Print

BRIDGES NOT WALLS: RECONCILIATION THROUGH REALISM.

By Caroline Cox and John Marks

Paper given at Conference on Religious Freedom in Europe since 9/11,
Newbold College

November 25, 2007

Islam: Bridges not Walls – Reconciliation through Realism - Summary
The Issues and the Threat.

1.    The vast majority of the world’s 1.2 billion Muslims are peaceable,
law-abiding and hospitable people.
2.    A relatively small number are militant. One of their objectives is
the Islamisation of Europe and the USA.
3.    Militant Muslims or Islamists have revived the teachings of
Traditional Islam and seek to apply them today.
4.    Unless we are seen to take militant Islam seriously, there is likely
to be a backlash against all Muslims because terrorism creates fear and
fear tends to blur distinctions leading to discrimination and further
militancy.
5.    Therefore we need: to understand the threat in all its forms; and to
develop a strategic response.

Understanding the Threat of Islamism

1. Traditional Islam is essentially a theocracy and a totalitarian
ideology which differs fundamentally from the Judaeo-Christian
tradition in epistemology, theology and political values.
2. Islamists are working strategically to influence and, in time, to
take over other societies.
3. Traditional Islamic teaching:
-  has a different view of ‘truth’ – all the words of the Koran and the
way of Mohammed - and it can justify deception (taqiyaa) in time of
‘war’;
- divides the world into two – the world of Islam and the world of war;
4. Traditional Islam is not a religion of peace; it defines ‘peace’ as
submission to Islam. The often quoted suras of peace are cancelled out
or abrogated by the later revelations in the suras of war.
5. Jihad can mean striving for the good life but its main meaning is
the militant and violent conquest of the world.
6. Sharia law, which is advocated by many Muslims even in Canada and
the UK, is essentially in conflict with the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights in two major ways – it requires inequality before the law
for non-Muslims and for women and it forbids people the right to choose
or change their religion. They can convert to Islam – but conversion
from Islam is apostasy, punishable by death.

Islamist Policies

1.    Extensive use of taqiyaa or deception.
2. Resisting and rejecting criticism by intimidating and exposing
critics - labeling them as Islamophobic or issuing threats and fatwas.
3.    Influencing legal, political and economic systems – for example the
UK Incitement to Religious Hatred law to inhibit freedom of speech.
4.    Seeking to achieve an alternative cultural hegemony by using
education in universities and schools; by building mosques and cultural
centres; and by setting up Islamic banks and charities on different
principles to Western institutions.
Conclusion – Bridges not Walls
We need to seek peaceful coexistence and mutual respect with moderate
Muslims by building bridges not erecting walls (eg IICORR -
International Islamic Christian Organisation for Reconciliation and
Reconstruction). But reconciliation must be based on realism which
means being informed about all the complex issues outlined above and
developing appropriate strategic responses – spiritual, political,
legal and cultural.

ISLAM: BRIDGES NOT WALLS: RECONCILIATION THROUGH REALISM.

Ladies and gentlemen.

Thank you for the privilege of speaking here today and giving us the
opportunity to address some significant issues confronting the world in
the twenty first century.


First we identify three primary types of oppression in the world today
underpinned by different ideologies which seek to legitimate
intolerance and thus justify systematic oppression:

  a)  in countries still under the yoke of Communism or other forms of
totalitarian centralism such as Cuba, Laos, Vietnam, China, Burma and
North Korea;

  b) the specific case of India, where the militantly fundamentalist BJP
party is associated with the persecution of various faith communities
and where the caste system has oppressed the dalits and lower castes
for centuries;
  c) those parts of the world where militant Islam is violating
fundamental human rights as enshrined in the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights (UDHR).

Major violations of human rights persist in all the countries still
subjugated to Communist or other forms of centralist totalitarianism.
For example, I have visited Burma many times, most recently during the
past 4 months to the Chin and Kachin ethnic groups in Western Burma and
the Karen, Karenni and Shan peoples of Eastern Burma. I have also
visited North Korea. Copies of reports of these visits are available
for anyone with an interest in those situations. I was also in India in
March and would be pleased too discuss my perceptions of the situation
there.

A. The Issues and the Threat

However, evidence shows that the expansion of militant Islam is the
primary cause of the most rapidly growing form of religious intolerance
and oppression in the world today. We will therefore discuss this issue
in this presentation. But before addressing this subject, we must
emphasise that we in no way wish to cause a generic backlash of
Islamophobia and to identify a number of caveats.

1.    The vast majority of the world’s 1.2 billion Muslims are peaceable,
law-abiding and hospitable people.


  The Diversity of Islamic Societies and the Prevention of Islamophobia.
There are over a billion Muslims in the world today. The vast majority
lead law-abiding lives and live peaceably with their neighbours,
including those of other faiths. In many countries, they are respected
for their hospitality and graciousness and many have lived harmoniously
with their neighbours throughout living memory.
Moreover, some nation states, such as Indonesia – the world’s largest
Islamic nation, with over 200 million people, the vast majority of whom
are Muslim, and Nigeria, have enshrined the principles of cultural
pluralism and religious tolerance in their Constitution. The words
‘Unity in Diversity’ are inscribed in Indonesia’s national emblem. A
similar principle underpins the federal constitution in Nigeria since
independence in 1960 and the secular state of Turkey since 1924. Other
Islamic nations such as Jordan, Oman and The UAE respect fundamental
freedoms, such as freedom of worship. In such countries, relationships
between Muslims and those of other faiths, such as Christians and
traditional believers, have long been harmonious, with mutual respect,
friendship and shared participation in community events, such as
weddings.

2.    A relatively small number of Muslims are militant. One of their
objectives is the Islamisation of Europe and the USA.

3. Militant Muslims or Islamists have revived the teachings of
Traditional Islam and seek to apply them today.

But recent years have seen the development of more violent movements in
some countries, with bitter conflict, fighting, death and destruction.
In Sudan, the toll of human suffering is the greatest in the world
today.  With over 2 million dead and over 5 million displaced, the
scale of human misery exceeds that of Somalia, Rwanda and former
Yugoslavia taken together. Northern Nigeria has been afflicted with
violent intercommunal conflict, and parts of Indonesia, such as Maluku,
Sulawesi and Aceh have also suffered, with thousands of innocent
civilians killed and hundreds of thousands displaced.

4. Unless we are seen to take militant Islam seriously, there is likely
to be a backlash against all Muslims because terrorism creates fear and
fear tends to blur distinctions leading to discrimination and further
militancy.

Recent years have also seen numerous terrorist attacks, in the name of
Islam or Islamism, in many countries.  One of many problems caused by
such terrorism is the risk of the escalation of Islamophobia - for
terrorism breeds fear, and fear does not always make necessary
distinctions. Thus, unless we are seen to be taking Islamist terrorism
seriously, there will be a backlash against all Muslims. Hence the need
for well-informed understanding of the nature of Islam and Islamism and
urgent consideration of policies to promote measures to prevent
conflict or to encourage reconciliation once conflict has broken out.

One example of such a policy is the establishment of the International
Islamic Christian Organisation for Reconciliation and Reconstruction
(IICORR). Following several visits to the Indonesian conflict zones of
Maluku and Sulawesi, in which thousands had perished and hundreds of
thousands been displaced from their homes, and seeing how the local
traditional Muslim leaders and the Christian leaders were trying to
re-establish peace, it was felt the time was appropriate to support
them by the launch of ICCORR, in Jakarta in February 2003, with former
President Wahid as Hon. President. Subsequently, the British government
sponsored an IICORR  initiative to bring several Muslim and Christian
leaders from Maluku to Europe to develop strategies of reconciliation
and to raise funds for reconstruction.

A later outburst of violence has been quickly contained, largely helped
by the work undertaken by IICORR. It is hoped that this endeavour may
not only help the difficult situation in Indonesia, but could serve a
similar purpose in other conflict areas such as Nigeria.

5. Therefore we need: to understand the threat in all its forms; and to
develop a strategic response.

However, true and lasting peace can only be built on a foundation of
truth, honesty and mutual understanding.   It is therefore important to
try to understand the root causes of current problems and conflicts and
this paper attempts to analyse some of these.

B.  Understanding the Threat of Islamism

Many Muslims are deeply concerned about some of the characteristics of
Western societies. Major criticisms include the view that Western
Societies are morally decadent; they are inherently and fundamentally
prejudiced against Islam and Muslims; they launched the medieval
Crusades in a bid to eliminate Islam and are now launching a modern
crusade with the same aim; they support the state of Israel; and they
are allies of America which has based troops in the Islamic holy land
of Saudi Arabia since 1990.

Some of these criticisms and concerns may well be valid: the statistics
of family breakdown, crime and juvenile delinquency reflect many deep
social problems. But in pressing these criticisms, many Muslims show a
great reluctance to appreciate the positive aspects of Western
societies, such as the freedom to speak and criticise or freedom to
practice their religion. They are also often unwilling to admit any
criticism of Islamic societies.

1. Traditional Islam is essentially a theocracy and a totalitarian
ideology which differs fundamentally from the Judaeo-Christian
tradition in epistemology, theology and political values.
2. Islamists are working strategically to influence and, in time, to
take over other societies.
3. Traditional Islamic teaching:
-  has a different view of ‘truth’ – all the words of the Koran and the
way of Mohammed - and it can justify deception (taqiyaa) in time of
‘war’;
- divides the world into two – the world of Islam and the world of war;
4. Traditional Islam is not a religion of peace; it defines ‘peace’ as
submission to Islam. The often quoted suras of peace are cancelled out
or abrogated by the later revelations in the suras of war.

Traditional Islamic societies, such as those manifest by the Taliban
regime or the National Islamic Front (NIF) in Sudan, are monolithic,
fiercely intolerant of dissent, and, de facto, lacking in individual
freedoms. Control is attempted over all aspects of life - political,
economic, cultural, educational, religious and military - and is
frequently enforced centrally in the name of Islam or Islamism. Freedom
of expression and of access to information are extensively prevented
since conformity with the dominant ideology is the central value. Such
hegemony is rooted in the nature of Islam, which does not differentiate
between the personal and the political and which prescribes behaviour
covering every aspect of life in conformity with Islamic principles. 
Consequently, no effective checks exist on the exercise of power by the
ruling or governing religious group.
Thus the comprehensive control by religion of virtually every aspect of
human life, individual and collective, may tend to enshrine
totalitarian control incompatible with the concept of individual
freedom which lies at the heart of liberal democracy.

5.Jihad can mean striving for the good life but its main meaning is the
militant and violent conquest of the world.

Jihad  has various meanings. Literally it means "struggle", including
"struggle for the good Islamic life", but is frequently translated as
Holy War and it often means "violent" Holy War. Islamist literature
frequently mentions Jihad for various purposes but the ambiguity of the
term makes it capable of different interpretations.
According to Lewis, jihad is:

.....an Arabic word with the literal meaning of "effort," "striving,"
or "struggle." In the Qur'an and still more the Traditions commonly
though not invariably followed by the words "in the path of God," it
has usually been understood as meaning "to wage war." The great
collections of hadith  all contain a section devoted to jihad in which
the military meaning predominates.  The same is true of the classical
manuals of Shari'a law. There were some who argued that jihad should be
understood in a moral and spiritual, rather than a military, sense.
Such arguments were sometimes put forward by Shi'ite theologians in
classical times, and more frequently by modernisers and reformists in
the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The overwhelming majority of
classical theologians, jurists, and traditionalists, however,
understood the obligation of jihad in a military sense, and have
examined and expounded it accordingly.

Moreover:

.....jihad, is one of the basic commandments of the faith, an
obligation imposed on all Muslims by God, through revelation......The
basis of the obligation of jihad is the universality of the Muslim
revelation. God's word and God's message are for all mankind; it is the
duty of those who have accepted them to strive (jahada) unceasingly to
convert or at least to subjugate those who have not. This obligation is
without limit of time or space. It must continue until the whole world
has either accepted the Islamic faith or submitted to the power of the
Islamic state.
Until that happens, the world is divided into two: the House of Islam
(dar al-Islam), where Muslims rule and the law of Islam prevails; and
the House of War (dar al-Harb), comprising the rest of the world.
Between the two there is a morally necessary, legally and religiously
obligatory state of war, until the final and inevitable triumph of
Islam over unbelief. According to the law books, this state of war
could be interrupted, when expedient, by an armistice or truce of
limited duration. It could not be terminated by a peace, but only by a
final victory.

Jihad is also waged against apostates or Muslims who seek to change
their religion - their options are recantation or death.

Jihad and the Koran
A key development  in the concept of jihad is contained in this verse
in the Koran:

Fight those who believe not in Allah, nor the Last Day, nor hold that
forbidden which has been forbidden by Allah and His Prophet, nor
acknowledge the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the People of the
Book (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizya (tax) with willing
submission, and feel themselves subdued.
Surah 9:29, (Medina)

In other words Muslims must fight unbelievers, those who allow things
Allah forbids, and Jews and Christians unless they pay the jizya tax.
The options for other unbelievers are to accept Islam or be killed.

Paradise and jihad
Muslims believe that when they die they go to the grave to await the
day of judgement when Allah will decide, on the basis of works done on
earth, who goes to Paradise and who to hell. The only way to guarantee
going to Paradise - and avoid Allah’s verdict on the day of judgement -
is to die in jihad while fighting the enemies of Islam. This provides a
major religious motive for suicide bombers or others to volunteer for
jihad. Moreover many verses in the Koran - and especially those
revealed in medina - deal with jihad which according to Gabriel: '
became the basic power and driving force of Islam.'

In Mohammed's time, jihad was practised regularly against Christians
and Jews as well as against those who did not convert to Islam. As the
Koran says:

.....if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find
them . . .Surah 4:89, (Medina)

The ultimate aim of jihad is to establish Islamic authority over the
whole world as indicated by this Koranic verse received by Mohammed in
Medina:

And fight with them on until there is no more tumult and oppression,
And there prevail justice and faith in Allah all together and
everywhere:...Surah 8:39, (Medina)

Over 22 years (610-632), Mohammed's precepts in the Koran changed from
fight those who persecute you to fight those who reject Islam in Arabia
and then to the final command of jihad - conquer the world in the name
of Islam. No subsequent Koranic verse contradicted this final command
of jihad so it must be deemed to remain as a goal of Islam today.
Over the succeeding years and centuries jihad was remarkably
successful. Starting with the capture of Jerusalem from the Christians
in 638 and followed by the capture of much of Spain by 715 - a conquest
which did not finally end until the fall of Granada in 1492, nearly 800
years later - Islam first conquered and then converted much of Europe,
North Africa and Asia. Overall this jihad lasted nearly 1300 years,
until the nineteenth century, interrupted only by about 200 years of
resistance during the Crusades (1096-1270).

6.    Sharia law, which is advocated by many Muslims even in Canada and
the UK, is essentially in conflict with the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights in two major ways – it requires inequality before the law
for non-Muslims and for women and it forbids people the right to choose
or change their religion. They can convert to Islam – but conversion
from Islam is apostasy, punishable by death.

Shari'a is the system of Islamic law which was developed in early
Islamic societies and which in one form or another is often urged on
societies in the modern world if they are to be truly Islamic. It is
sometimes translated as 'holy law' but for traditional Muslims:

......the adjective is tautologous.  The Shari'a is simply the law, and
there is no other. It is holy in that it derives from God, and is the
external and unchangeable expression of God's commandments to mankind.

The Shari'a contains:

…..principled affirmations of inequality, primarily between Muslims and
non-Muslims, secondarily between men and women. This has made
fundamentalists into the most unyielding critics of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, which guarantees the freedom to choose
one's religion and one's spouse. Both freedoms indisputably contradict
Islamic law, which defines conversion out of Islam as a capital
offence, and forbids marriage between a Muslim woman and a non-Muslim
man......

The Shari'a, as a perfect law, cannot be abrogated or altered, and
certainly not by the shifting moods of an electorate. Accordingly,
every major fundamentalist thinker has repudiated popular sovereignty
as a rebellion against God, the sole legislator.  In the changed
circumstances of the 1990s, some activists do allow that an election
can serve a useful one-time purpose, as a collective referendum of
allegiance to Islam, and as an act of submission to a regime of divine
justice.  But once such a regime gains power, its true measure is not
how effectively it implements the will of the people but how
efficiently it applies Islamic law.

Human rights and religious freedoms in traditional Islamic societies:

Mayer has compared the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights of
the United Nations with a number of documents setting out Islam’s
attitude to alternative ideologies and dissent:

  - a pamphlet by Mawdudi (a Pakistani Islamist who died in 1979);
  - the 1981 Universal Islamic Declaration of Human Rights;
  - a draft Islamic Constitution published by Al-Azhar University in
Cairo;
  - and the 1979 Iranian Constitution.

In summary, Mayer concludes that:

....the Shari'a criteria that are employed to restrict rights are left
so uncertain and general that they......afford no means for protecting
the individual against deprivations of the rights that are guaranteed
by international law. Thereby the stage is set not just for the
diminution of these rights but potentially for denying them altogether.

This position contrasts with the way that many Islamist and
non-Islamist Muslims use or exploit the laws - based on human rights -
of Western societies.

Freedom of religion and apostasy
The traditional Islamic response to Muslims who seek to change their
religion is recantation or death. Moreover there is no indication that
any of the modern Islamic authorities analysed by Mayer regard this as
a problem:

.....The failure of a single one of these Islamic human rights schemes
to take a position against the application of the Shari'a death penalty
for apostasy means that the authors of these schemes have neglected to
confront and resolve the main issues involved in harmonising
international human rights and Shari'a standards.

The status of women
The status of women within Islam is a major matter of diverse
interpretations. What is clear is that there are considerable
limitations on what women can do compared with men, both in the home
and in public. Most crucially, in courts of law on many key issues the
testimony of one man is equivalent to that of two women.
Nor is there any indication that most Islamic authorities regard the
rights of women as a problem. According to Mayer:

....there is an absence of any willingness to recognise women as full,
equal human beings who deserve the same rights and freedoms as men.
Instead, discrimination against women is treated as something entirely
natural ......

The rights of non-Muslims and Dhimmi status
Throughout the history of Islamic societies arrangements have been made
for non-Muslims to be given a less advantageous status than that
granted to Muslims. This system has applied most frequently to Jews and
Christians. They were able to live within Islamic societies, mostly in
peace, provided they accepted Dhimmi status which involved paying a
special tax and having considerably more limited legal rights than
Muslims - for example in the ability to own property or to carry out
certain occupations. In Islamic courts of law they are not allowed to
give evidence against Muslims and often have to pay a Muslim to give
evidence for them if that were possible.

Mayer concluded, from the Islamic documents she analysed:

.....to the extent that they deal with the question of the rights of
religious minorities, they seem to endorse premodern Shari'a rules that
call for non-Muslims to be relegated to an inferior status if they
qualify as members of the ahl al-kitab (i.e. Jews or Christians)  and
for them to be treated as nonpersons if they do not qualify for such
inclusion. The Azhar draft constitution avoids dealing with the status
of non-Muslims. In the context of a document that seems to support the
general applicability of premodern Shari'a rules, the failure to
address the issue suggests that the intent was to retain such rules to
govern the status of non-Muslims.

C. Islamist Policies
1.    Extensive use of taqiyaa or deception.
2. Resisting and rejecting criticism by intimidating and exposing
critics - labeling them as Islamophobic or issuing threats and fatwas.
3.    Influencing legal, political and economic systems – for example the
UK Incitement to Religious Hatred law to inhibit freedom of speech.
4.    Seeking to achieve an alternative cultural hegemony by using
education in universities and schools; by building mosques and cultural
centres; and by setting up Islamic banks and charities on different
principles to Western institutions.
D. Conclusion – Bridges not Walls

We need to seek peaceful coexistence and mutual respect with moderate
Muslims by building bridges not erecting walls (eg IICORR -
International Islamic Christian Organisation for Reconciliation and
Reconstruction). But reconciliation must be based on realism which
means being informed about all the complex issues outlined above and
developing appropriate strategic responses – spiritual, political,
legal and cultural.


The Challenge to Islam, the Challenge to Democratic Societies and the
Challenge to Christianity.

The Challenge to Islam and Muslims' Responses.

Moderate Muslims

The need for reform is recognised by some prominent Muslims such as
Tariq Ali:

We are in desperate need of an Islamic Reformation that sweeps away the
crazed conservatism and backwardness of the fundamentalists but, more
than that, opens up the world of Islam to new ideas which are seen to
be more advanced than what is currently on offer from the West. This
would necessitate a rigid separation of state and mosque; the
dissolution of the clergy; the assertion by Muslim intellectuals of
their right to interpret the texts that are the collective property of
Islamic culture as a whole; the freedom to think freely and rationally
and the freedom of imagination. Unless we move in this direction we
will be doomed to re-living old battles, and thinking not of a richer
and humane future, but of how we can move from the present to the past.
It is an unacceptable vision.

    Another self-styled moderate Muslim is Irshad Manji whose early
experiences in a madrassa in Vancouver, Canada led to her becoming what
she calls a Muslim refusenik:

That doesn't mean I refuse to be a Muslim, it simply means I refuse to
join an army of automatons in the name of Allah.

Manji argues that 'a liberal Islamic reformation' is long overdue and
suggests that Muslims living in the West are best placed to bring this
about - the final chapter of her book is called Thank God for the West.

There are also very many moderate Muslims in Islamic countries who are
both opposed to militant Islamism and some who are prepared to say so
publicly. These include, for example, former Presidents Megawati and
Wahid in Indonesia and many Muslims in Sudan who  have consistently
opposed the Islamist regime in Khartoum  since it took power  by force
in 1989 and declared jihad against all who oppose it.

Two recent African examples of such public opposition focus on both
militant Islamism and the role of Saudi Arabia in exporting Wahhabism
to other countries.

The first, from Ethiopia, is Saudi Arabia's Wahhabism and the Threat to
Ethiopia's National Security published on September  26, 2003, by
Ethiopian  journalist  Alem-Zelalem describing how Saudi Arabia's
Wahhabi Islam has corrupted the Islam of his native Ethiopia. 
Alem-Zelalem argues that:
.....the  great majority  of Ethiopian Muslims  are   followers  of 
Sunni  Islam. Since there is religious tolerance in the  country,
Ethiopians  have managed to escape  destructive religious conflicts,
which have become prevalent in  many parts of the  world. Lately,
however, there has  been  a new  development in  the country, which, 
unless timely measures are taken to check it, could ultimately be a
destabilizing factor in  the  region. This  destabilizing factor,
which,  next to oil, has become  the major export item of  Saudi Arabia
is called Wahhabism . As the whole world knows, Saudi Arabia is a
fundamentalist  state. The  type of Islam that it  preaches and
practices is not [the] Sunni Islam that  we have lived with  for
centuries in Ethiopia,  and that has  become an integral part  of our
culture and  history, but Wahhabism  - a terrorist and violent form  of
Islam,  that is responsible for  the slaughter of thousands  of
innocent lives throughout the world.

The second example, from Somalia, is an article Against the Saudization
of Somaliland published on November 21, 2003 by Somalian journalist
Bashir Goth. Goth describes how:

Recently, I came across news reports on the activities of a group of
clerics calling themselves 'the Authority for Promotion of Virtue and
Prevention of Vice' trying to impose draconian moral codes on
Somaliland citizens. I cannot sit back and watch these people humiliate
our women, destroy our beautiful culture, hijack our religion, and
denigrate the reputation of our country worldwide.

Goth recalls a time:

.....when Islam and the Somali culture lived together in perfect
harmony; when being Somali and Muslim was an indivisible whole. It was
a time when the message of tolerance and peace prevailed. One could
pray occasionally, or never pray at all, fast in the month of Ramadan
or never fast at all, make a pilgrimage to Mecca or never do it at all;
but would forever consider oneself a true follower of Islam…..

    Such concerns could be repeated in many African countries.

Finally within Saudi Arabia itself consider the writings of the Saudi
journalist Raid Qusti, a columnist for the Saudi English daily Arab
News. Qusti has written columns in favor of expanding women's rights,
educational reform, and modernization, and is often critical of
Islamism. In his articles Qusti has criticised 'many Muslim scholars'
for having 'a mindset of the distant past' .
On May 21, 2003 Qusti wrote an article in Arab News titled We Need to
Learn to Be Self-Critical. In it he wrote:
.....ask any decent journalist in the world what he does for a living
and the answer will come: 'Seeking the truth.' However, seeking the
truth and reporting the facts, as we journalists know, comes at a
cost…..being a journalist or writer in Saudi Arabia, especially for a
major Saudi English newspaper read worldwide, comes at double, if not
triple the cost…..it was only when I started writing about Saudi
society and speaking about it candidly that I realized that
self-criticism in Saudi Arabia is sometimes considered unpatriotic.
Why? Because as a Saudi writing in English, my writings, which
criticize what I believe is wrong in our society, are considered by
many here - especially the conservatives - as giving free ammunition to
our enemies…..
.....I am a journalist like my father and my grandfather before me.
Journalism runs in my blood. I am also a Saudi citizen who is patriotic
and loves his country. You or others might criticize what I and others
say in the local press, but I remain defiant. No country in the world
can progress or develop without being self-critical. It is unfortunate
that we Saudis have to learn that the hard way.

Earlier we drew a distinction between the majority of moderate Muslims
and the militant Islamists. We still believe that this may be a valid
distinction. But it can only continue to be made if many more moderate
Muslims are more forthright in drawing distinctions between themselves
and their ideological co-religionists.

There seems to be considerable reluctance to make the necessary
distinctions - a reluctance which is apparent both within democratic
societies and within Islamic societies themselves. It seems to be
extremely difficult for most moderate Muslims to take up any public
positions against those of the militant Islamists and for them, at the
same time, to retain any credibility within their own communities.
The question therefore arises as to whether there is any substantial
cause within Islam which leads to this reluctance to take issue with
extremism and, furthermore, even greater reluctance to do so in public.

John Habgood, the former Archbishop of York, in his recent book
Varieties of Unbelief discusses this topic:

These two characteristics of Islam, its sense of disorientation in the
encounter with a social and political system it does not control, and
its distrust of the tradition of rational religious criticism, are
potential sources of weakness, just as they are for those forms of
Christianity which share with Islam a desire to distance themselves
from secular society and to rely on exclusive possession of an
infallible written guide......
The fact that the Qur'an is beyond criticism only compounds the
problem. The internal strength of Islam is gained at the cost of not
being able openly to examine its own foundations. There is, of course,
an internal logic in saying that if God is truly God then no critical
examination of his revelation is possible. But it is a logic which, if
pursued, cuts Islam off from any meaningful dialogue either with other
faiths, or even within itself, and makes the Qur'an's own claim that it
is the fulfilment of all religion viciously circular.

This perceptive analysis poses further questions at the most
fundamental level which need to be discussed and answered by Muslims.

The Consequent Challenge to Western Societies.

Militant Islamism is growing in Western societies. Although only a
small minority of Muslims in countries such as Britain adhere overtly
to Islamist beliefs and practices, their commitment to the  use of any
means, including unlawful practices and terrorism, to destroy Western
societies is a threat which must be addressed. For example, in August
1999, a film was shown on Dispatches on Channel 4 portraying Abu Hamza
and Sheikh Bakri Mohammed adjuring a large audience of young men not to
believe on the laws of this land - only in the laws of Allah. They are
virulently promoting violence: demonstrating ways of using nets with
explosives to bring down a civilian aircraft coming into a London
airport. More insidiously, they are shown encouraging the young men
present each to go away and develop his own terrorist tactic - for the
Jihad which is being fought in this country - for it is a question of
"Kill or be Killed."

Moreover, this was not a one-off event. Previously, young men trained
in Britain had been sent to Yemen to carry out a terrorist attack.
Subsequently, a young British man, Robert Reid, tried to blow up an
American civilian airliner with a shoe-bomb.

And since then we have had the London tube and bus bombings of July
2005 and attempts at further terrorist atrocities in both 2006 and
2007.

Analysis of some of the more militant Islamic websites in this country
and elsewhere indicate some of the militant beliefs and subversive
policies being widely disseminated.

The fundamental problem underlying these developments is the challenge
for liberal democratic  societies to respond to those who would use the
freedoms they enshrine in ways which are designed to destroy the
democracies themselves - and to do so in accordance with their
fundamental values.

The values and institutions that have enabled Western Societies to
change so much of their own world for the better must be articulated
across the world. The peoples of the world can then emulate or reject
those values and institutions on the basis of knowledge rather than
ignorance.

We believe that only thus will the twenty first and later centuries be
prosperous - politically, economically, culturally and spiritually -
and all people be free to choose their own religious commitments which
is perhaps the most fundamental freedom of all.

The Challenge for the Christian Church.

There is also a fundamental challenge to Christendom to present a
credible witness and an inspiring vision, as an alternative to the
ostensible appeal of other faiths. For example, in the UK, there are
many converts to Islam, because of disillusion with our churches; with
a vacuous secular culture; and consequent lack of visionary inspiration
providing a cause to which they can dedicate their lives. This is
particularly significant for young people who tend to have a yearning
for altruism and for idealistic commitments to what they perceive to be
social justice.

There is also an urgent need to develop an understanding of the need to
develop prayerful, spiritual strategic responses to militant Islam
ranging from prayer for wisdom and discernment to practical tactics,
such as appropriate reactions to the implementation of sharia law.

As the Bible reminds us: 'Without a vision, things fall apart' and the
people perish. We must develop a truly Christian vision for our
countries and for the world, so that the people can have a genuine
choice of religious commitment. We have seen how religious intolerance
is growing and religious freedoms are increasingly under threat in many
parts of the world. We also know that it is only the truth which can
make us free. Let us therefore not fear to proclaim the truth as we
have received it from our forefathers and to pass it on as a precious
heritage to our children and our children's children.