The myth of moderate Islam

Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2005 18:22:45 -0400
From: David Virtue
Subject: As Eye See It: THE MYTH OF MODERATE ISLAM - by Patrick Sookhdeo

THE MYTH OF MODERATE ISLAM

by Patrick Sookhdeo

The funeral of British suicide bomber Shehzad Tanweer was held in
absentia in his family's ancestral village called 477 GB in Sumandri
district, near Lahore, Pakistan. Thousands of people attended, as they
did again the following day when a qul ceremony was held for Tanweer.
During qul the Qur'an is recited, earning merit which is passed on to
the deceased to speed their journey to paradise. In Tanweer's case this
was hardly necessary for being a shahid (martyr) he is deemed to have
gone straight to paradise. The 22-year old from Leeds, whose bomb at
Aldgate station killed seven people, was hailed by the crowd as "a hero
of Islam".

Some in Britain cannot conceive that a suicide bomber could be a hero of
Islam.

Since 7/7 many have made statements to attempt to explain what seems to
them a contradiction in terms. Since the violence cannot be denied,
their only course is to argue that the connection with Islam is invalid.
Deputy Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Brian Paddick
said that "Islam and terrorists are two words that do not go together."
His boss the Commissioner, Sir Ian Blair, asserted that there is nothing
wrong with being a fundamentalist Muslim.

Many have argued in the same vein after every recent Islamic terrorist
atrocity. But surely we should give enough respect to those who
voluntarily lay down their lives to accept what they themselves say
about their motives. If they say they do it in the name of Islam, we
must believe them. Is it not the height of illiberalism and arrogance to
deny them the right to define themselves and their actions in this way?

Those who say that we should not link Islam to terrorism because no one
spoke of the IRA as "Catholic terrorists" are being illogical. The IRA
never claimed to commit their acts of terrorism on behalf of the
Catholic Church. Nationalism, not religion, was their driving force.

Some of the "condemnations" of 7/7 given by the British Muslim
leadership have little value, hedged as they are with provisos and
get-out clauses. What good is it to condemn suicide bombings in London
and affirm them in the Middle East? What good is it to say that Islam
condemns the killing of the innocent without clarifying how Islam
defines "innocence"? We need to hear more comments like those of
courageous Muslims who have called on their community to report radicals
to the police.

Tony Blair was right in saying that this terrorism is not a new problem.
It was there before the Iraq war, and it was there before 9/11. It is
not confined to attacks on non-Muslim and Western targets. Right across
the Muslim world, there is internal conflict, as for example in Iraq,
Pakistan and Egypt, with Muslims destroying each other because of
theological differences. Indeed the first sectarian conflict within
Islam began in 632, as soon as Muhammad had died. By 657 there was a
three-way split in the community; one of these three groups was
eventually exterminated by another, and the two remaining are the Sunnis
and Shi'as who are still fighting each other today.

On 8th July the London-based Muslim Weekly unblushingly published a
lengthy opinion article by Abid Ullah Jan entitled "Islam, Faith and
Power". The gist of the article is that Muslims should strive to gain
political and military power over non-Muslims, that warfare is
obligatory for all Muslims, and that the Islamic state, Islam and
shari'a [Islamic law] should be established throughout the world. All is
supported with quotations from the Qur'an. It concludes with a veiled
threat to Britain. The bombings the previous day were a perfect
illustration of what Jan was advocating, and the editor evidently felt
no need to withdraw the article or to apologise for it. His newspaper is
widely read and distributed across the UK.

What then is the theology behind the phenomenon of Islamic terrorism
which Jan faithfully describes in the Muslim Weekly? Contemporary Islam
can be what you make of it. By far the majority of Muslims today live
out their lives without recourse to violence, for the Qur'an is like a
pick-and-mix selection. If you want peace, you can find peaceable
verses. If you want war, you can find bellicose verses. You can find
verses which permit only defensive jihad, or you can find verses to
justify offensive jihad.

You can even find texts which specifically command terrorism, the
classic one being Q8:59-60 which urges Muslims to prepare themselves to
fight non-Muslims: "Against them make ready your strength to the utmost
of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the
hearts of) the enemies" (A.Yusuf Ali's translation). Pakistani Brigadier
S.K. Malik's book "The Quranic Concept of War" is widely used by the
military of various Muslim countries. In it Malik explains Qur'anic
teaching on strategy: "In war our main objective is the opponent's heart
or soul, our main weapon of offence against this objective is the
strength of our own souls, and to launch such an attack, we have to keep
terror away from our own hearts... Terror struck into the hearts of the
enemies is not only a means, it is the end itself. Once a condition of
terror into the opponent's heart is obtained, hardly anything is left to
be achieved. It is the point where the means and the end meet and merge.
Terror is not a means of imposing decision on the enemy; it is the
decision we wish to impose on him."

If you permit yourself a little judicious cutting, the range of choice
in Qur'anic teaching is even wider. A verse one often hears quoted as
part of the "Islam is peace" litany allegedly runs along the lines: "If
you kill one soul it is as if you have killed all mankind." But the full
and unexpurgated version of Q5:32 states: "If anyone slew a person -
unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would
be as if he slew the whole people." The very next verse lists a
selection of savage punishments for those who fight the Muslims and
create "mischief" (or in some translations "corruption") in the land,
punishments which include execution, crucifixion and amputation. What
kind of "mischief in the land" could merit such a reaction? Could it be
interpreted as secularism, democracy and other non-Islamic values in a
land? Could the "murder" be the killing of Muslims in Iraq? Just as
importantly, do the Muslims who keep quoting this verse realise what a
deception they are imposing on their listeners?

It is probably true that in every faith, ordinary people will pick the
parts they like best and practise those, while the scholars will work
out an official version. In Islam the scholars had a particularly
challenging task, given the mass of contradictory texts within the
Qur'an. To meet this challenge they developed the rule of abrogation
which states that wherever contradictions are found, the later-dated
text abrogates the earlier one. To elucidate further the original
intention of Muhammad, they referred to traditions (hadith) recording
what he himself had said and done. Sadly for the rest of the world, both
these methods led Islam away from peace and towards war. For the
peaceable verses of the Qur'an are almost all earlier, dating from
Muhammad's time in Mecca, while those which advocate war and violence
are almost all later, dating from after his flight to Medina. Though
"jihad" has a variety of meanings including a spiritual struggle against
sin, Muhammad's own example shows clearly that he frequently interpreted
jihad as literal warfare and himself ordered massacre, assassination and
torture. From these sources the Islamic scholars developed a detailed
theology dividing the world into two parts Dar al-Harb and Dar al-Islam,
with Muslims required to change Dar al-Harb into Dar al-Islam either
through warfare or by da'wa (mission).

So the mantra "Islam is peace" which we hear repeated in the media so
often is almost 1400 years out of date. It was only for about thirteen
years that Islam was peace and nothing but peace. From 622 onwards, it
became increasingly aggressive, albeit with periods of peaceful
co-existence particularly in colonial times, when the theology of war
was not dominant. For today's radical Muslims - just as for the medieval
jurists who developed classical Islam - it would be truer to say "Islam
is war". One of the most radical Islamic groups in Britain, al-Ghurabaa,
stated in the wake of the two London bombings, "Any Muslim that denies
that terror is a part of Islam is kafir." A kafir is an unbeliever (i.e.
a non-Muslim), a term of gross insult.

Many have expressed sympathy for young men whom they feel have been
driven to kill themselves - and as many others as possible. Shahid
Malik, MP for Dewsbury, West Yorkshire, has said that suicide bombers
are motivated by "feelings of isolation and disaffection, the political
anger at what they see as the double standards of the west in relation
to international Muslim areas of conflict... and the hatred propagated
by domestic extremists such as the BNP".

But we should consider why the bombers react so much more violently to
these afflictions than other people do. As Agatha Christie's Poirot once
explained and as Shakespeare's Iago demonstrated, the ideal way to
murder is by using other people to do the killing. It is noticeable that
the senior leaders of radical Islamic groups never themselves perform
suicide missions. Rather they manipulate vulnerable and expendable
youngsters to do so for them. One such leader is Sheikh Yusuf
al-Qaradawi who inspires young Palestinians to become suicide bombers
but shows no inclination to seek "martyrdom" himself, nor to send his
sons on suicide missions. Incidentally, he has also issued a fatwa
calling for the killing of British forces in Iraq. Ken Livingstone, who
not surprisingly condemned the suicide bombings in the city of which he
is mayor, rather more surprisingly went on to support an invitation to
al-Qaradawi to attend a conference in Manchester.

While many individual Muslims choose to live their personal lives only
by the (now abrogated) peaceable verses of the Qur'an, it is vain to
deny the pro-war and pro-terrorism doctrines within their religion.
Could it be that the young men who committed suicide were neither on the
fringes of Muslim society in Britain, nor following an eccentric and
extremist interpretation of their faith, but rather that they came from
the very core of the Muslim community motivated by a mainstream
interpretation of Islam?

In the days of the British empire, colonialism had a profound effect on
Islam. On the one hand it cut Islam adrift from its classical roots by
taking from Islam its political and military power. On the other hand
Lugard's policy of indirect rule allowed the continued existence of
Islam in terms of its social structure and the continued use of certain
aspects of shari'a. In India this led to the development of communalism,
which allowed Indian Muslims to form their own community and rule
themselves by shari'a. This doubtless contributed to the creation of
Pakistan in 1947, which came into being specifically to provide a
homeland for the Muslims of the sub-continent. A process of Islamisation
has led Pakistan to become an Islamic republic.

The same development can be seen in the British Muslim community, most
of whom have their roots in the Indian sub-continent. Muslims who
migrated to the UK came initially for economic reasons, seeking
employment. But over the last fifty years their communities have evolved
away from assimilation with the British majority towards the creation of
separate and distinct communities, mimicking the communalism of the
British Raj. As a Pakistani friend of mine who lives in London said
recently, "The British gave us all we ever asked for; why should we
complain?" British Muslims now have shari'a in areas of finance and
mortgages; halal food in schools, hospitals and prisons; faith schools
funded by the state; prayer rooms in every police station in London; and
much more. This process has been assisted by the British government
thought its philosophy of multiculturalism, which has allowed the Muslim
community to consolidate and create a parallel society in the UK.

The Muslim community now inhabits principally the urban centres of
England as well as some parts of Scotland and Wales. It forms a spine
running down the centre of England from Bradford to London, with ribs
extending east and west. It is said that within 10-15 years most cities
in these areas will have Muslim-majority populations, and will be under
local Islamic political control, with the Muslim community living under
shari'a.

As early as 1980 M. Ali Kettani was advocating a policy with the aim of
achieving such a result. Writing instructions for Muslims living as
minorities in Western countries, Kettani urged them to live close
together and form their own separate institutions. What happens after
this stage depends on which of the two main religious traditions amongst
Pakistani-background British Muslims gains the ascendancy. The Barelwi
majority believe in a slow evolution, gradually consolidating their
Muslim societies, and finally achieving an Islamic state. The Deobandi
minority argue for a quicker process using politics and violence to
achieve the same end result. Ultimately both believe in the end result
of an Islamic state in Britain where Muslims will govern their own
affairs and, as the finishing touch, everyone else's affairs as well.
Islamism is now the dominant Islamic voice in contemporary Islam, and
has become the seedbed of the radical movements. It is this that Sir Ian
Blair has not grasped.

For some time now the British government has been quoting a figure of
1.6 million for the Muslim population. Muslims themselves claim around 3
million, and this is likely to be far nearer to the truth. The growth of
the Muslim community comes from their high birth rate, primary
immigration and asylum-seekers both official and unofficial. There are
also conversions to Islam.

The violence which is endemic in Muslim societies such as Pakistan is
increasingly present in Britain's Muslim community. Already we have
violence by Pakistani Muslims against Kurdish Muslims, by Muslims
against non-Muslims living amongst them (Caribbean people in the west
Midlands, for example), a rapid growth in honour killings, and now
suicide bombings. It is worth noting that many current conflicts around
the world are not internal to the Muslim community, but external as
Muslims, seek to gain territorial control, for example, in south
Thailand, the southern Philippines, Kashmir, Chechnya, and Palestine. Is
it possible that a conflict of this nature could occur in Britain?

Muslims must stop the self-deception which claims that Islam is 100%
peace. They must with honesty recognise the violence that has existed in
their history in the same way as Christians have had to do, for
Christianity has had at times a very dark past Some Muslims have, with
great courage, begun to do this. Mundir Badr Haloum, who lectures at a
Syrian university, wrote last year in the Lebanese daily Al-Safir,
"Ignominious terrorism exists, and one cannot but acknowledge its being
Islamic."

Furthermore they must look at the reinterpretation of their texts, the
Qur'an, hadith and shari'a, and the reformation of their faith. Mundir
Badr Haloum has described this as "exorcising" the terrorism from Islam.
Such reform - the changing of certain fairly central theological
principles - would not be easy to achieve. For one thing, Muslims
believe the text of the Qur'an is unchangeable because it exists
eternally in heaven. For another, there is no recognised central head of
Sunni Islam to make or endorse such decisions. But some Muslims have
already made a start.

Mahmud Muhammad Taha argued for a distinction to be drawn between the
Meccan and the Medinan sections of the Qur'an. He advocated a return to
peaceable Meccan Islam which he argued is applicable for today, whereas
the bellicose Medinan teachings should be consigned to history. For
taking this position he was tried for apostasy, found guilty and
executed by the Sudanese government in 1985. Another modernist reformer
was the Pakistani Fazlur Rahman who advocated the "double movement" i.e.
understanding Qur'anic verses in their context, their ratio legis, and
then using the philosophy of the Qur'an to interpret that in a modern,
social and moral sense. Nasr Hamid Abu-Zayd, an Egyptian professor who
argued similarly that the Qur'an and hadith should be interpreted
according to the context in which they originated, was charged with
apostasy, found guilty in June 1995 and therefore ordered to separate
from his wife.

The US-based Free Muslims Coalition, which was set up after 9/11 to
promote a modern and secular version of Islam, has proposed the
following:

1. A re-interpretation of Islam for the 21st century where terrorism is
not justified under any circumstances 2. Separation of religion and
state 3. Democracy as the best form of government 4. Secularism in all
forms of political activity 5. Equality for women 6. Religion to be a
personal relationship between the individual and his or her God, not to
be forced on anyone

The tempting vision of an Islam reformed along such lines is unlikely to
be achieved except by a long and painful process of small steps. What
might these be and how can we make a start? One step would be, as urged
by the Prince of Wales, that every Muslim should "condemn these
atrocities [7/7 bombings] and root out those among them who preach and
practise such hatred and bitterness". Universal condemnation of suicide
bombers instead of acclamation as heroes would indeed be an excellent
start.

Mansoor Ijaz has suggested a practical three-point action plan:

1. Forbid radical hate-filled preaching in British mosques. Deport imams
who fail to comply. 2. Scrutinise British Islamic charities to identify
those that fund terrorism. Prevent them from receiving more than 10% of
their income from overseas. 3. Form community watch groups comprised of
Muslim citizens to contribute useful information on fanatical Muslims to
the authorities.

To this could be added Muslim acceptance of a secular society as being
the basis for their religious existence, an oath of allegiance to the
crown which will override their allegiance to their co-religionists
overseas, and deliberate steps to move out of their ghetto-style
existence both physically and psychologically.

For the government the time has come to accept Trevor Phillips'
statement that multiculturalism is dead. We need to move on to
re-discover and affirm a common British identity founded on the
historical Judaeo-Christian heritage of our society. This would impact
heavily on the future development of faith schools, which should now be
stopped.

Given the fate of some earlier would-be reformers, perhaps King Abdullah
of Jordan or a leader of his stature might have the best chance of
initiating a process of modernist reform. The day before 7/7 a
conference which he had convened of senior scholars from eight schools
of Islamic jurisprudence amazingly issued a statement endorsing fatwas
forbidding any Muslim from those eight schools to be declared an
apostate. So reform is possible. The only problem with this particular
action is that, whilst it protected Muslim leaders from being killed by
dissident Muslims, it negated a very helpful fatwa which had been issued
in March by the Spanish Islamic scholars declaring Osama bin Laden an
apostate. Could not the King re-convene his conference and ask them to
issue a fatwa banning violence against non-Muslims also? This would
extend the self-preservation of the Muslim community to the whole
non-Muslim world.

It will be a long, hard road for Islam to get its house in order so that
it can coexist peacefully with the rest of society in the 21st century.
But change must start now.

--Dr Patrick Sookhdeo is Director of the Institute for the Study of
Islam and Christianity. He is also an ordained priest in the Church of
England.