My
Journey Out of Radical Islam
by Ammar Anwer
Special to IPT News
January 19, 2017
|
|
|
|
|
Share:  
|
  Be the
first of your friends to like this.
 I grew up in
Rawalpindi, a city in the Punjab province of Pakistan, in a family who had
links with the Deoband school of thought (A sub-sect of Sunni Islam in the
sub-continent) and Jamaat-e-Islami, the largest Islamist Party in the
sub-continent. I was inspired by the influential Islamist scholar of the
20th century, the founder of Jamaat -e-Islami, Maulana Syed Abul Ala
Maududi.
Maududi thought that a state could either be religious or irreligious.
Therefore, he did not agree with the view that secularism is just the
separation of religion from a state's affairs. In fact, he strongly argued
that secularism would give rise to atheism, or a lack of belief, in
society. He saw religion as the ultimate source of morality, therefore,
when people become un-Islamic, society would also become unethical.
I liked the way he tried to counter Western thought and presented Islam
as an alternative to Western democracy and secularism. This was rare,
especially, since most of the Islamic scholars are not very aware of
Western ideologies. His arguments intrigued me.
As an Islamist, I also believed that Islam is a complete code of life
and it is our prime duty to establish its influence all across the globe. I
regarded politics as a vital and fundamental part of Islam. I also
concurred with Maududi's view that without politics, Islam becomes
incomprehensible and utterly empty, as if it were bereft of more than
three-fourths of its components.
In this view, politics is the dominant component in Islam. If we
disregard politics then it would be like disregarding most of Islam. I
advocated severe punishments for apostasy and blasphemy. I believed that
both the apostates and blasphemers deserve the death penalty. But I also
believed that non-Muslims should have full rights to practice their faith.
They should be allowed to build their own places of worship.
My views on women and LGBT community were appalling, and I only feel
disgust when I recall them. I regarded homosexuality to be an un-natural
act and against the directives of God. On women, I believed that they
should not be the head of the state.
My thinking changed a few years later when I was reading about Islamic
scholars who opposed the partition of India. I came across a great scholar
and political figure of India, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad.
Azad was an esteemed literary figure, poet, religious scholar and a
unique statesman.
He was trained as a journalist and started his career as a pan-Islamist.
Azad's ideas changed dramatically after his association with Mahatma Gandhi
during the 1920s and the campaign of non-violence. Azad gave up
pan-Islamism and embraced Indian secular nationalism. He provided Islamic
arguments to support his stance on united secular India. He believed that
the concept of composite nationalism is the teachings of Islam.
"I am a Muslim, and this fills me with pride," he proclaimed in his party's presidential address in 1940.
"But in addition to these feelings, I am also the possessor of
another, which has been created by the stark realities of my external life.
The soul of Islam is not a barrier to this belief: in fact, it guides me in
this path. I am proud to be an Indian. I am an integral part of this
unified and impartible nation."
Azad considered it impractical to suggest that Muslims could be unified
into a single state, known as a caliphate, only by the same faith.
"It is one of the greatest frauds on the people to suggest that
religious affinity can unite areas which are geographically, economically,
linguistically and culturally different," Azad wrote in his
autobiography, India Wins Freedom.
Azad sought the basis of his political alliance with the Indian National
Congress, on the basis of Charter of Medina.
According to Azad, when the Prophet Muhammad migrated from Mecca to
Medina to escape persecution, he drew up a treaty between the Jewish tribes
of Medina and the Muslims. Medina's Muslims and Jews were to enjoy equal
rights, including full religious freedom, and they were to be considered a
single nation. They were also to jointly work for the protection of Medina
from external enemies.
In this agreement, known as the Charter of Medina, Muhammad declared Medina's
Jews and Muslims a single nation notwithstanding their religious
differences.
I already had doubts regarding pan-Islamism – Muslims are not
monolithic, and it seems almost impossible to unite all sects and cultural
differences into a single state. Azad's comments provided the push I needed
to give up on Islamism.
As a former Islamist, I believe that the radical Islam we are
experiencing today is based on a certain interpretation.
Islam is a religion and Muslims are the people who follow it. Islamism is
the political and totalitarian interpretation of Islam. Unlike most
Muslims, an Islamist believes that his faith assigns him political and
social responsibilities. Not all Muslims are Islamists, but every Islamist
is a Muslim. Islamism presents Islam as a deen (way of life) and not just a
madhab (religion). It does not just apply only to an individual, but is a
set of guidelines that must be implemented all over the world.
Jihad is central to this interpretation. The very purpose of jihad,
according to this school of thought, is to spread Islam's dominance over
the world.
"It is the nature of Islam to dominate, not to be dominated, to
impose its laws on all nations and to extend its power to the entire
world," Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna famously said.
Similarly, Sayyid Qutb, another famous Muslim Brotherhood ideologue,
wrote in his book, Milestones:
"The abolition of man-made laws cannot be achieved only through
preaching. Those who have usurped the authority of God and are oppressing
God's creatures are not going to give up their power merely through
preaching." [Pointing towards an armed struggle].
Many Muslims, along with the political far-left, are in denial about
radical Islam. Anyone who dares to use the term "radical Islam"
is immediately labeled as an "Islamophobe." They deny reality.
When ISIS beheads innocent people or attacks Paris and Brussels, it
believes that such acts are a religious obligation. When Islamist
terrorists mistreat and enslave women and persecute homosexuals, it is
because they interpret verses such as 4:24 and 7:80-84 that seem to justify it. This is a theological
issue that I have discussed on various media outlets. It is the reason I
support reformist scholars, like Javed Ahmed Ghamidi, who are highly critical of radical
Islam. Ghamidi is a modernist Islamic scholar who has vehemently criticized
religious fundamentalism. He also spoke against the Pakistan's blasphemy law which is often used to harm and mistreat
religious minorities. His modern views almost cost him his life, while his
closest associate, Muhammad Farooq Khan, was killed by the Taliban.
Reform seems to be the only long-term solution to the ever increasing
menace of radical Islam. Therefore, when the far-left and many Islamic
organizations label Muslim reformists and the critics of radical Islam as
"anti-Muslim," they benefit and comfort the Islamists. Islamists
do not want to see people from within the Muslim community challenging
their religious authority.
Not long ago, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) smeared liberal and
reformist Muslim Maajid Nawaz as an "Anti-Muslim extremist."
Ironically, SPLC claims to stand against hate, intolerance and discrimination,
but by doing such brainless acts, it collaborates with Islamic extremists.
This discourages brave progressive voices that are coming out from within
the Muslim community.
I am happy that I walked away from Islamism. Today, instead of being dogmatic,
I advocate secularism, democracy, freedom, and equality. It is always
difficult to leave your roots. Many people find themselves in a battle
against their own souls. I fought the very same battle and won.
We need to address the ideological roots of radical Islam. Without doing
this – and without supporting the Muslims who are confronting this ideology
– we will never be able to counter it.
Ammar Anwer is an ex-Islamist who writes for The
Nation, Pakistan Today and other media outlets. He
believes in secularism and democracy and aspires to see Pakistan become a
pluralistic state.
Related Topics: , Islamism,
Maulana
Syed Ala Maududi, Deobandi,
Jamaat-e-Islami,
women's
rights, homosexuality,
Maulana
Abul Kalim Azad, Charter
of Medina, Hassan
al-Banna, Sayyid
Qutb, Milestones,
Javed
Ahmed Ghamidi, Muslim
reformers, Muhammad
Farooq Khan, Maajid
Nawaz
|
Print
Send
Comment
RSS
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment