Warrior of ideas

(Washington, D.C.): Today’s Washington Post features a powerful op.ed. article by the former president of Indonesia, Kyai Haji Abdurrahman Wahid, that speaks for and offers leadership to the hundreds of millions of Muslims in his nation and around the world who reject Islamofascism – the totalitarian political ideology that seeks to subject both their faith and the rest of us to repressive Taliban-style misrule. In his article entitled “Extremism Isn’t Islamic Law,” President Wahid (also affectionately known as Gus Dur) courageously denounces the Islamists and their efforts to impose and enforce the Islamists’ intolerant and brutal legal code known as shari’a.

Gus Dur uses the recent threat by Afghan officials to impose the death penalty on a former Muslim, Abdul Rahman, who had converted to Christianity while living outside the country, to explore the important distinctions between the teachings of the Koran and man-made interpretations. He observes: “It is vital that we differentiate between the Koran, from which much of the raw material for producing Islamic law is derived, and the law itself. While its revelatory inspiration is divine, Islamic law is man-made and thus subject to human interpretation and revision.”

In addition to his past service as the elected president of the world’s most populous Muslim nation, Gus Dur is an internationally renowned Sunni cleric. That stature adds further weight to his forceful declaration that:

Not only can Islamic law be changed – it must be changed due to the ever-shifting circumstances of human life. Rather than take at face value assertions by extremists that their interpretation of Islamic law is eternal and unchanging, Muslims and Westerners must reject these false claims and join in the struggle to support a pluralistic and tolerant understanding of Islam. (Emphasis added.)

To his credit, President Wahid is doing much more to advance his ideas than simply authoring articles in Western publications. He is also working with the LibforAll Foundation, a non-profit organization based in Indonesia and the United States, to wage the “war of ideas” against the Islamofascists in very practical and effective ways. These include working with Gus Dur’s counterparts among the political and clerical leadership of other Muslim nations and enlisting the help of icons of the popular culture, including Indonesian rock star Ahmad Dhani, to counter the Islamists and their hateful teachings and recruitment.

Toward this end, the Center for Security Policy is very pleased that President Wahid has agreed in principle to participate in its “Muslims Speak Out” program with a video teleconference from Indonesia in the near future. For more information about this program, contact Alex Alexiev at 202-835-9077.

For a few days this year the world’s media focused an intense spotlight on the drama of a modern-day inquisition. Abdul Rahman, a Muslim convert to Christianity, narrowly escaped the death penalty for apostasy when the Afghan government — acting under enormous international pressure — sidestepped the issue by ruling that he was insane and unfit to stand trial. This unsatisfactory ruling left unanswered a question of enormous significance: Does Islam truly require the death penalty for apostasy, and, if not, why is there so little freedom of religion in the so-called Muslim world?

The Koran and the sayings of the prophet Muhammad do not definitively address this issue. In fact, during the early history of Islam, the Agreement of Hudaibiyah between Muhammad and his rivals stipulated that any Muslim who converted out of Islam would be allowed to depart freely to join the non-Muslim community. Nevertheless, throughout much of Islamic history, Muslim governments have embraced an interpretation of Islamic law that imposes the death penalty for apostasy.

It is vital that we differentiate between the Koran, from which much of the raw material for producing Islamic law is derived, and the law itself. While its revelatory inspiration is divine, Islamic law is man-made and thus subject to human interpretation and revision. For example, in the course of Islamic history, non-Muslims have been allowed to enter Mecca and Medina. Since the time of the caliphs, however, Islamic law has been interpreted to forbid non-Muslims from entering these holy cities. The prohibition against non-Muslims entering Mecca and Medina is thus politically motivated and has no basis in the Koran or Islamic law. In the case of Rahman, two key principles of Islamic jurisprudence come into play. First, al-umuru bi maqashidiha (“Every problem [should be addressed] in accordance with its purpose”). If a legal ordinance truly protects citizens, then it is valid and may become law.

From this perspective, Rahman did not violate any law, Islamic or otherwise. Indeed, he should be protected under Islamic law, rather than threatened with death or imprisonment. The second key principle is al-hukm-u yadullu ma’a illatihi wujudan wa adaman (“The law is formulated in accordance with circumstances”). Not only can Islamic law be changed — it must be changed due to the ever-shifting circumstances of human life. Rather than take at face value assertions by extremists that their interpretation of Islamic law is eternal and unchanging, Muslims and Westerners must reject these false claims and join in the struggle to support a pluralistic and tolerant understanding of Islam.

All of humanity, whether Muslim or non-Muslim, is threatened by the forces of Islamist extremism. It is these extremists, masquerading as traditional Muslims, who angrily call for the death of Abdul Rahman or the beheading of Danish cartoonists. Their objective is raw political power and the eventual radicalization of all 1.3 billion Muslims worldwide. Western involvement in this “struggle for the soul of Islam” is a matter of self-preservation for the West and is critical given the violent tactics and strength of radical elements in Muslim societies worldwide.

Muslim theologians must revise their understanding of Islamic law, and recognize that punishment for apostasy is merely the legacy of historical circumstances and political calculations stretching back to the early days of Islam. Such punishments run counter to the clear Koranic injunction “Let there be no compulsion in religion” (2:256).

People of goodwill of every faith and nation must unite to ensure the triumph of religious freedom and of the “right” understanding of Islam, to avert global catastrophe and spare millions of others the fate of Sudan’s great religious and political leader, Mahmoud Muhammad Taha, who was executed on a false charge of apostasy. The millions of victims of “jihadist” violence in Sudan — whose numbers continue to rise every day — would have been spared if Taha’s vision of Islam had triumphed instead of that of the extremists.

The greatest challenge facing the contemporary Muslim world is to bring our limited, human understanding of Islamic law into harmony with its divine spirit — in order to reflect God’s mercy and compassion, and to bring the blessings of peace, justice and tolerance to a suffering world.

The writer is a former president of Indonesia. From 1984 to 1999 he directed the Nadhlatul Ulama, the world’s largest Muslim organization. He serves as senior adviser and board member to LibForAll Foundation, an Indonesian- and U.S.-based nonprofit that works to reduce religious extremism and terrorism.