Religious Fundamentalism– A Concern but not a Disaster-- Keith Haskell--October 10, 2010
May I start with a few words about myself. I was born in Portsmouth in Southern England but for the past 35 years my home has been near the small town of Alton. Alton hasn't made a huge mark on history: it was the scene of a battle in our Civil War in 1642 and the novelist Jane Austen wrote almost all her books in a village just a mile away. But it has a place in what I plan to say, and I shall be coming back to it later.
After graduating I spent 38 years in the British Diplomatic Service: 12 of them in countries which are mainly or wholly Muslim. So I have had many opportunities to observe Muslim society at close quarters and see both the good and the dark side of Islam.
You probably know that the numerous strands of Islamic thought and belief belong to one of two main traditions, the Sunni and the Shia. The split between them is a very ancient one, going back to a dispute about the leadership of Islam only decades after the death of the Prophet Muhammad. But both traditions emphasise the central role of the Koran, which among other things enjoins Muslims to respect the faith of other “people of the Book,” including Jews, Christians and Sabaens. So those who commit acts of terrorism against Western society, such as the terrible sequence of events on 9/11, are acting in defiance of one of the basic principles of their religion. The vast majority of Muslims, who want peace and fellowship with their non-Muslim neighbours are dismayed by some of the things that have been and are being done in the name of their faith.
I mentioned the split between the Sunni and Shia traditions of Islam. It would no doubt be tidier and easier to understand if Islamic fundamentalists and the terrorists whom they support belonged exclusively to one tradition or the other. But this is not the case. Muslim terrorists who follow the Sunni tradition include Al-Qa'ida, whose origins were in Saudi Arabia, though it now has followers also in Yemen, Somalia and several North African countries, and Hamas in Palestine. Among those who follow the Shia tradition are Hizb'allah in Southern Lebanon, as well as smaller groups sponsored by the Islamic Republic of Iran.
However it is perfectly possible to be an Islamic fundamentalist and not support terrorism. Citizens of Saudi Arabia belong overwhelmingly to the Wahhabi strand of Islamic thought. Individual Saudis have become terrorists: for example, Osama bin Laden came from one of Saudi Arabia's wealthiest families, although his relatives have now disowned him and he them. Moreover, more than half of the aircraft hijackers on 9/11 were Saudis. But the government and religious authorities of Saudi Arabia have condemned acts of terrorism, and those preparing to commit such acts are liable to be arrested, questioned and sentenced to long terms of imprisonment.
One needs to be cautious about drawing any sort of parallel between Islamic and Christian fundamentalism. However one can see a clear distinction between those Christians who reject the teachings of Islam and the few who appear anxious to express their rejection as offensively as possible: for example, the Protestant pastor who recently announced his intention to organise a mass burning of copies of the Koran, and was fortunately dissuaded from doing so at the last moment. As Voltaire is alleged to have said 250 years ago: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”. Interestingly, although Muslim extremists frequently burn the American flag at their demonstrations, I cannot recall them ever burning a Bible.
Just as there is a difference between Muslims who maintain a strict observance of their faith but oppose violence, and those who are prepared to give support to terrorism, so it is important to understand the motives of the terrorists themselves. For some, violence against the West appears to be an end in itself, and attempts to draw them into any sort of negotiation or dialogue are never likely to enjoy success. But the majority are -wrongly, but sometimes understandably – using violence to solve a political problem. If that problem is solved to the satisfaction of the parties affected by it, there is real hope that the violence will end.
Ireland is a good example of this. Both the Catholics, who supported the Irish Republican Army, and the Protestants, who opposed it, were (and still are) religious fundamentalists. But patient work by Prime Ministers Major and Blair, with strong support from President Clinton and Senator Mitchell, resulted in an agreement under which the Catholics in Northern Ireland were no longer denied their full civil rights, but the territory remained part of the United Kingdom. A few extremists from both sides commit occasional acts of violence, but the vast majority of both communities respect the agreement.
The situation in the Middle East is similar. If an agreement could be reached between Israel and the Palestinians, the ground would be cut from under the feet of Hamas and all other Arab groups which claim that they have resorted to violence only because negotiations had led nowhere. But it must be an agreement from which both sides benefit, not simply a Palestinian surrender to Israeli military power. At the moment, Jewish fundamentalism, not Muslim, is the greatest obstacle to meaningful negotiations. Israel's electoral system tends to give small parties with extremist views more influence than their size deserves. Jewish fundamentalists have set their face against any concessions to Palestinian views – such as a freeze on construction of new settlements on Palestinian land as long as negotiations are still in progress. Despite President Obama's personal commitment, a settlement of the dispute will not be easily or quickly reached.
Well, enough doom and gloom. There are many positive aspects to Muslim relations with other faiths which must not be overlooked. At the beginning of this talk I said I would be coming back to the story of my home town, Alton. Five or six years ago, it was announced that the Ahmadiyya Muslim Association of the UK had bought a 200-acre site very close by on which they proposed to hold their annual Jalsa Salana, or convention. A temporary tent city would be put up each year to provide accommodation and feeding areas, as well as conference facilities, for up to 30,000 visitors.
The reaction was mixed, and certainly not entirely welcoming. Alton has very few Muslim residents, and most people's knowledge of Islam came from alarmist newspaper stories of terrorist acts and inflammatory sermons at one or two London mosques. But as they have come to know and understand Alton's temporary guests, nothing but praise has emerged. Each year the campsite is well-organised and scrupulously clean and creates no noise or other nuisance to disturb its neighbours. Fund-raising events are organised – for example a sponsored walk from Alton railway station to the camp site – with half the proceeds going to local charities. Non-Muslims are welcome at all the sessions of the convention, and numerous Members of Parliament and local councillors have come to see and listen for themselves. And they will have been reassured to hear the Khalifa – the world-wide Head of the Association – say in his address: “Those who love and yearn for peace should stand united against terror and jihadist violence”.
Unfortunately, the information media have discovered that sensational stories about terrorism and violence sell more copies of newspapers and attract higher TV audiences than stories about peace and love. Back in February 1979 I was British Consul-General in Dubai and responsible for organising a State Visit by The Queen. She arrived on a Sunday, and after an introductory tour of the city by motorcade, she wished to attend evensong in the British church. The Ruler of Dubai, Shaikh Rashid, escorted her to the church door. After evensong, there was a two-hour gap in the programme before a State Banquet, so I took the opportunity to call at the media centre, to see if any of the journalists accompanying the royal party needed information or any other help.
The only question asked by the journalists was whether there were any British subjects in jail in Dubai, and if so, whether they were likely to be executed or flogged. I told them that there were two British subjects serving relatively short terms of imprisonment for what I considered serious crimes: they were held in air-conditioned cells and their main complaint was that they didn't have enough reading material in English. I then went on to mention The Queen's visit to the church, pointing out that Shaikh Rashid himself, though a devout Muslim, had escorted her to the door. Not only that, but the church was built on land which he had donated free of charge, and he himself laid the foundation stone 10 years earlier. Several of the journalists ostentatiously put down their pencils with a look of disgust. What they wanted was stories of violence and intolerance, and I wasn't giving them any.
Muslim fundamentalism does of course exist, but I hope and believe that the attitudes of the Ahmadiyya Muslims and Shaikh Rashid are more typical of majority Muslim belief. To quote another Ahmadiyya spokesman: If we are attacked with violence, we don't respond with violence … the best way of changing the world is through persuasion”. That is a message with which I think we can all agree.
After graduating I spent 38 years in the British Diplomatic Service: 12 of them in countries which are mainly or wholly Muslim. So I have had many opportunities to observe Muslim society at close quarters and see both the good and the dark side of Islam.
You probably know that the numerous strands of Islamic thought and belief belong to one of two main traditions, the Sunni and the Shia. The split between them is a very ancient one, going back to a dispute about the leadership of Islam only decades after the death of the Prophet Muhammad. But both traditions emphasise the central role of the Koran, which among other things enjoins Muslims to respect the faith of other “people of the Book,” including Jews, Christians and Sabaens. So those who commit acts of terrorism against Western society, such as the terrible sequence of events on 9/11, are acting in defiance of one of the basic principles of their religion. The vast majority of Muslims, who want peace and fellowship with their non-Muslim neighbours are dismayed by some of the things that have been and are being done in the name of their faith.
I mentioned the split between the Sunni and Shia traditions of Islam. It would no doubt be tidier and easier to understand if Islamic fundamentalists and the terrorists whom they support belonged exclusively to one tradition or the other. But this is not the case. Muslim terrorists who follow the Sunni tradition include Al-Qa'ida, whose origins were in Saudi Arabia, though it now has followers also in Yemen, Somalia and several North African countries, and Hamas in Palestine. Among those who follow the Shia tradition are Hizb'allah in Southern Lebanon, as well as smaller groups sponsored by the Islamic Republic of Iran.
However it is perfectly possible to be an Islamic fundamentalist and not support terrorism. Citizens of Saudi Arabia belong overwhelmingly to the Wahhabi strand of Islamic thought. Individual Saudis have become terrorists: for example, Osama bin Laden came from one of Saudi Arabia's wealthiest families, although his relatives have now disowned him and he them. Moreover, more than half of the aircraft hijackers on 9/11 were Saudis. But the government and religious authorities of Saudi Arabia have condemned acts of terrorism, and those preparing to commit such acts are liable to be arrested, questioned and sentenced to long terms of imprisonment.
One needs to be cautious about drawing any sort of parallel between Islamic and Christian fundamentalism. However one can see a clear distinction between those Christians who reject the teachings of Islam and the few who appear anxious to express their rejection as offensively as possible: for example, the Protestant pastor who recently announced his intention to organise a mass burning of copies of the Koran, and was fortunately dissuaded from doing so at the last moment. As Voltaire is alleged to have said 250 years ago: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”. Interestingly, although Muslim extremists frequently burn the American flag at their demonstrations, I cannot recall them ever burning a Bible.
Just as there is a difference between Muslims who maintain a strict observance of their faith but oppose violence, and those who are prepared to give support to terrorism, so it is important to understand the motives of the terrorists themselves. For some, violence against the West appears to be an end in itself, and attempts to draw them into any sort of negotiation or dialogue are never likely to enjoy success. But the majority are -wrongly, but sometimes understandably – using violence to solve a political problem. If that problem is solved to the satisfaction of the parties affected by it, there is real hope that the violence will end.
Ireland is a good example of this. Both the Catholics, who supported the Irish Republican Army, and the Protestants, who opposed it, were (and still are) religious fundamentalists. But patient work by Prime Ministers Major and Blair, with strong support from President Clinton and Senator Mitchell, resulted in an agreement under which the Catholics in Northern Ireland were no longer denied their full civil rights, but the territory remained part of the United Kingdom. A few extremists from both sides commit occasional acts of violence, but the vast majority of both communities respect the agreement.
The situation in the Middle East is similar. If an agreement could be reached between Israel and the Palestinians, the ground would be cut from under the feet of Hamas and all other Arab groups which claim that they have resorted to violence only because negotiations had led nowhere. But it must be an agreement from which both sides benefit, not simply a Palestinian surrender to Israeli military power. At the moment, Jewish fundamentalism, not Muslim, is the greatest obstacle to meaningful negotiations. Israel's electoral system tends to give small parties with extremist views more influence than their size deserves. Jewish fundamentalists have set their face against any concessions to Palestinian views – such as a freeze on construction of new settlements on Palestinian land as long as negotiations are still in progress. Despite President Obama's personal commitment, a settlement of the dispute will not be easily or quickly reached.
Well, enough doom and gloom. There are many positive aspects to Muslim relations with other faiths which must not be overlooked. At the beginning of this talk I said I would be coming back to the story of my home town, Alton. Five or six years ago, it was announced that the Ahmadiyya Muslim Association of the UK had bought a 200-acre site very close by on which they proposed to hold their annual Jalsa Salana, or convention. A temporary tent city would be put up each year to provide accommodation and feeding areas, as well as conference facilities, for up to 30,000 visitors.
The reaction was mixed, and certainly not entirely welcoming. Alton has very few Muslim residents, and most people's knowledge of Islam came from alarmist newspaper stories of terrorist acts and inflammatory sermons at one or two London mosques. But as they have come to know and understand Alton's temporary guests, nothing but praise has emerged. Each year the campsite is well-organised and scrupulously clean and creates no noise or other nuisance to disturb its neighbours. Fund-raising events are organised – for example a sponsored walk from Alton railway station to the camp site – with half the proceeds going to local charities. Non-Muslims are welcome at all the sessions of the convention, and numerous Members of Parliament and local councillors have come to see and listen for themselves. And they will have been reassured to hear the Khalifa – the world-wide Head of the Association – say in his address: “Those who love and yearn for peace should stand united against terror and jihadist violence”.
Unfortunately, the information media have discovered that sensational stories about terrorism and violence sell more copies of newspapers and attract higher TV audiences than stories about peace and love. Back in February 1979 I was British Consul-General in Dubai and responsible for organising a State Visit by The Queen. She arrived on a Sunday, and after an introductory tour of the city by motorcade, she wished to attend evensong in the British church. The Ruler of Dubai, Shaikh Rashid, escorted her to the church door. After evensong, there was a two-hour gap in the programme before a State Banquet, so I took the opportunity to call at the media centre, to see if any of the journalists accompanying the royal party needed information or any other help.
The only question asked by the journalists was whether there were any British subjects in jail in Dubai, and if so, whether they were likely to be executed or flogged. I told them that there were two British subjects serving relatively short terms of imprisonment for what I considered serious crimes: they were held in air-conditioned cells and their main complaint was that they didn't have enough reading material in English. I then went on to mention The Queen's visit to the church, pointing out that Shaikh Rashid himself, though a devout Muslim, had escorted her to the door. Not only that, but the church was built on land which he had donated free of charge, and he himself laid the foundation stone 10 years earlier. Several of the journalists ostentatiously put down their pencils with a look of disgust. What they wanted was stories of violence and intolerance, and I wasn't giving them any.
Muslim fundamentalism does of course exist, but I hope and believe that the attitudes of the Ahmadiyya Muslims and Shaikh Rashid are more typical of majority Muslim belief. To quote another Ahmadiyya spokesman: If we are attacked with violence, we don't respond with violence … the best way of changing the world is through persuasion”. That is a message with which I think we can all agree.
posted by UUCP Sermons at 12:51 PM
