Our Announcements

Not Found

Sorry, but you are looking for something that isn't here.

Archive for category ISLAMOPHOBIA

Other People’s History: Contemporary Islam and Figures of Early Modern European Dissent by Sadia Abbas

Opinion

Other People’s History:
Contemporary Islam and Figures of Early Modern European Dissent

Sadia Abbas

 
“The Hanging” by Jacques Callot, ca. 1633

I
     1. Everyone seems to think Islam needs a Reformation. The demand is almost ubiquitous. Neoconservatives have made it part of their radical project for the transformation of the planet. FrontPagemag.com, David Horowitz’s Neo-McCarthyite online journal has hosted, along with columns by Ann Coulter and Daniel Pipes, an entire symposium on “The Islamic Reformation.”1On the eve of the invasion of Iraq in 2003, Paul Wolfowitz, too, declared that Islam needed one, which gives us a good idea of how that reformation is meant to proceed.2 Liberals have joined the chorus. Salman Rushdie has recently said a Reformation is just what Islam requires.3 Sometimes Islam’s very permission to remain on the planet seems to depend upon it.

     2. It is perhaps hard to appreciate the full incongruity of a Zionist neoconservative, like Wolfowitz, in a government headed by a Methodist evangelical, urging upon a third religion the doctrinal revolution associated with Western Christianity; and, of course, the change being urged is not only doctrinal. This Reformation is meant to bring Islamic societies into line with liberalism, neoliberalism, and neoconservatism, all at once. It can become difficult to tell liberals and conservatives apart when it comes to sorting out their views on Islam.

     3. Wolfowitz and his cohort don’t usually explain what they mean by the Reformation, so one can reasonably assume they have the term’s most popular and conventional meanings in mind. Theirs is the Reformation of textbook Whiggish fantasy — Cliff notes for Weber: Protestantism, the inward turn, the authority of individual conscience, the rise of bourgeois self-discipline, the welcome creep of capitalism. Most often, it is simply a symbol, or an agent, of modernity.

     4. The idea seems to be, broadly, that the Reformation’s inward turn — its rejection of law and ritual in favour of a vividly experienced faith — will automatically lead to the kinds of developments so dearly desired for the Muslim world, that there is an automatic, inherent, natural connection between capitalism, personal freedom and something called the Reformation, which was once Christian but now must be the future of all religions. The inward turn comes with an outward teleology. Reformation can only lead to one historical end: the achievement of whatever is considered by the speaker to be the ideal of Western modernity.

     5. In the account I’m describing, the Reformation lies congealed as the moment in European history when interior belief turned into the institutional challenge; the inward turn was a fist in the face of a corrupt Catholic church auctioning salvation. If we graft this understanding onto the current Muslim situation, we might conclude that these hypothetical Protestants for Allah will challenge the mothballed traditionalism that permeates every aspect of Muslim life, and that prevents the entrapped moderates from fighting the worst backward-looking jihadist ideologies.

Consider, for instance, the following examples:
The moderator for Frontpagemag asks:
Does Islam need a reformation? How come it never had one? Why is self-criticism and self-questioning almost unheard of in Islam?4

A PLO guerilla turned evangelical Christian and Zionist, Walid Shoebat responds:

Christian reformation started when followers went to the text and the founders of the faith who clearly prohibited genocide and murder. Yet Muslims cannot do the same, since the founders themselves (Muhammad the prophet of Islam, the Sahaba, and the Caliphs) all participated in Jihad by killing infidels and whoever opposed the Islamic system.
This is why the talk of reformation can never be by “re-interpretation” but “confession”.
Is this panel ready to do that?5

Sheobat is challenging the other panelists who are reform-oriented Muslims. They, in turn, give complicated answers that refuse to concede the moderator’s claim that self-criticism is almost unheard of in Islam. Nonetheless, the naked bigotry of many of the proponents of this position is fully in view.

     6. In the different context of a Washington Post Op-Ed, Salman Rushdie writes:

     What is needed is a move beyond tradition — nothing less than a reform movement to bring the core concepts of Islam into the modern age, a Muslim Reformation to combat not only the jihadist ideologues but also the dusty, stifling seminaries of the traditionalists, throwing open the windows to let in much-needed fresh air.

     It would be good to see governments and community leaders inside the Muslim world as well as outside it throwing their weight behind this idea, because creating and sustaining such a reform movement will require above all a new educational impetus whose results may take a generation to be felt, a new scholarship to replace the literalist diktats and narrow dogmatisms that plague present-day Muslim thinking. It is high time, for starters, that Muslims were able to study the revelation of their religion as an event inside history, not supernaturally above it.6

Rushdie’s thought is often intellectually cluttered, as it is here. Within the piece, he is concerned to point out that the Muslim Council of Britain’s head, Iqbal Sacranie, is complicit with the most degraded reactionary positions. Sacranie did say after The Satanic Verses was published that death was “too good” for Rushdie, and has been engaged in a policy of radical denial, regarding the growth of jihadist thought, and of jihadist bullying of other Muslims, in Britain.7 Since the fatwa he has been trying to portray himself as a moderate. Nevertheless, what’s particularly bizarre in Rushdie’s argument, if one can call it that, is that he starts by invoking a kind of anti-seminarian vision of Protestant theological individualism, but then seems to want to talk about Reformation as a form of secularization. Islam needs to become less of a religion in order to reform: it needs to shed its supernatural components.

     7. If Reformation can be read as secular in this way, let’s stretch the analogy in a different direction. Even the most spiritualized accounts of the Reformation see it as a challenge to a massive and powerful institutional structure that spread across Europe and beyond. If there is a contemporary network of institutions that has anything like the same geographical reach and purchase, it is the World Bank, the IMF, Nato, the U.S. military, a crippled and hostage United Nations — in other words, the institutions that are usually used as tools of imperial domination. These institutions may not be religious, but they do demand extraordinary acts of submission and affiliation. It is not that farfetched to suggest that the militant Islamists are most closely engaged in the Reformation the neo-conservatives think they are enjoining when they attack these institutions of Western imperial domination.

     8. It is, of course, hardly a surprise that the neoconservatives and neoliberals do not see themselves as part of the problem. In the discursive cluster represented by these examples, the Reformation is nothing other than an amnesiac vehicle for self-flattery, and for a blockage of precisely what its name has come to represent: the institution of further and ongoing reform within the West of its most cherished political, economic and intellectual orthodoxies. One would never know from these discussions that sectarian rivers of blood flowed during the Reformation, that religious violence is a pervasive concern in early modern thought. Christopher Marlowe’s Massacre at Paris and Milton’s “On the Massacre in Piedmont,” are haunted by a fear of and anger at the massacre. Samson Agonistes is tempted by it. Montaigne’s Apology for Raymond Sebond and “Of Cannibals” are shaped by the imperative to keep violence at bay. Phineas Fletcher’s The Apollyonists and Spenser’s The Faerie Queene are exultantly bloodthirsty sectarian texts.

     9. Against the still unfolding apocalypse of America’s and Britain’s newly naked imperialism and the violence of such sanctimonious calls for reform as I have mentioned, postcolonial skepticism regarding narratives of Western progress, modernity and teleology acquires a renewed and disturbing intelligibility — even to those of us who are wary of the settling of anti-teleological modes of historical thinking into uninstructive academic cliché.

     10. Anti-teleological thought tends to take as its target the notion that all history must lead to a Western ideal of modernity. The bundle of characteristics in this modernity varies, but can include any combination of a fairly familiar list of sins: a critical distance between academic subject and “superstitious” religious object of scrutiny and scholarship, a tendency to erase the past, the (secular) tendency to alienate and rationalize lived (religious) experience, a disabling suspicion of tradition, an enshrinement of the totalizing conceptual grab of reason, the erasure of local worlds under the abstraction-generating universalizing violence of Western thought.8

     11. Anti-teleological thought need not accept every aspect of this cluster and is not always opposed to finding configurations of the modern outside the West. It functions frequently simply to characterize and dismiss views uncongenial to the person availing herself of its critical charge. My point is not to support teleological thinking and its commitment to historical or metaphysical narratives of inevitability, but to think carefully about what opposition to it bans, and, more importantly, about the fiat by which an entire host of historical developments and political and conceptual commitments can be called into question by a series of metonymic displacements. Thus, for instance, secular commitments can be called into question simply through their ostensible philosophical dependency upon Western teleologies, upon the idea of teleology itself.

     12. Within the critical schemes of anti-teleological and anti-modern thought, comparisons between the postcolonial — the word seems like an increasingly egregious misnomer — present and the European, or Western, past appear strictly forbidden. Anti-teleological arguments make any talk of an “Islamic Reformation” automatically suspect if the presence of the term in Wolfowitz’s mouth had not already curdled it. The very term “Islamic Reformation” is a case study in Western narratives of teleological development. The term is an explicit example of a European historical category flung in judgment at the non-European world to show its backwardness in the temporal race, to hurry it along, but to show simultaneously that it will always be behind.

     13. If to compare current events in the postcolonial world to Europe’s past is to participate in the ideology of empire, analogizing contemporary events in the Muslim world to Reformation religious strife in Europe would seem to partake of the worst sins of European historical consciousness. What then are we to do with the circulation of the term, and figures associated with it, in contemporary Muslim and Arab discourse? What are we to do with the comparisons that are made by Muslim and Arab thinkers — who are not Westernized in the way of Rushdie — themselves?

     14. Despite the taboos installed by contemporary theory, Muslim and Arab thinkers routinely compare East and West. Some enjoin a Reformation, others compare aspects of the current Muslim situation to it, many disavow the analogy and then let it back in anyway as if there were no escape from the comparison. As is only to be expected, in this context the term acquires a dramatically different weight and is put to different uses. Sometimes, in both East and West, what has been going on in different parts of the Muslim world since 1979, the year of the Iranian revolution, is analogized to early modern European strife. The analogy is occasionally extended, as when threatened Muslim writers are compared to figures of European dissent such as Giordano Bruno and Galileo. So one might encounter a list that includes Farag Foda, Salman Rushdie, Bruno, Galileo, Naguib Mahfouz and Ibn Rwandi. Even though our current teleo-skepticism suggests that all such analogies inherently serve the empire, the very opposite can turn out to be the case. To think contrapuntally, as Edward Said enjoined, is to think comparatively. Banning the analogy preemptively cedes far too much to an evolutionary account of Western political history. Critical analogical thinking is a necessity in our globalized world — if fearlessly contrapuntal, it can exert tremendous pressure upon Western mythographies.9

     15. The examples that follow showcase a chronic anxiety about belatedness and a fear of being conscripted into Western teleologies, but we also see that when progressive Muslims embrace, or even skittishly disavow and then tentatively entertain the analogy, it is not teleological — if only because their understandings are predicated on a more complex, less triumphalist, reading of European history than either Rushdie or Wolfowitz possess. Their readings of the analogy often see secularism, enlightenment, toleration as pragmatic accommodations prompted by an exploding Europe trying to survive its own violence. Such readings are far indeed from the numinous vision of secular modernity as the manifest destiny of an “always already” enlightened Europe — a Europe whose most convulsed religious moment must be read as immanently secular.

     16. Although sectarian is not how the West likes to think of itself, it’s worth remembering that even the call for Reformation is an ongoing reminder of sectarian schism, like a metaphor that refuses to die a decently invisible death. When the neoconservatives imply that the world needs more Protestantism, they reveal what is hidden at the heart of one of the West’s most cherished images of its own modernity: a vision of Catholicism as a moribund sect, embodying all that is still understood as retrograde in a history the West likes to think it has surpassed. Can you help but wonder how the Catholics feel every time they hear that the problem with Islam is that it isn’t enough like Protestantism, that it’s too much like Catholicism?

     17. Reformation and its assumed outcomes encode an entire discourse about politics, dissent and change under conditions of Western political and discursive domination. What is up for contest is nothing less than the morality of a conception of European history that interprets the Reformation, Enlightenment, an extraordinarily inflated conception of individual autonomy, and secularism as the manifest destiny of European modernity, an unfolding of time stretched taut upon the gradually revealed moral laws of the socio-political evolution of the West. The supposed inevitability of this story is itself meant to stand witness to the political and moral superiority of the West. At stake in this discussion are the political morality of European time and the very possibility of dissent and change in the spaces the West continues to imperil.

II
     18. Let’s start with those who are wary of the comparison. In Progressive Muslim: On Gender, Justice, and Pluralism, a volume responding to September 11, Omid Safi, a scholar based in the U.S. Academy, brings together a number of other Muslims, all of whom are concerned to produce progressive interpretations of Islam. In the introduction, he addresses the question of whether the contributors have embarked on a “sort of “Islamic Reformation.” “The question [he says] is usually asked seriously, and it deserves a serious answer. The answer is both yes and no.”10 He takes seriously a thinker such as Abdullahi an-Na’im, the Sudanese scholar, who has argued passionately for the usefulness of the term, but has trouble with it for a number of reasons. Since many people have in mind the “Protestant Reformation, as initiated by Martin Luther: when they enjoin an Islamic one, he is uncomfortable.11 The project of progressive Muslims is not to develop a “Protestant” Islam as distinct from a “Catholic version.” By this he seems to mean only that the intention is not sectarian and divisive; it is not to make some segments of Islam separate from others. This, of course, simply reminds us of the strife unleashed by the Reformation.

     19. He is also “dubious” about the notion that other religious traditions needs must follow “the historical and cultural course of action laid out by the Christian tradition.”12 The term implies to him “a notion of a significant break with the past.” It is not a break he is willing to accept; and he offers instead a view of the “progressive Muslim project” as “not so much an epistemological rupture from what has come before as a fine-tuning, a polishing, a grooming, and editing, a re-emphasizing of this and a correction of that. In short, it is a critical engagement with the heritage of Islamic thought, rather than a casual bypassing of its accomplishments.”13

     20. Of course, Luther and early Reformers did not think they were breaking with the Christian past, or, initially, even with the Catholic church. The project was rather to restore to Christianity a burnished and cleansed original true church.14 Re-emphasis and fine-tuning are precisely what the Reformers were after.

     21. The branding of the progressive Muslim thinker Abdolkarim Soroush as an “Iranian Luther” is inadequate because it particularizes to one person a project in which many more are engaged. As Safi says, “At least in our group of progressive Muslims there are no would be Luther’s. There are, however, Ebrahim Moosa and Zohara Simmons, Sa’adiyya Shaikh, etc., and that is what matters here. Let us engage issues, not attempt to mold each other into the shape of long-dead icons.”15 Then Safi goes on to give another reason. He reports on a question he was asked at a liberal arts college on what he thought of the fact that “many economic and social factors (rise of the middle class, increase in literacy etc.)” had to be in place before the “Protestant Reformation could occur in Europe. The answer came clear to my heart: we cannot wait. There are clearly far too many places in the Muslim world that suffer from an appalling lack of literacy, huge and ever-growing socio-economic gaps between the “haves” and the “have-nots,” political tyranny, religious exclusivism, gender injustice, etc. We do not have the luxury of sitting idly by in the vague hope that changes will take place before we start dealing with these difficult issues.”16 Perhaps most interesting at the moment is the sense that the urgencies of the situation are ultimately greater than the terminological dispute, which, even as it shows the West’s habitual blindness to itself, elicits the insight that the difficulties require more than yet another referendum on the colonial encounter, and that the responsible believer does not have the luxury of social rest. At this moment, using a term borrowed from history acts as an impediment to necessary political action, because it commits one to reproducing the conditions that might have prevailed at the time. Thus is history hobbled and deferred, adduced to say “maybe not yet,” and change consigned to the waiting room of historical law.

     22. A second case: In a scholarly article, about the cross-influences between revival groups in Egypt, Pakistan, and Sudan, Abdelwahab el-Affendi writes:

There are at least two main problems with the ‘Reformation’ approach to Muslim thought and history. It is now well-known that the Eurocentric and teleological assumptions behind it — which see the history of Christianity in Europe as a model that every religion must go through — cannot withstand serious examination. It is not at all necessary that a religion should undergo a Reformation, nor does it follow that Reformation has to lead eventually to secularism. But, second and more important still, the ‘messianic’ waiting for that inevitable Muslim Luther neglects the important fact that Islam was itself an earlier Reformation of the Abrahamic heritage. The main criticisms which Luther leveled against the privileged carriers of the message in favour of the message itself, and his emphasis on the individual spiritual dimension of the faith, are recurrent themes in the Qur’an. This is the secret of Islam’s vitality and resistance to erosion by the corrosive forces of modernity.17

El-Affendi casually turns the tables by calling Islam the earlier Reformation. Islam does not need to be corrected or updated because it has itself already rectified the other monotheisms. In this version, the teleology of modernity is trumped, even transcended, by the eschatology shared by Islam and Christianity. That some scholars defend Islam by attacking teleological thought is simply silly. Islam comes with its own sacral teleology, its own apocalyptic historical ends. It is profoundly contradictory to attack progress narratives when you end up implicitly defending the far more extravagant historical ends of eschatology.18

     23. It is this eschatology that makes it mistaken to read Islam, as Orientalists have, as a belated and derivative latecomer on the religious and world-historical scene. For, from the point of view El-Affendi presents here, Islam is instead an improver and perfecter of the earlier monotheisms. In this, it is not different from a Christianity that understands itself as furthering God’s plan by exceeding and correcting Judaism.

     24. El-Affendi might be resisting modernity in his designation of Islam’s origins as a Reformation, but this vision of the achievement of a divine, historical plan comes with its own narrative of historical progress, and of the future. Can we really separate modern universalist thought from the Muslim philosophical tradition? What if we read the history of the monotheisms as series of doctrinal civil wars — Abraham’s children wrestling each other in a long philosophical contest, whose arena is the space of human time, of history itself?

     25. Against this discursive and conceptual backdrop, Talal Asad’s quintessentially teleo-skeptical view of what he designates as a specifically Western eighteenth-century notion of historical time and progress is strangely inadequate:

It was in Europe’s eighteenth century that the older, Christian attitudes toward historical time (salvational expectation) were combined with the newer, secular practices (rational prediction) to give us our modern idea of progress. A new philosophy of agency was also developed, allowing individual actions to be related to collective tendencies. From the Enlightenment philosophes, through the Victorian evolutionist thinkers, to the experts on economic and political development in the latter half of the twentieth century, one assumption has been constant: to make history, the agent must create the future, remake herself, and help others to do so, where the criteria of successful remaking are seen to be universal. Old universes must be subverted and a new universe created. To that extent, history can be made only on the back of a universal teleology. Actions seeking to maintain the “local” status quo, or to follow local models of social life, do not qualify as history making. From the Cargo cults of Melanesia to the Islamic Revolution in Iran, they merely attempt (hopelessly) “to resist the future” or “to turn back the clock of history.”19

As an account of the self-understanding, through the prism of which the West might view the rest of the world, this may be accurate, but, in Genealogies of Religion: Discipline and Reasons of Power in Christianity and Islam and Formations of the Secular: Christianity, Islam, Modernity, Asad also seems to accept the story he presents here.

     26. In both these books, Asad seems to want to say that there’s something wrong with this account: it’s an imposition. But his mode of resisting the account is to implicitly endorse the nonwestern “Others” he offers as, happily “local,” alternatives. Their greatest claim to anti-imperialist defiance lies in their radical difference. Asad’s is part of a body of scholarship and theory in which secularism, liberalism, ideals of individual autonomy and modernity are taken to coalesce into one imperialist complex. Religion is produced as the pure, authentic, unalienated alternative to Western hegemony, subversive and an exemplary preserver of temporal, spatial, and conceptual difference.20 The opposition thus set up stabilizes the Whiggish narrative. Where a Whig historian might see these developments as a mark of Western superiority, Asad seems to see them as evidence of its rotting underbelly, lying flat and stiflingly heavy on “local” worlds.

     27. Aamir Mufti has argued that the West is a series of plots and narratives for Asad and that its dominance lies in the convincing nature of its stories. Mufti is right, but I would like to add an accent: the West is a Whiggish and temporal narrative for Asad — although, his genealogical and Foucauldian procedure makes it a skittishly rendered one.21 The most modern thing about Europe is that it thinks it’s modern. Modernity and, implicitly, Western imperialism can thus be challenged by imagining other worlds.

     28. It could be argued that — when he ordered the smashing of the idols in Mecca, inscribed the idea of Paradise, claimed for Islam the history of Judaism and Christianity, of the people of the book, effectively of all monotheism — Mohammad (PBUH) was putting into effect a version of history that not only bore a remarkable resemblance to Christian conceptions of salvational time but was an active re-formulation and reclamation of them. Universal teleology seems precisely the wrong site to separate Christianity from Islam, or a secular present from the past, either Muslim or Christian. And prediction was already a goal for pre-Copernican astronomy, so a “newer, secular” prediction is hard to parse. Mohammad’s smashing of the idols was, moreover, hardly an act of circumspect self-effacement, hardly a relinquishing of a future-oriented agency. Perhaps the combination is new, but still not as pathologically Western as Asad might have it. The generalizing sweep of the historical bricolage presented in the passage violates every precept of contingency and particularity of Asad’s otherwise Foucauldian anthropology.

     29. In contrast, Abdullahi An-Naim, a Sudanese human rights activist, and legal scholar insists that Islam does need a Reformation. He argues that Muslim fury — a justified response to imperial aggression and neoimperialist encroachment — has led to a situation in which Muslims have tried to reinstitute shari’a, the historical principles of Islamic law and ethics based on the Qur’an and Sunnah, as if centuries had not intervened between the time it was in effect and the present. Some have suggested shari’a should be open to ijtihad, which he translates as “juristic reasoning,” in order to make it consonant with the times.22 However, since ijtihad can only be exercised in matters not covered by the “clear and categorical texts of the Quran and Sunnah,” its scope needs must be limited. His suggestion is that the concept of ijtihad itself be revised so that it can address matters that appear categorical even within the Quran and Sunnah.23 This is necessary because within the modern world An-Na’im believes a principle of reciprocity (which he calls the idea that one ought to treat others as one would wish to be treated oneself) is crucial in addition to a nationalist, anti-colonial right to self-determination. Within international relations, intercommunal relations within nation-states, relations between individuals or within the state or community at large, this principle needs to prevail if the political costs are not to be severe.24 New hermeneutic principles are required, correctable guidelines that would explain which features of Islam are open to reinterpretation and how they are to be interpreted. This process he calls an Islamic Reformation.

     30. About the term, he goes on to say:

The notion of reformation evokes images of a Lutheran revolt against the dogma and hierarchy of the Catholic church and the evolution of the European “Enlightenment.” This should not deter us from applying the term to other situations, because, in essence, it signifies the challenge of any dogma and the exposure of any tradition to a different or novel tradition. . . . An Islamic Reformation does not mean secularization because Islam is not Christianity and the Muslim world is not Europe. . . . An Islamic Reformation cannot be a belated and poor copy of the European Christian model. It will have to be an indigenous and authentically Islamic process if it is to be a reformation at all.25

An-Naim’s argument twists and turns, and it is hard to determine why exactly he feels the need to embrace the term. He does so, to some extent, because he is claiming for himself a genealogy of Muslim modernists, many of whom were influenced by, but who also reacted against, the West. His embrace of the term is also polemical, prompted by a commitment to acknowledging the need for critique and change, which, within the postcolonial context, is inextricable from the depredations of colonial and imperial aggression.26 One depredation, among many, is an anti-imperialist reaction that imagines an ethically perfect pre-colonial past and is committed to reproducing this imagined idyll. An-Na’im’s adherence to the term becomes a way of refusing a mode of Muslim apologetics that rejects all progressive reform as Western.

     31. But An-Na’im’s argument does not concede the cultural superiority of the West or deny the violence of colonial and imperial aggression. Ironically, by broadening the scope of the idea of reform, it seems a way to claim a space for change despite conditions of Western hegemony. One of the more complex consequences of this hegemony is the difficulty of sustaining and initiating internal social critique because it so often appears to echo the challenges of those in the West who have imperialist agendas. But An-Na’im’s language also provides a way of denying certain Western uses of the term, and any exclusive Western claim on a modernity that is repeatedly seen as contingent upon this historical moment. It becomes a way of pressing the urgency of internal imperatives within a larger planetary context, of insisting that Muslims are capable of being political and reforming agents themselves, and of refusing to accept a morally and politically corrosive bad faith that points to imperial aggression as a way of foreclosing internal reform, indeed of denying its necessity.

     32. An-Na’im concludes the article by saying that since in Islam the link between the divine and the temporal is too strong “to admit of a stable and lasting secularization” the “ideal answer” appears to be an Islamic Reformation.” However, he says, barring that outcome, “as an Arabized Muslim whose loyalty is to the cause of justice and peace for all Sudanese, [he] would rather live in a secularized Sudan than in one ruled by Islamic Shari’a.”27 The final recourse to secularism is tellingly framed. It emerges as a pragmatic necessity embraced even by one who might rather have a reconfigured Muslim framework for law, not as an intrinsically ethical historical good.

III
     33. An-Na’im published the article I discuss above in response to the Rushdie affair. The ideas are developed more fully in his book, Towards an Islamic Reformation: Civil Liberties, Human Rights and International Law (1996). The Rushdie affair was the first shot fired in the new internationalist phase of Islamist militancy, and, despite the gradual (and perhaps psychologically understandable) degeneration of Rushdie’s own rhetoric and thought after the fatwa, the conversation that arose around it continues to be useful for thinking about issues of dissent and social change in the Muslim and Arab context. In For Rushdie: Arab and Muslim Writers in Defense of Free Speech (1993), a volume to which Edward Said contributed, Emile Habibi, the Israeli-Arab writer, and a member of the Communist Party of Palestine under the British Mandate, writes:

If our civilization were resolutely honest and of good faith, it would have immortalized the name of Farag Foda beside those of Galileo Galilei and Giordano Bruno.

     The whole of European civilization is based on the teachings of the sage Socrates who preferred drinking poison over making concessions to rationality. There, in truth, is the essence of all civilization, be it Western or Eastern. But how many educated Europeans know the name of Abou-l’-Ala Maarri, [sic-Abul Al’ Ma’arri] who also died of poison, having never compromised his own beliefs: “I have no other Imam but my reason.”

     Another deficiency of contemporary global civilization is precisely that it has not yet become truly global, at least not in content. It is rather a question of closed upon themselves . . . refusing to recognize how they participate in one another.28

Habibi’s fatuous reference to Socrates repeats some European fantasies about European civilization. But this reference to Bruno and Galileo provides a way of issuing a challenge to the West, and to defenders of Rushdie, to have about the “East” an honest equity of knowledge, to recognize in truly global terms the history of human heterodoxy, and the persecutions dissent encounters. Bruno and Galileo enable both the naming of dissent and the identification of a cultural blindness that fails to recognize “civilization” in others.

     34. In the same volume, Sadik J. Al-Azm, a Syrian Marxist and philosopher, and one of the leading secularists in the Arab world concludes an acerbic essay by invoking the Galileo affair as well:

Do not forget it was only in November 1992 that the Catholic Church’s clerical hierarchy formally admitted having done nothing [sic] wrong to Galileo. Remember that the mills of the gods grind very slowly on both sides of the East-West divide, and try to learn a thing or two from the historical experience of the Catholic church in never admitting to a major error, but always proceeding to aufgehoben that error after assimilating it.29

For these writers, responding with a kind of sardonic despair to the Rushdie affair, the East-West encounter is inescapable — as a historical narrative, a set of intellectual skirmishes, a series of political confrontations and an ongoing imperialist geopolitical reality. The imbrication of these names, narratives, and realities is the spot from which they have to begin in order to launch their dissent. In this, they are exemplary figures in the political, ethical and historical entanglement that are postcoloniality, or even imperialism itself. The space for individual dissent available within this entanglement is already limited and always shrinking, but it is not a space they are willing to surrender. That would be the final triumph of imperialism — a complete evisceration of the language of dissent which deprives the colonized of even the dignity of dissidence.

     35. In a recent talk delivered in Germany, discussing and defending the possibility of secular humanism within an Islamic context, Al-Azm describes the last quarter of the nineteenth-century in the Arab and Muslim world. The century witnessed a “great movement of liberal reform and latitudinarian religious interpretation in Arab life and thought.” He tells us that this period has been variously named by “ourselves” as well as Western scholars “a Renaissance, religious reformation, the liberal experiment, Muslim modernism, the liberal age of modern Arab thought.” According to him, this movement compressed in itself “a theological reformation, a literary-intellectual renaissance, a rational-scientific enlightenment of sorts and a political and ideological aggiornamento well.”30 If a descendant of this movement were asked if Islam and secular humanism are compatible, the answer, he claims, would be a resounding yes.

     36. He also then goes on to describe the reaction that this trend produced as a form of “counter-Reformation and as a Muslim fundamentalist movement.” The reaction, he argues, crystallized at “the moment of the establishment of the Muslim Brothers movement in Egypt in 1928.” He goes on to say that anyone who regards himself as an adherent of this movement would say “no” in response to the questions: “Are Islam and secularism compatible?” and “Are Islam and democracy compatible?”

     37. Al-Azm raises the stakes on the notion of an Islamic Reformation by openly invoking the idea of an Islamist Counter-Reformation. Although he does not elaborate on its historical meaning, bringing in the idea of the counter-reformation completes the despairing dialectic from within. European history provides the terms of both sides of an internal argument. Of course, the analogy also breaks down because it is not tidily translatable; we are not talking about Wittenberg and the Council of Trent. Analogies, like allegory, rarely lend themselves to perfect correspondence. The dialectic, as is so often the case in the anti-imperialist context, is both specific to itself and internal, in permanent dialogue with the West, from which ideas are borrowed, rejected, radically adapted and changed and used to challenge the West on terms that hold it accountable to its own history — which, for better or for worse, is also everyone else’s.31

     38. Al-Azm’s implicit reminder is that it is a history of fits and starts, and hardly qualifies for the smoothly linear inevitability of self-flattering fantasies of achieved progress. Of course, it is unlikely that Wolfowitz’s vision of Reformation includes reactionary retrenchment, the Council of Trent, Cardinal Bellarmine, the Index Librorum Prohibitorum, Ignatius of Loyola, Catholic martyrdom, or the rejection of Erasmian humanism, even as he and his fellows are themselves purveyors of destruction and reaction.

IV
     39. In Genealogies of Religion, Asad writes that non-Westerners seeking to understand their own, “local histories must also inquire into Europe’s past because it is through the latter that universal history has been constructed. That history defines the former as merely “local” — that is, as histories with limits.” The European Enlightenment constitutes for him the historical position from which Westerners typically approach non-Western traditions. As a result of this, Islamic states are seen as absolutist and devoid of public criticism. Asad’s project, then, is to show the “local” purchase of illiberal critiques of the state. He declares that anthropologists who “seek to describe rather than to moralize will consider each tradition in its own terms — even as it has come to be reconstituted by modern forces.”32 Yet, what precisely constitutes an Islamic tradition is exactly what is up for grabs in Arab and Muslim thought. Is tradition a set of practices, a set of texts, a cluster of self-understandings, or all of these? Is modernity — as Asad’s own smuggled in reference to the reconstitutive power of modern forces suggests — not part of the Muslim tradition today?

     40. What is not at all clear in Asad’s account is how the tradition is to be understood on its own terms? Where do we find these terms? How do we retrieve them? Asad’s procedure for reconciling the tension is simply to designate anyone who tries to argue for secularism Westernized, to insinuate that one cannot be secular and authentically Muslim, or Asian, or non-Western.33He recasts secularism as cultural treason. Although Asad periodically, strategically registers his distance from Foucault, his argument is thoroughly Foucauldian. Indeed, one could argue, he is himself a product of the Foucauldian episteme: torn between Foucault’s epistemic monolithicism and his contrary invocation of the local.

     41. Asad’s insistence that secularism in the West has come out of a particular history is valuable enough, but when he brackets the European past in this way — as just another local intellectual history — he cannot help but understate the global reach and insidious power of colonialism. Thus the strange paradox: Empire attempts to universalize, subsuming local differences. The local must be asserted in order to resist Empire. But it turns out that Empire was never as universalizing as we thought it was because the local has its own apparently untouchable history. In fact, the “local” is only that which is untouched. The West is, above all, a narrative for Asad; and the “local” is simply a space outside that story and the time it generates. But how is the claim for separate temporalities to be made in the contemporary globalized world? How is it to be made within the cosmic eschatology of monotheism? Does Asad’s Islam have a local god? Perhaps his Allah is a river nymph?

     42. Now, one could say, following Mufti, that Asad is engaged in something like the “tense balancing act,” Mufti argues, Said undertakes in Orientalism, that Asad, like Said, is attempting to account for the power of Orientalist description over Muslim societies, “while insisting at the same time that no system is so powerful as to conquer and exhaust, and thus invent, its human objects entirely.”34 But the kind of division Asad ends up stabilizing between East and West is precisely unlike Said’s subtle, and frequently reworked, contrapuntal humanism.

     43. Asad’s engagement with Western history is chronically selective. He argues, for example, that “conscience” is a modern, seventeenth-century, notion. He can only do this by refusing to engage the history of heresy in his own genealogical account of Christianity and Western individualism. But — as David Aers once argued in a powerful challenge to new historicist hegemony in early modern circles — heresy is one of the concepts over which the account of early modern history, as radically separate from the Middle Ages, becomes most unsustainable.35 To understand the prehistory of conscience, one might think of the obligation to tell and live the truth of their faith that prompts heretics to break with institutionally approved versions of their religion, an obligation that is experienced as individual until the heresy becomes the governing doctrine of a community. Yet again one of the more interesting things about Asad’s account is the extent to which it accepts the historical narrative that underpins the triumphalist account of modernity.

     44. Early modernists have had the tools for some time now to dismantle Whig history; it is the time they take on the anti-Whigs. North American scholars of Islam, and postcolonial religion more broadly, who mount vaguely Foucauldian defences of Islamism and orthodox religion, use arguments about agency and subject formation that are very familiar to early modernists. Sometimes they even use the work of early modern scholars in these defenses.36 We should fearlessly address questions of religious violence, radical dissent, and secularism and take on broader conceptual challenges than our, sometimes timorously narrow, scholarly moment has allowed. If ever there was a time, that the broader political and philosophical challenges posed by the religious history of the centuries early modernists study was urgent and immediate, it is now.

V
     45. The anti-teleological argument has become a political encumbrance. It is also conceptually limiting. A thin version is useful in so far as it allows for an approach that does not require that all history be hung on the pegs of European and American political history. It can function as a reminder that the rest of the world’s political aspirations and history don’t have to be stretched and torn to fit a Fukuyaman story of the American political present as the end of planetary history; and it can facilitate an historiographically sharper, skeptical account of Western history.

     46. But in its thick version, it suggests that teleological history is somehow uniquely Western, and such history imposes arid abstraction, necessitates a violent repudiation of varieties of human experience, at once homogenizes and excludes the world in a wind tunnel of stunning force and narcissism. Once political thought and historical concepts are so perceived, the most tempting ideological gesture is to knowingly wave away anything that might bear the faintest intimation of teleological thinking. Non-western teleologies and teleological universalisms can then be happily misrecognized, declared an effect of the translator’s sleight of hand, further evidence of the chronic, inescapable tyranny of Western labels. Misreading the temporal and historiographic entailments of “other,” in this case Muslim, conceptual schemes is an easy way to cling to our political orthodoxies.

     47. But the analogical use of a fraught, destructive and enabling moment from European history makes possible a reading of secularism as prompted by the necessity of survival. When Wolfowitz and Rushdie say that Islam needs a Reformation, early modernists can offer a few important clarifications: there was nothing assured about the outcome of almost two hundred years of religious strife, doctrinal adjustment, and institutional upheaval. Sola fide and the rediscovered right to individual interpretation were not guaranteed to lead to Enlightenment, or to secularism, or — if the valences of “secularism” and “Enlightenment” seem too diffuse — to the separation of church and state.

     48. Signally, the comparison also opens up possibilities for readings of the Reformation in history. It would be hard to tell from some of the references to the Reformation presented in this essay, that it was a backward looking, revivalist movement that sought to restore the purity of the early church, that a significant part of it looked to the Hebrew past for inspiration, that it gave rise to confessional states, that there were reactionary as well as radically egalitarian versions of it, that it lead to immense sectarian bloodshed, that the Protestants often joined in the bloodletting, that Europe almost tore itself to shreds as a result of a religious schism. When Westerners call for an Islamic Reformation, their use of the term has to repress most of Reformation history. Yet it is careful attention to the history of religious violence that Muslim and Arab thinking about the Reformation restores.

     49. Let us pause for a moment over some features of contemporary militant Islam: the radical politicization of theology, the challenge to institutional structures, the assertion of selfhood in the explosion of women’s Quranic study groups in Egypt and Pakistan, among other countries, the filling of the space for social welfare, left by failing governments, by such groups as Hamas in the Occupied territories, and the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. Compare: the return to the book in the Reformation, the conventicles and other independent worship groups, the political freight of the Protestant cry of “sola fide,” the growth of women’s interpretive self-assertion, the violence of the peasant wars, the sectarian bloodshed of the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre, the beheading of the monarch by a Puritan parliament. Now, let’s try to forget the analogies. Is it easy?

     50. In his recent bestseller, No god but God: The Origin, Evolution, and Future of Islam (2005), Reza Aslan makes much of these resemblances. The book is part of a rapidly growing genre of (mostly diasporic) Muslim apologetics — a mix of religious autobiography, religious reinterpretation, and Islamic history.37 Aslan claims that Islam is going through a Reformation today. Muslims are engaged in a battle for the “future of the faith,” a battle that is taking place between Muslims — who are usually the victims of the violence unleashed — more than it is between Islam and the West. The Christian Reformation was a “violent bloody argument that engulfed Europe in devastation and war for more than a century. Thus far the Islamic Reformation has proved no different.”38 Like the Christian Reformation, it has opened up conflicting interpretations and created “wildly divergent and competing ideologies.” And Osama Bin Laden must be understood as a product of this Reformation.39

     51. Aslan throws wide open the door the trope of Reformation has been nudging all along. This is a good moment to remember that the European Reformers were themselves backward looking, participants in a revival movement, attempting to purify the religion and return it to the foundations. They wanted to bring all of life under the purview of religion. Theirs was, indeed, a kind of fundamentalism. They were, moreover, trying to break with their local histories and refashion Europe on foreign models. What is not often appreciated was that theirs was already an “other people’s history.” The future looked back to an earlier East. One has only to think of the English nonconformist predilection for Semitic names — Ezekiel, Seth, Isaiah — to remember that a significant portion of, for instance, English Protestants looked to the Middle East for a reconstituted nation that would lead to salvation. They sought to turn Albion into Israel, Palestine, the Holy Land. England’s great dissenting anthem — it’s radical Protestant alternative to “God Save the Queen” — is called “Jerusalem;” and the Blake poem is part of the long afterlife of the Reformation.

     52. This backward-looking aspect of Christianity is very much in evidence again. We are still caught in the long aftermath of the Reformation: as evangelical Christianity explicitly defines the agenda of America’s unsheathed imperialism. Like Cromwell letting the Jews back into England, evangelical Christians make an alliance with right-wing Zionists. The massive arming and training of Bin Laden and his more extreme mujahideen friends were also undertaken by a CIA seeking to contain the spread of a godless Communism. Global confrontations have recoalesced around religion.

     53. If we are to think of these global realities in terms of time, an appropriate correlative image seems to be of layers of fossil sedimentation after an earthquake, rather than properly buried strata of an orderly succession of historical moments. This is the global past and its present. My intention is not at all to throw my lot in with those who say that there was never any secularization at all. I simply don’t believe that. It is only to say that attempts to conceive of the unfolding of historical time need to account for temporal fits, starts, reversals, and retrenchments. Such an account would allow us to explain the global past, as well as its melancholy present, better. It would also allow us to disrupt the mythic narrative of a happy dichotomy between the putatively smooth linear progress of the West, and the stasis of the permanent present of a tradition-bound “local” rest. A significant consequence of conceiving of history as something that does not unfold in seamless succession is that it would no longer function as a moral allegory of Western superiority, of the fantasy that somehow even Western gore and guts are hygienic, cost-free and bloodless. Detoxifying that story and claiming a critical anti-imperialist secularism are imperative if we are to survive our current global predicament.40 

Notes
1 <http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=14639>, accessed 9/5/2006.

2 As reported in Jim Lobe, “Neocons Seek Islamic Reformation,” <http://www.antiwar.com/lobe/?articleid=2273>, accessed 10/17/2006.

3 <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2005/08/05/AR2005080501483.html>, accessed 9/5/2006.

4 <http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=14639>, accessed 9/5/2006.

5 <http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=14639>, accessed 9/5/2006.

6 <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2005/08/05/AR2005080501483.html>, accessed 9/5/2006.

7 <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2005/08/05/AR2005080501483.html>, accessed 9/5/2006. For a nuanced and perceptive treatment of conservative Muslim thought in Britain, see Nadeem Aslam’s gorgeous novel, Maps for Lost Lovers. Aslam’s treatment is particularly fine for it concedes nothing to conservative white Britain.

8 See Talal Asad’s Genealogies of Religion: Discipline and Reasons of Power in Christianity and Islam (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1993) and Formations of the Secular: Christianity, Islam, Modernity (2003). See also Dipesh Chakrabarty, Provincializing Europe: Postcolonial Thought and Historical Difference (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 200), especially the epilogue, “Reason and the Critique of Historicism,” pp. 237-255, pp. 237, 242, 244, 253. Also, Chakrabarty’s Habitations of Modernity:Essays in the Wake of Subaltern Studies (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002).

9 To think contrapuntally about culture is to read the histories of East and West together, to see them as the same history. For Said’s explanation of the concept see, Culture and Imperialism, p. 279.

10 Omid Safi, “Introduction,” in Progressive Muslims: On Gender, Justice and Pluralism ed. Omid Safi (Oxford: Oneworld Press, 2003), p. 15.

11 Progressive Muslim, p. 15.

12 Progressive Muslims, p 15.

13 Progressive Muslims, p. 16.

14 See, for instance, Carter Lindberg’s fascinating European Reformations (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1996), pp. 8 and 9. Some useful and often revisionist work on the Reformation: Steven Ozment, The Age of Reform, 1250-1550: An Intellectual and Religious History of Late Medieval and Reformation Europe (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1980), Eamon Duffy, The Stripping of the Altars: Traditional Religion in England c1400-c.1580 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1992), R. Po-chi Hsia, The World of Catholic Renewal 1540-1770, (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998), T. K Rabb, The Struggle for Stability in Early Modern Europe (New York: Oxford University Press, 1975).

15 Progressive Muslims, p. 16.

16 Progressive Muslims, p. 16.

17 Abdelwahhab el-Affendi, “The Long March from Lahore to Khartoum: Beyond the ‘Muslim Reformation,”” Bulletin (British Society for Middle Eastern Studies), Vol. 17, No. 2 (1990), p. 150.

18 For a wonderful treatment of some different conceptions of Islamic time see Ronald Judy, “Sayyid Qutb’s fiqh al-waqi’I, or New Realist Science,” boundary 2 31:2, 2004, 113-148.

19 Genealogies of Religion, p. 19.

20 For a careful and critical treatment of this body of scholarship, see Aamir Mufti, “The Aura of Authenticity,” Social Text 18:3 (2000), p. 88.

21 “The Aura of Authenticity,” p. 91-92.

22 Ijtihad is also often understood as interpretation.

23 Abdullahi An-Naim, “A Kinder, Gentler Islam?” Transition No. 52, (1991), p.13.

24 “A Kinder Gentler Islam,” p. 6.

25 “A Kinder Gentler Islam,” p. 12.

26 “A Kinder Gentler Islam,” p. 12.

27 “A Kinder Gentler Islam,” p. 16.

28 For Rushdie: Essays by Arab and Muslim Writers in Defense of Free Speech (New York: George Braziller Press, 1994 — originally published in French 1993), p. 168. Al Ma’arri: a great Arab poet who wrote Risalat al-Ghufran (trans. 1943 A Divine Comedy), Al Fusat wa al ghayat, Paraphrases and Periods, also said to have satirized the Qur’an.

29 For Rushdie, p. 23.

30 Sadik J. Al-Azm, <http://www.daiheidelberg.de/content/e237/e175/e189/al_azm_ger.pdf#search=%22sadik%20Al-Azm%2C%20islam%2C%20secular%20humanism%22>, accessed 9/8/2006.

31 This is an important assertion in Provincializing Europe. See also Aamir Mufti, “Global Comparativism,” Critical Inquiry 31 (winter 2005), pp. 472-489. The entire essay is salient, but see particularly pp. 473-475, 481.

32 Genealogies of Religion, p. 200.

33 See especially the chapter on the Rushdie affair — “Ethnography, Literature, and Politics: Some Readings and Uses of Salman Rushdie’s Satanic Verses” — in Genealogies of Religion.

34 “Global Comparativism,” p. 482.

35 David Aers, “”A Whisper in the Ear of Early Modernists; or, Reflections on Literary Critics Writing the `History of the Subject'” in Culture and History, 1350-1600: Essays on English Communities, Identities and Writing, ed. David Aers (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1992), 177-203.

36 See, for instance, Saba Mahmood”s use of Ramie Targoff’s work in Politics of Piety: The Islamic Revival and the Feminist Subject (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2005), 134-135.

37 A full discussion of this fascinating and politically crucial genre is outside the scope of this essay, but I would like to explore its implications in a longer piece.

38 Reza Aslan, No god but God: The Origins, Evolution, and Future of Islam (New York: Random House Trade Paperbacks, 2005), p. xxviii.

39 No god but God, p. xvi.

40 I am grateful to the participants in the Boundary Crossings workshop at the University of Michigan, Farid Azfar, Dimitrios Krallis, Karla Taylor and, most of all, Christian Thorne for their questions, comments, and arguments about this essay.

 

 

,

No Comments

Well Done Raza Rabbani by Col. Riaz Jafri (Retd)

Well Done Raza Rabbani

Col. Riaz Jafri (Retd)

 

Deputy Chairman Senate Maulana Abdul Ghafoor Haideri, who was to represent Pakistan at the UN-sponsored International Parliamentary Union (IPU) being held in New York next week would not be able to do so as the US has failed to issue the visa to him.

Though the Maulana was not expected to contribute much on an issue entitled “World of blue: preserving the oceans, safeguarding the planet, ensuring human well-being in the context of the 2030 agenda,” nor would he be any conspicuous by his absence there in a galaxy of hundreds of delegates from all over the world, yet the Chairman Senate Raza Rabbani’s orders to boycott the New York moot and not to entertain any American diplomats in the Senate is highly commendable.  Well Done, Sir.

Was the visa refused because of the Maulana Haideri being the Secretary General of the JUI (F), which the US considers as a fundamentalist party or for some other reason? The US certainly owes the Pak Govt. an explanation for that.

Col. Riaz Jafri (Retd)

, , , ,

No Comments

The Many Faces of Donald Trump: Mr.Bigot Runs For US Presidency

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

The reaction to this idea, fairly or unfairly, by many on social media, was to accuse Trump of wanting to mimic laws that Nazis had imposed on Jews, including requiring them to wear a gold Star of David on their clothes.

After Trump confirmed that he would set up a database for Muslim-Americans, an NBC reporter asked him point blank: “Is there a difference between requiring Muslims to register and Jews in Nazi Germany?” A clearly annoyed Trump at first refused to respond, but then told the reporter, “You tell me,” and walked away.

Just so it’s clear, Trump did not suggest that Muslim-Americans should be required to wear a symbol that would visibly identify them as Muslims, such as a gold crescent. (On the other hand, he did not rule it out.) But the Nazis do offer guidance on the practical impact of laws that target a religious minority. As The Holocaust Center notes on its website, the Nazi-era laws that required Jews to publicly identify their faith was “one of many psychological tactics aimed at isolating and dehumanizing the Jews of Europe, directly marking them as being different (i.e., inferior) to everyone else.”

There’s no doubt that making Muslims carry special religious identity cards or having to register with the government sends a clear message to other Americans that Muslims are different. That we, simply because of our faith, are less than fully American. I shudder to think where this may lead.

But Trump was not done in painting the hellish nightmare that awaits Muslims, and our country, if he’s elected president. The GOP frontrunner explained that he was open to wholesale surveillance of Muslim-Americans and warrantless searches of mosques. He even praised past NYPD policies that spied on the New York City Muslim community as “great,” despite the reality that this controversial program did not yield any leads or arrests. This means that under a Trump administration, Muslims would have fewer rights than other Americans simply because of our faith, which is no different than advocating for racial profiling of blacks or Latinos.

And Trump then doubled down on his recent proclamation that he was open to shutting down American mosques, noting he’d have “absolutely no choice” if “some bad things happen” in a mosque. Consequently, if two or three people in a mosque of say 500 did “bad things,” the entire mosque would be shuttered. It would be as outrageous as closing down a mega church because two or three members firebombed an abortion clinic. Our system of justice punishes specific wrongdoers, not all who simply share the same faith or race of a criminal.

To be blunt, these ideas by Trump on how to deal with Muslims aren’t original. They are very much akin to the ones anti-Muslim bigots have advocated in the past. Those people we can dismiss. But when the front-runner for a major political party starts parroting those alarming proposals, it’s time that we all take notice.

Trump has shown us in this campaign that he has no qualms about stoking the flames of hatred for minorities in his quest for power. He has already done this to the Latino community with his despicable comments that Mexico is sending us “rapists” and other criminals.

So it’s not surprising that Trump would use Muslim-bashing to score points because it plays well with GOP voters. In fact, a poll released earlier this week found that three-quarters of Republicans believe Islam is “at odds” with American values.

Regardless of why Trump is espousing these policies, his words must be bringing joy to ISIS. As I learned firsthand at the White House Summit on Countering Violent Extremism earlier this year, ISIS hopes that Muslims in the West are demonized and discriminated against. Indeed, ISIS’ operatives made that very point on social media after the Paris attack, expressing their hope that Muslims in Western countries would be victims of hate crimes.

Why? It’s simple: ISIS hopes that when Muslims in the West are demonized, they will become alienated from the country in which they live. ISIS operatives believe then that their recruitment pitch that the West is at war with Islam will resonate more strongly. Consequently, ISIS is likely rooting for Trump’s proposals to become law.

All of us want Americans to be safe from ISIS. But Trump’s plan is both morally repugnant and ineffective. It doesn’t make us safer, it simply demonizes Muslim-Americans and could help ISIS recruit. That’s truly a losing combination for America.

, , , , , ,

No Comments

The Holy Quran Experiment

 

 

 

 
 

 

The Holy Quran Experiment: What happens when people are quoted verses from a Holy Book

The Islam has been under huge scrutiny lately and is often criticised for being an aggressive religion… but what about Christianity?
In this video we disguised a Bible as a Quran and read some of it’s most gruesome verses to the people. This is what they had to say.

Two guys from the Netherlands disguised a Bible as a Quran and read some of its most gruesome verses to the people. What they had to say is eye-opening.

Bible-quran_759_theheathensguideAs part of a social experiment, Sacha Harland and Alexander Spoor disguised a Bible as a Quran and read some of its most gruesome verses to the people. 

We currently live in turbulent times, when the people are quick to judge against each other, actions are carried out without thought and every day there are a number of news stories on bombings and shootings in the name of religion.

The most ‘convenient’ target for the world, the fight against terrorism, has been, and continues to be, Islam and its teachings. Statements from terrorist groups such as the Islamic State (ISIS) have made things worse. After the attack in Paris, two guys from the Netherlands — Sacha Harland and Alexander Spoor — decided to run an experiment. As an on-ground report, the duo went about quoting passages from a holy book, recording people’s reaction. The end is most fascinating.

This is what they had to say as an introduction to their experiment: “Islam has been under huge scrutiny lately and is often criticised for being an aggressive religion… but what about Christianity? In this video, we disguised a Bible as a Quran and read some of its most gruesome verses to the people. This is what they had to say.”

Watch the video here.


The duo quoted passages like, “If you reject my commands and abhor my laws, you will eat the flesh of your own sons, and the flesh of your own daughters”, “I will not allow for a woman to teach… you will have to cut off her hands”, among others.

The participants, unaware that the book being quoted is actually the Bible, react very strongly, with one saying, “How could one believe in this? That’s unbelievable to me.” Comparing the Bible and the Quran, one man said, “The Bible is a lot less harsh and a bit more peaceful.” When the truth was revealed, most stepped back in shock, unable to digest the news that the very ‘Western’ religion they belonged to actually propounded these teachings.

One man actually went ahead to acknowledge, “It’s all prejudice really. I try not to be prejudiced myself but apparently I already am.”

The video, ‘The Holy Quran Experiment’, has been viewed over 2.5 million times since it was uploaded on December 4, 2015.

This is not the first time they’ve done an experiment like this under the Youtube channel Dit Is Normaal. Every week the duo “travel to a city in the Netherlands and ask its citizens the most challenging, interesting, strange questions”.

How do people perceive Bible verses if they think they’re coming from the Quran?

Dutch YouTube duo Dit Is Normaal decided to conducted a social experiment following the attacks in Paris to dispel misconceptions about Islam. They disguised a Bible as a Quran, and then went out onto the streets of the Netherlands to ask people about certain verses from it. 

The pair chose specific Biblical passages that are far out of touch with modern Western culture, and they read them out loud to passerby, pretending they were reading from the Quran. People said the readings were “aggressive,” while they described the Bible as “more peaceful” and “positive.” The shock was palpable when they found out the verses they had just heard were actually part of the Christian holy text.

“Our experiment was a way to highlight our prejudice as a society about Islam, one that has been fed to us through mass media over the past couple of years,” Alexander Spoor of Dit Is Normaal wrote to The Huffington Post in an email Monday. “The responses we got from the people on the streets were interesting, but not surprising. The outcome of this experiment pretty much proved our hypothesis to be correct. The responses we’ve been getting from people online are slightly surprising, though. We’ve received so many messages of thankfulness from Muslims from all over the world for making this video. It’s been quite incredible.”

H/T BuzzFeed

 

,

No Comments

The Western Arrogance and the War at Doorsteps by Dr Firoz Mahboob Kamal

The Western Arrogance and the War at Doorsteps

Dr Firoz Mahboob Kamal

 

The hate campaign

The killings at Charlie Hebdo had sent powerful shock waves all over the West. Now the security threats and fear run very high everywhere. It seems that not only the hateful Islamophobic cartoonists of Charlie Hebdo, but also the politicians and the security officers of the West have turned pathologically paranoid. Even an unattended bag in a railway or underground station is enough to paralyse the traffic system in London, Paris, Berlin, Brussels, Rome and other cities of the West for hours. Now the governments are planning to check every internet mail of every individual. Hence nothing is private for any man or woman. The western imperialists used to take their wars of occupation and plunder to foreign lands; hence their homes were safe. But now the war has arrived to their doorsteps. They have withdrawn troops from Algeria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Mali and other third world countries, but the war is not leaving them. Now they are taking full war preparation to save their own streets. The French President François Hollande has announced that he will deploy 10,500 soldiers all over France to fight the Islamists. Former French President Sarkozi declared “war of civilisation” in response to attack on freedom. Thus, the whole western world is quickly turning into a huge and hot war zone.
 
War never starts all on a sudden. Like a disease, it has its own ongoing moral, ideological and social pathology. War needs ideological ignition in people’s psyche. Such a job is done by the ideological warriors. In the past, the war mongering crusaders did that job massively against the Muslims. Hence so-called the holy war (the crusade) could sustain for more than hundred years. Nurturing such hatred has been a classic political art and part of the genocidal warfare in Europe. So in comparison to other people in other continents, the Europeans made distinctive history of cruelty in ethnic cleansing worldwide. Hence Jews in Europe and Muslims in Spain are not the only victims of European. The Red Indians and Incas in America, the Aborigines in Australia and the Maoris in New Zealand met the same fate. In modern times, Hitler and his cronies, the colonialists and the imperialists did the same crime but the scientific skill. The killings of more than 75 million in two World Wars indeed draw the pathological roots from the past. Now the same old disease shows signs of violent remission. The job has now been taken over by the Islamophobic columnists, cartoonist, writers, warlords, the defence industry and the politicians. The West has now great number of such venomous people in their midst. And now the target is Islam and its prophet. Hence the crusade that was started by George W Bush in 2001 now gets enough fuel for its robust sustenance.
Malicious hatred against the target people is indeed the requisite precursor for a brutal war. The German politician, writer and the press nurtured such hatred against the Jews before the World War II. Hitler was not a lone performer; he had a huge army of collaborators in that crime. Hence killing of 6 million Jews on an industrial scale became morally acceptable to the German. Now the tide is running against the Muslims. And the now shows the same readiness to endorse the most heinous crime against Muslims. Wit moral death does, people can’t see crime as crime. The symptoms of such moral death of the West are now quite manifest. For example, Gaza and Kobani are bombed to rubbles by Israel and the US. More than 2000 innocent children, women and men are slaughtered in Gaza. Bombs were dropped even on the UN run schools. But the US and her European partners are not ready to consider such Israeli brutalities as war crimes. The US didn’t allow the UN Security Council to pass a resolution condemning such crime. With the same moral death, the US could drop 2 atom bombs in cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki; and now financing and patronising Israeli barbarity with its all brutal dimension. They do not like that such crimes should go to the International Criminal Courts for the prosecution.
 

The double standard

The abuse of freedom

download-2-2In the west, all are not equal to enjoy the same liberty. They have given full liberty to magazines like Charlie Hebdo to cross all limits to spread pornographic slander against Islam’s great prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). The Western leaders also announce their full solidarity with those slanderers by chanting “je suis Charlie” (I am Charlie). But they don’t allow others to chant “je suis Palestinian” (I am Palestinian). Hence the British MP Mr David Ward from East Bradford got wide condemnation for expressing his strong anger at the arrival of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at Paris march on 11/01/15 and sending a twitter message “je suis Palestinian” (I am Palestinian). He was condemned not only by the Israeli Ambassador at London and but also by the Islamophobic British media and the British politicians. He is the only exceptional member of the British Parliament who could announce, “If I was in Gaza, I would have fired rocket to Israel.” For such moral stance at the time of Israel’s Gaza bombing, he was rebuked by the British Prime Minister and other political leaders of both Tory and Labour parties. He was forced by his party’s parliamentary whip to withdraw the original statement. Such hypocrisy in the British politics is not hidden, rather broadly practised to support its own illegal creation of Israel!

 
The Western leaders have given the full impunity to the Israeli warlords to commit whatever crimes they wish against the Palestinians. The US, the UK, France and other Western countries exercised the same unfettered liberty in killing Muslims in million in Algeria, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan and other occupied countries. Millions of Palestinians are driven out of their homes and forced to live in refugee camps for more than 60 years. Does it need to be saint to condemn such crimes? But the West’s moral conscience stands fully insensitive to such horrific crimes; hence they never condemned these as war crimes. Rather they punish those who condemn and protest against such brutalities. They label them as Islamic extremists. The French black comedian Diendonne didn’t take any weapon in hand to kill anyone. He only exercised freedom of speech to protest against the Israeli brutalities in the occupied Palestine. For that, he has been put in prisons. Whereas the newspapers and magazines like Charlie Hebdo of Paris, London’s Daily Mail and Daily Sun and many others of Europe enjoy full liberty to inject more venom to the western psyche.
 

The state-sponsored slander

Charlie Hebdo recently published its post-attack first edition with another slanderous cartoon against the prophet Muhammad (peace upon him) on the cover page. It is indeed a state-sponsored million-copy edition to rub more salt on the wounded psyche of the Muslims. Printing satirical cartoon is not the only staple of Charlie Hebdo. It is not neutral either –as it claims. It is conducting an ugly and continuous propaganda war against Islam’s core teachings like sharia, jihad and khilafa. Its toxic slander against Islam’s greatest prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) knows no moral or ethical limit. Publishing most pornographic vulgar cartoon against this great man of the human history is in fact the main passion of the cartoonists. 
Those who chanted “je suis Charlie” (I am Charlie), they too, made their massage louder. They announced unequivocally that like the dead cartoonists, they too rejoice such pornographic ridicule against Islam’s prophet. Toxic cartoons are being used as weapon of ideological war against Islam and its iconic characters. Can a man with little respect for this great prophet spread such venomous filth? By publishing such pornographic slanders, these cartoonists didn’t exercise freedom of expression. In fact, they exercised freedom of abuse. How a Muslim can support Charlie Hebdo? A Muslim must be an obedient follower of Muhammad (peace be upon him) in all aspects of his life. He must love him more than his own life. It is a Divine requirement. Hence ridiculing the prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is indeed ridiculing every Muslim. Hence, such vulgar bigotry and poisonous slander can only draw a country to an unending blood-letting war. France with its 6.5 million strong Muslims is indeed moving fast to such a war. How a country can deserve any peace or tranquillity with such slanderous posture against 6.5 Muslims? It shows signs that the war will not remain confined within the French boundary. In neighbouring Belgium, two Muslims are killed on 16/1/15, and many more are arrested. France government too has proven to be  very prompt to add more fuel to the fire. The French parliament voted by 488 votes to one to launch military campaign against Islamic State. The French aircraft carrier has already moved nearer to the Syrian shore of the Mediterranean to facilitate the US air strikes against Islamic State. It is reported that about 3 thousand European Muslims have already joined the Islamic State to fight the ongoing war in Syria and Iraq. Many more thousands of these jihadists are prevented from joining the Islamic State by imposing strict travel restriction in the border outposts and the airports. Now France has opened new frontiers for these enthusiastic Islamist warriors on its own soil.

 

Solidarity with the hate campaign

Charlie Hebdo is not alone in its ugly hate campaign against Islam and its prophet (peace be upon him). The western leaders displayed their full solidarity with it. More than 40 heads of states marched in the streets of Paris on 11/01/15 to show such solidarity. The western leaders talk about fighting war for protecting western values and culture. But what is western value and culture? Do the Muslims need any lecture to learn the western values and culture? Didn’t they display those values and culture during the last several centuries all over the world? Is it not the values and culture of military aggression, occupation, colonisation, imperialism, ethnic cleansing, slave-trading, genocide, World Wars, gas chambers, dropping of atom bombs, waterboarding, Guantanamo Bay, Abu Gharib, Sabra, Satilla and Gaza? They killed 75 million people only in two World Wars! Who else can match their brutality? Their war machines are still not withdrawn from their army bases in the Muslim lands.
The western leaders talk about fighting terrorism. Do the Muslims need any lecture to understand terrorism too? The Muslims are the worst victims of terrorism since the advent of Western colonialism in their countries. Most of the Muslim lands were occupied and millions lost lives by the hand of these terrorists. Only in Palestine, more than 4 million people are made homeless by these terrorists –fully sponsored by the West’s money, weapons and diplomacy. Terrorising people with lethal weapons for political and military gains is no more a crime of a few thugs. It is the sophisticated war tactics of the super powers. These state terrorists of the West are the real threat against the world peace. They are charged with deep hatred against Islam, Islam’s prophet and the common Muslims. Hence they could easily show their solidarity with the hate mongering cartoonists of Charlie Hebdo.
The military occupation of Muslim lands, the plunder of its resources and de-Islamisation of its people are the main objectives of the anti-Muslim state terrorists. Such imperialist objectives are so much integrated in the imperialists’ culture and values that even most barbaric manifestation of the state terrorism like war for occupation, destruction of cities, cleansing of native population received not only the popular support, but also get voluntary participation of the people for its prolonged continuation. This is why the quick occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan gave a huge boost to President George W Bush’s popularity in the USA. Only his utter failure to enforce the US grip in those occupied lands and numerous body bags of the US soldiers brought his disgrace –and not the occupation itself. The US people didn’t expect such disgrace of their citizens in any foreign land. Due to the same western mind-set, Israel –one of the most barbaric countries in human history and the West’s ugly colonial legacy, enjoy so much support in the West. For the same reason, 4 million people marched in the street of Paris to support Charlie Hebdo’s hate campaign against the prophet of Islam (peace be umpon him) and the Islamists. Indeed, here lies the main problem of the west. The anti-Islamic hatred is indeed embedded in their mind-set. Hence for any peace, they do not need more wars, rather needs a 180 degree paradigm shift in their mind-set. They need more home works to change their understanding about Islam and Muslims. The current state of poisonous hatred against Islam and Muslims could only generate more Charlie Hebdo cartoonists, more Abu Gharib, more Guantanamo Bay, more water boarding and more torture cells. In such milieu of abuse, the jihadists will enjoy fertile breeding grounds. The US and its ally have spent several trillion of dollars in wars and war industries. They fought war for 13 years in Afghanistan and for 8 years in Iraq. At the end, they couldn’t win any war, rather returned back with humiliation. The month-long bombing by the US, the UK, the French, the Australian and the Jordanian bombers couldn’t bring any victory for the coalition forces even in a small town of Kobani. If they think that few thousands Kurd secularist mercenaries or Shia militias will do their war against the Islamists, they are indeed living in fools’ paradise!
 

Fake humanity

The leaders of the Western countries talk a lot about humanity and higher moral values. But there exist monumental evidences to prove such claim fake. Creation of Israel on an illegally occupied land by the colonial West and their continual support for its land grabbing genocidal war are enough to prove that. What a disgrace, the original resident of the Palestine are driven out of their ancestral homes to make space for houses for the European and American Jews! The Palestinian refugees are denied access to their own land. There exists no international institution where they can seek justice. The UN Security Council itself is under the occupation of the usurper imperialists. It has given recognition to creation of such illegal state on illegally occupied land. What an irony, any effort to reclaim the occupied land is labelled as terrorism! The leaders of these countries showed silence in remembrance of the dead cartoonist of Charlie Hebdo. The Western imperialists have killed more than a million people in Iraq and Afghanistan in their recent wars of occupation. But, did they observe a single moment of silence in memory of those dead souls? France herself killed 1.5 million Algerians in its war of occupation in the sixties. Did they pay any homage to those innocent people who were brutally killed there? The crime of these innocent Algerians was nothing else but the genuine demand for freedom from the colonial rule. Recently the Christians killed thousands of Muslims in Central African Republic. Where is the solidarity of the Western leaders with those innocent victims of the genocide? Since the victims are Muslims, didn’t they deserve any respect and sympathy?  They chanted chorus “Je suis Charlie” (I am Charlie). What does that mean? Do they say that like the abusive Charlie Hebdo, I am also an equal abuser and hater of the prophet of Islam (peace be upon him).  They are not ready to retreat an inch from that abusive path. They showed full solidarity not only with Charlie Hebdo, but also continue to show full solidarity with the brutal Israeli killers. Hence the butcher of Gaza -the Israeli PM was cordially welcomed in their midst. Only due to such crippling moral disease, they could sponsor the illegal creation of Israel in occupied land of the Palestinian
Mr Gerald Biard, the chief editor of Charlie Hebda who was on holiday when the attacks occurred wrote, “Charlie is an atheist paper, is accomplishing more miracles than all saints and prophets.” (The Guardian 14/01/15). What is that miracle that the editor claims for? Of course, they made a history. About 4 million Europeans chanted the chorus “je suis Charlie” (I am Charlie) only in Paris; many more millions did the same in other parts of Europe. But it is not a miracle. It is the disease of Europe. It is the ugliest solidarity with the virulent hate campaigners. It is indeed the recipe of further holocaust. The West could commit so many ugly crimes in the past only because of such moral ill health. They could kill more than 75 million only in two World Wars. They could also kill many more million in post-World Wars regional wars as occurred in Korea, Vietnam Afghanistan and Iraq.  About 2 hundred thousand were slaughtered in their own backyard in Bosnia. But how many Europeans came out to the street to condemn those crimes? How many Europeans marched in the street chanting “je suis Bosnian” (I am Bosnian)? How many said “je suis Palestine (I am Palestine). The Whole Muslim population were ethnically cleansed from Spain. The European people never came to street to show solidarity with those ill-fated victims of the wars of ethnic cleansing. Such ethnic or religious cleansing never happened against the non-Muslims even in Islam’s heart lands like Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and Palestine; more than 10-15% of the population in these heart lands remain non-Muslim even during last 1400 years’ Muslim rule. In Lebanon it is more than 30-35%. But the ethnic annihilation in Europe during so-called Holy Roman Empire was complete that the percentage of non-Christian in Europe was not even 00.001%. The same happened after the Christian victory against the Muslims in Spain. In the name of religion, such crime never happened in a Muslim country. The Muslims never had any phobia against non-Muslims, and neither had the non-Muslims against Muslims in those Muslim lands. But now, along with the Muslims, the Christians too, are leaving these Muslim countries. The US invasion and its massive bombing campaign have made the Muslim countries most unsafe for everybody. The bombs do not see the faith, only see the targets.

The abuse of freedom

Some of the cartoonists claimed that they are not against Islam; they are only against the extremist ideologies of Islam. They argue that they make satire only of prophet (peace be upon him)’s character, not of Islam. It is a sheer lie and ridicule. The prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is the embodiment of Islam’s core belief and ideologies. He showed his followers how to practise full package of Islam. Can anyone separate the prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him)’s character from the ideology of Islam? Establishing Islamic state, continuing dawa (propagation), practising full sharia, launching jihad, encouraging people to embrace martyrdom, implementing shura (counselling), hadud (sharia judgments) and levying jijiya on non-Muslims were the parts of his life. These are his ideologies. Hence ridiculing the prophet’s character is nothing else than ridiculing the ideologies of Islam. Did any newspaper in any Muslim country ever showed such abusive attitude against the great prophet like Jesus Christ (Allah’s blessing be on him) or Moses (Allah’s blessing be on him too)?

The Western leaders claim that they are fighting terrorism. But the truth is otherwise. The Muslims are the worst victims of state terrorism. About 3 thousand people were killed in 9/11. But the US has killed more than million as a result of the war.  Very recently on 16/01/15, the US bombers killed more than 50 civilians in Iraq. (RT TV). What can be more terrorism than this? Both in the past and in the present, the Muslims became the worst victims of state terrorism in Algeria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia, India, Egypt, Syria, Myanmar, Central Africa and Sri Lanka? Terrorism is no more a crime of a few thugs. It is now the full-scale warfare of the arrogant military powers to control the world politics in their own hand. The US war in Iraq and Afghanistan and Israeli war in Gaza, Egyptian Army’s manslaughter in Cairo, Alexandra and other cities are indeed the worst terrorist acts that one can perceive. Non-state terrorist can’t think of terrorism of such magnitude.

 

The only option

Wolves can’t enjoy safe haven even in caves. They too need protection to escape the imminent extinction. The same is true with the imperialists. They have done enough crimes all over the world. They have taken genocidal wars to the distant corners of the world. They have dropped atom bombs, napalm bombs, cluster bombs, chemical bombs, missiles and drones on the head of the weak. Now the war stands at their front doors. After spending a trillions of dollar, the US and its ally didn’t expect such a fate. Hence they are filled with extreme anger and frustration. Anger of the innocent victims has all reached to the explosion level. Further killing or torturing those who are already ready to embrace martyrdom is not going to solve the problem. Even an average European understands this new reality. The march of about 4 million Europeans in Paris is indeed the demonstration of such fear. It has little to do with the little known vulgar Charlie Hebdo. It is not to show the solidarity with the 12 people who are killed in the attacks. While 6 million Jews were incinerated in gas chambers, no one marched in the street of a European city to show solidarity with the victims. In fact, the Europeans didn’t face any war at their doorsteps from the Jews at that time. But now the situation is different. They sense war looming in their midst.
Now in the West, there exists only one option to have a peaceful co-existence of Muslims and the non-Muslims. It is not possible to do the same ethnic cleansing again on the European soil –as was done in Spain in 15th century. Now more than 20 million Muslims live in Europe; 6.5 million only in France. May be, some xenophobic far-rightists may still prefer that genocidal route. But the only feasible option stands otherwise. Instead of abusing 1.5 billion Muslims for their fundamental beliefs, they must reconcile with them. Sharia, khilafa, jijiya and hadud are not issues in the West. But those basics must be allowed to be practised in Muslim majority countries – as were practised in all Muslim countries till the West’s colonial occupation. The West must not create blockade against the resurrection of Islam’s most crucial political institution like khilafa. Such blockade will make the war inevitable.
Like the deformed Christian or the Jews, the Muslims do not enjoy such option to be deformed or reformed. Such deformation or reformation is nothing else than deviation from the siratul mustaqeem  -hence direct route to hellfire. Since the prophet of the Islam (peace be upon him) was the fundamentalist believer and practitioner of the Qur’anic Islam, every Muslim must try to be the Islamic fundamentalist of the same degree. It is not a choice, but an obligation. The West must reconcile with the Muslims’ such core belief. Otherwise the clash of civilisation is unavoidable. But it appears that the West has deliberately taken the route of hostility with the prophet’s Islam. They have already declared their solidarity with the hate campaigner against Islam’s great prophet (peace be upon him). “Je suis Charlie” is indeed the war cry of such hostility.
In Islam, practising sharia is a binding obligation. Whoever ignores this obligation is severely condemned with three derogatory labels from Allah Suhhana Wa Ta’ala: he is a kafir, zalem and fasik. The Holy Qur’an reveals: “Whoever does not make judicial judgement according to the revealed laws (sharia) is a kafir (disbeliever) … a zalem (oppressor) ..and a fasik (sinner). (Sura Maida: verse 44, 45 and 47). Hence, there is no room for the secular laws and judiciary in a Muslim country.  The presence of Christians, Jews, Buddhist, Hindus, atheist, polytheists and the followers of other beliefs is not new under the Muslim rule. It has a history of more than 14 hundred years. In those days, the believers of other faiths could understand the Muslims’ religious obligation; hence these non-Muslim compatriots never put any hindrance against the implementation of sharia, khilafa, shura, hadud and other Islamic fundamentals. Even in countries where the Muslims were in minority like India and Spain, they didn’t protest against the practice of sharia either. Instead of any interference in the Muslims’ religious affairs, they opted for peaceful co-existence.
 

The arrogance

But such wisdom of the past does not exist in contemporary Western leaders. Their economic, military and technological might made them arrogant as well as incompatible with the Muslims’ beliefs and practice. The Western powers are putting obstacles against implementation of sharia even in countries where more than 90% people are Muslims. As if the sharia is their own domestic issue! After the occupation of Afghanistan, the German Foreign Minister declared in Public that sharia will not be allowed to return back to Afghanistan. Is it not a blatant interference in Muslims’ internal affairs? Where is freedom of the Afghan people to decide their own law? The US president Obama labelled sharia as medieval barbarity. What a sheer arrogance? Can a Muslim surrender to such anti-Islamic arrogance?  
The West’s stubborn hostility against Islam’s fundamental belief is indeed the cause of current impasse. They have already launched a civilizational war against the Muslims to stop them practising prophet’s Islam. They want Muslims to be fully de-Islamised and deformed from the Qur’anic Islam. They find it the only option to peacefully co-exist with the Muslims. Hence demand for Islam’s reformation cum deformation is very high in the Western camp. The tyrant rulers and the secularist intellectuals of the Muslim countries have already taken that enemy route. Hence they are equally inimical against sharia and khilafa like the non-Muslims. Many of them like Iraqi and Syrian Kurds, Iraqi and Irani Shia, the Egyptian military, Bangladeshi secularists, the Pakistani Army have already joined their rank to kill the Islamists. The Western leaders must understand that the original Islam has nothing to reconcile with the corrupt beliefs of the Egyptian, Saudi, Qatari, Bahraini, Pakistani, Bangladeshi or other secularist tyrants of the Muslim world. By making coalition with these de-Islamised despots, the West is not going to gain anything in their war against Islam. Rather, such alliance would only re-inforce their image as the enemies of Islam. Such an approach will only add more fuel to the ongoing war. 18/01/15

,

No Comments


Skip to toolbar