There has been an increasing focus on what it means to be a citizen in society in recent years; the nature of responsibilities, rights and how different aspects of our identity contribute towards shaping our sense of belonging.[1] In this debate, the Islamic perspective becomes even more complex. Muslims in Britain often pose many questions: Who am I? Where do I belong? Where do my loyalties lie? Am I a British Muslim or a Muslim living in Britain? Am I part of an Islamic umma ‘Nations’? What are my responsibilities towards my umma?

All these questions are important and deserve thorough consideration; but “is there indeed a Muslim identity and, if so, is it of a religious or a cultural context?”[2] In essence, is it permitted for Muslims to be a citizen of a non-Muslim state?

From an Islamic point of view, citizenship is wholly religious, and this is based on the principles “enshrined in the revealed word of Allah in the Holy Qur’an and on the action, judgment and conduct of His Prophet [Muhammad]”.[3] The Qur’an tells us that God created Adam to be his vice-regent on Earth. The late Prof. Zaki Badawi, who worked tirelessly toward integrating Muslim communities in Britain, reminds us that “Adam’s descendants inherited his place in relation to this planet and also were made morally responsible for each other through the various revelations that came over the centuries to guide them to the right conduct”.[4] Furthermore, in another Qur’anic verse God states: “We have honoured the children of Adam”.[5] Therefore, according this Qur’anic verse, Islam considers that all humans belong to a single nation.

To this, one can safely claim that the starting point in Islam’s concept of citizenship is its regard for the human race in its entirety, overlooking racial and creedal divides.

As long as Muslims are able to practise their faith without fear of persecution, they are able to call any place home. History can substantiate this notion: for instance, the Prophet Muhammad sent his companions to Ethiopia on two separate occasions. In fact some of the companions such as Abdullah Ibn Ja’far were born in Ethiopia and considered it to be their home.

The Prophet himself lived in Mecca and was surrounded by polytheists. He considered the city as his: “dearest spot on earth – had your people not driven me out, I would not be departing from you now”.[6] After he migrated to Medina, Muhammad considered himself as a citizen of a country populated for the most part with Arab pagans, Jews, and few Christians. Not only did the Prophet and his followers take strides to contribute towards Medinan society, they were also ready to defend their new abode with their lives.

Badawi commented that:

 Once he [Prophet Muhammad] settled down in the city he drew a series of treaties with the Arab and Jewish tribes in Medina setting out the system of government and the rules that transformed a primitive tribal justice system based on collective responsibility into a legal system making every individual responsible for his/her action. The duties regarding the defence of the city were outlined. The religious diversity of the population was celebrated and the common framework for the system was defined. These documents are collectively called the Constitution of Medina. Its recognition of pluralism is an example of humanity and justice.[7]

In the constitution the right of all citizens were respected including that of Jews, Christians, Arab pagans and Muslims. The newly established states requested that all citizens work for the common good and defend it against threats. [8]

Over the centuries, Muslims travelled as far as China, Africa and many obscure parts of the world. They conducted themselves with the moral virtue that Islam demanded from them. And they made concerted efforts to contribute to the life of the indigenous countries they found themselves in, adjusting themselves without losing their Islamic values and transforming the newly found domicile into their home.

Dar al-Islam and Dar al-harb ‘House of Islam’ and ‘House of War’

There are periods in history where Muslims scholars instructed their community not to live outside the land of Islam for fear that their religion might be corrupted by intermingling with non-Muslims. Hence the concept of Dar al-Islam and the Dar al-harb came into being. Dar al-Islam are those lands in which a Muslim government rules. Non-Muslims may live there but should pay a Jizya, ‘poll-tax’. Muslims who hold to such views deem the outside world, the world yet to be conquered by them, as Dar al-harb, ‘The House of War’ also known as Dar al-Kufr ‘The House of Disbelievers’.[9]

This classification might appeal to Muslims attracted to ‘black and white’ views. In essence, they should avoid living in a country not ruled by Islam, and wage wars against non-Islamic countries.

I do not wish to suggest that these views contradict Islam, as such divisions had served Islam’s purpose when Muslims were in constant conflict with non-Muslim nations during its early period. In our modern age, however, where Muslims are able to live and bring up their children in non-Muslim societies, such divisions serve no purpose and are invalid. It should also be reiterated that the concept of Dar al-harb ‘The House of War’ also known as Dar al-Kufr ‘The House of Disbelievers’ is neither in the Qur’an nor in the Prophetic Tradition. So abandoning this concept should not prove difficult.

Five Qur’anic Verses that they believe enable them to reject non-Islamic government

Today, there are some Muslims who hold on to these classifications with determination. They vehemently believe that they are not true citizens of a state that does not govern without Sharia Law. These individuals substantiate their view with the following Qur’anic verses: “Whosoever does not judge by what God has revealed, such people are disbelievers”;[10] “Whosoever does not judge by that which God has revealed such people are polytheists and wrongdoers”;[11] “Whosoever does not judge by what God has revealed such people are disobedient”.[12]

In light of these verses, some young Muslims feel obligated to reject all that emanates from the West; they seek to disassociate from its culture or civilisation. For these young people, the democratic process remains a joke, and they feel no obligations towards the country of their birth.

Citizens who do not hold to such views, be they Muslims or non-Muslims, are deemed as committing Shirk or ‘Joining others in worship against God’. Shirk is defined in the Qur’an as the only sin that God would not forgive under any circumstance.[13] This is one of a multitude of reasons why many of them today are joining groups like ISIS – because they believe that God is calling them through ISIS and that they have a religious obligation to join.

This minority base their argument on a pin-hole reading of the Qur’an, believing that citizenship in Islam is largely centred on its citizen’s loyalty to the Islamic State.[14] Consequently, this narrow interpretation has had a devastating effect on Muslims who are not well versed in the teaching of Islam. So they are made to believe that it is un-Islamic to associate with Western society. And it is their Islamic duty to kill and cause havoc in non-Muslim lands. The events of 7/7 and the murder of Lee Rigby, are in part, a product of this narrow and warped reading of the Qur’an.

With hindsight, the notion of Dar al-harb and Dar al-Islam cannot be applied in the West today, particularly in the United Kingdom. Tariq Ramadan reminds us that each country:

 Has its own legal framework which refers mostly to a national constitution- the fundamental law- body of laws and a specific jurisprudence. The constitution and the laws work as both a frame of reference and structure which are backbone of the nation and state. This legal framework determines the specific status of citizens, residents, foreigners or tourists.

In the UK, Muslims do not feel coerced to abandon their faith, nor are they prevented from practising their faith. Though there are many ethical and religious obstacles to overcome, Muslims are able to entertain their fundamental rights and practise Islam. It would be against the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as well as the European Convention of Human Rights to prevent people from practising their faith (though in France it is a different matter). Muslims can therefore remain loyal to their faith and uphold their ethical and moral obligation towards their faith without compromising universal values.

Here in Britain, just as other faith communities are able to build their place of worship, Muslims are able to build mosques, Islamic centres, schools and religious monuments that meet their requirements. Under no circumstances should Muslims feel they are second-class citizens in the UK; though there is still some work to be done, they have all the liberties and rights that their non-Muslim compatriots also enjoy.

Muslims remain an intrinsic part of the UK’s multicultural and multi-faith society. Faith belongs to the person who upholds their belief. This individual experience is not owned or controlled by external forces in the East or West. Muslims need to understand that Britain is their home and much like Muhammad in Medina, they should protect their homes with their very lives and fully respect the laws of this country.

Failure to uphold the law of the land violates the teachings of Islam. Tariq Ramadan reminds us the story of Joseph in the Qur’an. He tells us “[Joseph] not only stayed in Egypt but also worked for non-Muslims and himself proposed his services to the polytheist kings.[15]

Propositions

In an attempt to summarise, I propose the following alternatives for Muslims living in the United Kingdom; a proposal that extends beyond the framework put forward by those with a narrow interpretation of Islam.

First of all, there is a need for Muslims in the West, particularly in Britain, to abandon their old traditions, believing that the only way to learn ‘true Islam’ is through scholars from Muslim countries. They need to develop a ‘British Islam’ or what I would call ‘Fish and Chips Islam’. I should stress that I am not questioning the authenticity or authority of the Qur’an; I am simply proposing that the practices of earlier scholars whose interpretation reflected the society in which they had lived. So their works should be looked at in a more balanced and critical manner. Such a stance will enable Muslims to develop a ‘new’ Islam with new approaches to our faith, taking due consideration to the environment and milieu we live in.

Muslims should come to terms with the idea that they may have been considered foreigners or second-class citizens in this country; but that they need to be confident enough to believe this is their country and that they have the same rights as others. With this attitude and conviction, Muslims can redefine an Islam that reflects universal values, such as the value of giving not only charity but also voluntary work. Of incorporating the concepts of freedom, equality, tolerance and rule of law – concepts missing in many so-called Islamic countries.

Critics may say that this just an impractical exercise in wishful thinking. Yet the historiography of Islam gives us the evidence to make it a reality. For instance, to survive for almost eight hundred years, Muslims had to adjust and embrace many norms within Spanish culture. The same is true of Muslims in India, Africa and other parts of the world.

Secondly, we need to ensure that our schools, mosques and prisons are free from preachers and Imams who do not understand or are unwilling to appreciate such values. It is important that our religious leaders in Britain have a good command of the English language. According to Islamic tradition, mosques were not only places of worship; they were places where the humanitarian aspects of Islam were evident to all. Muslims felt their faith was revived upon entering the mosques, while non-Muslims were astonished and marvelled at the practices and fraternity Muslims exhibited in their places of worship, as was a frequent occurrence in Muslim Spain. Unfortunately, many mosques in Britain are either controlled by elders loyal to their parochial readings of Islam, or are ransacked by callous preachers imbibing younger generations with extremist notions. Richard Reid, the so-called shoe bomber, was reported to have been brainwashed in such a mosque. Preachers and ‘token Imams’, designated as religious leaders by the media, who have no formal training in traditional Islamic scholarship, need to be ostracised not only from our mosques but also from our society.

My third point is related to Islamic education in Britain. Though I am unable to elaborate in the present on this issue, it is nevertheless important that some consideration is given in this direction. I am in complete agreement with Tariq Ramadan that Islamic education should  not run parallel to our western educational system. State schools offer the basic subjects and “it is for Muslims to find complementary alternative, and original ways of providing the knowledge they judge to be essential to comply with the requirement of the message whose followers they are”.[16]

My final suggestion is directed towards my non-Muslim British compatriots. Do not erroneously place “all Muslims into one basket”[17]. Just as I have decried the problematic elements among some British Muslims who deem all as their sworn enemy, it would be just as distressing and unconstructive if non-Muslims viewed all Muslims as potential terrorists.

For a mutual understanding and respect to develop within our society, our government must reconsider alternative voices when on matters of foreign policy – which many Muslims and non-Muslims alike see as having double standards. And our government ought to consider the proposal set out by the former Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams, that Islamic norms and teachings should be better appreciated. And there is room for Islamic Law (Shariah) to operate more effectively. Sadly Dr. Williams was attacked and vilified in the most vicious fashion by sections of the media and some civil right activists, who jumped onto the bandwagon with little knowledge, if any at all, about what Dr. Williams had suggested.

The Jewish Law (Halakhah) is already recognised in the UK and it is already a fact that British Jews, particularly in Orthodox circles, often turn to their own religious courts, the Beth Din, to resolve civil disputes, covering issues as diverse as business and divorce; this lends more credibility to the former Archbishop’ suggestion.

The behaviour of some Shariah tribunals, however, combined with Baroness Cox’s efforts to discredit and possibly outlaw those, makes the chance of recognition a slim possibility. [18] Critics, however, would argue that giving Shariah such status would set a precedent and open the doors to other religious communities to make similar demands. To this we say, that this is exactly how it should be. After all, this is the backbone of multiculturalism and the latter cannot be properly achieved in the absence of equality and impartiality.

[1] The Inter Faith Network for the UK, 2006-2007 Annual Review, p. 22.

[2] Ramadan, ‘To Be a European’, op. cit., p. 153.

[3] Zaki Badawi, Citizenship in Islam (London: The Muslim College, 2000), p. 2.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Qur’an, 2: 30.

[6] Badawi, op. cit., p. 3.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Ramadan, ‘To Be a European’ op. cit., p. 165.

[10] Qur’an, 5: 45.

[11] Qur’an, 5:46.

[12] Qur’an, 5:47.

[13] Qur’an, 4 :48; 31: 13.

[14] Badawi, op. cit., p. 7.

[15] Ramadan, ‘To be a European’, op. cit., p. 166.

[16] Ramadan, ‘Western Muslims’ op. cit., p. 137.

[17] Silvestri, op. cit., p. 4.

[18] Baroness Cox introduced a bill that in effect seeks to ban the Shariah Councils operating the UK. Baroness Cox believes that the bill is for the benefit of Muslim women who she believes are victim of Shariah Courts. It should be noted that the same Baroness Cox is the person who invited the Dutch far-right, Geert Wilders, who has described the Qur’an as a ‘fascist book’.

The post Scholar’s corner: on citizenship and Islam appeared first on Religious Reader.

Dr. Imam Mamadou Bocoum is a holder of two Masters and a PhD from The Muslim College, and Heythrop College, University of London. He is a lecturer in Islamic Studies; a Board member of the Muslim Law Council UK and an interfaith consultant. He is currently a consultant at Faith Matters and Tell Mama.

Mamadou has authored a number of written works which have included: The Position of Jews and Christians in the Qur’an; Faith and Citizenship in Islam; The status of Women in Islam; Islamic Fundamentalism and the Qur’an. He can be reached at mbocoum@yahoo.com; Mamadou@tellmamauk.org.

As noted earlier, Jews and Christian are People of the Book (Ahl al-Kitab) and defined in the Qur’an as those to whom divine revelation was given prior to the advent of the Prophet Muhammad. The Qur’an by referring to Christians and Jews as Ahl al-Kitab, confirms that they also possess divine scriptures. The term Ahl al-Kitab, made 32 appearances in the Qur’an.

Mary, Jesus’ mother is distinguished in the Qur’an as the only woman for whom a chapter is named after, and the only woman’s name mentioned in the Qur’an. Her name made 34 appearances in the Qur’an. Jesus is mentioned in the Qur’an more than 30 times. The word Injil, the Quranic term corresponding to the Gospel appears a dozen times.

There is a substantial number of Quranic verses that praise and confirm the divinity of Judaism and Christianity. The Qur’an states: “We sent Jesus son of Mary confirming the Torah that had come before him and gave him the Gospel in which there is guidance and light”. (Q.5:46). It further states: “And He sent down the Torah and the Injeel (Gospel); aforetime as guidance to mankind.”(Q.3:4).

Another Qur’anic verse reads: “… A party of the People of the Book stand for the right; they recite the revelation of God during the hours of night, and falling prostate before Him. They believe in God and the last Day; and enjoin the right conduct and forbid indecency” (Q.3:113).

It states further: “And there are certainly among the People of the Book those who believe in God and in that which has been revealed to you, and in that which has been revealed to them, humbling themselves before God. They do not sell the Verse of God for a little price, for them is a reward with their Lord…” Q.3:199

A religious obligation for Muslims to believe in the divinity of both Judaism and Christianity

It is difficult to miss the deep recognition the Qur’an accords the People of the Book, in general terms, and Christianity in particular. Moreover, the Qur’an makes it a religious duty for Muslims to affirm their faith in both Judaism and Christianity.

This is to say that, for a Muslim, belief in the People of the Book and their scriptures forms part of their belief in the Qur’an: “O you who believe [Muslims]! Believe in God his messenger and his book which he has sent down to his messenger [Muhammad] and the scriptures which he sent down to those before. And whoever disbelieves in God his angels his books his messengers, and the last day, then indeed he has strayed far away.” (Q.4:136).

In another Quranic verse, God ordered Muhammad to declare the following: “Say [Muhammad] we believe in God, and in what has been revealed to us [the Qur’an] and what has been revealed to Abraham, Ismael, Isaac, Jacob and the Tribes and in the Books given to Moses, Jesus and all the prophets from their lord, we make no distinction between one and another among them.” (Q.3:84).

The Qur’an, in fact, promises good Muslims, Christians, and Jews the same reward: “[Say] the (Muslims) believers, the Jews, the Christians, and the Sabian – all those who believe in God and the last Day and do good – they will have their rewards with their Lord. No fear for them, nor will they grieve.” (Q.2:62).

The Abrogation of the Scriptures of the People of the Book

For some Muslims however, these Qur’anic verses praising Jews and Christians, are abrogated by other verses and therefore do not carry any divine order. In other words, for this school of thought, since the Qur’an states that Muhammad is the last Prophet (Q.33:40); all the previous religions and their laws from Adam to Jesus are abrogated by Islam. It could also be argued that Maududi also represented this view.

There are a handful of Quranic verses that adherents use to support this claim:

 “This day, I have perfected your religion for you, and completed my favor upon you, and chosen for you Islam as your religion.”(Q.5:4).

“The only true religion with God is Islam.” (Q.3:19).

“And whoever seeks a religion other than Islam, it will never be accepted of him, and in the hereafter he will be one of the losers.” (Q.3:86).

For adherents to this school of thought the matter is clear: not only is Islam the final religion but Jews and Christians have a religious obligation to convert to Islam, and a failure to do so leaves them behind.

It should also be noted that a good number of Muslims think that only God knows what will happen to the Christians and Jews who refuse to embrace Islam. A good number of Muslims, however, also believe that Jews and Christians are disbelievers (Kuffar). On many occasions, I have witnessed how some act on this belief in the most appalling of fashions, as I will elaborate on in the following chapters.

The post Scholar’s corner: what does the Qur’an actually say about Jews and Christians? appeared first on Religious Reader.

Dr. Imam Mamadou Bocoum is a holder of two Masters and a PhD from The Muslim College, and Heythrop College, University of London. He is a lecturer in Islamic Studies; a Board member of the Muslim Law Council UK and an interfaith consultant. He is currently a consultant at Faith Matters and Tell Mama.

Mamadou has authored a number of written works which have included: The Position of Jews and Christians in the Qur’an; Faith and Citizenship in Islam; The status of Women in Islam; Islamic Fundamentalism and the Qur’an. He can be reached at mbocoum@yahoo.com; Mamadou@tellmamauk.org.

While delivering a talk on ‘extremism in the religion of Islam’, an audience member shouted: “Bush, Blair and Bin Laden are all f——s”. I pretended that I had not heard but this was to no avail as the same individual shouted again – but this time in a louder tone – “All of them are f——s”.  The heckler’s pronunciation was rather difficult to interpret (like mine!) and I thought that he meant the offensive six-letter designation. It proved a great relief when someone clarified that the ‘f word’ was fundamentalist. I then responded that besides sharing initial ‘B’ in their respective family names, they also appear to like using the word ‘hate’.

I was referring to the fact that according to Tony Blair, Muslim fundamentalists “Both hate our way of life, our freedom, our democracy”. George W. Bush held a similar view when he was questioned during a press conference. Of course anyone following the news would not have missed Osama Bin Laden’s infamous ‘letter to America’. All three are quite strong in what they believe and a clash is inevitable – not Samuel Huntington’s ‘Clash of Civilizations’ but rather what Tariq Ali calls the ‘Clash of Fundamentalisms’. Many attending the talk nodded their heads in agreement about the existence of Muslims fundamentalists; some agreed; but considered western foreign policy ‘the breeding ground’.

Western foreign policy does to a certain extent explain the current rise in violent Islamic fundamentalism. A denial of this amounts to ignorance. Yet, the willingness and determination to take one’s own life and that of many innocents in such a barbaric fashion including James Foley, Steven Sotloff, David Haines, Alan Henning, Lee Rigby (and countless others), cannot be attributed solely to western foreign policy.

The fact that the perpetrators expect an abundant reward should not be ignored. Sadly, that belief derives from reading the Qur’an through the lens of fundamentalism. The reading of the Qur’an and its tradition, I said in my talk, are at the heart of the matter. I was not surprised to witness angry reactions and denial on the part of those who sought to oppose the view that the Qur’an and its traditions could inspire violent fundamentalists. From the background of this denial – shared by many Muslims – which I wish to explore in order to show that literal and selective readings of the Qur’an can result in devastating misinterpretation of the scripture.

A word about fundamentalism 

It is quite remarkable to note that fundamentalism, in a religious sense, did not enter the lexicon until the early part of the twentieth century. One may find it astonishing to learn that the word originated from the United States of America.

We are reminded by Malise Ruthven that the concept of fundamentalism was first coined by two devoted Christian brothers, Milton and Lyman Stewart, who in 1910 ‘embarked on a five-year programme of sponsorship for a series of pamphlets which were sent free of charge to English-speaking Protestant pastors, evangelists, missionaries, theological professors, theological students, YMCA secretaries, Sunday School superintendents, religious lay workers, and editors of religious publications throughout the world’. The title of this booklet was ‘The Fundamentals: A Testimony of Truth’ and one of its aims was to preach the ‘inerrancy of the Bible’. Ruthven admits that there may not be one single definition of the word which ‘will never be uncontested’; but agrees that the word ‘originated in the unique context of American religious pluralism and the separation of church and state’. According to Jay M. Harris, ‘The word fundamentalism has come to imply an orientation to the world that is anti-intellectual, bigoted, and intolerant’. Harris went on to say that fundamentalism is also ‘applied to those whose life-style and politics are unacceptable to modern, Western eyes and, most particularly to those who would break down the barrier we have erected [in America] between church and state’.

Hence in the context of today’s theological polarisations, it may be salutary to find that neither the word nor the concept of fundamentalism emerged from Islam but rather from literalist Christians in the United States.  These superficial polarisations sometimes give rise to distorted extremist views such as those of a Christian group in Florida called the ‘New Testament Church’ who sought to burn copies of the Qur’an.

Islamic fundamentalism

In Arabic, fundamentalist translates as ‘usuli’ – someone ‘who relies on the fundamentals or basics of something’. If one is to apply this definition to Islam, then all Muslims are by definition fundamentalists, because all Muslims believe in the fundamental teaching of the Qur’an. Similarly, there are some Christian groups in the U.S. and elsewhere who are ‘fundamentalist’ in the sense of believing in a literal interpretation of the Bible. But if this ‘fundamentalism’ extends towards violence, the concept acquires a more sinister significance; and we can say that there are many Muslim groups who can justifiably fall under this umbrella.

Many scholars label the Wahhabi movement of the eighteenth century as the first strain of fundamentalism but this is a bit unfair on the moment. Islamic groups who interpreted the Qur’an literally and employed violence go back as far as the seventh century. A few decades the Prophet Muhammad’s death, the Khawarij (or the Kharijites) emerged with an extreme approach to the Qur’an. Fazlur Rahman argues that the Kharijites were responsible for the ‘first active schism in Islam’ and their interpretation of the Qur’an was ‘extremely strict’.

The Kharijites considered if any Muslim who ‘commits a grave wrong, without due repentance, he/she ceases to have faith and becomes an infidel and shall burn eternally in the hell fire’. The Kharijites went further in their extreme interpretation of the Qur’an by arguing that anyone who does not adhere to their doctrines is the infidel who must be fought. It is interesting to note here that the Kharijites were not fighting non-Muslims but other Muslims; and they found the justification from the Qur’an.  Not only that, the Kharijites added jihad to the pillars of Islam, making six instead of five. Richard Bonney noted ‘Many of them were Qur’anic fundamentalists. They used an expurgated Qur’an without chapter 12; they were also exclusivists, who believed that they were the only true Muslims’. It would prove hypocritical to disassociate their actions from their direct reading and understanding of the Qur’an. Many modern militant Islamic groups (including ISIS) adopted and advocated the same ‘procedure’ as the one adapted by the Kharijites.

A word about the Qur’an

In his acclaimed work, ‘Anthology of Islamic Literature’, James Kritzeck highlights the way in which intelligent people can hold different opinions about the Qur’an.[23] Kritzeck quotes M. Pickthall, who described the Qur’an as a book that moves men to tears and ecstasy; while Thomas Carlyle for his part considered the same Qur’an as ‘As tedious a piece of reading [and] a wearisome, confused jumble, crude, incondite’.[24]  Both descriptions can be justified, of course, depending on the reader’s interpretation.

One fact, however, is certain: the lives of over a billion Muslims are guided by the Qur’an. The Qur’an for Muslims, as Abdullah Saeed puts it, is ‘The Word of God and remains the prime source of authority for Islam’s ethical and legal systems. Muslims make consistent efforts to relate it to their contemporary concerns and needs”.[25] The Qur’an states on several occasions that it is the source of guidance and the light, and that Muslims ought to act according to its teaching.  Moreover, Muslims consider the Qur’an to be the literal word of God. That literal meaning is at the heart of the Islamic faith.  To this, Farid Esack noted: “For Muslims the Qur’an as the compilation of the ‘Speech of God’ does not refer to a book inspired or influenced by Him or written under the guidance of His spirit. Rather, it is viewed as His direct speech’.

In the ninth century, the Mutazilites, a Muslim group known to the West as the ‘rationalists’, argued that the Qur’an was not the word of God but rather a part of God’s creation. Supported by the state at the time, they gained a considerable number of adherents and sadly persecuted those who refused to support their view. Ahmed Ibn Hanbal, the founder of one of the four most famous Islamic schools of thought, earned his fame during this time because of his refusal to adhere to the Mutazilites’ doctrine and his subsequent imprisonment. In his refusal he argued that the Qur’an was not created or part of God’s creation but rather the very literal word of God – ‘kalamu al- Allah’.

This period occupied a central point in the history of Islamic theology and played a vital part in shaping the minds of many Muslim exegeses over the coming generations.  It is interesting to note that this debate took place among Muslims and the very nature of the Qur’an was at the centre of the debate. The Qur’an was questioned rigorously and yet no person labeled his opponent an ‘infidel’.

Sadly though, today any Muslim who attempts to question the nature of the Qur’an is denigrated and the non-Muslim is seen as anti-Islam. I personally believe that this episode and the heated debates it generated need to be revisited if Muslims are to find a practical and meaningful interpretation of the Qur’an.

Qur’anic Interpretation

The Qur’an refers to itself as ‘kitab’ (Book) and sometimes as a ‘kalimah’ or ‘kalimat’ (word or words). To some Muslim scholars this indicates that the Qur’an is a spoken word coming from God to the Prophet Muhammad. The spoken words were in Arabic because Muhammad himself spoke Arabic. This was not a new aspect of the process of revelation because the Qur’an itself reports that God spoke to people in their own language (Q.14:4). Hence if Muhammad was English, God would address him in English.

Muhammad did not interpret all the words of the Qur’an to his companions before his death; and this opens the door for Muslims to grasp the meaning of the Qur’an. There are two terms that are used in the process of the interpretation: ‘tafsir’ and ‘t’awil’. ‘Tafsir’ is commonly agreed amongst the vast majority of the Muslim scholars to mean literally the science of the interpretation of Qur’anic verses. ‘T’awil’ linguistically speaking means ‘return’ – going back to the source or returning to the origin of something. Edward Lane further interprets the meaning as ‘discovering, detecting, revealing, developing, disclosing, explaining, expounding or interpreting; that to which a thing is, or may be, reduced, or that which it comes, or may come, to be”. Both tafsir and t’awil, according to Seed, are synonymous with explanations of Qur’anic verses. Beside tafsir and t’awil there are two widely advocated approaches when commentating on the Qur’an. The first is a ‘tafsir bi al-ma’thur’ interpretation, based on traditions or text. In other words, this form of interpretation means that any verse should be interpreted solely on the basis of other Qur’anic verses or traditions. The second approach is the ‘tafsir bi al ray’ interpretation based on reason – or what Neal Robinson calls “exegesis on the basis of informed opinion”.

Today, Muslim communities rely upon traditional interpretations of the Qur’an.  This arguably amounts to nothing but ‘taglid’, which means blind following. Adopting this interpretation without questioning the circumstances in which these interpretations were made is a dangerous approach.

The Qur’an, as Professor A. Haleem reminds us, “alludes to events without giving their historical background. Those who heard the Qur’an at the time of its revelation were fully aware of the circumstances”. Not every companion of Muhammad truly understood the meaning of some Qur’anic verses. Instead, many companions came to Muhammad to seek explanation.  To understand the occasions of the revelation was vital not only during the time of Muhammad as ‘later generations of Muslims had [also] to rely on the body of literature explaining the circumstances of revelations (asbab al-nuzul’) in order to be able to interpret any verse’.

Otherwise it would be a grotesque mistake for any Muslim to apply a Qur’anic verse without knowing the circumstances in which these verses were revealed, for the content and style of the Qur’anic verses are frequently complex.

The Qur’anic verses most used by fundamentalists

It would be helpful to quote Milan Rai at length. A fundamentalist group, the latter said, ‘invites converts to undertake their own personal, literal reading of holy texts. As many scholars have noted ‘‘fundamentalists are rebels against their religious establishments’’. Previous authorities, theologians, and clerics can be set aside, and what is claimed to be a ‘pure’ version of the faith can be directly gleaned from the Holy Book. However, the ‘traditions’ that fundamentalists appeal to ‘‘are no more self-evident and uncontested than their scriptures’’.

Muslim fundamentalists have a unique and alarming way of reading Qur’anic scripture, which can be summarised as follows:  Islam is the only true religion; only the teaching of the Qur’an ought to be followed; anyone who refuses to follow Islam should be fought; Muslims should not take Jews and Christians as friends; the whole world should convert to Islam and any Muslim, wherever he/she is, has a religious obligation to participate in this cause.

Exclusiveness of Islam  

There are a few Qur’anic verses which, if interpreted literally, lend support beyond any reasonable doubt to fundamentalists. Some popular choices include: ‘The only true religion with God is Islam’ (Q.3:19). The Qur’an reads further: ‘Whoever seeks any religion other than Islam, it will never be accepted of him, and in the hereafter he will be one of the losers’ (Q.3:86). ‘This day, I have perfected your religion for you, and completed my favour upon you, and chosen for you Islam as your religion’ (Q. 5:4).

Muslim fundamentalists see the above-quoted verses as instructions to reject anyone who is non-Muslim. They also hold the belief that both Christians and Jews have religious obligations to convert to Islam. A refusal to do so puts them among the losers.

Jews and Christians as ‘enemies of Islam’

In the Qur’an, both Jews and Christians are referred to as ‘ahl al-kitab’ (People of the Book). By referring to them as ‘People of the Book,’ the Qur’an indicates their divinity. For Muslim fundamentalists, however, Muslims should disassociate from Christians and Jews. Jews and Christians ‘are enemies of Islam’ and Muslims should not take them as friends. In contrast, the Qur’an reads:

‘O you, who have believed, do not take the Jews and the Christians as allies. They are [in fact] allies of one another. And whoever is an ally to them among you – then indeed, he is [one] of them. Indeed, God guides not the wrongdoing people’ (Q.5:51).

For the Muslim fundamentalist, there is no difference between Jews, Christians and the ‘mushrikun’ (polytheists) because none of them would want to see anything good happening to Muslims. They quote the Qur’an: ‘neither those who disbelieve among the people of the Scripture: Jews and Christians, nor ‘mushrikun’ like that there should be sent down to you any good from your Lord’ (Q. 2:105).

‘Fight and kill them’

The most worrying aspect of this fundamentalist reading is the belief that whoever rejects Islam ought to be a target. Here again they quote the Qur’an selectively without taking into consideration the occasions of the revelation. A Qur’anic verse reads: “Kill them whenever you find them”. And the Qur’an went on to say in the same chapter frequently quoted by fundamentalists: ‘And fight them until there is no more ‘fitnah’ (disbelief) and worship is for God alone’ (Q. 2:193). ‘And fight them until there is no more fitnah and until the religion will all be for Allah alone’ (Q. 8:39).

One particular chapter both fundamentalists and those who seek to vilify Islam are fond of is the so-called ‘sword chapter’, which is chapter 9 of the Qur’an. From this chapter the following verses are most frequently quoted: ‘Then when the Sacred Months have passed, then kill the mushrikun wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in every ambush’(Q. 9:5). The same chapter goes on to say: ‘Fight against those who believe not in God, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by God and His Messenger [Muhammad] and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth among the people of the Scripture, until they pay Jizyah[tax] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued’ (Q. 9:29).

The Qur’an also reads, ‘And those who disbelieve are allies of one another, (and) if you (Muslims) do not ally to make victorious God’s religion [Islam], there will be fitnah (polytheism) and oppression on the earth, and great mischief and corruption’ (Q. 8:73).  Moreover, fundamentalists consider any Muslim who attempts to disunite the Muslims or to prevent them from achieving unity as an enemy of Islam who ought to be killed.

“The problem of Islam is nothing but a lack of authority.  Had you Muslims had a pontiff as we Christians do, many problems would not have occurred”, my devoted friend once told me. The tone of his voice – which was accompanied by both sadness and a sense of guilt – still resonates. Sadness because we were just attending a commemoration of the victims of the London 7/7 bombings; guilt because he felt that many good Muslims who are law-abiding citizens are being treated as terrorists.

In fairness, only those who are ill-informed put all Muslims in one basket. But concerning Islam’s lack of central authority, my friend is not the only one in his views. Many people, including Muslim scholars, consider Islam’s lack of authority to be the root cause of the problems within the Islamic faith.

However, I neither accede to this argument nor do I believe the institution of pontiff corrected the problems facing Christianity. In Islam, God is the sole and divine authority; whose absence is represented by texts. Every knowledgeable person can interpret the texts if a range of principles are met. The spirit and the wisdom of the texts are at the heart of these principles and need to be held at maximum by anyone seeking to interpret them correctly.

In his remarkable book, Abdullah Saeed reminds us of the three levels of the message of the Qur’an: (1) language and utterance (2) letters and writing (3) spirit and meaning. The spirit of the Qur’an is nothing but God who is mentioned 2,692 times in the Quran. The characteristic of the God of the Qur’an is nothing but of mercy. Hence why it is not by coincidence that all Qur’anic chapters (except one) begin with: ‘In the name of God the most Merciful and the Compassionate’ (Q.1:1). The Qur’an also informs us that the mercy of God ‘embraces all things’ (Q.7: 155).

Far away from both its spirit or wisdom, Muslim fundamentalists focus on the language of the Qur’an, paying no attention to the circumstances in which these words were mentioned and focusing on ‘fighting’, ‘killing’ and ‘jihad’ or ‘holy war’. So eager to pursue violence they ignore the fact that the concept of ‘holy war’ does not appear in the Qur’an.

In Islam, a war is either just or unjust but never ‘holy’ as it was known in medieval Christendom. So eager are they to convert people to Islam (by force or otherwise) that Muslim fundamentalists ignore the Qur’anic statement that ‘there is no compulsion in religion’ (Q. 2:256). Furthermore, they are ignorant of the fact that throughout the history of Islam, Muhammad never forced or fought any war with the aim of converting people to Islam. Muhammad repeatedly said that his duty was to convey the message and that it was up to the person to decide; and conversion is God’s responsibility (Q. 10:99).

In spite of the above, does the Qur’an still provide the ‘breeding ground’ for Islamic fundamentalism? The answer is not straightforward. However, western Muslims can play an important part in restoring the revealed truth of the Qur’an through careful and thorough interpretation of the verses. An example of such a contribution would be investment in the production of a new printed Qur’ans – and here I must emphasise that I am not asking for a ‘new Qur’an’ but rather a new form of printing and formatting that would reflect more some aspects of British values.

In this newly printed Qur’an, accompanying footnotes for verses dealing with the issues highlighted would help clarify both the context and circumstances in which these verses were revealed. It is to be hoped that once this newly printed Qur’an was in full circulation, the position of the fundamentalists would not only be weakened, but those verses that they employ to cause mayhem would in turn be reinterpreted to restore the spiritual and peaceful message of the Qur’an.

The post Scholar’s corner: where does Islamic fundamentalism stem from? appeared first on Religious Reader.