Clashes have erupted in an immigrant neighbourhood in Sweden’s third largest city after an anti-Muslim protester set fire to the Koran, police have said.

Police in Malmo said they were pelted with rocks and dozens of cars were set on fire, including in an underground garage, describing the events that started on Sunday and lasted overnight as “a riot”.

The clashes started after an anti-Islam activist Salwan Momika burned a copy of the Koran and an angry mob tried to stop him while police, some of them in riot gear, detained at least three people.

Early on Monday, an angry crowd of mainly young people also set fire to tyres and debris, and some were seen throwing electric scooters, bicycles and barriers in Malmo’s Rosengard neighbourhood, which has seen similar clashes in the past. There were several banners relating to the Koran burning.

Senior police officer Petra Stenkula said: “I understand that a public gathering like this arouses strong emotions, but we cannot tolerate disturbances and violent expressions like those we saw on Sunday afternoon.

“It is extremely regrettable to once again see violence and vandalism at Rosengard.”

Speaking at a news conference, Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson said: “Regardless of the reason behind these riots, the car fires, the harassment, violence against police officers… regardless of the reason, I think that all Swedes find this completely unacceptable.”

In the past months, Mr Momika, a refugee from Iraq, has desecrated the Koran in a series of anti-Islam protests mostly in Stockholm that have caused anger in many Muslim countries. Swedish police have allowed his actions, citing freedom of speech.

The Koran burnings have sparked angry protests in Muslim countries, attacks on Swedish diplomatic missions and threats from Islamic extremists. Muslim leaders in Sweden have called on the government to find ways to stop the Koran burnings.

Sweden dropped its last blasphemy laws in the 1970s and the government has said it has no intention to reintroduce them.

However, the government has announced an inquiry into legal possibilities for enabling police to reject permits for demonstrations over national security concerns.

Read more: Koran burned again in Sweden as government considers ban

An Education minister has condemned reported death threats against pupils who allegedly damaged a copy of the Koran as “totally unacceptable”.

Minister for Schools Nick Gibb has said his department is working with Kettlethorpe High School in Wakefield, West Yorkshire, after it suspended four students over the incident.

A copy of the Islamic text was brought to school by a Year 10 pupil reportedly as part of a dare last week, and its cover was slightly torn while smears of dirt were found on some pages.

Headteacher Tudor Griffiths said initial investigations suggest there was “no malicious intent by those involved”.

On Thursday, Mr Gibb condemned reported death threats against the pupils, adding that there is “no blasphemy law” in the UK and schools should be supporting “British values” including “individual liberty”.

He said: “My first priority is always the wellbeing of children and young people.

“The death threats reportedly issued against the pupils are totally unacceptable.

“There is no blasphemy law in this country and schools should be promoting the fundamental British values of the respect for rule of law, individual liberty and tolerance of those with different faiths and beliefs.

“The Department for Education is working closely with the school, and I will write to the headteacher and local authority to offer my support.

“Our guidance for schools on how to manage suspensions is clear, stating that all decisions should be reasonable, fair, and proportionate.

“In circumstances where parents feel discipline has not met these standards, they can follow the school’s complaints procedure and raise the issue with the school’s governors or the local authority.”

The school’s headteacher said he first became aware of the incident on February 23, adding that the students were suspended to ensure “they understand why their actions were unacceptable”.

Mr Griffiths said: “We would like to reassure all our community that the holy book remains fully intact and that our initial inquiries indicate there was no malicious intent by those involved.

“However, we have made it very clear that their actions did not treat the Koran with the respect it should have, so those involved have been suspended and we will be working with them to ensure they understand why their actions were unacceptable.”

“Kettlethorpe High School is an inclusive school where we want all our pupils to feel safe and secure,” he added.

“Understanding and respecting each other is a fundamental part of who we are and we are coming together and learning from this.

“With the support of our local Muslim community leaders, we are continuing to investigate thoroughly.”

He said the school’s leaders had met with local Muslim community leaders, councillors and police to share the information they had.

West Yorkshire Police has been contacted for comment.

By Rashad Ali

Prologue

From wild conspiracy theories to denial of the extent of the spread of the disease known as Covid19, to zealous and dangerous displays of religious fervour, to behaviour betraying complete ignorance of maintaining safe distancing across Muslim countries and even in the UK irrational edicts have lead to Mosques endangering their communities by holding Friday congregational prayer against government scientific advice and a plethora of sensible Muslim edicts.

In fact Western Sociologists have pointed out this is against the spirit of prophetic teaching. But this doesn’t take away from age old debate about the assumed irrationality of religion and the religiously minded versus progressive secularists or even challenging the faith of believers due to the obstinate responses of their Faith’s, Islam and others.

The Debate Around Religion and Science

In light of the above the debate about Science and Islam, and the place of empirical thought, scientific methodology and knowledge, and the relationship or antagonism with Islam is still an important discussion for believers and wider society alike. Whether this is an antagonism essential to the faith tradition. Or a manifestation of contemporary fundamentalism? Or something decidedly more complicated? With this in mind the following short essay seeks to address these questions.

The debate surrounding religion and science is certainly not one unfamiliar to either scientists or religious people. Nor is it by any means a new debate. Nor is it a debate that exists exclusively vis-à-vis Islam and science or in Eastern societies alone. Hence the debate itself does not really require an introduction. It is however still a relevant one, which has led in recent times to various conflicts in the intellectual, political and religious realms.

A number of popular books on the subject start by suggesting an intrinsic harmony between science and religion in general. There’s ‘Pathfinders – The Golden Age of Arabic Science’[1], authored by respected scientist, mathematician and physicist Jim al-Khalili[2], which discusses the development, definition, and application to astounding results, of early Arab, often Muslim scientists in the pre-modern era. A book by the Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks[3], ‘The Great Partnership – God, Science and the Search for Meaning’[4], also seeks to demonstrate that, at least from within the Jewish tradition, there has been a necessary interdependency and healthy respect for science and all things scientific. Sacks also argues a necessary neurological and psychological relationship between the two methods and styles of thinking used by different sides of the brain.[5]

That’s not to say the other side of the debate hasn’t also been forcefully put forward by respected scientists and thinkers, all seeking to demonstrate the retarding effect that religion has had on people’s perceptions of reality, science, and even what they see as basic facts. Most well-known – or notorious depending on where you stand on the debate – is renowned author and evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins[6] in his various books including ‘The God Delusion’[7]. Similarly on the socio-political level, we have contributions by the late thinker Christopher Hitchens[8] in his works including ‘God is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything’[9].

Whilst the debate and at times conflicts surrounding these issues did occur in what historically is described as the dark ages and subsequently the medieval times or pre-modern times; the level of debate and dispute among pre-modern Muslim theologians was actually less than the conflict we see today. This is arguably why we see efforts and books like Khalili’s, which arguably demonstrate that early Arabic science was deploying a scientific method that was on the whole institutionally supported by religiously-based empires or within societies which religion and religious values played a significant role. In this case, it means the Islamic faith as embraced by Muslim scholars within a strong religious society, including many not well known to agnostics and atheists.

In other words, an understanding of science, as a sub-branch of rational sciences with a rationalist philosophical approach (with noted exceptions) as the foundation for enquiry, was internalized within a part of the myriad of “ulūm”, collectively referred to as Islamic sciences. If not seen as a religious discipline in itself by some, it was often seen as a necessary discipline and a part of broader civilization in general. Hence Islam as understood by the many leading theologians placed scientific enquiry and knowledge derived there-from within such a context. The nature and extent of the conflict that we see played out today is something of a modern phenomenon, it’s causes best investigated elsewhere.[10] 

Defining terms as a means of conceptualizing science, scientific theory, and its relationship in or with Islam

Whilst it is common knowledge among scientists, the definition of scientific method and what is meant by science should be conceptualized here, before assessing their existence and acceptance or otherwise in classical or pre-modern Islam.

Science is defined by the Encyclopedia Britannica as ‘any of various intellectual activities concerned with the physical world and its phenomena and entailing an unbiased observation and systematic experimentation.’ The latter part of the definition actually defines the scientific method i.e. the unbiased approach to observing and recording, so that the observations maybe tested through reproducing the same experiment in another environment to ensure no bias; and systematic so that all factors are considered; and when reproducing the experiment and performed ceterus paribus i.e. all factors should be equal and the same, thereby not inadvertently affecting the results.

The explanation continues to define what it is that is being sought through such systematic observation and states ‘In general, a science involves the pursuit of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of fundamental laws'[11]. This then covers the aim (i.e. knowledge) and scope (i.e. general truths or universal laws or norms), covering all subject matters in this definition including social norms and laws, at least by definition, and also subjects which we commonly describe as sciences, (i.e. physical laws whether pertaining to: chemistry, biology and physics, and their sub branches that have evolved further from them.

Muslim history – scientists and scientific feats

Muslim history, scientists and scientific feats are not the focus of this essay. For exhaustive discussions of there, I refer to the recent works mentioned above. It is important to note, however, that they demonstrate that in pre-modern Muslim society there was a tolerance at least, if not an encouragement from political and imperial powers, for further theoretical and practical scientific development, whether related to mathematics, chemistry, physics, astronomy, geography (or geology to be more precise), and various aspects of physics and medicine including optics and study of light. [12]

Muslim theology and the Role of Science

There are various questions that we would need to look at and seek to answer, even if briefly, and assess in regards to pre-Muslim thought on theology, religion and the role of science. These would include, but not be restricted to, the following: How was science conceived? How was it, if it was at all internalized to Muslim theological discourse? How was it outweighed vis-à-vis scripture?

Regarding conceptualization and conception of science, with notable exceptions Muslim theologians were generally rationalists i.e. belonged to the rationalist school of philosophical enquiry. Ergo, they believed in the necessity of the priori postulate in order to conceptualize and understand and interpret any sensory reality or data. Therefore, they were more akin to the rationalist thinking being the foundation for their thought and even theology.

There were notable exceptions that discussed proofs and hierarchy of proofs that in connection with matters of creed. For example, when discussing what is evidence or rather proof for beliefs in the sense how does one arrive at basic truths, and knowledge which can form basic creedal beliefs, the list begins with darūriyāt – rational necessities or priori truths; followed by ihsās or sensed truths i.e. observations; and then mention of khabr or riwāya i.e. transmitted information or reports e.g. revelation in the Qur’an or prophetic sayings or transmitted facts like for example the existence of a distant city.

This is in most works of Muslim theology when discussing creed and beliefs and in what is often described by Muslim scholars as the definitive and final summation of sunni creed in Aqīdah al-Nasafī[13] and it’s well known commentary Shar’h al-Taftazâni – the explanation of Sa’d al-Din al-Taftazāni[14] of the creed[15]. This is a work which is considered a classic in the genre and an “orthodox” transmission of the creed.[16] Rational and sensory knowledge is given priority over all other sciences, including narration. The text states that mere “spiritual illumination” or “ilhām” is not a proof.

Furthermore, it is explained that this is the case due to the rational beliefs forming the foundations of the dogma i.e. one believes in God not because of scripture but because one is rationally convinced. Hence this is the first root or means of belief. Rejecting rational truths would therefore lead to rejecting rationality as the basis for belief, which is the foundation upon which faith in the scripture and God relies, thereby invalidating faith in God and the scripture as they branch off from the root or foundational belief. This is a principle discussed by all major medieval theologians, whether the likes of Juwaynī or Fakhr al-Razī and Ash’arite theologians. This is stated in no uncertain terms by al-Zahāwī, in his refutation of the puritanical reformist Salafi/Wahabi movement in the work ‘the True Dawn'[17].

This though does not specifically deal with science and the scientific methodology, though it established two components: necessary priori concepts and rational enquiry, and sensory observation. These two components take precedence even over transmitted textual evidence and scripture.

It also establishes the supremacy of the rationality over literal interpretations of scripture, and at times scripture itself, within orthodox and classical pre-modern theology. This should help demonstrate that this is not a “reformist” modern trend, or something alien to the tradition. This does not mean that this was universal, but it was the established position. And different authorities in theology dealt with these matters with slight differences in emphasis, hierarchy, albeit this was the prevalent view and even predominant attitude.

There were various extensions of this in understanding the role of the scientific approach and experimentation. To give examples from two well-known and famous pre-modern authors who also add to the list of sources of knowledge experimentation, include the theologian of what people today view as a conservative and scripturalist school, due to its association with Saudi Arabian puritanical Wahabism, the jurist ofthe Hanbali school of Islamic law or fiqh. The major scholar Ibn Qudāma al-Maqdisī [18] who authored a text on fundamental principles of Islamic law (usūl ul-fiqh), in which he stated in addition to the intellect, that knowledge is also acquired through observation and “tajriba” “experimentation”. This outlined in general the abstraction of knowledge through observation and recording of experimental data as a basis for knowledge, which was a source of definitive knowledge, which took precedence over speculative interpretation ‘Zann’ or over analysis from scripture[19]. The discussion is summarized from Imam al-Ghazali’s Mustasfa fi Ilm ul-Usul[20], the well-known scholar, theologian, sufi, and jurist. al-Ghazali[21] was given the title Hujjat al-Islam – literally the proof of Islam, as he embodied the revival of the religious sciences in their whole, including theology, and jurisprudence (fiqh) and the principles of law (usūl).

Another major authority in Islamic legal maxims (Qawa’id) and in fact a pioneer in defining the science of maxims of law as opposed to source principles was al-Imām al-Izz bin Abdul Salām.[22] Interestingly he took the philosophical principle further. He stated that worldly interests i.e. that which is beneficial for mankind and their interests and that which is harmful both physically and morally, could also be known in almost all cases through rational and scientific enquiry. The distinction would be known, he states by: ‘bil-tajārib wa-adāt'[23] meaning ‘through experimentation and established customs/rules’. This is a little explored area but essentially he stated that this would be in almost all matters of public interests, and only the odd religious conflict would occur on matters that were supra-rational, and therefore covered by an explicit religious injunction which is not rational, mainly in matters of worships. This actually subjects not only beliefs and knowledge in creed i.e. theology proper to rational and scientific enquiry, but interestingly social values and societal interests i.e. rules and ethics concerning social lives should also be rational and subject to scientific enquiry.

Conclusion

Whilst this is by no means a comprehensive survey of the literature, it is to sufficient to demonstrate the rationalist basis, which was embraced included one of its methods pf learning, the scientific method, observed facts, and science as a means of knowledge. Whilst it is beyond the scope to examine cases where this did take place in Islamic history in the works of scholars such as Ibn Hazm (456AH1054CE), the so-called literalist (Dhāhirī), by Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzi[24] (540AH 1149CE), an orthodox Ash’arīte, and Imām Abū Bakr al-Jassās (died 370AH 980CE), who was a major scholar belonging to the Hanafi rite, exemplify this. It must be emphasized here that historically, literalist and orthodox theologians have concurred on eminently rational and scientific positions and arguments in their relevant commentaries of the Qur’an and legal works, rejecting the superstitious, ideas such as magic, demon possession, and establishing the spherical nature of the Earth – the above names are just a few who took these positions, and crucially, interpreted scripture in light of those rational beliefs (some may say today ‘facts’). 

This should further substantiate not only the scientific heritage, and achievements, but also that there was no intractable conflict between the rational and scientific and the religious realms of thought, though much debate, amongst pre-modern Muslim scholars on the topic of science and religion. The scientific approach did not threaten Muslims reading of scripture in pre-modern times, unlike what we see in some circles today.  

[1] ‘Pathfinders – The Golden Age of Arabic Science’, Penguin books 2010, England, Jim al-Khalili.

[2] Jim al-Khalili is a professor of Theoretical Physics at the University of Surrey and also holds the chair in Public Engagement in Science, and has been awarded the Royal Society’s Michael Faraday Prize for Science Communication in 2007, and an OBE in 2008. A popular broadcaster and author.

[3] Rabbi Jonathan Sacks has authored 18 books including ‘the Dignity of Difference’ and ‘Future Tense’ as well as the mentioned text. A broadcaster who regularly comments on intellectual and political matters on Radio 4.

[4] ‘The Great Partnership – God, Science and the Search for Meaning’, Hodder & Stoughton 2001, UK, Jonathan Sacks.

[5] The author had the opportunity to attend the book launch of ‘The Great Partnership’ where there was an exchange of ideas and perspectives between Jim al-Khalili and the Rabbi Sacks, where the atheist Khalili demonstrated a rather more positive approach to religion in the contribution that it made to values and science and interestingly than Sacks who spoke of the scientific distinction between brain functions, which were related to scientific and clinical thought and the imaginative and values/narrative side, functioning as two necessary parts of the brain. 

[6] Richard Dawkins a respected scientist who has won numerous awards, and taught at Oxford university and authored many books, the first of which ‘The Selfish Gene’ has been translated into many languages.

[7] ‘The God Delusion’, Transworld Paperbacks 2007, Richard Dawkins.

[8] Christopher Hitchens was a contributing editor to Vanity Fair, a professor of liberal studies at theNew School in New York and prolific author, polemicist and intellectual. His books included ‘Why Orwell Matters’ and ‘Thomas Jefferson Author of America’. 

[9] ‘God is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything’, Atlantic Books 2007, US, Christopher Hitchens.

[10] Khalili however does discuss some of the factors for this in society at large and also ideas related to what is needed in Muslim/Arab majority countries to reverse the trend of the shift and lack of scientific progress and achievement which he documents with statistical data in his book, in chapters 15 and 16 ‘Decline and Renaissance’ and ‘Science and Islam today’.

[11] Page 552, Volume 10, Micropaedia, ‘Encyclopedia Britannica’ 1990

[12] Again I would refer to Khalili’s book for more details where he documents, and assesses and critiques claims of individual contributions made by various historic figures.

[13] Aqīdah al-Nasafī named after the author – Abū Hafs Umar al-Nasafī died in the year 537AH i.e. in the Muslim Calendar correlating to 1142CE. Elder goes as far as stating that the text has the place of catechisms and confessions in Christianity i.e. core statements of creed, in his introduction page xix (the introduction is numbered in Roman Numerals unlike the rest of the text.

[14] Sa’d al-Din Taftazānī born in 722AH 1322CE and was described by the polymath and well known scholar Ibn Khaldun as “[h]e was well versed in the philosophical sciences and far advanced in the rest of the sciences that deal with reason.” Introduction page xxi of Elder’s translation of the text.

[15] The text is available in English as ‘A Commentary on the Creed of Islam Sa’d al-Din al-Taftazani on the creed of Najm al-Din al-Nasafi – translated with introduction and notes by Earl Edgar Elder’ Columbia University Press – New York 1950, Great Britain, Canada and India published in the United States.

[16] See Elder’s introduction to the above text.

[17] Zahāwī is Shaykh Jamāl Effendi al-Sidqi al-Zahāwī born in 1836, an Iraqi scholar, editor of al-Zawra historian, theologian, and writer and author of modern day Iraqi origin. ‘The Doctrine of Ahl al-Sunna Versus the “Salafi” movement’ Jamal Effendi al-Iraqi al-Sidqi al-Zahawi translated by Shaykh Muhammad Hisham Kabbani, As-Sunna Foundation 1996, US.  

[18] Abū Muhammad Abdullāh Ibn Ahmad Ibn Qudāma al-Maqdisī born in 541AH 1147CE, major author and scholar in Hanbali law proper and theory or usul as it is known.

[19] Rawdat ul-Nāzir wa Junnat ul-Manāzir, section on ‘Ilm’, knowledge. The text is yet to be translated into English but has several popular publications in Arabic.

[20] Mustasfā fī Ilm ul-Usūl, Dar ul-Arqām, Beirut-Lebanon 1999, Abu Hamid al-Ghazali. See section on Ilm/Knowledge. Partial translation is available at ‘al-Ghazali’s webiste’ – www.ghazali.org/ 

[21] Imām Abū Hamīd al-Ghazālī born 450AH 1058CE, was a major figure whose writings in creed, methodology, principles and law proper are the mainstay of the Shafi school thereafter, and in creed and principles studied and commented upon by all schools. His last major work is said to be al-Mustasfā fī ilm ul-Usūl on the science of Usūl or principles of Islamic law which form the foundation of deriving beliefs and laws in Islam.

[22] Sultân ul-Ulemā Imām al-Izz ibn Abdul Salām born 578AH 1182 CEwas a considered a major scholar who was considered an absolute authority (Mujtahid mutlaq) a level acknowledged to have been reached by very few in traditional Islamic circles. He authored several books on Islamic maxims and even summarized his own, of which the referred text is a summary of his own work – Qawā’id ul-Anām fī-Masālih ul-Ahkām. 

[23] Page 109, ‘Mukhtasar al-Fawā’id fil-Ahkām ul-Maqāsid – al-Ma’rūf bil-Qawā’id al-Sughra’, Dar ibn al-Jawzi 2009, Saudi Arabia/Cairo/Beirut, Imām al-Izz ibn Abdul Salām 

[24] A fascinating study of the works and thought of Fakhr al-Din al-Rāzī is available in the English language titled ‘Theology and Tafsir in the Major works of Fakh al-Din al-Rāzī’ which explores some his scientific and philosophical contributions, and analysis of Qur’ān through scientific lens’ related to astronomy, and also matters such as demon possession and magic (which he rejects as do the others mentioned in their various works) and other such issues. It is published by ISTAC in Malaysia (1996), authored by Yasin Ceylan. 

]]> 8943 https://www.faith-matters.org/the-quran-grants-freedom-of-religion-so-why-are-ex-muslims-so-stigmatised/ Fri, 04 Oct 2019 11:44:26 +0000 https://www.faith-matters.org/?p=8606

By Elizabeth Arif-Fear

“There is no compulsion in religion” (2:256) – the words stand loudly and clearly. In chapter two, verse 256 of the Qur’an – the holy book for Muslims – it’s declared that we all have the freedom to believe as we wish. Through these words, we are reminded that submission to Allah (God) is for His sake alone. However, in reality, things aren’t as clear cut.

In the US, whilst the number of converts to Islam is rising, so too is the number of people leaving Islam. According to a 2014 study, around a quarter of those raised as Muslim no longer identified as Muslim. Here in the UK, the Council of Ex-Muslims has over 5,700 members.

However, whilst in recent years public discussion around leaving Islam has increased, attitudes do not have appeared to have developed much in the process. Instead, the topic of leaving Islam still remains a taboo, shrouded in silence and “shame” for those who choose to no longer identify as Muslim.

Despite the Qur’anic ruling on freedom of the belief, with Wahhabi-style teachings based on the hadith: “Whoever changes his religion, put him to death” (Bukhari), along with additional socio-cultural attitudes and political tensions, leaving Islam more often than not ceases to be a personal decision around belief and identity. Instead, for many ex-Muslims, leaving the faith becomes a nightmare filled with stigma, rejection and even the threat to one’s life.

In 12 countries across the globe, leaving Islam is punishable by death, with blasphemy in Pakistan a capital offence. Whilst here in the UK, we are protected by law, those leaving Islam can often still face isolation and abuse.

Wanting to find out more, we spoke to three ex-Muslims from different national and cultural backgrounds to see how their “transition” had been received by their loved ones and community and to understand the challenges they face (d). Here are their stories.

Khaled*

Khaled was born in the Maghreb, where he grew up and has to-date spent most of his life. He now lives in the UK after spending further time in Europe. This is his experience as a new ex-Muslim, having recently left Islam.

———-

I am a North African Arab-Amazigh man who was brought up in a very conservative family. From a very young age, I had doubts about Islam. I remember my uncle talking to me about a very angry God who would punish me with hellfire if I didn’t believe in him.

After thinking carefully about this picture of God, I believed He was evil – so I wanted to kill him and stop the utter misery I believed He was causing. Those doubts later “calmed down” because I had no option but to conform otherwise I’d have been deemed a kafir [translated in their case as “infidel”].

My inner “wake-up moment” then happened when I moved to Europe and met many non-Muslims – who I realised were just human beings like us. This was contrary to what the clerics told me: that Europeans are kafirs who would all be in hell because they didn’t say shahadah [the Islamic declaration of faith]. Whilst in Europe, I investigated Islam further and later came to the conclusion that I believed Islam to be a man-made religion.

For me, being a Muslim was unfortunately an experience of losing myself to please a hypocritical society. Some Muslims face a lot of challenges in terms of coercion and pressure. Now, having only recently left Islam, I’ve found that the transition has not been easy because I still can’t tell any of my family or friends (except a very few trusted people). I instead have to pretend that I’m Muslim otherwise I’ll be disowned. However, it’s not a fear of rejection that is holding me back from telling them but the fear of losing my family forever. I instead wish that every child in the world could decide what to believe for themselves and that their parents wouldn’t dictate what they should or should not believe in.

Since I left the dogmatism of my community, I now feel much closer to the universe/God/ Goddess – more than I have done so before in fact. I’m also glad to be living in the UK because in my home country, being an ex-Muslim can be incredibly challenging. In order to not offend my parents, I have to pretend to pray [in the traditionally Sunni-Islamic way]. I also still have to go to the mosque to pray, yet I try to get over the distress that not having a choice causes by doing my own personal prayers there – prayers which appeal to my new beliefs.

Here in the UK however, I have the freedom to be who I want to be. This is impossible in such a very conservative society where extremist beliefs are encouraged by the totalitarian regime.

In terms of moving forward, I would therefore like all Muslims to learn to accept ex-Muslims – we’re not evil people. My advice to other ex-Muslims is also to be at peace with Muslims. I hold no negativity for my Muslim brothers or sisters. Before, I had very ignorant thoughts about LGBT+ and Jewish people but now I believe in “live and let live”, so I’ll make sure to make friends from all walks of life without judging anyone as I carve out a new future.

Jimmy Bangash

Jimmy is a gay ex-Muslim human rights activist. He is British-born and of Pashtun heritage. Jimmy is now spokesperson for the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain and contributing author to the book ‘Leaving Faith Behind’. Additionally, he is the resident life coach at Free Heart Free Minds where he provides one-to-one coaching and mental health support to ex-Muslims in Muslim-majority countries.

———-

For many gay men in Muslim communities, coming to terms with their sexuality can be a harrowing experience.  My experience is typical of many others.

Homosexuality is espoused as a major sin in mainstream Islam and much of the community espouse the death sentence for this criminal behaviour.  After such death, a lifetime of eternal torture then awaits gay men, whilst during their mortal life one must fear violence and intimidation at the hands of their nearest and dearest; including direct family.  Frequently, a forced apostasy takes places where the person is told they are “not Muslim” if they are gay.

Those, like myself, who manage to avoid any physical violence are often shunned and disowned.  We are cast out from the community and told that we will only be welcomed back if we subscribe to a heterosexual life. This shunning – which is an act to coerce conformity –can, in the West, afford the individuals space away from Islam (a faith they no longer believe in and therefore do not wish to live by).

When I was disowned by my family, I was able to place Islam under scrutiny in a way that I could not when I was within the Muslim community.  I asked questions such as: “Why would an immortal being choose to torture people for eternity?” and “Why would an omnipotent being [supposedly] place a verse in the Qur’an which sanctions beating your wife in certain conditions?” [Editor’s note: We do not share this view].  These are questions that would be silenced within the community or satiated (with what I considered to be) nothing more than apologist answers.  Far away from community indoctrination and threats, I was able to see that for me the religion was nothing more than a patriarchal mechanism, designed to control people.

Stepping out of the closet as a gay man and into an authentic identity, living a life full of integrity – for being true to myself and my sexuality – caused the wrath of my community to descend on me.  Stepping out of the closet again and declaring that for me Islam was false and that it had many sinister, misogynistic and homophobic teachings was no different.

No one should have to live a single closeted life – let alone two.

Religious adherence is rendered meaningless if the consequence for apostasy is violence, intimidation and death.

Amir Rahman*

Amir is a British-Pakistani male who was born and bred in the UK. He does not identify as ex-Muslim but instead as culturally Muslim. He shares his story of theological change which led him – after being brought up as a Muslim – to no longer believing in God.

———-

I was brought up by two Barelvi-leaning Sunni Muslims parents. As a child, I was taught to read the Qur’an in Arabic by an elderly British-Indian Muslim lady. Whilst I learnt how to read Qur’anic Arabic, I never understood anything I was reading.

Even as a child, I use to question my parent’s decisions. They always said to me when I asked about Islam: “This is what God wants”. Years later, I then found out that my grandfather was upset that I was taught the Qur’an by a woman – and not a man.

I later remember at the age of about ten or 11, learning about Shia Muslims and asking my mum how as Sunnis we were different from Shia Muslims. She explained the Sunni-Shia divide the best a mother could do with a 10-year-old. It is important to note that she didn’t tell me about the Shia commemoration of Ashura and events in Karbala. It was here that I remember thinking, well both sects can’t be right at the same time! I, however, didn’t pay much attention to this and carried on with my life. I wasn’t a particularly religious child – I only ever prayed on Fridays (on days I wasn’t at school). Nobody ever forced me to pray. If I was at home from school on Fridays, my mother would simply tell me to pray.

It was later at the age of 15 when I learnt about the details of Karbala and Ashura and how this differed in teachings of Sunni Islam. For me, Ashura is about our link to Moses [as part of one Abrahamic family]. I was therefore saddened to hear that we Muslims killed the grandson of our Prophet. I remember reading about it and trying to find out every bit of information I could. I became obsessed. It was then at the age of 16 that I came to the conclusion that – to my mind – both sects were wrong and that the real Islam died with Hussain ibn Ali. It was during this time that I also found it difficult to believe in Qur’anic stories such as Jonah and the Whale and Moses splitting the Red Sea.

At the age of 17, I subsequently came to the conclusion that for me all of these stories in Islam were not something I believed in and that religion was not for me. I remember telling my father that I no longer believed in God and that religion was not real for me. He looked at me and told me: “That’s fine, just be a good person”. My mother, on the other hand, was upset but then after a week or so of not talking to me, she told me that she still loved me and would pray for me.

As her son, my mother will love me no matter what religion I choose to follow (or not) and whether or not I believe in a god. This is the crucial reason why I DO NOT identify as an ex-Muslim at all. Today, I still practise Islam four days a year – I celebrate the two festivals of Eid, as well as Ashura and Mawlid [the birthday of Prophet Muhammad].

I was brought up by two loving parents who supported the fact that I don’t believe in God and all my positive qualities come from them – and of course, some of those positive qualities were inspired by Sunni Islam. I, therefore, cannot deny my Muslimness, as to do so would be like denying my parents. I am a Muslim and will always be a Muslim.

Whilst this has been a positive experience for me, I am however also very ashamed of the way apostates are treated in Muslim countries. Muslims need to accept that religion – or their faith – is not for everybody. Right-wing Islamist and ultra-orthodox Sunni and Shia narratives need to be challenged. Islam is an ever-growing construct and the Islam we see today is not the same as 100 years ago. As with all religions, our concept of Islam is always evolving and must continue to do so. We, therefore, need to make sure that the Islam we live takes a progress route as we head into the future – a route to a place where apostasy is no longer a stigmatised (even deadly) taboo.

———-

With faith such a personal and individual matter, it’s abhorrent that leaving Islam remains such a difficult challenge. Often met with discrimination and abuse, what should be a personal individual period of reflection has become for many a transition of trauma.

Experiences outside of the UK undoubtedly often differ and – as this article has highlighted – there are also more positive experiences which can provide guidance for families and communities – as well as critical hope for those who wish to leave Islam yet fear the repercussions.

Nonetheless, significant change is required on many levels. This includes critical socio-cultural reforms worldwide (including here in the UK) and legal changes in countries which discriminate and propagate violence against non-Muslims/ex-Muslims. Finally, this also includes a review of how theology is approached, interpreted and defined in certain circles.

For both our brothers and sisters at risk of violence and abuse within legal systems that fails to protect the human rights of individuals, and those closer to home suffering in silence, the overarching attitudes to “apostasy” rely on the same “othering” narratives, negative attitudes and sense of “stigma” and shame. As a global community, we therefore need to support ex-Muslims (and cultural Muslims) as much as possible – starting by having some difficult conversations and not shying away from the issue(s) at hand.

As Muslims, this will require deep introspection and the will to call out ills such as homophobia and misogyny which continue to plague our community. For non-Muslims, this means helping to support and include those who are often left to carve out a new identity and social circle by themselves or with few allies from a similar background.

Whatever our faith or belief system, we need to most-immediately ensure that for people who identify as culturally Muslim or as ex-Muslims, there are sufficient safe spaces, sources of community and support mechanisms to help them in their transition. At the same time – and for the long-term benefit of everyone – we also need to maximise efforts to ensure we carve a more tolerant, safe and inclusive sense of Islam and community which holds space for ex-Muslims, cultural Muslims, non-Muslims and all people alike.

No one should be questioned or made to suffer for their (change of) beliefs. It’s time to start talking and start tackling this critical issue. And: it’s also time to narrow the divide between Muslims and ex-Muslims.

Thank you to all our interviewees for sharing your stories. We stand with you.

Further information:

A further insight into the experiences of ex-Muslims – including Jimmy’s story – can be found in: Mughal, F. and Saleem, A. (2018) “Leaving Faith Behind: The journeys and perspectives of people who have chosen to leave Islam”, Darton, Longman & Todd Ltd.

Disclaimer:

The views expressed in this blog are personal and do not necessarily reflect those of Faith Matters.

*Names and images have been changed to protect the individuals’ identities

The brutal killing of Imam Jalal Uddin, a 71 year old respected Imam in Rochdale, by Mohammed Hussain Syeedy throws up an element that is part and parcel of Salafist Jihadist ideology.

Such ideology has been seen to drive the destruction of Muslim shrines in Afghanistan, Timbuktu, Egypt, Iraq and Syria. Shrines, taweez (or worn amulets with Qur’anic inscriptions used to ward off evil) and bowls in which water has been prayed upon for protection of the believer, all represent the spiritual side of Islam, mainly associated with Sufi influences and where spirituality and belief in unseen protections through Allah (God), make up the practices.

Much of this practice has sat side by side with belief in the Qur’an and the Hadith and has come from Islamic interpretations and from a desire for the practical from the spiritual. It has continued in some Muslim communities and through the work of people like the late Imam Uddin. From pirs (holy spiritual men), through to Imams, this work with people suffering mental health or emotional problems continued and with people who just wanted to feel additional spiritual protections. Many continue to visit such pirs or holy spiritual leaders today and this practice, will no doubt continue.

What Does This Murder Highlight?

Yet, this case highlights what many of us have known. That Wahabbism and Salafist ideology has been active in framing such practices as shirk, as though they are practices that are not of Islam but of the pre-Islamic era, known as the jahilliyah or the period of ‘ignorance of the divine’. A trajectory of this thought that has become part of the actions of groups like Daesh or the so-called Islamic State has meant that people who are influenced by IS propaganda will also take up such thinking. This means that practices such as taweez or the use of prayer bowls will be seen as heretical. Shrines or places where Muslims congregate to give prayers to long dead holy men, will also be seen in the eyes of those influenced by Wahabbism and Salafism, as being un-Islamic and subject to destruction.

Yet, we have also seen the systematic destruction of Islamic historical sites by the Wahabbi Saudi Government and which have been documented. This is driven by an ideology that believes that such sites may become places of worship and which therefore seeks to obliterate them and use the sites for other projects. Such is the systematic destruction of Islamic history in the hands of those driven by such ideology. Yet, globally, Muslims have not spoken out against the wholesale destruction of such sites.

This case therefore raises for us all, a red flag. The fact that intra-Muslim hatred and extremism has taken this form means that it may be an indicator of extremist rhetoric. This may not be the case in the vast and overwhelming majority of issues and cases and Salafists should not all be seen as potential extremists or terrorists. That would be disastrous and would be anti-Muslim in nature – where a whole section of Muslims are tarred with the same brush. However, where we should all be concerned is where threats and abuse are openly meted out by individuals against other Muslims suggesting that they are un-Islamic because they believe in taweez or other spiritual practices. If such threats continue and are sustained, at the very least, this should be a red flag for civil society, law enforcement and other agencies.

Imam Jalal Uddin’s death should not be in vain and if his murder can save others, then let us learn from it and not just put it down to another case involving extremism. We cannot simply brush it off like that.

During 2015, we saw an increasing number of reports of anti-Muslim graffiti which have been posted on street corners through to bus stops and advertisement hoardings. The language of bigotry may well be changing, but the impacts of it can be significant, given the anger that it generates which can become counter-productive for community relations.

We received this report in today, showing graffiti that has been drawn within a toilet in busy Doncaster station.

To add further insult, the terms, “filthy Muslim pigs” with references to toilet paper as pages of the Holy Qur’an are made.

We have informed relevant officials at Doncaster station to remove this graffiti.

If you come across such graffiti in the future, please do not hesitate to contact us in Tell MAMA. (E-mail: info@tellmamauk.org, twitter: @tellmamauk, or you can report through our web-site: www.tellmamauk.org.) We take a pro-active approach to tackling such issues by getting authorities to remove such bigoted material.

Tell MAMA also runs a helpline service which runs from 9 am to 6 pm on weekdays. The service will be available again on the 3rd of January 2016.

The post Anti-Muslim Graffiti Proliferation is Worrying – this in Doncaster Station appeared first on TELL MAMA.

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.

Jews and Christians are referred to as Ahl al-Kitab (People of the Book), and are characterised in the Qur’an as those to whom divine revelations have been given prior to the advent of Islam. The Qur’anic reference Ahl al-Kitab indicates that they possess divine scriptures in much the same way Muslims do. The term Ahl al-Kitab made 32 appearances in the Qur’an.

Some Muslims, however, and a number of Muslim commentators mainly with a literalistic reading of the Qur’an, argue that Muslims should have nothing to do with the Ahl al-Kitab. The latter, some Muslims argue, should convert to Islam because their religions have been abrogated by Islam.

For these Muslims the matter is quite clear: not only is Islam the last religion revealed by Allah (God) but Christians and Jews have a religious obligation to convert to Islam. Adherents to this school of thought use a number of Quranic verses to support their argument: “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. 3:85); and “This day, I have perfected your religion for you, and completed my favour upon you, and chosen for you Islam as your religion” (Q. 5:3).

My aim is to explore Fazlur Rahman’s and Abul Ala Maududi’s views on the People of the Book. In spite of Maududi’s interpretation of the whole Qur’an, I will focus solely on his views towards Christians.

On the other hand, Fazlur Rahman, who did not produce a full tafsir (exegesis), will be looked at in respect of his approach to Jews and Christians. Both were contemporaries and both from subcontinent. Given the problems faced by Christians in the country today, exploring how certain scholars’ view specific Quranic verses might help us understand their plight. Moreover, the fact that a substantial number of Muslims in the UK came from subcontinent adds greater relevance.

Born in 1903 in the state of Hyderabad in British India, Maulana Sayyid Abul-Ala Maududi (who later founded Jamaat-e-Islami of Pakistan), was described by Masudul Hasan as one of the most influential Muslim thinkers of the twentieth century. Hasan went on to claim that Maududi developed a new Islamic theology that could counter the Western intellectual challenge.[1] This claim holds an element of exaggeration but Maududi’s influence did extended beyond the subcontinent.[2] According to William Shepard, Maududi’s writings had a lasting influence on the Egyptian ideologue Sayyid Qutb (who is described as the father of modern Islamism).

Maududi once stated that: “The purpose and object of ijtihad is not to replace the Divine law by man-made law. Its real object is to understand the Supreme Law”.[3]Maududi resisted and confronted the political leaders of his time, for which he was arrested and imprisoned on several occasions. His tafsir (exegesis) remains popular in the subcontinent and beyond. In Britain it proves popular among Deobandis (a reformist ulama movement that emphasised individual responsibility and ‘sober’ Sufism. Islamist strands of this movement influenced the Taliban). [4]

Fazlur Rahman, for his part, was born in 1919 in the Hazarat district, now part of Pakistan. According to Ebrahim Moosa, Rahman’s father was linked to Deobandi Islam, and graduated from the Dar-al-Ulum of Deoband.[5]

Much of Fazlur Rahaman’s traditional Islamic studies were done under the tutelage of his father, who provided him with “a background in traditional Islamic knowledge”.[6]

Rahman went on to gain his Master’s degree in Arabic Language from University of Punjab in 1942. Seven years later and Rahman received the D. Phil. degree by the University of Oxford for his thesis on “Avicenna’s Psychology”. For eight years Rahman headed the Central Institute of Islamic Research, which was initiated by General Ayub Kahn. But accusations of heresy escalated and forced Rahman to choose “a self-imposed exile” in the United States until his death in 1988.[7]

Maududi on Biblical ‘corruptions’  

Maududi divides the Bible into two parts: the first part he argues, was authored by either Jews or Christians and therefore is not divine. The second part of the Bible consists of portions inspired by God. That section, Maududi argued, is in tune with the message of the Qur’an but ‘suffers’ from the “tampering of translators, scribes and exegetes, and the errors of oral transmitters”.[8]

Christians, Maududi goes on to add, exaggerated in the veneration of Jesus simply interpreted their own beliefs “in the light of philosophical doctrines and superstitions”.[9]According to Maududi: “The real error of the Christians lies in considering Jesus to be the son of God and a partner in His godhead, rather than His servant and Messenger”. Maududi saw this as the main obstacle preventing Christians from accepting Islam.

Removing this ‘misunderstanding’ would help Christians accept Islam, as Maududi wrote: “If this misunderstanding is removed it would become quite easy for them [Christians] to advance towards Islam”.[10]

Aside from these misunderstandings and errors, Maududi argued that Christians also employed logic and philosophy “to fabricate one false doctrine after another”.[11] Fabrications that allowed Christians to ‘invent’ “an altogether new religion”.[12]

One can safely say that Maududi did not consider Christianity to be a valid religion let alone divine. Why? Because he contested that early Christians distorted and fabricated the message of Jesus.

To demonstrate that Jesus is a prophet, Maududi quoted from the Gospel of Matthew: “You shall worship the Lord your God and Him only shall you serve”. Maududi also argued that Jesus was sent to confirm rather than abolish the previous Prophets’ messages and again cited the Bible: “Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them” (Matthew 5:17).

In an amusing irony, in spite of his reliance on Gospel verses, Maududi maintained that Christian scriptures are broadly untrustworthy and an unreliable source for providing adequate information about Jesus. To this he added: “It is unfortunate that the Gospels in their present form do not offer as clear a picture of the mission of Jesus as that presented in the Qur’an”.[13]

Maududi clearly undermines and discredits Christian sources as unreliable; and, considers the Qur’an the only authentic source regarding the life of Jesus Christ.

Quranic verses relating to Christians: Maududi’s exclusivist approach

A traditionalist but also a modern reformist or activist, Maududi considered the Qur’an to be the literal word of God revealed to Muhammad. In his tafsir, Maududi deals extensively with the core issues relating to Christianity, including the Trinity. In dealing with this issue, Maududi provides some references and even quoted from Christian scriptures. Maududi, however, overlooked the Qur’anic verses praising Christians or extolling values that Christians share with Muslims. To a certain extent, Maududi avoided acknowledging the privileges Christians enjoy in the Qur’an.

Take for instance the Quranic verse: “Yet all are not alike: among the People of the Book there are upright people who recite the messages of God in the watches of the night and prostrate themselves in worship.” (Q.5:113) Maududi avoided any comment in relation to this verse.

Did Maududi think that by addressing this verse he would create some sympathy towards Christians and Jews? Or even acknowledge these traditions?

Another example includes his denial of the reward that both Jews and Christians receive in the hereafter – he omitted any comment on the following verse: “They believe in God and in the Last Day and enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong, and hasten to excel each other in doing good. These are among the righteous. Whatever good they do shall not go unappreciated, and God fully knows those who are pious.” (Q.3:116).

Maududi remained silent on the following Quranic verse that speaks about the softness and kindness of Christians towards Muslims: “And you will find the nearest in love to the believers [Muslims] those who say: ‘We are Christians’. That is because amongst them are priests and monks, and they are not proud” (Q. 5:82).

Not wanting to show any positive side of Christianity and Judaism led Maududi to provide a very unsettled interpretation of the Quranic verse (5:5) which allows Muslims to eat their food and marry Jews and Christians.

The Qur’an explicitly states that Muslims can eat the food of Christians and Jews and vice versa. Maududi, however, contends that some conditions must be observed.[14] He stipulates that the name of God must be mentioned, otherwise Muslims “should abstain from eating”.[15] Another condition is that Jews or Christians observe a cleanliness (based on the Shariah) during the slaughter of animals.

You can extrapolate Maududi’s reluctance to acknowledge anything positive about Jews and Christians from his interpretation of the following verse: “Surely, those who believe [Muslims], and those who are Jews and the Sabians and the Christians – whosoever believed in God and the Last Day, and worked righteousness, on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve”. (Q. 2:62). (Q.5:69). Maududi informs his readers that: “The aim of this verse is merely to repudiate the illusion cherished by the Jews that, by virtue of their being Jews, they have a monopoly of salvation”. He failed to mention Christians let alone the Sabians in his analysis.[16]

It could be argued that Maududi felt no need to provide commentaries on the above verses because his main audience are Muslims. But Maududi’s effort to highlight both the Trinity and the birth of Jesus undermines that claim.

On all these matters, Maududi made an in-depth analysis and even quoted extensively from the Bible to cement his claims. But he exercised silence towards the Qur’anic verses that are friendly or praiseworthy towards Christians.

I went through his tafsir and discovered that Maududi overlooked almost all the Qur’anic verses sympathetic to Christians. Fazlur Rahman’s work sought to defuse Maududi’s exclusivist, unsympathetic, and poisonous narration.

Fazlur Rahman: Inclusiveness of the Qur’an

Rahman’s view of the Qur’an is very similar to those held by the Mutazilites (a group of early Islamic theologians who argued for the value of reason in theology and religion).[17] His theory of “double movement” took inspiration from the hermeneutical approach of Italian philosopher Emilio Betti.[18] In the theory of “double movement” Rahman argued that the Qur’an is mediated by its pre-existing historical and cultural circumstances.[19]

Rahman took an ethics-based approach to the Qur’an as he believed that “past Muslim thinkers did not make the Qur’an the primary source for ethics in Islam”.[20] He argued that early Muslim scholars lacked the intellectual means to say that “the Qur’an is entirely the word of God, and in an ordinary sense, also entirely the word of Muhammad”.[21] It was this claim that made him a target for accusations of heresy (in the subcontinent and beyond).[22]

Islam: Shaped by both Judaism and Christianity

Rahman provided an inclusive and positive approach to the People of the Book . In his work The Major Themes of the Qur’an, Rahman concluded with a brief but very coherent analysis of Jews and Christians and their status in the Qur’an. Perhaps with the zeal of wanting to demonstrate the Prophet’s recognition of Judaism and Christianity, he stated that Muhammad “recognised without a moment of hesitation that Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and other Old and New Testament religious personalities had been genuine prophets like himself”.[23]

Throughout the Qur’an one finds verses that praise and acknowledge the divinity of Judaism and Christianity. Islam not only acknowledges the previous revelations but is also shaped by them, as Rahman argued: “Islam partly took shape by adopting certain important ideas from Judaism and Christianity and criticising others. Indeed, Islam’s self-definition is partly the result of its attitude to these two religions and their communities”.[24]

In Fazlur Rahman’s mind, Judaism and Christianity influenced Islam. In spite of this influence, Islam did not grow “out of an Arab background,” a view championed by scholars such as Montgomery Watt and H.A.R Gibb (to name just a few).[25] Rahman, however, rather daringly went on to claim that some Jews and Christians helped Muhammad in his mission.[26]

To evidence this claim he argued: “It is also certain that there were some Jews and possibly Christians who had entertained Messianic expectation and who when the Prophet appeared, supported him, encouraged him in his mission, and believed in his Message”.[27]

But Rahman did not tell his readers whether these Jewish and Christian individuals who accepted Islam did indeed accept the message of Muhammad in full (and renounced their previous faith).

Whether these Jews and Christians felt a need to abandon their faith in order to accept the religion brought by Muhammad (conditional or not) remains a bold claim. Yet it remains remarkable that Rahman provided no sources for this claim.

Fazlur Rahman on the Quranic verses (Q.5:69); (Q.2:62)

“Surely, those who believe [Muslims], and those who are Jews and the Sabians and the Christians- whosoever believed in God and the Last Day, and worked righteousness, on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve” (Q.5:69).

“Verily, those who believe and those who are Jews and Christians, and Sabians, whoever believes in God and the Last Day and does righteous good deeds shall have their reward with their Lord, on them shall be no fear nor shall they grieve” (Q.2:62).

Al-Tabri argued that the above verses were abrogated by a verse that reads: “And whosever 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.3:85).

Al-Tabri based his claim on the authority of Ibn Abbas. To cement this claim, Muslim exegeses often quote a Prophetic tradition that reads: “There is none from amongst the Jews and the Christians who hears about me then dies without believing in the Message with which I have been sent, but he will be from the dwellers of the Fire”.[28]

In response to the above claims, Fazlur Rahman argued that Muslim commentators avoided admitting the true meaning of the above Quranic verses. It remains possible that Rahman directed his comments towards Maududi who, as we mentioned earlier, argued that verses were revealed in response to Judaism but failed to say anything about Christians or Sabians.

Rahman argued that the true meaning of these verses is that anyone who believes in God, the ‘Last Day’ and does good deeds will be saved. He stated: “Those – from any section of humankind – who believes in God and the Last Day and do good deeds are saved”.[29]

Rahman’s line of argument went against the grain of Muslim exegesis. He rejected the argument that these verses speak of salvation only for the Jews and Christians who either accepted Islam or of those who lived before the advent of Islam.

Instead, he argued: “Muslims constitute only the first of the four groups of those who believe”.[30] In other words, Rahman suggested that Muslims in the above verses are ranked in the same status as the Jews, Christians and Sabians. What matters most is a belief in God, the hereafter and doing good deeds, Rahman argued.

Far from claiming or even implying that Judaism and Christianity are abrogated by Islam, Rahman, for his part, argued that these verses partly acknowledge and recognise other communities:

“The logic of this recognition of universal goodness, with belief in one God and the Last Day as its necessary underpinning, demands, of course that the Muslim community be recognized as a community among communities”.[31]

In Rahman’s eyes, the Qur’an places Muslim communities alongside Jewish and Christian communities. These communities should only compete when it comes to performing good deeds. Rahman went on to add the following: “The positive value of different religions and communities, then, is that they may compete with each other in goodness”.[32]

Rahman argued religions to be the source of the disunity amongst people: “Humankind had been unity, but this unity was split up because of advent of divine messages at the hands of the prophets”.[33]

Rahman considered this element to be me mysterious: “The fact that the prophets’ messages act as watersheds and divisive forces is rooted in some divine mystery”.[34] Religious difference, according to Rahman, is part of God’s plan, and a diversity of belief is something God wanted; for if God had willed it, all humankind would exist under a single state and religious banner. To this Rahman went on to quote the Quranic verse that reads: “If your Lord had so willed, He would have made mankind one community” (Qur’an11:118). Therefore, one cannot ignore the inclusiveness of Rahman’s approach to the Qur’an.

The exclusiveness of Maududi, and indeed many other Quranic commentators’, arguably paved the way for many ill-informed Muslims to hold rather hostile views towards Christians and Jews.

The murder of Christians in Pakistan is arguably one consequence of Maududi’s poisonous interpretation of the Qur’an. Unfortunately, however, Christians are not the only religious minority murdered by extremists in Pakistan.

Footnotes:

[1]MasudulHasan,SayyidAbulA‘alaMaududi (Lahore: Islamic Publication LTD, 1984), P. XI.

[2] William Shepard, ‘ The Diversity of Islamic Thought: Towards a Typology’ in : SuhaTaji-Farouki and Basheer M. Nafi , Islamic Thought in the Twentieth Century (London: I.B. Tauris, 2004), p. 75.

[3]Ibid., p. 77.

[4] “Deobandis.” In The Oxford Dictionary of Islam. Ed. John L. Esposito. Oxford Islamic Studies Online. 12-May-2015. <https://www.oxfordislamicstudies.com/article/opr/t125/e522>.

[5]FazlurRahman, Revival and Reform in Islam edited by EbrahimMoosa( Oneworld: Oxford, 2000), p. 1.

[6] Ibid.,

[7]Ibid., p.4.

[8]Sayyid Abdul A‘laMawdudi, Towards Understanding of the Qur’an Vol. 2 (Leicester: the Islamic Foundation, 1992), pp.178-179.

[9]Ibid., p. 181.

[10]Mawdudi, op. cit., p. 248.

[11]Ibid., 181.

[12]Ibid., p. 181.

[13]Maududi, op. cit., p. 255.

[14]Sayyid Abdul A‘laMawdudi, Towards Understanding of the Qur’an Vol. 2 (Leicester: the Islamic Foundation, 1992), pp.137-138.

[15]Ibid., p. 138.

[16]Mawdudi, op. cit., p.179.

[17] Elkaisy-Friemuth, Maha. “Mu`tazilites”. In Oxford Bibliographies in Islamic Studies. 12-May-2015. <https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780195390155/obo-9780195390155-0138.xml>.

[18]Rahaman, ‘Revival’, op. cit., 19.

[19]Rahaman, ‘Revival’, op. cit., p. 10.

[20]Ibid., p. 8.

[21]Ibid., p. 15.

[22] Ibid.,

[23]Rahman, ‘Major’, op. cit., p. 163.

[24]Ibid., p. 162.

[25] W. Montgomery Watt and Richard Bell, Introduction to the Qur’an (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1970).

[26]FazlurRahman, Major Themes of the Qur’an (Minneapolis: Bibliotheca Islamic, Inc, 1980), p. 153.

[27]Ibid., 153.

[28]Muhammad Huhsin Khan, Interpretation of the Meanings of the Noble Qur’an(Riyadh: Darussalam, 1996), p. 31; also see p.137.

[29]Rahman, ‘Major’ op. cit., p. 166.

[30]Ibid.,

[31]Rahaman ‘Major’, op. cit., pp.166-167.

[32]Rahman, ‘Major’, op. cit., p. 167.

[33]Ibid., p. 164.

[34]Ibid.,

The post Scholar’s corner: how do Abul A’la Maududi and Fazlur Rahman position Jews and Christians in the Quran? appeared first on Religious Reader.

It is too often erroneously claimed that Sunni Islam is divided into a legalistic conservative mainstream presided over by jurists, and a mystical, liberal marginalised minority comprised of mystics. However such a perception came to emerge, it is inaccurate. From the beginnings of Islam in the Qur’an and in the person of the Prophet Muhammad himself, through to his companions and the jurists who established the four Sunni schools of Islamic Law, the external application of the law and the internal cultivation of the spirit have always been intertwined.

Consider the ritual prayer, performed by Muslims five times a day, as this most demonstrates the interdependence of the external and the internal. In the Qur’an it is said, “Perform the Prayer to remember Me.” In this it is made clear that the Prayer is not simply a series of movements and supplications performed in accordance with an established formula. Rather, its objective is the remembrance of God. The Prophet Muhammad elaborates that, “When performing the Prayer, one is conversing intimately with one’s Lord.” However, he makes clear that, “A man gets credit only for that part of his Prayer of which he is conscious,” and it is not sufficient to merely perform the outward action. The prayer, as with all acts of worship, ceases to be intimate communion, it ceases to truly be worship, if engaged in heedlessly without devotion. Therefore, both the essence and the purpose of the prayer is the pure and sincere intention with which it is performed. This centrality of intention applies to all action, as the Prophet teaches that, “All actions are according to intention.” The cultivation of sincere and pious intention is a fundamentally spiritual, mystical process, and those who have undergone this process most exemplify the unity of the internal and the external. They are the mystics of Islam, the Sufis.

It is often taken for granted by some that the Sufis, though emerging from Sunni tradition, have gone beyond it. It is assumed that they have discarded those alleged cumbersome codes of conduct and dry dogmas which confine the legalistic Sunni mainstream in favour of a freer, mystical approach which was once Islamic but no longer. Arguably, no Sufi evokes this image more than Mawlana Jalal ad-Din Rumi, the renowned 13^th century mystical poet, who’s deeply profound and intimate poetry speaks to millions such that it is a U.S. bestseller. Yet, it was Rumi who said, “Act and word are witness to the hidden mind; from these twain infer the inward state”- that is, correct word and action are a manifestation and an indication of one’s spiritual condition. If the action is bad, the heart is bad, and vice versa. Rumi was not exceptional in this regard, he was articulating an oft spoken principle voiced by many Sufis that, “with regard to the Law, mere formality is defective, while mere spirituality is vain.” For the Sufis, then, the mystical is not the polar opposite of the law, it is its completion, and the law is the correct means through which the mystical is cultivated and manifest.

Should the arbiters of the law, the Caliphs who ensure its implementation and the jurists who interpret it, not also be mystics? Indeed, the Prophet’s companion and the first and foremost of the Caliphs, Abu Bakr as-Siddiq, is referred to as “the Imam of the Muslims in general, and of the Sufis in particular.” Many Sufis trace their spiritual lineage from teacher to student back to him, as they do also the fourth Caliph, ‘Ali ibn Abi-Talib, the Prophet’s cousin. Rumi lovingly proclaims of him, “A lover, I am, of Murtaza ‘Ali; in rapture, my very being cries out: ‘Ali ‘Ali.” The prominent jurists who came two generations after these companions, who established the four Sunni schools of Islamic Law, were also mystics, or had studied under them. For example, Imam Malik and Imam Abu Hanifa, founders of the Maliki and Hanafi schools of Law respectively, both studied under the renowned jurist and mystic, Imam Ja’far as-Sadiq, who was himself a descendent of the Prophet. Just as the Sufis of later generations exhorted correct adherence to the Law when traversing the spiritual path, the lawmakers themselves had walked upon it, further illustrating the intimate relation between the legal and the mystical, the external and the internal.

In examining the foundations of the Sunni Islamic tradition, the Qur’an, the Prophet Muhammad, his companions and the early jurists, we can see that the contention Islam has one community of dry legalists and another with rich spirituality is wrong. The exemplary individuals who have carried this tradition from its beginnings to contemporary times, from the early scholar-saints such as Imam al-Ghazali and Mawlana Rumi, to more modern names, such as Mawlana Shaykh Nazim of Cyprus and Shaykh Ninowy of America, make this point clear. For myself and many others, rather than there being a contradiction between the law and the spirit, you can’t have one without the other.

Hamza graduated from the University of Manchester with a BA (Hons) in Religion and Theology, and is continuing his studies to MA with the intention of pursuing a PhD. His research focuses particularly on Islam in Britain, and on understanding denominational difference. He writes in a personal capacity.

The post Islam and Sufism: the false dichotomy of mystics and jurists 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.