Islam, New Slavery, Religious Reformism, and Secularism

The publication of the full text and audio file of last week's discussion program on the phenomenon of new slavery, sexual slavery, and the reaction of Muslim clerics to the Islamic State group and similar armed Salafi organizations on Radio Farda's website led to over 40 comments and user opinions across 5 pages. Therefore, this week's program is also dedicated to continuing the discussion on new slavery, sexual slavery, and the various behaviors of the Islamic State and similar groups. On one side of this discussion is Mohsen Kadivar, a professor of Islamic studies at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, who states that members of these groups are a mere minority of Muslims, and their actions regarding slavery, sexual slavery, and other violence they commit do not reflect the predominant interpretation of Islam by Sunni and Shia Muslims. He argues that the actions of a small extremist minority cannot be attributed to Islam and the Muslim community. On the other side of this discussion is Mohammad-Reza Nikfar, a philosophy researcher in Berlin, who, about six years ago, during the protests against the announced results of the 2009 presidential election, asked in an article titled 'Theology of Torture': Who is responsible for these gods? Who is responsible for a god whose followers commit rape, torture, murder, lie, and establish a religious system that embodies all evils? Now, I draw your attention to a part of this week's discussion on new slavery and other violence from the perspective of Mohammad-Reza Nikfar and Mohsen Kadivar. Mr. Kadivar, I thought instead of posing a question, I would share some written opinions from users of Radio Farda's website who have read your views on new slavery and sexual slavery. One user writes: 'The history of Islam is full of these actions and behaviors that the Islamic State group is currently performing. Islamic laws are based on the Quran, tradition, meaning the behavior of the Prophet of Islam and the four caliphs, and Shia Islam adds the behavior of the Imams to it.' This user adds that 'therefore, the fault lies not with Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the caliph of the Islamic State group or ISIS, but with the foundation of this political system. According to him, Islamism began with the sword, war, bloodshed, looting, rape, and slavery, and it will continue until there are no non-Muslims left in the world or everyone recognizes it and stands united against it.' What is your opinion on this user's statement? Mohsen Kadivar: The statement you read is full of multiple fallacies. The assertion that the entire history of Islam has been like this is a generalization that followers of any religion have committed acts throughout history, and we can evaluate them. Some of these acts were right, and some were wrong. Let me start my discussion from the point of whether religion is what was stated in the past by the founder of the religion, the prophet, or in Christianity, for example, the apostles and saints, and in Islam, the companions and caliphs from the Sunni perspective and the Imams from the Shia perspective, which have been added as interpretations of the sacred text and similar... Is religion the same fixed matter that was established in the past and cannot have a new understanding of that old text? If this is the meaning of religion, this is the thinking that the Salafis have in our time. Among non-Muslims, there is also an approach that Orientalists, especially their early generations, had. Bernard Lewis says the same. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi said the same, and other leaders of radical groups say the same. This perception of religion in academic circles worldwide, whether regarding Islam or other religions, is considered completely false. Religion is not something that was stated once and for all in the past and is finished. When we want to define any religion, it becomes that religion is 'the people's encounter with the transcendent' that 'its followers believe and act upon in this time and place.' The followers referred to here are what we call today 'mainstream.' It is not a very limited minority, and no one can attribute the actions of a minority to the actions of a dominant majority of more than 99 percent. If there is an opportunity, I will mention one by one the statements of contemporary religious scholars, and the point you read in this statement contradicts the certainties of contemporary religious studies. Mr. Nikfar, in articles like 'Theology of Torture' that you wrote about six years ago, you presented an approach to political Islam that is distinct and even contradictory to Mr. Kadivar's view. Your argument could be summarized as some behaviors like torture, slavery, and sexual slavery are so intertwined with the history of Islam that they cannot simply be dismissed with the interpretations of reformist clerics as abrogated and obsolete. A user on Radio Farda's website points out a point that is not highlighted in your argument. This user writes: 'Christians also had slavery and racism in the past, and we see it in films in America, and by the way, if friends study a little about the Islamic State group, they will see that they are not Muslims and only use the name of Islam instrumentally.' What is your opinion on this user's statement? Mohammad-Reza Nikfar: Regarding that article, unfortunately, it seems that only the first and last parts are read, and attention is not paid to that last part. Among those who have paid little attention to this is Mr. Kadivar himself. In that article, the claim of that article, which will relate to your discussion, is that whenever fundamental human rights, including the right to bodily and mental integrity from torture, are violated in the name of a god, the theology in which that god is justified can be called the theology of torture. In that same article, it is stated that there are two movements that can exist for God. Either it descends to become the torturer god and become the god of Evin or it can open the way for a 'transcendence.' That is, it can seek elevation and distance itself from this earthly torturer power. Both paths are open. I do not believe that for a great historical religion with this vast human mass, the way is blocked, and we have no choice but to descend. Throughout history, this quest for elevation has taken place, and this quest for elevation will take place again. I hope that ultimately a transcendent god prevails over a torturer god. Therefore, the purpose of the theology of torture article was not to say that all history is a history of torture and that there is a historical inevitability that we must remain here. The issue is how we find ways for elevation. An important way of elevation is to liberate ourselves from our own history. When the past way becomes a crisis for the future, a religion, a community, in that state of the past becomes a heavy burden, and in an era marked by nationalist ideologies, this will lead to a religious power that is a return to tradition mixed with power, and it is in this state that the danger of reviving that violent tradition also exists because it is intertwined with power. In this state, a religion becomes a prisoner of its own history. Religious reform has occurred everywhere in the world through liberation from history. That is, a religious reformer highlights a moral element, a moral principle of his religion, and places it against the historical shell and material and transcends it. This path is open, and when I see this situation, like what is happening in the Middle East, it only indicates a major crisis in culture and society and all pillars. I do not believe at all that we have no responsibility here. Each of us is responsible for what happens. When I see these atrocities occurring as Islam, I, as a secular person, say, what is my responsibility in this matter? I was born of this culture, and I am not separate from it. Here we see a huge crisis that we must undertake a united movement to escape from this history. And when we can escape, it is when we open the way to a free and just future. This was an explanation I needed to provide under the concept of the theology of torture, and in any case, I do not see the path of 'transcendence' closed. I do not see it closed to any human being, whether believer or non-believer. Thank you, Mr. Nikfar, another shadow of your views is reflected in this program. Mr. Kadivar, continue that discussion and also respond to Mr. Nikfar's statements. A user also wrote under the discussion of new slavery: 'What kind of god is this Allah whose words have an expiration date and become obsolete? This is a strong reason to prove the non-divine nature of this religion; its god is unaware of the future and has to abrogate his previous statements.' Can you refer to those matters you mentioned that researchers and religious studies professors have said? Mohsen Kadivar: The issue of slavery is not something established by any religion. This issue is a historical reality that existed in the past, and religions came into that economic, political, and social situation and did not have the ability to completely eliminate it. They accepted it with modifications. Before Islam, this issue also had a precedent in Judaism and Christianity, and in general, only contemporary rationality has been around for a hundred, a hundred and fifty years that slavery is against justice. When we refer to the texts of philosophers like Plato and Aristotle, we see that they rationalized it. When the past human, even a non-religious past human, had this perception of slavery, what can we expect from the religious people? Moreover, there is no verse in the Quran or any credible document among the hadiths that these were established. The issue of abrogation, which was initially among the Jews, means that a religious ruling was temporary from the beginning. It does not mean that the one who established that ruling did not know it and then knew something and came to abrogate that ruling. No, it was established temporarily from the beginning. However, its temporariness was not communicated to the people due to certain interests, and later the legislator or the prophet or the followers of that prophet realized that it was historically and temporarily established and announced it. This has been in previous laws, and it exists in Islam as well. Abrogation exists. It is not something that intellectuals or enlightened thinkers have added. But my fundamental point with the points that Mr. Nikfar mentioned is that there was nothing new, and it was also in his article, and he just mentioned the same things now. My objection to his statements in the past and currently is that when something is stated in his expression that Islam is a religion that is like this everywhere, it is like this. These general issues that we use are strongly questioned by contemporary religious studies. You cannot scientifically prove a general statement for a religion throughout history or a time with this multiplicity that exists. This is unprovable. This point is also added by contemporary religious studies... An example I give from contemporary religious studies is good; Mr. Nikfar should also reference these points when they want to express their views. You see, one of the most important and largest contemporary religious scholars, Wilfred Cantwell Smith, is the founder and president of the Comparative Religion Institute at Harvard University and a very reputable individual. He says that anyone who speaks of the essence of a religion has no knowledge of religious studies. He says we can never speak of the essence of Christianity, the essence of Hinduism, and the essence of Islam. His meaning is not to use the word essence. It means attributing a relationship to a religion throughout its entire history or all regions. He always mentions this. All this is the dominant characteristic of contemporary religious studies. When you want to attribute a proposition to believers, always remember the time and region. Always use specific cases: some Muslims in the twenty-first century in the Middle East do such and such. This specific proposition is in no way generalizable to all regions and all times. The main flaw in Mr. Nikfar's thinking about Islam is the use of these general propositions that lead to a kind of essentialism. Otherwise, he and I have no disagreement. ISIS or these other terrorist groups' actions are all condemned. Neither he nor I have any doubt in this regard. The discussion in analysis is why they do this. The apparent issue is that they are Arabs. They are Muslims. I do not say they claim to be Muslims. No, they are really Muslims. However, Muslims are fallible. Unless Mr. Nikfar lives in a place where German citizens, if someone like the neo-Nazis commits an error, we have the right to question the entire German nation? When most Germans condemn those actions, if the majority of Muslims did not condemn or approved the actions of a minority of one-thousandth of a percent, do we have the right to say that because you did not condemn or approved, you are complicit with them? Otherwise, we share common traits with all the criminals in the world. But no one comes to condemn someone for the crimes committed by others when they did not agree and condemned them. Then it is said that there is a crisis. Was this crisis not for Christianity? Has it not been for Judaism? Is it not the same for Islam? Or for secularists? Were they all people who were pampered? Only Muslims committed crimes throughout history? Now, every day I listen to the radio, and I see that in America, multiple crimes occurred just yesterday in Virginia. Can we condemn all the people of Virginia for this reason? The person was being interviewed on television, and his film was being taken. At that moment, he was struck.