« Akyol At The Symposium, "Terror & Poverty: A Connection?" | Main | A Case For Islamic Renewal »
October 26, 2004
Inviting Bat Ye'or To Consider Fairness
[Originally published in FrontPage Magazine]
In a recent article on Frontpage, titled "Spare Us Another "Golden Age?", Bat Ye'or responded to my earlier rejoinder to her colleague, Andrew Bostom. Both Ms. Ye'or and Mr. Bostom believe that terrorists such as al-Qaeda spring from and represent the supposedly inherent violence of Islam. I argue, on the other hand, that the current "Islamic terrorism" we face stems from a distortion of the true Islamic faith.
In order to defend my case, let me shortly answer the questions, counter the criticisms and unveil the misjudgments of Ms. Ye'or.
The first issue is about the traditional, post-Koranic Islamic sources. Ms. Ye'or welcomes my critical approach to the hadith and sira traditions but criticizes me for failing to "explain on what authority a selection of hadith and events of the sira will be made." (Hadiths are sayings attributed to Prophet Muhammad and sira are his biographies.) I feel free to question these traditional sources, because they are very late constructs. The earliest sira was written about 150 years after the Prophet. Hadiths were compiled even later. And it is already known that these sources include many fake, irrational stories. I just argue that the inauthenticity is wider than commonly acknowledged.
But how will we judge these sources, as Ms. Ye'or rightly asks. Robert Spencer raised the same question, too. My answer is the Koran. The Koran must be the sole infallible Islamic criterion and hadiths should be compared with its verses and the overall message. There are some modern scholars who reach this conclusion. Professor Hayri Kirbasoglu, a theologian in Ankara University and an expert on hadiths, argues that a new method is necessary to evaluate the hadith collection and compatibility with the Koran — a criterion much neglected before — should be its basis. The same holds for sira as well.
With this reasoning, I see the sira and hadith accounts about the massacre of the men of Bani Qurazya as incompatible with the Koran. Thus I reject it.
Ms. Ye'or welcomes my rejection of this story, but finds another reason to accuse me:
But Mr. Akyol again contradicts himself by implying that the Qurayza' punishment was justified, because they acted treacherously while of course there are no objective proofs for such accusations, which rest merely on the demonization of the victims.
There is a logical inconsistency here. Ms. Ye'or says that there "are no objective proofs" showing that Bani Qurazya was treacherous, but there is no objective proof for the rest of the story as well. We can either take the story at face value or doubt or reject it completely. By taking the killing as granted but by doubting its accepted reason, Ms. Ye'or stealthy walks away from fairness.
Ms. Ye'or also questions my effort to redefine jihad as an intellectual stance against atheism, and its philosophical underpinning, i.e. materialism. First of all, she asks what this is. Put simply, materialism is the idea that matter is all there is, God is imaginary and we humans are the products of a blind process of evolution.
Ms. Ye'or then asks whether I want to replace the materialist morality with a "Shari'a morality". The latter term is an oxymoron and it is not my vision for any society. But, yes, I would love to see a transformation from the materialist morality, which feeds hedonism and selfishness, into a theistic morality — which depends on the recognition that we are not mere animals in a struggle for survival and our lives have a meaning beyond earthly mundane existence.
This topic is undoubtedly related with science and Ms. Ye'or noticed that. Good. Yet, she traced my ideas to the "Islamization of Knowledge" project that was launched by International Institute of Islamic Thought. Probably to add an alarming detail, Ms. Ye'or also notes that the institute in question was "financed by Saudi Arabia."
Yet, this is totally unrelated to me. The scientific project that I believe in and actively support is not the ""Islamization of Knowledge," but the "Intelligent Design Theory." And it has nothing to do with Saudi Arabia; it is in fact a brainchild of several prominent American scientists and thinkers and is spearheaded by the Discovery Institute in Seattle and the Intelligent Design Network based in Kansas. Intelligent design theorists argue for a paradigm shift to liberate modern science from the materialist dogma. This is desperately needed because of the overwhelming scientific evidence against materialist theories of origins such as Darwinism. In my article titled Why Muslims Should Support Intelligent Design, I explain why this theory is a common intellectual stance for all theists, whether they be Christian, Jewish or Muslim.
In short, I am not trying to "Islamize" knowledge as Ms. Ye'or assumes, rather I seek objectivity and argue that knowledge — in the form of scientific data — is already compatible with the basic tenets of theistic religions such as Christianity, Judaism and Islam.
After her suspicions about my scientific endeavors, Ms. Ye'or employs a straw man argument against me. She makes a caricature of what I have said in my recent reply to her colleague, Andrew Bostom, and then attacks that caricature.
According to her, I "affirmed that it was not Muslims who perpetrated the acts described" by Mr. Bostom. I was "simply denying the horrors that occurred in Muslim history", and I was asserting that those horrors "either didn't happen, or were not done by Muslims." From here, she goes on to equate me with bizarre conspiracy theorists who pointed to the CIA or the Mossad as the force behind 9/11.
What I said in fact was totally different. The exact wording in my article in question include statements such as, "there of course were many kinds of 'Muslims' who looted and pillaged simply for profit and other worldly gains" and "Muslims can do evil, not because Islam directs it, but because they themselves individually choose to do so." What I did was to distinguish between the Muslim acts for the sake of Islam and the Muslim acts for the sake of worldly interests. I accepted all the horrible massacres committed by such figures as Tamerlane, Mahmud Ghaznavi, Mohammad Ghori, early Seljuks, and so on. But I explained that these people were hardly good representatives of the Islamic faith. In a more illustrative example, I showed that the sacking of Thessalonica in 904 was not a "jihad campaign," as Andrew Bostom portrayed, but rather the work of Arab corsairs which acted simply for world profit — the same motive that drew the "Christian corsairs" of the Caribbean.
I really can't understand how Ms. Ye'or overlooks what I have said, distorts it so overtly and then expects to be persuasive.
I am sure she can do better than this.
Ms. Ye'or also criticizes me for speaking to the Westerners about Islam. "While Mr. Akyol' efforts to modernize religious beliefs are praiseworthy," she kindly says, "they should be directed exclusively at convincing his coreligionists." That is indeed true and I am indeed trying to appeal to my co-religionists, too. But the struggle for the soul of Islam has become, especially after September 11, a global issue in which non-Muslims have a share to say. The outcome of that struggle is very much related with Western, and especially American, policies towards the Islamic world. That's why I think that a fair assessment of Islam in the West is crucial and I am trying to be helpful to that assessment. We should also keep in mind that many opinion leaders of the Islamic world are either living in the West or are affected the Western intellectual climate; so it is not odd to argue for an Islamic renewal in this medium.
But Ms. Ye'or believes that I am not being helpful. Interestingly, she accuses not just me, but also many prominent Western scholars who study Islam. According to her, "the affirmations of modern scholars" that I quote from, "just confirm the political rewriting of history." Political rewriting of history for what? To luster Islam? And by the many American, British, Italian historians that I quote from? Let me remind that the scholars in question are not the usual guests of the "Campus Watch," rather they include names like Bernard Lewis and Daniel Pipes. What could compel such historians to engage in a distortion of history for the sake of a religion that they don't adhere to? Who could stir such a global conspiracy? The learned elders of Mecca whose protocols are discovered by Ms. Ye'or and her colleagues?
A better explanation — of the Ockham's Razor type — might be that in fact it is Ms. Ye'or and her colleagues who are engaged in a political rewriting of history.
I hope they are not. Or if they are, that they will reconsider their stance. They should not see such self-criticism as an indignity. Abrahamic monotheism, whether it be in the Jewish, Christian or Islamic tradition, teaches us that it is indeed a great virtue to retreat from a mistake.
And I will pray to better witness the virtues of Ms. Ye'or.
Posted by Mustafa Akyol at October 26, 2004 12:40 AM


Hi :D
Posted by: ADIPEX at March 30, 2006 12:13 AM
The terrorist attacks in Washington, DC and New York several years ago have led people to wonder how religion could motivate people to commit such horrific acts. Such behaviour might lead one to reject any concern for what lies beyond mundane existence and live a dry secular life but there's no solution to the human dilemma in this for we all will ultimately want to know what's beyond our limited scope. First of all, even though the terms religion and spirituality are often used interchangeably the religion of the terrorists is of a particular common type: it is religion unsubordinated to spirituality. Religion and spirituality denote two distinct phenomena. If we are going to maintain an interest in the beyond we should ask what religion is and how it differs from spirituality.
Religion is a theological belief system and a code of conduct. Spirituality is the experience of love, compassion and unity . In contrast to religion which is mental, but often not intellectual, spirituality exists in the realm of feeling and can only be experienced to the degree that the mental function can be transcended. Religion legitimately achieves two purposes: providing a lifestyle in which spirituality can flourish and serving as a"finger pointing at the moon". In the latter case it points the metaphysical novice toward an experience of God by giving him an abstract though temporary way of percieving God.
The fact that 90% of religion has become an end in itself is an old story. The religion of the hijackers is cancerous in the sense that it doesn't subordinate itself to spirituality just as cancerous tissue in an organism doesn't subordinate itself to the higher needs of the organism. Much as malignant tissue comes to dominate an organism so does an attachment to religious doctrine or, for that matter, attachment to a secular credo come to dominate the soul and protect the believer from uncertainty.
Religion that subordinates itself to spirituality can be found in such practices as the sabbath when the sabbath is observed as a surcease from material concerns allowing the mind to rest on the spiritual and in moral codes that cause one to feel in balance with the needs of society and, hence more open to spiritual vibrations.
Cancerous religion can be seen in forcing others to observe the sabbath and other moral or religious practices beyond concern for what is hazardous to societal well being. The motivation comes from insecurity and fear and the result can even be harmful to society.. An example is the Taliban decree that no woman can work outside of the home causing thousands of war widows to starve to death. In contrast, the prohibition and punishment of theft, rape, and murder can from any reasonable point of view be considered justified and not based on malignant religion..
To the degree that religion becomes an end in itself what unconscious dynamics are empowering it? A good degree of the exploitive, cold uncaring hierarchical nature of society is merely the outward projection of the "ego" or, the neurotic character structure. This is the contracted egocentric structure of the "bound soul". If religion is not in service to peoples' spirituality what other part of human consciousness is it in service to? I think we can see by the results in death and destruction.
One of the surest ways to know if a motivation is based on this malignant kind of religion is to what degree it focuses on belief.. As a central theme of most western religion, belief is based on ignorance and insecurity. You don't know what you believe and you don't believe what you know. The reason you want to believe it is to avoid feeling insecure. If you knew it you wouldn't need to believe it. If you believe it it's for sure you don't know it and no matter how much you hide from insecurity in belief it is always there waiting for you.. We know a religion is full of spiritual ignorance and to what degree it is dangerous to others in the degree of fervor to which it concentrates on belief. Spirituality, in contrast, shows you how to face insecurity through direct experience of the void within. Better to face it than to force others to live in such a way as to enhance your fragile security.
One of the biggest examples of religion being an end in itself is where it exalts belief above the values it purports to uphold. In my Catholic childhood I was told that a nice guy who is an atheist was of a lower order than a cretin who believed. The atheist would never go to heaven because he didn't believe where as the cretinous believer might slip in if he repented for any mortal sins he might have committed.
Of course in the West the inroads of rationalism have steadily eroded the absolutism of Christianity as the result of the renaissance and the enlightenment. Unfortunately Islam never had these two moderating historical events; hence we see belief leading to the mayhem in New York City and Washington, DC. Never the less while the West focuses on the Islamic world looking for allies in the war against violent muslim extremists the focus is on the more educated elites. The rationality these people have gained from secular education makes them more relativistic but there has always been another redoubt of tolerant relativism in the Islamic world, based on spirituality, the mystical Sufi sect, another source of potential allies.
As far as popular awareness is concerned we have two options: the absolutist religious fundamentalists who are all too ready to sacrifice you to their beliefs and the rationalist who, as a relativist, is tolerant. But the spiritual or mystical person is also tolerant and a relativist- on a deeper level. The mystic experiences a universe in which only the totality is absolute. Anything in it is only relative to something else. For example heat is relative to cold and good is relative evil. The beliefs of malignant religion bring its adherents into the perpetual struggle between two opposite principles trying to make one of them absolute. For example, if God, separate from his creation, is absolute good then of necessity there must also be an absolute evil which immediately makes the two only relative to each other but the average Christian thinks that God is absolute good in spite of this. The spiritual perception that God comprises all opposites making him beyond good and evil solves this source of endless conflict.
The fact that the rationalist and the spiritual person are natural allies is seen in a number of phenomena. Rationalism has found through science more and more complex ways in which even the smallest speck of matter animate or inanimate is in harmony with everything else suggesting an intelligence behind phenomena. The theory of relativity, in effect a pantheist statement, states that everything is energy. Einstein, himself, was not conventionally religious but communicated the perception that his endless scientific quest showed him more and more of God's nature. The intellectual researcher is a truth seeker as is the mystic. The malignantly religious person is "sure" he has found the truth and need look no further. If he is a Presbyterian minister enunciating some Christian doctrine at the table he might just bore you to death with his "certainty." If he's a Taliban militant he might actually kill you rather than tolerate any uncertainty.
. These malignantly religious people are immune to the perception that you have to be empty and only then will God come in. Empty of materialism, empty of religious concepts, empty. Paradoxically, one of the biggest obstacles to an experience of God is a belief in God, as necessary as such a belief might have been in the beginning to motivate someone to seek God.
Since a spiritual person is a truth seeker he doesn't blot out knowledge from outside whatever religion he is part of. For example, the population explosion and its resultant poverty, ethnic conflict and ecological crisis, the need for alternative energy to slow down the greenhouse effect and so on are realities that the spiritual person may allow into his mind and he may behave accordingly. If having large families disrupts the balance of nature and contributes to poverty and unrest then he may practice birth control. If the hybrid car pollutes less he may try to buy one, etc. If, however the cancerously religious person spends all his time reading the bible, koran or torah considering all truth to be therein then he may and often does contribute greatly to the problems of the world. In fact studies show that fundamentalist families tend to have far more children than other families and are oblivious to many social and ecological concerns.
Becauseself exploration is not part of the fundamentalist mind set the religiously motivated terrorist will tell you that he is willing to die because he is a selfless servant of God or the dispossessed. An exposure of motivations will show that the terrorist hopes to gain something for himself whether it be a special place in heaven or the admiration of his contemporaries.
It's time that cancerous religion were taken off its pedestal and the motivations of religious fanatics were exposed. Whether it be terror or sociopolitical problems only reason and real spirituality with religion as a junior partner will provide any help.
Posted by: John Coelho at July 4, 2007 6:45 AM
The problem with you is you are hung up on belief. I admire the fact that you can converse civilly with Bat Yeor and don't seem to sympathize with the barbaric actions issuing from the Islamic World. However, wherever there is religious belief there is spiritual ignorance. The more a society evolves the less it believes and the more it knows. Awarenes can be spiritual or intellectual. Both forms of awareness undermine belief.
Posted by: John Coelho at July 4, 2007 6:52 AM