More Questions about Islam: Patrick Sookdheo Speaks.

The Following is an excerpt taken from Reality Magazine's online archive.

The below site will open a new page to the whole article.

Sookhdeo's Interveiw



Patrick, you talk of a major change in the way the Western world has come to perceive Islam since the events of September 11th. What has changed?

In order for an anti-terrorist coalition to be mounted, and also to cope with the fears that are now present within Western societies, Western government, together with the church and the media, have now agreed a policy of redeeming Islam - that is: to argue that Islam is essentially peaceful and tolerant.

And you would say that is not the case?

I would argue that all religions have a dark side to them. Christianity has had a sordid past. We have had to come to terms with that past. In the past we have killed people in the name of religion - we now recognise that that is wrong: that our New Testament enjoins upon us the need for compassion and love and that there can be no violence in religion.

Islam has one part of it dealing with violence, just as Christianity and other religions have. The dilemma is that they refuse to accept that in the past and currently Islam has done horrific things, and that what has been done in the name of Islam was not just an aberration, but rather, central to the religion itself. Therefore, when Western leaders, together with the media and the church, have said that Islam is essentially tolerance and peace, that is only one side of the truth.

Is there no part of the Qur'an which modifies these violent texts in the way that we would say our New Testament modifies the Old Testament?

In fact the reverse is true. Suppose in our Bible the New Testament came first and the Old Testament came later, that would be the position in the Qur'an. All the peaceful passages that are enjoined on Muslims occur in the chapters written at Mecca. They are tolerant toward Jews and Christians. But when Muhammad gets to Medina and sets up his city/religious state, the tone towards other groups changes rapidly. The statements about slaying the pagans and killing the Jews and others occur there.

Now in Islamic interpretation, all passages that are revealed later take precedence over those revealed earlier. This is known as the 'law of abrogation'. It means therefore that those passages that enjoin violence are actually the ones which are now acceptable.

What caused this change?

One needs to realise that at Mecca Muhammad is a despised prophet, he needs the help of all communities. But when he gets to Medina, he is now in the position of being a ruler, a legislator, a general. He has to further the Islamic community. For those who did not accept the new community - such as the Jews and Christians - it became highly dangerous, to the point of death.

George W Bush and Tony Blair have declared war on the terrorists. In what way is Islam linked to the terrorist attacks?

I think both Mr Bush and Mr Blair have made a major mistake - perhaps it's not a mistake, maybe it is more the need for a PR exercise - and that is to separate out Bin Laden from the rest of Islam. The argument runs that Bin Laden and those who committed the awful crimes at the World Trade Centre are not authentic Muslims. Rather they are extremists.

Initially they were defined as Islamic extremists, but as time has gone by, Bush and Blair and others are arguing that they are not even Islamic, because Islam does not countenance the murder of innocent women and children (which is not true by the way). But having separated out the radicals as being Islamic extremists, they have now removed the term 'Islamic', so Bin Laden and his crew are now seen to be extremists outside of the Islamic pale.

That is highly questionable. I would argue that the nature of violence exists within Islam. Bin Laden and his people come out of an Islamic tradition - they see themselves as authentically Muslim - where Jihad is a cardinal principle to fight the unbelievers. Furthermore, they have had tremendous backing from Muslim governments and Muslims worldwide - in particular the Saudis - and the Wahhabi tradition dominates in the minds of both Bin Laden and the Taliban. Furthermore I would argue that many in the Muslim world - perhaps the majority - regard Bin Laden as their hero, and certainly they do not regard him as a non-Muslim.

So I think the West has made a strategic mistake in the way it has sought to redefine Islam. Furthermore the West may say "we are not at war with Islam", but the Muslim world regard themselves as at war with the West, and see the West as being at war with them.

Why does the Muslim world see itself as being at war with the West?

They see a history of violence: their interpretation of the crusades (which I do not accept); their interpretation of colonialism - which again, comes from their own perspective; their understanding of globalisation - which they see as neo-colonialism; what they see as the West's support for Israel against their own people the Palestinians.

They see Western interests supporting what they say are autocratic Islamic dictators; there is the issue of India and Kashmir; there is a multiplicity of issues. But they see themselves at the receiving end of Western interests - and that the West has declared war on them in terms of ideas, in terms of the penetration and the secularisation of their culture, as well as the support of dictators who suppress Islamic people.