Exposing Robert Spencer Part II

One would imagine that if someone was claiming to be an expert on Islam they would know Arabic, have many primary source materials at their disposal, would have an immense knowledge of secondary literature on their area of expertise at the very least. Robert Spencer, advocate of dhimmis everywhere, likes to blog about the Qur'an. Mind you, he doesn't understand Arabic and he relies on other people's translations of Qur'anic commentary because he can't access the thousands of commentaries out there because he... yea... doesn't know Arabic. One would also figure that if he was such a great scholar on Islam then Spencer would not have to rely on web translations of Qur'an commentaries, but he would simply flip open his primary sources at home - because he would own a copy of the Jalalalayn, the tafsir of Qurtubi, or at the very least, the Saudi tampered tafsir of ibn Kathir. Alas, he doesn't have any of that so he can only blog on the Surahs that Bewley has offered commentaries for.

Pathetic, to say the least.

So here comes Aisha Bewley, the wonderful Maliki ustadha, who provides Spencer with the ability to discern the proclivities of the medieval Muslim jurist's mind, for if she had not provided the commentaries of some of the great Muslim jurists then poor pathetic Spencer would have nothing to blog about.

In his blog entry on Surah al-Tawba, verse 29 (http://hotair.com/archives/2007/12/02/blogging-the-qur%e2%80%99an-sura-9-%e2%80%9crepentance%e2%80%9d-verse-29/), Spencer focuses his attention on a couple of issues: dhimmis and the jizya.

His blogs are often rather boring because he doesn't elucidate beyond what some of the scholars have said regarding the verses he is writing about. Really, in essence this particular blog is about scaring Jews and Christians and "show them" what would happen to them if they were put under "Shariah" law. If the terrorists win, as right wing pundits so commonly put it, then you can expect to pay a poll tax and be stuck under the evil of a revived Islamic empire. So scary.

Anyway, besides the veiled threats by Spencer about the implications of this verse for Christians and Jews, the issue with this verse is stated quite eloquently by Dr. Sherman Jackson in his paper on "Jihad in the Modern World." Jackson speaks about Syed Qutb, Muslim radical thinker, but I think his comments easily apply to Spencer's rubbish on 9:29 as well. This commentary by Jackson also shows very clearly the proclivities of Spencer to rely on the methodology of the extremists when interpretating sources:

"As a modern Revivalist, Qutb all but ignores the classical tradition of the madhhabs and relies almost exclusively on the Qur'an. Based on his reading of Qur'an 9:29, he insists that waging jihad against the People of the Book (Jews and Christians) is a permanent, communal obligation upon the Muslims.

Fight those who do not believe in God and the Last Day and do not forbid that which God and His Messenger have forbidden and do not [*23] practice proper religion, among those who were given the Book until they pay the poll-tax and they are subdued.

According the Qutb, the ninth chapter, in which this verse appears, was among the last to be revealed. As such, this verse constitutes the last and final stage of development in the Qur'anic doctrine on Muslim-non-Muslim relations...

Jackson continues: "In this particular case, however, Qutb insists that as an historical fact Jews and Christians have always proved themselves to be hostile to Muslims. As proof, he adduces several verses from the Qur'an, which he takes to constitute scriptural evidence of the inherent beliefs and attitudes of Jews and Christians (rather than as a scriptural description of the attitude of particular Jews or particular Christians at particular places and times). In addition, he relates a series of historical events, from the Crusades to modern colonialism. From this it becomes clear that it is Qutb's belief that Jews and Christians (which one senses he uses as a catch-all for the West) are inherently hostile towards Muslims that informs his reading of 9: 29. This belief, moreover, is so strong and overpowering that it preempts all other possibilities, including those established by the Qur'an itself. For example, at 5: 82, the Qur'an states, "You will find those who are most closely drawn to the Believers in love to be those who say, 'We are [*24] Christians'." Similarly, speaking this time of both Jews and Christians, Qur'an 3: 113-14 states, "They are not all the same. Among the People of the Book are those who stand at night reciting the words of God and prostrating. They believe in God and the Last Day, they command what is good and forbid what is evil and they strive in the path of righteousness. Indeed, they are among the righteous."

"What all of this suggests is that Qutb's understanding of the Qur'anic doctrine on Muslim- non-Muslim relations is as informed by his own reading into the text as it is by his attempt to extract meaning from the text. For the Qur'an clearly establishes a range of possible attitudes and behaviors on the part of Jews and Christians towards Muslims. Moreover, at least as many if not more exegetes, classical and modern, hold chapter five (which speaks of Christian love for Muslims) to be the last-revealed chapter as hold chapter nine to be so. As such, on purely formal grounds, one could just as rightly argue that chapter five reflects the final teaching on Muslim - non-Muslim relations. What brings Qutb to privilege 9: 29 and to construe it in the manner he does seems to be his historical assessment, based in part on his own experience, of the attitude of Jews and Christians towards Muslims. On this assessment, one would have to admit that whether we employ his "dynamic" method or the classical jurisprudence exemplified by al-Qarafi, Qutb is certainly correct in the conclusion he draws. But, it is equally true, on both approaches, that this conclusion could be overturned, assuming a different historical assessment. In other words, assuming that Jews and Christians are no longer active enemies of Muslims, or that there are political mechanisms in place that prevent them from acting on this hostility, even Qutb (or his followers), on his own methodology [not traditional Islam], could be convinced to modify his interpretation of 9: 29. In sum, assuming an overall "state of peace," even Qutb might be forced to concede that there is no obligation to wage jihad against Jews and Christians."

In any case, my point here is that there are other interpretations that allow for peaceful coexistence between Muslims and Christians and Jews under Islam. Again, we have to compare similar eras in order to make a valid comparison. One would be making a faulty comparison if they compared Egypt now compared to France in the 11th century and said Egypt is so much more free and open than it would be under "Christian" law, using 11th century France as an example. This is what Spencer and others essentially do - they make faulty comparisons.

Sure, Christians would hate to be under 13th century Muslim rule in comparison to Western (secular) laws that govern much of the West today. That's a no brainer - when you actually think that through. But were not told to think it through instead Spencer gives us the option between modern U.S. rules and regulations and a 13th century Islamic state. Ultimately it is the ruler's decision if they want to treat Christians and Jews kindly or not, just like it was the decisions of Europeans throughout the Middle Ages to keep their lands as Christian as possible (Muslims couldn't live in Europe without converting or dying, but Spencer doesn't mention that).

I would refer anyone interested in "dhimmitude" and jihad to refer to Shaikh Muhammad Afifi al-Akiti's fatwa on suicidal terrorism and how he explains clearly how it is a flagrant violation of Islamic law in all Four Sunni Schools to kill innocent non-Muslim civilians - that means everyone on 9-11. Only a state authority can declare jihad and since no Muslim state has done so then Muslims are obligated to live in a state of peace with their neighbors.

In reference to dhimmis, one of Spencer's favorite subjects, and I'm sure he has his copy of the Reliance of the Traveler readily at his side, the great scholar, Imam ibn an-Naqib, said that dhimmis should pay the tax... and that's it. No mention of them being "subdued." That's the orthodox Shafi'i view right there.