« Does The Secular Mind Beat The Religious One? | Main | The Atatürk Silhouette on The Holy Mountain »
June 21, 2008
Is Islam For 'Victory?' Or For God?
[Originally published in Turkish Daily News]
A few weeks ago, I ran into a quote from Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the Egyptian Muslim scholar and Al-Jazeera televangelist, in Turkey’s controversial Islamist daily, Vakit. “Victory,” the 80-year-old cleric was saying, “is only possible by returning to Islam.” The “victory” he was referring to was the one Muslims would have won against Israel. “The defeat of the Jewish State is possible,” he reportedly declared in a sermon in Qatar, “only when Muslims fully return to the pure teaching of Islam.”
This is a rhetoric which is common to almost all Islamist leaders and movements. They all point to the troubles of the Muslim world and argue, “Islam is the solution.” By saying so, what they unconsciously do is to offer Islam as a means to worldly success. And, again probably unconsciously, they strikingly differ from the traditional meaning of Islam, which has been understood as, first and foremost, a path to heavenly salvation.
A Recipe For Totalitarianism
It is true that the Koran tells Muslims to ask God, “Lord, grant us good in this world and good in the hereafter.” So a Muslim believer can hope that faith will bless himself and his community in this world as well. But this is very different from saying that when Islam is practiced in full, Muslim nations will triumph. In the former view, what is sought is God’s blessing. In the latter view, Islam is formulated as a “system” which can be implemented in order to achieve political or military might. It is brought down to the earth and turned into an ideology.
In other words, while the goal of Islamism is “victory,” the goal of Islam is the consent of God. And that’s why the Islamists are in fact secularizers who disenchant religion from the divine.
The late professor Cantwell Smith had observed this curious trade-off between God and politics in his study of the evolution of the Egyptian Journal Al-Azhar from 1930 to 1948. From 1930 to 1933, the journal was edited by Al-Khidr Husain, a traditionalist Muslim, and its pages were full of moral instructions and theological contemplations. The beauty of nature, for example, was expressed in detail and praised as God’s creation.
In 1933, Farid Wajdi took over the magazine, and the content became increasingly political. Wajdi’s main goal was to assure his readers that Islam was “all right” as a system. According to Smith, a “profound irreligiousness” pervade[d] Wajdi’s journal, and “God appear[ed] remarkably seldom throughout [its] pages.”
British historian Karen Armstrong, one of the world’s most prominent writers on religion, grasps this problem clearly in her book, “A History of God.” “The political activism which characterizes modern fundamentalism,” she notes, “is in retreat from God.”
You can see this all around the Muslim world. If you talk to the more traditional pious Muslims, you will hear about the importance of following God’s commandments, praising Him for your daily bread, or raising your children with good morals. If you speak to an Islamist, though, you will listen to how evil and corrupt “western civilization” is, and how Islam will save the world from capitalists, “imperialists” or the Zionists. (It must be no accident that while traditional Muslims see Marxism-Leninism as a godless and evil idea, the Islamists often find it rather interesting and inspiring.)
All this explains why Islamism is a recipe for totalitarianism. If you think that your society will be all right if everyone acts according to Islam, then you can very well force them to be pious in order to achieve this collective success. If you perceive Islam as a “system,” like socialism, you can use state power in order to make every citizen conform to its standards. Hence you can employ religious police in order to force women to veil themselves, or oblige men to go to the mosque.
But if you were caring not about the “system,” but rather simply about the salvation of these people, you would be more interested in how they feel about what you do. The Koran boldly declares, “There is no compulsion in religion,” and it is absurd to think otherwise. You simply can’t make people more Godly by threatening them. You will actually make them hate the religion that you are trying to impose.
What Went Wrong
We can continue to blame the Islamists for what they have done, but we should also understand how they came to be. Most scholars who have studied Islamism note that this is a modern ideology, which started to grow in the 19th century and had its peak in the 20th. And what characterizes this period is the colossal crisis of Islam. The Muslim world was defeated by the West militarily, politically and culturally. And Muslims started to debate why all this came to be.
To the question, “What went wrong,” two totally opposite groups gave a rather similar answer: They both argued that religion was the key. Islamists said, “We have been defeated by the West because we abandoned our religion, so we need to restore it.” The secularists said, “We have been defeated by the West because we have been blinded by our religion, so we have to get rid of it.” And, not too surprisingly, both of these ideological groups established authoritarian regimes. (See Iran and Turkey, respectively.)
The third answer – that I would also subscribe to – was that the Islamic world was defeated due to a complex historical process, which kept it away from modernization, and which had little to do with religion. So, the solution would be neither forced Islamization nor forced secularization. It was modernization through the incorporation of education, science, technology, capitalism and democracy.
Islamism will lose its steam only if this third way proves to be successful. And, luckily enough, it has been doing pretty well in Turkey in the past few decades. But, unfortunately, the secularo-fascists here are just too rigid to allow that to happen. If they succeed in their efforts to crush Turkey’s Islam-friendly modernization, it will be the Islamists who will gain from that. And the doomed rivalry between the two totalitarianisms – the Islamist and the secularist – will be enhanced.
Posted by Mustafa Akyol at June 21, 2008 4:04 PM
Yusuf al-Qaradawi is one of the most respected muslim scholars in the world. His call to return to Islam is not an empty rethoric or slogan. You are right saying that a possible return to Islam does not solve the problems of muslim countries and bring prosperity to muslim nations automatically. Nevertheless, interpreting Islam as merely a heavenly salvation does not find enough support from the Holy Qur'an, that focuses on the earth more than heaven and urges muslims to do best in the world. Interestingly, even the names of most of the surahs in the Qur'an are derived from the earthly issues like bakara (cow), necm (star), neml (ant), ankebut (spider), nahl (bee), kamer (the moon) etc. All the prophets, without any exception, have been in a conflict with the emperors and kings that oppressed the masses. The messenger of Islam is responsible for both conveying the message and establishing a just society. Enjoining the good and forbidding the evil is a fundamental principle of the Qur'an. It is true that the reasons behind the humiliation of muslims and backwardness of muslim countries are complex, but this complexity does not remove the positive impact of Islam on the progress of muslim countries in the history. I believe that the cure for our illnesses is not the modernization project that you enhance in your essay since modernism is the root of many evils in the world despite its positive dimensions. Our real problem is the problem of civilization. Today muslims are not capable of creating a new civilization, drawing inspiration from the Qur'an that has been the key to the transformation of the ummah throughout the history. We cannot consolidate our political and military accomplishments with cultural achievements. As Cevdet Said remarked, we haven't got the problem of the Book, we have the problem of human. As you see, when you delve into the words, there is always a long way of understanding to go. One last word, there is not one single religion or ideology that doesn't run the risk of totalitarianism. Our only hope for muslim nations to avoid totalitarian inclinations is that, whenever we go to Qur'an, Qur'an sends us away to history, nature, society and our inner world to observe, study and reflect.
Posted by: Turgay Evren at June 24, 2008 10:13 PM
Mustafa, just for the sake of accuracy, Al-Qaradawi is not a teleevangelist on Al-Jazeera; the said show is not of the kind you might find on other channels like Iqra throughout the Middle-East and North Africa, or equivalent Christian teleevangelist channels. On Al-Jazeera, he's just one of a few recurring guests in a mere religious Q&A program.
As an aside, I also agree with the previous commenter's point. Islam, including through the Quran, has always claimed a place in the public, political sphere. The details are on how it's approached. There's a whole possible spectrum, and like leftist ideologies which can range from welfare state to stalinism, Islam can be given as much a libertarian understanding as a totalitarian/virtue-enforcing one. Heck, for whatever it's worth, the Ottoman era which officially implemented Islam, despite all its flaws was far more liberal than most current Arab regimes, whether secular or religious.
Posted by: Chahine at June 25, 2008 11:12 PM
Dear Turgay Evren,
Qaradawi is a dangerous fanatic. He also endorses female genital mutilation. I don't see why he would deserve any respect.
Posted by: A. A. B. at June 26, 2008 6:33 AM
@ A.A.B. from your posting it's obvious that YOU are a fanatic! Qaradawi is one of the most respected ulama of our times. He has said that female genital mutiliation has nothing to do with Islam.
Qaradwi is hated by salafiya, who are real fanatics! He is hated by Zionists, who are real fascists!
Dr Yusuf Qaradawi is thought to be one of the most liberal Islamic scholars. While his justification of suicide bombers in Palestine is upsetting and wrong, imho.
@ Mustafa, Islam gives equal importance to both wordly and heavenly matters. We can argue that Islam is answer to Umma's diseases & sufferings and we can defeat Israel as it is now (I don't mean destruction of Israel, I mean destruction of the current regime, similar to the way South Africa followed) by "adhering to Islam".
The meaning of the last term can be argued: what IS adhering to Islam? Qaradawi may think it is establishing a Saudi Arabia-like state while you (& me) may think that liberal democracy & open market economy is also "Islamic".
So far, you: have offered not to sacrifise animals during Eyd-al-Adha, but to give monetary charity; wearing hijab is not compulsory; many hadith can be rejected; allowing some Muslim religious practices in Britain is wrong, etc... and now Qaradawi is an "islamist". I wonder what will be next in your list?
Posted by: Behruz Himo at June 27, 2008 11:07 AM
Behruz Himo,
Qaradawi is quoted on his own website, Islamonline, as saying about Female Genital Mutilation, which is being referred to by the trivalsing term of "female circumsision":
(quote Qaradawi) "Anyhow, it is not obligatory, whoever finds it serving the interest of his daughters should do it, and I personally support this under the current circumstances in the modern world."
Qaradawi actually "proves" his opinion with a very weak hadith tramitted by Abu Dawud...
I think this example proves that it is quite sad that some people consider him to be "one of the most respected ulama of our times". In Turkey, these "some people" actually include Necmettin Erbakan and his Milli Görüs/Saadet Partisi movement.
It is also interesting to see you call him "liberal", probably that means you haven't seriously studied writings by authors more open-minded than Qaradawi. Mr. Akyol has mentioned Abdullahi Ahmad An-Naim, I would recommend his writings about Islamic law. They are much more well-argumented and scientific than Qaradawi's political preaches.
In the Turkish language, I'd like to mention "Islamiyat", which contains articles from leading Ilahiyat professors and docents, and books by "Ankara okulu".
Posted by: A. A. B. at June 28, 2008 3:07 PM
@ A.A.B.
Quran does not mention circumcision at all. Qaradwi says "... such hadiths [supporting female circumsision] aren't authentic". His personal view on the issue DOESN'T matter to me, like his opinion on suicide bombers in Palestine, both are abhorent!
I'm not calling to accept Dr. Qaradawi as the only truth, he is one of the most prominent Islamic scholars of our age. That simple.
The pluralism of Islamic theology is obvious here (compare to kemalism) you can accept interpretations of scholars or not, like madhabs, while still remaining a practising Muslim.
It is very interesting to compare what you have said about Dr. Qaradawi and what Bin Laden & salafis say about him. Do you guys communicate?
P.S. Female circumcision is also practised by christians & some pagans in africa.
Posted by: Behruz Himo at June 29, 2008 9:34 AM
Behruz Hiro,
1) I am completely aware that these ahadith are not authentic, but I am not aware of Qaradawi ever mentioning that. Do you have any sources? And even if he admits tht the practice is justfied a weak hadith, the fact that he personally endorses the practice is a sufficent reason for me not to respect him.
Qaradawi isprominent in the sense that he is widely known. But I don't think he is liberal, and I don't think he is producing positive effects for Muslims and practised Islam. It is true that Bin Laden is even more radical than him, but being a lesser evil is not the same as being good.
And your Kemalism comparison is quite inacceptable to me. I am glad you are tolerant of Islamic diversity, but by far, not all people are. Remember what happened to Bahriye Ücok.
Posted by: A. A. B. at June 29, 2008 6:03 PM
Dear Mr. Akyol,
Thank you for identifying the problematic nature of the "religion only for wordly victory" mentality and the probable cause for it accurately. However, I think that you are missing some crucial points.
Islam is a religion that bases most of its teachings on the afterlife and the victory of God and of the good on the Judgement Day and warns the believers of the transitory and unimportant nature of wordly success. But this does not mean that it tells the believers to be ready for looking like some other-wordly weirdos who seek no wordly success, no wordly personal fulfilment, no escape from humiliation and no wordly deliverance from humiliating political, economic and cultural hegemony of other people. Add to this the intense feeling of shame that believers would feel in the face of the ascendancy of the worldviews that speak disparagingly of what they believe to be God's own religion.
A rational God would never order His believers to look like such weird outcasts in this world. God would never tell His believers to allow disbelievers to make His message look like a subjugated, low-order, and irrelevant belief system either! In Islamic teaching, God does not do these as we would expect.
Indeed God reasonably justifies the seeking of wordly ends and victory in the Qur'an when they are not separated from the fundamental Quranic principle of the primacy of the moral virtues and the primacy of the afterlife. Let us look at what God says in 48:18,19 in the Qur'an: ...He bestowed inner peace upon them from on high, and rewarded them with [the glad tiding of] a victory soon to come and [of] many war-gains which they would achieve: for God is indeed almighty, wise.
The solution is not forced Islamization. It is voluntary Islamization and hard work for the part of the Muslim to that end.
Posted by: Mehmed Mustafa at July 5, 2008 6:47 PM
Sorry, the Quranic verse in my above comment was mentioning "war-gains" and that could easily mislead a western reader whose mind cannot escape the common western stereotypes about Islam. I did not mean to allude to war in the least. I was just trying to show that the Qur'an does encourage Muslims to be better Muslims with promises of gains to be obtained in this world as well as the promise of paradise in the next one, yet as well as the final good pleasure (ridwaan) of God, the latter being the most important of all. As for war, it is a reality of the life of this world and God would therefore not avoid regulating the rules of war for the believers in the Qur'an.
Posted by: Mehmed Mustafa at July 5, 2008 7:04 PM