Symposium: The Islamic Reformation? |
| Symposium: The Islamic Reformation? Can Islam reform? If so, where are the seeds of reformation planted and how can they best grow? Who can and should lead the reformation? To discuss this issue with us today, Frontpage Symposium has assembled a distinguished panel. Our guests today are: Prof. Khaleel Mohammed, Assistant Professor at the Department of Religious Studies at San Diego State University. He has sparked controversy within the Islamic community by arguing, as a Muslim himself, that the Koran says Israel belongs to the Jews; Kamal Nawash, the Founder and President of The Free Muslim Coalition Against Terrorism, which denounces all forms of fundamentalist Islamic terror and advocates an American no-tolerance stance on terrorism; and
Walid Shoebat, a former PLO terrorist who has become an ardent Zionist and evangelical Christian.
FP: Prof. Khaleel Mohammed, Kamal Nawash and Walid Shoebat, welcome to Frontpage Symposium, it is a pleasure to have you all here. Prof. Khaleel Mohammed, let me begin with you. Does Islam need a reformation? How come it never had one? Why is self-criticism and self-questioning almost unheard of in Islam?
Mohammed: First of all, thanks again for having me on this forum. There is no doubt that Islam is in need of reformation.--the religious elites have been out of touch with modernity and have dug themselves into a morass of legal interpretations and understandings of the Qur'an that has NOTHING to do with the ethical view of the Qur'an.
With creedal formations that are as far removed from the Qur'an as can be, they talk about the permanency of certain laws for all times and climes--although the Qur'an clearly does not talk about this. As Fazlur Rahman said in his "Islam"--the scholars confused the Qur’anic claim of inimitability with that of immutability. And so Muslims today in the US, Australia are being asked to follow certain laws that are more at home in eighth century Baghdad, oblivious to the changes that have taken place. Our intellect has expanded, the world has changed--but the elites want to remain in power, although they read nothing else except 10 century treatises, and know hardly anything of modern science and philosophy.
So yes, Islam needs a reformation. How come it never had one? It was not for lack of effort or self-criticism and self-questioning. The history of Islamic thinkers show that there was self criticism and self-questioning. From Abu Hanifa to Al-Jahiz, al-Hallaj, right down to Muhammad al Ghazali of Egypt, Taha alalwani of the US, Azizah al Hibri of the US, Mahmoud Taha in the Sudan, Sa'ed Ebrahim in Egypt, to Arkoun in France, we have had people who have questioned. For the Muslim countries, the State use of religion as its organ of coercion is what has silenced the voices of dissent.
The entire idea of the Qur'an teaches us to question: Say! Produce your proof if you are telling the truth! Do you not think? Do you order the people to piety and forget yourselves?.....these are all quotes from the Qur'an. But now, anyone who dares raise questions is chastised--with ultimate prejudice as in the case of Mahmoud Taha--or ostracized by fellow Muslims, as in the case of Khalid Abou El-Fadl right here in the US. Under man-made laws to silence dissent, the jurists, as organs of the state, came up with capital penalties for excommunication or whatever they deemed as injurious to their view of religion--thus silencing many. Here in the US, there are many who would like to speak out, but are afraid to because of being labeled as too Western, CIA spies, Israeli spies etc.
Shoebat: I agree with Mohammed on one issue: that "the religious [Islamic] elites have been out of touch with modernity". Yet I disagree with him on the rest of his issues. Allow me to make my case. He quotes Ghazali as a thinker and questioner. Yet when he was asked a question regarding living in foreign non-Muslim countries Ghazali responded: "Muslims could live under non-Muslim rule as long as they do not forget that they are Allah's missionaries and, if needed, His soldiers"
I suppose that Mohammed might re-interpret the meaning of "soldiers". He also points to Khalid Abou el Fadl, whose argument that "only fringe elements among Muslims consider that [Jihad is] war". That "The Qur'an refers to jihad only in terms of intellectual effort to apply divine revelation in promoting peace through justice". Abou el Fadl also was quoted saying "There is no such thing as Islamic terrorism, but there have always been Muslim terrorists." Indeed, this to me sounds like fighting Jihad extremism. I have heard of Hamza Yusuf, Tariq Ramadan, Fazlur Rahman, and Amina Wadud who do the same, yet on the other hand, their advocacy is an "extreme" denial of the facts regarding the meaning of Jihad according to Islam. True battle against Islamic terrorism is not by "denial" of what Islam says via re-interpretation of the true meaning, but by combating the very principles, sources, text, edicts, and writings of the authors themselves. But this can never be done. Islam with its volumes of writings is literally filled with violence. One question to this group - do they not wish to see the West converted to Islam? Have they spoken out for opening the doors of Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Iran, and all other Muslim states to Christian Missionaries? Or are they working predominately in America on fighting Islamophobia? Abou el Fadl who Mohammed quoted, likes the following definition of Jihad: "struggle for the sake of God, whether for self-discipline and self-purification or against oppression and justice." Let's not re-interpret Jihad, indeed if we are talking about reformation. Jihad, the law of "Abrogation of peace" from the Qur’an with infidels, has been conferred by the highest of the interpreters of the Qur’an: Kitab Al-Nasekh Wal-Mansookh, Al-Neesaburi, Al-Hafeth Ibnu Katheer Ibin Abas, Al-Tasheel Lulum Al-Tanzeel, Al-Husain Ibn Fadl, Abu Abdullah Muhammad Ibn Hazm, Al-Muhaqiq Abu Al-Qasim Hibatullah Ibn Salameh, Al-Sudy Wa-Al-Dahak. Muhammad Abdulsalam Faraj. Etc. The classical Muslim jurist al-Mawardi (a Shafi'ite jurist, d. 1058) from Baghdad was a seminal, prolific scholar who lived during the so-called Islamic "Golden Age" of the Abbasid-Baghdadian Caliphate. He wrote the following, based on widely accepted interpretations of the Qur'an and Sunna regarding infidel prisoners of jihad campaigns: "As for the captives, the amir [ruler] has the choice of taking the most beneficial action of four possibilities: the first to put them to death by cutting their necks; the second, to enslave them and apply the laws of slavery regarding their sale and manumission; the third, to ransom them in exchange for goods or prisoners; and fourth, to show favor to them and pardon them." Indeed such odious "rules" were iterated by all four classical schools of Islamic jurisprudence, across the vast Muslim empire. Do I need to quote Shafi'i Maliki, Hanbali, and Hanafi? ALL MUSLIMS fall under one of these four. Which one are you? Jihad (besides the self Jihad apologists speak about) is to fight and kill non-Muslims [the Kuffar]: Hanafi Fiqh: "to call the unbelievers towards the true religion of Islam & to fight against them, if they are unwilling to accept this true religion." Christian reformation started when followers went to the text and the founders of the faith who clearly prohibited genocide and murder. Yet Muslims cannot do the same, since the founders themselves (Muhammad the prophet of Islam, the Sahaba, and the Chaliphs) all participated in Jihad by killing infidels and whoever opposed the Islamic system. This is why the talk of reformation can never be by "re-interpretation" but "confession". Is this panel ready to do that?
Nawash: I can easily agree with most of the statements made by Walid Shoebat and Prof. Khaleel Mohammed. However, they both make a crucial mistake that is made by most intellectuals who tackle the issue of Islamic reformation. Both rely on the Koran and other Islamic religious text to justify their conclusions. This is not a formula for success and will always fail. The fact is, the Koran, similar to the Bible and the Torah, says what ever the reader wants it to say. Thus, in his interpreting of Islamic text, I have no doubt that Mr. Mohammed is sincere in interpreting Islam as a peaceful, loving religion. I also believe that Mr. Shoebat is sincere and justified in interpreting Islam as an evil religion. The Koran has many verses that can justify both interpretations.
In light of this, all who are interested in Islamic reformation must begin with the belief that Islam is no innocent bystander in the violence perpetrated by Muslims. Just as moderate Christians and Jews acknowledged the nasty side of their holy texts, modern Muslims must acknowledge that the Koran can easily be used to justify terror and evil. It is not sufficient for moderate Muslims to argue that certain passages in the Koran are being politically exploited. Muslims must realize that the passages would not be exploited if they didn't exist.
As to whether we need an Islamic reformation, the answer is YES. If Islamic society is to become prosperous, free and democratic, a true reformation must take place within the Arab and Muslim nations. The governments of the Muslim world must remove theocratic Islam as the most dynamic force within their borders. Secularization, respect for other faiths and self-criticism must be achieved in order to attain Islamic reformation and the elimination of the daily violence resulting from a plausible interpretation of Islam.
The key to Islamic reformation is the promotion of secularism which will lead to the rationalism that is, unfortunately, rejected by most Muslims today. Secularism and rationalism is how Christians and Jews reformed their religions. For example, in Europe, rationalism lead to scientific discoveries that undermined the Aristotelian physics upon which the church had built its view of the universe. These discoveries ultimately discredited the church as the giver of the only truth about everything and relegated religion in the Western world to a personal relationship between an individual and his Lord. This is what is needed in Islam today. We need to slowly remove religion from public life and relegate it to a personal relationship between the individual and his Lord.
As to why we don’t have attempts at reformation, self-criticism and self-questioning, it is dangerous to do so. The Muslim religious establishment immediately labels anyone who seeks reform as an infidel, anti-Muslim or agents of the Mossad and CIA. Moreover, even “secular” governments such as Egypt prosecute people who seek reform in order to appease the religious establishment and their ignorant Muslim followers who regard such calls for reformation to be so offensive as to justify violent retribution.
For those few brave individuals who are willing to call for reform or engage in self-criticism, there is generally no public forum to publicize their views. In the Muslim world, there are no media outlets willing to publicize such messages. In the West, media outlets are generally not interested in Muslims calling for reform or self-criticism. These visionary people or groups are not considered exciting or representative enough to merit coverage by the Western media and instead the western media general focus their attention on the Muslim groups who are part of the problem rather than the solution. This is a serious mistake by the Western media. The Muslim reform groups such as the Free Muslim Coalition Against Terrorism need as much media coverage as possible. The more that reform groups succeed in getting their message to other Muslims the more likely they are to inspire passionate discussion among Muslims and provide moderate Muslims the opportunity to join them. Moreover, the more western media coverage that Muslim reform groups get the more likely they are to get Arab media outlets such as Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabia to cover them and thus help spread the reform Message. Simply stated, Muslims calling for reform need Western help in disseminating their message.
FP: Prof. Mohammed, Mr. Nawash draws an equivalency between the Islamic religious texts and the Christian and Jewish ones in the context of all the holy books having violent verses. This is absurd. Unlike Islam, nowhere in Jewish and Christian teachings is there a specific instruction to kill all those who are unlike you and to do this in order to force your religion upon others – which Islam irrefutably does. Moreover, unlike Christian and Jewish religious texts, the Koran is considered by Muslims to be the literal word of Allah, articulated by Allah in a dialogue with the supposed Prophet. It is believed to be timeless and locked away in heaven. Anything you reject in the Koran is therefore considered to be blasphemy, since it is the word of Allah. Aren’t these significant differences from Christianity and Judaism, and don’t they pose serious problems for any kind of Islamic “reformation”?
Mohammed: Jamie, please allow me to respond to you after I deal with the ideas presented by Messrs. Nawash and Shoebat first.
I am a Muslim, and for me to remain quiet in the face of some of the statements made would be to forego my duty of fighting against oppression--especially when it is in the form of intellectual tyranny.
I agree with Mr. Nawash's observation regarding the problems in a methodology such as my own. I accept the criticism because I was not explicit in my opening statements. Yes, the verses of the Qur'an can be misinterpreted, and we cannot talk of Islam in terms of text only. This is why I quote people like Fazlur Rahman, Abdullah al-Na'im, Khalid Abou el-Fadl. Rahman--and I am his disciple in this--advocates the "double movement"--understanding the verses in their context, their ratio legis, and then using the philosophy of the Qur’an to interpret that in a modern social and moral sense.
For Muslims, no text of any Muslim writer, be it Tabari, Mawardi or whoever is divine. This is significant because I studied in Saudi Arabia, yet knew NOTHING of people like al-Wansharisi etc. until the true Western doyen of Islamic law, Prof. Wael Hallaq would mention these names.
My point is that western scholars read the works of such Muslims, and attribute to them false importance in terms of precedent and authority for the Muslim community. So what reformers seek is simple: a textual approach that is devoid of the medieval understandings imposed on the Qur'an. This seemingly impossible task is difficult, NOT impossible. I have proven this several times as in my take on the verses regarding Israel in the Qur'an.
On the assumption that his translation is a faithful one, what is wrong with fighting against tyranny and oppression, whether it be intellectual or otherwise? Is this not what the US forces are supposedly in Iraq to do? What makes it right for these predominantly "Christian" soldiers to do that and not for Muslims to have a similar philosophy? Khalid Abou el-Fadl is an expert in Islamic law, and I, based on rigorous study of texts, agree with him that only fringe elements today consider that Jihad is war. Which is why the word for war, as Mr. Shoebat ought to know, is Harb, and NOT Jihad. Can Mr. Shoebat quote a single ayah, and with Christian honesty, prove that it advocates terrorism? When all the verses of war are to be taken in light of the conditions for such war: when the enemy has declared war against Islam.
If one says that the verses have been misinterpreted, I am the first to agree. If one says that the traditional juristic understanding has been one of a warlike nature, I too agree. But such interpretation was from the jurists. And Abou el-Fadl, as a jurist, can justifiably critique previous explanations--as al Na'im, al Ghazali, Fazlur Rahman, and I have done. The meaning of Jihad according to Islam: Who is Mr. Shoebatt to seek to distort the meaning is when several scholars have, like Dr. Abou el-Fadl provided the latter's view?
Now, in a previous FP interview, Mr. Shoebat said "Peace started when we made it illegal to follow the text and ultimately defanged Islam from Jihad..." No, peace has not started, and it is not because of this. Peace ceased when the crusades were launched, and which have not yet ended. Peace can only return when Muslims return to properly understanding the text, without medieval refraction, and when governments do not seek to impose Christian ideas on people. After all, it was not Islam that slaughtered the people of the "new world", and enslaved millions. It was another religion, doing so out of a purported love of all humankind.
Now for Jamie’s comments. How can one say that nowhere in the Jewish and Christian teachings is there a specific instruction to kill those who are unlike you? And by the way, where in the Muslim teachings is there an instruction to kill all those who are unlike you? In all my years of study of these texts, I have found much more instructions to kill, maim, and take every soul, to kill every man, woman and child--and if not instructions, then these were done by "godly" people. And the stories formed the nucleus on how one should understand interaction with the "other.". The Book of Joshua? And the writings of the Church Fathers?
The issues that pose problems for Islamic reformation are several, among them: (a) dominant Muslim belief in the hadith--without regards as to mutawatir and ahad-- as an authentic basis for creed (2) the governments imposed on Muslim people in the name of Islam (3) the status forced on Muslims by non-Muslim powers so that Muslims, instead of trying to genuinely reform their religion, are instead forced to defend against horrendous lies. An example is right here--where I was asked a question to begin the forum, and then had to defend against the most vicious lies against Islam. (4) The old male power structure within Islam (5) The imposition of Arab culture as the interpretive basis of the Quran in today's world (6) The Arab world's obsession with Israel, and the refusal to recognize the right of the Jewish people to have their own state. (7) Disregard for the fact that Islam is NOT the world power it was in the medieval times, and that we have matured to the point where we can use our intellect more freely. As with Mr. Nawash's group, the Foundation for the Study of Abrahamic Religion is a newly formed organization that seeks, with the help of input from religion scholars of every faith, to bring about such reform/reconstruction in Islam.
FP: Prof. Mohammed, let me ask you a few questions that I hope you will briefly answer:
You draw an equivalency between the activity of Muslim and Christian missionaries. What does dhimmitude mean to you? Can you find anything equivalent in Christian and Jewish experience? If you can, is that behaviour rooted in the religious texts?
Your reference to “governments” seeking “to impose Christian ideas” on people is a mystery to me. Please tell us where “Christian” governments rule and where they force unbelievers to submit to Jesus or face paying taxes and being treated as unequals if they do not, and face an even worse fate if they refuse to do the latter.
You oppose Mr. Shoebat’s challenge for Saudi Arabia to open its doors to Christian missionaries. You say that the Muslims don’t need it and so it just shouldn’t happen. Do you not believe that Muslims should have the freedom to be exposed to different ideas and thoughts and to make their own choices in regards to these matters – and without fear of physical harm? In general, I take it you think it is fine that Muslims can freely preach in the West, but that non-Muslims are not allowed to preach anything non-Islamic in Muslim countries? What do you think should be done to a Muslim who rejects Islam and decides to become a Christian – as Mr. Shoebat has done? Does the Qur’an teach something about what should be done with such a person? Is there anything equal to this teaching in Christianity or Judaism? What does Sura 9:5, the famous Verse of the Sword, mean to you? Is it significant that it is the Qur’an’s final word on jihad?
After Muhammed died, especially in the immediate years following his death, Muslims engaged in ferocious attacks on their non-Muslim neighbors. Within a decade of Muhammed’s death, his followers expanded violently outside their region. The Islamic empire grew quickly by force and military campaign. Is this because Muslims misunderstood the Qur’an? Is it because they went against the example that Mohammed had personally set? If the Prophet had preached to love thy neighbour as thyself, peace, non-violence and had lived a life following these teachings, would this post-Mohammed aggression of Muslims have occurred anyway?
Muslims subjugated Syria, Egypt, Persia etc. It is quite impressive how so many of the conquered people became Muslims afterwards. Did they do so voluntarily? If not, why not? Did it have something to do with Islam and what it teaches?
I am a bit confused about your point regarding Jesus’ mission being a failure. I must say that, as a Christian, I have never heard anything about this failure. I’ll go back to the New Testament and look for it, but I have read it many times and have a feeling I won’t find it.
By your remark, I am not sure if you are aware that Christians don’t consider Christ a failure because He didn’t lead an army and conquer a whole bunch of unbelievers somewhere. Christians believe that Christ succeeded in his mission -- which was to die on the cross so that his blood would redeem humanity’s sins. Yes, I know, Muslims don’t believe that Jesus died on the cross. That is why they are Muslims and not Christians and Christians are not Muslims. There are different faiths.
I have many Muslim acquaintances that laugh when I tell that that I believe Jesus is God and that he died on the cross for our sins. They find it hilarious that a God would ever subject himself to this kind of “defeat” and “humiliation”. But as Christians, we believe that the temporary powerlessness that Christ experienced saved humanity. We live in a part of the world, Prof. Mohammed, where certain people are still allowed to believe this and can talk about it openly. We are not in Saudi Arabia.
Please explain to me what you mean by Christ’s “failed mission” and whether you are implying that Christians should stop believing what they believe.
The Pope and myriad Protestant groups have issued apologies for the Crusades. Where are the Islamic leaders of the world apologizing for violent jihad and dhimmitude? Could this have something to do with the Crusades not being theologically based in any kind of Christian scripture, and violent jihad and dhimmitude being based in Islamic texts? Is there actually even any base in Christian texts for Christian rule in the political sphere? Can we deny that Christianity not only allows but actually teaches separation of Church and State, as Christ’s reference to paying Caeser’s taxes indicates?
Forgive me for my long-windedness, but before Prof. Mohammed hopefully answers my questions, let us allow Mssrs. Shoebat and Nawash to rejoin. Mr. Shoebat, go ahead. . . . . Shoebat: First of all Mohammed writes: "Now regarding Mr. Shoebatt: I do not know from where he gets his understanding of the Qur'an which seems to be based on pure Islamophobia, probably intensified by evangelism." Mohammed - all of the sudden, attacks Western understanding, myself with such rude statement, and everyone who disagrees. This proves the point – all what these "reformists" are interested in is "fighting Islamophobia". I know very well this type of arguing from Muslims. He makes me sound like "this x-Muslim's Islam was from Mars", when his "liberal Islam" view is a minority, and much of it is in America. I wonder why? One challenge - tape your understanding of Jihad in your liberal way, I give you an hour lecture, then we will have you stand in any Islamic capital city of your choice, be it Cairo, Ramallah, Damascus, Baghdad, Tehran, Khartoum. And full blast your sermon with a ghetto blaster for a week or two. Then report to me - if you survive. This should prove beyond any doubt that my understanding of Islam fits very well the understanding of the masses. Then Nawash asks for an excellent suggestion: "In light of this, all who are interested in Islamic reformation must begin with the belief that Islam is no innocent bystander in the violence perpetrated by Muslims." But Nawash, this is like all Christians saying that "Christianity" is not innocent from genocide – has this happened in Church reformation? NO How can you expect this from Muslims? Christians never blamed Christianity but Christendom. It's a big difference when we say "Christendom" is guilty. It's one thing to ask "Muslimdom" to admit guilt, but Islam? My argument that "Islam cannot be reformed" has not been responded to. You really cannot. The only valid response is - confession. I confess, Islam is guilty. Yet, having done so, and unlike you, I cannot honestly call myself Muslim. Free at last, free at last, free at last. Now that's the big difference here. I learned Western style honesty, the hell with loyalty to culture and tradition. You on the other hand can't really say it, I doubt that you really believe that Islam is all peace loving. Do you? The best way to practice "secularism" is to separate mosque from government. This means a fight has to exist within the Muslim world to oust the religionists out. But this doesn't solve my question - why should the West get involved? Again, I am not interested in reforming anything, I am simply interested in protecting our turf. This is why we have borders. Then you argue: "These discoveries ultimately discredited the church as the giver of the only truth about everything and relegated religion in the Western world to a personal relationship between an individual and his Lord." Yet a relationship between an individual and His Lord is exactly what one finds in the text of the Bible - not so the Qur’an. This goes back to my argument – the biblical text supports this, the Qur’anic text doesn't. End of story. Then you have "In the West, media outlets are generally not interested in Muslims calling for reform or self-criticism." Not true, the media begged Islamic societies to speak up, all they got was Muslim wars on "Islamophobia" just as we see Mohammed doing to me, and not much war on the fanatics. Westerners fight skinheads and Arians tooth and nail for misrepresenting the Bible. Where is the war for misrepresenting the Qur’an? American Muslims don't care to fight terrorism, the majority of them don't care. Muhammad Ali didn't see an Islamic cause in fighting Vietnam, it goes against his "Islam". How many Muslims join the U.S military? Yes, there are brave few Muslims who fight, not reform, but separation of religion from state. They want limited Sharia and some re-interpretation for the sake of modern times. But this is not "reformation", you can call it struggle, revolution, westernization, theocratic elimination... Islam can never be reformed. Period. If this is what "Free Muslim Coalition" is about, then it's a farce. The slogan should be "keep religion out of government", but again, this is hardly Islamic. Mohammed also writes that what "reformers seek is simple: a textual approach that is devoid of the medieval understandings imposed on the Qur'an." How can you do that? I know how - I am sure you heard of science in the Qur’an and knowledge on medical issues in the Qur’an as well. I know that we used to find supposed scientific knowledge from the Qur’an, and by that we looked at the verse ignoring the medieval understanding. So we find supposed fingerprinting in the Qur’an and go wow - Allahu Akbar, the Qur’an, a medieval book has science, only a prophet of Allah could have known that. But that's NOT what we are talking about here. We are talking about Sharia Law. Mohammed, I didn't misrepresent Ghazali, I simply quoted him. Here is my quote of Ghazali followed by my 'exact' statement: ["Muslims could live under non-Muslim rule as long as they do not forget that they are Allah's missionaries and, if needed, His soldiers". I suppose that Mohammed might re-interpret the meaning of "soldiers".] Show me, how did I "deliberately misrepresent al Ghazali"? Mohammed, I am not from Mars - you are. My Islam was the "true" Islam. Not a single Qur'anic commentator, not a single figure of significance in the whole 1350 year of Islam's history, has ever regarded Jihad as anything but the effort, using violence and other means, to spread Islam until it covers the globe. This includes your Ghazali. Then you played on words: "the word for war, as Mr. Shoebat ought
to know, is Sure, Jihad means "struggle" the same way Hitler used it in Mien Kamph (My Struggle) since his "struggle" in his view was to fight evil - "the Jews". You write: "I see two of the most destructive forces on earth as Muslim and Christian missionaries" The difference sir, is that Christian missionaries these days might give you a headache, Muslim missionaries in Muslim countries however might just whack your head - right off. Big difference. Don't you think? Let's get a different quote for whichever "Ghazali" you like, Imam Ghazali, or Muhammed Ghazali, to see what is "foot soldier". Here is ancient Al-Ghazali: "After the death of Mohammad, the man of the miracle [the Qur'an] and the apostle of truth and the companions, fearing the weakening of Islam, the decrease of the number of its followers, and the return of masses to their previous infidelity, saw that holy war and invading other countries for the sake of Allah, smashing the faces of the infidels with the sword and making people enter the religion of Allah as the most worthy of all tasks and better than all sciences." (Ihy'a Uloom adeen by Al-Ghazali, Dar al-Kutub al-'Elmeyah, Beirut, Vol. V, p. 35.) The modern Al-Ghazali: Question: "Was there really an examination of the religious study material that ultimately caused the removal of [some] Qur'an verses and stories about Jihad against the Jews and Israel?" Bahaa Al-Din: "In the early 1990s, I was surprised [to hear about] nine books published by [some] groups of extremists who accused us of blurring religious identity and removing Qur'an verses and Hadiths of the Prophet [from the religious curricula]. When this came to my attention, in 1994, I phoned the late Sheikh Muhammad Al-Ghazali, Dr. Sayyed Tantawi, Dr. Omar Hashem, and Dr. Abd Al-Sabour Marzouq and asked them to come to the [Education] Ministry. In a letter, I told them: 'It is not I who compiles these curricula and not I who must defend a mistake. If there is a mistake, I deserve thanks for correcting it.' Four hours later, Sheikh Al-Ghazali told me, 'I am sure that what is taught is the correct religion and that the statements that were circulated were absolute falsehood.' This matter was published in the media at the time." He even approves of the violent curriculum in Egypt. Yet anyone who simply quotes Islam, yet who is not Muslim is accused of "Mr Shoebat is not about reform in Islam, but the demonization of a faith" Even if I simply read the text. Non-Muslims cannot freely read the text - as is. You demonize me, then accuse me of demonizing your faith? It's no wonder Muslim demonstrators say "Zionism is Nazism". They all get the whole thing turned around. What the Muslim world needs, is to look at is a simple verse - look at the log in your Muslim eye, then pick on the spec of your Christian enemies. You stated: "Peace ceased when the crusades were launched, and which have not yet ended." Not yet ended? What crusades are still going? What holy war are you fighting? You stated: "for Muslim theocracies to open their doors to Christian
missionaries, and subject the masses to deviation from the true Abrahamic
concept of Fair enough. You don't want Saudi Arabia to open the door of freedom. You showed your true colors. Then what are you doing in my country? Get out of my country. You stated: "The Arab world's obsession with Israel, and the refusal to recognize the right of the Jewish people to have their own state." Muhammad seemed to have a similar obsession with the Jewish "state" of "Yathrib." No wonder he annihilated most of the Jews of Yathrib and of course extradited the rest. Any Jews in Saudi? We’re not talking about Islamdom, but Islam's founder. Your statements are too long and your argumentation is twisted. Like I said, most Muslims 'including most moderates' have a 'red-button'. It seems that I pushed it - ooopsss. Jamie concludes the truth of the matter: "I take it you think it is fine that Muslims can freely preach in the West, but that non-Muslims are not allowed to preach anything non-Islamic in Muslim countries?" This is their true colors - do unto non-Muslims what Muslims don't want done unto them. Mohammed writes: Can Mr. Shoebat quote a single ayah, and with Christian honesty, prove that it advocates terrorism? Tell you what, I will simply take the 'peaceful ones': "Whoever kills a soul is like one who has killed the whole of mankind." This sentence is at the heart of the Politically Correct campaign (including Dr. Khaleel) to ensure that the war fever against Islamic terrorists doesn't lead to an explosion of hostility against Muslims in general. Looking at Sura 5:32 in context we see: "... whoever kills a soul, not in retaliation for a soul or corruption in the land, is like one who has killed the whole of mankind; and whoever saves a life is like one who saves the lives of all mankind. Our messengers came to them with the clear proof; but afterwards many of them continued to commit excesses in the land." The catch here, which is never quoted "corruption in the land."
Although Muslims in general are angered when the Qur’an is misquoted,
yet no one objected that textual corruption was applied by the politicians
as long as it serves certain goals. The very next verse continues: The tribe of Ukl got such fate for simply changing their mind and denounced Islam: "Narrated Anas: Some people from the tribe of 'Ukl came to the Prophet and embraced Islam. The climate of Medina did not suit them, so the Prophet ordered them to go to the (herd of milch) camels of charity and to drink, their milk and urine (as a medicine). They did so, and after they had recovered from their ailment (became healthy) they turned renegades (reverted from Islam) and killed the shepherd of the camels and took the camels away. The Prophet sent (some people) in their pursuit and so they were (caught and) brought, and the Prophets ordered that their hands and legs should be cut off and that their eyes should be branded with heated pieces of iron, and that their cut hands and legs should not be cauterized, till they die." (Sahih Al-Bukhari Vol. 8, Bk. 82, No. 794.) Which makes it all too clear that while the Koran teaches its followers to respect the sanctity of life of other 'good Muslims', those who "fight Allah and his Messenger" (i.e. Mohammed) for being guilty of "corruption in the land" should be killed, mutilated, or banished. What I did here is 'Islamically' looked at as 'corruption in the land' 'tyranny' and such. After all, these were exactly what Dr. Khaleel Mohammed wrote in his response to my arguments: "I am a Muslim, and for me to remain quiet in the face of some of the statements made would be to forego my duty of fighting against oppression" In other words - I 'Walid' am an oppressor and tyrant. Why? Because I said that Jihad is "by the sword". Never push the Muslim 'red button', you never know what you will get. What Khaleel needs to do is not "reform" Islam, but learn tolerance in the ingredients of his own life.
Nawash: I am disappointed in this symposium and the discussions we are having. Initially, I was excited about participating in this symposium because I thought we were going to discuss whether there need be an Islamic reformation and how we can achieve such a reformation. Instead, this symposium has turned into an emotional battle of the minds between Prof. Mohammed and Mr. Shoabat. They are more concerned with wining their arguments and convincing the other that their religion is the right religion rather than genuinely discussing reform.
I am not interested in this discussion. I couldn’t care less about proving or being convinced whether Christianity or Islam is the correct religion. I am more concerned with solving the crisis in Islam. And we do have crisis.
These days, not a day goes by without news of terrorism in the name of Islam. Islamist terrorism represents one of the most lethal threats to the stability of the civilized world. The root cause of Islamist terrorism is an ideology called “political Islam.” Political Islam is a desire by extremist Muslims to create a fundamentalist Muslim empire made up of every Muslim nation. This desire to create a Muslim empire is based on the delusion that modernity is a threat to Islam and the idea that the Muslim community has strayed from God and if they were to return to a strict interpretation of Islam based on Sharia (Islamic Law) that the problems in the Muslim world would be solved. It is this exact mentality spurned of paranoia, ignorance, fear, and a rejection of secularism that inspires Islamist Terrorism. Political Islam has been growing at turbo speed since the 1980s. Similar to the spread of communism, the call for Islamic states has gained substantial following among the poor, unemployed, disenfranchised and those who are disillusioned in believing that the creation of Islamic states and the implementation of Sharia will solve all their problems. In fact, every modern example of an Islamic state, whether in Afghanistan, Iran, Sudan, or Nigeria has resulted in war, terrorism, inequality for women and non-Muslims, poverty and a slippery slope into the dark ages. Terrorism is a natural result of political Islam because those who seek Islamic states believe that they are trying to implement the wishes of God and that no matter how barbaric their tactics are, God will be pleased with them since their goal is “noble.” For these reasons, the war on terrorism will not be won unless the world also engages in an ideological battle with Muslim extremists and those who call for the creation of Muslim states. This is what we should be talking about in this symposium and this is what I do every day.
As far as I am concerned, I stand by the comments I made in my initial reply. I stated that The Koran, similar to the Bible and the Torah, says what ever the reader wants it to say.
The key to Islamic reformation is the promotion of secularism which will lead to rational thinking. Secularism and rationalism is how Christians and Jews reformed their religions. I am not naïve however. I realize the secularism is a tough sell in the Muslim world but not for the reasons given by Jamie and Walid.
Unfortunately, many Muslims in the Middle East equate secularism with failure. The 20th century saw the creation of “secular” Muslim states from Morocco to Iran. As we can witness by looking at the development statistics of the region, most of these states did not bring peace and prosperity to their citizens. Most of these “modern” Arab states brought their citizens repressive rule, war and poverty. These states differed in their official orientation: some were based on capitalism; others were driven by socialism or communism. However, regardless of their official orientation they shared the commonality of being centrally run and in failing to provide their citizens with peace and prosperity.
The equating of secularism with failure has been successfully propagated by Muslim extremists who reject secular democracies and call for Islamic states. Consequently, the common response by many citizens of the Middle East who favor the creation Islamic states is that “we tried capitalism, we tried socialism and we tried communism and they all failed so let us try Islam.” Supporters of Islamic states are relying on false notions. Islam is a religion, not a blueprint for the creation of a modern state. The Koran does not contain sufficient guidance for the creation of a state. Most modern states which have been founded and inspired by Islamic extremists are fascist, reactionary, impoverished and do not boast the features of democracy.
Democracy is rule by the people; a system of free choice where rulers are elected and held accountable by their constituents. The element of free choice of leaders is an explosive topic right now in the Middle East & North Africa. If fair and free elections were held tomorrow, the majority of Arab countries would probably elect totalitarian leaders with an intolerant pro-Islamist agenda. The election of extremists would spell death for democracy. We must first expel Islamic extremists and terrorists from Arab and Muslim societies before democracy can sweep the region.
I support the right of all peoples to self-government, but recognize the importance of a solid system of government which guarantees a secular democracy protecting the rights of all people, regardless of gender, race or religion. Muslims must be re-educated about the benefits of secularism and that the failure of their governments to bring them peace and prosperity was not because they were secular. Democracy can not succeed unless terrorism is defeated and Islamic extremism is discredited.
Having said all this, I will now respond to some of the comments made by the participating parties in this symposium.
My first response is to Jamie, the editor of FrontPage. Jamie takes issue with me drawing equivalency between the Islamic religious texts and the Christian and Jewish ones in the context of all the holy books having violent verses. Jamie calls this absurd and says that unlike Islam, nowhere in Jewish and Christian teachings is there a specific instruction to kill all those who are unlike you and to do this in order to force your religion upon others – “which Islam irrefutably does.” I am not surprised Jamie gave no authority for this statement. The Koran does not say such a thing. In fact, the Koran says that Jews and Christians may go heaven. It also says that those who believe in the Torah and the Bible may go to heaven. This is significant because Islam is the only religion that teaches that people of another faith may qualify to go to heaven.
The reason I broke my own rule and relied on the Koran to make a point is to give you an example that the Koran says whatever the reader wants it to say. For example, I am a liberal Muslim who loves Jesus and has the utmost respect for Christians and Jews. I believe that religion is a private matter and is a personal relationship between me and God. This is my ideological prism and thus I interpret the Koran in a way that confirms my beliefs. On the other hand, an extremist Muslim who believes in violent Jihad will interpret the Koran in a different way. For example, an extremist will interpret the phrases in the Koran that say Christian and Jews may go to heaven as only applying to the Jews and Christians who lived before the birth of Islam and thus concludes that today’s Christians and Jews are infidels and destined for Hell.
Similarly, the Bible and the Torah can be interpreted every which way but Tuesday. Do I need to remind you that not long ago Christians burned women in Massachusetts for being “witches.”
What about the ancient Jews who locked their women in huts for two weeks during their mistral cycle because of their “impurities.” The fact is, Jews and Christians eliminated the problems that many of the Muslims are facing today because of their adoption of secularism. No more, no less.
As to Professor Mohammad, focusing on the positive first, I must admit that I am intrigued by his acceptance of secular states. It is rare to find a Muslim theologian who does not see secularism as inconsistent with Islam. This alone is indicative that he is ahead of his time.
Mr. Mohammad “advocates the "double movement" approach--understanding the verses in their context, their ratio legis, and then using the philosophy of the Qur’an to interpret that in a modern social and moral sense.” I don’t have a problem with this approach; however, I don’t think it is sufficient to achieve Islamic reform in the near future. Islam has been devoid of reasoning (ishtihad) for almost a 1000 years and using the double movement approach will take too long. We must add to the double movement approach secularization. We must separate religion from state and remove the clergy from all aspects of government policy making so that while we wait on reformation, they do not cause the damage they are causing today.
As to other issues, I am disappointed in Prof. Mohammed’s objection to having Christian missionaries in Saudi Arabia. Why not? Why can’t we give Muslims free choice? Why can’t we discuss and question all issues, including whether Islam is a correct religion or whether God exists or not? I see no problem with this and we can not hope to reach the period of enlightenment unless we feel comfortable with churches and synagogues being built in Saudi Arabia or any other Muslim country. We should never make choices for other Muslims or react violently to those who have fundamental questions about core religious issues.
Mr. Mohammed goes on to say that “only fringe elements today consider that Jihad is war.” This is only accurate in academia and among the intellectual elite. The fact is most Muslims and Muslim religious leaders today equate Jihad with war. In fact, I can not recall ever hearing the word Jihad being used to mean anything other than war. Modern day Islamists understand it to mean war and only use the other definition when they feel they are under attack and on the defensive. This is an issue that Muslim reformists like Mr. Mohammed need to work on in the Muslim community.
We need to advocate that all calls for jihad to wage war or create “Islamic states” should be rejected as heretic and a threat to modern society. The concept of jihad should be reinterpreted for a modern day context in which holy war is obsolete. No holy war needs to be waged; there is no clear and present threat to Islam; the only war that needs to be waged in the modern world is one against terrorists and extremists. Muslim reformists like Mr. Mohammed need to be aggressive in waging a battle of the minds with Muslim extremists so that we can bring Islam into the 21st century and introduce a doctrine which is compatible with democracy and modern living.
As to Mr. Shoebat:
I really don’t know what to say to you. While I genuinely think you are impressive and I think your message should be propagated to Muslims, I don’t think you are right for this symposium. Remember, perception is reality. This means reality is what ever you want it to be. Thus, if you don’t believe that reform can happen then your beliefs will influence your actions and no attempt at reform will be pursued. If however, you are like me and Mr. Mohammad and believe reform can happen then that will influence your behaviour and efforts. The more people there are who share our optimism the more likely it is for us to achieve the reform that we most desperately need.
Please do not misunderstand me. I am not offended by you. In fact, I would like to help you propagate your message. I would like to see you on Al-Jazeera and other similar media outlets telling the Muslim world that their fanaticism drove you away from Islam. This could be very effective at discrediting the extremists. Most Muslims think that people only convert to Islam and not the other way around. Your message would be powerful in the Muslim world.
Having said this, I will respond to some of your arguments anyway. You stated that the best way to practice "secularism" is to separate mosque from government. “This means a fight has to exist within the Muslim world to oust the religionists out.”
You are right that a battle has to take place with the religionist. This is, to some degree, happening now. In the battle of Hamma, Syria killed 20000 extremists who wanted to change Syria into a theocracy. Tunisia has wiped out the religionist. In fact, there is a major battle going on in most of the Arab and Muslim world. The world wide Islamic uprising that I mentioned earlier is to create theocracies in the Muslim world. The Islamists are being fought every day. I realize that fighting the Islamists is only half of the equation. There is still no serious effort in the Muslim world advocating secularism.
Mr. Shoebat also says, “a relationship between an individual and His Lord is exactly what one finds in the text of the Bible - not so the Qur’an.” This is not true. For hundreds of years Christians did not accept the notion of religion being a relationship between an individual and his Lord. It was only after the beginning of the secular movement that Christians argued that the Bible supports secularism and that religion is a personal relationship with one’s Lord. To justify their point, Christians began citing the Cesar quote from the Bible. If I chose to I can find many verses in the Koran that justify secularism. For example consider these arguments:
The Qur'an states: "Say (Muhammad) it is truth from the Lord of you all. Whosoever will, let him believe and whosoever will, let him disbelieve" (Qur'an 18: 29) "And so, [O Prophet,] exhort them; thy task is only to exhort: thou cannot compel them to believe."(Qur'an: 21-22). "O Prophet.!…Thy duty is not more than to deliver the message; and the reckoning is Ours." (Qur'an 13:40). According to this phrase, the "reckoning" belongs to God only. Therefore, if a government or an Imams' Fatwas demand public obedience and submission, such an enforced, outward appearance of obedience is not faith. Governments have no means to know what is in the heart of the individual. When a government enforces religion, the control is over the body not over the soul. The Qur'an rejects such control over the body: "It is not your meat or blood that reach God: It is the fealty of your heart that reaches Him" (Qur'an 22:37). (Kamal Nawash continues. . .) Nawash: In another phrase, The Qur'an states: "We sent down the Torah which contains guidance and light…Later, in the train of Prophets We send Jesus, son of Mary, confirming the Torah which has been sent down before him, and gave him the Gospel containing guidance and light. …Unto to you [O Muhammad] this writ (Koran) and a way and a pattern of life, confirming what were revealed before…Unto every one of you have we appointed a different law and way of life. And if God had so willed He could surely have you all made one single community professing one faith. But He wished to try you and test you. So try to excel in good deeds" (Qur'an: 5:44-48). According to this phrase, the very existence of different kinds of faith and religions contesting one another in acts of good work is the will of God. Hence, freedom without the enforcement of conformity in religious matters is Islamic. The so-called Islamic governments of the self-righteous violate Qur'anic principles and tyrannize people of all faith including Muslims. In another phrase, God told the Prophet (s): "…Fear not people, but fear Me (God)…" (Qur'an 5:44). Therefore, people are free and individually accountable to God only. The point here that I keep beating you over the head with is the Koran, like the Bible, says whatever the reader wants it to say. I believe in secularism and thus, I focused on phrases from the Koran that help me prove my point.
Lastly, I do accept one criticism from Mr. Shoebat. In response to my claim that the media does not care to hear from reform organizations you said that the media begged Islamic societies to speak up, all they got was Muslim wars on "Islamophobia." I agree with you 100 percent. The Islamic organizations in this country have been shamefully wishy washy when it came to denouncing and fighting terrorism. Unfortunately, most Muslim organizations in the West are made up of extremists or Islamists who want to bring back Caliphate. This is why our organization was created, to counter this trend.
FP: I am speechless in response to Mr. Nawash’s denial that there are verses in the Qur’an that propagate violence against non-Muslims and that command that Islam must be imposed on non-Muslims. The tragedy of 9/11, for instance, and the whole history of dhimmitude, I am afraid, does not stand before our eyes because Muslims imagined some teachings. It might have something to do with, just to start, Sura 9:5, the famous Verse of the Sword, and the fact that it is the Qur’an’s final word on jihad. In any case, Robert Spencer's authoritative study Onward Muslim Soldiers: How Jihad Still Threatens America and the West pretty well lays this whole argument to rest.
Our arguments here have clearly become cyclical, and it is depressing to try to discuss a possible reformation of Islam if we can’t even agree on the basics, one of them being that Islam’s violent jihad just might have something to do with Islamic religious texts.
It is Prof. Mohammed’s turn, go ahead.
Mohammed: Let me get to the crux of the matter:
Dhimmitude is a term coined by one Islamophobe I know...referring to the status in which non-Muslims within an Islamic state must live.
In the Christian and Jewish experience is there an equivalent? I assume that I am being asked to do detective work here. I had assumed that each one knows his text and we can work with this.
For Judaism, I am not concerned with the Torah's view on non-Jews because never in traceable history have we found this.
For Christianity, does the term "Inquisition" ring a bell? Does the name of a place like "Matamuros" ring a bell? I come from Guyana--where I remember in my youth that we had to go to Church school, and in other parts of Latin America, the governments forced their version of Christianity down the throats of people.
Australia, New Zealand and even the US history testify. Are these things past? For most countries yes, but in Latin America, it is still thriving.
Saudi Arabia is a theocracy and as such, has a different system of government to the US. It did not seek to extirpate any natives, and by international law is entitled to this. I refuse to see how much defence of Saudi Arabia suddenly got imposed on all Islamic countries.
If those countries feel okay with the idea of missionaries, by all means I am for it. But as a child of colonialism, I have seen how the missionaries work--and when I compare their disservice to the disservice of Muslim preachers--I find it the greater of two evils.
If a Muslim rejects Islam, the Qur’an has a simple answer: to you be your religion and to me mine; after all, as Mr. Nawash pointed out, the Qur’an talks about Jews and Christians entering heaven. So no, the Quran has nothing against such a convert--that person's lot is with God.
Ah--the famous sword verse! A verse taken in isolation, but out of context. War has been declared against Islam by the pagans, and Islam decides that it is now in a war where no quarter is given. So it advises what is to be done in such all out war. That a seventh century document should make provision as such, differentiating between those who are innocent and those who are not is something still followed in international law today. And since when is this the Qur'an's final word on Jihad? I disagree somewhat with your concept that after Muhammad's death Muslims engaged in ferocious attack. I fully understand that we do not operate from the same approach to history, but let us not present revisionist ideas. The Muslim state, deemed puny and upstart, was in everyone's bow sights--and the Muslims defended themselves. Yes, they triumphed and then resorted to empire building and deviation from the ethics of their scripture. But they were not the starters of war. Why did Egypt, Persia etc become Muslim? The answer is simple; the intellectuality of Islam was way above and beyond what they had. If you inferred that I meant Christ's entire ministry was a failure, then this is wrong. I was referring to the political reality of his message--and this is important because it has to do with the formation of law. Perhaps in your part of the world, you are taught that Muslims do not discuss this openly--and you are wrong. Let us forget the press and stick to reality--we do discuss this openly to the point where most Muslims adopt a version of the parousia...but for truth's sake, let us not preach that all Muslims and Muslim countries do not allow free discussion. My freest discussions--far more liberal than this one I am now having--were in Syria, Yemen and yes, Saudi Arabia. I cannot ask, nor even suggest Christians stop believing what they believe--for there are so many Christianities, as there are Islams. Rather I ask what the Qur’an tells me: let us all strive to do good, and each leave his lot with his Lord. Let us not seek to demonize, let us not lie, and as someone who loves Jesus too, let us not desecrate his memory by claiming to follow him while doing that which he did not do nor advocate. I see no reason for Muslims to apologize for Jihad as the Pope has rightly done for the Crusades: the Muslim response was a defensive one. It was their right. If you ask about Balkanization, and the Armenian genocide and seek apology from me--yes, I feel that was wrong, and those Muslims did what was absolutely against Islam and humanity. I hate to teach the Bible, but since I did do seminary study, Jesus’ statement had little to do with actual doctrine, and everything to do with avoiding problems. And the Church Fathers understood this which is why they wrote volumes on war and government.
For Mr Shoebat: my urge is to respond to each lie. Yet, I will limit myself to a few only. He says about Jihad, that not one thinker argued differently. So then the much known hadith about what Jihad really means, an internal struggle, is a new creation that somehow found itself into medieval texts?
Shoebatt puts Q5:32 in "context" and then comes with prevarication as his interpretation: when the "corruption" to which the verse refers is explained within the Qur'an itself. That jurists have misinterpreted it is beyond argument...but he makes it seem as if this is the norm..which is why it is difficult to have a conversation with him. There are several books in the Arab world against violent interpretations of Jihad--many of them published in Saudi Arabia. I do agree that there are probably as many that advocate violence--but in a world where many Muslims see themselves and their religion being threatened, it is something that I can understand, but not condone. As for Muslims who have not spoken out--have we sunk so low that we have resorted to lies on this level? Almost every mosque, every imam here has spoken out. But for Shoebat and his ilk, those people have to hate Islam and declare their hate for righteousness in order to fit his warped idea of doing good. If Islam cannot be reformed, I don't know why Shoebat was on this panel in the first place. I repeat: reform will happen from within Islam itself, not from outsiders. And worst, against people like Shoebat to whom lying about Islam seems as natural as breathing, to prevent dialogue.
He accuses me of being long-winded in my arguments: I apologize for this. But when a conversation is supposed to be between people who have only good intentions--as I assumed at the beginning, and found these only from Messrs. Glazov and Nawash, how can I NOT respond to the most unchristian pejorative prevarication? For Mr. Nawash: While I may not agree with all your views, our disagreements
are so little that they fall within the purview of that which is not worth
debating. I would be willing to work with your Sir, as I would with Mr.
Glazov, on discussion. I would be honored if I could be part of Mr. Nawash's
organization. FP: Prof. Mohammed, it is disappointing that you brush off “dhimmitude” as just a “term” referring to “the status in which non-Muslims within an Islamic state must live.” This is like saying the Holocaust is just a “term” referring to “the status” in which Jewish people had to live in places like Auschwitz, Dachau and Buchenwald – and then saying nothing else about it.
It’s like saying that “Gulag” is a term referring to the status of certain peoples in Soviet Russia who did not fit into the design of Soviet communism -- and then saying nothing else about it.
The “Islamophobe” that you refer to who has coined the phrase “dhimmitude” is, in my humble view, a courageous hero who has made sure, like the Alexander Solzhenitsyns and Elie Wiesels of this world, that the sufferings and fates of millions of innocent victims of brutal despotism are never forgotten.
You ask: “since when is this [the Verse of the Sword] the Qur'an's final word on Jihad?”
I think you know very well that the 114 “suras” in the Qur’an are separated by Muslim scholars into the two categories of “Meccan” and “Medinan” and that the Medinan verses follow and also nullify many of the former verses. And I think you are aware that even mainstream Islamic commentators regard Sura 9 as precisely the Qur'an's last word on jihad, because it was the last sura revealed. But this debate must occur at another time and place.
You say the answer for why Egypt, Persia and Syria became Muslim is a “simple” one: “the intellectuality of Islam was way above and beyond what they had.” It is depressing to see this horrifying subject treated with such flippancy, especially with the awareness of the violent forced conversions that had occurred in the conquered territories. What integrity would it take for a person to say to someone that the kulaks under Stalin decided to enter into collectivized agriculture because it was “above and beyond what they had?”
You say that your “freest discussions--far more liberal than this one I am now having--were in Syria, Yemen and yes, Saudi Arabia.” To suggest that you would be freer in an open discussion in Saudi Arabia than in this symposium leaves me speechless. Everyone in this discussion knows very well what would happen to you in Saudi Arabia if you stood on a street corner and read aloud even a few random lines of this symposium.
You denounce Mr. Shoebat for being an unbeliever in Islam’s ability to “reform,” but if you are the one that would lead an Islamic Reformation, I think it would be important to reflect on one theme: What if, when Mikhail Gorbachev arrived to lead the Soviet regime, he announced that there needed to be a Glasnost, but that part of Glasnost would be the ideological stance that there was no Red Terror, no purges, that Lenin and Stalin never made one error, that there had never been any Gulag, and that anything that the Soviet regime might have done wrong had absolutely no roots in the ideas of Marxism itself?
In any case, Mr. Shoebat, go ahead.
Shoebat: Firstly, to Nawash, my arguments have nothing to do with “winning” anyone over, or with arguing about Christianity or Islam being the correct religion. I am simply exposing facts -- facts that many choose to ignore in order to achieve peace. I understand a desire to have peace, but peace can never come by watering down fact and duty towards justice. Reforming Islamdom by introducing western modern ideas is one thing, and I would love to see it accomplished, but when the term “reforming Islam” is on the table, there needs to be confession first. Nawash needs to understand that in order to solve a problem one cannot ignore the “root cause.” I admire Nawash's honesty and integrity but wonder how he proposes to Muslims as to how they should view the volumes of Quranic/Hadith text? It seems that both you and Khaleel have your proposals to re-interpret, my point is that this “interpretation” is simply a smokescreen designed as a tablet for westerners to swallow. This is obvious from Khaleel's comments – he is not interested with having the Muslim world integrate with the Judeo-Christian culture. He, like thousands of Muslim apologists, is simply an agent of the very thing we are fighting. Khaleel should be exposed as we expose CAIR and others. May I remind you that the West has already introduced "secularism" to the Muslim world after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. Yet even with western education in the Middle East, secular Muslims didn't stop the desire to annihilate Israel, which, let's not forget, was only attacked by Muslim “secular” states. Should I remind you how many times this happened? And still? Why did “secularism” fail? Turkey is a “secular” state in which Kemalists went as far to forbid veiling and also changed the calendar from the Islamic to the Gregorian calendar. Yet Turkey still is one of the worst when it comes to human rights abuses, just as we see in Syria and Iraq which committed atrocities while under a secular rule. "Rational thinking" can happen despite Islam and without attempting to try the impossible play on the text of its edicts and laws. Yet religion will always play a major roll as to how people behave. Spirituality can be a dynamo for reform or an opium that destroys. It all depends what religious source you feed your soul. Islam never brought peace. It's a historic fabrication to say so. Yes, secularism is a step forward when it comes to reforming the Muslim world, but one cannot call this a reformation to Islam. Modernity can happen despite Islam and not through re-interpreting it. You seem to agree with me - "If fair and free elections were held tomorrow, the majority of Arab countries would probably elect totalitarian leaders with an intolerant pro-Islamist agenda." So to introduce democracy would be the worst thing we can do - we shall see Iraq's near future. I agree also that "We must first expel Islamic extremists and terrorists from Arab and Muslim societies before democracy can sweep the region." May I add: minimize Muslim immigration to the west as well. I fully agree with Jamie, it's absurd to compare Jewish and Christian teachings to Islam. Khaleel your play with words "Judeo-Islamic" is a farce, especially since Judeo-Christianity's spirituality comes from a different source then the Qur’an - the Bible. The Qur’an and Hadith are foreign sources to us here. (Walid Shoebat continues. . .) Shoebat: I don't need to delve deeply into this subject to show the play on words Khaleel uses. If "the Koran says that Jews and Christians may go heaven" as Nawash claims, then why throughout the centuries and by the founders of Islam themselves, have they been forced to convert to Islam? All Christians today that I know condemn Christendom's forced conversion of Jews. Do any Muslims condemn the forced expulsion and beheading of Jews by Muhammad? Khaleel openly admitted that he doesn't. How can you then 'reform' Islam? You don't qualify sir. Nawash seems naïve in regards to Islam. Need I quote Muhammad, Ali, Abu Bakr, Uthman, and every apostle of the prophet? Why would Nawash accuse us of diversion from the topic when its Nawash who acts as oblivious of the historic facts? Especially since Islam teaches that: "Whoever prefers a religion other than Islam, it shall definitely not be accepted from him; and in the Hereafter, he shall be among the losers." (3:85) You seem to fail in separating the sweet punch from the cyanide, its a potent mixture and cannot be taken separately. You either swallow the whole pill or reject it. I did. Thank God. Reformed at last. Yes, according to the verse I quoted, previous Christians and Jews can go to heaven according to Islam. These were prior to Islam and as long as they have not participated in the unpardonable sin - Shirk. Must I delve into Shirk? No, this is not the topic of this discussion. Nawash, I beg you to study Islam, fully and carefully. I lived it to the fullest. Here's your problem - "I interpret the Koran in a way that confirms my beliefs." You have created your own Islam - why then call it Islam? You simply liberated yourself from Islam. Allahu-Akbar. Then you address the issue of Ijtihad (incorrectly spelled 'Ishtihad'
by Nawash) I have seen others such as Irshad Manji and a plethora of apologists
who try to use Ijtihad out of context. Ijtihad in Islam is the means to
address issues which have never been decided Ijtihad as defined by Islam's founder Muhammad states: [The Prophet asked:] 'How will you judge the cases It can never go beyond the Qur’an and Sunnah unless it’s an issue NOT addressed by these. Everything we are discussing here has been already addressed by Islam. By what right invoke you a new interpretation for 'Ijtihad?' I guess, and according to Nawash - it's 'Ijtihad' in the eye of the beholder
as we will see later. I wish you could go into a time-tunnel and address this issue to Islam's founder. Why would you be "disappointed in Prof. Mohammed's objection to having Christian missionaries in Saudi Arabia?" Khaleel Mohammed is, after all. a true Muslim. Then to your “reality is what's perceived in the mind'? Nawash, perception is not reality. It doesn't matter what you perceive in your mind. One cannot expect to perceive that they can fly by jumping from the roof of a building with the expectation to live when they land. I worry about what you write "reality is what ever you want it to be." Whatever you want it to be? Wow. I know for a fact that you don't really believe this - you examine that you have a chair when you sit, that the elevator works, that the door is locked - literally. Reality is trusting in an airplane to fly, not the self-induced deception you made yourself believe. I do belong in this symposium, you however better wake up from this fairytale. I love you my dear. Thank you for "not being offended" but please wake up and smell the Hummus. I love your suggestion to provoke Muslims to jealousy, but do you believe that even secular Muslims will open their doors for a Murtad (defector from the faith)? Yes, one can quote tens of flowery verses from the Qur’an, as I said, the problem is that these are abrogated by the Qur’an itself. The West which compares the Qur’an with the Bible is oblivious to this. As to Khaleel who wrote "I see no reason for Muslims to apologize for Jihad" says it all. His first 'Islamic reformation' speech stated that Jihad is “self-struggle,” challenged me to produce a single Qur’anic verse to prove otherwise, and now its “righteous killing” by Muhammad? This is the crux of the whole problem – Jihad (Muhammad killing the Jews of Medina) is part of Khalrrl's Islam. He will never attempt to “reform” it. To denounce that, will bring Khaleel under Jihad. Khaleel will NEVER denounce Khaibar massacre of Jews. This is my whole point in this discussion. No matter how you go around it, it always end up from where we started - how do you deal with Islam's founders? Khalrrl knows Jihad very well, and obviously from his own statement. As I said before, yes Jihad means “self struggle” and so does Mein Kampf. You cannot seriously make the claim that "Muslims see themselves and their religion being threatened" Where, how, and by whom? Even the evil Crusaders attacked Islam to defend Christian pilgrims, yet you seem to forget that. I wonder what makes you state this? America's war on Iraq? What? It's amazing that he labels himself as the hero with "good intentions" when he closed Muslim borders from Western “heretics.” Of course Murtads like myself are banned from entering by Khaleel, how about Dhimmis? Dhimmis according to Khaleel are the 'protected people' in need of Islam's protection. Yes “Dhimmi” means protection by paying Jizzieh, but so does the Mafia who also offers protection for money in return of services rendered. It is only when this statuesque changes, that we even can hint of reformation. Yes, countries held captive by Communism and Nazism reformed, and any country can indeed be reformed, but it's first by CONFESSION. Only by confession can healing begin.
FP: Mr. Nawash, last word goes to you. And could you kindly deal with one more thing that troubles me? You say that Mr. Shoebat is “not right” for this symposium. This greatly confuses me, as I wonder what factors must therefore be involved for a person to have the right to participate in a dialogue of this nature. An ex-Muslim terrorist shouldn’t be allowed to participate in a discussion on the possible Islamic Reformation? Or he might be "allowed" but isn't "right" for it? His views and experiences aren't relevant to this discussion? So Mr. Shoebat doesn't belong in this symposium? Then I have to ask: where does he belong? And who is, or should be, the arbiter of this matter?
Nawash: Thanks Jamie, I will answer your question in a moment. Let me conclude on a few themes first. I’ll start with your main emphasis: throughout this symposium you mentioned dhimmitude and other atrocities committed by Muslims over the last 1400 years. I assume you mention the negative side of Islam to conclude that we cannot have reform. I am willing to admit that many atrocities occurred in the name of Islam over the last 1400 years. I also believe that many good things happened and the atrocities do not mean we cannot have reform.
My favorite religious leader of the 20th century is Pope John Paul II. He has integrity, honesty and does not let foolish pride get in the way of truth. I thought it was historic of him to apologize to the world for many of the atrocities committed by Christians over the last 2000 years. I wish that the leaders of all other religions admit and apologize for the atrocities they have committed. The point here is that the atrocities committed by Muslims, including the recent ones are not unique to this world. No religion has clean hands.
Now, since no Muslim leader has yet to apologize for Muslim atrocities, I will follow the lead of Pope John Paul by apologizing for all the atrocities committed by Muslims. I am sorry for violent Jihad, I am sorry for forced conversions and I am sorry for 911. I will never forget the sight of seeing people fall from the twin towers. I can’t imagine what those people must have felt as they jumped from one of the highest buildings in the world with the irrational hope of surviving rather than face a certain death by burning. I will never forget, and I will do all to destroy the disease that created Bin Laden and all those who share his ideology.
As to Professor Mohammed, I thank you for agreeing to join the Free Muslim Coalition Against Terrorism. This symposium showed that we don’t agree on everything but then again we don’t really have to. This is the Islam I know and this is the Islam I want. An Islam that is tolerant of other opinions no matter what they are even if the opinions called God a fraud.
As to Mr. Shoebat, I can’t help but feel a certain brotherly love towards you. In many ways we have the same background. I was born in Bethlehem as a Palestinian and lived there for nine years until I moved to the United States. I feel your anger and think it is probably justified. The last time I visited Palestine, Israel and Jordan, I felt the same anger. I saw the intolerance and the hard headedness that made it difficult to have a rational conversation with anyone. Muslims in the Middle East have become so obsessed with Islam that they almost behave as a cult. This did not exist in the 70’s. When I came back from the Middle East I felt the same anger and disgust that you feel now. In fact, for two years, I left Islam and no longer wanted to be a Muslim. I went out of my way to make sure Muslims knew that I left the religion. I guess I thought that would be the only thing that would wake them up.
However, leaving Islam neither gave me peace of mind nor reduced my anger. I continued to be angry as you continue to be angry even after you left Islam. Two years after I left Islam I came back. I refused to let those crazy fanatical bastards win. Just like HAMAS and Bin Laden interpreted the religion according to their ideological prisms without seeking my input, I saw no reason why I could not do the same. I founded the Free Muslim Coalition Against Terrorism and I fight for reform and against extremism day and night. I have never been so happy. To my surprise, I learned that their were thousands of Muslims who shared my views. People who are secular, who live and let live, who do not want to see Israel destroyed and who do not feel victimized by the world.
Mr. Shoebat, please forgive me for saying that you were not right for this symposium. I genuinely believe that perception is reality and if you genuinely believe that some thing can be done that you will do everything you can to accomplish that goal. I believe that reform can take place and I will do everything I can to make it a reality. You on the other hand do not and thus you will not do anything to make reform a reality.
Mr. Shoebat, please accept my invitation and join me and Mr. Mohammed in the Free Muslim Coalition Against Terrorism. No, I don’t want you to convert to Islam. I want you to join us as a proud Christian. You are an intelligent man and I think you would make a great asset to our organization and the goal of Islamic Reformation. Please turn your anger into constructive criticism. Join our battle for tolerance, freedom and reform so in the end we can all sing: Free at last, free at last, thank God almighty we are free at last.
FP: Thank you Mr. Nawash for your moving and powerful statement. I’d like to say that in no way have I mentioned dhimmitude and other violent sides of Islam to conclude that there cannot be Islamic reform. But if individuals on this panel are going to brush off dhimmitude and other terrible ingredients of Islam as if they are irrelevant, let alone non-existent, and then argue that “everyone does it” and that it has nothing to do with Islam, then I do not know how we can move forward.
As Mr. Shoebat has affirmed, I think we need confession before redemption or real change. Dostoevsky’s Raskolnikov didn’t achieve redemption until he recognized, in his heart, that his crime was wrong and until he uttered, in his heart, the words mea culpa. And from the Islamic word we need a mea culpa and a nostra culpa, and an individual like you, Mr. Nawash, in your last statement, has started the process, so I extend my hand to you, as irrelevant as I am.
I very much believe we need to reach out to moderate Muslims. Not just because our love for one another is important in and of itself, but because we are on the same side in this war. And Mr. Nawash, your organization, The Free Muslim Coalition Against Terrorism, is doing remarkable and commendable work everyday, denouncing terror and fighting Islamic extremism wordwide. So we wish you the best success and growth and hope you can have a profound impact on the Muslim community in every society.
Well gentlemen, our time is up. Walid Shoebat, Kamal Nawash and Kaleel Mohammed, it was a pleasure. Thank you for being here and we’ll see you again soon.
Previous Symposiums:
KGB Resurrection: Guests: Mihai Pacepa, James Woolsey and Vladimir Bukovsky.
The War on Terror: How Are We Doing? Guests: Robert Leiken, Daniel Pipes and Michael Ledeen.
The Koran and Anti-Semitism: Guests: Bat Ye'or, Khaleel Mohammed and Robert Spencer.
A Tale of Two Wars: Guests: David Kaiser, Stephen J. Morris and Michael Rubin.
The Muslim Convert: Guests: Thomas Haidon, Nonie Darwish and Walid Shoebat.
|