|
|
Follow the Middle East Forum
|
|
|
Please take a moment to
visit and log in at the subscriber
area, and submit your city & country location. We will use this
information in future to invite you to any events that we organize in
your area.
Boko
Haram and the Dynamics of Denial
  Be the first of
your friends to like this.
It is a common refrain of pious Muslims in the face of atrocities done
by other Muslims in the name of Islam that Islam must not be shamed.
Whenever an Islamic atrocity potentially dishonors Islam, non-Muslims are
asked to agree that 'This is not Islamic' so that the honor of Islam can
be kept pristine. The real issue, however, is not what would be good or
bad for Islam's reputation; Islam is not the victim here. The pressing
issue is not to get people to think well of Islam, but how, for instance,
in the case of Boko Haram's kidnapping of the Nigerian schoolgirls, the
girls can be rescued and, above all, how Boko Haram's murderous rampage
can be halted.
Qasim Rashid, an American Muslim, recently published on FoxNews.com a
heart-felt expression of deep distress at the kidnapping of Nigerian
girls by Boko Haram ('What
would Muhammad say to Boko Haram'). He declared that Muhammad himself
would not recognize this group as acting in line with his teachings:
"Boko Haram's claim that Islam motivates their kidnappings is no
different than Adolf Hitler's claim that Christianity motivated his
genocide. This terrorist organization acts in direct violation of every
Islamic teaching regarding women."
Qasim Rashid is not the only Muslim who has been speaking out in
support of the kidnapped girls, while denying that their plight has
anything to do with Islam (see here).
Qasim Rashid is a member of the Ahmaddiyah community, which is
regarded as unorthodox by most Muslims. Indeed Ahmaddiyahs are often
severely persecuted for their beliefs in Islamic nations. Although Qasim
Rashid does not speak for mainstream Islam, he is nevertheless to be
commended for speaking up against Boko Haram's repugnant acts.
But does the claim that Boko Haram is not Islamic hold up to scrutiny?
What counts as a valid manifestation of Islam? Ahmaddiyah beliefs can
be considered Islamic, for those who hold them do so on the basis of a
reasoned interpretation of Islamic canonical sources, even if the
majority of Muslims reject them as Muslims. By the same token, the
beliefs of Boko Haram must also be considered a form of Islam, for they
too are held on the basis of a reasoned interpretation of Islamic
canonical sources.
It needs to be acknowledged that Boko Haram has not arisen in a
vacuum. As Andrew
Bostom has pointed out, violent opposition to non-Islamic culture has
been a feature of Nigerian Islam for centuries. Today this hatred is
being directed against Western education and secular government, but in
the past it was indigenous Africa cultures which were targeted for brutal
treatment, including enslavement and slaughter. The modern revival of
absolutist Sharia-compliant Islam in the north of Nigeria is a process
which has deep roots in history. It has also been in progress for
decades. Khalid Yasin, an African American convert to Islam and
globe-trotting preacher, waxed
lyrical about the advance of Sharia law in Nigeria on Australian
national radio in 2003:
"If we look at the evolution of the Sharia experiment in Nigeria
for instance. It's just a wonderful, phenomenal experience. It has
brought about some sweeping changes, balances, within the society,
regulations in terms of moral practices and so many things. …What did the
Sharia provide? Always dignity, protection, and the religious
rights?"
But let us consider the evidence Qasim Rashid gives for his view that
Muhammad would disown Boko Haram. His arguments can be summarized as
follows:
- 'Boko Haram
violates the Koran 24:34 [i.e. Sura 24:33] which commands, "and
force not your women to unchaste life," i.e. [this is] a
condemnation of Boko Haram's intention to sell these girls into
prostitution.'
- 'They violate
Koran 4:20 [i.e. Sura 4:19] which declares, "it is not lawful
for you to inherit women against their will; nor should you detain
them," i.e. a specific repudiation of Boko Haram's kidnapping
and detention.'
- 'Prophet
Muhammad's dying words embodied these commandments. He implored,
"Do treat your women well and be kind to them, for they are
your partners and committed helpers."'
- The seeking of
knowledge is an obligation on all Muslims, including 'secular
knowledge'.
- 'Islam … commands
female education.'
Although Qasim Rashid's views are sincerely held, his reasoning is
weak. Let us consider his points in order.
Compel not your slave-girls — Sura 24:33
Contra Qasim Rashid, Sura 24:33 does not say 'force not your women'
but:
"… compel not your slave-girls to prostitution when they desire
to keep chaste, in order to seek the frail goods of this world's life.
And whoever compels them, then surely after their compulsion Allah is
Forgiving, Merciful." (The Quran translation used here is cited from
a translation by Ahmaddiya scholar Muhammad Maulana Ali)."
The word translated 'slave-girl' here can also mean a young woman, but
in this passage it clearly refers to female slaves. A standard
interpretation of this verse by Sunni commentators – such as Ibn
Kathir – is that if someone owns a slave girl, he should not
prostitute her, but if he does, Allah will forgive her.
Strictly speaking, this verse does not appear to apply to the
situation of the Nigerian girls taken by Boko Haram. The outrage is that
they were taken captive and enslaved in the first place, becoming what
the Koran refers to as 'those whom your right hand possesses'. That they
may have been raped by their captors seems highly likely, but this is not
the same thing as being prostituted to produce income for their owners.
Islam permits men to have sexual intercourse with their slave women, and
also to sell them into the service of another, but it frowns on hiring
them out for prostitution.
In Sura 33:50 of the Koran it is stated that it was permissible for
Muhammad to have sex with his female slaves:
"O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou
hast paid their dowries, and those whom thy right hand possesses,
out of those whom Allah has given thee as prisoners of war"
In verse 23:6, this prerogative is extended to Muslim believers:
"Successful indeed are the believers … who restrain their sexual
passions except in the presence of their mates [their wives], of those
whom their right hands possess."
The actions and teaching of Muhammad also support the practice of
sexual slavery for women taken captive in jihad. Chapter 547 of the Sahih
Muslim, a revered collection of sayings of Muhammad considered
reliable by most Muslims, is entitled 'It is permissible to have sexual
intercourse with a captive woman…'. Abdul Hamid Siddiqi, the translator
and editor of the Sahih Muslim, added the following footnote to
this chapter:
"As for the expression malakat aymanukum (those whom your
right hands possess) [it] denotes slave-girls, i.e. women who were
captured in the Holy War … sexual intercourse with these women is lawful
with certain conditions."
Boko Haram is reported to be intending to sell the girls at a slave
market. This is no doubt based upon the precedent of Muhammad's own
practice. There are many examples from Muhammad's actions and those of
his companions which could be cited. For example, after putting the men
of the Jewish Quraiza tribe in Medina to the sword, Muhammad's biographer
Ibn Isaq reports that he sold some of the Jewish women and used the money
to buy horses and weapon:
"Then the apostle divided the property, wives, and children of B.
Qurayza among the Muslims, and he made known on that day the shares of
horse and men, and took out the fifth. … Then the apostle sent Sa'd b.
Zayd al-Ansari brother of b. 'Abdu'l-Ashhal with some of the captive
women of B. Qurayza to Najd and he sold them for horses and
weapons." (Sirat Rasul Allah, by Ibn Ishaq)
The rest of the Jewish slaves were divided among the Muslims. Muhammad
himself took one of the leading Jewish women, Rayhana, for his concubine,
but she refused to marry him:
The apostle had chosen one of their women for himself, Rayhana d. 'Amr
b. Khunafa, one of the women of B. 'Amr b. Qurayza, and she remained with
him until she died, in his power. The apostle had proposed to marry her
and put the veil on her, but she said: 'Nay, leave me in your power, for
that will be easier for me and for you.'" (Sirat Rasul Allah,
by Ibn Ishaq).
Rayhana, who became Muhammad's concubine by capture in warfare, is
revered to this day as one of the 'wives' of the prophet of Islam.
In addition to the support for this practice found in the Islamic
canon, historical sources give ample evidence that enslavement of women
as captives of war and resulting sexual servitude has been a persistent
feature of Islamic warfare conducted by pious Muslims. Consider for
example the report of Imad ad-Din al-Isfahani, Saladin's chronicler, of
the fate of 8,000 Christian women in Jerusalem who were unable to pay a
ransom for their release after the conquest of that city by Saladin:
"Women and children together came to 8,000 and were quickly
divided up among us, brining a smile to Muslim faces at their
lamentations. How many well-guarded women were profaned, how many queens
were ruled and nubile girls married, and noble women given away, and
miserly women forced to yield themselves, and women who had been kept
hidden stripped of their modesty, and serious women made ridiculous, and
women kept in private now set in public, and free women occupied, and
precious ones used for hard work, and pretty things put to the test, and
virgins dishonoured and proud women deflowered, and lovely women's red
lips kissed, and dark women prostrated, and untamed ones tamed, and happy
ones made to weep!" (Arab Historians of the Crusades, ed. by
Francesco Gabrieli, pp. 96-97).
It is has been widely accepted by Islamic jurists down the ages that
Islam permits Muslim men to have sex with women who have come into their
possession through being taken captive in war, either because they
personally captured them, or because they acquired them by purchase or
gift from another. Indeed this was the legal basis in Islam for the harem
system: the women of the harem were mainly sourced from jihad campaigns
waged against non-Muslim communities.
It is simply incredible that Qasim Rashid would quote a verse which
prohibits Muslim men from hiring out their concubines for sex as evidence
that Islam is against the use of sexual violence against captive women.
If we are supposed to deny the label 'Islamic' to Boko Haram, are we also
to conclude that Saladin and even Muhammad himself cannot be called
Muslims?
Inheriting and troubling wives — Sura 4:19
Sura 4:19 is another passage cited by Qasim Rashid. Maulana Muhammad
Ali's translation throws a different light on this passage:
"O you who believe, it is not lawful for you to take women as
heritage [i.e. to inherit them] against their will. Nor should you
straiten them by taking part of what you have given them …".
The standard explanation of this verse is that it prohibited two
practices: a man 'inheriting' the wife of his male relative, which had
apparently been a pagan Arab custom before Islam; and oppressing one's
wife in order to make her seek a divorce, so that she will pay back the
bride-price. This latter practice had been occurring in Muhammad's time,
because if a Muslim man divorced a wife, he was not entitled to any
financial compensation, but if a woman initiated divorce proceedings, she
had to compensate him for her bride-price. (See Ibn
Kathir and also Muhammad Ali's
explanation in footnotes which both concur with the explanation given
here.)
Sura 4:19 is thus not a prohibition against detaining women: it has
absolutely nothing to do with the situation of the captured Nigerian
girls.
Treating Your Women Well:
With regard to Muhammad's command to Muslims to treat their wives
well, these words could apply as an instruction for the men who have
married the captured girls, taking them as their wives. It says nothing,
however, about the issue of their capture, enslavement or sale.
On Seeking Secular Knowledge:
With regard to Qasim Rashid's next point, most pious Muslims would
agree that seeking knowledge, including Western scientific knowledge, is
an obligation for Muslims. Most Muslims do not agree with Boko Haram's
desire to banish all learning apart from Islamic instruction. However
antipathy to non-Islamic education and knowledge has had a long history
in Islamic thought. This is not a new idea, nor even a particularly
aberrant one, but is part of the broad range of Islamic theological
perspectives.
Learned Muslim Women in the Past:
With regard to Qasim Rashid's fifth argument, it is of course possible
to find examples in history of capable Muslim women who were
well-educated. On the other hand there are traditions of Muhammad which
denigrate the intellectual capacity of women, such as the following:
Once Allah's Apostle went out to [to pray] … Then he passed by the
women and said, "O women! Give alms, as I have seen that the
majority of the dwellers of Hell-fire were you (women)." They asked,
"Why is it so, O Allah's Apostle ?" He replied, "You curse
frequently and are ungrateful to your husbands. I have not seen anyone
more deficient in intelligence and religion than you …" The women
asked, "O Allah's Apostle! What is deficient in our intelligence and
religion?" He said, "Is not the evidence of two women equal to
the witness of one man?" They replied in the affirmative. He said,
"This is the deficiency in her intelligence. Isn't it true that a
woman can neither pray nor fast during her menses?" The women replied
in the affirmative. He said, "This is the deficiency in her
religion." (Sahih
Bukhari, Book 6, Hadith 301)
In any case, asking what Muhammad would say on the subject of
educating women is irrelevant to what Boko Haram has done. It did not
attack the girls' school because Boko Haram believes women should not be
educated. They did it because they are opposed to secular, non-Islamic
education per se, and they believe they have the right to kill, enslave
and plunder people who they count as their enemies. They also wish to
terrorize their enemies by stirring up as much fear and emotional trauma
to them as possible.
Islam Is Not The Victim Here:
Qasim Rashid writes: "Do not give the terrorists known as Boko
Haram the dignity of attributing any religion to their name." This
is a common refrain of pious Muslims in the face of atrocities done by
other Muslims in the name of Islam: whenever an atrocity dishonors Islam,
non-Muslims are asked to agree that 'This is not Islamic' so that the
honor of Islam can be kept pristine.
However the real issue is not what might be good or bad for Islam's
reputation. The sight of Boko Haram's leader saying
on video that 'by Allah' he will go to market and sell the captive girls,
because his religion permits him to do so, has already dishonored Islam.
Muhammad and Saladin, by their actions, could equally be considered to
have dishonored Islam, but this is beside the point. The real challenge
here is not preserving the honor of Islam, but what can be done to
counter Boko Haram.
What is crystal clear is that nothing can be gained by denial of the
truth about the jihadis' religious ideology. Other Muslims may — and do!
— disagree with Boko Haram's beliefs. That is a not a bad thing. But what
will not help anyone – least of all the victims of this outrage – is
putting forward weak arguments that no-one should judge Islam on the
basis of Boko Haram's actions. That line of thought is completely
irrelevant to addressing the problem.
Islam is not the victim here. The pressing issue here is not to get
people to think well of Islam, but how these girls can be rescued, and
above all how Boko Haram's murderous rampage can be halted.
To achieve progress with this second goal it is necessary first and
foremost to acknowledge the theological character of the challenge. In
historical contexts, such as colonial India and the Dutch East Indies,
colonial governments were able to turn the tide on long-running and
costly Islamic insurgencies by acknowledging the religious character of
the challenge they were facing – that they were up against a jihad. This
enabled them to pursue appropriate strategies, such as:
- Getting leading
mainstream Muslim scholars to issue credible rulings (fatwas) which
declared the specific jihad insurgency to be sinful and forbidden by
Islam. (Such fatwas continue to be used by Islamic regimes today to
counter their home-grown insurgents.)
- Making it a
primary military objective to pursue and take out the ideologues –
Islamic clerics – who were driving the insurgency through
recruitment and religious formation of the jihadi combatants. It is
essential to cut off the flow of ideology. US Navy Seals may be able
to go in and rescue the kidnapped girls, but many more girls will
continue to be kidnapped until the transmission of the ideology is
disrupted.
Attempting to persuade non-Muslim Westerners that Islam is not the
problem actually makes it much harder to formulate an effective strategy
for countering jihadi insurgencies. The aversion of the US State
Department to acknowledge that Boko Haram was an Islamic religious
movement – they only classified it as a banned terrorist organization in
late 2013 – has had a crippling effect on America's ability to make a
difference in Nigeria (see Nina
Shea's analysis).
Boko Haram will not be contained by sending in hostage negotiation
experts, or making public statements about poverty, disadvantage and
'poor government service delivery'. These are not the cause of all
this hatred. Acknowledging the potent religious roots of the insurgency
movement is the basic first step in shaping a credible response. To
accept this is not the same as saying that Boko Haram's interpretation of
Islam is correct. One can be completely agnostic about what is or is not
true Islam but yet grasp that Boko Haram is an interpretation of Islam,
which at least for its followers has become the most compelling interpretation
around. Finding a solution to the challenge of Boko Haram can only start
from this premise.
Mark Durie is a theologian, human rights activist, pastor of an
Anglican church, and an Associate Fellow at the Middle Eastern Forum. He
has published many articles and books on the language and culture of the
Acehnese, Christian-Muslim relations and religious freedom. A graduate of
the Australian National University and the Australian College of
Theology, he has held visiting appointments at the University of Leiden,
MIT, UCLA and Stanford, and was elected a Fellow of the Australian
Academy of the Humanities in 1992.
Related
Topics: Radical Islam
| Mark Durie This
text may be reposted or forwarded so long as it is presented as an
integral whole with complete and accurate information provided about its
author, date, place of publication, and original URL.
|
|
|
|
|
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment