The story of Emil Abdelkader, a 19th-century Algerian military leader who saved the Christians of Damascus from a massacre in 1860, is an outlier among the stories of Islamic leaders, although it teaches us a great lesson. This lesson, however, is not what the Emir-Stein Center wants it to be. John Kiser, co-founder of the Abd-Elkader Project and author of Commander of the Faithful: The Life and Times of Emir Abd el-Kader (A Story of True Jihad) would have you believe that Islam is shown to be fundamentally peaceful as a result of people such as Abdelkader, but in reality, there is a range of personalities and people in every theological camp. The only way to determine whether one’s actions are representative of his or her theology is to investigate their moral basis and justification in that theology.
In the video, Kiser tells the audience that Emil Abdelkader was a great humanitarian who opposed French troops and saved thousands of Christian lives in the Druze Riots of 1860, but this is completely irrelevant to the question of whether or not Islam is peaceful, as it cannot be established that Abdelkader acted upon Islamic principles. That is because in the Qur’an’s Surah 98:6, Jews and Christians are called ‘the worst of creatures’. In Surah 5:51, Allah says ‘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’. Muslims are commanded to kill or subjugate Christians, not help them, in many verses, including Surah 9:5, where Allah commands ‘when the forbidden months are passed, so kill the polytheists wherever you find them, and take them [as captives] and besiege them’. Christians are considered polytheists because of the doctrine of the Trinity.
In regard to what Abdelkader is most revered for, the humane treatment of prisoners, Islam teaches quite the opposite, specifically in regard to female slaves. Men are allowed to have sexual intercourse with female slaves, as we see in Surah 4:24: ‘And married women [are also forbidden], except all that your right hand possesses’. Muhammad was also given the privilege of owning an unlimited number of sex slaves in Surah 33:50: ‘O you prophet, surely we have made it lawful for you, your wives whom you have given their wages and those that your right hand possesses which Allah has granted you.’
According to Kiser, these compassionate ethical standards came from a strict application of Islamic law, and here we come to the motivation behind these Emir-Stein videos: promoting Islam via the actions of Muslims. ‘For Americans, Abdelkader represents a story that is needed to rebalance perceptions of Islam’. The Emir-Stein Center evidently holds that it is clearly wrong when people dismiss Islam simply because of the actions of terrorists, so why is the opposite acceptable? The only way to judge Islam rightly is not by the mixed actions of followers, but by its scripture. Then we can see which group most accurately represents Islamic teaching. Appealing to the character of the person to legitimise the ideology is the genetic fallacy. If Abdelkader had been a brutal warlord, would that mean Islam is suddenly a violent ideology? No, because the argument could not be more irrelevant: Islam is not affected in its nature by any actions after Muhammad’s era.
Kiser says that Emil Abdelkader is ‘an embodiment of true theological, moral and rational ideas taught by Islam’. As we have already seen, this is extremely disingenuous. Emil Abdelkader transgressed against the will of Allah, as we established earlier, which means Allah does not love him, as is stated at the end of many Qur’an verses. In Surah 8:6, we read that ‘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’, and such hypocrites will be met with a painful end, as detailed in Surah 9:73, where Allah decrees: ‘O you prophet, perform jihad against the infidels and the hypocrites, and be harsh with them’.
Kiser presents four points to attempt to legitimise this portrayal of Islam. The first, third and fourth are irrelevant to his point, as Kiser cites Abdelkader’s lack of blind zeal in fighting naively, lack of blinding stubbornness in his political animosity with the French, and his ability to put himself in his adversaries’ shoes. In the second, Kiser claims that Emil Abdelkader ‘is strictly guided in his decisions by the legal limitations and moral obligations set forth in the divine law’. As we have already established, many of his actions towards unbelievers transgress against the direct, perfect, unchangeable, eternal, perfectly preserved command of Allah, meaning that he is actually a munafiq, a hypocrite in Islam.
Kiser then apparently tries to link Christianity to Islam, by claiming that the subjects of his video ‘would agree with the Apostle Peter that faith alone is not enough’. I will ignore the Christian theological implications around that statement and instead grant them with 2 Peter 1:5-7. The question that arises here is this: does John Kiser really expect Islam to endorse what is written in the Bible? If Muslims argue the Gospel has not been corrupted, Islam crumbles, so Islamic theology thus holds that the Bible has been corrupted; as such, it is completely irrelevant to the so-called virtues of Islam. Yet while Kiser cites the Bible in the video, we still haven’t yet seen any Islamic scriptural backing for any of Emil Abdelkader’s actions.
John Kiser seems to suggest that all religions have one thing in common: The Golden Rule, ‘love thy neighbour’. In reality, there is not a single verse in the Qur’an that preaches love for an unbeliever. I will again set out the challenge to John Kiser to find one, although he must be careful not to bring a verse that not only neglects to preach love, but proves the exact opposite. Allah commands Muslims 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’. Helping and loving is not ‘harshness’.
The video title carries this subtitle: ‘When Americans Honored an Icon of Jihad’. While ‘icon’ is a strange choice of word, this devious phraseology is the reason behind the Emir-Stein Center’s entire mission: to smuggle dangerous Islamic concepts into the back door of a more loving Christian-based West. Some choose to aid this effort intentionally while others are unwilling participants.
Rather than be an ‘Icon of Jihad’, Emil Abdelkader was a transgressor against Allah. We read in Surah 9:73 that Allah commands: ‘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.’ The meaning of the word ‘jihad’ is quite clear here. Helping unbelieving people and those who fight against you is certainly not jihad. The video is here appealing to the popular but entirely subjective campaign where ‘My Jihad’. When engaging in war with unbelievers, the Qur’an says: ‘Allah will torment them by your hands and put them to shame and give you victory over them and heal chests of a believing people’. (9:14-15)
If a Muslim such as Emil Abdelkader carries out acts that stand in direct contradiction to Islam and Allah’s commands, can his good actions really be attributed to his Muslim identity? Without any linking evidence between his actions and Allah’s direct commands, these good, laudable actions are irrelevant to his being Muslim. I ask John Kiser to show me a single command from Allah telling Muslims to carry out any of the actions detailed in the video to unbelievers. Until then, there is no link between such virtuous actions and Islam.