Reform, Islam and spare time

A fundamental problem with discussing the 'reform' of Islam is the refusal by ideologues, whether 'Western', 'Muslim', or other, to place Islam in an historical and anthropological context. What do I mean by this? There's a lot of talk about the Muslim world, the Ummah, etc as though it was the defining characteristic of those people who demographically make up the said Muslim world. Unfortunately the reality is a little different. This is not to say Muslims the world over don't feel a common bond. Many do. Only to say that one's religion is but one 'feature' of any community or individual. Now that's a truism, not an argument. Only an ideologue would refuse to accept that (cf Wahabbism in Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan). Go into any expatriate mosque. Most of these mosques are divided on ethnic/national lines. Separate mosques for Turks, Indonesians, South Asians, and so on. Yes there are 'common' mosques too. Remember, I am not saying Islam does not provide any links, only that it is not the only thread that binds people.

Historically, Islam hasn't provided the type of cohesion between different ethnic groups that other social phenomena, like nationalism, tribalism, communalism or necessity, have. The reasons for this are complex, but far from sinister. To understand this, I think you have to look at Islam in an historical and anthropological context. The movement founded by Muhammed established itself politically well before it established itself theology. In fact, the historical record quite clearly indicates that theologically Islam as we presently know it* developed several years after Muhammed's death. Even the Koran, which is considered static and immutable, had many different versions and source 'documents'.** Remember also that Islam began as an oral tradition. Ask any anthropology major and they will tell you how dynamic and variable oral traditions are as a source of objective truth. Anthropologically, Islam has been very dynamic, having been transformed and adapted into the local traditions of myriad different peoples. In parts of Indonesia and Malaysia, animist beliefs have been adopted into Islam. In South Asia, Sufi Islam undeniably incorporated very Hindu concepts. Sadly these strands of Islam are in decline. With it is lost a great deal of wisdom and understanding of our ancestors.

Of course a lot of what I've said above would be considered blasphemy. There are several Muslim countries where I could be punished quite severely for stating what I have. Many will think that my aim is to discredit Islam. Nothing could be further from the truth. But, like everything, if you really want to appreciate something, you must immerse yourself in it warts and all. That doesn't automatically mean, however, that you accept or rationalise everything attributed to Islam. I think people have the capacity and even duty to use their common sense, rational capacity to appreciate the world. That means questioning those aspects of Islam, its theology or practices which are antithetical to what our rational faculties tells us ought to be or not to be so.

People who often lament the failings of Islam (referred to variously as Islamofascism on one extreme, to an inability to follow the 'real' Islam on the more sympathetic side) expect of the religion something it cannot deliver. It cannot of itself deliver sociopolitical reform because the religion, any religion, isn't 'designed' for this purpose. There's a very good, simple reason for this. Matters of this world usually require responses 'from this world'. Matters of religion and spiritually are relatively ineffective in this regard. To put it crudely, to build a car you don't require an understanding of the Bhagavat Gita.

Yes, there has been a growth in 'political Islam' over the past century or so. But I would argue in every instance it has degraded into something quite different from the original derivative. So take the use of Sharia in some tribal regions of Pakistan. Once you investigate its administration you very quickly notice that the theological link is quite tenuous, but the tribal one is quite strong. Islam may be invoked, but authority in these societies is derived from tribal 'social contracts' (cf the infamous Zina Law).

One of the more troubling byproducts of this situation is an inability amongst many Muslims to confront Islam's limitations or deficiencies. Now I should stress this is not a uniquely Muslim phenomenon. Every community, howsoever defined, suffers from the same problem. But that mere fact doesn't justify us Muslims exhibiting this failing; even if we are under particularly harsh pressure to 'prove' to the world that we are civilised and civil and nice. Something needs to be done to address this issue, something in the way of honest, tolerant and pluralist debate. Ok, I'll shut up now.

* Hear I speak principally of Islam's dominant streams - Sunni and Shia Islam. No doubt this is an exclusionist take. But I suppose many Muslims would consider members of one of the smaller sects Kaffirs, so for present purposes the exclusion can suffice, albeit uncomfortably.

** The 'documents' were often bones and skins. Remember this was before the internet or the printing press.