Is Islam one of the most important shapers of the culture, mind-set, way of life, thought processes, opinions and reactions of Muslims? Most emphatically “YES”. But that is not a satisfactory answer for analysts concerned with both diagnosis and cure, and it to them that this article is addressed. So let us flesh out the answer by trying to define what is meant by Islam here.

• Is it Islamic Scripture?
• Is it how people interpret Scripture?
• Is it Islamic jurisprudence?
• If so, which school of jurisprudence?
• Is it historical experience?
• If so, what particular experience?
• Indeed, which Islam?
• Is it Islam as understood by the Umayyads or by the Abbasids?
• Is it Islamic jurisprudence according to Abu Hanifa, ibn-Malek, al-Shafei or ibn-Hanbal and his disciples [notably ibn-Taymiyah, ibn-Qaiym Al-Juzeya and the proselyter Mohamed ibn-Abdul Wahab]?
• Or is it Islamic jurisprudence according to the Imameya school (whose most prominent exponent was Ja'far Al-Sadiq) or to the Khawarij (who had four subdivisions, the most important being the Abadeya Khawarij)?

And can one talk of a single homogeneous Islamic experience? After all, the experience of Damascus under the Umayyads was very different from the experience of Abbasid Baghdad, while both were very different from the historical experience of Andalusia, where a unique bonding between Muslims and Jews produced such great thinkers as the Muslim Ibn Rushd [Averoess] and the Jewish Ibn Maymoun [Maimonides].
In truth, Scripture in and of itself means little when invoked out of context. Here the quality, mind and vision of the person dealing with the text is all-important. For example, Ibn Rushd deals with Scripture in a very different manner from ibn-Taymiyah, Al-Mawdoody and Sayed Qutb.

The practice of relying on one text while ignoring another is a destructive process that lends itself to abuse. As a student of the Torah and the Talmud, particularly the Babylonian Talmud known as the Gemara, I do not allow myself to take at face value the words spoken by Joshua, son of Nun, on a certain occasion in a given context. By the same token, I cannot accept that saddaq (dowry) is an article of Jewish faith just because King Saul demanded it from David, son of Jesse of Bethlehem (King David for the Jews, the Prophet David for the Muslims) for the hand of his daughter Michal. I cannot go around brandishing this text as a divine revelation outside its historical, human and chronological framework.

In short, we are dealing here with not just one single model of Islam but with a multitude of interpretations by different schools. For example, the number of the Prophet's Hadiths regarded as sources of religious doctrine and practice varies widely from one school to another. The great jurist Abu Hanifa accepts just over a hundred as apostolic precept, while the conservative theologian Ahmed ibn-Hanbal accepts over ten thousand in his book Al-Musnad.

Sources of jurisprudence also differ from one school to another, with the Hanafites relying on istihsan [using few traditions and extracting from the Qur'an the rulings which fit their ideas] and the Malakites on istislah [public advantage].

Then we have those who insist on a dogmatic interpretation of holy texts and others who, like Ibn Rushd, eschewed narrow interpretation in favour of deductive reasoning [al ta'weel].

Even when it comes to the drinking of spirits, we have different opinions. While most jurists interpret the text addressing the subject as banning drinking altogether, others like Abu Hanifa believe the ban applies only to intoxication. He makes his views on the subject clear in the following passage:

"If it gets me thrown into Hell I will not drink it,
But even if I am thrown into Hell I will not call it sinful."

Side by side with all these different trends, creeds and schools, Islam has had its share of fanatical hard-liners through the ages, from its inception up to the present. Among the earliest was Hamdan ibn Qarmat, who carried away the Black Stone of the Ka'bah, and the latest is the man now living in the caves of Wazirstan, Osman bin Laden. In between these was Sayed Qutb, who came up with a theory that will remain a wall separating Muslims from the rest of humanity and from any hope of progress until it is torn down. Known as the "theory of divine dominion," it postulates that mortals are not ruled by mortals but by God. And who, you might well ask, will make God's wishes known to us? The answer is, of course, "we, the 'ulamas"! It is a theory that holds Muslims hostage to a theocracy overtaken by the march of human progress and places them at the mercy of a power structure dominated by a caste of clerics, even though we have repeatedly stated that there is no such thing as a clergy in Islam, no intermediaries between Man and God. As to the farcical notion of men of religion passing themselves off as men of wide learning, which is the English translation of the word 'ulama, a recent incident illustrates just how limited their fund of knowledge really is. In the course of a debate a few weeks ago, someone asked one of these 'ulamas, the supreme guide of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, whether he knew who Bill Gates was. His reply: "I don't, and it is not important to know!" This amazing reply also shows how insular and isolated from the realities of modern life these self-appointed authorities are.

Islamic texts are amenable to many interpretations. Some of the earliest converts to Islam admitted as much some one thousand four hundred years ago when they said "The Qur'an displays many faces." In other words, what counts is not the text but the person who reads, understands and presents it. 
Muslims have known extremely tolerant societies, but always outside the Arabian Peninsula, in Egypt, Syria, Andalusia and the Arab Maghreb. As Bernard Lewis said, the Jews played their greatest roles in history twice:

• Once under the Muslims (in the past)
• And once under the Christians (in the present).