Gulan: To what extent is it important to make a religious reform in Islam in order to combat Jihadism?

Professor Griffel: Salafi Islam is something that did not exist three hundred years ago. It is something that emerged during the eighteenth, nineteenth, and twentieth centuries. Salafi Jihadism is also something that came up only in 1970s. So it is not something that goes back to the history of Islam. I am not sure whether the talk about reforming Islam really helps very much because Jihadism is already part of a reform movement that counters much of the traditional authorities in Islam that have existed before.

Gulan: The main problem of the Islamic idea is that people don’t look at Islam as a religion but look at it as a doctrine. Yet basically Islam is a religion and its reference is Quran. How is it possible for Muslims to have new explanations of Quran in the 21st century rather than trying to make reforms within different sects?

Professor Griffel: To say that Jihadists do not regard Islam as a religion is a little shortsighted. It is hard to say what religion is and what it is not. It is difficult to define what religion is. To think that these people do regard as a political ideology and not as a religion is not true. Jihadism is part of the religion of Islam and has all the features to be regarded as a religion. I don’t think it is wise to make differences between Islam as a religion and as a political ideology. People who pursue political goals that they regard as distinctly Islamic, they follow religious goals as well. In addition, it is not wise to regard certain kinds of Islam as sects and others not. To be a sect (firqa) simply means that this is one of the many religious groups within Islam or better one of the many groups within the religion of Islam and that doesn’t say very much because every Muslim is part of the certain direction within Islam. What we actually see unfolding is very often the competition between different directions of Islam. So when we see ISIS making advances in Syria and in Iraq, they are countering traditional authorities of Islam. So, they are different groups of Islam being engaged in a civil war.

Gulan: Today many Islamic intellectuals belong to the Wahhabi movement which emerged in the eighteenth century in Saudi Arabia and it was considered as a reform and renewal of Islam. Currently Wahhabism has turned to something that is threatening the whole world. So to what extent is it important to make reforms in Islam from Saudi Arabia?

Professor Griffel: To say Wahhabism has turned into something is a misunderstanding. I don’t think Wahhabism has changed in essence since the eighteenth century. It was a reform movement in the eighteenth century and is a reform movement right now. It has the same target. That is, traditional authority in Islam-- Sufism, Ash'arite theology, and Shi’ism-- has the same kind of target. It is the same battles of ideas that have erupted in the eighteenth century. Today it is, of course, on a larger scale, but I don’t think that it ‘turned’. Those who are behind this movement see themselves as doing the same thing that Mohammed Bin Abdul-Wahhab did in the eighteenth century and they are trying to pursue the same goal. There is something new, in this case, it is that in the eighteenth century, they are very small, but in the nineteenth century and during the twentieth century, they took more force. It is interesting to see that how this reform movement when facing modern problems, also pursues very modern solutions.

Gulan: the western Muslims have made it clear that Salafist idea doesn’t have anything to do with political environment of their own countries. We see that Salafist ideology is more developing in the free and democratic environment and producing more dangerous terrorists as we have seen recently, after the rise of ISIS, many Europeans have joined this terrorist organization. So don’t you agree that understanding Islam needs to undergo some reforms?

Professor Griffel: I think you make a mistake to think that all Salafists are Jihadists. Salafism is a greater challenge to Islam than Jihadism and it is also a much larger movement. There are a lot of Salafists who would never engage in violence and they are very peaceful. You have to realize that at the end of the day it is a theological movement that has certain theological ideas. Now when you say we need a new understanding of Islam, then I might ask back what are you proposing? The Salafists are indeed proposing a new understanding of Islam in theology that is different from, for instance, Ash’arite theology or Shiite theology or Maturidi theology that have been taught for century in the Madrasas of Islam and then continued in the modern universities. These people challenge it. They basically say you can look at the source texts of Quran and the Hadith for yourselves and you don’t need to follow any school as an example. It is very empowering and interesting for many people and they follow that. Now you are right that out of that also follows Jihadism and eventually civil war and violence. We do not see that in Western countries because Western countries give more freedom for Salafists to practice their branch of Islam than in many of the Muslim countries. Now let me go back to the question of what can be a new interpretation and a new view of Islam. Here, you really have to find something that has not been tried already because if you want to counter Salafism, then you really have to respond on the level of theology that basically says no you can’t do it in this way, you can’t look at the Hadith and draw this and that conclusion. So I will ask you back what you are suggesting in terms of new understanding of Islam?

Gulan: But what happens in these countries reflect the realities in Arabic and Islamic countries, but now it produces in Europe.

Professor Griffel: Salafi thinkers have been around in Europe for a long time. They go back to Jamaluddin al-Afghani, somebody who is predecessor of the Salafi movement, who published a newspaper in Paris before any other newspaper would be published in the Arabic world. I don’t think it is correct to say there is anything new about the situation right now. The situation that we see is the result of ideas and what we want is a set of new ideas to combat Salafism. But I can’t see anything that hasn’t been already tried out yet. Secularism seems to be one of the responses by many intellectuals in the Muslim world trying to counter Salafism. But that has not worked either.
Gulan: do you see it as something normal because before modernity the west used to have problems with Christianity. That means reform in religion creates a kind of problems for the society but after the reform liberal Christians are produced. Do you think the same is possible for Islam too?

Professor Griffel: I think when you make the point that pre-modern societies, meaning religious societies, are characterized by totalitarianism, you overlook that totalitarianism is actually something that existed also, even to a much greater degree within modernity. The worse time in Europe was the middle of the twentieth century when you had totalitarian regimes all over Europe. ISIS is a phenomenon that comes with modernity. The way they establish their state, it is clearly a modern attempt to establish a state, and we should also not forget that the dictatorship of Bashar al-Asad is a very modern dictatorship; it is a very secularist dictatorship. They are both totalitarian in a very modern way. So what needs to be overcome is the idea that totalitarianism is something like a left-over from pre-modern societies and that it can be overcome by developing different sets of modern ideas. Totalitarianism can only be overcome with peaceful coexistence and cooperation between countries and populations. At least this was successful in Europe for the past seventy years Al-ḥamdu lillāh.

Gulan: why are not the attempts of intellectuals successful in limiting the capabilities and the extension of ISIS terrorists?

Professor Griffel: I actually see no serious intellectual engagement with ISIS. I mean there is political and military engagement, but nobody is going out and debates, for instance, with ISIS on Al Jazeera. Islamists are not challenged to debate their ideas; they are not challenged in what they say about the history of Islam, about Islamic authority, about who has the authority to declare Jihad, who has the authority to do Takfir. They don’t openly debate about these things. What is significant about ISIS is, in distinction to most other Jihadist movements, its willingness to engage in Takfir against ordinary Muslim. That is something that needs to be addressed. I think if these things are openly debated and people understand what ISIS are doing, then I think people will stay away from it because it destroys Muslim society. If I start to say that my neighbor is not a true Muslim, therefore in certain circumstances I am even allowed to kill him, I am destroying the neighborhood. So this is very dangerous and unfortunately not openly discussed. I am sometimes surprised about how little Muslims know about what other Muslims think about Islam, about the religious teachings of these radical Salafi movements, for instance. This is something that should be taught at schools.

Gulan: How far is it the duty of international community to help and support intellectuals who want reforms in Islam?

Professor Griffel: I see many condemnations from a lot of Muslim intellectuals and also leaders, but what is not happening is serious engagement with ISIS, looking for instance at what are they proposing, what are their ideas, etc. Something very important is their rejection of Sykes-Picot. It is the first movement that really radically rejects the borders that were established after the First World War. It is a real challenge to the nation states which have been established during the twentieth century. I think they have to pick it up, to discuss it; they have to say what they actually want. Do you want these borders that exist between these countries or do you think that other configurations would be better and what would be a way to establish that? Might it not be better to try to overcome these borders by better cooperation as it has been developed in Europe subsequent to the Second World War, for instance, where borders between Germany, France, Belgium, and Holland hardly exist anymore? Might this not be an answer to the challenge of Sykes-Picot? All these things, I think, need to be discussed. That is, the existence and the rise of ISIS brings a number of serious intellectual questions that the region should have picked up before, but now really is the moment to do that. I also want to comment on your characterization that Islamic fundamentalism is threatening the whole world. I think you should put things into perspective. Twelve people have been killed in Paris earlier this month, but that does not mean that the West is threatened by Islamic fundamentalism or by Islamic Jihadism. The same is even true for 9/11. Three thousand people have been killed in the attacks of 9/11. That is very tragic and should never happen again. But it is not the case that the West is threatened by Islamic fundamentalism. That is rather the case of the region itself. If you look at Kurdistan, you have a real threat in front of your gate. So you should put it into perspective and say this is really a Muslim problem and therefore it also needs Muslim responses.

Gulan: To what extent will the west help us to fight Islamic terrorism?

Professor Griffel: Do not look at the West to help you because they cannot give you answers to counter ISIS. They might give you the weapons to fight ISIS but they cannot give you the ideas to really overcome ISIS.