Why I Am a Muslim (A rebuttal to Ibn Warraq)

Frontpage magazine ^ | Oct. 18, 2004 | Thomas Haidon

[nuconvert]

Ibn Warraq, the author of Why I am Not a Muslim, argues that Islam is a totalitarian ideology. (see link above for Warraq's article) A rebuttal follows from Thomas Haidon.

Why I am a Muslim

By Thomas Haidon

How should one judge a religion or belief structure? Should we judge or formulate an opinion of religion based on the history and action of its adherents? If Islam is to be judged merely by its history, and the actions of some of its adherents, then Ibn Waraq makes a fair point. Is there any real question that the Islam being propagated in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Palestine and throughout much of the Muslim world is consistent with totalitarianism? I will not quibble or disagree with the historical facts presented by Ibn Waraq. As Bernard Lewis has aptly stated "...Islam was born in the full light of history. Its roots are at surface level, the life of its founder is as well known to us as those of the Reformers of the sixteenth history".

However, Ibn Waraq seems to have a short memory of several periods of Muslim history where liberalism and humanism flourished. Undoubtedly however, violence and aggression have played a role (and continue to do so) throughout periods of Muslim history. But, for Ibn Waraq, that is the end of the inquiry; there is no room for dialogue or discussion. Only an absolutist, strict constructionist version of Islam can prevail. If one had not availed themselves to Ibn Waraq's voluminous writings on Islam, one could reasonably come to the conclusion that the only solution Ibn Waraq's piece implicitly suggests is the total rejection of all Muslims and our belief structure.

For Ibn Waraq defining the source of the "Islamic problem" is a simple exercise, it is the , Sunnah and the entire Muslim tradition; (he may be two-thirds right).. But I believe that Ibn Waraq is wrong, not about the actions or beliefs of a significant portion of Muslims, but about Islam itself in its pure form the Qu'ran, and it is for this reason "why I am a Muslim".

I believe that it is primarily the incorrect interpretation and applicability of the sources of Islam that form the essence of the "Islamic problem", not Islam itself. Unlike Ibn Waraq, I also believe that there are solutions to this problem, unfortunately for Ibn Waraq however, these solutions require working within Islam. In brief, the most significant barrier between Islam and reform is the perceived duality of the Qu'ran and Sunnah. Most of the issues raised by Ibn Waraq in his article are compounded by aspects of the Sunnah (particularly Jihad) or are a result of direct contradiction between the Qu'ran and Sunnah (apostacy).

If Muslims derived their inspiration exclusively from the Qu'ran, and formulated a new authoritative moderate and liberal tafsir, terrorism and extremists would be minimalised. As Daniel Pipes aptly pointed out in a recent article, Muslims have the opportunity to create a new slate and turn what Islam has become into a religion consistent with humanity, liberalism and modernity (as I believe was intended) or continue the status quo of totalitarianism.

While Ibn Waraq's frustrations with the Muslim tradition and contemporary Islam may be understandable, I strongly disagree with Ibn Waraq on his implicitly overbroad generalisation of all Muslims. I take ultimate issue with the statement: "I do not accept some spurious distinction between Islam and "Islamic fundamentalism" or "Islamic terrorism". By implication, no distinction need be made between the terrorists of Al-Queda, Fateh, Hamas and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's Tawhid Group and great number of Muslims who love their religion and believe in peace and modernity. Such a conclusion is overbroad and destructive. Nonetheless, at a rudimentary level it is a perspective that needs to be understood and appreciated by moderate and peaceful Muslims (who don't exist according to Mr. Warraq's implicit rationale).

Non-Muslims throughout the Western world are bombarded with images of brutal violence committed by Muslims in virtually all forms of media. By examining, the current actions of Muslims, Islamic history, and an incorrect interpretation of classical Islamic sources (which most Muslims do not understand) it is not difficult to understand a non-Muslim's hostility towards Islam.

Ibn Waraq has presented a select list of ayat (not exhaustive) that seemingly advocate violence against non-Muslims. Unfortunately, what is missing from Ibn Waraq's article (as well as in the minds of Muslim extremists) is an analysis of these ayat in light of the Qu'ran in its entirety (in fairness to Ibn Waraq he has addressed this in his more voluminous work). Ayat and Surah cannot be read in isolation of each other. The ayat presented by Ibn Waraq must be read against the contradictory verses in the Qu'ran that promote peace with non-Muslims and the freedom of thought (there are many, and learned readers will be well familiar with these verses). In Surah Al-Baqarah, God states:

"Then it is only a part of the Book that ye believe in, and do ye reject the rest? But what is the reward for those among you who behave like this but disgrace in this life?- and on the Day of Judgment they shall be consigned to the most grievous penalty. For Allah is not unmindful of what ye do".

This ayat illustrates that some verses cannot be ignored while some are followed. Thus the verses that Ibn Waraq cites, must be reconciled with the verses that affirm peace and freedom (2:62 for example, among others). Another ayat sheds some light on those verses that are less than absolutely clear:

"He it is who has sent down to thee the Book: In it are verses basic or fundamental (of established meaning); they are the foundation of the Book: others are allegorical. But those in whose hearts is perversity follow the part thereof that is allegorical, seeking discord, and searching for its hidden meanings, but no one knows its hidden meanings except Allah. And those who are firmly founded in knowledge say: "We believe in the Book; the whole of it is from our Lord" and none will grasp the Message except men of understanding".

This ayat lends credibility to the argument that an absolutist following and interpretation of the Qu'ran not only is unrealistic, but is not God's will. Many of the ayat dealing with violence towards non-Muslims are shrouded in allegorical language, including several which are cited by Ibn Waraq. When, read in conjunction with verses espousing peace and freedom of thought, which are generally straightforward (but nonetheless controversial among extremists), it becomes clear that these verses should prevail, because they form the backbone of Islam are consistent with the classical notion of charity in the broader sense. A new tafsir would assist greatly in defining the scope of those verses (and there are more than several) and explaining them in the proper context, that during the time of their revelation Muslims were fighting in a war to establish a presence, and that these verses when read in light of many others, are not commandments to kill.

The historical treatment of apostates throughout Muslim history perhaps demonstrates the most visible inconsistencies between the Qu'ran, Sunnah and the general Muslim tradition. The Qu'ran, prescribes no worldly punishment for apostasy, and actually in many ayat affirms the right of man to believe what he chooses (at his own peril in terms of the afterlife). I will be happy to mention the specific verses further in another forum or article, however I am constrained due to length requirements, but Ibn Waraq is well aware of them,. Skeikh Ahmed Subhy Mansour, and Dr Hamid (www.islamicreformation.com) have written significantly and exhaustively on this fact.

The real confusion arises because of the application of the Sunnah. Several ahadith allude to the fact that death is the appropriate punishment for those who leave Islam. Muslims believe that there is a duality in Islam of the Quran and Sunnah. Objectively speaking, there can be no real duality between the two. The Qu'ran (in Islam) is the undisputed word of God, which is recited today almost exactly as it was upon revelation. Ahadith arguably are forms of hearsay (what individuals claim they saw or overheard the prophet said and did). While aspects of the Sunnah may be valid, is it not inconceivable that the Caliphates following the death of the Prophet Mohammed created ahadith to consolidate political power, and use them as tools to control early Muslims? There is literally an entire "science" within Islam devoted to determining the validity of ahadith that is so complex that it confounds many Muslims. This duality has almost lead to the deification of the Prophet Mohammed among Muslims today. The essence of Islam is believing in God, and God alone. While the Qu'ran does command that Muslims should learn from the Mohammed as a prophet of God, as set forth in the Qu'ran, it does not explicitly require following of ahadith or Sunnah.

Whether Mr Waraq likes it or not, there is a growing movement of Muslims (albeit still a significant minority) who genuinely wish to radically reform Muslim thinking, to make it consistent with peace and modernity. The Free Muslim Coalition Against Terrorism, and the Centre for Islamic Pluralism are two such organizations leading this movement, and are taking steps toward defining the scope and establishing the framework for comprehensive reform.. I ask that Ibn Waraq not marginalize us. I ask that he engage in meaningful dialogue with Muslims who are serious about reform. I look forward to further elaborating on some of my points in future dialogues with him.

[nuconvert]

Hope readers find this interesting and educational.

[NurdlyPeon]

Buddy, what the hell are you talking about?

[pipecorp]

I wonder about a religion that needs so much "change".

[JesseJane]

ditto......

[valkyrieanne]

Several ahadith allude to the fact that death is the appropriate punishment for those who leave Islam. Muslims believe that there is a duality in Islam of the Quran and Sunnah. Objectively speaking, there can be no real duality between the two...

This is a very interesting post, but unfortunately the writer of the article fails to grapple with some very serious questions. The fragment of the paragraph cited above is a good example. He leads off with a fascinating question, but his paragraph just collapses into mumbo-jumbo.

Inquiring minds want to know - and it's probably *the* most critical question on earth right now - how can Muslims remain Muslim and yet not believe that you have to kill either unbelievers or those who leave Islam? That's why Warraq is an atheist - he simply couldn't believe anything else (like Christianity), and his own study of Islam convinced him that according to the *stated scriptural tenets* of Islam, you have to believe that it's a sacred religious duty to kill infidels and apostates. I wish his critic would have been so clear & forthcoming.

[Chani]

bttt

[samadams2000]

Yeah...Why are you a muslim?

[trashcanbred]

It is a shame it is a "significant minority".

This post could probably use some backup as in explaining Sunnah and what he is talking about.

[ReadyNow]

An important part of Islam is to decieve non-believers until they are ripe for conquest or conversion. Is this an example of that?

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

Should we judge or formulate an opinion of religion based on the history and action of its adherents?

No. Islam is what it says it is. I judge Islam by the Qur'an.

Qur'an, 9th Surah (113th and next to last revealed - besides the brief 110th - and not supeceded):

[9.29] Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.

[9.30] And the Jews say: Uzair [Ezra] is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!

[Billthedrill]

I wish him luck. Islam must reform or perish. But the reason that it's going to be difficult is right here in his own words:

The Qu'ran, prescribes no worldly punishment for apostasy, and actually in many ayat affirms the right of man to believe what he chooses... The real confusion arises because of the application of the Sunnah. Several ahadith allude to the fact that death is the appropriate punishment for those who leave Islam. Muslims believe that there is a duality in Islam of the Quran and Sunnah. Objectively speaking, there can be no real duality between the two.

Nor is there in application, which is why in practice apostasy results in a death sentence. What the author proposes in the way of reform is to excise from Islam the practice of using the Sunnah as guidance for the ulema, who dictate the entirity of Islamic jurisprudence. That implies a radical structural change in how Islam is currently administered worldwide. Ain't gonna happen.

[Restorer]

Inquiring minds want to know - and it's probably *the* most critical question on earth right now - how can Muslims remain Muslim and yet not believe that you have to kill either unbelievers or those who leave Islam?

Perhaps in exactly the same way that today's Jews do not literally implement the words of their own holy Books with regard to the execution of witches, apostates and those who show disrespect for their parents, not to mention rules for warfare that are considerably harsher than anything in the Koran.

Judaism was able to reinterpret its message to one more in line with modernity. It is not inconceivable to believe that Islam is capable of doing the same.

However, the reform of Judaism took many centuries. I really doubt Islam will be allowed that luxury. Muslims had better get their act together before the rest of the world loses patience with them.

[nuconvert]

"how can Muslims remain Muslim and yet not believe that you have to kill either unbelievers or those who leave Islam?"

"The Qu'ran, prescribes no worldly punishment for apostasy, and actually in many ayat affirms the right of man to believe what he chooses (at his own peril in terms of the afterlife)."

I believe what he says is, when in doubt, believe the Koran because it is the word of God, not the Sunnah. However, be mindful of allegorical passages in the Koran. This is what the extremists, radicals, terrorists dwell on.

I wish he spent more time on this too. He does give a link for more information. Maybe some feedback at Fronpage would encourage him to expand a bit.

[nuconvert]

"Objectively speaking, there can be no real duality between the two."

I think I answered this in #13.

Yeah reforming a religion is a heck of job.

[dennisw]

You can't make silk purse from a sow's ear. Koran and Hadith document too many of the evil deeds of Muhammed for this to ever be overcome.

[BipolarBob]

I find it interesting that in this article that the question of why jihad has not been renounced when the oppurtunities exist to negotiate a better lifestyle and government for themselves. Each person becomes a player in a voting society instead of a bomb-carrying puppet of some blood-crazed iman. The quicker a government is established and society restored the quicker the coalition can leave. The answer must be the clergy WILL NOT give up their power even if it means the destruction of many people.

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

You can't just reject Hadith - they contain almost all the law and rituals of Islam. The vast majority of Muslims will not do that. So the sayings about killing Jews behind every stone are accepted by most Muslims:

Bukhari 4:52:177 - Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him."

("The Hour" refers to the end of the earth, so this instruction is ongoing.)

[Fred Nerks]

"...I judge Islam by the Qur'an..."

And I judge islam by the nature of the man who, by his ravings and plagiarism from the Original Testament, gave birth to it. Read the biography of the 'prophet' written in 1913 by Canon Edward Sell, Fellow of the University of Madras, complete with ancient arabic sources.

Islam is what mohammad was. See tagline for link to pdf.

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

No, Josephus plagiarized. Muhammad bowdlerized ;-)

[Migraine]

Many of the ayat dealing with violence towards non-Muslims are shrouded in allegorical language, including several which are cited by Ibn Waraq. When, read in conjunction with verses espousing peace and freedom of thought, which are generally straightforward (but nonetheless controversial among extremists), it becomes clear that these verses should prevail, because they form the backbone of Islam are consistent with the classical notion of charity ,

Sorry for the long quote, but here is this guy's problem: scholars know (while he feigns to be oblivious) that the verses which take precedence, when there is a seeming contradiction, are the verses more recently revealed and written (you see, the Koran was revealed over a period of years). It is the later verses which advocate the greatest violence. Next case.