- Why won't Muslim leaders denounce acts of terrorism? Why won't Muslims take to the streets and protest the hijacking of their faith by the so-called extremists among them the way they protest when infidels supposedly insult their prophet and religion? These are among the more vexing questions non-Muslims want answered in this time of intensifying jihadist activity around the world. Recently, Harvard professor Jessica Stern remarked that Muslim leaders are under no moral obligation to condemn the actions of so-called extremists within their religion, noting further - and erroneously - that religious leaders of other faiths do not condemn the extremist actions of their co-religionists, such as abortion clinic bombers and the Jewish "violent settlers’ movement".
Although these assertions have been throughly dismantled by not only the reporter who covered the story, who was quick to point out that the crimes of the "violent settlers' movement", such as Yigal Amir's assassination of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzchak Rabin in 1995, are "almost universally condemned by Jewish leadership," but also by Catholic League president Bill Donohue, it's worth repeating for good measure. As Donohue put it,
- [T]here has not been a single abortionist killed in the U.S. since 1998. When there were killings in the mid-1990s, Cardinal Roger Mahony of Los Angeles, chairman of the Pro-Life Activities of the bishops’ conference, said that such shootings make ‘a mockery of everything we stand for.’ When there were two killings at Massachusetts abortion clinics, Cardinal Bernard Law not only denounced them, he ordered a moratorium on sidewalk protest vigils outside abortion clinics in Boston. Cardinal John O’Connor’s response in New York was profound: ‘If anyone has an urge to kill an abortionist, kill me instead.’
Not only has there never been a statement so profound by such a prominent Islamic leader, even watered-down, softer condemnations by Islamic leaders deserve scrutiny.
There are two issues that must be understood by non-Muslims when weighing the sincerity and seriousness of Muslim statements of peaceful co-exitance, pluralism and tolerance. First and foremost is the Islamic doctrine of dissimulation, or taqiyya. Taqiyya has its roots in Shi'ism, yet the basic principle is rooted in the overall Islamic jurisprudence.
Islamic tradition attributes the tone of certain Qur'anic verses to the political standing of Muhammad at the time they were revealed. For instance, in Mecca, he was powerless over the pagans, and thus the verses are pleading and tolerant. Muhammad just wants to be accepted and to save the idolators' souls from an eternity of dreadful punishment for worshipping idols and associating partners with the one true god. Lacking the power to neither defend himself nor subdue the Meccans by force, he could only threaten them with the supposed wrath of the one and only god, Allah; he had no means to threaten them otherwise.
After the hijrah, when Muhammad leaves Mecca to establish his power base in Yathrib (pre-Islamic Medina), he begins to influence and accumulate followers based on his military prowess, part of which was achieved by having a successful surprise attack on a Meccan caravan excused by a revelation from Allah (Q2.217). The tone of the verses switch to violence as a means for self defense (Q2.190).
As Muhammad accumulated victories and the spoils that inevitably followed, he soon realized that this was a far more effective method of gaining power than begging the Mushrikûn to accept that he was the final chain in a line of prophets that extended all the way back to Adam. Thus the verses become hateful and vicious and bloodthirsty; almost without exception, the peaceful verses are revealed while Muhammad was in Mecca, while violent verses were revealed in Medina. Even the no compulsion in religion verse (Q2.256) was revealed just after Muhammad arrived in Medina, and was abrogated several times over, most notably by the entire 9th surah.
Though the word Taqiyya is never specifically used in the Qur'an, its basis is found in verse 3.28, and we see the roots of modern dissimulation in these examples, even though they differ greatly with the original Shi'ite usage, which was to guard Shi'ites from Sunni persecution. If Islam is weak, offer peace until Islam becomes superior, then sever the bonds of friendship or diplomacy and bring the sword without leniency to those who refuse to submit. Never offer friendship to disbelievers (Q5.51), unless it be a facade while in your hearts you curse them.
History has borne this out time and time again. Anytime Islamic powers gained superiority over non-Muslims, they've attacked them, or subdued them with threats of attack where only extortion and submission to Islamic law could save them from the sword. Gestures of peace and reconciliation from Muslims are merely tactics to lull the enemies of Islam to sleep, while the ummah regroups and re-gathers its strength. Such gestures on the behalf of infidels are seen as a sign of weakness. Recall events at the height of the intifada: when Israel took the offensive and started to crush Palestinian jihadists, the Palestinians cried for peace; when Israel pulled back, the jihadists went back on the offensive. And on and on. The withdrawal from Gaza by the IDF was followed by an almost immediate rocket attack by HAMAS.
Unfortunately for the so-called moderate Muslim, to subscribe to Islamic belief is to become the proverbial boy who cried wolf to anyone learned in Islamic jurisprudence and history. Blindly accepting peaceful gestures by Muslims would be like letting a violent killer out of jail without so much as a parole hearing.
