Islam: A religion of peace? -- Part II

townhall.com ^ | 11/27/03 | Larry Elder

[kattracks]

Last week's column contained excerpts from my interview with Robert Spencer, author of "Onward Muslim Soldiers: How Jihad Still Threatens America and the West." He makes the case that violent Islam stems from a straight reading of Islamic religious texts, and that moderate Muslims need to face up to and repudiate this so that true reform can take place.

This is Part II of the interview:

Larry Elder: You cite Koran passages that state Jews, Christians and nonbelievers have three choices: conversion, second-class citizenship or death. When people say these kinds of things are "taken out of context," you say this simply isn't true?

Robert Spencer: Yes. They're dealing from a broad tradition within Islam that mandates violence against nonbelievers. It's an unpleasant fact . . . but . . . I give abundant testimony from Islamic sources to this effect, and it's no use denying it.

Elder: Is there any religion where passages of its fundamental source, like the Bible, have been "repudiated"?

Spencer: Well, not so much repudiated as such, but look at the Old Testament, for example, and you have in Exodus, Chapter 21, directions on what to do if you want to sell your daughter into slavery. Yet Judaism and Christianity both reject slavery today. . . . If you were to confront . . . a believing Jew or Christian with that passage and say, "Why aren't you buying and selling slaves?" they would say, "Well, that had its time and place, but we've developed beyond that." . . . I would like to see the same kind of thing happen within Islam.

Elder: These madrasas where they are teaching the Koran, teaching hatred of Jews, Christianity and the West -- your argument is that they are not corrupting Islamic text, they are teaching actual text.

Spencer: They're working from very clear Islamic text. Radical Muslims around the world call Jews "monkeys" and "pigs." This comes from several very clear passages in the Koran that say Jews and Christians are under the curse of Allah, because of their disobedience and refusal to accept that Muhammad is a prophet . . . God turned them into monkeys and pigs. The fact that this kind of hatred is so deeply rooted in core Islamic text makes it all the more difficult to eradicate.

Elder: What does "jihad" -- an essential duty of every Muslim -- mean?

Spencer: When people say that jihad is a peaceful struggle -- it means "struggle," literally -- it means to bring the soul into line with the teachings of the Koran and the will of the law, that's true. But it's not the only meaning of jihad, or even the principal meaning. Throughout Islamic history, and Islamic theology and law, you have violent jihad being the primary understanding of what it means -- this collective responsibility of the Islamic community to wage war against non-Muslims until they either convert or submit as second-class citizens under Islamic rule.

Elder: There are about 1.2 billion Muslims worldwide. What percentage subscribes to this violent jihad ideology?

Spencer: It's difficult to tell. Some people have estimated 10 percent, which sounds comforting until you realize it's 100 million people. There are also more disturbing indications. A recent poll in the Palestinian Authority indicated that 71 percent approved of suicide attacks against civilians in Israel. Noncombatants are not to be targeted . . . but if they are considered to be aiding in the war effort, then they can legitimately be fought. This is the justification that Osama bin Laden used for 9/11, and the Palestinians use for suicide bombing attacks in Israel.

Elder: If the West hadn't interfered in the Middle East, if the U.S. hadn't propped up the Shah of Iran, if we didn't have troops in Saudi Arabia, if we weren't supporting Israel, then would this part of the Arab world have it in for us?

Spencer: They might not be as stirred up as they are, but there's no doubt that they would have it in for us, nonetheless. You're talking about a group of people that gets their intellectual justification from passages such as . . . the prophet Muhammad saying, "I have been commanded to fight against people until they confess that there is no God but Allah and that I am His Messenger." The Muslim world took that seriously and acted it out for centuries. Before there was any Crusade, they overran Egypt, Syria, North Africa and the rest of the Middle East, which were all Christian lands before the Muslim conquest. For centuries, they continued to press into Europe from the west and the east, into Spain and France until they were stopped, and on the Eastern side up to Vienna, where they were ultimately turned back. . . .

No Islamic sect has ever repudiated the doctrines of violent jihad that the radicals are using today. The radicals see themselves as continuing a conflict that's gone on for 14 centuries, that doesn't ultimately have anything to do with the causes that you named. It started long before (these causes) ever existed and will continue long after they are solved.

©2003 Creators Syndicate, Inc.

Contact Larry Elder | Read Elder's biography

[troublesome creek]

if they don't repudiate, the options become crystal clear: they destroy us or we destroy them.

[Mr. Mojo]

Elder: There are about 1.2 billion Muslims worldwide. What percentage subscribes to this violent jihad ideology?

Spencer: It's difficult to tell. Some people have estimated 10 percent, which sounds comforting until you realize it's 100 million people.

100 million Jihadists. .......A cancer that only massive doses of radiation can cure.

[PokeyJoe]

[Cindy]

LINKS OF INTEREST
http://www.truthusa.com/LinksOfInterest.html

[Bobby777]

info-bump ...

[Post Toasties]

I'm all for legislating all such discriminatory passages against non-Muslims in Islamic texts as non religious hate literature and outlawing their dissemination or preaching in mosques upon pain of imprisonment.

[dennisw]

Spencer: When people say that jihad is a peaceful struggle -- it means "struggle," literally -- it means to bring the soul into line with the teachings of the Koran and the will of the law, that's true. But it's not the only meaning of jihad, or even the principal meaning. Throughout Islamic history, and Islamic theology and law, you have violent jihad being the primary understanding of what it means -- this collective responsibility of the Islamic community to wage war against non-Muslims until they either convert or submit as second-class citizens under Islamic rule.

 

 

 

New ping list for Islamic Jihad and terrorism. 3 pings per day, every day. Some from my old ping list are on by default.

On or off let me know by freepmail. 
Easy on, easy off, via freepmail.

 

 

[Valin]

and that moderate Muslims need to face up to and repudiate this so that true reform can take place.

They are out there and are doing this.
A couple of examples.
Transcript of the presentation by ISCA Chairman Shaykh Muhammad Hisham Kabbani at an Open Forum at the U.S. Department of State, January 7, 1999.
http://www.islamicsupremecouncil.org/bin/site/wrappers/default.asp?pane_2=content-extremism_inamerica_unveiling010799
(snip)
Questioner (continued): Is our government doing something about this? This is really dangerous information that you are providing us and it is very serious. I am concerned, personally, for my safety and the safety of my family and the safety of the American people.

Shaykh Kabbani: I am also concerned, that is why I am speaking. For the reason I am concerned I am putting it to our government. But whether they will now take my advice or not, I cannot say.

Questioner (continued): My second question is: I represent one of the non-profit Muslim organizations and it strikes me that basically you are making yourself the only legitimate Muslim organization here. I am personally not an extremist but how could you deny me the right to protest my government's actions? Since we live in a democracy – we're preaching about democracy – so I disagree with my government's action in Iraq, how could you deny me that, and because of that call me an extremist or anything else? And you say that in your action alert that the Iraqi issue is not a Muslim issue; according to UN statistics about one million Iraqis have died from the sanctions, and about 80% of the Iraqi population is Muslim, and about 800,000 Muslims have died, is it a Muslim issue? And why can I not say that it is a Muslim issue, and what is wrong with me saying that it is a Muslim issue? As an American who is Muslim, practicing his right in a democracy, that is America.

Shaykh Kabbani: Thank you for clarifying this issue. First, I'll say I don't represent the whole Muslim issue, I represent our organization and some of the Muslim community. It is on videotape and you can go back and hear what I said. The second question when you say that you don't have the right, of course you have a right, anyone has the right, to say anything and to complain and to make your voice heard. But I am saying that there is no right for militancy, when we have the right in democracy to speak up and say what we want to say, and you are free. Don’t use militancy in order to support your idea, and if they don't agree with your opinion, you are going to fight with them. That's where I am specifying about extremism in general. And about Iraq, you consider it a Muslim issue, I don't consider it a Muslim issue. When Iraq attacked Kuwait, what it a Muslim issue or not? They killed Muslims in Kuwait. Is this a Muslim issue or not? When Iraq killed 5,619 Egyptians in Iraq, is this a Muslim issue or not a Muslim issue? When Iraq attacked Iran and killed hundreds of thousands of Iranians with chemical weapons, is this a Muslim issue or is it not a Muslim issue? So, how can I consider that one is a Muslim issue, though we never heard anyone speaking about Iranians being killed by the Iraqi chemical weapons, or Kuwaitis being assassinated by the Iraqi fighting, and Egyptian being killed by the Iraqis. Why don't we say this is a Muslim issue, and be fair for both sides.

This is what I like to express and you have a free right to consider it Muslim or not. But for me, it is a Muslim issue to take out the sanctions, that is a Muslim issue, we have to take the sanctions out, we have to relieve the victims of Iraq. But the tyranny of the leadership, that is the problem, you know that he killed hundreds of thousands of Turks, he attacked many Muslims inside the country. So why do we say to America or to the West that you are killing the Muslims, but we cannot say to Saddam Hussein he is killing the Muslims? So I don't see that it is fair to be a Muslim issue, but I do see that it is fair to see it more as a political issue against Saddam Hussein, and to relieve sanctions and to relieve the people from being victims under the oppression of Saddam Hussein.


A Memo to American Muslims

M. A. Muqtedar Khan
Muqtedar Khan, Ph.D.
Director of International Studies, Adrian College, MI
http://www.ijtihad.org/memo.htm
(snip)
What happened on September 11th in New York and Washington DC will forever remain a horrible scar on the history of Islam and humanity. No matter how much we condemn it, and point to the Quran and the Sunnah to argue that Islam forbids the killing of innocent people, the fact remains that the perpetrators of this crime against humanity have indicated that their actions are sanctioned by Islamic values.

The fact that even now several Muslim scholars and thousands of Muslims defend the accused is indicative that not all Muslims believe that the attacks are unIslamic. This is truly sad.

Even if it were true that Israel and the US are enemies of the Muslim World, wonder what is preventing them from unleashing their nuclear arsenal against Muslims, a response that mercilessly murders thousands of innocent people, including hundreds of Muslims is absolutely indefensible. If anywhere in your hearts there is any sympathy or understanding with those who committed this act, I invite you to ask yourself this question, would Muhammad (pbuh) sanction such an act?

(snip)
It is time that we faced these hypocritical practices and struggled to transcend them. It is time that American Muslim leaders fought to purify their own lot.

For over a decade we have watched as Muslims in the name of Islam have committed violence against other Muslims and other peoples. We have always found a way to reconcile the vast distance between Islamic values and Muslim practices by pointing out to the injustices committed upon Muslims by others. The point however is this – our belief in Islam and commitment to Islamic values is not contingent on the moral conduct of the US or Israel. And as Muslims can we condone such inhuman and senseless waste of life in the name of Islam?

A Muslim Patriot's Call
The Arizona Republic via FrontPage Magazine ^ | October 13, 2003 | Oubai Mohammad Shahbandar
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1000468/posts
(snip)
It is now up to a new generation of American-born Muslims to show our pride in being Americans, and our willingness to advance our chosen brand of moderate Islam, not the Wahhabi despotism backed by our so-called leaders. The sooner that Muslim Americans come to realize the error of following groups like CAIR, AMC and MSA, the sooner we can be welcomed and respected wholeheartedly by the rest of America. It is our nation, too; we must expose and denounce those who would destroy it.

[Valin]

I'm all for legislating all such discriminatory passages against non-Muslims in Islamic texts as non religious hate literature and outlawing their dissemination or preaching in mosques upon pain of imprisonment.

You've got a little problem with your plan...

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

[tubavil]

Before there was any Crusade, they [muslims] overran Egypt, Syria, North Africa and the rest of the Middle East, which were all Christian lands before the Muslim conquest.

"Pigs and Monkeys" Bump

[tubavil]

They've been saying they will destroy us for years. We're behind the curve, treating attacks as "crimes" and prosecuting years later in courts of law---courts they refuse to recognize, but take advantage of.

[tubavil]

Bold statement for day 1.

[Dajjal]

BTTT

[mvpel]

Spencer: Well, not so much repudiated as such, but look at the Old Testament, for example, and you have in Exodus, Chapter 21, directions on what to do if you want to sell your daughter into slavery. Yet Judaism and Christianity both reject slavery today. . . . If you were to confront . . . a believing Jew or Christian with that passage and say, "Why aren't you buying and selling slaves?" they would say, "Well, that had its time and place, but we've developed beyond that."

This is a gross misrepresentation of this passage. These passages, in fact, laid the groundwork for the dismantling of slavery, an institution that had existed for thousands and thousands of years before Torah.

It set forth a system standing in stark opposition to chattel slavery - a slave must be treated properly, and released in the seventh year. If a slave doesn't wish to leave service, his ear must be pierced with an awl, since the slave evidently didn't hear the message of human freedom set forth in Torah.

If a daughter enters a house as a servant, she is to be treated not as chattel or property, but provisionally as a bride, and it was permitted "for a man to sell his minor daughter only when he was absolutely destitute with no possible means of support" (Talmud Kiddushin 20a; Yad, Avadim 4:2).

And in absolutely no case is there any positive command to engage in slavery. Torah set humane boundaries on a millenia-old institution and sowed the seeds for its demise.

There is a fundamental, qualitative difference between the Jewish and Islamic traditions, and this is just one example.