[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6q6tSq_YdQI]
In a video from the 5th of July this year, Catholic theologian and Emir-Stein Center representative William F. Vendley presents a case for why Muslims do condemn [Islamic] terrorism, but there are many issues with the picture presented here by Vendley.
One of Vendley’s claims in this video is that peaceful Muslims condemning terrorism are rarely seen in the media. In fact, they are far more commonly seen than are Muslims justifying terror, as Muslim apologists such as Reza Aslan, Mehdi Hasan and Ahmed Soliman have been frequently seen on the biggest television and news stations defending Islam.
Vendley’s case for non-violent Muslims being separate and condemning violent Muslims hinges solely on anecdotal evidence. His first story is from 2015, when a bus filled mainly with Muslims was attacked by al-Shabab. The attackers demanded that the people on the bus identify the Christians so that they could be slaughtered. The Muslims on the bus refused to identify the Christians and protected their identity, and the terrorists eventually gave up.
The questions here include: what is Vendley’s definition of Muslim, and who was acting in accordance with Islam? Vendley cannot claim a Muslim is simply someone who claims to be one, or else the terrorists would be just as Muslim as those who defended the Christians. A Muslim is a person who follows the Qur’an as direct, perfect, unchangeable, eternal, perfectly preserved word of Allah, and who believes that Muhammad is his final messenger. This is the Shahada’s meaning. So who was acting in accordance with Allah’s word?
In Surah 9:5, Allah commands: ‘So when the forbidden months are passed, so kill the polytheists wherever you find them, and take them [as captives] and besiege them and lay wait for them with every kind of ambush’, showing that the al-Shabab terrorists were acting upon the exact command of Allah, in the correct manner and style. The passengers on the bus were transgressing against Allah’s word, including Surah 5:51, where Allah states; ‘O you who have believed, do not take the Jews and the Christians as friends. They are friends to one another. And whoever among you takes them as friends, so surely he is of them.’
The only instance here in which al-Shabab acted wrongly in terms of Islam was by allowing the people on the bus to live, because the fate of transgressors according to Allah is extremely clear. A Muslim who takes a Christian for a friend is one of them, and transgressors are met with harsh punishment. In Surah 4:89, we read: ‘They desire that you should become infidels as they are infidels so that you should be alike. So do not take any of them for friends until they emigrate for the sake of Allah. So if they turn away, so seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and do not take from them as friends or helpers.’ It seems that once these Muslim protectors turned away to help the inferior Christians (the worst of creatures, according to Surah 98:6), they turned away from Allah.
Vendley’s second story involves the hiding of men and women who were mostly Christian from herdsmen in 2018 by the Nigerian imam Abubakar. Again, the terrorists in this instance complied with all the verses commanding the slaughter of Christians, and asked for them to be turned over, but the imam refuses and offers himself instead. This shows a similar flawed, dynamic. According to the words of the Qur’an, the terrorists were correct in demanding the Christians, and the imam transgressed against Allah in taking the Christians as allies.
Allah commands in Surah 9:123: ‘O you who have believed, engage in war against the infidels who are near to you. And let them find in you harshness’. This war for the sake of Allah can only end when all religion is for Allah, as seen in Surah 8:39: ‘And engage in war with them until there will not be sedition and the religion will be completely to Allah. So, if they cease, so surely Allah sees what they do.’ Those who turn away from engaging in war are confronted by Allah in Surah 8:16: ‘And whoever will turn his back to them on that day, unless he turns away strategically to engage in war or to rally some other group, so indeed, will return with wrath from Allah’.
Once again, the Muslim defenders in this scenario are lucky that the devout followers of Allah did not anticipate this occurring, which is why these scenarios are so rare, because in Surah 9:73, we read Allah commanding Muhammad to perform Jihad against hypocrites: ‘O you prophet, perform jihad against the infidels and the hypocrites, and be harsh with them. And their abode will be hell, and evil is the final place.’ We are constantly reminded that transgressors are not loved by Allah and that hell will be their final abode.
The third story involves a bishop friend of Vendley’s being welcomed as a friend before a crowd at a Saudi imam’s mosque. We’ve already seen that this kind of behavior is not the will of Allah according to the words of the Qur’an, so it is irrelevant to the question at hand.
Vendley then concludes by saying; ‘I could go on and on about the courage and kindness of ordinary Muslims standing up to terrorism’. The issue is that these acts of courage and kindness are directly in opposition to the words of Allah in the Qur’an; the people Vendley describes are standing up to not only the terrorists, but Islam. How can these acts be held up as correlating to their Muslim identity when they are in direct transgression against Allah’s words?
Vendley says ‘terror in the name of Islam is evil’. I don’t really take much notice of the actions of Muslims unless the action is in accordance with Islamic teaching. Anything else is irrelevant. What matters is if it is justified according to the Qur’an. All of the instances given by Vendley most certainly are not. Vendley follows with ‘all [people], especially Muslims, need to condemn’ terrorism. My question here, though, is on what grounds? How can a knowing Muslim condemn an act of terrorism if it is commanded by Allah? When God is the objective moral standard, he defines what is ultimately good, what is righteous and how someone will be judged. The only way for someone to legitimately critique such actions is after leaving Islam.
The ‘ugly trap’ Vendley then presents is to fall into criticising Islam, and the bait and switch is complete. Not once did Vendley prove from Islamic scripture that the terrorists were wrong, or that the victims were correct according to Islam. The evidence has proved quite the opposite.
In his final statement, Vendley suggests bringing people out of a ‘sinkhole of darkness’, where fear and revulsion lie, by using decency, empathy, courage and care. One important factor he forgot to include in his equation of sentimental synonyms is truth, which always ultimately sets someone free from fear, hate and the like. In my opinion, the decent, empathetic, courageous and caring thing to do is to tell the truth, so that the backbone of terrorism of this nature, i.e. commands of Allah, is torn out.
My first question to William F. Vendley would be the following. If Muslims condemn the direct, perfect, unchangeable, eternal, perfectly preserved word of Allah, are they Muslim any longer or are they transgressors and hypocrites? I would also be intrigued to see if Mr. Vendley could fulfil the classic challenge: show me one verse in the Qur’an that preaches love to an unbeliever. Until then, it seems there is only one set of Muslims who are truly Muslims.