Straight Talk with Sheikh Shaheed SatardienSome writers are making a concerted effort to affirm what the Muslim world already claims and that is the fact that certain elements of the Western world are waging a tirade against Islam. They, however, make a profound blunder by saying Western civilisation is at war with Islam without defining the ‘West’, which has proven very difficult to do in the last few decades. While raising several germane issues on the relationship of Islam to the non-Islamic world, they nevertheless fall into the trap of equating the behaviour and rationale of a vociferous minority with the behaviour and rationale of a relatively mute majority. This polemic appears to be based more on prejudice than empirical evidence.
However, there is no evidence whatsoever that ‘Western civilisation’ is at war with Islam. President Bush’s ill-conceived ‘war on terror’ is a conflict for oil, and the fact that this oil is owned by Muslims is virtually irrelevant. If it were Latvians who owned the oil and wouldn’t play ball with US domestic and foreign policy, American troops would be in downtown Riga as I write. Indeed, if Western civilisation was really at war with Islam, it would deport all Muslims, and would have supported the Serbian Orthodox Christians in their conflict with the Bosnian Muslims.
It is true that communities that demonstrate radical difference, especially when the difference is seen as threatening, are less likely to live in harmony. But this can be overcome. A much better and more fruitful approach is to question the divisive interpretation that a minority of Muslims put on the Qu’ran. The scripture of many religions is open to manipulation, and much extremist Muslim reaction to world events is based on such manipulation. But if a scripture is taken as a whole, rather than selecting quotes out of context to support a tendentious argument, it can clearly be seen that the thrust of the Holy Qu’ran is to rectify the situation which existed at the time of the Prophet Muhammad’s mission and is still applicable today.
Muslims, no less than any other religious group, wish to proselytise their beliefs amongst the non-Muslim community. But there cannot be any compulsion in such missionary activity. It can only happen by the exercise of free will and study of the Holy Qu’ran. Coercion or duress immediately invalidates that decision and is anti-Islamic in its very essence.
The rise of Islamic fundamentalism is only a problem because the fundamentals of Islam are a problem. If the principles of this religion are Islam (peace and submission to nature), Eeman (faith) and Ihsan (virtue), then where is the problem?
Islam is based on belief in one God and acceptance of Muhammad (pbuh) as the messenger, to pray five times a day, to pay the taxes which are due to the poor annually, to fast daily during the ninth month of Ramadan and to perform pilgrimage once in a lifetime – where is the problem with that? If faith is to believe in God, His angels, His revealed books, all His messengers, the day of judgement and the resurrection, then where is the problem in that? If virtue is to be conscious of God as if you can be see Him and if you cannot, to be aware of Him watching over you, then where is the problem with that?
Political Islam has been greatly helped by the media and portrayed and exported to the West in a very bad way. It has now come of age in a fashion that is not very helpful to co-existence, either.
I realise that it is futile to be apologetic, therefore I am not going to deny the fact that Islam commands Muslims to stand up for justice; and to emancipate and liberate oppressed peoples. Islam is not a pacifist religion and contains the same principle of a just war as Christianity and Judaism do. Hence, Islam has given Muslims the permission to defend themselves against aggression and oppression, but only within very strict guidelines and a humanitarian framework and only as a very, very last resort.
Pre-Islamic Arabia was steeped in oppression, injustice, internecine wars, slavery and debauchery. Therefore the Prophet and his companions were granted permission by God to engage in armed resistance after 15 years of mental anguish, suffering, torture and persecution.
‘To those against whom war is being waged, permission is given to fight because they are being wronged. And verily God has the power to aid and help them. They are those who have been expelled from their homes without justice and for no cause except that they say:’ Our Lord is Allah’. Did Allah not check one set of people by means of another? There would surely have been the destruction of monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques in which the name of Allah is commemorated in abundant measure (if they were not allowed to resist). Allah will certainly help those who aid His cause for verily Allah is exalted in might and able to enforce His will.’ (Q22:39-40)
It is interesting to see that Muhammad not only fought on behalf of Muslims and against the destruction of mosques but also against the destruction of all places of worship. This is why Muslims are supposed to be tolerant of difference and to see all people of faith as their allies against disbelief. Thus the purpose of this verse was not only to protect Islam but also to protect religious freedom in general. But unfortunately and very regrettably so, the vision some non-Muslims and Muslims in the West have presented of Islam is not one of reasonableness, or of a faith that is open to dialogue, that promotes the use of reason, or that promotes inquiry and exploration.
Moreover, by justifying a policy that links Islamism, however lamentable it is, to a strategically important, oil-rich part of the world, the anti-Islam campaign virtually eliminates the possibility of any sort of equal dialogue between Islam and the Arabs, and the West or Israel. To demonise and dehumanise a whole culture on the grounds that it is ‘enraged’ at modernity is to turn Muslims into the objects of punitive attention. I do not want to be misunderstood here: the manipulation of Islam, or for that matter Christianity and Judaism, for retrograde political purposes is catastrophically bad, and must be opposed, not just in Saudi Arabia, the West Bank and Gaza, Pakistan, Sudan, Algeria, and Tunisia, but also in Israel, among the right-wing Christians in Lebanon, and wherever theocratic tendencies appear.
Next week: Sheikh Satardien presents the penultimate instalment of his historical perspective of Islam in Europe
Sheikh Shaheed Satardien is chairman of the Supreme Muslim Council of Ireland, an umbrella group in its developmental stages
sheikhshaheed@gmail.com
It is true that communities that demonstrate radical difference, especially when the difference is seen as threatening, are less likely to live in harmony. But this can be overcome. A much better and more fruitful approach is to question the divisive interpretation that a minority of Muslims put on the Qu’ran. The scripture of many religions is open to manipulation, and much extremist Muslim reaction to world events is based on such manipulation. But if a scripture is taken as a whole, rather than selecting quotes out of context to support a tendentious argument, it can clearly be seen that the thrust of the Holy Qu’ran is to rectify the situation which existed at the time of the Prophet Muhammad’s mission and is still applicable today.
Muslims, no less than any other religious group, wish to proselytise their beliefs amongst the non-Muslim community. But there cannot be any compulsion in such missionary activity. It can only happen by the exercise of free will and study of the Holy Qu’ran. Coercion or duress immediately invalidates that decision and is anti-Islamic in its very essence.
The rise of Islamic fundamentalism is only a problem because the fundamentals of Islam are a problem. If the principles of this religion are Islam (peace and submission to nature), Eeman (faith) and Ihsan (virtue), then where is the problem?
Islam is based on belief in one God and acceptance of Muhammad (pbuh) as the messenger, to pray five times a day, to pay the taxes which are due to the poor annually, to fast daily during the ninth month of Ramadan and to perform pilgrimage once in a lifetime – where is the problem with that? If faith is to believe in God, His angels, His revealed books, all His messengers, the day of judgement and the resurrection, then where is the problem in that? If virtue is to be conscious of God as if you can be see Him and if you cannot, to be aware of Him watching over you, then where is the problem with that?
Political Islam has been greatly helped by the media and portrayed and exported to the West in a very bad way. It has now come of age in a fashion that is not very helpful to co-existence, either.
I realise that it is futile to be apologetic, therefore I am not going to deny the fact that Islam commands Muslims to stand up for justice; and to emancipate and liberate oppressed peoples. Islam is not a pacifist religion and contains the same principle of a just war as Christianity and Judaism do. Hence, Islam has given Muslims the permission to defend themselves against aggression and oppression, but only within very strict guidelines and a humanitarian framework and only as a very, very last resort.
Pre-Islamic Arabia was steeped in oppression, injustice, internecine wars, slavery and debauchery. Therefore the Prophet and his companions were granted permission by God to engage in armed resistance after 15 years of mental anguish, suffering, torture and persecution.
‘To those against whom war is being waged, permission is given to fight because they are being wronged. And verily God has the power to aid and help them. They are those who have been expelled from their homes without justice and for no cause except that they say:’ Our Lord is Allah’. Did Allah not check one set of people by means of another? There would surely have been the destruction of monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques in which the name of Allah is commemorated in abundant measure (if they were not allowed to resist). Allah will certainly help those who aid His cause for verily Allah is exalted in might and able to enforce His will.’ (Q22:39-40)
It is interesting to see that Muhammad not only fought on behalf of Muslims and against the destruction of mosques but also against the destruction of all places of worship. This is why Muslims are supposed to be tolerant of difference and to see all people of faith as their allies against disbelief. Thus the purpose of this verse was not only to protect Islam but also to protect religious freedom in general. But unfortunately and very regrettably so, the vision some non-Muslims and Muslims in the West have presented of Islam is not one of reasonableness, or of a faith that is open to dialogue, that promotes the use of reason, or that promotes inquiry and exploration.
Moreover, by justifying a policy that links Islamism, however lamentable it is, to a strategically important, oil-rich part of the world, the anti-Islam campaign virtually eliminates the possibility of any sort of equal dialogue between Islam and the Arabs, and the West or Israel. To demonise and dehumanise a whole culture on the grounds that it is ‘enraged’ at modernity is to turn Muslims into the objects of punitive attention. I do not want to be misunderstood here: the manipulation of Islam, or for that matter Christianity and Judaism, for retrograde political purposes is catastrophically bad, and must be opposed, not just in Saudi Arabia, the West Bank and Gaza, Pakistan, Sudan, Algeria, and Tunisia, but also in Israel, among the right-wing Christians in Lebanon, and wherever theocratic tendencies appear.
Next week: Sheikh Satardien presents the penultimate instalment of his historical perspective of Islam in Europe
Sheikh Shaheed Satardien is chairman of the Supreme Muslim Council of Ireland, an umbrella group in its developmental stages
sheikhshaheed@gmail.com
