Home  |   Jihad Watch  |   Horowitz  |   Archive  |   Columnists  |     DHFC  |  Store  |   Contact  |   Links  |   Search Saturday, November 18, 2017
FrontPageMag Article
Write Comment View Comments Printable Article Email Article
Symposium: Death for Apostasy? By: Jamie Glazov
FrontPageMagazine.com | Friday, April 28, 2006

Preview Image

The recent case of Abdul Rahman raises, once again, serious concerns about the possibility of the modernization and democratization of the Muslim world. To be sure, what does it say about a religion that, in the year 2006, pronounces that a human being must be executed if he changes his faith? Can it be denied that Rahman is still breathing in Italy today not because the Afghan government let him go, but because he escaped from the Islamic world? And what does it say about Islam that the leading clerics in Afghanistan supported Rahman’s execution on a theological basis – and that almost the entire Islamic world was behind them? How, in the context of these realities, can true democracy ever be really built in Afghanistan, Iraq and the rest of the Muslim world?

To discuss these questions with us today, we have assembled a panel of experts. Our guests today are:

Thomas Haidon, a commentator on Islamic issues.

Salim Mansur, a Muslim writer and a professor of political science at the University of Western Ontario.


Serge Trifkovic, a former BBC commentator and US NEWS and World Report reporter. His last book was The Sword of the Prophet. The sequel, Defeating Jihad, will be published by Regina Orthodox Press in April. Read his commentaries on ChroniclesMagazine.org.




Robert Spencer, a scholar of Islamic history, theology, and law and the director of Jihad Watch. He is the author of five books, seven monographs, and hundreds of articles about jihad and Islamic terrorism, including Islam Unveiled: Disturbing Questions About the World’s Fastest Growing Faith and The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades). He is also an Adjunct Fellow with the Free Congress Foundation.


FP: Thomas Haidon, Salim Mansur, Serge Trifkovic and Robert Spencer, thank you for joining Frontpage Symposium.


Mr. Haidon, let’s begin with you.


I think it would be important to start with this question: As a Muslim yourself, what do you think about the death sentence handed down on Rahman? It is based on the teachings of Islam that you yourself cannot deny and must also follow, correct?


Haidon: On a personal level, the imposition of any criminal or social sanction to punish an individual who has made a decision of conscience to change their religion is morally and legally indefensible from an international legal perspective and, in my view, from a contextualist interpretation of the Qur’an and Sunnah (which is not necessarily a prevailing Islamic view).


The prosecution of Mr Rahman, and others recently arrested in Afghanistan (not to mention those accused and punished in other Muslim countries), poses a serious challenge to moderate Muslims, to not only condemn this punishment (which also applies, according to Yusuf Qaradawi, to “intellectual apostates as well) but to develop clear and thorough theological arguments showing that the punishment is indefensible, using the Qur’an and Sunnah. 

The only positive outcome from the prosecution of Mr. Rahman, is the open visibility of Islamic intolerance exhibited by the Afghan government (including the ambivalent Afghanistan Human Rights Commission), and Muslims throughout the Muslim world who have rabidly called for Rahman’s death. This visibility will hopefully increase Western awareness of the tenets of Islamism and lead to more effective strategies in combating it.

At the outset, I acknowledge, that according to traditional Islamic jurisprudence, as informed by the scholars of the four Sunni madhabs, as well as Shi’ia jurisprudence, affirm that an apostate in Islam, must generally be killed. However, as I hope to explore in this discussion, the Qur’an, the authoritative source of Islamic jurisprudence contradicts the Muslim tradition on this issue (which creates the legal basis for the penalty). The Qur’an prescribes no earthly penalty for the individual who ceases believing in Islam, in fact, many verses appear to affirm the freedom of religion and conscience. The particular hadith, as a reliable source for the punishment, when read with the Qur’an should be explored today.


FP: Serge Trifkovic?


Trifkovic: It may be possible to dispute the Kuranic justification of death for apostasy, but it is not possible to deny that the demand for such punishment is based on incontrovertibly valid Islamic sources, precedents, and methods of deduction.


While in some details Islam is not monolithic and there is no single "correct Islam," the advocates of death for apostasy invoke sources and principles that are independent of any capricious or dubious interpretations of the Kuran or the Hadith.


These core sources have created a moral philosophy and a legal code that erases individual judgment based on natural morality or on the allegiance to any other source of authority but itself. Analogies thus derived stand above reason, conscience, or nature. The lack of any pretense to a moral basis for executing apostates is explicit: there is no "spirit of the law" in Islam, no rationality behind it for human reason to discover. There is no discernment of the consequences of deeds, and revelation and tradition must not be questioned. No other standard of good and evil can be invoked, least of all a notion of "natural" justice. 

Islam's denigration of the individual conscience has serious political consequences for societies that derive their concept of authority from the "Prophet.": Any notion of freedom distinct from complete submission is forbidden and sinful. Human imperfection is not subject to improvement in the direction of God. Political progress of the kind that defined America in 1776 is not just impossible, it is irrelevant. 

The fruits of Islam's denial of natural morality are as predictable as they are grim, for the Muslims no less than for their victims: both are enslaved, brutalized, and de-humanized. Discrimination against non-co-religionists and women, racism, slavery, anti-Semitism, and cultural imperialism can be found, individually or in various combinations, in other cultures and eras. Islam alone has them all at once, all the time, and divinely sanctioned at that. As Clement Huart pointed out back in 1907,

"Until the newer conceptions, as to what the Koran teaches as to the duty of the believer towards non-believers, have spread further and have more generally leavened the mass of Moslem belief and opinion, it is the older and orthodox standpoint on this question which must be regarded by non-Moslems as representing Mohammedan teaching and as guiding Mohammedan action."

It is not Rahman's would-be executioners who are "distorting" Islam; the reformers are. It breeds a peculiar mindset, the one against which Burke warned when he wrote that "intemperate minds never can be free; their passions forge their fetters."


FP: Salim Mansur? 


Mansur: Thank you, Jamie.


Oddly I will be in agreement with just about everyone in this discussion.  The reason is simple.  Islam and the Qur’an can be practiced and explained, justified or denounced, in whichever way and with whatever understanding an individual or collective approaches it. 


The Qur’an describes itself as an inexhaustible ocean from whose bosom men might pull forth a mix of things life-sustaining and life-denying.  In this metaphor the Qur’an is as is nature with volcanoes, earthquakes and tsunamis, and in their midst you will also find fragile roses.  Muslims driven by power-seeking individuals remain wilfully negligent of fragile roses.  Abdul Rahman is that rose as was Mansur ibn Hallaj, as was Ali ibn Talib and Husayn ibn Ali, and countless others killed by Muslims on the basis of life-denying reading of the Qur’an.


Islam is now open to global scrutiny as it should be.  Religion is a human construct, and any religion as life-denying is worthless.  So Muslims have to step forth unapologetically and fearlessly to cast aside the shell in securing the pearl inside the Qur’an.  God gives man intelligence and freedom to discern the difference between the shell and the pearl within it.  The Qur’an has been used by Muslims in their majority as a legal code to be enforced (hence a shell), rather than as a book of ethics enjoining freedom and responsibility (hence a pearl).  The inevitable consequence of this has been Muslims making Islam into a political instrument shaping their life-denying culture -- now fully exposed as in the incidence of Abdul Rahman. 


Hopefully the outside world will squeeze Muslims to make them become eventually discerning individuals wanting freedom, as the Qur’an instructs, and cast aside their life-denying reading of the Qur’an for reconciling themselves with the modern world of science and democracy.


FP: The Qur’an instructs Muslims to become discerning individuals wanting freedom? This is news to me. Am I missing something here? To be honest, I have never read any consistent themes in the Qur’an that resemble anything even close to what is in the American Declaration of Independence or in the American Constitution or in anything else that promotes the individual’s right to live his life by his own conscience – and that instructs that it is no one else’s business what beliefs he has and how he lives his life.


Robert Spencer perhaps you can shed some light on the discussion thus far?


Spencer: The responses thus far have been illuminating both for what has been said and what has not been said. Both Muslims have acknowledged that, in Haidon’s words, “according to traditional Islamic jurisprudence, as informed by the scholars of the four Sunni madhahib, as well as Shi’ia jurisprudence, affirm that an apostate in Islam, must generally be killed.” Thus Trifkovic is correct that “it is not Rahman's would-be executioners who are ‘distorting’ Islam; the reformers are.”


This indicates that the moderate Islam which is the object of so much confidence and hope in the West is at this point essentially a chimera, a fantasy. When George Bush, Tony Blair, and other Western leaders refer to a vast majority of law-abiding Muslims in the West, they are assuming that the major portion of Muslims in their countries accepts the principles of the societies in which they live. But if they accept the canons of traditional Islamic jurisprudence -- in other words, if they adhere to what has been mainstream Islam throughout the history of the religion -- they will not only approve of the execution of apostates, but will also accept many other notions that are fundamentally incompatible with core elements of Western pluralism and many Judeo-Christian principles enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.


Right now the public discourse is dominated by a dogmatic unreality that not only refuses to confront these unpleasant realities, but stigmatizes and marginalizes those who do so. But the implications of these facts will have to be confronted sooner or later -- particularly as the force of events, in the United States and Western Europe as well as elsewhere around the world, makes it ever more difficult for the prevailing fantasies to be maintained.


Haidon: At the outset, I want to briefly outline why, in my view, and of some scholars, that the death penalty for apostasy should be inapplicable. My objective is not to convince Mr. Trifkovic or Mr. Spencer. Genuine moderate reformers have an obligation to engage in research that helps clarify the edicts of Islam towards moderation. We are not, as Mr. Trifkovic and Mr. Spencer point out of, distorting Islam (although it is recognised both gentlemen are merely restating, not endorsing what many Muslims would argue). I find this particularly offensive however as genuine moderate Muslim reformers are often the subject of fatwa and the rulings of apostasy which result in death.


Some scholars have gone so far as to accuse genuine reformers of being the “worst kind” of apostates (“intellectual apostasy”). I need not cite the countless examples of brave Muslim reformers who have set forth clear arguments in favour of moderation, and have suffered greatly. Having been called an apostate (by some Muslims) myself and threatened, I stand in solidarity with Mr. Rahman, and all others who have been deemed as such.

Over the past month I have articulated to Muslims in several forums and meetings our position (FMC) why the death penalty for the “crime” of apostasy is wrong. I will briefly walk my colleagues through it here (understanding full well that they may take issue with it). 


The principle source of usul al fiqh is the Qur’an, the primary source (in theory at least) of sharia’. With respect to religious questions, the Qur’an must be consulted first. In cases where there is no clarity from the Qur’an, other, secondary sources are consulted (ie Sunnah, qiyas). The Qur’an could not be any clearer on the fate of those who accept and then reject faith (2:217, 3:176, 5:54, 9:101, 9:74, 9:80, 47:25, 47:27, 47:28, 88:21-260 (not an exhaustive list). They are to be punished by God alone (please note that I have not employed the oft used 2:256). The oft- cited hadith clearly contravenes the Qur’an.


According to most fuqaha, a hadith can limit the application of a general Qur’anic statement, but cannot negate it. For instance, a clear hadith which specifically stated that apostasy is illegal when coupled with high treason or sedition, would arguably be a valid limitation. But this is not the case, and should cast serious doubt on the validity of those hadith. Further, if we look to the actual practice of the Prophet, we will find that there is a lack of sufficient evidence to suggest that the Prophet killed apostates solely for the reason of their apostasy; in other words, he did not follow his own purported tradition.


The Prophet was surrounded by hypocrites (often deemed to be the worst of apostates) at times and even lived amongst them. How did the Prophet deal with them generally (outside of battle)? He prayed for them until he was ordered by Allah to stop.  Some Muslims have used the examples of Abdullah ibn Abu al Sarh and  Abdullah ibn Khatal to demonstrate that the Prophet ordered the death of apostates. While the Prophet did order their execution however, the evidence points to the fact their apostasy was coupled with the acts of spreading tales which the Prophet deemed false, in the time of war.


The example of Abdullah bin Sa‘d provides some evidence that the Prophet did not (kill apostates) whom only apostatised.  While this still may be abhorrent, it does not demonstrate that the Prophet killed apostates, because of their apostasy. The sanctioned killing of apostates (whose sole crime was apostasy) did not arise until the Abassyid period (Abu Bakr’s infamous battle against those who did not pay zakah to the state cannot seriously be viewed as a war against apostates).

However even if the hadith can be construed as valid, the circumstances of when the statements were apparently made must be considered. In other words, the hadith must be viewed contextually. As discussed, the Prophet did not (in practice) kill apostates because of their apostasy alone, but because of a simultaneous or subsequent act which endangered the Islamic state. (Please do not read into this my acceptance or endorsement that the Prophet was justified in killing anyone). When viewed in this context, application of these hadith must be limited.

Mr. Trifkovic’s recitation of Clement Huart resonates with me. It is up to Muslim reformers to develop these new conceptions, and develop a way of disseminating the message. The latter in my view is the real crux of the problem. There are plenty of Muslim scholars, in recent times who have developed some of these “new” approaches: including Mohammed Tata, Kassim Ahmed, Rashid Khalifa, Fazlur Rahman, Ahmed Subhy Mansour, etc. (some of who have suffered the ultimate price for making these arguments). Convincing the Muslim masses of these concepts has been and will continue to be the challenge. Why are we failing? And to be sure, we most definitely are failing.


Mainstream moderate Muslim reform movements are marginalised by the greater communities. I would argue that such movements fare much better in countries like Egypt (the Ibn Khaldoun Centre) than they do in the West. Our organisation for example has extremely low Muslim membership. While some Muslims support FMC, many more Muslims shun our message of reform and moderation, and prefer instead to align themselves with groups like CAIR. Groups like CAIR and MPAC, who have a solid Muslim base could take the lead in reform (they have the capacity and capability). They could start with the issue of apostasy. But alas, we know this will not happen.


Again our challenge as Muslim reformers is to “clarify” and contextualise Islamic teachings, to bring them towards moderation and consistency with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as well as the ICCPR and ICESR. There is a partial and universal moral foundation in the Qur'an contrary to Mr. Trifkovic's assertion. This moral foundation however is clearly not overtly apparent or pervasive in traditional and contemporary Muslim teachings.  


FP: Ok so the Prophet did not order the execution of this or that person for this reason but for that reason. Like what kind of explanations are these? You have a Prophet engaging in ordering executions? And Muslims in the same breath say that their Prophet was a man of peace? I find this quite troubling and confusing. And Mr. Haidon, you say that we should not assume that you support the Prophet ordering the executions you refer to. What does this mean? You are a Muslim who believes in Prophet Mohammed but you do not agree with how he killed people? Am I, once again, missing something here?


In any case, Mr. Trifkovic what do you make of the discussion?


Trifkovic: The discussion has a surreal quality to it. At a personal level I may sympathize with the desire of moderate, decent and powerless Muslims to be "revisionists" without sliding into apostasy, but the effort is sadly doomed. It evokes the perpetual quest for a socialism with a Human Face east of the Iron Curtain. Equally moderate and decent intellectuals were busy "discovering" and "rediscovering" the Young Marx -- he's the exact equivalent of those "enlightened" early Meccan suras -- but it was always the old, mature Karl, and Vladimir Ilich and Iossif Vissarionivich, Medinans red in tooth and claw, that had the last laugh.

The willingness of a few to become what are objectively bad Muslims, because they are willing to reject discriminatory and offensive tenets of historical Islam, may be laudable in human terms but it will do little to modify Islam as a doctrine. As Sir William Muir noted back in Huert's days, a reformed faith that should question the divine authority on which the institutions of Islam rest, or attempt by rationalistic selection or abatement to effect a change, would be Islam no longer. 

The problem is the same with Marxism and Islam because they are so structurally similar. Even Marxist and Islamic moderates who abhor violence nevertheless have to deny the legitimacy of other forms of social, political, and cultural organization -- or else they cease to be believers altogether.

Those who do remain believers, Red or Green, cannot give up on one thing: on their quest for an eschatological shortcut that would enable the initiated to bypass the predicament of a seemingly aimless existence. By embracing natural morality and rejecting the gnostic mantras of Umma, or Classless Society, they would cease to be what they are. Alas, the fruits of Muhammad's adage that "only Muslims' blood is equal" is the curse that cannot be eradicated, short of a breathtakingly radical reform from within -- a reform exceeding in boldness and scope those of Luther and Calvin -- that seems no more likely today than at any time in the past 14 centuries.


Mansur: These are tiresome old debates that have taken place among Muslims and between non-Muslims and Muslims.  Strange it is, or perhaps not so strange, that you have not heard about them, debates which have led to bloodshed.  Right from the outset of Muslim history – as in the history of other faith traditions – there have been quarrels over ideals and practice, over what emerges as the official doctrine and what is driven underground as heresy by the power of the sword.  Official Islam (the five schools of Muslim jurisprudence, four Sunni and one Shii, recognized as authoritative) reads the Qur’an as “diktat” and have killed Muslims on the grounds of apostasy by arrogating to itself rights that only belongs to God, so let us be clear about this.  Who official Islam consider heretics, the Sufis for instance, read the Qur’an esoterically, understand it in terms of its hidden meaning (batin), and in this reading the Qur’an itself becomes an apostate to official Islam (as it does for instance in the reading by Rumi, who was a judge and jurist).  Members on this panel are concerned, or berating, official Islam, even as they arrogate to themselves as official Islam does to dismiss those Muslims who will not concede to the authority of official Islam. And most Muslims, not all, for all sorts of reasons and apologetics, knowingly in the case of the ulema (religious scholars) or in ignorance of Muslim history, contort themselves into denying misuse and abuse of power in the name of Islam, or hadith-traditions, whether fabricated or having some measure of truth to them, of the Prophet. 


There is no space here for a wide discussion of these matters where politics went into crafting an official doctrine of Islam and Muslim history, a history that only now because of the conditions available is being contested by Muslims and non-Muslims alike and will be reconstituted by Muslims (contrary to the dogmatism of official Islam) slowly in keeping with universal values of science and democracy. 


For Muslims it is not a choice between the one and the other, between science/democracy on the one hand and continuing adherence to an official Islam at variance with our world.  Nor is it for non-Muslims to enclose Muslims in their past and deny them, as official Islam does, their future by declaring Islam is frozen and life-denying, and cannot be reconstituted in terms of its ideals that were warped in practice. 


And let us be clear that the Prophet of Islam is no less answerable to God for any wrong done by him (He only knows) than is any other mortal.  In the Qur’an the Prophet is rebuked and the people are reminded he is a mortal, in other words fallible as all mortals are. 


What is being insisted by one side, by those who hold on to official Islam as a frozen shell, is that the Prophet is infallible; and on the other side, those non-Muslims who mock the ideals of Islam by insisting that since the Prophet does not accord with their respective ideals Islam is analogous to Marxism and such other “isms”, in effect it is not a transcendent faith and its worldwide adherents are irredeemably misguided. 


Between these two camps, and with these two camps, there can be no communication, and this is the problem of such discussions.  Ironically, both camps, however much they insist on being reliant on history – a human craft riddled with human imperfection – are reductive in their views and, hence, ahistorical in their epistemology.


FP: Robert Spencer?


Spencer: Mr. Mansur says: “Members on this panel are concerned, or berating, official Islam, even as they arrogate to themselves as official Islam does to dismiss those Muslims who will not concede to the authority of official Islam.” This canard is familiar to me: I have frequently been charged with aiding the cause of Osama bin Laden when I dare to point out that his theological perspective is not quite as heretical and discredited within the Islamic community as mainstream analysts would have us believe. But this makes about as much sense as saying that Winston Churchill was a Nazi sympathizer because he tried to alert Britain to the magnitude of the threat of Nazism while most in Britain assumed that Hitler was a ridiculous crank who would come to nothing.


I am not in the least interested in dismissing Muslims who “will not concede to the authority of official Islam,” but I would feel much better about their ultimate prospects for success if Mr. Mansur could show me evidence that their views enjoy a wide following anywhere in the Islamic world – or that any significant body of Muslims anywhere rejects the authority of the madhahib, the schools of Islamic jurisprudence of which Mr. Mansur evidently takes a dim view. Unfortunately, I know already that despite the assumption of most Western analysts and government officials that a peaceful, moderate Islam is actually mainstream and dominant, neither Mr. Mansur nor anyone else can provide any concrete evidence that this is so.


Pointing out that Muslim reformers are actually few in number, with little support for their views both among the great aggregate of Muslims worldwide and within Islam’s various juridical traditions is not, as Mr. Mansur charges, an attempt to “enclose Muslims in their past and deny them, as official Islam does, their future by declaring Islam is frozen and life-denying, and cannot be reconstituted in terms of its ideals that were warped in practice.” I hope they will indeed achieve victory and transform Islam’s future. But it is important for non-Muslim analysts to make a realistic assessment of how likely that is. Islamic theology and history provide useful means by which such a realistic assessment can be made. To come away from examining that material with a dim view of the prospects for Islamic reform is not to support the global mujahedin; it is merely to understand why they are in the intellectual and theological ascendancy in Muslim communities around the globe – an understanding that Western officials would do well to gain.


Haidon: In response to your query Jamie, as Mr. Mansur has pointed out, the Prophet was fallible, a human being, not a deity despite the fact that Muslims perhaps unwittingly deify him. On several occasions in the Qur’an he is admonished by Allah, this is prima facie evidence of his fallibility.


On a personal level, I find many of the acts attributed to the Prophet in hadith and sirah, immoral, reprehensible and indefensible. These traditions are partially responsible for the travails before Islam.


In my view, reform of Islam does not require questioning “the divine authority on which the institutions of Islam rest”. There is only one divine authority in Islam, the Qur’an. If reform can occur, it will occur through the development of new hermeneutical methods in Tafsir, which contextualise the Qur’an in a modern context; and through the marginalisation of the Sunnah and man-made tradition of Islam from collective Muslim conscience. Both are magnanimous tasks (and arguably aspirational at best). The former requires a concerted effort by a core of “moderate” scholars (yes, some do exist), along side a forceful strategic grassroots “marketing campaign”. It demands an honest discussion of the doctrine of abrogation (nansakh).


On of the natural responses to my argument above (that the penalty of death for apostasy is wrong) is the doctrine of abrogation, which holds that later, more violent verses actually trump verses that were revealed earlier.  The latter is easy to rationalise (but almost impossible to implement).


The Qur’an is revelation, Sunnah is not. The hadith were compiled almost one hundred and fifty years after the death of the Prophet. While Muslims have developed so-called scientific methods of verifying hadith, it is dubious at best. Ibn Waraq and Sheikh Ahmed Mansour have discussed the dubious nature of hadith. I will not discuss this further, and I am fully aware that this practically will not occur. Not because it is not a correct and legitimate argument, but because for centuries the confounding (not clarifying) hadith have existed as a duality along side the Qur’an (although most Muslims will deny it). 


I would recommend my fellow panellists read the works of Sheikh Ahmed Mansour, Kassim Ahmad and Ibn Waraq (although not Muslim takes a skeptical approach to the Qur’an and Sunnah, but has argued that most hadith are fabrications). 


Until an honest discourse emerges among non-Muslims and among Muslims, Islam will remain in stagnation. It pains me to witness the West espouse the idea of “inter-faith” dialogue. I am consistently a participant in such dialogue, although in my view, the current state pf such dialogue renders it useless and actually distorts the real issues. When Muslims are involved, “inter-faith” dialogue becomes a platform for apologetics. Serious discussions on the aspects of Islam that are (or at least should be) a concern to non-Muslims are not engaged out of fear. Instead, these sessions involve a discussion of isolated ayat and traditions, which purport to fall in line with other faiths.


Regarding a theme in Mr. Mansur’s remarks, while I share, at some level, frustration at Mr. Trifkovic and Mr. Spencer’s scepticism about Islam’s prospects for reform, I understand it. However, the key difference (that cannot be overstated) between the Islamist camp and commentators like Mr. Spencer, is that in all likelihood Mr. Spencer would applaud a genuine and broad-based reformist effort, which had universal support, whereas Islamists would not.


While I am not familiar with Mr. Trifkovic’s work, I am familiar with Mr. Spencer’s. All one needs to do is read Mr. Spencer’s work. He makes no judgments himself, but merely highlights the fact that prominent and foundational Islamic scholars have for centuries advocated teachings which contravene the Western understanding of universal human rights. He consistently challenges Muslims to develop effective theological responses to jihadist ideology, and to be able to effectively deliver the responses to the Umma. Will we answer this challenge?


The case of Mr. Rahman, and those of countless others could serve as an optimal starting point. And to some extent it is. I am encouraged by the response of some Muslims. I have engaged with a number of communities (in the West) who have been prepared to have open and honest discussions about this. Out of the couple or so hundred Muslims I have discussed the issue with, a majority have unqualifiedly condemned the punishment of apostasy. Whether this is based on their own understanding of Islamic jurisprudence or of their own personal moral leanings is another question.


Nonetheless it is an encouraging sign.


On some levels it is unfortunate that the Abdul Rahman case was dismissed. Had the case been adjudicated (in which Rahman would have undoubtedly been prosecuted), we would have been able to see the actual resolve of the West. Would they have applied strong pressure or imposed sanctions? The tension between cultural relativism and the universality of human rights has existed since the advent of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The ambivalent international human rights monitoring framework has not helped resolve this tension. Many nations were silent during the Abdul Rahman affair (particularly New Zealand), and will undoubtedly be silent in future cases due to the absurd stagnation and political unwillingness of politicians to confront the hard questions about Islam.


Unfortunately, prominent states like the United States did not lead by example or “walk the talk” in terms of advocating for Mr. Rahman’s release. At the very least, however, the issue has been given some prominence, despite the fact that those Afghans’ arrested subsequent to Mr. Rahman’s release have had no press coverage, and are of little interest.


In addition to the moral ambivalence of nations, we are also witnessing equal ambivalence amongst the prominent human rights non-governmental organisations like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International. While Amnesty did, attempt to intervene (albeit at a very late stage), it has no focused campaign which seeks to highlight the injustices faced by those in Muslim societies. Amnesty was silent in the case of Abu Za’id and countless other apostasy cases.


There is no hope for a peaceful resolution to the “clash of civilisations” if Western ambivalence and Muslim inability to modernise continue. To this end, I and other genuine moderates will continue, as Mr. Trifkovic states, to distort Islam. We have an almost insurmountable task in front of us. At the end of the day, it matters not if Mr. Trifkovic or Mr. Spencer believe we will fail. True reformers need to spend less time concerning themselves with what non-Muslims think, and concentrate all of our efforts towards genuinely developing a solution, within Muslim communities. My organisation, and others are continuing to fail in this regard; instead we have essentially pandered ourselves to non-Muslims. It is this sort of “pandering” that leads some non-Muslim commentators to doubt our motives.  


FP: Just a quick note here. Mr. Haidon, when you say thatOn some levels it is unfortunate that the Abdul Rahman case was dismissed,” I would just like to add that, while I see the general point, it has to be noted that if the case had not been dismissed a human being would have been executed. Mr. Trifkovic, go ahead.


Trifkovic: At the risk of sounding trite let me confess that this final round brings to mind Yogi Berra ("deja-vu all over again"). Inevitably perhaps, we have drifted from l'affaire Rahman to the perennial problem of Islam's character and its potential for reform that would enable it to reflect upon itself.

I could have conceded the possibility of such reform at any time between 1918 and 1939, when the emerging elites in the Muslim world tried to define the quest for national and cultural identity and political power in terms of secular concepts, such as nationalism, with distinctly Western-inspired overtones. Al-Banna belonged to the fringes back then, and modernizers (including those on the Left) had the center stage.

The line connecting the Arab debacle of June 1967 and the reawakening of political Islam a generation later, following the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe, is uneven but clearly discernible. It was centered on the seminal "realization" that all earlier Muslims' failures were due to its one improtant failure, to be truly Islamic. This "solution" demanded nullification of the historicity and an essentially mythical cognitive system. 

That much is common to all contemporary adherents of Islam-as-solution. The alleged distinction between "extremists" and "moderates" reflects a Western mindset rooted in the liberal tradition alien to the Islamic world. The difference between them today may concern the methods to be applied but not the final objective: to rekindle the glory of Muhammad's early successors.

The first decade of the XXIst century is unpromising in the extreme for radical reformers, including those who hope to achieve it by developing "new hermeneutical methods in Tafsir, which contextualise the Qur'an in a modern context; and through the marginalisation of the Sunnah and man-made tradition of Islam from collective Muslim conscience."

With the success of the "traditional" project -- just look at the demographic curve in Europe! -- there is no pressure to seek such radical new paths. It is "objectively" less likely today than at any time over the past century that a reformed variety of Islam will emerge that would be capable of reflecting upon jihad, sharia, hadith etc.

This is so, let me repeat, for reasons political rather than philosophical. Only a major, painful, irreparable physical blow to the geopolitical ambitions and aspirations of the "traditionalists" could push the edifice some other way, including the wholesale expulsion of the jihadist fifth column from the West. Since I see no likelihood of any such scenario unfolding, the issue remains academic.


Mansur: Jamie, thanks.  In the back and forth that we have gone through in this discussion, the only cheerful words for me are yours.  So let me quote them:  The Qur’an instructs Muslims to become discerning individuals wanting freedom? This is news to me. Am I missing something here?”   There is, I hope, in these words of yours, apart from your expression of surprise and disbelief, an element of humility which we all need, particularly the intellectuals, scholars, bookworms, scribblers, polemicists, apologists and all such folks who imagine if they can pen a few lines they have trumped the mystery of God.  I write these words on the Easter weekend, a weekend of much mystery, when the Son of Man who died on the cross (the Qur’an states Jesus was lifted to the heavens unharmed) between a thief and a beggar would eventually have those who believed in him triumph over the might of Rome.


Let me recall what we got together to discuss: apostasy in Islam and the death penalty for apostates as might have been decided for Abdul Rahman.  This is emblematic of Official Islam, and Official Islam’s history from its genesis is steeped in crime.   Representatives of Official Islam are so sunken in crime that unlike Macbeth they cannot dare admit their unclean hands will make “The multitudinous seas incarnadine, Making the green one red.”  If you invited me on this panel to make apology for these criminals, you sent out an invitation to the wrong Muslim.


On the other side of Official Islam are not the “traditionalists” and the various sects – such as were the Wahhabis once – seeking to become representatives of Official Islam by usurping power as is the purpose of thuggish leaders of al Qaeda.  On the other side of Official Islam are those who keep the Words of God and the love for His prophets alive despite persecution, abuse, disdain, and scorn of the intellectuals, and they are the common folks of the Muslim world.  Theirs is the world of Unofficial Islam.  Perhaps it is time for you, and for some of our panelists, to take some trouble and learn about this Unofficial Islam, and then you might truly be surprised to learn how much the Qur’an speaks about freedom, about God’s greatest blessing to His creation being freedom, and why freedom is heaven’s gift to man so that this lowly creature out of his own discernment (unlike the angels devoid of free choice) and given all the temptations of the flesh yet submits to Him out of love, not fear. 


The Qur’an is not your American constitution, or Jeffersonian Declaration of Independence, which are worthy documents representing the best of human efforts in the making of free society.  The Qur’an is God’s speech to man, to each individual soul for that person to understand God’s words in accord with his/her capacity, to discover inside themselves their Creator for, as the Qur’an states, He is closer to man than his jugular vein.


Quite rightly, your focus, and that of some of Frontpage, and others since 9/11 is on Islam.  This is the Official Islam, and as I said in the earlier round the more the world squeezes this Islam of the hard shell, breaks the carapace of life-denying Islam, then life-affirming and life-sustaining Islam will slowly come to the surface. 


In the meantime if you want to go beyond “what is news” to you, then come with me.  I will take you to the shrines of Moinuddin Chisti in Ajmer, in the province of Rajasthan, the heart of Hindu India, or Nizamuddin Awliya in Delhi, the historic capital of India, or Datta Ganj Baksh (Mansur al-Hujwiri) in Lahore, Pakistan, or Imam Reza in Mashhad, Iran, or Bahauddin Naqshbandi in Bukhara, Uzbekistan, or Shah Jalal in Sylhet, Bangladesh, or Maulana Jalaluddin Rumi in Konya, Turkey.  These are only a few sites from many you may visit.  For instance, Shah Jalal left his native home somewhere in the Middle East and traveled deep into the interior of Bengal and settled where he is buried.  His name, while he was alive, reached far into the other side of the known world so that when Ibn Battuta, the famed traveler of the early 14th century, left his home in North Africa he made sure of visiting Shah Jalal in Bengal.  And if journeying to these places with me is fabulous and improbable, then visit the shrine of Bawa Muhaiyaddeen, a jewel set in the cornfields just outside of Philadelphia, and discover for yourself the meaning of love and freedom as found in the Qur’an that the criminals of Official Islam despite all their efforts have not been able to extinguish.


The living reality of Unofficial Islam lies below the radar of most people, but some are now beginning to pay heed to the voices, for instance of women, that were ignored in the past.  It is only when you begin to seek out the voices from the ranks of Unofficial Islam you will discover the untapped resource that can eventually wash away like a tsunami the detritus of Official Islam that has become a plague.


Neither in Ajmer, nor in Philadelphia, adherents of Unofficial Islam distinguish between Muslims and non-Muslims, nor pay heed to the life-denying discourses of Official Islam that so readily pronounces judgment as they would on Abdul Rahman, nor quibble over definitions of apostasy and other idiocies that occupy the waking hours of ayatollahs and sheiks.  For Unofficial Islam there are only two categories of people: “Muslims” (those who have submitted to authority out of fear) and “Momeen” (believers in God the Merciful and the Day of Reckoning), and “Momeen” (as are President Bush and Prime Minister Blair) are closer and dearer to God than all the Muslims gathered together by the canes and whips of those who serve Official Islam.


History is non-linear, full of paradoxes, irony and, yes, Yogi Berra being a natural philosopher has it right when he says “It ain’t over until it’s over.”   None of us will be around to see that moment.   But, for instance, just as the immense tragedy of the Holocaust finally gave birth to Israel, the fires that turned to ashes the remains of the Twin Towers might well be the torch that has alighted the flames to melt down the walls of Official Islam and let the Words of God become unfettered to be heard and understood afresh.


To continue reading this article, click here.

Jamie Glazov is Frontpage Magazine's editor. He holds a Ph.D. in History with a specialty in Russian, U.S. and Canadian foreign policy. He is the author of Canadian Policy Toward Khrushchev’s Soviet Union and is the co-editor (with David Horowitz) of The Hate America Left. He edited and wrote the introduction to David Horowitz’s Left Illusions. His new book is United in Hate: The Left's Romance with Tyranny and Terror. To see his previous symposiums, interviews and articles Click Here. Email him at jglazov@rogers.com.

We have implemented a new commenting system. To use it you must login/register with disqus. Registering is simple and can be done while posting this comment itself. Please contact gzenone [at] horowitzfreedomcenter.org if you have any difficulties.
blog comments powered by Disqus

Home | Blog | Horowitz | Archives | Columnists | Search | Store | Links | CSPC | Contact | Advertise with Us | Privacy Policy

Copyright©2007 FrontPageMagazine.com