“If this book [Quran] came from God and it’s divine and perfect, then the Jihadis are justified,” states Islam reformer Shireen Qudosi in The Challenge of Modernizing Islam: Reformers Speak Out and the Obstacles They Face. Her sober conclusion amidst an illuminating collection of interviews with her like-minded colleagues in Christine Douglass-Williams’ indispensable recent book indicates the daunting obstacles facing any Islamic doctrinal reform.
Analogous to the recent thinking of the Muslim apostate Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Douglass-Williams’ interviewees distinguish between Islam and Islamism. For Salim Mansur, Islam is a “personal faith, just as to Christians” while Zuhdi Jasser, a “Jeffersonian type of Muslim” who believes “society should be run by reason,” equates Islamism as “interchangeable with the term ‘political Islam.’” Islamists, elaborates Islam scholar Daniel Pipes in a book forward, are “advocates of applying Islamic law in its entirety and severity as a means to regain the medieval glory of Islam.”
Douglass-Williams herself concedes that “normative Islam is Islamism” and notes the standard objection to any Islam/Islamism dichotomy. “It is often argued that there is no distinction between the words ‘Islamism’ and ‘Islam,’ because Islam is inherently political” as a comprehensive, even totalitarian, belief system encompassing both piety and politics. As Pipes stated to her, an “aggressive Jihadi sentiment, an Islamic supremacist ambition” forms the “hallmark of Muslim life over 1,400 years,” while the Egyptian-American Tawfik Hamid notes that “reformists were killed throughout history.”
Normative Islam’s history is no accident, as Robert Spencer in his own forward reveals in Quran 5:3 a seemingly insurmountable hurdle for Douglass-Williams et al. “Traditional and mainstream Islamic theology holds that Islam is perfect, bestowed from above by the supreme being, and hence not only is reform unnecessary, it is heresy that makes the reformer worthy of death.” As Pipes notes, within and without Islam, reformers “are threatened, marginalized, and dismissed as frauds,” like Mansur in Canada; “I cannot even go to mosque. The leaders of the mosques in my own city have publicly declared me an apostate.”
Ahmed Subhy Mansour, now living in the United States after imprisonment in Egypt, offers a striking contrast between himself and Cairo’s Al Azhar University, where he was once a professor before his dismissal. Sunni Islam’s “leading seminary for more than one billion Muslims…Al-Azhar is like the Vatican for the Catholics,” but “is a stagnant bog of ignorance and traditional ideas that belong to the Dark Ages.” Alternatively, Mansour’s “International Quranic Center, in spite of its role in reforming Muslims overseas, is just one room in my house in Virginia. Our powerful website was destroyed several times by the fanatics.”
Accordingly, Spencer notes that “tension between high hopes and harsh realities runs through these interviews” in Douglass-Williams’ book. Indeed, “not every attentive and informed reader will come away from these pages convinced that every person here interviewed is being in every instance entirely forthright.” Such concerns become evident precisely because the book interviews are “unique in their probing honesty.”
Douglass-Williams’ honesty is part of a critical inquiry into Islam that strives to relativize dangerous Islamic canons on the basis of human reason. “Thinking has to be above and superior to the text to a reformer,” states Hamid. Influenced by Robert Reilly’s study of reason and faith in Islam, Qudosi similarly concludes that “we need to look at natural law and man’s law to understand what God wants for us.”
Jasser seeks Islamic reform “without divorcing Muslims from scripture and without divorcing yourself from the example of the prophet Muhammad,” but various Quran passages make this project difficult. Qudosi first reading of Allah’s supposedly perfect Quran made her “extremely depressed,” while Jasser’s reinterpretation of Quran 4:34, cited throughout Islamic history to justify wife beating, remains novel. Even his reform hermeneutics leave a “passage that is difficult for me,” namely Quran 5:38’s injunction to amputate thieves’ hands, “because that is pretty clear. I prefer to see it as a metaphor, because I can’t believe God can say that.”
Raheel Raza, like Jasser, interprets the Quran in light of her implicit rejection of the orthodox Islamic understanding of Allah as an inscrutable will:
Koran reformists are not changing the words of the Koran, because Muslims believe it is the word of God. They are instead giving options of other ways it could be translated and interpreted to be more compassionate, humane, and merciful. If you understand the persona of God to have these attributes, then you will translate his words the same way.
Douglass-Williams goes beyond reinterpretation of Islamic sacred texts and examines the “strong case against the Muslim holy book’s infallibility” as part of the Quran’s “desanctification.” Likewise Hamid and Mansour’s Koranic Movement challenges the authenticity of the hadith, canonical narratives that supposedly relate the seventh-century life of Islam’s prophet Muhammad. Because the hadith emerged centuries after his life, Douglas-Williams writes, the “Koranic movement holds that the Hadith is an unreliable source, and that the Koran is comprehensive and sufficient in itself.”
Rejection of the hadith is central for Hamid’s understanding of oft-noted controversies over Islamic teachings that Muhammad consummated a child marriage with his nine-year old bride Aisha. “Muhammad has nothing to do with this story, because it is not mentioned in the Koran,” Hamid states, although some observers have noted that Quran 65:4 implies consummation of prepubescent child marriage. “If I believed it, I would have never followed this faith. You can’t follow someone who is described in this way of having sex with a nine-year-old child and asking the world to become followers, and see him as a role model.”
“You cannot reform a faith by saying its founder was an immoral person,” Jasser similarly argues and offers his own understanding of Muhammad and Aisha:
It is definitely part of history that he was married to Aisha when she was nine. Many Muslims believe that marriage was not consummated for many years after that, and we could debate that it was 15, 18, but I just do not believe it was consummated at the age of nine. Am I deluded? All I can tell you is that is what I was taught.
By contrast, Qanta Ahmed examines the Aisha controversy in a cultural context; for seventh-century Arabia, “it’s conceivable that marrying Aisha was appropriate for that era.” Likewise Muhammad’s polygamy “was for tribal and political reasons as a means to unite various tribes in Arabia.” As Raza states, a “reformed Muslim essentially understands that there are issues and practices in the glory days of Islam that are not suitable for this time and place.”
Such views of Muhammad and other Muslim founding fathers as historically-limited justify Muslim reformer rejection of the Islamic doctrine of Muhammad as a “good example” of conduct. Rather than seeing a “perfect man” whose role model should eternally guide all people, Mansour declares that the “prophet Muhammad was not infallible.” “Islam sees Muhammad as infallible, but I don’t,” agrees Qudosi.
Muhammad’s fallibility sounds more credible than some of the questionable claims by Douglas-Williams’ interviewees such as Mansur, who asserts that “Muhammad fought because he was attacked.” Jalal Zuberi similarly argues that Muhammad “never took any personal insult to those people who opposed him,” notwithstanding various Islamic accounts of individuals assassinated on his orders. Zuberi also claims that “although the verses of the Koran contain the punishing of women, Muhammad himself never raised his hand,” despite a reputedly sound hadith recounting his striking of Aisha.
Douglass-Williams’ book demonstrates the struggle of various Muslims to redeem their personal piety amidst unconscionable faith-based political doctrines. As Raza states, the “history of Islam is based on conquests and violence, but there is the spiritual message also which is important to me.” Douglass-Williams similarly references Islamic civilization’s past “Golden Age” achievements and optimistically claims that the “primitive and rigid nature of Islamist theology is a perversion of an ancient pluralistic faith.”
Raza’s theological selectivity reflects Douglass-Williams’ questionable dogma: “In all faiths, humans are the instruments of religious practice and can choose what they accept and what they reject regarding the letter of their faith.” Her oft-made analogy that “Islam needs to have its own reformation similar to the Catholic Reformation” ignores that reason rejects relativism among Catholics such as Reilly and Spencer within a Church that is flawed like all human institutions. The Catholic Church’s papal infallibility doctrine corresponds to the belief, famously advocated by Pope Benedict XVI’s 2006 Regensburg address, that an ordered God’s all-encompassing truth regulates both body and soul.
Such objectivity includes the Biblical doctrine that all of humanity is made in the image of a loving God, with universal spiritual and material needs. Despite the “current Islamist hegemony,” Pipes writes with realistic optimism, Islamists “know their movement is doomed because Muslims will opt for the benefits of modern life.” To what extent Muslims can find such modernity within Islam remains an open question illuminatingly posed by Douglass-Williams.
Frank Anderson says
With great appreciation for the various thoughts argued, this sounds like a written version of a dog chasing its tail. The foundation of Islam is the belief that it is perfect, unchangeable, un-reformable word of a god, which happens to require everything basically the opposite of the God of Christians and Jews directs. Reforming Islam is much akin to reforming Nazism and Communism to become tolerant, benign and caring of life and liberty. It’s not going to happen, not only in our lifetime, but ever. As long as there is Islam, there will be murder, slavery, oppression and evil. There is no way to talk (deprogram) 1.6 BILLION believers into reform. The sooner reality is faced and accepted, the better time and effort can be spent to really improve the prospects for the future.
Jessica Greenman says
Perfectly put. There is also the notable fact that there are just so many unpleasant Muslims around, raping children, beating up women, hating infidels, blaming Jews for everything, attacking infidels and murdering them, and at the same time acting as if they’re the victims who deserve special treatment because the world’s not arranged the way Allah ordained it. That is the psychology of Islam. It is a morally obscene psychology. Let me not end here. The very word ‘infidel’ shows us the meaning of Islam. Islam is whole and perfect and all over the world, already. Anyone who isn’t a Muslim has most foully insulted Aloah by turning his face from God. No matter whether such a person has never heard of Islam, he is still in a condition of infidelity, a transgressor and a traitor, someone who has betrayed God, hence the term kuffir which is ‘below the level of a beast’. But from this notion, the entire religion and its noxious self-justification proceeds. Once all that is not Allah is evil, then it becomes senseless to feel pity or compassion or love or even understand notions of equality. The treatment of women again proceeds from this: they must be subjugated, raped, beaten, reviled because they in breach of Allah’s understanding of fidelity: this is why they must be genitally mutilated and subdued: their life force and will is antithetical to God. The religion in every scruple is obscene. Until it is eradicated evil will always flourish on this earth, and because there seems such a pro-Islam agenda at present, it may take over and doom human life for many thousands of years.
Jen says
Frank, that was excellent! It’s so infuriating when people try to equate reforming islam with the Reformation of the Church. People don’t get it. The Christian church was reformed because people strayed away from the Bible and corrupted the Faith over the years. Christ was/is perfect.
Islam is itself moral corruption. Can Not Be Reformed. The prophet was a war lord, murderer, pedophile, adulterer, liar, thief and instructed his followers to be the same. The quaran instructs muslims to be the opposite to what we value as Jews and Christians. Not compatible now or ever.
Frank Anderson says
Thank you.
gravenimage says
Yes–good stuff from Frank and Jen.
The problem is that Islam *has* been reformed, in the sense of its returning to its roots in the Qur’an and the model of the “Prophet”. We are seeing the diseased fruits of that “reform” all around us.
Frank Anderson says
GI, Thank you.
gravenimage says
🙂
Daniel Triplett says
Exactly Frank.
mortimer says
I agree that ‘Islamism’ is a useful term in the discussion of POLITICAL Islam which is the subject of 51% of the PRIMARY Islamic source texts: Sira, hadiths and Koran.
Father Henri Boulad explained ‘Islamism’ perfectly already in 1996:
Islamism is not a caricature, nor a counterfeit, nor a heresy, nor a fringe or atypical phenomenon versus classical, orthodox, Sunnite Islam.
To the contrary, I think Islamism is naked Islam, Islam without a mask and without paint, Islam perfectly consistent and true to itself, an Islam that has the courage and lucidity to go all the way to its ultimate conclusions and final implications.
Islamism is Islam in all its logic and in all its rigour. Islamism is present in Islam as the chick is present in the egg, as the fruit is present in the flower and as the tree is present in the seed.
But what is Islamism?
Islamism is political Islam, the bearer of a project for a model society and whose aim is to establish a theocratic state based on Sharia, the only legitimate law—since it is divine—since it was revealed and enshrined in the Koran and Sunna—it’s a law that applies to everything.
Here is an all-inclusive and all-encompassing project, one that is total, totalizing and totalitarian.”
mortimer says
Muslim reformists must create and construct such elaborate and fanciful explanations for what is clearly 7th-century, illiterate nonsense, that there is practically nothing sensible left in the original, primary texts of Islam.
Muslim reformists airbrush and photoshop Mohammed so much that he is unrecognizable from the original portraits of him found in the primary source texts.
mortimer says
The issue of polygamy is simple: powerful men took young girls as HOSTAGES from other powerful tribes and then ‘married’ them, thus uniting the warring factions in an alliance and simultaneously letting the other tribe know that their PRECIOUS CHILD CAN BE MURDERED if they other side breaks the alliance.
Polygamy was a form of HOSTAGE TAKING.
CogitoErgoSum says
It seems to me that anyone wishing to reform Islam will have to subscribe to the Humpty-Dumpty Theory of Language. See the link below for the relevant passage from Lewis Carrol’s “Through the Looking Glass.”
https://www.fecundity.com/pmagnus/humpty.html
Buraq says
The Enlightenment ended Christianity’s dominance in Western societies. Given Islam’s violent resistance to change, *individual enlightenment* is the only way forward. Once a tipping point is reached, then the whole facade will crumble.
Perseverance by those who speak the truth about Islam is, I’m afraid, the only game in town. These clowns who believe that Al Qur’an is the literal Word of Allah must be faced down every day.
gravenimage says
Buraq, great to see you posting again.
Wellington says
Challenges and Obstacles in reforming Islam: 1) Mohammed, 2) the Koran, 3) the Sunnah, 4) the decided tendency of Islam to attract the detritus of the human race, 5) the fact that there is NOTHING that is good in Islam which can’t be found elsewhere and yet there is much rot in Islam that is deuce difficult to find anywhere else, 6) no fun in Islam.
P.S. This is just a starter list.
Debi Brand says
Indeed, Wellington and others.
In short: “Challenges and Obstacles in reforming Islam”? In a word, Islam.
gravenimage says
Spot on, Wellington and Debi.
Debi Brand says
Indeed.
gravenimage says
🙂
Jackson03 says
Those folks who waste time and intellect arguing for “reform” or “modernization” of Islam are simply fooling themselves and, deliberately or otherwise, fooling those who bother to seriously listen to them. “Reforming” something so corrupt and illogical as Islam can only happen through recognition of the impossibility of doing so and eliminating the idiotic source.
Heavy sigh.
Jayell says
These people want to have their cake and eat it. Muslims justify their faith and all the supremacist nonsense that goes with it by claiming that it represents the final and purist manifestation of the Word of God (Allah) which may not be altered by the hand of man. Then, when it looks like their ideology is descending into irredeemable disrepute, thus robbing them of their supremacist ambitions, they offer every spurious argument to try and redeem the situation by altering the unalterable. Quite why they do not appreciate that this destroys every last shred of intellectual/moral integrity that they may ever have claimed, defeats me,. unless their self-awareness and social awareness is so totally lacking that they are utterly impervious to everything and everybody apart from themselves.
marina says
These reformists should be better off by becoming apostates. As long as muzzies believe that Koran is the direct word of Allah and Mo was the ideal man Islam cannot be reformed.
Logic-logic says
100% correct.
Jack Diamond says
“What today’s so called Islamic reformers are proposing is not reformation, but transformation of Islam…these new reformer wannabes don’t want to go to the origin of Islam. They want to eschew a part of the Quran and the entire Sharia and invent a different religion, still calling it Islam.
Muslims are not free to choose. They should obey Allah and His Messenger. “And it behoves not a believing man and a believing woman that they should have any choice in their matter when Allah and His Messenger have decided a matter; and whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger, he surely strays off a manifest straying.” (Q. 33:36)
It is not up to Muslims to decide what is good for them. This decision is already made for them and all they have to do is to obey, even when they don’t like it. “Fighting is ordained for you, even though it be hateful to you; but it may well be that you hate a thing the while it is good for you, and it may well be that you love a thing the while it is bad for you: and God knows, whereas you do not know.”(Q. 2:216)
Islam can be distilled in its name: ‘Submission.’ Allah knows best. Therefore man must accept his command, blindly and unwaveringly.
The so called reformers of Islam are misguided at best and deceptive at worst. Their efforts should not be welcomed. Whatever their intention, whether genuine or disingenuous, they are pulling wool over the eyes of non-Muslims and as {a} result giving legitimacy to a very dangerous creed.
“Muslims can be classified in three categories, the good, the bad and the ugly.
The good Muslims are those who follow the Quran and the examples set by Muhammad and become terrorists.
The bad Muslims are those wishy-washy Muslims who don’t practice Islam completely, don’t read the Quran, don’t pray and rarely, if ever, go to mosque. Their knowledge of Islam is deficient even though their faith may not be necessarily weak. However, because of their lack of understanding of Islam they don’t harbor ill feelings towards non-Muslims, although they are often suspicious of them. They strive to improve their lives and live like others.
Many of these bad Muslims will admit that they are not good Muslims and hope that eventually they will summon enough faith to become good Muslims. These are the majority.
The ugly Muslims are those who know the truth about Islam but lie about it. They try their best to portray Islam in a good light. They even agree with you that the good Muslims are bad, and claim that Islam has been hijacked by the good Muslims.
By sugarcoating Islam you cannot change its nature.
Reforming Islam is impossible. It is either a dilution or a ruse. Jihad is based on two pillars, war and deception. I don’t want anyone to be fooled by the soothing promises of Muslim reformers. Moderate Islam does not exist. It’s a myth.
I do not trust Muslims who are against Sharia. I do not understand them. What they say does not add up. I don’t know what they are up to. I do not trust people who say, I am a follower of Muhammad, but I do not follow Muhammad. There is something fishy, something dishonest and hypocritical about their claim.
If you are a Muslim, be a Muslim. I don’t agree with you but at least I know where you stand and where I should stand to be safe from you. But if you are a Muslim and against Islam and the Sharia, I don’t trust you. You are either a fool or a crook. “You are neither hot nor cold. I will spit you out.”
The only serious reformer of Islam was Baha’u’llah. He realized Islam cannot be reformed. So he founded a new religion and announced that he was vested with authority from God to annul all His previous mandates in the Quran… of course Baha’u’llah was put in a dungeon and spent the rest of his life in exile. Many of his followers were executed…but again, Baha’i Faith is not Islam. It’s entirely a different religion.
You cannot reform Islam and you cannot transform it. All you can and should do, is dump it. Please, let us stop this charade. Either be a Muslim and do as Muhammad said or leave Islam and don’t become a shield for the terrorists. Don’t muddy the waters. Don’t mix among the enemy and pose as a friend. This is the same tactic that Palestinians use in war. They mix among civilians and innocent children to make it difficult for their enemy to target them. You are causing confusion. You provide a protective shield for the enemy. I am not writing this for you. I know you are not going to change. You are a deceiver. I am writing this for the non-Muslims so they do not fall into your trap and don’t provide for you free podium to deceive them.
Islam cannot be reformed. They tried it in every imaginable way. The Mu’tazelis tired it, the Sufis tried it, hundreds of old and new schools tried it and they all failed. If you cannot stomach the Sharia, why do you want to keep Islam at all? Islam belongs to the toilet of history. Dump it and flush. Get rid of it and don’t fool yourself with this nonsense. Accept the truth. Yes truth matters. Islam is a lie. Muhammad was a mentally sick conman. Get over with it and stop this ridiculous farce of reformation.”
—Ali Sina “The Illusion of Reforming Islam”
Ann says
Wow, great comment! I put up the one below yours a few minutes ago and am now reading the other comments. I said just about exactly the same as you said. So it goes without saying that I completely agree with you!
Jack Diamond says
The reformist argument lately seems to have abandoned reforming theology and gone to history, historical examples of Islam more or less behaving itself to show it can be done. Of course, the Muslim World was, until recent decades, not a threat to civilization, not for hundreds of years. It had been made to feel itself subdued by being weak, divided, dominated by Western powers, resigned to the condition by Inshallah fatalism, or “transformed” by syncretism into watered-down Islamic “traditions” that were once prevalent but are disappearing in the information age (and jihad age) faster than you can say “Beirut, Paris of the Middle East” or “Kashmir, land of heaven.”
John Quincy Adams put the matter succinctly a long time ago, for anyone who thinks people today are smarter than their forebears:
“The precept of the koran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that Mahomet is the prophet of God. The vanquished may purchase their lives, by the payment of tribute; the victorious may be appeased by a false and delusive promise of peace; and the faithful follower of the prophet, may submit to the imperious necessities of defeat: but the command to propagate the Moslem creed by the sword is always obligatory, when it can be made effective. The commands of the prophet may be performed alike, by fraud, or by force.”
Submitting to the imperious necessities of defeat is my idea of reforming Islam. It’s one reform that has been shown to work.
patriotliz says
Dr. Zuhdi Jasser blocked me on his twitter account because I kept challenging him that Islam can’t be reformed.
Dr. Bill Warner does a nice job of explaining why Islam can’t be reformed:
https://youtu.be/H6kWrI0V0LQ
gravenimage says
I’m not surprised about Jasser, patriotliz. He may possibly be the most sincere of the “reformers”, yet his main concern is presenting the possibility of a reformed Islam *to Infidels*, rather than working to reform Islam itself.
So this winds up essentially being another form of whitewashing Islam for the Kufar–whether this is their full intent or not.
Keys says
graven – Thank you for that insight on Dr. Jasser.
What his true intent is, who knows, but his mission is a dead end. I have an intuition that more harm may come from it than good; mainly because it is an illusion.
He is not working to reform Islam, because there is no way that it can be done, so he must work to believe the possibility that it can be reformed to rid it of it’s evil. As others have said so much more eloquently, it is best to abandon Islam. That may be psychologically almost impossible for him.
His motive, probably unconscious, may be to preserve and better his roots as a survival and loyalty instinct.
gravenimage says
Agreed, Keys.
And most of the other Muslim “reformers” are obviously more interested in whitewashing Islam than in actually making it more peaceful and civilized.
gravenimage says
Good comments, Jack.
But I have to say that even the Baha’i, although they are peaceful themselves, feel compelled to whitewash Islam and the “Prophet”. There was a Baha’i here for a long time–worldhistory1919–who would tie himself into knots over how the hideous actions of the “Prophet” and his companions were somehow non-violent and justified, and became enraged whenever challenged.
Ann says
I’m reading this book now, but I’m disappointed. I’ve read several interviews, and the Muslims interviewed seem to hold unrealistic hopes and don’t seem to be familiar with the problematic aspects of the Prophet’s life. They hope that Muslims will join together to decide which texts to obey and which to ignore, and decide on new interpretations of the original texts. One said how admirable the Prophet’s life was, with much to emulate and learn from.
I don’t see how that’s going to work. If you believe that the Qur’an was sent verbatim from Allah, who are mortals to pick and choose what they want to obey? It really doesn’t matter if you find stoning or throwing from rooftops brutal and unfair, the important thing is that Allah has mandated it for a stable godfearing society governed by the sharia. One man interviewed said he simply finds it impossible to believe that the Prophet slept with a nine year-old girl and so he doesn’t believe it. I find it hard to believe that someone would order the murder of a woman asleep with her baby at her breast (or applaud it once it was done), or of an old, blind man, or light a fire on the chest of a Jewish prisoner hoping to learn of the location of his riches. Or behead eight hundred Jewish men and boys who were completely innocent, except of the crime of being Jewish. I find it hard to believe, but there it is. It may be as Mr. Spencer has written that Mohammed didn’t really ever exist at all. And then I don’t have to believe the bloody, brutal stories about him. But I don’t think you can pick and choose: he married his much older woman employer and had a great marriage with her. OK, but he is also said to have raped a woman right after he had killed her father and brother, and then married her by force. By what logic do I get to choose which accounts I want to believe and which not? Some of the Muslims interviewed said that modern Muslims need to contextualize the events, and read them as being appropriate for the seventh century, but not appropriate today. But the Prophet left specific, brutal instructions about not leaving a single Jew in Saudi Arabia on his deathbed, and the imperative to kill as many as necessary to force the submission of the entire world to Islam. How can you set a time limit on the imperative to conquer by force? So Mohammed had a soft spot for cats. Hitler loved dogs. I just don’t see how a Muslim who respects and reveres Allah’s word can alter it to the degree necessary to make it an acceptable creed for the kinder, gentler western world. It makes sense the way it is: Allah is the all-powerful deity who demands obedience and subservience, and it’s very important to him that everyone in the world accept the validity of his word expressed in the Qur’an and hadith, and must be forced to submit if we don’t do it willingly. It’s cruel and barbaric, but I think the only sensible and compassionate thing to do is to give up Islam and become Christian. Or atheist if they can’t find it in their hearts to believe in the Christian God.
I’m interested in the idea of reforming Islam, but these reformers seem to have completely unrealistic and unsatisfactory ideas. I don’t think it can be reformed.
gravenimage says
+1
anke Leibrecht says
Islam is a mental illness, nothing more….
anke Leibrecht says
Everyone, who has studied the essence of Islam, will understand its goal.
Therefore it should be made illegal for Islam to function in any capacity in government and educational
institutions.In the same sense as e.g. the State of Utah had to resign from practicing
polygamy to earn statehood.
No power outside its mosques. No praying in street,no demands for extra prayer out time in working
places. No special rights, other than universally excepted human rights.
We are ruining our lives by handing over more and more right to this insane ideology.
stan lee says
They negotiate, they call “cease fires” with their need to revive their forces, then it starts once more, They make motions as if a reform is in process. It is a mirage! Still, it’s the same Islam that it has been, the Islam whose directives in the q’uran are consistent, the preaching from its mosques are consistent, and Muslims who believe it’s their turn for jihad set their respective courses to succeed at it, achieving martyrdom as reward which in Islam remains consistent.
Beware of Muslim falsehoods, they also are consistent, because it is the only course they know or care to know. They are that sure, after centuries of consistent obeying of their q’uran, that in order to be ideal Muslims in order to conquer, they have the right course for achievement Islam’s style….consistency.
thesailor says
Reform Islam? That would be like your doctor ‘reforming’ cancer.
It is not a huge stretch to see Islam as humanity’s cancer; and the usual outcome of uncontrolled cancer is the death of the patient. Islam, thanks to the gross, negligent stupidity of Western authorities, is no longer in ‘controlled remission’ in the Middle East, but raging rampant throughout the whole body, wildly multiplying as only cancerous cells can.
Islam’s voyage to destruction will not be stopped by a few well-meaning folk ‘shuffling the definitions around’, like deckchairs on the Titanic; and certainly not by ill-meaning folk pretending to. Humanity’s immune system – spiritual belief – has stopped Islam in the past, but it has now been fatally weakened by materialistic, nihilistic Liberalism. If no-one believes in anything, no-one will fight for anything.
The great irony for those smug Liberal Lefties in the rapidly disintegrating EU is that the only thing likely to save them from the reality of Islam (that they are too stupid to grasp) is the very thing they pompously claim to have set up the EU to prevent – a ruthless hardman at the helm of a militarised Germany. Islam must be banned outright from all civilised countries. There is no middle ground; ask any oncologist.
Carl Goldberg says
“Modernizing” Islam is logically impossible because the fundamental proposition of Islam is that the Koran is their god’s literal word, perfect and valid for all of eternity. The very notion of reforming something that is considered perfect is logically absurd. If it is eternally valid, then it cannot be “contextualized” to mean that it applies only to a particular point in the 7th Century. And, if the Koran is Allah’s literal word, no mortal human being dare even question it, let alone reject it.
There is no way around that logic.
If that fundamental proposition is ever abandoned, the entire theological edifice of Islam comes crashing down so that there is no more reason to accept anything in the Koran or in Muhammad’s Sunnah. What is left would not be Islam anymore.
You can straighten a corkscrew, but then you don’t have a corkscrew anymore.
If Qudosi rejects the fundamental proposition that the Koran is divine and perfect, why in the world is she still a Moslem? A Moslem is one who submits to Allah, and the only way to know what Allah wants is to read the Koran.
Islam is the Koran + Muhammad. Both of those sacred texts command Muslims to establish Islamic law throughout the world. Therefore, “Islamism” is part and parcel of Islam and cannot be separated from it. No human being can monkey with the literal word of his god, and no Moslem dare disobey his prophet because his god commanded him to obey Muhammad.
Rejecting Muhammad’s hadiths won’t do the job. First of all, the requirement even to pray five times a day comes from Muhammad, not from the Koran. So, rejecting the hadiths would totally destroy Islam’s required religious rituals. More importantly, the Koran, itself, is the source of jihad, oppression of women, war on Jews, war on Christians and war on other non-Moslems.
These so-called “reformers” are fighting a battle between their faith and their conscience. One or the other must lose. Logically, either they must give up their values, or they must give up being a Moslem. They cannot have both.
Why is Pipes “realistically optimistic”? There is nothing remotely realistic about his optimism. Sure, many Moslems will opt for the benefit of modern life, and to the extent they do so, to that extent they must disobey the commands of their god and their prophet. In the meantime, there will always be new cohorts of Moslems who take the Koran and Muhammad seriously. They are causing the problems with Islam.
Vann Boseman says
I think that this is an instance where sympathetic understanding is called for. By sympathetic understanding I do not mean that the explanation of historical players merits actual sympathy. I am saying that understanding the motivations of historical actors helps best to explain historical instances.
Many people in the present and past have looked for a way to interpret Islam as something very different from what it is. The problem is that Westerners are prone to see religious reformations as pushing towards a more peaceful, just, and civilized interpretation of religion. Realistically, reformations represent efforts to return religious movements to core doctrines and beliefs that governments and religious hierarchies have strayed from. There is well over a thousand years of tradition and interpretation of the Koran in Islam exposing why this sort of view of reformation will never be adopted for long.
Islam HAS already had at least one reformation. It is the Wahabi movement. This movement does not represent what many people would like to see in a religious reformation. Maybe if we look away hard enough and long enough we can make it to be that it never happened. Strangely enough, it appears that the strategy of redefining Islam as tolerant for the motivation of advancing governmental power (Of course developing a population content with advancing broad governmental power is not going to long have a positive outcome. Nor should it.) has actually worked, more or less, in certain places throughout history. Sadly, with the wealth of knowledge available on the internet, this is not likely to happen again.
Keys says
Regarding reforming Islam:
The Scorpion and the Frog
A scorpion and a frog meet on the bank of a stream and the
scorpion asks the frog to carry him across on its back. The
frog asks, “How do I know you won’t sting me?” The scorpion
says, “Because if I do, I will die too.”
The frog is satisfied, and they set out, but in midstream,
the scorpion stings the frog. The frog feels the onset of
paralysis and starts to sink, knowing they both will drown,
but has just enough time to gasp “Why?”
Replies the scorpion: “Its my nature…”
———————
“Reform” black to white, and it will not be black.
“Transform” black to white, and it will not be black.
Reform evil to good, and it will not be evil.
The essence, the essential nature, of Islam is evil.
Even if every human being, or almost every human being, were muslim, Islam would still be evil.
Any good in Islam is an appearance of good, accidental, not essential.
James says
Excellent post.
gravenimage says
Vann Boseman wrote:
I think that this is an instance where sympathetic understanding is called for. By sympathetic understanding I do not mean that the explanation of historical players merits actual sympathy. I am saying that understanding the motivations of historical actors helps best to explain historical instances.
………………………………
Two issues here, Vann. Firstly, even by the horrible standards of dark ages Arabia, Islam was incredibly violent. And Islam is violent while Christianity is not, even though Christianity dates from a violent period.
And just compare Jesus with the baleful “Prophet” Muhammed–Jesus was not a warlord, pedophile, caravan-raider, slaver, rapist, and mass murderer–but Muhammed was.
And the ‘historical context’ does not work here, in any case–Muslims consider the Qur’an “uncreated” and sacred for all time, and the “Prophet” to be the model man for all time.
More:
Many people in the present and past have looked for a way to interpret Islam as something very different from what it is. The problem is that Westerners are prone to see religious reformations as pushing towards a more peaceful, just, and civilized interpretation of religion. Realistically, reformations represent efforts to return religious movements to core doctrines and beliefs that governments and religious hierarchies have strayed from. There is well over a thousand years of tradition and interpretation of the Koran in Islam exposing why this sort of view of reformation will never be adopted for long.
Islam HAS already had at least one reformation. It is the Wahabi movement. This movement does not represent what many people would like to see in a religious reformation.
………………………………
All true.
Vann Boseman says
Gravenimage,
It may be that you are a Christian and wish to compare and contrast Christianity with Islam. I do not have a problem with that. Approaching the question of the possibility of reform of Islam is not limited to this. Understanding the whether or not it is possible for Islam to be reformed can be approached by looking to the motivations of those who attempted to reform Islam in the past.
If you acknowledge that the Wahabi movement was a reformation for Islam, then the context of why those who started the movement matters. The context of of the motivations those governing the Ottoman Empire matters. This has nothing to do with Christianity but instead the question is one of the Islam or the Ottomans versus the Islam of the Wahabis.
When Islam spread west and north west it encountered Christianity.
When it went east and north east, it encountered Zoroastrianism and Hinduism. In these places the interpretation of who were, and who were not, considered to be people of the book by Muslim conquerors matters. You proclaim that seeking a historical context does not matter, but this leaves you with no explanation or understanding of what happened when it was felt by some Muslims that the Ottoman empire needed to be reformed.
Just because you ignore historical context does not mean that others will ignore it or believe that it doesn’t work here. In India, the question to be determined by Muslim conquerors over nearly the entire history of Islam existed of whether or not to tolerate Hindus. Were Hindus people of the book or not? Does Islam sanction the existence of Dhimmi Hindus? Were Muslim conquerors of India less devout because they did not kill all Hindus that they encountered? Was any toleration of Hindus accurately attributed to the greed of the conquerors?Could it be attributed to the humanity of the conquerors? Or did it represent an attempt to reform Islam?
Comparing Islam to Christianity and comparing Jesus to Mohammed offers no meaningful answers to these questions. Historical context provides understanding of what happened. But history is valued more by other cultures in the world than it is valued in the West too. Historical context not only matters, but is critical in considering any possibility of Islam being reformed to be kinder and gentler.
Jack Diamond says
The “toleration” of Hindus came from the fact the Muslim snake was not able to swallow India whole, not for want of trying, at the cost of 80 million lives. What is interesting about history is not all the variations to be expected when Islam encountered and conquered so many different cultures, it is the consistency of Islam in waging jihad (the status of jihad as an institution), and in the imposing of Islam. It is not the variance in how dhimmis were treated, it is the condition of dhimmitude itself that is the point.
“The Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex of order and freedom, culture and peace, can at any moment be overthrown by barbarians invading from without or multiplying from within.”
–historian Will Durant
“…the whole country by means of the sword from our holy warriors, has become like a forest denuded of thorns by fire… Islam is triumphant, idolatry is subdued. Had not the law granted exemption from death by payment of poll tax, the very name of Hind, root and branch would have been extinguished.”
–Amir Khusrau
Oh, the humanity indeed.
Amir Timur “My object in the invasion of Hindustan is to lead an expedition against the infidels that, according to the law of Muhammad, we may convert to the true faith the people of that country, purify the land itself from the filth of infidelity and polytheism, and that we may overthrow their temples and idols and become ghazis and mujahids before Allah.”
Sound familiar at all? Why the same story in disparate lands of the world, with nothing in common but invading Islam?
And the history you think we are ignoring includes cities burnt to ashes, entire populations massacred, temples razed by the thousands, and an astronomical loss of life. Why didn’t you mention that? It’s true that Hanafi recommended Hindus be considered People of the Book and granted the status of dhimmis. This way Hindus could pay ransom for their lives, enrich the Muslim ruler, and continue to live (as subjugated people). You could call it pragmatism, greed, or a small measure of humanity (thanks for not simply killing us but letting us live to exploit us and humiliate us). This was not the position of other Muslim theologians for whom the only choice for Hindus should have been death or Islam (as Amir Khusrau would have preferred).
You are confusing reform with adaptation. The Qur’an remains a manual of war and a maker of history, following the example of Muhammad, an example which can never be kinder and gentler.
Vann Boseman says
Jack,
I find that all the aspects of the history of jihad should be looked at. While I agree that jihad was generally done the same way, it is important to gain specific understanding of each instance too. What is the difference if you just say that dhimmis were treated as people of the book in India and leave it that? The difference is millions of lives that were not taken in addition to the millions already taken.
I am not confusing reform with adaptation with regard to India. I am saying that the dogma of Islam does not perfectly fit the actions of Muslim conquerors and should be addressed. I do not confuse adaptation with reform, but I fully recognize that others willt. I propose that knowing the truth will enable one to discuss the disparity of Islamic dogma with the inconsistency in applying that dogma by Muslim conquerors. Were I to remain quiet, then those who were left not knowing would be without a clue should Muslims or liberals address this.
This is an anti-Jihad site. I did not think it necessary to in every post point out that the history of jihad is the history of brutish, intolerant slaughter spreading North, South, East, and West. I do think that it is generally done the same way every time. That does not mean that it is necessarily done EXACTLY the same way every time. If differences and inconsistencies of jihad is not recognized by people like those on this site, then this lack of knowledge will eventually be seen and spoken to by those who would lie about it to promote Islam.
Knowledge of it all is important.
gravenimage says
Vann Boseman wrote:
Gravenimage,
It may be that you are a Christian and wish to compare and contrast Christianity with Islam. I do not have a problem with that.
…………………………………..
Actually, Vann, my main reason for comparing the two is that the West has a cultural Christian basis. Not all, but most of us here are Westerners. While we are concerned with *all* Islamic savagery, our focus is understandably on our own societies.
More:
Approaching the question of the possibility of reform of Islam is not limited to this. Understanding the whether or not it is possible for Islam to be reformed can be approached by looking to the motivations of those who attempted to reform Islam in the past.
…………………………………..
This is true. It is also true that there have been few attempts at reform of any kind, and virtually no attempts to render Islam more peaceful.
The few times that Islam has been less violent in one place or another is usually due to an individual lax ruler, the influence of other moderating ideologies, or both.
More:
If you acknowledge that the Wahabi movement was a reformation for Islam, then the context of why those who started the movement matters. The context of of the motivations those governing the Ottoman Empire matters. This has nothing to do with Christianity but instead the question is one of the Islam or the Ottomans versus the Islam of the Wahabis.
…………………………………..
I never said that the reform of Islam has to do with Christianity–it can be instructive to compare and contrast, but I never intimated that Islam was influenced by Christianity, or the beliefs of *any* whom pious Muslims consider “filthy Infidels”.
As for Wahabbism, of course it was influenced by the times it developed in. But while Wahabbism rebelled against the non-Islamic accretions of the Ottoman Empire, the fact is that *both* strains of Islam were intent on oppressing and slaughtering Infidels.
It is rather like the differences between Sunni and Shia Islam–they are more of abstract academic interest than anything else. For the victims of Islam, these differences are of little import.
More:
When Islam spread west and north west it encountered Christianity.
When it went east and north east, it encountered Zoroastrianism and Hinduism. In these places the interpretation of who were, and who were not, considered to be people of the book by Muslim conquerors matters. You proclaim that seeking a historical context does not matter, but this leaves you with no explanation or understanding of what happened when it was felt by some Muslims that the Ottoman empire needed to be reformed.
…………………………………..
I *never once* said that historical context does not matter. I am a historian, and always consider this important.
Of course Islam has encountered non-Christians in its conquests–Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Zoroastrians, Jains, Pagans, Animists, Agnostics and Atheists. What is *quite* consistent is that the essential Muslim reaction to *all* of these non-Muslims over the centuries has been oppression and slaughter.
More:
Just because you ignore historical context does not mean that others will ignore it or believe that it doesn’t work here.
…………………………………..
Again–with respect–this accusation is *quite false*.
More:
In India, the question to be determined by Muslim conquerors over nearly the entire history of Islam existed of whether or not to tolerate Hindus. Were Hindus people of the book or not? Does Islam sanction the existence of Dhimmi Hindus? Were Muslim conquerors of India less devout because they did not kill all Hindus that they encountered? Was any toleration of Hindus accurately attributed to the greed of the conquerors?Could it be attributed to the humanity of the conquerors? Or did it represent an attempt to reform Islam?
…………………………………..
As Jack Diamond notes, this was more practical than evidence of the “humanity” of the conquerors or an attempt to reform Islam. Where Muslims had encountered “pagans” before, they were able to force mass conversion or simply slaughter the entire population.
This clearly was not possible with Hindus–there were millions of them. Not that they did not try–Muslims butchered an estimated *80 million* Hindus.
Eventually, though, like Jews and Christians to the West, they were recognized as a large and productive population that could be ruthlessly exploited if not eradicated outright.
Further, the idea that treating victims as dhimmis represented any sort of “humanity” or moderation is *very* questionable. The treatment of dhimmis is *incredibly brutal*.
More:
Comparing Islam to Christianity and comparing Jesus to Mohammed offers no meaningful answers to these questions. Historical context provides understanding of what happened.
…………………………………..
With respect, the idea that the model of Mohammed is immaterial here is much mistaken. Muslims conquered on his model and on his diktats and those of the Qur’an and Hadith. The mere fact that Muslims were attacking and conquering large swaths of India just decades after the death of the “Prophet” was not an accident.
Islam has been a conquering creed since the days of the “Prophet”.
More:
But history is valued more by other cultures in the world than it is valued in the West too.
…………………………………..
The idea that my contrasting the history of these two faiths evidences a lack of interest in history makes no sense.
I have a degree in history. History is important. I have always noted history to be important.
More:
Historical context not only matters, but is critical in considering any possibility of Islam being reformed to be kinder and gentler.
…………………………………..
I’m afraid you have not presented anything from the history of Islam that indicates that it has been reformed to anything kinder and gentler.
The only example you have presented is that conquering Muslims have had to treat Hindus and other non-Jews or Christians as ipso facto “People of the Book”, just because they were unable to manage out and out genocide.
This is, I’m afraid, thin gruel–and no real indication that Islam is apt to reform.
As I have noted elsewhere, I would *love* to see a kinder, gentler Islam. I just have seen nothing in its original texts, in the model of its “prophet”, in the history of its actions, or in the history of its scholarly interpretation to indicate that this is apt to ever occur.
Vann Boseman says
Gravenimage said, “And the ‘historical context’ does not work here…” Either you believe that there is a historical context or you do not. You have stated both things in this thread.
Why would I indicate that Islam has been reformed to anything kinder and gentler when I do not believe that it has been?
I was merely pointing out that the historical context matters in considering any possibility of it being reformed in the future. I pointed out that what may have been possible in the past, is no longer likely to ever happen again.
I do not know that it was impossible for Muslims to kill every single Hindu in India. All I know is that it did not happen. You have presented likely reasons that they did not choose to. The explanation of treating Hindus like people of the book is different. If greed, and the usefulness of Hindus was a factor, then this does not fit with Islam.
Of course I indicated that
Jack Diamond says
“If greed, and the usefulness of Hindus was a factor, then this does not fit with Islam.”
You can’t be serious. Muhammad paid for his army capturing and selling slaves.
He made an unprovoked attack upon the farmers of Khaybar to take their wealth and land from them, and he let them live conditional upon their groveling subservience and upon them paying him a land tax as his tenants (after he stole their property) and paying him a ‘humiliation tax’ (literally a ransom for their lives) called jizya, as much as one half of their produce. If this isn’t greed and making “use” of infidels I don’t know what is. This became the basis for the institution of dhimmitude for non-Muslims under Muslim control and most certainly it fits with Islam, like a strangler’ glove.
gravenimage says
Vann Boseman wrote:
Gravenimage said, “And the ‘historical context’ does not work here…” Either you believe that there is a historical context or you do not. You have stated both things in this thread.
…………………………
My God, what disingenuous claptrap. This is what I said:
“And the ‘historical context’ does not work here, in any case–Muslims consider the Qur’an “uncreated” and sacred for all time, and the “Prophet” to be the model man for all time.”
In other words, one cannot appeal to *Muslims* to turn away from the diktats of Islam because they are the results of a dark ages creed developed by a barbarian warlord–since they believe that every aspect of Islam is perfect for all time.
The only way Vann Boseman’s ludicrous accusation about my supposed dismissal of the importance of historical context would work would be if I were presenting my own views here–in which case, he is claiming that I consider both the Qur’an and the vicious “Prophet” Muhammed to be perfect in every way.
There is no way this could be an honest mistake on his part.
Of course historical context matters–the bloody warlord Muhammed is very much a product of the dark ages and tribal Arabia. It is Muslims who do not believe that this matters, and who are still “marrying” prepubescent girls and beheading their victims on the model of the “Prophet”.
More:
Why would I indicate that Islam has been reformed to anything kinder and gentler when I do not believe that it has been?
I was merely pointing out that the historical context matters in considering any possibility of it being reformed in the future. I pointed out that what may have been possible in the past, is no longer likely to ever happen again.
…………………………
Again, I do not consider the example of Muslims treating Hindus as ipso facto “People of the Book” to be a real sign of Islam being “kinder and gentler”. As I noted, dhimmis are treated brutally.
Why would Vann Boseman pretend otherwise?
More:
I do not know that it was impossible for Muslims to kill every single Hindu in India.
…………………………
People faced with immanent genocide are a lot less likely to surrender than are those who believe they might be able to survive, no matter how onerous the conditions.
More:
All I know is that it did not happen. You have presented likely reasons that they did not choose to. The explanation of treating Hindus like people of the book is different.
…………………………
Given the diktats of their creed, Muslims only had two choices for how to treat conquered peoples–either outright slaughter or violent oppression.
And these two cases are not as different as Vann Boseman would like to pretend: in most places, the second has led to the former–just in slow motion. Where are the Buddhists of Afghanistan? The Jews of the Middle East? The Christians of Anatolia and north Africa?
Almost all of these non-Muslims were driven out, forcibly converted, or murdered outright over the centuries.
India only escaped this fate because of her specific history, where Muslims never gained full control.
Just look at neighboring Pakistan, and the fact that the population of Hindus, Christians, and Sikhs has grimly dwindled since 1947, and where the last of this Infidel population is bound to disappear within the next decade or two.
More:
If greed, and the usefulness of Hindus was a factor, then this does not fit with Islam.
Of course I indicated that (sic)
…………………………
Vann Boseman is being *grotesquely* dishonest here. As Jack Diamond notes, nothing could be more absurd than this claim.
Muhammed began as a caravan raider. He enslaved large numbers of victims, and engaged in slave trading. He held victims for ransom. He demanded “tribute” from peoples he threatened. This last is how he got his sex slave Mary the Copt.
There is an entire Sura of the Qur’an entitled “Al Anfal”, or “The Booty”. It is one long compendium of how intrinsic robbing Infidels is to Islam, and that the “Prophet” get one-fifth of all the booty, as well as first pick of slaves and sex slaves.
How can Vann Boseman *possibly* claim that greed is alien to Islam? Greed and the exploitation of the weak is the very foundation of Islam, and has been since the beginning.
Spengler says
Almost all the comments here dismiss the possibility that Islam can be reformed. But Islam WILL be reformed, in theory and practice, whether anyone – Muslim or non-Muslim – likes it or not. It will be reformed by a variety of factors, especially violent, from both within and outside itself.
From outside, the non-Muslim world will react by force, whether at the grassroots or government level, the stupidity of most EU leaders notwithstanding. Ordinary people are becoming fed up, and will hit back. In Europe, Brexit in the west and social reaction in countries like Hungary and Poland in the east will continue leading the way, and the backlash will gather momentum, even if it (unfortunately) empowers Russia.
More importantly, Islam will be reformed from within. We talk of Islam being at war with the West, but what is often omitted from debate is the fact that Islam is at war with itself. Sunnism and Shi’ism (led internationally by Saudi Arabia and Iran, respectively) are not reconciled in the slightest, and its leaders are armed to the teeth. There will be much destruction and death before Islam is reformed, but reformed it will be, in an apocalyptic war.
Someone compared Islam to Nazism and Communism, but this is superficial. Crackpot political ideologies are not the same as religions. They exclude the spiritual from their declarations and prognostications. Islam, by contrast, is a religion, and any religion can be reformed because it is not shackled by materialist determinism and does not claim “scientific” status. It claims “holy” status, but “holy” is amorphous, ill-defined and (hence) reformable.
So as much as Americans want to throw cold water on the peaceful reformers because it makes them feel wise and secure in their beliefs, these reformers must be encouraged, not dismissed. They must be encouraged because their very existence sends the violent Islamic fanatics and fundamentalists into a frothing rage, and that is what we want. Reform is painful, but it must happen, and it will.
Jack Diamond says
Well, David, you are talking about Islam cannibalizing itself within and being “hit back” from without by infidels no longer tolerating it. You are talking about Saudis and Shi’a Iranians wiping out one another.
This may be a “reform” in the sense of constraining Islam greatly, what John Quincy Adams calls “the imperious necessities of defeat”, but in what way is what is “holy” in Islam amorphous and ill-defined and open to be reformed?
We are not the ones dismissing peaceful reformers, it is their co-religionists who dismiss them and who do not join with them. Further whom do you trust considering a religion that puts a premium on lying and deceiving disbelievers? Wasn’t even al-Awlaki put forward after 9/11 as the voice of “moderate” Muslims? How many times should we get burned by wolves in sheep’s clothing? Should we ignore Muslim reformers who whitewash what is contained in the Qur’an and Sunnah and the consensus of Muslim scholars, just to encourage them? What for? We don’t need them to defend ourselves.
Spengler says
Who is David? I’ll assume you’re replying to me.
Here, in a nutshell, is what I take away from your argument. Two people are arguing about the nature of Islam, both of whom claim to be Muslims. One Muslim is arguing that he interprets Islam to be primarily about the Meccan verses, which make up two-thirds of the Koran and are mostly about peace, love, etc. (which they are). The other Muslim says that, in accordance with the teachings of the Islamic elder authorities of today (the ‘Muslim scholars’ to whom you refer), the Medinan verses of the Koran take precedence because they come later in time and therefore supersede the message of Mecca. The Medinan verses are violent and cruel, calling for draconian punishments like cutting off hands and killing. Both Muslims appear to be arguing heatedly, with conviction, and it is impossible to say whose faith is deeper.
Then, in steps Jack Diamond, who says to the first Muslim: “You are wrong. Islam puts a premium on lying and deceiving disbelievers, and that is an end to it. Go away, renounce Islam or embrace your coreligionist’s interpretation of the faith. There is no other way.” The first Muslim, dejected and confused, moves away, realizing his opponent has an ally in the form of a non-Muslim (i.e. you). The debate is over.
You demonstrate the attitude of many critics of Islam in the West, who presume to interpret the creed on behalf of all Muslims. You dismiss the reformist Muslims as “wolves in sheep’s clothing” who “whitewash” what is in the Koran and Sunnah. Yet the Koran and Sunnah contain many innocuous verses that are fluffy, harmless stuff, as I’m sure you know, and this fluffy harmless stuffy is many times more voluminous than the verses calling for violence. Why are these fluffy and harmless verses not fundamental to a true interpretation of Islam? Why does it have to be only the violent and intolerant text that deserve recognition? Yet that is your view.
Again, we do ourselves justice in the West by promoting the Muslim reformers, wherever they are in the world. The reason is simple: it is in our interest to heighten tension within the Islamic world, thus forcing debate and deconstruction on the worldwide community of believers. To simply accept the “consensus of Muslim scholars” seems rather irresponsible, like putting your head in the sand intellectually while relying only on bombs and guns to sort them all out far away from home. Islam is as immutable and unchangeable to you (a non-Muslim) as it is to the most fanatical, militant and reactionary Islamist.
“What for?” you ask. I say intellectual ammunition is no less powerful than its physical counterpart, and in fact is a good deal more so. It is key to transforming the Islamic world.
Jack Diamond says
You called yourself Spengler, the name David Goldman has written under forever. Obviously, you know who David is.
The Meccan verses are well understood to be a) abrogated by the Medinan verses or
b) to refer to Muslim strategy when weak and overpowered as opposed to when they have the “upper hand.” Neither is my received wisdom or interpretation, but that of what is clearly majority Muslim opinion. I neither invented jihad, qital, or al wala wal baraa, that hate and enmity for disbelievers mandated by the Qur’an. The idea that pointing this out makes me an ally of ISIS and al Qaeda and will drive the so-called moderate into the arms of the jihadists is nuts. If your so-called moderate understands Islam, why on earth would he be dejected and confused at the obvious being pointed out? How is he ever going to win a debate with Omar Abdel-Rahman or al-Baghdadi?
What kind of moderate does not face the truth about the teachings of Islam that need to be discarded? A fake moderate, that’s who. Or a feeble, delusional one.
It’s not my business to transform the Islamic world. It is my business to protect our world from it. To contain Islam and defang Islam, without illusions. Illusions are getting people killed.
Keys says
Spengler-
What is the passionately Meccan Muslim supposed to do with the Medinan verses? Ignore them? Hardly. He can not ignore any of Allah’s perfect Koran.
And, they (the Meccan muslim and the Medinan muslim) have not even begun to discuss what to do with the life of the perfect man, who they are to emulate ! What is the Meccan muslim supposed to do with the hadith and sunna ?
Islam is not one or the other – Meccan Islam or Medinan Islam.
To ignore Allah’s words is apostacy.
Neither Meccan nor Medinan muslim has any authority to change, or ignore the sacred texts or the life and saying of Mohammad.
The problem is not what an individual muslim believes.
The problem is Islam – its sacred and authoritive texts, its “founder, its expoitative history, and its supremacist essence.
Spengler says
And do you believe Islam’s texts to be “sacred and authoritive [sic]”? I don’t. Why, unless you are a Muslim, do you presume to regard the doctrine of Islam as “sacred”? That must be very confusing for you in trying to make sense of it all.
If I may offer a bit of advice, try to look at Islam as “non-sacred,” then go about critiquing and deconstructing it. You will find it is fairly easy to take apart. That way you will not only have more success in conceiving of how Islam can be changed, but you’ll feel better about yourself at the same time.
gravenimage says
Spengler, your assertion that Anti-Jihadists consider the horrors of Islam “sacred” is just grotesque.
The problem is not that Infidels consider Islam sacred, but that *Muslims* do.
Spengler says
That’s just the point. I didn’t say anti-Islamists thought the texts of Islam were sacred. Keys said they were sacred (and ‘authoritive’ [sic]), and that hinders constructive debate, as far as I’m concerned.
But you lot (Jack, Keys and ‘gravenimage’) go ahead and enjoy your mutual congratulation society here at JihadWatch. It seems to make you all happy and reinforce your preconceived notions. I’m new here and unfamiliar with such rigid consensus on the capacity of Islam for change (or lack thereof), and I have to say, I find the sensation wooden-headed. As such, I’m outta here.
gravenimage says
Good posts, Jack and Keys.
Keys says
@Spengler
Neither do I believe the muslim texts to be sacred and authoritative, but in your imagined scheme presented to Jack Diamond above, since “both Muslims appear to be arguing heatedly, with conviction, and it is impossible to say whose faith is deeper”, it seems they do. [Not to mention the real world riots that occur when a Koran is burned or throw away, etc]
Surely, you do not believe most muslims who are serious about their belief in Mohammad and Allah will find it easy to conceive “how Islam can be changed” or “easy to take apart” ?
Your “ad hominen” – “you’ll feel better about yourself at the same time” has nothing to do with whether Islam can be reformed, but I’d feel better about Islam if it could.
Keys says
Thank you, graven.
Jack Diamond says
And just how many Muslims are interested in Mr. Spengler’s ideas about deconstructing Islam? Can we get a show of hands? I have no problem looking at Islam in a “non sacred” way. What self respecting Muslim does? Are we deconstructing Islam for infidels or for Muslims? And why is it our job to deconstruct Islam, exactly?
He did call me an “ally” of the violent fundamentalist Muslim by taking up “his side” in that supposed debate. “Islam is as immutable and unchangeable to you (a non-Muslim) as it is to the most fanatical, militant and reactionary Islamist.” As if it would make any difference what I thought. He accuses me of “interpreting the creed on behalf of all Muslims” as if I even have an opinion on the matter. Muslims speak very well for themselves and could not care less how I or Spengler or Tony Blair interpret Islam. I will be searching for all those mosques teaching this fluffy, harmless Islam however.
Spengler accuses us of having an agenda, of “wanting” Islam to be as bad and sinister and evil as possible out of some sort of need to see it that way, not because it behaves that way. Speaking for myself, I have no such agenda, I’d much prefer Islam were not as it is and I would never have to think about or read about Muhammad again in my life.
What could be more dreary than Islam? Except for the fact it really is bad and sinister and evil, none of us would have to.
It was nice of Spengler to condescend to speak with us for as long as he could bear it.
Ann says
But the text of the Qur’an and the hadith explicitly calls for violent jihad to make Islam dominate everywhere. Anyone who is devoted to Allah will have to follow his explicit commands for murder and subjugation of weaker individuals and groups. Even if the reformers persuaded the go along to get along Muslims to tear out the violent pages of their devotional texts, the Qur’an is believed to be uncreated, and sitting on a table in Paradise in its perfect, unrevised form. It makes sense. Kill until they submit. How could you ever persuade the young, devoted firebrands to put down the sword and respect Jews, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Yazidi, agnostics, atheists, etc.?
Daniel Triplett says
Many, many of our forebears tried reasoning with Nazis and Japanese, whom were both much more rational, reasonable people compared to the Ummah.
They all failed.
Words alone won’t change the Ummah’s hearts and minds.
Only execution and nuclear attack will.
As with murderers, rapists, tax evaders, shoplifters, and speeders, the threat of punishment prevents their grievous behavior.
gravenimage says
Spengler wrote:
But you lot (Jack, Keys and ‘gravenimage’) go ahead and enjoy your mutual congratulation society here at JihadWatch. It seems to make you all happy and reinforce your preconceived notions. I’m new here and unfamiliar with such rigid consensus on the capacity of Islam for change (or lack thereof), and I have to say, I find the sensation wooden-headed. As such, I’m outta here.
………………………
Of course, Spengler is once again pretending that it is we ‘Islamophobes’ who are preventing the reformation of Islam, but this is quite false.
We have simply seen that there is little move towards any sort of peaceful reformation in Islam, and we will not pretend otherwise.
His claim that hordes of “Meccan verse” Muslims are vociferously arguing with “Medinan verse” Muslims over the true nature of Islam is just ridiculous. Note that in his copious verbiage on this thread that he was unable to come up with a single example of this supposedly widespread phenomenon.
James says
Islam is like Nazism and Communism in being a political religion. Hitler satisfied religious needs. He was a Prophet – a false one, but still a Prophet. The 1000-year Reich is the Millennium of Revelation 20.1-3, Hitlerised. The thirst to subjugate other nations, to make them part of the Hitlerian *ummah*, is a Nazi version or equivalent of the rule of the Son of Man in Daniel 7.14 over “all tribes and nations and peoples and tongues”. The Nazis tried to replace Christmas with a Nazi celebration at the same time of year, just as Muslims and Christians have tried to replace the feasts of the religions formerly observed in the lands to which they spread.
Hitler may have exploited ideas in German Catholicism about a prophesied Great Emperor, a sort of blend of Constantine the Great and Frederick Barbarossa, who was expected to arise near the end of the world. Some of his decisions make far better sense if he was thinking, not like a politician, but like a man actuated by faith that all obstacles to his plans would melt away. That kind of attitude cannot be reasoned with, because it has left behind such petty things as the calculation of pros and cons.
Hitlerism is religious, rather in the way that the political religion of ancient Assyria was religious. Religions may command their adherents to behave in a humane way – but there is no contradiction in the concept of a cruel religion. That Nazism was cruel, in no way shows it was not a religion. Maybe it should be regarded as an idolatry, rather than a religion.
It is not clear how Islam can be reformed so as to be milder in temper.
Spengler says
Let’s start with the end of your comment, that “It is not clear how Islam can be reformed so as to be milder in temper.” When you say “milder,” I assume you mean “milder than “Nazism.” Yet, I would suggest to you very strongly that Islam already is milder in temper than Nazism, if that is what you are comparing it to, and you only need to live in a Muslim-majority country (as I have) to feel that. Islam is highly fatalistic. If you live in the Islamic world and need someone to repair or build something in your home, you can very strongly count on the job not getting finished properly. Why? Because past a certain point, it’s all in the hands of God, so why bother? Your local Muslim repairman might say he’s coming back to do more work, but don’t bet the farm on it. It’s a slapdash, tumbledown world, and Islamic culture has made it that way.
But as long as you are comparing Nazism to Islam, using Hitler as an example of a religious “godhead,” let’s run with your analogy for the sake of argument.
Nazism was a clear and present danger to Europe and, most would agree, the world. In the space of a few years, Hitler had occupied most of the European continent, imprisoned many of its inhabitants, and continued pursuing conquest by “blitz” until he finally met real resistance from an adversary in the form of Great Britain. The industrial might of Germany was put at the disposal of a man who believed he had a right to rule the world, and that industrial strength was highly efficient and modern, as testified to by the impressive infrastructure of Germany prior to WWII. There was nothing “slapdash” or nonchalant about Nazi Germany or the Third Reich.
Now let’s turn our attention to the Islamic world, which, collectively, can barely tie its own shoelaces. The most economically advanced Muslim-majority nation-state in the world, Turkey, is still a “developing” country. Having benefited from close ties to the industrialized West, it can boast a more modern civil and industrial infrastructure than its neighbors to the south, but it would be hard-pressed to deploy an armed force to match the Wehrmacht (even the 1939 Wehrmacht), in the name of Allah, against the West. The fashion today is to compare Islamism to Nazism and Communism because many in the West (especially Americans) need to conjure an enemy that is formidable, global and bent on world domination through destruction. But the reality is, that enemy simply isn’t there. There is no Islamic “superpower” ranged against us. It’s a chimera. Iran’s economy is the size of little Austria’s, and Pakistan (the Islamic world’s only nuclear-armed state) is a vile hole and a dump.
Does that mean that Islamism doesn’t present a threat to Europe? Of course not. It certainly does. But that threat is insidious and sociological, not military or immediate. If the European leaders are stupid enough to let hundreds of thousands of young, male Muslim strangers into their societies indiscriminately, then they are going to have social problems, and they already do. But comparing Islam to Nazism or Soviet Communism is simply disingenuous. The comparison is not valid. Sorry.
gravenimage says
Spengler wrote:
Let’s start with the end of your comment, that “It is not clear how Islam can be reformed so as to be milder in temper.” When you say “milder,” I assume you mean “milder than “Nazism.” Yet, I would suggest to you very strongly that Islam already is milder in temper than Nazism, if that is what you are comparing it to, and you only need to live in a Muslim-majority country (as I have) to feel that.
………………………….
Actually, I believe James meant ‘milder than it is now’.
The fact is that Muslims have slaughtered even more people than Nazism did.
And even the idea that all Muslim-majority countries are better than Nazi Germany is questionable. Is Afghanistan under the Taliban better? The Islamic State under ISIS? Are you making light of crucifying teenage boys for eating during Ramadan and keeping Infidel girls as sex slaves?
More:
Islam is highly fatalistic. If you live in the Islamic world and need someone to repair or build something in your home, you can very strongly count on the job not getting finished properly. Why? Because past a certain point, it’s all in the hands of God, so why bother? Your local Muslim repairman might say he’s coming back to do more work, but don’t bet the farm on it. It’s a slapdash, tumbledown world, and Islamic culture has made it that way.
………………………….
This is all true–but it is also the least of it. Islam’s being stagnant and chaotic is far less hideous than their beheading “heretics” and stoning rape victims to death. Why focus on something that is no worse than frustrating?
More:
But as long as you are comparing Nazism to Islam, using Hitler as an example of a religious “godhead,” let’s run with your analogy for the sake of argument.
Nazism was a clear and present danger to Europe and, most would agree, the world. In the space of a few years, Hitler had occupied most of the European continent, imprisoned many of its inhabitants, and continued pursuing conquest by “blitz” until he finally met real resistance from an adversary in the form of Great Britain. The industrial might of Germany was put at the disposal of a man who believed he had a right to rule the world, and that industrial strength was highly efficient and modern, as testified to by the impressive infrastructure of Germany prior to WWII. There was nothing “slapdash” or nonchalant about Nazi Germany or the Third Reich.
Now let’s turn our attention to the Islamic world, which, collectively, can barely tie its own shoelaces.
………………………….
Actually, the analogy is *most apt*. Within a few years, Islam has come out of Arabia and conquered a huge swatch of the known world. Are you ignorant of this, or do you just hope that we are?
More:
The most economically advanced Muslim-majority nation-state in the world, Turkey, is still a “developing” country. Having benefited from close ties to the industrialized West, it can boast a more modern civil and industrial infrastructure than its neighbors to the south, but it would be hard-pressed to deploy an armed force to match the Wehrmacht (even the 1939 Wehrmacht), in the name of Allah, against the West. The fashion today is to compare Islamism to Nazism and Communism because many in the West (especially Americans) need to conjure an enemy that is formidable, global and bent on world domination through destruction. But the reality is, that enemy simply isn’t there.
………………………….
What claptrap. The truth is that Islam *does* demand that its adherents force the whole world to submit to Islam.
And there have been over 31,000 Jihad terror attacks just since 9/11–are you pretending that this “enemy simply isn’t there”?
More:
There is no Islamic “superpower” ranged against us. It’s a chimera. Iran’s economy is the size of little Austria’s, and Pakistan (the Islamic world’s only nuclear-armed state) is a vile hole and a dump.
………………………….
The invading barbarians were no match, one on one, for the might, technical sophistication, and organization of the Roman Empire. None of that prevented the barbarians from invading and taking over.
The idea that there is no threat unless there is a Muslim “superpower” is false.
More:
Does that mean that Islamism doesn’t present a threat to Europe? Of course not. It certainly does. But that threat is insidious and sociological, not military or immediate.
………………………….
Not “immediate”? Tell that to the victims of rape and Jihad terror.
More:
If the European leaders are stupid enough to let hundreds of thousands of young, male Muslim strangers into their societies indiscriminately, then they are going to have social problems, and they already do. But comparing Islam to Nazism or Soviet Communism is simply disingenuous. The comparison is not valid. Sorry.
………………………….
Muslims have taken over more of the globe–and for much longer periods–than Fascism and Communism were ever able to do. Convince the suffering Infidels of Dar-al-Islam that this is not so…
gravenimage says
Spengler wrote:
Almost all the comments here dismiss the possibility that Islam can be reformed. But Islam WILL be reformed, in theory and practice, whether anyone – Muslim or non-Muslim – likes it or not. It will be reformed by a variety of factors, especially violent, from both within and outside itself.
……………………….
Spengler, Islam has not been reformed in the sense of becoming more peaceful for 1400 years now. It has been constrained at various times, but that is not the same thing.
More:
From outside, the non-Muslim world will react by force, whether at the grassroots or government level, the stupidity of most EU leaders notwithstanding. Ordinary people are becoming fed up, and will hit back. In Europe, Brexit in the west and social reaction in countries like Hungary and Poland in the east will continue leading the way, and the backlash will gather momentum, even if it (unfortunately) empowers Russia.
……………………….
With respect, how would any of this reform Islam itself? I hope Infidels *will* fight back, but this is not going to change the creed.
More:
More importantly, Islam will be reformed from within. We talk of Islam being at war with the West, but what is often omitted from debate is the fact that Islam is at war with itself. Sunnism and Shi’ism (led internationally by Saudi Arabia and Iran, respectively) are not reconciled in the slightest, and its leaders are armed to the teeth. There will be much destruction and death before Islam is reformed, but reformed it will be, in an apocalyptic war.
……………………….
Spengler, Sunnis and Shia agree on many points–especially on oppressing and slaughtering Infidels.
More:
Someone compared Islam to Nazism and Communism, but this is superficial. Crackpot political ideologies are not the same as religions. They exclude the spiritual from their declarations and prognostications. Islam, by contrast, is a religion, and any religion can be reformed because it is not shackled by materialist determinism and does not claim “scientific” status. It claims “holy” status, but “holy” is amorphous, ill-defined and (hence) reformable.
……………………….
I’m afraid there is *nothing* spiritual about Islam. Surely you don’t consider “marrying” prepubescent girls or mass butchering unbelievers to be “spiritual”?
I’m not sure why you consider religions to be more reformable than other ideologies. There is nothing amorphous about what Islam considers “holy”–it is quite clear on the horrors it sacralizes.
More:
So as much as Americans want to throw cold water on the peaceful reformers because it makes them feel wise and secure in their beliefs, these reformers must be encouraged, not dismissed. They must be encouraged because their very existence sends the violent Islamic fanatics and fundamentalists into a frothing rage, and that is what we want. Reform is painful, but it must happen, and it will.
……………………….
There is not a single “reformer” who has any following. Zuhdi Jasser, the most commonly cited reformer, was thrown out of his Mosque and has been unable to find a single Mosque that will allow him and his family to worship.
And far from your idea that it is American Infidels who are preventing Islamic reform from happening because we do not sufficiently support it, the fact is that the only real support Jasser gets is from just such hopeful Infidels. He appears on many national news programs.
It is Infidels who really, really want Islamic reform to happen–not most Muslims themselves.
More, In reply to Jack Diamond:
Here, in a nutshell, is what I take away from your argument. Two people are arguing about the nature of Islam, both of whom claim to be Muslims. One Muslim is arguing that he interprets Islam to be primarily about the Meccan verses, which make up two-thirds of the Koran and are mostly about peace, love, etc. (which they are).
……………………….
Not really. The Meccan verses are over all less hideously violent than are the later Medinan verses, but they are *hardly* “mostly about peace, love, etc.”.
And your implication here is that as many Muslims consider Islam a religion of peace and reject the violence in the Qur’an, Hadith, and the model of the “Prophet” as accept it, but this is *utterly* false. They are few and far between, and have, as I noted, almost no following.
More:
The other Muslim says that, in accordance with the teachings of the Islamic elder authorities of today (the ‘Muslim scholars’ to whom you refer), the Medinan verses of the Koran take precedence because they come later in time and therefore supersede the message of Mecca. The Medinan verses are violent and cruel, calling for draconian punishments like cutting off hands and killing. Both Muslims appear to be arguing heatedly, with conviction, and it is impossible to say whose faith is deeper.
……………………….
The idea that abrogation is a *recent* concept is, of course, completely false.
More:
Then, in steps Jack Diamond, who says to the first Muslim: “You are wrong. Islam puts a premium on lying and deceiving disbelievers, and that is an end to it. Go away, renounce Islam or embrace your coreligionist’s interpretation of the faith. There is no other way.” The first Muslim, dejected and confused, moves away, realizing his opponent has an ally in the form of a non-Muslim (i.e. you). The debate is over.
……………………….
Yes–we’ve heard this claptrap before. Islam would be perfectly peaceful were it not for ‘filthy Islamophobes’ like Jack Diamond who dare notice that this vicious creed and its followers are *anything but*.
Of course, this is ridiculous. No other faith has been prevented from being peaceful due to the opinions of those outside the religion.
More:
You demonstrate the attitude of many critics of Islam in the West, who presume to interpret the creed on behalf of all Muslims. You dismiss the reformist Muslims as “wolves in sheep’s clothing” who “whitewash” what is in the Koran and Sunnah. Yet the Koran and Sunnah contain many innocuous verses that are fluffy, harmless stuff, as I’m sure you know, and this fluffy harmless stuffy is many times more voluminous than the verses calling for violence. Why are these fluffy and harmless verses not fundamental to a true interpretation of Islam? Why does it have to be only the violent and intolerant text that deserve recognition? Yet that is your view.
……………………….
There have been over 31,000 Jihad terror attacks just since 9/11–we are supposed to ignore them because there are some supposedly “fluffy stuffy” in the Qur’an.
More:
Again, we do ourselves justice in the West by promoting the Muslim reformers, wherever they are in the world. The reason is simple: it is in our interest to heighten tension within the Islamic world, thus forcing debate and deconstruction on the worldwide community of believers. To simply accept the “consensus of Muslim scholars” seems rather irresponsible, like putting your head in the sand intellectually while relying only on bombs and guns to sort them all out far away from home. Islam is as immutable and unchangeable to you (a non-Muslim) as it is to the most fanatical, militant and reactionary Islamist.
……………………….
I *knew* this was coming. in other words, those who dare notice that Islam is violent are just the same as ISIS, and just as responsible for Islam’s being violent. *Ludicrous*.
More:
“What for?” you ask. I say intellectual ammunition is no less powerful than its physical counterpart, and in fact is a good deal more so. It is key to transforming the Islamic world.
……………………….
The problem with this, of course, that while reformers are thin on the ground in the West, they are even rarer in Dar-al-Islam itself.
What makes you think that this is key to transforming the Islamic world? This has *never* happened before, and does not appear apt to happen now.
Never mind, as well, that many of these “reformers” also turn out to be anything but. Many touted as “reformers” and “moderates” are not anything of the sort. But Infidels desperately want to believe that reform is incipient.
Jack Diamond says
Keep in mind that during the “peace and love” Meccan period, Muhammad was plotting the demise of the Jews of Yahtrib/Medina as well as the Meccans and entering into a secret pact of war with the Aws and Khazraj Arabs (“blood blood destruction destruction!”) at the same time he was publicly befriending the Jews and smiling in their faces. War is deceit (and that comes from the horse’s mouth).
gravenimage says
All true, Jack.
Spengler says
The insurmountable impasse between us is based, as far as I can tell, on the fact that you believe religion to be fundamentally immutable. I take it you are a Christian, and believe that the “fundamentals” of Christianity can be somehow defined and adhered to for peace among men forever and ever. I do not believe that, and so I do not believe that Islam – which is a religion, though not a Western one – is somehow immutable or incontestable either. Christianity endured several very violent reformations that lasted for generations and featured immense cruelty, war, dispossession, torture and innumerable other atrocities about between a millennium and a millennium and a half after the religion’s founding. Your comment that Islam has only ever been “constrained” but never made “more peaceful” in 1,400 years (almost a millennium and a half, by coincidence) demonstrates your refusal to see Islam as malleable in any way. Yet any text is malleable by virtue of its susceptibility to different interpretations. And of course any community of believers is also malleable, as it is composed of humans. Humans are very malleable.
So in answer to your question of how any of this would “reform Islam itself,” one only needs to look at the history of religious reformations to see how violence, war and revolution alter religious interpretation and practice. The Gregorian, Lutheran and Puritan Reformations were extremely violent and involved wars between nations (kingdoms and principalities) that lasted for decades. Their effect on the interpretation and practice of Christianity was immeasurable and permanent. To say that somehow these historical events brought Christianity back to its “fundamentals” (as you probably do) is to adopt a “Leninist” interpretation of history, whereby the ends always justify the means, and all those who died, were tortured, lost all their property, etc., etc., did so purely so that you – a pious Christian living half a millennium after the end of last Christian reformation – could live in peace, smugness and piety.
It is as if you don’t notice that your world is immeasurably more secular than anything visible at the time of such revolutionary, apocalyptic events, when religious symbols and the power of clerics made society practically theocratic save for the “royal power” that acted as a check on it. One can see a similar dynamic in the Islamic world, traditionally divided between the sultan and the caliph, but now often between a secular dictator and some sort of ulema-type figures. Islam is a younger religion, and it is monstrous because of it. It is undergoing reform even as you and I write these comments. It is violent and ugly, self-destructive and self-loathing, but it is reforming. We (the West) can help it along by furthering the violent conflict within it (most visibly on display in Syria recently), as well as by furthering global debate and deconstruction.
To say that there is “nothing” spiritual about Islam is to concede your Western insularity and provincialism. As I noted, Islam is a religion, but it is a non-Western religion. This requires you and other provincial Westerners to think “outside the box,” and also to admit that some practices of Western religions in the past were no less barbaric. The Church elders sanctioned torture, honor killing, arranged marriages to minors, burning people at the stake, and a host of other atrocities prior to the massive, protracted reform through which Christianity had to go. They sanctioned all these things through their interpretation of the faith, and sure enough, almost all of that eventually changed. Yet somehow, Islam to you is totally immune to any change in interpretation or practice, because if it were, it would upset your “neat and tidy” picture of it as all nastiness, killing, raping prepubescent girls, etc., etc. it would upset your “Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam” understanding of the world, courtesy of Robert Spencer. All the answers are between its pages, of course. How could they not be?
Here are some examples of where you reveal your ignorance of Islam:
“Spengler, Sunnis and Shia agree on many points–especially on oppressing and slaughtering Infidels.”
So what? Sunnis and Shi’ites are prepared to fight each other to the death in Syria over that upon which they do not agree, so your point is moot.
“It is Infidels who really, really want Islamic reform to happen–not most Muslims themselves.”
So the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini or Anjem Choudhary definition of “infidel” is the one you’re adopting? That doesn’t sound terribly constructive or sophisticated, allowing savages to construct your definitions for you. Tsk.
“The Meccan verses are over all less hideously violent than are the later Medinan verses, but they are *hardly* “mostly about peace, love, etc.”.”
Not much to say to this except that you’re either mistaken or lying – or both – about the extent of your knowledge of the Koran. Most of the Koran is very innocuous stuff indeed. Have you ever actually read it? This comment would indicate the answer is no. Or maybe you’ve tried to read it but it put you to sleep, since it’s mostly boring. Good bedtime reading.
“And your implication here is that as many Muslims consider Islam a religion of peace and reject the violence in the Qur’an, Hadith, and the model of the “Prophet” as accept it, but this is *utterly* false.”
This is silly nonsense. There is no such “implication,” because I do not believe there is such a thing as a “religion of peace” and would never say so, implicitly or otherwise. Religion is religion. It is not “of peace” or “of war.” So that is a bunch of malarkey that you’re attributing to me, much as you probably attribute it to others whom you like to lecture about Islam.
“There have been over 31,000 Jihad terror attacks just since 9/11–we are supposed to ignore them because there are some supposedly “fluffy stuffy” in the Qur’an.”
Who said anything about ignoring jihadi terror attacks? On the contrary, they must be dealt with in the most resolute and ruthless manner available. Don’t know how you read this from my comments. Most mysterious that you should draw such a conclusion from anything I’ve written.
“I *knew* this was coming. in other words, those who dare notice that Islam is violent are just the same as ISIS, and just as responsible for Islam’s being violent. *Ludicrous*.”
What a very odd thing to say. How (in the name of God, if you’ll forgive the expression) would you draw such a conclusion from anything I said? It is a measure of the insecurity of your argument that you would attribute such views to me. Why would I think you were “just the same as ISIS”? I certainly hope you aren’t, and assumed as much. I hope I’m not wrong. Perhaps you really are possessed of such violent impulses toward others.
Perhaps I should be clearer about the nature of “reform.” It is not a “cheery” or “happy” notion, to be entertained only by naive utopians. It is very violent and painful, especially where religion is concerned. In the case of Islam, the Muslims will thin each other out, if we let them, and if we do not jump into the middle of the fray (though I fear we will). We are witnessing the Reformation of Islam. I know it hurts you to admit it, but it’s true. Those who argue that Islam has “already had its Reformation” (as some do) are very narrow-minded on the whole. They point to sects such as Wahhabism and Salafism as evidence of the “fundamentals,” and yet why should they represent the “fundamentals” of Islam any more than Twelver Shi’ism does? And if they all represent the “fundamentals,” then why are the Wahhabists and Salafists mortal enemies of the Twelver Shiites?
So the story of Islam is not over, much as you – a self-proclaimed expert and final authority on Islam – would like it to be. You apparently think that we need to destroy Islam completely, perhaps in another Great Crusade. If that is your argument, I cannot counter it. It is one of many solutions to the problem of Islam today, but I do not believe it can be realized in practice. I can only say that encouraging global debate in the Islamic community about the nature of Islam is a constructive exercise, concurrent with securing ourselves by force. For you to completely dismiss the idea of reform reveals tremendous narrow-mindedness. What a pity.
gravenimage says
Spengler wrote:
The insurmountable impasse between us is based, as far as I can tell, on the fact that you believe religion to be fundamentally immutable.
………………………………..
Not at all. For instance, Mormonism has changed a great deal from what it was when it began, less than two hundred years ago.
But Islam is quite different–it has not, as I noted, changed in 1400 years. And more than that: Islam itself says over and over that it *cannot* change, that the Qur’an is perfect and “uncreated”, and that the actions of the baleful warlord “Prophet” Muhammed are perfect for all time, and a model for every Muslim.
Islam cannot be changed or even questioned–and those few Muslims who have tried are under death threat and often murdered.
This has nothing to do with my views, but the views of Muslims.
More:
I take it you are a Christian, and believe that the “fundamentals” of Christianity can be somehow defined and adhered to for peace among men forever and ever.
………………………………..
Actually, you have no idea what I believe save for what I have written here. I do know that Christianity does not teach violence and slaughter of unbelievers. That does not mean that all Christians are–or have been–peaceful, but it certainly means that we have seen nothing like the sacralized and mandated violence of Islam.
More:
I do not believe that, and so I do not believe that Islam – which is a religion, though not a Western one – is somehow immutable or incontestable either. Christianity endured several very violent reformations that lasted for generations and featured immense cruelty, war, dispossession, torture and innumerable other atrocities about between a millennium and a millennium and a half after the religion’s founding.
………………………………..
I am well aware of the history of Christian lands.
More:
Your comment that Islam has only ever been “constrained” but never made “more peaceful” in 1,400 years (almost a millennium and a half, by coincidence) demonstrates your refusal to see Islam as malleable in any way.
………………………………..
Actually, this demonstrates my knowledge of history. I notice you are unable to refute my point.
More:
Yet any text is malleable by virtue of its susceptibility to different interpretations. And of course any community of believers is also malleable, as it is composed of humans. Humans are very malleable.
………………………………..
And yet, Muslims have never interpreted the violent verses of the Qur’an in a peaceful manner.
Things are malleable–but not *endlessly* malleable.
God knows, I *wish* there were reason to think that Muslims would all reject the sanguinary horror of their creed tomorrow–but I have seen nothing that suggests that this is going to happen, and pretending that it will just just puts the victims of Islam in further danger.
More:
So in answer to your question of how any of this would “reform Islam itself,” one only needs to look at the history of religious reformations to see how violence, war and revolution alter religious interpretation and practice.
………………………………..
Actually, Islamic violence is not apt to reform Islam–this is *orthodox* Islam, as practiced by the “Prophet” himself, and most pious Muslims ever since.
More:
The Gregorian, Lutheran and Puritan Reformations were extremely violent and involved wars between nations (kingdoms and principalities) that lasted for decades. Their effect on the interpretation and practice of Christianity was immeasurable and permanent.
………………………………..
Actually, there was nothing particularly violent about the Gregorian reforms, and the Puritan reformations were not particularly widespread, nor particularly violent.
Of course, the rivalries between Catholics and Protestants was ugly and bloody–although never an intrinsic doctrinal part of these denominations, nor was this violence on the model of Jesus.
More:
To say that somehow these historical events brought Christianity back to its “fundamentals” (as you probably do) is to adopt a “Leninist” interpretation of history, whereby the ends always justify the means, and all those who died, were tortured, lost all their property, etc., etc., did so purely so that you – a pious Christian living half a millennium after the end of last Christian reformation – could live in peace, smugness and piety.
………………………………..
Well, this is *just bizarre*.
You are now assuming that I am a Puritan, even though I have suggested nothing that would lead anyone to believe such a thing about me.
And I have done nothing but decry and condemn violence in the name of religion here, yet you are pretending that this–somehow–means that I actually condone it.
I won’t ask what your reasoning here is–I doubt that there is any. More likely, this just jibes with your idea that every faith and ideology is just the same.
More:
It is as if you don’t notice that your world is immeasurably more secular than anything visible at the time of such revolutionary, apocalyptic events, when religious symbols and the power of clerics made society practically theocratic save for the “royal power” that acted as a check on it.
………………………………..
Of course the world is more secular than it was in the Middle Ages–what have I said there that would lead you to believe that I do not know this? What rot.
In fact, I have a degree in history.
More:
One can see a similar dynamic in the Islamic world, traditionally divided between the sultan and the caliph, but now often between a secular dictator and some sort of ulema-type figures.
………………………………..
Well, this is just false. There is no separation of Mosque and state in Islam.
More:
Islam is a younger religion, and it is monstrous because of it. It is undergoing reform even as you and I write these comments. It is violent and ugly, self-destructive and self-loathing, but it is reforming.
………………………………..
I’ve heard this claptrap before. Were it true that every “young” religion were violent, then the Jehovah’s Witnesses, Unitarians, and Scientologists would be butchering people in the streets, yet this is not so.
This only makes the slightest bit of sense when comparing Islam to Christianity, and it doesn’t make much sense there, either.
Yes–Christian Europe was an often violent place in 1400, but it was also engages in the stirring of the Renaissance, a glorious revival of art, literature, and the beginnings of modern science. Where is there *anything* like this in the Muslim world?
More:
We (the West) can help it along by furthering the violent conflict within it (most visibly on display in Syria recently), as well as by furthering global debate and deconstruction.
………………………………..
Uh–yeah. We can help Islam become a peaceful faith by furthering its hideous violence. Not only does this make no sense, but the suggestion that the civilized West is to blame for Islam’s sickening savagery is just calumny.
More:
To say that there is “nothing” spiritual about Islam is to concede your Western insularity and provincialism…
………………………………..
In other words, if only I were not so “provincial” I would find the horrors of pedophilia, sex slavery, and the slaughter of Infidels profoundly “spiritual”. *Ugh*.
More:
As I noted, Islam is a religion, but it is a non-Western religion. This requires you and other provincial Westerners to think “outside the box,” and also to admit that some practices of Western religions in the past were no less barbaric. The Church elders sanctioned torture, honor killing, arranged marriages to minors, burning people at the stake, and a host of other atrocities prior to the massive, protracted reform through which Christianity had to go. They sanctioned all these things through their interpretation of the faith, and sure enough, almost all of that eventually changed.
………………………………..
Actually, your constant claims that torture and pedophilia are taught in Christianity is *quite false*. The fact is that there is nothing in that faith that teaches such things.
Would that this were true of Islam.
More:
Yet somehow, Islam to you is totally immune to any change in interpretation or practice, because if it were, it would upset your “neat and tidy” picture of it as all nastiness, killing, raping prepubescent girls, etc., etc. it would upset your “Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam” understanding of the world, courtesy of Robert Spencer. All the answers are between its pages, of course. How could they not be?
………………………………..
What crap. No one would be happier than myself if Islam were to suddenly reform itself into a beneficial, harmless creed.
But demanding that we *pretend* that this is happening in the face of growing proof that it *is not* is just bullsh*t.
Like most people in the West, I had quite a neutral view of Islam at one time. It is only my own investigations into the faith, its dark history, and the mushrooming fact of Jihad terror that led me to recognize the threat it presents to the free West.
I have learned a great deal from the knowledgeable Robert Spencer and other Anti-Jihadists–but this has just deepened my understanding of what I had already discovered on my own.
More:
Here are some examples of where you reveal your ignorance of Islam:
“Spengler, Sunnis and Shia agree on many points–especially on oppressing and slaughtering Infidels.”
So what? Sunnis and Shi’ites are prepared to fight each other to the death in Syria over that upon which they do not agree, so your point is moot.
………………………………..
The idea that it is immaterial that both major sects of Islam want to violently conquer us is *ludicrous*. Muslims murdering us is *not* a moot point–it is of utmost importance to those of us who want to defend the free West, or even just survive.
If Muslims are often butchering each other, this does not make us any safer.
And the claim that I am ignorant of any of this is completely dishonest.
More:
“It is Infidels who really, really want Islamic reform to happen–not most Muslims themselves.”
So the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini or Anjem Choudhary definition of “infidel” is the one you’re adopting? That doesn’t sound terribly constructive or sophisticated, allowing savages to construct your definitions for you. Tsk.
………………………………..
We’ve heard *this* tosh before. This is like saying that Winston Churchill should have pretended that Fascism was peaceful in its goals, lest he allow Adolf Hitler to define what we should believe about the Nazis.
The fact is that ignoring reality benefits no one–save, of course, those bent on harming us.
con’t
gravenimage says
con’t
“The Meccan verses are over all less hideously violent than are the later Medinan verses, but they are *hardly* “mostly about peace, love, etc.”.”
Not much to say to this except that you’re either mistaken or lying – or both – about the extent of your knowledge of the Koran. Most of the Koran is very innocuous stuff indeed. Have you ever actually read it? This comment would indicate the answer is no. Or maybe you’ve tried to read it but it put you to sleep, since it’s mostly boring. Good bedtime reading.
………………………………..
What crap–I’ve read the Qur’an several times, in multiple translations, including the NJ Dawood, Arberry, and Ali editions.
As for the Meccan Suras, they include such Ayats as these:
Quran:17:16 – “And when We wish to destroy a town, We send Our commandment to the people of it who lead easy lives, but they transgress therein; thus the word proves true against it, so We destroy it with utter destruction.” Note that the crime is moral transgression, and the punishment is “utter destruction.”
Is *this* about peace and love? What rot.
And then there is Quran:18:65-81, which lays the basis for “Honor Killing”.
Then there is this:
Quran (25:52) – “Therefore listen not to the Unbelievers, but strive against them with the utmost strenuousness with it.”
There may be even more hideous passages in the Medinan Suras, but the idea that the above is about “peace and love” is false.
More:
“And your implication here is that as many Muslims consider Islam a religion of peace and reject the violence in the Qur’an, Hadith, and the model of the “Prophet” as accept it, but this is *utterly* false.”
This is silly nonsense. There is no such “implication,” because I do not believe there is such a thing as a “religion of peace” and would never say so, implicitly or otherwise. Religion is religion. It is not “of peace” or “of war.” So that is a bunch of malarkey that you’re attributing to me, much as you probably attribute it to others whom you like to lecture about Islam.
………………………………..
So there is no difference in aggression between pious Quakers and devout Muslims? Try again…
More:
“There have been over 31,000 Jihad terror attacks just since 9/11–we are supposed to ignore them because there are some supposedly “fluffy stuffy” in the Qur’an.”
Who said anything about ignoring jihadi terror attacks? On the contrary, they must be dealt with in the most resolute and ruthless manner available. Don’t know how you read this from my comments. Most mysterious that you should draw such a conclusion from anything I’ve written.
………………………………..
Yeah–how could *anyone* so mistake this apologia? sarc/off
More:
“I *knew* this was coming. in other words, those who dare notice that Islam is violent are just the same as ISIS, and just as responsible for Islam’s being violent. *Ludicrous*.”
What a very odd thing to say. How (in the name of God, if you’ll forgive the expression) would you draw such a conclusion from anything I said? It is a measure of the insecurity of your argument that you would attribute such views to me. Why would I think you were “just the same as ISIS”? I certainly hope you aren’t, and assumed as much. I hope I’m not wrong. Perhaps you really are possessed of such violent impulses toward others.
………………………………..
Good lord, what utter calumny. Yes, my decrying violence means that I am as apt to be as violent as ISIS…sarc/off
More:
Perhaps I should be clearer about the nature of “reform.” It is not a “cheery” or “happy” notion, to be entertained only by naive utopians. It is very violent and painful, especially where religion is concerned. In the case of Islam, the Muslims will thin each other out, if we let them, and if we do not jump into the middle of the fray (though I fear we will). We are witnessing the Reformation of Islam. I know it hurts you to admit it, but it’s true.
………………………………..
As I have noted, I would be *thrilled* if Islam were reforming into something more peaceful, but you have not been able to point to a single example that supports this. Also, the idea that ideologies only become more peaceful through violence is *very* questionable.
More:
Those who argue that Islam has “already had its Reformation” (as some do) are very narrow-minded on the whole. They point to sects such as Wahhabism and Salafism as evidence of the “fundamentals,” and yet why should they represent the “fundamentals” of Islam any more than Twelver Shi’ism does? And if they all represent the “fundamentals,” then why are the Wahhabists and Salafists mortal enemies of the Twelver Shiites?
………………………………..
Again, this makes little difference to the victims of Islam. That Muslims are willing to slaughter each other along with Infidels does not make us any safer.
Muslims have slaughtered each other since the days of the “Prophet”, yet they went on to wreck suffering over a large part of the globe.
More:
So the story of Islam is not over, much as you – a self-proclaimed expert and final authority on Islam – would like it to be.
………………………………..
Oh, I have no doubt that Muslims will continue to slaughter us and each other in hideous ways.
The idea that this makes me happy is, of course, just sickening. I wish they would stop–I just don’t believe it would benefit us to pretend that they have.
More:
You apparently think that we need to destroy Islam completely, perhaps in another Great Crusade. If that is your argument, I cannot counter it.
………………………………..
What *absolute crap*. How often have we heard this–that if we are concerned about Muslims *slaughtering us*, that this somehow means that we are advocating slaughtering them.
Of course, I have never said any such thing.
Until about fifty years ago, we had largely isolated the Muslim world for a period of almost two hundred years. We were largely safe from Jihad violence during this period.
How is this “destroying Islam completely”? Of course, it is not.
Nothing but projection.
More:
It is one of many solutions to the problem of Islam today, but I do not believe it can be realized in practice. I can only say that encouraging global debate in the Islamic community about the nature of Islam is a constructive exercise, concurrent with securing ourselves by force. For you to completely dismiss the idea of reform reveals tremendous narrow-mindedness. What a pity.
………………………………..
The idea that those regarded as “filthy Infidels” can encourage debate about the nature of Islam is rot.
I do not engage in suicidal fantasy–as you are urging us to do.
Mark Swan says
This is not just about violent Jihad—this is more about cultural destruction.
Muslims do not need a majority to do this—but their numbers increase.
Just because someone does not display openly what they
have to base their beliefs on…does not mean they will not, at the
very least be empathetic with others who act on it.
These moderate Muslims seem to exist, so We observe this,
do We feel anyone who can read and has read the Quran
and is ok with it, can be something other than Muslim.
Do We expect anyone who is not a Muslim, but has read the
Quran, to understand, how someone who knows what is in the
Quran, can keep Saying they are Muslim.
In this age of Islam spreading aggressively, are we going to hope
moderate Muslims, can water down the very essence of Islam which
is about control plane and simple…are we to think the big players
in this are naive and vulnerable, or maybe ok with this—what.
They have been building-up to this time for many decades…they can
work any system better than its originators, they are very effective.
This is a supremacist Ideology…do We expect them to accept equality.
All their ingenuous determined efforts are very real and very wide-spread.
Do We feel these Muslim folks just need a clear view of
the good life, and when they realize how wonderful a good life
Is, these beliefs, based on the Quran will just go away.
The rest of this world cannot be on hold…how long do We have to give Them to make this reformation, after many centuries of the exact same belief.
Should the words good and Muslim be used together…read the Quran.
Do these exist…if so, let them cast off this hate group membership.
Let them join the free World and help…that is what they could do.
Many beliefs are part of humanity…yet humanity can not accept the Quran.
Whom then do we liken the Muslim Brotherhood to be.
Many have considered them Moderate Muslims.
They are not.
Recall, from the Muslim Brotherhood Explanatory Memorandum:
“The process of settlement is a ‘Civilization-Jihadist Process’ with all the word means. The Ikhwan [Muslim Brotherhood] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”
CONTROL
gravenimage says
All true, Mark.
Debi Brand says
Quran commands obedience to the Allah and Allah’s messenger.
It declared, “Whoever obeys the Messenger has obeyed Allah.” (4:80.)
It instructs Muhammad to command, follow me.
It declares, of Muhammad, that he is an exemplary example to follow.
It declares, Allah rested upon the shoulders of his messenger, Muhammad, the duty to explain the intended divine meanings of the Quranic texts.
Moreover, it hinges Allah’s love for the believer on the believer’s’ willingness and compliance in following Allah’s messenger—“ If you love Allah, follow me and Allah will love you.” (3:31)
It commands, “Whatever the Messenger gives you you should accept; and whatever he forbids you, you should forego.” (Surah 59:7)
How is one to comply with Allah’s command to obey him thus to obey his messenger, if one has no means of discovering or knowing precisely what the messenger commanded?
How can one know he has obeyed Allah if obeying “the Messenger” is obeying Allah if one is clueless as to precisely what the Messenger commanded?
How is one to follow the command of Allah to follow the actions of his messenger if one has no record or source that details and delineates the actions of the said messenger?
How is one to follow that which the Qur’an asserts is the exemplary model believers are commanded to follow absent works, as stated above, that spell out and detail the precise actions one is to emulate?
How is one to understand the intended divine meaning of Qur’anic verses, if, by the very declaration of the Qur’an, the one sent to this world to explain those meanings left no authoritative works bearing out those intended meanings?
If the Qur’anic claim, as cited above, “follow me and Allah will love you” has a wiggles’ worth of worth to it, how is the believer to be assured of Allah’s love for him/her if that love is dependent on his ability to follow the actions of a messenger of whom there exist no authoritative written records?
What’s more, how is one to know what “the Messenger gives you” that is that which you are commanded to “accept, ” how does one find what it is that “he forbids you” so that one might know, that which “you should forego” if there are, as stated, no authoritative works spelling out those details?
In other words, pray tell me, how can a book that instructs its readers to follow and obey such a man be less than intrinsically connected to, thus, categorically dependent upon works that detail and delineate what that messenger did, commanded, instituted, or forbid?
Pray tell me, how can anyone who can reason the distance to the tip of one’s nose, assert that “ the Koran is comprehensive and sufficient in itself”?
Nonsense, by it’s own declarations and commands, as shown above, it points the believer to the details and example of the life of the alleged prophet of Islam.
“Obey Allah and His Messenger,” “Whoever obeys the Messenger has obeyed Allah,” and “If you love Allah, then follow me and Allah will love you.” (3:32, 4:80, 3:31 respectively)
“The explanatory role of the Sunnah in relation to the Qur’an has been determined by the Qur’an itself, where we read in an address to the Prophet in sura al-Nahl (16:44): ‘We have sent down to you the Remembrance so that you may explain to the people what has been revealed to them.’”
(Kamili, Dr. Mohammad Hasim, Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence, The Islamic Texts Society, UK, 2003, p. 81)
What was revealed? The actions “Allah” wanted to see in his body of Believers, those actions seen in the life of His Messenger, Muhammad.
Where does one who desires to obey “Allah” thus obey his messenger, thus follow the example of his messenger, thus, accept what he ordered, forgo what he forbid, as he is commanded to do, where does one find the details needed to comply with all the aforementioned?
Answer: in the pages of sira, ahadith, maghazi, brought together, along with Qur’anic text, into one full picture on the pages of tafsir.
The Qur’an is dependent upon those works, as stated above, is so by its very own commands and declarations, as shown above.
http://www.debibrand.org/
Opposing Islam–Exposing its tenets
James says
Quran-Onlyists have answers for all those objections. Logically, if what Mo commands is the same as the body of commands given through him, the Quran-Onlyist case seems water-tight. Their disdain for the hadith-collections makes sense, since the hadiths are not revealed by God, and depend for their authority on chains of human, not Divine, testimony. Any Catholic who has exchanged ideas with US Evangelicals – and Fundamentalists – will be familiar with Quran-Only thinking. The position that the Quran is sufficient in itself does not differ in any significant way from the same position as applied to the Bible: the Koranic doctrine that the Koran is *mubeen*, “clear”, even sounds like the classical Protestant doctrine of the perspicuity of Scripture.
They sound very like those strict Evangelical Bible-Onlyists who allow authority only to the Bible, and not to creeds, Councils, catechisms, Tradition, Fathers, Popes, bishops, theologians, commentators, or any other source than the Bible, even as auxiliaries to it.
Jack Diamond says
The Sunnah is still divine because it is through Muhammad the Messenger who is virtually (actually) Allah’s partner. The Qur’an would be bad enough by itself but what you think logical is not to 99% of the world’s Sunni Muslims.
“So what should this person do who claims that he is content with the Qur’an and therefore has no need for the Sunnah with regard to these verses? How will he respond to the commands of Allah, may He be exalted, contained in them?
This is in addition to what we said briefly first of all, which is: how can he establish the prayer which Allah, may He be exalted, enjoined upon him in His holy Book? What are the numbers of the prayers? What are the times of the prayers? What are the conditions of them being valid? What invalidates the prayer? And you may ask similar questions about zakaah, fasting, Hajj, and all the other rituals and laws of Islam.
How will he apply the words of Allah, may He be glorified and exalted (interpretation of the meaning): “Cut off the hand of the thief, male or female, as a recompense for that which they committed, a punishment by way of example from Allah. And Allah is All-Powerful, All-Wise” [al-Maa’idah 5:38]? What is the minimum value of wealth that defines theft? From where should the hand be cut off? Is it the right hand or the left hand? What are the conditions to be met with regard to the stolen item? And you may ask similar questions about the hadd punishments for zina (fornication or adultery), slander, li‘aan and so on.
Badr ad-Deen az-Zarkashi (may Allah have mercy on him) said:
Ash-Shaafa‘i said in ar-Risaalah, in a chapter on the obligation of obedience to the Messenger (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him):
Allaah commands His slaves to respond to Him and His Messenger: “O you who believe! Answer Allaah (by obeying Him) and (His) Messenger when he calls you to that which will give you life . . .” [al-Anfaal 8:24]
(e) Allaah also commands His slaves to refer all disputes to him: “. . . (And) if you differ in anything amongst yourselves, refer it to Allaah and His Messenger . . .” [al-Nisaa’ 4:59]
(2) The Sunnah itself indicates the importance of the Sunnah. For example:
(a) Al-Tirmidhi reported from Abu Raafi’ and others that the Prophet (peace be upon him) said: “I do not want to see any one of you reclining on his couch and, when he hears of my instructions or prohibitions, saying ‘I don’t accept it; we didn’t find any such thing in the Book of Allaah.’” Abu ‘Eesaa said: This is a saheeh hasan hadeeth. (See Sunan al-Tirmidhi, Shaakir edition, no. 2663).
Al-’Irbaad ibn Saariyah, may Allaah be pleased with him, reported that the Prophet (peace be upon him) said: “Would any of you think, reclining on his couch, that Allaah would only describe what is forbidden in the Qur’aan? I tell you, by Allaah, that I have warned and commanded and prohibited things that are as important as what is in the Qur’aan, if not more so.” (Reported by Abu Dawud, Kitaab al-Khiraj wa’l-imaarah wa’l-fay’).
(b) Abu Dawud also reported from al-’Irbaad ibn Saariyah, may Allaah be pleased with him, that “the Messenger of Allaah (peace be upon him) led us in prayer one day, then he turned to us and exhorted us strongly . . . (he said), ‘Pay attention to my sunnah (way) and the way of the Rightly-guided Khaleefahs after me, adhere to it and hold fast to it.’” (Saheeh Abi Dawud, Kitaab al-Sunnah).
(3) The scholars’ consensus (ijmaa’) affirming the importance of the Sunnah.
Al-Shaafi’i, may Allaah have mercy on him, said: “I do not know of anyone among the Sahaabah and Taabi’een who narrated a report from the Messenger of Allaah (peace be upon him) without accepting it, adhering to it and affirming that this was sunnah. Those who came after the Taabi’een, and those whom we met did likewise: they all accepted the reports and took them to be sunnah, praising those who followed them and criticizing those who went against them. Whoever deviated from this path would be regarded by us as having deviated from the way of the Companions of the Prophet (peace be upon him) and the scholars who followed them, and would be considered as one of the ignorant.
(4) Common sense indicates the importance of the Sunnah.
The fact that the Prophet (peace be upon him) is the Messenger of Allaah indicates that we must believe everything he said and obey every command he gave. It goes without saying that he has told us things and given instructions in addition to what is in the Qur’aan. It is futile to make a distinction between the Sunnah and the Qur’aan when it comes to adhering to it and responding to it. It is obligatory to believe in what he has told us, and to obey his instructions.
The ruling concerning those who deny the importance of the Sunnah is that they are kaafirs, because they deny and reject a well-known and undeniable part of the religion.”
—-https://islamqa.info/en/93111
They are kaffirs who deny the Sunnah.
And the Bible is not equivalent to the Qur’an nor Christianity to Islam.
gravenimage says
There are two problems with the Qur’an-only idea, James.
Firstly, *very few* Muslims actually hold these views.
Secondly, and even more salient, is that the Qur’an itself is hideously violent. A Qur’an-only Islam would scarcely be less horrifying.
Debi Brand says
Well stated, J.D. and g.i.
Additionally, in brief (short on time here…):
See also for “oneness” of Qur’an and sunnah: http://islamexposed.blogspot.com/2016/08/omar-siddiqui-mateen-obeyed-allah.html
gravenimage says
True, Debi.
Pablo says
I don’t think we are going to eradicate 1.6 billion Muslims. For the the Muslims who live on our soil, I don’t care if they believe that Muhammad is Puff The Magic Dragon, once they abide by our constitution.
gravenimage says
Abiding by an Infidel constitution is “un-Islamic”.
PABLO says
Reform. You just don’t get it.
gravenimage says
Reform has *never* happened in Islam. The consistent demands that we pretend that it has are just ridiculous.
PABLO says
When does the internment camps begin?
Frank Anderson says
Pablo, when do the murders and rapes stop? Not to dwell on the child molestation, mutilation, slavery and other practices that have been taught and done for 1400 years. Do they matter? Do we have no right to be secure from institutional violence wherever we turn?
gravenimage says
PABLO wrote:
When does (sic) the internment camps begin?
……………………….
How often have we heard *this calumny*–that if we object to Muslims raping and murdering *us*, that this means that the real problem is that we are a threat to Muslims?
Talk about projection.
Ann says
Could you explain what you mean by that? On the surface it seems as though you are saying that no criticism of Islam may be allowed. Why not? We give our opinion about everything else in the world, as is our right. Why not criticize so ridiculous and barbaric a religious ideology, one which has murdered so many millions? Decent Muslims must wake up and think about why they want to call themselves Muslims, about what they really believe. I’m not proposing internment camps, but I do propose making it a lot harder for Muslims to get into non-Muslim countries. I propose slashing the number of immigrants accepted, maybe down to no Muslim immigrants. I propose opening more camps on site to feed the hungry and protect the persecuted, but do it there, not here. And staying at these camps would be voluntary. Those who set the tents on fire or raped women would be instantly expelled (or shot). But certainly no concentration camps.
Daniel Triplett says
Internment camps are Constitutional.
The Free World is at stake.
With a Taqiyya-proof declaration of Apostasy, they walk out the front gate as free Apostates. Or, they have a choice to remain loyal to Allah and face capital punishment.
gravenimage says
Ann, PABLO is claiming that we are poised to throw Muslims into camps–with the unspoken implication that we are just like the Nazis.
In other words, if we complain about Muslim violence against us, it means that we are–somehow–actually the violent ones ourselves.
gravenimage says
Islamic Reform: How Firm a Foundation?
………………
Pretty much quicksand, I’m afraid.
Most Muslim reformers either have no following or turn out to be anything but moderates. I wish it were otherwise.
Debi Brand says
Well stated, J.D. and g.i.
Additionally, in brief (short on time here…):
gravenimage says
+1
PABLO says
PABLO wrote:
When does (sic) the internment camps begin?
……………………….
Gravenimage wrote:
How often have we heard *this calumny*–that if we object to Muslims raping and murdering *us*, that this means that the real problem is that we are a threat to Muslims?
Talk about projection.
Pablo:
Once again, you have shown that you have trouble understanding simple posts hence your ridiculous response.
gravenimage says
Is PABLO going to say in what way I was wrong? I doubt it…
PABLO says
Of Course. What part of on our soil you did you not get? Did I say it was wrong to object to to Muslims raping and or murdering us? No.
If you get rid of all the Muslims in America as of the 31 August 2017 and after that 50,000 Americans from each state, whose family history goes back 300 years in the US, converted to Islam within a month, what are you going to do with them? You see, you equated Islam with foreigners and that is your downfall. Now those 2,500,000 real Americans, who are protected by the Constitution, pose a problem for you. Do you have any suggestions on how to deal with them. Remember Stalin is looking at you.
Frank Anderson says
Pablo, for some reason I don’t believe you understand the definition of treason in the US Constitution. No Muslim can be observant of the Constitution, written by humans, many of whom were Masons, and also of Islamic teaching. Tolerating under the guise of religion, a cult which strives in every way possible the overthrow of the Constitution and the death or slavery of all who refuse to “convert, submit or die” is actively promoting treason in addition to national, social and personal suicide.
The Law of the Sea which has been accepted for hundreds of years has classified pirates as “enemies of all mankind” (Hostus humanus generis) (sp?). A pirate may be shot or otherwise killed on sight without trial or any other rights normally afforded to citizens of a country. I continue to believe that terrorists who seek to commit the same lawless violence on land and in the air should be considered pirates and also lose any rights of due process. Those who pray daily, as many as 5 times or more, and support violent acts are equally guilty with those who commit the murders. Stalin and Hitler killed millions of people who simply offended their notions of race or social compliance. Islam acts daily to promote total destruction of our society and imposition of a slave society under control of the most brutal, thoughtless and ignorant people imitating life today. Perhaps you are not thoughtful enough to see the difference and understand what Islam intends for all of us.
I still think the difference between “good” or “moderate” and “bad” Islam is how long one is willing to wait to conquer us. To be Muslim is to be ALL Muslim or else. They all read the same books, pray the same prayers and hope for the same conquest.
PABLO says
Also, the internment camps that I was referring to is the internment of Japanese Americans, but you had to equate it to I was calling folks like you Nazis. Priceless.
gravenimage says
PABLO wrote:
Of Course. What part of on our soil you did you not get? Did I say it was wrong to object to to Muslims raping and or murdering us? No.
If you get rid of all the Muslims in America as of the 31 August 2017 and after that 50,000 Americans from each state, whose family history goes back 300 years in the US, converted to Islam within a month, what are you going to do with them?
……………………..
Where did PABLO get these “statistics” from–that every month 50,000 Americans from each state whose family history goes back 300 years is converting to Islam?
Let’s leave the claim of legacy aside and just look at the numbers: 50,000 from each of 50 states every month adds up to 30,000,000 new Muslims every year.
Even assuming that his grammar is just exceptionally poor, and he didn’t mean there were 50,000 of these patriotic Americans with deep roots from each state “reverting” to Islam, but just that these 50,000 came from each state in the union, this would still amount to over half a million newly-minted Mohammedans each year.
Given that even high estimates of the entire Muslim population in the US amounts to about 4 million, this is highly questionable to say the least.
In any case, I never once said that all Muslims were immigrants–PABLO is being dishonest here.
Moreover, no one here brought up internment camps–of any sort–save the dishonest PABLO himself.
Never mind that fact that no Japanese-American was guilty of treason during WWII, and PABLO is pretending that the case is the same with Muslims–that no violent Jihad exists.
But the idea that there is nothing between rolling over for Jihad terror or setting up internment camps is ludicrous, in any case. Even now–as spotty as it is–security is catching many Jihad plotters, including those who were born in the United States.
We need *more* of this monitoring of potentially violent Muslims.
Clearly, the first thing to do is to stop the flood of Muslims into the West. This does not solve all problems, but it is hardly immaterial, either–as PABLO pretends.
PABLO says
You last response at 4:53 pm does not afford me a reply. I have to conclude that you have a disability. Now get somebody to read my posts for you and respond accordingly. 50,000 multiply by 50 (states) (within a month, not each month) equals 2.5 million. You are an embarrassment ………10 states by 50,000 equals 500,000 which is half a million.
Also, let your buddy Frank Anderson know that he too has a disability.
Frank Anderson says
Pablo, I admit to having at least 2 issues which I am sure you would call disabilities, neither of which is mental. I am a “senior citizen” with some real, live health issues. And, compared to you I can read, write and understand the English language, as demonstrated by about 22 years of education, 2 degrees, pieces of 3 others, 2 professional licenses and approximately 37 years as an attorney. You are not handicapped by any sign of integrity, honesty or thoughtful analysis.
During WWII Roosevelt interned the Japanese on the suspicion they were dangerous to the United States. Woodrow Wilson contemplated interning German and Italian heritage people in WWI, and Roosevelt again in WWII, but there were too many of them. See, Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg. With the benefit of hindsight, Roosevelt and his administration were much more in error than correct. If you can’t see the difference between acting on mere suspicion and acting on the clear statements, teachings and practices for 1400 years of a cult of violence and slavery, you must be a Muslim practicing Islamic deception. Your total ignorance is your choice and your disability for which there is no cure. “Deliberate Ignorance constitutes knowledge of the truth.” Wyle v. R.J. Reynolds, 709 F.2d 585 (9th Cir. 1983). Keep posting your lies and people will continue dismissing you as not worth their time.
R says
“Douglass-Williams similarly references Islamic civilization’s past “Golden Age” achievements and optimistically claims that the “primitive and rigid nature of Islamist theology is a perversion of an ancient pluralistic faith.””
Uh, what? I thought Douglass-Williams was well-versed in Islam. The “Islamic Golden Age” is an absurd, ahistorical myth and Islam has never been pluralistic in its entire 1,400 year history.
gravenimage says
I very much respect Christine Douglass-Williams, but I agree with R on this point.