Author: Mark Durie
Publication: The Australian
Date: September 23, 2006
URL: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20460114-601,00.html
Islam has to accept that its militants find
support for violence in their faith's teachings and should pursue reform
The world has witnessed a flood of reaction
this week to Benedict XVI's Regensburg lecture, a reaction that has gone well
beyond words, with attacks on churches in Gaza, the West Bank and Basra, and
apparently the killing of an elderly Italian nun in Mogadishu, together with
her guard. Some have called for the Pope to be executed.
According to Britain's Daily Mail, Anjem Choudary
of the British Muslim organisation al-Ghurabaa, was leading a rally outside
Westminster Abbey when he asked for Catholicism's supreme leader to be subjected
to capital punishment, and Somali religious leader Abubukar Hassan Malin has
declared that the Pope should be hunted down and killed "on the spot".
Australia's Cardinal George Pell weighed into
the debate, suggesting that violent responses to the Pope's September 12 lecture
demonstrate the link "for the Islamists" between religion and violence.
On the other hand, no less a figure than the
Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, Sheikh Abdel Aziz al-Sheikh, issued a statement
on the official Saudi news service, defending Muslims' divine right to resort
to violence: "The spread of Islam has gone through several phases, secret
and then public, in Mecca and Medina. God then authorised the faithful to
defend themselves and to fight against those fighting them, which amounts
to a right legitimised by God. This ... is quite reasonable, and God will
not hate it."
Saudi Arabia's most senior cleric also explained
that war was never Islam's ancient founder, the prophet Mohammed's, first
choice: "He gave three options: either accept Islam, or surrender and
pay tax, and they will be allowed to remain in their land, observing their
religion under the protection of Muslims." Thus, according to the Grand
Mufti, the third option of violence against non-Muslims was only a last resort,
if they refused to convert or surrender peacefully to the armies of Islam.
Abdel went on to urge people to read the Koran
and Sunnah (the record of Mohammed's teaching and example) for themselves,
pointing out that the Koran, Islam's equivalent of scripture, has been translated
into many of the world's languages: "Those who read the Koran and the
Sunnah can understand the facts."
On this at least the Archbishop of Sydney
and the Saudi Grand Mufti do agree, for in an address earlier this year, Pell
also urged people to read the Koran.
Accessing the facts: So what are these facts
contained in the Koran and Sunnah that the Grand Mufti would have us read?
As it happens, reading the Koran is not without its difficulties. There is,
for a start, the thorny problem of context. The Koran gives little help with
this: it does not mark off specific passages one from another and its 114
chapters (suras) are not laid out in chronological order.
The keys to unlocking the context for individual
passages of the Koran can be found in the life of Mohammed, the Sunnah. The
sources for the Sunnah are the traditions (hadiths), of which Sunnis recognise
six canonical collections, and biographies of Mohammed (sira literature).
Although the volume of this material is considerable, it is now largely available
in English translation, much of it on the internet.
In addition to the inherent difficulty of
the sources, many secular Westerners rely on certain crippling preconceptions.
One is the often-heard mantra that "all religions are the same".
Another is the claim that "anyone can justify violence from any religious
text". This idea stretches back at least to Rousseau, who considered
any and all forms of religion to be pernicious.
Either of these views, if firmly held, would
tend to sabotage anyone's ability to investigate the Koran's distinctive take
on violence.
There is another obstacle, and that is Western
culture's own sense of guilt and suspicion of what it regards as Christian
hypocrisy.
Any attempt to critique some of Islam's teachings
is likely to be met with loud and vociferous denunciations of the church's
moral failings, such as its appalling track record of anti-Semitism. And did
I mention the crusades? Finally, the reality is that Muslims adhere to widely
varying beliefs and practices. Most people are understandably afraid to come
to their own conclusions about violent passages in the Koran, lest they find
themselves demonising Muslims.
But does the Koran incite violence, and how
does its message compare with the Bible?
The Koran: It is self-evident that some Koranic
verses encourage violence. Consider for example a verse which implies that
fighting is "good for you": "Fighting is prescribed upon you,
and you dislike it. But it may happen that you dislike a thing which is good
for you, and it may happen that you love a thing which is bad for you. And
Allah knows and you know not." (2:216)
On the other hand, it is equally clear that
there are peaceful verses as well, including the famous "no compulsion
in religion" (2:256).
Resolving apparently contradictory messages
presents one of the central interpretative challenges of the Koran. Muslims
do not agree today on how best to address this. For this reason alone it could
be regarded as unreasonable to claim that any one interpretation of the Koran
is the correct one.
Nevertheless, a consensus developed very early in the history of Islam about
this problem. This method relies on a theory of stages in the development
of Mohammed's prophetic career. It also appeals to a doctrine known as abrogation,
which states that verses revealed later can cancel out or qualify verses revealed
earlier.
The classical approach to violence in the
Koran was neatly summed up in an essay on jihad in the Koran by Sheikh Abdullah
bin Muhammad bin Hamid, former chief justice of Saudi Arabia: "So at
first 'the fighting' was forbidden, then it was permitted and after that it
was made obligatory: (1) against those who start 'the fighting' against you
(Muslims) ... (2) And against all those who worship others along with Allah."
At the beginning, in Mohammed's Meccan period,
when he was weaker and his followers few, passages of the Koran encouraged
peaceful relations and avoidance of conflict: "Invite (all) to the way
of your Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching; and argue with them in ways
that are best and most gracious." (16:125)
Later, after persecution and emigration to
Medina in the first year of the Islamic calendar, authority was given to engage
in warfare for defensive purposes only: "Fight in the path of God those
who fight you, but do not transgress limits, for God does not love transgressors."
(2:190)
As the Muslim community grew stronger and
conflict with its neighbours did not abate, further revelations expanded the
licence for waging war, until in Sura 9, regarded as one of the last chapters
to be revealed, it is concluded that war against non-Muslims could be waged
more or less at any time and in any place to extend the dominance of Islam.
Sura 9 distinguished idolators, who were to be fought until they converted
- "When the sacred months are past, kill the idolators wherever you find
them, and seize them, and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in every
place of ambush" (Sura 9:5) - from "People of the Book" (Christians
and Jews), who were to be given a further option of surrendering and living
under Islamic rule while keeping their religion: "Fight ... the People
of the Book until they pay the poll tax out of hand, having been humbled."
(Sura 9:29)
The resulting doctrine of war was described
by the great medieval philosopher Ibn Khaldun: "In the Muslim community,
the holy war (jihad) is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the
(Muslim) mission and the (obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either
by persuasion or by force." (The Muqaddimah)
The popular Muslim scholar Yusuf al-Qaradawi,
head of the European Council for Fatwa and Research, and al-Jazeera television
personality, in July 2003 invoked the classical dogma of the Dar al-Harb or
"domain of war" that encompasses all the regions of the world in
which Islam is not yet dominant. In the Dar al-Harb the lives and possessions
of non-Muslims are muba'a, or "licit", making them a legitimate
target for military action: "It has been determined by Islamic law that
the blood and property of people of Dar al-Harb is not protected ... in modern
war, all of society, with all its classes and ethnic groups, is mobilised
to participate in the war, to aid its continuation and to provide it with
the material and human fuel required for it to assure the victory of the state
fighting its enemies."
All this explains Sheikh Abdel Aziz's response
to the Pope's speech.
Alluding to the distinction between the Meccan
and Medinan periods of revelation, the Grand Mufti invoked the doctrine of
Sura 9:29 (cited above), that fighting against People of the Book continues
until non-Muslims convert or surrender.
Today most Muslims acknowledge the religious
legitimacy of "defensive jihad" - including the Palestinian struggle
- but many appear to reject the idea of offensive, expansionist jihad. Most
would emphasise the defensive aspects of Mohammed's numerous military campaigns,
claiming that his attacks on others were only to pre-empt future aggression
against Muslims. It is also often asserted that Mohammed's military exploits
were context-specific responses to the unique situations he encountered in
his lifetime, and not binding on later generations of Muslims.
However the idea of a purely defensive jihad
is hard to reconcile with the phenomenal military expansion of Islam in its
first 100 years. For centuries the validity of the doctrine of expansionist
jihad just seemed self-evident to Muslim scholars, as it was validated by
the military victories it had delivered across the greater part of the Christian
world, as well as Zoroastrian Persia and Hindu India.
The New Testament: It is not difficult to
find examples of religious violence in the Old Testament of the Christian
Bible. When Joshua fought the battle of Jericho, he was instructed by God
to destroy all who dwelled within its walls.
The New Testament takes a completely different
approach.
Throughout the New Testament there is a systematic
rejection of religious violence. The key to this is Jesus' message that his
kingdom was spiritual and not political. Jesus explicitly and repeatedly condemns
the use of force to achieve his goals: "Put your sword back in its place,
for all who draw the sword will die by the sword." (Matthew 26:52)
As Jesus goes to the cross, he renounces force,
even at the cost of his own life: "My kingdom is not of this world. If
it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now
my kingdom is from another place." (John 18:36) The Sermon on the Mount
elaborates several aspects of Jesus' non-violent ethic.
Retribution was no longer acceptable (Matthew
5:38), enemies were to be loved, not hated (Matthew 5:43), the meek will inherit
the earth (Matthew 5:5) and Jesus' disciples should rejoice when they are
persecuted (Matthew 5:10).
The Koran's advice on responding to persecution
is very different. The phrase "persecution (or trial) is worse than slaughter"
(2:191, 217) implies that anything that impedes the spread of Islam, or which
could cause Muslims to abandon their faith, is worse than killing the persecutors.
At one point Christ says: "Do not suppose
that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace,
but a sword." (Matthew 10:34) This is sometimes cited as evidence for
Jesus' militancy, but the statement occurs in an extended passage where Jesus
is advising his disciples on the inevitability of persecution. The sword he
refers to is the one that will be raised against them.
Jesus' take on violence is reinforced by the
apostles Paul and Peter, who urge Christians to show consideration to their
enemies, renouncing retaliation, living peaceably, returning cursing with
blessing and showing humility to others (Romans 12:14-21, Titus 3:1-2, Peter
2:20-24).
They also allow that the (most likely pagan)
civil authorities will need to use force to keep the peace and this role should
be respected (Romans 13:1-7, Peter 2:13-17).
This is an extension of the earlier Jewish
position that Jews should submit to the rule of law in whichever country they
find themselves, even if the king is a pagan (Jeremiah 29:4-7).
The New Testament supports the just use of
force as a proper function of the state, whatever its religious identity.
Thus it is not a specifically religious or sacred act to go to war, or to
use force to implement justice. It is just a matter of public duty, one aspect
of the ordering of society that God has established for the common good.
If only Christians had maintained this New
Testament position down the centuries, the world would have been a better
place.
The invention of "Christendom" in
the fourth Christian century and the influence of a centuries-long battle
against the Islamic jihad ultimately led to aberrant theologies being developed
that regarded warfare against non-Christians as holy in nature.
This doctrine of holy war was applied in ways
that led to horrific abuses. Thankfully these have been universally denounced
in the modern era as incompatible with the gospel of Christ.
The New Testament's teachings on the state
continue to sustain the more than 300 million believers who live in more than
60 countries where Christians are persecuted. In none of these countries has
persecution resulted in Christian terrorism or violent Christian insurgencies
aimed at overthrowing civil authorities. On the contrary, China's 70 million
Christians remain loyal to their nation and Government, despite 50 years of
the most intense oppression. In Nepal it is the Maoists who have been engaging
in terrorism, not the 500,000 indigenous Christians.
The example of the IRA, so often cited as
Christian terrorists, illustrates the Christian position, because the IRA's
ideology was predominantly Marxist and atheistic.
IRA terrorists found no inspiration in the
teachings of Christ.
The need for reform: Islam has not yet come
to a consensus about how Muslims should conduct themselves under non-Muslim
rule. There is no consensus that a just war should not be conceived in sacralised
terms as a jihad.
There is no consensus that the earlier, more
peaceful verses of the Koran take priority over the later, more violent ones.
There is no consensus that the old program of military expansion should not
be resumed if and when it becomes practical to do so. There is no consensus
that non-Muslims should be allowed to discuss the Koran and the life of Mohammed
without becoming the target of intimidation, and subjected to accusations
of ignorance, incompetence or racism.
The Muslim world is incredibly diverse and
such a consensus may never be developed. Nevertheless it must be attempted.
The important work to achieve this consensus is under way, but it remains
to be completed, and any debate that can hasten the development of a less
sacralised approach to the use of force within Islam deserves everyone's whole-hearted
support.
Dr Mark Durie is an Anglican vicar and a fellow
of the Australian Academy of the Humanities.
