Posted on 11/12/2005 1:37:25 PM PST by Valin
EDITOR'S NOTE — This is another story in an occasional series examining the fault lines within Islam between the forces of moderation and extremism. The consequences of this fight that shook America on Sept. 11, 2001, reverberate today, and the struggle for Islam may be the defining conflict of our era.
LOS ANGELES — UCLA law professor Khaled Abou El Fadl has a scholarly manner and speaks in soft tones. But listen as he tells his story.
A Kuwaiti native, he was fascinated by militant Islam as a young man, then evolved into a moderate champion of democracy and suffered arrest and torture in Egypt for his views. Saudi go-betweens failed to buy his silence but long limited his influence by preventing publication of his works in Arabic. He received death threats over anti-terrorist comments following the Sept. 11 attacks.
Now, as Muslim immigrants to America struggle to find their voice, no one is more outspoken than Abou El Fadl — driven by what he sees as a global crisis: the fight between "moderates" and "puritans" to determine who represents authentic Islam.
"Nothing less than the very soul of Islam" is at risk, says the 42-year-old Abou El Fadl, who is calling upon moderates to reverse their declining influence and reclaim bold leadership of the faith.
This is a "transformative moment," he says. In his view, Islam is suffering a schism as dramatic as the 16th century Protestant Reformation that split Christian Europe.
Two main movements claim to perpetuate true Islam, he says. On one side, the professor's fellow moderates uphold centuries of Muslim teaching and the beliefs of an often quiescent Muslim majority.
Their opponents, as he sees it, are puritans — he dislikes the "fundamentalist" and "Islamist" labels — who've won a remarkable following as they've preached religious extremism and, often, carried out acts of reprehensible violence in recent decades.
Eventually, one of these two rivals will achieve near-total commitment from the world's more than 1 billion Muslims and "the power to define Islam" for the indefinite future — including attitudes toward terrorism, he predicts.
Abou El Fadl depicts the contest in his new book "The Great Theft: Wrestling Islam from the Extremists" (HarperSanFrancisco). It's probably the most dramatic manifesto from an American Muslim since the Sept. 11 attacks.
Reaching this point has been a complex, dangerous and sometimes lonely struggle for the author.
Even in the moderate Muslim-American community, Abou El Fadl is something of an outsider, and his ideas have been greeted with outright hostility in the Mideast. Yet he's someone who, increasingly, can't be ignored because he's so well-credentialed for intellectual combat over Islam's heritage.
Abou El Fadl spent a decade in Egypt learning the intricacies of Islamic law, then received an Ivy League education in America (Yale bachelor's, Penn law degree, Princeton doctorate) — a potent and rare combination. His library of tens of thousands of volumes has long since spilled from his home into the garage.
Yet as a teenager, he found the intense call of Muslim radicalism emotionally satisfying, a feeling that only dissipated as he studied Islamic legal traditions in earnest. At Yale, he plunged into advocacy of democracy and human rights.
Abou El Fadl says he returned to Egypt in 1985 after winning a key undergraduate honor and expected a warm reception. Instead he was subjected to torture.
"By the third day in there I was praying I would die," he recalls.
His tormenters provided no explanation but indicated hostility to his liberal political ideas. It took him a month to recover, physically and emotionally, and it was years before he returned to Egypt again. The ordeal made him opt to become a U.S. citizen, instead of working in Egypt.
The professor reports that Saudi go-betweens made three offers to buy his silence and that Saudi pressure prevented publication of his books in Arabic, an essential step for gaining any permanent impact in the Muslim world — though some of his writings and interviews are available in Arabic on the Internet.
"I felt I probably would not have much use in my lifetime" because of the censorship, he says.
Yet some Arabic translations have finally appeared in the Mideast the past two years, and he expects "The Great Theft" will eventually follow. He was pleased by appreciative audiences last summer during talks in Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore.
A Christian expert, J. Dudley Woodberry of California's Fuller Theological Seminary, says "Muslims of good will are longing for someone to make a case for moderation."
That makes Abou El Fadl "a star on the rise," Woodberry adds. "I hope he's right. And for the West, he pretty much is."
Muslims who join Abou El Fadl in advocating moderation include those associated with the Washington-based Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy and authors in the forthcoming anthology "Islamic Democratic Discourse" (Lexington).
In that volume, editor Muqtedar Khan of the University of Delaware will criticize Abou El Fadl as too traditional, because he favors application of Sharia (Islamic law) as interpreted by religious jurists. Though Abou El Fadl has a liberal interpretation of religious law and supports democracy, Khan says, on this point "he says what Islamists are saying."
The moderate cause also is embraced in group pronouncements like one in July from 18 scholars of the Fiqh Council of North America. They declared that "targeting civilians' lives and property through suicide bombings or any other method of attack is haram — or forbidden" under the Quran and Muslim law.
A parallel event occurred the same month in the Muslim heartland. Jordan's King Abdullah assembled 180 teachers from 40 nations representing Islam's eight major schools of legal thought. They declared that only fully qualified authorities have any right to issue fatwas (religious decrees) and carefully restricted the right of Muslims to declare fellow Muslims to be heretics.
If honored, that decree would end any regard for religious edicts from self-appointed amateurs such as al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden and any claims that it's legitimate for Muslims to murder other Muslims for political reasons, as in Iraq.
The problem, says Abou El Fadl, is modern Islam faces a "crisis of authority" about who speaks for the faith that has deteriorated into "full-fledged chaos."
Islam once recognized the Quran and Hadith — authoritative traditions about the Prophet Muhammad and early followers — interpreted by the consensus among the ulama (religious jurists). Seminaries trained recognized authorities who agreed on major points but allowed flexibility on details.
Abou El Fadl describes modern developments as follows:
European colonialism eroded the old system, as Western-influenced laws and lawyers rivaled traditional Islamic institutions.
After the colonial era, autocrats in Muslim countries who cared little for the faith seized remaining Sharia schools, formerly run by religious endowments independent of the state. Jurists and mosque leaders became state functionaries and lost religious legitimacy.
This impoverished intellectual climate created a dangerous "vacuum in religious authority" that has been filled by popular movements, radical schools and religious edicts from ill-trained propagandists.
The key to the current split is Saudi Arabia's Wahhabi movement. It originated by treating non-Wahhabi Sunnis and Shiites as virtual apostates, which justified repression, torture and killing of fellow Muslims — along with unwavering hostility toward non-Muslims.
This movement disrupted Muslim unity and replaced tolerance with a "very narrow and idiosyncratic view of Islamic law," Abou El Fadl says. Out went music, chess and pets (he defiantly keeps three dogs) and in came required beards, dress codes and severe restrictions on women.
Especially since the 1970s, the oil-rich Saudis have funded an aggressive campaign to spread Wahhabi and related "Salafi" ideas worldwide, and to repress other forms of Islam as illegitimate. But claims of restoring "the only legitimate form of Islam" are "fraudulent," he asserts.
He is equally severe in his denunciations of American Muslim leaders for ineptitude, which Khan says has made him a rather isolated figure.
Abou El Fadl says that after Sept. 11, U.S. Muslim leaders should have led a "massive" response and "expressed pure, unmitigated outrage." He also says they run undemocratic organizations and lack courage to denounce the Saudis for promoting "this radical ideology of hate."
Of America's Muslims, a community of somewhere between 2 million and 6 million, he says: "We have the numbers, we have the wealth, but not the power or influence or voice."
Because of his controversial views, Abou El Fadl no longer feels welcome at his local mosque, the Islamic Center of Southern California, and worships elsewhere. The center also stopped running his longtime column in its Minaret magazine.
He blames the tyranny in Muslim nations on Europeans, who liked democracy but gave little of it to peoples they colonized. Because "civil society was practically absent," homegrown despots took over with independence.
Though the frustrations of terrorists are understandable, he says, their tactics are "illogical and strategically stupid." Worse, they ignore Islam's ethical teachings and traditions. And they caused masses of people to associate Islam with violence and terrorism.
"Is that what we want for our religion?" he asks. "What will become of what Islam stands for a century from now?"
He reads the same book as the rest of this islamic rabble.
Check his papers.
Good article. Within the constraint of space only a few things where established, but never the less, he appears to have some valid arguments. One thing not mentioned is the fact that most Mosques in Amercia are built and financed by various Saudi groups, which as we all know fall almost exclusively under the banner of Wahhabist and Salafist. So naturally he is not welcome in most of these mosques. He is speaking directly against what the Wahhabist,Salafist, and Qutbist want to do, kill the rest and establish a pure faith.
Was Mohammed a moderate? End of discussion.
"What will become of what Islam stands for a century from now?"
What is Jihad: The Arabic word Jihad is derived from the root word Jahada (struggle). Jihad has come to mean an offensive war to be waged by Muslims against all non-Muslims to convert them to Islam on the pain of death. Jihad is enjoined on all Muslims by the Quran.
This site brings you the history of the Islamic Jihad from a neutral and factual viewpoint.
Site Map
The Jihad against Arabs (622 to 634)
The Jihad against Zoroastrian Persians of Iran, Baluchistan and Afghanistan (634 to 651)
The Jihad against the Byzantine Christians (634 to 1453)
The Jihad against Christian Coptic Egyptians (640 to 655)
The Jihad against Christian Coptic Nubians - modern Sudanese (650)
The Jihad against pagan Berbers - North Africans (650 to 700)
The Jihad against Spaniards (711 to 730)
The Reconquista against Jihad in Spain (730 to 1492)
The Jihad against Franks - modern French (720 to 732)
The Jihad against Sicilians in Italy (812 to 940)
The Jihad against Chinese (751)
The Jihad against Turks (651 to 751)
The Jihad against Armenians and Georgians (1071 to 1920)
The Crusade against Jihad (1096 – 1291 ongoing)
The Jihad against Mongols (1260 to 1300)
The Jihad against Hindus of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh (638 to 1857)
The Jihad against Indonesians and Malays (1450 to 1500)
The Jihad against Poland (1444 to 1699)
The Jihad against Rumania (1350 to 1699)
The Jihad against Russia (1500 to 1853)
The Jihad against Bulgaria (1350 to 1843)
The Jihad against Serbs, Croats and Albanians (1334 to 1920)
The Jihad against Greeks (1450 to 1853)
The Jihad against Albania (1332 - 1853)
The Jihad against Croatia (1389 to 1843)
The Jihad against Hungarians (1500 to 1683)
The Jihad against Austrians (1683)
Jihad in the Modern Age (20th and 21st Centuries)
The Jihad against Israelis (1948 – 2004 ongoing)
The Jihad against Americans (9/11/2001)
The Jihad against the British (1947 onwards)
The Jihad against the Germans (1945 onwards)
The Jihad against the Indians (1947 onwards)
The Jihad against the Filipinos in Mindanao(1970 onwards)
The Jihad against Indonesian Christians in Malaku and East Timor (1970 onwards)
The Jihad against Russians (1995 onwards)
The Jihad against Dutch and Belgians (2003 onwards)
The Jihad against Norwegians and Swedes (2003 onwards)
The Jihad against Thais (2003 onwards)
The Jihad against Nigerians (1965 onwards)
The Jihad against Canadians (2001 onwards)
The Jihad against Latin America (2003 onwards)
The Jihad against Australia (2002 onwards)
The Global Jihad today (2001 – ongoing)
The War on Terror against Jihad today (2001– ongoing)
It's all about Iraq, isn't it?
Yep, it's all about Iraq and...
India and the Sudan and Algeria and Afghanistan and New York and Pakistan and Israel and Russia and Chechnya and the Philippines and Indonesia and Nigeria and Thailand and Spain and Egypt and Bangladesh and Saudi Arabia and Ingushetia and Dagestan and Britain and Turkey and Kabardino-Balkaria and Morocco and Yemen and Lebanon and France and Uzbekistan and Gaza and Tunisia and Kosovo and Bosnia and Mauritania and Kenya and Eritrea and Syria and Somalia and California and Kuwait and Virginia and Ethiopia and Iran and Jordan and United Arab Emirates and Louisiana and Texas and Tanzania and Sri Lanka and Pennsylvania and Belgium and Denmark and East Timor and Qatar and Maryland and the Netherlands and Scotland and...
...and pretty much wherever Muslims believe their religion tells them to:
"Fight and slay the Unbelievers wherever ye find them. Seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem of war."
Qur'an, Sura 9:5
" The List " of Islamic Terror Attacks For the Past 12 Months CLICK LINK FOR LIST:
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
So naturally he is not welcome in most of these mosques. He is speaking directly against what the Wahhabist,Salafist, and Qutbist want to do, kill the rest and establish a pure faith.
That puts him in good company IMO.
I thought this guy was a beacon of reason until I saw that he supports Sharia Law.
This indivividual is a perfect example of how Islam is divided - like Communism, on how to bury us; and a perfect example of how very dangerous it is to allow ANY Muslims to remain here.
Look at France - the Muslims' "Friend".
Like a sitting duck ready to be plucked.
I love it when non-Muslim "experts" like J. Dudley speaks authoritatively about Muslims "longing for a voice of moderation." Its well-intentioned ignorant fools like this like this that makes the problem so much worse. The more we absolve Islam itself in the face of its product the worse the problem gets.
Would Bin Laden really have been so bad if he never accepted Islam? I think not, although I’m sure there are terrorists that would be killing people with or without a religious justification. What’s so confusing on the face of this violence is the terrorists themselves. Many of them with almost serenity about them before during and after their violence. This is why Islam wins 'reverts' after many of these attacks, because these people often don’t fit a stereotypical mode of criminal, and to the simple mind, that cannot do analysis beyond a facade, this is very persuasive.
Islam's DIRECT jihad edicts are the root. Duped followers act in accordance with the doctrine itself. Read Surah At-Tawba (9th chapter of the Quran). Read it yourself first and look at the plain literal meaning. You will see it delivers present tense commands to "Fight All who do not believe in Allah..." That’s Yuself Ali's translation although I am told by several ex-Muslim Arabs that the Arabic translation is really "murder" as opposed to "fight". Functionally of course this makes no difference. Read this and I promise you will find the equivalent of an ethnic cleansing decree, in context.
Some Muslims interpret it differently. Who are these moderate Muslims then? It’s not hard to see, simply look to what Tasifeer the group in question accepts. Tasifeers are simply interpretations of the Quran.
The problem is not the mythical "extremist" or "radical" Muslims. They are merely a symptom. The reason we are acutely aware of them now is due to the integration of terror technology with Jihad. The confusion is perpetuated by where we stand in time. Not long ago everyone understood Jihad. Even the founding fathers of America considered banning Islam when they discovered Islamic ideology after clashes with Muslim pirates. Diplomatic investigation uncovered the reality about Islam and the very founders of religious tolerance were made to rethink their view. As much as I love the founding fathers of the USA, I now realize that idea of total religious freedom and acceptance was naive. China is the extreme to be sure, but on the other hand, there is much to be learned from their measures.
Political correctness relegates people like me to posting silent threads on a website. We must discard this ridiculous view that all religious doctrines are inheritly good or compatible with civilization or co-existing sub-cultures. There is no natural law that insures any belief is good simply because it falls under the taxonomy of "religion."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.