At last: agreement about Islam’s true teachings
Today (Tuesday 5th September 2017) I came across this article in the Scottish Herald.
Titled “Terror attacks caused by “misinterpretation” of Quran by mosques, claims Scots Muslim issued with fatwa”, it details the story of a Muslim, Paigham Mustafa, who “received death threats over his critique of Islam” and who “sparked a fresh religious row over claims that recent ISIS-inspired terror attacks are the result of mosques “misinterpreting” the Koran.”
The “fatwa issued by 15 imams in Glasgow claims that Mustafa “sought to damage and destroy the doctrines of Islam and inject poison into the minds of young people” through his challenge to what was taught in Glasgow mosques.
Which rather begs the question “What is it that is taught in Glasgow mosques?” We’ll get to that in a moment.
Mustafa is also the author of a book called “The Koran: God’s Message to Mankind” which is his interpretation of the Koran and which differs from that of traditional exegetics. In what way we’ll consider in due course.
First a little bit of history about Glasgow central mosque (GCM).
When the Glasgow shop-keeper Asad Shah, an Ahmadhi Muslim, was murdered by an orthodox Muslim for being “the wrong sort of Muslim” and daring to wish Christians “happy Easter” and “Happy Christmas” the First Minister of Scotland, Nicola Sturgeon, hot-footed it to Glasgow Central Mosque to assure its leadership that “Islam is a religion of peace” and that such
Islamic terrorism violence “has nothing to do with Islam” and also to further assure them that she was aware of the “threat of an Islamophobic backlash” and that Police Scotland would not tolerate any instances of Islamophobia in the aftermath of the murder.
So far no surprise, this was the typical reaction of a western politician: hot-footing it to a ‘moderate’ mosque to exonerate Islam from Islamic terrorism and assuring the local Muslim population that they would be protected from “Islamophobes”.
In other words, the go-to moderate mosque in Glasgow wasn’t so moderate.
Rather it proved to be quite “extremist” (i.e. orthodox) once the political spotlight was taken away.
Let me state at this point that I am not attacking Nicola Sturgeon in particular. What this case shows – and I could give other examples of politicians from across the British political spectrum who have been “caught out” in a similar way – is that it is actually very hard to be sure that the “moderate Muslims” with whom you are interacting in the Public Interest are actually moderate.
Again, this should be no surprise; anyone with more than a passing familiarity with Islam should be aware of such doctrines as Taqiyya, Kitman and Tawriya that enshrine deception of non-Muslims if it is for the good of Islam.
What these actions by politicians poins to a certain deliberate naivety on the part of western politicians who simply choose not to understand this and are thus readily duped, to give a “charitable” interpretation.
Back to Mr.Mustapha (and his fatwa):
Mustapha believes that the way to reduce Islamic terrorism “is not by segregating communities, it is to take away division. The only way to take away division is to teach the Koran’s true values” which he believes have been “misinterpreted in a very, very big way” over history by, one presumes, the scholars of Islam. He goes on to further say: “If you look at the first 200 years from the time that Muhammad was there – the Jews, the Christians, the Arabs – all those communities lived together. They ate the same food, dressed the same, spoke the same language and married into each other’s families.”
Oh dear. Tell that to all the Christians of the Middle East, Egypt and North Africa who were slaughtered, enslaved and despoiled by the invading Muslim armies.
Thus Mustapha is clearly not that in touch with real history. The irony here is that this sort of ahistorical line is often peddled by orthodox Muslims themselves with the aim of promulgating the idea that “all is peace and light when Sharia rules supreme”.
Mustapha also said that atrocities such as the recent attack in Barcelona perpetrated by “Islamic fundamentalists … are inspired by the Hadith and the Sunna texts“. Thus he is saying that the Islamic canon (at least part thereof) is the “inspiration” of Islamic terror. No wonder he’s in trouble with the wider Muslim community in Glasgow!
He explained: “These are written traditions that have been attributed to Muhammad. Now these traditions came 200 years after the Koran. You will see in these books the violence, the terror, the killing of non-believers – all these things are there. …The Hadith and the Sunna [Sirat] are replete with violence, misogyny and terror. And these are the doctrines they preach in the mosques in Glasgow, London, Manchester, all over the world.”
And that answers the question as to what is taught in Glasgow mosques.
The Koran states over fifty times that Muslims must “obey the ‘prophet’” – that is, follow Mohammed’s words and deeds and it is these that are recorded in the hadith and sirat. The Sunna (hadith and sirat) cannot be dismissed, thus an orthodox Muslim has to follow what is in the Sunna as well as what is in the Koran in order to obey what is written in the Koran.
The fatwa signed by fifteen Glasgow Imams accused Mr.Mustapha of spreading “satanic thoughts” (such as peace and tolerance – but I’m getting ahead of myself) – no wonder Mr.Mustapha has received death-threats.
The Muslim Council of Scotland (MCS), to which GCM is affiliated, dismissed Mustapha’s book (his interpretation of the Koran) and said it “opposed the consensus of Muslim scholars throughout the history of Islam”. Liaquat Ali of the MCS went on to say that Mustapha “is entitled to his opinion, but not to claim it to be the true message of the Koran, as understood by famous scholars of Koran.”
Liaquat Ali also denied that either the Koran or the Sunna “incite individuals to commit violence”.
Let’s pick this apart a little.
Mustapha takes an ahistorical view of early Islam and on this builds the idea of “Islam is a religion of peace” and a coexistence construct. He uses this construct to claim that the Koran has been “misinterpreted” through the Sunna to make it a terrorist religion.
The MCS stated that Mustapha’s book opposed the consensus of the famous Muslim scholars throughout the history of Islam. Let me add that this is correct.
In other words Liaquat Ali of the MCS is admitting that Mustapha’s “Islam is a religion of peace” construct is false.
In turn that means that Ali is stating that the consensus of famous Muslim scholars is that Islam is a religion of violence/terrorism.
Suddenly realising what he’d done, Ali then asserts that neither Koran nor Sunna incite violence – this despite the well known fact that IS, Al-Qaeda et al regularly use both to legitimate their actions.
In summary then, what we have here is Mr.Mustapha, a “moderate Muslim” (actually a “moderniser”) and an orthodox Muslim, Liaquat Ali, both stating that Islam is at the root of Islamic terror.
Something of a red-letter day I’d say.
After writing the above I came across this article in Time Magazine in which one of “Indonesia’s most influential Islamic leaders Yahya Cholil Staquf” speaks with remarkable candour about orthodox Islam.
Perhaps at this point I should state the Indonesia is home to a more syncretic “native” form of Islam that is far less enslaved by orthodoxy.
He states: “Western politicians should stop pretending that extremism and terrorism have nothing to do with Islam. There is a clear relationship between … terrorism and the basic assumptions of Islamic orthodoxy. … The West must stop ascribing any and all discussion of these issues to “Islamophobia.”
He goes on to say: “Within the classical tradition, the relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims is assumed to be one of segregation and enmity… I’m not saying that Islam is the only factor causing Muslim minorities in the West to lead a segregated existence, often isolated from society as a whole. There may be other factors on the part of the host nations, such as racism, which exists everywhere in the world. But traditional Islam — which fosters an attitude of segregation and enmity toward non-Muslims — is an important factor. … Too many Muslims view civilization, and the peaceful co-existence of people of different faiths, as something they must combat. Many Europeans can sense this attitude among Muslims.”
In the West we are told that it is OUR fault (that of the host society) that Muslims do not integrate. Staquf, whilst acknowledging that racism plays a part (but note that he says racism cuts both ways), states that the teachings of orthodox Islam are an important factor in why many western-living Muslim communities are separatist, insular and unwilling to integrate.
It is also claimed that this apparent insularity is the result of “white flight” due to (of course) racism and Islamophobia on the part of Caucasians, but Staquf is saying that at least part of the reason for this documented phenomenon is that Europeans can sense the hostility and enmity of the orthodox Muslims and are thus driven out, no longer feeling either safe or welcome.
Turning to politics Staquf says: “Within the Islamic tradition, the [Islamic] state is a single, universal entity that unites all Muslims under the rule of one man who leads them in opposition to, and conflict with, the non-Muslim world… [ISIS’s] goal of establishing a global caliphate stands squarely within the orthodox Islamic tradition. But we live in a world of nation-states. Any attempt to create a unified Islamic state in the 21st century can only lead to chaos and violence“.
Thus the natural position of orthodox Islam is one of being at war with the non-Muslim world. And yet we are supposed to believe that Islamic terror has nothing to do with Islam?
He further states that he “understands” the fear that many in the West have of Islam due to the antagonistic attitude of orthodox Islam towards non-Muslims and recounts a story of how he witnessed some young Muslims in Brussels insulting and harrassing Policemen – with no response and asks “why do you tolerate such behaviour?”
Staquf blames the rise of “fundamentalist orthodox Islam” on Wahhabism and Saudi influence and laments that the west has allowed “this to go unchallenged for so many decades“.
His final point is also telling: “[T]here’s an extreme left wing whose adherents reflexively denounce any and all talk about the connections between traditional Islam, fundamentalism and violence as de facto proof of Islamophobia. This must end. A problem that is not acknowledged cannot be solved.”
In other words, Staquf is saying that “Islamophobia” is used as a silencing mechanism by those on the left who are seeking to prevent any critique of Islam.
Who would have thought that a scholar of Islam would speak so frankly on what orthodox Islam teaches and its consequences? It is truly refreshing.
To be fair, Staquf is not the only one: here in the U.K. we had Anjem Choudhery who was also honest in his embrace of orthodoxy. He is now in gaol, having been active as a recruiter for ISIL and supporting Islamic terrorism in the U.K.