Articles, Comments

Is Islam an impetus to violence? - Part 3

by Kyle Garvey

29 April, 2006

[ Part 1 - Part 2 - Part 4 ]
 

Opinions of Modern Experts

Both positions in the debate over Islam's ties to violence are well represented in this research's review of literature. Those critical of Islam illustrate their argument with theological citations, a bloody history, and a dangerous political presence. Those who support Islam note the demographic unlikelihood of unanimous religious violence, other, more likely causes, and cultural differences that may explain the growth of violence. Whether one agrees or disagrees with the position that Islam is an impetus to violence, effort from either side is expended only on the pursuit of peace.

A more complete understanding of the relationship between Islam and violence also requires personal research. Interviews with experts on the subject and its related topics provided an even deeper understanding of Muslim violence than what was acquired in the preceding review of literature. Each expert answered five questions in order to illuminate the issues surrounding the controversy (See Appendix A).  Separate paragraphs will discuss them individually. Experts who believe that Islam is an impetus to violence include Dr. Muhammad Hussain, a humanist and religious critic. Dr. Hussain, co-author in "Beyond Jihad - Critical Voices from Inside Islam", has published numerous articles on Islam and the Muslim world. Brigitte Gabriel, founder of American Congress for Truth, is another expert supporting this position. Gabriel, a Lebanese Christian formerly involved in the production and anchoring of many Arabic news shows, has become a vocal opponent of Islam. The final expert for this position is Abul Kasem. Kasem is the author of several books, including Women in Islam, and a contributor to many others. Experts supporting the opposite position, that Islam is not an impetus to violence, include Dr. Ervand Abrahamian, a City University of New York Distinguished history professor. Dr. Abrahamian has written five books on Iran, including Khomeinism: Essays on the Islamic Republic. Also interviewed was Rev. Patrick Gaffney, a professor at the University of Notre Dame. Rev. Gaffney has extensively studied religion and ethnic conflict in the Arab world. The final expert in defense of Islam is Dr. Itzchak Weismann, a professor in the Middle Eastern history department of the University of Haifa in Haifa, Israel. Dr. Weismann has published more than a dozen essays and articles about Islam, especially those concerning Sufism.

Interviews with those who believe that Islam is an impetus to violence uncovered similar opinions; the first interviewed was Dr. Muhammad Hussain, a religious critic and humanist from South Asia. He believes that Islam is an impetus to violence because no other valid explanations for worldwide Muslim violence exist except for the common religion of its perpetrators. Hussain offers India, a country with a small but violent minority of Muslims, as his first example. An extraordinary discrepancy exists between the relative peace of the Hindu majority and the violence of the country's Muslims, a fact which can only be explained by Islam (Hussain).  Cultural reasoning on the basis of Islam's minority position in India, states Dr. Hussain, weakens after examining Bangladesh and Pakistan, where the majority are Muslim, and violence still occurs. Many reasons can be found for these statistical oddities. First, "intolerant, intimidating, and violent verses" in the Qur'an support and even inspire acts of terrorism in the modern world (Hussain). Despite the fact that this religious literature "is itself sufficient to incite" violence, Dr. Hussain believes that Islamic history also reinforces a violent nature. The life of Muhammad is particularly useful for such a study because "attempts to follow every action and step of him" guarantee Muslims entrance into paradise (Hussain). But the life of the prophet, a leader who "destroyed indigenous religions, - exterminated unyielding Jews from Arabia, - [took] children and women as slaves - [and] ordered slaughter," according to Dr. Hussain, can serve as an example of the Qur'an's practical application. Politics makes up another facet of Islam's nature toward violence, to the extent that they "are like conjoined twins sharing one single heart" (Hussain). Politically, Islam is "similar to the doctrine of Genghis Khan's or Hitler's ideology" - territorial and violent - and as Hitler's treatise Mein Kampf led to domination by Hitler's Nazis, so the Qur'an might inspire Muslims "to achieve maximum territorial gains" by any means possible (Hussain). Though the definition of Islam as a civilization is disputed, Dr. Hussain sees a definite clash between it and the West. He observes three types of conflict between these two: the first is solely within Islam, the second is political and involves un-Islamic territory, and the third is between Islamic law, known as Sharia, and Western law. The first conflict involves Muslims who work at "purifying those Muslim-dominated territories" of Western traits, such as "democracy, secularism, and human rights" (Hussain). The second is a dispute between countries or areas that do not follow Islam and the pious Muslims who want their religion in power, Dr. Hussain observes, and this type is readily seen in Russia, India, and China. The final type of conflict, then, is waged inside Western countries. Those Muslims who believe that Sharia, a strict, divinely ordered system, is the ultimate law will certainly react strongly to a social system, like that of the West, that is built on "human rights and dignity" (Hussain). With a historical and political grounding, Dr. Hussain believes that Islam is an impetus to violence.

Another expert interviewed for the position that Islam is an impetus to violence was Brigitte Gabriel, founder of American Congress for Truth. The current predicament of Islam and violence, in Gabriel's opinion, is tightly connected to Islamic theology and early history. She attributes modern violence to the prophet's life, the Qur'an and the Hadith, and early conquests of the Middle East, North Africa, and Europe (Gabriel). Gabriel began by quickly focusing the controversy on Muhammad himself, calling radical Islam a "legacy" and maintaining that, "Leaders lead by example." Radical Muslims today have fulfilled an example of "barbaric tactics" and purposeful violence begun by the prophet in the early years of Islam's rule (Gabriel). Furthermore, she observes many links between the Qur'an and the actions of modern terrorists. Suras, or Qur'anic verses, written on the banners used to decorate terrorists' assassination videos, are one example that Gabriel cites of the influence of holy books on Muslims. "As they kill and behead people," she explains, terrorists use the Qur'an for support (Gabriel). One such banner reads, "'La ilaha illa allah. Muhammad rasoul allah,'" or "There is no God but Allah.  Muhammad is his prophet." According to Gabriel, such a tangible link between Islamic theology and violence should be cause for concern. As she explains, Islamic history is also exceptional for its violent aspects (Gabriel). She highlights the early conquest of Spain, in which Muslims "were only victorious when they slaughtered," and applies it to a similar contemporary problem. The analogy that she draws deals with Hamas, a newly-elected Islamic political party in the Palestinian territories, an organizational arm of which has been responsible for terrorist attacks in Israel and elsewhere (Erlanger A1). Gabriel observes that, "Hamas today is already teaching to take back all Islamic land, starting with Spain." The threat of modern warfare, modeled on that of early history, is a continual source of frustration for Gabriel. She pinpoints a clash of civilizations as a present danger and a future possibility, motivated by a permanent ideology (Gabriel). Intrinsic to the religion is a desire to "dominate the world and convert all." From both theological and historical viewpoints, Gabriel believes that Islam is an impetus to violence.

This final interviewed expert for the position that Islam is an impetus to violence was Abul Kasem, author and contributor to many books on Islam. He believes that the religion acts as an impetus because of a historical and theological basis in "violence, murder, and plunder" (Kasem). He also finds justification for that violence in Muslim religious texts like the Qur'an. Terrorists, he says, "justify their actions" using several select verses (Kasem). Included in these is the Qur'anic sura 2:191, found in Firestone's fourth category of verses relating to violence.  Historically, the religion is replete with instances of bloodshed, Kasem observes, to the extent that "the history of Islam is the history of violence;" for instance, Muslims have repeatedly begun "unilateral war and forced annexation of foreign lands" throughout their religion's life. In talking about the history of violence in Islam, he even characterizes the faith as an example of "Arab imperialism" (Kasem). Imperialism is a word that has often characterized Islamic relations, but typically not against Muslims. Furthermore, Kasem agrees that "Islam is politics." Echoing Dr. Hussain's comments about similarities to Nazism, he sees the ideology that stems from Islam as "the politics of fascism and the political domination of the world" (Kasem). The narrow eligibility for the caliphate, which is open only to an Arab male from the Quraish tribe, is one example that Kasem cites. The manner in which the religion has tightened the political duties of caliph, "to rule the world by Islamic laws," to only a small number of Muslims shows the detrimental result of a combination of religion and politics (Kasem). Finally, Kasem believes that a clash of civilizations between "the civilized world" and the religion of Islam is "already here," noting the theological clarity of the Dar al-Harb perspective. Like it or not, he observes, we are "at war with Islam" (Kasem). Having examined the faith in both its theology and history, Kasem has found Islam to be an impetus to violence.

The interviews of experts holding the opposite opinion were also enlightening; Dr. Ervand Abrahamian, an author and history professor, was the first interviewed for his thoughts as to why Islam isn't an impetus to violence. He repeatedly emphasized the religion's similarity, in the matter of religiously motivated violence, to Christianity and Judaism. Asking whether religion motivates violence specifically in Islam is unnecessary, according to Dr. Abrahamian, because "you could ask the question of any religion." He says that there are aspects of Islam that can support violence and the violent, but that these exist in other religions also (Abrahamian). When asked if any relationship existed between the Qur'an and terrorism, Abrahamian dismissed all religious influence and instead reinforced political explanations. Modern terrorists, he says, do not think of their violence as anything from religious literature; it is simply "a political question" (Abrahamian). He also finds no discernable link between history and Islam's true nature. When studying a contemporary religious question, he states, "history doesn't tell you anything." More relevant to him than dwelling on the past is examining the present in detail.  Politically, Islam is fluid and multidimensional; Abrahamian repeatedly counters the "myth" of a single, monolithic Islam. He states that "Muslims have different interpretations" regarding Islamic political institutions (Abrahamian). Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations" theory is not valid for the same reason, according to Abrahamian, since it "presupposes a solid Islam." Finally, Dr. Abrahamian finds significant variations in attitudes toward the West and toward violence within Islam, for instance, between the Kurds of Iraq and the Muslims of North Africa. From a political perspective, Dr. Abrahamian finds that Islam is not an impetus to violence.

The second expert for the position that Islam is not an impetus to violence is Rev. Patrick Gaffney, a professor at the University of Notre Dame. Though the question of Islam's violent nature is, as he says, a difficult one, he believes that the religion itself is not an impetus to violence. Gaffney observes that "most Muslims are peaceful" and that violence is merely Islam's "public face." In the Qur'an, he maintains, "there's no warrant" for the kind of suicide bombings or terrorist attacks that some modern Muslims carry out; it might make reference to violence in encouraging the faithful to resist oppression or to defend themselves, but killing innocents is "not legitimate and not justified" in religious literature (Gaffney). For scholars and historians to be making so many inferences from the Qur'an, a book with "enormous weight," such study is "not a responsible way of reading" (Gaffney). Islamic history, Rev. Gaffney states, is a pattern of Muslims defending their God-given place at the forefront. Since the Cold War, the faithful have seen American dominance and the weakening of Islam as "a perversion, which shouldn't be" (Gaffney). It is now up to certain Muslims to fix this perversion and win back their divine position. A logical reaction to Islamic civil traditions, one that is both religious and secular, is to attempt to change political systems. Traditional Muslims, who desire both conformity and utopia, "seek to change" both church and state and frame them as two aspects of the same institution (Gaffney). Like Dr. Abrahamian, Gaffney finds the "Clash of Civilizations" theory "problematic" because of the multiplicity and fluidity of Islam. Its assertions, surrounding the actions and behaviors of different civilizations, conjure an image of "bumper cars" and would make the existence of multidimensional international organizations like the UN nearly impossible (Gaffney). An analysis of theology and history leads Rev. Gaffney to the conclusion that Islam is not an impetus to violence.

The final expert for the position that Islam is not an impetus to violence was Dr. Itzchak Weismann, a history professor in Haifa, Israel. In his opinion, imperialism and corrupt government, not religion, act as the primary catalysts for violence. He maintains that "Islam in itself" does not cause violence (Weismann). However, when "conditions of crisis" exist, protest movements can rally around Islamic thinking, and violence may result (Weismann). Dr. Weismann identifies "Western domination, authoritarian states, and economic distress" as catalysts for disaffection in Muslim populations. In this way, Islam and violence do not have a causal relationship but are both the results of external situations (Weismann). He concedes that there are verses in the Qur'an that can be interpreted as violent but also notes that terrorists deliberately and carefully choose these to affirm their worldview; they then "elaborate on such interpretations" (Weismann). Islamic theology may yield violence, he concludes, but it is the terrorists who manipulate it for their own advantage. Furthermore, Dr. Weismann utilizes a historical basis to support many of his assertions. Noting the universality of violence in a cultural context, he makes clear that "Islam was not more violent than other civilizations" (Weismann)  An example of this fact might include the history of Jews, who, as Weismann notes, "lived better under Islamic rule than Christian rule in Europe." Regarding the theory of a clash of civilizations between Islam and the West, Dr. Weismann holds that such a clash is possible but has not developed yet. If "leaders like Bush extended the war on terrorism" to other Islamic targets, a clash of civilizations is likely to develop (Weismann). Logic and a precise reading of history allow Dr. Weismann to conclude that Islam is not an impetus to violence.