Maybe it’s something in the water over at National Review. The magazine claims to be conservative, and to be dedicated to upholding the values of Western civilization. Sometimes it lives up to that. Often it is sensible. More often, however, it is weak, cowardly, and submissive to the Left. And sometimes it is so far away from the truth and common sense that it takes one’s breath away. Back in 2011, the magazine featured hard-Left Soros operative Matt Duss, a friend and associate of the likes of Linda Sarsour, hitting David Horowitz and me for committing the trumped-up Leftist propaganda sin of “Islamophobia.” That was so far out of left field even for National Review that I had to wonder if Duss or his handlers had remunerated NR handsomely enough to make this egregious example of giving aid and comfort to the enemy worth the magazine’s while.
This new piece, “Reclaiming the Path of Moderation in Islam,” is not nearly as appalling as the magazine’s publishing of Duss, which was tantamount to the Washington Post publishing me criticizing Sarsour. The new article is a fairly standard workout of the establishment Republican position that Islam is a religion of peace that has nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism, and NR is nothing if not weak Romneyite establishment Republican gruel. But it is still yet another example of the magazine’s loss of the plot.
The subtitle is “Fundamentalists are gaining momentum across the Muslim world, but their conception of Islam relies on a flawed reading of the Koran.” Ah yes, I do believe we have heard that before, about six million times: if only Islam were properly understood, you see, then it would be as cute and cuddly as a child’s teddy bear, but these “fundamentalists” (a word that arose from controversies within Protestant Christianity and is essentially meaningless in an Islamic context) get it all wrong. Young Mathis Bitton, an NR intern, doesn’t explain why these “fundamentalists” all misunderstand Islam in essentially the same way, or how this “flawed reading of the Koran” captures the imagination of so many young Muslims across the world, such that the presumably true and peaceful version they supposedly learn at home and in mosques is powerless in the face of its appeal. One would think that if the true, peaceful Islam were as easy to access and understand as young Bitton suggests here, “deradicalization” programs wouldn’t prove to be such a singular failure everywhere they’re implemented, and jihad groups’ recruitment efforts among peaceful Muslims wouldn’t be so consistently successful.
More below.
“Reclaiming the Path of Moderation in Islam,” by Mathis Bitton, National Review, July 14, 2020:
…In 2015, the leading scholar Mohammad Hashim Kamali published a seminal work on Islamic jurisprudence, The Middle Path of Moderation in Islam. In fewer than 300 pages, the book examines a series of Koranic concepts that underpin the history of Islamic thought. Among these central ideas is Ikhtilāf, or reasoned disagreement. As Kamali aptly remarks, the Koran teaches believers that “religious diversity is divinely willed, which inspires, in turn, coexistence with, and tolerance of, others as a spiritual and not just an ethical imperative.” Naturally, skeptics will object that Islam can be interpreted in a wide variety of ways, many of which refute Kamali’s pacifist pluralism. To respond, Kamali presents an erudite and comprehensive review of textual evidence, burying his opponents under a mountain of citations while explaining the context in which more-controversial passages have to be read.
“Religious diversity is divinely willed” echoes the Document on Human Fraternity for World Peace and Living Together that Pope Francis signed along with the Grand Sheikh of al-Azhar. That document says, “The pluralism and the diversity of religions, colour, sex, race and language are willed by God in His wisdom, through which He created human beings.” This is a Qur’anic idea (10:99), as Bitton notes below. But the Qur’an does not say that Muslims are to accept this state of affairs complacently. In fact, the Qur’an teaches exactly the opposite: “And whoever desires other than Islam as religion – never will it be accepted from him, and he, in the Hereafter, will be among the losers.” (3:85) And not only will Allah not accept any religion except Islam, but the believers must fight unbelievers “until religion is all for Allah” (Qur’an 8:39). More on that below.
Islam is an all-encompassing religion that blurs the line between temporal and divine power. As the Catholic intellectual Richard John Neuhaus once wrote, classical Islam considers that “the most fundamental error of Western liberalism is the distinction, even division, of sacred and profane” — resulting in what the influential Egyptian thinker Sayyid Qutb termed “hideous schizophrenia.” Beyond a set of metaphysical claims, Islam proposes a way of life, a culture, and a political project. It is also a religion of jihad, that is, of spiritual conquest. Unlike Judaism, Islam places a central emphasis on the conversion of unbelievers.
The eighth sura of the Qur’an is entitled “The Spoils of War” (Al-Anfal). What kind of “spoils of war” ensue from a “spiritual conquest”? In that chapter, we read this: “And know that anything you obtain of war booty – then indeed, for Allah is one fifth of it and for the Messenger and for near relatives and the orphans, the needy, and the traveler” (8:40). How does one turn over to Muhammad or the Islamic authorities a fifth of the war booty from a spiritual conquest?
But Bitton does go on to contradict himself, and to let slip that the Qur’an has more in mind than a “spiritual conquest”:
Time and again, the Koran invites believers to “fight [the enemies of Islam] until there is no persecution” (al-Baqarah 2:193), and to “fight in the way of God against those who fight against you” (al-Baqarah 2:190). But these endorsements of defensive warfare, of which terrorists make extensive use, all belong to a specific part of the Muslim corpus: the story of the Prophet Mohammed at war. In times of conflict, Islam does seem to endorse certain forms of violence that can, if interpreted along literalist lines, justify murderous actions committed against supposed enemies and perceived persecutors.
The Qur’an does enjoin defensive jihad, but it also mandates offensive jihad. Bitton doesn’t quote this: “And fight them until there is no fitnah and religion is all for Allah.” (8:39) Or this:”Fight them until there is no fitnah and worship is for Allah” (2:193). How can jihad warfare be purely defensive if it is not to end until religion is all for Allah, or as Islamic law has it, until non-Muslims have either converted to Islam or (in the case of the People of the Book) accepted the hegemony of Islamic law? If fighting can’t stop until religion is all for Allah, it can’t stop when the aggressor stops attacking. Muhammad’s earliest biographer, an eighth-century Muslim named Ibn Ishaq, explains the progression of Qur’anic revelation about warfare. First, he explains, Allah allowed Muslims to wage defensive warfare. But that was not Allah’s last word on the circumstances in which Muslims should fight. Ibn Ishaq explains offensive jihad by invoking Qur’an 2:193: Muslims must fight until Allah alone is worshipped. Ibn Ishaq gives no hint that that command died with Muhammad.
…In times of peace, Islam simply does not require the spiritual conquest of unbelievers to be coercive. On the contrary, the Koran is filled with exhortations to “refuse compulsion in religion” (al-Baqarah 2:256). In al-Kāfirun 109:1–6, the prophet reaches out to non-Muslims and defends religious diversity:
O you who disbelieve, I worship not that which you worship, nor do you worship that which I worship. . . . For you, your religion, and for me, mine.
Elsewhere, we find evidence that religious differences are divinely willed, and have to be treated as such:
Had your Lord so willed, all who are on earth would have believed. Would you then force people to become believers? (Yūnus, 10:99).
And again:
Say (O Mohammed): The truth is from your Lord. Let him who will, believe (in it), and let him who will, disbelieve (al-Kahf, 18:29).
Ibn Ishaq’s explanation of the progression of Qur’anic revelation is what leads jihadis — and mainstream Islamic theologians — to state that coexistence has been abrogated by the commands to wage defensive and offensive jihad. The great medieval scholar Ibn Qayyim (1292-1350) also outlines the stages of the Muhammad’s prophetic career: “For thirteen years after the beginning of his Messengership, he called people to God through preaching, without fighting or Jizyah, and was commanded to restrain himself and to practice patience and forbearance. Then he was commanded to migrate, and later permission was given to fight. Then he was commanded to fight those who fought him, and to restrain himself from those who did not make war with him. Later he was commanded to fight the polytheists until God’s religion was fully established.”
National Review should not be so irresponsible as to publish this nonsense, which will only foster even more complacency among establishment Republicans regarding the jihad threat.
CogitoErgoSum says
If they would try arranging the surahs in chronological order and find out how abrogation works then they might get a proper reading of the Koran. The peaceful parts came first but were replaced later by demands for Muslims to fight, fight and keep on fighting against all Infidels until everyone has submitted to Islam. But no, it’s better for them if they keep everyone in a state of confusion with their lies — until they gain more power.
visitor says
The peaceful parts were written while Mohammed lived in Mecca. Jihad stuff after Mohammed was forced to move to Medina.
https://youtu.be/51ekAPlvr8U?t=652
Patrick says
Yup, just ask any Muslim, “Are you a Meccan or Medina Muslim?” Good luck getting an honest answer.
James Lincoln says
CogitoErgoSum says,
“If they would try arranging the surahs in chronological order and find out how abrogation works then they might get a proper reading of the Koran.”
100% correct. I have included a link from a prior Jihad Watch feature article that addresses this:
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2018/10/jihad-abrogates-tolerance
gravenimage says
Good exchange.
Mark M says
That’s it exactly. When Muslims are in a minority, they are all in favour of tolerance and understanding of minorities. When they become the majority they believe that everyone should adhere to the majority belief and they show no tolerance of religious minorities. I always say ‘don’t listen to what Muslims say – look at what they do’.
gravenimage says
National Review claims that jihadis’ ‘conception of Islam relies on a flawed reading of the Koran’
……………..
Yeah–you tell ’em, you ‘filthy Infidels’…
What fools these dhimmis be!
rubiconcrest says
Yea, why tell us?
Spiro says
So now the National Review is an Islamic expert and capable to give interpretation of an Arabic book
How interesting I bet the Muslim arabs
Are most grateful
Eur says
Even non-terrorist Muslims are theocratic. That’s the way it is throughout the world, you can talk to many Muslims and you will come to that conclusion. I have even spoken to a young girl of Moroccan origin with a law degree in Europe …. she has some important contradictions, she is in favor of having separate laws based on religious beliefs. It is somewhat horrifying that someone with studies is in favor of destroying the concept of citizenship and equal rights and obligations. In short, Muslims do not accept human rights on religious freedom, freedom of expression … very basic and fundamental concepts. Pure tribalism.
gravenimage says
Thanks for that background, Eur.
TruthWFree says
I’m convinced Muhammad got his revelations for the Quran from Satan.
Lilith Wept says
Google “ Prophet of Doom” by Craig Winn. It’s an online ebook ( out of print but you can find some copies at used book stores and eBay ) biography of Muhammed, and the author has the same idea….Muhammed was either deluded by Satan or it was hallucinations from epilepsy ….and the author elaborates on it. It has a lot of scholarly commentary….. Anyone who knows the truth of Islam would be interested … The author is a Christian so the book has that point of view.
“ It’s All About Muhammed” By FW Burleigh ( available at Amazon) is a unbiased biography of Mohammed. Uses the Islamic sources and a very easy and entertaining read ( in a sort of “ watching a train wreck and can’t affect it “ kind of way…,
Both are exellent books and I recommend them quite a bit.
Rory Daulton says
We should be fair to National Review and note that it has writers with differing opinions. I disagree with the magazine on some issues but we should not be overly harsh about it.
As the end of the relevant NR article states, “MATHIS BITTON is an editorial intern at National Review.” The writer is an intern and does not speak for National Review as a whole, just for himself. NR also has Andrew C. McCarthy as a regular writer and he has a must clearer idea of what islamic jihad is. He successfully prosecuted the blind sheik for terrorism and still opposes jihad in his writing. The magazine publishes multiple opinions about islam and jihad.
So lets disagree with Mr. Bitton and other writers at National Review but not tar the entire magazine with the same brush.
rubiconcrest says
The NR comments are setting the author straight.
gravenimage says
Good to hear, rubiconcrest.
ntesdorf says
The authors at National Review must have been reading from the New Expurgated and Revised 2020 version of the Qur;an to come up with that notion.
Wellington says
I subscribed to National Review for many years but gave up on it a long time ago. On certain subjects, it gets things down pretty well, but on other matters, e.g., Islam, it is utterly clueless.
James Lincoln says
Wellington,
The National Review may also be very afraid – backlash from CAIR, or worse.
I’m sure that they have not forgotten about the 2015 Charlie Hebdo Terrorist Attack…
Dry Academy says
The National Review is loathsome. Anyone who says that Islam teaches “pacifist pluralism” either has an IQ of 30 or is engaging in obvious deception.
Remember, this is the magazine that published a puff piece on Jeffrey Epstein. Hope this vile, prissy-voiced pseudo-conservative little rag goes out of business soon. Who the Hell would pay for a subscription to this trash?
Ginny says
Yes! NR is a RINO rag. I got wise to them years ago and cancelled my subscription of 40 years.
Terry Gain says
I have two questions for National Review..
1. In what Muslim countries do non-Muslims have equal rights?
2. Why is the Koran so widely misinterpreted?
I suspect that this outreach is a quest for petrodollars.
gravenimage says
Good questions Terry.
OLD GUY says
Answers: 1 – NONE
2 – NOT
Patrick B. Ludwig says
How can you “misread” the koran? Is it not written in “clear arabic” – or so it claims?
john h wilson says
Is the Nation Review actually stating that Muslims have gotten it wrong since 632 AD????
gravenimage says
Yes–this apologia makes little sense…
Michael Copeland says
So many “flawed readings”, “misunderstanders”, and “wrong interpretations”.
We have to conclude that Islam is about the worst taught subject in the world.
Its students likewise are some of the world’s worst students, with very faulty comprehension.
What a record.
gravenimage says
And if this *were* the case, why isn’t the National Review preaching this to, say, Al Qaida, Boko Haram, and the Taliban–all “misunderstanders” of their own peaceful religion–instead of to the good Infidels reading this rag?
Because this is just whitewash.
grandpahalfdime says
Earth to “National Review” your claim is not born out by either the Qur’an itself (you should read it) or by the many mullahs out there stating that the intent if the Qur’an is “death to America and Israel.” Then there remains things like honor killings, degradation of women, FMG, and so on…
No, the Jihadists are reading the Qur’an exactly as it is written.
Simply put, only a buffoon would ever believe that Islam is some “religion of peace” or for that matter, any more a religion than Naziism.