Reformation in Islam

“Islam of Mecca” versus “Islam of Medina”

The relatively new Kuwaiti website, Tanweer (Enlightenment --- founded in 2002,) is a forum dedicated for dialog on Democracy, Human Rights, Status of  Women, Religious Reformation, Civil Society and Window on Kuwait. In my previous contributions to 6thcolumnagainstjihad.com/website, I commented on certain discussions going on among Arab intellectuals who are preoccupied with Tahdith (modernization), Tajdid (renewal), and Islah (reformation.)

Early in June, I was struck by an article with this title: Religious Reformation in Islam: “Islam of Mecca” versus “Islam of Medina.” (Al-Islah al-Deeni Fi’l-Islam: Islam “Mecca”

Fi Muwajahat Islam “Al-Medina.”

I found this article quite bold in positing the existence of a confrontation (Muwajahat) between the Islam that was revealed in Mecca, and the Islam that was, later on, revealed in Medina. Here are excerpts from the article, followed by my analysis and comments. The author began by stating his theory about the existence of “two Islams”:

“For a long time now, Westerners have been hearing from two divergent groups within Muslims. One group keeps telling them, “Islam is a religion of tolerance, peace, and mercy.” The other tells a contrary story, “Islam is a religion of jihad, killings, and the persecution of non-Muslims.”

“Obviously, Westerners find themselves in a quandary. Which group are they to believe? Is it possible for a religion to proclaim, at the same time, two contradictory messages? Something must have gone wrong with the telling of the story of Islam.

“One explanation is that there are actually two Islams. There is the Islam of Mecca, and then, the Islam of Medina. The first Islam (as revealed in Mecca) is characterized by peace and the absence of violence; that is when Muhammad was weak and persecuted by the leadership of the Quraish tribe.

“But when he migrated to Medina, he became strong, and eventually organized an Islamic state. It was during this period (622-632,) that he received surahs that called for jihad against the unbelievers in Mecca, as well as the Jews and Christians in Arabia.

Therefore, those who claim that Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance are right; and those who say that Islam is a religion of jihad are right. The problem is: to which Islam are they pointing, is it to “the Islam of Mecca, or the Islam of Medina?”

 “Ultimately, if a real reformation is to take place, it would require the adoption of a new view of the sacred text, and the rise of a new fiqh (hermeneutic) based on reason as informed and enlightened by the new sciences. This requires that the reformists must cling to the ‘Meccan Islam,’ with its basic spirituality, tolerance, and love; while at the same time, rejecting the ‘Medinan Islam’ that promotes violence and jihad against non-Muslims.”

First, the analysis.

The author of this article is bold and candid. He recognizes that non-Muslims keep on hearing the mantra, “Islam is a peaceful religion,” while the daily news brings them reports of violent acts perpetrated by Islamic groups all over the world. As I write these words, the news from Iraq tells of the brutal and barbaric killings of the two American soldiers that were kidnapped in mid-June, by some radical Jihadists, in the name of Islam. So, what are we to believe, is Islam is a religion of peace, or is Islam a religion of violence?”

The answer depends on two different and contrasting parts of the Qur’an. The surahs that came to Muhammad in Mecca proclaimed the unity of God, and the vanity of idols.  However, after Muhammad’s Hijra to Medina, where he founded an Islamic state, the surahs altered their tone and began to deal with topics of war and peace, the status of Jews and Christians, etc. Then, after the death of the Prophet, the caliphs began a jihad for the conquest of the world; and within one hundred years, the Islamic empire spread from Spain to India. Both the facts of history, as well as the Medinan surahs of the Qur’an, testify that Islam is a religion that endorses violence and spreads by conquests. While Muslims never cease decrying Western imperialism, they love and cherish their futuhat (conquests) of vast areas of Asia, Africa, and Europe. Their sacred Book, at least in its Medinan part, implies the existence of a “divine” sanction for a global war against the Infidels. Eventually, this view gave rise to the division of the world into two parts: Daru’l Islam (House of Islam,) and Daru’l Harb (Household of War!)

Now some modernizing Muslims, recognizing the urgent necessity of avoiding a clash between Islam and the rest of the world, would like their worldview to change and become gentler, willing and able to co-exist with other members of the human family. So, they call for restricting the normative parts of the Qur’an to the Meccan surahs, i.e. to the peaceful section of their Book. This is the only way to stop radical Muslims, who find support for their jihadism, in the Qur’anic surahs that were revealed to Muhammad in Medina.

My Comments.

While the goal of these reformists is laudable, unfortunately it is simply a shot in the dark. Islam is firmly entrenched in the entire Qur’an, the Hadith, and the Sunna. Neither these authoritative texts, nor the way they have been expounded during the last fourteen centuries, allow for any disjunction between the teachings of the “Meccan Surahs” and the “Medinan Surahs” of the Qur’an. The orthodox doctrine regarding the text of the Qur’an is its uncreatedness. Imam Hanbal, one of the founders of the Four Schools for the interpretation of the Shari’ah, went to prison during the 9^th century, rather than compromise on this point. He fought and eventually he won the battle for the Qur’an being qadeem, i.e., having always existed in heaven. So, there can be no pick and choose between the revelation that descended in Mecca, and the revelation that came later on in Medina.

Unfortunately for Muslim reformers, they do not have the same tradition vis-à-vis the Qur’an as Christians have regarding the Bible. What I mean is that in the Christian tradition, the teachings of the Old Testaments must be interpreted in the light of the New Testament. Thus, since the New Testament clearly teaches two distinct and separate realms: the realm of God, and the realm of “Caesar,” it leaves no room for the establishment of a theocracy in areas of the world where Christians dominate. Furthermore, such parts of the Old Testament that deal with the conquest of the Promised Land, and the various aspects of the Mosaic law, excepting the Ten Commandments, are regarded as pertaining to a specific temporary era, and thus, are not normative for the present.

What I mean is that the Christian Scriptures themselves describe two phases of revelation, the first being temporary and preparatory for the second phase, which is final.

As mentioned above, it is the New Testament itself that authoritatively endorses this view, and is not a later addition to the Christian tradition. It is true that after the conversion of Emperor Constantine, the lines of demarcation separating Church and State became blurred. And after the fall of Rome, the Western Church began to interfere in the affairs of the State. However, such changes were contrary to the teachings of the Bible. So the Reformers of the 16^th Century simply called for a return to the Biblical teachings, not only regarding spiritual matters, but equally in connection with the affairs of the state.

Muslim scholars today, interested in some kind of reform, don’t have the “luxury” that Luther, Calvin, and Knox had, almost five hundred years ago. Their Holy Book doesn’t allow for such a radical hermeneutic as called-for by the author of the article I referred to at the beginning of my essay. I cannot solve their dilemma. It is intractable; as they find themselves within a closed circle. I wonder how many other would-be reformers will join the call for making the Meccan Qur’an, the only standard for politics in Islam!

~~~~~

“Western Dhimmitude”

It was natural for Western media to be preoccupied, during the week of June 4, 2006, with the news from Canada and Iraq. Early that week, the Canadian authorities uncovered a plot of Islamist residents who were planning to perpetrate some horrific acts of terrorism. The mainline media kept telling us that some of these terrorists were Canadian citizens, while others were long-time residents, but the “M” word was absent. There was complete silence about the fact that all those arrested were Muslims.

On Saturday evening June 9, PBS broadcast its “Washington Week.” Four journalists appeared with moderator, Gwen Ifill. First they dealt with the hottest news item: the killing of Zarqawi, near the northern Iraqi city of Ba’qubah, earlier during the week.

Then, the moderator turned to the terrorist plot in Canada, saying,

“The threat of terror hit closer to home this week with the arrest of 17 suspected extremists in Canada. The arrest of 12 men and five teenaged suspects also raised questions about U.S.-Canadian border security amidst the on-going debate over immigration reform. NBC News Justice Correspondent Pete Williams updates us on the investigation into the homegrown terror suspects in Canada and the arrest of two more terror suspects in Britain with possible links to the Toronto group.”

I watched carefully to see whether any of the four commentators would mention the true identity of the plotters. Almost all, with one accord, chanted the cliché that these men were “home grown terrorists.” But they were all Muslims. What’s wrong in identifying them with the “M” word? The fact that some or most of them were born in Canada meant nothing to those Muslims. As men who had embraced the teachings of radical Islam, they had only one loyalty --- to the Islamic Umma. The acts of terror they planned; such as storming the Parliament building in Ottawa, holding cabinet ministers hostages, beheading the Prime Minister, all those acts would hasten the victory of Islam over the world!

The mainline media, both in Canada and the United States, played down the true identity of the terrorists. After all, they must not offend the growing Islamic community in both countries, by any reference to the true source of the terrorists’ ideology.

The reticence of so many Westerners, both in government and in the media, to utter the “M” word, is shocking. But it has been coming for a long time. Back in July 1991, the late Jacques Ellul*, the French Protestant scholar of the University of Bordeaux, alluded to this phenomenon in his “Foreword” to Bat Ye’or’s Book, “The Decline of Eastern Christianity under Islam from Jihad to Dhimmitude.”**

Ellul’s “Foreword” remains as an excellent essay that should be read by all concerned about the global threat of Islamic extremism. The French scholar predicted the growing phenomenon, on both sides of the Atlantic, of what he called, the “Dhimmitude of the West.” Here are some very pertinent quotations:

“I have greatly stressed the characteristics of this war, [Ellul was referring to the institution of Jihad in Islam] because there is so much talk nowadays of the tolerance and fundamental pacifism of Islam that it is necessary to recall its nature, which is fundamentally warlike! Moreover, the author [reference here is to Bat Ye’or’s book] provides us an enlightening explanation of “Islamization,” a complex process whereby Islamicized populations supplanted peoples, civilizations, and religions in the conquered countries. This comprised two phases …the first is war; the second is the imposition of the dhimmi status.

“We are again faced with the fundamental choice: the world is still divided between the world of Islam and the world of war. And inside the umma, the only possible existence for the infidel is dhimmitude.

“This leads the author to pose the question which has become so alarming today: “Dhimmitude of the West”? After having thus covered thirteen centuries of history, read in the light of this question, we reach our present situation, actually feeling its ambiguity and instability. We misunderstand this situation, for lack of a clear vision of the alternative which, whether explicit or not, existed throughout the centuries and which the present book has the immense merit to analyze rigorously. The author has the courage to examine (summarily, because this is not the purpose of the book) whether a certain number of events, structures, and situations that we know in the West do not already derive from a sort of “dhimmitude” of the West vis-à-vis an Islamic world that has resumed its war and its expansion. Hostage-taking, terrorism, the destruction of Lebanese Christianity, the weakening of the Eastern Churches (not to mention the wish to destroy Israel), and conversely, Europe’s defensive reaction (antiterrorist infrastructure, the psychological impact of intellectual “terrorism”, political and legal restraints regarding terrorist blackmail): all this recalls precisely the resurgence of the traditional policy of Islam. Indeed many Muslim governments try to combat the Islamist trend, but to succeed would require a total recasting of mentalities, a desacralization of jihad, a self-critical awareness of Islamic imperialism, an acceptance of the secular nature of political power and the rejection of certain Koranic dogmas. Of course, after all the changes we have seen taking place in the Soviet Union, it is not unthinkable, but what a global change that would imply: a change in a whole historical trend and the reform of a remarkably structured religion! This book thus allows us to take our bearings, so as to understand more easily our present situation, as every genuine historical study should do --- without, of course, making artificial comparisons and by remembering that history does not repeat itself.”

Fifteen years have passed since Jacques Ellul penned these clear sounding words! How relevant these words are, as Islamic terrorism is multiplying shockingly! And how blind are those Western politicians, and the mainline media, in exercising self-censorship when dealing with Islam and Muslims! “The Dhimmitude of the West” is here with us; it’s become a fait accompli, thanks to the ideologies of multiculturalism and political correctness.

Thus, as long as we refuse to use the word “Muslim” when dealing with the various manifestations of Islamic terrorism, our efforts in the “War on Terror” will be in vain. The enemy must be clearly identified, in order that we may stop his advances, and gain complete victory over him. We must throw off the self-imposed shackles of dhimmitude. This is the only way to achieve victory.

* Jacques ELLUL died in 1994 at 82. A jurist, historian, theologian and sociologist, he published more than 600 articles and 48 books, many of which were translated into a dozen languages (more than 20 into English).  From 1950-70 he was a member of the National Council of the Protestant Reformed Church of France. Professor at the University of Bordeaux, his oeuvre includes studies on medieval European institutions, the effect of modern technology on contemporary society, and moral theology. In American academic circles, he was widely known for "The Technological Society" written in the 1950's (English edition, 1964) and recognized as one of the most prominent of contemporary thinkers.

** The Decline of Eastern Christianity under Islam: From Jihad to Dhimmitude

by Bat Ye’or, with Foreword by Jacques Ellul, published in 1996 by Associated University Presses, 440 Forsgate Drive, Cranbury, NJ 08512