Author: Ali Sina
Publication: www.faithfreedom.org
Date:
URL: http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/sina40121.htm
A response to Mr. Daniel Pipes
In an article titled "Study The
Koran?", Mr. Daniel Pipes, a historian and director of the Middle East
Forum, states that to understand the phenomenon of Islamic terrorism one
should not read the Quran. "Instead of the Koran," Mr. Pipes urges "anyone
wanting to study militant Islam and the violence it inspires to understand
such phenomena as the Wahhabi movement, the Khomeini revolution, and Al-Qaeda."
He adds, "Muslim history, not Islamic theology, explains how we got here
and hints at what might come next."
To reject the claim that the Quran
is responsible for the rise of Islamic terrorism Mr. Pipes asks: "If the
Koran causes terrorism, then how does one explain the 1960s, when militant
Islamic violence barely existed? The Koran was the same text then as now."
He also goes on to remind his readers
"Muslims have read the Koran differently over time. The admonishment for
female modesty meant one thing to Egyptian feminists in the 1920s and another
to their descendants today. Then, head coverings represented oppression
and exclusion from public life. Today, in the words of a British newspaper
headline, 'Veiled is beautiful.' Then, the head-covering signaled a woman
not being a full human being; now, in the words of an editor at a fashion
magazine, head-covering "tells you, you're a woman. . 'You have to be treated
as an independent mind.' Reading the Koran in isolation misses this unpredictable
evolution."
With all the respect that I have
for Mr. Pipes I beg to disagree with him on this issue. It is true that
forty years ago Militant Islam was not very common. The reason is that
at that time Muslims were not very religious. A person can be a Muslim
by name but not practice it. During the sixties, most Muslims were Muslims
by name. Few went to the mosques. They were more interested in modernization.
Wearing veil was deemed as backward thinking. The youth were interested
in western culture and as unbelievable as it may sound today the same women
who later wore the chador and shouted after Khomeini, death to America,
used to wear mini skirts just a few years earlier, listened to the beats
of the Beatles and rocked and rolled with Elvis.
This liberation did not happen by
reinterpreting the Quran. It happened because prior to that, during the
twenties, Muslim world gave birth to men such as Atta Turk and Reza Shah
who banned the veil, jailed the Mullahs and forced secularization on their
respective countries, (Turkey and Iran) challenging and undermining the
nefarious influence of Islam in all spheres of the society and at all cost.
Great thinkers emerged that openly
challenged the Sharia and blew new breath of secularism and modernism into
the ailing body of the Ummah (Muslims). Sheikh Ali Abdul Raziq, an Egyptian
scholar confined Islam to spiritual functions and tried to free mundane
matters from strict religious or priestly hold. Dr. Taha Hussain, a leading
Egyptian scholar, rejected the theory that the political system of early
Islam was prescribed by God through His revelation to the Prophet. Maulana
Abul Kalam Azad, a prominent Indian scholar, argued that the Quran did
not demand of the follower of any religion that he should accept some new
religion. It demanded of every single religious group that it should stick
to the real teachings of its religion, shorn of all perversions and interpolations.
Asaf Ali Fyzee, an Indian Moslem thinker, agreed with Abul Kalam Azad that
the object of religion was service of humanity and that a static law was
unsuitable to a progressive society. In Iran the scholar Ahmad Kasravi
denounced Islam and called it the main cause of ignorance and backwardness
of the people. He called for modernizing of the country through secularization.
At the same time Ali Dashti published his book on the prophetic career
of Muhammad revealing the fact the he was not a prophet but an ordinary
man with little or no virtues and knowledge worthy to be followed. A few
decades before them, the Iranian Mirza Agha Khan Kermani openly stated
that Islam was good for "barefooted desert-dwelling camel-herding lizard-eating
bloodthirsty savages of Arabia and not for people who were the architects
of great civilizations such as the Iranians."
If in the early half of the twentieth
century the militant Islam was non-existent, it was not because Islam was
interpreted such as to become tolerant and progressive. It was because
Islam was attacked and undermined. During those days Muslims prospered
and Islamic countries modernized because Islam was not taken into equation.
I agree that one has to read the
history to understand the Islamic violence. However I can't agree with
Mr. Pipes when he says that only "Muslim history, not Islamic theology,
explains how we got here."
The Islamic violence is a direct
result of the Islamic theology. It is naïve to believe the Wahhabi
movement, the Khomeini revolution, and Al-Qaeda have nothing to do with
the hatemongering teachings of the Quran. History, also includes the history
of Muhammad and his terrorizing wars.
I agree with Mr. Pipes that the
Quran is a confused book, that many verses are abrogated and one has to
have a sound knowledge of sha'ne nozool (when and why these verses were
"revealed") to understand it. However learned Muslims such as the Mullahs
do have that knowledge and they know all the so called soft teachings of
the Quran that were "revealed" when Muhammad was weak are abrogated. And
the valid teachings are those that were "revealed" later, those that call
for the murder of the disbelievers (9:123), not befriending with Jews and
Christians (5:51), subduing them until they pay the Jizya (9:29), regarding
them as najis (filthy, untouchable, impure) (9:28) and so on.
In brief, Quran is a violent book.
The message of the Quran is a message of hate. This message is very clear
and laud. It is inevitable that those who believe in the Quran and follow
it be filled with hatred of those who do not believe in it. It is absurd
to think that the hate inspiring teachings of the Quran have no relevance
in the rise of the militant Islam. All one has to do is to listen to the
sermons given in the mosques to see the kind of hate that is being taught
there and where is the source of that hate. Yes, study the Quran to see
where militant Islam takes its lessons.
It is possible to veer Islamic world
towards moderation again. This can happen ONLY if Islam is weakened. Quran
need not be reinterpreted, it must be denounced, scraped and rejected.
Scholars and politicians in Islamic countries must join force and challenge
the authority of the Quran, the infallibility of its author and the legitimacy
of his claim. They must secularize Islamic countries and stand strong against
the Islamists. Islam must be attacked both on political and ideological
grounds. It is insane that a billion people follow an insane man of the
7th century. It is insane that the rest of humanity go along with that.
This insanity is bringing our world to the brink of destruction. Only when
the belief in Islam is weakened, Muslims will turn towards moderation and
modernization. With Islam and Sharia in the way, the only future awaiting
Muslims is more bigotry, more poverty and more violence. And the only future
awaiting the rest of mankind is more terror and more war.
