Posted: 31 May 2013 03:52 AM PDT

This post was first published by the Gatestone Institute. See:

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3739/islamophobia-comes-to-canberra

Are we to let our freedoms be shaped by the worst kind of intolerance found in the sharia badlands? How will discrimination among religions based on fear distort human rights?

Like student magazines all over the world, Woroni, put out by students at the Australian National University, publishes satire. It did when I attended 30 years ago, and it still does today. Much of what is written is offensive to someone or other, but it is a rare day when the university pays any attention.

However last week, The Australian newspaper reported that university authorities responded to a complaint by international students to compel Woroni “to pulp a satirical infographic which described a passage from the Koran as a ‘rape fantasy'”. Rachel Baxendale wrote:

The University also threatened student authors and editors of the infographic with disciplinary action, including academic exclusion and the withdrawal of the publication’s funding.

The piece was a fifth in a satirical series entitled “Advice from Religions” which had previously discussed Catholicism, Scientology, Mormonism and Judaism.

No complaints were received about any of the earlier installments.

The university issued a statement that:

… the infographic breached university rules and Australian Press Council guidelines, as well as posing a threat to the ANU’s reputation and security.

“In a world of social media, (there is) potential for material such as the article in question to gain attention and traction in the broader world and potentially harm the interests of the university and the university community,” the statement said.

The university cited an ugly demonstration by Muslims which took place in Sydney on September 15, 2012, and the Jyllands-Posten cartoon controversy.

The Sydney demonstration involved protestors displaying placards such as “Behead all those who insult the prophet” and “Sharia will dominate the world.”

Baxendale reported that one of the Woroni editors was told by a complainant: “I don’t think you understand the seriousness of this. In Pakistan, people get shot for this kind of thing.”

This logic is terrifying. People can get shot for many things in Pakistan: for gay sex or for belonging to the wrong Muslim sect. Are we in Australia to let our freedoms be shaped by the worst kinds of intolerance found in the sharia badlands?

The Australian National University was motivated by raw fear — of Islam. They virtually admitted as much. They did not bat an eyelid when diverse religions were mocked week after week in the pages of Woroni, but Islam is different. It seems the university did not even go through the motions of pretending they were acting to protect Muslims: they just didn’t want to get hurt.

This is a real example of true Islamophobia, in which an individual or organization discriminates between religions on the basis of the degree to which they fear Islam. The Australian National University has shown itself to be genuinely Islamophobic, yet at the same time, sharia-friendly.

This is the surrender of fear, which aligns with Muhammad’s call to non-Muslims to aslim taslam: “Surrender and you will be safe.” The Australian National University has acted to secure its safety, but at a great price.

This university could dig deeper and consider two implications of their actions.

One is: Why is it they have such fear of Islam? Do their actions show that they agree with Geert Wilders that “Islam is the problem”? Do they agree that it is Islam’s own theological characteristics that have caused Australia’s leading university to threaten its students with expulsion, simply for doing what students have always done?

The second question is: How will discrimination among religions based upon the criterion of fear distort human rights and the very fabric of the society in which we live? Are we to bow down before Islamic dogmas in every domain of life, out of the fear of being shot “as in Pakistan”? Will the demands of Islamic sharia determine the boundaries of human safety in every corner of the globe, as the September 2012 Sydney protesters so brazenly demanded?

Mark Durie is an Anglican vicar in Melbourne, Australia, author of The Third Choice, and an Associate Fellow at the Middle Eastern Forum.

Mark Durie is an Anglican pastor and Associate Fellow at the Middle Eastern Forum.

Subscribe to markdurie.com blog by email.

This text may be reposted or forwarded so long as it is presented as an integral whole with complete and accurate information provided about its author, date, place of publication, and original URL.

~~

The Dhimma Returns to Syria

Posted: 01 Jun 2013 11:06 PM PDT

The following report comes from Martin Janssen in Amman, Jordan (original in Dutch). The preceding notes and translation from Dutch into English are by Dr. Mark Durie, an Anglican vicar in Melbourne, Australia, author of The Third Choice, and an Associate Fellow at the Middle Eastern Forum.

In his report Janssen tells of his experience of a prayer walk in Amman, held on May 21 2013 for the two abducted Syrian clergy, Greek Orthodox Archbishop Paul Yazigi and Syriac Orthodox Archbishop Yohanna Ibrahim. These Archbishops have been captured by Syrian rebels.

After the prayer walk Janssen had the opportunity to meet with Syrian Christian refugees, who told him how they came to flee their homes and villages. Their village was occupied by rebel forces, who proceeded to announce that they were now under an Islamic emirate, and were subject to sharia law.

The Christian residents were offered four choices:

1. renounce the ‘idolatry’ of Christianity and convert to Islam;

2. pay a heavy tribute to the Muslims for the privilege of keeping their heads and their Christian faith (this tribute is known as jizya);

3. be killed;

4. flee for their lives, leaving all their belongings behind.

Some Christians were killed, some fled, some tried to pay the jizyaand found it too heavy a burden to bear after the rebels kept increasing the amount they had to pay, and some were unable to flee or pay, so they converted to Islam to save themselves.

The scenario reported by Syrian refugees is a re-enactment of the historic fate of Christians across the Middle East. The Muslim historian Al-Tabari reported that when the Caliph ‘Umar conquered Syria, he gave the following command to his armies:

“Summon the [conquered] people to Allah; those who respond unto your call, accept it [their conversion to Islam] from them, but those who refuse must pay the jizya out of humiliation and lowliness. If they refuse this, it is the sword without leniency.”

Umar’s command referenced Sura (chapter) 9 verse 29 of the Koran:

“Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the jizya readily, being brought low.”

This policy of subjugating Christians under the yoke of jizya taxation was also based upon the teaching of Muhammad who said:

“Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah.

Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war …

When you meet your enemies who are polytheists,

invite them to three courses of action.

if they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withhold

yourself from doing them any harm.

Invite them to (accept) Islam;

if they respond to you, accept it from them

and desist from fighting against them ….

If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them thejizya.

If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands.

If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah’s help and fight them.”

(Sahih Muslim. The Book of Jihad and Expedition. [Kitab al-Jihad wa’l-Siyar])

Classical Islamic law mandates that ‘People of the Book’ should be given three choices, however the Syrian rebels are augmenting this with the fourth option of allowing them to flee.

In Islamic law, Christians who accept to pay the jizya in order to keep their faith – and their head – are known as dhimmis.For a full explanation of the Islamic doctrine of the three choices, including the psychological meaning of the jizya tribute, see The Third Choiceespecially Chapter 6: The Dhimma: Doctrine and History).

It is a matter of deep concern that European states and the US are assisting the Syrian rebels as they implement this Islamic ‘emirate’, which includes the restoration of the dhimma system by re-enacting the conditions of jihad conquest against Christians.

A conversation with Syrian refugees in Ammanby Martin Janssen

Last Tuesday, May 21 a prayer walk was held in the Jordanian capital Amman around nightfall. Its purpose was to inquire after the unknown fate of the two Syrian bishops who were kidnapped over a month ago. I had agreed with some members of the congregation where I always worship to take part and traveled there with them. During the journey I was brought into contact with a Syrian priest from Aleppo who after the journey was concluded introduced me to a group of Syrian Christian refugees. The priest suggested that we all spend the rest of the evening together so that as a correspondent from Europe I could listen to the stories and testimonies of these Syrians.

Syrian refugees of all religious backgrounds – not just Christians – do not feel at ease in neighboring countries such as Lebanon and Jordan. They get the very strong impression that they are not welcome and that the open hostility of the local population towards them is growing. In Jordan, for example, some parliamentarians have been calling on the government for months to expell all Syrian refugees from the country because they pose a security risk. The problem is that this accusation contains an kernel of truth. Our evening discussion group of 12 people included some Jordanian Christians. They reported that a few weeks early the Jordanian security services had managed to thwart an assassination attempt on Abdullah, the Jordanian monarch. This attack was planned and orchestrated by a sleeper cell of the Syrian, al-Qaida affiliated, Jabhat al-Nusramovement. It was precisely to escape such radical Islamic movements that Syrian Christians have fled to Jordan.

My interlocutors this evening were almost all from northern Syria. They came from Idlib, Aleppo and villages in the countryside between the two cities. Their testimony was unanimous. Many of these villages had a large Christian presence until a few years ago, but now Christians no longer lived there. Jamil, an elderly man, told the following story during which other attendees began to nod violently in agreement. They appeared to have experienced exactly the same things.

Jamil lived in a village near Idlib where 30 Christian families had always lived peacefully alongside some 200 Sunni families. That changed dramatically in the summer of 2012. One Friday trucks appeared in the village with heavily armed and bearded strangers who did not know anyone in the village. They began to drive through the village with a loud speaker broadcasting the message that their village was now part of an Islamic emirate and Muslim women were henceforth to dress in accordance with the provisions of the Islamic Sharia. Christians were given four choices. They could convert to Islam and renounce their “idolatry”. If they refused they were allowed to remain on condition that they pay the jizya. This is a special tax that non-Muslims under Islamic law must pay for “protection”. For Christians who refused there remained two choices: they could leave behind all their property or they would be slain. The word that was used for the latter in Arabic (dhabaha) refers to the ritual slaughter of sacrificial animals [MD: i.e. by cutting the throat].

After Jamil had finished his story a gloomy silence descended. I asked him how the 30 Christian families in his village had perished since then. He replied that a number of families – including his own family – had initially opted to pay jizya. When the leader of the armed militia in their village, however, noticed that they were able to do this, the amount kept increasing in the following months. Like almost all other Christian families he eventually fled the village. His land and farm were lost. Some Christian families in his village who were unable to escape or pay the jizya converted to Islam. To his knowledge, there were no Christians killed in his village, but he had heard other stories from a neighboring village where only three Christian families survived. They were all murdered in the middle of the night.

Miryam, an Armenian middle-aged woman from Aleppo, made the biggest impression on me. A common thread running through all the stories from different places in northern Syria during this evening was the constant complaint that armed militias looted and plundered. From wheat, bread and diesel in the villages to the complete inventory of schools, businesses and factories in Aleppo. Factory owners who protested were executed without mercy. Miryam said acquaintances who fled to Turkey learned that members of these armed militias were selling this “war booty” at bargain basement prices in Turkey. Miryam looked at me thoughtfully and said something which remained constantly with me over the following days. She told me that she had learned last year that a human being has a tremendous ability to adapt to the most difficult conditions. They had to learn to live in Aleppo without water or food, and sometimes no electricity for days on end. They even had to learn to live with the sounds of explosives and gunfire that tore them from sleep at night.

However, what a man cannot live with is the constant terror that paralyzes him completely: the daily fear that the bus transporting children to their school would be targeted by a suicide attack; the psychological fear that comes over you on Sunday when you go to church knowing there are groups active in your neighborhood who consider it a religious duty to kill as many Christians as possible; and finally the situation that at night you do not dare to go to bed because you have received reports about acquaintances and relatives who were surprised by a rocket that crashed out of nowhere onto their property while they slept; or what can happen when you spend hours in a long line at one of the few bakeries that still make bread. Indeed Miryam told me that she never could have imagined that even the simplest of life’s activities had suddenly become dangerous.

At the end of the night I struggled inwardly with a question that I did not dare to express but which I finally found the courage to utter. What next? What did these Syrian refugees have to say about their own future and that of Christianity in Syria? Later I realized that in fact no one answered this question. The Armenian Miryam said she was thinking of emigrating with her family to Armenia, while Jamil talked about relatives who lived in Sweden. Perhaps their answer to my question lay hidden in these comments.

Just after midnight I drove home with the members of my church from Amman. Everyone was silent and seemed lost in thought. I was to be dropped off at the church. This church sits on a hill which was once almost always enchantingly lit, but I had noticed recently that this was no longer the case. While getting out of the car I asked about the reason and was told that “there were people who had taken offense”. I also saw three young men quasi-nonchalantly keeping watch at the church. When I asked if this was necessary, the short reply I got was “Yes.”

This report was originally published by the Religious Freedom Coalition.

Mark Durie is an Anglican pastor and Associate Fellow at the Middle Eastern Forum.

Subscribe to markdurie.com blog by email.

This text may be reposted or forwarded so long as it is presented as an integral whole with complete and accurate information provided about its author, date, place of publication, and original URL.

~~

Wilders in Australia and the “Islamic Problem” – Part II

Posted: 29 May 2013 05:02 PM PDT

This is the second in a four part series of posts written in response to Geert Wilders’ visit to Australia in early 2013.

In a previous post I contrasted Geert Wilders’ view that ‘Islam is the problem’ with the claims of many Muslims who preach with equal conviction that ‘Islam is the solution’, and examined evidence of the negative characteristics associated with belief in Islam, including disadvantaged human development outcomes.

These days many leaders in the West find it convenient to sweep the ‘problem’ of Islam under the carpet. Long gone are the days of Theodore Roosevelt, Wilders’ hero, who declared in Fear God and take your own part that values such as freedom and equality only existed in Europe because it had the military capacity to ‘beat back the Moslem invader’.

However, given the negative outcomes associated with Islam, one of which is Geert Wilders’ need for constant armed guards (some others were enumerated in the previous post), the question whether Islam is the problem or the solution is not something to be just swept under the carpet.

In the fourth and final post of this series we will consider Wilders’ policies for managing ‘the problem’. The third post, the next after this, will review an on-going dispute between critics of Islam as to whether there can be a moderate, tolerable form of Islam. On one side stand those, like Wafa Sultan, Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Robert Spencer, who consider Islam to be essentially irredeemable. On the other side stand those, like Daniel Pipes and Barry Rubin, who argue that there are different Islams and the ‘solution’ to radical Islam is moderate Islam.

Of course there are many opinions about Islam. In this, the second post in this series, we consider two widely-held secular – and positive – perspectives on Islam which have been influential in shaping the response of secular-minded westerners to Islam. These are universalism and relativism.

Relativism holds that no one religion is true, but as different as they are, all religions are equally valid in their own way, and the differences deserve respect.

Universalism — in the sense used here — holds that the core of religions consists of a set of positive ethical values shared by all people and all faiths.

For many western secular people, universalism and relativism are so deeply embedded in their world view that they have no choice but to process Islam through the grid of these belief systems. This means they pre-judge Islam by limting their understand only to what their frame permits them to see. What they observe is not Islam as it really is, but as it appears through the window frame of their own beliefs. They see Islam as their world view tells them it must be.

As Ludwig Wittgenstein once wrote

“One thinks that one is tracing the outline of the thing’s nature over and over again, and one is merely tracing round the frame through which we look at it.” (Philosophical Investigations.)

Negative Universalism

Before examining these two perspectives, we can observe that some secular people believe the core of all religions consists of negative values. This is negative religious universalism.

Bertrand Russell was a famous exponent of negative religious universalism. He said, “I regard [religion] as a disease born of fear and as a source of untold misery to the human race.” (Has Religion Made Useful Contribution to Civilization?) and “I am as firmly convinced that religions do harm as I am that they are untrue.” (Why I am not a Christian.)

People who are invested in this view may reject the claim that ‘Islam is the problem,’ because for them ‘religion’ itself, conceived of as a unitary category, is the whole problem. They refuse to make any concessions to differences between religions, and will not concede that any one religion might be worse – or better – than another.

Others, like Richard Dawkins, author of the best-selling God Delusion, believe all religions are harmful, but they are willing to concede Islam is worse than others. Dawkin’s judgement is, ‘I regard Islam as one of the great evils of the world.’

Negative universalism may be widely held among atheists, but the perspective I will focus on here is positive universalism, which is politically more influential in the west today. Although there are many who agree with Betrand Russell, outside of communist states negative universalism does not normally exercise a dominant influence on public policy.

The comfort of universalism and relativism

For many, relativism and universalism are not coherently worked-through conclusions which are arrived at after examining all the relevant evidence and comparing actual religious beliefs and practices. They are more like ideological blind spots adhered to because of the side benefits they bring. Above all, these blind spots serve to maintain world view inertia in the face of a confusing and challenging contrary evidence.

In some respects relativism and universalism can be easy and even comforting beliefs to hold because they eliminate the necessity to make up one’s mind by following or rejecting any religion, since all religions are either the same or equally valid. A universalist or a relativist can afford to think benignly of all religions and maintain an optimistic attitude about the role of religion in the world, while refraining from observing any of them.

The whole world looks rosy when you are wearing pink lenses, set in heart-shaped frames. In reality however, the two belief systems of relativism and relativism are dysfunctional because they are not reality-based: the world’s religions do not promote the same values; their values are often contradictory; many religious values are far from good by any reasonable standard; and religious teachings are not all intrinsically valid but can reasonably be judged to be true or false.

Relativism

An instance of relativism shaping public policy was a speech on religious freedom given in 2012 by Hilary’s Clinton to the Carnegie Endowment for International peace. In it Clinton asserted that people who believe they possess ultimate truth constitute the most fundamental threat to religious liberty:

“The first [argument used to block religious freedom] is that only some people should be allowed to practice their faith – those who belong to the right faith. They define religion in such a way that if you do not believe what they want you to believe, then what you are doing is not practicing religion, because there is only one definition of religion. They, and only they and the religious leaders with whom they work, are in possession of the ultimate truth.”

Clinton also sees a link between believing you have the truth and hating others:

“People can believe that they and only those like them possess the one and only truth. That’s their right. Though they do not have the right to harm those they think harbor incorrect views. But their societies pay a cost when they choose to look at others with hate or disgust.”

For Clinton, relativism is the sine qua non of religious tolerance, and tolerance the sine qua non of religious freedom. In essence she asserts that all ‘legitimate religious differences’ are valid, and should be ‘tolerated, respected and protected’. You can believe what you like, and your beliefs should be respected, but if you think you have the truth, you are an extremist, and your ‘religious differences’ are not ‘legitimate’.

Thus, when answering a question about counter-terrorism measures, Clinton stated that one should distinguish ‘legitimate’ religion from ‘extremism’:

“So I think that we need to be very thoughtful in separating out the problems posed by extremism – no matter where they’re coming from – and terrorism, from legitimate religious differences that should be tolerated, respected, and protected.”

When Clinton uses the phrase ‘no matter where they’re coming from’ she is saying that extremism is common to all religions. Religious extremism is not to be linked to any one religion, because people of all faiths or in ‘nearly every society’ may think they possess a hotline to God:

“Now, there will always be people in nearly every society who are going to believe that God is talking right to them and saying, what you really need to do is overthrow the government. What you really need to do is to kill the unbelievers. …

… it’s not just religions against one another, it’s even within religions – within Christianity, within Judaism, within Islam, within Hinduism – there are people who believe their version of that religion is the only right way to believe.

…We watched for many years the conflict in Northern Ireland against Catholics on the one side, Protestants on the other.”

(Of course Clinton’s invocation of Northern Ireland as a comparison to Muslim sectarian violence is entirely misplaced. The Northern Irish Catholic-Protestant divide notwithstanding, the combatants in that conflict were not fighting out of any conviction that ‘God was talking right to them’. IRA ideology was shaped by Marxism, not Christian theology, and the core issue for the separatists was freedom from the oppression of British rule, not upholding true religion against disbelievers.)

Clinton’s answer to the evils of extremists — defined as those who believe in religious truth — is respect. If we extend respect to the beliefs of others, treating them as worthy and valid and allowing their beliefs and practices breathing space, she believes these others are more likely to act moderately, and not adopt extremist positions:

“I think the more respect there is for the freedom of religion, the more people will find useful ways to participate in their societies. If they feel suppressed, if there is not that safety valve that they can exercise their own religion, they then oftentimes feel such anger, despair that they turn to violence. They become extremists.”

For Clinton extremism is a vicious circle. The extremist A disrespects the beliefs of B, with the result that B feels such ‘anger’ and ‘despair’ that they become extremists in their turn, disrespecting the beliefs of others. This vicious circle can be broken and turned into a virtuous circle if A chooses to respect B’s beliefs. This respect will help B feel good about themselves, with the result that they become happy and self-confident, renounce extremist ways, and extend respect to others in their turn.

One problem with Clinton’s approach is that it is underpinned by a naive view of human nature. Some oppressive religious ideologies command respect, but are allergic to reciprocating it. If you offer one hand to a hungry lion, there is no guarantee he won’t like the taste of it and devour your other hand as well.

A deeper issue is that ideas do matter. Truth is not only the prerogative of science. Good ideas deserve vigorous support, including theological ideas. Conversely, bad ideas equally deserve to be rejected and refuted. False ideas should be opposed. Some religious beliefs do not deserve respect and it is reasonable to judge some religious beliefs to be true or false. For example, it is not ‘extremism’ to reject or even condemn the religious belief that Usama Bin Ladin is in paradise enjoying his virgins. It is not ‘extremism’ to be certain that the Koran is not the word of God.

Clinton is fundamentally in error when she implies that it is not what people believe, but certainty of belief which is the great danger to religious freedom. A convinced Quaker Christian does not present the same threat to religious freedom in the world today as a convinced Salafist Muslim. They may both be equally convinced they possess the truth, but the point is not the intensity of their convictions, but what they take the truth to be.

By Clinton’s definition, Abraham Lincoln was a religious extremist and thus a threat to religious freedom in the world. The American Civil War was fought over a claim to about religious truth, namely that all people are born equal so none should be enslaved. Lincoln believed he had God’s truth on the issue of slavery, and was willing to spend the lives of hundreds of thousands to impose this truth on the South. As the words of the Battle Hymn of the Republic put it, “His [i.e. God’s] truth is marching on”.

In the South there were those who believed that God’s truth supported slavery. Clinton’s solution — according to her speech — would have been for each side to extend respect to the other, in the conviction that this display of tolerance would discourage everyone from becoming ‘extreme’ in their beliefs, and inspire everyone to get on well together. Bad luck for the slaves!

The essential problem and inevitable failure of Clinton’s belief system is that some religious beliefs – for example the belief that all people are created equal – are good and produce positive results. Other beliefs – such as a dogma that one class of persons is inherently inferior to another, whether women to men, or infidels to believers — do not deserve respect or tolerance.

Furthermore, there is even something threatening about Clinton’s use of the word ‘extremism’ to denigrate people who actually believe in the truth of their faith, together with her implication that these people’s beliefs are not ‘legitimate’. Clinton’s rhetoric is eerily reminiscent of the language of tyrants, who when they persecute religious people often denigrate them as ‘extremists’. For example the Soviet Union portrayed the Salvation Army as ‘extremist’ and a ‘cult’ which engaged in mind control, a claim which was then used to justify its persecution.

The elephant in the room of Clinton’s speech is Islam, because the most significant sources of religious persecution in the world today are Islamic dogmas. (See Crucifed Again, Raymond Ibrahim’s investigation of the theological roots of Islamic persecution.)

Although she steadfastly avoids naming Islam as a problem, Clinton was targeting her rhetoric at Islamic governments. Thus she praises the interim administration in Libya for advancing religious freedom and the Egyptian President Morsi for promising to govern for all Egyptians. Clinton is practicing what she preaches, extending respect to those who are at risk of extremism, no doubt in order to incite them to feel good about themselves and renounce extremist tendencies. The sad reality is that religious freedom is deteriorating in both Egypt and Libya, and will continue to do so.

The unspoken thesis woven throughout Clinton’s whole message is that the content of Islamic belief is not the problem. For Clinton, ‘tolerance’ means respecting the beliefs of others as valid, including and especially Islam. Renouncing belief in any ultimate truth, while embracing respect for all ‘legitimate religious differences’ is to her the real solution to the problem of religious freedom, and the yardstick of valid religious belief and practice.

Clinton embodies her own recipe for coexistence. She manifests respect for Islam by not criticizing it, apparently in the hope that this will move persecuting Islamic governments towards a less ‘extreme’ — i.e. more relativistic — position like her own.

Clinton’s remedy for religious intolerance is also official US policy. The Obama administration chooses to respect, tolerate and protect Islam as an official tactic to encourage Muslims to be more tolerant and less ‘extreme’.

The risk of this strategy is that it can minimize instances of Islamic persecution and conceal its causes. This all too easily ends up becoming collusion. For example, one of the most disappointing features of Clinton’s 2012 religious freedom speech was that the US Government’s 2011 Religious Freedom Report failed to identify Egypt and Pakistan as a ‘countries of particular concern’ for religious freedom, despite all the evidence. The most plausible explanation is that the Obama Administration did not want to ‘humiliate’ their Islamist allies – inciting them to ‘anger’ and ‘despair’ – so it downplayed their prevailing patterns of religious persecution deeply rooted in Islamic dogma.

Universalism

Malcolm Fraser, a former Prime Minister of Australia, is a religious universalist.

In an opinion piece about Australia’s treatment of refugees Fraser found it repugnant that some Australians fear Muslims because they believe ‘terrorism is synonymous with Islam’, a view he rejects out of hand on the basis that all religions share the same (good) values:

“I would have no problem with religion being taught in schools, as long as children were taught about all the world’s great religions and the common thread of humanity and of humane values that runs through all those religions. A wider knowledge on these matters would be a good thing.”

President Obama also looks at the world through universalist eyes. This was reflected in his 2009 Cairo speech in which he stated that Islam’s values are American values:

“I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles – principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.”

Universalism comes under pressure from the cognitive dissonance caused by the fact that people of sincere faith actually promote and live out vastly diverse values, many of which certainly would not agree with Fraser’s personal conception of universal ‘human values’. One true believer divests themselves of all their possessions to devote their life to helping the poor. Another flies a plane into a skyscraper to kill thousands. Both believers are equally sincere. They differ, not in the intensity of their beliefs, but in what their beliefs consist of. It is their contrasting, not held-in-common values which cause them to act in completely opposite ways.

(The phrase ‘cognitive dissonance’ was coined in 1957 by Festinger, Riecken and Schachter in When Prophecy Fails, a study of a UFO cult’s coping mechanisms when an expected apocalypse failed to eventuate.)

Managing Cognitive Dissonance: Coping Strategies

There is a cost in retaining a belief which cannot be easily reconciled with reality. The relativist and the universalist need to deploy a range of coping strategies to help them hang on to their failing world views.

One strategy is to avoid being confronted with information which could make the feelings of dissonance worse. One does not expect Malcolm Fraser spends much time browing the hadiths of Muhammad.

Another coping strategy is to demonize a bearer of bad news. Thus it can be reassuring and self-comforting for Geert Wilders to be vilified as ‘extreme right wing’. The passion of the accusation is a reflection of the depth of the anxiety standing behind it.

Another strategy is to shift blame. I have many times given addresses on the Koranic motivation for violence, after which someone in the audience has stood up and asked “What about the crusades: Christians have been violent too!” So true, but this is quite irrelevant to the challenge of understanding and engaging with Islam’s doctrines. This deflection has a purely emotional function, as it serves to reduce cognitive dissonance: by diverting attention away from stress-inducing information about Islam, it helps relieve a person of the responsibility to make a moral judgement about Islam which has challenging and perhaps frightening implications.

Sometimes blame-shifting means searching around for a surrogate cause. This was the coping mechanism played out after the Fort Hood Massacre, when Major Nidal Hasan, acting in accordance with jihad principles he had so clearly expounded in a medical seminar attacked and killed 13 fellow soldiers. After the event, President Obama pleaded with Americans not to ‘jump to conclusions’ saying, “we cannot fully know what leads a man to do such a thing.” Newsweek’s Evan Thomas opined ‘he’s probably just a nut case.’

Sometimes blame shifting can involve constructing elaborate alternative narratives. An example is the claim that the Palestinian conflict is the underlying cause of global jihad terrorism. Hence Malcolm Fraser’s claim that the West’s support for Israel perpetuates a breeding ground for terrorism:

“… the West’s one-sided policies relating to Israel and Palestine … is an abscess which breeds terrorists and will do so until there is a viable two-state solution.

This view can be understood as an elaborate coping mechanism for managing the cognitive dissonance caused by the problem of Islamic violence, a phenomenon which however predates the formation of the modern state of Israel by 1400 years.

Malcolm Fraser is not alone in holding this view. Indeed it comes naturally to those who must scramble for some foothold or other to compensate for the cognitive dissonance caused by their unreal world views about religious differences. President Jimmy Carter likewise contended that ‘permanent peace in the Middle East’ will not come until Israel accepts ‘its legal borders’ (Palestine: Peace not Apartheid, p.205, p.216: see Kenneth Stein’s compelling critique of Carter’s views).

The meme which attributes Islamic terrorism to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and claims that once a two-state resolution is achieved, peace will miraculously settle across the Middle East – or even, Malcolm Fraser implies, across the whole world – is given the lie by the degeneration of the so-called Arab Spring into a series of lingering bitter, bloody conflicts, none of which have anything to do with the Jews, and which are causing far more casualties than any of the wars between Israel and the Arabs.

Another example of blame shifting is Bill Clinton’s claim that Boko Haram’s murderous jihad against Nigerian Christians is due to ‘poverty’, ‘inequality’, and a vicious circle of violence: ‘it is almost impossible to cure a problem based on violence with violence.‘

Another coping mechanism is to perform cognitive gymnastics which delegitimize and mask the religious identity and motivations of perpetrators of violence.

An example was the apology forced from the BBC’s Nick Robinson for observing that the Woolwich killers had shouted ‘Allahu Akbar’ and were of ‘Muslim appearance’, descriptors which he had heard from the police. The inner logic runs like this: ‘Religions are good, so if someone does a bad thing in the name of religion, they can’t be acting with a religious motivation.’ In practice this world-view patch-up is concealed under the guise of opposing stereotyping. Robinson’s critics, while ostensibly opposing stereotyping, were propping up a world views by suppressing public acknowledgement of dissonant evidence.

Delegitimizing people of faith is one of Malcolm Fraser’s coping mechanism. He asserted that while religions are essentially good, people who act contrary to religion’s ‘universal values’ are not genuine representatives of their faith, but ‘exploiters’ of religion who ‘should be condemned.’

“We also have to recognise that, on occasions, ideologues from every religion have exploited their faith and, in the name of their faith, have preached hatred, brutality and terrorism. Wherever they come from, such people should be condemned.”

Malcolm Fraser asserts all religions preach the same (inherently good) message, but his position is unfalsifiable, because if someone were to disagree, pointing out that some people promote religious messages which are not good, he would respond by claiming that such people are not genuine people of faith, but ‘exploiters’ and ‘ideologues’.

I am reminded of the old story about the man who believed he was dead. He visited a psychiatrist who asked him “Do dead men bleed?” “No,” the man replied. The psychiatrist then took a pin and pricked the man’s finger. He looked in horror at the blood welling out of his finger tip: “Oh no! I was wrong! Dead men do bleed!”

President Bush’s public statement after the 9/11 atrocity that “Islam is Peace” (implying that the attackers were not genuine Muslims and were not motivated by Islam) is another example.

Suppression of cognitive dissonance is not merely an individual experience. It can be an epidemic, a mass psychosis, as coping mechanisms are replicated across newspapers, board rooms, government policies, talkback radio shows, family gathering and internet forums. For example, the rising hatred being directed against Israel across Europe is a societal response to manage the cognitive dissonance — and fear — caused by the rise of supremacist Islam.

When the Obama administration banned the use of the expressions ‘jihad’ and ‘Islamic extremism’ in discussions of terrorist threats by its security officials, this was an institutional form of deligitimizing and veiling the well-attested religious motivations of terrorists. This illustrates how a cognitive coping mechanism can be played out at the highest levels of government, even through deliberate policy decisions, and filter down to change the thoughts patters of society.

When newspapers and police forces repeatedly suppress Islamic motivations of crimes (see here and here) — whether in Egypt or in the West – this is a manifestation of a coping mechanism which has become a cultural trait.

Denial can be comforting. It spares one the trauma and hard work of engaging with realities which do not fit with cherished and deeply held personal beliefs, and few things are more personal than one’s beliefs about religion. But will it deliver peace and harmony?

Geert Wilders despises that tendency of western liberal thought which desperately wants to believe that all faiths are the same. For Wilders the world view and strategy held up by Hilary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, Jimmy Carter and Malcolm Fraser are nothing but a deception which denies people the opportunity to call a spade a spade, to own the fact that it is Islam itself which constitutes a threat to religious freedom, and then to do something about it.

Wilders maintains that if something is wrong it should be opposed, and to tolerate the intolerable is to collaborate with it. (On the other hand, Muslim clerics maintain that because sharia is right, it should be promoted and even imposed with all the force and power one can muster.)

Do our relativist and universalist political leaders – who mirror the values of many of the secular western people they lead – have something valuable to offer? In the face of the challenge of Islam, is there a gain in maintaining that all religions, especially Islam, are good and noble, and anyone who disagrees is an extremist ideologue or a bigot?

The problem is that the relativist and universalist belief systems are not reasonable. They are not credible. Not being truth-based, and relying on prejudice, they demand intense, constant and costly management of cognitive dissonance. Truth is the first casualty of these coping strategies, which result in bad policy, and poor strategies which only serve to empower and cover for enemies of freedom and truth.

Shameful, painful examples abound. Consider Major Nidal Hassan, the jihadi-for-a-day, who continues to draw an army salary while the Pentagon persists in mis-classifying his killing spree, performed while shouting ‘Allahu Akhbar’, as ‘workplace violence’. One consequence is that his wounded victims have not been granted benefits normally available to those injured in combat, such as Purple Heart retirement and preferential medical support.

If universalism and relativism are destined to fail us, because they cannot be made to fit reality, does this send us back to our two earlier options: the position of convinced Muslims, who maintain that Islam is pure, great and the solution to all human problems, or that of Geert Wilders and many like him, who assert that the religion of Islam is one of the great problems facing the world today?

There are alternative views we have yet to consider. Some critics of Islam allow for the possibility of a genuinely moderate Islam. This is something we shall consider in my next post on ‘Geert Wilder’s visit to Australia’.

Mark Durie is an Anglican vicar in Melbourne, Australia, author of The Third Choice, and an Associate Fellow at the Middle Eastern Forum.

Mark Durie is an Anglican pastor and Associate Fellow at the Middle Eastern Forum.

Subscribe to markdurie.com blog by email.

This text may be reposted or forwarded so long as it is presented as an integral whole with complete and accurate information provided about its author, date, place of publication, and original URL.

~~
Salafis and the Muslim Brotherhood: what is the difference?

Posted: 06 Jun 2013 03:58 PM PDT

For western lay people, it can be hard to distinguish one radical Muslim from another. What is the difference between Salafis and the Muslim Brotherhood? Are they really all that different? And why do Western governments seem to favour and even partner with Brotherhood-backed groups, but denigrate Salafis?

The 2011 People’s Assembly elections in Egypt focused the world’s attention on the Salafis when they proved to be the ‘dark horse’ of that poll, winning 25% of the seats. This, together with the Muslim Brotherhood’s 47%, gave Islamists almost three quarters of the seats in the Assembly. How do these two powerful Islamic groups compare?

Today the Brotherhood and Salafis also figure prominently in reports from Syria. Both brands of Islamists field rebel forces in Syria, and Brotherhood leaders dominate the Syrian National Council, which has been recognized by the Arab League and some UN states as the legitimate representative of Syria.

Often the past Western politicians have made the mistake of dismissing the Salafis as marginal extremists, while being all too willing to lap up the Brotherhood’s propaganda about their democratic credentials. A good example was David Cameron’s statement in Parliament this past week concerning the Syrian National Council, as he sought to downplay any suggestion that the conflict in Syria had a religious basis:
“When I see the official Syrian opposition I do not see purely a religious grouping; I see a group of people who have declared that they are in favour of democracy, human rights and a future for minorities, including Christians, in Syria. That is the fact of the matter.”
As troubling as Cameron’s ignorance about Brotherhood ideology appears to be, even more disturbing is his intent to forward military support to rebel groups, at the very time that a report has come from Syrian refugees of genocidal measures being enacted by Islamist rebels against the Syrian Christian minority.

This past week evidence has also emerged that among the insurgents who attacked the American Embassy in Benghazi in September 2012 were Egyptians, captured on video saying that ‘Dr Morsi sent us’. Yet Dr Morsi, the Brotherhood President of Egypt, is claimed by the US as an ally, and Brotherhood operatives have had long-standing high-level access to and support from the US Government.

Salafism

Salafism is a movement which emphasizes close adherence to the model of the Salaf or ‘predecessors’. These were the first few generations of Muslims. To understand Salafism, one needs to grasp why the model of the Salafs is important to Muslims.

In normative Islam it is an article of faith that Muhammad is the ‘best example’ for other human beings to follow (Sura 33:21). As a result a great many features of Islamic practice go back to what Muhammad did and said. For example, conservative Muslim men grow beards precisely because Muhammad commanded this again and again: for example he stated that he would have nothing to do with men who shaved their beards; he gave specific instructions to men to let their beard grow; and he commanded his followers to be different from non-Muslims precisely in this, that they should not shave their beards.

The example and teaching of Muhammad — the Sunna — is an absolutely central and unassailably prestigious concept for mainstream Islamic faith and practice.

Knowledge about Muhammad’s example and teaching was, according to pious understanding, mediated to the world through Muhammad’s companions and the first few generations of Muslims. The Salaf thus form the lens through which the example of Muhammad has been passed on to humanity.

Muhammad himself said that ‘The best people are those of my generation, and then those who will come after them (the next generation), and then those who will come after them [the next generation after that]’ (Sahih Bukhari 76:437). ‘Best’ implies the most rightly guided and most deserving to be emulated.

What all this means is that the Islam of the first generations of Muslims — the Salaf — is considered the purest and most prestigious form to follow. If a Muslim walks close to the Salaf in how they live, then they will be rightly guided and on the path to gaining Allah’s favour.

The Qur’an even declares a blessing in paradise for all those who follow the model of the first Muslims:
“The vanguard (of Islam) — the first of those who forsook (their homes) and of those who gave them aid, and (also) those who follow them in (all) good deeds, — well-pleased is Allah with them, as are they with Him: for them hath He prepared gardens under which rivers flow, to dwell therein for ever: that is the supreme felicity” (Sura 9:100).
Relying on such logic, the Salafi movement emphasizes the life of Muhammad, and the way of life of the first generations of Muslims.

Salafism is not so much an organization, as a worldview and a way of deciding religious questions. Salafi Muslims may identify with one or another of the schools of Islamic law, but their preference is not to stray from the practices of the first generations. They delight in rejecting ‘innovations’ (bid‘ah) introduced by later generations of Muslims.

Although Islam has a long tradition of esoteric metaphorical readings of the Qur’an, Salafis reject all such intellectual creativity out of hand and chose to stay close to plain readings and the direct emulation of Muhammad and his immediate followers. They delight in referring to Muhammad’s teaching that:
“He who innovates (an act or practice) or gives protection to an innovator, there is a curse of Allah and that of His angels and that of the whole humanity upon him. Allah will not accdpt from him (as a recompense) any obligatory act…” (Sahih Muslim)
It is important to grasp that Salafism is a reform movement in the sense that it aims to bring Muslims back to the purity of Islam’s origins. It is overtly anti-Western to its bootstraps because it is opposes everything which is not based upon the ‘best example’ of Muhammad, and it explicitly rejects appeal to intellectual concepts associated with western thought, whether from economics, education, ethics or politics.

The Salafi perspective on what is authentic Islam will always have a measure of prestige in the eyes of Muslims, because of the doctrinally unimpeachable authority of Muhammad’s example and the first generations of his followers.

Salafis are sometimes described as apolitical. For a time they can be, but ultimately they are not. When in a minority position Salafis may keep themselves separate from non-Muslims and more liberally minded Muslims, quoting the example of Muhammad who did this when he was politically weak. For this reason Salafis can appear politically disengaged, and even obscurely innocuous, keeping themselves to themselves. In some countries Salafi leaders have explicitly instructed their followers not to participate in democratic elections.

However, just because Salafi movements can and do flourish under the political radar — as happened in Egypt under President Mubarak, who privileged them as a bulwark against the Muslim Brotherhood — this does not negate their potency to promote religious violence and jihad. In rural Egypt today Salafis have been at forefront of violent attacks against Christians.

The ancient scholars whom Salafis look to for their guiding lights, such as Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn Qudamah and Ibn Qayyim, were unashamed advocates of jihad and the political dominance of Muslims over non-Muslims, and this doctrinal inheritance is openly acknowledged and fully endorsed by Salafi leaders.

In their political teachings Salafis promote aggressive jihad‚ extending Islam by the sword, because this is what the example of Muhammad and the first generations best supports (as taught for example in three ‘classic’ articles archived from a 2001 Salafi site from Melbourne Australia: here, here and here). In short, Salafism provides a fertile seedbed for jihadi recruitment.

Wahhabism

What is called Wahhabism — the official religious ideology of the Saudi state — is a form of Salafism. Strictly speaking, ‘Wahhabism’ is not a movement, but a label used mainly by non-Muslims to refer to Saudi Salafism, referencing the name of an influential 18th century Salafi teacher, Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab.

Salafis themselves do not like being called Wahhabis, because to them it smacks of idolatry to name their movement after a recent leader. Instead they instead they prefer to call themselves Ahl al-Sunnah “People of the Sunna”.

The continuing impact of Salafi dogma in Saudi Arabia means that Saudi leaders are active and diligent in funding and promoting Salafism all around the world. If there is a mosque receiving Saudi funding in your city today, in every likelihood it is a Salafi mosque. Saudi money has also leveraged Salafi teachings through TV stations, websites and publications.

The Muslim Brotherhood

The Muslim Brotherhood has stated on its own website that it is a Salafi movement. Although this self-description would not be accepted by others, like the Salafis, the Brotherhood is also a reform movement, which shares the agenda of strict adherence to the example and teaching of Muhammad.

Where the Brotherhood differs is in its strategy for facing the challenge of modernity. Influenced by the teaching of Sayyid Qutb, it adopted a strategy for reform which engages strategically with the modern world and develops policies which engage with modernity in every dimension of life.

The Brotherhood is more deceptive in language and appearance than Salafis. Salafis tend to be separatist and can give the impression of being focused upon personal religious piety, which separates them from those who do not share their beliefs. Salafis also tend to speak using pious religious jargon, making few concessions to the communicative norms of others. This is mirrored in their manner of dress, which concedes nothing to secular fashion sense.

In contrast the Brotherhood’s approach is to penetrate and transform western institutions, with the ultimate aim of bringing about the same end as the Salafis. The Brotherhood may seem more pragmatic and accommodating than Salafis, but this is little more than a strategic tactic on their part, not evidence of a fundamental difference in ultimate goals. Brotherhood ideologues can be very skilled in modifying their rhetoric to suit their audience, but this is not an art Salafis have much time for.

Consistent with its goal of penetration and transformation, Brotherhood ideology interacts directly with and challenges western thought. It is positive about modern science, and has developed ideological positions on challenges posed by modern economic and political realities. It has strong appeal to and actively recruits Muslim professionals and intellectuals, including doctors and scientists – many of them western-educated – who have contributed many of its leaders, and when it is powerful the Brotherhood can function as a state within a state, with its own constitution, educational system, and laws.

Brotherhood ideology has taken account of and assimilated modern western ideologies, such as the idea of revolutions. Although Salafis criticize the Brotherhood for making too many accommodations to non-Muslim thought, Brotherhood ideologues justify their formulations on Islamic grounds, by appealing to the example of Muhammad.

An key strategic idea taught by Brotherhood ideology is that of the Phases or Stages of Da’wa, or ‘proclamation’ of Islam. Based on the model of Muhammad’s own prophetic career, the Brotherhood’s ideology is that in implementing Islam there is a God-given sequence of stages to be followed. At first there is the less visible, even hidden, stage of building up individuals in their faith. Then a community is formed with associated institution building. Finally there will come the assumption of power for the sake of Islam, whether through gradual political processes or, if necessary, jihad.

In accordance with this model, Brotherhood ideology emphasizes that military jihad is a method for the later stages of the implementation of Islam, just as it was in Muhammad’s own prophetic career. Consequently, until the Islamic movement reaches the appropriate stage, Brotherhood teachings about jihad may be downplayed or concealed, especially before the eyes of outsiders.

In contrast Salafis tend to be much more upfront and unapologetic in presenting their teachings. They are a ‘what you see is what you get’ movement. Like the Brotherhood, they endorse the doctrine of stages based on Muhammad’s example, but seek to form and maintain a pure Islamic community throughout all stages of establishing Islam, which demands a consistency and purity in their public message to their constituency.

While the Brotherhood’s program can be pursued surreptitiously, within existing structures to transform and Islamicize society, Salafis typically take pride in openly teaching what others may regard as offensive doctrines, even when in the minority.

Both Brotherhood and Salafi leaders may use deception, but the difference between them reflects their contrasting strategies. The Salafis’ focus is to attract followers through the authenticity and purity of their message, but the Brotherhood’s strategy is often to gain power by infiltration and exerting influence from within existing structures.

An ‘Explanatory Memorandum’ of the North American Brotherhood, dated 22 May 1991, stated that the goal of the Brotherhood movement is to engage in:
‘a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their [own] hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.’
It is not possible to engage in such a ‘grand project’ without concealing one’s intentions, including one’s doctrines, from public scrutiny.

On the other hand, Salafis are willing to forgo covert means for the sake of maintaining clarity about Islam’s authentic teachings before the eyes of their followers, so they openly oppose democracy and western political ideals. Without any apology they openly promote polygamy, violence against women, violent jihad, killing apostates, and other doctrines which western sensibilities would reject. Yet when in a minority position Salafis, while openly teaching aggressive jihad, will restrain their followers from acting out this teaching against the infidels they live among. This they do on principled theological grounds, appealing to the example of Muhammad’s early period in Mecca.

Another difference between the two movements is that the Salafis are politically more fragmented, and the Brotherhood more cohesive. This is because Salafism is a theological ideal, and the Brotherhood is an organisation.

Those who pursue Salafism gain authority from their ability to argue their case directly from the Islamic canon. This easily leads to fragmentation, because different preachers will make different rulings, depending upon how they interpret the primary sources for themselves. In much the same way, Protestantism, with its emphasis on people reading the Bible for themselves, is more fragmented than Catholicism, which has a more clearly articulated doctrinal core and exercises central control over doctrine.

The Brotherhood is more like the Catholic church in that it has a detailed ideological base, with well articulated positions on many subjects, and demands solidarity and consistency from its followers.

In the longer term the religious power of the Salafi ideal may carry greater spiritual momentum, but Brotherhood leaders will be better organized and positioned to take power. In Egypt we have seen Brotherhood leaders gaining control of the government, while the Salafis’ power base grew in local village mosques all over the country.

Saudi attitudes to the Muslim Brotherhood are negative. The Brotherhood is a banned organization in Saudi Arabia because it is considered a cogent political threat. The Brotherhood’s vision of an Arabic caliphate stretching across the Middle East would spell the end to dynasties like the House of Saud. This is why in Egypt the Saudis support both Egypt’s military and the Salafis.

A model Salafi: Yassir Al-Burhami

As an example of the Salafi’s kind of radical Muslim, I put forward Sheikh Yassir al-Burhami, who is one of the founders and leaders of the Salafi Al-Nour party which won 25% of the seats in Egypt’s most recent parliamentary elections. Al-Burhami trained as a doctor before pursuing religious studies. In this TV interview Al-Burhami, dressed in a simple traditional robe, explains his attitude to politics:
“Allah said: ‘Never will Allah grant the infidels a way (to triumph) over the Muslims.’ [Sura 4:141] We are not afraid of losing the elections or of not getting votes. We are not trying to ingratiate ourselves before the people.”
In dealing with the Christians of Egypt, al-Burhami goes on to explain that Muslims can use whatever methods Muhammad used in his dealings with the Jews of Medina. He says that when Muslims are weak they are instructed — by Islam and by scholars including himself — to live peaceably alongside infidels and devote themselves to their religious duties, just as Muhammad did when he was weak. Al-Burhami gives the example of Muslims under Israeli rule. But when Muslims are strong, they can do as Muhammad famously did when he eliminated the Jews of Medina by the sword: “The Christians [of Egypt] can be dealt with like the Jews of Medina. That is possible.”

This is incitement to genocide through slaughter. The intent is crystal clear: Muslims are commanded to get along with Christians (or Jews) while they are weak, but when they are strong, if the non-Muslims do not toe the line, then Muhammad’s example dictates that the unbelievers can be freely and openly killed.

A model member of the Brotherhood: Safwat Hijazi

As an example of the Brotherhood’s kind of radical Muslim, I put forward Safwat Hijazi, who holds a doctorate from the University of Dijon, France. Hijazi was the speaker selected to launch the election campaign of President Mohammed Morsi before a crowd of hundreds of thousands on May 1, 2012, declaring “So that the whole world may hear … Jerusalem is our goal!”.

Behind Hijazi were sitting a group Brotherhood dignitaries, characteristically dressed like Hijazi in western business suits.

Hijazi is a well-known television presenter. In one of his Times of Honor TV programs (see here), again dressed in a grey suit and tie, Hijazi gasps with delight as he demonstrates with his hands how the conqueror of Egypt Amr Ibn Al-As taught his son Abdullah the preferred method of killing (Christian) Egyptians, namely by splitting open their skulls:
“How do those people [at the time of the conquest of Egypt] teach their children? They are teaching their children the method of how to conduct jihad for the cause of Allah. Oh, yes, today we do have people who teach their children, but one teaches his son how to split open a pocket [i.e. to pick pockets]… [or] to do something … in the matter of bullying. [But] look what our master Amr Ibn Al-As says to his son.”
If readers examines the video links they will see that both Hijazi and al-Burhami have a prominent zabiba or ‘prayer bump’ on their forehead caused by banging one’s head on the floor during daily prayers. The Salafi’s bump is bigger!

It must be emphasized that both al-Burhami and Hijazi are recognized and widely respected leaders within the largest Islamic movements in Egypt. Their views are not extreme, but mainstream.

Strategic Implications

Western leaders can mistake the pragmatism of Brotherhood leaders for ideological flexibility. That is a serious underestimation. Their flexibility is strategic. In essence, although a Salafi preacher may be sporting a seemingly untidy long beard and wearing a long robe, and the Brotherhood leader’s bead is neatly trimmed and he wears a smart western suit, both share the same fundamental vision for society. As one of my correspondents put it:
“They will both shout Allahu Akbar and bomb Israel, support jihad, and support the violation of the rights of women and non-Muslims. One will do it openly and loudly while wearing his primitive Islamic dress and his untidy beard, but the other will be a PhD holder from Oxford University, or the Sorbonne, and he will do it cunningly and secretly while wearing his German or French suit and a tidy beard, from an air-conditioned office, all the while making deals with the Americans.”
On the other hand, Westerners have sometimes mistaken Salafi patterns of coexistence in minority contexts for a disposition to be politically disengaged. That is equally a mistake. Salafis have proven that they can be more than willing to use political power and violence when they become strong enough to profit from it. Salafi preachers are familiar with and teach the well-known the principle that Muslims should only use force to advance Islam when they are in a position of strength.

In Egypt today, and in the skirmishes of Syria, the Brotherhood and the Salafis are competing for the hearts and minds of the Muslim masses. Both are feared by non-Muslims and liberally minded Muslims alike. On the ground, in remote villages of Egypt and Syria it may be the Salafis who are proving proved the more cogent threat to non-Muslim minorities, but in the corridors of power it has been the Brotherhood leaders who are the better positioned to take control.

For example, in Syria it is the Brotherhood who, with their suits and mastery of western ways, who have been validated by foreign powers as leaders in what Cameron called the ‘official’ Syrian opposition.

Despite their differences, one thing is certain, which is that the Salafis and the Muslim Brotherhood are intent on more Sharia, more radicalism, and less freedom for all, wherever they gain influence.

Their paths may differ, but they agree on where the final destination lies.

It is therefore time that western leaders abandoned their naivety and stopped being dazzled by Brotherhood rhetoric. They should look upon them as sharing the same ideological goals as the Salafis, although dressed in different clothes.

Mark Durie is an Anglican vicar in Melbourne, Australia, and an Associate Fellow at the Middle Eastern Forum.
Mark Durie is an Anglican pastor and Associate Fellow at the Middle Eastern Forum.
Subscribe to markdurie.com blog by email.
This text may be reposted or forwarded so long as it is presented as an integral whole with complete and accurate information provided about its author, date, place of publication, and original URL.