Islam Reimagined

I've never really had much time for 'interfaith dialogue'. One reason for this is that whatever the original branches of thought once had in common, they have now diverged so much that little fertile ground is left for debate. It came as something of a surprise therefore to read a balanced, thoughtful and altogether understandable piece written by a Muslim on why Islam has become what it now is. I've adapted some of the text and made additional comments where necessary. My thanks to Ahmed Vanya - an interview with him can be read here - worth a look, I think.

Paraphrasing "When Muhammad died 632 CE, it is well understood and accepted that the Qur'an had not been compiled as literature for scholars to read and interpret. The messages said to have been revealed from God, or Allah, to Muhammad over a period in excess of two decades were either orally passed down or written on animal bones, leather and scraps of parchment, without systematic collection or  adequate background or context. The Prophet himself provided no authoritative narration or explanation for the Qur'anic verses while he was alive. He also did not provide a method for selecting his successor, nor did he authorise his companions to record the Hadith (his actions and sayings) while he was alive. Later, therefore, subsequent generations had to sift through mountains of material of dubious provenance, in an age when record-keeping was primitive and during a period of discord, partisanship and violence, even among those who were close to the Prophet". There was no Council of Nicaea to establish the weight and value of the material - all, it seemed, carried equal authority. When viewed in this light, it is little more than sophistry to an educated, free-thinking Muslim to expect historical accuracy or precise interpretation.

"In the early days of Islam, after Muhammad's death, Muslims splintered into many sects and factions, in much the same way as Christianity had done, six hundred years earlier. There were endless debates about doctrine, theology, and religious law, due to divergent interpretations of the Qur'an and the Hadiths. Between the eighth and tenth centuries, a school of theology known as  the Mu'tazila flourished in what is now modern Basra and Baghdad. Their adherents were best known for their assertion that, because of the perfect unity and eternal nature of Allah, the Qur'an must therefore have been created, as it could not be co-eternal with God. From this premise, the Mu'tazili school of kalaam (best translated as Islamic apologetics) suggested that the injunctions of God are accessible to rational thought and inquiry and because knowledge is derived from reason, reason is the final arbiter in distinguishing right from wrong. Not unsurprisingly, they waged an intellectual battle with the traditionalists, who gave absolute primacy to strict literal interpretations of the revealed texts: the Qu'ran and the Hadiths. Unfortunately for the future of the Islamic tradition, the literal traditionalists won the struggle, and went on to establish among the Sunni Muslims the four legal schools of Shari'a, which became the dominant form of Islam from then onwards. This mainstream, legalistic, text-bound, literalist Islam, controlled by traditional Muslim scholars, a mixture of humanistic and ethical values with a supremacist ethos, developed through the centuries is what has reached us today. Due to its literalist tradition, it does not have the flexibility or the ability to overcome interpretations of the scriptures that are inimical to pluralistic and humanistic values. Many equate this literalist view to be representative of the "true" Islam". But just because it is the dominant form, it does not mean that it is necessarily "true". Religious traditions change and even metamorphose over time, based on understanding underpinned by cultural awareness and increased knowledge, interpretations, and practices of their adherents. By analogy, over the years, Christianity has on the one hand thrown up organisations as barbaric and brutal as the Inquisition, on the other, looked back to its founding fathers in a desire to 'get back' to the Second Chapter of Acts and in so doing, sought to impart ancient truth with cultural relevance. Therefore, using reason and common sense, why cannot modern thinking find a way to reinterpret Muslim texts to bring about an Islam that affirms and promotes universally accepted human rights and values? Like most religious practice, the pathway of convenience, even laziness is often the most popular, which in some leads to support for Muslim charities and other agencies with little real thought for whether or not their money is being used for subversive, even violent causes. For others, thinking becomes subsumed into blind, unreasoning obedience and cults like ISIL flourish under its banner. As reasonable voices are raised in protest, however, it seems inconceivable that savage, medieval barbarity will overcome and drive the world back into the Dark Ages.

Double Game

I'm not a great fan of op-eds, especially political. Everybody's take is different, it depends which voices are shouting the loudest in your ear. However, so much has been going on and my friends in Jerusalem are telling me that the current atmosphere there reminds them of the opening days of the Second Intifada in the autumn of 2000. Tension and fear. A sense of foreboding.

"I can feel it in my bones, what's coming" people are saying. What's coming looks a lot like more violence.

There are fewer pedestrians on the streets, even on Jaffa Street. People tend to look over their shoulders, stand further apart on the tram stops and have become cautious and alert in public places. Most of all, it would seem, stoic melancholy overlying a dark rage has returned. So very familiar.

The wave of shootings, vehicle attacks and stabbings has had a profound effect. The faces of murdered innocents plaster news sources and there is to be a relaxation on gun ownership. Talk of a Third Intifada is everywhere. The most recent atrocity, an early morning synagogue attack  killed five, four of whom were rabbis and one of whom was a member of an almost dynastically revered rabbinical family. Images of  bloodstained carnage splattered all over the media suggests an increasing boldness by perpetrators, heedless of their own lives, presumably sacrificed in the cause of jihad. This, together with subsequent rejoicing in East Jerusalem together, unbelievably, by a moment's silence in the Jordanian Parliament for the perpetrators surely defines a red line. When innocents are killed it is heinous. When they are at prayer, lost in contemplation of the Divine, such action is beyond depraved.

Yet some commentators are suggesting, atmospherics notwithstanding, in a number of substantive ways the current reality differs sharply from the time of the two intifadas (1987-92 and 2000-04). The new violence, though indiscriminate, brutal and murderous, is more narrowly focused. It is limited, for now, to specific areas of the country and to areas surrounding East Jerusalem.

But Judea and Samaria, the West Bank, has so far stayed largely quiet.

Why? Because the Palestinian Authority leadership in the West Bank appears to be playing a double game.

On the one hand, the Palestinian press, one assumes with the connivance and imprimatur of the office of Mahmoud Abbas, is engaging in incitement, spreading fear and anger about supposed Israeli plans to upset the delicate rules for Jewish worship on the Temple Mount/Al-Aqsa Mosque area. Abbas himself has spoken of Jews "desecrating" and "contaminating" the site — the holiest place in Judaism. This in and of itself is provocative insofar as it clearly defines the Muslim attitude to the 'kuffar' or unbeliever, as being dirty, unworthy and sub-human when compared to Muslim purity, indeed religious supremacism is enshrined in every word of the Qu'ran. Furthermore, its adherents appear to face no moral dilemma by storing Molotov cocktails and missiles inside its walls.

According to the status quo arrangement, Jews may visit at certain times but cannot pray at the Temple Mount. The same applies to Christians, but less provocatively. Indeed, the rickety structure they have to use to get there is in danger of falling down. Rebuilding it is of itself an act of provocation.

Whether such an arrangement is fair or just is another question. But there are no plans to change it, indeed Benjamin Netanyahu has reaffirmed Israel's commitment to it.

Meantime, overlaying all the incendiary rhetoric, PA security forces are continuing to co-operate with the Israelis in ensuring relative quiet on the West Bank. This reflects the general lack of Palestinian enthusiasm to provoke another mass confrontation with Israel.

Such a double game is dangerous. While the attacks on Israeli civilians have been presented in some news reports as spontaneous, isolated acts of rage, an examination of the biographies of the perpetrators so far suggests something rather different.

All of them are or were committed members of terrorist or revolutionary organisations, either the PFLP - a Marxist-Leninist revolutionary organisation - Hamas or Islamic Jihad, groups that have been fanning the flames of anger over the trumped-up threat to the Al-Aqsa Mosque on the Temple Mount.

It's unlikely that the terrorists who carried out the attacks received specific and personalised orders but it's hardly a stretch to suggest that a general green light has been issued. The Palestinian Islamists want to leverage Muslim concerns regarding Al-Aqsa into a violent uprising with themselves at its head. Why now? Perhaps Hamas and Islamic Jihad hope to launch themselves back to regional and global attention by spuriously associating an Israeli threat to a Muslim holy site. Even in the most unlikely event of people getting back to the negotiating table, I can't see it working. 

Calvin's Cronies

I have found myself in recent times thinking about "church". I don't get to go as much as I did - we travel from Paris to the South a lot and for the past month or so, the rail link from home to St Lazare has had maintenance closures, so weekend services are very severely limited and people are bussed to another station before being able to get up to town. No, I don't feel guilty, nor do I think someone should try to make me. I miss 'church' in some ways, although a flagship building and strong, qualified, doctrinally sound exposition doesn't really make up for the fact that it's quite a friendless place, on the whole. As in any other large organisation, there seem to be circles within circles and the vagabond in me likes to sit at the gateway, nod, smile, dutifully sharing the Peace with people I've never met and speak to no-one.

On the subject of flagships, it's been interesting, and rather saddening, to watch the implosion of that New Calvinist behemoth formerly known as Mars Hill whose charismatic if rather outspokenly brash senior pastor Mark Driscoll has been dismissed. It seemed he let his enthusiasm run away with him, smacked around a few too many followers, and a lot of vulnerable people found themselves browbeaten and abused by someone who should have known better. Now amidst the rubble, fallout and haemorrhage, both pastoral and financial, the whole structure is being dismantled and sold off in the ecclesiastical equivalent of a fire sale. When church becomes big business, it becomes susceptible to all the temptations of profit, status and media approval ratings. How it could have been prevented is a different thread.

I've always been in favour of small over large. Small means being known, large means anonymity where the secrets of the heart can be more easily concealed and transparency lost.

It seems that Mr Driscoll has apologised. Small means that apology has more meaning - usually, individuals are those wronged, and if one claims to apologise to an organisation, it's like apologising to the bank for exceeding one's overdraft limit, it lacks conviction and can be filed away under the header of the politics of expediency. It may only be at the circumference of the problem, not at its centre. A narcissistic apology with no desire to make amends is no more than manipulative theatre since it proclaims "I am hurting because of this", rather than "You are hurting because of me".

But, of course, the big/small issue is only a part. I don't want to 'belong' to a large organisation so large that the man in charge takes on the status of a rock star, the worship team has its own fan club and in a time of need you have to queue, call or make an appointment to see someone who doesn't know you and ends up just giving good advice which you probably knew already, not sitting with you in the ashes, with a servant heart. Neither do I want to belong to a small organisation which replaces pastoral care with a Blackshirt beating which is why I find New Calvinism particularly unappealing. It's just like Old Calvinism in ripped denim jeans. There's even a Facebook group called "Calvinism. The group that chooses you". They are still relatively few in number, but that doesn’t bother them: being a persecuted minority proves they are among the elect. They are not “the next big thing” but a protest movement, defying the woolly baa-lamb mainstream that, they believe, has gone soft on sin and has watered down the Gospel into a glorified self-help program. A protest movement headed up by a Sherman tank of a preacher who once wrote that the mainstream church has turned Jesus into a "hippie, queer Christ, neutered and limp-wristed....  a Sky Fairy of pop culture" is bound to cause a few casualties, which is a shame.

I've seen my fair share of church breakups, most frequently caused by a systematic lack of humility together with self-aggrandisement conveniently masquerading as 'vision' sometimes laced with a sadistic sense of self importance consequently I'm quite relieved not to have been a part of this one. I found myself comparing it to ISIS. Cult minority status, unquestioning obedience to leaders, dissent stifled, emphasis on militancy...

Or, perhaps I go too far.

Observation

There’s an interesting French word, “flâneur”. Translated it could mean: stroller, lounger, saunterer, loafer. An idle wanderer having no particular destination or objective. Flânerie refers to the activity of strolling and there are people in France, especially in Paris who are flâneurs. It sometimes seems as if the entire city is populated with them. And while they strolled, they observed and while they observed, some of them took notes. Sherlock Holmes once said to Watson ‘you see but you do not observe’. Most of us just ‘see’, most of the time.

The extraordinary slides imperceptibly into the commonplace, gliding past our consciousness as if non-existent, or it only existed as a fleeting, half-remembered impression, instantly forgotten. What colour was the coat the woman was wearing? What was curious about the dog across the road? Why did the man in the car seem to be waiting too long before turning?

Writers sometimes sit in cafés, watching. They fleetingly devise scenarios, stories about the people that pass them, who never notice that they are there. The mental filing cabinet fills with thoughts and ideas. It’s easier with individuals. An impression crystallises almost instantly, a collection of information about gait, facial expression, dress and a multitude of non-verbal signals which are assembled at lightning speed, the limbic and reptilian brain assessing threat, fear, anger or desire.

By way of explanation, I was turned loose in the city yesterday for a little bit of flânerie and found myself sitting at the interface between two arrondissements, drinking coffee. There was noise across the street. Several men, Afro-Caribbean in appearance, were talking loudly amongst themselves. Arms were waving, fingers being pointed and a few pushes and shoves exchanged. To Western eyes, this looked close to the breakout of a violent, possibly drug-fuelled confrontation. Very few stopped to watch. Parisians don't. After a few minutes, as swiftly as it had started, all was quiet. People went their separate ways.

I found myself wondering what were the circumstances that led to the small window of events that I had witnessed. Possibilities flitted ephemerally through my mind before I just filed it all away in the mental lockup. One of these days, I might pull all the files out of the filing cabinet, put them all together and call it a novel.

Work to Rule

This isn't altogether my own. In fact, it's shamelessly plagiarised from somewhere or other with a bit of my own creative editing to bring it up to date. To the individual who first produced it in an obviously bourbon-sodden haze, I raise a metaphorical 'l'chaim' to you.

From a pillar of British journalism. The facts on the ground.

"The unrest began last Tuesday when Hamas announced that the number of virgins a suicide bomber or other mujahid would receive after his death will be cut by 25% after Eid, from 72 to 54. The rationale for the cut was the increase in recent months of the number of  battlefield casualties whose sacrifice falls into the 'martyrdom' category and a subsequent shortage of virgins in the afterlife. Other terrorist groups followed suit, including ISIL and Hizbullah. The subsequent demonstrations stopped short of burning Palestinian flags, so a few Israeli ones were burnt instead. 

The suicide bombers' union, the British Organization of Occupational Martyrs (or B.O.O.M.) responded with a statement that this was unacceptable to its members and immediately balloted for strike action.

General Secretary Anjem Choudary (no relation) told the Press: 'Our members are literally working themselves to death in the cause of jihad. We don't ask for much in return but to be treated like this is like a kick in the teeth.'

Speaking from his five-bedroomed house paid for with jizya from the British taxpayer, he explained: 'We sympathise with our workers' concerns but we are not in a position to meet their demands. They are not accepting the realities of modern-day jihad in a competitive marketplace.'

'Thanks to Western depravity, especially in London, there is now a chronic shortage of virgins in the afterlife. It's a straight choice between reducing expenditure and laying people off. I don't like cutting wages but I'd hate to have to tell several thousand of my staff that they won't be able to blow themselves up.'

Spokespersons for the union in the Northeast of England, Ireland, Wales and the entire Australian continent stated that the strike would not affect their operations as "..there are no virgins in our areas anyway".

Apparently the drop in the number of suicide bombings has been attributed to the emergence of the Scottish singing star, Susan Boyle - now that Muslims know what a virgin looks like, they are not so keen on going to paradise."