By Daniel Pipes
Raymond Ibrahim’s recent piece for CBN, “Why ‘Moderate Islam’ is an Oxymoron,” has prompted questions because it contradicts my views and yet (because he is a fellow at the Middle East Forum) it appears on MEForum.org and was sent to the MEF mailing list.
In reply, some comments on the content of his article and the propriety of its appearing with Middle East Forum sponsorship.
On content: Ibrahim and I agree that a moderate Islam does not presently exist but disagree whether it might potentially exist. In the words of an article I published last year, “a reformed Islam can emerge” if Muslims
emulate their fellow monotheists and adapt their religion with regard to slavery and interest, the treatment of women, the right to leave Islam, legal procedure, and much else. When a reformed, modern Islam emerges it will no longer endorse unequal female rights, the dhimmi status, jihad, or suicide terrorism, nor will it require the death penalty for adultery, breaches of family honor, blasphemy, and apostasy.
Ibrahim judges such changes impossible. He points, for example, to the Koran 9:29, where God commands Muslims to “Fight those among the People of the Book [Jews and Christians] . . . until they pay the jizya [tribute] with willing submission and feel themselves subdued.” To this, he responds: “How can one interpret this verse to mean anything other than what it plainly says? Wherein lies the ambiguity, the room for interpretation? . . . surely the commands of Koran 9:29 are completely straightforward?”
Well, yes and no. Religious thinkers are in the business of constantly adapting their faith to current realities and Muslims can do so by deeming Koran 9:29 out of date, abrogate it, or render it metaphorical. Contra Ibrahim, clarity does not exclude shifts in interpretation.
For example, Leviticus 20:13 states that “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death.” Yet, these days, important branches of Judaism and Christianity accept male homosexual activity. If such precise words can be reversed, why not those of Koran 9:29?
Nothing human is fixed; even a scripture believed to be written by God must be interpreted. Islam exists in history and changes over time.
On propriety: Clearly, an organization like the Middle East Forum stands for specific views. But it also must include a range of opinion or become boring and sterile. The challenge is to find a happy medium.
Actually, this is not so difficult: Require agreement on basic goals but debate methods.
In this case, Ibrahim and I agree on the need to stand up for liberal values and combat Islamism; we disagree on how to do so, including the possibility of Islam’s reform. (He believes in moderate Muslims but not in moderate Islam.) Such debate is healthy for we specialists and appeals to readers. Expect to see more of it from the Forum.
I find this article confusing. Traditional (some times called Orthodox) still believe that violating the Sabbath and committing sodomy are worthy of a death penalty. This has not changed at all. What has changed is rather the surrounding society. To the extent it is not inconsistent with their own religion, traditional Jews have accepted the Talmudic principle ‘The Law of the Land is the Law’ in the 3rd century. Thus traditional Jews from Syria who emigrated to the US game up polygamy, even though the practice was still legal in their tradition. Jews, being minority just about everywhere after the year 70 CE developed principles that allowed them to survive. For most of its life, this hs not beeb true of Islam. I suggest this is the real issue – acceptance of civil society. Traditional Jews and Christians, even Ctholics, could and did. Muslims cannot, at least not yet.
Sorry Daniel. Not withstanding your great knowledge of islam, you have not understood the true nature of islam. You have failed to see the wood for the trees. And here you are just clutching at straws.
islam is a doctrine which became successful ONLY because it provided an social/organisational model for the conquest of non-muslims (at its simplest). Everything in it, its very DNA, through its religious, social and personal aspects, is focused on that aim. To change koran 9:29 (or the ways in which that is reflected in the rest of the koran) would be to destroy islam at its core. Not something that muslims would accept.
I cannot see a way of absolutely proving that islam cannot change, but there is little reason for us to believe that it will. In fact 1400 years of islam history are strong indications that it will not. We would be very foolish to believe that, just because something can happen, it will happen, even if something apparently similar did happen under very different circumstances. For example, just because followers of Christianity and Judaism changed their attitudes/behaviour cannot be used to prove that followers of islam will similarly change their attitudes/behaviour. There are very many good reasons in islamic doctrine for believing the opposite.
But at the end of the day, we have to deal with islam and its followers as it is now, not for what it might, just might, become, We have to deal with an islam which holds that all other value/belief systems and their followers are inferior and must be subjugated (putting it mildly) as muslims see fit.
It would be nice to believe that islam can change, but we should not let our emotions to cloud our reason where the very future of humanity is at stake.