It is open season on Islam in America. Seldom has there been such a concentrated attack on the religion and its teachings which are denounced almost without respite through articles, website messages, discussion groups, radio and television programmes and books. There are few voices raised in its defence. Suffice it to say that it is far easier to get an attack on Islam published than anything in defence of it.
Powerful evangelists with close personal ties to President George Bush — one of them administered the oath of office to him in 2001 — have attacked Islam and its teachings. The person of the Holy Prophet (PBUH), has been singled out for the most shameful calumny, regardless of the feelings of the nearly six million Muslims who live in America, a number larger than that of the most influential and by far the richest community in the country, the Jews. The President took an embarrassingly long time before dissociating himself from the likes of the fire-breathing Islam haters who can best be described as the evangelist attack dogs of the conservative establishment that believes Bush is the best thing to have happened to America since George Washington.
The latest insult to Islam comes in the form of a new book — “Islam Unveiled” — by Robert Spencer which rejects the thesis that Islam is a religion of peace or that it has been hijacked by a minority of extremists. This book, claim the publishers, “dares to tell the truth and show you exactly why this religion is so easy to hijack” and what Islamic authorities really teach about the kind of barbarities committed on that fateful day in September 2001. He argues that there is no distinction between true and terrorist Islam as fanaticism and terrorism are rooted in the Quran and the core Islamic traditions. He holds that since violence is integral to Islam, Muslim “moderates” would never be able to convince the majority that it isn’t.
Spencer quotes selectively from the Quran to assert that while Jews and Christians do not accept violent passages in their holy books in a literal sense, Muslims do. He also questions that Islam gave rights to women as he unloads his own interpretation of the institution of polygamy and divorce laws. He also subjects the Holy Prophet’s person (PBUH) to blasphemous criticism. He denounces the human rights record of Islamic countries and maintains that secularism will be unable to overcome the hurdles it faces to secure a foothold in the Islamic world.
Spencer, who has written for a number of right-wing journals, argues that suicide bombings derive their inspiration and rationale from Islamic theology. He says wife beating is sanctioned by the Quran and under Islamic law rape is impossible to prove. He argues that the Saudi Wahabi or Salafi movement is not the originator of Islamic radicalism or terrorism. Jihad is endemic to Islam and will continue. He quotes a Muslim journalist as saying that Islamic countries today are “full of bigotry, fanaticism, hypocrisy and plain ignorance.”
Nor does Spencer acknowledge Islam’s great contribution to science, art and culture. He writes that they virtually died out in the Muslim world which is the root cause of modern Muslim resentment against the West. As for the Crusades, the western world has no need to apologise to the Muslim world, he maintains. He does not believe that there is such a thing as tolerance in an Islamic society. His theory is that the Muslims are carrying out a “demographic jihad” against the West by breeding in large numbers. In the end they will just take over western Europe in human waves.
And, as is to be expected in a book of this kind, Spencer in order to drive home the point that Islam is intolerant and, thus, unwilling to co-exist with other religions, quotes that arch detractor of Islam, V S Naipaul, who justified the demolition of the Babri Mosque. Our very own Lady Nadaan Nadira finds no mention. I suppose one should be grateful for small mercies!
Khalid Hasan is Daily Times’ US-based correspondent
Let's see, can anyone name:
And...Spencer...drive(s) home the point that Islam is intolerant and, thus, unwilling to co-exist with other religions...
Excellent summation of the book (with the help of a little editing).
The criticism might be valid, if it weren't for people being hacked and blown to bits on a daily basis across the globe in the name of Islam.