‘Without freedom, there is no chance for genuine religiosity,” Mustafa Akyol insists. A Turkish journalist, Akyol is trying to make a case for a more classically liberal Islam.
He doesn’t mean a diluted Islam. He sees his argument for liberty in the Koran itself.
Almost ten years after the Islamist extremist attack on the United States, Akyol is optimistic that Islam can find that voice — that the voices of extremism can be overpowered by democratic leaders.
KATHRYN JEAN LOPEZ: Is it a dangerous thing to write a book such as Islam without Extremes — with a chapter in it called “Freedom from Islam”?
MUSTAFA AKYOL: If I were living in Saudi Arabia or Pakistan, probably yes. But I don’t think that I am putting myself in danger in Turkey. (If I am wrong about that, well, we will all see.) Even here in Turkey, though, I know that the title “Freedom from Islam” might sound provocative to some ears, but I also expect many of the same ears to accept what it implies: that neither apostasy from Islam nor blasphemy against it should justify a violent response.
LOPEZ: You ask, “Could authoritarian Muslims be just authoritarians who happen to be Muslim?” But isn’t it a huge obstacle that they have as much Islamic material to work with?
AKYOL: Sure, there is a lot of material in the classical Sharia that Muslim authoritarians of today can refer to — as they do. But I am showing that those materials were also products of authoritarians who happened to be Muslim a millennium ago. One of my basic arguments is that most authoritarian elements within the Sharia come from post-Koranic (i.e., “man-made”) parts of Islam. I also show that the more liberal strains within this “man-made” tradition were suppressed by the more rigid camp, which we face in the modern world, in its purest form, as Wahhabism.
LOPEZ: You’re not an Islamic scholar. Why should a Muslim believe your interpretations and insights? Why should an infidel or anyone?
AKYOL: Well, I am not an Islamic scholar, I don’t claim to be one, and I don’t need to be one. For I am not issuing fatwas (religious opinions) here. Much of what I do is to show how Islamic thought evolved over time and how things could have been different. As for my argumentative chapters — “Freedom from the State,” “Freedom to Sin,” and “Freedom from Islam” — most of the ideas I express there are already advanced by various theologians, such as the modernist “Ankara school” in Turkey. What I did was to take those ideas from dry academic papers and make them more accessible — and, I hope, convincing for a broader audience.
LOPEZ: Doesn’t that hit an overwhelming obstacle though? There is no authoritative reading. There is no one leader who can be a voice of reason.
AKYOL: You are right, and no one can do anything about it. Islam, especially Sunni Islam, has never had any pope or anything like a church hierarchy. In that sense, it is more “Protestant” than “Catholic.” In other words, any charismatic imam who claims to get the scripture right can create his own following. That’s why the only way forward is convincing more and more individual Muslims of the more tolerant and flexible interpretations of Islam. That’s why, as a concerned Muslim, I tried to do my part.
I have read several of Bernard Lewis's books on Islam. While I applaud Akyol's efforts (though I find them a bit underwhelming), I don't see where he can gain any traction. Islam has never had its Reformation, and the secular has no recognized place in an Islamic society. Until this reformation occurs, I do not believe that Islam can become a "moral" religion.
I appreciate this work very much, especially the point that freedom is in order to piety. I can't accept the view that one can accept the charitable and democratic work of a political party in spite of it's being tied to a terrorist group. That applies to Sinn Fein as much as Hamas. I would find unacceptable the idea that conservatives like me should accept the Norwegian Terrorist as an affiliate. I especially can't hold with integrity a theistic faith that looks to God as the final judge as a basis for rejecting physical retribution, as has been so well stated here being affiliated with a group appealing to such use of force. Islam must eschew terrorism just like every other monotheism.
In short, the Koran says to obey
Muhammed, but Muhammed's life and
sayings are documented in texts that
Akyol rejects. Also, the Koran is not
itself short of hateful, supremacist
teachings.
I commend Mr. Akyol for giving it the ol' college try but I fear Islam's foundational precepts as delineated within the Koran are an anathema to the Western Ideals of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of individual Happiness.
In my understanding of Islam, the Koran is the inviolable word of Allah. If you read the words...even though many Islamic apologists say the words don't really mean what we think they say, it's pretty obvious to me that Muhammad wouldn't fit well in the Western World.
Akyol draws a parallel between the relationship of Christianity to Judaism, and the relationship between the reformed Islam he'd like to see and the Islam that currently exists. Christianity jettisoned many of the laws in the Jewish Bible (e.g. the dietary laws), even while professing to view the Bible as the inviolable word of God, so I guess it's not impossible that Islam might do something similar.
I'm surprised that NRO gave Mustafa Akyol space on their webpage with a bigot like Andrew McCarthy and his hatemongering acolytes Mark Steyn and Robert Spencer as regular contributors here. The fact these xenophobic intolerant pseudo-scholars have any "credibility" among conservatives is a low point in conservative political history.
Amazed this was on NRO like another respondent wrote. I find it disappointing but not surprising, that others have such closed minds to even think an Islamic Re-evaluation could occur. Cautious optimism may be the more prudent path to take, what do we have to lose?
