Updated May 07, 2010
My Fellow Muslims, We Must Wake Up!
By Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser
- FOXNews.com
We, Americans, especially American-Muslims, must show Islamists that their ideology is beyond being simply ‘dangerous,’ or ‘violent.’ It is in fact treasonous and punishable as a capital crime against the state as an act of war.
When will the United States learn that our current behavior and lack of a coordinated existential strategy since 9-11 is obviously not working? As a devout and concerned American Muslim working tirelessly against radical Islam and its root cause of political Islam, I thought the Fort Hood massacre would teach us that. It did not. Witness the Pentagon report blind to ‘radical Islam’. I thought the Christmas bomber would tip us toward the battle of ideas, but nothing. And now on May 1, naturalized American citizen, Faisal Shahzad, is the next in the growing line of homegrown radical Islamists. And again the immediate fallout in the media, government, and academe is still one mostly of denial, dismissal, and fear of even mentioning the real theo-political battle we face against political Islam.
Whether Shahzad ends up being connected to a militant jihadist Pakistani Islamist network or not, he is obviously not a “lone wolf”. The ideas that drove him to act did not hatch de novo in his own mind. We cannot ignore the common ideology, the common malignant virus of the slippery slope of political Islam that takes over these growing number of Muslims.
The cases of homegrown Islamist terror mount week after week since 9-11 with a frightening uptick in just the past year. Yet, we are still ignoring the writing on the wall as we remain suffocated by political correctness and a willful blindness to political Islam and its common pathway of radicalization.
Our American Muslim organization, the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, has been shouting from the rooftops at every opportunity since 9-11 that the enemy is obviously not a tactic of terror or even those who are generically “violent extremists.” As devout Muslims who are anti-Islamist we feel that Muslims have to lead the war of ideas against political Islam (Islamism) from within devotional Islam. Islamists have a well-established transnational global network of entities hatched from Islamist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood and its offshoots. Whether we care to admit it or not, Islamists are at war intellectually and kinetically with western liberal democracies.
While the Hasans and Shahzads of the Islamist movement target Americans, most Islamists globally actually target moderate Muslims who are their greatest existential threat as Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.) pointed out this week. Attacks against our citizens are a symptom of a much deeper disease- one that will do anything to prevent true reform that can bring Islam and Muslims into modernity, into an understanding of the central need to separate mosque and state.
Islamists like Shahzad want America out of their way so they can spread their supremacist ideology of political Islam. They indoctrinate some Muslims that their goal of an Islamic state and its shar’iah law is superior to our Constitutional republic. Meanwhile, other Muslims who do not believe in the Islamic state, are either ignored or silent.
We must also be resolute as a nation in how we handle these traitors if we are to deter future acts of aggression in this war. The actions of Faisal Shahzad were a calculated and deliberate act of treason. Shahzad's cowardly attempt to kill innocent Americans in Times Square demonstrates that his loyalty lies with the Islamist radicals and not his chosen countrymen in the United States. His citizenship oath was given falsely in 2009 and was in the direct service of powers at war with the United States. His prosecution should encompass the gravity of those actions. No different from Hassan Abujihad convicted in 2008, Nidal Hasan, and other Islamist traitors, Shahzad if guilty is an enemy of the state and should be immediately legally treated as one.
Whether we declare it or not, the United States is at war with the ideology of militant Islamism. Islamists are not afraid to call for the complete destruction of the principles that built our great country. The United States cannot afford to be timid in our response to their actions. We, Americans, especially American Muslims, must show Islamists that their ideology is beyond being simply ‘dangerous’, or ‘violent’. It is in fact treasonous and punishable as a capital crime against the state as an act of war. Our founding fathers knew how to articulate the values of liberty over theocracy. Where has that American penchant for the defense of religious freedom and liberty gone?
Our elected officials and leaders must show true ideological leadership if we are to ever begin the long process of ridding ourselves of the scourge of Islamist terrorism. We cannot cower to victim-mongering American Islamist organizations that thrive on keeping us on the defensive and from addressing the very real Islamist threats to our security. Platitudes that only condemn violence and ignore ideology are an obstacle to needed reform.
Our leaders must wake up and engage in the global war of ideas and demonstrate that the rule of one law that protects universal religious freedom (Americanism) takes precedence over the Islamic state. America in fact provides the best atmosphere for Muslims to practice our faith and it is long overdue for American Muslims to also wake up and empower honest reformist Muslims to declare the 'Islamic state' dead. We will never slow down the recurrence of Islamist terror against our citizenry until such a movement from Muslims against political Islam is palpable.
M. Zuhdi Jasser is the President of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy based in Phoenix. He is a former U.S. Navy Lieutenant Commander. He can be reached at zuhdi@aifdemocracy.org.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/05/07/m-zuhdi-jasser-times-square-muslims-homegrown-islamist-terror-hasan-faisal/
Mahmoud Taha would be proud. From Irredentist Islam and Multicultural America, pp. 66-68:
THE REPUBLICAN BROTHERS
The attempt at reform that appeals to me, except for its socialism, is the Republican Brothers. Founded by Mahmoud Taha in Sudan in the last half of the 20th century, the Brothers are pro-democracy, for women’s rights, against Islamic supremacy and opposed to any political role for Islam. As described in Taha’s book, The Second Message of Islam, the first divine message was on how to operate the religion once it was established.
Taha’s interpretation was that the second message was merely advice on how to keep Islam alive in a very hostile environment. His insight was that the warring behavior was no longer necessary and should be dropped.
He was hanged in 1985 by the Islamist government of Sudan for saying this.
Taha’s interpretation of the Koran is a possible pivot point for Sunni Islam. If the faculty of Al Azhar University and the clerical establishment of Saudi Arabia issued a statement agreeing with Taha’s thoughts, the conflict between Islam and the West would be greatly reduced. Without changing a word of the Koran.
AMERICAN ISLAMIC FORUM FOR DEMOCRACY
But reform does go on. Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, demonstrates how Koranic reinterpretation could look. From his website:
"A simple reading of Chapter 9, Verse 5 above states, “slay the idolators wherever you find them.” But this same violence, when done in self-defense, or after violation of a peace treaty in necessary self-preservation by a faith community on the verge of annihilation, can be an ethic which most would respect and stands against terrorism.
In 2007, it would be equally moral for a Muslim to say that we should “slay Al Qaeda wherever we find them.” Thus, a Muslim learns these passages as exhortations from God regarding war as last resort, and with the underpinning of principles of just war. These same principles have been used in other faiths to this very day, to justify war in the protection of our nation-states.
At the end of the day, what truly matters the most to the free world is not necessarily whose version of Arabian history from 610-632 C.E. is the “truth.” What matters most is whether the predominant Muslim version of that history in the 21st century being taught to our children is compatible with American and western morality of “just war,” and post-modern enlightenment values of universal freedoms.
If Muslims can begin to articulate and establish an ijtihad (reinterpretation of scripture in the light of modernity) through the lens of individual freedom, we can then reconcile our faith, our religion, with American ideology. We cannot surrender the mantle of our faith to the militant Islamists or the Jihadists. Our Koranic passages are what Muslims make of them – not what extremists dictate to us. It will remain what extremists dictate to us only so long as we abrogate our duty to defeat their Islamist/Jihadist ideology and interpretations."
Where do reformist Muslims like Dr. Jasser find a home in present day Islam? Are they and the signers of the Secular Islam Summit declaration isolated individuals? Dr. Jasser feels safe enough to promote Koranic reinterpretation while living in America. There is no Islamic government enforcing the closed gates of ijtihad. Muslims doing the same thing in Islamic countries are under arrest and threat of death.
Non-Muslim Americans should have no part in reform. But we can hasten the process by declaring enemies of reform unwelcome in America and making their activities illegal. We need legislation to that end. The goal is to put American law enforcement in a position to protect reformers from the routine harassment and harm they endure."
Sunday, May 16, 2010
Two Questions
Who is the enemy our armed forces are fighting?
The majority opinion, held by nearly all mainstream media opinion leaders in America and Europe, most Democrats in America, most Muslims in America and Europe and nearly all European politicians is that the enemy is a group of common criminals who share a religion.
The better informed segment of the majority opinion describes the enemy as a jihadist movement, a very tenuously related group of Mafia-like organizations which use Islam as their rallying point but have very different political goals in different parts of the world.
I believe we are at war with all Muslims and Muslim-majority states who promote Islam as a political force based on Islamic law; a war between Islam and the non-Muslim world which has a 1400 year history. It is also a civil war within Islam between those who wish to re-impose the Islamic laws which have fallen into disuse and those who do not.
This war has two aspects: the shooting war and the ideological war. The shooting war will continue until we win the ideological war.
How do we know when we have won the war?
I have never heard anyone of the majority opinion on the first question give a satisfactory answer to this question. They continue to be puzzled by the fact that more “criminals” keep popping up as we kill and imprison others.
I believe we will have won this war when political Islam is as unacceptable as racism or slavery. The outward sign of victory will be a thorough reform of Islamic law. We will probably win the war in two phases: first in America and Europe, then in Muslim-majority states.
The majority opinion, held by nearly all mainstream media opinion leaders in America and Europe, most Democrats in America, most Muslims in America and Europe and nearly all European politicians is that the enemy is a group of common criminals who share a religion.
The better informed segment of the majority opinion describes the enemy as a jihadist movement, a very tenuously related group of Mafia-like organizations which use Islam as their rallying point but have very different political goals in different parts of the world.
I believe we are at war with all Muslims and Muslim-majority states who promote Islam as a political force based on Islamic law; a war between Islam and the non-Muslim world which has a 1400 year history. It is also a civil war within Islam between those who wish to re-impose the Islamic laws which have fallen into disuse and those who do not.
This war has two aspects: the shooting war and the ideological war. The shooting war will continue until we win the ideological war.
How do we know when we have won the war?
I have never heard anyone of the majority opinion on the first question give a satisfactory answer to this question. They continue to be puzzled by the fact that more “criminals” keep popping up as we kill and imprison others.
I believe we will have won this war when political Islam is as unacceptable as racism or slavery. The outward sign of victory will be a thorough reform of Islamic law. We will probably win the war in two phases: first in America and Europe, then in Muslim-majority states.
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Stephen Schwartz replies to "Learning to Discriminate"
I didn't write any of this confidentially and don't care whether you post it, but if you do please use this version which includes one very minor copy-editing correction. And I would add one final comment: When people like Spencer want to attack Muslims they treat Bosnia as a major source of jihadism, infiltration of Western Europe, etc., but when it is shown that Bosnia contributed an important corpus of Islamic law mandating mutual respect between religions and acceptance of Western law, Bosnians are suddenly treated as a marginal element in Islam. I consider this a prime example of the tendentiousness visible in such polemics.
Stephen Schwartz
Greetings
I frankly dislike the increasing habit of subjecting well-known moderate Muslims like myself to inquisitorial religious tests. If our views were not plainly stated in the essay of mine you read, then the problem is one of your comprehension, and there is no particular reason for me to spend time elucidating these matters for you. It is extremely irritating to realize that without bothering to read any other of our extensive publications or otherwise research our views you fired off a religious interrogation based on your own amateur assumptions.
Nobody but a bigot or paranoid would imagine that given all of my and CIP's activities to fight radical Islam we should undergo a religious interrogation by an ill-schooled observer. But Qur'an says to argue quietly and with pleasant words in dealing with the ahl ul-kitab, because God hates wrath. So here are my replies to your queries as posted on your site. My replies are in bold italic.
Who provided the money to start your mosque?
CIP does not run a mosque. We are a 501(c)(3) and file form 990 annually.
Who holds the title to your mosque building and the land it is on?
NA
Who pays the salary of your imam and any other mosque employees?
NA
From what theological school did your imam graduate?
Clerics associated with CIP studied at Al-Azhar, at Najaf, and at the Faculty of Islamic Studies in Sarajevo, Bosnia-Hercegovina.
What is the relationship between you and/or your mosque and any organizations affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood (the Council on American Islamic Relations, the Islamic Society of North America and the North American Islamic Trust especially)?
We are well-known opponents of the MB. I, however, consider it a mistake to consider CAIR, ISNA, and NAIT as branches of the MB. The relationship defining radical Islam in the U.S. is triangular: Saudi money, South Asian functionaries, Brotherhood literature. The MB does not have a significant Egyptian or North African Muslim constituency in the U.S. and does not have resources to spend here. The MB provides literature because Saudi Wahhabi and South Asian jihadist literature is not easily understood or otherwise accessible to Westerners or even many ordinary Muslims. But the MB is not in charge. Right now, Pakistani jihadis are in charge.
Which school of Islamic jurisprudence do you consider to be authoritative in your practice of Islam?
I am an adherent of the Hanafi school as adopted in the Balkans, where I became Muslim. That means it applies to diet, form of prayer and related strictly spiritual matters, male circumcision, payment of charity, and burial. Balkan Muslims accept the primacy of Western civil law.
What are that school’s rulings on the desired status of Islamic law in non-Muslim countries?
The Bosnian Muslims formulated a major corpus of doctrine on the acceptance of Western civil law beginning with the occupation of the country by the Austrians in 1878. No attempt has been made to reintroduce Islamic law by any Balkan Muslim authority since the end of Shariah primacy in the Ottoman era.
Do you believe that Islamic law should be the highest law of the land, no matter where you live?
No, that would be a contravention of the advice of the Prophet Muhammad sallallahualeyhisalem, who said that Muslims living in non-Muslim countries must accept the laws and customs of the land in which they live. This is not subject to so-called abrogation.
Does Islamic law allow the use of force to spread Islam?
Qur'an states clearly that there is no compulsion in religion. Chapters of Islamic history in which conversions were apparently brought about by force are subject to debate. I am researching some interesting and important aspects of this historical debate. CIP does not consider compulsion in religion acceptable in any case.
Does your school of Islamic law support separation of religion and state?
We do not have a "school of Islamic law." In our view religious leaders should have legal status that allows protection of their institutions from government interference, but otherwise religious leaders should have no official standing. That said, there are countries that recognize several religions as "legal," like Indonesia, and in Israel the Israeli Arab Muslims and Druzes have official standing. Israel is defined as a Jewish state, in a religious sense, but has maintained Ottoman-era regulations between religions, including shariah courts for Muslims. Many Catholic and Orthodox countries have state churches, and on paper even the UK, Canada, Scandinavia and Germany still have state churches and state religious taxes. CIP supports the American principle of state noninterference with religion but also recognizes that American law does not cover the whole world and that the discussion of this matter should not be oversimplified.
Does your version of Islamic law require that your first allegiance should be to the Islamic Umma and not to the American (or any other non-Muslim) nation? Are Muslims who have moved to America immigrants or colonizers? Can you explain the Hijra as a model for Islamic immigration to non-Muslim countries?
We follow the classic Islamic guidance under which an individual's loyalty is owed first to his or her nation. I am an American Muslim, i.e. an American first and a Muslim second. That is true of everybody in CIP whether they are citizens of the U.S., Canada, UK, Germany, the Netherlands, the Balkan countries, Saudi Arabia, etc. CIP actively supports German citizenship for the children of Turkish immigrants. CIP also believes that Iranians do not owe loyalty to the present dictatorship. We cannot generalize as to how many Muslim immigrants to America are religious missionaries. We are not. But we are mainly not immigrants in any country where we are active.
The hijra is an exceedingly large and complex topic that cannot be explained in a few words. My own view is that hijra should be defined as a search for spiritual security. Muslims today gain greater personal security in non-Muslim countries than in most Muslim countries. So in that sense the migration of Muslims to the West is hijra. This is a controversial matter as this point has been misused by various MB and related types in Europe.
Can you explain the meaning of the terms Dar al Islam and Dar al Harb and the doctrine of Al Wala wal Bara (Loyalty and Enmity, Koran 60:4)?
Not in a questionnaire form. No religion is called upon to essentialize its principles on the spot except under inquisitorial terms, which I reject. The doctrine of dar al harb and dar al Islam has different applications. One aspect of it is that it forbids the importation of Shariah into non-Muslim countries. There is a global debate among Muslims about these concepts and it is very detailed and complex. Some very superficial aspects of it are treated in a CIP document, A GUIDE TO SHARIAH LAW AND ISLAMIST IDEOLOGY IN WESTERN EUROPE, 2007-2009, which you may read as a free download at http://www.islamicpluralism.org/documents/shariah-law-islamist-ideology-western-europe.pdf.
Do you support the three options allowed by Islamic law to non-Muslims when they are defeated in war by Muslims? (Conversion, payment of jizya to indicate submission or death).
I do not support non-Muslims telling me what is in or is not in Islamic law. Non-Muslims were defeated in war by Muslims in Algeria in 1962. None of these principles were imposed on them. The jizya tax does not exist anywhere in the world today. I consider the formulation of the question presumptuous. You clearly have little real knowledge of these matters. CIP does not support compulsion in religion, the jizya, or violence against non-Muslims except in direct self-defense, i.e. when directly attacked by force. CIP also recognizes that Arab states, rather than Israel, are the source of conflict between in Israel. The question is also complex and does not lend itself to short answers. Nothing important in the world does.
What punishment does Islamic law prescribe for Muslims who leave Islam?
We are not required to supply opinions on Islamic law. But we do not believe that any punishment should be imposed on anybody for their religious choices. The term "leaving Islam" is ambiguous in that large groups that are considered Muslim and members of which are included in CIP are now debating whether to constitute themselves as separate religious bodies from the Islamic community, which separation is a de jure situation for some in the Balkans and Western Europe. Trying to generalize on this question in a peremptory manner is a mistake. Apostasy as we know it today was not common in the Islamic past, and references to it in Islamic law usually refer to heresy rather than the specific act of leaving a religion. No religion is particularly approving of apostasy. These are also complex matters and CIP was founded to debate them, not to provide short answers about them by e-mail.
In Islamic law, are unbelievers considered to be unclean?
People of the Book (Jews and Christians) are not defined as unclean in Qur'an. Shia Muslims have contamination issues. Whether real unbelievers such as Nazis, Communists, etc. are unclean is a matter for debate. This is also a highly abstruse and complicated matter.
In Islamic law, what is the punishment for blasphemy? Do you support the death penalty fatwa against Salman Rushdie for writing The Satanic Verses? Do you support the calls for punishment of critics of Islam such as Trey Parker, Matt Stone, Geert Wilders, Kurt Westergaard and Lars Vilks? Was the killing of Theo Van Gogh justified in Islamic law?
I am not interested in conducting a dialogue with you about your presumptions regarding Islamic law. It is knavish and insulting to suggest that I or anybody at CIP supports sanctions against any of these people or would have supported the murder of Theo Van Gogh. We have never supported any such thing.
According to your version of Islamic law, do women have rights equal to men and is polygny allowed? Is wife beating allowed?
We support equal rights for women. It is stated in our publications and visible in our work. We encourage Muslim women in the UK to go to non-Muslim authorities for help rather than to shariah courts. That is a matter of record.
What does Islamic law prescribe as punishment for homosexuality?
I am not required to discuss this matter with you in the terms you present. We are against interference with people because of their private sexual conduct. Homosexuality is a matter of differing attitudes in Muslim countries, e.g. Morocco. Islamic law is not absolute anywhere, even in Saudi Arabia. What is written in Islamic law and what happens in practical daily life are often at odds. One reason for this is that any religion presents a standard of conduct in contrast with the way most people live. Another is that the need for social stability in Muslim countries dictates pragmatic evasions of Islamic law.
According to your school of Islamic law, what limitations should be placed on artistic expression?
We do not believe in any limitations on creative expression. Muslims excelled for centuries in every form of art, music, etc. I am a published poet, art critic, and historian of music.
Can you explain the doctrine of abrogation in Islamic law and its relationship to the two stages (Meccan and Medinan) in which the Koran was revealed to Mohammed?
The so-called doctrine of abrogation was never accepted by the majority of Muslims and was refuted by the classical theological argument that the surahs that establish the basis of the religion cannot be overriden by surahs dealing with personal relations between specific people.
Can you explain why no Muslim-majority country subscribes to the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights?
Yes. They are mainly corrupt dictatorships. On the other hand, the UN is a deeply corrupt body that does not live by its supposed principles, which were never realistic in the first place, because the UN puts peace before freedom. Americans should put freedom before peace. I personally support U.S. disaffiliation from the UN. But if one wants to play these games, one may ask why the U.S. does not support various UN declarations and resolutions.
Are Hamas and Hizballah terrorist organizations according to Islamic law?
This is a tendentious manner of phrasing a simple question. Hamas and Hezbollah are terrorist groups representing extremist interpretations of Islam. I don't know or particularly care about the process required to produce an Islamic legal opinion on this, and don't think anybody else in CIP does either. The solution to the terrorism of both groups is found in the public law of states, not in religious law. Banditry is forbidden in Islamic law and as far as I am concerned Hamas and Hezbollah are bandits.
Have you or has your mosque given zakat to any charity (such as the Holy Land Foundation) that supports jihad (violence against infidels) with the funds?
Your question is irrelevant. We do not contribute to jihadists. CIP and most Muslims do not consider Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians, Hindus, or Buddhists to be infidels. I would consider my support for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan to be support for a war against infidels who mock Islam by claiming its mantle while pursuing terrorism.
Does your school of Islamic law allow jihad to be waged “to rid the land of unbelief”?
I am not interested in pursuing complex, abstract discussions of Islamic law with you. This last query is simply irrelevant to me. Jihad can only be waged when it is called by a khalifa or an emir. There is no khalifa or emir today. There is no legitimate armed jihad today. That is my view.
Do you believe that any of these Islamic legal positions need to be reformed and why?
The relations between faith and law in Islam are a matter of a widespread debate in which CIP participates actively. The matter cannot be reduced to an e-mail.
I have one final question.
Robert Spencer, a prominent critic of Islam, says this:
The one thing that Western non-Muslims assume exists and is widely accepted, an Islamic theological and legal argument against jihad warfare and Islamic supremacism in general, establishing the principle that Muslims should live as equals with non-believers in a non-Sharia society on an indefinite basis, has never actually been produced, except in the non-traditional presentations of individual scholars who have no significant following in the Islamic world.
Can you supply rulings by jurists from any of the recognized Sunni or Shi’ite madhahib, declaring that jihad is not to be waged against unbelievers in order to bring them under the authority of Sharia, but rather that non-Muslims and Muslims are to coexist peacefully as equals under the law on an indefinite basis, even when the law of the land is not Sharia. Can you show evidence of any orthodox sect or school of jurisprudence that teaches this?
This is typical of the bluffing manner pursued by Spencer. An entire body of Islamic law exists having to do with the life of Tatar, Bashkir, and Kazakh Muslims under Russian tsarist rule, beginning with the establishment of an Islamic representative body by tsarina Catherine at the end of the 18th century. This corpus is not "non-traditional" or produced by "individual scholars who have no significant following in the Islamic world." It follows Hanafiyya. Spencer misuses language at an amazing rate; he applies the term "traditional" according to his own personal, improvised definition of what he thinks is traditional in Islam; he does the same with references to alleged individuals with, according to him, no significant following in the Islamic world. How would he presume to make such sweeping judgements?
You conflate individual opinions with the "teachings of the schools of jurisprudence." Most of the teachings of the schools of jurisprudence have to do with aqida, or the theological description of the world and the requirements of faith, not with legal relations between people. There is a different between the teachings and the texts or decisions derived from them.
Robert Spencer is an Edward Said turned upside down: the same claim of omniscience that masks ignorance, the same kind of prejudices masked as opinions, the same slippery, weasel words and constant recourse to personal abuse.
Islamic legal debates over the status of Muslims in lands that have passed to non-Muslim control began most notably with the fall of al-Andalus in Spain. Some scholars adhered to the belief that Muslims should leave for Muslim territory. The crazy Wahhabi Al-Albani in Saudi Arabia notably recommended this to the Israeli Arabs and Palestinians -- they were not amused. The Maliki scholars in Spain and Morocco held that the Muslims should remain in Spain but they were able to do so only until the early 17th century, for various reasons.
The Tatar-Kazakh debates are known and studied by all serious scholars in the Islamic world, especially in Turkey, the former Soviet Union, Pakistan, and India. The idea that these debates and decisions are unknown or disregarded in the Muslim world is simply false. The reforming movement in Russian Islam known as jadidism is universally known and discussed by Muslim intellectuals.
The body of Bosnian Islamic legal thought on the submission of Muslims to non-Muslim rulers and the equality of citizens of all faiths, beginning in 1878, is known throughout the Balkans and in Turkey. The writings of those who developed it, like Dzemaludin Causevic, are in print and for sale everywhere in those countries. They are the subject of frequent articles and commentaries. They are in Bosnian, not English. I don't expect Spencer to know about them but I also don't accept him treating them as if they do not exist or are irrelevant.
I am not required to show or demonstrate anything to rude and hostile people who send me e-mails comprising prolix and improvised religious interrogatories. The Tatar, Bashkir, Kazakh, and Bosnian Muslims are perfectly fine Muslims. It is obvious that you have no awareness that the concept of orthodoxy as it exists in Judaism and Christianity is absent from classical Islam, or was until very recently.
I certainly don't have the time or the desire to prepare documentation on these matters at your demand.
Enough. Have a nice day. And try to do more reading and studying before appointing yourself a judge of other people's religious views. Privacy of faith used to be an American principle.
Stephen Suleyman Schwartz
Stephen Schwartz
Greetings
I frankly dislike the increasing habit of subjecting well-known moderate Muslims like myself to inquisitorial religious tests. If our views were not plainly stated in the essay of mine you read, then the problem is one of your comprehension, and there is no particular reason for me to spend time elucidating these matters for you. It is extremely irritating to realize that without bothering to read any other of our extensive publications or otherwise research our views you fired off a religious interrogation based on your own amateur assumptions.
Nobody but a bigot or paranoid would imagine that given all of my and CIP's activities to fight radical Islam we should undergo a religious interrogation by an ill-schooled observer. But Qur'an says to argue quietly and with pleasant words in dealing with the ahl ul-kitab, because God hates wrath. So here are my replies to your queries as posted on your site. My replies are in bold italic.
Who provided the money to start your mosque?
CIP does not run a mosque. We are a 501(c)(3) and file form 990 annually.
Who holds the title to your mosque building and the land it is on?
NA
Who pays the salary of your imam and any other mosque employees?
NA
From what theological school did your imam graduate?
Clerics associated with CIP studied at Al-Azhar, at Najaf, and at the Faculty of Islamic Studies in Sarajevo, Bosnia-Hercegovina.
What is the relationship between you and/or your mosque and any organizations affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood (the Council on American Islamic Relations, the Islamic Society of North America and the North American Islamic Trust especially)?
We are well-known opponents of the MB. I, however, consider it a mistake to consider CAIR, ISNA, and NAIT as branches of the MB. The relationship defining radical Islam in the U.S. is triangular: Saudi money, South Asian functionaries, Brotherhood literature. The MB does not have a significant Egyptian or North African Muslim constituency in the U.S. and does not have resources to spend here. The MB provides literature because Saudi Wahhabi and South Asian jihadist literature is not easily understood or otherwise accessible to Westerners or even many ordinary Muslims. But the MB is not in charge. Right now, Pakistani jihadis are in charge.
Which school of Islamic jurisprudence do you consider to be authoritative in your practice of Islam?
I am an adherent of the Hanafi school as adopted in the Balkans, where I became Muslim. That means it applies to diet, form of prayer and related strictly spiritual matters, male circumcision, payment of charity, and burial. Balkan Muslims accept the primacy of Western civil law.
What are that school’s rulings on the desired status of Islamic law in non-Muslim countries?
The Bosnian Muslims formulated a major corpus of doctrine on the acceptance of Western civil law beginning with the occupation of the country by the Austrians in 1878. No attempt has been made to reintroduce Islamic law by any Balkan Muslim authority since the end of Shariah primacy in the Ottoman era.
Do you believe that Islamic law should be the highest law of the land, no matter where you live?
No, that would be a contravention of the advice of the Prophet Muhammad sallallahualeyhisalem, who said that Muslims living in non-Muslim countries must accept the laws and customs of the land in which they live. This is not subject to so-called abrogation.
Does Islamic law allow the use of force to spread Islam?
Qur'an states clearly that there is no compulsion in religion. Chapters of Islamic history in which conversions were apparently brought about by force are subject to debate. I am researching some interesting and important aspects of this historical debate. CIP does not consider compulsion in religion acceptable in any case.
Does your school of Islamic law support separation of religion and state?
We do not have a "school of Islamic law." In our view religious leaders should have legal status that allows protection of their institutions from government interference, but otherwise religious leaders should have no official standing. That said, there are countries that recognize several religions as "legal," like Indonesia, and in Israel the Israeli Arab Muslims and Druzes have official standing. Israel is defined as a Jewish state, in a religious sense, but has maintained Ottoman-era regulations between religions, including shariah courts for Muslims. Many Catholic and Orthodox countries have state churches, and on paper even the UK, Canada, Scandinavia and Germany still have state churches and state religious taxes. CIP supports the American principle of state noninterference with religion but also recognizes that American law does not cover the whole world and that the discussion of this matter should not be oversimplified.
Does your version of Islamic law require that your first allegiance should be to the Islamic Umma and not to the American (or any other non-Muslim) nation? Are Muslims who have moved to America immigrants or colonizers? Can you explain the Hijra as a model for Islamic immigration to non-Muslim countries?
We follow the classic Islamic guidance under which an individual's loyalty is owed first to his or her nation. I am an American Muslim, i.e. an American first and a Muslim second. That is true of everybody in CIP whether they are citizens of the U.S., Canada, UK, Germany, the Netherlands, the Balkan countries, Saudi Arabia, etc. CIP actively supports German citizenship for the children of Turkish immigrants. CIP also believes that Iranians do not owe loyalty to the present dictatorship. We cannot generalize as to how many Muslim immigrants to America are religious missionaries. We are not. But we are mainly not immigrants in any country where we are active.
The hijra is an exceedingly large and complex topic that cannot be explained in a few words. My own view is that hijra should be defined as a search for spiritual security. Muslims today gain greater personal security in non-Muslim countries than in most Muslim countries. So in that sense the migration of Muslims to the West is hijra. This is a controversial matter as this point has been misused by various MB and related types in Europe.
Can you explain the meaning of the terms Dar al Islam and Dar al Harb and the doctrine of Al Wala wal Bara (Loyalty and Enmity, Koran 60:4)?
Not in a questionnaire form. No religion is called upon to essentialize its principles on the spot except under inquisitorial terms, which I reject. The doctrine of dar al harb and dar al Islam has different applications. One aspect of it is that it forbids the importation of Shariah into non-Muslim countries. There is a global debate among Muslims about these concepts and it is very detailed and complex. Some very superficial aspects of it are treated in a CIP document, A GUIDE TO SHARIAH LAW AND ISLAMIST IDEOLOGY IN WESTERN EUROPE, 2007-2009, which you may read as a free download at http://www.islamicpluralism.org/documents/shariah-law-islamist-ideology-western-europe.pdf.
Do you support the three options allowed by Islamic law to non-Muslims when they are defeated in war by Muslims? (Conversion, payment of jizya to indicate submission or death).
I do not support non-Muslims telling me what is in or is not in Islamic law. Non-Muslims were defeated in war by Muslims in Algeria in 1962. None of these principles were imposed on them. The jizya tax does not exist anywhere in the world today. I consider the formulation of the question presumptuous. You clearly have little real knowledge of these matters. CIP does not support compulsion in religion, the jizya, or violence against non-Muslims except in direct self-defense, i.e. when directly attacked by force. CIP also recognizes that Arab states, rather than Israel, are the source of conflict between in Israel. The question is also complex and does not lend itself to short answers. Nothing important in the world does.
What punishment does Islamic law prescribe for Muslims who leave Islam?
We are not required to supply opinions on Islamic law. But we do not believe that any punishment should be imposed on anybody for their religious choices. The term "leaving Islam" is ambiguous in that large groups that are considered Muslim and members of which are included in CIP are now debating whether to constitute themselves as separate religious bodies from the Islamic community, which separation is a de jure situation for some in the Balkans and Western Europe. Trying to generalize on this question in a peremptory manner is a mistake. Apostasy as we know it today was not common in the Islamic past, and references to it in Islamic law usually refer to heresy rather than the specific act of leaving a religion. No religion is particularly approving of apostasy. These are also complex matters and CIP was founded to debate them, not to provide short answers about them by e-mail.
In Islamic law, are unbelievers considered to be unclean?
People of the Book (Jews and Christians) are not defined as unclean in Qur'an. Shia Muslims have contamination issues. Whether real unbelievers such as Nazis, Communists, etc. are unclean is a matter for debate. This is also a highly abstruse and complicated matter.
In Islamic law, what is the punishment for blasphemy? Do you support the death penalty fatwa against Salman Rushdie for writing The Satanic Verses? Do you support the calls for punishment of critics of Islam such as Trey Parker, Matt Stone, Geert Wilders, Kurt Westergaard and Lars Vilks? Was the killing of Theo Van Gogh justified in Islamic law?
I am not interested in conducting a dialogue with you about your presumptions regarding Islamic law. It is knavish and insulting to suggest that I or anybody at CIP supports sanctions against any of these people or would have supported the murder of Theo Van Gogh. We have never supported any such thing.
According to your version of Islamic law, do women have rights equal to men and is polygny allowed? Is wife beating allowed?
We support equal rights for women. It is stated in our publications and visible in our work. We encourage Muslim women in the UK to go to non-Muslim authorities for help rather than to shariah courts. That is a matter of record.
What does Islamic law prescribe as punishment for homosexuality?
I am not required to discuss this matter with you in the terms you present. We are against interference with people because of their private sexual conduct. Homosexuality is a matter of differing attitudes in Muslim countries, e.g. Morocco. Islamic law is not absolute anywhere, even in Saudi Arabia. What is written in Islamic law and what happens in practical daily life are often at odds. One reason for this is that any religion presents a standard of conduct in contrast with the way most people live. Another is that the need for social stability in Muslim countries dictates pragmatic evasions of Islamic law.
According to your school of Islamic law, what limitations should be placed on artistic expression?
We do not believe in any limitations on creative expression. Muslims excelled for centuries in every form of art, music, etc. I am a published poet, art critic, and historian of music.
Can you explain the doctrine of abrogation in Islamic law and its relationship to the two stages (Meccan and Medinan) in which the Koran was revealed to Mohammed?
The so-called doctrine of abrogation was never accepted by the majority of Muslims and was refuted by the classical theological argument that the surahs that establish the basis of the religion cannot be overriden by surahs dealing with personal relations between specific people.
Can you explain why no Muslim-majority country subscribes to the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights?
Yes. They are mainly corrupt dictatorships. On the other hand, the UN is a deeply corrupt body that does not live by its supposed principles, which were never realistic in the first place, because the UN puts peace before freedom. Americans should put freedom before peace. I personally support U.S. disaffiliation from the UN. But if one wants to play these games, one may ask why the U.S. does not support various UN declarations and resolutions.
Are Hamas and Hizballah terrorist organizations according to Islamic law?
This is a tendentious manner of phrasing a simple question. Hamas and Hezbollah are terrorist groups representing extremist interpretations of Islam. I don't know or particularly care about the process required to produce an Islamic legal opinion on this, and don't think anybody else in CIP does either. The solution to the terrorism of both groups is found in the public law of states, not in religious law. Banditry is forbidden in Islamic law and as far as I am concerned Hamas and Hezbollah are bandits.
Have you or has your mosque given zakat to any charity (such as the Holy Land Foundation) that supports jihad (violence against infidels) with the funds?
Your question is irrelevant. We do not contribute to jihadists. CIP and most Muslims do not consider Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians, Hindus, or Buddhists to be infidels. I would consider my support for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan to be support for a war against infidels who mock Islam by claiming its mantle while pursuing terrorism.
Does your school of Islamic law allow jihad to be waged “to rid the land of unbelief”?
I am not interested in pursuing complex, abstract discussions of Islamic law with you. This last query is simply irrelevant to me. Jihad can only be waged when it is called by a khalifa or an emir. There is no khalifa or emir today. There is no legitimate armed jihad today. That is my view.
Do you believe that any of these Islamic legal positions need to be reformed and why?
The relations between faith and law in Islam are a matter of a widespread debate in which CIP participates actively. The matter cannot be reduced to an e-mail.
I have one final question.
Robert Spencer, a prominent critic of Islam, says this:
The one thing that Western non-Muslims assume exists and is widely accepted, an Islamic theological and legal argument against jihad warfare and Islamic supremacism in general, establishing the principle that Muslims should live as equals with non-believers in a non-Sharia society on an indefinite basis, has never actually been produced, except in the non-traditional presentations of individual scholars who have no significant following in the Islamic world.
Can you supply rulings by jurists from any of the recognized Sunni or Shi’ite madhahib, declaring that jihad is not to be waged against unbelievers in order to bring them under the authority of Sharia, but rather that non-Muslims and Muslims are to coexist peacefully as equals under the law on an indefinite basis, even when the law of the land is not Sharia. Can you show evidence of any orthodox sect or school of jurisprudence that teaches this?
This is typical of the bluffing manner pursued by Spencer. An entire body of Islamic law exists having to do with the life of Tatar, Bashkir, and Kazakh Muslims under Russian tsarist rule, beginning with the establishment of an Islamic representative body by tsarina Catherine at the end of the 18th century. This corpus is not "non-traditional" or produced by "individual scholars who have no significant following in the Islamic world." It follows Hanafiyya. Spencer misuses language at an amazing rate; he applies the term "traditional" according to his own personal, improvised definition of what he thinks is traditional in Islam; he does the same with references to alleged individuals with, according to him, no significant following in the Islamic world. How would he presume to make such sweeping judgements?
You conflate individual opinions with the "teachings of the schools of jurisprudence." Most of the teachings of the schools of jurisprudence have to do with aqida, or the theological description of the world and the requirements of faith, not with legal relations between people. There is a different between the teachings and the texts or decisions derived from them.
Robert Spencer is an Edward Said turned upside down: the same claim of omniscience that masks ignorance, the same kind of prejudices masked as opinions, the same slippery, weasel words and constant recourse to personal abuse.
Islamic legal debates over the status of Muslims in lands that have passed to non-Muslim control began most notably with the fall of al-Andalus in Spain. Some scholars adhered to the belief that Muslims should leave for Muslim territory. The crazy Wahhabi Al-Albani in Saudi Arabia notably recommended this to the Israeli Arabs and Palestinians -- they were not amused. The Maliki scholars in Spain and Morocco held that the Muslims should remain in Spain but they were able to do so only until the early 17th century, for various reasons.
The Tatar-Kazakh debates are known and studied by all serious scholars in the Islamic world, especially in Turkey, the former Soviet Union, Pakistan, and India. The idea that these debates and decisions are unknown or disregarded in the Muslim world is simply false. The reforming movement in Russian Islam known as jadidism is universally known and discussed by Muslim intellectuals.
The body of Bosnian Islamic legal thought on the submission of Muslims to non-Muslim rulers and the equality of citizens of all faiths, beginning in 1878, is known throughout the Balkans and in Turkey. The writings of those who developed it, like Dzemaludin Causevic, are in print and for sale everywhere in those countries. They are the subject of frequent articles and commentaries. They are in Bosnian, not English. I don't expect Spencer to know about them but I also don't accept him treating them as if they do not exist or are irrelevant.
I am not required to show or demonstrate anything to rude and hostile people who send me e-mails comprising prolix and improvised religious interrogatories. The Tatar, Bashkir, Kazakh, and Bosnian Muslims are perfectly fine Muslims. It is obvious that you have no awareness that the concept of orthodoxy as it exists in Judaism and Christianity is absent from classical Islam, or was until very recently.
I certainly don't have the time or the desire to prepare documentation on these matters at your demand.
Enough. Have a nice day. And try to do more reading and studying before appointing yourself a judge of other people's religious views. Privacy of faith used to be an American principle.
Stephen Suleyman Schwartz
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Patriotism today
Patriot: “A person who loves, supports and defends his country.” American Heritage Dictionary
Patriots disagree with one another about what their country should do. There was a time when, if you wore a gray uniform, it was patriotic to kill other Americans who wore the blue uniform. The definition of patriotism changes over time and I wonder what the definition is now.
Let’s assume that in 1942 there were American citizens who completely identified with the goals of Germany, Italy and Japan. They wanted to see the Axis powers win the war and have those three "superior" ethnic groups rule the world using the political style of National Socialism rather than liberal democracy.
Let’s further assume that there were American citizens in 1946 who completely identified with the goals of the Soviet Union. They wanted to see Communism dominate the world, replacing the American Constitution with the Constitution of the Soviet Union, replacing our liberal democracy with a dictatorship of the proletariat.
Can those citizens of 1942 and 1946 be described as American patriots?
Let’s further assume that there are American citizens today who completely identify with the goals of traditional Islam. They want to see Islamic law become the law of the land, replacing the Constitution, and Islam the dominant religion in America.
Can those citizens be considered American patriots?
Finally, let’s assume there are citizens who completely identify with the social values and rules in the Bible. They want the Bible (as explained by their particular sect) to replace the Constitution as the source of our laws, replacing our liberal democracy with a Christian theocracy.
Can these citizens be considered patriots?
To the extent that Fascism, Communism, Islamic law or Christianism become politically dominant in America, our heritage of liberal democracy dies. An American patriot will resist them all.
We need to draw a line, and it is not easy to do. We should continue to guarantee free speech, but only to those who do not advocate forcible overthrow or incite to violence. I have serious doubts that advocates for Islamic law qualify for that guarantee because Islamic law does not prohibit the use of violence to overthrow infidel governments .
All the above ideologies fail to qualify as replacements for liberal democracy for the same reason. Not one of them is capable of producing the equality of opportunity we get from liberal democracy. Each of the above ideologies creates a favored class of citizen and less favored classes—us and them.
An American patriot will resist them all.
Patriots disagree with one another about what their country should do. There was a time when, if you wore a gray uniform, it was patriotic to kill other Americans who wore the blue uniform. The definition of patriotism changes over time and I wonder what the definition is now.
Let’s assume that in 1942 there were American citizens who completely identified with the goals of Germany, Italy and Japan. They wanted to see the Axis powers win the war and have those three "superior" ethnic groups rule the world using the political style of National Socialism rather than liberal democracy.
Let’s further assume that there were American citizens in 1946 who completely identified with the goals of the Soviet Union. They wanted to see Communism dominate the world, replacing the American Constitution with the Constitution of the Soviet Union, replacing our liberal democracy with a dictatorship of the proletariat.
Can those citizens of 1942 and 1946 be described as American patriots?
Let’s further assume that there are American citizens today who completely identify with the goals of traditional Islam. They want to see Islamic law become the law of the land, replacing the Constitution, and Islam the dominant religion in America.
Can those citizens be considered American patriots?
Finally, let’s assume there are citizens who completely identify with the social values and rules in the Bible. They want the Bible (as explained by their particular sect) to replace the Constitution as the source of our laws, replacing our liberal democracy with a Christian theocracy.
Can these citizens be considered patriots?
To the extent that Fascism, Communism, Islamic law or Christianism become politically dominant in America, our heritage of liberal democracy dies. An American patriot will resist them all.
We need to draw a line, and it is not easy to do. We should continue to guarantee free speech, but only to those who do not advocate forcible overthrow or incite to violence. I have serious doubts that advocates for Islamic law qualify for that guarantee because Islamic law does not prohibit the use of violence to overthrow infidel governments .
All the above ideologies fail to qualify as replacements for liberal democracy for the same reason. Not one of them is capable of producing the equality of opportunity we get from liberal democracy. Each of the above ideologies creates a favored class of citizen and less favored classes—us and them.
An American patriot will resist them all.
Monday, April 26, 2010
Learning to discriminate between Muslim friends and Muslim enemies
I am a Libertarian. For me, that means leaving others alone to live their lives as they see fit. I am 72 years old and this is the first time I have ever suggested scrutinizing the way other Americans live their lives.
Islamic terrorism has caused me to go against a lifelong habit.
We know some things. Osama bin Laden, Major Nidal Hasan and many other Muslims, American citizens and otherwise, are a danger to us. There are many other Muslims, Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser of AIFD for example, who are not.
We also know that the body of religious law that defines Islam is neither monolithic nor consistent and that this causes substantial disagreements between Muslims on what should be the proper attitude toward non-Muslims.
How can we learn to distinguish Muslim friends from Muslim enemies?
One way is to ask Muslims to declare what they believe and which part of Islam they are allied with by asking questions, such as:
Who provided the money to start your mosque?
Who holds the title to your mosque building and the land it is on?
Who pays the salary of your imam and any other mosque employees?
From what theological school did your imam graduate?
What is the relationship between you and/or your mosque and any organizations affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood (the Council on American Islamic Relations, the Islamic Society of North America and the North American Islamic Trust especially)?
Which school of Islamic jurisprudence do you consider to be authoritative in your practice of Islam?
What are that school’s rulings on the desired status of Islamic law in non-Muslim countries?
Do you believe that Islamic law should be the highest law of the land, no matter where you live?
Does Islamic law allow the use of force to spread Islam?
Does your school of Islamic law support separation of religion and state?
Does your version of Islamic law require that your first allegiance should be to the Islamic Umma and not to the American (or any other non-Muslim) nation? Are Muslims who have moved to America immigrants or colonizers? Can you explain the Hijra as a model for Islamic immigration to non-Muslim countries?
Can you explain the meaning of the terms Dar al Islam and Dar al Harb and the doctrine of Al Wala wal Bara (Loyalty and Enmity, Koran 60:4)?
Do you support the three options allowed by Islamic law to non-Muslims when they are defeated in war by Muslims? (Conversion, payment of jizya to indicate submission or death)
What punishment does Islamic law prescribe for Muslims who leave Islam?
In Islamic law, are unbelievers considered to be unclean?
In Islamic law, what is the punishment for blasphemy? Do you support the death penalty fatwa against Salman Rushdie for writing The Satanic Verses? Do you support the calls for punishment of critics of Islam such as Trey Parker, Matt Stone, Geert Wilders, Kurt Westergaard and Lars Vilks? Was the killing of Theo Van Gogh justified in Islamic law?
According to your version of Islamic law, do women have rights equal to men and is polygny allowed? Is wife beating allowed?
What does Islamic law prescribe as punishment for homosexuality?
According to your school of Islamic law, what limitations should be placed on artistic expression?
Can you explain the doctrine of abrogation in Islamic law and its relationship to the two stages (Meccan and Medinan) in which the Koran was revealed to Mohammed?
Can you explain why no Muslim-majority country subscribes to the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights?
Are Hamas and Hizballah terrorist organizations according to Islamic law?
Have you or has your mosque given zakat to any charity (such as the Holy Land Foundation) that supports jihad (violence against infidels) with the funds?
Does your school of Islamic law allow jihad to be waged “to rid the land of unbelief”?
Do you believe that any of these Islamic legal positions need to be reformed and why?
I have one final question.
Robert Spencer, a prominent critic of Islam, says this:
The one thing that Western non-Muslims assume exists and is widely accepted, an Islamic theological and legal argument against jihad warfare and Islamic supremacism in general, establishing the principle that Muslims should live as equals with non-believers in a non-Sharia society on an indefinite basis, has never actually been produced, except in the non-traditional presentations of individual scholars who have no significant following in the Islamic world.
Can you supply rulings by jurists from any of the recognized Sunni or Shi’ite madhahib, declaring that jihad is not to be waged against unbelievers in order to bring them under the authority of Sharia, but rather that non-Muslims and Muslims are to coexist peacefully as equals under the law on an indefinite basis, even when the law of the land is not Sharia. Can you show evidence of any orthodox sect or school of jurisprudence that teaches this?
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/12/it-is-not-the-role-of-the-west-to-tell-muslims-what-is-islam-and-what-is-not-islam.html
Islamic terrorism has caused me to go against a lifelong habit.
We know some things. Osama bin Laden, Major Nidal Hasan and many other Muslims, American citizens and otherwise, are a danger to us. There are many other Muslims, Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser of AIFD for example, who are not.
We also know that the body of religious law that defines Islam is neither monolithic nor consistent and that this causes substantial disagreements between Muslims on what should be the proper attitude toward non-Muslims.
How can we learn to distinguish Muslim friends from Muslim enemies?
One way is to ask Muslims to declare what they believe and which part of Islam they are allied with by asking questions, such as:
Who provided the money to start your mosque?
Who holds the title to your mosque building and the land it is on?
Who pays the salary of your imam and any other mosque employees?
From what theological school did your imam graduate?
What is the relationship between you and/or your mosque and any organizations affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood (the Council on American Islamic Relations, the Islamic Society of North America and the North American Islamic Trust especially)?
Which school of Islamic jurisprudence do you consider to be authoritative in your practice of Islam?
What are that school’s rulings on the desired status of Islamic law in non-Muslim countries?
Do you believe that Islamic law should be the highest law of the land, no matter where you live?
Does Islamic law allow the use of force to spread Islam?
Does your school of Islamic law support separation of religion and state?
Does your version of Islamic law require that your first allegiance should be to the Islamic Umma and not to the American (or any other non-Muslim) nation? Are Muslims who have moved to America immigrants or colonizers? Can you explain the Hijra as a model for Islamic immigration to non-Muslim countries?
Can you explain the meaning of the terms Dar al Islam and Dar al Harb and the doctrine of Al Wala wal Bara (Loyalty and Enmity, Koran 60:4)?
Do you support the three options allowed by Islamic law to non-Muslims when they are defeated in war by Muslims? (Conversion, payment of jizya to indicate submission or death)
What punishment does Islamic law prescribe for Muslims who leave Islam?
In Islamic law, are unbelievers considered to be unclean?
In Islamic law, what is the punishment for blasphemy? Do you support the death penalty fatwa against Salman Rushdie for writing The Satanic Verses? Do you support the calls for punishment of critics of Islam such as Trey Parker, Matt Stone, Geert Wilders, Kurt Westergaard and Lars Vilks? Was the killing of Theo Van Gogh justified in Islamic law?
According to your version of Islamic law, do women have rights equal to men and is polygny allowed? Is wife beating allowed?
What does Islamic law prescribe as punishment for homosexuality?
According to your school of Islamic law, what limitations should be placed on artistic expression?
Can you explain the doctrine of abrogation in Islamic law and its relationship to the two stages (Meccan and Medinan) in which the Koran was revealed to Mohammed?
Can you explain why no Muslim-majority country subscribes to the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights?
Are Hamas and Hizballah terrorist organizations according to Islamic law?
Have you or has your mosque given zakat to any charity (such as the Holy Land Foundation) that supports jihad (violence against infidels) with the funds?
Does your school of Islamic law allow jihad to be waged “to rid the land of unbelief”?
Do you believe that any of these Islamic legal positions need to be reformed and why?
I have one final question.
Robert Spencer, a prominent critic of Islam, says this:
The one thing that Western non-Muslims assume exists and is widely accepted, an Islamic theological and legal argument against jihad warfare and Islamic supremacism in general, establishing the principle that Muslims should live as equals with non-believers in a non-Sharia society on an indefinite basis, has never actually been produced, except in the non-traditional presentations of individual scholars who have no significant following in the Islamic world.
Can you supply rulings by jurists from any of the recognized Sunni or Shi’ite madhahib, declaring that jihad is not to be waged against unbelievers in order to bring them under the authority of Sharia, but rather that non-Muslims and Muslims are to coexist peacefully as equals under the law on an indefinite basis, even when the law of the land is not Sharia. Can you show evidence of any orthodox sect or school of jurisprudence that teaches this?
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/12/it-is-not-the-role-of-the-west-to-tell-muslims-what-is-islam-and-what-is-not-islam.html
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Misdirection
A friend recently sent a video with clips of Obama that support the idea that he is a Muslim.
Whether or not he is a Muslim, and I doubt it, that is the wrong part of him to be concerned about. A good magician will get his audience to look at what he wants them to see while he does what he must to make the trick work. That’s misdirection.
In the Cold War, some Americans, who were not members of the Communist Party, were called fellow-travelers. They condemned the worst actions of Communist Russia but supported the idea of Communism as a worthy addition to the American political scene.
This is what Obama is doing. He sends drones to kill Muslims in Afghanistan and Pakistan, but supports the idea of Islamic law as a worthy addition to American jurisprudence. Three examples of this support:
-- legitimizing the burqa and niqab,
--legitimizing the use of Islamic charity contributions to support jihad
--legitimizing the use of Sharia compliant finance instruments in AIG, a company in which the US Government holds a majority share.
He is approving the legal jihad while ostentatiously opposing the open warfare of jihad. Which of those two things is more dangerous for America?
It is clear to me that the Muslim Brotherhood organizations in America and the Organization of the Islamic Conference are a much greater threat to America than bin Laden, Zawahiri and Ahmadinejad combined. This is not an argument to stop killing jihad warriors, but to at least get started in fighting back in the ideological part of this war.
That is the battlefield on which this war will be won or lost. At present, we are losing.
Whether or not he is a Muslim, and I doubt it, that is the wrong part of him to be concerned about. A good magician will get his audience to look at what he wants them to see while he does what he must to make the trick work. That’s misdirection.
In the Cold War, some Americans, who were not members of the Communist Party, were called fellow-travelers. They condemned the worst actions of Communist Russia but supported the idea of Communism as a worthy addition to the American political scene.
This is what Obama is doing. He sends drones to kill Muslims in Afghanistan and Pakistan, but supports the idea of Islamic law as a worthy addition to American jurisprudence. Three examples of this support:
-- legitimizing the burqa and niqab,
--legitimizing the use of Islamic charity contributions to support jihad
--legitimizing the use of Sharia compliant finance instruments in AIG, a company in which the US Government holds a majority share.
He is approving the legal jihad while ostentatiously opposing the open warfare of jihad. Which of those two things is more dangerous for America?
It is clear to me that the Muslim Brotherhood organizations in America and the Organization of the Islamic Conference are a much greater threat to America than bin Laden, Zawahiri and Ahmadinejad combined. This is not an argument to stop killing jihad warriors, but to at least get started in fighting back in the ideological part of this war.
That is the battlefield on which this war will be won or lost. At present, we are losing.
Friday, April 23, 2010
Incompatibility
Islamic law of the Shafi school of jurisprudence (according to Reliance of the Traveller, pp. 607-09) describes the conditions which non-Muslim subjects of the Islamic state (AHL AL-DHIMMA) must accept:
--Pay the Jizya (non-Muslim poll tax); 4.235 grams of gold per person per year
--Wear special identifying clothing
--They are not greeted with the traditional greeting accorded Muslims—“as-Salamu alaykum”
--They must keep to the side of the street when passing a Muslim
--Must not build as high as or higher than Muslim buildings
--Do not publicly celebrate their religions, display pork or wine, ring church bells or display crosses
--Do not build new churches
--Do not live in the areas around Mecca, Medina or Yamama
If the non-Muslim violates any of the following five rules, he is then considered a prisoner of war:
--Marries or commits adultery with a Muslim woman
--Conceals spies of hostile forces
--Leads a Muslim away from Islam
--Kills a Muslim
--Mentions something impermissible about Allah, the Prophet or Islam
Given that many American Muslims have expressed their desire for Islamic law to be the highest law of the land, the question is this—what should the attitude of American non-Muslims be toward Muslims who support this traditional Islamic law?
-- Reciprocity—dhimmitude for Muslims, a taste of their own medicine? (No—we have already tried having a society with second class citizens and we don’t like it. We do not aspire to become Saudi Arabia.)
--Expulsion on the grounds of irreconcilable differences?
--Imprisonment for sedition or incitement to violence?
The list of options is short and unappealing.
The least painful option is for moderate Muslims who have no desire to live under Islamic law to get serious about reforming it.
This sort of Islamic law will not take root in the West. At some point, American Muslims will have to choose between American and Islamic law. The Danish and South Park cartoons, the rights of former Muslims, the loyalty of Muslim soldiers and the rights of Muslim women are only the tips of an iceberg of incompatibility between Islamic law and Western human rights and responsibilities.
Muslims still have time to avoid a bloody collision, but right now the proponents of Islamic law are twisting the tiger’s tail—treating Americans as if they were living in an Islamic state subject to Islamic law.
--Pay the Jizya (non-Muslim poll tax); 4.235 grams of gold per person per year
--Wear special identifying clothing
--They are not greeted with the traditional greeting accorded Muslims—“as-Salamu alaykum”
--They must keep to the side of the street when passing a Muslim
--Must not build as high as or higher than Muslim buildings
--Do not publicly celebrate their religions, display pork or wine, ring church bells or display crosses
--Do not build new churches
--Do not live in the areas around Mecca, Medina or Yamama
If the non-Muslim violates any of the following five rules, he is then considered a prisoner of war:
--Marries or commits adultery with a Muslim woman
--Conceals spies of hostile forces
--Leads a Muslim away from Islam
--Kills a Muslim
--Mentions something impermissible about Allah, the Prophet or Islam
Given that many American Muslims have expressed their desire for Islamic law to be the highest law of the land, the question is this—what should the attitude of American non-Muslims be toward Muslims who support this traditional Islamic law?
-- Reciprocity—dhimmitude for Muslims, a taste of their own medicine? (No—we have already tried having a society with second class citizens and we don’t like it. We do not aspire to become Saudi Arabia.)
--Expulsion on the grounds of irreconcilable differences?
--Imprisonment for sedition or incitement to violence?
The list of options is short and unappealing.
The least painful option is for moderate Muslims who have no desire to live under Islamic law to get serious about reforming it.
This sort of Islamic law will not take root in the West. At some point, American Muslims will have to choose between American and Islamic law. The Danish and South Park cartoons, the rights of former Muslims, the loyalty of Muslim soldiers and the rights of Muslim women are only the tips of an iceberg of incompatibility between Islamic law and Western human rights and responsibilities.
Muslims still have time to avoid a bloody collision, but right now the proponents of Islamic law are twisting the tiger’s tail—treating Americans as if they were living in an Islamic state subject to Islamic law.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Why Iraq cannot be an American ally
A STRATFOR piece on Iraq starts:
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20100419_baghdad_politics_and_usiranian_balance?utm_source=GWeekly&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=100420&utm_content=readmore&elq=482d22c5cb5a46ea9e49aa20d10199be
The first assumption was correct--the Iraqi military never stood a chance in a direct confrontation with us. The Arab world was shocked at how quickly we destroyed the second best Muslim military force in the world.
It was the second assumption that was false. This is where the wheels came off the bus.
There is no element (Sunni, Shia, even Kurd) in the Muslim world that is or could be a long term ally of America. This has always been true and will continue to be true until the coming confrontation between Islam and the West is settled. Iraq turned into a quagmire because we identified the enemy in the war on terror incorrectly.
To the exact extent any Muslim country honors its commitment to Islamic law, it cannot be a long term ally of any infidel country. We Westerners will continue to flounder in this war until we accept the truth of that statement and act on it.
The Saudis proved that point in the first Iraq war. They used us to repel Saddam, but immediately turned against us in the second Iraq war. Long term, their interests and ours will never coincide because their world view and ours are competitors.
The exact historical parallel is that we fought with the Soviets to repel Hitler, but we were never long term allies of the Soviets, and we could never be--because of our competing ideologies.
The United States invaded Iraq on the assumption that it could quickly defeat and dismantle the Iraqi government and armed forces and replace them with a cohesive and effective pro-American government and armed forces, thereby restoring the balance of power.
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20100419_baghdad_politics_and_usiranian_balance?utm_source=GWeekly&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=100420&utm_content=readmore&elq=482d22c5cb5a46ea9e49aa20d10199be
The first assumption was correct--the Iraqi military never stood a chance in a direct confrontation with us. The Arab world was shocked at how quickly we destroyed the second best Muslim military force in the world.
It was the second assumption that was false. This is where the wheels came off the bus.
There is no element (Sunni, Shia, even Kurd) in the Muslim world that is or could be a long term ally of America. This has always been true and will continue to be true until the coming confrontation between Islam and the West is settled. Iraq turned into a quagmire because we identified the enemy in the war on terror incorrectly.
To the exact extent any Muslim country honors its commitment to Islamic law, it cannot be a long term ally of any infidel country. We Westerners will continue to flounder in this war until we accept the truth of that statement and act on it.
The Saudis proved that point in the first Iraq war. They used us to repel Saddam, but immediately turned against us in the second Iraq war. Long term, their interests and ours will never coincide because their world view and ours are competitors.
The exact historical parallel is that we fought with the Soviets to repel Hitler, but we were never long term allies of the Soviets, and we could never be--because of our competing ideologies.
Monday, April 19, 2010
Refah v. Turkey
Refah v. Turkey
The opinion that sharia (Islamic law) is incompatible with democracy and advocates the forcible overthrow of democratic governments has been confirmed by rulings of the Turkish Constitutional Court and the European Court of Human Rights. In 1998, the Turkish court banned the Welfare Party (Refah Partisi) because the rules of sharia promoted by Refah “were incompatible with the democratic regime …Democracy is the antithesis of sharia.” The European Court of Human Rights agreed on appeal in 2001 and 2003.
The convention referred to in Wildhaber’s remarks is the European Convention on Human Rights. The European Court of Human Rights has heard nine cases on banning Turkish political parties. Refah is the only one it has banned. The presently ruling party, AKP, is the Refah party-- renamed and pushing the same Islamist agenda.
The Court’s judgment included the following observations:
• The Refah claim of freedom of association does not overcome the State’s rights to protect its institutions.
• The means to change the State’s institutions must be legal in every respect.
• The final goal of the party must be compatible with fundamental democratic principles.
• Sharia does not exclude the use of force in order to implement its policies.
Sedition is defined in the American Heritage Dictionary as “conduct or language inciting to rebellion against the authority of the state.”
In American criminal law, the Smith Act of 1940, 18 U.S.C. paragraph 2385, says that it is a criminal offense for anyone to “knowingly or willfully advocate, abet, advise or teach the duty, necessity, desirability or propriety of overthrowing the Government of the United States or of any State by force of violence, or for anyone to organize any association which teaches, advises or encourages such an overthrow, or for anyone to become a member of or to affiliate with any such association.”
Those who advocate for Islamic law advocate for discrimination against women, gays, non-Muslims, secular government and freedom of conscience. Our freedom of speech makes such advocacy legal. But Islamic law specifically endorses the use of force to implement its goals. As the European Court of Human Rights ruled, the means to change the State’s institutions must be legal in every respect.
The 1940 version of the Smith Act has been revised to allow speech advocating forcible overthrow and to punish only those actions that are taken to implement the overthrow. Those actions must be shown to be clearly connected to an imminent threat to the nation. This revision should be stripped from the law. The possibility of prosecuting those who act to implement Islamic law on charges of incitement to violence is being explored.
The opinion that sharia (Islamic law) is incompatible with democracy and advocates the forcible overthrow of democratic governments has been confirmed by rulings of the Turkish Constitutional Court and the European Court of Human Rights. In 1998, the Turkish court banned the Welfare Party (Refah Partisi) because the rules of sharia promoted by Refah “were incompatible with the democratic regime …Democracy is the antithesis of sharia.” The European Court of Human Rights agreed on appeal in 2001 and 2003.
Noting that the Welfare Party had pledged to set up a regime based on sharia law, the Court found that sharia was incompatible with the fundamental principles of democracy as set forth in the Convention. It considered that sharia, which faithfully reflects the dogmas and divine rules laid down by religion, is stable and invariable. Principles such as pluralism in the political sphere or the constant evolution of public freedoms have no place in it.
According to the Court, it was difficult to declare one’s respect for democracy and human rights while at the same time supporting a regime based on sharia, which clearly diverged from Convention values, particularly with regard to its criminal law and criminal procedure, its rules on the legal status of women and the way it intervened in all spheres of private and public life in accordance with religious precepts.
Luzius Wildhaber, President, European Court of Human Rights
http://www.echr.coe.int/NR/rdonlyres/29AC6DBD-C3F8-411C-9B97-B42BE466EE7A/0/2004__Wildhaber_Cancado_Trindade_BIL__opening_legal_year.pdf
The convention referred to in Wildhaber’s remarks is the European Convention on Human Rights. The European Court of Human Rights has heard nine cases on banning Turkish political parties. Refah is the only one it has banned. The presently ruling party, AKP, is the Refah party-- renamed and pushing the same Islamist agenda.
The Court’s judgment included the following observations:
• The Refah claim of freedom of association does not overcome the State’s rights to protect its institutions.
• The means to change the State’s institutions must be legal in every respect.
• The final goal of the party must be compatible with fundamental democratic principles.
• Sharia does not exclude the use of force in order to implement its policies.
Sedition is defined in the American Heritage Dictionary as “conduct or language inciting to rebellion against the authority of the state.”
In American criminal law, the Smith Act of 1940, 18 U.S.C. paragraph 2385, says that it is a criminal offense for anyone to “knowingly or willfully advocate, abet, advise or teach the duty, necessity, desirability or propriety of overthrowing the Government of the United States or of any State by force of violence, or for anyone to organize any association which teaches, advises or encourages such an overthrow, or for anyone to become a member of or to affiliate with any such association.”
Those who advocate for Islamic law advocate for discrimination against women, gays, non-Muslims, secular government and freedom of conscience. Our freedom of speech makes such advocacy legal. But Islamic law specifically endorses the use of force to implement its goals. As the European Court of Human Rights ruled, the means to change the State’s institutions must be legal in every respect.
The 1940 version of the Smith Act has been revised to allow speech advocating forcible overthrow and to punish only those actions that are taken to implement the overthrow. Those actions must be shown to be clearly connected to an imminent threat to the nation. This revision should be stripped from the law. The possibility of prosecuting those who act to implement Islamic law on charges of incitement to violence is being explored.
Saturday, March 20, 2010
Civil Wars
Some American Christians, reading the Bible, came to the conclusion that slavery was allowed. Other Christians came to the opposite conclusion after reading the same book.
A Civil War resulted.
Some Muslims, reading the Koran, believe that Islamic law, the body of man made jurisprudence that has grown out of the Koran over many centuries, is the correct interpretation. Other Muslims believe that Islamic law is stuck in the 11th century and needs deep reform, especially those doctrines about using jihad to achieve the imposition of Islamic law.
Those Muslims who believe that Islamic law is essentially correct as it stands are attempting, by means legal and illegal, to impose Islamic law on Muslims and non-Muslims wherever they can. The most violent among them intimidate and murder would-be reformers by declaring them apostate.
Proponents of Islamic law have correctly identified Western Civilization, with its regime of individual and human rights that conflict with those of Islamic law, as the most pressing threat to the spread of Islam. So the West has been drawn into the civil war within Islam.
A Civil War resulted.
Some Muslims, reading the Koran, believe that Islamic law, the body of man made jurisprudence that has grown out of the Koran over many centuries, is the correct interpretation. Other Muslims believe that Islamic law is stuck in the 11th century and needs deep reform, especially those doctrines about using jihad to achieve the imposition of Islamic law.
Those Muslims who believe that Islamic law is essentially correct as it stands are attempting, by means legal and illegal, to impose Islamic law on Muslims and non-Muslims wherever they can. The most violent among them intimidate and murder would-be reformers by declaring them apostate.
Proponents of Islamic law have correctly identified Western Civilization, with its regime of individual and human rights that conflict with those of Islamic law, as the most pressing threat to the spread of Islam. So the West has been drawn into the civil war within Islam.
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Islam and Islamism
Daniel Pipes' position:
During the question and answer session, Mr. Pipes pointed out that those who argue that Islam itself is the problem leave the West with no solutions, adding that, to truly reform Islam, Western governments must begin to empower genuine moderates.
Wafa Sultan, Hugh Fitzgerald:
Ms. Sultan began her argument by quoting Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who says that there is no "moderate or immoderate Islam. There is Islam; that is it." She contends that terms like "radical Islam" conceal the true nature of Islam itself--a political ideology. She adds that the aim of Islam is to subdue the entire world under Shari'a.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/03/fitzgerald-islam-and-islamism-or-leaving-the-west-with-no-solutions.html#more
According to the Koran, ahadith and Sira, Ms. Sultan and Mr. Erdoğan are correct. Islam is what its legally binding texts say it is.
But Mr. Pipes’ strategy is superior. Rather than a head-on attack on the whole religion, he advocates separating those Muslims who wish to live under Islamic law from those who do not. The success of this strategy depends on the West creating political space for those Muslims who do not wish to live under Islamic law.
Muslims can reinterpret Islamic law to invalidate the doctrine of supremacy through jihad in the same manner that acceptance of the practice of slavery has been edited out of the Abrahamic religions.
Mr. Pipes is wrong about the West not having a solution if the problem is defined as Islam as a whole. Islamic law has many elements that are illegal in the West, and attempts to install it in the West should be identified and prosecuted. This might encourage Muslims who disagree with Islamists to identify themselves.
The supremacy of Islamic law is the issue in the civil war within Islam. We should encourage Western Muslims to defend the rights derived from citizenship in the West from the restrictions of Islamic law. Those Muslims who side with us against the illegal parts of Islamic law are our allies in this war on the West.
During the question and answer session, Mr. Pipes pointed out that those who argue that Islam itself is the problem leave the West with no solutions, adding that, to truly reform Islam, Western governments must begin to empower genuine moderates.
Wafa Sultan, Hugh Fitzgerald:
Ms. Sultan began her argument by quoting Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who says that there is no "moderate or immoderate Islam. There is Islam; that is it." She contends that terms like "radical Islam" conceal the true nature of Islam itself--a political ideology. She adds that the aim of Islam is to subdue the entire world under Shari'a.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/03/fitzgerald-islam-and-islamism-or-leaving-the-west-with-no-solutions.html#more
According to the Koran, ahadith and Sira, Ms. Sultan and Mr. Erdoğan are correct. Islam is what its legally binding texts say it is.
But Mr. Pipes’ strategy is superior. Rather than a head-on attack on the whole religion, he advocates separating those Muslims who wish to live under Islamic law from those who do not. The success of this strategy depends on the West creating political space for those Muslims who do not wish to live under Islamic law.
Muslims can reinterpret Islamic law to invalidate the doctrine of supremacy through jihad in the same manner that acceptance of the practice of slavery has been edited out of the Abrahamic religions.
Mr. Pipes is wrong about the West not having a solution if the problem is defined as Islam as a whole. Islamic law has many elements that are illegal in the West, and attempts to install it in the West should be identified and prosecuted. This might encourage Muslims who disagree with Islamists to identify themselves.
The supremacy of Islamic law is the issue in the civil war within Islam. We should encourage Western Muslims to defend the rights derived from citizenship in the West from the restrictions of Islamic law. Those Muslims who side with us against the illegal parts of Islamic law are our allies in this war on the West.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Krauthammer's Error
Speaking of Geert Wilders, Charles Krauthammer says:
What he says is extreme, radical, and wrong. He basically is arguing that Islam is the same as Islamism. Islamism is an ideology of a small minority which holds that the essence of Islam is jihad, conquest, forcing people into accepting a certain very narrow interpretation [of Islam].
The untruth of that is obvious. If you look at the United States , the overwhelming majority of Muslims in the U.S. are not Islamists. So, it's simply incorrect. Now, in Europe, there is probably a slightly larger minority but, nonetheless, the overwhelming majority are not.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MTA0YWU2NjQzZTM3YjRmNDA4ZDk2NWNjNzQyYjlmYTY=
Thus the premier American political analyst mistakes the tail (European and American Muslims) for the dog (mainstream Middle Eastern traditional Islam). Definitive authority in Islam comes from the Middle East, not America and Europe.
What does it mean if a majority of European and American Muslims are not Islamists? Not all Germans were Nazis and not all Russians were Communists, but the ideologues drove the agenda. Islamism is mainstream traditional Islamic law adapted to modern political realities--Qtub’s In the Shade of the Qur’an has no new Islamic theology. Islamists are Muslims who take seriously the political implications of Islamic law and reject any Western-inspired innovations and compromises that have crept into the law. Those in the West who call themselves Muslims while trying to paper over the demands of Islamic law (instead of calling for deep reform) will never win an argument with a well informed Islamist.
Even the most superficial acquaintance with the Koran, ahadith and Sira will convince any fair-minded reader that “the essence of Islam is jihad, conquest, forcing people into accepting a certain very narrow interpretation [of Islam].”
This is why Wilders and many Europeans see Muslims in Europe as colonists, not immigrants.
Krauthammer knows that the tail does not wag the dog. When I see such a heavy hitter swinging at a wild pitch, I start looking for explanations that have nothing to do with talent or intelligence.
What he says is extreme, radical, and wrong. He basically is arguing that Islam is the same as Islamism. Islamism is an ideology of a small minority which holds that the essence of Islam is jihad, conquest, forcing people into accepting a certain very narrow interpretation [of Islam].
The untruth of that is obvious. If you look at the United States , the overwhelming majority of Muslims in the U.S. are not Islamists. So, it's simply incorrect. Now, in Europe, there is probably a slightly larger minority but, nonetheless, the overwhelming majority are not.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MTA0YWU2NjQzZTM3YjRmNDA4ZDk2NWNjNzQyYjlmYTY=
Thus the premier American political analyst mistakes the tail (European and American Muslims) for the dog (mainstream Middle Eastern traditional Islam). Definitive authority in Islam comes from the Middle East, not America and Europe.
What does it mean if a majority of European and American Muslims are not Islamists? Not all Germans were Nazis and not all Russians were Communists, but the ideologues drove the agenda. Islamism is mainstream traditional Islamic law adapted to modern political realities--Qtub’s In the Shade of the Qur’an has no new Islamic theology. Islamists are Muslims who take seriously the political implications of Islamic law and reject any Western-inspired innovations and compromises that have crept into the law. Those in the West who call themselves Muslims while trying to paper over the demands of Islamic law (instead of calling for deep reform) will never win an argument with a well informed Islamist.
Even the most superficial acquaintance with the Koran, ahadith and Sira will convince any fair-minded reader that “the essence of Islam is jihad, conquest, forcing people into accepting a certain very narrow interpretation [of Islam].”
This is why Wilders and many Europeans see Muslims in Europe as colonists, not immigrants.
Krauthammer knows that the tail does not wag the dog. When I see such a heavy hitter swinging at a wild pitch, I start looking for explanations that have nothing to do with talent or intelligence.
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Islamic Exceptionalism
I am a critic of Islam and frequently hear this complaint: Why do some non-Muslims find it acceptable to criticize Christianity, Judaism, etc. but not Islam?
The answer is: They resent anyone who points out the ideological incompatibility between Islam and the West that could cause a religious war. They are more afraid of the prospect of open warfare than they are of the slight chance of being killed by a Muslim terrorist. So they try to convince themselves that the terrorists are ordinary criminals.
Militant Muslims smell this fear and run with it. “America is at war with Islam” is their first response to any criticism of Islam and to any attempt by non-Muslims to defend themselves militarily against Muslim aggression. They label non-Muslim critics as Muslim bashers and Islamophobes, and Muslims who want ideological reform are threatened with charges of apostasy.
Honest critical analysis of the ideological chasm between Islam and the West is probably the surest way to avoid the religious war that one wing of militant Islam is trying to provoke. Meekly avoiding verbal confrontation is the surest way to encourage Islamic militants in their supremacist aggression.
There are Muslims who want to reinterpret aggressive passages in the Koran that encourage violence against unbelievers. We can’t support these Muslims without acknowledging that such verses exist and are widely interpreted as prescriptions for action today, not mere accounts of history in the Arabian Peninsula.
There are Muslims and non-Muslims who want this conversation stopped. Their goal is to sell an image of Islam as a religion of peace without changing the parts of Islam that require a permanent state of war between Muslims and unbelievers. They want any criticism of Islam to be denounced as negative stereotyping and prosecuted as defamation of religion and hate speech. At the urging of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, the United Nations General Assembly has joined this effort to curtail free speech. The trial of Geert Wilders in Holland is the prototype for silencing critics of Islam.
If this critical conversation is made illegal, the opportunity for Islamic reform disappears and the likelihood of religious war increases.
The answer is: They resent anyone who points out the ideological incompatibility between Islam and the West that could cause a religious war. They are more afraid of the prospect of open warfare than they are of the slight chance of being killed by a Muslim terrorist. So they try to convince themselves that the terrorists are ordinary criminals.
Militant Muslims smell this fear and run with it. “America is at war with Islam” is their first response to any criticism of Islam and to any attempt by non-Muslims to defend themselves militarily against Muslim aggression. They label non-Muslim critics as Muslim bashers and Islamophobes, and Muslims who want ideological reform are threatened with charges of apostasy.
Honest critical analysis of the ideological chasm between Islam and the West is probably the surest way to avoid the religious war that one wing of militant Islam is trying to provoke. Meekly avoiding verbal confrontation is the surest way to encourage Islamic militants in their supremacist aggression.
There are Muslims who want to reinterpret aggressive passages in the Koran that encourage violence against unbelievers. We can’t support these Muslims without acknowledging that such verses exist and are widely interpreted as prescriptions for action today, not mere accounts of history in the Arabian Peninsula.
There are Muslims and non-Muslims who want this conversation stopped. Their goal is to sell an image of Islam as a religion of peace without changing the parts of Islam that require a permanent state of war between Muslims and unbelievers. They want any criticism of Islam to be denounced as negative stereotyping and prosecuted as defamation of religion and hate speech. At the urging of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, the United Nations General Assembly has joined this effort to curtail free speech. The trial of Geert Wilders in Holland is the prototype for silencing critics of Islam.
If this critical conversation is made illegal, the opportunity for Islamic reform disappears and the likelihood of religious war increases.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Three Narratives
There are three different views of what is happening between Islam and the West.
The official view of most Western and Islamic governments (Iran, Turkey, Hamas, Hizballah and Sudan excepted) is that Islam and the West are integrating, but some Muslim criminals are causing problems.
The majority of Muslims who live in the West believe that they have integrated but are being persecuted by non-Muslim bigots for no good reason.
The third view is held by Muslims and Westerners who believe that what is happening is a clash of incompatible civilizations which will result in one of two possible futures. Either (a) One of those civilizations will change fundamentally or (b) They will both agree to drop the effort to integrate.
Since 9/11, I have slowly abandoned the first view and adopted the third. This change in my attitude was brought about by learning the basics of Islamic theology and law and correlating that information with the daily news.
Daniel Pipes articulates one version of the third view:
To borrow a computer term, if Ayatollah Khomeini, Osama bin Laden, and Nidal Hasan represent Islamism 1.0, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan (the prime minister of Turkey), Tariq Ramadan (a Swiss intellectual), and Keith Ellison (a U.S. congressman) represent Islamism 2.0. The former kill more people but the latter pose a greater threat to Western civilization.
http://www.danielpipes.org/7967/keith-ellison-where-are-you
Ellison replies with the second view:
I think that it is a paranoid and conspiratorial point of view and that it is absolutely devoid of any factual support. And that it should not be considered a serious observation.
Here is the thing: I believe in democracy. I believe conflict in society should be resolved through election. I believe in the rights of women and minorities. I believe in equality in front of the law for all people. These are not the views of an extremist. I believe in religious tolerance. I support interfaith dialogue everywhere. I support Israel. I support the Palestinian people and I support their aspiration for a state. I support Israel's aspiration to live in peace and security but side-by-side with that state. So Daniel Pipes's point of view is simply not accurate.
http://www.tikkun.org/article.php/jan10_ellison
Here is the rub. If Ellison believes in equality in front of the law for all people, he opposes Islamic law which has many restrictions on the rights of non-Muslims. Many who call themselves Muslim say they do not want to live under Islamic law. In what sense are such people Muslims? Are their personal opinions relevant when discussing Islam?
As for the other beliefs Rep. Ellison espouses, he does not explain which version of these beliefs he supports—the Islamic one or the Western one. They are quite different. For example, women have one list of rights in Islam, a different list in liberal democracies. Which list is he supporting?
Another quote from Ellison:
“There is nothing un-American about Islam. The best ideals of America are the best ideals of Islam," said Minnesota Congressman Keith Ellison, who in 2006 became the first Muslim to be elected to Congress.
The Guardian, 8/26/08, reporting on the Muslim Caucus at the Democratic National Convention.
This is the official view of the American government, as articulated by President Obama in Cairo, and I have come to believe it is factually wrong mainly for denying Islamic attitudes and laws regarding non-Muslims throughout history and presently. However, if I were a Muslim living in a non-Muslim country, this is exactly what I would want non-Muslims to believe—Islam is not a competitor civilization, just another component of liberal democracy. Muslims are immigrants, not colonizers. I would also label anyone who disagreed as paranoid--Islamophobic and racist too.
The view that there is nothing un-American about Islam, a fundamental tenet of cultural relativism, is obviously untrue. It is illegal, according to Islamic law, for Americans to immigrate to Saudi Arabia and exercise the civil rights they enjoy in America. It is equally illegal for Muslims to immigrate to America and exercise the legal rights they have under Islamic law. The establishment of Islamic law has been the goal of every Islamic immigrant community in history, and the American Muslim community is no exception.
Allen West, a candidate for U.S. Congress from Florida’s 22nd District, frames the issue this way when answering those who say that violent jihadists are twisting or distorting Islam:
You want to dig up Charles Martel and ask him why him why he was fighting the Muslim army at the Battle of Tours in 732? You want to ask the Venetian fleet at Lepanto why they were fighting a Muslim fleet in 1571? You want to ask ... the Germanic and Austrian knights why they were fighting at the gates of Vienna in 1683? You want to ask people what happened at Constantinople and why today it is called Istanbul because they lost that fight in 1453? ...
Until you get principled leadership in the United States of America that is willing to say that, we will continue to chase our tail, because we will never clearly define who this enemy is, and then understand their goals and objectives--which (are) on any jihadist website--and then come up with the right (and) proper objectives to not only secure our Republic but secure Western civilization.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkGQmCZjJ0k&feature=player_embedded
There are very good strategic reasons why a political leader in the West might not want to endorse the third view, even if he believes it. But the time is coming when the denial of this view will no longer be politically viable. Florida’s 22nd District voters may choose to point out the Emperor’s lack of clothing--there is abviously something very un-American about Islam.
The official view of most Western and Islamic governments (Iran, Turkey, Hamas, Hizballah and Sudan excepted) is that Islam and the West are integrating, but some Muslim criminals are causing problems.
The majority of Muslims who live in the West believe that they have integrated but are being persecuted by non-Muslim bigots for no good reason.
The third view is held by Muslims and Westerners who believe that what is happening is a clash of incompatible civilizations which will result in one of two possible futures. Either (a) One of those civilizations will change fundamentally or (b) They will both agree to drop the effort to integrate.
Since 9/11, I have slowly abandoned the first view and adopted the third. This change in my attitude was brought about by learning the basics of Islamic theology and law and correlating that information with the daily news.
Daniel Pipes articulates one version of the third view:
To borrow a computer term, if Ayatollah Khomeini, Osama bin Laden, and Nidal Hasan represent Islamism 1.0, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan (the prime minister of Turkey), Tariq Ramadan (a Swiss intellectual), and Keith Ellison (a U.S. congressman) represent Islamism 2.0. The former kill more people but the latter pose a greater threat to Western civilization.
http://www.danielpipes.org/7967/keith-ellison-where-are-you
Ellison replies with the second view:
I think that it is a paranoid and conspiratorial point of view and that it is absolutely devoid of any factual support. And that it should not be considered a serious observation.
Here is the thing: I believe in democracy. I believe conflict in society should be resolved through election. I believe in the rights of women and minorities. I believe in equality in front of the law for all people. These are not the views of an extremist. I believe in religious tolerance. I support interfaith dialogue everywhere. I support Israel. I support the Palestinian people and I support their aspiration for a state. I support Israel's aspiration to live in peace and security but side-by-side with that state. So Daniel Pipes's point of view is simply not accurate.
http://www.tikkun.org/article.php/jan10_ellison
Here is the rub. If Ellison believes in equality in front of the law for all people, he opposes Islamic law which has many restrictions on the rights of non-Muslims. Many who call themselves Muslim say they do not want to live under Islamic law. In what sense are such people Muslims? Are their personal opinions relevant when discussing Islam?
As for the other beliefs Rep. Ellison espouses, he does not explain which version of these beliefs he supports—the Islamic one or the Western one. They are quite different. For example, women have one list of rights in Islam, a different list in liberal democracies. Which list is he supporting?
Another quote from Ellison:
“There is nothing un-American about Islam. The best ideals of America are the best ideals of Islam," said Minnesota Congressman Keith Ellison, who in 2006 became the first Muslim to be elected to Congress.
The Guardian, 8/26/08, reporting on the Muslim Caucus at the Democratic National Convention.
This is the official view of the American government, as articulated by President Obama in Cairo, and I have come to believe it is factually wrong mainly for denying Islamic attitudes and laws regarding non-Muslims throughout history and presently. However, if I were a Muslim living in a non-Muslim country, this is exactly what I would want non-Muslims to believe—Islam is not a competitor civilization, just another component of liberal democracy. Muslims are immigrants, not colonizers. I would also label anyone who disagreed as paranoid--Islamophobic and racist too.
The view that there is nothing un-American about Islam, a fundamental tenet of cultural relativism, is obviously untrue. It is illegal, according to Islamic law, for Americans to immigrate to Saudi Arabia and exercise the civil rights they enjoy in America. It is equally illegal for Muslims to immigrate to America and exercise the legal rights they have under Islamic law. The establishment of Islamic law has been the goal of every Islamic immigrant community in history, and the American Muslim community is no exception.
Allen West, a candidate for U.S. Congress from Florida’s 22nd District, frames the issue this way when answering those who say that violent jihadists are twisting or distorting Islam:
You want to dig up Charles Martel and ask him why him why he was fighting the Muslim army at the Battle of Tours in 732? You want to ask the Venetian fleet at Lepanto why they were fighting a Muslim fleet in 1571? You want to ask ... the Germanic and Austrian knights why they were fighting at the gates of Vienna in 1683? You want to ask people what happened at Constantinople and why today it is called Istanbul because they lost that fight in 1453? ...
Until you get principled leadership in the United States of America that is willing to say that, we will continue to chase our tail, because we will never clearly define who this enemy is, and then understand their goals and objectives--which (are) on any jihadist website--and then come up with the right (and) proper objectives to not only secure our Republic but secure Western civilization.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkGQmCZjJ0k&feature=player_embedded
There are very good strategic reasons why a political leader in the West might not want to endorse the third view, even if he believes it. But the time is coming when the denial of this view will no longer be politically viable. Florida’s 22nd District voters may choose to point out the Emperor’s lack of clothing--there is abviously something very un-American about Islam.
Monday, February 15, 2010
Islamic law in America
The American people and the government officials charged with national security are deeply divided on the question of how to deal with the American Muslim community, especially since Ft. Hood. It's clear that we need some way to distinguish between Muslims who are not a threat and those who are. What follows is one possible step in that direction.
If we put more effort into prosecuting criminal activities such as sedition and incitement to violence (as in the Rushdie fatwa) that are based in Islamic law, we may be able to identify some of our enemies in the Islamic community. Before they shoot someone or blow something up.
All serious, committed and informed Islamists work to establish some form of Islamic law as the dominant law of the land wherever they live. This is not a matter of legal theory or an Islamist wish for some distant future. This describes a growing reality in the world now.
We can safely ignore, in the context of this issue, the Westernized or Muslim-in-name-only Muslims who are unaware of the thrust and content of Islamic law. If and when these Westernized or unobservant Muslims object to the illegal aspects of Islamic law, they will be told by the Islamic legal experts what the law says and then will either obey or be declared apostate. If they do not object to the illegal aspects of their religion, they are irrelevant.
Under any form of Islamic law, non-Muslims do not have political rights that are equal to those of Muslims. Islamic law governs non-Muslims as well as Muslims in any society dominated by Muslims. It demands the political subjugation of non-Muslims by Muslims and sets as Islam’s goal the overthrow of all infidel governments, by force if necessary (see the European Court of Human Rights case, Refah v. Turkey).
Therefore, every advance of Islamic law is a defeat for non-Muslims.
Our nation can continue to provide equality before the law to all citizens or it can allow Islamic law. It cannot do both. Islamic law cannot be a component of our democracy—it is a competitor, an alternative to our way of structuring society.
Given this deep incompatibility, Islamic immigration to America should be seen as what it is—colonization by a competitor civilization—and stopped. Osama bin Laden is correct and President Obama is wrong on this point—one must either choose to be loyal to traditional Islam or to America as it now exists. They are mutually exclusive choices.
Non-Muslim Americans must choose whether or not to allow an Islamic colony to grow in America—a colony whose leaders are not interested in assimilation, but in a separate and parallel society ruled by Islamic law.
Muslims could at any time purge their theology of its incompatible elements, but until then we should regard Islam as a competitor, not as a component of our society.
If we put more effort into prosecuting criminal activities such as sedition and incitement to violence (as in the Rushdie fatwa) that are based in Islamic law, we may be able to identify some of our enemies in the Islamic community. Before they shoot someone or blow something up.
All serious, committed and informed Islamists work to establish some form of Islamic law as the dominant law of the land wherever they live. This is not a matter of legal theory or an Islamist wish for some distant future. This describes a growing reality in the world now.
We can safely ignore, in the context of this issue, the Westernized or Muslim-in-name-only Muslims who are unaware of the thrust and content of Islamic law. If and when these Westernized or unobservant Muslims object to the illegal aspects of Islamic law, they will be told by the Islamic legal experts what the law says and then will either obey or be declared apostate. If they do not object to the illegal aspects of their religion, they are irrelevant.
Under any form of Islamic law, non-Muslims do not have political rights that are equal to those of Muslims. Islamic law governs non-Muslims as well as Muslims in any society dominated by Muslims. It demands the political subjugation of non-Muslims by Muslims and sets as Islam’s goal the overthrow of all infidel governments, by force if necessary (see the European Court of Human Rights case, Refah v. Turkey).
Therefore, every advance of Islamic law is a defeat for non-Muslims.
Our nation can continue to provide equality before the law to all citizens or it can allow Islamic law. It cannot do both. Islamic law cannot be a component of our democracy—it is a competitor, an alternative to our way of structuring society.
Given this deep incompatibility, Islamic immigration to America should be seen as what it is—colonization by a competitor civilization—and stopped. Osama bin Laden is correct and President Obama is wrong on this point—one must either choose to be loyal to traditional Islam or to America as it now exists. They are mutually exclusive choices.
Non-Muslim Americans must choose whether or not to allow an Islamic colony to grow in America—a colony whose leaders are not interested in assimilation, but in a separate and parallel society ruled by Islamic law.
Muslims could at any time purge their theology of its incompatible elements, but until then we should regard Islam as a competitor, not as a component of our society.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
The Source of Authority in Government
Over time, we have tried many sources of authority for governing ourselves. The desire for legitimate authority has been intensified by the expanding need for government. One driver behind this need is the constantly rising population density we create. So far in our history, we have found that the denser the population, the greater the need is for more intrusive government. Proponents of limited government and individual liberties have struggled in vain against this equation.
Tribal consensus, divine right of kings, rule by priests and rule by the strongest and most murderous were all tried and still are used. Secular government through widely dispersed power sharing is the latest and most successful style to appear. But belief in the older sources of authority has not gone quietly.
Much of the present struggle is caused by Muslims who do not want secular authority to dominate religious authority. They correctly see the success of secular authority as the defeat of the political aspect of Islam. The struggle within Islam and between Islam and the West revolves around this issue, made more virulent by Muslim dreams of once more dominating a lost empire through cultural and religious supremacy.
The attempt to make Islamic law the highest law everywhere is being promoted by two strategies. The more noticeable strategy is physical attack. The more subtle one is carried out through demographics and ideological intimidation of infidels and uncommitted Muslims. The proponents of each strategy want to lead the effort and eliminate their Islamic competitors, but will always close ranks against the infidel and the apostate.
This effort to re-place religious authority at the top is causing an echo effect in the West by drawing attention to the recent reduction of religious authority in the West. Westerners who prefer more religious authority in government see the conflict as an extension of the historical struggle between two irreconcilable religious authorities—a clash of civilizations—in addition to the larger struggle between religious and secular authority.
Some possible outcomes of this high-stakes struggle:
--Islamic law becomes much more dominant in the Muslim-dominated parts of the world.
--Jewish and Christian laws become much more dominant in the West.
--Religious law of all kinds continues to decline in importance in relation to secular law.
--One version of religious law becomes dominant in the world.
Tribal consensus, divine right of kings, rule by priests and rule by the strongest and most murderous were all tried and still are used. Secular government through widely dispersed power sharing is the latest and most successful style to appear. But belief in the older sources of authority has not gone quietly.
Much of the present struggle is caused by Muslims who do not want secular authority to dominate religious authority. They correctly see the success of secular authority as the defeat of the political aspect of Islam. The struggle within Islam and between Islam and the West revolves around this issue, made more virulent by Muslim dreams of once more dominating a lost empire through cultural and religious supremacy.
The attempt to make Islamic law the highest law everywhere is being promoted by two strategies. The more noticeable strategy is physical attack. The more subtle one is carried out through demographics and ideological intimidation of infidels and uncommitted Muslims. The proponents of each strategy want to lead the effort and eliminate their Islamic competitors, but will always close ranks against the infidel and the apostate.
This effort to re-place religious authority at the top is causing an echo effect in the West by drawing attention to the recent reduction of religious authority in the West. Westerners who prefer more religious authority in government see the conflict as an extension of the historical struggle between two irreconcilable religious authorities—a clash of civilizations—in addition to the larger struggle between religious and secular authority.
Some possible outcomes of this high-stakes struggle:
--Islamic law becomes much more dominant in the Muslim-dominated parts of the world.
--Jewish and Christian laws become much more dominant in the West.
--Religious law of all kinds continues to decline in importance in relation to secular law.
--One version of religious law becomes dominant in the world.
Two Models of the Future
The manner we choose to describe the war we are fighting in Afghanistan depends on which view of the future we have. If we agree with Samuel Huntington that the world is becoming more and more defined by cultural, religious and ethnic differences, we define the war as part of a conflict between the Islamic and Western civilizations.
If we agree with Francis Fukuyama that liberal democracy is turning the world into one civilization, the war is just a bump in that road. The United Nations is the totem of Fukuyama’s future, the Organization of the Islamic Conference is a symbol of Huntington’s.
People tend to choose one of those frames of reference and place inside it facts that make sense within that frame. So have I. My personal preference is to keep the present regime of nation states and cultural identities and to minimize supranational governmental authority.
In American political terms, the Right agrees with Huntington more than the Left, religious people agree with Huntington more than secular people. This separation also exists among Muslims. The leaders of the global jihad see a threat to traditional Islam from the Western led global economy because it is infused with un-Islamic values. They claim that Islamic culture is the superior model for the world. Muslims who have no desire to live under present Islamic law disagree.
Those who agree with Fukuyama see the mass emigration from the second and third world nations to the first world nations as a good thing, those who agree with Huntington’s clash of civilizations model see problems ahead for Muslims in Western countries. Attempts to create a synthesis of Islamic values and the values of liberal democracy have not shown much success. The conflicts surrounding the interpretation of free speech rights in Europe are an example of this failure.
Huntington’s model has been quite accurate since its appearance in 1993 at predicting events, Fukuyama’s is less so. While the success of Barack Obama fits Fukuyama’s predictions, larger events are overwhelming that trend. The culture-flattening effects of the global economy push us toward one civilization, but in ways that Huntington described as relevant but shallow. He agreed that the Davos Culture is important, but asked how many people share it. It is an elite culture with shallow roots--one tenth of one percent to maybe one percent of the world population outside the West.
The fact that Americans now eat falafel and Arabs drink Cokes is sometimes offered as an example of the emergence of one civilization. Huntington described this as an irrelevant and insignificant fact because it does not change any conflicting cultural values. Where conflicting religious values collide, interfaith efforts show little success.
If Huntington’s predictions continue to come true, the more extreme versions of multicultural coexistence, and especially the idea of cultural relativism, will not succeed. Nations will preserve a distinct cultural identity provided by the dominant or majority culture of each nation and some inter-civilizational conflicts will be accepted as irreconcilable. I believe the conflict between our Western civilization and the Islamic civilization is one of these and separation is the answer. Those who prefer to live under Islamic law should live in Islamic countries because Western liberal democracies cannot accommodate them. Muslims who choose to live in the West and American citizens who choose Islam will have to accept the implications of this fact. Being Muslim in America does not include the option to bring Islamic law to America because the Constitution and Islamic law are irreconcilable.
President Obama was wrong when he said America is now an Islamic nation. It never can be.
If we agree with Francis Fukuyama that liberal democracy is turning the world into one civilization, the war is just a bump in that road. The United Nations is the totem of Fukuyama’s future, the Organization of the Islamic Conference is a symbol of Huntington’s.
People tend to choose one of those frames of reference and place inside it facts that make sense within that frame. So have I. My personal preference is to keep the present regime of nation states and cultural identities and to minimize supranational governmental authority.
In American political terms, the Right agrees with Huntington more than the Left, religious people agree with Huntington more than secular people. This separation also exists among Muslims. The leaders of the global jihad see a threat to traditional Islam from the Western led global economy because it is infused with un-Islamic values. They claim that Islamic culture is the superior model for the world. Muslims who have no desire to live under present Islamic law disagree.
Those who agree with Fukuyama see the mass emigration from the second and third world nations to the first world nations as a good thing, those who agree with Huntington’s clash of civilizations model see problems ahead for Muslims in Western countries. Attempts to create a synthesis of Islamic values and the values of liberal democracy have not shown much success. The conflicts surrounding the interpretation of free speech rights in Europe are an example of this failure.
Huntington’s model has been quite accurate since its appearance in 1993 at predicting events, Fukuyama’s is less so. While the success of Barack Obama fits Fukuyama’s predictions, larger events are overwhelming that trend. The culture-flattening effects of the global economy push us toward one civilization, but in ways that Huntington described as relevant but shallow. He agreed that the Davos Culture is important, but asked how many people share it. It is an elite culture with shallow roots--one tenth of one percent to maybe one percent of the world population outside the West.
The fact that Americans now eat falafel and Arabs drink Cokes is sometimes offered as an example of the emergence of one civilization. Huntington described this as an irrelevant and insignificant fact because it does not change any conflicting cultural values. Where conflicting religious values collide, interfaith efforts show little success.
If Huntington’s predictions continue to come true, the more extreme versions of multicultural coexistence, and especially the idea of cultural relativism, will not succeed. Nations will preserve a distinct cultural identity provided by the dominant or majority culture of each nation and some inter-civilizational conflicts will be accepted as irreconcilable. I believe the conflict between our Western civilization and the Islamic civilization is one of these and separation is the answer. Those who prefer to live under Islamic law should live in Islamic countries because Western liberal democracies cannot accommodate them. Muslims who choose to live in the West and American citizens who choose Islam will have to accept the implications of this fact. Being Muslim in America does not include the option to bring Islamic law to America because the Constitution and Islamic law are irreconcilable.
President Obama was wrong when he said America is now an Islamic nation. It never can be.
Public Opinions
Most adult Americans have an opinion about the connection between Islam and the attacks by Muslims that have been carried out against Americans in America over the last several years.
The majority opinion, among Muslim and non-Muslim Americans, is that these attacks have been carried out by criminals who all just happen to be Muslim. These Americans, including President Obama, believe that the attacks have no source in Islam and should be treated as criminal actions.
Politically active members of this group believe that the motivation for the attacks comes primarily from American foreign policy, not religious dogma. The attackers are viewed as nationalists defending their countries against invasion by America. They conclude that if America were to remove all military presence from the Middle East and stop supporting Israel, the attacks would end.
The members of this majority are often self-described as ignorant of Islamic dogma and history while fearful of Islam’s militancy and sheer size.
The minority opinion is that there is a religious element in the attacks in addition to the criminal and political elements. (The attackers generally claim religious motivation but these claims are ignored, with increasing difficulty, by the majority opinion holders.) This group sees the conflict in the context of 1400 years of conflict between Islam and Judaism and Christianity.
This group is divided into at least two sub-groups. One of these sub-groups sees Islam as implacably hostile and indivisible, monolithic and not capable of reform. These people say we are in a religious war against all of Islam.
A second sub-group sees the enemy differently and thinks there may be some way to avoid an all out religious war. These people (including me) say that the attackers are attempting to start a religious war in the name of Islam—a war most Muslims do not presently support.
We say the attackers and their supporters are composed of specific, ideologically identifiable parts of the umma (the world-wide membership of Islam) that can be separated from the majority of the umma and fought on ideological grounds. We say that not all Muslims are willing to die for the Salafist interpretation of Islamic law that the attackers cite and that we non-Muslims can create conditions that could identify the members of these two parts of the umma. (Physical attack is not the only threat from Islam. The Islamist political threat from the Muslim Brotherhood and the Organization of the Islamic Conference is different in strategy, though not in goals, and calls for a political solution.)
The first step in creating this identification of our enemies within Islam is to recognize that they all subscribe to the Salafist interpretation of Islamic law and that actions taken in America to promote the Salafist interpretation are seditious and incitements to violence. The second step is to start prosecuting violators of these American laws, removing the sheep skins from the Muslim wolves.
We must learn how to identify our Islamic enemies before they blow things up and shoot people, not afterward. We have been playing defense against an enemy we cannot see. We must go on offense. The alternative is to live for the foreseeable future as we do now--in a defensive posture, waiting for the next attack.
We can do better.
The majority opinion, among Muslim and non-Muslim Americans, is that these attacks have been carried out by criminals who all just happen to be Muslim. These Americans, including President Obama, believe that the attacks have no source in Islam and should be treated as criminal actions.
Politically active members of this group believe that the motivation for the attacks comes primarily from American foreign policy, not religious dogma. The attackers are viewed as nationalists defending their countries against invasion by America. They conclude that if America were to remove all military presence from the Middle East and stop supporting Israel, the attacks would end.
The members of this majority are often self-described as ignorant of Islamic dogma and history while fearful of Islam’s militancy and sheer size.
The minority opinion is that there is a religious element in the attacks in addition to the criminal and political elements. (The attackers generally claim religious motivation but these claims are ignored, with increasing difficulty, by the majority opinion holders.) This group sees the conflict in the context of 1400 years of conflict between Islam and Judaism and Christianity.
This group is divided into at least two sub-groups. One of these sub-groups sees Islam as implacably hostile and indivisible, monolithic and not capable of reform. These people say we are in a religious war against all of Islam.
A second sub-group sees the enemy differently and thinks there may be some way to avoid an all out religious war. These people (including me) say that the attackers are attempting to start a religious war in the name of Islam—a war most Muslims do not presently support.
We say the attackers and their supporters are composed of specific, ideologically identifiable parts of the umma (the world-wide membership of Islam) that can be separated from the majority of the umma and fought on ideological grounds. We say that not all Muslims are willing to die for the Salafist interpretation of Islamic law that the attackers cite and that we non-Muslims can create conditions that could identify the members of these two parts of the umma. (Physical attack is not the only threat from Islam. The Islamist political threat from the Muslim Brotherhood and the Organization of the Islamic Conference is different in strategy, though not in goals, and calls for a political solution.)
The first step in creating this identification of our enemies within Islam is to recognize that they all subscribe to the Salafist interpretation of Islamic law and that actions taken in America to promote the Salafist interpretation are seditious and incitements to violence. The second step is to start prosecuting violators of these American laws, removing the sheep skins from the Muslim wolves.
We must learn how to identify our Islamic enemies before they blow things up and shoot people, not afterward. We have been playing defense against an enemy we cannot see. We must go on offense. The alternative is to live for the foreseeable future as we do now--in a defensive posture, waiting for the next attack.
We can do better.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)