Taliban Jihadist Was A Villa Fan

How many more traitors are hiding in there?

A Taliban jihadist killed in Afghanistan was wearing an Aston Villa football club tattoo, it was claimed yesterday, raising fears British Muslims are being recruited to fight our troops.

A soldier injured in the ­fighting said: “It’s baffling. Why would these people leave ­Britain, where you have all the freedoms of a democracy, to stop Afghan ­people having the same benefits that are enjoyed in the UK?"

And that sums it all up. All the while half of British mosques are under the control of an Islamic sect that teaches hatred of Britain, and all the while UK government fails to understand or recognise (a) the traditional pedigree of the jihadists' ideology within orthodox Islam, and (b) the extent of popular Muslim support for jihadist ideology, it is guaranteed that more British Muslims will betray their country in this way.....or even worse ways.

Speaking of the recent discovery in Afghanistan, a Foreign Office spokesman said: "It is important that ­British Muslim communities make clear that they reject this kind of activity.”

Good luck with that.

Is Ahmedinejad's Re-Election A Good Thing?

As Mahmoud Ahmedinejad wins the Iranian elections, here are some sobre thoughts from Daniel Pipes on why this result might actually be the grudgingly preferred option from the standpoint of his Western opponents:

Therefore, while my heart goes out to the many Iranians who desperately want the vile Ahmadinejad out of power, my head tells me it's best that he remain in office. When Mohammed Khatami was president, his sweet words lulled many people into complacency, even as the nuclear weapons program developed on his watch. If the patterns remain unchanged, better to have a bellicose, apocalyptic, in-your-face Ahmadinejad who scares the world than a sweet-talking Mousavi who again lulls it to sleep, even as thousands of centrifuges whir away.

"No Compulsion In Religion" And Other Islamic Apologetics (Part 3)

Following on from Part 1 here and Part 2 here.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NO COMPULSION IN RELIGION?

Another verse commonly quoted by Islamic apologists reads: “There is no compulsion in religion.” (2:256) Muslims often cite this verse to demonstrate that Islam forbids the spreading of the faith by the sword. And yet, verse 9:5, discussed in Part 1, commands Muslims to fight idolaters and pagans until they convert to Islam. The choice for them is either conversion or the sword. Ibn Kathir says of 9:5 that polytheists “have no choice, but to die or embrace Islam.”

How, then, can we reconcile this with the idea that there is “no compulsion in religion”? One common but not majority view is that the latter verse abrogated the former. Tabari, on the other hand, contends that this verse was not abrogated but was revealed specifically in relation to the People of the Book, Jews and Christians: “Arab society was compelled to enter Islam because they were an unlettered community, having no book which they knew. Thus nothing other than Islam was accepted from them. The People of the Book are not to be compelled to enter Islam if they submit to paying the jizya [poll tax] or kharaj [land tax].”

So this verse ultimately does not contradict the purpose of jihad outlined in Qur'anic verses such as 9:5 and 9:29, because its purpose, at least regarding Jews and Christians, is not to force them to accept Islam, but rather to force the Islamic legal system upon them, relegating them to second-class status and payment of the jizya if they refuse to convert. But if they do convert, they do so freely. Sayyid Qutb makes clear that Muslims can wage offensive jihad against unbelievers without forcing them to convert to Islam:

“As the only religion of truth that exists on earth today, Islam takes appropriate action to remove all physical and material obstacles that try to impede its efforts to liberate mankind from submission to anyone other than God...The practical way to ensure the removal of those physical obstacles while not forcing anyone to adopt Islam is to smash the power of those authorities based on false beliefs until they declare their submission and demonstrate this by paying the submission tax. When this happens, the process of liberating mankind is completed by giving every individual the freedom of choice based on conviction. Anyone who is not convinced may continue to follow his faith. However, he has to pay the submission tax to fulfill a number of objectives...by paying this tax, known as jizya, he declares that he will not stand in physical opposition to the efforts advocating the true Divine faith.”

In this context, the imperative to wage war against and subjugate unbelievers remains intact.

CONCLUSIONS

We should not allow ourselves to be deceived or distracted by the apologetics of some Muslims who ignore traditional understandings of the Qur'an in order to re-package Islamic doctrine and history to ill-informed non-Muslims. Not only does this result in a failure to address the root causes of Islamic jihad violence, it also hinders the progress of genuine Muslim reformers. Moderate Muslims will not succeed in formulating a new, peaceful understanding of Islam unless they acknowledge the problems inherent in its mainstream tradition and orthodoxy. Those who acknowledge these problems, then work to reform them, are to be commended and their efforts supported. Those who simply whitewash these basic realities should not be encouraged or supported, for their efforts do more harm than good in the important struggle for Islamic reform.

"No Compulsion In Religion" And Other Islamic Apologetics (Part 2)

Following on from Part 1 here.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOES THE QUR'AN FORBID KILLING?

Even with the theory of abrogation firmly in place, there are other verses in the Qur'an which would seem to advise against warfare and killing.

One of these, often quoted by Islamic spokesmen in the West, reads in part: “whosoever killeth a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind, and whoso saveth the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind.” (5:32)

These sentiments sound very noble, but unfortunately when analysed in their full context a number of less noble details become apparent. Firstly, this admonition comes within the context of a warning to the Jews not to oppose the Muslims, and is not presented as a universal principle. Secondly, it contains the important exception “for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth”, which will be examined in a moment. Here is the entire verse, accompanied by the immediately following verse, which provides much-needed context:

For that cause We decreed for the Children of Israel that whosoever killeth a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind, and whoso saveth the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind. Our messengers came unto them of old with clear proofs (of Allah's Sovereignty), but afterwards lo! many of them became prodigals in the earth.

The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom.” (5:32-33)

In its full context, we can see that this passage is actually a threat to the Jews not to oppose the Muslims or they will face crucifixion, mutilation or banishment. The classical commentary of Ibn Kathir and the twentieth-century commentary of Sayyid Abul A'la Maududi (d.1979) confirm the anti-Jewish attitudes present in this verse.

Ibn Kathir:

“This Ayah chastises and criticizes those who commit the prohibitions, after knowing that they are prohibited from indulging in them. [For example] [t]he Jews of Medina, such as Banu Qurayza, Banu Nadir and Qaynuqa [Jewish tribes attacked, expelled and even massacred by Muhammad]...”

Maududi:

“[R]ather than reflect on the causes of their rejection by God, and do something to overcome the failings which led to that rejection, the Israelites were seized by the same fit of arrogance and folly which had once seized the criminal son of Adam [Cain], and resolved to kill those whose good deeds had been accepted by God...Since the same qualities which had been displayed in the wrongdoing son of Adam were manifest in the Children of Israel, God strongly urged them not to kill human beings and couched his command in forceful terms.”

It is also important to understand what this Qur'anic verse means by spreading “corruption in the earth” and waging “war upon Allah and his messenger”. Ibn Kathir sums up the orthodox view of what this means: “oppose and contradict, and it includes disbelief, blocking roads and spreading fear in the fairways.” He also relates that three of Muhammad's close companions, al-Suddi, Ibn Abbas and Ibn Mas'ud, agree that it means “disbelief and acts of disobedience.” Maududi writes: “The 'land' (in verse 5:33) signifies either the country or territory wherein the responsibility of establishing law and order has been undertaken by an Islamic state. The expression 'to wage war against Allah and His Messenger' denotes war against the righteous order established by the Islamic state.”

Thus the Qur'an, according to mainstream interpretation, far from abjuring violence, is actually saying that contradicting the tenets of Islam and mere unbelief are sufficient crimes to merit brutal punishment.

It should be noted that Islam does forbid the killing of innocent people, but only so long as they are Muslims: “it is not for a believer to kill a believer unless it be by mistake” (4:92). The Qur'an doesn't make a similar statement regarding Muslims killing non-Muslims. The early Muslim commentator Sa‘id bin Jubayr explains 5:32 as follows: “He who allows himself to shed the blood of a Muslim, is like he who allows shedding the blood of all people. He who forbids shedding the blood of one Muslim, is like he who forbids shedding the blood of all people.”

This leads to inequality between Muslims and non-Muslims in Islamic law. The Islamic legal manual Umdat al-Salik, which was certified by Sunni Islam's highest spiritual authority, Cairo's Al-Azhar University, as conforming “to the practise and faith of the orthodox Sunni community” in 1991, says that “retaliation is obligatory...against anyone who kills a human being purely intentionally and without right.” However, there are a number of situations in which this ruling does not apply, including the case of “a Muslim for killing a non-Muslim”.

This was part of Iranian legal policy during the Khomeini era. In 1970, the Iranian Sufi leader Sultanhussein Tabandeh wrote A Muslim Commentary on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In it, he states: “Since Islam regards non-Muslims as on a lower level of belief and conviction, if a Muslim kills a non-Muslim…then his punishment must not be the retaliatory death, since the faith and conviction he possesses is loftier than that of the man slain.” Tabandeh's views were instituted almost verbatim in Khomeini's Iran.

Stay tuned for the third and final part, coming soon...

Book Review

"UNITED IN HATE: THE LEFT'S ROMANCE WITH TYRANNY AND TERROR" BY JAMIE GLAZOV

"United in Hate" aims to answer one of the most perplexing questions in contemporary politics: why does the Left so often support and take the side of Islamic jihadists whose values are anathema to those that the same Leftists purport to uphold? Why do Leftists consistently pour scorn on their own societies while heaping praise upon totalitarian dictators and terrorists?

Jamie Glazov's new book is the most complete examination yet of the Left's informal alliance with radical Islam. It begins by providing a psycho-social explanation as to why the Leftist (who the author refers to as "the believer", in deference to Eric Hoffer's famous book The True Believer) ideology so often results in hatred for one's own society and support for dictators and murderers. Glazov provides the following formulation:

The believer's totalitarian journey begins with an acute sense of alienation from his own society - an alienation to which he is, himself, completely blind. In denial about the character flaws that prevent him from bonding with his own people, the believer has convinced himself that there is something profoundly wrong with his society - and that it can be fixed without any negative trade-offs. He fantasizes about building a perfect society where he will, finally, fit in. As Eric Hoffer noted in his classic The True Believer, 'people with a sense of fulfillment think it is a good world and would like to preserve it as it is, while the frustrated favor radical change.'...

In rejecting his own society, the believer spurns the values of democracy and individual freedom, which are anathema to him, since he has miserably failed to cope with both the challenges they pose and the possibilities they offer. Tortured by his personal alienation, which is accompanied by feelings of self-loathing, the believer craves a fairy-tale world where no individuality exists, and where human estrangement is thus impossible. The believer fantasizes about how his own individuality and self will be submerged within the collective whole...

As history has tragically recorded, this 'holy cause' follows a road that leads not to an earthly paradise, but rather to an earthly hell in all of its manifestations. The political faith rejects the basic reality of the human condition - that human beings are flawed and driven by self-interest - and rests on the erroneous assumption that humanity is malleable and can be shaped into a more perfect form...[O]ne hundred million human beings [have been] sacrified on the alter where a new man would ostensibly be created.

At first I was not totally convinced by Glazov's hypothesis, as it seemed too much like pretentious double-speak and/or mere speculation. However, in the next section, Glazov illustrates his formula by documenting how the Left, for exactly the reasons he describes in Chapter 2, above, revered and supported the communist tyrannies of Stalin, Mao, Castro and others. This whole section puts the above "theory" into observable and demonstrable practice and serves as a perfect background to the modern liberal love affair with Islamic jihad.

The next section examines the ideology of the jihadists themselves, and explores the psychological ramifications of Islam's violent, intolerant and misogynistic doctrines on those who take them seriously, and how these constructs mirror those of the Left.

Finally, Glazov documents Leftist support for radical Islam in the wake of the 9/11 atrocities, quoting abundantly from self-loathing left-wing bigots such as Noam Chomsky and Michael Moore. As Glazov writes: "[T]he new generation of believers found their own idols in the terror war. The romance with Islamism is just a logical continuation of the long leftist tradition of worshipping America’s foes."

Amidst a raft of documentation and examples, the author explains the liberals' tortured logic:

An added ingredient in this equation is the Left’s sacred cow of multiculturalism. The believer cannot accept the truth about Islamism or much of Islam, because he would then have to concede that not all cultures are equal, and that some cultures (e.g., America’s, with its striving for equality) are superior to others (e.g., Islam’s structure of gender apartheid). For the believer to retain his sense of purpose and to avoid the collapse of his identity and community, such thoughts must be suppressed at all cost. Because he seeks to nurture his self-identification as a victim and to lose himself inside a totalitarian collective whole, he must deny the truth about the object of his worship, as believers of previous generations denied the truth about Stalin’s Russia, Mao’s China, and other totalitarian societies.

Because of these factors, the believer clings to a rigid Marxist view of the terror war, no matter how much empirical evidence proves that Islamist violence has absolutely nothing to do with economic inequality, class oppression, or Western exploitation. This is why, when Osama bin Laden and Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi justify their terror with references to the Koran, and when Zacarias Moussaoui casually explains in court that he was simply following the Koran’s directive that Muslims must make Islam the world’s superpower, the believer always turns a deaf ear.

This is a long tradition of the Left: progressives have always assumed that they understand the world much better than the people for whom they purport to speak. In terms of the terror war, there exists an obvious and profound racism in the believer’s disposition, since the implication is that Muslims and Arabs are not bright enough to understand their own circumstances, and therefore their explanations of their own actions cannot be taken seriously.

Thus while bin Laden, Zarqawi, and Moussaoui may insist that the holy jihad is motivated by the desire to spread sharia throughout the world, to erase individual freedom, and to kill, convert, or subjugate infidels, the Western leftist is constrained to rationalize that they are saying such things only because they have been hurt by capitalism and Western imperialism. As David Horowitz points out, the leftist holds the Marxist perspective that religion is nothing more than a thought structure rooted in suffering under capitalism. Once the oppression stops, the believer assumes, the Islamist conceptions of Allah and jihad (which the believer privately considers ridiculous but would never dare say so in public) will simply disappear. Believers, therefore, inevitably deny the Islamic dimension that the terrorists themselves insist is their impetus for terror.

Dealing in specifics, Glazov also covers the leftists' defense of Islamic gender apartheid and their hatred of Israel. Regarding the latter, he makes an unconvincing case that Leftist hatred for Israel is based primarily on antisemitism, an increasingly common right-wing position that I have always opposed because of its striking similarity to the equally imaginary phenomenon of "Islamophobia". Ultimately, some of the other explanations the author presents are far more accurate and persuasive than the "Jew-hate" line.

Overall, United in Hate does the best job of any currently published work of explaining why the Left frequently romances with tyrants and terrorists. It is recommended reading for all those who value Western freedoms and wish to defend them against the totalitarian ideology of jihad.

"No Compulsion In Religion" And Other Islamic Apologetics (Part 1)

INTRODUCTION

When confronted with the reality of Islam's violent doctrines and history, it is understandable that many Muslims may wish to downplay these truths or attempt refute the arguments of Westerners who subject the Qur'an and Islamic tradition to critical scrutiny. These Muslims' apologetics are, in turn, taken up even by non-Muslims who simply repeat calumnies and half-truths without question.

This three-part series of posts will deal with some of the most common Muslim apologetics, which lead to a dangerous whitewashing of Islamic doctrine and history, and demonstrate why they are insufficient to excuse Islam of the serious problems inherent in its traditional makeup and orthodoxy.

“CHERRY-PICKING” AND ABROGATION

Perhaps the most common argument against the notion that traditional Islam sanctions violence against and the subjugation of unbelievers is the “cherry-picking” argument. This asserts that certain verses of the Qur'an have been taken “out of context” to make the Qur'an appear violent, while all the more peaceful and tolerant verses have been ignored.

At first glance, this would appear to be a valid point. As well as verses mandating violence and intolerance, the Qur'an also contains some passages towards which no one could have any reasonable objections. For example, a number of verses promote co-existence and dialogue with non-Muslims:

16:125 – “Invite (all) to the Way of thy Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching; and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious: for thy Lord knoweth best, who have strayed from His Path, and who receive guidance.”

29:46 – “And dispute ye not with the People of the Book [Jews and Christians], except with means better (than mere disputation), unless it be with those of them who inflict wrong (and injury): but say, 'We believe in the revelation which has come down to us and in that which came down to you; Our Allah and your Allah is one; and it is to Him we bow (in Islam).'”

109:1-6 – “Say: O disbelievers! I worship not that which ye worship; Nor worship ye that which I worship. And I shall not worship that which ye worship. Nor will ye worship that which I worship. Unto you your religion, and unto me my religion.”

There are also passages which seem to say that Muslims should only wage war in self-defense:

22:39-40 – “Sanction is given unto those who fight because they have been wronged; and Allah is indeed Able to give them victory; Those who have been driven from their homes unjustly only because they said: Our Lord is Allah - For had it not been for Allah's repelling some men by means of others, cloisters and churches and oratories and mosques, wherein the name of Allah is oft mentioned, would assuredly have been pulled down. Verily Allah helpeth one who helpeth Him. Lo! Allah is Strong, Almighty.”

2:190 – “Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors.”

However, failing to mention these and other such verses is not a matter of simply cherry-picking the worst parts of the Qur'an in order to make Islam look bad; rather, it is in line with mainstream Islamic theology, as enunciated by the greatest Muslim scholars and commentators.

It is a traditional Islamic belief that the Prophet Muhammad revealed verses about warfare in three stages over the course of his career: first non-violence, then defensive war, then offensive war to submit the entire world to Islam. The Prophet's earliest biographer, Ibn Ishaq (d.773), was the first to articulate this. At first, he says, Muhammad “had not been given permission to fight or allowed to shed blood. He had simply been ordered to call men to God and to endure insult and forgive the innocent.” But when Muhammad's circumstances changed, Allah “gave permission to His apostle to fight and to protect himself against those who wronged them and treated them badly.” Eventually, “God sent down to him: 'Fight them so that there be no more seduction', i.e. until no believer is seduced from his religion. 'And the religion is God's,' i.e. until God alone is worshiped.”

This view has been reaffirmed by many Muslim scholars throughout history. The prolific modern commentator Sayyid Qutb (d.1966) approvingly invokes an earlier authority, Ibn Qayyim (d.1350), to make the same point: “Muslims were first restrained from fighting...then they were commanded to fight against the aggressors; and finally they were commanded to fight against all the polytheists.” He also concludes that “[a]fter the period of the Prophet, only the final stages of the movement of jihad are to be followed; the initial or middle stages are not applicable”.

In other words, according to Ibn Ishaq, Qutb and many others, the Qur'anic verses which speak of tolerance, or of warfare only in self-defense, were applicable only in the particular stage of Muhammad's life during which they were revealed, while the final stage, of offensive warfare to submit unbelievers to the authority of Islam, is applicable now and for all time.

Related to this evolving concept of war in the Qur'an is the doctrine of naskh, or abrogation. This is the idea that Allah sometimes replaces a particular directive from the Qur'an with another one, which then becomes normative for Muslims following its revelation, canceling out the earlier prescriptions. It is based on the Qur'an itself: “Whatever communications We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring one better than it or like it. Do you not know that Allah has power over all things?” (2:106)

The famous Muslim historian and exegete Tabari (d.923) defines abrogation as “what God abrogates regarding the precept of a verse which He changes, or for which He substitutes another, so that what is lawful may become unlawful and and what is unlawful may become lawful; what is permitted may become prohibited and what is prohibited may become permitted.” Sayyid Qutb maintains that “partial amendment of rulings in response to changing circumstances during the lifetime of the Prophet Muhammad could only be in the interest of mankind as a whole.” Another influential commentator, Qurtubi (d.1273), states bluntly that “no one can deny abrogation except the ignorant and the dull-headed.”

The doctrine of abrogation is of particular importance in understanding one of the Qur'an's most violent verses, known in Islamic theology as the Verse of the Sword: “Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.” (9:5)

The prominent Qur'anic commentator Ibn Kathir (d.1373) quotes several authorities, including Muhammad's cousin Ibn Abbas (d.687), to assert that the Verse of the Sword “abrogated every agreement of peace between the Prophet and any idolater, every treaty and every term...No idolater had any more treaty or promise of safety ever since Surah Bara'ah [the ninth chapter of the Qur'an] was revealed.” Another scholar, Ibn Juzayy (d.1357), agrees – 9:5 abrogates “every peace treaty in the Qur’an”, and specifically abrogates 47:4’s directive to “set free or ransom” captive unbelievers. According to al-Suyuti (d.1505), “[t]his is an Ayat [verse] of the Sword which abrogates pardon, truce and overlooking”. The Spanish Muslim scholar Ibn al-Arabi (d.1148) stated that “[t]he Verse of the Sword, 9:5, has abrogated 124 verses of the Qur'an”.

None of this means that such understandings of the Qur'an are correct, or that Muslims who disagree with them are necessarily wrong. But it is nevertheless clear that these interpretations are not “radical” but mainstream and orthodox, and that modern jihadists therefore have a theologically legitimate strain of tradition to draw upon when trying to convince other Muslims that they represent “true” Islam.

Thus far, they have been successful in these efforts.

Stay tuned for Part 2, coming soon...

The Idiocy of Barack Obama

For the past week, I have been on holiday in Spain (formerly known, but blessedly no longer, as Al-Andalus), and so have not been available to post. If I had been, I most certainly would have commented on President Obama's recent speech in Cairo to the Muslim world. Had I been around at the time, I almost certainly would have written a point by point analysis of the speech. However, in my absence, must-read analyses have been published by Robert Spencer and Andrew Bostom, and I recommend both of them be read...twice. Suffice it to say that, as these deconstructions adequately demonstrate, Obama's speech was full of factual errors, illogic, meaningless platitudes, unforgivable naivety, and downright stupidity. And what's sad is that he's really no worse than George W. Bush was when it came to confronting the harsh realities of Islam.

Also while I was away, Obama made one of the most stupid statements I have ever heard from a Western leader (exempting Dubya's tongue-tied inanities). Speaking about the then-upcoming speech in an interview on June 1st, he made the utterly ludicrous claim that "if you actually took the number of Muslims Americans, we'd be one of the largest Muslim countries in the world." How America, with its 2.4 million Muslims (or somewhere between 6 or 7 million at the most, if you listen to the inflated figures of American Muslim advocacy groups), can be one of the largest Muslim nations in the world, when there are numerous countries that have Muslim populations of over 100 million, eludes me, and what is telling is that no one in the left-wing media has picked up on this "Obamaism".