Professor Reynolds casts down his face

Dr Gabriel Said Reynolds a professor of Islam for Notre Dame has taken time out of his schedule to offer this. Robert Spencer has already plucked the low-hanging fruit.

Reynolds is, in fact, a true scholar of Islamic literature. (And far be it from me to impugn a man's scholarship based on whatever he might tweet on the side.) But this particular man is being selective with his Qurânic quotes, in print.

Reynolds cites suwar 7, 16, 43 and 68. He doesn't say that Islamic dogma assigns all of these early into the Prophet's mission - which, in Yathrib, turned more militant. It's nice that these suwar exist for peace-minded men to cite. It's just that actual Muslims won't listen.

From "the Madinan Qurân", Reynolds cites suwar 3 and 5. Reynolds notes that Q. 3:106 refers to the Judgement, in which the Celestial Court shall blacken the sinners' faces. These sinners are internal schismatics against sura 3's favoured suwar; to them: Did you disbelieve after you had believed? Then taste the chastisement for that you disbelieved! Q. 3:106 parallels 54:48, where sinners are dragged on their faces on the Last Day for a "taste" of Hell. A reader might also look to sura 10. In Q. 10:21, men get a "taste" of God's mercy. Over vv. 50-2, a "chastisement" comes to Earth in day or night - the "taste" of the eternal chastisement. Sura 3 itself at v. 185 will consider death in this dunyâ as a "taste". For sura 3, the true death occurs for the damned, tormented in the eternal âkhira. To sum up Q. 3:106 does defer final Judgement to God. But it nowhere forbids His Believers to tease His enemies on Earth with aspects of it, first.

Reynolds should know that Muslims believe themselves to be God's apostles on Earth to bring God's will into it. This is true for all religions and philosophies, including Catholicism and even atheism. Otherwise, why even bother? It happens that the Qurân presents itself as God's direct command to the Muslim... and that command is frequently violent. As Spencer has documented from suwar 9, 33 and even 5 which Reynolds had cited in support elsewhere. Talk about an own-goal.

Reynolds might agree, with me, that suwar 7 et al. are in fact later compositions which abrogate (say) suwar 3-6, 8, 47 and so on. He assuredly knows that his citations from "the Madinan Qurân" are often abrogated by suwar later in any chain. But if he'd admitted as much in print, he'd need to recast his whole essay into a condemnation of the canon sîra. At which point he'd find himself on Spencer's side. And the New York Daily News might not publish his piece. And Notre Dame students would picket their administration. And he'd still be stuck with suwar 9, 33, 48, 58, 63 and most of the Musabbihat ...