By Jeff Jacoby
Monday, July 08, 2013
For years, terrible and violent crimes have been
committed in the name of Islam. Does that mean Islam is inherently a religion
of terrible violence?
The scholar Daniel Pipes has long argued that it is a
mistake to attribute the evils committed by Muslim supremacists and jihadist
killers to Islam itself, or to the text of the Koran and the hadith, the
religion's sacred scriptures. Like every great faith, Islam is what its
adherents make of it. Today, many of those adherents are influenced by
Islamism, the militant totalitarian version of Islam that emerged in the 20th
century. The Islamist ascendancy is reflected in the savageries of al-Qaeda,
the brutal misogyny of the Taliban, the apocalyptic hostility of the regime in
Iran.
But just as the nightmare of the Third Reich was far from
the totality of German culture and character, so Islam's 1,400-year history is
not encapsulated by the violent ugliness of the present moment. In other eras,
Muslim society was known for its learning, tolerance, and moderation. "If
things can get worse, they can also get better," Pipes writes in the
current issue of Commentary. As recently as 1969, when he began his career in
Islamic and Middle Eastern studies, Islamist extremism was all but unknown in
world affairs. "If Islamism can thus grow, it can also decline."
Since 9/11, Pipes has summarized his approach to the
threat from Islamist terror and oppression with the maxim "Radical Islam
is the problem; moderate Islam is the solution." Obviously radical Muslims
disagree — but even Turkey's Islamist prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan,
often held out as the face of moderate political Islam, rejects the distinction,
insisting that "Islam is Islam and that's it."
Many non-Muslims disagree, too. The prominent Dutch
politician Geert Wilders, who wants the Koran to be banned in Holland,
maintains that Islam and Islamism are "exactly the same" and that
moderate Islam is "totally nonexistent." Islam is not a religion like
Christianity or Judaism, Wilders told me in a 2009 interview. "It's an
ideology that wants to dominate every aspect of society."
To those who hold this essentialist view, Islam's
teachings are immutable; the values promoted by the Koran and other Islamic
scriptures are today what they have always been and always will be. By this
argument, the backwardness, repression, and violent incitement against
non-Muslims that hold sway in much of the contemporary Muslim world don't
reflect a particularly harsh and unenlightened interpretation of Islam —
they are Islam.
Not true, asserts Pipes. "Only … by ignoring more
than a millennium of actual changes in the Koran's interpretation" — on
topics ranging from jihad to the role of women to slavery – "can one claim
that the Koran has been understood identically over time." Take the
Koran's famous injunction (2:256) that "there be no compulsion in
religion." Is that a call for universal religious tolerance? Does it apply
only to the various denominations within Islam? Was it limited to non-Muslims
in seventh-century Arabia? Is it to be understood as purely symbolic? Does it
protect only non-Muslims who agree to live under Muslim rule? Was it overridden
by a subsequent Koranic verse?
As Pipes and other scholars have shown, the correct
elucidation of the phrase is: All of the above. There is no monolithic reading
of that seemingly straightforward passage. Muslim authorities have variously
given it completely incompatible interpretations.
Like all religions, Islam changes. And like all
scripture, the meaning of the Koran's text depends on its expounders. The words
may be enduring, but the lessons drawn from them need not be. The Hebrew Bible
and the New Testament also contain passages whose normative meanings changed as
the faiths based on them evolved. Do Jesus' words in the gospel of Matthew —
"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send
peace, but a sword" – mean that Christianity is not a religion of peace?
The answer to that question is not the same today as it would have been during
the Crusades or Europe's wars of religion.
It is only fanatics who believe that they alone are in
possession of the sole correct answer to every important question, and entitled
to enforce it through power and persecution. The credo of the Muslim
Brotherhood, which until last week's coup was Egypt's ruling party, declares
categorically that "Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. The
Koran is our law. Jihad is our way." That authoritarian, supremacist line
— the Islamists' line — is only one understanding of Islam. As millions of
Egyptian citizens have made clear in recent days, it is by no means unanimous.
Radical Islam — not Islam itself — is the menace that
must be defeated. In that struggle we have no more invaluable allies than
moderate Muslims. Pretending they don't exist helps no one but the Islamists.
No comments:
Post a Comment