Religious extremists, whether Christian or Muslim, are deviating from true religious principles and threatening violence and possible war, writes Ahmad Naguib Roushdy* Fear and loathing of Islam caused more than 92 people to be massacred on 23 July in two Al-Qaeda-like attacks, after a car bomb exploded outside a 17-storey government building in Oslo in Norway, and by gunfire at a political summer camp in an Island outside Oslo attended by young people, children of members of the ruling Norwegian Labour Party. The attack was a puzzle. It was not committed by a Muslim, but, believe it or not, by a fanatical right-wing extremist Christian Norwegian called Anders Behring Breivik. Reversing Al-Qaeda's plan to punish America, Breivik was apparently trying to alert Europeans to the threat of multiculturalism and Muslim immigration, calling for a new Christian crusade, or apocalyptic war, to defend Europe against the threat of Islam and Muslim imperialism, the religious and cultural enemy, and Marxism. The puzzle is why did he choose to kill innocent Norwegians instead of those he saw as Muslim enemies? Undoubtedly, the so-called Egyptian Salafis' demonstration in Tahrir Square in Cairo last 29 July, continuing in their attempt to contain the Egyptian revolution, confirmed Breivik and his counterparts in Europe in their view that he was right to carry out his attacks in Norway. These are the new "Christian Salafis" who are revisiting Europe's crusades against the Muslims. The neo-conservatives in the United States who supported former US president George W Bush also consider Muslims to be the number one enemy of America. Who are the new Muslim Salafis in Egypt? They claim that they follow the Al-Salafu Al-Saleh (the pious early generations of Muslims). But the latter were completely different from the present-day Salafis, who follow the Wahabi sect of Saudi Arabia and are against scientific development and modern civilisation. Instead, they concern themselves with strict forms of religion and punishment rather than its essence, which is tolerance. They adapt themselves to a strict and misguided interpretation of Islamic Sharia law, such as wearing white galabiyas and growing thick beards reaching to their knees. They claim that a Muslim should not raise his hands before he bows during prayers and should not touch a woman or shake hands with her after ablution, when many moderate jurists consider those and others to be merely matters of preference and not obligatory rituals. All these and other matters have been debated among the four major Sunni sects of Islam, as there is no way to confirm that they are mandated by the Quran or the Prophet's Sunna, which includes the hadith, in other words the Prophet's sayings and deeds. Sheikh Mohamed El-Ghazali, a fine Egyptian Muslim jurist and preacher, sharply criticised these trends in his widely read book The Prophet's Sunna among the People of Jurisprudence and the People of Al-Hadith. He and others have demonstrated how the Salafis have been harming Islam and Muslims by drawing on strict interpretations of the Quran and non-authentic sayings and deeds of the Prophet, as presented by Mohamed Ibn Abdel-Wahab, the founder of the Wahabi sect. The so-called Salafis are in reality not real Salafis at all, since they deviate from the true traditions of the Al-Salafu Al-Saleh. They follow Wahabi rules that are owed to the teachings of Taqieddin Ibn Taymiya, who was born in the 13th century in Harran, now part of Turkey. Ibn Taymiya's family followed the Hanbali sect, one of the four major schools of Islamic Sunni jurisprudence, founded by Mohamed Ibn Hanbal and responsible for strict interpretations of Islamic law. However, Ibn Hanbal himself was not an extremist, and some of his opinions have been incorporated into the Egyptian legal system, even if the Hanafi sect is dominant in Egypt. Ibn Taymiya is considered to be a great Islamic jurist, but he was disturbed by what he saw as the deterioration of the Islamic caliphate and the teachings of some religious scholars that drove him to adopt more rigid ideas. He excoriated Muslims who did not follow what he saw as the right path of Islam, which was not to be found in the teachings of the scholars of his age, who he thought deviated from their duty of focussing on the Quran and hadith and did not follow what he saw as the true path of Islam. Ibn Taymiya favoured what he thought of as Salafist jurisprudence, and he did not recognise other sources for the Sharia, as agreed upon by Islamic jurists since the time of the Prophet, and applying in the absence of a provision in the Quran or the Sunna, or traditions. The latter includes the hadith, the consensus of Islamic jurists, and various judgments or opinions previously applied in a case and now applicable to a new similar case, like the use of precedents made by judges in Common Law countries such as Britain and the United States. These sources also include ijtihad, the application by a judge or jurist of his own opinion in the absence of a rule in other sources, urf, or custom, the al-maslaha al-mursala, or the interest of the Islamic community, and other sources, all of which are related to provisions in the Quran and Sunna. Going beyond what is written in the Quran and hadith in Ibn Taymiya's opinion would be apostasy. But he forgot that the Prophet himself was the first to recognise other sources of Islamic Law, such as ijtihad. Indeed, Muslim jurists frequently recall that Muaz Ibn Gabal, a jurist who lived during the time of the Prophet Mohamed's government, said that when the Prophet appointed him as a judge in Yemen he asked him how he would make his judgments. Muaz answered that he would follow the rules in the Quran. The Prophet then asked him what he would do if there were no specific provisions in the Quran . To which Muaz answered that he would apply the Prophet's Sunna. The Prophet was not satisfied with this and asked Muaz what he would do if the Sunna did not help him either, and Muaz said he would do his best to formulate his own opinion. The Prophet then praised Muaz for his readiness to use ijtihad as a source of law. The Prophet's approval was undoubtedly driven by his consideration that changes of circumstances and differences between social traditions, customs and environments could make it difficult for a judge or jurist to find a specific rule in the Quran or Sunna applying to every case. Without this flexibility, Sharia Law would have become frozen and static, something which in fact took place after the "closing of the door of ijtihad " in the 14th century, preventing jurists from giving their own opinions and mandating that they follow the teachings of the four major Sunni sects. The teachings of Ibn Taymiya were later adopted by Mohamed Ibn Abdel-Wahab, who was born in the Arabian Peninsula in a desert tribal environment and developed an obsession with extreme ideas as a young man. Ibn Abdel-Wahab condemned local customs, such as visiting tombs or marking them with stones, which is why the Salafis in Egypt apparently destroyed certain graves after the Tahrir Square incidents. He also condemned the leaving of food offerings for the dead, any profiting from trade, failing to attend public prayers, essentially in mosques, and shaving off beards, all of which he considered to be sins. Ibn Abdel-Wahab attracted many followers in the Arabian Peninsula, where he established the Wahabi sect of Islam based on the Salafism of Ibn Taymiya. This was then adopted by Mohamed Ibn Saud, a tribal chief in Nejd and founder of the modern Saudi dynasty. Ibn Saud imposed a very rigid version of these beliefs on the other provinces he invaded, including the Hejaz. He applied rules from the Quran and the Sunna in the most literal way, such as cutting off the hands of thieves, stoning adulterers, and forcing women to wear a full hijab and cover their faces with the neqab, even though Islamic law requires women to bare their faces during pilgrimage. Contemporary Saudi Arabia's intolerance in applying such rules was demonstrated several years ago when the country's police reportedly prevented girls from escaping from a fire in their school because they were not wearing veils and let them burn to death instead. This caused uproar at the time, as well as confusion and anger in Saudi Arabia itself, which has been trying to spread such ideas into Egypt and other Muslim countries. As the 10th anniversary of the horrific 11 September 2001 attacks is imminent, it should be remembered that 15 of the 19 hijackers of the four planes involved were citizens of Saudi Arabia. Their loyalty was to their leader, Osama bin Laden, himself a Saudi citizen. Perhaps if Saudi Arabia had followed the moderate path of the true al-Salafu al-Saleh, Al-Qaeda would not have developed in the way that it has. Mohamed Abdu, the grand mufti of Egypt in the late 19th and early 20th centuries and a great scholar, was disturbed to see such trends among Islamic extremists that deviated from true religious principles. He himself was a true Salafi, and he understood that the earlier al-Salafu al-Saleh were close to the Prophet Mohamed and heard his sayings and followed his deeds. None of their teachings reflect rigidity, intolerance or contempt for other religions. Abdu followed the lines laid down by Abu Hamid Al-Ghazali, the 12th-century Islamic scholar and jurist, in emphasising the value of ijtihad in the development of Islamic traditions. Although he opposed the British occupation of Egypt during his time, he was a reformer who aimed to retain the best of Islamic thought and heritage and to blend this with suitable aspects of western civilisation, which itself owes its development to Islamic civilisation. Abdu did not find a conflict between Islamic rules, properly interpreted and understood, and modern scientific knowledge, a matter then neglected in many Muslim countries. He also expressed his dissatisfaction with some Muslims' behaviour. After his return from a trip to Paris, for example, Abdu said that "in France I saw Muslims but no Islam. In Egypt I saw Islam but no Muslims." What he meant was that Europeans were in some sense better Muslims since their modern and democratic societies were applying the egalitarian principles of the Quran more than traditional Islamic countries. Before Abdu's time, and up until today, the genuine Salafist movement has been tarnished by extremists who wrongly call themselves Salafis. In reviewing the history of Islamic jurisprudence, one realises that the political system established by the Prophet during his refuge in the city of Al-Madina and after his victorious return to Mecca, was based on a civil, democratic and just government that maintained equality among the people with no discrimination between an Arab and a Persian, or between Muslims and non-Muslims. Islam asserts freedom of religion: no one can be forced to become a Muslim. Faith is a matter between God and the faithful. This is clear from the Quranic verse that states " la ikraha fiddeen ", or "there is no compulsion in religion". A declaration by a person that he or she has adopted Islam is not worth the ink it is written in unless it is based on freedom of choice and genuine belief. But the Quran does not expect that everyone will convert to Islam, and therefore a harmonious society requires that Muslims should know both themselves and others. This is why the Quran reveals the wisdom of creation and the fact that God made the world of nations and tribes in order that they should get to know each other. If Muslims cannot interact with their fellow citizens of different religions, or with citizens of other nations who are Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Bahaais or agnostics, and if they do not respect their rights of political and religious freedom, they are deviating from the teachings of the Quran and the Sunna. Egyptian- American Feisal Abdel-Raouf, a graduate of Columbia University and imam of the Masjid Al-Farah in New York City, has made this clear in his book What's Right With Islam. In stark contrast to Western writers such as US political scientist Samuel Huntington and Anglo-American orientalist Bernard Lewis, who have argued that there is a problem in Islam itself, Abdel-Raouf argues, as his predecessor Mohamed Abdu did, that Islamic principles can interact with pluralistic values, a free society and democracy. This is exactly what Ali Gomaa, the present grand mufti of Egypt, emphasised in his New York Times article in April. It is essential that Gomaa, along with other reformers in Egypt, does his utmost to preserve true Islamic traditions and educate people in the essence of this great religion. The Prophet's path was followed by the first four caliphs, al-Khulafau al-Rashidun, the righteous or rightly guided, caliphs or successors. The government at that time was not a sectarian or theocratic one. It did not depend in everything on the ruler's claim that he had been granted his authority by God, and that individuals had nothing to do with governance and could not share in it or object to the ruler's decisions. Such rulers are tyrants, and Islam despises and even forbids autocratic systems. Yet, Muslim extremists think otherwise. They have become obsessed with the false belief that the government in Islam is a sectarian one, and they have misinterpreted certain facts to serve their interests. It is true that the Prophet established his government according to the basic rules in the Quran, as revealed to Him by the angel Gabriel. Yet, the Prophet also interpreted the Quran in his sayings and deeds. It includes rules for rituals, business transactions, domestic relations such as marriage, divorce and inheritance, and the principles of a system of government that was previously unpractised. Certain Islamist groups argue as a result that according to these facts, the Prophet established a sectarian government and that He was God's representative on earth. Undoubtedly, this way of looking at things was supported by the fact that Abu Bakr, the first of the Prophet's successors, was given the title of caliph, or successor, even though it was the people, not God, who elected him and used the word without any apparent intention to use it as a title, like "king" or "emperor". The fact that none of the Prophet's descendants or family inherited governance, and that the same thing happened with Abu Bakr and the other three rightly guided caliphs -- that none of their relations inherited the government -- and that they were all elected by the people stands in opposition to such claims. Abu Bakr was not eager to govern, and he reluctantly accepted the people's nomination. But to negate any misconception on the part of the people that he was an infallible or sectarian ruler, he asked the people to correct him if he made mistakes. He followed the Prophet's path in consulting people. However, these facts have not impressed the Islamist groups. In spite of the fact that the first four successors of the Prophet were elected by the people, they have pushed the claim that the divine system of government that was revealed to the Prophet was then revealed by Him to Abu Bakr, who in turn transmitted it to Omar Ibn Al-Khattab, the second caliph. Thus, these groups come close to making gods of the Prophet and Abu Bakr, and governance becomes, in their conception, divine and always to be followed. Since it was originated by a revelation from God, they believe that Muslims have the duty to spread Islam even by the sword. Only after the death of Ali Ibn Abi Taleb, the fourth caliph, did the post of caliph turn into an absolute monarchy, as happened when Muawia Ibn Abu Sufian took over the government and established Omayyed dynastic rule. Many 20th-century Egyptian reformers strongly objected to the Salafis' wrong premises, among them Taha Hussein in his The Great Rift: Osman- Islamic Government, Abbas Mahmoud El-Aqqad in his Genius of Al-Seddiq (nickname of Abu Bakr), Genius of Omar and Democracy in Islam ; and Mohamed Hussein Heikal in his Islamic Government. All these writers assert that Islam was, and continues to be, a religion before all else. It does not require sectarian government, and it is not intended to curb people's freedom of choice. The Prophet was not a dictator, and he was not the head of a theocratic government. He consulted with informed experts and with the people even during war. His first four elected successors did the same. This kind of democratic path was new to a tribal society like that which existed at the time in Mecca. For this reason, the Quran does not set out detailed rules for political, theological and business transactions. It only sets out a framework for rulers as to how they can achieve political and social justice and for the faithful to know how to choose what is good for them and for their different societies, traditions, customs and periods. What suits one people may not necessary suit another. While Abu Bakr tried to continue the path set out by the Prophet, he died as he was about to do so. Omar Ibn al-Khattab took major steps towards achieving justice and freedom and respect for other religions. When visiting Egypt after defeating the Byzantines, he refused to destroy the ancient Egyptian antiquities. Although Omar tried hard to achieve social justice, he would have liked to have been able to extend it, before being killed by a fanatic because he had ruled against him. The Islamist extremists today are hostile to Christians and Jews and consider them to be heretics. However, in holding such beliefs they are violating the Quran's instructions to treat those professing these other religions as "people of the book" and to respect their prophets, even though Christians and Jews do not recognise the Prophet Mohamed, and to protect their temples and places of worship. Islamist extremists even consider Muslims who apply western laws not originating in the Sharia, as they understand the latter, to be heretics. After the recent massacre by the Norwegian fanatic, it is not difficult to anticipate more of the same from such Christian Salafis against Muslims and against so-called Muslim Salafis in particular. The Christian Salafis' certitude about the dangers of Islam to Europe may turn into another crusading war. The so-called Muslim Salafis and extremists will welcome this as a call for jihad, or religious struggle. This will cause chaos, and the loser will be Islam and the Muslim countries, though time will prove that the so-called Muslim Salafis are not really genuine Salafis at all. * The writer is an international lawyer.
