[lit-ideas] Re: Sharia Law in Germany
- From: Phil Enns <phil.enns@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2011 15:17:42 -0400
Lawrence Helm wrote:
"After having my posts refused by Lit-Ideas many times, I began
posting them on my blog. There is no dual context."
This thread on this list was initiated by your posting a link to
something you wrote on your blog. The original comments from your blog
are not a part of this thread, and these comments are not appearing on
your blog. Two contexts.
Anyways, on to the topic at hand. Lawrence wrote:
"As to the danger of the 'increase of Sharia Law,' Fundamentalist
Muslims deriving from Salafist and Sayid Qutb teaching believe in a
'Creeping Sharia Law' as one of the devices intended to complete the
Jihad that Mohammad started. That Jihad will only be completed when
the entire world is Muslim."
Lawrence is here confusing two very different, and in fact
conflicting, movements within Islamic fundamentalism. I haven't found
labels that I am happy with, but I have in other contexts used the
terms Jihadis and Salafists. As I use the terms, Jihadis are Muslims
who are committed to establishing an Islamic Caliphate. Jihad is an
expression of religious faithfulness in the service of the body of
Muslim believers for the purpose of bringing about an Islamic state.
Jihadis tend to be committed to organizations and hierarchies, with a
variety of authorities. They could promote peaceful means for bringing
about this Caliphate, like Hizbut Tahrir and the Muslim Brotherhood,
or they could adopt violence, like Hezbollah. They tend to also be
very involved in social issues like healthcare and poverty. These
groups would promote the use of Sharia courts as a means of bringing
about the 'Islamicization' of society and the would encourage Muslims
to listen to religious authorities.
But groups like al Qaeda and Egyptian Islamic Jihad, both heavily
influenced by Qutb, are very different. I would call them Salafists in
that they believe that there was at one time a pure practice of Islam
and that there is a single clear understanding of Sharia and what is
expected of Muslims. This view is found in Qutb who taught that there
is no need to interpret Sharia, that every circumstance in life is
clearly addressed by Sharia, and so there is no need for religious
authorities to provide guidance. Followers of Qutb, including most
members of al Qaeda, reject the idea that a Muslim should ever turn to
another Muslim for religious guidance, and so they reject the notion
of fiqh and Sharia courts. Think here of evangelical Protestants who
embrace the personal and individual quality of faith and reject
'religion'. Salafists are not interested in establishing Islamic
governments since this would be to establish religious authority. What
Salafists are working towards is an idealic time when every Muslim can
live out their faith in as pure a form as is possible. The government
can be any form, as long as it does not interfere with faithfulness.
When there is need for authority, it takes the form of an Emir, to
whom people swear obedience. When this Emir dies, as in the case of
bin Laden, a new Emir has to be chosen and people can choose to give
fealty or not. Because purity of faith is paramount, it is possible to
declare Muslims who deviate as takfir, or apostate, and require that
they be killed. This is why al Qaeda groups have killed more Muslims
than Westerners. It is also not necessary that the whole world be
Muslim. What is necessary is that non-Muslims not interfere in the
affairs of Muslims. It was this kind of interference, the presence of
Westerners in the land of the Two Holy Cities, that set off bin Laden
and al Qaeda.
Sharia courts do not represent the creeping presence of al Qaeda for
the simple reason that al Qaeda rejects most of the logic behind these
courts, for example fiqh and the need to use reason to interpret
Sharia. There is no creeping presence of al Qaeda. al Qaeda is devoted
to purifying the lands of Islam through whatever means necessary.
There is also no creeping presence of Jihadis. Groups like the Muslim
Brotherhood or Hezbollah thrive in contexts where the state is corrupt
and fails to provide for the basic needs of citizens. This was how the
Muslim Brotherhood started and it was under these conditions that it
spread though out the Middle East. In most Western countries, these
conditions do not exist and so the appeal of these Jihadi groups is
largely non-existent. There are of course some Jihadis who work
towards a world wide Caliphate, but the vast majority of Muslims, for
many different reasons, reject this crusade.
As I said before, in my opinion, Islam and Muslims as a whole do not
represent a threat to anyone but themselves. On the other hand,
individuals who are Muslim and groups of these individuals can be
extremely dangerous.
Sincerely,
Phil Enns
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
