Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Thomas Haidon, a commentator on Islamic issues.
FP: Thomas Haidon, welcome to Frontpage Interview.
Haidon: Thank you, it's a pleasure to speak with you.
FP: So what's going on with the effort of moderate Muslims to reform Islam? It doesn't seem to be getting very far. How come? There appears to be a failure of moderate Muslims to make any real ground in developing a counter-jihad strategy. Why is this?
Haidon: The current Islamic reform movement, if it can be called a movement, is incoherent. Collectively the efforts of moderate Muslims to reform Islam have been highly disorganized, and generally ineffective. In general, Moderate Muslims reformers have been unable to move beyond the rhetoric towards developing real, theological solutions and alternatives to Islamism. As a foundational starting point, there is no precise definition of moderate Islam or moderate Muslims, only characteristics and assumptions.
In 2002 and 2003, a number of mid-size moderate Muslim organisations were established which sought to advocate for a moderate vision of Islam. Unfortunately, these groups have all but faded from existence, and generally exist in name only. There are a number of reasons for this. The primary reason is that these groups failed to develop effective strategic approaches and theological platform to combat Islamist ideology. An organisation that merely points out problems or symptoms of a problem without proffering effective counter-solutions will not have a sustainable future. These groups have done little to convince traditional Muslims that the path to reform is necessary. The case for reform has simply not been made well enough.
Modernising and reforming Islam is arguably one of the most complex and pressing policy questions confronting civilization. The task is formidable: to develop a strategic reformist framework that provides a theological response to Islamist ideology. Solutions and answers have to be robust and comprehensive. I have seen a number of Islamist scholars and non-Muslim commentators who have completely discredited Islamic reformist platforms. Merely saying Islam needs reform won't make it so.
Other reformers have made a number of tactical errors that have hindered their progress. A strategic approach to Islamic reform necessitates "playing the game" to a degree. By becoming a perceived "darling" of the so-called "right", Muslim reformers will never gain acceptance in the wider Muslim world. Admittedly, it is a difficult balance to achieve. Effective reformers must try and strike a balance, and not appear to be so aligned with Western interests that they disenfranchise traditional Muslims. There has to be an element of gradualism. Some well intentioned reformers have ignored this. While this notion may seem a bit unpalatable to your readers it is necessary for a sustainable reform.
Islam must first and foremost be seen to reform for the benefit of Muslims. Other reformers have called for actual parts of the Qur'an to be removed and simply forgotten. In realistic terms, this approach to reform is ill conceived and will never be accepted by the wider Muslim body. Islamic reform does not require the abandonment of all traditionalism or conservative principles. An Islamic reformation movement cannot ignore the traditionalism and conservative principles. Unfortunately, some well intentioned moderate Muslims have simply not grasped this key concept.
There have also been a number of other constraints to the so-called reform movement. It is largely personality and individual driven. There is a lack of consensus in terms of identifying the problems facing Islam. Reformers are often reluctant to work together because of different approaches. This is one of the primary reasons the much touted Progressive Muslim Union is now defunct.
In other words, there is great division in the reform movement that is not easily reconcilable. A further constraint is resource mobilization and organizational capacity. While mainstream Muslim organisations generally have no problem soliciting funds from their constituents and foreign governments, moderate Muslim organisations are, in general, grossly under-resourced and rely on the hard voluntary work of its members. It is virtually impossible to establish an effective reform organisation without adequate resources or capacity.
Non-Muslims can also be an impediment to moderate Muslims who want to achieve Islamic reform. The so-called "left" has, in many ways become a partner to the ideology of Islamism in their unyielding opposition to the war on terror. The "right" has also created barriers. Commentators on the "right" have a tendency to scoff at Muslim reformers and dismiss them. Painting all Muslims with the same brush is an over inclusive and short-sighted approach. Non-Muslims who are interested in defeating Islam, cannot win an ideological battle without moderate Muslims.
On top of this, true moderate Muslims are confronted with the threat of social exclusion and physical violence. Reform is often viewed as bidd'a (innovation), and those who espouse reform are often considered murtad (apostates). Leading the charge against moderate Muslims is Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, who condemns moderate Muslims as "intellectual apostates". According to Al-Qaradawi, intellectual apostasy is a:
[k]ind of apostasy among people who do not declare their explicit disbelief and openly wage war against everything that is religious. Those apostates are far smarter than that. They wrap their apostasy in various coverings, sneaking in a very cunning manner into the mind, the same way that malignant tumors sneak into the body. These people are not noticed when they invade or begin to disseminate their falsehood, but they are mostly felt when they affect the minds. They do not use guns in their attacks; however, their attacks are fierce and cunning. This apostasy, is noticed everyday in circulated newspapers and books, in radio and TV programs, and in laws legislated to govern people's affairs.
Qaradawi considers this form of apostasy "more dangerous than openly announced apostasy; for the former works continuously on a wide scale, at the same time, it cannot be easily resisted in the same manner as the latter, which always makes much fuss, attracts attention, and stirs up public opinion."
As we can see, the barriers to reform are significant. That said there are a number of courageous individuals who are working to change Islam from within. They include: Edip Yuskel, Sheikh Ahmed Mansour, and others.
FP: There are a great deal of false moderates. What exactly is their motive?
Haidon: Genuine reformers are not always easy to identify. False moderates are those Muslims who purport to advocate for reform or "peaceful" Islam, while surreptitiously having other objectives/motives in mind. False moderates generally fall into two camps: those Muslims who espouse general moderate/reformist rhetoric, while maintaining association with an Islamist agenda; and Muslims, who advocate and espouse reformist rhetoric for the purposes of personal profit or gain. Both categories of false moderates undermine the work of genuine reformers.
In the immediate aftermath of 9/11 a number of false moderates belonging to the first camp began to talk about the "peace" of Islam, and the need for "inter-faith dialogue". Scholars and ulaema like Tariq Ramadan, Dr Jamal Badawi, and Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi fall into this category. These men have been celebrated as moderates because of calls for dialogue and reconciliation. Yet, when speaking to Muslims, their Islamist agenda is revealed. Unfortunately, policy makers can't seem to grasp or conceptualise the ramifications of engaging these so-called moderates, who are, in reality, no better than Al-Qaeda terrorists. In fact, these false moderates are far more dangerous. They have managed to win the trust of non-Muslims and influential policy makers with their smiles, Western style suits and promises of "dialogue".
The second camp of false moderates contains those Muslims who talk about reform to non-Muslims in order to achieve personal gain. This camp is transparent. I am weary of any so-called reformer whose primary target audience is non-Muslims. This group of "moderates" seeks to maximize personal gain by warning non-Muslims of the threats that Islam faces, without offering any concrete solutions. They seek to develop a "niche market", where they can secure places and invitations at conferences, synagogues, churches and anyone-else who will listen, anyone except Muslims.
FP: Your thoughts on Sharia?
Haidon: I am supportive of individuals who choose to follow the morals and principles of the Qur'an in their private lives. Moderate Islam does not require Muslims to abandon fundamental tenets or to abandon moral concepts such as modesty, abstaining from alcohol, etc. I am fundamentally opposed, however, to the codification of shari'ah into public legislation or the imposition of any punishment for a breach of shari'ah law.
By its very nature, shari'ah when implemented aspirationally, or at a legislative level, is prima facie discriminatory against women and non-Muslims. Shari'ah breaches accepted human rights standards contained in the primary United Nations conventions (including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Cultural and Social Rights, the Convention Against Discrimination Against Women, and so forth). A genuine Islamic reform movement must fight against the imposition of shari'ah. There are a number of reformers, like Hasan Mahmud who are leading this effort.
FP: Tell us about the Qur'an Only movement.
Haidon: The Qur'anic movement is shift back to the Islam of the Qur'an. Qur'anic Muslims follow the words of the Qur'an alone, and reject the so-called traditions of Islam, as these traditions are not revelation. It is a rationalist movement that is based on the principle that the Qur'an provides a comprehensive guide and criterion for Muslims to live by. The Qur'anic movement does not consider the Sunnah and hadith as valid or reliable sources of Islam. This is primary because the Qur'an is the complete source of Islam ("And We have sent down to you the Book explaining all things, a guide, a mercy and glad tidings for those who submit" 16:89). The primary problem with the Muslim tradition is that it is often inconsistent with the Qur'an. Muslims have attempted to resolve these inconsistencies by interpreting the Qur'an through hadith, not the other way around. Put simply, the Qur'an is God's word, the Sunnah is not.
The so-called Sunnah was not written down until approximately 150 years after Muhammad's death. The rightly guided Caliphs fought against codifying the Sunnah out of fear that it would take a life of its own. Muslim jurisprudence has developed a complex approach to determining the veracity reliability of hadith. Early Muslims fought against the transcribing of the hadith, and were able to clearly see the difficulties. Each of the four righly guided Caliph's (Muhammad's companions) were opposed to the transcribing of hadith, regardless of whether they were valid or not. The Sunnah was initially used as a political tool to consolidate the political power of the Abbasids and Ummayids. There is nothing in the Qur'an explicitly requiring Muslims to follow these traditions, only generic verses that Muslim jurisprudence has exploited to serve Islamic rules. A key element of the Qur'anic movement is that it employs a contextual exegetical approach in interpreting the Qur'an. The Qur'an, without contextual and non-literal explanation, can be dangerous (even without reliance on the Sunnah). While many ahadith are innocuous, other ahadith encourage violence, rape and tyranny. Other ahadith (accepted as valid) are simply absurd, such as the ahadith extolling the virtues of camel urine. The Qur'anic approach puts this in perspective.
In my view, the Qur'anic movement provides the only effective mechanism to comprehensive Islamic reform. Importantly, a number of Islamic scholars including Sheikh Ahmed Mansour, Tarek Abdel Hamid, and Edip Yuskel, among others, have developed devastatingly clear arguments in justification of the approach. The Qur'anic movement is also becoming better organized and strategic. Edip Yuskel and other reformers have recently developed and published the "Quran: A Reformist Translation" which provides a contextual interpretation of the Qur'an along with commentary. It also sets out a strategic framework for the reform of Islam, consistent with the Qur'anic approach. The Qur'anic movement is not without its detractors or skeptics. Unlike other reformist approaches, however, the Qur'anic approach is one based in fact and logic. As the movement becomes more organized and develops greater capacity, it will begin to reach traditional Muslims.
FP: Can you share your own intellectual and religious journey with us? You were at one time a non-Muslim. Why did you become Muslim? And now, as a Muslim, what is it like to remain part of a worldwide religion that has so many violent, totalitarian and misogynist teachings and is causing so much violence around the world?
Haidon: I was raised in the Irish Catholic tradition, and spent a significant time studying scripture, hermeneutics and the writings of Catholic philosophers like St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Bonaventure . I discovered Islam during my study of comparative religions in the United States and in Cairo, Egypt. I also had the opportunity to study Islam in Cairo, Egypt and was exposed to the teachings of a number of reformers and moderates. I also studied non-Muslim perspectives on Islam. I came into Islam, with the full realisation and understanding that Islam was troubled. The pure monotheism of the Qur'an is what compelled me to become Muslim. I converted to Islam at Al-Azhar University in Cairo, Egypt in June 2001. I began to focus on reform after working and living in Khartoum Sudan in 2003. While in Sudan, I witnessed a truly horrific side to Islam that I had not witnessed previously. Among other things I witnessed Islamic punishments being meted out, and watched helplessly as hundreds of Muslims celebrated the anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. This was a defining moment for me, and caused me to begin to examine the sources of Muslim hatred and violence.
While I am Muslim, I have great admiration for Christianity, its philosophy and its moral underpinnings. I am proud of my upbringing, and the values that Christianity taught me. I still find solace in the teachings of Jesus. These teachings are valid and relevant in the Islamic context as Jesus is arguably Islam's most important prophet, as Muslims believe Jesus will return. The deification of Muhammad through the Sunnah, however, has placed the peaceful teachings and "Sunnah" of Jesus off the radar of Muslim scholars and ulaema. This is contrary to the principle that all prophets in Islam hold equal status.
My academic and professional experience in the field of human rights has also informed my views on Islamic reform. I am a firm believer that human rights are universal and that there is no place for cultural relativism where fundamental rights are concerned. There is a growing tension in international human rights law between individual and collective rights (rights of groups). This debate will be an important one to keep an eye on, Collective rights have traditionally been considered outside the scope of fundamental human rights, but the debate is shifting. This will have great implications on the shar'iah debate.
I remain Muslim, because I believe in the Qur'an and its message. Islam is capable of redemption, despite Muslim and non-Muslim detractors, and can be construed in a manner consistent with the respect for the fundamental human rights of all Redemption will come when Muslims reject man-made traditions created by Muslims, and exclusively follow the messages of the Qur'an. In doing so, they must also develop contextualised, non-literal exegetical approaches to interpreting the Qur'an.
There has been enough rhetoric, its time for Muslims to act. We all know that there are problems within Islam, we're beyond that now. We need to develop viable solutions. Otherwise, the work of reformers is meaningless.
FP: Thomas Haidon, thank you for joining us.
Haidon: Thank you Jamie.