Tomorrow, Muslims celebrate the greatest feast of Islam, Id al-Adha, which commemorates the sacrifice of a ram by the prophet Ibrahim (Abraham) instead of his son, Ismail (Ishmael, in the Bible, the elder half-brother of Isaac). In its narrative references, as well as in the significance it gives personal responsibility and sacrifice, it is a reminder of the theological links between Islam, Judaism and Christianity.
However, in Malta, at least, any reminder of such high-minded affiliations are overshadowed by the fresh memory of Imam Mohammed al-Sadi's much-publicised declarations about the just punishment for theft (as the Malta Gay Rights Movement coordinator pointed out, far less attention was paid to his attitude towards homosexual marriage).
In recent years, never has middle-of-the-road Maltese opinion been so doubtful, to put it mildly, whether Muslims, including those raised as Maltese, by virtue of their religion, have values congruent with mainstream European contemporary culture. Even after 9/11, no one asked loaded questions about what might be being taught to pupils at the Mariam al-Batool school (which gives Quranic lessons within the framework of the national minimum curriculum, including experimental science and Maltese, English, Arabic and French; yielding mainstream scholastic results that see its pupils accepted in junior lyceums and private schools).
But does the anxiety have any justification? I ask as someone who would combat any political proposal to introduce hand amputation for theft (just as for years this space has argued for certain gay rights).
First, what the Imam said and implied needs clarification. Asked whether he believed hand amputation was a just punishment for theft, the Imam said he did. Why? Because he believes such a sanction has God's authority.
But does this mean, as many online posts have suggested, that what the Imam has in mind is the summary, rough justice, viewable on YouTube, being meted out in a country like Somalia?
No. Whatever we make of its punishments (and I, for one, reject the traditional criminal punishments as disproportionate), the Sharia is a genuine system of jurisprudence, not mob justice masquerading as one. Proper sentencing needs to be preceded by stringent procedure, criteria establishing the gravity of the offence and burden of proof.
Contemporary Somalia, with barely a state to its name, is not an example of Sharia law in action - and would not be taken to be such by most Muslims. It is rule by militias, imposing themselves on a population that would otherwise resist them (despite being, or perhaps because it is, Muslim).
Many Islamic jurists, in fact, who would accept hand amputation as legitimate in theory (let alone those who would dispute its legitimacy), consider it impossible to implement such sentences justly in conditions where the state and its institutions are manifestly deeply flawed, if not downright corrupt. And this, they argue, is precisely the condition of Muslim states today.
A pious Muslim, who subscribes to a conservative understanding of the Sharia, can still look at hand amputations in countries like, say, Sudan and Iran, or at rape victims being punished as adulterers in parts of Pakistan, and see, for what it is, the thuggish politics manipulating religion without any genuine concern for justice. (Indeed, women's rights organisations in Pakistan have, in the name of Islam, challenged the current application of the law.)
To suggest otherwise would be like saying that a Texan in favour of capital punishment has no real preference for a legal system of checks and balances over an arbitrary trial.
That still leaves me disagreeing with Imam al-Sadi over what constitutes proportionate punishment, just as I would disagree with George W. Bush on capital punishment and the majority of Englishmen reported, from time to time, to be in favour of reintroducing hanging.
It is a serious disagreement but one similar to other disagreements I have with people I would consider to share my cultural universe anyway. And, on my side, I would find many Muslims supporting me.
Civilisation consists of people locked in argument. Of course, argument can take worrying turns.
Several policy mis-steps have been taken in multicultural Europe, which have led to a religion like Islam being conflated with ethnic identity, or law courts flattering bigotry (say, with honour killings) with the status of a legitimate "communal culture" when they should have defended individuals' rights to self-determination.
But those mis-steps require a different kind of response than the kind of bile and ignorance poured out in sections of the media over the last week. If bigotry is really what we fear, bile and ignorance will only provide a more favourable environment for it.
ranierfsadni@europe.com