The story of Emil Abdelkader, a 19th-century Algerian military leader who saved the Christians of Damascus from a massacre in 1860, is an outlier among the stories of Islamic leaders, although it teaches us a great lesson. This lesson, however, is not what the Emir-Stein Center wants it to be. John Kiser, co-founder of the Abd-Elkader Project and author of Commander of the Faithful: The Life and Times of Emir Abd el-Kader (A Story of True Jihad) would have you believe that Islam is shown to be fundamentally peaceful as a result of people such as Abdelkader, but in reality, there is a range of personalities and people in every theological camp. The only way to determine whether one’s actions are representative of his or her theology is to investigate their moral basis and justification in that theology.
In the video, Kiser tells the audience that Emil Abdelkader was a great humanitarian who opposed French troops and saved thousands of Christian lives in the Druze Riots of 1860, but this is completely irrelevant to the question of whether or not Islam is peaceful, as it cannot be established that Abdelkader acted upon Islamic principles. That is because in the Qur’an’s Surah 98:6, Jews and Christians are called ‘the worst of creatures’. In Surah 5:51, Allah says ‘do not take the Jews and the Christians as friends. They are friends to one another. And whoever among you takes them as friends, so surely he is of them’. Muslims are commanded to kill or subjugate Christians, not help them, in many verses, including Surah 9:5, where Allah commands ‘when the forbidden months are passed, so kill the polytheists wherever you find them, and take them [as captives] and besiege them’. Christians are considered polytheists because of the doctrine of the Trinity.
In regard to what Abdelkader is most revered for, the humane treatment of prisoners, Islam teaches quite the opposite, specifically in regard to female slaves. Men are allowed to have sexual intercourse with female slaves, as we see in Surah 4:24: ‘And married women [are also forbidden], except all that your right hand possesses’. Muhammad was also given the privilege of owning an unlimited number of sex slaves in Surah 33:50: ‘O you prophet, surely we have made it lawful for you, your wives whom you have given their wages and those that your right hand possesses which Allah has granted you.’
According to Kiser, these compassionate ethical standards came from a strict application of Islamic law, and here we come to the motivation behind these Emir-Stein videos: promoting Islam via the actions of Muslims. ‘For Americans, Abdelkader represents a story that is needed to rebalance perceptions of Islam’. The Emir-Stein Center evidently holds that it is clearly wrong when people dismiss Islam simply because of the actions of terrorists, so why is the opposite acceptable? The only way to judge Islam rightly is not by the mixed actions of followers, but by its scripture. Then we can see which group most accurately represents Islamic teaching. Appealing to the character of the person to legitimise the ideology is the genetic fallacy. If Abdelkader had been a brutal warlord, would that mean Islam is suddenly a violent ideology? No, because the argument could not be more irrelevant: Islam is not affected in its nature by any actions after Muhammad’s era.
Kiser says that Emil Abdelkader is ‘an embodiment of true theological, moral and rational ideas taught by Islam’. As we have already seen, this is extremely disingenuous. Emil Abdelkader transgressed against the will of Allah, as we established earlier, which means Allah does not love him, as is stated at the end of many Qur’an verses. In Surah 8:6, we read that ‘whoever will turn his back to them on that day, unless he turns away strategically to engage in war or to rally some other group, so indeed, will return with wrath from Allah’, and such hypocrites will be met with a painful end, as detailed in Surah 9:73, where Allah decrees: ‘O you prophet, perform jihad against the infidels and the hypocrites, and be harsh with them’.
Kiser presents four points to attempt to legitimise this portrayal of Islam. The first, third and fourth are irrelevant to his point, as Kiser cites Abdelkader’s lack of blind zeal in fighting naively, lack of blinding stubbornness in his political animosity with the French, and his ability to put himself in his adversaries’ shoes. In the second, Kiser claims that Emil Abdelkader ‘is strictly guided in his decisions by the legal limitations and moral obligations set forth in the divine law’. As we have already established, many of his actions towards unbelievers transgress against the direct, perfect, unchangeable, eternal, perfectly preserved command of Allah, meaning that he is actually a munafiq, a hypocrite in Islam.
Kiser then apparently tries to link Christianity to Islam, by claiming that the subjects of his video ‘would agree with the Apostle Peter that faith alone is not enough’. I will ignore the Christian theological implications around that statement and instead grant them with 2 Peter 1:5-7. The question that arises here is this: does John Kiser really expect Islam to endorse what is written in the Bible? If Muslims argue the Gospel has not been corrupted, Islam crumbles, so Islamic theology thus holds that the Bible has been corrupted; as such, it is completely irrelevant to the so-called virtues of Islam. Yet while Kiser cites the Bible in the video, we still haven’t yet seen any Islamic scriptural backing for any of Emil Abdelkader’s actions.
John Kiser seems to suggest that all religions have one thing in common: The Golden Rule, ‘love thy neighbour’. In reality, there is not a single verse in the Qur’an that preaches love for an unbeliever. I will again set out the challenge to John Kiser to find one, although he must be careful not to bring a verse that not only neglects to preach love, but proves the exact opposite. Allah commands Muslims in Surah 9:123: ‘O you who have believed, engage in war against the infidels who are near to you. And let them find in you harshness’. Helping and loving is not ‘harshness’.
The video title carries this subtitle: ‘When Americans Honored an Icon of Jihad’. While ‘icon’ is a strange choice of word, this devious phraseology is the reason behind the Emir-Stein Center’s entire mission: to smuggle dangerous Islamic concepts into the back door of a more loving Christian-based West. Some choose to aid this effort intentionally while others are unwilling participants.
Rather than be an ‘Icon of Jihad’, Emil Abdelkader was a transgressor against Allah. We read in Surah 9:73 that Allah commands: ‘O you prophet, perform jihad against the infidels and the hypocrites, and be harsh with them. And their abode will be hell, and evil is the final place.’ The meaning of the word ‘jihad’ is quite clear here. Helping unbelieving people and those who fight against you is certainly not jihad. The video is here appealing to the popular but entirely subjective campaign where ‘My Jihad’. When engaging in war with unbelievers, the Qur’an says: ‘Allah will torment them by your hands and put them to shame and give you victory over them and heal chests of a believing people’. (9:14-15)
If a Muslim such as Emil Abdelkader carries out acts that stand in direct contradiction to Islam and Allah’s commands, can his good actions really be attributed to his Muslim identity? Without any linking evidence between his actions and Allah’s direct commands, these good, laudable actions are irrelevant to his being Muslim. I ask John Kiser to show me a single command from Allah telling Muslims to carry out any of the actions detailed in the video to unbelievers. Until then, there is no link between such virtuous actions and Islam.
CogitoErgoSum says
I also am unable to see how honoring Abd el-Kader is honoring an icon of Jihad. Jihad is warfare in the cause of Islam. How is helping Christians continue to live as Christians considered waging Jihad against them? At the very least el-Kader should have extracted the Jizya from the Christians before helping them in any way. He was definitely NOT following the the wishes of Allah per verse 9:29 of the Koran.
I see a similarity between the actions of e-Kader and Malek al-Kamil, who was the sultan who came across St. Francis of Assisi when he was on his mission to preach to the Muslims. The sultan should have either killed Francis for not converting to Islam or else taken him captive but instead let him return to Italy. Later, when al-Kamil had trapped and defeated a force of Crusaders, instead of watching them all die of starvation he supplied them with food and allowed them to live. Perhaps this may be attributed in some way to al-Kamil’s earlier talks with St. Francis concerning the beliefs of Christians.
So, just as al-Kamil had showed kindness to Christians after having learned more about them, it seems likely that gaining an understanding of Christianity had a similar effect upon el-Kader. After spending some time as a prisoner of the French he was helped by Christians who appealed to the French government for his release upon his promise never again to aid the cause of rebellion in Algeria. I think this may have had as much effect upon his religious views as Francis had affected the views of al-Kamil. In honoring the actions of al-Kamil, Christians may, instead of honoring Islam, be honoring the best aspect of their own religion – to love one another, even your enemies.
CogitoErgoSum says
Let me clarify. I should have ended saying: In honoring the actions of both al-Kamil and el-Kader, Christians may, instead of honoring Islam, be honoring the best aspect of their own religion – to love one another, even your enemies.
CogitoErgoSum says
BTW, it’s also interesting to note that upon el-Kader’s release from prison in 1852 by the French President, el-Kader was given an annual pension of 100,000 francs. In effect, instead of the French paying the Jizya to keep their religion, they paid el-Kader to keep his … but either way he got his tribute from the French. Ha!
mortimer says
Exactly, he was put out to pasture on parole.
CogitoErgoSum says
You could also look at if as if the French were paying him his annual Jizya … or as they called it, his pension. By not waging war against the French in Algeria he was honoring his agreement with them which, yes, would be in keeping with the rules of Jihad. I just realized this myself. What is really being honored here is the Jizya and el-Kader’s willingness to obey the terms of it … and the willingness of the French to pay it. It was to his benefit to keep them paying it to him. Wherever el-Kader is now he must be having a good laugh over this stupid video.
gravenimage says
Yes, this was considered Jizya.
gravenimage says
CogitoErgoSum wrote:
I also am unable to see how honoring Abd el-Kader is honoring an icon of Jihad. Jihad is warfare in the cause of Islam. How is helping Christians continue to live as Christians considered waging Jihad against them?
…………………….
Abd el-Kader was indeed a Jihadist–not for not murdering Christians in Damascus, but for waging Jihad against Infidels in his native Algeria.
Malek al-Kamil was also a Jihadist–not for not murdering Francis, whom he considered a madman, but because he waged Jihad.
I don’t actually think that lauding Jihadists is a good thing, nor is pretending that they were not Jihadists.
mortimer says
Emir Stein Center in San José, CA is a whitewashing propaganda outfit that should be forensically audited to find out who is paying for it. I suspect a foreign Islamic government such as Qatar.
gravenimage says
Yes–nothing but Da’wa and Taqiyya. And this is in my own neck of the woods.
mortimer says
The compassionate humanitarianism of the Emir Abdelkader was not learned from Islam, but rather from his contacts with the enlightened and civilized French who dealt very generously with their former antagonist. Abdelkader’s civilized behavior is not demanded by Islam. He is one of the ‘modern’ types of Muslims who appeared after the enlightenment and after the age of Napoleon whose influence on international culture was very fashionable throughout the entire world. There is no ‘modern version’ of Islam; only regular, ‘consensus’ Islam is valid.
No doubt, Abdelkader saw the future would be better for everyone through cooperation between groups, so that disputes could be settled through negotiation, rather than through arms. His approach was to ‘win hearts and minds’. He was a ‘moderate’ Muslim who saw the advantage of Muslims would best be obtained with diplomacy. He was ‘moderate’ due to the overwhelming power of modern France. When he made a deal with France, the French were very generous to him. Abdelkader had no reason for implementing the intolerant, violent methods of Mohammed. He was internationally recognized for his enlightened approach. Who knows how he would have treated his foes if he had had unlimited power.
Abdelkamer cannot, then, be taken as an example of classical Islam.
The speaker is trying to use this anomalous Muslim leader and overgeneralize him as representing a supposed ‘true, benign Islam’. That is an intentional falsehood or a total lack of knowledge of Islamic law and history.
Either way, the speaker’s conclusions are totally wrong. Abdelkamer’s conduct was not informed by Islam, but by modernism.
gravenimage says
He was still a Jihadist. He didn’t abandon Jihad for ethical reasons–the French forced him to surrender in 1847, then paid him a pension to keep him from going back to it.
And the French increased his pension after Damascus.
Diane Harvey says
As David Wood and Bill Warner rightly do. To learn the nature of Islam focus on the character of Mohammad, his Qur’an, and Mo’s behavior.
So many Muslims know so little about their prophet. When this information is given to them, many are heard to say, “I don’t believe what you’re telling me about Mohammad.”
mortimer says
Yes, it’s ‘the book and the man’ … they alone determine what Islam is. The opinions of individuals like Abdelkader do not overrule the ‘legislation’ of Allah and his ‘partner’ Mohammed.
Abdelkader accepted the modern world. He apparently put jihad aside, something a Muslim has no right to do.
But, how do we get to teach people about the book and the man, when Muslims are using terrorism and their Leftist allies to stop us?
I think we have to keep trying and make the most of visible supremacism when it is so obvious as in the case of Erdogan.
gravenimage says
The Story of Emil Abdelkader and its Relevance to Islam: A Rebuttal of John Kiser
………………
Abdelkader was himself a Jihadist.
His taking in a few Christians and preventing his coreligionists from murdering them in Damascus is praiseworthy, but the very fact that they were threatened by Muslims in the first place does not support the implication that Islam is not violent.
Another fine expose from Isaac Marshall.
As for Elkader, Iowa, there are all sorts of odd names of towns in the United States, especially from the 19th century, when the population was expanding so quickly.
mortimer says
A logical deduction … other jihadists implemented their jihad duty, but Abdelkader did not because he was an employee of the French.
gravenimage says
I doubt he was influenced by the French. He did do one good thing–but that doesn’t appear to have changed his violent animus for Infidels over all.
elee says
The man who saved these kafirs was no Muslim, whatever happened in the rest of his life. In our time his actions would support takfir, excommunication, followed by fatwahs calling for his death as an apostate.
mortimer says
Good points. Adbelkader might easily have been assassinated by Muslims and we would not have heard of him today. He thwarted other Muslims from doing what he had done himself.
William Garrison says
FYI….The town of Elkader, Iowa, is named for him–the only town in the U.S. named for him. Supposedly t
he town sponsors an essay contest each year for high school students regarding the merits of Elkader.
gravenimage says
Yuk. I bet this is recent.
mortimer says
We should not exclude this possibility that Emir Abdelkader may have had genuine humanitarian feelings, but they are not required in Islam.
Emir Abdelkader was an aristocrat and aristocrats often thwart convention and do what they want.