In the wake of Thursday's bombings in London, combined with the first wave of explosions 2 1/2 weeks ago, something has changed. As I scour Muslim chat rooms and discussion boards, I see an overwhelming display of heartfelt condolences for the victims and angry condemnation of the criminals.
Last year, the powerless children of Beslan, Russia didn't have nearly such an effect on Muslims worldwide. It is as if London - its pluralism, dynamism, and (we shall whisper this) capitalism - marked the line that dare not be crossed. The International Olympic Committee was vindicated in less than a day.
Yet two myths still rear their heads in this most sympathetic of Muslim responses. First, that Britain courted the attack by joining the US in Iraq. Second, that Islam cannot be held responsible for what a few twisted Muslims choose to do.
Terrorists have never needed an Iraq debacle to justify their violent jihads. What exactly was the Iraq of 1993, when Islamic radicals first tried to blow up New York City's World Trade Centre? Or 2000, when the USS Cole was attacked? Indeed, that assault took place after US military intervention saved thousands of Muslims in Bosnia.
If staying out of Iraq protected anybody from terrorism, then why did "insurgents" make hostages out of reporters from France, the most anti-war, anti-Bush nation in the West? Even overt solidarity with the people of Iraq, demonstrated by CARE's top relief worker in the area, Margaret Hassan, did not shield her from assassination.
When Muslims ignore these facts, we cloud what ought to be a clear repudiation of the London bombings. I say "ought" not just for moral reasons but also for strategic ones. An unqualified rejection of the London bombings can only help moderate Muslims differentiate themselves from the apologists.
Which brings me to a second myth: that Islam has nothing to do with these atrocities. You need not live in Britain to cling defensively to that line. Consider a prominent imam in New York City. He is a gentle, decent man; a new generation type who emphasises multi-faith dialogue. To top it off, he just returned from a conference about moderate Islam in Jordan, where he played a key role.
But in his official response to the London bombings, this cleric sanitises the Koran. He says it teaches us - and here is the precise quote - "whoever kills a human being ... it is as if he has killed all humankind". The imam is honest enough to indicate that he has removed a part of the passage but not honest enough to tell us it is a crucial part. The full verse reads: "Whoever kills a human being, except as punishment for murder or other villainy in the land, shall be regarded as having killed all humankind." Militant Muslims easily deploy the clause beginning with "except" to justify their rampages.
(In this regard I would refer you to a very extensive exposure of the reality of the Koran entitled Will the real Islam please stand up. This is one of the best and is also written by a Muslim. Ted Belman)
It is what Osama bin Laden had in mind when he announced a jihad against the US in the late 1990s. Did economic sanctions on Iraq, imposed by the UN but demanded by Washington, cause the "murder" of half a million children? Bin Laden believes so, oil-for-food scandal or not. Did the boot prints of US troops in the Arabian peninsula, birthplace of the Prophet Mohammed, qualify as "villainy in the land"? To bin Laden, you bet. As for US civilians, can they be innocent of either "murder" or "villainy" when their tax money helps Israel buy tanks to raze Palestinian homes? A no-brainer for bin Laden.
And, it seems, for the July 7 terrorists. The group claiming responsibility cited - what else? - a defence of Iraq and a disgust with the Zionist entity as its primary motives. The invasion of the former and the existence of the latter amount to nothing less than murder and villainy in the land.
These days, most Muslims in Britain can agree that al-Qa'ida and its sympathisers are ethically Neanderthal for manipulating the Koran to pursue this train of jihad. I stand with those Muslims who insist that certain passages are being politically exploited. Of course they are. The point is, however, that they could not be exploited if they did not exist.
We Muslims cannot bear to admit as much. Why? Why do we hang on to the mantra that the Koran - and Islam - are blemish-free? God may well be perfect but God transcends a book, a prophet and a belief system. That means we are free to question without fear that the Almighty will feel threatened by our reasoning, speculating, or doubting. Rather, it is we who feel threatened.
How about joining with the moderates of Judaism and Christianity in confessing some "sins of scripture", as the Episcopal bishop John Shelby Spong has said of the Bible? In so doing, Muslims would be paying tribute to the very pluralism of ideas and interpretations that allows them to practise Islam in this part of the world. Anything less leaves one to wonder how it is that, in diverse societies, those who oppose diversity of thought feel more comfortable getting vocal than those who embrace it.
Irshad Manji, a Canadian writer and television presenter, is author of The Trouble with Islam: A Muslim's Call for Reform in Her Faith (St Martin's Press, 2005).
Manji takes on the Muslim apologists
Irshad Manji, a Canadian writer and television presenter, is author of the best selling The Trouble with Islam. She is also a lesbian, smart and funny,
'Sins of scripture' in the Koran, too
As a reform-minded Muslim, I've given birth to a twinge of optimism. Nine months ago, I wrote about the need for Muslim leaders to pull their heads out of the sand. I challenged them to recognise that something is askew in Islam. My call for honesty capped a week of back-to-back terrorist atrocities: the slaying of 12 Nepalese cooks and cleaners in Iraq, the double suicide bombings in Israel, the kidnapping of two French journalists and the hijacking of a school in Russia.
In the wake of Thursday's bombings in London, combined with the first wave of explosions 2 1/2 weeks ago, something has changed. As I scour Muslim chat rooms and discussion boards, I see an overwhelming display of heartfelt condolences for the victims and angry condemnation of the criminals.
Last year, the powerless children of Beslan, Russia didn't have nearly such an effect on Muslims worldwide. It is as if London - its pluralism, dynamism, and (we shall whisper this) capitalism - marked the line that dare not be crossed. The International Olympic Committee was vindicated in less than a day.
Yet two myths still rear their heads in this most sympathetic of Muslim responses. First, that Britain courted the attack by joining the US in Iraq. Second, that Islam cannot be held responsible for what a few twisted Muslims choose to do.
Terrorists have never needed an Iraq debacle to justify their violent jihads. What exactly was the Iraq of 1993, when Islamic radicals first tried to blow up New York City's World Trade Centre? Or 2000, when the USS Cole was attacked? Indeed, that assault took place after US military intervention saved thousands of Muslims in Bosnia.
If staying out of Iraq protected anybody from terrorism, then why did "insurgents" make hostages out of reporters from France, the most anti-war, anti-Bush nation in the West? Even overt solidarity with the people of Iraq, demonstrated by CARE's top relief worker in the area, Margaret Hassan, did not shield her from assassination.
When Muslims ignore these facts, we cloud what ought to be a clear repudiation of the London bombings. I say "ought" not just for moral reasons but also for strategic ones. An unqualified rejection of the London bombings can only help moderate Muslims differentiate themselves from the apologists.
Which brings me to a second myth: that Islam has nothing to do with these atrocities. You need not live in Britain to cling defensively to that line. Consider a prominent imam in New York City. He is a gentle, decent man; a new generation type who emphasises multi-faith dialogue. To top it off, he just returned from a conference about moderate Islam in Jordan, where he played a key role.
But in his official response to the London bombings, this cleric sanitises the Koran. He says it teaches us - and here is the precise quote - "whoever kills a human being ... it is as if he has killed all humankind". The imam is honest enough to indicate that he has removed a part of the passage but not honest enough to tell us it is a crucial part. The full verse reads: "Whoever kills a human being, except as punishment for murder or other villainy in the land, shall be regarded as having killed all humankind." Militant Muslims easily deploy the clause beginning with "except" to justify their rampages.
(In this regard I would refer you to a very extensive exposure of the reality of the Koran entitled Will the real Islam please stand up. This is one of the best and is also written by a Muslim. Ted Belman)
It is what Osama bin Laden had in mind when he announced a jihad against the US in the late 1990s. Did economic sanctions on Iraq, imposed by the UN but demanded by Washington, cause the "murder" of half a million children? Bin Laden believes so, oil-for-food scandal or not. Did the boot prints of US troops in the Arabian peninsula, birthplace of the Prophet Mohammed, qualify as "villainy in the land"? To bin Laden, you bet. As for US civilians, can they be innocent of either "murder" or "villainy" when their tax money helps Israel buy tanks to raze Palestinian homes? A no-brainer for bin Laden.
And, it seems, for the July 7 terrorists. The group claiming responsibility cited - what else? - a defence of Iraq and a disgust with the Zionist entity as its primary motives. The invasion of the former and the existence of the latter amount to nothing less than murder and villainy in the land.
These days, most Muslims in Britain can agree that al-Qa'ida and its sympathisers are ethically Neanderthal for manipulating the Koran to pursue this train of jihad. I stand with those Muslims who insist that certain passages are being politically exploited. Of course they are. The point is, however, that they could not be exploited if they did not exist.
We Muslims cannot bear to admit as much. Why? Why do we hang on to the mantra that the Koran - and Islam - are blemish-free? God may well be perfect but God transcends a book, a prophet and a belief system. That means we are free to question without fear that the Almighty will feel threatened by our reasoning, speculating, or doubting. Rather, it is we who feel threatened.
How about joining with the moderates of Judaism and Christianity in confessing some "sins of scripture", as the Episcopal bishop John Shelby Spong has said of the Bible? In so doing, Muslims would be paying tribute to the very pluralism of ideas and interpretations that allows them to practise Islam in this part of the world. Anything less leaves one to wonder how it is that, in diverse societies, those who oppose diversity of thought feel more comfortable getting vocal than those who embrace it.
Irshad Manji, a Canadian writer and television presenter, is author of The Trouble with Islam: A Muslim's Call for Reform in Her Faith (St Martin's Press, 2005).
Posted by Ted Belman at July 26, 2005 09:16 AM