A few words on 'Islamists' and Muslim ethics

When the war on Iraq was building up, some of the most prominent voices against the war where the plethora of 'Islamist' groups in Pakistan and the small collection we have here, in the UK. What the individual Muslim made of the war is their business; if they felt it was unethical for whatever reason, it is between them and God. But these groups represent themselves (not Muslims, I should add, for no one has asked me), and the fact that they take a public platform to represent their opinions, means they are open to criticism.

In the UK, the most well-known of these groups are Supprters of Shari'ah, led by Abu Hamza, Hizb at-Tahrir ('Party of Liberation'), the most well-known of the pan-Caliphate 'political' groups, and Al-Muhajiroun ('The Emigrants'), a splinter group of the Hizb.

Al-Muhajiroun are led by 'Shaykh' Omar Bakri Muhammad, who also refers to himself as judge of 'the' Shari'ah Court in the UK. I am not sure his 'council' is sanctioned by any major figures or groups in the UK, or elsewhere.

In recent days, with the anniversary of September 11 2001, they have held a 'conference' in 'praise' of the 19 men accused of hijacking the planes, whom they declared to be 'magnificent'. The flyer they produced advertising their 'conference' was, indeed, titled 'Maginificant 19'. I don't think much needs to be said of this shameful and provocative act. In fact, the quite disgusting, public ego-trip that they partook in, is surely a form of self-glorification. Looking at their flyer, and their 'conference', one wonders the sickness in their souls, to actually place the pictures of these men up, in a kind of display and exaltation we would surely consider a form of shirk, if nothing else. One also wonders, what happened to the "pictures are haraam" "rule" in Islam? Of course, it is dropped the minute pictures can be used for ones self-gratification. The other "rule" so prominent in Islam, that of the 'celebration' of days other than those sanctioned by the Shari'ah, also seems to be blatently ignored. Am I to think that next year, on Septemebr 11, Al-Muhajiroun will again send 'praises' on murderous criminals?

Moving to the wider 'Islamist' groups, who, it should be noted, were often the most vocal supporters of the destruction of the Buddha idols, are often the first in line to defend the idol-cult of Muslim tyrants. Who can forget the vocal defence of an idol like Saddam, most shamefully carried out in Pakistan? Even worse is the abject moral ambivalence towards tyrants, who usurp the rights of man, in our lands.

Returning to the issue of opposition of the war, one must ask the following question in relation to the general moral stance of Muslims, and their leaders, especially religious, as a whole. If the rejection of the war was based on the rejection of bombing and killing of Muslims, where are they now, when Muslims are murdered inside a mosque? There seems to be no moral imperative in this stance; it seems driven by a blind hatred of the 'kuffar', who we accuse, day and night, of 'being in control of the world' - itself an act of shirk, for surely it is God who controls the world. Why don't our religous leaders address this key question in modern Islamic ethics? Where are those Pakistani groups now, one wonders, when over 100 people have been murdered, in the Friday prayer?

Of course, I am still yet to find an answer to the hypocritical stance of the majority of the Muslim community, the Sunnis, vis-a-vis the Shi'a. When the Americans attacked Iraq, and now that they occupy Iraq, the rejection of the war and occupation is based on the fact that the Iraqis, the majority of who are Shi'a, are our 'brothers'. Yet when Sunni Muslims commit acts of horrendous brutality against the Shi'a, most prominently in Pakistan where they are murdered inside mosques, what happened to 'brotherly' concern then?

For the last three, four, or more, decades, we have had to pay the price for such a flagerent abuse of causitry by the cult of 'political Islam', and sadly, the general moral ambivalence in the Muslim community. And I count myself at the forefront of being liable to such criticism.

Comments

[Maryam]

Assalamu 'alaykum,

I think it is precisely the hypocrisy that is key here. I had to smile when you pointed out about the photos and celebrating other days. That basically sums up the problem - of course the more serious and tragic indicator is the silence in the face of murder of innocents - when your core values are subservient to political ends then it certainly isn't Islam anymore (and these groups make the facile their core!)

BTW I love your site, I followed through a post you left on mine. Masha'Allah I am going to have fun going through your archives. Chittick and Murata are two of my favourite writers, their "The Vision of Islam" is the one book I would give to everyone if I could.

[Thebit]

Salaam

Thank you for your kind words, Maryam. I found your site via Al-Muhajabah's blog, and can only return your compliments. Your weblog is as good a read, as it looks (and it looks great).

"[W]hen your core values are subservient to political ends then it certainly isn't Islam anymore"

I couldn't have put it better myself.

Salaam `alaykum