In addition to the above general observations, and before we even
begin to look at the actual text of Warraq's book we can identify two
major problems from simply perusing the preface and the
bibliography.
1. There are a number of reasons why people may write overtly
anti-Muslim books and this needs to be identified. We always need to
ask: "What is the author's agenda?" Some may write out of a genuine
ignorance of Islam, others write in order to promote a theology other
than Islam, such as Christianity, still others may be writing in a
valid scholarly-critical manner for an academic audience. However,
there are some who may write anti-Muslim polemic because they have
been mistreated in the name of Islam and are, in actuality,
expressing their anger and hurt over this abuse. Often, people who
were abused as children in the name of religion will grow up to be
rabidly anti-religious. This seems to be the case with Ibn Warraq who
writes that he was born Muslim, but who now considers himself a
secular humanist "who believes that all religions are sick
men's dreams, false-- demonstrably false-- and pernicious." [emphasis
mine] His acknowledgments extol triumph over "religious fascism".
Such a thing does exist, and does nothing but damage the souls of men
and women.
His religious education as a child consisted of rote memorization
of the Arabic Qur'an without comprehension and even before he could
read or write his native language. He writes that religious dogma
"had been foisted on me." Clearly, none of this indicates an early
religious education-- or really even any experience associated with
religion-- that was pleasant and meaningful for him. (Though he
doesn't say so, one could reasonably suspect that this "education"
might well have been accompanied by liberal doses of harsh words,
yelling, or maybe even hitting.) We know this type of early negative
experience can have a profound and lasting psychological and
emotional effect upon the person's adult attitudes, as it seems to
have done to Ibn Warraq. The ummah as a whole may have contributed to
the making of an Ibn Warraq by our own poor skills at religious
education, by our own poor practice of Islam, and by our own
theological backwardness and lack of sophistication.
2. There is a saying that "no one is so convinced as a convert."
As a revert to Islam from Catholic Christianity I can attest to this.
I find it mind-boggling that someone who has actually read about and
understood what Islam is could reject it, much less be hostile
towards it. To me Islam is entrancingly beautiful, gentle,
integrated, consonant and holistic. It is beautiful like a work of
art. Islam is scenic, and yet dynamic. It is both like an object that
can be gazed upon, and a promise of what one can become. Islam
strikes me as what people want, though they may not themselves know
that.
So, to me, for a person such as Warraq who was born Muslim, and
who was, in spite of abuses, presumably educated in Islam, to then
become hostile to Islam and even all religion puzzles me. Would not
the person be able, as an adult, to distinguish between abuse done in
the name of Islam with what the Qur'an truly teaches and the sunnahof Muhammad (saws) actually illustrates? But when we actually check
Ibn Warraq's references we find that he does not appear to have been
educated in Islam at all. For all intents and purposes he refers only
to what have been called "Orientalists"-- a label made famous by
Edward Said's book "Orientalism".
Said's book is by now a modern classic. It details the
self-centered-- perhaps even racist--influence and perceptions
evident in many standard Euro-American writers on Islam and Arab
culture-- writers who are accepted and cited uncritically by Warraq
even though he is writing after publication of Said's important work.
(Said is not a Muslim.)
As Ibn Warraq goes about his rather vicious attack on Islam he
does not attack actual Muslim writers, scholars or thinkers, but
utilizes only a certain type of non-Muslim writing about Islam.
Indeed, it appears that Ibn Warraq never did learn to truly read the
Arabic Qur'an as it appears he has had to rely upon translations of
the Qur'an. In addition, with all the various Qur'anic commentaries
written over a millennium and a half, he relies on the only one that
is generally and easily available to English speakers: Yusuf Ali's.
This is kind of strange. He does not substantively refer to one
Muslim biography of Muhammad, nor to any of our literature on seerah.
Names of classic Muslim writers-- Ghazzali, Hanbali, Malik, Bukhari,
Muslim, Rumi, Tabari, etc.-- do not appear, or if they do it is
without substantial analysis or a balanced presentation of the views
of these prolific writers. Nor does Warraq refer to any contemporary
Muslim writers such as Keller, Qaradawi, Rahman, Faruqi, Asad, Akbar,
etc. Nor does he refer to balanced non-Muslim writing such as that by
Karen Armstrong. How can such a work be taken seriously? It can't.
But it does look impressive.
This brings up a number of thoughts even before we have really
looked at the actual body of the text: Warraq is not going to be
talking about Islam as it is practiced and debated about by real
Muslims, nor even as it was taught to him, but only as it appears to
some non-Muslims, many of whom have been roundly criticized by Edward
Said and typed into an entire style of scholarship called
"Orientalism". That is, Warraq is presenting how Islam might look to
some who are outside of Islam and who, according to Said (of course,
as well as many others, but Said gave it a name), appear to be
bigoted, prejudiced, and perhaps even racist.
Essentially, Warraq's book isn't about Islam at all, nor about his
experience being educated and raised as a Muslim. He states that he
grew up in an Islamic country. Why then, are all of his references
from the Euro-American non-Muslim traditions? I find this very odd.
Presumably, he would have access to classical Muslim writing from his
own (unidentified) culture. There is a surprising lack of personal
anecdote in a book that at first glance seems so personal. We hear no
stories about growing up Muslim. Is Ibn Warraq who he portrays
himself to be? Another, similar book by an ex-Muslim also has strange
peculiarities ("Answering Islam" by Abdul Saleeb and Norman Giesler)
that cause me to wonder about the truthfulness of the author's
biography.
Warraq's selective references must raise suspicions in our minds.
Surely, it shows that he is not going to engage in a critical,
responsible, balanced debate with Islamic teachings. And he doesn't.
Indeed, he himself implies that his work cannot be considered serious
scholarship. Discussing a biography of Muhammad by Count Henre de
Boulainvilliers he writes that de Boulainvilliers had "no knowledge
of Arabic and had to rely on secondary sources; thus his work is by
no means a work of serious scholarship." (p. 19) By that standard,
neither is Ibn Warraq's.
He writes: "This book is first and foremost an assertion of my
right to criticize everything and anything in Islam-- even to
blaspheme." So, this is not a book of critical thought, it is the
yelp of a hurt child, an angry adolescent, a bitter and resentful
adult.
I must acknowledge, Warraq's book is tough. Frankly, few Muslims
would be able to respond to the material he presents. It is true that
mainstream Muslim theology has failed to keep up with the times. The
"closing the doors to ijtihad" was, in my opinion, a disastrous error
and has left most of us-- even our traditionally educated
scholars-- unprepared to respond to contemporary questions about
Islam and unable to engage in effective da'wah with contemporary
people. If Warraq did come from a traditional background where
religious education consisted of the rote memorization of the Qur'an
he indeed would be completely overwhelmed when first encountering
non-Muslim methods of academic historical and textual critique and
analysis. It simply isn't a part of most Muslims' experience or
education. It is no wonder he was persuaded by the Orientalist
literature.
However, what this means is that the average Muslim who reads this
book may well come away from the experience shaken and unsettled.
Now, to be sure, much of what Ibn Warraq says about Islam is easy to
dismiss. His use of adjectives, such as "superstitious" when
discussing the Hajj are rather easy-to-spot rhetorical devices. Many
of his themes, too, will be familiar to any Muslim who has
encountered Christian evangelicals. Some of these were discussed in
Part I of this paper. For instance, in spite of the fact that the
Qur'an describes itself as a confirmation and summing up of what has
come before, Warraq, like evangelical Christians, will smugly write
that "Muhammad brought nothing new" as if this is some kind of proof
of Islam's being inauthentic.
WARRAQ FAILS TO DEFINE SIGNIFICANT CONCEPTS AND TERMS
Warraq not only uses adjectives that are as subtle as a club, he
also fails to define important terms. For instance, as said, he
describes Muslim rituals such as the Hajj as "superstitious", but he
fails to enter into a discussion on the difference between a
superstitious action and a ritual action. For anyone seeking to
understand religious behavior and religious language such
distinctions are of utmost importance and there is plenty of
literature on the subject. It is especially important in light of the
fact that standard Islamic teachings warn against anything that would
hint of superstitious behavior. Ritual behavior is not the same as
superstitious behavior though they may look the same to the outsider.
Warraq doesn't even recognize that there is an issue here. He thus
displays an elementary and incomplete education in general religious
studies. Obviously, he does not present traditional Muslim views on
superstitious behavior.
He labels behaviors without defining what he means by the label
and so displays a partial and incomplete education on the issues he
is trying to discuss. By choosing adjectives with negative
connotations he is thus able bash Islam, albeit in an intellectually
vapid and heavy-handed manner that lacks any style or finesse.
Another example of this failure to define important terms is
Warraq's use of the word "myth" without defining or discussing the
concept as it is used in general religious studies. For instance, he
says that it is a myth that Muhammad was wise and tolerant, but
without evidence as to why this is a myth and not history. He shows
absolutely no awareness over the fact that myths are not "false".
They easily, and often do, accurately reflect and contain within
their structure and content authentic history. This is a very
important issue in general religious studies. Another is his failure
to articulate the difference between the use of the word "philosophy"
in Euro-American traditions, and as it is used in Muslim traditions.
(Since my background is in philosophy this really sticks in my craw.)
In classic Muslim writing "philosophers" are people engaged in
inordinate speculation about things that cannot be known-- the
"unseen". In the West, philosophy refers, in essence, to the skill of
critical, abstract thinking.
It is obvious to me that Warraq simply hasn't engaged in any
serious religious studies or studies of religious language and
behavior, much less related issues in philosophy such as ontology or
epistemology. Or rather, his education has been partial and biased.
This is often the case with both religious and irreligious
extremists. He simply does not know what he his talking about. As the
saying goes: a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
WARRAQ IS NOT IMMERSED IN WESTERN INTELLECTUAL HISTORY
Warraq is not as familiar or conversant in Euro-American
intellectual history as he portrays himself to be. This is
devastating for him because he is relying on a subsection of that
thought (i.e. the "Orientalist") to attack Islam, and all religions
in general, but has no perspective on how that subsection fits in
with Western intellectual traditions as a whole. He makes numerous
errors.
For instance, he writes on p. 16 "On the whole, Western society in
general and the media in particular are totally uncritical of
religion." This is laughably absurd and just plain false. When one
encounters such blanket statements-- especially ones that are so
obviously false -- an alarm should sound in your head: "this guy has
extremist tendencies".
The United States was founded partly on a critique of religious
power, and Euro-American history is strongly influenced by the
Protestant (uh, "protest") Reformation and religious traditions. It
is Euro-American culture that gave us Marx, Freud, Neitzsche-- all
powerhouses of scathing religious critique.
He states that the eighteenth century "readily adopted the myth of
Muhammad as a wise and tolerant ruler and lawgiver." This would be
news to anyone and Warraq doesn't provide proof for such a blanket
statement, nor is he clear on exactly who readily adopted this
myth.
While there were some sympathetic Western treatments of Islam
before the twentieth century there was by no means a wide-spread
assumption regarding Muhammad as Warraq states. There still isn't.
Indeed, Warraq seems to contradict his own historical understanding
by writing on page 22 that Carlyle's 1841 account of Muhammad "is
often considered the first truly sympathetic portrait... by a Western
intellectual." Presumably Warraq knows his centuries. How could this
nineteenth century work be the first sympathetic portrait in
the West when sympathetic "myths" were "readily adopted" in the
eighteenth century? Warraq does not explain, but these types
of sloppy errors must always cause the reader to pause and assess the
author's competence in the subject matter.
Warraq manhandles Western intellectual history by citing obscure
writers and overly simplifying the complexity of Western thought on
issues such as "the noble savage" and "moral relativity". In
addition, he attributes motivations to whole groups of Western
intellectuals without the slightest evidence. For instance, he states
that Christian writers of the last two centuries did not criticize
Islam because "Christianity and Islam stood or fell together. They
knew that if they started criticizing the dogmas.... of Islam, their
own fantastic structure would start to crumble." (p. 24) An
astounding statement, to be sure!
Another example of this just plain sloppy thinking and writing is
on p. 116. Warraq states he wants to argue that "Monotheism is not
necessarily philosophically or metaphysically superior to polytheism,
given that no proof for the existence of one and only one God is
valid." Now, the first part of this sentence may indeed be true, but
notice his tricky use of the word "necessarily". Of course it isn't
necessarily the case-- at least not that can be proven, but
that has nothing to do with the quality of any arguments on behalf of
the superiority of monotheism (though Warraq attempts no substantive
philosophical or metaphysical discussion of the issue). That it
follows from the second statement is simply false and nicely displays
Warraq's illogic.
Though there is no scientific proof of God's existence, neither is
there proof that God does not exist, nor are their proofs that any
type of deity exists or does not exist. It simply isn't even a
scientific issue subject to a laboratory type of testing. It is an
issue of faith, and transcendence, and meaning in human life. Warraq
shows no awareness at all of such issues, which he would need to
discuss to truly undermine religion in and of itself, much less
undermine Islam.
Another similar example of this sloppy illogic and partial
education is when he discusses modern studies of Jesus (may our
Lord's peace and blessing be on him). This one made me chuckle it was
so off-base:
Many European and American scholars of the last 150 years or so
have centered their attention on the topic of the "historical Jesus".
The topic has recently been on the covers of popular US weekly news
magazines. Of course, there are those who posit that Jesus never
truly existed, though they may still respect the teachings of this
(for them) fictional character. Serious scholars who doubt that a
real person actually lived and taught are, to be sure, in a minority
and to my understanding it is not actually considered a serious
possibility. But Warraq, feeding his general anti-religion extremism,
makes a mountain out of this molehill of speculative literature. In
his zeal to grasp anything that might make all religions look bad he
does nothing but clearly display his general ignorance of themes and
trends in contemporary Christian theology.
Many standard Christian theologians make a distinction between
"Jesus" as a regular man and "The Christ"-- Jesus as an avenue of
God's revelation to humanity. Warraq gets really confused on this. He
picked out the phrase "Christ-Myth" from a book thinking that the
phrase questions the historicity of Jesus. It does not. He then
quotes someone discussing the issue: "Scholarly opinion still
holds... to the postulate of an historical figure whose life story
was very soon displaced by... mythmaking activity." Read it
carefully. Warraq didn't. (I have to laugh at this. pp. 147-148) He
doesn't grasp that the type of "mythmaking" being discussed here
doesn't imply the complete cover-up or destruction of historical
reality. The "mythmaking" discussed in this type of writing refers to
stories that can contain within them some true history, or even true
statements about reality. This is a sure tip-off to someone who has
an incomplete education in general religious studies as well as
Christian theology.
On p. 119: "One of the great achievements of Muhammad, we are
told, was ridding Arabia of polytheism. But this, I have tried to
argue, is monotheistic arrogance. There are no compelling arguments
in favor of monotheism, as opposed to polytheism."
Read that quote carefully again. Does the last sentence connect
with the first in a meaningful way? No. To rid a land of polytheism
is in no way necessarily related to whether or not monotheism is
indeed philosophically superior to polytheism. Indeed, from the first
sentence one would expect Warraq to argue that Muhammad did
not rid the land of polytheism.
Warraq is quite confused in his thinking and in his argumentation.
What he has done here is something like this: "Americans, we are
told, got rid of all blue automobiles. But this is automotive
arrogance. There are no compelling arguments in favor of non-blue
cars."
Either they got rid of the cars or not, the arguments for that are
another issue.
Warraq resorts to simplistic explanations of motivations and
dynamics in order to explain extremely complex social changes. And so
fails to, at times, make the slightest sense.
He attacks like this because so many Muslims will argue that
monotheism is "superior" to polytheism-- but this is not a
philosophical argument used in the Qur'an, it is an item of
revelation and so is accepted primarily on faith and only
secondarily on reason. There is a big difference between the two! Our
own lack of theological sophistication on such topics provides fuel
for his anti-Muslim polemic.
He continues by recounting how some have noticed that when people
move from polytheism to monotheism their old gods and goddesses may
not actually disappear, but become a pantheon of angelic or demonic
beings. (This can be clearly seen in some areas where Christianity
merged with local custom, such as in parts of South America and
Mexico, or in the religion of Santeria.) However, that this has
happened in Islam is certainly not clear to me. Indeed, I've seen
little if any evidence for such a thing.
For Warraq, the fact that the Qur'an declares the existence of
angels and jinn does mean that Islam followed this same route. He
quotes in support of his view the non-Muslim Edward Lane on the "five
orders" of spiritual beings and other non-Qur'anic speculations about
the jinn. In essence, what Warraq does is first cite a
conclusion: pre-Islamic polytheism simply became Muslim belief in
jinns and angels, and then tries to provide evidence to
support his conclusion from secondary non-Muslim sources who are
obviously reporting Islamic folklore, rather than the actual
teachings of Islam from the Qur'an and sunnah.
(This is a good time to remind ourselves of one of Warraq's
admitted agendas: to express his right to say anything at all about
Islam he so desires. The truth about Islam has little to do with his
true motivations for writing this book.)
In sections like this Warraq is not arguing against the
foundations of Islam: the Qur'an and sunnah, but what some Muslims
have said and thought about the Qur'an and sunnah. This is a
move similar to arguing against the whole of Christianity based upon
what only certain Christians-- such as those writing during the
Inquisition-- teach about Christianity. We cannot ignore the variety
within a religious tradition if we want to argue against that
religious tradition as a whole. But this is precisely what happens in
just about any anti-Muslim writing I've encountered, Warraq is no
exception. For him to present a list of every atrocity done in the
name of Islam throughout history says nothing at all about Islam
itself, only about some Muslims.
There are many more examples like those described above in
Warraq's writing. Suffice it to say that though he writes with an air
of authority and uses many citations he simply doesn't know his head
from a hole in the ground when it comes to the history of Western
philosophical and intellectual thought about religion. I find it
highly ironic that he relies on Western writers, but then fails to
truly grasp the intellectual milieu out of which they arise, and to
which they are responding. In addition, he takes the folklore of some
Muslims, and the speculations of some Muslims, and the poor practice
of some Muslims, and seeks to present such things as the foundational
teachings of Islam (which are the Qur'an and sunnah-- all else is
commentary) and so fashion a destructive critique of Islam. The only
thing he destroys is the reader's respect for his intellectual
abilities, which appear deeply flawed.
WARRAQ FAILS TO EVEN APPEAR BALANCED OR OBJECTIVE
You will not find in Warraq one substantial word regarding the
persecution of the Muslims in Mecca: the economic boycott, the
assassination attempts, the physical and verbal abuse. You will not
read a substantial account of how Muslims were forced to emigrate to
Abyssinia, and forced to leave their homes in Mecca for Yathrib
(Mecca) due to the abuse they received only because they taught and
practiced tawheedian monotheism. You will not find a substantial
treatment of the Muslim views regarding treaties with other tribes
while in Medina, nor the accounts of how those treaties were broken.
You'll not hear about the Qur'aysh's murderous, genocidal hatred of
the Muslims, nor how the new religion of Islam threatened their
privileged and moneyed status. You will however read (p. 92)
"[Muhammad] was no more than the head of a robber community,
unwilling to earn an honest living" because he raided Meccan
caravans. There is no hint from Warraq that Muslims were in a
defensive position born of weakness. They were people who had been
forced from their homes, not an aggressors with superior strength and
positions of power!
Warraq doesn't even give the appearance of an objective critique
of Muslim history and teachings. He doesn't even give much indication
that he is at all familiar with Muslim accounts of history. He gives
no account of why they are not accurate. He only cites from the most
rabid anti-Muslim "Orientialist" polemic without ever explaining why
it should even be accepted in the first place (remember, he is
writing after Said's "Orientialism"). Muslim accounts are not only
not accepted, they are barely mentioned.
Warraq is a historical revisionist, not unlike those who seek to
revise the history of the Nazis in order to make them look less
heinous. Warraq reverses this: he revises history to make Muhammad
(saws) and the Muslims look like the most heinous of Nazis. He even
describes Muhammad as a fascist.
WARRAQ'S PARANOIA AND SUSPICION OF SCHOLARS
To my mind, the section that really illustrates Warraq's flaws,
failures, ignorance, and frankly, paranoid suspicion, is in a
discussion of a book by Ann Elizabeth Mayer entitled "Islam and Human
Rights" (pp. 187-191). It is in this section that the negative
effects of Warraq's pathological hatred of Muslims on his
intellectual skills and use of reason are so clearly displayed in all
their tattered glory. It is actually kind of sad.
First, let's review a bit. 1) Warraq's purpose in writing this
book is "first and foremost an assertion of my right to criticize
everything and anything in Islam-- even to blaspheme." 2) In order to
fulfill this agenda and express his hostility he will present only
those quotes, citations and views of history that fulfill this
agenda. Though the text looks like a serious work, it is not. 3)
Because of this imbalance he fails to recognize the importance of
certain terms and concepts in general religious studies and thus
displays a level of education that is inadequate to the task he sets
for himself, that is, if that task had anything to do with saying
true things about Islam. 4) Also because of this lack of
scholarly objectivity there are laughable errors in his understanding
of Euro-American intellectual history, as well as in his
understanding of Christian theology.
Mayer's book is about abuse, injustice, and oppression in "Muslim"
countries. What Warraq can't stand is that Mayer properly makes the
distinction between what Muslims may do in the name of Islam and what
Islam's foundational beliefs, principles, ideals and teachings really
are. He writes:
Like practically every single book and article published since February 1989, [note: he is indeed aware of this literature, he just chose to ignore it all] especially for the nonspecialist reader, Ms. Mayer's book is at pains to point out (1) that "Islam" is not monolithic, that there is no such thing as the Islamic tradition, or just "one correct Islam," or one correct interpretation; (2) that, in the Islamic human rights schemes examined... it is not Islam that is at fault, it is, at most, one particular interpretation of it ... (3) that there is no such thing as the sharia, i.e., Islamic law did not freeze at some arbitrary point in the past; and (4) that, deep down, Islam may not be hostile to rights and democracy, after all. (p. 189)
Well, I say as a Muslim, as someone with at least some formal
education in the areas of philosophy, psychology and religious
studies, this is true. Well, except perhaps for the fact that we
did "freeze" our growth and development as represented by the
phrase "closing the doors to ijtihad".
Mayer writes and studies in the field of law and human rights. Her
book is for specialists, unlike Warraq's implication.
Though he describes Mayer's book as "excellent and very
persuasive" Warraq just can't stand the fact that Mayer recognized
these obvious truths quoted above and so hurls at her what can only
be construed as rank insults to any serious writer or scholar.
When an author such as Mayer qualifies her own work with
statements that give the lie to Warraq's perceptions he can only
impugn the author's intellectual honesty and academic character as
follows:
However, a close reading of Ms. Mayer's book reveals that after all she is only paying lip service, for ecumenical harmony, to the notion that there is no such thing as "Islam" about which we can make valid generalizations. [i.e. generalizations that are inimical to human rights]
Ms. Mayer is only possessed of "pious hopes" regarding the truth
of her distinction between the foundational teachings of Islam and
the injustice often done by people or political systems in the name
of Islam. Her attempts to "exonerate" Islam (as if it is guilty of
something) is "desperate" (p. 190) The evidence of her "desperation"?
Her own preface wherein she writes as quoted by Warraq:
Even without studying the question of how Islam relates to human rights issues, my experience in work on behalf of the cause of human rights would have sufficed to convince me that Islam is not the cause of the human rights problems endemic to the Middle East....
Were I Ann Elizabeth Mayer I might well be outraged at such
statements that impugn my own intellectual integrity in such a
manner. I am also completely suspicious whether Warraq is reading her
properly regarding core Islamic beliefs about which we can
generalize. There are such core beliefs, obviously. They just are not
as Warraq would have us believe, nor as his fevered brain has
imagined them to be. Mayer knows this.
His paranoid suspicion of Mayer is quite telling, as he continues
to make errors of logic and analysis when discussing her "desperate"
attempts to distinguish between foundational Islamic principles and
the atrocious behaviors done by many in the name of Islam.
It would be many weeks before I could obtain a copy of Mayer's
book to check the validity of my suspicions. And so, I called Dr. Ann
Elizabeth Mayer at the Wharton School of the University of
Pennsylvania to solicit comment on this. (Obviously, and from her
online vitae, she is no academic/scholarly slouch!)
We had a very interesting conversation. Though she had not read
Warraq's book others had told her of it. She had nothing kind to say
about Warraq and writers like him. She considers Islam "beautiful" in
its beliefs and is quite clearly distinguishing in her own work
between the "political use of Islam in particular state systems that
are oppressive" and the core values and principles of Islam that
simply do not support the actions of those oppressive systems. People
such as Warraq, she said, are completely intellectually bankrupt.
They only have "an ax to grind". She scathingly described at length
her contempt and disdain for writers and anti-Muslim "hate-mongers"
such as Warraq, and stated she wished such people wouldn't even read
her complex, balanced and scholarly works. She thinks that people
such as Warraq eventually self-destruct, but that will not keep other
hate-mongers from seizing upon his book to perpetuate anti-Muslim
bigotry.
Mayer qualifies her own studies and makes disclaimers about
exactly what she is studying. Any decent, honest, scholarly
academician does this. Warraq clearly displays his perverse selection
of facts to support his hostile agenda. He loves that Mayer documents
human rights abuses in "Muslim" countries, but just cannot accept
that Mayer does not blame core Islamic principles for these
abuses.
It is also in this section that Warraq actually articulates, but
then fails to recognize the significance of central issues pertaining
to healthy or unhealthy Islamic practice. It is quoted above and, in
essence, is the question: "Who's interpretation of the Qur'an is
correct?" Had Warraq stuck with this question and made it the focus
of his book he could have picked and chosen among trends within
Islamic practice and theology that may actually merit and call out
for everyone's hostility and disdain, not just Warraq's.
Well, there is really not all that much I need to add. Warraq
damns himself.
Muslims talk a good talk about "unity", but the ummah is, in fact,
sectarian. Who's vision and understanding of the Qur'an and sunnah is
correct? The Sufi? The Wahabi? The Taliban's? Hamas'? The Khalifite?
The Sunni? The Shia? Who is correct? Conservatives, modernists,
traditionalists, etc. etc.?
Those who give witness that there is no god but God and Muhammad
is the messenger of God need to realize that unity does not mean
uniformity. But we need unity in front of those who are actively
hostile towards us. And that means being honest with ourselves and
with others about our faults and defects. We cannot allow our own
poor practice of Islam to be used in attacks against the Qur'an and
Mohammad's sunnah
It is unfortunate that in this day and age such overtly bigoted,
ignorant, and intellectually dishonest books are still being written
and published. However, in my opinion we need not fear them. Though
such writings may anger us and hurt us, they can also challenge us to
grow in our din. There is often mixed among the intellectual errors a
mirror reflecting ourselves back to our view, and we may not like
what we see, but we must face it with courage and honesty.
I pray that this short and by no means exhaustive paper will
assist you to identify and respond to some of the errors we find in
anti-Muslim writings, but I also pray that it has caused you to
reflect on your own understanding of and practice of Islam.
And Allahu alim.
Jeremiah D. McAuliffe, Jr., Ph.D.
alimhaq@city-net.com
www.city-net.com/~alimhaq/miaha.html
© 1997 May be reproduced for non-profit purposes only, in its
entirety, with proper attribution, and with notification to the
author. Edited versions must be approved in writing by the author.
All other rights reserved.