The Great Theft, Wresting Islam From The Extremists
Book By Khaled Abou El Fadl
Published by HarperCollins, New York 2007

The book is about the internal division within Islam. Khaled Abou El Fadl has sucessfully and clearly presented these divisions. First, the Islam according to puritans. Second, the Islam according to moderates. In between these two divisions, it is the latter dominates the notion of what is Islam in the eyes and minds of Moslems and Non-Moslems all over the world.

According to the author, the contemporary Moslems are in denial by the continous calls to reunite Moslems, while on the other hand, still unsure of the contradictory statements on what is Islamically legitimate or condemnable.

I agree with the author on the crises in determining thoughts on what Islam is and what is not. From within the circa of puritans, where is Islam in the bombing of Sunnis by the Shites and vice versa? The definition of what is Islam and what is not becoming a relative terminology, given the undying fights and wars within Islam of what is truly and what is totally unislamic.

The author says that, the Shariah is the powerful symbol of Islamic identity, however today is diminishing. I support this idea that one factor why it deteriorates is because of the so-called proclaimed jurists and experts. This is one effect after placing the Islamic tradition at the service of political objectives and nationalistic causes, and later championed by the Wahabi and Salafiyya.

I partly agree with the author, that it is the theological puritanism introduces extremism in Islam. When the Al-Saud family converted to Wahabism, Saudi Arabia created organizations like the Muslim World League and widely distributed Wahabi literature, and Islamic movements all over the world became advocates of Wahabism. However, I find this agreement shallow when on the later part of his book, the author deliberately saying not to patronage all these Wahabi materials to forbid the puritan s financial resources. In the first place, these Wahabi materials as being said are published by the wealthy Saudi Arabia. In effect, the author is just endorsing the moderate s literature.

I find it interesting that the fights between the puritans and the moderates are fights over the Moslems in the Middle East countries or any Islamic states against Moslems living a totally opposite living condition such as in any parts if Europe and the America. One factor i see is pressure, these Moslems living in a totally Muslim environment is directly affected by the strong opposition of the world towards them and in return, they tend to romanticize the need to defend Islam to the extent of violent jihad. The other side of the story is the Moslems living in an opposite environment, and because of pressure to harmoniously live accordingly in foreign land, condemning the violent jihad, and the need to defend Islam through propagating real Islam and the real conception of Jihad.

In the book, there is no explanations or never mentioned at all, if there is in any way puritans who are conducting jihad not the like of the extremists. They are fighting to win over a piece of Islamic land, fight over self-determination, or the revolutionists in simple term. Are they falling under definition of Puritanism? I believe in my understanding, this might being misunderstood and might also fall under the same context of puritanism as extremists, jihadists, unmerciful human beings.

As the author says, both puritans and moderates believe in God as the Supreme, the All- powerful, the All-knowing, the Benevolent, the Merciful, the Compassionate, the Giver and Taker, the Judge and Punisher,and the Just. In the author s discourse, I agree that just reading the text of the Qur An and Sunnah and later obey and follow rituals without weighing interpretations in the context of temporal and sociocultural changes and critical analyses is not a manifestation of divinity, not at all.

The foremost idea here is the contradiction of utopia Islam and the real Islam as may I call it. In real Islam, there is the moral and ethical objective standard for goodness and its obligation to investigate Godliness and the absence of it, disqualifying the rule of submission in utopia Islam as mathematical and prophetic traditions. In utopia Islam, the standard for goodness is the puritans themselves, proclaiming themselves as the only Islam.

In today´s Islam, there is no doubt that puritans are everywhere, the theology of puritans as the only Islam implanted in everyone´s mind and eyes. Putting this in the cultural background of the Moslems in the Philippines, this puritanism theology is part of adat, a time immemorial cultural and tradition and practice according to Islam and/or from the culture of Arabia which incalculated to local folks. This lately divulge into a no distinction between what Islam is and what is not.

Again, I agree with the author that conservatives are not significant in shaping the future of Islam. Therefore Abou El Fadl is saying that conservatives are formed part of the Islamic world and definitely not puritans, what Islam for them is the same theology of the puritans less agitation.

Finally, Khaled Abou El Fadl made a huge step ahead to defend Islam from the extremists. As a Moslem who have this blurring idea on what Islam is and what is not, the book gave me a tool in objectifying Islam from the prevalent questions on puritan Islam and on violent Jihad.

Recommended Books: Islam and Governmental System: teachings, history and reflections by H. Munawir Sjadzali, M.A. published in Jakarta:Indonesian-Netherlands Cooperation in Islamic Studies

Intensive Lectures on Politics from the Islamic Perspective by Dr. Lukhman Bin Thaib, visiting professor from University Kebangsaan, Malaysia under the SEASREP-TOYOTA Foundation Grant, Institute of Islamic Studies, UP Dilliman