On the Tenth Anniversary

Some musings on the condition of our thought ten years after 9/11.

While passing through a series of writings on the anniversary of 9/11, either the entire piece or just the headline I was stuck by one consistency, whether conservative or progressive we seldom look at Islam. We have a series of euphemisms ranging from Islamist to the now discredited Islamo-faschist to fundamentalist to “man caused disaster,” now all shoveled under the rubric of Islamaphobia. For ten years now we have been calling Islam the religion of peace, or saying that the Abrahamic religions have so much in common that all must be guilty of violence in the past, therefore all must be searching for peace in the present. Yet the differences between the three monotheisms are not in the person of the patriarch Abraham, but in their approach to, or lack of theological thinking.

To start maybe I should try to find a useful definition of theology. In Webster’s New Collegiate (1975) the definition given is The study of God and his relation to the world esp. by analysis of the origins and teachings of an organized religious community (as the Christian Church). It is interesting that the dictionary uses the Christian Church as its standard, since if we are going to study all of the Monotheisms and their various theologies Christianity is the easiest one for Americans, with our natural bias toward the Protestant churches even among our atheists. For Christians the questions of theology are what is the nature of Christ’s divinity, how much is human, how much divine? Also what is the individual worshiper’s relation to Jesus? These questions go back to the beginning of Christianity in all its forms, those that still exist and those that don’t. These questions still haunt us in our post Christian world.

In Judaism, if a non believer may be so bold as to present an argument, theological questions are those that define the relationship between God and his people and how this relationship may manifest it self in the world. The history of this relationship is presented in the Bible and the commentary on the history of that relationship is at the center of the Talmud.

What is the theology of Islam? I don’t think there is one, or at least that the relationship between the believer and Allah is one of such distance that the believer is left without any personal relation to the deity beyond that of Master and Slave. The profession of the faith, La Illah Illa Allah, or There is no God but God, known as the Shahadah, is not only impersonal but ahistorical as well, in the sense that this phrase exits out side of history. Allah or God is simply there, he gives you a law which must be followed, and judges you at the end of your life. For the simple Muslim this profession, plus the other pillars of the faith are enough. Those pillars are the daily regimen of prayer, the Ramadan fast, the paying of the Zagat to aid the poor, and the Hajj pilgrimage to Mecca at least once in his lifetime. However if this is all that is needed then why a lifetime devoted to study?

Islam is a religion based on writings, the foundation being the Quran. The Quran is a book on a table in Paradise and is perfect in form and content. It is not written by Allah, though it speaks of Him. It is not written by Muhammad, though it speaks to him. Through a series of revelations the Surahs, or verses, of the Quran were dictated by the angel Jibril (Gabriel) to Muhammad from 610 until his death in 632. It is through these revelations and his subsequent teaching that Muhammad gained his reputation of Prophet. It is the perfection of the Quran that proves that Muhammad is the final prophet. Though Muhammad preached these Surahs they were only written down and codified during the reign of the third Caliph Uthman (650-651). The profession of the faith may be the start of Islam for the average Muslim but depth of understanding requires guided study of the Quran based in the works of credentialed scholars and the first step on the road to understanding the religious sciences is the memorization of the Quran in the language of God, Arabic.

 The Hadith is also an important part of this road; it is the collected sayings and acts of Muhammad, his Companions and Helpers and gives much aid in finding the way that the true Muslim should live. Since Muhammad was the perfect man he must have led the perfect life.

Over the centuries these two sets of writings have been studied and commented on resulting in the Shari’a, or God’s Law. This is the job of the ulama, the community of the trained and credentialed scholars. Through the process known as fiqh these men will study any new ruling in the light of precedent and metaphor, the use of reason having been abolished with the crushing of the Mu’tazilisites in the ninth century by the Hanballi school, to find if that new ruling can be added to the corpus of the law. Since there is no Pope in Islam, and four schools of jurisprudence, this area of study can be contentious.

With the importation of the Shari’a into our courtrooms our politicians, state and local judges increasingly feel they must make exceptions to our local laws, in favor of Shari’a rulings when they pertain to marital and property cases involving Muslims even when local law is plain. In a recent example, a judge in New Jersey acquitted a man on charges of spousal abuse when he presented into evidence the Shari’a passages that justified his actions. Another developing problem is the Abumattalab underwear bomber case. Since he is acting as his own council he demands to be tried as a Muslim warrior under the rules of Shari’a as they pertain to the conduct of Jihad. He therefore feels that he stands above the laws of the United States, these laws being Jahiliyyah, or the equivalent to the laws of medieval Arabia before the cleansing of the Kabba at Mecca and are therefore beneath the Law of God.

Another real problem, however, is what is, or what is not, Jihad. For most of our intellectuals the problem can simply be written off as a personal struggle to become a better Muslim, or relegated to the time of the great conquests of the seventh century. Until we return to the position of the average Muslim. This person has only the most rudimentary understanding of the religion the Five Pillars being enough for him. For our pundits desperately searching for a way out of this war all that is necessary for a true definition of jihad more to their liking is for some group of scholars, or just a clutch of average Muslims to write that Jihad does not mean war or any other type of violence; except Islam don’t work like that.

Jihad is worked through the warp and woof of the Quran so deeply that the five pillars are irrelevant to its definition. Although there is some dispute as to the number there are about 164 Quran verses dedicated to Jihad; how it is be fought by Muhammad and his community against their enemies, how Allah requires it against unbelievers and those that don’t submit to his worship, how the booty taken (valuables, land and slaves) is to be distributed, how those Muslims that shrink from the field of battle face the fires of hell, and those who die in the way of Allah will be seen as martyrs as the gates of Paradise are opened by their swords. Therefore no one who is not a member of the ulama has anything relevant to say about the concept that can hold any sway with the community of scholars, and it is this community that defines the life of a good Muslim. Thus the aspiring Mujihadeen, the soldier for Allah, has many verses to refer to that justify any type of violence. Here is just one of the many references in the Quran on the subject:

            

Surah 2:190 Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors.

Surah 2:191 And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers. 

Surah 2:192 But if they desist, then lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

Surah 2:193 And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah. But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against wrong-doers.

Surah 2:194 The forbidden month for the forbidden month, and forbidden things in retaliation. And one who attacketh you, attack him in like manner as he attacked you. Observe your duty to Allah, and know that Allah is with those who ward off (evil). [From the Pickthal translation of the Quran.]

Certainly doesn’t sound like the Sermon on the Mount with its admonition to turn the other cheek does it. What it also means is that there is no rational way to end this war, as if there was ever any rational way to end any war. If the war is to go on till all “religion is for Allah” then all the world is a battle field, and everyone in the world is on a side, whether he knows it or not.

            Even when the war is won and the Shari’a is imposed over the defeated people it doesn’t end there. Those People of the Book, Christians and Jews, are degraded to the status of dhimmis, those who are disarmed and protected by the Muslims. In this degraded state they must pay a poll tax known as the jizya. Under some Muslim rulers the tax was on the community, under others it was on the individual and it was never standardized. The Quran verse that calls for this tax is 9:29:

Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book (The Bible in other words, Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

The feeling of submission took may forms from the wearing of certain clothes, never riding horses, giving up parts of their houses of worship, and stepping into the gutter when a Muslim walked by. For worshippers of the old religion, the polytheists, it was simpler, convert or die. For apostates from the religion of Allah the same choice is given, reconvert or die. So began Islam’s march across the world. Considering its lack of theology, but richness in writings the more interesting area of study might be why it was quiescent for the last three centuries rather then why it is expansive now.

It doesn’t seem to matter who makes the statement George W. Bush or Barrack Obama, Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich, Michael Scheuer or Sally Quinn that we are not at war with Islam. The question is whether Islam is at war with us, and until we answer that question satisfactorily none of this is going to make much sense.


JimG33