Tweet
Frontpagemag.com
Oct 18 2004
Islam: A Totalitarian Ideology?
By FrontPage Magazine
Below, Ibn Warraq, the author of Why I am Not a Muslim, argues that
Islam is a totalitarian ideology. A rebuttal follows from Thomas
Haidon, a member of the Board of Advisors and President of the New
Zealand Chapter of the Free Muslim Coalition Against Terrorism -- The
Editors.
Islam. A Totalitarian Ideology
By Ibn Warraq
Islam is a totalitarian ideology that aims to control the religious,
social and political life of mankind in all its aspects -- the life
of its followers without qualification, and the life of those who
follow the so-called tolerated religions to a degree that prevents
their activities from getting in the way of Islam in any manner. And
I mean Islam. I do not accept some spurious distinction between Islam
and `Islamic fundamentalism' or `Islamic terrorism.' The terrorists
who planted bombs in Madrid on March 11, 2004, and those responsible
for the death of approximately 3000 people on September 11, 2001 in
New York, and the Ayatollahs of Iran, were and are all acting
canonically. Their actions reflect the teachings of Islam, whether
found in the Koran, in the acts and teachings of the Prophet
Mohammed, or in Islamic Law that is based upon them.
Islamic Law, the Sharia, is the total collection of theoretical laws
that apply in an ideal Muslim community that has surrendered to the
will of God. According to Muslims, it is based on divine authority
that must be accepted without criticism, doubts and questions. As an
all-embracing system of duties to God, Sharia controls the entire
life of the believer and the Islamic community. An individual living
under Islamic Law is not free to think for himself.
Given the totalitarian nature of Islamic law, Islam does not value
the individual, who has to be sacrificed for the sake of the Islamic
community. Collectivism has a special sanctity under Islam. Under
these conditions, minorities are not tolerated in Islam. Freedom of
opinion and the freedom to change one's religion, the act of
apostasy, are punishable by death. Under Muslim law, the male
apostate must be put to death, as long as he is an adult, and in full
possession of his faculties. If a pubescent boy apostatizes, he is
imprisoned until he comes of age, when if he persists in rejecting
Islam he must be put to death.
Drunkards and the mentally disturbed are not held responsible for
their apostasy. If a person has acted under compulsion he is not
considered an apostate, his wife is not divorced and his lands are
not forfeited. According to Hanafis and Shia, a woman is imprisoned
until she repents and adopts Islam once more, but according to the
influential Ibn Hanbal, and the Malikis and Shafiites, she is also
put to death. In general, execution must be by the sword, though
there are examples of apostates tortured to death, or strangled,
burnt, drowned, impaled or flayed. The caliph Umar used to tie them
to a post and had lances thrust into their hearts, and the Sultan
Baybars II (1308-09) made torture legal.
The absence of any mention of apostasy in the penal codes of some
contemporary Islamic countries in no way implies that a Muslim is
free to leave his religion. In reality, the lacunae in the penal
codes are filled by Islamic Law, as in the case of Muhammad Taha,
executed for apostasy in the Sudan in 1985, and hundreds of others
have been executed for apostasy in Iran in recent years. In 1998
Ruhollah Rowhani, 52, was hanged for converting to the Baha'i faith
in Iran.
All Islamic human rights schemes such as the 1981 Universal Islamic
Declaration of Human Rights; the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in
Islam (circa 1990), etc., severely restrict and qualify the rights of
individuals, particularly women, and minorities such as non-Muslims
and those such as apostates, unbelievers, and heretics who do not
accept Islamic religious orthodoxy.
As for religious minorities, the relations of Muslims and non-Muslims
were set in a context of a war: jihad. The totalitarian nature of
Islam is nowhere more apparent than in the concept of Jihad, the Holy
War, whose ultimate aim is to conquer the entire world and submit it
to the one true faith, to the law of Allah. To Islam alone has been
granted the truth -- there is no possibility of salvation outside it.
It is the sacred duty -- an incumbent religious duty established in
the Koran and the Traditions -- of all Muslims to bring it to all
humanity. Jihad is a divine institution, enjoined specially for the
purpose of advancing Islam. Muslims must strive, fight and kill in
the name of God:
IX .5-6: "Kill those who join other gods with God wherever you may
find them."
IX. 29: "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor
hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His
Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are)
of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing
submission, and feel themselves subdued."
IV.76: "Those who believe fight in the cause of God..."
VIII.12: "I will instil terror into the hearts of the Infidels,
strike off their heads then, and strike off from them every
fingertip."
Mankind is divided into two groups - Muslims and non-Muslims. The
Muslims are members of the Islamic community, the umma, who possess
territories in the Dar ul Islam, the Land of Islam, where the edicts
of Islam are fully promulgated. The non-Muslims are the Harbi, people
of the Dar ul Harb, the Land of Warfare, any country belonging to the
infidels that has not been subdued by Islam but which, nonetheless,
is destined to pass into Islamic jurisdiction either by conversion or
by war (Harb).
All acts of war are permitted in the Dar ul Harb. Once the Dar ul
Harb has been subjugated, the Harbi become prisoners of war. The imam
can do what he likes to them according to the circumstances. Usually
they are sold into slavery, exiled or treated as dhimmis, who are
tolerated as second class subjects, as long as they pay the kharaj, a
kind of land tax, and the jizya, the poll-tax, which had to be paid
individually at a humiliating public ceremony to remind the
non-Muslim minorities that they were inferior to the believers, the
Muslims.
In all litigation between a Muslim and a dhimmi, the validity of the
oath or testimony of the dhimmi is not recognized. In other words,
since a dhimmi was not allowed to give evidence against a Muslim, his
Muslim opponent is always exonerated. No Muslim could be executed
for having committed any crime against a dhimmi. Accusations of
blasphemy against dhimmis were quite frequent and the penalty was
capital punishment. A non-Muslim man may not marry a Muslim woman. I
should emphasize that all these principles are not merely of
historical interest but are indeed still applied against non-Muslims
in modern Iran, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, to name but a few
countries.
Muslims are certain that Islam is not only the whole of God's truth,
but it is its final expression. Hence Muslims fear and persecute such
post-Islamic religious movements as the Baha'is and the Ahmadis. Here
is Amnesty International on the plight of the Ahmadis [ASA
:33/15.91]: "Ahmadis consider themselves to be Muslims but they are
regarded by orthodox Muslims as heretical because they call the
founder of their movement al-Masih [the Messiah]: this is taken to
imply that Muhammad is not the final seal of the prophets as orthodox
Islam holds, i.e., the Prophet who carried the final message from God
to humanity ... As a result of these divergences, Ahmadis have been
subjected to discrimination and persecution in some Islamic
countries. In the mid-1970s, the Saudi Arabia-based World Muslim
League called on Muslim governments worldwide to take action against
Ahmadis. Ahmadis are since then banned in Saudi Arabia."
But what of putative Islamic tolerance? Those apologists who continue
to perpetuate the myth of Islamic tolerance should contemplate the
following cursory tabulation of jihad depredations: the massacre and
extermination (totalling tens of millions, combined) of the
Zoroastrians in Iran, and the Buddhists and Hindus in India; of the
more than 6000 Jews in Fez, Morocco in 1033, the entire Jewish
community of 4000 in Granada in 1066, of the Jews in Marrakesh in
1232, of the Jews of Tetuan, Morocco in 1790, and of the Jews of
Baghdad in 1828; the jihad genocide of 1.5 million Armenians in
Turkey at the beginning of the 20th Century, and the jihad genocide
of 2 million South Sudanese Christians and Animists at close of the
20th Century, and so on, ad nauseam.
*
Why I am a Muslim
By Thomas Haidon
How should one judge a religion or belief structure? Should we judge
or formulate an opinion of religion based on the history and action
of its adherents? If Islam is to be judged merely by its history, and
the actions of some of its adherents, then Ibn Waraq makes a fair
point. Is there any real question that the Islam being propagated in
Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Palestine and throughout much of the Muslim
world is consistent with totalitarianism? I will not quibble or
disagree with the historical facts presented by Ibn Waraq. As Bernard
Lewis has aptly stated "...Islam was born in the full light of
history. Its roots are at surface level, the life of its founder is
as well known to us as those of the Reformers of the sixteenth
history".
However, Ibn Waraq seems to have a short memory of several periods of
Muslim history where liberalism and humanism flourished. Undoubtedly
however, violence and aggression have played a role (and continue to
do so) throughout periods of Muslim history. But, for Ibn Waraq, that
is the end of the inquiry; there is no room for dialogue or
discussion. Only an absolutist, strict constructionist version of
Islam can prevail. If one had not availed themselves to Ibn Waraq's
voluminous writings on Islam, one could reasonably come to the
conclusion that the only solution Ibn Waraq's piece implicitly
suggests is the total rejection of all Muslims and our belief
structure.
For Ibn Waraq defining the source of the "Islamic problem" is a
simple exercise, it is the Qu'ran, Sunnah and the entire Muslim
tradition; (he may be two-thirds right).. But I believe that Ibn
Waraq is wrong, not about the actions or beliefs of a significant
portion of Muslims, but about Islam itself in its pure form the
Qu'ran, and it is for this reason "why I am a Muslim".
I believe that it is primarily the incorrect interpretation and
applicability of the sources of Islam that form the essence of the
"Islamic problem", not Islam itself. Unlike Ibn Waraq, I also
believe that there are solutions to this problem, unfortunately for
Ibn Waraq however, these solutions require working within Islam. In
brief, the most significant barrier between Islam and reform is the
perceived duality of the Qu'ran and Sunnah. Most of the issues raised
by Ibn Waraq in his article are compounded by aspects of the Sunnah
(particularly Jihad) or are a result of direct contradiction between
the Qu'ran and Sunnah (apostacy).
If Muslims derived their inspiration exclusively from the Qu'ran, and
formulated a new authoritative moderate and liberal tafsir, terrorism
and extremists would be minimalised. As Daniel Pipes aptly pointed
out in a recent article, Muslims have the opportunity to create a new
slate and turn what Islam has become into a religion consistent with
humanity, liberalism and modernity (as I believe was intended) or
continue the status quo of totalitarianism.
While Ibn Waraq's frustrations with the Muslim tradition and
contemporary Islam may be understandable, I strongly disagree with
Ibn Waraq on his implicitly overbroad generalisation of all Muslims.
I take ultimate issue with the statement: "I do not accept some
spurious distinction between Islam and "Islamic fundamentalism" or
"Islamic terrorism". By implication, no distinction need be made
between the terrorists of Al-Queda, Fateh, Hamas and Abu Musab
al-Zarqawi's Tawhid Group and great number of Muslims who love their
religion and believe in peace and modernity. Such a conclusion is
overbroad and destructive. Nonetheless, at a rudimentary level it is
a perspective that needs to be understood and appreciated by moderate
and peaceful Muslims (who don't exist according to Mr. Warraq's
implicit rationale).
Non-Muslims throughout the Western world are bombarded with images of
brutal violence committed by Muslims in virtually all forms of media.
By examining, the current actions of Muslims, Islamic history, and
an incorrect interpretation of classical Islamic sources (which most
Muslims do not understand) it is not difficult to understand a
non-Muslim's hostility towards Islam.
Ibn Waraq has presented a select list of ayat (not exhaustive) that
seemingly advocate violence against non-Muslims. Unfortunately, what
is missing from Ibn Waraq's article (as well as in the minds of
Muslim extremists) is an analysis of these ayat in light of the
Qu'ran in its entirety (in fairness to Ibn Waraq he has addressed
this in his more voluminous work). Ayat and Surah cannot be read in
isolation of each other. The ayat presented by Ibn Waraq must be read
against the contradictory verses in the Qu'ran that promote peace
with non-Muslims and the freedom of thought (there are many, and
learned readers will be well familiar with these verses). In Surah
Al-Baqarah, God states:
"Then it is only a part of the Book that ye believe in, and do ye
reject the rest? But what is the reward for those among you who
behave like this but disgrace in this life?- and on the Day of
Judgment they shall be consigned to the most grievous penalty. For
Allah is not unmindful of what ye do".
This ayat illustrates that some verses cannot be ignored while some
are followed. Thus the verses that Ibn Waraq cites, must be
reconciled with the verses that affirm peace and freedom (2:62 for
example, among others). Another ayat sheds some light on those verses
that are less than absolutely clear:
"He it is who has sent down to thee the Book: In it are verses basic
or fundamental (of established meaning); they are the foundation of
the Book: others are allegorical. But those in whose hearts is
perversity follow the part thereof that is allegorical, seeking
discord, and searching for its hidden meanings, but no one knows its
hidden meanings except Allah. And those who are firmly founded in
knowledge say: "We believe in the Book; the whole of it is from our
Lord" and none will grasp the Message except men of understanding".
This ayat lends credibility to the argument that an absolutist
following and interpretation of the Qu'ran not only is unrealistic,
but is not God's will. Many of the ayat dealing with violence towards
non-Muslims are shrouded in allegorical language, including several
which are cited by Ibn Waraq. When, read in conjunction with verses
espousing peace and freedom of thought, which are generally
straightforward (but nonetheless controversial among extremists), it
becomes clear that these verses should prevail, because they form the
backbone of Islam are consistent with the classical notion of charity
in the broader sense. A new tafsir would assist greatly in defining
the scope of those verses (and there are more than several) and
explaining them in the proper context, that during the time of their
revelation Muslims were fighting in a war to establish a presence,
and that these verses when read in light of many others, are not
commandments to kill.
The historical treatment of apostates throughout Muslim history
perhaps demonstrates the most visible inconsistencies between the
Qu'ran, Sunnah and the general Muslim tradition. The Qu'ran,
prescribes no worldly punishment for apostasy, and actually in many
ayat affirms the right of man to believe what he chooses (at his own
peril in terms of the afterlife). I will be happy to mention the
specific verses further in another forum or article, however I am
constrained due to length requirements, but Ibn Waraq is well aware
of them,. Skeikh Ahmed Subhy Mansour, and Dr Hamid
(www.islamicreformation.com) have written significantly and
exhaustively on this fact.
The real confusion arises because of the application of the Sunnah.
Several ahadith allude to the fact that death is the appropriate
punishment for those who leave Islam. Muslims believe that there is a
duality in Islam of the Quran and Sunnah. Objectively speaking, there
can be no real duality between the two. The Qu'ran (in Islam) is the
undisputed word of God, which is recited today almost exactly as it
was upon revelation. Ahadith arguably are forms of hearsay (what
individuals claim they saw or overheard the prophet said and did).
While aspects of the Sunnah may be valid, is it not inconceivable
that the Caliphates following the death of the Prophet Mohammed
created ahadith to consolidate political power, and use them as tools
to control early Muslims? There is literally an entire "science"
within Islam devoted to determining the validity of ahadith that is
so complex that it confounds many Muslims. This duality has almost
lead to the deification of the Prophet Mohammed among Muslims today.
The essence of Islam is believing in God, and God alone. While the
Qu'ran does command that Muslims should learn from the Mohammed as a
prophet of God, as set forth in the Qu'ran, it does not explicitly
require following of ahadith or Sunnah.
Whether Mr Waraq likes it or not, there is a growing movement of
Muslims (albeit still a significant minority) who genuinely wish to
radically reform Muslim thinking, to make it consistent with peace
and modernity. The Free Muslim Coalition Against Terrorism, and the
Centre for Islamic Pluralism are two such organizations leading this
movement, and are taking steps toward defining the scope and
establishing the framework for comprehensive reform.. I ask that Ibn
Waraq not marginalize us. I ask that he engage in meaningful dialogue
with Muslims who are serious about reform. I look forward to further
elaborating on some of my points in future dialogues with him.
Oct 18 2004
Islam: A Totalitarian Ideology?
By FrontPage Magazine
Below, Ibn Warraq, the author of Why I am Not a Muslim, argues that
Islam is a totalitarian ideology. A rebuttal follows from Thomas
Haidon, a member of the Board of Advisors and President of the New
Zealand Chapter of the Free Muslim Coalition Against Terrorism -- The
Editors.
Islam. A Totalitarian Ideology
By Ibn Warraq
Islam is a totalitarian ideology that aims to control the religious,
social and political life of mankind in all its aspects -- the life
of its followers without qualification, and the life of those who
follow the so-called tolerated religions to a degree that prevents
their activities from getting in the way of Islam in any manner. And
I mean Islam. I do not accept some spurious distinction between Islam
and `Islamic fundamentalism' or `Islamic terrorism.' The terrorists
who planted bombs in Madrid on March 11, 2004, and those responsible
for the death of approximately 3000 people on September 11, 2001 in
New York, and the Ayatollahs of Iran, were and are all acting
canonically. Their actions reflect the teachings of Islam, whether
found in the Koran, in the acts and teachings of the Prophet
Mohammed, or in Islamic Law that is based upon them.
Islamic Law, the Sharia, is the total collection of theoretical laws
that apply in an ideal Muslim community that has surrendered to the
will of God. According to Muslims, it is based on divine authority
that must be accepted without criticism, doubts and questions. As an
all-embracing system of duties to God, Sharia controls the entire
life of the believer and the Islamic community. An individual living
under Islamic Law is not free to think for himself.
Given the totalitarian nature of Islamic law, Islam does not value
the individual, who has to be sacrificed for the sake of the Islamic
community. Collectivism has a special sanctity under Islam. Under
these conditions, minorities are not tolerated in Islam. Freedom of
opinion and the freedom to change one's religion, the act of
apostasy, are punishable by death. Under Muslim law, the male
apostate must be put to death, as long as he is an adult, and in full
possession of his faculties. If a pubescent boy apostatizes, he is
imprisoned until he comes of age, when if he persists in rejecting
Islam he must be put to death.
Drunkards and the mentally disturbed are not held responsible for
their apostasy. If a person has acted under compulsion he is not
considered an apostate, his wife is not divorced and his lands are
not forfeited. According to Hanafis and Shia, a woman is imprisoned
until she repents and adopts Islam once more, but according to the
influential Ibn Hanbal, and the Malikis and Shafiites, she is also
put to death. In general, execution must be by the sword, though
there are examples of apostates tortured to death, or strangled,
burnt, drowned, impaled or flayed. The caliph Umar used to tie them
to a post and had lances thrust into their hearts, and the Sultan
Baybars II (1308-09) made torture legal.
The absence of any mention of apostasy in the penal codes of some
contemporary Islamic countries in no way implies that a Muslim is
free to leave his religion. In reality, the lacunae in the penal
codes are filled by Islamic Law, as in the case of Muhammad Taha,
executed for apostasy in the Sudan in 1985, and hundreds of others
have been executed for apostasy in Iran in recent years. In 1998
Ruhollah Rowhani, 52, was hanged for converting to the Baha'i faith
in Iran.
All Islamic human rights schemes such as the 1981 Universal Islamic
Declaration of Human Rights; the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in
Islam (circa 1990), etc., severely restrict and qualify the rights of
individuals, particularly women, and minorities such as non-Muslims
and those such as apostates, unbelievers, and heretics who do not
accept Islamic religious orthodoxy.
As for religious minorities, the relations of Muslims and non-Muslims
were set in a context of a war: jihad. The totalitarian nature of
Islam is nowhere more apparent than in the concept of Jihad, the Holy
War, whose ultimate aim is to conquer the entire world and submit it
to the one true faith, to the law of Allah. To Islam alone has been
granted the truth -- there is no possibility of salvation outside it.
It is the sacred duty -- an incumbent religious duty established in
the Koran and the Traditions -- of all Muslims to bring it to all
humanity. Jihad is a divine institution, enjoined specially for the
purpose of advancing Islam. Muslims must strive, fight and kill in
the name of God:
IX .5-6: "Kill those who join other gods with God wherever you may
find them."
IX. 29: "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor
hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His
Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are)
of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing
submission, and feel themselves subdued."
IV.76: "Those who believe fight in the cause of God..."
VIII.12: "I will instil terror into the hearts of the Infidels,
strike off their heads then, and strike off from them every
fingertip."
Mankind is divided into two groups - Muslims and non-Muslims. The
Muslims are members of the Islamic community, the umma, who possess
territories in the Dar ul Islam, the Land of Islam, where the edicts
of Islam are fully promulgated. The non-Muslims are the Harbi, people
of the Dar ul Harb, the Land of Warfare, any country belonging to the
infidels that has not been subdued by Islam but which, nonetheless,
is destined to pass into Islamic jurisdiction either by conversion or
by war (Harb).
All acts of war are permitted in the Dar ul Harb. Once the Dar ul
Harb has been subjugated, the Harbi become prisoners of war. The imam
can do what he likes to them according to the circumstances. Usually
they are sold into slavery, exiled or treated as dhimmis, who are
tolerated as second class subjects, as long as they pay the kharaj, a
kind of land tax, and the jizya, the poll-tax, which had to be paid
individually at a humiliating public ceremony to remind the
non-Muslim minorities that they were inferior to the believers, the
Muslims.
In all litigation between a Muslim and a dhimmi, the validity of the
oath or testimony of the dhimmi is not recognized. In other words,
since a dhimmi was not allowed to give evidence against a Muslim, his
Muslim opponent is always exonerated. No Muslim could be executed
for having committed any crime against a dhimmi. Accusations of
blasphemy against dhimmis were quite frequent and the penalty was
capital punishment. A non-Muslim man may not marry a Muslim woman. I
should emphasize that all these principles are not merely of
historical interest but are indeed still applied against non-Muslims
in modern Iran, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, to name but a few
countries.
Muslims are certain that Islam is not only the whole of God's truth,
but it is its final expression. Hence Muslims fear and persecute such
post-Islamic religious movements as the Baha'is and the Ahmadis. Here
is Amnesty International on the plight of the Ahmadis [ASA
:33/15.91]: "Ahmadis consider themselves to be Muslims but they are
regarded by orthodox Muslims as heretical because they call the
founder of their movement al-Masih [the Messiah]: this is taken to
imply that Muhammad is not the final seal of the prophets as orthodox
Islam holds, i.e., the Prophet who carried the final message from God
to humanity ... As a result of these divergences, Ahmadis have been
subjected to discrimination and persecution in some Islamic
countries. In the mid-1970s, the Saudi Arabia-based World Muslim
League called on Muslim governments worldwide to take action against
Ahmadis. Ahmadis are since then banned in Saudi Arabia."
But what of putative Islamic tolerance? Those apologists who continue
to perpetuate the myth of Islamic tolerance should contemplate the
following cursory tabulation of jihad depredations: the massacre and
extermination (totalling tens of millions, combined) of the
Zoroastrians in Iran, and the Buddhists and Hindus in India; of the
more than 6000 Jews in Fez, Morocco in 1033, the entire Jewish
community of 4000 in Granada in 1066, of the Jews in Marrakesh in
1232, of the Jews of Tetuan, Morocco in 1790, and of the Jews of
Baghdad in 1828; the jihad genocide of 1.5 million Armenians in
Turkey at the beginning of the 20th Century, and the jihad genocide
of 2 million South Sudanese Christians and Animists at close of the
20th Century, and so on, ad nauseam.
*
Why I am a Muslim
By Thomas Haidon
How should one judge a religion or belief structure? Should we judge
or formulate an opinion of religion based on the history and action
of its adherents? If Islam is to be judged merely by its history, and
the actions of some of its adherents, then Ibn Waraq makes a fair
point. Is there any real question that the Islam being propagated in
Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Palestine and throughout much of the Muslim
world is consistent with totalitarianism? I will not quibble or
disagree with the historical facts presented by Ibn Waraq. As Bernard
Lewis has aptly stated "...Islam was born in the full light of
history. Its roots are at surface level, the life of its founder is
as well known to us as those of the Reformers of the sixteenth
history".
However, Ibn Waraq seems to have a short memory of several periods of
Muslim history where liberalism and humanism flourished. Undoubtedly
however, violence and aggression have played a role (and continue to
do so) throughout periods of Muslim history. But, for Ibn Waraq, that
is the end of the inquiry; there is no room for dialogue or
discussion. Only an absolutist, strict constructionist version of
Islam can prevail. If one had not availed themselves to Ibn Waraq's
voluminous writings on Islam, one could reasonably come to the
conclusion that the only solution Ibn Waraq's piece implicitly
suggests is the total rejection of all Muslims and our belief
structure.
For Ibn Waraq defining the source of the "Islamic problem" is a
simple exercise, it is the Qu'ran, Sunnah and the entire Muslim
tradition; (he may be two-thirds right).. But I believe that Ibn
Waraq is wrong, not about the actions or beliefs of a significant
portion of Muslims, but about Islam itself in its pure form the
Qu'ran, and it is for this reason "why I am a Muslim".
I believe that it is primarily the incorrect interpretation and
applicability of the sources of Islam that form the essence of the
"Islamic problem", not Islam itself. Unlike Ibn Waraq, I also
believe that there are solutions to this problem, unfortunately for
Ibn Waraq however, these solutions require working within Islam. In
brief, the most significant barrier between Islam and reform is the
perceived duality of the Qu'ran and Sunnah. Most of the issues raised
by Ibn Waraq in his article are compounded by aspects of the Sunnah
(particularly Jihad) or are a result of direct contradiction between
the Qu'ran and Sunnah (apostacy).
If Muslims derived their inspiration exclusively from the Qu'ran, and
formulated a new authoritative moderate and liberal tafsir, terrorism
and extremists would be minimalised. As Daniel Pipes aptly pointed
out in a recent article, Muslims have the opportunity to create a new
slate and turn what Islam has become into a religion consistent with
humanity, liberalism and modernity (as I believe was intended) or
continue the status quo of totalitarianism.
While Ibn Waraq's frustrations with the Muslim tradition and
contemporary Islam may be understandable, I strongly disagree with
Ibn Waraq on his implicitly overbroad generalisation of all Muslims.
I take ultimate issue with the statement: "I do not accept some
spurious distinction between Islam and "Islamic fundamentalism" or
"Islamic terrorism". By implication, no distinction need be made
between the terrorists of Al-Queda, Fateh, Hamas and Abu Musab
al-Zarqawi's Tawhid Group and great number of Muslims who love their
religion and believe in peace and modernity. Such a conclusion is
overbroad and destructive. Nonetheless, at a rudimentary level it is
a perspective that needs to be understood and appreciated by moderate
and peaceful Muslims (who don't exist according to Mr. Warraq's
implicit rationale).
Non-Muslims throughout the Western world are bombarded with images of
brutal violence committed by Muslims in virtually all forms of media.
By examining, the current actions of Muslims, Islamic history, and
an incorrect interpretation of classical Islamic sources (which most
Muslims do not understand) it is not difficult to understand a
non-Muslim's hostility towards Islam.
Ibn Waraq has presented a select list of ayat (not exhaustive) that
seemingly advocate violence against non-Muslims. Unfortunately, what
is missing from Ibn Waraq's article (as well as in the minds of
Muslim extremists) is an analysis of these ayat in light of the
Qu'ran in its entirety (in fairness to Ibn Waraq he has addressed
this in his more voluminous work). Ayat and Surah cannot be read in
isolation of each other. The ayat presented by Ibn Waraq must be read
against the contradictory verses in the Qu'ran that promote peace
with non-Muslims and the freedom of thought (there are many, and
learned readers will be well familiar with these verses). In Surah
Al-Baqarah, God states:
"Then it is only a part of the Book that ye believe in, and do ye
reject the rest? But what is the reward for those among you who
behave like this but disgrace in this life?- and on the Day of
Judgment they shall be consigned to the most grievous penalty. For
Allah is not unmindful of what ye do".
This ayat illustrates that some verses cannot be ignored while some
are followed. Thus the verses that Ibn Waraq cites, must be
reconciled with the verses that affirm peace and freedom (2:62 for
example, among others). Another ayat sheds some light on those verses
that are less than absolutely clear:
"He it is who has sent down to thee the Book: In it are verses basic
or fundamental (of established meaning); they are the foundation of
the Book: others are allegorical. But those in whose hearts is
perversity follow the part thereof that is allegorical, seeking
discord, and searching for its hidden meanings, but no one knows its
hidden meanings except Allah. And those who are firmly founded in
knowledge say: "We believe in the Book; the whole of it is from our
Lord" and none will grasp the Message except men of understanding".
This ayat lends credibility to the argument that an absolutist
following and interpretation of the Qu'ran not only is unrealistic,
but is not God's will. Many of the ayat dealing with violence towards
non-Muslims are shrouded in allegorical language, including several
which are cited by Ibn Waraq. When, read in conjunction with verses
espousing peace and freedom of thought, which are generally
straightforward (but nonetheless controversial among extremists), it
becomes clear that these verses should prevail, because they form the
backbone of Islam are consistent with the classical notion of charity
in the broader sense. A new tafsir would assist greatly in defining
the scope of those verses (and there are more than several) and
explaining them in the proper context, that during the time of their
revelation Muslims were fighting in a war to establish a presence,
and that these verses when read in light of many others, are not
commandments to kill.
The historical treatment of apostates throughout Muslim history
perhaps demonstrates the most visible inconsistencies between the
Qu'ran, Sunnah and the general Muslim tradition. The Qu'ran,
prescribes no worldly punishment for apostasy, and actually in many
ayat affirms the right of man to believe what he chooses (at his own
peril in terms of the afterlife). I will be happy to mention the
specific verses further in another forum or article, however I am
constrained due to length requirements, but Ibn Waraq is well aware
of them,. Skeikh Ahmed Subhy Mansour, and Dr Hamid
(www.islamicreformation.com) have written significantly and
exhaustively on this fact.
The real confusion arises because of the application of the Sunnah.
Several ahadith allude to the fact that death is the appropriate
punishment for those who leave Islam. Muslims believe that there is a
duality in Islam of the Quran and Sunnah. Objectively speaking, there
can be no real duality between the two. The Qu'ran (in Islam) is the
undisputed word of God, which is recited today almost exactly as it
was upon revelation. Ahadith arguably are forms of hearsay (what
individuals claim they saw or overheard the prophet said and did).
While aspects of the Sunnah may be valid, is it not inconceivable
that the Caliphates following the death of the Prophet Mohammed
created ahadith to consolidate political power, and use them as tools
to control early Muslims? There is literally an entire "science"
within Islam devoted to determining the validity of ahadith that is
so complex that it confounds many Muslims. This duality has almost
lead to the deification of the Prophet Mohammed among Muslims today.
The essence of Islam is believing in God, and God alone. While the
Qu'ran does command that Muslims should learn from the Mohammed as a
prophet of God, as set forth in the Qu'ran, it does not explicitly
require following of ahadith or Sunnah.
Whether Mr Waraq likes it or not, there is a growing movement of
Muslims (albeit still a significant minority) who genuinely wish to
radically reform Muslim thinking, to make it consistent with peace
and modernity. The Free Muslim Coalition Against Terrorism, and the
Centre for Islamic Pluralism are two such organizations leading this
movement, and are taking steps toward defining the scope and
establishing the framework for comprehensive reform.. I ask that Ibn
Waraq not marginalize us. I ask that he engage in meaningful dialogue
with Muslims who are serious about reform. I look forward to further
elaborating on some of my points in future dialogues with him.