DAR AL HARB - U.S.A.: LET US HEAR MORE FROM UNREPENTANT APOSTATES

"Muslims Speak Out": An Unbalanced Panel
by Susan Jacoby

As a regular member of the On Faith panel, I am reluctant to bite the hand that publishes me. Nevertheless, I must point out that the "Muslims Speak Out" forum represents a gamut of opinion stretching, roughly, from A to C. This forum includes only a few women--an oversight that, in itself, disqualifies the panel as a representative group--and the voices of secular Islam, stressing the need for a Muslim Enlightenment, are also virtually inaudible.

The forum consists entirely of observant Muslims, ranging from theological reactionaries to those who advocate a more liberal, and less literal, interpretation of the Koran.

So we hear the voice of the Grand Ayatollah Muhammad Hussein Fadlallah, known mainly for his support of Hezbollah in Lebanon. He profers such gems of wisdom as: "Apostasy is the negative position a Muslim takes toward Islam. He no longer maintains his belief without any proof, and he denies Islam's basic doctrinal principles of believing in the only God, the Messenger."

An apostate is someone who no longer maintains his belief without any proof. That, as far as I am concerned, is the definition of a sane human being. Modern Muslim apostates include the novelist Salman Rushdie, the women's rights crusader Wafa Sultan, and the scholar Ibn Warraq--none of whom are represented on this panel of Muslim believers. The very concept of apostasy should always be challenged, since apostates--from every faith--have been responsible for every bit of real progress in human history.

Of course, Muslims like Fadlallah ought to be represented on a panel like this, as should more moderate clerics like the Grand Mufti of Egypt, the highly respected scholar Dr. Ali Gomaa. But the absence of serious secular critics, themselves of Muslim origin, is inexcusable.

As for the opinions of many of these male clerics and scholars about women, they are the equivalent of what we heard from male priests, ministers, and rabbis before the rise of the first feminist movement in the nineteenth century. "Islam adopts the perspective of gender equality, but it does not endorse the idea of gender equivalency," writes Dr. Gomaa. "Islam affirms the difference between the natural dispositions and constitutions of men and women...."

And that, boys and girls, is why women aren't allowed to drive in Saudi Arabia and can, in fact, be stoned to death for adultery unless some merciful male Islamic judge stays the sentence. Women keep silent in the churches and cover your heads. Women wear a veil so that men won't be tempted by you and rape you. It's all the same repressive line, but the difference is that in the West, secular law forced reactionary religious men to give women equal rights in the civic sphere--something women do not enjoy in the Islamic world today.

In some respects, it is particularly useful to read the comments of hard-liners like the Hezbollah backer Fadlallah, because their unvarnished contempt for western values gives the lie to the fantasy that the Muslim religion has nothing to do with what secular Muslims have called "islamofascism."

"The difference between Islam and the West," Fadlallah argues, "Is that Islamic civilization is ethically committed, while the west considers the ethical aspect, including the sexual freedom, a part of the individual freedom of man, and therefore does not consider illegal sex a civil crime, since it is a personal matter not related to virtue." Men like this are committed not only to controlling women but to silencing all dissenting voices, by whatever means necessary.

Yes, there are many other Muslims, such as the Swiss-based scholar Tariq Ramadan and Pamela Taylor, who are trying to reconcile their Muslim faith with democratic western values.Theirs is the form of Islam cited by multiculturalist academics who want Americans to understand more about the Muslim religion--that is, the Muslim religion as American multiculturalists would like it to be. But Fadlallah and his ilk have a great many more followers around the world.

The composition of this panel reflects a phenomenon that I find particularly discomfiting--the very American tendency to restrict commentary on religion to the religious. But some of the most important insights about faith come from, and have always come from, apostates
well-schooled in their particular religious traditions. Baruch Spinoza would have been left off this panel if it were about Judaism.

Americans are indeed ignorant about Islam, as they are woefully deficient in their knowledge about many aspects of world culture. But the education of Americans about this important subject should not be conducted only by observant Muslims offering their selective interpretations of the Koran--whether those interpretations are conservative or liberal.

Nor should this education be conducted solely by multiculturalist American academics, many of whose programs are heavily indebted to Saudi money. I respect many of these scholars, at institutions that include Georgetown University, Harvard University, the University of Arkansas and other venues of higher education from sea to shining sea. But I do not think that they should exert as much influence as they do over perceptions (particularly among well-educated Americans) of the Islamic world, any more than I think our views about Islam should be determined by ideologues in right-wing think tanks.

Let us hear more from unrepentant apostates.



Pertinent Links:

1) "Muslims Speak Out": An Unbalanced Panel