Author: Editorial
Publication: The Pioneer
Date: March 4, 2010
URL: http://www.dailypioneer.com/239723/Islamic-scholar-Wilders%E2%80%99-best-witness.html
A Pakistani judge's interpretation of theological
doctrine proves why Geert Wilders is right, says John C Zimmerman
As the trial of Mr Geert Wilders for insulting
Islam moves forward in the Netherlands, the one witness that could clear him
of these charges will not be called.
Mr Muhammad Taqi Usmani is a highly respected
and well-known expert on Islamic law who served for 20 years as a Sharia'h
judge on Pakistan's Supreme Court. He is quite possibly the world's most influential
Islamist thinker and writer outside of West Asia. Mr Usmani is a frequent
visitor to Britain, where his monograph Islam and Modernism caused a great
deal of controversy.
Why is Mr Usmani so important for the purposes
of Mr Wilders' trial? Simply put, Mr Usmani's interpretation of Islamic doctrine
as it concerns non-believers is the same as Mr Wilders'. Indeed, the critical
lesson to be gleaned from Mr Usmani's work bolsters the very argument that
Mr Wilders is on trial for making - namely, that the doctrine of jihad, as
expounded in Islamic texts, inherently poses a threat to Western civilisation.
In fact, Osama bin Laden made the exact same point in a lengthy essay entitled
"Moderate Islam is a Prostration to the West" (reproduced in Raymond
Ibrahinm's The al Qaeda Reader).
I don't know if Wilders is familiar with Islam
and Modernism. However, the reader of this work will be struck by the similarities
between it and Fitna, the short film that has played a significant role in
landing Mr Wilders in court. The critical difference between the two is that
no one - especially no Muslim thinker, writer or the Organisation of Islamic
Countries - has ever accused Mr Usmani of hate speech or of insulting Islam.
And yet, consistency of treatment would mandate that if Mr Wilders must go
to trial, so should Mr Usmani. At the very least, Mr Usmani should be publicly
condemned and ridiculed by prominent Muslim thinkers in Muslim countries.
Consider the nature of his work. Islam and
Modernism is broadside attack against modernist Muslim thinking and Western
civilisation. Mr Usmani is critical of modern practices such as charging interest,
women and men working together, birth control, and science that it is not
used to further religious thinking. Even America's moon landing in 1969 is
described as an "international crime."
However, it is his chapter on offensive jihad,
which he calls aggressive jihad, that is most significant for purposes of
Mr Wilders' trial. Offensive jihad is the Islamic doctrine that requires Muslims
to subjugate unbelievers to Islamic rule by imposing a number of restrictions,
including paying a special tax known as the jizya. Mr Usmani categorically
rejects the idea, stated by some modern Muslim thinkers, that offensive jihad
can be abandoned if Muslims are freely allowed to proselytise among non-Muslims
(though non-Muslims can never freely proselytise in Muslim countries). He
states that "in my humble knowledge there has not been a single incident
in the entire history of Islam where Muslims had shown their willingness to
stop jihad just for one condition that they be allowed to preach Islam freely."
He cites the Quran to the effect that "killing is to continue until the
unbelievers pay jizya after they are humbled and overpowered."
The jizya is important in Mr Usmani's eyes
because it is the necessary precondition for non- Muslims to convert to Islam.
He asks: "How can the efforts of Muslim missionaries be effective in
an atmosphere where anti-Islamic doctrines (are) being spread on the strength
of political power with full vigour, and their propagation carried out with
means not possessed by Muslims?"
Essentially, Mr Usmani is arguing that Islam
cannot compete on an equal footing with non-Islamic doctrines and that it
is the subjugation of the non-believers to Islamic rule that is needed before
they will convert. Hence, Islamic rule must precede conversion efforts. He
approvingly cites the view that "(b)y commanding jihad allah does not
mean that the unbelievers be killed outright, but the aim is that the religion
of allah should dominate the world…"
Mr Usmani is a 'moderate' in that he does
not favour waging offensive jihad until Muslims are strong enough. Thus, peace
agreements "along with all efforts to accumulate the sources of power
(by the Muslims) are indeed lawful…If Muslims do not possess the capability
of 'jihad with power' agreement may be made till the power is attained."
However, once that strength is attained, offensive jihad must be launched.
Though he does not mention it, Mr Usmani appears to be basing this tactic
on Muhammad's temporary treaty with the Quraysh tribe known as 'The Treaty
of Hudabiyyah'. He made this treaty at a time when Muslims were too weak to
fight the Quraysh.
Whether one agrees or disagrees with Mr Wilders'
and Mr Usmani's interpretation of Islam is beside the point. The real question
is: How can Mr Wilders be prosecuted for agreeing with the interpretation
of a world-renowned Islamic thinker and scholar - a scholar who has never
been accused of hate speech or insulting Islam? At the very least, Islam and
Modernism should be submitted as a defence exhibit at Mr Wilders' trial.
- The writer is author of Holocaust Denial:
Demographics, Testimonies and Ideologies, and has also published on jihad
and Islamism.
