Islamisk tolkning og nytolkning
Jeg lovede for et stykke tid siden at anmelde Jørgen Bæk Simonsens nye bog Hvad er islam her på siden, hvis ellers jeg kunne få fat i den.
Vel, siden da har forlaget været så venligt at sende mig et anmeldereksemplar, så jeg har nu læst bogen, og der er en anmeldelse på vej - sådan, en af de allernærmeste dage, tror jeg nok.
Indtil videre kan jeg sige, at Bæk Simonsen i lighed med mange andre mener, at islam er nødt til at forny sig, hvis den skal ende med at passe til vore dages kulturelle og storpolitiske virkelighed - ikke mindst, som den praktiseres af muslimer i Vesten. På indersiden af bogens omslag læser vi således:
De europæiske muslimers principielle tilgang til de mange udfordringer, islam er stillet over for i et moderne samfund, er i bund og grund identisk med den, intellektuelle muslimer gennem de sidste århundreder har formuleret for at nytolke islam. Det gælder om at slippe fri af de bånd, en snærende tradition har lagt på formuleringen af, hvad det vil sige at være muslim. Derfor må europæiske muslimer gøre, hvad alle andre muslimer har gjort gennem historien: De må lægge Koranen og profetens sædvane til grund for en analyse af, hvordan de skal forholde sig til den historiske kontekst, de nu befinder sig i.Et eksempel på dette er moderne muslimers mange forskellige holdninger til den mulige dødsdom over en afghansk muslim, der er konverteret til kristendommen.
Hos Thinking Blog, skrevet af en ægypter bosiddende i Canada, læser vi således:
Dvs., Ahmed går tilbage til Koranen og traditionerne om Profetens handlemåde og finder belæg for, at muslimer ikke bør straffes for at konvertere til en anden religion - og er ikke bange for hermed at lægge sig ud med en meget lang juridisk tradition inden for sharia.
The news about the trial of the Afghani Christian convert and the worldwide reaction to it pose an interesting dilemma to Muslims all around the world. Here's something to consider: Open up any Islamic Jurisprudence book, turn the page to the chapter discussing 'Riddah' (the Arabic word for converting from Islam to another religion), and you will find out that what the court in Afghanistan was contemplating (executing the man) is unanimously approved by all Islamic scholars since the dawn of Islamic history! There is no debate, no need to argue for or against the ruling, and no in-depth analysis since it has never been challenged. It is considered Fact.
If you're Muslim, you're probably getting tense now. Is it true? Does the religion actually call for the execution of converts?
I had this question for a long time growing up and as I evolved over the years (a product of age, gaining more knowledge, and being exposed to different cultures and people) I had different theses to try to reconcile what, to me at least, felt flat out barbaric, what I read in Islamic Jurisprudence books, and what I believe to be a merciful religion.
The crux of the issue lies in Islamic thought stagnation and lack of critical thinking in the evaluation of what was narrated about the Prophet (PBUH). It is almost universally accepted by Sunni Muslims that sources like Sahih Al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim constitute the most authentic sources of Prophetic Hadith (Shi'a Muslims have equivalent sources). It is in these books one would find evidence supporting the execution of converts. The problem is, there's ample evidence in the Quran (which its authenticity is not even debatable by a Muslim) that indicate otherwise! Where's is the truth? Why is the Sunnah contradicting the Quran? To most scholars, it is not. They conveniently find explanations to reconcile (out of zeal to protect Prophetic tradition). I yet to find a convincing argument in favor of the ruling that converts should be executed.
Here's what the Quran has to say about the issue:
If it had been thy Lord’s will, they would all have believed,- all who are on earth! wilt thou then compel mankind, against their will, to believe! [Surah 10 - Verse 99]
If Allah so willed, He could make you all one people: But He leaves straying whom He pleases, and He guides whom He pleases: but ye shall certainly be called to account for all your actions. [Surah 16 - Verse 93]It is true thou wilt not be able to guide every one, whom thou lovest; but Allah guides those whom He will and He knows best those who receive guidance. [Surah 28 - Verse 56]And to rehearse the Qur’an: and if any accept guidance, they do it for the good of their own souls, and if any stray, say: "I am only a Warner". [Surah 27 - Verse 92]Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error ... [Surah 02 - Verse 256]
Obviously the Quran is not silent about the issue, and in my opinion leaves no room for interpretation. Anything said, and attributed to the Prophet (PBUH), outside of the boundaries drawn by the verses above either must have an explanation that is inline with these verses with no exception, should be considered a narration out of context, or flat out unauthentic even if it's in Sahih Al-Bukhary or Sahih Muslim; otherwise we have a schizophrenic religion, which is far from the truth.
Holding Islam hostage to narration that at best constitute "probable knowledge" and neglecting the Quran is just foolish because stories and sayings are seldom narrated in context, seldom preserved in a way that ensures beyond doubt certainty, and neglecting the possibility of human error is at best completely unrealistic. Add to that the sensitivity of the subject matter! We are talking about human lives here. We are talking about killing someone! Not debating whether a Muslim should ware silk clothing or not!
Det skal dog retfærdigvis siges, at langtfra alle muslimske lærde mener, at den religiøse lov påbyder dødsstraf for frafald. Professor Mohammad Fajrul Falaakh fra Gadjah Mada universitet i Yogyakarta er en af Indonesiens mest respekterede islamiske lærde, og om ham læser vi:
On 11 December 2002, he delivered the Acton lecture on Religion & Liberty at the Great Hall of the Parliament of New Zealand.Så hvor Bæk Simonsen har ret i, at islam har brug for en sådan fornyelse, er det også rart at se, at der også er sådanne tanker i gang - en vigtig lære af alt dette er, at muslimer og islam ikke (og så lidt som vesterlændinge og kristendom) udgør nogen homogen, enig blok.
In his speech, Falaakh lists the five basic principles of sharia. The first item in this list is "the protection of religious freedom, or the protection of religion and the way religion is observed". Falaakh says that this freedom must be preserved even where sharia is "interpreted … more strictly".
The third item in the list is "hifzh al-aql, meaning mine-that is, freedom of thought, freedom of conscience." Here, Falaakh addresses the issue of apostasy directly, especially as applied in a pluralistic society. He continues:"What if, according to my own understanding, I exercise my freedom of thought and choose another religion, denouncing the one that I had professed before and embracing the new one? What about the regulation or provision that many Muslims believe in that those who renounce Islam will be punished by death?
The traditional, conventional understanding of apostasy in Islam says that once you enter into Islam there is no way that you can leave, otherwise you will put yourself to death. If that is really the case, why does the sharia claim early on that there is to be protection of religion?
There was a time when some parts of the Muslim community back in the 7th century were reported to have had renounced Islam and they were chased and punished by death... at the same time, they also waged war, turning against the community they had previously belonged to. So was that a very obvious case of apostasy or a case of rebelling against a political entity that you used to agree with-in other words, violating a political pact you created together with other people? So perhaps it was not really religious at all. It was simply a political affair."
På den jordanske weblog Black Iris finder vi følgende ret præcise observation:
Extremists and Muslim bashers are often in agreement with each other, they quote the same texts, in the same out-of-context way, in the same apathetic-to-history manner. So they do find common ground in the hate.Og her i Danmark gør vi derfor nok klogt i at forholde os til vore egne ekstremister, de muslim-baskende wingnuts med Dansk Folkeparti i spidsen.
Den monolitiske "islamiske trussel", som disse højrefløjens paranoikere vil prakke os på, eksisterer altså ikke - lige så lidt som det Søren Krarupske homogene "nationale folkehjem", som Dansk Folkeparti og dets støtter så gerne vil prakke os på, nogensinde har eksisteret.