The occasion isn’t disputed by the various Muslim sects, but its significance and meaning is interpreted differently. The Shi’a, on one hand, believe it to be the appointement of Imam Ali as the successor to the Prophet, whereas Sunni Muslims generally regard it as an assertion of companionship.

Today is the anniversary of the occasion, so I thought I would share it on the blog

Celebrating Ghadeer

I begin in my Lord’s name
And without feeling guilt or shame
Raise my voice in His praise,
In remembrance of His days.

Best of all the days held dear
Is the blessed day of Ghadeer
And read this poem to celebrate
This joyous event and momentous date!

No other day is more renowned,
Ali was in the heavens crowned
Chosen by God to succeed
The holy Prophet, and to lead.

It’s a day when believers rejoice
God’s wisdom and His noble choice
To appoint a righteous, just Imam
For the sake of the Muslims and Islam.

When the Prophet, in the scorching heat
Waited for all Muslims to meet
In Ghadeer that it be shown
Who will succeed him, and be known:

“Whosoever takes me as his master,
Without Ali will face disaster.
God’s religion is now complete
And His favour will be your treat.”

The hypocrites were quick in their frowning
At Ali’s illustrious crowning
“Why this delay? Why all this fuss?
Isn’t Ali just one of us?”

I ask in return where have they been?
Do they know Ali, have they not seen?
He was the foremost in faith and deeds
Tending to all the Prophet’s needs.

He understood Islam as it should be
From sin and vice he was free
Without him Islam’s message is lost
Our prosperity will be the cost.

With these words I mark my stand,
And place my hand in Ali’s hand.

Using meaningless terms in politics is one thing, but basing one’s religious views on meaningless statements is far more damaging. The sad fact is, this is a very common practice, and one that goes completely unnoticed in our midst.

Before I present the “touchy” example I would like to talk about, let’s begin with a not-so-controversial example, so I can define what I mean when I say that words can be “meaningless.”

If I was to say: “I stand for justice,” you won’t find it difficult to understand the statement. You will know that by “justice” I mean being fair and respecting people’s rights. After all, that’s what justice means. You might, at first, think that my statement is clear and quite meaningful. But you’ll soon realise that you have no clue what I mean.

Why?

Because I haven’t told you what I believe “fairness” means, and what I think “people’s rights” are. The statement is meaningless because it can have opposite meanings. “Justice” is a term used by every political party to describe the policies it advocates. For capitalists, capitalism is just, and communism is unjust. For communists, capitalism is unjust, and communism is just. Each has his own definition of justice. In order to understand my statement, you’d have to know what I mean by justice, and how my worldview translates into practical policies.

It’s just as meaningless as saying: “I have opinions,” because you haven’t stated what your opinions are (unless you’re trying to distinguish yourself from chimps).

For a statement to be meaningful, its relation to reality must be clear. In our example of justice, it is important to associate the word with the principles and practices I support, so you can know whether you support my view of justice or not. Without this clarification, the word “justice” doesn’t have a clear reference.

So how does this tie in with religious views?

Take the following statement: “Islam is compatible with human nature.”

While Muslims the world over pride themselves on following the only religion that’s compatible with human nature, they overlook the fact that they don’t know what “human nature” is in the first place!

Many Muslims haven’t stopped to think what human nature means, while others have come to define human nature according to their understanding of Islam (when it should be the other way around)! Either of the two ways, you can replace “Islam” in the above statement with the name of any other religion you wish.

To make the statement meaningful: How would you define human nature? How did you come to define it this way? And in what ways is Islam compatible with human nature?

While it’s extremely important to address the issue of sectarianism and to acknowledge the growing dangers it poses, the approach that’s being taken in Kuwait is fostering greater sectarianism, and is preventing the spread of the only possible solution to the problems sectarianism can pose.

What are Sects?

Every religion is open to a wide range of possible interpretations, and the adherents of religions rarely agree on what interpretation to accept. This leads the adherents to pursue the interpretation they believe (or want to believe) is the correct interpretation of the religion. Sects form when the adherents of a religion are divided over its interpretation, and they distinguish themselves based on their differences, even if they share a lot of common ground. The differences are usually over major issues that the adherents believe are of great importance that they must express these differences by parting ways or using additional labels to distinguish themselves from one another.

Sects can form out of a disagreement regarding the attributes of God (e.g. whether He has a body or not) or other doctrinal issues, the appointment of a leader to lead the adherents (e.g. whether a leader was appointed by the founder of the religion, or if the decision was left to the adherents, who the leader should be, what are the means to determine the next leader, etc) or can be about the ethical code or  the mandatory duties of the adherents (e.g. whether the end justifies the means or not). Sects rarely form out of disputes on what colour the curtains should be in their place of worship.

Therefore, it is important to acknowledge that these differences are considered important by the sects, and they cannot be dismissed or ignored. Otherwise, the very existence of these sects would not be warranted by their adherents. For this reason, the government cannot make a demand that sects set aside their differences, because this infringes on the freedom of religion (i.e. the right to choose which religion – or sect – one wishes to follow). Such a demand would naturally infringe on the freedom of expression, since any statement deemed sectarian will be punishable by law, and it will, therefore, infringe on the freedom of thought, since the citizens of that country will be limited by the ideas they can be exposed to, or the conclusions they are allowed to reach.

We’ll revisit these issues in a later section, where we will point out why the Ministry of Information’s approach to the problem of sectarianism is harmful to the adherents of these sects, and to any country as a whole. But first, we must point out some of the positive aspects of sectarianism, and then to identify where the problem with sectarianism lies.

Good Sectarianism

The existence of sects is extremely natural and far more healthier than if a single body appoints itself – or is appointed by the government – as the sole source of acceptable interpretations, and bans any interpretation that is in conflict with its own teachings. Bodies established to filter interpretations are hardly infallible, and they usually promote more dangerous interpretations than the ones they are banning. The attitude itself is destructive, in that it dismisses the importance of an individual’s ability to reason and evaluate ideas for him or herself, and to reach one’s own conclusions. By taking over this role, the “thought police” are only encouraging ignorance and misunderstandings between sects, or between individuals with differing beliefs and convictions.

Sectarianism – in itself – is the freedom to disagree with others, and the freedom to follow one’s own convictions. If one is born into a sect that he later disagrees with, he has (or should have) the freedom to join another sect, where he will find others that will share his outlook. For this to occur, one must be exposed to the interpretations other sects espouse, without any attempt to misrepresent these beliefs, or limit their exposure. By granting – and demanding – that other sects enjoy this freedom, people morally assert their own right to such freedom. Any sect that claims to have the sole right to express its views and to embrace adherents from other sects is guilty of hypocrisy and, therefore, forfeits – by the standard it places on others – its own right to its freedom of expression and association.

Sectarianism as a result of intellectual freedom is extremely positive, and is a great asset to the community, the country and the religion itself.

Benefits to the Community:

The community (i.e. members of a particular sect) benefit because they are able to associate with individuals that share their beliefs, and be able to live by and express the convictions they uphold, without being forced into accepting beliefs that one disagrees with. For example, the Muslim community is divided over its understanding of the concept of free will, according to Islam. Some say that there is no such thing as free will, since it means that God’s authority is limited, whereas other Muslims believe that we do have free will, since God would not judge us for actions we had no choice in committing. The issue is extremely important, because it forms a basis for one’s understanding of God (i.e. it will influence one’s spiritual connection with God), and one’s understanding of himself and the world (how will a person behave if he thinks he has no free will?).

If Muslims are unable to follow their own convictions regarding this issue, and are left to accept an opposing belief to their own, they will either feel distant from Islam, or live in constant contradiction, where their convictions are clashing with their religious beliefs. Having the freedom to live by one’s own understanding of Islam removes the inevitability of such a contradiction, and Muslims can have a more rewarding spiritual and religious experience.

The issue of who determines the correct interpretation of Islam, and the extent to which Muslims have the freedom to interpret Islam for themselves is a broad subject that I would need to address separately. We must bear in mind that Islam, as a divine message, should be understood as God had meant it to be, and not how we wish to interpret it. People cannot consider themselves the followers of non-violent Mahatma Gandhi, while they promote violence, or claim that Gandhi would have approved of their violent actions judging from their “unique” circumstances. If they wish to be loyal to Gandhi’s teachings, then they should ask themselves: What would Gandhi do in this situation? Then act according to the answer. But to claim adherence while dismissing the message, or to interpret it according to one’s wishes is a betrayal of the message itself.

The same is true with Islam. Muslims cannot simply interpret Islam the way they want to interpret it, but should be sincere in their belief that their interpretation is the correct reflection (or as close as they can come to the correct reflection) of the message God had intended to convey. To grant people the freedom to interpret Islam does not mean that their interpretations are valid, or that they are free to customise Islam to suit their taste.

Benefits to the Country:

The benefit sectarianism (i.e. the freedom to follow one’s own interpretation of a religion) brings to a country is that it is an expression of the freedom of thought and association. These freedoms allow citizens to think for themselves, which requires that they educate themselves, as well as to develop a confidence in their thinking and their abilities. The result, provided that sectarianism is promoted in its correct sense, will be a confident, intelligent citizenry that respects other people’s opinions and seeks to influence others through dialogue. When the government steps in to teach its citizens which ideas are acceptable and which are unacceptable, the citizens will abandon their personal efforts to evaluate ideas. They will, instead, expect to be spoon-fed their beliefs. The alternatives are, of course, reform or revolution, but the natural consequence of a country stripped of its ability to judge for itself, is that it will default to ignorance. Granting people the freedom to judge ideas for themselves strengthens their commitment to be better educated and to put in the effort to learn for themselves.

Besides, it’s close to impossible for any country to ban ideas. If books and other media outlets are banned, the government can never ban the thinking process that goes on in an individual’s mind. They may cripple his ability to think properly, if he is not exposed to the correct information and a sound education, but he can still develop ideas that the government may not wish him to have. And in all likelihood, if a person is forced into thinking a certain way and behaving in a certain way, then he will develop a negative impression of the ideas and actions that he is being forced to accept, and will usually favour the alternative – any alternative – to these ideas and actions. Therefore, rather than promote the ideas being forced on the citizens, the government would be developing contempt towards itself, and is making opposing ideas more appealing.

Benefits to the Religion:

While division within a religious community is often regarded as a negative phenomenon, it can serve a crucial purpose for the religion.

It must be noted that different interpretations express different messages. If a single statement is interpreted differently, it is as though two different statements were expressed. This is because the actual words used to convey a message are not as important as the meaning they hold. The message is in the meaning, and not in the words. Therefore, the message is in the interpretation, and not in the text, which can be used to convey a set of different messages.

For the message of a religion to be conveyed correctly, it must be interpreted correctly. If the interpretation is incorrect, the message is different to the one that’s intended to be conveyed. In the case of Islam, or any divine religion, if the interpretation of the scripture is incorrect, then the message is no longer divine. It is not the message that God communicated. It is not the meaning that God intended. Therefore, the incorrect interpretation should not be attributed to Him. We would have to say: “Our understanding of Islam is…” but it’s difficult to assert that “Islam is…” especially when we are prone to make mistakes.

But if false interpretations of Islam should not be attributed to the religion, then why is sectarianism a good thing? Should we not limit the possibility of false interpretations of Islam by limiting the freedom to interpret Islam, or to ban the existence of some sects (as in the case with the Ahmadiyya sect in Pakistan), or to ban discussion on the issues that divide Muslims (which is the direction Kuwait is taking)?

Looking back at the problem of interpretation: if the interpretation of a message is incorrect, then the meaning of that message is not conveyed. If there is only one interpretation, which is incorrect, then the message is lost. However, if there are a number of interpretations to that message, then the possibility of finding the correct interpretation increases and, therefore, there is a chance of finding the correct meaning being conveyed by the message. Therefore, the existence of sects is an opportunity to find the true message of Islam, rather than have a single body determine what the meaning of Islam is, and burying its true message in the process.

In the absence of an authoritative person or body that knows and understands Islam as it should be known and understood, no individual or institution or government should decide how Islam, or any other religion, should be interpreted, or to place restrictions on what interpretations can be expressed, or what issues can be addressed. Placing such restrictions would distort the message being conveyed by the religion, and any honest Muslim would want to have the freedom to understand Islam as it should be understood, and not to have its meaning filtered through the ignorance and politics of others. Exposure to different interpretations and perspectives can help develop a better understanding of language, interpretation, psychology, philosophy, human understanding and a range of other issues that contribute to a more accurate interpretation of the message. In the absence of  such understanding, people would interpret the message out of some knowledge, and a great deal of ignorance, which is usually the case with those who don’t consider other possible interpretations to the verses they seek to interpret.

Bad Sectarianism

Sectarianism has a bad reputation for a reason. It rarely offers the benefits I highlighted earlier. This isn’t because the existence of sects is intrinsically bad, but because the attitude towards sectarianism often is. Adherents of sects, especially the uneducated masses, do not adhere to their sect after careful reflection and study, but do so out of custom and by default. They defend their sect not because they are certain that it is the true interpretation of their religion, but because it is their sect and their interpretation. The issue, therefore, is not the message of the religion, and the pursuit of the true meaning God intended to convey, but the identity they associate themselves with.

When sectarianism is approached through the lens of identity, and adherents of different sects are not prepared to consider or attempt to understand the different interpretations other sects promote, nor express their own views in a manner to be understood by other sects, then the benefits sectarianism brings will never be realised, and the only consequences will be the problems commonly associated with sectarianism. Nobody benefits from such sectarianism. Neither the community, nor the country, nor the religion.

Problems to the Community:

When a community that adheres to a particular sect does so purely out of tribal affiliation, the adherents will seek to reassure themselves that their version of Islam is correct by misrepresenting other sects and perceiving Islam and the world through its own sectarian lens, which would make perfect sense to the adherents, since the criterion for judging the validity of the sect’s outlook is the sect itself! Such dishonesty is both intellectually and spiritually damaging, and gives the moral justification for the adherents of other sects to adopt the same attitude, and sects will not gain adherents that are drawn towards them through conviction, since each sect clings to its beliefs out of cultish obedience rather than objective conviction.

Intolerance is usually the product of ignorance and emotion. When an individual cannot understand another person’s point of view, he will usually experience frustration and anger whenever he is exposed to other people’s opinions. If objectivity is dismissed, then this is the chronic condition that the community, or the country, will live in. When people adhere to their “subjective truth,” sectarianism becomes the breeding ground for conflict and intolerance. But it’s not the existence of sects that’s to blame, but the intention that people have for adhering to their sects.

Problems to the Country:

One of the greatest problems experienced in a country with a strong religious or sectarian presence (i.e. religious affiliation is a feature used to distinguish between different citizens) is that the adherents of each sect will only seek to benefit those belonging to their sect. This is extremely damaging to any country, because this is where the division within the country will be felt the most. Members of parliament will not be voted for based on their credentials and abilities, but on their religious affiliation and how they can serve their sect. The gain of one sect will necessarily mean a loss for the other. Justice will no longer be used as a criterion, but religious affiliation will. And where justice is abandoned, no country can prosper.

Problems to the Religion:

One of the most prominent themes in the Holy Koran is the detachment from false criteria for determining the truth. These come in many forms, such as loyalty to one’s parents, culture, tradition, or one’s unwillingness to admit being wrong. Islam sought to break these attachments, which prevent a person from seeing the truth for what it is. There’s absolutely no Islamic endorsement for commitment to one’s sect if it’s not for the sake of the truth, and one who clings to his sect out of tribal affiliation is expressing the same vices that Islam came to fight.

Problems with Banning Sectarianism

While I accept that sectarianism can have many potential harms, the proposed solution to fighting sectarianism will only amplify the negatives, and suppress the positives. By limiting one’s right to express his or her beliefs regarding other sects, this will not destroy one’s sentiments, but may even intensify them, as they feel unable to express the strong convictions they hold. Even if these convictions are due to ignorance, you cannot defeat ignorance by banning communication.

The Ministry of Information have gone to the extent of banning books that promote a particular sect (albeit the minority Shia sect), deeming it sectarian. But this is the only resort any sect should have to defend and promote itself. By ignoring the fact that sects do exist, and hoping that by removing sectarian labels from society, sectarianism would disappear, isn’t realistic and, therefore, isn’t beneficial.

Solution to Sectarianism

Banning publications that promote (or condemn) Islamic sects will not help promote understanding. Those who condemn other sects are demonstrating their own attitude, and expressing their own opinions. Refusing to listen to what they have to say won’t make them or their ideas go away. You cannot promote knowledge by sensitizing the issue of sectarianism, and making people feel threatened by the law if they are to discuss a dangerous subject won’t encourage calm and thoughtful dialogue.

The only possible solution to bad sectarianism is to encourage the adherents of all sects to be willing to exchange their views without the use of intimidation or any tactic that undermines fruitful dialogue (such as the misrepresentation of other people’s views, name calling, etc). But the important point to note here is that this isn’t the responsibility of the government, but of society, and the leaders and scholars of the sects. Rather than appeal to the government to silence others when their sect is criticized, scholars should present their beliefs to those interested in listening to them, and to promote a suitable atmosphere for dialogue.

People should judge material based on the truthfulness of its content, and the intellectual honesty of its writer. Rather than have the government decide which books are causing sectarianism and which are not, the citizens should be able to judge for themselves, so that they can take responsibility for reaching their own conclusions, and to help them train themselves in the art of dialogue and the science of critical thinking.

The government should step in when people, especially in government roles, discriminate based on sectarian affiliations. If a government official places bureaucratic obstacles in the way of citizens that belong to a particular sect, then the authorities must step in to question the official, and take the necessary actions to guarantee that the citizen’s rights are protected, regardless of his religious convictions.

Promoting understanding between the sects is ultimately the responsibility of the citizens, especially the scholars, who represent their respective sects more than the laymen. And before people look to the government to step in and resolve sectarian problems, they must ask whether they are doing enough to promote dialogue and understanding.

The Process

Before I discuss the issue of Islamization thoroughly, we need to remember that Islamization is the process of installing Islamic law as the source of legislation. This means that Islamic law was not the law, and the case is made for its adoption by the country, not in 5 or 10 year’s time, but now.

For the Islamists, it is not part of their vision to see Islamic law being used in the country in the distant future, but this is at the top of their agenda, and they are pushing for it at every chance they get.

The Rise of Islam

While the case is made by the Islamists that Islamic law is the solution we are in desperate need of to tackle our personal, social, economic and political problems, they overlook the fact that the process of Islamization that they are promoting is contrary to the way in which Islam itself was promoted by the Prophet (peace be on him and his family).

Islamists want to make use of the law in order to change people’s moral conduct. But the Prophet never approached morality in this way. Islam did not begin as a government or any other political establishment. It began as a moral movement that promoted a re-evaluation of society’s beliefs and customs, and offered a worldview that promoted individual thought and upright character.

Islamic scholars usually draw a distinction between the verses of the Holy Koran that were revealed in Mecca (i.e. during the early days of Islam) and the ones revealed in Medina (i.e. the later stages of Islam) because the former concentrated more on beliefs, principles and moral virtues, whereas the latter dealt with civil law, warfare, political relations, etc. The process of Islamization reverses the formula, and rather than begin with moral guidance through rational persuasion, they seek to promote morality through political force.

The Law and the Culture

It is important to bear in mind that the rise of Islam demonstrates the Islamic way of bringing about social reform. In other words, it presents us with the process we must use, if we wish to act in accordance with Islam. We cannot simply work towards the end results (Islamic beliefs, upright conduct, etc) while overlooking how these issues are meant to be approached. And we certainly cannot look for shortcuts, which is what the Islamists are looking for.

By using the threat of force, the Islamists hope that they can mould society in any way they wish. They completely ignore the validity of their process, and do not take into consideration the role culture plays in a society.

Islam sought to change the culture before it established the law. The Prophet wanted to change the way people thought, not by intimidation or compulsion, but with reason. He wanted to change their conduct, not by force or with threats, but by setting an example and encouraging others towards the values he was promoting.

The prohibition of intoxicants is usually given as an example of how Islamic law did not immediately demand that alcohol be banned from Muslim society. The Prophet gave the reasons for why people should not drink alcohol, but he did not prevent people from drinking, nor did he punish them for drinking.

Islam came to instill the values that are proper to a prosperous society, and the law came later on to codify the moral values that society upheld and consented to.

Looking at the Islamist approach to politics, we find that the Islamists seek to add more restrictions on people so they can develop in them the values the Islamists associate to Islam. In other words, the less people know, the less choices they have and the less they can do, the more moral they can become.

There is total disregard for the current values that people uphold, no use of reasoning to promote “Islamic” values and no consideration for the consequences their policies will have on people’s personal adoption of Islamic values. Islam has to be obeyed, no matter what people think or how they feel about it.

Is this an Islamic attitude?

Understanding the Law

Apart from the fact that the Islamist agenda ignores the actual process the Prophet used to introduce Islam in Arabia, it also makes unsubstantiated claims about the nature of Islamic law and misinterprets the law through false principles and wrong application of Islamic teachings. We will look at all these issues, and relate them to some positions the Islamists in Kuwait took regarding a couple of issues.

“Islamic law is unchanging”

The most popular claim Islamists make regarding the nature of Islamic law is that it is unchanging, and is suitable for all times and all places. This is a claim Islamists find difficult to think beyond or without. It forms the framework of their thinking, and they cannot understand Islam in any other way. They view change as something negative (which is one of the reasons why they are conservatives) and think that it creates uncertainty and undermines Islamic teachings. Besides, God knows the nature of man and his needs, and God’s knowledge cannot become outdated.

But this is a claim that the Prophet neither made nor acted on. Islamic law went through several changes during the time of the Prophet, and the study of Islamic law takes into account the abrogated verses (Ar. mansukh, i.e. the verses whose application is replaced) and the abrogating verses (Ar. nasikh, i.e. the verses that came to replace the abrogated verses). This is something stated in the Holy Koran, and Islamic teachings don’t hide this fact.

So if Islamic law went through several changes during the time of the Prophet, is it appropriate for us to say that from the Prophet’s death onward, Islamic law cannot be changed?

For us to answer this question appropriately, we must take into account why Islamic law should be open to change.

It is narrated that Imam Ali (peace be on him) was asked about the Prophet’s instruction for the Muslims to dye their hair, and whether Muslims were still obliged to do so. Imam Ali replied that, during the early days of Islam, the Muslims were a minority and subject to abuse. The Prophet encouraged the Muslims to dye their hair so that they can appear more youthful in relation to the rest of society, and thereby presenting themselves as a strong community. But after the Muslims became powerful, it is no longer necessary to give such an impression.

It is also recorded that the second caliph, Caliph Umar, suspended corporal punishments during a drought.

What both incidents show is, at least, an understanding of Islam amongst prominent Muslim figures that Islamic law was open to change, given the conditions in which the Muslims live. And not only do Islamists overlook conditions (conditions are subject to change, and Islamists do not like change), they also ignore the context in which Islamic law was implemented during the time of the Prophet. “Why did the Prophet give such a ruling?” is not a question Islamists tend to ask, which distorts their understanding and, therefore, implementation of Islamic law.

Islam in Context

In a lengthy narration on the abrogated and abrogating verses, Imam Ali pointed out that many Islamic rulings were not based on universal laws, but were an extension of the existing customs of Arabia. This, Imam Ali explained, was part of God’s mercy in that He did not introduce laws to a people that they were unable to cope with, or which strongly conflicted with their expectations.

And while Islamists may rationalize the universal applicability of Islamic law, they must be aware of the rulings which are bound by the society in which Islam was born, and which prominent Islamic figures, such as Imam Ali, who is regarded as one of the key interpreters of Islam, did not claim to be universal.

Distorted Teachings

As I have already mentioned in the article “the Islamization of the Law,” the interpretation of Islamic law is a crucial element that we need to address before we can claim that the law we are promoting is actually Islamic (i.e. in accordance with God’s message).

There are many principles that need to be taken into consideration when interpreting Islamic law, and I have only touched on some of them. But to help explain the Islamist interpretation of Islamic law, I would like to look at two issues that were raised in Kuwait by Islamists:

Banning Valentine’s: Apart from the fact that this is a top-down approach to promoting Islam, the Islamists wanted to ban the celebration of Valentine’s because they considered it indecent, and because it is a celebration that Islam does not recognize. Not every interpretation of Islam would accept these arguments. For one thing, celebrating Valentine’s is only indecent depending on the individuals celebrating it. No one can claim that it is indecent for a married couple to celebrate Valentine’s.

As for Valentine’s being a non-Muslim celebration does not immediately cast it off as forbidden for the Muslims to celebrate. Islamists have low tolerance for celebrations and occasions that do not belong in the Islamic calendar. Some even object to celebrating birthdays, including the Prophet’s birthday, because it’s a day that the Prophet himself did not observe.

But, again, the interpretation of Islamic teachings does not make it clear whether the Islamist interpretation is justified or not, and it certainly cannot speak on behalf of all Muslims.

Opposing the weekend shift: When Kuwait wanted to shift its weekend from Thursday-Friday to Friday-Saturday, the Islamists opposed the move, and claimed that regarding Saturday a holiday is Islamically forbidden, because it imitates the Jews, which the Prophet has warned the Muslims about.

What the Islamists failed to recognize is what sort of imitation the Prophet has warned the Muslims about. The Jews worship a single God, but does that mean the Muslims have to be different, and worship two gods? The Jews observe a day of rest, so does this mean the Muslims cannot regard Friday a day of rest?

The imitation the Prophet warned us about is not in their observance of the Sabbath, or any other religious ritual, but it is in the ways they have deviated from God’s instructions. The Islamists have incorrectly applied an Islamic teaching to an issue to which the teaching did not apply.

We, therefore, see that the Islamist call for Islamization is not what the Islamists make it out to be. It is not a pure application of Islamic law, since they have dismissed the Islamic process of promoting Islam, they do not understand the nature of Islamic law, nor interpret its teachings correctly. Rather than be drawn towards Islamization by judging the call from a distant, we must try to understand exactly what is meant by it, and to listen carefully to what is being called for.

To whom it may concern:

I am a registered user of the ARI site, and a great fan of Ayn Rand’s Objectivism.

But while reading some of the op-eds I have been receiving from the ARI, “objectivism” was the last word that came to mind. These op-eds were about “Islamic” terrorism, and the writers were proposing that the religion of Islam was the root of the terrorist attacks in London.

I am mainly referring to the articles written by David Holcberg (The Terrorists’ Motivation: From the Camel’s Mouth) and Edwin A. Locke (The Terrorists’ Motivation: Islam), where the writers even include quotations from the Holy Koran to support their claims. However, as an Islamic researcher, I find the writers’ approach to be misleading, inaccurate and can hardly be called objective. Objectivism does not only depend on the logical strength of the argument, but the truth of its premises. The misinterpretation of Koranic verses makes the premises of the writers’ arguments false and, therefore, defeats their whole argument.

Has it ever occurred to the writers that they may be taking the verses out of context, or using wrong translations of the text?

Have they not recognized that the context of the verses which promote violence is a military confrontation? The Holy Koran clearly states: “Fighting has been made permissible for those at war because they have been oppressed.” [ 22:39 ]

Have the writers not realized, through their reading of the Holy Koran, that it does not promote enmity towards all disbelievers, but only those who oppress the Muslims? Again, the Holy Koran places the Muslim enmity towards the disbelievers (wrongly translated in the verses quoted by the above writers as Pagans, but originally means: those who reject the truth, and implies hostility) in the context of being oppressed, by saying:

“Allah does not forbid you, with regards to those who do not fight you on account of your religion nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: for Allah loves those who are just.” [60:8]

Mr Locke also made the bizarre claim that Islam – as a religion – discourages reason and expects the Muslims to blindly follow its dogma. While some Islamic sects may tend towards this position because they are unaware of the rational basis of Islamic beliefs, Islam should not be blamed for their ignorance. The Holy Koran repeatedly refers to the use of reason, and encourages its readers (who are not necessarily Muslim) to ponder and to engage their intellects, as the following verse demonstrates:

“Say: ‘I advise you on one point: that you stand up before Allah,- (It may be) in pairs, or (it may be) singly,- and reflect (within yourselves): your Companion is not possessed: he is no less than a warner to you, in face of a terrible Penalty.’” [34:46]

The sayings of Prophet Muhammad and his family (peace be on them) are full of praise for the intellect and the use of reason. There are sayings which regard the intellect as the noblest creation and which explain that references to the “heart” in the Holy Koran are actually references to the intellect (where “heart” in that context refers to the core of human beings: their intellect).

And if Mr Holcberg and Mr Locke wish to quote verses out of context, then the same can be done with the ARI website and its op-eds. A recent op-ed by Alex Epstein (Fight the Root of Terrorism With Bombs, Not Bread) can be said to promote violence in the same way the Koranic verses do.

I wish to make it clear that I did not write this as an “offended” Muslim who wishes to blindly defend his religion, but as a rational individual who wishes to defend objectivity. I believe Ayn Rand’s philosophy has a lot to offer, especially the objective defense of reason and the promotion of living on principle. It would be a real pity if Mr Holcberg and Mr Locke would discredit the philosophy by using it to juggle false premises. And if they wish to further a political agenda, then this should not be done in the name of Objectivism.

The literalist approach is what the extremists use to justify their own political agendas, and I’m afraid Mr Holcberg and Mr Locke are only using the extremist’s approach, without bothering to dig out the true meanings intended by the Holy Koran.

Best regards,

Haider