Article - The Myth of Moderate Islam
-
(Source: The Spectator Website)
The myth of moderate Islam
Patrick Sookhdeo.
Dr Patrick Sookhdeo is Director of the Institute for the Study of Islam and Christianity.
The funeral of British suicide bomber Shehzad Tanweer was held in absentia in his family’s ancestral village, near Lahore, Pakistan. Thousands of people attended, as they did again the following day when a qul ceremony was held for Tanweer. During qul, the Koran is recited to speed the deceased’s journey to paradise, though in Tanweer’s case this was hardly necessary. Being a shahid (martyr), he is deemed to have gone straight to paradise. The 22-year-old from Leeds, whose bomb at Aldgate station killed seven people, was hailed by the crowd as ‘a hero of Islam’.
Some in Britain cannot conceive that a suicide bomber could be a hero of Islam. Since 7/7 many have made statements to attempt to explain what seems to them a contradiction in terms. Since the violence cannot be denied, their only course is to argue that the connection with Islam is invalid. The deputy assistant commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, Brian Paddick, said that ‘Islam and terrorists are two words that do not go together.’ His boss, the Commissioner Sir Ian Blair, asserted that there is nothing wrong with being a fundamentalist Muslim.
But surely we should give enough respect to those who voluntarily lay down their lives to accept what they themselves say about their motives. If they say they do it in the name of Islam, we must believe them. Is it not the height of illiberalism and arrogance to deny them the right to define themselves?
On 8 July the London-based Muslim Weekly unblushingly published a lengthy opinion article by Abid Ullah Jan entitled ‘Islam, Faith and Power’. The gist of the article is that Muslims should strive to gain political and military power over non-Muslims, that warfare is obligatory for all Muslims, and that the Islamic state, Islam and Sharia (Islamic law) should be established throughout the world. All is supported with quotations from the Koran. It concludes with a veiled threat to Britain. The bombings the previous day were a perfect illustration of what Jan was advocating, and the editor evidently felt no need to withdraw the article or to apologise for it. His newspaper is widely read and distributed across the UK.
By far the majority of Muslims today live their lives without recourse to violence, for the Koran is like a pick-and-mix selection. If you want peace, you can find peaceable verses. If you want war, you can find bellicose verses. You can find verses which permit only defensive jihad, or you can find verses to justify offensive jihad”. You can even find texts which specifically command terrorism, the classic one being Q8:59-60, which urges Muslims to prepare themselves to fight non-Muslims, 'Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies' (A. Yusuf Ali's translation). Pakistani Brigadier S.K. Malik's book The Quranic Concept of War is widely used by the military of various Muslim countries. Malik explains Koranic teaching on strategy: 'In war our main objective is the opponent's heart or soul, our main weapon of offence against this objective is the strength of our own souls, and to launch such an attack, we have to keep terror away from our own hearts.... Terror struck into the hearts of the enemies is not only a means, it is the end itself. Once a condition of terror into the opponent's heart is obtained, hardly anything is left to be achieved. It is the point where the means and the end meet and merge. Terror is not a means of imposing decision on the enemy; it is the decision we wish to impose on him.'
If you permit yourself a little judicious cutting, the range of choice in Koranic teaching is even wider. A verse one often hears quoted as part of the 'Islam is peace' litany allegedly runs along the lines: 'If you kill one soul it is as if you have killed all mankind.' But the full and unexpurgated version of Q5:32 states: 'If anyone slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people.' The very next verse lists a selection of savage punishments for those who fight the Muslims and create 'mischief' (or in some English translations 'corruption') in the land, punishments which include execution, crucifixion or amputation. What kind of 'mischief in the land' could merit such a reaction? Could it be interpreted as secularism, democracy and other non-Islamic values in a land? Could the 'murder' be the killing of Muslims in Iraq? Just as importantly, do the Muslims who keep quoting this verse realise what a deception they are imposing on their listeners?
It is probably true that in every faith ordinary people will pick the parts they like best and practise those, while the scholars will work out an official version. In Islam the scholars had a particularly challenging task, given the mass of contradictory texts within the Koran. To meet this challenge they developed the rule of abrogation, which states that wherever contradictions are found, the later-dated text abrogates the earlier one. To elucidate further the original intention of Mohammed, they referred to traditions (hadith) recording what he himself had said and done. Sadly for the rest of the world, both these methods led Islam away from peace and towards war. For the peaceable verses of the Koran are almost all earlier, dating from Mohammed's time in Mecca, while those which advocate war and violence are almost all later, dating from after his flight to Medina. Though jihad has a variety of meanings, including a spiritual struggle against sin, Mohammed's own example shows clearly that he frequently interpreted jihad as literal warfare and himself ordered massacre, assassination and torture. From these sources the Islamic scholars developed a detailed theology dividing the world into two parts, Dar al-Harb and Dar al-Islam, with Muslims required to change Dar al-Harb into Dar al-Islam either through warfare or da'wa (mission). -
cont'd
So the mantra 'Islam is peace' is almost 1,400 years out of date. It was only for about 13 years that Islam was peace and nothing but peace. From 622 onwards it became increasingly aggressive, albeit with periods of peaceful co-existence, particularly in the colonial period, when the theology of war was not dominant. For today's radical Muslims - just as for the mediaeval jurists who developed classical Islam - it would be truer to say 'Islam is war'. One of the most radical Islamic groups in Britain, al-Ghurabaa, stated in the wake of the two London bombings, 'Any Muslim that denies that terror is a part of Islam is kafir.' A kafir is an unbeliever (i.e., a non-Muslim), a term of gross insult.
In the words of Mundir Badr Haloum, a liberal Muslim who lectures at a Syrian university, 'Ignominious terrorism exists, and one cannot but acknowledge its being Islamic.' While many individual Muslims choose to live their personal lives only by the (now abrogated) peaceable verses of the Koran, it is vain to deny the pro-war and pro-terrorism doctrines within their religion.
Could it be that the young men who committed suicide were neither on the fringes of Muslim society in Britain, nor following an eccentric and extremist interpretation of their faith, but rather that they came from the very core of the Muslim community and were motivated by a mainstream interpretation of Islam?
Muslims who migrated to the UK came initially for economic reasons, seeking employment. But over the last 50 years their communities have evolved away from assimilation with the British majority towards the creation of separate and distinct entities, mimicking the communalism of the British Raj. As a Pakistani friend of mine who lives in London said recently, 'The British gave us all we ever asked for; why should we complain?' British Muslims now have Sharia in areas of finance and mortgages; halal food in schools, hospitals and prisons; faith schools funded by the state; prayer rooms in every police station in London; and much more. This process has been assisted by the British government through its philosophy of multiculturalism, which has allowed some Muslims to consolidate and create a parallel society in the UK.
The Muslim community now inhabits principally the urban centres of England as well as some parts of Scotland and Wales. It forms a spine running down the centre of England from Bradford to London, with ribs extending east and west. It is said that within 10 to 15 years most British cities in these areas will have Muslim-majority populations, and will be under local Islamic political control, with the Muslim community living under Sharia.
What happens after this stage depends on which of the two main religious traditions among Pakistani-background British Muslims gains the ascendancy. The Barelwi majority believe in a slow evolution, gradually consolidating their Muslim societies, and finally achieving an Islamic state. The Deobandi minority argue for a quicker process using politics and violence to achieve the same result. Ultimately, both believe in the goal of an Islamic state in Britain where Muslims will govern their own affairs and, as the finishing touch, everyone else's affairs as well. Islamism is now the dominant voice in contemporary Islam, and has become the seedbed of the radical movements. It is this that Sir Ian Blair has not grasped. For some time now the British government has been quoting a figure of 1.6 million for the Muslim population. Muslims themselves claim around 3 million, and this is likely to be far nearer to the truth. The growth of the Muslim community comes from their high birth-rate, primary immigration, and asylum-seekers both official and unofficial. There are also conversions to Islam. -
cont'd
The violence which is endemic in Muslim societies such as Pakistan is increasingly present in Britain's Muslim community. Already we have violence by Pakistani Muslims against Kurdish Muslims, by Muslims against non-Muslims living among them (Caribbean people in the West Midlands, for example), a rapid growth in honour killings, and now suicide bombings. It is worth noting that many conflicts around the world are not internal to the Muslim community but external, as Muslims seek to gain territorial control, for example, in south Thailand, the southern Philippines, Kashmir, Chechnya and Palestine. Is it possible that a conflict of this nature could occur in Britain?
Muslims must stop this self-deception. They must with honesty recognise the violence that has existed in their history in the same way that Christians have had to do, for Christianity has a very dark past. Some Muslims have, with great courage, begun to do this.
Secondly, they must look at the reinterpretation of their texts, the Koran, hadith and Sharia, and the reformation of their faith. Mundir Badr Haloum has described this as 'exorcising' the terrorism from Islam. Mahmud Muhammad Taha argued for a distinction to be drawn between the Meccan and the Medinan sections of the Koran. He advocated a return to peaceable Meccan Islam, which he argued is applicable to today, whereas the bellicose Medinan teachings should be consigned to history. For taking this position he was tried for apostasy, found guilty and executed by the Sudanese government in 1985. Another modernist reformer was the Pakistani Fazlur Rahman, who advocated the 'double movement'; i.e., understanding Koranic verses in their context, their ratio legis, and then using the philosophy of the Koran to interpret that in a modern, social and moral sense. Nasr Hamid Abu-Zayd, an Egyptian professor who argued similarly that the Koran and hadith should be interpreted according to the context in which they originated, was charged with apostasy, found guilty in June 1995 and ordered to separate from his wife.
The US-based Free Muslims Coalition, which was set up after 9/11 to promote a modern and secular version of Islam, has proposed the following:
1. A re-interpretation of Islam for the 21st century, where terrorism is not justified under any circumstances.
2. Separation of religion and state.
3. Democracy as the best form of government.
4. Secularism in all forms of political activity.
5. Equality for women.
6. Religion to be a personal relationship between the individual and his or her God, not to be forced on anyone.
This tempting vision of an Islam reformed along such lines is unlikely to be achieved except by a long and painful process of small steps. What might these be and how can we make a start? One step would be, as urged by the Prince of Wales, that every Muslim should 'condemn these atrocities [the London bombings] and root out those among them who preach and practise such hatred and bitterness'. Universal condemnation of suicide bombers instead of acclamation as heroes would indeed be an excellent start.
Mansoor Ijaz has suggested a practical three-point action plan:
1. Forbid radical hate-filled preaching in British mosques. Deport imams who fail to comply.
2. Scrutinise British Islamic charities to identify those that fund terrorism. Prevent them receiving more than 10 per cent of their income from overseas.
3. Form community-watch groups comprising Muslim citizens to contribute useful information on fanatical Muslims to the authorities.
To this could be added Muslim acceptance of a secular society as the basis for their religious existence, an oath of allegiance to the Crown which would override their allegiance to their co-religionists overseas, and deliberate steps to move out of their ghetto-style existence both physically and psychologically.
For the government, the time has come to accept Trevor Phillips's statement that multiculturalism is dead. We need to rediscover and affirm a common British identity. This would impinge heavily on the future development of faith schools, which should now be stopped.
Given the fate of some earlier would-be reformers, perhaps King Abdullah of Jordan or a leader of his stature might have the best chance of initiating a process of modernist reform. The day before the bombings he was presiding over a conference of senior scholars from eight schools of Islamic jurisprudence, and, amazingly, they issued a statement endorsing fatwas forbidding any Muslim from those eight schools to be declared an apostate. So reform is possible. The only problem with this particular action is that it may have protected Muslim leaders from being killed by dissident Muslims, but it negated a very helpful fatwa which had been issued in March by the Spanish Islamic scholars declaring Osama bin Laden an apostate. Could not the King re-convene his conference and ask them to issue a fatwa banning violence against non-Muslims also? This would extend the self-preservation of the Muslim community to the whole non-Muslim world.
Such reform - the changing of certain fairly central theological principles - will not be easy to achieve. It will be a long, hard road for Islam to get its house in order so that it can co-exist peacefully with the rest of society in the 21st century. -
WAIT. Hold Your Horses! Before anyone starts trying hard to be offended, i suggest he or she should read the article first.
Now, having got that out of the way...
I am not a student of the Koran or Islam so i will have to take the article at face value. Imo, i think the article makes some valid points.
After the london bombings, the PR machine of both the british government and the British muslim community went into overdrive. The message is one that is oft heard: "This is not true islam!" On the other hand, we have footage of muslims(?) and imams(?) who are certainly none too upset about the attacks. Needless to say i was quite confused. 'What is 'true' islam?' i asked myself, and concluded that it was futile to try and unravel the PR spin of the various parties.
I think this article was insightful and helps to unravel the spin so frequently put forth on tv by talkong heads. -
to change the image of islam..means to change the islamic teaching in the quran!! and it's blasphemy! haha..kafir then..it's turning and twsiting their own words.
-
But the author has pointed out the the koran is subject to interpretation.Originally posted by chguy:to change the image of islam..means to change the islamic teaching in the quran!! and it's blasphemy! haha..kafir then..it's turning and twsiting their own words. -
Originally posted by lwflee:
So is the Bible open to various interpretation that has resulted in splitting of this faith; as well as the 'enlightened' teachings of Budhism, Hinduism, Sikhism, Communism, Darwinism, and the list goes on.
But the author has pointed out the the koran is subject to interpretation.
Does that make it any lesser an evil when those in the Community itself - the Practioners of the Faith - give empathy, sympathy, understanding, to the 'evil doers' - who prefer their version of the Holy Word ?
Does that make it any more comforting when those in the Community only make vocal protests at the horror of the actions of the 'Wrong Doers' but will not take actions to neutralize the situation, by changing the manner in which their religion has been taught, and making it so easy to be usurped by these cunning evil practitioners of the Faith ?
Religion has always been a convenient vehicle to mobilize the political impulse of any community, as the organization and the mass of faithful believers are already existing, and only 'ripe for the plucking' by anyone with an ambitious mind to conquer the world. -
The Bible is not open to interpretation. Only the Pope has divine authority to interpret what it means and the Christians have to listen to him. Not very democratic, isn't it?
Also, the Church has intervened in political issues such as stem cell research. THe common people should be the ones making the decisions for themselves, since they are the beneficiaries. -
Since when the Anglicans or the Prebysterians have to listen to the Pope?Originally posted by iveco:The Bible is not open to interpretation. Only the Pope has divine authority to interpret what it means and the Christians have to listen to him. Not very democratic, isn't it?
Also, the Church has intervened in political issues such as stem cell research. THe common people should be the ones making the decisions for themselves, since they are the beneficiaries.
-
They refused to listen to him back in the 15th century, and so were excommunicated. THis gave them quite a bit of freedom.Originally posted by laurence82:Since when the Anglicans or the Prebysterians have to listen to the Pope?
Overall, the interference of religious authority in political affairs is not very democratic. -
Which contradicts your first post....Originally posted by iveco:They refused to listen to him back in the 15th century, and so were excommunicated. THis gave them quite a bit of freedom.
Overall, the interference of religious authority in political affairs is not very democratic.
-
one hand says against terrorusm and the hand says kill all who opposes muslims.
enemy with friends a perfect killing strategy.
i wonder how many more are hiding within the community. -
Not at all. Henry VIII's desire to divorce his first wife put him at odds with the Pope. It was either he remain married to her or leave the church, and he chose the latter.Originally posted by laurence82:Which contradicts your first post....
Anyway, this thread is about religious interference in politics. Anything else should be talked about at length at EH. -
That was few hundered years ago. We are talking abt the present situation nowOriginally posted by iveco:Not at all. Henry VIII's desire to divorce his first wife put him at odds with the Pope. It was either he remain married to her or leave the church, and he chose the latter.
Anyway, this thread is about religious interference in politics. Anything else should be talked about at length at EH.
Hullo, wake up wake up.... -
WHatever happened back then has repercussions on the present situation. THat's why we got the IRA and stuff.Originally posted by laurence82:That was few hundered years ago. We are talking abt the present situation now
Hullo, wake up wake up....
Speaking of which, Britain should be most able to handle terrorist attacks better, since they have survived the IRA campaigns. Surely there must be lessons that can be applied in today's context. -
Out of topic.Originally posted by iveco:WHatever happened back then has repercussions on the present situation. THat's why we got the IRA and stuff.
Speaking of which, Britain should be most able to handle terrorist attacks better, since they have survived the IRA campaigns. Surely there must be lessons that can be applied in today's context. -
Originally posted by iveco:
'The Bible is not open to interpretation ? Only the Pope has divine authority to interpret what it means and the Christians have to listen to him' ?
The Bible is not open to interpretation. Only the Pope has divine authority to interpret what it means and the Christians have to listen to him. Not very democratic, isn't it?
Also, the Church has intervened in political issues such as stem cell research. THe common people should be the ones making the decisions for themselves, since they are the beneficiaries.
First thing first - the Bible has been open for interpretation (rightly or wrongly) through the ages, up till this day when Bible Classes are conducted.
Secondly, the Pope has authority only over the Catholic Church, which may only encompass less then half the world's Christian population, and his interpretation of the Bible is not necessarily accepted by the other believers of Christ.
This was one of the root causes for the Church to be split up into so many different Churches - Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists, Orthodox Christians, Protestants, Revivalists and other ancient and newer Christian Churches that have sprung up since the death of Jesus.
God is democratic - as he has given Humans an 'intelligent mind' that is supposed to be able to discern and make decisions, which allow us to have choices.
It is Man, in his weakness, capitulated his own rights by submitting himself to the authority of another Human, who claims divine authority from God.
Still, God has given Humans an 'intelligent mind' to choose not to listen, and 'excommunication' is practised only by the Catholics, and has never been accepted by the other Believers of Christ's forgiving benevolence.
With the exception of the Catholic Church, the other Christian Churches have always been circumspect of their position in relation to the needs of the society - whether the needs are political, economical, social or religious.
Surprisingly, the two features of the Catholic practises are almost identical in practise as that of Islam, in that the Catholic Woman's faith will dictate her children's religion, and no Catholic shall leave the Catholic Church.
These two religious practises are designed to hold and to grow the numbers of the practitioners of the faith, and prevent any weakening in numbers by preventing any easy exit from the faith.
The Catholic Church's belief in pro-active practice of their faith has led it into open confrontation with Governments in some countries - (Singapore's Communism bogey in the Catholic Church) .
The Catholic priests and nuns are known to be taking a lead role in organising and managing public protests and confrontation against the Elected Government.
The Philippines is well known for her late Cardinal Sin (the Pope's Country Representative) and his team of priests and nuns, who manages the mass protests. -
IRA bombings is a little different from that of the muslim terrorists. IRA bombs to creat fear but avoid killing innocents, muslim terrorists bombs to kill. IRA bombs as a mean to their political rights, to the muslim terrorists, terror is the end itself.Originally posted by iveco:WHatever happened back then has repercussions on the present situation. THat's why we got the IRA and stuff.
Speaking of which, Britain should be most able to handle terrorist attacks better, since they have survived the IRA campaigns. Surely there must be lessons that can be applied in today's context.
Now IRA has denounced the use of arms, can the brits hope to achieve the same result with the muslim terrorists, using the same method?? I am afraid not.
Terrorists used to come from only the muslim countries in the middle east, now england produce their own!! It is our cause for concerns if we see what is happening in england, as detailed by the article,
1. "their communities have evolved away from assimilation with the British majority towards the creation of separate and distinct entities," "Ultimately, both believe in the goal of an Islamic state in Britain where Muslims will govern their own affairs and, as the finishing touch, everyone else's affairs as well." These muslims are using the freedom given by the brits government to finally create an muslimic state in england. do the original brits want these, can anything be done now, no matter how drastic, before it evolves into a civil war??
I believe the muslim community in singapore do not subscribe to such teaching, but do we have any safeguard?? have to resort to ISA
?
2. In the name of religious freedom and in advocating "Separation of religion and state", can government interfere in the interpretation of quran to " Forbid radical hate-filled preaching in British mosques. Deport imams who fail to comply" ??
3. In quran teaching, radical or moderate, if islam comes before secular government, can "an oath of allegiance to the Crown which would override their allegiance to their co-religionists overseas,....or their imams"??
Communism is dead, multiculturism is dead, you can ignore the pope, but THIS IS ALIVE, and it is growing!! -
Originally posted by sgdiehard:
This is called 'REVERSE TAKEOVER' - and the price that Britain is now paying for the years of colonisation of foreign lands, and subjugating foreigners to their rule.
1. "their communities have evolved away from assimilation with the British majority towards the creation of separate and distinct entities," "Ultimately, both believe in the goal of an Islamic state in Britain where Muslims will govern their own affairsand, as the finishing touch, everyone else's affairs as well." These muslims are using the freedom given by the brits government to finally create an muslimic state in england. do the original brits want these, can anything be done now, no matter how drastic, before it evolves into a civil war??
I was surprised to hear over the BBC that some migrant - (who were given permanent residentship in UK and supported by the generous UK social welfare system) - will not accept their good fortune for being in UK, will not apologise that the bombers were from within their Community, will not condemn these actions, but blame the Blair Government for causing the bombings to happen in UK.
The Islamic migrant community in the UK has refused to be assimilated into the UK community, preferring to maintain their own cultural, social and religious practises in a country with a totally different standards of cultural, social and political expectations.
The cycle is near complete, with Britain getting a taste of their own medicine and now being 'colonised' by the subjugated subjects.
In the teachings of Islam, much like that of Catholicism and Anglicanism (the English Church), even Royalty has to swear allegiance to God, and to protect the Religion and the Church.
Faithfulness and loyalty to GOD comes before politics - and this is accepted by all States that are not secular.
The only place on this universe in which the State comes before GOD, is in Singapore - where allegiance to the State takes precedence before one's faith to GOD.
The Singapore Government does not accept the totality of a religious faith being extended into a Person's Life.
It does not accept that 'RELIGION' is also responsible to society, which is the Singapore Government insist is its responsibility, as it is elected by the Citizens to look after all its social and political well being.
The Singapore Government insist that 'RELIGION' confine itself to the RELIGIOUS WELL-BEING of the Citizens, and do not interfere into the social and political areas.
This has resulted in the clash between the Singapore Government and the Catholic Church in 1987 :
http://www.singapore-window.org/sw01/010521m3.htm -
Like it or not, this should be the way, especially in the post-911 environment.Originally posted by Atobe:The Singapore Government insist that 'RELIGION' confine itself to the RELIGIOUS WELL-BEING of the Citizens, and do not interfere into the social and political areas. -
Read today's straits times article....Indonesia MUI issued fatwas to condemn moderate islamic thoughts....
-
I don't think the migrant should be expected to apologize, but not condemning the action i disagree with. Still, it is his right to do as he pleases, as long as he is not hurting anyone physically.Originally posted by Atobe:I was surprised to hear over the BBC that some migrant - (who were given permanent residentship in UK and supported by the generous UK social welfare system) - will not accept their good fortune for being in UK, will not apologise that the bombers were from within their Community, will not condemn these actions, but blame the Blair Government for causing the bombings to happen in UK.
The Islamic migrant community in the UK has refused to be assimilated into the UK community, preferring to maintain their own cultural, social and religious practises in a country with a totally different standards of cultural, social and political expectations.
The cycle is near complete, with Britain getting a taste of their own medicine and now being 'colonised' by the subjugated subjects.
In the teachings of Islam, much like that of Catholicism and Anglicanism (the English Church), even Royalty has to swear allegiance to God, and to protect the Religion and the Church.
Faithfulness and loyalty to GOD comes before politics - and this is accepted by all States that are not secular.
The only place on this universe in which the State comes before GOD, is in Singapore - where allegiance to the State takes precedence before one's faith to GOD.
The Singapore Government does not accept the totality of a religious faith being extended into a Person's Life.
It does not accept that 'RELIGION' is also responsible to society, which is the Singapore Government insist is its responsibility, as it is elected by the Citizens to look after all its social and political well being.
The Singapore Government insist that 'RELIGION' confine itself to the RELIGIOUS WELL-BEING of the Citizens, and do not interfere into the social and political areas.
This has resulted in the clash between the Singapore Government and the Catholic Church in 1987 :
http://www.singapore-window.org/sw01/010521m3.htm
Also, Singapore is not the only secular country around. France is (in?)famously secular. I think England isn't doing so bad in this department as well. It is, in effect, a secular state now. The only issue that i feel quite strongly about is that some bishops automatically get a seat in the house of lords by virtue of their appointment. Still, their numbers are small, and I think the govt has appointed a number of religious leaders as peers to act as a balance to the bishops. -
if they dont agree or like a country and its ways they can jollywell fuck back to morrocco or pakistan instead of leeching off taxpayers' money and demanding rights and doing nothing to deserve them. IMO stop all useless immigrants from these regions and expel all that are still lazing around .
-
A British Jihadist
Hassan Butt, a 25 year old from Manchester, helped recruit Muslims to fight in Afghanistan. Like most of the London bombers, he is a British Pakistani who journeyed from rootlessness to radical Islam
Aatish Taseer, Prospect, Aug 2005, Prospect Magazine Website .
-------------------------------------------
....
Butt: I used to be part of al-Muhajiroun, but we parted because of differences… They have this idea—derived from the Koran, a valid Islamic opinion but not one I believe is applicable to British citizens—of a “covenant of security.” This means Muslims in Britain are forbidden from any military action in Britain.
....
Taseer: Where do you think the covenant of security idea comes from? I spoke to an imam who said that you cannot strike against your host country. If you want to support Iraqis, go there and support them.
Butt: Most imams, as you know, have come here not as British citizens. There is a difference between a citizen who is born in a country and someone who is here on a visa or a permit. Islamically, I agree that someone who runs from the middle east—where people like me are persecuted—and says, “Britain, I want you to protect me” has entered a covenant of security. They say, “Look, protect my life and as a result I won't do any harm to you.” That I agree with 100 per cent, but most of our people, especially the youth, are British citizens. They owe nothing to the government. They did not ask to be born here; neither did they ask to be protected by Britain.
Taseer: So they've entered no covenant?
Butt: They have no covenant. As far as I'm concerned, the Islamic hukum (order) that I follow, says that a person has no covenant whatsoever with the country in which they were born.
Taseer: Do they have an allegiance to the country?
Butt: No, none whatsoever. Even the person who has a covenant has no allegiance, he just agrees not to threaten the life, honour, wealth, property, mind, and so on, of the citizens around him.
Taseer: Your argument is based on these people being “British,” so don't they necessarily have some loyalty to Britain?
Butt: No, that's what I'm saying. They have no loyalty whatsoever; they have no allegiance to the government.
Taseer: Perhaps not the government, but to the country?
Butt: To the country, no.
...
Taseer: Who do you have allegiance to?
Butt: My allegiance is to Allah, his Shari’a, his way of life. Whatever he dictates as good is good, whatever as bad is bad.
...
Taseer: So how did you discover Islam, or rediscover it?
Butt: Well, being Kashmiri, I'm hot-headed by nature, and so are my brothers. Even before I was a practising Muslim, I was very hot-headed. That hot-headedness was leading us down a path of destruction. A lot of the people I grew up among were on drugs, were involved in crime, prostitution, at very young ages. I remember when I came across the first Muslim who talked to me about Islam in a language I understood. He pointed out that I had a lot of anger and frustration that I should direct in a more productive manner. It was from there that I got discussing Islam seriously—even though we were hotheads, me and my brothers always had brains, we weren't thugs. We were still excelling in our studies and getting top grades in our exams.
...
Taseer: Was it through a mosque?
...
Butt: My elder brother was in college, I was still at secondary school. The college being a bit more open to Islamic activities than high school, we met some members of Hizb ut-Tahrir inside a masjid (mosque) and got talking. At that time the masjid was full anyway, since it was Ramadan. They showed me that beyond the recitation of the Koran, the praying, the fasting, the hajj—that Islam is a complete system, a complete way of life, and how that applied to us and our place in society.
Taseer: What is the philosophy of Hizb ut-Tahrir?
Butt: The idea is that Muslims in Britain need to keep to their Islamic identity and work for the re-establishment of an Islamic caliphate, or khalifah as they would say, based upon the first four caliphates of Islam.
Taseer: Where?
Butt: In the Muslim countries. That is one of the differences I had with them.
Taseer: You would like to see the caliphate here too?
Butt: Absolutely. How could we restrict something that initially started in Medina but then spread through the entire Muslim world?
Taseer: Would everyone have to be a Muslim, or would it work within our existing society?
Butt: No, it’s a structure of law and order…
Taseer: A central authority?
Butt: A central Islamic authority. Whether the people are Muslim or not is irrelevant. But even orientalist authors like Gilles Keppel agree that Islam was so powerful that it was the only way of life that both the conquered and the conqueror embraced. When the Mongols attacked Islam, they became Muslims; the same happened with the Turks. Even the people Islam conquered, they themselves embraced the way of life. People say it was forced by the sword, but if so, when the sword was removed, why did these people not revert back? Simply because it was never actually forced upon them. The inherent beauty of Islam made people want to embrace it.
....
Article can be found at http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=6992 -
del