Beyond Jihad : Critical Voices from Inside Islam 9781933146195

Citation preview

BEYOND JIHAD

BEYOND JIHAD Critical Voices from Inside Islam

Managing Editor Kim Ezra Shienbaum Co-Editor Jamal Hasan

Academica Press, LLC

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Beyond jihad : critical voices from inside Islam : an edited collection / managing editor, Kim Ezra Shienbaum, ; co-editor, Jamal Hasan. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 1-933146-19-2 (alk. paper) 1. Islam—21st century. 2. Islam and world politics. 3. Panislamism. I. Shienbaum, Kim Ezra. II. Hasan, Jamal. BP161.3.B49 2006 320.5'57—dc22 2005033203

British cataloguing data are available

Copyright 2006 by Kim Ezra Shienbaum and Jamal Hasan All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. No part of this book may be used or reproduced in any manner whatsoever without written permission except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles and reviews.

Editorial Inquiries: Academica Press, LLC 7831 Woodmont Avenue, #381 Bethesda, MD 20814 Website: www.academicapress.com To order: (650) 329-0685 phone and fax

“If it’s a Muslim problem, it needs a Muslim solution.” Tom Friedman (Author and Journalist)

“We know Islam inside out. We understand its heart and soul and we know how to combat Islamist extremism successfully.” Abul Kasem (Contributor to Beyond Jihad)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Foreword

ix

Preface. Kim Ezra Shienbaum and Jamal Hasan

xiii

Introduction. Kim Ezra Shienbaum

1

PART 1: UNDERSTANDING THE ISLAMIST MIND

The Problem with Islam. Ohmyrus

31

The Real Islam: The Case Against the Western Apologists. Ali Sina

43

The Janus Face of Islam. Abul Kasem

51

Looking for Another Saladin. Lessons From the Battlefield. Ohmyrus

65

An Exegesis on Jihad in Islam. Syed Kamran Mirza

75

Is Killing by Beheading Islamic? Syed Kamran Mirza

89

Sunnah: The Misconceived Dogma That Has Poisoned Islam. Mesbah Uddin Can Islam Be Reformed? Ali Sina

97 105

PART 2: UNDERSTANDING POLITICAL ISLAM

Is Political Islam Fascist? Ali Sina

113

The Left and Islam: Tweedledum, and Tweedledee. Ohmyrus

127

Islam and Politics: The Crucial Questions. Syed M. Islam

133

Terror’s Middle Class Guardians. Esam Sohail

137

The Veil: The Female Form of Jihad. Nonie Darwish

141

viii

Beyond Jihad

Is Wahhabism an Aberration in Comtemporary Islamic Throught? Jamal Hasan

147

The Hide and Seek Banglasdeshi Islamists Play in the U.S. Jamal Hasan

153

My Problems with the Concept of Ummah. A.H. Jaffor Ullah

157

Is Our Civilization Threatened? Mohammad Asghar

165

Terrorism and the Iranian Model: Who is Responsible? Ali Sina

171

The Way of the Islamists: A Road to Perdition? Abul Kasem

177

PART 3: BEYOND JIHAD—EXPANDING THE CIRCLE OF SANITY

Islamophobia? An Open Letter to Muslims. Ali Sina

187

Islam: Governance or Guidance? Hasan Mahmud

193

A Peaceful Religion for the Seventh Century. A Call for Reform in Islam. 209 Esam Sohail A Culture of Fear: Relations Beween Arabs and Jews. S. Abdallah

213

Medic Mahathir : Right Diagnosis, Wrong Prescription? Alamgir Hussain

217

Looking for Einstein : Can The United Nations Be Reformed? Alamgir Hussain Muslims and the Reality of Their Cognitive Dissonance. Syed M. Islam

229 239

What is Islamic Terrorism and How Can It be Defeated? Syed Kamran Mirza

243

Confronting Radical Islam: United We Stand, Divided We Fall. Ali Sina 249 Conclusion: Expanding the Circle of Sanity. Kim Ezra Shienbaum

255

Contributors

281

Bibliography

287

Index

291

FOREWORD Chris Blackburn

I was heartened and moved when Jamal Hasan asked me if I would write the foreword for Beyond Jihad, a book he has co-edited with Dr. Kim Ezra Shienbaum. In fact I grabbed the opportunity with both hands; it needed little if any consideration. Jamal and his colleagues have been instrumental in helping people understand how the Islamic faith has been turned into a violent political force. He has also helped highlight an ideology which is perhaps more deadly and threatening to human achievement and advancement than both communism and fascism combined. The fears and harsh realities will be explained by the contributors in this book. I hope to be able to pay tribute to Jamal. His work will be remembered long after the War on Terror, or what will most probably develop into the War on Radical Islam, has ended. That is not an exaggeration; history will be my witness. Over the last four years I have been fortunate to work with inspirational characters, many whom I consider the best in their fields. Jamal is one figure who stands out. His tireless dedication to fulfil his mission is unnerving and puts me to shame. His ability to unite people is an attribute which I both envy and admire. Jamal has brought me new friends and helped win important battles both in the ideological struggle against Islamism and in a tactical sense. Hopefully these victories will help shorten the war and prolong the peace. To understand Islamism it would be foolish to ignore the support the ideology gets from nation states, the most notable being Saudi Arabia which is its primary sponsor because it shares a historical lineage with contemporary

x

Beyond Jihad

Islamism. The House of Saud and its propagation of Wahhabi’ism has turned Islam into a religion of conquest, oppression, bigotry and arrogance. The violent messages and sermons that promote hate and intolerance between Muslims and other faiths emanating from mosques and Islamic institutes from rural Virginia, USA, to dwellings which surround cosmopolitan cities such as Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, are the direct result of the Saudi patronization of Islam. The Saudis are responsible for nurturing Islamist political thought, from promoting the work of leaders of the Ikhwan al-Muslimeen (the Muslim Brotherhood) such as Hasan alBanna and Sayyid Qutb, to financing the activities of Maulana Abdul Maudoodi’s Jamaat-i-Islami. These two movements form the ideological base of what is known as the terrorist phenomenon, Al-Qaeda. Sunni Islamists have long been controlled and financed by the Saudis. The House of Saud helped the Ikwhan and its allied movements create financial, educational, charitable and religious institutions which have spread a harsh, violent and intolerant strain of Islam throughout the Islamic world and elsewhere. The embrace of jihad in the Islamic world is attributable to this immense religious and social project. The Wahhabi and Ikwhan monopoly over Islam and their rigid interpretation and enforcement of the principles of the Koran and haddith must be challenged. The security and harmony of the world is at stake. Jews, Hindus, Christians, Buddhists and fellow Muslims such as minority Shiites and Ahmmadi’s have all been targeted by violent Islamists. These radical Islamists have sought justification for actions through their religious figures and institutions. The propagation of a moderate Islam must be the solution to combat this evil ideology. Military tactics and effective policing will work for short term goals such as eliminating Islamist terrorists who pose a clear and present threat, but it will not start a decline in the support for Islamism. Something has to change. Islam in its current form simply has to change. Politicians, human rights campaigners, authors, writers and academics have not wanted to face this key question head on. It has therefore led to the delay in what

Foreword

xi

will certainly have to become an inevitable realisation. Western reluctance to address the obvious challenge of reforming Islam can be attributed to the late Edward Said’s book Orientalism; his work has made it difficult for people to critique the Middle East or Islam without fear of causing offense or being labelled a bigot, or worse an ‘Islamophobe’. Islamists, and states which support these movements, intimidate and suppress moderate Muslims and ex-Muslims who speak out. These moderate Muslims teach and educate our own intellectuals about how their religion is strangling advancement, peace and prosperity. Government controlled media and academia in the Islamic world have been so tightly controlled that no one can openly criticise the Koran and haddiths or how they are interpreted without fear of intimidation. However renowned authors and critics of Islam, both Muslim and non-Muslim, such as Salman Rushdie and Irshad Manji have recently called for an Islamic Reformation or Enlightenment. I also believe that this process must take place, but how? The fires of enlightenment must be started from outside the Muslim world and then brought into the heart of it. When President Musharraf of Pakistan called for ‘moderate enlightenment’ it was a historic achievement. However it has not been followed up with any sophisticated policies which would create a challenge to the existing ideology or religious structure in Pakistan. Muslims and exMuslims must unite to be able to address the problems within the faith. Samuel Huntington’s theory that there will be a ‘Clash of Civilizations’ is starting to emerge in the minds of those that have the power to derail it, however this can be stopped. The realisation that Islam must be reformed is the only way that this civilizational battle will be neutralised. Beyond Jihad should help to start to consolidate this process and provide a pivotal building block for activists, religious leaders and scholars. Muslims and non-Muslims must be able to show perversions of certain texts and be able to critique and rationalise them. This will help Islam become more relevant to the harmony and peaceful co-existence of a new global society.

xii

Beyond Jihad

Muslims must be able to start adapting the Koran so they can live in peace with other faiths and cultures. Activists must also help people who want to leave the faith and shelter them from any sanctions due to their supposed ‘apostasy’. However freedom and respect of faith cannot be overlooked, so belittling fellow Muslims for holding onto their beliefs will be counter-productive and damage efforts which are aimed at modernisation. The process of reformation will not be easy but must be helped by organisations such as Faith Freedom International, the Institute for the Secularization of Islamic Society (ISIS) and the Centre for Islamic Pluralism. The international community, and institutions such as the United Nations and NGO’s, must also play a major part in helping to protect people while they are working towards this modernisation. An international Bill of Rights, which guarantees basic human rights, should be defended and must be non-negotiable. I have every faith that this effort will not be in vain. It could take a lifetime, but I am confident that people like Jamal Hasan and his colleagues will help to turn wheels and mobilise those who want to bring the Islamic world from out of the darkness and into the light.

Chris Blackburn is a British political analyst and writer who specialises in counter-terrorism, intelligence and defense. He has served as a consultant for the BBC news program, Panorama, as well as other media organisations. Mr. Blackburn is the founder of the Intelligence Summit, a conference which brings together intelligence and political leaders from key nations such as the U.S, U.K, Canada, Australia and Israel. Mr. Blackburn is in the process of setting up a think tank for secular Muslims and human rights activists called The Foundation for Democracy and Global Pluralism.

PREFACE Kim Ezra Shienbaum and Jamal Hasan

Is Western oppression to blame for provoking Islamist extremism, making the West ultimately responsible? This politically correct piece of conventional wisdom persists, particularly among the ranks of the far left academic, political and religious establishments, even in the wake of devastating suicide bombings and other brutal acts of Islamist terror. Those who legitimize terrorism by transferring responsibility to the West, claiming Western domination and exploitation are its root causes (thereby transforming mass murderers into “freedom fighters”) have no shortage of pretexts from which to choose: Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia, Chechnya and, of course, Israel. The West’s culpability was emphasized by Ken Livingstone, the radical left mayor of London, in the days immediately following the July 7, 2005 terror attacks that paralyzed London’s mass transit :

Young people see the double standards, they see what happens in Guantanamo Bay, and they just think that there isn’t a just foreign policy. You’ve just had 80 years of Western intervention into predominantly Arab lands because of the Western need for oil 1 Al Qaeda was quick to exploit the propensity for Western self-flagellation. On August 4, 2005, in the wake of the London terror attacks, Osama Bin Laden’s chief lieutenant, Ayman al Zawahiri, in a video broadcast on an Arab satellite channel, warned:

xiv

Beyond Jihad Blair has brought to you destruction in central London, and he will bring more of that, God willing.2 Al Qaeda and the mayor of London were only echoing the dominant

perspective prevalent across the entire Arab and much of the Muslim world which refuses to accept responsibility for the excesses of Radical Islam and blames the West for supporting Middle East dictatorships. Consider this analysis from Ayman El-Amir, a commentator on Cairo-based newspaper Al Ahram’s online edition which suggested that Islamist terrorism was:

…a consequence of political ostracism, not religious fanaticism. It is fermented not in the mosques of Egypt or the madrassas of Pakistan but in solitary confinement cells, torture chambers and the environment of fear wielded by dictatorial regimes as instruments of legitimate government.3 We are not aware that any of the London bombers had ever been in “solitary confinement cells, torture chambers and the environment of fear wielded by dictatorial regimes as instruments of legitimate government." Nor are we sure that any of the nineteen hijackers connected with the 9/11 attacks were ever in similar situations. Why then should Western apologists gloss over the adherence of fanatics to a “theology of murder”4 and downplay their responsibility for horrendous crimes against humanity? And why have moderate Muslims everywhere not spoken out more forcefully, instead limiting their comments to what looks suspiciously like damage control, even duplicity? The contributors to Beyond Jihad: Critical Voices From Inside Islam are unanimous in their opposition to the view that the West is responsible for jihadist terrorism. Instead, they resolutely maintain that Islam is responsible. Indeed they go one step further than British Prime Minister Tony Blair was prepared to go when he called the London suicide bombers purveyors of an “evil ideology of hate”5 but qualified his conclusion by calling their actions a “perversion of Islam”. On the contrary, our contributors maintain that jihadist terror is not a

Preface

xv

perversion of Islam because Islam today is defined by its most extreme and literalist elements. This is not to ignore the existence of traditionalist, moderate and reformist traditions in Islam or to deny that other, more spiritual, Islamic sects exist. They most certainly do, but they do not today constitute what has come to be the mainstream contemporary version of Islam, a religion with no central direction and thus particularly susceptible to manipulation by fundamentalists. The prevailing orthodoxy in the Sunni Muslim world today is represented by both Salafis and Saudi Wahhabis, Islam’s self-appointed guardians. Their version of Islam is austere fanatical, intolerant, bigoted and bellicose. It is preached by Wahhabi trained imams in Saudi financed mosques and madrassas all over the world, with Wahhabis laying claim to this version as the “real” Islam, pure and unadulterated, the Islam of Muhammed, whose sources are to be found directly in the Koran and hadiths. It is an Islam that divides the world into believers and unbelievers and provides scriptural authority for radical extremists who harass, intimidate and even physically assault imams preaching moderation, as was the case at London’s al-Mansaar Muslim Cultural Center. The Center was built with subsidies from the British government to create a moderate alternative to mosques run by radical imams, such as the Finsbury Park mosque run by the notorious Abu Hamza Al Masri. Yet news reports have suggested that al Mansaar, with its “open door” policy, was forced to allow entry to radicals, such as Ranzi and Wharbi Mohammed later charged in connection with the abortive July 21, 2005 mass transit attacks, giving little protection from intimidation to the moderate preachers there.6 This version of Islam is exemplified by the pre-trial comments of Mohammed Bouyeri who stabbed Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh to death on a quiet Amsterdam street. In court, Bouyeri faced Van Gogh’s mother and, without remorse, told her “I have to admit I don’t have sympathy for you. I can’t feel for you because I think you are a non-believer.”7 This version of Islam, combined with the Muslim Brotherhood’s formidable recruitment and organizational skills, has produced a combustible mix in Europe. It is a version of Islam that is not only preached and taught in mosques and madrassas but is communicated globally via

xvi

Beyond Jihad

glossily professional Internet web sites. Its core and most violent ideas are slickly marketed to even the youngest Muslims. Islamgames.com, (removed from the web following the London transit attacks) for example, purported to sell products embodying Islamic values, but one of its best selling videogames was Umma Defense. In this game, set in the future, the world is already living under Dar Al Islam but is threatened by a small group of “unbelievers”. The object of the game is to kill the “unbelievers’ and defend the Umma.( Muslim community) Our contributors further maintain that global terrorism will not end until Islam changes, but the majority remain unconvinced that Islam is capable of change or moderation. For Islam to change it would have to become less literalist, more contextual and less influenced by Wahhabi doctrinal domination made possible through the underwriting of billions in Arab oil money. Islam, they suggest, needs to experience an Islamic Reformation and incorporate more religious pluralism so that moderate and reformist elements can flourish, as well as sects such as the Sufis, who believe that Islam should be practiced spiritually, not on the battlefield and the embattled Ahmadiyyas.8 Those among our contributors who do not believe Islam is capable of change and have declared themselves apostates of Islam lament the inadequate public and media attention they can safely receive. Dr. Ali Sina, who has taken a very public position on his apostasy both in this collection and on his own website, Faith Freedom International, had this to say:

…the voices of apostates of Islam are not heard. Judeo-Christianity was attacked and vilified for hundreds of years but Islam has not been exposed. Those who attack Islam are forced to live in secrecy or they will face the same fate (as) Theo Van Gogh.9 Others in this volume, a minority, remain believers but are deeply disturbed at the direction taken by contemporary Islam. While they hope for change within Islam, they concede that the effort will not be easy. Islamic extremists have been as emboldened by policies of appeasement and

Preface

xvii

accommodation as they have been enraged by policies of confrontation. Nevertheless, they are hopeful that if the West stands firm and the Muslim “circle of sanity” expands, perhaps a new and opposing “tipping point” will turn the tide and make suicide bombing “unfashionable”, even inexcusable, in the same way that anti-black bigotry is no longer socially acceptable. To blame Islam, however, is not to absolve the West of mistakes and miscalculations which inadvertently fanned the flames of militancy. Terrorists were permitted to use Europe as a staging ground for attacks on other countries, with decision makers assuming that Europe itself would not become a new front in the global jihad to make the world into an Islamic “Umma”. Another mistake, this time on the part of the United States, was to fight the Cold War in Afghanistan with the help of the mujahadeen and imported Islamists such as Osama Bin Laden who became emboldened by the Soviet defeat and retreat. Perhaps the worst Western mistake was to grossly misunderstand and miscalculate the goals of Radical Islam. Islamists were viewed as victims of persecution and provided shelter in the West. America, for instance, granted asylum to the “Blind Sheik”, Omar Abdel Rahman, subsequently convicted in 2003 for masterminding the 1993 World Trade Center attacks. In 1998 the U.K granted asylum to Muslim cleric Abu Qatada, “ the spiritual ambassador for Al Qaeda in Europe”, convicted in absentia for bombings in Jordan, then arrested him under post 9/11 terror legislation but released him by order of the British courts in 2002. Only when the “rules of the game changed” after the London bombings in 2005 did the British government agree to deport him to Jordan. Europeans have long refused to view groups such as Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah as first, and foremost, terrorist groups with an organizational culture of violence, preferring instead to emphasize their humanitarian and political roles. The U.K in particular sheltered a number of Islamist groups banned by other countries, such as Hizb-ut-Tahrir and al-Muhajirun, and allowed them free rein under the mantle of religious freedom and free speech protections. The law lords in Britain’s highest court were particularly concerned about potential threats to

xviii

Beyond Jihad

civil liberties and set many terrorist suspects free in the months and years prior to July 2005. For example in 2004, Lord Leonard Hoffman, a vigorous opponent of Britain’s anti-terror laws, whose court had forced the government to release seventeen non–citizen terror suspects to house arrest, asserted: The real threat to the life of the nation, in the sense of a people living in accordance with its traditional laws and political values, comes not from terrorism but from laws such as these.10 The media on both sides of the Atlantic has assiduously fostered the view that the terrorist threat was blown out of all proportion as part of a deliberate campaign on the part of the Bush Administration to undermine civil liberties. Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 911 exemplified this deluded view, as did a BBC documentary, The Power of Nightmares. Its promotional material had this to say: In the past our politicians offered us dreams of a better world. Now they promise to protect us from nightmares. The most frightening of these is the threat of an international terror network. But just as the dreams were not true, neither are these nightmares.11 The academic left was not far behind. Stephen Shulhofer’s The Enemy Within: Intelligence Gathering, Law Enforcement and Civil Liberties appeared soon after the September 11, 2001 attacks expressing civil liberties concerns and this theme has been taken up with a vengeance by left-leaning human rights advocacy groups such as Human Rights Watch and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). While safeguarding civil liberties for Americans must remain a priority, the stubborn reluctance to recognize that national security is genuinely at stake is also a common and popular theme on college campuses. As one example, the American Association of University Professors actively supported Sami Al Arian, a professor of engineering at the University of South Florida whose tenure had been in the process of being revoked for activities linking him with terrorism, yet censured Dr. Daniel Pipes whose Campus Watch

Preface

xix

project had called attention to Al Arian’s connections to Palestinian Islamic Jihad.12 In February 2003, Al Arian was indicted by a Florida Grand Jury and soon after his tenure was finally revoked by the President of the University of South Florida. Inexplicably, the professor was acquitted by a Tampa jury in December 2005. There are some encouraging signs that the tide may be turning following the July 2005 London attacks which led some European leaders to acknowledge that such attacks were not linked to support for the Iraq war, or to any particular policy, but rather to the fact that jihadists seek to attack Western society in general. Indeed Britain swiftly revised its own anti-terrorism legislation in the wake of the London attacks to include three new crimes : …acts preparatory to terrorism, indirect incitement of terrorism, including acts that “foment, justify, glorify or condone terrorism” and giving or receiving terrorist training.13 A month after the terror attacks, Tony Blair announced that the U.K’s “new rules of the game” would include deportation of extremists. “They come here and they play by our rules and our way of life,” Blair warned at his monthly news conference. “If they don't, they are going to have to go.”14 Nor was the British Prime Minister willing to engage in the “blame game”. Thus when a reporter informed him at a press conference that a Guardian poll showed that the British public held him responsible for the London terror attacks he responded that those who commit acts of terror are the terrorists. In America, George W. Bush made terrorism the central theme of his October 7, 2005 speech to the National Endowment for Democracy. President Bush was forthright in his denunciation of militant Islam and of its goals. He said: This form of radicalism exploits Islam to serve a violent, political vision: the establishment, by terrorism and subversion and insurgency, of a totalitarian empire that denies all political and religious freedom…... the militants believe that controlling one

xx

Beyond Jihad country will rally the Muslim masses, enabling them to overthrow all moderate governments in the region, and establish a radical Islamic empire that spans from Spain to Indonesia. …..Some might be tempted to dismiss these goals as fanatical or extreme. Well, they are fanatical and extreme—and they should not be dismissed. Our enemy is utterly committed…. Evil men, obsessed with ambition and unburdened by conscience, must be taken very seriously—and we must stop them before their crimes can multiply.

While these are salutary signs that the threat of militant Islam is being taken seriously, the contributors to Beyond Jihad nevertheless want to dismantle the last remaining vestiges of Western self-blame by making readers aware of the true nature of Islamic radicalism and its ultimate goal of global domination. This book extends the critical commentary on radical Islam begun by pioneers such as Ibn Warraq and Irshad Manji but its focus is more explicitly political. It seeks to explain why the terrorists who act in the name of Islam behave as they do and what can be done to stop them before they succeed in their nihilistic mission to destroy civilization. Beyond Jihad began with an article emailed to me by Dr. Arthur Ezra in August 2003. Titled “Is Wahhabi Islam An Aberration”, its author appeared to be Muslim. I was intrigued by what I had read, and wanting to confirm the author’s authenticity, I emailed him asking whether I could post his article on my course web site. The author of that article, who subsequently became co-editor of this book, was Jamal Hasan. It is his dedication to the anti-jihadist cause and his daily sharing of pertinent information with a like-minded group of intellectuals of Muslim origin from around the world that has made this book possible. I thank him for including me in this select group. Together we want to express our heartfelt thanks to our contributors who are risking their personal lives in their efforts both to warn the West and to expand the “circle of sanity” among fellow Muslims. As Managing Editor I can honestly say that they have been the ultimate “dream team”, always responsive and co-operative. Our thanks also go to my

Preface

xxi

secretary, Karen McGrath, the Rutgers University Computer Support Staff, Richard Buonpastore and Harold Winshel, Technical Editor Ginger McNally and to Dr. Robert Redfern West of Academica Press who recognized the importance of this project early and gave it his full support. Last but not least, our thanks go to online web journals such as Faith Freedom International, Vinnomot (the site for free- thinkers and one which explicitly supports western style democracy and free markets) and Annaqed.com.Annaqed, (the Critic) is an independent, intellectual and secular online magazine begun in 2001 by a Syrian American, Bassam Darwich, whose mission is to inspire Arab minds in order to rid the region of its backwardness. All these sites, as well as Pakistan Today and Muslim World Today have generously provided permissions, where necessary, for the use of articles originally published on their web sites.

1

“Mayor Blames Mid East Policy”, BBC, July 20, 2005

2

Associated Press article by Mammoun Youseff, posted on Yahoo, August 4, 2005. There are some encouraging signs that the Muslim community in America, led by CAIR (Council on American Islamic Relations), is beginning to take a stand condemning suicide bombers. Here is their July 2005 press release: “On Thursday, July 28, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) will hold a news conference at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., to release a fatwa (Islamic religious ruling) against terrorism and extremism. The fatwa is being issued by the Fiqh Council of North America (FCNA) and endorsed by major U.S. Muslim groups. Representatives of the Fiqh Council, an association of Islamic legal scholars that interprets Muslim religious law, and leaders of several leading American Muslim organizations will take part in the news conference. (The term "fiqh" refers to Islamic jurisprudence.)” The subsequent fatwa issued called Muslims who engaged in suicide attacks on civilians criminals, not martyrs, and urged the Muslim community to assist all law enforcement efforts. Most notably, however, this fatwa did not condemn suicide attacks on military targets.Nor is this fatwa, like others, binding on all Muslims, everywhere.

3

http://weekly.ahram.org/eg/2005/752/op9.htm

xxii

4

Beyond Jihad

Caleb Carr, “The Smell of Fear”, The Wall Street Journal, July 19, 2005 , p. A14

5

Tony Blair had come a long way .Responding to a Guardian poll which found that 64% of Britons held him totally or somewhat responsible for the terror attacks because of the Iraq war he said that the link with Iraq was an “ obscenity…Suicide bombings are never justified ….anywhere.” CBS News, July 26, 2005

6

“Inside a Major Mosque in London, Extremism Shows Its Tenacity”, The Wall Street Journal, August 15, 2005, p. A8 7

The Wall Street Journal, July 21, 2005, p. A9

8

A documentary by Naeem Mohaieman titled “Muslims or Heretics” documents the struggles of the Ahmadiyyas, a small South Asian sect banned in Pakistan in 1974 as un-Islamic. Militant Islamic groups accuse them of following a new prophet after Mohammed and "spoiling the spirit of Islam." This campaign spread to Bangladesh and in 2004, the Bangladesh government banned Ahmadiyya books and followed this with a push for a Blasphemy Law. The film press release states that this battle “ reflects a larger struggle for Islams’s soul.—a struggle between liberal Muslims who believe “Islam is in the heart” and extremists who are fighting for Saudi-influenced Sharia States.” 9

From Michael Radu, “London 7/7 and Its Impact” published as part of the Foreign Policy Research Institute’s Watch on the West series, Volume 6, Number 5, July 2005

10

http://www.informtionclearinghouse.info/video1037.htm

11

Faith Freedom International, “Ignorance is Lethal: The West is Its Own Worst Enemy”, posted online August 2, 2005. 12

Sami Al Arian’s links to Palestinian Islamic Jihad had been made clear almost a decade earlier in Steven Emerson’s documentary Jihad in America, produced for PBS in 1994.

13

14

The Wall Street Journal, July 21, 2005, p. A. 9

Associated Press Report, “U.K Institutes New Deportation Measures” by Ed Johnson, August 5, 2005

INTRODUCTION Kim Ezra Shienbaum

Muslims today are being called upon, as never before, to stand up and be counted if they reject the politics of Radical Islam. Finding Muslims willing to make this effort is made more urgent, not just by the horrors of September 11, but by subsequent events all over the world including “exhibition” killings, beheadings, disembowelings and dismemberments, as well as by suicide bombings once confined exclusively to Israel. If public condemnation from Muslims themselves does not come soon it will be difficult to stem the increasing wave of anti-Muslim sentiment recorded in numerous polls in the West. In America, for example, a December 2004 survey of 715 respondents, conducted by Cornell University researchers, found that forty four percent of respondents favored at least some restrictions on the civil liberties of Muslim Americans. The survey also indicated that: •

twenty seven percent of respondents supported requiring all Muslim-Americans to register where they lived with the federal government.

•

twenty two percent favored racial profiling to identify potential terrorist threats.

•

twenty nine percent thought undercover agents should infiltrate Muslim civic and volunteer organizations to keep tabs on their activities and fund-raising. 1

2

Beyond Jihad These results confirmed the sentiments recorded in an earlier public

opinion poll conducted in July 2003 by the Pew Center for the People and the Press which found that forty four percent of Americans (up from twenty five percent in 2002) now believe that Islam, more than other religions, is likely to “encourage violence among its believers”.2 Urgency of action, however, is counterbalanced by the obvious dangers to Muslims who question their faith. Since the Koran is, for observant Muslims, the literal word of God as revealed to his Messenger, the Prophet Muhammed, those who question the practice of the faith may find themselves targets of “fatwas”, or edicts, branding them “enemies of Islam”. The few brave souls who have gone public with personal testimonies critical of the religion of Islam, such as Irshad Manji , author of The Trouble With Islam Today or Ibn Warraq, editor of Leaving Islam: Apostates Speak Out and author of Why I Am Not Muslim labor under constant death threats. This explains, in part, why so few Muslims have come forward to condemn militant Islam in any public forums and why the few who have criticized the religion of Islam have had no choice but to use pseudonyms, as has been the case with Ibn Warraq and so many of his colleagues. Yet the real reasons so few Muslim voices critical of Radical Islam are being heard in public are not limited to the obvious dangers of dissidence or apostasy. Frankly it has been difficult to find Muslims in academia, politics or the media, either in America or elsewhere for that matter, willing to join the minority of Muslims such as Manji, Warraq, Fouad Ajami or Khaled Abou El Fadl who are willing to condemn radical Islam.3 In fact, the opposite is more likely to be the case. Mainstream Muslim intellectual elites have unequivocally rejected both the “revisionists” coming from their own ranks, as they have similarly rejected western scholarship critical of Radical Islam on the grounds that it is insufficiently culturally “sensitive”.4 As Edward Said warned decades ago in his now classic text, “Orientalism”, Western scholars, trapped by “knowledgeable ignorance”, could not possibly provide an accurate understanding of other cultures. Instead, Muslim elites and their Left wing sympathizers have taken

Introduction

3

refuge in a robust anti-Americanism, an inclination to blame the West for the woes that have befallen the Muslim world and much prefer to view terrorists as “freedom fighters” battling oppression rather than as murderers. Indeed, the hallmark of cultural authenticity for Muslim elites is to oppose western values, while doing anything less than expressing resolute defiance marks one as a “cultural coolie”. Instead of condemnation, Muslim elites in Middle East Studies departments, Islamic think tanks such as the Middle East Institute, or from advocacy groups such as the Council for American Islamic Relations, are far more inclined to engage in denial. Abdul Rauf Feisal, author of What’s Right With Islam, for instance, defends Islam by claiming that the U.S is actually based on Islamic values and principles and thus is “sharia-compliant”5 Alternatively their reactions have been to “condone, justify and excuse” the actions of Islamist radicals.6

Their justifications rest on the obligation of all Muslims to fight

oppression, whether from their own governments or from the West. This is exemplified by the belligerent stance taken by the Executive Director of Pakistan’s Independent Center for Strategic Studies, Abid Ullah Jan. In an essay titled “The Limits of Tolerance” (in a collection titled The Place of Tolerance in Islam) he rejected efforts by “revisionist” Muslim intellectuals in America to take responsibility for a literalist Islam, and accepted full responsibility for Islamist terror as a valid response to the policies of America and the West, the “real culprits”. He argues that it is the West, not Islamic extremists, who are seeking to “impose their way of life on others”.7

Thus, he argues, “terror” can more

accurately be described as: “Islamic resistance”...a call to self-defense against an endless reign of terror and violence. Islam simply happens to be the religion of the oppressed and those fighting for their rights in the absence of all political options. Blaming them for misinterpretation ( of the Koran) and urging them to be even more tolerant of oppression is not the …. solution.8

4

Beyond Jihad

If condemnation cannot be avoided because the savagery reported in the nightly news exceeds even the lowest of global norms, then elite Muslim responses are reluctantly issued on pragmatic, but never on moral, grounds. As Amir Taheri, an Iranian journalist once noted, the kidnapping of French journalists in Iraq was condemned in the Arab media not because kidnapping, torture and extortion are wrong, but on the grounds that it was politically unwise to ruffle feathers in France which, after all, had not supported the Iraq war. Nor can we expect Muslim governments to condemn terrorism, even those in the Arab world most at risk from Islamists. These governments have been unwilling to issue blanket condemnations because it has been in their interests to use terrorism as a shield to deflect growing radicalism domestically and, if necessary, to exploit the symbols of Islamism to bolster their own legitimacy. Hence, it is considered “terrorist” for radicals to attack the Saudi government, yet jihad is encouraged, even funded, against infidels outside Saudi Arabia as an outlet for Islamist rage. That explains why the Saudi government beheaded Islamic radicals who took over Mecca in the 1980s, but simultaneously sponsored young Saudi radicals who wanted to engage in jihad in Afghanistan. Similarly, while Hafez Assad massacred thousands of Islamists in 1982 in Hama, his son, Bashir Assad, has provided support and encouragement for Hezbollah, Hamas and Islamic jihad to attack Israel and allowed Sunni insurgents to use Syria as a base for attacks inside Iraq, yet simultaneously has provided the U.S government with actionable intelligence on Al Qaeda, which poses as much of a threat to Syria as it does to America. Under these circumstances, is it even possible to find a group of Muslims willing to stand up and be counted? Clearly, moving “Beyond Jihad” to expand the “circle of sanity” requires many more critical voices from inside the Muslim world, willing to come forward to condemn Islamism and the terrorism it has fostered, and to do so without qualification. The distinguishing feature of this book is that it brings together essays written by a select group of courageous, moderate individuals of Muslim origin from around the world who have been

Introduction

5

struggling to articulate a sane and civilized political alternative to Radical Islam. They remain hopeful that their example may serve to inspire others to speak out. Some of these voices belong to observant Muslims who want Islam to adapt to the modern world and to shed its puritanical literalism, so that radicals no longer commit violence guided by verses such as “Fight them, Allah will punish them by your hands and bring them to disgrace, and assist you against them and heal the hearts of a believing people.” ( Koran, 9.14) Many more, however, go well beyond a search for moderation in Islam. These contributors, who refer to themselves as “former Muslims”, even as apostates, feel they have no choice but to leave an Islam that appears to them to be incapable of adaptation or change. Some of our contributors write under their own names. Many more write under pseudonyms. None belongs to the mainstream Muslim establishment or comes from the academic disciplines of Islamic or Middle East Studies. These “critical voices from the inside” are intellectuals from other walks of life. Some are engineers or research biologists at universities in Australia and South Asia, some are bankers, others are pharmacists, journalists, writers or bureaucrats living in England, America or Canada. All have been contributors to online Internet forums and their essays are revisions of these earlier writings, designed to reach a wider audience. The goal of the contributors to Beyond Jihad is to present the darker side of political Islam to Western audiences with a frankness and depth unlikely to emanate from Western scholars, or from mainstream Islamicized Muslim elites or from those Muslims who justly fear for their own lives. The contributors to this book are willing to openly challenge the anti-Western status quo in the Islamic world which, in their view, presents an incomplete, even false, version of Islam as a peaceful religion, emphasizes its reformist impulses or downplays the importance of jihad (as Holy War, not as inner struggle) which they view as a core component of today’s literalist Islam. People of goodwill can speculate as to what Islam could be, should be, or once was. Our insiders reject this approach and stand willing to confront Islam as it appears to the rest of the world today:

6

Beyond Jihad

expansionist, exceptionalist, belligerent, intolerant and literally explosive. Islam today, they believe, is activist and radical, moving its adherents beyond matters of personal faith and instead seeking a much broader political agenda of ordering society and guiding the economy according to the dictates of sharia law. This agenda, they maintain, is not part of a “hijacked” religion. What the world is witnessing, they contend, is an energized Islam which has come under the control of the literalists and the fanatics who claim this version as authentic—but this is not an Islam they can personally support. On the other hand, the contributors to this collection willingly embrace Western values of secularism, pluralism, tolerance, democracy and the rule of law. Indeed, it is because they support western values, and want to see our future defended and preserved, that they seek to forcefully inform the West of Radical Islam’s goal of world domination, a prospect they fear and abhor. But audiences in the West cannot have it both ways. If we want intellectuals of Muslim origin from all over the world to stand up and be counted, to be with us in condemning terrorism, not against us, and to support western values, we cannot at the same time express shock and horror if their condemnations of Radical Islam sound passionate, polemical, unbalanced, or even angry. In this collection of essays our contributors openly challenge what has become the “party line” among the mainstream Muslim intellectual establishment which rightly views itself under siege and seeks refuge in denial. It is a set of platitudes repeated often and loudly on college campuses and disseminated widely by Islamic advocacy groups such as the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR). •

Islam, in all its forms, is a peaceful religion

•

All Muslims immigrants to the West want to assimilate but have been prevented from doing so by xenophobia and poverty .

Introduction •

7

All Muslims everywhere are being victimized and have been ever since the humiliations of the Crusades. This has turned Muslim youth into “ticking time bombs”.

•

Militant Islam is a reaction to western penetration and western policies. America, in particular, is to blame for the ensuing violence and mayhem.

These platitudes have been accepted, even embraced, by many well meaning members of the general public out of an understandable reluctance to appear racist, intolerant, bigoted or even simply rude, and even by some politicians anxious not to offend potential voters. American academics, whose knowledge base outside of their fields of expertise is understandably shallow, have done the same, often out of a desire to appear “politically correct” or because they approach the issue from a position of moral relativism or, if they belong to the Far Left, because they are anxious to uncover additional dimensions of repression and new victim groups to feed their vigorous anti-Americanism.

IS ISLAM, IN ALL ITS FORMS, A PEACEFUL RELIGION? The answer to this question depends on who speaks for Islam today. Is Islam, as Bernard Lewis contends, a religion in a state of anarchy, a religion which has traditionally lacked a hierarchy or a single religious establishment?9 If so, does that mean that anyone can speak for Islam? Do some voices carry more weight than others? Since September 11 western religious scholars, as well as mainstream Muslim elites in American universities, have been working diligently to emphasize the softer side of Islam. Joshua Cohen and Ian Lague, editors of a short collection titled The Place of Tolerance in Islam contend that debates about Islam in the West have been conducted through a series of caricatures. One of the book’s main contributors, Khaled Abou El Fadl, the Omar Azmeralda Alfi Distinguished Fellow in Islamic Law at UCLA, whom Islamists consider a “revisionist”, argues that westerners have not made a serious effort to understand

8

Beyond Jihad

the place of tolerance and decency in Islam (and that discussions about Islam have been sidetracked by concerns about whether or not Muslims are dangerous). Similar concerns have been expressed by western religious scholars such as Karen Armstrong, Michael Sells and John Esposito, among others. Esposito, in particular, argues that Islam is experiencing a variety of reformist urges and reminds his readers that militant Islam is but one form of Islam. But can well-meaning western scholars of religion, or even concerned, revisionist Islamic academics, authoritatively define, even re-define, Islam to emphasize its tolerant and peaceful side? Our contributors maintain that Islam has not yet experienced an Islamic Reformation nor has a Muslim Martin Luther emerged to bring it about. Although Muslims do have a personal relationship with God, there is no tradition of personal interpretation.10 Thus many of our contributors concur with Irshad Manji who contends (ironically, as do the purists themselves) that the tradition of “ijitihad” or interpretation of Islam, in force since the 12th century, prohibits anyone but ulemas, Islamic jurists or religious scholars of the Holy Book, to speak authoritatively for Islam. Manji writes: The clergy, Islam’s arrivistes, became Islam’s defacto gatekeepers. With the gates of itijihad—independent thought—closing by the twelfth Century, mufitis were already gaining the power to patrol the truth. As the truth narrowed, their mandate (broadened), becoming nearer to that of soldiers than scholars.11 However Islam has no de jure equivalent of the Catholic Church, so there is no single set of ulemas who function for Muslims in much the same way that the Pope determines for Catholics what is, or is not, the Catholic canon. Despite the apparent multiplicity of voices and the appearance of religious pluralism in Sunni Islam, (encompassing eighty five per cent of the world’s Muslims), not all of them carry equal weight. A strong case can be made that it is Wahhabi ulemas, Islam’s self-appointed guardians, who currently determine the Islamic “canon” and have seized control of the faith. It is their pronouncements which effectively guide the Ummah, or Muslim community, not those of western religious scholars

Introduction

9

or even reformist Islamic academics who might prefer a more contextualist approach to the Koran. It is Wahhabi ulemas who maintain that authentic and pure Islam is literal and puritanical, “the orthodox straight path of Islam”, as Khaled Abou El Fadl describes it. Wahhabism has absorbed Salafism, the other literalist version of Islam. Solely for purposes of enhancing the reader’s understanding we again extend our analogy: Saudi Wahhabis, guardians of the holy sites of Mecca and Medina, whose influence was once confined to Saudi Arabia since the 18th century, are today functioning as a sort of de facto “Vatican” for the religion of Islam, a role they were able to seize in the absence of any existing Islamic establishment (or Caliphate) that could challenge them. This point is confirmed by the Center For Religious Freedom’s 2005 Report :

…Saudi Arabia now claims to be a leading power within Islam and the protector of the faith, a belief stated in the Saudi Basic Law. Saudi Foreign Policy Adviser Adel al-Jubeir publicly states that “the role of Saudi Arabia in the Muslim world is similar to the role of the Vatican”. Even as the Saudi state asserts that it strives to keep the faith “pure” and free of innovation, it invents a new role for itself as the only legitimate authority on Islam.12 The Wahhabi “theological takeover”, amplified by a campaign of mosque and madrassa, building worldwide, has been funded by a Saudi government flush with oil revenues since the 1970s and anxious to safeguard its own position in the face of growing radicalism among its Shi’ite neighbors in Iran who deposed the westernizing Shah in 1979. It is this Wahhabized version of Islam that fuels the militancy of radicals who have embraced a political agenda of jihad to establish Dar Al Islam, literally the House of Islam, a world of believers. “Freelance” jihadist Osama Bin Laden is merely a more charismatic and popular manifestation of Wahhabi extremism and fanaticism, one who is challenging the Wahhabi establishment and the House of Saud to make good on their extravagant promises, initially by expelling all the “Crusaders” from the Middle East. (Shi’ites, meanwhile, are under the control of their own fundamentalist ulemas whose

10

Beyond Jihad

edicts, though equally fanatical, affect only fifteen per cent of the world’s Muslims and whose political agenda of jihad appears to be limited to the destruction of the State of Israel rather than global domination.) One of the book’s contributors, Syed Kamran Mirza, suggests we consider an alternative explanation for Islam’s current fanaticism. He asserts that it is because Islam does not have any official papacy or authority that the Koran and hadiths are very prone to be interpreted literally by fanatics to serve their vested agenda of seeking global authority over the Muslim world. In any event, while it is absolutely and unquestionably true that the Koran contains some peaceful and tolerant verses from the early Meccan suras, the fact remains that the same Koran is also replete with many intolerant, harsh and coercive verses from the Medina version, Koranic revelations that are generally interpreted literally by Muslim fanatics. It was in reaction to these harsher aspects of Islam that the religion developed sects, such as the Sufis, who emphasize the spiritual aspects of Islam. It is also important to emphasize that there are moderate and even reformist elements in the religion and that the majority of the world’s 1.3 billion Muslims are peaceful. Nevertheless it would be irresponsible to deny the fact that today’s Jihad Islamism, as defined by Wahhabi ulemas, emphasizes the militant, intolerant and fanatical portions of the Koran and the hadiths as the defining features of Islam. Since Sufi, reformist and traditionalist versions of Islam have been marginalized it is entirely reasonable to suggest, as our contributors do, that mainstream Islam today is radical Islam. In Beyond Jihad, Dr. Ali Sina makes this point very explicitly in his essay: “Can Islam Be Reformed?” What western observers believe Islam is, or is not, he contends, is entirely irrelevant to understanding Islam or jihad ideology. He even questions whether, taken as a whole, the Koran can be viewed as moderate and acknowledges that while nominal or non-religious Muslims, who are a majority, can be moderates, he doubts whether pious Muslims can avoid being drawn into the vortex of militant Islam, which is the version preached in most mosques in the world. In “The Real Islam: The Case Against Western Apologists”, he asserts

Introduction

11

that it is “political correctness” that has led western scholars to emphasize the earlier, more peaceful Koran to the exclusion of the harsher, later verses and, in a desperate search for common ground, to make unwarranted comparisons with the Bible. He acknowledges that there are bloody portions in the Old Testament such as the exhortations to Moses and Joshua to go to war, but he emphasizes that these injunctions were given solely to them under the circumstances of the day—and not to all Jews.

Syed M. Islam in his essay “Islamist Reality: Cognitive

Dissonance Among Muslim Apologists” calls our attention to the fact that, while Wahhabism may be an extreme variant of the religion, Islamic ideology itself lends scriptural support to the surge of terrorism within Islam. In a second essay, “Islam and Politics”, Syed M. Islam questions whether Islam is compatible with a universal standard of human rights, noting that at the 1990 Cairo Convention on Human Rights in Islam, conferees refused to endorse the U.N Universal Declaration of Human Rights, choosing instead to draft and sign an alternative Islamic Human Rights Declaration instead. Dr. Ali Sina extends the discussion of the political aspects of Islamism in his essay “Is Political Islam Fascist?” and concludes there are many parallels. In “The Janus Face of Islam”, Abul Kasem, writing from Australia, explains for readers the source of the confusion over whether or not Islam is peaceful. He suggests that that there are two versions of Islam: The Meccan (or tolerant Islam) and the Medina Islam, harsher and more militant. According to the “science of abrogation”, the harsher verses in the Koran, he contends, abrogate the earlier verses, written while Mohammed still hoped to win converts among the Jews and other residents. Other contributors to this volume also refuse to back down from emphasizing the less tolerant, even fanatical, aspects of Islam. In his essay, “Is Killing By Beheading Islamic?”, Syed Kamran Mirza maintains that such practices are not only prescribed in the Koran (and not proscribed as some Muslim intellectuals contend) but actually practiced, not only by Iraqi insurgents appearing on camera before the entire world, but also in Saudi Arabia, far from the watchful eye of the liberal western media. In his essay, “An Exegesis on

12

Beyond Jihad

Jihad”, Mr. Mirza refers to the importance of jihad defined as holy war in Islamist doctrine, thus contradicting those who prefer to emphasize its peaceful interpretation as inner struggle. Mohammed Asghar warns about the training of future jihadis in madrassas in many Muslim countries in his essay, “Is Human Civilization Threatened?” Ohmyrus summarizes all the various objections to Islamism as a religion of peace in his lead essay, “The Problem with Islam.”

Do all Muslims want to assimilate but face xenophobia ? The majority of Muslim immigrants in the West, most of whom come from formerly moderate Muslim countries such as Bangladesh, and who are either traditionalists or else nominal or non-observant Muslims, are doubtless happy to assimilate and even intermarry. Are they being actively being prevented from doing so? If so, by whom? The conventional wisdom, coming especially from the perspective of the Radical Left,

and assiduously fostered by Muslim advocacy groups, is that

Muslims want to integrate and assimilate but are unable to do so due to rampant xenophobia and poverty caused by discrimination. While there is some truth to this charge, especially in Europe where jobless immigrant Muslims are penned in ghettoes isolated from the mainstream, and in America where charges of discrimination have grown in intensity after the 9/11 attacks, to lay all the blame on the West is neither entirely fair nor accurate. In many parts of the world, and in the West particularly, there is a well organized and well funded effort by Saudi Wahhabis to radicalize Muslim populations through their control of Muslim institutions. In some instances, it is through the insertion of “hate materials” in places such as the largest and most influential mosques. Elsewhere it is through the distribution of free curriculum materials to Islamic schools. Freedom House’s Center for Religious Freedom, undertook a study of a dozen mosques and Islamic Centers in eight states doing so, in part, at the request of Muslims themselves who publicly raised concerns about Saudi state influence on American religious life. The report, “Saudi

Introduction

13

Publications On Hate Ideology Fill American Mosques” released in February 2005, maintained that these materials, which urge Muslims not to assimilate but to be “disassociated from the infidels...to hate them for their religion…and to always oppose them in every way according to Islamic law”: demonstrate the ongoing indoctrination of Muslims in the United States in the hostility and belligerence of Saudi Arabia’s hard line Wahhabi sect of Islam. The Report emphasized that the Saudi doctrine of religious hatred undermines the war on terrorism by providing the intellectual foundation for a new generation of Islamic extremists…with several publications expressly aimed at the immigrant and traveler.13 In this collection of essays Jamal Hasan confirms, from first hand observation, the global influence of Saudi financed Wahhabi Islam. In an article titled “Is Wabbabi Islam an Aberration?” he concludes that it is not. It should be emphasized that in Europe, efforts at urging separatism and radicalizing Muslims have been spearheaded by the Muslim Brotherhood, founded in 1928 in Egypt, but banned there since the 1950s when they tried and failed to mount a coup against President Gamel Abdul Nasser. Brotherhood members subsequently found refuge in Europe, obtaining financial support for their mission from the Saudis, a point noted in Jamal Hasan’s essay. England and other countries in Europe including Denmark and the Netherlands have permitted an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hizb-ut-Tahrir founded in 1953 in East Jerusalem, to operate freely. While the group has formally renounced terrorism, its agenda is firmly antidemocratic and it has urged young Muslims living in the West not to vote or to integrate into their host cultures but instead to follow Islamic principles and to work to convert non-believers to Islam. Only after the July 7 2005 terror attacks in

14

Beyond Jihad

London did Prime Minister Tony Blair call Hizb-ut-Tahrir a “conveyor belt for terrorism” and sought to ban the organization. Indeed two recent trends which run counter to assimilation have emerged in Europe, although not yet in America. The first is an attempt by Radical Muslims, often associated with the Muslim Brotherhood, to challenge the laws of countries such as France which value a strict separation between church and state. Under President Jacques Chirac, France passed a law in 2004 banning overt religious symbols from all public, but not private, schools. Removal of such symbols applied equally to adherents of all religions: Christians, Jews and Muslims. While this ruling was accepted by all other faiths, it was challenged in raucous and angry street demonstrations by Muslim fundamentalists who viewed it as a transparent act of religious discrimination targeted at exclusively at them. Not all countries have been able to resist attempts to radicalize Muslim populations under the mantle of protections for religious freedom. In the U.K, for example, a female Muslim student challenged a school rule permitting the Muslim scarf, but not full Islamic dress. The school’s policy was overturned by a British court in March 2005 and this ruling was immediately applied to every school in the country. These attempts to insert Muslim forms of dress and appearance (beards in men) have re-appeared in many modernizing Muslim countries such as Egypt and even in secular Turkey where westernization had long been the norm. In this collection, Nonie Darwish, in an essay titled “The Veil: The Female Form of Jihad” interprets this trend ominously. She suggests it does not connote simply a liberal desire for freedom of expression and freedom of religion. Instead, she views the attempt to cover Muslim women (which, she claims, is being accomplished with their willing consent )14 is symptomatic of a deliberate process of separation and radicalization. She contends that Muslim women, like herself, who refuse to promote a conservative religious agenda and cover themselves are subjected to intense social pressure from those Muslim women who, increasingly, are doing so. To the extent that the veiling of women, whether through social pressure or through their willing consent, impedes assimilation, and even

Introduction

15

challenges the secular norms of certain European countries such as France, it ought to be a matter of political concern especially since it runs counter to the claims of Muslim elites that xenophobia is impeding their assimilation into the West. Instead, jihadis are making concerted efforts to erect citadels of jihad, a phrase used by Gilles Kepel in a PBS Frontline documentary titled “Al Qaeda’s New Front” which aired in January 2005. The second trend, which also runs counter to the claim that all Muslims want to assimilate, but are being prevented from doing so by xenophobia, is the movement to get sharia laws enacted in many parts of the West. In their most complete form, sharia laws cover not merely birth, death, marriage and divorce, (as do Jewish laws) but all aspects of Muslim life, and appear to be an attempt to institute parallel laws within Western society in order to engender a feeling of ‘separateness” among Muslims, to reinforce cultural isolation, and extend the agenda of radicalization by challenging efforts at assimilation by host governments. This push has not succeeded in Canada. In May 2005, Quebec province rejected sharia law and legislators were successful in pressing for its revocation elsewhere in Canada. However, efforts to enact sharia laws are underway in Germany as well as other countries. In Beyond Jihad Abul Kassem, writing from Australia, offers readers an opportunity to understand the mindset of Islamists. In “The Way of the Islamists: The Road to Perdition”, he emphasizes that immigrant Muslims in Australia are being radicalized by being made aware that they owe their presence in Australia to Allah’s will, not because of the beneficence of the First World which made provision for many Muslims to enter the West under refugee quotas, or to globalization which made the free movement of labor possible. Allah, not the Australians they claim, owns Australia (and by extension the whole world) and it is His will, as clearly expressed in the Koran, and therefore a spiritual obligation for Muslims, to convert or kill the unbelievers, rather than assimilate into the norms and values of their new homeland.

16

Beyond Jihad Similarly, a majority of pious Muslims believe they do not owe their

loyalty to any nation state but to the “umma” or global community of Muslims and thus we have included an essay in this collection by Dr. Jaffor Ullah, “My Problems with the Umma”. The “ummatic mentality” to which Dr.Ullah refers is being actively extended by Saudi-trained imams in new and gleaming Saudi financed mosques in the West, luring many traditionalist, and tolerant Muslims away from their poorer, older mosques. Jamal Hasan examines the ongoing radicalization and religious isolation of his own Bangladeshi community in “The Hide and Seek Bangladeshi Muslims Play”.

He suggests that Saudi-trained

imams are imparting messages to their worshippers that impede integration into prevailing Western cultural norms. Instead they are being encouraged to preserve and extend an Islamic ethnic identity distinct from the West. The political difficulties posed by a transnational religion have been explored elsewhere by western scholars such as Jonathan Lawrence and Justin Vaïsse whose book Integrating Islam: Political and Religious Challenges in Contemporary France examines the dilemmas faced by countries, like France, which have rapidly growing immigrant Muslim populations. The challenges of integrating immigrants whose religion prioritizes preservation of identity over assimilation into host cultures is an increasingly pressing reality in Holland, Germany and Spain, as well as in France. European governments, increasingly aware of the growing radicalization of Muslim minorities are struggling to develop policies to prevent this from happening. France, for instance, is taking steps to rein in and moderate Saudi-trained Wahhabi imams and to finance the building of mosques. In 2004 it was reported that the French government was going to create a state-supervised foundation to channel donations from Muslims overseas and was initiating a state university curriculum to educate Imams in French language, culture and literature.15 The fact remains, however, that state support for religion, however well intended, deviates from, and compromises, the French tradition of secularism. The Spanish government, following the Madrid train bombings in March 2004, has undertaken a program of mosque-building and

Introduction

17

training of Imams, something it does not do for other minority religions. Spanish Interior Minister Jose Antonio Alonso outlined additional plans to monitor the content of preaching in mosques and a report in the ( U.K) Daily Telegraph noted that debate in Spain has shifted dramatically towards the more restrictive French model of permitting only state-approved mosques.16 In Germany there have been calls to require Imams to preach in German, not Turkish, so that mosques can be better monitored by the authorities after one Turkish-speaking imam was filmed by a German television crew declaring Germans to be “malodorous and unkempt infidels destined to burn in hell”, a speech more likely to result in alienation, not integration.17 Similar cultural strains have not yet emerged in America in part because many Americans question whether cultural assimilation ought to be the aim of a liberal society which should value and protect ethnic diversity. Hence Muslims, radicalized or not, may never have to assimilate and, if they remain a tiny minority among minorities, this issue will never rise to the level of a political “hot potato” comparable to one that Europeans, faced with exploding Muslim populations, are grappling with. In Beyond Jihad Abul Kassem provides us with some additional perspective as to why this reluctance to assimilate might never become an issue in America. In “The Janus Face of Islam”, he maintains that radical Muslims who find themselves in a weak position and outnumbered often find it tactically prudent to emphasize the peaceful aspects of their religion and to lie low. In the United States, for example, Muslims number about five to eight million whereas in Europe, the Muslim population is estimated to have reached almost twenty million. Only when circumstances change and they feel stronger do they become sufficiently emboldened to move forward with demands for separate laws as they are doing, thus far unsuccessfully, in Canada and Germany, where they are also pressing for sharia law. The other dimension to the argument concerning Muslim assimilation focuses on poverty. While Muslims in America tend to be middle class, in the U.K, France and Germany Muslim immigrant populations, larger and often poor

18

Beyond Jihad

and isolated from the mainstream, are being buffeted by two competing forces: the forces of Islamicization and the forces of assimilation. In order to make assimilation easier, the French government unveiled a program to combat poverty in the hope it would also curb religious fanaticism. In 2004 it decided to launch a multi-billion dollar program to create 500,000 new homes and a million new jobs, an initiative dubbed a new “Marshall Plan”.18 Whether or not this succeeds in moderating Islamist militancy has yet to be determined.19 While poverty may be the wellspring for fanaticism for some terrorists, other observers are skeptical this is the case and more persuasively argue that it is not a major factor fueling Islamism in Europe, nor even in many Muslim countries. Huntington began the debate several years ago in The Clash of Civilizations by raising the possibility that many people from the Third World, Islamists included, are primarily impelled by issues of cultural identity, not poverty, a perspective validated by the accumulating evidence. European and British jihadi recruits who have been caught in the West, and even on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan, appear to have been drawn almost exclusively from the ranks of middle class, educated, and often second generation, Muslims. Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh, who masterminded the killing of journalist Daniel Pearl in Pakistan in 2002 had, after all, been educated at the London School of Economics! On February 28th, 2005, one of the worst terrorist attacks in Iraq, which resulted in the loss of 132 lives, was carried out by a Jordanian jihadi, Ra-ed Mansour al Banna, who had spent two years in California and could hardly be described as poor. Udayan Prasad’s 1997 film, My Son, the Fanatic, based on Hanif Kureishi’s novel, told the story of an upwardly mobile Muslim family living in Britain. On the eve of their son’s marriage into a wealthy white family, they discover that the strange behavior displayed by their son was not because he had become a drug addict, as they had feared, but to the fact that he had turned into an Islamist fanatic. The need to create an identity distinct from, and often in opposition to, Western values is confirmed by findings that 70 per cent of jihadis (predominantly drawn from elites in their countries of origin) decided to become

Introduction

19

jihadis while they were in Europe, while Gilles Kepel’s book, Jihad: The Trail of Political Islam found that in most Muslim countries Islamism has its strongest base of support among the middle classes; they are the ones who have financed jihad terrorism and cheered its excesses.20 These findings by western observers are underscored by Esam Sohail’s essay in Beyond Jihad. In “Terror’s Middle Class Guardians”, he confirms the bigotry among middle class Muslims, a reality far too unpleasant for many to acknowledge. Most of us would much rather blame ourselves for “prejudice” and Muslim-bashing than recognize the reality of the “ummatic mentality” which precludes assimilation and integration for a growing percentage of radicalized and Islamicized Muslims living in the West in the manner of previous generations of immigrants.

Are all Muslims victims? Are all Muslims victims, and is Islam the religion of the oppressed? Beyond issues of xenophobia and discrimination, which affect other minorities equally, many Muslims believe (and their leaders vigorously assert on their behalf) that they have a right to claim that they have been singled out as victims by the West, possibly by the entire world. In consequence the majority of Muslim institutions actively seek to nurture a culture of grievance among Muslim immigrants and their progeny, firstly by urging militancy against any Western presence in their countries of origin and secondly, by encouraging protests against their mistreatment in the West along with vigorous demands for greater civil rights protections, even separate institutions and laws, for Muslims refugees and asylum seekers.21 Thus, asserting his members’ rights to special victim status, the head of the British Muslim Council, Sir Iqbal Sacranie, refused to attend the 60th Anniversary Holocaust Memorial services in February 2005 on the grounds that today Muslims and Palestinians especially are facing an equivalent genocide and even worse human rights abuses than the Jews suffered at Auschwitz. Going one step further, Pakistani political analyst Abid Ullah Jan believes that there is a deliberate, if covert, agenda in the West to destroy Islam. The first phase came

20

Beyond Jihad

with colonialism, which set up Muslim states with governments which placed imams under bureaucratic supervision as employees of the state, thereby undermining their legitimacy and authority. The second phase, now in play, seeks to secularize Islam by de-legitimizing and demonizing its institutions and practices such as madrassa, ulemas and even jihad.22 Islamist claims of victimization (and assertions of a monopoly as special status victims) find willing cheerleaders among the academic and religious Left in the U.S and Europe. In “Beyond Jihad”, an essay by Ohmyrus points out the parallels in thinking between Islamists and the Left. He warns the Left that in Iran this alliance came to a bloody end once the Islamists came to power and slaughtered their erstwhile allies. History, without any doubt, feeds the sense of Islamic victimhood, drawing sustenance from the Islamist claim that Islam suffered the “humiliations” of the Crusades. British historian Christopher Tyerman, in Fighting For Christendom: Holy War and the Crusades, challenges popular myths that depict the Crusades as wars directed against Islam and claims their main purpose was not to impose Western economic or political imperialism on Muslims but to reclaim holy sites. Nor does he accept the notion that Christians invaded an otherwise peaceful Islamic world. In this respect, Tyerman is joined by Samuel Huntington, whose 1990s article in Foreign Affairs (later incorporated into The Clash of Civilizations) caused consternation when it emphasized “Islam’s bloody borders”, an allusion to the fact that an expansionist Islam has “a greater propensity to resort to violence in international crises” than other nations (China excepted) rather than the other way around, undercutting Islamist claims of victimhood. Huntington continues: “Muslim bellicosity and violence are late twentieth century facts which neither Muslims nor non-Muslims can deny”.23 Several contributors to Beyond Jihad agree that blaming the Crusades as the beginning of a long campaign of victimization directed at Muslims is absurd. Dr.Ali Sina, for example, in an “Open Letter” ridicules the notion that the West has singled out Muslims for especially harsh treatment, somehow linked to

Introduction

21

reviving the Crusades. On the contrary, he maintains that Muslims themselves have been the provocateurs, bringing upon themselves the special attention they now merit.24 In any case, it is a bizarre claim that the outcome of the Crusades was a humiliation for Muslims, one from which they can continue to draw sustenance as victims . The historical record indicates otherwise; during the final Crusade, Christians withdrew their forces from the Holy Land and the Muslims won! As a direct result of the Muslim victory, the Mongols who had conquered Persia, converted to Islam, a point noted by Philip Jenkins in The Next Christendom. Jenkins muses upon how different the history of the Middle East would have been had the Christians won, and he further reminds us why the European Christians came in the first place. It was to reclaim holy sites lost to Arab conquests in the 7th. century! Thus the claim that the Middle East has always belonged to the Arab-Muslims who were humiliated by the Crusaders deserves critical re-evaluation. Until that re-evaluation comes from inside the Muslim world, however, Islamists will continue to draw sustenance from history which for them is a cycle of victory, defeat and renewal. In defeat, solutions have traditionally been drawn from Islamic experience, principally from the battlefield, rather than from adaptation to the ways of the infidel victors. In this collection, Ohymrus in his essay “Looking For Another Saladin: Lessons From the Battlefield” identifies the specific lessons radical Islamists continue to learn from their humiliations in the Crusades, and from other armed Jihad encounters. It now appears, however, that Islamists using victimhood as a raison d’etre have morphed into “religious vigellantes” with a God-given license to kill and today hundreds of terror “cells” operate independently worldwide, under the control of no Islamic establishment, not even under the control of Al Qaeda. On the other hand, some contributors to this book contend that if Muslims are victims, they are victims of their own religious establishment. In an essay titled “The Sunnah of Islam”, Mesbah Uddin, writing from London, suggests that historically, the ulemas or scholars of the Holy book, have connived with corrupt Muslim governments to sanction their rule through re-interpretations of the Koran and

22

Beyond Jihad

hadith, in return for special protections and priviliges, the ongoing partnership between the House of Saud and the Wahhabi ulemas being a prime contemporary example. In consequence Islam has become encrusted with accretions that go well beyond the original Koran. In another essay, “How Islam Adversely Affects Human Civilization”, Mohammed Asghar suggests more darkly that Islam itself is to blame for the state Muslims find themselves in today.

Is militant Islam a response to Western policies and Western penetration? Militants claim that Radical Islam is a valid response to western policies of repression, oppression and exclusion. Some radicals even claim that Islam is the religion of the oppressed. Joined by the Radical Left in their de facto role as “cheerleaders for jihad”, they argue that criticizing Islamic fundamentalism and its expression in violent jihad, in isolation from its root causes, namely western penetration and exploitation, is to fail to ask key historical questions about why Islamic thought is as it is today. Left wing intellectuals argue that Wahhabism is an old religion re-formed by the material conditions of today’s world and that Islamism must be seen in the context of colonialism and post-colonialism and emphasize the creation of the State of Israel in 1948 as the single radicalizing event in the Islamic world. What has followed can be traced to that particular act of Western perfidy . But how valid is the claim that the roots of modern jihad, and the literalist version of Islam on which it is based, have their cause in a malevolent Western penetration and the establishment of Israel, a “Crusader state” whose defense requires actions which even further disadvantage, even oppress, the Muslim world? Does “western penetration” in general adequately explain jihad past or jihad present?

For the Far Left, jihad is hardly ever considered from the

perspective of its own long 1,400 year old history and jihadis themselves encourage the Left to look elsewhere for its causes. To be sure, jihad waxes and wanes, depending on whether Muslims feel weak or emboldened, as they do today, but injunctions to engage in jihad, the struggle against oppression, lie

Introduction

23

deeply embedded within the religious culture of Islam, a point emphasized by one of our contributors, Syed Kamran Mirza, in his essay “An Exegesis on Jihad”. From this perspective attributing jihadism to western penetration, and to the creation of Israel, serves merely as a pretext for an Islamist militancy whose real causes lie elsewhere. To begin with, let us consider the history of Wahhabism. Far from a response to Western penetration, Wahhabism was an indigenous 18th century attempt to purify an Islam which was deemed to have become adulterated and this process of fundamentalist purification emerged at a time in history when the Middle East was firmly under the control of the Ottoman Turks who were Muslims themselves. Western penetration of the Mid-East arrived much later, in 1919 after the end of the First World War and, far from being pernicious, it was under British rule that Saudi Arabia emerged as a sovereign nation state in 1932 under the control of the House of Saud. In any event, “colonial domination” of the Middle East by the French and British lasted only a scant thirty years, surely hardly enough time to do any lasting damage . Perhaps, however, we can look at the issue of western penetration from a different vantage point, one which asserts that western penetration did not necessarily disadvantage the Arabs in the Middle East, but instead inadvertently made modern jihad possible by creating great wealth, rather than post-colonial poverty, for the House of Saud through the discovery of oil in the 1930s .These riches, greatly augmented by the rise in oil prices in the 1970s, permitted the Saudis to make good on a promise to the Wahhabi establishment early in the 20th century namely that, in return for Wahhabi political support for the House of Saud, the Kingdom would allow the clergy social and cultural control inside Saudi Arabia and would spread their austere and literal version of Islamic fundamentalism around the world. Thus it was oil wealth created through Western technology that enabled Wahhabism, always fanatical and literalist but previously contained, to spread far beyond its Arab roots.

24

Beyond Jihad If American foreign policy can be linked to the spread of modern jihad,

that role was a contributory, not a causal one. For instance, Jimmy Carter’s human rights policies had the unintended effect of destabilizing the westernizing Shah of Iran in 1979 who was replaced by the radical Shiite Islamist Ayatollah Khomeni on the heels of a violent revolution. This event scared the Saudi monarchy into becoming more Islamist than ever before. Saudi princes now embraced the symbols of Islamism, gave free reign to Wahhabi clerics, and provided sanctuary inside Saudi Arabia to Islamic fundamentalists expelled from Syria and Egypt in the 1970s and 1980s, even while they cavorted in the capitals of Paris and London, an exchange of favors George Shultz, former Secretary of State, once called a “grotesque protection racket”. If the West is complicit in the rise of militant Islam it can be attributed to inadvertent “blowback” in CIA terminology. Some observers link the increase in Islamist militancy to CIA funding of the mujaheddin in the Afghanistan war against the Soviets in the 1980s, a war which young Saudi jihadis joined, a war which became a training ground for future jihadis who, emboldened by their success in driving out the Soviets, sought to extend their jihad against America and the West. Other observers view Osama Bin Laden as a by-product of Saudi Wahhabi fanaticism and attribute his rise in the 1990s to the invasion of Kuwait by Saddam Hussein. This placed pressure on the Saudis to call on America (rather than on Osama Bin Laden’s Al Qaeda organization) for help, leading to the placement of U.S troops on Saudi soil. Or perhaps, as Tom Friedman suggests, it was

globalization

itself

that

provided

jihadis

with

the

technology,

communications and ability to move vast sums of money around the world and thus made modern jihad possible. Certainly the entry of immigrants into Europe and America under the mandates of globalization greatly facilitated the ability of immigrant jihadis to establish a toehold inside the West. In this collection, Dr. Ali Sina in his essay “Terrorism and the Iranian Model: Who is Responsible?” does attach some blame to the West, its politicians and its media, using the Iranian

Introduction

25

Revolution as a test case and one that set an unfortunate example for future Islamic jihads. While we can all find numerous ways to blame the West for Islamic radicalism, the Left believes that the Muslim world bears no responsibility for the specific choices it has made in response to “western penetration”. Leftists are silent about choices made by Gulf elites to enrich themselves at the expense of their peoples while simultaneously funding extremist ideology, even terrorism itself, all over the world. In contrast Japan, and now China and India, equally victims of Western penetration, and for far longer periods in the case of India and China, chose instead to adapt and incorporate Western ideas for the betterment of their countries. By the beginning of the twenty first century, China had advanced to 2nd place in GDP, Japan 3rd and India 5th and all three countries are well positioned to challenge western economic hegemony. In contrast, the Muslim world and even the Arab world, is still, for the most part, mired in poverty. Of course some might claim that the main reason the Muslim world remains poor is that did not share the advantages possessed by Japan. But if Japan’s uniqueness can be attributed to its homogeneity, surely it shares that particular quality with the closed and homogenous societies of the Arab world? Japanese culture, however, did differ in two important respects from Islamic cultural values. Japan had a strong commitment to education and displayed a willingness to adapt to other cultures. It also had a very low birth rate. It is these pre-conditions for development that remain absent in the Mid-East even today. Instead education is used as an opportunity for religious indoctrination and the inculcation of antiwestern and anti-semitic attitudes. Nor has the Muslim world sought to learn from other cultures. As Bernard Lewis, reminds us in What Went Wrong: Western Penetration and Middle Eastern Response, whenever Muslim countries have come into contact with, and been defeated by, the West their response has been to seek solutions for renewal from within Islam rather than to learn from the “infidels” who defeated them. Meanwhile “demographic dynamism” or an exploding birth rate, has made it difficult for many Muslim states to escape

26

Beyond Jihad

poverty. Little wonder that Samuel Huntington noted that the Muslim world has two main exports, aside from oil: emigrants and terrorists. For these reasons the contributors to Beyond Jihad reject the notion that American presence in the Middle East, both in Saudi Arabia and Iraq, and its support for Israel, are the real underlying causes for jihad. They note that the agenda of jihad has a long history and that ascribing blame to western policies serves only as a pretext. Jihad, they maintain, is a core component of Islam as a religion, prescribed, rather than proscribed in the Koran, and put into practice by religious literalists today.

BEYOND JIHAD: EXPANDING THE CIRCLE OF SANITY: The contributors to this book are also prepared to acknowledge some specific failures of contemporary literalist Islam such as the mistreatment of women and its virulent anti-semitism. Syed M. Islam in his essay “Muslims and the Reality of Their Cognitive Dissonance” calls attention to the fact that religious Muslims, brought up to believe that the Koran is God’s final revelation to the Prophet Muhammed, are now being pushed to reject the more blood thirsty portions of the Koran leading to their “cognitive dissonance”. Esam Sohail in an essay titled “A Peaceful Religion—for the Seventh Century” makes a plea for reform in Islam so it can modernize itself, just as Christianity and Judaism have modernized. Likewise, Hasan Mahmud in his essay “Political Islam: Guidance or Governance”, makes a case for a more contextualist interpretation of Islam while in “Medic Mahathir: Right Diagnosis, Wrong Prescription”, Dr. Alamgir Hussain rejects the anti-semitism expressed by former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohammed and finds much to admire in the Jewish people and their state, Israel. In a second essay, “Looking for Einstein: Can The UN Be Reformed?” Dr. Hussain speculates whether Einstein’s dream of world government through which common interpretations of human rights could be spread world- wide can be achieved through reform of the UN, an institution founded on the principle of sovereignty. He is concerned that “sovereignty” has been misused by both

Introduction

27

Muslim and other Third World governments who have sheltered under its protections to escape the scrutiny of the international community and continue their own corruption. S. Abdallah, an Arab Israeli, in her essay, “A Culture of Fear: Relations Between Arabs and Jews”, expresses her concern about Arab hate ideology which she views as a form of child abuse in the Arab world. Finally, Syed Kamran Mirza’s essay, “What is Islamic Terrorism and how Can It be Defeated?” calls attention to the Koran as a source of inspiration for Islamist terrorism while Dr. Ali Sina’s essay “Confronting Islamism: United We Stand, Divided We Fall” urges the West to unite against Islamism rather than fight over differences, a sentiment shared by all the contributors to Beyond Jihad. It is their hope that this collection of critical voices from inside Islam will inspire other Muslims to join the “circle of sanity” and speak out both publicly and privately against the violence and radicalism that has engulfed the world.

1. AP Press Report posted on the Internet on December 17, 2004. This poll has a margin of error of 3.6% 2

Source: Daniel Pipes in American Daily ,July 29, 2003. Http://www.americandaily.com/article/2429. Study itself: Pew, “Religion and Politics: Contention and Consensus,” June 24—July 8, 2003. This poll has a margin of error of 2.5—3.5 %. 3

While Warraq, Manji and Fouad Ajami may be well known to western audiences, Khaled Abou El Fadl may be less familiar. Fadl is a professor of Islamic Law at UCLA, author of Rebellion and Violence in Islamic Law and a prominent critic of puritanical Islam which he attributes to the exploitation of Islamic symbols of political purposes and the social and economic stagnation within Muslim societies. He is also the lead author of The Place of Tolerance in Islam, a collection edited by Joshua Cohen and Ian Lague and published by Beacon in 2002 4

Readers unfamiliar with Western scholarship on the subject of Radical Islam have a wide range of materials to choose from ranging from Bernard Lewis, What Went Wrong: Western Penetration and Islamic Response ( 2002); Gilles Kepel, Jihad: On the Trail of Political Islam ( 2002); Stephen Schwartz, The Two Faces Of Islam; Dore Gold, Hatred’s Kingdom, Kenneth Timmerman, Preachers of Hate, and for a western voice more critical of the US and more sympathetic to Osama Bin Laden, Imperial Hubris by Anonymous.( Michael Scheuer, an ex CIA operative). 5

Abdul Rauf Feisal, What’s Right With Islam (San Francisco: Harper, 2004)

28

Beyond Jihad

6

See, Joshua Cohen and Ian Lague, editors The Place of Tolerance in Islam 2002, p. 43)

7

(Beacon Press,

Ibid., p. 43

8

Ibid., p. 49-50.Abid Ullah Jan’s belligerency reflects the emergence of Pakistan as a focal point for jihad terrorism. An article in The Wall Street Journal (August 19, 2005, P. A11) highlighted the Islamicization of the public school curriculum under General Zia’s rule in the 1970s and 1980s, emphasizing that madrassas only teach 1.6 million students compared with over 25 million taught in public schools in Pakistan. Thus it is not only the madrassas that inculcate extremism, anti-Americanism, anti-Semitism and anti-Hinduism and therefore Western calls for educational reform must include Pakistan’s public schools as well as its private madrassas. In recent years General Musharraf has undertaken a program of textbook reform and has ordered a reversal of the Zia-era curriculum. Furthermore, Hussain Haqqani’s Pakistan published in 2005 by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace reveals the extent of the military’s complicity with Islamicization. By adopting Islamic ideology, the military has fashioned itself as the guardian of the nation and of its core beliefs. Alyssa Ayres, Deputy Director of the Center for Advanced Study of India at the University of Pennsylvania, in a review of Pakistan for The Wall Street Journal noted that the military has followed a deliberate policy of divide and rule, “patronizing existing Islamist groups while seeding new ones that might rival them”.

9

See Bernard Lewis, What Went Wrong: Western Penetration and Islamic Response ( Oxford University Press, 2002) p. 99 ( See Ch 5: Secularism and the Civil Society) 10

In any case, while the worst that Martin Luther had to face was excommunication, reformist Muslims who openly challenge the ulemas with more reasonable and less literal interpretations of what is, or is not Islamic, can expect to be declared “enemies of Islam” and may be killed, extrajudicially if no other means is possible. 11

Irshad Manji, The Trouble With Islam Today, (St. Martins- Griffin, 2005), p. 144.

12

“Saudi Hate Ideology Fills American Mosques”, Freedom House: Center For Religious Freedom, February 2005, p. 13 Professor Khaled Abou El Fadl makes a similar point in The Place Of Tolerance in Islam, op. cit., p. 9-10

13

Prior quote, Ibid., p. 20 and latter quote, Ibid., p. 15

14

Darwish’s claim that Muslim women are veiling of their own free will was underscored by a Wall Street Journal article which showcased one Shiite female politician in Iraq, March 10, 2005, p .A1-8

15

See The Wall Street Journal, December 9, 2004, p. A 17

16

Daily Telegraph, Wednesday March 30, 2004 ( online edition)

17

See The Wall Street Journal December 9, 2004, p. A 17

18

Ibid., p. A 17

19

Some observers, like journalist Wolfgang Bruno, argue that it may be misinterpreted by Islamists as an payment of Jizzya, required by those who have been subjugated by Islam and are

Introduction

29

living under Dhimmi (or servitude) He argues, controversially, that such payments may be more likely to make French Islamists more, not less, aggressive. 20

A commentator on PBS’s Frontline report “ Al Qaeda’s New Front” aired in January 2005 made this claim. See also Kepel, op.cit., p. 76-78 Middle class elites from other, more moderate Muslim countries came to work in the Gulf and were exposed to the literalist version of the faith as practiced in Saudi Arabia and returned to their own countries as part of a “new transnational middle class” p. 78

21

Stephen Schwartz, Radical Islam in Americ, an adaptation of a speech delivered on February 25, 2004 at a Hillsdale College National Leadership Seminar in Naples, Florida. ( Imprimis) In the speech, Schwartz states: “ One can learn a lot about how the Saudi-backed Wahhabi establishment in the U.S works by looking at how it came to speak for all of Islam in the American media. it did this by creating a set of organizations. One of the most prominent is called the Council of American-Islamic Relations ( CAIR)….There are other such groups. One of them is called the Islamic Society of America. it is directly controlled from Saudi Arabia and openly owns 250 of the 1200 main mosques in the United States. But this is just the tip of the iceberg. My research suggests that a full 80 percent of American mosques are under the control of the Saudi government and Wahhabis. This does not mean that 80 per cent of American Muslims are supporters of Wahhabism—only that their mosques are controlled by the Saudi Wahhabis…..other organizations we don’t hear much about…for example the Islamic Circle of North America, which acts as a kind of extremist militia among Pakistani Muslims and has a very bad reputation for threatening, intimidating and enforcing conformity in the Pakistani Muslim community.” 22

The Place of Tolerance in Islam, op. cit., p. 44

23

See Samuel Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the ReMaking of World Order (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1996) P. 258 Huntington states that while “While Muslim states resorted to violence in 53.5% of their crises, violence was used by the United Kingdom in only 11.5%, by the United States in 17.9% and by the Soviet Union in 28.5% of the crises in which they were involved” p. 258. 24

Actually, prior to 9/11, a strong case could be made that the U.S took special steps to protect vulnerable Muslim populations and even to advance their agendas: Bosnia in 1994; Kosovo; support for the Chechnyan cause; support for the mujaheddin in Afghanistan in the 1970s and 1980 against the Soviets, and Kuwait and Saudi Arabia at whose invitation the U.S established bases in August 1990 and protection of the Shiite and Kurdish Muslim populations in Iraq between 1991-2003.

PART ONE: UNDERSTANDING THE ISLAMIST MIND

THE PROBLEM WITH ISLAM Ohmyrus

Before September 11, 2001 I had always thought of Islam as just another religion. But after that fateful day I gave it greater scrutiny. If we look around the world today we see Muslims in conflict with non-Muslims. In almost every place where Islam has a border with non-Muslim territory, there is violence— Chechnya, Palestine, Kashmir, Sudan, the Philippines and Thailand. Could it be just a coincidence that Islam has bloody borders? Or could the problem be Islam itself? I recognize that today it is politically incorrect in the West to criticize any religion except Christianity and that to do so is to be accused of racism, ending any discussion. But with terrorism carried out in the name of Allah becoming ever more serious it is surely dangerous for us to bury our heads in the sands of political correctness. Since the ancient Chinese strategist, Sun Wu said, “Know thyself and know thy enemy. One hundred battles, one hundred victories”, a good place to start our investigation of Islam is with Islam’s founder, the Prophet Muhammed. The founder of any religion defines the religion and serves as a role model for his followers for all time. Muhammed’s teachings can be divided into two parts—the early ones when he was in Mecca and the later ones after he fled to Medina. In Mecca, he was struggling to find converts and had no army. His teachings at this stage were peaceful and tolerant. After he fled to Medina with a few of his followers, history tells us that he organized highway robberies on caravans. Initially he failed but finally he succeeded thereby gaining more followers eager,

32

Beyond Jihad

no doubt, for booty. It was at this stage that his teachings became intolerant and violent. Here are some of the Medinan verses in the Koran:

9:29 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. 9:39 If you do not go to war, He will punish you sternly, and will replace you by other men. You will in no way harm Him: for God has power over all things. 9:123 Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you. Deal firmly with them. Know that God is with the righteous. The Prophet Muhammed was trying to incite his warriors to fight and his words are now forever Holy Scripture. And fight they did. They slaughtered the men of a tribe of Jews and sold their women and children into slavery. He also promised those who fell in battle the prize of martyrdom where they would enter a paradise of carnal pleasures with loving virgins. Narrator Abdullah bin Abi Aufa, Allah’s Messenger, is quoted in the The Book of Jihad in Sahih al Bukhari as having said “Surely the gates of Paradise are under the shade of swords”.1 It is this that distinguishes Islam from other religions. It is the last warrior religion. Of course the Vikings, too, had similar beliefs. Their brave fallen warriors, they believed, would be taken to Valhalla by valkyries. But the Vikings’ faith died out in Europe a thousand years ago. The warrior metaphor extends in unexpected directions. Have you wondered why, in the Shariah, the penalty for adultery is death by stoning? Why is adultery on a par with murder? Islam is best understood by putting oneself in the sandals of a nomadic desert warrior. Each warrior is fiercely loyal to his tribe ruled by a patriarch. He sees other tribes as enemies or potential enemies. Survival of the tribe depends on group cohesion. For this to be maintained, there

The Problem With Islam—Ohmyrus

33

must be no jealousies amongst its male warriors. Since adultery undermines group cohesion of the tribe and is thus a matter of life and death, the highest penalty must be imposed. Another way of building group cohesion amongst Muslims is to demonize non-believers as you can see from the following verses in the Koran:

Verse 9:28 says, “Believers, know that the idolaters are unclean. Let them not approach the Sacred Mosque after this year is ended. If you fear poverty, God, if He pleases, will enrich you through His own bounty. God is all-knowing and wise.” Verse 3:118 says, “O you who believe! Take not as (your) Bitnah (advisors, consultants, protectors, helpers, friends, etc.) those outside your religion since they will not fail to do their best to corrupt you. They desire to harm you severely. Hatred has already appeared from their mouths, but what their breasts conceal is far worse”. As a result, Muslims mentally divide the world between believers and nonbelievers. For them a Muslim, no matter how bad, is preferable to a non-Muslim, no matter how good. This explains why there were no Muslim demonstrations when Saddam Hussein gassed the Kurds. But when America attacked Afghanistan and Iraq, the whole Muslim world was in an uproar. It did not matter one whit that Saddam Hussein was the worst of tyrants or that the Taliban was an oppressive regime which cost the deaths of thousands. It also did not matter that America took great care to minimize casualties and spent billions in aid to these countries. The most significant matter to most Muslims is that America is a non-Muslim nation. Islam’s attitude towards infidels is also reflected in the penalty for apostasy according to Shariah law, which is death. This may seem strange to people of other faiths, none of which has such a penalty. Threatening an apostate with death does not change his beliefs in his heart and is thus pointless. But if you are the commander of an army fighting in the name of Allah against people of other faiths, then conversion to other religions is tantamount to defection or

34

Beyond Jihad

treachery. It only makes sense if the designers of Islam saw their faith as one in perpetual war against other religions. The next thing to note about Islam is the strong sense of fatalism it imparts to its followers.2 The word “Islam” itself means submission or surrender to the will of God, no matter how unpleasant that might be, because it is God who creates everything and determines everything. In the Koran, Verse 35.8 says:

Is he, the evil of whose deeds is made fairseeming unto him so that he deemeth it good, (other than Satan's dupe)? Allah verily sendeth whom He will astray, and guideth whom He will; so let not thy soul expire in sighings for them. Lo! Allah is Aware of what they do! Thus even those who do wrong, do so because of Allah’s will!

Verse 9:51 says, “Say: Nothing will befall us except what God has ordained. He is our guardian. In God let the faithful put their trust.” This fatalistic streak works wonders because Islam’s soldiers can face formidable enemies without fear but with calm resignation to God’s will. If He wishes you to survive the battle tomorrow, then you will survive. If He wishes you to die, there is no escape no matter what you do. That is why many Muslims have the habit of saying, “Inshallah”, meaning, “if God wills it”. To a pious Muslim, God predestines everything in a man’s life. God determines his fate, his character and abilities. It is his duty to surrender to whatever God wants of him. Related to this is Islam’s mind-numbing abundance of rituals. Islam teaches a pious Muslim which foot to shoe first, which hand to use for toilet duty and how to dress. If you look at the five pillars of Islam, you will find four of them are ritualistic. Praying five times a day facing Mecca, going on Hajj to walk round and round a Black stone, declaring Allah to be God and Muhammed to be his Prophet and fasting during Ramadan do not make this a more peaceful, kinder or prosperous world.

The Problem With Islam—Ohmyrus

35

They are there to instill discipline. Facing Mecca to pray five times a day and going on Hajj remind Muslims where their ultimate loyalties lie. Modern armies too have numerous rituals designed to remind soldiers of honor, duty and obedience. While rituals encourage obedience, they stifle rational thinking. In contrast Jesus boiled down his rules to just two—love God and love one another. The second commandment relates to the Golden Rule, “Do unto others, as you want others to do unto you.” Now let us now look at the Prophet Muhammed’s teachings with respect to women. In all traditional cultures and societies women have been given a lower status than men. But the status of women is especially low in Islam. As is well known, Muslim men can have up to four wives and a Muslim man can divorce his wife by saying “I divorce thee”. Furthermore, the Koran allows him to beat his wife:

Verse 4:34 says, “…As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them, forsake them in beds apart and beat them. …” In the following Hadith, the Prophet Muhammed actually said that women are deficient in intelligence and religion and consequently the majority of people in hell are women.

Once Allah's Apostle went out to the Musalla (to offer the prayer) O 'Id-al-Adha or Al-Fitr prayer. Then he passed by the women and said, “O women! Give alms, as I have seen that the majority of the dwellers of Hell-fire were you (women).” They asked, “Why is it so, O Allah's Apostle ?” He replied, “You curse frequently and are ungrateful to your husbands. I have not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence and religion than you. A cautious sensible man could be led astray by some of you.” The women asked, “O Allah's Apostle! What is deficient in our intelligence and religion?” He said, “Is not the evidence of two women equal to the witness of one man?” They replied in the affirmative. He said, “This is the deficiency in her intelligence. Isn't it true that a woman can neither

36

Beyond Jihad pray nor fast during her menses?” The women replied in the affirmative. He said, “This is the deficiency in her religion.”3

The reason for women’s extra lowly status in Islam was because, in a constantly warring tribe, the polity’s survival and prosperity depended on its male warriors. A woman’s value was mainly as a mother to the next generation of warriors. Moreover, in a warring society there are bound to be more women than men. So polygamy ensures that the womenfolk are taken care of and can also have more children with new husbands. A high birth rate is a military advantage in a primitive society. Thus we see that Islam is capable of producing a society of brave disciplined warriors aspiring for martyrdom. The strong cohesion, high birth rate (which comes with the suppression of women), strong sense of brotherhood and hatred for infidels made them formidable warriors. In an age when men fought with spears, swords and bows, they were nearly always successful. Thus from the impoverished Arabian peninsula, the Arabs burst into history and within a short time carved an empire stretching from Spain to India. In fact the teachings of Islam are best understood as a warrior’s religion, designed to facilitate Arab imperialism. But the problem is that these same qualities that made Islam so successful in its early centuries are now liabilities in the modern era. In fact, they are the main cause of failure for Muslim societies. Today Muslims are amongst the most poorest and most miserable people on earth. Islam has given Muslims a cultural deficit. Giving women a low status today means that half of the work force is not fully utilized. Parents will not bother to give their daughters the same sort of attention and education that they give their sons. Poorly educated mothers will not be able to properly educate their own children. When women do not go to work, they tend to have more children. A high birth rate means more mouths to feed and fewer resources to educate one’s children. That is why economists have recommended family planning in poor third world countries. It is no longer an advantage, unlike in the Prophet Muhammed’s day. Even four centuries after the death of the Prophet Muhammed,

The Problem With Islam—Ohmyrus

37

Islam was already becoming outdated. Here is a description of Muslim life by Averroes (1126-1198), the leading Muslim intellectual and scientist from the Middle Ages:

Women are kept like domestic animals or house plants for purposes of gratification, of a very questionable character besides, instead of being allowed to take part in the production of material and intellectual wealth, and in the preservation of the same. 4 Moreover, the belligerency and hostility towards infidels, together with promises of Virgins in Paradise for martyrs, combine to make disputes with Muslims extraordinarily difficult to resolve. Wars are protracted, fed by never ending streams of men eager for martyrdom. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the establishment of the State of Israel, the Palestinian-Israeli conflict has been going on for more than fifty years. The Palestinians are still refugees. With the notable exception of Jordan, the other Arab and Muslim countries refuse them citizenship. It should be noted that Christian, Buddhist and other refugees are somehow able to settle elsewhere peacefully and find jobs. Other examples abound. The Christian Armenians, slaughtered by the Turks in the aftermath of World War I, never resorted to suicide bombings to correct the injustice. They lost their homes too and had a stronger right to grievance than the Palestinians. Germans after World War II also lost their homes but no church called for suicide bombings against the Russians or Poles. The same can be said about the Buddhist Tibetans who were forced to leave Tibet by the brutal Chinese occupation. There are no Buddhist suicide bombers either because no Buddhist was ever promised virgins in paradise in return for martyrdom. Every war produces refugees for the losers but it is only the Palestinians who remain refugees after so many years. Wars are, of course, bad for economic growth. Wars rarely make a country rich. The Muslim concept of Jihad (or Holy War) is a serious source of conflict and misery for both Muslims and infidels. The preoccupation with Israel has given incompetent and corrupt Arab governments a useful distraction, which

38

Beyond Jihad

would not be available if the concept of Jihad were not so firmly grounded in Islamic scriptures.

Economic growth and progress are also impeded by the

fatalism that Islam engenders and which we referred to earlier. Christians, on the other hand believe that “God helps those who help themselves.” Or, as Oliver Cromwell, a devout Christian, once said, “Trust in God, but keep your powder dry.” This saying implies that the individual has to do something to improve his lot. In Islam, the “Inshallah” (God willing) attitude discourages forward planning and thinking. Every failure is attributed to God’s will. Cause and effect analyses are therefore unnecessary. Besides the above-mentioned quotations from the Koran, this attitude of fatalism can also be seen in this Hadith, part of the famous coitus interupptus hadith from Sahih Bukhari:

That while he was sitting with Allah's Apostle he said, “O Allah's Apostle! We get female captives as our share of booty, and we are interested in their prices, what is your opinion about coitus interruptus?” The Prophet said, “Do you really do that? It is better for you not to do it. No soul that which Allah has destined to exist, but will surely come into existence.”5 This Hadith relates to an incident when the Prophet Muhammed’s men were worried that the market prices of the female slaves they captured after a battle would be greatly depreciated if they made them pregnant. They asked their Prophet what he thought about practicing withdrawal. Their Prophet vetoed the idea because if Allah wanted them to get pregnant, they would get pregnant no matter what they did. Since a modern economy requires us to think and plan ahead, this attitude of fatalism has unquestionably contributed to the economic backwardness of Muslims. Islam also has other aspects which have hampered the progress of Muslims in the past and still do. For example, Islam’s teachings forbid usury. This slowed the establishment of a modern banking and finance industry in the Muslim world and gave the West a head start in economic development. During the Age of Enlightenment in Europe, banks flourished in Geneva, Amsterdam, Venice and

The Problem With Islam—Ohmyrus

39

London, but there were no banks in Antioch, Istanbul and Cairo. Banks allow for secure savings and capital formation. The capital saved could be loaned and invested into joint stock companies, facilitating commercial success, employment and eventually prosperity. Fortunately, today most Muslims ignore these ancient prohibitions. They borrow money from, and deposit money into banks, and use credit cards. For the pious, there are the Islamic banks so this is no longer a problem. However, while Islamic banks are not supposed to charge interest, which is forbidden, they are allowed to make profits. I am told that, for the most part, there is nothing essentially different between Islamic banking and conventional banking. Very often, the “profit” they make is fixed and guaranteed. This means that profits are really “interest”. All this goes to show that it is difficult to operate in the modern business world without usury making Islamic banking an exercise in self-delusion. Another problem with Islam was that it stifled science. For science to flourish, there must be great tolerance for new ideas which is sorely lacking in the Islamic world. Ideas (both scientific and philosophical) need to be freely debated so that good ideas are adopted and bad ones discarded. Islamic thought prevents free debate, however. To be sure, the Muslim world did produce many noted poets, philosophers and scientists—Al-Farabi, Al-Razi (a famous physician), Avicenna and Averroes among others. After the seventh century conquests of major parts of the Byzantine empire and the Persian empire allowed the Arabs to come into contact with more advanced civilizations—Christian, Zoroastrian and Hindu. They were eager to learn and acquire knowledge. Books were translated into Arabic and the Caliphs were happy to employ non-Muslims, especially People of the Book, to serve them. Greek science and philosophy were taught in schools and there was a fusion of Islamic ideas and Greek rationality. This, however, inevitably led to a clash with more conservative religious scholars. These religious scholars believed that all knowledge came from God’s revelation and that philosophical and scientific inquiry would ultimately lead to unbelief. On the other hand some Muslim scientists and philosophers, while not rejecting

40

Beyond Jihad

Islam, (at least publicly) believed that truth could also be derived from human reason and that human reason could be reconciled with God’s revelations. The Mu’tazelites belonged to this rational school that had confidence in human reason. Initially they enjoyed the protection of the caliphs but later they fell out of favor. A theologian, Al Ashari, who subordinated reason to revelation, dealt the rationalist Mu’tazilites6 a mortal wound. About two centuries later, Al-Ghazali drove in the final nail thus ending the influence of Greek rationality in Islamic thinking. He wrote, “The source of their infidelity was their hearing terrible names such as Socrates and Hippocrates, Plato and Aristotle.”7 He opposed the spirit of free inquiry saying that certain of the natural sciences were opposed to religion. He led Muslims back to an unquestioning literal interpretation of the Koran. The traditionalists had finally won. Science lost. It should be noted that most of the scientists, poets and philosophers in Islam’s golden age (the time of the Abassid Caliphate) were Jews, Christians or Muslims who were suspected of apostasy or blasphemy. Many suffered harassment and even death. Thus if science did flourish during this golden age, it was in spite of Islam and not because of it. As scholar Ernest Renan, noted:

Science and philosophy flourished on Musalman soil during the first half of the middle ages; but it was not by reason of Islam, it was in spite of Islam. Not a Musalman philosopher or scholar escaped persecution. 8 In the Christian world, science managed to eventually triumph because the Pope was not as powerful as the Caliph thanks to the separation of Church and State. In Islam, where there is no separation of mosque and state, the progressive forces of Greek rationality could not prevail and were ultimately stifled. In conclusion, Islam is a warrior’s religion that is unsuited for progress in the modern world. Quite clearly, Islam has failed Muslims. In this essay I have tried to show that Islam was conceived as a warrior’s religion to facilitate Arab imperialism. The previously successful warrior qualities—fatalism, emphasis on a

The Problem With Islam—Ohmyrus

41

high birth rate, which requires the subordination of women, discipline and hatred for unbelievers—are now preventing the progress of Muslims towards prosperity and modernity. While Islam encourages bellicose belligerency, it fails to equip Muslims with the economic and technological strength to win modern wars. That is why the more numerous Arabs were defeated four times by the Israelis. There is despair and humiliation in much of the Muslim world, especially amongst the once proud Arabs as Bernard Lewis has noted.9 Many turn to religion to find out why Allah has forsaken them. To them, it must be because they have not been following Islam correctly. Perhaps Islam has become corrupted with outside influences. They hear the siren call of the fundamentalist mullahs who call them back to the days of pristine Islam—back to the seventh century when desert warriors carved out an empire. It is as if a doctor prescribed smoking to cure lung cancer! 1

Introduction to Translation of Sahih Muslim,Translator: Abdul Hamid Siddiqui (the Sahih Muslim are a collection of sayings and deeds of the Prophet Muhammed), Book 020, Number 4681, Source: http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/020.smt.html#020.4681. See also Chapter 61: The Book of Jihad in The Sahih Collection of al- Bukhar, Source: http://www.sunnipath.com/Resources/PrintMedia/Hadith/H0002P0000.aspx 2

This is discussed in Raphael Patai, The Arab Mind, Hatherleigh Press ( Revised Edition, 2002)

3

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 6, Number 301: Narrated by Abu Said Al-Khudri: The hadith was taken from the following link: http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/006.sbt.html#001.006.301 4

T. J De Boer, The History of Philosophy in Islam, (New York, Dover Publications, 1967) cited in Ibn Warraq Why I am not a Muslim, Prometheus Books, 1995, p.271 5

Hadith cited in: Volume 3, Book 34, Number 432: Narrated by Abu Said Al-Khudri: http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/034.sbt.html#003.034.432 6

Ignaz Goldziher, Introduction to Islamic Theology and Law (Princeton 1981), cited in Ibn Warraq, Why I am not a Muslim, Prometheus Books, 1995, p.245-250

7

Al-Ghazali, The Incoherence of the Philosophers, 1963 English translation by S. A. Kamali, cited in Ibn Warraq Why I am not a Muslim, Prometheus Books, 1995, p.264 8

Ernest Renan - Islamisme et la science. Lecture given at the Sorbonne, 29 March, 1883, cited in Why I am not a Muslim by Ibn Warraq, Prometheus Books, 1995, p. 274

42 9

Beyond Jihad

Bernard Lewis, The Roots of Muslim Rage, The Atlantic Online magazine, http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/90sep/rage.htm

THE REAL ISLAM: THE CASE AGAINST WESTERN APOLOGISTS Ali Sina

Western apologists for Political Islam often compare Islam to other religions. Adopting a relativist position, they make comparisons with the bloody portions of the Old Testament, or selectively quote from earlier sections of the Qur’an. A notable case in point is Michael Sells’ Approaching the Qur’an, a book once selected as summer reading for incoming freshmen to the University of North Carolina.1 The selection was praised by Dr. Carl Ernst, a professor of Islamic studies at the University of North Carolina and author of The Shambhala Guide to Sufism, who congratulated Michael Sells for making a major contribution to religious literature, one that should be welcomed by all who seek to better understand Islam. Despite the praise from Dr. Ernst I have to say that I, as a former Muslim, see no similarities between Islam and other major religions. Nor are the Early Revelations, the focus of Sells’ book, a complete representation of the entire Qur’an. Let me begin by responding to Sells’ claim that Islam is similar to other religions, a point he made in a subsequent article titled “Understanding, Not Indoctrination” published in The Washingtonpost.com on August 8 2002. Let us begin with the book of Joshua. To be sure that book, and the books prior to that, present Jehovah as a ruthless tyrant and God as a bloodthirsty deity. However, the mandates given to Joshua, or Moses, were exclusively given to them and were not binding upon, nor required of, all believers. Nowhere in the Old or New Testaments do we find injunctions given to the believers to kill and loot the

44

Beyond Jihad

infidels. Therefore if Christians in any moment of history have used the scriptures to persecute and kill, they have done so by misinterpreting and abusing the teachings of their books. In contrast, the Qur’an is filled with injunctions calling on believers to be harsh with unbelievers and kill them wherever they find them. Sells, in Understanding Not Indoctrination, defended his position by stating:

But most Muslims interpret these in the context of early war between Muhammad's followers and their opponents. They no more expect to apply them to their contemporary non-Muslim friends and neighbors than most Christians and Jews consider themselves commanded by God, like the Biblical Joshua, to exterminate the infidels. While it is true that “most Muslims” do not apply the violent verses of the Qur’an to their contemporary non-Muslim friends, Sells' book is not about Muslims and whether or not they practice what the Qur’an teaches. Sells' book is about the Qur’an and he was not truthful n representing it. These are two different issues. The reason most Muslims today do not strap bombs to their waists and blow up innocent people, or do not contemplate killing their non-Muslim neighbors, is because they are non-observant Muslims and do not really practice what the Qur’an requires from them. Even the Prophet had problems with this. Though Arabs were a violent people, they still were reluctant to fight for religion and in fact prior to Islam there were no religious hostilities between the Arabs, many of whom were idolaters, Jews and Christians. Most of the early believers disliked fighting. Thus the Prophet had to coax them with the following verse:

Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you? (Q.2:216).

The Real Islam—Ali Sina

45

Is fighting really good for people? But when this admonition did not work, he coerced them with the following:

Unless ye go forth, He (Allah) will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place? (Q.9:39). Actually a great part of the Qur’an is about inciting the believers to kill the infidels. The confusion among Western scholars arises because part of the Qur’an was written in Mecca and the other part in Medina. The part that was written in Mecca contains all the “nice” verses. The violent and harsh verses are all to be found in the second part or the “later revelation”. Western scholars should be aware that the later revelation abrogates most of the more tolerant teachings of the early revelation. Perhaps the best person to clarify this question is Dr. Muhsin Khan, the translator of Sahih Bukhari and the Qur’an into English. He wrote:

Allah revealed in Sura Bara'at (Repentance, IX) [the order to discard (all) obligations (covenants, etc), and commanded the Muslims to fight against all the Pagans as well as against the people of the Scriptures (Jews and Christians) if they do not embrace Islam, till they pay the Jizia (a tax levied on the Jews and Christians) with willing submission and feel themselves subdued (as it is revealed in 9:29). So the Muslims were not permitted to abandon “the fighting” against them (Pagans, Jews and Christians) and to reconcile with them and to suspend hostilities against them for an unlimited period while they are strong and have the ability to fight against them. So at first “the fighting” was forbidden, then it was permitted, and after that it was made obligatory.”2 In point of fact, Islamic scholars developed a “science” to determine which verses are abrogated and which ones are the abrogators. This science is called nasekh va mansookh. Western scholars are familiar with this Islamic science and should know perfectly well that the later revelations annulled the early revelations. This is known to all Muslim scholars, as well as to the terrorists who put those

46

Beyond Jihad

teachings into practice. They know all too well which part of the Qur’an overrides which part. The Meccan part however, although mostly abrogated, is often used by Islamic apologists to softsell their harsh religion and fool gullible westerners by showing them the tolerant part of the Quran that they know has been abrogated. It is surprising that in compiling the book Approaching the Quran Sells deliberately chose the Meccan Suras. In an introduction to the book he wrote:

The goal is to make the early Meccan period of the Qur'an, in its literary and oral qualities, approachable and accessible to those not conversant in Arabic. This raises an obvious question. Why have western apologists like Sells deliberately tried to hide the fact that the Qur’an taken a whole is a textbook for terrorism? Surely they know that the Meccan Suras are softer while those of the “later revelation” are violent, brutal, cruel, and inhumane. Why have they made a deliberate choice to “softsell” the Qur’an by publishing books emphasizing only the tolerant segments? Is this intellectually honest? Why did Sells, in particular, want to hide the fact that the Qur’an also contains many hundreds of stern verses such as those exhorting the believers to fight the Christians and the Jews until they pay Jizya submissively and feel subdued? (Q.9:29) Why did he not mention that the Qur’an also teaches:

Fight the unbelievers who gird you about, and let them find firmness in you. (Q.9:123), Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people (Q.5:51), Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. (Q.9:5).

The Real Islam—Ali Sina

47

Truly the Pagans are unclean (Q.9:28), Take not for protectors your fathers and your brothers if they love infidelity above Faith: if any of you do so, they do wrong. (Q.9:23), And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah. (Q.2:193). When ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks; At length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them): thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom: Until the war lays down its burdens. (Q.47:4). I will instill terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them. (Q.8:12). These warrior verses, and hundreds more like these, are not part of the early revelation. Why then have Western apologists presented a misleading picture of Islam? Even John Esposito, chief editor of the Oxford Encyclopedia of the Modern Islamic World and The Oxford History of Islam even takes the misleading position that Islam expanded peacefully. Perhaps the answer lies in “political correctness”.

Political Correctness: The White Man's Repentance. By the late twentieth century Europeans started disliking Christianity, finding every other culture better than their own. Romanticizing Indian culture, Chinese culture, or Islamic culture became the vogue. To qualify as an intellectual all one had to do was to criticize Judeo-Christianity and pay tribute to other cultures. This mentality actually gave birth to a culture that is now permeating the Western mindset. It is called “political correctness”. To fit into polite society you must belong to this cult. And to belong you must not tell the truth if that truth could offend someone from another culture. You are supposed to say things that are “nice” lest you hurt other people’s sensibilities. In other words, political

48

Beyond Jihad

correctness means expediently lying when the truth is offensive. Of course criticizing Judeo-Christianity is not considered politically incorrect. It is entirely permissible, and even encouraged, to offend Jews or Christians, but not others. Influenced by this culture of self-deceit many Westerners, and especially the Europeans, produced a lot of revisionist material, lying about historical facts. Emerging from the dark ages of colonialism, when the media started revealing the brutalities perpetrated by their own governments in the colonized countries and what their churches had done, especially in South America and Africa, Europeans were shocked. They were disgusted at the inhumanity of their own ethos. Therefore, lauding other cultures and slandering their own, became a form of repentance. Western scholars thereby created a new ethos, as oppressive as a cult, where the politically incorrect are labeled “racists” and scorned. To be politically correct, historians produced factually incorrect literature and even taught those lies to their children. Textbooks were rewritten to accommodate nonJudeo-Christian mores. The idea was to educate new generations to be tolerant and accepting of other cultures. The idea was noble, something that observant Muslims would not be able to understand. However the sad reality is that by doing so, the truth has been sacrificed at the altar of political correctness. This provided the milieu for Islam to expand in the West because Islam thrives in an environment where truth is suppressed. Political correctness may be the brainchild of people with good intentions, but, as they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. My goal is to combat the ethos of political correctness and uphold the truth even when the truth is less expedient. It is my conviction that only truth, informed by facts and not by beliefs, can set us free. As a member of a rapidly growing movement of ex-Muslims, we are determined to unveil the truth and present the real face of Islam to the world. We are not an “organization”. We do not have leaders or directors. But we work together, exchange ideas and try to make sure that truth is not sacrificed at the altar of political correctness. For many of us this is an important issue. We have lost loved ones to Islam. Our countries

The Real Islam—Ali Sina

49

have been ruined by this cult. Our people have sunk into misery. Death, poverty, wars, fratricide and illiteracy have engulfed us. And we see radical Islam as the culprit. Now we are coming together and want to liberate our people from the bondage of this evil cult and remove the shackles of lies and deceit from their minds. Yet we are astounded to see that there are respectable intellectuals in the West who go out of their way to present lies, sugarcoat the truth and sell it to trusting young people who strive for knowledge, but are taught ignorance. In selfdefense, Sells wrote in the same article:

But well before Sept. 11, I had called for the overthrow of the criminal Taliban regime and warned of the danger posed by the extremist Wahhabi version of Islam being promoted in Saudi Arabia. I am surprised that Sells and others cannot see that Wahhabism and Talibanism are Islam. They ask for nothing contrary to the teachings of the Qur’an. Ayatollah Khomeini did the same things that Muhammad did. These “extremists” are the real and true Muslims. It is a fallacy to believe that there is an Islam somewhere that is peaceful, tolerant, moderate or compromising. If such a thing exists it is not true Islam. Of course there are Muslims who are peaceful, tolerant and moderate, but this has nothing to do with Islam. These people are tolerant and peaceful to the same extent that they are not “true” observant Muslims and therefore do not live by the literal teachings of the Quran. Pat Robertson once asked: “How can we trust our Muslim neighbor or colleague, knowing that behind a gesture of friendship may lie an intention to kill?” The answer is: Ask your Muslim neighbor how much he believes in Islam! If you see him reading the Quran, observing his prayers, going to the mosque, wearing a beard and Islamic garb, fear him. He could actually be contemplating killing you. And this is the plain truth, whether some in the West like to hear it or not. Those in need of additional evidence should go to a mosque and listen to what they preach there. If most Muslims overlook the violent verses of the Qur’an, the credit should go to them and not to

50

Beyond Jihad

Islam. We are not talking about every Muslim. The majority of Muslims are peace loving, friendly and warm people who would not hurt anyone. It is thanks to the innate goodness of this silent majority that life still continues in Islamic countries. If you see your Muslim neighbor is amicable, loyal, helpful and loving it is because he is a good person. However his religion, Islam, taken literally, calls for killing, looting, enslaving and raping the unbelievers. Be grateful that he is not a good Muslim. Our fight, as apostates, is a fight against literalist Islam, not Muslims. Nobody is accusing Muslims, who are as good as anybody else, of evil. Having said that, what those who present Islam as peaceful based on the Early Revelations do is misrepresent the truth. The real Islam is the Islam of the Later Revelations. Hiding that fact by preferring to emphasize the Early Revelations is as dishonest as someone trying to find a suitor for an old and ugly woman by showing a picture of her in her youthful years.3

1

By way of protest I sent the following letter to UNC Chancellor, Dr. James Moeser, protesting the selection of Sells’ book for summer reading in 2002. “…please make it clear that we are not against teaching the Qur’an in schools and universities. In fact we encourage everyone to read that book. It is our firm belief that no one can ever write a book more damaging to Islam than the Qur’an itself. Yet handpicking a few tolerant verses of the Qu’ran that were written when Muhammad was weak and needed the tolerance of his enemies, and not mentioning that those verses were later abrogated by extremely harsh and violent ones when Muhammad came to power, is hypocritical, deceitful and dishonest.”

2

Introduction to the English translation of Sahih Bukhari, p.xxiv.

3

One perceptive reader of TIME magazine wrote a letter to the editor, published on September 11, 2002. The reader wrote: Encouraging freshmen to read a Koran that omits certain militaristic verses doesn't serve the purpose. If the goal is to understand the mind of the jihadists, then the students should read the same version of the Koran that the young men in jihadist training grounds are reading. I can't help wondering, however, if the world wouldn't be a better place if the jihadists read the modified version.

THE JANUS FACE OF ISLAM Abul Kasem

Islamists living in the West were alarmed and perplexed after the terrorist attacks on America. Many of them began searching the Qur’an, desperate to prove that Islam is a peaceful and merciful religion. They repeatedly referred to a handful of phrases from the ‘Meccan Verses’ of the Qur’an, which are milder in tone than the Medina verses. They carefully hid the unconscionable, intolerable, barbaric verses that litter almost the entire Qur’an by saying that 'those verses were taken out of context' and were not applicable to the infidels who have given them a chance for a better life and accepted them as their own countrymen. Nothing can be worse than this charade played by Islamists living in the West. It is in the interests of all non-Muslims (as well as innocent Muslims who have very little knowledge about ‘real Islam') that the truth be told. The truth is very clear. Islam, just like the Roman God Janus, has two faces. Islamists living in the West who emphasize the milder verses from the Qur’an are actually showing the dead ‘Meccan Islam’ version to the vast majority of “ignorant” nonMuslims (as well as half-informed Muslims) in order to camouflage what they recognize as the most up to date version of Islam, the living and breathing ‘Medina Islam’. Their strategy is also very clear: •

When in the West, the land of the infidels, or when weak, then practice ‘Meccan’.

52

Beyond Jihad •

When in an Islamic state, or when the number of Muslims becomes sizable in an infidel’s land, then practice ‘Medina Islam’ or the ‘real Islam’.

The sooner we discover this “Janus face of Islam” the quicker we will be saved from further catastrophes such as September 11, 2001. How do we get to know more about the Medina Islam? Here is the answer. In order to understand the ‘real Islam’ we must look at the Qur’an in the chronological order in which it was written and not the way it was published. The chronological order shows which verses are canceled and which verses are replaced. It is meaningless to study and explain the Qur’an without knowledge of its currency since many verses in the Qur’an have been replaced by other verses. The Qur’an itself talks about this in the following verses:

Whatever communications We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring one better than it or like it….2:106 Allah makes to pass away and establishes what He pleases, and with Him is the basis of the Book. 13:39 And when We change (one) communication for (another) communication, and Allah knows best what He reveals, they say: You are only a forger. Nay, most of them do not know…16:101 While these verses have created a lot of confusion for many people, if one thing is certain it is this. God, it appears, does change His mind and that change can be very dramatic. In many cases the matter of abrogation may involve life and death situations. So it is extremely important (especially for non-Muslims) to know which verses are applicable to them and which verses are not. The most important among these verses are the ones containing the provisions of fighting the infidels. There was a time when fighting was prohibited and there was (rather is) a time when fighting became compulsory. In the entire Qur’an there are 87 Meccan suras and 27 Medina suras (this may vary slightly but we shall work with these numbers). Thus, there are a total of 114

The Janus Face of Islam-—Abul Kasem suras.

53

However only the Medina verses contain the provisions of fighting

because it was in Medina that Muhammad received the signal from God to fight the infidels. Those earlier verses revealed in Mecca are the ones considered to be non-violent. So, as a guide, we can conclude that the suras with a chronological order of 87 or more are the replacements for the Meccan suras with respect to treatment of the unbelievers. In this short essay I shall try to show how we can eliminate the confusion sowed by Islamists who emphasize the tolerant and peaceful side of the Qur’an and the secularists and infidels, as well as Muslim apostates and freethinkers, who prefer to call attention to the more violent suras. Please note that the chronological order of the verses is indicated in bold type. We can divide the propagation of Islam by Muhammad into four distinct phases:

1) Peaceful persuasion 2) Fighting for defense 3) Limited attack 4) Open aggression

Phase 1: Peaceful persuasion stage.

Highlights •

A policy of peaceful co-existence with the pagans of Mecca.

•

Give and take strategy with the pagans and the hypocrites.

•

Jews and Christians (people of the Book) were considered as friends.

•

Muhammad was almost like the Buddha preaching love, forgiveness, non-violence, and peace.

•

Only the pagans of Mecca were considered as enemies .

Important verses

54

Beyond Jihad

(Note: To save time and space I have summarized the main messages of the verses omitting the complete verses. Editor’s Note: Some verses, or parts of them, have been added.) 1. Be patient and bear with those who deny the truth; God will deal with them...73:10, 11 (3) 2. 'To you is your religion, to me is mine'...109: 6 (8) 3. Be patient with the evil doers...38:17 (38) 4. Show patience to the pagans.; “Bear then patiently what they say”..20:130 (42) 5. Don't be in a haste to fight...19: 84 (44) 6. Be patient with the unbelievers; Every one (of us) is awaiting, therefore do await: So you will come to know who is the follower of the even path and who goes aright.”...20:135 (45) 7. Muhammad is not sent to dispose of people's affairs.: “..We have not sent you as being in charge of them.”.17:54 (50) 8. God guides those whom He pleases; rewards will be in paradise... “And Allah invites to the abode of peace and guides whom He pleases into the right path.”10:25, 26 (51) 9. God will call into account those who slander the Qur’an..: “Those who made the Quran into shreds.”15:91-93 (54) 10. It is not God's job to see if people believe the truth or not...6:104 (55) 11. Turn away from those rejecting faith and proclaim peace on them... “So turn away from them and say, Peace, for they shall soon come to know.”43:88, 89 (69) 12. Invite the unbelievers (pagans) with wisdom and godly exhortation; be patient and do not retaliate.: “And if you take your turn, then retaliate with the like of that with which you were afflicted; but if you are patient, it will certainly be best for those who are patient.”..16:125, 126 (70) 13. Leave the unbelievers (pagans) alone..: “Therefore leave them in their overwhelming ignorance”.23:54 (74)

The Janus Face of Islam-—Abul Kasem

55

14. Repeal evil with good deeds...23:96 (74) 15. Leave the unbelievers alone and wait in patience for God to punish them...52:45, 47, 48 (76) 16. Muhammad is only a warner and not an enforcer...67:26 (77)

Phase 2: Fighting for defense stage

Highlights •

Muhammed along with his handful of followers migrated to Medina (622 AD). Some tribes of Medina accepted him as their leader.

•

Muhammed and his gang started raids on passing caravans of the Meccans to acquire the wherewithal for survival.

•

Muhammad won the battle of Badr (624 AD) which bolstered his morale for further raids on Meccan caravans.

•

After several years of stay in Medina, God gave Muhammad permission to launch defensive war.

•

Enemies were the pagans of Mecca and the hypocrites (note: the enemy list includes two groups now).

Important verses 1. Permission to fight for self defense is granted...22:39-41 (105) 2. Reward for Jihad is announced.: “And (as for) those who fly in Allah's way and are then slain or die, Allah will most certainly grant them a goodly sustenance, and most surely Allah is the best Giver of sustenance.”.22:58 (105)

56

Beyond Jihad Phase 3: More defensively aggressive stage

Highlights •

Muhammad expected the Jews of Medina to accept him as their new Moses.

•

The Jews rejected Muhammad as their new apostle.

•

Muhammad included the Jews as his enemy and started to raid their sanctuaries.

•

Enemies of Muhammad now were pagans, hypocrites, and the Jews (note: the enemy list now contains three).

•

Muhammad was somewhat forgiving to the defeated Jews. He gave them a chance to live in their lands provided they paid him fifty percent of their agricultural produce.

•

This way Muhammad acquired the means of a guaranteed livelihood for his horde of soldiers.

•

The battle of Uhud (625 AD) was fought. Muslims suffered a severe beating in the battle.

•

The Battle of Trench (625 AD) took place with a huge loss of lives. Muhammad managed to win this battle.

•

The Treaty of Hudaibiya (628 AD) was signed with the pagans of Mecca ensuring ten years of peace. Muhammad was allowed to visit Kaba along with his followers during the pilgrimage season.

•

The siege of Banu Qurayzah and of Khaibar (628 AD) took place. The Jews lost the battle and surrendered unconditionally. Muhammad ordered the beheading of about 700 (Banu Qurayzah) adult male Jews who had surrendered and took a 17-year-old Jewesss, Safiya (Khaibar), as war booty and made her his wife.

The Janus Face of Islam-—Abul Kasem

57

Important verses 1. Forgive and overlook the unbelieving People of the Book; God will take care of them...2:109 (87) 2. Fight defensively and if they cease hostility then stop fighting, except for the oppressors...2:190-194 (87) 3. Fighting is proscribed after the passing of the

sacred month (of

pilgrimage :Zulhaj)...2:216, 217 (87) 4. 'No compulsion in religion'; do not force the defeated enemy to embrace Islam; but they will be thrown in hell...2:256, 257 (87) 5. Spoils of war belong to God and Muhammad.: “They ask you about the windfalls. Say: The windfalls are for Allah and the Apostle. So be careful of (your duty to) Allah and set aright matters of your difference, and obey Allah and His Apostle if you are believers...8:1 (88) 6. Strike terror in the hearts of the unbelievers; cut the necks and finger tips of those who oppose God and Muhammad..: “I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.” 8:12, 13 (88) 7. When you meet the unbelievers in hostility attack them and never turn back from them. If you retreat, except for a strategic reason, then God will punish you and send you to hell...8:15-16 (88) 8. Keep on fighting until the persecution stops and Islam is established; onefifth of booty belongs to God and Muhammad...8:39-41 (88) 9. Obey Muhammad, be united and persevere in fighting...8:45, 46 (88) 10. Therefore if you overtake them in fighting, then scatter by (making an example of) them those who are in their rear, that they may be mindful.; if they incline to peace then give them peace...8:57-61 (88) 11. Rouse the believers to fight with perseverance, God will help by increasing your strength...8:65 (88) 12. Continue killing and do not take prisoners until the land is subdued, then enjoy the war booty...8:67-69 (88)

58

Beyond Jihad 13. Martyrs’ sins are erased and they go to paradise...3:157, “And reckon not those who are killed in Allah's way as dead; nay, they are alive (and) are provided sustenance from their Lord”;169-171, “…I will most certainly make them enter gardens beneath which rivers flow; a reward from Allah, and with Allah is yet better reward”.195 (89) 14. It is permissible to take women captives as concubines in addition to wives...33:50 (90) 15. There is a great reward for fighting against the friends of Satan...4:74-78 (92) 16. Fight and rouse other believers to fight; God will restrain the fury of the unbelievers...4:84 (92) 17. Kill the hypocrites if they turn renegades...4:89 (92) 18. Allah shall grant to the strivers above the holders back a mighty reward:...4:95, 96 (92) 19. Guaranteed reward for fighting in the cause of God...4:100 (92) 20. Whether a fighter kills or is killed, he is admitted in paradise to reside there permanently...22:58, 59 (103) 21. Struggle for God's cause...22:78 (103) 22. Do not lag behind in fighting for God...48:15-16 (111)

Muslims are to be compassionate with each other but must be strong to fight against the unbelievers... “Muhammad is the Apostle of Allah, and those with him are firm of heart against the unbelievers, compassionate among themselves”. 48:29 (111)

Phase 4: Offensive war or open declaration of attack to spread Islam

This phase is the stage of open offensive war against all the unbelievers. This phase started in 630 AD after Muhammad re-entered Mecca and captured Kaba from the pagans. This is the phase which is currently valid for all Muslims.

The Janus Face of Islam-—Abul Kasem

59

Highlights •

Permission was granted by God to declare offensive war against all non-Muslims.

•

Kill the pagans and humble the Jews and the Christians through the Jizya tax.

•

The Tabuk expedition (late 630 AD) is the first war against the Christians.

•

The world is divided into two houses, the House of Islam (Darul Islam) and the House of war (Darul Harb).

•

All Muslims must fight to convert the Darul Harb into Darul Islam.

•

This is the final teaching of Qur’an and so it is valid today and for future (that is, for eternity).

•

Christians are included in the list of enemies (that is, the list now grows to four).

•

Verse 9:5 (also called the verse of the sword) replaces all verses showing mercy, love, tolerance and forgiveness to all nonMuslims.

Important verses 1. Any religion other than Islam is not acceptable...3:85 (89) 2. Kill (execute by beheading)/crucify/torture anyone who opposes Muhammad.: “The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His apostle and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement..”.5:33 (112) 3. Do not make friendship with the Jews and the Christians...5:51 (112)

60

Beyond Jihad 4. After giving four months notice break all treaties with the pagans that they did not keep; those treaties with the pagans that they kept are to be honored to their full term; in future make no more peace treaties with the pagans and kill all pagans who do not accept Islam...9:1-6 (113) 5. Pagans who accept Islam are brothers of Muslims; those who break the agreement, fight them...9:11, 12, 14, 15 (113) 6. Do not make friend or seek protection from the unbelievers (includes pagans, hypocrites, Jews and the Christians)...9:16 (113) 7. Unbelievers should not visit mosques or maintain the mosques of God; they will go to hell...9:17 (113) 8. Those who go on Jihad are the highest in rank; they will dwell in paradise...9:19-22 “Their Lord gives them good news of mercy from Himself and (His) good pleasure and gardens, wherein lasting blessings shall be theirs;”(113) 9. The unbelievers are unclean, forbid them to enter Kaba...9:28 (113) 10. Fight against the Jews and the Christians until they are subdued and pay the Jizya tax with submission; God's curse is on them...9:29-31 (113) 11. If you do not fight in the cause of God with whatever you have got then God will punish you with a serious punishment...9:38, 39, 41 (113) 12. The unbelievers can expect only punishment from God..” And we await for you that Allah will afflict you with punishment from Himself or by our hands.”9:52 (113) 13. Those who are able to fight for God, but do not do so, are rejected by God...9:90-96 (113) 14. Whether you slay or are slain in Jihad, God has promised paradise for giving all in the cause of God...9:111 (113) 15. Fight the unbelievers surrounding you.. “…fight the leaders of unbelief— surely their oaths are nothing—so that they may desist.”.9:123 (113)

The Janus Face of Islam-—Abul Kasem

61

So, what do we learn from the above list of Quranic verses? Are you confused? Of course you are. When the Islamists in the West insist that “Islam is peaceful. Islam is tolerant. Islam is merciful” who would not be confused by such contradictory statements! Actually there is no confusion whatsoever if we follow the simple rule on abrogation. This doctrine of abrogation simply says that when there are confusions (contradictory statements in the Qur’an), the later verses abrogate the former contradictory verses. The result is that only the latest category of verses remains valid without any doubt. That is why it is so important to know the chronological order of verses in the Qur’an. Let us consider the opinion of a modern translator of the Qur’an and Hadith.:

So at first 'the fighting' was forbidden, then it was permitted and after that it was made obligatory against those who start 'the fighting' against you (Muslims) and against all those who worship others along with Allah.1 In the same section Dr M. Muhsin Khan writes :

Then Allah revealed in Sura Bara’at (9) the order to discard (all) the obligations (covenants, etc.) and commanded the Muslims to fight against all the pagans as well as against the people of the scriptures (Jews and Christians) if they do not embrace Islam, till they pay the Jizya (a tax levied on the Jews and Christians who do not embrace Islam and are under the protection of an Islamic government) with willing submission and feel themselves subdued (9:29). So they (Muslims) were not permitted to abandon ‘the fighting’ against them (Pagans, Jews and Christians) and to reconcile with them and to suspend hostilities against them for an unlimited period while they are strong and have the possibility of fighting against them.2 Islamic apologists, however, often quote the following verses to portray the mercy and forgiveness in Islam.

62

Beyond Jihad To you is your religion and to me is mine...109:6 No compulsion in religion...2:256 Turn away from those who join false gods with Allah...15:94

Unfortunately, all those benign verses of the Qur’an are canceled if we follow the Tafsir (explanation) of fifteenth century Islamic scholar Jalaluddin Suyuti who in his highly regarded book, Istenbat al-Tanzeel, wrote that, “everything in the Qur’an about forgiveness is abrogated by verse 9:5 known as the verse of the sword.”3 It is important to consider this if one is to really understand Islam. Note that this verse has a chronology order of 113 and there are 114 suras in the Qur’an. In fact verse 9:5 is a very important verse in the Qur’an. This verse marks the transition from the phase of showing mercy (Phase 1) and forgiveness to the unbelievers to the phase of open aggression on them (Phase 4). The verse of the sword cancels all the verses containing mercy, tolerance, and forgiveness to the non-Muslims (as many as 111 to 124 verses) Also, note carefully how the chronological order increases as Muhammad turns from non-violence to force. In fact, we can safely conclude that Muhammad was a “saint” when the chronology order of the Qur’an was below 87, but that he became a “fascist dictator” after that verse! Again note that the chronological order in the final phase of open aggression against all non-Muslims of the world (Phase 4) is almost at the end (113) chapter (sura) of the Qur’an and note that there are 114 suras in the Qur’an. Islamists take shelter under the interpretations of religious scholar Karen Armstrong, a former nun, who maintains that 'Islam is a peaceful religion'. Anyone who has a workable knowledge of Islam recognizes that her writings are very misleading. When Karen Armstrong quotes verse 2:190 “the only permissible war in the Qur’an is one of self defense. Muslims must not begin hostilities”4 she is clearly being disingenuous. She must surely be aware that Phase Four of Islam calls on all Muslims to declare a total war on the House of Harb (i.e. the infidel’s abode). Phase Four of jihad is valid until all the people in the world are converted to Islam. Thus today's Muslims are in perpetual war with

The Janus Face of Islam-—Abul Kasem

63

the infidels whether they (the Muslims) are living in an Islamic “paradise” such as Afghanistan under the Taliban, Pakistan or Iran, or in infidel lands such as America, the United Kingdom, Canada, or in Europe. Here is a quote from Alsaylu Jarar (4:518-519) by Al-Shawkani, a famous writer on Islamic matters. His writings are authoritative and are used by the jihadis to justify their merciless actions.

Islam is unanimous about fighting the unbelievers and forcing them to Islam or submitting and paying Jizya tax (protection money for the Jews and the Christians only) or being killed. The verse(s) about forgiving them are abrogated unanimously by the obligation of fighting in any case.5 Can Karen Armstrong and the Islamists living in the comfort of non-Muslim freethinking societies refute the above assertion by an eminent Alim? (Islamic scholar). Let us take another example of the disingenuousness of Islamists. Is lying allowed in Islam? “Of course, not”, many say. Lying is a great sin in Islam so the Islamists would have us believe. This is a complete delusion. Muslims are allowed to tell lies (deceive) in order to make the religion of Islam rule the world. Consider what Imam Ghazali (another supreme Islamic scholar) says:

Speaking is a means to achieve objectives. If a praiseworthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish through lying because there is no need for it. When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible.6 Since the noblest goal of a Muslim is to assist Islam rule the world, Islamists constantly lie about their religion when they are in the West, because if they told the truth no one would be attracted to Islam. Islamists often attack secularists and freethinkers whenever they quote the offensive verses of the Qur’an by suggesting that the Qur’an is being quoted 'out of context' .We have tried to

64

Beyond Jihad

present clear and forceful evidence in this essay that “out of context' arguments by Islamic apologists should not be taken seriously. In sum, do not be deceived by the Janus face of Islam!

The author relied on the English Translation of Qur’an by A. Yusufali and the English Translation of Sahih Bukhari by Dr. M. Muhsin Khan Editor’s additions are based on the University of Michigan translation: http://www.hti.umich.edu/k/koran/browse.html

1

Introduction section of the English translation of Sahih Bukhari by Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan, Medina Islamic University.

2

Ibid.

3

Jalaluddin Suyuti also wrote Itqan fi 'ulum-il-Qur’an published in 1497 AD. This book is the Tafsir (explanation) of the Qur’an and is highly regarded. It is compulsory reading for anyone who wants to study the Qur’an for its 'real meanings'.

4

Karen Armstrong, “The True, Peaceful Face of Islam “ in Time Magazine October 1, 2001, p. 48 5

6

Al-Shawkani, Alsaylu Jarar, Volume 4: p. 518-519

Ahmad Ibn Naqib al-Misri, The Reliance of the Traveller, translated by Nuh Ha Mim Keller (Amana publications, 1997, section 8.2), page 745

LOOKING FOR ANOTHER SALADIN: LESSONS FROM THE BATTLEFIELD Ohmyrus

September 11, 2001 came as a shock to Americans. It was like a blow from someone in the shadows, someone they neither knew nor understood and well-meaning people in the West still argue about the real meaning of the terrorist attacks. Some argue that it was about poverty and lack of democracy in the Muslim world. Others say it was about Israel. These may, indeed, be contributory factors. Yet the Chinese have occupied Tibet for decades without provoking suicide bombers, while the British have occupied Gibraltar for centuries without triggering violence from Spaniards. There is poverty in Africa, Latin America and Asia yet these people do not turn to terrorism and suicide attacks. There is more at work here than just poverty or U.S Middle East policies. Unfortunately, the “politically correct” crowd has not followed Sun Wu's advice to “Know thy enemy”. They must be made to realize that September 11 was just another chapter in the history of jihad, which began nearly fourteen centuries ago. It was the Prophet Muhammed himself who led the first jihad against the infidels at the crucial battle of Badr. It is his spirit that inspires an extraordinary courage that is terrifying to the enemies of Islam. But we must understand there are two kinds of jihad, the lower and the higher. The lower jihad is fought on the battlefield. The higher jihad is a struggle to improve oneself. But it is only through the lower jihad that Muslims attain the prize of martyrdom. Militant Muslim scholars argue that it is the duty of Muslims to spread the religion by

66

Beyond Jihad

conversion, if possible, or by force of arms if military power comes to them. As Ayatollah Khomeini once said:

Islam makes it incumbent on all adult males, provided they are not disabled and incapacitated, to prepare themselves for the conquest of (other) countries that the writ of Islam is obeyed in every country in the world.1 Jihad struggles have imparted a number of lessons for Muslims. Here are some of them.

Lesson One: Rely on Allah, not on Man. At the battle of Badr, the first jihad war, the Muslims were outnumbered by the Meccans. Nine hundred well armed Meccans with seven hundred camels and a hundred horses faced three hundred Muslims. The Prophet was worried and prayed fervently and, so the story goes, said: “If the Muslims were defeated that day, Allah would never be worshipped again.” Then he fainted and when he opened his eyes, there was a smile on his lips. He had seen the angel Gabriel in a dream coming to help the Muslims. Then he told his men:

By God in whose hand is the soul of Muhammad, no man will be slain this day fighting against them with steadfast courage, advancing not retreating, but God will cause him to enter Paradise.2 According to the story, a soldier who heard these words flung away the dates he was eating and plunged into the enemy, fighting till he was killed. When the Prophet was asked what would make Allah joyous with his servant, he replied: “When he plunges into the midst of the enemy without mail.” At a critical moment in the battle of Badr, a dust storm blew in, blinding the Meccans and angels led by Gabriel galloped in to aid the Muslims. The Meccans lost and fled.

Looking for Another Saladin— Ohmyrus

67

The lesson from the battle of Badr is that a Muslim’s thoughts should focus on martyrdom and he should leave it to Allah to secure victory. In the short run, he might suffer defeat. But death, even in defeat, only hastens his entry into paradise. In the long run, Allah would assure all Muslims of victory. Either way they would win. Strategy is important, but reliance on Allah must take precedence over man-made strategies. This is the spirit of jihad, a spirit best summed up in a hadith from Sahih al Bukhari where the Prophet said: “Know that Paradise is under the shade of swords”. It is really an invitation to die for Allah. This is the same spirit that inspires the members of Al-Qaeda today. That is why Holy Warriors from the seventh century to the present day are so dangerous. Islam was designed to facilitate Arab imperialism. It was a warrior's religion and few ancient armies fighting with swords, bows and spears could defeat them.

Lesson Two: Sin Leads to Defeat The Prophet's jihad continued and the Muslims were defeated at the battle of Uhud because a group of archers had disobeyed orders to guard the rear and rushed forward to get their share of booty, thinking that victory was theirs. This allowed the Meccans to launch a cavalry charge into the opening and win. But Muslims found victory in defeat. The Muslims believed they had lost because of the sin of greed for gold and they learned the lesson that sin leads to defeat. Yet defeat on the battlefield still led them to victory in the higher jihad, the inner struggle to purify oneself of sin. The Koran said in 3:139: “Lose not heart, nor fall into despair: for ye must gain mastery if ye are true in faith.” Spiritual renewal would pave their way to eventual victory:

Verse 3:166 says: “What ye suffered on the day the two armies met, was with the leave of Allah, in order that He might test the believers.” Today, members of Al-Qaeda will not be deterred by defeat in Afghanistan or Iraq with the example of Uhud before them. Instead, they see it as

68

Beyond Jihad

a test of faith and a lesson from Allah to purify themselves from sin and rededicate themselves to Allah's cause.

Lesson Three: Demand That Others Surrender to Allah It was this reliance on faith that enabled the Muslims to conquer Arabia in the seventh century. Around 628 A.D the Roman Emperor Heraclius in Jerusalem received a letter from Mohammed asking him to become a Muslim. This was in fact an invitation to surrender to Allah and his Prophet. Failure to do so meant war. Mohammed also sent letters to the rulers of Persia, Abysinnia, Bahrain and Oman. It appears that some things have not changed in fourteen centuries. In a letter to America, purportedly written by Osama bin Laden, and published in the London Observer on November 24, 2004, the terrorist leader (or holy warrior depending on which side you are on) said:

As for the second question that you want an answer: What are we calling you to, and what do we want from you? The first thing that we are calling you to is Islam. His confidence in eventual victory is shown from this verse from the Koran (61:9) quoted by him in the letter:

It is He who has sent his Messenger with guidance and the religion of truth (Islam), to make it victorious over all other religions even though the Polytheists hate it. Towards the end of the letter, Osama wrote:

If the Americans refuse to listen to our advice and the goodness, guidance and righteousness that we call them to, then be aware that you will lose this crusade Bush began, just like the other Crusades in which you were humiliated by the hands of the Mujahideen, fleeing to your home in great silence and disgrace.

Looking for Another Saladin— Ohmyrus

69

Lesson Number Four: Declare Jihad Against Un-Islamic Rulers as well as Against the Infidels

After

Muhammed died in 632, Abu Bakr became the first Caliph,

Mohammed’s successor. He told the assembled Muslims to obey him as long as he obeyed God and His apostle, and if he disobeyed them they owed him no obedience. These idealistic words opened the door to rebellion for future rulers of Muslim lands right up to this present day, making Muslims difficult for any ruler to handle. The practical need for governments to compromise with unbending orthodoxy makes Muslim states vulnerable to charges of disobedience to God. Here is an example from contemporary times. The Economist, in an article published on October 13, 2001, reported that an eighty year old cleric, Sheik Hamoud bin Ogla an-Shuaibi, had issued a fatwa against the ruling Saudi family. When summoned by the authorities to explain himself, it is recorded that he said that whoever backed the infidel against Muslims must be considered an infidel. This sentiment is common in Saudi Arabia, which explains why Osama bin Laden is considered a hero there. When King Fadh invited the Americans in to protect the Kingdom from attack by Saddam Hussein after the invasion of Kuwait in 1990, Bin Laden was furious. He considered that the House of Saud was breaking the last injunction that the Prophet gave as recounted by his followers:

It has been narrated by 'Umar b. al-Khattib that he heard the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) say: I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslim.3 The Koran (5:51) also says: “Believers, take neither the Jews nor the Christians for your friends. They are friends with one another. Whoever of you seeks their friendship shall become one of their number.” Clearly, it is against scripture to have allowed infidel Americans to put their boots on sacred Arabian soil. Defending that decision by explaining that the

70

Beyond Jihad

Kingdom needed the military strength of the United States to protect itself from the powerful Iraqi army was not an argument that impressed men of faith. Allah, after all, had granted the impoverished mujahadeen in Afghanistan victory against the Soviet Union? What was Saddam Hussein compared to a superpower? It was clear to Osama and Sheik Hamoud that the House of Saud preferred to rely on infidels rather than on Allah. Therefore, were they really true believers? Osama only became more infuriated when the Americans did not go home after Saddam was defeated. To Muslims like Osama, having infidel troops on sacred Arabian soil was an offense to Islam and merited a jihad. Yet according to moderate Muslims, jihad is permissible only in self-defense. But what is considered “selfdefense”? The clause of self-defense opens a wide loop-hole for creative interpretation and thus Osama has extended his jihad against all the infidels. Osama, of course, was not the first to declare jihad against “Christendom”. Under Umar, the second Caliph, Christendom lost Egypt, Palestine and Iraq. Byzantine armies weakened by years of warfare against the Persians were no match for the Arab warriors who could hide in the desert where the Romans could not go. The Christians were also weakened by division because the Emperor favored the Orthodox Church and the Nestorians, Monophysites and Copts resented this. Under Umar, the ancient Persian Empire was also partially conquered and later, under Caliph Muawiya, the Umayyad empire stretched from the Maghreb to the Sind in India. Despite the fact that a later jihad against Christendom to capture Constantinople failed, eight centuries later it too fell to the Ottoman Turks. Elsewhere, Muslim forces were more successful. Spain fell to the Moors and the tide of jihad entered France. Charles Martel stopped them there at the Battle of Poitiers (also known as Tours). This was the western gate and Christendom was saved. If the Franks had been defeated, as historian Edward Gibbons once said: Perhaps the interpretation of the Koran would be taught in the schools of Oxford, and her pulpits demonstrate to a circumcised people the sanctity and truth of the revelation of Mahomed.4

Looking for Another Saladin— Ohmyrus

71

Lesson Five: Decline Comes When Muslims Forget God’s Commandments. Despite the spread of Islam across North Africa, Spain and as far as India by means of jihad, decline set in eventually. The Umayyad Caliphs were irreligious and, I suspect, some of the Caliphs may not have been true believers. For example, it is said that Caliph Walid II stuck a Koran on his lance and shot arrows at it His court was full of debauchery. He surrounded himself with poets, dancing girls and musicians. The Umayyads had always been considered “godless” by their opponents and they failed to satisfy the pious. According to noted Islamic historian, Rafiq Zakaria, it was their betrayal of the concept of Islamic brotherhood, irrespective of race and language, that brought them down. In 750, a general, Abul Abbas, invited eighty Umayyad nobles to his home for dinner and slaughtered them. This ended the Umayyad dynasty, with the exception of Spain. Zakaria is echoing a familiar theme among Muslim historians. Decline will always come when Muslims forget Allah's commandments, as had happened in Uhud. Renewal lies in a return to the first principles as taught by the Prophet. This theme recurs again and again throughout the centuries right up to the present day. For the Muslim, history is a cycle of rise and fall and then renewal. By the eleventh century, Christendom was strong enough to mount a counterattack to recover formerly Christian areas including the Holy Land. In 1061, Count Roger invaded Muslim Sicily and Sicily returned to Christendom in 1091. In 1085, Frankish knights fought alongside Spaniards to recover Toledo. The re-conquest of Spain had begun. But Muslim power was still potent and made inroads against the tottering Byzantine Empire. The Byzantine Empire was defeated at Manzikert and never recovered. Thus in 1095, Byzantine Emperor Alexius Comnenus I asked the Pope for help. In the same year, Pope Urban II launched the first Crusade to help the ailing empire and to recover the Holy Land, which had originally been part of the Byzantine Empire. By 1099, the Crusaders captured Jerusalem and massacred both Jews and Muslims. The loss of Sicily and the Holy Land was a humiliation for Muslims. The third most sacred city

72

Beyond Jihad

Jerusalem, with its Dome on the Rock, was under infidel rule and Crusader states were established. But in 1187, Saladin declared jihad and recaptured Jerusalem after defeating the Christian army at Hattin. The process of Islamic renewal had begun. The defenders threatened to destroy Al Aqsa and the Dome on the Rock. A deal was struck. In exchange for ransom, the Christians could leave. Saladin kept his word and not a Christian was killed. To many modern Muslims, the Crusades are still fresh in their memories. The presence of Israel, considered by them to be the modern “Crusader state” kept afloat by the U.S, is a constant humiliation, especially for people like Osama bin Laden. Muslims are waiting for a modern day Saladin to restore the Ummah to power and glory. They cannot understand why Allah seems to have deserted them. Muslims are amongst the poorest and least educated people in the world ruled mostly by tyrants who appear to be doing the bidding of the “infidel” Americans. To them, it should not be this way. Many Muslims still dream of their golden past when their green pennants fluttered proudly from Spain to India. What makes the humiliation worse is that the “infidel” west is corrupting the minds of Muslims with their ubiquitous alien culture. Many Muslim women are envious of the freedom that their occidental sisters enjoy, which brings shudders to the conservative Islamist. Western ideas about democracy are seductive and are challenging the Muslim model of the Islamic state where all laws are made not by man but by God as revealed through his Prophet. A lamentation for their low estate can be seen in a poem, called Shikwa, written by Iqbal, an ideologue of the Pakistan movement. The poem asks why Allah is unfaithful to Muslims when Muslims remain faithful to Him. A part of the poem says:

Your blessings are showered on homes of unbelievers, strangers all. Only on the poor Muslim, Your wrath like lightning falls.5 To other Muslims, it must be because they have not been faithful enough to Allah. The solution is greater piety and more sacrifice. To the members of Al-Qaeda,

Looking for Another Saladin— Ohmyrus

73

keeping faith with Allah means martyrdom. Greater devotion will lead to renewal of the Ummah as happened so many times in Islamic history. That is why some see Osama bin Laden as the new Saladin coming to restore Muslims to their rightful place in the world. The sad truth is that Islam has retarded their progress. In conclusion I would like to add that the Islamic world is by no means monolithic. No religion is. Not all Muslims will see things the way I have described in this article. But many do. The danger is that political correctness may have blinded many westerners to the dangers. Such people like to insist that Islam means peace and that Osama’s ideas do not represent the “real Islam”. The truth, however, is a lot more complex. It does not matter what real Islam is. There is a militant component in Islam and there are many Muslims whose worldview is as I described. For those afflicted with political correctness, let me leave you will a quote from Ayatollah Khomeini:

But those who study Islamic Holy War will understand why Islam wants to conquer the whole world. Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those (who say this) are witless.6 If you are one of the politically correct, I think he was referring to you!

1

For the complete speeches of Ayatollah Khomeini, see http://www.bbc.co.uk/persian/revolution/khomeini.shtml

2

M. J Akbar "The Shade of Swords", ( London: Routledge, 2002) p. 9

3

Source:http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/019.smt.html#019.436 6 ( Sahih Muslim 19:4366)

4

Op cit., "The Shade of Swords" , p. 50. See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tours 5 Muhammad Iqbal, Shikwa and Jawab-i-Shikwa (Complaint and Answer) Iqbal's Dialogue with Allah (Translated from the Urdu, with an introduction by Khushwant Singh) London: Oxford University Press, 1991 6

Op. cit., http://www.bbc.co.uk/persian/revolution/khomeini.shtml.

AN EXEGESIS ON ‘JIHAD’ IN ISLAM Syed Kamran Mirza

September 11, 2001 came like a thunderbolt out of the blue to strike at the core meaning of Islam. Since then, Islamists have been busy defending Islam which, according to them, was hijacked by militants. Is Islam a peaceful religion as they claim? What is the real significance of Jihad in Islam? This essay is dedicated to exploring the practical meaning and purpose of Islamic Jihad.

What is the meaning of Jihad? The meaning of Jihad in Webster’s Dictionary is “Holy War”. But equally the meaning of “Crusade” is also Holy War. Most people would agree that historically both “Jihads” and “Crusades” were soaked with blood. Why then are we debating and trying to redefine Jihad at this juncture? The answer is because today the world is experiencing violent Jihad everywhere. In the Arabic language the word “Jihad” literally means, “to strive,” and “to struggle.” Some Muslim scholars further classify Jihad into the following categories:

1. Jihad-an-nafs or Jihad against one’s self; 2.

Jihad ash-shaitaan or Jihad against Satan;

3. Jihad al-kuffar or Jihad against disbelievers; 4.

Jihad al-munafiqeen or Jihad against hypocrites;

5.

Jihad al-faasiqeen or Jihad against corrupt Muslims.

76

Beyond Jihad I would argue that these various interpretations of Jihad are merely

semantic loopholes which can confuse many people. Personally, I am not very impressed by the various scholarly meanings of the Arabic word “Jihad.” We know very well that in every language certain words may have many different meanings depending on their usage. The meaning of any word is always understood in the context of its practical use. Consider the word “Jihad” which means struggle. This struggle may have various circumstantial (contextual) meanings. “Struggle” can be in your mind, in your own life, in your work, on your way to office fighting the traffic, or a struggle may be fighting with the enemy. You can say: “I am fighting with my mind whether I should accept it or not,” or “I am fighting with my wife over the decision to change our house” or you can say “I am fighting a war with my enemy.” Now anyone can see that the meaning of the word “fight” varies greatly with its circumstantial use. Sometimes the actual meaning of a particular word may even change through the context in which it is used. Consider the Perso-Indian (Urdu) word “Razakar” which means “helper of Kings.” However, by its circumstantial and historical use, the meaning may have changed greatly. In 1971, during the Bangalee freedom struggle (War of Freedom or Muktijuddha) the Razakars killed, raped and tortured millions of freedom-loving Bangalees. Now, in Bangladesh, calling somebody a Razakar is not salutary but, on the contrary, it is an epithet that is demeaning. If you call somebody a Razakar, he may physically assault you. Why? The circumstantial and historical effects have changed the meaning and nuances of the word Razakar from helper to vile conspirator. That is why we must understand the meaning of Jihad within its historical and circumstantial context. Therefore I shall search for the real meaning of Jihad based on its: a) History b) Qur’anic referrals c) References to it in the Hadiths d) Interpretations by historians and Islamic scholars.

An Exegesis on Jihad—Syed Mirza

77

A. The Historical Meaning of Jihad: For 1400 years, Muslims always understood the meaning of Jihad as Islamic Holy War or fighting for the cause of religion. Every Islamic scholar, mullah, maulana or imam in the world agreed with this meaning of Jihad. Technically, Jihad is a war against non-Muslims. Other forms such as Jihad alkuffar or Jihad against disbelievers and Jihad al-munafiqeen or Jihad against hypocrites are not usually engaged in since Muslims are forbidden to fight other Muslims. Hundreds of books have been written by Islamic scholars on Jihad and everybody unanimously has used the word “Jihad” to mean religious war or Holy War. In Islamic history, more than eighty per cent of the texts are filled with instances of Holy War (Jihad). Indeed, early Islam was spread in the Arabian Peninsula solely by Holy Wars (Jihad). Islam continued to be propagated as a religion by a series of wars and battles, both defensive as well as offensive. As many as seventy eight historic battles were fought by the Prophet Muhammad himself. And out of seventy eight, only one (Battle of Ditch) was a defensive war. The rest were simply offensive wars or armed expeditions. Did Muslim soldiers go to Syria, Iran, and Egypt to fight defensive wars? What about those great historical battles—the Battle of Uhud, the Battle of Bad’r, the Battle of Khayber or the signing of peace-pacts such as “Hudaibya Peace Pact”? Were those wars so-called internal struggles only? Or were those wars really fought offensively? In fact the Prophet Muhammed and his successors initiated a series of offensive wars against pagan Arabs, Jews, Christians and others to spread or to impose Islam by force as well as to seize the abundance (booty) of these lands. However, it was quite possible that there were some small numbers of conversions by the sheer greatness of the Prophet himself or due to some other miracle. Nevertheless, a great majority were converted by force, and the people of Arabia did not have the freedom to choose. After the Prophet Muhammad gained enough strength while in Medina, he established the tradition of sending an invitation to accept Islam to various Arab tribes or countries. Pagans, for example were invited to

78

Beyond Jihad

accept Islam, then wars were waged against those who refused to accept Islam. One the other hand, a typical invitation to the people of the book (Christians and Jews) was: ”Embrace Islam, or pay the poll-tax (Ziziya), or fight unto death.” The Prophet Muhammad, himself, was injured seriously in one of those wars he fought so relentlessly. The Prophet’s uncle, Amir Hamzah, was killed and dismembered and his liver and heart were eaten by the wife of a pagan tribe leader, Abu Sufian. Without any doubt, the concept of an offensive war to spread the faith of Islam is genuinely Islamic and history is replete with Islamic wars in which tens of thousands of lives were lost and much bloodshed occurred.

B. What Does the Qur’an Say about Jihad? Jihad, meaning “warfare”, is mentioned in the Qur’an frequently, often coupled with “fi sabil Allah”(in the way of Allah).”Jihad is also a pivotal concern in the Hadith and the Shari’ah, which we shall explore later in this essay. Almost all the hateful, coercive and intimidating verses later in the Qur’an were made with respect to Jihad. It is important to note, however, that the Prophet Muhammad, while in Mecca, did not have many supporters and was very weak compared to the Pagans. It was at that time he added some “soft”, peaceful verses (one dozen at most in the whole Qur’an) which Islamists use to hide the truth about Islam. But in Medina, Muhammad quickly assumed both religious and political power and gained leadership over the whole Medina community. It was at that time he added all the harsh Qur’anic verses (several hundreds of them) in order to incite his followers to fight. In the Holy Qur’an one can find hundreds of verses (Ayats) which dictate to Muslims to fight holy wars (Jihad) against nonMuslims infidels. Let me cite a few of them:

Qur’an-9:5: “But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, And seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war) ; but if they repent (accept Islam) and establish regular

An Exegesis on Jihad—Syed Mirza prayers and practices regular charity then open the way for them; for God is oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.” Qur’an-8:65: “O Apostle ! Rouse the believers to the fight, if there are twenty amongst you, patient and persevering, they will vanquish two hundred; if a hundred, they will vanquish a thousand of the unbelievers; for these are a people without understanding.” Quran-2:216: Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you. Qur’an-2:191: “And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out… …such is the reward of those who suppress faith.” Qur’an-9:29: “Fight those who believe not the Allah nor the last day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and his apostle, nor acknowledge the religion of truth even if they are the people of the book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” Qur’an-48:20: “….Allah promises you much booty (spoils of war) that you will capture from the defeated infidels….” Quran-8:38 “And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression” Quran-8:12: I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them . Quran-8: 15,16: O ye who believe! When ye meet the Unbelievers in hostile array, never turn your backs to them. If any do turn his back to them on such a day—unless it be in a stratagem of war, or to retreat to a troop (of his own)—he draws on himself the wrath of Allah, and his abode is Hell,—an evil refuge (indeed)! Quran-9:111: Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise):

79

80

Beyond Jihad they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Quran-9:73: O Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites! Be harsh with them. Their ultimate abode is hell, a hapless journey’s end. Quran-9:123: O ye who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allah is with those who keep their duty (unto Him). Quran-4:95: O ye who believe! Shall I show you a commerce that will save you from a painful doom? You should believe in Allah and His messenger, and should strive for the cause of Allah with your wealth and your lives. That is better for you, if ye did but know. ... Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than those who sit (at home).

C. Jihad in the Hadiths: Editor’s Note: The hadith can be described as a collection of sayings concerning Muhammed’s way of life, his habits, customs and practices, and those of his companions which are viewed as a model for Muslims. Fighting for the cause of Allah (Jihad) was sanctioned widely in the sahi hadiths. Almost one-third of the nine volumes of Bukhari, Islam’s principal collector of Hadith, focused on Jihad as physical war. While there are thousands of sahi hadiths that refer to Jihad, I cannot include them all in this short essay. The following are a few examples:

Narrated by Abu Huraira: I heard Allah's Apostle saying, “The example of a Mujahid in Allah's Cause—and Allah knows better who really strives in His Cause—is like a person who fasts and prays continuously. Allah guarantees that He will admit the Mujahid in His Cause into Paradise if he is killed, otherwise He will return him to his home safely with rewards and war booty (maal-e-gani-maat).”1

An Exegesis on Jihad—Syed Mirza Narrated by Anas bin Malik: The Prophet said, “Nobody who dies and finds good from Allah (in the Hereafter) would wish to come back to this world even if he were given the whole world and whatever is in it, except the martyr who, on seeing the superiority of martyrdom, would like to come back to the world and get killed again (in Allah's Cause).”2 Narrated by Anas: The Prophet said, “A single endeavor (of fighting) in Allah's Cause in the afternoon or in the forenoon is better than all the world and whatever is in it. A place in Paradise as small as the bow or lash of one of you is better than all the world and whatever is in it. And if a houri from Paradise appeared to the people of the earth, she would fill the space between Heaven and the Earth with light and pleasant scent and her head cover is better than the world and whatever is in it.”3 Narrated by Samura: The Prophet said, “Last night two men came to me (in a dream) and made me ascend a tree and then admitted me into a better and superior house, better of which I have never seen. One of them said, 'This house is the house of martyrs.”4 Narrated by Anas bin Malik: The Prophet said, “A single endeavor (of fighting) in Allah's cause in the forenoon or in the afternoon is better than the world and whatever is in it.”5 Narrated by Ibn 'Abbas: Allah's Apostle said, “There is no Hijra (i.e. migration) (from Mecca to Medina) after the Conquest (of Mecca), but Jihad and good intention remain; and if you are called (by the Muslim ruler) for fighting, go forth immediately.”6 Narrated by Abu Huraira: The Prophet said, “By Him in Whose Hands my life is! Were it not for some men amongst the believers who dislike to be left behind me and whom I cannot provide with means of conveyance, I would certainly never remain behind any Sariya' (army-unit) setting out in Allah's Cause. By Him in Whose Hands my life is! I would love to be martyred in Al1ah's Cause and then get resurrected and then get martyred, and then get resurrected again and then get martyred and then get resurrected again and then get martyred.”7

81

82

Beyond Jihad

The Mishkat al-Masabih, translated by James Robson, also notes:

Al-Miqdam b. Madikarib reported God’s messenger as saying, “The martyr receives six good things from God: he is forgiven at the first shedding of his blood, he is shown his abode in paradise, he is preserved from the punishment in the grave, he is kept safe from the greatest terror, he has placed on his head the crown of honour(sic) a ruby which is better than the world and what it contains, he is married to seventy-two wives of the maidens with large dark eyes, and is made intercessor for seventy of his relatives.” Tirmidhi and Ibn Majah transmitted it.8 D. Jihad in the works of Islamic Historians, Scholars and Philosophers: We can find hundreds of books written by well-known Islamic authorities (Islamic Chintabid or thinkers) on Jihad. A few examples of historical events their commentary should be enough support my argument that Jihad in Islamic history was primarily a Holy War against the infidels. Here are some examples: In his book, Jurisprudence in Muhammad’s Biography the Azhar scholar, Dr. Muhammad Sa’id Ramadan al-Buti wrote the following:

The Holy War (Islamic Jihad), as it is known in Islamic Jurisprudence, is basically an offensive war. This is the duty of Muslims in every age when the needed military power becomes available to them. This is the phase in which the meaning of Holy war has taken its final form. Thus the apostle of God said: ' I was commanded to fight the people until they believe in Allah and his messages.9 In the same book, Azhar scholar Dr. Buti added: The apostle of Allah started to send military detachments from among his followers to the various Arab tribes which were scattered in the Arab Peninsula to carry out the task of calling (these tribes) to accept Islam. If they did not respond, they (Muslims) would kill them. That was during the 7th Hgira year. The number of the detachments amounted to ten.10

An Exegesis on Jihad—Syed Mirza

83

The well-known Egyptian scholar member of the Muslim Brotherhood, Sayyid Qutb11, noted four stages in the development of jihad: 1. While the earliest Muslims remained in Mecca before fleeing to Medina, God did not allow them to fight; 2. Permission is given to Muslims to fight against their oppressors; 3. God commands Muslims to fight those fighting them; 4. God commands the Muslims to fight against all polytheists. Sayyid Qutb viewed each stage to be replaced by the next stage in this order, the fourth stage to remain permanent. To justify the universal and permanent dimensions of Jihad he cited the following Qur’anic passages:

Quran: 4:74-32: They ought to fight in the way of God who have sold the life of this world for the life of the Hereafter; and whoever fights in the way of God and is killed or becomes victorious, to him shall We (God) give a great reward... Quran: 8:38-40: and fight them until there is no oppression and the religion is wholly for God.... Quran: 9:29-32: Fight against those among the People of the Book (Jews and Christians) who do not believe in God and the Last Day, who do not forbid what God and His messenger have forbidden, until they are subdued and pay jizyah (tax on non-Muslims) ... Sayyid Qutb, moreover, poured scorn upon those who viewed Jihad as solely defensive:

...They are ignorant of the nature of Islam and of its function, and that it has a right to take the initiative for human freedom. Thus wherever an Islamic community exists which is a concrete example of the Divinely-ordained system of life, it has a Godgiven right to step forward and take control of the political authority so that it may establish the Divine system on earth, while it leaves the matter of belief to individual conscience.12

84

Beyond Jihad Likewise the popular Pakistani Muslim revivalist, Abu’l Ala Mawdudi,

rejected any distinction between offensive and defensive Jihad. So, too, did the distinguished contemporary Pakistani scholar, Fazlur Rahman. While recognizing the extensive presence of Jihad in the Qur’an, he rejected the stand of modern Muslim apologists who tried to explain the Jihad of the early Muslim community in purely defensive terms.13 In fact, according to the Encyclopaedia of Islam, “the fight is obligatory even when the unbelievers have not started it.”14 In the words of Rudolph Peters, the “ultimate aim of Jihad is ‘the subjugation of the unbelievers’ and ‘the extirpation of unbelief.’”15 More recently one Muslim scholar, Professor Musbi Urrehman Yusufi from the Faisal Masjid Islamic Centre in Islamabad, appearing on Glasgow-based Radio Ramadhan in a program, Baaz Gasht, in December 2002, was invited to speak on Jihad and terrorism. According to him it was permissible to engage in suicide bombings and he refused to condemn such acts by any Muslim anywhere since Muslim states are not performing their duty as Muslims to wage war on non-Muslims in defense of Islam and Islamic dahwa or propagation. All of these authorities simply echo Islam’s fundamental assumption that world sovereignty must be in the hands of Muslims. Furthermore there arose within the Muslim community the principle of Qur’anic interpretation, called naskh (“abrogation”) which stipulated that earlier peaceful verses could be abrogated by later militant verses.

Qur’an: 16:101: And when We put a revelation in place of (another) revelation,—and Allah knoweth best what He revealed— they say: Lo! thou art but inventing. Most of them know not. Thus in the case of Jihad the Meccan verses were abrogated by the Medinan verses. It is well known that many Muslim scholars in the early history of Islam contended that Qur’an 9:5, sometimes called “the verse of the sword”, abrogated a host of peaceful passages in earlier portions of the Qur’an. What it signified in the past, and signifies at present for masses of Muslims, is well summarized in a

An Exegesis on Jihad—Syed Mirza

85

statement by the world-renowned Ibn Khaldun (A.D. 1332-1406), Islam’s great historian, sociologist and philosopher:

In the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the (Muslim) mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force. Therefore, caliphate and royal authority are united in (Islam), so that the person in charge can devote the available strength to both of them at the same 16 This interpretation is derived from the Qur’an itself:

Qur’an: 8:60: Against them (kaffirs) make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war (tanks, places, missiles and other weapons, etc.) to strike terror into the (hearts of) the Enemy of Allah and your enemy, and others beside, whom you may not know, but whom Allah does know. Whatever you shall spend in the Cause of Allah, shall be repaid to you, and you shall not be treated unjustly. How many terrorists find their justification in this verse “to strike terror into the hearts of the enemy”? Thus the majority of the Qur’an’s texts themselves clearly identify Jihad as physical warfare in Islam and, Islamically, God’s way of establishing the Kingdom of God on earth. Likewise, from the Hadith and the earliest biographies of Muhammad it is just as evident that the early Muslim community understood these Qur’anic texts to be taken literally. Historically, therefore, from the time of Muhammad onward, Jihad as physical warfare in support of the message of Islam has been a reality for the Muslim community. Hence, it should come as no surprise when terrorists such as Osama Bin Laden and al-Qaeda appeal to these source materials to justify their actions, not to speak of their teachers, the imams, who teach the theory and the art of terrorism. The September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on America exemplify the Jihadi mindset of Islamists. The Qur’anic Ayats (mentioned above) and numerous Sahi Hadiths

86

Beyond Jihad

were instrumental in getting Muslims to dedicate their strength and minds to the cause of Islam. Therefore, in the name of spreading the religion, devout Muslim fighters killed millions of people while occupying neighboring Arab lands such as Syria, Jordan, Palestine, Egypt, Iraq and non-Arab countries like India, Turkey, Libya, Iran and so on. Even Spain had fallen into their hands for hundreds of years. I simply wonder if these wars were defensive? Can those swords used by Islamic soldiers to occupy country after country be considered a symbol of forgiveness or mercy? Following Muhammad’s death, his companions fought each other in relentless savage wars competing for authority. Islamic Jihad advanced with the help of the Islamic sword and in the process hundreds of tribes were wiped out from the Arabian Peninsula, creating orphans and widows. After the death of the Prophet Muhammad, his four favorite disciples ruled the Islamic kingdom established by him and were known as the most pious Caliphs. Out of these four Caliphs, three were brutally assassinated and only one had a natural death due to old age. Karbala was flooded with blood with a roar of “Allahu Akbar!” Can the Islamic sword be a sign of mercy? The fact of the matter is that no sword can never be a sign of mercy! The sources I have cited above clearly depict a special and unique feature of Islam which is totally absent from any of the other monotheistic religions of the world, or any other world religion for that matter. Islam’s agenda has an ulterior motive. Islam considers it has a sacred and mandatory God-given duty to spread the Islamic message (Din-e-Islam) to all the inhabitants of the world, by force if necessary. The ultimate goal of the Islamists is to convert and bring all of mankind under the fold of Islam, the only true religion of Allah. Two main groups are working very hard today to achieve this goal today: militant, radical mullahs, as well as educated Islamic elites residing in the West but who are true believers. Many of these true believers head advocacy groups such as the American Muslim Committee or the Council on American Islamic Relations. Both these groups have one thing common and that is the desire to convert large numbers of people to Islam in order to establish Islamic Sharia’h or Huhud Laws as the law of the land.

An Exegesis on Jihad—Syed Mirza

87

Here is the main difference between these two groups. The militant fanatics are engaged in armed struggle (Holy war or terrorism), while Muslim elites residing in the West are engaged in the secret propagation of Islam. Both groups, however, have one final goal in mind—to establish Islamic Sharia’h law in the countries in which they live. Of course we must exclude all the generally God-fearing innocent, but gullible, Muslims who constitute about seventy or eighty per cent of all Muslims. It is they who must start to recognize what “pure” Islam means. If Islamists want to attribute a novel meaning—a more politically correct one—to the word “Jihad“, they had better first change the Qur’an, Hadiths and all the Islamic history books available in libraries throughout the world by re-writing a new peaceful Islamic history. That would lead to reform in Islam which, sadly, the mullahs will never permit. 1

Sahi Bukhari: Volume 4, Book 52, Number 46:

2

Sahi Bukhari: Volume 4, Book 52, Number 53:

3

Sahi Bukhari: Volume 4, Book 52, Number 48:

4

Sahi Bukhari: Volume 4, Book 52, Number 49:

5

Sahi Bukhari: Volume 4, Book 52, Number 50:

6

Sahi Bukhari: Volume 4, Book 52, Number 42:

7

Sahi Bukhari: Volume 4, Book 52, Number 54: Here are some additional hadiths focusing on Jihad:

Sahi Bukhari: Volume 4, Book 52, Number 55: Narrated by Anas bin Malik: Prophet of Allah said, "Zaid took the flag and was martyred, and then Ja'far took the flag and was martyred, and then 'Abdullah bin Rawaha took the flag and was martyred too, and then Khalid bin Al-Walid took the flag though he was not appointed as a commander and Allah made him victorious." The Prophet further added, "It would not please us to have them with us." Aiyub, a sub-narrator, added, "Or the Prophet, shedding tears, said, 'It would not p ease them to be with us." Sahi Bukhari: Volume 4, Book 52, Number 61: Narrated by Anas: My uncle Anas bin An-Nadr was absent from the Battle of Badr. He said, "O Allah's Apostle! I was absent from the first battle you fought against the pagans. By Allah, if Allah gives me a chance to fight the pagans, no doubt. Allah will see how (bravely) I will fight." On the day of Uhud when the Muslims turned their backs and fled, he said, "O Allah! I apologize to You for what these (i.e. his companions) have done, and I denounce what these (i.e. the pagans) have done." Then he advanced and Sad bin Muadh met him. He said "O Sad bin

88

Beyond Jihad

Muadh ! By the Lord of An-Nadr, Paradise! I am smelling it’s aroma coming from before (the mountain of) Uhud," Later on Sad said, "O Allah's Apostle! I cannot achieve or do what he (i.e. Anas bin An-Nadr) did. We found more than eighty wounds by swords and arrows on his body. We found him dead and his body was mutilated so badly that none except his sister could recognize him by his fingers." Sahi Bukhari: Volume 4, Book 52, Number 63: Narrated by Al-Bara: A man whose face was covered with an iron mask (i.e. clad in armor) came to the Prophet and said, "O Allah's Apostle! Shall I fight or embrace Islam first? "The Prophet said, "Embrace Islam first and then fight." So he embraced Islam, and was martyred. Allah's Apostle said, A Little work, but a great reward. "(He did very little (after embracing Islam), but he will be rewarded in abundance)." Sahi Bukhari: Volume 4, Book 52, Number 64: Narrated by Anas bin Malik: Um Ar-Rubai'bint Al-Bara', the mother of Hartha bin Suraqa came to the Prophet and said, "O Allah's Prophet! Will you tell me about Hartha?" Hartha has been killed (i.e. martyred) on the day of Badr with an arrow thrown by an unidentified person. She added, "If he is in Paradise, I will be patient; otherwise, I will weep bitterly for him." He said, "O mother of Hartha! There are Gardens in Paradise and your son got the Firdausal-ala (i.e. the best place in Paradise)." 8

James Robson, translator, Mishkat al-Masabih, Vol. 1:814 ((Lahore: Ashraf, 1975)

9

Dr. Muhammad Sa’id Ramadan al-Buti , Jurisprudence in Muhammad’s Biography, (7th edition, page 134)

10

Ibid, page 263

11

Sayyid Qutb, Milestones, Revised Edition, Beirut: The Holy Koran Publishing House, 1980Chapter. 4, “Jihad in the Cause of God"

12

Ibid.

13

Fazlur Rahman, Islam (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979, page 37).

14

E. Tyan, “Djihad”, in Encyclopaedia of Islam, 2nd ed. (Leiden: Brill, 1965).

15

Rudolph Peters, “Jihad”, The Encyclopedia of Religion (New York: Macmillan, 1987) Vol. 8:88-91).

16

Ibn Khaldun, The Muqaddimah, Vol. 1:473 translated by Franz Rosenthal (New York: Pantheon Books Inc., 1958)

IS KILLING BY BEHEADING ISLAMIC? Syed Kamran Mirza

Beheading is, of course, the Islamic way of meting justice to infidels, criminals, and sinners. This cruel method of killing infidels is sanctioned by Islamic Sharia laws. Denying that the grotesque beheading of western “kaffirs“ (impure unbelievers) by Islamist terrorists in Iraq is Islamic is yet another clear sign of hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty by the defenders of radical Islam. Islamists are not ready to bear the burden of ugly reality, yet the facts indicate that human beheading is one hundred per cent consistent with sacred Islamic Jihadi practices. Hatred towards people who follow other religions such as Jews and Christians, as well as Hindus and other polytheists, are a part of the teachings of the Islamic holy book, the Qur’an. In fact, beheading was practiced by the Prophet Muhammad himself during the seventh century and by most Islamic rulers thereafter. Islamists, however, are unwilling to tell the truth about the role of beheading in Islam! Following the recent beheadings of Americans and other foreigners in Iraq and Saudi Arabia, the American press turned to various experts to identify a precedent in the Quran or in Islamic history for this kind of gory murder. Here are some answers given the press by one mullah! Imam Muhammad Adam El-Sheik, co-founder and chief cleric at the Dar Al Hijrah Mosque at Falls Church, Virginia told USA Today: “Beheadings are not mentioned in the Koran at all”. Yvonne Haddad, a professor at the Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown University agreed with the imam and added in New York Newsday: “There is absolutely nothing in Islam that justifies cutting off a

90

Beyond Jihad

person's head.” You are likely to get the same answer from any imam or mullah in the U.S . But is that the truth? Obviously, had beheading not been a sacred custom in ancient Islam, it would have been unnecessary for Islamist terrorists to kill their enemies in that manner. They could just as easily have killed their “infidel“ enemies (such as Daniel Pearl, Nicholas Berg, Kim Sun II, Paul Johnson and others) with a simple bullet. But those militants actually wanted to give an Islamic veneer to the infidel slayings because killing by beheading is considered so utterly degrading that only western infidels deserve this type of brutal killing. In fact the insurgent terrorists were only trying to follow in the footsteps of the Prophet Muhammad and were devoutly following Allah’s orders in the Qur’an which is replete with harsh verses which directly order Muslims to behead kaffirs, impure infidels. Let me cite some sample of those verses below: Quranic verses1 that dictate beheading Kaffirs:

5:33—The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution (by beheading), or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter; 8:12—I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off. 47:4—Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), strike off their heads; at length; then when you have made wide Slaughter among them, carefully tie up the remaining captives: thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom: Until the war lays down its burdens. 9:123—Oh ye who believe! Murder those of the disbelievers and let them find harshness in you.

Is Killing by Beheading Islamic—Syed Mirza

91

2:191—Kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from wherever they drove you out. 5: 45—We ordained therein for them: Life for life, eye for eye, nose for nose, ear for ear. Tooth for tooth, and wounds equal for equal. 2:193—Fight them on until there is no more tumult and religion becomes that of Allah 9:29—Fight those who do not believe in God and the last day... and fight People of the Book, (Christian and Jews) who do not accept the religion of truth (Islam) until they pay tribute (Zizziya tax) by hand, being inferior. 8:17—It is not ye who Slew them; it is God; when thou threwest a handful of dust, it was not Thy act, but God’s….. It is difficult to understand how Islamic mullahs can hide behind these authentic Qur’anic verses and pretend they do not exist. The Qur’anic scriptures incited early Muslim Jihadis to behead thousands of non-Muslims and other infidels. These same Quranic verses are still inciting devoutly fanatical Muslims today. During the early period of Islam, especially during Islamic expeditions by the Prophet Muhammad himself while he was in Medina, thousands of infidels were brutally beheaded by the Jihadis. Here is a case cited by Islamic historians.

When (the) Banu Qurayza Jewish tribe was surrendered (627 A.D.) unconditionally, the apostle confined them in Medina in the quarter of al-Harith, a woman of B. al-Najjar. Then the apostle went out to the market of Medina (which is still its market today) and dug trenches in it. Then he sent for them and struck off their heads in those trenches as they were brought out to him in batches tying theirs both hands with their necks. This beheading went on until the apostle made an end of them. There were 600 or 700 in all, though some put the figure as high as 800 or 900. Apparently Muhammad himself worked on the digging of the trench into which the massacred Jews were to be thrown. But he (Muhammad) did not only take part in those preparations, the formulation of the

92

Beyond Jihad text states but also participated himself in beading of at least two of the leading Jews.2

Dr. Andew Bostom’s article in Frontpage Magazine was equally blunt:

According to the biography of Prophet Muhammad by Ibn Ishaq, the Prophet Muhammad himself sanctioned the massacre of the Qurayza, a vanquished Jewish tribe, mercilessly. Thus some 600 to 900 men from the Qurayza were lead on Muhammad’s order to the Market of Medina. Trenches were dug and the men were beheaded, and their decapitated corpses buried in the trenches while Muhammad watched in attendance. Women and children were sold into slavery, a number of them being distributed as gifts among Muhammad’s companions, and Muhammad chose one of the Qurayza women (Rayhana) for himself. The Qurayza’s property and other possessions (including weapons) were also divided up as additional “booty” among the Muslims, to support further jihad campaigns.3 Historical Background. Let us acknowledge that beheading criminals with a sword or axe was a common practice by all ancient civilizations for thousands of years. In fact, beheading was widely used in Europe, Asia and Africa (by Muslims and nonMuslims alike) until the very early twentieth century, and only recently has the entire civilized world abandoned this ancient cruel practice of capital punishment. Today, however, this barbaric ancient practice still exists only in the Muslim world. Among the countries which use beheading are Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Yemen, Iran and Afghanistan under the Taliban. Beheadings have also occurred, perpetrated extra-judicially and without trial by vigilante Jihadis, in Algeria, Nigeria, Kashmir, Chechnya and the Muslim-dominated southern Philippines. Iranian mullahs have cut off the heads of some dissident political figures. Even the Beirut CIA station chief William Buckley was kidnapped by Hezbollah and sent to Iran, where he was beheaded in 1986.

Is Killing by Beheading Islamic—Syed Mirza

93

The Beheading Capital of the Modern World—Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is revered as the birth place of Islam. Saudi Arabia’s constitution is based on the holy Qur’an. Islamic Sharia (Islamic Hudut law) was formulated from the Qur’an and hadiths which permit beheading of infidels and vicious criminals such as murderers. There are those who claim, without giving any reasons, that Saudi Arabia is not a real Islamic country! Where else in the world today, then, is real Islam practiced? In fact Saudi Arabia uses public beheading as punishment for murder, rape, drug trafficking, sodomy, armed robbery, apostasy and certain other offences such as homosexuality and the illicit love affairs of Saudi girls (one Saudi princess was beheaded for illicit love). Forty five men and two women were beheaded in 2002 and a further fifty two men and one woman in 2003. The condemned of both sexes are given tranquilizers and then taken by police van to a public square or a car park after midday Friday prayers. Their eyes are covered and they are blindfolded. The police clear the square of traffic and a sheet of blue plastic about sixteen feet square is laid out on the ground. Dressed in their own clothes, barefoot, with shackled feet and hands cuffed behind their backs, the prisoners are led by a police officer to the center of the sheet where they are made to kneel facing Mecca. An Interior Ministry official reads out each prisoner's name and crime to the crowd of witnesses. Aside from beheadings, Saudi Arabia also cuts off the hands and feet of thieves. Condemned convicts are brought into the courtyard, hands tied, and forced to bow before an executioner, who swings a huge sword amid cries from onlookers of “Allahu Akbar!” Arabic for “God is great.” Saudi Arabia does this according to Islamic code and the Saudi government confirms the punishment (Qisas) is sanctioned by Islamic tradition. While prisoner abuse scandals at the Abu Ghraib jail in Iraq created a deluge of criticism of America, bringing forth apologies especially from the American media, it is astounding that brutal, barbaric beheadings of innocent civilian infidels in pre-war Iraq created virtually no remorse or condemnation in the Muslim world in general, or the Arab world in particular. In his Washington

94

Beyond Jihad

Post essay titled: “Where's the Arab Media's Sense of Outrage?” Mamoun Fandy a columnist for two daily newspapers, Asharq al-Awsat in London and al-Ahram in Cairo, expressed his outrage in this way:

As I scanned Arab satellite channels and Arabic newspapers, I found a lot of reporting on the brutal attacks by the terrorists, but very little condemnation and a widespread willingness to run the stomach-turning video and photos (beheadings) again and again. Showing videotapes of people being shot, beheaded or held hostage with a curved sword aimed at their neck is largely new terrain for the Arab media. As a media critic whose focus is the Arab world, I have watched perhaps a dozen Arab channels and read countless newspapers in recent weeks. I found that few Arab commentators and journalists noted either that major shift or its significance. In particular, the Kim and Johnson beheadings generally have been reported as if they were quite ordinary.4 On the other hand, Al-Jazeera, the Arab network, calls every Arab suicide bomber a shaheed, or martyr. Islamic radicals have killed writers in Algeria, Egypt and elsewhere whose work challenged the logic of martyrdom and “random jihad,” or killing foreigners in the name of Islam. But the lack of condemnation of the beheadings, despite their barbarism, is a direct result of a broad and dangerous trend in the Arab media and in Arab culture broadly. The Arab world today swims in a sea of linguistic violence that justifies terrorism and makes it acceptable, especially to the young. One Egyptian student told me that all Americans “deserve [killing] for their support to Israel and their occupation of Iraq.” A Kuwaiti who recently graduated from a university in Pennsylvania said of Americans, “Don't believe them when they say it is Al Qaeda that is slaying Americans. It is Americans who are killing Americans to justify their presence in the Arab world and to control Arab oil… Arabs should stop deceiving themselves by confusing the suffering of Arabs in Iraq and the occupied territories in Israel with the beheading of innocent people in Iraq and elsewhere.”

Is Killing by Beheading Islamic—Syed Mirza

95

Why Kill in the Islamic Way?: Many people cannot understand why Islamist terrorists use this ancient barbaric method of beheading (by sword, knives or axes) to kill kaffirs, instead of using the simple and sure method of bullets. The chief reason they are doing this is to demonstrate that they are true Muslims and true followers of the Prophet Muhammad. It is most surely not because they have a shortage of guns and pistols. But they are afraid to disobey the Prophet’s methods and tactics prescribed by the holy Qur’an. They are desperate to get the full benefits (of lucrative Islamic heavens as promised by the Qur’an) in their service to Islam. Therefore they are bound to use prophetic methods of killing and assassinating the enemies of Allah and the Prophet by slitting necks, cutting hands and legs by a long curved sword. This is the same reason why, in Bangladesh, the Jamati Islami’s student-wing, Chatra-Shibir’s jihadis, kill their opponents by cutting off their hands and feet. They want to follow the Islamic code. Islam still sits firmly anchored in the seventh century and will never move ahead.

Conclusion: I hope it is now clear why Islamic jihadis are cutting necks and chopping the wrists, hands and legs of unbelievers? They do so because they recognize that ‘beheading’ is the prescribed method of Islamic killing. Islamists also consider beheading to be the most degrading way of killing lowly “impure” human beings and they use this brutal, barbaric method to kill because they hate infidels. Our blindly hypocritical Muslim elites (both residing inside their native lands and outside in western democracies) are being intentionally ignorant about the real Islam. Their recitation of the phrase “this is not real Islam” will only add more fuel to the jihadi mindset and encourage them to commit more and more Islamic barbarism. Uttering the most heinous phrase: “This is not real Islam” will do no good to millions of Muslims. Islamic terrorists, Al-Qaeda jihadists, Osama Bin Laden, and Wahhabi followers are all perfectly pure Muslims who are acting by

96

Beyond Jihad

the book. They are ardent followers of Islamic scriptures. These jihadis will never listen to logic or advice; they take advice and teachings exclusively from the Qur’an and sahi hadiths (traditions of the Prophet Muhammad).The time has arrived to identify the real cause of this ancient medieval practice. The real problem is with the ancient teachings of Islam which are outdated and no longer fit today’s civilized world. Nothing can change the precarious situation of Muslims unless we, ourselves, realize the real problem and take care of it.

1

The Holy Qur’an, Translated by A. Yousuf Ali, (Brentwood, MD: Amana Corporation, 1983).

2

Buchari Sharif, Bengali Translation by Maulana Muhammad Mustafizur Rahman, (Dhaka: Sulemani Printers and Publishers, 2nd edition, 1999).

3

“The Sacred Muslim Practice of Beheading”, By Andrew G. Bostom: Front PageMagazine.com, May 13, 2004, http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13371 4

Where's the Arab Media's Sense of Outrage? by Mamoun Fandy, The Washington Post, Sunday, July 4, 2004, page B4

SUNNAH:* THE MISCONCEIVED DOGMA THAT HAS POISONED ISLAM Mesbah Uddin

*Editor’s Note: The Sunnah are the collected sayings, habits and practices of Muhammed and his companions. Together they comprise a way of life and a model for other Muslims. No doubt millions of educated Muslims today are highly critical of the adherence of religious scholars to ancient and corrupted dogmas which have poisoned Islam so severely that no cure can be achieved without the assistance of an Islamic Martin Luther. Yet frequently other Muslims quote George Bernard Shaw and refer to his book “The Genuine Islam”. The paragraph that most often appears in their works reads:

I have always held the religion of Muhammad in high estimation because of its wonderful vitality. It is the only religion which appears to me to possess that assimilating capacity to the changing phase of existence which can make itself appeal to every age. I have studied him—the wonderful man and in my opinion far from being an anti-Christ, he must be called the Savour of Humanity.1 George Bernard Shaw, after studying Muhammad, the prophet of Islam, was perhaps comparing Islam with the history of medieval Christianity, and weighing its malignant immoralities and debauchery with the nobility and brotherhood of early Islam. He must have read that, a year before Muhammad's death, he made his last pilgrimage from Medina to Mecca. There he gave a great

98

Beyond Jihad

sermon to his people that breathed a spirit of generosity amongst all the people of Arabia and beyond. Muslims had created a society more free from the widespread cruelty and social oppression than any society in the world heretofore. In contrast, for the Christians there was a long period between the era of Pope Innocent III, whose “Bull” caused the massacre of 20,000 men, women and children (Albigenses) in France, and the nailing of Martin Luther's ninety five questions on the Church door in Germany. During this time European society witnessed massive reforms. The reform movements of Peter Waldo of France, John Wycliffe of England, Jan Hus of Bohemia, Girolamo Savonarola of Italy, Michael Servetus of Spain, Ulrich Zwingli of Switzerland, William Tyndale of England and hundreds of others must have influenced George Bernard Shaw to lean heavily towards the fairness of early Islam, the pure Islam that Muhammad once preached. Bernard Shaw might have visualized the lives of those pioneering reformers of Christianity who were murdered, robbed, tortured, raped and burned to death for their beliefs in a Christianity different from the religious dogmas of the early Catholic church. But little did Shaw know that the falsehood and tyranny of religious dogma that once poisoned Christianity in Europe stealthily crept into Islam after the death of Muhammad. Stoning to death, apostasy (execution for renunciation of religious faith), and the “Bull” were the earth-shaking tools for Christendom prior to the Reformation. Yet similar venomous dogmas are strikingly enforced today in some Islamic countries with the active support of the mullahs. If the “Bull” was a system of expressing Papal ordinances to anyone in Christendom, its equivalence and carbon copy is the “fatwa” in Islam today. Has the practice of Islam been corrupted by accretions which came neither from God nor from the Prophet? The word “Sunnah”, up to the time of Muhammad, meant the practices of antiquity, especially in Yathrib, the city that had been ruled by early Jews since 66 AD who had taken shelter there to escape the massacre in Jerusalem by the Romans. Ironically Muhammad, too, took shelter there to save himself and his

Sunnah—Mesbah Uddin

99

followers from the tyranny of the Meccans. The name Yathrib eventually got changed to Madinatun-Nabi (The City of the Prophet) and in short Medina. From the beginning, Islam's uncompromising monotheism was believed to be based on the word of God, as revealed to Muhammad, as opposed to any personal teachings similar to those of Buddha or Jesus. But the dogmas of Sunnah soon acquired a different significance after Muhammad’s death. Particularly after the ninth century, the Sunnahs came to include the practices of Muhammad including whatever he said, did, or approved during his time. Now elevated to holiness with the same divinity as the Koran, has the doctrine of Sunnah substantially turned Islam into a religion that worships man? Has a personality cult led to war among its own people and effectively derailed Islam from its initial dedication to preventing widespread cruelty and social oppression? The Hadith literature, the source of the Sunnah, is believed to have been based on the words of Muhammad, as passed through his companions. While purportedly made in the name of the Prophet, a number of these sayings can actually be traced to Zoroastrian culture, the Christian Bible and even the laws and rituals of Byzantium. In a manner of speaking, the limited legislation in the Koran, basically the rules regarding marriage, divorce, inheritances, orphans, food and a few others occupy very little room in the whole canon of Sharia law. The vast bulk of Sharia law comes from the Sunnah and significantly from the Bukhari, conceived and recorded about 200 years after the death of Muhammad. Evidently, deeply submerged in Sharia law, are certain arbitrary laws added by the Muslim emperors and kings on their own, which they could then successfully invoke to settle questions arising in such diverse categories as systematic and moral theology, ritual, civil and military laws and so on. From its the inception, the Hadith literature has in fact presented rational readers with contradictory statements. Whether it was even permissible to write down the traditions of Muhammad in the early days of Islam is open to serious question. Abu Huraira, a late convert to Islam and a companion of Muhammad, narrated nearly 3,500 Hadith. This prolific narrator of Hadith stated in one Hadith

100

Beyond Jihad

that Muhammad, once observing his followers writing down his sayings, gave them a resolute warning to refrain from such a venture. He then cited the evils of making religious books out of the personal sayings of previous Prophets. Finally it is reported that he told them: “Do you not know that nothing but the writing of books, beside the book of God, led astray the peoples that were before you?” One Hadith of Abu Huraira stated that the sayings of the prophet compiled before this warning, were heaped together and burned. Since the Koran commands the companions of the prophet to “Obey God and obey His Messenger” : (Koran: 4.059), the rediscovery of the Hadith, despite being prohibited by the Prophet himself, is of great concern. Most importantly, I would suggest that its incorporation in Islamic laws and rituals is tantamount to defiance of the Koranic decree “Obey His messenger”. But ironically such defiance, though otherwise a sin, seems to have metamorphosed into a “holy act” by the accretions of early Imams who reshaped Islam through their inclination to love and worship humans. During the ninth and tenth century, however, the reshaping of Islam was done more as an administrative connivance. By now it is difficult to distinguish which is which. Quite often, the Ulemas and the Islamists quote the Koran and point out the verses where “Obey God, and obey the Messenger” appear. They then try to rationalize the incorporation of the Sunnah in the Islamic paradigm as consistent with the Koranic message, “obey the Messenger”. Surely, the presence of such verses in the Koran is quite relevant and justified because Muhammad wasn't just a prophet for the Muslims, he was a commander, a judge, a leader, a ruler, a teacher and a preacher. Obviously, obeying his order and direction was of paramount importance for all of his companions, soldiers and people in his time. Besides, none could “Obey God” unless they “obey the Messenger” in believing what God had dictated to him. Plainly put, this phrase, “obey the Prophet” should not be construed to mean that every word he ever said was sacred and must remain so in perpetuity.

Sunnah—Mesbah Uddin

101

There is a verse that offers definitive clarity to the misinterpretations of the phrase “obey the Messenger” as decreed in the Koran. No doubt this misinterpretation has derailed Islam from its initial orbit for more than a millennium. The full text of the verse reads: “O you who believe! Obey God, and obey the Messenger, and those in charged with authority among you. If you differ in anything among yourselves, refer it to God and His Messenger” [Koran: 4.059]. Keeping historical events in mind, one must not interpret that “refer it to God and His Messenger” means the Koran and the Hadith. The Koran was not even compiled when Muhammad was alive and most Hadith literature was not collected until two hundred years after his death. Besides, papers and printing presses were not present at that time to offer easy access to the Koran and the Hadith to every Muslim. Obviously, the phrase “Refer it to God and His Messenger” clearly indicates those relatives, companions, and friends of Muhammad who were around him. Clearly, only they could approach and “refer” to the Messenger for clarification. Another verse reads: “O you who believe! Obey God and His Messenger and do not turn back from him while you hear.” [Koran: 8.020]. Here the expression “do not turn back from him while you hear”, surely addresses those who could hear him because of their proximity to the Prophet. In fact, a vast number of Islamic doctrines are strangely absent in the Koran. They are, however, enshrined in the Hadith and their prominence is supported by Islamic laws which are parallel in holiness to the Koran. Historian Will Durant tells us that the Christian Church took over some religious customs and forms prevailing among the pagans in pre-Christian Rome. These include the vestments of pagan priests, use of incense and holy water in purification, burning of candles, light before the altar and more importantly the law of Rome as a basis for Christian Canon Law. The Jews once found the Mosaic laws, despite its wealth of details, insufficient itself without the assistance of case laws and traditions. Eventually, the Talmud (oral law) arose to supply this need. Similarly, the incorporation of the Sunnah into Islamic law spanned over several centuries. It

102

Beyond Jihad

started after the death of Harun ar-Rashid, the Caliph of Baghdad in 809 AD. About seven years before his death ar-Rashid had made a will and his eldest son, al-Amin, was given the caliphate comprising Arab lands, while al-Ma'mun (son of a Persian concubine) got the Persian territories and not the Caliphate. As alMa'mun could not compromise with his father's will he, with the help of the Iranian army from Khorasan, marched into Baghdad and had his brother killed. This brutal murder caused severe antagonisms between the Arabs and the Iranians. Consequently, al-Ma'mun had to shift his strategy that had severely downgraded the Arabs in his army. After realizing that it would not be safe to depend solely on the army from Khorasan, al-Ma'mun decided to employ mercenaries from Turkey. The Turks at that time were easily approachable and sufficiently numerous. The rapid growth of Turkish influence in the administration, court, and army eventually made the Caliph merely a puppet in the hands of the Turkish generals, especially since he remained banished in Samara, far away from Baghdad. With his absence from the center of power, Islamic laws started being enunciated by the Turks who were basically Nestorian Christians and had extended ties with Rome where the Papacy had always viewed Islam as a threat to Hellenic Christianity and papal power. The Turkish judges and high-ranking officers, however, had very little knowledge about the new religion of Islam. Thus religious hypocrisy, borrowed from Rome, proved more powerful in quelling dissent than the power of the army. Under the Turks, innocent people began to be charged and punished with treason or heresy just the way it was done in Christendom. The entry of Turkish soldiers in the Abbasid service began a process that gave a distinctive shape to the administrative, political and cultural life of the world of Islam. Concurrently, this period in the dying days of the Abbasid dynasty generated a class of religious professionals called the “Ulema”. During the period from 933 to 937, a number of small but influential mercenary leaders emerged around the Caspian and Persiansea. They were known as the Buyids, Ghaznavids and Seljuqs. The Buyids had taken over power in Iraq at the invitation of the Caliph. Systematically, they had

Sunnah—Mesbah Uddin

103

formulated their theological and juridical ideas in the name of Islam. But more than ever the ‘Ulemas' functioned as brokers to authenticate that the Caliphs' rulings were in agreement with their Prophet's precedents, the Sunnahs, including the way Muhammad rode his camels, cleaned his teeth and kept his beard. Is it time for Islam to jettison these historical accretions? Muhammad Shahrur, a Syrian civil engineer, wrote a book published in 1992 entitled al-Kitab wa-l-Qur'an (The Book and the Qur'an). Millions of copies of this book have been sold throughout the Arab world despite the fact that its circulation was banned in many Islamic countries. Its success could not have materialized unless huge numbers of people agreed with what its author advocated. He called for the reinterpretation of Islamic laws, tradition and precepts to make them reflect the needs of contemporary society and covers issues ranging from the role of women in Islamic society to the acceptance of the virtues of the non-Muslim world. While we take comfort in the strength of Islam as the torchbearer during the 'Dark Ages', the inclusion of the misinterpreted Sunnah in the formation of Islamic dogmas and traditions and their incorporation in the compilation of the Sharia Laws is tainted by conspiracy and administrative connivance. The ecclesiastical and temporal polity of the Islamic world has, unfortunately, been built on these flimsy and corrupted sources that have been in existence for about a thousand years. The reverence with which the Prophet was held by his contemporaries can be rationalised as their nostalgic passion that might have led them to preserve and repeat his sayings after his death. This is normal and understandable. But to incorporate those sayings as Islamic edicts and to invoke them to prove that a certain act was performed by the Prophet, and therefore to be imitated by all his believers, puts Islam on the same footing as any personality cult which centers on Muhammad's sayings, doings, habits and choices. Though idol worshipping is a forbidden dictum in the Koran, it appears to have stealthily crept into all Islamic edicts behind a shield of Islamic tradition or Sunnah. Today, millions of educated Muslims are highly critical of the adherence in Islam to ancient and corrupted dogmas. They recognize that the ill-conceived

104

Beyond Jihad

Sunnahs have poisoned Islam so severely that a cure, short of an Islamic Martin Luther, cannot be achieved. Only after an equivalent reformation, will Muslims be able to interpret Islamic doctrines on their own and to jettison ancient traditions that no longer have any relevance in the contemporary world.

CAN ISLAM BE REFORMED? Ali Sina

When former U.S Secretary of State Colin Powell said that democracy must be established in Islamic countries, Hamid Reza Asefi, a spokesman for the Islamic Republic of Iran, mocked him saying that U.S officials' comments on Islam clearly proved they knew nothing about Islam and Muslims.If Asefi said only one word of truth in his entire life, that was it. Today the question that everyone asks is whether Islam can be reformed and whether it can accommodate democracy. A friend of mine wrote me:

The Pentateuch is very similar to the Quran: same intolerance, same draconian laws, etc. (most).. Jews finally rejected the literal interpretation of their holy scriptures and proved they could evolve. Both Judaism and Christianity have indeed allowed for change. The Church of the sixteenth century was as repressive as the Taliban were in the twentieth and the Wahhabis still remain. Yet the Reformation took place, nonetheless. And even the Catholic Church liberalized after Vatican II. Is it unreasonable to extrapolate that the same could happen to Islam? Unfortunately the notion that since Christianity and Judaism reformed, that means that Islam can also be reformed, is untenable. Islam is not comparable to Christianity, Judaism or any other religion. Christianity, for example, is essentially a religion of the heart. It was statements such as “Give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar” and “My

106

Beyond Jihad

kingdom is not of this world” that allowed Christians to keep their faith while permitting secular governments to evolve independent of the Church. A Christian does not feel any contradiction or dichotomy by living with secular laws and practicing his religious beliefs. One can be a Christian in one’s heart and secular in politics. Therefore reform in Christianity did not mean renouncing faith. With respect to Judaism, there are very few Jews who believe that the Pentateuch is the literal word of God. In all the five books attributed to Moses, he is referred to in the third person. Deuteronomy ends with an obituary about Moses and how his tomb had been lost. This allows Jews to be open about the interpretation of the Bible as it is clear, at least to the thinking majority, that the Bible is not the textual word of God, but written by humans who were allegedly inspired, yet fallible nonetheless. Moreover, having lived in a Diaspora for two thousand years with no temporal authority, Jews were forced to learn how to adapt their Jewish laws (Halakhah) to the exigencies of the non-Jewish world. This which allowed them eventually to create a secular state in a country built through religious imperatives. However, reforming Islam is not something that a devout Muslim would consider. Those who pose such questions are always non-Muslims. For a Muslim this question is pointless. The thought of reform would not even enter the mind of a Muslim, since moderation in Islam necessarily means less Islam. A devout Muslim would tell you that the problem with the Islamic world is in the inadequate interpretation of the Sharia and not in the Sharia itself. He would say that the Quran is considered as the verbatim word of God. The verse “This day I have perfected your religion for you, completed my favor upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion”(Quran:5:3) reverberates in the ears of every Muslim. It leaves no room for interpretation or for a reformation. How can anyone improve or change something that is perfect? Indeed history shows that all attempts to reform Islam have failed. The Sufis tried to interpret the Quran esoterically and mystically in order to moderate its harsher verses but Sufism has failed to establish itself as a mainstream version of Islam. The Mu’tazelis went so

Can Islam be Reformed?—Ali Sina

107

far as to suggest that if there is a contradiction between the revelation and reason, the latter should prevail. No trace of them is left. Some modern day Islamists such as Ali Shariati and Sorush have tried to use Islam as a political tool to bring the Islamic world out of the dark ages and into the modern world. All these attempts have failed and Islam is now in the darkest phase of its existence. As a matter of fact every time Islam is moved, even nominally, in the direction of social change the result is catastrophic because the gravitational pull of the Quran towards fundamentalism quashes every other consideration. The Quran cannot be interpreted and reformed. The will of God cannot be surpassed by the will of the people because of convenience and expediency. Any minor deviation from the Quran is considered to be a direct challenge to its authority and it invalidates the entire faith. Islam is considered to be a “complete way of life”. This concept is eloquently explained in the Islamic site Islamonline.net

Islam is not a religion in the common, distorted meaning of the word, confining its scope only to the private life of man. By saying that it is a complete way of life, we mean that it caters for all the fields of human existence. In fact, Islam provides guidance for all walks of life—individual and social, material and moral, economic and political, legal and cultural, national and international. The Qur’an enjoins Man to enter the fold of Islam without any reservation and to follow God’s guidance in all fields of life. In Islam, politics and faith are intertwined. The separation of the two would mean the end of faith. The above site continues:

(The Christian) Religion asks us to separate things of God from those of Caesar. Such a judicial separation between the two means the degrading of both the secular and the sacred… That religion is worth little, if the conscience of its followers is not disturbed when war clouds are hanging over us all and industrial conflicts are threatening social peace. Religion has weakened Man’s social conscience and moral sensitivity, by separating the things of God from those of Caesar… ...Islam totally denounces

108

Beyond Jihad this concept of religion society. “and clearly states that its objectives are purification of the soul”… The web site cites the following sources: The Qur’an says in Surah 57, verse 25 We verily sent Our messengers with clear proofs and revealed with them the scripture and the balance [i.e. the authority to establish justice], that mankind may observe justice and the right measure…

Then in Surah 12, verse 40: The command is for none but Allah; He has commanded that you obey none but Him; that is the right path.

Also, in Surah 22, verse 41: [Muslims are] those who if We give them power in the land, establish [the system of] salat (prayers and worship) and zakat (poor due) and enjoin virtue and forbid vice and evil.

Thus, even a cursory study of the teachings of Islam shows that it is an all-embracing way of life and does not leave out any field of human existence to become a playground for satanic forces.

Taken literally, what Islamonline tells its Muslim audience is true. A Muslim is supposed to get religious instructions about all aspects of his life. This includes with which foot he ought to enter the toilet, which direction to face, which foot to put his weight on during defecation and how many rocks to use for cleaning purposes. These are topics that the foqaha, “the doctors of the law”, study for years to master and then guide the Ummah (or community of Muslims) who in turn would not lift a finger without consulting them.

Can Islam be Reformed?—Ali Sina

109

Addressing the “problem” of Sharia law for a Muslim is considered heresy. So-called moderate Muslims do not propose changing the Sharia. So, what would a moderate Muslim say about the law of stoning? He would deny that this is an Islamic law and he would challenge you to find such a thing in the Quran. He is right! Stoning does not exist in the Quran. But it exists in the Sunnah and the Sunnah (Muhammad's own example) is the major source of Sharia law. In Islam if there is no specific reference to a law, the Judaic law should apply. Stoning the adulterers is a law prescribed in Deuteronomy 22:23, and the Prophet practiced stoning of adulterers as in various hadiths. As the Imam of IslamOnline.net rightly states, Islam is not a religion at all. Islam is political. Islam’s only objective is to reclaim the Earth for Allah and establish the rule of Sharia. Take away that objective and Islam as a whole becomes meaningless. It simply loses its raison d'être. While Christ wanted to conquer the hearts of the people, Muhammad’s main focus was not on people's hearts. He was interested in conquering cities and establishing the dominion of Islam in the name of God. Indeed the very word “Islam” means submission. The first duty of a Muslim is to strive (make Jihad) and render the world submissive to Allah and his messenger. Ironically, the word “peace” in Islam is also derived from the same root. It does not mean mutual and harmonious coexistence of two equal and sovereign people. It means suppressing non-Muslims and making them submissive to the rule and dominance of Islam. Islam does not recognize the legitimacy of any non-Islamic government especially over Muslims. The sources are in the Quran:

Yea, to Allah belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth: 24.42

If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (submission to Allah), never will it be accepted of him: 3:85.

110

Beyond Jihad Muslims are pressed to “fight them [the infidels] on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah altogether and everywhere”: 8:39 It must be noted that tumult and oppression means resisting the advance of

Islam. Justice and peace can only prevail when Islam becomes dominant and other religions are subdued and their followers are reduced to tributaries to the coffers of the Islamic state. According to the Quran they must “pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued” ( 9:29). It is for these reasons that I strongly disagree with those who compare the Islam of today to the Christianity of the Middle Ages and who claim that since Christianity was eventually reformed,

Islam can also be reformed. The

proponents of reform have a very weak position. Muslims are supposed to give their highest allegiance to Islam, not to their country and not even to their families. The scope of Islam is not so much to convert the world to Islam but to dominate the world and to establish the law of Sharia. As a matter of fact when a Muslim army invaded a country, they did not accept the conversion of the conquered right away. This would have deprived them of booty and the ability to impose the Jizya tax, which was the main incentive for Muslims to attack in the first place. The conquered people were left to practice their religion for centuries providing wealth for the Islamic empire and the means to finance the Islamic army to continue with their conquests. As the following hadith shows, Muslims would provide “protection” for the people of other religions and would not kill them only on condition that they pay the jizya which as Omar said was fixed by Allah as stipends for Muslims:

According to the saying of the Prophet (peace be upon him): Allah has placed truth upon Umar's tongue and heart. He fixed stipends for Muslims, and provided protection for the people of other religions by levying jizyah (poll-tax) on them, deducting no fifth from it, nor taking it as booty.1

Can Islam be Reformed?—Ali Sina

111

Therefore when Muslims say that Islam is a tolerant religion, which allows the non-Muslims to keep their faith and practice their religion, in a sense they are telling the truth. However, that freedom has a catch and that is that the conquered have to accept the status of dhimitude, become subservient to Muslims and pay the protection fee “with willing submission”. According to Muslim scholars, verse 9:23 of the Quran instructs Muslims not to take the infidels as their awlia (protectors, custodians, rulers) and implies that Muslims should not accept the rule and the governance of non-Muslims. Hence they are required to overthrow non-Islamic governments whenever they are able to and wherever they reside to establish Islamic governments. Until then that country is considered to be Dar al Harb (House of War). When the governance of the country is turned over to the Muslims, that country becomes Dar al Islam (House of Islam) and Sharia becomes the law of the land. This does not mean that everyone will be forced to convert to Islam. It means that everyone becomes subject to Sharia and those who are not believers will be classified as dhimmis, and will have to pay Jizya and to thereby support the Ummah financially. To return to the question we raised earlier: Can Islam Be Reformed? This does not appear likely to happen. A Muslim who thinks Islam needs to be reformed is not a Muslim anymore. Such a person would not consider himself a Muslim, nor would other Muslims consider him to be Muslim. He becomes a “refusenik”, a dissenter or an apostate. What of Muslims who consider themselves moderates? Many do. Not all Muslims are extremists. In fact, most Muslims, not only in the West, but also in Islamic countries, are moderates. The truth is that these Muslims are not knowledgeable of the real Islam and do not practice it. The real Islam is the one practiced by the Taliban, the Islamic Republic of Iran (now slightly more moderate than when it came into existence under Khomeini in 1979) and the Wahhabis in Saudi Arabia. Thus, the idea that Islam can be reformed is an untenable one for Muslims. For them the rest of the world needs to change. 1

Sunnan Abu Dawud, Book 19, Number 2955 ( Dar-us-Salam Publications, 2004)

PART TWO: UNDERSTANDING POLITICAL ISLAM

IS POLITICAL ISLAM FASCIST? Ali Sina Islam is a religion with an explicitly political agenda and the ultimate goal of Islam is to rule the world. But what kind of government would an Islamic state have? It certainly would not be democratic because Islam is not compatible with democracy. Amir Taheri, an Iranian born author and journalist, in a debate on Islam and democracy1 argued that in fact the word “democracy” does not exist in any of the languages spoken by Muslims. “To understand a civilization,” Taheri said, “it is important to understand its vocabulary. If it was not on their tongues it is likely that it was not on their minds either.”2 Democracy implies equality but equality is unacceptable in Islam. Un-believers cannot be equal to believers and women are not equal to men. Non-Muslims are not deemed to be equal to Muslims. The People of the Book (Jews and Christians) are accepted as second class citizens and allowed to live in an Islamic state provided they pay the protection tax, the Jizyah. But pagans, atheists and idolaters are not regarded as fully human. According to the Quran, the idolaters are to be killed wherever they are found. (9:5) Of course killing the idolaters “wherever ye may find them” was not always expedient. What would the Muslim rulers in India gain if they killed all the Hindus? Over whom would they rule? So pragmatism often prevailed and Muslim rulers would exert some degree of tolerance towards their pagan subjects. On the other hand, it is hard to find a Muslim ruler as ruthless as Muhammad

114

Beyond Jihad

himself. Muslim rulers killed whenever profit dictated and since live subjects were more profitable than dead ones, the extermination was not total, as was intended by Muhammad. Nonetheless this tolerance was out of political expediency and not a right of the pagan. Muhammad's butchery of his victims on the other hand, could be considered psychopathological. He would massacre entire populations simply because they had rejected him. Christians and Jews, the so called People of the Book, had some conditional rights. They had to pay Jizyah and buy their protection. Nonetheless they lived in a state of religious apartheid and were subject to humiliating treatment. For example, they were considered najis (impure) and were not allowed to go out on rainy days, lest their impurity rub onto a passing Muslim, make him “impure” and thereby annul his prayer. Jews and Christians were required to dismount from their donkeys or horses if they met a Muslim in their way and they were supposed to greet the Muslim humbly and show submissiveness towards him. The Dhimmis were not allowed to build their houses taller than those of their Muslim neighbors and in some cases they were not allowed to build new churches and synagogues and needed permission to repair existing ones. Taheri said:

To say that Islam is incompatible with democracy should not be seen as a disparagement of Islam. On the contrary, many Muslims would see it as a compliment because they sincerely believe that their idea of rule by God is superior to that of rule by men which is democracy. 3 One Islamic site, Islamonline.net explains: In Western democracy, the people are sovereign; in Islam sovereignty is vested in Allah and the people are His caliphs or representatives. The laws given by Allah through His Prophet (Shari ‘ah) are to be regarded as constitutional principles that should not be violated.

Is Political Islam Fascist?—Ali Sina

115

During the debate Taheri cited several Muslim thinkers who expressed their disdain and disapproval of democracy. For example: Ayatollah Khomeini called democracy “a form of prostitution” because he who gets the most votes wins the power that belongs only to Allah. Sayyid Qutb, the Egyptian who is credited as the ideological mentor of the Safalists, spent a year in the United States in the 1950s and wrote: “America is a nation that has forgotten God and been forsaken by Him; an arrogant nation that wants to rule itself.” Yussuf al-Ayyeri, one of the leading theoreticians of today's Islamist movement, published a book in which he warned that the real danger to Islam did not come from American tanks and helicopter gunships in Iraq, but from the idea of democracy and rule by the people. Maududi, another of the Islamist theoreticians now fashionable, dreamed of a political system in which human beings would act as automatons in accordance with rules set by God. He said that God has arranged man's biological functions in such a way that their operation is beyond human control. For our non-biological functions, notably our politics, God has set rules that we have to discover and apply once and for all so that our societies can be on auto-pilot so to speak. The late Saudi theologian Sheikh Muhammad bin Ibrahim al-Jubair4, a man I respected though seldom agreed with, sincerely believed that the root cause of all of our contemporary ills was the spread of democracy. So what kind of government is Islam proposing? Since democracy means rule of the people, this is unacceptable in Islam. The Quran is emphatic that “to Allah belong all dominion and power” (2.165, 35:10, 35:13, 64:1).The words “No judgment but God’s” (la hukm illa li-llah) is based on several Quranic verses (6.57; 12.40, 67, among others). This power is vested in His regent known as Khalifat al-Allah. The Khalifa cannot legislate. He can only interpret the Law given in the Quran and the Sunnah and apply it. Naturally, since the Quran is not clear on many points, this allows for a wide range of interpretations and explains why there are so many Islamic schools of thought and many sects. “But the

116

Beyond Jihad

bottom line is” said Taheri, “that no Islamic government can be democratic in the sense of allowing the common people equal shares in legislation.”5 In fact, the common people are called awwam, and as the saying goes, al-awwam kal anaam! (People are like animals). It is up to the “experts” of the Law to interpret the Sharia and let the awwam know how they should live their lives. This endows the “expert” ruler all the power and allows him to act as the deputy of God on Earth. There can be no opposition to the ruler. You cannot oppose God by opposing his representative. In democracies people’s religious beliefs are irrelevant. They can belong to any religion or no religion and still manage to govern themselves in a secular state. This is not the case in monotheistic theocratic societies where God is the lawgiver. Christians and Jews have managed to separate the Church from the State, but this evolution is not possible in Islam. The concept of Church (with capital C) as understood in Christianity does not exist in Islam. There is no authority like the Vatican or the Church of England in Islam. The Mullahs and Imams are ordinary Muslims who through their knowledge of the Quran and Sharia gain reputations among the Ummah and their own peers. You cannot separate the Islamic “Church” from politics, because there is no such thing as the Islamic “Church”. Every mullah can interpret the Sharia in his own way. But he cannot redefine the explicit teachings of Islam. Presently Muslims do not have a Khalifa. But even if they had, the Khalifa would not have been able to deviate from the Quran and simply announce the separation of Islam from politics. Islam’s main goal is to return the dominion of this world to its “rightful” owner, Allah. No authority on Earth can change that. Impeding Islam from achieving this goal is to deny its raison d'être and is tantamount to blasphemy. Islam, by definition, is imperialistic. It must advance, conquer and reclaim the dominion of all the Earth or there is no reason for it to exist. Democracies, moreover, are pluralistic. People have different faiths and are free to criticize, not only each other’s religions, but also their own. Islam does not tolerate dissent. Anyone who dares to criticize Islam faces severe punishment

Is Political Islam Fascist?—Ali Sina

117

including execution or assassination. Islam is regarded as The Truth, the Only Truth and the Absolute Truth. Defying this truth is the same as defying God and thus cannot be tolerated. Challenging the authority of the representative of God is akin to challenging God himself. On May 27, 1999 Rafsanjani, one of the ruling Mullahs of Iran said: “If the Islamic nature and fundamental pillar of the state and the velayat-e faqih (Shiite version of the Khalifa) are undermined, nothing would be left around.” The same day, Khatami, the so called “reformist” president of the Islamic Republic said in the city of Qom : “Society's parting with religion and the clergy is the beginning of our fall.” Khatami, on July 5, 1998 said: “velayat-e faqih is the axis and pillar of the state,” adding, “velayat-e faqih is the raison d'être of our state. As such, opposing it... is to oppose the fundamentals and pillar of the state.” “No state would tolerate assaults on its principles and pillars,” he said.6 In a commentary published online, iran-bulletin.org defined the concept of velayat-e faqis which is related to that of Khilafa:

In the theory of velayate faqih none of us can tell the difference between good and bad and, indeed, the whole edifice of the clerical rulership has been constructed to cope with our “ignorance”. The supreme clerical leader is our custodian (qayyem), and we are like sheep that if separated from our shepherd would surely be lost. The velayate faqih embodies every right and the rest of us only have duties. The system of velayate faqih is the ultimate expression of this concept which confirms the absence of rights on our part, in contrast with the all knowing, all powerful, clerical ruler. Khamenei, Iran’s Supreme Leader, explained the concept of velayae faqih, the position that he himself is occupying, with an uncanny frankness when he said: “the leadership means that point where the insoluble problems of government are solved at his hands. His person lights up the truth for the people and exposes the conspiracies of the enemy.” 7 In the Islamic state religion is preeminent and God serves as the only legitimate source of legislation. Temporal rulers merely implement the laws of

118

Beyond Jihad

Islam as dictated by God. Islamist scholar Abul Ala Maududi in a 1948 radio address entitled “Essential Features of the Islamic Political System”8 explained its central concepts :

The political system of Islam is based on three principles: Tawhid unity of Allah), Risalat (Prophethood) and Khilafat (vicegerency). Tawhid means that only Allah is the Creator, Sustainer and Master of the universe and of all that exists in it organic or inorganic. The sovereignty of this kingdom is vested only in Him. He alone has the right to command or forbid. Worship and obedience are due to Him alone, no one and nothing else shares it in any way…..This principle of the unity of Allah totally negates the concept of the legal and political independence of human beings, individually or collectively. No individual, family, class or race can set themselves above Allah. Allah alone is the Ruler and His commandments are the Law. The medium through which we receive the law of Allah is known as Risalat. We have received two things from this source: the Book in which Allah has set out His law, and the authoritative interpretation and exemplification of the Book by the Prophet….The combination of these two elements is called the Shari ‘ah. Now consider Khilafat. According to the Arabic lexicon, it means ‘representation’. Man, according to Islam, is the representative of Allah on earth, His vicegerent. That is to say, by virtue of the powers delegated to him by Allah, he is required to exercise his Allah-given authority in this world within the limits prescribed by Allah. A state that is established in accordance with this political theory will in fact be a human caliphate under the sovereignty of Allah and will do Allah’s will by working within the limits prescribed by Him and in accordance with His instructions and injunctions.

Is Political Islam Fascist?—Ali Sina

119

The features of an Islamic state makes clear that the rule of the Islamic system of government is not limited to Muslims but to every “organic or inorganic” thing that exists in this universe. This of course includes non-Muslims. In an Islamic state everyone must live according to the dictates of Islam.

It

would thus appear that Khilafat or the velayat-e faqih are not dissimilar to fascism. The Columbia Encyclopedia, defines fascism as: “A totalitarian philosophy of government that glorifies the state and nation and assigns to the state control over every aspect of national life.” 9 Characteristics of Fascist Philosophy: The Columbia Encyclopedia extends its definition of fascism:

Fascism, especially in its early stages, is obliged to be antitheoretical and frankly opportunistic in order to appeal to many diverse groups. Nevertheless, a few key concepts are basic to it. First and most important is the glorification of the state and the total subordination of the individual to it. The state is defined as an organic whole into which individuals must be absorbed for their own and the state’s benefit. This “total state” is absolute in its methods and unlimited by law in its control and direction of its citizens. A second ruling concept of fascism is embodied in the theory of social Darwinism. The doctrine of survival of the fittest and the necessity of struggle for life is applied by fascists to the life of a nation-state. Peaceful, complacent nations are seen as doomed to fall before more dynamic ones, making struggle and aggressive militarism a leading characteristic of the fascist state. Imperialism is the logical outcome of this dogma. Another element of fascism is its elitism. Salvation from rule by the mob and the destruction of the existing social order can be effected only by an authoritarian leader who embodies the highest ideals of the nation. This concept of the leader as hero or superman, borrowed in part from the romanticism of Friedrich Nietzsche, Thomas Carlyle, and Richard Wagner, is closely linked with fascism’s rejection of reason and intelligence and its emphasis on vision, creativeness, and the will. 10

120

Beyond Jihad On the basis of this lengthy definition, let us compare Fascism to

Islam. Islam is opportunistic without a doubt. It is extremely deceptive and despite being a doctrine of war, it portrays itself as the religion of peace because it wants to have universal appeal. It also subjugates women. Muhammad was a misogynist of the worst kind but his apologists present him as the champion of women’s rights. The Quran is a religious text, yet its defenders claim that it is a miracle which contains scientific facts. It opposes knowledge and technology, yet it is presented as the religion that encourages learning. Muslims are fond of reminding others that Muhammad said “seek knowledge even if it is in China” . But the fact is that any knowledge that is perceived as contradicting the Quran is regarded as satanic and is to be destroyed. The Royal Library of Alexandria in Egypt was once the largest in the world. It was founded at the beginning of the 3rd century BC during the reign of Ptolemy II of Egypt. It stored at its peak 400,000 to 700,000 scrolls. In 640 AD Muslims took the city and upon learning of “a great library containing all the knowledge of the world” the conquering general asked Khalifa Omar for instructions. Omar has been quoted as saying of the Library's holdings, “they will either contradict the Quran, in which case they are heresy, or they will agree with it, so they are superfluous.” And to be on the safe side he ordered the library to be destroyed and the books burnt. Another feature of the Islamic polity is the glorification of the Islamic state and the total subordination of the individual to it. Just as in fascism, the Islamic state is defined as an organic whole to which individuals must submit. In Islam “freedom” lies in submission to Allah and his messenger. The very word “Islam”, which Muslims deceptively translate as peace, means submission. What is good for Islam and the Islamic state is good for Muslims and what is bad for Islam and the Islamic state is to be spurned and regarded as bad for Muslims. Islam and the establishment of Islam’s dominion is the greater good and the ultimate goal that every Muslim must strive for. The Islamic site muslim-canada.org writes:

Is Political Islam Fascist?—Ali Sina

121

The highest organization in society is the state. Islam has given to the world the practical form and ideals of statehood. Therefore, the question of how religion should inspire, inform and discipline life, is naturally related to the question of how should it be related to the highest organization of society (i.e. the state). Another precept of Islam, similar to the militarism of fascism, is the concept of Jihad and the necessity to struggle in order to advance Islamic dominance. The slogan that “Islam is a religion of peace” is a preposterous one that is part of the strategy of the Islamic “Game of Deception”. Islam does not mean peace, it does not preach peace, it has never been peaceful and it will never be. Islam has advanced through aggressive militarism and regards Jihad and martyrdom as meritorious acts. Islam is militant and imperialistic by its very nature. Fascism is also elitist and so is Islam. The Khalifa or the Velayat-e faqih is the ultimate authority on Earth. He is the one who can read the scriptures and the only one who can understand them properly. His word is the ultimate undisputable decree. However theoretically, just as in communism, anyone can aspire to become the Khalifa. The Khalifa for Sunnis is elected by the populace while the velayate-e faqih in Shiism is nominated by a body of the ruling Mullahs called: “The Assembly of Experts”. Whether this ruler is elected or nominated, just like in other totalitarian regimes, he occupies his seat for life and responds to no human authority. Another similarity between Islam and fascism is their disdain for reason and independent thought. In Islam, the emphasis is on faith and unquestioning obedience to the mandates of God. Reason is rejected as a fallacy. Abu Hamid AlGhazali, (1058-1111 CE) is arguably the greatest Islamic scholar ever. In his book “Incoherence of the Philosophers” he bitterly denounced Aristotle, Plato, Socrates and other Greek thinkers as non-believers and labeled those who employed their methods and ideas as corrupters of the Islamic faith. He took aim at Avicenna for being a rationalist who drew intellectually upon the Ancient Greeks. By

122

Beyond Jihad

emphasizing the incompatibility of faith and reason, and by asserting the futility of making faith subordinate to reason, Ghazali gave validity to unreasoned faith and thus glorified stupidity. One observer, William Montgomery Watt, says:

The early period of Islamic thought is dominated by the conception of the unchangeability of true religion and the special Arab and Islamic conception of the nature of knowledge. Knowledge that is important for the conduct of life—and this is knowledge in the fullest sense—is obtained in the revealed words of God and in the sayings of prophets and other specially gifted men. From this conception of knowledge it follows that the work of the scholar is to transmit accurately the revealed text and other wise sayings.11 It is important to note that when Muslims talk about knowledge, they are talking about “revealed” knowledge and not the secular scientific knowledge that has given birth to our civilization. The word “science” in Arabic is Ilm. The people who possess this Ilm, are called Ulama. But Ulama does not mean scientist. It means religious scholar. Ilm is religious science. Islam does not encourage the learning of science. Islamic languages do not have even a proper word for it. Islam encourages only religious learning. This is what Muhammad meant when he said “seek knowledge”. Seeking knowledge in Islam, means memorizing the Quran and the hadith. Inspired by the Quran, various Muslim groups have employed sectarian violence to achieve political ends. The first group was Kharijiyya. The Kharijiyya insisted on two things: first, that the Islamic community must be based on the Quran and second, emphasized the ascendancy of the Islamic state over individual rights. Motivated by many verses in the Quran (32.13, 76:29-31, 3:39, 3:159, 16:93, 2:6-7, 4:88, etc.), they maintained that God’s will must supersede man’s will and claimed the community as the bearer of the values that constitute meaningfulness. In other words man’s life has meaning only if he belongs to the Muslim community. These ideas were based on the Quran and were eventually adopted by the rest of the Muslims. This similar to how fascism defines the position of the individual vis-à-vis the state. The

Is Political Islam Fascist?—Ali Sina

123

Ashariyya were another group which glorified irrationality and remained faithful to the Quran. They rejected Islamic rationalists such as the Mutazilis who emphasized reason over revelation. The Ashariyya rejected the Mutazilis who, they believed, had forsaken religion and had detracted from God and his revelation. Thus rational objectivism was quashed with mockery and violence, the books of rationalists such as Zakaria Razi were destroyed and they themselves had to hide for their safety. The Ashariyya won because they had the backing of the Quran, while the rationalists did not. With Ashariyyah’s unconditional embrace of the authority of revelation, and their glorification of irrationality, rationalism was nipped in the bud and most likely the Renaissance that was about to be born 1000 years ago, never emerged. We shall never know the extent of the harm these celebrated religious zealots caused civilization but again the parallel with fascism is clear. Fascism, according to the dictionary definition, also emphasizes the leadership of the dictator:

As a rule, fascist governments are dominated by a dictator, who usually possesses a magnetic personality, wears a showy uniform, and rallies his followers by mass parades; appeals to strident nationalism; and promotes suspicion or hatred of both foreigners and “impure” people within his own nation, such as the Jews in Germany .12 To be sure, in Islam, the Khalifa does not wear a showy uniform. On the contrary, in accordance to Muhammad’s sunnah, he tries to make a public “display of modesty”. Yet modesty is just for show and a hallmark of Islam. The more modestly you dress, the more pious you look. But the Friday prayers and the hajj (the annual pilgrimage to Mecca) are the Islamic version of mass parades that are designed to impress the believer, give him a sense of pride and belonging and make him firm in his belief that Islam is strong. This parade was so important to Muhammad that in one hadith he is quoted as saying:

124

Beyond Jihad I thought that I should order the prayer to be commenced and command a person to lead people in prayer, and I should then go along with some persons having a fagot of fuel with them to the people who have not attended the prayer (in congregation) and would burn their houses with fire.13 Like fascism, Islam also promotes suspicion and hatred of unbelievers.

Muhammad said that the unbelievers are impure (najis) (9:28) and instilled in them the hatred of the Jews, saying God transformed them into apes and swine. (2.65, 5.60, 7.166 )

Conclusion Clearly there are so many parallels between fascism and political Islam that we can conclude that the Islamic system of government is fascistic. • • • • • • • • • • •

It is marked by centralization of authority under a supreme leader vested with divine authority. It has stringent control over all aspects of the lives of all its subjects irrespective of their faith. It suppresses its opposition through terror and censorship. It has a policy of belligerence towards non-believers. It practices religious apartheid. It disdains reason. It is imperialistic. It is oppressive. It is dictatorial and It is controlling. Both these ideologies are irrational. They disdain reason, and hail devotion

and submission to a higher authority. Like fascists, Muslims are triumphalists. They seek power, domination and control. They pride themselves in their strength of numbers, in their mindless heroism, in their disdain for life and in their willingness to kill and die for their cause. My conclusion? Islam is political and political Islam is fascism.

Is Political Islam Fascist?—Ali Sina

125

1

Amir Taheri in debate, “ Islam Is Incompatible With Democracy”, May 19, 2004. See: www.benadorassociates.com/article/4462

2

Ibid.

3

Ibid.

4

“Only one ambition is worthy of Islam,” he liked to say, “the ambition to save the world from the curse of democracy: to teach men that they cannot rule themselves on the basis of manmade laws. Mankind has strayed from the path of God, we must return to that path or face certain annihilation.”

5

Op. cit., “ Islam Is Incompatible With Democracy” debate.

6

7

Iran Zamin News Agency , July 5, 1998 Ibid.

8

This is a new and revised translation of a talk given by the author on Radio Pakistan, Lahore, on 20th January, 1948. published in http://www.jamaat.org/islam/IslamPol.html

9

The Columbia Encycopedia, 6th. Edition, 2001-2005: http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0818306.html 10

11

Ibid.

William Montgomery Watt, Publications, 1998, p. 63) 12

13

The Formative Period of Islamic Thought (One World

Op. cit., The Columbia Encyclopedia

Sahih Muslim Book 4: The Book of Prayers (Kitab Al-Salat), 1370; Shahih Bukhari, Volume 1 Book 11, Number 626.

THE LEFT AND ISLAM: TWEEDLEDUM AND TWEEDLEDEE Ohmyrus On the surface, the Left and Islam have nothing in common. Islam, after all, is a religion and the Left is secular. But three years after the war against Islamist terrorism began, it is now clear to me that these two groups have many similarities. It is true that the Left, unlike Islam, does not believe in God. But this difference is misleading. Both ideologies require from their followers a high degree of faith. The Left has a deep faith that it is possible to change human nature so that one day a perfect, just and equal society will emerge. This was the foundation for the Communist utopia. Their dictum, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”, reflects their confidence in an ideal world. For them, the evils of the world have their source in capitalism, whose champion is America. Capitalism is based on individual self-interest in which only the fittest survive and the devil takes the hind-most. Capitalist economies have, however, succeeded in creating wealth through economic growth. But the price of capitalism is that inequalities develop as those with more energy and abilities outstrip weaker individuals. The Left sees inequality of wealth as an injustice. In their ideal world, everybody happily works for the common good and all share any wealth created equally. For the Left, big corporations are seen as agents of greed and exploitation who exploit labor in order to enrich the idle capitalist class. They also believe that the poverty in the

128

Beyond Jihad

third world is caused by exploitative capitalist economies and their multi-national companies. This view is soothing for Islamists who can then blame the poverty and backwardness of the Muslim world on an external entity instead of looking inwards for a probable cause. I, on the other hand, have always argued that Islam plays a central role in the backwardness of the Muslim world. The Soviet Union, which the Left saw as the closest mankind got towards their Socialist utopia, has collapsed and is moving towards the capitalist model. The world is heading towards freer trade and jobs are being re-located to places with lower wages. The left is infuriated with these trends. On the other hand they are blind, or make excuses, about the abuses and human rights violations in the Soviet Union and Camboida, where millions were murdered or died in the Gulags and killing fields. Prominent Leftist Naom Chomsky at one stage even claimed that the tales of Communist atrocities in Cambodia were either invented or at most localized. Meanwhile, the Muslim world is equally beset with frustrations. Most Muslims are living in poor countries ruled by corrupt, incompetent dictators. This is especially true in the Middle East. For Muslims, Islam is the Final Revelation and hence Muslims are supposed to be the “Best of Mankind”. Yet, ironically, the Muslim world has fallen behind. Defeat and western colonization during the past two centuries brought this home to them. In more recent times, the success of the East Asian countries has brought fresh humiliations. This lament for their low estate can be seen in a poem, called Shikwa, written by Iqbal, an ideologue of the Pakistan movement. The poem asks why Allah is unfaithful to Muslims when Muslims remain faithful to Him. A part of the poem says: Your blessings are showered on homes of unbelievers, strangers all. Only on the poor Muslim, Your wrath like lightning falls.

Over the past two centuries, reformers like Al-Wahhab, Sayyd Qutub and al-Afghani diagnosed the malaise and concluded that Muslims had strayed from

The Left and Islam—Ohmyrus

129

the original teachings of their Prophet. All preached violent jihad. Like Luther, Calvin and Zwingli, these men wanted to strip away all the accretions that accumulated in the practice of their religion. Today, Islamists seek to unite Muslim countries to restore the Caliphate. They seek first to overthrow secular Muslim countries so that they can be replaced with Islamic states united under one Caliph as in the days of old. Their ultimate aim is to dominate the world so that Allah’s law is supreme. Islamists see the Islamic state much the same way as Communists see the Communist Utopia, a Shangri-la world where their respective ideas of justice will prevail. The fact that neither has attained their respective goals does not deter them. For both, it is a matter of faith, a belief in something that is not proven. In fact, the available evidence is that both Communist and Islamic Utopias do not work. All attempts at establishing them have failed. The Soviet experiment failed. Instead of providing justice and prosperity, it created a sick economy which required cruelty and oppression to sustain. For the Islamists, Afghanistan under the Taliban was as close as one could get to the Islamists' ideal state. The result, however, was hell on earth for many Afghan people, not heaven. For the Left, it is difficult to admit that capitalism, a system built on the greed and self interest of the individual, actually produces greater wealth and freedom than Communism does. Their ideal society, which requires the individual to subordinate his interests for the greater good of his society, cannot be put into practice because it is against human nature. For the Islamists, it is difficult to admit that their vision of the perfect Islamic state ruled in accordance with God's laws does not work because that would be saying that their religion is false. Muslims are expected to follow closely the words and deeds of their Prophet who lived 1,400 years ago as recorded in the Koran and Hadith. It is of course blasphemous of them to ask if their Prophet's behavior is still relevant or practical today. Both the Left and Islamists are following false ideologies sustained by their faith.

130

Beyond Jihad Yet failure to establishing their respective perfect societies does not

prevent Leftists and Islamists from seeing America as the enemy of their worldview. This is rightly so as America is the chief defender of democracy and capitalism, ideologies that are sweeping the world and leaving them behind. Islamists are hostile to the idea of democracy because for them, democracy is a form of idolatry. It means that man makes laws through the ballot box. Thus man's law is supreme and not God's laws as revealed 1,400 years ago to the Prophet. It means that democracies worship man, not God. The Left, too, is suspicious of Democracy. Democracy is a mask to disguise the fact that it is the greedy capitalists who control this world and not the people. Thus America's wars in Afghanistan and the two Gulf Wars immediately aroused suspicions that these wars were fought at the behest of oil companies seeking profits. For Islamists, any attack by an infidel nation is an attack on the Muslim Ummah. It does not matter if America was trying to replace the evil Saddam regime with a more humane democratic regime. What matters is that Iraq is a Muslim country, which is part of darul Islam. When Saddam caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, neither the Left nor the Islamists organized any protests. For both groups, the U.S is an example of a polity that competes with their vision of where the world should be headed. For the Left, it is the Socialist utopia. For the Islamists, it is the Islamic state and ultimately the world ruled by a Caliph in perfect obedience to God's laws. Thus the beliefs of both Leftists and Islamists in their respective false ideologies have given each of them a blind spot. Both Islamists and Leftists even have the same excuse for their respective failures. After the failure of the Soviet Union, the Left said, “That is not true Socialism”. After the failure of the Iranian, Saudi and Taliban Islamic states to provide a better life for their people, Islamists said, “That is not true Islam”. But both still persist in their fantasies and have formed ad hoc alliances with each other. When America attacked Afghanistan, both opposed it. Both came up with ridiculous conspiracy theories to justify their opposition. September 11 was a plot concocted by the CIA or the Jews. Afghanistan was invaded in order to allow

The Left and Islam—Ohmyrus

131

greedy companies to build an oil pipeline. When Bush wanted to pass the USA Patriot Act, both opposed it. They both knew that without the Act, America's efforts to pursue terrorists would be blunted. Of course, not all who opposed the act were acting maliciously with intent to blunt America’s ability to deal with terrorists. Some were genuinely concerned about the potential erosion of civil liberties. But each society must strike a balance between civil liberties and the need to save lives. After the USA Patriot Act was passed, the Center for Constitutional Rights successfully challenged a key provision aimed at blocking support for terrorist groups in a Los Angeles Court on behalf of the Kurdish Workers Party in 2001. This ruling by the LA court in favor of the Kurdish Workers Party was called “a setback for government anti-terrorism policies” by The Wall Street Journal. According to the book, Unholy Alliance by David Horowitz, the Center for Constitutional Rights was founded in 1966 by members of the Communist Party allied with the Left. Some of its key members are also active in the National Lawyers Guild, which had a long history of supporting the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Most Muslim organizations, both moderate and Islamist, also dislike the USA Patriot Act because they believe that it was directed against them. In 2003, CAIR, American-Arab-Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC), the Muslim Community Association of Ann Arbor (MCA), the Arab Community Center for Economic and Social Services (ACCESS) and the ACLU filed suit to declare Section 215 of the USA Patriot Act unconstitutional. Both the Islamists and the Left apply a double standard against America. While neither of them protested against atrocities committed by Saddam Hussein, the Iranian Mullahs or the Taliban’s abuses against minority groups and women, we hear no end to complaints about the Abu Ghraib scandal where nobody was killed. This is because both groups see in America a successful example and advocate of an alternative vision on the way human society ought to be organized. Communism and its twin brother Islamism are totalitarian ideologies that seek to sacrifice the individual on the altar of utopian ideals. Democracy and capitalism,

132

Beyond Jihad

ideals which America champions, celebrate the triumph of the individual. History thus far shows that democracy and capitalism do work and what the Leftist and Islamist advocate do not. That is why the Leftists and the Islamists are like “tweedledee and tweedledum” living in a fantasyland. The Left believes that religion is the “opium of the oppressed”. Once their perfect society is achieved, there will not be any need for religion and it will wither away. So they dismiss the Islamist threat. The chief enemy, for them, is America. They would do well to remember what happened to their brethren Leftists in Iran after they helped Ayatollah Khomeini achieve power. They were all slaughtered. To borrow a phrase from Lenin, the Left today have become the 'useful idiots' of the Islamists.

ISLAM AND POLITICS: THE CRUCIAL QUESTIONS Syed M. Islam Many Muslims insist that Islam must have a political dimension. This insistence is nothing new. In Europe, and later in the U.S, church leaders insisted similarly, and unsuccessfully. Why is there controversy over the issue of whether a religion should have a political dimension? Perhaps it is because there is an inherent incompatibility between the two: reason tends to guide most decisions of modern governments whereas at many levels, faith drives religions. Do Muslims understand the reasons why western societies evolved to separate Christianity from politics? Do they assign merit to that separation or do they feel that modern, western, secular countries would have been better off had they retained a ‘religious dimension’ in politics? According to some faithful Christians, both past and present, it was a blunder to separate religion from the state. Yet what do historical facts reveal, if we compare pre-secular western societies with their post-secular makeovers? The U.S was founded on secular principles. The majority of its inhabitants have accepted that, even though a handful of puritanical citizens still hope for a ‘Bible-based’ society as the ‘cure-all’ for the nation’s modern, secular evils. As Muslims gain a political foothold, might they propose modifications to America’s secular principles, to include Islamic religious influence? In this regard let us refer to the 1990 Cairo Convention of Human Rights in Islam. Why did so many Muslim attendees refuse to endorse the U.N Universal Declaration of Human

134

Beyond Jihad

Rights choosing to draft and sign an alternative Islamic Human Rights Declaration instead? Muslim apologists contend that Islam is compatible with universal human rights. Yet present traditions in many Islamic countries are in stark contrast to our current, rational notions of equal rights for minorities and women which have often been deemed unIslamic. Will Muslims admit there can be universal guidelines for morality and human rights, which include women’s and minority rights, based on reason and fairness? Can they be protected in Muslim nations without invoking fears of hellfire in the afterlife, a mainstay of most religions? What moral codes are so germane and useful to Islam that their exclusion from political discourse would undermine fair representation of Muslims? My main reservation against arguments calling for a political dimension to Islam is that, just like other Abrahamic religions, it has a divisive approach to humanity based upon little else but faith. While religion may have a ‘right’ to inform and guide politics, we must also acknowledge its history of creating a false social reality by dividing people. One can cite extremely divisive verses from both the Bible and the Quran, which scholarly believers cannot interpret away. Thus religion and political life in many countries have been separated. Yet the majority of modern Christians and Jews, or Buddhists and Hindus for that matter, do not seem as collectively agitated over the separation of religion from politics. Not so many Muslims. Muslims contend religion ought to inform and guide political discourse and debate. Yet it is incontrovertible that many moral guidelines based on religion contradict each other. How do Muslims propose to resolve those contradictions if Islam were made part of political discourse? Interpretive differences in Islam have been a sore issue leading to endless essays from Islamic scholars. How do Muslims propose to validate the accuracy of any Islamic interpretation for use in politics, when it seems unlikely Allah will be at hand to confirm it? Faith-based claims to morality are unprovable and thus religion should not be a basis for public policies based on reason.

Islam and Politics—Syed M. Islam

135

Viewed in historical context, the scriptures must be distinguished from the way any religion has been actually practiced throughout history. In India, for example, there is a history of Muslim rulers upholding a form of secularism that allowed each religion to practice its rituals and morality. What would we gain from reverting to pre-secular days and include religion to inform and guide politics? Surely it would only lead to futile debates over intra and inter-religious differences in moral guidelines. Let us ask those Muslims who contend that religion must be included in politics to explain their vision of how such internecine debates would benefit humans in general, and Muslims in particular. The argument to let Islam influence politics, not only in Muslim-majority countries but also in secular countries where transplanted Muslims are gaining a political foothold, seems to have ignored all recent political developments. The dismal failure of religion-based governments to manage their citizenry is evident in most Islamic countries today. Muslim apologists tend to interpret away these as atypical and un-Islamic. Facts that may reveal the opposite are systematically ignored. This, however, is no surprise and in line with their objective to replace social reality with a false reality based exclusively on faith. My question to Muslim apologists is this: What defensible, rational basis, beyond the purity of faith, can they offer for insisting on a political dimension for Islam.

How can it achieve more ‘moral’ outcomes than secular alternatives

preferred in Western countries? Thinking forward, what might the timeline be for such an Islamic alternative? I ask because arguments in its support seem pervasive. What are its practical aspects? As a secular citizen of the United States, I ask because I would be happy to lend support to any potential exodus of Muslims to countries offering a religion-based society, away from the western secular countries where many Islamic apologists in search of a better life now live. Global humanity will then have two alternative political systems: one based on an Islamic understanding of modernity, with religion offering guidance to government and thereby sculpting a more moral society, based on a Muslim

136

Beyond Jihad

interpretation of Allah’s wishes. The other would be based on Western politics, secular and based on reason, one where faith-based religion does not meddle. Quite possibly such competing paradigms will appeal to Muslims at large, while the West will also be able to continue with its tradition of preferring secular governments. Faced with a choice, perhaps Muslim minority groups will cease to ask the West to revert to the politics of pre-Enlightenment times by arguing for the inclusion of religion in politics. Muslims who prefer to live in an Islamic state could choose to do so and leave the secular societies in which many of them now live. By moving instead of asking for religion to be included in politics, Muslims can thus help usher in the global peace that has been hitherto elusive.

TERROR’S MIDDLE CLASS GUARDIANS Esam Sohail No-one should be shocked by Malaysian Premier Mahathir Mohammad’s farewell address to the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) in 2003, in which he engaged in an anti-Semitic tirade. Throughout this strongman’s twenty two year rule of this prosperous Asian country, he liberally leavened his public and private remarks with odious references to Jews and Israel. Unfortunately there is nothing extraordinary about such prejudice in the Islamic world today: Jew baiting is part and parcel of the social psyche of the Muslim middle class from the Atlantic to the Pacific. The Malaysian prime minister, like the Nazi leaders of the twenties and thirties, was only giving vent to a genteel bigotry whose rawest form is terrorism and homicide bombings. This bigotry was not spawned in a vacuum. From the heyday of a tolerant co-existence in

Islamic Spain that

contrasted sharply with

medieval

Christendom’s inquisitorial pogroms against Jews, to the time when a visa for Israel disqualified entry into most Muslim countries, Islam’s history has traveled far. Thanks to the Axis infiltration during World War II, Nazi literary tracts found their way into the Middle East. The establishment of Israel in 1948 provided Arab leaders an opportunity for minimal unity. Then, once the oil boom started in the late fifties, hundreds of thousands of migrants from poorer Muslim countries flocked to the Gulf and North Africa to make a fortune and to imbibe anti-Jewish propaganda in middle-eastern mosques. This was the backbone of the emerging Muslim middle class that, on its return home, also found Saudi trained preachers

138

Beyond Jihad

holding forth in formerly Sufi mosques in Asia and elsewhere. Arab antiSemitism had arrived, well funded and well organized, into the poorer parts of the Ummah. We have been told time and again that impoverishment and illiteracy breeds terror. Yet that idealistic theory does not explain the demented denigration of Jews in elite English language newspaper editorials in Kuala Lumpur, Karachi, Dubai, Beirut, and Cairo. It does not explain why, more often than not, terrorists come from upper middle class backgrounds and are privy to the best education money can buy. It does not explain why the ruling family of Abu Dhabi, a supposedly moderate Muslim emirate, sponsors seminars where David Duke expounds on the Israeli “occupation” of the United States Congress. Most polite Western journalists and opinion leaders visiting the Islamic world witness a sanitized, on-stage version of society that their hosts want them to see. These visitors come back swearing that Islamic radicalism is confined to a fringe minority and is fuelled by poverty. Minority it may be, but it is neither fringe nor poor. Having lived in, and maintained contact with, several Muslim countries, Arab and non-Arab, I know something of the pervasive nature of the anti-Western, anti-Jewish hysteria in these societies. All one has to do is go to a Friday sermon in an upper-class neighborhood in Cairo or Lahore to hear about the wretchedness of the Jews and to see business executives and Western educated engineers nod in agreement. Or perhaps the keen observer should sit in one of those palatial drawing rooms of hostesses whose children study in Ivy League schools but who talk animatedly about the “poor Palestinians” having no option but to kill a few by-stander Jews. Of course, you will hear the almost apologetic line that “there are good Jews and in fact my husband’s American business partner is Jewish, isn’t he dear?” Thus the element of anti-Semitism in Muslim social discourse is not necessarily a phenomenon of the lower or working classes. But the impoverished masses do fall for anything that explains away their misery. So when their social superiors, be they the district’s chief mullah or the local editor, tells them how it

Terror’s Middle Class Guardians—Esam Sohail

139

is all a Jewish conspiracy to keep Muslims down, the audience listens. Does it surprise anyone that every one of the jihad movements in the world mentions grievances against, among others, Jews? Indeed terror does have its root causes. Anti-Semitism, of the sort propounded by Dr. Mahathir Mohammad, and fellow members of the Muslim elite, is one of those causes. The smooth, suave manner in which things Jewish are denigrated by the Muslim middle-class from Casablanca to Kuala Lumpur has a lot to do with dehumanizing an entire faith, its culture, and its homeland. From the demonization of Judaica, to plotting the killing of Jews and their non-Jewish allies (i.e. inhabitants of Western democracies) is but a leap of degree only. Mahathir and his ilk may be operational allies in the War on Terror, and Hamas or Hizbollah may not care a whit about this modern Muslim leader. But make no mistake about it. In making anti-semitism a staple of their social discourse, Mahathir and the rest of the Muslim elite must shoulder a certain moral responsibility for jihadist terror everywhere.

THE VEIL: FEMALE FORM OF JIHAD Nonie Darwish Yesterday I saw a public service advertisement by our ever compassionate culture urging people not to discriminate against Arab Americans and Muslim women who choose to wear a scarf or a veil. My youngest daughter, watching cartoons, saw young Muslim girls roller skate while wearing Islamic head covers. The television station obviously wanted to teach our children more compassion, tolerance and diversity. Of course I support the idea that no one of Arab or Muslim heritage should be hurt or discriminated against because of the environment after 9/11. It is the essence of our democracy and I believe that America acted honorably. After all, I am an American of Arab origin and the safety and security of every American should always be the number one priority of our government. However, I was also compelled to ask myself why anyone who believes in Islam as the center of their life and existence would choose to live in a non-Islamic culture? After all, in Islamic cultures non-Muslims living in the West are considered infidels, and America is the Great Satan in the eyes of a large number of people in the Middle East. Many Muslims are contemptuous of American culture which they consider offensive and find the American way of life to be bad for raising their children. One does not have to be a Muslim to realize the negative effects Hollywood and pop culture have had on our society, especially on the upbringing of our children. We are all struggling in America to protect our children from drugs, sex and violence. Ours is an open society where children over the age of eighteen, and frequently under the age of eighteen, can do

142

Beyond Jihad

anything they want without the approval of their parents. Our daughters and sons are free to reject Islam, have pre-marital sex and mingle with, and even marry, non-Muslims. So why would a Muslim who wants to adhere to strict Muslim dogma choose to leave Muslim countries and come to live with the Infidels? Devout Muslims obviously believe Islam is the center of their lives and existence. I can understand if they choose to live here because of a temporary business assignment or government job such working in an embassy. But why would a Muslim woman, who wants to follow Islamic law to the letter both for herself and her family, choose to live in the West and the U.S in particular? Generally Arabs and Muslims in the U.S eventually blend in with the population and become loyal American citizens. They become good citizens who care about their children’s education, are very family-oriented and love America. They do not choose to advertise being a Muslim through their appearance. Most Arab and Muslim American women do not wear a head cover or a veil and most men do not wear a beard. They follow a moderate form of Islam that has respect for other religions and cultures. I only started seeing the trend of “looking like a Muslim” become popular among some Muslims in the U.S around fifteen years ago. This trend has Muslims behaving in a way that states “I am different” and “I belong to a group”. This has coincided with the building of many Saudi-funded mosques in the U.S and throughout the West. While I am not an expert on the Koran, I do know that Muslims who follow Islam to the letter are urged to befriend one another and stay away from the company of non-Muslims. Extreme forms of Islam consider nonMuslims as something alien, unworthy of befriending and only to be tolerated until they convert to Islam. Islamic attire tells the world “I am a Muslim who follows Islam literally”. Muslim clergy, or people who work in mosques, naturally wear their religious attire, so I am referring to ordinary Muslim women in the U.S who are walking around looking very different from the general population. The equivalent of this would be for all Catholic women to dress like nuns. About thirteen years ago an Arab Muslim family that I personally knew

The Veil—Nonie Darwish

143

started changing their appearances after living in America for twenty eight years. When they first moved to here they wore ordinary clothes and I saw them as a kind and decent family. However, instead of continuing to blend with the American population, and to assimilate, the wife started wearing the Islamic head scarf, covering her body from head to toe and her husband started wearing a beard. They started attending a local mosque regularly and made their daughters wear scarves at an Islamic school in the U.S. I did not care since it was none of my business and continued our friendship, respecting their choice. After all this is a free country. However, the woman started preaching Islam every time I met her. She criticized the way I dressed, the fact that I didn’t pray, my marriage to an American and almost every aspect of my life! I started feeling very uncomfortable around her and her friends. I felt a sort of a wall between us, communication was impossible and I started avoiding seeing her altogether. I felt that her Islamic attire was the first visible indication that she and I could never be friends. Her intent was to preach until I changed. She never gave me the impression that she could continue to be my friend and accept me the way I am. Needless to say that was the end of the relationship. When I left the Middle East twenty three years ago, most of the middle and upper classes in moderate Arab countries wore modest Western clothes. The Egyptian government does not require extreme Islamic attire for women as do the Iranians or Saudis. In fact they discourage it and do not allow it even for their diplomats’ wives. Contrary to popular belief in the U.S, very few Muslim countries force women to wear the “burka”. When I visited the Middle East last summer, I was shocked to see almost all ordinary Muslim women covered from head to toe by their own choice, including some young girls. A large number of women chose to cover even their faces. That was what one of my cousins did. She is, of all things, a practicing physician! She chose, on her own, to wear a “burka”, her eyes covered with eye-glasses and hands with gloves in August in Egypt, when temperatures exceed 100 degrees Fahrenheit. My cousin chose to see me after my American husband left to go back to America. When I met her I was

144

Beyond Jihad

very sensitive not to embarrass her with any offhand remarks and actually told her that if that was what she felt comfortable doing then she should do it. Another woman told my cousin that Islam does not demand covering of the face and my physician cousin assertively answered “But the wives of Muhammed covered their faces.” In my own mind I thought “They probably did cover their faces because of the sand storms they suffered from living in the open desert in tents!” I, of course, did not say that out loud. However, it became very hard to sustain a relationship with her during my short visit. She also started preaching and tried to make me feel guilty for not praying or fasting. Regarding my husband, she and others asked me: “He did, of course, convert to Islam?” And of course I cowardly said “Yes”. They pressed for details on whether we pray five times a day. When I left to come back home to the States she gave me clothes for Muslim prayer! How could I maintain a relationship like that? The clothes of Muslim women who choose to wear Islamic attire in the West in fact have a social meaning and purpose. It is to make a particularly strong statement. Each and every Muslim woman I met was trying to forcefully convert me to this extreme form of Islam in order to receive their blessings and acceptance. However, I did not do the same thing in return. I did exactly what the advertisement on American television was trying to teach us. I was open to a relationship with mutual respect for our differences, but they did not reciprocate and instead they became militant. I thus have discovered that the more tolerant we become, the more we are taken advantage of. The events of 9/11 reflect this. Westerners may believe that all these women are being forced to wear the “burka”by their husbands or governments but this is simply not the case. In most cases it is done by choice, especially in the West, and even in Muslim countries which do not impose it. Fanatical Muslim women try to coerce the more moderate ones into extreme Muslim attire and a large number abide by their dogmas. Teenage Arab girls are often criticized by older women who also want them covered from head to toe. Perhaps it is a great idea for solving the problem of competition between women! Islamic attire, the great equalizer, is often chosen

The Veil—Nonie Darwish

145

after marriage by many Muslim women for many reasons some of which have social and economic benefits. It saves time and money on making yourself pretty, while at the same time you get more social approval and respect. After all they already “got” their husbands and the competition is eliminated under the “burka”, not a bad deal in a culture that allows men to marry up to four wives. Husbands in that situation have no temptation to pursue more women, yet it is not uncommon for Muslim men to have additional wives, some in public and many in secret. Women with Muslim attire in America create a wall between themselves and the rest of the population and have a mission of spreading Islam. Jihad for men is spreading the word of Allah through war. A Western person seeing a woman in Islamic clothes might consider her doing this against her will. Actually the reverse is true. It is the Muslim woman’s form of “Jihad” without violence, but it can get to be aggressive. Remember, some of these women raise their sons to become terrorists and urge them to give up their lives to Jihad. We should never underestimate the power of women in any culture. Our Western culture, always quick to assign victimhood to women and aggression to men, finds it easy to have a simplistic view of Middle East culture. Feminists naively gave themselves a new cause of liberating these “poor and oppressed” women. I see feminists on U.S television who think that Muslim women cannot wait to be liberated by them. Feminists cannot wait to find a new horizon to conquer for the sake of women of the world. They are eager to go to Afghanistan, hold hands with Afghan women with a victory sign and maybe burn their “burkas”! To them a culture is not an integral unit. They divide any culture into men and women as though there is no collaboration and interdependence between the sexes. Western feminists view equality and the welfare of women as something separate from their families and the rest of their culture. Western feminists thus believe that equality can only truly exist if women become more like their supposed oppressors, the men. Yet saving the veiled women of the Middle East is not as simple as western feminist thinking might suggest. A large number of these women are just as extremist and fanatical as Muslim men.

146

Beyond Jihad Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world. However, since we have

an open and free society in America we have opened our own society to others without fear of being contaminated by tyranny or evil from certain cultures which have no respect for human dignity, human rights or our greatest accomplishment, the U.S Constitution. Muslims have a strong need to spread Islam through Jihad and they certainly have the power from oil money to do so. Mosques all over the world are being built and named after various Saudi Kings who donated money for the cause. Muslims in America are using our open system to accomplish their mission through both peaceful and violent Jihad. They want to convert as many people to Islam as possible and those who do not convert to the extreme form of Islam are of no use to them. There is a Muslim woman in the U.S who is suing because she was asked to remove her head and face cover in the process of being searched in the airport! Our legal system allows it and Muslims, as well as many other groups and minorities in the U.S, are using these freedoms to promote their own agendas. I wonder how many agendas the U.S can safely survive!

IS WAHHABISM AN ABERRATION IN CONTEMPORARY ISLAMIC THOUGHT? Jamal Hasan Many Westerners are still living in a fool's paradise, buying into the apologist's notion that Wahhabism represents a minority view in the Islamic world. The reality indicates just the opposite. The proliferation of Wahhabi .

philosophy, a highly intolerant, purist and fundamentalist form of Islam, is so widespread all across the globe that it can hardly be considered an aberration. From Pakistan to Qatar, from Bangladesh to Afghanistan, the common belief system among the Muslim masses is today much closer to Wahhabi ideology than ever before. Ironically, this was not the case in preceding years. Thirty-five years ago, before the oil boom made the Arabian Peninsula into an economic giant, Arab countries did not have any political leverage over the Muslims of South Asia whose population constitutes a majority in the Islamic world. The Islam practiced there was the traditionalist version of the Mughal emperors who ruled India for two hundred years and did not impose Sha'ria law in the kingdom. If Islam in its current pure form is intolerant and anti-pluralistic, the Islam once practiced under the Mughal raj was quite different. The same was true in Indonesia, Malaysia and even in Afghanistan until only a few decades ago. I can provide an analogy in this regard. It is as if a poisonous snake went into hibernation during all these years. Seventh Century Islam did not have large tentacles to control and purify all the localized and “impure” versions of the religion prevalent among non-Arab

148

Beyond Jihad

Muslims spread all around the world. There was Sufism in the Indian subcontinent, which is now perceived as heresy by the Wahhabists of Saudi Arabia. Then there was “Europeanized” Islam in the Balkans and former Soviet Union, which evolved as highly liberalized and deviated from the puritanical form of Islam. However, after oil was discovered in the Arab lands, and after Western technology made the Arabs rich overnight, the imperialistic ambitions of Arab Islamists evolved. Saudi Arabia, according to one observer, played a key role in the spread of Wahhabi Islam in the Muslim world : Wahhabism, as a totalitarian ideology, sought to completely supplant traditional Sunni Islam and dominate the Islamic world. This process began in the aftermath of the fall of the Ottoman Empire. In 1924 the Wahhabi al-Saud dynasty conquered the holy cities of Makkah and Medina, creating the Saudi state. The spread of Wahhabi Islam has been facilitated by Saudi oil revenues; Saudi laypeople, government officials and clerics have donated many tens of millions of dollars to create Wahhabi religious schools, newspapers and outreach organizations.1 While the Saudis have conveyed the impression that it was the Muslim Brotherhood’s brand of political Islam that was fanatical, far more so than Wahhibism, there is evidence that the Saudis were involved in bankrolling the Muslim Brotherhood as well: The Muslim Brotherhood, an Egyptian Islamist organization, received financial support from the Saudis in the 1950s, in order to act as a counterweight to the secular Arab nationalism of Egypt's leader Abdul Nasser. This caused the Muslim Brotherhood to turn in the direction of Wahhabism. Most militant Islamist organizations are Wahhabi organizations—for example the militant group Hamas is a Palestinian descendent of the Muslim Brotherhood. The exception is the Shi'a Hizballah organization. 2

Is Wahhabism an Aberration?—Jamal Hasan

149

During this development Westerners turned a blind eye because, to many strategists, the export of Arab Islamic imperialism was seen as an antidote to the spread of communism. (Editor’s Note: The rise of Shi’ite fundamentalism under Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran after 1979 also played a part in forcing the Saudi monarchy to further embrace Wahhabi fundamentalism as a counterweight to Shi’te fundamentalism). Eventually, the sleeping snake of Wahhabi Islam awoke and the world changed forever. Today, if anyone wants to analyze the political philosophy of Islamist parties in any Third World Muslim majority country, what will he or she encounter? Almost all Islamist parties follow the dictums of Wahhabism. The present situation in Baluchistan and the North West Frontier Province in Pakistan should be an eye opener. Through peaceful means in the polls, the Pakistani people expressed their wishes and the fundamentalists won. They have vowed to turn these regions into Wahhabite utopias. Step-by-step, these provinces are veering in the direction of Afghanistan under the Taliban. In Bangladesh, there are hardly any Islamic political groups propagating anything other than the creation of a Sha'ria-based society. Moreover, their organizational bases are being strengthened every day. Although many Muslim countries are not fully theocratic, the family law being practiced in most of these nations is either Islamic law or Sha'ria-based law. In essence, Sha'ria has already gained a foothold in most of the Muslim societies in the world. Even in a country like Malaysia, a Muslim woman wanting to divorce her husband has to face all the hurdles of Islamic jurisprudence. It is only a matter of time until the process of Islamicization, in reality Wahhabization, in all Muslim countries will be completed. The philosophy of Wahhabi Islam in its original and unadulterated form flourished under the rein of the four caliphs and the present trend is that Islam is reverting to its roots. Thus political change, even if it evolves peacefully through the electoral process, could turn out to be hostile to freedom and democracy. Islamic apologists say that to be true to the spirit of democracy everyone should adhere to the people's wishes in the polls even if they choose the Islamists. Their

150

Beyond Jihad

argument would be that if the people give a mandate to the victor with a theocratic agenda, we should all support that. That is the reason so many moderate Muslims were critical of the U.S role in Iraq where they remain apprehensive of America’s motives which, though well intentioned, could lead to an election victory for the theocrats if not today, then sometime in the future. Wahhabism has transformed politics in other ways. It has started to dominate most of the Muslim insurgencies. Once upon a time, secular nationalists led the Kashmiri independence movement. Today, this is more or less a Wahhabi movement. We notice a parallel situation in Chechnya as well. It goes without saying that the anti-Soviet armed struggle in Soviet-occupied Afghanistan was conducted by different Wahhabi factions under the guise of “freedom fighters” or mujahedins. Adding to the list would be all the jihadist Palestinian militant organizations determined to destroy Israel following the dictums of Holy Scripture from which the Wahhabis draw inspiration. Unfortunately, many American scholars dealing with the subject of Wahhabism are uninformed as to what is going on in the Islamic world these days. In America all the so-called mainstream Islamic organizations favor Wahhabism, while almost all the mosques are run by Wahhabi Imams who receive constant infusions of petrodollars from abroad and along with it, instructions on what to say during “khutba” or Sabbath day prayer. One observer has confirmed this impression: Wahhabism is now the predominant form of Islam preached in American mosques. In 1999 a prominent moderate American Muslim leader, Sheik Hisham Kabbani, founder of the Islamic Supreme Council of America, offered testimony on Wahhabi influence in America during a State Department hearing. He estimated that 80 percent of America's mosques have been taken over by imams (Islamic clergy) who are either Wahhabis, or followers of other varieties of Islamism.3 Furthermore in America the backers of Wahhabism have funded many prestigious academic institutions including Harvard which has helped to form a

Is Wahhabism an Aberration?—Jamal Hasan

151

low-key Wahhabite lobby within U.S. academia. Thus it is crystal clear that present-day Islam in most parts of the world, including the U.S, reflects pure Wahhabism. In short, today there is no religious pluralism and only one face of Islam. To win the war against Radical Islam it is important to convince traditionalist Muslim constituencies that Islam now has a Wahhabi face and for Americans to acknowledge this transformation as well. The sooner we understand this plain truth, the better it will be for mankind. .

1

http://www/wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabism.

2

Ibid., Samuel Huntington in The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order ( New York: Simon and Schuster, 1996) confirms that the Saudis funded the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt in addition to their own Wahhabi clergy. ( See p. 115)

3

Source: Ibid. (This article was originally published on Friday, August 8, 2003 in Pakistan Today and is re-printed with permission)

THE ‘HIDE AND SEEK’ BANGLADESHI ISLAMISTS PLAY IN THE U.S. Jamal Hasan Do westerners know what Islamists really want? Led by their mullahs, they want to convert the whole world into an Islamic “paradise” under Shari'a law, a totalitarian system applying to all aspects of life, based on fear and coercion involving the divinity. Divine Law would thus replace man made laws and a coterie of religious elites would be the ultimate interpreters of Divine Law as in post-Khomeini Iran. While this scenario may appear to be outside the realm of possibility to sensible people, it is already prevalent in quite a few Shari'a based countries aside from Iran, including Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan under the Taliban. Now let us focus on what is happening within the expatriate Bangladeshi community because it exemplifies what is happening to other Muslim immigrants from formerly moderate Muslim countries. After the liberation of Bangladesh, many citizens of the newly independent country left their ancestral land and were able to settle abroad. Some host countries were very hospitable to the newcomers. The U.S is one of them. Historically, although the U.S currently welcomes immigrants, prior to 1965 there was discrimination based on country of origin. After 1965, however, American immigration policy became colorblind and Bangladeshis were fortunate that their country became independent after this positive development so that they could now freely emigrate to America. Before discussing the experiences of these expatriate Bangladeshi Islamists, let us explore their history. Traditionally, Islam in Bangladesh was

154

Beyond Jihad

never Wahhabi. Due to hundreds of years living under the liberal Mughal Empire, and due to other influences of Buddhist and Hindu civilization, Islam in Bengal reflected all aspects of a diverse culture which one may call syncretic. What that meant was that practices which would be construed as blasphemous in the eyes of puritanical Wahhabi Islamists were widely practiced. These included visiting shrines, mazaars, celebrating Urs of the local saints or even Milad Mehfil eulogizing the Prophet of Islam. Never before had Bengali Muslims looked to the Arabian Peninsula for guidance as to how to proceed with managing the cultural part of religion. That said, Islam in Bangladesh with a hundred year legacy now found itself challenged by petro-dollar backed Wahhabism emanating from Saudi Arabia, a relatively recent phenomenon. It dates back to the period when the U.S and many western countries helped develop the petroleum industry in the Middle East. As a result Arab countries, especially Saudi Arabia, became rich in a short period of time with the help of western technology. It was a symbiotic relationship that helped both parties. However, even though a country like Saudi Arabia depended on the West for its security needs, it simultaneously aggressively supported and exported a flourishing religious sector which was puritanical, intolerant and extremist. The U.S initially overlooked the export of Saudisponsored Wahhabism primarily for two reasons. Firstly, Islamic fundamentalism emanating from pro-West Saudi Arabia did not pose any immediate danger to U.S. interests. Secondly, to thwart global communism, a pro-West Islamic fundamentalism was a much-needed weapon in Third World Muslim majority countries. That is why the growth of Jamaat-i-Islami in 1960's Pakistan did not ring any alarm bells in Washington. That is why the brutal role of Jamaat-i-Islami killers in Pakistan-occupied Bangladesh in 1971 was deliberately ignored for greater gain in the geo-political struggle. Bangladeshi Muslims arriving in America, however, encountered an extreme identity crisis. They now had multiple choices to create an identity for themselves. They could either remain secular Bengali/Bangladeshis or consider themselves as Bengali/Bangladeshi-Americans. Or they could visualize

The Hide and Seek Bangladeshi Islamists Play—Jamal Hasan

155

themselves as Bangladeshi Muslim-Americans. And last but not least, they could prefer to be considered merely Muslim-Americans. Inside America, Saudi Arabia poured billions of dollars to build and finance a network of mosques which only increased the “identity crisis” of the immigrants. Most Bangladeshis coming to “Arabicized mosques” in their adopted country encountered culture shock. They became more and more inclined to believe that the Islam they had practiced in their faraway homeland was not “pure” enough and many felt they had finally found nirvana in the expensive dazzling mosques of an infidel land. Inside these Saudi-financed mosques, built with petro-dollars, a new breed of Bangladeshborn Islamists grew like mushrooms. In some states their influence could be easily felt. With their typical Dawaah they did not waste any time embracing a newly arrived, but confused, ‘Deshi.’ Islamist women folk visited the new immigrant's house. They constantly propagated the need for Hijab. The idea of sending their children to Wahhabi religious schools now became established in many communities. After all, new immigrants frequently think that being in touch with their ancestral religion is a good idea. However, the one thing many new ‘converts’ fail to understand is that practicing religion with the help of Islamists leads them down a slippery path. Without really comprehending the implications of their actions, many of the newly pious Bangladeshis have become unwitting captives of the Wahhabi political agenda, even though it has been a common observation among many that Bangladeshi Islamists are the shrewdest among all Islamists. That is why for the last few years, while other organizations like the Islamic Society of North America or the American Muslim Council were under scrutiny, Bangladeshi Islamist congregations escaped under the radar. But the fallout of 9/11 changed the paradigm totally. Today, even the shrewdest Bangladeshi mullah cannot avoid the watchful eye of a “newly educated” Uncle Sam. As in the movie “Telefon”, America cannot afford to have a den of “sleeper cells” in her backyard. Perhaps it is time for Bangladeshi Islamists to give up their dream of turning their adopted country into an Ummatic utopia with the help of their newly found Arab brethren. If they do not, their continuous game of hide and

156

Beyond Jihad

seek will lead them to a disastrous end and they will be sore losers. Why would they want that ?

MY PROBLEMS WITH THE CONCEPT OF UMMAH A.H. Jaffor Ullah

Editor’s Note: The “Ummah” refers to the concept of a global Islamic community which transcends the concept of citizenship in sovereign nations. There is more to the concept of the Ummah than meets the eye. Outwardly, the concept appears benign. Muslims round the globe refer to it as their community. In the eyes of a Muslim another Muslim is a brother. When two or more Muslims meet, even in an unfamiliar setting, they immediately form a bond based on their common belief system. Occasionally, they might talk about the Ummah, its problems, and the like. It is also not uncommon to hear about the Ummah in a cleric’s sermon on Jumma (the Sabbath) midday prayer. It is an ageold custom to pray for the welfare and prosperity of the Ummah when Muslims seek supplication at the end of Jumma prayer. Naturally, the question arises: what in the world is the Ummah? More importantly, why should a non-Muslim worry about the concept of the Ummah? The word Ummah was borrowed from the ancient Aramaic language. In Arabic, also, it denotes “Nation” or “Community.” Modern-day scholars, however, prefer to translate the Ummah as ‘polity.’ We all know that Islam is a religion as well as a way of life. However, it is also an extensive system of duties and laws and the Ummah is the body over which Islamic law has jurisdiction. Commonly, the collective body of Muslims all over the world is referred to as the Muslim Ummah or its followers as Ummat of Muhammad.

158

Beyond Jihad The original etymology of al Ummah is the group, grammatically singular

but semantically plural. It may refer especially to the group to whom a prophet was sent by Allah.

Muslims all over the globe believe that the prophet

Muhammad was sent by Allah to invite people to Islam. Thus they are called “Ummat Adda'wah,” “the nation of Allah's message.” If they as a whole, or only part of them, believe in what the prophet brought to them, they are called the people who have responded. Muslims are therefore called the Ummat of Muhammad. The popular expression in Arabic ‘li haadhihi l'Ummah’ (for this nation) refers to the nation of Islam, the nation that has responded for centuries and generations. If one looks at the following verses in the Qur’an, it will be clear what Allah meant by Ummah: “Thus, We have appointed you a middle nation” (Surah 2, Verse 143), “You are the best community that hath been raised up for mankind.” (Surah 3, Verse 110). The importance of the Ummah is very clear if one looks at the prophet’s tradition (Hadith) in which no nation other than the Islamic nation was mentioned many times. It is one whole nation in spite of differences in race, color and nationality. The Qur’an boldly proclaims: “Lo! This your religion is one religion” (Surah 21, Verse 92), And “Lo, this your religion is one religion and I am your Lord, so keep your duty unto Me” (Surah 23, Verse 52.) Many Islamic clergy do not like the expression “Muslim nations” because in Islam there are not many nations, but one single nation. The preferred phrase therefore is “Islamic peoples” within one nation. One can see this in such instances as that of the influence of Omar Ben Abdulaziz, Ashshaafi'ii, Al Ghazzali and others who have influenced the whole Muslim Nation, whether their influence may have affected one or many aspects of Islamic life. When a grand mufti from Cairo gives a dictum, it is meant for the entire Muslim Ummah. The same goes for Osama Bin Laden. When he addresses Muslims worldwide, he is addressing the entire Ummah. Therefore the definition of Ummah is very clear. Very often we hear the word Ummah from the presidents, prime ministers, and kings of Islamic nations or Muslim majority nations but they use it to denote the

My Problems with the Concept of Ummah—Jaffor Ullah

159

Muslim community. The same term however takes a different meaning when a member of the clergy or a jihadi mullah gives a sermon. They want to bring all mankind into the fold of one Ummah and that is the Ummah of Allah with everyone becoming the Ummat of Muhammad. To emphasize what the Ummah really means for Islamists today consider Hizb ut-Tahrir, which is the most popular and feared Islamic extremist group in central Asia. The name Hizb ut-Tahrir was culled from the Arabic lexicon. It means ‘Party’ (Hizb) of ‘Liberation’ (Tahrir). The group advocates ‘pure’ Islam and the creation of a worldwide Islamic state or Ummah. In the past, press releases from Hizb ut-Tahrir had repeatedly mentioned the word Ummah to mean the worldwide Islamic community. But even though Ummah literally means the community of Muslims, the real meaning for Jihadists is the creation of a Muslim nation. It is the dream of most ardent Muslims to see, in their lifetimes, a world community where everyone is a Muslim. But a democratic leader cannot rule this vast Muslim nation. Islamists therefore believe a Khalifah, a vicegerent who would represent Allah, should rule the Islamic world according to Sha’ria Law. Like other Jihadists, Hizb ut-Tahrir members believe that the reason Muslims all over the world are mired in political, social, and economic problems is because they do not have a Khalifah (vicegerent or an appointed leader) who could unite the entire Muslim people into a single Ummah. Frankly, the very idea of forming an Ummah in this day and age is a preposterous one. First of all, no one group represents all Muslims. Immediately after the death of Muhammad in 632 A.D a rift developed between two groups, one backed by Muhammad’s cousin and son-in-law, Ali, who would become the fourth or last Khilafah and Abu-Bakr, the first Khalifah and father-in-law of Muhammad. When Ali, the fourth Khilafah, was assassinated in 661 the Muslim world was divided into two sects, Sunni and Shiite.

The Sunnis are the

mainstream Muslims following the dictums of the Qur’an and Hadith (teachings from Muhammad’s daily life), whereas, the Shiites are the Muslims who revolted after the brutal killing of Ali. The Shiites show more reverence to Ali and that

160

Beyond Jihad

upset the Sunnis. Also, Shiites are guided by the instructions from their Imam (leader). The Sunnis do not have any religious leader or Imam for guidance or opinion. Of the two groups, the Sunnis talk more about Ummah and Jihad. I have not heard any Shiite Imam giving a clarion call for establishing a unified Ummah. So much bad blood exists between the Sunnis and Shiites that it is impossible to unite them under one Ummah. Nonetheless, most devout Sunnis always dream about a unified Ummah. Undoubtedly, it is a Utopian society in which Muslims want to live. However, the danger of having an Ummah lies in the fact that Muslims will not tolerate the existence of another community of Christians, Jews, Hindus, or Buddhists. A pious Muslim is brainwashed early in his or her life to think that it is the obligation of Muslims to work for one single Ummah. In this mode of thinking non-Muslims must be converted to Islam. Because of this kind of simplistic thinking, many educated Muslims wish that one day in the not too distant future, all humankind will worship only their god, Allah, and everyone will accept the fact that Muhammad is the last messiah God sent to this world. Undoubtedly, Muhammad himself gave the concept of the Ummah to his followers and he did this for a good reason. In his time the Arabian Peninsula was home to many tribes who were fighting for dominance, control of water sources and so on. Therefore Muhammad, being an idealist, considered unifying the entire Arab population of the peninsula into one nation under Allah. And he was very successful in implementing his ideas about forming the first Ummah. He appointed himself to the post of Khilafa or ruler. When Muhammad died, Abu–Bakr, the father of Muhammad’s favorite wife Ayesha and who was of same age as Muhammad, became the first Khilafa. After serving only two years as Khilafa, Abu-Bakr died. The next three Khilafa were mired in politics in an environment not at all placid and all three were assassinated while they were serving the Ummah. Muslims glorify the days of these four Khilafas, which lasted only for twenty-nine years, even though three out of four faced violent death while serving as Khilafa. Muslims call this period Khilafaye Rashedeen. In other words, the period is synonymous with a “golden age.” Islamists would like

My Problems with the Concept of Ummah—Jaffor Ullah to recreate the days of Khilafaye Rashedeen even at the present time.

161 The

manifesto of the political group Hizb ut-Tahrir exemplifies this goal of re-creating the golden age: Its aim is to resume the Islamic way of life and to convey the Islamic da’wah to the world. This objective means bringing the Muslims back to living an Islamic way of life in Dar al-Islam and in an Islamic society such that all of life’s affairs in society are administered according to the Shari’ah rules, and the viewpoint in it is the halal and the haram under the shade of the Islamic State, which is the Khilafah State. That state is the one in which Muslims appoint a Khaleefah and give him the bay’ah to listen and obey on condition that he rules according to the Book of Allah (swt) and the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (saw) and on condition that he conveys Islam as a message to the world through da’wah and jihad.1 The Party, as well, aims to revive the Ummah through enlightened thought. It also strives to bring the Islamic community back to its previous might and glory such that it wrests the reins of initiative away from other states and nations, and returns to its rightful place as the first state in the world, as it was in the past, when the Ummah governed the world according to the laws of Islam. It also aims to bring back the Islamic guidance for mankind and to lead the Ummah into a struggle with Kufr, its systems and its thoughts so that Islam encapsulates the world.2 The same political party (Hizb ut-Tahrir) justifies its existence as follows: Its purpose (is) to revive the Islamic Ummah from the severe decline that it had reached, and to liberate it from the thoughts, systems and laws of Kufr, as well as the domination and influence of the Kufr states. It also aims to restore the Islamic Khilafah State so that the ruling by what Allah revealed returns. 3 Muslims realize that they are not today the most powerful force in the world. They also believe that at one time Muslims were very powerful. Thus, it

162

Beyond Jihad

has become an obsession for many radicalized Muslims to revive the Islamic Ummah from its severe decline. They believe that many Muslim nations have embraced Western laws which they call “laws of Kufr.” They want to restore Islamic or Sha’ria law in those countries. Many die-hard Islamists think that in democratic Muslim nations the “laws of Kufr” dictate life and that is unacceptable to them. That why Islamists want to restore the Khilafa State. Radical Muslims are obsessed with returning to a Utopian world where Allah’s law will dictate what is right and what is wrong. In fact they long for that day. Most radical Muslims to this day believe that it is the obligation of each Muslim to help create a Khilafa State. That is the reason many Muslims who have settled in the West still dream passionately of converting their adopted land from democracy to a theocracy where Sha’ria laws will govern the lives of all the citizens. Muslims realize that they do not have any Khilafa to guide them. The last Khilafa their grandfather or great grandfather may have seen was the Sultan of Turkey. Osman I founded that Sultanate in the 13th century, but at the end of World War I the West abolished the Sultanate of Turkey. Muslims all over the world thought this was engineered by the West to deprive them of their Khilafa and in response formed a movement called the “Khilafat Movement.” The aim was to reëstablish a Khilafa (vicegerent) who would unify the entire Muslim population into one Ummah. It has been over eighty-six years since Muslims have seen their Khilafa. Of course, in all these years many Muslim leaders— military generals, despotic rulers, and potentates—all tried to elevate themselves to that coveted position but one way or another they failed. In the mid-1950s Egypt’s strongman, Gamal Abdel Nasser, was viewed by many Muslims to be that elusive Khilafa but he entangled himself with the Soviet bloc and angered many pious Muslims. Colonel Muammar al-Gaddafi came into power in Libya very abruptly in 1969 through a coup d'état and for awhile he thought he could become the Khilafa the Muslim world was looking for. But he failed miserably because he was viewed as an eccentric ruler. Then in 1979 Saddam Hussein came to power in the ancient land of the Tigress and Euphrates. The poor Arabs

My Problems with the Concept of Ummah—Jaffor Ullah

163

thought Saddam Hussein had the necessary charisma to become the Khilafa all Muslims had been looking for. However Saddam Hussein became very tyrannical and fought a bloody war for years against another Muslim nation, Iran. The Islamists thus were not interested in proclaiming him the last savior of the Islamic Ummah. Looking at the Islamic world at the beginning of the twenty first century, I see no prospects for elevating any Muslim politician or king to the position of Khilafa. Therefore, the Muslim Ummah will have to wait a little longer to find the right person to fill that exalted position. In the meantime, the members of Hizb ut-Tahrir lament that if only Allah would send them the right person to become Khilafa, then they could lend their helping hands to him to unify the entire Muslim nations on earth into one gigantic Ummah. They could then remove the laws of Kufr (read democracy) from their Ummah and replace the laws written by occidental pundits with Sha’ria laws. Many Muslims in South Asia whose mother tongue is not Arabic do not quite understand the deeper meaning of Ummah. They know that the word means Islamic communities or community of Islamic nations. That is the reason very often during an election campaign, or at other times, politicians frequently invoke the Ummah in their speeches. If a tragedy strikes in any Muslim nation resulting in the loss of lives, it is customary to pray for the dead Muslims and the Ummah. But they hardly know the real meaning of this foreign word. During Jumma or Eid (end of Ramadan) prayers, the cleric at the end will seek supplication in which he will ask the congregation to pray for the Ummah. The common folk assume the term Ummah to merely mean the Islamic nations or communities. But a true Islamist knows the inherent meaning of this term. The political party Hizb ut-Tahrir makes no bones about letting people know that what they mean by the Ummah—a vast Islamic nation with a strong Khilafa (ruler) who will rule according to the dictums of the Qur’an and Sunna (teachings of Muhammad). This is simply because this has been mentioned repeatedly in the Qur’an. There is no point citing references because most Muslims already believe in their hearts

164

Beyond Jihad

that a day will come when everyone will become an Ummat (follower) of Muhammad. A Muslim mind is enamored with the thought that the Kufr laws of non-Muslims will end and the entire population of the earth will become one big Ummat of the prophet Muhammad. That is precisely why conversion to Islam is an integral part of their belief system. Muslim missionaries (tabligis) have gone to places far from their homes to convert non-believers into the religion of submission (to Allah). Indeed the word Islam means submission. In summary, I have researched the etymology of the word Ummah. Many jihadists, to this day, dream about effacing all other religions from the face of the earth, except the religion Islam. This is, in essence, the mantra of hard-core Islamists. Imbued with this dangerous philosophy, many an Islamist comes to European countries, America, and Canada to perform missionary work. These missionaries are called Tabligis. Inspired by Wahhabi dictums many well-to-do Muslims from Bangladesh, India, and Pakistan have chosen to become tabligi. I have also cited the explicit agenda of the ultra jihadist group, Hizb ut-Tahrir, to emphasize what Ummah means to devout Muslims. In this age of globalism, humankind is trying to emphasize the interdependencies of various societies in world trade.

Progress in science, technology, medicine will come from

diversified societies. But if we let the Islamists and jihadis have their way, they would abolish the rainbow quilt of modern societies and, in its place, have a monolithic Islamic society under one Ummah. Let us make sure that their evil design will not materialize. Next time a mullah or Islamist mentions the word Ummah, reject his plea.

1

See http://cpds.apana.org.au/Documents/External/hitz_manifesto.htm#manifesto Ibid. 3 Ibid. 2

IS OUR CIVILIATION THREATENED? Mohammad Asghar The Change In Muslim Perceptions Of The West During the Cold War most Muslims appreciated America’s role in the effort to eliminate “godless” communists. Many Muslims had actually grieved at the defeat Americans had suffered at the hands of the North Vietnamese communists. But this scenario began to change gradually after the 1979 revolution in Iran which replaced the secular monarchy with a clergy-dominated Islamic regime. Now America was called the “Great Satan” by the Islamic regime of Iran and Muslims the world over started paying keen attention to what America was doing inside and outside Muslim countries. The Palestinian battle with the Jewish state of Israel was one of the issues that began receiving microscopic attention by Muslims, followed by the dispute between the Islamic state of Pakistan and India over the sovereignty of Kashmir. Once on their radar screens, Muslims everywhere also began paying grudging attention to the wealth and power that America had come to own and wield after the conclusion of World War II. Most Muslims, living in poverty and under oppressive regimes, began envying America for all it had and for all it stood for. Some in the American news media also played an important role in making America a household name in most of the countries where impoverished Muslims lived. CNN topped the list since it brought the American lifestyle and its affluence to the notice of poor and desperate Muslims.

166

Beyond Jihad Muslims' envy of, and grudge against, America turned into hatred after it

began stationing its forces in the Holy Land of Saudi Arabia in its efforts to liberate Kuwait from the clutches of Iraq's leader, Saddam Hussain, in 1991. Believing the American action was tantamount to belittling and desecrating their faith, most Muslims, irrespective of their educational background and economic standing, developed a revulsion against those very people who took up positions in the inhospitable desert of the Middle East to die, while liberating Muslims from the tyrannical Muslim dictator, Saddam Hussein. Then the attacks on America on 9/11, and the events that followed them, not only precipitated a change in the thinking process of Americans, they also brought about an alarming metamorphosis in the thinking patterns of almost all Muslims across the world. For those who sympathized briefly with America for the horrific attacks it suffered on that fateful day, the subsequent American attack on Afghanistan was the first step in giving them a “good” reason to become America’s muted, as well as vocal, critics. America's war on Iraq remains, thus far, the final act that has caused many previously muted Muslim critics of America to transform themselves into its staunch and violent opponents. Believing that the American war on Iraq was an attempt to eliminate Islam, many devout Muslim parents now feel no hesitation in sending their children to Islamic seminaries (Madrassas) with the expectation that the education they receive there will not only help them understand their faith and its past better, it will also enable them to defend it when faced with an attack. Once students are admitted, their excessively enthusiastic teachers leave no stone unturned to poison children’s minds against those whom they believe are the enemies of Islam. Upon the conclusion of their education, many seminarian students devote themselves not only to helping their fellow Muslims understand Islam better, they also dedicate their lives to the cause of their faith. In simple terms, they become “holy warriors” or “jihadis.” In the worldwide growth of the jihadis, Islamic governments, aided by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, have always played, and are still playing, important

Is Our Civilization Threatened?—Mohammad Asghar

167

roles. Most Muslim leaders, often dictators, in poor Islamic countries have always cynically exploited the ‘Islamic sentiments’ of their poor and illiterate masses for their own benefit. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has always remained, and still remains, a complaisant collaborator of those Muslim dictators. The Saudi rulers’ platitudinous attitude towards Libya, Iraq, Syria, Indonesia and Pakistan proves that the House of Saud prefers dictatorship to democracy in the Muslim countries of the world. In its bid to aid its own domestic political purposes, Saudi Arabia has funneled huge amounts of money to poor Muslim nations with the explicit purpose of grooming Muslims who would follow their “pure” and “unadulterated” brand of Wahhabi Islam. At the risk of being criticized by some, we maintain that it is Saudi Arabia that follows Islam in its most puritanical form. There are many reasons why the Saudis are doing what they have been doing through their interpretation of 'real' Islam. For one thing, the Quran is in Arabic. No matter how much time we spend on its study, the fact remains that the Saudis understand its contents better than almost all the other non-Arabic speaking scholars. They understand the meaning and import of each of the Quran's words, its historical background as well as the Arabian slang we find incorporated in it. Because of this, no non-Muslim scholar has, to our knowledge, ever tried to explain the meaning of the words “Alif, Lam, Mim,” with which Muhammad had opened Chapter Two, the corpus of his religious dictums. Here is an example to clarify this point of view. The American Ambassador to Bangladesh is believed to be very fond of the Bangla language. We are told that he spent a long time studying this language, and, as a result, he not only reads it like a highly educated Bengali, he also speaks it fluently. But does the Ambassador's knowledge of Bangla enable him to understand the colloquial Bangla used, in their daily lives by the people of North Bengal, Sylhet or Chittagong? Can he understand the language which the boatmen of Chittagong's Karnaphully River developed a long time ago by mixing Bangla, Arkanese, Portuguese, Arabic and English together in a cauldron, and which they speak even today? The Quran's language is not much different from the language that the

168

Beyond Jihad

boatmen of the Karnaphully river speak; the Quran's Arabic was the language that the Quraish people, in particular, understood and spoke during Muhammad's lifetime. He used it for their convenience. It also contains folklore common among the seventh century Arabian Bedouins. They did not disappear with Muhammad's death; rather they have been inspiring generation after generation of Bedouins with the impetus to go on living their lives in one of the harshest climates of the world. Convinced that this was the reason that Muhammad relayed his messages in colloquial Arabic, Sir Syed Ahmed Khan (1817-1898) and Syed Amir Ali (1849-1924), author of “A Short History of Saracens,” published in 1900, had no hesitation in drawing their own conclusions from its contents. Both of them believed that the Quran was written in a language suitable for the common folk of the desert. So, for example, the houris of Heaven are creatures of Zoroastrian origin, while Hell in the severity of its punishments is Talmudic.1 Giving due consideration to these factors, which evolved around the birth of Islam, can anyone honestly claim that a Pakistani or a Bangladeshi understands Islam and its precepts better than a Saudi Arabian? Should a Malaysian, who reads the Quran in Malay, in Chinese or in English, say that he understands the Quran better than a man who reads it in his own mother tongue? We believe that the Saudis have been following what the Quran told them to do. They have been following Muhammad's teachings, so surely to accuse them of deviating from true Islam is a mockery of facts and circumstances. Having said this, we need to ask ourselves: “Does the Quran teach humanity something that can really benefit it?” The honest answer to the question is “no.” If we wish to see a change in Muslim attitudes and behavior, we need to focus on the contents of the Quran. If we wish to help Muslims live in harmony with other religious groups of the world, we would need to point out to them the fallacious, highly polemical and antagonistic teachings literalist Islam imparts to its followers. Nothing short of this is likely to help salvage Muslims from their everdeepening abyss. Consider the situation with respect to jihadis, young people willing to undertake a holy war in the name of Islam. To determine the probable

Is Our Civilization Threatened?—Mohammad Asghar

169

number of the jihadis who may be joining their existing pools the world over, let us examine the following statistic that pertains to Bangladesh: Bangladesh has over 68,000 villages. If two villages jointly own one madrassa, then there are at least 34,000 of them in this country. Suppose that each madrassa is able to brainwash just one student, given the large number of madrassas, Bangladesh has alone been producing at least 34,000 jihadis each year. Given the fact that Bangladesh has a population of 140 million, of which about 130 million are Muslims, we can deduce that at least .000261 percent of its Muslim population is willing to take up jihad against the infidels as well as against those people they consider to be enemies of their faith. Applying the above percentage rate of jihadis that Bangladesh may have been producing to Pakistan, Indonesia and Saudi Arabia the three of them have a combined Muslim population of about 374 million. Thus we can safely assume that together they have been contributing over 97,000 jihadis each year to the cause of Islam. When just four Muslim countries are able to supply over 131,000 jihadis each year to the worldwide jihadi groups, should we not shudder at the staggering number of the jihadis that the entire population of about 1.3 billion Muslims is capable of producing every year? We are now seeing a proliferation of Islamic jihadis in Iraq. Its neighbor, Saudi Arabia, the creator of the Islamic “Frankenstein”, is now experiencing the destruction in human lives and property on its holy soil. But what we have seen so far is only the tip of the iceberg. Until the world unites and succeeds in eliminating this “ Frankenstein”, it will continue to face the brunt of it ferocity for as long as this monster continues to live and breathe. It would be in the West’s best interest not only to destroy this monster before it becomes uncontrollable, but also to ensure that no rogue Muslim state, such as Saudi Arabia, is ever able to aid and groom Islamic jihadis anywhere in the world. Failure to act now may be cause the destruction of our civilization.

1

Dr. Pervez Hoodbhoy, Islam and Science: Religious Orthodoxy and the Battle for Rationality, 1991 ,p. 59

TERRORISM AND THE IRANIAN MODEL: WHO IS RESPONSIBLE? Ali Sina In the last four decades interest in Islam has risen. During the sixties and seventies Iranians who were nominal Muslims, but never paid much attention to religion, now flocked into mosques while in other Islamic countries thousands of madrassahs were built instilling literalist Islam and anti-western sentiments in Muslim youth. All that fueled the rise of Islamic fundamentalism which led to Islamic terrorism. The question is how did this happen? Why did Islam suddenly become a threat to human civilization and why was terror chosen as the vehicle to achieve political gains? To answer this, we have to understand history as a chain of events. One link leads to another and all the links are interrelated. In the 1960s John F. Kennedy, fearing the spread of communism, ordered Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the dictatorial Shah of Iran, to make land reforms. The Shah took good agricultural lands from their owners and gave them to the peasants. In this way Kennedy thought he could “vaccinate” Iran against the threat of communism. Iran was, and remains, an agrarian country. Large landowners, who had the villagers working for them, also had the means to transport their products and market them. When the land was taken away from them and given to the peasants, the peasants did not have the means to market their products let alone modernize and expand their operations. To produce lucratively they needed machinery but the peasants did not have enough money to buy it. Nor did they possess any means of transportation or know how to market, process or export the fruits of their labor.

172

Beyond Jihad

Soon the new owners were left with a worthless title that was useless to them. Before they had work and pay, but now they were left on their own with no work to do and no wages to earn. No longer able to feed their families they became discouraged and were forced to leave their families behind to go to big cities in search of work. During the day they engaged in menial work and in the evenings they met in the mosques to socialize. There, the mullahs indoctrinated them and instilled in them hatred of the Shah, whom they blamed for their plight. Coming from small isolated villages, accustomed to living pastoral lives, they felt alienated in modern and westernized cities. While the Shah was recklessly celebrating his “victories” and consolidating his monarchy with pompous feasts, ordering Cyrus the Great to “sleep because we are awake”, poor Iranian peasants, now stranded in inhospitable cities, felt betrayed and cheated. Soon they became part of the huge mass of discontented Iranians who marched in the streets when Khomeini asked them to and shouted “death to the Shah” and “death to America”. Iranian intellectuals went along because they remembered how the CIA had staged a coup against their nascent democracy a quarter of a century earlier, overthrowing the legitimate government of Dr. Mossadegh, and replacing it with a puppet king who turned out to be an incompetent despot. Thus, with the support of both peasants and intellectuals, the revolution led by Ayatollah Khomeni against the Shah succeeded. It, in turn, became an inspiration to other Islamists in other countries. Suddenly Islam was seen as a powerful tool to combat dictatorial regimes. Even the West promoted this idea and reinforced Muslim Jihadis in order to contain the spread of communism. Ironically, the U.S failed to realize that hatred of the West, particularly America, was instrumental in inciting people in Iran and hence it is now the focal point of Islamists everywhere. Muslims overthrew a 2,500 year old monarchy and led a relatively stable country such as Iran into a revolution. Terrorism led to revolution and revolution led to power. It worked once and hence it should work again. What role did the West play? At the time the Islamic Revolution was taking shape, Jimmy Carter became president. Carter, a peanut farmer and deeply

Terrorism and the Iranian Model—Ali Sina

173

religious man, had little experience of politics and world stability. At a time when America should have propped up the regime of the Shah, the Carter Administration abandoned him. Carter did not think the Shah worth saving because of his bad human rights record. But Carter did not see the consequences of his lack of support for the Shah. The U.K. and France also refused to back the Shah because they had grievances against a ruler who had become too willful and did not obey them as he used to when he was younger. The Shah, a weak man, had begun to feel omnipotent and eliminated his critics, leaving only sycophants to adulate him. When the Shah ceased to be servile to the U.K and France, they in return unwittingly fanned the fire of revolution. The B.B.C bombarded the airwaves of Iran with anti-Shah propaganda, magnifying Iran’s problems. Ironically the B.B.C became the official radio of the Islamists, reporting their every move and airing any statement they made inciting the people and preparing them for the uprising. When it came, the Shah suddenly felt he had been abandoned. He was shocked to see so much hatred against him, much of which was unjustified and created by the B.B.C’s misinformation campaign. He waited for instructions from Washington. The instructions did not come and he did not have either the will or the ability to subdue the revolution by force. The narcissistic Shah was very arrogant and even ruthless when he felt strong, but fearful and cowardly when he felt weak. So Iran fell. Only now do many middle class Iranians realize they had been duped by the B.B.C. Today the B.B.C is deafeningly silent about reporting the atrocities of the mullahs even though the current Iranian regime is a thousand times worse than that of the Shah. Today there is no mention of Iranian discontent. By overthrowing the Shah and supporting the Islamic Republic, the United Kingdom and France won good business deals but the world lost its stability. The fall of Iran in 1979 was a success for Islamists across the globe. They learned that terrorism pays. The revolution in Iran started when revolutionaries set fire to the Rex Theater in Abadan, killing over four hundred innocent people, and blamed

174

Beyond Jihad

the Shah for their own dastardly crime. The perpetrators won and Ali Khamanei, who was one of the masterminds of this heinous crime, eventually became Iran’s supreme leader. The Iranian model continues to be an inspiration for the Islamists. That is why they are doing what they are doing now. They want to replicate what they did in Iran. The Islamists will continue their terrorism until they destabilize countries and bring about revolutions. By doing so they intend to create a power vacuum, which would be filled by them as soon as the present power is removed. They are following the tested and proven Iranian model. Today we are in a war against terrorism. Many innocent people have already died and many more may die. It is easy to blame it all on Islam. But let us not forget that the incompetence and malicious machinations of some nonMuslims helped make Islam a universal threat, including a threat to Muslims themselves. The West helped let the genie out. Now it proves much more difficult put back in the bottle. Today we have no other option but to fight Islamic terrorism. The terrorists must be defeated at any cost. This is a matter of life and death for all of us. They must be annihilated and destroyed. Unless they are destroyed completely, the Iranian model will be followed and terrorism will never end. The Iranian mullahcracy must be overthrown. The madrassas must be closed. Islamic terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah must be exterminated. The rise of Islamic terrorism is the fault of many. Those who are the victims of this menace are also responsible for it. The politically correct are still fueling Islamic fundamentalism and validating their terrorists activities. When Jenny Tonge, a Member of Parliament in the United Kingdom condoned suicide bombing, it tells us that some of our politicians have lost every notion of right and wrong. Our only chance is to acknowledge our own mistakes and change our ways. Regrettably, the B.B.C does not seem to have learned from its mistakes and is battling America more than the Islamists who are the real enemies of mankind. France does not “get it” either, and now, with the rise of religious strife on French soil, it is reaping what it has wrought. France will pay heavily for its blind support of Islamism. With Muslims now ten percent of its population, France’s woes have

Terrorism and the Iranian Model—Ali Sina

175

just begun. If we want to win the war against Islamic terrorism, all of us must join hands and combat Islam on all fronts. But the most important front is the ideological front. Islamic terrorism is the outcome of Islamic theology. The terrorists and suicide bombers are born and raised within the bosom of radical Islam. It is their belief in the hate speeches of the Quran that makes them despise the rest of mankind and pushes them to such extremes. We cannot fight Islamic terrorism if we do not address its cause and understand its roots in the Iranian revolution.

THE WAY OF THE ISLAMISTS: A ROAD TO PERDITION? Abul Kasem

Thanks to the liberal and non-discriminatory immigration policies enacted by the “infidels,” millions of Muslims, who formerly lived in many Islamic countries under conditions of abject poverty, misery and helplessness, have been able to migrate to kufur (impure) countries like America, Canada, Australia and New Zealand to improve their lot. Naturally, their host countries might have expected these immigrants to be thankful for offering them this rare opportunity and most immigrants have no problem expressing gratitude and loyalty to their adopted country. This, however, is not the case with diehard Islamists. Let us ask an Islamist who has migrated to a western country a question about loyalty to his adopted country. What answer can we expect? I did ask a few Islamists in Australia this question. I was both stunned and appalled by their audacity and lack of gratitude. The answer they gave was that it was neither the Australian government nor its liberal immigration policies that had brought them to Australia. It was Allah who has brought them to Australia. Many of them contended that this exodus of Muslims to infidel lands was comparable to the seventh century migration of the Prophet Muhammad's journey from Mecca to Medina with a handful of Muslims, less than seventy in all. These Islamists then went a few steps further and declared that Australia belongs to Allah, and as such, all Muslims have the right to be here in Allah's land. And why has Allah brought them here? That answer is also expressed clearly by them. Allah has a grand plan

178

Beyond Jihad

for these muhajirun (migrants). Allah’s plan is to propagate Islam through His humble followers. That means these Muslim migrants, mostly from poor Third World countries, are in Australia to lead “sinful infidels” into the fold of Islam so that righteousness is established. In plain English it means they intend to force western “infidels” to accept Islam and subject them to barbaric sharia laws (that is, Islamic rules based on the Qur’an.). Readers might argue with the audaciousness of that statement. But wait, isn't this what the Qur'an says? Islamists quote several verses from the Qur'an to back up their claims. In short, these poor people were sent to Australia by Allah to show the “straight-path” (Siratul Mustakim) to the uncivilized, corrupt, lustful western infidels. Isn't this similar to the original Meccan destitutes who migrated with the Prophet (pbuh) of mercy? After all, if those humble, half-clad, half-fed, indigents (muhajirun) could convert all of Arabia from Jahilia (or barbarism) to an Islamic paradise, then why can't the poor Muslim migrants of today achieve the same lofty goal in Australia? So their argument goes. How uncanny these similarities are! Truly, one cannot but wonder at the Kudrat (miracle) of Allah. Hasn't Allah, once again, brought the seventh century version of pure Islam to redeem mankind? Allah is capable of anything; the twenty-first century is the century of Islam, these Islamists told me and it is difficult to argue with these determined religious zealots. Let us examine the Qur'an1 to find out if what those Islamists told me is correct or not:

*Allah gradually reduces the land under the control of the unbelievers from its outlying borders: 13:41 *Allah is the master planner: 13:42 *Allah will make the believers live in the land of the wrong doers (those who are perished by Allah) and succeed them: 14:14

The Way of the Islamists—Abul Kasem

179

*Allah gradually reduces the land controlled by the unbelievers.: 21:44 *Allah will grant inheritance in land and will establish the authority of believers of religion (Islam) : 24:55 These are the words of Allah as revealed to his Prophet Muhammed in the Qur’an. Thus it appears that the Islamists are absolutely correct as far as the Qur’an is concerned. Little wonder that many of these Islamists are determined to establish mosques in every suburb of those “infidel”countries where they have planted their roots, including Australia. No wonder we see them periodically praising Islam on various radio stations. We see them knocking frequently at the doors of many Muslims to invite them to mosques for religious discussions. And what discussions are being held there? To be sure they are not discussions about the reform of Medicare in Australia! Nor are they discussions about other matters that concern most “infidel” Australians. Mosque-led discussions invariably deal with Chechnya, Kashmir, Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan and so on. With passionate and tearful speeches the imams call upon their brothers to donate generously to funds (such as Muslim Aid, Australia) to help their distant brothers. It is an irony that they have so much sympathy, love, and tears for far-away brothers, yet have none for the sinner “infidel” Australians who have given them a chance to be in a position to contribute generously to their Islamic brothers in other countries. Nor do they have any tears left to mourn the merciless slaughter of eightyeight Australian “infidels” in the wake of the Bali bombing in 2002. Sometimes they openly declare that emulating and assimilating into mainstream Australian life is an act of kufur or unbelief. They will invariably assert that, as far as possible, Muslims should deal only with Muslims and have a minimum of interaction with “infidels”. In support of this “religious apartheid” they quote freely from Qur'anic verses such as:

180

Beyond Jihad *Let not the believers take the unbelievers for friends rather than believers; and whoever does this, he shall have nothing of (the guardianship of) Allah....3:28 *Those who take the unbelievers for guardians rather than believers. Do they seek honor from them? Then surely all honor is for Allah..4:13 *O! you who believe! do not take the unbelievers for friends rather than the believers; ...4:14 *O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people 5:51 *You will see many of them befriending those who disbelieve; certainly evil is that which their souls have sent before for them, that Allah became displeased with them and in chastisement shall they abide. .5:80 *O you who believe! do not take My enemy and your enemy for friends: would you offer them love while they deny what has come to you of the truth ...60:1 Some Islamists even criticize other Muslims for buying Christmas trees for

their children or for attending Christmas parties. Some even go a step further, declaring that Australians must learn from them (the Muslim migrants) and not the other way around! In my experience, I have found that the supreme rage of Islamists is reserved for the way Australian women dress, work and live. Many Muslim women are subtly forced to wear hijab just to demonstrate to the “infidel” women the superior chastity of Muslim women. Ten years ago it was rare to find a hijabi woman in any street of Sydney. The situation is quite different now. Go to any rail-station, shopping center, restaurant, college or university and you will invariably notice a hijabi woman standing nearby. Many Islamists openly declare

The Way of the Islamists—Abul Kasem

181

that all Muslim women must cover themselves in hijab and cloak no matter what others may think of them. This is because they believe these Muslim women will eventually become beacons of femininity, chastity and Islamic beauty to “infidel” women who will eventually follow the example set by Muslim women and will, one day, be covered by Islamic hijab. Many Islamists believe that to be a certainty. Why? Because, Allah ordained that one day the entire world would become an Ummah (Islamic community). They have no doubt about this. Most westerners will be deeply shocked and saddened to learn what lies deeply buried in the hearts of Islamists living in their midst. Westerners have openly and warmly welcomed the Islamists without imposing restrictions on any Muslim religious and cultural practices and Muslims are free to practice their faith openly anywhere. Islamists, however, have a completely different understanding of this kind gesture. They believe that this generosity, magnanimity, kindness and policy of inclusion are nothing but gifts from Allah. Only Allah is to be praised for this, not the Australians. They even insist that Australians must emulate Muslims instead of the other way round. Here is one example: the cry for prayer in mosques or the ringing of bells in churches or temples is considered as sources of noise pollution in Australia. As such, these religious activities are banned in churches and mosques or at any other religious institution. Islamists dream of converting all churches in Australia into mosques and wish the air of Australia to be filled with the sirens of azan (prayer call). Is this what Islamists mean when they refer to the Qur’anic injunction, “no compulsion in religion”?(2:256). Islamists start their dakwah (religious invitations) with fervent zeal. Regular monthly meetings are held in mosques and in private houses to spread the teachings of Islam. In reality, those meetings were designed by Islamists to exhort ordinary Muslims not to eat at McDonalds, Kentucky Fried Chicken, Pizza Hut but to instead eat at Muslim restaurants, even though these so-called halal eating-stations are often unhygienic, distasteful, rodent and cockroach-infested. They are told that Allah’s food is better than “infidel” non-halal, impure, unholy food, even if it is clean, hygienic and nutritious. In addition, many Muslims are told to keep their children away from the

182

Beyond Jihad

influence of “infidel” children if possible by enrolling their children in Islamic kindergartens and Islamic primary schools. Then, unexpectedly, came the 9/11 attacks on America, and about a year later, the first Bali bombings of 2002. Most “infidels” wanted an explanation for such barbaric and inhuman Islamic actions. The mainstream media offered no real answers. People were dissatisfied with what the politically correct mainstream electronic and print media wrote about Islam, describing it as peaceful. They turned to alternative sources of information such as the Internet to find out about “real” Islam. The frank articles they read on many “apostate” sites shattered the myth of peaceful Islam. Westerners, as well as many innocent, non-practicing Muslims were stunned and shocked. They could not believe they were reading about a religion they had believed was peaceful, non-violent and merciful. Alarmed by this exposure to the truth about “real Islam,” Islamists hastily laid out their strategy to combat what they viewed as “Internet apostasy” and “electronic blasphemy”. Here are some of the tactics that Islamists have, thus far, systematically employed to discredit their critics. To begin with, Islamists claimed that the Qur’an was being quoted “out of context,” using “selective quotes”, and that “verses were not quoted in their entirety”. Overall they maintained there were translation problems, spelling errors, grammatical and punctuation mistakes made by persons with no fluency in Arabic, but with an ulterior motive to defame Allah's Din (religion of Allah). Afterwards, they started to attack the credentials and backgrounds of the writers. When these tactics of discrediting the authors did not work, they changed their modus operandi and argued that every religion has good points and bad points. Why, they asked, dwell on Islam’s bad ones only while ignoring the good ones? Why blame Islam only? Why waste time discussing Islam when the conversation should focus on the lack of industrial development in poor countries? These tactics are a clear admission that Islam, revered by its followers as the perfect religion of Allah as revealed in the Qur’an, must be defended because it has problems. Consider these verses which lay claim to the superiority of Islam:

The Way of the Islamists—Abul Kasem

183

*This day have I perfected for you your religion and completed My favor on you and chosen for you Islam as a religion 5:3 *You do not serve besides Him but names which you have named, you and your fathers; Allah has not sent down any authority for them; judgment is only Allah's; He has commanded that you shall not serve aught but Him; this is the right religion but most people do not know: 12:40 *Surely the (true) religion with Allah is Islam 3:19 *And whoever desires a religion other than Islam, it shall not be accepted from him, and in the hereafter he shall be one of the losers. 3:85 *He it is Who sent His Apostle with guidance and the religion of truth, that He might cause it to prevail over all religions, though the polytheists may be averse...9:33 *And strive hard in (the way of) Allah, (such) a striving a is due to Him; He has chosen you and has not laid upon you an hardship in religion; the faith of your father Ibrahim; .22:78 *He it is Who sent His Apostle with the guidance and the true religion that He may make it prevail over all the religions; and Allah is enough for a witness. ...48:28 Islamists eventually began to change their tactics regarding their defense of Islam. They now asked: “If you criticize Islam, then, how about Christianity? How about Judaism? How about Hinduism? One should not criticize only one religion (that is, Islam). You must criticize other religions too.” Quoting many belligerent verses from the Old Testament, they tried to demonstrate how bad Christianity and Judaism were, forgetting that by bringing out those barbaric verses from the Old Testament, the Islamists were simply reinforcing and authenticating the appalling elements of the Qur’an as well. Why? Because, the Qur’an confirms the contents of those Holy Books (the Old Testament and the Gospels). Here are a few verses

184

Beyond Jihad

where Allah authenticates that what He had written in those scriptures are also parts of the Qur’an:

*He has revealed to you the Book with truth, verifying that which is before it, ..3.3 *And We have revealed to you the Book with the truth, verifying what is before it of the Book and a guardian over it, therefore judge between them by what Allah has revealed… 5.48 *And this is a Book We have revealed, blessed, verifying that which is before it, and that you may warn the metropolis and those around her; and those who believe in the hereafter believe in it, and they attend to their prayers constantly. …6:92 *And this Quran is not such as could be forged by those besides Allah, but it is a verification of that which is before it and a clear explanation of the book, there is no doubt in it…10:37 *And before it the Book of Musa (Musa)was a guide and a mercy: and this is a Book verifying (it) in the Arabic language that it may warn those who are unjust and as good news for the doers of good ...46:12 Thus, by criticizing the Bible, Islamists had, inadvertently, criticized their own Qur’an. Eventually, the Islamists turned to a fifth tactic to defend Islam. They now suggested that no one has yet become a true Muslim and thereby the theory of Islamic denial took shape. Whenever Islamic violence is pointed out, Islamists can state that what the world is witnessing is not true Islam. These, then, are the tactics currently in vogue with today’s Islamists. After 9/11 and the Bali bombings, and many other Islamic atrocities, many diehard Islamists can find no place to hide even though they are looking for a cover or safe haven of some sort. They, too, are appalled and ashamed to witness the inhumanity and barbarism that are an integral part of Islam in the twenty first century. Nevertheless, they could never admit that it

The Way of the Islamists—Abul Kasem

185

is Islam that is the breeding ground of such acts of terror. They adamantly assert that it is not real Islam. Why are Islamists on the defensive in Australia? The reason is that Australians have woken up from their deep slumber. Statements from the first Bali bomb suspects, Amrozi and Imam Samudra, at their trials in Jakarta deeply shocked everyone in Australia. These two Islamists said in no uncertain terms that “infidels” deserved to be killed. Most Muslims dismissed those comments made by Islamic fanatics, but not the victims of the Bali bombing and the majority of Australians. Muslims are now looked upon differently. Most Australians cannot take for granted that, one day, Islamic terrorists will not try to seize power by force to enforce real Islam in every sphere of Australian society. Call it Islamphobia or what you may, the West in general, and Australians in particular, have already experienced a taste of “real” Islam and they do not want an iota of it in their lives. The government is now very concerned about the threat, not from outside Australia but from inside Australia, from the very Islamists and their children whom the Australians have fed and clothed, and given the chance for a better life. Security has been increased and all sectors of the security services are now extra vigilant. The world is slowly learning the truth about the “peaceful” nature of Islam, previously thought to be similar to other religions, full of compassion and mercy. However, the picture that emerges when the veneer of a handful of mercy and peaceful verses are removed from the Qur’an should be disturbing to anyone of conscience. It is impossible to be comfortable with Islam any more. Bit by bit, the world is comprehending that, unless quickly diffused, a potential catastrophic confrontation is looming on the horizon. It will be a confrontation between the civilized world and barbarism, a war between humanity and extreme fascism, a fight between freedom and slavery and between democracy and Allah’s dictatorship. The world is about to be divided between the believers and the nonbelievers, between Muslims and non-Muslims. Politically correct politicians must come to terms with this reality. We must face the truth that our world is really facing a prospective religious war. It is Islam versus the entire world.

186

Beyond Jihad I do not know who the winners in this potential war will be. But I can

predict who the losers will be. They will be the world’s 1.2 billion hapless Muslims. It is not that they wanted this war to happen. A small number of Islamists, imbued with the distorted vision of Pan Islamism and an unrelenting mission to bring back seventh century barbarism into the space age of the twenty first century, will have pushed innocent Muslims, who have very little idea about Islam, onto the precipice of a cataclysm. More Islamic bombs and more Islamic terrorism in “infidel” lands will make the world lose patience with Islam. People will no longer listen to their politically correct politicians who have kow-towed to Arab and Muslim dictators in exchange for cheap oil. A time is fast approaching when the people of these “infidel countries” will forcefully demand a significant change in their constitutions and laws to bar the potential trouble makers (radical Muslims) from reaching their shores. They may even demand punitive measures against those who abuse their liberal, secular attitudes in order to change the culture of the West. You may dismiss my thoughts as pure conjecture but do not forget: There is a limit to tolerance. There are boundaries to every generosity. There are limits to everything. Once those limits are surpassed people can, and will, do very unpleasant things. I hope Islamists get the message.

1

All Qur’an quotes: Abdullah Yusuf Ali’s, English translation of the Holy Qur’an, print edition, original version. Quotes directly from the Quran come from the University of Michigan’s online edition: http://www.hti.umich.edu/k/koran/browse.html

PART THREE: BEYOND JIHAD: EXPANDING THE CIRCLE OF SANITY ISLAMOPHOBIA? AN OPEN LETTER TO MUSLIMS Ali Sina

Background: In 2004, a professor (name withheld) at the London School of Islamics posted a letter to his students attempting to explain the causes of the rise of “Islamophobia”, a now frequent claim of many Muslims. The professor suggested that the West was concerned about the threat posed by Islam, the world’s fastest growing religion. As a consequence, he argued that Muslims were having their civil rights abrogated in the UK and in other countries fearing Islamicization. This in turn was responsible for turning disaffected Muslim youth into “ticking time bombs” for which the West was responsible. Here is Dr. Sina’s response.

Dear Professor, I am afraid you are completely out of touch with reality. First of all, Islam is not the world’s fastest growing religion. Yes, Muslims do procreate faster but this is the nature of all poor and uneducated people. Secondly, more Muslims are leaving Islam than are leaving any other religion. The real reason for Islamophobia is because many Muslims are active terrorists. They kill people. Aren’t you watching the news? It is unfortunate that we have people like you who brazenly deny the real cause of Islamophobia and accuse these terrorized people of paranoia and misunderstanding, adding more insults to injury and

188

Beyond Jihad

giving people additional reasons to fear Islam and consider it the religion of a people incapable of rational thought. Islam does not pose any threat for being, as you put it, “the fastest growing religion”. It is not even the fastest growing religion! And even if it were, no one would care, just as no one cares about the growth of Falun Gong which, by having over 100 million fresh converts in just ten years, is actually the world’s fastest growing religion. The fear of Islam does not come from its alleged and bogus fast rate of growth, but from your terrorist brethren, your holy book of terror and your barefaced denials. You accuse Westerners of being prejudiced against Islam and being rancorous over the defeat of the crusaders. It is this absurd and mindless thinking that is frightening. What prejudice are you talking about when Muslims can run for political office in “Christian” countries and enjoy all the benefits that other citizens have? Compare that to the plight of Christians and other minorities in Islamic countries. What rights do they have? None! You talk about the loss of the Crusaders? Sir, the Christians have “won”! They won a long time ago. The very fact that you have left your poor and Islam-devastated country and have come to their doors to seek a better life is proof enough that they have won. But what have the Muslims won? Are they technologically more advanced? Are they better educated? Are they more democratic? Is the index of crime lower in Islamic countries? Are they happier? What can you show forth as proof that you have won? You claim “ a historic rivalry of Christianity against Islam”? Perhaps your mind has been left behind in the Middle Ages. Sir, people are afraid of Islam because your fellow co-religionists are killing them, not because of what happened centuries ago. Most of them do not even know what happened in the Crusades. Some of them are so deluded that they have even have issued apologies for the Crusades. You are talking nonsense. Professor, for your information, people in the West do not care any more about Christianity, the Crusades or what happened nine hundred or even four hundred years ago. Unlike Muslims who are stuck in the past, they are living in the twenty first century and they have their

Islamophobia? An Open Letter to Muslims—Ali Sina

189

own concerns. It is not just Europeans who are becoming “Islamophobic”. The Koreans, the Japanese and nations that had nothing to do with the Crusades are also starting to fear Islam and the Muslims. There are also many who were born into Islam and now are afraid of Islam. We are all afraid of Islam because Islam is a religion of terror. This is not a phobia. The fear is very real and justifiable. Muhammad promised to “cast terror in the hearts of those who disbelieve” : [8.12] When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them. Your prophet has succeeded. Now the world fears Islam. Your unwillingness to accept responsibility and the fact that you blame the victims of paranoia makes Islam look even more hideous. Your refusal to see the truth is a living testament that Islam is an insanity that, if not contained, will blow up the world. You accuse Jewish and Christian scholars of misrepresenting Islam. I am neither Jewish nor Christian. I am an apostate of Islam. Yet I declare that they are not misrepresenting Islam. I have read the Quran, the Hadith and enough of the history of Islam to know Islam is not a religion but a dangerous cult led by the Prophet Muhammed. You even go so far as to claim: “…forcing Islam at the point of the sword upon conquered races is one of the most fantastically absurd myths that historians have ever repeated.” And you call those who say such thing liars. Tell me which version of history have you read? Is Tabari good enough? How did Islam come to Iran, Egypt, Spain or India? Millions died defending their countries against marauding Muslims and eighty million were massacred in India alone. Those wretched souls were your own ancestors. This was the world’s biggest holocaust. Now you are siding with the murderers of your ancestors and say it is just a “fantastically absurd myth”? Are you trying to rewrite history? Where do you think these “pure” Islamists got their inspiration to bomb, behead and murder innocent people? Isn’t it all in the examples set by Muhammad and his explicit instructions in the Quran?

190

Beyond Jihad Ironically, you are calling upon non-Muslims not to be prejudiced against

Muslims but at the same time you threaten that the “Hardening prejudice against Islam is creating a disaffected underclass of young Muslim “time-bombs” likely to explode into violence”. With that kind of statement do you really expect people to believe Islam is a religion of peace? Basically what you appear to be saying is that people must agree that Islam is a religion of peace otherwise there will be violence! You expressed your concern that Muslims will lose their foothold in Britain and accuse your hosts of ignorance and intolerance. Don't you think that those disaffected and violent young Muslims who, according to you, are time bombs ready to explode, has anything to do with it? How about rounding up that “disaffected underclass of young Muslims” and sending them back home before they explode into violence? You also demand that westerners use the phrase “Judeo-Christian-Islamic” when they refer to their civilization. Shouldn’t you first go back to your own country of birth and demand that the Jews and Christians be recognized as humans before making such an outlandish demand? You have come to the West and yet despise everything western civilization stands for. All you dream of is to destroy it and establish your Islamic intolerant way of life. And now you have the audacity to demand that Islam be recognized as a contributor to this civilization? What has been the contribution of Islam to western civilization? You even claim that “Islamic values are not only compatible with western values they are almost identical.” Really? Do Westerners practice polygamy, wife-beating, stoning, hand-chopping, flogging, beheading, clitoridectomy or honor-killings? What is it that you find identical between western civilization and Islamic barbarity? Is democracy an Islamic concept adopted by Westerners? Is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights an Islamic concept? You also say “Western culture is in fact based on Muslim culture”. Sir, Islam does not have a culture. What you mistake as Islamic culture is the culture of the civilized countries that Islam subdued. That culture is destroyed now. Is there any reference to Algebra, Chemistry, Astronomy, Architecture, Medicine or

Islamophobia? An Open Letter to Muslims—Ali Sina

191

Philosophy in the Quran? Does Islam encourage poetry, sculpture, painting, dance or music? These are the foundations of any culture and Islam has nothing to do with them. Many of the exponents of these sciences and arts were apostates. Terrorism however, is very Islamic. The Quran is full of verses that advocate murder, decapitation, genocide and terror. So you can say “Islamic terrorism” but you can't say “Islamic culture”. Finally you said one thing that I wholeheartedly agree with and that is “read the Quran”. I did, and I left Islam after that. I urge everyone to read that book, as you said, with an open mind. No one can write a book more damaging to Islam than the Quran. All we need to discredit Islam is to quote the Quran and the Hadith. In the interests of humanity, I urge both Muslims and non-Muslims to read the Quran so that they can discover and assess the “real” Islam. Then I ask everyone not to remain indifferent. Muslims. If you don’t like what you see, if you are not a terrorist yourself and do not support it, then leave Islam. If you are a non-Muslim I urge you also to read the Quran. It will not take you long to see the violence and hate that emanates from that book. Stop being polite about it lest you hurt the Muslims' sensibilities. Be truthful and call a spade a spade. Do not sacrifice truth at the altar of political correctness. Muslims need to be jolted into reality. Let them feel the heat. They have been too comfortable for too long. They must end their complacency. They must be forced to go back to their “holy” book and rethink their beliefs. Once they come to know the real “pure” Islam, most of them will leave this cult. Then it will be easy to identify the terrorists. This will also weaken the terrorists. Where do you think the terrorists get their unlimited supply of new recruits? The terrorists are average Muslims who heed the call of Muhammad and rise to fight the disbelievers as instructed in the Koran:

[8.65] O Prophet! urge the believers to war; if there are twenty patient ones of you they shall overcome two hundred, and if there are a hundred of you they shall overcome a thousand of those who disbelieve, because they are a people who do not understand.

192

Beyond Jihad Islam is not a religion based on logic or reason.. No religion is (Editor’s

Note). Once that becomes known Islam will disappear, like puncturing a balloon with a needle. The exodus has already begun. Every day more and more Muslims are learning the bitter truth about Islam and are leaving it. When this number reaches a critical mass, the whole edifice of Islam will crumble under its own weight. It will happen at once and it will happen in our own lifetimes. Where did Communism go? What happened to Nazism? Islam will go the same way. Do not be daunted by the huge number of Muslims. Most of them are our future allies in this battle of good versus evil. Islam is like a giant edifice built on a shallow foundation. No matter how big it may be, it will come down at once. As apostates of Islam, we are not taking it apart brick by brick, like the reformists want to do. That would take another thousand years, if ever possible. We are dynamiting its foundation. You can help by being truthful. Do not be an appeaser and do not lie so as to not hurt your Muslim friends' feelings. Damn their feelings; let us save the world, their lives, your life and everybody else's. And you, Professor! If you call this Islamophobia, you “aint seen nothing yet!”

ISLAM : GOVERNANCE OR GUIDANCE? Hasan Mahmud

Muslim thinkers and philosophers have always struggled to determine if Islam is to govern Muslims through spiritual guidance or through the application of man-made Sharia laws. Internal conflict still continues, with numerous scholarly arguments on both sides. Muslims are still struggling to determine if the Prophet’s mission was to preach spiritual guidance non-politically, or to govern through state law. Today in Muslim majority countries non-Muslims live among majority Muslims, while in other countries Muslims live among majority nonMuslims. In such situations, tolerance of “others” is not a choice but an imperative. The majority of followers of all major religions seem to have adopted that. So did Islam’s different sects, except one, fundamentalist Political Islam. Its goal, as defined by its founding father, Maolana Mawdudi was:

….if the Muslim Party commands adequate resources it will eliminate un-Islamic governments and establish the power of Islamic governments in their stead. 1 Political Muslims generally consider non-political Muslims either as nonMuslims or less worthy Muslims. In this article I will share some arguments to confirm my hypothesis that Islam’s original intent was to be a non-political

194

Beyond Jihad

religion. Other related elements such as Sharia will also be examined. My sole purpose is to initiate a peaceful discussion about Islam.

GUIDANCE OR GOVERNANCE? THE QUR’AN Islam is based on five pillars, (1) Utterance of the witness-sentence, (2) Prayer, (3) Fasting, (4) the Islamic tax and (5) Hajj, the pilgrimage to Mecca, required at least once a lifetime if one is able to go. If plinth determines the structure, each of Islam’s five pillars is strongly non-political and effectively detaches Islam from the State. The very concept of governance by social laws seems to be against the Qur’anic spirit. Nowhere in the Qur’an is there a single instruction to Muslims to establish a worldwide theocratic Islamic State. The Qur’an is silent on social crimes that did not take place at that time but are taking place now. That surely means that Qur’anic instructions about social governance are contextual, applicable to only that society. Islam claims to be the same religion preached by the Prophets from Adam to Muhammad. The Qur’an mentions a few of the Prophets and specifically describes their mission as preaching only.

1. Chapter 7, Verse 61, 62: (Prophet Noah) “O’ my people! I am a Messenger from the Lord of the worlds. I deliver to you the message from my Lord and advise you”. 2. Chapter 7, Verse 67, 68: (Prophet Hud) “O’ my people! I am a Messenger of the Lord of the Worlds. I deliver to you the messages of my Lord and I am to you a trusted advisor”. 3. Chapter 7, Verse 79: (Prophet Saleh) “O’ my people! Indeed I did deliver to you the Message of my Lord”. 4. Chapter 7, Verse 93: (Prophet Shu’aib) “O you people! Indeed I did deliver to you the Message of my Lord”. No Prophet ever expressed an intention to establish a theocratic state. The Qur’an prescribes exactly the same task to Muhammad too:

Islam: Governance or Guidance?—Hasan Mahmud

195

1. Chapter 46: 9: Say, (“O’ Our Messenger Muhammad)! I am not but an open Warner. 2. Chapter 2: 272: Not on you (O’ Our Prophet Muhammad!) is incumbent their guidance but God guides aright whomever He wills. 3. Chapter 18: 29 & 56: Say “The truth is from your Lord, so let him who pleases believe”…..And We send Messengers but as bearers of Glad Tidings and Warners”. 4. Chapter 88: 21 & 22: You are only a reminder….you are not a compeller over them. 5. Chapter 33: 45: (O’ our Prophet Muhammad!) Verily We have sent you as a Witness, and as a Bearer of glad tidings and as a Warner. 6. Chapter 5: 92 & 99: Our Prophet Muhammad is bound only to deliver a clear announcement (on Our behalf)…nothing is (incumbent) upon the Messenger but to deliver (the message). 7. Chapter 4: 165 (We sent) Messengers as givers of glad tidings and warners. 8. Chapter 45: You are not one to compel them. 9. Chapter 7: 188: I am not but a warner and the bearer of good news. 10. Chapter 10: 108: Say O’ you people!…I am not a custodian over you. 11. Chapter 6: 48, 52, 66, 69 & 108: We send not messengers but (as) heralds with glad tidings and warners…neither it is on you to answer for anything on their account nor is it on them to answer for anything on your account….Say, (O’ our Prophet Muhammad!) I am not a guard upon you…..We have not made you a keeper over them, nor you are a guardian over them. 12. Chapter 13: 40: Your (Prophet’s) responsibility is only to deliver, Mine (God’s) is to take account. The message cannot be clearer. These verses are Islam’s cornerstones. Had the creation of an Islamic State been part of Islam, there would surely have been clear instructions to Muslims about it. But the Qur’an instead stresses

196

Beyond Jihad

establishing just societies based on moral guidance delivered by Islam’s Prophet. In difficult situations, as well, the Qur’an strictly maintains the essence of moral guidance and not imposition of laws, as shown bellow.

1. Chapter 10: verse 99: “Will you (Prophet) then compel against their will to become believers?” 2. Chapter 4: verse 137 and at least seven other verses : “Allah will not guide but punish them who become Muslims and then leave Islam, then again embrace Islam and then again leave Islam.” No worldly punishment is mentioned anywhere. 3. Chapter 4: verse 140. “When you hear Allah’s messages disbelieved in and mocked at, do not sit with them until they enter into some other discourse”. 4. Chapter 2: verse 256: “ There is no compulsion in religion” Examples of a few more verses will make it even more clear. The Qur’an contains verses allowing wife-beating (Chapter 4:34), women’s half inheritance (Chapter 4:11) and half-witness (Chapter 2: 282), forbidding Muslims to befriend non-Muslims (Chapter 5:51 etc.), instructions to slay idolaters wherever found, take them captives until they repent and embrace Islam (Chapter 9:5 and others), and permitting sex with slave-girls (Chapter 70:5 ). If these verses were to be taken as the essence of the Qur’an, the guidanceverses would have to be shunned. That is neither possible nor desirable. On the other hand, the guidance verses have the potential to reconcile these verses as “Matters of Contextual Past”. Here comes the important question of sorting out the Qur’an’s normative verses as opposed to its contextual verses. Incidents took place in that society; people asked specific questions, and verses were revealed to answer them. The Prophet had to make decisions. Let us look at a few such verses:

Islam: Governance or Guidance?—Hasan Mahmud

197

Chapter 2: 189. “They ask thee about the moon” Chapter 2: 215.”They ask thee what they should spend” Chapter 2: 219. “They ask thee about intoxicants and games of chances” Chapter 5 : 4. “They ask thee what is allowed to them” Chapter 8 :1 “They ask thee about accessions”. Chapter 2: 220 “They ask thee concerning the orphans” Chapter 4: 127 “They ask you permission to marry. Tell them….” Answers to these questions construct the basis of governance of that particular society. Neither the Qur’an nor the Prophet included that governance in Islam’s faith-system. Muslims are not instructed to apply that particular governance to changed societies. As the Qur’an clearly declares, Prophets were to govern, not to guide. Past Islamic history tells us that early Muslims adjusted state governance according to the needs of the time. The Second Caliph Omar did not chop off the hands of thieves’ hands during famines, even though that defied Chapter 5:38.

He also exempted some non–Muslim tribes from Jizzya, the

Islamic Tax, denying contextual Qur’anic verses. Past Islamic Jurists bypassed Qur’anic instructions and decreed death sentences to apostates, only because such apostasy could destabilize war-torn Muslim society. To be sure the Qur’an instructed people to go to the Prophet to get decisions on worldly matters. His decisions had to have been culture-specific in order for him to have been able to help them. But not all of the Prophet’s decisions help us today. Decisions such as “Transgressing the limit of Saturday” or “Distribution of War-Booty” or “Slavematters” are not relevant for us today. We are under Qur’anic guidance, not under the governance of a society that has almost nothing common with our worldly lives today. Also, we can go no more to the Prophet for solutions. It is wellknown that many of his “Recorded Examples” are so corrupt by today’s standards

198

Beyond Jihad

that they often project him as a cruel and unjust person. So we cannot depend on them and do not accept those so-called “Prophet’s Examples.” Understanding Qur’anic contextuality is therefore extremely important. This is the only way Muslims can establish equity, human rights and peaceful coexistence with followers of other religions and still remain within the Qur’anic spirit.

GUIDANCE OR GOVERNANCE? WHAT DID THE PROPHET SAY? The main argument in favor of Islam’s governance is that the Prophet himself established the nascent “Islamic State” in Medina and ran it by consulting his companions. But on the contrary, the simple fact of governance by people’s consultation proves that it cannot be part of Islamic faith because Prophets do not shape religions by consulting fallible human beings. Our Prophet was a human being who lived in human society. He had to deal with situations but never included his decisions in the Islamic faith-system. He knew quite well that the contextual decisions of one time and place are not applicable to another time and place. The Prophet’s followers accepted him as a complete Prophet prior to his exercise of political leadership. The Prophet’s followers accepted him as a complete Prophet only after the fall of the Islamic empire. But had establishing an Islamic State been his life-mission, the fall of his Islamic empire would have been a failure of his mission. That is not possible. The Prophet’s role must have been to provide guidance, not governance. Unlike other religions, Political Islamists claim that copying the Prophet’s personal behavior is a part of Islamic faith. There are countless “Prophet’s Examples” recorded in books called Sahi Sitta (actually seven books), Hadis Kudsi, Shiite Hadis and Sharia books. Had establishing a political state been part of Islam, we would have expected the Prophet to have said so. But not a single example has been found anywhere. Two important Islamic documents, his last sermon in Mecca and his last three instructions from his deathbed are also silent

Islam: Governance or Guidance?—Hasan Mahmud

199

about an Islamic state. Rather, he repeatedly stressed that Muslims follow Islam’s simple five pillars of guidance—(1) Witness, (2) Prayer, (3) Zakaat, the Islamic tax, (4) Fasting, and (5) Refraining from using a few things.2 This message was so important that he also insisted on the propagation of this among people. All these are strictly non-political and reinforce the notion of a separation of religion from the state-machine. Islam truly can be that simple. The Prophet, when he migrated from Mecca to Medina in 623 AD, established a peace treaty called the “Medina Charter”. In clause two he used the word “Ummah” to include all peoples irrespective of religion. That is secularism. That is against the concept of any theocratic state. But political Islamists who view Islam as a religion of governance realize the tremendous emotional force the word “Ummah” generates. So they have actually overridden the Prophet by appropriating the word “Ummah” to include only Muslims to consolidate their own strength and popularity. Both the Khelafat Movement and the Pan-Islamism of Jamaluddin Afghani are based on this notion. Unable to realize the Prophet’s spirit, political Muslims take a singularistic approach to the word. No wonder they show two different kinds of support to victims of oppression. They show weak support for all victims, but stronger support only for Muslim victims. Though they do not admit this, they place Muslim Brotherhood over human Brotherhood. But, as Maulana Husain Ahmad Madani, in his book “Muttahida Qaumiyyat Aur Islam” (Composite Nationalism and Islam) points out, the concept of Ummah is spiritual, not political. Muhammed’s image and acceptance as a “Prophet Of Guidance” to his billion peaceful followers remains independent of his political role. Establishment of Medinian society was merely a historical construct. Political Islamists committed a huge blunder by integrating the political life of all Muslims with the Islamic faith-system. Had the Meccans not tortured the Prophet, he would not have migrated to Medina. In that case the Medinian political government would not have been formed. But even without his rule in Medina he would surely enjoy the same status as Islam’s supreme Prophet. Often he insisted many of his

200

Beyond Jihad

messages be propagated beyond time and place. Those messages were entirely of guidance and were essentially non-political. All of his political injunctions have been misused to create political Islam, which suffers from the strong pull of a distant past.

GUIDANCE OR GOVERNANCE? ISLAM’S IMAMS Had the creation of an Islamic State been a part of Islamic faith, our Imams would certainly have joined the power centers to serve Islam. But even after many invitations from the political power centers of various Khalifas, almost all of Islam’s Imams stayed away from political power. Many Imams have been tortured for their differences with the political powers of their day. Imam Abu Hanifa was imprisoned and poisoned to death inside prison. Soldiers of politics cut off the hands of Imam Malik on the open road of Medina, Imam Shafi’I was imprisoned, Imam Hanbal was assassinated, Imam Taymiyah was killed inside prison, and even a stalwart like Imam Bukhari was sent to exile to die. None of Islam’s four Jurists was asked to formulate laws, none of them claimed to be inspired by Allah to do so, none claimed that they formulated “Allah’s Law”. They were curious scholars who only opined about laws according to their personal understanding of divinity. Imam Shafi’i did not intend to start a sectarian Juristic line after his name, while Imam Malik did not allow the Muslim king to enact Imam’s jurisprudence as the only law. Imam Abu Hanifa and Imam Hanbal also encouraged other opinions. There were human endeavors in medicine and chemistry. But political Islamists gave it the name “Sharia” to legitimize their unIslamic rule.

GUIDANCE OR GOVERNANCE? THE SHARIA LAW Literally, the word Sharia means “path of camels on sand to flowing water-spot.” The Qur’anic word “Sharia” means path of spiritual salvation. The word “Sharia” was used to legitimize political governance but that cannot provide spiritual salvation. Of the ten sources of Sharia, nine are human and only the

Islam: Governance or Guidance?—Hasan Mahmud

201

Qur’an is divine, but its juristic interpretations have been long debated. The existence of five laws (four of them Sunni, who comprise eighty per cent of the world’s Muslims and one set from Shiite Muslims) proves it is not Allah’s Law. Here are some examples of Sharia laws, compiled by Badrul Mahmud from authentic sources to show the nature of (political) Islam’s governance. This will prove that Sharia does not conform to Islamic justice. •

A Muslim man is allowed to beat his wife or wives.3

•

A Muslim man is allowed to have four wives at one time.4

•

Women inherit half of what men do .5

•

Proof of adultery and rape, liable to Hadd (God’s punishment), shall be one of the following namely: (i) Either the confession of the accused), OR, (ii) At least four Muslim adult male witnesses shall give evidence as eyewitnesses.6

•

Instant Final Divorce by is allowed for husbands even under torture, compulsion, alcohol, narcotics abuse. (Then the husband can marry a new set of four wives and continue the cycle).7

•

The only way for a wife to get a divorce is to convince the Sharia Court and also to pay money her husband.8

•

To re-unite with the previous husband, a divorced wife must marry another person, have complete sex with him and get divorced by him voluntarily.9

•

Evidence of a slave, female singer or a person of low-respect (street-sweeper, bathhouse attendant etc) is not admissible.10

•

Women’s testimony is not accepted in Hudood cases.11

202

Beyond Jihad

•

Women’s testimony in business transactions counts as men’s.12

•

Custody goes to the mother provided she prays and does not marry a stranger. After nine and seven years respectively boys and girls belong to the father.13

•

Husbands are bound to provide only food, clothing and accommodation, not doctor’s fees, medicines and cosmetics. A rebellious wife gets nothing.14

•

Women must marry only Muslims but men can marry Jews/Christians. If a Muslim woman becomes a Jew/Christian, men must not marry her.15

•

Women cannot be a Bride’s guardians.16

•

A divorced wife gets maintenance only for a maximum three months.17

•

Adoption is not allowed in Sharia.18

•

Women’s Blood Money is half of men’s. (Only sons, not daughters, can claim Blood-Money).19

•

A rapist may only required to pay the bride-money without marrying.20

half of

Here are some other examples of Sharia law as it pertains to nonbelievers:

(A) Penal Law of Islam “Regard is also to be had to a difference of religion, so that a Muslim shall not be put to death for the murder of an unbeliever.”21 (B) “Criminal Law in Islam and the Muslim World” Institute of Objective Studies, New Delhi. There is a total agreement amongst the Jurists on the number of witnesses and their sex. Women’s witness is not accepted in cases of adultery or any capital offence. 22

Islam: Governance or Guidance?—Hasan Mahmud

203

Proof of adultery and rape liable to Hadd (God’s punishment) shall be one of the following namely: (1) Either confession of the accused), OR, 2. At least four Muslim adult male witnesses (must) give evidence as eyewitnesses.23 The Presiding Officer of the court shall be a Muslim. Provided that if the accused is a non-Muslim, the Presiding Officer may be a non-Muslim.24 Governance by these laws surely cannot be Islamic.

GUIDANCE OR GOVERNANCE? ISLAM’S PREACHERS Islamic theology flourished in the Middle East due to the dedication and hard work of many respected Imams such as Bukhari, Tabari, Ibn Ishaq, Ibn Hisham, Malik, Hanbal, Shafi’i, Abu Hanifa, Malik, Taymiyah, among others. All of them stayed away from political power even after several invitations from the Muslim Caliphs. Almost all of them were severely persecuted, imprisoned, exiled, tortured and even killed by Muslim Caliphs but they never joined the State-power. They constantly held to the notion that political power is antithetical to Islamic guidance. Islamic preachers established Islam in vast areas. They knew that power corrupts and that absolute power corrupts absolutely. Many of them were robust fighters. Based on people’s complaints, they fought and defeated kings who tortured their peoples. As winners in wars assuming political power could have helped them in the difficult task of preaching Islam in lands that were non-Muslim. Nevertheless, just how many of them assumed political power? We found none. Preachers of other religions maintained the same notion of refraining from political power. Jesus never tried to establish a political state, nor did Moses. Lord Buddha was a prince; yet he left his palace to preach. So did Mohavir, the preacher of the Jain religion. Choitonnyo walked on roads barefooted and lived with people to preach his Boishnob religion. Guru Nanak never established a Sikh-state. These all are established religions today. On the other hand, Deen-E Elahi, the new religion of the great Indian emperor Akbar, has vanished with time.

204

Beyond Jihad In Muslim empires initially, it was the norm to update the mode of

governance with respect to changed societies. (1) The Prophet did not nominate his successor but the first and second Caliphs did. (2) During a famine the second Caliph Omar did not cut hands of thieves and he ignored the Qur’anic verse requiring this punishment. (3) He discarded quite a few examples of the Prophet by calling the deviation “Bedat-E Hasana” (beautiful deviations). (4) He also did not take Islamic tax from some non-Muslim tribes, thus overriding the Qur’anic injunction to do so. (5) Caliph Mwabia openly said that some of the Prophet’s examples were not repeatable under prevailing circumstances. Imam Taymiya said the same about the first four Khalifas. They knew that all of the Prophet’s examples were not parts of Islam and that at times the Prophet behaved extrareligiously. The metamorphosis of Muslim’s governance is a historical fact. Numerous additions followed numerous abrogations. The worst was the addition of politics to the Islamic faith. Political developments experienced by Muslims were then taken as political dimensions of an Islamic faith system. Many Muslim scholars warned Muslims about its disastrous effects, some of which we are experiencing now. Realizing the thin line separating Islam’s spiritual guidance and contextual governance is extremely important in our turbulent world today. Otherwise we will be stuck forever with killing non-believers, slavery, concubinage and violation of women’s rights and those of non-Muslims. Apart from external criticisms, internal conflicts and clashes of ideas within Muslim societies are becoming louder and clearer. Muslims always struggled to decide if Islam is about guidance or governance, Marefa’at or Shariya’at. The hour for a final decision seems near.

CONCLUSION A majority of Muslims actually follow Qur’anic normative guidance. We unknowingly reject many of the so-called “Prophet’s examples” and so-called “Allah’s Laws”. For example, when we accept the leadership of qualified women

Islam: Governance or Guidance?—Hasan Mahmud

205

to run a government we reject one “Prophet’s Example” in Sahi Bukhari. When we shake hands with lady co-workers or accept a singer’s witness, we defy Sharia laws banning those practices. When we reject instant divorce by husbands we reject Sharia laws. When we object to forcing a divorced wife to a stranger’s bed in order to remarry her previous husband, we deny the Sharia law of Hila Marriage. When we make friends with good Christians and Jews, we “deviate” from another Sharia law that forbids us to do so. When we do not get involved in armed jihad against non-Muslims we reject Sahi Hadis. We do those by the natural human instinct of conscience. Qur’anic verses of moral guidance can be applied eternally.25 But contextual verses referring to slavery, sleeping with slave girls, polygamy, wifebeating, women’s half-witness, killing non-Muslims or observing “Limit of Saturday” surely cannot be applied any more.26 But sadly, Islamists who view Islam as governance have decided Islam’s attitude towards non-Muslims in the following order: (1) Peaceful persuasion, (2) Fighting for defense, (3) Limited attack and (4) Open aggression. They have explained the Qur’anic progression as: So at first 'the fighting' was forbidden, then it was permitted and after that it was made obligatory against those who start 'the fighting' against you (Muslims) and against all those who worship others along with Allah.27 In his book “Istenbat al-Tanzeel” the well-known Islamic scholar Suyuti wrote, Everything in the Qur’an about forgiveness is abrogated by Chapter 9:5. The verse: “So when the sacred months are over then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives…”28 Dr. Sachedina criticizes this interpretation as

206

Beyond Jihad According to the Jurists, the tolerant verses are abrogated by the sword verse (9:29) that ordains warfare against the people of the Book.29

This is, in fact, only a human interpretation, not one from the Qur’an or the Prophet. Such things happen when politics pollutes a religion. Islam and Muslims are facing enormous theological challenges from the outside as well as from within. These interpretations are suicidal to Muslims but are natural outcomes of religious governance. The above interpretation of our past scholars was based on their fallible understanding of Islam. Our present scholars can undo it and guide us towards Qur’anic pluralism, from governance to guidance. We Muslims must choose peace over conflict, guidance over governance and spiritual Islam over political Islam.

1

2

Sayyid Abu'l-A'la Mawdudi, Jihad in Islam , (Lahore, Pakistan: Islamic Publications (Pvt.) p. 23. Translation of Sahi Bukhari edited by Hafez Abdul Jalil, Hadis #12, 13 & 14, p. 39.

3

Shafii Law# m.10.12 Page-541 & o.17.4 , page 619. See also “The Trap of Islamic Law” posted by Badrul Mahmud on: http://66.221.2.86/links/pages/Scholars/Islamic_Law. According to Arab.net, publisher of leading newspapers in Saud Arabia, “ Underlying the judicial structure are the four schools of thought in Islamic law. They are: the Hanbali school; the Shafii school; the Hanafi school; and the Maliki. Before the unification of the Saudi judicial system, the courts, as well as individual judges, used to derive their legal judgments from these various schools. In the Western Region, for instance, there were two dominant schools of thought - the Hanafi, and the Shafii.” Source: http://www.arab.net/saudi/sa_law.htm 4

Hanafi Law, p. 31 and Dr. Abdur Rahman Doi, Sharia the Islamic Law, (Ta-Ha Publishers, 1989) p. 147

5

Ibid, Sharia, The Islamic Law , p.299.

6

Shafi’i Law, page 638 Law# o.24.9 See also Pakistan’s Hudood Ordinances #7 of 1979 amended by #20 of 1980. Qur’an translated by Maulana A. Yousuf Ali and Maulana Muhiuddin Khan, p. 928 (Tafseer- explanation section)

7

(a) Hanafi Law , pp. 81 and 523. (b) Shafi’i Law, p. 560 Law# N.3.5 (Instant but not under compulsion) (c) Deen Ki Bnate , Maolana Ashraf Ali Thanvi, p. 254, Law 1537,1538, 1546 and 2555. (Includes under compulsion) (d) Website , Sunnipath.com

Islam: Governance or Guidance?—Hasan Mahmud

207

8

(a)Hanafi Law,page 112 (b)Shafi’i Law , pp.562, 565 & 981-Law# n.5.0, n7-7&w-52-1-253255. (c) Op cit., Sharia the Islamic Law, page 192. (d)Court Documents of Egypt and Istanbul, 17th century in Amira El Azhari., Women, Family and Divorce Laws in Islamic History, 1996.

9

(a) Ayatollah Sistani, Islamic Laws, translated by Hamid Mavani (Montreal, Quebec: Organization for the Addvancement of Islamic Knowledge and Humantiarian Sciences, 1996) p. 469 Law# 2536. See also “ The Trap of Islamic Law” posted by Badrul Mahmud on: http://66.221.2.86/links/pages/Scholars/Islamic_Law/ (b) Hanafi Law,p. 15 (c)Shafi’i Law,p. 673 Law# P.29.1(d) Moksudul Mumeneen, p.231. (e)Maolana Ashraf Ali Thanvi Deen Ki Bnate (Dhaka: Siddikia Publications), page 252 Law# 1543 –(2). 10

(a) Hanafi Law , p. 361 and (b) Shafi’i Law, p. 636 Law#o.24.3.3.

11

(a) Hanafi Law,page 353.(b)Shafi’i Law- page 638 Law#o.24.(c) Penal Law of Islam pp. 44, 45, Source: http://www.renaissance.com.pk/septfeart2y2.html (d) Tafseer translation of the Qur’an by Muhiuddin Khan, op. cit., page 239. 12

Shafi’i Law, p. 637 Law#o.24.7 and Hanafi Law, p. 352.

13

Shafi’i Law, p. 550 Law#m.13.0 and Hanafi Law, p. 138-139

14

Hanafi Law,page 140 and Shafi’i Law,page 544 Law#m.11.4 See Tafseer translation of the Qur’an by Muhiuddin Khan, op. cit., page 867

15

Tafseer translation of the Qur’an, edited by Muhiuddin Khan, op cit., p. 120.

16

Hanafi Law, page 138-139 and Shafi’i Law# m.3.4.1, p. 518

17

Hanafi Law, p. 145 and Shafi’i Law, p.546 Law#m.11.10.3

18

Op cit., Sharia the Islamic Law, p. 463.

19

Shafi’i Law, p. 590 Law# o4.9 and op cit., Sharia, the Islamic Law, p.235.

20

Shafi’i Law #m.8.10 p. 535.

21

See the Penal Law of Islam, p.149.

22

Tahir Mahmood, “Criminal Law in Islam and the Muslim World”, an anthology on http://www.iosworld.org/ebk16.htm

23

Op cit., p. 445 . See also Pakistan’s Hudood Law #7 of 1979 amended by #20 of 1980. This is supported by the Tafseer translation of the Qur’an, translated by Muhiuddin Khan, p. 928.

24

Op cit., “Criminal Law in Islam and the Muslim World ” p. 448.

25

Examples: - 109:1- 6, 38:15-17, 20:130, 19:83, 84, 20:134, 135, 17:54, 52:45, 47, 67:26 and many more. 26

Examples: - 22:39-41, 22:58, 2:190-194, 2:216, 217, 5:33, 9:111, 8:15-16, 8:67-69, 9:122 and many more.

208

Beyond Jihad

27

See the Introduction section of the English translation of Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan’s Sahi Bukhari ( Medina Islamic University).

28

29

Jalaluddin Suyuti, Istenbat al-Tanzeel (published 1497 AD)

See Joseph Montville, The Islamic Roots of Democratic Pluralism ( Oxford University Press, 2000) p. 48. See also, Dr. Hashim Kamali, Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence. (Cambridge: Islamic Texts Society, 1991) Dr. Hashim Kamali, one of the world’s leading jurists today denounces this interpretation in this book.

A PEACEFUL RELIGION FOR THE SEVENTH CENTURY A CALL FOR REFORM IN ISLAM Esam Sohail Is Islam, as its defenders have argued, a peaceful religion which has given unprecedented rights to women and minorities? Do the social tenets of the faith encourage democratic consultation, discourage slavery, and promote learning? This view of Islam is accurate and true, provided you are talking about the seventh century until the Renaissance! Indeed, in relation to much of Christendom, many Islamic societies did provide a degree of tolerance for religious minorities and a degree of rights for women that would have been blasphemous in Western Europe. In its relations with the polities of the nonMuslim world, the Muslim Orient was no more given to warring and plundering than its contemporaries of the Occident. That was then. This is now. The standards of humanity have evolved beyond the enlightened chivalry set in the seventh century. Repeating ad nauseum that Islam is a religion of peace and moderation is simply a cry of desperation that has lost the moorings of time. In today’s world, mere tolerance of religious minorities is not enough and nor is the proposition that some rights are ‘given’ to women: a civilization worthy of the name must accept, rather than merely tolerate, the diversity of worship styles and rigorously uphold the idea that men and women are both endowed with certain equal and unalienable rights. That acceptance of human diversity and of the inviolability of human rights leads to the negation of the theory that the tenets of one religious faith are so superior to other

210

Beyond Jihad

traditions as to allow blatant discrimination and suppression of individual liberties. An Islam that cannot thus accept the idea that all individuals are created equal by the Creator and blessed inherently with certain basic and unalienable rights must be condemned as a religion of war, intolerance, and bigotry. When referring to that kind of Islam, let us then not equivocate. There is no reason to use mitigating phrases such as ‘Islam has been hijacked by extremists’ or ‘it gives rights to Jews and Christians’. Muslims who rightly criticize the harassment of their co-religionists in Europe and the United States must be asked about their total silence at the severe persecution of Christians in Pakistan, Jews in Iran, and animists in the Sudan. Are the lives and honor of Muslims more precious than those of Christians, Hindus, and Jews? Are Muslim clerics ready to condemn now and forever the insidious theory of the ‘dhimmi’ whereby a non-Muslim in a Muslim society was protected, but at the sufferance of a distinctly second-class citizenship? Unfortunately, however, raising these issues with most educated Muslims yields only responses fed to them from childhood. A ‘dhimmi’ is supposedly an honored Jew or Christian who has all the freedom to practice his religion in a benevolent Islamic state (as if that freedom is a gift rather than a right!). Are Muslim women actually protected by the restrictions placed on them—or by the polygamy sometimes foisted on them? Is Islam so weak that it cannot face the possibility of non-Muslims and women participating as equal members of society? The choice before Islam’s clerical elite is simple. Either they can conduct ijtihaad (wide ranging consultations) and help bring to their contemporary tradition the spiritualism of reflection and personal piety that was envisaged by Sufi saints like Rumi, Hafiz, and Mansour Hallaj. Or they can continue defending obscurantism with defensive arguments about how good Islam is to women or how much it promotes peace and defends human rights. In the former instance, Muslims should be helped with our understanding, support, and patience. In the latter, the civilized world has no option but to forcefully contain a religious

A Peaceful Religion for the Seventh Century—Esam Sohail

211

system whose contemporary tenets fly in the face of the most fundamental concepts of humanity, decency and liberty. Tolerance of religious minorities and allowing women to choose their own husbands were revolutionary ideas in the seventh century. Harping on these medieval achievements does not, and must not, absolve the apologists of Islamic fundamentalism for its failures today.

A CULTURE OF FEAR: RELATIONS BETWEEN ARABS AND JEWS S. Abdallah

Israeli Arabs, like me, have always yearned to be with other Arabs. The language, culture, and the possibility of just being with other Arabs was enough to bring tears to our eyes. It wasn’t long before I realized what I had—or had not— been missing. When I came to America and started meeting Arabs from the Arab world I was taken aback. We Israeli Arabs had thought that we were one of them. I was enjoying talking to people I thought of as friends when I heard one of them call me a “Zionist”. At first I didn't think much of it. I grew up with Zionists and it was never a bad word to me. However, the way they looked at me after that made me to realize what the Jews I knew had been sensitive about. Because I grew up virtually next door to Jews, who were like family to us, I didn't hate Jews or Israel. When I heard a Jew talk about how the Arabs hated them and wanted them dead, I thought it was an exaggeration. But I now knew they were not exaggerating when I actually sat with non-Israeli Arabs and heard their hostility. I remember thinking to myself, “What do they have to do with this conflict?” They don't even care about us. But I discovered that the hate goes above and beyond the Palestinian “problem”. It was frightening to imagine that these people were parents, like me, but that their own governments had mandated that their people, and even their children, hate Jews. How can a society remain healthy when its children, its future, are so focused on killing and taking revenge

214

Beyond Jihad

against an entire people whom they have declared an enemy? This hate is so embedded in Arab culture that few question it, and those who do are considered traitors or, like me, Zionists! Most of us want to raise our children in a healthy environment. We don't want to give them too much sugar because it makes them hyperactive. We make sure they are dressed warmly in the winter so they don't catch colds. We stress the importance of studying in order to make sure that we secure their future. Yet why is their mental health not taken into consideration? Do Arabs not recognize that by fomenting and harboring a “Hatfield and McCoy” hatred what they are doing is bringing up children with the need for revenge? How healthy is that? Surely it is pure, unadulterated child abuse. To make it worse, they claim that Jews raise their children to hate them. Be that as it may, how does that justify ruining our own Arab children? It is even confusing to me, as a Muslim, to imagine God these days. The God I knew in my heart as an innocent child was a parent figure, one who loved and cared about me. I cannot imagine that I would be happy breaking even an ashtray that I made in school thirty years ago, much less hate and ordain hate against it. How could a true Muslim not question how the same God, who is merciful and forgiving, have created an entire nation, Israel, for Arabs to hate? And why do we hate the Jews? We hate them, we are told, for the sake of Allah because they slandered Allah and they killed and slandered His Prophets. Here is one example of what many Arabs hear in their mosques:

And make ready against them all you can of power, including steeds of war (tanks, planes, missiles, artillery) to threaten the enemy of Allah and your enemy, and others besides whom, you may not know but whom Allah does know. And whatever you shall spend in the Cause of Allah shall be repaid unto you, and you shall not be treated unjustly.1 Though this verse discussed a particular battle, and no mention in was made in the Quran about tanks or bombs, some imams feel comfortable twisting the entire

A Culture of Fear—S. Abdallah

215

verse to suit their agendas. Sermons frequently ask Allah to humiliate the Jews and mushrikeen, expel the Jews from Jerusalem and grant victory to Muslims. This is not mentioned anywhere in the holy scriptures and yet it has become a paragraph that is recited at mosques all the time. It amazes me that this is actually part of a religious sermon. For me, personally, a place of prayer is a place to seek peace, not war. How can a preacher sleep well knowing that the only thing he can do to prove that his religion is right is by belittling the faith of others? Why is it necessary? If people are perfectly happy, secure and content in their faith, they don't need to belittle anyone. If a person has conscience and dignity, how can he instill such ungodly notions in his followers’ hearts? I cannot fathom that it is God's intention for any nation, Muslim or not, to justify hate and promote it against creatures whose only fault is that He created them of a different creed. Surely if a person believes in God, and believes that God creates and protects all, then isn't it an oxymoron to simultaneously believe that God has singled out one group, the Jews, to hate? If God wanted us to all be the same, he would have created us that way. Another argument sustaining hate is counter-hate! We have to hate them because they hate us! What I find ironic is how much justification is provided for hatred. It is ironic because Arab arguments for hating Jews and Christians are these: “They teach their children to hate us, they want to destroy us” and, my personal favorite, “they deserve to be condemned because they have strayed away from God's message and true calling!” Be that as it may, how do we Arabs resolve our differences with other faiths? We turn around and create a state of mind where God is viewed as a leader of a gang and an outlaw. This is not my God. My God has ordained us to be merciful and spread peace. My God has said to the believers that they will inherit the highest level in heaven if they would return ignorance with peace. So even if we accuse others of not following “the right message,” hate and hostility on our part is not justified. Thankfully, I meet more and more Muslims who reject this way of thinking and have come to terms with the “prison” state of mind that they have been living in due to these

216

Beyond Jihad

irresponsible teachings. They realize that indoctrination only serves to keep free will away. Ignorance is not bliss!

1

Sura - 8 The Spoils of War (Al-Anfaal) Chapter 8, verse 60 from the Qur’an.

MEDIC MAHATHIR: RIGHT DIAGNOSIS, WRONG PRESCRIPTION? Alamgir Hussain

Dr. Mahathir Mohammad, the former Malaysian Prime Minister, was long deemed a lone but persistent voice of reason among the leaderships in the Muslim world. Best known for his consistently vitriolic tirades against the West, these for the most part targeted the trade and economic policies of rich Western nations and international institutions, like the International Monetary Fund, whose policies he considered unsuitable for poorer nations. Despite his anti-Western diatribes, Dr. Mahathir always placed an emphasis on acquiring excellence in science and technology by the Muslim world in an effort to catch up with the West and as a means of survival in the modern world, a call sadly absent in the rest of the backward Muslim world. For this reason Dr. Mahathir commanded respect among the progressive and modernist intellectuals in the Muslim world despite criticisms of his actions against his political enemies when he was in office. However, after being promoted to the top post of the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC), Dr. Mahathir made an unexpected series of remarks at the OIC conference meeting of October 2003, which he claimed were misunderstood by his critics, especially by those in the West. While his contentious comments created a tide of joyous approbation among the majority of ordinary Muslims, a minority of his diehard apologist fans (mostly moderate Muslims) were busy explaining how badly the West and his critics misunderstood his assertions and blown the whole issue out of proportion. Dr. Mahathir’s

218

Beyond Jihad

comments, on the other hand, created heated debate and intense criticism among his critics from both Muslim and non-Muslim backgrounds. Prompted to look into the controversy as a long-time fan of Dr. Mahathir, I went through the whole script of his 59-point speech and in doing so began to realize that Dr. Mahathir had possibly lived up to his reputation of a good medic by making the correct diagnosis of the “cancer” which is debilitating the entire Muslim world (a faculty glaringly absent amongst leaders in the rest of the Muslim Ummah) but appeared to have miserably failed by prescribing a wrong drug, possibly a fatally dangerous one, to be precise. This essay will focus on the seemingly controversial comments he made in relation to the Jewish-Muslim conflict that were condemned by his critics as a potential bombshell foreshadowing even more serious troubles between the two peoples.

Problems the Muslim world must address: Dr. Mahathir’s speech rightly recognized the shortcomings and weaknesses of the Muslim world, namely, that Muslim countries are weak and badly administered, are constantly in a state of turmoil, that Muslim countries are unfairly occupied by foreign powers and that their people are starved and killed. He asked how 1.3 billion Muslims can exert no power to save themselves from the humiliation and oppression inflicted upon them by a much smaller enemy, the Jews. As always, Dr Mahathir honestly spelt out the critical issues handicapping the Islamic world and stressed that they must be overcome if the Muslim world was to catch up with the advanced world. This is where Dr. Mahathir always stood apart from other Muslim leaders who have either failed to identify, or sought to ignore, the need for urgency in addressing these critical issues. Leaders and politicians in most pseudo-democratic Muslim countries have been engaged mainly in petty bickering and religious game-playing to grab power, whilst the kings of the middle-eastern countries, riding on the temporary flow of oil-money, have engaged in leisure and indulgence without caring about the problems debilitating their countries. It should be understood that unless we in the Muslim

Medic Mahathir—Alamgir Hussain

219

world work hard on these issues and excel in science and technology, and attain good governance, institute basic human rights and democracy, we will always remain an impotent force in world affairs, despite our huge natural resources and the our large population. It should also be emphasized that this situation will only get worse when the oil factor is weakened in the Middle East in a few decades.

The Jewish-Muslim conflict: Although Dr. Mahathir has precisely identified the pressing issues that handicap the Muslim world and stressed the need to overcome them, this good work was overshadowed by the anti-Semitic and anti-Western vitriol he expressed in his speech. The strongly anti-Semitic and anti-West flavor, which occupied a significant portion of his speech, was reflected in the following selected quotes:

•

The Muslims will forever be oppressed and dominated by the Europeans and the Jews.

•

Muslim Ummah are treated with contempt and dishonor... Our countries are occupied. Our people starved and killed (by the Jews & West).

•

1.3 billion people can exert no power to save themselves from the humiliation and oppression inflicted upon them by a much smaller enemy.

•

1.3 billion Muslims cannot be defeated by a few million Jews. There must be a way. And we can only find a way if we stop to think, to assess our weakness and our strength, to plan, to strategize and then to counter attack.

•

Over half a century we have fought over Palestine. What have we achieved? Nothing. We are worse off than before. If we had paused to think then we could have devised a plan, a strategy that can win us final victory.

•

1.3 billion people cannot be simply wiped out. The Europeans killed 6 million Jews out of 12 million. But today the Jews rule this world by proxy. They get others to fight and die for them.

220

Beyond Jihad Dr. Mahathir received cheers and applause for these potentially dangerous

comments from his fellow comrades and even more kudos from ordinary Muslims around the world. I must emphasize that the good work he has done by pointing to the pressing issues crippling the Muslim world, was overshadowed by the fact that the entire Muslim Ummah was ecstatic over the anti-Semitic hate-inciting aspects of his lecture. His colleagues left the conference satisfied with the way Dr. Mahathir spoke his mind against the Jews and the West, but forgot about those critical issues Dr. Mahathir desperately asked the Muslim world to address. As an ordinary Muslim, I believe that Jews do not bear any grudges against Muslims in general, except for the issue of the Israel-Palestine conflict, and that they do not have any ill feeling against Muslims in other parts of the world. If this is indeed true it was extremely unwise and irresponsible for Dr. Mahathir to label Jews as the common enemies of all Muslims. Beyond that, it was an incitement of hate on Dr. Mahathir’s part to urge the entire Muslim world to unite, strategize and strengthen before launching a destructive attack against the enemy, the Jews, a call which could only lead to a devastating end. Dr. Mahathir also urged Muslims to follow the path of the Prophet Muhammad and the instructions of Allah in this fight, a sentiment with the potential to incite fanatics and is similar to a strategy used by Adolf Hitler who once reputedly said that by defending himself against the Jew he was fighting for the work of the Lord.

Do Jews deserve hate or compassion? Dr. Mahathir was honest in recognizing the fine achievements of the Jews when he said:

We are up against a people who think. They survived two thousand years of pogroms not by hitting back, but by thinking. They invented and successfully promoted Socialism, Communism, human rights and democracy so that persecuting them would appear to be wrong, so they may enjoy equal rights with others. With these they have now gained control of the most powerful countries and they, this tiny community, have become a world

Medic Mahathir—Alamgir Hussain

221

power. We cannot fight them through brawn alone. We must use our brains also.1 Dr. Mahathir rightly credited the Jews for the invention of socialism, human rights and democracy but then quickly labeled them as congenital enemies of all Muslims and called for a persistent and effective fight against them. But I must ask the simple question: shouldn’t Dr. Mahathir and the Muslims in general have instead paid tribute to the Jews for the unparalleled achievements they have blessed humankind with, despite the ceaseless inhuman persecutions they have experienced at the hands of Christians, which Muslims later joined and which continued for almost two millennia culminating in the devastating Holocaust during World War II? Aren’t the concepts of socialism, humanism, democracy and equal rights the finest hallmarks of today’s civilized world? The truth of the matter is that a few million Jews have contributed much more to humankind in science, technology, entrepreneurship, entertainment, and human development in comparison with 1.3 billion Muslims. Today, thousands of Muslims are working in Jewish businesses in Europe and America to make a handsome living whilst hardly a Jew is making a living working for a Muslim. Indeed, today’s world would have looked so much more uncivilized and underdeveloped had this small community of people not come to the aid of, and survived in, this world. Without the Jews, today’s world would be much poorer in every area of human development including science, education, philosophy, literature, entertainment, human rights, values, and dignity and, of course, in wealth. If that is true, which it is, is it not important to greatly value this small community of people and seek peaceful ways to solve our disputes with them, instead of seeking to stage a decisive and effective war in order to eliminate them from this world?

222

Beyond Jihad

The Israeli-Palestinian crisis : Has the OIC Done Enough? One sticking point existing between Jews and the Muslim world is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which has lasted for over half-a-century and pitted these two peoples against each other as congenital enemies. But I must ask this question: has the Muslim world done enough, wisely and considerately, to solve this conflict? I am afraid, as reflected in Dr. Mahathir’s OIC speech, that the Muslim world has not done anything worthwhile. Dr. Mahathir’s speech was frankly anti-Semitic and clearly spelled out the Islamic desire to annihilate the state of Israel, even if it required a long and ruthless fight. But after a five and a half decades of Israel’s existence, I believe it is time for the Muslim world to recognize the fact that the desire to annihilate the Israeli state is impractical and unwise. Countries have broken and rejoined over the centuries; history is replete with such instances of reorganization. The minority Muslim population of the Indian subcontinent sought a separate state during the course of the independence struggle against British rule in 1947 and, as a result of that, the state of Pakistan was created. The state of Israel was created at about the same time during British occupation. If the Hindus of India could easily agree to the creation of Pakistan, why can’t the Muslims of Palestine, and more importantly the entire Muslim world, accept the creation of Israel, even today? Since the whole Muslim world cheered the creation of Pakistan in the subcontinent, their disagreement with the creation of Israel appears hypocritical. The entire Hindu community in India never considered the Muslims as their enemies when Muslims demanded the creation of Pakistan in the then Indian subcontinent. Why then has the entire Muslim world been so opposed to the creation of Israel and now considers all Jews as congenital enemies? The creation of the state of Pakistan, by dividing the soil of the Indian subcontinent, was a similar loss for the Hindus, as it has been a loss to the Palestinian people when their land was divided to create Israel. If one gives due consideration to the above questions, and since it is impractical to remove the Jews from Israel at this point, it is important for the Muslim world to realize how important the existence of Israel is to the Jewish

Medic Mahathir—Alamgir Hussain

223

people. If so, the Muslim world, and the OIC in particular, should take necessary steps to spell out that undeniable fact in clear terms and make a plea to the Muslim world to support such an idea. There is an encouraging sign that Saudi Arabia, a key player in the Muslim world, recently expressed an interest in recognizing the state of Israel, of course under certain conditions. Indeed, since 1979, Egypt and Jordan already maintain diplomatic relations. The Muslim world should immediately recognize this reality and use OIC meetings in the future as a platform to make a compassionate appeal to our Palestinian brothers to shun violence and make concessions to have the Israeli state as a friendly neighbor rather than as an enemy.

Muslim-Jewish friendship, not hatred, is necessary. It is unfortunate that the OIC forum has declared Jews as enemies of Muslims and sought to wage a decisive war to defeat Israel, whilst far more difficult issues face the Muslim world. Any such move, and the accompanying rhetoric, will only increase the suffering of the both peoples without achieving anything for the Palestinians and the Muslims. As an ordinary Muslim, I believe that the Muslim world could well use the Jews as a valuable and friendly partner in solving the many problems crippling progress and development in our own countries. The Muslim world has much to learn from Jews in achieving excellence in science, technology, governance, democracy and entrepreneurship which the Christian world has long availed itself of. It must also be clearly understood that the Jewish people have suffered too much and for too long a time at the hands of both Christians and Muslims. In the civilized twenty first century I believe all Christians and Muslims have strong reasons to feel compassion for the sufferings of Jews over the centuries, and have a moral duty to make a clarion call for peaceful friendship, instead of inciting another potentially devastating war, which was regrettably suggested in Dr. Mahathir’s otherwise awe-inspiring OIC lecture.

224

Beyond Jihad I have a gut feeling that Dr. Mahathir did not want Palestinians and other

Muslims civilians to take inspiration from his speech and to go blow themselves up in order to kill Israeli and non-Muslim civilians. Indeed Dr. Mahathir would be surprised to learn that there is a sub rosa conversation making the rounds in the Muslim world, which wonders if he is the proverbial Imam Mehedi of the Muslim faith who might have arrived finally to lead the Ummah in a decisive Armageddon against the enemies (Jews and Christians). A few more such speeches by Dr. Mahathir could quickly make the fanatics arrive at the conclusion that he is indeed the same Imam Mehedi, and with every instigatory comment he makes, he may unwittingly inspire those fanatics in greater numbers, leading to an even graver disaster.

Muslims countries get invaded but has the Muslim world done its part? Dr. Mahathir rightly recognized an obvious fact when he said, “The Muslim Ummah is treated with contempt and dishonor... Our countries are occupied”. Given what has happened in Afghanistan and Iraq, Dr. Mahathir was correct in recognizing these ignominious realities. But the question quickly comes to mind: has the Muslim world itself done enough to avoid such shameful treatment? With regard to the issue of the American led occupation of Afghanistan, the Taliban regime, which ruled the country for over five years, put the Muslim world in a very awkward position. Let us not delude ourselves into thinking that the Taliban were a benign force. Under Mullah Omar’s leadership the Taliban took the country back to the seventh century, flagrantly violating the basic human rights of its citizens, and especially the rights of women, who virtually lost five long years of their lives. They brought immense suffering, poverty, and backwardness to the country, virtually reducing an entire population to the status of refugees. But did the Muslim world take any action, make viable threats or even make any strong statement against this shameful and cruel regime which should have had no place in today’s civilized world?

Medic Mahathir—Alamgir Hussain

225

In the same vein, Saddam Hussein’s cruel and repressive regime ruled Iraq for twenty five long years. During this time, he terrorized its citizens no less than did the Taliban. He turned the Shiite majority and the Kurdish people second class citizens, committing atrocities and torturing them. He fought a war with neighboring Iran for over eight years and finally ended up invading Kuwait. His stay in power led to the loss of a million lives. Unquestionably he brought immense suffering and poverty to his country. But what did the Muslim world do to save the people of Iraq? Nothing! They remained largely silent whilst our Muslim brothers inside Iraq kept going through untold sufferings, torture, and repression. The same had been the case with the Taliban in Afghanistan. The Muslim world has done absolutely nothing to help alleviate the sufferings of our Muslim brothers and sisters either in Iraq or in Afghanistan. Dr. Mahathir said that the Jews and West oppress Muslims. But is it not true that Muslims themselves, namely autocrats like Mullah Omar and Saddam, oppress, terrorize humiliate, and kill our Muslim brothers more than the Jews and West have done? Why are we in the Muslim world not enemies of people like Saddam and the Taliban?

Instead we are paranoid about the oppression and human rights

violations the Israeli Jews have caused our Palestinian brothers which is much less severe. Why the hypocrisy? Is it okay to allow any sort of torture and violation of human rights against our Muslim brothers, as long as the torturer is another Muslim? Why is it that the Muslim world cannot speak up against such tyrannical and cruel regimes in Muslim countries in the same way the West quickly speaks up against similar or even less cruel and repressive regimes in Christian countries such as Zimbabwe? The Muslim Ummah seems not to worry as long as our Muslim brothers suffer at the hands of Muslims rulers, however cruel and oppressive they may be. Muslims feel humiliated for what happened in Afghanistan and Iraq, but shouldn’t we feel more shame and humiliation for the kinds of atrocities, human rights violations and torture perpetrated by the Taliban, Saddam and other despotic Muslim rulers such as the mullahs in Iran? The deafening silence of the

226

Beyond Jihad

Ummah about those repressive regimes is even more shameful when we quickly point fingers at America and the West for their occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq. Also, there is no way we can deny that the Afghan people who were flocking out of the country by the hundreds and thousands every day before the removal of the Taliban are today returning back to their homes to start a peaceful, proud and hopeful life there. Their lives are improving every day and they are slowly but surely getting their country back into their own hands. They are regaining their freedom and liberty; their women are slowly regaining their confidence and getting back to work, whilst the girls are going back to school. All these achievements could have never happened and instead, things could have only have become worse, had the Taliban stayed in power. Obstruction by the remnants of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda is hampering their progress, but surely things are getting better by the day, but without American intervention this development would have been unimaginable. Similarly, things are getting better in Iraq too, despite severe obstructionism from by the remnants of Saddam’s Baathist regime and their Islamic allies who have been the greatest losers as a result of Saddam’s removal. Yet with patience and perseverance peace, liberty and freedom will eventually return to the people of Iraq too. Despite whatever interests the United States and it allies may have had in Afghanistan and Iraq, the people of those two countries will be the winners in this alleged game of occupation of their countries by the “enemies of Islam”, as Dr. Mahathir called the occupiers, provided the occupying forces are allowed to carry out the job as they promised. If the end result of the occupation of those two countries leads to greater freedom for their peoples, let us recognize that the Ummah contributed absolutely nothing. The people of Iraq and Afghanistan may have good reason in the future to disassociate themselves from the Ummah. The Muslim Ummah’s outcry over the occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq may prove to be nothing more than the shedding of crocodile tears. In conclusion, it would be wiser for the OIC to agree with, and support any Western led attempts to achieve peace in the Middle East. A reconciliatory

Medic Mahathir—Alamgir Hussain

227

gesture by the OIC will go a long way to help reach a final peaceful settlement. In a few decades, as the oil-money dries up as a result of reduced oil output, and with no attention given to a science and technology-based economy, our Muslim brothers in those now oil-rich countries may well be reduced to beggars during subsequent decades. Because of its proximity, Israel’s science and technologybased, successful, resilient and vibrant economy can be used as a model by the Middle Eastern Muslim countries to survive in the coming harsh times. An approach of Jewish-Muslim friendship, instead of hatred, has so much to reward the Muslim world. After over fifty years of hostility, it is an undeniable reality that Israel will survive and therefore agreeing to a peaceful two-state solution of Israeli-Palestinian conflict can only benefit the entire Muslim world.

1

The full text of Dr. Mahathir Muhammed’s speech can be found at http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/10/20/1066502121884.html

LOOKING FOR EINSTEIN: CAN THE UNITED NATIONS BE REFORMED? Alamgir Hussain

Albert Einstein, one of the world’s greatest scientists, passionately campaigned in the later part of his life for a unified “federalist world government” as a means of achieving world peace. Having experienced two world wars and the rise of totalitarianism, he came to believe that nationalism and patriotism were the twin evils of humankind and likened them to an “infantile sickness”1. In 1947 he expressed concern that excessive nationalism could spread like a disease, bringing tragedy to millions.2 To combat this “disease”, he sought to eliminate nationalistic sentiments believing that a united world without national boundaries would be the only the way to achieve his goal. During World War I, Einstein supported the formation of the “United States of Europe” and later endorsed the League of Nations, as well as its successor, the United Nations. But Einstein worried that the United Nations, created in 1945, did not have enough authority to ensure world peace. Einstein’s skepticism that the United Nations would be able to facilitate world peace has proven to be absolutely true throughout the sixty years of its existence. The main reason is because the United Nations was organized to protect the sovereignty of individual member states. Today rogue and failed governments of member states of the U.N, many in the Muslim world, indulge in corruption, oppression and human rights violations without any limits. And these governments often use the mantle of sovereignty, assured by the United Nations,

230

Beyond Jihad

to prevent international scrutiny of their corruption and violence, as well as to legitimize their power. Nor has the U.N been able to stymie the bloody civil strife that has engulfed parts of Africa, Latin America and Asia. Einstein had wanted the U.N to be a supranational organization with the power and authority to maintain international peace and he urged nations to surrender a portion of their sovereignty so that they could be held accountable. Does Einstein’s vision have any relevance for us today? Moreover, is his idea of a “federalist world order” under the governance of a single supernational authority such as the U.N practicable? At first hand, it does not appear so given the existing discord and disparities that exist between nations worldwide. But a careful look might suggest that some aspects of Einstein’s envisioned world order are already taking root on the world stage. Let us take a closer look at the European Union for example. Western Europe today is much more united in its political and ideological standards and homogeneous with respect to political, social, economic and human rights issues. The European Union has continued to expand and now includes many countries of the Eastern Europe which had been left impoverished by their former communist governments. With the EU's sincere efforts and with the generous political and financial assistance of the United States, the detritus left behind by communist governments in those countries is going to be cleared soon. It is not impossible that the entire former Soviet Union block, including Russia, will be part of the EU in the near future and that will in effect establish a giant state under a homogeneous set of social, political, economic and human rights laws. In other parts of the world Australia, New Zealand, the United States, Canada, Japan and Singapore have either already achieved similar socio-political and economic orders or are approaching that stage. In the strong cooperation and understanding that exists amongst these nations of the European Union, North America, Australia and Asia, we already can witness a mini-world with nearhomogeneous standards for social, political, economic and human rights, which are compatible with Einstein's vision.

Looking for Einstein—Alamgir Hussain

231

Nevertheless, despite progress towards a homogenous world along the lines of Einstein's envisioned world order, in many parts of the globe there still remain huge disparities in Asia, South America and Africa and most particularly amongst large parts of the Muslim world. In order for these depressed nations to elevate themselves they need leadership and technical assistance from the Western democratic world to institute fair and responsible governance. More importantly, they need investment and technology from the capitalist West in industries and development projects in order to rid themselves of their economic woes. But the bigotry fostered by religious and cultural conservatism, mixed with rabid anti-Western and anti-capitalist propaganda highly prevalent amongst the corrupt governments and political leaders in these societies, has created an atmosphere of hostility towards the West. This is blocking inflows of investment capital from the developed world, essential for creating jobs and for improving the lot of people in those countries. Such hostile relationships also do not allow the democratic West to be able to assist these countries to institute democratic, responsible and non-corrupt civil institutions in the same way the EU is doing in Eastern Europe. This religious and socio-political bigotry and ever-growing hatred and suspicion towards the democratic, free market West amongst people of the impoverished Third World and particularly in Muslim nations, remains the biggest hurdle these nations must overcome before they can achieve progress in social, political, economic and human rights reform. Without an atmosphere of mutual respect and trust, and an investment-friendly economic and political order, achieving such a goal is impossible for the Islamic and other Third World countries. Today the U.N still commands great respect amongst the governments and peoples of most nations, including the Muslim and the Third World. It is important to evaluate the condition and weaknesses of the U.N and make efforts to redesign this world body in a way that would address the challenges of the present and the future in order to ensure a world order that would guarantee world peace.

232

Beyond Jihad

The Present U.N The majority of the 191 member states of the UN belong to the Islamic and the Third World. The governments of these nations are overwhelmingly corrupt, tyrannical and/or repressive and engage in violations of human rights. Yet this is the only international organization where these same corrupt and tyrannical governments enjoy the freedom to vent their unjustified hatred and anger towards the developed West for socio-economic woes largely of their own making. Hence, the popularity of this institution amongst leaders of the Islamic and the Third World is easily understandable. The expulsion of the United States from the U.N’s Human Rights Commission in 2001, which also included some of the cruel, repressive and dictatorial regimes namely Syria, Zimbabwe, Sudan, Cuba and Saudi Arabia , is an example of that. Yet ironically, the U.N obtains most of its funds from the capitalist West, with the U.S. alone contributing almost twenty five per cent. Ostensibly these funds are invested in human and economic development programs in the Third World, but in reality most of these funds go into the pockets of corrupt government officials and their cronies. One investigation in Bangladesh showed that only seventeen percent of the U.N’s project money goes into real work, whilst eighty three percent was pocketed illegally by corrupt officials. A recent report compiled by the U.N claimed that only twenty per cent of such aid goes to real work worldwide. The U.N’s lack of interest or effort to make governments, which are recipients of aid, accountable for the misuse of funds has seriously hindered economic and human development in the Third World, resulting in the waste of money generously donated by Western capitalist governments. Had international aid funds been used properly over decades, many countries of the Third World would have achieved greater economic and human development today. Not only is the U.N made inefficient by the corrupt actions of many member governments, but it recently came to light that officials of the U.N were themselves involved in corruption and nepotism with respect to U.N funds and

Looking for Einstein—Alamgir Hussain

233

programs. This time the son of Secretary General Kofi Annan appeared to have made money from the Iraqi oil-for-food program. It was even alleged that a Pakistani U.N employee was demoted from his post for sounding the alarm about U.N corruption in the Iraqi oil-for-food program. In February 2005, a preliminary report by an investigating commission headed by Paul Volker, appointed by Kofi Annan, proved the allegations of corruption in the Iraqi oil-for-food program, resulting in the firing of the program’s head by the UN secretary general. In March 2005, an interim report by the same commission, although it technically exonerated Annan of any complicity in his son’s involvement in the oil-for-food program, charged him with a lack of interest in proper oversight. It also charged Kofi Annan’s son with keeping his father in the dark about his personal dealings with the oil-for-food program. It is unacceptable that at a time when the world was trying hard to hold Saddam Hussein accountable through the U.N-approved sanctions, the same U.N was helping Saddam make billion of dollars from the oilfor-food program, allowing his regime to survive and torture, murder, rape and repress the Iraqi people. Not only was this an unacceptable criminal act on the part of the U.N, it also helps explain why Kofi Annan and the U.N so vehemently opposed the removal of murderous regime of Saddam Hussein. Moreover a U.S congressional investigation committee found that businesses from China, Russia and France were making money from illegal deals with Saddam Hussein, thus defying U.N sanctions. Hence, the alliance of those governments with Kofi Annan to strongly oppose the removal of Saddam Hussein is also understandable. Under the circumstances, can the U.N command moral authority in world affairs? With respect to the Iraq war, the U.N Secretary General Kofi Annan repeatedly offered moral verdicts on the legality of the war, calling it illegal. But the U.N, which is mainly a league of nations the majority of whom are corrupt, is not qualified to give a moral verdict on the important issue of removing a murderous tyrant like Saddam Hussein. It is natural that since many of the U.N’s member-Governments are themselves not much better administrators than Saddam Hussein they would naturally disapprove of removing a leader not much different from themselves.

234

Beyond Jihad

Allowing such actions also increases the likelihood that those corrupt and repressive governments would one day find themselves in Saddam Hussein’s shoes. Thus, most corrupt governments of the Third World naturally opposed the war in Iraq.

The Re-Making of a Future UN The U.N was created under very special circumstances and in a very different world, mainly to safeguard the sovereignty of individual member states. That was also a period of colonial rule by Britain, Spain, Germany, France, Holland over great parts of the today’s Third World. Since colonial rule was to a great extent based on exploitation of the colonized countries by the colonizers, a strong movement for the withdrawal of the colonial powers achieved momentum during World War II, gathering speed after the creation of the U.N. It was hoped that once the colonial powers left, those nations would achieve great prosperity and just governance when ruled by their own people in an exploitation-free environment. Although the call to end colonial rule by the European countries materialized in vast parts of their former colonies, the much anticipated and desired prosperity, good governance and fair justice systems did not follow. Instead governance, prosperity, freedom, human rights and human development worsened in much of the underdeveloped world because of inefficient, repressive and extremely corrupt governments. The state of human development and human rights in the African continent in particular has worsened, reducing those countries into miserably failed states infested with all sorts of conflicts, despite the great promise that existed when the colonial powers left those countries. In many former Muslim colonies of Asia, such as Bangladesh, Pakistan and Indonesia, human rights, governance and justice have badly declined. Widespread corruption, mixed with an increase in obscurantist religious zeal and Islamic militancy, is fast pushing these countries towards failed states unless dramatic steps are taken and implemented. Countries in South America have fared no better following their independence from the colonial powers. The withdrawal of the so-

Looking for Einstein—Alamgir Hussain

235

called “exploitive” colonial powers thus has failed to solve the problems and improve the lots of people in the former colonies. There is a serious need for assistance, both financial and technical, from the developed world, so as to institute civil institutions, good governance and systems of justice in order to rescue many of these nations from the absolute disaster they are experiencing or are going to face. Over the past six decades since the U.N’s birth, the world has moved on. Modern-day concepts of human rights, ethics regarding good governance and the state’s responsibility towards the welfare of its citizens have changed considerably, especially in the developed world. A Declaration on Universal Human Rights has even been adopted by the U.N. It is important for the U.N to realize that if it wants to be recognized and respected as the highest moral authority in our world today, it is duty-bound to make serious efforts to ensure that its member states institute good governance and human rights and look after the welfare of their people. While setting standards for itself, the U.N must not defend or pacify Third world undemocratic, corrupt and useless governments. Instead, the U.N must look to the Western democratic world or even envision the steps to be taken in the future. The U.N should be strengthened and redesigned to be able to enforce that vision on its member states. In other words, the U.N must be able tell member governments to treat their citizens well, govern the state properly and eliminate corruption. If not, the U.N should be ready to throw failed governments out of power, better by force than by sanctions, since the latter have done little to solve world crises but have only served to cause further suffering to innocent people.

Calls for Reforming the UN There are long-overdue calls for reforming the U.N. Following the war in Iraq, the Secretary General, Kofi Annan, appointed a sixteen-member panel comprised of individuals from all across the globe to look into how the U.N could be redesigned to meet present realities and future challenges. A report released by

236

Beyond Jihad

this panel, termed the “biggest make-over” of the U.N since 1945, suggested that the U.N be strengthened so that it could act against governments which do not respect the welfare and human rights of their citizens. These are very encouraging signs, due, in part, to the U.S’s hard-headed stand to overthrow the Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. It is a welcome sign that the U.N may reform itself to become a stronger institution which will not allow brutal tyrants like Saddam Hussein to govern any nation. All humans are from one race, descendents of common ancestors and all humans are brothers and sisters. It is unacceptable to modern human conscience that some of us enjoy the best of wealth, education, citizen’s rights and freedom whilst others in another country are being repressed, tortured and raped by the state while the government and politicians plunder their nations’ wealth. It is important that the U.N be reformed with a vision for ensuring the best of governance, human rights and welfare of all people in our world. It is important that the U.N be strengthened to uphold the responsibilities of governments of member states as defined by Einstein who believed that the only justifiable purpose of political institutions should be to insure the unhindered development of the individual. The U.N must be strong and proactive to enforce the universal principles of governance by member states in every country on earth. The recent recommendations for reform are a step forward. But there have also been calls for increasing the membership of the U.N’s Security Council to include countries such as India, Brazil, Germany, Nigeria and Japan amongst others, as permanent members, but without a veto power. We should welcome an increase in the size of the Security Council so that more countries can join hands to shoulder the burdens of international duty. However, permanent membership should only be given to countries that uphold good standards of governance, human rights and the welfare of their people. Countries that are infested with corruption, human rights violations and poor governance like India or Nigeria must not be given greater say in world affairs. Giving greater opportunities to such countries may lower the moral vision of the U.N. Commissions should be set up to look into standards of

Looking for Einstein—Alamgir Hussain

237

governance, human rights and levels of corruption in prospective countries seeking permanent membership in the U.N Security Council. A scale of standards should be set up for evaluating these issues in different countries and those countries falling below certain standards should be barred from acquiring permanent membership in the Security Council. However, there should be no bars to countries like Japan, Germany, Australia, Canada or Italy, who have already set very high standards in all areas of governance, should they seek permanent membership in the Security Council to shoulder greater international responsibility. The U.N is already handicapped by the veto powers of certain permanent members, namely Russia and China, which have very poor standards of governance, are corrupt and violate human rights. Adding more such countries to the Security Council would only make it more difficult for the U.N to enforce a vision of a better world.

Conclusion Einstein had thought that the U.N would not be able to ensure world peace unless governments of member states could be accountable for their actions to a supranational body and feared that the present U.N, which either answers to member governments or plays a neutral role in internal matters of the member states, would fail to bring peace to the world. History has proved his predictions correct. The recommendations to reform the U.N, although they come late, are a step forward. It is imperative to remake the U.N of 1945 according to the standards and realities of the new millennium given the future challenges within sight. Creating a unified and homogeneous future world order should be the ultimate goal. Capitalizing on concepts of national boundaries and sovereignty have allowed brutal rulers like Saddam Hussein, Robert Mugabe (Zimbabwe) and Kim IL Jong (North Korea) to mercilessly repress, torture and murder their citizens. The outside world has been unable to intervene but can only keep watching those inhuman cruelties, hindered by the no-outside-interference principle on which the U.N was founded. This should not be acceptable in a

238

Beyond Jihad

civilized world. An ideal U.N should have the responsibility of ensuring that people’s human rights, dignity and welfare are respected everywhere. Can the U.N transform itself to embrace the principle that wherever people’s rights, dignity and welfare are trampled by their governments, it would have the right to interfere, with force if necessary, to install good governance? After all, corruption-free good governance is a precondition of economic success for any nation. The U.N can take the lead from the United States’ post-World War II role in Japan and Germany. These countries were transformed into two highly civilized, democratic and prosperous nations from tyrannical and brutal ones. If such a transformation can be brought to every corner of the world by adherence to uniform standards of governance, economic emancipation and human development, the world will be more united than ever. Then the U.N would be at the center of world affairs setting standards for governance, human rights and people’s welfare in every country. Einstein’s ideas for an ideal U.N and world government may still appear preposterous and romantic today. Can such an apparently preposterous idea ever materialize? The recent call for reforming the U.N, if adopted and implemented, would be a big step forward towards creating the U.N Einstein had envisioned. With regard to his dream of a world government, we see encouraging signs when looking at Europe but discouraging signs when looking at the Islamic and the Third World. Will Einstein’s dream come true? He was a man centuries ahead of his time but so were Newton, Galileo and others. His scientific genius has already graced the real world, but only time will tell about his political genius.

1

Dennis Brian, Einstein: A Life, (New York: John Wiley, 1996)

2

Albert Einstein, The World As I See it (Citadel Press, 1993)

MUSLIMS AND THE REALITY OF THEIR COGNITIVE DISSONANCE Syed M. Islam

Many Islamist writers contend Wahhabism is an “extreme” version of Islam. Yet whenever I ask whether such “extremism” is inevitable if one interprets relevant Quranic guidance literally, a clear answer has been elusive. While Wahhabism might be an extreme variant of Islam, since it is based on the Quran, the problem might also be that Islamic ideology itself lends scriptural support to the surge of terrorism within Islam. It is at this crucial point where, in my opinion, modern Islamists tend to become vague, or play semantic games. If historical Islam is simply one of several interpretive possibilities, then the extreme version must also be acknowledged as one such possibility, regardless of how often historically it was adopted by Muslim cultures. The legacy of its limited popularity must not negate its interpretive possibility, especially in the face of glaring evidence that Wahhabism is the chosen version of Islam by the Saudi Islamic theocracy, Islam’s self-appointed guardians. By calling Wahhabists “extremists”, but refusing to confirm they are “wrong”, Islamists tend to jettison responsibility for pro-actively stamping out terrorist elements within their societies. This tendency is, however, not unusual in human history. Recently I was reading a book by Gavin De Becker, titled The Gift of Fear, in which he asserted that even in a gathering of aberrant murderers there is something of you and me. When we accept this, we are more likely to recognize the rapist who tries to con his way into our home, the child molester who applies

240

Beyond Jihad

to be a baby-sitter, the spousal killer at the office, the assassin in the crowd. When we accept that violence is committed by people who look and act like people, we silence the voice of denial, the voice that whispers, “This guy doesn't look like a killer.”1 This denial may be quite similar to “cognitive dissonance,” a phrase coined by Leon Festinger. Most likely due to this, Muslims tend to have difficulty admitting that culturally, philosophically and doctrinally Islam has interpretive potential to instigate violence against non-Muslims. Instead they seem only too quick to label all such violence un-Islamic and declare the perpetrators “different” or “aberrant”, even if some Islamic murderers unequivocally state that they were “Quranically-inspired.” Interestingly this “aberration” is seldom apparent before those murders occur, even though in hindsight apologists assign that label swiftly. This denial or cognitive dissonance most likely prevents otherwise peace-loving majority Muslims from pro-actively controlling their small, but virulent, radical brethren. As to how this dissonance serves to help Islamic extremists to continue, Muslim apologists seem to suffer a severe case of denial to acknowledge and admit. The denial is irresponsible, because failure to suppress Islamic radicalism does not appear to corroborate the claim made by majority Muslims that Islam is a religion of peace. We must note that when it comes to religious arguments, contradictions are possible. It is therefore not surprising that many Muslim faithful have difficulty admitting that the Quran may lend itself to violent interpretations. They are programmed since childhood to “believe” it is the final, perfect word of Allah. Their perception of Allah is peaceful, no matter how many Quranic verses can be offered in rebuttal of, or as a challenge to, that perception. Moreover, lacking the heritage comparable to the Period of Enlightenment and thereafter, when religious criticism became acceptable as part of academic and social discourse in Europe, many Muslim intellectuals seem plagued by denial that literal Quranic interpretation could very well lend itself to extremism. The darkest spot in their religious cognition lies beneath their “cherry-picked” perception of Islam! For Muslims at large this may be a short-lived state of cognitive flux as they evolve to

Muslims and the Reality of Their Cognitive Dissonance—Syed M. Islam 241 greater intellectual maturity and find their own version of the enlightenment which would allow them to “privatize” Islam, focusing on its intellectual positives and rejecting its arguable and dogmatic negatives. They ought to allow critiques of Quranic commandments as part of people's freedom of speech, without fear of fatwas, to help develop a cognitive measure of the world in broader, more universal and humanistic terms, rather than the arbitrary, divisive and narrow perspective of “Muslims” versus “kaffirs” (the impure). Apart from the faith of die-hard Muslims there is hardly any material evidence that in cases of accidents, deaths, and natural disasters that Allah has been any more protective of Muslims, the upholders of His allegedly final and perfect “comprehensive guidance”, than he has been of the rest of humankind. Observable facts seem to contradict any claim of superiority or closeness in the eye of Allah that, by sheer “belief,” many Muslims consider to be fact. Gavin De Becker maintains:

Aside from outright denial of intuitive signals, there is another way we get into trouble. Our intuition fails when it is loaded with inaccurate information. Since we are the editors of what gets in and what is invested with credibility, it is important to evaluate our sources of information.2 It is time for Muslims to re-consider the denial of their intuitive signals and evaluate the source of their “belief” in light of factual evidence. It is time to explore inward, while also seeking to understand external reasons why conditions in Islamic countries are so dismal that many young men are willing to kill themselves in hopes of an Islamic heaven and the promise of seventy two virgins for each Muslim man. In addition to simply blaming the West, perhaps Muslims could also take pro-active measures to stamp out bullying by Islamists in their societies, both in their native lands as well as throughout the global Islamic Diaspora. While Western imperialist forces may have contributed to the recent rise of Islamic fundamentalism, that cannot be the sole reason. Life is seldom

242

Beyond Jihad

purely black or white unless a religious ostrich denies the vast grey sea of reality in which humans, including Muslims, often find themselves. Perhaps it is time for Muslim intellectuals to acknowledge the elements within the Quran that have served to instigate radicalism, and propose their marginalization using humanist perspectives? Given the track record of Islamic radicals, any such de-prioritizing ought to be understood by Allah, who is claimed to love everyone equally and whose latest revelation is Islam which claims to be a religion of peace. Might it be blasphemous to also suggest Allah will accept individual interpretations of His commandments? Might those be any more speculative than interpretations by charlatans, apologists who have no way to confirm if their translations are in line with His actual wishes? After all, Allah seems to have taken a long sabbatical since his last alleged visit to the Middle East. Having mingled with several Islamists, and having tried to learn from their arguments with empathy and interpersonal respect, it is my opinion that, among many of them, cognitive dissonance is a reverberating reality. My opinion is based upon first-hand evidence gathered over two years. This evidence confirms a dangerous and disturbing denial among many Muslim apologists.

1

Gavin De Becker, The Gift of Fear: Survival Signals That Protect us From Violence Boston: Little, Brown; 1st edition (June 1, 1997) p. 46

2

Ibid, p. 36

WHAT IS ISLAMIC TERRORISM AND HOW CAN IT BE DEFEATED? Syed Kamran Mirza Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction. (Blaise Pascal, mathematician, 1670) It would be naïve to ignore in Islam a deep thread of intolerance toward unbelievers. (Andrew Sullivan) What is Islamic terrorism? Islamic terrorism is the divine duty of pure Muslims for which they feel pride instead of remorse. Pure Muslims do not call it terrorism. They consider jihad against the infidel West to be Islamic and killing non-Muslims to be the sacred duty of every devout Muslim, one repeatedly commanded by Allah in the Qur’an, an Allah who also declared unlimited rewards in the after life for those who observed His will. Muslims who read the Qur’an and understand it well believe in the Islamic ‘global agenda’, namely that Islam has a sacred and mandatory God-given duty to spread the Islamic message (Din-e-Islam) to all the inhabitants of the world. Wars in Iraq or Afghanistan have nothing to do with Islamic terrorism. Please note that the 9/11 attacks on America occurred before the Iraq or Afghanistan wars. Islam is the only religion which divides the whole world into two spheres: Land of Warfare “Darul harb” (non-Islamic nations) and “Darul Islam” (Land of Peace), and encourages the Land of “Peace” to fight against the Land of Warfare until it is completely “subdued” and peace is established in the entire world. Islam

244

Beyond Jihad

is the only religion that largely forbids the free practice of other religions in its midst. Saudi Arabia, the cradle of Islam, has never allowed any religion other than Islam to be practiced in its land. The ulterior motive of Islamists is to convert and bring all mankind under the fold of Islam, the “Only true religion of Allah.” Two main groups are working very hard to achieve this end. These two groups are militant mullahs and those whom they recruit to their cause (whom we know as the terrorists), and educated Muslim elites residing in the West and who belong to ummatic groups such as the American Muslim Committee or the Council on American Islamic Relations. We can exclude the majority of God fearing, innocent nominal Muslims because they do not read the Qur’an and Sunnah. However, because the majority of Muslims also believe in the same religion, Islam, and pray in congregations lead by militant mullahs, Islamic terrorists in effect receive support from all Muslims.

Causes of Terrorism: The real motivation behind terrorism (Islamic Jihad) comes from the teachings of the Qur’an and the Sunnah (prophetic instructions). Western politicians erroneously and perhaps ignorantly call it an “evil or distorted ideology.” This is an absolutely incorrect statement by politically correct western politicians. That ideology is in fact the ideology of pure Islam, and can be found in the holy teachings of the Qur’an. Therefore, the Qur’an and the Sunnah are the true foundations of Islamic terrorism. Palestinian problems or wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, are only pretexts to wage Islamic Jihad. Nor are poverty or frustration the real causes of terrorism, because poverty and frustration also exists amongst millions of poor people from other religions. Would any poor Hindu or Buddhist commit suicide and kill innocent Westerners? We know conversion to other religions is a common phenomenon throughout the world. Many people convert to Islam or Christianity, but only Muslim converts turn into terrorists or members of the Taliban. Western-born terrorists like John Walker Lindh, Zachariah Moussawi, Jose Padilla or James Uzzama were converts and became

What is Islamic Terrorism and How Can It be Defeated—Syed Mirza

245

very pure and devout Muslims. If these men had converted to Hinduism or Buddhism, they would never have become terrorists. Let me provide an analogy for what is happening. Poisonous tonics will cause poisonous effects whoever drinks it. Should we not analyze the tonic to determine the harmful ingredients, which cause the poisonous effects? Or should we start blaming those drinkers (instead of the tonic) for the ill effects of the tonic? Likewise, whoever reads the Qur’an and tries to follow it literally immediately becomes a human being who is toxic to society. Wherever and whenever Islamic Shariaat (Laws of the Qur’an and Sunnah) are imposed, human misery immediately ensues. Is it not time to determine what causes this misery? Or, should we keep blaming those hapless people who only try to follow the Qur’an and Sunnah with its literal instructions? The time has arrived to identify the real enemy of Western civilization and to take steps to stop them. To achieve this end western intelligence must examine all mosques, Islamic centers and madrassas for their connections to Islamic terrorists. The Islam preached and practiced there is radical Islam, real Islam. It cannot be denied that while all Muslims are not terrorists, all terrorists are pure Muslims who justify their actions with reference to the Qur’an. Terrorists like Osama bin Laden and others are the victims of Qur’anic scriptural teachings. Here are some Qur’anic teachings (out of hundreds), which devout Muslims imbibe five times a day so passionately that many become brainwashed in the mosques and Islamic centers and graduate by committing suicide in the midst of innocent gatherings.

Quran-5:51- “O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors. They are but friends and protectors to each other…..” Quran-4:78: “Where ye are, death will find you, even if ye are in Towers, built up strong and tall” (Perhaps the Twin towers were meant here?)

246

Beyond Jihad Quran-3:85, “If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (submission to Allah), never will it be accepted of him; and in the Hereafter He will be in the ranks of those who have lost (All spiritual good).” Quran-9:29, Fight those who believe neither 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 (Christians and Jews), until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

Human lives are precious and humans definitely love their own lives more than anything in the world. Nobody is ready to die or destroy his own life, even for millions of dollars. But a simple minded, but otherwise good, person fanatically blinded by devotion to the religion of Islam eagerly gives his life with a smile on his face. Why? Because he has learned that if he dies for Islam, or kills others (infidels) for Islam, he will be given a sure place in heaven, where he will enjoy unlimited sex, delicious food, rivers of wine and lakes of honey. This may sound silly to any intelligent human being. But this is the one and only truth to a blindfaith believer of the holy book, the Qur’an! The Qur’an must be viewed as the center of jihadi inspiration. It is a lie to say that the Qur’an prohibits suicide! The kind of suicide prohibited by the Qur’an is to kill oneself for no good reason or out of frustration. But to die by killing the kaffirs for the cause of Islam is mandatory and is considered a good deed by believers. To die for Allah and to be rewarded has been restated many times in the Holy Qur’an. In Amsterdam Mohammed Bouyeri, the killer of filmmaker Theo Van Gogh, confessed his guilt and showed no remorse for his dastardly act of Islamic slaughter. During the court trial he made the following remarks: “I don’t feel your pain”, he told the victim’s mother. “Because I was driven by my religious conviction.” He also said, “If I were released and would have the chance to do it again…I would do exactly the same thing.” At one point he said to the victim’s mother, “I have to admit I don’t

What is Islamic Terrorism and How Can It be Defeated—Syed Mirza

247

have sympathy for you. I can’t feel for you because I think you are a nonbeliever.”

How Can We Stop Islamic Terrorism? Islamic terrorism can be stopped if the West remains united and takes the right measures but the West must not take Islamic terrorism lightly. Militant Islam is a more dangerous and deadlier phenomenon than communism was. It took fifty years to defeat communism. But it may take only twenty years if the West takes the right course. On the other hand, the menace may continue to grow if the West follows the fruitless policy of appeasing Muslims by disseminating erroneous statements such thus: “This is a poisonous or perverted interpretation of peaceful Islam”. Terrorists are not misinterpreting Islam; rather they are interpreting Islam very correctly. Thus, spending billions of dollars on strong national security or democratization will not help. Nor will appeasement. Almost eighty per cent of the world’s Muslims support Osama’s ideology in their hearts. They only express false sympathy in front of Westerners to please Western governments. But inside their homes, they sympathize with those suicide bombers. After every suicide bombing when Western cities are in chaos, people die, and the Western economy is in shambles, most Muslims all over the world gloat in their hearts. The West must remember that, as of now, no Islamic government, nor any important Islamic Imams or Mullahs have ever issued fatwas condemning Osama’s call to engage in suicide bombings and other forms of terror. By way of contrast, Salman Rushdie was sentenced to death just for writing a controversial novel. Why has no Muslim country sentenced Osama to death? The supreme enemy, Islamic Arab imperialistic ideology, must be fought on three fronts. Firstly, the West must remain united and not shrink from waging an

all-out war against Islamic terrorists all over the world. The West must

demand co-operation from the heads of governments in the Muslim world. They must be forced to issue fatwas against terrorists, strongly disassociate themselves from Islamists, isolate them, arrest them, and imprison them without mercy. All

248

Beyond Jihad

governments of the Muslim world must impose a strict ban on all madrassas (religious schools) and on terrorist organizations formed by Islamic mullahs. To do less should be to an face economic embargo from western nations. Secondly, Muslims themselves must condemn terrorism and they must stop any associating with mullahs and Islamic imams who condone Islamic terrorism. They must not pray behind clergy who incite hatred and they must isolate them socially and politically. Muslims living in the West must cooperate with Western intelligence and provide them with information about militant activity or face the backlash of the host country. Finally, the West must be prepared to fight Islam ideologically, not just with weaponry. The West should form a multi-national committee to investigate, scrutinize, and extract the poisonous teachings of the Qur’an which transforms ordinary young humans into monsters. Scholars must scrutinize what Muslim imams teach young Muslim students in madrassas and other religious schools all over the world. Their findings must be submitted to their governments and published in newspapers. Open criticism and debates of the Qur’an and Islam must be permitted by all nations. Hopefully, if these steps are followed, within ten or twenty years Islamic suicide bombings will be considered to have been a sort of madness which has evaporated. If we fail to take prompt action our civilization will perish. Killing some terrorists, arresting and killing Osama bin Laden or spending billions of dollars to establish democracy in the Middle East will solve nothing. To solve the terrorist problem, we must destroy the ultimate ideology, pure literalist Islam, which creates terrorists.

CONFRONTING RADICAL ISLAM: UNITED WE SHALL STAND, DIVIDED WE FALL Ali Sina

I am often reminded that in our fight against terrorism we should not just single out Islam because other religions, especially Judaism and Christianity, are also guilty of tremendous crimes especially in the past. A secular friend of mine wrote: Through imperialistic colonial wars, the good, civilized, loving Judeo-Christians killed and robbed millions upon millions of Asian people, African people and Native American people. Even today, in the twenty-first (21st) century, the Judeo-Christians are still engaged in regional wars and actively killing and stealing from the very same victims. These colonial genocides and wars have formed a very strong ideology of revenge, which is fueling the fire of terrorism…. It was not Muslim nations but rather European nations, the good civilized loving Judeo-Christians who used biological weapons, (germ warfare) on the Native Americans, killing millions of them. He went on to enumerate all the atrocities perpetrated by the Judeo-Christian nations, such as the use of chemical weapons in World War I, the killing of tens of millions of people in World War II, the atomic bombs in Japan and so on. My friend then concluded:

250

Beyond Jihad My point is that the three (3) Adam & Eve based religions are equally corrupt and destructive. We cannot keep the one religion which started this and try to get rid of the third one. The exclusion of Islam and the inclusion of Judaism and Christianity will cause horrifying religious wars. I do not argue that all the nations of the world have blood on their hands.

(although I would argue that in most cases that he mentions religion has not been the primary motive). But why stop at the Judeo-Christians? Didn’t the Japanese massacre millions of the Chinese? Didn’t the Chinese massacre millions of their own and subdue the Tibetans? Didn’t the Mongols wreak havoc in the entire Asian continent and most of Europe? Didn’t the Persians raid and loot India? Didn’t the Turks murder a million and a half Armenians? Are the Africans not guilty of genocide among themselves? Didn’t the Incas and the Aztecs practice genocide? Show me one nation that can claim her ancestors never committed atrocities! The sad truth is that we are a murderous species. After all we are descended from apes. Perhaps we are all “animals” beneath our skins. But unlike our furry cousins, we are endowed with superior intellect. Yet intellect is only a tool and an extremely powerful tool. Empowered with that tool the human animal can become lethal, the most dangerous animal in the world. If the intellect is a tool, ideologies are the pretexts. We use ideologies and beliefs to create imaginary barriers between ourselves and, once convinced of the illusion of division, we fall on each other, and spill each other’s blood. My friend is absolutely right. We are all guilty. But let us not be confused. History is important. We must learn our lessons from the history, but we must not live in the past. Each age has its own problems. The past is past. The nations that were at war with each other during World War II are now allies. Those who fought those wars are now dead. We have our own lives to live and our own problems to solve. Today there is a great danger threatening the world. It is not colonialism, Nazism, communism, capitalism, Christianity, Judaism or materialism. You may disagree with some, or all of them, though none of them poses any threat to

Confronting Radical Islam—Ali Sina

251

mankind and the peace of the world today. The world is far from perfect. There is much to be done and we have centuries to deal with our problems and solve them. We may also never agree with each other on everything. And who knows, disagreements may be good. But first things first! Today the world is threatened by Radical Islam. Every day its proponents are killing innocent people everywhere in the world. They are not going to stop until they kill us all or subdue us. This is the real present-day danger faced by mankind. It does not come from Christianity, Judaism or any other religion or ideology. It comes from Islamism. We must put aside all the things that we perceive as problems and solve the problem of Islamism. If a patient is affected by a myriad of diseases, the doctor would not try to cure her of all her ailments at once, but rather he would focus on the one that is the most life threatening first. There is much to be done in the world but first we have to make sure we stay alive. Now we are under attack on all fronts. We are in a state of emergency, a crisis. This enemy does not ask you whether you are Christian, Jew, Hindu or atheist. The enemy is killing all of us indiscriminately. They even kill our children cold-bloodedly and cheerfully while praising Allah. Our enemy sees all of us as one, faceless, worthless entity. They kill all of us equally. It would be foolish if we continued fighting among each other over our petty differences. Our world is under siege from Radical Islam, and that involves all nations, cultures and religions. I said we should not live in the past. But we shall be doomed if we do not study history and learn from it. The reason Muhammad beat the mighty Arab tribes and subdued them one after the other is because these tribes were not united. Muhammad played them against each other. Some he bribed, some he promised booty, some he offered protection and others were given false assurances of immunity for signing peace treaties. The Banu Tamim for example, were not Muslims. But many of them accompanied Muhammad in his expedition against the Quraish and the Hawazin for the lust of the booty alone. Muhammad duped them. After Mecca and the Hawazin were conquered those who assisted him received nothing. He gave all the booty stolen from Hawazin to the chiefs of

252

Beyond Jihad

Mecca to “soften their hearts” and win their support. Soon after Muhammad demanded the Banu Tamim pay tithes. By then, the Banu Tamim could no more resist the emerging despot, because thanks to their stupidity, he had become too strong and could crush them without mercy. When Muhammad besieged the Jews of Bani Qainuqa, there were other Jewish tribes living in or around Medina . But they did not come to the help of the Bani Qainuqa because they had a long standing dislike of each other. Muhammad banished the Bani Qainuqa, then he went after the Bani Nadir, banished them and confiscated their possessions, then he went after the Bani Quraiza, massacred them all and enslaved their wives and children. While the tribes of Arabia were holding themselves aloof from each other and prided themselves over their linage and nobility, the barbarian Muslims took all of them by surprise. While some of them were being raided, looted and their women raped, the others stood by watching or signed treaties with Muhammad just to save their own skins and did not intervene. This allowed Muhammad to subdue his weaker opponents first and then he broke all his treaties and declared war on everyone. Islam owes its success to the division among its enemies. The Persian and Roman Empires were both defeated by desert-dwelling barbarians, but only because they weakened themselves with continuous and senseless wars. Today, it would be foolish for the West to become complacent because of its superior technology and power. The Roman Empire and the Persian Empire were far superior to the barbarians of Arabia. They were both defeated because they became complacent about their superiority. Today the danger of Radical Islam taking over the world through terrorism is very real. People succumb under duress. As the Muslims say, “They [the infidels] will grow tired of fighting us and will give in, and then we shall become their masters.” Good examples are Spain and the Philippines who gave in to the demands of the terrorists and withdrew their troops from Iraq after the terrorists threatened to behead a few of their citizens and after the Spanish endured the Madrid Train Bombings on March 11, 2004. Ask any psychologist; there is a limit to the hardship that we humans can endure. The more civilized we are, the more

Confronting Radical Islam—Ali Sina

253

vulnerable we are, and that is because we are excessively pampered. Remember that it took only four or five terrorists, armed with nothing but box cutters, to highjack a plane with hundreds of passengers. They could easily have been subdued, but they were not. Civilized civilians are not combat-ready and therein lies their vulnerability. We eventually succumb under pressure. And with each retreat, the enemy becomes emboldened and will increase the pressure. I urge you to understand the gravity of the situation. Do not look at your fellow humans as your enemy, unless they are Islamists and Islamist supporters. Now we are all under attack. Now is the time to put aside all the finger pointing and join hands to confront our common enemy. Do not become an unwitting tool in the hands of the terrorists. My friend is concerned that the exclusion of Islam and the inclusion of Judaism and Christianity will cause horrifying religious wars. Why should it? This war is not about religion. This war is about survival. We are fighting for our own lives. We are fighting Islamism because it is dangerous.

United we shall stand, divided we fall.

CONCLUSION: EXPANDING THE CIRCLE OF SANITY Kim E. Shienbaum Most thoughtful observers agree that the public debate for the remainder of the century will likely center around militant Islam, its root causes and its cures. Opinion in the West, however, remains deeply divided on the question of whether this concern is an overreaction threatening civil liberties, or a real danger to the West and the world. The pendulum in the West may shift in one direction or another depending on immediate threats such as 9/11 or the 7/7 mass transit bombings in London, but the debate will, no doubt, be kept alive by liberal and leftist civil liberties and human rights advocacy groups. There is no such equivocation on the part of the contributors to Beyond Jihad. They are all in agreement that modern Islam has been defined by its most extreme, violent, reactionary, misogynistic, anti-semitic and anti-western elements and thus represents a mortal danger to the peace and stability of the world. Underlying this harsh reality is the bitter truth that Arab oil money has underwritten the export of this fanatical version around the world. Hopefully the critical voices in Beyond Jihad will initiate a new, more open, dialogue on the subject between Muslims themselves. Nevertheless, it will take more than the conviction and personal courage of a few individuals to expand the circle of sanity and turn the tide against jihadist Islam, deeply entrenched in many parts of the Muslim world. Muslims today are buffeted by two opposing contemporary forces: the forces of jihad versus the forces of liberal democracy and market based

256

Beyond Jihad

globalization or McWorld, forces Benjamin Barber in his 1995 book Jihad vs McWorld had examined. The forces of jihad have historically sought to pull Muslims back into the past by offering them both a reason for their condition (oppression), as well as the solution, a reversion to fundamentalist Islam. Yet while the will to jihad has existed for fourteen hundred years, for the first time in history today’s jihadis possess not only the will but also the means to realize their goals. Western technology is available to spread their message (via the Internet and satellite television); vast sums of money can be moved anywhere in the world and western weaponry, even the most advanced, is readily available for purchase. It is a massive irony that while jihadis have been willing to use the technology of modernization, they have rejected western values of pluralism, tolerance, the rule of law and democratization.1 On the other hand, the world’s Muslims are being pulled in the opposite direction by the external forces of western-style democratization and market-based globalization. French scholar Gilles Kepel, head of Arab and Muslim programs at the Institute for Political Studies in Paris, focused on this battle in his book The War For Muslim Minds: Islam and the West2 attributing its genesis to failed policies of multiculturalism in Western countries, policies which led to the emergence of young Muslim immigrants who chose their Islamic identity first, rejecting the values of their host countries.3 On the other hand, Kepel was skeptical that Osama Bin Laden’s nihilism would ever attract a wide following among the majority of Muslims. Perhaps, through public policies of integration and assimilation, Muslims in the West might be socialized to support democratic values which they would eventually export to their own countries bringing about a resolution in the war for Muslim minds. Are there internal forces inside the Muslim world, however, which could change the way Islam is interpreted—and practiced? Is it likely that reformists can seize control of Islam from the radical literalists? Or will more and more moderate Muslims be drawn into the vortex of militancy, preferring to condone, justify and excuse jihad terrorism, rather than challenging and rejecting it? We

Conclusion—Kim Ezra Shienbaum

257

have already raised the possibility that an emerging and fragile debate is beginning inside the Arab and Muslim world, one that may tip the balance away from the absolutism and chauvinism of radical Islam. The possibility remains that Islam may eventually experience an Islamic Reformation, yet a future Muslim Martin Luther faces formidable challenges. In today’s Wahhabi dominated faith, any Muslim deemed to be “an enemy of Islam” and branded an apostate, commits a capital offense punishable by death, which may be administered extra-judicially. In contrast Martin Luther was excommunicated, but not executed, by the Catholic church. It is equally possible that Islam could experience a liberalization similar to Catholicism under Vatican II, a change that is relatively recent in historical terms. The possibilities of internal change coming from within the Islamic world have been analyzed by Reza Aslan in No god(sic)But God: The Origins, Future and Evolution of Islam.4 Aslan believes that Islam is undergoing a profound internal clash and that we are, in fact, witnessing an era of Islamic Reformation. He argues that there is an ongoing struggle between those espousing a rigid and archaic view of Islam tied to a Koran viewed as infallible and those struggling to embrace democracy and human rights. He expressed confidence that this internal struggle would be resolved in favor of the reformers. Frankly the contributors to Beyond Jihad are pessimistic regarding Aslan’s conclusions. They are doubtful whether Islam will ever evolve through an internal struggle. They contend that, for pious Muslims, the Koran will always remain the literal word of God which can never be changed or re-interpreted more liberally or contextually. On practical grounds there are doubts whether the ulemas (many of them parochial and undereducated) will ever voluntarily relinquish their control over the religion of Islam, especially one which over the years has given them a privileged and protected status in their societies and often exclusive control over education and culture. Even inside Europe, the Muslim Brotherhood has been able to establish a dominant position over the lives of Muslims. Under the guidance of Youssef Qaradawi, founder of the European Council of Fatwa and Research, young European Muslims are given daily spiritual guidance through a popular

258

Beyond Jihad

web site, Islamonline.com, which bases its interpretations of all-encompassing sharia laws on Qaradawi’s book “The Law and the Prohibited in Islam”.5 The implicit message is that Muslims must build their lives around Islam, in separate communities isolated from western norms. Thus Radical Islam today is more likely to face challenges from external forces than from internal ones. Even if these forces cannot moderate Islamic radicalism, perhaps they could contain its explosiveness and violence.

External Forces Before turning to the task of identifying and evaluating these external forces, let us pause to consider the shorter term issue of confronting the more immediate threat of jihad terrorism.

Confronting Jihad Terrorism: Short Term Tactics Despite efforts to confront it, the fact remains that jihad terrorism has increased, not decreased, since the 9/11 attacks on America.6 Two parallel efforts are being made to limit and contain the damage, both to civilians and on the battlefield. The first effort comes on the technology front and there are many ways in which technology has been, and will be, put to use detecting suicide bombers, car bombs, dirty bombs, chemical and biological weapons etc. In the field, the military is planning to use more robots for urban guerilla warfare, while Predator-like drone aircraft, camera-mounted guns which can “see” around corners, high voltage technology to jam and disable roadside bombs, human bombs and the like is already in use. In public places where civilians gather, technologies to detect weapons and explosives at a distance and under clothing are already in limited use and will doubtless become ubiquitous at checkpoints all over the world. Technology is also assisting efforts to track funding for jihad by making it easier to detect money laundering from criminal/drug activity, to monitor sources of deposits (especially from Islamic charities) and disbursements at banking institutions, even to track non-bank companies like Western Union that

Conclusion—Kim Ezra Shienbaum

259

transfer money abroad. But while technology enables banking laws to be applied more stringently, there are limits to detecting and disabling the funding of “evil”, especially when the sources of funding can be traced to determined state sponsors who have established parallel “Islamic” banking systems such as Saudi Arabia and Iran. 7 The second effort to deter and combat armed terrorism utilizes two distinct prosecutorial approaches. Europeans have continued to believe in the utility of fighting terrorism through the criminal justice system and with better law enforcement. To date this approach has produced mixed results. The British, Dutch and German courts have permitted the release of several alleged terrorists on grounds of insufficient evidence. On the other hand, Saajid Badat, a British student and co-conspirator of Richard Reid, the notorious “shoe bomber”, was convicted by a British court in April 2005 and sentenced to thirteen years, while in France six men accused of plotting to blow up the U.S Embassy in Paris were sentenced in March 2005 to prison terms ranging from one to ten years. In April 2005, the Spanish government began trials of members of a terrorist cell implicated in the 9/11 attacks, a case that took almost five years to build and in which the judicial outcome is far from certain. On the other hand the U.S, since 9/11, has chosen a different path and declared “war” seeking to eliminate terrorism militarily, outside the United States if possible, and to subject enemy prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay to indefinite detention and military trials.8 In some cases, the U.S government has outsourced interrogations to third party nations with fewer qualms about violating the civil liberties of accused terrorists. This approach is not without its own risks. For one thing, the war is being conducted without any clear military targets since terrorists hide in civilian populations, hide their weapons and wear no battle emblems. Another challenge to the military approach comes from left wing advocacy groups such as the International Committee of the Red Cross and Human Rights Watch which have filed several cases on behalf of Guantanamo internees (often successfully, especially if they are U.S citizens)9, alleging violations of human

260

Beyond Jihad

rights, even torture, and demanding the full protections of the Geneva Conventions (even the U.S constitution) for their non-U.S clients.10 However, while from a public relations and propaganda perspective the U.S approach, emphasizing a “war” on terror, may eventually prove counter-productive, many of our contributors are convinced that jihad in Islamist dominated countries such as Afghanistan, Iran and Pakistan must be confronted militarily. They argue that jihadists only understand the language of force and compulsion, viewing appeasement as weakness, and remind us that Muhammed used force on weaker enemies but sought peace with stronger ones.

Confronting the Ideology of Jihad: The Long Term While there are immediate threats from jihad-inspired terrorism, in the longer term firm efforts must be made to counter the ideology of armed jihad which has inspired thousands of supporters in the Muslim world, and a great many apologists in the West. Some observers have compared jihad ideology to a virus. Like a virus it is replicating unchecked throughout the world, under the control of no-one, not even Al Qaeda. But following the example of medical science we know that viruses can be contained, or placed in remission, if the body politic is healthy and the environment is supportive. Let us examine, therefore, some of the external elements that might serve to create a healthy, supportive, political environment as an intellectual antidote to the spread of this “virus”. To those who argue that change must be generated internally to take hold, Fouad Ajami reminds us that all the major changes in the modern Middle East have come from external forces—statehood, oil exploration and the political choices made by the West to favor autocratic elites. Perhaps democratization and other external forces will ultimately prove effective in transforming the malignant culture that today breeds militant Islamism.11 • •

Democratization ( and economic development) Energy Independence

Conclusion—Kim Ezra Shienbaum • • •

261

Rise of Fundamentalist Christianity especially in the Southern Hemisphere Emergence of China and India as Global Leaders Co-ordinated Get Tough Strategies on Islamist Radicals Living in the West

1) Democratization Democratization holds out the possibility that Muslim populations in the Middle East can eventually experience governments which provide them with legitimacy, accountability and transparency, benefits which sixty percent of Muslims living under democratic rule already enjoy. Equally, economic growth and development based on market economics hold out the possibility of escape from the poverty and hopelessness that breed, if not terrorism, then support for it. Huntington himself had hinted that radical Islam, in the end, would never be able to provide the “Arab Street” with economic development or less repressive regimes, even as it offered the poor a sense of identity, morality and order .12 Embracing these possibilities for change, George W. Bush, in his January 2005 Inaugural message, made a strong case for democracy and set a new course for a more assertive American foreign policy, one that would press other nations to expand democratic freedoms. He stated: We have seen our vulnerability—and we have seen its deepest source. For as long as whole regions of the world simmer in resentment and tyranny—prone to ideologies that feed hatred and excuse murder—violence will gather and multiply in destructive power, and cross the most defended borders, and raise a mortal threat. There is only one force in history that can break the reign of hatred and resentment, and expose the pretensions of tyrants, and reward the hopes of the decent and tolerant, and that is the force of human freedom… We are led by events and common sense, to one conclusion: The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world.

262

Beyond Jihad Bush’s commitment to change the course of U.S foreign policy (with Iraq

and Afghanistan as test cases) found intellectual justification in the prior work of a number of scholars. In 2004, Noah Feldman had argued in favor of a radical change in the direction of U.S foreign policy in After Jihad: America and the Struggle for Islamic Democracy. Feldman had asserted that Islam and democracy could be combined (even though Huntington and others had been skeptical) and refused to accept prevailing arguments against encouraging democracy in the Islamic, and particularly the Arab world. Specifically, Feldman rejected claims that encouraging democracy would alienate regimes upon whom the U.S depends for cheap oil, as well as create new security threats if fundamentalists who reject putting “People’s law above God’s law” were elected. Feldman provided an example, Algeria, in which the U.S (wrongly in his opinion) followed the French in supporting a military coup in December 1991, voiding the results of a national election which had brought the Islamist FIS (Front Islamic du Salut) to power by banning a run-off. By continually siding with repression over democracy, Feldman argued, we ignore a greater threat: supporting regimes which have lost the confidence of their citizens. He suggested that U.S self-interest would be better served by following a foreign policy consistent with our ideals and that doing so would reduce anti-Americanism. Natan Sharansky et al., had provided similarly supportive arguments in The Case for Democracy, basing their arguments for “free” not “fear” societies on the twin assumptions that free societies are always peaceful and that any nation could become democratic even if the pre-conditions do not presently exist, premises some observers found questionable. Thus, from this intellectual base, creating the pre-conditions for democracy became a priority for the Bush Administration, which had already turned its attention to nation building after the 9/11 attacks, even though Republicans had vociferously rejected this task as a national security imperative during the 2000 Presidential campaign. It was now recognized that for democracy to succeed, the government of a nation must be fully able to fulfill its

Conclusion—Kim Ezra Shienbaum

263

responsibilities as a sovereign state. In fact many nominally sovereign nations are unable to defend their territories from penetration by terrorist groups, or from attack by rebels. Thus, to bolster the pre-conditions for democracy and help build the institutions of sound governance that sustain sovereign states, the State Department in 2005 introduced a broad strategic plan called the “Solidarity Initiative” that focused, in part, on counter terrorism training in many vulnerable states.13 In addition, the United States joined efforts by the United Nations and other international organizations to implement other kinds of reforms necessary for democracy to succeed :

**Economic Development exemplified by Bush’s 2002 Millenndium Challenge Grants Program designed to reward good governments which avoided corruption, initiated health and educational reforms and devised plans which bolstered economic growth. The program had a slow start, with Madagascar receiving the first grant in 2005 and sixteen additional nations in the pipeline to receive grants which, unlike debt, never had to be repaid. **Women’s Empowerment which has the potential not only to help women in human rights terms but also to help moderate the high birth rates/ demographic dynamism of the Islamic world that had once led Huntington to assert that Islam would eventually become the world’s most populous religion by conversion and reproduction. **Education that eliminates racial incitement and promotes values of tolerance, pluralism and respect for human rights by providing an alternative to Saudi funded madrassas which have become hotbeds of Islamism and anti-Americanism. **Building the institutions of democracy, civil society and a free media by funding pro-democracy movements in the Arab world through programs like the Middle East Partnership Initiative created by the Bush Administration in the months following 9/11. It has spent $ 219 million between 2002 and 2005 to fund prodemocracy movements and a variety of other projects , many in the Middle East.

264

Beyond Jihad Thus far policy efforts along the lines suggested by Sharansky and

Feldman, including the Middle East Partnership Initiative, have been met with scorn by authoritarian governments in the Middle East, even by Egypt which has received $57 billion in U.S aid since 197914 but has banned domestic political groups from accepting foreign contributions and often jailed recipients. Groups funded by the U.S, in particular, are labeled by the Arab media as pro-Zionist, anti-Egyptian and anti-Arab traitors which is unlikely to help them win support among potential voters.15Nor was a panel of expert observers, working under the auspices of the U.N’s Development Program, more encouraging. Despite constant U.S pressure and the willingness of some Arab governments to allow their citizens more freedoms and a greater role in public life, the report stated that progress towards democracy remained fitful with reforms “embryonic and fragmentary.” Many Arab governments, it said, had used emergency powers to suppress independent courts and parliaments and had used religion as an excuse to limit individual freedoms, especially for women. The Report, while it confirmed that Arabs share the desire for self rule, suggested that U.S motives in the region were mistrusted and that progress towards democracy risked being rejected as a foreign imposition.16 Despite the equivocal conclusions of the U.N report, however, evidence on the ground was slightly more encouraging. Elections were successfully held by the Iraqis, Palestinians and Afghanis between 2004-5, while in Lebanon, street demonstrations modeled after those that brought down the government in Ukraine, were held to protest the Syrian Occupation. Then, in March 2005, charges of a rigged election brought thousands into the streets of the capital of the Muslim Republic of Kyrgystan, sweeping President Askar Akayev from power. Democratization is not without risk, however. Democracy has a darker side and in the short term, some warn, could fuel extremism and disorder leading to abrogations of human rights rather than more freedom. Amy Chua in World on Fire warned that democratic majorities coming to power frequently attack economically and politically dominant minorities. This occurred in Malaysia

Conclusion—Kim Ezra Shienbaum

265

where the government instituted preferential affirmative action policies for the majority ethnic Malays at the expense of a prosperous minority of Chinese and Indians, considered market dominant. In other countries, like Zimbabwe, attacks on minorities have had harsher consequences. In the Muslim world, democratization brings additional risks. The most well organized and well financed opposition political parties are often Islamist, able to use their religious missions, as charities, as a source of funds and their mosques for organizing supporters even when other political parties are banned. Additionally the example of Hezbollah in Lebanon offers a troubling model for future political parties in a democratized Arab world. America views Hezbollah as an Iranian financed and Syrian protected terrorist group which retained its weapons after the civil war ended in 1990. Refusing to accept the U.N certification of Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon as completed, Hezbollah has continued to use the excuse of Israel’s existence, and pretexts such as the uninhabited Shebaa Farms region in the Golan Heights, to morph into a Lebanese political party, the Faithfulness to the Resistance Party.17 By retaining its armed terrorist wing, however, Hezbollah remains in a position to mount future challenges to the sovereignty, not just of Israel, but also of Lebanon, while its political wing presses, through the electoral process, for an Islamist theocracy in a formerly cosmopolitan and pluralist area of the Muslim world. Questions abound. In the Palestinian territories will Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other terrorist factions use the example of Hezbollah to transform themselves into armed political parties, able and willing to challenge the sovereignty of any future Palestinian state and threaten the peace of the region? Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, elected in 2005, wavered in his efforts to disarm militants, urging them instead to join the political process leading to Palestinian statehood. Will a future Hamas electoral victory transform a now secular Palestine into a militant Islamic theocracy? In other words, will democratization in the Middle East lead to the spread of Islamic theocracies which ultimately limit freedom, abrogate human rights and fund jihad terrorism? Is this extremism likely to be a short term risk, or a long term trend? Feldman had

266

Beyond Jihad

suggested, more on hope than experience, that by siding with Islamic democrats (not Islamist ones), the U.S may be able to bind them to democratic principles and, longer term, reduce the head start Islamists have gained in so many countries. Still other concerns remain. If democracy spreads in the Muslim world, will it be aborted if Islamist parties do win electoral majorities in countries that resist becoming Islamic theocracies? In Turkey the military has been the last line of defense against Islamism, intervening three times in the last twenty-five years to defend secularism. Thus far, however, the dominant Islamist Justice Party and Development Party led by Erdogan has not, yet, precipitated a military takeover. In Algeria, on the other hand, when Islamists led national elections in December 1991, a run-off election was called off by the generals and the FIS were prevented from taking power. In future cases of military takeover, what would America do? In Pakistan, the U.S backed the Musharraf dictatorship because it kept Islamist parties, which had already won majorities in local elections, from gaining national power. Some American scholars remain skeptical that democratization is possible, or likely to succeed, in the long run. David Reiff in At the Point of a Gun: Democratic Dreams and Armed Intervention18 considered the push for democratization to be overly idealistic and asked readers to re-consider the realist point of view, in opposition to the building consensus, which crystallized around George Bush’s 2005 Inaugural message, that democratization inevitably leads to peace and that sometimes the U.S must, as Tony Blair argued at the time of Kosovo, act in terms of “values not interests”. Reiff argued that the jury is still out as to whether democratization in Iraq has merely facilitated the building of a future Shiite Islamic theocracy; that it is unclear whether pro-democracy movements in Lebanon will lead the country towards civil war, and he was skeptical whether the U.S could ever transform foreign societies in its own image. He suggested, instead, that the U.S was suffering from “a terrible hubris, a terrible utopianism about not just the use of force, but about the promise of democracy itself”. Wilsonian democracy, he reminded us, collapsed very quickly

Conclusion—Kim Ezra Shienbaum

267

with the rise and spread of totalitarianism in the 1930s.19 Of course, the path toward democratization (forcing a retreat from jihadism) could be pushed forward by other forces external to the Muslim world. Let us now review some additional developments with the potential to challenge radical Islam.

2) Oil as fuel for Jihad: Energy Independence Initiatives to promote democracy and reduce the underpinnings of support for jihad will have limited impact in a world thirsty for oil, one in which Arab and Muslim states together control the bulk of the cheapest supplies. Our contributors, together with many western scholars, believe that the root cause of jihad terrorism is the fact that it has been underwritten by Arab, particularly Saudi, oil money. Oil wealth gave Arab states the money to spread the message of jihad through mosque and madrassa building and imam and teacher training—and through generous contributions to Islamic charities which funneled money to terrorists and their families through banks such as the Palestinian Arab Bank based in Jordan.20 By 2005 oil had settled at over $50 a barrel and went as high as $70 due, in part, to growing global demand from India and China, as well as from the U.S which now obtains more than twenty six per cent of its oil from the Middle East compared with nine per cent ten years ago. Thus more petro-dollars than ever before are flowing to terrorism’s chief global sponsors. Thus, it is no longer matter of preference but a priority in national security terms that America cut the Gordian knot and reduced reliance on the terrorinfested, mostly Muslim, nations of the world for its oil supplies. Over thirty years ago, during the Arab Oil Embargo of 1973, President Jimmy Carter had called for conservation and the development of alternative energies. While some progress was made (it now takes half the oil to produce a given unit of GDP than it did thirty years ago) the auto industry has raised gasoline consumption by building bigger and bigger SUVs in the two decades since mileage standards were first imposed. Policy makers have paid insufficient attention to alternatives to oil, although President Bush did allocate $1 billion for fuel cell research following the

268

Beyond Jihad

9/11 attacks, a pittance compared with expenditures of $200 billion on the Iraq/ Afghanistan wars and reconstruction efforts. However, with sixty percent of U.S oil now imported, there is evidence the issue of oil dependence has risen to the level of a national security issue.21 An alliance has been forged between environmentalists urging conservation and members of the national security community concerned about fueling America’s military. In March 2005, a group of former national security advisors sent President Bush a letter urging him to take this issue more seriously and to consider some of the options suggested by the bipartisan Energy Future Coalition, formed in 2001, which wants more hybrid cars; a renewed emphasis on fuel efficiency standards; extended tax credits for hybrid cars; additional incentives for ethanol production and efforts to produce and market cars burning eighty five per cent ethanol. The Coalition also wanted the President to embrace the goal requiring twenty-five per cent of U.S energy to come from “the farm and ranch sector” by 2025. While the group’s ultimate goal is energy produced by hydrogen fuel cells, they acknowledge that is some years away. In the meantime, they suggested we look elsewhere for energy supplies and include wind, wave and solar energy in the mix of alternatives to replace fossil fuels and nuclear energy. When and if this scenario of oil independence materializes, perhaps oil will become a dwindling resource used only by Third World countries unable to substitute energy from modern technologies and gradually the Middle East will cease to be an area where dependence on Arab oil makes the U.S odd bedfellows with authoritarian and repressive governments. Skeptics question whether developing energy alternatives, underwritten by federal subsidies, makes economic sense. Recalling the Carter initiatives as wasteful and ineffective boondoggles, Jerry Taylor and Peter Van Doren at the CATO Institute offer costly reminders of that era, amply documented by Roger Noll and Linda Cohen’s The Technology Pork Barrel. The Synthetic Fuels Corporation went bankrupt in 1988 and was sold by the government for $85 million even though it cost the SFC $1.5 billion to build just one coal gasification

Conclusion—Kim Ezra Shienbaum

269

plant. Moreover, they were doubtful that soft energy or renewables, such as solar and wind energy, could ever provide more than 3% of U.S energy needs, while bio-mass energy including ethanol, they argued, costs more to produce than it yields on combustion and is already heavily dependent on federal subsidies. They argued in favor of free market solutions rather than governmentally imposed ones: However one feels about foreign oil, the belief that government can intelligently pick winners in energy markets or promote conservation in an economically reasonable way is belied by an avalanche of real-world evidence. 22 As for energy conservation, Taylor and Van Doren estimated that the appliance efficiency standards established under the National Energy Conservation Act of 1978 (NEPCA) had cost consumers about $46 billion by 2005, even after energy savings were discounted. They offered a cheaper, quicker solution to Islamist terrorism: The best way to weaken al Qaeda is by killing Bin Laden and those who support him. 23 If only things were that simple! Beyond Jihad has offered ample proof that Osama Bin Laden represents only the tip of the Islamist iceberg. Jihad is a religious ideology with a 1,400 year old history, one that has metastasized today well beyond the control of Al Qaeda or Bin Laden. The root cause of modern Jihad begins and ends with oil and the money it has given Saudi Arabia, in particular, enabling it to take control of the religion and spread its brand of literalist and fanatical Islam around the globe. Thus, finding energy alternatives, and committing public policy to subsidizing that search, should have the highest priority in American policy circles if the Islamic world is ever able to move Beyond Jihad. Granted, continuing to rely on Mid-East oil rather than providing government subsidies to ethanol producing farmers (which opponents argue amounts to huge transfers of tax dollars to agri-business) rather than subsidizing

270

Beyond Jihad

alternative energies makes economic sense. But politically such a strategy, which in effect transfers money from consumers to Middle Eastern sponsors of terror, spells disaster. In any event, the national security advisor group responded to the Taylor/van Doren concerns by maintaining that genetically engineered biocatalysts, developed since the 1970s, have made ethanol production very cost– effective, (confirmed by a National Commission on Energy Policy report in December 2004) so much so that half of Brazil’s transportation needs are met by ethanol fuel.24

3) The Rise of Fundamentalism in the West: Christianity vs Islam Although Benjamin Barber in Jihad vs McWorld believed that McWorld’s “videography” would win out, he also saw Islam as its chief challenger. Other books of the 1990s, like Huntington’s Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of the World Order, saw Islam as the religion of the future, spreading via “conversion as well as reproduction”, (“In the long run Muhammed wins out”) while Patrick Buchanan called Islam a “fighting faith” ready to take on the West whose decline, both in numbers and faith, he analyzed in The Death of the West. To be sure Europe, more than America whose growing religiosity was confirmed in the 2004 Presidential election,25 appears to have been secularized to the point where Christianity appears to be in irreversible decline. Two books of the new millennium, The Cube and the Cathedral by George Weigel and Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis by Bat Ye’Or, both published in 2005, document this trend and assess its consequences with respect to the fortunes of Islam, which are rising fast in Europe, while those of Christianity diminish by the day. George Weigel focused his concern on Europe’s present condition: one of heavy debts, low birth rates and heavy Muslim immigration. Europeans, he suggested, consider Christianity “retrograde” and prefer to seek the “good life”, one of short working hours, long vacations and ample welfare benefits. Real sacrifice to defend “freedom”, or even intellectual defenses of any moral absolutes, is unlikely in an

Conclusion—Kim Ezra Shienbaum

271

era of relativism. He sketches a “bitter end” scenario for a Europe he considers “religiously bereft, demographically moribund and morally without a compass”.26

The muezzin summons the faithful to prayer from the central loggia of St. Peter’s in Rome, while Notre dame has been transformed into the Hagia Sophia on the Seine—a great Christian church become an Islamic museum.27 Bat Ye’Or ‘s Eurabia, expressed different concerns. She maintained that Europe has underestimated the importance of the doctrine of jihad, a doctrine she believes establishes the relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims in terms of “belligerency, temporary armistices and submission”. She contends that Europe has also underestimated the manner in which jihad has been pursued, not just through violent or armed action, but, as King Hasan II of Morocco affirmed at the OIC in 1980, by other means including political action and psychological warfare which would assure “victory over the enemy” if systematically carried out by the Muslim Umma. The Umma vigorously pursued these strategies via its ongoing Euro-Arab Dialogue begun in 1974.28 According to Bat Ye’Or, these other nonviolent means of waging jihad have succeeded over the past thirty years in effecting a transformation in which Europe has evolved: …from a Judeo-Christian civilization, with important postEnlightenment secular elements, into a post-Judeo-Christian civilization that is subservient to the ideology of jihad and the Islamic powers that propagate it. 29 As a result, she contends, Europe is turning into Eurabia, a “civilization of dhimmitude” (submission) “content to sacrifice Israel today, and its own cultural identity in the future, for temporary peace of mind and economic benefits”. 30 But other scholars contend that Europe does not represent the future of Christianity. Colleen Carroll’s The New Faithful pointed to the attractions of evangelical Christianity for the young in America, where Catholicism is also slated to grow robustly paralleling the Hispanicization of America. Indeed, the

272

Beyond Jihad

election of 2004 confirmed “moral values” as a defining political issue in the 2004 Presidential election where “red” states (Republican) outnumbered “blue” (Democratic) ones. Another observer, Phillip Jenkins, believes that while militant Islam may threaten secular Europe, in the U.S, Christianity will present a formidable barrier to the appeal of its worldview. Thus attempts to proselytize and gain political favor will be opposed by evangelicals who are also politically active. In The Next Christendom, Jenkins also noted the rise of a vigorous, muscular multicultural Christianity in Africa, Asia and Latin America. The center of gravity of the new global Christianity, he argued, will move from the northern to the southern hemisphere and this Christianity is more likely to be literalist, fundamentalist and expansionist—well positioned to do ideological and theological battle with radical Islam in the future. In contrast with Huntington or Buchanan, Jenkins believes that Christians, who today outnumber Muslims, (2 billion to 1.3 billion) will continue to expand to 2.6 billion by 2035 and 3 billion by 2050. According to Jenkins, Christianity will still have a massive lead and will maintain its position into the foreseeable future.31 He pointed to the phenomenal growth of Christianity in Africa: 10 million in 1900 versus 360 million in 2000. Thus he concluded that the majority of believers would be neither “white, nor European nor Euro American”32 Reflecting these trends the Catholic Church is undergoing its own search for identity and purpose in the wake of the death of Pope John Paul II in April 2005. Reportedly, one of the issues undergoing review within the Catholic hierarchy was to find a better strategy to contain the spread of Islam in Europe and help preserve Europe’s Christian identity—while also defending the rights of Catholics living in Muslim countries. Many cardinals expressed open concern that John Paul’s “olive branch” approach to all religions had not been reciprocated by the Islamic clergy. While Europe’s largest mosque had been built only a mile from the Vatican, Catholics living in Saudi Arabia still remained unable to practice

Conclusion—Kim Ezra Shienbaum

273

their religion there.33 Surveying the future, a meeting of the mainstream Protestant World Council of Churches in 2005 emphasized the need to adapt to the rise of African and Asian congregations in order to avoid irrelevance, and focused on tensions with Muslims and the need to align with moderates. One speaker, Archbishop Christodoulos, the head of the Greek Orthodox Church, told the conferees: The consequences of globalization, terrorism and the war on terror require that Christian churches rediscover their prophetic voice…and be on the side of peace.34 In any event, the consensus among informed observers is that radical Islam may find itself constrained as it strives to convert the Third World, a market that many had thought ripe for Islamic conversion. On the other hand, while Europe may appear to offer more fertile ground for Islamicization, a backlash may well materialize as the dangers to cultural identity grow more and more obvious and eventually become impossible to ignore. On a final note, there is the possibility that fundamentalist Christianity, whose center of gravity is rapidly moving to the impoverished Third World, may ultimately threaten, not only Radical Islam, but also Northern Christians through calls for social justice and increased aid to control poverty and disease.

4) Rise of China and India as Global Leaders Samuel Huntington, in The Clash of Civilizations, had characterized China as an Islamic ally and there is plenty of evidence that a Sinic-Islamic “marriage of convenience” was forged during the Cold War to oppose the West. In the 21st century, will that relationship continue? Will the West be able to resolve continuing differences with China such as the future of Taiwan; the slow pace of democratization and the rise of China as a military and economic superpower capable of challenging America’s global hegemony? On the other hand, as economic development progresses, will the Chinese choose to risk their own

274

Beyond Jihad

future as a global leader for the chaos of militant Islam, especially since there are Muslim minorities within China which could prove troublesome if aroused? Similarly India, the other challenger civilization to America’s post war hegemony, has to manage its own Muslim minority, one which has engaged in bloody clashes periodically with the Hindu majority, especially over Kashmir. Moreover, an Indian nationalist movement actively opposes Islamic demographic and political expansion within India’s own borders and has had considerable electoral success in recent years. By 2004, for example, the Hindu Nationalist network’s political wing, the Bharatiya Janata Party, led the coalition government in New Delhi35 There are countervailing pressures, however, which make a relationship with Islam more likely. India and China have made overtures to Iran and Saudi Arabia to safeguard access to supplies of oil and natural gas necessary to fuel their robust economic expansions. It was reported in April 2005 that India and Saudi Arabia were involved in a joint venture to build an oil refinery inside Saudi Arabia, while additional plans were underway for the Saudis to build refineries on the Indian sub-continent, as well as in China.36 These close relationships, based on the need for oil, have the potential to undermine certain international policies of the West with respect, for instance, to nuclear proliferation in the Islamic world. Thus economic sanctions levied by the U.N against rogue Islamic states, like Iran, are likely to be ignored by a rapidly developing China and India, anxious not to offend nations on whom each depends for resources vital for economic growth. Nevertheless, there are signs that, in the long run, national interest will impel China and India to take the necessary steps to combat terrorism within their own borders and, going forward, they may be much less likely to be constrained internationally by concerns about “political correctness” or civil liberties protections for terrorists, concerns which have impeded a strong western response.

Conclusion—Kim Ezra Shienbaum

275

Co-ordinated “Get Tough” Strategies in the West For far too long, radical imams and even terror groups, have been sheltered in the West as part of the European Union’s Human Rights policies which have provided asylum to radicals sentenced to death or life imprisonment in their home countries. For too long, there has been a reluctance to crack down on radical imams preaching racial incitement in their mosques because of the protections of freedom of religion and speech. Michael Radu, co-chairman of the Foreign Policy Research Institute’s Center on Terrorism and Homeland Security noted in a July 2005 report titled “Radical Imams and Terrorists”: The legitimizers and bearers of Islamism are religious Figures— the radical imams, even if the ideologues (such as Hassan al Banna, Sayid Qutb, Bin Laden and Ayman al Zawahiri) seldom are. Without them, the entire ideological, political, and psychological edifice of Islamism would crumble. It thus follows that any long-term solution to the threat of Islamist terrorism has to start with Islam's radical clerics, especially in the West, where they are more free to operate than in Muslim countries. In contrast, the terrorist operatives themselves, most obviously those willing to commit suicide, are expendable, since their motivators and recruiters can always produce more, and they always do.37 If 9/11 scarcely changed attitudes Europe, and particularly in the U.K where the courts had been particularly solicitous of the rights of terror suspects, the suicide bombings in London in July 2005 changed the rules of the game, as British Prime Minister Tony Blair was forced to acknowledge. Where does free speech and freedom of religion stop and incitement to murder start? That question is now moot in many countries including the United Kingdom which enacted harsh new anti-terrorism laws following July 7, 2005 and began to deport those, including imams, deemed to be threats to national security. In Europe, the French under Interior Minister Nicolas Sarokozy, had already begun an aggressive policy of deportation, Germany began to prosecute “spiritual inciters of disorder” and

276

Beyond Jihad

Belgium placed mosques under surveillance. Only the Scandinavian countries resisted this new “get tough” approach. In America, prosecution took the place of deportation. For example, a New York court on July 28th 2005 convicted Sheik Mohammed Ali Hussan al Moayad to a stiff 75 years in prison for activities in support of terrorism.38 Only time will tell whether this approach will work, or whether a backlash fueled by left wing advocacy groups such as Human Rights Watch will ultimately succeed in building sympathy and support for a constituency they deem to be victimized.

Conclusion: Can the Islamist mind-set be changed? After all, a bellicose Japan and Germany were successfully transformed into peaceful democracies after the Second World War. On the other hand, it required total war and their unconditional surrender and Japan and Germany did not have access to the revenues and the leverage acquired by control of vital global oil supplies. Thus while change is always possible, is it probable? Perhaps containment of radical Islam in its countries of origin is the best that we can hope for. Open discussions of its dangers among Muslims themselves may serve this purpose by expanding the “circle of sanity” among educated Muslims even though it must be acknowledged that it is educated Muslim youth who have found Islamism particularly appealing. In 2005, for example, Egyptian students demonstrated to bring back the Muslim Brotherhood, now banned.39 In the West where Muslims already live, it is often second generation Muslims searching for cultural authenticity who are attracted to the message of Islamism. It is these young who must be reached with the message of tolerance which must come from Muslims themselves. An expanding “circle of sanity” might then limit militant Islam to a few geographical areas of the world, making Islamic militancy “unfashionable”, or even perceived as futile, by westernized Muslims. Governments in the West can play their part through public policies which impose strict state control over the institutions of Islam, as in France. Equally, a firm commitment to policies of

Conclusion—Kim Ezra Shienbaum

277

integration and education for Muslim populations living in the West could mitigate the spread of militancy. As an analogy, open expressions of racism in America, once tolerated, are now considered bigoted and are actively punished by the government should they occur in the workplace or in other public settings. Texaco and Denny’s paid millions of dollars in fines and levies for racist behavior on the part of their employees. The “virus” of Radical Islam might become dormant if governments administer the right “treatments” and keep their body politics healthy by eliminating poverty as well as by avoiding overt discrimination towards Muslims which would only add more fuel to a growing culture of grievance, exemplified by the French riots in Fall 2005. On the other hand, while armed jihad is likely to be openly confronted and hopefully limited in the future, the West must recognize that armed jihad is only one strategy to achieve Islamism’s chief goal: expanding the Umma into a world community of believers, Dar El Islam. Jihad’s tactics will, no doubt, evolve into a far more sophisticated and insidious menace, one pursued through less confrontational means including economic, political and psychological warfare. Arab petro-dollars have already targeted and funded not just Muslim institutions in the West, but also European and American institutions such as universities where departments and professorships have attracted Arab money. And let us not ignore the fact that Arab investment in the U.S, both in U.S debt obligations as well as in the equity markets, have the potential to influence, if not disrupt, our economy. Bat Ye’or’s Eurabia focused a spotlight on the Islamist agenda for Islamicizing Europe promoted through the Euro-Arab Dialogue (EAD). Initiated by French elites, beginning in the late 1950s, its purpose was to provide a counterweight to American global hegemony through an alliance with the Arab world which, in turn, required that Europeans acquire a greater understanding of Islamic culture and political positions. Over a thirty year period Bat Ye’Or suggests that EAD dictums, subsequently accepted by the European Community, have largely succeeded in injecting radical Islamist elements via a massive immigration of Muslims into European countries:

278

Beyond Jihad The EAD conceptions facilitated the creation of fundamentalist trends among people who came with no intention of integrating into European society and culture. Instead they arrived with the desire and the legal right, granted by the EC itself, to impose their own culture upon the host countries. 40 It is ironic that had Osama Bin Laden and his band of freelance jihadists

not attracted worldwide attention through armed jihad, it is likely that jihad by stealth would have infiltrated the West, especially America, more effectively by now. For these reasons, the contributors to Beyond Jihad want to ensure that western observers are fully aware of the dangers posed by Radical Islam. Many remain hopeful that external forces will lead to reform. All are hopeful that efforts to open a frank dialogue among Muslims themselves, especially those living in the West or in areas of the world where Islamists are still a minority such as in Bangladesh or Indonesia, will prove successful in expanding the “circle of sanity”.

1

“The emancipation of women, more than any other single issue is the touchstone of difference between modernization and Westernization. Even the most extreme and the most anti-Western fundamentalists nowadays accept the need to modernize and indeed to make the fullest use of modern technology, especially the technologies of warfare and propaganda….(But) The emancipation of women is Westernization: both for traditional conservatives and radical fundamentalists it is neither necessary nor useful but noxious, a betrayal of true Islamic values. It must be kept from entering the body of Islam, and where it has entered it must be ruthlessly excised.” From: Bernard Lewis, What Went Wrong: Western Penetration and Islamic Response, (New York: Oxford University Press), p. 73. 2

Gilles Kepel, The War For Muslim Minds: Islam and the West ( Belknap Press, 2005)

3

Interview with Marc Champion in The Wall Street Journal, December 15, 2004, p. B 35.

4

Reza Aslan, The Origins, Future and Evolution of Islam (Random House, 2005)

5

See “Islamic Justice Finds a Foothold in Europe’ in The Wall Street Journal, August 4, 2005, p. A8 6

U.S. Dept. of State, April 2005: Country Reports on Terrorism: 2003: 175 attacks vs 2004 : 650 Under a new system that counts domestic as well as international terrorism, the National Counter-Terrorism Task Force counted 3,000 attacks in 2004. NPR Report, July 6th., 2005

Conclusion—Kim Ezra Shienbaum

279

7

See Laura Ehrenfeld, Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed–and How to Stop It, Bonus Books, 2005 ( Revised). See also Loretta Napoleoni, Modern Jihad: Tracing the Dollars Behind the Terror Networks (UK: Pluto Books, 2003)

8

Zaccarias Moussaoui was captured BEFORE 9/11,and his case was bogged down for three years in preliminary hearings, only coming to trial in 2005. (See The Wall Street Journal, April 22, 2005 p. A11)

9

Hamdi et al., v Rumsfeld. Yaser Esam Hamdi was a Saudi captured in Afghanistan fighting for the Taliban in 2001 but was found to be American born and thus a citizen entitled to full constitutional protections. Arguments that he was an “enemy combatant” were declared invalid and Hamdi was freed and returned to Saudi Arabia .

10

Moreover, in 1994 the U.S had ratified treaty terms of the 1984 U.N Convention Against Torture. Among its terms : “ No state shall expel, return or extradite a person to another state” where there are “substantial grounds for believing they could be tortured. Despite this, the U.S has been outsourcing terrorist interrogations to third party countries where concerns about human rights violations are generally ignored. On May 5th. 2005 the House voted to prohibit the use of federal funds for actions which violate the Torture Convention and the Bush Administration has acknowledged that the Convention does apply even to “unlawful combatants” held at Guantanamo Bay. Source: The Wall Street Journal, May 6, 2005, p. A 4 11

Op-Ed piece adapted from a lecture given by Fouad Ajami at the Hoover Institution. The Wall Street Journal, May 16, 2005, p. A 16

12

Samuel Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order ( New York: Simon and Schuster,1996) Huntington stated: “The large numbers of young people with secondary educations will continue to power the Islamic Resurgence and promote Muslim militancy, militarism and migration”. ( p. 121) 13

The Wall Street Journal : Op Ed by Douglas Feith, Undersecretary of State “Invest in Solidarity” April 18, 2005 , p. A 22 14

“Democracy Drive by America Meets Reality in Egypt” in The Wall Street Journal, April 11, 2005, p. A 1,8

15

Ibid., p. A 8

16

The Wall Street Journal , April 6, 2005 ,p. A 4

17

The Wall Street Journal, April 20, 2005 p. A1-A8

18

David Reiff, At The Point of a Gun: Democratic Dreams and Armed Intervention (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2005)

19

The Wall Street Journal, March 28, 2005 “Muscular Utopianism” p. A 16

20

The Saudi Ministry of Finance is a Board member of the Arab Bank. See The Wall Street Journal,April 20, 2005, p. A1-8

21

The Wall Street Journal, March 28, p. A 16

280

Beyond Jihad

22

See The Wall Street Journal: “High Octane Amnesia” April 12, 2005, p A22. In American Shockwave: Entrepreneurial Capitalism and Its Global Impact (Praeger Publishing 2002) I explored the ways in which national security imperatives were successfully used to justify federal funding, through DARPA, for young entrepreneurial start-ups in the hi-tech and bio-tech sector. 23

Ibid., p. A 22.

24

The Wall Street Journal, April 19, 2005 , p. A 21

25

In the 2004 Presidential election, polls indicated that “values” emerged as the foremost issue followed by national security.

26

George Weigel, The Cube and the Cathedral , Basic Books, 2005

27

The Wall Street Journal, April 14, 2005, “Bookshelf”, Review of The Cube and the Cathedral by Brian M Carney.

28

Review of Eurabia by Bruce Thornton on amazon.com

29

Eurabia : The Euro-Arab Axis, ( New Jersey: Fairleigh Dickenson Press, 2005) p.9.

30

Ibid., p. xx

31

Phillip Jenkins, The Next Christendom: The Coming of Global Christianity, (New York: Oxford University Press. 2002), p 5.

32

Ibid., p. 1-2

33

See The Wall Street Journal , April 11 2005, p. A1

34

From a report in The Philadelphia Inquirer, May 11, 2005, P. A2

35

See Christophe Jaffrelot, The Hindu Nationalist Movement in India (New York: Columbia University Press, 1996).

36

Nightly Business Report, April 26, 2005

37

Michael Radu, “Radical Imams and Terrorists” presented online as part of the Foreign Policy Research Institute’s Watch on the West, Volume 6, Number 6, August 2005. 38

Ibid.

39

The Wall Street Journal, May 5, 2005, p. A.1

40

Bat Ye’Or, Eurabia, op.cit., p. 35

CONTRIBUTORS

Editors:

Kim Ezra Shienbaum, Ph.D , Managing Editor Dr. Shienbaum is an Associate Professor of Political Science at Rutgers University in Camden, NJ. She is the author of several articles and books including American Shockwave: Entrepreneurial Capitalism and Its Global Impact, published by Praeger in 2002. From 1986-1998 Dr. Shienbaum created, developed and hosted the public affairs radio series, Head To Head, aired by over 75 public radio stations and underwritten, in part, by TIAA-CREF.

Jamal Hasan, M.B.A, Co-Editor Jamal Hasan is a freelance writer based in Washington DC. Writing on international political affairs is his passion and his subjects include the impact of Islamic fundamentalism in South Asia. He has been interviewed by Voice of America Television as an expert on Islamic fundamentalism and has also written extensively on Iranian affairs. Many of his articles have been published in various web-based and print newspapers and journals published in India, Bangladesh and America. Professionally he works in the field of information management. Mr. Hasan writes from Maryland.

282

Beyond Jihad

Contributors (Please note that, exclusively for security reasons, several contributors are writing under pseudonyms, or being deliberately vague about where they live and work.) S. Abdallah ( pseudonym) S. Abdallah is an Israeli Arab of Palestinian descent. She resides in the North East and works with many agencies fighting for human rights and is often consulted by law enforcement agencies on Arab -Muslim issues.

Mohammad Asghar Born into a Muslim family, Mohammad Asghar lived with Islam for almost fifty years. He began to question his religion and understand its fallacies when he took up the study of the Quran, Muhammad’s biographies and other related literature some fifteen years ago. As a result of his studies, he became an apostate of Islam,now believing it undermines humanity and offers little to guide him personally in the way he wishes to live the rest of his life. Mr. Asghar writes from California

Nonie Darwish ( pseudonym) Nonie Darwish, married with three children, is a freelance writer and speaker born into a prominent Muslim family living in both Gaza and in Cairo , Egypt. Her father was appointed head of Fedayeen operations by Gamel Abdel Nasser and was killed in 1956 during the jihad against Israel. Having emigrated to America in 1978, Nonie Darwish came to realize that her culture was on a headon collision with the world, especially after 9/11, when she began to play a public role condemning terrorism and hatred for Israel. Nonie Darwish has spoken at many major universities such as Carnegie Mellon and Stanford, published articles in major newspapers including The Jerusalem Post and Pakistan Today and is currently writing her first book: “Lifting the Veil: By the Daughter of a Shahid”

Contributors

283

Dr. Alamgir Hussain ( pseudonym) Dr.

Hussain

is

a

Bangladeshi,

born

and

brought

up

in

a

conservative Muslim family. He is a researcher in the field of science at a university in South Asia. He is a strong believer in secular-humanist ideals and is a freelance writer on religious, social, political, ethical and human rights issues. Abul Kasem (pseudonym) Abul Kasem teaches Civil Engineering at an Engineering College in Sydney, Australia. He is the author of several articles and books including Women in Islam. He has also contributed to the book Leaving Islam—Apostates Speak Out edited by Ibn Warraq and published by Prometheus Books. Recently he has been interviewed by a Radio Station in Brisbane, Australia on his book Women in Islam. “Abul Kasem” is a pen name. Mr. Kasem writes from Australia

Hasan Mahmud A non-political Muslim, Hasan Mahmud has been researching Political Islam for decades. He is a free-lance writer and a frequent speaker on Political Islam and Sharia law on Canadian television and at international conferences and seminars in Canada, America and Europe. He is also a singer, musician, poet, dramatist and actor. Hasan Mahmud is a strong believer in democratic pluralism within Islam. He is dedicated to informing the public about the threat Political Islam poses both to Muslims and to the world. His docu-drama "Silent Genocide" on Sharia law won the Best Production Award in the 5th International Annual Drama Competition in Toronto. It is being filmed for television in Canada, America and Bangladesh.

Syed Kamran Mirza (psuedonym) Syed Kamran Mirza (a pen name) was born into a Muslim family in Bangladesh. After obtaining a Ph.D. in Biology he taught at the University of Bangladesh for a period of twelve years. He emigrated to the U.S in 1975 and has

284

Beyond Jihad

become an American citizen. Syed Kamran Mirza is a freelance writer publishing his work on various Internet Web-based journals and secular websites. He is the author of the recently published book “Roots of Islamic Terrorism” and more than 200 articles scrutinizing various aspects of Islam.

Syed M. Islam Having grown up in Dhaka, Bangladesh, Sayed Islam came to the U.S in 1983 on a tuition scholarship to attend a private liberal arts college in the Midwest. Having majored in Accounting and Finance, Mr. Islam held several middle-management finance jobs, from Cost Accountant to Controller. After fourteen years, a windfall in the stock market in late 1999 led to a brief career as a full-time stock investor but Mr. Islam is currently a real-estate investor who remains deeply involved in issues of women’s rights and the contradictions faced by an Islamic Diaspora which espouses the values of Radical Islam yet enjoys the benefits of living in the West.

Omyhrus ( pseudonym) Omyhrus works in the financial services industry in South Asia and received his MBA from a major north American university.

Dr. Ali Sina ( pseudonym) Ali Sina is the pseudonym used by a self described Canadian-Iranian Secular-Humanist. Sina is the founder of Faith Freedom International (FFI). Its website FaithFreedom.org, is a vehicle created by ex-Muslims to secularize Islamic countreis and help Muslims leave Islam. Using the Internet as a vehicle to deliver his message, he has written numerous articles about radical Islam hoping to lead Muslims out of the faith of hate and into the fold of humanity and also to warn others of the dangers of Islam.

Contributors

285

Esam Sohail Esam Sohail is a banker and former college lecturer in international affairs who resides in Kansas City, Missouri. His writings are regularly featured in publications from South Asia, the Middle East, and North America.

Mesbah Uddin Mesbah Uddin is an accountant and free-lance writer who lives in London, England.

Dr. A.H. Jaffor Ullah Dr. Jaffor Ullah writes vigorously both in electronic and print media. Originally from Bangladesh, he studied in the U.S. for his doctoral degree. He did research at three U.S. universities, namely, the University of Cincinnati (19691974), the State university of New York at Stony Brook (1974-1977), and the University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana (1977-1985). Since 1985 he has been working at the Southern Regional Research center in New Orleans doing research in biochemistry, molecular biology, and bioinformatics. Dr. Ullah serves on the editorial board of ‘News from Bangladesh,’ Mukto-mona, Nirvana, and Bangladesh Environmental Network—all electronic forums. In the print media, he writes extensively for ‘The Daily Star’, ‘The Bangladesh Observer’, ‘The Independent’, ‘Pakistan Today’, and a few other newspapers published from India and Nepal. Dr. Ullah lives in California.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abu Dawud, Sunnan, Book 19, Number 2955, Dar-us-Salam Publications, 2004. Akbar, M. J, The Shade of Swords, London: Routledge, 2002. Al Ghazali, The Incoherence of the Philosophers, English translation by S. A. Kamali, Pakistan Philosophical Congress, 1963. A. Yusuf Ali, translator, The Holy Qur’an, Brentwood, Maryland: Amana Corporation, 1983. Armstrong, Karen, The Battle for God, Ballantine Books, 2001. ________, A History of God, Ballantine Books, 1994. Aslan, Reza, No god But God: The Origins, Future and Evolution of Islam, Random House, 2005. Barber, Benjamin, Jihad vs McWorld: How Globalism and Tribalism are Rehaping the World, Ballantine Books; Reprint edition, July 30, 1996. Brian, Dennis, Einstein: A Life, New York: John Wiley, 1996. Buchanan, Patrick, The Death of the West, St. Martin's Griffin, 2002. Carroll, Colleen, The New Faithful, Harper San Francisco; 1st edition, 2003. Chua, Amy, World on Fire, Anchor, 2004. Cohen, Joshua and Lague, Ian, The Place of Tolerance in Islam, Beacon Press, 2002. DeBecker, Gavin, The Gift of Fear: Survival Signals That Protect Us From Violence, Boston: Little, Brown; 1st edition, June 1, 1997. De Boer, T J, The History of Philosophy in Islam

New York:

Publications, 1967. Doi, Dr. Abdur Rahman, Sharia the Islamic Law, Ta-Ha Publishers, 1989.

Dover

288

Beyond Jihad

Ehrenfeld, Laura, Funding Evil: How Terrorism Is Financed and How to Stop It, Bonus Books, 2005. Einstein, Albert, The World As I See It, Citadel Press, 1993. El Fadl, Abu Khaled, Rebellion and Violence in Islamic Law, Cambridge University Press, November, 2001. Esposito, John, What Everyone Needs To Know About Islam, Oxford University Press, September, 2002. Feisal, Abdul Rauf Feisal, What’s Right With Islam, San Francisco: Harper, 2004. Feldman, Noah, After Jihad: America and the Struggle for Islamic Democracy, Farrar, Straus and Giroux; 1st edition, 2003. Gold, Dore, Hatred’s Kingdom: How Saudi Arabia Supports the New Global Terrorism, Regnery Publishing, Inc, February, 2003. Guillaume, Alfred; Traditions of Islam: An Introduction to the Study of the Hadith Literature, Kessinger Publishing, 2003. Haqqani, Hussain, Pakistan, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2005. Huntington, Samuel, The Clash of Civilizations an the Remaking of World Order, Simon & Schuster, 1998. Hoodbhoy, Dr. Pervez, Islam and Science: Religious Orthodoxy and the Battle for Rationality, 1991. Horowitz, David, Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left, Regnery Publishing, Inc., 2004. Hourani, Albert A History of the Arab Peoples, Warner Books, 1992. Iqbal, Muhammad, Shikwa and Jawab-i-Shikwa (Complaint and Answer) Iqbal's Dialogue with Allah (Translated from the Urdu, with an introduction by Khushwant Singh) London: Oxford University Press, 1991. Jaffrelot, Christophe, The Hindu Nationalist Movement in India, New York: Columbia University Press, 1996. Jenkins, Phillip, The Next Christendom, Oxford University Press; New Edition November, 2003.

Bibliography

289

Kamali, Dr. Hashim, Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence, Cambridge: Islamic Texts Society, 1991. Kepel, Gilles, The War For Muslim Minds: Islam and the West, Belknap Press, 2005. Kepel, Gilles, Jihad: The Trail of Political Islam, Harvard/Belknap Press, 2002. Khaldun, Ibn The Muqaddimah, Vol. 1:473 translated by Franz Rosenthal, New York: Pantheon Books Inc., 1958. Lague, Ian and Cohen, Joshua, The Place of Tolerance in Islam, Beacon Press, November 8, 2002. Lawrence, Jonathan, co-author Justin Vaïsse, Integrating Islam: Political and Religious Challenges in Contemporary France, Brookings, 2006. Lewis, Bernard, What Went Wrong: Western Penetration and Islamic Response, New York: Oxford University Press, 2002. Macdonald, Duncan B, Development of Muslim Theology, Jurisprudence and Constitutional Theory, Orient Books, 1965. Manji, Irshad, The Trouble With Islam Today, St. Martin's Griffin, 2005. Montville, Joseph, The Islamic Roots of Democratic Pluralism, Oxford University Press, 2000. Napoleoni, Laura, Modern Jihad: Tracing the Dollars Behind the Terror Networks, UK: Pluto Books, 2005. Qutb, Sayyid, Milestones, Revised Edition, Beirut: The Holy Koran Publishing House, 1980. Patai, Raphael, The Arab Mind, Hatherleigh Press, Revised Edition, 2002. Rahman, Fazlur, Islam, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979. Ramadan al-Buti, Dr. Muhammad Sa’id, Jurisprudence in Muhammad’s Biography, 7th edition. Reiff, David, At The Point of Gun: Democratic Dreams and Armed Intervention, New York: Simon and Schuster, 2005. Robson, James translator, Mishkat al-Masabih, Vol. 1:814 Lahore: Ashraf, 1975.

290

Beyond Jihad

Said, Edward, Orientalism, Vintage; 1st Vintage Books ed edition, October 12, 1979. Schwartz, Steven, The Two Faces of Islam: The House of Sa’ud From Tradition to Terror, Doubleday; 1st edition, October 15, 2002. Sells, Michael, Approaching The Koran: The Early Revelations, White Cloud Press; January 1, 2000. Sharansky, Natan, Dermer, Ron, Shcharansky, Anatoly The Case for Democracy: The Power of Freedom to Overcome Tyranny and Terror, Public Affairs, 2004. Sharif, Buchari, Bengali Translation by Maulana Muhammad Mustafizur Rahman, Sulemani Printers and Publishers, Dhaka, Second edition, 1999. Shaw, Bernard, The Genuine Islam, Singapore, Vol. 1, No. 8, 1936. Tyerman, Christopher, Fighting for Christendom: Holy War and the Crusades, Oxford University Press, November 30, 2004. Timmerman, Kenneth R, Preachers of Hate: Islam and the War on America, Crown Forum, 1st edition, 2003. Von Grunebaum, Classical Islam: A History, 600 A.D. to 1258 A.D, Transaction Publishers, 2005. Warraq, Ibn Why I am not a Muslim, Prometheus Books, 1995. ---------------, Leaving Islam: Apostates Speak Out, Prometheus Books, 2003. Wensinck, A.J., The Muslim Creed, Its Genesis and Historical Development, Coronet Books, 1932. Ye’or, Bat, Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis, Fairleigh Dickenson Press, 2005.

INDEX

A Abbas, Abul, 71 Abbas, Ibn, 81 Abbas, Mahmoud, 265 Abu Ghraib, 93, 131 ACLU, 131 Afghanistan, 4, 18, 24, 33, 63, 67, 70, 92, 129, 130, 145, 147, 149, 150, 153, 166, 179, 224, 225, 243, 244, 260, 262, 268 Ajami, Fouad, 260 Al Qaeda, 4, 15, 21, 24, 67, 72, 94, 95, 226, 260, 269 al-Ayyeri, Yussuf, 115 Al-Farabi, 39 Al-Ghazali, Abu Hamid, 121 Ali, Syed Amir, 168 Al-Jazeera, 94 al-Jubair, Muhammad bin Ibrahim, 115 Allah’s Law, 200, 201 Al-Razi, 39 American Muslim Committee, 86, 244 American-Arab-Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC), 131 Annan, Kofi, 233, 235 anti-Americanism, 3, 7, 262, 263 anti-semitic, 25, 255 apostate, 33, 111, 182, 189, 257 Arab Community Center for Economic and Social Services (ACCESS), 131

Armstrong, Karen, 8, 62, 63 Asefi, Hamid Reza, 105 Ashariyya, 123 Aslan, Reza, 257 Assad, Hafez, 4 Australia, 5, 11, 15, 177, 178, 179, 181, 185, 230, 237 Averroes, 37, 39 Avicenna, 39, 121 awwam, 116 azan (prayer call), 181 B Baathist, 226 Badat, Saajid, 259 Badr, 55, 65, 66, 67 Bangladesh, 12, 76, 95, 147, 149, 153, 155, 164, 167, 169, 232, 234, 278 beheading, 56, 59, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 190 Bharatiya Janata Party, 274 Blair, Tony, xiv, xix, 14, 266, 275 Book of Musa, 184 Buchanan, Patrick, 270, 272 Buddhist, 37, 154, 244 Bukhari, Sahih, 32, 38, 45, 64, 67, 80, 99, 200, 203, 205 Bull, 98 burka, 143, 144 Bush, George W., xviii, xix, 68, 131, 261, 262, 263, 266, 267, 268

292

Beyond Jihad

Buyids, 102 Byzantine Empire, 71 C Cairo Convention on Human Rights, 11, 133 Caliphate, 9, 40, 102, 129 Caliphs, 39, 71, 86, 103, 203, 204 Canada, 5, 15, 17, 63, 164, 177, 230, 237 Capitalism, 127 Carroll, Colleen, 271 Carter, Jimmy, 24, 172, 173, 267, 268 Catholic, 8, 272 Catholic Church, 105 Center for Religious Freedom, 9, 12 Chirac, Jacques, 14 chopping, 95, 190 Christendom, 20, 21, 70, 71, 98, 102, 137, 209, 272 Christian, 37, 38, 39, 40, 48, 71, 89, 91, 99, 101, 106, 107, 188, 189, 202, 210, 223, 225, 249, 251, 271, 272, 273 Christodoulos, Archbishop, 273 CIA, 24, 92, 130, 172 citadels of jihad, 15 clitoridectomy, 190 Cohen, Joshua, 7 Communism, 128, 129, 131, 192, 220 Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), 6, 86, 244 Crusader state, 22, 72 Crusades, 7, 9, 20, 21, 68, 71, 72, 75, 188 Cuba, 232 D Dar al Harb, 111 Dar al Islam, 9, 111 Darwinism, 119

Declaration on Universal Human Rights, 235 Dhabi, Abu, 138 dhimmis, 111, 114, 210 dhimmitude, 111, 271 Duke, David, 138 E Einstein, Albert, 26, 229, 230, 231, 236, 237, 238 El-Sheik, Imam Muhammad Adam, 89 Energy Future Coalition, 268 Ernst, Carl, 43 Esposito, John, 8, 47 Euro-Arab Dialogue (EAD), 277 European Council of Fatwa and Research,, 257 European Union, 230, 231, 275 F Fadh, King, 69 Faisal Masjid Islamic Centre, 84 Falun Gong, 188 Fandy, Mamoun, 94 Far Left, 7, 22 Fascism, 119, 120, 121, 123 fatwas, 2, 241, 247 Feisal, Abdul Rauf, 3 Feldman, Noah, 262, 264, 265 Fighting for defense, 53, 55, 205 five pillars, 34, 194, 199 foqaha, 108 Foreign Policy Research Institute’s Center on Terrorism and Homeland Security, 275 Friedman, Tom, 24 G Gabriel, 66 Geneva Convention, 260 Ghazali, Imam, 40, 63, 122 Ghaznavids, 102 Gibbons, Edward, 70

Index godless, 71, 165 Gospels, 183 Great Satan, 141, 165 Greek Orthodox Church, 273 Guantanamo Bay, 259 H Haddad, Yvonne, 89 Hadis Kudsi, 198 Hadith, 10, 22, 35, 38, 61, 67, 78, 80, 85, 93, 96, 99, 100, 101, 109, 110, 122, 123, 129, 158, 159, 189, 191 Hajj, 34, 194 Hamas, 4, 139, 148, 174, 265 Hamoud, Sheik, 69, 70 Hanbal, Imam, 200, 203 Hanifa, Imam Abu, 200, 203 Hawazin, 251 hezbollah, 265 hijab, 180 Hindu, 39, 154, 222, 244, 251, 274 Hizb ut-Tahrir, 159, 161, 163, 164 Hizbollah, 139 Hizb-ut-Tahrir, xvii, 13 Holocaust, 19, 221 Holy Land, 21, 71, 166 Holy War, 5, 20, 37, 73, 75, 77, 82 honor-killings, 190 Horowitz, David, 131 House of Harb, 62 House of Islam (Darul Islam), 59 House of Saud, 9, 22, 23, 69, 70, 167 House of War (Darul Harb), 59 Human Rights Commission (U.N.), 232 Human Rights Watch, 259, 276 Huntington, Samuel, 18, 20, 26, 261, 262, 263, 270, 272, 273 Huraira, Abu, 80, 81, 99, 100 Hussein, Saddam, 24, 33, 69, 70, 131, 162, 163, 166, 225, 233, 234, 236, 237

293 I Ilm, 122 imam, 17, 77, 89, 267 infidel, 21, 52, 62, 69, 72, 90, 130, 155, 177, 179, 180, 181, 185, 186, 243 Inshallah, 34, 38 International Committee of the Red Cross, 259 Iqbal, 72, 128 Ishaq, Ibn, 92, 203 Islamic Reformation, 8, 257 Islamic Revolution, 172 Islamic State, 161, 194, 195, 198, 200 Islamic Supreme Council of America, 150 Islamicization, 18, 149, 187, 273 Islamonline, 107, 108, 114, 258 Islamophobia, 185, 187, 192 Israel, 1, 4, 10, 22, 26, 37, 65, 72, 94, 137, 150, 165, 213, 214, 220, 222, 223, 227, 265, 271 J Jamaat-i-Islami, 154 Jan, Abid Ullah, 3, 19 Janus, 11, 17, 51, 52, 64 Japan, 25, 230, 236, 238, 249, 276 Jenkins, Philip, 21, 272 Jihad, 4, 5, 10, 12, 14, 15, 17, 19, 20, 23, 26, 27, 32, 37, 55, 60, 66, 69, 75, 76, 77, 78, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 87, 109, 121, 145, 146, 160, 244, 255, 256, 257, 258, 260, 262, 265, 267, 269, 270, 277, 278 Jihad al-kuffar, 77 Jihad al-munafiqeen, 77 Jihad-an-nafs or Jihad, 75 Jizya tax, 32, 46, 59, 60, 61, 63, 79, 110, 111, 246 Jong, Kim IL, 237 Judeo-Christian, 190, 271 Jumma (the Sabbath), 157, 163

294

Beyond Jihad K

Kabbani, Hisham, 150 kaffirs, 85, 89, 90, 95, 241, 246 Kashmir, 31, 92, 165, 179, 274 Kennedy, John F., 171 Kepel, Gilles, 15, 19, 256 Khaldun, Ibn, 85 Khalifa, 115, 116, 117, 120, 121, 123, 200, 204 Khan, Muhsin, 45, 61 Khan, Syed Ahmed, 168 Khatami, 117 Khelafat Movement, 199 Khilafat (vicegerency), 118, 119, 162 Khomeini, Ayatollah, 49, 66, 73, 111, 115, 132, 149, 153, 172 Khomeni, Ayatollah, 24, 172 khutba, 150 kufur (impure), 177 Kurds, 33 Kuwait, 24, 69, 166, 225 L Laden, Osama Bin, 9, 24, 68, 69, 72, 73, 85, 95, 158, 245, 248, 256, 269, 275, 278 Lague, Ian, 7 League of Nations, 229 Lebanon, 264, 265, 266 Lewis, Bernard, 7, 25, 41 Limited attack, 53, 205 Lindh, John Walker, 244 Luther, Martin, 8, 97, 98, 104, 129, 257 M Madani, Maulana Husain Ahmad, 199 Madinatun-Nabi, 99 madrassa, 9, 20, 166, 169, 171, 267 Mahathir, Dr., 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 224, 226

Mahmud, Badrul, 26, 193, 201 Malaysia, 147, 149, 264 Malik, Anas Bin, 81, 200, 203 Manji, Irshad, 2, 8 Maududi, 115, 118 Mawdudi, Abu'l Ala, 84 Mawdudi, Maolana, 193 Mecca, 4, 9, 31, 34, 45, 53, 55, 56, 58, 78, 81, 83, 93, 97, 123, 177, 194, 198, 199, 251 Meccans, 55, 66, 67, 99, 199 Medina, 9, 10, 11, 31, 45, 51, 52, 55, 56, 77, 78, 81, 83, 91, 92, 97, 99, 148, 177, 198, 199, 200, 252 Mehedi, Imam, 224 Messenger, 2, 32, 68, 69, 90, 100, 101, 161, 194, 195, 246 Middle East Institute, 3 Mohammad, Mahathir, 137, 139 Moussawi, Zachariah, 244 Mu’tazelis, 40, 106, 123 Mugabe, Robert, 237 muhajirun (migrants), 178 mujaheddin, 24, 150 mullah, 41, 86, 91, 92, 98, 153, 172, 173, 224, 225, 244, 247, 248 Musalman, 40 Muslim Brotherhood, 13, 14, 83, 148, 199, 257, 276 Muslim Community Association of Ann Arbor (MCA), 131 N naskh, 84 Nasser, Abdul, 13, 148, 162 National Energy Conservation Act of 1978 (NEPCA), 269 Nazi, 137 O OIC, 137, 217, 222, 223, 226, 271 Old Testament, 11, 43, 183 Omar, Mullah, 225 Open aggression, 53, 205

Index Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), 137 P Padilla, Jose, 244 Pahlavi, Mohmmad Reza, 171 Pakistan’s Independent Center for Strategic Studies, 3 Pan-Islamism of Jamaluddin Afghani, 199 Peaceful persuasion, 53, 205 Pentateuch, 105, 106 People of the Book, 32, 39, 57, 83, 91, 113, 114, 246 Peters, Rudolph, 84 Pew Center for the People, 2 politically correct, 7, 48, 65, 73, 87, 174, 182, 186, 244 polygamy, 36, 190, 205, 210 Powell, Colin, 105 Prophet Muhammed, 2, 31, 32, 35, 36, 38, 65, 77, 179, 189 Prophet Of Guidance, 199 Prophet’s Examples, 198 prosecutorial approaches, 259 Protestant World Council of Churches, 273 Q Qaradawi, Youssef, 257, 258 Qisas, 93 Quraish, 168, 251 Qutb, Sayyid, x, 83, 115, 275 R Radical Islam, 1, 2, 5, 6, 22, 151, 251, 252, 258, 273, 277, 278 Radical Left, 12, 22 Radu, Michael, 275 Rahman, Fazlur, 84 Ramadan, 34, 163 Ramadan, Muhammad Sa'id, 82 random jihad, 94 Razakar, 76

295 real Islam, 50, 51, 52, 73, 93, 95, 111, 182, 185, 245 refusenik, 111 Reid, Richard, 259 Reiff, David, 266 religious vigellantes, 21 Renan, Ernest, 40 Risalat (Prophethood), 118 Robson, James, 82 Royal Library of Alexandria, 120 S Sahi Sitta, 198 Said, Edward, 2 Saladin, 21, 72, 73 Salafism, 9 Samura, 81 Sarokozy, Nicolas, 275 Saudi Arabia, 4, 9, 11, 13, 23, 24, 26, 49, 69, 89, 92, 93, 111, 148, 153, 154, 155, 166, 169, 223, 232, 244, 259, 269, 272, 274 Seljuqs, 102 Sells, Michael, 8, 43, 44, 46, 49 September 11, 1, 7, 31, 52, 65, 75, 85, 130, 141, 144, 182, 255, 262 Shafi’i, Imam, 200, 203 Shah of Iran, 24, 171, 173, 174 shaheed, 94 Sharansky, Natan, 262, 264 Sharia, 3, 6, 15, 17, 32, 33, 86, 89, 93, 99, 103, 106, 109, 110, 111, 116, 178, 193, 194, 198, 200, 201, 202, 205, 258 Shariaat, 245 Shariati, Ali, 107 Shaw, George Bernard, 97, 98 Shawkani, Al, 63 Sheikh, Ahmed Omas Saeed, 18 Shi’ite, 9, 149 Shi'a Hizballah, 148 Shiite Hadis, 198 Sorush, 107 stoning, 98, 109, 190

296

Beyond Jihad

Sudan, 31, 210, 232 Sufi, 10, 138, 210 Sunnah, 21, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 103, 109, 115, 161, 163, 244, 245 Sura Bara'at, 45, 61 suras, 10, 52, 53, 62 Suyuti, Jalaluddin, 62, 205 Synthetic Fuels Corporation, 268 Syria, 4, 24, 77, 86, 167, 232

ummah, 8, 72, 73, 108, 111, 116, 130, 138, 157, 158, 159, 161, 162, 163, 164, 181, 199, 218, 219, 220, 224, 225, 226 Ummat, 157, 158, 159, 164 ummatic mentality, 16, 19 USA Patriot Act, 131 Uzzama, James, 244 V

T Tabligis, 164 Tafsir, 62 Taheri, Amir, 4, 113, 114, 115, 116 Taiwan, 273 Taliban, 33, 49, 63, 92, 105, 111, 129, 130, 131, 149, 153, 224, 225, 244 Tawhid (unity of Allah), 118 Taymiyah, Imam, 200, 203 technology front, 258 Third World, 18, 27, 149, 154, 178, 231, 232, 234, 238, 268, 273 Tonge, Jenny, 174 Turkey, 14, 86, 102, 162, 266 Tyerman, Christopher, 20 U U.N, 11, 133, 229, 231, 232, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 264, 265, 274 U.N Security Council, 237 U.N Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 11, 134 Uhud, 56, 67, 71 Ukraine, 264 Ulama, 122 ulemas, 8, 9, 20, 21, 100, 102, 103, 257 Umar, 69, 70, 110 Umayyads, 70, 71

Vatican, 9, 116, 257, 272 Vatican II, 105, 257 velayat-e faqih, 117, 121 victimhood, 20, 21, 145 W Wahhabi, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 16, 22, 23, 24, 49, 95, 105, 111, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 154, 155, 164, 167, 257 Wahhabism, 9, 11, 22, 23, 49, 147, 148, 149, 150, 154, 239 War on Terror, 139 Warraq, Ibn, 2 Watt, William Montgomery, 122 Weigel, George, 270 World War I, 37, 162, 229, 249 World War II, 37, 137, 165, 221, 234, 238, 249, 250, 276 Y Yathrib, 98 Ye’Or, Bat, 270, 271, 277 Yusufi, Musbi Urrehman, 84 Z Zakaria, Rajiq, 71, 123 Zimbabwe, 225, 232, 237, 265 Zionist, 213, 264 Ziziya, 78 Zoroastrian, 39, 99, 168