Sectsploitation: How to Win Hearts and Minds in the Islamic World

This 2009 article, though dated in terms of current events, is very helpful in setting forth the variegated landscape of Islam, and what that might portend for the Western response to the global jihad. Christians will acquire a more well-rounded understanding of the various sects of Islam by familiarizing themselves with this article.

by Timothy R. Furnish, PhD, History News Network, May 31, 2009

Mr. Furnish’s doctorate is in Islamic history, he works as an author and consultant, and his website is www.mahdiwatch.org

A rational discussion of Islam’s causal role in American “overseas contingency operations”—the erstwhile “global war on terror”--or the multitude of “man-made disasters” besetting the modern world has become almost impossible in the current hyper-partisan American political climate. 

Many on the Left, who can’t be bothered to actually read a Qur’an, remain blindly convinced that there is nothing intrinsically violent in literalist Islam;[1] that all religions are equally peaceful (except perhaps for Christianity); and that the violent legions around the world engaged in decapitation, assassination and detonation in emulation of Muhammad are actually, unbeknownst even to themselves, motivated rather by something, anything, else: alienation, victimization, anti-Americanism, lack of education, etc. Some on the Left—such as candidate, if not President, Barack Obama—even continue clinging to the myth that “poverty causes Islamic terrorism,”[2] empirical data be damned. 

Too many on the Right, on the other hand, assume that the history of Islam is coterminous with a history of violence; that the only Muslims that matter are fundamentalist Sunnis motivated by death, domination and the pursuit of houris; and that while there may be a demographic sliver of moderate Muslims, there is no such thing as moderate Islam.[3]

Both are wrong.

President Obama, two months ago, told the New York Times that “the American military would reach out to moderate elements of the Taliban.”[4] In the same interview, the President explained further that “If you talk to General Petraeus…part of the success in Iraq involved reaching out to people that we would consider to be Islamic fundamentalists.” Leaving aside some rather crucial issues (whether the successful “surge” strategy can be translated directly to Afghanistan;[5] the questionable reduction of Sunni shaykhs in Iraq to mere Islamic fundamentalists; and the misconception that such a thing as a “moderate Taliban” actually exists), the Obama administration is nonetheless on the right track (as was that of Bush, albeit more publicly vocal) in its search for non-jihadist Muslims. In this vein, next month the President will deliver a major speech in Egypt, “seeking to strengthen U.S. relations with the Islamic world and fight extremism.”[6] One key to doing the former is to acknowledge that the Islamic world does have a long theological and historical strain of the latter--based largely on a literal reading of the Qur’an and the Hadiths (alleged practices and sayings of Muhammad)—as well as to identify, contact and support moderate branches of Islam.

Islam is not necessarily literally violent, but much if not most of the time literal Islam IS violent. How could it not be? Sura al-Nisa’[4]:34ff says “those wives from whom you fear rebellion….beat them.” Sura Muhammad [47]:3ff and Sura al-Anfal [8]:12ff say “when you encounter the unbelievers on the battlefield, strike off their heads.” Sura al-`Imran[3]:157ff says “If you should die or be slain in the cause of God…before Him you shall be gathered.” Five different sections of the Qur’an promise “dark-eyed” huris, “bashful virgins whom neither man nor jinn will have touched,”[7] to those who die fighting on Allah’s behalf.

Of course, taken literally the Bible—at least the Old Testament—could promote violence: for example Deuteronomy 7:1ff tells the Hebrews not only to avoid intermarrying with the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, etc., but to “tear down their altars” and “utterly destroy them.” But modern Jewish rabbis and Israeli politicians do not cite such passages to justify violence, not just because these ancient peoples no longer exist but because a literal reading of such verses is no longer accepted, either in scholarship or in the popular mind.

As for the New Testament, it’s impossible to read it literally and condone violence. Matthew 26:52 says Jesus told Peter “put your sword back into its place; for all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword.” Furthermore, Jesus told his followers to “love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.”[8] The Crusades and the Inquisition were rejections of Jesus’ teachings, not fulfillment of them—which is exactly the opposite of the case with Muhammad and jihad. However, there are New Testament passages that, taken literally, are problematic: for example, in Luke 10:19 Jesus told the 70 that “I have given you authority to tread on serpents and scorpions…and nothing will injure you.” There are some tiny Christian denominations that encourage taking these passages literally, even going so far as to handle poisonous snakes during services.[9] But the vast majority of Christians—courtesy of several centuries of Biblical criticism, not to mention application of simple common sense—can put those passages in exegetical and historical context, realizing that what was true for the 12 Apostles and the 70 Disciples two millennia ago, not to mention Jesus Himself, is NOT necessarily binding on us today. Christianity, like Judaism, long ago developed a non-literalist exegetical paradigm, which is adhered to by a majority within each religion.[10]

The same is not true of mainstream Sunni Islam, which makes up some 87% of the world’s 1.5 billion Muslim population. In that majority Muslim community, “the doctrine of taqlid, of adherence to a given legal madhhab,[11] was elaborated into the doctrine that the ‘gates of ijtihad’[12]…had closed in the ninth century” [C.E.].[13] This meant that"the right of ijtihad" -- independent religion-legal reasoning -- was replaced by the duty of taqlid or ‘imitation.’ Henceforth every jurist was an ‘imitator’ (muqallid) bound to accept and follow the doctrine established by his predecessors.”[14] Original ideas about interpretation of the Qur’an were forbidden; only slavish imitation of early Muslim commentators, literalists all, was—and still is, technically—allowed. Thus, a Sunni Muslim confronted with the clear Qur’anic mandate of beheading for infidels on the battlefield cannot advance exegetical arguments that the passage 1) applied only in Muhammad’s time or 2) today is to be read metaphorically as “apologetic decapitation” or the like. The Qur’an reports, you do not get to decide. The ancient school of Mu`tazilism, which did briefly allow for non-literalism regarding the Qur’an, was stamped out in Sunnism.

Islamophobia, Iconophobia, and Islamic Images of Muhammad

A helpful analysis of the place of images in Islamic history.

Related:

• Freedom, Provocation and Targets — 'No Cartoons Required'
• Islam's Hatred of Holy Icons — and what that means for Persecuted Eastern Christians

by Timothy R. Furnish, Mahdi Watch — May 31, 2015

Timothy R. Furnish holds a PhD in Islamic history; writes, lectures and consults on Islamic world issues; and blogs on Mahdism and Muslim eschatology at www.mahdiwatch.org.

Muhammad cavorting with houris, from the Ottoman palace museum.

THIS should upset Muslims more than anything from "Draw Muhammad."

The rather obscure realm of Islamic art, and in particular whether it’s “unIslamic” to portray Islam’s founder, Muhammad, therein, has become an important—indeed, potentially lethal—topic, first with the murders of the Charlie Hebdo publishers, then with the Garland, Texas, attack on the organizers of “Draw Muhammad” which resulted in two self-styled jihadists being dispatched to consort with the houris.  The brains behind “Draw Muhammad”—Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller—inspired another similar event in Phoenix this past Friday (May 29, 2015).  Geller, the lightning rod of the Spencer-Geller counter-jihad duo, recently mixed it up on CNN with Chris Cuomo, as the latter compared her push for people to draw Muhammad with using the “n-word” in referring to black Americans.  

Whether one feels that “Draw Muhammad” events are intentionally provocative, it’s clear that they are certainly legal on First Amendment grounds—so I do not wish to rehash that debate.  Rather, I think it more important to examine the history of Islamic attitudes toward art in general and the portrayal of humans, particularly prophetic figures, in particular.  Media experts are all over the map on this issue:  some maintain that images of  Muhammad are strictly forbidden in the world’s second-largest religion, while others argue that “the koran [sic]” does no such thing.

VIDEO: Timothy Furnish — 'Rejecting Millennial Time: The Ottoman Empire's 700-year War against Mahdism'

The usual Ottoman kinetic response to Mahdist rebellions started with the janissaries--but often this was supplemented with IO/IW in the form of fatwas and other religious salients.

Video of Tim Furnish's presentation at the recent Boston University Conference, "Apocalyptic Hopes, Millennial Dreams and Global Jihad."  The introduction by Richard Landes is noteworthy for his high estimation of Dr. Furnish in this formerly obscure but now frighteningly relevant field of Islamic Eschatology and Mahdi Movements.

This is a profound talk, which touches on Sufism and other Islamic sects, complexities of Ottoman rule, and an array of related topics which are of great help in informing our understanding of the Islamic State and its apocalyptic ambitions.

The COIN of the Ottoman Realm Spent Against Proto-ISIS Groups

Timothy Furnish, Mahdi Watch — May 19, 2015

"My lecture from the Boston University conference on Islamic apolcalyptic movements, "Rejecting Millennial Time: The Ottoman Empire's 700-year War against Mahdism" is up. [Scroll down for video.]

The Kurdish People, the Yezidi Religion, and Christianity

“To tell the truth is useful to those to whom it is spoken,

but disadvantageous to those who tell it,

because it makes them disliked.”

~ Blaise Pascal, Pensées.

Related:

• Fr. Daniil Sysoev: Special Resource Page
• 'To Make the Whole World Love Christ' - Seraphim Maamdi's memories of Fr. Daniel Sysoev
• 'The Light of Christ will also shine over Kurdistan' - An Interview with Seraphim Maamdi, an Orthodox Kurd
• Fr. Daniel Sysoev's Posthumous Mission: Three Stories

PRAVOSLAVIE — May 11, 2015

This English translation of an interview by the Russian correspondent for the “Rûdaw” newspaper with Monk Madai, an Orthodox Kurd, was sent to OrthoChristian.com for publication.

Monk Madai (Maamdi) was born in Tbilisi, Georgia, to a Kurdish-Yezidi family. In 2002, he and his family moved to Moscow, where in 2007 he was baptized in the Orthodox Church with the name Seraphim.

In 2009 Seraphim finished the “School of Orthodox Mission”, which was established by priest Daniel Sysoev. That same year, Fr. Daniel was killed in his own church by a Muslim extremist.

In 2012, Seraphim went to Greece, to live in one of the Greek monasteries. In 2014 he became a monk with the name Madai (in honor of the grandson of Noah, the son of Japheth, Medes’ grandparent, one of the descendant nations of whom are the Kurds). In the same year he entered the Theological Department of the University of Athens. He is a monk of the Georgian Orthodox Church, in the Patriarchal Stavropegic Monastery of Holy Queen Sunniva, Norway.

Hoshavi Muhammad: We would like to welcome our honored guest, monk Madai. Monk Madai, in your first interview you said that the majority of Kurds confess the Islamic faith, while the minority belong to a closed religion, known as Yezidism. Why do you think that Yezidism is a false religion?

Monk Madai: I say that as a Christian, speaking from the point of view of Divine Revelation. A religion that is closed to other people and that is held by a small number of people cannot be the truth for all people. Neither can a faith come from God that only acknowledges one language, here I am speaking about Islam.

In and of itself Yezidism arose as a result of the compilation of various religious teachings. It is a natural phenomenon when in the context of Christianity, Judaism or Islam religious leaders appear who, on the basis of traditional religious teachings, add something new and create their own “true path”.

H.M.: In your opinion the founder of Yezidism is the Arab Sufi Sheikh Adi. He radically changed the worldview of Kurdish society. He united ideas from heretical Christianity, Islam, Judaism and Paganism to form Yezidism. For the Yezidis, is Sheikh Adi God or a messenger of God?

M.M.: That is not merely my opinion; it is a well-known and credible fact that the Arab Sheikh Adi descended from the Arabic Umayyad Caliphs. The testimonies of his contemporaries tell us that he was a Muslim of the Sufi doctrine and studied under well-known Sufis of the time. He later settled in a Christian monastery (now called Lalish) and wrote his Tariqa (path). His followers began to be called “Adavis” (followers of Adi) among the locals. Today they are known as Yezidis.

Unfortunately, modern Sheikhs and Pirs, and the clerics of Lalish as a whole, react very negatively to the historical facts which show that Yezidism is an offshoot of Islam. This is related to the fact that Yezidis have always been persecuted by Muslims. Any contact with Muslims is, therefore, categorically rejected by Yezidis. 

The Religious Equivalency Fallacy, Pt. I: On Zeal and Struggle

(Via RaymondIbrahim.com.)

Or: Why there are no ‘Podvig’ terror attacks.

by Ralph Sidway

On the Islam and Christianity blog, the author, Abu Daoud (a Christian evangelist living in the Middle East), offers critical remarks regarding an interview given by an Orthodox Christian priest/professor/author, who was presenting guidance for Christians in their interactions with Muslims. Some of it was useful, some of it was familiar, but the standout moment concerned this priest’s assertion that:

“Muslim fundamentalists and Christian fundamentalists defile their religion in the same way.” 

To which Abu Daoud replies:

“OK, here's a load of crap... They certainly both defile their religion, but one group becomes intolerant and arrogant, the other intolerant and violent.”

At first glance, this seems an adequate refutation of the “religious equivalency” fallacy, and we could stop right there. But since the tendency to see all religions as essentially equivalent is so prevalent, I think it will be very helpful to unpack this comparison a bit, and “drill down” into some component issues.

Spread by the Sword

Here is another essential article from Raymond Ibrahim which I feel obligated to share. Raymond is one of our most important voices, both for his solid historical scholarship and global perspective (being multi-lingual, of Coptic descent, and having lived for many years in the Islamic world), as well as for his unique ability as a writer to clearly link the past with the present, demonstrating continuity and context not only across the centuries (vertically), but across the cultures (horizontally) where Islam has dominated.

The Historical Reality of the Muslim Conquests

by Raymond Ibrahim

Because it is now almost axiomatic for American school textbooks to whitewash all things Islamic (see here for example), it may be instructive to examine one of those aspects that are regularly distorted: the Muslim conquests.

Few events of history are so well documented and attested to as are these conquests, which commenced soon after the death of the Muslim prophet Muhammad (632) and tapered off circa 750. Large swathes of the Old World—from the India in the east, to Spain in the west—were conquered and consolidated by the sword of Islam during this time, with more after (e.g., the Ottoman conquests).

By the standards of history, the reality of these conquests is unassailable, for history proper concerns itself with primary sources; and the Islamic conquests are thoroughly documented. More importantly, the overwhelming majority of primary source materials we rely on do not come from non-Muslims, who might be accused of bias. Rather, the foremost historians bequeathing to posterity thousands of pages of source materials documenting the Islamic conquests were not only Muslims themselves; they were—and still are—regarded by today's Muslims as pious and trustworthy scholars (generically, the ulema).

Among the most authoritative books devoted to recounting the conquests are: Ibn Ishaq's (d. 767) Sira ("Life of Muhammad"), the oldest biography of Muhammad; Waqidi's (d. circa. 820) Maghazi ("Military Campaigns [of the Prophet]"); Baladhuri's (d. 892) Futuh al-Buldan ("Conquests of the Nations"); and Tabari's (d.923) multi-volume Tarikh al-Rusul wa al-Muluk, ("History of Prophets and Kings"), which is 40 volumes in the English translation.

Taken together, these accounts (which are primarily based on older accounts—oral and written—tracing back to Muhammad and his successors) provide what was once, and in the Muslim world still is, a famous story: that Allah had perfected religion (Islam) for all humanity; that he commanded his final prophet (Muhammad) and community (Muslims) to spread Islam to the world; and that the latter was/is to accept it either willingly or unwillingly (jihad).

It should be noted that contemporary non-Muslim accounts further validate the facts of the conquests. The writings of the Christian bishop of Jerusalem Sophronius (d.638), for instance, or the chronicles of the Byzantine historian Theophanes (d.758), to name a couple, make clear that Muslims conquered much of what is today called the "Muslim world."

According to the Muslim historical tradition, the majority of non-Muslim peoples of the Old World, not desiring to submit to Islam or its laws (Sharia), fought back, though most were eventually defeated and subsumed.

The first major conquest, renowned for its brutality, occurred in Arabia itself, immediately after Muhammad's death in 632. Many tribes which had only nominally accepted Islam's authority, upon Muhammad's death, figured they could break away; however, Muhammad's successor and first caliph, or successor, Abu Bakr, would have none of that, and proclaimed a jihad against these apostates, known in Arabic as the "Ridda Wars" (or Apostasy Wars). According to the aforementioned historians, tens of thousands of Arabs were put to the sword until their tribes re-submitted to Islam.

The Ridda Wars ended around 634. To keep the Arab Muslims from quarreling, the next caliph, Omar, launched the Muslim conquests: Syria was conquered around 636, Egypt 641, Mesopotamia and the Persian Empire, 650. By the early 8th century, all of north Africa and Spain to the west, and the lands of central Asia and India to the east, were also brought under Islamic suzerainty.

The colorful accounts contained in the Muslim tradition are typified by constant warfare, which normally goes as follows: Muslims go to a new region and offer the inhabitants three choices: 1) submit (i.e., convert) to Islam; 2) live as second-class citizens, or "dhimmis," paying special taxes and accepting several social debilitations; 3) fight to the death.

Centuries later, and partially due to trade, Islam came to be accepted by a few periphery peoples, mostly polytheists and animists, who followed no major religion (e.g., in Indonesia, Somalia), and who currently form the outer fringes of the Islamic world.

Ironically, these exceptions are now portrayed as the rule in America's classrooms: many textbooks suggest or at least imply that most people who converted to Islam did so under no duress, but rather through peaceful contacts with merchants and traders; that they eagerly opted to convert to Islam for the religion's intrinsic appeal, without noting the many debilitations conquered non-Muslims avoided—extra taxes, second-rate social status, enforced humiliation, etc.—by converting to Islam. In fact, in the first century, and due to these debilitations, many conquered peoples sought to convert to Islam only to be rebuffed by the caliphate, which preferred to keep them as subdued—and heavily taxed—subjects, not as Muslim equals.

Meanwhile, as U.S. textbooks equivocate about the Muslim conquests, in the schoolrooms of the Muslim world, the conquests are not only taught as a matter of course, but are glorified: their rapidity and decisiveness are regularly portrayed as evidence that Allah was in fact on the side of the Muslims (and will be again, so long as Muslims uphold their communal duty of waging jihad).

The dissimulation of how Islam was spread in the early centuries contained in Western textbook's mirrors the way the word jihad, once inextricable to the conquests, has also been recast. Whereas the word jihad has throughout the centuries simply meant armed warfare on behalf of Islam, in recent years, American students have been taught the Sufi interpretation of jihad—Sufis make up perhaps one percent of the Islamic world and are often seen as heretics with aberrant interpretations—which portrays jihad as a "spiritual-struggle" against one's vices.

[Note: Although Sufism is "more spiritual" in its practice than Sunni or Shia Islam, it is hardly less disposed towards armed jihad to expand the dar al-Islam. Dr Mark Durie writes,  "In fact, Sufism is a mystical practice, not an alternative to militancy. The great Muslim scholar Al-Ghazali (d. 1111) was a Sufi, but his opinions on the jihad were as militant as any Al Qaida operative's are today."  In 2005, while completing his research for his landmark book The Legacy of Jihad, Andrew Bostom wrote a serious article exposing the aggressive, supremacist views of Ghazali and other Sufi scholars on jihad and non-Muslims, based on texts never before published in English. What Raymond Ibrahim is specifically referring to here is how American textbooks have deceptively put forth as a pan-Islamic concept the spiritual side of jihad which is found in Sufism. Yet even in Sufism, jihad as offensive warfare to advance Islam is clearly extolled and mandated as the primary meaning of the doctrine.]

Contrast this definition of jihad with that of an early edition of the venerable Encyclopaedia of Islam. Its opening sentence simply states, "The spread of Islam by arms is a religious duty upon Muslims in general.… Jihad must continue to be done until the whole world is under the rule of Islam.… Islam must completely be made over before the doctrine of jihad [warfare to spread Islam] can be eliminated." Muslim legal manuals written in Arabic are even more explicit.

Likewise, the Islamic conquests narrated in the Muslim histories often mirror the doctrinal obligations laid out in Islam's theological texts—the Koran and Hadith. Muslim historians often justify the actions of the early Islamic invaders by juxtaposing the jihad injunctions found in Islamic scriptures.

It should also be noted that, to Muslims, the Islamic conquests are seen as acts of altruism: they are referred to as futuh, which literally means "openings"—that is, the countries conquered were "opened" for the light of Islam to enter and guide its infidel inhabitants. Thus to Muslims, there is nothing to regret or apologize for concerning the conquests; they are seen as for the good of those who were conquered (i.e., the ancestors of today's Muslims).

In closing, the fact of the Muslim conquests, by all standards of history, is indisputable. Accordingly, just as less than impressive aspects of Western and Christian history, such as the Inquisition or conquest of the Americas, are regularly taught in U.S. textbooks, so too should the Muslim conquests be taught, without apology or fear of being politically incorrect. This is especially so because it concerns history—which has a way of repeating itself when ignored, or worse, whitewashed.

Read the full article.