Issue date: 11/20/08 Section: Editorial/Opinion

On Nov. 11, I attended a lecture by Robert Spencer, invited to the UW-Eau Claire campus by the Conservative Union. Spencer, who is the director of Jihad Watch and author of seven books and hundreds of articles, is a self-proclaimed expert on Islam. I found his lecture, "Islam and Terrorism," problematic in its title, its declared objectives and the way it was presented. Here is what I mean:

1. The title of Spencer's lecture, "Islam and Terrorism," was problematic since it implies a connection between the two. The very word Islam means peace through submission to God, Allah. The suggestion that the essence, the message, or the messenger of Allah can be associated with terrorism is unjustified.

2. The lecture began with an open discussion of the virtues of democracy and the right to freedom of speech, and how the lecture was not meant as an attack on Islam and Muslims, but focusing on the threat of Islamic terrorism. But the lecture indeed slowly turned into an attack on Islam. Spencer did not inform his audience at the outset about the distinction between "radical," "militant," "conservative" and "reformist" Muslims.

Instead, he repeatedly used "Islamic terrorism" or "Islamic terrorists" in his reference to ultra-conservative forces in Islam. This may sound unimportant to some, but it is not. Islam is a dynamic religion, and the sources of Islamic law and tradition, the Shari'a, are interpreted continuously and in different lights.

The final ruling and acceptance of laws and traditions of Islam differ across Muslim nations, depending on the following: The clerical or official individual interpreters' position, the source from which legal interpretation or extrapolation is derived from - which one of the five schools of thought prevalent in what Muslim country - and the circumstances surrounding the issue or the case subject to interpretation and judgment.

There are radicals and militants in all religions who take matters of religion into their own hands, but whose beliefs and acts are outside the boundaries of the mainstream. This is true in Islam as much as it is in Christianity and Judaism.

3. Spencer presented quotations from perhaps more than a dozen people, from the long dead founder of Muslim Brotherhood, Hassan al-Banna, to Osama Bin Laden and his supporters to argue there is a dangerous trend in Islam threatening Western civilization. Spencer claimed the so-called Jihadists want to destroy the Western culture and replace it with an Islamic Caliphate-ship.

This is, at best, a grave exaggeration and really closer to a fantasy. The Islamic world, since the beginning, has never been a unified entity. In fact, the division between Sunnis and Shi'a Muslims started soon after the death of the Prophet Muhammad. For example, the ruling "Islamic" Empires, the Umayyids, the Abbasids and the Ottomans, were hardly Islamic in their ideology or behavior, and certainly not in their unity. The centers of power in Islam were always in flux and in competition with one another since the beginning. There have always been rivalries and competition within and among Muslim communities and political entities. Historians testify to this.

4. Spencer used mainly anecdotal evidence to support his claim that Islam (yes, Islam and not militant Muslims) is a danger to the West. Early in the lecture he claimed his assertions are not about Islam, but about radicals who are a threat to Christianity and the West. Yet, he exclusively used selected verses from the Quran and individuals known for their radical interpretations of the Quran and the traditions of the Prophet to blame the religion Islam for the misdeeds of the Jihadists.

By this logic, one can present the Bible and the Torah as hateful books commanded by a vengeful God. The holy Quran is open to interpretation, as are the Bible and the Torah, and the actions of militants like al-Qaida supporters do not speak for the 99.9 percent of Muslims who reject such violence. Spencer conveniently forgot all passages and references in the Quran and the Shari'a dedicated to, among others, peace, forgiveness, freedom of religion and equality before Allah. I found this
disingenuous.

5. Spencer's presentation was devoid of any structural discussions of the underlying causes behind the rise of political Islam and militant Muslims, the Jihadists, and what accounts for the diversity in various religious movements in Muslim countries.

Not all radical Muslims advocate violence and indeed many, including the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, are willing to work within the political framework to promote their vision of Islam. There are political, economic, cultural, historical and international factors shaping the ideology and behavior of Islamic movements in places as diverse as Turkey, Indonesia, Malaysia, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Sudan, Tunisia and elsewhere in the 57 declared Muslim-member countries of the Organization of Islamic Conference.

The OIC, by the way, was mentioned by Spencer as a rising threat to Western liberalism through its promotion of Islamic and anti-liberal values. In reality, the OIC is a loose umbrella for its diversified country members. According to the OIC Web site, the organization is "the collective voice of the Muslim world and ensuring to safeguard and protect the interests of the Muslim world in the spirit of promoting international peace and harmony among various people of the world."

6. Spencer, though seemingly well-read and written about Islam, is not qualified to pass such gross generalizations. He is neither a specialist in Islamic law nor an expert in history or global affairs. (Spencer holds a Masters degree in religious studies from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill). He is the director of a partisan organization, Jihad Watch, whose stated goal is to confront Jihadi Muslims, but whose translated message is to defame Islam.

There is no denying the so-called 'Jihadi Islam' is a threat to Islam itself. There are all sorts of debates, forums and conferences all across Muslim countries attempting to deal with radical Muslims. Let's not forget Muslims are the primary victims of the rise of militant Muslims, as evident in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and elsewhere.

This I can share with Spencer. However, one need not question, as Spencer does, the fundamentals of Islam itself and to portray Islam as an archaic and violent religion, especially in a selective cherry-picking way and without scholarly credentials, to raise awareness about militant Muslims (among Spencer's written titles are: "The Violent Oppression of Women In Islam," "Islamic Leaders' Plan for Genocide," "The Islamic Disinformation Lobby," "Islam Unveiled: Disturbing Questions About the World's Fastest Growing Faith; Religion of Peace? Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn't.")

Other disingenuous claims are also present in the www.jihadwatch.org Web site, such as "The entire Islamic moral universe devolves solely from the life and teachings of Muhammad."

Eau Claire is a place of higher education. We must remain an academic institution whose goal of educating the public is held with high regards. Freedom of speech guarantees opportunity for all to speak their mind, but we must not succumb to rhetoric, propaganda or biased opinion grounded upon false information and half-truth. It is only through scientific method and vigor that we can approximate pure objectivity. The university and its student organizations are accountable for what goes on campus and for what impacts its reputation.

Abootalebi is a professor of Middle Eastern and global politics and a guest columnist for The Spectator.

Page 1 of 1

Article Tools