The Clarion Project, of which moderate Muslim Zuhdi Jasser is an advisory board member, has rushed to his aid in our recent controversy, claiming to demonstrate in this piece that reform of Islam is not only possible, but happening now in all sorts of ways I am not acknowledging. Now, I have never said Islamic reform is not possible, but this Clarion article unfortunately only confirms several points I have made many times before: that much of what is touted as reform of Islam is really nothing of the kind, as the central doctrines of Islam are left untouched; and also that much of what is touted as reform of Islam is actually cynical deception designed to keep Infidels complacent. Both are on abundant display in this Clarion piece. More below.
“Is Muslim Reform Even Possible?,” by Elliot Friedland, Clarion Project, March 15, 2017:
Clarion advisory board member Dr. Zudhi Jasser has hit out of critics who claim that Muslim reform movements are bound to fail because they are not accepted within the Muslim community….
Spencer later adds, “I’d love to see Islamic reform succeed. I’m just not willing to kid myself or others about its prospects, or pretend that it has a greater standing in Islamic doctrine or tradition than it does.”These are important questions that must be addressed honestly.
But Spencer misses the point in three key ways:
Firstly, Spencer’s arguments belie the fact that Islam has already changed many times throughout the centuries. It has seen intellectual flourishing, such as in the Abbasid House of Wisdom, and iconoclastic destruction, such as that meted out against Hindu India by the Ghaznavid Empire, or, of course, the contemporary Islamic State (who cited the exploits of Mahmud of Ghazni in the latest issue of their propaganda magazine Rumiyah). Just like Christianity has gone from the charity of St Francis of Assisi to the torture chambers of the Inquisition to fighting for both the abolition of and the maintenance of slavery in the 19th century.
This bespeaks a confusion about what reform of Islam actually is, or would be. Of course Islam, like all other religions and belief systems, has been expressed in different ways by its various adherents. But that is not the same thing as it undergoing an actual change of doctrine, such as, say, a rejection of the violent jihad imperative or the necessity to subjugate the “People of the Book” (i.e., Jews, Christians, and a few other groups) under the hegemony of Islamic law as dhimmis. There has never been such a rejection. The Abbasid House of Wisdom, for example, was flourishing amidst Islamic oppression that will sound familiar to people who have been reading about the atrocities of the Islamic State. Raymond Ibrahim reports this about the Abbasid Caliph Harun al-Rashid: “In the West [he] is depicted as a colorful and fun-loving prankster in the Arabian Nights. Though renowned for his secular pursuits — including riotous living, strong drink and harems of concubines, to the point that a modern day female Kuwaiti activist referred to him as a model to justify the institution of sex-slavery — Harun al-Rashid was still pious enough ‘to force Christians to distinguish themselves by dress, to expel them from their positions, and to destroy their churches through the use of fatwas by the imams.’”
To take but two recent examples: In 2016, the Marrakesh Declaration saw more than 250 scholars from around the Muslim world convene at the request of the King of Morocco (a direct descendant of Muhammed himself and hardly a marginal figure) to “AFFIRM that it is unconscionable to employ religion for the purpose of aggressing upon the rights of religious minorities in Muslim countries.”
The Marrakesh Declaration does indeed say that. This does not, however, constitute any reform of Islam in the slightest degree. A hadith has Muhammad saying, “He who hurts a dhimmi hurts me, and he who hurts me annoys Allah” (At-Tabarani). Muhammad didn’t by saying this cancel the Qur’anic imperative to make sure that the dhimmis “pay the jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued” (9:29). He didn’t want the dhimmis hurt because their jizya tax money was an important source of revenue for the Muslim community: the caliph Umar is quoted in a hadith saying that the jizya is the “source of the livelihood of your dependents” (Bukhari 4.53.388). One shouldn’t harm the goose that is laying the golden eggs. But this doesn’t mean that the dhimmis were any less subjugated. When the Marrakesh Declaration says that “it is unconscionable to employ religion for the purpose of aggressing upon the rights of religious minorities in Muslim countries,” it is not reforming or rejecting the Qur’anic imperative to subjugate those minorities as dhimmis. In Islamic law, the dhimmis have rights; they just don’t have all the rights that Muslims have.
Closer to America, since 2013 the Muslim Leadership Initiative has seen Muslim leaders from America come to Israel to learn about Jews and Zionism, abandoning the decades long opposition to any interaction at all with the Jewish state within the establishment leadership in the Muslim community. Although this provoked a massive backlash, the fact that it happened at all is monumental in showing that it is possible to have a dialogue and move towards solutions to some of the seemingly intractable inter-communal problems that we face.
This one is really embarrassing for Clarion. Listed as an “MLI Facilitator” is none other than Haroon Moghul, a name that will be familiar to longtime Jihad Watch readers. Moghul is one of the most ridiculous exponents of the “Islamophobia” victimhood propaganda industry, and he has shown himself to be many times. Obsessed with furthering claims of Muslim victimhood, Moghul traffics in malicious defamation (likening Pamela Geller and me to jihad mass murder mastermind Anwar al-Awlaki) and dishonesty (discounting the reality of jihad terror while magnifying the fiction of “Islamophobia”) and taking advantage of his audience’s ignorance about Islam to invert reality, portraying Muslims as victims of a cruel “Islamophobic” machine, instead of non-Muslims threatened by the global jihad. He is the very model of a cynical pseudo-moderate taking advantage of the ignorance of his non-Muslim interlocutors in order to lull them into complacency regarding the jihad threat.
Secondly, Spencer does not acknowledge the damage done by rejecting Muslims like Jasser. When Muslims like Jasser are not seen as authentic by non-Muslims, it makes it that much harder for him to pitch to Muslims that his path will lead to acceptance. Fear is an incredibly powerful factor in politics. If Muslim communities fear they will be excluded no matter what, that non-Muslims have no interest in protecting them or their rights and are only interested in them as opponents of jihad, they have little incentive to speak out.
As I explained yesterday, Muslims actually don’t care what non-Muslims think about Islam, any more than Christians care about whether the Ayatollah Khamenei or caliph al-Baghdadi think they’re Christian or not. As influential as it is, this argument doesn’t get any less absurd by constant repetition. Until some Muslim appears who can honestly say, “I was going to join ISIS until I heard Pope Francis say that the Qur’an rejects violence,” I will continue to think it absurd.
Thirdly, Spencer does not recognize that these things take a long time. Even within living memory, the West has seen monumental cultural shifts, on women’s rights, on gay rights, on race relations. These changes have pushed the contemporary West further in the direction of upholding human freedoms than any other civilization in the history of the world….
Muslim Reform is happening. Just slower and more quietly than Robert Spencer would like.
Great. How slow is too slow? Is there a timetable? How long do we have to wait? How many people have to get killed by jihadists before we realize that waiting for this reform to happen is pointless?
The Clarion Project tried in this article to show that Islamic reform is possible and happening now. Instead, it only showed the perils of ignorance and how easy it is to be fooled by cynical sharpies such as Haroon Moghul.
Marcello Luciano says
Islam will not tolerate any change and reform, any change and reform are considered “blasphemy” and “apostasy” and is against direct order of Allah, and punishable by death.Here Quran is talking about altering ,change and reform in Islam:
=() Quran 6:115 ” وَتَمَّتْ كَلِمَتُ رَبِّكَ صِدْقًا وَعَدْلًا ۚ لَا مُبَدِّلَ لِكَلِمَاتِهِ ۚ وَهُوَ السَّمِيعُ الْعَلِيمُ “Sahih International: And the word of your Lord has been fulfilled in truth and in justice. None can alter His words, and He is the Hearing, the Knowing.
Ah Clem says
Here’s another example, in 3:7 (Bewley translation)
It is He who sent down the Book to you from Him: ayats containing clear judgements – they are the core of the Book – and others which are open to interpretation. Those with deviation in their hearts follow what is open to interpretation in it, desiring conflict, seeking its inner meaning. No one knows its inner meaning but Allah. Those firmly rooted in knowledge say, ‘We have iman in it. All of it is from our Lord.’ But only people of intelligence pay heed.
Terry Gain says
I have a solution. Since there is disagreement over whether Islam can reform (and given Jasser’s recent experience of fewer than 10 positive responses to his reform Initiative to 3,000 Mosques and 500 prominent Muslims the jury is no longer out) I propose that The Great Muslim Reformation Project take place outside America and that further Muslim Immigration be deferred until we know the results of this grand initiative.
I am becoming increasingly convinced that Muslim reformation is nothing but Muslim propaganda. Muslims are of course the world’s greatest progandists and deceit is not just their stock-in -trade but a weapon far more effective than terrorism.
I much admire the work of Robert Spencer but I am a loss to understand how Islam can be reformed. In order to make Islam acceptable, the doctrine – and the example of Mohammed – would need to be repudiated. What would be left wouldn’t be Islam.
eduardo odraude says
The aggressive, expansionist, totalitarian aspects of Islam are core aspects. That is not the case, certainly not to anything like the same extent, with Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, or Christianity. So you are absolutely right that one cannot reform Islam without ending up with something that is no longer Islam. One would have to get rid of Muhammad, or get rid of so many of his actions and statements that one would be creating a new founder. The notion that everything can be reformed is stupid. Why would one “reform” Stalinism or Nazism? Those things are so rigid that they cannot bend, they can only be broken. That is what will eventually happen to Islam. It may take the world with it, but Islam will be broken. The totalitarian doctrinal elements are too central to permit an evolutionary trajectory for Islam over the long term.
Terry Gain says
Actually I am not at a loss to understand why Robert Spencer does not deny that Islam can be reformed. It’s the political thing to do and one can only fight on so many flanks at once.
gravenimage says
Theoretically, anything can be reformed–any ideology can change over time.
But as posters here rightly note, there are so many things mitigating against the reform of Islam–that violence and oppression are core values of that creed, and are made clear in the Qur’an and Hadith; that the Qur’an is considered “unchanging”; that the “Prophet Muhammed” was violent and oppressive, and that his conduct is to be considered the model for every Muslim; and that no reform has taken place for *1400 years*.
Noting that it is theoretically possible for Islam to be reformed is very different from expecting it will be.
mousey says
food for thought:
milestone’s guy said muslim’s have been off for long long time. He said bad stuff has gotten into the commentaries on the koran and in the sharia. To some degree he casts doubt on the rightness of hadiths and koran commentaries and the “scholars.”
probably mo illiterate, he did not write down koran, wasn’t written until decades after mo died. small and large fragments from people’s memories or from bits written on leaves, stones, bones…. gathered. Different versions circulating around different provinces. Disputes over correct readings. Lots of fighting. Fighting. Fighting. Knocking each other off. Third calilph guy says ok, my version is right and that is that. They were all “chop chop to you if you disagree with me.” Then there’s Mo’s “biography” written down, what was it, 100 or 200 years after mo’s death?.
These are things that can be used to good effect.
As jordan peterson says in a different context in excellent!!! talk couple days ago…”…if you criticize something what you’re doing is separating the wheat from the chaff, you’re not burning all of it, you’re saying ‘well not this, not this, but definitely this…'” That’s the way to go.
Voytek Gagalka says
Similarly, the IRS does not want taxpayers hurt because the tax they pay is an important source of revenue for the the United States government. But woe to any taxpayer who would dare to evade on his duty (responsibility) to pay his/her taxes with “willing submission”: all hell will break on such person, he will be extorted, penalized, his wealth confiscated, perhaps even put in prison, i.e. hurt badly. Connections 5.
Jaladhi says
Islam is totally corrupt evil ideology that will reform and can never be reformed! As long as Muslims follow Mohammad as an ideal man whose example should always be followed how can there be any reform. Follow evil, become evil!
Walter Sieruk says
On the topic of a reformation within Islam, a very different yet possible valid and true view on this had been explain by the Christian, Nabeel Qureshi ,who was in the past was a Muslim .He wrote in his book which is entitled ANSWERING JIHAD wrote about the suggestion “that Islam needs a reformation .What they may not realize is that radical Islam is the Islamic reformation. This might sound shocking, but consider: Just as the Protestant Reformation was an attempt to raze centuries of Catholic tradition and return to the canonical text, so radical Islam is an attempt to raze centuries of traditions of various schools of Islamic thought and return to the canonical text of the Quran and Muhammad’s life. This desire to return to the original form of Islam can be seen not only in the words of Sayyid Qutb, but also in his method. He focused almost entirely on references to the Quran. it is true also of the Muslim Brotherhood and ISIS today, whose publications and proclamations are punctuated by references to the Quran and hadith literature. Radical Muslim organizations are explicit in their aim to reform Islam.” page 75. Further on pages 79,80 the author makes his case clear by writing that “Radical Islam is the Islamic reformation . The endeavor to modernize Islam and make it relevant to the twenty -first century is called progressive Islam. Progressive Muslim thought leaders, though few in number and limited in influence are present and are working to recreate Islam’s religious framework from within. Indeed, that is what it would take for Islam to become devoted to peace – not reformation but reimagination. “
eduardo odraude says
Yes, the people who rule Saudi Arabia, or their forebears, already carried out the Islamic Reformation through Wahabism. They returned to the canonical Islamic texts, the Qur’an and Hadith, and sought to get rid of historical accretions. And what you end up with is Saudi Arabia, one of the two or three most totalitarian governments on earth. Reformation after the pattern of Christianity — that is, a return to the core texts — leads in Islam to totalitarian evil and unimaginable brutality, as in the Islamic State, after the brutal example of Muhammad.
gravenimage says
All true, Walter, and Eduardo.
DB says
“Just as the Protestant Reformation was an attempt to raze centuries of Catholic tradition and return to the canonical text,…”
Another false characterization of the Protestant Reformation to falsely attack the Catholic Church. There was no attempt to return to the “canonical text,” but only what some ignorant rebels declared to be the “canonical text” to support their heretical views, and this false belief persists to this day to wrongly justify the rebellion. Despite its claims, Protestant belief continues to be extremely unbiblical in many ways even with the rejection of some books declared to not be canonical because they were not written in ancient Hebrew even though Our Lord Jesus Christ and the Apostles quoted hundreds of times from Greek versions of the Scriptures extant when they walked the earth and WERE NOT written in Hebrew.
For a more scholarly approach to the bogus notion of reforming Islam based on allegedly following the Protestant Reformation, see OVV’s “Attack on the Historical Catholic Church and Other Kinds of Ignorance in the Calls for a Reformation of Islam” that was published online on November 9, 2015.
The Truth Shall Set You Free.
DB
Michael says
On 21 February 1986 – a week before he was murdered – Sweden’s prime minister Olof Palme declared: “Apartheid cannot be reformed; it has to be eliminated.”
What’s true if apartheid is true of Islam. Islam cannot be reformed; it has to be eliminated.
eduardo odraude says
Until such time as a majority of Muslim-majority nations permit real religious, cultural, and political freedom, Muslim immigration to non-Muslim nations should be severely curtailed. it should be assumed that Islam means erosion or destruction of civil and political rights until there is concrete proof to the contrary, namely the establishment and dominance of real liberal democracy in most Muslim-majority nations. That would make clear that the objection to Muslims is not an infringement on religion, but an objection to totalitarianism.
gravenimage says
Unfortunately, all too many gullible Infidels assume that Muslims who come here embrace our values and are rejecting the oppression of Dar-al-Islam. Instead, most of them are intent on spreading it.
eduardo odraude says
Proof, from the core Islamic texts themselves, that Islam, based on its founder Muhammad, is an essentially totalitarian, aggressive, expansionist religion:
http://www.quotingislam.blogspot.com
Sam says
What a waste to even discuss if Islam can be reformed or not while Islam is killing people daily all over the world.
Islam is not a religion. It is an evil ideology. It must be eliminated for the sake of human race. FOR GOOD.
Wellington says
First rate refutation by Robert Spencer.
I do have a piece of advice for the Clarion Project though and it is very openly carry on your discussions, publications and films about Islamic reformation in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran, the UAE, Jordan, Afghanistan, Malaysia, Iraq, or any Muslim-majority nation (guess Syria, Somalia and Libya are temporarily off limits, though their being off limits of course has nothing to do with Islam).
Rather speaks volumes that virtually all the talk about Islamic reformation occurs in Western nations where Muslims are free to practice their faith, build their mosques, preach their faith to others, etc. Rather telling that the Clarion Project headquarters is in Washington DC and not in Riyadh or Tehran or Kabul or Kuala Lumpur or Baghdad or…or …or…..
Finally, and if this isn’t a hoot I’m not sure what is, seems the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) and the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) have deemed the Clarion Project anti-Muslim and contributing to that great plague of our time, Islamophobia. Even Lewis Carroll would have been hard pressed to make all this up were he still around.
gravenimage says
True, Wellington–not only do almost all Muslims in the West vociferously reject the idea of reform, but you would be taking you life in your hands to even suggest such a thing in Dar-al-Islam itself.
And CAIR and the SPLC considering the Clarion Project to be “anti-Muslim” just shows how deep in the tank for Islam they are.
mortimer says
ROBERT SPENCER has a clear understanding of the STAKES of ISLAMIC REFORM and the POSSIBLE METHODOLOGIES of reform in Islam.
He stated: “several points I have made many times before: that much of what is TOUTED as reform of Islam is really NOTHING OF THE KIND, as the central doctrines of Islam are left UNTOUCHED; and also that much of what is touted as reform of Islam is actually cynical deception”.
1) The CENTRAL DOCTRINES (jihad, hatred of kafirs, second-class status of women) are left UNTOUCHED.
2) DECEPTION is used to trick both Muslims and kafirs that a reform has been created while it is just IGNORING THOSE ODIOUS CENTRAL DOCTRINES.
The sad fact is that so-called REFORM of Islam is either 1) SELF-DELUSION or 2) intentional DECEPTION.
Having studied the matter myself, I am convinced that their is no mechanism in Islam for changing the CONSENSUS of 1111AD (the ‘Closing of the Gates of Ijtihad”).
mortimer says
ROBERT SPENCER has a clear understanding of the STAKES of ISLAMIC REFORM and the POSSIBLE METHODOLOGIES of reform in Islam.
He stated: “several points I have made many times before: that much of what is TOUTED as reform of Islam is really NOTHING OF THE KIND, as the central doctrines of Islam are left UNTOUCHED; and also that much of what is touted as reform of Islam is actually cynical deception”.
1) The CENTRAL DOCTRINES (jihad, hatred of kafirs, second-class status of women) are left UNTOUCHED.
2) DECEPTION is used to trick both Muslims and kafirs that a reform has been created while it is just IGNORING THOSE ODIOUS CENTRAL DOCTRINES.
The sad fact is that so-called REFORM of Islam is either 1) SELF-DELUSION or 2) intentional DECEPTION.
Having studied the matter myself, I am convinced that there is no mechanism in Islam for changing the CONSENSUS of 1111AD (the ‘Closing of the Gates of Ijtihad”).
gravenimage says
Good post, Mortimer.
And note: those few Muslims who have called for the reopening of the gates of Ijtihad are *not* for the most part reformers, but are those pious Muslims concerned that too much of the Ummah has accepted forms of “Bi’da” (innovation), and that this has weakened the original “purity” of Islam:
https://www.britannica.com/topic/ijtihad
“In the 19th and 20th centuries, reformist movements clamored for the reinstatement of ijtihād as a means of freeing Islam from harmful innovations (bidʿahs) accrued through the centuries and as a reform tool capable of adapting Islam to the requirements of life in a modern world.”
mortimer says
Whenever there is talk about ‘reform’ of Islam or ‘tolerance’ there is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. The whitewashed doctrines of Islam are still intolerant and unreformable.
They can be adapted or modified in APPLICATION according to the needs of the time, but THEY CANNOT BE REFORMED as that would be an admission that Allah’s words are TEMPORARY and NOT ETERNAL.
To reform what is ‘complete, perfect and eternal’ is BLASPHEMOUS.
Dov Berrol says
There is one word that seems to be left out of this whole discussion: Turkey. Why did Ataturk not attempt to create a progressive form of Islam in his country? Why did this supposed secular Muslim country not succeed? Why could not the progressive values of secular Christian Europe not be applied successfully in Muslim
Turkey?
The true test of a modern progressive formulation of an ideology like Islam would be in a place like Turkey, or in ultra-modern Malaysia or the UAE. The day I see blasphemy allowed in these countries, or houses of parliament filled with hijab-free women in these countries, or bacon burgers sold at McDonalds in these countries, or gay pride festivals in these countries, or civil marriage options in these countries, is the day we will be able to say that modern form of Islam is possible.
gravenimage says
Important points, Dov. Of course you are right–Attaturk did not try to reform Islam–he know it was essentially unreformable. Instead, under Kemalism he just sidelined it as much as possible.
And now under Erdogan those safeguards are all being dismantled.
Keys says
Dov, it seems to me there will always be some fanatic, like Ayatollah Komeini, lurking to return Islam to its basic texts which are “unreformable”, as others have said on JW.
The words of Allah can only be reformed by Allah, who can do whatever he wants. He is the abrogator and decider. But Mohammad is his final prophet and perfect human model. So no Islamic authority can be a new prophet.
Allah would have to “appear personally” to reform Islam, unless Allah decides to send another final prophet – the second of the final prophets. Maybe he could go for a final four.
Troybeam says
The Clarion Project: nothing more than a bad idea to help spread Islam in America by false narrative. Shut it down, if Clarion really wanted to rewrite Islam they would have started and not ho-hummed for years,
eduardo odraude says
A couple of videos of Geert Wilders over at real clear politics.com Here’s one
http://www.realclearworld.com/video/2017/03/15/final_dutch_election_debate_geert_wilders_makes_case_that_freedom_and_islam_can_not_coexist.html
Adrian says
my antennae went up a while back when Clarion tried to straddle the fence… i stopped reading them
More Ham Ed says
The fact that these clowns are so bothered by Robert Spencer means Robert is on to something.
“Muslim Reform is happening.”
However there are 1000 deadly ISLAMIC terror attacks for every “other” category worldwide.
30459 documented deadly islamic terror attacks since 9/11.
More Ham Ed says
If you’re a JW visitor here’s another great site:
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com
Westman says
The Clarion Project has validated Robert Spencer as an expert in Islamic Theology without, perhaps, realizing it. When they say, “We’re reformed and no longer like that”, they might as well say, “We were like that and our unreformed “brothers” are still in the old Quranic/Sunna ways that Spencer accurately describes”.
And then CAIR and the SPLC disowns the Clarion Project! It is so obvious that Islam has no equivalent to the Pope or Catholic church – no historically recognized central authority beyond Allah, some books, and some universities in Egypt and Iran. Islam, will, of course, someday peter out like the worship of Diana, or Zeus, though a quicker time schedule would be appreciated.
Islam is incapable of competing in the free market of ideas that frame the modern world. When its adherents finally realize it is limiting their lives to less than their potential, real reformation and immense-scale apostacy will occur. Right now there is too much fear. Someday it will be the adherents who are fearful.
The current Muslim unrest is a direct result of modern communications that illuminate the stark difference between what the Ummah has and has accomplished in contrast that accomplished by the West under freedom..
What we are seeing in jihad groups like ISIS and Islamic countries is the anger that accompanies the early stages of grief when confronted with the fact that “the best of peoples” , while devout to Allah, are falling far behind. The first inclination is to blame Jews and unbelievers – but that doesn’t change the facts.
So we see:
1. Denial that Islam limits the opportunity and achievements of Muslims.
2. Anger when all the evidence points to that truth. Groups like ISIS erupt to capture the former glory and there are insane riots over every possible perceived affront to Islam. The very fact of violent demonstrations proves that much of the Ummah is privately frightened that Islam may be a liability and needs the reassurance of others.
gravenimage says
Clarion Project tries to show that Islamic reform is possible, instead only shows how easy it is to be fooled
………………………………
This should surprise no one. As noted, much of this “reform” is anything but, and is just intended to lull the Infidels in to a false sense of security.
This is an excellent and important piece by Robert Spencer.
More:
Clarion advisory board member Dr. Zudhi Jasser has hit out of critics who claim that Muslim reform movements are bound to fail because they are not accepted within the Muslim community.
………………………………
But who can rationally deny that this is the case? If a significant number of Muslims do not accept reform, then it becomes purely theoretical.
Jasser is such an outlier that he was expelled from his Mosque and has been unable to find another one–note: not one that accepts all of his ideas, but just one that will allow him to attend.
Sadly–and alarmingly–his main purpose now appears to be convincing non-Muslims that reform of Islam is going just swimmingly. Unsurprisingly, he has an eager audience for this false message.
More:
But Spencer misses the point in three key ways:
Firstly, Spencer’s arguments belie the fact that Islam has already changed many times throughout the centuries. It has seen intellectual flourishing, such as in the Abbasid House of Wisdom…
………………………………
Unsurprisingly, the article this links to is itself misleading. One reading this might suppose that the House of Wisdom flourished for over four hundred years before being destroyed by the Mongols–but this was not the case.
Founded under Caliph Harun al-Rashid–likely under the patronage of the noble Barmakid family–it came to real prominence under his son, Caliph al-Mamun (813-833). It continued under the next two rulers, as well–but by the middle of the century in 847 al-Mutawakkil took power. He endorsed a more literal interpretation of the Qur’an and Hadith, was not interested in science and moved away from rationalism, seeing the spread of Greek philosophy as anti-Islamic. The House of Wisdom lost support and staggered on a shadow of its former self.
In other words, the House of Wisdom lasted as a center of learning not four hundred years, but a scant fourteen years after its first official backer died. And it is notable that al-Mutawakkil was far more orthodox than his predecessors–and it was that very piety that led him to abandon scholarly and scientific inquiry.
It is not that Caliph Harun al-Rashid and his son were Islamic reformers–it is that they were in some ways lax Muslims who allowed an appreciation of Infidel learning that their more pious successors would not.
Even today, lax Muslims are mistaken for reformers–but they do nothing to change Islam itself, or its interpretation by other Muslims. Instead, they just quietly fail to follow Islam themselves. This is *always* a weak stance, because more devout Muslims can–and do–easily dismiss them as being un-Islamic.
More:
This bespeaks a confusion about what reform of Islam actually is, or would be. Of course Islam, like all other religions and belief systems, has been expressed in different ways by its various adherents. But that is not the same thing as it undergoing an actual change of doctrine, such as, say, a rejection of the violent jihad imperative or the necessity to subjugate the “People of the Book” (i.e., Jews, Christians, and a few other groups) under the hegemony of Islamic law as dhimmis. There has never been such a rejection.
………………………………
Exactly.
More:
The Abbasid House of Wisdom, for example, was flourishing amidst Islamic oppression that will sound familiar to people who have been reading about the atrocities of the Islamic State. Raymond Ibrahim reports this about the Abbasid Caliph Harun al-Rashid: “In the West [he] is depicted as a colorful and fun-loving prankster in the Arabian Nights. Though renowned for his secular pursuits — including riotous living, strong drink and harems of concubines, to the point that a modern day female Kuwaiti activist referred to him as a model to justify the institution of sex-slavery — Harun al-Rashid was still pious enough ‘to force Christians to distinguish themselves by dress, to expel them from their positions, and to destroy their churches through the use of fatwas by the imams.’”
………………………………
*Very* important point. Caliph al-Rashid may have been a lax Muslim when it came to his indulging his interest in learning, including non-Islamic learning (although even this may have been more the interests of the Barmakid nobles, in any case)–but he also oppressed Christians, led armies of conquest against the Byzantines, took tribute–often in the form of slaves–and kept huge numbers of sex slaves in his Harem. He also probably had his brother assassinated in order to take power in the first place. All of this is perfectly in line with Islam.
More:
Secondly, Spencer does not acknowledge the damage done by rejecting Muslims like Jasser. When Muslims like Jasser are not seen as authentic by non-Muslims, it makes it that much harder for him to pitch to Muslims that his path will lead to acceptance.
………………………………
What *absolute crap*. Orthodox Muslims are not rejecting “reformers” like Jasser because some Infidels are skeptical; they are rejecting him because they believe that reform of Islam is Haram. Pious Muslims don’t care whether Infidels consider someone “authentic” or not.
Besides, most Infidels, far from rejecting Jasser, are fawning all over him, because the idea of the violent Islam being reformed into something even vaguely civilized is so seductive. He is a frequent guest on cable news shows.
But this fits in with the idea that if we are critical of any claim of “moderation” in Islam–and that it is our fault if this does not, somehow, come about.
More:
Fear is an incredibly powerful factor in politics. If Muslim communities fear they will be excluded no matter what, that non-Muslims have no interest in protecting them or their rights and are only interested in them as opponents of jihad, they have little incentive to speak out.
………………………………
Now *that* is interesting phrasing–condemning our only being interested in Muslims as “opponents of Jihad”–as though we should not be allowed to distinguish those who *want to murder us*.
Note, also, the grotesque projection–that if we are concerned with Muslims wanting to murder us, that this means that we are not protecting Muslims.
And if Muslims truly opposed Jihad, why wouldn’t they speak out in any case, as a matter of principle? Why would they need “incentives” from non-Muslims?
More:
Thirdly, Spencer does not recognize that these things take a long time.
Muslim Reform is happening. Just slower and more quietly than Robert Spencer would like.
………………………………
Except that *it’s not*. In fact, Islam is undergoing a revival right now–and that Islam is not any less savage than it was 1400 years ago, as horrors like the Islamic State prove.
More:
Great. How slow is too slow? Is there a timetable? How long do we have to wait? How many people have to get killed by jihadists before we realize that waiting for this reform to happen is pointless?
………………………………
And *that* is the key question. Even if genuine reform of Islam was happening–which does not appear to be the case at all–does that mean we have to sit back and allow Muslims to slaughter us until that reform takes sufficient hold, perhaps for centuries? And that any expressed concern on our part that reform is not happening, or not happening quickly enough, will lead Muslims to support Jihad because they don’t think they are getting enough support in opposing it–how is that not a problem for us and our societies?
But I doubt that Elliot Friedland and the The Clarion Project want to think about any such questions…
DFD says
Dear Graven,
You asked a while ago on another thread for the meaning of “GEZ”, sorry, I didn’t answer earlier.
It is a mandatory “fee” upon households in Germany to be paid to the radio and television media, i.e., broadcasters. No exception, if you use the service or not means nothing. It’s something that goes back to 1923, Currently approx 47 million households have to pay.
The recipients are:
der Bayerische Rundfunk (BR),
der Hessische Rundfunk (HR),
der Mitteldeutsche Rundfunk (MDR),
der Norddeutsche Rundfunk (NDR),
Radio Bremen (RB),
der Rundfunk Berlin-Brandenburg (RBB),
der Saarländische Rundfunk (SR),
der Südwestrundfunk (SWR),
der Westdeutsche Rundfunk (WDR),
Deutschlandradio (DLR) und
das Zweite Deutsche Fernsehen (ZDF).
Their annual take: ~8to 8.5 billion Euros a year! A $ and a € are about equal… On top of that those companies also earn monies from advertising…
Have a wild guess about their independence, they are all on gov lines.
Please let me know if you saw that, I don’t want to re-transmit that and look intrusive to others.
Best, DFD
gravenimage says
Thank you for the information, DFD–I appreciate it.
This is even more draconian than in the UK with the BBC, where you at least have to watch *some* TV–though not necessarily the BBC itself–to be charged.
Nothing quite like this in the US–except we do have some “public broadcast stations” (PBS) that receive government grants from tax monies. But mostly these stations are kept afloat by viewer donations, which is fine. As you might imagine, the average PBS station is pretty hard-left–although they do sometimes also have some good arts programming along with the propaganda.
And most cable and satellite TV companies offer packages where you have to subsidize some stations that you might not watch or like–but at least here this is voluntary.
Angemon says
Well, are they accepted by the muslim community? If they can’t even get traction in the more open-minded Western world, how can they possibly pass as legitimate elsewhere?
gravenimage says
Here’s more on Zuhdi Jasser, from Debbie Schlussel:
http://www.debbieschlussel.com/5181/the-sad-truth-about-dr-m-zuhdi-jasser-star-narrator-producer-of-the-third-jihad/
Isabellathecrusader says
Zuhdi, babe your supremacism is showing.
Isabellathecrusader says
Hi Robert,
I posted this over on Pamela’s site but wanted to include it here:
When I first met Jim Lafferty back about ten years ago it was at a protest against the Islamic Saudi Academy just outside of Washington, D.C. in Alexandria, VA. I carried a sign that said “Islam is not an American Family Value”. I got flipped off by an irate college aged Muslima wearing a hijab. Whatever. But that evening on the ride home I heard Austin Hill on WMAL talking about my sign so I called in and had a chat with him on air. He asked me to stay on the phone and we talked during the break. He wanted me to watch some videos of interviews he’d done with Zuhdi Jasser and tell him what I thought. I told him I would and sent him an email about them after I watched them. I told Austin that I had a problem with Zuhdi and I didn’t trust him because I thought he had lied. In one of the videos Zuhdi told Austin that he read the Koran every day and that there were no violent passages in it. I explained to Austin how erroneous that was and gave him some passages that proved that just wasn’t true. Austin never even bothered to answer me and our communications ceased that day. I thought that was kind of low-life of Austin but realized he was one of the “can’t-say-anything-bad-about-Islam” types and didn’t really want to hear my opinion about Zuhdi. (Why the heck did he ask me then?)
So I was right after all.
awake says
Mohammed Zuhdi Jasser need to adress Ijtihad, and the Islamic world’s closing towards his own private Idaho on what Islam actually prescribes for the kuffar.
The short of it. He has proven himself to be a clever Muslim liar.
As always, Islam is indefensible, even to the likes of Jasser, who had that moderate reformist mask so tightly glued to his beardless face for far, far too long, now clearly exposed, the true face of Muslim ugliness as a worshipper of a false god, and a murderous, pedophile “prophet”.
Daniel E Jordan says
To quote Paddy Bauler “Chicago ain’t ready for reform” neither is Islam ready for reform let’s stop this charade and deal with the reality these phony reformers are employed to throw sand in our eyes so we don’t see the blade against our throats they are the original globalist and one world is the goal of Islam wake up they are inside the gates
avi15 says
To be fair on Clarion, this is a very difficult and complex topic. Put it this way: if Islam can’t be reformed, then we are looking at a combination of WWIII and the Hundred Years’ War.
Jeanette says
Which means it isn’t complicated.
We either allow Muslims to poison the world, or we don’t.
The first step is to research what qualifies an organization as a cult, rather than as a religion.
lolwut? says
Clarion is a Trojan horse project. I’ve been saying it for years.
People like Raheel Raza and Tarek Fatah are nothing more the wolves in sheeps clothing
who’s job is to present a “Friendly face” of Islam playing the good cop/bad cop game
with “Moderates” and Jihadists.
They keep our eyes focused on the Jihadists while the “Moderates” pop out mass amounts of
babies and gain political power.
The Quran itself instructs Muslims on how to behave when they are in the weaker position.
Brennan Kingsland says
Whether Dr. Jasser is right that reform is possible in Islam or not…the fact remains that the oppression sought by the current style and doctrines of Islam will not wait for the 200 to 300 years (or more) that Dr. Jasser refers to in this article. Total domination of the West. including the USA, is estimated by Islamists to be complete by 2050.
It is unreasonable to expect Westerners to sit idly by, waiting for the highly unlikely idea of reform in Islam, while devout Muslims continue their assault on our countries, our lifestyles, our cultures, our religions, and our very lives.
If Dr Jasser is truly sincere in wanting to see Islam reformed and modernized (something I am now skeptical about after his attacks on Americans informed about the true doctrines of current Islam [geller, et al]), then why has he not been able to garner support from the very people who could help to implement those changes…Muslims themselves?
Because Muslims DO NOT WANT to see Islam reformed or modernized. Why should they? The current system has been working toward total Islamic domination for 1400 years so far…and even more importantly, their pseudo religion tells them they are vastly superior to everyone else in the world. In fact, everyone who does not accept Islam and Allah as they do is simply dirt beneath their feet, and worthy of subjugation and/or death. Why would they want to change their illusion of superiority?
To quote Dr. Jasser, “Saudi women now have the right to vote in municipal elections. Prince Alwaleed said they should be permitted to drive. Baby steps yes. But steps nonetheless.”
“Baby steps” in a country that continues to allow slavery and continues with numerous executions DAILY of persons who don’t abide STRICTLY to the sharia law that Dr. Jasser tries to downplay.
Muslim reform could conceivably take many years. In the meantime, the entire world can collapse under the weight of worldwide Islamic domination, subjecting every non-Muslim (kafir) to forced conversion or death.
I have no desire to wear a hijab, or be subjected to legal rape, beatings,or any other of the myriad degradation forced on women under sharia. And I certainly don’t want it for my progeny. Islam is currently a cult of death that will continue to spread it’s malicious web of death and destruction if left unchecked.
Even if Dr. Jasser IS sincere, that’s not a risk any correct-thinking person would wish to take.
Jeanette says
Muslims either follow the commands of the Koran, or they don’t.
If the former, then they are dangerous to non-Muslims.
If the latter, then they are no longer Muslims.
solange silverman says
Anything is possible. However, reforming Islam is a long road to hoe and would take at least another thousand years. By that time, I am sure the world will be a very different place, unless Islam is at least kept at bay. An ideology is a very hard thing to change, especially when that change is attempted under the threats of violence. I just hope that, when the E.T.’s finally make themselves openly known that they do not come here to find a planet full of women in sheets.
eduardo odraude says
I’m not sure anything is possible. I do think there is an extremely remote possibility that Islam could reform. But to reform, the change would have to be so profound that calling it reform would not really be accurate. Really it would mean abandoning the religion. You don’t reform apartheid, Nazism, Stalinism, or Islam. You you contain them, you undermine them, you abandon them, and if possible you destroy them.
eduardo odraude says
Gravenimage, you wrote
What *absolute crap*. Orthodox Muslims are not rejecting “reformers” like Jasser because some Infidels are skeptical; they are rejecting him because they believe that reform of Islam is Haram.
Ultimately, I think what holds Islam together is not conviction, but fear. If the minority of reformers were not generally shunned and killed, there would be a continual expression of public reform and apostate voices in places like Saudi Arabia. Those voices would create a constant leakage from Islam, would collapse as quickly as communism finally did when the Berlin Wall fell. It follows that under the surface, what maintains Islam is not conviction, not really, but fear that has broken the independence of Muslim minds, for the most part.
To me, there are two kinds of political correctness. One kind is based on compassion and politeness. The other kind is based on fear. The first kind is mostly good. The second is evil. Fear-based political correctness if fundamentally what drives the media deception about Islam. Even if reporters are worried about being branded racist, ultimately that would break down if it were not for the fact that public personalities are, understandably, terrified of saying the “wrong” thing and becoming a target of Islamic violence. If not for that, more reporters would simply throw off the accusation of racism as BS. And with more reporters doing that, the nonsense about Islam would mostly collapse. Because the objection to Islam really has nothing to do with racism, as you of course are aware. What’s going with Islam is mostly about using terror to break people’s spirit, their capacity to tell themselves and each other the truth about what is terrorizing and seeking to dominate them.
Daniel E Jordan says
It has become glaring apparent that the oil crisis of the 1980s allowed the Muslim world to buy up the major western media outlets .Thus we now have an entire MSM. kowtowing to their Muslim owners .What else could explain the devotion to a group that is completely at odds with western values I agree fear is a factor but rather than fear of physical harm I suspect it is fear of financial harm .They are terrified of losing all their toys and perks.They are willing to turn a blind eye to evil in exchange for their Status Quo .The media has become the “Good Germans”