Islam, Politics, and Jocelyne Cesari

By Silas

Jocelyne Cesari is a scholar and professor who has taught at prestigious universities and written articles and books on Islamic topics. Recently CNN published her article in support of the Ground-Zero mosque, “Islam is a religion, not a terror ideology.”

Cesari states that the opposition’s real motivation against the mosque extends beyond the “hallowed ground” argument; it is based upon security concerns and doubts about Islam’s compatibility with the West:

Her statement, “a faith that is multifaceted and complex,” means that not all Muslims are theocracy loving, violent, hard-core radicals and that there are varieties of Islam that eschew violence. She’s correct. Unfortunately, her engagement in the critical violence-in-Islam discussion ends there. The varieties of Islam that eschew violence, especially in their doctrines, are few and weak. It is these violent doctrines of Islam that bear scrutiny. Instead of addressing what she identifies as the critic’s real concern, i.e. the violent doctrines of Islam, she overlooks them, pretending they don’t exist.

You’ll notice that most of the liberal pundits who write about Islam avoid these doctrines because they undermine the “Islam is a peaceful faith” argument. That argument cannot be defended when Islam’s doctrines are brought into the discussion; consequently they are ignored.

But Cesari does attack the statements of the mosque opposition:

She later asks: “Why is Islam no longer considered a religion?”

Cesari ignores the context of the “not a religion” statement and takes the mosque-opponent’s statements out of context and builds a strawman argument, i.e. that people are arguing that Islam is not a religion.

Yes, various people state that Islam “is not a religion.” Even ex-Muslims state “Islam is not a religion.” But usually these people are not denying that Islam has a spiritual or religious component, but rather that Islam is much more than what many people define simply as “religion”, i.e. a faith that focuses upon simple personal spirituality, self-enlightenment, or individual prayer and meditation. These critics of Islam are actually affirming that Islam is multifaceted and complex but not in the way Cesari wants them to.

Islam is a communal faith and in that it differs from the common Western understanding of religion which is individual-centered. (The independent, “rugged American individual” concept has actually polluted the intended communal, or semi-communal, aspects of Christianity and has produced a weak American church.)

Islam defines and mandates communal rules and regulations. Its scope covers politics, violence, and social norms. These features lead to Western doubts and concerns, particularly those related to violence, treatment of women, and freedom of religion. These are the contentions an accurate and thorough scholar would address. Instead Cesari, in lazy fashion, fabricates a sham argument because it is easily knocked down.

She attacks Geert Wilders as saying that Islam is a political ideology and implies that he is wrong. Does Cesari claim that there is no component of political ideology in Islam? Anyone who’s gone to the level of an Islam 102 class would know better.

Islam, as a religion, is political through and through and its faith mandates that a man function as a geo-political / religious ruler known as the Caliph. The Quran references such a ruler. Here is a definition for “caliph” from Mir’s “Dictionary of Quranic Terms and Concepts:”

From the establishment of the Muslim community in Yathrib (Medina) onward, politics were critical to Islam. In Medina Muhammad functioned as the supreme ruler over the Muslims and over the non-Muslims in Muslim-controlled territory. Following Muhammad’s death the Islamic world was ruled politically by a succession of Caliphs. Politics was, is, and shall remain, part and parcel of Islam.

Of course various books of Islamic theology and jurisprudence discuss Islamic political themes, the Caliphate, and the role of the Caliph. For example the “Reliance of the Traveller,” section o25, “The Caliphate,” pages 638 - 647, provides a review of the subject of the Caliph. This reviews covers the necessity of the Islamic world having a Caliph, (c.f. Quran 4:59), the qualifications for a Caliph, the obligation of Muslims to obey the Caliph, etc.³

Cesari also criticizes Tennessee Lt. Gov. Ron Ramsey, quoting him to illustrate her point that people are saying Islam is not a religion:

If Cesari had bothered surfing the web for a couple of minutes she would find Islamic websites that proclaim proudly “Islam is not a religion, it is a way of life!” (e.g., here and here).

If Muslims are allowed to make that statement about their faith then surely non-Muslims can make the same statement!

Of course when Muslims say, “Islam is not a religion it is a way of life” they are not saying that Islam is not a religion, but rather it is more than just a simple, “spiritual only” religion. In fact, these Muslims, and non-Muslims like Ron Ramsey, imply that Islam is multifaceted and complex BECAUSE it encompasses social, economic, military, and political, etc. aspects. Again, these Muslims and non-Muslims are affirming Islam is a complex faith, but not the way that Cesari wants them to. If Muslims can make the same use of context when talking accurately about their faith shouldn’t critics be extended the same courtesy?

Islam is multifaceted and declares rules and regulations for a variety of subjects. Here are some examples:

• politics (attacks upon, subjection, and extortion/taxation of Christians and Jews – Quran 9:29, 30),
• marital activities (sexual positions – Quran 2:222),
• relationships between the sexes (men’s superiority – Quran 4:34),
• economics (the prices for slaves and horses (various hadith)),
• eating habits (eat with your right hand (various hadith)),
• dress (men aren’t supposed to wear silk or gold (various hadith)),
• freedom of religion (apostates are to be killed (implied in the Quran, stated explicitly in various hadith))

etc.

Yes, indeed Islam is a multifaceted faith, but the critics are concerned that not all facets are equal or have the same impact! Muslims who have attacked and conquered non-Muslims have shaped much of our modern history. Muhammad and the early Muslims attacked the non-Muslim tribes in Arabia and subjected them. After Muhammad’s death, the Muslim leaders who knew Muhammad and his wishes best, made war upon the Persian empire, conquered them, and treated the Persians brutally. Muslims attacked Egypt, Syria, Palestine, and conquered them. Later Muslims attacked North Africa, Spain, southern France, the Indo-subcontinent, and western China, and conquered them. This real Islam brutalized and oppressed those it subjected. These lands did not wholeheartedly welcome the Muslim invaders, rather they fought them. In some cases they managed to fight back against the aggressor Muslims and re-take their lands. Unfortunately, there are subjected peoples in the remaining Muslim lands who have not been able to reclaim their land and heritage. Worse yet, to this day Muslims continue to perpetrate ethnic cleansing upon non-Muslims in Egypt, Iraq, Thailand, the Philippines, India, and elsewhere.

(I love Egypt and its people are some of the finest people in the world. They were once a great and powerful people, but Islam has blinded them, choked and brought them down. The Egyptian people deserves better than what Islam has shoveled upon them.)

Islam’s religious facets of men not wearing silk do not concern me; Islam’s facets of spreading its domination by the sword does. Eating with the right hand does not concern me, murdering apostates does.

It is this primary and powerful Islamic facet, the use of violence, established by Muhammad’s command to use violence to spread Islam’s domain, that Westerners are right to worry about and they are foolish if they do not. See these articles for an in-depth examination of Islam and violence.

• The Verse of the Sword: Sura 9:5 and Jihad
• America, Islam, Jihad, and Terrorism

If the Islamic theological texts taught non-violence or violence only in self defense then the concern could be diminished. But when the foundational texts of Islam, the Quran, hadith, sira, and the corpus of Islamic jurisprudence, are taken hand in hand with Muhammad’s actions, then the use of violence to spread Islam’s rule over non-Muslims is established firmly. Of course Westerners are right to refuse, reject, and criticize a faith that poses a mortal danger!

Cesari gets to the heart of her argument:

What exactly is these Westerners’ mistake – to consider Islam a violent ideology? But there are Muslim terrorists who claim divine instruction to use violence to force Islam upon others. Here is such a statement:

This Muslim believed that Allah told him to fight, (actually make war), upon people who reject Islam! Further they had to submit to some form of Islamic rule via the Islamic strictures contained in his statement.

Perhaps this man is associated with Al-Qaeda or a similar terrorist organization?

Those of you that have studied Islam know that the man who said this was Muhammad, Islam’s creator and prophet. Muhammad’s Islam should be considered real Islam. In light of Muhammad’s statement above, (and many similar statements found in the Quran, hadith, and sira), isn’t it reasonable to view Islam as a threat to non-Muslim people? After all, God himself commanded Muhammad to fight non-Muslims until they bend the knee to his rule. If you study Muhammad’s life you’ll learn that Muhammad did his arguing with the sword and he killed, conquered, and subjected tens of thousands of people while he lived. His immediate followers killed, conquered, and subjected millions.

BACK TO GEERT WILDERS AND CESARI

Cesari quotes Wilders as saying that Islam is a political ideology and not a religion:

But here are quotes from Wilders’ weblog that predate Cesari’s article:

Clearly, Wilders is not proclaiming that Islam is not a religion, he is proclaiming that Islam is a religion that is multifaceted and some of those facets should be rejected.

Later, in his 2 Oct. 2010 speech in Berlin, Wilders re-affirmed his points.  He confirmed Islam is a religion and quotes several people on this theme.  Here are two:

A quick search yields statements from many prominent Muslims who agree with Wilders. They also bind Islam and politics together. Here is the Ayatollah Khomeini:

Indeed Wilders recognizes that Islam is a multifaceted and complex religion. So do many others. Is Cesari declaring that Maududi and Khomeini don’t know Islam and got it wrong?

Cesari quotes Wilders selectively in order to present his argument in a poor light. But when her statements, and the statements of those she attacks, are taken in context, it is her argument that appears in a poor light. There is something questionable, something disingenuous, about Cesari’s approach and method.

She is involved with a website, Euro-Islam, and it has the following statement in its “About us” page:

There is nothing constructive or balanced in Cesari’s article. Her article is mostly sophisticated name calling. Instead of “constructive, balanced” discourse taking place, we see insincerity, shallow research, and deception, supporting an attack against people who love their countries and are concerned for their people’s welfare.

The title of Cesari’s article, “Islam is a religion, not a terror ideology” errs. Islam is a very complex religion and its complexity allows, even commands, violence to spread its rule. It can be stated emphatically: Islam is a religion that encompasses politics and a terror ideology.

Muhammad intended that his followers use violence to attack, kill, conquer, and subject non-Muslims and their lands. It is his teachings, his actions, his words and deeds, i.e. the very fruit of Muhammad’s life, that established the “terror ideology” and the other forms of violence Muslims use to spread Islam’s rule.

We must go beyond the empty, fluff rhetoric, of inadequate and mendacious academicians, who suck the taxpayer’s dollars while tickling their ears. Instead, examine the foundational texts of Islam, the Quran, hadith, and biographical writings, in their contexts and intended applications, to understand Muhammad and Islam. As the West continues to fail to understand Islam we cannot but experience more 9/11s, 7/7s, and worse.

Silas 2 December, 2010