Email |  Print | RSS | Comment |  

By Crethi Plethi | Updated: Wednesday, October 8, 2014

More than 125 prominent Muslim leaders and scholars from around the world have co-signed an open letter to the leader of the “Islamic state” (IS, also ISIS or ISIL), Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, and his followers. The letter, with extensive commentary based on the Qur’an and the Hadith, labels ISIS’ caliphate in Syria and Iraq as illegitimate and its practices as un-Islamic.

Although this initiative is laudable, the letter exemplifies the common view that ISIS has nothing to do with Islam, which is a commonly expressed fallacy in the West. Barack Obama for example stressed in his speech to the UN that “ISIS is hiding behind a false Islam.” And British Prime Minister, David Cameron, said after the gruesome beheading of David Haines by ISIS,

“David Haines was an aid worker … He went into harm’s way, not to harm people but to help his fellow human beings in the hour of their direst need, from the Balkans to the Middle East… The fact that an aid worker was taken, held and brutally murdered at the hand of Islamic State sums up what this organisation stands for. They boast of their brutality. They claim to do this in the name of Islam. That is nonsense -– Islam is a religion of peace.”

Unfortunately, this kind of mainstream rethoric will not convince the Islamist or conservative Muslim.

As I argued in an earlier article, although these initiatives are necessary to improve integration within the Muslim community, ultimately the core of the problem is not addressed, namely 1,400 years of Islamic exegesis (tafsir) based on the Qur’an, Muhammad‘s explanations, Sahabah‘s (companions) interpretations, Hadith and other historical sources. It’s the basis of Islamic tradition, the Muslim way of life (Sunnah), Islamic law (Shari’ah) and Islamic jurisprudence (Figh).

For example, the co-signers emphasize that in order to explain and understand the Qur’an one must “consider everything that has been revealed relating to a particular question in its entirety, without depending on only parts of it, and then to judge — if one is qualified — based on all available scriptural sources.” However, with some contradiction it is a fact that the Qur’an is also made “easy to understand and no one is allowed to divert its literal meaning” (Qur’an V11:1, V41:3, V41:44, V54:17, V54:22, V54:32, V54:40 and other places).

This is a matter of interpretation, for if mainstream Muslim leaders and scholars argue that ISIS is not acting in accordance with Islamic teachings, it is likewise legitimate if other Muslim leaders and scholars, such as Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi (who has a PhD in Islamic studies), Usama bin Laden, Hassan Nasrallah, Sayyid Qutb or Yusuf al-Qaradawi argue (or have argued) that the ideology of groups such as ISIS, al-Nusra, al-Qaida, Boko Haram, al-Shabaab, Hamas, Hizballah or the Muslim Brotherhood are entirely consistent with Islamic teachings.

The open letter is presented as an authoritative Islamic rejection of ISIS’ philosophy. But the open letter expresses only one interpretation of the Qur’an and Hadith, and is certainly not the only authentic and legitimate interpretation of Islamic texts. It can be argued that the same is true for the more literal and traditional teachings of groups like Hamas, al-Qaida and ISIS.

Much as the points raised in the open letter can be appreciated, which, incidentally, are rather general and not necessarily applying to ISIS, the letter was more likely written as a public relations exercise for Islam in the West than as a message to ISIS. The signatories of the letter know all too well that ISIS will not be convinced by a bunch of, in their eyes, “apostates.”

Barack Obama said on Wednesday (September 24^th) in his speech to the UN that

“it is time for the world — especially Muslim communities — to explicitly, forcefully, and consistently reject the ideology of al Qaeda and ISIL.”

The open letter was issued on Wednesday the 24^th as well.

In another example of the “religion-of-peace” public relations exercise, the open letter also attempts to rewrite the history of Islam. The section “Difference of Opinion” (Pg. 5) states:

“It is worth noting that most of the people who became Muslims throughout history, did so through gentle invitation (Da’wah hasanah) … And while Islam spread from politically Central Asia (Khurasan) to North Africa due to Islamic conquests, the majority of the inhabitants of these remained Christian lands for hundreds of years until some of them gradually accepted Islam through gentle invitation, and not through severity and coercion.”

Unfortunately, nothing could be further from the truth. The expansion of Islam, since its birth in c. 610 CE, leaves a long trail of atrocities, bloodshed, violence, coercion and oppression. The original inhabitants of Muslim conquered territory were given the choice “Jizyah (poll tax), the sword, or conversion to Islam,” just as ISIS is doing it now. And what would the Christian do, when a few hundred years have passed? Would he or she not choose the benefits of being a Muslim rather than being subjected to intolerance, intimidation and paying taxes as a second class citizen?

The open letter also discusses the term Jihad. On Pg. 7, we read:

“In truth, it is clear that you and your fighters are fearless and are ready to sacrifice in your intent for jihad. No truthful person following events — friend or foe — can deny this. However, jihad without legitimate cause, legitimate goals, legitimate purpose, legitimate methodology and legitimate intention is not jihad at all, but rather, warmongering and criminality.”

This assertion is correct in itself, but who can claim a legitimate cause, legitimate goal, legitimate purpose, legitimate methodology and legitimate intention? Surely, ISIS will claim, based on the Islamic canon, a legitimate cause, legitimate goal, legitimate purpose, legitimate methodology and legitimate intention?

The letter then elaborates on the goals, purpose and intention of Jihad. However, none of these points cannot be used by ISIS as a substantiation for Jihad. It is therefore a matter of interpretation and it is difficult to accept that ISIS’ interpretation is not more or less consistent with the texts cited. Indeed, one only needs to take the example of Muhammad and Sahabah (companions) as a reference and you will understand how ISIS can justify its ideology.

It is in this context notable that in section “People of the Scripture” (Pg. 11), Christian Arabs are mentioned as “defenders” against “the Crusaders, colonialists, and Israel.” Every part of the Middle East, North Africa and SouthWest Asia was non-Islamic territory where ancient peoples, Arabs, Christians and Jews dwelt until the violent Islamic expansion began. So in this respect, who is the “defender” or the “attacker” historically? With a twisting of words and white-washing the truth about Islamic history, the co-signers try to make a point against Jihad, while in fact making a case for it.

Another striking point is the fact that an entire section in the letter is devoted to (Arab) Christians as well as Yazidis as the People of the Scripture, explaining that “they are not enemies but friends” and may not be killed. Mark Durie explains in his article “Complexity, Truth and the Islamic State” that:

“In Iraq and Syria today people are being killed in patterns shaped by what is written in Islamic texts … offering the Syrian Yazidis but two choices (see here and here) — conversion or death — with no option of paying Jizya. This was in accordance with Surah 9:29 of the Qur’an, which offers the alternative of paying Jizya only to the ‘People of the Book’, a category which IS claims the Yazidis do not fit.”

Yazidis are not viewed by ISIS as People of the Scripture and are offered only two choices — “embrace Islam or be killed” — while the People of the Scripture (i.e. Jews, Christians and Zoroastrians) are offered three choices: “conversion to Islam, pay Jizya or be killed by the sword.” As Mark Durie writes:

“Whether one thinks their [ISIS] Islam is valid is another matter: my point is that they have a well thought-through position which aspires to be authentically Islamic and has evidence to back it.”

Moreover, Jews are not mentioned in the letter as People of the Scripture. Why? Didn’t ISIS outline its vision to control Israel as well, besides the rest of the Middle East, North Africa and large areas of Asia, as wel as former Muslim-ruled parts of Europe? Is it legitimate for ISIS to kill Jews or not?

Is this flaw in the letter the result of virulent anti-Semitism in Muslim communities, a general consensus that it is wrong for a Muslim to kill another Muslim but justifiable to kill a Jew? Or is this “an Islamic form of political correctness,” knowing that it’s not accepted in mainstream Islam to sympathize with Israel or Jews for that matter?

Moreover, the writings, opinions or statements about different issues, minorities, Jews or Israel by some of the signatories of the open letter, makes it hard to believe these Muslim leaders and scholars are sincerely lecturing ISIS about tolerance, equality and peace. For example:

Prof. Mustafa Abu Sway, The Integral Professorial Chair for the Study of Imam Ghazali’s Work, Jerusalem:

Is linked to terrorist organization Hamas and Islamist and pro-terrorist figures as Yusuf Abdullah al-Qaradawi, Abdurahman Alamoudi, and Osama M. Kandil. During an interfaith meeting in 2002, he “wished the end of the state of Israel, and [stated] that Islamic law proscribes war against any nation in dar-el-islam, land once occupied by Muslims, including Spain and Israel.” He also co-authored the Islamic Education book for Palestinian seventh graders produced by the PA’s “Ministry of Education” that included passages on martyrdom, duty to fight, and jihad thus teaching Palestinian youth that martyrdom is the ultimate goal for a Muslim.

Nihad Awad, National Executive Director of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), USA:

In a tweet on 20 August 2014, he wrote: “Israel is the biggest threat to world peace and security.” So, this co-signer of the open letter thinks Israel is a bigger threat than the Islamic State? Awad also vowed “to complain to U.S. Department of Homeland Security officials after they blocked a radical Saudi cleric from entering the country to attend a national Islamist conference in Chicago.” He supports the terrorist organization Hamas, see also here.

Dr. Jamal Badawi, Executive Director of the Fiqh Council of North America, USA:

In February 2009, Badawi praised the jihad of Gaza-based terrorists during a speech on “Understanding Jihad and Martyrdom.” He also criticized Muslims who considered attacks on Israelis to be terrorism and compared suicide bombers to “freedom fighters” fighting the Nazis or the Japanese kamikazes fighting the Americans. In 2004, he openly questioned whether Islam and democracy are compatible. According to this article, Badawi is also linked to Islamist and pro-terrorist cleric Yusuf Abdullah al-Qaradawi and was also named “unindicted co-conspirators in the Holy Land Foundation terrorism financing prosecution.” And on top of that, Badawi “issued a fatwa authorizing a husband to physically punish his wife.”

Dr. Ihsan Bagby, Associate Professor of Islamic Studies at the University of Kentucky, and Council Member of the Fiqh Council of North America, USA:

In 1991, Bagby is quoted as having said, “Ultimately we [Muslims] can never be full citizens of this country [the U.S.] because there is no way we can be fully committed to the institutions and ideologies of this country.”

Naeem Baig, President of the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), USA:

Naeem Baig defended his organization after being accused of promoting extreme anti-semitic websites. His organization is also linked to foreign Islamic terrorist organizations.

Dr. Hatem Bazian, Chairman of American Muslims for Palestine (AMP), USA:

Bazian was a active supporter of Pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel groups at San Francisco State University. He supposedly “advocated the creation of an Islamic State of Palestine and the slaughter of Jews” quoting from a Hadith at an American Muslim Alliance conference, May 1999. He was a fundraising speaker for KindHearts, a Hamas front group that the U.S. government shut down in February 2006 due to the organization’s ties to Islamic terrorism. Bazian is also an endorser of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) campaign and a signatory to the U.S. Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel. And he is active in the “Israel Apartheid Week” (IAW) movement.

Shaykh Abdallah bin Bayyah, Leading Muslim Scholar and President of the Forum for Promoting Peace in Muslim Societies, Abu Dhabi:

Abdallah bin Bayyah “supported the terrorist group Hamas, has ties to Islamist and pro-terrorist cleric Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi and backed a fatwa encouraging violence against the United States military and barring normalization of relations with Israel.”

Sheikh Dr. Ali Gomaa, Former Grand Mufti of Egypt, Egypt:

His teachings includes “canonical Islamic doctrines to sacralize hatred toward non-Muslims, and incitement to lethal violence against them, especially Jews.” His pronouncements includes the “forbidding Muslims in the US military from fighting other Muslims, while simultaneously declaring all Israeli Jews, including as the legitimate targets of murderous homicide bombings … Lauding the jihad terror organization Hezbollah … referring to Jews — the “Hebrew entity” — as bloodsuckers … sacralizing polygamy and wife-beating … calling apostasy a crime, which must be punished … categorized Christians as kuffar — ‘infidels’ — a word that connotes ‘enemies,’ ‘evil-doers.'” Gomaa forbids attacking civilians, but refuses to condemn extremist Muslims who justify attacks on Israeli women and children as self-defense against aggression and tyranny. Gomaa also testified for the Islamic Council in Caïro that he considers Jerusalem under “Israeli occupation.”

Sheikh Ali Al-Halabi, Author and Islamic Preacher, Jordan:

In a 2009 lecture, Sheikh Ali Al-Halabi declared that “Allah brought about the Jews to rule over them (the Muslims), and they (the Jews) are the biggest scoundrels (of all nations), slayers of prophets… and they are brothers of the monkeys and pigs…they are the evil nation…a despicable, contemptible and disgraceful people…they (the Jews) adhere to a life of exploitation, a life of treachery, a life of villainy and deception…the Muslims will fight the Jews until the stones and trees will say, O Muslims, O Abdullah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.”

Sheikh Hamza Yusuf Hanson, Founder and Director of Zaytuna College, USA:

From a IPT Investigative report: Yusuf Hanson described Judaism as a “racist religion” (for which he apologized years later) and refers to the Bill of Rights and democracy as “false gods.” He accused the United States and Israel of “war crimes.” In 1991, he gave a provoking speech about why ‘Jihad is the only way’ referring to a series of places in which violence and armed insurgencies were occurring. Yusuf praised Turkish-American Furkan Dogan for dying aboard the IHH Mavi Marmara vessel in a clash with Israeli commandos (Gaza flotilla, 2010). He denounces some forms of radical Islam in general terms, but refuses to condemn specific jihadist acts or terrorist organizations by name.

Ed Husain, Senior Fellow in Middle Eastern Studies, (CFR), UK:

Ed Husain accused Israel of ‘war crimes’ during a war of self-defense against terrorist organization Hamas (Gaza war, 2008-2009), and implicated that “the children of Holocaust survivors became brutal killers” themselves.

Sheikh Muhammad Ahmad Hussein, Mufti of Jerusalem and All Palestine, Palestine:

The Mufti stated in a interview in 2006 that “it is the Palestinian people’s right to engage in resistance until the occupation ends. As long as the resistance is legitimate, everything related to it is also legitimate…Suicide bombing is legitimate, of course, as long as it plays a role in the resistance.” On January 9^th, 2011, Hussein addressed a crowd at an event marking the 47th anniversary of the founding of Fatah, quoting a Hadith: “The Hour will not come until you fight the Jews. The Jews will hide behind stones or trees. Then the stones or trees will call: Oh Muslim, servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.” On May 8^th, 2013, the Mufti was arrested by Israeli forces for his connection to a riot on the Temple Mount.

Oussama Jammal, Secretary-General of the U.S. Council of Muslim Organizations (USCMO), USA:

Was the president of the Mosque Foundation outside Chicago. In 2004, Chicago Tribune featured a story about fundraising at the mosque for Palestinian Islamic Jihad board member Sami Al-Arian’s defense fund. In 1998, Jammal blasted a federal investigation which led to the freezing of a mosque member’s assets for supporting Hamas. Was, as head of the Fine Media Group, involved in the release of one of the first ‘commercial’ Islamic propagation films “Muhammed — the last Prophet” boasting the distinction of being a Disney, Saudi, Hamas collaboration. He also expressed doubts al-Qaida was responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

Shaykh Prof. Ahmad Al-Kubaisi, Founder of the ‘Ulema Association, Iraq:

Promoted a con­spir­acy theory sug­gest­ing ISIS was cre­ated by Jews and Zion­ists. Dur­ing an inter­view with Dijlah, an Iraqi-based satel­lite tele­vi­sion sta­tion, August 6, 2014, al-Kubaisi said, “Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi [ISIS leader]…..is no more than a Jew­ish agent… and even Muham­mad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, the founder of Wah­habism is a hun­dred per­cent Jew­ish prod­uct … I am respon­si­ble for this state­ment before the lord. [I swear] by God, this is an orga­nized Jew­ish move­ment to tear apart the Ummah [Islamic Nation] and it did tear it apart.”

Prof. Joseph E. B. Lumbard, Professor at Brandeis University, USA:

Is Professor and Chair of Islamic and Middle Eastern Studies in the department of Near Eastern and Judaic Studies at Brandeis University. This university is notorious for anti-Israel bias and anti-Semitism. He was challenged to a debate with Islam critic Robert Spencer, and responded by saying: “anytime any place. I will dominate you!”

Sheik Mohamed Magid, ADAMS Center, USA:

Handed a “diversity award” to Jew-hater, Dawud Walid, in 2012. He is linked to Islamist groups and terrorist organization Hamas.

Prof. Mohammad Mukhtar Al-Mahdi, Professor of Islamic Studies, Al-Azhar University and President of the Shari’ah Society, Egypt:

He said at a rally in Caïro, November 25, 2011, “The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said, “The Hour will not come until the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them. When a Jew hides behind a rock or a tree, it will say, ‘O Muslim, O servant of Allah! There is a Jew behind me, come and kill him!’”” Also here.

Dr. Mohammad Sammak, Secretary-General of the National Committee for Christian-Muslim Dialogue, Lebanon:

Claims that the Iraq war was a Zionist plot. Read this as well. He also published a column, May 13, 2012, in which he compared Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to Adolf Hitler.

Dr. Zulfiqar Ali Shah, Secretary General of the Fiqh Council of America, USA:

Is linked to Islamist and extremist lecturers. Ali Shah said of Jews: “If we are unable to stop the Jews now, their next stop is Yathrib (the Saudi Arabian city of Medina) where the Jews used to live until their expulsion by Prophet Muhammad. That’s the pinnacle of their motives.” He was also the Southeast Asia director for KindHearts, which was accused of funneling money to the terrorist group Hamas. More information here.

Dr. Omar Shahin, Secretary General of the North American Imam Federation, USA:

Has been linked to radical clerics and financing of terrorists. He released a book in which he advocates that Western law should submit to Sharia law. He also said he did not believe sincere Muslims were responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

Dr. Ahmad Shqeirat, Member of the North American Imams Federation, USA:

According to American Thinker, “In 2004, Shqeriat vociferously opposed efforts by Tempe Muslim doctor Zuhdi Jasser to organize a 2004 Muslim rally opposing terrorism. Shqeriat’s mosque newsletter ran a cartoon that depicted Jasser as a rabid, cannibalistic dog, eating Muslims.” He also has a “desire for a global Islamic state, which he claims ‘is not a threat to anybody … establishing Islamic law was a positive experience.'”

Dato’ Wan Zahidi bin Wan Teh, Former Mufti of Malaysia’s Federal Territories, Malaysia:

Issued a fatwa (February 1996) prohibiting Muslim women from joining beauty pageants.

Sheikh Muhammad Al-Yacoubi, Islamic Preacher, Syria:

In a speech on January 22^nd, 2010, Al-Yacoubi said that it is necessary to obey the Messenger of Allah [Muhammad] in every command including … the Qur’an and the names of the Prophets. He also said that “believing in Moses and Jesus does not imply the validity of Judaism and Christianity of today.” His speech was in “defence” of the Prophet Muhammad, after the Mufti of Syria, Shaykh Ahmad Hassoun, had said to an American delegation lead by the Orthodox Rabbi Marc Gopin: “If the Prophet Muhammad had asked me to deem Christians or Jews heretics, I would have deemed Muhammad himself a heretic…If Muhammad had commanded us to kill people, I would have told him he was not a Prophet…,” on January 19, 2010. Al-Yacoubi demanded the resignation of the Mufti.

Should we label these intolerant and even extremist views and practices as illegitimate and un-Islamic as well? Or are they the result of 1,400 years of Islamic exegesis (tafsir)? If so, it raises the question: “What is the false Islam and what is the real Islam?”

It is not the objective of this article to challenge each and every argument in the open letter with a counterargument. This is a matter which should be conducted within Islam. However, if the ideology of ISIS is placed outside Islam, this debate will not happen at all.

Some may argue that I am not an Islamic scholar, but everyone can read about the origins, history and teachings of Islam. You can study the expansionist spread of the Islamic religion from the birth of Islam until now. You can search the internet and read the divergent explanations of Muhammad. You can study the different theological branches within Islam, and the conditions of contemporary Muslim communities in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Libya, Yemen, Malaysia and Gaza, to understand why inequality and intolerance is still clearly present in those areas.

As long as Islam is not thoroughly and sincerely questioning its own origins and beliefs, there will always be groups such as ISIS, Hamas, Boko Haram and Al-Qaida who justify their ideology from 1,400 years of Islamic exegesis (tafsir).

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.

Read below the executive summary of the open letter or download the entire letter here (English version).

Executive Summary

1. It is forbidden in Islam to issue fatwas without all the necessary learning requirements. Even then fatwas must follow Islamic legal theory as defined in the Classical texts. It is also forbidden to cite a portion of a verse from the Qur’an — or part of a verse — to derive a ruling without looking at everything that the Qur’an and Hadith teach related to that matter. In other words, there are strict subjective and objective prerequisites for fatwas, and one cannot ‘cherry-pick’ Qur’anic verses for legal arguments without considering the entire Qur’an and Hadith.
2. It is forbidden in Islam to issue legal rulings about anything without mastery of the Arabic language.
3. It is forbidden in Islam to oversimplify Shari’ah matters and ignore established Islamic sciences.
4. It is permissible in Islam [for scholars] to differ on any matter, except those fundamentals of religion that all Muslims must know.
5. It is forbidden in Islam to ignore the reality of contemporary times when deriving legal rulings.
6. It is forbidden in Islam to kill the innocent.
7. It is forbidden in Islam to kill emissaries, ambassadors, and diplomats; hence it is forbidden to kill journalists and aid workers.
8. Jihad in Islam is defensive war. It is not permissible without the right cause, the right purpose and without the right rules of conduct.
9. It is forbidden in Islam to declare people non-Muslim unless he (or she) openly declares disbelief.
10. It is forbidden in Islam to harm or mistreat — in any way — Christians or any ‘People of the Scripture’.
11. It is obligatory to consider Yazidis as People of the Scripture.
12. The re-introduction of slavery is forbidden in Islam. It was abolished by universal consensus.
13. It is forbidden in Islam to force people to convert.
14. It is forbidden in Islam to deny women their rights.
15. It is forbidden in Islam to deny children their rights.
16. It is forbidden in Islam to enact legal punishments (hudud) without following the correct procedures that ensure justice and mercy.
17. It is forbidden in Islam to torture people.
18. It is forbidden in Islam to disfigure the dead.
19. It is forbidden in Islam to attribute evil acts to God.
20. It is forbidden in Islam to destroy the graves and shrines of Prophets and Companions.
21. Armed insurrection is forbidden in Islam for any reason other than clear disbelief by the ruler and not allowing people to pray.
22. It is forbidden in Islam to declare a caliphate without consensus from all Muslims.
23. Loyalty to one’s nation is permissible in Islam.
24. After the death of the Prophet, Islam does not require anyone to emigrate anywhere.