Serious Indon Scholar Claims That Islamist Terror Is Related To Islam! Blasphemy Char

[Sammyboy RSS Feed]

An honorable member of the Coffee Shop Has Just Posted the Following:



Translation:
Terrorism and Islam are connected

In the west there are many politicians and interlectuals who say that islamist terror has nothing to do with Islam. What do you say about that as a leading member of perhaps the biggest sunnite mass organisation in the world, the indonesian Nahdlatul Ulama?
Western politicians have to stop claiming that extremism and terrorism arent connected with Islam. There is a clear link between fundamentalism, terror and the basic believes of islamic orthodoxy. As long as we cannot reach a broad agreement there, we will not be able to finally win over the fundamentalist violence of Islam. Radical movements in Islam are nothing new. Even in the indonesian hostory we had them time and time again. I am a religious muslim myself. The West has to stop labeling thinking about those questions islamophobia. Or do they want to call me, a muslim scholar, islamophob, too?

Which core assumptions of the traditional Islam are problematic?
Three parts, we call them "centers of concern", are especially improtant. First, the relationship between muslims and non-muslims. Second, the relationship between muslims and the government. Third, the muslim relationship to the law.

Lets start with the relationship between muslims and non-muslims. What is problematic at the traditional understanding?
In the classic tradition the relationship between muslims and non-muslims is one of segregation and hostility. There might have been reasons for that during the middle ages, when the islamic orthodoxy consolidated itself, but today such a teaching is simply irrational. They tend to make a peaceful life of muslims in a multicultural, multireligious society of the 21. century impossible.

Those are harsh words. Would a western politician say them, they would perhaps be called racist.
I dont say Islam is the only thing that causes muslim minorities in the West to live a more or less segregated life, apart from the majority. There might be more factos on the side of the host-society. Racism for example, as everywhere. But anyway, the traditional Islam that encourages an attitude of hostility and segregation towards non-muslims is an important factor.

Let's go on the the second part, the traditional islamic relationship towards the government.
In the islamic tradition the government is designed as a universal, homogenous government for all muslims, with a sole ruler on the top who unites the muslim world against the non-muslim world.

So in this regard the call of radical forces as ISIS for a caliphate is not unislamic?
No, in this regard ISIS is on par with tradition. But we live in a world of national states and every attempt to create a homogenous islamic nation in the 21. century will inevitably lead to chaos and violence.

The third part of the centers of concern is the relationship to the law.
Many muslims presume that there is a set of firm, islamic rules, also known as Sharia. That too is consistent with the tradition, but it necessarily leads to conflicts with the laws of secular national states. We have to realize that the understanding of the traditional islamic norms of law as absolute is false. Religous values and social reality have to fit. And it has to be absolutely clear that the national laws have priority.

What does one have to do for it?
In Indonesia we got as far as having accepted a contextual reading of those basic islamic values. The majority of indonesian muslims agreed- and I think still agree - that some basic values that were created during the middle ages have to be understood in the context of the time they were implemented, but please not as guidelines for the present age. On this we have to reach a preferably worldwide consensus.

How can that be possible?
As we know from history, questions about what theologic interpretation is the right one are not decided purely theologically. They are fights for authority, they have a strong political dimension. In countries with a muslim majority political elites use them as a weapon to enforce their own agendas, even in Indonesia.

From your point of view, can you diagnose a similar "politization" of Islam everywhere around the world?
I don't think that there are smaller problems in this regard in european countries like Belgium, Great Britain or Denmark than in Indonesia. Too many muslims see a society where people of different religions live peacefully together as something that has to be fought. And I think many Europeans feel that. In the western world there is a certain discontent with their muslim minorities, a increasing fear of Islam. In this regard some western friends of me are islamophobe. They are afraid of Islam. When I am honest I can understand them.

What should the western world do?
They cannot force a moderate interpretation of the Islam upon the muslims. But the western politicians have to stop saying that fundamentalism and violence are not connected with Islam. That is simply wrong.

But western politicians who argue like that have at least a good reason to do so: they do not want to encourage a split between muslims and non-muslims. They don't want to encourage racism against muslims.
I share that wish. That is even the main reason why I am speaking so explicitly. But it doesn't work like that. If you ignore a problem you won't solve it. You have to adress the problem and say who is responsible for it.

We discussed the contribution of islamic traditions to the current problems. Beyond that, who contributes to this sudden crisis in the last years?
Now it is revealed that Saudi Arabia and other gulf states distribute massive amounts of money all around the world to spread the ultraconservative version of Islam. The West has to finally pressure Saudi-Arabia seriously to put an end to this.

What goal does Saudi Arabia want to achieve?
They have political goals, too. Saudi-Arabia and Iran are fighting for dominance, geopolitical and religious. Iran is shiitic. So it is politically helpful to claim Shiities are heathens. But if you pronounce every heathen as enemy who has to be destroyed it doesn't stop at Shiites as enemies. Iran does something similar by the way, but in the iranian world. But especially the Saudi-Arabian spread of wahhabism and salafism transformed the world into a tinderbox.

Do you think it is still possible to alter the course?
There have been better times (laughes sadly). But we have to try at least.

I assume you and your organization are much asked for as a discussions partner for the terror ridden West?
You know, I admire western, especially european politicians. They think so wonderfully humanitarian. But that alone is not enough. We live in times where one has to think and act realisticly.

That is a very diplomatic answer.
Europe has not learned from its mistakes in the past. The last time i was in Brussels I saw a group of arabic, maybe north african teenagers harassing policemen. My belgien friends told the that's almost a daily occurrence. Why do they let this happen? What kind of impression does that make? Now Europe, Germany accommodate large quantities of refugees - don't get me wrong, of course you cannot close your eyes from distress. But they accomodate refugrees they don't know anything about, from problematic countries. Extremists are not stupid.

I think we can agree that there is a tough right fringe group in western societies that would even refuse a moderate, contextualistic Islam, simply because it is a foreign religion...
... and there is a tough left fringe group in the West that denounces every pondering about connections between traditional islam, fundamentalism and violence as islamophobic. That has to stop. As I said: a problem that is being ignored can not be solved.

the conversation was conducted by Marco Stahlhut.


Click here to view the whole thread at www.sammyboy.com.