The Great Theft: Wrestling Islam From the Extremists (27 page)

The net effect of the moderates’ Qur’anic analysis is that, contrary to the puritans, they do not believe that God intends or desires that Muslims dominate non-Muslims. Muslims are urged to call people to their faith in kindness, but it must be understood that people will never all follow one faith. Most importantly, it is critical that people come to know one an- other. But it would be entirely futile for people to know one another if the ultimate purpose was not to work together to achieve what is moral and good. From this perspective, mod- erate Muslims reject the vindictive and hateful doctrines that

call for the degradation of non-Muslims living in Muslim lands. Moderates believe that practices such as mandating that non-Muslims wear distinctive insignia or placing restrictions on the building of churches are fundamentally inconsistent with the teachings of the Qur’an and are therefore reprehensi- ble. Depriving non-Muslims of their dignity constitutes a be- trayal of the Divine trust to achieve what is morally good on the earth.

In addition, the overwhelming majority of moderate Mus- lims reject the
dhimma
system as ahistorical, in the sense that it is inappropriate for the age of nation-states and democra- cies. The system of requiring religious and sometimes ethnic minorities to pay poll taxes in return for self-administration, which included applying the minorities’ own customs and laws, was widespread in the medieval age. It was a form of ad- ministration used by Muslims and against Muslims in differ- ent contexts and situations. But the circumstances of modernity mandate its abolition, primarily because if applied in the contemporary age, it would defeat the objectives of jus- tice and dignity. What justified the poll tax system in the me- dieval age was the existence of reciprocity; in the medieval world, even in the context of concluding peace treaties, the weaker party was expected to pay a tribute to the stronger party. On many occasions, for instance, Muslims were forced to pay the Crusader states a poll tax. But in the modern age, the unilateral application of the poll tax system by Muslims would result in humiliation and alienation in ways that would seriously obstruct cooperative ventures aimed at furthering goodness and justice in the world.

The poll tax system could be justified today only if Muslims adopted a supremacist attitude toward non-Muslims. While the puritan attitude toward non-Muslims is indeed supremacist, moderates believe that the supremacist attitude is fundamentally

inconsistent with Islamic theology, particularly the theology of salvation. What contributes to the puritan supremacist attitude is their belief that they alone possess the exclusive truth and that all others are damned. The belief that God is exclusively on the side of one group and that all others are damned could lead to an arrogant conviction that those others are not of equal worth or value. There is no question that in the case of Muslim puri- tanical groups, their ideas about salvation and damnation con- tributed to supremacist thinking that has been used to justify inhumane and even cruel behavior.

The issue of salvation in moderate thought is nuanced, largely in response to the nuanced treatment this issue receives in the Qur’an. The first principle is that God and God alone is the King of the Hereafter, and therefore God’s discretion is un- limited. God’s discretion in deciding when or who is to be for- given is unfettered. Therefore, God speaking to the Prophet Muhammad in the Qur’an says: “You [Prophet Muhammad] have no say in the matter; it is up to God to pardon them or punish them for they have been unjust. To God belongs all that is in the Heavens and earth. God may pardon whom God pleases and punish whom God pleases. And God is most for- giving and merciful.”
13

Beyond establishing the principle of God’s discretion, God makes commitments to human beings regarding the conse- quences of their beliefs and actions. The Qur’an clearly states that Islam is the Divine Truth, and demands belief in Muham- mad as the final messenger in a long line of Abrahamic prophets. For instance, the Qur’an states: “God has made for each nation a way and method that they follow. So they should not contend with you in this matter. Call to your Lord for you are surely on the right path. If they argue with you, tell them: God knows all that we do, and God will judge be- tween you on the Final Day as to what you disagreed upon.”
14

Importantly, however, the Qur’an does not completely ex- clude the possibility that there might be other paths to salva- tion. One component of this issue has to do with who might be entitled to God’s mercy. On this, the Qur’an again insists on God’s unfettered discretion to accept in His mercy whomever He wishes. In fact, the Qur’an expresses indigna- tion at those who attempt to limit or apportion God’s mercy according to their wills or desires. First, the Qur’an asserts that the Prophet was sent but as a mercy to humanity.
15
And second, only God decides who shall receive the Divine mercy either on this earth or in the Hereafter, and it is considered a great act of transgression for human beings to attempt to spec- ulate as to who shall deserve God’s mercy and who will not.
16
Beyond the fact that in principle
anyone
might be entitled to God’s mercy, and that this is simply a topic not appropriate for human speculation, the Qur’an goes on to give what it de- scribes as good tidings to some people who are not necessarily Muslim. It states: “For each nation We have ordained a way and path so that they will mention the name of God for the blessings He has given them. Your God is a single God so sub- mit to God and give good tidings to those who bow down be- fore God.”
17
This verse implies that, as different as the pathways may be, they may still be directed toward God. In- terestingly, the Qur’an acknowledges that those who worship God deserve to receive good tidings and that the core issue, re-

gardless of the path, is submission to God.

Another intriguing aspect of the Qur’anic discourse is that it recognizes that plural religious convictions and laws might be legitimate. The Qur’an states: “Those who believe, those who follow Jewish scriptures, the Christians, the Sabians, and any who believe in God and the Final Day, and do good, all shall have their reward with their Lord and they will not come to fear or grief.”
18
Along the same lines, the Qur’an contains

the following verse: “Among the People of the Book, there are those who believe in God. They believe in what has been re- vealed to you, and also in what has been revealed to them. They bow in humility before God, and they do not trade for paltry gain God’s messages. Verily, those have their reward with God for God is swift in reckoning.”
19
As noted earlier, People of the Book refers mostly to Jews and Christians.

Moderates see in the Qur’anic discourse a subtle but impor- tant point. There is no question that Muslims who believe and do good deeds will attain salvation and receive an ample re- ward in the Hereafter. But, as discussed, the Qur’an is quite adamant about the impermissibility of speculating about who might be the recipient of God’s mercy, and the Qur’an leaves open the possibility that non-Muslims might receive God’s grace as well. Significantly, the Qur’an repeats this point on many occasions and in many circumstances, stressing that in dealing with others, Muslims cannot preclude the possibility that non-Muslims may be entitled to salvation. Moderates be- lieve that this goes to addressing the basic attitude that Mus- lims ought to hold toward others. Muslims are simply not privy to how God will decide to deal with non-Muslims, and there- fore, Muslims ought to deal with others on this earth in terms of their potential for beauty and goodness that God has de- posited into
every
human being. Muslims should not dismis- sively and arrogantly believe that all non-Muslims are damned, lest this affect their behavior toward non-Muslims. God is stressing that no one, not even Muslims, should com- mit the idolatry of behaving as if they are the sanctimonious voice of God. Human beings should always know their place, and this humility might make all the difference between acting decent or not.

The puritan response to the moderate position can be summed up in one word:
abrogation
. Abrogation means that

all the verses that speak about tolerance or cooperation with non-Muslims are null and void. According to the puritans, it was God that decided to invalidate all the Qur’anic passages that admonished Muslims to be forgiving or to seek peaceful coexistence with non-Muslims. According to puritans, God encouraged Muslims to be forgiving and tolerant when Mus- lims were weak and could not afford to pursue a confronta- tional policy with non-Muslims. But once Muslims became strong, God commanded Muslims to seek the destruction of all non-Muslims—or, at a minimum, to be hostile toward them.

For moderates, the puritan position simply does not make sense. In the moderate view, this opportunistic logic is unbe- coming of a God who is just, ethical, and merciful. It defies logic that God at one point would instruct human beings to act in a moral fashion, only to completely reverse Himself at a later point for purely opportunistic reasons. Simply put, this is not the God that moderates worship, and moderates have too much respect for the Qur’an to read it in this unethically op- portunistic fashion.

Unfortunately, however, puritans habitually declare any part of the Qur’an that is inconsistent with their worldview to have been abrogated. In this case, puritans claim that what they call the jihad verses have abrogated and nullified all of the Qur’anic teachings on tolerance and forgiveness. I will dis- cuss the topic of jihad and the so-called jihad verses in the next chapter. The real issue, however, is that whether puritans invoke the doctrine of jihad or some other jurisprudential doc- trine, the fundamental problem is their intolerant and con- frontational worldview, which acts like a prism through which they see God and God’s text. Unfailingly, puritans seek to find whatever doctrine or mechanism that will enable them to pro- ject their worldview onto the Islamic faith. Significantly, it is

exactly because their worldview is not supported by the Qur’an that they have to resort to dubious methods such as declaring that parts of the Qur’an have been abrogated, not by human beings interpreting the text, but by God. This way they can avoid taking responsibility for ignoring parts of the Divine book, and instead attribute the responsibility directly to God.

eleven

JIHAD, WAR FARE, AND TERRORISM

N

o aspect of the Islamic religion is in the public eye and all over the media on a daily basis as much as the issue

of jihad and terrorism. In fact, the subject of jihad in Islam stands at the foundation of most claims about the ability of Islam to coexist or cooperate with non-Muslims. Despite all the writings on the topic, what seems puzzling is how so many Muslims understand the doctrine so differently. There is no question that much of what is written about jihad is ill- informed or worse. But it is also undeniable that especially in the modern age, Muslim statements and conduct have made the concept of jihad confusing and even chaotic. Jihad, espe- cially as portrayed in the Western media and as exploited by terrorists, is often associated with the idea of a holy war that is propagated in the name of God against unbelievers, and is often equated with the most vulgar images of religious intoler- ance. Worst of all, the issue of terrorism has defiled the repu- tation of the world’s second-largest religion.

It won’t come as a surprise that the positions of moderates and puritans on this issue are worlds apart. The problem is that the puritans speak much louder than the moderates. Puritans speak with guns; what weapons do the moderates possess?

It will be much easier to explain the modern debates with the classical heritage in the foreground. I do not agree with

scholars who think that the past determines the future, but on the particular issues of jihad and warfare, the classical tradi- tion has played a strong role.

Jihad is a core principle in Islamic theology; the word itself literally means “to strive, to apply oneself, to struggle, to per- severe.” In many ways, jihad connotes a strong spiritual and material work ethic in Islam. Piety, knowledge, health, beauty, truth, and justice are not possible without jihad—that is, without sustained and diligent hard work. Therefore, cleans- ing oneself from vanity and pettiness, pursuing knowledge, curing the ill, feeding the poor, and standing up for truth and justice, even at great personal risk, are all forms of jihad.

The Qur’an uses the term
jihad
to refer to the act of striving to serve the purposes of God on this earth, which includes all the acts mentioned above. The Prophet Muhammad repeat- edly taught that the greatest form of jihad is to struggle against one’s own base desires or to speak the truth before an oppressive power and to suffer as a consequence of speaking out. By the same logic, striving or working hard in war, pro- vided that the war is just and good, is also jihad. It bears em- phasis that as long as the objective or cause is good, struggling to achieve it is jihad. Similarly, resisting an unjust ruler even if by force could be jihad.

Jihad became a powerful symbol for perseverance, hard work, and success in Islamic history. As a symbol, it was used to rally enthusiasm and excitement for a variety of causes, in- cluding warfare. In warfare, if the fight was between Muslims and non-Muslims, then the ruler would be the one calling for jihad. If, however, the cause was an internal matter, such as a civic protest, a rebellion, the marshaling of support to build a seminary, or the collecting of funds to build a library or a sanc- tuary for street dogs and cats (which used to be a common practice in the classical age), the call for jihad would usually

be issued by the most honored and respected scholar who hap- pened to be championing the particular cause. Would people heed the call for jihad? It depended on the moral authority and persuasive weight that the scholar or ruler carried in the community. Unless a particular ruler had implemented forcible military conscription, there was no choice but to hope that the call for jihad would persuade enough people to join the fight—whatever the cause might be.