Pluralism Isn't Islamic Law, Either.

Via RealClear Politics I have come across an interesting article by a former president of Indonesia who argues that "Extremism Isn't Islamic Law". Although I appreciate his sentiment favoring religious pluralism, even to the extent of allowing Moslem apostates to leave their faith peacefully, I must indicate that his central argument, which is to say that religious persecution is "against" Islamic law is not the way to the reformation of Islam that so many of us in West hope will eventually occur.

Consider the following passage.

[T]hroughout 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. ...

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. [bold added]

Among all the divine fiats and mere human interpretations, there is no concession to objectivity save the weak-kneed "in accordance with circumstances". That phrase would, I am sure, carry great moral weight with Westerners, who implicity as a whole, value life on this earth as an end in itself. Westerners would take this to mean that religious dicta must change with the times to accommodate human needs.

By contrast, the phrase would carry great tactical weight to just about anyone whose highest ideal is the implementation of what he feels to be Allah's will. Many Moslems would, I am sure, take the phrase to mean that different strategies to spread Islam must be taken, depending on the changing circumstances. Why else would we have suicide bombers?

And more to the point, why would someone who values his feeling of what the divine wants over his own life make the "mistake" of allowing an apostate to walk away from his religion peacefully, and straight into the maw of hell? And, worse still, why would he permit Allah's will to be thwarted?

This is the problem with attempts to base pluralism on religion. Religion causes its followers to regard otherworldly, unprovable -- in a word, imaginary -- notions as more important than their own lives, and by extension, those of others. And one's highest ideal sets his lower priorities by an inexorable logic. If eternal perdition is "real" harm, then how does bodily death injure an apostate? And might the apostate's death protect others from his unholy influence? And, in the meantime, how would threats harm him if they could cause his return to the One True Path? I don't see much room for pluralism here....

When laws are made admitting of any element of the arbitrary -- er, "divine" -- of course they are going to conflict with the worldly requirements of man's life on earth any time someone has the temerity to run afoul of whatever element that is. And while it might feel good to denigrate the barbaric "interpretations" of the unwashed fanatic as "mere interpretations" of the "divine", anyone who does so in the name of interpreting his religion differently ipso facto opens himself up to the very same criticism!

What the Islamic world needs instead of some fatwa mandating tolerance is what the Christian world got during the Renaissance and the Enlightenment and still has to a lesser extent today -- a recognition that there exists a law independent of alleged divine fiat and claims of inspired knowledge. Moslems need to accept in some meaningful way that their own lives on this earth are valuable in and of themselves, and so recognize that the surest way to protect their lives is to live in accordance with natural law. Most importantly, they must permit natural law to supercede religious law as unprovable and open to the wildest of interpretations. And if they love their lives, they will, because they will understand how the "divine law" espoused by others can ruin their lives or end them altogether.

Religion, in the sense that it unleashes the most brutish fanatics upon their fellow man, is the arch-enemy of life and liberty, and it must be kept from forming the basis of the law in any society. This is what we learned in the West, and this is what the Moslems must learn, even if we must teach them -- incidentally, and for the sake of self-preservation -- in the most unpleasant way.

-- CAV