Email |  Print | RSS | Comment |  

By Crethi Plethi | Updated, Sept 9, 2014

A map purportedly showing the areas ISIS plans to have under its control within five years (source: dailymail.co.uk).

On September 1, 2014, the Dutch umbrella organisation Refugees Organisations Netherlands (VON), wrote an open letter to the Dutch government urging them to step up efforts in combating homegrown Jihadism. It is a response to the increasing radicalization of Muslim youth in the Netherlands and the appeal of Islamic terrorist organizations such as the Islamic State (or ISIS) to so-called jihad goers.

The appeal is a worthy one. Unfortunately, in an accompanying article entitled “VON Urges Government to Tackle Jihadism at its Roots,” the group endorses a fallacy, to which most Western politicians also subscribe. This is the commonly expressed view that “political Islamist ideology” is the cause of radicalization and jihadism, thus placing it outside the scope of mainstream Islam.

VON’s open letter to the Dutch government constitutes a response to the Cabinet’s Action Plan, presented last Friday (August 29^th), to deal with homegrown jihadism. The Action Plan includes confiscating the passports of radicalized Muslim youths travelling abroad to fight in conflicts in the Middle East, additional measures upon returning jihad goers, dealing with the online distribution of jihadist propaganda and hate speech, tackling jihad recruiters and blocking entry of foreign Islamist imams to the Netherlands.

The Cabinet’s Action Plan is criticized by several Dutch political parties and was received with scepticism within Dutch society. The overall opinion is that the Action Plan isn’t sufficiently tough to tackle jihadism among Muslim youth. Indeed, many of its recommendations are already possible within existing Dutch legislation, but were not utilised. This is due to the prevailing left-liberal ideology in Dutch politics and the predominantly ‘left-liberal’ media, where it is a faux pas to criticize Islam or Islamic ideology. Such a stance affords freedom of expression to jihadists and undermines Western values — a consequence of an unquestioning commitment to multiculturalism and political correctness. In addition, many Dutch Muslims find the Action Plan a violation of their constitutional rights and democratic freedoms.

As VON, the national platform of refugee organizations, represents a majority of Muslim refugees in the Netherlands, its arguments seem sympathetic and legitimate. In the letter, they indicate that 80% of their supporters are Muslims from countries and regions where various political Islamic movements hold sway (for example Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, Sudan, Somalia and Kurdistan). They know from experience what this ideology is capable of. Thus it is most unfortunate that they can not (or dare not) trace this ideology to the core of the problem.

What is wrong?

VON argues in its open letter that the Dutch Cabinet is not defining the problem correctly, because there is a taboo surrounding the naming religious ideologies. VON offers a defintion of jihadism:

“Jihadism is the most violent form of an ideology called political Islam … and thus we do not mean the faith that people are practising on an individual basis. We are talking about the politicized form of religion, or ideology.”

According to VON’s statement, the most important difference between the individual faith of a Muslim and political Islam is the view that political Islam is not confined to national borders and pursues global domination. In addition, it is based on two objectives: tight control of the political-economic environment and the implementation of its values upon society.

VON contend the West does not sufficiently recognize the religious ideological nature of the conflict. In VON’s opinion, the struggle comes down to a struggle between moderate forces within mainstream Islam and a radical religious ideology. Whether this is true or not, in my opinion this is an argumentum ad populum, which does not address the core of the problem.

Although the open letter underlines the good intentions of VON, it doesn’t trace the origins of political Islam back to the teachings and practices of the Islamic prophet Muhammad (the Sunnah) and traditional interpretations of the Qur’an. This must surely constitute a principle explanation as to why Muslims feel attracted to political Islam in the first instance. Could the reason for the radicalization of young Muslims be in Islam’s very DNA?

Indeed, just as a moderate Muslim is opposed to political Islamist ideology based on his findings in the Qur’an, Sunnah and Hadith, that in itself isn’t sufficient reason to prove that political Islamist ideology is an incorrect interpretation of the Qur’an. After all, to the same extent as the moderate Muslim, the so-called jihadist also claims to be in possession of the truth based upon the same sources and teachings in the Qur’an, Sunnah and Hadith. Therefore, the most important question is not whether we’re dealing with a misinterpretation of Islam, but rather if political Islamist ideology is authentic and authoritative within traditional Islamic historicity.

In fact, VON reminds the Dutch Cabinet of their problematic role in this debate, namely the simplification of the jihadist problem to that of an “ideological misinterpretation” of Islam without addressing the authenticity of political Islam within the Qur’an and Islamic teachings itself. Therefore, they unwittingly help fertilize the soil in which political-Islamist ideology nurtures itself.

In this context, it is relatively unimportant whether political Islam wants to establish a global Islamic Caliphate or believe that they posses the only truth. It’s far more vital to address if the religious validity of their beliefs can be justified from the traditional teachings of the Qur’an, Sunnah and Hadith. If that is the case, it will explain a lot about Islam as a whole.

In every faith you can find people who think their religion is the only true religion, and within these religions there are many variations in the expressions of faith, beliefs and ideologies. Many religions featured problematic practices in the past. But today no other faith has any parallel to the established cultural practices of jihadism, dhimmitude and [Islamic] tax (jizya), terrorist suicide missions, female genital mutilation, beheadings, cutting hands off thieves, honor killings or executions of alleged ‘apostates or infidels.’

VON rightly notes that discrimination and disadvantages on the labor market are not triggers for the Muslim youth to radicalise. In a sense, VON therefore admits that the underlying causes for radicalization and jihadism goes far beyond societal and economic issues and should be tracked down in Islam as a religion.

Just as Islam is a religion based on the Qur’an and Sunnah, it is therefore only reasonable to examine if political Islamism derives its legitimacy from the Qur’an and Sunnah. And if the validity of Islam is partly based on the example of the successors (Caliphs) of Muhammad, and the explanation and teachings of the Qur’an by Islamic scholars throughout the ages, then so is the validity of political Islamism based on the example of Muhammad’s successors and the explanation and teachings by (in most cases) the same Islamic scholars.

Since Islam from its origins, based on the Qur’an and Sunnah, calls for war with the infidels, it can be seen as glorifying a culture of violence and the suppression of minorities. Its turning into an intolerant and expansionist religion up to the present day, makes for an obvious conclusion that political Islamist ideology should not be seen as the sole source of radicalising Muslim youth.

It is relatively easy for Islamists to recruit young Muslims precisely because they can rely on the Qur’anic verses within the context of the Qur’an and the example and life of Muhammad. Furthermore, over the centuries, Islamic theological institutes have commented upon, confirmed and validated these verses. So although political Islam certainly isn’t the only interpretation of the Qur’an, it constitutes a legitimate interpretation of the Qur’an based on centuries of teaching.

For example, the killing of polytheists (Qur’an 9:05), infidels (Qur’an 2:191-193), and Jews (Sahih al-Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 177), honor killings (Qur’an 18:65-81), and Islamic tax imposed on non-Muslim subjects (Qur’an 9:29), are legitimized by the Qur’an and the teachings of Muhammad. And although some teachings of the Qur’an are widely regarded within Muslim communities as being at odds with contemporary conceptions of human rights and notions of equality before the law, there are still Islamic states, Muslim communities or areas subject to Islamic armed groups where these verses are imbedded and enforced by Islamic legislation.

One could argue that there are similar verses in the Bible, but these verses are restrained by the historical context of the surrounding text, whereas the verses in the Qur’an are open-ended, aimed at global conquest and Islamic superiority. Christianity is based on the teachings in the Bible and the life of Jesus. Unlike Muhammad, Jesus was not a religious military leader who preached violence, intolerance and destruction. It’s just impossible to compare the teachings and life of Muhammad with the teachings and life of Jesus, otherwise we would have had a very different Christian theology today and likely the same doctrine of intolerance, violence and holy war from the beginning of Christianity until now.

What stands out in VON’s open letter is mention of the two pillars of political Islamism, the ideological pillar, and a political-economic pillar. Interestingly however, this concept has been commonly accepted within Islamic theology throughout the centuries and it is therefore not exclusive to political Islamism. Conflation of politics, economy and religion has always been accepted as normative since the origins of Islam. Islam is not only an individual matter for the Muslim, but also (and I would say especially) a religion on which the entire political, cultural, social and economic structures are based upon its edifice. This concept is reflected within all Islamic communities today.

The intolerance displayed by groups like Islamic State (IS) is an expansion of normative values within the Islamic community. Deep inequality between Muslims and non-Muslims in Islamic communities is a historical fact, which persists to this day. It concerns not only Jews and Christians, but also other minorities such as Armenians, Kurds, Alevis, Yezidis, Hindu, gays, atheists, and women.

Anti-Semitism is an accepted doctrine in Islam and is typical in political Islamist ideology. It explains why anti-Semitism is an essential part of Arab and Islamic culture today, why massive demonstrations take place in our European cities with predominantly Muslim participants. These protesters are often seen carrying Islamic State and Al-Qaida flags, during a conflict between Israel and Hamas. By contrast, during the same period no demonstrations were held when Muslims killed other Muslims. It also explains the increase in anti-Semitic incidents in Europe, which are not so much the result of rising neo-Nazism, but rather the result of incitement in Muslim communities and Mosques based on verses from the Qur’an.

In a recent article in Dutch newspaper Trouw, some Muslims speak about how they disapprove Islamic State’s violence, but at the same time call upon Dutch jihad goers to join the fight against Israel. According to the article, some Dutch Muslims think “it’s wrong when Muslims fight against Muslims, but in Gaza Muslims are fighting against Jews and that is allowed by the Qur’an“.

In this context, VON could have mentioned other Islamic terror groups such as Hamas, Hezbollah, Al-Qaida, Al-Nusra Front and the Muslim Brotherhood, but it didn’t.

And what about Islamic branches like the Salafi movement, Iran’s Shi’ism and Saudi Arabia’s Wahhabism? All these Islamic branches, variously described as “orthodox”, “ultraconservative”, or “fundamentalist”, justify the religious validity of their beliefs based upon the traditional teachings of the Qur’an and Sunnah as well. For example, it was Muhammad who took the lead in the massacre of the Jews of Khaybar and it was Muhammad who ordered the destruction of the mosque Masjid al-Dirar. Islamic terror groups like Hamas, Hezbollah and Al-Qaida share the same Islamic ideological principles as the Islamic State. This explains why you see destroyed mosques, or other holy places and minorities massacred in the Middle Eastern conflict zones. They have the life and teachings of Muhammad as example.

The Western world, however, is focusing on the recent developments in Syria and Iraq and the crimes committed by Islamic State (IS). It seems as if the West and Muslim organizations share a common enemy, when not addressing the core of this problem. First, Al-Qaida was our common enemy, now it is the Islamic State (IS). It’s diplomatic to view these groups as if they are not part of the traditional Islam, as if they don’t belong to a religion that taught intolerance and violence for the past 1,400 years. It distracts from what really matters, the authenticity of jihadist movements within Islam based on one and a half millennia of Islamic theology.

VON writes in its letter:

“It’s in our view crucial to explicitly define and identify the ideological nature of Jihadism.” And that “Jihadism is a substantial threat to our national security and international law.”

It’s a good thing that moderate Muslims are sounding the alarm. However, it is a misconception when they characterize political Islamism as purely a religious ideology. There are too many arguments, both from the Qur’an and from the mainstream of Islamic theology, validating political Islam as a legitimate part and interpretation of Islam. Political Islamist ideology isn’t unique or the only truth, but it is deeply rooted in the Islamic canon and Islamic theology, for it corresponds to 1,400 years of Islamic history.

Only a re-interpretation of the Qur’an, Sunnah and Hadith or even setting aside certain traditional interpretations and teachings, can bring the necessary changes in Islam. It is difficult to envisage traditional scholars and modernists succeeding in reaching a widely accepted consensus to reform Islam into a religion of peace within the Muslim world.

Crethi Plethi is the pseudonym for Harald van Es and is the founder and director of CrethiPlethi.com. He writes articles for CrethiPlethi.com in Dutch and English on the Middle East, Israel, Revolutionary Islamism, Multiculturalism and the Netherlands. He has lived in Jaffa (Tel Aviv), Israel. He currently lives in the Netherlands. For all the exclusive blog entries by Crethi Plethi, go here.