Preface by Farhad Qarar on the Criminalisation of Islamic Theology, Using the Statements of Prof. Tilman Nagel as an Example

Summary

Farhad Qarar addresses in this preface the increasing politicisation and criminalisation of Islamic-theological content in the German-speaking region. The preface can be read as an independent statement on the public and legal interpretation of Islamic theology.

At the centre is the criticism of the assumption that mere engagement with Islamic terms such as legislation, obedience, kufr, shirk, or shariah already means proximity to violence or criminal intent. Qarar criticises Prof. Tilman Nagel in particular, accusing him of interpreting Islamic-theological positions in a blanket manner as a danger to secular societies and thereby favouring a legal criminalisation of religious debates.

Qarar counters this by stating that Islamic theology and Islamic law recognise differentiated regulations for peaceful coexistence, contractual loyalty, and the protection of non-Muslims. The preface therefore understands itself as a defence of a factual intra-Islamic theological discussion against politicised and security-authority misinterpretations.

Summary of the Text

Farhad Qarar addresses in this preface the problem that Islamic-theological content in the German-speaking region is increasingly no longer discussed only academically, religiously, or within Islam, but is in some cases politically and legally suspected. The author describes an atmosphere in which Islamic terms and treatises can quickly be misunderstood, abbreviated, or instrumentalised in security-policy terms.

The underlying book is presented by Qarar as a treatise on Qur’anic exegesis. Topics such as obedience, jurisdiction, legislation, and religious assessment are treated from an Islamic-theological perspective, not as a political or violence-related call.

A central section of the preface is directed against statements by Prof. Tilman Nagel. The author criticises that Nagel draws far-reaching conclusions from certain theological terms and positions about willingness to use violence, hostility towards secular institutions, and imputed intentions of destruction. The criticism is that theological terms are thereby not first understood in their own religious and historical context, but are shifted into a political and criminal-law interpretive pattern.

Qarar describes as particularly problematic the assumption that a return to early Islamic sources or engagement with terms such as tawhid, kufr, or shariah automatically leads to violence or to the destruction of non-Islamic institutions. The author considers this conclusion factually false and theologically untenable. He emphasises that Islamic law recognises numerous regulations concerning peaceful coexistence, contractual loyalty, the protection of non-Muslims, and the inviolability of life and property.

The preface also distinguishes between religious truth claims and willingness to use violence. The author points out that religions generally formulate truth claims. This does not, however, automatically entail a call to violence against people of other faiths or differently organised societies. Qarar states here that precisely this difference is often blurred in politicised debates about Islam.

Another point concerns the criticism of blanket expert reports and public interpretations of Islamic literature. Qarar objects that theological writings are sometimes assessed together without taking into account their differences, their concrete argumentation, and their actual statements separately and independently. For serious accusations such as a call to violence or institutional hostility, concrete textual passages must be named. The author considers blanket attributions scientifically and legally problematic.

In the further course, Qarar contrasts other scholarly approaches with Nagel’s approach, which he criticises. He refers, among others, to the two professors Prof. Matthias Rohe and Prof. Rüdiger Lohlker, who classify Islamic law and Islamic movements in a more differentiated way. The preface thereby shows that, even in the German-speaking academic sphere, there are approaches that do not prematurely treat Islamic norms, terms, and traditions as a security problem, but first analyse them historically, legally, and from the perspective of religious studies.

In conclusion, Qarar makes clear that the underlying book formulates no call to violence. Rather, it depicts a theological discussion, presents different positions, and works methodically with Islamic sources. The author emphasises that Muslims must be able to examine and discuss their own theology without mere engagement with basic religious terms being interpreted as criminal intent.

In summary, the preface understands itself as a critique of a politicised and legally consequential misinterpretation of Islamic theology. It is directed against the idea that intra-Islamic terms or a connection back to early Islamic sources are automatically indications of willingness to use violence or extremism. Farhad Qarar thereby calls for a more factual treatment of Islamic-theological texts and a clear separation between religious debate, political assessment, and criminal-law attribution.

This is an English translation of the German summary.
[Read the German version]