|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
Permalink: http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/380
Fulcrum Subjects: Politics and Faith / Other Faiths Other articles by Ben White are available from this site Discuss this Article on the Fulcrum Forum See the 144 comments on this article Fulcrum Book Review of Patrick Sookhdeo, Global Jihad: The Future in the Face of Militant Islam VA, by Ben White
Patrick Sookhdeo straddles both worlds, as both sought after expert in the mainstream media, as well as a popular author and speaker in British (and increasingly US) Christian circles. In more recent times, Sookhdeo has also worked for the British Military of Defence, NATO, and the Sookhdeo is the founder and director of the Barnabas Fund, a British-based Christian charity that seeks to support the persecuted church, particularly in Muslim-majority countries. He is also the founding director of the Institute for the Study of Islam and Christianity (ISIC) and in recent years has frequently appeared in the likes of the Daily Telegraph and Spectator, either as an author in his own right or quoted in pieces – particularly on British Muslims. Global Jihad, with the subtitle ‘The future in the face of militant Islam’, sets out to “examine the facets of Islamic faith which motivate so many men and women of violence” and “form the driving force for Islamic terrorism”. Sookhdeo also hopes to suggest “practical responses” for non-Muslims which can help to win “the long war against Islamic violence”. Sookhdeo’s first words are uncompromising: “Radical Islam has declared war on the West” (8).1 Before going any further, it is worth emphasizing that Sookhdeo is a man who deserves a fair hearing, and Global Jihad, with its extensive notes, research, and comprehensive sweep is a significant work that offers substance where many in this area only offer froth. Sookhdeo’s experience and position of influence means that familiarity with his work is a necessity. All that said, Global Jihad is compromised – perhaps fatally – by significant problems that are all the more serious given Sookhdeo’s position and considerable knowledge. I intend to divide these concerns into three broad categories, and the first one of these is the repeated decontextualisation of political conflicts. I It is Sookhdeo’s contention that “the primary motivation of terrorists and suicide bombers is theological” (322), and in order for this to stand up to scrutiny, political and historical contexts – anything that might suggest something other than religiously-motivated behaviour – is ignored. So for example, in the first chapter, ‘Some Causes Offered for Islamic Radicalism and Terrorism’, Sookhdeo quotes Ayatollah Khamenei accusing the At this point it would have been appropriate to make at least a brief reference to the fact that the The crushing of Perhaps a far more fundamental omission is the almost total absence in the book of discussion of the Afghan jihad campaign against Soviet occupation. The book’s title quite rightly highlights the ‘global’ nature of Islamist violence, yet how it became a worldwide phenomenon is not explained. The fact that the In fact, it was the Afghan jihad that was instrumental in “right-wing Islamism, an ideological tendency with small and scattered numbers” before the fateful US decision to fund the mujahedeen in the 1980s, then moving “to occupy the global centre stage after 9/11” (Mamdani, 129). Estimates vary, but the total US aid to the Russia-fighting jihadists is said to have been US$3 billion (Galster) and crucially, it has been veterans of the Afghan jihad who went on to coordinate and lead terror attacks the world over (Mamdani, 139). A recurrent failure of contextualisation throughout Global Jihad is the case of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The “Palestinian cause” is listed under the subject of ‘Some modern calls for jihad’, and Sookhdeo tells the reader that “since the beginnings of the Jewish return to the Holy Land under the auspices of the Zionist movement, Muslims have called for a jihad to stop them and restore Islamic dominance in Palestine” (116). Later on, Sookhdeo describes the conflict in Israel/Palestine as “in essence a religious one between Jews and Muslims”, concluding that “there is no possibility of peace” (117). This is a troublingly skewed version of history, particularly for Christian Palestinians, who like their Muslim compatriots, lost their homes and land in 1948 to the new Jewish state, with many living even today under Israeli military occupation. Sookhdeo’s sources for his treatment of ‘Palestinian jihad’ are also of questionable reliability, including the fiercely pro-Israeli group ‘Palestinian Media Watch’ and the notorious MEMRI.2 It is hard to escape the impression that Sookhdeo is interested in presenting ‘Palestinian jihad’ as yet another example of a violent Muslim campaign for dominance, and therefore removing Palestinian violence from the context of Israeli colonisation and breaches of international law. Sookhdeo notes that Throughout Global Jihad, the reader is given the impression that suicide bombers and ‘Muslim terrorists’ are motivated by religion pure and simple. As part of his evidence, Sookhdeo cites a “Pentagon study” that concluded Muslim suicide bombers are motivated mainly by the Qur’an’s commands (322). This ‘study’ was done by the now defunct Counterintelligence Field Activity (CIFA) agency, whose secretive operations were halted after it was revealed the group kept a database including “information about antiwar protests planned at churches, schools and Quaker meeting halls” (New York Times, 2 April 2008). In Global Jihad, the connection between politics and terrorism is not simply marginalised; the two are practically decoupled. According to Sookhdeo, even if one was to ‘eliminate’ every ‘Islamic terrorist’, “sooner or later terrorism would re-emerge, as individual Muslims examined the roots of Islam, gave them a particular interpretation, and made their own decisions to return to the violence of the early days of their faith” (401). In this scheme of things, a decision by an individual Muslim to commit him or herself to acts of violence has absolutely nothing to do with politics. Sookhdeo stresses that the “immediate goal” of “Islamic terrorists” is “to rule the Muslim world according to the strictest forms of Islam” (406) and that “their ultimate global agenda” is “to change all the remaining Dar al-Harb to Dar al-Islam” (406).3 This is plainly false, if only because such a gross generalisation lumps together a whole variety of actors fighting for a range of localised reasons and priorities. Sookhdeo’s analysis denies, masks, or dismisses the stated, political motivations of violent Islamist groups. In just a few pages as part of a chapter on the motivations of terrorists and suicide bombers, ‘specific grievances’ in so far as they exist at all are reduced to the realm of the psychological: “dependency, failure, powerlessness, humiliation and jealousy all lead to a search for scapegoats for the ills of Muslim society and thus to conspiracy theories” (335). In fact, Sookhdeo goes so far as to say that when the American government leaves out the word ‘Islamic’ from a description of the terrorists, it means “that the enemy’s motives remain a complete mystery” (423). But this is clearly incorrect. Michael Scheur, an ex-CIA employee who in the mid-1990s was chief of the unit focussed specifically on Osama bin Laden, has written eloquently about the real problem with the ‘war on terror’: Our leaders say he [bin Laden] and his followers hate us because of who we are, because we have early primaries in Indeed he has. In the ‘Declaration of Jihad Against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places’ which bin Laden co-wrote in 1996, the statement declares that “the people of Islam have suffered from aggression, iniquity, and injustice imposed on them by the Zionist-Crusader alliance and their collaborators – to the extent that the Muslims’ blood became the cheapest and their wealth became loot in the hands of the enemies”. In other words, Muslims have been killed and their natural resources exploited. The ‘Declaration’ goes on, as the al-Qaeda leadership announce their intention to “study the means” by which they could “return to the people their own rights”, before reaching the conclusion that “terrorizing you, while you are carrying arms on our land, is a legitimate and morally demanded duty”. From this defining al-Qaeda document, the ‘Islamic terrorists’ seem far more interested in self-defence than global conquest. Two years later, in a further declaration, bin Laden lays out the specific issues driving al-Qaeda’s campaign against the US and its allies, turning first to how “for over seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places...turning its bases in the Peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighbouring Muslim peoples”. Bin Laden goes on to cite the “continuing aggression against the Iraqi people” and Chicago-based political scientist Robert Pape published his own analysis of suicide bombing in the book Dying to Win. Pape, having analysed all the incidents of suicide terrorist attacks since 1980, concluded that “what nearly all suicide terrorist attacks have in common is a specific secular and strategic goal: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from territory that the terrorists consider to be their homeland” (Pape, 4). Furthermore, “religion is rarely the root cause, although it is often used as a tool by terrorist organizations in recruiting” (Pape, 4). II This problem of decontextualisation is buttressed by the second problem with Global Jihad, namely a tendency towards generalisation and broad, culturally-determinist statements that counterpoise the West/Westerners against Islam/Muslims. Precisely defining the categories ‘West’ and the ‘Islamic world’ is extremely difficult (and some would say impossible), but for Sookhdeo, they would seem to be mutually incompatible opposites: Most Western societies have long accepted the secular paradigm that relegates religion to the margins of society…Muslims, by contrast, are in the process of regaining their lost confidence after several centuries of colonialism, and have embarked on a strategy aimed at reintegrating faith and politics in accord with the classical tenets of Islam. (14) When one stops to consider the approximately 1 billion Muslims around the world, with all their national, social, ethnic, political, theological, economic, and individual diversity, such sweeping remarks seem far-fetched or even ludicrous. This is not the only example where Sookhdeo emphasises a ‘West’/‘Islam’ divide, at one point grouping together “Westerners and other non-Muslims” (367), as if a Muslim could never also be a ‘Westerner’. The complex reality of overlapping and intersecting categories, however, is too uncomfortable for fundamentalists of all shades in the self-fulfilling ‘clash of civilisations’. There are other unjustified and unsustainable broad brushstrokes, such as the assertion early on in Global Jihad that “the war on Islamic terrorism is just one aspect of a ‘long war’ which has lasted 1400 years already” (12). Substantial disregard for centuries of local, regional and international historical, political and religious interplay is required in order to draw an unbroken line from seventh century Arabia to say Madrid in 2004, as all part of the same ‘long war’.
III
The core of Sookhdeo’s analysis in Global Jihad is that violence and domination is intrinsic to ‘classical Islam’, and that the terrorists are above all theologically, rather than politically, motivated. Yet in order to make this case, Sookhdeo ends up distorting or simplifying Islamic theology, in what is the third flaw of the book. A good example of this is Sookhdeo’s treatment of taqiyya, a doctrine presented by the author as permitting Muslims to lie and deceive as a war tactic. According to Sookhdeo, this “permitted deception” (196) explains contradictory statements by Muslims (203). Moreover, The taqiyya practice of deceiving enemies appears to be behind the activities of many contemporary Islamists who expend much energy to convince non-Muslims that Islam is and has always been peaceful and tolerant. (201) Yet to present taqiyya in this way requires the omission and distortion of basic facts. Taqiyya is a historically Shi’a doctrine, which emerged in the context of Sunni-led persecution, and permits the concealment of religious beliefs for self-preservation. This is the well-established context for taqiyya, and Sookhdeo is therefore stretched to make the case not only that it is also a Sunni doctrine, but that in fact, it is an all-purpose strategy for the deception of non-Muslims. Sookhdeo begins by asserting that “in classical Islam Muslims are permitted to lie in certain situations, one of which is war”. The only reference given here is to an inaccurate, ‘End Times’-style book authored by fundamentalist Christian Randall Price called ‘Unholy War: Sookhdeo’s source then, for this foundational statement at the beginning of the chapter, is a man who can baldly state that “Muslims commit acts of terror in obedience to the word of Muhammad”, whose other titles include ‘Why I Still Believe These Are the Last Days’, ‘Jerusalem in Prophecy: God’s Stage for the Final Drama’, and whose TV appearances have included co-hosting with Hal Lindsey and personally hosting a special called “The End Times: How Close Are We?” Sookhdeo then goes on to describe how taqiyya developed in a Shi’a context of persecution, but in order to then sustain the idea that this practice is “not limited to the Shi‘a”, Sookhdeo claims that many of the supporting texts “are from sources accepted by Sunnis, including the Qur’an”. The problem, however, is that to back up this assertion, Sookhdeo quotes from – a Shi‘a source. But obviously Shi‘ites would use the Qur’an to justify their doctrine, just as the Sunni would to critique the same practices. Sookhdeo has by now cited an American Christian ‘End Times’ commentator, and a Shi‘a source, to build his case that taqiyya is a widely adopted strategy by all Muslims. He then cites what would appear to be a respectable and convincing source, a late Oxford University professor, in order to conclude that “taqiyya has ‘in practice become the norm of public behavior among all Muslims – both Sunni and Shi‘a – whenever there is a conflict between faith and expediency’” (196). But this, it turns out, is a significant misquotation. Hamid Enayat, writing in the original text in the context of a section on Shi‘a theology and popular Shi‘a usage, describes how “in practice it [taqiyya] has become the norm of public behavior whenever there is a conflict between faith and expediency” (177, Enayat). In the original book, there is simply no mention of taqiyya being accepted “among all Muslims – both Sunni and Shi‘a”. It is unclear how this insertion ended up in the quotation written by Sookhdeo. Given all that, it is both alarming and instructive just how much of his case Sookhdeo bases on his version of taqiyya. Not only is it given an entire chapter in Global Jihad, but Sookhdeo also uses the charge of religiously-permitted deception to criticize those who choose dialogue with Islamists (408) and even to charge those leaders who have responded positively to a high-profile Christian-Muslim dialogue as naïve and gullible (VirtueOnline.org). Throughout Global Jihad, Sookhdeo reinforces his point: taqiyya “must not be forgotten” (367) and it is “important” (196) – even “essential” (426) – for non-Muslims to “always” bear the practice in mind (426). Sookhdeo’s manipulation of taqiyya is part of a discourse that attributes what would be considered normal, unremarkable behaviour amongst non-Muslims to a sinister, religious agenda when it comes to Muslims. That public and political figures contradict themselves may be regrettable, but is common place. In the case of Muslim leaders, however, it is apparently an indication of ‘taqiyya’. Sookhdeo asks “how many apparently moderate Muslim leaders are doing the same thing” [practicing taqiyya] (209), leaving it open as to how many, if any, ‘moderate Muslim leaders’ we can actually believe. There are other simplifications of Islamic theology, one of which is the exegetical practice of abrogation (naskh), developed by Muslim scholars to deal with seeming contradictions in the holy texts. The rule, in so far as it can be summarised succinctly, states that whenever there is a direct contradiction between commandments in two verses, it is the chronologically later one that takes precedence. Sookhdeo writes that according to naskh, “it is the harsher and more violent Medinan passages that apply today because they are later, while the earlier conciliatory passages dating from Muhammad’s days in It is worth noting who has praised Global Jihad. The British edition of the book features endorsements from three senior figures, either retired or still active, from the military establishment. On the website of Isaac Publishing, however, based in the One is from David Frum, of the leading neo-conservative think tank American Enterprise Institute (AEI), whose co-fellows include John Bolton, Irving Kristol, and Lynne Cheney.5 Frum served as speechwriter for George W. Bush, and co-wrote An End to Evil with neo-con Richard Perle. Another endorsement comes from Frank Gaffney, founder and president of the right-wing Center for Security Policy (CSP) and a signatory to the 1997 declaration by the Project for the New American Century (PNAC).6 There is a third recommendation from Lawrence Hass, of the Committee on the Present Danger, a group reactivated in 2004 whose membership is dominated by hard line conservatives and pro-Israel right-wingers.7 Sookhdeo himself singles out three individuals in the acknowledgements: Ivar Hellberg of Conclusions I have attempted to identify three areas of concern with Global Jihad, namely, political decontextualisation, unsustainable generalisations, and a simplification or misrepresentation of Islamic theology. The combined effect of these flaws is to present the reader of Global Jihad, Christian or otherwise, with an extremely skewed analysis of radical Islamism and the ‘war on terror’. Perhaps the most troubling aspect of Global Jihad is the dangerous conclusions that the reader is either directly or indirectly led towards. Sookhdeo plainly states that “the ultimate goal of Islam” is “a worldwide Islamic government based on shari’a (17). Apart from putting him in the same theological school of interpretation as the exclusionary Islamist extremists he opposes, such a crass generalisation risks (albeit unintentionally) increasing the level of hostility felt towards Muslims at home and abroad by his readership. Towards the end of the book, Sookhdeo warns that “physical warfare is not the only method now being used to turn Dar al-Harb into Dar al-Islam”. Other “methods” apparently include “the (often deliberately) higher birth rate of Muslim communities in the West compared with their host communities” (my emphasis). Sookhdeo seems to be saying that the fact that Muslim families in countries like Britain on average have more children than their non-Muslim neighbours is part of a “demographic jihad” being waged by these families, and yet one more ‘method’ for arriving at global Islamic dominance (430). But that’s not all. This ‘demographic jihad’ “opens up the possibility” of “major English cities becoming Islamic”, and then, a “Kosovo-style conflict developing in the Perhaps Sookhdeo is aware of what his analysis can read like, for he quickly adds that “the enemy is not Muslims but the classical interpretation of Islam” (431). A brief qualifier, however, does not take away from the cumulative effect of all the decontextualised generalisations and distortions. Although the book promises “practical responses” to the problem of ‘global jihad’, Sookhdeo’s suggestions are unimpressive, even by his own standards of the definition of ‘the enemy’. The best long term hope, apparently, is Islamic reform, which “has the potential to permanently eliminate the threat of Islamic terrorism” (419). But since, as Sookhdeo himself acknowledges, to demand pacifism would be a standard most Christians themselves do not keep, how does one differentiate between ‘terrorism’ and legitimate violence or self-defence? That is one of a number of vital questions that go unanswered, or worse, receive misleading and unhelpful replies. What is frustrating is that a balanced response to Islamist violence is perfectly possible. One does not need to dismiss or justify exclusionary, reactionary religious bigotry and terrorist tactics, to be able to avoid treating the phenomenon in isolation or resorting to generalisations and distortions. Even more regrettably, given Sookhdeo’s established reputation and output over the last few years, reading Global Jihad can feel less like a missed opportunity and more like the unsurprising outcome of an approach to Muslims and the ‘war on terror’ guided by a narrow, politically-compromised outlook that favours speculation over facts, and conspiratorial simplification over nuance. Ultimately, Global Jihad fails its own test, failing to enlighten the reader on both the reasons behind Islamist violence, and what appropriate responses at home and abroad could look like. Ben White is a freelance journalist and writer. His articles on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the Notes 1 For the rest of the article only a page number will be given for quotations from Global Jihad. 2 For problems with MEMRI see: Brian Whitaker, ‘Selective Memri’, The Guardian, 12 August 2002, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/aug/12/worlddispatch.brianwhitaker ; Brian Whitaker, ‘Arabic under fire’, The Guardian’s Comment is free, 15 May 2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/may/15/arabicunderfire ; Mohammed El Oifi, ‘Gained in translation’, Le Monde diplomatique, October 2005, http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/27c/644.html 3 Dar al-Harb (‘Abode of War’) and Dar al-Islam (‘Abode of Islam’) are terms that were developed by Islamic jurists in the centuries after the advent of Islam to deal with their contemporary realities of international relations. While many, including Sookhdeo, almost always only refer to these two categories, there are in fact many more e.g. Dar al-Sulh (‘Abode of Treaty’). There is much debate today among Muslim scholars about the meaning of these categories, e.g. Dar al-Islam simply being a place where a Muslim has freedom of worship. 4 http://www.isaac-publishing.us 5 http://www.aei.org/scholars/filter.all/scholar_byname.asp 6 http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm 7 http://www.committeeonthepresentdanger.org/OurMembers/tabid/364/Default.aspx 8 ‘Officials think http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/apr/08/population.islam Galster, Steve, ‘ Mamdani, Mahmood, Good Muslim, Bad Muslim, New York Times, Newsweek, Pape, Robert, Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism, Sookhdeo, Patrick, Global Jihad: The Future in the Face of Militant The Guardian, VirtueOnline.org, ‘From Islamic Mission to Jihad’, an interview with Patrick Sookhdeo, What Does Al-Qaeda Want? Unedited Communiqués, Robert O. Marlin IV. (ed) Discuss this Article on the Fulcrum Forum Forum Posts About This Article:Posted by: sunniva Monday 6 April 2009 - 04:36am 'In other words, Allah will forgive whatever he wishes, to whomever he pleases, but he won't forgive shirk. I would be interesting to try to tease out the 'to whom he pleaseth'. E.g. to ask whether this means that Allah could forgive or not forgive, solely according to his soreveign will.' Yes, that was what he said. Allah can forgive whom he wants. Or not. He could forgive the worst of Muslim sinners but not a Christian saint because he was (according to Muslim definition) guilty of shirk. Posted by: sunniva Monday 6 April 2009 - 04:21am Thanks to Celinda and Mark for your responses. Mark, my limited 'cross-cultural encounter' was of course not definitive. But I did attempt to ask clear and central questions from a knowledgable individual and received back some quite clear answers in return which I pass on for what they are worth. I deliberately did not mention jihad because I did not wish to appear confrontational. But jihad is not necessary for salvation. My overall impression is that for Muslims belief is far more important than good works. Only the actions of religious observance seem to count. Celinda, the question is surely what Muslims regard as sin, and whether they regard forgiveness of others as a pre-condition by which God will forgive sin (a change of heart). Muslim views of sin may not be the same as ours. Sin for Muslims is transgressing sharia (which is the Mosaic law as they understand it). It is not necessarily about your feelings and behaviour towards other human beings. It's about fastidiousness in observing religious formalities such as eating halal food, avoiding impure things or praying five times daily. That strikes me as frankly rather meaningless and hard-hearted if it does not induce sympathetic feelings towards others, especially outsiders. A change of heart. An inner transformation. Jesus warned of this and gave a very sharp answer to the Pharisee on the easy allowing of the divorce of women by the Mosaic law, that 'it was for the very hardness of your heart that he (Moses) gave you that precept... what God hath joined together let no man rend asunder'. Monogamy was the norm amongst Jews of Jesus' time. The Essenes had advanced its cause. Serial monogamy however, was practiced as a sly way of getting round it. But Our Lord expressly condemned the casual putting away of human beings on mere whim. He set a new bar. It was devastating for women to be divorced in those days, let us not forget. Marriage for Our Lord was a high moral relation. Men must not abuse power. Although that passage has been interpreted by the Church as saying Our Lord forbade divorce, I read it differently. The feminism of that passage always strikes me forcefully. Our Lord is not saying that consensual divorce need be a sin where there is irretrievable breakdown, but that 'hardness of heart' and the casual one-sided disposal of defenceless blameless women like they were so much trash, is a sin. His concern was about the abuse of power, the need for compassion, human dignity and justice. Islam has no such compunctions over a very fundamental human relation like marriage. Polygamy is never an equal relation between men and women. Women can be divorced on the mere whim of a husband. This is not an equal relation nor a high moral relation. Thankfully Muslims are moving away from such barbarism but the Quran is unchanged. Shirk is regarded as being a very serious sin - the one that God cannot forgive. And Muslims do consider Christians as guilty of shirk. Last August at the same mosque I attended a very interesting dialogue between a convert from Roman Catholicism who now goes by the name of Idris Tawfiq and our local bishop on the subject of the Muslim view of Jesus. Tawfiq informed us that Muslims, when confronted by Christians, (whom they may like at a personal level) often wriggle around on the subject of Christian shirk. This isn't taqiyya, it's embarassed politeness. It's also because they hope that Christians will see the light one day and come round to the truth of Islam. Many Christians find the doctrine of the Trinity difficult and are not able to explain it convincingly, so Muslims feel it is only a matter of time before we surrender. But Tawfiq finds it a false kindness to give a soft or muted answer on such an essential question. Christians are guilty of shirk and are therefore damned so it's better to let them know. God cannot forgive shirk (unless of course you repent of it by ceasing to believe in the Holy Trinity and the Nicene Creed). The Quran is quite clear about this. Sura 9:30 - 'The Jews say, Ezra is the son of Allah. The Christians say, The Messiah is the son of Allah. That is their statement from their mouths. They imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before them. May Allah destroy them. How are they deluded?' Or: Sura 5:72 - 'They have certainly disbelieved who say, Allah is the Messiah, the son of Mary, when the Messiah has said, O Children of Israel worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord. Indeed he who associates others with Allah - Allah has forbidden him Paradise, and his refuge is the Fire. And for wrongdoers there are no helpers'. Sura 4:171 - 'O people of scripture do not commit excess in your religion or say about Allah except the truth. The Messiah Jesus, the son of Mary, was but a messenger of Allah and his word which he directed to Mary and a soul from him. So believe in Allah and his messengers. And do not say 'Three' desist; it is better for you. Indeed Allah is but one God. Exalted is he above having a son...' They also do not believe Jesus was ever crucified or that he rose again. In other words, the entire Christian faith. Strangely, they do believe in his miracles and in the virgin birth. Posted by: Clare Friday 3 April 2009 - 06:55pm sorry to post again so rapidly, but forgot to share this with Celinda . Prophet Muhammed was (according to Muslims) illiterate so the miracle of him being used to read the Qu'ran is even more extraordinary - he had to retell what he had read to other people who wrote it down - a process that happened over 23 years. Posted by: Clare Friday 3 April 2009 - 06:48pm sunniva, I have lived and worked among Muslims for the last 20 years and I am absolutely sure that they would say that part of having faith is repenting of one's sins. for example, one colleague, having finally completed the haj aged about 40, was just so relieved that now all her sins up until then had definitively been forgiven. The word 'muslim' means 'doing what God wills', so being a faithful Muslim is about walking the walk, not just talking the talk. Muslims believe we have an angel on each shoulder, one who records all our good deeds and one who records all our bad deeds - so we need to acknowledge and repent of our bad deeds and atone for them through thinks like fasting and going on the haj and/or umrah (a kind of haj-lite). so I would say it was a religion that believed in salvation through good works and that part of those good works included repentance. all of the muslims I know would be insulted and hurt to think they anyone thought they deemed mass murder/terrorism a 'good' work Part of Islam is definitely a reaction against the Trinitarianism Mohammed encountered. they really do think that we are polytheists, and hey, maybe we are more polytheistic sometimes than we realise. and the incarnation is a big no no. However, i am perfectly sure that my muslim friends do not think me culpable of a sin worse than mass murder! they probably think I am muddled and misguided but Allah (which is just the Arabic word for God) will forgive me because i do try to do what God wills - in other words, I do try and be Muslim - I am just ignorant of the finer details of what it is that God does actually will. In assembly yesterday we were doing Good friday and a 5 year old Muslim boy looked at me all perplexed and asked 'but if Jesus is a Christian and God is a Muslim, how can Jesus be God?' so we all had a bit of a discussion about this and agreed that because 'Muslim' means someone who does what God wills, then God can't be Muslim because God is just God. and that God wasn't a Christian either, since a Christian is someone who follows Jesus and God doesn't follow Jesus. then today he told us all in assembly that his dad had said that 'christians believe that Jesus is God and Muslims don't believe that Jesus is God'. I told him this was exactly right - that is what we belonged to two different religions because some of the things we believed were very different. but lots of things were the same, like believing in the prophet Isa and believing that God is compassionate and merciful and that loving your neighbour is as important as loving God. of course the incarnation makes a huge difference, as I've just said on a different, in the incarnation Jesus deconstructs our image of God - Islam lacks this deconstruction. What upsets me about some versions of conservative evangelicism is that they seem completely ignorant of this and might as well be Muslim for all the difference it makes to what they believe God is actually like! Posted by: Dave Friday 3 April 2009 - 11:55am Celinda, As I understand it the Muslim position is that Mohammad said that the the Angel had shown him the word of Allah. Thus any discussion of Mohammed's intellectual development is besides the point. The appeal of his message depend on the intellectual climate but that's kismet. The form of Christianity he is most likely to have been in contact with seems to be monophysitism see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monophysitism. If we view Islam as a reaction against Christianity, it is Christianity in a heretical form. I hope by talking of the reception and growth of Islam we can dicuss this without giving undue offense. David Posted by: Celinda Thursday 2 April 2009 - 07:24pm Shirk is a new word for me in this sense, but I do know that when one of our sons was in Iraq and got to know some Muslim Iraqis--whom he later saw socially in the US--they would confront him about the Christian claim about Jesus' divinity, power to forgive sins, etc. All in a spirit of friendship, but they were quite serious. Our son was made so aware of this criticism of Christianity that he told me that Islam began as a reaction against Trinitarianism. I had read that Mohammed was looking for a faith to unite warring Arab tribes and made a study of both Christianity and Judaism to see what aspects of them might work. At the time he was repulsed by arguments among Christians about the divinity of Christ and didn't see Christianity as a unifying force. But according to my son, it wasn't the arguing that turned Mohammed off; it was the concept in the first place. Posted by: Deleted user 1944 Thursday 2 April 2009 - 11:10am sunniva's latest posting is a good example of the difficulty in constructing a picture of Islamic theology on the basis of a few hours' dialogue. For example, the question about what is biggest sin would have to receive the answer 'shirk' (associating Allah with partners) because there is a famous verse in the Qur'an which states just that: God forgiveth not that partners should be set up with Him (=shirk); but He forgiveth anything else, to whom He pleaseth; to set up partners with God is to devise a sin most heinous indeed. (Sura 4:48 - Yusuf Ali). In other words, Allah will forgive whatever he wishes, to whomever he pleases, but he won't forgive shirk. I would be interesting to try to tease out the 'to whom he pleaseth'. E.g. to ask whether this means that Allah could forgive or not forgive, solely according to his soreveign will. As for the question as to whether Christianity is shirk, this would be a useful (and confronting) question to ask. Likewise the answer is clear in the Qur'an: (they take as their Lord) Christ the son of Mary; yet they were commanded to worship but One God: there is no god but He. Praise and glory to Him: (Far is He) from having the partners they associate (with Him). (Sura 9:31 - Yusuf Ali). Say: "Praise be to God, who begets no son, and has no partner in (His) dominion: Nor (needs) He any to protect Him from humiliation: yea, magnify Him for His greatness and glory!" (Sura 17:11 - Yusuf Ali) What then is the significance of not mentioning jihad? why would this Muslim leader raise such a topic in a conversation which he hopes will soften a Christian's heart towards Islam? In any case, the specific question to ask is not about jihad, but martyrdom, e.g.: "If a Muslim dies as a martyr, will they be saved?" Then you might ask 'How will they be successful?' to find out more about what heaven is like for the martyr. Posted by: sunniva Wednesday 1 April 2009 - 04:10pm There is one further thing about jihad though - a more central question - and that is its relationship to salvation. This is what we should press in dialogue. Some time ago I spoke at length to a Muslim imam in our local mosque on one of those dawa events (he was Syrian, a Saudi trained Wahabbi) about what Islam teaches about salvation. He told me that in Syria both Christians and Muslims call God 'Al-Lah' and was curious to know why the West had become secular. I tried to answer him the best I could! (This would take too long to relate). I asked him: 'What do you have to do according to Islam, to be saved?' He replied: 'Believe in the One God with all your heart and mind'. I said: 'What if you have sinned, and sinned mightily? What then?' He replied: 'God is capable of forgiving sin, any sin, if you are sincere enough'. He meant, (if I remember right), sincere in faith rather than sincere in repentance... this is something important I must clarify. The point being, in over an hour and a half of talking to him about how salvation is reached, and what is the greatest sin, and how is sin overcome, whether by good works, or faith alone, or by grace of God, he never once mentioned jihad. If I recollect aright, he seemed to rule out 'good works' and this would (logically) rule out jihad (since this is regarded by those that argue for jihad as a 'good work'). I know it would be dangerous to conclude an argument from omission, but nonetheless I am just noting that had jihad, whether offensive or defensive, whether military or just 'intellectual struggle', been necessary for salvation, had any redemptive power whatsoever, it was significant he failed to mention it. Taqiyya? I don't think so. I think he related the orthodox position on salvation. 'What does Islam regard as the biggest sin?' I asked. The biggest sin he said, was shirk. 'Believing God has partners'. Shirk (I concluded) was worse than genocide then. I quizzed him about monstrous sins like mass murder - all could be forgiven by God but not shirk. He was perfectly clear about that. I felt a little bit uncomfortable hearing that even huge sins could be forgiven by faith alone but that 'disbelief', a private intellectual 'sin' committed by the mind, was even more damning than the worst public sins committed by deed! Our Lord taught us: 'Ye shall know them by their acts'. He never said: 'Ye shall know them by their thoughts/theology'. When sin was involved, how was faith alone more significant than repentance? Wasn't some sort of change required in a really sinful heart, that faith was just the first step of? Then his assistant chirped in enthusiastically: 'There is even a saying that such is the mercy of God that he can forgive all sins and even reconcile victim and aggressor, so that they will enter heaven together, lovingly, hand in hand'. I felt a little uncomfortable that this theology could be giving the green light to mass murder. I guess what I am musing over here is the role of faith over repentance and forgiveness in Islamic theology. I'm not quite clear how it works. Our Lord taught us: 'Forgive our trespasses as we forgive those that trespass against us'. The forgiveness of God is somewhat dependent on our capacity to forgive others; an active loving orientation towards other human beings is required, a change of heart at that level, as well as faith in God and repentance (to God) at our wrong-doing. Islamic theology seems excessively 'fideistic'; to prominance belief in the head over deed and orientation towards human beings. I didn't engage him in asking whether he believed Christians guilty of shirk; that all Christians no matter how good, or how faithfull, are worse in the eyes of God for upholding the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, than mass murderers, since I simply wanted to hear, freely, from him, his point of view, not press mine. I'll leave that for the next time! But when confronted with Islamic notions of jihad it is worth pointing out to Muslims that jihad is not necessary for salvation, only complete faith in 'the One God'. And that this position is no different from what Our Lord taught us: 'to love God with all your heart and all your might...' (but also, importantly) '...and to love your neighbour as yourself'. Posted by: Deleted user 1944 Wednesday 1 April 2009 - 01:19pm A further response to Ben White’s Review The last of White’s three main objections to Sookhdeo’s book was that he made factually wrong statements about Islam, specifically with reference to taqiyya and abrogation. On the issue of taqiyya I have already made a number of postings to argue that this is in fact a Sunni doctrine, and is grounded on the interpretation of the Qur’an in the light of Muhammad’s life, not on later developments in Islamic history as White claimed. Regarding abrogation, White states: There are other simplifications of Islamic theology, one of which is the exegetical practice of abrogation (naskh), developed by Muslim scholars to deal with seeming contradictions in the holy texts. The rule, in so far as it can be summarised succinctly, states that whenever there is a direct contradiction between commandments in two verses, it is the chronologically later one that takes precedence. Sookhdeo writes that according to naskh, “it is the harsher and more violent Medinan passages that apply today because they are later, while the earlier conciliatory passages dating from Muhammad’s days in Mecca are not applicable” (63). The reality is far more complex; Islamic scholars disagree on which verses abrogate which, exactly how many verses are abrogated or merely ‘restricted’, and the issue has generated volumes of legal debate. But you wouldn’t know that from reading this book. White is mistaken and misleads his readers. Sookhdeo’s ‘simplificiation’ is quite adequate, and accurate, even though the situation is indeed very complex. Yes there are disagreements about which verses abrogate which and how, but in so far as they agree on anything in relation to the doctrine of war, traditional Islamic scholarship is in agreement that more violent Medinan passages abrogate Meccan ones. White can wave his hands saying ‘the reality is far more complex’ but this is misleading. Adducing further complexity does not invaldate the generalization. A scholar who has documented the complexities of abrogation in relation to warfare, in great detail, is Reuven Firestone. His general summation of the mainstream of Islamic thinking on this issue is worth quoting in full: 'The Classical Evolutionary Theory of War Using the methodologies developed in both the asbab and naskh materials, Muslim scholars came to the conclusion that the scriptural verses regarding war were revealed in direct relation to the historic needs of Muhammad during his prophetic mission. At the beginning of his prophetic career in Mecca when he was weak and his followers few, the divine revelations encouraged avoidance of physical conflict. Only after the intense physical persecution that resulted in the Emigration (Hijra) of the Muslim community to Medina in 622 were Muhammad and the believers given divine authority to engage in war and only in defense. As the Muslim community continued to grow in numbers and strength in Medina, further revelations widened the conditions and narrowed the restrictions under which war could be waged, until it was concluded that war against non-Muslims could be waged virtually at any time, without pretext, and in any place.' (Jihad, The Origin of Holy War in Islam, OUP 1999, p.50). There is something of a denial industry shrouding the subject of jihad. I hate to use the word taqiyya in this context, but it does come to mind. The taqiyya verse, Sura 3:28, offers a solid reason for obfuscation about jihad: such talk about jihad can incite hostility against Muslims (as Ben White himself states). The possibility of this hostility offers a trigger for taqiyya. Offering such vague references to the complexity of abrogation is but a tactic to obfuscate and confuse. Sookhdeo's generalization remains quite valid and orthodox. Posted by: David Palmer Sunday 29 March 2009 - 08:31am I have just read Colin Chapman's "Why I signed the Yale response" in regard to A Common Word (written 3rd March 2008). In it Colin says (and he is, inter alia, aguing against the declared positions of Mark Durie and Patrick Sookhdeo) that "one of the first questions that I have raised in discussing the document with Muslims is: 'Do you accept that we are monotheists? And do you or do you not believe that we are guilty of shirk because of what we believe about Jesus?'" A little further on Colin says that he has spent time with one of the prime movers behind ACW and says "I believe I now have the freedom to put to him (at the appropriate time) all the difficult questions I like." This was written a year ago and I'm wondering whether Colion has reported on asking these questions and what response there has been from the Muslim side. Can anyone tell me or direct me to a source of information? Like Colin I believe ACW requires engagement from the Christian side, but I am concerned that it won't proceed beyond warm and wuzzies. My argument for engagement has to do with the position of Christians, in particular, in the Muslim world as well as the operation of the apostacy. Posted by: DavidR Thursday 26 March 2009 - 09:06am You are absolutely right Simon ... having offered something into the public domain we have to let the public get on with it. We have to let it go - and stay out of the way. To try and get involved, or ask others to on our behalf, just looks and sounds defensive and therefore muddies the waters of the debate we have contributed to. Ah - but like all the most important lessons in life, it is usually only learned with hindsight. Posted by: Simon Morden Wednesday 25 March 2009 - 07:32pm I've watched this debate with interest, because it goes directly against one of those things that wise old writers pass on to their younger, more eager colleagues. And it's this: never respond to a review. It might be just and right to try and correct a reviewer - who is clearly an idiot who hasn't understood a single word you've written; who has disparaged your good name across the face of the planet; who is, quite clearly, wrong. But guess what? Who ends up looking the fool? Who ends up alerting the 99% of people who hadn't seen the original review and didn't care one way or the other? Who ends up starting a messy feud that has ramifications far beyond the original insult? I was told this piece of impeccable wisdom when I started out writing, and I've stuck to it. I've grumbled about bad reviews to my friends, I've fumed silently, I've wittered on to my wife. I have never, ever, made any comment in public regarding a review, good or bad. It seems someone has neglected to tell Patrick, and it may be already too late to undo the damage. Posted by: Roger Hurding Wednesday 25 March 2009 - 08:21am As I posted on the parallel thread to this one (reviewing Melanie Phillips’ contribution to this debate): ‘This thread and the one on Patrick Sookhdeo’s book seem to be a steady expression of readily bruised psyches and a quite aggressive defensiveness. I also re-read Ben White’s review the other day and could find no warrant for seeing it as a personal attack. I agree with David that such reviews ‘can feel bruising and unjust and the temptation is to take it personally’. Surely, a better response would have been a measured debate at a scholarly level on Ben White’s three main criticisms, ie., decontextualisation; generalisation; and the overuse of taqqiya. These, to me, are simply a critique of Patrick Sookhdeo’s views as understood by Ben as he reads Patrick’s book on global jihad. Certainly some have picked up on these perspectives and argued counter-views in a reasonable, step by step way and yet so many have responded with accusation and counter-accusation. What is the agenda behind all this invective? Perhaps Patrick would pop his head above the parapet and speak for himself. How deeply offended by Ben’s review were you? And, if you were offended, why was that? Such a direct response might clear the air somewhat. Posted by: DavidR Wednesday 25 March 2009 - 07:38am Ouch!? Well book reviews can feel like that sometimes. When you put your views into the public debate you invite responses. It can feel bruising and unjust and the temptation is to take it personally. Quite why you quote John Richardson as the defining word on Ben White's review and his supposed motivations I am not sure. No one else has been. He has his own view. So do you. Fair enough - but don't claim the final judgment on this bruising saga. Posted by: Dave Tuesday 24 March 2009 - 10:08pm Ben White is in no place to complain about the language used of him considering how he treats Patrick Sookhedo. To quote John Richardson "Ben, you have written in your post above that his original review of Global Jihad, "contains no personal attacks on the author, but expresses some criticisms about the particular analysis presented in the book." I have subsequently re-read your review. My own feeling is statements like that in the 'Conclusion' would be felt personally (certainly I would feel them personally if it was about something I'd written), even though they may be felt to be a necessary conclusion after your reading of the book: "... given Sookhdeos established reputation and output over the last few years, reading Global Jihad can feel less like a missed opportunity and more like the unsurprising outcome of an approach to Muslims and the war on terror guided by a narrow, politically-compromised outlook that favours speculation over facts, and conspiratorial simplification over nuance." This could be read as saying to (or about) Patrick, "You are guided by a narrow, politically-compromised outlook that favours speculation over facts, and conspiratorial simplification over nuance." "Ouch," would be my reaction!" OUCH INDEED ! http://ugleyvicar.blogspot.com/2009/02/discouraging-barnabas-most-odd-tale.html David Posted by: Roland Cartwright Tuesday 24 March 2009 - 12:05pm Whether the two versions have the same message or not (which they do) was not actually my point. What I should have said is if the version released to Fulcrum was edited by a representative of the Barnabas Fund rather than the authors, then it would be just one more reason why Fulcrum was justified in calling it a Barnabas Fund Response. Posted by: James Tuesday 24 March 2009 - 11:41am David H, I have read both versions of the Zeidan/Hamid response to Ben White's review, and I disagree with your view that Ben White's analysis exaggerates the changes between the two versions of the response. Yes the highlighted areas show every change between the two documents, but I take that simply as a device to enable a reader to spot the changes easily and form their own judgement - and to feel confident that they are seeing all the changes not just a, possibly biased, selection of some of the changes. His analysis is made in his Statement on his review where he describes the fuller version of the review as "incredibly personal, vicious, and full of allegations and smears". I don't think his assessment is wide of the mark. I was certainly very shocked at the tone and content of the fuller version where the version sent to Fulcrum had been a robust but fair critique. Posted by: Dave Monday 23 March 2009 - 10:16pm I do not think these speculations about redactors are getting us anywhere. Ben Whites analysis exaggerates the changes made - I mean the yellow highlighting. To understand the changes made you need to put the two versions side by side, Many changes are simply grammatical, although some changes in adjectives are significant. The question is has the substance of the article changed. As far as I can say the same evidence is presented but the conclusion drawn in far stronger terms. David Posted by: Roland Cartwright Monday 23 March 2009 - 12:41pm Out of interest, has the Barnabas Fund clarified who edited the original article by David Zeidan and Tawfik Hamid? What it the authors or was it Mark Green or another at the Barnabas Fund? Re-shaping the original article to the "presuppositions and terms of discourse of many in the Fulcrum constituency" sits oddly with the tone original and looks more like the work of a third party. Regardless, if representatives an organisation seek the right to a response, procure the production of that response, act as the principal liaison in providing a response, and then are the conduit for the provision of the response, including use of that organisation's email, they cannot credibly turn around and disclaim that response. The line that it is not an "official" response because it wasn't branded that way is a mere fig-leaf and if a Muslim was to maintain such a tendentious account then, why, they might just be accused of practicing taqiyya. 
Posted by: Graham Kings
Monday 23 March 2009 - 09:29am
Thanks, Mark. But you have made these comments before and I have responded before and Fulcrum has responded with a letter to the CEN. Let's agree to differ on this. Posted by: Deleted user 1944 Monday 23 March 2009 - 05:44am Hi Graham - in reply to your post of March 19 at 10pm. I can understand the points you are making. But Fulcrum should have refused to post the articles sent in by the Barnabas Fund, until there was agreement on how they would be presented. You knew that BF didn't want to have them presented on Fulcrum as their official response, but you regarded their request as a pretense (you allege they were 'trying to pretend' something that was not true). That was no reason to override their wishes. Mark. Posted by: Toby Sunday 22 March 2009 - 10:15pm Hi Clare Thanks for raising an interesting point. You asked, 'isn't it a bit unscriptural to have an organisation devoted to helping persecuted Christians rather than any who are persecuted - whoever by?'. I don't see this, I'm afraid. I agree that the church shouldn't look out *only* for its members. But are you suggesting that the church should look out for everyone *except* its members? That would be a bit odd, not to mention unscriptural, would it not? But I think it's where your train of thought leads. There are other dangers too, already latent in your comment that 'whilst I am sure that the Barnabas Fund do a lot of good raising consciousness and campaigning on behalf of persecuted Christians, I would argue that it is a lot more Christian to support Amnesty'. On what basis do you conclude that 'raising consciousness and campaigning on behalf of persecuted Christians' is less Christian (or less worthwhile, for that matter) than 'raising consciousness and campaigning' on behalf of political prisoners? And isn't an important part of the work of BF (or CSW, if that's more amenable to you) the sharing of prayer needs, something an organisation like AI could never do? I also know, by the way, that some Christians feel they can't support Amnesty because of its position on abortion and, perhaps, some other issues (the Roman Catholics are an obvious example). Toby Posted by: Celinda Sunday 22 March 2009 - 08:01pm Hi Clare. I've read elsewhere that the persecution of Christians has been pretty much ignored in major western journals. Since Christians are in the majority in some fairly wealthy western countries, some consider it "politically incorrect" to mention their persecution in non-western countries. Of course you are right that persecution is wrong for all, but perhaps the reason there is a group trying to report on the persecution of Christians is that many people think that's a non-issue today. Posted by: John J Sunday 22 March 2009 - 07:03pm Normal 0 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 st1:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) } /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} Hi Claire, you are right in some of what you say. Christians have done some horrendous things under the banner of Christianity (and sometimes still do) - being flawed humans after all. Christians are called to love their neighbour - and should do - Christian or otherwise. Barnabas is mainly inspired by this passage: “Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers.” Galatians 6:10 and also: “Whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.” (Matthew 25:40) - and supporting verses. So it is untrue to say Barnabas' ministry is unscriptural. The comparison with Amnesty is probably not the most helpful - Amnesty's main goal (as far as I can gleam from their site) is advocacy - changing laws and putting pressure on governments where persecution exists. An aim which should be welcomed and applauded. Barnabas Fund finds areas of Christian persecution, promotes awareness for prayer and advocacy whilst channelling finance where possible - all to enable Christians within these situations to continue to practice their faith - where otherwise it may not be possible. There are many huge humanitarian organisations which cater for all people indiscriminately -and these too should be welcomed and applauded. However, our Christian brothers and sisters do have some very specific, often sensitive, needs which need to be catered for by Christians. To name a couple of examples: Within certain Muslim majority areas after a natural disaster, humanitarian aid is offered - food, clean water etc all with the caveat of converting to Islam first - so to the outsider aid exists and is available - except for a small minority this isn't the case. Iraq is now reported to be stable. And for the majority it is - refugees are being told to return. For Christians however this is not the case. Churches set on fire, the Jizya tax, ministers beheaded and so on. But compared to recent problems in the region - the plight of the Christian minority is seen as small and sadly somewhat insignificant. This shouldn't be the case - but it is - the Christians need specific support. Barnabas Fund isn't big so its aid is very targeted and very specific. It covers the situations that other larger organisations dealing with the majority of a population, might miss or deem (with a secular mindset) not so important. I'm certain that Barnabas Fund is not happy that its existence is necessary. But whilst there is a specific need, our Christian brethren need specific support to "plug the gaps" if you will. And you are right to say that if possible, people should spread their gifts to multiple organisations. Posted by: Clare Sunday 22 March 2009 - 04:21pm Slightly tangentially to recent posts on this thread, I would like to ask the question, isn't it a bit unscriptural to have an organisation devoted to helping persecuted Christians rather than any who are persecuted - whoever by? Good Samaritan and all that. Persecution is evil and should be opposed, but to only stand up for 'people like us' who are persecuted makes it appear more like a tribal, partisan response - protecting our own- and less like a stance motivated by morality. As Christians, we should be first in line to stand up for persecuted atheists, Hindus, communists...whatever. There is also something a little dangerous in over identifying Christians as 'people who are victimised by some evil other'. Of course, many Christians are suffering terribly as we speak as a result of others prejudice and hatred. But prejudice and hatred permeate the Christian and non Christian world alike, as do courage, charity and compassion (as the parable of the GS teaches us). Rather than deluding ourselves that Christians are always and only 'the poor persecuated ones', we should aim for a healthy and challenging honesty that confesses our sins of persecution against others - the crusades for example, and centuries of anti-Semitism, as well as speaking out for the persecuted - whoever and where ever they are. While it was Peter Benenson's Christian faith that moved him to found Amnesty, he believed that standing up for prisoners of conscience was far too important to be left only to Christians. He was probably also well aware that being a Christian did not automatically confer immunity against being a persecutor. After all, it was the plight of two Portugese students who were improsoned for 7 years for making a joke about their government that got Benenson motivated to found Amnesty in the first place. The government in question was that of Salazar - who values were deeply grounded in his version of Catholicism. Whilst I am sure that the Barnabas Fund do a lot of good raising consciousness and campaigning on behalf of persuected Christians, I would argue that it is a lot more Christian to support Amnesty. (or, at the very least, to support both).
Posted by: Graham Kings
Sunday 22 March 2009 - 08:59am
We have just published on Fulcrum, 'Fulcrum and the Barnabas Fund: letter to the Church of England Newspaper' by Elaine Storkey, Graham Kings and Simon Cawdell, on behalf of the Fulcrum Leadership Team. This was published in the CEN on 20 March 2009. For the Fulcrum index page on this discussion, click here.
Posted by: Graham Kings
Saturday 21 March 2009 - 12:04pm
Thanks, David H. No, it is not correct and thanks for asking. Critique is one thing, which is fine: personal attack is another. We mentioned the latter. We offered Patrick Sookhdeo a right of reply article to Ben White's review on the condition that it was not a personal attack on the author, but dealt with the substance of the article. This condition came out of our previous experience of difficulties in November 2005. Patrick Sookhdeo replied in a highly personalised way to Colin Chapman's article 'Open Letter to Patrick Sookhdeo' which had given a thoughtful critique of Patrick Sookhdeo's article in The Spectator, 'The Myth of Moderate Islam' (30 July 2005). Colin Chapman's article and Patrick Sookhdeo's reply are no longer on our site. Posted by: Dave Saturday 21 March 2009 - 09:10am The Barnabas Fund website states that "Fulcrum also stated that they would not accept any response that contained criticism of Ben White." "http://www.barnabasfund.org/Index.php?m=7%23227&a=743 Is this correct? Posted by: James Friday 20 March 2009 - 12:43pm David, you are correct when you point out that the Barnabas Fund did not claim that the article on their site was the same as the one they had arranged to have sent to the Fulcrum site when they asked for a right of reply to Ben White's review of Patrick Sookhdeo's book. (Or at least I think that is what you meant to say in your post) However by posting a different version of the same article there was inevitably going to be a comparison between the two. By failing to state that a different version of the same article had already been posted elsewhere they clearly laid Fulcrum open to the charge of having edited the Fulcrum version for their own purposes. The one area of Ben White's review which did trouble me was his reference to those who had endorsed the book as that would not normally be the best guide as to its quality. Publishers' track record in this respect is dodgy to say the least, and an author may have little influence over the way a book is promoted. However, when I researched this it turned out that the publishers describe themselves as "publishing division of the Institute for the Study of Islam and Christianity", and the Servants Fellowship International which is the charity which runs ISIC is in the Charity Commission's terminology a connected charity to 'Barnabas Fund' and 'The Barnabas Fund'. There are a number of trustees in common between the charities including Patrick Sookhdeo who is on all three. So presumably he had more control over whose endorsements were used than might otherwise have been the case. Posted by: Deleted user 1970 Friday 20 March 2009 - 12:00pm Well, this is a sorry mess isn't it. I would like to nail down one particular issue, the VirtueOnline article mentioned by Graham, its reproduction by Barnabas Fund and what the right course of action was. On the 15th of February the original article was published on VirtueOnline, basically highlighting two issues: The passing of Ben White's book review to Islamist blogger Indigo Jo; The invitation-only meeting at the All Nations Christian college, and its alleged purpose. Barnabas Fund promptly republished the article on their website, and on the 19th requested prayer, with reference to these two claims. However, some time after the 19th of February the original article on VirtueOnline was clumsily edited to remove references to the second issue. I say clumsily because CRIB is still mentioned in the conclusion, and therefore it was an obvious knife and fork job, and the resulting article's conclusion doesn't make sense. I do not see how this edit can be called "publishing integrity" and Barnabas' retention of the original article as a lack thereof. Silent edits with no explanation smack of cover up to the outside user. When I originally encountered this issue, the VirtueOnline article had already been amended and therefore my only source for the original was Barnabas Fund and a few isolated blogs (as well as Google Cache!). Had Barnabas also clumsily edited it, it would have looked very strange as they'd already cited it as the source for the said meeting's existence in their later prayer request on the 19th. Retention, therefore, I think was the correct course of action, so we could all see what the original claims were. In any case, another point is that whilst the details of the second issue may have been incorrect in the original, some of the substance still stands - that there was an invitation-only meeting which discussed the drafting of the statement "Gracious Christian Responses". According to the joint statement from Sookhdeo et al. on March 3rd it is also true that some individuals (in the minority) at the said meeting did express criticism of those who advocate a robust stance towards Islam in Britain. Furthermore, it is also true that general unease has existed toward Patrick in parts of the Church ever since he criticised the Yale statement in early 2008. What is false is that the primary aim of the meeting was to discredit the three parties mentioned, and this was clarified by Barnabas Fund on February 19th and March 3rd. Posted by: Dave Friday 20 March 2009 - 09:49am Graham, The Barnabas Fund did not claim that the articles published on their site were the ones published on their site. The references to threats on you and your family in the original virtue on line item seem to be a hypothetical warning of the response you might get if you engaged in a certain sort of ministry. This item may have given the impression that you and Elaine Storkey were at the All Nations meeting but it does not say so. I doubt that Melanie Phillips needed briefing on this. A simple explanation would be that her interest was aroused by Andrew Brown's articel and she looded at the Fulcrum and Barnabas fund sites. Any other material came from her previous knowledge. But this is Just a hypothesis. David
Posted by: Graham Kings
Friday 20 March 2009 - 12:56am
Thanks, Sunniva. You say that you are not clear about my concerns. Do have a look at this thread from the beginning. My concerns are with academic integrity and publishing protocol, as I wrote on this thread on Tuesday 10 February 2009. There was nothing wrong with 'an edited version of Tawfiq and Zeidan ...presented by Barnabas in defence of Global Jihad, to reflect the readership of Fulcrum'. The wrongs were as follows: trying to pretend that it was not connected with the Barnabas Fund (see the Fulcrum letter in CEN this week, copied below on this thread) publishing a different, much more vitriolic version on the Barnabas Fund site without any explanation at the time that it differed from the Fulcrum version (the explanation was only published later after the difference was mentioned on this Fulcrum thread). continuing to publish David Virtue's original article when David Virtue himself had removed much of it - including the references to threats to my life and the life of my family. So David Virtue, in this case, had more publishing integrity than the Barnabas Fund I see no problem with the Barnabas Fund linking into Melanie Phillips's article in the Spectator and am not at all surprised to see the link. I am concerned about the inaccuracies in Melanie Phillips's article, including the claim that I was present at the meeting at All Nations Christian College (her article online has now been changed to omit this claim), as well as the points made in response by Stephen Sizer, Ben White and Andrew Brown in their letters in the following week's edition of the Spectator. Guy Wilkinson has corrected other inaccuracies in his article in this week's edition of the Spectator, which we have copublished on Fulcrum. I am concerned that Melanie Phillips was inadequately briefed (whoever it was who briefed her and that is not clear), for facts are sacred. Finally, I am concerned that the Barnabas Fund do not see fit to link into any of these corrections, but only - like the David Virtue issue above - publish the original article. BTW, please do use your real name... See here. Posted by: sunniva Thursday 19 March 2009 - 10:49pm I'm not clear what your concerns are Graham. If an edited version of Tawfiq and Zeidan was presented by Barnabas in defence of Global Jihad, to reflect the readership of Fulcrum, what is wrong with that? They have stated quite clearly this is an edited version for the benefit of Fulcrum readers. How does this lack transparency? Why is their publishing Melanie Phillips' article upsetting you? Is it her evidence or her conclusions that you dispute? If it is because she 'attacks' (i.e. is scathing of) Fulcrum for publishing Ben White's review, how is that more hostile or hurtful than your publishing Ben White's 'attack' on Global Jihad? I'm sorry if the word 'trial' offends you, but it is not helpful to evade reality by calling it something else altogether different. Our Lord too was 'tried', and he himself did not hesitate from 'speaking truth to power' or from confronting false consciousness. Please explain to me what your concerns are. I don't see how Fulcrum can publish such a strong and unbalanced critical piece as Ben White's review and not expect equally strong counter critiques to appear in response to that. These questions are the key issues of our times and we must not shrink from facing them. It will require robust and frank discussion.
Posted by: Graham Kings
Thursday 19 March 2009 - 10:00pm
Thanks, Mark. Not sure if it will help you understand a bit more about this case, but the Church of England Newspaper has published a letter in this week's edition, from Elaine Storkey, Simon Cawdell and myself, which I copy below: Sir, We wish to correct a misleading impression in the letter from Mark Green, Deputy Director of the Barnabas Fund, (CEN 13 March 2009). He suggested that articles written by Dr David Zeidan and Dr Tawfik Hamid for the Fulcrum website had been wrongly presented by Fulcrum as an official ‘Barnabas Fund’ response. Unfortunately, the letter omits to mention that these two articles were issued to us by Mark Green himself, as Deputy Director of the Barnabas Fund. Following Ben White’s review of his book, Patrick Sookhdeo (Director of the Barnabas Fund) had contacted Elaine Storkey (Chair of Fulcrum) and explicitly asked for a right to reply. This call was reinforced by calls from Mark Green, (Deputy Director of the Barnabas Fund) to both Graham Kings (Theological Secretary) and Simon Cawdell (General Secretary), with the same request. Fulcrum gladly complied, and agreed to the request that such a reply would be published on the front page. The articles by Dr David Zeidan and Dr Tawfik Hamid were then submitted to us by Mark Green. We gave them prominence because we accepted them as commissioned by the Barnabas Fund, and constituted Patrick Sookhdeo’s ‘right to reply’. If this had not been agreed, they would have been posted along with other contributions on the Forum pages. To present these articles as a response from the Barnabas Fund, who had commissioned and sent them to us, was therefore the right and proper thing to do. We hope this clarifies the situation. A fuller statement about this can be found on Fulcrum (www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk). Yours sincerely Elaine Storkey (Chair of Fulcrum), Graham Kings (Theological Secretary), Simon Cawdell, (General Secretary) on behalf of the Fulcrum leadership team. Posted by: Deleted user 1944 Thursday 19 March 2009 - 09:25pm A question for Graham Kings. Graham - there is something I just don't understand. You write: You suggest I could have headed the article 'recruited by the Barnabas Fund', but from my email and telephone discussions with the Barnabas Fund it is clear to me that they would not have been happy even with your suggestion. They wanted it to appear as completely independent of the Barnabas Fund My concern is not so much with keeping Barnabas happy, but with truthfulness in reporting. You seem to have realized, when you headed the article 'Barnbas Fund Response', that BF would be unhappy with this, and that you were going against what they had asked (which was to make no mention of Barnabas at all). You were willing to do this. So I find it hard to understand your point here. Since you were going against their wishes in any case, how can you suggest that you didn't' use a more transparent, less misleading alternative because Barnabas wouldn't have been happy. If you publish something under terms which go against a contributor's stated wishes in submitting it, all the more reason to be factual. In all fairness, you had another option. This was just to refuse the article on the conditions being offered e.g. "I'm sorry, but I believe it is misleading not to mention Barnabas in posting this article, and I won't publish it until we can all come to an agreement on the conditions of publication." And I must admit that I do agree with John J. The Barnabas Fund is just one of the things that Patrick does - Barnabas' focus is the persecuted church. Patrick's role as a critic of militant Islam is related to but distinct from Barnabas' ministry to suffering Christians. For the sake of protecting a sensitive ministry it is understandable for reasons which are not sinister or flaky that one might wish not to have the name of Barnabas embroiled in the controversy. Just because lines can get blurred for Patrick doesn't mean that it is unreasonable or inappropriate to try to make this distinction. Posted by: John J Thursday 19 March 2009 - 04:55pm Normal 0 false false false EN-GB X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0cm; mso-para-margin-right:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0cm; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;} If I had to guess the reason that Patrick may not want a response to come on behalf of the Barnabas Fund I might suggest reasoning which involves no underhandedness or cynicism - just common sense. Look at Barnabas Fund's mission - http://www.barnabasfund.org/?a=484&m=2%23240%23238. To cut a long story short, it helps the persecuted church by getting us (the un-persecuted church) to pray, give and speak out. Inevitably this comes hand-in-hand with producing material about the reasoning behind Christian persecution in the first place. Global Jihad is not truly any of this. It is a book looking at the reasoning behind extreme Islamic terrorist activity. A side-line project of Patrick Sookhdeo (due to what I gather is past experience and massive interest) - not the Barnabas Fund. Patrick Sookhdeo is the director of Barnabas Fund. Meaning he obviously will have alot of influence on the tone and direction of Barnabas Fund. He thus uses it to advertise and sell his own products as this will be a good way of getting, what he obviously feels as an important subject, to the most people in the shortest amount of time. People who are interested will buy the book, whilst the majority - those interested in the normal work of Barnabas (and not such complex subject matters) will not and ignore such ads. He may even, on occasion, ask Barnabas Fund employees to liaise with websites on his behalf seeing as he's a very busy man without his own personal empire/PR team (to my knowledge). When it comes to defending open criticism which some have argued as acrid in tone, and the potential fall-out from this, Patrick might well ask himself - who would stand to benefit. The answer is definitely not the persecuted church, as on the whole (from what I gather) the book is about the relationship between the West and Islam whilst book purchases would not count as a charitable donation. Does Barnabas Fund seek to lose anything? Yes - if it comes across in a particular light (which with an un-media savvy charitable organisation could be likely) whilst publically going toe to toe with another Christian organisation then it could alienate some current and potential Christian supportership. The end result being that our brothers and sisters in the most desperate situations have less and fewer projects are supported. The knock on effects could go on and be horrific. Obviously that is an emotive image, but at the same time that could well be the reasoning. Could you not have posted the response on behalf of Patrick Sookhdeo (even if this was against his will - as this doesn't seem to bother you) or the publishing company - Isaac Publishing (which is almost definitely his anyway) or even ISIC (Patrick's Institute for the Study of Islam and Christianity). With either of these the potential damage to a crucial organisation is less. Since calls of underhand play and cynicism are being thrown about indiscriminately let's play devil's advocate and ask: Did Fulcrum have anything to gain by name dropping Barnabas Fund with it's large readership/support network when the name didn't want to be dropped. I don't believe this insinuation to be correct but the end result is the same. As soon as the name of Barnabas Fund was placed into the mix it meant that the whole of Barnabas Fund needed to be vocal and defended (with so much at stake). Its intellectual integrity, morality and ethics have all wrongly been called into question here and elsewhere - will this do the plight of the persecuted church any favours? Patrick Sookhdeo and Barnabas Fund should be separated when it is appropriate, and we as their Christian brothers and sisters should help them to do so - even if they themselves don't know it. The work of Barnabas Fund is too important to be damaged. I shall continue to support the work of Barnabas Fund because it is massively important. I hope in upcoming times of recession and back biting everyone else will do the same. God bless, John
Posted by: Graham Kings
Thursday 19 March 2009 - 07:38am
Thanks, Sunniva. I don't think your concept of a trial is helpful. However, within your concept, it is clear to the whole court, including those in the public gallery, that the defence lawyer has in fact 'called' the witnesses for the defence. Fulcrum could have used the words - as Mark suggested yesterday - that the article was 'recruited by the Barnabas Fund'. But even that, as I mentioned in my reply to Mark, would not have been acceptable to them. It may be worth comparing and contrasting the following two Barnabas Fund introductions to articles: 1. The Barnabas Fund has published the whole of Melanie Phillips' Spectator article on their site as 'a valuable contribution to the current debate'. It is worth reading their introduction on their site: Melanie Phillip's article published in The Spectator magazine Friday 7th March 2009, entitled "Beware the new axis of evangelicals and Islamists" was written completely independently from Barnabas Fund and therefore her views represent her own opinions and do not necessarily reflect the views of Dr Patrick Sookhdeo of the Barnabas Fund. However we felt that it was useful to put this on our website because it is a valuable contribution to the current debate. http://barnabasfund.org/Index.php?p=0&m=7%23227&a=897 2. The Barnabas Fund introduction to the article by David Zeidan and Tawfik Hamid admits that they 'edited and reshaped' the article, before sending it to me: An edited version of the text has been published on the Fulcrum website, intended mainly for their supporters. The presuppositions and terms of discourse of many in the Fulcrum constituency are very different from those of the authors, and the re-shaping of the articles for Fulcrum was designed to respect this difference. http://barnabasfund.org/?a=743&m=7%23227 Posted by: sunniva Thursday 19 March 2009 - 01:44am 'Graham - you wanted to avoid misleading people, but wasn't what you did just as misleading in another way? Just because I invite someone to write something to defend me doesn't turn what they write into 'my response'. Agree 100%. My point entirely (see last post). I think the wrong paradigm is being used here - 'journalistic spin' not 'due process', as in law. The defence in a trial puts its case and calls its witnesses. Thus 'the case for the defence' does not equate to 'the defendent's response'. Big difference! Posted by: sunniva Thursday 19 March 2009 - 01:31am What is being conducted here is a kind of trial. I am sorry if this seems a strong word, but it is an accurate description of what has been going on here. Ben White issued a strong critique of Patrick Sookhdeo's major work, Global Jihad, in which he questioned Dr Sookhdeo's scholarship and also his bias and intentions, and in addition to his review on these pages, circulated his concerns to a radical Muslim convert blogger, Indigo Jo. That alone must cast aspersions on Mr White's intentions, to undermine his brother in Christ by this means. It is not as if Indigo Jo is a scholar of Islam. He is an Islamist polemicist. To answer the points that White raised re taqiyya, the Barnabas Fund requested that two prominant Islamic scholars reply to White in support of Dr Sookhdeo. What on earth is objectionable about that? What lack of transparency is involved? I find it disengenous to refer to this defence as 'the Barnabas response' with the imputation that it pretends to be some kind of back door journalistic spin or fix. In any trial the prosecution calls the prosecution witnesses and the defence calls the defence witnesses. In calling Zeidan and Tawfiq to the aid of Dr Sookhdeo, specifically over taqiyya and the overall thesis of Global Jihad, Barnabas were doing just that. It is not normative for justice in any sense that we know it, for the prosecution to call the defence witnesses. Posted by: Roger Hurding Wednesday 18 March 2009 - 05:03pm Thank you Mark and Graham for quoting some of my previous comments on this thread. Words are tricky beasts, aren’t they? They seem to be so easily misconstrued. To clarify my view of Ben White’s piece, let me say again, that ‘I do not see BW’s piece as including ‘personal attacks’ on PS; I find his review clearly expressed, raising perfectly valid queries and offering reasoned counter-arguments.’ Mark has quoted some of my other words used as a response to the same review and I apologize if they have proved misleading. When I wrote, ‘[White] offers a withering critique of a stance that seems to me highly subversive in terms of historical and political realities’, I was not putting a value judgment either way beyond agreeing with White that PS’s ‘stance seems to me highly subversive in terms of historical and political realities’. The word ‘withering’ is perhaps unhelpfully strong. ‘Penetrating’ would have been a more neutral word. On the other quote – ‘White points out innumerable flaws in the book's arguments ... together with inaccuracies with regard to Islamic theology ...’ - I could have written, ‘White points out what he sees as innumerable flaws in the book’s arguments…’ but that would have felt tendentious since the nature of a review is to express what the reviewer sees in the work examined. Just as this thread shows that Ben White’s well-reasoned and reasonable review is easily misconstrued, so a review of BW’s review (in this case, mine) can also be misinterpreted.
Posted by: Graham Kings
Wednesday 18 March 2009 - 04:14pm
Thanks, Ray. You are correct in suggesting the Barnabas Fund wanted the response article by David Zeiden and Tawfid Hamid to appear on Fulcrum as a completely independent article. They did. That would indeed have been misleading. That is why the article was given the title it has. Thanks, Mark. A few comments: 1. Note the word 'completely' in my paragraph above. You suggest I could have headed the article 'recruited by the Barnabas Fund', but from my email and telephone discussions with the Barnabas Fund it is clear to me that they would not have been happy even with your suggestion. They wanted it to appear as completely independent of the Barnabas Fund. 2. You quoted Roger Hurding on this thread. Here is another quotation from him (10 Feb): First, I so not see BW’s piece as including ‘peronal attacks’ on PS; I find his review clearly expressed, raising perfectly valid queries and offering reasoned counter-arguments. 3. It may be also worth reading the Barnabas Fund's admission that they 'edited and reshaped' the article, before sending it to me: An edited version of the text has been published on the Fulcrum website, intended mainly for their supporters. The presuppositions and terms of discourse of many in the Fulcrum constituency are very different from those of the authors, and the re-shaping of the articles for Fulcrum was designed to respect this difference. http://barnabasfund.org/?a=743&m=7%23227 4. Our Fulcrum statement may be read here. Posted by: Ray Wednesday 18 March 2009 - 03:29pm It seems totally reasonable to describe the article as "Barnabas Fund Response" Patrick Sookhdeo the Director of Barnabas Fund requested the right to reply article. Mark Green, Deputy Director of Barnabas Fund followed this up with details of who would write the article. David Zeidan, the principal writer, either is or was Rersearch Officer at Barnabas Fund UK. This sounds very much like a Barnabas Fund response to me. What is puzzling is why they were so reluctant to have Barnabas Fund mentioned. To suggest that it was an independent response? That would certainly be misleading. Posted by: Deleted user 1944 Wednesday 18 March 2009 - 12:37pm Well, I do have something more to say after all! I must agree with David Palmer: Ben White's review was an attack. Roger Hurding (on this thread) accepted what I think is the intended effect of the review: "[White] offers a withering critique of a stance that seems to me highly subversive in terms of historical and political realities. White points out innumerable flaws in the book's arguments ... together with inaccuracies with regard to Islamic theology ..." Someone would only NOT think of it as an attack if they shared Ben White's biases. And regarding Graham Kings' comments: What he does not say is that the leaders of the Barnabas Fund asked Dr David Zeidan and Dr Tawfik Hamid to write the article. This is a fact. The reason I entitled the right of reply article, 'Barnabas Fund Response to Ben White's Review of Patrick Sookhdeo's Book 'Global Jihad' by Dr David Zeidan and Dr Tawfik is because of that fact. Graham - you wanted to avoid misleading people, but wasn't what you did just as misleading in another way? Just because I invite someone to write something to defend me doesn't turn what they write into 'my response'. You could have stated the fact, and told us that these responses had been recruited by the Barnabas Fund. Instead we got a factoid - the claim that these were a Barnabas Fund official response. Yet there is a big difference between fact and factoid in this case. Posted by: David Palmer Wednesday 18 March 2009 - 12:49am This statement posted on your website, As a review of our site will show, Fulcrum has made no attack on Patrick Sookhdeo nor has it undermined what we believe to be the important work of the Barnabas Fund is somewhat disingenuous given that you have posted the hostile review of Patrick Soohkdeo's Global Jihad by Ben Whilte with his claims "omission and distortion of basic facts" by Sookhdeo. Having read hundreds if not thousands of book reviews, this review goes way beyond a normal book revirew. It is a full frontal assault on Patrick Sookhdeo and his teaching ministry. Be that as it may, my chief concern is that by denigrating Sookhdeo the humanitarian work of the Barnabas Fund will be damaged. I write as a supporter and prayer partner of the Barnabas Fund over a good many years. Posted by: Deleted user 1944 Tuesday 17 March 2009 - 12:06pm I think I am about to retire from the fray where this thread is concerned. If anyone wishes to correspond with about Islamic deception - which was my main interest in following this thread - I can be contacted at lhoknga@gmail.com. Here are two final thoughts. 1. Sayyid Qutb, whose (SUNNI) commentary 'The Shade of the Quran' is widely respected and used today, said this on Sura 3:28: The concession for taqiyya is granted to someone who is under threat in some states at certain times. However it is taqiyya of the tongue [which is licensed] and not an alliance of the heart or of deeds. Ibn Abbas has said ‘taqiyya is not to be done by works; taqiyya is by the tongue’. So taqiyya does not allow any compassion between the believer and the infidel … Also the concession for taqiyya does not permit the believer to assist the infidel by deeds in any form … [in other words when feeling threatened Muslims can lie to, but cannot materially assist or become friendly in their hearts with non-Muslims] Given the huge influence of the Muslim Brotherhood in the world day and given that Qutb is a founding father and highly respected ideologue of the Brotherhood movement, Qutb's endorsement of taqiyya makes it is plausible to think that this Sunni doctrine could a very significant influence upon Muslims in the West today. 2. I am thankful to Ben White for a comment he made: "What Mark seems to have done, however, is broaden the definition of taqiyya as a concept to include other cases where, in Islamic theology, lying is permitted in some particular situations." This perceptive comment led me to the realization that deception is a complex and subtle jurisprudential area of sharia and includes at least three main key elements: 1. the laws of war; 2. dogmas relating to harm prevention (including, as a sub-type, taqiyya, as well as the obligation to speak well of Muslims and of Islam, e.g. when resolving conflicts and disputes) 3. what is referred to in the legal texts as as 'misleading impressions', these being lawful if they do not cause harm, defined from an Islamic perspective. It is misleading to use taqiyya as the cover term for all cases of lawful deception. Nevertheless this usage has arisen in recent years. But it is far worse to assert - indeed it is quite false - that "taqiyya as a concept developed historically as a Shiite theological response to the reality of persecution under unfriendly Sunni regimes" (Ben White). No - it is there in the Quran, as commentary after Sunni commentary makes clear. I haven't even begun to cite the examples of the practice, including examples of Sunni eulogizing of exponents of this skill. In a spirit of mutual respect both for persons and the truth, I call upon Ben White to withdraw his criticism of Soohdeo's book in this respect at least, and to cease asserting or implying that i) taqiyya is not a Sunni dogma, ii) and it is a comparatively late development which was not part of the legacy of the Sunna and the Qur'an. I also invite him to be more skeptical of the sources he relied upon to help him form such views. I also repeate my suggestion - as a speculation only - that the reason these erroneous ideas have gained currency in western intellectual circules has a more than a little to do with the Islamic doctrines of lawful deception, including taqiyya as one of its modes. One of the neatest examples of taqiyya is the claim that taqiyya is not a Sunni doctrine. Posted by: Deleted user 1944 Monday 16 March 2009 - 12:46pm It is sad to read the acrimony which continues to flare in these public interchanges between Christians over the Ben White review. Both sides are claiming the moral high ground. On to something more objective. Below is Maududi's respected Sunni commentary on the Qur'an, verse 3:28, which discusses the issue of taqiyya. It is not rocket science to consult commentaries. Should one not wonder how it is that scholars who should know better maintain that taqiyya is not a Sunni doctrine, when just about every Sunni commentary on the Qur'an which one might consult endorses the doctrine based on the Qur'an itself? "This means that it is lawful for a believer, helpless in the grip of the enemies of Islam and in imminent danger of severe wrong and persecution, to keep his faith concealed and to behave in such a manner as to create the impression that he is on the same side as his enemies. A person whose Muslim identity is discovered is permitted to adopt a friendly attitude owards the unbelievers in order to save his life. If he considers himself incapable of enduring the excesses to which he may be subjected, he may even state that he is not a believer. One should not be overwhelmed by the fear of other human beings to the extent of losing the fear of God. Human beings can harm a man but the most they can do is to ruin his transient, earthly life. God, on the other hand, can subject him to everlasting torment. If one is constrained in extraordinary circumstances to resort to a prudent concealment of faith (taqiyah) in order to save one's life, this concealment should remain within reasonable limits. The most one is permitted to do is to protect one's life and property without jeopardizing either the interests of Islam or of the Muslim community as a whole, and without causing loss of life and property to other Muslims. One must never allow saving one's own life to lead to the propagation of unbelief at the expense of Islam and to the dominance of unbelievers over Muslims. Here the believers are warned that, no matter how dangerous the circumstances surrounding them, they cannot escape God's reproach if they give substantial aid to those rebelling against Him, and cause any harm to God's chosen religion, to the community of believers or to any individual believer. For, it is to God that one will ultimately return for reckoning."
Posted by: Graham Kings
Saturday 14 March 2009 - 11:53am
Thanks, Ben White, for copying onto this Fulcrum thread the letter from Mark Green, Deputy Director of the Barnabas Fund, to the Church of England Newspaper, 13 March 2009. Thanks also for your comments on it. Very helpful. Mark Green wrote in his letter: Two leading experts in the field, Dr David Zeidan and Dr Tawfik Hamid, provided a response to the review for Fulcrum. Sadly, despite express instructions that it was not a Barnabas Fund response, Fulcrum nevertheless published it as an official “Barnabas Fund” response. What he does not say is that the leaders of the Barnabas Fund asked Dr David Zeidan and Dr Tawfik Hamid to write the article. This is a fact. The reason I entitled the right of reply article, 'Barnabas Fund Response to Ben White's Review of Patrick Sookhdeo's Book 'Global Jihad' by Dr David Zeidan and Dr Tawfik is because of that fact. It may help to set out the events: 1. Patrick Sookhdeo, Director of the Barnabas Fund, telephoned Elaine Storkey, Chair of Fulcrum and also on the Council of Reference of the Barnabas Fund, asking for a right of reply article, saying that he would not write it, but would ask two other people to write it. This was agreed. 2. Mark Green, Deputy Director of the Barnabas Fund, contacted me, as Theological Secretary of Fulcrum, with the same request and also saying that two other people would write the response article. This was agreed. 3. Mark Green emailed me, from his Barnabas Fund email address, the article but added that that he did not want the Barnabas Fund mentioned. 4. I was not happy with this, because of its implication that the writers had not been commissioned by the Director or Deputy Director of the Barnabas Fund to write the article, when in fact they had. Otherwise it would have appeared as if this 'right of reply' article was completely independent of the Barnabas Fund, which, in fact, it was not. 5. Fulcrum was happy to publish this response as an article, and shown clearly on the front page, rather than as a comment on the Fulcrum Forum thread, because this was explicitly requested by Patrick Sookhdeo, Director of the Barnabas Fund. Posted by: BenWhite Saturday 14 March 2009 - 09:05am This week's Church of England Newspaper features a letter by Mark Green, BF Deputy Director (the main letter of the issue), responding to my letter the previous week: Sir, I am responding to Ben White’s letter published in The Church of England Newspaper on Friday March 6. There is a fair amount that needs correcting. Barnabas Fund did not issue any responses to his book review of Global Jihad that appeared on the Fulcrum website. Nor did the author Dr Patrick Sookhdeo issue a response. He has remained publically silent believing that this controversy is not glorifying to God or promotional of Christian unity. Two leading experts in the field, Dr David Zeidan and Dr Tawfik Hamid, provided a response to the review for Fulcrum. Sadly, despite express instructions that it was not a Barnabas Fund response, Fulcrum nevertheless published it as an official “Barnabas Fund” response. Given this, it was then decided to email Barnabas Fund supporters with the original longer unedited response which was again expressly marked as the authors’ text and not necessarily representative of an official Barnabas Fund position. The only official communication from Barnabas Fund was an email request to our supporters to pray about a situation that has caused great stress and hurt to Dr Sookhdeo and our staff. Many people question whether Ben White’s review was much about the book or really more about Dr Sookhdeo personally. There has been an admission on Fulcrum from Ben White that he has spent much time following him to meetings and collecting information on him. Of major concern is the fact that Ben White passed the review to Indigo Jo. Indigo is a Muslim with links to a variety of Islamic groups. Certainly the debate has reached a number of websites around the world including radical Islamist sites. This is clearly a security concern and one has to seriously question the wisdom of a Christian passing material on another Christian into the Islamist arena, which has led to Dr Sookhdeo, or the Sookhdevil as Indigo calls him, becoming a hate figure within the Muslim community. Mark Green Deputy Director, Barnabas Fund Pewsey, Wiltshire What I find sad is that there is no mention of the viciously personal attack on me, emailed by BF to all their supporters and put on their website - not even a sense of regret for saying I glorify terrorism, am anti-Semitic, and comparing me to the Nazis. I have never once made comparable personal attacks on Sookhdeo (my full statement here.) In addition, the letter states "there has been an admission on Fulcrum from Ben White that he has spent much time following him to meetings and collecting information on him". The only thing I can presume this refers to is the following thing I wrote early on in the forum discussion about my review: "I have also seen him speak, and have listened to many other recordings of his talks and interviews" I'm not sure how mentioning that I once saw Sookhdeo speak in a church, and heard his talks/media appearances online, becomes an 'admission' of 'following' Sookhdeo around... Posted by: Deleted user 1944 Friday 13 March 2009 - 11:17am Further to my recent post, I have been consulting Sunni tafsirs on the Koran of Al-Zamakhshary, As-Suyuti, Al-Baghawi, Al-Nasafi, al-Khazin and others, focusing on Sura 3:28, which refers to taqiyya. (I have already cited Ibn Kathir on this verse in a previous post.) Sunni commentators all take more or less the same line, that taqiyya is permitted when non-Muslims are in power over Muslims (so that Muslims would have reason to fear the power of the non-Muslims). For example: It was permitted for [Muslims] to take [non-Muslims] as guardians [i.e. to accept non-Muslims in a position of power] if they have feared them. What is meant by this guardianship is the contrary of the apparent relationship [i.e. the submission of the Muslims was only apparent], while the [Muslims'] heart is comforted by enmity and hatefulness [towards the non-Muslims]. (Al-Zamakhshari) If the believer is living amongst the infidels [i.e. non-Muslims] and he is afraid of them, he may praise them with his tongue while his heart in comforted with faith, to avoid harm to himself [i.e. so that the infidels don't harm him]. … Taqiyya is not to be used except when in fear for one's life. (Al-Baghawi) ‘...if the infidels have authority over [Muslims], then [the Muslims] show them kindness but oppose them in religion [i.e. in the faith they hold in their hearts] (As-Suyuti) Al-Khazin reports that some say taqiyya was only for the early stages of Islam, before Muslims gained power. It is no longer required when Muslims are in power. However the logic of this view would imply that if Muslims were no longer in power, the concession for taqiyya would apply again. Some commentators also express the opinion that it is more meritorious to be martyred than to make use of the concession of taqiyya (in Sunni Islam taqiyya is a concession, not an obligation). It seems absolutely clear from Sunni commentaries that the consensus is: a) Muslims, when living under the political power of non-Muslims, are allowed to show friendliness and kindness to non-Muslims (instead of enmity) out of fear, as long as they hold fast to their faith (and enmity) in their hearts. b) Moreover, contrary to the claims of some, this concession is NOT based upon experiences of persecution after the time of Muhammad, but solely upon the example and teaching of Muhammad, as passed down in the hadith (traditions), and upon the teaching of the Koran. I conclude that taqiyya is part of Sunni Islam (though the concession was considered by some to be redundant while Islam held the upper hand) and is directly relevant to the situation of Muslims living as minorities in societies were non-Muslims are in power. If Muslims faithfully follow the teachings of the classical Sunni commentaries, their behaviour towards non-Muslims could be expected to become less friendly, and their true beliefs less veiled as their power increases. At least that is what the ideology suggests. Of course religious ideology is only one factor which influences people's behaviour, and Muslims are incredibly varied in the degree to which they follow the teachings of their faith. I would of course be most grateful to be informed of Sunni commentaries which take a different line. Posted by: BenWhite Thursday 12 March 2009 - 11:50am The Spectator this week has letters from Stephen Sizer, Andrew Brown, and myself: http://www.spectator.co.uk/print/the-magazine/the-week/3431076/letters.thtml Posted by: sunniva Wednesday 11 March 2009 - 11:33pm Emory professor of Human Rights An'Na-im has suggested a way out of the Meccan/Medinan impasse; and that is to abrogate the war-like Medinan verses in favour of the peaceful Meccan ones. I'm not sure quite what his theological reasoning is, I think he argues that theologically there is as much reason to abrogate backwards as forwards in time. I once asked a Syrian Imam (Saudi-trained) what the Muslim doctrine of salvation was - what one had to do to achieve salvation as a Muslim, and he answered 'Believe in the one God, with all your heart'. I asked this because I am frankly perplexed as to why Islam is so defensive towards non-Muslims. Fair enough if you are being physically threatened by non-Muslims, but why is the mere persistence of non-belief of itself some kind of existential threat to Islam? If Muslims truly believe in their faith, why do they (apparently) believe its transformative power is not enough to save, and thus can be undermined by non-belief amongst others? Is Islam so fragile? It is surely enough for Muslims to have freedom to practice Islam for salvation to be obtained. This is something I have never understood, but its paranoid illogicality has never been exposed and is at the heart of our difficulties with resurgent militant Islam. I suppose I am saying that the aim of personal salvation and the aim of world domination by Islam seem to me to be two unrelated aims - unless there is some explicit statement in the Quran (which I cannot find) that unless Muslims fail to subjugate others they themselves will not achieve salvation. Whilst there are plenty of Quranic injunctions about subjugating infidels, indeed it is a major theme, nowhere is it explicitly stated that failure to do so will result in the loss of personal salvation or in the destruction of Islam. This is of course 'implied'; but implication is not the same thing as clear statement and the Saudi cleric's injunction that all that is necessary for salvation is 'Believe in the one God with all your heart' seems comprehensive and to refute the theological necessity of the domination project... Apparently some liberals in the Islamic world are starting to explore these unstated premises and to articulate a counter premise: Islam can 'stand alone'. I don't know if this shows influence from Christianity: 'The truth shall set you free'; but they are saying that Islam does not need to dominate every area of society or the world for it to offer a path to salvation. Further, 'sharia' (meaning literally 'the path to the watering hole') is really to be understood as 'ethics'; not 'law' or 'statute'. Posted by: wggrace Wednesday 11 March 2009 - 05:50pm I am puzzled by the reference to factual errors in Melanie Phillips article in the Spectator. The only one cited is the claim that Graham Kings was at the meeting held at All Nations. I can find this claim in the article. There are two debates going on here; one is the debate about the relevance of politics and religion in Global Jihad/terrorism and the second is about whether dialogue or confrontation is the better way to talk to Muslims. The second issue seems to be what the alleged spat between Patrick Sookhdeo (PS) and groups like CMS and CRIB, and also lies behind the discussion on Taqiyya. I would like to talk about the first issue, which in the PS book I take to be the more fundamental issue. By way on introduction I would like to describe what I think is the Government line on terrorism in Britain. It seems to claim that politics is irrelevant (“it is nothing to do with our foreign policy”) and that it is nothing to do with Islam (“Islam is a religion of peace”). Can this make any sense at all? But if politics and religion are relevant, what is the relationship? Ben’s claim is that PS decontextualises the issue. I think he is saying that politics is key to understanding the actual manifestations of terrorism etc. Islam may provide the rhetoric and the courage to wage the war but the war itself is the result of the injustices that Muslims have suffered. PS’s claim seems to be that even if you strip out all political contexts you are still left with an irreducible tendency within Islam towards violence and terrorism. What he seems to be saying is that the source of violence we see today is Islam. I do not think he would deny that this violence gathers around particular political contexts. Perhaps a parallel may elucidate what I think PS is claiming. In the world of social science, there can be debates about whether poverty causes crime. Now crime rates may certainly be linked to poverty rates, but there is no solid link between poverty and crime because poverty does not lead any particular individual inevitably to crime. One cannot say that poverty is the source of crime although an important envoronmental factor. PS is saying that you cannot say that the political contexts are the source of Global Jihad, even if they are important environmental factors. PS’s views are not just those of an extremist. I quote from Riddell and Cotterell Islam in Conflict p163. “It is not correct to suggest that American’s foreign policy preceded and caused anti-Western and anti-American sentiment in the Muslim world. Rather, the pre-existing antipathy has been fueled by the foreign policy issues that have been discussed.” Thus, Riddell and Cotterell would say that even if you solved the problems of Israel and Palestine, the Kashmir, the presence of American troops in Iraq and Saudi Arabia, still there is a problem. New grievances would arise and the tendency to terrorism would continue. One potential weakness of PS’s view is the employment of the concept of ‘classical Islam’. Its very employment implies that there are other kinds of Islam but its terminology also suggests that this is the ‘real’ Islam and that the alternative Islams are not true to Islam. Now an Islamic apologist would probably not bother to defend Islam at all; he would go on the attack. He would point to the record of the Christian West. Into this record he can lump not just the crusades but two world wars, even though we might wish to distance Christianity from Nazism. But it does open up the issue of whether violence is a core element of a religion. I would analyse religions into religions of triumph/dominance and religions of service and subjection. In the first category I would place most of Christianity since Constantine such as Catholicism and much Magisterial Reformed at least until Christendom lost its power in the period 1650-1850, and also “Medinan” Islam. Medinan Islam is the Islam of political control. The violent incidents in Mohammed’s life belong to this period. The model of Islam that Sunni Islam had in its years of expansion (i.e. from 632- c. 1700) was Medinan Islam. This control was what Medinan Islam sought. It was not the conversion of the populations, although that was welcome; it was the political control under Islam of the populations. Thus Islam has always rejected the idea that it spread at the edge of the sword, despite the obvious fact the Islamic empires were established at the edge of the sword. The reason being that conversion was never required, at the edge of a sword or in any other way, only political submission. If I have understood things correctly, the analysis of the world into the House of Islam and the House of War reflects and expresses this division. Belong to an Islamic state and one belongs to the House of Islam, regardless of one’s religious beliefs. Belong to any other kind of state and one belongs to the House of War, again regardless of religious beliefs or even regardless of the religious makeup of that nation. It must be possible for a nation to be controlled by non Muslims even though 99% of the people are Muslim (I think this is why Islamists are so concerned about states that ally themselves with the West, seeing in that alliance an abdication of Islamic control that endangers the Islamic identity of the nation). In such a case, the nation is non Muslim. In the second category I would place pre-Constantinian Christianity, anabaptism and Sufi Islam, and Meccan Islam. The first kind of religion has always had a tendency towards violence as it seeks political control and this implies violence. The second kind of religion does not usually seek political control (the horrors of the Münster rebellion is an exception) and therefore has little tendency to violence. In the period 1650-1850, Christendom lost its status, stripping Catholicism and the main Protestant denominations of their dominating influence in politics, moving the Church away from violence (unfortunately nationalism replaced the Church and the tendency towards violence continued in the West). My lecturer in the Reformation, while rejecting the anabaptism of that time, commented that today we are all anabaptists. The church in the Modern world has no way to seek political control and is effectively anabaptist. I have placed different forms of Islam in the two categories. Effectively, one might parallel pre-Constantinian Christianity and Meccan Islam and place these in opposition to post-Constantinian Christianity and Medinan Islam. The former have no violent DNA while the latter do. The two kinds of Christianity are not hermetically sealed from each other. Each can influence the other. Thus, as the post-Constantinian Christianity found itself stripped of its political role it was able to draw on pre-Constantinian Christianity to generate a less violent Christianity. In PS’s view, ‘classical Islam’ belongs to Medinan Islam but one might equally label post-Constantinian Christianity as ‘classical Christianity’. One might also see post 1700 Islam, as Islam lost its power to expand and in fact found itself increasingly under alien domination, as offering a possibility towards a less violent Islam. Sufism predates 1700 by many centuries but offered to Islam a way to see itself in the era of Islamic decline. But this way fits awkwardly with the Qur’an and much of Islamic history. It also fails to challenge the injustices, not only imagined or self-inflicted ones but also real ones, which have plagued Islam in recent centuries. Islamism is the return to a Medinan Islam that does challenge these injustices but also a return to a form of Islam that is inherently violent (and thus a perpetrator of injustice). The challenge to Islam is to see if Meccan Islam rather than Sufi Islam can transform Medinan Islam, much as pre-Constantinian Christianity has been a resource for post-Constantinian Christianity since the loss of Church power in the period 1650-1850. And here it hits a problem. One hermeneutical challenge facing the Qur’an is the presence of contradictions. This has been solved using the principle of abrogation. Later revelation abrogates earlier revelation. But this has prevented Islam from making consistent use of the Meccan revelations, or at the very least has made it possible for Islamism to sideline any influence. Even forms of Islam that are not Islamist still look more to Medinan revelation than to Meccan and feel convicted by the arguments of Islamism as they employ the later revelation to trump the earlier. Islamist interpretation of the Qur’an with priority given to Medinan revelation can seem so much more consistent than non-islamist interpretation which can only strive for a non-violent version of Islam by ignoring what it takes to be the superior revelation of the Medinan period. So one challenge to Islam is, can it interpret the Qur’an prioritising the Meccan over the Medinan? If it cannot, then consistent Islam will always throw up violent forms. This seems to be what PS is asserting. I have not seen how Ben refutes this description of Islam but it undermines his refutation of PS. Posted by: Deleted user 1944 Monday 9 March 2009 - 12:38pm Further Thoughts on Deception and Taqiyya, and the Global Jihad Mark Bennet has written that he believes it is ‘abundantly clear’ what I believe. I hardly think this could have been so, but in any case, this post is an attempt to explain my position, and to clarify my objection to Ben White’s review on this matter. I have come to understand through participating in this thread that the term taqiyya is not a very helpful one as a cover-all for lawful deception in Islam. The root t.q.y means ‘fear, guard, protect’. It is used twice in the Qur’an to refer to people concealing (guarding) their faith, in Sura 3:28 and 40:28. Of these the more important reference is: Sura 3:28. Let not the believers Take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah: except by way of precaution, that ye may Guard yourselves from them. But Allah cautions you (To remember) Himself; for the final goal is to Allah.” Ibn Kathir (a famous and respected Sunni Commentator) explains this as follows: “(unless you indeed fear a danger from them) meaning, except those believers who in some areas or times fear for their safety from the disbelievers. In this case, such believers are allowed to show friendship to the disbelievers outwardly, but never inwardly. For instance, Al-Bukhari recorded that Abu Ad-Darda' said, "We smile in the face of some people although our hearts curse them.' Al-Bukhari said that Al-Hasan said, "The Tuqyah [taqiyya] is allowed until the Day of Resurrection.'” In other words Muslims can ‘guard’ their true feelings from non-Muslims if they fear some danger from them. Note that Ibn Kathir is a Sunni commentator. Another key verse is: Sura 16:106. Any one who, after accepting faith in Allah, utters Unbelief,- except under compulsion, his heart remaining firm in Faith - but such as open their breast to Unbelief, on them is Wrath from Allah, and theirs will be a dreadful Penalty. Ibn Kathir explains: (except one who was forced while his heart is at peace with the faith) This is an exception in the case of one who utters statements of disbelief and verbally agrees with the Mushrikin [non-Muslims] because he is forced to do so by the beatings and abuse to which he is subjected, but his heart refuses to accept what he is saying, and he is, in reality, at peace with his faith in Allah and His Messenger . The scholars agreed that if a person is forced into disbelief, it is permissible for him to either go along with them in the interests of self-preservation, or to refuse … This verse allows Muslims to ‘utter unbelief’ (e.g. deny their faith) if under compulsion. My understanding is that Sunnis allow denial under compusion, but regard sticking to one’s confession as the better option. Muhammad’s comments support both approaches on different occasions. Shi’ites tend to be much more in favour of deception under conditions of persecution, and they developed the concept of taqiyya to a considerable extent, so much so that the term became strongly associated with them. However in one sense all this is irrelevant, because the issue that Sookdheo is really concerned with in Global Jihad is not self-protection deception to guard against persecution (the narrow understanding of taqiyya), but religiously allowable deception in general, and especially strategic use of deception to advance an Islamic agenda. It is true that some of the examples Sookkdeo considers have an element of avoiding persecution, but not all do. It seems somewhat confusing that some scholars have used the term taqiyya to refer to lawful Islamic deception in general (as I have done so myself from time to time). This usage, which Sookkdeo also follows in Global Jihad, is unhelpful because a) whilst Sunni Islam does allow for taqiyya as narrowly understood (following the Qur’an and Muhammad’s example), the doctrine is emphasized more within Shi’ite Islam and has become associated strongly with it and b) Sunni Islam (like Shi’ite Islam) has a very extensive and complex set of conditions which make deception lawful for a whole range of reasons, and it is not helpful to use a term narrowly associated with persecution for so broad a subject. The kinds of deception Sookdheo referrs to in Global Jihad are not all of a single kind. They relate to such factors as: a) the Sharia strategic provisions for jihad (Muhammad famously declared that ‘war is deceit’), b) the sharia obligation not to say anything which would bring Muslims Muhammad or Islam into disrepute (sharia defamation law), c) principles for promoting reconciliation and harmony between parties, and d) the general principle that giving a misleading impression is lawful – or even obligatory - if the impact of that impression is, religiously speaking, to be preferred. (As an example of the last point (d) one Sunni scholar has taught that it is permissible to mislead a child in order to get them to want to go to school.) In all these circumstances Sharia law allows and sometimes requires deception, so that pious Muslims might not consider deception under such circumstances to be lying at all. In the context of interfaith dialogue the principles outlined above could conceivably establish legal permissions for direct lies or – what is much more likely – for ‘misleading impressions’, in order to help promote harmony (c), or to promote positive regard for Islam (b,d). Or if dialogue is being conducted as part of an extensive strategy of Islamization (as advocated in strategic statements by Muslim Brotherhood strategists) the jihad factor (a) might even be relevant. I believe that Patrick Sookdheo is quite right to be concerned about the contribution of Islamic theology in shaping the behaviour of Muslims. The evidence for this, both from very clear statements of Islamic scholars, and from statements by modern day Islamic strategists, is very strong, and Patrick himself shows. Does it show bad faith to give weight to the religious motives of Muslims in their application of the sharia? Well, in some cases it could show greater respect to do so. For example Sookhdeo gives examples of misleading and contradictory statements by a Muslim scholar of very great repute. Which is the greater insult: To conclude that the scholar is acting righteously according to Islamic law, practicing lawful deception, or to just assume that the person had a bad character and a tendency to tell lies? I believe the first interpretation is the more respectful, and gives a better basis for continued dialogue, because it offers a framework for interpreting the behaviour in its proper context, and also provides options for anticipating when such behaviour might reoccur (i.e. under the conditions stipulated by Sharia for lawful deception). It is however probably not too helpful to refer to much of this as ‘taqiyya’, for the reasons given above. Whilst I don’t agree with Sookhdeo’s use of the term taqiyya to refer to the lawful deception in Islam, I believe he is entirely correct to identify deception is a major issue for dealing with Islamic militancy – which is the focus of his book. He is not ‘decontextualizing’ as Ben White claims. Indeed it is White who is the decontextualizer by refusing to consider the contribution of Islamic jurisprudence in influencing the behaviour of pious Muslims. In all fairness, Sookhdeo does acknowledge the special preoccupation with taqiyya – narrowly understood – in Shi’ite Islam, and gives several strong references to Sunni sources which point to the fact that Sunni Islam – like Shi’ite Islam – allows lawful deception. It is regrettable that White overlooked and did not engage with this evidence. I am, as I said, grateful to Ben and Richard for their interactions on this subject – this helped to clarify certain issues about this important subject which has long perplexed and intrigued me. Posted by: User 1973 Saturday 7 March 2009 - 05:27am I have been following the debate on the book review done by Ben White in the fulcrum with great interest. Having read the book a late in 2007, soon after it was published, I was bent to see and accept the case Patrick made, as to answering the deeper motivation for Global Jihad. If I may look into Mr White’s three points I would have the following remarks to make. 1 We need to accept that Patrick in his book did not seek to describe all Muslims but singled out a growing and disturbing group within Islam who have increasingly set pace in Islamic thought of what the world of Islam should look like it is worrying the West as much as Muslim leaders in Islamic world and the west [8,9]. This is key to form an opinion on the book! It is Sookhdeo’s contention that “the primary motivation of terrorists and suicide bombers is theological” (322), and in order for this to stand up to scrutiny, political and historical contexts – anything that might suggest something other than religiously-motivated behaviour – is ignored. So for example, in the first chapter, ‘Some Causes Offered for Islamic Radicalism and Terrorism’, Sookhdeo quotes Ayatollah Khamenei accusing the USA of historically “delivering blows” to Iran , and “plotting coups d’etat” (38). I think if Ben wanted to be fair here he would have observed the intention of the author, who clearly warned his readers “the scope of this work is limited in that it focuses principally on theology….often formed in contexts both past and present… [10] It will be then understandable that he stays on theological trail to prove his point. But Ben’s line on this review can also be considered as a factor making the radicals what they are and I feel he should develop that to see if it will not fail to go through the theological prism. All who know Islam in its classic sense will never attempt to divide these. Sookhdeo stresses that the “immediate goal” of “Islamic terrorists” is “to rule the Muslim world according to the strictest forms of Islam” (406) and that “their ultimate global agenda” is “to change all the remaining Dar al-Harb to Dar al-Islam” (406).3 This is plainly false, if only because such a gross generalisation lumps together a whole variety of actors fighting for a range of localised reasons and priorities It appears that Ben is surprised that Muslim world wants to be ruled by sharia’ ! When Ayatollah Khammeni took power in Iran in 1979, I observed that many in the Muslim world acknowledge that he had shown the Muslim Nations the way. It was accepted as the aspiration that all Muslims should come under sharia. The agitations and the eventual strengthening of Islamic brotherhood and Jihad movements in Egypt in particular grew with this intent and the brought down a president and were prepared to do so again to achieve their goal. These I see well explained in the book Jihad drawing from different corners of Muslim world. 2 I do not know how Ben would wish for specifics when he omits a key sentence in the paragraph which of course defuses the point. When talking about worldview we are sure dealing with generalisation since this was the intent of the author, he could not have done otherwise and made sense. Most Western societies have long accepted the secular paradigm that relegates religion to the margins of society[omitted here]…Muslims, by contrast, are in the process of regaining their lost confidence after several centuries of colonialism, and have embarked on a strategy aimed at reintegrating faith and politics in accord with the classical tenets of Islam. (14) When Patrick says that: The west has come to terms with privatisation of religion and its removal from the political centre of power and the public debate on morals and society [14] He is surely helping everyone to see what informs the Muslim communities everywhere east or west to hold on to tenets informing how they live even in the west as Muslims and why they are not going to be easily westernised. In leaving that sentence out the whole intent of what Patrick seek to convey was lost! The truth is that Muslims are not wired like the westerners especially in value systems mostly informed by religion. 3. The whole problem of Taqiyya seems to be big to Ben and the basis of him dismissing the book. Other commentators before me have shown how both the Sunni and the Shia practice this or intend to practice it. What I picked from Patricks writing was the warning that this is an accepted practice and a possible Jihad approach Muslims have developed in their relation with the western government especially when they are under. Again and again he seeks to enable us to have that in mind in all our dealings…Infact he questions could this be a new approach??? We must be warned. The reviewer’s bias could obviously be stemming from the thought that, Islam has no trouble with the west and therefore no intention of brining the west under its rule, making the statements and the data presented in the global Jihad unacceptable. We then would beg to know how else to understand Islamic dawa and the agitation seen in the Islamic world. Jihad is clearly focused on the west and their interest around the world and if this is not what Patrick has explained then I beg for a convincing one. There is a position many in the west have taken in relations with Muslims, the interfaith dialogue. That we can find allays with Islam to reason with and possibly change the tone which we all agree is high. This has informed government position and even religious leaders in dealing with Muslims. A case in point is the Anglican Church relationship with the Al-hazar in Egypt . Could this be the reason Ben so fiercely opposes that idea of taqiyya? May be all these relationships are built on quick sand and would collapse if the idea of taqiyya is recognised. Why aren’t the Copts making such pacts? Unless they know what we have yet to realise! I would that we paid attention to what Patrick is pointing us to, for Ben has not captured the import of the book. I am of the opinion that Ben’s intent was far from reviewing this book, but to advance a position that seem to be the ‘correct’ approach to dealing with Muslims, that of dialogue and interfaith. The thought that he deemed it normal his mention of Patrick’s activities-to mention the Barnabas fund, which Patrick does not mention of his introduction- gives a pointer to his intentions and was not wise nor good practise. To pass this to an Islamic blogger begs question on what he aimed to achieve. Posted by Rev. Francis Omondi Anglican Church of Kenya, Served among Muslims for the last 20years in the East African region. Posted by: Mark Bennet Friday 6 March 2009 - 06:14pm Thank you Richard (user 1972) for your helpful comments, and for placing the discussion in a clearer context for those of us who are non-experts. Posted by: Deleted user 1944 Friday 6 March 2009 - 02:32pm Thanks to Richard Sudworth for those helpful references to Friedmann's work. I don't agree that "It would seem from Friedmann's work that the formative Sunni tradition basically does not countenance speaking half-truths or lies as a way of deceiving a majority population about your true beliefs and intentions." Your conclusion does not seem to follow from Friedmann's findings. As I understand, Friedman was reporting on the issue of Muslims denying their faith under persecution and he found a greater respect among Sunnis than among Shi'as for a confessor's martyrdom. However this does not prove that a minority Sunni population might be expected to be completely transparent about its political aspirations. There can be other relevant religious motivations for concealment other than to avoid persecution. A radical Muslim might be unwilling to conceal his motives simply to avoid martyrdom, but quite willing to do so for other reasons. Posted by: Deleted user 1944 Friday 6 March 2009 - 02:17pm Mark Bennett is unhappy about my responses to Ben White. I don’t think he is being fair. I do not say that Ben has made no valid points, nor do I refuse to engage with what he has to say. For example, I agree with Ben that Islam does teach against lying, but argue that this is not quite the point at issue. I also clarify that I do believe Taqiyya has limits (he had suggested I had given the contrary impression), and offer suggestions as to what some of them are. I also agreed with Ben’s point that there is a distinction between permissible lying and taqiyya. I am far from confident of persuading Mark Bennett, but in any case, I do attempt here to respond as best as I can to his concerns, giving specific responses to Ben’s many points. If I did not do this before, it was not obtuseness of arrogance, but a hope to be able to give a more focused response. I apologize for the lengthy post – I could see no other way of responding. Ben: “It is quite clear that taqiyya as a concept developed historically as a Shiite theological response to the reality of persecution under unfriendly Sunni regimes. Taqiyya as an Islamic theological concept continues to be discussed and debated in this Shi’a context.” I agree that taqiyya was elaborated in Shi’a theology. However the concept of concealing one’s intention or faith in the context of persecution or fear for one’s safety is surely not distinctively Shi’a. The Sunna already seems to endorse this practice – e.g where Muhammad exonerates those who denied their faith in order to save themselves. There is also Qur’anic material such as Sura 3:28: “Let not the believers take disbelievers for their friends in preference to believers. Whoso doeth that hath no connection with Allah unless (it be) that ye but guard yourselves against them, taking (as it were) security. Allah biddeth you beware (only) of Himself. Unto Allah is the journeying.” (Pickthall) This is a verse which advises Muslims not to take unbelievers for friends, unless to ‘guard yourselves against them’. The taqiyya interpretation of this verse – i.e. to be friendly by in an insincere way – is endorsed by no lesser a luminary than Ibn Kathir, who advises on the necessity of pretending friendship to non-Muslims, while actually ‘our hearts curse them’. (http://tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=3&tid=8052) This Ibn Kathir calls tuqyah (taqiyya). Ben writes: “What Mark seems to have done, however, is broaden the definition of taqiyya …” My apologies if I seemed to do this. In my recent post I agreed with Ben that taqiyya is distinct from the general category of permissible lying ( it is a part of the general category). Ben writes: “But this is not the same as taqiyya, the concept developed by Shiites to hide their beliefs for fear of persecution.” The dogma was elaborated by Shi’ites yes, but not unique to them: the practice is grounded in the Qur’an and the Sunna, as received by Sunnis. Ben writes: “That is not the only move being made; the second is to claim that this broadened ‘taqiyya’ concept is some kind of strategy employed by Muslims …” I don’t accuse Muslims as a whole of practicing deception. My point is that it is a part of Sunni Islam and as such needs to be taken into account under certain circumstances, which I am happy to discuss further. Ben writes: “Of course, one could also cite Quranic verses and Hadith that condemn falsehoods and lying: …” I affirm this point, and gave further support for it in my previous post. However it is not the point at issue, as previously noted. Muhammad did indeed say that it is wrong to lie. The question is under which specific contexts he permitted the practice. Ben: “Thus crying ‘taqiyya’ can become a way of discrediting approaches to interfaith discussion one disagrees with (though it’s quite possible to formulate a critical position without talking about ‘taqiyya’), as well as buttressing one’s own position with an unbeatable argument. Any sources that contradict the case being made for taqiyya are simply – well, examples of taqiyya.” This is a non-sequitor. I have not raised the question of interfaith discussion, nor expressed disagreement with any specific approaches to dialogue on this forum. I don’t claim and have never claimed that any source which contradicts my position is taqiyya. Rather I suggested that a specific claim by Enayat was ultimately grounded on a misrepresentation, somewhere along the chain of transmission. I could of course be wrong! But the evidence I have seen from primary sources goes the other way. Ben: “This is what happens to the Enayat and Amin sources, sources Mark urges me to doubt: “I do not say they are lying - but what they are putting about is not the truth.” Well actually, the first time Enayat was introduced into this discussion was in ‘Global Jihad’ itself. Once I queried the apparent misquotation and decontextualisation of the Enayat reference in ‘Global Jihad’, David Zeidan also cited Enayat in defence of his position.” I am not a collective with Sookhdeo, and know nothing of his reasons for citing Enayat, nor of Zeidan’s. This is irrelevant to my concerns. Ben: “It’s worth pointing out that this position on taqiyya ends up being self-contradictory, however. If it’s really true that there is always the risk of ‘taqiyya’ (assumed to mean Muslims deliberately deceiving, misleading), then the very Muslim sources cited to support the position are suspect. It’s like the liar paradox, e.g. a Cretan philosopher saying ‘The Cretans are always liars’.” Not so. The context for which the source is being produced is important. For example no-one would ever suggest that the Hadith Collections were subject to ‘taqiyya’ in the hands of their principal current users, nor do I believe that classical commentaries are either, which are produced solely for use by Muslim scholars. On the other hand a work produced for a non-Muslim audience needs to be considered more carefully. A statement in Arabic to one’s own supporters will have a different status from one in English made to one’s antagonists. Attention must be paid to the context, the author, the intended audience etc. This kind of forensic examination is a normal part of weighing up of of evidence. Just because a witness may not always tell the truth doesn’t mean one MUST disbelieve all testimony, even by the unreliable witness. Ben: On this discussion thread Mark said that “the Sunni practice of Taqiyya is limited”. But exactly what those ‘limits’ are in Mark’s opinion goes unsaid (which can give the impression there aren’t any). It was not reasonable to draw such an impression from what I said. I have offered some views on these limits in a subsequent post. Ben: It is my contention that in ‘Global Jihad’ (and in Mark’s comments here) the Islamic theological concept of taqiyya is decontextualised and unjustifiably exaggerated in meaning and effect. This is indeed the substantial point we are discussing. Whether Taqiyya has been decontextualized and exaggerated. I for myself have not advanced a specific claim in this forum about the issue of what degree of emphasis should be given to this dogma. I believe in any case that much depends upon the context. My point is rather that it is a Sunni doctrine, and for Ben to claim it was simply a Shi’a one, and developed only to deal with later experiences of persecution decontextualizes, underestimates, and misrepresents the doctrine, and is unfair to Sookhdeo. I also advance the suggestion that the issue is not merely about taqiyya (concealment for the sake of protection) but a range of permissions for lying which together can potentially cause difficulties of comprehension across religious divides. Ben: “Sookhdeo’s manipulation of taqiyya is part of a discourse that attributes what would be considered normal, unremarkable behaviour amongst non-Muslims to a sinister, religious agenda when it comes to Muslims. ….” As best as I understand Sookhdeo’s position, it is that radical Islamists' use of deception goes beyond normal unremarkable behaviour and presents specific political challenges which require specific care and attentiveness. (Also it is important to bear in mind that for a religious radical Muslim, the use of permitted deception is not something sinister, but righteous. The issue should be treated with respect and not denigrated or minimized by use of terms such as ‘sinister’.) The Sharia principles governing different kinds of permissible deception in Islam also cannot be reduced to the common sense of unremarkable bad behaviour. They are constrained by the example and teaching of Muhammad, not to mention Islamic jurists’ rulings This has been a matter for careful religious regulation: it is not about glossing ‘unremarkable behaviour’. Ben: What does this kind of approach seem to mean? When any Muslim speaks, we are to be instinctively suspicious. When a Muslim political or religious leader says anything, we are to doubt their sincerity. On a personal level, we should view anything said by Muslims who we talk with about religion/politics as a potential attempt to deceive us. These are not views I hold. I think everyone who expresses an opinion should expect to have their views carefully examined and tested, and the trust one places in another’s pronouncements should take into account a wide range of information about the person and the subject matter they are discussing. When considering issues to do with Islamic religious matters, if the safety and security of Muslims are at issue, or if there is a significant strategic goal at stake and the speaker is deeply committed to this goal (if this can be accurately determined), then additional care can be required before knowing what degree of reliability to afford to their statements. Usually such care would need to docus upon ‘misleading impressions’ rather than direct lies, for the conditions which may license direct lies are more obvious (e.g in times of war or when resolving disputes). Ben: I know how I’d feel if I knew a Muslim friend thought those kinds of things about me, or if any other group of people were described in such a fashion. Fair enough too. I for one regard the truth in this matter to be complex and nuanced. But I am very clear that taqiyya specifically, and deception more generally, are Sunni doctrines; and as such this is based upon the Qur’an and especially the Sunna, not upon later Shi’a developments under Sunni oppression. This has been my main concern in responding to Ben. More generally, for those Sunni Islamist scholars who have advocated that Muslims should seek to gain political dominance for Islam, the use of deception is not so much grounded in precedents relating to the avoidance of persecution, as to those relating to jihad, which is altogether a much richer source of material which is no less developed among Sunnis than among Shi'as. So it is to the ethics of warfare, rather than the ethics of perseverance in the face of suffering, which the sceptical critic of Islamist political aspirations should look. (Having said this, the distinction between self-protection and military jihad can often be hard to sustain.) Ben: Interestingly, Sunni scholar and President of the International Union for Muslim Scholars Yusuf al-Qaradawi once criticized Sunni extremists for attacking Shiites with the charge of taqiyya since “interpreting every good act done by Shiites as being an act of taqiyyah is a kind of mistrust that is unjustifiable and unnecessary”. Al-Qaradawi is wise to urge Muslims of all kinds to work together, and to seek to break down mutual suspicions and hurtful stereotypes. Posted by: Richard Sudworth Friday 6 March 2009 - 07:54am I thought I'd some more reflections on Taqiyya. I've posted this on my blog www.distinctlywelcoming.com By way of reiterating the core area of contention: some of the Barnabas Fund literature suggests Muslims condone lying as a way of deceiving a majority non-Muslim population as to their intentions. Ben White's review of Global Jihad, which caused some controversy was merely questioning the sources that justify this idea of taqiyya as normative to Islam. Mark Durie contributed some sources that countered Ben's views on my blog and in this discussion and I promised to come back to him so here goes some heavy early Islamic theology! It is important to be aware of the dangers of proof-texting and I think there is a tendency to do this, as Ben shows, with some of the sources used to demonstrate taqiyya. We must remember that the concept as described by Patrick Sookdheo is the deliberate misleading of others in order to gain advantage in society when in a position of weakness, not generic ethical debates about white lies. So our sources should reflect that. The adoption of taqiyya as a deliberate strategy was something that arose in Shi'ite communities when being persecuted by Sunni Muslims and evidence is being asked for to prove that it is not a Sunni concept (the majority Muslim community around the world). Let me refer to Yohanan Friedmann's important work: "Toleration and Coercion in Islam: Interfaith Relations in the Muslim Tradition", CUP 2003. Friedmann is a Jewish scholar, acclaimed as the authority on early Sunni Muslim tradition. This book created a stir by being so scholarly and forensic, prepared to recount and examine the persecution and coercion that was characterised by early Islamic advances, so it is not popular amongst Muslims seeking a sympathetic study. Even so, his analysis of the earliest Islamic tradition and the practice of taqiyya (defined as "precautionary dissimulation") specifically, amongst Sunni Muslims merits two pages in his 230 page analysis. Let me quote the authorities he cites: Zamakhshari - "abandonment of precuationary dissimulation and willingness to suffer violent death increase the honor of Islam" Ibn Kathir - "it is more meritorious and better for a Muslim to cling firmly to his religion, even if this causes his death" Fakr al-Din al-Razl's "commentary is the same. Uttering words of infidelity is permissible only under extreme conditions" Al-Aurtabi - "takes a similar view" In summary "The prevalent principle is that standing firm under pressure is better than acting upon [the concession of taquiyya]" all on page 156 It would seem from Friedmann's work that the formative Sunni tradition basically does not countenance speaking half-truths or lies as a way of deceiving a majority population about your true beliefs and intentions. At the very least, there is debate to be had here; and I hope that we can do this well and constructively. There is the real possibility of an impression given to the average church member that each and every Muslim, even with the guise of "niceness" and "moderation" is out to get you and secretly plotting our downfall in the aspiration to a Muslim state, (some are). But once doctrines like taqiyya get bandied around without qualification, we can quickly see monsters lurking everywhere. Those of us studying Islam at some level have a huge responsibility as our church members are rightly hungry for knowledge and guidance. This responsibility rests both in our bearing of true witness (in accuracy of scholarship and the weight we give to evidence) and to the pastoral implications for Christians seeking to relate in confidence to Muslims. This is why the discussion is worth having and I hope that this can continue in an attitude of respect and openness. My primary concern is as a Christian working with and amongst Muslims and hopeful that others in the Church will share that call. A constructive discussion of the realities on the ground as well as the accuracy of our perceptions will surely aid Christian confidence to love, bless, proclaim and challenge without fear or favour. Richard Sudworth Posted by: BenWhite Thursday 5 March 2009 - 09:40pm For those who read last week's Church of England Newspaper, my letter in this week's issue might be of interest. You can find it here. Posted by: Mark Bennet Thursday 5 March 2009 - 07:40pm Mark Durie I am not qualified to comment on the substance of the argument you are advancing - so presumambly I am a person you want to convince that you are right. Could I therefor make the following points (intended to be constructive) about your style of engagement with the issues here: (i) It is abundantly clear what you yourself believe. The question is whether you have any chance of persuading others on this forum that you may be right (ii) You seem to me to overstate your case - you say that Ben White has effectively made no valid points, yet while he is being quite specific, your last post, in particular, is general denial that he has a point - you haven't engaged with his points to my satisfaction. Stating in general terms "I am right and he is wrong" does not constitute a persuasive argument, and rather suggests, in fact, that you don't have one. (iii) If you are the expert and I am ignorant "I leave the reader ..." is an invitation to me to get things wrong. (iv) I have started a thread on the practice of truthtelling in Christianity. "Shock, horror, people don't always tell the truth and can't always be trusted ..." is not a shock to me. I have a doctrine of sin which tells me to expect this. But examples, which have been suggested to me, of having two passports so as not to show one nation your visas for entering another, or guidance on filling in visa applications for Muslim countries if you are a Christian intending to practice your faith, suggest that there are practical examples where shading the truth might be encouraged for practical puposes. We don't have the same juridical tradition in Christianity - but we do have the phenomenon of people taking particular aspects of the Christian tradition as far as they can - to what others would call extremes. Do you make any distinction in your own analysis between extreme positions and moderate ones? Posted by: Roger Hurding Thursday 5 March 2009 - 05:02pm In the Spectator article Melanie Philips engages in am impressively polarizing invective that puts the worse possible motives on a number of Christians who are critical of the more colonizing strategies of Zionism. Here she seems to conflate such a critique with hatred of Israel itself and an inherent anti-semitism. Why does any attempt to be evenhanded in this debate lead to such an extreme response? As Tim asks, where is the middle ground? Can one not criticise Hamas for its launching of rockets into South Israel and its earlier use of suicide bombers and at the same time criticise Israel’s leaders for their devastation of Gaza, continuance of the blockade and the persistent Jewish settlements in the West Bank? Can one not commend Hamas for its care of its people, having been democratically elected and at the same time comment Israel for its earlier withdrawal from Gaza? Come, you descendants of Abraham – Jews, Christians, Muslims – get your act together and hear one another out. Posted by: Deleted user 1944 Thursday 5 March 2009 - 02:19pm Ben White, apparently in response to my request for primary sources, has offered some Islamic authorites which state lying to be a Bad Thing. Indeed we all knew that already. For example the Shafa'i manual The Reliance of the Traveller, in introducing its extensive sections on lawful lying (which I have already cited at length), commences by stating: Primary texts from the Koran and sunna that it is unlawful to lie are both numerous and intersubstantive, it being among the ugliset sins and most disgusting faults. Because of the scholarly consensus of the Community (Umma) that it is prohibited and the unanmity and amount of the primary textual evidence, there is little need to cite particular examples thereof, our only concern here being to explain the exceptions to what is condered lying and apprise of the details. (r8.1) Hopefully we might agree, with Nawawi, that 'there is little need' to cite such sources. Let us just agree to accept that Islam says lying is wrong and not imagine that this is something which needs to be proved. The question at hand is a different one, namely: "What are the lawful exceptions?" That after all is what taqiyya is - a kind of lawful exception to the general rule against lying. Regrettably, Ben has offered nothing to show that lying - including taqiyya specifically - is not allowed as a 'lawful exception' by the Sunnis. So I repeat my invitation "I challenge Ben White to provide even one credible authoritative Sunni source (not from a modern political scientist, but from a religious scholar) which denies that taqiyya is a Sunni practice, and gives cogent theological reasons for this rejection." Ben is right, I did say that the practice of taqiyya has its limits. The limits are both to do with the context - only certain contexts allowing the exceptions - as well as to the approach used, for example it being 'more precautionary', (as al-Ghazali put it), to give a 'misleading impression'. Regrettably Ben seems to imply that I was being insincere, or giving a misleading impression myself, when I say there are limits. In fact I meant what I said, and even gave examples of specific conditions which justify lying in general. I completely agree with Ben - if this is indeed what he is saying - that the implications of allowing broad exemptions to the prohibition against lying are negative and destructive. As he says, "I know how I'd feel if a Muslim friend thought those kinds of things about me." Quite so! But such revulsion proves nothing except that Ben is a decent kind of guy. I do agree that it can be misleading when the term taqiyya is used too broadly, being used as a cover-all for lawful lying in general, whereas it strictly speaking refers to concealment of one's faith for the purpose of security, e.g. to protect oneself from the mischief of disbelievers. In regard to this matter, one can certainly point to traditions of Muhammad which endorse such a practice, but there were other kinds of depeception which he endorsed as well. In practice the claim that some Muslims have not been truthful about their faith or their intentions, and that this as an act of religiously allowable deception, needs to be carefully considered in the light of the evidence available. Such claims should be neither dismissed out of hand - not even on the basis of Ben's "How would you feel" type of arguments – nor sensationalized through exaggeration or paranoia. In essence the contexts which might trigger deception about faith or religious intentions, according to jurists' writings, include a) warfare, b) a situation of more general threat to a Muslim or to the Muslim community and c) much more broadly, in case the deception is only indirect (i.e. it is not a direct lie), a mere lawful 'interest' or a 'pressing need' could be enough of a justification. E.g.: 'Scholars say that there is no harm in giving a misleading impression if required by an interest countenanced by Sacred Law that is more important than not misleading the person being addressed, or there is a pressing need which could not otherwise be fulfilled except through lying'. (Ahmad Ibn Naqib) I leave the reader to imagine contexts in which such an conditions might apply. Enough for now! 
Posted by: Tim Goodbody
Thursday 5 March 2009 - 01:54pm
The Spectator article listed on Newswatch flogs this horse a little more, as well as making me spit out my lunch. Does the media have any concept of middle ground? To be critical of Zionist theology when it comes to the land of Israel is not the same as being in favour of the annihilation of the State of Israel. To be criitcal of Israeli policy in Gaza does not make me a nazi, just someone who abhors injustice (on both sides). There is no new axis, is there? Posted by: BenWhite Monday 2 March 2009 - 02:59pm Normal 0 false false false EN-GB X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0cm; mso-para-margin-right:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0cm; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-language:EN-US;} [Quotations from comments by Mark in bold italics. Quotations from my original review in bold] @Mark Durie There is some confusion now about what I was claiming; the kind of claims made in ‘Global Jihad’; your comments on this forum; and the nature and importance of ‘taqiyya’ to the discussion on ‘the war on terror’, Islam in the West, and discussions between Christians and Muslims. It is quite clear that taqiyya as a concept developed historically as a Shiite theological response to the reality of persecution under unfriendly Sunni regimes. Taqiyya as an Islamic theological concept continues to be discussed and debated in this Shi’a context [NOTE]. What Mark seems to have done, however, is broaden the definition of taqiyya as a concept to include other cases where, in Islamic theology, lying is permitted in some particular situations. So for example, Mark cites Muhammad allowing deception in three scenarios. But this is not the same as taqiyya, the concept developed by Shiites to hide their beliefs for fear of persecution. That is not the only move being made; the second is to claim that this broadened ‘taqiyya’ concept is some kind of strategy employed by Muslims (note, not even Islamists, but Muslims in general) in order to deceive ‘Westerners’ or ‘Christians’. I point out the implications of this below. Of course, one could also cite Quranic verses and Hadith that condemn falsehoods and lying: Qur’an S 2:42 “And cover not Truth With falsehood, nor conceal The Truth when ye know (what it is) S 45:7 “Woe to each sinful Dealer in Falsehoods” Hadith Imam al-Bayhaqi, Sunni hadith expert, died in 1066 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmad_Bayhaqi ) Narrated AbdurRahman ibn AbuQurad: The Prophet (peace be upon him) performed ablution one day and his companion began to wipe themselves with the water he had used. The Prophet (peace be upon him) asked them what induced them to do that, and when they replied that it was love for Allah and His Messenger (peace be upon him) he said, "If anyone is pleased to love Allah and His Messenger, (peace be upon him) or rather to have Allah and His Messenger (peace be upon him) love him, he should speak the truth when he tells anything, fulfil his trust when he is put in a position of trust, and be a good neighbour." Bayhaqi transmitted it in Shu'ab al-Iman. - Al-Tirmidhi, Number 1289 http://www.islamawareness.net/Neighbours/neigh_hadiths.html Mark rightly cites al-Ghazali as “one of the greatest scholars of Sunni Islam”. The following is taken from his ‘The Revival of Religious Sciences’: http://www.ghazali.org/ihya/english/ihya-vol3-C4.htm REVIVAL OF RELIGIOUS LEARNINGS IMAM GHAZZALI'S IHYA ULUM-ID-DIN, Translated by FAZL-UL-KARIM, VOL. III, Chapter 4 · “The Prophet said: He in whom there are three matters is a hypocrite even though he prays, fasts and thinks that he is a Muslim - (1) when he speaks, he speaks falsehood, (2) when he promises, he breaks it, (3) and when he is entrusted, he breaks it.” · “The Prophet said: A man is enrolled near God as liar if he is accustomed to false speaking and false discussions.” · “The sage Ammer-b-Yasar said that the Prophet had said: He who has got two tongues in the world will have two tongues in the next world. The Prophet said: You will see on the resurrection day the worst man near God with two faces.” Thus crying ‘taqiyya’ can become a way of discrediting approaches to interfaith discussion one disagrees with (though it’s quite possible to formulate a critical position without talking about ‘taqiyya’), as well as buttressing one’s own position with an unbeatable argument. Any sources that contradict the case being made for taqiyya are simply – well, examples of taqiyya. This is what happens to the Enayat and Amin sources, sources Mark urges me to doubt: “I do not say they are lying - but what they are putting about is not the truth.” Well actually, the first time Enayat was introduced into this discussion was in ‘Global Jihad’ itself. Once I queried the apparent misquotation and decontextualisation of the Enayat reference in ‘Global Jihad’, David Zeidan also cited Enayat in defence of his position. It’s worth pointing out that this position on taqiyya ends up being self-contradictory, however. If it’s really true that there is always the risk of ‘taqiyya’ (assumed to mean Muslims deliberately deceiving, misleading), then the very Muslim sources cited to support the position are suspect. It’s like the liar paradox, e.g. a Cretan philosopher saying ‘The Cretans are always liars’. On this discussion thread Mark said that “the Sunni practice of Taqiyya is limited”. But exactly what those ‘limits’ are in Mark’s opinion goes unsaid (which can give the impression there aren’t any). In a pamphlet produced by the Institute for the Study of Islam and Christianity (ISIC), a version of which appeared in ‘Barnabas Aid’ (May/June 2007), taqiyya is said to have been originally “meant only for emergencies” but then “became effectively normal”. The pamphlet also states that “while many Muslims are honest and open in their dealings with non-Muslims, the possibility of taqiyya always exists”. So, where are these ‘limits’? “You write "The problem with the understanding of taqiyya presented in ‘Global Jihad’ is that it can end up casting doubt on any claims made by Muslim leaders or groups." Absolutely! That is the whole point.” Even leaving aside the internal inconsistencies of the argument advanced in ‘Global Jihad’ and by Mark on this thread about tayiyya, we are left with an important matter: what this understanding of taqiyya means in practice. It is my contention that in ‘Global Jihad’ (and in Mark’s comments here) the Islamic theological concept of taqiyya is decontextualised and unjustifiably exaggerated in meaning and effect. From my original review: Throughout Global Jihad, Sookhdeo reinforces his point: taqiyya “must not be forgotten” (367) and it is “important” (196) – even “essential” (426) – for non-Muslims to “always” bear the practice in mind (426). Sookhdeo’s manipulation of taqiyya is part of a discourse that attributes what would be considered normal, unremarkable behaviour amongst non-Muslims to a sinister, religious agenda when it comes to Muslims. That public and political figures contradict themselves may be regrettable, but is common place. In the case of Muslim leaders, however, it is apparently an indication of ‘taqiyya’. Sookhdeo asks “how many apparently moderate Muslim leaders are doing the same thing” [practicing taqiyya] (209), leaving it open as to how many, if any, ‘moderate Muslim leaders’ we can actually believe. What does this kind of approach seem to mean? When any Muslim speaks, we are to be instinctively suspicious. When a Muslim political or religious leader says anything, we are to doubt their sincerity. On a personal level, we should view anything said by Muslims who we talk with about religion/politics as a potential attempt to deceive us. I know how I’d feel if I knew a Muslim friend thought those kinds of things about me, or if any other group of people were described in such a fashion. NOTE Interestingly, Sunni scholar and President of the International Union for Muslim Scholars Yusuf al-Qaradawi once criticized Sunni extremists for attacking Shiites with the charge of taqiyya since “interpreting every good act done by Shiites as being an act of taqiyyah is a kind of mistrust that is unjustifiable and unnecessary”. http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?c=Article_C&cid=1196786204349&pagename=Zone-English-Living_Shariah%2FLSELayout Posted by: Deleted user 1944 Sunday 1 March 2009 - 12:34pm wggrace has said: Turning to Ben review, I would like resolution on the debate between Mark Durie and Ben White on whether taqiyya is a Sunni doctrine. In response I note that I have cited recognized authorities to indicate it is a Sunni doctrine, to whit: The Sahih Muslim, a canonical Sunni source Commentary on the Sahih Muslim, by an eminent Pakistani Sunni Scholar, the editor of the standard English translation of the Sahih Muslim Al-Ghazali, regarded as one of the greatest scholars of Sunni Islam To which I can add The Reliance of the Traveller, a compendium of Shafi'i law published with a side-by-side English translation which has the formal certification of Al-Azhar University, the pre-eminent centre in the world for the study of Sunni jurisprudence. This includes the following chapters on (Sunni) practices: r8.1 LYING, r8.2 PERMISSABLE LYING, r9 EXAGGERATION and r10 GIVING A MISLEADING IMPRESSION. All Ben White offers is a secondary source, by Hamid Enayat, an Iranian political scientist, discussing the views of Ahmad Amin, a secularist Egyptian Sunni. Enayat was no expert on Sunni Islam, and brings to his discussion of the differences between Shi'ite and Sunni Islam a lack of familiarity with Sunni doctrine, and a commonplace tendency among 20th century intellectuals to detheologize the foundations of Islamic political practice. Claims about what Sunni Islam does or does not teach need to be based upon such sources as a) recognized Sunni commentaries b) canonical sources (Quran, sira and hadiths) or c) recognized Sunni jurists' rulings. I have offered such sources which ground the practice of taqiyya in the example and teaching of Muhammad, not in some later struggles for survival in the face of persecution. I challenge Ben White to provide even one credible authoritative Sunni source (not from a modern political scientist, but from a religious scholar) which denies that taqiyya is a Sunni practice, and gives cogent theological reasons for this rejection. Posted by: wggrace Friday 27 February 2009 - 10:26am As Ben White says, the furore over his review of Patrick Sookhdeo’s book has taken on a life of its own. There seem to me to be two related areas of discussion that might profitably be pursued. First, and this is less tightly tied to Ben's review but forms important background to one of the issues raised in the review, is the issue of the possibility/advisibility of dialogue with Muslims. Judging from the remarks emanating from CMS/Global Connections/CRIB/Interserve, the between them and the Barnabas Fund have their origin in a profound difference of opinion with Patrick over this issue. Patrick is utterly distrustful of dialogue, while these other agencies see this as the main way forward. This disagreement has resulted in distrust between the parties but that need not detain us here. What can be discussed is the role, if any, of dialogue. Second, there are a number of technical issues raised by Patrick’s book which Ben sought to refute. They include (i.e. the ones that interest me most) are the doctrine of Taqiyya and the division of the world into the House of War and the House of Islam. The reason why these are related is that the possibility of dialogue is profoundly affected by whether Muslims are to be seen as seeing themselves as at war with those outside Islam and whether what they say is to be taken as a reliable guide to what they think. Taking the first issue first; I attended a CRIB conference a few years ago (CRIB seeks to dialogue with Muslims) on the subject of Christians in a Muslim majority context. Three concrete contexts were discussed, Malaysia, Indonesia and Nigeria. Real difficulties were highlighted, especially in Nigeria, but it was conceded that especially in Malaysia and Indonesia the relationship between Islam and Christianity was complex rather than purely negative. The other main speaker was a Muslim scholar who outlined what he saw as the Islamic position of the status of Christians in Muslim countries. From his account, it seems that now and in all history the status of Christians had been essentially good; Islam had an essentially benign face towards Christianity. In the questions that followed his presentation, there were questions. These quickly became aggressive as some there utterly rejected this account of the status of Christians in Muslim countries. These aggressive questions came from Christians from a Muslim background who had lived in Muslim countries (their home countries) and whose experience was radically different from that claimed by the Muslim scholar. This highlights the issue of whether the pronouncements of Muslims, given semi-officially, can be trusted. The Muslim Background Believers evidently felt that in this case they could not. And their views reflected a degree of anger and hurt that was breathtaking to someone like me who had never had their experiences. As an aside, I suspect Patrick’s book and his views in general reflect this same anger and hurt. CRIB has struggled in its attempts to establish dialogue with Muslims. It is rumoured that Peter Riddell left LST not just because of a desire to return to Australia (although that was the most important) and certainly not out of disillusionment with LST but partly out of the discouragements experienced in seeking meaningful dialogue with Muslims. Even if, like CRIB (and me), you think dialogue is a good thing, the difficulties should not be minimised. These difficulties are, in my opinion, sharpest in the official and semi-official context and at the dullest and even nonexistent in the personal context. Even such a notable polemicist as Jay Smith has said that most of the interaction with Muslims will not be polemical but on a friendly local PERSONAL level where polemic is inappropriate. It is here that dialogue offers the way forward and indeed where polemic is couter-productive. A second situation where dialogue between Christian and Muslim becomes next to impossible is when the Christian is a convert from Islam. For a Muslim no such thing exists, only apostates. I know two Pakistani Christians who worked together, reaching out to Muslims. Only the Christian background believer could dialogue with Muslims as they simply would not listen to an ‘apostate’. This can be seen in an Islamic website commenting on the review and counter review. Their description of Patrick is as an ‘alleged’ former Muslim. They cannot concede that he was ever a Muslim. I think that this implies that even if dialogue is possible, it may be quite impossible for many Christians, including Patrick, as they would be regarded with utter distaste by Muslims for being apostate. The relevance of Taqiyya to this is that Muslims will, whatever Ben says, and whether in compliance with Taqiyya or not, dissemble when discussing issues in public. Public utterances are very unreliable. This operates on a personal level as well as on an official level. Talk to one Muslim and the degree of openness and honesty will be considerable. If there are two Muslims, they both start watching their backs. Turning to Ben review, I would like resolution on the debate between Mark Durie and Ben White on whether taqiyya is a Sunni doctrine. I had always been led to believe that it was part of Sunni (and this was not from Barnabas Fund people but from those committed to dialogue). If it is, then we ought to discuss what we should do about it rather than simply ignore it. If it is, we cannot simply assume that it will go away. But the other point I feel can be discussed is the division of the world into the House of War and the House of Islam. This seems to form the basis upon which Patrick’s book is written. From my experience of Muslims, few really follow this but then few Muslims follow most of Islam. But if it is a feature of Islam (‘Classical’ Islam), then political and even violent Islam will inevitably emerge from time to time until either all is Islam or all is not Islam. This seems to be Patrick’s point. But is this doctrine so firmly embedded in Islam that it cannot be removed? Or what forms of Islam have removed it already? To what extent has it been or can it be expunged forever? Another area of disagreement, if I have understood the posts correctly, is the centrality of religion in this whole jihadist movement. Ben seems to claim that the political is the foundational point and rejects Patrick’s claims that it is the religious. Following the links from a news item in the news watch for 25 February “Media’s Ingnorance Concerning Religion is exposing us to terror” led me to an article in the New Statesman by Tom Holland concerning Europe and the importance of religion. I think that the article does raise the tendency in the West to sideline religion from political life, but in fact only to conceal its religious roots. Might this be what Patrick is asserting about Islam but which we in the West are reluctant to acknowledge, that religion really is foundational, not just in Islam as Patrick seems to claim but here in Europe too. Posted by: BenWhite Wednesday 25 February 2009 - 06:32pm 'Statement on my review of 'Global Jihad' and subsequent Barnabas Fund emails' http://www.benwhite.org.uk/2009/02/25/statement-on-my-review-of-global-jihad-and-subsequent-barnabas-fund-emails/ Posted by: Roger Harper Monday 23 February 2009 - 09:44pm May I add my voice to those who are dismayed at the antagonism between Christians over assessment of and response to Islam? Unfortunately what is needed is more than a continuation of the debate. Suggesting that Ben White and Patrick Sookhdeo have a pint and a good meal together is on the right lines – but this dispute is far deeper and wider than that. We need a good Christian mediator – someone like Michael Lawson the new Chair of the CEEC or Steve Clifford the new Director of the Evangelical Alliance. Is anything like this happening, behind the scenes? The mediator needs to spend time talking with both sides before attempting a meeting. I pray for such mediation, so that we will be able to continue to disagree, but more graciously. And if there is anything else people like me who support both Barnabas and Fulcrum, can do, please let us know.
Posted by: Graham Kings
Monday 23 February 2009 - 04:57pm
As well as the Fulcrum Statement mentioned by James, there have been more statements and articles concerning this issue: John Richardson Andrew Brown Richard Bartholomew CMS Global Connections Posted by: James Monday 23 February 2009 - 04:13pm Pete, have you read the Fulcrum statement on this issue which Graham Kings linked to in his post on this thread on 19th February which specifically addresses the Fulcrum-related issues. Ben White is clearly a critic of Israeli policies in relation to the Palestinians, and to that extent a supporter of aspects of the 'Palestinian cause' he does not, however, appear to me to be a supporter of Hamas who he refers to on his blog as having 'repugnant politics'. Posted by: Pete (Peter Travian) Monday 23 February 2009 - 02:02pm It would be useful to get some clarification on two issues: Did Ben White really pass on his review to Indigo Jo, the Muslim blogger, as Indigo claims? Did Ben realise that it was likely then to go on to other Islamist websites, possibly some with links to radicals and terrorists? Are Ben White's strong pro-Palestinian/Hamas sympathies leading him into connections with some dubious people? Is Fulcrum aware of, or possibly connected to, any anti-Barnabas Fund cabal? A simple statement of support for Barnabas Fund and Dr Sookhdeo himself would certainly go a long way to clarify this. Posted by: Dave Monday 23 February 2009 - 12:56pm There is also a statement from Global Connection which covers the meeting at All Nations here: http://www.globalconnections.co.uk/networknews/ David Posted by: Anonymous Friday 20 February 2009 - 06:59pm I do wonder whether experience, or lack of it, actually living with a Christian minority in a majority Muslim context influences the position people are taking on this thread as much as theology. I lived in Northern Nigeria in the 1980s. I've kept in close touch since. I regard myself as part of the Church of Nigeria as I was confirmed there. I was back there on the first anniversary of 9/11 in 2002 to do some ministry and research which was published in Anvil. It's a complex situation there, politically and ethnically. But one thing's really clear to me and that's that Christians are persecuted there at the hands of fanatical Muslims. It's uncomfortable to write that, living as I do in a city with a large minority of peace-loving Muslim people (and I'm just off now to enjoy a splendid meal with my friends at the curry house I've frequented weekly for five years!), but it's true. I've friends who've been killed, injured, or escaped by the skin of their teeth, both European mission partners and local people. One of them is Archbishop Ben Kwashi who posted clear reports of what happened again in his home city of Jos at the back end of last year on the Anglican Mainstream website. The situation there has also been researched and reported on by Baronness Cox. Isn't this simply the sort of scenario that Patrick Sookhdeo is seeking to document and bring to our attention, whatever the deficiencies in some of the detail? This needs to be heard and not lost amidst side-taking and controversy, alongside other more measured and perhaps more scholarly responses. Posted by: Deleted user 1944 Friday 20 February 2009 - 12:13pm Ben, you write, citing others: the Sunnis hate taqiyya in the past and present, and, that the limited Sunni practice of taqiyya is based on survival from persecution under hostile regimes, and only to be invoked after migration to another country is impossible. and also: What we actually have in terms of the role of taqiyya in ‘Global Jihad’ is a very specific, Islamic theological concept intended to deal with the reality of persecution, disproportionately and unjustifiably expanded to include the mundane e.g. a terrorist obviously concealing his plans, or public figures saying different things to different audiences. Yes, the Sunni practice of Taqiyya is limited, but not to persecution situations. Muhammad's example, as documented in Sunni sources - supported three main contexts for lawful deception: a) in warfare, b) to reconcile people and c) between husbands and wives (to smooth marital relations). You may have been unable to look up the Sunni source I suggested in a previous post, the Sahih Muslim. The chapter entitled 'Forbiddance of telling a lie and the cases in which telling a lie is permissible' includes a quotation from Muhammad "A liar is not one who tries to bring reconciliation amongst people and speaks good (in order to avert dispute), or he conveys good." and also refers to a tradition that "exemption [for lying was granted by Muhammad] in three cases: in battle, for bringing reconcilation amongst persons, and the narration of the words of the husband to his wife and the narrativon of the words of a wife to her husband (in a twisted form in order to bring reconcilation between them)." I could give many other sources to support this, but perhaps this suffices for now. (Answering Islam [a notorious source - let the reader beware] cites numerous Islamic authorities in its articles on this subject, and I encourage readers to check them ALL for themselves, and check all the translations too.) As for the terrorist's deception being 'mundane': your decontextualizing of militant Muslims' actions is unreasonable and ill-informed. Muhammad famously taught that 'War is deceit' (Sahih al-Bukhari). For the religiously motivated jihadist - and they usually are religiously motivated - deception is not mundane, but informed religious choice, a pious act. When the traditionists preserved the 'war is deceit' hadith of Muhammad they did not regard this as a 'mundane' matter either! Sharia manuals of jihad make clear that in warfare, deception is a religious obligation. Of course there is great complexity surrounding the issue of Taqiyya. For example it can be hard to tell who is deceiver and who deceived. I do assume you are earnest and sincere when you say you believe what you do about Taqiyya. But Enayat and the source Enayat cites, Ahmad Amin, I just don't know! Ultimately someone did not tell the truth about Taqiyya. You have become the victim of a chain of deception. A misinformation campaign. Who started it all off I don't know. But I do know that there is a lot of energy being put into keeping it going, and some of it is yours. You write "The problem with the understanding of taqiyya presented in ‘Global Jihad’ is that it can end up casting doubt on any claims made by Muslim leaders or groups." Absolutely! That is the whole point. Sookhdeo would agree with you. You apparently find this problem to be unreasonable, its very existence is unacceptable. It cannot be true. The problem itself must be dismissed as shoddy scholarship. Sookhdeo regards the problem as equally disturbing, but entirely reasonable. For him it cannot be dismissed so easily. The problem is, your beliefs surrounding this issue are not based on reliable evidence, but on a kind of academic hearsay which seems to bedevil scholarly writing about Islam at every turn. In this instance at least I do urge you to cast doubt on the claims made by Enayat and Ahmad Amin. I do not say they are lying - but what they are putting about is not the truth. Ben, Your confidence in the matter is surprising. For Sookhdeo this stuff is his bread and butter. He's been working on it for years. I can't help but thinking that it suggests a very low opinion of Sookhdeo as a scholar, this suggesting that he could be so ignorant of such a fundamental point about Taqiyya. Taqiyya is a Sunni doctrine, and regrettably even you seem to have fallen victim to it, believing writers whose claims really needed to be tested. That is a problem. Posted by: Deleted user 1491 Friday 20 February 2009 - 10:24am Thanks to the Fulcrum leadership for their response to the allegations of the blogger found on the Virtue Online website and others - it was timely and helpful. I wonder if I'm the only one who thinks that half the problem is this academic dryness- one missive robsutly attacking the technical aspects of another missive, while assuming that there is not a person behind the article or book. I'm all for robust discussion, but a by product frequently seems to be an absence of Christian love. It may be that no-one intends it that way, but I get the distinct impression there are a lot of people who are genuinely hurt on both sides who in Christ should be united. Perhaps we forget that there are people on the other end of our blogs who also have feelings. It would be great if both Fulcrum/White and Barnabas/Sookhdeo could patch this up quickly (and what a testimony to the gospel!), and discuss this as brothers in Christ (I assume that to be the case). On this matter, I personally recommend a pint and a good meal together. On the note of healing rifts, recognising genuine differences and genuine unity, I applaud the Fulcrum leadership for putting on the forthcoming conference- it looks good. Jason Posted by: BenWhite Friday 20 February 2009 - 09:32am Normal 0 false false false EN-GB X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0cm; mso-para-margin-right:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0cm; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;} “The question - let's keep on track - was whether the Islamic doctrine of Taqiyya is a Sunni one.” “The idea that Taqiyya is not a Sunni doctrine admittedly does have some currency - you can even find it on Wikipedia! But that doesn't make it a serious academic opinion.” Mark – thanks for your comments. Reading them, I’m not sure whether you’ve had a chance to look at my reply to the BF response published on Fulcrum, since I deal with some of these questions there. Citing the same source as PS and Zeidan (Enayat), I wrote the following: Zeidan has now cited a second quotation from Enayat’s book. But this is decontextualised from the passage it originates from. Here is the relevant passage, discussing the ideas of Ahmad Amin: “On the Shi’i practice of taqiyyah, much reviled by the Sunnis in the past as well as present, Amin is surprisingly less critical, describing it merely as an expedient method used by the Imams either to ensure the survival of their followers under hostile regimes, or to mobilise them in secrecy for revolts against the Caliphs...More significantly, he admits that the Sunnis too have practised taqiyyah – though with a difference: for them, a Muslim who fears that his life may be in danger because of his faith should do all in his power to migrate to another land; only when this proves impossible should he practise taqiyyah, but strictly ‘to the extent that is necessary’.” pp.44-45 Here we can see that Enayat states how the Sunnis hate taqiyya in the past and present, and, that the limited Sunni practice of taqiyya is based on survival from persecution under hostile regimes, and only to be invoked after migration to another country is impossible. There is also the matter of a significantly different quotation cited in ‘Global Jihad’ from Enayat’s book, something I also mention. While you say that “the question” is whether “the Islamic doctrine of Taqiyya is a Sunni one”, I wrote in my reply that this is actually only one of two questions: It seems there are two questions being considered. One, a debate on its applicability in a Sunni context – and I don't believe that Sookhdeo makes a convincing case for taqiyya being as equally Sunni as it is Shia. The second (and perhaps more crucial) question is the extent to which taqiyya is an appropriate reference point in contemporary political analysis. The problem with the understanding of taqiyya presented in ‘Global Jihad’ is that it can end up casting doubt on any claims made by Muslim leaders or groups: “Throughout Global Jihad, Sookhdeo reinforces his point: taqiyya “must not be forgotten” (367) and it is “important” (196) – even “essential” (426) – for non-Muslims to “always” bear the practice in mind (426).” “Sookhdeo asks “how many apparently moderate Muslim leaders are doing the same thing” [practicing taqiyya] (209), leaving it open as to how many, if any, ‘moderate Muslim leaders’ we can actually believe.” What we actually have in terms of the role of taqiyya in ‘Global Jihad’ is a very specific, Islamic theological concept intended to deal with the reality of persecution, disproportionately and unjustifiably expanded to include the mundane e.g. a terrorist obviously concealing his plans, or public figures saying different things to different audiences. “For example, whilst no-one could disagree with Ben White for implying that MEMRI and Palestinian Media Watch are far from impartial as sources: White calls them 'notorious' or 'fiercely pro-Israeli'.” I think it is perfectly fair to describe them as ‘pro-Israeli’ and ‘notorious’ – see my more detailed description in my reply to the BF response. “ Yet is impossible to write about Islam without using non-impartial sources, like the Qur'an, the Sunna, Islamic theologians.” This is not quite the issue at hand. When citing the Qur’an, there’s no need to highlight to the reader the risk of bias. With MEMRI and PMW, at the very least, a qualifying note is required. “When Sookhdeo cites a MEMRI source, the real question to ask is whether the Arabic media content it reports is accurately rendered into English in these particular cases, not whether MEMRI is 'notorious'. Indeed, as one of White's sources states: 'Nobody, so far as I know, disputes the general accuracy of Memri's translations'. Why did not White bring this view to his reader's attention? White's mode of critique - rejecting a source as polemical or 'notorious', without regard for its accuracy - is symptomatic of bias.” But the same source you cite, Brian Whitaker, in another piece I reference, says the following: “The curious thing about all this is that Memri's translations are usually accurate (though it is highly selective in what it chooses to translate and often removes things from their original context). When errors do occur, it's difficult to attribute them to incompetence or accidental lapses. As in the case of the children's TV programme, there appears to be a political motive. The effect of this is to devalue everything Memri translates - good and bad alike. Responsible news organisations can't rely on anything it says without going back and checking its translations against the original Arabic.” And, I did actually write, in my reply piece, that “most of MEMRI’s translations are indeed accurate”.
Posted by: Graham Kings
Friday 20 February 2009 - 06:55am
Thanks for giving your real name, Mark Durie, and for engaging with the issues rather than with the person of the reviewer. Our FAQ section here, on the home page menu, explains how you can have your name automatically appear at the top of your comments, rather than your user number: click on top right in the menu 'my account' click on edit name click on forum nickname type in your name - we very much encourage real names rather than nick names Posted by: Deleted user 1944 Thursday 19 February 2009 - 11:26pm Pete Hobson asks "Who are you User 1944?" Well, that would be me, Mark Durie. I'm not sure why my name is not showing up on Fulcrum. I live in Australia, far far away, but not so far way that I'm uninterested in the fault lines opening up in the English evangelical movement over the whole issue of what position to take on Islam. I have a blog on the Common Word letter (http://www.acommonword.blogspot.com/) which has some of my writings on Islam. You can make up your own mind about whether my voice is worth paying any attention to or not. Pete, whether Christians tell white lies is completely beside the point. The question - let's keep on track - was whether the Islamic doctrine of Taqiyya is a Sunni one. This is a specific technical question, and no amount of speculative writings in Aquinas, Calvin or who knows which other Christian theologian about telling white lies would have any relevance whatsoever to it. This is not a question of comparative theology, or whether there are 'echoes' across religions of universal tendencies of human nature, or even whether one religion is bad and another good. This issue is whether, based upon the Sunna and the Qur'an, Sunni theologians have esposed Taqiyya, and whether Ben's contentions on this matter are correct. Undoubtedly they have. The idea that Taqiyya is not a Sunni doctrine admittedly does have some currency - you can even find it on Wikipedia! But that doesn't make it a serious academic opinion. Fulcrum has shared with us its opinion that Ben White's review is 'important, measured, detailed, academic and, at points, critical'. Certainly the review is critical. It has become important, because of the ruccus being kicked up about it. Certainly it is detailed. Measured it is not, and its academic rigor deserves to be scrutinized. For example, whilst no-one could disagree with Ben White for implying that MEMRI and Palestinian Media Watch are far from impartial as sources: White calls them 'notorious' or 'fiercely pro-Israeli'. Yet is impossible to write about Islam without using non-impartial sources, like the Qur'an, the Sunna, Islamic theologians. Even MEMRI has its uses. When Sookhdeo cites a MEMRI source, the real question to ask is whether the Arabic media content it reports is accurately rendered into English in these particular cases, not whether MEMRI is 'notorious'. Indeed, as one of White's sources states: 'Nobody, so far as I know, disputes the general accuracy of Memri's translations'. Why did not White bring this view to his reader's attention? White's mode of critique - rejecting a source as polemical or 'notorious', without regard for its accuracy - is symptomatic of bias.
Posted by: Graham Kings
Thursday 19 February 2009 - 10:06pm
We have just published 'Fulcrum Statement on Concerns raised by the Book Review of 'Global Jihad' and Responses'. Do have a careful read. Posted by: pete hobson Tuesday 17 February 2009 - 11:47pm Who are you. 'User 1944'. and what grounds do I have for paying attention to your suggestion that Ben White is "out of his depth here", whereas you, presumably, are swimming? I also suspect that the defence of lying in some circumstances, quoted as from A-ghazali, would find echoes in many Christian writings down the centuries, and in much contemporary Christian practice. Isn't it a truism of some moral philosophies that there is such a thing as a 'white lie'>? - ie an untruth told for the sake of a greater good? It ,may or may not be good moral philosophy, but it's hardly surprising to find echoes of it in some Muslim texts... Posted by: Deleted user 1944 Tuesday 17 February 2009 - 10:43am It is quite misleading for Ben White to assert that taqiyya was simply a Shia concoction, although this is widely repeated claim. Indeed given that this claim is so widely put about, yet so easy to disprove, it could be regarded as an example of Taqiyya. Many Sunni authorities promote the concept of Taqiyya, see e.g. the editor's comments on Sahih Muslim (Vol 4), Chapter 577, Tradition no. 6303 p1373 (ed. by Abdul Hamid Siddiqui). Grounds for dissimulation, according to Sunni jurists, include i) jihad, ii) resolving disputes (including specifically those between husband and wife), iii) keeping someone's else's secret, and iv) when asked to confess some wrongdoing which otherwise would only be between you and God. For example, the great Sunni scholar A-Ghazali wrote: “Speaking is a means to achieve objectives. If a praiseworthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish it through lying because there is no need for it. When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible..., and obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory.” “When the purpose is war, settling a disagreement, or gaining the sympathy of a victim legally entitled to retaliate against one so that he will forbear to do to, it is not unlawful to lie when any of these aims can only be attained through lying. But it is religiously more precautionary in all such cases to employ words that give a misleading impression, meaning to intend by one’s words something that is literally true, in respect to which one is not lying …” “One should compare the bad consequences entailed by lying to those entailed by telling the truth, and if the consequences of telling the truth are more damaging, one is entitled to lie…” (Keller, Nuh Ha Mim, ed. and trans. 1994. Reliance of the traveller. Rev. ed. Beltsville, Maryland: Amana. Section r8.2). Ben White is out of his depth with this review. The editors should have asked someone with more competence to tackle this subject.
Posted by: Graham Kings
Sunday 15 February 2009 - 06:01pm
We have just published on Fulcrum 'Response to David Zeidan and Tawfik Hamid' by Ben White. Ben White wrote a Fulcrum Review of Patrick Sookhdeo’s book ‘Global Jihad’ and Fulcrum published a Barnabas Fund response to that review by David Zeidan and Tawfik Hamid. This is the reply to that response as published on the Fulcrum site. Posted by: Roger Hurding Friday 13 February 2009 - 03:56pm I think Graham’s bid for ‘redaction criticism’ of the Bannabas Fund’s two editions in response to Ben White is perfectly reasonable. To examine how the editor (readactor) has moulded the argument to express his or her theological understanding is a valid enterprise. Andrew, why should such a venture be suspect? It is surely self-evident that the two versions of David Zeidan’s piece are presented for two different clienteles: Fulcrum is offered the more palatable edition (although this is still defensive and accusative at times) and the Barnabas Fund is given what one can only assume is the unabridged edition, with its polarising blast at Ben White’s review. Redactive criticism engages with such presentations as, for Fulcrum, ‘Ben White’s review … is a robust critique of the author’s stance’ and, for the Barnabas Fund, ‘This is not a normal book review, but ideological propaganda camouflaged as a book review’. As I argued in an earlier message on this thread, the latter edition offers, in effect, a strongly partisan view as it accuses Ben White of having a contrary partisan view. This, I feel, is not a style that does credit to the Barnabas Fund. Where is the spirit of its namesake, ‘the son of consolation’? Posted by: Andrew Carey Friday 13 February 2009 - 10:02am David. It’s this talk about ‘additions’, ‘redaction criticism’ etc which I am getting at. It suggests foul-play. The most straightforward interpretation of the two versions of the article is that the more extreme language of one was edited. Now you are quite right in suggesting that those passages also do not help the debate. I’m sorry that I didn’t say that in my previous response on this thread. If Graham or Ben has any evidence that the difference between the two articles is not explained by a quite normal process of editing then they need to come forward with it. I’ll be more than willing to eat humble pie if I’m wrong on this. You write: “On your own admission you are taking a position on a book you have not read. It is apparently all right for you to state that the book's author has a tendency to overstate and over generalise (in a highly volatile and sensitive area of research) - but not for a reviewer to say that.” But the reviewer didn’t only make such reasonable points. In fact, it is the tactic of imputing guilt by association that I most object to in Ben White’s review. To detect this I do not need to have read the book (though I have read most of Patrick’s other books). Posted by: DavidR Thursday 12 February 2009 - 07:43pm Andrew, Your contribution leaves me rather baffled. That the response posted from Barnabas on Fulcrum (as a 'right of reply') and the response posted on their own site differ significantly is self evident - so what is all this about Ben and Graham 'seem to be making an assumption that additions were made'. They were - before or after we don't know. That the Barnabas response includes more personally attacking language on Ben and uses more harsh and dismissive language generally is also apparent to this reader. I have to say, as a Barnabas supporter, that if I only had that response to go on, given no link provided to Ben's original review, I would have struggled not to be prejudiced against the review and the reviewer in a way I consider unwarranted. I was looking for continued debate with a reasoned response and was prepared for a robust challenge to a robust review. But this went well beyond. That people might wonder why these two versions differed in the first place and in what detail is also entirely reasonable and predictable. At the very least the Barnabas 'home' piece looks highly defensive. That the original reviewer might notice there is a difference and compare the versions is surely predictable and again perfectly reasonable - especially when he is reading quite personally attacking criticism. What do you expect? But you call this 'tactics'. Even if the original review was all that Barnabas claims it to be - it does a Christian organisation no credit to reply in kind. On your own admission you are taking a position on a book you have not read. It is apparently all right for you to state that the book's author has a tendency to overstate and over generalise (in a highly volatile and sensitive area of research) - but not for a reviewer to say that. You can also acknowledge that his work has a great deal of substance that invites debate and response. But when Ben says exactly that he is just making a 'disclaimer'. You also appear to be placing any blame for the fall out from Ben's review and the Barnabas response at the door of Ben and Graham and add your own hints of conspiracy in the process by accusing them of using 'tactics'. 'Ben's tactics (and Graham's also I think) tend to generate suspicion and conspiracy rather than reasoned discussion.' You appeal for reasoned discussion but in all honesty I am struggling to find it here and as a Barnabas supporter I am hoping for some sort of clarification about the issue of the differing responses - and looking in general for a far less bullying and altogether more gracious response to people who engage with their work even where opinions differ strongly. Posted by: Andrew Carey Thursday 12 February 2009 - 04:20pm Graham Kings and Ben White seem to be making an assumption that additions have been made to the text submitted to Fulcrum in the email sent to Barnabas Fund supporters. This seems to be an unnecessarily suspicious approach. It is far more likely that subtractions were made (ie editing) to make the responses more suitable for the Fulcrum website. The copyright does not belong to Fulcrum so there's no need to credit the Fulcrum website on the Barnabas Fund website, though not to link to the Fulcrum website will create confusion for the readers. I think it's unlikely that the authors will come forward with any complaint about the editing of their copy, so I think that Graham's remarks about this are entirely unhelpful. I personally found Ben White's review rather harsh. Despite the disclaimers that Sookhdoe was an 'expert' in the field, he proceeded to rubbish Sookhdeo with a great deal of innuendo sprinkled throughout the review. I'm familiar with Sookhdeo's work (though I have not yet got down to reading this book) and would be critical of him for often overstating his case and generalising too much. But there is always a remarkable amount of substance in what he says which I believe is helpful to debate. Rather than opening up the debate further, Ben's tactics (and Graham's also I think) tend to generate suspicion and conspiracy rather than reasoned discussion. Posted by: Pete (Peter Travian) Thursday 12 February 2009 - 12:52pm Yes, always sad when evangelicals get into a punch-up. Let us try to analyse the different elements (1) Ben White review. Was White the right person to do this review? He doesn't claim and apparently has little expertise in this complex Jihad field whereas Sookhdeo is one of the well-known authorities on Islam. Perhaps a bit like asking an A level student to review Einstein? (2) White is perhaps best known for his pro-Palestinian stance, and Israel-Palestine holds a central place of in current jihadist apologetics. (3) Neither of the above disqualify White from writing a review of Global Jihad but was he the best person to give an informed impartial review. (4) Personal attacks on Sookhdeo. The review perhaps does not overtly attack Sookhdeo but there are a lot of expressions and slants that ought to have given a Fulcrum editor pause for thought; "Sookhdeo's manipulation", "sensationalist wild speculation", "questionable reliability", "misleading and unhelpful replies", "a narrow, politically-compromised outlook", "conspiratorial simplification" are some specific examples. (5) I was not myself overly concerned about the personal element in the review. I was more concerned about the lack of balance. White acknowledges Sookhdeo's expertise and calls the book "a significant work that offers substance". Unfortunately the review does not tell me much about what is good about Global Jihad, or even much about what it covers and what it argues. It concentrates almost exclusively on three areas where White thinks it falls down. I have to extrapolate backwards from White's criticisms to get some idea of what the book says. I don't want to read a review that is 90% about the reviewer's axe-grinding, and doesn't give me an even handed analysis. (6) The review is overly political, bringing in various White extraneous "bete noirs"; Israel, MEMRI, Shin Bet, neo-conservatives, George W Bush, hard-line conservatives, pro-Israel right-wingers etc. (7) The response posted on Fulcrum from Barnabas Fund looks like a very reasonable response. I would agree with that whole-heartedly. The longer more aggressive response sent out to their supporters and on their website looks like an original before it was edited down. I assume that the milder version was given to Fulcrum because Fulcrum would not have published what Zeidan really wanted to say, and that the other Zeidan text was then sent out as the non politically correct version? This may be helpful to some, and may be distasteful for others. Overall a little more grace on all sides would be helpful. Posted by: DavidR Thursday 12 February 2009 - 10:19am Obadiahslope - thank you for your personal response to me. I am not distressed and did not intend to sound so but it was kind of you ... meanwhile back on the thread ... Posted by: James Thursday 12 February 2009 - 07:03am obadiahslope you say: "The idea that one text is released and then handled differently by newsrooms IS old fashioned or more accurately "so very 2007". The newsroom is changing rapidly." But this is not a case of one text being issued and then handled differently. It is a case of an organisation issuing two texts purportedly the same but actually significantly different in tone and content. The question being asked is 'Why the differences?' as well as questions about the ethics of issuing a second version of the text without referring to an earlier version which is already in the public domain. At the very least one would have expected "An edited/previous version of this response was posted on the Fulcrum web site". When two different treatments of a news story appear the explanations are often obvious - more information becomes available to the reporters, there is more time to reflect on the implications and wider issues in a story, one version is intended to be read quickly at a glance another is fuller. Sometimes the differences between two versions of a story indicate something about the political or social views of the different reporting sources. What do you think are the reasons for the changes between the version of the response sent to Fulcrum and the version sent out in the Barnabas Fund email? Posted by: Paul Dyson Wednesday 11 February 2009 - 11:38pm I have read this thread with interest having met Patrick Sookhdeo a few times some years ago. I have not (yet) read his book. I played some part in the efforts of my church and others to reach out in various ways to our local Asian community which includes many Muslims. At one time I led on church premises a youth club whose members were mainly Gujrati Muslim boys and young men who had not long been in England and I later played in their cricket team. On occasions when I meet members (often now grandfathers) I am pleased to be greeted as a friend and I often regret not having made more efforts to deepen those friendships. Some local churches have continued forms of outreach, though with little obvious "success", and what was my own church now has a priest-in-charge from the subcontinent. I suggest it would be profitable to continue on this thread or open a new one with discussion about Christian relations with Muslims in this country from as many angles as possible. There are those who can speak with authority on this from a variety of viewpoints of which Patrick's is only one. Some dioceses have clergy with a special brief on this subject. The General Synod has debated this week whether to make evangelism towards other faiths a more overt objective. Someone has suggested (maybe it was Patrick) that Islam is a greater threat to Christianity than secularism, at any rate in Europe. For what they are worth here are a few slight observations of my own: 1. Muslims are more disunited than they like to pretend. Most mosques are communities of people from one area in their country of origin. However there are some "denominations" such as the Deobandi which exercise wider influence. 2. The Muslim community has similar social problems to others - older people are very disturbed by the involvement in crime, drugs etc and there are deep, largely unacknowledged, problems in family life and mental health. There are said to be disproportionately high numbers of Muslim men in prison. 3. Some young Muslims, both men and women, have high aspirations academically and in business and achieve them, while others are mired in unemployment and deprivation. 4. Conversion from Islam to Christianity appears both difficult and unlikely, though I have heard rumours of significant numbers in some areas. I do not know whether conversions in the opposite direction are more than occasional. 5. The social and cultural separation between Muslims and "native" British is usually deep and in particular the most active Anglican churches are not in the areas where Muslims live. Faith schools can easily accentuate this divide, although there is evidence that some are working together towards greeater cooperation and understanding. 6. The attitude of Asian Christians towards Muslims is generally defensive and distrustful, probably with real historical basis. Posted by: Obadiahslope Wednesday 11 February 2009 - 11:28pm David, I am sorry that I have distressed you. Please carry on. I do not wish to labour my point. Posted by: DavidR Wednesday 11 February 2009 - 10:55pm Obadiahslope - can we point out once again that this discussion is not about journalism and news reporting at all. Your information about videos is not relevant either for the same reason. You make it very clear how old fashioned all this looks from the world you inhabit. But you are making a false comparison and the effect is, curiously, to completely side step the actual concerns of this thread.
Posted by: Graham Kings
Wednesday 11 February 2009 - 10:27pm
The following is the text of the Barnabas Fund email to supporters which is now on the Barnabas Fund site here, but without a link into Ben White's original review on Fulcrum. It is a revision, in what seems to me to be quite shocking language, of the response, by David Zeidan and by Tawfik Hamid, to Ben White's original review, published on Fulcrum here, of Patrick Sookhdeo's book 'Global Jihad'. Patrick Sookhdeo is the International Director of the Barnabas Fund. Ben White has highlighted the changes from the text sent to Fulcrum by the Barnabas Fund and published on the Fulcrum site here. This highlighted text is on Ben White's site here. Again, I ask 'redaction criticism' questions about style: 1. Do people notice a difference in style between the original and the yellow additions? 2. What is the purpose of the additions and their style? 3. Are they appropriate in the response to a review? Barnabas Fund email to supporters - changes highlighted in yellow Global Jihad by Patrick Sookhdeo - responding to Ben White review on Fulcrum website A review of Patrick Sookhdeo’s book Global Jihad has been posted on the website of the Anglican group Fulcrum. The review, by Ben White, not only considers the book itself, but also includes personal attacks on Patrick Sookhdeo, the International Director of Barnabas Fund. Below is the the response by David Zeidan and comments by Tawfik Hamid, an Islamic reformer. 1. David Zeidan Introduction This is not a normal book review, but ideological propaganda camouflaged as a book review. White has an ideological axe to grind, and he has set up Patrick Sookhdeo as a fall guy in order to expound his own ideology and worldview. White gives this away by the undue focus he gives to the person and activities of the author of the book instead of simply examining the book on its own merit. He also attacks those who have endorsed the book, denigrating those mentioned in the British edition as “senior figures, either retired or still active, from the military establishment”. It would seem that in White’s view, such people who dedicated their lives to the security of his country can have nothing meaningful to say about the Islamic terrorism that is threatening this very country today. Other endorsers mentioned in the American edition are vilified as right-wing neo-conservative supporters of George Bush and as pro-Israel. Obviously, for White such people are beyond t he pale and cannot have anything worthwhile to say. He works on the basis that what they do say can have no merit - it is only who they are that is important. White’s skewed worldview divides the world into two camps: righteous left-wing, liberal, post modernists, proponents of liberation theology, who can do no wrong, as opposed to right-wing, neo-conservatives and fundamentalist Christians, willing to critique Islam, who can do no right and whose views are categorically dismissed as worthless. White seems to accept the racist Islamist view that anything said or written by Jews or Israelis, no matter how scholarly, cannot be credible simply because of who they inherently are. He thus critiques the use of material from The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), whom he labels ‘notorious’ because it is linked to Israel and its intelligence community, although its translations of Arabic documents are among the very best available. White endeavours to place Sookhdeo’s book into his pre-determined blinkered worldview by cherry picking a very few quotes he deems suitable to establish his claims while ignoring the vast quantity of material in the book that establishes its thesis. He simply ignores the hundreds of credible quotes that contradict his premises. In a book with 1133 references he has found only one where he claims a dubious source (p. 196, note 531, Randall Price) and one where he claims a misquote (p. 196, note 534, Hamid Enayat). These he belabours and flogs for all they are worth, blissfully ignoring the other 1131 quotes mainly from Muslim source texts, classical Muslim scholars, and modern Muslim scholars and thinkers as well as Islamist and radical Islamist leaders that bear up the edifice of Sookhdeo’s arguments. White focuses on a few issues (like Taqiyya) and ignores the main thrust of Sookhdeo’s book, which is the history and development of the Muslim concept of jihad, based mainly on Muslim source texts, scholarly works and modern Muslim discourse, as the main framework regulating the relationship of Muslims to non-Muslims. Allegation of political decontextualisation White alleges that Sookhdeo practises a political decontextualisation, ignoring political conflicts as motivating factors in Islamic terrorism, and claiming that theological motives are the only ones relevant. White has to admit that Sookhdeo does mention some political contexts, but adds that he does not examine them in sufficient depth. The truth is that Sookhdeo accepts that local political contexts, as well as a whole gamut of other factors, have some role to play in radicalising Muslims, but that it is their combination with religious motivations that is the catalyst to radicalisation. “Local grievances combined with a strong allegiance to a collective religious identity can lead to instability and conflict.”(p. 43). Sookhdeo also states (p. 103) that: “Of course most Muslims would respond that these are mainly liberation struggles and argue, quite rightly, that Muslims have faced varying degrees of discrimination and hostility in many of these contexts.” However, according to Sookhdeo, local political grievances are all subsumed into the overarching Muslim concept of jihad which since the rise of Islam has been used to shape Muslim attitudes to non-Muslims and to justify aggressive and violent responses to them. Following the 7/7 London bombing, even the British Muslim journalist, Rageh Omar, had to pose the question of what was unique about Islam that motivated Muslims to such actions (quoted in Sookhdeo, p. 44): Why was it four Muslims who blew themselves up? Why have other marginalised communities not produced suicide bombers? (Rageh Omar, Only Half of Me: Being a Muslim in Britain, Viking: London, 2006, p.13) Interestingly, White has nothing to say about jihad, which is the main thrust of the book. He simply ignores it as irrelevant to the subject. While Sookhdeo, and the wide gamut of Muslim sources and thinkers he quotes, are convinced of the importance of the religious and theological aspects motivating Islamic terrorists and their supporters and sympathisers, White is trapped in a worldview that can see only contemporary politics as relevant motivators to Islamic radicalism and terrorism. He would seem to subscribe to the discredited secularisation theory that assumed religion in the modern world in all cultures would be progressively marginalised and its hold on society diminished until the public square would be totally devoid of its presence. In fact, the contemporary world, and especially the Muslim world, is massively religious with powerful religious movements sweeping across the globe. Only Western Europe seems to be, so far, an exception to this rule. It would seem that because for White personally religion has lost any relevance to real life issues and especially to politics, Muslims must of necessity share his conceptual framework and simply cannot have any religious motivation for their hatred of the West and for their terrorism. Like a Marxist for whom class is all that matters, or a post-modernist for whom power relations are the all-and-in-all, so White refuses to accept that Muslims can be moved by religious doctrines and emotions in their responses to the non-Muslim world. He therefore studiously ignores the vast amount of evidence compiled by Sookhdeo from Islamic sources that backs his thesis. White totally decouples religion from politics, ignoring the fact that for most Muslims Islam is both religion and politics, and that the unity between the two is a main plank of all Islamist movements. White seems to have fallen into the trap mention by Sookhdeo (pp. 15-16): “Much contemporary Muslim intellectual activity is aimed at masking the real intent of Islamist ideologues and movements behind a facade of fashionable Western leftist discourse. For many in the Western hard left, Westerners are reactionary oppressors while under-developed nations and minority groups in the West are oppressed victims. Western democracies are castigated as oppressive, racist and neo-colonial, while Islamists are praised as representing the revolt of the oppressed against their (Western) oppressors.” What the renowned British academic expert on the Middle East and on international relations, Professor Fred Halliday has to say on the relationship between the Western left and Islamism (quoted by Sookhdeo, pp. 28-29), is also true of White and others like him in the liberal Evangelical Christian stream: It is striking, however, that - beyond such often visceral reactions – there are signs of a far more developed and politically articulated accommodation in many parts of the world between Islamism as a political force and many groups of the left. The latter show every indication of appearing to see some combination of al-Qaida, the Muslim Brotherhood, Hizbollah, Hamas, and (not least) Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as exemplifying a new form of international anti-imperialism that matches – even completes – their own historic project. This putative combined movement may be in the eyes of such leftist groups and intellectual trends hampered by “false consciousness”, but this does not compromise the impulse to “objectively” support or at least indulge them. The trend is unmistakable. Thus the Venezuelan leader Hugo Chávez flies to Tehran to embrace the Iranian president. London’s mayor Ken Livingstone, and the vocal Respect party member of the Bri tish parliament George Galloway, welcome the visit to the city of the Egyptian cleric (and Muslim Brotherhood figurehead) Yusuf al-Qaradawi. Many in the sectarian leftist factions (and beyond) who marched against the impending Iraq war showed no qualms about their alignment with radical Muslim organisations, one that has since spiralled from a tactical cooperation to something far more elaborated. It is fascinating to see in the publications of leftist groups and commentators, for example, how history is being rewritten and the language of political argument adjusted to (as it were) accommodate this new accommodation. (Fred Halliday, “The Left and the Jihad”, openDemocracy , 8 September 2006). Indeed, White’s stand is reminiscent of Ken Livingstone and George Galloway of the Marxist and Trotskyist Left and of some Anglican post-modernist liberation theologists who are embracing Islamist radicals, sanitising their statements, declarations and written documents, while ignoring their Fascist and Nazi roots and their anti-Semitic views. These might end up building a new fascist and anti-Semitic version of Christianity as almost happened in 1930s Britain. White and his like remind one of those in Britain in the 1930s that were sympathetic to Hitler and the Nazi party, claiming they were merely reclaiming the lost German honour and rebuilding German confidence after the humiliation of the Versailles Treaty. They totally ignored Mein Kampf and all other clear Nazi racist and anti-Semitic statements and actions, or else applauded them. Hatred of America, of Israel, and of Evangelical “fundamentalists” seems to blind White’s eyes to any possible defects in Islam. White’s glorification of Bin Laden This worldview drives White to glorify Bin Laden and to present him in a heroic light as a political freedom fighter and leader of a liberation movement with no religious motivation whatsoever. This seems to justify any and all atrocities committed by him. He offers some quotes from Bin Laden that refer to Muslim political grievances against the West and concludes that this is all that drives him. As anyone who has studied radical Islamist discourse knows, this is but one part of the discourse aimed at a Western audience and at radicalising Muslims in their local context. Much more space in Bin Laden’s discourse is aimed at expounding his theological stand and his theological justifications for his attitudes and actions. Contrary to White’s assertions, Bin Laden is clear in his theologically based enmity to the very core values of the West, and he relies on Muhammad’s example of waging jihad against infidels everywhere until they submit to Islamic dominion: Regarding which shared understandings, exactly, is it possible that we agree with the immoral West?… What commonalities, if our foundations contradict, rendering useless the shared extremities–if they even exist? For practically everything valued by the immoral West is condemned under sharia law…. [T]he issues most prominent in the West revolve around secularism, homosexuality, sexuality, and atheism…. As for this atmosphere of shared understandings, what evidence is there for Muslims to strive for this? What did the Prophet, the Companions after him, and the righteous forebears do? Did they wage jihad against the infidels, attacking them all over the earth, in order to place them under the suzerainty of Islam in great humility and submission? Or did they send messages to discover “shared understandings” between themselves and the infidels in order that they may reach an understanding whereby universal peace, security, and natural relations woul d spread–in such a satanic manner as this? The sharia provides a true and just path, securing Muslims, and providing peace to the world. (Raymond Ibrahim, The Al Qaeda Reader, New York: Broadway Books, 2007, pp. 31, 37). And: As to the relationship between Muslims and infidels, this is summarized by the Most High’s Word: “You have a good example in Abraham and those with him. They said to their people: ‘We disown you and what you worship besides Allah. We renounce you. Enmity and hate shall forever reign between us–till you believe in Allah alone’ ” [60:4]. So there is an enmity, evidenced by fierce hostility, and an internal hate from the heart. And this fierce hostility–that is, battle–ceases only if the infidel submits to the authority of Islam, or if his blood is forbidden from being shed [a dhimmi], or if the Muslims are [at that point in time] weak and incapable [of spreading Shari’a law to the world]. But if the hate at any time extinguishes from the hearts, this is great apostasy; the one who does this [extinguishes the hate from his heart] will stand excuseless before Allah. Allah Almighty’s Word to His Prophet recounts in summation the true relationship: “O Pro phet! Wage war against the infidels and hypocrites and be ruthless. Their abode is hell–an evil fate!” [9:73]. Such, then, is the basis and foundation of the relationship between the infidel and the Muslim. Battle, animosity, and hatred–directed from the Muslim to the infidel–is the foundation of our religion. And we consider this a justice and kindness to them. The West perceives fighting, enmity, and hatred all for the sake of the religion as unjust, hostile, and evil. But who’s understanding is right–our notions of justice and righteousness, or theirs? (Raymond Ibrahim, The Al Qaeda Reader, New York: Broadway Books, 2007, p. 43) White’s obsession with the Palestinian question White is obsessed with the Palestinian question: the Palestinians, categorised as oppressed victims, must be fully supported while the Israelis as oppressors are demonised and have no case whatsoever. White fully accepts the Muslim view that the Palestinian issue is the worst case of oppression and deprivation in world history, blissfully ignoring the much larger scale problems of the Armenian genocide, the Indian-Pakistani partition, South Sudan, the Kurds, Bangladesh’s struggle for independence from Pakistan, and others. This obsession seems to imply a deep-rooted anti-Semitism dressed up as anti-Israel and anti-Zionism sentiment. White accuses Sookhdeo of claiming that the conflict in Israel/Palestine is essentially a religious one between Muslims and Jews and that there is no possibility of peace. This is a clear misrepresentation of the facts, as Sookhdeo in that passage (p. 117) is actually summarising the stand of the Islamist movement Hamas as expressed in the Hamas Charter (a document White ignores). This is a direct quote from the Charter: Article 13 of the Hamas Charter: There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors. (“The Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement, 18 August 1988”, Yale Law School, The Avalon Project, http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hamas.asp, viewed 2 February 209). Also: Article 15 of the Hamas Charter: It is necessary to instill in the minds of the Moslem generations that the Palestinian problem is a religious problem, and should be dealt with on this basis. Palestine contains Islamic holy sites. In it there is al- Aqsa Mosque which is bound to the great Mosque in Mecca in an inseparable bond as long as heaven and earth speak of Isra` (Mohammed’s midnight journey to the seven heavens) and Mi’raj (Mohammed’s ascension to the seven heavens from Jerusalem). The Hamas Charter is a clearly anti-Semitic document. It depicts all Jews (not just Zionists or Israelis) as eternal enemies of Islam that are under God’s curse and wrath. Israel, simply by virtue of being Jewish and having a Jewish population, defies Islam and the Muslims (article 28). Islam must eliminate Israel. Old Muslim anti-Jewish traditions based on Qur’an and Hadith are used as in the Foreword to the Charter. The Charter includes modern racist Western anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, quoting the Protocols of the Elders of Zion (article 32). Jews are seen as lurking behind all the evils in the world: capitalism, usury, the French and Russian revolutions, Freemasonry, Rotary Clubs, Lions Club, Bnai Brith, World War I and the abolition of the Caliphate, the Balfour Declaration, the League of Nations, and the United Nations. All these have been used to destroy Muslim and Arab unity (articles 22, 28, 32). The Charter invokes the Hadith of the Hour ‘The Hou r will not come until Muslims will fight Jews’, thus turning the fight against Israel into an apocalyptic war of the end times (article 7). White’s anti-Israel stand seems to draw on similar anti-Semitic strands in British and specifically Anglican sources. It is well documented that many in the Anglican Church in the 1930s were anti-Semitic and sympathetic to Hitler and to Nazi ideology. This might be one of the reasons he attacks Sookhdeo’s exposé of Islamic and Islamist violence. Allegation of excessive generalisation concerning Islam White accuses Sookhdeo of a tendency towards generalisation and broad culturally deterministic statements that counterpoise the West against Islam. He seems to be ignorant of the scholarly need to find a balance between particularity and generality. An obsessive concentration on specific details means not being able to see the forest for all the leaves. There is always a need to offer a wide ranging theory, including broad generalisations that can integrate the mass of diverse details and serve as an organising principle for mapping the descriptive facts into a total explanatory system. White criticises Sookhdeo’s analysis that violence and domination are intrinsic to classical Islam, and that terrorists are above all theologically rather than politically motivated. In this, he ignores the statements by Muslims themselves as presented by Sookhdeo (p. 12) that jihad is the basis of the relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims. These include a reputable Muslim scholar, Majid Khadduri, and the former Supreme Judge of Jordan in 1968, Sheikh Abdullah Ghosheh. White denies that the goal of Islamists is to rule the whole world, yet a renowned Palestinian-American Islamic scholar, Ismai‘l Raji al-Faruqi, explicitly makes this claim (quoted by Sookhdeo, p. 91): Islam asserts that the territory of the Islamic state is the whole earth or, better, the whole cosmos since the possibility of space travel [is] not too remote. Part of the earth may be under direct rule of the Islamic state and the rest may yet have to be included; the Islamic state exists and functions regardless. Indeed its territory is ever expansive. So is its citizenry, for its aim is to include all humankind. If the Islamic state is at any time restricted to a few of the world’s population, it does not matter as long as it wills to comprehend humanity. (Isma‘il Raji al-Faruqi, Islam, Brentwood, Maryland: International Graphics, 1984: 60) Bassam Tibi, a Muslim scholar living in Germany, also describes the obligation in classical Islam of subjugating all non-Muslim peoples and states (p. 126-127): At its core Islam is a religious mission to all humanity. Muslims are religiously obliged to disseminate the Islamic faith throughout the world: “we have sent you forth to all mankind” (Saba 34:28). If non-Muslims submit to conversion or subjugation, this call (da‘wa) can be pursued peacefully. If they do not, Muslims are obliged to wage war against them. In Islam, peace requires that non-Muslims submit to the call of Islam, either by converting or by accepting the status of a religious minority (dhimmi) and paying the imposed tax, jizya. World peace, the final stage of the da‘wa, is reached only with the conversion or submission of all mankind to Islam. (Bassam Tibi, “War and Peace in Islam”, in Terry Nardin, ed., The Ethics of War and Peace: Religious and Secular Perspectives, p.130) And according to Majid Khadduri, in classical Islam jihad is the way to achieve this world dominion (p. 98): According to classical Islam, jihad is the God-given method to expand Islam’s political dominion. The jihad was therefore employed as an instrument both for the universalization of religion and the establishment of an imperial world state. (Majid Khadduri, War and Peace in the Law of Islam, 51) White also resents Sookhdeo mentioning the classical division of the world into the Abode of Islam and the Abode of War and the duty of changing the second into the first. Again, Majid Khadduri has this to say: Thus the jihad, reflecting the normal war relations existing between Muslims and non-Muslims, was the state’s instrument for transforming the dar al-harb into the dar al-Islam. (Khadduri, War and Peace in the Law of Islam, 53) While White would have us believe that Islam is no different from other religions and cultures, and that any statements on Islam are unfounded generalisations, here is what Abdel Beri Atwan, the Palestinian editor of the London-based al-Quds al-Arabi, has to say (p. 36): Islam is very different from most of the celestial and non-celestial religions… The Islamic creed and the concept of the nation, surpass the concept of citizenship and nationality. A Muslim person is a Muslim first, then Pakistani or Indian or Egyptian or British. If this concept had retreated for many reasons, among which is the spread of secularism during the times of the leftist or communist tide, these campaigns that are looming in the West and are targeting Islam, have began to bring it back strongly in these last few years. (Abdel Beri Atwan, “The Pope has Wronged [Muslims]… And Should Apologize”, Al-Quds al-Arabi,18 September 2006. For Atwan, a fairly secularised Muslim intellectual, and for many like him, Islam is different, and they are proud of it. They can have nothing but scorn for Western intellectuals like White who patronisingly believe all cultures and religions to be perfectly similar, meaning other cultures are no different from their own Western liberal, leftist and post-modernist culture. Critique of Sookhdeo’s views on Taqiyya White spends inordinate space in his review attacking Sookhdeo’s views on the Muslim practice of Taqiyya (dissimulation). He wrongly accuses Sookhdeo of bringing only one reference for his claim that “In classical Islam Muslims are permitted to lie in certain situations, one of which is war”. In fact, Sookhdeo in the chapter “Taqiyya”, offers ample evidence from the Muslim source texts of Qur’an and Sunni Hadith. These are based on Muhammad’s example and teaching which are compelling for all Muslims. White is also mistaken in saying that Taqiyya is an exclusive Shi‘a doctrine. Though Sookhdeo agrees (p. 196) that the Shi‘a were especially involved in the development of the doctrine, he goes on to prove that Sunnis too approve of it and practise it in appropriate circumstances. A Hadith from the authoritative Sunni collection of Bukhari is presented as to the eternal validity of Taqiyya (p. 199): Al-Hasan said: At-taqiyya (i.e., speaking against one’s own beliefs lest his opponents put him in great danger) will remain till the day of Resurrection.” (The Translation of the Meanings of Sahih Al-Bukhari, Arabic –English, Translated by Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan, Riyadh: Darussalam Publishers and Distributors, 1997, Vol. 9, Book 89) The view of the famous Sunni scholar Ibn Taimiyya is also presented on the same page, and a fatwa on the Sunni website Islam Online on the following page. In addition, Taqiyya is clearly taught by radical Sunni Islamist groups. Abu Muhammad Asim al Maqdisi, a radical Sunni Islamist scholar and mentor of the Jihadi-Salafis who deeply hate the Shi‘a, has this to say on Taqiyya as used for war: And know, after that, that there is no contradiction between acting upon the Millah of Ibrahim and taking the precautions in secrecy and concealing the hostilities used to give victory to the religion. And the sum of our words does not reject this great precaution, which the Prophet used to take. And the evidence upon that from his biographical accounts (Sirah) is more than can be counted . . . And the summary of the matter is: Secrecy in the (Operational Military) Preparation and Planning; Openness in the Da‘wah and the Conveyance”. (Abu Muhammad ‘Asim Al-Maqdisi, Millat Ibrahim (The Religion of Ibrahim) and the Calling of the Prophets and Messengers, English translation, Second edition, Al Tibyan Publications, pp. 70-71) And further: And with your understanding of this point, another important benefit becomes clear to you, which is the permissibility of deceiving the disbelievers and some of the Muslims hiding amongst their ranks, during the confrontations and the fighting, as long as the religion (Din) is apparent and the basis (Asl) of the Da‘wah is famous. (ibid. p. 77) Sookhdeo also offers examples of modernist, mainly Sunni Muslims, who accused some of the Muslim religious leaders of double talk and hypocrisy (a part of Taqiyya). White also accuses Sookhdeo of misquoting the Muslim scholar Hamid Enayat on the subject of Taqiyya being practiced by Sunnis. However, Enayat refers to the Sunni Egyptian Ahmad Amin who admitted that “Sunnis too have practiced taqiyah - though with a difference”. (Hamid Enayat, Modern Islamic Political Thought, 1982, p. 61) Another aspect of Taqiyya is stated by the Muslim scholar, Bassam Tibi, who explains why Muslims can claim that Islam was always peaceful (p.104): “Jihad and the expansion of Islam through war are not seen by Muslims as aggression, but as the God-ordained method of attaining to the ultimate peace under the dominion of Islam. The wars to disseminate Islam are not described by the Arabic word for war, harb, but by futuh, literally opening (of the world to Islam). The non-Muslims who stand in the way of the spread of Islam, creating obstacles to its mission (da‘wa), are held responsible for the resulting state of war. The obstinate refusal of non-Muslims to accept Islam is viewed as aggression, as they hinder Islam in its God-ordained path to victory.” (Bassam Tibi, “War and Peace in Islam”, in Terry Nardin, ed., The Ethics of War and Peace : Religious and Secular Perspectives, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1996, pp. 128-145, p. 130) In this view aggression is liberation, war is peace and the victim is the culprit. White on Afghanistan White alleges that there is an almost total absence of discussion of the Afghan jihad in Sookhdeo’s book and claims that there is no mention of the US and Saudi help given to the jihadists. It would seem his reading of the book was extremely cursory as he searched it for material to justify his prejudices. In fact, there are several passages dealing with the Afghan jihad against the Soviets and its ramifications. Thus on p. 116 it is clarified that American, Pakistani and Saudi Arabian aid was given to the Afghan jihad. On p. 338 it is explained how in the Afghan jihad the many diverse jihadists developed cooperation and influenced each other’s ideologies, thus spreading the ideas of the takfir and jihad groups. It also relates how the returning Afghan mujahidin instigated a radicalisation in their home countries and developed new fronts for the global jihad. On p. 434 it is explained how the Americans made the mistake of regarding religion (I slam) as neutral during their support of the Afghan jihad, thinking they could channel the religious conviction of the mujahidin to serve their own agenda. This led to the detrimental growth of the radical Islamist movements who later turned on their makers. On the “demographic jihad” White alleges that Sookhdeo’s warnings about the manipulation by Islamists of the Muslim demographic danger are “sensationalist wild, speculation”. White again shows his ignorance of Islamic affairs as it is Muslim leaders and Islamists who have used the Muslim population explosion and migration as a weapon in the quest for Islamic dominion. The following quotes from Muslims clarify the way they think on this issue: In 1974 Algerian President Houari Boumedienne (1976-1978) stated in the General Assembly of the United Nations: One day millions of men will leave the southern hemisphere of this planet to burst into the northern one. But not as friends. Because they will burst in to conquer, and they will conquer by populating it with their children. Victory will come to us from the wombs of our women. (Houari Boumedienne, quoted in Brendan Bernhard, “The Fallaci Code”, LA Weekly, 15 March 2006, http://www.laweekly.com/index.php?option=com_lawcontent&task=view&id=12921&Itemid=47, viewed 15 August 2008) The famous charismatic Egyptian Muslim preacher, ‘Amr Khalid, recently stated that Muslims will form a majority in Europe within 20 years: The Muslims keep having children, while the Europeans do not – this means that within 20 years the Muslims will be the majority. (‘Amr Khalid, in an interview on Dream 2 TV, 10 May 2008, quoted in MEMRI Special Dispatch Series, No. 2003, 27 July 2008). Muammar al-Qaddafi, leader of Libya, had a similar message to proclaim: We have 50 million Muslims in Europe. There are signs that Allah will grant Islam victory in Europe - without swords, without guns, without conquests. The fifty million Muslims of Europe will turn it into a Muslim continent within a few decades. (Mu‘ammar al-Qaddafi in a speech aired by Al-Jazeera TV on 10 April 2006, quoted in MEMRI Special Dispatch Series, No. 1152, 2 May 2006). Mullah Krekar, a Kurdish Islamist radical linked to terrorist groups in Iraq and granted asylum in Norway, recently claimed that Europe would be 30% Muslim by 2050: We’re the ones who will change you . . . Just look at the development within Europe, where the number of Muslims is expanding like mosquitoes. Every western woman in the EU is producing an average of 1.4 children. Every Muslim woman in the same countries are producing 3.5 children. By 2050, 30 percent of the population in Europe will be Muslim . . . Our way of thinking . . . will prove more powerful than yours. (“Krekar claims Islam will win”, Aftenposten, 13 March 2006). Conclusion There can be no doubt that White offers a biased and tendentious review of Sookhdeo’s book, based on his own ideological stance which cannot tolerate other opposing worldviews, and cannot objectively handle academic and historical facts. Personal slurs and innuendos replace fair and objective evaluation based on the merit of the text and the sources on offer. David Zeidan, 5 February 2009 David Zeidan gained his Ph.D. from the University of London in Comparative Religion, specialising in Islamic fundamentalism. His father was Palestinian Christian Arab and his mother Jewish. 2. Tawfik Hamid Patrick Sookhdeo’s book Global Jihad: The Future in the Face of Militant Islam is one of the greatest books that I have ever read in this field. I found the author’s approach very logical, objective, and correct. The past experience of Patrick Sookhdeo as a Muslim in the Islamic culture has given him extra ability to understand the root causes of the problem. As a former jihadist and currently a reformer of Islam I testify that the deep analysis that Dr. Sookhdeo did for the problem of radical Islam is valid and accurate. I would recommend this book to any one who wants to know the root causes of the problem of Islamist terrorism and different ways to deal with it. I have read the review by Ben White for Global Jihad. I have to admit that the review was not very accurate in many areas. For example, Mr. White insisted that the Sookhdeo book failed to consider the context of terrorism. In this regard, he should have explained to us why such contexts as poverty and the political circumstances did not affect non-Muslims who live in the Middle East as well. Is he also trying to convince us that the killing of more than 150 thousand innocent Algerians by the hands of the Islamists in Algeria or the Sunni butchering and beheading of Sheiia in Iraq is caused by the Arab-Israeli conflict. The writer also raised doubt about the Tiqiia issue in the Sunni world. While Tiqqia was practiced mainly by Sheiia it certainly exist in Sunni theology and is based on certain verse in the Quran and Hadith. When I was with the Jammaa Islameia in Egypt (a Sunni terror group) the concept of Tiqiia was taught to us and encouraged. Mr. White’s analysis and comment need to be deeper and more realistic. Tawfik Hamid, 5 February 2009 Dr. Tawfik Hamid is a medical doctor. He was formerly a jihadist, and he is now an Islamic reformer. Posted by: Obadiahslope Wednesday 11 February 2009 - 09:49pm The idea that one text is released and then handled differently by newsrooms IS old fashioned or more accurately "so very 2007". The newsroomis changing rapidly. A modern reporter will file several stories on the same subject, rapidly. A short breaking news story ( which may come from a member of the public). A photo, then more details. A longer story for the website, followed by a more detailed piece for the paper. A video report somwhere in the middle. I have seen video news packages go from breaking news to being on the web in 15 seconds. The idea that there is one "core text" of an internet commentary, and that it is somehow morally wrong to have two versions of it, is simply passing away. These days you can't refer to the "Daily Bugle's" report of an event, you have to say which "Daily Bugle " report you mean: the early website flash? the video? the printed report, the update after the paper went to pres? Fulcrum is an old fashioned website (sorry), with no video imbedded. As soon as a video channel is created on a website you will have often have two versions of something. So a internet savvy person will want to check out both the written report and the video. An example would be checking say David Virtue's repoprt of a conversation with some Primates with the video or audio recording of it. Posted by: Dave C Wednesday 11 February 2009 - 08:43pm I became aware of this thro' a BF email. I've read Ben's review and the two BF responses and the thread. I find the differences between the two BF responses intriguing. The one on the Fulcrum site seems reasonably measured: I've not read Sookhdeo's book. The email from BF to me is a different response and much of it bears little relation to Ben's review. I'm amazed at how much the 'reviewer of the review' has been able to read into what Ben wrote. It isn't necessary to agree with everything in Ben's review to regard the BF response as odd. Just by the way; why the concentration on Hamas as being key to the origin of the Palestine/Israel conflict? They've only been around for 20 years. Dave C 
Posted by: Stephen Kuhrt
Wednesday 11 February 2009 - 04:13pm
I too share the major concerns of others expressed on this thread about how the Barnabas Fund has chosen to respond to Ben White's review. Incidentally it is very important not to confuse (as one previous poster has) the Barnabas Fund with the Barnabas Trust - the latter is a completely separate charity that runs really excellent centres used by many churches and youth groups (such as Carroty Wood and Halls Green in Kent). Posted by: BenWhite Wednesday 11 February 2009 - 03:55pm @ Obadiahslope "I thought we were discussing a couple of book reviews, so I am not sure where the idea of a "core text" comes from in this context. If a press association story has a different treatment in a different newspaper, or a different website is that somehow dishonest?" Just to clarify things. Fulcrum published a book review of 'Global Jihad', written by me, found here. http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/page.cfm?ID=380 Fulcrum then received a response piece by the Barnabas Fund. The vast majority of this piece was written by David Zeidan, with a smaller text by Tawfik Hamid. This is here: http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/page.cfm?ID=386 However, yesterday, a similarly structured, yet substantially different response piece was circulated by the Barnabas Fund on their email list, and put on their website. No link was provided to either my original review or the first BF response on Fulcrum. The authorship of this response is the same (Zeidan, Hamid). It can be seen here: http://www.barnabasfund.org/?m=7%23227&a=743 I have put the text of this second, substantially different, Barnabas Fund response online, trying to show the additional/different text in yellow. This is here: http://www.benwhite.org.uk/blog/?p=628 Therefore, this is not the same as your example of a press association story. In that case, one single, original text is released, and then edited for length, quoted differently etc by the receiving newspapers and websites. The equivalent here would be the BF sending out just one response to various people/places who then publish differently edited versions. This was not the case here (as David has also noted below). Posted by: Dave Wednesday 11 February 2009 - 03:31pm A closely related topic may be coming to the House of Lords see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7882953.stm The offending video may be found at: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3369102968312745410 The points made about different audiences etc may explain many of the differences in the two reviews from the Barnabas Fund but the conclusions are so different that we must ask what their view is. David Posted by: DavidR Wednesday 11 February 2009 - 03:26pm Obadiahslope - we are discussing one book review as I understand it - Ben White's - and the response made by to it the Barnabas Fund. Both were posted on Fulcrum. It now appears that a significantly changed version of that same response has been posted on the Barnabas website - some question as to how the authorship of this revised version relates to the response sent to Fulcrum, and, we note in passing, without the usual courtesy and aid to understanding, of providing a link to thereview in question. Graham rightly challenged this. The Press Association is not relevant to this discussion. The issue is quite specific. In the absence of any explanation the posting of two significantly different versions on the 'home' and on an 'away' site is first of all puzzling - don't they know we can read both versions - and have? Secondly it looks uncomfortably like an attempt to manipulate the progress of a complex and often heated debate and thus raises questions about the commitment of Barnabas to open discussion, well informed discussion wthin its membership and beyond. Posted by: Obadiahslope Wednesday 11 February 2009 - 02:10pm David, I thought we were discussing a couple of book reviews, so I am not sure where the idea of a "core text" comes from in this context. If a press association story has a different treatment in a different newspaper, or a different website is that somehow dishonest? Posted by: Roger Hurding Wednesday 11 February 2009 - 12:08pm Ben, that is such good news about Philip Rizk. I must say that in re-visiting Bens’ review of Patrick Sookhdeo’s book and re-reading his highlighted sections of David Zeidan’s response I find myself coming to two main conclusions. First, I so not see BW’s piece as including ‘peronal attacks’ on PS; I find his review clearly expressed, raising perfectly valid queries and offering reasoned counter-arguments. Second, in contrast, I find DZ’s response at times unhelpfully defensive and in places charged with accusative and dismissive language. The issues are of course hotly contested but surely clarification is not helped by unduly emotive language. It seems tragic that the vital matters around an understanding of Islam are so rarely put forward in an even-handed way that avoids demonisation and illiberality. It seems that any such attempt to do so can be met with accusations of ‘anti-Semitism’ and ‘leftist, liberal, post-modern’ prejudice. Conversely, it can be equally hard to talk of Israel and America’s roles in their handling of Middle Eastern affairs in a fair-minded way that can safely criticise policies and attitudes where appropriate and commend whenever more generous-spirited views emerge. These are big issues and they won’t go away. Let us seek less polarised views and greater empathetic listening to ‘the other side'. Posted by: DavidR Wednesday 11 February 2009 - 11:07am The posting of significantly different responses on the 'home' and on an 'away' website, to the same review invites mistrust at the very least. It feels like an attempt to manipulate the response of home supporters away from more open discussion - not least be failing to include a link to the original review by Ben. And just what is it that can be said to Barnabas supporters that is not for saying to Fulcrum readers - and don't they know we can read both in any case? My wife and I have been supporting Barnabas and this leaves a bad taste ... As to the idea that it is somehow 'old fashioned' in this electronic age to expect a consistency of content on core texts as disucssion continues ... well, yes, but I would hope that Christians might be seeking to model a more careful and honest way of taking to each other. Posted by: BenWhite Wednesday 11 February 2009 - 10:35am I know this is off-topic, but since I'd previously mentioned the abduction, I thought I should say that Philip Rizk was released during the night and is now with his family. http://www.benwhite.org.uk/blog Posted by: Deleted user 1937 Wednesday 11 February 2009 - 09:43am Have a conspiracy theory if you like. The obvious conclusion to reach, having now skimmed the response posted on this site as well as the email I was sent (including Ben White's highlighted version), is that these are two different, but closely related messages, sent to different audiences. The one is engaging with Fulcrum on its own territory, with its members etc., while the other is sent to BF supporters, on their own territory etc. I would suggest that more than one mind has expressed itself in both versions. Again, others will form their conclusions. I would concede that it is not wise to adapt and alter a message used in one public context for use in another without signalling that this is what has been done. But I note that the response is not claimed as authored by PS but by a BF staffer. Is this significant? Posted by: Obadiahslope Wednesday 11 February 2009 - 08:18am It is not unusual to have two different versions of a story or comment piece placed on the internet. I am not sure why Ben or Graham are excited by this. People are free to read both pieces. Google is your friend. Posted by: BenWhite Wednesday 11 February 2009 - 07:56am Normal 0 false false false EN-GB X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0cm; mso-para-margin-right:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0cm; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;} @Obadiahslope “Media organisations will file many versions of a story, aimed at different audiences. (A simple example is a radio newsroom that will revoice and rewrite a story for different radio netwrks).” I don’t think that is a comparable example/context. @blacksmith “It would be easy to read the review as containing personal attacks, but the response does no better.” I don’t see how my original book review here on Fulcrum contained anything like “personal attacks” on Sookhdeo. People are free to go back and look at it (though the Barnabas Fund email and website did not link to it). There are two paragraphs describing Sookhdeo’s activities in very neutral, plain language – about 3 percent of the total text. This, according to the latest BF response, is an “undue focus”. Anyway, people can make their minds up. My original review is here on Fulcrum, as is the BF response sent to Fulcrum. I’ve put the second BF response, emailed to their lists and put on their website, on a blog post, and attempted to show the changes in yellow highlighting. Take a look. http://www.benwhite.org.uk/blog/?p=628 Graham’s questions regarding who actually wrote the altered response, and who was involved in authorising those changes, are indeed interesting. Posted by: James Wednesday 11 February 2009 - 06:21am Perhaps you should add a note to the response which you were sent to say that it was altered before it was sent out to Barnabas Fund supporters, and what the alteration was. Posted by: Deleted user 1937 Wednesday 11 February 2009 - 12:14am Ben White: 'I'm quite taken back by this claim that my review includes "personal attacks on Patrick Sookhdeo". ... I believe my review, while robust and critical, was also measured, focused, and with an entirely appropriate tone.' Writing as one who has only read the review, response and this thread, I'd say that both review and response are, shall we say, more than a little emotionally charged. Perhaps 'trenchant' would be a good word. It would be easy to read the review as containing personal attacks, but the response does no better. Neither does its author great credit on the impartial analysis front. On the other hand, Ben White's responses in the thread do much better. As to the merits of the arguments ... others than I will have to assess those. Posted by: Obadiahslope Wednesday 11 February 2009 - 12:12am In the new age of continuous publication, the idea that there is only one version of a document released on the internet, is a little old fashioned. Media organisations will file many versions of a story, aimed at different audiences. (A simple example is a radio newsroom that will revoice and rewrite a story for different radio netwrks). Sending out two versions of a book review simply reflects modern media practise. I make no comment on the relative merits of each version of the book review, but only point out there is no break in "protocol" here. Times have moved on and the net has changed the way things are published. John Sandeman
Posted by: Graham Kings
Tuesday 10 February 2009 - 09:26pm
In terms of publishing protocol and academic integrity, it is not appropriate that changes have been made to the conclusion of David Zeidan's Barnabas Fund response to Ben White's review without contacting Fulcrum. The conclusion to the version sent out by email to Barnabas Fund supporters does indeed differ in significant respects from the version we received from the Barnabas Fund and published. Fulcrum published exactly what the Barnabas Fund emailed to us. If the Barnabas Fund, or David Zeidan, has changed the conclusion, this should have been made clear both to Fulcrum and to the supporters of the Barnabas Fund. An interesting series of questions is: 1. who changed the conclusion? 2. who was consulted about the change? 3. who has the authority to bring about the change? 4. does 'redaction criticism', which compares the writing style of authors, have any light to shed on these questions? Posted by: BenWhite Tuesday 10 February 2009 - 08:40pm It seems there is also a different conclusion to David Zeidan's response in the Barnabas Fund email sent out today, compared to the response posted on Fulcrum. Here is Zeidan's conclusion in the BF email: "There can be no doubt that White offers a biased and tendentious review of Sookhdeo’s book, based on his own ideological stance which cannot tolerate other opposing worldviews, and cannot objectively handle academic and historical facts. Personal slurs and innuendos replace fair and objective evaluation based on the merit of the text and the sources on offer. " Here is Zeidan's conclusion in the Fulcrum published response: The debate on Islamist jihad is and will remain a complex and difficult one. It behoves all participants in it to be aware of how their own worldview and standpoints affect their assessments, and to allow these to be challenged by relevant contrary evidence. It is also important for them to review the work of others, with whom perhaps they may disagree, carefully and rigorously, paying due attention to the merits of the texts and sources being considered. In light of the comments above, we are not convinced that White’s review fully meets these criteria, or that it is an altogether fair assessment of Sookhdeo’s book. Posted by: BenWhite Tuesday 10 February 2009 - 05:49pm Barnabas Fund have circulated their response to my review on their email list, but did not include a link to my original review in the email. The BF email says the following: "A review of Patrick Sookhdeo’s book Global Jihad has been posted on the website of the Anglican group Fulcrum. The review, by Ben White, not only considers the book itself, but also includes personal attacks on Patrick Sookhdeo, the International Director of Barnabas Fund." I'm quite taken back by this claim that my review includes "personal attacks on Patrick Sookhdeo". In fact, I wrote this at the very start of the review: "Before going any further, it is worth emphasizing that Sookhdeo is a man who deserves a fair hearing, and Global Jihad, with its extensive notes, research, and comprehensive sweep is a significant work that offers substance where many in this area only offer froth. Sookhdeo’s experience and position of influence means that familiarity with his work is a necessity." I believe my review, while robust and critical, was also measured, focused, and with an entirely appropriate tone. Posted by: Roger Hurding Tuesday 10 February 2009 - 11:28am Thank you Ben. I do hope you and others will be able to secure the release of Philip Rizk. I have signed the online petition and the petition on Facebook. Posted by: BenWhite Monday 9 February 2009 - 09:03pm Just wanted to say that I'm unable to respond just yet, because of being flat out working for my kidnapped friend, Philip Rizk. Philip is a Wheaton College graduate, blogger, film-maker, Egyptian-German Christian, and was abducted by Egyptian secret police Friday night. See here http://www.benwhite.org.uk/blog/ and the Facebook group http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=62997328834 And sign the petition too please http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/release-philip-rizk.html Thanks. Posted by: wggrace Monday 9 February 2009 - 01:44pm The response from Barnabas Trust is as robust as Ben White's original review. As the Proverb says, "The first to present his case seems right, till another comes forward to question him." Prov 18:17. The whole scope of the book and therefore of both the review and the reply is massive. Is there any one issue on which we could focus profitably, in order that our discussion on this thread is productive of something more than blast and counter blast. Perhaps if Ben White feels able to respond to the reply, he might out of deference to my (our?) limited understanding and knowledge of these issues, focus upon just one thing, even if it seems to imply he is failing to reply on the other issues.
Posted by: Graham Kings
Sunday 8 February 2009 - 07:12am
As part of our 'right of reply' policy, we have just published on Fulcrum a response, on behalf of the Barnabas Fund, to Ben White's book review of Patrick Sookhdeo's book 'Global Jihad'. It is by David Zeidan and Tawfik Hamid. Posted by: Mark Bennet Saturday 7 February 2009 - 10:01pm This is an interesting thread, and this post is a little off topic, but seems to relate to some recent observations. I think it was Stanle Hauerwas (it might have been John Yoder or someone similar, because I've lost the origival reference) who said "the greatest contribution Christians could make to world peace would be to stop killing each other in the name of their God". Inspired by this and various other statements I have a set of cards I developed (bashed together in a spare 20 minutes) for use with a confirmation group of 12-year-olds, which have proved to be useful for a wide range of ages and other characteristics. The task is simply to put a set of statements into one of three categories "Things every Christian should do", "things no Christian should ever do", and others. One of the statements which provokes most debate and controversy is "kill another Christian" - which often goes into the never pile. Then we think about war, just war theory, the death penalty (executioners) and so on - does what originally seemed very clear seem so obvious now? And what difference does it make to replace Christian with human being? What does the Bible say (OT even accidental killing is problematic, is there a difference between lawful killing and murder) ... In the context within which we admit the truth about ourselves, the truth about others can be told. But if we do not tell the truth about ourselves, we are not in the truth business ... Posted by: Clare Friday 6 February 2009 - 10:22pm Seriously, how can any Christian have the gall to state that 'that violence and domination is intrinsic to ‘classical Islam'? er, Chrsitianity's track record, anyone? Crusades? Pogroms? Nearly two millenia of sponsoring anti-semitism? Burning people at the stake, spanish Inquistion, murdering professionals involved in abortion? Apartheid? Nuclear submarines named 'Corpus Christi', GWB's 'awe and terror'.......I could go on and on. Planks in eyes come to mind! I am not being 'liberal' here, surely it is imperative for all Christians to be honest about the deep faults within our own religion and not to minimalise them whilst pointing out others faults in glorious technicolour? When we confess our sins, we don't do so half heartedly whilst pointing out (probably incorrectly anyway) that someone else's sins are much worse. Telling the truth sets us free, and it is much easier to be accurate in telling the truth about one's own sins than anybody else's. the criticism of Dawkins (via Stephen Weinberg) that we should take most seriously is his charge that '"With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil—that takes religion. " we cannot simply dimiss this - there is definitely some truth in this - although the problem is not just 'religion' but any system that divides the world up into goodies and baddies who deserve what's coming to them (whether hell, the gas chambers or the overthrow of the proletariat). Like others on this thread, I believe that Rene Girard describes why this is in a most illuminating way. religion - any religion - is like alcohol. Life enhancing used well, catastrophic used badly. As people who are not only religious ourselves, but who actively encourage others to become religious, we have an absolute moral responsibility to make sure that we ourselves and all those we teach/encourage/have fellowship know the dangers that can accompany religious belief and against which we all have to struggle. we need to teach one another strategies for identifying when we are abusing religion. we need to dissmeinate and practice disciplines that mitigate against this. we need to be honest in public about our track record and our continued potential to do harm as well as good, rather than puff out some Christian 'spin'. we are in the business of truth, not PR. All churches should include such information in confirmation classes, alpha groups, lent groups, via sermons, in ministerial/leadership training. I doubt we would have any time left for decrying the specks in other people's eyes if we did our own 'ocular hygiene' properly! [formatting problems -sorry about variation in font etc] Posted by: BenWhite Tuesday 3 February 2009 - 11:17pm Normal 0 false false false EN-GB X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0cm; mso-para-margin-right:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0cm; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;} @wggrace I confess I am getting confused about the distinction between the religious and the political as it relates to Islam. As far as I can see, Islam is political, just as Judaism in the time of Christ was political and for much of the time since, the church has been political. The petition in the Lord's Prayer "thy kingdom come, thy will be done" can be seen as political. I would definitely agree with the Lord’s Prayer being political; it is a bold subversion of the authority and slavish obedience claimed by earthly rulers and emperors. There is one level in which any and every religious – or ideological – belief is ‘political’, quite simply because every human being is, whether we like it or not, involved in politics as much by passive inaction as active participation. Being ‘apolitical’ implicitly means supporting the status quo. The thing is, it has become quite standard to observe that “in Islam” (again, the totalising generalisation), “there is no separation between religion and politics”, unlike us developed Western Christians, who went through the Reformation and now jolly well know how to divide up our loyalties and responsibilities. Except this really assumes two things: firstly, that “Islam” is ossified, unchanging, and unevolved since the time of Mohammad in every country and culture where there are Muslims; and secondly, that Islamists campaigning for some degree of theology-shaped legislation or state infrastructure represent the only authentic ‘Islam’. There may be a distinction between the way politics and religion interact with Hamas and Al Qaeda. The latter are not primarily interested in the nation but in the Islamic community. Thus, the difference between religion and politics is negligible. For Hamas, the existence of Palestine, the non existence of Israel, both of which are issues of statehood rather than of religion per se, religion and politics may be more easily separated. I’m glad you point to the differences between Hamas and al-Qaeda, who in reality are bitterly opposed both in terms of goals and methods. However, I’d also add that while al-Qaeda emphasise a global Islamic community, the root causes for the emergence of this specific grouping, and its ideology, are political. But there are still problems is separating them even here. The nation of Palestine will be Muslim, or Hamas will die, literally, fighting for it. They could not, would not, could not conceive of a secular Palestine (is this a distinction between Hamas and Fatah?) and certainly not of a Jewish or Christian Palestine. Muslim it must be. Well, this comes back to a bit of what I was saying earlier about the political pragmatism of Hamas. There are certainly those in Hamas who would advocate a state of Palestine that incorporates a kind of shari’a law. However, even those more socially conservative types within the group would on the whole say that shari’a would need to be democratically decided, rather than imposed, and that calling people to religious observance is best done by the example of one’s own life, rather than by obligation/force. That is to say, if the majority of Palestinians wanted a secular democracy (which they do), this Hamas school of thought would say, ‘Fine, we’ll simply get on with our individual and community observance, and invite people to religious devotion through our behaviour and example’. What Fatah is fighting for is a difficult question to answer, since it has changed over time, and the group is right now in a state of crisis. But, yes, the official position would be the creation of a secular, democratic Palestinian state in the territories occupied by Israel in 1967. Thus if we say Islam is political, then we also say it is religious; if we say Islam is religious we also say it is political. I think it is Ben who claims the political character of Islamic terror and Patrick claims it to be religious, but surely both are right in what they affirm. The dualism that separates the political and religious is a modern(ist) invention. Sookhdeo is saying that ‘Islamic terror’ (a phrase I reject, as mentioned below) is a fundamentally religious phenomenon and the root of the problem is “Islam” itself. I am saying that what we call ‘Islamic terror’ is in fact diverse phenomena arising in a variety of socio-economic, cultural, and political contexts, where more often than not, violence justified by theology is deployed for political purposes (and has historical-political origins). Posted by: wggrace Tuesday 3 February 2009 - 09:15pm I confess I am getting confused about the distinction between the religious and the political as it relates to Islam. As far as I can see, Islam is political, just as Judaism in the time of Christ was political and for much of the time since, the church has been political. The petition in the Lord's Prayer "thy kingdom come, thy will be done" can be seen as political. There may be a distinction between the way politics and religion interact with Hamas and Al Qaeda. The latter are not primarily interested in the nation but in the Islamic community. Thus, the difference between religion and politics is negligible. For Hamas, the existence of Palestine, the non existence of Israel, both of which are issues of statehood rather than of religion per se, religion and politics may be more easily separated. But there are still problems is separating them even here. The nation of Palestine will be Muslim, or Hamas will die, literally, fighting for it. They could not, would not, could not conceive of a secular Palestine (is this a distinction between Hamas and Fatah?) and certainly not of a Jewish or Christian Palestine. Muslim it must be. Thus if we say Islam is political, then we also say it is religious; if we say Islam is religious we also say it is political. I think it is Ben who claims the political character of Islamic terror and Patrick claims it to be religious, but surely both are right in what they affirm. The dualism that separates the political and religious is a modern(ist) invention. Posted by: BenWhite Tuesday 3 February 2009 - 06:23pm Normal 0 false false false EN-GB X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0cm; mso-para-margin-right:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0cm; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;} Spokesman, also, thanks for some interesting feedback. I’ll go through your comments with some thoughts of my own. The problem with your analysis is that you distinguish too much between political and religious motivations. Actually, I’d say that it is the Sookhdeo-type analysis that does this, attributing the violence of radical Islamist jihadists to religious motivations. As I said in my comments to wggrace, those individuals/groups may justify and understand their actions through Islamic theology/scripture, but in fact, the phenomenon is (I’d argue) primarily political. In other words, I’m trying to hold both the political and religious factors together, though placing more weight on the political causation. No doubt there are political triggers leading to Al Queda inspired and other Islamist violence, but in Islam there is not the seperation of the political from the religious that is found in Christianity. Again, I find this “in Islam...” claim problematic, because it relies on a reduced, delineated understanding of all the variations and overlapping categories that can be described as ‘Islam’ in some form or other. Why was Bin Laden bothered about the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia during the first Gulf War? It was not because he supported Iraq's invasion of Kuwait or was allied to Sadaam. Rather it was because the presence of non-Muslim troops in the land of the Islamic holy places was deemed by him to be an insult. Well, bin Laden has cited several specific (political) grievances, including the then presence of US troops on Saudi soil. I find it hard to see how the military presence of the world’s only superpower, in a crucial oil-supplying country whose dictatorial regime is guaranteed by that same power, is not ‘political’. And objection to such a manifestation of imperial strength is hardly uniquely ‘Islamic’: Bolivia, for example, recently passed a constitution which included a ban on US military bases in the country. Sookdheo may not have mentioned all the political trigger events, but this does not mean that his central analysis is not valid. Well, it wouldn’t necessarily invalidate the central analysis, but in fact it (partly) does. Sookhdeo refers to “Islamic” violence, i.e. the violence is essentially “Islamic” – not political, or social, or economic, but “Islamic”. Sookhdeo did not even write “Islamist” more on that in a moment). Allow me to quote a part of my review: “In Global Jihad, the connection between politics and terrorism is not simply marginalised; the two are practically decoupled. According to Sookhdeo, even if one was to ‘eliminate’ every ‘Islamic terrorist’, “sooner or later terrorism would re-emerge, as individual Muslims examined the roots of Islam, gave them a particular interpretation, and made their own decisions to return to the violence of the early days of their faith” (401). In this scheme of things, a decision by an individual Muslim to commit him or herself to acts of violence has absolutely nothing to do with politics.” It’s not that Sookhdeo somehow forgot to provide political contextualisation; his central thesis depends on the omission. I suspect your view is too centred around your understanding of the Palestinian/Israel conflict. In that conflict there are very significant political triggers, but the young men and women which Hamas uses as suicide bombers also have a religious motivation. If there was not a theological view that suicide bombers go straight to heaven, it would be unlikely that any Muslim would take such action as suicide is comdemned in Islam. I’m trying not to make this thread too much about Israel/Palestine, because the issues are much broader. But just to specifically focus on one of your contentions here, you write that “If there was not a theological view that suicide bombers go straight to heaven, it would be unlikely that any Muslim would take such action as suicide is comdemned in Islam”. I’d say that the more logical causality is that it’s only when there is a situation in which suicide bombing (for a variety of reasons) is deemed appropriate, that a theological justification is created. Remember, non-Muslims are also practitioners of suicide bombing, e.g. the Tamil Tigers, and Christians or secular Lebanese. Not to mention, of course, the far more common idea of launching an attack of some sort knowing that it will mean your certain death e.g. kamikaze pilots, or numerous soldiers around the world who are normally rewarded after the fact for bravery, dedication etc. The question remains, is the Hamas desire to remove the state of Israel primarily motivated by political or religious factors? As the ideology underpinning Hamas is Islamist (rather than political), its prime motivation is religious. The political grievances are an outworking of its theological motivation. Islamism is political – it is, most simply, a politics shaped/informed or influenced by an Islamic theology. Hamas’ anti-Zionism may be expressed religiously, but the tension between politics and theology and Hamas varies and shifts; experts believe that the political pragmatism tradition has been stronger in recent times (hence the decision to contest the elections for example). To say, as you do, that “the political grievances are an outworking of its theological motivation” is a bit bizarre, as the very same political ‘grievances’ (which doesn’t feel like quite the right word for a people who are still fighting for self-determination and equal rights) are held by Palestinian secular Muslims, socialists, Christians etc. This is crucial to understanding whether a politcal settlement can be achieved. If the prime motivation of Hamas is theological, it is very unlikely that a long-term solution can be found without addressing those theological underpinnings of the conflict. However, if the primary motivation is political then there is a high chance that a settlement can be achieved. Again, I am reluctant to respond in much depth here, since the point raised focuses on a political settlement in Israel/Palestine, a big subject in its own right. Suffice to say, however, that senior Hamas leaders have from to time signalled their willingness to accept a two-state solution, indicating that for a strong current of Hamas’ thought, the solution to the conflict is political, not theological. Whether there is a “high chance” that a political settlement can be achieved, sadly, does not depend on Hamas’ (one Palestinian movement of just 20 years) particular motivations. Posted by: wggrace Tuesday 3 February 2009 - 05:24pm I was arguing that John Milbank's claim that polities almost always were founded upon violence applied both to Islam and to Western polities. That is, at their core Islam and the West both espouse violence. This is not just an accident of their cultures, nor just an expression of the sinfulness of mankind, but a logical outworking of their fundamental religious characters. In the case of Islam, much Islam in this country belongs to the form of Sufism. This has legitimate claims not to be a polity in Milbank's sense, and it does seem to be far more peaceful than much of the world outside Islam. But Patrick may well feel that Sufism can be distinguished from classical Islam. Other forms of Islam do seem to be guilty of the violence Milbank rejects, guilty of it by its very character, just as much of the West is guilty. This is not merely cultural. Islam was essentially founded in Medina as a ruling party. From its inception it employed violence (much as Ben White would say Israel has). My challenge is as much to Patrick as to Ben; if Islam is violent, does Christianity, Patrick's version of it, offer anything better? Where I perhaps diverge from Ben is that the 'if' in 'if Islam is violent' does not imply possibility; I am sure that Islam is violent to its core just as many versions of Christianity and (practically?) all versions of Westernism are also violent to their core. Posted by: Dave Tuesday 3 February 2009 - 02:22pm Rageh Omar takes an alternative look at the Crusades. Travelling to the Middle East and Europe he asks is this long forgotten period in Christian history the key to understanding the problems with the Muslim world today?" http://www.channel4.com/video/brandless-catchup.jsp?vodBrand=christianity-a-history This gives an interesting analysis on how past Christian violence relates to current Islamic violence. David Posted by: Roger Hurding Tuesday 3 February 2009 - 02:20pm Whoops! It should of course have been René and not Reneé Girard. Posted by: Spokesman Tuesday 3 February 2009 - 11:56am The problem with your analysis is that you distinguish too much between politcal and religious motivations. No doubt there are political triggers leading to Al Queda inspired and other Islamist violence, but in Islam there is not the seperation of the political from the religious that is found in Christianity. Why was Bin Laden bothered about the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia during the first Gulf War? It was not because he supported Iraq's invasion of Kuwait or was allied to Sadaam. Rather it was because the presence of non-Muslim troops in the land of the Islamic holy places was deemed by him to be an insult. Sookdheo may not have mentioned all the political trigger events, but this does not mean that his central analysis is not valid. I suspect your view is too centred around your understanding of the Palestinian/Israel conflict. In that conflict there are very significant political triggers, but the young men and women which Hamas uses as suicide bombers also have a religious motivation. If there was not a theological view that suicide bombers go straight to heaven, it would be unlikely that any Muslim would take such action as suicide is comdemned in Islam. The question remains, is the Hamas desire to remove the state of Israel primarily motivated by political or religious factors? As the ideology underpinning Hamas is Islamist (rather than political), its prime motivation is religious. The political grievances are an outworking of its theological motivation. This is crucial to understanding whether a politcal settlement can be achieved. If the prime motivation of Hamas is theological, it is very unlikely that a long-term solution can be found without addressing those theological underpinnings of the conflict. However, if the primary motivation is political then there is a high chance that a settlement can be achieved. Posted by: Roger Hurding Tuesday 3 February 2009 - 10:00am Yes, wggrace, a tendency towards violence is endemic in the human race, especially in the testosterone-fueled half. I am reminded of Reneé Girard's thesis of violent scapegoating as intrinsic to human nature and the perspective that the life and death of Jesus Christ as the ultimate Scapegoat offers a route to escape our reflexive violence - whether that violence is Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Hindu, animistic, secular or atheistic. Posted by: BenWhite Tuesday 3 February 2009 - 09:23am Normal 0 false false false EN-GB X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0cm; mso-para-margin-right:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0cm; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;} Thanks, wggrace, for your thoughtful comments. I’ll do my best to respond. One assertion of Patrick Sookhdeo that Ben White appears to repudiate is one that I would like to defend, although in terms that do not necessarily put the West and most of Christianity in any better light. That assertion is that violence is a core element of Islam. Looking at this, I think that you begin with a confusion/error. Here is perhaps the relevant part of my review: “The core of Sookhdeo’s analysis in Global Jihad is that violence and domination is intrinsic to ‘classical Islam’, and that the terrorists are above all theologically, rather than politically, motivated.” I then challenge this by describing how “in order to make this case, Sookhdeo ends up distorting or simplifying Islamic theology, in what is the third flaw of the book” (the others being political decontextualisation and cultural/broad generalisations). Now, while you wish to defend the assertion that “violence is a core element of Islam”, to do so, you actually change the grounds of discussion. Sookhdeo stakes his claim on a interpretation of Islamic theology and exegesis; I challenge the assertion by critiquing those very methods. Your defense, however, is based on cultural reasons (which I’ll come to). Thus even leaving aside your subsequent cultural argument, the central question of Islamic theology/text interpretation is untouched. Sookhdeo, I argue, distorts and simplifies Islamic theology, in order to ‘prove’ that violence is intrinsic to Islam. Islamist jihadis may justify and frame their actions with Islamic theology and textual references, but their interpretation is merely one out of a myriad of responses to the complex, varied traditions that is Islamic theology (an interpretation, moreover, born of a specific socio-political context). As has been argued elsewhere (e.g. Bill Musk's Touching the Soul of Islam), honour/shame is a feature of Islamic culture as of much of the East. Indeed, it was a prominent feature in Europe until comparitively recently. I would argue that such an emphasis on honour/shame, while it can have many advantages, has a built in tendency to violence. I personally don’t hold much by “broad, culturally-determinist statements”, a point of criticism I raise in my review. Do other cultures view the questions of honour and shame differently to ours? Undoubtedly – though in a more complex way than can be communicated in the typical media soundbite. However, such simple descriptions are more unhelpful than illuminating, and politically suspect. See, for example, how the torture of Iraqis by US forces, or the torture of those kidnapped under the ‘war on terror’ and sent to Guantanamo or secret prisons, was often shaped by crude, Orientalist understandings that the ‘Arab mind’ only responds to force, prioritises honour etc. Violence lies at the heart of polities, because the pertinent issues are to do with control, authority and power. Ultimately, however, I confess I can’t really see what you’re concluding, beyond the fact that there is violence in every society (of course, true). I have never denied “the presence of violence in Islamic society”, since to do so would be idiotic. Indeed, I have never seen anyone contest the idea there is violence in Islamic societies: what I contest is both the truth – and political implications/application of – the claim that violence is ‘intrinsic to Islam’. Posted by: wggrace Monday 2 February 2009 - 08:22pm One assertion of Patrick Sookhdeo that Ben White appears to repudiate is one that I would like to defend, although in terms that do not necessarily put the West and most of Christianity in any better light. That assertion is that violence is a core element of Islam. As has been argued elsewhere (e.g. Bill Musk's Touching the Soul of Islam), honour/shame is a feature of Islamic culture as of much of the East. Indeed, it was a prominent feature in Europe until comparitively recently. I would argue that such an emphasis on honour/shame, while it can have many advantages, has a built in tendency to violence. To support this, I cite a description of Roman society. All males and presumably most females in these cultures [Greco-Roman] regarded the public realm as superior to the household, linking public life with civilization, freedom, mobility, and acquired honor. Boys were raised to find their primary identity in that public realm. Young males learned quite early that they symbolized the honor of their households and that they had to defend that honor on a daily basis from the challenges of all males beyond their family. Not to do so would bring shame upon themselves personally and on their families as well. Boys were raised to be aggressive, to seek to dominate, in whatever way possible, every male encountered beyond the family’s threshold.... “Since honor is the pivotal value (much like wealth in our society), nearly every interaction with non-family members has undertones of a challenge to honor.” Challenge leads to counter challenge and on to violence. This explains the civil war that disfigured the Roman state for so long prior to the emergence of Augustus. This explains the Roman compulsion to extend the boundaries of the empire. It was the seeking of honour. This same honour/shame based violence gave rise to vendettas, which is of course not an Arabic but Italian word (though I am sure Arabic has such a word). John Milbank in his book Theology and Social Theory: Beyond Secular Reason, if I have understood him correctly (which I accept is unlikely as no-one seems to understand him) asserts that violence lies at the heart of all polities apart from the Christian polity (Milbank's version of it - he accepts that for the most part Christianity exhibits the same violence as the rest of the world). As soon as you realise that violence may undergird much that passes for civilisation, one sees it all around. Just think how many American movies are vengeance movies, films that laud vengeance and not just describe it. Just think of our current problems with gangs. But this same violence is endemic to Islam just as much as to the West. In Turkey they have special mediators to try and bring long standing and violent feuds to an end. Much of the violence in Pakistan and Iraq is Sunni against Shiite (and vice versa), not Muslim against Christian. Ben White cannot really deny the presence of violence in Islamic society, cannot in my opinion even deny its endemic presence. What he can deny is that the non Muslim society (including our own) stands above this violence. Posted by: BenWhite Saturday 31 January 2009 - 12:20am Normal 0 false false false EN-GB X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0cm; mso-para-margin-right:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0cm; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;} David H – after your last comment (dated 28 Jan, 08:13pm), I don’t believe there can be any reasoned discussion with you about this matter. Peter Adams – thanks for the comments. I for one will be happy to continue a discussion as and when you return having read the book, responding in the meantime to developing points on the thread. User 1921 – thanks, I’m glad you appreciated the review - this kind of response has been encouraging. Posted by: Matt Vaughan Friday 30 January 2009 - 03:46pm I feel impelled to comment on Ben's excellent review because it is a huge relief, finally, to read an article which critiques Mr Sookhdeo's work from a central standpoint. The review is well-written, erudite, thorough, and a joy to read. I am baffled, and have been for some time, by the constantly negative opinion of Islam that Patrick disseminates through his books. Although there are hard issues which need to be discussed, and though we should be grateful to him for raising awareness of persecution, it is surely illogical and offensive to lump all Muslims together and say "The religion they follow is intrinsically violent". And even if Muslims are all violent (which I don't believe), so what? Jesus specifically commands us to love our enemies and bless those who persecute us. The New Testament was written in a culture which was far more institutionally violent towards Christians than Muslim society has ever been, and yet it is drenched in love, grace, forgiveness, and a wonderful scorn for death. Isn't this the kind of attitude we should have? Posted by: Peter Adams Thursday 29 January 2009 - 05:50pm I have only just joined the Fulcrum forum, and did so to join this conversation. But it seems to me its a bit stuck on the facts of the book. While I am inclined to support Ben on the basis of what I already know, I have not read the book either, so despite wanting to support his excellent review will decline from comment for now! If its OK for a newbie to do so, could I suggest a week or two of time out and then resume the conversation when perhaps one or two - including David H - might have increased Amazon's revenue and read it. (For the record I work in interfaith and intercultural relations as part of the ministry team at St Mary's Luton.) Posted by: Dave Wednesday 28 January 2009 - 08:13pm Incidentally, Ben, what is your view of the consummation of the prophets marriage to Aisha at a very tender age? [rest of comment deleted by moderator] David Posted by: BenWhite Wednesday 28 January 2009 - 06:50pm David H Firstly, I have to echo 'David's comments that it is difficult for a debate specifically on 'Global Jihad', and my review of it, to proceed if you haven't read the book. It also risks, as can be seen in your last comment, broadening the discussion in an unhelpful and unwieldy fashion. Secondly, I'd just like to comment that it is interesting how you devote a considerable part of your comment (and your original 10 point critique) to the question of Palestine/Israel. Interesting, because while these kinds of discussions are not ostensibly about Palestine/Israel, the degrees of separation are often very few. Honestly, I have to say that it is ridiculous to compare the list of historians I offered with David Irving, a discredited, far-right, Holocaust-denier. Anyone wondering about your views on the Middle East should look up any - or all - of the historians I listed, and see if they deserve to even be mentioned in the same sentence as Irving. Posted by: Dave Wednesday 28 January 2009 - 11:47am Ben, Your review does not give a clear summary of Patricks conclusion's, although your review together with his interviews on the book give me a fair idea of what he is saying. Now Patrick has sought to give an analysis of the common ideology of the various terrorist groups. This is a legitimate objective. If you were to write on the inspiration of terrorism in Europe in the last quarter of the last century you would be likely to focus on ETA, the Red Brigade, the Red Army Faction and Ireland in all it's complexity. Now your approach would give a whole litany of complaints including the sins of Oliver Cromwell and the potato famine. It is at least as legitimate to analyse their interpretation of Marxist-Lenninism and compare this with the official teaching from Moscow and the works of Marx, Lennin and Trotsky. On this basis the analysis which Patrick is doing is the most useful to understand the sort of ideology which is being peddled in Britain and leading to the radicalisation of a small but dangerous section of disaffected youth. The question for me is why out of the millions in the the Middle East who hate the USA have a siezeable minority decided to do something about it. Why do people strap explosives to themselves, get on a bus and blow themselves and their fellow travellers up? What inspires a group of men to fix the date of their death perhaps two years in advance, undergo extensive training, travel to a foreign land and kill themselves along with 3,000 others who have done them no harm. The will of Allah and the promise of paradise go a long way in explaining this. The questions that the book seems to raise are, moving outwards: has Patrick given a fair account of the religious ideology or the terrorist groups? How many Muslims share this view or are sympathetic to it? How do Muslim scholars and community leaders react to this ideology? Is this ideology consistent with the Qu'ran and generally accepted Hadith? Is the interpretation consistent with a Muslim account of the life of Mohammed? It is this last question that troubles me inview of the slaughter of the Jews in Mecca and the attack on a trading caravan which is glorified as the battle of Badir. You refer to my view of history as a long-discredited mythological formulation. As a conservative Christian I am used to such comments. In your reply you list the New Historians and regard their views as fact when they are highly controversial and have been criticised for example by Anita Shapiro. Without extensive research it is impossible to say if these deniers of the Jewish story are any more reliable than David Irving. On point 2 I aologise if I come across as condescending. I would say that my position is rather one admiration of their guts and determination coupled with a sadness at the poor leadership they have had. There have been about half a dozen potential settlements since 1937 which have been reject by the Palestinian people and these offers have become progessively less beneficial to them as they or their allies have resorted to unsucessful violence. In my view tha biggest obstace to peace is the weakness of the Palestinian leadership. They are not only unwilling but unable to guarantee a cessation of violence. In this context a terratorial concession by Israel allows the rocket launchers to be moved nearer to their homes. David Posted by: BenWhite Tuesday 27 January 2009 - 05:15pm Normal 0 false false false EN-GB X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} Firstly, I’d like to say thanks to those who have posted comments here. It is sentiments like those, expressed by various individuals to me personally, that encouraged me to pursue such a review in the first place. It’s interesting that both ‘pete hobson’ and ‘Mary P’ refer to an observable change when it comes to Patrick Sookhdeo’s output (and the BF’s emphasis), a shift that has alarmed and concerned. Secondly, to ‘David H’’s remarks in his two posts to date. In the first post, David H mentions having seen Patrick speak live, and also refers to recordings or video clips of Sookhdeo. I can assure him that I have also seen him speak, and have listened to many other recordings of his talks and interviews; that extra material, I believe, only strengthens the criticisms I voice in my book review (and indeed, adds to them, but that is for another time). Now, David H’s second post is much longer, and deserves close attention, since it criticises or seeks to counter some specific points made in my book review. I will thus try and respond. Note that David H’s ten points are all intended to justify his central claim that the review is “biased and ill informed”. 1. Ben makes much of Patrick not giving us a history of Iran but as he says these facts are well known and given the nature of the book he is entitled to assume his readers are already aware of this. As Tom Wright has remarked you cannot say everything even in a long and perhaps already overlong book. The facts of the US/UK sponsored coup in Iran in 1953 may be “well known” as I said, but that is no excuse for entirely excluding any reference to it, in a section called ‘Resentment towards the United States’. If Sookhdeo specifically quotes Ayatollah Khamenei as accusing the USA of “plotting coups d’etat” against Iran, then surely one should point out that this is exactly what the US had done? Indeed, the 1953 coup was one of the most important factors – if not the most important – in shaping the nature of the 1979 Islamic Revolution. As David H points out, the book is long and maybe even “overlong”; if that is the case, it is even more instructive what has been included, and what has been excluded. 2. When we look at Afghanistan and Palestine the remarkable thing is that opposition has lasted for so long, on such a scale against such overwhelming odds. The original complaint may be political but this can only be explained by their religious mindset. This is not a very precisely made point, but the essence seems to be that Afghan and Palestinian “opposition” can only have lasted as long as it has because of the populations’ “religious mindset”. Apart from the rather condescending tone, this point is problematic not least since in the case of Palestine, secular Muslims, Christians and Leftists have also consistently formed part of this opposition. 3. Ben writes as a journalist and as such has a very limited memory. The intellectual roots of Islamofascism lie in the fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Middle East between the wars. One starts to suspect the integrity of David H’s critique at this point, when he writes that since I’m a “journalist” I must have a “very limited memory”. ‘Islamofascism’, as he calls it, may indeed have some of its “intellectual roots” in the early parts of the twentieth century (though this is by no means the whole story). The point about the Afghan jihad, however, (which I presume is the point in my review he is addressing), is that it helps answer the question (in the words of Mamdani), “How did right-wing Islamism, an ideological tendency with small and scattered numbers before the Afghan War, come to occupy the global centre stage after 9/11?” 4. Ben ignores the fact that the 1948 war was not started by Israel but by an alliance of Arab states determined to drive the Jews into the sea. An alliance motivated by a religious territorial imperative. This is not really worth replying in detail to, since it is simply a long-discredited mythological formulation about the origins of Israel, with no serious basis in scholarship or indeed reality (though if you wanted to read about it, you could try Simha Flapan, Avi Shlaim, Meron Benvenisti, Benny Morris, Ilan Pappe, Nur Masalha, Rashid Khalidi, Tom Segev, and others). 5. Palestine Media Watch and MEMRI provide a translation and reporting service. They are selective in their material as is Fulcrum. Their political bias is well known and evident from a cursory inspection of their websites or see Wikipedia. There is no reason to suppose that Patrick is not fully aware of this and capable of using these sources in a critical fashion. I’m sure that Sookhdeo is indeed aware of the political bias of MEMRI and PMW, which makes it even more problematic he chooses to cite them. David H may suggest that Sookhdeo can use these sources in a “critical fashion”, but there is no evidence for that in the book; the reader is not told of the political bias of these two groups, or the serious allegations levelled against the likes of MEMRI not just of bias, but of shoddy translation. 6. Ben introduces information to smear the "Pentagon Study" which has no bearing on its accuracy. Surely it is relevant to know that this was not simply a “Pentagon” study, but a report compiled by a highly secretive agency eventually shut down after severe criticism for its domestic spying activities. The report’s conclusion cited by Sookhdeo stands in stark contrast to the analysis of many others (military officials, political scientists, former spies, diplomats, intelligence agencies etc.) about the motivations for Muslim suicide bombers. 7. The "occupation" of Jerusalem is surely such a motivating issue to Muslims because Mohammad dreamed of visiting heaven from their. Noe this religious and hence political claim is based on a dream. He never visited Jerusalem. David H’s point here is uncertain. That Muslims are not really bothered about Jerusalem, but it’s simply a trick to spite the Jews? That Muslims should probably just calm down, because it was only a dream? 8. His figure of 1 billion for the number of Muslims in the world is very conservative . The current figure is nearer 1.6 billion see http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/rel_isl_num_of_mus-religion-islam-number-of-muslim Well, I certainly accept that there are differing figures for the global Muslim population. Though a higher number like 1.6 billion merely strengthens the point I was making when I cited the statistic: that “with all their national, social, ethnic, political, theological, economic, and individual diversity, such sweeping remarks [of Sookhdeo’s] seem far-fetched or even ludicrous”. 9. The spread of Islam by violence is a recurring historic feature e.g. Tours, Constantinople, Vienna, the Ottoman empire, The "conversion" of Pakistan. Presumably, David H refers to my criticism of Sookhdeo’s claim that “the war on Islamic terrorism is just one aspect of a ‘long war’ which has lasted 1400 years already” (Global Jihad, 12). If that is the case, then I simply repeat my original criticism: “Substantial disregard for centuries of local, regional and international historical, political and religious interplay is required in order to draw an unbroken line from seventh century Arabia to say Madrid in 2004, as all part of the same ‘long war’.” 10. Ben relies on guilt by association in his attack on Randell Price and those who have been favorably impressed by the book. I hope that the Fulcrum leadership can persuade Patrick to reply on the more technical issues of abrogation and taqiyya. There is no ‘guilt by association’ here. The point about Randall Price is to show exactly what kind of source Sookhdeo uses. In terms of the book’s US endorsements, that is not ‘guilt by association’; it is simply showing in which quarters this kind of analysis of jihad is welcomed. Posted by: DavidR Tuesday 27 January 2009 - 04:24pm David H my point is that you are responding to a review of a book by PS which you admit to not having read yet, by offer your positive opinion of PS based on other things he said or written. No offence but you are really in a position to comment are you however much you like him and would lke to believe this book will be good. A debate can't really proceed on this basis ... Posted by: Dave Tuesday 27 January 2009 - 10:49am The book is too long for me to read and comment on this thread in a timely fashion ( not to mention quite expensive) I am supporting Patrick on the basis of my knowledge of his ministry and posting to encourage you to hear him speak for himself rather than reject him on the basis of a biased and ill informed review. I suppose I must now justify that statement. I did not do this before as I thought it would detract from the force of my main point. 1. Ben makes much of Patrick not giving us a history of Iran but as he says these facts are well known and given the nature of the book he is entitled to assume his readers are already aware of this. As Tom Wright has remarked you cannot say everything even in a long and perhaps already overlong book. 2. When we look at Afghanistan and Palestine the remarkable thing is that opposition has lasted for so long, on such a scale against such overwhelming odds. The original complaint may be political but this can only be explained by their religious mindset. 3. Ben writes as a journalist and as such has a very limited memory. The intellectual roots of Islamofascism lie in the fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Middle East between the wars. 4. Ben ignores the fact that the 1948 war was not started by Israel but by an alliance of Arab states determined to drive the Jews into the sea. An alliance motivated by a religious territorial imperative. 5. Palestine Media Watch and MEMRI provide a translation and reporting service. They are selective in their material as is Fulcrum. Their political bias is well known and evident from a cursory inspection of their websites or see Wikipedia. There is no reason to suppose that Patrick is not fully aware of this and capable of using these sources in a critical fashion. 6. Ben introduces information to smear the "Pentagon Study" which has no bearing on its accuracy. 7. The "occupation" of Jerusalem is surely such a motivating issue to Muslims because Mohammad dreamed of visiting heaven from their. Noe this religious and hence political claim is based on a dream. He never visited Jerusalem. 8. His figure of 1 billion for the number of Muslims in the world is very conservative . The current figure is nearer 1.6 billion see http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/rel_isl_num_of_mus-religion-islam-number-of-muslim 9. The spread of Islam by violence is a recurring historic feature e.g. Tours, Constantinople, Vienna, the Ottoman empire, The "conversion" of Pakistan. 10. Ben relies on guilt by association in his attack on Randell Price and those who have been favorably impressed by the book. I hope that the Fulcrum leadership can persuade Patrick to reply on the more technical issues of abrogation and taqiyya. David Posted by: DavidR Monday 26 January 2009 - 09:40pm Er David H - why not read the first book before reviewing it? Posted by: Deleted user 1354 Monday 26 January 2009 - 04:58pm Thank you to Ben White! I share the concern of others about what I would see as a gradual radicalisation of Sookhdeo and the Barnabas Fund. Yes, there is persecution and marginalisation in some places (I lived for 10 years in an Islamic Republic), but persecution at least is not as endemic as many are led to believe, and what society is there that does not marginalise segments of its people? A far greater care and respect is needed in examining the issues he treats than it seems he is now able to give. If research is to be worthy of the name, it cannot be done in a way that ignores large tranches of facts or opinions. Posted by: Dave Monday 26 January 2009 - 03:42pm Ben White has done us a service in wading through this lengthy work. However his article does not my lead us to discount the quality of Patrick's scholarship. I have not yet read the book but I have heard Patrick speak several times and always found him reasonable and well informed. There are several items on the Premier UK site which will let you hear him speak for himself. http://www.premier.org.uk/search.aspx/search.aspx?page=1&q=Sookhdeo To see a critique of militant Islam see Islam: What the West Needs to Know - FULL LENGTH ENGLISH VERSION http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-871902797772997781 There are many people who hold these views and consider themselves good Muslims. To find some scholars who say they are in error does not lessen the threat they represent. Patrick bears witness for the Christians throughout the world who suffer as a result of these views. We ignore him at our peril. David Posted by: sophie Sunday 25 January 2009 - 07:13pm How fantastic to read Ben White's article on Fulcrum, it's good to read such informed and thoughtful writing. Posted by: pete hobson Sunday 25 January 2009 - 06:31pm Thanks for publishing this review. I have known Patrick and his writings for many years, and have become increasingly alarmed at the tone and content of what he says about Islam and Muslims. It concerns me that people may, as a result of reading such stuff credulously and from a point of view of little personal first-hand knowledge, end up creating or bolstering Islamophobic views. Sure there is a problem with terrorist behaviour worldwide, and sure some who act in terrorist ways claim Islamic motivation. But the Muslims I know and trust are amongst the foremost to condemn such behaviour and claims. We can do without alarmist misinformation dressed up as 'expert knowledge'. Posted by: Roger Hurding Sunday 25 January 2009 - 03:16pm Thank you Graham for that link. Ben White's review of Patrick Sookhdeo's latest book, though lengthy, is well worth reading. He offers a withering critique of a stance that seems to me highly subversive in terms of historical and political realities. White points out innumerable flaws in the book's arguments concerning the decontextualisation of such struggles as those of the Palestinians and of the conflicts in and around Afghanistan, together with inaccuracies with regard to Islamic theology and sweeping generalisations about a West/Muslim split. It seems to me that Sookhdeo's book is an eminently avoidable and distorting piece of polemic.
Posted by: Graham Kings
Saturday 24 January 2009 - 07:28pm
We have just published a Fulcrum book review of Patrick Sookhdeo's 'Global Jihad: the Future in the Face of Militant Islam' (Isaac Publishing, 2007), by Ben White, a freelance journalist and writer. Ben White's articles on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the Middle East, and Christian-Muslim relations have appeared in a wide variety of publications. Visit his website at www.benwhite.org.uk or email him at ben@benwhite.org.uk Looking forward to your comments. |
LATEST
|
Since