The inconsistency of being a Muslim today and living in America and the West in general reveals the wisdom behind the opinions that call for migration from the West. It is becoming more and more difficult to hold on to Islam in an environment that is becoming more hostile towards Muslims.

This part of Imam Anwar al-Awlaki alleged statement (above), published last week, sums up the underlying mood of his website after his release from a Yemeni prison. I’m not interested in criticising or condemning Imam Anwar as a person or his alleged remarks about Fort Hood per se, as he may or may not be the author. Although a recent report in the Washington Post also claims he says Major Hasan’s actions were acceptable in Islam.

My concern is the narrative along with its conclusion that is being promoted to Muslims in the west. That, judging by comments on his website and my discussions with young Muslims in the UK, does have some following.

Whilst Imam Anwar’s online narrative may have originated in legitimate grievances, as in the reaction to illegitimate Western aggression in Muslim countries and the farce of the ‘War on Terror’ – not to mention Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay and CIA renditions, it offers little by way of any practical courses of action for Muslims in the west to address or change that situation. Having said that, it does highlight the importance of the concept of Jihad in Islam against foreign occupation and aggression. Again this a legitimate Islamic concern, although perhaps more immediately relevant to the people of those countries that are under attack or occupation.

What it offers Muslims here in the West is an immediate empathy with the anger and the helpless frustration felt by Muslims and non-Muslims at the mindless brutality of wars waged against Iraq and Afghanistan, that have led to hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths.

This narrative regularly brings home and interprets news of battles, events and developments from Asia, Africa and the Middle East, giving Muslims a sense of being involved. Some of the articles attempt to weave in Prophetic Hadith (tradition) foretelling such events and promising victory to various Muslim armies that will emerge in the ‘last days’, concluding an apocalyptic duel to the end. I have met brothers who are fixated with thesepossible dates, numbers and clashes with a surreal fervour.

The main problem with this narrative and its effects on some Muslims is in the way it shapes or distorts their outlook to living in the West. The whole range of issues around Muslim identity, citizenship, hijra [migration], our priorities, al-wala wal-bara (allegiance and non-allegiance), da’wah, other faiths and integration, are all perceived through the prism of this narrative.

Therefore the whole government is obviously the enemy (accordingly) and any Muslims attempting to work with them are labelled as Munafiqoon (hypocrites) or as having questionable intentions.

Non-Muslims are to be avoided as much as possible, with only the minimum interaction with the non-Muslim society in general. We should remain amongst ourselves, and if possible leave the country as soon as we have the means to do so to a more ‘Islamic’ environment - ignoring the harsh realities of the lack of religious freedom, abuses of human rights, poor economic conditions and the stifling visa and immigration rules that prevail in many Muslim countries. Calling for change will land you in solitary confinement in most places in the Middle East, even from behind the comfort of your laptop.

Scholars who do not agree with this narrative are to be routinely rejected. Any scholars that speak of Tajdid (renewal) in general, flexibility in Shari’ah or dare to mention the Maqasid (purpose/objectives) of Shari’ahare immediately held with suspicion and labelled as at best an unqualified liberal, or at worse someone who is trying to destroy the Shari’ah from within. This approach only further serves to decimate any semblance of affinity or unity that exists amongst Muslims here – as testified to by the website commenters who accused western Muslims, who condemned the Fort Hood massacre, of treason.

In general this approach is inward looking, isolationist, defensive and debilitating for Muslims here. It constantly reduces the circle of possibilities of effective engagement within society, reducing the space in which Muslims can legitimately act. It sees no point in working with any seriousness to build strong Muslim communities as you are likely to be forced out of these countries sooner or later. In the end when changes abroad are not forthcoming the only desperate recourse is the support of any action that weakens the ‘enemy’ at home. This is the logical conclusion of the ‘da’wah’ (message) of this narrative.

Some of the previous groups in the UK that also missed the crucial point of being grounded in Islamic principles as applied to our geo-political reality were led by the now forgotten likes of Shaykh Faisal, Abu Hamza and Omar Bakri. As the Arabic saying goes ‘extremism has a short life’ – in other words imbalance and extremities are itself the seeds of its own destruction. Their approaches lasted no more than a decade.

A number of their followers that ‘burnt out’ have now turned up on the other extreme of the spectrum reinventing themselves as the champions of a ‘liberal Islam’ that even strips away some of Islam’s fundamental beliefs and practices. Others have simply grown up or just disappeared off the activist map, opting for a more reclusive pace of life. 

The foundations of this narrative are built on events unfolding in physically, though not spiritually or emotionally, distant geographical locations. Whilst it may have more relevance and priority in those places, it is baffling as to why this message is being directed to Muslims in the West.

The alternative to this, which many mainstream scholars and organisations are already working towards, is to take that righteous indignation and frustration and channel it towards practical positive work that is real, sensible and is in accordance with priorities for us in the West. It has to be acknowledged that many existing Muslim organisations and leaders have not adequately articulated this alternative message with sufficient theological references, which has left a vacuum for such narratives to develop. This alternative has to be Islamicly sound whilst acknowledging our immediate realities including:

1) The presence of some 20 million Muslims in the EU, many of them indigenous, who aren’t about to migrate to anywhere quickly.

2) The binding nature of our contract (in Shari’ah) to live as law abiding citizens of a state as stated by eminent scholars of the past (Shafi’i, Sarakhsi et al) and present (Yusuf al-Qaradawi, Abdullah bin Bayyah and the European Fiqh Council).

3) The obligations we have as Muslims to our immediate social context in terms of self-reformation, learning, promoting the good and forbidding the evil, da’wah to Muslims and non-Muslims.

4) The religious and human rights and freedoms that we still enjoy compared to most Muslim countries, particularly the Middle East.

Whilst we cannot radically change anything in far away lands - we can change, and have an obligation to change things nearer to home. Tackling doubts about Islam, crime, sexual promiscuity, drug and alcohol abuse amongst the youth, mental health, marriage breakdown, as well as other major issues in our communities deserve our immediate attention. We also need more young people to be trained and involved in the media, in public services, and many other areas.

It’s not just about fire-fighting, we have to also concurrently strive to build an infrastructure related to religious, educational, economic and human resources in order to develop strong vibrant communities that can represent Islam in the West. A support infrastructure is needed for many of the thousands of indigenous Muslims who feel alienated from their own communities, but also face difficulties when trying to mix with the immigrant Muslim communities.

These are far more immediate, practical and perhaps necessary priorities for us in the West. All this does not mean we cannot oppose unjust foreign policy, rather we have a moral duty to do so.

My main point is that I see too many young people ‘suspended in animation’ (their bodies here but their hearts and minds in other lands), all due to the influence of this narrative. Many surf the net, helplessly watching events unfold that are out of their sphere of influence, fighting cyber wars with others, and then taking the Prozac of the above narrative to feel good again.All the while not planning effectively what to do with their lives in the here and now or not contributing effectively in areas that they have skills and abilities to do so. There can be no greater loss to the Ummah than a wasted youth that could have made a significant difference to his or her community.

This is not about the severing of Western Muslims from the East as that is antithetical to our teachings. It’s about recognising the harsh geo-political realities and then being able to nurture and channel the positive dynamic activism that exists in us all within the framework of Shari’ah, towards that which fulfils the demands that Shari’ah places upon us according to our time, location, realities and capacities.

It is high time that Muslims - particularly young Muslims in the West - recognised the difference between a charismatic speaker, teacher or ‘Shaykh’ and a Faqih, Mufti or Mujtahid. The latter has the qualifications and sufficient training to pronounce fatwas on strategic issues that call for deep juristic analysis, synthesis of the Juziyat (legal particulars) and the Kulliyat (universals) and a proper understanding of the implications of their pronouncements upon the societies concerned.

Hopefully the recently reported statement of Anwar al-Awlaki and the question marks over ownership of his website should alert people to the precarious source and foundations of that narrative.