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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)