Who Speaks for Islam? Part 3b: Jihad, Religion & Politics
| Intro | Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3a | Part 3b |Part 4 | Part 5 |
What about Islam and Jihad?
The term jihad is a loaded term with multiple and conflicting meanings. It was used for the Afghan resistance, and since then for every struggle involving Muslims fighting resistance and liberation as well as extremism and terrorism (Bosnia, Kosovo, Chechnya, Kashmir, Bali, Gaza, etc.). The Bin Ladens, along with many non-Muslims ironically, conflate jihad with a Muslim holy war against unbelievers. But many observant Muslims will deny that link, but point to the Crusades as the origin of “holy wars.”
To most Muslims, jihad implies honor and sacrifice for others, even when interpreted military, it comes with many conditions, including the writ against targeting civilians. Using jihad and terrorism as synonyms is wrong and counterproductive, and the meaning of Jihad to Muslims is much more nuanced than what many Western commentators invoke.
Religion & Politics: Yesterday and Today
While people find linking of religion and politics in Islam as being peculiar, it belies history throughout which politics and religion have been linked. Judaism’s King David and King Solomon conquered and settled at the behest of God, Christianity’s kings and emperors were crowned by the Pope and fought crusades for expansion. Hinduism’s kings upheld “divine order” and used the doctrine of dharma to support the caste system.
In recent decades, religion has been used in wars of liberation and for terrorism throughout the world: Muslim Bosnians, Christian Serbs, Catholic/Protestants Irish, Muslims and Jewish fundamentalists in Israel/Palestine, etc.
Religion and Suicide Terrorism
Is religion a key precipitator of such terrorism?
The best research on this has been done by Robert Pape (referred to sometime ago on MM), author of Dying to Win: The Logic of Suicide Terrorism:
The central fact is that overwhelmingly suicide-terrorists attacks are not driven by religion as much as they are by a clear strategic objective: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from the territory that the terrorists view as their homeland. From Lebanon to Sri Lanka to Chechnya to Kashmir to the West Bank, every major suicide-terrorist campaign-more than 94% of all the incidents-has had its central objective to compel a democratic state to withdraw. [Source: Interview on The American Conservative]
However, both religious and secular groups often frame their terrorist acts within a powerful religious context: Tamil Tigers using Hindu identity against Sinhalese Buddhists in Sri Lanka, Hamas using Islamic identity, even Al-Aqsa Martyrs, a secular militia using Islam, etc. Although suicide attacks seem to evoke Hamas as the originator, the most devastating suicide attack was against the US Marine barracks in 1983, killing 241 US soldiers, motivated by Hezbollah with the attackers belonging to diverse religious backgrounds. In Lebanon attacks since the 80s, attackers have included 8 Muslim “fundamentalists”, 3 Christians, and 27 communists/socialists.
Pape’s research also concluded that two-thirds of al-Qaeda suicide terrorists from ‘95 to ‘04 were from countries where the US had a heavy presence of troops since 1990. There was no suicide terrorism in Iraq before the invasion and occupation. But it was used by both Shias and Sunnis in their sectarian conflicts and in trying to end US occupation.
What do Muslims say about Western countries and Leaders?
While political radicals are more negative than moderates in their opinions about the West as a whole, stark differences exist between views about individual countries in the West. France and Germany have unfavorable levels of only about 25%, while UK is at 68% and US at 84% unfavorable. Similarly, 90% of political radicals and 62% moderates have absolute dislike for Bush. The number drops to 70% and 43% for Blair, and drops to minority levels at 39% and 24% for Chirac.
Furthermore, the US is considered “aggressive” by 81% of radicals, 67% of moderates, while only 8-9% of radicals and moderates see France or Germany as aggressive. So, in conclusion the data obliterates the suggestion that radicals or for that matter, the average Muslim, holds some overwhelming blind hatred for all of West and all of Western culture.
How is America viewed specifically?
Not very kindly of course. While America’s stated policy is to promote democracy, a sizable chunk of the Muslim/Arab population isn’t buying it. About 50% moderates are skeptical about this official US policy statement, while 72% of political radicals don’t buy it.
Muslims’ skepticism is based on what they believe are double-standards exhibited by the US on democracy and human-rights. A politician and community leader in Nigeria remarked that US and the UN turn a blind eye towards Israel when it attacks Palestine, but when there is a counter-attack by Palestinians, it is condemned as terrorism. As a female student at American University of Cairo, a leading institute of Western education, quipped:
Bush has given Israel carte blanch to attack Palestinians and Lebanese. The war on terror is an open-ended war on Muslims.
Ultimately, the authors conclude:
For the politically radicalized, their fear of Western control and domination, as well as their lack of self-determination, reinforces their sense of powerlessness. Thus, a belief has developed among the politically radicalized that they must dedicate themselves to changing an untenable situation.
Importance of religious & cultural identity
Modern post-World War II Muslim nations’ hopes of a bright future were not grounded in the reality of having arbitrary borders drawn by European colonial powers. It placed people with historical rivalries into the same nation, a fragile process that led to later conflicts and civil wars, such as in Lebanon and Iraq.
Arab nationalism movements led to the tumbling of Western-appointed rulers. At the same time, Islamic movements such as al-Ikhwaan (Muslim brotherhood) started attracting thousands of members in various Arab countries.
The 1967 Arab defeat to the Israelis was a watershed moment for Arab pride and identity. Governments started turning to Islam as a “stay in power” strategy. Thus, since 1970s, religion and culture have become more integrated in Muslim politics and society. Religious identity is important to both political radicals and moderates, and what they most admire about themselves and their nations. But more radicals (65%) give top priority to holding on to spiritual/moral values compared to moderates (45%).
On the other hand, one of the biggest resentments for both moderates and radicals towards the West is its “disrespect for Islam”, and “improving the presentation of Islam to the West” was a top response from both groups in what the Muslim world could do to improve relations with the West.
The “war against Islam”
Across the Muslim world, the belief of a Western war against Islam and Muslims has become a popular theme, with majorities in many Muslim countries believing that US’s goal is to “weaken and divide the Islamic world”.
There is a strong fear of the appeal of Western culture in movies, music and programs that encourage permissiveness and considered as an assault on Islamic character. What Muslims resent the most was consistently answered as “sexual and cultural promiscuity”, followed by “ethical and moral corruption” and then “hatred of Muslims” for both radicals and moderates. Another source of resentment is the depiction of Muslims in Western media.While a significantly greater proportion of the political radicals cite Western cultural saturation, immorality and moral corruption as top reasons for resentment, not even a small percentage suggests that the West should “stop being immoral and corrupt” in order to improve relations with the Muslim world.
What Muslims request for better relations has nothing to do with asking people in the West to change who they are, but rather what they do: to respect Islam and Muslims and make concrete changes in certain aspects of foreign policy.
This commitment to cultural values and the fear of Western hegemony drives political radicals to be much more fearful about the threat of foreign interference in their countries, relative to moderates who are more worried about economics. This fear extends to a distrust of the West’s desire for coexistence and pessimism about the future. Radicals (50% of them) are also more committed and believe that it is “completely justifiable” to “sacrifice one’s life for something one believes in”, while 18% of moderates believe this. So, although both moderates and radicals are concerned about Western bias and interference, the greater intensity and fear that radicals have about the West makes them a more fertile ground for terrorism recruiting.
Is sympathy for terrorist acts a Muslim monopoly?
We keep hearing that Muslims support terrorism much more than other groups, despite data showing that Muslim sympathy for terrorism is NOT driven by religious reasons.
Ironically, Muslims on average are more likely to condemn attacks on civilians unequivocally than even the general American public! A recent study shows that:
Only 46% of Americans think that “bombing and other attacks intentionally aimed at civilians” are “never justified”, while 24% believe these attacks are “often or sometimes justified” [See poll]
Similarly, 6% of American public thinks that attacks in which civilians are targets are “completely justified”, compared to Lebanon/Iran (2%) and Saudi Arabia (4%). Muslims in Paris and London are equivalent in their justification of attacks on civilians, even for a “noble cause”.
So, why does terrorism continue to flourish in Muslim countries, despite Muslims’ rejection of terrorism?
What these results indicate is that terrorism is as much an “out group” activity as any other violent crime.
Just like violent crimes (murders, rapes, etc.) continue to occur in US doesn’t mean that Americans are fine with them; similarly the presence of terrorism is not evidence of Muslims’ acquiescence to it. The statistical data indicates the opposite.
Diagnosis or misdiagnoses
Blaming Islam for terrorism is wrong and has serious repercussion. It reinforces radicals’ views about the West’s war on Islam, and alienates the moderate majority. Bush’s use of the word crusades in describing the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (what some call a Freudian slip) doesn’t help matters.
Americans and the vast majority of Muslims despise extremism. According to the polls, Americans least admire “radicalism” in the Muslim world, and similarly Muslims’ top concern about their own society is extremism. This should not be surprising since Muslims have suffered the most from terrorism. Terrorists are not glorified; they are rejected by the vast majority of Muslims.
This then is the good news, plus the fact that 90%+ Muslims are in the “easier” moderate category. The bad news is that there is a sea of misunderstandings and misperceptions that Muslims have about the West and vice-versa, as well as the presence of many politically radicalized individuals who could move either way (to moderation or to greater extremism). While many Muslims (radicals and moderates) admire the West’s technology, freedom of speech, and value of hard work, Americans when asked what they know about Muslims had two predominant responses: “Nothing”, and “I don’t know”.
There are 1.3 billion Muslims today worldwide. If the 7% (91 million) of the politically radicalized continue to feel politically dominated, occupied and disrespected, the West will have little, if any, chance of changing their minds.
Key Points:
- The majority of respondents in predominantly Muslim countries condemn the vents of 9/11
- The minority (7%) who condone attacks and view the US unfavorably are no more religious than the general population
- What distinguishes political radicals from others is their perception of the West’s politics, and not its culture.
More from this category
- Who Speaks for Islam? Part 3b: Jihad, Religion & Politics
- Who Speaks for Islam? Part 3a- What Makes a Radical?
- Who Speaks for Islam? Part 2- Democracy or Theocracy
- Who Speaks for Islam? Part 1
More from this author
- Its Radical Islamic Extremism, Stupid: McCain
- Obama, the Jewish Vote, and AIPAC
- Imam Qatanani’s story in NY Times
- A Wife is a Wife
Subscribe to this author
it is amazing how much harm, hope not irreversible harm, that Bush’s policies have caused. If you could point to one cause for the growth of terrorism, Bush/Cheney would likely be a key figure in that discussion.
Actually, I always find the Bush excuse as a weak one when addressing Islamic terrorism. I fail to recall the country the US was occupying just prior to 9/11 that prompted the attack by Bin Laden.
Also, I recall an article declaring that “radicals” were originally segregated to 4’s and 5’s on the polling chart, which totalled 13.5 percent, but modified to drop the 4’s as stated below:
“Although she and Esposito never discuss the details of this question in their book, they did expound on them in a 2006 article in Foreign Policy magazine, which described a five-point scale in which “Ones” are respondents who said 9/11 was “totally unjustified” and “Fives” those who said the attacks were “completely justified.”
“In that article, she and Esposito wrote: “Respondents who said 9/11 was justified (4 or 5 on the same scale) are classified as radical.” In the book they wrote two years later, they redefined “radical” to comprise a much smaller group–only the Fives.”
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/066chpzg.asp?pg=2
If this is accurate, then at least 13.5 percent of the Muslims polled feel 9/11 was somewhat justified. Another problem is that the polling may be further skewed but only in one direction, assuming people who might have supported 9/11 didn’t answer honestly.
One of the books authors, John Esposito is a hand picked representative of the Saudi royal family. He runs Georgetown’s middle eastern studies department and has taken a public grant of 20 million from the Saudi’s, and god only knows what he has taken privately over the years from them.
Whatever the circumstances, an objective, non-biased observer Esposito is certainly not.
Welcome, awake. Surprised that it took you 4 posts in this series to throw dirt at a positive spin for Muslims. Unfortunately, this time its hard data that you can’t fight.
If Esposito has benefited from Saudi money and makes him “biased”, then I guess then that puts Bush in a very precarious position, doesn’t it, considering that he is tight with Saudis too?? While you are quick to point out Bush-excuse as a weak one DESPITE the evidence (these are not mere opinions, but REAL data), it didn’t stop you from throwing out some of your own right-wing talking points on Saudis. The only reason that Esposito is biased to you is because he is not an Islamophobe like Spencer, who you loyally and self-admittedly support. As far as funding academic departments, you will find departments all over the country being sponsored by different entities and even countries. There are rules and regulations in place as to protect influence and independence. That is something campuswatch won’t tell you!
As for your speculation on what the polling did or did not, then I suggest you order the book and read the last sections that go over polling methodology and structure. Before questioning the methodology, please provide any evidence for a statistical problem.
Finally, “Partially justify” is not the same as “Completely justify”. And even if 13.5% is true, then that still makes Muslims better than average American, 24% of whom think that killing civilians is partly justified. That makes our people quite a bit more radical than Muslims, quite unfortunate isn’t it? Take that to Jihadwatch…
“If Esposito has benefited from Saudi money and makes him “biased”, then I guess then that puts Bush in a very precarious position, doesn’t it, considering that he is tight with Saudis too??”
Boy, it sure does. You hit the nail on the head with that one.
“While you are quick to point out Bush-excuse as a weak one DESPITE the evidence (these are not mere opinions, but REAL data),”
I apologize Amad, but what country was Bush invading prior to 9/11 that prompted Bin Laden’s attack? I can’t seem to find your answer in your reply.
“it didn’t stop you from throwing out some of your own right-wing talking points on Saudis.”
You’re right. That wasn’t fair. Saudi Arabia is a beacon of religious tolerance, as is evident by the absolute prohibition to erect Christian Churches within the country.
“As for your speculation on what the polling did or did not, then I suggest you order the book and read the last sections that go over polling methodology and structure. Before questioning the methodology, please provide any evidence for a statistical problem.”
that is precisely the problem Amad. The hard data you refer to simply is not presented in the book as was stated in the standard article:
“These problems would not matter much if the book gave readers the opportunity to review the poll data on which Esposito and Mogahed base their judgments. Alas, that is not the case. Neither the text nor the appendix includes the full data to a single question from any survey taken by Gallup over the entire six-year period of its World Poll initiative. We, the readers, either have to pay more than $20,000 to Gallup to gain access to its proprietary research or have to rely on the good faith of the authors.”
That in itself is a valid indictment in my opinion, coupled with the skewing of their own numbers, admitted by the authors, there is nothing hateful or illogical to question the overall analysis and results.
“Finally, “Partially justify” is not the same as “Completely justify”. And even if 13.5% is true, then that still makes Muslims better than average American, 24% of whom think that killing civilians is partly justified.”
Agreed, they are not the same, but by the author’s own admission, the “partially justify” group really isn’t so moderate at all.
As far as the other poll, I fail to see the correlation. Who as Americans were polled? American Muslims? Who?
“That makes our people quite a bit more radical than Muslims, quite unfortunate isn’t it?”
Our people? Who might that be? non-Muslim Americans or Americans in general? Aren’t you an American Muslim?
Finally, regarding the data. If the figure of “radicals” can be estimated at 13.5% or even higher, then potentially, radicals can total around 200 million worldwide, or roughly 2/3’s the size of the US population. This is still a relatively small percentage of the world’s Muslims, but not an insignifigant number in the least.
From the original article that I linked:
“These problems would not matter much if the book gave readers the opportunity to review the poll data on which Esposito and Mogahed base their judgments. Alas, that is not the case. Neither the text nor the appendix includes the full data to a single question from any survey taken by Gallup over the entire six-year period of its World Poll initiative. We, the readers, either have to pay more than $20,000 to Gallup to gain access to its proprietary research or have to rely on the good faith of the authors.”
There is no “hard-data”, Amad.
There is “hard-data”. Access and presence are two separate things. Get the dang book, and review the methodology and system of survey. That is what I was talking about. You asked as to how the poll was done, I am telling you that it’s in the book.
The Saudi issue is a red-herring that right-wing neocons like to throw in every argument when what they are saying has no merit. The book is not about Saudis. The “guilt by association” trick from the Republican playbook is getting boring and quite old. Neocons and Israel lobbyists continue to use that but it is falling on deaf ears. You can only fool people with the same trick so many times.
Finally, READ the post carefully, before asking silly questions. Refer to the section on “Muslims don’t have monopoly in justifying terrorism”.
24% Americans!
As for your last point, go back to the concluding sentence in the article:
Instead of harping on how bad things are, why not consider the motivations and causes of it. Let’s stop the terrorism of Israel for starters. Let’s stop the neocon wars and the support of dictators. Let’s stop being hypocrites in our policies. And surely then will we prevent more of the 7% from shifting towards radicalism in ACTION, not just beliefs. Before pointing fingers at the “results”, let’s review what is pushing people towards the hatred of USA, and towards political radicalism.
To repeat myself: Its politics, not piety (Islam) stupid.
Awake,
The problem with your statements, and that of Robert Satloff (from the article quoted) is that it assumes that anyone who finds any justification in the 9/11 acts defines one as a radical. Satloff calls it a smoking gun that Mogahed decided not to cluster 4s with 5s because they were closer in other ways to the 1s, 2s, 3s, and 4s than the 5s.
You have a problem of definition - your definition of a radical is simply, if someone can see the point of view and understand in some way the actions of the 9/11 hijackers, they are then radical. If that is the case, then to be consistent, we ought to say that anyone who takes out a military target in spite of the loss of innocent lives (or as your people call them, collateral damage) and any who sympathize with them in any way is a radical, in which case I would say the biggest radicals, who are perpetrators of radical Democro-fascism (here’s a democracy, but if we don’t like your leaders, we’ll destroy them and put another puppet in place), is the United States federal gov’t.
The answer to your question to Amad is that at the time, the US was occupying Saudi Arabia at the behest of the Saudi gov’t (which the rest of the Muslim world did not care for). The US was and continues to support Israel against the Palestinian people, even as the rest of the UN democratically (ironically enough) condemns Israel and her actions against the Palestinians, the US is ready to veto anything and everything anti-Israel. They are also willing to put in much in the way of military aid as well.
At that time, the US was also sanctioning Iraq from the rest of the world, with daily air raids to bomb Iraq back to the stone ages. 500,000 Iraqi children lost their lives as result of those sanctions, and 1.5 Million people also died. Bush Jr. did not start those sanctions, but he continued the policy of his father and Bill Clinton.
The US was also sanctioning and starving out the Taliban-controlled Afghanistan at the time as well.
And returning back to my first point about puppet dictators, the US gov’t is in the habit of supporting dictatorships and farcical puppet democracies in the Muslim world when it suits its own interests.
This is a fractional sampling of the stupidity of US foreign policy. It’s unfair to target Bush alone because he is not the only perpetrator in this problem - if anything, foreign policy gaffes seem bipartisan.
Siraaj
Amad,
If Robert Spencer took a poll and without releasing the raw data wrote a book about it stating that Muslims were predisposed to violence, you would treat it with the same skepticism that I am with Esposito’s book. Esposito’s connection to the Saudis is far from a red herring. It is consistent with his position historically, along with people like Karen Armstrong, and common knowledge.
Most importantly, I must wholly disagree with the tu quoque argument in the contrast of the two polls. Thje data from Gallup’s poll was questioning Muslims worldwide and their attitude towards the acts of 9/11, specifically. The other poll referenced about the difference between how Iranians and Americans view each other is not an adequate direct comparison. First, as I previously stated, what type of Americans were sampled? The example that more Americans answered similarly in that poll than Muslims did in the Gallup poll does not correlate properly.
9/11 victims were innocent civilians and a closed system. American responses sanctioning (at least somewhat) civilian collateral damage is not. The circumstances are not clear. For example, militants embedding themselves in civilians, which Hizbollah commonly engaged in in the 2006 conflict with Israel.
That being said, I know your position on Israel and believe that it is off-topic in this particular thread. In summation, when 46% of Americans engage in violent acts to support their sentiments that the poll tried to show, your point is completely valid. Until then, it is merely a distraction from and a justification of the shoddy polling by Esposito and Mogahed.
And also, thanks for deciding to release my last comment, Amad.
Siraaj,
Thanks for answering the question that I posed to Amad about US “occupation” prior to 9/11. I am puzzled as to why Bin Laden decided to attack the US because of that unholy alliance between the US and Saudi Arabia, while the latter remained unscathed. Regardless, I don’t think anyone would use that fact as a justification for 9/11, would they?
As far as the definition of “radical”, I must state that it was not my definition but rather the questioning of Mogahed and Esposito’s definition and how they arrived at it.
The argument of US policy versus “radical” Muslims due to religious piety is a valid one. I am certainly not a fan of the Iraq democracy project (never was) and I am more than willing to accept the points you made regarding historical US foreign policy in general.
I will not however, cede that as the sole source of this strife, as Amad would have it. From where I stand, Islam is a complete life-encompassing ideology, how to pray, to live, to interact, and legislate. Islamic law is governance by Allah’s will. Islam supercedes everything except when it is convenient to seperate it from an unfortunate situation.
Regards.
By itself, probably not. But add in the sanctions (Iraq and Afghanistan), the unconditional support for Israel, the occupation of Saudi Arabia, unprovoked missile attacks with civilian casualties in both the Sudan and Afghanistan, and numerous other incidents have likely added up against the US.
Yes, Islam is a complete way of life, but as one of our teachers taught us, you will see what you decide to focus on. If you are against Islam, then you will simply see the negative actions of the minority as representative of all of Islam. On the other hand, if you focus on the positive only, then you will see the good that Muslims do in the name of religion as representing Islam.
I do neither because the positive or negative behavior of people neither proves a religion correct, nor does it necessarily represent the religion. Christianity and Judaism have been retroactively refitted (by men who likely didn’t receive a mandate from God) to appear in harmony with 21st century liberalism / secularism, which they are not (a cursory glance at the old testament will bear this out).
I focus on what Islam, the religion, teaches from its sources, and I read the varying opinions on different issues and come to my own conclusions, right or wrong, based on how the case is made for particular ideas and practices. I’m openminded to changing certain areas, but it cannot and will not be based on personalities - that would be akin to rejecting catholicism as unrealistic due to the high incidence and alter boy molestation and sexual abuse.
For example, if anyone asks me, what do you think of stoning the adulterer to death when four witnesses have witnessed the crime in a country that enforces shariah law, I would say that if the judge judges everything is in order from his end and feels that stoning must be carried out, then that stoning must be carried out. There’s no running or apologizing for the law of Allah subhaana wa ta’aala. There’s no shame in it for me, because I believe it came from God, and I live to worship God, not tell Him why his laws are inhumane, nor will you see me dance around the subject.
Can the same be said about the Children of Israel or the Christians, I wonder? We often hear the neo-con talkshows bleating about America’s Judeo-Christian underpinnings, and they go on about abortion and gay marriage, but we hear nothing about adultery, strangely enough. The Bible is unequivocal in its pronouncement about adultery in Deuteronomy - death:
22.20 But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel, (unmarried women)
22.21 then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die, because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father’s house; so shalt thou put evil away from among you.
22.22 “If a man be found lying with a woman married to a husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman and the woman; so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.
22.23 If a damsel who is a virgin be betrothed unto a husband, and a man find her in the city and lie with her,
22.24 then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones, that they die — the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city, and the man,because he hath humbled his neighbor’s wife; so thou shalt put away evil from among you.
How about apostasy?
12.10 And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die, because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the LORD thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.
17.2 If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman who hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God in transgressing His covenant,
17.3 and hath gone and served other gods and worshiped them, either the sun or moon or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded,
17.4 and it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it and inquired diligently, and behold, it be true and the thing certain that such abomination is wrought in Israel,
17.5 then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman who has committed that wicked thing unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones till they die.
17.6 At the mouth of two witnesses or three witnesses shall he that is worthy of death be put to death, but at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death.
Why bring all this up? Simply to illustrate that while most Jews and Christians do not stone people to death these days, this is what their religious texts teach, so I cannot judge the content of Christianity and Judaism on the present-day implementation of its people, even if they claim their tolerance is religious.
The same rings true for what you have said about Islam - as the worn and cliched statement goes, don’t judge the Islam by the people, judge the people by Islam. Islam is not just a few verses on Jihaad read out of context, it is also how that verse was implemented and understood by the Prophet and the his Companions of that time. It is the verses and their qualifications before and after the controversial soundbite played by Robert Spencer et al.
So if you want to indict people, feel free, but indicting Islam the religion based on those acts is a stretch.
Siraaj
First of all the difference in the credibility of Spencer and Esposito is like night and day. Spencer’s only respect comes from Islamophobes, and esp. the neocons (nearly all neocons are islamophobes though all Islamophobes are not neocons). On the other hand, the only people who have a problem with Esposito are this same right-wing fringe that is destroying America’s image in the world and has taken America into many disasters, the latest being Iraq. While Esposito leads a department in one of the most prestigious universities of America, Spencer leads right-wingers and Israeli foot-soldiers in hate-mongering and intolerance-breeding.
Secondly, if Spencer did release a poll from a respectable organization such as Pew or Gallup… organizations that are CREDIBLE and known to be such, then while I might not accept his spin on it, I would indeed accept the results. That means I would accept the percentages, and the poll numbers. These poll numbers are provided in the book, if only you would look past your colored views.
Thirdly, as I said, receiving funding from Saudi or any other country to the DEPARTMENT (not the person) affects NOTHING. Esposito/Armstrong wrote about Islam and about Muslims well before Saudis funded a department for “studies” (not bigotry as Spencer/Pipes are engaged in). Indeed, this mud-slinging is a disgusting habit that people like you will not give up because it helps steer away the discussion from substance to innuendo.
“Shoddy polling”? Says who? You and your 10 neocon friends? Actually, neocon opinions count as much as Bush’s story on WMDs in Iraq. And, what a BS argument about 46% Americans engaging in violent acts! Do you think 7% (92 million) of the Muslims are engaging in violent acts? if they did, the world would be on fire, and your zio-con friends wouldn’t be able to stop it.
Finally, it has become obvious that you are here only to sling mud at the authors and the credibility of a major organization, known to Americans for its veracity, the Gallup Poll. You have no other substantive discussion or argument, which is not surprising with people like you. So, unless you have SUBSTANCE, we are not going to go in circles any more because frankly it is boring and a waste of my time. I am sure jihadwatch will have plenty of space available for your mud-slinging.
And “awake”, if you really want to wake up to “why they hate us”, and why our nation is perceived the way it is, then I suggest you read this book. I don’t agree with everything Scheuer writes in this book, but there is a lot of truth in it:
Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror by Michael Scheuer
Amad,
With all due respect, my original comment was a response to your loose statement about Bush’s foreign policy being a catalyst for US disdain and ultimately, 9/11.
I then proceeded to provide an alternate viewpoint about the findings in this particular portion of the book and provided the link with the reasoning (and it wasn’t Robert Spencer or Jihad Watch).
I did not want to drift off-topic, but alas, it appears that we have to a degree. I as always, have been respectful in my replies in spite of your endless name-calling of neocon and zio-con, but so be it.
The “substance” was the peculiar alteration of excluding the 4’s from the 5’s of those polled and Mogahed’s response, and how I deemed that the authors were intentionally skewing the data (which was not provided in the book) and nothing more.
Mogahed was responsible for the polling and Esposito provided the commentary. In my estimation for reasons I have already stated, they are not typical of empirical data gathering personnel.
I know a bit about Michael Scheuer. He has a big fan in Bin Laden, so that tells me all I care to know about him. He indicts US policy as the sole reason for “why they hate us”.
Siraaj,
“If you are against Islam, then you will simply see the negative actions of the minority as representative of all of Islam. “
I do not agree with that. There are many aspects of Islam that have sustained many people for a long time. The good aspects are largely inconsequential to non-Muslims however, and to those of a live and let live attitude. If one would be truthful, one would acknowledge that Islam wasn’t even on the radar screen in the West prior to 9/11.
“I do neither because the positive or negative behavior of people neither proves a religion correct, nor does it necessarily represent the religion. Christianity and Judaism have been retroactively refitted (by men who likely didn’t receive a mandate from God) to appear in harmony with 21st century liberalism / secularism, which they are not (a cursory glance at the old testament will bear this out).”
Now that is an excellent point, and arguably (again, by non-Mulsims) the center of Islam’s justification as the true religion whose text, the Qur’an, was not corrupted by man. It is true that Old Testament verses are not in harmony with what is practiced today in Judaism and Christianity.
To me, that is a good thing, but to many, I can understand it is perceived as blasphemous. Again, a live and let live mentality or more specifically, do unto others…the Golden Rule, is what should be the prevailing wisdom in my estimation.
“For example, if anyone asks me, what do you think of stoning the adulterer to death when four witnesses have witnessed the crime in a country that enforces shariah law, I would say that if the judge judges everything is in order from his end and feels that stoning must be carried out, then that stoning must be carried out. There’s no running or apologizing for the law of Allah subhaana wa ta’aala. There’s no shame in it for me, because I believe it came from God, and I live to worship God, not tell Him why his laws are inhumane, nor will you see me dance around the subject.”
I fully understand your sentiment here, but here is also where I see a cause for alarm. The judge’s opinion outweighs any divine mandate, hence there are many aspects of Islam that are not specifically addressed in the Qur’an alone and subject to human interpretation and adjudication. The penalty varies according to country and circumstance.
This is exactly what the self-professed jihadists do. They take an aspect of Islam, or a verse from the Qur’an and use it to justify their actions. It is no different in their perception. They are justified by the texts and an influential “scholar” who supports this interpretation.
Simply labeling these people as misunderstanders of Islam or acting un-Islamically is convenient, but nearly valueless. The Qur’an, (or the Bible for that matter) doesn’t kill anybody. People who subscribe to portions of the texts and act accordingly, unfortunately do.
“Awake”, since when did zio-con and neocon become name-calling? This is the philosophy Spencer, Pipes and most of your friends espouse– neonconservatism, mixed with stringent Zionism. I am not sure any of those individuals would take offense with what is a relatively accurate neologism for their ideology.
And your comment about Scheuer being a “big fan of Bin Laden” further highlights how you love to mischaracterize people in order to suppress the message. More of the right-wing trick “either you support the war in Iraq or you support terrorists”! Scheuer of course doesn’t support Bin Laden, but makes it a point to inform people such that they understand what is going on; that Bin Laden just didn’t suddenly came out of nowhere and went from being a US ally/creation to anti-US. There are root-causes for everything, and until we start understanding and recognizing root-causes, we will be far away from actually solving them. Obviously you haven’t read the book. But someday, I hope you will give your mind a chance to evaluate both sides, perhaps it will wake up to the PRESENCE of the other side, if not appreciate it.
Amad,
Actually, I said:
“I know a bit about Michael Scheuer. He has a big fan in Bin Laden, so that tells me all I care to know about him. He indicts US policy as the sole reason for “why they hate us”.”
This is evident by Bin Laden mentioning Scheuer by name in one of his manifestos. Try reading and commenting on what I actually wrote in this thread instead of erroneously labeling me a mischaracterizer on words you would have liked me to write.
“More of the right-wing trick “either you support the war in Iraq or you support terrorists”! ”
Patently false. Once again, in this very thread you will see that I have not supported the “democracy project” in Iraq. I think my position on “terrorists” is clear by now.
I will certainly be open to analyzing both sides as soon as you stop paraphrasing my words and positions. If you actually read what I wrote here, I ceded US foreign policy as a contributing factor in a response to Siraaj, just not as the sole root cause.
The jihadist ideology is derived from Islam and is declared as supported by Islam by many people. There is another root cause, but this one you seem incapable of acknowledging. It is simply easier for you to dismiss me as an Islamophobe.
Modern US foreign policy is not an eternal monolithic entity. US imperialism did not exist before the 1950’s, so that example of the sole root cause is insufficient at best.
And terrorism targeting civilians wasn’t a phenomenon that Muslims were associated with before the 50s either. Thanks for providing further evidence of the link between US imperialism and terrorism.
Sayyid Qutb and his subsequent followers had some influence on and link to terrorism as well I am sure. That you would jump on so minute a point is quite telling, as if to purport that violence in Islam’s history began in the 1950’s as well.
At least this time, you correctly quoted me, so I guess I should be happy with that.
I’m not sure I understand what you mean here, please clarify.
That may be, but this simply brings me to my original point - I wouldn’t base Christianity and Judaism on its followers alone, I’d have to look at what the books teach, since people have a habit of selectively applying what they like and leaving out what they don’t like. The same book that contains the Golden Rule contains the rulings on apostasy and adultery, which demonstrates that according to the Bible, both are criminal behavior to be prosecuted in the same way that prostitution, another “victimless crime” is also considered criminal (and to this day still prosecuted). The principle of “Live and Let Live” may be how people want to live, but how people want to live and how God (according to the Bible) wants them to live can be two very different things.
So again, I reiterate, do no conflate the practice of the people with the principles of the religion - go back to the texts of that religion to see exactly what it teaches and how it is applied and understood.
It seems that way, but that’s because many (mis)understand that in all cases, the Islamic ruling for apostasy is death. Actually, by studying the life of the Prophet sallalllaahi wa sallim, some jurists have found evidence to show this is not always the case, as they believed that the circumstances of the individual before leaving Islam were also important (how “new” were they to Islam, did they ever “believe” to begin with, and so forth), so the flexibility you speak of is derived from the texts, not simply personal whim. This is for a country implementing Shariah - many Muslim countries do not do so and some variation you see can be accounted for as due to the country being non-shariah compliant.
Yes, it’s true, the Muslims waging physical jihaad against the West are doing so from an interpretation or application of the Qur’aan and Sunnah that they have chosen, so here’s my question - why are people such as Daniel Pipes, Robert Spencer, et al giving legitimacy to their interpretation by saying this is what Islam teaches? Why do they not also say, “This is an interpretation,” but this is not necessarily the only one? Why not take the intellectually honest route and instead of saying, “Muslims need to reform Islam like Christians and Jews have rejected certain aspects of their texts,” why not instead give legitimacy to other interpretations by Muslim scholars? If the goal was simply to prevent people from radicalizing, the information and tools to spread other interpretations are out there. Ironically, they don’t - they legitimize only one interpretation and say, “this is the truth of Islam.”
I believe that the reason for all this is because this goes beyond an interpretation from one group - these people hate Islam and Muslims for deep-seated religious reasons. Some of them even see the role of the United States as destroying Islam the religion, and they are not considered fringe groups, but mainstream. Take this video of McCain’s pastor, sent to me recently through email:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXZbIGJrDkg
I know they are intelligent to understand differences of opinion and interpretation - that they pretend that these do not exist or that they call these apologist positions and not the “real” thing demonstrates that their bias goes beyond “radical” Islam - it extends to ALL of Islam. To me, these arguments are very much like the anti-gay marriage and anti-abortion groups - people who have some area of their religion they want to implement, and so they try to find secular reasons to inject their religion beliefs into the law.
Siraaj
Siraaj,
Thanks for the reply.
Spencer and Pipes, for example appeared post 9/11, not prior. That is what I meant.
Fair enough. Your comments about the Bible, although the Old and New Testaments are vastly different in tone, are valid to a point. Prostitution, for example, is indeed a crime in most of the US, but the difference is the punishment is not derived from the Bible, which again, I deem to be a good thing.
That is a fair request, but if I consider the Qur’an, and the Sunnah as relevant to fully understand what Islam teaches, then the justification for the jihadists is firmly established, thus correlated directly to Islam itself.
I would assume that the general consensus would be from Bukhari’s Hadith where Muhammad said that if a Muslim discards his religion, then kill him. I am interested as to what textual alternatives in the Sunnah state otherwise, but I believe on face value by your words, that they do. Once again, I understand your position of disdain for picking and choosing what to believe and that all belief and action should have a textual foundation.
I appreciate your candor and must state that what you said is rarely, if ever, conceded. Mostly, jihadists are dismissed as un-Islamic in an effort to completely separate the two, which ironically, leads us right back to Mogahed and Esposito’s book and their point abouit how western, (because it is evident that jihadists are angry at alot more than just the US) foreign policy is the sole root cause to “terrorism”.
Well I can’t presume to speak for Pipes and Spencer, but I will state that in my opinion neither Pipes nor Spencer have any influence on and give no legitimacy to the jihadists. It is not practical to state that they are perpetuating or that they have caused this action. Like I stated earlier, 9/11 preceded Spencer and Jihad Watch chronologically.
Spencer, for one, is always open for alternate interpretations to refute what he puts forth by authoritive Muslim sources. Islam cannot be reformed in a textual way, because the Qur’an is viewed as immutable. The very foundation of Islamic justification depends on that, that Islam and the Qur’an was given to correct the corruption of the Judaic and Christian texts. Additionally, the popular position of not picking and choosing what to believe is also an obstacle. If you have alternate interpretive sources, I will be glad to forward them to him.
I am not saying that the existence of people who irrationally hate Islam and all Muslims by association is in question. I will state however, that in my opinion, Spencer is not one of them, so therefore I must respectfully disagree with you there.
Like I stated already, if you feel Spencer is using Muslim sources that you deem inadequate, please specifically state which ones. I will gladly forward any alternative opinions and interpretations to him, if you wish.
Anyway, it has been a pleasure exchanging ideas and positions with you, Siraaj. I will not respond on this thread any further, for I do not wish to continue the off-topic dialogue out of respect for the site administrators. Have the final say, if you so desire.
Regards,
awake
Awake,
Since you’ve clarified your statement, I’ll respond to that statement. Let’s take Daniel Pipes - from Wikipedia (for what its worth), here are the books and policy papers he has authored
I have to confess I have not read these books, but given his views and specialty, I would daresay he’s been on an anti-Islam tirade for quite some time now, but no one took notice of him until 9/11 when more focus was placed on Islam and Muslims, so I’d say it wasn’t that Islam wasn’t on the radar pre-9/11, I would say alarmists like Pipes (and possibly Spencer) were not on the radar pre-9/11.
As for the differences of opinion on the ruling of apostasy, you may read the following:
Discussion from Jamal Badawi (takes the opinion that it is not required):
http://www.islamonline.net/English/contemporary/2006/04/article02.shtml
Discussion from Dr. Muhammad Salim Al-`Awwa (apostasy is punishable by death, but at the judge’s discretion):
http://www.islamonline.net/English/contemporary/2006/04/article01d.shtml
I do not necessarily agree with all that is said in the two discussions, but I do think it’s a good illustration of harmonizing all evidences and points of view and working to reconcile them together intelligently.
I don’t deem the Muslims sources inadequate, I view his use and interpretation of such sources inadequate. Unfortunately, my life’s fortune’s are not tied to defending Islam as his is to attacking it. If time permits one day, I would be happy to sit down and research each and every point and explain them.
Siraaj
The hard evidence of the motivation for the majority of “political radicals” is clearly laid out in the book and the review above. Pape’s study of suicide-bombings was also the best and most well-researched material available. Everything else is opinion and speculation.
There is no doubt that there are abortion-clinic bombers who use biblical verses, or Rabbi-Meir type terrorists who use Torah verses, or bin ladens who use Quranic verses…. but the majority of Muslims who have the potential to engage in physical radicalism (as opposed to mental radicalism) are motivated by political causes, not religious. As the data shows, there is no difference in piety between the “moderates” and “radicals”. There is further evidence that radicals use religion as a proxy in lieu of real underlying reasons because that is more easily “sold”. There is also the element of cognitive dissonance which involves comforting oneself about the “great Islamic deed one is doing, and the potential for heavenly rewards” and bringing solace to the troubled mind, while the real issue in fact is something else. On the other hand, had the data found that most (not just a few) radicals were the most pious, the most devout of all Muslims, and furthermore they ACTUALLY used Islamic evidence for their radicalism, then the argument of Islamic roots for radicalism may have had some merit. But, this argument SIMPLY doesn’t hold water. It’s bankrupt just like all the other neo-con, zio-con Islamophobic argument.
Here’s another interesting question that I have been witnessing (and I am sure many others are too). What I am finding consistently is that the people who jump to attack Muslims, those who form organizations against Muslims, those who argue against any “good Muslim news”, those who jump at diaries that support Muslims as being tolerant, etc… are almost ALWAYS Israel supporters and ardent Zionists. While the Zionists are quick to accuse Muslims of being anti-Semitic, it seems that the reverse is becoming more and more true. Pick up the list of the Islamophobic crowd and this is a constant thread: Horowitz, Spencer, Pipes, etc… The nut-job organization SANE is also led by orthodox Jewish Zionist whose stated jihad is to “uncover Muslims”. And whenever I see comments attacking my or others’ diaries sympathetic to Muslims, it is always from Israel supporters. So, while Muslims, like me, speak out against Israel, but never against Jews or Jewish faith, this same courtesy is never reciprocated. Rather, Zionists are at the forefront of this “war against Islam” concept… they really want to “bring it on”. Am I wrong on this one??
Amad,
It is impressive that you not only completely disassociate Islam from “radicalism” but you can also point to several cognitive deficiencies amongst Muslims for believing in the association. It is also impressive that you can enequivocally speak for all Muslims and declare their thinking as erroneous when it comes to radicalism.
Siraaj,
Surely you can off the top of your head name one — just one — Islamic scholar whose interpretations of the Qur’an Spencer ought to be popularizing and urging Muslims to adopt.
Actually Amad, your faith and your god calls Jews and Christians apes and pigs.
Since it appears that Siraaj can not or will not answer the question, let me pose it to you.
Can you or will you name one — just one — Islamic scholar whose interpretations of the Qur’an Spencer ought to be popularizing and urging Muslims to adopt?
Please support the comments here about Spencer not advocating alternate scholarly interpretations and prove Spencer to be the deceptive zionist bigot you accuse him of being.
Awake,
Ditto to what Amad said - the point was simply that if someone takes an interpretation of a text, that doesn’t mean that that was the text’s intended meaning. I highly doubt the founding fathers of America had in mind that freedom of speech would include women traipsing around in little or nothing as their means of expressing their freedom of speech, but if people wish, they can interpret what they like to the exclusion of other evidence.
Regarding Spencer, Spencer does quote reputable scholars, but it is how and when he quotes them that is bothersome - he cherry picks at will in some places, and conflates concepts in other places. And besides, as flawed as Omer Subhani’s response was to Spencer (posted on the JW blog), he nailed him hard and proved the succinctly the point I’m making now - when discussing the concept of taqiyya, and how Spencer has painted it, no matter which way you cut it, the way Spencer portrays Muslims, no Muslim can be trusted. Spencer was checkmated in that argument and left flailing because the underlying point he was trying to make about Muslims came out (then again, he has written it publically): kick out all Muslims from the West.
When I read Spencer, it is very obvious he hates Islam and Muslims. It is obvious that the only Muslim groups he likes are the ones that say, “Don’t practice islam.” His Qur’aan blog and mockery of the verses within demonstrate the disdain he holds towards Islam.
Siraaj
Awake, would you mind explaining the interaction that you think might exist in the minds of al-qaida between the verses they read and the politics they experience (directly or indirectly) and which then causes them to do what they do?
Bismillah
I think this article by Sheikh Salman al-Awdah is very good called “A Ramadan Letter to Osama bin Laden”
Awake, you will see that mainstream Muslims and reputable scholars like him who actually follow the Qur’an and Sunnah unequivocally condemn terrorism and killing of innocent civilians:
http://www.islamtoday.com/showme2.cfm?cat_id=29&sub_cat_id=1521
“Awake” is feeling the heat in “enemy waters” and is begging for help from his low-life islamophobic friends at Islamophobia-central err jihadwatch:
awake, even after you committed to stop giving us more talking points in “enemy waters” (i.e. MuslimMatters.org) from your right-wing Ziocon crowd a few comments back,
You seem to have gotten desperate and couldn’t resist throwing in more nonsense about what you thinks Muslim believe. What a smart move to pick up the statement about Christians and Jews being apes and pigs (thanks for telling me that I believe that, otherwise I would have never known)… I mean that about brings you down to Islamophobia-kindergarten level… I feel sorry for the misinformation that you spread, which I hope you actually don’t believe.
Perhaps 38 of the leading Islamic scholars were also lying. You need to remind them that you have found the holy grail of what Muslims “actually” believe. Congratulations.
Amad,
I appreciate you looking up my reference to this site at JW, and specificaly this post. It is all true. At least you took my words seriously enough to look them up.
Try the truth once and a while for, as I always say, you attract more bees with honey than with vinegar. That means sparing yourself the humiliation of being accused and convicted of parsing people’s words.
You yourself, Amad, are not an enemy, nor a latent jihadist in my book. No individual Muslims are. You are a propogandist and an overt one at that, however. Also, it is readily understood that you absolutely hate Israel and all who live there.
Point taken.
What is particularly beautiful is that neither you nor Siraaj Muhammad can name, or have the intestinal fortitude to try to name, (because quite simply, they don’t exist) a single solitary Islamic source to refute Robert Spencer’s commentary on what Islam entails, again which he exclusively bases on authoritive Muslim commentary as a source.
Well, what say you to that charge?
A single source of an Islamioc scholar to refute Spencer is all I ask. Surely out of the 1.4 billion population, there must be one, right?
Amad,
Are those exact words written in the immutable Qur’an? yes or no?
it is impossible to argue from an inherently losing position, and I will concede defeat if you say no to the aforementioned question.
inexplicabletimelessness
I read you link. All that was missing was an outright condemnation of Bin Laden based on Qur’an 5:32, which was quoted, but of course 5:33 was omitted.
Clever, but predictable.
What I did not see was any condemnation of Bin Laden at all, for he was consistently referred to as “bother” Osama, and was questioned about his methods but not officially denounced as an un-Islamic heretic.
Was I not reading the same lkink you referenced or is this one of those examples where the open letter is only accurately understood in Arabic?
Gohar,
I certainly would not be able to do what you suggested anymore than Amad proclaims that he cando. Let’s not focus on al-Qaeda. Let us talk about Islamic scholars who directly refute Bin Laden’s interpretation of what Islam is (which we all agree on, right?) and what is obligatory to Muslims, shall we?
OK. So I take it that you have an Islamic scholar source that you prescribe to, outside of the Qur’an and the Sunnah or course, right?
awake, do you feel miserable that you spend your whole day trying to bash people’s religions on the internet?
Please find something else to do. Come mow my lawn or something.
awake:
are you serious?
Fundamentalism and Terrorism - Ali Timimi
20,000 Scholars Declare Terrorism Unislamic
Salman Al-Awdah’s Letter to OBL
I remind you, you said that you viewed politics as a cause, but also stated that islam must also be a cause (rather than just a factor).
And although you have written alot on this thread, collating all your posts revealed a complete lack of any coherent argument on your part to explain how islam causes terrorism. Rather than point this out in my first post, I decided to instead give you the opportunity to provide one in order to further the discussion, and i thought you would oblige, but you say you cannot do so. Awake, you are free to continue to write in measured tones until the cows come home, but if you are not prepared to offer any reasoning it is of no value to anyone.
And awake, now you have demonstrated my point - here we are, having for the most part what appears to be a civilized online discussion, and of course, you clearly show your feelings of where you are - enemy waters. There were really only two people in this discussion, myself and Amad. The impression you gave was that you wanted to exchange ideas, but you’ve made it clear that you’re not here to exchange differing ideas, but to attack and fight. Commentary on my intestinal fortitude notwithstanding, I’m disappointed (don’t worry, I’ll get over it. There, i’m done).
I believe the correct answer is no, this is not what is written in the Qur’aan. You may be thinking of verse 2:65 and 7:166 (which talk about the turning of some Jews into apes for transgressing the law, the Jews who existed contemporaneously with the lawbreakers were not changed), and 5:60 (which talks about both Jews and Christians who transgressed their laws, again turned into apes and swine).
You may read the commentary of Tafsir ibn Katheer (which Spencer selectively quotes) here:
7:166
http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1042&Itemid=62
2:65
http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=366
http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=365 (read the bold header on this one, by the way)
5:60
http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=763&Itemid=60
http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=762&Itemid=60
If you are feeling particularly adventurous, you might have a look at these events from what the Bible said about these people who were disobedient:
http://www.answering-christianity.com/apes_and_swines.htm
You can ignore the commentary by the author, I’m simply using the link for the collection of verses which demonstrate God’s anger at the many instances in which the Jews, after having seen the miracles of Allah, still defied and disobeyed Moses, and what was said in the Old Testament on the matter (I don’t necessarily subscribe to the details of the matter in the Bible, just the general ideas which are confirmed in the Qur’aan).
I’d also be interested in your thoughts on the following:
http://www.answering-christianity.com/jihad_in_bible.htm
Again, feel free to ignore the author’s commentary, you can read the collection of verses and then find their interpretation from a Jewish source you deem reputable who can provide you full context. Feel free to read it for yourself and respond with your own thoughts on all that.
Siraaj
Siraaj,
I visited http://www.answering-christianity.com/jihad_in_bible.htm, and would like to know what YOU think of the author’s commentary. Gullible me, I thought that the Holocaust was the biggest lie ever told, that is, if Ahmadinejad speaks the truth and/or is anywhere close to being representative of Middle Eastern Muslim thought on the subject.
Siraaj,
OK, I read Kathir’s Tasfir on 2:65 that you linked.
I then read Spencer’s Q-blog entry on the verse here:
http://hotair.com/archives/2007/06/17/blogging-the-quran-sura-2-the-cow-verses-40-75/
I failed to see any outright misrepresentation, although Spencer does incorporate additional verse specific statements (some modern), by Muslims to support his commentary, and yes, Spencer does refer to Kathir quite often, although
As far as the first “answering Christianity” links, the author claims he believes the Earth opening up probably didn’t happen and that the plague was God turning the Jews into apes. That is just commentary based on assumption.
As far as the second “answering Christianity” link, I had to stop reading after the 9/11 statement, being that I actually saw the second plane hit the tower live and in color, so I never actually got to jihad in the Bible.
jazakAllahkhair Br. Siraaj for getting on this earlier than I could. There is nothing in our religion that calls Christians and Jews apes and swines. Consider a bit of logic here… if this was REALLY true, then why would Allah allow Muslim men to marry Christian and Jewish women, with the latter being allowed to remain Christians and Jews. I mean would Allah allow us to marry, love and have relations with animals? Even metaphorically speaking? Furthermore, Allah allows us to eat the meat slaughtered by Jews and Christians, and not of Hindus, Buddhists, atheists, etc. While we are forbidden the meat of swine, why would we be allowed meat slaughtered by swines?
The people of book were favored by Allah. Allah sent them tons of prophets. There are specific sector of Jews and Christians, who by transgression would have the punishment inflicted upon them. But if you look at some of the punishments that even Muslims could face for acts such as adultery, backbiting, etc… then it comes into context.
No scholar or mufassir (who does interpretation of Quran) have I ever heard saying that we think of Jews & Christians as apes and pigs. This is a LIE, and propaganda by Islamophobes, if there was ever one. And it isn’t even logical.
Hey Lex,
Interesting digression, but I’ll humour it. In general, I personally have a philosophy, if you will, that if I have not researched a topic well enough to formulate an opinion, or if the one putting the evidence in front of me is questionable, I take a position and say, “But I could be wrong in this, so don’t hold me to it.”
In this case, while I have not done the research on it, for now I do believe the Holocaust took place because I have not seen evidence either way, but for the most part, I have not seen substantial conflict on the matter. Ahmedinejad, however, did make a valid point in that scientific inquiry into a matter never stops, and while you may find his politics distasteful, the point itself is valid. If he wishes to contest its validity and hold a conference, and invite academics and sympathizers, that’s his own personal deal.
Awake,
A perfect example of selective cut and paste. He quotes Ibn Abbas’s opinion (fair enough), then quotes Ibn Qutaybah, but why not Ibn Katheer? Better yet, why quote an opinion? Why not quote what the Prophet sallallaahu alayhi wa sallim said and end the discussion:
Sufyan Ath-Thawri narrated that Ibn Mas`ud said, “Allah’s Messenger was asked if the current monkeys and swine were those whom Allah transformed. He said, “Allah never destroyed a people by transforming them and making offspring or descendants for them. The monkeys and swine existed before that.” This was also recorded by Muslim.”
But of course, he won’t quote that, he’ll continue on with the politics of other scholars, what they may or may not have said, and as has been proven here, he won’t bring full context to anything.
As I mentioned earlier, he profiteers from the hatred and distrust he generates against Muslims, and I guess may also be a part of the American way. Sad.
Understandable, as I mentioned, I’m simply using the site because it saves me the time of having to find the verses myself, or copy/pasting them here. As I repeatedly mentioned, ignore the commentary, focus on the verses, and take them back to someone you rely on or consider reputable, someone you trust, about the Bible, and simply apply the same thought process you wish to apply to the Qur’aan and see what you come up with.
Siraaj
Great news Amad. Brother Osama states that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was the catalyst for his attack on the US on 9/11 and now urges all Muslims as a duty to liberate Palestine. Throw in Ahmadinejad and it is apparent that great minds think alike.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/05/16/terror/main4102367.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_4102367
So much for the proclamation on “answering Christianity” link that Siraaj provided about 9/11 being the biggest lie in history, huh?
Awake,
You may have misunderstood my intent in posting that link, and I see that from the words I posted after the link - I meant for you to read the Biblical verses quoted underneath the 9/11 stuff, not read the 9/11 stuff itself. You’ll note through out my posts I’m asking you to read verses, not conspiracies.
Siraaj
Siraaj,
Can you or will you name one — just one — Islamic scholar whose interpretations of the Qur’an Spencer ought to be popularizing and urging Muslims to adopt?
Without an opinion of commentary, it would be nothing more than pasting of the Qur’anic verses. As far as cutting and pasting, I am not sure. I thought the commentary on the Qur’an by Kathir, Abbas and Jalalayn et al was how to properly understand the Qur’an in context. Am I wrong? And also, whose tafsir do you hold to be most authentic?
I know Siraaj, I just couldn’t pass up mocking that clown who wrote that 9/11 stuff.
There are many. My personal fav is Salman al-Awdah (you didn