking over the world (and whom I will call "moderate" Muslims, although they themselves do not like the term). We also know that there are plenty of Muslim extremists whose values are offensive by modern standards and who consider it their religious duty to be perpetually at war with non-Muslims.

Both of these groups seem to have no problem justifying their positions according to Islamic principles and scripture. Personally, as non-Muslim I don't believe either interpretation of Islam, but as a peaceful man myself I would certainly prefer to see the moderate interpretation prevail.

You, on the other hand, seem eager to convince the moderates that they are wrong, that the only way to be a good Muslim is to be an extremist. Why is that? Do you actually believe that the extremist interpretation is "true" -- and if so, how can that be, unless you are a Muslim?

If you don't believe it yourself, why do you want others to believe it? Do you somehow imagine that moderate Muslims, upon hearing your condemnation of Islam, will suddenly see the light and renounce their religion? Surely you realize that is impossible, even ridiculous.

So what's left? It looks to me as if you are on the side of the extremists. You plainly agree with their interpretation of Islam, and reject the moderates' interpretation. Like the extremists, you seem to deliberately foster hatred and suspicion between Muslims and non-Muslims, making it difficult for moderation on either side. Like the extremists, it seems like your ultimate goal is a final Armageddon, a global conflict between Muslims and Infidels.

I find that hard to believe myself; but if not that, then what? What do you hope to achieve?

Posted by: Ron Webb

at October 11, 2008 9:46 PM

Yes this is a standard operating procedure by Muslim apologists.What Muslims condemn is any efforts by Infidels to protect themselves from Muslim terror and violence. The latest example is Hooper of CAIR who once again refused to condemn Hamas and Hezbollah by name while supposedly being against terror. And Muslims still wonder why many Americans are disgusted by them.

Posted by: Roxane

at October 11, 2008 9:59 PM

From Sheila Musaji

There are reasons for the prohibition of marriage between non-Muslim men and Muslim women (although marriages between Muslim men and non-Muslim women are allowed) and that is a matter for scholars to consider and issue fatwas about, and for individual Muslims to decide upon for themselves. [...]

That tacit endorsement of Islamic supremacy tells me all I need to know about Begum Musaji. Nothing else that she wrote above is anywhere near as revealing - although her refusal to condemn Hamas or Hizbullah comes close.

Also, just to perform a little kitman here - it's 5:32, not 5:35, that has that weasel verse about killing one person == killing all mankind. You think this little Muslimah would know her Qur'an?

Posted by: Infidel Pride

at October 11, 2008 10:27 PM

"So what's left? It looks to me as if you are on the side of the extremists. You plainly agree with their interpretation of Islam, and reject the moderates' interpretation."

Posted by: Ron Webb at October 11, 2008 9:46 PM

Ron,

What moderate interpretation? By what scholar, what historical school of jurisprudence? Muslims dislike the term "moderate" because it is absurd. There is no moderate Islam. There is simply Islam, as it existed historically and as is currently practiced.

Those who do not directly engage in violence does not support this fictitious "moderate" interpretation that you allude to. There are a multitude of degrees of piety amongst Muslims, like there is with any religion, so I fail to see your point.

You wrote:
"What do you hope to achieve?"

Quite simply Ron, that the ignorance of Islam which you are unwittingly perpetuating, which is also explicit in its nature and function, needs to be revealed to the masses of non-Muslims. The juxtaposition which you correctly attributed to peaceful Muslims as opposed to supremacists is clear, but that juxtaposition does not exist in Islam itself. Provide proof to support your claim otherwise.

No Muslim can honestly say that secular law should override Shari'ah or Allah's law. To do so effectively renders them an apostate.

Based on your comments, it seems apparent that Robert has a lot more work to do, if he is to accomplish anything.

Posted by: awake

at October 11, 2008 11:14 PM

Posted by: Infidel Pride at October 11, 2008 10:27 PM

Agreed 100%. She stepped in it big time.

Posted by: awake

at October 11, 2008 11:52 PM

Ron

"We" would like to just wish away the supremacist agenda of Islam along with these "moderates" by accepting their arguments at face value without critical analysis, but this would leave us open to deception. It is real easy to play nice when Muslims are a minority, however if you would like to see the true nature of Islam just do a little research into how minorities live in the Islamic world, Muslim and non-Muslim alike. Unless these issues are solved in reality, given enough time these same minorities could be your future descendants. Imagine if you will living as a second class citizen in your own country. You are subjected to the worst sorts of random violence under a class system based on religious doctrines. Your future is bleak, your people used to be a majority in your nation, but now all you and your future grandchildren have to look forward to is the slow grind of annihilation or life as a second class citizen if you are lucky. How could you possibly assume Islamic assimilation into western society will end any differently for us than it has for the hundreds of other cultures which are facing grim futures within its sphere of control? Will your grandchildren wish you had been a better critic? The grim truth is that no matter how hard we wish, this is the future for your descendants, sooner than later if you are European. I used to be just like you, all of this seemed a bit crazy, then the more I learned, and the more I saw the grim reality of it all became crystal clear. Perhaps you shouldn't stick around if you can't handle the truth, as it can be nasty stuff sometimes.

Posted by: ethoman

at October 12, 2008 12:52 AM

Sheik,

Nick Danger posted a link to a picture of her at the original (Oct 6) acticle:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/48295525@N00/2044137597/

Posted by: PRCS

at October 12, 2008 1:25 AM

So what's left? It looks to me as if you are on the side of the extremists. You plainly agree with their interpretation of Islam, and reject the moderates' interpretation. Posted by: Ron Webb

The issue is not whether 'moderate' Islam is really nothing more than wolves in sheep's clothing, but whether our natural freedoms are at stake when faced with Islam, whether or not extremist. What Robert has done masterfully in these forums is show the true nature of Islam, regardless of what label you may give it, that the texts and tenets of Islam, and its 'scholarly' interpretations by Moslem clerics, shows that ALL its tenets are against our natural freedoms. So... which freedoms are you willing to give up to Islam? Which constitutional laws, or the Bill of Rights, are you willing to give up to Sharia? That is the real question, isn't it? Well, Ron?

Posted by: Battle_of_Tours

at October 12, 2008 2:18 AM

Reading Sheila Musaji is like watching an eel pole-dancing.

If she truly assented to each of Mr Spencer's propositions, all she needed to say was ''Yes I will" or 'Yes I do" with no ifs, buts, qualifications, explanations or maybes, all the way down the line from #1 to #2.

since she didn't give a straight 'yes' to any of them, then the only realistic conclusion to draw is that she doesn't in fact intend to do anything that Spencer is asking her to do.

#9 obviously did her in.

In short, her answer to #9, stripped of the verbiage, boils down to 'NO!!!' (i.e. she has no problem with wife-beating and she thinks it's a jolly good idea that Muslim women cannot marry a non-Muslim man [that is, a non-Muslim man who *remains* a non-Muslim].

#10 did her in, also. Look at what she says:
"My opinion of Hamas and Hizballah is a political opinion just as an Irish American’s opinion of the IRA (the military wing or the charitable wing) or a Jewish American’s opinions about Israeli settler groups, the Jewish Defense League or other groups is a political opinion.
"I will and have condemned particular actions of these organizations, but to be required to make a blanket condemnation of an entire organization is to oversimplify the issues."

This is so slippery it's like wrestling a greasy pig - or like trying to pin an eel to the wall.

First observation: in sum, her response to the first part of Mr Spencer's condition #10 is "No."

That is: she does not condemn Hamas or Hezbollah as terrorist organisations.

Second observation: she immediately, reflexively, distracts and deflects by referring to the IRA and 'Israeli settler groups' and 'the Jewish Defense League' - implying, by the way, that the JDL is no different from Hamas and Hezbollah!!!

Third observation: the referent of the phrase 'these organisations' in the sentence beginning " I will and have condemned particular actions of these organizations" is somewhat hazy. Grammatically, it seems to refer to H & Hezb - but a careless listener/ reader might think it referred to the IRA and the JDL! If so: neat piece of doubletalk.

Fourth observation: a kafir, hearing Ms Musaji say "I will [condemn] and have condemned particular actions of these organizations', might assume that the 'particular actions' referred to suicide bombings, etc. But the sentence doesn't - strictly speaking - imply that at all. The 'particular actions' could be anything; and they don't have to be the acts of jihad terror.

Suppose x kills y. A is asked: do you condemn x for killing y?
A answers merely: 'I condemn particular actions of x'.

See that the answer is no answer at all? It *could* just as easily mean - 'I condemn x for being stupid enough to get caught' or 'I condemn x for using an axe instead of a rifle'.

Overall conclusion: she doesn't repudiate, in any real sense, either the aims or the methods of Hamas and Hezbollah.

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy

at October 12, 2008 3:33 AM

PRCS - that's a really, really creepy picture.

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy

at October 12, 2008 3:36 AM

Thanks, PRCS.

Hugh is right. Another 'revert'.

Posted by: sheik yer'mami

at October 12, 2008 7:02 AM

That picture looks like a group of Obama supporters out on the town on Halloween night.

Posted by: DenverRodeo

at October 12, 2008 10:29 AM

Keep up the good work Robert. I have no idea how you have the patience to deal with these muslims day in and out who are basically dening the supremist elements in their religion.
We all need to stand up and spread the word that poverty doesnt cause terrorism and all this fanatic nonsense, its the spirit of Islam that makes one a fanatic and nothing more. Only in Islam can you back up your fanatic stance by scripture...the west needs to wake up and see it for what it is, enough of this PC crap we are all being put through. Long live the Kaffirs...

Posted by: Kafir4ever

at October 13, 2008 3:38 PM

To awake,
who asked me: "What moderate interpretation? By what scholar, what historical school of jurisprudence?"

Well, the interpretation of Ms. Musaji, for one. No, she is not a scholar. So what? She has made it quite clear that she supports and upholds the U.S. Constitution as "the best system of government for a multi-cultural society that has been developed anywhere", and she does not want to see Islamic Law imposed on anyone against their will. What more can you ask?

I am not a scholar either, and I don't know how (or even if) Ms. Musaji can justify her position from the Quran and/or Hadith. But I frankly don't care. All I know is that there are many more like her, who find ways to reconcile their progressive and pluralistic views with their Muslim religion. I see no point in talking them out of it. On the contrary, I'm on their side, and I hope their view of Islam prevails. Whose side are you on?

Spencer does not respond to her statement directly, but as far as I can tell he is trying to convince her that as a good Muslim she ought to seek to impose Sharia. Why would he want to do that? Isn't that what the likes of the Taliban would say? Isn't that what we're supposed to be fighting against?

To ethoman and Battle_Of_Tours,

You apocalyptic scenarios are barely worth a response. All I can say is that in the extremely unlikely event that a majority of my fellow citizens become Muslim, and they democratically elect a government that openly advocates Sharia Law, then so be it. Any other attitude is anti-democratic.

Posted by: Ron Webb

at October 13, 2008 5:06 PM

Ron,

You were not reading carefully. Robert was explicit in his call for Musaji to acknowledge and reject the supremacist principle inherent in Islam.

Musaji instead, continues to lie about it, and labels Spencer an "Islamophobe" as a means to curtail any rational criticism of Islam.

I thought that was obvious.

Posted by: awake

at October 13, 2008 5:25 PM

awake,

"Acknowledge and reject" are contradictory demands. If I acknowledge that something is an essential part of my belief system, how can I simultaneously reject it, i.e. claim that it is not part of my belief system?

Musaji does not acknowledge "the supremacist principle inherent in Islam" because she (obviously) does not believe that it is inherent in Islam. Why do you want to convince her otherwise?

Posted by: Ron Webb

at October 13, 2008 8:09 PM

Mr Webb;

I believe you do not entirely understand what is going on here.

The question Shela asked was "what does Robert Spencer (and by extension, a whole lot of us) believe a 'moderate' Muslim (i.e. one that poses no threat to others) should think, act, feel?"

Robert has given a list of 10 items, which he asked Sheila to affirm or deny she holds to. If she held to a vast majority of them (even all 10!), then Robert (and by extension a large number of us) would say she's a 'moderate'.

Instead, Sheila twists around and tries to wriggle out of affirming or denying her stance towards those issues. Ask yourself why - maybe it's because she recognises it would be suicide to deny them outright but at the same time she wants to present her 'moderation'.

I acknowledge the existence of Satan and evil at work in the world, and yet I reject his power over me. I acknowledge Mormons think of themselves as Christians, but I reject their teachings and do not consider them as part of the Body of Christ.

Similarly, Sheila could have acknowledged that the extremist position existed, that doctrinal Islam (or if you prefer, traditional Islam) does indeed have all that bad stuff we're saying it does, and reject her adherence to those doctrines/principles.

Posted by: gkong3

at October 14, 2008 3:36 AM

gkong3: "Similarly, Sheila could have [1]acknowledged that the extremist position existed, [2] that doctrinal Islam (or if you prefer, traditional Islam) does indeed have all that bad stuff we're saying it does, and [3] reject her adherence to those doctrines/principles.

Well, she certainly addressed point 3, and point 1 hardly needs addressing (does anyone deny that there are extremist Muslims?). As for point 2, she pretty much said that she doesn't know and doesn't care what "doctrinal Islam" has to say. Seems like the perfect answer to me. If the scholarly interpretations and historical accounts contain "all that bad stuff", isn't she better off ignoring them?

Posted by: Ron Webb

at October 15, 2008 7:41 PM

Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.