Sam Shamoun has written a detailed evaluation and refutation of Jalal
Abualrub's response to Wail Taghlibi article "One Adam
or Two?" However, there is much more to it than the actual arguments presented by the Muslim
author. Since Abualrub makes it a major point to attack our integrity and motivation, it is only fair
to devote some space to look at his approach and attitude as exhibited in this first installment of
his Crusade against Answering Islam. I will structure it under these aspects:
ignorance, mockery, arrogance, hypocrisy, hatred, lies.
Note: At Answering Islam we welcome feedback. We are not interested in entertaining ourselves but value serious and controversial discussion. Whether a reaction is positive or critical, whether constructive or intended to be destructive, one can always learn from those who respond to our publications. We value questions, critique, and rebuttals, since critical interaction will hopefully increase understanding and bring us all closer to the truth. Abualrub raises some valid questions in his response, and the original author may even make some revisions of the article later on, where necessary. We are firm believers in the freedom of speech. We insist that Muslims must have the right to scrutinize our publications, and that we have the right to scrutinize every aspect of what Muslims write or say. This stated, we turn to examine Abualrub's paper which seems to have been written in a different spirit.
Ignorance: Abualrub's confusion of categories
While claiming that the publications of Answering Islam are lacking knowledge and merely appealing to emotion:
http://www.answeringislam.org/, a Neo-Conservative Website, propagates articles of the nature described here that discuss specific, knowledge-based Islamic topics, without using a knowledge-based approach. By appealing to their readers' emotions rather than the pursuit of truth and serious scientific research, the Neo-Cons/Neo-Shaikhs seek to deflect attention away from discussing the core foundation of their religion in comparison to the Islamic Faith to discussing specific aspects of the Islamic Law. ...
Abualrub, in contrast, seeks to present himself as a serious researcher and scholar, stating:
Before we discuss the major points of interest in Taghlibi's article, we should first explain the topic under discussion in his article to satisfy the requirement of scientific research in a knowledge-based atmosphere. (bold emphasis mine)
Does his article hold up to the claim and standard he appealed to? Is Abualrub's response "knowledge-based"? Although this question is answered mostly in the detailed examination of Abualrub's arguments (see Sam Shamoun's refutation), there is one gross error that is worth highlighting here. For some undisclosed and mysterious reasons, Abualrub thinks that Wail Taghlibi's article was a fatwa, i.e. a legal ruling. This is not an inconsequential side remark but repeated over and over again in his response, beginning in the first paragraph:
When the Evangelist becomes a Shaikh, the angels become polytheists, worshipping Adam instead of Allah. When the Evangelist becomes a Shaikh, the Nasikh becomes Mansukh, the Mutlaq becomes Muqayyad and the `Aamm becomes Makhsus, and the vice versa. Not that it is not hilarious to read for Evangelists-turned-Shaikhs. It is at the discovery of the level of horrific confusion and plain errors contained in the Fatawa of the many Evangelists/Shaikhs who sprung up in recent years that intensifies one's amazement and bafflement, especially noting the level of publicity the writings of the new Shaikhs receive in Western Media.Wail then expounded on his ‘Fatwa’ by writing this, ...
In his article/Fatwa, Wail mentioned Allah's order to the angels to prostrate in Sujud to Adam and commented by saying, ...
These very Verses that Wail used to support his Fatwa ...
Thus, and contrary to what Wail decided in his Fatwa, it is not Muslim commentators who stated that the prostrating of the angels to Adam was an act of Ikram (honoring) of Adam, ...
These great Prophets of Allah did not perform acts of worship to each other, as Wail insinuates in his Fatwa.
Thus, two things are clear: the context of this Hadeeth is Sujud as a matter of tradition, and ‘Karramna', from the same root word as ‘Karramta', is another term that Wail mysteriously ignored mentioning in his article/Fatwa.
Yet, the fact remains that Prophet Yusuf received a Sujud that was preordained in the Quran itself and this is further proof that Wail erred in his Fatwa.
Every text belongs to a certain literary genre, and in order to properly understand the text, one needs to know which genre it belongs to. Reading a poem about the beauty of creation as if it were a scientific text, interpreting a parable as if it were a historical report, or taking a metaphor as if it were an exact description will inevitably lead to a wrong conclusion. Even more, attacking a poem because it is not scientifically accurate does not decrease the quality of the poem, it only exposes the person attacking it as somebody who is not able to properly interpret the text, let alone being able to appreciate poetry. Charging a parable as not being historically accurate does not invalidate the parable but it invalidates the critique of the ignorant commentator.
[ Illustration: Visiting an island where steep mountains rise near the coast, a poetically inclined observer may describe a sunset: "As the sun sunk into the sea, the mountains stood aflame, bathed in fiery red, ..." Evaluating this poem, one may legitimately critique it for mixing inconsistent imagery of "burning" and of "bathing", but it would be utterly misguided to dismiss it because the sun is millions of miles away and therefore could not possibly have "sunk into the sea" and there was no fire on the mountains, so they were certainly not "aflame". Accusing a poem for using language that is not scientifically accurate would be ludicrous. Every genre of text must be evaluated on its own terms. ]
Categorizing Taghlibi's article as a document of fiqh (Islamic Jurisprudence) reveals a serious lack of elementary reading comprehension. Given that Abualrub treated Wail Taghlibi's article as if it were a fatwa, it is no surprise that his response then completely missed the mark. It was hardly "knowledge-based" but showing a serious lack of knowledge.
Taghlibi simply read the Quran, stumbled upon an inconsistency, consulted some Muslim commentaries but found them unsatisfactory, drew a connection to a biblical concept, and formulated his thoughts in an article. He put his thoughts before the readers as a commentary and as a suggestion. If the reader finds it fascinating or even convincing, wonderful. If he does not, it is his own decision. Certainly Taghlibi is free to have an opinion and to express his opinion. What is wrong about that?
There was nothing "obligatory" in it (like in a court ruling). Nobody had any duty to accept it. Taghlibi made no claim that this is "the final word" on the matter. If one wants to categorize it in Islamic terms at all, then it was tafsir (commentary on the Qur'an), but certainly not a fatwa. Really, Abualrub made "much ado about nothing".
Without a proper foundation, one cannot build a stable house. Without properly identifying the genre of a text, one cannot produce a valid refutation of it. That Abualrub did not only go wrong in the general scope of his reply but also in many details can be seen in Sam Shamoun's refutation.
To prevent this same misunderstanding and categorical error from invalidating Abualrub's future publications, let me state it explicitly: There is not one fatwa on our site, and we do not intend to issue own fatwas in the future either. However, we reserve the right to publish our opinion on fatwas issued by Muslims.
Mockery and the fallacy of ad hominem
Based on the quotations above, one might conclude that it was very important for Abualrub that this discussion will be conducted in "a knowledge-based atmosphere" as a necessary element in facilitating "the pursuit of truth and serious scientific research" instead of "appealing to their readers' emotions". Being in full agreement with such goals and principles, let us evaluate how Abualrub satisfies his own requirements. He begins his article with these words:
When the Evangelist becomes a Shaikh, the angels become polytheists, worshipping Adam instead of Allah. When the Evangelist becomes a Shaikh, the Nasikh becomes Mansukh, the Mutlaq becomes Muqayyad and the `Aamm becomes Makhsus, and the vice versa. Not that it is not hilarious to read for Evangelists-turned-Shaikhs. It is at the discovery of the level of horrific confusion and plain errors contained in the Fatawa of the many Evangelists/Shaikhs who sprung up in recent years that intensifies one's amazement and bafflement, especially noting the level of publicity the writings of the new Shaikhs receive in Western Media.
The only objective of Abualrub's first paragraph is to emotionalize the issue. There is, allegedly, a whole movement of people who falsely claim to be Islamic authority figures and who say horrible things. Whether any of this is true is insubstantial. Taghlibi is part of this conspiracy and guilty by association. I do not know of any evangelist who claims to be a shaikh. Certainly, Taghlibi has not claimed to be one. Abualrub, however, seeks to stir up negative emotions in his Muslim readers. They are supposed to loathe and hate Taghlibi before even one of his arguments is examined.
He continues:
http://www.answeringislam.org/, a Neo-Conservative Website, propagates articles of the nature described here that discuss specific, knowledge-based Islamic topics, without using a knowledge-based approach. By appealing to their readers' emotions rather than the pursuit of truth and serious scientific research, the Neo-Cons/Neo-Shaikhs seek to deflect attention away from discussing the core foundation of their religion in comparison to the Islamic Faith to discussing specific aspects of the Islamic Law. ...
To be "Neo-Conservative" is supposedly bad in the eyes of Abualrub and his Muslim audience, so our site is labelled to be "Neo-Conservative" to further emotionalize the debate, and despite the fact that we have a wide variety of political convictions among our authors, although it hardly ever shows, since we are usually not discussing politics but theology. In particular, it is completely irrelevant to the discussion of the current article, since there was no politics involved whatsoever. Labelling Answering Islam Neo-Conservative could have only one purpose, making us again guilty of all the evils associated with Neo-Conservativism. The ironic bit is, that there can hardly be anything more conservative than Islam which wants to make the life, words and deeds of a man from the seventh century the standard for all times. If Neo-Conservative is bad, why should anyone listen to a Paleo-Conservative?
I am not going to discuss in detail any of the other pieces of mockery, just listing a few more of them:
When one involves oneself in a type of knowledge that is far superior to one's intellect, one falls into the absurd idea that ...... the rhetorical babbling of un-enlightened Evangelists.
... Wail first filled his heart with hatred of a religion he cannot even begin to understand, then hastily read Quranic Verses to find mistakes in them. This article has clearly shown him to be a fake Shaikh who did not contemplate what he wrote before posting it.
For some reason, Wail evaded mentioning the Christian dogma of “Original Sin”. However, he kept babbling about Adam's sin and how he lost his relationship with God because of it, ...
In contrast, Wail Taghlibi did not use any mockery or personal attack anywhere in his article. In fact, he very calmly explained his thoughts and made extra efforts to be polite and use soft words in order not to offend Muslim readers, e.g., using "bewildering question" instead of "contradiction" when discussing his observations in the Qur'an. He did not mock those Muslim commentators of the Qur'an with which he disagrees.
Mockery is simply not acceptable in scientific writing and serious research publications. By attacking Taghlibi in this way, Abualrub has disqualified himself as being a scholar or having a scholarly attitude. Let us remind of Abualrub's introductory words:
http://www.answeringislam.org/, a Neo-Conservative Website, propagates articles of the nature described here that discuss specific, knowledge-based Islamic topics, without using a knowledge-based approach. By appealing to their readers' emotions rather than the pursuit of truth and serious scientific research, the Neo-Cons/Neo-Shaikhs seek to deflect attention away from discussing the core foundation of their religion in comparison to the Islamic Faith to discussing specific aspects of the Islamic Law. ...Before we discuss the major points of interest in Taghlibi's article, we should first explain the topic under discussion in his article to satisfy the requirement of scientific research in a knowledge-based atmosphere. (bold emphasis mine)
Abualrub has utterly failed his own criteria and is judged by his own words.
Arrogance, or: If you are not a Muslim, shut up!
The mockery in the last section could be dismissed as merely a sign of bad manners on the part of Abualrub. There have always been people with us who lacked manners. So what, bad manners are mostly a problem for those who have them. The next point is far more serious, questioning the possibility of genuine discussion itself, and indeed, undermining the principles of a free society. Abualrub writes:
... By appealing to their readers' emotions rather than the pursuit of truth and serious scientific research, the Neo-Cons/Neo-Shaikhs seek to deflect attention away from discussing the core foundation of their religion in comparison to the Islamic Faith to discussing specific aspects of the Islamic Law. However, if one does not believe in the tree itself, i.e., Islam and its creed, then discussing the attributes of the tree's branches, leaves and fruit becomes irrelevant.Amazingly, Wail then dismissed the explanation given by Muslim Scholars on their own Quran and acted as if they are bound by his explanation on it, even though he is neither a Muslim nor a scholar on Islam.
First, we hereby testify that Wail's acceptance –or lack of it- of the explanation given to this ‘Islamic’ concept by ‘Muslim Scholars’ has never been of any concern to Muslims. Wail, who does not believe in Allah, the Quran, Muhammad, or Islam, invented a concept that was never propagated by the Quran or the Prophetic Tradition or contemplated by any Muslim scholar.
The Sujud (prostration) performed by the angles [sic] to Adam is an aspect of the Ghaib, or matters of the Unseen, that Muslims believe in and do not dispute. ...
If one does not believe in Islam's creed, one should not waste time discussing Islamic Law.
In Islamic countries, critique of Muhammad or the Qur'an has severe consequences up to the death penalty. Unbelievers are impure and are not supposed to make any comments on Islam. Even in the West, many who have published critical articles or books about Islam, in print or on the web, can testify that hate-mail up to death threats will quickly come your way.
Living in the USA with tightened anti-terror laws Abualrub is careful enough not to call publically for acts of terror against us, but his statements are still clear enough that being "unbelievers" automatically disqualifies us from making any kind of statement about Islam. It fits into the general quranic attitude of contempt for those who disagree. Abualrub has not said anything criminal. However, to state that since you are not a Muslim, whatever you say is irrelevant, is plain arrogance, even if he feels it is mandated by his ‘holy book’ to display such arrogance.
Believing in the freedom of speech, we want you to have the freedom to call our opinion irrelevant. However, based on that same freedom, we will call a spade a spade and expose the arrogant attitude of Muslims towards non-Muslims whenever relevant.
We uphold that God has given us a mind so that we may use it. We have the duty to think and the right to express our thoughts, and this includes our thoughts and convictions about Islam, Muhammad and the Quran, both as a whole as well as any part of it. We are not going to abandon this gift of God simply because some Muslims want to declare certain issues to be taboo.
Though comparatively minor, there is another element of arrogance in his paper. He mostly speaks about the author of the paper he critiques as "Wail". This is the first name of the author. One may talk about or address children by their first name, but in the scholarly community, when reviewing the publication of another, one always uses the family name, even when the other is a friend whom you are addressing by his first name in private. This aspect also reveals that Abualrub does not belong to the scholarly community.
Hypocrisy
In Islamic understanding, and in Abualrub's opinion, non-Muslims have no right to comment on matters of Islam. It does not matter what they say, the very fact that they are not Muslims disqualifies them from making public statements about Islam.
Now, if Abualrub were to be consistent and say that nobody who is not a member of a certain faith community should comment on that faith, its scriptures, its founder or foundational figures etc. then he would be consistent. We would still disagree, but could accept this as a possible conviction that one could hold to with personal integrity.
However, in this article and elsewhere Abualrub refers to the Bible, interprets Bible passages, makes negative comments on Christian doctrines and derogatory remarks on the apostle Paul. Add to this his announcement, "i am going to ... target your religion with criticism, articles that contain much evidence revealing the contradictions in your book, the creed that you invented on your own, ..." I.e. his message is that non-Muslims are not supposed express critical opinions of Islam, but it is quite alright for Muslims to do so in regard to other religions. This is a rather glaring inconsistency in his methodology.
Is this plain and simple hypocrisy, or can Abualrub explain to us the rationale why Muslim are allowed to comment on the religious beliefs of others, but non-Muslims are not allowed to comment on Islam?
Hatred
Muslims often cannot imagine that anyone would have valid reasons to reject Islam and to criticize it. The only explanation possible is that such people are full of hatred, evil motivations and have a disease of the heart. Abualrub is no different. He claims that it is hatred that drives Taghlibi and all those involved with Answering Islam, and our deep fear of the power of Islam. He writes:
Wail first filled his heart with hatred of a religion he cannot even begin to understand, then hastily read Quranic Verses to find mistakes in them. This article has clearly shown him to be a fake Shaikh who did not contemplate what he wrote before posting it.Hatred Vs. Scientific Research to Support Criticism of Islam; “One Adam or Two?”
It is astounding as to how Wail Taghlibi and his sponsors imagine they can circumvent the advance of Islam's plain creed by writing this type of article that joins evident error and utter confusion to the inability to understand Islamic concepts.
The question is, to what lows are haters of Islam willing to sink to in their feverish yet vain attempts to defeat Islam's superior creed? ... Mankind already accepts Islam as their religion at a faster rate than Christianity, making many Christians worried. ...
As so often, such an attitude is rooted in the Qur'an. In Surah 9 we find one of many passages speaking about the unbelievers, i.e. those who view Muhammad's claims critically and express their doubt about it:
"O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness; and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil). And whenever a chapter is revealed, there are some of them who say: Which of you has it strengthened in faith? Then as for those who believe, it strengthens them in faith and they rejoice. And as for those in whose hearts is a disease, it adds uncleanness to their uncleanness and they die while they are unbelievers." Surah 9:123-125
Since there cannot possibly be any valid reason to reject Islam, people who entertain doubts about Muhammad must have some kind of disease of the heart, e.g. being full of hatred.
However, looking through Abualrub's 20 pages long polemic, there is not one piece of evidence for his accusation that Wail Taghlibi was driven by hatred, not even a hint of it. This charge is merely Abualrub's assumption based upon the Qur'an, not on Taghlibi's article. Taghlibi is an unbeliever, therefore he is "guilty until proven innocent".
Oh, by the way, accusing others of hatred is a great way of appealing to the emotions of the readers. Nobody likes people who are full of hatred. One merely needs to make the charge, and most readers will be turned off immediately and no longer consider the arguments of the opponent. We don't want to have anything to do with people who are full of hatred, or do we?
Well, if we have to discuss the issue of hatred at all, we have to ask first: How would one measure this alleged hatred? Could it be that the use of mockery, derision and false accusations are a measure of the level of hatred and insecurity? If so, then it is obvious who is afraid of whom, and who is the one driven by hatred. Abualrub's article provides plenty of evidence for that.
Lies
Some may view such statements as "exaggerations" or "justifiable polemics". However, Abualrub put an emphasis on "the pursuit of truth", so it is only fair to measure him on that claim.
When the Evangelist becomes a Shaikh, ... When the Evangelist becomes a Shaikh, ... When the Evangelist becomes a Shaikh, ... it remains to be seen as to how Wail Taghlibi and the entire community of Evangelists/Shaikhs ... This article has clearly shown him to be a fake Shaikh who did not contemplate what he wrote before posting it.
Taghlibi nowhere claimed to be a shaikh, so it is rather disingenious to claim that he usurped such an authority. If he never claimed to be a shaikh, how could Abualrub expose him to be a fake shaikh? Nothing but cheap emotional polemics, straw man argumentation.
Then, he stated that Muslim Scholars, meaning, the scholars of Islam who know what Islam is about and are qualified to explain the meaning contained in the Quran and Sunnah, "…simply explain this phrase as meaning ‘greeting and exaltation’." Amazingly, Wail then dismissed the explanation given by Muslim Scholars on their own Quran and acted as if they are bound by his explanation on it, even though he is neither a Muslim nor a scholar on Islam.
No, Taghlibi commented on the opinions of the Muslim scholars and explained why he did not find them convincing. He did not feel the urge to ridicule them, like Abualrub did in response. He did not in any way mock them. And he did not act as if anyone was "bound" by his explanation. He merely told his opinion and then it is up to the reader what to do with it. He used formulations like:
Since there is no indication that such a phrase was used to address any of these prophets, the interpretation offered by Muslim commentators to the phrase of “falling down in prostration to Adam” seems unconvincing. ... Therefore, in our discussion of the bewildering question, of what is meant by God’s command to angels to “fall down prostrate to Adam”, we may conclude that neither Muslim commentators nor the Qur’an itself have succeeded in offering a plausible answer.
Clearly, Abualrub's summary of Taghlibi's approach is a gross misrepresentation. Taghlibi did not simply dismiss the Muslim commentators. He referred to them, and he explained in some detail why he personally found them unconvincing. He offered his opinion in contrast to the opinion of the Muslim commentators and said, after presenting his reasons, that one MAY therefore conclude ... but nobody is in any way BOUND by Taghlibi's observations and thoughts. Instead of carefully reading Taghlibi's article, Abualrub simply insists that the author issued a "fatwa" and therefore considers the readers bound by his conclusions.
Abualrub also states that:
First, we hereby testify that Wail's acceptance –or lack of it- of the explanation given to this ‘Islamic’ concept by ‘Muslim Scholars’ has never been of any concern to Muslims. Wail, who does not believe in Allah, the Quran, Muhammad, or Islam, invented a concept that was never propagated by the Quran or the Prophetic Tradition or contemplated by any Muslim scholar.
Abualrub just gave a false testimony. There are plenty of Muslim scholars who have written commentaries on this issue (some of them quoted by Abualrub in his article) in order to explain that this was something different than worship. If no Muslim would ever have thought that it is, there would not have been so much effort to explain it away!
Moreover, it is obviously of great concern to THIS Muslim, Jalal Abualrub. His concern was so great that he wrote more than 20 pages in response to it, spending many many hours on putting together his rebuttal. Even more, out of hundreds of articles on our site that are critiquing various aspects of Islam, he chose this one as the first issue to respond to. Why? Because it is so utterly insignificant? Thus, his action contradicts his words. He lies about his own motivation and evaluation of the gravity of the issue only to emotionally minimize the importance of Wail Taghlibi's observations and conclusions in the eyes of the audience.
It would have been more honest to admit that this story has indeed been an issue of concern to Muslims for a long time and has been discussed by many commentators. Then he could have presented the solution to the matter that he himself found most satisfactory, and given his refutation as to why he thought Taghlibi is wrong in his opinion. However, Abualrub's claim that before Taghlibi nobody ever got that absurd idea that the commanded prostration of the angels could be misunderstood as worship is too obvious a lie.
Here is another false charge:
Yet, instead of confronting Islamic Tau`heed with Christian Trinity, some Christians resort to defaming Islam and corrupting the Islamic Texts in such a shameful manner demonstrated by Wail and his supporters.
Abualrub just loves to appeal to the emotions of the readers, right? Taghlibi was discussing one story of the Qur'an and was doing so very calmly and in a very friendly manner (quite a contrast to Abualrub's aggressive response). Where was he defaming Islam? He pointed out what he considers an inconsistency in the Qur'an. Well, I know that Abualrub thinks it is outrageous that any non-Muslim would dare to have a critical opinion about the Qur'an, but this is simply not sufficient to call it a defamation. Nor is there anything to be ashamed about.
The second charge is even more serious: Which Islamic TEXTS have become corrupted? I am not aware that any of them was changed. Taghlibi has merely offered an interpretation of the text as it is. He has not changed or corrupted the text in any way. The texts are still the same.
However, unwittingly, Abualrub's formulation exposes the false polemics of the common Muslim charge of Bible corruption, confusing the charge of misinterpretation with a claimed change of the actual texts. For more of this, see the section What the Qur'an says about the Bible.
Finally, let me come back to the very first point. My original evaluation of Abualrub's classification of Taghlibi's article as a fatwa was probably not correct. It may not have been due to his ignorance as concluded above, but this was quite likely a deliberate lie with the purpose of maximizing his mockery of Wail Taghlibi and in order to be able to call him a fake shaikh. Abualrub knows the various categories of Muslim writings very well. In his response to Craig Winn he writes in extensive detail about the difference between sayings of Muhammad recorded in hadith literature versus those found in the sirah literature, about the difference of sunnah (which is obligatory to Muslims to follow) and tafsir which are collections of opinions, some correct and some of them wrong (cf. the section titled "Do ‘Qur'an’, ‘Tafsir’, ‘Hadeeth’, ‘Sunnah’, ‘Tarikh’, and, ‘Seerah’, Sound the Same?" in this file"). In fact, he mocks and castigates Craig Winn for writing about Islam without even knowing the difference between these different types of Muslim sources. Thus, Abualrub knows exactly what is the difference between a fatwa and a tafsir. However, he deliberately used the wrong term to classify Taghlibi's article in order to create an outrage in his Muslim readership how a non-Muslim could dare issue a fatwa.
I will leave it to Abualrub whether he wants to be seen as ignorant of the most elementary Islamic terminology or rather stand exposed as a deliberate liar who deceives his readers for polemical purposes.
In any case, the appearance of scholarship that he tried to create for himself has certainly evaporated.
Responses to Jalal Abualrub
Answering Islam Home Page