Defender of his Faith

[Thinkerman]

Defender of his faith

 

The unofficial leader of Britain's Muslims has long been a fearless opponent of the radical, fatwa-happy elements of his community. Now, at 80, and with war looming, Zaki Badawi's voice of reason matters more than ever, writes Jack O'Sullivan

 

Wednesday January 15, 2003

The Guardian

 

In another age, Zaki Badawi would probably have held the title "Grand Mufti of Islam in Britain". Everyone would have known that, on matters of faith, his word ranks alongside that of the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Chief Rabbi and the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Westminster. But when the Ottoman empire collapsed in the 19th century the post died. So now Badawi competes with a melee of Muslim politicians, local imams plus any hotheads the media chances upon: imagine a cardinal battling for attention with Gerry Adams, the odd turbulent parish priest and the comedian Dave Allen on matters of Catholic doctrine and you get the picture.

Yesterday, however, a party marking the Egyptian-born leader's 80th birthday celebrated his attempts to establish a modern Islam that can fit comfortably with British values. Attended by senior figures from the major faiths, alongside representatives of Prince Charles and the prime minister, it demonstrated that, with war looming and fears of British Islamic support for al-Qaida, Badawi's views matter.

 

His message, combined with his seniority, explain the uniqueness of Badawi, chair of the Council of Imams and Mosques. Far from portraying Islam as being at odds with modernity, he sees it as the immigrant's route to becoming a contented Briton. "There is no theological problem in Islam taking on a great deal of western culture and values and incorporating them."

 

He has waged scholarly war against, for example, forced marriages and female circumcision, practices he sees as having cultural rather than Islamic bases. He first coined the term "British Islam", much to the annoyance of those preferring ethnic terms such as British Asian or Black Briton. "Within a couple of generations," he says, "Muslims will lose their cultural baggage. Indian and Pakistani ways will disappear. They will adopt western cultural values and the whole community will be brought together as British Muslims."

 

Badawi is, however, more than the acceptable voice of Islamic learned scholarship. As a pioneer of Islamic mortgages and insurance, his schemes, now backed by the Treasury, could soon transform the lives of British Muslims. Free from religious problems around paying interest, many more may soon be able, with a free conscience, to buy property here. Badawi has likewise revolutionised the training of Islamic thinkers in Britain, challenging the traditional inward-looking, rule-based education of most British imams with a broad, multi-faith training grounded in western philosophical study. It will not be easy for Osama bin Laden to hijack these updated, westernised Islamic scholars.

 

We meet at the Muslim College, which he founded in west London. His wife, Mavis, opens the door. She is a child psychologist whom he met in the 50s when both studied psychology at London University. He is small and confident, a little curmudgeonly but bursting with vitality. He carries battle scars: the Rushdie affair, Bin Laden, the war in Afghanistan and the Iraq conflict have all threatened to place British Islam beyond respectability. Yet at each turn he brandishes his Koran to rally his community around non-violence, tolerance and loyal British citizenship.

 

September 11 was "a violation of Islamic laws and ethics", he declared after the attack. He has urged Muslim British soldiers to obey their commanders against Saddam Hussein and ridiculed claims that 7,000 British Muslims would fight alongside the Taliban. "I said that if they could find seven, I would give them a medal. In fact, not a single British Muslim fought against the British forces - the only ones who went there were on humanitarian work."

 

When Bin Laden issued a fatwa on Americans, he dismissed it as being without religious authority and declared acerbically: "Fatwas have become a cheap business. Since Ayatollah Khomeini issued his against Salman Rushdie, everyone has opened a fatwa shop." It is 14 years since Bradford's Muslims publicly burned Rushdie's novel, The Satanic Verses. It set their community on a collision course with liberal Britain and brought Badawi to prominence as he urged Muslims to spurn the book but save the man. He broke ranks - leading him to fear for his own life - and declared on television that if Rushdie was being chased and knocked at his door, he would give him refuge.

 

His sentiments are not those voiced by the radicals of the Finsbury Park mosque, I suggest. "I've been called an Uncle Tom," he laughs. "Some people even said that I was working for the British government. I have never received a penny from the British government. I am naturally a rebel. I have always refused to be deferential, even to heads of state. Irreverence is part of my Islamic culture, of my training at Al-Azhar."

 

He is referring to Al-Azhar University in Egypt, Islam's Oxford, where he spent 23 years, going on to teach and lead communities in Malaysia, Nigeria and Singapore, before he came to Britain and was appointed the first chief imam at London's Regent's Park Mosque in 1978. "I was horrified that none of the other imams could speak English. I was amazed that they didn't understand anything about other religions and were so unfamiliar with western culture."

 

Such statements occasionally leave Badawi looking isolated in his ivory minaret, an arrogant, elitist Arab, disparaging followers who come largely from a rural community rooted in the Indian subcontinent. Why does he attack his own people? "I blame my community because they have the ability to remedy the things I am asking them to do." He believes they are often ill served by their representatives. "Muslim politicians have misled the community. They have taken upon themselves tasks that are beyond them. For too long, we have had Muslim chemists or businessmen represent us in a religious function. Because they lack knowledge they are often rigid, whereas a scholar can be more flexible."

 

So how will he establish clear religious leadership? Not by taking a title such as Grand Mufti: "I don't want the Muslim position focused on an individual but on the concept of Islamic scholarship." He explains plans to establish in the spring a council of British Muslim scholars, whose authority will exceed rival voices and prevent Islam being hijacked.

 

"I want the government to help me in training better imams," he says. "Governments plead poverty. That is their mantra. But my argument is that it is cheaper than having to combat the effect of bad imams."

 

Are ministers listening to him? "The government has appointed Muslims to the House of Lords. There are three [Muslim] MPs and we now have four or five Islamic schools funded by the government. It is through this process that we are coming to dig our roots here."

 

And are they listening to his opposition to war with Iraq? "If I were a British prime minister I would find it difficult not to see my interests being served by joining the Americans," he says. "I see the Americans as brute force tempered by wisdom from Britain. But Bush's economy needs to capture some free oil. I don't think the people of Iraq will oppose the invasion. After all, the inspectors are there to make sure that everything is OK, that the Iraqis have no weapons to oppose with. But if the Americans think a lawless world favours the strong, they are wrong. In the long run it destroys the powerful. Anyone reading the history of Rome should know that."

 

www.islamicity.com

[Khayr]

"Rushdie affair, Bin Laden, the war in Afghanistan and the Iraq conflict have all threatened to place British Islam beyond respectability. Yet at each turn he brandishes his Koran to rally his community around non-violence, tolerance and loyal British citizenship.

If any muslim alim or leader claims loyality to any non-islamic nation and says that the Quran is agreeable to the values and actions of that State. Then such a person who is trying justify the actions of the kufar and their secular, liberal and imperialistic values is in line with the Quran and Islam is simply being a Shatan and causing the Ummah serious damage.

 

September 11 was "a violation of Islamic laws and ethics", he declared after the attack. He has urged Muslim British soldiers to obey their commanders against Saddam Hussein and ridiculed claims that 7,000 British Muslims would fight alongside the Taliban. "I said that if they could find seven, I would give them a medal. In fact, not a single British Muslim fought against the British forces - the only ones who went there were on humanitarian work."

 

When Bin Laden issued a fatwa on Americans, he dismissed it as being without religious authority and declared acerbically: "Fatwas have become a cheap business. Since Ayatollah Khomeini issued his against Salman Rushdie, everyone has opened a fatwa shop." It is 14 years since Bradford's Muslims publicly burned Rushdie's novel, The Satanic Verses. It set their community on a collision course with liberal Britain and brought Badawi to prominence as he urged Muslims to spurn the book but save the man. He broke ranks - leading him to fear for his own life - and declared on television that if Rushdie was being chased and knocked at his door, he would give him refuge. "

 

Giving refuge to someone that has openly insulted the rasul (salallahu caliyhe wa salim) and has committed blasphemy in Islam would be considered a negative reflection of that person giving refuge to say the least.

 

One question: Is this British Badawi guy friends with Kabbani?

[Thinkerman]

I dont no Khayr i will check it up for you. Your comments where pretty strong. I do agree with you on the point you made on Rushdie and certainly i disagree with Zaki Badawi's when he says that there where only a handfull of Brits in Afghanistan clearly there where more.

I just thought it was an interesting article to post on here from www.islamicity.com, i took it on with good faith, but i wanted to here what other nomads think of such views.

 

so thx for the contribution

[Sensual_Healing]

salaam alakum.

Hey! i'm so glade u've mentioned this Sinful Novel.. i read it'n sUBHANA'ALLAH. Anywayz, tha other day i was doin, my usually Business Surfing the net 'and i came across, this Book being advertised ''Sanatic Verse'' Now, i must say tha name sells itself,wouldn't u say?

and this Brother motivated me to read it.. so i did..

here's the Comments that were made from some' Masha'allah Brothers that Put' tha ferol in his bloody Place!!Satanic Verses is libel against Islam

 

To the Editor:

 

Muslims everywhere are outraged by the publication of the book The Satanic Verses by Salman Rushdie. Even if Rushdie's convoluted satirical style is construed as a literary device, it is clear that he went out of his way in using highly repugnant and revolting language to insult and distort Islam. Personal belief is one thing, but freedom of expression stops where vilifications and misrepresentation of facts start. No civilized society can condone the publication of explosively misleading material disguised as "literature."

 

Rushdie meticulously describes a supposedly fictional background which is precisely the same as the very well documented Islamic history. He then depicts his "fictional characters" as the moral antithesis of those they were clearly meant to portray. This is nothing but vilification by proxy.

 

Prophet Muhammed (peace be upon him), whose example one billion people aspire towards, is depicted as a lecherous "conjurer" of rules who had "no time for scruples." He is also attributed with fabricating the Qur'an (totally against Islamic belief). It is falsely imputed that the Qur'an, which has been preserved in its original form to this day, was freely manuscribed. Prophet Abraham (p.b.u.h.) is called a "******* ." The Archangel Gabriel is reduced to being a "pet" obeying its master. The wives of the Prophet Muhammed, who are reverently called the "Mothers of Muslims," are compared with prostitutes. Salman-al-Farsi and Bilal, two reputable early Muslims, are depicted as profligates. Rules and practices having no basis in Islam are falsely attributed to it and real laws are ridiculed, not argued against.

 

No respectful and decent person can be expected to allow such vitriol and utter falsity to pass without protest. Libel and slander are criminal offenses in this country. Given the fact that Rushdie was born into Islam he could only have written his tale with malice aforethought. Given that previewers of the book's manuscript warned the publishers that it would be extremely explosive, Viking-Penguin was highly irresponsible in printing the novel.

 

Because of the unequivocal attempt at associating itself with real events, The Satanic Verses is dangerously, even criminally, misleading for a Western audience that knows little about Islam and Muslims. Rushdie's metaphors and symbols are strongly reminiscent of and reinforce traditional Western prejudices and myths about Islam. The Satanic Verses is one of the most slanted works in a regular cycle of intentional or unintentional misrepresentations of Islam and Muslims in media sources and textbooks. Because of its wild implications and virulent language, the novel constitutes an unprecedented assault on Islam, and, indirectly, on the Abrahamic religions preceding it.

 

We support freedom of speech, but we also exhort people to exercise this right responsibly. So while we sympathize with the advocates of free speech, we deplore the fact that, in proving their point, they would propagate the same deceptive, twisted and outrageous passages which cause pain and deep, sincere anguish in so many. The recent protests and book-readings have transformed the conflict between a misguided individual and Islam to one between the Western "intellectual" world and the entire Muslim world. Would Susan Sontag and Normal Mailer just as vehemently defend propaganda that heaped calumny on Prophet Jesus (p.b.u.h.) or Prophet Moses (p.b.u.h.) or that praised Hitler, the Ku Klux Klan and apartheid, Pol Pot or Stalin? How would the Christian, Jewish, black, Kampuchean or Ukranian communities have felt?

 

Those who have rallied around Rushdie say that they protest a threat to "one of the most basic principles of Western" society. They should consider the fact that Muslims strive toward the example of the Prophet Muhammed (p.b.u.h.) more than that of any other human; in defaming him, Rushdie, with the aid of his publishers, has attacked the very character of one billion Muslims. Thus, given that Rushdie's novel and his publisher's rash impropriety have struck viciously "at the most basic principles" of Islamic belief, the reaction of the vast majority of Muslims till last month can only be described as remarkably mild.

 

Rushdie had been callously indifferent to peaceful pleas to rectify the situation earlier. His arrogant, vascillating and ambiguous statements are many. Initially he proclaimed that he should have been more "critical" of Islam; then he called his novel "fictional"; later he released a half-hearted three-sentence "apology" that totally ignored the numerous deaths that have occurred over this novel; and now he compares himself with "literary crusaders." What sort of man insults the dead -- those who cannot defend themselves? What sort of man deliberately distorts history just to further his own interests? What sort of publisher recklessly disregards its moral and social responsibility to see that slanderous, hateful and misleading works are not propagated? Many books have refuted Islam but rarely in its 1400-year history has any book fallen under the deliberately distorting and hateful category of The Satanic Verses.

 

We pray that this entire matter is resolved swiftly and justly.

 

Please do Read,,,,,,,,,,,

 

MA'SALAMAH