Spencer: Dr. Muhammad acknowledges that aspects of his views are held by a “miniscule minority,” and then remonstrates with me for saying that “influential Muslim authorities” disagree with him. I think in this he himself has proven my point.
 
As for his assertion that radical exegetes “have not yet poked holes in any of my conclusions,” I refer him to my initial response, in which I sketched out how they do so. It may be true that few Muslims today read the actual texts of Ibn Kathir and Qutb, but the views of these men and others like them are disseminated in mosques worldwide by those who have read them, or who have been taught by people who have read them. That is what made Dr. Muhammad’s views those of a “miniscule minority” in the first place.
 
As for lower-case Islam and upper-case Islam, this is a distinction imposed upon the Qur’an from without -- particularly in light of the fact that the Arabic language has no lower-case/upper-case distinction. Thus when the average pious Muslim reads a verse like 2:132 (“And this was the legacy that Abraham left to his sons, and so did Jacob; ‘Oh my sons! Allah hath chosen the Faith for you; then die not except in the Faith of Islam’”) or 3:67 (“Abraham was not a Jew nor yet a Christian; but he was true in Faith, and bowed his will to Allah’ (which is Islam), and he joined not gods with Allah”), he understands what so many imams tell him: that the true Jews and Christians of today are the Muslims, and the people who go by those names are renegades and rebels against God. This argument does not rest on any idea that Abraham or Moses observed specifically Islamic rituals, but on the idea that they were prophets of the True Faith which was restored by Muhammad after it was corrupted by Jews and Christians.
 
Nor did I ever assert that Dr. Muhammad “stated that one group [of Jews] had to acknowledge Muhammad as prophet, and that this was the condition for their recognition.” I am glad Dr. Muhammad doesn’t say this, but those who are not in the “miniscule minority” of Muslims do. This must be acknowledged so that reform can even become possible.
 
The hadith I quoted has Safiyyah maintaining that she did not keep the Sabbath, so I fail to see where Dr. Muhammad gets the basis for his assertion that “the mere fact that Safiyyah was still celebrating the Sabbath is significant.” Also, I am sure Dr. Muhammad knows much more of Arabic language and culture than I do, but I know enough to know that to call Safiyyah “Safiyyah the Jew,” even after her conversion to Islam, has no significance whatsoever beyond purposes of identification.
 
The very fact that Dr. Muhammad identifies what he is doing as offering “refutations of traditional approaches” is the only point I am trying to make: that the anti-Semitic approaches I have explained are indeed traditional, and widely held. They are, also, unique to Islam, and I am sure that Dr. Muhammad’s sincerity as a reformer will ultimately move him to acknowledge this. Jesus’ “pig imagery,” to which he makes repeated reference, is as I am sure he knows, not at all analogous: Jesus makes no explicit or clear reference to any particular group. The fact that the Qur’an explicitly and repeatedly identifies Jews with pigs has had extremely deleterious consequences throughout history and in our own age, and no amount of finger-pointing to other traditions can mitigate this fact.
 
Finally, Dr. Muhammad reverts to the passive voice to say: “it is being presented to Muslims that the Qur'an's accusations of certain Jews for certain actions are all false, and that the Jews were all innocent. This simply stands in the way of honest scholarship and understanding.” This is simply irrelevant. The problem is the use to which Muslims are putting these verses today, and Dr. Muhammad has still not adequately addressed that.

In case I am among those he describes as “western writers [who] take verses from the Qur'an, style themselves as experts, and then go about with wrong interpretations,” I will remind Dr. Muhammad that I have made no interpretations of my own, but merely reported on that made by Ibn Kathir, Qutb and others. Self-styled moderate Muslims decline to refute those interpretations at the risk of their own credibility – and to the peril of the rest of us.

Bat Ye’or: Professor Muhammad’s negation of a Judeo-Christian culture belongs to the traditional Muslim view which sees Christianity originating not from Judaism – but from Islam, the primal religion, and from Jesus, a Muslim prophet who professed Islam like the Prophet Muhammad. This interpretation was taught by the late Ismail Raji al-Faruqi in American universities and is a basic tenet in the Qur’an. It contradicts the perception Jews and Christians have of themselves, their history, and their identity. It. Hence Christians are in fact Muslims gone astray. Muslims consider the Gospel (Injil) as a revealed book for the Christians, like the Torah for the Jews. They do not accept that the First Testament is part of the Christian creed, and that through the Jewish Jesus, Christians are linked to the God and the people of Israel. It is precisely this organic linkage, in the same Book, though with differing interpretations, that created the Judeo-Christian civilization. This word is not related to the guilt of the Shoah, nor to the Jews being Oriental – Jesus after all was born in Judea not in Paris, and his apostles and disciples were all Jews.

Although Prof. Muhammad calls me an Islamophobe without proving it, I will not call him an antisemite even when his arguments sometimes consist of judeophobic sophistry. Much of Prof. Muhammad’s energy is spent trying to prove that the Bible and the Talmud are the sources of all evil, and at the « horrors » therein, but he cannot provide any tangible historic proofs of this contention other than his own utterances. I repeat that hateful language is found in every culture, that apes and pigs are also mentioned in Pharaonic and Greek myths. What is important is the use and application of such language in politics, laws and human relations.

I certainly do not deny the numerous borrowings of the Qur’an from Jewish and Christian scriptures. I only underlined their re-interpretation, and application in theological and legal constructions entirely unique to Islam. For instance the Hebrew Abraham is not the same as the Muslim Abraham who prepared to sacrify Ishmael (instead of Isaac), and built with him the Kaaba. And the same goes for other biblical figures mentioned in the Qur’an including Jesus, the Muslim prophet, Isa.

My reference to the Righteous among the Nations did not specify the religion of the Righteous as they can be from every nation. In fact I am happy to acknowledge that there are Muslims among them. But why is it that Jews cannot praise Christians without provoking Muslim rage, as if Jewish anti-Christian animosity should be always the only allowed norm, and acknowledging positive Christian behaviors is scandalous?

Prof. Muhammad’s comments on the Jewish kingdoms lack both clarity and historical accuracy. The general Muslim belief – with which Prof. Muhammad can disagree – is that Jews have no historical claim to their land, because the historical biblical narrative is negated. This view refuses Jewish and non-Jewish archeological and historical proofs.

Prof. Muhammad recognized that « the Bible does not document the treatment in detail of non-Jews » because, in fact, such documentation does not exist. I will not discuss his assertions about various scholarly approaches to the Qur’an. I simply observe that Muslim countries, maintain a traditional view of, and behavior towards, non-Muslims, women and apostates, and this is easily verifiable today. On these topics, there is not much difference of opinion among the Muslim schools of law. I appreciate his interpretation about the good Jews mentioned in the Qur’an, and I trust him to recognize between the Jews of the « original » revelation (Islam), and the others.

The numerous accusations leveled against the Bible, and its alleged references to Africans and native Americans do not deserve an answer. They do not meet – as Prof. Muhammad says – an academic standard. The fact is that even in the time of Prophet Muhammad, Jews were not stoning adulterers, a decision for which Muhammad reproached them. Many of the Mosaic rules are simply not applied today because the whole Jewish theological and juridical system permitted evolution and adaptation from three thousand year old conceptions, to modern times.

In his historical vision, Prof. Muhammad considers that he must balance Christian barbarity with Islamic tolerance. This is not my view as history is much more complex and diverse. But on the subject of dhimmitude I will remind him of the Shari’a-mandated treatment of Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians and Hindus in Arabia, Yemen, Persia, the Maghreb, Afghanistan and India, as well as in other Muslim countries, from ancient times, through the most recent carnage.            

Mohammad: As in the previous answer, I will deal with the two perspectives separately. In his rejoinder, I find Mr. Spencer's comments to be cogent.  The minor rebuttals I make are for the sake of detail only...but as he did point out, there is a problem.  On the issue of poking holes in my approaches, there is a concept in Islam: text trumps tafsir (exegesis). And it is on this that I rely which is why my approach wins over that of the medieval exegetes. The being said, yes, the majority of mosques will not have scholars who have my approach, and yes, they will feed the masses the regular swill. And inasmuch as my ego wants me to prove Mr. Spencer wrong, I must tell him that today an imam wrote me remonstrating with me for not "properly" following the methodology of our famous scholars.  The "upper" and "lower" Islam is not from without. Yes, Arabic does not know of upper and lower case letters, but I used that to express an idea. What Islamic jurists would talk about would be "al-Islam al Aam" and "al-Islam al-khaas". Yes, some imams do preach as Mr. Spencer said; but many others preach differently, and they are in the majority--as is well-known to the Muslim community.

On Saffiyah being called "al yahudiyya' --this is quite significant as it indicates that the term was NOT seen as one of disparagement, and since she was one of the few to have the title of "mother of the believers", to be thus addressed spoke eloquently of how early Muslims viewed the Jews. For many Arabs in today's world, the title of "al yahud/iyya" would be an insult .. as is the term "Arab" when addressed to many Jews. ON Jesus not referring to any specific group with his "pig" imagery...all and sundry know that Jesus' issue was with his own community, and he was using phraseology for and of the Jewish people.

What I do have a problem with is that Mr. Spencer attributes beliefs etc to the Qur'an when in fact they are NOT from the Qur’an but tradition. The issue of the swine and apes I dealt with at great length--and the Jews mentioned are obviously those who transgressed their own laws as the text specifically states. For him to say then that the Qur'an speaks of "the" Jew, as if referring to a monolithic group is wrong. Nonetheless, I have NO response to his observation that, exegesis nothwithstanding, the issue is the use to which Muslims are putting those verses today. He is certainly right.  As to his request in the previous "round" that I refute things in a more persuasive manner--I am an academic first, activist second. The mosques have largely prevented me from doing that which I love, so unfortunately, I am in a bind. Yet, I persist in my method, because the Muslim youth respond more to my approach than what is slowly, but surely, becoming recognized as largely traditionalist, ossified nonsense.

For Bat Ye'or, it would appear that she has not read any of my material. With typical orientalist approach, she resorts to talking of ISLAM, assuming that we Muslims do not know of our religion, and totally heedless of that which I explained earlier about the meaning of the term in the Qur'an. Ismail al-Faruqi DID NOT preach as she asserts--he was conscious of the meaning of the term Islam as I have explained it (my defence of him in this context does not mean that I agree with all his theories). For Muslims--as for Jews--Christians are regarded as being astray because of ascribing a son to God. I do not know from where she gets the idea that Muslims do not see the Torah as the first testament. This in fact is the whole method of her argument...apparently trying to make me busy with refuting false claims. As for my accusation of Islamophobia...the proof is in her own statements.

To state that the Abraham of the Qur’an is not the Abraham of the Torah is so ridiculous that no scholar of repute would dare say something like that. Of course, the rabbis who ruled that Jews, under certain circumstances, can pray in a mosque because Islam is more in line with Jewish ideas of monotheism than Christianity did not know of this new "fact" that Bat Ye'or has just created.  Had she taken the time to read my work on this issue she would have found that the Qur’an presupposes you know the son is Isaac, and it was only later exegetes that changed this understanding. (see my "Probing the Identity of the Sacrificial Son, Concordia Journal of Religion (13) 1998, p.125ff.); Reuven Firestone has also written about this). The Jesus of the Qur’an is only Isa because of linguistic differences--as King Richard was Malik Ric in Arabic. And just for the record, the Jesus of the Qur'an is a very Jewish person, as is his mother (portrayed as a Nazirite).

She has not shown why she thinks my statement about the Jewish kingdoms lack clarity and historical accuracy. As for the proof about the bible not documenting treatment of non-Jews, and accusations against the Bible: : shall I refer Numbers 25:4ff, Deut 23:3ff; the entire book of Joshua, Judges 3:28; 2 SAMUEL8: 2....Hopefully, this suffices. If mentioning those references make me an accuser against the bible, then yes, I plead guilty. As for the request for tangible historical proof of gore and blood in the bible, and the statement that I impute evil to the Talmud: it is not my practice to fall prey to such a nasty stratagem of forcing me to respond. But for the verses I quoted, I would have assumed that whether or not the events did occur, they form the foundation of some of this vaunted "Judeo-Christian" civilization.

That Jews were not stoning adulterers at the time of Muhammad is indeed a majority view. The issue however is that we do NOT know enough of Arabian Judaism to make blanket statements, and the fact is that such practice comes from the Torah, not from the Qur'an.

Certainly, history is more diverse that just talking about Christian barbarity and Islamic tolerance. But I do feel it is a vicious lie not to say that it was the same "Judeo-Christian" tradition, purportedly carrying on the "organic linkage" that caused Jews to be seen as christ killers, antichrists, and finally the victims of the Shoah. Muslims had no business in this...but then, they were not privy to the humane standards of the "Judeo-Christian" ethics.

Bat Ye’or rightly points out that Judaism has evolved. Islam is EVOLVING. It will not happen overnight. But reform is stymied when Muslims have to waste their time refuting her scurrilous accusations. Such accusations help none but the supporters of Osama bin Ladin, because it shows Muslim how many lies and pejorative portrayals are being spread about them. (I know,  that this is precisely what Bat Ye’or would never want, so I am NOT accusing her of working with that terrorist.)

In summary: I feel that this symposium has brought out certain things. There is a need for reform within Islam, and this pressing need is not being responded to from within the Muslim community with the required commitment. But for Jews, the Haskalah only started in the 19th century, and for Christians--despite the reformation, we see all over the world, a new "reconstructionist" movement that is threatening all progress. Muslims are awakening from the stupor of medieval concepts. But when one such as I has to DEFEND Islam, when in fact, I am known (and sadly maligned) my many Muslims for being a critic of my own religion, it tells us that reform cannot occur when there are lies and disinformation about Islam.

It also shows that the old stratagem of making Muslims defend against unfounded theories will not work; one has to forget the orientalist condescending perspective and remember that, as one famous Jew is reputed to have said, "First cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye." Mr Spencer's ideas can and ought to be taken seriously by Muslims and his voice should be sought further; I am prepared to promote this. An Islamic law maxim says "Laa yunsabu ilaa sakitin qawlun"--which, functionally translated, is "an opinion is not attributed to the one who is silent." In Bat Ye'or's case, I let that silence speak for itself.

Spencer: I thank Professor Muhammad for his kind words, but some lingering questions remain. He says that my remarks are cogent and grants that there is a problem, but then says: "Yes, some imams do preach as Mr. Spencer said; but many others preach differently, and they are in the majority--as is well-known to the Muslim community." I must confess that I am confused as to how the "minuscule minority" of the professor's last remarks has now become a majority. Also I wonder why we do not see more of the fruits of this alleged majority in the words and actions of Muslims in the United States and around the world.

As for Saffiyah, all of Professor Muhammad's remarks are obviated by the fact that she was a convert to Islam. Her being called "al yahudiyya" was only an identifying mark, but the lack of a stigma was due to the fact that she was no longer a Jew but a Muslim. I expect that Professor Muhammad and I will disagree on this. As for Jesus, since he was a Jew with Jewish followers, his remarks do not have remotely the same force that Suras 2:62-65, 5:59-60, and 7:166 of the Qur'an do. The latter speak of "the Jews" collectively; whatever group of Jews was originally meant, most exegetes today take these passages to refer to all those who identify themselves as Jews nowadays. (Professor Muhammad seems to have granted that previously, although in this go-round he seems to be charging me with ascribing these views to the Qur'an when actually they come from tradition.

Allow me to remind him that I am not ascribing them to anything, but merely reporting on the exegetical habits that are currently dominant in the Islamic world.) But when the New Testament speaks of "the Jews," it is as one group of Jews speaking of another, and thus cannot be properly taken as a condemnation of the whole race. This understanding was significant in mitigating Christian anti-Semitism, particularly in the 20th century.

There is no such mitigating factor in the Qur'an: while an informed reading of the New Testament reveals the Jewish identity of most of the authors, and thus defangs any exegesis that would blame "the Jews" as an aggregate for the Crucifixion or anything else, the situation is different in the Qur'an. The distinction that the professor is trying to make by saying that only one group of Jews is meant in these Qur'anic passages is, whatever its merits as an exegetical argument, nowhere found in the Qur'anic text itself. This difference is something that Professor Muhammad, as a sincere reformer, must eventually acknowledge: no problem can be solved without a realistic prior appraisal of its nature and dimensions.

When Professor Muhammad says of me: "For him to say then that the Qur'an speaks of "the" Jew, as if referring to a monolithic group is wrong." Well, I never actually said that. But many Muslims do, and that is the problem. The fact that "the mosques have largely prevented" him from doing what he loves is an indication of how large this problem is. That seems to be still understated by the Professor, while he wildly overstates the dangers of the Christian "reconstructionist" movement that is supposedly "threatening all progress." I am confident that as he goes farther with his reform efforts, he will acknowledge this more clearly.

Finally, although I am sorry about Professor Muhammad's ungallant words for the groundbreaking, courageous, and brilliant scholar Bat Ye'or, I much appreciate this statement of his: "Mr Spencer's ideas can and ought to be taken seriously by Muslims and his voice should be sought further; I am prepared to promote this." I have been down so long it looks like up to me: every American Muslim spokesman I have encountered in the public forum, including leading figures of CAIR, ADC, MPAC, and other groups, have roundly mischaracterized my work and smeared me as a "hatemonger."

I am simply raising honest questions and concerns about Islam, and this response has been disheartening not only personally but for my appraisal of the prospects for the reform within Islam that is so urgently needed. If Professor Muhammad can get together a group of Muslims who would be willing to engage — honestly, and without dissimulation — my questions about jihad, terrorism, and related issues, I would be happy to work with him. As he says: "reform cannot occur when there are lies and disinformation about Islam." That statement is just as true when the lies and disinformation come from Muslims themselves.

Bat Ye'or: Allow me first to thank Professor Muhammad since I take the term « orientalist » as a compliment. « Orientalism » represents an important body of knowledge accumulated by some of the greatest scholars, writers, and artists who have ever studied or loved Islamic and Oriental civilizations. As for al-Faruqi, these are his own words based on several Qur’anic verses:  «Islam does not see itself as coming to the religious scene ex nihilo, but as  reaffirmation of the same truth presented by all the preceding prophets of Judaism and Christianity. It regards them all as Muslims, and their revelations as one and the same as its own. » (in Islam and Other Faiths, p. 75) 

FP: Khaleel Mohammed, Bat Ye'or and Robert Spencer, thank you, we are out of time. We hope to see you again soon.

Previous Symposiums:

The War on Terror: How Are We Doing? Guests: Robert Leiken, Daniel Pipes and Michael Ledeen.

A Tale of Two Wars: Guests: David Kaiser, Stephen J. Morris and Michael Rubin.

KGB Resurrection: Guests: Mihai Pacepa, James Woolsey and Vladimir Bukovsky.

The Hunt For Bin Laden: Guests: William Rosenau, Steven Simon and Brian Jenkins.