Islam and the Future of Tolerance

Sam Harris and Maajid Nawaz have come together to write a book: Islam and the Future of Tolerance. The resulting dialogue between an atheist and a liberal Muslim is an attempt to combat Islamist tendencies among Muslim youth, but it is not entirely clear who the audience the book is intended for. It certainly does not address the multifarious reasons for terrorism choosing to focus on one aspect of the equation, Islamic law. Presumably then the target audience are conservative Muslims, who are from the getgo unlikely to pay attention to their conclusions due to the author’s inherent bias. Sam Harris, as his intellectual production in this field attests, is clearly contemptuous of religion and Islam in particular while Nawaz is a self-proclaimed liberal Muslim, which in other words means Muslim by name but not in practice. His cachet lies in his former Islamist past and a Damascene conversion to liberalism. Unfortunately, his subsequent actions have produced anger against him, rightly or wrongly, by the majority of the UK Muslim community.

This is not to say that their tryst is unproductive. Indeed, if there is one thing that both can agree upon, it is that — using the words of Nawaz — Islam is not a religion of war but neither is it a religion of peace. There is an element of truth to this statement. A tendency has arisen among beleaguered Muslims who are incessantly badgered in the West to argue that the actions of ISIS or Al Qaeda have no basis in Islam even as both organisations and their supporters have justified their violence by using Islamic legal opinions. The paradox is evident to many: if Islamic law, as a product of 7th century Arabia, is universal and perennial, then ignoring the more egregious and controversial aspects of the law shows willful ignorance. The Quran contains verses which are unpalatable to the modern ear, and historical incidents at the time the Quran was revealed, if assumed to be true, are uncomfortably horrific.

Nawaz knows Islamic history well enough to argue that the values and actions of 7th century Arabia cannot be applied today. There is much anachronism. At the same time, he recognizes that Islam’s attraction and strength lies with the events of that period. Islamic scholars today constantly refer to the Prophet as a guide on all affairs in producing Islamic law.

Hence, to square the circle and harmonise the authority of the Prophet with the liberal values of today which he supports, he argues interpretation in Islamic law is manifold; therefore while ISIS can claim authority from Islamic law and history, the laws they choose to uphold are invalid today. Instead, scholars should argue for a law that is more conducive to liberal values and/or Muslims should realise that the laws the Prophet passed were contextual and have lost applicability. Because Islamic law is fluid and pluralistic, choosing a liberal point of view does not contradict the principles of the religion.

Harris would perhaps concede that this is the path to follow even if it belies his own revulsion for religion. Harris finds in religion little saving grace. His ultimate views are for religion to be removed from the public space and belief to be redacted from the mental space. He grudgingly accepts the power of religion, reflected by his philosophical pursuit in understanding religion even if not related to his primary expertise, though he finds it patently ridiculous and illogical. Consequently, aside from his crusade in exposing logical inconsistencies, joining with Nawaz to push for dialogue and shoehorning liberal interpretation is another strategy to denude religion of its dogmatic and violent aspects.

One could class this point of view as noble and progressive, and as Harris and Nawaz have insinuated, they are reflecting the virtues of liberal democracies, that of debate and the reconciliation of differing points of view. Unfortunately, their goals are more or less the same. Harris is clear in his contempt for religion, while Nawaz advocates an Islam which jettisons its legal aspects. It would be wrong to assume that Nawaz is absolute in this; indeed, he is likely to accept the primary obligations of the Islam should be upheld though not enforced; that is Prayer, Charity, Fasting and Pilgrimage. But if he believes that liberal values and the legislative power of governments of nation states supersede Islamic legal and political thought, or that Islamic law should follow western law, then there is nothing unique about Islamic law. It has no value beyond ritual.

A second problem with the approach of both Harris and Nawaz is the assumption that western Muslims have not accepted the values and laws of liberal democracies as a way of life. The majority of Muslims are in fact law abiding citizens, and many of them subscribe to way of life that is not distinctly Islamic. As for those conservative Muslims, most, if not all, concede to the presence a culture that contradicts their religious norms. They avoid following or accepting the values and practices of the dominant culture, neither do they direct their attention towards violent revolution. Young non-swine eating, alcohol hating, mortgage avoiding, hijab wearing, beard donning, segregation promoting, five time praying, Quran reading, arranged marriaging, Islamic law studying, non-clubbing Muslims are not surreptitious terrorists. Even those members of Nawaz’s old group, Hizb ut Tahrir, that desire a caliphate, rally against civil disobedience and violence. Certainly they want change, but so do Marxists, anti-capitalists, the Christian Right, and Republicans.

Conservative Muslims have condemned horrific acts perpetrated in their name. This does not mean to say they are agreeable to all aspects of liberal democracy and the values it claims to uphold. There are certain aspects of society Muslims will scoff at. To condemn debauchery, pornography, injustice and advocate monogamous relationships, marriage, sobriety, spirituality, modesty and other conservative values in a society continually pushing against these values should be praised, or at least understood, not roundly condemned.

Liberal democracy advocates choice provided it adheres with law, and most, if not all, conservative Muslims choose to practice within the boundaries set by the nation’s law. Nevertheless, laws may pass which limit their religious freedom or determine what their beliefs should be. As the Canadian elections have demonstrated with Steve Harpers animus against the niqab, or the arrest of Ahmed Mohamed, or Fox News’s veiled Islamophobia, law and media can be used to push certain type of values, which if not accepted lead to dissidence and alienation. Conservative Muslims face this challenge daily creating the internal sense of being the disrespected other even when they are not breaking the law and simply upholding the freedom that liberal democracy purports to give.

For Harris and Nawaz to advocate Muslims accept liberal values is to ignore the conservative element of Islam. Provided the community does not support violence against others or oppression, then they should not be condemned for upholding religious beliefs that contradict the values Harris and Nawaz uphold. There are many young Muslims today who were born to liberal, irreligious families in the West who are now attempting to practice their religion in a way that was condemned by their parents. There are many reasons for this phenomenon, not least disgust for more decadent and unjust aspects of society. Harris has often failed to acknowledge the role of American policy in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Israel, Sudan, Somalia, Egypt, Iran, etc, as a reason for Muslim anger. Military actions in those countries have often pushed young Muslims to idealise revolutionaries like the Prophet or Salahuddin Al-Ayubi or Malcolm X who fought against oppression. Harris likes to insist on America’s action in Bosnia as a saving grace downplaying or engaging in sophistry about the less than honourable or at least ambiguous intent in intervening or attacking the aforementioned countries.

Here we return to Nawaz’s statement. Islam is certainly not a religion of peace or war. But Muslims in the West, and most of the world, are a people of peace. Nawaz concentrates on how Muslim apologists and the apologetic left ignore belligerent aspects of Islam. Unfortunately he, without perhaps intending to, simplifies. To make an analogy, one can just as easily say American liberal democracy is not a political system of peace or war. Yet, Americans are people of peace. Islam is a religion in that it purports to be from God. Spirituality and ritual is strong, if not overriding. At the same time Islam contains a legal and political aspect to it. Law has slowly bled into culture; politics on the other hand is within the domain of the authority, which includes decisions on military action. The majority of Muslims throughout history have left these decisions to those in authority, and they do so today even if they might not agree with those actions. The majority are not vigilantes.

That some Muslims are vigilantes is what allows Harris and Nawaz to join together. I would agree that the way Islamists interpret Islam pushes them into terrorism and violence, yet this is only one aspect to a phenomena which is far more complicated and nuanced. Removing Islam from the equation does not mean the bloody war in Syria would have escalated, or that Somalia and Nigeria would be free from kidnappings and executions, or that Afghanistan and Iraq would not be in the grip of an endless cycle of violence. The future of tolerance does not rest on denuding Islam of its conservatism; it lies on an intersection where parties attempting to push certain values or accomplish goals do not resort to violence to achieve their aims. In the past Muslims have done so; in the past, most empires did so. They still do so today. Sometimes those parties will be Muslim; sometimes they will be atheists.