Revuse - Recently Updated Pages

Ten Questions for the Muslim Next Door

kamala_kamala — Sat, 02 May 2009 17:13:10 CDT

April 30, 2009: Also read my new review of Reza Aslan's How to Win a Cosmic War

By Kamala
December 5, 2008

The November/December 2008 issue of Stanford University's alumni magazine features a story about Stanford grad and author Sumbul Ali-Karamali. She has just published her first book, a guide to Islam that she wrote in part because bookstores only carried "dry textbooks," "the occasional slim volume of Sufi poetry," and—after 9/11—"tomes on terrorism and the 'clash of civilizations.'"

Her book, The Muslim Next Door: The Qur'an, the Media, and that Veil thing, is in part an effort to avert a "clash of ignorances" because the "Western perception of Islam has become an evil caricature of reality." As she writes, "moderate Muslims try to chip away a great wall of media misinformation."

The book aims to "clear away the misconceptions about Islam," explaining why these "tall tales" continue to "flourish" and "persist."

Ali-Karamali seems well suited to write such a book. A Muslim of Indian descent, she has a law degree from the University of California, Davis in addition to her undergraduate degree from Stanford, and a graduate degree in Islamic law from the University of London. Yet she's all-American: she grew up in California, she's married, she's a mother, and she practiced corporate law in San Francisco.

The book has received praise from some big names.

Dr. Khaled Abou El Fadl, Professor of Islamic Law at the UCLA School of Law, calls it "one of the best three books published on the Islamic faith in the English language since the tragedy of 9/11." It's "refreshing in its honesty" and "consistently reliable." (A web site run by El Fadl's "Students, Supporters, and Friends" describes him as "the most important intellectual in Islam and Islamic law today." Among other honors, he was "appointed by President George W. Bush as a commissioner on the US Commission on International Religious Freedom.")

Reza Aslan, the "internationally acclaimed" author of No God but God and guest on the Jon Stewart show, calls her "beautiful book" a "corrective" against the "misinformation about Islam" that "most Americans are bombarded with."

According to Dr. Carole Hillenbrand, Professor of Islamic History at the University of Edinburgh, The Muslim Next Door is "refreshingly frank."

The book's back cover asks, "What if you could sit down at a kitchen table with an American Muslim mom and ask anything you wanted about her faith and religious practice?" In the book's acknowledgments, she writes: "And to everyone who ever asked me a well-intentioned question about Islam: this book is a result of your desire to cross cultures."

I am very glad that Ms. Ali-Karamali is open to well-intentioned questions.

Because after reading the book, I still have a few.

Ten, in fact.

I hope she'll answer them.

Muhammad's Wife Aisha

Ali-Karamali writes that Aisha (Aysha) was "the one virgin Muhammad married... She was contracted to the Prophet at a young age, given variously as somewhere between nine to twelve years. However, the marriage was a formality and unconsummated until she was well past puberty. The sources variously cite her as somewhere between twelve and sixteen..." (p. 143, emphasis added)

Ali-Karamali writes, "Aysha's youth seems to have apparently appalled some non-Muslims, much to my surprise," and goes on to explain that it is "unreasonable to be shocked" because it was "consummated only after she was past puberty." In the seventh century, "puberty meant adulthood."

But Al-Tabari, described by Ali-Karamali herself as an "early Muslim scholar" and a "highly respected luminar[y] in Islam," quotes Aisha as having said, "The Messenger of God married me when I was seven; my marriage was consummated when I was nine." (emphasis added)

Consider also the writings of al-Bukhari, whose Sahih Al-Bukhari is "universally acknowledged as the most authentic book after the Qur'an" according to an article at IslamOnline, a web site co-founded by Yusuf al-Qaradawi. (Ali-Karamali calls Qaradawi a "leading Muslim scholar." (p. 220))

Bukhari writes, "the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old." (emphasis added)

Also according to Bukhari, Aisha herself said:

The Prophet engaged me when I was a girl of six (years). We went to Medina and stayed at the home of Bani-al-Harith bin Khazraj. Then I got ill and my hair fell down. Later on my hair grew (again) and my mother, Um Ruman, came to me while I was playing in a swing with some of my girl friends. She called me, and I went to her, not knowing what she wanted to do to me. She caught me by the hand and made me stand at the door of the house. I was breathless then, and when my breathing became Allright, she took some water and rubbed my face and head with it. Then she took me into the house. There in the house I saw some Ansari women who said, "Best wishes and Allah's Blessing and a good luck." Then she entrusted me to them and they prepared me (for the marriage). Unexpectedly Allah's Apostle came to me in the forenoon and my mother handed me over to him, and at that time I was a girl of nine years of age. (emphasis added)

And from Bukhari once more, Aisha also said:

I used to play with the dolls in the presence of the Prophet, and my girl friends also used to play with me. When Allah's Apostle used to enter (my dwelling place) they used to hide themselves, but the Prophet would call them to join and play with me. (The playing with the dolls and similar images is forbidden, but it was allowed for 'Aisha at that time, as she was a little girl, not yet reached the age of puberty.) (Fateh-al-Bari page 143, Vol.13)

(Note that the parenthesized and emphasized comment is from Fateh-al-Bari (Fath al-Bari), the "most celebrated" commentary on Bukhari's book.)

In June of this year, a Saudi "Marriage Officiant" was interviewed on Lebanese television: "The Prophet Muhammad is the model we follow. He took 'Aisha to be his wife when she was six, but he had sex with her only when she was nine.'" His interviewer did not contest this statement. The transcript is here and the video is here.

Similarly, Dr. Abd Al-Hamid Al-'Ubeidi spoke on Iraqi television in March and defended Muhammad for having sex with a nine-year-old:

Many criminals, the enemies of Islam, ask: "How could the Prophet Muhammad, at 52 years of age, marry 'Aisha when she was only 8 years old, and consummate the marriage when she was 9 years old?" I say to them: People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Why do you permit your young girls to fornicate? They consider it one of their liberties.

To be sure, Aisha's age at the time of marriage and consummation is today a sensitive—and in some circles, contested—topic.

Why?

Ali-Karamali writes, "Muslims revere Muhammad as the embodiment of goodness and human perfection." (p. 34) Muhammad is "the person whose behavior every Muslim strives to emulate." (p. 59, emphasis added) As Ibrahim Hooper (spokesman of the Council on American-Islamic Relations) once wrote, "As Muslims, we need to ... ask ourselves, 'What would the Prophet Muhammad do?'"

Some Muslims question the accuracy of Bukhari's above-mentioned hadith (traditions) and/or cite other hadith that suggest different ages. Even so, as Hwaa Irfan wrote in 2004 on Qaradawi's IslamOnline site, such an argument is a "challenge" to the "true records that are referred to by Muslims for guidance," writing that "one of the foremost records depended upon is the collection of hadiths of Prophet Muhammad in the Sahih of Al-Bukhari." Irfan then proceeds to cite yet two more examples from Bukhari (beyond the three mentioned above) stating that Aisha was nine at the age of consummation.

Here is my first question for Ms. Ali-Karamali:

1. According to many Islamic scholars past and present—including a scholar you mention and praise in your book, Aisha's marriage was consummated at the age of nine. Why did you write that "the sources variously cite her as somewhere between twelve and sixteen"?

The Definition of the Word "Islam"

Ali-Karamali writes, "Islam has two meanings in Arabic: 'submission' and 'peace'." (p. 33) The first definition is not in doubt. But according to the Muslim Student Association at USC, defining Islam as "peace" is number one on their list of Ten Misconceptions About Islam:

Misconception 1: Islam is 'the religion of peace' because: the Arabic word Islam is derived from the Arabic word "Al-Salaam" which means peace.

The explanation:

It might seem strange to think of this as a misconception, but in fact it is. The root word of Islam is "al-silm" which means "submission" or "surrender." It is understood to mean "submission to Allah." In spite of whatever noble intention has caused many a Muslim to claim that Islam is derived primarily from peace, this is not true... A secondary root of Islam may be "Al-Salaam" (peace), however the text of the Qur'an makes it clear that Allah has clearly intended the focus of this way of life to be submission to Him.

As further evidence, consider the book War and Peace in the Law of Islam by Majid Khadduri. Ali-Karamali cites this book as a reference nine times in her chapter titled "Jihad and Fundamentalism." Khadduri writes simply that Islam "means 'surrender' or 'submission' to Allah's will." No mention of "peace." (He also happens to describe Islam as a "conquering nation with world domination as its ultimate aim," but that's another matter.)

The Qur'an itself refers to the word "Islam" several times, including verses 2.132, 2.133, 2.136, 2.208, 3.85, 3.102, 43.69, and 46.15. In English versions of the Qur'an, sometimes the word is translated into English, and sometimes it's left as "Islam." Yet every time it is translated, it's translated into some form of "submission" or "surrender", even in the Muhammad Asad translation that Ali-Karamali quotes from.

Hence the next question for Ms. Ali-Karamali:

2. Which Islamic or Arabic scholars have translated the word "Islam" as "peace"?

Timothy McVeigh

Ali-Karamali mentions Timothy McVeigh on ten different pages of her book. She argues that "connecting jihad with deplorable crimes like September 11th makes no more sense than connecting the Christian doctrine of holy war with Timothy McVeigh's bombing of the Murrah Federal Building." (p.186) She writes that McVeigh "bombed the Oklahoma Federal Building pursuant to the dictates of his Christian fundamentalist beliefs." (p. 105)

But in a CNN interview in 2001, Lou Michel, co-author of American Terrorist: Timothy McVeigh and the Oklahoma City Bombing, said "McVeigh is agnostic. He doesn't believe in God, but he won't rule out the possibility." Michel and co-author Dan Herbeck write that McVeigh would tell friends, "Science is my religion." Michel also said that McVeigh "didn't accept Jesus Christ as his personal Savior, so far as I know."

The UK Guardian reported that McVeigh wrote to the Buffalo News saying he was an "agnostic."

In a letter McVeigh wrote to Fox News on April 6, 2001, he begins by writing, "I explain herein why I bombed the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City." He writes that the bombing was a "counter attack, for the cumulative raids ... that federal agents had participated in over the preceding years." He sought to "correct the abuse of power we were seeing in federal actions against citizens." But nowhere does he mention Christianity or Christian beliefs.

(As one example of contrast, Osama bin Laden's 1996 Declaration of War against America mentions "Allah" over 100 times and cites 16 verses of the Qur'an. And another: during the horrific terrorist attacks in Mumbai just last week, "dozens of eyewitness accounts by local Indians said the gunmen shouted 'Allah Akbar' from the Jewish center.")

If McVeigh killed 168 innocents "pursuant to the dictates" of his Christian beliefs, surely there must exist such evidence in his words or writings.

Thus:

3. When and where did Timothy McVeigh explain or suggest that "Christian fundamentalist beliefs" motivated the Oklahoma bombing?

The Number of American Muslims

Ali-Karamali writes, without citation, that American Muslims constitute "only 3 percent of the American population." (p. 32)

Only?

The US population surpassed 300 million in 2006. Three percent would mean 9 million American Muslims.

In 2007, the Pew Research Center, a "non-partisan 'fact tank'" that "does not take positions on policy issues," completed a vast study of Muslim Americans. According to their report:

The methodological approach employed was the most comprehensive ever used to study Muslim Americans. Nearly 60,000 respondents were interviewed to find a representative sample of Muslims. Interviews were conducted in Arabic, Urdu, and Farsi, as well as English.

Their findings? "The Pew Muslim American study estimates that Muslims constitute 0.6% of the US adult population." By estimating the under-18 population at 850,000, they estimate a "total of 2.35 million Muslims nationwide." That's less than 1% of the US population.

There are other documented estimates.

A 2004 PBS report cited demographer David B. Barrett's estimate of 4.1 million American Muslims, or 1.4% of the population. Barrett's estimate "is the source for several reference texts, including the Encyclopedia Britannica."

In 2001, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) sponsored and published a report called "The Mosque in America" that "estimates a total Muslim population of 6-7 million in America." They interviewed by telephone representatives from 416 of America's 1209 mosques, asking each to report "the number of people associated in any way" with the mosque. The average response was 1629, including two mosques that "report 50,000 Muslims associated with them." (For some perspective on the likely accuracy of this figure, the Islamic Center of America, the largest mosque in North America, had 3,000 members as of 2004.) By multiplying this average of 1629 by the number of mosques, they arrive at a figure of about 2 million American Muslims associated with a mosque. And how does the report arrive at the total? Estimates of "6-7 million in America seem reasonable in light of the figure of 2 million who associate with a mosque."

Professor Ishan Bagby, currently Professor of Islamic Studies at the University of Kentucky, wrote the CAIR report. In a 2001 AP article, Bagby called his estimate a "guestimation." "I'm not going to hang my hat on 6 million, but I think it's reasonable in terms of guesses," Bagby said. "We need more thorough and accurate studies and more comprehensive studies. I think this is the best that we have now." (Interestingly, Professor Bagby is listed as a member of the outside advisory board for the 2007 Pew study that estimated 2.35 million.)

To provide some insight into why some Muslims might have an incentive to inflate such population figures, consider the words of CAIR's Executive Director Nihad Awad (from a Washington Post article): when "asked why his group settled on an estimate of 7 million in its press statements rather than Bagby's range of 6 million to 7 million," he "said the organization had used 6 million for six years. 'If we still used the number six,' he said, 'people would say, "Haven't we grown?"'"

And yet, even 7 million is still 20% smaller than the 9 million estimate given by Ali-Karamali, which leads to the question:

4. What is the source for your book's estimate that Muslims make up 3% of the US population? Why did you decide to use this estimate instead of those from other recent studies?

Suicide Bombing

Ali-Karamali takes a strong stand against the legitimacy of suicide bombing: "suicide bombers are terrorists ..., and they are not acting within the rules of warfare in Islam." (p. 170) She continues:

Suicide is forbidden in Islam. The use of force against noncombatants is also forbidden in Islam. Moreover, terrorism, defined as the secret and clandestine use of force against civilians, is forbidden.

She explains that "some groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad themselves characterize their activities as jihad." (p. 187), and then appears to take a strong stand against their tactics: "Under Islamic law, however, even groups who have legitimate grievances may not use terrorism to achieve their ends." (emphasis added)

Yet the "leading Islamic scholar" Yusuf al-Qaradawi (p. 220) has repeatedly justified suicidal Palestinian attacks against Israeli citizens. And impressively, he somehow manages to express this justification without contradicting Ali-Karamali at all!

Such an attack is not "suicide" but "martyrdom" because "Allah ... has given the weak a weapon the strong do not have and that is their ability to turn their bodies into bombs as Palestinians do." Indeed:

a clear distinction has to be made here between martyrdom and suicide. Suicide is an act or instance of killing oneself intentionally out of despair, and finding no outlet except putting an end to one’s life. On the other hand, martyrdom is a heroic act of choosing to suffer death in the Cause of Allah, and that’s why it’s considered by most Muslim scholars as one of the greatest forms of Jihad.

Similarly, in a posting on Qaradawi's IslamOnline web site, we learn that the Islamic Fiqh Council of the international Organization of the Islamic Conference "stresses that martyr operations are a form of jihad, and carrying out those operations is a legitimate right that has nothing to do with suicide or terrorism." (emphasis added)
Qaradawi has said that Israeli victims are neither noncombatants nor civilians. He told the BBC: "An Israeli woman is not like women in our societies, because she is a soldier." He has also said, "Israeli society was completely military in its make-up and did not include any civilians." (emphasis added)

Do others share Qaradawi's views? He believes so. According to the BBC:

He said hundreds of other Islamic scholars are of the same opinion. In this respect, he is very much in tune with what the vast majority of people in the Arab world believe.

Given that the man Ali-Karamali calls a "leading Muslim scholar" uses an alternative dictionary—where suicide is "martyrdom," where terrorism is "jihad," and where innocent civilians are "military," forgive me for seeking clarification from her:

5. Do you condemn Hamas as a terrorist organization? How do you propose convincing Sheikh al-Qaradawi, the "hundreds of scholars" that agree with him, and all of his followers that the tactics of Hamas violate Islamic law?

Bin Laden: Muslim?

Ali-Karamali writes:

A leading Muslim scholar, Yusef al-Qaradawi, issued a fatwa immediately after the attacks, declaring that Osama bin Laden could not call himself a Muslim. (p. 220)

This would in fact be a big deal. In 2005, Judea Pearl, the widow of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl (executed by al-Qaeda), criticized an American "fatwa" against terrorism for not being strong enough:

A fatwa that specifically condemned Bin Laden, that invoked the strongest punishments available under Muslim law, that clarified the meaning of terrorism, and that singled out for condemnation religious figures who support violence—those would be the words the entire world needs to hear.

Unfortunately, on Qaradawi's IslamOnline web site, the fatwa makes no mention of bin Laden. An English press release from September 14 reads: "Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi, a world renowned Muslim scholar, was among the first to issue a fatwa (religious degree) denouncing the actions of terrorists, regardless of their faith and nationalities." But nothing about bin Laden.

Even in the automatically-translated version of the longer Arabic article, there is no mention of Osama bin Laden.

Further, just a few days later, on September 16, Qaradawi appeared on his weekly Al-Jazeera television program, Shari'a and Life and said, "I ... think that Osama bin Laden no longer has the means to carry out something like this."

In October 2001, a question in the "Ask the Scholar" section of Qaradawi's web site asked if bin Laden is a terrorist. Dr. Ali Jum ah Muhammad, Mufti of Egypt and holder of a PhD in Islamic Jurisprudence from Al-Azhar, responded:

To say that Ibn Laden and his group are terrorists is something related to personal judgment rather than a fatwa. It is better that such matter be left for an impartial judiciary to decide, by probing into evidence and addressing related issues that will help it reach final decisions, instead of playing tricks with people’s minds and avoid dealing with the issue extensively.

This past March, almost seven years later, Qaradawi echoed the same sentiments—despite the fact that bin Laden claimed responsibility for the 9/11 attacks in 2004:

"I ask Osama bin Laden to surrender and to hand himself over to an international tribunal in order to respond to the charge that he ordered the attacks of September 11," said al-Qaradawi in an interview with the Arab newspaper al-Sharq al-Awsat.

According to the well-known Muslim scholar, it is still not established "in a definitive way by the American secret services in their reports," of bin Laden's responsibility in the attacks that occurred in New York and Washington in 2001.

So apparently Qaradawi issued a ruling that Osama bin Laden could not call himself a Muslim just two days after the 9/11 attacks; he removed any bin Laden references from the condemnations on his web site; and he then proceeded to spend six and a half years questioning whether bin Laden is behind 9/11, even after bin Laden himself claimed responsibility.

Perhaps the Muslim next door can help with this mystery:

6. Could you provide the text of Qaradawi's fatwa that declared "Osama bin Laden could not call himself a Muslim"? Why do you think Qaradawi has since refused to acknowledge bin Laden's responsibility for 9/11?

Female Circumcision/Clitoridectomy

Consider the following two statements:

"Clitoridectomy is a loathsome procedure unequivocally antithetical to the principles of Islam."
"Circumcision is obligatory (for every male and female) by cutting off the piece of skin on the glans of the penis of the male, but circumcision of the female is by cutting out the clitoris (this is called khufaad)."

One of these is the opinion of Ali-Karamali.

The other is from Reliance of the Traveller, a manual of Islamic law certified in 1991 by Al-Azhar University as a reliable guide to the "practice and faith of orthodox Sunni Islam." (Ali-Karamali calls Al-Azhar "one of the great centers for Islamic studies." (p. 115)).

As inconvenient as it may be, #1 is from the Muslim Next Door.

The other one, from Reliance of the Traveller, is referenced on page 50 of this document.

As Ali-Karamali points out, Egyptian Islamic clerics banned female circumcision in 2007. This is of course good news, but one can't help but ask: if it's "unequivocally antithetical to the principles of Islam," what took them so long?

In fact, the ban in Egypt is a product of years of debate and international pressure, and was only (finally) instituted after a 12-year-old girl died undergoing the procedure—a little tidbit Ms. Ali-Karamali doesn't mention.

The Reliance of the Traveller isn't the only Islamic source to decree female circumcision as part of Islam. Here are a few more:

In 2003, Dr. Munir Muhammad Fawzy, a specialist in gynecology and obstetrics at 'Ein Shams University Medical School in Egypt, was quoted in the weekly Al-Haqiqa: "The Prophet [Muhammad] commanded women to perform circumcision using the expression, 'Perform circumcision for girls.'"
Dr. Abu Leila, a lecturer at Al-Azhar (that "great center for Islamic studies") said in 2003: "The Prophet [Muhammad] reaffirmed this custom, and we inherited it as Muslims..."
In 2000, the ever-present and "leading Islamic scholar" Sheikh al-Qaradawi ruled in a fatwa on the issue, "Anyone who thinks that circumcision is the best way to protect his daughters should do it ... I support this, particularly in the period in which we live."

And on the subject of Muslims "next door," the "frequently asked questions" (FAQ) section of a Toronto Mosque's web site, with answers from "prominent muslim scholars around the world," includes a response to the question, "What is Islam's position on female circumcision?" (#19). The answer begins by citing Ibn Qudamah, an Islamic scholar known for his "vast knowledge, wisdom and wit":

Circumcision is obligatory for men, and it is an honour for women, but it is not obligatory for them. This is the opinion of many scholars. (Imam) Ahmad said: For men it is more strictly required, but for women it is less strictly required.

The response goes on to quote Muhammad as having said, "Circumcision is a Sunnah for men, and an honour for women," though "there is some debate" as to this statement's authenticity.

The page showing this question and answer is actually an image of the Mosque's FAQ page as it existed on October 1, 2008.

It has since been removed.

Why?

Because the Mosque leaders finally realized that female circumcision is indeed "unequivocally antithetical to the principles of Islam"?

Or perhaps because the Toronto Star exposed this teaching (and many others) in November 2008?

Ali-Karamali laments, "the popular media in the West still often portrays this practice as Islamic."

One wonders why.

Here's one more question for Ms. Ali-Karamali:

7. In light of (a) Yusuf al-Qaradawi's personal support of female circumcision, (b) the statement from an Al-Azhar lecturer that Muhammad "reaffirmed this custom," and (c) Ibn Qudamah's judgment that female circumcision is an "honour for women," do you still claim female circumcision is "unequivocally antithetical to the principles of Islam"?

Honor Killings

As the United Nations Population Fund explains,

Throughout the world, perhaps as many as 5,000 women and girls a year are murdered by members of their own families, many of them for the "dishonour" of having been raped, often as not by a member of their own extended family.

Honor killings are "associated with the community's or the family's demand for sexual chastity and virginity."

Ali-Karamali tackles the subject head-on: "Honor killings are not Islamic... Islam does not require, sanction, or encourage honor killings." (p. 160)

But if this is the case, why does Reliance of the Traveller, certified in 1991 by Al-Azhar as a guide that "conforms to the practice and faith of the orthodox Sunni Community," state "retaliation is obligatory against anyone who kills a human being purely intentionally and without right," but "not subject to retaliation" is "a father or mother (or their fathers or mothers) for killing their offspring, or offspring's offspring"?

In line with this, consider Article 340 of the Jordanian penal code as of 1999:

(a) He who discovers his wife, or one of his maharim [female relatives of such a degree of consanguinity as precludes marriage], while committing adultery with another man and kills, wounds, or injures one or both of them, is exempt from any penalty; (b) He who discovers his wife, or one of his sisters or female relatives, with another in an illegitimate bed, and kills, wounds, or injures [one or both of them] benefits from a reduction of penalty. (emphasis added)

Commendably, according to MEMRI, "in mid-1999, Jordanian human-rights activists managed to enlist the Jordanian crown and government to assist its campaign to win tougher penalties for honor-murderers." But attempts to abolish or amend Article 340 "met with fierce resistance from the public and its leaders alike":

In the heat of the Jordanian debate, this parliamentary coalition of several Islamist groups, most of whom affiliate with the Muslim Brethren, issued a fatwa that declared honor-killings are seen as favorable by Islam; male relatives should punish their female relatives and not leave this duty to the state. Ibrahim Zayd al-Kaylani, head of the Jordanian Islamic Action Front (IAF)'s Ifta ' committee, said that a man who restrains himself from committing an honor killing, leaving this unpleasant burden to the government, "negates the values of virility advocated by Islam." Article 340, Kaylani added, is based on "the Islamic principle that allows a Muslim to defend his honor, property, and blood." Muhammad ‘Uwayda, dean of Zarqa University's Shari‘a College and a member of the lower house, stated that while the Shari‘a does prohibit individuals from taking the law into their own hands, "cases where a man catches his wife committing adultery are the exception." The IAF issued a fatwa to the effect that "canceling Article 340 would contradict the Shari‘a." (emphasis added)

The Women's International Network reported on the same fatwa (religious ruling); on the same day that thousands of protesters denounced Article 340 outside the Jordanian Parliament,

The Islamic Action Front (IAF), the political arm of the Muslim Brotherhood, issued a fatwa ... stating that 'cancelling Article 340 contradicts Islamic Sharia.'

The Muslim Brotherhood, of course, is no fringe group. Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, whom Ali-Karamali calls a "leading Muslim scholar," is "one of the Muslim Brotherhood's spiritual leaders in the world." The Muslim American Society, which claims to be "America's Largest Muslim Grassroots Organization," was founded by Muslim Brotherhood leaders in America and according to the Chicago Tribune is simply the operating name for the Muslim Brotherhood in the USA.

Nonetheless, in December, 2001, minor amendments were made to Article 340. A guilty man would receive only a "reduction of penalty" instead of full exemption from penalty, and women who find and kill their husbands for committing adultery would receive the same "benefit." Unfortunately, over the next year, the amendments appeared "to have made little difference": there were more than 20 honor killings and killers received "lenient sentences—not exceeding one year." In 2006, 15 - 20 Jordanian women were killed by relatives.

Islam's influence on honor killings extends beyond Jordan. Just this year in Iraq, 17-year-old Rand Abel-Qader was murdered by her father. He did it, he proclaimed to his neighbors, to "cleanse his honour" because she worked alongside (and had been seen "conversing intimately") with a British soldier.

According to Rand's mother, he used his feet to press down on her throat until she suffocated, at which point he called for a knife and began to stab her.

Rand's mother said, "I screamed and called out for her two brothers so they could get their father away from her. But when he told them the reason, instead of saving her they helped him end her life."

The father was arrested, but, according to Rand's mother, "he was released two hours later because it was an 'honour killing'. And, unfortunately, that is something to be proud of for any Iraqi man."

Why exactly was he released?

At the police station where the father was held Sergeant Ali Jabbar told The Observer last week: "Not much can be done when we have an 'honour killing' case. You are in a Muslim society and women should live under religious laws." (emphasis added)

Hence the eighth question for Ms. Ali-Karamali:

8. If Islam does not sanction honor killings, why would Al-Azhar (that "great center for Islamic studies") certify a manual of Islamic law that rules killing one's offspring is not subject to retaliation—and why would any mainstream Islamic group issue a religious ruling that harsher penalties for honor killings would "contradict the Shari'a"?

Bin Laden's Motivations

Ali-Karamali writes:

... although people like Osama bin Laden use religious symbolism and terminology to legitimize their attacks, their purpose is not to wage war against all non-Muslims. I hear frequently the view that bin Laden fights the U.S. because we're a country of Jews and Christians. This is incorrect. Bin Laden does not oppose the U.S. because it is a non-Muslim country ... but because he sees the U.S. as responsible for the turmoil in some of the Islamic world today. (p.192, emphasis added)

Yet an essay authorized (or perhaps even written) by Osama bin Laden himself says otherwise:

... what the debate truly revolves around ... is the word of the Messenger [Muhammad] as has been relayed by Ahmad and others from Ibn Omar: "I have been sent in the final hours with the sword, so that none is worshipped but Allah alone, partnerless. My provision has been provided under the shadow of my spear, and humiliation and contempt is upon whoever opposes my command. Whoever imitates a people is of them." And his saying in the two authentic [accounts of Bukhari and Muslim] as relayed by Ibn Omar: "I have been commanded to battle mankind until they declare that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah. [Let them] uphold prayer and render alms; if they do so, they safeguard their blood and possessions from me, except for Islam's due, and their fate is with Allah."

He also said, per Berida as found in Muslim and Ahmad: "Whenever the Messenger of Allah appointed someone as leader of an army or detachment, he would especially exhort him to fear Allah and be good to the Muslims with him. Then he would say: 'Attack in the name of Allah and in the path of Allah do battle with whoever rejects Allah. Attack!—but do not embezzle [the spoils], nor behave treacherously, nor mutilate [the dead], nor kill the children. If you happen upon your idolatrous enemies, call them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, accept it and stay yourself from them. [1] Call them to Islam: If they respond [i.e., convert], accept this and cease fighting them... [2] If they refuse to accept Islam, demand of them the jizya [poll tax]: If they respond, accept it and cease fighting them. [3] But if they refuse, seek the aid of Allah and fight them."

Thus our talks with the infidel West and our conflict with them ultimately revolve around one issue—one that demands our total support, with power and determination, with one voice—and it is: Does Islam, or does it not, force people by the power of the sword to submit to its authority corporeally if not spiritually? Yes. There are only three choices in Islam: either willing submission; or payment of the jizya, through physical though not spiritual, submission to the authority of Islam; or the sword—for it is not right to let him [an infidel] live. The matter is summed up for every person alive: Either submit, or live under the suzerainty of Islam, or die... Are these options a part of the faith or not? (emphasis added)

The essay was originally published in Arabic for a Saudi audience, and hence—unlike most of the propaganda al-Qaeda has produced over the years—was not intended for American non-Muslim eyes. It was translated for the first time by Raymond Ibrahim and published in his book, The Al-Qaeda Reader. A scanned version of the excerpt begins here and ends here.

Beyond serving as a complete contradiction to Ali-Karamali's claim regarding bin Laden's motivations, this excerpt sheds light on several additional arguments that Ali-Karamali makes:

Firstly, Osama bin Laden goes well beyond "religious symbolism and terminology." In fact, his entire argument here is based on three hadith [sayings of Muhammad] from authentic Islamic sources. These three hadith are easily verifiable: Ahmad 2.50/Abu Dawud 4.314, Sahih Muslim 1.33, and Sahih Muslim 19.4294.

Secondly, despite Ali-Karamali's repeated assurances that Muhammad "never entered into a war that was not defensive" (p. 55), these hadith demonstrate Muhammad's offensive intentions toward fighting all of mankind—and certainly are used by al-Qaeda and bin Laden to argue to their audience that they are simply living up to the authentic requirements of their Islamic faith. (Could this be the reason scholars like Yusuf al-Qaradawi are so reluctant to explicitly condemn or "excommunicate" Osama bin Laden?)

Finally, Ali-Karamali writes that the purpose of the Qur'an's fighting verses,

contrary to media impressions, was not to command Muslims to unconditionally go find themselves some unbelievers and kill them if they did not immediately convert at sword-point. If it had been ... Muhammad would have attacked the various non-Muslim peoples living around him and killed them for the sole reason that they were unbelievers. That is something he never did. (p.174)

This is a very interesting statement. Twice, in just two sentences, Ali-Karamali refutes the claim that Islam calls for unbelievers to convert or be killed.

But as the hadith (and bin Laden) explicitly call out above, Muhammad did not call Muslims to kill unbelievers "if they did not immediately convert." He did not kill non-Muslims "for the sole reason that they were unbelievers." There was—and always has been in Islam—the critical third option for unbelievers to submit to Islam's authority in body if not in spirit.

Straw man, Ms. Ali-Karamali?

Indeed, the third choice for non-Muslims under Islamic rule (other than conversion or death) was to become dhimmis. Dhimmis are second-class citizens in Islamic society, forced to pay an additional tax known as the jizya to their Muslim rulers and forced to obey a wide range of humiliating rules to feel "subdued." All of this is encapsulated in a single Qur'anic verse, 9.29—for Muslims, the literal word of God:

Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book [Jews and Christians], until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

Ali-Karamali writes later that non-Muslims "paid the jizya in return for retention of their religion and culture, exemption from military duty, and protection from the state against aggressors." (p. 179) No mention of the humiliating and oppressive rules that went along with the tax to make them feel "subdued"; I'll save that topic for my final question.

But first, let's ask Ms. Ali-Karamali about bin Laden and his objectives:

9. Given al-Qaeda's statement that their conflict with the West "ultimately revolve[s] around one issue"—that Islam forces people "by the power of the sword to submit to its authority corporeally if not spiritually," do you still believe that bin Laden opposes the US only because it's "responsible for the turmoil in some of the Islamic world today"?

Christians and Jews Under Islam

As mentioned above, Islam allowed non-Muslims to keep their religion while submitting to Islamic rule.

An often-quoted Qur'anic verse states "there should be no compulsion in religion"; Ali-Karamali cites it as well. (p. 193)

While there are many disagreements about the context of this verse, the Islamic scholar Tabari (a "highly respected luminary" according to Ali-Karamali) explained that Jews and Christians "are not to be compelled to enter Islam if they submit to paying the jizyah."

Ali-Karamali writes that "the Qur'an did not mandate" the jizya "as a necessarily theological practice." (p. 194) And yet, verse 9.29 of the Qur'an seems to suggest otherwise:

Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book [Jews and Christians], until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. (emphasis added)

(Curiously, Ali-Karamali does not mention this verse in her discussion of the Qur'an's "fighting verses.")

Regardless, while Ali-Karamali concedes the jizya as a price for tolerance of non-Muslims under Islamic rule, she ignores the final element of verse 9.29: "and feel themselves subdued."

Ibn Kathir, described on Qaradawi's web site as a "great scholar," offers his perspective on this verse:

Paying the jizya is a sign of "disgrace," paid "in defeat and subservience."
The dhimmis (Jews and Christians under Islamic rule) should feel "disgraced, humiliated, and belittled;" Muslims "are not allowed to honor" them. They are "miserable, disgraced, and humiliated."

And yet, Ali-Karamali writes that the Qur'an "specifically enjoins respect of unbelievers" and "forbids discourtesy to Jews and Christians." (p. 82)

For Ali-Karamali, the second caliph Umar's treatment of Christians provides evidence of Islamic tolerance:

...when the second caliph of Islam, Umar, conquered Jerusalem in 638, the Muslims left Christians free to practice Christianity and visit the holy places. (p. 195, emphasis added)

The "famous exegete" Ibn Kathir, again in his commentary of verse 9.29, gives a bit more detail surrounding the second caliph's treatment of Christians:

'Umar bin Al-Khattab ... demanded his well-known conditions be met by the Christians, these conditions that ensured their continued humiliation, degradation, and disgrace. (emphasis added)

According to Ibn Kathir, the Christians agreed to many of Umar's conditions, including:

Not to build new churches
Not to restore existing churches
Not to publicly practice Christianity
Not to invite anyone to Christianity
Not to sound their church bells
To "move from the places we sit" if Muslims "choose to sit in them"

Ibn Kathir adds that Umar required the Christians to agree to one more clause:

If we break any of these promises ... you are allowed to do with us what you are allowed of people of defiance and rebellion.

As for the Jews, Ali-Karamali writes that a "big myth in the making is the idea that Jews and Muslims have always been deep ... enemies." (p. 230) She continues, "It is a myth. Muslim Spain is just one example of how Jews and Muslims (and Christians, as well) lived in a multicultural, multireligious society..."

Unfortunately, Islamic oppression of dhimmi Jews was still alive and well in Muslim Spain.

Maimonides, a Jewish rabbi, physician, and philosopher, was born in 1135 in Muslim Spain. Fouad Ajami, Professor of Middle East Studies at the Johns Hopkins University, explained that Maimonides fled Spain because the Muslim rulers "made the life of Spain's Jews ... utter hell."

Maimonides himself wrote:

... God has hurled us in the midst of this people, the Arabs, who have persecuted us severely, and passed baneful and discriminatory legislation against us, as Scripture has forewarned us, 'Our enemies themselves shall judge us' (Deuteronomy 32:31). Never did a nation molest, degrade, debase and hate us as much as they. (emphasis added)

Ali-Karamali argues that the jizya tax "according to the modern view, is not an Islamic requirement for today's world, where no differences at all should be made on the basis of religion." (p. 194)

Unfortunately, not all Muslims agree.

As noted by Andrew Bostom, the December 23-26, 2005 edition of the Wall Street Journal included an interview with Hassam El-Masalmeh, a Hamas leader from Bethlehem, who said this of the jizya for non-Muslims:

We in Hamas intend to implement this tax someday. We say it openly—we welcome everyone to Palestine but only if they agree to live under our rules.

As Bostom writes, El-Masalmeh wasn't the first Palestinian leader to speak publicly about bringing back the jizya. Sheik Muhammad Ibrahim Al-Madhi conveyed a similar message during a sermon broadcast live on Palestinian Authority Television in 2001:

We welcome, as we did in the past, any Jew who wants to live in this land as a Dhimmi, just as the Jews have lived in our countries, as Dhimmis, and have earned appreciation, and some of them have even reached the positions of counselor or minister here and there. We welcome the Jews to live as Dhimmis, but the rule in this land and in all the Muslim countries must be the rule of Allah.

With that, it's time for the last question for Ms. Ali-Karamali:

10. How do you reconcile the Qur'anic injunctions to make non-Muslims "feel subdued"—and, according to the Islamic scholar Ibn Kathir, "miserable," "disgraced," "humiliated," "degraded," and "belittled"—with your book's point that the "Qur'an forbids discourtesy to Jews and Christians"?

Conclusion

At the end of her book, Ali-Karamali writes that "it is time for genuine understanding and dialogue," with a wish that "we can separate the daily distortions from the reality."

Hopefully, in that spirit, she will be willing to answer the ten questions presented here.

But the questions aren't just for her.

Eight world-renowned experts on Islam have praised The Muslim Next Door for its "honesty" and for being "refreshingly frank," "consistently reliable," "comprehensive," and "intelligent."

I invite them to respond as well:

Additional Notes

December 9, 2008:

Robert Spencer wrote about these questions at JihadWatch.
Ms. Ali-Karamali and seven of the eight experts mentioned above have now been explicitly invited via email to address these questions; no one has responded so far.
Ms. Ali-Karamali was invited to speak at a Palo Alto, CA public high school this past Friday.
Ms. Ali-Karamali is scheduled to speak at Kepler's Book Store in Menlo Park, CA on Tuesday, February 10. Perhaps she'll be taking questions?
One reader had this reaction to these questions: "To equate all expressions of Islam with bin Laden, Hamas, and other terrorist arms of fundamentalism is the same brand of blood libel that led to the slaughter of my own people under another brand of fanatacism." Yet nowhere above do I write anything even close to this. In fact, some courageous Muslim reformers have been working very hard to advocate "expressions of Islam" that are truthful and completely peaceful: Tawfik Hamid, the late Tashbih Sayyed, and Khalim Massoud, to name a few.

Revuse

kamala_kamala — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 09:20:03 CDT

Review of How to Win a Cosmic War by Reza Aslan (April 30, 2009)
Ten Questions for the Muslim Next Door (December 5, 2008)
Keeping Toledo Hate-free (September 23, 2008)
The "Discover Islam" outreach posters (November 14, 2006)
The Truth About Muhammad by Robert Spencer (October 10, 2006)

Book Review: How to Win a Cosmic War

kamala_kamala — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 09:19:20 CDT

By Kamala
April 30, 2009

Reza Aslan is becoming a star. His second book, How to Win a Cosmic War, went on sale last week. To celebrate, he made his fifth appearance on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart.

An Iranian-born American Muslim, Aslan is handsome and hip. His photo on the book's jacket highlights his meticulously messy hair in an off-center portrait. He jokes with the Daily Show crowd about his fantasy of becoming "Angelina Jolie's Boy-Toy."

His Web page links to a MySpace fan page run by self-described "groupies" that feature photos of Aslan that would get GQ's attention. He's even represented by the same agency that represents Johnny Depp.

And the message this celebrity-in-the-making delivers is so comforting, so welcome in this era of hope and change. Aslan, you see, has figured out how to defeat Al-Qaeda, and in this book he tells us all how.

Bin Laden is fighting what Aslan terms a "cosmic war" against the United States and the West, a "religious war" (p. 5), where "God is believed to be directly engaged on one side over the other." (p. 5)

Aslan's solution for America? "...there is only one way to win a cosmic war: refuse to fight in it." (p.11)

But if the US should "refuse to fight" this cosmic war, what should be done instead? For Aslan, the answer couldn't be simpler: one, focus on "promoting democracy" (p. 166) throughout the Middle East; and two, address the "legitimate grievances" (p. 11) of Muslims around the world, especially Palestinian Arabs and European Muslims. This effort:

may not satisfy Osama bin Laden and his fellow cosmic warriors, whose sights are set beyond this world. But it will bring their cosmic war back down to earth, where it can be confronted more constructively. It will take away [their appeal] and loosen the ties that have bound so many young, disaffected Muslims together under a master narrative of oppression and injustice. (p. 11)

Sounds great, right?

Not quite.

The "democratic fervor" (p. 162) Aslan writes so positively about (and encourages the US and West to support) is in fact Islamist fervor.

Islamists are Aslan's protagonists:

Islamist parties throughout the Muslim world have consistently shown that ... they can evolve into responsible political actors committed to democratic ideals of human rights, women's rights, government accountability, the rule of law, pluralism, and judicial reform. (p. 167)

Aslan gushes further:

... while Islamist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, and Hizballah work to address ... socioeconomic needs, populations throughout the region will continue to throw their support behind the Islamists--as well they should. (p. 166, emphasis added)

In particular, Aslan focuses on the Muslim Brotherhood, which has had immense success in gaining popular support across the Muslim world including Egypt, where it was founded; in Gaza, via the Brotherhood affiliate Hamas; and in Jordan, where the Brotherhood operates as the Islamic Action Front (IAF).

To make the case that the Islamists are worthy of the West's support, Aslan walks his readers through an elaborate and convoluted exercise to separate the ideology of these Islamists from bin Laden and his ilk. The Muslim Brotherhood are "Islamists," you see, and bin Laden and Al-Qaeda are "Jihadists." And Islamism "may in fact be the antidote to Jihadism." (p. 168)

But Aslan's efforts are either ignorant or deceptive.

His explanations of Islamic history and doctrine are simply inaccurate, and he misrepresents the stated goals and relationships of Islamist groups today. And to tie this fantasy together, he presents one illogical argument after another.

Put simply, the Muslim Brotherhood's "Islamist" objectives--in their own words--are hardly different from bin Laden's: nothing short of Islam reigning supreme around the world, with strict Sharia (Islamic Law) replacing "man's law" everywhere, where non-Muslims are tolerated only as second-class, inferior citizens.

A Brotherhood document from 1982 titled "Towards a worldwide strategy for Islamic policy" states that their goal is to "establish an Islamic power on the earth," and to "support movements engaged in jihad across the Muslim world ... everywhere on the planet."

And for the Brotherhood, the US is part of this plan. An internal Muslim Brotherhood memo from 1991 makes this clear:

The Ikhwan [Muslim Brotherhood] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and "sabotaging" its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions... It is a Muslim's destiny to perform Jihad and work wherever he is and wherever he lands until the final hour comes...

The Brotherhood's ideology differs from Al-Qaeda in tactics and timing, but not in goals. Al-Qaeda chooses terrorism and urgency. The Brotherhood chooses elections and patience. Different means, same end.

But Aslan apparently can't be bothered with such inconvenient facts. How fitting that Aslan's "day job" is Assistant Professor of Creative Writing. Why let the truth get in the way of a good story--or an upcoming TV appearance?

Jihadists vs. Islamists

According to Aslan, Islamism--the "democratic" movements the US and the West should support, and Jihadism--the "un-Islamic" movement that bin Laden and Al-Qaeda follow, are miles apart in ideology:

Jihadism is global, Islamism is local
Jihadism is "transnationalist" and "antinationalist," Islamisim is "nationalist" (p. 30)
Jihadists are united, Islamist groups are independent

In Aslan's view, Islamism and Jihadism are "two opposing, rival movements." (p. 29)

But scratch the surface, and Aslan's analysis falls apart. For example, Aslan lists "Hamas in Palestine" and the "Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt" as Islamist movements that are "disparate." (p. xiv) He ridicules the notion that these two groups have "a common agenda and a shared ideology." (p. xv) Yet the charter of Hamas quickly dispels this claim:

The Islamic Resistance Movement [Hamas] is one of the wings of the Muslim Brothers in Palestine. The Muslim Brotherhood is a world organization, the largest Islamic Movement in the modern era.

Aslan writes that "Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood ... diligently portrays itself as a nationalist movement with exclusively nationalist ideals." (p. 30) But while the Brotherhood indeed originated in Egypt, the document linked above makes explicit its worldwide aspirations. Further, the Brotherhood's own official web site--that is, its public, English message to the world--confirms a presence in Syria, Jordan, Libya, Tunisia, Sudan, Algeria, Lebanon, Kuwait, and Bahrain. The Brotherhood's web site even proudly celebrates the launch of the web site for Italy's Muslim Brotherhood! If their ideals are "exclusively nationalist," someone needs to give their web site editor the memo!

Aslan repeatedly describes the Muslim Brotherhood as prototypical Islamists, which according to his dictionary means that they are "nationalists," with no "transnationalist" aims or intentions. Does he mean to limit the scope of his Brotherhood discussions only to the "Egyptian branch?" If so, why do that? Even the Brotherhood itself doesn't make that distinction on their own official web site. And since the Brotherhood does indeed have worldwide "transnational" goals, doesn't that make them "Jihadists"?

Aslan's pretzel logic is almost comical. "Jihadists refer to suicide terrorism as 'martyrdom operations." (p. 102) Hamas, of course, is the modern master of "martyrdom operations." In 2002, Hamas leader Aziz Rantisi said that "martyrdom operations" were the "only effective tool" of the Palestinians. But according to Aslan, Hamas are not Jihadists, they are Islamists! Yusuf al-Qaradawi also refers to suicide bombings as "martyrdom operations." Qaradawi is a renowned spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood. But Aslan repeatedly tells us that the Muslim Brotherhood are Islamists (e.g., p. 166), and of course Islamism is an "opposing rival" (p. 29) to Jihadism!

Jihadist doctrine

Even less convincing is Aslan's argument that the Jihadists go to "great lengths to distance themselves from the traditional doctrines of Islam." In Aslan's view, Jihadists show "an almost total disregard for Islamic law," advocating a "base and corrupt rendering" of Jihad doctrine that diverges from "its classical Qur'anic sense." (p. xviii-xix)

Aslan pins the blame for "Jihadism" on ibn Taymiyyah, a 13th century Islamic scholar:

[Jihadism] looks not to the Qur'an for its doctrinal basis but to the writings of the thirteenth century legal scholar Ahmad ibn Taymiyyah. (p. xviii)

For one, Aslan credits ibn Taymiyyah with "proposing a strict geographical division of the world into realms of belief (dar al Islam) and unbelief (dar al-kufr), with the former in constant pursuit of the latter." (p. 109)

But the claim that this stark world view of "us" vs. "them" first came from ibn Taymiyyah (more than 600 years after Muhammad's death) is incorrect. According to Yusuf Qaradawi, "one of the Muslim Brotherhood's spiritual leaders," the dar al Islam/dar al harb split was in fact articulated by Abu Hanifa about 500 years earlier. Abu Hanifa was an early Islamic jurist, eponym for the Hanafi school--one of the four major Sunni schools of Islamic jurisprudence today.

Further, according to American Muslim convert Jeffrey Lang in his 1997 book Even Angels Ask:

This legal-political formulation separates the world into two mutually exclusive territories: dar al Islam, the lands ruled by Muslims according to the Shari'ah (Islamic law), and dar al harb, the lands not under Muslim control which must be subjected, by conquest if necessary, to Islamic rule. According to this theory, a perpetual state of war exists between Muslim and non-Muslim territories... (p. 119)

But this is no fringe theory that only "crazy Jihadists" believe. As Lang writes, "almost all Muslim religious leaders, however, still uphold the classical dar al Islam/dar al harb concept." (p. 119, emphasis added)

For Aslan, that troublemaker ibn Taymiyyah also

reconceptualized jihad as an "individual obligation" (fard 'ala l'ayn), overturning centuries of consensus among his fellow legal scholars that jihad must be a "collective obligation" (fard 'ala l-kifaya)--a defensive struggle against oppression and injustice that could be authorized only by a qualified imam. (p. 109)

This time Aslan impressively combines two falsehoods in just one sentence--i.e., before Taymiyyah came along, (a) there was "centuries of consensus" that jihad must only be a "defensive struggle," and (b) jihad was not an individual obligation but a collective one.

The doctrine of "offensive Jihad"--of proactively "calling" non-Muslims to convert and fighting those who refuse--in fact traces itself back hundreds of years earlier. As quoted in Andrew Bostom's The Legacy of Jihad, Ibn Abi Zayd al-Qayrawani (d. 996), jurist of the Maliki school of Sunni Islamic jurisprudence, wrote:

We Malikis maintain that it is preferable not to begin hostilities with the enemy before having invited the latter to embrace the religion of Allah except where the enemy attacks first. They have the alternative of either converting to Islam or paying the poll tax (jizya), short of which war will be declared against them (p. 27, emphasis added)

Hanafi jurist Shaikh Burhanuddin Ali of Marghinan (d. 1196) wrote:

If the infidels, upon receiving the call [to Islam], neither consent to it nor agree to pay capitation tax, it is incumbent on the Muslims to call upon God for assistance, and to make war upon them, because God is ... the destroyer of His enemies, the infidels... (p. 27, emphasis added)

While it is true that offensive jihad traditionally was a collective duty, defensive jihad has long been an individual obligation, again even before ibn Taymiyyah's time. The Hanafi scholars ibn-Nujaym (d. 970) and al-Kasani (d. 1191) both articulated the legitimacy of defensive jihad as an individual obligation.

But ultimately, other than demonstrating Aslan's poor grasp of Islamic history, it's just not very interesting to argue whether the Islamic doctrines that the Jihadists use originated from Taymiyyah in the 13th century or earlier.

More important, as even Aslan concedes, is that "ibn Taymiyyah is widely acknowledged to be one of the greatest thinkers in Islamic history," a man of "famed piety," honored as one of the "most supreme legal authorities." (p. 105) How can bin Laden and al-Qaeda simultaneously be "un-Islamic" (p. 6) yet also be driven by one of the most pious, most supreme legal authorities in Islamic history?

Further, as mentioned above, the "stark division of the world into spheres of belief and unbelief" (p. 110) is, according to Jeffrey Lang, supported by "almost all Muslim religious leaders" even today. The doctrine of offensive jihad, and the duty of individuals to fight defensive jihad even without state authority, are accepted by all mainstream Sunni schools.

Israel and Europe

No self-respecting Islamic apologist can leave out the Israeli/Palestinian dispute as one of the "legitimate grievances" that must be addressed to stem the influence of the global Jihadists; Aslan readily obliges. He even shows off his creative writing chops by weaving the narrative of Israeli oppression into the frightening growth of Jihadist influence in Europe as well. To pull this story off, the only casualty is the truth:

Mohammad Siddique Khan was the ringleader of the 7/7 subway and bus suicide attacks in Britain that left more than fifty dead and injured more than 700. Khan was of Pakistani descent but born and raised in England. In the Aslan fantasy, he was a "soft-spoken," "well-adjusted, well-integrated, well-educated youth worker," and a dedicated "husband and father," up until one "decisive moment." On his way back from completing "the Hajj pilgrimage with his wife and a couple of close friends," Khan made a "last minute detour" to Israel, where Khan

witnessed with his own eyes the unbearable weight of degradation carried by a people in no control of their own lives, in no control even of their movements.

As Khan passed through a crossing into Palestinian territory, he

saw an old Palestinian man, a native of this dry patch of land, being manhandled by a nervous young soldier... A second soldier, sweating and timorous and just as young as the first, held a rifle barrel against the old man's chest... The old man lowered his head. He was used to this. He did not speak as the soldier rummaged through his belongings. Khan stood by, also saying nothing. But the old man's shame burned hot in his cheeks... in that fateful moment, [Khan's] identify was altered. He was no longer British. He was no longer Pakistani. His sense of self could not be contained by either nationalist designation. He was simply a Muslim... On his way back to Beeston, the mild-mannered youth worker shocked his companions by suddenly proclaiming his new identity and, with it, his murderous intention. (p. 52)

As Aslan writes, "there can be little doubt" that Khan's short trip Israel was the "pivot in his journey" that took him from being the well-adjusted/well-integrated/well-educated/soft-spoken/mild-mannered/dedicated-husband-and-father to the "radical Jihadist bent on mass murder."

If this tale sounds far-fetched--that taking a single trip to Israel and witnessing one old man get "humiliated" would turn a perfectly sane European family man into a nut-job terrorist committed to killing his fellow citizens and himself--well, that's because it is.

Khan visited Israel for one day in February, 2003. Almost two years earlier, in the summer of 2001, a British Muslim named Waheed Ali says he flew to Pakistan with Khan, where they were driven to a Taliban camp on the border with Kashmir, where they learned to shoot rifles. Khan and Ali wanted to go fight on the frontline in Bagram, where the Taliban was fighting the Northern Alliance, but they were deemed too inexperienced to participate. (Ali was just sentenced to prison for conspiracy to attend a terrorist camp.)

As one would expect, Khan's turn to radical Islam came even earlier. According to an article based on an interview with Khan's brother, Khan became interested in Wahhabism in the mid-90s, and "in 1999, it seems that Siddique began to consider the step from Wahhabi fundamentalism to a form of jihadism actively committed to violence."

So much for the "Palestinian Humiliation Theory."

While throwing darts at the wall, Khan tosses another set of tired arguments to explain the rise of Islamic supremacism (and terrorism) in Europe: it's "discrimination," "Islamophobia," "marginalization," a lack of "employment opportunities, legal representation, civil rights, and educational advantages," "socioeconomic obstacles," and--surprise--"racism" (p. 130) and "racial discrimination" (p. 153) (Mr. Aslan--what race is Islam?)

It's all the fault of the non-Muslim establishment, you see.

Aslan suggests Europe should work to help Muslim immigrants feel "like equal members" of society. (p. 153)

But in fact, many "Islamist" leaders do not want equality for Muslims in Europe; they want supremacism. In 2008, a leading cleric from Hamas (that "Islamist" group supposedly only with "nationalist" aims) predicted that Rome would serve as "an advanced post for the Islamic conquests, which will spread through Europe in its entirety." In 1995, Yusuf Qaradawi, spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, said, "We will conquer Europe." Qaradawi also once said that "Islam will return to Europe as a conqueror and a victor."

Aslan scoffs at authors and political leaders worried about Islamic supremacism in Europe.

Consider Bruce Bawer's While Europe Slept, which documents the ongoing Islamization of Europe. Bawer, an American living in Europe since 1998, describes the disturbing trends among Muslims in Europe: oppression and abuse of women; persecution of homosexuals; demonization and attacks of Jews; honor killings, and forced marriage. Aslan mentions the book but dismisses it out-of-hand as one of several books with "histrionic titles" (p. 141) that "fuel" "widespread fear."

Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders, the great champion of free speech, and one of the few politicians to speak honestly and forcefully about the Islamic doctrines that Jihadists themselves cite as their motivation, is also dismissed out-of-hand; he's simply a "neofascist." (p. 127)

Aslan sees progress in the UK, where "a slew of British Muslim organizations... have set about defining a uniquely British conception of Islam, which has allowed a new generation of Muslim youth to feel increasingly comfortable exerting both their national and their religious identities." (p. 154)

One such organization is the Quilliam Foundation, a "counterextremism think tank." The Quilliam foundation cites Ali Goma as a "scholastic giant" who is providing them with "ample guidance." Unfortunately, Ali Goma has said that "women in some cultures are not averse to beatings." He also issued a fatwa that condemned sculpting as a "sinful" act and declared it forbidden to display a statue at home. In 2007, Goma said that "Islam prohibits a Muslim from changing his religion and that apostasy is a crime, which must be punished." Hope and change indeed.

Conclusion

How to Win a Cosmic War is an Islamist tract. And it's a slick one, just as slick as its author's publicity photos. Aslan is shamelessly adept at taking words that pacify and please an American non-Muslim audience, and then using them to sugarcoat Islamic oppression and subjugation. One sentence in particular is worth revisiting:

Islamist parties throughout the Muslim world have consistently shown that ... they can evolve into responsible political actors committed to democratic ideals of human rights, women's rights, government accountability, the rule of law, pluralism, and judicial reform. (p. 167)

Let's take a look at just one of these "ideals": women's rights.

In Jordan, it was the IAF Islamist party that argued against a law that would bring harsher punishments for the perpetrators of honor killings:

In the heat of the Jordanian debate, this parliamentary coalition of several Islamist groups, most of whom affiliate with the Muslim Brethren, issued a fatwa that declared honor-killings are seen as favorable by Islam; male relatives should punish their female relatives and not leave this duty to the state. Ibrahim Zayd al-Kaylani, head of the Jordanian Islamic Action Front (IAF)'s Ifta ' committee, said that a man who restrains himself from committing an honor killing, leaving this unpleasant burden to the government, "negates the values of virility advocated by Islam." Article 340, Kaylani added, is based on "the Islamic principle that allows a Muslim to defend his honor, property, and blood." Muhammad ‘Uwayda, dean of Zarqa University's Shari‘a College and a member of the lower house, stated that while the Shari‘a does prohibit individuals from taking the law into their own hands, "cases where a man catches his wife committing adultery are the exception." The IAF issued a fatwa to the effect that "canceling Article 340 would contradict the Shari‘a." (emphasis added)

In 2007, the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt asserted that women are not qualified to run for president.

When Egypt finally outlawed female circumcision in 2007 after a 12-year-old girl died undergoing the procedure, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt were--according to an Afghan newspaper--"furious about the new legislation, with MP's charging that it 'contradicts with the Islamic jurisprudence and is brought from the West.'"

And when asked in 2006 about the future of women in Gaza, a Palestinian woman who campaigns for the rights of working women said this about the Islamists of Gaza, Hamas:

They don't look at men and women as equal. When they educate women they always say that she has to obey the male in the family... When she wants to get married one of things they teach her is to obey her husband. If she wants to go to work she has to take his permission.

Are these the "women's rights" that America should encourage and support?

Keeping Toledo Hate-free

kamala_kamala — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 09:37:15 CDT

In the September 21, 2008 issue of the Toledo Blade newspaper in Ohio, Dr. Zaheer Hasan and his co-author, Dr. Abdul-Majeed Azad, wrote a defiant column.

Their column was a reaction to the film "Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West," a DVD included in many newspapers distributed throughout America the previous weekend.

In describing the film, Hasan and Azad use the words "vicious" and "bigoted," writing about a "demonizing message," a "message of hatred, divisiveness, and fear-mongering."

Are they referring to the ruthless prescriptions for non-Muslims presented by the Jihadists themselves in the film, such as the clip of Abu Hamza Al-Masri saying, "What makes Allah happy? Allah is happy when the kafirs [non-Muslims] get killed"?

When Hasan and Azad write about "hate-mongers," are they referring to the huge crowds chanting "Death to America" in the film?

No.

Hasan and Azad are blaming the film makers and distributors, for presenting a "twisted and grotesque representation" of Islam. The "narratives" in the film are "out-of-context." It's "over-dramatized."

Hasan and Azad assure us that "Islam strongly recommends peaceful and cordial relationships, especially with the 'people of the books,' namely Jews and Christians, as well as with the rest of humanity that aspires to coexist peacefully." They tell us, "The core teaching of Islam preaches respect of humanity and preservation of life."

They end their column by writing, "We thank the fair-minded and kind citizens of greater Toledo for their continued affection, sympathy, understanding, and acceptance. We join them in keeping our city and its suburbs hate-free."

Well, Dr. Hasan now has a unique opportunity to help keep Toledo "hate-free."

Dr. Hasan is a founder of the United Muslim Association of Toledo (UMAT) and, based on his own words, is still a member.

On October 29th, Imam Mahdi Bray is scheduled to be the guest speaker at UMAT's Annual Unity dinner, as described on UMAT's home page.

At a rally at Lafayette Park, in Washington D.C., almost exactly eight years before his scheduled engagement at UMAT, Mahdi Bray was standing next to Abdurahman Alamoudi, leader of the American Muslim Council. Alamoudi speaks to the crowd: “I have been labeled by the media in New York to be a supporter of Hamas. Anybody supports Hamas here?" The crowd cheers, and Mr. Bray raises both his hands and smiles. Alamoudi asks again, "Anybody's a supporter of Hamas here?" The crowd cheers again, and Bray raises his right hand. Alamoudi repeats himself one more time, and Bray raises his hand again. The video is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBIcfigtbEU

Hamas, of course, has been designated a Foreign Terrorist Organization by the U.S. State Department. The charter of Hamas states, "Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it." This same charter quotes Islam's prophet Muhammad as having said,

The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews." (related by al-Bukhari and Moslem).

Mahdi Bray, as explained in the short biography on the UMAT home page, is "currently Executive Director of the Muslim American Society, Freedom Foundation...", which is the "public affairs arm of the Muslim American Society." (http://www.masnet.org/takeaction.asp?id=4108).

The Muslim American Society is the name under which the Muslim Brotherhood operates in the United States, according to this 2004 Chicago Tribune article. Not coincidentally, Hamas "grew out of the Muslim Brotherhood."

Perhaps more troublesome, according to the Muslim Brotherhood's own 1991 memorandum about their strategy in North America, "their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and 'sabotaging' its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion [Islam] is made victorious over all other religions."

Perhaps the UMAT leadership that invited Mahdi Bray to speak at their upcoming dinner did not know these troubling details about his background. Neither, perhaps, did Dr. Hasan.

But now he does.

Will Dr. Hasan condemn Mahdi Bray for his support of the terrorist organization Hamas and Bray's affiliation with the Muslim Brotherhood?

Will Dr. Hasan push UMAT—the group he founded—to disinvite Mr. Bray and keep Toledo "hate-free"?

E) How does Islam guarantee human rights?

kamala — Sat, 30 Dec 2006 10:45:24 CST

See Discover Islam page here.

This poster highlights a Qur'anic verse that appears to be an eloquent statement about the sanctity of life:

The right to life is the most basic of human rights; the Qur'an equates the unjust killing of a single person to killing all of humankind: "And whoever kills a soul…, should be as though he has killed all of humankind." (Qur'an 5:32)

Many others have also cited this same verse in a similar vein, such as the 2005 "fatwa" from the Fiqh Council of North America condemning terrorism. Even President Bush referenced this verse in a 2005 speech:

As we do our part to confront radicalism, we know that the most vital work will be done within the Islamic world, itself. And this work has begun. Many Muslim scholars have already publicly condemned terrorism, often citing Chapter 5, Verse 32 of the Koran, which states that killing an innocent human being is like killing all humanity, and saving the life of one person is like saving all of humanity.

Alas, reading verse 5.32 in its entirety along with the succeeding verse (5.33) shows—yet again—that we are being misled.

Here is Shakir's translation of verse 5.32, with emphasis added:

For this reason did We prescribe to the children of Israel that whoever slays a soul, unless it be for manslaughter or for mischief in the land, it is as though he slew all men; and whoever keeps it alive, it is as though he kept alive all men; and certainly Our messengers came to them with clear arguments, but even after that many of them certainly act extravagantly in the land.

Verse 5.33 makes it clear what should be done about those who "make mischief in the land":

The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement,

And what constitutes waging "war against Allah and His messenger" or making "mischief in the land"? According to commentary on verse 5.33 by Islamic scholar Aqa Mahdi Puya (with emphasis added):

Waging war against Allah and His prophet means hostility against His chosen representatives; or deviation from His laws by overstepping the boundaries laid down by Him; or letting loose a reign of terror to persecute and frighten innocent people in order to deprive them of their rights; or attempts to undermine the cause of Islam and the overall interests of the Muslims; or activities to enslave, exploit and destroy human beings.

When read in full, not only do verses 5.32-5.33 fail to protect anyone seen as undermining (or hostile to) Islam, the verses actually dictate punishing such transgressors with murder, crucifixion, amputation, or imprisonment.

On to the next poster.
Back to the previous poster.

D) Why is Islam often misunderstood?

kamala_kamala — Sun, 17 Dec 2006 23:49:55 CST

See Discover Islam page here.

The title of this poster begs a different question: Who are the ones that misunderstand Islam? The Muslims that confidently cite the Qur'an and the life and ways of Muhammad to justify and encourage violence and subjugation against non-Muslims? Or those that are fed a steady diet of misinformation about Islam—the same misinformation spread by these posters?

The goal of this particular poster is clear, as if saying something over and over makes it true:

Islam means peace...

...this peaceful way of life...
...the true and peaceful nature of Islam...
The very word "Islam" means peace...
A fifth of the world's population is reclaiming this peace...

As previously discussed, Islam does not mean peace; it means submission or surrender. Islam expanded through war and subjugation against non-Muslims, following the example set by Muhammad.

So why does the word "peace" come up so frequently in Islamic outreach material?

Because Islam does promise peace—when Islam is in charge. As explained in this interview by Abu Bakir Bashir, "the alleged spiritual leader of Jemaah Islamiyah (JI), al-Qa'eda's main ally in the region [Indonesia]":

...it is unnatullah [destiny, a law of nature], as Allah has said in the Koran. If they [the West] want to have peace, they have to be governed by Islam...

As long as there is no intention to fight us and Islam continues to grow there can be peace. This is the doctrine of Islam. Islam can't be ruled by others. Allah's law must stand above human law.

The poster makes another set of claims:

Muslims are standing up against terrorism, against the persecution and killing of innocent people, and against those who perpetrate such injustice in the name of any faith.

Let's focus on the issue of killing "innocent people." Muslim sources such as the USC MSA cite verse 17.33 of the Qur'an to demonstrate that it is "Islamically unlawful to murder anyone who is innocent of certain crimes." This verse begins, "Nor take life—which Allah has made sacred—except for just cause." Yet the MSA does not explain what constitutes "just cause."

In April 2002, as published in this paper by Jonathan Halevi, Sheikh Hamed Al-Ali, Professor of Islamic Culture at the College of Basic Education in Kuwait, issued a ruling on Islamic grounds explaining the circumstances in which women and children may be killed: for those "who knowingly take part in combat or advise and encourage others to do so, etc., the prohibition against killing them does not apply and it is permitted to kill them in war." (See an automated translation of the original Arabic here.)

Also in 2002, Sheikh Muhammad Sayyed Tantawi, the top Egyptian cleric at Al-Azhar University, stated his position "that every martyrdom operation against any Israeli, including children, women, and teenagers, is a legitimate act according to [Islamic] religious law, and an Islamic commandment, until the people of Palestine regain their land and cause the cruel Israeli aggression to retreat…"

Indeed, in an open letter to the American public, Osama bin Laden—always careful to show how Islam justifies his efforts—methodically explains why the American civilians killed on 9/11 were not innocent:

...the American people are the ones who choose their government by way of their own free will; a choice which stems from their agreement to its policies. Thus the American people have chosen, consented to, and affirmed their support for the Israeli oppression of the Palestinians, the occupation and usurpation of their land, and its continuous killing, torture, punishment and expulsion of the Palestinians. The American people have the ability and choice to refuse the policies of their Government and even to change it if they want.

The American people are the ones who pay the taxes which fund the planes that bomb us in Afghanistan, the tanks that strike and destroy our homes in Palestine, the armies which occupy our lands in the Arabian Gulf, and the fleets which ensure the blockade of Iraq...

Also the American army is part of the American people. It is this very same people who are shamelessly helping the Jews fight against us.

The American people are the ones who employ both their men and their women in the American Forces which attack us.

This is why the American people cannot be not innocent of all the crimes committed by the Americans and Jews against us.

Allah, the Almighty, legislated the permission and the option to take revenge...

Condemning the murder of "innocents" has become an oft-repeated banality among Muslim leaders; as another example, see the "fatwa" from the Fiqh Council of North America (and endorsed by the Council on American-Islamic Relations) against "the use of violence against innocent lives." Yet an actual definition of "innocence" is rarely provided. Just as some Islamic leaders use "innocence" as a convenient word for non-Muslim consumption, others handily provide the Islamic justification to argue that in conflicts between Muslims and non-Muslims, not even women or children are innocent.

On to the next poster.
Back to the previous poster.

In Conclusion

kamala — Sat, 25 Nov 2006 11:30:16 CST

At one level, the Discover Islam posters describe a very traditional interpretation of Islam:

"Islam is not just a personal religion, but a complete way of life." (Poster)
"Muslims believe that the Qur'an is the very word of God Almighty: a complete record of the exact words revealed by God... The Qur'an is the principal source of every Muslim's faith and practice." (Poster)
"The sunnah—the practice and example of the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) is the second source of inspiration and instruction for Muslims. Belief in the sunnah is part of the Islamic faith." (Poster)

These posters offer not a even a hint of how Islam might be any different today than it was hundreds of years ago. Not even a hint about the possibility of a more modern interpretation, such as ignoring the political aspects of Islam, acknowledging that the Qur'an may not actually be the "very word of God," or even giving today's Muslims the discretion to contextualize Muhammad's life in 6th century Arabia and discount some of his words and actions, rather than follow his "practice and example" as "instruction."

Yet when it comes to describing the true history of Islam and explaining what the Qur'an and the Sunnah actually say, these posters devolve into outright falsehoods, half-truths, critical omissions, and misleading rhetoric (such as relying on loaded words like "innocent" or "just" or "peace" without providing appropriate definitions)—all to present a deceptive impression of Islam as a benign and pluralistic ideology and way of life.

Unfortunately, a clear reading of history and a forthright presentation of orthodox Islam yield quite the opposite, as shown by the short analysis of six posters here. Islam was spread via warfare. The Qur'an and the Sunnah are clear that Islam dictates violence against (or subjugation of) non-Muslims. Islam calls for the death penalty for apostates. Islam condones domestic violence against women.

If these Discover Islam posters were the only place to find this deceptive description of Islam, there would be less cause for worry. After all, as a percentage of the population, very few people will ever see them. (And perhaps, going forward, many who do see them will also somehow see this analysis as well.)

But the problem at hand is much larger.

Firstly, many influential Muslim organizations in Western countries tell a similar story about Islam. For example, consider the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), which claims to be "America's largest Islamic civil liberties group." In addition to its national office, CAIR has 30 regional chapters throughout the country. CAIR National Communication Director Ibrahim Hooper has spoken about Islam in America many times on national news programs, such as CBS, ABC, and CNN.

In July, 2005, the CAIR published a "Policy Bulletin" titled "Islam, Democracy, and American Muslims." After reading the Discover Islam posters, the rhetoric in this document should feel very familiar. For one, CAIR is sure to affirm the Qur'an and the traditions of Muhammad as the primary sources of Islam, and to emphasize the importance of understanding and adhering to Islamic teachings:

"For Muslims, the Qur'an is the ultimate source of values."
"God’s Word in the Qur’an and the traditions of His Messenger Muhammad are the basis of Islamic legal principles..."
"...continual intellectual effort is necessary so as to come up with better ways in which people can live in conformity with the teachings of Islam."

As with the Discover Islam posters, there is no mention of any movement (or any need) in modern times to discount or limit the authority of the Qur'an or the example set by Muhammad.

Yet just like the Discover Islam posters, this CAIR bulletin is filled with pleasant but misleading sound bites about Islam:

"...freedom of religion is enshrined in the Qur'anic verse that says 'there should be no compulsion in religion.'"
"Jews and Christians are given special honor in the Qur'an..."

Both statements—Islam's supposed "freedom of religion," and the "special honor" of subservience and taxation given to Jews and Christians—are addressed in the analysis of this Discover Islam poster.

Does CAIR reject violence against (or subjugation of) non-Muslims and thus reject Qur'anic verses 9.29, 4.76, 47.4, 8.12 (not to mention many others)? Does CAIR condemn the death penalty for apostasy and thus reject Bukhari 9.84.57? Does CAIR condemn domestic violence against women and thus reject verse 4.34 of the Qur'an? These are important questions. Simple questions. Yes/no questions. Why don't the media that interview Ibrahim Hooper so often press him to answer these questions? If the U.S. Constitution is "compatible with Islam," as the CAIR bulletin claims, shouldn't it be easy for Hooper to say "yes" to each?

And what about other mainstream Muslim groups in America? After all, CAIR and their leaders have made many dubious statements and have been the subject of many problematic associations. Perhaps other groups have defined and espoused a more modern version of Islam, one with a less literal interpretation of the Qur'an and the ways and words of Muhammad, one where the political aspects of Islam are mitigated, one where non-Muslims are accepted as equals before the law?

Unfortunately, not the Muslim Public Affairs Council, whose policy paper states, "Among the most enduring misconceptions about the Islamic faith is the presumed link between Islam and violence," and then goes on to cite verse 5.32 of the Qur'an, addressed in the analysis of this poster.

Not the Islamic Society of North America, whose former President writes on their site, "For us reform is nothing but obeying Allah, going back to the authentic message of the Qur'an and the Sunnah..."

Not the Islamic Assembly of North America, whose work follows "The correct Islamic methodology derived from the Book of Allah and the sunnah of the Messenger of Allah, according to the understanding and application of the early pious forefathers."

Not the Shia Association of North America, whose Web site suggests readers join CAIR.

And these are just examples from North America. The same message is repeated by Islamic organizations in the United Kingdom, Australia, and other countries around the world.

Alas, the problem at hand is even larger.

Suppose more Muslim organizations were to openly acknowledge the problems of traditional Islam and to work honestly toward defining and gathering support for a more modern, benign interpretation—such as the one put forth courageously by Mahmoud Muhammad Taha of Sudan, an effort that earned him a public hanging in 1985.

Even so, as Robert Spencer has explained so often and so well, jihadists conducting warfare worldwide against non-Muslims will continue to justify their actions and their mission by citing "pure" Islam: the "literal and eternal word of God" from the Qur'an, and the life and ways of Muhammad, the "excellent example of human behavior." They—not non-Muslims—are the ones that need to be convinced that "Islam means peace." But no one has formulated Islamic arguments—let alone initiate a serious, sustained campaign—to refute the Islamic justification provided by the jihadists.

For more information

If you are interested in learning more about Islam, I recommend reading Robert Spencer's books about Islam and Muhammad and his Web site, JIhad Watch. Robert's work has opened my eyes to Islam. I envy his patriotism, his dedication, his truthfulness, his logic, his courage, and his calm in the face of death threats and a general unwillingness of good people to listen to the truth about Islam.

C) Is Islam respectful of other beliefs?

kamala — Sat, 25 Nov 2006 11:09:53 CST

See Discover Islam page here.

The poster answers its own question:

Yes. The Qur'an states unequivocally:

"There is no compulsion in religion. Truth stands out clearly from falsehood..." (Qur'an 2:256)

The Qur'an also "states unequivocally":

These twain (the believers and the disbelievers) are two opponents who contend concerning their Lord. But as for those who disbelieve, garments of fire will be cut out for them; boiling fluid will be poured down on their heads, (22.19) Whereby that which is in their bellies, and their skins too, will be melted; (22.20) And for them are hooked rods of iron. (22.21)
Now when ye meet in battle those who disbelieve, then it is smiting of the necks until, when ye have routed them, then making fast of bonds. (47.4)
O ye who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allah is with those who keep their duty (unto Him). (9.123)
O Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites! Be harsh with them. Their ultimate abode is hell, a hapless journey's end. (9.73)
Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush... (9.5)
Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low. (9.29)
Those who believe do battle for the cause of Allah; and those who disbelieve do battle for the cause of idols. So fight the minions of the devil. Lo! the devil's strategy is ever weak. (4.76)
When thy Lord inspired the angels, (saying): I am with you. So make those who believe stand firm. I will throw fear into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Then smite the necks and smite of them each finger. (8.12)

If "there is no compulsion in religion," how can there be so many verses in the Qur'an that dictate violence against non-Muslims? Verse 2.256 has been the subject of much analysis; a summary of perspectives can be read here. Regardless, suggesting that 2.256 is the Qur'an's representative statement on the subject of religious tolerance is—at best—incomplete and misleading.

The poster continues:

Freedom of conscience is an essential tenant of Islam. Truth can only be seen if it is not clouded by coercion.

Beyond the Qur'anic contradictions to these claims already cited above, consider the plights of those whose "freedom of conscience" leads them to leave Islam. For those non-Muslims, Islamic orthodoxy is merciless: according to the "most reliable Hadith collection," Muhammad himself said, "Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'" (Bukhari 9.84.57) Muhammad's position on the subject is repeated here: "If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him." (Bukhari 4.52.260) Bukhari recounts a particularly gruesome implementation of this dictate:

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. (Bukhari 8.82.794)

As explained here, Muhammad's words and actions from the 7th century continue to serve as the "perfect model" of human behavior for many Muslims today. Thus, apostasy from Islam continues to be a capital offense in Muslim countries. As just one example, consider the recent case of Abdul Rahman, who faced the death penalty in Afghanistan for converting to Christianity—even after the USA invaded and oversaw the creation of a new constitution there.

Protection of the rights of non-Muslims is an intrinsic part of Islamic law.

"Protection" of non-Muslims is indeed an important element of Islam. Haroon Siddiqui, author of the book Being Muslim, writes, "Islam extended to Christians and Jews, whose prophets they shared, full protection of the state, calling them dhimmis, from dhimma, guarantor." And this same protection was also ultimately offered to other non-Muslims, such as Zoroastrians and Hindus.

But neither Siddiqui nor the Discover Islam posters reveals the price for that protection—a price no less intrinsic to Islamic law. As indicated by verse 9.29 of the Qur'an quoted above, fighting is mandated against Jews and Christians ("those who have been given the scripture") "until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low." Or, as another translation puts it, "until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection." And just how have Muslims implemented this Qur'anic guidance?

In the seventh century, Islamic Caliph Umar offered to the Christians of Syria a peace accord known as the Pact of Umar. As documented in al-Turtushi's "monumental political treatise" Siraj-al-Muluk, the Pact of Umar lists numerous promises made by the Christian subjects, including:

We shall not build, in our cities or in their neighborhood, new monasteries, Churches, convents, or monks' cells, nor shall we repair, by day or by night, such of them as fall in ruins or are situated in the quarters of the Muslims.
We shall not manifest our religion publicly nor convert anyone to it.
We shall show respect toward the Muslims, and we shall rise from our seats when they wish to sit.
We shall not mount on saddles, nor shall we gird swords nor bear any kind of arms nor carry them on our persons.
We shall not display our crosses or our books in the roads or markets of the Muslims

The pact concludes with a final vow: "If we in any way violate these undertakings for which we ourselves stand surety, we forfeit our covenant [dhimma], and we become liable to the penalties for contumacy and sedition."

Fast forward to the 9th century. Islamic historian Tabari, considered by Muslims a "well-respected scholar" and author of "some of the most respected books in Islamic history," writes:

In the year 850, [Caliph] al-Mutawakkil ordered that the Christians and all the rest of the ahl al-dhimma be made to wear honey-colored taylasans (hoods) and the zunnar belts... He further required them to affix two patches on the exterior of then slaves' garments. The color of these patches had to be different from that of the garment. One of the patches was to be worn in front oil the breast and the other on the back. Each of the patches should measure four fingers in diameter. They too were to be honey-colored...

He gave orders that any of their houses of worship built after the advent of Islam were to be destroyed and that one-tenth of their homes be confiscated. If the place was spacious enough, it was to be converted into a mosque. If it was not suitable for a mosque, it was to be made an open space. He commanded that wooden images of devils be nailed to the doors of their homes to distinguish them from the homes of Muslims.

More than a thousand years later, one might expect (or at least hope) that today's Muslim leaders would have tempered the Islamic mandate to tax and subjugate the "protected" non-Muslims. Yet many Muslims continue to believe that the Qur'an is the "eternal and literal word of God." For them, Qur'anic verse 9.29 is just as relevant today.

As noted by Andrew Bostom, the December 23-26, 2005 edition of the Wall Street Journal included an interview with Hassam El-Masalmeh, a Hamas leader from Bethlehem, who said this of the jizya (poll tax) for non-Muslims:

We in Hamas intend to implement this tax someday. We say it openly—we welcome everyone to Palestine but only if they agree to live under our rules.

As Bostom writes, El-Masalmeh wasn't the first Palestinian leader to speak publicly about the price of protection. Sheik Muhammad Ibrahim Al-Madhi conveyed a similar message during a sermon broadcast live on Palestinian Authority Television in 2001:

We welcome, as we did in the past, any Jew who wants to live in this land as a Dhimmi, just as the Jews have lived in our countries, as Dhimmis, and have earned appreciation, and some of them have even reached the positions of counselor or minister here and there. We welcome the Jews to live as Dhimmis, but the rule in this land and in all the Muslim countries must be the rule of Allah.

On to the next poster.
Back to the previous poster.

Discover Islam

kamala — Sat, 18 Nov 2006 09:52:27 CST

By Kamala

The Florida-based Web site DiscoverIslam.com sells ornate posters and brochures covering a range of topics about Islam. In their own words,

Each poster masterfully integrates traditional Islamic art and calligraphy with modern computer graphics... They powerfully communicate the beauty of Islam, and yet are gentle enough to sway any heart, Muslim and non-Muslim.

According to the Web site, over 10,000 sets of posters and more than 2.7 million Readers (brochures) have been distributed worldwide:

The Discover Islam series of products have become the mainstay of outreach materials here in the United States and in many parts of the world... Post 9-11 America, wars against terror, war with Afghanistan and Iraq, and Islam taking center stage in world affairs mean that the onslaught of attacks on Islam and Muslim ideologies will continue and will intensify. Simply put, we cannot afford to sit back and let this ideological attack continue. We have to respond, we have to reply in a better, kinder, gentler manner. We have to invite and educate non-Muslims about Islam. Our outreach efforts have to be greater in quantity and quality.

Links to the Discover Islam posters are also provided by Web sites for many Muslim/Islamic organizations worldwide. For example, the Muslim Student Association (MSA) of MIT—yes, that same MIT that is "committed to generating, disseminating, and preserving knowledge"—lists the Discover Islam Web site on its page of Resources for Muslims at MIT as "A short series reviewing the basics and other interesting facts about Islam."

Links to the posters are also provided by the Islamic Society of British Columbia, the Muslim Association of Lehigh Valley (Pennsylvania), the New Zealand Muslim Community, the MSA of the University of Nevada, Reno, the MSA of Temple University, and hundreds of other Web sites.

The Discover Islam posters were even displayed in an exhibit at the University of West Florida in 2003.

What information is provided on these popular posters? Are the posters accurate? Are they truthful? Or are they misleading?

In the following pages I analyze sections from six of the more than forty posters at the Discover Islam site, highlighting important passages, direct contradictions of other Islamic or Muslim sources and/or the omission of critical facts from Islamic or Muslim sources. My focus on just a small percentage of the posters should not be interpreted as tacit agreement with the words on the other posters; in the trade-off of brevity versus completeness, I have decided to limit my analysis to what I believe are the most important issues.

The six posters analyzed are:

A) What is Islam and who are Muslims?
B) How did the spread of Islam affect the world?
C) Is Islam respectful of other beliefs?
D) Why is Islam often misunderstood?
E) How does Islam guarantee human rights?
F) How does Islam elevate the status of women?

On to the first poster, or jump ahead to the conclusion.

F) How does Islam elevate the status of women?

kamala — Tue, 14 Nov 2006 21:41:56 CST

See Discover Islam poster here.

This poster makes a blunt claim:

According to the Qur'an, men and women are equal before God; both created for the sole purpose of worshipping god through faith and good deeds.

Further down, the poster lists some "specific rights" granted to women by Islam, including:

the right to be treated equally; and the right to inherit.

How ironic that the poster lists these two "rights" side by side. Verse 4.11 of the Qur'an states clearly that a daughter has the "right to inherit" exactly half the amount inherited by her brother:

Allah (thus) directs you as regards your Children's (Inheritance): to the male, a portion equal to that of two females...

The poster also implies that poor treatment of women in some Muslim countries is a cultural phenomenon rather than based on Islamic teachings:

Some traditions of dress, and more generally, the treatment of women in some Muslim countries and societies, are often a reflection of culture. This is very often inconsistent and even contrary to Islamic teachings. Prophet Muhammad said: "The most perfect in faith among you believers is he who is best in manner and kindest to his wife."

Yet the Qur'an—the ultimate authority in Islam—dictates that men are superior to women and literally have the right to beat disloyal women:

Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them... (4.34)

Perhaps modern-day mainstream Muslim scholars have found a theological basis to condemn—rather than condone—any level of domestic violence? Liyakatali Takim, a Muslim Professor of Religious Studies at the University of Denver, answered this question on an Internet mailing list "consisting of scholars who answer questions about Islam" in 1995. As Takim writes, the Qur'an advocates that a man first try two non-violent approaches for preserving "marital harmony": verbal admonishment followed by withholding of sex. Then,

as a last resort, very light form of physical correction is to be undertaken...Indeed, all commentators are in agreement that the third form of corrective measure should be undertaken only as a last resort and should be very mild.

Feel better?

In the Muslim nation of Pakistan, a shocking study of Pakistani married women from the year 2000 found that 96.8% of the 216 women surveyed had endured domestic violence (including shouting or yelling): 40% of the women reported being punched, 40% kicked, 47% raped, and 56% slapped by their husbands.

On to the conclusion.
Back to the previous poster.

B) How did the spread of Islam affect the world?

kamala — Tue, 14 Nov 2006 21:29:30 CST

See Discover Islam page here.

According to the poster:

The Muslim community continued to grow after Prophet Muhammad's death. Within a few decades, vast numbers of people across three continents—Africa, Asia, and Europe—had chosen Islam as their way of life.

One of the reasons for the rapid and peaceful spread of Islam was the purity of its doctrine—Islam calls for faith in only one God.

The author certainly has an interesting perspective on the definition of the word "peaceful." According to the USC MSA, the Islamic expansion in the fifty years after Muhammad's death in the year 632 involved more than 30 "peaceful" battles, more than 15 "peaceful" conquests, more than 10 "peaceful" campaigns, plus a smattering of "peaceful" raids and "peaceful" sieges.

Consider one such battle—the Battle of the Yarmuk in Syria on the 20th of August, 636—as described in "The Origins of the Islamic State," a translation of a book written by Muslim historian al-Baladhuri (d. 892). In this battle, the Muslims faced a 200,000 man strong army put together by Byzantine emperor Heraclius:

The Muslims gathered together and the Greek army marched against them. The battle they fought at al-Yarmuk was of the fiercest and bloodiest kind. Al-Yarmuk [Hieromax] is a river. In this battle 24,000 Moslems took part. The Greeks and their followers in this battle tied themselves to each other by chains, so that no one might set his hope on flight. By Allah's help, some 70,000 of them were put to death, and their remnants took to flight, reaching as far as Palestine, Antioch, Aleppo, Mesopotamia and Armenia. In the battle of al-Yarmuk certain Moslem women took part and fought violently. Among them was Hind, daughter of 'Utbah and mother of Mu'awivah ibn-abi-Sufyan, who repeatedly exclaimed, "Cut the arms of these 'uncircumcised', with your swords!"

As one more example, in the year 642, the Muslims conquered Egypt, led by 'Amr ibn Al-Asi. According again to al-Baladhuri's account, 'Amr arrived in Alexandria and "reduced the city by the sword and plundered all that was in it." But rather than kill its inhabitants, he instead "reduced them to the position of dhimmis," leaving them humiliated and requiring them to pay poll-tax. Constantine, son of Heraclius, sent hundreds of ships to try to reclaim Alexandria.

'Amr set out at the head of 15,000 men and found the Greek fighters doing mischief in the Egyptian villages next to Alexandria. The Moslems met them and for one hour were subjected to a shower of arrows, during which they were covered by their shields. They then advanced boldly and the battle raged with great ferocity until the polytheists were routed; and nothing could divert or stop them before they reached Alexandria. Here they fortified themselves and set mangonels. 'Amr made a heavy assault, set the ballistae, and destroyed the walls of the city. He pressed the fight so hard until he entered the city by assault, killed the fathers and carried away the children as captives. Some of its Greek inhabitants left to join the Greeks somewhere else; and Allah's enemy, Manuwil, was killed.

The decades immediately following Muhammad's death did indeed see a very rapid spread of Islam, as shown by the map below (from the US Government Document Depository). But peaceful it was not.

On to the next poster.
Back to the previous poster.

A) What is Islam and who are Muslims?

kamala — Tue, 14 Nov 2006 14:56:15 CST

See Discover Islam page here.

The poster begins:

Islam simply means to achieve peace—peace with God, peace with oneself, and peace with the creations of God—through wholly giving oneself to God and accepting His guidance.

(For ease of identification, direct quotations from the Discover Islam posters will be shown in bold print.)

According to a large number of Muslim sources, Islam does not mean "to achieve peace." Islam means "submission" or "surrender." According to the Muslim Student Association at USC, this issue is first in a list of "Ten Misconceptions of Islam":

Misconception 1: Islam is 'the religion of peace' because: the Arabic word Islam is derived from the Arabic word "Al-Sallam" which means peace.

The explanation:

The root word of Islam is "al-silm" which means "submission" or "surrender." It is understood to mean "submission to Allah." In spite of whatever noble intention has caused many a Muslim to claim that Islam is derived primarily from peace, this is not true... A secondary root of Islam may be "Al-Salaam" (peace), however the text of the Qur'an makes it clear that Allah has clearly intended the focus of this way of life to be submission to Him.

To drive home the point, consider three English translations of the Qur'an itself provided on the Web by the same USC Muslim Student Association. The authors of these translations, Abdullah Yusuf Ali, Marmaduke Mohammad Pickthall, and M. H. Shakir, were all Muslims. At the USC site, it's easy to search for all verses that contain the word "Islam." As the search results show, sometimes the authors chose not to translate the word Islam to English, but often they did, translating the word not to "peace" but to "submission" or "surrender." Sometimes "(to Allah)" is also appended. For example, in verse 3.85, Shakir writes, "And whoever desires a religion other than Islam, it shall not be accepted from him, and in the hereafter he shall be one of the losers." In the same verse, Pickthall does not use the word Islam but instead writes "Surrender (to Allah)." Yusuf Ali writes "Islam (submission to Allah)." Other examples can be found in verses 43.69, 46.15, and 2.132.

Finally, according to Islam Vision,

The Arabic world ‘Islam’ simply means ‘submission’, and derives from a word meaning ‘peace’.

Farther down, the poster also asserts:

For a fifth of the world's population, Islam is not just a personal religion, but a complete way of life.

The implications of this statement are staggering. As echoed without apology on BeConvinced.com (apparently run from Quebec), citing one Dr. Muhammad Al Alkhuli from Islamway.com:

Islam is a religion, but not in the western meaning of religion. The western connotation of the term "religion" is something between the believer and God. Islam is a religion that organizes all aspects of life on both the individual and national levels.

Islam organizes your relations with God, with yourself, with your children, with your relatives, with your neighbor, with your guest, and with other brethren. Islam clearly establishes your duties and rights in all those relationships.

Islam establishes a clear system of worship, civil rights, laws of marriage and divorce, laws of inheritance, code of behavior, what not to drink, what to wear, and what not to wear, how to worship God, how to govern, the laws of war and peace, when to go to war, when to make peace, the law of economics, and the laws of buying and selling. Islam is a complete code of life.

Islam is not practiced in the mosque only, it is for daily life, a guide to life in all its aspects: socially, economically, and politically.

These unequivocal statements about Islam leave little wiggle room for Muslims such as Mustafa Akyol, who believe that some of the harshest elements of Islam—such as the death penalty for those who leave Islam—can be shed: "We Muslims should get rid of those politically needed but religiously irrelevant rules that still persist in the religious texts of Islam." Unfortunately, the bold assertions from Discover Islam and BeConvinced reinforce the challenges laid out in author Robert Spencer's reply to Akyol:

When he asserts that “the real consideration was political and, by time, this turned into a religious rule as well,” he seems to be assuming a distinction between the political and religious spheres that never existed in the Islamic world until it was introduced from the West in relatively modern times. This distinction is still strenuously rejected by most Islamic authorities. Because Sharia, including its political and societal aspects, is considered to be the very law of God, all too many Islamic scholars share the view of Tunisian theorist Mohamed Elhachmi Hamdi: “Islam should be the main frame of reference for the constitution and laws of predominantly Muslim countries.”

Thus Muslims may be unmoved by Akyol’s argument that the death penalty for apostasy be rejected because it was originally instituted on political, not religious grounds. I share his hope that in the future this may provide peaceful Muslims a pathway to rejecting the death penalty for apostasy, but a great deal of work would first have to be done to secure widespread acceptance among Muslims of a Western-style distinction between the sacred and secular spheres—a distinction that, under pressure from jihadists, is in fact in retreat everywhere in the Islamic world today.

Continue to the next poster.

The Truth About Muhammad

kamala — Thu, 12 Oct 2006 21:23:49 CDT

The Truth About Muhammad
by Robert Spencer

256 pages
Publisher: Regnery Publishing (September 15, 2006)

Buy at Amazon.

Reviewed by Kamala, October 10, 2006

As Robert Spencer explains in Chapter One, Muhammad’s “importance to hundreds of Muslims worldwide is rooted in the Qur’an, the Muslim holy book. In brief, he is an ‘excellent model of conduct’ (Qur’an 33:21).” Spencer cites one Muqtedar Khan of the Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy, who in 2003 wrote, “‘Muslims, as a part of religious observance, not only obey, but also seek to emulate and imitate their Prophet in every aspect of life.’”

Beyond Spencer’s references, other Muslims and Islamic organizations make the same point. Sajid Iqbal, editor of The Revival, a magazine and web site for young Muslims in the UK, said in August, 2006: “Muslim youth don’t have any role models. In Islam, our role model is the holy prophet Mohammad.” In the United States, consider the web site IslamAmerica.org, produced by a New Mexico organization named Dar al Islam that describes itself as “Building Bridges with the American Community and among the Muslims of America.” In an article titled “The Voice of Moderate Islam,” author Zakariya Wright writes, “Muhammad is for Muslims the beloved of God and the creation, and there is no seemingly insignificant characteristic of his unworthy of emulation. His example is what guides and facilitates our life in this world.”

Who is this “role model” that Muslims around the world wish to emulate? This is the question Robert Spencer’s book aims to answer.

Since Spencer is not a Muslim and his writings have been criticized by numerous Muslims, I wanted another perspective as well—one written and accepted by most Muslims. I decided on Yahiya Emerick’s “Muhammad (Critical Lives)”; it’s relatively new (2002), it sets out to be concise, and most importantly it’s endorsed by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), which claims to be “America’s largest Islamic civil liberties group.” CAIR is distributing copies of Emerick’s book for free on its Web site as part of a campaign called “Explore the Life of Muhammad,” a “year-long educational effort prompted by the Danish cartoon controversy.”

Both books rely on some of the same ancient Islamic sources. Both cite Ibn Ishaq’s “The Life of Muhammad,” one of the earliest biographies of Muhammad. Both books also use al-Bukhari’s 9th century compendium of “anecdotes from the life of Muhammad,” as Emerick describes it. To my surprise Spencer specifically mentions the sources used in Emerick’s book; Spencer writes that he relies primarily on the same sources used by respected Muslim Muhammad biographers. Note: Spencer provides hundreds of citations throughout his book; Emerick does not provide any specific citations in the body of the book.

Beyond its concise, readable recounting of key events and decisions of Muhammad’s life, two aspects of Spencer’s book stand out.

Firstly, Spencer does exactly what I set out to accomplish by buying Emerick’s book: as Spencer describes events from Muhammad’s life, he often includes direct quotes and summaries of those same events from other contemporary biographies of Muhammad (including Emerick’s). Secondly, Spencer consistently demonstrates how Muslims today justify their actions and views by evoking comparisons to the Prophet’s life.

One example concerns the Banu Qurayzah, a Jewish tribe that Muhammad had battled and defeated. After surrendering to the Muslims, Spencer writes, “Muhammad decided to put the fate of the tribe in to the hands of the Muslim warrior Sa‘d bin Mu‘adh.” Sa‘d issued the judgment that all men of the tribe be killed, and that all children and women be taken as captives. Emerick writes, “Muhammad did not intervene because he had already given up his right to alter the judgment.” He writes that Muhammad stipulated that no mothers and children be separated, and warriors were to be offered a chance to convert to Islam before execution. Emerick makes no further mention of Muhammad’s involvement. In contrast, Spencer explains that according to Bukhari, Muhammad “confirmed Sa‘d’s judgment as that of Allah himself: ‘You have decided in confirmation to the judgment of Allah above the seven heavens.’” Further, Spencer quotes Ibn Ishaq’s account of Muhammad’s participation: “The apostle went out to the market of Medina and dug trenches in it. Then he sent for [the men of the Qurayzah] and struck off their heads in those trenches as they were brought out to him in batches.”

As Spencer writes, another Muhammad biographer named Karen Armstrong argues that “‘it is not correct to judge the incident by twentieth-century standards.’” Spencer responds: “That is true, but Armstrong misses the larger issue; as in all the incidents of Muhammad’s life, he is still held up by Muslims around the world as ‘an excellent model of conduct’ (Qur’an 33:21).” Spencer continues: “In July 2006 … a writer on a British Muslim Internet forum declared: ‘I’m so fed up with these dirty, filthy Israeli dogs. May Allah curse them and destroy them all, and may they face the same fate as Banu Qurayzah!’ No one accused him of illicitly importing seventh-century models into the present day.”

Spencer elucidates other key aspects of Muhammad’s life, such as his marriage to a very young girl named Aisha; death sentences for those who leave Islam; and clear statements about the second-class status of Jews and Christians under Islam. In each case, Spencer shows how modern biographers or analysts sugarcoat, contradict, or ignore these issues, while other Muslims cite these same examples to justify their actions—emulating the model set by Muhammad.

Spencer, Emerick and other biographers leverage the same historical Islamic sources. So why would Emerick and others paint an incomplete and unrealistically benign picture of Islam’s prophet? Draw your own conclusions, but the answer seems quite simple. As described above, there appears to be a broad consensus among Muslims today that Muhammad’s life and ways continue to serve as the perfect example of human behavior. Thus, any dissemination of the darker side of Muhammad does not bode well for presenting Islam as a peaceful and tolerant way of life: what does it mean if the perfect man isn’t so perfect after all?