An important critique
Hassan Butt, who was once a member of radical group Al-Muhajiroun, in the Guardian:
When I was still a member of what is probably best termed the British Jihadi Network, a series of semi-autonomous British Muslim terrorist groups linked by a single ideology, I remember how we used to laugh in celebration whenever people on TV proclaimed that the sole cause for Islamic acts of terror like 9/11, the Madrid bombings and 7/7 was Western foreign policy. By blaming the government for our actions, those who pushed the ‘Blair’s bombs’ line did our propaganda work for us. More important, they also helped to draw away any critical examination from the real engine of our violence: Islamic theology…
the foundation of extremist reasoning rests upon a dualistic model of the world. Many Muslims may or may not agree with secularism but at the moment, formal Islamic theology, unlike Christian theology, does not allow for the separation of state and religion. There is no ‘rendering unto Caesar’ in Islamic theology because state and religion are considered to be one and the same. The centuries-old reasoning of Islamic jurists also extends to the world stage where the rules of interaction between Dar ul-Islam (the Land of Islam) and Dar ul-Kufr (the Land of Unbelief) have been set down to cover almost every matter of trade, peace and war.
What radicals and extremists do is to take these premises two steps further. Their first step has been to reason that since there is no Islamic state in existence, the whole world must be Dar ul-Kufr. Step two: since Islam must declare war on unbelief, they have declared war upon the whole world. Many of my former peers, myself included, were taught by Pakistani and British radical preachers that this reclassification of the globe as a Land of War (Dar ul-Harb) allows any Muslim to destroy the sanctity of the five rights that every human is granted under Islam: life, wealth, land, mind and belief. In Dar ul-Harb, anything goes, including the treachery and cowardice of attacking civilians.
This understanding of the global battlefield has been a source of friction for Muslims living in Britain. For decades, radicals have been exploiting these tensions between Islamic theology and the modern secular state for their benefit, typically by starting debate with the question: ‘Are you British or Muslim?’ But the main reason why radicals have managed to increase their following is because most Islamic institutions in Britain just don’t want to talk about theology. They refuse to broach the difficult and often complex topic of violence within Islam and instead repeat the mantra that Islam is peace, focus on Islam as personal, and hope that all of this debate will go away.
This has left the territory of ideas open for radicals to claim as their own. I should know because, as a former extremist recruiter, every time mosque authorities banned us from their grounds, it felt like a moral and religious victory.
Butt is correct that ceding the territory of ideas to radicals creates a natural recruitment tool to attract young men, who largely inhabit the world of ideas rather than experience. His solution, however, seems pretty far off in the future. Butt says, “If our country is going to take on radicals and violent extremists, Muslim scholars must go back to the books and come forward with a refashioned set of rules and a revised understanding of the rights and responsibilities of Muslims…when this new theological territory is opened up, Western Muslims will be able to liberate themselves from defunct models of the world, rewrite the rules of interaction and perhaps we will discover that the concept of killing in the name of Islam is no more than an anachronism.”
That’s a pretty tall task considering the textbooks of Saudi Arabia, the daily diet of Palestinian child abuse, the glorification of child martyrdom in Iran, and so on. Until some responsible adults take charge in the leading institutions of Islamic theology, the near-term solution to this problem is unlikely to be played out in the world of ideas.
July 1st, 2007 at 10:25 am
While we’re talking about Muslims’ “ideas,” I suggest that knowledgable Muslims stop
Choosing Silence
In the Koran, Muhammad plainly tells his followers to believe the Prophets who preceded him and “…discriminate against none of them” (The Family of Imran 3:84). Moreover, Muhammad specifically mentioned Moses as a Prophet worthy of belief.
When Moses led the Hebrews to the “Promised Land,” before they had even entered the land, he told them of the future fall of their yet-to-be created nation and the exile of their disobedient descendants. But he also foretold their eventual return to the resurrected nation of Israel (Deut. 30:3-5).
So, how do Muslims reconcile their devotion to destroying today’s “resurrected” Israel with Muhammad’s instructions to believe Moses? To date, most of the Muslims who contact me through my website and blog tell me that the Hebrew Scriptures have been “corrupted.” Therefore, they can “righteously” seek to “drive Israel into the sea,” because its current existence is based on lies inserted in the ancient Texts by the exiled, desperate, homeless Jews.
Regardless of what some Muslims clerics tell their followers, the fact remains that there is not a single piece of evidence to prove that the Hebrew Scriptures we read today, which foretell Israel’s restoration, are not faithful renditions of the original Text. The most ancient Scriptures in the Hebrew language discovered to date were retrieved from caves near the Dead Sea. Dating methods cannot determine the exact age of the individual Scrolls, but authorities agree that most were written during the last three centuries before Jesus. That means, before the Jews were exiled, as Moses foretold, and many hundreds of years before Muslims existed to declare them “liars” who corrupted their own Scriptures, the Jews were warned of their future — the precise future they have actually endured.
To us, the Dead Sea Scrolls are of ancient origin. But we need to remember that those Scrolls were, themselves, copies of much older Writings, which have probably long since disintegrated. It’s believed the Hebrews in Biblical Israel ceremoniously buried their worn Scrolls, to prevent their desecration. Hence, there’s no way for us to know if the Dead Sea Scrolls are faithful renditions of previous copies, much less of the Prophets’ original teachings. Nor is there a shred of evidence to prove they are not recordings of the actual words spoken by men who lived long ago. That means, any claim that portions of the Hebrew Scriptures were significantly altered has nothing but man’s unlimited imagination to support it!
Still, that fact does not deter those Muslims who choose to believe the Hebrew prophecies of Israel’s “resurrection” were deceitfully placed in their Scriptures after the Jews’ exile from ancient Israel. When people choose to eliminate portions of the ancient Scriptures, they are accepting their “alterations” as facts. And, to persuade others of those “facts,” they must first convince themselves they know “the absolute truth.” Whether they are telling themselves deliberate “lies” or simply making “mistakes” might be open to debate. Yet, when Muslims tell themselves and others that God never promised to resurrect Israel, they are denying a promise delivered by the very Prophets that Muhammad told them to believe! Once they have chosen to deny that promise, they have embarked on the path of self-deception that offers no further choices on the matter until they choose to acknowledge their “lies” or “mistakes” or whatever you choose to call them.
The world desperately needs wise Muslims who choose to speak the truth about those prophecies to their fellow Muslims — but, so far, they’re choosing silence.