Please take a moment to
visit and log in at the subscriber
area, and submit your city & country location. We will use this
information in future to invite you to any events that we organize in
your area.
Why
'Moderate Islam' is an Oxymoron
by Raymond Ibrahim
CBN News
March 24, 2014
  Be the first of
your friends to like this.
At a time when terrorism committed in the name of Islam is rampant, we
are continuously being assured—especially by three major institutions
that play a dominant role in forming the Western mindset, namely,
mainstream media, academia, and government—that the sort of Islam
embraced by "radicals," "jihadis," and so forth, has
nothing to do with "real" Islam.
"True" Islam, so
the narrative goes, is intrinsically free of anything
"bad." It's the nut-jobs who hijack it for their own agenda
that are to blame.
More specifically, we are told that there exists a
"moderate" Islam and an "extremist" Islam—the former
good and true, embraced by a Muslim majority, the latter a perverse
sacrilege practiced by an exploitative minority.
But what do these dual adjectives—"moderate" and
"extremist"—ultimately mean in the context of Islam? Are they
both equal and viable alternatives insofar as to how Islam is understood?
Are they both theologically legitimate? This last question is
particularly important, since Islam is first and foremost a religious way
of life centered around the words of a deity (Allah) and his prophet
(Muhammad)—the significance of which is admittedly unappreciated by
secular societies.
Both terms—"moderate" and "extremist"—have to do
with degree, or less mathematically,zeal: how much, or to
what extent, a thing is practiced or implemented. As Webster's
puts it, "moderate" means "observing reasonable
limits"; "extremist" means "going to great or
exaggerated lengths."
It's a question, then, of doing either too much or too little.
The problem, however, is that mainstream Islam offers a crystal-clear
way of life, based on the teachings of the Koran and Hadith—the former,
containing what purport to be the sacred words of Allah, the latter, the
example (or sunna, hence "Sunnis") of his prophet, also
known as the most "perfect man" (al-insan al-kamil).
Indeed, based on these two primary sources and according to normative
Islamic teaching, all human actions fall into five categories: forbidden
actions, discouraged actions, neutral actions recommended actions, and
obligatory actions.
In this context, how does a believer go about "moderating"
what the deity and his spokesman have commanded? One can either try to
observe Islam's commandments or one can ignore them: any more or less is
not Islam—a word which means "submit" (to the laws, or sharia,
of Allah).
The real question, then, is what do Allah and his prophet command
Muslims ("they who submit") to do? Are radicals
"exaggerating" their orders? Or are moderate Muslims simply
"observing reasonable limits"—a euphemism for negligence?—when
it comes to fulfilling their commandments?
In our highly secularized era, where we are told that religious truths
are flexible or simply non-existent, and that any and all interpretations
and exegeses are valid, the all-important question of "What does
Islam command?" loses all relevance.
Hence why the modern West is incapable of understanding Islam.
Indeed, only recently,
a Kenyan mosque leader said that the Westgate massacre, where Islamic
gunmen slaughtered some 67 people, "was justified. As per the Koran,
as per the religion of Islam, Westgate was 100 percent justified."
Then he said: "Radical Islam is a creation of people who do not
believe in Islam. We don't have radical Islam, we don't have
moderates, we don't have extremists. Islam is one religion following the
Koran and the Sunna" [emphasis added].
Note his point that "Radical Islam is a creation of people who do
not believe in Islam," a clear reference to the West which coined
the phrase "radical Islam." Ironically, the secular West, which
relegates religious truths to the realm of "personal experience,"
feels qualified to decide what is and is not "radical" about
Islam.
Consider one example: Allah commands Muslims to "Fight those
among the People of the Book [Jews and Christians] who do not believe in
Allah nor the Last Day, nor forbid what Allah and His Messenger have
forbidden, nor embrace the religion of truth [i.e., Islam], until they
pay the jizya [tribute] with willing submission and feel
themselves subdued" [Koran 9:29].
How can one interpret this verse to mean anything other than what it
plainly says? Wherein lies the ambiguity, the room for interpretation? Of
course there are other teachings and allusions in the Koran that by
necessity lend themselves over to the fine arts of interpretation, or ijtihad.
But surely the commands of Koran 9:29 are completely straightforward?
In fact, Muhammad's 7th century followers literally acted
on this and similar verses (e.g., 9:5), launching the first
Muslim conquests, which saw the subjugation of millions of
Christians, Jews, and others, and the creation of the "Muslim
world." Such jihadi expansion continued until Islam was beaten on
the battlefield by a resurgent West some two or three centuries ago.
Western scholarly works, before the age of relativism and political
correctness set in, did not equivocate the meaning of jihad. Thus the
authoritative Encyclopaedia of Islam's entry for "jihad"
states that the "spread of Islam by arms is a religious duty upon
Muslims in general … Jihad must continue to be done until the whole world
is under the rule of Islam … Islam must completely be made over before
the doctrine of jihad [warfare to spread Islam] can be eliminated.
Islamic law expert and U.S. professor Majid Khadduri (1909-2007), after
defining jihad as warfare, wrote that "jihad … is regarded by all
jurists, with almost no exception, as a collective obligation of the
whole Muslim community."
(As for the argument that the Bible contains similar war verses, yet
Jews and Christians are not out to conquer the world—so why say Muslims
are?—see "Are
Judaism and Christianity as Violent as Islam" for a detailed
breakdown of the similarities and differences. Also see "Islamic
Jihad and the Doctrine of Abrogation" to understand how the
Koran's more tolerant verses have been abrogated by its more militant
ones, such as 9:29.)
In short, how can a sincere Muslim—by definition, one who has
submitted to the teachings of Allah—"moderate" verses like
9:29? How can he "observe reasonable limits" vis-à-vis these
plain commands to combat and subjugate non-Muslims?
Must Muslims not, at the very least, admit that such teachings are
true and should be striven for—even if they do not personally
engage in the jihad, at least not directly (but they are encouraged to
support it indirectly, including monetarily
or through propaganda)?
Just recently, reports appeared telling of how Islamic groups in Syria
were following Koran 9:29 to a tee—forcing
Christian minorities to pay them jizya, i.e., extortion money, in
exchange for their lives. In fact, all around the Islamic world,
Christians and other minorities are regularly
plundered by Muslims who justify their actions by referring to the
aforementioned verse.
Are all such Muslims being "extreme" in light of the
commands of Koran 9:29—which specifically calls for the taking of money
from Christians and Jews—or are they simply upholding the unambiguous
teachings of Islam?
One may argue that, if Muslims are to take Koran 9:29 literally, why
are Muslim nations the world over not declaring an all-out jihad on all
non-Muslim nations, including America? The ultimate reason, of course, is
that they simply can't; they do not have the capability to uphold
that verse (and Islamic teaching allows Muslims to postpone
their obligations until circumstances are more opportune).
It would obviously be silly, if not suicidal, for, say, Saudi Arabia,
birthplace of Islam, to issue a statement to the West saying either
accept Islam, pay jizya/tribute, or die by the sword. But just because
Muslim nations do
not currently have the capacity to actualize Koran 9:29, does not
mean that they do not acknowledge its veracity and try to actualize it in
other
places when they can.
A quick
survey of history before the meteoric rise of Western military might
put Islam in check makes this especially clear.
Bottom line: If Islam teaches X and a Muslim upholds X—how is he being
"extreme"? Seems more logical to say that it is Islam itself
that is being "extreme." Similarly, if a self-professed Muslim
does not uphold Islamic teachings—including prayer, fasting, paying zakat,
etc.—how is he being a "moderate"? Seems more logical to say
that he is not much of a Muslim at all—that is, he is not submitting to
Allah, the very definition of "Muslim."
It's time to acknowledge that dichotomized notions like
"moderate" and "extreme" are culturally induced and
loaded standards of the modern, secular West—hardly applicable to the
teachings of Islam—and not universal absolutes recognized by all mankind.
Raymond Ibrahim, author of Crucified Again:
Exposing Islam's New War on Christians (Regnery, April, 2013) is a
Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and an Associate
Fellow at the Middle East Forum.
Related
Topics: Anti-Christianism,
Radical Islam
| Raymond Ibrahim This
text may be reposted or forwarded so long as it is presented as an
integral whole with complete and accurate information provided about its
author, date, place of publication, and original URL.
|
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment