Meet Mr. Ibrahim: Islamophobe

I had to laugh at this piece by Muslim columnist Salaam Abdul Khaliq, in which he defames Raymond Ibrahim - author of the excellent "Al-Qaeda Reader", a collection of never-before-translated writings from Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri - as an "Islamophobe". The first half of the piece is simply full of smears and ad hominems, but I thought I'd critique the few genuine objections he actually has to Ibrahim's work and do some refutin' on a Thursday afternoon.

[Radio host Larry] Mantle let Ibrahim run amuck quoting verses from the Quran ad hoc and out of context, saying for instance that the verse "there is no compulsion in religion" was reprobated, meaning canceled out, by verses of war in what is known as "naskh."

Of course, he quoted Qur'anic verses "out of context". Muslims use that one all the time, but they never normally provide any examples. Khaliq tries to here, but fails because he simply fumes over it as if Ibrahim made this all up by himself, and doesn't attempt to correct his faulty understanding of the verse.

To begin with, I highly doubt that Ibrahim said the verse was "reprobated", as Khaliq claims. It's more likely that he said the verse was abrogated - and this is at least partially in line with mainstream Islamic theology. The Qur'an itself introduces the idea of abrogation: “Whatever communications We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring one better than it or like it. Do you not know that Allah has power over all things?” (2:106) The great Muslim scholar and historian Tabari (d.923) defines abrogation as “what God abrogates regarding the precept of a verse which He changes, or for which He substitutes another, so that what is lawful may become unlawful and and what is unlawful may become lawful; what is permitted may become prohibited and what is prohibited may become permitted.”

So was the "no compulsion in religion" verse abrogated? This is not actually the most common view, although the early Muslim commentator Mujahid, as well as some Muslims today, hold to it. But we also have to bear in mind that another Qur'anic verse, 9:5 - also known as the Verse of the Sword - says: “Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.” In other words, fight them until they become Muslims.

So how do we reconcile these seemingly contradictory verses? Here is Tabari again to explain: “Arab society was compelled to enter Islam because they were an unlettered community, having no book which they knew. Thus nothing other than Islam was accepted from them. The People of the Book [Jews and Christians] are not to be compelled to enter Islam if they submit to paying the jizya [poll tax] or kharaj [land tax].” So in other words, it is perfectly OK to compel pagan tribes to convert to Islam; this verse simply forbids Muslims from doing the same to Jews and Christians, who have to be subjugated under Islamic rule instead, paying special, discriminatory taxes.

And let's be clear here: Tabari is not viewed by the majority of Muslims as an "extremist". Mahmoud Ayoub, a Muslim professor of Islamic studies in Canada, says that Tabari's commentary on the Qur'an is “a valuable landmark in the history of this discipline. All those who came after Tabari have relied heavily on his work and acknowledged their debt to him.” So I would expect Khaliq to quickly denounce both Tabari and Ayoub as "Islamophobes", also.

Ibrahim was given free reign to unabashedly spew lethargic tirades with impunity, shamelessly proclaiming that if Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, were alive today, he would do what Bin Laden is doing now.

It's not such a crazy assertion. If Khaliq has not already done so, I suggest he read Ibn Ishaq's eighth-century biography of the "Prophet", and find out what he did to the Banu Qurayza and the Jews of Khaybar.

Ibrahim also implied that American Muslims presented a danger to American society because their faith teaches them to kill their enemies wherever they are and by all means necessary.

Knowing Ibrahim's work, I seriously doubt that he "implied" any such thing. Islamic law does not command that Muslims kill their enemies wherever they are (except in the case of pagans, as noted above); it commands them to either convert or subjugate them as dhimmis under Islamic law. And to say this is NOT to imply, overtly or otherwise, that all Muslims agree with this or want to do this. It is not "Islamophobic" to point out various unsavoury teachings in Islam, as long as we do not prejudge all Muslim individuals based upon them. Islam is an ideology, and ideologies should not be free from criticism, legitimate or not. That so many Muslims seem to believe their faith should be given special protection from all critical scrutiny is very telling.

Anyway, Khaliq goes on to refer even to Muslim apostates such as Wafa Sultan and Nonie Darwish as Islamophobes, and states piously that "[m]any icons of Islamophobia before Ibrahim who sought to make a quick buck by viciously maligning Islam and Muslims sold their souls and ended up as dejects, discarded and washed out has-beens with no credibility and no respect." Sure, Khaliq, you just keep dreaming.

It should be clear that this columnist's piece is just another example of an unscrupulous Muslim reacting indignantly to true statements about Islam. Salaam Abdul Khaliq needs to learn to take criticism from those less ignorant than he, and keep his mouth shut about aspects of his religion which he clearly knows nothing about.