Claiming Taqiyya: Xenophobia at Its Worst

Robert Spencer is either a terrible scholar or a terrible person. The reason being is that on his web site (http://www.jihadwatch.org/islam101/) Spencer has a section called "Islam 101" where the author, Gregory M. Davis, claims that he outlines the basics of the Islamic faith. By having this section featured prominently on his web site there can be little doubt that Spencer agrees with and supports Davis' shoddy scholarship. Besides the many errors and outright lies he has placed in this section (yes Robert, I will be more than happy to list all of Davis' errors just like I did about the Pact of Umar argument you made, just send me an email) Davis elaborates on a concept called taqiyya.

Taqiyya is a Shia concept that essentially allows Shias to keep their true beliefs secret while they live among Sunnis. Davis claims that the term also applies to Sunni Muslims who are living in "Dar al-Harb" or as Davis implies, the West, and thus he claims that Muslim organizations who are claiming that Islam is a religion of peace are actually lying. Individual Muslims, Davis asserts, may actually believe that their religion is a religion of peace, but Muslim organizations (he never specifies which ones, but from common right wing commentary he probably intends to imply ISNA, ICNA, CAIR, MAS, et al.) are really jihadi propaganda fronts.

So what is Davis really saying and what is Spencer really endorsing? When Spencer is on television he claims that he is providing a voice for moderate Muslims, giving them an intellectual foundation to stand upon to speak out against the radicals and extremists. He says that moderate and peaceful Muslims need to speak out against the elements within their religious doctrine that jihadis use to justify violence and "reform" those elements.

But based upon Davis' definition of taqiyya how could a person ever know who a sincerely peaceful Muslim is? How would we know such a person isn't deceiving us into thinking that they are a peaceful Muslim when in reality they are just hiding their true jihadi beliefs?

Hugh Fitzgerald, the other ideologue at Jihad Watch, attempts to summarize what taqiyya means. He argues that Sunnis also practice taqiyya (his source is a work by Mervyn Hiskett, a British scholar of Islam - he does not cite a single Islamic source stating that Sunni Muslims must deceive non-Muslims [but why would Muslim scholars actually say this? It's a secret, right Hugh?] although he could find texts from Shia scholars allowing for such a thing in Sunni dominated states). He points out some evidence to support his claims:

1. He says that Muslims will cite verses like 2:256 that say "There is no compulsion in religion," without making mention that this verse was abrogated. But was it really? If we turn to the Tafsir of Imam al-Qurtabi, the great Malikite scholar of Andalusia, he says one of the interpretations of this verse is that it was not abrogated and he cites among others, Hasan al-Basri, one of the greatest scholars of the Salaf, as holding the opinion that the verse was not abrogated by Surah al-Tawba. In fact, the verse serves as evidence, in al-Basri's opinion, that the meaning of the verse is intended for People of the Book, Jews and Christians, who live in the Islamic state. Qurtabi cites a hadith of Umar where he confronts an old Christian woman and asks her to become Muslim, but she turns down his offer. Umar proceeds to recite the relevant verse and asks God to be his witness to the affair.

What Spencer, Davis, and Fitzgerald do not understand is that there is no one interpretation of the verses of the Qur'an that is above all the others. You can find an opinion to support your assertions if you look around (like the jihadis do). There are plenty of Muslim scholars who say that 2:256 was abrogated, but there are just as many who say that it was not - and Hasan al-Basri is not just a someone, he was arguably the most pious and knowledgeable Tabi'i, being the student of Ali, may God ennoble his face.

2. Fitzgerald says that when Muslims say jihad is really a spiritual struggle they are not telling the truth. He asserts that the hadith that states that the struggle against the ego is the greater jihad has weak chains of transmission and he also states that this interpretation is a "recent one in Islam." He is wrong on both counts (honestly, this is like talking to a Salafi).

First, how could the interpretation of jihad being a spiritual struggle be a "recent one" when the hadith is mentioned in so many ancient Islamic texts that it couldn't possibly be limited to the last hundred years? The fact is, it is not a "recent" interpretation. The Muhaddithun, as Fitzgerald is wont to cite, and which ones he does not mention, have mentioned this hadith in many works, including by notable hadith shcolars like: al-Bayhaqi, al-Khatib, and ibn Hajr al-Asqalani. These scholars have criticized the chain of narrators, but none of them have said the hadith was forged, only that the chain was weak, which Fitzgerald is correct in noting.

But what does Fitzgerald know about hadith? Obviously nothing because if he knew anything then he would know that just because a hadith has a weak chain that it's meaning can still be sound. In the case of this hadith, many of the scholars of Islam, all before a hundred years ago, confirm the authenticity of the statement concerning the greater jihad being that of the struggle against the ego. In fact, some of the scholars say that the jihad against the ego is a precondition before a military jihad can be waged. Even ibn Taymiyya is of such an opinion, where he is reported to have said by his student, ibn al-Qayyam: "The jihad of nafs (ego) and hawa (desires) is the foundation of jihad of the disbelievers and hypocrites; one cannot do jihad of them before he first does jihad of his nafs and hawa, then he goes out and fights them."

Ibn Taymiyya died in 1328 CE. Hopefully that's old enough.

In any case, and refutation of shoddy scholarship not withstanding, Davis' concept of taqiyya puts Muslims living in the West in an extremely dangerous position. The reason being is that if enough Westerners were to believe Davis' argument about taqiyya then many Westerners could become extremely worried about their Muslim neighbors even if their Muslim neighbors speak out vociferously against terrorism in the name of their religion. Every Muslim organization looks suspect, even Jihad Watch's buddies, Muslims Against Shariah. How do we know they are really telling the truth? The danger of saying that Muslims hide their true beliefs is that it portrays Muslims, all Muslims, no matter their track record, as suspect. No Muslim can be trusted because no matter what issues from their mouth they could be deceiving the Western public.

This is flat out racism and deception and serves no other purpose than to marginalize those Muslims who do speak out and to cast doubt upon the positive efforts Western Muslims are undertaking. It's xenophobia, it's racist, it's disgusting.

Robert Spencer, Hugh Fitzgerald - you guys are bigots. Your "scholarship" is pathetic. It's always great to hear Spencer sitting back in a chair during an interview claiming that no Muslim can really argue with him regarding his accusations because he's studied traditional Islamic sources and he knows the real truth. The fact is, Spencer uses the same pathetic methodology employed by jihadis to justify their murder and mayhem. They both claim that what they present is the true Islam. Spencer does nothing to help "moderate" Muslims. He paints Islam as a religion of destruction and then tells Muslims to go fix it, but then he says that traditional Islam justifies terrorism, rape, wife beating, etc. So what is a Muslim to fix?

Spencer, the problem with you is that you want it both ways. You want Muslims to open up a dialog with the West and reform their religion, but then you want to show that the Islam the jihadis associate with is the real Islam, the Islam that has always been practiced and enforced throughout Islamic history.

As I have shown above, Surah al-Tawba is not the defining verse dictating relations between Muslims and non-Muslims. Muslim scholars for all of Islamic history have noted that the jihad against the ego always comes before the jihad against Islam's enemies, this being based upon the teachings of the Prophet himself, peace and prayers be upon him.

The idea that Iran, Saudi Arabia, a-Qaeda are practicing things incorrectly is never even considered a possibility by Spencer. He just goes along with them, attempting to demonstrate how they're right, how their Islam is the right one.

You're no friend of Muslims, Spencer. You're a jihadi yourself.