Is Europe Waking Up?

[AdmiralAdama]

Remarkable article in the leftist Guardian about the challenge posed by Islam. Remarkable for its forthrightness and its placement in such a left-wing, anti-American publication.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comme...104875,00.html

The space in which to argue that Islam is an essentially benign religion seems to narrow with every passing day..Those who think that what we are observing is solely a blowback against Western foreign policy, the invasion of Iraq and Israeli's treatment of Palestinians vastly underestimate the profundity of what is happening - or the possibility of changing it by changes to foreign policy. The tensions between Islam, the British and the West have much deeper roots.

Can Islamic theology and culture compete with the march of globalisation, Western values and their self-evident superiority in delivering a prosperity that Islam cannot match? The West provokes Islam not by doing anything, although what it does is hardly helpful; it provokes at least some strands of Islamic thought simply by being.

[skiguy]

Nor should the West too readily accept at face value demands to accept Islamic dress codes, protocols over food

So should we also not accept a Catholic priest's robe or a Jews yarmuckle(sp) or their eating of Kosher foods?
Are Muslims really demanding these things, or is it the West demanding they stop?

The invocations of the Koran and Allah to justify suicide and death may sound like throwbacks; in fact they are utterly contemporary

There's a recent (unfortunately locked) discussion on this board about what the Qur'an really says about that.
And what about the invocations of Surah 60:8? Why is this verse ignored by the Western armchair warmongers?

Allah forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) Faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: for Allah loveth those who are just.

I think much of the problem with the West is misunderstanding Islam. Hey, I sort of get angry too when unbelievers take the Bible out of context and use certain verses to say Christians are violent.

JMHO, I've been very careful to try to not take Qur'anic verses out of context to fit my beliefs of Islam. Glen Beck, Quinn & Rose and many others are doing that, and they are wrong. They'll take ONE verse and use that as their "evidence" that Islam is evil and out to destroy us. (when in all reality all they're doing is inciting hatred and racsism towards Muslims) I highly suspect Al Qaeda and theTaliban are doing exacly the same thing to justify their actions.

[AdmiralAdama]

Is the problem that the West is "misundersanding" Islam? It seems that the author is claiming that the West is indeed misunderstanding Islam -- by a craven appeasement of more and more demands. It recommends Western self-confidence and firmness. Thankfully, we are beginning to see a bit of waking up in Europe -- Sarkozy's election was an important moment in this trend, IMHO.

Here's Walid Phares -- Middle East Scholar from Lebanon -- on the history of Jihad and the strategic imperative to reckon with it --

Indeed, few commentators can challenge the fact that since the 7th century AD/CE, and for more than a millennia, Caliphs of the Umeyad, Abbasids, Mameluk, Ottomans and other dynasties, as well as their Walis (Governors) have waged holy wars, military campaigns, signed treaties, broken conventions, and conducted state affairs, based on the concept of Jihad. The latter injunction was a theologically-grounded, but politically practiced set of marching orders to attack, defend, invade or conquer for the sake of the Caliphate....

This is how you should prepare the nation to face future Jihadism, not by avoiding a national debate on the real issue under the pretext that Jihadism is some sort of theological matter. Precisely, the enemy wants you to believe that Jihadism (the enemy's profound nature) is just a matter of academic and theological debate. It would be the equivalent of having the propagandists of the IIIrd Reich convincing the Allies, that Nazism is a cultural issue. The West cannot avoid future Jihad unless it rises to a level of an advanced understanding of the enemy's ideology and tactics.

Jihad has a long history. It is not a matter of "taking quotes out of context". Do you believe that there is a doctrine known as Jihad in Islam?

[skiguy]

Do you believe that there is a doctrine known as Jihad in Islam?

Of course I do. But what's the definition? Is it what Daniel Pipes and OBL say...offensive, pre-emptive, world domination, make everyone believe or die?

Or is it what many Muslim scholars say...an individual or collective spiritual and moral struggle? (by the way, Pipes and other "experts" say those scholars are being deceptive and are lying about the definition).

Looking at this simplistically. After I get my degree, go there, and start working with Middle Easterners, wouldn't it be very detrimental to the goal we are all trying to acheive (as well as my sanity) if my attitude is "OK, I think you Muslims and all of Islam is evil because you are all hellbent on violent world domination, but let's cooperate and work together anyway"

Perhaps it's just my lack of knowledge or experience, but I just really don't see how Pipes, Beck, et.al. are helping the cause by saying the stuff they do.

With all due respect, sir, I do think you have a very one-sided view of Islam.

[goesh]

It's not an even playing field when at the economic, religious, social and political level women in the Islamic world are not accorded equal status with men. The nuance and complications this fact brings to bear in geopolitical relationships is not readily overcome with an open, accepting mind. I wish it were that simple yet I do see some winds of change blowing that bodes well for the optimist. In Saudi Arabia for instance, the religious police and their authority is being challenged more and more by the citizens who on the whole are quite religiously conservative. The internet is giving people the world over insight into each other never before had. On the other hand, the row over Salman Rushdie being knighted is escalating with Iran taking a strong lead. After all, a death fatwa/contract was put out on him by Iran so I suppose it is only fitting they claim the most egregious offense by a nation state over someone in England exercising the right of free speech. Given all the press and official responses coming from the Islamic world in response to Sir Rushdie, the almost total absence of Public condemnation from the Islamic world over the killing of Muslims by Muslims in Iraq must be regarded with due caution. I hope for the better and see postivie change brewing and occuring in the Islamic world, and ours, yet I don't shy away from a potential clash of civilizations which from many practical view points is already occuring.

[AdmiralAdama]

Of course I do. But what's the definition? Is it what Daniel Pipes and OBL say...offensive, pre-emptive, world domination, make everyone believe or die?

No, the Koran quite clearly offers infidels three different options -- convert, die, or pay the jizyah and "feel themselves dominated"

Or is it what many Muslim scholars say...an individual or collective spiritual and moral struggle? (by the way, Pipes and other "experts" say those scholars are being deceptive and are lying about the definition).

I'm not sure where you get the information that scholars say that Jihad is a "spiritual and moral struggle". Here's is a piece on the history of Jihad for the last 1300 years. It includes the Caliph practicing the precepts of Jihad:

Summon the people to God; those who respond to your call, accept it from them, but those who refuse must pay the poll tax out of humiliation and lowliness. (Koran 9:29) If they refuse this, it is the sword without leniency. Fear God with regard to what you have been entrusted.

if my attitude is "OK, I think you Muslims and all of Islam is evil because you are all hellbent on violent world domination, but let's cooperate and work together anyway"

I do not believe that Muslims and all of Islam is "evil". That is silly.

I do believe, however, in the importance of understanding the strategic intentions of our enemy, and I believe that we must look at the history and practice of Jihad to do that.

[skiguy]

Devour the nations the lord your god delivers over to you. Show them no pity

You must completely destroy them; you shall make no peace treaties with them, and show no mercy to them

Utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, infant and suckling baby

They pursued them and all of them to the very last had fallen by the edge of the sword

Put the inhabitants to the slaughter without giving any quarter and burn their town down

They devoted the city to the LORD and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it— men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys

Are these verses from the Qur'am or the Bible?

Admiral, I completely agree with you that we have to look at their doctine to defeat them, but I also think we have to look at how (if possible) we can change attitude. Empowering the moderate Muslims may very well be the answer. Demonizing Islam isn't, because that could offend and turn away the moderate Muslims as well.

PLEASE don't take this personally, but I think having the attitude you show is the wrong approach. I don't think it could work. On the other hand, my tendency to have an overly optimistic attitude that they'll change and the moderates will take over and everything will be fine isn't correct either.

[AdmiralAdama]

The difference between belligerent quotations in the old testament and belligerant quotations in the Koran is that in the first, scholars have not interpreted them to mean an unending Holy War against non-believers. Judaism, in particular, is not a universal, proselytizing creed. If Judaism or Christianity were blowing infidels up and causing a ruckus everywhere they rubbed up against non-believers, I would be concerned about that. But they don't seem to be. Jihad is a moral, legal, and political doctrine which has been confirmed by Islamic leaders and scholars for over 1300 years. No such doctrine exists for Christianity, Judaism, or other religions.

Empowering the moderate Muslims may very well be the answer. Demonizing Islam isn't, because that could offend and turn away the moderate Muslims as well.

PLEASE don't take this personally, but I think having the attitude you show is the wrong approach. I don't think it could work. On the other hand, my tendency to have an overly optimistic attitude that they'll change and the moderates will take

I agree that "moderate Musims" are key to fighting off the Jihadists. However, not to acknowledge the deep traditions and theology of Jihadism in Islam will help neither us as we try to come up with a strategy or reforming Muslims, who must deal forthrightly with their history, theology, and legal doctrine.

[skiguy]

The difference between belligerent quotations in the old testament and belligerant quotations in the Koran is that in the first, scholars have not interpreted them to mean an unending Holy War against non-believers.

Adm, they are not belligerent quotes,they are actual quotes. I've taken them from the O.T. And, even when taken n context they clearly show commands by God to detroy every living human being in the cities. Any Bible scholar would agree.

Judaism, in particular, is not a universal, proselytizing creed.

That it is incorrect. Have you ever studied Jewish eschatology? Their "end times" belief is that a warrior King (the Messiah) will arise to conquer and defeat the whole world then set up the Kingdom of God. That isn't much different than Islam eschatology. IMHO, this is something that should be looked into more..maybe, just maybe there is some way they can cooperate. They do share a lineage after all. Perhaps that's where Chritianity can come in and 'mediate'...Muslims do accept Christians more than Jews. (this is just some whacky idea I have)

Jihad is a moral, legal, and political doctrine which has been confirmed by Islamic leaders and scholars for over 1300 years. No such doctrine exists for Christianity, Judaism, or other religions.

Have you ever read/studied Revelation? It's all there clear as day. That's aside from the fact that there are fundamental theological differences between Judaism and Chritianity, but this is not the appropriate thread to discuss this.


I'm going to end here. The sources you are using are very biased because they take Qur'anic verses out of context and ignore the rest of the Qur'an, then they make those verses fit what they want to say. It's just as easy to do that with the Bible. They use ex-practitioners of Islam as their experts. There are tons of web sites that use ex-Christians as atheist experts too. Do you see my point?

[AdmiralAdama]

I'm going to end here. The sources you are using are very biased because they take Qur'anic verses out of context and ignore the rest of the Qur'an, then they make those verses fit what they want to say. It's just as easy to do that with the Bible. They use ex-practitioners of Islam as their experts. There are tons of web sites that use ex-Christians as atheist experts too. Do you see my point?

I agree that quoting verses out of context is a dubious practice. However, more persuasive sources of information on Islamic tradition and law are often the Islamic scholars themselves. Such as Khaldun who is a reknowned and respected
Islamic scholar:

Ibn Khaldoun (full name Arabic: ابو زيد عبد الرحمن بن محمد بن خلدون الحضرمي, Abū Zayd ‘Abdu r-Raḥman bin Muḥammad bin Khaldūn al-Ḥaḍramī) (May 27, 1332 AD/732 AH – March 19, 1406 AD/808 AH), was a famous Arab Muslim historian, historiographer, demographer, economist, philosopher and sociologist born in present-day Tunisia.

Note what he has to say about Jihad

" In the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the [Muslim] mission and [the obligation to] convert everybody to Islam by persuasion or by force.... The other religious groups did not have a universal mission, and the holy war was not a religious duty for them, save only for purposes of defense....Islam is under obligation to gain power over other nations."

and Ibn Baz, the grand mufti of Saudi Arabia, who wrote as follows:

Jihad is of various kinds, with one’s self, one's wealth, by making dua, by teaching and guiding, by helping to do good in any way. The greatest form of jihad is jihad with one’s self (i.e., going oneself and fighting), followed by jihad with one's wealth, jihad by speaking out and guiding others. Dawah is also part of jihad. But going out oneself to fight in jihad is the highest form. (Fatawa ash-Sheikh Ibn Baz, 7/334, 335) [2]

The best place to start off reading about concepts of Jihad throughout history made by Islamic scholars is here

There's a stream of Islamic scholars there quoted on the tradition and responsibility of Jihad. One certainly doesn't need to "select very biased" quotations. One merely has to study what 1300 years of Islamic doctrine says about Jihad.

[SWCAdmin]

AdmiralAdama,

I am most definitely NOT an Islam scholar. But I see that you are actively proferring views, references, and opinions representing your studies and interest in the subject.

It would help me, and I think a number of our members, if you would attempt to characterize your viewpoiint, the basis of your references, etc. I can sense some strong feelings (one man's opinion is another's bias) behind your posts, but I'm not sure I can reverse engineer them from Islamist references no matter how many times you repeat the same mantra.

A radio host I used to listen to for a political show always started with "who do you work for, where is your organization on the political spectrum, and where do you get your money?" That doesn't fully translate and I don't mean to convert that too personally, but that kind of thing. You did toss a label or two out when you got started here. Which ones would you put on you?

And I very much appreciate your placing an intro in the Tell Us About You thread, but again I'm not getting it from that.

[AdmiralAdama]

I have no organization. I make my money from writing. I have studied the Jihad and Jihadist tradition since I was in lower manhattan on 9/11. I started off with opinions quite similar to "these lunatics have hijacked an obviously peaceful religion". However, when I began to read the Koran and studied the history of Jihad, I realized that the Jihad is a central part of the teachings of the Koran and the example of The Prophet, has become accepted legal doctrine for hundreds of years, and is still being taught in madrassas through out the world. For example, this is an essay on Saudi Grand Mufti on the history and implications of the Jihad. He writes regarding Jihad

As it is now obvious, at first "the fighting" was forbidden, then it was permitted and after that it was made obligatory- ( I ) against them who start "the fighting" against you (Muslims)... (2) and against all those who worship others along with Allah...

It is not as if I am taking quotations out of context. The history of Jihad is right there. It's not a figment of a feverish imagination.

These reasons are why it's been so hard for "moderate Muslims" to fight the Jihadists -- as their arguments are extremely strong in terms of Islamic tradition and law.

Now does that mean all Muslims are the enemy? No. Does it mean that Islam is evil? No. But it does help us answer some crucial questions: What is the enemy? Is the West facing a Jihad? Is Islam, as Bernard Lewis claims, again trying to "take Europe"? How long a struggle are we facing? We certainly are not waging a "war on terror" -- we ar waging a war against Jihadists, which is a violent project emerging from a political project which emerges straight from Islamic tradition and teaching itself.

[SteveMetz]

If Judaism or Christianity were blowing infidels up and causing a ruckus everywhere they rubbed up against non-believers, I would be concerned about that.

This is the same line as before. By the way you phrase that, you want to imply that Islam is " blowing infidels up and causing a ruckus everywhere they rubbed up against non-believers." That is simply false. Hundreds of millions of Muslims "rub up against non-believers" every day and perhaps a few thousand world wide "cause a ruckus." You continue to cherry pick Islamic extremists and the most extremely hostile commentators on Islam and portray that as indicative of all Muslims and all experts on Islam.

[SWCAdmin]

Yes, got it. Jihad is organic to the religion, and is a key element being used against us. Roger that. That cat is flat. And there's the whole debate as to whether it is jihad, irhab, or hirabah, the potential impacts of which are well articulated here.

BTW, sorry if my analogy seemed like I was prying into your personal finances -- the concept there wasn't to do that, but akin to "what is the engine that drives you?"

Very interesting to me that 9/11 drove your intellectual curiosity, hell of a day I'm sure. Clearly you've done some reading, cited a good chunk of it here, useful to some I'm sure and they can follow up through those links. But I presume your stuides swayed your mind, and it is no longer "these lunatics have hijacked an obviously peaceful religion." So what is it now? Just that the religion isn't inherently as peaceful as you used to think? Or something more? And now what? What's the next step of the analysis and how should it inform our actions?

We've got several other Islam scholars who take exception to each other, your position, and the price of tea in China. No problemo, every one has their right to their own spin. (Good thing all the Christians agree on everything ).

More busy folks might take interest in a filtered set of refs if there was a more clear and useful reason behind it -- somewhere betweem intellectual curiosity which we've all got, and [help Israel] kill 'em all, the violent bastards. What's your take on the so what?