Why is it that those who fear Islam (irrationally) spend an inordinate amount of time analyzing the life of the Prophet (??? ???? ???? ? ???) for character flaws or moral ambiguities?

As I related in my Taqlid post, I believe this action of attacking source texts is a result of the very influences of the terrorists themselves. Rather, any sensible person wishing to engage in dialogue with Muslims should come to an acceptance of one thing:

Muslims believe the Prophet (??? ???? ???? ? ???) holds an impeccable moral stature.

Now, these Islamophobes may think they can tell us a story of how this tribe was treated in war and complain about various assertions regarding the Prophet’s (??? ???? ???? ? ???) marriages, but really, do they think they are telling us something that will change Muslim’s minds about the very central figure of our religion?

No, it’s irrational to expect us to do anything else than what we do, we come to an understanding of the Prophet (??? ???? ???? ? ???) that far transcends any specific act that they may raise and twist into a negative one. Far from it, if we cannot come to some understanding regarding some thing or some situation, many of us simply deny it ever happened.

I am not one of the deniers, I find it perfectly feasible to be a good, natural, 100% human loving person, and believe that the Prophet (??? ???? ???? ? ???) did certain things which would confuse society today. This is only a matter of understanding that the Prophet (??? ???? ???? ? ???) was a moral king and we are peasants.

Whenever there is a question, Muslims (as a matter of faith) choose the answer which leads our understanding of the Prophet to the highest moral ground. This applies in every case, including war-time strategy to his personal life within his marriages.

One example: Did the Prophet (??? ???? ???? ? ???) marry Aisha when she was young? The traditionalists say ‘yes’, but that in itself is not wrong. Marriage, sexuality and culture were completely different in the Prophet’s (??? ???? ???? ? ???) time.

Is the ongoing movement towards a higher age of marriage the goal for Muslims like it seems to be for the West? No, traditionalists hold that this carries a baggage of the necessity for new sexual outlets, which is one of the diseases of the western system.

But at the same time, do Muslims today believe that today 9 years old should marry?

No, I would challenge anyone to find me a traditionalist (not Wahabi/Salafi) who held that today’s 9 year olds should marry. In fact, Sheykhs may enact local laws to prevent such a thing from occurring -and consider that Shariat- as today’s 9 year old are ill-prepared for such relationships.

Today’s reality is different, and the Shariat recognizes that and adapts in itself. Another prime example is how Sheykhs now teach that a man must provide the basics of living of his surroundings to his wife. Surprisingly enough an ‘ancient’ Shariat now including a modern day washer-dryer under that condition, if that is the norm of the surroundings.

The Shariat and its restrictions and judgements, like Islamic art or music, adapts to its surroundings.

This is not to say that the Shariat becomes a way of legitimatizing all of a culture’s practices, but rather, the Shariat has historically impacted that culture slowly and deliberately towards a moral path to the Prophet’s (??? ???? ???? ? ???) ultimate example as understood by the righteous. What is considered a flagrant violation of that versus what is something that can be ‘tweaked’ is something that is up to the society itself and the qualified scholars it adores.

Furthermore, if a new culture blossomed somewhere which was more similar to the Prophet’s (??? ???? ???? ? ???) time, I don’t think it would be necessary to say that we enlightened Westerners must come in and impose our you-should-be-30-something-before-you-are-married view until we turn them into Mcdonalds scarfing, mall-rats like us. We do not need to extinguish vibrant cultures who are evolving at their own pace, in a reality that is comfortable to nearly all involved.

This was the problem of colonialism, and the disease of the inner belief that Western culture is inherently superior. This is the worldly manifestation of a belief in a moral superiority that cannot be matched by quaint unsophisticated systems. Under this intolerant view, African’s should quit their piercings (or only a few so that we can continue to marvel at them in National Geographic) and put on some t-shirts and get back to those sweat shops so they can earn a ticket to the baseball game!

In fact, it is this battle that the West has decided to tackle now, all over the world. This makes us just as dangerous as the Islamists political parties who want to impose their ego-systems on all of us. I call them “ego-systems” as they certainly have nothing to do with the traditionally tolerant Shariat of the Moghuls or Ottomans, but rather an ego-driven system which comes from radical new interpretations of source texts -just as the Islamophobes are doing-.

Hence I suggest we need a Westernism Watch. This is needed since those who are attacking the Prophet (??? ???? ???? ? ???) with books such as the “Truth of about Muhummad” (??? ???? ???? ? ???) inherently believe in a moral superiority (which needs to be enforced) of the Western approach to life versus one taught by other cultures and systems. Sounding familiar anyone?

When all this type of criticism of Quran, Hadith and Seerat becomes tiring, people like Spencer move on to Madhabi texts looking for more ammunition for their attacks. Again, like the Quran and Hadith themselves, those texts were not meant to be approached outside the tradition of teaching tolerance and mercy within the system of the ulema.

This takes a number of increasing steps with folks like those at Jihad Watch. Robert Spencer is just one of the folks who falls into the trap of the Wahabi’s and Salafist’s without even realizing it.

Here he cries for “evidence” and says all he is provided with is “transparently false exegeses of Qur’an and Hadith”. His dialogue with a Muslim who was obviously ill prepared to answer such topics from a traditional perspective, is full of assertions that Spencer himself has understood Islam properly, including a variety of ‘proofs’ from madhabi texts.

Truly idiotic questions such as

“Is it “inescapably correct” that each Muslim school of jurisprudence sanctions violent jihad?”

Could simply be answered with, is it ‘inescapably correct’ that each Muslim school of jurisprudence denounces violent jihad?

Both are blanket statements that miss the subtleties of reality, and that is what traditional scholarship tends to dictate: the reality of the circumstance and situation. Physical battle is allowed and absolutely disallowed under certain conditions. Which one you choose to portray as ‘Islam’ is a sign of your own bias. An honest view would be to understand that such things are flexible and malleable as the State Deptartments decisions to go to war with Iraq but not North Korea.

The point comes down to the Islamophobic belief that:

Accordingly, Ibn Warraq is correct when he says that there are moderate Muslims, but there is no moderate Islam.

This is fundamentally missing the point that it is Muslims, and today’s Muslims scholarship which defines Islam and not texts. One cannot even determine the current forms of ritual prayer from these texts, how could one hope to discover permission to wage war or a violent defense?

The fact that Muslims resisted the printing press for Islamic works (but allowed it for the Western alphabet) in itself is a testament to this very basic cultural difference, which the West has yet to acknowledge. The importance of an oral tradition taught by an authorized teacher eliminates the need for self-interpretation which Spencer, his friends the Wahabi’s, and the Progressives need to fuel their never ending debates.

My suggestion, spend 5 minutes with a real teacher of Islam who would temper your ego in the fires of Fiqh and Fana, introducing compassion with adherance, and you may realize that is where the secret of Islam is. Muslims already recognize that, that is why they denounce terrorism and have no second thoughts about it.

To accuse us of not being religious if we are anti-terror is a ridiculous assertion, and is only the output of all of the above biases combined.

If the majority of Muslims are asking for tolerance, peace, and mercy, then that -is- what Islam is.