Psychologies Magazine, November 2001 —
Since September 11, the specter of religious fanaticism has haunted people's minds, and many wonder if violence is intrinsic to Islam. Drawing not only on history, but also on verses from the Quran, some claim that this religion is viscerally fanatical and warlike. Not to admit this, they say, would be as serious an error as Westerners' past blindness to communism or Nazism. Following my last column, I received several emails from readers of "Psychologies" along these lines. I will say it again very clearly: I do not subscribe to this view of things.
Written about thirty years after the Prophet's death based on oral traditions, the Quran is imbued with an ideology that was that of conquering Islam. The famous jihad, the call to holy war, enjoins Muslims to fight against the infidels – "who are nothing but filth" – in order to convert them (sura 9). But, alongside these texts, we find numerous sayings that present God as "the Merciful, full of mercy" (sura 1) and call on believers to conform their lives to justice and divine mercy (sura 3, 5).
This ambivalence between love and violence is not unique to the Quran. It is the work of religions that claim to be "revealed," that is, given by God to believers through a sacred text. The Bible contains numerous passages where God commands the Jews to massacre their adversaries in order to conquer the Promised Land (Joshua 8), and at the time of the Crusades, the Catholic Church found in the Scriptures a justification for its policy of conquest and murder. Just as the Gospels gave rise to Francis of Assisi and the Grand Inquisitor, the Quran inspired the most beautiful love poems and the attacks of September 11.
This ambiguity of the texts raises the question of their interpretation. A literal interpretation of the most belligerent verses necessarily leads to the worst extremes. Fanaticism feeds on fundamentalism. Over time, and influenced by modernity, Jewish and Christian communities have developed a critical reading of their Scriptures. This has led them to a humanist interpretation, offering a spiritual, allegorical, or symbolic explanation of passages that seem to contradict the notions, recognized as fundamental, of love and respect for others.
The real problem with Islam is therefore not the Quran, but the fear of modernity among many religious leaders, and the absence of a communal interpretation that can prioritize the contradictions of the text itself, through a reading that favors a faith that respects others, especially women and non-Muslims. On this point, Islam, born nearly fifteen centuries after Judaism and six after Christianity, is still a "young" religion. Yet, from its origins, certain mystical currents such as Sufism have taken on this task. Jihad was no longer interpreted as a warlike conquest, but as an effort on oneself, an inner conquest, the infidel becoming everything that resists faith and the love of God in the heart of the believer. Unfortunately, such readings have remained marginal, opposed by authorities afraid of privileging the spirit over the letter.
The instrumentalization of the Quran by terrorists makes it urgent for the many pious and pacifist Muslims to critically reread their sources and undertake institutional work of interpretation. Only then will the Muslim community be able to counter the most sectarian readings with an authoritative interpretation of the Quranic text, thus disqualifying the interpretations of leaders seeking revenge against the West (Bin Laden), or nostalgic for a society entirely subject to Sharia law (Taliban). And we certainly won't help them make this salutary effort by demonizing them, in the same way that their fanatics demonize Westerners.
November 2001