Home > Melanie Phillips

Saturday 21 November 2009

Cartoons

�The police want to read the kids� �What I did during the school holidays� essay.�

The anti-jihadi debate

Wednesday, 21st November 2007

There was a riveting discussion in London yesterday evening, hosted by the Centre for Social Cohesion, between Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Ed Husain. Both of these courageous people have been warning the world about the dangers of Islamic extremism, but there is a crucial division between them. Hirsi Ali, the former Dutch MP who has lived in acute fear of her life ever since speaking out forcibly against the treatment of women in Islam (and whose disgraceful abandonment by both the Dutch and American authorities has been recorded here) believes that Islam is intrinsically totalitarian and violent and accordingly thinks that the distinction between Islam and Islamism (or political Islam) is a false one. Ed Husain, who chronicled his embrace and subsequent repudiation of Islamic extremism in his book The Islamist, firmly believes by contrast that Islamism is but one interpretation of Islam, and that the Islamic world can and must have a ‘renaissance’ in which it rediscovers its own religious traditions of peaceful co-existence which have been all but buried by the recent dominance of Wahabbism and other extremist interpretations.

This division of opinion, about whether or not Islam has the capacity to accommodate itself to the fundamental requirement to separate mosque from state and thus turn away from violence, is dividing the anti-jihadi world. Husain’s argument was plausible and attractive. It was only by drawing upon precepts within Islam’s pluralist tradition, he said, that he and others like him had been able to repudiate Islamism through grasping that the jihadis who once recruited them had sold them the falsehood that their Wahhabi doctrines were the only authentic version of a monolithic Islam. To his argument that Islamic theology was in fact pluralist, Hirsi Ali did not have a conclusive rejoinder. She stated that Islam meant submission to the will of God, pointed out the extremism of the Islamic world which largely accepted the primacy of the precepts of jihadi Medina over the more pacific Mecca, and drew attention to the global terrorism being perpetrated in the name of Islam. All this was true enough. But it did not answer the claim that there was a pluralist religious tradition on which the Islamic world could draw.

For his part, however, Husain did not answer the flip side of this question — that if such pluralist traditions had the authority he was claiming for them, how come the history of the Islamic world has been largely one of violent jihadi conquest whenever it has had the opportunity, not to mention the violence and oppression it practised towards other faiths (although not as bad as Christian upon Jew). He also said a few troubling things, claiming that the Muslim world had been anti-Nazi — thus obscuring the alliance between the Nazis and the Arabs of Palestine — and supporting on its face value the recent ‘peace’ letter from 138 Muslim scholars to the Christian churches, about which I have written here as a threatening ultimatum demanding ‘peace on our terms’.

Recovering Islamists have much baggage to jettison, and it can take time to throw it all overboard. The great question is whether they can do so without losing their faith: whether intellectual honesty can enable decent Muslims to follow the path taken by Ed Husain and others, as Muslims desperate to assert a civilised religious tradition, or must force them onto the path taken by Ayaan Hirsi Ali out of the religion altogether (and, in her own case, out of all faith).

I find Ed Husain’s arguments more persuasive. Although last night Ayaan Hirsi Ali acknowledged the distinction between Muslims and Islam and accepted that Muslims can achieve reform, the logic of her position is surely that there can be no space for Muslims like Ed Husain. But we know that there are and always have been Muslim individuals and communities who live peaceful and unthreatening lives and derive only spiritual sustenance from their faith. We know that religions which claim to rest on the immutability of God’s word nevertheless depend on human agency to interpret that word, which opens the way to alternative interpretations. And we also know that the history of a culture is no predictor of its future. Before the Reformation, Christianity was a savage religion that burned heretics and put meek Jews to the sword; in medieval times, who could have possibly envisaged that Christianity would come to underpin the central Enlightenment doctrine of the separation of church and state that gave rise to individual freedom and liberal democracy? As circumstances change, so people change. None of us is a prisoner of the past. There is currently a great debate raging within the Islamic world about all this. Who can say how it will end?

It is vital that this debate continues. And it is vital that both Ed Husain and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, along with both Muslims and ex-Muslims who take their lives in their hands to fight this fearsome threat that we all face, are properly supported, promoted and protected --and actually listened to. We have a duty towards such people no less than towards dissidents in the former Soviet Union. It is on the stand that they are taking, and the desperately important debate they are helping promote, that the future of our world depends.

Previous Back to Melanie Phillips Next

Blogs: Martin Bright | Susan Hill | Alex Massie | Coffee House | Faith Based

Actions: Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (24)

Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit

Malcolm Edwards

November 21st, 2007 2:45pm

Déjà vu Melanie, déjà vu. It would be nice to hear your opinion on things other than the Islamic Army of Darkness that Threatens Our Civilisation (your emphasis, not mine). What are your thoughts on the loss of 25 million child benefit records, for instance? Or the political situation in Pakistan? Or Zimbabwe? Or the IPCC report? This is becoming a single issue blog. It's repetitive, monotonous, and the Spectator deserves better.

Ian

November 21st, 2007 4:47pm

Dear Melanie, I respect and support much of what you say, but your comments about pre-Reformation Christianity are unreasonable. If they were true, there would have been no Reformation and no Jews. The Reformation did not come out of nowhere. The crimes you refer to should be laid at the feet of the power struggle that was, and is, the Vatican. The Reformation drew Christianity back to its Founder and was the most successful of a number of reforming movements over the centuries (Albigensians, Waldensians, Franciscans, Dominicans - the first two persecuted, the latter assimilated - just as examples). And anyway, the early church, mostly Jewish, was persecuted both by the Romans and the Jewish Authorities thus laying the foundations of a painful history. The Church lost its Jewish roots and became infected by Pagan anti-semitism. No-one is without sin in all this, but you are right in saying we do not have to be prisoners of the past. One thing Jews tend to forget, understandably as the Church seems to have forgotten it as well, is that Christians have signed up to believing in a Jewish God, a Jewish Book and a Jewish Messiah and all brought to us by Jews! Isn't it time we buried the hatchet?

Matt

November 21st, 2007 5:33pm

Because, Malcolm Edwards, Melanie has a better handle on what really matters than you appear to. 25 million benefit records is chaff in the wind by comparison. And a word to Melanie; of course there are "Muslim individuals and communities who live peaceful and unthreatening lives and derive only spiritual sustenance from their faith". But, to paraphrase Rod Liddle, "Some Muslims subscribe to a little bit of Islam, and some subscribe to a lot of Islam".

Laocoon

November 21st, 2007 6:06pm

Suppose the Islamists drop the idea of violent struggle (as they did in Egypt) and decide to go with a bottom-up, nonviolent imposition of their form of Islam - complete with decreased rights for women, special privileges for Muslims and for Islam, etc. It could all be done in the name of civil rights, religious freedom, multiculturalism, and so on. No jihad, just sharia. Would that make Melanie happy? If not, then why are we focusing on "violent jihad"? Does not the focus on "violent jihad" as the one and only problem leave us with no arguments against other problems?

Dee Ranged

November 21st, 2007 7:22pm

Melanie Do pleasse ignore the likes of Malcom Edwards and keep the balance of your commentaries exactly as they are. It's all very insightful stuff!

Alcuin

November 21st, 2007 10:04pm

"the logic of her position is surely that there can be no space for Muslims like Ed Husain" That is correct in virtually every Muslim majority country. Only in the West can Mr Husain practice his moderate Islam. Islam's patriarchal and misogynistic family dynamics lead to a high birthrate, just when the world needs it least. Demographics, given time, do the rest, as Lebanon has found. Lebanon's enlightened and pluralistic cafe society and affluence of the 1960s and 1970s has given way, under Muslim attack, to the brutal chaos of today. Malaysia has some serious issues, such as having religion defined at birth and laws (if not punishments) against apostasy. Turkey is held together by Ataturk's secularism enforced by the Army: Indonesia is similar. Just about every other Muslim country is intolerant, with rabid anti-Kuffar prejudice, laws and pogroms. It is important that the debate continues, but it cannot even get started in a Muslim country, so while Husain may persuade in the West, Hirsi Ali's position far better describes the Muslim world.

George Jochnowitz

November 21st, 2007 11:21pm

The Reformation did not prevent witches from being hanged in Salem, Massachusetts. The Reformation did not stop Calvin from burning heretics in Geneva. The Enlightenment was the beginning of the idea of freedom of religion.

Lee Jakeman

November 21st, 2007 11:50pm

Melanie's preoccupation with the Islamist threat is vindicated by the fact that it is currently the MAJOR threat to our well-being and security. It is not "just another issue" any more than the rise of Naziism was "just another issue" back in the 1930's.

David Saxon

November 21st, 2007 11:54pm

Malcolm Edwards, your reluctance to face up to the reality of the creeping Islamophilia spreading through the upper echelons of our society will not actually make the problem go away. We need writers like Melanie Phillips to help bring this civilisation of ours back down to planet earth and give us a chance of ensuring our survival.

Keep up the good work, Melanie. It is much appreciated.

Wally

November 22nd, 2007 1:03am

"the violence and oppression it practised towards other faiths (although not as bad as Christian upon Jew)" Perhaps the perspective would be slightly altered if more emphasis were placed on the Christianity of the victims of the Armenian massacres ( a lot of Assyrian Christians were killed at the same time.) One reason for remembering the year 1066 is that 4000 Jews in Granada were killed by Muslims on a single day in that year. Mohammed's final word on the subject (which is the only one that counts in Islamic theology) is that infidels should be offered the choice of circumcision, tribute or death (if they weren't people of the book, scratch the tribute bit). Islam is incorrigible.

ed lancey

November 22nd, 2007 8:07am

Melanie, I think it is wishful thinking on your part to see hope in Ed Husain's idea of Islam. The obvious step for him to take is Apostasy and his failure to recognise the utter redundancy of Islam, as Hirsi Ali has, only shows that he is still deluding himself. And, unfortunately, you as well.

Mladen Andrijasevic

November 22nd, 2007 12:35pm

And which doctrine among the pluralist religious tradition, on which the Islamic world could draw, actually rejected jihad?

Neil Ferguson

November 22nd, 2007 2:57pm

I suspect that any 'Islamist' threat which may or may not exist will dissipate following the removal of the present incumbent of the Oval Office. But the vast majority of the British public don't worry about such things anyway, and why should they? Consider what really matters - housing, schools, hospitals - not some Muslim bogeyman hiding behind the curtains. The demonisation of Islam by the media (and Phillips, especially) should stop. Get a grip on reality, please.

Dominic

November 22nd, 2007 3:42pm

Those who have followed the plight of Ayaan Hirsi Ali and her appalling treatment by the Dutch government might be interested in a fund set up for her security. You can find details by visiting the website of author Sam Harris: www.samharris.org

Hillary

November 22nd, 2007 6:26pm

Malcolm Edwards said: 'Déjà vu Melanie, déjà vu. It would be nice to hear your opinion on things other than the Islamic Army of Darkness that Threatens Our Civilisation (your emphasis, not mine)." ---- Excuse me, but, nothing endangers our world as [radical] Islam is, it's not radical Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindus that are on a campaign of slaughtering those that "believe otherwise" [with or without silly excuses of "occupation" and other nonsense], or to dominate the world (Caliphate anyone?).

Leon Maartin

November 22nd, 2007 7:14pm

Neil Ferguson is an example of the ignorance and denial that exists in the western world re the threat of islam. When will these people ever learn? I can only assume that they have not read sufficiently or that they are simply prepared to let the BBC brainwash them. We have to ignore these useful idiots to the islamic cause and continue to try to wake people up. Melanie you are playing an important role in that process. Please continue.

Ahmad Hamdan

November 22nd, 2007 11:33pm

Yes Melanie, go, go, go... Win the world cup...

yhva

November 22nd, 2007 11:40pm

Comparing muslims to nazis is dangerous, unless you are looking for a similar comparison between nazis and others who occupied, occupy others landand killed or killing people every day, aiming to eliminate them completely to get the land only for themselves (we have lots of exemples in the world)...

Gabriel

November 23rd, 2007 2:22am

George J, only one man was ever execute in Calvin's Geneva for heresy, namely Servetus for his rejection of the trinity. Your point is not wholly unsound, but you rather embarass yourself with that sort of mistake.

Marc Silver

November 23rd, 2007 3:42pm

Islam's primal flaw is that it has only one prophet. Muslims voluntarily commit themselves to believing everything an unknown scribe wrote about what a single mortal man (Mohammed)said about what a single angel (Gabriel) told him about what Allah said. To believe this mortal, fallible grape-vine as if it were the voice of God is in effect to worship each link as if it were God Himself. The outcome of radical monothesism is monarchy and tyranny in all its forms. Judaism has many prophets, many voices speaking from different perspectives. Christianity has many apostles, likewise with divergent views and priorities. When the public finally got access to the various views of the biblical writers via Gutenberg's invention, the monoploy of Rome was broken and freedom of individual opinion was born. Diversity in divine revelation naturally produces democratic societies where everyone's opinion is valued, but none is worshipped. The basic premise of western democracy is that every human is the voice for moral inspiration, everyone a priest and prophet. Each has a vital piece to the human puzzle, so all are to be honored and protected Can Muslims ever accept this model? Or shall right always be determined by might-- by the ability to cast into hell those who disagree with you?

Guardian Apostate

November 23rd, 2007 4:07pm

This very issue is dealt with by Hugh Fitzgerald of Jihad Watch. I recommend reading it all but here's a taste:

'The Ed Husains of this world are not as great an advance as their sponsors and promoters appear to think. For they encourage non-Muslims to believe that they can continue to behave as if it is not core teachings of Islam that are the problem, but merely this or that "interpretation" of Islam, and that Ed Husain, who can hardly be expected to have much impact, or to prevail against the good doctors of Al-Azhar and Qom, hardly be expected to win over a billion people who know, and are constantly re-taught, what is in Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira.

A false hope, and the wrong hope, and therefore -- a dangerous hope.

Stick with Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Ibn Warraq, Wafa Sultan. Accept no substitutes, no matter how nice they are or may seem to be'.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/018894.php#more

North American

November 23rd, 2007 9:58pm

Excellent article, Melanie. I always enjoy hearing your thoughts on different subject matters.

Regarding other comments, I would advise them to actually get to know some Muslims personally and become friends with them. I have become friends with them on my North American college campus and there are many who "derive only spiritual sustenance" from their faith. They are very kind people and they are excellent contributers to their community.

It's important that we find the balance between understanding the threat of Islamism and creating a Red Scare against all Muslims. Unfortunately, it's usually two sides - one side is tolerant of Muslims and tolerates the extermists, and the other half rejects extremists but arouse suspicion in all Muslims.

My problem with organizations such as Jihad Watch is that they do not offer any solutions or hope to the world within Islam, nor do they listen to moderate Muslims. Islam is the world's second largest religion and simply dismissing reform-minded and moderate Muslims such as Ed Husain, Irshad Manji, or Reza Aslan would not just be grave mistake, but it would be unproductive. Their only constituency are conservative non-Muslims. Now, I think it's important that they address human rights violations in the name of Islam, but to create a Green Scare and paranoia against Muslims would be a mistake.

I am a member of Project Ijtihad, created by Irshad Manji, which has goals to work with reform-minded Muslims to create a change throughout the world including the empowerment of women through micro-business loans among other things. It's important that we support ex-Muslims because they have left the faith b/c of human rights violations, one that we must take seriously, but in terms of reforming the way Islam is praticed, it is imperative that we listen to Muslims such as Ed Husain, so they can reach out to the entire Muslim world to show that Islam can be practiced in a humane way along with Christianity and Judaism.

ed fisjer

November 24th, 2007 9:16am

@North American I assume from your moniker that you are actually Canadian. That says it all - the annoying mixture of sanctimony and banality.

Max Kaye

November 24th, 2007 6:00pm

Marc Silver says "Islam's primal flaw is that it has only one prophet.". If we're going to be honest, one should point out that Islam's 'primal flaw' - just like Judaism's and Christianity's - is the belief that an almighty supernatural being made and rules the Universe. Once one believes that kind of nonsense one is capable of believing anything.

Most read
Most commented on

1 CoffeeHousers' Wall 16 November - 22 November (126)

2 Eastern uprising - David Blackburn (78)

3 The liberal centre’s continuing confusion on challenging the BNP - David Blackburn (57)

4 Letting his opinions be known - James Forsyth (54)

5 Elected police commissioners are a test of whether the Tories are serious or not about their agenda - James Forsyth (45)

Melanie Phillips is a Daily Mail columnist. She also writes for the Jewish Chronicle and is a panellist on BBC Radio Four's Moral Maze. Her most recent book is 'Londonistan', published by Encounter and Gibson Square.

For a complete set of Melanie's articles click here