“A kafirized Muslim is a new naming, but an old reality.”
So Bill Warner informs us, in a recent interview on FrontPage.com.
I have admired Bill Warner as one of the toughest, most clear-eyed and no-nonsense analysts of the problem of Islam. However, on this particular point, Warner makes the same error that the softer-boiled analyst, Robert Spencer, also makes.
Let us first examine Warner’s new term, the kafirized Muslim, a little more closely:
For some reason, every analysis of Muslims assumes that they are completely Muslim, without any kafir in them. But Islam does not drive all Muslims in all aspects of their life. Kafir culture has some very appealing ideals and people who call themselves Muslims are attracted to the benevolence in it. A true Muslim has absolutely no attraction to any aspect of kafir culture. The Koran and Sunna condemn 100% of kafir culture, so no Muslim has any desire to emulate kafirs. As soon as a person has any attraction to any aspect of kafir culture, they cease to be a Muslim and become kafir. That is the way the doctrine of Islam works.
Warner then answers the apposite question: Of what use is this new term?
What are its advantages? It is better than any of the alternatives such as a “good Muslim”, a “moderate Muslim” or my “Muslim friend”. All of these names are an attempt to bring some good out of Islam. But, there is no good in Islam for kafirs, only for Muslims.
But why is his new term better for the kafir?
The name kafirized Muslim acknowledges a bridge between Islam and kafirs. It is bigoted to assume that every Muslim has all of their behavior based upon Islam. Islam may demand that a person be 100% governed by Islam, but the truth is that Muslims are people and as people they are capable of picking and choosing.
Ah, here we have finally hit on the answer, and it is essentially the same answer that seems to motivate all the asymptotic analysts: Warner cannot bear the logical consequence of his own hardboiled analysis. He has to inject some humanism into his otherwise ironclad view of Islam. Why? Why, because otherwise “we would become like them”, so the new bromide goes. And furthermore, we would show ourselves to be “bigoted”.
Now, Warner is, in abstract principle, essentially correct: The assumption that every Muslim has all of their behavior based upon Islam would be, in fact, bigoted. However, Warner at this crucial juncture in his analysis has apparently forgotten a key component:
We cannot sufficiently tell the difference between dangerous Muslims, and harmless Muslims.
For the direly exigent purposes of our pragmatic and proactive self-defense, this key component is non-negotiable, and trumps any humanistic axioms which we would superimpose over the problem of Islam. The logical conclusion which Warner avoids, as do the softer analysts, is that because of this key component, we must treat all Muslims with equal suspicion, and only bend this rule in rare cases where such flexibility will not interfere at all with our ruthless criteria for self-defense.
What is wrong with acknowledging that Muslims can be part kafir? What is wrong by acknowledging that the Golden Rule attracts Muslims?
There is nothing wrong with acknowledging this as an abstract fact. There is everything wrong with erecting that fact as an axiom that has concrete effects upon our policies with regard to defending ourselves from the menace of Islam. With innumerable, unidentifiable, uniquely fanatical and all too easily camouflaged Muslims all over the globe plotting to murder as many Infidels as possible using any manner of weapons of mass destruction they can get their hands on—whether nukes, chemical or biological weapons—the stakes are simply too high to be so recklessly formulating any policy on the basis of our infirm knowledge of the existence of kafirized Muslims.
I shall close with this analogy:
If you were trying to cut down on caffeine—or eliminate caffeine from your diet altogether—and you could not tell which cup of coffee you purchased was caffeinated and which cup was decaf, would the knowledge that cups of real decaf do exist out there be of any value to you, when you can never know for sure which cup is decaf and which cup is not? Of course not. For your purposes of eliminating caffeine from your diet, the fact that many cups of coffee out there are indeed decaf would be a worthless fact—if your ability to tell which cup really is decaf was sufficiently impaired.
A better term than Warner’s kafirized Muslim remains the term I developed many months ago: the Apparently Harmless Muslim. My term has the advantage of acknowledging the putative existence of the “good Muslims” out there (i.e., of those Muslims who are in varying degrees less Islamic), but at the same time my term strongly conveys our inability to put this putative existence to any concrete use. Therefore, my term appropriately conveys our need for optimum suspicion and vigilance with regard to any, and every, Muslim—no matter how nice and friendly he or she is, and no matter how sweet their words sound to our credulous Little Red Riding Hood ears.
7 comments:
Hesp,
1.
"Kafirized Muslim" assumes too much, i.e., that the "Muslim" has actually been kafirized to some extent and it is not just taqiyya, da'wa, propaganda jihad. In line with your "apparently," one would have to modify this to "Apparently Kafirized Muslim." I don't like any of these cumbersome terms, including "Apparently Harmless Muslim." Using "moderate" Muslim, with the quotation marks around moderate, to indicate that there is something unusual about the use of the term moderate, is probably enough.
2.
Warner is also again adhering too much to his dualism formulation. It is oversimplified to the point of omitting crucial information. Take the peaceful Meccan versus the violent political Medinan phase contrast, for example. As I've pointed out before, this is not accurate according to the Islamic sources themselves. Muhammad was talking about violent punishments of disbelievers long before the emigration to Medina.
This is clear not only from reading the Meccan Suras, but also from the supportive texts such as the Sira and Hadith. (Much of this material is drawn upon in Tabari's history). Muhammad's imperialist designs and violent intentions in the Meccan period are highlighted in this article by Sam Shamoun [source].
Consider these Meccan-phase quotes from Muhammad (quoted in Shamoun's article):
Islamic imperialism.
-"He [Muhammad] replied, "I summon them to utter a saying through which the Arabs will submit to them and they will rule over the non-Arabs.""
Threat
-"Then came the revelation beginning with the words just spoken by these men and ending "they have not yet tasted my doom.""
Specific threat of massive violence
-"Ibn Humayd- Salamah- Muhammad b. Ishaq- Yahya b. ‘Urwah b. al-Zubayr- his father ‘Urwah-‘Abdallah b. ‘Amr b. al-‘As: I said to him, "What was the worst attack you saw by Quraysh upon the Messenger of God when they openly showed their enmity to him?" He replied, "I was with them when their nobles assembled one day in the Hijr and discussed the Messenger of God. They said, ‘We have never seen the like of what we have endured from this man. He has derided our traditional values, abused our forefathers, reviled our religion, caused division among us, and insulted our gods. We have endured a great deal from him,’ or words to that effect. While they were saying this, the Messenger of God suddenly appeared and walked up and kissed the Black Stone. Then he passed by them while performing the circumambulation, and as he did so they made some slanderous remarks about him. I could see from the Messenger of God’s face that he had heard them, but he went on. When he passed the second time they made similar remarks, and I could see from his face that he had heard them, but again he went on. Then he passed them the third time, and they made similar remarks; but this time he stopped and said, ‘Hear, men of Quraysh. By Him in whose hand Muhammad’s soul rests, I have brought you slaughter.’ They were gripped by what he said, and it was as though every man of them had a bird perched on his head; even those of them who had been urging the severest measures against him previously spoke in conciliatory ways to him, using the politest expressions they could think of, and said, ‘Depart in true guidance, Abu al-Qasim…”
The notion that the Meccan phase involved a peaceful philosophy that was somehow contradicted later on in the Medinan phase is just flat out wrong according to the Islamic sources. Muhammad had more weapons, wealth, and warriors in the Medinan phase, but there is no significant change in the underlying philosophy. In the Meccan phase he threatened, and in the Medinan phase he made good on his threats.
It is unfortunate, and frustrating, that Islam critics keep making these apologetics.
kab,
Actually, Warner in the same interview I referenced in this essay does acknowledge your point about the Mecca/Medina duality, when he said:
"Those “nice, tolerant” verses are temporary tactics to be used while Islam is weak."
The verses he is referring to are the Meccan verses.
I think there's an angle on this you are neglecting to factor in: regardless of whether it can be established from the texts that there is no real difference between the Mecca/Medina verses, nevertheless I think you would agree:
1) there is a superficial difference, with the Mecca verses appearing more benign
2) many Muslims, apparently, believe in that Meccan peacefulness -- either through wishful thinking, or relative laziness/ignorance to learn more deeply past the superficial layer, or clever clerics who have fudged the truth for them, or a combination of any or all of the above. (Of course, many of these Muslims could be pretending in their taqiyya to believe in the Meccan peaceful Islam: the problem, again, is we can't know for sure which Muslims are sincerely ignorant, which are cleverly pretending.)
Thus, with the factor of #2, there is a de facto dualism there. And I agree with Warner to this extent: There is a certain number of Muslims (how many I don't know) who are not selectively ignorant as some of the above types would be -- they know both the apparent peacefulness, and the hostility, but they haven't taken the time and trouble to plumb the textual depths like you have to see the essential unity (also, many of them would not do it, for it would border on being "too curious" and asking too many questions, which is discouraged in Islam anyway). For this type of Muslim, there is a sense where Allah can do anything, even contradicti himself -- so why not be both peaceful and hostile, ruthless and merciful, tolerant and intolerant, etc.?
So I agree with you, but I think Warner has a point, at least about a certain type of Muslim. Warner does, however, exaggerate the Mecca/Medina thing.
But I've been thinking more about the duality aspect in general in Islam, and he does have a point in other areas --
for example, Sexual Puritanism/Outrageous Sexual Practices --
and one I thought of recently:
Decentralized Diversity / A Unifying Sociopolitical Coherence.
I think Islam is unique sociologically in this regard -- it manages to be simultaneously a "wonderful tapestry" with no center and thus can claim, and visibly exhibits, plausible deniability for being the vehicle for various pathologies and violence we see; and yet, there seems to be an almost super-organism coherence to it, almost as though Muslim rioters in Paris are part of the same organic Body as Muslim demonstrator in the Sudan, or Muslims in Indonesia, etc. Much of social dynamics in Islam is not known to us. I think Islamic culture has an ability to execute actions in a trans-national way, without using typical methods which we in the West think must be the only way to control and direct people in a large population.
Erich
Reading Warner's article, it looks more like he is trying to square the apparent contradiction between Islam being what it is, and so many Muslims being seemingly nice people. I didn't exactly read that as his inability to draw the logical conclusions his own research has yielded.
As for the paradoxes within Islam, Sexual Puritanism vs Outrageous Sexual Practices, Srdja Trifkovic touched on it in one of his books, and pointed out that the net result of polygamy, for instance, is one man having several wives in several places, and thereby leading a life similar not to traditional Conservatives, but more akin to that of a post Christian secular-progressive society, such as the free sex crowd. Similarly, for gays, while it is common for Muslims in some of these countries to be physically attracted to each other (for instance, the infamous shot of an Afghan man kissing a boy), the anti-gay punishments actually kick in when there is actually an emotional relationship between 2 men or women. Normally in a religious (non-Islamic) context, an emotional relationship devoid of any physical relationship wouldn't be so frowned upon.
As for the Decentralized Diversity vs A Unifying Socio-political Coherence, the main explanation for the diversity is the spread (Morocco to Brunei) and the populations covered (Arab, Berbers, Kurds, Turks, Iranians, Afghans, Indo-Pak, Malay, Indonesians), which, because it spans half the globe, not only looks but is very diverse. Even the Communists had that diversity - Russians, Chinese, Cubans, Vietnamese, Koreans, Poles, Germans, Yuguslavs, et al. Had Hitler, Mussolini and Tojo won WWII, Nazism and Shintoism too would have been very diverse indeed, probably even more diverse than Islam ever was, given that every colony of each country they conquered would also have passed on to them.
So the diversity is something Islam inherited as a result of its conquests, rather than built into its own creation. The unifying socio-political structure all comes from the various schools of Islamic jurisprudence, of which there are 6 (including the Shia schools), but where the differences are insignificant from an Infidel POV. Therefore, this exhibited 'dualism' is not a major achievement of Islam, but an advantage that Islam gained partly intentionally (as far as the jurisprudence schools go) and partly accidentally (as a result of conquering so many non-Arab peoples).
Hesp,
[quote]
"Actually, Warner in the same interview I referenced in this essay does acknowledge your point about the Mecca/Medina duality, when he said:
"Those “nice, tolerant” verses are temporary tactics to be used while Islam is weak." "
[end quote]
I agree that Muslims will use temporary tactics when they are weak, but I don't agree that these "nice" verses occur more in the Meccan phase.
My point was that he's overdoing the dualism formula and this is causing a serious distortion of the conception of Islam we should have, a conception which must be tied closely to the facts. There are also nice-seeming verses in the Medinan phase, e.g., "no compulsion in religion" is Medinan. What changed between Mecca and Medina were Muhammad's circumstances, not the basic political-religious doctrine. The alleged contrast between Mecca and Medina is a standard claim among Islam critics and defenders alike, but the contents of the Quran and supportive texts just don't support the claim. It is at best an oversimplification, and at worst, in some instances, it is flatly wrong (as the examples in my previous post illustrate; there are many more). Any exaggerated claims about the alleged peacefulness of the Meccan phase need to be challenged every time they arise.
I do agree that one can look at the overall progression of Muhammad's career and see what appears to be an early period where he's tolerating a lot of back-talk and abuse from the polytheists, leading to a point where Allah eventually gives him permission to fight (i.e., in Medina, when he finally got together a suitably armed and eager band of thugs). It must be remembered though, that Muhammad initiated the hostilities in the Meccan phase, which led to the back-talk and abuse from the polytheists. Initiating hostilities is hardly peaceful. If Muslims imitate what Muhammad did in Mecca, they would be initiating hostilities by insulting the non-Muslim cultures, threatening doom to them on earth and in the hereafter, and mixing this kind of invective with occasional positive-seeming statements. For all that, though, there are no positive statements about the disbelievers anywhere in the Quran. Non-Muslims are only mentioned positively in a small number of instances (in the Medinan phase) when they show inclination toward if not conversion to Islam. In other words, they are not praised as non-Muslims who remain non-Muslims; they must accept Muhammad and his views.
"1) there is a superficial difference, with the Mecca verses appearing more benign"
Well, that's just it: I don't think this claim is true. In the Medinan phase, Muhammad lays down more rules and regulations, but this reflects the increasing demands and complexity of his new circumstances. There is nothing essentially more "peaceful" about either phase in terms of doctrine.
"2) many Muslims, apparently, believe in that Meccan peacefulness -- either through wishful thinking, or relative laziness/ignorance to learn more deeply past the superficial layer, or clever clerics who have fudged the truth for them, or a combination of any or all of the above. (Of course, many of these Muslims could be pretending in their taqiyya to believe in the Meccan peaceful Islam: the problem, again, is we can't know for sure which Muslims are sincerely ignorant, which are cleverly pretending.)"
I think Muslims believe the doctrine itself was essentially peaceful in both phases in the sense of not engaging or initiating unnecessary conflict.
But I'm just interested in being descriptively accurate about the contents. It's sufficient to point out that those apologists are cherry-picking a few seemingly "good" verses (from either phase) and are failing to take responsibility for the rest. We need to refute, not legitimize by reusing, the myth of the peaceful Meccan period.
[quote]
"Decentralized Diversity / A Unifying Sociopolitical Coherence.
I think Islam is unique sociologically in this regard -- it manages to be simultaneously a "wonderful tapestry" with no center and thus can claim, and visibly exhibits, plausible deniability for being the vehicle for various pathologies and violence we see; and yet, there seems to be an almost super-organism coherence to it, almost as though Muslim rioters in Paris are part of the same organic Body as Muslim demonstrator in the Sudan, or Muslims in Indonesia, etc. Much of social dynamics in Islam is not known to us. I think Islamic culture has an ability to execute actions in a trans-national way, without using typical methods which we in the West think must be the only way to control and direct people in a large population."
[end quote]
I'm not sure it's unique in that respect, but I agree with that as an example of dualism that Muslims use. I also think Muslim apologists exploit this by using a double standard: When Islam is criticized, apologists reflexively claim that Islam is not a monolith, is complex, one can't generalize about it, and so on, but when there is something good said about Islam, it applies to all of Islam.
"almost as though Muslim rioters in Paris are part of the same organic Body as Muslim demonstrator in the Sudan, or Muslims in Indonesia, etc."
No need to even say "as though." They are tuned in through satellite TV, extended family connections, and cross-national Islamic organizations...cartoons in Denmark translates into riots just about everywhere else.
nobody,
I agree about the causes of Islamic diversity, but I think there's more than merely the legal structure to explain the underlying unity of the Body Islamic. I'm not sure what it all entails, but whatever it is, it seems unique.
kab,
Re: the Mecca/Medina thing, do you remember that Jihad Watch commenter, an ex-Muslim named Miskha? I recall her from going back over the archives from two years ago that nobody linked. She specifically disagree with you on this, as I recall: she specifically said that she grew up believing in the Mecca peacefulness, which she based, in part, on those Mecca verses. Assuming she was not doing taqiyya, I think she represents quite a lot of Muslims out there who cling to that myth. Insofar as myths like that are believed by a sufficient number, they create traction, irrespective of their lack of actual grounding. At the time, you presented sufficient evidence and argumentation to blow her myth out of the water, but she stubbornly persisted. Such is the power of myth -- like the PC MC paradigm.
"I think Muslims believe the doctrine itself was essentially peaceful in both phases in the sense of not engaging or initiating unnecessary conflict."
You're probably right: when a person is convinced of the righteousness of one's cause and the wrongness of those who resist you, then everything becomes framed as self-defense; and virtually all offensive action, no matter how much it violates, is therefore seen to be justified.
"almost as though Muslim rioters in Paris are part of the same organic Body as Muslim demonstrator in the Sudan, or Muslims in Indonesia, etc."
"No need to even say "as though." They are tuned in through satellite TV, extended family connections, and cross-national Islamic organizations...cartoons in Denmark translates into riots just about everywhere else."
I think this quality was always there, long before modern communications. It is simply intensified now.
Hesp,
"I think she [Mishka] represents quite a lot of Muslims out there who cling to that myth."
Probably true. All the more reason to present contrary evidence every time the myth is raised. That's something I've tried to do whenever the so-called good verses are trotted out. On closer inspection, they're not so good, and sometimes contain a nasty surprise.
I went back and looked at the thread in question. It was unfortunate but at the same time kind of funny seeing Mishka in there responding to the hardened, cynical-seeming jihadwatchers. Some jihadwatchers were nice to her, but others didn't have much patience for anything looking like Islamic apologetics. Mishka took it personally, and claimed she wasn't coming back.
Happy Birthday, Hon
Post a Comment