Ask Not What's Wrong With Islam - Ask What's Wrong With Its Understanding!!

Bernard Lowis was dead wrong by asking: "What Went Wrong With Islam." So was his disciple, the Somali Ayaan Hirsi Ali, an Islamophobe whose last of four books is entitled: "Why Islam Needs a Reformation Now." Both of them, in my view as a specialist in Islam, have missed a central fact. Islam, as a faith, is constantly self-renewing through interpretation.

This is called "The Tafseer (interpretation) Jurisdiction." Thus between the two unalterable bases for Islamic Law (Sharia), namely the Quran, and the Hadith (the latter for the ascertainable utterances and conduct of the Prophet Muhammad), stands Tafseer.

In other words, Tafseer, otherwise meaning ijtihad (the application of common sense to the text) is akin to the soft tissue between the vertebrae of Islam's backbone. That soft tissue prevents the pain of one bone colliding with another.

Tafseer, an element in the formulation of fatwas (a non-binding opinion on a matter of religion), functions also if there is no text. It is called "The Non-Text Jurisdiction." It is an extrapolation of a rule from precedent.

To illustrate: If I am asked: "What would a Muslim astronaut in outer space face while praying?" My response would be "His Mecca is where his capsule rotates." Now where do I base my fatwa on? Outer space is its own universe. Not unlike the vast desert of the Empty Quarter in southern Arabia, on a cloudy day, with no compass to point to Mecca. That astronaut, let us call him Ali (meaning the ever-high) and his co-religious Ahmed (another name for Muhammad) stand in the same footing. With no shoes, but with faith.

Understanding Islam should begin by the realization of the following facts about Islamic practice: Islam equates between all faiths; no one has the authority to call another "an apostate;" gender equality is ensured; the law of inheritance is supplemented by legislation; ritual and human transactions are separate one from another; "modesty" in female appearance does not necessarily mean a "niqab"

It also calls for the realization that: jihad is self-defense and self-policing against debased urges; and the Caliphates ended 1400 years ago with the bloody termination of the reign of Ali Ibn Abi Taleb, Muhammad's cousin.

As to the vocabulary of Islam and its law (Sharia), the following words and terms do not even exist: "sword;" "holy war." The word "Muslim" does not refer only to adherents of Islam. It denotes any human being who submits his/her will to that of the Creator. And "Allahu Akbar," is not a battle cry. It means "all humans are equal before the One Creator."

In Islam, judges are to be defendant-oriented; adultery is made impossible to prove. (It requires four witnesses to be present); and women have the same rights and obligations as those for men. Self-sacrifice is abhorred; all places of worship are to be protected and revered; dictatorships should be toppled; and worship should be made easier, not an oppression chore.

Above all, intent is a basic determinant of culpability; corruption is to be tackled by both law and improved life conditions; and dialogue is a means to clearing up misunderstandings.

There is no Sunni Islam and Shii Islam. There is one faith, with a variety of contrasting practices; the State authority should be respected; and local laws should be the norm for regulating the conduct of Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

Contrast the above list which I have kept to bare essentials with the following modes of departure by Muslims. And of incomprehension by non-Muslims:

• Does jihad mean the killing of the innocent or of the non-Muslim? Of course not.
• Are these crimes against humanity to be funded by the so-called charitable foundations in the Muslim world? No!! Aiding and abetting the commission of a crime makes the supporter complicit in perpetrating those heinous crimes.
• Doesn't the Quran state in Chapter V/32: "We prescribed to the children of Israel that whoever kills a soul, unless it be for retaliation or because of spreading corruption on earth, it would be as if he had killed all mankind ...?" It does.
• Is retaliation or evaluation of corruption a justification for any Muslim to take the law in his/her hand for the purpose of injuring another? No. This is called "self-help," not sanctioned by any law unless the person is cornered at their home and has no duty to retreat.
• Is murderous jihadism justified by past colonial maladministration? No. Decolonization, UN membership, and bilateral treaties have all put an end to the prolongation of these past grievances. And acceptance of foreign aid puts an end to the myth that there is no statute of limitations to those past misdeeds.
• In light of the above, there is no "collective punishment" in Islam as a faith, or in Sharia (Islamic Law) as a legal system. Back to the Quran: "God does not impose on any soul a burden greater than it can bear; it receives every good that it earns, and it suffers every evil that it earns..." (Chapter II/286).
• More on point: "While He is the Lord of all things, every soul is accountable for itself; no bearer of burdens bears the burden of another..." (Chapter VI/164).

There is an urgent need to reform the thinking of Muslims about their own faith. Anecdotal evidence shows that the majority of Muslims have not read the 114 Chapters (Suras) of the Quran. I am not boasting, but I am stating a personal fact. I have read those chapters nineteen times. I am now on reading number 20. The more you read, the more you discover. And this discovery is aided by the vast spectrum of interpretations.

But the context of my readings is already framed by one Islamic adage: "God desires ease for you and not hardship." (Chapter II/185) The theme of "ease" is repeated in the Quran 39 times. No mention of theocracy. No mention of a caliphate -a human invention, not a religiously mandated system of governance. 

In the Quran, I found no reference to virgins awaiting in heaven those who kill themselves or others. Found no reference to proselytization. But found the need for explanation (DAWA). DAWA for harmonious interaction among all humans. So is it by sword that some marauding Muslims advocate for their faith? Here I let the Quran answer those misguided thugs: "Call mankind to the way of your Lord with wisdom and sound advice..." (Chapter XVI/125).

Even Muhammad was admonished in the Quran to steer away from arrogance in his call for faith. The Quran asserts as follows: "It was by God's Mercy that you were kind to them; had you been harsh and hard of heart, they would have dispersed from around you... And consult them in the matter, and when you reach a decision, place your trust in God..." (Chapter III/159).

On the other hand, the non-Muslim world should also reform its outlook on Islam and Sharia. It takes two to tango!! Unwittingly, that sector of humanity has unwittingly adopted the jihadi interpretation of Islam and its values as mouthed by the enemies of humanity. Evidence here abounds. Examples:

• that Islam is a faith of the sword;
• that the war on terror should be waged by a ban on Muslim immigrants;
• that the niqab is mandated by the Islamic faith;
• that the stoning for adultery, and the beheadings, and the severence of limbs, are all within the judicial sentencing mandated by Islam;
• that Muslims understand only force to cause them to submit;
• that dictatorship is the way of Islamic governance;
• that Sharia is meant to be spread world-wide to replace legislation;
• that Islamization is a global blueprint;
• that the Muslim world supports, outwardly or inwardly terrorism; and 
• that western knowledge and teaching are non-Islamic.

All of the above is utter nonsense. Islamophobia is caused by both ignorant Muslims and ignorant non-Muslims. The two sides seem to be spoiling for endless war. It is not going to happen. But anxiety about it have caused 38 States of the 50 American States either to ban Sharia or its mention in their courts.

Books authored by ex-Muslims, like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, stand for those non-sensical misconceptions. On the dust jacket of her book "Heretic," she posits provocative questions, basically of the red herring type. She says "When a Muslim see you reading this book and says, 'I am offended, my feelings are hurt,' your reply should be: 'What matters more? Your sacred text? Or the life of this book's author?'"

Ayaan: those who threaten you for your book have not read their book (the Qura). Neither have you, as you selectively picked certain verses from the Quran. Selections which have not been encapsulated into legislation. Except in retrograde theocracies, or in your unhappy land where Somali tribal experiences are the norm. Like genital mutilation which you suffered.

Sharia does not enter that dark realm of genital mutilation. And modern legislation in countries like Egypt, Tunisia, Lebanon, Turkey, has criminalized it. A prime example of correcting by man-made law the tribal seepage in monotheism. In your country of birth, women enslavement is common. But you have found undeserved fame for falsely claiming that the face of the Muslim world can only be seen through one narrow and ancient window. That of Somalia which is now a horribly failed State.

In the social sciences, including law, we always say that faith is non-negotiable. But Hirsi does not seem to comprehend that basic axiom. One of her calls is for the need to re-write the Quran!! Well, Ayaan, were you to ever fathom the meaning of faith, you might realize that Islam's dogma is premised upon one central belief: The Quran is the word of God. Therefore you need, if you ever could, to ask God (in Arabic, Allah) to produce your desired "amendments." If you succed, give me a call!!

My dwelling on the perception gap between the Muslim and the non-Muslim worlds does not encompass the entire problem. For perceptions are expressed in words in various languages.

Here we have a real dilemma. The Muslim world at the mass level does not converse or read or write in Chinese, English, French, Russian, or Spanish. These, in addition to Arabic, are the UN-official languages. The reverse is true regarding non-Muslims in regard to Arabic.

Closing the gap needs a global linguistic remedy. 9/11 was hugely condemned by the Muslim world. Yet that condemnation did not register. On the contrary, it was misconstrued. Considered silence translated into a quiet approval.

All the above is not an advocacy for Islam. It is an advocacy for overcoming the ills of this age of rage, symbolized by Trumpism, and by its reaction to jihadism through a redirection of the global conversation regardnig faith and governance.

Mixing faith with governance has proved to be a combustible mix. Each of them should be observed as separate. With governance looking upon faith as a system of values, not a blue print for regulating human affairs. 

The hereafter should be left to the hereafter. Meaning: live and let live. And if you can't, then "Get a Life!!"