Robert Spencer’s Jihad
An interesting debate is currently taking place between Ali Eteraz, creator of online Islamic discussion forum Eteraz.org, and Robert Spencer, director of anti-Islam blog JihadWatch. Spencer is a dedicated Islamophobe whose writings are focused on attempting to prove that jihadist violence and rhetoric represent mainstream Islam, not just the views of fringe extremists. To this end, Spencer wrote an op-ed piece in the Emory University student newspaper The Emory Wheel arguing that “jihad as warfare against non-believers in order to institute Sharia worldwide” is a “constant element of mainstream Islamic theology… affirmed by all four principal schools of Sunni Muslim jurisprudence.” For a bigot, Spencer is a pretty smart guy. Unlike many Islamophobes, Spencer is reasonably well-versed in the intellectual history of Islam. Rather than citing directly to Quran and ahadith, which are always subject to interpretation, he quotes the writings of well-respected mainstream scholars such as ibn Taymiyya, ibn Khaldun, al-Qayrawani, and al-Mawardi on offensive jihad and warfare. Superficially, he seems to have made a convincing case that Muslim terrorism is but a manifestation of mainstream Islamic political theory.
In a post on his website responding to the op-ed, Eteraz correctly identifies the fatal flaw in Spencer’s arguments. He points out Spencer’s failure to distinguish between theology and jurisprudence and notes that none of the scholars Spencer quotes lived past 1406. These are more than just inconsequential oversights; unlike philosophers and theologians, jurists are bound by the context in which they live. While the former are concerned with philosophical matters relating to the attributes of God and the nature of human existence, the latter deal with actual legal and political problems. Opinions of jurists, even when framed in the most general of terms, are always informed by the factual realities of the problems they address.
In the case of jihad and warfare, the opinions of the eminent scholars Spencer quotes are limited by the manner in which they conceptualized war and international relations. Prior to the modern era of nation-states, the world was divided into empires that were in a perpetual state of war with each other. Emperors staked the legitimacy of their empires on religion and justified their invasions and conquests by appealing to God (some would argue that very little has changed). Critically, Islam didn’t create this model; it was born into it. Immediately upon its inception, the nascent Muslim state had to contend with the Christian Byzantine Empire and the Zoroastrian Persian Empire, who were themselves locked in a bitter, religiously-charged conflict. The rise and fall of Muslim empires generally followed the path of their non-Muslim counterparts. For every ibn Taymiyya that called for jihad against kafirs, there was an Urban II that called for a crusade against infidels. For every Haroon al-Rashid that sent Muslim armies to subdue a Christian nation, there was a Charlemagne that sought to conquer “pagans” so that they may be “saved”. In short, nothing that the scholars Spencer quotes or their emperor patrons did violated the established order of international relations. And in an era where the world’s population was a fraction of what it is now, bombs and missiles were nonexistent, and most battles occurred in sparsely-populated countrysides, perpetual war between nations was not nearly as bloody or destructive as it would be today.
Admittedly, what Eteraz describes is a recurring problem in both the writings of bigots such as Spencer and the radical Islamists who give him ammunition. Indeed, Spencer’s op-ed might as well have been authored by Ayman al-Zawahiri. And the problem is not confined to jihadi extremists; as Eteraz notes, today’s Islamic jurists have often exhibited a troubling over-reliance on opinions of the distant past in areas such as women’s rights, minority rights, and the issue of apostasy, among others. But the fact that no modern Muslim nation has sought to wage offensive jihad as a means of spreading Islam is an indication that the overwhelming majoriy of Muslims do not view the writings of past scholars on jihad as wholly applicable today. Muslim hostility toward the West usually stems from American and European policies Muslims perceive to be unjust, not the religion Westerners practice. Even jihadi extremists such as Bin Laden and Zawahiri couch much of their rhetoric in defensive terms. But something tells me Spencer is not interested in these realities. Rather, Spencer’s writings coupled with his support for destructive American and Israeli policies leads one to wonder whether he is on a jihad of his own.
March 5th, 2007 at 3:39 pm
There are some people who will not listen to any amount of facts.
Spencer believes that it is the religion of Islam itself that is the issue. As such, nothing will change for him until Islam is no more, or it is watered down to the point where Islam looks nothing like what is in it’s holy text, much like most modern Christianity and Judaism.
As to if he is on a jihad, of course he is. I once read he is a dedicated Christian, and as such, he feels HIS way is right and Islam is wrong. So in the end his “facts” are only serving that goal.
March 6th, 2007 at 7:13 pm
If “Spencer’s op-ed might as well have been authored by Ayman al-Zawahiri” and Spencer is a “bigot” and an “Islamophobe”, then isn’t Ayman al-Zawahiri also a bigot and an Islamaphobe?
It’s mystifying to me why people can’t see that Robert Spencer is simply quoting the jihadists, who in turn are quoting Islamic scriptures and the long-dead scholars. In doing so, Spencer is pointing out that there has been no organized effort within the ulema to refute them on Islamic grounds. While nothing will convince the jihadists, without a countervoice their arguments are finding resonance within the umma.
March 11th, 2007 at 5:17 pm
Spencer is for freedom, justice and other things once linked to the west. Any man could stand for this unless the purpose is to stand for priority of a discriminating practise or idea.
April 3rd, 2007 at 10:51 am
Many people have been quoting the Quran out of context in an effort to show that Islam promotes violence. Robert Spenceris a high profile example.
This is pure nonsense. Spencers and others doing this are taking selected passages and reading them completely out of context to support whatever argument they wish to make. I can do the same thing with the Bible.
Here are some choice passages from the KJV Bible which when read in isolation makes the Bible appear to be a primer for evil:
1) In Leviticus 25:44-46, the Lord tells the Israelites it’s OK to own slaves, provided they are strangers or heathens.
2) In Samuel 15:2-3, the Lord orders Saul to kill all the Amalekite men, women and infants.
3) In Exodus 15:3, the Bible tells us the Lord is a man of war.
4) In Numbers 31, the Lord tells Moses to kill all the Midianites, sparing only the virgins.
5) In Deuteronomy 13:6-16, the Lord instructs Israel to kill anyone who worships a different god or who worships the Lord differently.
6) In Mark 7:9, Jesus is critical of the Jews for not killing their disobedient children as prescribed by Old Testament law.
7) In Luke 19:22-27, Jesus orders killed anyone who refuses to be ruled by him.
Context is important, of course, and many of these seeming cruelties disappear when read as such. However, this would not stop a Christian terrorist from interpreting the Bible in a manner necessary to concoct a religious justification for unspeakable horrors, as Pope Urban II did, for example, when he preached the First Crusade in 1095 or as many American preachers did when they used Leviticus to defend slavery.
Political and religious extremists have abused Islamic, Jewish, or Christian scriptures continuously throughout history. Robert Spencer, a man who claims to be Christian, would do well to learn something of his own faith’s scriptures and history before accusing Islam’s Quran of promoting violence.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:42 pm
Spencer wants to have a good read of his own Christeo-Jewish Bible and his own peoples history of crusades, inquisitions and colonisations before he goes pointing fingers at other communities. It is people like him who breed more hatred in this world and turn moderate Muslims into terrorists.
In addition to the Biblical quotes Sid quoted, there’s many other violent and totally barbarian quotes I’ve read from the Bible, every religion has the potential to be misintrepreted, we all just have to work for peace and try to get on with each other.
I must say criticism of any religion as “violent” coming from a Christian is pretty rich, he wants to have a read of his own scripture and history, when the Christian Crusaders conquered Jerusalem the streets were flowing with blood knee deep from the Muslims, Jews and Orthodox-Christians the Christians killed but when Saladin conquered the Christians he forgave them with gracious forgiveness for as The Lord says in the Glorious Koran says it is better to forgive.
Spencer wants to have a good read of the Old Testament seen as he being a Christian believes it is from God i.e. Jesus (as Jesus according to them Jesus is 1/3 of God).
There’s also the New Testament…
Matthew 10:34
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
Luke 12:51
Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
Luke 22:36
He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.
Revelation 19:11
And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.