Adjusting To Modernity: Sultan Shahin Tells An American Audience What Can Be Done To Reverse The Trend Of Muslims Accepting Radical Ideologies

By Sultan Shahin, Founding Editor, New Age Islam 12 January 2022 ---------------------------------------------------------------- What can be done to reverse the trend of Muslims accepting radical ideologies? By recognizing that while the Quan’s text is eternal, its interpretation has constantly changed, and this has direct implications for the Sharia (Islamic law). The reigning theology contradicts modern pluralism and so needs to be adjusted. What efforts toward such an adjustment are Muslims taking? What has been accomplished? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Full Text Of Mr. Sultan Shahin's Talk Followed By A Transcription Of The Question And Answer Session Radical ideology is far more powerful and well-entrenched today than it was on 9/11. So-called Islamic State may have lost territory, but radicals have gained new territory in Afghanistan, and Africa. ISIS and al-Qaeda continue to preach their venomous ideology and attract educated Muslim youth. One of their main targets now is Indian Muslims, whom they are trying to incite for Jihad against their own government through their new propaganda organ Voice of Hind. Many blame US foreign policy mistakes post 9/11 as part of the reason behind their increased strength. But I don’t buy that. There is a reason why. I was based in London as a journalist in the 1980s. I had a chance encounter with a radicalised Muslim youth in Nottingham in the winter of 1986-87. He was trying to convert the children of a friend to Ahl-e-Hadeesim, a Salafi sect supported by the then Saudi regime. According to him, Ahle-Hadeesis were the only true Muslims. I asked him what he thought of other Muslims. He said they are the first and foremost enemies of Islam. But they constitute 99 per cent of the Muslim community, how will you deal with them, I asked him. “Kill them,” was his unhesitating response. This set me thinking. After all, this was only a young student. Something is going on in my community of which I am not aware, I thought. I had never associated Islam with extremism and violence. I started investigating this phenomenon and discovered that already 60 to 70 per cent of Muslim students in most UK universities had acquired an extremist medieval mindset under the influence of a charismatic Salafi Omar Bakri who later became spokesman for Osama bin Laden. This was early 1987, so I can’t accept that what is happening today is merely because of post 9/11 mistakes. Islam has now become almost synonymous with terrorism. Does this bother Muslims? Some Muslims, yes, they are bothered. But not the traditional Muslim Ulema. They may not say this publicly but seem to agree with the radical narrative in principle. As Maulana Abul Ala Maudoodi had said in 1940s, "Islam needs to conquer the whole world, not a part of it." According to radical theologians while Islam can allow non-Muslims to live and practice their religion, it cannot allow them to be in positions of power, much less to perpetrate atrocities against Muslims; it cannot allow them to dominate the Muslim powers as they are doing now. What is the secret of radical Islamism's success? Its strength lies in the fact that it is based on unquestionable early Islamic history, and not just Islamic scriptures. Scriptures many do not understand. But history everyone can relate to. Scriptures may lend themselves to various interpretations. But established history remains the same. Wars against Kafirs, Mushriks, Apostates. All these actually happened in the seventh century C.E and Muslims were victorious, at a time when they were very weak. Muslims destroyed the two reigning superpowers. The then world order was overturned. Within a century after its advent Islam started ruling from Spain to borders of China. An atheist like India’s first prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru called it a miracle. Now radicals claim they have again defeated two superpowers. This is another miracle, they claim, and only establishes the power of their faith once again. They feel vastly empowered with the turn of events post 9/11. What, if anything, are the moderate Muslims doing to reverse the trend, to prevent further radicalisation. As a global community, Muslims have encouraged their religious scholars, the Ulema, to issue fatwas against terrorism. Practically every Muslim religious institution has issued such a fatwa. Some of these fatwas in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh have been signed by hundreds of thousands of clerics. They all passionately declare Islam a religion of peace and denounce terrorism. But these fatwas have not worked. And they will not work. There are very clear reasons why. One, these fatwas are mostly rhetorical statements and do not question the foundations of the radical narrative. The Jihadi theology is a theology of consensus. It has evolved out of opinions of scores of revered Ulema of all sects of Islam over the last 1400 years. It cannot be countered merely by rhetorical statements like Islam is a religion of peace. All that most fatwas do by way of refutation of terrorism is present a popular quotation from Quran (5:32) saying killing even one innocent person amounts to killing humanity and saving one person amounts to saving humanity. Two, the Jihadi narrative cannot be countered by a fatwa that itself seems to agree with the fundamentals on which that narrative is based. Let me give you a concrete example. As many as 126 reputed moderate ulema from around the world, scores of them from the United States, wrote an Open Letter to the self-styled Khalifa Baghdadi denouncing his activities in August 2015. This 14,000-word fatwa was considered a big breakthrough, raising expectations, but 40,000 educated Muslim youth joined ISIS the same year from 86 countries around the world. Apparently, this well-publicised fatwa from eminent scholars of all sects of Islam, representing the moderate voice of the global Muslim community, had no impact. I had written a 2,000-word critique of this Open Letter pointing out why it will fail. This is available on my website. But I will share with you some of the reasons I had cited. This Open Letter actually made the Jihadi task easier by saying: "... everything in the Qur’an is the Truth, and everything in authentic Hadith is Divinely inspired." It also says: “Hadith is akin to revelation," even though these so-called sayings of the Prophet were written down up to 300 years after his demise.” This is precisely what Jihadis too tell our youth. These 126 Ulema also imply that the Quranic verse (2: 256) “there is no compulsion in religion,” may well have been abrogated by later militant verses in the Quran. They clearly agree with the militant Doctrine of Abrogation according to which militant verses that came later in Madina abrogated the earlier Makkan verses of peace and tolerance. Just one militant verse (9:5) alone is said to have abrogated 124 peaceful verses revealed in Makka. Similarly, the moderate Ulema say: "Hudud punishments are fixed in the Qur’an and Hadith and are unquestionably obligatory in Islamic Law," thus accepting the basic premise of the Baghdadi tribe about a Sharia that is mostly based on 7th century Bedouin Arab mores, and was first codified 120 years after the Prophet had passed away. Also, the renowned moderate Ulema accept the supposed obligation to destroy and remove all manifestations of shirk, polygamy, that is idolatry. What right do Muslims today have to destroy idols worshipped by people of other religions? Even Bamian Buddhas had survived 1300 years of Muslim rule. And so have worship places of other religions across the Muslim world. This completely obliterates the difference between moderation and extremism. What more would terrorist ideologues need by way of support from mainstream and moderate Islam. The problem with the theologians is that they have read and teach the same traditional theology on which the Jihadi narrative is based, so they cannot go beyond merely questioning its tactics, implementation, timing, etc. Now, in the remaining few minutes, I would like to share with you a few points of what I think should be the counter-narrative which will strike at the very root of the Jihadi theology. This counter-narrative is consistent with Islamic teachings and can be made acceptable if presented to the masses of Muslims properly, bypassing the theologians. Fortunately, we do have the technological means today to reach the masses of Muslims with a counter-narrative without having to approach mosques and madrasas run by traditional Ulema. 1. Qurʾān has been created by God. It is a collection of verses that were revealed to Prophet Mohammad initially in Makka. These Makkan verses teach us peace and harmony, good neighbourliness, patience, tolerance and pluralism. These are the foundational and constitutive verses of Qurʾān. They constitute the fundamental message of Islam. 2. Qurʾān also contains many contextual verses, the war-time instructions, for instance. Such verses are no longer applicable to us Muslims today. 2. The Doctrine of Abrogation, as defined by radical ideologues, is a false doctrine. God cannot be giving orders only to abrogate them later. So the militant Medinan verses of war have not abrogated the earlier peaceful and pluralistic Makkan verses. 3. God does not prescribe any punishment for blasphemy and apostasy. Nor does He authorise any human to punish anyone for Kufr or shirk. So, if at all any such 'crime' has been committed, in the eyes of theologians, the punishment has to be left to God. 4. We are now living in the world of modern nation-states; our international relations are guided by the charter of United Nations which has been signed by all Muslim states. So, all talk of performing Jihad at least once a year should cease. 5. There is no scriptural sanction for the call of a global Khilafat. Modern pluralistic states are very much in tune with the first Islamic State evolved by Prophet Mohammad under his constitution called Meesaq-e-Madina. 6. Modern Democracy is a fulfilment of the Quranic exhortation of Amrahum Shoora Bainahum (42:38). So, Muslims should try and strengthen democratic institutions. 7. Islam is primarily a spiritual path to salvation, one of the many (Qurʾān 5:48), not a supremacist political ideology. As Qurʾān came to confirm all previous faiths, we can only accept and respect all other religions as paths to the same divinity. 8. The Doctrine of al-Wala wal-Bara (Loyalty and Disavowal for the sake of God alone) as propagated by radical elements is misconceived and impractical in the present highly complex and intricately interwoven global society. I keep explaining these and similar points to my readers, hoping that common Muslims will consider them and a consensus will gradually evolve. ------ A Transcription Of The Question And Answer Session Moderated By Stacey Roman Of Middle East Forum ( Slightly Edited For Clarity) Stacey Roman : Wonderful. Thank you so much. We have the first question from Jeffrey Norwoods. Islam demands adherence to the Medina and the rule of Abrogation. How can the Muslim world deny the specific words of Muhammad and not be apostate? Sultan Shahin: With an unstable internet connection, I did not get your question fully, but I think you're probably talking about Makkan and Medina verses, the difference between them. Is that so? Yeah. What happens is that the Jihadi viewpoint and the traditional Islamic theology also is that since the Medina verses of war came later, so they have abrogated the previous Makkan verses of peace. Makkan verses had come at a time when Muslims were very weak. They were very few in number. They were living in Makka, and they were besieged by them. And so on. We didn't have a state of our own. We didn't have the power to fight. And so these new verses that came in Medina have abrogated the previous verses. However, this is a very false doctrine. And for moderate Ulama, as I told you, to support this doctrine of abrogation just amounts to supporting the theology of Jihadis. It is their theory. It suits them. How can one verse 9:5 contradict and abrogate 124 verses of Quran, which came earlier telling Muslims about coexistence and plurality and accepting other religions. La Ikraha Fiddin, for instance, there is no compulsion in religion. It is one of the main pillars of moderate Islam. This is how we present Islam. And also this is how we can live today in the modern world. We just cannot live in a world in which religion is by compulsion. You cannot convert people, compel them to convert to Islam or force them. That is something impossible. So we Muslims have to come out and say all these things out aloud and repeatedly and reach our common masses, as I said, bypassing the theologians because they are never going to accept. As I gave you the example of these 126 Ulama who are very renowned as moderate Ulama, very well respected by governments around the world, and some of them, scores of them actually are in the United States itself and Europe and other parts of the world. And they are saying, as I have explained to you, the same thing that the Jihadi theology is saying, they are actually strengthening their theology instead of refuting it. Stacey Roman: Thank you. Arnold Cohen asks, does the law of the nation state in which Muslims reside take precedence over Islamic law? What is the relationship of Islamic law and the law of the nation in which Islam is practiced? Do the answers differ depending upon the particular strain of Islam which is being observed? Sultan Shahin: Islamic law, as I said, was codified 120 years after the Prophet’s demise, and since then it has been changing. It is different from country to country. Even today, the different Muslim countries have different laws. Some of them practice only the family laws and nothing else. Most of them actually only practice the family laws. And even there are differences. Pakistan, for instance, which claims to be an Islamic Republic, has itself changed, modified and reformed Islamic law, even the family law. Even things like triple talaq law, for instance, which is considered part of the Sharia law, although it is not, it cannot be by any means. There is no sanction for that in the Quran. So there is no point in insisting on Sharia, and it is absurd living in Europe and wanting to establish Europe as a Sharia controlled zone. I was living in the UK and once found a part of East London declared by extremist Islamists as a Sharia-Controlled zone.What kind of nonsense was that? So these kinds of things that Muslims keep saying and the Jihadis have convinced some Muslims that it is their duty as Muslims to enforce Sharia on the world and that every society in the world should be following Sharia laws. And it is our duty to say that this is all absurd. And we have to say this again and again, repeatedly. And you see in a way which is consistent with Islamic scriptures. We can say these things by remaining within the Quran and Hadith perimeter. Stacey Roman: Thank you. Robert Slater asks, does Sufi Islam come closer to some of your positions? Sultan Shahin: Not Sufi theology? There are two things in Sufi Islam. One is the behaviour, the conduct of the Sufi Masters, the way they treated non-Muslims. In fact, many people converted to Islam because of their treatment, in countries like mine, for instance, where there was untouchability and things like that and these Sufis invited everybody to come and sit down with them and dine with them on the same table, etc. So it was their behaviour. They made Khidmat-e-Khalq which is service of humanity as the cornerstone of Islam. Then they also went for what is now considered as a derivative from Vedas, which is Monism, not monotheism, but monism, that God is everywhere and God is in all of us. And we are all made of the same divine Godly stuff. So we are all one. So this was the message of the Sufis, some of them, you know about that, some of them were crucified for this by the Muslims themselves. So this is what the Sufi conduct is, the Sufi Masters and how they behave. And that's how we have so much respect for Sufism also. But then there is also Sufi theology. There are Sufis who have tried to reconcile the Sufi theology with traditional Islamic theology, and they more or less say the same things. In fact, you will find that all schools of Islamic thought, including the Shia and all within Sunni Islam, all of them -- when it comes to the question of Islam, Islam's relationship with non-Muslims, Islam supremacism, exclusivism and xenophobia within Islam, they all come together. They all say more or less the same things, maybe sometimes using some different words and some different terminologies, but essentially the same thing. And Sufi theology is also no different. So when there was a big international Sufi conference in Delhi a few years ago, I had written a long piece, an Open Letter, requesting Sufi theologians to consider these issues and bring their theology in line with modernity and in line with the conduct of Sufi Masters themselves. Stacey Roman: Thank you so much. Yosef Tiles asks, Since much of the Quran speaks about punishment and torture of infidels, would it be possible to change the Quran with a more moderate sacred book? Sultan Shahin: No, I mean, you can't change the scriptures. There are so many scriptures in the world and all of them say things that you don't like and which are not compatible with modern sensibilities. You cannot change them. But what you can do. And as far as the Quran is concerned, my view has been for decades now that we should tell our people that some of these verses are contextual verses. In any war when there is a war, we do not know today exactly how this war happened. You see, even in recent events, we sometimes disagree with how things happened, what actually happened, so if something happened in a desert village 1400 years ago in Arabia at that time, we do not exactly know how things happen, why things develop, the way they develop, why God felt constrained to give the kind of orders he did. But these were wartime instructions. And in any war, this is common sense. Anybody would understand that any war order is given to kill the people. What do you do in a war? You kill people, you fight with them, you defend yourself, you try to protect yourself and you kill in that process, et cetera. So these orders are given in every war. Even in future wars, there will be orders given to the military to kill people. But then the moment that war is over, those instructions lose their value and applicability. How can instructions given 1300 years ago in a war that took place in a village in a desert be applicable to us today? What is the point of that? What kind of sense does that make? So we cannot remove verses from the Quran, for that matter, we can't do that from any scriptures. There are many scriptures and all of them contain things that are not acceptable to us today. But what we can say and this is the truth also that these verses are no longer applicable to us Muslims today. This is something that every Muslim should understand. This is the message with which we should go to the Muslims, common masses. Ulama, I am very disappointed with them. I have been dealing with them. I argued with them for decades now and I'm very disappointed that these people are simply not able to understand even matters of common sense. You just can't talk to them. They said, oh, this is in the Quran. And they say the Quran is uncreated, which means it is like God. It is an aspect of God. So you just cannot discuss the Quran. And this again is absurd because the Quran is not a book that fell down from heaven, one fine morning. It is a collection of verses, instructions that came to the Prophet from time to time for over two decades in bits and pieces. And they were basically advising the Prophet as to how to tackle a certain situation that had arisen. That situation no longer exists. There is a whole section in Islamic theological training, you go through studying Shane Nuzul, which means the context, which means how and why this verse came. What time did this verse come? What was happening at the time when this verse was revealed? Now, what is the point of understanding and studying Shane Nuzul, If you don't also say that since that context no longer remains, these verses are no longer applicable; this should be, you know, the logical conclusion. Stacey Roman: Thank you. Yes. Your point early on about the scriptures being up to interpretation, but history being undeniable was fascinating. Jeffrey Norwood follows up on that the Quran is perfect and eternal. Isn’t challenging the historic accuracy of the Quran apostasy? Sultan Shahin: There are questions about how it was collected. It was collected ten to twelve years after the demise of the Prophet in the form in which it exists now. And there have been some questions about, there have been found some pieces of Quran which seemed to differ a little bit in grammatical form, qir'at et cetera from the Quran that is considered the authentic one today by all Muslims. They do not change the meaning. And it seems that there is not much difference of opinion on this except that some people will always question. Anything that happened 1400 years ago in a very uncertain situation will be questioned and can be questioned. And people have questioned that. But the thing is that Muslims had even memorised this right there and then when the verses were revealed, it was written down as well as memorised by many people. And so many people would not have allowed Hazrat Usman, the third caliph, to give a very different version of the Quran. However, in Islamic theology itself, in the Islamic literature itself, you find some narrations which say that some verses of the Quran have disappeared. About one Surah it is said it was as big as Surah Baqarah, but retains only half of it, et cetera. So there are these questions that have arisen. Muslims have themselves recorded these down very honestly. All these questions that have come and they are there and they are even taught in Madrasas. There are several books that are taught which talk about these things and they are there. But by and large. There is not much question about the authenticity of Quranic verses. Stacey Roman: Thank you. And In our last minute here, can you just tell our viewers a little more about your website? Sultan Shahin: Well, my website, I started it in 2008 and what we try and do is to refute the arguments made in Jihadi websites point by point and of course there are also some articles and statements but this is one of the things that we do. When we started doing that our site was banned in Pakistan, unfortunately. Pakistan claims to be fighting extremism itself. But what happened was that there was a magazine Nawa-e-Afghan Jihad published by the Taliban and printed and distributed free of charge to Pakistanis. It is also available on their websites. It once published a series of articles justifying the killing of civilians according to Islamic theology. So we picked that up, and we started refuting every point that they were making, point by point. This didn't suit some people and the Pakistani government first banned the Urdu articles, then they banned the English ones, then they banned the whole Urdu section and then they banned the whole website, and today you can't read our website in Pakistan. We are also a multilingual website, we publish and translate our articles in Urdu, Hindi and Malayalam which cover areas where there is a great deal of radicalization in India and we also have articles in Bangla, Assamese and Tamil, and you know, Kannada, etc, but few. (We also used to translate in French and some articles are still there in the French section.) We have not yet been able to find the right translators for those languages but we are trying to reach as many people as we can, through these translations. Stacey Roman: Thank you so much for speaking about newageislam.com. Thank you some much Mr. Sultan Shahin for joining us today. Sultan Shahin: Thank you very much. I would like to appeal to you and to your viewers to visit my website and contribute in terms of articles, as well as comments. We debate issues. There are hundreds and even thousands of comments on an article sometimes. And I would like your viewers to also contribute articles and comments. Thank you very much indeed. ---- Radical ideology is far more powerful and well-entrenched today than it was on 9/11. So-called Islamic State may have lost territory, but radicals have gained new territory in Afghanistan, and Africa. ISIS and al-Qaeda continue to preach their venomous ideology and attract educated Muslim youth. One of their main targets now is Indian Muslims, whom they are trying to incite for Jihad against their own government through their new propaganda organ Voice of Hind. Many blame US foreign policy mistakes post 9/11 as part of the reason behind their increased strength. But I don’t buy that. There is a reason why. I was based in London as a journalist in the 1980s. I had a chance encounter with a radicalised Muslim youth in Nottingham in the winter of 1986-87. He was trying to convert the children of a friend to Ahl-e-Hadeesim, a Salafi sect supported by the then Saudi regime. According to him, Ahle-Hadeesis were the only true Muslims. I asked him what he thought of other Muslims. He said they are the first and foremost enemies of Islam. But they constitute 99 per cent of the Muslim community, how will you deal with them, I asked him. “Kill them,” was his unhesitating response. This set me thinking. After all, this was only a young student. Something is going on in my community of which I am not aware, I thought. I had never associated Islam with extremism and violence. I started investigating this phenomenon and discovered that already 60 to 70 per cent of Muslim students in most UK universities had acquired an extremist medieval mindset under the influence of a charismatic Salafi Omar Bakri who later became spokesman for Osama bin Laden. This was early 1987, so I can’t accept that what is happening today is merely because of post 9/11 mistakes. Islam has now become almost synonymous with terrorism. Does this bother Muslims? Some Muslims, yes, they are bothered. But not the traditional Muslim Ulema. They may not say this publicly but seem to agree with the radical narrative in principle. As Maulana Abul Ala Maudoodi had said in 1940s, "Islam needs to conquer the whole world, not a part of it." According to radical theologians while Islam can allow non-Muslims to live and practice their religion, it cannot allow them to be in positions of power, much less to perpetrate atrocities against Muslims; it cannot allow them to dominate the Muslim powers as they are doing now. What is the secret of radical Islamism's success? Its strength lies in the fact that it is based on unquestionable early Islamic history, and not just Islamic scriptures. Scriptures many do not understand. But history everyone can relate to. Scriptures may lend themselves to various interpretations. But established history remains the same. Wars against Kafirs, Mushriks, Apostates. All these actually happened in the seventh century C.E and Muslims were victorious, at a time when they were very weak. Muslims destroyed the two reigning superpowers. The then world order was overturned. Within a century after its advent Islam started ruling from Spain to borders of China. An atheist like India’s first prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru called it a miracle. Now radicals claim they have again defeated two superpowers. This is another miracle, they claim, and only establishes the power of their faith once again. They feel vastly empowered with the turn of events post 9/11. What, if anything, are the moderate Muslims doing to reverse the trend, to prevent further radicalisation. As a global community, Muslims have encouraged their religious scholars, the Ulema, to issue fatwas against terrorism. Practically every Muslim religious institution has issued such a fatwa. Some of these fatwas in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh have been signed by hundreds of thousands of clerics. They all passionately declare Islam a religion of peace and denounce terrorism. But these fatwas have not worked. And they will not work. There are very clear reasons why. One, these fatwas are mostly rhetorical statements and do not question the foundations of the radical narrative. The Jihadi theology is a theology of consensus. It has evolved out of opinions of scores of revered Ulema of all sects of Islam over the last 1400 years. It cannot be countered merely by rhetorical statements like Islam is a religion of peace. All that most fatwas do by way of refutation of terrorism is present a popular quotation from Quran (5:32) saying killing even one innocent person amounts to killing humanity and saving one person amounts to saving humanity. Two, the Jihadi narrative cannot be countered by a fatwa that itself seems to agree with the fundamentals on which that narrative is based. Let me give you a concrete example. As many as 126 reputed moderate ulema from around the world, scores of them from the United States, wrote an Open Letter to the self-styled Khalifa Baghdadi denouncing his activities in August 2015. This 14,000-word fatwa was considered a big breakthrough, raising expectations, but 40,000 educated Muslim youth joined ISIS the same year from 86 countries around the world. Apparently, this well-publicised fatwa from eminent scholars of all sects of Islam, representing the moderate voice of the global Muslim community, had no impact. I had written a 2,000-word critique of this Open Letter pointing out why it will fail. This is available on my website. But I will share with you some of the reasons I had cited. This Open Letter actually made the Jihadi task easier by saying: "... everything in the Qur’an is the Truth, and everything in authentic Hadith is Divinely inspired." It also says: “Hadith is akin to revelation," even though these so-called sayings of the Prophet were written down up to 300 years after his demise.” This is precisely what Jihadis too tell our youth. These 126 Ulema also imply that the Quranic verse (2: 256) “there is no compulsion in religion,” may well have been abrogated by later militant verses in the Quran. They clearly agree with the militant Doctrine of Abrogation according to which militant verses that came later in Madina abrogated the earlier Makkan verses of peace and tolerance. Just one militant verse (9:5) alone is said to have abrogated 124 peaceful verses revealed in Makka. Similarly, the moderate Ulema say: "Hudud punishments are fixed in the Qur’an and Hadith and are unquestionably obligatory in Islamic Law," thus accepting the basic premise of the Baghdadi tribe about a Sharia that is mostly based on 7th century Bedouin Arab mores, and was first codified 120 years after the Prophet had passed away. Also, the renowned moderate Ulema accept the supposed obligation to destroy and remove all manifestations of shirk, polygamy, that is idolatry. What right do Muslims today have to destroy idols worshipped by people of other religions? Even Bamian Buddhas had survived 1300 years of Muslim rule. And so have worship places of other religions across the Muslim world. This completely obliterates the difference between moderation and extremism. What more would terrorist ideologues need by way of support from mainstream and moderate Islam. The problem with the theologians is that they have read and teach the same traditional theology on which the Jihadi narrative is based, so they cannot go beyond merely questioning its tactics, implementation, timing, etc. Now, in the remaining few minutes, I would like to share with you a few points of what I think should be the counter-narrative which will strike at the very root of the Jihadi theology. This counter-narrative is consistent with Islamic teachings and can be made acceptable if presented to the masses of Muslims properly, bypassing the theologians. Fortunately, we do have the technological means today to reach the masses of Muslims with a counter-narrative without having to approach mosques and madrasas run by traditional Ulema. 1. Qurʾān has been created by God. It is a collection of verses that were revealed to Prophet Mohammad initially in Makka. These Makkan verses teach us peace and harmony, good neighbourliness, patience, tolerance and pluralism. These are the foundational and constitutive verses of Qurʾān. They constitute the fundamental message of Islam. 2. Qurʾān also contains many contextual verses, the war-time instructions, for instance. Such verses are no longer applicable to us Muslims today. 2. The Doctrine of Abrogation, as defined by radical ideologues, is a false doctrine. God cannot be giving orders only to abrogate them later. So the militant Medinan verses of war have not abrogated the earlier peaceful and pluralistic Makkan verses. 3. God does not prescribe any punishment for blasphemy and apostasy. Nor does He authorise any human to punish anyone for Kufr or shirk. So, if at all any such 'crime' has been committed, in the eyes of theologians, the punishment has to be left to God. 4. We are now living in the world of modern nation-states; our international relations are guided by the charter of United Nations which has been signed by all Muslim states. So, all talk of performing Jihad at least once a year should cease. 5. There is no scriptural sanction for the call of a global Khilafat. Modern pluralistic states are very much in tune with the first Islamic State evolved by Prophet Mohammad under his constitution called Meesaq-e-Madina. 6. Modern Democracy is a fulfilment of the Quranic exhortation of Amrahum Shoora Bainahum (42:38). So, Muslims should try and strengthen democratic institutions. 7. Islam is primarily a spiritual path to salvation, one of the many (Qurʾān 5:48), not a supremacist political ideology. As Qurʾān came to confirm all previous faiths, we can only accept and respect all other religions as paths to the same divinity. 8. The Doctrine of al-Wala wal-Bara (Loyalty and Disavowal for the sake of God alone) as propagated by radical elements is misconceived and impractical in the present highly complex and intricately interwoven global society. I keep explaining these and similar points to my readers, hoping that common Muslims will consider them and a consensus will gradually evolve. URL: https://www.newageislam.com/multimedia/modernity-sultan-shahin-american-audience-radical-ideologies/d/126142 New Age Islam, Islam Online, Islamic Website, African Muslim News, Arab World News, South Asia News, Indian Muslim News, World Muslim News, Women in Islam, Islamic Feminism, Arab Women, Women In Arab, Islamophobia in America, Muslim Women in West, Islam Women and Feminism