Carrie Rushman

UHP 100

October 18, 2001

Recent events have caused people, especially Americans, to become more curious about Islam, since Bin Laden and other terrorists use Islam to justify their actions. Many, especially Muslims who fear American retaliation or rely on American purchases, are eager to assert that Bin Laden and other Muslim terrorists are not following Islam, that attacks such as those that have recently occurred conflict with the teachings of Islam. One individual who asserts that the terrorist attacks are not a part of Islam is Khaled Abou El Fadl, a professor at UCLA Law School. He has authored "Rebellion and Political Violence in Islamic Law" and wrote an article entitled "What Became of Tolerance in Islam?" which appeared in the Los Angeles Times on September 14, 2001.

The following is a summary of El Fadl's article. He says that "extreme acts of violence and evil" test the strength and character of both the aggressive and attacked societies involved. He calls to mind the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and our nation's internment of Japanese Americans. When Americans have been attacked in the past, he claims, we have retaliated against our own citizens and later apologize and talk "about lessons learned." The recent terrorist attacks, called the "second Pearl Harbor," El Fadl fears, will result in violence toward Muslim and Arab Americans. Expecting such retaliation, Muslim and Arab organizations have made public statements condemning terrorism and "hate-motivated violence," and claim that those responsible for these acts, though they are Muslim, "do not represent Muslims at large, Islam or anyone else."

However, El Fadl says Americans still have reason to stop and think about our policies regarding the Middle East and Muslims should be reflecting on "the state of their culture and ... the Islamic civilization." As a Muslim, he considers the terrorist attacks an aberration of Islam, but also an "extreme manifestation" of ideologies "prevalent" in Islamic culture, the result of "cumulative cultural and rhetorical dynamics." El Fadl says that Islamic law condemns terrorism, the "taking or slaying of hostages or diplomats" even as justice for wrongs committed, and "stealth or indiscriminate attacks against enemies." Islamic jurists, he claims, consider the above unethical acts of cowardice. He admits that these attitudes are not widely held by or even very familiar to modern "Arab-Muslim culture." Official media and "popular cultural venues such as mosques" feed Muslims "highly opportunistic and belligerent rhetoric," which El Fadl calls "irresponsible and unethical."

El Fadl asks, "What happened to the civilization that produced such tolerance, knowledge, and beauty throughout its history?" He says that the Islamic civilization was wiped out by "aggressive and racist" European civilizations, the Palestinians were exiled, massacres occurred, and "despotic and exploitative regimes" have taken over Muslim countries. Chiefly he says that a "dogmatic, puritanical, and ethically oblivious form of Islam," which rejects juristic tradition and moral values has "predominated since the 1970s." It insists on a literal interpretation of Islamic law and emphasizes the "mechanics and technicalities of Islamic law." He says this practice of Islam is caused by a feeling of powerlessness, and is seen in "symbolic displays of power" against Muslims, non-Muslims, and Muslim women and "erotic fantasies of virgins in heaven submissively catering to the whim and desire of men." He states that this false theology is "alienated" from the modern "institutions of power" and the Islamic "heritage and tradition." El Fadl blames Islamic intellectuals who "defend Islam" through "rampant apologetics" who caused Muslims to be arrogant and blame-throwing, "paying homage to the presumed superiority" of Islam but "marginalizing this idealistic image in everyday life." These intellectuals justified terrorism. He says that today ease has won out over the "incentive for introspection and critical insight." It is reasonable for Islamic organizations to be worried about hate crime and stereotypes. El Fadl concludes by accusing Muslims of stereotyping and ignoring their own faith, and says he is not surprised that extremists have "taken this tendency to its logical and heinous extreme."

El Fadl was off to a bad start by comparing the recent terrorist attacks to Pearl Harbor. In the case of Pearl Harbor, America was attacked by a country. In the current disaster, America has been attacked by a relatively small, independent group, not by a country or even a religion. The motivation for Pearl Harbor was purely political, while the latest terrorist attack is motivated by the religious beliefs of a specific group within Islam. Finally, El Fadl concludes that Americans respond to aggression by attacking American citizens. True, we did make this mistake in WWII, but on what other occasions did we have this response? El Fadl indicates that this has been a trend, but doesn't offer any other examples besides that of Pearl Harbor.

In the fifth paragraph, El Fadl is guilty of the very same stereotyping he condemns in his concluding paragraph when he describes Arabs as "dark-skinned people." In addition, he uses the terms "Arab" and "Muslim" interchangeably, as though all Arabs are Muslim. While it may be true that most Arabs are Muslim, it is unfair to non-Muslim Arabs to lump them in with a religion that they may disagree with, or may even be persecuted by.

The author also fails to define critical vocabulary. What exactly constitutes Islamic law? El Fadl could be referring to solely the Koran, the Koran and hadiths, the Koran, hadiths, and fatwas, the hadiths, fatwas, and writings of Islamic scholars, or even unwritten traditions of Islam. Then he uses the term "classical Islamic law" without explaining how this is different from non-classical Islamic law. Is it based on time period, the source, or some other factor? How, if classical Islamic law is not followed or discussed in modern Islamic centers, did the author come to know about the classical viewpoint? In researching Islam, it is difficult to find works, besides the Koran, by Islamic scholars written before 1900, especially that have been translated into English. At California State University, Long Beach, I was only able to find one book that had excerpts from the most respected and universally excepted hadith, and it was in Arabic.

I found myself questioning El Fadl's faithfulness to Islam. He refers to the teachings he received in his faith as "rhetoric" and calls mosques mere "popular cultural venues," completely overlooking their purpose in Islam. Mosques are places of learning and prayer. A mosque is an appropriate place to learn about Islam. Finally, El Fadl also gives the impression that "erotic fantasies of virgins in heaven submissively catering to the whim and desire of men" have no part in Islam. The Koran, which is believed to be the very word of God in Islam, says that those who give alms to the poor and orphans will be waited on by "virgins chaste and fair... Dark-eyed virgins sheltered in their tents whom neither man nor jinnee will have touched before" in the afterlife (Koran, 21. See also 110, 117) It may be true that the extent to which Muslim men focus on passages like this one does not quite mesh with Islam, but El Fadl cannot legitimately claim that Islam doesn't have some of this mentality built in. Similarly, the Koran says, "The unbelievers among the People of the Book (Jews and Christians) and the pagans shall burn for ever in the fire of Hell. They are the vilest of all creatures. But of all creatures that embrace the Faith and do good works are the noblest." (29)

El Fadl criticizes Islamic intellectuals for "'defending Islam' by rampant apologetics," but he might as well criticize the Koran, which spends much time defending Islam and the prophet Mohammed. A Muslim who engages in apologetics could easily do nothing but quote the Koran. The reader of the Koran is constantly told that Allah is God, Mohammed is his prophet who deserves the utmost respect, and that Islam is the only religion Allah accepts. Anyone who doesn't accept Islam will "drink boiling oil."

Finally, El Fadl does not give evidence of the tolerance he claims Islam once had. Under the leadership of the great Prophet, the Jewish tribe of al-Nadhir was "crushed and expelled," the Jewish tribe of Qurayza was raided and 800 men were beheaded when they refused to convert, while their women and children were sold into slavery, and the Jewish tribe of Khaybar was wiped out. The only notable treaty made by Mohammed was with the Quraysh, who acknowledged Mohammed's right to convert their people without interference. When the Quraysh broke the treaty, Mohammed took over Mecca, and all the Meccans converted to Islam. In the Koran, Muslims are forbidden to make friends with an unbeliever, and the actions of Mohammed's army are considered acts of Allah's judgement, very similar to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.

El Fadl does not demonstrate a thorough knowledge or understanding of the Islamic faith. Even worse, he openly contradicts and denies the Koran and Islamic scholars. While it may be true that Islam today is devoid of any real sense of morality, as El Fadl claims, it is not due only to bad teaching in mosques or bad ideologies promoted in the media, but also to the lack of morality teachings in the Koran itself. Moral judgments and messages are few and far between in the Koran: most of the text consists of praise of Allah, condemnation of non-Muslims for rejecting Mohammed, and promises of paradise to those who follow Allah and his Prophet in Islam. It seems likely that El Fadl, if he realized that the "rhetoric" he has heard is not so very far from the mark, might risk execution and reject Islam. As El Fadl's confusion of "Arab" with "Muslim" or the insistence by Muslims that the Koran is only the exact word of Allah when it is in Arabic might suggest, the purpose of Islam was and is to unite an ethnic group, not to establish a world religion.

Source

The Koran. Translation by Dawood, N. J. London, England: N. J. Dawood. 1956.