Ibn Warraq

Can a Muslim or ex-Muslim criticise Islam ?

It does appear to be the case that for both sides of the 'debate' being a Muslim who is critical of Islam is equally seized on by 'Western' (Northern/European/US) and championed, and yet reviled and exiled by Muslim communities. I wonder if the lack of reformation is due to the fact that Muslims are too scared to debate some things. However by the same token, the cynical attempt of an Ex-Muslim to imbue their name with an 'authenticity' (in that Ibn Warraq is an Arabic/Islamic sounding pseudonym) is also challenging trope to invoke. What I found interesting when looking up Ibn Warraq, was that he was quoted by organisations like this which do have a standpoint/religious bias - Needless to say after doing some more research I came to the conclusion that Ibn Warraq is not a 'Crack pot' as I first had him down, but a man on a mission (secular one at that).

Clearly he seeks to illuminate some of the darker sides of Islam and I am not particularly opposed to that. However, I suspect that claiming Islam is based on terrorism, that in fact the first polity established by Mohammad was based purely on violence and torture - may be just a 'tad' inflammatory. But moving beyond this, (as it would appear that the Hijra and subsequent battles were indeed violent), in the early years of Meccan society as indeed a snapshot of Europe of the same time, life was 'brutish and short' to quote a famous European philosopher.- The crux of Ibn Warraq's arguments appear (I have yet to read his texts in their entirety so forgive me for that) to be that, Islam needs to be 'humanised'. He seems to be calling for a critical engagement by Muslims with thier faith. Again from the sound of things this is not a major problem, as I agree that Islam needs to take into account the changes in consciousness that have taken place. This is no more evident then in the relationship between feminism and Islamic societies. However Ibn Warraq is concerned that the basis of the Manichean split between good - Western (presumably liberal Democratic Capitalism ) and bad - Islamic (Theoaucratic Dictatorships) finds its reflection in Islam as a core belief system. He then goes to describe passages from the Qur'an which purport to demonstrate it's inherent bloodthirsty, intolerant nature.

Ibn Warraq's mission also appears to simplify and conflate all diversity that exists across time and space in the Islamic World - which spans a few continents and a vast populations as I'm sure you know-. This would appear to be good technique for getting the reader on his side: He quotes Sayyid Qutb as if he was some kind Pope figure who's appeal was internationally renowned. Sayyid Qutb, is indeed a favourite of the Young impressionable Politically motivated Muslims I have met in Universities, and does indeed represent a 'fundamentalist' view. He was executed in 1966 during a clampdown on revivalist Islamic movements in Egypt- (Incidentally the Muslim Brotherhood were considered a fringe group in Egypt certainly not mainstream). Ibn Warraq's quotation of a fundamentalist to prove that Islam is fundamentalist to me appears a little tautological. So the case for reform is increasingly looking it is based on either a poorly researched background in Islam, or a deliberate attempt to represent Islam as a singularity. Interesting, because in this way Ibn Warraq is behaving in a fundamentalist way also. I do not believe that Ibn Warraq is at all poorly researched in his work. But then I do not buy the more simplistic position of a Western stooge either.

My conclusion to this totally excessive rant, is that Ibn Warraq whoever he is, presents an interesting case for thinking about Islam, but my question is which Islam does he want to reform? He argues that apologists point out that there are 'moderate' voices in Islam and that fundamentalists are in a minority, he retorts that the basis of Islam is fundamentalist, and then he quotes a fundamentalist to prove his point. The problem with this his statement on WTC is that his audience is none the wiser at the end. His diatribe confirms the fears of every American- That Muslims are fanatics and predisposed to terrorism. Their faith is historically and theologically bounded by hatred and violence. This is not the Islam that I recognise from my experience, nor from my studies. According to Ibn Warraq, this means I am suffering from a delusion,- that I ought to stop pandering to political correctness. What a pity, because I thought I was allowed the freedom of conscience and the right to excercise choice.

What is most telling, is that Ibn Warraq as a secularist, wishes to reform Islam. But I find that a slight paradoxiacal position. The Christian Reformation(s) took place because of deeply felt religious conviction. The nature of Christianity was trasformed from within. One may argue that at the time, Martin Luther was very close to being deemed heretical, but he trod very carefully (and enjoyed political/economic protection).- I'm not saying the Ibn Warraq is a heritic!- But he is a humanist,thus cannot really claim to 'reform', Islam all he can claim is to be a critic of Islam.

In the meantime can the real Martin Luther please stand up?!