There are few voices of moderation in Islam, either here in the West or there in the East. One notable exception was Zaki Badawi, a moderate voice of Islam in Britain. Unfortuantely, there are all too few moderate voices in the Islamic world.
Zaki Badawi's obituary in The Times tell us a lot about this moderate man. The obituary in The Telegraph tells us that "the true teachings of the Koran were incompatible with terrorism."
Whilst there is no doubt that this man had good intentions, the evidence of history tells us a very different story about the Qur'an's compatibility with terrorism. Whilst the moderate, ever-ready-to-compromise British would love to believe that the teachings of the Qur'an are incompatible with terrorism, the fact remains that Islam has been spread largely by the sword of Islam, by acts of terrorism, and brutal ones at that. Wasn't it the Prophet Muhammad himself who set the precedent? Wasn't it he who told them to kill the non-believers, usually called infidels, or Kufar, in every strategem of war unless and until they submit to the will of Allah, or at least feel themselves subdued enough to pay the extortionate tax known as the jizyah, in return for protection?
The Times tells us that "few men have played such a crucial role in attempting to find a harmonious balance between the beliefs, culture and values of Islam and secular British society." That is probably very true. But the fact remains that in Islam and secularism, we have two 'religions' which are totally incompatible, totally irreconcilable, totally opposed. How can a "harmonious balance" be found when the one believes, ultimately, in the inviolable will and power of the people, and the other, ultimately in the inviolable will and power of Allah?
Further, The Times tells us that the Qur'an, according to Badawi, "emphasised that those who disturbed the peace of society and spread fear and disorder deserved the severest punishment that could be imposed." Really! Did he read the same Qur'an that I have read? According to Islam, the world is divided into two parts: Dar al Islam, or 'House of Peace' - that part of the world which has submitted to the will of Allah, that part of the world in which the people have accepted the Prophet Muhammad as Allah's final messenger, accepted him as ar rasul Ullah, the messenger of God; and Dar al Harb, or 'House of War' - that part of the world which has yet to submit to the will of Allah, that part of the world in which the people yet have to accept the Prophet Muhammad as the final messenger of Allah. The name, 'House of War', says it all! In the 'House of War' every stratagem is fair game in order to bring the people to accept Islam as their religion and Prophet Muhammad as the final messenger of Allah.
The Times also says that Zaki Badawi "believed passionately in interfaith dialogue". Now this is a noble concept. Unfortunately, it is not a realistic one. How can one have interfaith dialogue with adherents of a religion who are incapable of budging an inch (the Qur'an can never be changed), and who would be unwilling to do so anyway. The result of such a dialogue can mean one thing only: the Christians giving way and diluting their faith still further.
In Christianity and Islam, we have two religions with diametrically-opposed belief systems. For starters, Islam believes that Jesus was merely a prophet of Allah, or God (though calling Allah and God one and the same is a debate unto itself!). They deny absolutely that He was the Son of God, calling it a sin to associate a son to God. To believe that Jesus is the Son of God is absolutely essential if one wishes to be a Christian.
Moreover, to be a Christian means that one has to believe that Jesus was not only crucified, but that He was crucified to save us from our sins. He is the Christians' Saviour, their Redeemer. This is anathema to Muslims, for they deny that He was crucified at all, believing that someone else was crucified in His stead so as to save the penultimate 'prophet of Allah'!
These are just two basic incompatiblities. There are many more. But these two important ones highlight why interfaith dialogue would appear to be a totally and utterly fruitless exercise. Fact is: Islam believes passionately in its ultimate destiny of Islamizing the whole wide world. There is to be no peace until this is brought about. Fact!
In addition to all that, though, there is another problem. Zaki Badawi, according to The Times, called for an Islam which fitted comfortably with British values, so that younger generations, brought up and educated in this country [the UK], would find no conflict between their faith and their civic identity as British citizens."
Alas, there is bound to be conflict between being British and being a Muslim, since Islam calls for the laws of the Qur'an, as Shari'ah to take precedence over all laws in other countries. Muslim citizens of other countries are to follow the laws of the land only inasmuch as they do not conflict with Shariah law.
It is a sad fact of life that modernity and Islam are totally and utterly incompatible: they cannot be reconciled. To hope for such a reconciliation can only be a vain hope. Islam is essentially a belief system of a bygone age, a belief system based on mediaeval thought and values. It also encourages its adherents to revere their ancestors and follow them in their ways of dressing, follow them in their living habits. The emulation of the ways of the Prophet Muhammad is elevated almost into an art form! In short, it is a backward-looking faith. One glance at a photo of Osama bin Laden will highlight this point for you. Modernity, by contrast, is forward-looking. Whilst it might sometimes revere what has past, it certainly looks forward to changed times, to brighter times. Modernity likes to find new and exciting ways of living, new and exciting ways of dressing. It is vibrant. Islam, on the other hand, is moribund, stagnant, lifeless.
Moderate Muslims, however well-intentioned, however sound the character - and there is little doubt that Dr. Zaki Badawi was such a sound, moderate, well-intentioned character - can do little to alter the basic nature of Islam. And that's the rub! (No cryptic pun intended!)
©Mark Alexander
7 comments:
Yes, as you can discern from my post today, I certainly agree.
Fostering moderation in a religion which is essentially fanatical is difficult if not well-nigh impossible.
The mere concept of submitting totally to a deity - whatever that deity is - is not conducive to anything remotely resembling moderation, is it?
As I say, however well-intentioned the man was - and I don't doubt that he was - it is nothing but a vain hope to reconcile Islam with modernity.
Oil and water do not mix. They are immiscible in their true states. The only way they can mix is by adding an emulsifying agent to them. In that case, both substances lose their essential qualities.
If an emulsifying agent were added to Christianity and Islam, it would be one which would demand that Christianity lose its essence! Islam will certainly not lose its essence - of that we can be sure.
Reconciling Islam with modernity is just not possible. Some things aren't. We have to be clever enought to realize what is possible and what is not. After all, isn't this what politics itself is about. Isn't this how politics can be defined? Politics, as Harold Wilson once said (a former Labour prime minister of the UK), is the art of the possible.
Engaging in trying to reconccile Islam with modernity is not the practice of politics at all; rather it is a manifestation of engaging in play! Play can be fun, but through it one achieves little.
Mussolini's stats: a full dozen muslims wordlwide are struggling to change Islam. I certainly cannot find that many by researching MEMRI, but let's be generous. What is the % here? 12 out of 1,300,000,000?
Despite the outreach on the part of infidels, the percentage of moderate Muslims (those promoting reform) is so small as to be totally insignificant.
Westerners just do not want to believe that incompatibility exists because compromise and reasoned dialogue are so ingrained into Westerners.
I see no horders of Muslims coming to "reclaim" their faith. I've heard all kinds of reasons--fear of retaliation being the primary one. I very rarely here that the reclamation is impossible, however. Certainly not in the msm.
JudahQ:
Thanks for your compliment. Much appreciated! :-)
Yes that word 'immiscible' has come up again! It keeps on showing up here and there, doesn't it? It's such a lovely word, though, I think. At least this time it won't get up Papa Ray's nose, since he seems to have evaporated from the blogosphere! Perhaps he'll sniff out the word again and return! Who knows? If he does, of course he'll be most welcome.
Yes, I agree: New Ageism is wishy-washy. It's suitable only for those who do not wish to think too deeply, and for those who wish to be kept well within their comfort zone. After all, it demands little of its adherents, and relativizes everything.
Mussolini:
Oh heck. I misunderstood your aim with the post. I thought it was a little unusual for you.
Here it comes... my apologies for misinterpreting your tone in that post. I thought you were trying to talk up a "moderate" solution to something that can never be moderate.
(laughs)
I wondered whether you had misunderstood me, since your comment seemed out of place.
Rest assured, Mussolini: I haven't changed my tune about Islam. Moderate Muslims are pretty thin on the ground everywhere. We all know that. I always say this: You show me the moderate Muslim, and I'll show you the fanatic within!
Take a so-called moderate Muslim to the side and start criticizing his religion or his prophet. You'll soon see just how moderate he is!
Always On Watch:
Despite the outreach on the part of infidels, the percentage of moderate Muslims (those promoting reform) is so small as to be totally insignificant.
I agree wholeheartedly! But we have to realize one very important point here: They cannot advocate reform very easily, because Islam is essentially unreformable! I'll guarantee you one thing: There will be no reformation in Islam, even though the liberals expect one to come about.
It could happen in Christianity, because the Bible is believed to be 'inspired by God'; therefore, it is open to interpretation, and, as long as the core teachings of Jesus are adhered to, it can change and adapt according to the times.
The Qur'an, by contrast, is believed to comprise the actual words of Allah! The Qur'an, meaning 'The Recital', was recited to Muhammad by the Angel Gabriel; therefore, no Muslim, however much he might desire change, has any right to change anything in that book. It would be considered heresy in the eyes of his fellow Muslims.
So, AOW, I'm afraid we're stuck with Islam just as it is. To hope for a reformation of the faith is a vain hope indeed.
Mussolini:
Please read the above comment addressed to Always On Watch.
Westerners are such strong believers in reform that we find it hard to accept that something cannot be reformed.
But the fact is that certain ideologies cannot be reformed. Oh, they might go underground for a while as seem to reform or to be defeated. But certain things cannot be reformed, no matter how much we wish they could be.
It's depressing.
So, if Islam cannot be reformed, what's the proper course of action? Or is Armageddon inevitable?
Post a Comment