A Non-Islamist Muslim?

Islamism has become a common and widespread word, often thrown around by media and individuals within society alike. The universally accepted definition is that Islamism is the adoption of Islam as a political ideology, and thus the ism, very much along the lines of Capitalism, Socialism, Communism et cetera.

The question which has been on my mind for some time now is “Can one be a non-Islamist Muslim?”

First, allow me to raise some reservations about the term Islamism; in the words of some thinkers, a term that simultaneously defines the Taliban and the AK party in Turkey is by default a meaningless one!

The question is then, what is Islamism?

If Islamism is the embracement of political Islam and enforcing it on the populace, then surely many Muslims are not Islamists. Fundamentally, “there is no coercion in religion” and thus no human has a right to coerce another or others to follow his/her own interpretation of Islam.

On the other side of the spectrum, if Islamism means the desire to apply the laws of Islam, i.e. the Shari‘ah, then how can a Muslim claim to be a non-Islamist? Surely, one of the axiomatic requisites of embracing Islam is that you accept the laws it sets out.

A noticeable dilemma faced by Muslims these days is that certain groups within societies claim to be the sole holders of the Truth, they are the only ones who can interoperate Islam’s laws properly and thus they are the Islamists!

In my humble opinion, all Muslims are, or must be Islamists. In order to achieve such definition we must not allow the monopolisation of the “what is Islamic” realm. A so-called secular Muslim (another terminology which causes a lot of contention) may possess a better understanding of Islam’s laws then that of a self-professed “Islamist”.

The End is Nigh!

“The United States is developing a proposed $20 billion, 10-year arms sales package for Saudi Arabia, a senior administration official confirmed on Saturday.” (http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/07/28/saudi.arms/)

When was the last time Saudi Arabia went to war? In fact, let us the rephrase the question; when has Saudi Arabia ever gone to war? And is it likely to do so anytime soon?
Why do the Saudis need such a huge armament deal anyway?

“This is all about Iran," said the official”

Oh yes, the evil Iranians! They’re the ones who have sent over 220,000 of their military personnel to US shores. Or was that the other way around?

And guess who’s not happy about this US-Saudi deal? Yes, the Israelis. They’re furious, how could the Americans sell $ 20 billion worth of arms to the Saudis. I mean OK, this is good for the US economy and all, and I’m sure the arms industry will be happy about the deal. But hey, don’t forget us, we poor Israelis also want a piece of the action.

Sure. Not a problem. To keep the Israelis happy, the very next day the US announces that it “is planning a significant increase in military and defence aid to Israel.” (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6920988.stm)

$30 billion over the next decade. Very significant indeed.

“Mr Olmert said the increased support was a sign of US commitment to maintain Israel's military "advantage over the Arab states".”

Oh good, so we’re all happy. The Saudis get their weapons (to arm them against the evil Safavids!!!!), the US arms companies get their money and the Israelis get $30 billion worth of free weapons, just for being nice people.

And they all lived happily ever after!

Well, until the Third World War broke out.

Who has the right to speak about Islam?

Islam is a religion for all mankind; meaning that anyone can be a Muslim. Furthermore anyone can attain status permitting him or her to speak on Islamic issues. I came across an American convert to Islam once and he told me that the reason he became a Muslim was simply due to one comment said by a particular Imam in the US. Whilst handing out general information about Islam, the Imam said, "You know what? One day, you can be more knowledgeable than me."

"What?!" The enquiring American yelled, "I can be more knowledgeable than you!!!"

Anyway, he was moved and he thought to himself that surely such a religion is the most just and divine. So, he became a Muslim.

In the beginning of Islam, in particular the era that directly followed the death of the prophet Mohamed Peace Be upon Him, Muslims faced a very odd predicament. Despite the plentiful availability of the companions of the Prophet Peace Be upon Him and the near time of his death, people found it very difficult to acquire a religious doctrine (a fatwa) from even the most knowledgeable of companions.

Ibn Abi Layla, a prominent scholar in direct era after the death of the Prophet Peace Be upon Him, commented on this issue, "I have come across one hundred and twenty of the companions of the Prophet Peace Be upon Him; each one of them having wished that his colleague would have given a religious doctrine (a fatwa) instead of him"

Malik ibn Anas, the founder of the Maliki legal school of thought a scholar that lived in around the same time of Ibn Abi Layla, was asked about a particular issue; he said: "I do not know!"
The man replied in shock, "You do not know?!"

Malik replied, "Yes, and tell all that you know that I do not know!"

These are a couple of examples, from an ocean of examples, illustrating the sheer respect of knowledge that was held in the hearts of the first generation of Muslim scholars. It was by no means a sign of incompetence in their part, indeed it was the overflowing competence in their hearts that gave them the power to ascribe partial ignorance to themselves in the bigger aim of preserving knowledge. This is clearly highlighted in the famous saying of Ali ibn Abi Talib (the fourth Muslim Caliph, a pious companion of the Prophet Peace Be upon him as well as being his son in law) may Allah be pleased with him:

"Knowledge starts off as a small dot; the dot is enlarged by the ignorant"

The major academic malaise that exists today is the ever increasing eagerness for so called academics to speak on every issue, in every occasion. This problem is shared by all fields of academia propelling the major authorities of every academic field to complain about this current malaise, as well as refute many stray bullets of vast misunderstanding, misquotation, unauthenticated and sometimes dangerous utterances by people who are incapable in the particular field that that academic ascribes to.

I came across a book by Reza Aslan (praised by my friend Tarik in the previous article) named "No God but God". I read excerpts of the book, focused on one important chapter and skimmed through a couple. The chapter I concentrated on was the chapter that dealt with the Islamic ruling on Hijab, due to my interest in the field of Islamic Law. One does not mind at all to be challenged on his views, nor does he complain about difference of opinion; however, such opinions or views should be backed by strong and substantial evidence. Aslan gave his view that Hijab is not mandatory without presenting textual evidence, legal evidence or historic evidence. Just because he has studied theology at University and has made a name for himself does not in any way give him the right to academically write about something without authenticating it.

Finally, the focus should be on the principal to be gained from the example I cited above of Aslan, not on that particular issue; as it is clearly obvious (for the plentiful evidence on this issue go to http://www.islamqa.com/index.php?ref=13998&ln=eng&txt=الحجاب). It is important for academics or aspirers to be academics to restrain themselves in areas they hold no knowledge in. It is hard for an academic to resort to proclaiming he or she has no knowledge in a particular field; however, that is by far much better than embarrassing himself when the enquirer finds out that the knowledge given to him by that particular academic is wrong. After all, the covetousness of academics to speak in various fields at once has created the melting pot for all sorts of problems that face us today.

Hamid83

27-7-2007

The Battle for Islam?

Newsnight ran a yet another programme about Islam last night; “The Battle for Islam” was the title.

The programme in its entirety can be watched on the Newsnight website www.bbc.co.uk/newsnight. As far as insightful debate goes, the show, for me, scored 2 out of 10. The research on the topic was poor, and the way the different issues were presented was incoherent and seemed to juggle from one subject to another quite aimlessly.

The weakest element of the programme was the calibre of the guests.

Benazir Bhutto—can hardly claim to be an authentic source of knowledge in Islam.

Omar Bakri Mohammad—does not represent the majority Muslim view, although what he actually said on the programme does not go against the sentiments of the masses in the Muslim world, yet what he is reported to have said on previous occasions represents a minority view.

Maryam Namazie, the Ex-Muslim—someone who identifies him/herself through what he/she was can hardly be said to know what he/she is now! Just a thought!

Reza Aslan—was possibly the only one who talked any sense, unfortunately, often interrupted by the host and not given appropriate time to convey his arguments. And by the way, his book No God but God is excellent!

In sum, a poor effort by the BBC in dealing with a topic of crucial importance. The debate could have been much better.

Mort au Musulman? (Death to the Muslim?)

The position of Muslims in the West is a topic which has received extensive attention, more so since the rise of the terrorism phenomenon. Contemporary Muslim thinkers are urging their brethren to be active members of society, to contribute to their communities and be “good citizens”. Professor Tariq Ramadan, Abdel-Hakim Murad and Hamza Yusuf are but a few of the eminent scholars/thinkers who have adopted this stance.

Ramadan refuses to separate between the “them” and “us”, ‘I am Muslim, and I am also Western; therefore I am a Western Muslim.’ My faith is part of my identity, and so is my citizenship. Muslims have assimilated and continue to do so every day, and those who have not, must do so.

This assimilative rhetoric has become widespread amongst the so-called “modern” Muslims; scholars and populous alike. For many of the second, third or even fourth generation Muslims residing in Europe, their identity is intrinsically Western. They have grown up in the West, attended schools, acquired friends and lived in the West. Europe is their home, and their visit to Pakistan, Palestine or Somalia is often as culturally-shocking for them as it would be for an indigenous Westerner.

What will these attempts to assimilate and integrate lead to? Will Muslims become active members of Western society? And can faith and citizenship be amalgamated within a single entity?

The responses to these questions will vary according to each person’s view/understanding of Islam. Those, such as Ramdan et al., will continue to propagate an integrationist perspective. Others, who view the world in “abode of Islam” and “abode of war” terminology will emphasise the need for Muslims to “return” to “Islamic countries” and insist on the impossibility of being a “Western Muslim”.

One recalls the Dreyfus affair which occurred in France at the turn of the previous century—no, it was not a Moulin Rougeisque bohemian affair! Dreyfus was a captain in the French army who was convicted of treason; his “Jewishness” was the clear evidence in an otherwise shambles of a trial. An infamous Theodor Herzl was present at the trial and witnessing this vulgarity—whilst listening to the anti-Dreyfusards calling for the Mort au juif, death to the Jew—he reached the conclusion that Jews can never be assimilated in European countries. Soon afterwards, Herzl published The Jewish State and founded the World Zionist Organisation; Zionism was the only perceived solution to the “Jewish issue”.

Until our present day, Zionism insists on its racist and discriminatory ideology—not my words but those of the UN General Assembly resolution no. 3379 which states that ‘Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination’. The Jews have achieved their dream state, their racist state. Is this what the Muslims want? An Islamist Zionism?

But if—God forbid—the calls of Mort au Musulman are heard, then what are we to do?

Part II

War is about male genitals. That is what a British comedian said—in a less formal way of course—describing the current situation in Iraq. And to an extent I do agree with him. War is indeed about proving to others—and to your ego (the “I Myself”), or super-ego, whatever Freud called it—that you are better and more powerful; that your genitals are bigger than theirs.

The inside/outside state of affairs (see previous article) creates a class-like social segregation—the “developed” insiders and the “less developed” outsiders—this is further exacerbated as a result of the supremacist mentality that exists amongst active actors within each camp.

The “democrats”—on the Western front—believe that they have reached the ultimate pinnacle of human civilisation, and rightly so. The tolerance, freedom of thought and respect for the other have flourished at a level unprecedented before in the history of mankind. Western liberal democracy is a unique and un-human like experience, in the “inside” at least.

“Democrats”—the elitist amongst them at least—feel it is their duty to spread their message to the entire globe, I recall once reading on the website of a Washington-based neo-conservative think-tank: “American leadership is good for America and for the world.” This feeling of “superiority” over others leads to a “supremacist mentality”; ‘freedom and security’ can only be achieved through liberal democracy. The famous “democratic peace theory” comes into mind: liberal democracies (read: the only civilised nations of the world) do not fight each other, ergo, the only way global peace can be achieved is by turning the whole world into a liberal democracy.

Others, disagreeing with this supremacist mentality have propagated their own alternative approach. Fascism and Communism were the polar opposites of liberal democracy throughout the 20th century. Any approach—regardless of content—that opposes liberal democracy is immediately vilified and disregarded as oppressive, tyrannical and un-democratic.

Armed political Islam is the new enemy of liberal democracy, “Islamo-Fascism”, as Bush Jr. preferred to label it, is the modern-day equivalent of the “un-democratic, tyrannical and oppressive” ideology which must be combated and defeated. However, armed political Islam does not operate through traditional means; there is no state that harbours and holds armed political Islam as its official ideology. Partly due to the failure of the Middle Eastern nation-state to provide a platform for civil political Islam to be expressed, the entire movement has embraced a clandestine methodology in its operation. Bin Laden’s cave messages relayed on the internet, using Western tools to combat Westernism, is the zenith of post-modernism.

Armed political Islam is just as supremacist as elitist democrats, ‘justice and moral righteousness’ can only be achieved if Islamism prevails. Very similar rhetoric indeed, only difference is that “democratic supremacists” measure success through humanist terminology, i.e. liberty and freedom, whilst political Islamists do so through religiously-inspired virtuousness, i.e. morality and justice.

In conclusion, the inside/outside theory, twinned with the supremacist mentality that exists amongst certain actors are two of the many factors that have lead to the continuous circle of murder and violence. Islam is a religion of revolution, Muslims cannot sit and watch oppression and havoc being spread through the earth without acting. The weak states of the Muslim world have lead to an un-traditional method of resistance; sadly, political Islamists have embraced the supremacist mentality also. When the umma’s/nation’s/ideology’s effectiveness is measured through worldly success, “supremacism” will inevitably dominate our thinking.

“Why do we kill people who are killing people to show that killing people is wrong?” Anon.

In the Name of God, Most Compassionate Most Merciful

It seems that the desire for violence and murder, either by the so-called “Jihadists” or by the “Superpowers” of this world has become the most prominent phenomena of the 21st century. As we waved goodbye to the second millennia, we were welcomed to the new époque by disastrous events in the United States. What followed was even more dismal; the massacres of thousands of civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq as a response to the “Jihadist” activity. The “war on terror”, as it has come to be known, responded to terrorism with much of the same; more terror.

The reasons behind this madness—and yes, there are reasons to this madness—can be summed up in two short justifications. First, the dominance of realpolitik in contemporary international relations, and second—consequently—the desire of supremacy and the infinite will to acquire hegemony.


Realpolitik and the Inside/Outside theory

Scholars have often presented various theories of human behaviour; within the context of International Relations (IR), idealism and realism represent two polar opposites. Whereas the former holds optimistic views vis-à-vis human nature and its behaviour, the latter insists that humans are greedy and brutish; the “state of nature” is one of anarchy and chaos.

‘Offensive Realism’ goes one step further; it—amongst other theories—distinguishes between the “inside” and the “outside”. According to the offensive realist perspective, a powerful state enjoys relative harmony and rule of law in the “inside”—i.e. the state-citizen relationship is a civil one, where the state provides security and protects the freedom and well-being of its citizens and in turn the citizens obey the laws and are active members of society—the “outside” however, is an arena of anarchy and chaos.

The state, in its relationship with “non-insiders” cannot uphold the same values and principals that it does with its citizens. In other words, the rule of law and the respect of freedoms that exists in the “inside” is absent in the “outside”. Consequently, insiders form a profound sense of community; members are citizens and the state of nature is that of respect, tolerance and liberty from tyranny.

So far, it is not clear how this “inside/outside” theory is linked to the issue in question. Allow me to elaborate this theory further and add a new assumption that maybe of benefit to us in comprehending the reasons for the on-going wave of violence.

The aforementioned theory is rightly applicable to Western states; one only need to observe the so-called “double standards” that are aplenty. Why is a life of one Westerner—an insider—valued more than that of a non-Westerner—an outsider? Does the death of 3,000 insiders justify the death of 600,000 outsiders?

The reality is that we in the West do not regard “death” as an independent occurrence, whose death is of great importance; the death of one’s neighbour will cause more sadness than the death of a fellow countryman whom I have no relations with, and the death of an Iraqi/Afghan/Palestinian infant/child/woman/old man will matter even less to me. Not because I am cruel or lack any sense of morality, but because I care more about my fellow insiders than I do about anyone else.

If this is how life—the most precious of gifts—is viewed, then there is no reason to mention further issues.

This is the dilemma; the inside in the eyes of a Muslim is not merely his/her own state, or the larger Union of states, it is the entire Muslim Umma. The sense of a greater Umma does not exist within a Western mentality, indeed, there exists greater Unions—i.e. the European Union—but the formation of such groupings is driven by economic incentives rather than profound emotional ties that exist across the Muslim Umma.

However, the “inside/outside” theory applies inversely in the Muslim realm. The sense of an Umma may be strong, yet the nature of the relationship between the state and its citizens is that of brutality and tyranny. The state is weak and thus relies on “outsiders” to prolong its existence and acquire legitimacy, in doing so, the “inside/outside” divide is reversed—the former is a state of chaos where the rule of law is absent and the latter is characterised through respect and adoration.

A Muslim state that does not respect its members and is full of awe for outsiders and a Western state that deals with its citizens favourably and disregards the rights and freedoms of outsiders; a potent situation indeed. This is further exacerbated as a result of the “supremacist” mentality that is prominent amongst both Westerners and Islamists alike, the following chapter of this essay will shed light on this issue.