Pay No Attention To That Ayatollah Behind The Curtain
“How can I help being a humbug,” he said, “when all these people make me do things that everyone knows can’t be done?”
The Wizard in The Wizard of Oz by L. Frank Baum
Another author has a price on his head after allegedly ridiculing Islam–claiming that Christianity is superior to Islam and that Europe is superior to the Middle East.
One of Iran’s most senior clergymen has issued a fatwa on an Azeri writer said to have insulted the Prophet Muhammad.
The call on Muslims to murder Rafiq Tagi, who writes for Azerbaijan’s Senet newspaper, echoes the Iranian fatwa against Indian writer Salman Rushdie.
It was issued by the conservative Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Fazel Lankarani.
With a little bit of hindsight, it probably would not be all that difficult to have predicted the response of someone like Lankarani. The real question is whether Lankarani is actually following Islamic law in calling for Tagi’s death.
According to Bernard Lewis–he is not.
In The Crisis of Islam, Lewis writes about the brand of Islamic extremism preached by Al Qaida, Saudi Arabia–and Iran.
All of these are, in a sense, Islamic in origin, but some of them have deviated very far from their origins.
All these different extremist groups sanctify their action through pious references to Islamic texts, notably the Qur’an and the traditions of the Prophet, and all three claim to represent a truer, purer, and more authentic Islam than that currently practiced by the vast majority of Muslims and endorsed by most though not all of the religious leadership. They are, however, highly selective in their choice and interpretation of sacred texts. (p. 138) [emphasis added]
To illustrate his point, Lewis examines Islamic law as it pertains to the treatment of someone like Salman Rushdie. Recall that at the time, the Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwa, offering a bounty for the one who killed the author of the Satanic Verses–just as Lankarani has done.
On this issue, Bernard Lewis points out that contrary to the impression given by men like Khomeini and Lankarani, a fatwa is not the Islamic equivalent of ‘putting out a contract’. Instead:
Fatwa is a technical term in Islamic jurisprudence for a legal opinion or ruling on a point of law…The Islamic jurisconsult who is authorized to issue a fatwa is called a mufti, an active participle from the same root. In using a fatwa to pronounce a death sentence and recruit an assassin, the ayatollah was deviating very considerably from standard Islamic practice. (p. 140) [emphasis added]
For Grand Ayatollah Lankarani to issue a fatwa calling for the death of Tagi–and of the person responsible for publishing his articles–or for another Iranian cleric to offer his house as a reward to anyone who killed the writer, is not normative practice.
‘Insulting the Prophet’ was the general charge brought against Rushdie–but that is punishable by flogging and imprisonment. This is not the impression you got from the signs at the riots which called for his death, beheading, and extermination. Flogging and imprisonment is also a far cry from what Lankarani and other clerics are sanctioning and encouraging.
In Rushdie’s case, as a Moslem his supposed crime would be apostasy–which according to Islamic law requires a trial by judge. Lewis admits that a minority opinion states that when the crime is so great that a formal trial is not needed, but nevertheless some sort of procedure or authorization is required. Without such a procedure, the execution is itself considered murder–and punishable as such. There is another opinion according to which the immediate execution of the apostate is obligatory and one who does not carry out the sentence is himself committing an offense–but Lewis points out:
Even the most rigorous and extreme of the classical jurists only require a Muslim to kill anyone who insults the Prophet in his hearing and in his presence. They say nothing about a hired killing for a reported insult in a distant country. [emphasis added]
In Tagi’s case, he was in fact tried in an Azerbaijani court. However the sentence he and his publisher received was two months in jail for an article which was illustrated by the same cartoons of the Muhammad which were originally published in Denmark.
There are those who would claim that Islam is undergoing a renaissance, a reawakening as it reclaims its place in the world.
Maybe not.
In an editorial about the case of the 6 Imams who were removed from a plane after acting suspiciously, the Investor’s Business Daily notes the activities of other Imams:
Omar Abdul-Rahman, a blind sheikh, is serving a life term for plotting to blow up several New York landmarks. Imam Ali al-Timimi, a native Washingtonian, is also behind bars for soliciting local Muslims to kill fellow Americans. Imams in New York were recently busted for buying shoulder-fired missiles. Another in Lodi, Calif., planned an al-Qaida terror camp there.
MEMRI has videos of Islamic holy men who include in their sermons various derogatory comments about Israel and Jews in general.
There is something very wrong when Islamic holy men turn to murder–however they themselves may choose to label it–or feel they must inspire their flock by comparing Jews to apes. It is past time for the media to stop turning a blind eye to what is being ignored under the guise of free speech and what is being covered up under the guise of Moslem-bashing.
Whatever you call it, Islamist extremism is a danger that must be clearly and consistently called by its name if moderate Moslems are truly going to get the respect they are entitled to.
Crossposted at Daled Amos
Daled, please define the phrase, “moderate Muslim”.
Comment by Bill Narvey
— December 1, 2006 @ 8:31 am
For starters:
A moderate Muslim is a practicing Muslim who does not believe that Islam requires the conquest of other countries or the imposition of Sharia Law on the fellow citizens in the non-Islamic countries where they live. They accept the law of the land to the extent that it does not put them in a position where they are asked to violate Islamic law (as opposed to custom), nor do they impose Islamic sensibilities on others.
Comment by Daled Amos
— December 1, 2006 @ 10:17 am
I put it to you that such a Muslim is an apostate at best or an infidel at worst.
Read The myth of the moderate Muslim
Comment by Ted Belman
— December 1, 2006 @ 10:44 am
“Christianity is superior to [militant] Islam and that Europe is superior to the Middle East.” I am not sure why Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Fazel Lankarani has a problem with this set of facts, any more than he should have a problem with the laws of gravity or the fact that the bright thing in the sky is the sun.
Comment by Bill Levinson
— December 1, 2006 @ 10:50 am
Ted,
I only had time to take a quick look at the site you mention, but it’s a slippery slope. As I recall, there are verses that depict the founder of Christianity as someone who was conceited, rude to his mother etc. Taken in that context, one could argue about Christians as well. And it would not be at all difficult to make the same case about Jews.
The issue comes down to the accepted traditions and interpretations of each religion–and there are ‘moderate’ interpretations within the Moslem tradition (along with the fanatics) just as there are interpretations in Christianity that deal with the provocative statements.
And of course we have the Oral Law.
I just think that attacking all of Islam head-on is problematic in the extreme–and alienates the very allies we need.
Comment by Daled Amos
— December 1, 2006 @ 11:01 am
Bill,
Based on the little I’ve read (Patai’s The Arab Mind), Arabs (and Moslems in general, I imagine) don’t view history in a linear a way as the West–the fact that the West surpassed them centuries ago has not made their sense of superiority any less faded. That’s in the cultural sense. In the sense of morals and values, the fact that since 9/11 conversions to Islam are on the rise instead of falling show that others share Lankarani’s view.
Of course, you can argue that those who convert do not fully understand Islam, but those converts do believe they understand the religion (and culture) they are converting from–and they are very dis-satisfied.
Comment by Daled Amos
— December 1, 2006 @ 11:10 am
Daled Amos: Some of us believe that all Muslims are moderate and that Islamic extremists do not exist. The examples you refer to are clearly off piste runners whose “Islamic” doctrines can be questioned.
I think we see the point if we slightly rewrite your last sentence: “Whatever you call it, Nazi extremism is a danger that must be clearly and consistently called by its name if moderate Nazis are truly going to get the respect they are entitled to.”
Comment by Per
— December 1, 2006 @ 11:47 am
While there be some tolerant sentances in the Koran, the intolerant ones trump the tolerant ones because the former came later. This is a fixed principle of interpretation. No moderate voices suggest violent Jihad is not part of the religion. If there are moderate voices, they are the radicals. Some would call them heretics, apostates or infidels.
Comment by Ted Belman
— December 1, 2006 @ 12:20 pm
I don’t understand what you mean by “off piste runners,” but your comparison to Nazis begs the question, I think.
I recall reading an article on a site that claimed that Judaism was originally expansionist in philosophy, but it’s worldview was tempered by its experiences of being conquered by other nations.
That article was wrong.
I think the view that Moslems are by definition extremists is incorrect too.
Comment by Daled Amos
— December 1, 2006 @ 12:28 pm
Ted, I don’t think chronology alone determines the validity of verses in the Koran. Besides, as I recall, there are interpreters of the Koran who don’t merely overwrite earlier verses with later ones, but reconcile various verses–as per the “sword verse”
I have a book at home about it that I need to check, but that is what I recall.
Comment by Daled Amos
— December 1, 2006 @ 12:36 pm
I have yet to read a Muslim explain away all those edicts in the Koran that continue to be cited proof that Islam is a religion of war and not of peace and a religion of intolerance and hatred of non-Muslims and not a religion of love.
When Muslims respond, at least the ones I am aware of, to writers or speakers who discuss the negative meaning of such thorny words and phrases in the Koran or perhaps also the Hadith, they retort that the writer or speaker is spreading hatred of Islam and Muslims or is an Islamaphobe. Other Muslims will say that the words are being misinterpreted or taken out of context. Never is there an explanation as to what the correct interpretation is and why the critic has misinterpreted and in what context is one to read such words and phrases and why that context and not another.
Comment by Bill Narvey
— December 1, 2006 @ 2:52 pm
My view is that muslims are a blight on the Earth, a disease, a cancer, or a black plague.
Comment by Laura
— December 1, 2006 @ 4:49 pm
Laura, change that to “militant ‘Muslims’” and I would agree with you.
Comment by Bill Levinson
— December 1, 2006 @ 6:53 pm
British PM Blair In Islam Land:
Blair makes a total IDIOT out of himself praising Islam while the Koran speaks for itself.
http://www.ukconservatism.freeuk.com/news-2006-06-27.html
http://www.freenations.freeuk.com/news.html
Comment by Peter Robert North
— December 2, 2006 @ 8:52 am
Bill,
I can only hope you are wrong and that in fact moderate Moslems exist and that it is possible for a moderate tradition to develop in the interpretation of the Koran.
The book I was thinking of and referred to above is The Koran: A Very Short Introduction by Michael Cook. It does not say what I thought it did. While he refers to The Sword Verse, The Tribute Verse, and the No Compulsion Verse, he does not write about reconciling the verses. Instead:
Later he writes about the idea in Islam that one verse can abrogate another, but concentrates on the practice of limiting certain verses to a particular time and place.
An interesting example he gives is the view that:
But that does not help us–or Islam–in moderating The Sword verse or the other problem verses.
Ideally, now that Moslems are no longer living in the Middle Ages and are exposed to Western (and competing) values, there will be a moderating influence. But the reality of the current situation does not make us hopeful. As long as the West bends over backwards to accommodate the extremists, Moslems will see no reason for change and moderates will have basis from which to speak.
As for Peter’s post and quotes–I’ll leave that to Moslems to try and defend.
But one quote–“Kill any Jew you can lay your hands on” - Mohammed told his followers.–he does not give the source for. I assume that is because it is from the Hadith and not from the Koran itself.
Comment by Daled Amos
— December 2, 2006 @ 8:04 pm