My friend Nitin Pai of The Acorn has an op-ed in the Mint, “Why India must export its Islam.” He writes:

In a secular state such as India, there is little role for the state in matters of faith and religion. But the rise of a radical, intolerant version of Islam around the world is also not in its interests. Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Iran have no self-imposed restrictions on promoting their own Islamic values. It is unlikely that India can counter these exertions of soft power by promoting the virtues of secularism to the Islamic world. But it could promote its own syncretic Islamic tradition to offer an alternative narrative to the world’s Muslims.

Nitin is an astute observer and I have the utmost respect for his incisive commentary and analysis of matters of importance. Try as I might, however, I cannot see what he means in that op-ed.

I like his use of the word “syncretic” which the big dic defines as the “reconciliation or fusion of differing systems of belief, as in philosophy or religion, especially when success is partial or the result is heterogeneous.” I think that word is very well chosen.

My position is that we need to understand that there is a distinction between Islam and Muslims. There is in a very strict sense something called Islam which is defined by the Koran and the Hadiths. The literal meaning of Islam is “submission to the will of Allah” or just “submission” and at its core, Islam proclaims that it is the perfect religion and therefore unalterable and is the final word of god. Any change or dilution of the core beliefs is by definition not Islam. Islam’s claim to be the only true and perfect faith automatically relegates all other faiths to be false and evil. Other faiths, which are by definition imperfect from an Islamic point of view, can change or mutate but Islam cannot — and indeed does not — need to change.

I have read the Koran in translation and I must admit that it does not appeal to me. I am fiercely atheistic and value free expression and the equality of all humans irrespective of sex, sexual orientation, caste, creed, national origin, etc. Islam apparently is antithetical to all that I value and hold sacred. But then I am an “infidel”, a non-believer, and what is worse, I am an idol-worshipping Hindu. But others who are not similarly burdened do criticize Islam also. Here’s Ayaan Hirsi Ali, born in a devout Muslim family, in a recent column in the Washington Post titled “My View of Islam“:

On the issues of holy war (jihad), apostasy and the treatment of women, the Koran and Sunna are clear. It is the obligation of every Muslim to spread Islam to unbelievers first through dawa, or proselytizing, then through jihad, if the unbelievers refuse to convert. It is the obligation of the unbelievers to accept Islam. Exempted from this edict of conversion are the people of the book: Christians and Jews. Both peoples have a choice. They may adopt Islam and enjoy the same rights as other Muslims, or they may stick to their book and lead the life of a dhimmi (lower citizen). Legally, the rights of the dhimmi are not equal to those of a Muslim. For instance, a Muslim man may take a Jewish or Christian wife, but Jews and Christians are not allowed to marry Muslim women. If a Christian or a Jew kills a Muslim man, they should be killed immediately. In contrast, the blood of a Muslim should never be shed in recompense for the blood of Christians or Jews.

It is also the obligation of every Muslim to command virtue and forbid vice. Apostasy, the worst possible vice a Muslim can commit, should be punished by death. The punishment need not be carried out by a state, but can easily be enforced by civilians. When it is a question of Islamic law, justice is in the hands of every Muslim.

[I am appending the entire column at the end of this post.]

But that criticism comes at enormous personal and public costs. Islam tolerates no dissent. And if a Muslim is true to the faith, he or she is mandated to enforce the punishment for apostasy. One example most of us are familiar with is that of Tasleema Nasreen. Reuters reported yesterday that Muslim lawmakers attack Taslima Nasreen in Hyderabad, India.

Muslim protesters assaulted the exiled Bangladeshi author and feminist Taslima Nasreen at a book launch in Hyderabad on Thursday, incensed by her repeated criticism of Islam and religion in general.

Some radical Muslims hate Nasreen for saying Islam and other religions oppress women.

On Thursday, lawmakers and members of the All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen party attacked her at the press club in Hyderabad at the launch of a Telugu translation of one of her novels.

An uneasy-looking Nasreen backed into a corner as several middle-aged men threw a leather case, bunches of flowers and other objects at her head and threatened her with a chair, according to a Reuters witness and television pictures.

Some of the mob shouted for her death.

Other men tried to shield her and catch the projectiles. She ended up with a bruised forehead, and described the attack as barbaric before being taken to safety by police.

Nasreen fled Bangladesh for the first time in 1994 when a court said she had “deliberately and maliciously” hurt Muslims’ religious feelings with her Bengali-language novel “Lajja”, or “Shame”, which is about riots between Muslims and Hindus.

At the time, thousands of radical Muslims protested against her, demanding that she be killed for blasphemy, and some have continued to threaten her life ever since.

Police said they have arrested three state lawmakers from the political party along with 15 party workers.

Islam, according to itself, is perfect and it makes no sense to claim that there are different kinds of Islam. Indeed, a non-Muslim’s claim that there are different versions of Islam smacks of arrogance and condescension that is only matched by Islam’s arrogance and condescension that it is perfect and immutable. Muslims, on the other hand, are humans and live all over the world and are therefore understandably a heterogeneous lot. Though they profess the same faith, how they live differs according to local conditions. Indian Muslims are distinctly different from say Egyptian Muslims but that does not mean that the Islam they both profess is different. Therefore it is not very clear that there is such a thing as “Indian Islam” while there is such a thing as an Indian Muslim.

So back to the matter of exporting Islam as Nitin advocates. Suppose we were to admit that Indian Muslims were different and in some sense “better” than the Muslims in other parts of the world — that Indian Muslims are less radical than others — then we have to ask ourselves what is the reason for the difference. Could it be that Indian Muslims are embedded in a largely non-Muslim society and that perhaps is the reason for the difference? If so, then one can argue that it is not that Indian Muslims practice a different Islam but it is their environment in which they exist that makes them different. So then the radical Muslims in non-Indian locations can only be made non-radical by embedding them in largely non-Muslim populations.

Imagine surrounding Muslims in Pakistan with such numbers of non-Muslims that they become non-radical. Ridiculous doesn’t even come close to describing it. I am sure that Nitin does not mean to imply that exporting Hindus to Saudi Arabia is part of the plan but that is the logical implication of his proposal.

My basic proposition is that to the extent that Muslims in India are who they are is not because they follow a different Koran but because they live among people who are non-Muslims. Therefore in countries that are predominantly Muslim, what you find is a more accurate practice of Islam. I think that it is the height of arrogance to believe that it is alright to force your brand of Islam on people. It is abhorrent to me for the same reason that I find it abhorrent that monotheists in their arrogance try to convert other people.

The question of Islam and its present disposition around the world has serious implications for India both economically and socially. The political entity we call India today is of course a modern invention going back less than two centuries. But the civilization that is at the core of this modern India — the Indic civilization — is very ancient. That ancient civilization has been losing ground — both metaphorically and physically — to Islam for a millennium. It can be argued that the places that the Indic civilization lost have seen a deterioration as a result. For example, present day Afghanistan has lost much of the glory that it had as a Buddhist civilization.

I am mindful of the fact that stating one’s opinion on Islam is a crime against humanity or something tantamount to that in some people’s opinion. It is the only sacred cow left, it would appear. One can honestly state that one is opposed to Nazism, or communism, or libertarianism or Christianity or Hinduism or Voodooism. But you are not allowed to criticize Islam. You are an “Islamophobe” and have offended 1.5 billion Muslims. I just don’t quite understand why Islam has to be above criticism. I can understand that Muslims are bound by their faith to follow the dictates of Islam and not criticize Islam. But since when have non-Muslims come to be governed by Islamic laws in their non-Islamic societies?

To be very clear about this, I am an “Islamophobe” in the sense of the word that I am terrified of Islam. Islam seeks my annihilation in no uncertain terms as I am a non-believer and an idol worshiper. (I hope that it is clear that I am not a “Muslimophobe” — so back off with the outraged comments about “how dare you insult 1.5 billion Muslims”.) My hatred of an ideology is a reasoned response to what the ideology is. Other people can and do have different assessments of different ideologies and it is certainly not a crime (at least not yet in India) to hold differing opinions. So, yes, my opinion of Islam is no higher than Islam’s opinion of me.

To oppose those who actively seek your destruction is an eminently reasonable position to me. Islam in India came as the ideology of conquerors and even now India is an unfinished business for the forces of Islam. I value my cultural heritage and I don’t care how the pseudo-secular brigade wants to wipe it out but I will defend it with all that I have. I am willing to live and let live but I will oppose as a moral duty — my dharma — any attempt at the Islamization of my land, just as surely I would expect the Saudi Arabians to defend their culture from being over-run by Hindus or Christians. What I oppose is typified by the statement of a Pakistani in a recent article in TIME magazine article, “Pakistan: Divided by Faith“:

Still, many South Asian Muslims insist Islam is the one and only force that can bring the subcontinent together and return it to preeminence as a single whole. “We [Muslims] were the legal rulers of India, and in 1857 the British took that away from us,” says Tarik Jan, a gentle-mannered scholar at Islamabad’s Institute of Policy Studies. “In 1947 they should have given that back to the Muslims.” Jan is no militant, but he pines for the golden era of the Mughal period in the 1700s, and has a fervent desire to see India, Pakistan and Bangladesh reunited under Islamic rule.

The Koran perhaps promises the entire universe to Muslims as wages for jihad on non-believers but it should not surprise anyone if I oppose my destruction with equal force. It is time to take a stand against oppression and hatred. Else one should be prepared to be annihilated.

By the way, if you are offended by my position, do send me a link to your writings where you protested the call for murder of writers and cartoonists by an Indian Muslim minister of the government, send me where you opposed the banning of books by the government of India, where you opposed the division of Indian society through religion-based discrimination, etc. I will entertain your objections. Otherwise stuff it you know where.

~ / ~ /~ / ~ / ~

My View of Islam
by Ayaan Hirsi Ali

On holy war, apostasy and the rights of women in Islam.

The undisputed definition of Islam by all her adherents is “submission to the will of Allah.” This divine will is outlined in the Koran and in the teachings and deeds of Muhammad, as recorded in the Hadith or Sunna.

While the Koran is considered to be the true, undiluted word of God revealed to Muhammad through the angel Gabriel, the Sunna carry less weight and have always been a cause for disagreement amongst Muslim scholars. Theologians of Islam have, however, reached consensus on the authority of a set of six volumes from the Sunna called the Sahih Sita, or authentic six.

On the issues of holy war (jihad), apostasy and the treatment of women, the Koran and Sunna are clear. It is the obligation of every Muslim to spread Islam to unbelievers first through dawa, or proselytizing, then through jihad, if the unbelievers refuse to convert. It is the obligation of the unbelievers to accept Islam. Exempted from this edict of conversion are the people of the book: Christians and Jews. Both peoples have a choice. They may adopt Islam and enjoy the same rights as other Muslims, or they may stick to their book and lead the life of a dhimmi (lower citizen). Legally, the rights of the dhimmi are not equal to those of a Muslim. For instance, a Muslim man may take a Jewish or Christian wife, but Jews and Christians are not allowed to marry Muslim women. If a Christian or a Jew kills a Muslim man, they should be killed immediately. In contrast, the blood of a Muslim should never be shed in recompense for the blood of Christians or Jews.

It is also the obligation of every Muslim to command virtue and forbid vice. Apostasy, the worst possible vice a Muslim can commit, should be punished by death. The punishment need not be carried out by a state, but can easily be enforced by civilians. When it is a question of Islamic law, justice is in the hands of every Muslim.

As for the treatment of women, in the Koran and more elaborately in the Sunna, Islam assigns to girls a position in the family that requires them to be docile, makes them dependent on their male relatives for money and gives dominion over their bodies to these same male kin.

In Islam there is a strict hierarchy of subservience. First and foremost, all humans are required to be the slaves of Allah. In Muslim societies, all children must obey their parents. Beyond this, women and girls must obey and serve without question their male guardians and especially their husbands. This decree of marital obedience is not in any way reciprocal.

A woman in Islam is not competent and must always have a guardian. The responsibility of guardianship may pass from father to brother to uncle before a girl is married off, at which point she must answer to her husband. Marriage is typically arranged, with no choice given to the girl, and there is often an exchange of money in the process. Thus, under the religious rule of Islam, it is still common today that a woman’s rights are essentially sold to a man she may not know, and most likely does not love.

As for education of girls under Islam, there is a clear program of indoctrination of inequality. Under Islam, education is the passing on of the rules of submission to the will of Allah. Intrinsic in this “education” is the dictation of gender roles. Girls are instructed in subservience first to God, then to the family and finally to the husband. There is strict emphasis on modesty, defined by virginity. A Muslim girl is taught to guard fiercely her virginity as an expression of loyalty to her creator and to her family and husband.

This form of education hampers her chances of ever becoming self-reliant or financially independent. A woman’s lack of social equality and freedom is a direct consequence of the teachings of Islam. Under Islam, a wife must always ask her husband for permission and she must obey indefinitely. This stricture is lifted in the unique event that he asks her to forsake God, wherein she is allowed the right of disobedience. While it is true that in Islam, technically speaking, women have the right to trade and own property, the condition of total obedience to guardians makes this “freedom” hypothetical, at best.

The goal of education given to girls under Islam is the achievement of control over female sexuality. The result of this indoctrination is that Muslim girls believe legitimate and often vocally defend their position of subordination. The lengths a Muslim society will go to in the pursuit of sexual control often cross into the territory of the absurd and, by western standards, criminal. In Islam the minimum age of marriage for a girl is after her first menstruation. Muhammad was engaged to his wife Aisha when she was six years old, and he married her (had intercourse with her) when she turned nine. Millions of Muslim men across the world follow Muhammad in this deed, one of the most prominent examples being the late Ayatollah Khomeini.

Under sharia law (Islamic law), such as governs in Saudi Arabia, Iran and parts of Nigeria, the civil rights of women are dramatically reduced. Threat of violent punishment in the form of whipping and stoning makes the prospect of financial independence and sexual freedom for women all but impossible. Miraculously, even in such harsh circumstances you will find women who are relatively well educated, have some say in choosing a husband and manage to earn a living. Let us be clear that these exceptions are due to the compassion and progressiveness of families who have been influenced by the West, and not to rules derived from Islam.

In the quest for reconciliation between Muslim and western societies, it is important to recognize that Muslims are as diverse as Islam is monolithic. Islam attempts to unify more than a billion people of different geographical origins, languages, ethnicities, and cultural and educational backgrounds into one religious tribe. And while I acknowledge that generally stereotyping believers is difficult since belief is subjective, for the sake of discussion I would like to distinguish between five types of Muslims.

The first group includes those Muslims who leave the faith because they cannot reconcile it with their conscience or with modernity. This group is important for the evolution of the Islamic world because they ask the urgent and critical questions believers usually avoid. Ex-Muslims living in the west are just beginning to find their voice and to take advantage of the spiritual and social freedoms available to them.

The second group is comprised of genuine Muslim reformers, such as Irshad Manji, who acknowledge the theological out-datedness of the Koranic commands and the immorality of the prophet. They tend to emphasize the early chapters in the Koran urging goodness, generosity and spirituality. They argue that the latter chapters wherein Islam is politicized and the concepts of sharia, jihad and martyrdom are introduced should be read in the context in which they were written, some 1,400 years ago.

The third group is made up of those Muslims who support the gradual perpetuation and domination of Islam throughout the world. They use the freedoms offered in democracy to undermine social modernity and, though initially opposed to the use of violence, foresee that once the number of believers reaches a critical mass the last remnants of unbelievers may then be dealt with in violence, and sharia law may be universally implemented. Ayatollah Khomeini used this method successfully in Iran. Erdogan of Turkey is following in his footsteps. Tariq Ramadan, deeply rooted in his Muslim Brotherhood heritage, is devoted to such a program among European Muslims.

The fourth group is the most obvious and immediately threatening. In this group we find a growing number of hard-line Muslims who have defined martyrdom as their only goal. This is an army of young men whipped into a frenzy of suicidal violence by power hungry clergy. These clergy have public platforms and work with impunity from institutions untouched and often funded by national authorities.

The fifth group is largely ineffective and only threatening in their refusal to acknowledge the truth. Here we find the elite clergy who make a show of trying to reconcile Islam with modernity. They are motivated by self-preservation and have no interest in true reform. They take selective passages from the holy books to make a case for a peaceful Islam, ignoring the many passages inciting violence, such as those verses which command the death of apostates.

It is through the first two of these five groups that progress and reform will come. As for the rest, the western world would be wise to recognize the realities of Islam, a religion laid down in writing over a millennium ago with violence and oppression at its heart.

Born in Somalia and raised a devout Muslim, Ayaan Hirsi Ali is an active critic of Islam, an advocate for women’s rights and a leader in the campaign to reform Islam. Her willingness to speak out and her abandonment of the Muslim faith have made her a target for violence and threat of death by Islamic extremists. She is currently a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, in Washington D.C., and is the author of the bestselling memoir “Infidel.”