Tweet
FrontPage Magazine
Oct 20 2004
Islamism's Inspiration
By FrontPage Magazine
FrontPageMagazine.com | October 20, 2004
(In our October 11th issue, we carried a piece by Robert Spencer,
Terror's Islamic Roots, which criticized Mustafa Akyol's October 8th
piece Still Standing For Islam - And Against Terrorism. The battle of
the minds continues. Below is Akyol's response, followed by another
counter from Spencer - The Editors).
*
Terror's Roots Not in Islam By Mustafa Akyol
After my article on Frontpage, titled Still Standing For Islam - And
Against Terrorism, Robert Spencer, the editor of the Jihad Watch
website posted a rebuttal. He argued that Islam is indeed the
legitimate source of terrorists such as al-Qaeda, and my arguments
can't persuade those militants to stop their violence.
I wonder how the arguments of Mr. Spencer can help the same cause,
but that is trivial for now. Let me explain what I really say and
what I really want to do.
In a nutshell, what I am trying to do is to show that the current
terrorism under the name of Islam is not legitimate from an Islamic
point of view. By doing so, I want to refute two diametrically
opposing camps: Islamist terrorists and some of the harsh critics of
Islam. Interestingly, both camps agree that Islam is a cult of
violence, whereas for me, and for hundreds of millions of Muslims
around the globe, Islam is a path to God. We just wish to cleanse
that path from the distortions of the politically oriented radicals
and intolerant bigots.
When I say terrorism (or authoritarianism) is not legitimate from an
Islamic point of view, I mean the Islamic ideal that I believe in,
and which is based on the Koran, besides everything else. Of course,
there are Muslims who think that evils such as attacks against
American or Israeli civilians, kidnappings, bombings, repressive
regimes or anti-Semitism are legitimate. They are obviously out
there, as we all know. I am trying to de-legitimize their doctrine. I
am not trying to 'cover up' militant Islamists, as I have been
accused of doing on Jihad Watch.
Mr. Spencer also quoted the "Muslim Q&A" website, which promotes
compulsion in religion. Well, I am horrified by such views, which I
believe to be totally contradictory to the spirit of the Koran and I
am ready to stand against them.
Yet Mr. Spencer insists that such efforts won't persuade the
militants to have a farewell to arms or the fanatics to accept
freedom of worship. He is right. I don't expect al-Qaeda militants to
weep and repent when they read what I, or what many other moderate
Muslims - most of them much more qualified then myself - write. But
we can, Lord willing, persuade the Muslim masses that are confused
about what to believe; confused whether al-Qaeda and its ilk are
brave heroes of Islam or a bunch of bigoted zealots.
Moreover, while we moderates can't probably convert militants into
peaceniks, it is very probable that portraying Islam as a cult of
violence will help converting non-violent Muslims into militants. The
majority of the world's Muslims, who believe that their religion
demands peace, will be horrified to see what they will perceive as
anti-Islamic propaganda and will be prone anti-Western sentiments.
Please let's be careful about this.
Mr. Spencer also criticizes me for defining an Islamic case of just
war. He writes,
Likewise, Akyol's contention that "the war verses describe only an
abnormal state of affairs - in which the Muslim community faced an
enemy that sought its annihilation - and verses that promote peace
and tolerance describe the Islamic ideal" will do nothing to pacify
radical Muslims, since they have argued again and again that today
the Muslim community faces an enemy that seeks its annihilation.
Well, defining a concept of just war cannot prevent fanatics to
distort the current reality and raise a false justification. When the
Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, for example, the justification was
that they undertook military intervention in response to an official
request for help by the Afghanistan government, and also fulfilling
treaty obligations under the terms of the Soviet-Afghan Friendship
Treaty. On paper, that could sound legitimate. In reality, it was an
obvious distortion of facts. The problem was not the theory on paper,
rather the Orwellian method of misinterpreting real events.
What al-Qaeda and its ilk do is to distort both the Islamic doctrine
of war (on paper), and the current events. In a forthcoming article
of mine, I explain why it is a big distortion to present the U.S. as
the enemy of Islam while it saved Muslims from slaughter or
starvation in many recent conflicts, such as Bosnia, Kosovo, Somalia
and Afghanistan (during the Soviet Invasion.)
In other words, it is not my fault if militants distort the doctrine
of just war, but I am determined to stand against that, too.
Mr. Spencer also questions my opposition to the doctrine of
abrogation (naskh), which holds that some Koranic verses are
abrogated by the later ones. He says that doctrine is rooted in the
Koran. That is a common view, but I and other critics of abrogation
don't think so. As also explained in the article that I linked to in
my recent Frontpage piece, that abrogation in question should be
better understood as the abrogation of previous revelations by the
Koran.
Mr. Spencer also criticized me for quoting hadiths and sira, while I
"rejected" them at the same time. But I did not say I reject these
secondary sources of Islam; I said I "question" them. This means I
believe that we can refer to these sources to learn about the works
of Prophet Muhammad, but since they are very late collections, they
might well include untrue stories and we can be critical and
selective on them. And this is not a completely unorthodox view. As
I pointed out in my recent Frontpage article, even the very
conservative Al-Azhar is reconsidering to purify the sources of
hadith from `the strange, the false and from forgery.'
Mr. Spencer also argued that I "dismissed the Armenian genocide... in
order to avoid ten years in prison as mandated by law in [my] native
Turkey." I don't know how Mr. Spencer can figure out my motives. In
fact, I don't care about any penal law while building my arguments.
If I had believed that the tragedy in 1915 was "Armenian Genocide", I
would have said that. (Well, some people say that in Turkey, such as
my university professor Halil Berktay, and they are obviously not in
jail.) Mr. Spencer even used the horrific term "Holocaust denial" to
describe my position on the Armenian issue. I am confident that in
this "Holocaust denial," my references are not notorious pro-Nazis
like Ernst Zündel or Arthur Butz, but esteemed historians such
Bernard Lewis and Daniel Pipes.
However, despite all these, I should say that I appreciate Mr.
Spencer's commentary on my writing. He has pointed out some points
that I should have stressed more or clarified. Thus, I believe that
all these rebuttals and counter-rebuttals I have with Mr. Spencer
(and Mr. Bostom) and all the comments about me at Frontpage and Jihad
Watch stirs a "creative tension", which is indeed fruitful, as long
as it does not turn into to a blind exchange of accusations and
counter-accusations.
I believe that Mr. Spencer's Jihad Watch will never decline to such a
one-sided, bigoted point of view. After all, if you watch something,
you have to look through a fair lens in order to see it right.
As far as it goes that way, I am glad to be "watched" - since my
"jihad" (struggle) is focused on saving Islam from militancy and
bigotry.
Mustafa Akyol is a political scientist, columnist and writer from
Turkey. He is also a director at the Intercultural Dialogue Platform,
based in Istanbul. He can be reached at [email protected]
*
The Islamic Foundations of Terror By Robert Spencer
Mustafa Akyol, in his fourth essay and latest reply to me, says that
I `argued that Islam is indeed the legitimate source of terrorists
such as al-Qaeda, and [his] arguments can't persuade those militants
to stop their violence.' Akyol adds: `I wonder how the arguments of
Mr. Spencer can help the same cause, but that is trivial for now.'
Actually, it is not trivial at all. It is the core of Akyol's
objections to my arguments, and central to our differing
perspectives. Akyol says: `In a nutshell, what I am trying to do is
to show that the current terrorism under the name of Islam is not
legitimate from an Islamic point of view.' I applaud any such efforts
whenever they are genuine and effective; my objections to Mr. Akyol
have nothing to do with the fact that he is trying to delegitimize
the radicals. But for such attempts, whether by Mr. Akyol or anyone
else, to be worthwhile, they have actually to refute the arguments
from the Qur'an and Islamic tradition used by Islamic radicals. If
they don't do this, then they don't show that terrorism is
illegitimate from an Islamic perspective, and fail at Mr. Akyol's
stated purpose.
How, then, can my arguments help Akyol's cause? By compelling him to
make them stronger. If I can see holes in them from the standpoint of
Islamic theology and tradition, Islamic radicals can see them too,
and many more. If Islamic moderates wish to succeed, they simply must
not leave these holes open.
Akyol adds: `I want to refute two diametrically opposing camps:
Islamist terrorists and some of the harsh critics of Islam.
Interestingly, both camps agree that Islam is a cult of violence,
whereas for me, and for hundreds of millions of Muslims around the
globe, Islam is a path to God. We just wish to cleanse that path from
the distortions of the politically oriented radicals and intolerant
bigots.' And later in his piece he says, `The majority of the world's
Muslims, who believe that their religion demands peace, will be
horrified to see what they will perceive as anti-Islamic propaganda
and will be prone [to] anti-Western sentiments. Please let's be
careful about this.'
So evidently Western non-Muslims must not point out the elements of
Islam that give rise to violence, lest non-committed Muslims will
perceive us as anti-Muslim and become violent themselves. This is, of
course, self-contradictory (for if they are against the violence in
Islam, they should not oppose someone who opposes it with them) and
palpably absurd (for if they are really non-violent, how can nothing
more than a perceived insult make them violent?).
Akyol acknowledges that his efforts `won't persuade the militants to
have a farewell to arms or the fanatics to accept freedom of
worship,' but he says he is going after the silent majority of
Muslims who are confused. Once again, I applaud his efforts - but he
surely knows that Osama and other radicals use carefully constructed
arguments from the Qur'an and Islamic tradition to buttress their
views. The `Muslim masses' can read those as well as I can; if
Akyol's counter-arguments can be easily refuted by the radicals, how
will they convince the masses?
Later, Akyol notes that I criticized him for quoting hadiths and sira
right after rejecting them. He says: `I did not say I reject these
secondary sources of Islam; I said I `question' them. This means I
believe that we can refer to these sources to learn about the works
of Prophet Muhammad, but since they are very late collections, they
might well include untrue stories and we can be critical and
selective on them. And this is not a completely unorthodox view. As
I pointed out in my recent Frontpage article, even the very
conservative Al-Azhar is reconsidering to purify the sources of
hadith from `the strange, the false and from forgery.''
That's fine, but what Al-Azhar is doing is nothing new. The sifting
of true ahadith from false ones has gone on ever since there have
been ahadith. There are many ahadith among the Sahih Sittah, the
collections generally accepted as most reliable by Muslims, that
contain exhortations to jihad warfare against Jews, Christians, and
others. Does Mr. Akyol think that these are all weak ahadith? If so,
how will he convince Muslims to reject material from the revered
collections of Bukhari, Muslim, and other respected sources? This is
not a rhetorical question; I hope he has an answer, and am looking
forward to seeing it.
As for the Armenian genocide, I believe that Bernard Lewis was justly
prosecuted in France for his denial (although I abhor such speech
laws), and I do not think he is an unimpeachable source, given his
marked and uncritical affection for Ataturkism. I refer objective
readers to The History of the Armenian Genocide by Vahakn N. Dadrian.
In sum, I appreciate Mr. Akyol's efforts to oppose radical Muslims.
But if he really hopes to delegitimize violence in Islam, he has to
construct an Islamic argument strong enough to refute radicals -
something he says he has no hope of doing. If he cannot do this, how
can he expect Muslim moderates to follow him? I devoutly hope for
fundamental and global reform in Islam, but it can only come from a
definitive repudiation of everything Islamic that gives rise to
terrorism. Mr. Akyol is not there yet; I do hope he arrives someday.
Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch and the author of
Onward Muslim Soldiers: How Jihad Still Threatens America and the
West (Regnery Publishing), and Islam Unveiled: Disturbing Questions
About the World's Fastest Growing Faith (Encounter Books).
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
Oct 20 2004
Islamism's Inspiration
By FrontPage Magazine
FrontPageMagazine.com | October 20, 2004
(In our October 11th issue, we carried a piece by Robert Spencer,
Terror's Islamic Roots, which criticized Mustafa Akyol's October 8th
piece Still Standing For Islam - And Against Terrorism. The battle of
the minds continues. Below is Akyol's response, followed by another
counter from Spencer - The Editors).
*
Terror's Roots Not in Islam By Mustafa Akyol
After my article on Frontpage, titled Still Standing For Islam - And
Against Terrorism, Robert Spencer, the editor of the Jihad Watch
website posted a rebuttal. He argued that Islam is indeed the
legitimate source of terrorists such as al-Qaeda, and my arguments
can't persuade those militants to stop their violence.
I wonder how the arguments of Mr. Spencer can help the same cause,
but that is trivial for now. Let me explain what I really say and
what I really want to do.
In a nutshell, what I am trying to do is to show that the current
terrorism under the name of Islam is not legitimate from an Islamic
point of view. By doing so, I want to refute two diametrically
opposing camps: Islamist terrorists and some of the harsh critics of
Islam. Interestingly, both camps agree that Islam is a cult of
violence, whereas for me, and for hundreds of millions of Muslims
around the globe, Islam is a path to God. We just wish to cleanse
that path from the distortions of the politically oriented radicals
and intolerant bigots.
When I say terrorism (or authoritarianism) is not legitimate from an
Islamic point of view, I mean the Islamic ideal that I believe in,
and which is based on the Koran, besides everything else. Of course,
there are Muslims who think that evils such as attacks against
American or Israeli civilians, kidnappings, bombings, repressive
regimes or anti-Semitism are legitimate. They are obviously out
there, as we all know. I am trying to de-legitimize their doctrine. I
am not trying to 'cover up' militant Islamists, as I have been
accused of doing on Jihad Watch.
Mr. Spencer also quoted the "Muslim Q&A" website, which promotes
compulsion in religion. Well, I am horrified by such views, which I
believe to be totally contradictory to the spirit of the Koran and I
am ready to stand against them.
Yet Mr. Spencer insists that such efforts won't persuade the
militants to have a farewell to arms or the fanatics to accept
freedom of worship. He is right. I don't expect al-Qaeda militants to
weep and repent when they read what I, or what many other moderate
Muslims - most of them much more qualified then myself - write. But
we can, Lord willing, persuade the Muslim masses that are confused
about what to believe; confused whether al-Qaeda and its ilk are
brave heroes of Islam or a bunch of bigoted zealots.
Moreover, while we moderates can't probably convert militants into
peaceniks, it is very probable that portraying Islam as a cult of
violence will help converting non-violent Muslims into militants. The
majority of the world's Muslims, who believe that their religion
demands peace, will be horrified to see what they will perceive as
anti-Islamic propaganda and will be prone anti-Western sentiments.
Please let's be careful about this.
Mr. Spencer also criticizes me for defining an Islamic case of just
war. He writes,
Likewise, Akyol's contention that "the war verses describe only an
abnormal state of affairs - in which the Muslim community faced an
enemy that sought its annihilation - and verses that promote peace
and tolerance describe the Islamic ideal" will do nothing to pacify
radical Muslims, since they have argued again and again that today
the Muslim community faces an enemy that seeks its annihilation.
Well, defining a concept of just war cannot prevent fanatics to
distort the current reality and raise a false justification. When the
Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, for example, the justification was
that they undertook military intervention in response to an official
request for help by the Afghanistan government, and also fulfilling
treaty obligations under the terms of the Soviet-Afghan Friendship
Treaty. On paper, that could sound legitimate. In reality, it was an
obvious distortion of facts. The problem was not the theory on paper,
rather the Orwellian method of misinterpreting real events.
What al-Qaeda and its ilk do is to distort both the Islamic doctrine
of war (on paper), and the current events. In a forthcoming article
of mine, I explain why it is a big distortion to present the U.S. as
the enemy of Islam while it saved Muslims from slaughter or
starvation in many recent conflicts, such as Bosnia, Kosovo, Somalia
and Afghanistan (during the Soviet Invasion.)
In other words, it is not my fault if militants distort the doctrine
of just war, but I am determined to stand against that, too.
Mr. Spencer also questions my opposition to the doctrine of
abrogation (naskh), which holds that some Koranic verses are
abrogated by the later ones. He says that doctrine is rooted in the
Koran. That is a common view, but I and other critics of abrogation
don't think so. As also explained in the article that I linked to in
my recent Frontpage piece, that abrogation in question should be
better understood as the abrogation of previous revelations by the
Koran.
Mr. Spencer also criticized me for quoting hadiths and sira, while I
"rejected" them at the same time. But I did not say I reject these
secondary sources of Islam; I said I "question" them. This means I
believe that we can refer to these sources to learn about the works
of Prophet Muhammad, but since they are very late collections, they
might well include untrue stories and we can be critical and
selective on them. And this is not a completely unorthodox view. As
I pointed out in my recent Frontpage article, even the very
conservative Al-Azhar is reconsidering to purify the sources of
hadith from `the strange, the false and from forgery.'
Mr. Spencer also argued that I "dismissed the Armenian genocide... in
order to avoid ten years in prison as mandated by law in [my] native
Turkey." I don't know how Mr. Spencer can figure out my motives. In
fact, I don't care about any penal law while building my arguments.
If I had believed that the tragedy in 1915 was "Armenian Genocide", I
would have said that. (Well, some people say that in Turkey, such as
my university professor Halil Berktay, and they are obviously not in
jail.) Mr. Spencer even used the horrific term "Holocaust denial" to
describe my position on the Armenian issue. I am confident that in
this "Holocaust denial," my references are not notorious pro-Nazis
like Ernst Zündel or Arthur Butz, but esteemed historians such
Bernard Lewis and Daniel Pipes.
However, despite all these, I should say that I appreciate Mr.
Spencer's commentary on my writing. He has pointed out some points
that I should have stressed more or clarified. Thus, I believe that
all these rebuttals and counter-rebuttals I have with Mr. Spencer
(and Mr. Bostom) and all the comments about me at Frontpage and Jihad
Watch stirs a "creative tension", which is indeed fruitful, as long
as it does not turn into to a blind exchange of accusations and
counter-accusations.
I believe that Mr. Spencer's Jihad Watch will never decline to such a
one-sided, bigoted point of view. After all, if you watch something,
you have to look through a fair lens in order to see it right.
As far as it goes that way, I am glad to be "watched" - since my
"jihad" (struggle) is focused on saving Islam from militancy and
bigotry.
Mustafa Akyol is a political scientist, columnist and writer from
Turkey. He is also a director at the Intercultural Dialogue Platform,
based in Istanbul. He can be reached at [email protected]
*
The Islamic Foundations of Terror By Robert Spencer
Mustafa Akyol, in his fourth essay and latest reply to me, says that
I `argued that Islam is indeed the legitimate source of terrorists
such as al-Qaeda, and [his] arguments can't persuade those militants
to stop their violence.' Akyol adds: `I wonder how the arguments of
Mr. Spencer can help the same cause, but that is trivial for now.'
Actually, it is not trivial at all. It is the core of Akyol's
objections to my arguments, and central to our differing
perspectives. Akyol says: `In a nutshell, what I am trying to do is
to show that the current terrorism under the name of Islam is not
legitimate from an Islamic point of view.' I applaud any such efforts
whenever they are genuine and effective; my objections to Mr. Akyol
have nothing to do with the fact that he is trying to delegitimize
the radicals. But for such attempts, whether by Mr. Akyol or anyone
else, to be worthwhile, they have actually to refute the arguments
from the Qur'an and Islamic tradition used by Islamic radicals. If
they don't do this, then they don't show that terrorism is
illegitimate from an Islamic perspective, and fail at Mr. Akyol's
stated purpose.
How, then, can my arguments help Akyol's cause? By compelling him to
make them stronger. If I can see holes in them from the standpoint of
Islamic theology and tradition, Islamic radicals can see them too,
and many more. If Islamic moderates wish to succeed, they simply must
not leave these holes open.
Akyol adds: `I want to refute two diametrically opposing camps:
Islamist terrorists and some of the harsh critics of Islam.
Interestingly, both camps agree that Islam is a cult of violence,
whereas for me, and for hundreds of millions of Muslims around the
globe, Islam is a path to God. We just wish to cleanse that path from
the distortions of the politically oriented radicals and intolerant
bigots.' And later in his piece he says, `The majority of the world's
Muslims, who believe that their religion demands peace, will be
horrified to see what they will perceive as anti-Islamic propaganda
and will be prone [to] anti-Western sentiments. Please let's be
careful about this.'
So evidently Western non-Muslims must not point out the elements of
Islam that give rise to violence, lest non-committed Muslims will
perceive us as anti-Muslim and become violent themselves. This is, of
course, self-contradictory (for if they are against the violence in
Islam, they should not oppose someone who opposes it with them) and
palpably absurd (for if they are really non-violent, how can nothing
more than a perceived insult make them violent?).
Akyol acknowledges that his efforts `won't persuade the militants to
have a farewell to arms or the fanatics to accept freedom of
worship,' but he says he is going after the silent majority of
Muslims who are confused. Once again, I applaud his efforts - but he
surely knows that Osama and other radicals use carefully constructed
arguments from the Qur'an and Islamic tradition to buttress their
views. The `Muslim masses' can read those as well as I can; if
Akyol's counter-arguments can be easily refuted by the radicals, how
will they convince the masses?
Later, Akyol notes that I criticized him for quoting hadiths and sira
right after rejecting them. He says: `I did not say I reject these
secondary sources of Islam; I said I `question' them. This means I
believe that we can refer to these sources to learn about the works
of Prophet Muhammad, but since they are very late collections, they
might well include untrue stories and we can be critical and
selective on them. And this is not a completely unorthodox view. As
I pointed out in my recent Frontpage article, even the very
conservative Al-Azhar is reconsidering to purify the sources of
hadith from `the strange, the false and from forgery.''
That's fine, but what Al-Azhar is doing is nothing new. The sifting
of true ahadith from false ones has gone on ever since there have
been ahadith. There are many ahadith among the Sahih Sittah, the
collections generally accepted as most reliable by Muslims, that
contain exhortations to jihad warfare against Jews, Christians, and
others. Does Mr. Akyol think that these are all weak ahadith? If so,
how will he convince Muslims to reject material from the revered
collections of Bukhari, Muslim, and other respected sources? This is
not a rhetorical question; I hope he has an answer, and am looking
forward to seeing it.
As for the Armenian genocide, I believe that Bernard Lewis was justly
prosecuted in France for his denial (although I abhor such speech
laws), and I do not think he is an unimpeachable source, given his
marked and uncritical affection for Ataturkism. I refer objective
readers to The History of the Armenian Genocide by Vahakn N. Dadrian.
In sum, I appreciate Mr. Akyol's efforts to oppose radical Muslims.
But if he really hopes to delegitimize violence in Islam, he has to
construct an Islamic argument strong enough to refute radicals -
something he says he has no hope of doing. If he cannot do this, how
can he expect Muslim moderates to follow him? I devoutly hope for
fundamental and global reform in Islam, but it can only come from a
definitive repudiation of everything Islamic that gives rise to
terrorism. Mr. Akyol is not there yet; I do hope he arrives someday.
Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch and the author of
Onward Muslim Soldiers: How Jihad Still Threatens America and the
West (Regnery Publishing), and Islam Unveiled: Disturbing Questions
About the World's Fastest Growing Faith (Encounter Books).
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress