Ze’ev Maghen is professor of Arabic Literature and Islamic History and Chairman of the Department of Middle East Studies at Bar-Ilan University. Here he joins an apparently endless stream of Muslim and non-Muslim authorities who assure us that the Islamic State has nothing to do with Islam, in terms that will reassure non-Muslims, but will do nothing to make even one Islamic State jihadist lay down his arms and become a “moderate.”
The problem with Maghen’s piece in general is that he relies on several ahadith that appear to establish that the Islamic State is violating the clear words of Muhammad. That would seem to be an open-and-shut case, were it not for the fact that the Hadith are extremely voluminous, and many were fabricated by competing factions in the Muslim community to appear to give Muhammad’s support to a particular side of a contested issue. The other faction would counter with its own fabricated hadith depicting Muhammad supporting the opposing position. Consequently, Muhammad can be found to be speaking on both sides of numerous issues throughout the hadith literature.
The Islamic State has support in the Hadith (and the Qur’an) for what it does. There is also support, in many cases, for the opposing point of view. But for Maghen to invoke only one side without informing his readers of the other is misleading. The Islamic State jihadis, were they to hear his critique of their activities, would simply invoke the ahadith he ignores.
More below.
“ISIS is the anti-Islam,” by Ze’ev Maghen, Times of Israel, August 26, 2015:
Once the Prophet Muhammad and his followers, on their way back from a bloody engagement with the Christian Byzantines (circa 628 CE), stopped at a Bedouin camp next to an oasis. When afternoon prayers were finished, the Prophet began to preach to his rapt listeners about the various types of hellfire awaiting sinners in the afterlife: nar, laẓa, saqar, ḥuṭama…
Meanwhile, a Bedouin woman with a baby tied to her hip crouched down nearby and baked bread for the visitors over the flames of her saj. At one point some grease fell into the fire and it surged. The mother leapt back to protect her infant, and then turned wrathfully on Muḥammad:
“Are you the one they call the Messenger of God?” she demanded.
“I am,” he replied.
“And you teach that He is our Progenitor, our Creator?” she queried.
“Indeed,” acknowledged Muhammad.
“And you claim that He is ‘the Merciful, the Beneficent’?” she pressed on.
“He is,” confirmed the Prophet.
“If so,” continued the woman, “then you are a liar! A loving parent would never throw His children into the fire.”
So saying, she stormed off — and Muḥammad wept.
This story suggests that Muhammad was a merciful, compassionate fellow. Here is another hadith highlighting that side of him:
‘Abdullah b. Buraida reported on the authority of his father that Ma’iz b. Malik al-Aslami came to Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) and said: Allah’s Messenger, I have wronged myself; I have committed adultery and I earnestly desire that you should purify me. He turned him away. On the following day, he (Ma’iz) again came to him and said: Allah’s Messenger, I have committed adultery. Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) turned him away for the second time, and sent him to his people saying: Do you know if there is anything wrong with his mind. They denied of any such thing in him and said: We do not know him but as a wise good man among us, so far as we can judge. He (Ma’iz) came for the third time, and he (the Holy Prophet) sent him as he had done before. He asked about him and they informed him that there was nothing wrong with him or with his mind. When it was the fourth time, a ditch was dug for him and he (the Holy Prophet) pronounced judgment about him and he was stoned. He (the narrator) said: There came to him (the Holy Prophet) a woman from Ghamid and said: Allah’s Messenger, I have committed adultery, so purify me. He (the Holy Prophet) turned her away. On the following day she said: Allah’s Messenger, Why do you turn me away? Perhaps, you turn me away as you turned away Ma’iz. By Allah, I have become pregnant. He said: Well, if you insist upon it, then go away until you give birth to (the child). When she was delivered she came with the child (wrapped) in a rag and said: Here is the child whom I have given birth to. He said: Go away and suckle him until you wean him. When she had weaned him, she came to him (the Holy Prophet) with the child who was holding a piece of bread in his hand. She said: Allah’s Apostle, here is he as I have weaned him and he eats food. He (the Holy Prophet) entrusted the child to one of the Muslims and then pronounced punishment. And she was put in a ditch up to her chest and he commanded people and they stoned her. Khalid b Walid came forward with a stone which he flung at her head and there spurted blood on the face of Khalid and so he abused her. Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) heard his (Khalid’s) curse that he had huried upon her. Thereupon he (the Holy Prophet) said: Khalid, be gentle. By Him in Whose Hand is my life, she has made such a repentance that even if a wrongful tax-collector were to repent, he would have been forgiven. Then giving command regarding her, he prayed over her and she was buried. (Sahih Muslim 4206)
***
There were two main reactions on the international scene to the ineffably horrific ISIS video recording the execution by fire of the captured Jordanian pilot Mu’adh al-Kasasbah. The first reaction was typical and expected: a flood of Western pundits who lie in wait for every opportunity to besmirch the Muslim religion had a field day. Here, they gloated, was the true face of Islam unmasked: medieval barbarity enshrined in immutable statutes carried out by sadistic torturers. This much, at least, may be adduced to bolster their argument: that while movements like the Muslim Brotherhood among the Sunnis or the Khomeinist revolutionaries in Shi’ite Iran have always been restrained by the considerable element of modernism with which their ideologies are interlarded, the caliphal doctrine of the “Islamic State in Iraq and Syria” suffers from no such eclecticism. The actions of ISIS — including the modes of execution they choose — are motivated by Islam and Islam alone.
Then ISIS follows Islamic law?
Well, no. There was a second and no less vociferous reaction to the burning video — among a relative few Middle East specialists in Western academe and, far more importantly, among the legions of Muslim clerics and intellectuals throughout the Islamic world who have been seeking desperately for a way to distance their creed from Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi’s headline-grabbing decapitators. Here was their chance.
Affected as he may have been by the censure of the Bedouin woman — or by any number of other factors and circumstances — Muhammad could not very well alter the myriad fire and brimstone revelations that he had received from Allah over the years and enshrined as the Qur’an. But he did see to it that incinerating human beings would remain a solely divine prerogative. La yu’adh-dhibu bi’l-nar illa rabb al-nar, he insisted on more than one occasion: “Only the Lord of Fire punishes by fire.”
Except when Muhammad does: “Kinana b. al-Rabi`, who had the custody of the treasure of B. al-Nadir, was brought to the apostle who asked him about it. He denied that he knew where it was. A Jew came (T. was brought) to the apostle and said that he had seen Kinana going round a certain ruin every morning early. When the apostle said to Kinana, ‘Do you know that if we find you have it I shall kill you?’ he said Yes. The apostle gave orders that the ruin was to be excavated and some of the treasure was found. When he asked him about the rest he refused to produce it, so the apostle gave orders to al-Zubayr b. al-Awwam, ‘Torture him until you extract what he has,’ so he kindled a fire with flint and steel on his chest until he was nearly dead. Then the apostle delivered him to Muhammad b. Maslama and he struck off his head, in revenge for his brother Mahmud.” (Ibn Ishaq 515).
And on another occasion, Muhammad says: “Certainly I decided to order the Mu’adh-dhin (call-maker) to pronounce Iqama and order a man to lead the prayer and then take a fire flame to burn all those who had not left their houses so far for the prayer along with their houses.” (Bukhari 1.11.626)
“Ah hah!” the cry resounded across the warp and woof of the Islamic Internet in the wake of the Kasasbeh video, emanating even from the mouths of Muslim scholars at Cairo’s Al-Azhar Seminary and (on the other side of the Sunni-Shi’i divide) Qom’s Howze-ye Elmiyeh. “Not only is ISIS unrepresentative of the Muslim religion, it is in direct and flagrant violation of its precepts, indeed, appears to be abjectly ignorant of those same precepts. Otherwise how explain its boastful display before the entire world of an execution by incineration, when even a mildly knowledgeable Muslim knows that ‘Only the Lord of Fire punishes by fire’!?” (And here is the proper place to note, pace the Islam-baiting propagandists cited above who are almost invariably Christian or Jewish, that of the three monotheistic religions Islam is the only one that does not prescribe, and indeed explicitly proscribes, death by burning. Indeed, not a few Muslim sages, embarrassed by the actions of ISIS, saw fit to accuse — vu den? — the Jews of insinuating execution by fire into Islam via a disgraced Muslim literary genre known as the Isra’iliyyat). Here, at any rate, was the proof that the more traditional exponents of Islam had been seeking that ISIS was, as it were, in flagrante delicto.
Then…ISIS does not follow Islamic law?
Well, not so fast. These Muslim apologists jumped too soon. First of all, not every Muslim figure of the religion’s formative period felt bound by this prophetic prohibition or even accepted its authenticity. Abu Bakr, the first Caliph or Successor to Muhammad, commanded that a bonfire be built in the “Prophet’s Mosque” itself and the traitor Iyas bin Abd Ya’lil, who had joined the infidel forces against the Muslim believers in the “Wars of Apostasy,” be thrown into it. Ali, the fourth Caliph, did the same with a group of “extremists” who sought to deify him (they were called Ali Ilahis — “those who claim that Ali is God” — and their theological descendants, the Alawites, are currently fighting for their lives against ISIS in Syria). As these enthusiasts were consumed by the flames they purportedly cried out to the Caliph: “Now we know that you are God, since ‘Only the Lord of Fire punishes by fire!’”
But ISIS was not relying solely on such counter-precedents; their self-justification is more sophisticated than that. Indeed, the specialist who watches the Kasasbeh video from beginning to end (not just skipping to the “juicy” part) and with close attention to the many individual “vignettes” and how they all fit together, quickly realizes that not profound religious ignorance but — in point of fact — impressive Islamic erudition is on display here. Much of the first half of the video is devoted to depicting the horrific results of bombing from the air: men, women and children on fire — writhing and twisting and falling to the ground — or their seared corpses after the fact. Many a charred limb was shown thrusting up from a pile of rubble, many a bereaved mother was shown shrieking in unspeakable agony over little blackened bodies — instances and symbols of the indescribable devastation wreaked from afar by callous pilots who nonchalantly dropped their payloads.
Those images were shown for a purpose: to invoke this Qur’anic principle: “So whoever has assaulted you, then assault him in the same way that he has assaulted you.” (Qur’an 2:194)
A relatively obscure hadith — one of tens of thousands of “reports” concerning the statements and actions of the Prophet Muhammad that form the bedrock of Muslim religion even more so than the Qur’an — describes how on a particular occasion Muhammad crushed the head of a Jew with two large rocks. Why did he do this? Because the same Jew had murdered his servant girl by crushing her head with two large rocks. I call this hadith “obscure” because in the countless anthologies of such reports assembled after the ninth century CE it appears rather seldom. It was, on the other hand, picked up and put to comparatively heavy use by Muslim legal literature, where it provided support for the position that capital punishment via “measure for measure” — killing the killer in the manner that he killed — is masnun, that is, a praiseworthy and preferable method of execution. Similarly, Muhammad once plucked out the eyes of a band of men because they had gouged out the eyes of his shepherd — an eye for an eye.
This is the Islamic legal principle that the ISIS video was unquestionably designed to invoke: the propriety of execution via measure for measure. Kasasbeh the fighter pilot dropped bombs that caused the incineration of dozens if not hundreds of people — as “documented” by the footage shown in the first half of the film — therefore it is only right that he should be punished for this crime specifically through incineration. And this principle, as at least some Muslim fuqaha or medieval legal scholars argue, trumps the prohibition against execution by fire.
Moreover: in the most awful moments of the video, when the poor pilot was literally melting alive and his terrible screams were only partially drowned out by the crescendo of martial-music-meets-pious-liturgy that has become the ISIS execution soundtrack, another quote from the Islamic classical sources was plastered across the screen. Based on a different hadith — one in which Muhammad is declared to have been “favored over all the previous prophets…in that my enemies begin trembling a full month before my armies arrive” — this citation from a fourteenth century text permits the implementation of extraordinary measures (such as burning prisoners at the stake) for the purpose of striking fear into the hearts of the foe.
Finally, ISIS spokesmen delved deep into the recesses of hadith exegesis and legal responsa in order to adduce minority opinions to the effect that the prophetic utterance “Only the Lord of Fire punishes by fire” is not to be construed as a statement of law but rather as a statement of fact, the purpose of which is to encourage humility before the deity: see how great and terrible Allah is! In that case there is no prohibition at all. The monstrous manner in which Kasasbeh paid the ultimate penalty was, based upon such logic as well, shown to be a legitimate one by Muslim standards.
Nor, while we are on the subject, is this the only example of ISIS’ “learnedness” and loyalty to the shari’ah (Islamic law). Another video that made the rounds recently sought to demonstrate that the purportedly pious members of ISIS are in reality just as randy and shameless as the rest of us. It documented a squadron of fighters who had stumbled upon a pool in the back of an abandoned house in Northern Syria. It was a hot day and the perspiring warriors didn’t hesitate for a minute: they stripped down and headed for the diving board. But what the gleeful circulators of this video apparently missed was not only that most of the fighters kept enough clothing on to abide by the Islamic male modesty code — which requires that the area between navel and knees be covered — but that just before jumping, every half-naked jihadist made it his business to declaim the same hadith (which, by the way, has its origins in the Talmud): “The Messenger of Allah said: It is the duty of every father to teach his son how to swim…” One after another they cited their Prophet to this effect in loud, boisterous voices, and then took the plunge.
And then there was the poster put up in the beginning of July in several ISIS-held cities to celebrate the advent of Ramadhan. It announced a Qur’an memorization contest, detailing the chapters of the Holy Book to be learned by heart and listing the mosques where registration would take place (“the Osama bin Laden mosque, the Abu Musa al-Zarqawi mosque…”). The poster then enumerated the prizes. Those in fourth through tenth place would receive considerable sums of money, whereas the reward for placing first, second or third was… “a slave girl.”
ISIS, as we pointed out above, is sui generis among Islamist organizations of our time in resisting the temptation to make allowances for modernist influence: not even al-Qa’ida was willing to reinstitute the bondage that has ever remained on the Islamic books — to say nothing of Saudi Wahhabism, Hizbullah, Hamas, the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Muslim Brotherhood and the like (and this is probably the appropriate place to point out that Judaism, Christianity and pretty much every other major religion also has slavery on the books. Indeed, the Arabic word for “slave girl” used in the announcement, sabi, is the etymological sibling of the biblical Hebrew shevuya: the female prisoner of war who is pressed into servitude by her captors [see Deuteronomy 21: 14]). If Allah and Muhammad allowed the keeping of and trafficking in slaves — and their distribution as prizes — then that is what will happen in ISIS held territory. ISIS is about living the classical Muslim sources, and doing so unapologetically.
“Judaism, Christianity and pretty much every other major religion also has slavery on the books.” In reality, the abolitionist movement arose in the UK and US among Christian clergymen who argued against the ongoing applicability of the Biblical passages justifying slavery on the basis of the idea that all human beings are created in the image of God and equal in dignity on that basis. The Qur’an and Islam, by contrast, make a sharp dichotomy between believers (“the best of people,” Qur’an 3:110) and unbelievers (“the most vile of created beings,” Qur’an 98:6), and consequently there was no teaching of the equal dignity of all human beings upon which an abolitionist movement could be based.
Then…ISIS does follow Islamic law?
Well, no. Not really. There is one thing that the above analysis left out, and it’s a big thing. Arguably Islam’s premier “claim to fame” — the characteristic that Muslim tradition flaunts proudly at every possible opportunity as its indelible hallmark — is that it is din al-yusr, “the religion of facility” and din al-rukhsa, “the religion of leniency.” “It is by God’s mercy that you dealt with the people gently,” Allah informs His Apostle in the Qur’an, “for had you been stern and fierce with them, they would surely have deserted you” (Q. 3: 158). “Religion is ease,” seconded Muhammad himself in a well known hadith, “and anyone who makes it rigorous will in the end be overcome by it.”
Confronted with manifestations of human frailty, the Muslim God is almost invariably shown “going soft.” Sa’d ibn Abi Waqqas, one of the Prophet’s Companions (the sahaba, those who followed Muhammad during his lifetime), had avenged the death of his brother in battle by killing an enemy polytheist and despoiling him of his sword. He met Muhammad afterward and exclaimed, “O Messenger of God! With this sword God has quenched my thirst for vengeance!” The Prophet, however, chided him: “That sword is neither mine nor thine — go and throw it in with the common booty!” Sa’d recounted:
“So I went and threw it in, and then I turned to go, my heart heavy with that which only God knows because of the murder of my brother and the confiscation of my plunder. I had not gone more than a few steps, however, when the [Qur’anic] ‘Chapter of Spoils’ was revealed [by Allah to Muhammad, in which allowances were made for situations like Sa’d’s], and the Prophet called out to me and said: ‘Go back and take your sword!”
On another occasion a follower of Muhammad’s named Harith son of Suwayd “defected to the Byzantines and converted to Christianity.” In response to this combination of treason and apostasy, Allah waxed wroth and, as it were, hurled down the following verses:
How shall God guide those who lapse into unbelief after embracing the Faith, and after acknowledging the Apostle and receiving veritable truths? God does not guide the evil-doers! Their reward shall be the curse of God, of the angels and of all men; under it they will abide forever. Their punishment shall not be lightened, neither shall they ever be granted a reprieve…(Q. 3: 89).
All possibility of pardon having been expressly denied, one would have expected Harith to remain in Constantinople. Instead he soon thereafter wrote to Muhammad, asking: Is there any repentance for me?” Immediately, “Allah abrogated those verses, and revealed [their mitigating, indeed counteractive, conclusion]: ‘…except for those who repent and mend their ways, for God is forgiving and merciful’” (Q. 3: 89).
If Allah is so malleable, then who is Muhammad to be strict? And the Prophet of Islam certainly engaged in imitatio dei in this regard. His inclination towards alleviation, eagerness to accommodate, readiness to retract and indomitable soft-spot form a central motif of Muslim classical literature. He shortened congregational services for the sake of a mother with a difficult child, instructed a young man who found it hard to rise early to “pray whenever you get up,” granted amnesty to an erstwhile amanuensis who had defected from Islam and declared him an imposter, and threatened to thrash a maidservant who returned late from an errand…with a toothpick. Elaborating on the many activities forbidden in Mecca’s Sacred Precinct, Muhammad reached the subject of flora: “There shall be no gathering of shrubs or grasses there, for such was forbidden by God himself on the day He created heaven and earth, and it will remain thus forbidden forever, from now until Resurrection Day!”
The Companion Abdullah Ibn Abbas interrupted: “O Messenger of God — except for the Idhkhir bush, yes? For it is used by the people to ornament their persons and their houses.”
“Except for the Idhkhir bush,” retreated Muhammad, without losing a beat.
What a sweet guy. Unfortunately, he had his moments: “Narrated Abu Qilaba: Anas said, ‘Some people of ‘Ukl or ‘Uraina tribe came to Medina and its climate did not suit them. So the Prophet ordered them to go to the herd of (Milch) camels and to drink their milk and urine (as a medicine). So they went as directed and after they became healthy, they killed the shepherd of the Prophet and drove away all the camels. The news reached the Prophet early in the morning and he sent (men) in their pursuit and they were captured and brought at noon. He then ordered to cut their hands and feet (and it was done), and their eyes were branded with heated pieces of iron, They were put in ‘Al-Harra’ and when they asked for water, no water was given to them.’ Abu Qilaba said, ‘Those people committed theft and murder, became infidels after embracing Islam and fought against Allah and His Apostle.’” (Bukhari 1.4.234)
Allah set the tone as archetypal and forgiving Mufti On High, handing down indulgences in response to, and in compassion for, the endemic weaknesses of human flesh — and Muhammad was His Prophet: clement, pliable, forbearing, moderate (not always, to be sure: Allah’s Apostle could not abide satire, for instance, which he regarded as blasphemy, and regularly had satirists assassinated — the “Charlie Hebdos” of their time. Nor could he, in general, abide Jews, and he persecuted and massacred them on more than one occasion. And there is, of course, jihad — though few nations or religions in history have not been characterized by the urge to conquest.
Only Islam among religions has a developed doctrine, theology and legal system mandating warfare against and subjugation of unbelievers?
When all is said and done, however, Muhammad was, contrary to popular belief, a true moderate in his time).
Yeah, what’s a few massacres of Jews and people who mocked him?
And because the Prophet was and is seen by Islam as the qudwa hasana, the Excellent Exemplar, Muslim jurists throughout Islamic history have followed Muhammad and his God in consistently seeking the way of palliation and extenuation. They cultivated and eventually standardized notions such as istislah (easing of regulations based on considerations of public weal), istihsan (dismissal of difficult rules at the jurist’s discretion), umum al-balwa (leniency based on “ubiquity of hardship”), even hiyal (the science of constructing countless loopholes through which to escape the law). Few truths are more central and unique to Islam than the fact that almost unlimited flexibility is built into the Muslim legal system. The tendency toward leniency is part of the very DNA of fiqh (jurisprudence) and shari’a (positive law). Islamic law is not Islamic law unless it is constantly busy finding ways to mitigate itself.
The leaders of ISIS unquestionably know their texts. But they are literalists, fundamentalists, in their reading of those texts, taking the letter of the law at face value….
Maghen actually contradicts himself here, for up to this point his case has been that the Islamic State violates the letter of Islamic law regarding burning people to death and other matters. Now he tells us that the Islamic State is made up of literalists. But if they’re literalists, they wouldn’t be so blithely transgressing against Muhammad’s plain words, as he suggests they are doing. Maghen’s Infidel readers may be lulled into a comfortable complacency by this soothing farrago, but unfortunately, all those Misunderstanders of Islam in the Islamic State will not be moved by it.
Mahmoud says
“The Islamic State has support in the Hadith (and the Qur’an) for what it does. There is also support, in many cases, for the opposing point of view. But for Maghen to invoke only one side without informing his readers of the other is misleading.”
I am amazed at the consistent lack of self-reflection from you, Robert. Is this not precisely what you do, every single day?
Robert Spencer says
No, but nice try. I report on how the jihadis justify their actions and make recruits among peaceful Muslims by referring to Islamic texts and teachings. When Maghen or anyone else purports to explain how the jihadis are misusing those texts and teachings, I judge their work by one criterion only: would it convince a jihadi to lay down his arms? If it wouldn’t, it’s useful only to lull the Infidels into complacency.
mortimer says
Exactly. No jihadist will be convinced by this thesis. They will continue to massacre disbelievers and Muslims it deems ‘hypocrites’.
ISIS is self-consciously and rigorously Islamic. I seriously much doubt Mahmoud is that rigorous.
He is a ‘lax’ or slack Muslim.
Huck Folder says
O/T? “…and Muḥammad wept.”
More plagiarism?
Anyone?
gravenimage says
Mahmoud wrote:
“The Islamic State has support in the Hadith (and the Qur’an) for what it does. There is also support, in many cases, for the opposing point of view. But for Maghen to invoke only one side without informing his readers of the other is misleading.”
I am amazed at the consistent lack of self-reflection from you, Robert. Is this not precisely what you do, every single day?
………………………
In Mahmoud’s view, if you an Infidel opposed to Muslims oppressing, enslaving, and murdering you, you are being ‘one-sided’.
Of course, this is true. Mr. Spencer, why don’t you extol the wonders of Muslims beheading us or using us as sex slaves? sarc/off
mortimer says
No Islamic doctrine is built upon one Koranic verse or one hadith. A web of interrelated quotes and sacred references, plus the authoritative interpretations of canonical writers before 1111 AD, create Islamic doctrines. THEY CANNOT BE CHANGED, MODIFIED or REINTERPRETED.
ISIS scrupulously follows CANONICAL, Islamic jurisprudence. Caliph Al Baghdadi’s BA, MA and Ph.D. from the Islamic University in Baghdad give him a deeper knowledge than Ze’ev Maghen has.
Even Al Azhar University, the top Islamic university, has not challenged the erudition of Al Baghdadi.
ISIS is VERY, VERY Islamic. And none of their doctrines are out-and-out ‘WRONG’.
Dr. Divinity says
Islam……..good side…bad side upside down downside up or no side……murder…warfare…subjugation says it all
gravenimage says
So true, Mortimer.
Lia Wissing says
As far as I can see all the theorising in the world doesn’t help me to distinguish, when a muslim (in its malefemale dress) approaches me, whether it’s ‘moderate’ or not, whether it holds to the qur’an or not, whether it’d like to shari’a me or not. So I keep my defences up.
somehistory says
I confess, I did not read all of the above information. The title alone was enough to tell me that the guy is an enabler of the flawed image of islam. I did read that he teaches islamic history. If so, and he is saying isis is anti-islam, his students are being denied the truth and cheated of whatever time and money invested in the course.
The only time in history when they were not doing as isis is doing seems to be when they were too few to make it work.
Kepha says
Something tells me that Mahgen is Ashkenazi rather than Mizrahi. His thinking is marked by the same sort of wishful thinking found in Ignaz Goldziher.
Westman says
“The Islamic State has support in the Hadith (and the Qur’an) for what it does. There is also support, in many cases, for the opposing point of view. …”
It’s simple enough to apply Occam’s Razor, that is, the simplest explanation is most likely to be correct.
The contradictions in the Quran and Sunnah are due to multiple authors. The entire religion is a fabrication of justifications needed at the time of their origin to accomplish a specific purpose.
mortimer says
Agree. ‘Multiple authors’ of the hadiths and Koran. The texts are ‘harmonized’ by the ‘abrogation’ theory which is hogwash.
Mohammed ‘abrogated’ temporary wives TWICE, for instance. Islam gives so much flexibility in its doctrines that no doctrine is fixed. That means a Muslim can change his approach merely if things aren’t working out for him the way he wants.
Islam is opportunism, rather than ethics.
The Koran has a number of supposed compilers…but which one? Finally, Abd al Malik claimed that he collected the Koran…did he so?
Islam…the story keeps shifting like the desert dunes.
Angemon says
He’s an Israeli, he should know better…
gravenimage says
He *should* know better, Angemon. Oddly, he seems fairly clear-eyed about the threat to Israel from Iran:
http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_opinion.php?id=12163
Like so many in Western academia, he seems incapable of consistent reasoning.
Jack Diamond says
“The Arabs have had a good run, aided and abetted by a series of mediocre Israeli governments, and by media and political elites in Israel largely ignorant of Islam, almost willfully so, and thus blind to the war being waged, for all time, against the state of Israel. Perhaps to allow themselves to understand the nature of Islam, and thus to recognize the endless nature of the war being waged on Israel, has simply been too painful for Israelis to face up to. So instead they — like the Western Europeans — simply prefer to deny it all, and thus to end up collaborating with the propaganda put out by their enemies, aiding those enemies to conceal the nature of the war being waged.”
–Hugh Fitzgerald
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2008/12/fitzgerald-the-jihad-against-israel
cs says
Wow, very clever paragraph.
gravenimage says
True–all too many Israelis are in denial about the threat of Islam, just like other Infidels in the West.
Linde Barrera says
Very interesting piece, especially with Robert Spencer’s added comments. My “a-ha” moment came when I read this: “Islamic law is not Islamic law unless it is constantly busy finding ways to mitigate itself”. Very telling clue to understanding Islam. On a related topic, in 1957 the United Church of Christ was formed by merging 4 diverse Reformation traditions: Congregational, Christian, Evangelical and Reformed church bodies. Their slogan was: “That they may all be ONE.” (In Christ). Having learned a little bit about Islam and its branches (Sunni, Shia, Alawite, Yazidi) from the informative articles of Jihad Watch and its learned commenters, I can unabashedly state that ISIS’ slogan should be: “That they may all be NONE”. I keep praying that Jesus reveals Himself to people trapped in the cult of Islam. Thank you for this article.
mortimer says
Many Muslims are having dreams of a loving man in white clothing.
gravenimage says
Israeli professor explains why the Islamic State is “the anti-Islam”
The problem with Maghen’s piece in general is that he relies on several ahadith that appear to establish that the Islamic State is violating the clear words of Muhammad…
…………………………..
Let’s take a look at those Hadith:
Once the Prophet Muhammad and his followers, on their way back from a bloody engagement with the Christian Byzantines (circa 628 CE)…
…This story suggests that Muhammad was a merciful, compassionate fellow.
…………………………..
First, I’ve never heard of this Hadith. It does not appear to be Sahih. But leave that aside–here is the “Prophet” supposedly weeping over Allah sending his children to the fire. That he would do that means that Muhammed would by implication be criticizing Allah himself–something he would *never* do.
Moreover, Muhammed is cited scores of times gleefully recounting Infidels, “heretics”, and apostates being consigned to hellfire–as he is, indeed, here. That he would suddenly change his mind because of some woman cooking his food strains credulity.
Further, note the *context*–the “Prophet” and his thugs have just come from a bloody battle where they attacked the Christians. Hard to spin this as Muhammed being “compassionate” when he has just come from slaughtering Infidels.
Another reason to doubt this Hadith’s historicity is that the Mohammedan horde’s first assault on Byzantium was in 634, after the “Prophet” had shuffled off the mortal coil. Before this, Muslims focused their attentions on enslaving and massacring local Jews, Christians, and pagans.
More:
Here is another hadith highlighting that side of him:
‘Abdullah b. Buraida reported on the authority of his father that Ma’iz b. Malik al-Aslami came to Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) and said: Allah’s Messenger, I have wronged myself; I have committed adultery and I earnestly desire that you should purify me. He turned him away. On the following day, he (Ma’iz) again came to him and said: Allah’s Messenger, I have committed adultery. Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) turned him away for the second time, and sent him to his people saying: Do you know if there is anything wrong with his mind. They denied of any such thing in him and said: We do not know him but as a wise good man among us, so far as we can judge. He (Ma’iz) came for the third time, and he (the Holy Prophet) sent him as he had done before. He asked about him and they informed him that there was nothing wrong with him or with his mind. When it was the fourth time, a ditch was dug for him and he (the Holy Prophet) pronounced judgment about him and he was stoned.
…………………………..
Um…how does stoning a man to death show Muhammed’s “compassionate side”?
More:
He (the narrator) said: There came to him (the Holy Prophet) a woman from Ghamid and said: Allah’s Messenger, I have committed adultery, so purify me. He (the Holy Prophet) turned her away. On the following day she said: Allah’s Messenger, Why do you turn me away? Perhaps, you turn me away as you turned away Ma’iz. By Allah, I have become pregnant. He said: Well, if you insist upon it, then go away until you give birth to (the child). When she was delivered she came with the child (wrapped) in a rag and said: Here is the child whom I have given birth to. He said: Go away and suckle him until you wean him. When she had weaned him, she came to him (the Holy Prophet) with the child who was holding a piece of bread in his hand. She said: Allah’s Apostle, here is he as I have weaned him and he eats food. He (the Holy Prophet) entrusted the child to one of the Muslims and then pronounced punishment. And she was put in a ditch up to her chest and he commanded people and they stoned her. Khalid b Walid came forward with a stone which he flung at her head and there spurted blood on the face of Khalid and so he abused her. Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) heard his (Khalid’s) curse that he had huried upon her. Thereupon he (the Holy Prophet) said: Khalid, be gentle. By Him in Whose Hand is my life, she has made such a repentance that even if a wrongful tax-collector were to repent, he would have been forgiven. Then giving command regarding her, he prayed over her and she was buried. (Sahih Muslim 4206)
…………………………..
This *is* a Sahih Hadith. The “Prophet’s” only issue is with one of the woman’s murderer’s swearing. He is fine with *stoning her to death*.
More:
There were two main reactions on the international scene to the ineffably horrific ISIS video recording the execution by fire of the captured Jordanian pilot Mu’adh al-Kasasbah. The first reaction was typical and expected: a flood of Western pundits who lie in wait for every opportunity to besmirch the Muslim religion had a field day..
…………………………..
How *dare* the “filthy Infidel” take issue with pious Muslims burning their victims to death–or beheading them, or crucifying them, or stoning them to death? All things the “Prophet” did with relish, as even Professor Maghen admists. And, as noted, he was fine with torturing his victims with fire.
More:
Here, they gloated, was the true face of Islam unmasked: medieval barbarity enshrined in immutable statutes carried out by sadistic torturers. This much, at least, may be adduced to bolster their argument: that while movements like the Muslim Brotherhood among the Sunnis or the Khomeinist revolutionaries in Shi’ite Iran have always been restrained by the considerable element of modernism…
…………………………..
Not really. The Mullahs hang their victims from cranes and stone women to death. I guess using cranes for the purpose is “modern”…
Jack Diamond says
Here are Maghen’s alternate universe conclusions, “Genuine Islam is anything but literalist or fundamentalist: it is interpretive, creative, tractable and compassionate.” Then, “ISIS spits savagely on the tradition of the jurists, the precedents of the caliphs, and the eternal example of the Prophet Muhammad himself.”
As for burning people, David Wood has a video:
http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2015/02/isis-islam-and-burning-of-captives.html
Phaidon says
The interpretation, discussion, and intellectualization of Islam–starting with the Quran–is precisely what Sayyid Qutb identifies as one of the main causes of Islamic decline and modern-times “Jahiliyyah”. According to Qutb, the “method of learning” of present-times Muslims became polluted by outside influences, i.e. other cultures, ideologies and mindsets. During the time of the Prophet and the Rashidun Caliphs, the Word of God was a prescriptive call for concrete action, while later generations washed it down and consequently went astray as a whole: “Thus, instruction to be translated into action was the method of the first group of Muslims. The method of later generations was instruction for academic discussion and enjoynment. And without doubt this is the second major factor which made later generations different from the first unique generation of Islam” (Sayyid Qutb, “Milestones”, p. 19).
mortimer says
A professor who had taught al-Baghdadi in BA said off the record that the Isis caliph was an ardent, fanatical student who surpassed his teachers!
“He had this obsession with Islamic studies. I used to tell him to go out and have some fun sometimes. But his idea of fun wasn’t too human friendly,” the professor said. “In any case he was a top student. One of the best I’ve ever had. Had the entire syllabus on his finger tips – to be honest, HE KNEW MORE ABOUT ISLAMIC STUDIES THAN MOST OF HIS PROFESSORS.”
If Al Baghdadi doesn’t know Islam correctly, no one does.
Islam is very, very violent. Al Baghdadi says so.
Jack Diamond says
Just as Abdullah Azzam had a Master’s in Shari’a and a Ph.D in Principles of Islamic Fiqh from Al-Azhar University, and Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman taught Qur’anic studies at Al-Azhar University. They knew Islam is very very violent too. Rahman famously had this exchange with then student “Mark Gabriel”:
(Rahman) was the professor for my class in Quranic interpretation. He gave us a chance to ask questions, so I stood up in front of 500 students and asked ‘Why is it that you teach us all the time about Jihad? What about all the other verses in the Qur’an that talk about peace, love and forgiveness?” Immediately his face turned red. I could see his anger. “My brother” he said “there is a whole surah called ‘Spoils of War’. There is no surah called ‘Peace”. Jihad and killing are the head of Islam. If you take them out, you cut off the head of Islam.”
—“Jesus and Muhammad” Mark Gabriel
mortimer says
The problem with Ze’ev Maghen quoting Mohammed’s leniency and forgiveness is that IT NO LONGER APPLIES!
Why?? Because MOHAMMED IS DEAD. The mullahs decided that no Muslims may forgive a notable breach of Islamic law. WHY?? Because only Mohammed could make that decision and MOHAMMED IS DEAD.
All mullahs say that Islamic law must be applied in its fullest measure because no Muslim has the authority to mitigate the rulings of canonical Islam. That would be presumptuous, so they err on the side of SEVERITY.
More Ham Ed says
After Maghen gets the 60,000 or 70,000 or so (exact number not known) ISIS fighters to lay down their arms, which isn’t going to happen, then he’ll have to start on the approx. 400 MILLION ISLAMIC FOLLOWERS worldwide who believe in the death penalty for leaving islam. It’s all so “peaceful” doncha’ know.
http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-beliefs-about-sharia/
voegelinian says
Self-hating Jew.
Unfortunately, Jews — no more than Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, and Western atheists & agnostics — are not immune from indulging in suicidal self-criticism for the sake of their ethical narcissism based upon a racialization of the problem of Islam.
Baucent says
I agree. I picked this guy as a left wing self loathing Jew. There is actually quite a lot of them around. They have abandoned their faith and tend to be active supporters of “Palestinian rights”. Lots live in America too.
gravenimage says
All true.
No Fear says
Allah is the personification of the universe. The universe is cruel and violent but it also begets life.
Allah is simply the universe personified.
My objection to personifying the universe is that, for someone with social anxiety such as me, Allah or God , appears to be a mass murderer and is therefore totally evil. I grew up as a Jehovahs Witnessbeing being told that God would destroy most of mankind for their wickedness. As a peron with social anxiety that totally distorted my view of morality. God, the most moral being, was a mass murderer. I was determined to avoid “morality” at all cost.
Only now at age 57 do I finally understand the myths in the Bible and the Quran. In their day they were an attempt to teach people about reality. Myth was the science of the time. Today we know that if someone shares body fluids they spread viruses of all sorts. Back then they recieved the “judgement of God” and were “turned into a pillar of salt”.
Phaidon says
I’d rather say that Allah was Muhammad’s alter-ego, his dissociated, pathological “grandiose self”, as self-psychology would call it. He himself was most probably a paranoid schizophrenic suffering from frontal-lobe epilepsy, based on what can be deduced from the Sira, Hadith, and the Quran itself. If you ever happen to read the autobiography of a Daniel Paul Schreber (1842-1911), called “Memoirs of my nervous illness”, and especially Sigmund Freud’s analysis of the book as a paradigmatic example of what he then called “paranoid dementia”, you’d see that Muhammad was essentially a “Schreber with a following”. In other words, he lived in a time and under circumstances in which being mentally ill could easily be interpreted as a manifestation of the Divine (or the demonic – just think of the burning of witches), and thus lead to a community sustaining and reinforcing the delusion of the psychotic individual, by sharing and containing them. Various studies have been authored to the regard of Muhammad’s psychopathology. (see https://phaidonvassiliou.wordpress.com/2015/06/06/a-psychopolitical-review-of-s-k-malik-the-quranic-concept-of-war-part-4/ , fifth-to-last paragraph).
Champ says
Here we have an …”Israeli professor explains why the Islamic State is ‘the anti-Islam'”
And then on another thread we have an …”Iraqi priest: ‘There’s no such thing as moderate Islam…ISIS represents Islam one hundred percent'”
Ok, normally it’s the other way around …
o_0
ECAW says
There are cruel, warlike verses and hadiths and there are benign ones, available for cherry picking according to taste. In my attempts to look into all this I have found that:
1. The malign cherries on the tree of Islam vastly outnumber the benign ones.
2. When you research the benign ones quoted by Islamic apologists, they usually appear not to be so benign after all but sound nice enough to lull the unwary kaffir into a false impression of Islam.
cs says
What may have been happening, but there is not time to keep it that way, is that writers like Leon Poliakov and Bernard Lewis have pointed out, trying to explain the holocaust, that anti-semitism was a main product of the Christian replacement theory. They are right at some extent, we see this happening over and again but less often so. These writers overlooked seriously what happened during the Islamic period as bad, they did not focus much on the dhimmitude aspect, only Bat ye’or did and she was labelled as a hater not as a scholar, turns out that she was right all along, and the islamic conquest should be labelled as genocides, but they go unchecked on the wikipedia, like we had this massive amnesia about it, it is time to remember, time is runnig out.
JoeC says
It’s insanity. What will it take for the Western world to wake up to the war in their midst. Was 3,000 people crushed and incinerated not enough? How many must die before we wipe this religion off the map? And that is what will be required: extermination. When you have an infestation, you can’t wish it away.
I wait for the day when Mecca is engulfed in a mushroom cloud.
duh_swami says
I trust the hadith about as much as I trust Hillary…I heard the Prophet say, I saw the Prophet do, were not recollections but stories and fables manufactured later, not necessarily historically accurate. We are to believe that the eye witness remembers perfectly long hadith about where Mahound group went, who said what to who,, and what they did,. and then the story is passed along the chain of transmitters, each remembered every detail perfectly. Not likely…Gabriel, a space alien, transmitted the Quran. according to the myth, but men with a self serving agenda wrote hadith stories. Some are interesting but every one of them is questionable and should not be taken at face value…..
Alarmed Pig Farmer says
Professor Maghen’s mind will be changed when that thermonuclear detonates over Israel. He won’t have time to think Prez Barack Hussein and Secretary Lurch for helping the Supreme Leader do that, and I’m wrong, the empty and shallow professor’s mind won’t be changed cuz his brain cells will be atomized in less than a second.
But his pseudo-scholarly preachings sound good. Too bad it’s a load of bullshit, but a guy can hope. Yet he should do his hoping curled up in the fetal position under his bed at home, and not spread his confusion onto the fecund minds of Israel’s youth.
Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY) says
Thank you, gravenimage, for your discussion of the first-quoted hadith. I too am puzzled by it, on a more-primitive level. It doesn’t make much sense even as a narrative. Let’s requote it:
==QUOTE==
Once the Prophet Muhammad and his followers, on their way back from a bloody engagement with the Christian Byzantines (circa 628 CE), stopped at a Bedouin camp next to an oasis. When afternoon prayers were finished, the Prophet began to preach to his rapt listeners about the various types of hellfire awaiting sinners in the afterlife: nar, laẓa, saqar, ḥuṭama…
Meanwhile, a Bedouin woman with a baby tied to her hip crouched down nearby and baked bread for the visitors over the flames of her saj [flatbread]. At one point some grease fell into the fire and it surged. The mother leapt back to protect her infant, and then turned wrathfully on Muḥammad:
“Are you the one they call the Messenger of God?” she demanded.
“I am,” he replied.
“And you teach that He is our Progenitor, our Creator?” she queried.
“Indeed,” acknowledged Muhammad.
“And you claim that He is ‘the Merciful, the Beneficent’?” she pressed on.
“He is,” confirmed the Prophet.
“If so,” continued the woman, “then you are a liar! A loving parent would never throw His children into the fire.”
So saying, she stormed off — and Muḥammad wept.
==UNQUOTE==
[1] Why is there no reference for this hadith? Is it from Bukhari? If we knew where it came from, we could check whether it has been ripped misleadingly from its context.
[2] Wow, there are at least four types of hellfire: “nar, laẓa, saqar, ḥuṭama…” I have never heard of this. Where does this typology of hellfires come from? As Wikipedia says, [Citation needed]. Do these various hellfires have anything to do with the smokeless fire that jinns are made of? It would be a faith-affirming challenge for Islamic science to reproduce these hellfires in a laboratory.
[3] Why is the Bedouin woman “wrathful” toward Muhammad?
[4] Is the woman claiming that Allah threw Allah’s children into a fire? On what occasion? And what children? Is this a reference to something reported in the Quran?
[5] What does the flaring up of the fire when grease fell into it have to do with this story? Just that it reminded the woman of Allah’s children-burning rampage?
[6] Why did Muhammad weep? What is he weeping about? Such emotional lability is not characteristic of him, is it?
Alarmed Pig Farmer says
Once the Prophet Muhammad and his followers, on their way back from a bloody engagement with the Christian Byzantines (circa 628 CE), stopped at a Bedouin camp next to an oasis. When afternoon prayers were finished, the Prophet began to preach to his rapt listeners about the various types of hellfire awaiting sinners in the afterlife: nar, laẓa, saqar, ḥuṭama…
The big question is, what exactly these people praying *for*? That’s always been an unkept secret, shared across the globe. The reticent 15,000 lb pink elephant cowering over in the corner of the room. What are they praying to get, or to have happen? I know what Christians and Jews pray for, I understand what Buddhists meditate for, what Hindus pray for, the other religions, the real religions, have noble prayers supplicating their God(s) for good things. But the 5x daily prayers of the hairy folk, a mystery.
gravenimage says
All excellent questions, Mark.
As for the provenance of the “Hadith” itself, the *only* place I have ever seen it is in this Times of Israel article itself. Ze’ev Mahgen gives no reference for it at all.
Wherever this quote came from, I very much doubt it is a Hadith.
Sam says
Whatever Mohammad or Allah does or will do, whatever ISIS, Al Queda, Iran and other Molems do, no matter how many terrorist attacks we have, how many honor killings Moslems will commit, how many genital mutilation of little girls have to go through, how many millions of people live miserable lives in Moslem cultures, it does not matter. Islam will remain a “RELIGION OF PEACE
Because our western culture is screwed up to allow this insane, evil cult called Islam spread like wild flowers. For proof look at the people in the picture, young people, liberal college crowd. God please help us!
Phaidon says
I had put down a few lines on this sort of philological discussions over religious matters, in the context of an extended review of ‘The Quranic Concept of War’, which I’m working on. I’ll do the practical thing and auto-quote myself:
“Since theological claims are not falsifiable, the approach of theology with a scientific mindset aimed at making out whose religious view is “right” and whose is “wrong”, is bound to move in circles without getting anywhere. The possibility of understanding ideology becomes often thwarted by vain discussions about contradicting claims of being in possession of a Truth which is, in its very nature, ineffable. Mixing secular rationalist logic with theological epistemology is a tricky enterprise which gives rise to countless misunderstandings and a general confusion of tongues which, at the light of worldwide developments, cannot be afforded. […] While undoubtedly an interesting approach if one is interested in Quranic philology [or Islamic scripture altogether], the rationalist historical critique of the Quran has no relevance whatsoever when it comes to the study of religious devotion in general, and Islamic fundamentalism in particular. What matters is not what displays the highest logical likelihood of being true, but rather what is believed, and perhaps even more importantly, how it is believed.”
mgoldberg says
And of course according to the profs reasoning…. nazism was a distortion of national socialism,
Except of course, Islam, raided, tormented, submitted all others far more grievously, expansively than the mere 12 yrs of Hitlers ‘distortion’ of national socialism. But the lessons are the same. Tyranny, and homicidism, are just that, when married- the same, no matter what the external package appears like.
Meaning: the ‘islamic state’ is merely the ‘we demand it now’ branch of Islam.
‘normative islam, simply insists on propagating until the dar al harb suspends it’s laws and grants the supremacy of islamic laws.
Sheikh Yabooti says
I don’t know if any other Jewish/Israeli JWers picked up on this, but this post notes that Prof. Magen is Chair of the Middle East Studies Department at Bar Ilan University. Those familiar with Israel would recognize that Bar-Ilan is Israel’s “religious university”, organized to meet the needs of an Orthodox student population who wanted to pursue a high quality secular education. Bar-Ilan’s counterpart in the U.S. is Yeshiva University in NYC. I guess that, in the Christian world, it’s closest counterpart might be something like Bob Jones U. or Liberty U. – a school for those who don’t want to sacrifice religious principles for the sake of getting a higher education.
With all that said, it is even more amazing that Dr. Magen can argue that Islam is “the religion of leniency” before his students. Bar-Ilan almost certainly has the most conservative student body at any Israeli university, with a significant percentage of students who served as IDF officers, and a high percentage of students coming from communities in Judea and Samaria. The large majority of students there are Orthodox, and I would bet that a significant percentage would be labelled “ultra Orthodox” (haredi in Hebrew – like Chabad and similar movements).
All this caused a number of thoughts to pop into my mind:
First, most academics are probably more concerned with what their peers at other universities think, than with what their university’s administration, alumni, and student body think. For this reason, even the most conservative schools will still wind up with left-leaning faculty.
Second, being “controversial” (or even just plain idiotic) seems to help, rather than hinder, getting tenure at most top universities these days.
Finally, what ever higher education is really all about these days, grasping a better understanding of the truth seems to be playing an increasingly smaller role (if it is even on the list of priorities).
Shmuel Ur says
I had a few question to the author, and his reaction to this critique. He replied to some question in the FB page of the article (he does not use FB or the internet much) and asked me to post it here. He will have additional replies in a few days once he has more time. Not a direct reply but maybe interesting. To be clear this is not an opinion of mine but written by the author:
My professor friend is deliberately and obstinately ignorant of facebook and the like, so I am posting this for him:
I confess that I am not a member of the “talkback generation”: I belong to that stuffy old elitist era when a researched, thought-out essay was responded to by other researched, thought-out essays (written by people who have actually studied the discipline, and who are willing and able to give careful consideration to the arguments proffered in the original piece). Nevertheless, a brief counter-sortie by the author is perhaps called for in this case, if only to clarify one essential point.
The article I wrote acknowledges, indeed goes to significant lengths to demonstrate, that which many respondents vociferated: that ISIS not only claims to know and act upon the Muslim sources, it actually does so. I tried to show that the leaders of the organization are indeed exceptionally well versed in the classical texts of Islam, and that they are powerfully motivated by the aspiration to revive and relive those texts in our day and age. I qualified this, however, in my conclusion by arguing that while ISIS are masters of the content of the shari’a, their superficial, literalist reading thereof leads them astray from an essential, longstanding, organic aspect of its underlying methodology.
Whether I am right or not – and I refuse to spar with readers of Robert Spencer and FrontPageMagazine for whom Arabic letters are so much chicken scratch, a characterization no doubt appropriate to some three quarters of the talkback “discussants” – either way, let’s get one thing straight (it’s a thing I alluded to as well in the article, but which certainly bears repeating): even what I identify as the genuine, more “moderate” version of Islam is no friend of the West, or, a fortiori, of Israel (whither I immigrated, and in whose army I serve, because I am a fierce Zionist, not a self-hating Jew, thank you). The ideologies of other Islamist organizations – other than ISIS, that is – or even of the more traditional strains of the Muslim religion are fundamentally opposed to many of the core values of Western civilization, to say nothing of the flagrant anti-Semitism that is endemic to the Qur’an and Hadith itself.
All of this having been said, the delusional ones are those who believe that a creed one-billion-five-hundred-million strong, whose adherents are returning to the bosom of their faith in massive droves, can somehow be wished away by execration. Islam is a vast, rich, fascinating and almost fathomless religious civilization that has captivated a quarter of the planet’s population and given meaning to their lives. It is not going away: it is here to stay and it is growing exponentially. We need to find a modus Vivendi with it, need to learn to communicate with it, need to seek and find those elements of the Muslim worldview and praxis that lend themselves to dialogue and eventual détente (it has happened before in history). That is why it is important to distinguish ISIS from Islam.
With ISIS there is nothing to talk about: they are mass murderers who are coming to cut off our heads, rape our wives and enslave our children – no hyperbole whatsoever. They, and the increasing number of Islamists now following their lead, must be eradicated – physically – so that the rest of the Muslim world, much of which is attracted to ISIS because of resentments and other reasons, sees clearly that the ISIS way is not the way to go. Islam itself, on the other hand, cannot be eradicated: we need to learn about it, both as potential foe and, if we and they engage in some serious striving, as potential friend. Stop “talking back” and go study. Our university Middle East and Islamic departments are open and at your service…
Shmuel Ur says
One more email from Ze’ev Maghen
Thank you. While you are so kindly being my mail-man (and now that I have read the rest of the jihad-watch critique), might I prevail upon you to add the following in my name to the jihad watch discussion? Last time, I promise:
While it is true that there are many varied and even contradictory hadiths, an avid and careful reader of the Hadith literature (and especially of the hadiths that are given most airtime by other important genres, such as fiqh or jurisprudence) will discover over time certain themes that run consistently across its warp and woof. One of these is “moderation” (wasatiyya) and “rukhsa” (leniency). Only those who, rather than reading objectively through the entirety of the material, seek and seize opportunistically upon hadiths that serve their agenda (e.g. making Muhammad look exceptionally cruel) will miss this overall tendency so central to the classical sources.
As for Muhammad’s massacres: of course I do not forgive the slaughter of the beloved members of my own tribe, nor do I condone the other murders of innocents that unquestionably took place under Muhammad’s aegis and afterward. But whoever thinks that such actions were limited to the formative stages of the Muslim religion alone has never read (for instance) the Bible, to say nothing of the annals of pretty much every faith from its outset and thenceforward. We must be vigilant and violent against all who murder in the name of ideology, but (as I wrote earlier) also seek out those elements of Islam that might allow for the opening of communication channels with a view toward a cease fire in the kulturkampf some time soon. Otherwise we are in for a world war.
gravenimage says
Ze’ev Maghen wrote, as forwarded to JIhad Watch by Shmuel Ur:
Whether I am right or not – and I refuse to spar with readers of Robert Spencer and FrontPageMagazine for whom Arabic letters are so much chicken scratch, a characterization no doubt appropriate to some three quarters of the talkback “discussants”
………………………………….
Characterizing Jihad Watch commenters as ignoramuses who regard Arabic as “so much chicken scratch” is simply calumny. In fact, Jihad Watch commenters are overall quite erudite and well educated.
Moreover, the idea that unless people themselves read Classical Arabic that they should not be allowed to comment on the threat of JIhad is not just grotesque, but often voiced by Jihad apologists themselves.
And while we are on the subject of reading the texts of Islam in the original, I would ask Professor Mahgen where he found the first “Hadith” he cites, since I have never seen this in any Sahih collection–nor is there any reference to it online save in his article.
More:
Islam is a vast, rich, fascinating and almost fathomless religious civilization that has captivated a quarter of the planet’s population and given meaning to their lives.
………………………………….
Like many apologists, Professor Maghen rather overstates the Muslim population, making it one in four rather than the more accepted one in five globally.
But further, having a large number of adherents does not automatically render *any* creed “rich”, or in any other way benignant.
More:
It is not going away: it is here to stay and it is growing exponentially. We need to find a modus Vivendi with it, need to learn to communicate with it, need to seek and find those elements of the Muslim worldview and praxis that lend themselves to dialogue and eventual détente (it has happened before in history). That is why it is important to distinguish ISIS from Islam.
………………………………….
Actually, this has *never* happened before with Islam. The times the threat of Islam has been pushed back, it has been because we defended ourselves, *not* because we somehow found grounds for “dialogue”.
One cannot reach détente with a supremacist creed that seeks to enslave and destroy us.
More:
With ISIS there is nothing to talk about: they are mass murderers who are coming to cut off our heads, rape our wives and enslave our children – no hyperbole whatsoever. They, and the increasing number of Islamists now following their lead, must be eradicated – physically – so that the rest of the Muslim world, much of which is attracted to ISIS because of resentments and other reasons, sees clearly that the ISIS way is not the way to go.
………………………………….
The idea that Muslims are attracted to a vicious polity that enslaves and butchers innocent local Infidels because of “resentments” is ludicrous–although you hear this quite often. Pious Muslims are attracted to ISIS because the Islamic State follows orthodox Shari’ah.
More:
Islam itself, on the other hand, cannot be eradicated: we need to learn about it, both as potential foe and, if we and they engage in some serious striving, as potential friend. Stop “talking back” and go study. Our university Middle East and Islamic departments are open and at your service…
………………………………….
Many of us here have studied the Qur’an, Hadith, Sira, and canonical texts of Islam such as the “Reliance of the Traveller” in exhaustive detail, as well as commentary by Islamic scholars both historic and contemporary, and none of this gives a basis for the assertion that Islam is a “potential friend” to the ‘filthy Infidels’–Jews least of all.
More:
While it is true that there are many varied and even contradictory hadiths, an avid and careful reader of the Hadith literature (and especially of the hadiths that are given most airtime by other important genres, such as fiqh or jurisprudence) will discover over time certain themes that run consistently across its warp and woof. One of these is “moderation” (wasatiyya) and “rukhsa” (leniency). Only those who, rather than reading objectively through the entirety of the material, seek and seize opportunistically upon hadiths that serve their agenda (e.g. making Muhammad look exceptionally cruel) will miss this overall tendency so central to the classical sources.
………………………………….
This is questionable, in any case–but the problem is not Anti-Jihadist readers of the Hadith, but pious Muslims. Muslims consistently cite the Hadith for support in child marriage, enslaving Infidels, stoning women to death, and butchering unbelievers.
Were this not the case, there would be no problem.
More:
As for Muhammad’s massacres: of course I do not forgive the slaughter of the beloved members of my own tribe, nor do I condone the other murders of innocents that unquestionably took place under Muhammad’s aegis and afterward. But whoever thinks that such actions were limited to the formative stages of the Muslim religion alone has never read (for instance) the Bible…
………………………………….
I will not argue theology here–but I will just note that this might be of concern were Jews and Christians enslaving and murdering in the name of the Bible as Muslims are in the name of the Qur’an and Hadith, but they are not.
More:
…but (as I wrote earlier) also seek out those elements of Islam that might allow for the opening of communication channels with a view toward a cease fire in the kulturkampf some time soon. Otherwise we are in for a world war.
………………………………….
This is pretty much the point I thought Maghen would come to–we have seen this all too frequently.
It is the idea that as long as we ignore Islam’s war against us, that we can pretend it is not happening.
It is not Infidel’s interpretation of Islam that is precipitating the Jihad–it is the interpretation of pious Muslims themselves.
Jack Diamond says
A fine response, graven, but why isn’t the professor responding to Robert Spencer and what he has written? Why is it about JW readers, whom he is so patronizing to? I think Robert Spencer (or Raymond Ibrahim or Ibn Warraq) know “Arabic letters” well enough to suit the professor. Let him defend his ideas. Such as: “ISIS spits savagely on the tradition of the jurists, the precedents of the caliphs, and the eternal example of the Prophet Muhammad himself.”
gravenimage says
Thanks, Jack. I can’t speak for Professor Maghen, of course, but I imagine it is because it is rather difficult to impugn the scholarship of the erudite Robert Spencer, but much easier to smear a bunch of anonymous “discussants”.
Jack Diamond says
Of course Muhammad’s massacres and murders (and other aberrant behaviors) are not mere 7th century historical anecdotes when he is the model of conduct for Muslims today and tomorrow. The other difference with Islam and the various annals of faith the professor finds similar in their beginnings, is that (only) Islam mandates warfare against non-Muslims, and that warfare is obligatory until the Day of Judgment. That, and a mandatory hatred and enmity (bara’) toward the kaffir (disbelievers) tend to put a damper on detente and co-existence, just as doctrines like taqiyya and muda’rat put a damper on honest dialogue.
But there I go being intolerably literal about Jihad and Sharia, like most pious Muslims who also seem to miss how “interpretive, creative and compassionate” Islam is, at least in matters of concern to the life and well-being of “kaffirs” and their civilization. What the hell does the professor think is going on in Europe with Islam? Something “vast, rich, and fascinating”? And Muhammad WAS exceptionally cruel and is al-insan al-kamil (the perfect human) and uswa hasana (a beautiful model of conduct) to believing Muslims. People are judged by their worst actions, ask anyone on Death Row. His words and deeds condemn him, and his “eternal example” has brought forth bitter fruit and incomprehensible suffering to humanity.
We are in a world war already, with Islam, because that war was declared by Muhammad a long time ago. And he was quite literal about it.
Sam Hawkins says
Well, sure! Non-Muslim groups could not have lasted as long as they did in the Middle East otherwise. If Islamic rule had been ISIS-like for all this time, then the region would have been Christian-free a millennium ago.
Another way of putting this is “don’t kill the goose that lays the golden eggs”. In the Middle East, Christians have always been the principal merchant class. By limiting the extra tax levied on them to what the Christians could afford, the Muslim overlords assured themselves of a constant income stream.
That, however, is hardly indicative of a respect for human rights based on accepting others as equals.
And throughout history, “lenient” and “moderate” Muslim rulers were overthrown by more hardline usurpers who felt that the jizya paid by the dhimmi was not enough, who wanted more, now. See, e.g., the short-lived “Cordoba Golden Age” under the Almoravids and the subsequent cruel rule by the Almohads.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almohad_Caliphate#Status_of_non-Muslims
It’s a pattern that repeats throughout Muslim history, ISIS is only the latest chapter.
Sam Hawkins says
So is the world’s population. And while it is true that current estimates have the number of Muslims growing at a faster rate than the number of humans overall, that should not be an argument for pre-emptive surrender. Islamic “civilization” is not a viable business model, as attested to by the appalling social, political and economic conditions in most Islamic countries, the constant warfare, and the creation of millions of displaced persons every year spilling over into civilized countries.
Rather than propping up the failed Islamic civilization, we should hasten its demise. At the very least, we should adopt a stance of uncompromising wariness and defensiveness vis-a-vis Muslims. Diplomacy does have its place, but in the sense of “saying nice doggie while looking for a big stick”.
ECAW says
Indeed, we are in for a world war.
Ze'ev Maghen says
Dear all,
I am afraid you have all gotten me wrong — very wrong — but judging from the rhetoric in these comments there is evidently very little I am going to be able to do about that. I am now and have been for several decades on the front lines of the battle against jihadist Islam, primarily but not solely in its Iranian version. I believe that in order to know one’s enemy one must learn about him with an objective eye, and to whatever extent possible “from the inside,” that is, at the very least employing his own language (two reasons why I do not believe that Robert Spencer and his ilk are doing our side a service). My Israeli politics are far right of center, always have been. If you wish to continue portraying me as a deluded, self-hating, etc. etc. I can’t stop you: I am too busy fighting the real fight over here in the Middle East in between ISIS, Hezbollah, Hamas, Iran and all the rest.
If we could get a little less ad hominem about all of this — and I have sinned in that department as well, I confess, and for that I apologize — I would be happy to admit that a lot of you guys have interesting and informed points to make, and compelling critiques of my article, and I will think about them. I would ask you to be open-minded as well, and confront the very pressing question of how we are to deal with Islamdom — whatever may be the exact number of its adherents. Unless you want to nuke it, we have to find a way to talk to it, and the jihad-watch way does not, to my mind lead to that. If you have a simple, pre-packaged solution to this problem, I don’t think that you are worth listening to: this is a massive and complex problem and deserves some serious, long term, objective discussion. (As for the notorious hadith: I have no idea. Don’t know if it’s really even a hadith. Heard it from a preacher years ago and it stuck in my brain. Thought it would be a nice way to start the piece. It has no real legal implications, at any rate).
Robert Spencer says
Thanks for writing. I am the author of the principle commentary on your article, upon which the readers here are commenting. I’ve written many such pieces and invariably get furious ad hominems in response. In this case, since you wrote in here, I am inviting you to public discussion and possibly debate of salient issues. If you’re interested, we can discuss precise terms and forums. I look forward to hearing from you.
Ze'ev Maghen says
Dear Mr. Spencer,
My disagreements with you and your methods should also not descend to the ad hominem, and I mean no personal disrespect. Anyone who is intrepid and energetic enough to take up the gauntlet that you have for so long is worthy of respect in my eyes. I also share your sense of urgency concerning the need to confront radical Islam with all due force and to stand up strongly for many of the modern values that the Islamists will destroy (are already destroying) if they get the chance.
As to a debate, however, life is short, and one must choose productive battles over unproductive ones. I fear we would be talking past each other: you began your crusade with an axe to grind, with a position to support, and since that time you have — in my eyes — consistently behaved like the fellow who achieves bullseyes by shooting the arrow first and then running and painting the concentric circles of the target around it. I have agendas, too, but determining which type of Islam is “authentic” is not among them: as I Jew, I couldn’t care less. My ideas on the subject are a result of objective research in academic contexts.
Sure, everyone has their biases, but I have tried to mitigate mine in order to get to the truth, whereas I believe that you have done the opposite. Few people who have made as much of a career as you have out of a particular outlook and approach are able to rexamine themselves, and I don’t expect there is much chance that you will do so. ‘Tis a shame: you are clearly a very intelligent thinker, and could contribute much to this field of knowledge were you to stop propagandizing and start at least trying to look at things as they are.
I agree with you and many of the other discussants that much of the Muslim world is enticed by ISIS and by Salafism in general, and is heading in that direction. Salafism is a break from traditional Islam just as Protestantism was a break from traditional Christianity: fundamentalisms always claim to be the real thing and are usually anything but, and “returning” to the strict letter of the law means undoing centuries of development and missing the underlying algorithms of the religion. The Muslim world is undergoing a kulturkampf, and if the fundamentalists win it will go badly for humanity. I tried to show in my article that there is another way, and I am of course not alone. With your vast erudtion (not meant in the least bit sarcastically) you should help out.
Now, back to life: this is the most time I have ever spent on the Internet, and I don’t plan to make it a habit. God bless.
Jack Diamond says
It is interesting Prof. Maghen’s article begins with some folktale, not even a genuine hadith, to demonstrate the compassion of Muhammad. Because this is a theme he stresses:
“when capital offenses were brought to the attention of the Prophet — so the hadith tells us repeatedly — he would close his ears and turn away and pretend he hadn’t heard. If his hand were nevertheless forced he would do everything in his power — employing highly creative and even rather questionable legal means — to get the offender off lightly. And if in the end Muhammad had no choice but to implement the ultimate hadd punishment, he strictly enjoined that it be carried out with the utmost sensitivity and respect, both for the one executed and for his or her family.”
Except there are also all those sunnah stories showing just the opposite. So, Muhammad has some of his critics killed. A pregnant woman, a 100-year old man, young singing girls…yet others who insulted him he forgives, as gets pointed out as if it mitigates his murders. But which principle passes into Islamic fiqh? Muhammad is not alive to forgive anyone anymore so it is”whoever curses a Prophet, kill him” and “those who harm the Messenger of Allah have a painful punishment.” (Q 9:63), not forgive them because Muhammad did sometime. It is not his example of forgiving that matters in how Muslims should conduct themselves when Muhammad is insulted (or criticized), hence Ibn al-Qasim: “anyone who curses him, reviles him, finds fault with him or disparages him is killed…Allah made it obligatory to respect the Prophet and be dutiful to him.”
Is Islam unanimous upon this matter or is it not? Does Salafism see this different from “traditional Islam”?
Here’s something actually from credible Islamic sources. From Ibn Ishaq and Tabari.
Muslims captured an old woman, Umm Qirfa, the head of her tribe. Muhammad had sent Zayd B. Haritha in a raid against them. The old woman was killed “by putting a rope onto her two legs and to two camels and driving them until they rent her in two.” Her beautiful daughter was then sold into slavery by Muhammad to ransom some imprisoned Muslims. Muhammad and the best of Muslims, exceptionally cruel or
men of “sensitivity and respect”?
Speaking of the best of Muslims, no matter how Islam developed or muddled or became syncretic here and there, Muhammad says who the good Muslims are. When he was asked who among the people were the best he said “of the generation to which
I belong then of the second generation then of the third generation (Sahih Muslim bk. 031 n6159) and “I counsel you to fear Allah to give absolute obedience even if a slave becomes your leader. Verily he who lives (long) will see great controversy, so you must keep to my sunnah and to the sunnah of the Rightly Guided Khalifahs cling to them stubbornly. Beware of the newly invented matters, for every invented matter is an innovation and every innovation is a going astray and every going astray is in Hellfire.”
—Abu Dawud and Al-Tirmidh
The Caliphs, incidentally, who set about to conquer the world by the sword and gave infidels but 3 choices: convert, be subjugated and humbled (if People of the Book), or die.
Speaking of Tabari: Abu Bakr, when a captive who had fought the Muslims was brought to him “ordered a fire to be kindled with much firewood in the prayer yard of Medina and threw him, with arms and legs bound, into it.” (Conquest of Arabia)
“Put the captives among them to the sword and strike terror among them by killing and burn them by fire.” Abu Bakr to Khalid bin al-Walid, against the Bani Hanifah. Fire! Why did the Caliph burn people when it’s supposedly clear that was forbidden?
Doesn’t “the best of people” include Khalid, the favorite general of Muhammad and his pal Abu Bakr? Does ISIS find much to emulate or not in the great headchopper Khalid? He slaughtered tens of thousands of apostates, cut off the heads of as many infidels, made the rivers run red with blood…there’s another charming tale about Khalid, raping the wife of Malik bin Nuwara in front of him before he beheads Malik and cooks his dinner on the severed head. Ibn Kathir “Khalid ate from it (Malik’s head) to terrify the apostate Arab tribes and others and it is said that Malik’s hair created such a blaze that the meat was thoroughly cooked.” ISIS spits on these traditions or copies them?
And so we go round and round….
Sam Hawkins says
Interesting! One time I was out walking my dog and encountered an older Turkish man, retired from a lifetime of hard work in the land of the infidel, grizzled beard stubble on his face and wearing the cap of the devout, and we got to talking a bit.
At one point, he told me that dogs were put on earth by Allah so that man could have a companion and a friend. The guy was not fibbing me, he was totally sincere.
Except there is no passage in the koran that says that. I think in an age were most people were illiterate (or functionally illiterate), much of tradition was communicated orally. This provided a means for “folk wisdom” to insinuate its way into what believers think they know about their faith.
Since so much of the koran is cruel and sadistic when it is not simply boring or incomprehensible, the folk wisdom tempered the cruelty with small nuggets of kindness that introduced the “angels of our better nature” through a side entrance.
But today, when literacy is much more widespread and modern means of communication (including the evil Internet LOL) carry the koran and associated scriptures to everywhere in the globe, that folk wisdom is being marginalized. And the religion is shedding its encrustations of non-canonical, comparatively kind and reasonable folk tales. It is not only ISIS. The giant rape rings of Rotherham, the terrorism, the criminality, the contempt for infidels… Islam is “coming home” to itself, its adherents eager to partake of the spoils promised them.
Rape, plunder, the enjoyment of inflicting pain, the domination v. submission worldview, magnification of real or imagined “slights” as a pretext to be cruel and vicious… in all this they follow the model of their prophet. Islam is un-reformable. It can only be contained, hobbled and shackled through constant vigilance and suspicion. The only alternatives are submission to Islamic rule (hoping it will be Almoravid rather than Almohad … or eradication through genocide on an unimaginable scale (which you, Spencer, and more than 99% of Jihad Watch readers including me reject out of hand).
ECAW says
“…seek out those elements of Islam that might allow for the opening of communication channels with a view toward a cease fire in the kulturkampf some time soon. Otherwise we are in for a world war.”
The view from Europe is rather different from those from either Israel or the USA. Here our leaders (of the EU) have abdicated the responsibility of defending our borders. Indeed they run a ferry service from Libya to Italy for our historic enemy. The Empress of Europe has recently torn up the rulebook (ie the requirement to process immigrants in the receiving country, enshrined in the Dublin Treaty) and intends to import 700,000 Syrians straight into Germany.
With the demographic wedge being hammered ever harder into Europe, the professor might understand that we put little faith in the opening of communication channels with those strands of Islam less literalist than ISIS.
To many Europeans it appears that our leaders have put us on a path towards either eventual subjugation under Sharia or what can only be called civil war. Not a nice choice but I know which one I regard as the lesser of evils.