The Anglo-American orientalist Bernard Lewis was dead wrong when he asked "what went wrong with Islam." So was his disciple, the Somali Ayaan Hirsi Ali, an Islamophobe whose last of four books is entitled Why Islam Needs a Reformation Now. Both of them, in my view as a specialist on Islam, have missed a central fact. Islam, as a faith, is constantly self-renewing through interpretation. This is called the jurisdiction of tafseer. Between the two unalterable bases of Islamic Law (Sharia Law), namely the Quran and the hadith, the latter the ascertainable utterances and conduct of the Prophet Mohamed, stands tafseer. In other words, tafseer, otherwise ijtihad, or the application of common sense to the religious texts, is akin to the soft tissue between the vertebrae of Islam's backbone. That soft tissue prevents the pain of one bone colliding with another. Tafseer, an element in the formulation of fatwas (non-binding opinions on matters of religion), functions also if there is no text. Then it is called jurisdiction where there is no text and is an extrapolation of rule from precedent. To illustrate, if I was asked "where should a Muslim astronaut face when praying" my response would be that Mecca for him is where his capsule is rotating. Now what do I base my fatwa on? Outer space is its own universe, not unlike the vast desert of the Empty Quarter in Southern Arabia on a cloudy day with no compass to point to Mecca. The astronaut, let us call him Ali (meaning the all-high), and his co-religionist Ahmed (another name for Mohamed), stand on the same footing, with no shoes, but with faith. Understanding Islam should begin by the realisation of the following facts about Islamic practice: Islam sees all faiths as equal; no one has the authority to call another "an apostate”; gender equality is ensured; the law of inheritance is supplemented by legislation; ritual and human transactions are separated from one another; and "modesty" in female appearance does not necessarily mean wearing the full face veil or niqab. It also calls for the realisation that jihad is a form of self-defence and self-policing against debased urges and that the caliphate ended 1,400 years ago with the bloody termination of the reign of Ali Ibn Abi Taleb, Mohamed's cousin. In the vocabulary of Islam and Sharia Law the terms "sword” and "holy war” do not even exist. The word "Muslim" does not refer only to the adherents of Islam. It denotes any human being who submits his or her will to that of the Creator. And "Allahu Akbar" is not a battle cry. It means "all humans are equal before the Creator." In Islam, judges are defendant-oriented, and adultery is made impossible to prove (it requires four witnesses). Women have the same rights and obligations as men. Self-sacrifice is abhorred; all places of worship are to be protected and revered; dictatorships should be toppled; and worship should be made easier, not an oppressive chore. Above all, intention is seen as a basic determinant of culpability; corruption is to be tackled by both law and improved living conditions; and dialogue is a means to clearing up misunderstandings. There is no Sunni Islam and Shia Islam. There is one faith, with a variety of contrasting practices. The state's authority should be respected, and local laws should be the norm for regulating the conduct of Muslims and non-Muslims alike. Contrast the above list, which I have kept to the bare essentials, with the following modes of departure among Muslims and incomprehension among non-Muslims. Does jihad mean the killing of the innocent or of non-Muslims? Of course it does not. Are crimes against humanity to be funded by so-called charitable foundations in the Muslim world? No they are not. Aiding and abetting the commission of crimes makes the supporter complicit in perpetrating such acts. Doesn't the Quran state in chapter V verse 32 that "We prescribed to the children of Israel that whoever kills a soul, unless it be for retaliation or because of spreading corruption on earth, it would be as if he had killed all mankind?" It does indeed. Is retaliation or evaluation of corruption a justification for any Muslim to take the law into his or her own hands for the purpose of injuring another? No, it is not. This is called "self-help" and is not sanctioned by any law unless the person is cornered in their home and has no option to retreat. Is murderous jihadism justified by past colonial maladministration? No, it is not. Decolonisation, UN membership and bilateral treaties have all put an end to the prolongation of these past grievances. And acceptance of foreign aid puts an end to the myth that there is no statute of limitations to such past misdeeds. In the light of the above, there is no "collective punishment" in Islam as a faith, or in Sharia Law as a legal system. Back to the Quran: "God does not impose on any soul a burden greater than it can bear; it receives every good that it earns, and it suffers every evil that it earns" (chapter II verse 286). "While He is the Lord of all things, every soul is accountable for itself; no bearer of burdens bears the burden of another" (chapter VI verse 164). There is an urgent need to reform the thinking of Muslims about their own faith, however. Anecdotal evidence shows that the majority of Muslims have not read the 114 chapters (suras) of the Quran. I am not boasting; I am stating a personal fact. I have read those chapters 19 times, and I am now on reading number 20. The more you read, the more you discover. And this discovery is aided by the vast spectrum of interpretations. But the context of my readings is already framed by one Islamic adage: "God desires ease for you and not hardship" (chapter II verse 185). The theme of "ease" is repeated in the Quran 39 times. There is no mention of theocracy and no mention of a caliphate – a human invention and not a religiously mandated system of governance.
Misunderstandings:In the Quran, I have found no reference to virgins waiting in heaven for those who kill themselves or others. I have found no reference to proselytising. But I have found the need for explanation (daawa) – the need for harmonious interaction among all humans. Is it by the sword that some marauding Muslims advocate for their faith? Here I let the Quran answer those misguided beings: "Call mankind to the way of your Lord with wisdom and sound advice" (chapter XVI verse 125). Even the Prophet Mohamed was admonished in the Quran to steer away from arrogance in his call for faith. The Quran asserts as follows: "It was by God's mercy that you were kind to them; had you been harsh and hard of heart, they would have dispersed from around you... And consult them in the matter, and when you reach a decision, place your trust in God" (chapter III verse 159). On the other hand, the non-Muslim world should also reform its outlook on Islam and Sharia Law. Unwittingly, that sector of humanity has adopted the jihadi interpretation of Islam and its values as mouthed by the enemies of humanity. The evidence of this abounds, including the following erroneous ideas: That Islam is a faith of the sword; that the war on terror should be waged by a ban on Muslim immigrants; that the niqab is mandated by the Islamic faith; that stoning for adultery, and beheadings, and the severance of limbs are all within the judicial sentencing mandated by Islam; that Muslims understand only force to cause them to submit; and that dictatorship is the way of Islamic governance. Other erroneous ideas include that Sharia Law is meant to be spread world-wide to replace existing legislation; that Islamisation is a global blueprint; that the Muslim world supports, outwardly or inwardly, terrorism; and that Western knowledge and teaching are non-Islamic. All of the above is utter nonsense. Islamophobia is caused by both ignorant Muslims and ignorant non-Muslims. The two sides seem to be spoiling for endless war. While this is not going to happen, anxiety about it has caused 38 of the 50 American states either to ban Sharia Law or to ban its being mentioned in their courts. Books authored by ex-Muslims, like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, support such nonsensical misconceptions. On the dust jacket of her book Heretic, she puts provocative questions, basically of the red herring type. She says that "when a Muslim sees you reading this book and says, 'I am offended, my feelings are hurt,' your reply should be 'what matters more? Your sacred text? Or the life of this book's author?' " But those who threaten Hirsi Ali for her book have not read their book (the Quran). Neither has she, as she has selectively picked verses from the Quran, selections which have not been encapsulated in legislation except in retrograde theocracies, or in her own unhappy land where tribal experiences are the norm such as the genital mutilation she has herself suffered. Sharia Law does not enter the dark realm of female genital mutilation. And modern legislation in countries like Egypt, Tunisia, Lebanon and Turkey has criminalised it. This is a prime example of correcting by man-made law the tribal seepage in monotheism. In Hirsi Ali's country of birth, women's enslavement is common. But she has found undeserved fame for falsely claiming that the truth of the Muslim world can only be seen through one narrow and ancient window – that of Somalia, which is now a horribly failed state. In the social sciences, including in law, faith is non-negotiable. But Hirsi Ali does not seem to comprehend that basic axiom. One of her calls is for the rewriting of the Quran. Were she ever to fathom the meaning of faith, she might realise that Islam's dogma is premised upon one central belief: That the Quran is the word of God. Therefore she needs, if she ever could, to ask God (in Arabic, Allah) to produce the desired "amendments." If she succeeds, she should give me a call. My dwelling on the perception gap between the Muslim and the non-Muslim worlds does not encompass the entire problem as perceptions are expressed in words in various languages, and here there is a real dilemma. The Muslim world at the popular level does not converse or read or write in Chinese, English, French, Russian or Spanish. These languages, like Arabic, are UN official languages. The reverse is also true regarding non-Muslims in regard to Arabic. Closing the gap needs a global linguistic remedy. The events of 9/11 were widely condemned by the Muslim world. Yet, that condemnation did not register. On the contrary, it was misconstrued, and silence was translated into quiet approval. The above is not advocacy for Islam. It is advocacy for overcoming the ills of this age of rage, symbolised by Trumpism in the United States, and by its reaction to jihadism through a redirection of the global conversation regarding faith and governance. Mixing faith with governance has proved to be a combustible mix. Each of them should be seen as separate, with governance looking upon faith as a system of values and not a blueprint for regulating human affairs. The hereafter should be left to the hereafter. Meaning: Live and let live. And if you can't, then “get a life”! The writer is a professor of law at New York University in the United States.
