Are Muslim Radicals Anything New?

Think again.

Read the following excerpt from the Library of Congress regarding the period immediately following the Revolutionary War.

America and the Barbary Pirates: An International Battle Against an Unconventional Foe

by Gerard W. Gawalt

“Ruthless, unconventional foes are not new to the United States of America. More than two hundred years ago the newly established United States made its first attempt to fight an overseas battle to protect its private citizens by building an international coalition against an unconventional enemy. Then the enemies were pirates and piracy. The focus of theUnited States and a proposed international coalition was the Barbary Pirates of North Africa.

Pirate ships and crews from the North African states of Tripoli, Tunis, Morocco, and Algiers (the Barbary Coast) were the scourge of the Mediterranean. Capturing merchant ships and holding their crews for ransom provided the rulers of these nations with wealth and naval power. In fact, the Roman Catholic Religious Order of Mathurins had operated fromFrance for centuries with the special mission of collecting and disbursing funds for the relief and ransom of prisoners of Mediterranean pirates.

Before the United States obtained its independence in the American Revolution, 1775-83, American merchant ships and sailors had been protected from the ravages of the North African pirates by the naval and diplomatic power of Great Britain. British naval power and the tribute or subsidies Britain paid to the piratical states protected American vessels and crews. During the Revolution, the ships of the United States were protected by the 1778 alliance with France.”

That sounds awfully familiar. Haven’t we experienced these renegades holding sway upon the seas, threatening mayhem, disruption of legitimate commerce, kidnapping and other actions if tribute was not paid. In Thomas Jefferson’s writing he was able to place the approximate booty demanded at between $100,000 and $300,000 per year. He was not able to ascertain the amount since other nations affected would not divulge the tribute for fear of retaliation. Jefferson was loathe of participating in the payments and suggested that war would be preferable. Although neither Jefferson nor Gawalt specifically identified the marauders as Muslim the ports from which the pirates sailed were then and are today primarily Muslims nations.

Fast forward two hundred and some odd years and we are again faced with renegade Muslims who are not only demanding ransom like the Somalis’ of today but are now dispatching citizens by beheading them and posting the videos. No longer seeking booty the new extremists seek domination and overtaking of the ‘infidels.’

My question is …. Is there an inherent flaw in the teaching of the Muslim faith? Do we know about Shariah law and it’s negative teachings. Is it based upon the Qur’an? If it is, it surely is a distorted version, but it is from that foundation none the less. So how do you explain the opposing positions of Islam being a peaceful religion and current situation visa vie radical jihadists.

I have been doing a little reading on the concept of Shariah law. I am no expert and am just interested enough to do a couple of Google searches but what I found was very informative none the less. Many of the salient points that follow are from the“History of Shariah, Encyclopedia of Religion, Second Edition, Lindsay Jones, Editor in Chief.”

By definition, Shariah is the body of laws that grew out of the passages from the Qur’an. Much the way theologians have come to interpret the messages contained in the Bible educating the common man for his guidance and salvation, shariah law is based on similar treatises and interpretations. A key difference however is that Shariah over the centuries has been the foundation for all jurist prudence in the Muslim world governing the rules of day to day existence in the shadow of the Prophet. It has had a tumultuous past that continues to the present. It’s history is drenched in conflicting concepts, thoughts and pronouncements of notable thinkers over the centuries who studied and wrote extensively about the principals of the law which were known as ‘fiqh” meaning “knowledge” or “understanding.” In an alternative definition ‘fiqh’ can also mean the science of interpreting the shariah. Many of the fiqhs were important academic works without rancor or controversy other than secular variances between the Sunni and Shia.

Over time Shariah laws had changed and modernized to include strictures on the abuse of women, polygamy, fair trade and fair treatment between Muslims and Non Muslims. It is not until the modern centuries that Shariah has become co-opted and distorted to adapt to the political reality of the modern Muslim theocracy mentality. The Wahhabi reform movement rejected the authority of the classical shariah law schools and modern progressiveness. Shia jurists conceived an independent role of the clergy where yet opposing theorists posited that each Muslim was obliged to follow the legal interpretations of the most learned of the living clergy.

In the nineteenth century the Ottoman empire attempted to codify the shariah by promulgation of the laws obligations as derived from the views of many jurists. As late as the early twentieth century the Ottomans once again produced a codification known as the Ottoman Family Rights Laws of 1917 which gathered the most apt principles as applied to the law.

Change in the old shariah based law was brought about by the international political realities of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The original concept of the shariah was that it was to be coexistent between religious affiliation and government rule. At its heart the world was to be converted to Islam, resulting in one community of believers with a common political allegiance and a prevailing set of laws – the shariah. It never did see separate communities and adversarial political units (East vs. West, Sunni vs. Shia). Neither did it see the Muslim world having to deal with economically and militarily stronger non-Muslim countries.

Here I theorize that although the Qur’an is the foundation for Shariah law, Shariah law as it is known today is bastardization. For centuries Muslim scholars, theologians and academics attempted to advance Islamic law in a well thought out and forward looking manner. The law was couched in strong principles and at certain points it even incorporated at least some Western methods of judicial process and thought.

The shrill pronouncements of jihadists today would be completely foreign to their forefathers.

There is no historically, religious or moral justification to the evil that is now resident in the radical Islam.

It does beg the question however, that if radical Islam is an abomination where are the voices of today’s’ Muslim scholars. Where is the voice of the Muslim community as a whole in condemning the violence, mayhem and barbaric acts we are witnessing, all of which are draped around the neck of Allah.

If the renegades are truly a small segment of the faith how is that they weld such power as to make the majority speechless from fear of retaliation.

I am only asking the questions, the answers are up to smarter people than me.