Why Moderate Muslims Balk at “Je Suis Charlie”
by Afzal Upal, PhD
Unless you happen to be a news-junkie and a Middle East expert (like me), you are probably confused about what our leaders and pundits are telling us about events unfolding around the world. On the one hand, our leaders and pundits tell us that Islam is a religion of peace, that most Muslims around the world are moderates who love peace, and that a few terrorists are perverting the peaceful ideology of Islam for their nefarious purposes. On the other hand, at least according to most Western media reports, this moderate Muslim majority never seems to be able to muster the courage to protest terrorists who attack in their name. Instead, as millions in France and other Western cities shouted, “je suis Charlie,” a few thousand counter-demonstrators in the Muslim world shouted back, “if you are Charlie then we are Kouachi.”
To understand why a vast majority of world’s Muslims did not join the good side (as all of our politicians and pundits unanimously characterize our side), we need to go beyond the headlines and understand the deeper social psychological forces at work. This article does that through an analysis of the response by the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jamaat – an organization lauded as a model for its moderation by numerous Western leaders and pundits – to the Charlie Hebdo cartoons.
Ahmadis as Models of Moderation
Ahmadiyya Muslims Jamaat was founded in 1889 by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (1835-1908) in British India. It claims millions of followers in 189 countries of the world. Numerous Western leaders including Canadian Prime Minister Harper, US Democratic House leader Nancy Pelosy, and British Home Secretary Theresa May have lauded the movement for its “love for all and hatred for none” slogan labeling them a models of moderation. However, surprisingly, Ahmadis not only refused to join in the “je suis Charlie” campaign, their spokespeople called for banning expressions of ridicule against any religious figure. The Head of the Ahmadiyya Movement stated that “no faith or religion should be mocked or insulted and that the dignity of each religion should be respected at all times.” The Ottawa Ahmadiyya Imam argued that the satirical depictions of religious leaders should be illegal, “there should be limits placed on freedom of speech to prevent the publication of offensive material… The Ahmadiyya Muslim Community has opposed such illustrations in the past…” The movement’s Canadian National President went further imploring people around the world to boycott Charlie Hebdo “because the holy prophet is very dearly loved by Muslims. This love is so deep that people would sacrifice their lives if they think that the Holy Prophet is being insulted.”
Since the events of 11 September 2001, various Western governments, in particular the United States have ramped up efforts to promote freedom of expression and democracy among Muslims both at home and abroad. After spending millions of dollars and a decade’s worth of efforts, why haven’t we been able to convince moderate Muslims such as Ahmadis to stand with us in the battle for the freedom of expression? I believe that the answer to such questions lies in understanding the social identity dynamics of Muslim societies.
Social Identity Dynamics of Modern Muslim Societies
According to social identity theory, people have a fundamental need for a positive self-esteem. Social groups engage in a variety of social identity management strategies including mobility, social creativity, and violent collective action to enhance their group’s status. Mobility primarily benefits individuals who move away from their ingroup and adopt outgroup values. Social creativity strategies involve attempts to change shared perceptions of group members to make ingroup’s status look better relative to the outgroup. The violent collective action strategies involve attacking the outgroup to steal its resources. Similar to many other religious groups, Muslims believe that they are God’s favored people who have been promised that if you follow Islam, you will be victorious over others. This certainly seemed to be true in the first few decades after the founding of the new religion as Muslims conquered city after city in the Middle East (Muslims consider this to be the golden period of Islam).
As the Mughal rule collapsed and the British emerged as the strongest power, early Muslim responses were typified by two men, both named Syed Ahmad. While Syed Ahmad Barelvi (1786-1831) invited Muslims to join him in violent collective action against the infidels, Sir Syed Ahmad Khan (1817-1898) argued that Muslims needed to follow his lead by educating themselves in Western values and becoming members of the loyalist Anglo-Indian elite. While Sir Syed’s approach also had significant elements of social creativity, his approach was primarily perceived by most Indian Muslims as an attempt to move away from Islamic values and adopting British values of science and logic. Sir Syed launched fundraising efforts to open schools to make Western education available to more Muslims. Sir Syed also sought to rid Islam of irrational beliefs such as the belief in supernatural miracles by arguing that God does not violate his own laws of nature. In this vein, he argued against the traditional Muslim belief in Jesus’s physical ascension to heaven so that he could avoid crucifixion. Instead, Sir Syed argued that, Jesus had stayed on earth dying “a natural death.”
Having seen the disastrous results of the Jihad launched by Syed Ahmad Barelvi and crushing defeat of the 1857 anti-British rebellion, by late 19th century most Muslim leaders in India had realized the futility of a military struggle against the British. They were, however, also not convinced by Sir Syed’s call to adopt Western values because they argued that doing so would result in dilution of the distinct Muslim identity. It was in this environment that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad advocated a third way. Wholeheartedly adopting the social creativity strategy, Ahmad argued that while the West had material wealth and individual freedoms, Muslims had spiritual wealth and strong family ties. Social psychologists call this shifting the dimensions of comparison to those on which ingroup looks more favorable. Channelling Ibn-e-Tamiyy’a 13th century response to Mongol invasions, Ahmad argued that adopting inferior non-Muslim values was what caused the downfall of Muslims in the first place. The only way for Muslims to restore the lost glory of the past was to double down on their points of distinctive strength, namely, their religiosity and family values (I explore how Muslim leaders developed this narrative and how to counter in in a sister article here). Agreeing with most of his contemporary Indian Muslims leaders, he said that Jihad of the sword against the British was not a viable option because its necessary preconditions were not present at the moment. Far from asking Muslims to give up Jihad and live in harmony with other religions, Ahmad called on his fellow group members to fiercely engage in an offensive Jihad through their pens and their tongues to convert non-Muslims to Islam. Unlike Sir Syed who argued that it was uncivilized to violently attack people simply because they are of a difference of faith, Ahmad argued that in the current conditions, a Jihad of the pen is the most effective way to rid the world of false faiths.
Ahmad’s message was warmly received by many Indian Muslims and funds poured into Qadian to publish anti-Hindu and anti-Christian literature and distribute it in India as well as the West. Ahmadis opened the first mosques and sent missionaries to the West in the early 20th century. Along with his aggressive fundraising campaigns to finance missionary work, Ahmad needed ideas to take the battle to the Christians. This is when he revived the idea of Jesus’s natural death originally advocated by Sir Syed. Unlike Sir Syed, who made rationality and God following his own laws of nature as a lynch-pin of his argument, Ahmad argued that Jesus’s death was needed to revive Islam. Ahmad argued that Christian missionaries were tricking Punjabi Muslims peasants by reminding them that according to their own Islamic beliefs, Jesus was alive in the heavens above and Muhammad was buried six feet underground, thus proving Jesus’s superiority over Muhammad. He said that the only way to blunt this argument would be to change Muslims beliefs regarding Jesus to argue that Jesus was also dead and buried. Unlike Sir Syed, who made Western notion of rationality as the reason for the change, Ahmad argued that Jesus had to die to restore Islam’s superiority over Christianity. Ahmad said:
To believe that Jesus is alive, is highly insulting and derogatory to the Holy Prophet. I cannot stand this sacrilege even for a moment. Everyone knows that the Holy Prophet passed away at the age of sixty-three and lies buried in his tomb at Medina, which millions of pilgrims visit every year. If it is disrespectful to believe in the death of Jesus or even to think of it, then I ask how can you permit this insolence and disrespect with regard to the Holy Prophet?… how can one claim to love and be a follower of the Holy Prophet if he accepts a superior status for Jesus by pronouncing him alive and the Holy Prophet dead?
Furthermore, Ahmad argued that Muslims in Islam’s golden period had believed in Jesus’s death. Afterwards, as Christian ideas slowly crept into Islam God withdrew his favors. Going back to our original beliefs would result in restoration of the past glory. Social psychologists have found that this arcing pattern of narrative to be highly successful in causing social change especially among high ingroup identifiers who are usually resistant to all messages of social change.
To demonstrate his credibility to those Muslims who doubted his intentions, Ahmad had to emphasize his love for Muhammad and the strength of his belief in Muhammad’s superiority over all other prophets. Part of this strategy implied that when Muslims perceived a slight against the Holy Prophet by non-Muslims, Ahmad and his successors had to take the lead in expressing their disgust. Upon hearing of some perceived insult against Muhammad, Ahmad wrote, “The hurtful words which these opponents have used against the best of creation, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, has injured my heart. I swear by God that if all my children, and the children of my children, all of my friends, and all of my helpers were murdered before my eyes, and my hands and feet were cut off, and if my eyes were taken out, and if I was deprived of all my ambitions, and were to have lost all my happiness and comforts, in comparison to all these things, that grief is far greater to me when such filthy attacks are made against the pure person of the Holy Prophet .” Thus in on 22 September 1895, Ahmad published a circular demanding that the government amend Indian Penal Code 298 to make blasphemy against any religious founder a punishable offense. In 1927, Ahmadis took the lead in agitating against publication of the book Rangila Rasul by its Hindu author Raj Pal and demanded that it be banned. This included legal action by the movement’s prominent member Sir Zafrullah Khan. Defense of the honor of the Holy Prophet Muhammad has become such an integral part of the Ahmadiyya identity that Ahmadis have been at the forefront of demanding blasphemy laws around the world. Thus when he spoke to the parliament members, the current leader of the Ahmadiyya Jamaat demanded the same of the British government, “Governments need to make policies that establish and protect mutual respect, through which hurting the sentiments of others or causing them any type of harm should be outlawed.”
Conclusions
This case study illustrates the dilemma faced by Muslim moderates who want their fellow Muslims to turn away from violent Jihad (or any other beliefs and practices that are firmly established as part of Muslim identity). When they advocate a change in shared social beliefs (as Sir Syed did) they are seen as less than ideal Muslims. To be able to successfully argue for a change, reformers have to be seen as strong defenders of the faith and the faithful. Thus to remove religious sanctions from a military Jihad against the British, Ahmad had to be seen as more ferocious in his pen-Jihad against Christians. In order for him to get Muslims to change their beliefs in Jesus’s death, he had to be seen as the biggest champion of Muhammad and an Islamic supremacist. His championing of Muhammad lead him to make repeated calls for punishment of even the slightest perceived blasphemy against the prophet. Other Muslim leader competing with him for adherents had to outdo him in their rhetoric against insulting the prophet. Studying these social identity dynamics can help us understand how changes in a group’s beliefs and behavior that appear beneficial in the short term may actually be harmful in the long term.
Dr. Afzal Upal is a cognitive scientist of religion with expertise in Islamic movements, countering violent extremism (CVE), and narrative-based messaging. He has published over sixty articles in peer reviewed journals and conferences. He is author (with JR Lewis) of the forthcoming OUP book “Islamic sects and Islam-based Religious Movements”.
Mirren10 says
What a load of tendentious, equivacatory, and pretentious gobbledegook.
This Afzal Upal, PhD, tells us nothing most of us here at Jihad Watch didn’t already know.
Shorn of all the pseudo-‘scientific’ jargon, Upal is basically saying that ‘moderate’ muslims won’t stand against the ‘extremists’ because they don’t want to go against the ummah, and they are afraid of being accused of ‘blasphemy’, and because they see the ‘jihad of the pen’, and stealth jihad, as more successful in the long run. Quelle surprise !
He had to write pages of ‘sociological’ claptrap to tell us that ?
.”Instead, as millions in France and other Western cities shouted, “je suis Charlie,” a few thousand counter-demonstrators in the Muslim world shouted back, “if you are Charlie then we are Kouachi.”
Oh, I think it was a **lot** more than ‘ a few thousand’, Upal, and you carefully refrain from mentioning these ‘few thousand’ also shouted, ”kill those who insult mohammed”, and are demanding blasphemy laws, and death to cartoonists and satirists.
”To understand why a vast majority of world’s Muslims did not join the good side (as all of our politicians and pundits unanimously characterize our side)”
How equivacatory is this ? The implication here is that there is a **question** about what, exactly, is the ‘good side’. It would appear there is a question in Upal’s mind as to whether standing against bloody murder *is* actually the ‘good side’. He again makes no reference to the millions of muslims demanding blasphemy laws and death to those who ‘blaspheme’ the putrescent mohammed.
” … we need to go beyond the headlines and understand the deeper social psychological forces at work.”
No, we don’t. All we need to do is to recognise that for muslims, veneration of mohammed is intrinsic to islam, along with the rubbish in the koran, and anyone who goes against the ummah in this, is a bad muslim, and subject to violent penalties.
”This article does that through an analysis of the response by the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jamaat – an organization lauded as a model for its moderation by numerous Western leaders and pundits – to the Charlie Hebdo cartoons.”
What he’s doing here is trying to make the Ahmadiyya’s the scapegoats; typical sunni/Shiite response, and we get reams of psychological/sociological jargon in defence of that.
”Since the events of 11 September 2001 … ” Now *there’s* a nice, bland reference to the attack on the US by a bunch of *sunnis*, which resulted in the **murder** of almost 3,000 US citizens, and the destruction of the Towers, and then proceeds to serve up a farrago of ‘Social Identity dynamics’ that insinuates this is somehow the fault of the Ahmadiyya.
”According to social identity theory, people have a fundamental need for a positive self-esteem. Social groups engage in a variety of social identity management strategies including mobility, social creativity, and **violent collective action** ( my emphasis: Mirren) to enhance their group’s status.”
The only ‘violent collective action’ being taken to ‘enhance their group’s status’ is being taken by **muslims**.
After reading this big, steaming pile of taqqiyah, I need to take some Andrew’s Liver Salts; I feel distinctly queasy.
Spot On says
There is always something to learn from any learned person, even if their ideas are hard to communicate in a few words.
When I was a kid, self esteem was either learned from parent or through achievement. None of the current social self esteem gobble-de-gook has ever worked and will certainly not come out well.
I can understand that adherents to a religion would feel good about their religion and why not. But cutting off heads is an entirely different matter. Muslims are like the “brownshirts” of Nazism we dealt with in the 1930’s and 40’s. They want total superiority and control. They have a particular hatred of Jews and Christians as did their Prophet.. They want to emulate their Prophet, who unlike ALL other religious figures, had complete disdain for the “Golden Rule”.
Aardvark says
On the other hand, I totally agree!
Except with one phrase: “those who ‘blaspheme’ the putrescent mohammed.”
After more than a thousand years lying in his tomb in Arabia, Mo is far beyond the putrescent stage, and is likely no more than brittle bones and dust.
His words and thoughts, though, continue to sicken people as much today as they ever have. The sooner they are dust with him, the better it will be for all humanity.
Mirren10 says
”After more than a thousand years lying in his tomb in Arabia, Mo is far beyond the putrescent stage, and is likely no more than brittle bones and dust”
Very true, Aardvark ! 🙂
RonaldB says
Mirren,
I don’t know why you’re so down on the author.
I agree with you that the Amadiyyas are completely Muslim. They revere Muhammad, and accept every word of the Koran as sacred. You can see it on their website:
http://www.alislam.org
What this author has done is to provide a context in social psychology theory to account for Amadiyya actions and thought. He may be right and he may be wrong, but he does what very few academics seem to be doing: view Islam accurately. His social theory construction is completely consistent with your more naive (using naive in an academic sense, meaning more intuitive than reasoned step-by-step), but just as accurate, understanding of the Muslim nature of Amadiyyas.
He also provides us with some information Amadiyyas might not be too happy about:
1) the Amadiyyan founder explicitly and completely rejected the rational approach to Islamic understanding. The Amadiyya philosophy was formulated specifically to crush any interpretation of Islam that takes modern understanding into account;
2) the Amadiyyan rejection of violence is purely and completely tactical. The Amadiyyas see the rejection of individual violence as being the best method of squelching all criticism. Of course, the Amadiyyas have no objection to a cop with a gun arresting a peaceful critic of Islam, but they reject, for the moment, the idea of an individual jihadi with an AK 47 shooting up critics on his own. Note the qualification always: “for the moment”.
In this view, the Amadiyyas are exactly the same as the Muslim Brotherhood, which has been phenomenally successful in infiltrating the US government and decision-making bodies. The MB discourages expressions of individual jihad. Of course, the Muslim Brotherhood also opposes any institutional defenses against individual jihad, probably on the grounds that such defenses might conceivably be used to slow the breakneck pace of Islamization in our society. The Amadiyyas also oppose any such structural defense.
The facts completely supporting this argument are readily available from the article, which is why I’m surprised at the ferocity of your feelings against it. He only leaves you one little logical link to complete by yourself.
The Amadiyyas are as threatening to our liberties, and ultimately, our physical safety, as is the Muslim Brotherhood. And this article makes that very clear.
Mirren10 says
”Mirren,
I don’t know why you’re so down on the author.”
Very simply, because he uses a load of claptrap ‘sociological’ theory and longwinded, would be academic vocabulary, in order to obfuscate what needs to be very clearly stated: that what motivates muslims is their veneration of the vile mohammed, and the evil and vicious tenets of the koran. That ‘moderate’ muslims, insofar as they exist, are terrified of their co-religionists, who may murder them for rejecting violence as a means of advancing islam.
He does this in order to distract attention away from the texts of the Koran, and the ahadith, which demand that the rest of us be subjugated to islam.
That’s it, no more, no less.
This kind of pseudo-intellectual nonsense is merely a means of confusing the unwary, who assume that because something is dressed up in polysyllables, it must necessarily carry more weight than something clearly and simply stated.
”What this author has done is to provide a context in social psychology theory to account for Amadiyya actions and thought. ”
See my comment above. You may be impressed by this kind of thing; I am not. I don’t need ”social psychology theory” (whatever that may be) in order to understand that what motivates muslims is their veneration for mohammed, and the koran.
And the *only* difference between the Amadiyya and other mohammedan sects, is that they are not prepared to advance islam by *violent* jihad, although they are more than happy to use the jihad of the pen, and stealth jihad.
I would remind you that violent jihad, whilst no doubt enormous fun for these psychopaths, has exactly the same end as stealth jihad – the ultimate hegemony of islam, and our defeat under the Islamic jackboot.
”His social theory construction is completely consistent with your more naive (using naive in an academic sense, meaning more intuitive than reasoned step-by-step), but just as accurate, understanding of the Muslim nature of Amadiyyas.
He also provides us with some information Amadiyyas might not be too happy about”
Information about the Amadiyya sect is available to anyone with a PC, and the capacity to google. There is nothing new here. Your naïve assumption that there is, is a symptom of being your being unduly impressed by long words and ‘academic’ titles.
”The facts completely supporting this argument are readily available from the article, which is why I’m surprised at the ferocity of your feelings against it. He only leaves you one little logical link to complete by yourself.”
You thought my feelings were ‘ferocious’ ? No, simply contemptuous of this kind of appeal to those who think that simple points dressed up in a lot of jargon is somehow more acceptable than straightforward facts.
”He only leaves you one little logical link to complete by yourself.”
No, he’s trying to obfuscate simple truth, because he knows people like you are impressed by it.
”The Amadiyyas are as threatening to our liberties, and ultimately, our physical safety, as is the Muslim Brotherhood. ”
Quite. Exactly what I stated.
‘And this article makes that very clear.”
It is clear to anyone with the ability to cut through the bullshit; otherwise it is a deliberate exercise in a) smoothing over the tracks in order to confuse the unwary, and b) an attempt to whitewash the rest of islam by targeting the ostensibly more ‘peaceful’ ” Amadiyya, and implying that *they* are the problem, whilst attempting to absolve the rest of islam.
Really, at the end of the day, islam is very simple, and we don’t need longwinded and laughably ‘intellectual’ theories in order to figure it out. mohammedans believe they are the best of people, and everyone else is shit. They believe they have the right and the orders of ‘allah’ to crush the rest of the world, and bring it under the sway of ‘allah’, and that mohammed is the perfect example of a man, to be emulated in every possible way. Simples.
Mirren10 says
Oh, and I also notice you make no mention of my specific points about Upal’s failure to mention certain facts, and his tendentious reference to ‘the good side’, and ‘the events of 9/11’.
Champ says
This kind of pseudo-intellectual nonsense is merely a means of confusing the unwary, who assume that because something is dressed up in polysyllables, it must necessarily carry more weight than something clearly and simply stated.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Precisely, Mirren10!! …I wholly agree.
terry says
Mirren 10,
I agree with you, 100 %! Actually I wrote my above comment, before I read yours, which was first below the article.
I was pleasantly surprised that you thought the same thing as me, about the article of Afzal Upal.
BobChicago says
I live in Chicago. I would like to know what was said on 9/11. Were words spoken inside Masques of sadness or pride and jubilation?
lebel says
you can be against the attack on journalists and find Charlie hebdo humour repulsive at the same time.
here is a charlie hebdo cartoon on the trinity:
http://www.lebonnetdespatriotes.net/lbdp/index.php/component/k2/item/2020-charlie-hebdo-et-le-saint-esprit
Why does everyone need to be Charlie?
Mirren10 says
”you can be against the attack on journalists and find Charlie hebdo humour repulsive at the same time”
It wasn’t an ‘attack’ on journalists, it was **cold blooded bloody murder of 16 people in order to defend the ‘honour’ of the foul mohammed**. Call it what it is, without mealy mouthed euphemisms.
Certainly, many people have found Charlie Hebdo offensive, but they have not *murdered* anyone over it.
”Why does everyone need to be Charlie?”
**Everyone who values freedom of speech needs to be Charlie.**
That of course leaves Islamic apologists like you out. (if you’re not an out and out mohammedan).
Champ says
lebel wrote:
you can be against the attack on journalists and find Charlie hebdo humour repulsive at the same time.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
lebel is merely “against” the attack on journalists, but he finds the cartoons “repulsive” …at the very *least*, that should be the other way around.
Wow lebel is just as backwards, evil and disgusting as the death cult that he serves: islam.
lebel says
lots of personal insults (as expected).
Now you are not even allowed to find a type of humour repulsive, what nonsense you allow ourselves.
Taqqiya, its taqqiya!
Mirren10 says
”lots of personal insults (as expected).”
What is it you find insulting – being called a mohammedan, or being called an apologist ?
”Now you are not even allowed to find a type of humour repulsive, what nonsense you allow ourselves.”
No, this is *your* nonsense. I specifically said, many people find Charlie Hebdo’s type of humour offensive/repulsive, but they don’t then feel they are justified in murdering the perpetrators.
A point you very carefully sidestepped/ignored, in favour of a meretricious implication ”now you are not even allowed to find a type of humour repulsive”. You’re a very sly liar, lebel.
The point is *not* that Charlie Hebdo’s humour is offensive/repulsive, which is certainly true for many, but that **in the interests of free speech** they should be able to publish whatever they want, without having to fear being **murdered**.
Free speech means nothing at all, if **offensive speech** is not protected. But people like you will never be able to comprehend something so simple and basic.
Champ says
lebel wrote:
lots of personal insults (as expected).
Now you are not even allowed to find a type of humour repulsive, what nonsense you allow ourselves.
Taqqiya, its taqqiya!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Well, islam *is* backwards, evil and disgusting, and this is reflected in “lebel’s” comments; and if the truth hurts, then I’m sorry, but it is backwards, evil and disgusting to state what “lebel” wrote @11:27.
My common sense is still intact; whereas “lebel” lost his a very long time ago courtesy the brainwashing he received from islam & co.
Always On Watch says
I found this quite insightful. I think that I can use some of this material to convince voluntary dhimmis of their own folly.
G179 says
Just a quick reminder: The Quran is blasphemy towards other religions. It calls the Jews and Christians deluded people, who strayed from the right path. It plagiarizes biblical stories while perverting them.
Muslims degrade and humiliate other religions on a daily basis, with full support and engouragements of their religious leaders. Destruction of churches, slaughtering people for their non-muslim beliefs, denial of the Jews’ connection to their holiest place, endless antisemitic cartoons.. the list goes on and on.
The muslim call for blasphemy ban is self defeating.
CogitoErgoSum says
I find it most interesting that this Dr. Upal finds it derogatory and insulting to believe that Jesus is still alive while Muhammad is dead and rotting in his grave. Dr. Upal must have a different interpretation of Quran 4: 157-158:
“And they said we have killed the Messiah Jesus son of Mary, the Messenger of God. They did not kill him, nor did they crucify him, though it was made to appear like that to them; those that disagreed about him are full of doubt, with no knowledge to follow, only supposition: they certainly did not kill him. On the contrary, God raised him unto himself. God is almighty and wise.”
Dr. Upal must also reject the hadith from al-Bukhari volume 3, book 43, number 656 which states:
“Allah’s Apostle said, “The Hour will not be established until the son of Mary (i.e. Jesus) descends amongst you as a just ruler, he will break the cross, kill the pigs, and abolish the Jizya tax. Money will be in abundance so that nobody will accept it (as charitable gifts).”
—Narrated by Abu Huraira
So Dr. Upal’s view is that the Quran is unclear in it what it says and that the hadiths are untrustworthy.
This is just fascinating to me. Truly, Islam IS the religion from hell (interpret that as you will).
RonaldB says
I believe you confused who the quote was from, as this was easy to do from the format of the article. The names are confusing as hell.
”
Unlike Sir Syed, who made Western notion of rationality as the reason for the change, Ahmad argued that Jesus had to die to restore Islam’s superiority over Christianity. Ahmad said:
<<<>>>
‘To believe that Jesus is alive, is highly insulting and derogatory to the Holy Prophet. I cannot stand this sacrilege even for a moment. Everyone knows that the Holy Prophet passed away at the age of sixty-three and lies buried in his tomb at Medina, which millions of pilgrims visit every year. If it is disrespectful to believe in the death of Jesus or even to think of it, then I ask how can you permit this insolence and disrespect with regard to the Holy Prophet?… how can one claim to love and be a follower of the Holy Prophet if he accepts a superior status for Jesus by pronouncing him alive and the Holy Prophet dead?
‘
“
CogitoErgoSum says
Thank you, Yes, you are right. Still I am confused though. If the Quran is supposed to be the clear and direct word of Allah, why do so many people have so many different interpretations of what it says? So does the Quran say that Jesus is alive or does it say he is dead? Some miraculous book indeed!
RonaldB says
lol. That’s a different question, involving creativity. Best not look to Muslim sources for creative thinking, as their exposition of Islamic teachings is slavish rather than creative.”
Michael Copeland says
Koran 19:33 relates that Isa the infant said:
“And peace is on me the day I was born and the day I will die and the day I am raised alive.”
Koran 4:157 states categorically:
And they did not kill him, for certain.
Either his prophecy is not true or the account of his non-death is not true.
Isa is predicted to return.
Champ says
Afzal Upal stated:
“To believe that Jesus is alive, is highly insulting and derogatory to the Holy Prophet.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Afzal made two false claims in one sentence: 1) that Jesus is not alive, 2) and that muhammad was a holy prophet. Both points are wrong, and Got Questions thoroughly and succintly answers them both:
1) Question: “Is the resurrection of Jesus Christ true?”
Answer: http://www.gotquestions.org/was-Jesus-resurrected.html
2) Question: “Is Jesus the only way to Heaven?”
Answer: http://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-only-way.html
Axel says
Here we go again. The quote comes from Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, the founder of the Amadiyya Movement not author of this article.
mortimer says
“The Ottawa Ahmadiyya Imam argued that the satirical depictions of religious leaders should be illegal, “there should be limits placed on freedom of speech to prevent the publication of offensive material…people would sacrifice their lives if they think that the Holy Prophet is being insulted.”
Perhaps….suicide bombing by the peace-loving Ahmadis…so peaceful.
BUT who decides what may not be criticized in religion? May I criticize the human sacrifice of the Aztec religion?
Judges can only decide what constitutes ‘blasphemy’ if the country has an established faith that is protected from criticism by law.
The United States and Canada have no established ‘American religion’ or ‘Canadian religion’.
Nor is Islam the official, established faith of a Western country. Islam has no protection from criticism.
Jihad is religious fighting, so for that reason, Muslims say no one may criticize the terrorism of jihad! But that’s Sharia law, not Western national law.
Finally, what is sacred to one person may be the height of blasphemy to another. In a secular court, the judges do not have criteria for determining ‘blasphemy’.
mortimer says
I thank Dr. Afzal Upal for this highly enlightening explanation.
The conclusion I take from the article is that Ahmadis say, ‘Free speech for me, but not for thee.’
Ahamadis can denounce all other faiths as much as they wish; no one may denounce any doctrine of Ahmaddiya, especially the validity of the Islamic prophethood.
mariam rove says
Yes. This is the way Islam works. it is a one way street. M
Ghurab says
Dr. Upal is Ahmadiyya. But nowhere in this article or the one he linked to does he declare that.
QUOTE
On Saturday December 6th, Dr. Afzal Upal gave a talk at CFI Toronto titled: “I’m a Victim of Islam & Islamophobia and I think Ben Affleck & Bill Maher Are Both Right.”
Dr. Upal is a cognitive scientist with contributions to Cognitive Science of Religion, Machine Learning for Planning,and Agent-based Social Simulations. He has published over 100 articles in peer reviewed publications. He is co-editor (with Prof. James R. Lewis) of the forthcoming anthology Islamic Sects & Islam-inpired Religious Movements.
After having been a victim of both Islam and Islamophobia Dr. Upal had a unique perspective on the recent debate between Ben Affleck and Bill Maher on the HBO program Real Time with Bill Maher. He found himself agreeing with Bill Maher when he said that Islam promotes misogyny and discrimination against minorities. As a member of the heterodox Ahmadiyya Muslim in Pakistan, his family emigrated to Canada, since in that country it was a crime for Ahmadis to call themselves Muslims and hence not entitled to privileges of full citizenship in the Islamic Republic.
Source: http://www.cficanada.ca/author/cfi-toronto/
ENDQUOTE
So, Mirren10, Dr. Upal is not “trying to make the Ahmadiyya’s the scapegoats”. But your suspicion is well founded, he did give that impression. As RonaldB said “He also provides us with some information Amadiyyas might not be too happy about … the Amadiyyan rejection of violence is purely and completely tactical … In this view, the Amadiyyas are exactly the same as the Muslim Brotherhood.” I completely agree.
This looks very much like those who “smile in the face of some people although our hearts curse them” while they study western science and “prepare against them whatever you are able of power and of steeds of war”.
As such, it is a HUGE admission for an Ahmadi to make.
As Spot On said, he is a “learned person”.
QUOTE
Dr. Afzal Upal is a Senior Defence Scientist and Leader of the Effects & Influence Group at Defence R&D Canada’s Toronto Research Centre.
Dr. Upal has a Bachelors in Double Math/Physics from Talim-ul-Islam College Rabwah, Masters in Computer Science from University of Saskatchewan, and PhD (Computer Science) from the University of Alberta in 1999.
He has worked as a professor of Computer Science at Dalhousie University and the University of Toledo and as a professor of Cognitive Science at Occidental College in Los Angeles. He serves on the editorial board of several scholarly journals including Journal of Cultural & Religious Studies and Journal of Neurology & Psychology.
Source: http://www.quranandscience.org/presentations/
ENDQUOTE
+++++++++++++++++
Who are the Ahmadiyya?
They are no more representative of mainstream Islam than than the Church of Latter Day Saints is of Christianity.
The Ahmadiyya take such a different view from the majority of Islamic schools because they believe the 19th century founder of their sect was divinely inspired. Implying that Mohammed was not the final messenger of Allah. They are accused of being a creation and tool of the British Raj. This is probably untrue. On the other hand, it is easy to see why the British would want to promote an apparently peaceful version of Islam within its empire. History is repeating itself, as the Ahmadis are much in demand from (clueless) western politicians and journalists.
They often do not identify their affiliation (just like Shiites, e.g. Mehdi Hasan). They are regarded as heretics or apostates by almost every other Muslim. They are, and have been, ruthlessly persecuted by the ‘rest’ of the Ummah. The Saudis do not let them perform Hajj. And to get a Pakistani passport you must declare:
QUOTE
I consider Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani to be an impostor prophet and an infidel and also consider his followers, whether belonging to the Lahori, Qadiani or Mirzai groups, to be non-Muslims
http://www.pakistanembassy.se/forms/htmls/formc.
UNQUOTE
The Ahmadis, contemptuosly called Qadianis by other Muslims, formed the first big wave of immigration to Dar al-Harb, esp. to Europe, the U.S. and East Africa. They propagated the ‘Greater (spiritual) Jihad’ and ‘Jihad of the Pen’ concepts, which aren’t well supported in the Sunnah.
Their influence within the non-western Ummah is minimal. Their influence in the west, esp. on western impressions of Islam has been huge. They are evangelic and media savvy. They were early adopters of the Internet and, much to the chagrin of Sunnis and Shites, own such coveted domains as http://www.alislam.org and http://www.muslim.org
Other Ahmadiyya websites, such as http://www.loveforallhatredfornone.org and http://www.muslimsforpeace.org , hint at why the western media love them so much.
Ahmadis also published some of the earliest translations of the Quran into English. Incidentally, the Muhammad Ali version was/is the one used by the Nation of Islam.
But enough of my scurrilous Islamophobia, denigrating poor, put-upon, peaceful Muslims as yet another bunch of Islamo-Arab-supremecists. Let’s hear from the grand poobah himself, founder and great leader of the Ahmadiyya.
QUOTE
The Essence of Islam’, the first volume of which was published in 1979. Like the first volume it sets out in the words of the Promised Messiah, Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian himself …
[…]
…we have established in this book that the word Arab expresses a reality, and that it is true in fact that the Arabic language, on account of its system of elementary words and its delicate structure and other wonders, occupies so high a position that one is compelled to affirm that in comparison with it other languages are like the dumb. Moreover, we observe that other languages are motionless like solids and are so bereft of any movement towards development as if they are lifeless, and we are compelled to acknowledge that they occupy a very low position. The Arabic language describes non-Arabs politely as Ajam but in truth they did not deserve even this appellation.
https://www.alislam.org/books/essence/chap1/chap1.html
UNQUOTE
Mirren10 says
As I stated, exhaustively, in my comments above, I am not at all impressed by Upal’s pseudo-intellectual gibberish.
Islam is, as islam does. Whatever sect of islam is being discussed, every single one of them, any doctrinal nit picking aside, wants to see the hegemony of islam overall, sharia to be the universal law, and those of us who refuse to accept that , dead, converts, or miserable dhimmis who “pay the jizya and feel themselves subdued”.
That’s it.
All this nonsense is , and pseudo intellectual crap, exactly what they want you to be, confused, and unable to disentangle what the tenets of islam say, from what the meretricious taquiyyah artists like this Upal, say.
For God’s sake, read the koran, read the ahadith. It’s perfectly clear, and perfectly simple
They want to RULE us. Why should I even have to say this.
terry says
Mirren 10,
Exactly! I completely understand and agree with what you’e saying.
lebel says
“The point is *not* that Charlie Hebdo’s humour is offensive/repulsive, which is certainly true for many, but that **in the interests of free speech** they should be able to publish whatever they want, without having to fear being **murdered**.”
of course, im not claiming otherwise
More Ham Ed says
100% of Muslims follow a 100% radical book.
voegelinian says
Dr. Afzal Upal is a cognitive scientist of religion with expertise in Islamic movements, countering violent extremism (CVE), and narrative-based messaging.
Does Dr. Afzal Upal adore the evil and dangerous fanatic, Muhammad (i.e., is Dr. Afzal Upal a Muslim)? Yes or no. If yes, his analyses are worse than worthless; they are some form of taqiyya. If no, then we can talk.
Arthur says
So you need to know all about who came up with the idea before you can judge the idea’s merits? What if two different people both come up with the same idea?
voegelinian says
Knowing that an idea for dealing with the problem of Islam has been produced by a Muslim ipso facto invalidates that idea; for such a Muslim affecting to proffer worthwhile ideas in that regard is either 1) lying to us, or 2) schizophrenic. No third option possible.
In addition, there is the larger strategic context to keep in mind: to wit, to countenance the usefulness of any Muslim as being part of the Conversation is to tend to reinforce the reckless PC MC meme that good decent Muslims who want to help us abound. Better to maintain strict standards.
Arthur says
I find the history lesson enlightening and the analysis interesting as well.
I find Upal to follow a perfectly logical analysis of the behavior of a population responding to particular ideas, and why some ideas survive and others are lost. Although I’m sure Upal dreams of writing a computer program to simulate ‘groupthink,’ which would be quite valuable for marketing departments!, hindsight analysis always concludes with the present reality (i.e., it is not predictive). As a predictive tool, one might be able to postulate the type of idea that would supersede an existing one. Unfortunately, Upal doesn’t pose such an hypothesis, so it’s really just a plausible story.
I think some posts here miss the point that this sort of ‘analysis of ideas which dominate’ can be completely abstracted from the subject matter. Likewise, missing the point that it may be possible to influence popular thought through a scientifically crafted idea or belief (like a supercomputer-calculated advertising campaign).
On the other hand, written religions probably persist largely because the written word is self-declared immutable. So the idea of religious ‘reform’ is hampered by the reality of the written word. In the end, I think the concepts Upal pursues will apply better to marketing than religion.
Nonetheless, one might use similar considerations to predict whether the AFDI style advertisements pointing out “Jew-hatred” (the use of negative language) would generate negative reactions whereas a Ms Marvel message of “Love”, disingenuous as it is, would generate a sympathetic reaction. Perhaps there is a better way for the anti-jihad effort to educate people.
I’ve often wondered whether simply posting unflattering quotes direct from the Koran onto highway billboards might have a more profound effect on viewpoints. The ‘out of context’ retort might be too weak of a defense to be effective, but any critical response from Islam apologists would border on blasphemy.
I’m glad Jihad Watch posts this kind of content!
voegelinian says
Yes, the theory may be fine and dandy for abstract speculation about human behavior in general; but not with regard to the uniquely fanatical and dangerous sociology of Mohammedans.
Lia Wissing says
Jesus warned that we (each & everyone of us) might be killed for His name. Meanwhile, while alive, we are to live for Him. And He is omnipotent & omnipresent and doesn’t expect (or need) me to defend Him, for no Muslim’s offence can diminish Him, ever.
TH says
I would never say “Je suis Charlie” because they were a bunch of fanatical atheists who attacked religion as such and especially Catholicism. The best way to deal with such extremists is simply ignore them. They had circulation of some 30,000 which is minuscule compared to the circulation of newspers and magazines in France. Of curse, they were consistent and didn’t do what Western wimps do,, celsure themselves.
Mulakush says
Gobbledegook. Clap trap.
Gobbledegook. Clap trap.
Gobbledegook. Clap trap.
Gobbledegook. Clap trap.
Gobbledegook. Clap trap.
Gobbledegook. Clap trap.
…
Jaladhi says
Exactly!! No Muslim “scholar” is trustworthy – his primary aim is to somehow defend Islam and Muslims and for that these people create such far fetched scenarios.
Ed_L says
First of all, if no one has thanked Afzal Upal, I would like to do so for his contribution and attempts to broaden the field of understanding. It illuminates from a historical perspective and frames the reasons why moderate Muslims cannot and will not turn against the directions given by some of their religious leaders. A key point that I took away Uptal’s discourse was the problem of swaying the people “in camp” to join the greater group given the uncertainties that lie in becoming ostracized by present community, or worse. In other words, when is it beneficial to step away from the hive? Many of us are guilty of “clannish” behaviour throughout our respective histories to draw some tactile feel towards what Muslims face today.
Secondly, wish to thank Robert Spencer for his undying vigilance and brave efforts to report as objectively as possible, the dangers that we in the Western world face regarding Islamification by reporting current events and offering viewpoints.
There were some very good points raised in the lengthy discussion after and a pleasure to follow along with such obvious highly intelligent people.
Please, let us all refrain from being drawn into base name calling and finding fault with others’ opinions. For example, Upal did use big words, however being adult people, we are all capable of looking them up (as I used to tell my kids). Maybe Upal should be credited for 2 things, the minor being to increase our vocabularies.) Americans, for example have had a few generations to hone their skills at discounting their respective opposite party’s ideas without actually listening to the argument, although in the last decade, this polarity has really increased. Let’s remember that arguing religion is an uphill battle since the argument mostly ends with the “other” person “having to believe”, and that there are many misconceptions and disbeliefs from all sides regarding the mechanics of others’ faiths. (Was Mary really a virgin? Did Jesus really ascend to heaven or is he buried somewhere. Did Moses really part the Red Sea? Did Mohammed really leap into heaven? Etc. etc.)
There was an “experiment” done in the mid ‘60’s where a “subject” was strapped into a chair hooked to a device that provided an electric current. An operator was instructed to administer an amount of shock to the “subject” under direct orders from the authorized person running the experiment to get at a particular truth. However the real experiment was to judge the moral strength of the operator and at what point would he/she would walk away on grounds of inhumanity. The “subject” was trained to scream and appear in realistic agony with the increasing fictitious amounts of electrical energy. Many of the operators observed did not know where that end point was and in reality, would have killed the “subject”. Linking to real life situations, the soldiers that took part in the Mei Lai massacre in Vietnam were asked why they went along knowing it was wrong. They replied that they were just following orders. The point of this anecdote is that we are all guilty of status quo thinking regardless of which “side” we are on, and it is this understanding that may help find a solution. Muslim Jihadists easily converted from Islam, Germans into Nazis, Cambodians into Khmer Rouge – history has shown we are all capable of blind action because someone told us to do so, with the help and reassurance of our Government, Church or peer group. Have we reached a point in our society where we have the freedom to act truly independently? Mainstream media providing commercial airtime for the purpose of selling products that make us think we are like particular tennis pros or movie stars would prove otherwise based on the success of the advertising.
Lastly, let’s refrain from the “me too” responses. Our goal is to find a solution to the problem that involves us as participants. Remember that we in the West have fought long and hard since the signing of the Magna Carta to develop our current laws, freedoms and liberties that are slowly being usurped – even by our own Western governments, under the guise of alleviating terrorism. I would wish that we keep as focused as our opponents are. Write eloquently. Raise the standard. Know that we all stand to lose.
voegelinian says
Notice how the two readers (“Arthur” and “Ed_L”) who particularly like Upal’s socio-babble articulate long responses which sound more like some junior member of the State Department who moonlights as a Jihadica think-tank clerk. This is the Beltway nonsense of “counter-terrorism experts” who still think in 9/10/11 terms and haven’t taken the trouble to learn the full horror of Islam. Their homework assignment would be to listen to 50 hours of Stephen Cougnlin videos, read all of Bill Warner’s papers and books on Islam, and read all of Andrew Bostom’s blog posts — then write a 5,000-word essay explaining why they are still deluding themselves into thinking that mainstream Islam is not a dangerous ideology and why we should not suspect all Muslims of enabling it.
Jay Boo says
test