I’ve long admired the Islamic preacher and academic Taj Hargey because he’s proven himself more than willing to stand up to the more extremist interpretations of his faith. If you use his name as a search term on here you will find that he’s often been at the forefront of criticism of Islamic extremism and as I’ve said he ‘gets it right’ time and time again.
Dr Hargey is now part of a new initiative to provide theological armour to Muslims for them to use to counter the arguments of Islamic extremists and Islamic literalists. This in my mind is a very good thing. There does need to be more done to highlight those parts of Islam that are not exhortations to violence and to sideline those areas, such as the Hadith, Shariah and religious Fatwas that are linked, according to Dr Hargey, to many of the uncivilised aspects of Islam as it exists today.
Here’s what Hannah Baldock writing in Spiked magazine about Dr Hargey said:
A new Muslim-led think tank, the Oxford Institute for British Islam (OIBI), has been launched to provide precisely that – a strong Islamic opposition to Islamism. Oxford-based imam Dr Taj Hargey, one of the driving forces behind the project, says the OIBI seeks to ‘theologically empower’ Muslim youth to resist divisive, hostile and fundamentalist interpretations of Islam.
At the OIBI’s launch event last month, hosted at St Peter’s College, Oxford, Hargey said the institute ‘will demonstrate that violence against non-Muslims, blasphemers and apostates, FGM, women’s suppression, stoning to death – all these barbaric practices – have no Koranic validation’.
There are it needs to be said troubling things in the Koran just as there are troubling things in the Bible or at least troubling to modern readers and some of these passages will nearly always pose problems for those who wish to reform religion and which need to be either glossed over or reinterpreted. But if Dr Hargey and his colleagues in what sounds like a distinctly pluralist and heterodox Islamic theological group can provide a credible counter theology to that of the literalists and extremists in Islam then that can only really be in my view a good thing.
“… if Dr Hargey and his colleagues in what sounds like a distinctly pluralist and heterodox Islamic theological group can provide a credible counter theology to that of the literalists and extremists in Islam then that can only really be in my view a good thing.”
Agreed.
But can they? The problem lies in credibility.
The problem I see is that the approach is: “These ‘barbaric practices’, argues Hargey, come from the Hadith (alleged sayings of the Prophet Muhammad written 300 years after his death), the Sharia (a concoction of medieval clerical opinion) and the fatwas (arbitrary rulings masquerading as religious decrees). ‘We don’t follow [this] toxic trio’, he said.
Which dismisses all Islamic sources except the Koran in contemptuous terms (though that might be the article’s author not Hargey) making Hargey at least a Koran-only or Koranite Muslim. (I acknowledge that some of his confreres do not dismiss all ahadith, however I guarantee that they “cherry pick” them).
What is the problem with being a Koran-only or “koranite” Muslim?
Firstly, that the Koran orders Muslims, ~50 times, to “obey the prophet”. To be sure it is expressed in different ways and words and as both positive injunction and negative warning, but it is said that often.
Now how can latter-day Muslims the command of Allah to “obey the prophet”?
The answer to that is it is by following what ol’Mo said (the hadith) and did (the Sirat – something Hargey did not mention, perhaps because the earliest Ibn Hisham/ Ibn Ishak version was written quite close to ol’Mo’s time).
Thus one orthodox counter argument is that Koranite Muslims actually disobey the Koran they claim to revere because they do not also follow the teachings of ol’Mo. Thus they are hypocrites and half-hearted Muslims whom the Koran says should be despised.
Now, it would take a long article for me to set out all the arguments as to why I think Hargey’s group, the Oxford Institute for British Islam (OIBI) will ultimately fail, so let me summarise my perspective on this.
It is not that a “distinctly pluralist and heterodox Islamic theology” cannot be developed, it can and also has been, repeatedly, in history; but it has also been suppressed every time by orthodoxy. The problem for the heterodox is that there is less evidence to support it in terms of sources (the Islamic canon, including the Koran) and, vitally, history than there is the orthodox interpretation.
The historical element is important because it shows that the orthodox interpretation was held by ol’Mo and his immediate followers (the Sabah) along with the immediately successive generations.
This alone gives the lie to the notion that the attitudes in the hadith and Sharia law were only developed 300 years or more after ol’Mo died.
Thus whilst I, too, wish them well, a moderate and pluralistic Islam is obviously a good thing for all concerned (Muslim and non-Muslim both), I am not holding much hope, though I would love to be proved wrong.
It has been tried before, from the Mut’azilites on, and it has failed because its theological, textual and historical underpinings are much weaker than those of orthodox Islam which is far more coherent in its treatment of the sources and far more in tune with the earliest Muslim practices.
Obviously heterodox Muslims, “cultural”, “social” or “progressive” Muslims like such a theology, because their innate humanity rejects the (inhumane) orthodox view, but the sad thing is that the Koran itself calls such Muslims “hypocrites” for not believing in all of the Koran, including the “troubling things in the Koran”.
You make some really good points there both on the history of reformists in Islam ending up being killed or sidelined and the potential credibility gap. I think that where Imam Hargey may be onto a winner is his idea of creating a specifically British type of Islam with the more less compatible bits removed. In a way it’s similar to the Minhag Anglia or English Custom in Judaism where British Jews do stuff a bit differently from Jews elsewhere.
If he’s trying to stop cultural and social Muslims from drifting into extremism then Dr Hargey is probably worth listening to just for that.
I don’t disagree with you at all and I do know that more or less secular Muslims can drift into extremism – I’ve seen it happen first hand.
It’s even possible that Hargey can create a “British Islam” rather in the manner that Indonesia has its Islam Nusantara a “traditional” (or somewhat unkindly, a quasi-folk Islam) rather than orthodox Islam, yet even here, where the traditional form has its own well established Ulama, this is losing ground to orthodoxy – just think Aceh province where once the orthodox got their feet (back) in the door the province spiralled down into being declared a “special autonomous status” (due to being ungovernable by the central authorities) and is now a Sharia statelet.
And orthodoxy is gaining ground in other provinces as well, due to the credibility gap.
But in the modern highly interconnected world there is little chance for the religious equivalent of genetic drift (religious drift?) within (relatively) isolated populations of believers of a particular religion or sect that would allow such a distinct flavour of Islam to develop.
A second problem with “British Islam” is that Islam sees itself as universal faith, thus a “British Islam” is anathema to many Muslims, not just the fully orthodox, so whether the creation of a distinct “flavour” of Islam is desirable is debatable (consider how many Sunnis and Shia mutually hate each other despite the agreements to “respect” each others’ practices and beliefs).
Now, there is a way that Islam can adapt to local conditions and it is by use of the provisions of Taysir (ease) and Darura (necessity) which fall within orthodoxy. Thus (simply put) orthodox Muslims can set aside as much of Sharia or even religious practice as necessary to avoid “difficulties” (and yes these provisions are abused) provided that they do not abandon the principles and will reinstate them when conditions permit.
Now, I do not doubt Imam Hargey’s intentions (I too respect him for what he has said and done), but I can easily see how his “British Islam” (Islam with nasty bits removed) could be easily subverted by orthodox Muslims who would basically say “Yes, this is fine under the present conditions, but you must put all those bits back when the conditions permit”.
What worries me is that we are already seeing the rise in power of the Muslim mob to dictate what is and is not permitted, e.g. The “Batley teacher” and his de facto sacking and the withdrawal of the (bad) film “Lady of heaven” in response to the demands of the Muslim mob, which I would regards as expressions of orthodoxy (consider the reactions to “insults” to Islam in Muslim dominated Countries from Afghanistan to Zanzibar), thus some of those nasty bits are already trickling back into the practice of British Muslims.
Yes I agree on the drift into Orthodoxy. It’s something that does not always happen in Islam alone. There are Jews and Christians who have drifted towards their own versions or interpretations of orthodoxy. Interesting what you say about Indonesia. You are also correct that because we are all interconnected information-wise it is much easier for orthodoxy in religion to spread from place to place and less easy for heterodox beliefs to grow in isolated areas.
I can also see your points of view regarding the ‘ease’ and ‘necessity’ stuff and the danger that Dr Hargey’s British Islam might be taken over by orthodox Islam.
It’s extremely worrying the power of the Islamic mob but more worrying is the states seeming willingness to give this mob a free pass.
“It’s extremely worrying [to see] the state’s seeming willingness to give this mob a free pass.”
I could not agree more, but as we all know community cohesion, racism and Islamophobia trump such trivia as law enforcement, or at least its enforcement without “fear or favour” (or in old language “indifferent law enforcement”).
Over on GB news ( https://www.gbnews.uk/news/imam-tells-nigel-farage-theres-nothing-in-quran-that-talks-about-killing-homosexuals-after-attack-on-lgbt-venue-in-oslo/325868 ) I found a quote from Taj Hargey that leads me to doubt him.
Hargey is quoted as saying: “In chapter five, verse 32, it says if you take one life, it is like you’ve killed the whole of humanity, and if you saved one life, it’s like you’ve saved the whole of humanity.”
This statement is highly disingenuous to put it at its kindest.
The verse actually ways: “Because of that We ordained for the Children of Israel that if anyone killed a person not in retaliation of murder, or (and) to spread mischief [fitnah] in the land – it would be as if he killed all mankind,
and if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of all mankind. And indeed, there came
to them Our Messengers with clear proofs, evidences, and signs, even then after that many of them
continued to exceed the limits in the land!”
Thus:
1. This verse applies to “the Children or Israel” and not to Muslims if we take the Koran at face value (as Hargey must, since he is a koranite and discounts all other sources).
2. A murderer or a spreader of “mischief” – the arabic is ‘Fitnah’ which is translated variously as mischief/discord/corruption and is generally understood to mean just about anything that disturbs or upsets Muslims – can be killed; so if I “upset” Muslims by saying something “Islamophobic” I am guilty of “fitnah” and may be killed – at least without it being killing of all mankind.
Now I should add than many Muslims of varying degrees of orthodoxy do think that this verse applies to Muslims, in the sense that the ‘unjust’ (by Islamic law) killing of a Muslim is “as if he killed all mankind”, but that this stricture against killing does not apply to non-Muslims who are thus fair game if they “commit fitnah in the land”.
Fully with you on how this verse is often used to obfuscate.