Yesterday a Muslim named Alykhan Velshi was given space at NRO’s The Corner to accuse me, in the course of attacking the Pope’s remarks, of “not giving moderate Muslims any wiggle room in which to offer an internal-Islamic critique of the bin Ladenists.” I responded here, and now Velshi has written “A response to Robert Spencer” at his website; his response is also linked at The Corner.
Robert Spencer replies to my post in the Corner.
Essentially, Robert challenges me, as he does all moderate Muslims, to “renounce definitively, the elements of Islamic theology that jihadists are using to wage war against non-Muslims around the world.”
I do. Though the ease with which I do so will probably dissatisfy Robert Spencer.
It doesn’t. Why do you think it would?
Robert wants me to admit there is a problem with Islam. Of course there is – thousands, possibly millions, are willing to commit suicide in its name. That’s a very serious problem. But admitting there is a problem doesn’t mean I’m agonising at the (minor) epistemological leap it took for me personally to renounce violent jihad. I think Robert Spencer and people who support him consistently trumpet the most violent interpretations of Islam, and then go on to make it seem as though those Muslims who are not violent are somehow betraying the essence of the faith.
“…make it seem as though…” Let’s stay on firmer ground, shall we, Velshi? In fact, I have never said this. What I have actually said, many times, is that there is no universally recognized authority in Islam that can say what is true Islam and what isn’t, but that jihadist Muslims will accuse and do accuse moderates of “betraying the essence of the faith.”
Although I concede that those who advocate violent jihad point to actual texts in the Quran and early and subsequent Islamic practice, I believe their interpretation is wrong and the historical examples they cite are opportunistically chosen. This doesn’t mean I’m denying the violent aspects of Islam that come from a literal reading of religious texts, just that I, as Muslims have for centuries, reject that literalism is the only way to interpret religious documents – in fact, I’ll readily admit that the bin Ladenists aren’t creating doctrine out of thin air, but they are distorting what is there considerably through their weirdly post-modern focus on literalism, which has less of a basis in Islam than common intuition would suggest. I don’t want to get into the weeds of Islamic history and Quranic exegesis on a Friday evening, though.
All right. Now it’s Saturday afternoon. When do you want to get into it? Not for me, mind you, but for those Muslims who are falling prey all around the world to this erroneous jihadist exegesis. If you could show them that it is erroneous, Velshi, you would be doing the world a great service.
I hope my response still satisfies Robert: I admit that there is much violence and intolerance inherent in verses in the Quran and elsewhere (although I disagree that it’s as bad as Robert says it is) – still, I “renounce [it] definitively.”
I couldn’t possibly be more satisfied. Thanks. But in fact, it isn’t all about me. I am still looking for a group of Muslims to mount some viable Islamic challenge to the jihadists, so as to curb their violence and combat their recruitment. I am assured by people all the time that it exists, but no one has ever managed to show it to me.
I can’t speak for other Muslims – indeed, I refuse to do so, cherishing as I do my individuality and respecting theirs – but I can say that the doctrines of my particular subsect of Islam, the Shia Ismailis, make it easy for me to renounce violent jihad.
Great. Is there any chance that the Ismailis might be accepted as orthodox Muslims by the larger bodies of Sunnis and Shi’ites at any point in the near future, which would be an indispensable prerequisite for the wider dissemination of this perspective?
I don’t know – maybe I should agonise over it more, but somehow I don’t. With respect to my religious faith, I agonise more over memorising difficult prayer verses and singing religious songs in tune.
I don’t however agonise over whatever it is that bothers the violent jihadists.
With respect, sir, maybe we do need a bit more agonizing, in the sense that we need more active challenges to the jihadists from Muslims who claim to reject their deeds and perspective. I hope we will see more in this vein from you in the future, and in the meantime I thank you for taking the time to write this reply, which in itself suggests that you have modified your earlier erroneous view that I leave Muslim reformers and would-be reformers no “wiggle room.”