Introduction:
Recently in a CNN show what Bill Maher, Sam Harris and Bin Affleck talked about radical Islam triggered critical responses from around the world, both on social media as well the mainstream print and electronic media. Reza Aslan’s article appeared in New York Times with a strong response: “Bill Maher isn’t the only one who misunderstands religion” and “making a blanket judgment about the world’s second largest religion—is simply bigotry”, he wrote. This, however, invited an open letter from Ali A. Rizvi, a Pakistani-Canadian writer, physician, and musician, who is currently writing a book, ‘The Atheist Muslim’. Rizvi’s letter floats a plethora of questions and observations. Having gleaned through his letter, the key questions that I have re-casted are thus: does Islam harbor a penchant for violence? Is Quran infallible? Can Muslims shed their Islamic identity in lieu of a Muslim identity on the analogy of secular Jews and secular Christians? With their dwindling credibility, are the moderates caving in to the terrorists who are hijacking Islam? Will Muslims undertake reform of Islam of the type witnessed by Christianity and Judaism in Europe? The questions and remarks of Ali A Rizvi betray lack of in-depth knowledge of the Quran coupled with a liberal worldview tinged by Western influences, thoughts and experiences. Although Rizvi has agitated far too many questions each of which demands a comprehensive response but, having regard to brevity and convenience, the focus of my endeavor shall be the main thrust of his points.
(a). The question of hermeneutics of scriptural commandments
Rizvi has quoted certain Quranic verses as evidence of Islam’s inherent lethality and penchant for violence, providing impetus and justification for Muslim terrorists. The moderates’ plea for a metaphorical interpretation of these verses is also not plausible enough, he argues. Like the Old and New Testaments, the Quran squarely vindicates and sanctifies violent and brutal acts.
The extrapolations drawn by Rizvi clearly underpin simplistic understanding, if not misunderstanding, of the Quranic verses. Needless to pinpoint that Quranic hermeneutics is not just about deciphering the literal or metaphorical connotations of its text. It would be misleading to take the Quranic text, or for that matter any scriptures or secular creations, always either in literal or in metaphorical sense: the text, the context (both historically and spatially), the syntax, the linguistic nuances of the time and society, the rules of grammar, the cultural milieu of the time, in fact, the entire gamut of philological dimensions are relevant in the process of interpretation of historical chronicles. Generalizing some of the Quranic injunctions that may primarily be time and context specific is essentially a reductionist approach that hardly fits genuine scholarly pursuits. Let us take up a few examples how the meaning of Quranic text has been misconstrued by taking the text without regard to the other essentials of linguistics.
To quote the writer, “…what about verses in the Quran like 4:89, saying to "seize and kill" disbelievers? Or 8:12-13, saying God sent angels to "smite the necks and fingertips" of disbelievers, foreboding a "grievous penalty" for whoever opposes Allah and his Messenger? Or 5:33, which says those who "spread corruption" (a vague phrase widely believed to include blasphemy and apostasy) should be "killed or crucified"? Or 47:4, which also prescribes beheading for disbelievers encountered in jihad? The Muslim responds by defending these verses as Allah's word—he insists that they have been quoted "out of context," have been misinterpreted, are meant as metaphor, or that they may even have been mistranslated”; When ISIS claims divine sanction for its actions by citing verse 33 from Surah Al-Maaidah or verse 4 from Surah Muhammad, we can look it up for ourselves and connect the dots”; “When people see moderates insisting that Islam is peaceful while also defending these verses and claiming they're misunderstood, it appears inconsistent. When they read these passages and see fundamentalists carrying out exactly what they say, it appears consistent”; “If any kind of literature is to be interpreted "metaphorically," it has to at least represent the original idea. Metaphors are meant to illustrate and clarify ideas, not twist and obscure them. When the literal words speak of blatant violence but are claimed to really mean peace and unity, we're not in interpretation/metaphor zone anymore; we're heading into distortion/misrepresentation territory. If this disconnect was limited to one or two verses, I would consider your argument. If your interpretation were accepted by all of the world's Muslims, I would consider your argument. Unfortunately, neither of these is the case.”
It is worthwhile to first understand the precise meaning and scope of the five verses cited viz. 4:89, 5:33, 8:12-13, and 47:4. Of these 4:89 is specifically about those hypocrites of Makkah who not only willfully refused to migrate to Madina in pursuance of the Prophet’s migration but also indulged in conspiracies and clandestine anti-Muslim activities at a time when the nascent Muslim community, after having suffered the worst persecution in Makkah, was now under relentless threat from its enemies, both hidden and known (Maudoodi, Vol:I, 2009, p.381; Islahi, Vol-II, 2009, pp.359-360; Ghamidi, Al-Bayan, Vol-I, 2010, p.531; Shafi, Vol-II, 2011, pp.509-511). No state, whether in antiquity or in modern world, would spare elements conspiring with the enemy in times of imminent war. It is not uncommon to find states today assigning spy agencies to eliminating such anti state actors. Verse 4:89 is perfectly in harmony with the world practice even in modern times. But it is in no way a blanket license to kill any innocent Muslim or non Muslim wherever found.
Same is the case with verse 5:33. Here the commandment is directed against those who stage revolt, tyranny, oppression, terrorism, large scale loot and plunder or other such heinous crimes within an Islamic state whether committed by Muslims or non Muslims (Islahi, Vol-1, pp-505-508). However, the verse clearly prescribes that the recalcitrant elements shall not be subjected to such treatment if they repent and mend their ways before coercive action of the state. Importantly, the verse is not specific to the adherents of any particular religion but to the subjects of an Islamic state at large. Most importantly, however, the verse does not render it mandatory to inflict the harshest punishment first up: the state can, in keeping with the nature of the offense and the circumstances, award any of the penalties prescribed in the verse, viz. killing by the sword (including firing in modern times), or by hanging, or sending the offenders into exile, whatever is deemed appropriate. Maudoodi offers a similar interpretation of the verse (2009: Vol.1, pp. 465). According to Ghamidi (2010: Vol-1,p.627), the words یسعون and ÛŒØاربون clearly indicate that when such heinous crimes are committed by groups, then the group shall be collectively liable to punitive action. Similar provisions of awarding exemplary punishments are found today in the statues of many countries of the world. Needless to underscore that the punishments envisaged in the Quranic verses are the exclusive prerogative of the state: such punishments cannot, repeat cannot, be awarded by non state actors, whether groups or individuals. This verse also provides no justification for mass murders or indiscriminate killings of Muslims or non Muslims of the kind exhibited by terrorist outfits these days.
Next we examine verse 8:12-13. As Islahi (2009: Vol.III, p.449), Maudoodi (2009: Vol.2,pp.134-135) and Shafi(2011: Vol.4, pp.195-197) concur, these verses relate to a historical context: the battle of Badr, fought by the Prophet along with his companions against their arch enemies, the Quresh of Makkah. This was the time when after years of persecution in Makkah at the hands of the infidels, the believers now had a chance to teach their avowed enemy a lesson in the battlefield to which the latter has come all the way from Makkah. The commandments specifically relate to the incident of Badar but the general lesson deducible is how to deal with incorrigible enemy in a military combat. Combatants do not usually distribute sweets in military encounters: wars invariably involve killings. This is a universally known fact. The context of the Surah (Anfaal) in which these verses appear, however, leave no doubt that the verses are not meant to be taken for a general permission to kill anyone, anytime, anywhere in the name of Islam. Now keep even the most enlightened laws and international conventions and protocols regarding the conduct of warfare among nations, and reflect whether there is an anything different done in modern wars than what these verses suggest.
Lastly, consider verse 47:4. Its specific addressees were the then believers at a time when permission to respond in kind to the enemy military action was finally granted to the Muslim state. It commanded the believers to stay firm in the battlefield and give crushing blow to enemies to weaken their might (Islahi, 2009: Vol.7, pp.397-399; Maudoodi, 2010:Vol.5, pp.11-17). At the point in history when such verses were revealed, killing of the enemy soldiers in the battlefield was mostly with the sword. Today the words are replaced by guns, bombs, missiles and other means and methods. But irrespective of the means, wars invariably involve human killing. The fuss about Quranic verses that deal with the killing of the enemy combatants in war hardly makes any sense when the armies of even the most civilized nations of our time do exactly the same thing in battlefield: killing, sometimes in breach of the international conventions regarding the conduct of war.
The exegetical exposition of the aforesaid Quranic verses advanced by the most conservative exegetes such as Shafi and moderates like Islahi, Maudoodi and Ghamidi, leave no room for extrapolations that Quran promotes violence per se. The Quranic verses govern the conduct of Muslim armies against enemy forces at the war theater. Only by twisting their meaning and import may someone manipulate them for morally indefensible actions outside a combat situation. And such deviant actions are not peculiar to Muslim combatants alone, to be attributed to Quranic injunctions: evidence leaked from modern wars vindicate that soldiers hailing from the modern ‘civilized’ states often violate laws and norms of wars. Abu Ghuraib, the Blackwater Baghdad Shootings, the Al-Askari Mosque bombing, the Darfur Conflict, the Massacre of Hutus, the Holocaust, the 2008-09 Ghaza war, Shabarghan Jail tragedy, the ethnic cleansing of Bosnians by Serbs, are just a few of the countless examples even in recent history.
(b). Quran’s infallibility
In the history of mankind, few books may have been transmitted to succeeding generations with such meticulous care and precision as the Holy Quran. From the time of its revelation to compilation and subsequent exegetical exposition, the Holy Quran enjoys unparalleled authenticity with regard to its contents. Unlike the case of other religious scriptures, not a single Quranic verse has been proved wrong or scientifically implausible despite phenomenal advancement in human knowledge. Why should Quran be considered fallible then? Once you accept Quran to be fallible, the entire edifice of Islamic belief system collapses. Nobody wants to cling to a belief system that claims be divinely revealed and yet fallible. Credibility is the strength of Islamic belief. Yes, interpretation that is a human endeavor is not immune from fallibility and no exegete or act of exegesis can ever be infallible.
With this preliminary clarification, reflect on the following key observations of the author and see how incorrect they are. “Many of you insist on alternative interpretations, some kind of metaphorical reading—anything to avoid reading the holy book the way it's actually written. What message do you think this sends? To those on the outside, it implies there is something lacking in what you claim is God's perfect word. In a way, you're telling the listener to value your explanations of these words over the sacred words themselves. Obviously, this doesn't make a great case for divine authorship. Combined with the claims that the book is widely misunderstood, it makes the writer appear either inarticulate or incompetent”; “I came to believe that the first step to any kind of substantive reformation is to seriously reconsider the concept of scriptural inerrancy”; “What are non-Muslims supposed to think when even moderate Muslims like yourselves defend the very same words and book that these fundamentalists effortlessly quote as justification for killing them—as perfect and infallible?”
No text, divine or humanly authored, is ever interpreted the same way by everyone. Modern statues and constitutional provisions are drafted by experts quite meticulously, and yet they lend themselves to such divergent interpretations that one judge sentences while another acquits an accused under the same provisions of law in the light of the same facts and circumstances. The fact that Quranic verses offer rich exegetical possibilities is one reason why Quran has been able to cater to the changing needs of time and space. This has enabled the Quran to be relevant to human situations in varied contexts. Rizvi has failed to make a compelling case against Quranic infallibility.
(c). Muslim rather than Islamic identity
The kind of religious identity propounded by Rizvi is anathema to Islam. The scope of Islamic belief system does not stop merely at token identity of individuals: it circumscribes a vast of domain of individual and collective life of the believers. Muslim identity divorced from Islamic ideology is simply inconceivable. It is like a body without life. After the secularization of state and society in the West, Christianity and Judaism may have ceased to be moving forces for those using either of the two religions but Islam continues to shape the lives of more than a billion people around the world and is growing fast. Followers of other religions, atheists and agnostics embrace Islam with every passing day. It is amazing that conversion to Islam is ever rising, despite so much polemics and aberration within the body politic of Islam. In the backdrop of these facts, Rizvi’s observations, such as the following, lack appeal.
“The book of the Jews is not much different from my book. How, then, are the majority of them secular? How is it that most don't take too seriously the words of the Torah/Old Testament—originally believed to be the actual word of God revealed to Moses much like the Quran to Muhammad—yet still retain strong Jewish identities? Can this happen with Islam and Muslims?”; “Most Jews are secular, and many even identify as atheists or agnostics while retaining the Jewish label. The dissidents and the heretics in these communities may get some flak here and there, but they aren't getting killed for dissenting”; “And it must start by dissociating Islamic identity from Muslim identity—by coming together on a sense of community, not ideology.”
(d). Reformists, not Moderates
To quote Rizvi, “Islam needs reformers, not moderates. And words like "reform" just don't go very well with words like "infallibility."….The purpose of reform is to change things, fix the system, and move it in a new direction. And to fix something, you have to acknowledge that it's broken.”
To begin with, Islam does not need the kind reform Rizvi advocates. If at all, Islam needs revival. But Muslim thought and conduct certainly needs reform. Such a reform does not necessarily mean there is problem with the Quranic text: it means there is something wrong with the way it has been interpreted and or practiced by the followers of Islam. There have been such reformists throughout Islamic history, including Ghazali, Ibne Taimiya, Shah Waliullah, Maudoodi and Ghamidi. Muslim thought was never the same after the reform initiatives of these outstanding men of learning. Maudoodi, for instance, projected Islamism in the wake of European imperialism that had subjugated Muslim peoples in Asia and Africa. The worldview and ideals that his works instilled into Muslim imagination went a long way in Muslim reawakening and revival. Ghamidi, of late, has come forward with a post Islamist discourse which has given a new sense of purpose and direction to so many Muslims around the globe, particularly the Muslim intelligentsia. The Muslim mindset of today is way more advanced than, say, before thinkers like Maudoodi and Ghamidi. But obviously there is difference between reformation and transformation. Islam does not shy away from the former but is inimical to the latter for one simple reason, among others: when you reform, you retain the original despite refinements and reinterpretation but when you transform, the original is replaced by something else. Islam is indeed the last of revealed religions: no human being is capable enough to replace it with something else, old or new.
(e). Sweeping generalizations & assumptions
Rizvi provides no empirical evidence to substantiate the generalizations drawn such as “majority of the victims of Islamic terrorists are moderates like yourselves’; the ‘increasingly waning credibility’ of moderates; ‘You're feeling more misunderstood than ever, as Islamic fundamentalists hijack the image of Muslims, ostentatiously presenting themselves as the "voice of Islam." And worse, everyone seems to be buying it’; “word "moderate" has lost its credibility”; “moderate Muslims like you also play a significant role in perpetuating this narrative—even if you don't intend to”; “You condemn all kinds of terrible things being done in the name of your religion, but when the same things appear as verses in your book, you use all your faculties to defend them”; “The sectarian violence …has killed more Muslims than any foreign army”; “Now, there are also other things widely thought to be in the Quran that aren't actually in there. A prominent example is the hijab or burqa—neither is mentioned in the Quran.”
For various reasons, each of these statements is flawed. For instance, the word Hijab, both in relation to women’s veil and in general sense, appears in the Quran at several places (7:46, 33:53, 38:32, 41:05, 42:51,17:45 & 46, 19:17 and 83:15), yet Rizvi denies that it does. This exposes his shallow knowledge about the book that he has subjected to critical views. Again, his claim that sectarian violence has caused more deaths than any foreign aggression is wanting in any research study or empirical evidence. This is certainly not the mark of an astute and conscientious critic.
Concluding thoughts
Notwithstanding their common Abrahamic roots, Islam is not similar to Christianity and Judaism. They differ not only in their principal precepts and detailed injunctions but also in their historical track record. The overbearing role that Christianity, under Papacy, played in European context, particularly during the Middle Ages right up to the Treaty of Westphalia, is diametrically opposed to the way Islam and Muslim clergy influenced Muslim state society down the ages. Unlike Papacy in European history, Islamic polities never had organized hierarchy of Mullahs or power struggle between the Muslim rulers and the clergy. In marked contrast to Christian Europe that was suffering backwardness and stagnation under ascendency of the Papal authority, concurrently Islam galvanized Muslims into a robust intellectual and cultural creativity. Voices of dissent from the orthodox religious scholars were largely not pervasive enough to block the progress of Muslim civilization. Resultantly, unlike Christianity, Islam mostly escaped the wrath of secular mindset, and never got relegated to insignificance in terms of shaping its adherents’ lives, barring a few decades of the Kamalist Turkey after the fall of Ottoman Caliphate.
It is worthwhile to explore why a plethora of outfits like TTP, Boko Haram, ISIS and others cropped up in the recent past, particularly since the disintegration of the Soviet Union. Their mushroom growth, unprecedented ferocity of tactics and scale of operations indeed pose serious threats to world peace. Militant organizations and movements, irrespective of religious roots and character, were there in the world before as well (PLO, PKK, Khmer Rouge, Black September Movement, the IRA, LTTE, ETA, FARC) but only sporadically and never of this magnitude, frequency and potency. If Muslim terrorist organizations are inspired by the Quranic verses, what accounts for the atrociously hegemonic demeanor of states like USA, Israel and India? Is it fair to single out Quranic teachings as the triggering force of Islamic militancy and remain oblivious to a host of geo-political factors leading to injustice and oppression against the weaker peoples? It is indeed myopic to focus on the reaction and ignore the action that causes the reaction. To expect meek submission rather than an adversarial reaction from the aggressed, even if asymmetrical, against acts of aggressions and oppressive world order is not only unrealistic but also self deceptive.
I don’t want to sound political but we cannot dismiss objectively verifiable evidence vindicating acts of barbarism perpetrated by those groomed in the secular humanist world. Holocaust cannot be just brushed aside a relic of the past, mass extermination of the Bosnians by the Milosevic ruffians is not a fantasy creation, shooting down of the Malaysian passenger plane MH17 with 298 innocent civilians on board is not the work of an Islamic militant inspired by Quranic verses, gruesome torturing and humiliation of prisoners in Abu Ghuraib by the enlightened, liberal and secular soldiers of American had nothing to do scriptural mandate, the indiscriminate brutalities committed in Shabarghan Jail in Afghanistan under the very nose of ISAF cannot be attributed to any Quranic verses. But the secular humanist will conveniently call these individual acts that constitute exceptions, not the rule. Unquestionably, taking Baslan school children hostages by the Chechen separatists, the killing of journalists by the ISIS, kidnapping of schoolgirls by Boko Haram, the slaughter of Shia community in Baluchistan or bombings of tourists in Bali are all acts of terrorism, which the liberal and the mainstream moderate Islamists alike condemn. But then instead of counting these incidents as acts of a small fraction of Muslim community, they are generalized by the secular camp to either label terrorists as similitude of all Muslims or as manifestation of Quranic sanction for the acts of terror. The point that I want to bring home is this: terrorism does not exclusively emanate from religious scriptures; it can be spurred by any motivating factor, be that belief system such as religion, ideology such as nationalism and racism, or human impulses such as revenge and sadism, or phenomena such as injustice and oppression.
Disregarding the question of who created ISIS and why, questions that are often dismissed as infatuation with conspiracy theories, let us reflect on the ongoing militant resistance movements on their face value. It is no mere coincidence that the emergence of TTP, Al Qaida, ISIS and many others has links, directly or indirectly, to the US military adventures in Muslim lands. The moderates are the victims of actions of Muslims extremists on the one hand and the policies pursued by the liberal camp on the other. Both the militants and forces of the liberal world that they confront have their own reasons for why they are fighting but the moderates distance themselves from the belligerents, opting instead to be on the side of the just. The terrorist may be dishonestly exploiting sacred text to rally simple souls around their cause while the secular forces use liberal ideals to vouchsafe, not always so honestly, the real agenda. Human rights, freedom, justice and equality are the catchwords that the secular combatant fights for; Jihad against infidels, restoring Islam’s glory, defeat of the enemies of Islam and Reconquista of lost Muslim lands are gimmicks on the part of the Muslim terrorist. The moderates are sandwiched in between. They have raised their voices, at times paying the ultimate price, against the Muslim terrorists in a bid to divest them of their claim to Jihad based on Quranic verses. Simultaneously they have pinpointed faultlines in the actions and policies of secular Western powers, yet with arguably little success. Unless the two sides, the secular and the religious camps, find a way out strike come to a peaceful settlement, things may spin out of control, no matter how the moderates wish otherwise. The moderates can plead, facilitate, and argue but cannot coerce any party from its entrenched position. Solution to the lingering menace of militancy, terrorism and insecurity in the world today must come, not from the moderates alone but, from a joint effort of all the parties and actors in the conflicts.
References
1. Maudoodi, S.A.(2009). Tafheem ul Quran: Vol-1. Lahore: Tarjuman-ul-Quran.
2. Islahi, A.A. (2009).Tadabbur-e-Quran: Vol-II. Lahore: Faran Foundation.
3. Ghamidi, J.A.(2010). Al-Bayan: Vol-I. Lahore: Al Mawrid.
4. Shafi, M.(2011). Ma’arif-ul-Quran: Vol-II. Karachi: Maktaba Ma’ariful Quran.
5. Islahi, A.A.(2009). Vol-1., op.cit.
6. Islahi, (2009): Vol.VII., Ibid.
7. Maudoodi, A.A.(2010):Vol.V., pp.11-17
8. Islahi, A.A. (2009). Vol.III,
9. Maudoodi, A.A. (2009) Vol.II. op.cit.
10. Shafi. M.(2011). Vol.IV. op.cit.
Posts
