On ‘Islamic Supremacism’ and Sharia
The following is from my debate with jihadwatch commenter ‘awake’. I decided to post it here because they often talk of ‘Islamic Supremacism’ and about some type of plot to implement hudood punishments on the West and I wanted everyone to see my response. I say that both are red herrings. There is nothing wrong with one wanting to share their religion (which they believe to be the only correct one) and there is no plot by the Muslims to force sharia (they mean hudood) on non-Muslims:
Let me address this ‘Islamic supremist ideology’ thing. Awake I assume that you are a Christian and that you believe that your religion is ’superior’ to other religions and that only Christians will go to Heaven? I will say that that is a reasonable stance since I - as a Muslim - hold the same about Islam, but I will not call you a ‘Christian Supremist’. I may disagree with your stance, but I CAN see why you would hold that position. If you did not believe your religion to be superior, then why be in it?
Do I believe that Islam is the only correct religion? Yes!
Do I believe that believing in Islam is a requirement to enter Heaven? Yes
Does that make me agree with terrorism? Of course not, so why are we mixing the issues? People assume now that a Muslim who believes his/her religion is the only truth sympathizes with terror.
Why is it criminal for a Muslim to hold that his/her religion is ’superior’? Do you not see the double standard?
Now, you have some Muslim ‘reformists’ who will tell you that the Qur’an says: “No compulsion in religion” to prove that a Muslim should not believe that his/her religion is the only truth.
I respond by saying that we are not to force people to accept Islam, but that does not change our (reasonable) stance that our religion is ’superior’ to others.
This is a totally separate argument from the debate on whether or not Islam endorses terrorism. This does not prevent us from treating all people, regardless of religion, fairly.
Are there ignorant Muslims who unfortunately will follow their desires and take things out of context and justify rape, murder and slaughter? Yes, but that is on them…not Islam
To expect that Muslims will declare that their religion is the same as others is not a fair expectation. I would not expect a Christian to believe such a thing so why do you all put this demand on Muslims?
As to the sharia question, then know that sharia is much more comprehensive than you, Mr Spencer and others seem to think it is. You all seem to think that sharia is limited to stoning of ONLY WOMEN (a fallacy that ONLY women are punished) female genital mutilation (another complete fallacy) and spanking those who drink alcohol.
The sharia also includes things like how we pray, how we fast, pay zakaat, what we can and can not eat and drink and so on. Parts of the West are ALREADY inline with parts of the sharia (there are many districts in the South that BAN alcohol and homosexuality for example) So when you have a group such as “Muslims Against Sharia” it is no wonder that the first thought of the average Muslim is: “are they crazy?” … They are essentially throwing out the religion. Without sharia, there will be no way of knowing how to pray, fast, make pilgrimage, pay zakaat or even if one should do those things or not.
So another impossible demand upon Muslims is for us to reject sharia as sharia contains how we practice Islam. If there is no sharia, there is no Islam. Get stoning and other things out of your mind. Sharia is much broader than that. So of course ‘reformists’ are not going to get very far in debating the ibn ladens of the world when they makes such an outlandish arguments. The rejection of ibn laden’s garbage has to be on ISLAMIC grounds and not on essentially rejecting Islam itself.
After we have established what sharia is (and is not) the question is whether or not there is this insidious plot by all of the Muslims to implement hudood (the punishments in your mind) on Westerners and force people to practice Islam? This is not true and is a wild conspiracy not unlike the “Protocals of Elder Zion”. Just because you might be able to find a person here or there who says that they want to do that, does not mean that this plot exists amongst all of us. Further, implementation of the hudood is a complex question on whether or not it should be implemented on MUSLIMS in MUSLIM countries in certain circumstances …much less here in the West. So the question is just outlandish on its face. If such a plot existed, then we’d have an argument, but it does not. To me it is a little like debating the type of defense earth would use if invaded by aliens from outer space.
To drive this point home, I have known of situations where married men have come to the mosque and ADMITTED TO ADULTERY and ASKED TO BE STONED, but were told that WE ARE IN THE WEST AND WE CAN NOT DO THAT. If there was this staunch desire to stone people amongst Muslims , then it would be happening. However, I have never seen such a plot. Further, if some ignorant Imam in the West were to do a stoning, you would find people like me condemning him for going WAY outside of his authority
Would I like to see my fellow Westerners become Muslim? Yes I would. Am I going to force them to do so? No, and I could not even if I wanted to. Is it insidious of me to want others to become Muslim?
[...] an ‘Islamic Supremacist? Posted on October 18, 2007 by Tariq Nelson Sameer Parker has an interesting response to the question of “Islamic Supremacism” and the ‘plot’ by Muslims to [...]
A (somewhat similar) discussion is going on in the comments section here.
Seems like this is a normal thing.
Intresting. Good job with talking with these people.
Sameer,
I am a bit pressed for time today so I will be brief and respond in greater depth later.
First and foremost, I apologize if I misspoke and caused a misunderstanding of my point.
You wrote:
“Let me address this ‘Islamic supremist ideology’ thing. Awake I assume that you are a Christian and that you believe that your religion is ’superior’ to other religions and that only Christians will go to Heaven? I will say that that is a reasonable stance since I - as a Muslim - hold the same about Islam, but I will not call you a ‘Christian Supremist’. I may disagree with your stance, but I CAN see why you would hold that position. If you did not believe your religion to be superior, then why be in it?”
Well, I am a nominal Roman Catholic, since I was raised as one, albeit not currently practicing anywhere near what I should be according to their doctrine. Why do I hold on to it? Well, I am enamored with the literatry figure of Christ and what he stood for. I also have children and I am giving them the same foundation that I received. Ultimately, their faith will be decided by them. I still believe in a God, so I would be considered more agnostic than atheist.
I in no way, shape or form intended to tout Christianity over Islam or any world religion. My reference to “Islamic supremist ideology” was specifically towards the agressive expansion of Islam, which the jihadists any many others view as a direct mandate from Allah, per the Qur’an.
My statement had nothing to do about which faith is better. I fully believe that you believe Islam is superior to other faiths and I agree that is a reasonable belief on your part. Most faithfuls believe the same thing. If someone finds a faith that they deem better than their’s, they usually convert to it.
I do not believe that only Christians, or in my case, Catholics go to heaven. I abandoned that line of thinking long ago. In my reality, no God would be precluded from touching the lives of all things, regardless of denomination or even unbelief. Concepts of Heaven and Hell also are problematic for me as well, but that is a whole new ballgame of a discussion. I prefer not to discuss individual differences between religious ideologies, but rather the effect that they have on their own followers and those outside of their respective faith.
Sharia is a much bigger topic and needs to be discussed in greater detail, which time does not currently permit me to do, but I promise that I will respond as soon as I can.
I would like to make a very simple point to you directly. I do not wish this discussion to be solely a personal one, but also encompass broader topics.
you wrote:
“Is it insidious of me to want others to become Muslim?”
The answer is; of course not. This is the same answer to your question on the header of this blog, which reads:
“Are all Muslims REALLY terrorists?”
Regards,
awake
Sorry, the link I posted didn’t work:
Let’s try that again.
@ awake
I didn’t mean to make this about you in particular. I wanted to make the point that ‘Islamic Supremacism’ (as you all call it) is not an unreasonable stance for a peaceful Muslim.
The part I cut and blogged on was only part of my response to you. Please be sure to read my entire response to your last comments by clicking here because I really want Mr Spencer to answer the links on my blog from Islamic Scholars.
If this goes far enough, perhaps Rasheed Gonzales could even arrange for a major scholar to DIRECTLY refute Robert Spencer point by point.
We are ready to defend ourselves and our religion
Sameer,
No problem. I clarified my statement. Belief in one’s own religion as superior or supreme is commonplace and reasonable, Forcing one’s ideology, under any circumstance, on those whose choose not to partake, is not.
I will try to contact Robert, but I believe he is currently out of his normal “secure, undisclosed location.”
I already read your full reply on the other thread.
Regards.
Sameer,
Where does it say that only Muslims go to Heaven? People of the Book (Christians and Jews), along with children of any religion and good people who have not been exposed to the teachings of Islam (ie ethical people born in the the pre-Islamic era) are said in Islamic literature to have access to Heaven; in the Prophet’s eulogy for the very Christian King of Abyssinia(Al Najashi) he says explicitly that the King will enter Heaven.
Sorry to quibble with you, but I think your basic assumption that ‘only Muslims will go to Heaven’ undermines your very good point about the difference between belief in the superiority of a certain religion and endorsing bad behavior by the fringe element of that religion.
Willow,
The true followers of past Prophets and Messengers are all considered Muslims. As for those who never received the message, they will be given a test on the Judgement day, if they pass the test they will be granted Paradise, if they fail, they will enter the Fire. You can read more about it here.
As for the King of Abyssinia, when he died, Prophet Muhammad asked his companions to pray the funeral prayer for him explicitly calling him their brother i.e., the king died upon Islam, not Christianity.
I think your basic assumption that ‘only Muslims will go to Heaven’ undermines your very good point about the difference between belief in the superiority of a certain religion and endorsing bad behavior by the fringe element of that religion.
Willow,
Your quote above only shows how pervasive this thought (misconception) has become. Because people complain of “Islamic Supremacism” then tie it with terror, then they are implying that any Muslim that believes that Islam is THE truth must agree with terror. The issues are conflated and it is totally unfair as many Christians believe that their religion is the only true religion and are not terrorists. Whether you agree or not with what I said (what Rasheed said above is correct), think about how this issue is unfairly portrayed.
Sameer,
With all due respect, when you wrote:
“Because people complain of “Islamic Supremacism” then tie it with terror, then they are implying that any Muslim that believes that Islam is THE truth must agree with terror.”
You are engaging in the worst type of “straw man” argument here.
That correlation is solely in the making of your own mind. My point was clear, at least after my explicit clarification. Touting one’s own religion as superior to other ideologies is acceptable as a global mainstream view. Actions by Islamic jihadists , who in their own words, justify their actions based on “supposed” mandates from their ideological texts is a completely different story.
Muslims proudly stating belief in the superiority of their religion does not tie Islam to terrorism. Terrorist acts by Muslims, however do, at least in the minds of non-Muslims.
There is a distict and obvious difference.
@ awake
My comments to Willow were not about you. I am only making the point of how pervasive this thinking has gotten. Willow clearly conflates the two issues as do many other people.
If a Muslim can state that they believe in the superiority of their religion, then why this talk of “Islamic Supremacism”?
An Islamic Extremist might (falsely) extrapolate that and think that this means that they can kill anyone they deem to be a non-Muslim. It should be noted that most of their victims are Muslims
There are at least 4 issues or categories that arise regarding the adherence to, defence, and spread of belief systems:
1) Belief in one’s religion as superior to the religion of others. There seems to be general agreement this is acceptable - by both individuals (individual believers) and group entitites (like the Church). If we expand religion to include other belief systems and ideologies, then we can say it is acceptable for any ideology to assert its theoretical superiority over others — i.e. it is acceptable to assert democracy’s superiority over other forms of government and wish that other societies would adopt democracy as their form of government. Churchill famously said that democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others.
2)The right to bear arms in defense of one’s ability to exercise one’s belief system - either on the personal or group entity level. What is the agreement or disagreement on this? Is it ok for a believer to use arms in defense of his or her religious beliefs if an outside party attempts to stop it? Is it ok for a religious entity or state to bear arms in defense of it’s ability to abide by its religious mandates? If we expand the definition to include other ideologies (as in #1 above) - is it acceptable for individual adherents of democracy to bear arms to defend him or herself? Is it acceptable for a democratic society to do so? It seems to me that the US constitution provides for the acceptance of that right, of course, after having first met a threshold of what constitutes a sufficient agression to trigger one’s right to defend against that aggression. When the Taliban was defending itself against the Soviet Union we supported this right, but do not support this right in other instances of religious groups bearing arms against invasion/occupation by other states — cases of islamic groups defending themselves against Israeli occupation come to mind.
3) The issue of the right to expand one’s belief system through non-violent means. This is generally acceptable - through preaching, dawah, propoganda, persuasion. However, we do have examples of censorship in all societies.
4) The issue of the right to expand one’s belief system through the use of arms, taking the offense not just the defense. This is generally not acceptable, but especially for non-state players. This #4 is the category we in the West view terrorists in, although they would argue they are in category #2. That is, we view them as illegitimately using arms to force their belief system on others, while they say they are using arms to defend themselves. If we expand beyond religion to include other belief systems like democracy — then we see that the war in Iraq was initiated from within this #4 category. The war in Afghanistan it can be argued derived from #2 category of self-defense after the 9/11 attacks and refusal of the Taliban to give up Bin Laden. However the war in Iraq was a #4 — namely, a war not of self-defense but of offensive/preemptive nature - in order to spread democracy in the Middle East through the use of overwhelming military force (shock and awe) firstly and only thru non-violent means (winning hearts and minds) secondly. The difference is that the U.S. (and not the whole US population, but a small group of leaders and lawyers) used its status as a state, legitimized within the international order and with military predominance, to override the general unacceptability of #4 — dramatized by the US totally blowing off the objections of the UN and major world powers before going to war.
The greatest argument against the idea that Islam itself - even fundamentalist Islam, even Wahhabi Islam - and its adherents are bent on global chaos, violence, destruction, military dominance, etc. is this — Saudi Arabia and other muslim-majority states did not move to destabilize the US economy after 9/11. In fact, they did the opposite - SA kept its promise to keep oil prices stable in the wake of 9/11 and did not pull out its huge wealth in our system which would almost certainly have resulted in triggering the total collapse of our financial markets. If there was some unified muslim conspiracy to overthrow the West that would have been the time to act — no such unified conspiracy exists.
I wonder what you’re playing at. We’ve got enough examples of frightful Islamic intolerance, cruel governance, violence, chaos, and rage boys crowing that Islam will stomp the infidels.
I think muslims live in denial. If the peaceful verses are abrogated, Islam is death, both here and hereafter, and all this uproar is logical.
Maybe S. Arabia thought that the collapse of the US would not be good for the world.
There’s nothing Islamic about those things.
Saudi Arabia is no friend of the West. Their financial jihad under the pretense of dawah is well-documented.
No country can dare claim bigotry as the house of al Saud does, bigotry against Muslims and Islam in Europe and the US, with the chronicled fact of Saudi Arabia’s religious intolerence. Hypocrisy in the most overt form, in my estimation.
In Saudi Arabia’s defense however, I will offer the historical reality of the wahabbi’s offensive on the “Kingdom” in the late 70’s, which precipitated their tacit approval and willful undertaking of wahabbi principles. Cowards are cowards. Always will be.
Attempts to use current geopolitical realities, like perchance Saudi Arabia might cut off all their oil supply to the US and the West to cripple them is certainly not up to snuff. They do not hold a monopoly on the market and the cowards are always aware of what the West might do in retribution for this grand slight.
So to Umm Hana, support the wahabbists all you want, but your argument falls short here. Anyone who supports your argument has essentially excluded themselves from the pool of “moderates”, if such a term exists anyway.
I could care less if you think Islam is the best religion. I care even less about who you think goes to ‘heaven’.
I care about a false statement like “This does not prevent us from treating all people, regardless of religion, fairly.”
Tell me, do you think that Muslims treat non-Muslims fairly in those societies where they dominate?
The fact is that Islam does not treat all people “fairly”. It discriminates and oppresses people where ever it dominates. It teaches hate and violence against non-Muslims. It restricts the religious freedom of Non-Muslims.
Oh yes, and before you respond with the old ‘no compulsion in religion thing,’ please consider carefully what you are saying. According to several different traditions, your dear prophet ordered the killing of people for leaving Islam. Now, try and figure out what that means. It is not hard to see the obvious implications of this.
Sometimes I wonder if Muslims actually read the Quran and ahadith, and if they do, if they actually understand the words. Do they that understand what the dozens of raids and wars against infidels means about the true nature of Islam - or maybe it is ok to attack, capture, kill, plunder, enslave and rape people if they are non-muslims.
Or maybe Mohammad and his followers were not real Muslims. Maybe the hate in the Quran is OK.
Maybe Muslims are bigots. Maybe Muslims are dishonest about their religion.
Kactuz
Bravo Kactuz. I have been unable to figure out the people saying “Islam is peace” - THEY sound like the crazy ones. The violent ones sound like they’re just following the Koran, imitating Mo, etc.
Dear Eliza
Maybe you would like to share with us some of the verses from the Qur’aan that you believe the “violent ones” are “just following”???!!!
The peaceful split hairs, the violent split heads.
Wow, the number of times I’ve read the Qur’an and I don’t think I’ve ever come across this verse.
Aboo and Rasheed,
I do not speak for Eliza, but I will just be a pain in the ass here:
9:5
But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.
9:29
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, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
9:111
Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Qur’an: and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? then rejoice in the bargain which ye have concluded: that is the achievement supreme.
5:32-33
On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our messengers with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land.
The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter;
3:28
Let not the believers Take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah: except by way of precaution, that ye may Guard yourselves from them. But Allah cautions you (To remember) Himself; for the final goal is to Allah.
2:216
Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not.
4:74
Let those fight in the cause of Allah Who sell the life of this world for the hereafter. To him who fighteth in the cause of Allah,- whether he is slain or gets victory - Soon shall We give him a reward of great (value).
4:76
Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah, and those who reject Faith Fight in the cause of Evil: So fight ye against the friends of Satan: feeble indeed is the cunning of Satan.
4:89
They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks;-
8:12
Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): “I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instil terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them.”
8:55
For the worst of beasts in the sight of Allah are those who reject Him: They will not believe.
47;4
Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks; At length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them): thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom: Until the war lays down its burdens. Thus (are ye commanded): but if it had been Allah’s Will, He could certainly have exacted retribution from them (Himself); but (He lets you fight) in order to test you, some with others. But those who are slain in the Way of Allah,- He will never let their deeds be lost.
They will now trot out some reasons as to why these verses don’t apply. There are some serious delusions at work in muslims. Delusions of past glory, delusions that Mo was kind and wonderful. Delusions that this soup of murder and chaos and deceit that they swim in is the Utopian solution for the world.
Don’t apply to what?
Here are some of my favorite hate verses…
3.56: Then as to those who disbelieve, I will chastise them with severe chastisement in this world and the hereafter, and they shall have no helpers.
3.106: On the day when (some) faces shall turn white and (some) faces shall turn black; then as to those whose faces turn black: Did you disbelieve after your believing? Taste therefore the chastisement because you disbelieved.
3.151: We will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve, because they set up with Allah that for which He has sent down no authority, and their abode is the fire, and evil is the abode of the unjust.
3.178: And let not those who disbelieve think that Our granting them respite is better for their souls; We grant them respite only that they may add to their sins; and they shall have a disgraceful chastisement.
4.56: (As for) those who disbelieve in Our communications, We shall make them enter fire; so oft as their skins are thoroughly burned, We will change them for other skins, that they may taste the chastisement; surely Allah is Mighty, Wise.
5.33: The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His apostle 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.
5.86: And (as for) those who disbelieve and reject Our communications, these are the companions of the flame.
8.12: When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.
8.55: Surely the vilest of animals in Allah’s sight are those who disbelieve, then they would not believe.
9.4: Except those of the idolaters with whom you made an agreement, then they have not failed you in anything and have not backed up any one against you, so fulfill their agreement to the end of their term; surely Allah loves those who are careful (of their duty).
9.36: Surely the number of months with Allah is twelve months in Allah’s ordinance since the day when He created the heavens and the earth, of these four being sacred; that is the right reckoning; therefore be not unjust to yourselves regarding them, and fight the polytheists all together as they fight you all together; and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil).
9.5: So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
9.73: O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is the destination.
9.123: O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness; and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil).
18.29: And say: The truth is from your Lord, so let him who please believe, and let him who please disbelieve; surely We have prepared for the iniquitous a fire, the curtains of which shall encompass them about; and if they cry for water, they shall be given water like molten brass which will scald their faces; evil the drink and ill the resting-place.
24.6: And (as for) those who accuse their wives and have no witnesses except themselves, the evidence of one of these (should be taken) four times, bearing Allah to witness that he is most surely of the truthful ones.
22.19: These are two adversaries who dispute about their Lord; then (as to) those who disbelieve, for them are cut out garments of fire, boiling water shall be poured over their heads. 22.20: With it shall be melted what is in their bellies and (their) skins as well. 22.21: And for them are whips of iron. 22.22: Whenever they will desire to go forth from it, from grief, they shall be turned back into it, and taste the chastisement of burning.
98.6: Surely those who disbelieve from among the followers of the Book and the polytheists shall be in the fire of hell, abiding therein; they are the worst of men.
So, according to Islam, just not believing is enough to get you brutal torture commanded by Allah himself. You don’t have to kill, lie, steal, or anything - just reject Allah and you deserve the most vile punishment. Would some Muslims please explain this to me?
And also I would like to know why the 29 raids by Mohammad against non-Muslims are ok, even if the traditions say he murdered, plundered, enslaved, tortured and raped….. as written in the ahadith by Muslims themselves…
Please explain…
Kactuz….
PS: I have actually read the Quran and hadiths. Have you?
Yes, in their original Arabic as well, along with various exegeses for numerous Qur’anic verses and prophetic hadîths.
How about you?
Firstly, the evilest crime is polytheism and disbelief in Allah. The vilest punishment and painful “chastisement” mentioned in all these “favourite” verses of yours refer to Hell, not any wordly punishment.
“Do they that understand what the dozens of raids and wars against infidels means”
I thought muslims were the infidels, being that they were considered to be infidels for over 1400 yrs by christianity