A case of selective hearing

A case of selective hearing

In her opinion page article on Dec. 8, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the former Dutch legislator and author of “Infidel,” accused the so-called “moderate” Muslims of remaining silent instead of condemning acts done in the name of Islam by individuals or governments.

Surprisingly, I was mentioned among the “moderate” Muslim scholars who did not condemn what happened in Saudi Arabia (the lashing sentence of a female rape victim) or Sudan (the indictment of a grade school teacher for allowing her students to name their teddy bear after the Prophet). All the while, I have been paying the price of my regular criticisms of such kinds of actions these past few years by being banned from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria, Tunisia and . . . (for reasons still not explained to me) the United States.

Let us start first with Ayaan Hirsi Ali”s quotation of the Koran.The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication, flog each of them with 100 stripes: Let no compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by Allah, if you believe in Allah and the Last Day. (Koran 24:2)

What kind of message does she want to convey by quoting a verse referring to corporal punishment? That Islam, per se, is advocating violence? That violent Muslims or the so-called Islamic governments acting undemocratically are in fact genuinely implementing the Islamic message? Through her text, the message becomes clear: Islam is an archaic religion, the Koran is a violent text and the only way to reform Islam is simply to “de-Islamize” the Muslims.

 Would it not be possible to quote dozens of passages from the Bhagavad Gita, the Torah and the Gospels that are violent without reaching the conclusion that Hinduism, Judaism or Christianity are violent per se? Is it difficult to understand that this is a question of interpretation and that to condemn a religion in such a way is not only unjust but deeply counterproductive? It does not help the inner dynamic of reforms.

Contrary to what Ayaan Hirsi Ali said – that no “moderate” Muslims, and in particular myself, had spoken out in protest over these incidents – I wrote a piece as the story in the Sudan was unfolding about the situation in Sudan, in Pakistan and in Saudi Arabia. I started by rejecting any kind of victim mentality on the part of Muslims, for it would have easily been possible to claim that the media were once again covering only damaging stories about Muslims and Islamic countries. For Muslims to simply blame this “ongoing campaign against Islam, its Book, its Prophet and its values and practices” is no longer enough.

There comes a time, I wrote before Hirsi Ali”s accusation of silence among Muslims, where one should take a hard look at the state of affairs of the legal system in Islamic countries and draw some imperative (and constructive) conclusions. It is simply a shame! In the name of Islam, innocent people are accused, jailed, sometimes beaten and sometimes executed with no evidence and, moreover, no way to properly defend themselves. A woman, victim of a rape, becomes the accused in Saudi Arabia while a British teacher is jailed because her students decided to name a teddy bear “Muhammad”! And then, in Algeria, two recent suicide bombings have killed innocent civilians. If all this is done in the name of Islam, where are we heading?

In Islamic countries the judiciary system is often used for political reasons or so-called “religious concerns.” The problem is much more serious and deep than the stories we have been getting in the media. These countries need profound reform. Let”s face it. A rape is a rape. While all the evidence has not been shown, it remains unacceptable to start by blaming the woman. To use the story of an innocent British teacher to show how much “we care about Islam” is nonsense and should be rejected.

It is as if the teacher had become a government vehicle for showing its dedication to Islam and for some Muslims to convey their anger toward the West. First, anger is not good in itself; second to send it through a wrong and unjust means must be condemned. Did not the Prophet Muhammad say: “What is built on wrong foundation is wrong”?

One must ask these Islamic majority societies to be more consistent with their own values and to stick to justice by refusing to abuse Islam.

They must protect the independence of the judicial system and protect innocent people, poor or rich, Muslims or non-Muslims, men and women equally. We cannot remain silent when we read about such unacceptable situations either in petro-monarchies or in poor Islamic countries. These actions are not done in the name of one of the accepted interpretations of Islam. Because they are plainly unjust, they are anti-Islamic.