Blog

In Remembrance of “911”

Eighteen years ago today, a group of Wahhabi Sunnis, a strictly orthodox Muslim sect that advocates a return to the early Islam of the Quran and Sunna, planned methodically and meticulously to fly four large commercial aircraft filled with people into iconic buildings in New York City and Washington, DC. Their plans succeeded, in the main, to the eternal shock and eventual anger of America.

I, like many others, accept that a large proportion of Muslims seek only to live in peace. So, how do we explain—understand—the gap between these peace-loving Muslims and the religious terrorists who attacked our country and all the good for which it stands?

Our first task is to understand that Islam has several sects and groups. The two largest groups are the Sunni and the Shi`ite. Yet, there are several other sects that have split off from these two large groups. 

The Baha’is and Ahmadiyyas are 19th-century offshoots of Shi`ite and Sunni Islam, respectively. Bahai’s consider themselves to be a distinct religion, but admit to an historical root in Shi`ite Islam. Ahmadiyyas consider themselves Muslims. The vast majority of other Muslims hold that neither group is a legitimate form of Islam and regard them as heretics. Under Sharia, heretics are blasphemers— people who have corrupted and abandoned Islamic belief and practice—and, as such, are subject to a sentence of death. These sects have suffered great violence at the hands of more orthodox Muslims.

Another sect is the Sufis. Although they are generally considered Muslims, many conservative Sunni Muslims regard Sufism as a corruption of Islam.

Three other small groups, Druze, Alevis, and `Alawis split off from Islam and hold unorthodox beliefs and practices. Druze and Alevis do not regard themselves as Muslims and are not considered Muslims by other Muslims. `Alawis have various non-Islamic practices, and debate continues as to whether they should be considered Muslims.

So, Muslims come in variety of forms, some peaceful and others, not. Therein lies the rub. The question then becomes how closely does a Muslim or Muslim sect adhere to Islamic religious texts, as presented by Mohammed and as lived by the Wahhabis.

The literal writings of the Quran and Sunna^[1]clearly demonstrate that Islam is a religion of both intolerance and subjugation of non-Muslims. There is no alternative conclusion that admits to the literal content of the Quran and Sunna, and it follows that Muslims wishing to live true to these texts, such as the Wahhabis, are called to violence against, and oppression of, non-Muslims. 

Many violent groups operating in the Middle East, such as ISIS, are not composed of radicalMuslims, as the media often calls them. Quite the contrary, members of these groups practice Sharia Law to the letter as true followers of Mohammed, and, consequently the religious texts that he authored, are called to do. It is no coincidence that Jews, Christians, and other non-Muslims have been the continual brunt of discrimination under Dhimmi laws^[2]and the victims of repeated and sustained violence against person and property^[3]in Muslim-dominated countries, particularly those governed by Sunni and Shi`ite leaders. 

One seeming solution would be for those Muslims who reject the wealth of prejudice and violence toward Kafirs (i.e., infidels) that can be found in the Quran and Sunna—the true radicalMuslims—to revise those religious texts and resultant practices to reflect what they believe Allah’s true intent and disposition toward non-Muslims to be.

In a paper “Historical Methodology and the Believer”delivered at the June in 2010 Symposium of the New English Reviewin Nashville, Ibn Warraq, a leading apostate from Islam, said:

“Without criticism of Islam, Islam will remain unassailed in its dogmatic, fanatical, medieval fortress; ossified, totalitarian and intolerant. It will continue to stifle thought, human rights, individuality, originality and truth. Western intellectual Islamologists have totally failed in their duties as intellectuals. They have betrayed their calling by abandoning their critical faculties when it comes to Islam.”

As outlined by Mr. Warraq, reforming Islam is not an easy task and sure to be opposed, violently, by those who cling to jihad and subjugation of non-Muslims, as one sect, the Sufis understand. William Dalrymple, in an August 16, 2010 op-ed piece in the “New York Times” wrote:

“Feisal Abdul Rauf of the Cordoba Initiative is one of America’s leading thinkers of Sufism, the mystical form of Islam, which in terms of goals and outlook couldn’t be farther from the violent Wahhabism of the jihadists. His videos and sermons preach love, the remembrance of God (or “zikr”) and reconciliation. His slightly New Agey [sic] rhetoric makes him sound, for better or worse, like a MuslimDeepak Chopra. But in the eyes ofOsama bin Laden and the Taliban, he is an infidel-loving, grave-worshiping apostate; they no doubt regard him as a legitimate target for assassination.

For such moderate, pluralistic Sufi imams are the front line against the most violent forms of Islam. In the most radical parts of the Muslim world, Sufi leaders risk their lives for their tolerant beliefs, every bit as bravely as American troops on the ground in Baghdad andKabuldo. Sufism is the most pluralistic incarnation of Islam — accessible to the learned and the ignorant, the faithful and nonbelievers — and is thus a uniquely valuable bridge between East and West.

The great Sufi saints like the 13th-century Persian poet Rumi held that all existence and all religions were one, all manifestations of the same divine reality. What was important was not the empty ritual of the mosque, church, synagogue or temple, but the striving to understand that divinity can best be reached through the gateway of the human heart: that we all can find paradise within us, if we know where to look. In some ways Sufism, with its emphasis on love rather than judgment, represents the New Testament of Islam.”

Where do we go from here? In accepting the 1970 Nobel Prize in Literature, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn said:

“The spirit of Munich^[4]has by no means retreated into the past; it was not merely a brief episode. I even venture to say that the spirit of Munich prevails in the 20th century. The timid civilized world has found nothing with which to oppose the onslaught of a sudden revival of barefaced barbarity, other than concessions and smiles. The spirit of Munich is a sickness of the will of successful people; it is the daily condition of those who have given themselves up to the thirst after prosperity at any price, to material well-being as the chief goal of earthly existence. Such people—and there are many in today’s world—elect passivity and retreat, just so as their accustomed life might drag on a bit longer, just so as not to step over the threshold of hardship today—and tomorrow, you’ll see, it will all be all right. But it will never be all right! The price of cowardice will only be evil; we shall reap courage and victory only when we dare to make sacrifices.”

Many non-Muslims are well past the point of indifferent diffidence as reflected in Solzhenitsyn’s comments. Ultimately, the world will not exempt Islam, Mohammed, and Muslims violently adhering to the Quran and Sunna from the slightest criticism while Christianity and all other religions receive no such protection from public or private offense. Nor will we non-Muslims hold our tongues and cap our pens because Muslims, such as the Wahhabis, require us to do so if we are to escape their wrath. Non-Muslims are not welcome mats for the rabid followers of Mohammed and we will not accept Dhimmi status. The stage is set for a confrontation between Islam and the rest of the world. Will Muslims travel a path like that of the Sufis and enter a peaceful contest for the spiritual hearts and minds of men and women or that of the Wahhabis and engage in a catastrophic prelude to the Armageddon? 

^[1]Among the most respected works regarding Sharia Law is the book Reliance of the Traveller, written by Nuh Ha Mim Kellerin the fourteenth century.

^[2]These laws offer specified protections and limited rights to non-Muslims who pay a special tax and abide by a set of restrictions discussed later in this paper.

^[3]See inter aliaPeters, Joan, From Time Immemorial. Chicago: JKAP Publications, 2002.

^[4]In using the phrase “spirit of Munich”, Solzhenitsyn refers to the foreign policy of nations (e.g., Great Britain during the years leading up to WWII) to refuse to confront a threat, and, instead seek peace and security through appeasement. The phrase refers to Neville Chamberlain’s claim to have secured “peace for our time” as a result of the 1938 Munich Agreement with Hitler.