Alykhan Velshi Responds to Robert Spencer and I Respond to Him.

Alykhan Velshi was kind enough to reply to my post and to direct me to his reply to Spencer. I don't know if - or whether - Mr. Spencer will reply, but here's my two cents:

Essentially, Robert challenges me, as he does all moderate Muslims, to "renounce definitively, the elements of Islamic theology that jihadists are using to wage war against non-Muslims around the world."

I do.

Before I say anything else, let me say that this is a basis on which we can all get along. I rejoice in every Muslim that stands for life and against terror; who stands for freedom of religion and freedom of speech and freedom of thought.

Though the ease with which I do so will probably dissatisfy Robert Spencer.

I don’t think that Spencer has any real problems with you as an individual. I don’t really believe he thinks of you as a “reformer.” His problem is with Islam’s would-be Martin Luthers who should be horrified at the things Muslims are doing and saying in the name of Islam. But there do not seem to be many of those who reach the world stage. Those that are, are threatened with death or go into hiding or flee their countries like Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

Robert wants me to admit there is a problem with Islam. Of course there is - thousands, possibly millions, are willing to commit suicide in its name.

Let’s stop right there. This is an example of what I (I won’t speak for Spencer) find troublesome about the way moderate Muslims pose the problem. The problem is not that “thousands, possibly millions, are willing to commit suicide in its name.” Committing suicide in protest is done in many societies. Remember the Buddhist monks immolating themselves during the Viet Nam war? (Probably not. You were not even born before the Viet Nam war ended – and the real killing began). Hunger strikes or suicide are designed to obtain the moral upper hand. I would view Muslims who choose suicide benignly. Be my guest, just don’t leave your blood on my rug. But suicides kill only themselves.

To suggest that the problem the US faced on 9/11, that occurs daily in Iraq, via car bombers, or that was planned for the flights from London is a “suicide” problem is to stretch the use of euphemism way past the breaking point. Bring that term before a jury and you’ll get laughed out of court.

Let’s be honest and say that there are thousands, possibly millions who are willing to KILL tens of thousands and tens of millions and don’t mind losing their lives in the attempt.

That's a very serious problem. But admitting there is a problem doesn't mean I'm agonising at the (minor) epistemological leap it took for me personally to renounce violent jihad. I think Robert Spencer and people who support him consistently trumpet the most violent interpretations of Islam, and then go on to make it seem as though those Muslims who are not violent are somehow betraying the essence of the faith.

I’m glad that you renounced violent jihad although I’m a little troubled that it was something that you had to renounce. Is this something every Muslim has to do? Christianity has no analog. We are supposed to avoid sin and when we sin – as we all do - we are supposed to seek forgiveness from God through Jesus. But the concept of violence against non-Christians is not part of our culture, at least not now.

The reason that Robert Spencer focuses on the violent aspects of Islam is because that is the part that is causing the violent deaths of literally millions of people. When a religion – perverted or not - is the cause of that much violence, it is neither wise not prudent to shut our eyes to its teachings and to understand the “essence of the faith.” I'm not the scholar Spencer is but I will give long odds that he can find at least 10 leading Islamic clerics who will say you are betraying the essence of your faith.

And if you maintain that you are right and they are wrong that makes you a minority and theirs a majority view.

Although I concede that those who advocate violent jihad point to actual texts in the Quran and early and subsequent Islamic practice, I believe their interpretation is wrong and the historical examples they cite are opportunistically chosen. This doesn't mean I'm denying the violent aspects of Islam that come from a literal reading of religious texts, just that I, as Muslims have for centuries, reject that literalism is the only way to interpret religious documents - in fact, I'll readily admit that the bin Ladenists aren't creating doctrine out of thin air, but they are distorting what is there considerably through their weirdly post-modern focus on literalism, which has less of a basis in Islam than common intuition would suggest. I don't want to get into the weeds of Islamic history and Quranic exegesis on a Friday evening, though.

I hope my response still satisfies Robert: I admit that there is much violence and intolerance inherent in verses in the Quran and elsewhere (although I disagree that it's as bad as Robert says it is) - still, I "renounce [it] definitively."

Than you, again for your decision to eschew violent jihad.

I can't speak for other Muslims - indeed, I refuse to do so, cherishing as I do my individuality and respecting theirs - but I can say that the doctrines of my particular subsect of Islam, the Shia Ismailis, make it easy for me to renounce violent jihad. I don't know - maybe I should agonise over it more, but somehow I don't. With respect to my religious faith, I agonise more over memorising difficult prayer verses and singing religious songs in tune.I don't however agonise over whatever it is that bothers the violent jihadists.

I too, cherish my individuality and – since no one elected me – I don’t claim to speak for others. And there are billions of us in this world. Even in a war, most of the people are bystanders trying their best to stay alive by keeping their heads down. It’s not a dishonorable thing to be a civilian in a war zone.

But it does underscore one thing. You appear to be unconcerned about being attacked, kidnapped or beheaded by rampaging Presbyterians on their way home from Sunday church services. This despite Presbyterians never renouncing either jihad or crusade. It’s no small thing. Please think on it.

UPDATE: Jihad Watch visitors please look around and make yourself at home

UPDATE 2: Robert Spencer has responded HERE

With respect, sir, maybe we do need a bit more agonizing, in the sense that we need more active challenges to the jihadists from Muslims who claim to reject their deeds and perspective. I hope we will see more in this vein from you in the future, and in the meantime I thank you for taking the time to write this reply, which in itself suggests that you have modified your earlier erroneous view that I leave Muslim reformers and would-be reformers no "wiggle room."