[Via FrontPage Magazine]
Due to its rarity, it’s always notable whenever a top Islamic leader publicly acknowledges the threat of Islamic radicalism and terror. And yet, such denunciations never seem to go beyond words—and sometimes not even that.
Thus, in “An Arab Prince Denounces Islamism,” Daniel Pipes highlights “a remarkable but thus-far unnoticed address on Dec. 5” by Salman bin Hamad Al-Khalifa, the crown prince of Bahrain. In his address, the prince “candidly analyzed the Islamist enemy and suggested important ways to fight it.”
After discussing the positive aspects of this speech, Pipes remarks:
So far, perfect. But Salman avoids the bitter reality that the “twisted” and “barbaric” ideology he describes is specifically Islamic and the theocrats are all Muslim: “this war that we are engaged in cannot be against Islam, … Christianity, … Judaism, … Buddhism.” So, when naming this ideology, Salman dithers and generalizes. He proffers an inept neologism (“theo-crism”), then harkens back to World War II for “fascist theocracy.” He implicitly rejects “Islamism,” saying he does not want a “debate about certain political parties, whether they’re Islamist or not.”
In fact, this sort of equivocation is typical of ostensibly moderate leaders and institutions throughout the Islamic world. Consider Egypt. One of the most appealing characteristics of President Sisi has been his outspokenness concerning the need for a more modern, moderate Islam.
For example, months before Sisi was elected president, I reported/translated the following:
During his recent speech at the Dept. of Moral Affairs for the Armed Forces [in January 2014], Gen. Abdul Fateh al-Sisi—the man who ousted former President Morsi and his Muslim Brotherhood in response to the June Revolution and who is seen as the nation’s de facto ruler—declared that “Religious discourse is the greatest battle and challenge facing the Egyptian people, and pointed to the need for a new vision and a modern, comprehensive understanding of the religion of Islam—rather than relying on a discourse that has not changed for 800 years.”
Sisi further “called on all who follow the true Islam to improve the image of this religion in front of the world, after Islam has been for decades convicted of violence and destruction around the world, due to the crimes falsely committed in the name of Islam.”
As with the pronunciations of Bahrain’s crown prince, so far so good. Yet what has Sisi actuallydone about renewing Islamic discourse since becoming president? “Absolutely nothing,” says one prominent Egyptian journalist. Speaking recently on his popular TV show, Ibrahim Eissa said:
What is the position of the Egyptian government concerning religious radicalization among the religious parties? And now I specifically refer to the position of President Sisi concerning this matter. Five months have passed since he became president, after his amazing showing at elections. Okay: the president has, more than once, indicated the need for a renewal of religious discourse…. But he has not done a single thing, President Sisi, to renew religious discourse. Nothing at all.
Actually, if anything, it appears the Sisi government has done the reverse, for instance, allowing Salafis—those Egyptian Muslims most similar in ideology to ISIS—to return to the podium. One political activist called this move
a major setback that will make it that much harder for the government to combat reactionary thinking—and this, after the Egyptian public had made great strides against such thinking…. Permitting the Salafi sheikhs to ascend to the pulpits again revives the bitter experiences of confronting this form of thinking, bringing us back to square one.
Individuals aside, what about important Islamic institutions that ostensibly condemn terrorism? How influential are they? This last December 5, the embassy of Egypt issued a press release saying,
Al-Azhar, the oldest center for Islamic learning, pressed for Muslims to combat extremist ideology at an international conference [possibly the same one that the crown prince of Bahrain spoke at] …. Delegitimizing the ideology of ISIS is an important pillar of the global effort to combat the group. Egypt’s religious leaders play a critical role in that effort.
Good words. Yet, for all its talk about “combatting extremist ideology,” Al Azhar University—perhaps Islam’s most authoritative voice—will not even denounce the Islamic State as “un-Islamic.”
When pressed on it, an Al Azhar spokesman, Abbas Shouman, recently said: “As an official entity, Al Azhar has never in all its history proclaimed anyone or any organization as un-Islamic …. [B]eing occupied by this question will not lead to anything,” because “Al Azhar will not judge ISIS or its Islam as un-Islamic, for it is not its right, neither concerning ISIS nor anyone else.”
But, as one human rights advocate in Egypt was quick to quip: “What, didn’t the ulema and sheikhs of Al Azhar denounce as un-Islamic Naguib Mahfouz and Farag Foda and others from among the intellectuals and writers whose activities were stopped and some of whom were assassinated due to Al Azhar’s position?”
Indeed, Farag Foda was a prominent Egyptian professor, writer, and human rights activist who was assassinated after being denounced by none other than Al Azhar. And although Naguib Mahfouz won the Noble Prize for Literature, his literature was denounced by Al Azhar and, predictably, he was stabbed in the neck with a knife when he was 82-years-old outside his home.
What accounts for this stark double standard—that Al Azhar will vent against secular/humanist Muslims, thus inciting the mob against them, while refusing to denounce the cancerous Islamic State? Or that it will denounce terrorism, but praise jihad (as in this bizarre article full of twisted logic and semantic quibbling)?
Muhammad Abdullah Nasr, coordinator of a group of former Al Azhar graduates who support a civil government, explains:
The Islamic State can never denounce the Islamic State as un-Islamic. For the Islamic State is the working, postgraduate project for graduates from Al Azhar. And after this statement [refusing to denounce IS as “un-Islamic”], Al Azhar’s mask has fallen…. Everything that the Islamic State does exists in the curriculum of Al Azhar and is taught to students, including apostasy [punishing Muslims who leave Islam],payment of jizya, sex slaves and the captivity of women.
At this late point in the game—as I write, Sydney is recovering from jihadi turmoil—all purported Muslim moderates and reformers, individuals and organizations, need to understand—or rather, be made to understand by their Western counterparts—that talking the talk is no longer enough: they must walk the walk before they can ever be taken seriously.
Twostellas says
They don’t want to give up their option to hate and bully others and rule Islam over whoever the enemy of Islam du jour is. And the sex….disposable and interchangeable wives, slave-maids, “harem” girls they fly in (for the Princes anyway) etc. They quite enjoy the status Islam is afforded through terror and fear.
Salah says
“Yet what has Sisi actually done about renewing Islamic discourse since becoming president?”
Sisi does not have to actually do anything. Allowing intellectuals to discuss and criticize al Azhar and Islam on public TV is more than enough to bring Islam to its knees.
In other words, he is allowing free speech.
http://crossmuslims.blogspot.ca/2014/08/cannibalism-in-islam-taught-at-al-azhar.html
Salah says
A few years back, Raymond Ibrahim wrote an article entitled: Islam’s ‘Public Enemy #1′
http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/raymond-ibrahim/hes-back-islam%E2%80%99s-public-enemy-1/
In this article he was referring to father Zakaria Botros as Islam’s public enemy #1.
Here’s what father Botros himself had to say about al Sisi:
http://crossmuslims.blogspot.ca/2014/10/zakaria-botros-on-al-sisi.html
Walter Sieruk says
All this talk about ” reforming Islam” is just that talk, and nothing more. Even the idea of really “reforming Islam.”is pure folly. This is because there is nothing good about the true essence of Islam to base the foundation of real reform on. To explain this in another way. The Bible in Ecclesiastes 1:15 teaches “”That which is crooked cannot be made straight: and that which is wanting cannot be numbered.” [K.J.V.]
Anon says
That’s true. Which countries are taking the lead in PHYSICALLY stopping ISIS? Iran, Syria, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt? NO, non-Islamic countries have to take the lead in stopping “radical” Islam.
Alicia says
Sunni Muslim countries will not attack IS unless they are directly challenged. Within the depths of Sunni Muslims is a wish that IS will survive long enough until the infidels accept its existence peacefully. This is no different to how the world accepted the Taliban prior to the US invasion.
Sunni Muslims believe that the barbarism we witness today is required, much like that pain during birth pangs. They believe that once coexistence is reached when they have established their target for the land they want to consume, then the next step is to coexist with the rest of the world.
Turkey’s Foreign Minister has expressed such a sentiment – that IS in in for the long haul and the world will have to accept its existence, for the long haul – as if to say that peaceful coexistence with IS will be a requirement for peace.
Even leaders of Muslim countries who are afraid of their very existence from an IS attack, do not send their troops to fight IS for fear that their Sunni troops will defect into IS ranks.
exsgtbrown says
” religious freedom exist in islam 1000 years ago when muslims christians jews and even satanist yezedis all cooperated together in peace…” never happened that way, Muslims always subjugated and mistreated everyone who was non-Muslim…
exsgtbrown says
” supermacism racism and violence already exist in the bible too so what “
nowhere in todays world do you find Christians extoling supremacism, racism, or violence to be imposed upon others.
In an article entitled, “Throwing Stones at the Quran from a Glass House”, The American Muslim claims that the verses of violence and war in the Bible can be misread in “exactly the same way as some verses in the Qur’an” (emphasis ours). In other words, the on-line magazine alleges that, like the Quran, there are Biblical verses with open-ended commands to violence that are not bound by historical context within the passage itself.
Our first clue that this probably isn’t true is the scarcity of Christian terrorist groups. Not too many people are losing their heads to fanatics screaming praises to Jesus (or Moses, Buddha or the many Hindu gods either) as they are to shouts of “Allah Akbar!” That there are so many Islamic terrorist groups composed of fundamentalists (or purists) of the Muslim faith is enough to impress any reasonable person that there is something far more dangerous about Islam.
exsgtbrown says
6- already there are many muslim groups with different interpretations so it’s not a big deal “
actually that’s false, the only thing that distinguishes one Muslim group from another is the degree of piousness that they choose to follow the Quran….sooner or later the most pious and violent of the Muslims will be the defining brand of Islam…just as Mohammad had intended all those many years ago..
Alicia says
Head of Al azhar, Sheikh Ahmed al-Tayeb condemns ISIS –
http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/middle-east/2014/12/03/Head-of-Egypt-s-al-Azhar-condemns-ISIS-barbarity-.html
Too late and that he took the opportunity to cast Israel as the source for IS should be lost.
Why does Islam have such an incredible appetite for creating such vile characters among its leadership?
Alicia says
Muslims, if they weren’t so into killing and dying, would have been incredibly successful comedians – http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=9bf_1419038087