Shoebat: First of all Mohammed writes:
"Now regarding Mr. Shoebatt: I do not know from where he gets his understanding of the Qur'an which seems to be based on pure Islamophobia, probably intensified by evangelism."
Mohammed - all of the sudden, attacks Western understanding, myself with such rude statement, and everyone who disagrees. This proves the point – all what these "reformists" are interested in is "fighting Islamophobia". I know very well this type of arguing from Muslims. He makes me sound like "this x-Muslim's Islam was from Mars", when his "liberal Islam" view is a minority, and much of it is in America. I wonder why?
One challenge - tape your understanding of Jihad in your liberal way, I give you an hour lecture, then we will have you stand in any Islamic capital city of your choice, be it Cairo, Ramallah, Damascus, Baghdad, Tehran, Khartoum.
And full blast your sermon with a ghetto blaster for a week or two.
Then report to me - if you survive. This should prove beyond any doubt that my understanding of Islam fits very well the understanding of the masses.
Then Nawash asks for an excellent suggestion:
"In light of this, all who are interested in Islamic reformation must begin with the belief that Islam is no innocent bystander in the violence perpetrated by Muslims."
But Nawash, this is like all Christians saying that "Christianity" is not innocent from genocide – has this happened in Church reformation? NO How can you expect this from Muslims? Christians never blamed Christianity but Christendom.
It's a big difference when we say "Christendom" is guilty.
It's one thing to ask "Muslimdom" to admit guilt, but Islam?
My argument that "Islam cannot be reformed" has not been responded to. You really cannot. The only valid response is - confession. I confess, Islam is guilty. Yet, having done so, and unlike you, I cannot honestly call myself Muslim. Free at last, free at last, free at last.
Now that's the big difference here. I learned Western style honesty, the hell with loyalty to culture and tradition.
You on the other hand can't really say it, I doubt that you really believe that Islam is all peace loving. Do you?
The best way to practice "secularism" is to separate mosque from government. This means a fight has to exist within the Muslim world to oust the religionists out. But this doesn't solve my question - why should the West get involved? Again, I am not interested in reforming anything, I am simply interested in protecting our turf. This is why we have borders. Then you argue:
"These discoveries ultimately discredited the church as the giver of the only truth about everything and relegated religion in the Western world to a personal relationship between an individual and his Lord."
Yet a relationship between an individual and His Lord is exactly what one finds in the text of the Bible - not so the Qur’an. This goes back to my argument – the biblical text supports this, the Qur’anic text doesn't. End of story.
Then you have "In the West, media outlets are generally not interested in Muslims calling for reform or self-criticism."
Not true, the media begged Islamic societies to speak up, all they got was Muslim wars on "Islamophobia" just as we see Mohammed doing to me, and not much war on the fanatics. Westerners fight skinheads and Arians tooth and nail for misrepresenting the Bible. Where is the war for misrepresenting the Qur’an? American Muslims don't care to fight terrorism, the majority of them don't care. Muhammad Ali didn't see an Islamic cause in fighting Vietnam, it goes against his "Islam". How many Muslims join the U.S military?
Yes, there are brave few Muslims who fight, not reform, but separation of religion from state. They want limited Sharia and some re-interpretation for the sake of modern times. But this is not "reformation", you can call it struggle, revolution, westernization, theocratic elimination...
Islam can never be reformed. Period. If this is what "Free Muslim Coalition" is about, then it's a farce. The slogan should be "keep religion out of government", but again, this is hardly Islamic.
Mohammed also writes that what "reformers seek is simple: a textual approach that is devoid of the medieval understandings imposed on the Qur'an."
How can you do that? I know how - I am sure you heard of science in the Qur’an and knowledge on medical issues in the Qur’an as well. I know that we used to find supposed scientific knowledge from the Qur’an, and by that we looked at the verse ignoring the medieval understanding. So we find supposed fingerprinting in the Qur’an and go wow - Allahu Akbar, the Qur’an, a medieval book has science, only a prophet of Allah could have known that.
But that's NOT what we are talking about here. We are talking about Sharia Law.
Mohammed, I didn't misrepresent Ghazali, I simply quoted him. Here is my quote of Ghazali followed by my 'exact' statement:
["Muslims could live under non-Muslim rule as long as they do not forget that they are Allah's missionaries and, if needed, His soldiers". I suppose that Mohammed might re-interpret the meaning of "soldiers".]
Show me, how did I "deliberately misrepresent al Ghazali"?
Mohammed, I am not from Mars - you are. My Islam was the "true" Islam. Not a single Qur'anic commentator, not a single figure of significance in the whole 1350 year of Islam's history, has ever regarded Jihad as anything but the effort, using violence and other means, to spread Islam until it covers the globe. This includes your Ghazali.
Then you played on words: "the word for war, as Mr. Shoebat ought to know, is
Harb, and NOT Jihad."
Sure, Jihad means "struggle" the same way Hitler used it in Mien Kamph (My Struggle) since his "struggle" in his view was to fight evil - "the Jews".
You write: "I see two of the most destructive forces on earth as Muslim and Christian missionaries"
The difference sir, is that Christian missionaries these days might give you a headache, Muslim missionaries in Muslim countries however might just whack your head - right off.
Big difference. Don't you think?
Let's get a different quote for whichever "Ghazali" you like, Imam Ghazali, or Muhammed Ghazali, to see what is "foot soldier". Here is ancient Al-Ghazali:
"After the death of Mohammad, the man of the miracle [the Qur'an] and the apostle of truth and the companions, fearing the weakening of Islam, the decrease of the number of its followers, and the return of masses to their previous infidelity, saw that holy war and invading other countries for the sake of Allah, smashing the faces of the infidels with the sword and making people enter the religion of Allah as the most worthy of all tasks and better than all sciences." (Ihy'a Uloom adeen by Al-Ghazali, Dar al-Kutub al-'Elmeyah, Beirut, Vol. V, p. 35.)
The modern Al-Ghazali:
Question: "Was there really an examination of the religious study material that ultimately caused the removal of [some] Qur'an verses and stories about Jihad against the Jews and Israel?" Bahaa Al-Din: "In the early 1990s, I was surprised [to hear about] nine books published by [some] groups of extremists who accused us of blurring religious identity and removing Qur'an verses and Hadiths of the Prophet [from the religious curricula]. When this came to my attention, in 1994, I phoned the late Sheikh Muhammad Al-Ghazali, Dr. Sayyed Tantawi, Dr. Omar Hashem, and Dr. Abd Al-Sabour Marzouq and asked them to come to the [Education] Ministry. In a letter, I told them: 'It is not I who compiles these curricula and not I who must defend a mistake. If there is a mistake, I deserve thanks for correcting it.' Four hours later, Sheikh Al-Ghazali told me, 'I am sure that what is taught is the correct religion and that the statements that were circulated were absolute falsehood.' This matter was published in the media at the time."
He even approves of the violent curriculum in Egypt.
Yet anyone who simply quotes Islam, yet who is not Muslim is accused of "Mr Shoebat is not about reform in Islam, but the demonization of a faith" Even if I simply read the text. Non-Muslims cannot freely read the text - as is.
You demonize me, then accuse me of demonizing your faith?
It's no wonder Muslim demonstrators say "Zionism is Nazism".
They all get the whole thing turned around.
What the Muslim world needs, is to look at is a simple verse - look at the log in your Muslim eye, then pick on the spec of your Christian enemies.
You stated: "Peace ceased when the crusades were launched, and which have not yet ended."
Not yet ended? What crusades are still going? What holy war are you fighting?
You stated: "for Muslim theocracies to open their doors to Christian missionaries, and subject the masses to deviation from the true Abrahamic concept of
monotheism (i.e. Judeo-Islamic).."
Fair enough. You don't want Saudi Arabia to open the door of freedom. You showed your true colors. Then what are you doing in my country? Get out of my country.
You stated:
"The Arab world's obsession with Israel, and the refusal to recognize the right of the Jewish people to have their own state."
Muhammad seemed to have a similar obsession with the Jewish "state" of "Yathrib." No wonder he annihilated most of the Jews of Yathrib and of course extradited the rest.
Any Jews in Saudi? We’re not talking about Islamdom, but Islam's founder.
Your statements are too long and your argumentation is twisted. Like I said, most Muslims 'including most moderates' have a 'red-button'. It seems that I pushed it - ooopsss. Jamie concludes the truth of the matter:
"I take it you think it is fine that Muslims can freely preach in the West, but that non-Muslims are not allowed to preach anything non-Islamic in Muslim countries?"
This is their true colors - do unto non-Muslims what Muslims don't want done unto them.
Mohammed writes: Can Mr. Shoebat quote a single ayah, and with Christian honesty, prove that it advocates terrorism?
Tell you what, I will simply take the 'peaceful ones':
"Whoever kills a soul is like one who has killed the whole of mankind."
This sentence is at the heart of the Politically Correct campaign (including Dr. Khaleel) to ensure that the war fever against Islamic terrorists doesn't lead to an explosion of hostility against Muslims in general.
Looking at Sura 5:32 in context we see:
"... whoever kills a soul, not in retaliation for a soul or corruption in the land, is like one who has killed the whole of mankind; and whoever saves a life is like one who saves the lives of all mankind. Our messengers came to them with the clear proof; but afterwards many of them continued to commit excesses in the land."
The catch here, which is never quoted "corruption in the land." Although Muslims in general are angered when the Qur’an is misquoted, yet no one objected that textual corruption was applied by the politicians as long as it serves certain goals. The very next verse continues:
"Indeed, the punishment of those who fight Allah and His Messenger and go around corrupting the land is to be killed, crucified, have their hands and feet cut off on opposite sides, or to be banished from the land. That is a disgrace for them in this life, and in the life to come theirs will be a terrible punishment.". (Q5:34)
The tribe of Ukl got such fate for simply changing their mind and denounced Islam:
"Narrated Anas: Some people from the tribe of 'Ukl came to the Prophet and embraced Islam. The climate of Medina did not suit them, so the Prophet ordered them to go to the (herd of milch) camels of charity and to drink, their milk and urine (as a medicine). They did so, and after they had recovered from their ailment (became healthy) they turned renegades (reverted from Islam) and killed the shepherd of the camels and took the camels away. The Prophet sent (some people) in their pursuit and so they were (caught and) brought, and the Prophets ordered that their hands and legs should be cut off and that their eyes should be branded with heated pieces of iron, and that their cut hands and legs should not be cauterized, till they die." (Sahih Al-Bukhari Vol. 8, Bk. 82, No. 794.)
Which makes it all too clear that while the Koran teaches its followers to respect the sanctity of life of other 'good Muslims', those who "fight Allah and his Messenger" (i.e. Mohammed) for being guilty of "corruption in the land" should be killed, mutilated, or banished.
What I did here is 'Islamically' looked at as 'corruption in the land' 'tyranny' and such. After all, these were exactly what Dr. Khaleel Mohammed wrote in his response to my arguments:
"I am a Muslim, and for me to remain quiet in the face of some of the statements made would be to forego my duty of fighting against oppression"
In other words - I 'Walid' am an oppressor and tyrant. Why? Because I said that Jihad is "by the sword".
Never push the Muslim 'red button', you never know what you will get. What Khaleel needs to do is not "reform" Islam, but learn tolerance in the ingredients of his own life.
Nawash: I am disappointed in this symposium and the discussions we are having. Initially, I was excited about participating in this symposium because I thought we were going to discuss whether there need be an Islamic reformation and how we can achieve such a reformation. Instead, this symposium has turned into an emotional battle of the minds between Prof. Mohammed and Mr. Shoabat. They are more concerned with wining their arguments and convincing the other that their religion is the right religion rather than genuinely discussing reform.
I am not interested in this discussion. I couldn’t care less about proving or being convinced whether Christianity or Islam is the correct religion. I am more concerned with solving the crisis in Islam. And we do have crisis.
These days, not a day goes by without news of terrorism in the name of Islam. Islamist terrorism represents one of the most lethal threats to the stability of the civilized world. The root cause of Islamist terrorism is an ideology called “political Islam.” Political Islam is a desire by extremist Muslims to create a fundamentalist Muslim empire made up of every Muslim nation. This desire to create a Muslim empire is based on the delusion that modernity is a threat to Islam and the idea that the Muslim community has strayed from God and if they were to return to a strict interpretation of Islam based on Sharia (Islamic Law) that the problems in the Muslim world would be solved. It is this exact mentality spurned of paranoia, ignorance, fear, and a rejection of secularism that inspires Islamist Terrorism.
Political Islam has been growing at turbo speed since the 1980s. Similar to the spread of communism, the call for Islamic states has gained substantial following among the poor, unemployed, disenfranchised and those who are disillusioned in believing that the creation of Islamic states and the implementation of Sharia will solve all their problems. In fact, every modern example of an Islamic state, whether in Afghanistan, Iran, Sudan, or Nigeria has resulted in war, terrorism, inequality for women and non-Muslims, poverty and a slippery slope into the dark ages.
Terrorism is a natural result of political Islam because those who seek Islamic states believe that they are trying to implement the wishes of God and that no matter how barbaric their tactics are, God will be pleased with them since their goal is “noble.”
For these reasons, the war on terrorism will not be won unless the world also engages in an ideological battle with Muslim extremists and those who call for the creation of Muslim states. This is what we should be talking about in this symposium and this is what I do every day.
As far as I am concerned, I stand by the comments I made in my initial reply. I stated that The Koran, similar to the Bible and the Torah, says what ever the reader wants it to say.
The key to Islamic reformation is the promotion of secularism which will lead to rational thinking. Secularism and rationalism is how Christians and Jews reformed their religions. I am not naïve however. I realize the secularism is a tough sell in the Muslim world but not for the reasons given by Jamie and Walid.
Unfortunately, many Muslims in the Middle East equate secularism with failure. The 20th century saw the creation of “secular” Muslim states from Morocco to Iran. As we can witness by looking at the development statistics of the region, most of these states did not bring peace and prosperity to their citizens. Most of these “modern” Arab states brought their citizens repressive rule, war and poverty. These states differed in their official orientation: some were based on capitalism; others were driven by socialism or communism. However, regardless of their official orientation they shared the commonality of being centrally run and in failing to provide their citizens with peace and prosperity.
The equating of secularism with failure has been successfully propagated by Muslim extremists who reject secular democracies and call for Islamic states. Consequently, the common response by many citizens of the Middle East who favor the creation Islamic states is that “we tried capitalism, we tried socialism and we tried communism and they all failed so let us try Islam.” Supporters of Islamic states are relying on false notions. Islam is a religion, not a blueprint for the creation of a modern state. The Koran does not contain sufficient guidance for the creation of a state. Most modern states which have been founded and inspired by Islamic extremists are fascist, reactionary, impoverished and do not boast the features of democracy.
Democracy is rule by the people; a system of free choice where rulers are elected and held accountable by their constituents. The element of free choice of leaders is an explosive topic right now in the Middle East & North Africa. If fair and free elections were held tomorrow, the majority of Arab countries would probably elect totalitarian leaders with an intolerant pro-Islamist agenda. The election of extremists would spell death for democracy. We must first expel Islamic extremists and terrorists from Arab and Muslim societies before democracy can sweep the region.
I support the right of all peoples to self-government, but recognize the importance of a solid system of government which guarantees a secular democracy protecting the rights of all people, regardless of gender, race or religion. Muslims must be re-educated about the benefits of secularism and that the failure of their governments to bring them peace and prosperity was not because they were secular. Democracy can not succeed unless terrorism is defeated and Islamic extremism is discredited.
Having said all this, I will now respond to some of the comments made by the participating parties in this symposium.
My first response is to Jamie, the editor of FrontPage. Jamie takes issue with me drawing equivalency between the Islamic religious texts and the Christian and Jewish ones in the context of all the holy books having violent verses. Jamie calls this absurd and says that unlike Islam, nowhere in Jewish and Christian teachings is there a specific instruction to kill all those who are unlike you and to do this in order to force your religion upon others – “which Islam irrefutably does.” I am not surprised Jamie gave no authority for this statement. The Koran does not say such a thing. In fact, the Koran says that Jews and Christians may go heaven. It also says that those who believe in the Torah and the Bible may go to heaven. This is significant because Islam is the only religion that teaches that people of another faith may qualify to go to heaven.
The reason I broke my own rule and relied on the Koran to make a point is to give you an example that the Koran says whatever the reader wants it to say. For example, I am a liberal Muslim who loves Jesus and has the utmost respect for Christians and Jews. I believe that religion is a private matter and is a personal relationship between me and God. This is my ideological prism and thus I interpret the Koran in a way that confirms my beliefs. On the other hand, an extremist Muslim who believes in violent Jihad will interpret the Koran in a different way. For example, an extremist will interpret the phrases in the Koran that say Christian and Jews may go to heaven as only applying to the Jews and Christians who lived before the birth of Islam and thus concludes that today’s Christians and Jews are infidels and destined for Hell.
Similarly, the Bible and the Torah can be interpreted every which way but Tuesday. Do I need to remind you that not long ago Christians burned women in Massachusetts for being “witches.”
What about the ancient Jews who locked their women in huts for two weeks during their mistral cycle because of their “impurities.” The fact is, Jews and Christians eliminated the problems that many of the Muslims are facing today because of their adoption of secularism. No more, no less.
As to Professor Mohammad, focusing on the positive first, I must admit that I am intrigued by his acceptance of secular states. It is rare to find a Muslim theologian who does not see secularism as inconsistent with Islam. This alone is indicative that he is ahead of his time.
Mr. Mohammad “advocates the "double movement" approach--understanding the verses in their context, their ratio legis, and then using the philosophy of the Qur’an to interpret that in a modern social and moral sense.” I don’t have a problem with this approach; however, I don’t think it is sufficient to achieve Islamic reform in the near future. Islam has been devoid of reasoning (ishtihad) for almost a 1000 years and using the double movement approach will take too long. We must add to the double movement approach secularization. We must separate religion from state and remove the clergy from all aspects of government policy making so that while we wait on reformation, they do not cause the damage they are causing today.
As to other issues, I am disappointed in Prof. Mohammed’s objection to having Christian missionaries in Saudi Arabia. Why not? Why can’t we give Muslims free choice? Why can’t we discuss and question all issues, including whether Islam is a correct religion or whether God exists or not? I see no problem with this and we can not hope to reach the period of enlightenment unless we feel comfortable with churches and synagogues being built in Saudi Arabia or any other Muslim country. We should never make choices for other Muslims or react violently to those who have fundamental questions about core religious issues.
Mr. Mohammed goes on to say that “only fringe elements today consider that Jihad is war.” This is only accurate in academia and among the intellectual elite. The fact is most Muslims and Muslim religious leaders today equate Jihad with war. In fact, I can not recall ever hearing the word Jihad being used to mean anything other than war. Modern day Islamists understand it to mean war and only use the other definition when they feel they are under attack and on the defensive. This is an issue that Muslim reformists like Mr. Mohammed need to work on in the Muslim community.
We need to advocate that all calls for jihad to wage war or create “Islamic states” should be rejected as heretic and a threat to modern society. The concept of jihad should be reinterpreted for a modern day context in which holy war is obsolete. No holy war needs to be waged; there is no clear and present threat to Islam; the only war that needs to be waged in the modern world is one against terrorists and extremists. Muslim reformists like Mr. Mohammed need to be aggressive in waging a battle of the minds with Muslim extremists so that we can bring Islam into the 21st century and introduce a doctrine which is compatible with democracy and modern living.
As to Mr. Shoebat:
I really don’t know what to say to you. While I genuinely think you are impressive and I think your message should be propagated to Muslims, I don’t think you are right for this symposium. Remember, perception is reality. This means reality is what ever you want it to be. Thus, if you don’t believe that reform can happen then your beliefs will influence your actions and no attempt at reform will be pursued. If however, you are like me and Mr. Mohammad and believe reform can happen then that will influence your behaviour and efforts. The more people there are who share our optimism the more likely it is for us to achieve the reform that we most desperately need.
Please do not misunderstand me. I am not offended by you. In fact, I would like to help you propagate your message. I would like to see you on Al-Jazeera and other similar media outlets telling the Muslim world that their fanaticism drove you away from Islam. This could be very effective at discrediting the extremists. Most Muslims think that people only convert to Islam and not the other way around. Your message would be powerful in the Muslim world.
Having said this, I will respond to some of your arguments anyway. You stated that the best way to practice "secularism" is to separate mosque from government. “This means a fight has to exist within the Muslim world to oust the religionists out.”
You are right that a battle has to take place with the religionist. This is, to some degree, happening now. In the battle of Hamma, Syria killed 20000 extremists who wanted to change Syria into a theocracy. Tunisia has wiped out the religionist. In fact, there is a major battle going on in most of the Arab and Muslim world. The world wide Islamic uprising that I mentioned earlier is to create theocracies in the Muslim world. The Islamists are being fought every day. I realize that fighting the Islamists is only half of the equation. There is still no serious effort in the Muslim world advocating secularism.
Mr. Shoebat also says, “a relationship between an individual and His Lord is exactly what one finds in the text of the Bible - not so the Qur’an.” This is not true. For hundreds of years Christians did not accept the notion of religion being a relationship between an individual and his Lord. It was only after the beginning of the secular movement that Christians argued that the Bible supports secularism and that religion is a personal relationship with one’s Lord. To justify their point, Christians began citing the Cesar quote from the Bible. If I chose to I can find many verses in the Koran that justify secularism. For example consider these arguments:
The Qur'an states: "Say (Muhammad) it is truth from the Lord of you all. Whosoever will, let him believe and whosoever will, let him disbelieve" (Qur'an 18: 29) "And so, [O Prophet,] exhort them; thy task is only to exhort: thou cannot compel them to believe."(Qur'an: 21-22). "O Prophet.!…Thy duty is not more than to deliver the message; and the reckoning is Ours." (Qur'an 13:40).
According to this phrase, the "reckoning" belongs to God only. Therefore, if a government or an Imams' Fatwas demand public obedience and submission, such an enforced, outward appearance of obedience is not faith. Governments have no means to know what is in the heart of the individual. When a government enforces religion, the control is over the body not over the soul. The Qur'an rejects such control over the body: "It is not your meat or blood that reach God: It is the fealty of your heart that reaches Him" (Qur'an 22:37).
To continue reading this symposium, Click Here.