Tawfik Hamid in the Jerusalem Post (thanks to all who sent this in) reveals how he became a jihadist, and his trajectory follows exactly what I have explained here many times: as he grows more devout, and studies the Qur'an and Muhammad's example, he tends more and more toward jihadist views and hatred of non-Muslims. That's why it's so critical for Muslims who claim to reject all this to do a searching reevaluation and reinterpretation of core texts of Islam, as Hamid is doing. But the likelihood of this on a large scale is virtually nil.
What occupies the mind of a jihad-driven Muslim? How is such fervor planted in young and impressionable believers? Where does it originate? How did I - once an innocent child who grew up in a liberal, moderate and educated household - find myself a member of a radical Islamic group? These questions go to the root of Islamic violence and must be addressed if free societies are to combat radical Islam. To further this aim, I will explore the psychological development of a jihadi's mind through my own firsthand experience as a former member of a Muslim terrorist organization.I was born in Cairo to a secular Muslim family. My father was an orthopedic surgeon and an agnostic at heart; my mother was a French teacher and a liberal. Both considered Islam to be, primarily, an integral part of our culture. With the exception of my father, we would fast on Ramadan. Even though my father was not religious, he understood our need to fit into the community and never forced his secular views on us. He espoused diverse philosophical ideas but encouraged us to follow our own convictions. Most importantly, he taught my brother and me to think critically rather than to learn by rote.
I never had any doubt, however, that we were Muslim - that Allah was our creator, Muhammad his messenger and the Koran our book. I believed that if I performed good deeds, I would be admitted to paradise where I could satisfy all my personal desires. I also knew, alternatively, that my transgressions would be punished by eternal torture in hell. I absorbed these beliefs largely from the surrounding environment rather than from my parents; they were shared by most children around me.
I attended the private Al-Rahebat primary school in the area of Dumiat, which is about 200 kilometers north of Cairo, when I was six years old. Though managed by Christian nuns, the school was supervised by the Egyptian government and required its Muslim students to attend classes on Islam.
Before each Islamic lesson began, the teacher would dismiss the Christian students, who were then obliged to linger outside the room until the lesson was over. Adding salt to the Christian children's wounds, many Muslim pupils would tease them for their faith - telling them that they would burn in hell eternally because they ate pork and were "infidels." This made a strong impression on me. I felt sorry for the Christians, sensing that they must be hurt by being treated as an inferior minority in an Islamic society. In my short life it was the first time I perceived that my Christian friends were not my equals. My parents had never suggested that we were superior to Christians, and I counted many among my friends. We used to play hide-and-seek and other games together.
Not only Christian children in the school were persecuted, however; non-practicing Muslims were scorned as well. Observant Muslim children would gather around those who did not fast during Ramadan and sing, "You who eat or drink during Ramadan are the losers of our religious... the black dog will tear apart your guts." Such treatment of Christians and nonpracticing Muslims encouraged us to think that nonbelievers were inferior creatures and that it was right to hate them - they did not follow Islam and the Prophet Muhammad and, therefore, deserved to be tortured in hell forever. Though my secular upbringing prevented these thoughts from entirely dominating my mind at the time, other children were affected even more.
Beginning of a Dream
When I was nine, I learned the following Koranic verse during one of our Arabic lessons: "But do not think of those that have been slain in God's cause as dead. Nay, they are alive! With their sustainer have they their sustenance. They are very happy with the reward they received from Allah [for dying as a shahid] and they rejoice for the sake of those who have not joined them [i.e., have not yet died for Allah]" (Koran 3:169-70).
It was the first time I was exposed to the concept of shahid (martyr), and naturally, I began to dream of becoming one. The thought of entering paradise very much appealed to me. There I could eat all the lollipops and chocolates I wanted, or play all day without anyone telling me to study.
What made the concept of shahid even more attractive was its power to quell the fear I experienced as a young boy - for we were taught that if we were not good Muslims (especially if we did not pray five times a day), a "bald snake" would attack us in the grave. The idea of dying as a martyr provided a perfect escape from the frightening anguish of eternal punishment. Dying as a shahid, in fact, was the only deed that fully guaranteed paradise after death.
In secondary school I watched films about the early Islamic conquest. These films promoted the notion that "true" Muslims were devoted to aggressive jihad. While jihadi seeds were thereby planted in my mind, they did not yet seriously influence my personality or behavior. I was mostly occupied with schoolwork and such hobbies as sports, stamp collecting, chess and music. My father actively encouraged my brother and me to participate in ordinary activities. In fact, we were members of an exclusive private club where we pursued our hobbies and favorite sports. In my early years of high school, I was also - as many teenagers are - preoccupied with sex and hobbies. A variety of religious and cultural constraints made it virtually impossible to experience sexual activity, however.
During my last year of high school, I began to ponder seriously the concept of God while reading about the molecular structure of DNA in a biology book.
These thoughts prompted me to learn more about Islam and to devote myself to serving Allah. I remember one particularly defining moment in an Arabic language class when I was sitting beside a Christian friend named Nagi Anton. I was reading a book entitled Alshaykhan by Taha Hussein that cited the Prophet Muhammad's words: "I have been ordered by Allah to fight and kill all people [non-Muslims] until they say, 'No God except Allah.'" Following the reading of this Hadith, I decisively turned toward Nagi and said to him, "If we are to apply Islam correctly, we should apply this Hadith to you." At that moment I suddenly started to view Nagi as an enemy rather than as a longtime friend.
What further hardened my attitude on this matter was the advice I received from many dedicated Muslim fellow students, who warned me against befriending Christians. They based their counsel on the following verse: "O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends: They are but friends to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them [for friendship] is of them [an infidel]. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust" (Koran 5:51).
In view of this verse and the previous one, I felt obliged as a Muslim to limit my relationships with my Christian friends. The love and friendship I once felt for them had been transformed into disrespect, merely because I wished to obey the commandments of my religion. The seductive ideas of my religious studies had diluted the influence of my secular upbringing. By restricting my contact with Christians, I felt that I was doing a great deed to satisfy Allah.
[...]
By immersing myself in Salafi ideology, I was better able to judge the impact of its violent tenets on the minds of its followers. Among the more appalling notions it supports are the enslavement and rape of female war prisoners and the beating of women to discipline them. It permits polygamy and pedophilia. It refers to Jews as "pigs and monkeys" and exhorts believers to kill them before the end of days: Say: "Shall I tell you who, in the sight of God, deserves a yet worse retribution than these? Those [the Jews] whom God has rejected and whom He has condemned, and whom He has turned into monkeys and pigs because they worshiped the powers of evil: these are yet worse in station, and farther astray from the right path [than the mockers]" (Koran 5:60). Homosexuals are to be killed as well; to cite one of many examples, on July 19, 2000, two gay teenagers were hanged in Iran for no other crime than being gay.
These doctrines are not taken out of context, as many apologists for Islamism argue: They are central to the faith and ethics of millions of Muslims, and are currently being taught as part of the standard curriculum in many Islamic educational systems in the Middle East as well in the West.
Moreover, there is no single approved Islamic textbook that contradicts or provides an alternative to the passages I have cited. It has thus become clear to me that Salafi ideology is what is largely responsible for the so-called "clash of civilizations." Consequently, I have chosen to combat Salafism by exposing it and by providing an alternative, peaceful and theologically rigorous interpretation of the Koran.
My reformist approach naturally challenges well-established Salafi tenets, and leads Muslims who follow Salafi Islam to reject me. Why? I have not altered the Koran itself. My system is simply one of inline commentary, in which dangerous passages are flagged and reinterpreted to be nonviolent. I have added these inline interpretations to key Koranic passages and examples of the commentary are freely and easily available.
For over 15 years I have tried to preach my views in mosques in the Middle East, as well as to my local community in the West, but have faced the unwavering hostility of most Salafi Muslims in both regions. Muslims who live in the West - who insist to outsiders that Islam is a "religion of peace" and who enjoy freedom of expression, which they demand from their Western hosts - have threatened me with murder and arson. I have had to choose between accepting violent Salafi views and being rejected by the overwhelming majority of my fellow Muslims.
I have chosen the latter....
Read it all.
Where are Karen Armstrong, Farfour Fibrahim, John Esposito, Jimmy Carter, and all those useful idiots who say that Islam "condemns terrorrism"? Let them stand up and "correct" Tawfik Hamid.
By the way, Robert, your post about the VB and the BNP has generated a lot of heat. You should consider opening a new thread.
God bless
People should read the whole article. They will remember how the Salafists give one interpretation within the community while smiling to outsiders, who are reassured.
The doctor seeks to maintain the tradition, for personal identity. Is that the right response, when today's Muslims are descendants of those who essentially were pressured into it?
StillBreathing,
The whole article was a good read. I just wonder what these people think of their teachers. Ayman al-Zawahiri never strapped a bomb on himself. What about those old sheikhs who died in their sleep? If this life is so meaningless then why do they care what others do?
Consider the possibilities: These thoughts of jihad and conquest fall on fertile ground,i.e., in a culture that already values violence, retribition, slavery, sexism, sexual perversion, bigamy, theft, rape, murder, and has for thousands of years. Should we be surprised then that some delusional desert wanderer codified these base human desires into a "religion" that requires them?
A typical muslim man couldn't ask for anything better..... a license to do everything you want, and a promise of more debauchary if you succeed.
The devil does nice work.
"These doctrines are not taken out of context, as many apologists for Islamism argue: They are central to the faith and ethics of millions of Muslims, and are currently being taught as part of the standard curriculum in many Islamic educational systems in the Middle East as well in the West.
Moreover, there is no single approved Islamic textbook that contradicts or provides an alternative to the passages I have cited. It has thus become clear to me that Salafi ideology is what is largely responsible for the so-called "clash of civilizations." Consequently, I have chosen to combat Salafism by exposing it and by providing an alternative, peaceful and theologically rigorous interpretation of the Koran.
My reformist approach naturally challenges well-established Salafi tenets, and leads Muslims who follow Salafi Islam to reject me. Why? I have not altered the Koran itself. My system is simply one of inline commentary, in which dangerous passages are flagged and reinterpreted to be nonviolent. I have added these inline interpretations to key Koranic passages and examples of the commentary are freely and easily available.
For over 15 years I have tried to preach my views in mosques in the Middle East, as well as to my local community in the West, but have faced the unwavering hostility of most Salafi Muslims in both regions. Muslims who live in the West - who insist to outsiders that Islam is a "religion of peace" and who enjoy freedom of expression, which they demand from their Western hosts - have threatened me with murder and arson. I have had to choose between accepting violent Salafi views and being rejected by the overwhelming majority of my fellow Muslims."
-- from the article above
As a Bildungsroman (truncated version), where young Tawfik Hamid, the child of parents who, by Muslim standards, are liberal and, in the case of the father, even tending to freedom of thought, interests and enlightens.
As, however, a guide to what might be done by would-be "reformers" of Islam it falters. It falters not because Tawfik Hamid is a fake. No, he isn't. He is not one of those Bright Young Muslim Things, the ones who keep getting every conceivable foundation grant, especially from places like Carnegie (Andrew Carnegie, thou shouldst be living at this hour to see who is getting your money) and government funds (Moderate Muslim Young Reformers, Ready and Willing to Change Islam, Any Minute Now (just as soon as they get a little more Infidel money, in order to get the whole package together, and the whole ball rolling) of the -- well, just google "Khaled Abou el Fadl" and "Hugh Fitzgerald" for one representative example of a Muslim Sammy Glick playing the system.
But his own description of his attempts to re-interpret the "bad passages" in the Qur'an show how impossible his task, the task of those who claim there is a way to "reform" Islam, is.
For by Tawfik Hamid's own admission, "these doctrines" -- the doctrines that preach endless hostility towards or even murderous hate towards, Infidels, have not been teased out of the Qur'an by torturous interpretive methods. Rather, these "doctrines" are presented as part of the essence of Islam, in any straightforward and full reading of the Qur'an, a doctrine of hostlity to all non-Muslims, a worldview that divides humanity into Muslims and non-Muslims, and requires of the former that they recognize that they are in a state of permanent war (if not always of open warfare) with non-Muslims, as long as those non-Muslims put up any barriers -- from those of the laic French state to the principles of individual freedom enshrined in the Bill of Rights -- to the spread, and then the dominance, by right, of Islam, and rule by Muslims.
Tawfik Hamid recognizes this:
"These doctrines [those of hatred for Infidels] are not taken out of context, as many apologists for Islamism argue: They are central to the faith and ethics of millions of Muslims, and are currently being taught as part of the standard curriculum in many Islamic educational systems in the Middle East as well in the West."
But then he follows with a paragraph that requires attention and comment:
"Moreover, there is no single approved Islamic textbook that contradicts or provides an alternative to the passages I have cited. It has thus become clear to me that Salafi ideology is what is largely responsible for the so-called "clash of civilizations." Consequently, I have chosen to combat Salafism by exposing it and by providing an alternative, peaceful and theologically rigorous interpretation."
The first sentence is true: "there is no single approved Islamic textbook that contradicts or provides an alternative to the passages I have cited." Indeed, one could go furthyer. There is NO Islamic textbook that contradicts or provides an alternative to the passages" he, Tawfik Hamid, has cited. There are, and Ataturk made sure there were, truncated, heavily censored books -- but those of course are easily seen through, for it is impossible for any regime, Muslim or non-Muslim, to hide forever, to block out forever, what is available in published form, or for that matter, nowadays, on the irrepressible world-wide web.'
Yet, having stated, quite truthfully, that these sinister doctrines, this inculcated hate for Infidels, and the implied duty of Jihad to subjugate their lands, and them, to the dominance of Islam and of Muslims, having conceded that "[these doctrines are not taken out of context, as many apologists for Islamism argue: They are central to the faith and ethics of millions of Muslims, and are currently being taught as part of the standard curriculum" and having further admitted that "there is no single approved Islamic textbook that contradicts or provides an alternative to the passages" he, Tawfik Hamid, has cited, he then picks a word out of the fashionable ether, a word that is meant to take the sting out of his indictment of Islam, and to pretend that there is a particular variant that somehow is the only one we need to worry about, when Tawfik Hamid has just insisted on the very opposite.
And that word is "Salafi." For note how, by sleight of word, in the paragraph below, he simply glides from his truthful presentation of "Islam" -- which was given in preceding paragraphs, and in the first sentence of the following paragraph, at which point a rhetorical presto-chango is performed, and the blame that has been laid at the door of Islam is now placed at another door, that of a specific "version" of Islam that Tawfik Hamid, or his audience, are supposed to believe represents a particular interpretation of Islam that, because of its presumed limited appeal, and its presumed "differences" from mainstream Islam, can be managed of only we attack it, that particular version.
Here is how he does it, almost unwittingly:
"Moreover, there is no single approved Islamic textbook that contradicts or provides an alternative to the passages I have cited. It has thus become clear to me that Salafi ideology is what is largely responsible for the so-called "clash of civilizations." Consequently, I have chosen to combat Salafism by exposing it and by providing an alternative, peaceful and theologically rigorous interpretation of the Koran."
So there it is. After having shown us that the doctrines he, Tawfik Hamid, deplores, are part of mainstream Islam, doctrines that are "central to the faith" of millions of Muslims [actually, the figure should be "hundreds of millions" of Muslims, or, still more accurately, "nearly all Muslims" of those who claim to be Believers and not merely "cultural" Musliims] and that no "textbooks" in Islamic schools oppose those doctrines, teach against those doctrines [save for some who belong to quite small and tangential sects, such as the Islamiyya followers of the Aga Khan], Tawfik Hamid reaches for the crutch of "Salafis" and "Salafism."
All of a sudden, he who had been so straightforward about Islam now deviates into nonsense, and undoes, or appears to, the no-nonsense truth-telling he had just engaged in. For what is "Salafism"? Can Tawfik Hamid describe to us the doctrines of "Salafism" and distinguish those doctrines from the very same "Islam" -- mainstream Islam -- that he had been analyzing so critically before? Or is this sudden sweve toward "Salafism" as the problem, "Salafism" as the thing against which he, Tawfik Hamid, will now direct his attention, meant purely as a rhetorical strategy, based on the recognition that Islam itself is hopelessly malign, but that he, Tawfik Hamid, chooses not to "defect" from the Army of Islam by becoming an open apostate, but rather will "work within the system" to convince other Muslims that there is this bad thing called "Salafism" and that they, who could not possibly renounce Islam, will somehow be able to deal with the malign and aggressive doctrines of mainstream Islam by playing a game of let's-pretend: Let's pretend it all comes from this "Salafism" that we hear so much about, often from those, among the policy-makers in Washington (and some in Iraq), who are far less truthful about mainstream Islam than is the good-hearted, and well-intentioned, Tawfik Hamid.
Unless and until Tawfik Hamid, or others, can offer us what variants on the Qur'an, on the compilations of Hadith by the most authoritative muhaddithin (al-Bukhari, Muslim), on the Sira, constitute the "Salafi" versions, unless they can tell us in what way -- not with a vague wave of the rhetorical hand but in detail -- those "Salafi" versions of Qu'ran, Hadith, and Sira differ from the mainstream versions a billion Muslims know about, even if they have not read thoroughly what are in those texts (it is enough for most of them that they "know" they are "Muslims" and once that identity has been established, all kinds of other dangerous things may follow)- then we shall have to admire him, to sympathize with him, to wish him well, but not to accept his own attempt at an intellectual sleight-of-mind by attributing to "Salafism" what in fact -- and he surely must know it -- is to be attributed to Islam.
What did Mohammad bring to the world but the evil of conversion - or serfdom and utter subjugation- under the threat of the sword?
You can try to wish away the core tenets of Islam, but you leave only an empty, p.c. shell.
Best to abandon this rotten-timbered vessel and swim over to the more stable and peaceful ships of either Taoism, or Buddhism, or Christianity, or modern Judaism.
They won't send you on dogmatic death marches.
It's the Islam, stupid.
Or should I say dreamer?
Why should Tawfik Hamid denounce Salafism and not all Islamic sects that propegated all their "ism?"
It's Hamid's bogus donunciation of Salafism.
No Muslim can denounce Salafism not not embrace all the violence and hate of Koran.
After all Salafis are those who espouse "Salaf", meaning ancestor. Basically, Salafi is an ancestorism who belief everything as Mohammed practiced.
Salafi is all created to strenghten Koran. It doesn't matter whether Hamid denounce Salafi, all the rest still espouse poligamy. Like Salafism, there are many isms sprung from great Islamic theologeons, such as Hanifa, Al-shafi, Hanbal, and Malec. All these four bred thousands who affirm Koranic verse.
Crap, you cannot love Qur'an and hate Salafism. Salaf gives the truest and best of Mohammed's practices.
I suggest Tawfik Hamid to foresake Islam all together like his non-believing father.
Not just Islamic "textbooks" but Islamic law, scholarly consensus that fixes these doctrines forever and provides no basis for changing them.
Who were the Salaf if not what Muhammad called "the best Muslims", his generation and the two that would follow him?
..."Crap, you cannot love Qur'an and hate Salafism. Salaf gives the truest and best of Mohammed's practices.
Posted by: ssa "
...THe Qur'an is a confused piece of hate and that may be the reason there are so many Muslims sects attacking one another over it....
..."My Islam is better than Your Islam"
..."Is NOt"
..."IS too"
..."Is Not"
....BOOOM!, sudden explosion of suicide belt or car bomb....
..."My Islam is better than Your Islam"
..."Is NOt"
..."IS too"
..."Is Not"
....BOOOM!, sudden explosion of suicide belt or car bomb....
..."My Islam is better than Your Islam"
.....
I don't trust a reformer who has not reformed his opinion of Allah. No muslim would dare do that, so the beat goes on...
It may be that secretly Tawfik has crossed the Rubicon but doesn't want to notify his kith that he's an apostate. Oh hell, what does it matter, anyway? The Ummah, the best of the best, is torn asunder by endless death and destruction from their brethren. It doesn't matter if he became an apostate, he's a dead man walking any way you look at it.
That's right, Hugh. It's not Salafism per se. I know that, but when I wrote my letter to the Jerusalem Post commenting, I know I have zero chance to get it published if I state the truth: That Dr. Hamid has zero chance of changing Islam and that the trouble with Islam is Islam. The Post won't publish purely negative letters, so I have to compromise in a sly way...
I feel sorry for Dr. Hamid. He's a decent guy in an indecent culture.
...the more I read the words of any speech given by a Muslim...I find myself doing more and more micro managing and spending more and more time looking for the DAWA or TAQQIYYA, OR "tu quoque”....each have similiar yet different definitions at the same time.....
....as you study the tactics of the Islamists you begin to easily be able to decipher the "Islamo cryptics" whenever a Muslim speaks....what you hear is actually different than what is being said...you become adept at "reading between the lines"...you become able to differentiate fact from fiction....
...you become the Islamists worse nightmare...an Infidel who knows the truth about Islam...
Ban Muslim Immigration...
Can Tawfik Hamid describe to us the doctrines of "Salafism" and distinguish those doctrines from the very same "Islam" -- mainstream Islam -- that he had been analyzing so critically before?
by Hugh
He seemed to be distinguishing between Salafis and Sufis. The implication was that Sufis liked music and art and all that and were inherently more "peaceful". The unanswered question is what a world of Sufi Muslims means for the rest of us.
" The unanswered question is what a world of Sufi Muslims means for the rest of us.
Posted by: PMK"
....life unlike anything you now enjoy....possibly no life as you know it now...or just possibly no life a'tall....
...life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness?>...forget about it....
I hope there will be no crude criticism of Tawfik Hamid. He's trying, he's well-intentioned. He makes valuable remarks. A kind of artist, with an impossible medium to work in, one who "works in the dark" and who "does what he can." He is not attempting to deliberately mislead Infidels. He is, in the main, misleading himself or, if not, he may possibly, out of motives that we can all understand, possibly hoping to mislead Muslims as a way to get them not to take Islam as they naturally do. It's a tall order. I was focussing on the illogicality of it, because I am convinced it is more important, at this point, to make sure a sufficient number of Infidels fully understand Islam.
And like Tawfik Hamid, I understand the need to persuade Muslims that there is something that needs changing in Islam. He focusses on the notion of "another interpretation."
I take a different view, based on the belief that the Camp of Islam can be divided and demoralized. But that can only happen if the Infidels of this world understand what Islam is all about, and how it is naturally -- not unnaturally -- received by Believers. Then, one can help non-Arab Muslims -- who make up 80% of the world's Muslim population -- to see what it is about Islam that makes in a vehicle for Arab supremacism, Arab linguistic and cultural imperialism, as well as -- here and there -- a political and economic imperialism.
The ultimate goal that can be achieved only if Infidels grasp the nature of Islam. They need to understand that Islam itself, not "Salafism," encourages the habit of mental submission, its crushes of many forms of artistic expression, punishes free and skeptical inquiry (which leads, inevitably, to the flourishing of very kind of conspiracy theory, and of attribution of blame for everthing to Infidels), emphases the Umma and the collective and has no interest in the Muslim Believer as an individual, celebrates aggression, especially military conquest, and encourages a victor-or-vanquished view of possible outcomes in every contest, and because it is based on a text, the Qur'an, deemed to be the immutable word of God, glossed by other texts (the Hadith, the Sira) that constitute the Sunnah and that also could only with the greatest difficulty be revised, or in the case of the Hadith its constitute stories re-assigned different levels of likelihood, of "authenticity," based on those isnad-chains.
Tawfik Hamid simply offers one example of the dilemma. Call it The Prisoner's Dilemma.
In the article, Mr. Hamid mentions that he has been working on Qur'an commentaries which specifically re-interpret troublesome passages to make them non-violent. Does anyone have links to examples of this brave reformist commentary?
Got to give Tawfik Hamid credit; he is at least trying to bring some reform to Islam, but it's going to be pretty difficult to reinterpret all those troublesome passages in the Koran. If the Koran says Black is Black, how are you going to convince anyone that it really says Black is white.
I don't think Mr. Hamid's efforts are going to bear much fruit in the short or long run.
I had already begun to notice, over two years ago, this use of "Salafism" as a mechanism to deflect criticism away from Islam. The only reason I might be inclined to give Tawfik Hamid the benefit of the doubt and consider him to be sincere in his "sleight-of-word" as Fitzgerald calls it, is that it assumes such an extraordinary degree of cleverness and perseverence on Hamid's part. However, this is not an abstract academic debate. This is life or death, we know from the likes of Fethullah Gulen that the "war is deception" ideal in Islam is dead serious and deadly elaborate, that many Muslims have an unusual capacity for patience to wait to strike, and the stakes are too high to pat the Hamids (or the Haidons) on the head and say "good Muslim, here's a lollipop for inching along in mental evolution even if you still can't stand up and walk."
That's why it's so critical for Muslims who claim to reject all this to do a searching reevaluation and reinterpretation of core texts of Islam, as Hamid is doing.
Except Muslims do not have a mandate within Islam for reevaluating and reinterprenting these core texts.
Spencer, who obviously has sufficient knowledge about Islam to know this, nevertheless proceeds to imply that Muslims somehow have this possibility. His statement cannot be taken in good faith, as he has to realize it makes him an Islam apologist and by consequence a useful idiot for the jihadists. The question is what motivates him to suggest that there is a possibility for reevaluation and reinterpretation of core Islamic texts when no such potential actually exists.
Salafi or not ... The fact is that this piece of news is a shocher for anyone. The passages that he refers to his Christian friends is very strong. I am sharing it widely.
Robert's headline for this article is highly ironic, in light of one of the passages within it (I 'read it all', as instructed).
Hamid writes, of his entry into Jamaah Islamiyah:
"On the way there Muchtar emphasized the central importance in Islam of the concept of *al-fikr kufr*, *the idea that the very act of thinking (fikr) makes one become an infidel (kufr). (In Arabic both words are derived from the same three root letters but have different meanings.)*
"He told me, "Your brain is just like a donkey [a symbol of inferiority in the Arab culture] that can get you only to the palace door of the king [Allah]. To enter the palace once you have reached the door, you should leave the donkey [your inferior mind] outside."
By this parable, Muchtar meant that a truly dedicated Muslim NO LONGER THINKS [my emphasis added] but automatically obeys the teachings of Islam."
Hugh's frequent observation that Islam stifles the life of the mind, is here confirmed in spades.
Do we now understand a little better the hysterical reaction of Muslims worldwide to Benedict 16th's Regensburg address?
A further observation.
I now also understand the obsession with beheading.
Down through history, Muslims have beheaded perhaps hundreds of thousands, even millions, of Infidels.
But they have beheaded themselves, first. If one must leave one's brains, one's mind, outside, in order to enter allah's house; if the very act of thinking, FKR, is seen as an act of unbelief, KFR, then, figuratively speaking, the good Muslim who tries to stop himself from thinking and questioning is cutting off his own head.
I still want to know how it is possible to worship Allah in moderation. How it is possible to dis-obey Allah's directions (Quran), and the examples of Mohammad, and remain a muslim? How is it possible to rewrite Allah's words, and replace them with your own? It may be brave to face down other muslims over this, but facing down Allah is another matter.
I don't think any muslim is prepared for that.
The very contemplation of these by some muslims show that more muslims are beginning to question.
The age of communication is upon them as well as infidels. For a concerned or unhappy (with Islam as is) muslim, realizes that there is no cure for what ails them but apostasy, they will apostate.
Challenging anything to do with the Qurans absolute authority is already apostasy. A muslim who is afraid of Allah's wrath after apostasy, has not released Allah, or has not been released by him.
Once an apostate realizes he no longer needs to fear Allah, he realizes he will live. This reminds me of an episode on the sit com Taxi, when Judd Hersh was going do his first skydive. He jumped out of the plane, as he was falling he was shouting, 'I'm going to die', I'm going to die!!!
Then he pulled the cord and the chute opened, and he exclaimed, 'I'm going to live', I'm going to live'. An apostate who has cut the cord with Allah, is going to live. Allah won't/can't kill him, but a crazed relative might so caution is needed.
It is proper to encourage muslims to be moderates. When many of them, who in principal agree, realize this is not actually possible, they will apostate.
The more the better...
Except Muslims do not have a mandate within Islam for reevaluating and reinterprenting these core texts.
anonymous,
And why does that matter? Mohammad was a man. Whether or not it came from Allah, the koran was transcribed and passed down from generation to generation by fallible humans. It didn't fall out of the sky completely written. It has been copied and recopied. It was written in a dialect that has changed over a millenium. It was written for a nomadic people in a desert land. Muslims living in the 21st century are free to reinterpret the words if they choose. That's the point. IF THEY CHOOSE! Muslims have it within their power to change. The potential most certainly does exist. The problem (and the tragedy) is that it won't be realized.
After Mohammad died, his followers fought against each other to grab power. All his followers were illiterate robbers and murderers, except, Abu Bakr, who was a businessman. He knew that Koran was never properly written because he over heard the conversation between the prophet and his scribe, Ibn Masoud:
"Messenger of Allah, why is the page, you told me to write yesterday, dissappeared?" said ibn Masoud.
"Uh, Allah changed his mind. Now, the message has been abrogated," said the prophet.
Abu Bakr knew that Koran was a mess, so he summoned Zaid Ibn Thabit to rewrite to salvage it, but Thabit did no better. The revision continued until 3rd Khalif Othman came to power. After all the revisions, the Koran was still a mess, but the 3rd Khalif Othman had enough of it, he put a stop to it by proclaiming that the Koran is Immutable. Ever since the 3rd Khalif Othman nothing could be added or subtracted from Koran. Though there are non-sense words un-founded in Arabic language you can find in it, no one could ever erase it. At the time, the sword was used to solve all their Koranic problems. It happened to work in their favor that Islam become empire. When Abbas came to power in Iraq during the 800's, he realized that the foreigners had more power to reason than Arabs; he knew he could not depend on the incoherent Koran alone to maintain his power over the subjugated, but he also could not add or subtract from it, so he paid Al-Bukhari to do nothing but travel and write to interpret nonsensical Koran, to make sense out of it. Had it not been for an interpretation, the Koran would have been thrown out into the sea and could have been no more.
Al-Bukhari was a student of one of the four theologians I mentioned in my earlier posting above. The four theologians above had been educated, by their subjugated foreigners, in logical reasoning. The four employed reasoning to counter westerners refutations to resurrect the "Would have been Dead" Koran.
How many more versions of interpretations of Koran do you need? Why can't you just let die?
PMK seemingly doesn't know (or perhaps doesn't care himself, and just assumes that true, devout Muslims don't care either) about the Quran's status as the perfect, immutable, eternally word of Allah, whose authenticity no Muslim is allowed to question lest he becomes an apostate. Muslims therefore cannot choose to reinterpret its words as they wish and still remain Muslims.
Of course Muslims as human beings have it within their power to change themselves and their behaviour, but they can only change their adherence to Islam and its texts, and not Islam itself.
It would seem we have a living, breathing moderate on our hands here.
Engagement with and encouragement of thinkers like this is an important first step towards sociological change in the broader Muslim population. I will readily admit this is a strategy for the extreme long term.
Anonymous: Spencer, who obviously has sufficient knowledge about Islam to know this, nevertheless proceeds to imply that Muslims somehow have this possibility.
He's asking that Muslims do the work to make this possible.
Anonymous: His statement cannot be taken in good faith, as he has to realize it makes him an Islam apologist and by consequence a useful idiot for the jihadists.
Islam apologist? Useful idiot? Not in good faith? If those are his aims, he's sure going about achieving them in a curious way. Writing books and operating a website critical of the violent theology is hardly an apologist's approach.
Anonymous: The question is what motivates him to suggest that there is a possibility for reevaluation and reinterpretation of core Islamic texts when no such potential actually exists.
Perhaps he is motivated to maintain a firm and principled stance which would support to those Muslims who really do want to reevaluate and reinterpret the core Islamic texts.
Your make assertions of Islamic complicity and choose to ignore his acknowledgment that " the likelihood of this on a large scale is virtually nil. "
A more pertinent question is: what motivates you to make these charges?
While I have my own doubts about the possibility of Islamic reform from the inside and ideas about how to give Muslims the 'incentive' to take hold of their religion and bring it under control, labeling Robert an apologist is dishonest and counter productive.
Tawfik Hamid is a courageous man and he has said many valuable things: "Muslim terrorists kill & slaughter, not because of what they experience but because of what they believe...it has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with poverty or lack of education...those who do the killing are wealthy, privileged, educated and free...stop asking what you have done wrong. Stop it! They're slaughtering you like sheep and you still look within. You criticize your history, your institutions, your churches. Why can't you realize that it has nothing to do with what you have done but with what they want?"
Nazi's believed in the master race. Muslims believe in the master faith.
Both are equally evil.
First--see the original, with complete citations of the Qur'an and Hadith, at page 11 here: http://www.futureofmuslimworld.com/docLib/20070606_CT5v2.pdf)
The logic of this interesting read breaks down when Hamid writes of becoming a "Qur'anist."
Up until this point, Hamid provides no fewer than 14 passages from the Qur'an as part of explaining how the "extremists" use the Qur'an to justify their actions:
Then, all of a sudden, we're to believe that Qur'anists, who "strictly adhered to the teachings of the Qur'an but rejected other writings," "opened [his] eyes." Come again? The 14 passages above came right from the Qur'an. And in fact, one of them was of course 33:21, explaining that Muhammad was the perfect role model, the same Qur'anic verse the lends so much weight to the Hadith.
All of a sudden, after rigorous citations of the Qur'an to explain the "Salafist" view, his arguments for this peaceful interpretation degenerate into hand-waving.
The Qur'anists
So why not give just one example of how the Qur'anists are able to provide a "peaceful analysis" of the 14 verses he cited earlier?
He writes that "Among the more appalling notions it [Salafism] supports are ... beating of women to discipline them. It permits polygamy..." Just a few paragraphs earlier he cited the Qur'an as the justification for this behavior, yet the Qur'anists, the ones who "strictly adher to the Qur'an," are our great hope? Come again?
Ultimately I wish Hamid well but his approach seems quite hopeless. In one breath he explains that the "Salafist" interpretation of the Qur'an is "not taken out of context," is "central to the faith and ethics of millions of Muslims," and that "no single approved textbook contradicts or provides an alternative to the passages I have cited."
Yet at the same time, he believes/hopes that those same passages can be interpreted differently, that a "peaceful interpretation is possible," without saying exactly what that interpretation is. It may be possible, but that it would be convincing does not follow.
Quran's status as the perfect, immutable, eternally word of Allah
Anonymous,
Facts are facts.
The quran didn't fall out of the sky.
Muhammad didn't have a transcriber with him. Allah abrogated his own words. If they were so perfect then why did he change his mind before the book was even finished?
The point is what those words MEAN.
Accept them as perfect. Your interpretation is still your own. Humans imposed their own interpretation on those words. What makes the humans of the 7th century a.d. any more capable of interpretation than those of the 21st century?
As for the meaning of the words: what about the idea that martyrs in medieval times were promised 72 dates, while today's martyrs think they will get virgins? That's interpretation for you.
Excellent post, kamala. I've come to the conclusion that these "Koranists" (or "Koran-only" Muslims) like Hamid are at best remarkably reality-resistant retards, and at worst clever deceivers. Either way, are we Infidels so desperate to find signs of intelligent life among Muslims that we will be satisfied with such a dismal choice?
PMK, you're making the mistake of thinking like a modern Westerner, and superimposing the ways of thinking that come naturally to you onto the Muslim psyche. Everything you say is of course logical and true: but the Muslim psyche, massively undergirded by centuries of psychotic totalitarianism ("doubly totalitarian" to boot) has amazing resistance to such logic and truth. Only a pitiful handful have escaped that mental prison. The vast majority of the rest (with the very small exception of that strangest species of mankind, the apparently modernist Muslim, some of whom like the slick Mustafa Akyol are suspicious anyway) would find your arguments strange, quaint, dangerous, blasphemous and filthy.
Cantor writes:
Unfortunately this world is full of far too many of these...
I don't understand where he came to a point that he decided against the jihadist idea.
Did I miss something? What happened to him to make him turn from the violent concepts?
Hmmm...
I think it could be to the west's advantage if there was a clearly identified 'clean' islam, based on the koran, with violent and misogynistic passages officially and permanently rejected. Millions of muslims who want to live peacefully could join those mosques and gain strength in numbers.
Those who stuck to traditional (salafist or whatever) interpretations of koran and hadiths would be more easily identified: if people want to live under sharia law, assisted resettlement in more suitable countries could be considered.
Cantor,
You haven't invalidated them.
Zainab al-Touraihi, secretary-general of the Contact Body for Muslims, the official Muslim advisory body to the Dutch government said "The Koran is a matter of interpretation, just like the Bible and the Torah. You need to interpret, not take it literally."
So I guess she is also an infidel, huh?
The Koran was a modernizer at the time it was written. (Women got more rights in Islam than they did in the rest of Arab society.) Why isn't the interpretation one of modernization? That doesn't necessarily mean adopting western culture. I find the idea the "Muslim psyche" is incapable of dealing with freedom offensive. They're human beings.
When do you stop making excuses about totalitarian ways? At what point do people take responsibility for themselves? They're not living in the seventh century. Are you saying Muslims are incapable of change? And if Muslims can't live under anything but a totalitarian system then we in the West should never flog ourselves because we "work with dictators" and our nations' doors should be closed to all Muslims all the time. Is that what you want?
Pope Benedict sympathizes with the jihadist's mind:
http://www.indcatholicnews.com:80/holsol435.html
Pope Benedict XVI highlighted the desperate plight of Christians the Holy Land during a meeting with His Beatitude Michael Sabbah, the Latin Patriarch in Jerusalem, and prelates from the Conference of Latin Bishops in the Arab Region (CELRA) held in the Apostolic Palace at the Vatican, on Friday.
During his address, the Holy Father said: "Sometimes circumstances force Christians to leave their country in search of a welcoming nation that enables them to live a better life....
Pope Benedict concluded: "I wish to restate my solidarity with those people in your regions who suffer so many forms of violence (at the hands of the perfidious Jews --- Monk) . You may count on the solidarity of the Universal Church....
Also at the meeting were members of the "Co-ordination Group of Episcopal Conferences in Support of the Church in the Holy Land" who had just returned from visits to Israel and Palestine. This Group represents Catholic Episcopal conferences of Europe and North America and was formed in Jerusalem in 1998 at the request of the Holy See.
Reading a statement from the Group, Bishop Kenney : ""Many people we met were pessimistic about current efforts by the leaders of Israel and Palestine, with the support of the international community, to reach an agreement on a just peace (i.e., the Jew's annihilation --- Monk) But we also heard from many others that they yearn for a future of freedom, peace and security, for both Palestinians and Israelis."
"We found signs of hope in this visit to the Holy Land. We met young people at Bethlehem University and in various parishes; we also heard of growing inter-religious co-operation for peace among Jews, Christians and Muslims.
"Tragically we also saw signs of discouragement and division. The separation wall (which saves innocent Jewish lives from Muslim suicide bombers --- Monk) through which we passed was a vivid reminder of the security concerns of Israel, as well as the deepening division between ordinary Israelis and Palestinians who lack the human contact which can help foster justice and reconciliation. We are particularly concerned for the dire humanitarian situation in Gaza which has worsened since we visited there a year ago (in January 2007)."
Bishop Kenney, who is spokesperson on European Affairs for the Bishops' Conference of England and Wales, added that he personally expected to visit the Holy Land on at least three further occasions during 2008, and made a public promise that he would include a visit a Gaza.
Bishop Kenney painted a bleak picture of life in Gaza, where IsraelI security had prevented piping for a new sewage works (paid for with EU money) from being delivered because they could be used to make missiles.
monk
the depths of delusion revealed by that article you posted, are very discouraging.
sometimes I think we are on the verge of something not unlike the emergence of the 'Confessing Church' in Nazi Germany.
That is: within all parts of the christian church (orthodox, catholic, anglicans and other protestants) there will be a cataclysmic division between, on the one hand, those whose 'palestinianism' and resurgent antisemitism are being used to sucker them into siding with the Camp of Islam - and into consciously or unconsciously acquiescing in, even assisting, that second Shoah which the Muslims are preparing; and on the other hand, a remnant who will dig in their toes and categorically refuse to go down that deadly path into darkness.
I would place Robert Spencer in the latter category. And with him are not a few like Hugh Fitzgerald, and our late lamented Oriana Fallaci, who profess no religion, but who are clear-headed enough to see through the Muslim Arab propaganda. These are the people - Christian and non-Christian - who will stand with Israel, and with the Jews. And the ones who are Christian will be barraged with abuse by many of their 'brethren', called 'heretics', even excommunicated or shunned.
(If you want to know how I myself feel about Israel, you can do worse than read Oriana Fallaci's magnificent diatribe against ' Jew-Hatred in Europe', first published in italian in panorama magazine, 17.4.2002 - I stand where she does).
The example of Khadijah suggests otherwise - here she was, originally an Arab pagan, and quite a successful merchantess in her own right. She was the only example of a woman who Mohammed treated with respect, as long as she lived. There was never another Khadijah like entrepreneur that came out of an Islamized Arab society. While not much has been written about the pre-Islamic Arabs, it's not unreasonable to assume that Khadijah was one of many successful women who prospered in pre-Islamic Arabia.
The other claim about women getting more rights under Islam than in non-Islamic Arab society is based on infanticide. However, Ali Sina debunks it, showing how polygamy was very prevailent in that society, and how it couldn't have been practical if Arabs were in the habit of killing off their daughters. Also, he noted that all the history of the pre-Islamic Arabs were written by their Islamic successors, and obviously maligned them, and dead people don't get to straighten the record. Ali Sina also noted that to kill their own daughter is against human nature and while it may have existed, it couldn't have been widespread.
I am one of those who don't buy into the claims that Islam was an improvement for Arabs - other than geopolitically.
Let me get this straight. it is Allah's will, that ones live is so pathetic that killing ones self is considered a step up in life?
Life Itself, is killing for, or dying on behalf of, Allah?
Allah=Peace=does not Compute.
Islam-The space between two Black Holes-too close to each other,
Khadija was a widow of a Christian noble man; he was the silk merchant, and Khadija was an illiterate Christian--couldn't read or write and knew nothing of Christianity. Her cousin ibn Na-ufal was a Christian Monk, who could read and write Hebrew, he live his life under Khadijah's financial support. Mohammed heard a lot of half cooked Christianity and Jewish Law from all these half cook Christians. That's why he got very confuse.
Prior to Islam, Arabia was a land for Christians, Jews, and Magi's. Jews were highly educated, and Mohammad looked up to them before he appointed himself a prohet for Arabs.
In fact, Syria, where Khadijah lived, use to be a Arab Christian kingdom, who king was Jaballah.
When Jaballah was sacked by Othman, he pretended to convert to Islam, while he secretly worship Christian God. Othman cursed Jaballah for secretly being a Christian, when he discover Jaballah fled to Constatinople. If you know Constantinople, it is today's Istanbul, Turkey.
Yes, prior Islamic Arabia was know to Roman, but Roman could not admit it because when they go after the Jews, they were slaughtered by Arabs so badly that they claimed that the Roman soldiers were wiped out by deseas.
The Mongol was the only people who beat the Arabs then.
Yes, there is record, if you dig deligently.
I guess Allah is at lunch or out back taking a dirt nap. No one, not even muslims seem to care about him anymore. Why there used to be a time when the very mention of Allah's wrath sent shivers of fear up the muslim back. Not any more, some talk openly about altering his words to make Islam 'fit' a little better. Fear of Allah used to be wide spread, now there are some who think they can change his words 'just a little bit', or a lot, and get away with it.
They better hurry up and finish before he comes back from lunch, or wakes up. When he discovers his religion has been changed in his absence, he is going to be one unhappy Allah. It was Allah who told the Prophet to say 'If anyone changes his religion, kill him'. I suppose some muslims just don't take Allah or the Prophet seriously anymore. Altering your religion is changing it. Well don't say I didn't warn them, Allah knows I have tried.
When I talked to him this evening he was upset. I asked him, to forgive them for they know not what they do. He just laughed and said they know perfectly well what they are doing. And he has 'plans' for them. He further stated that he had Iblis stoking up some extra hot fires.
He said he was going to remind them who is in charge around here...
Infidel Pride,
The statement regarding women was based on the newest article in Islamwatch.org - which speaks of women in Islam. Mohammed didn't elevate women, he just improved their lot...a little.
It was the seventh century. I may have overstated it, but it all comes back to interpretation. Can Islam be updated?
Muhammad improved the position of the woman in the Islamic period, but he clearly put the woman at a legal disadvantage in comparison with the man. Through the definition of the Sharia as unchangable divine law – a component of which is the legislation concerning women – the marriage legislation that was perhaps quite progressive in the seventh century A.D. borders on the limits of that which is in the West understood today as a basic component of human rights.
Hugh's 10:24am post was amazing but Kamala's 5:21pm post was not to be missed because it was so dead-on in pointing out that Hamid's entire argument for explaining how "Salafist Islam" nearly turned him into a jihadi is based entirely on Koranic verses (there is one exception on page 1 of the article which cites a hadith: "I have been ordered by Allah to fight and kill all people [non-Muslims] until they say, 'No God except Allah") - while at the same time, he apparently views a Koran-only approach as somehow saving Islam.
One example from the article that demonstrates no distinction between what he refers to as "Salafi Islam" and just plain old regular "Koran-only" Islam is when he writes:
"My conscience would normally reject polygamy, for example, because of the severe psychological pain it would cause my future wife. Salafi teaching encourages polygamy, however, permitting up to four wives as halal: "Marry women of your choice, two or three or four" (Koran 4:3)"
It isn't "Salafi teaching" that permits polygamy as "halal". That comes straight from the Koran.
He says of his parents, "They merely embodied a desired perception of Islam...But for me both responses were unsatisfactory because they suffered from the same problem - they were not theologically grounded" and he then proceeds to state that "My system is simply one of inline commentary, in which dangerous passages are flagged and reinterpreted to be nonviolent".
How is simply flagging certain passages and reinterpreting them to be nonviolent "theologically grounded" in any real sense? He's already admitted that Muhammad himself constitutes a questionable moral example. So how does he plan to just jump in there and take it upon himself to make the Koran mean something other than it obviously does according to not just Salafi Islam but just plain old Islam?
What he said of his parents is what is entirely true of himself - he "embod[ies] a desired perception of Islam".
Good for him, and for his parents. But there's going to come a certain tipping point when good intentions aren't going to be enough. There's going to come a time when one's personal ego needs to hang onto one's Muslim identity (and the sad personal saga/struggle involved in letting go of that identity) can no longer take precedence over the future of mankind as a whole. No one is going to care one whit about that poor little Muslim-for-identity-purposes-only and why he or she needs to hang onto that identity. That little personal sad story of woe is going to mean diddly-sqat in the scheme of things. The faster the better.
Islam is impervious to any serious attempt to reinvention or transformation. You cannot make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, and the Koran is a sow's ear.
If we seriously think we can stand back and wait for "moderate" Muslims to "take back" Islam as a religion of peace by challenging other Muslims to reinterpret the Koran and hadiths, we are deluding ourselves and wasting time.
I agree with kamala's 5:21 post. Even Tawfik Hamid notes that it is the Koran itself which convinced him. As long as the Koran is considered to be the immutable word of God by the Muslim community, Islam will continue to be a religion of bloody borders. And it will always continue to be so viewed, as long as apostasy is punishable by death.
If Islam was originally a religion of peace, and if Muhammed was a prophet with a capital P (peas be upon him) who taught and practiced peace, why did his earliest followers immediately fall no each other with the most violent treachery seeking to grab the reigns of the nascent Islamic empire he had founded? Why did Islam then go out and conquer and convert by the point of the sword?
No reinterpretation by a handful of Muslims (who must constantly watch their backs due to fear of the mainstream Muslim community) will convert Islam into a religion of peace.
...why did his earliest followers immediately fall on each other with the most violent treachery (after Muhammed's death) with the most violent treachery... ? (typo)
RalphInfidel:
He's asking that Muslims do the work to make this possible.
Suggesting that it is possible when it actually isn't possible is exactly what I criticize Spencer for. Muslims cannot do anything that makes this possible, and Spencer ought to admit as much (the same applies to RalphInfidel).
Writing books and operating a website critical of the violent theology is hardly an apologist's approach.
Nor was that the reason why I criticized him. I do have respect for Spencer and his work, but that doesn't mean I won't criticize him when needed. The main reason I have criticized him here is because he undercuts his own work by suggesting that there is a potential for interpretation within Islam when there isn't.
Perhaps he is motivated to maintain a firm and principled stance which would support to those Muslims who really do want to reevaluate and reinterpret the core Islamic texts.
His stance means asserting that the impossible is possible (albeit unlikely), hardly a "firm and principled" stance.
Your make assertions of Islamic complicity and choose to ignore his acknowledgment that " the likelihood of this on a large scale is virtually nil. "
I did notice this acknowledgement, which makes the issue a matter of probability rather than possibility. But then he nevertheless suggests that something that he thinks is not likely to happen as being a "critical" development, when it would be an "insignificant" development.
A more pertinent question is: what motivates you to make these charges?
I am merely making an observation.
"My system is simply one of inline commentary, in which dangerous passages are flagged and reinterpreted to be nonviolent."
Disingenuous rubbish and reveals the truth of Islam - that it is inherently violent and the only figleaf is to airbrush the passages to make them smell of roses. All it will take is for somebody else to come along later an re-reinterpret them as they really are.
Close but no cigar.
Islam is the problem.
I notice JW over the years inching along toward that epiphany, but (even with the Fitzgeraldian vector) never quite getting there -- asymptotically, I think is the word.
Perhaps only the rude shock of a WMD or two or three perpetrated by some immoderate (i.e., ordinary) Muslims in the coming decades will be the only way to bring that cigar out into our Churchillian mouth -- currently given up smoking for PC reasons -- and lit with a crackling match smelling of victory.
Let's see... murdering infidels, rape of slave women, taking women and children as slaves, pedophelia, perpetual hostility for non-believers, cruel and unusual punishments for homosexuals or adulterors, wife beating, female genital mutilation, amputations, beheadings... oh yes, death for apostasy... tsk tks, is there anything worth salvaging in that book of 7th century savagery?
I'm not into banning or burning books, but in this case, the book 'not to be named' for fear of world wide riots by its true believers, which may be most of them... I might make an exception.
"I notice JW over the years inching along toward that epiphany, but (even with the Fitzgeraldian vector) never quite getting there -- asymptotically, I think is the word."
There is a theoretical possibility that the texts could be massively reinterpreted--well, more that the accepted principles of interpretation could be reinterpreted--and it seems there is occasionally a (self-labeled) Muslim or two who is interested in attempting to start a move to this effect. Still, there is no robust organized effort, nor apparently the seeds of any, and the weight of tradition and the texts themselves work very hard against it ever being successful.
It would be nice if it were to work out. There is an exceedingly slim and increasingly slim chance of it working out. But that isn't the same as a absolute zero chance.
I think that's why Spence and Fitz don't all out declare it totally impossible. They're honest folks, and technically it isn't totally impossible. Just practically extremely close to impossible.
What is important--and this is where Spence and Fitz have a huge leg up on all their competition--is that we be willing to entertain and plan for the possibility (strong liklihood, really) that no significant reformed Islamic movement will come and save us from the terrorists. They're addressing that possibility. Most people on the right (Lewis, D'Souza, etc.) do not.
Between their willingness to address this very un-PC possibility, and their williness to question the Bush administration on points (both quite at odds with the bulk of the rightwing), we've all apparently stumbled across some unusually honest, careful blokes. What you mention is a symptom of that honesty and care; it is not a defect.
Wow, I surely hate being ignored this way!
I did ask a question...
Again, there seems to be a huge gap in this story, does anyone know the answer?
It's always been my impression that Spencer's endless call for the "moderate" Muslims to seize control of Islam is basically a rhetorical device (if I'm using that term in its proper manner). Personally, I think the site is addressed towards infidels and telling them what they need to know.
As to laying any hope in reinterpreting Islam, when everyone who tries to do so wears a target on their forehead - truly, its much easier in this day and age of mass communication and irreverance, to discredit Islam itself and turn it into a laughing-stock religion, like any other cult (witness how the press openly treats Scientology) or even to treat it as socially unacceptable - like the KKK. It seems far easier to discredit Islam - IF everyone put their critical efforts into it - than to reform it. For the obvious reason that the core of the problem with Islam lies with its founder. Islam is rotten to the very core and so better disposed of than worry about the hurt feelings of those who have their identities wrapped up in it. They'll get over it. The rest of mankind simply can't afford to live with this rotten lie in order to assuage the tender emotional sensibilities of deluded Muslims.
Kay, I think your question is very good. Perhaps that gap is filled somewhere in the complete pdf report. I'm not going to waste my time reading it, however, since if I were in charge, I would not consider Tawfik Hamid any less suspicious than any other Muslim.
I did download the pdf document, and noticed it is published by "Hudson Institute", a Beltway think tank devoted to a "perspective" that is "future-oriented" and "optimistic", whatever the hell that means.
http://www.futureofmuslimworld.com/docLib/20070606_CT5v2.pdf
Among the things they publish, is this:
"In Europe, radical Islam has gained ground among second- and third-generation Muslims who, unlike American Muslims, are not well integrated into their host societies."
And they have hired a "moderate Muslim", Zeyno Baran, one of those "Koran-only" Muslims who are becoming fashionable (albeit still a teensy ineffective minority out there), who writes at the Hudson Institute ridiculous things like this:
"When the early Muslims were mocked by their pagan contemporaries, the Koran ordered not a violent backlash, but rather a civilized disapproval: "When you hear Allah's verses being rejected and mocked at by people, you must not sit with them till they start talking of other things." (Koran 4:140) The Koran also describes Muslims as "those who control their rage and pardon other people, [because] Allah loves the good-doers." (3:134) Therefore all demonstrations against the mockery of Islam should be peaceful. All critiques of Islam should be countered not by threats and violence, but by rational counter-argument."
I.e., Baran apparently thinks Mohammed and the original Band of Muslims were good freedom fighters who should be emulated, and he constructs a fantasy that ignores Muslim historians like Ibn Ishaq and Tabari, for example.
Like I said above: Close but no cigar. The problem is Islam -- not any "isms" or suffixed or prefixed kakophemisms coined to mollify us Infidels.
Kay, P.S.:
I went ahead and skimmed through Hamid's essay. It appears that his turning point was slow, and was triggered by what he describes as his "conscience" (grounded in the relative tolerance of his not-very-Islamic parents whose influence stuck with him apparently subconsciously) slowly asserting itself to resist the indoctrination he was receiving from the "Salafists":
"As I considered attending a terrorist training camp, however, my conscience reasserted
itself. The habit of critical thinking that my parents had instilled in me when I
was growing up began to undermine the violent indoctrination to which I had been subjected.
If I had taken the next step toward jihad, I might well have become a terrorist killer.
Instead, I experienced an intense inner struggle that felt like an earthquake shaking my
principles. I realized that harming innocent people is immoral and that a religious ideology
pledging war on non-believers must be bankrupt."
Then soon after, he met up with a "Quranist" Muslim who was influential in helping him find a way to still have his cake and eat it too: he could still be a faithful Muslim, but not have to pursue the "extremism" of "Salafism":
In one of his religious discussions with his new friend, Hamid says:
"We weighed the merits of declaring war on non-Muslims to spread Islam and agreed that it should be rejected because it is condoned only by supplemental Salafi books rather than by the
Quran itself."
Notice the problem here: Hamid is saying that he rejected "declaring war on non-Muslims to spread Islam" NOT because that in itself might be wrong; but only because he and his friend could not find its justification in the Koran.
The fact that they had to spend time discussing and "weighing the merits" of declaring war on Infidels to spread Islam is outrageous in and of itself.
Bah.
Enough already. Are we going to spend decades waiting for Muslims to evolve a conscience that doesn't require an Absolute Text, and are we going to spend decades researching and Googling and teasing out the 1,001 threads of theological minutiae of Islam as possible millions of innocent lives among us hang in the balance?
If the only way Hamid can refrain from pursuing war on non-Muslims to spread Islam is to construct an unrealistic and incoherent "Koranism" (see the critiques of kamala and Caroline above), then he's no less dangerous than Zawahiri.
Islam is the problem. 4 words is all we need. Stick that on your bumper.