Tuesday, August 16, 2005

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.

13 Comments:

At 4:52 AM, Blogger Iqbal Khaldun said...

Yes historically pretty fascinating stuff. I think it's too simple to say (as some do) that Islam is particularly suceptible to militancy. But its militant roots are inescapable. As far as I've been able to investiage it appears Islam developed geopolitically well before theologically. In this way Bertrand Russell compared early Islam to Bolshevism.

Sadly a great deal is missing in the story of Islam. Even within the ranks of Muslims so much of our heritage has either been lost or is hidden. For eg, Saudi authorities recently ordered the demolition of ancient sites at Mecca, the birth place of Islam. Another eg is, although it is a blasphemy to say it. There is strong archeological evidence to suggest that there never was one single Koran. Because it was an oral tradition (Muhammed was after all illiterate) and because there was a mad rush to consoldate his teachings after his death, various, often different scriptures were 'revealed' which later leaders either merged or suppressed. Actually there are allusions to this is Rushdie's Satanic Verses. 'The Satanic Verses' according to the novel are actually the Koran revealed to the Prophet. But rather than this Koran being revealed by one of God's angels, it was revealed by Satan. Of course we're talking here about a work of fiction, not fact. But the implication Rushdie is making is obvious. What if the book we Muslims cherish so much isn't as good and perfect or wholesome as we'd like to think?

I really need to find some time to do some heavy duty research on this front.

 
At 7:29 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hi Professor Iqbal Khaldun,

You wrote:

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

Well, I can tell you that this world exists through the spiritual world. Hence, matters of this world are in urgent need of responses from the spiritual world.
So, now you go off and reconstruct the foundations of your study (epistemology) ….erm …of anthropology.

 
At 7:39 AM, Blogger Iqbal Khaldun said...

Haha I like that, Prof Iqbal of Iqbalistan perhaps? Well even if you invoke spirituality, and of course you can do that, the point I was making is that you will have to deal with issues outside that spirituality. I mean you can view that as merely a matter of practicality, but it’s pretty important.

It’s also worth bearing in mind that our planet has a lot of non Muslims in it who don’t share our, your spirituality. Save all of us becoming anthropologists, if humanity is to get along we will have to embrace a secular approach to social issues.

 
At 7:55 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Professor,

When I say spirituality, I mean something quite comprehensive.

However, let’s approach it on your terms…

There is no problem embracing a secular approach for those who want to embrace it. But what about those who don’t want to embrace it, how should we perceive them? Backward?

You said:
if humanity is to get along we will have to embrace a secular approach to social issues

How did you work that out?
You just don’t see (through your anthropology) how a secular approach to social issues may perhaps be hell for some people (or those people don’t count?).

 
At 8:23 AM, Blogger Iqbal Khaldun said...

(Why always anonymous posts, he asks himself)

I think you raise a lot of important issues there. Ultimately people have to make decisions for themselves. You can’t impose social mores on people, with some exceptions perhaps. So for eg I would oppose the French laws banning, inter alia, head scarves.

Really all I am saying is that the public sphere, the area of a society common to all ought to be as inclusive and pluralist as possible. The Islamic State of Pakistan, or the Jewish State of Israel fails this requirement because neither are secular.

This is not to say that people within their communities should be prevented to practice their own faiths. Of course not.

Frankly I’m struggling to understand this concept of secular approach being a hell for some people. Do you mean the type of ’secularism’ you see in Turkey or, at times, in Algiers (where Islam has been overtly suppressed)? If so, I would say that is only a superficial, shadow of secularism. Or, to put it another way, a poor expression of secularism that is antithetical to other valued concepts such as democracy which something like secularism cannot ‘live’ without.

 
At 8:29 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Assalaamu alaikum,

Iqbal, you make some interesting points, not that I agree with your conclusion that a secular socety is the ideal. But these are just a couple of thoughts I had while reading your posts.

You mentioned that expatriates have different mosques, although there are common ones. Obviously, I’ve had different experiences, but the first thing I thought of was about churches in the U.S. I was living in NY state and knew this couple who had just moved down from Canada. They were very, kind, religious Christians, and they were eager to find a church where they would feel comfortable, so they just tried a different church every Sunday. They were amazed to find that churches were either for blacks or for whites, and there was almost no overlap. They were white, so if they walked into a “black” church, they felt very strange. And if they walked into a “white” church, they also felt uncomfortable because it was so segregated. (It’s been said that the most segregrated time in the U.S. is Sunday morning church-service time.)

So for me, this was one of the remarkable things about Islam - that people from all over the world came together and lined up next to each other to pray. (I became Muslim in the Middle East, though, so your observations may be true of the U.S., too.) I remember one day I was waiting in the car while my husband went to pray in a mosque in Dubai, and I just watched as people streamed in from all directions. There were people from all different areas of the world, wearing their traditional dress, and I always find it very moving. Of course, this is nothing compared to hajj.

I happen to be reading about the travels of ibn Battuta, and the author makes the point that Islam is the bond that allowed him to travel all over the Muslim world - from Africa to the Middle East to India to China, etc. - and to fit in with the people he met, even though they had different languages and different habits. But five times a day, they all made ablutions and prayed together…

I’m not naive; I realize that although Islam teaches us not to discriminate against people because of their color or national origin, the reality doesn’t live up to the ideal. And I also realize that in certain societies, being in the same tribe is a strong bond. It’s kind of like a huge extended family, and maybe there’s nothing wrong with that, as long as it doesn’t result in injustice.

 
At 8:37 AM, Blogger Iqbal Khaldun said...

WA Ann. Thanks for your comments. I agree with you on those points re the inclusivity of the diaspora. It reminds me of what Malcolm X said when he returned from Mecca. How he ate and slept with Muslims from around the world. It opened his eyes to a more inclusive, pasifist approach to the civil rights struggle.

I don’t think secularism is as much an ideal as it is the most practical compromise. Especially in complex, populated societies, where even within religions there are a multitude of differences. I should also note that secularism isn’t a panacea for all the world’s ills. It’s but one ingredient, albeit a very important one.

Now, oe point of clarification. It’s not the case that a secular society precludes religiousity. At the very least it ought not to. As mentioned before, what I advocate is a secular approach to the public domain - to the courts and law, the state craft, etc.

Re Anon: your comments string some rather large bows. Let’s take one example. You say that a secular society would lead to minorities being marginalised by the ‘tyranny of the majority’. So are you advocating something other than democracy?

In Sudan and Pakistan, countries which are under the Sharia, minorities experience some of the worst forms of abuse, even extermination in the case of Darfur. So even if you were correct, I don’t see how what you are saying provides any solutions. As I have repeated before, this is not to say that only Sudan and Pakistan should be condemned (say, as opposed to the US, Israel or Colombia). Not at all. But as Muslims we have a duty to address these issues.

 
At 8:39 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Actually Iqbal, Pakistan and Sudan’s human rights records have never particularly good, with or without Sharia. It seems to me that modern day nation states are not particularly concerned about human rights, given the widespread violation of these protocols.

Just a look at the actions of “liberators” in Iraq should be enough to call for a totally new convention to be signed by all. Trouble is, who keeps an eye on who, how and when.

 
At 9:28 AM, Blogger Iqbal Khaldun said...

It’s always been that way, so let sleeping dogs lie? That’s a terrible argument. Once you have a religious state you necessarily exclude those who don’t belong to that religion, and impose a specific interpretation on those within it (‘you’ here being those who dictate the terms of the community’s social contract). Islam has and is being used to exclude and even punish the ‘kafirs’. In both the Sudan and Pakistan Islam has been used as political tool by elites to oppress non-Muslim minorities. These are complex situations. It is too simplistic to just say ‘Islam is to blame’. But it is equally simplistic to say ‘Islam plays not part’.

Once faith, the most intimate and personal of experiences, becomes part of state craft it is pliable to abuse. To repeat myself yet again, no, Islam or religion per se is not the only source of such abuse. But as I argued before that is no argument to avoid dealing with the role our religion plays in that abuse. For example, we have to honestly ask ourselves whether Islam adequately addresses women’s rights, homosexuals, etc. If it doesn’t then we need to consider reforms. I agree human rights are being violated all around. But it really is no solution to merely say ‘everyone’s doing it so why beat up on us, leave us alone’. Yet a lot of Muslims are happy to say just that.
Can I just say one more thing. There’s so much reactive commentary in forums like this. There’s this denial complex amongst some (ie not all, or many, but some) that provides no solutions at all.

We’ve been brought up to cherish our faith. So when anyone criticizes anything even vaguely related to it, it is quite natural to feel offence, or rush to defend it. We need to guard against such a reaction, because we risk losing a great opportunity to learn and develop as human beings and as a people. So back to Rushdie, as mentioned before, it is important to consider his comments seriously. Not just dismiss them and bury our heads in the sand.

 
At 9:30 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Iqbal,

Do you really believe that everything that happens in Muslims countries are inspired by the Quran and the Sunnah? I mean come on now, there is power, money, politics, everything. Lets be real here are the Pakistanis known for having the most ilm? Come, you know what Pakistanis are like.

In regards to the Sudan, there are killing enough Muslims for me to know that there is something else at stake. After all arent we Muslims only about Darul Harb vs. Darul Islam? Lol… Our jahil kills me.

 
At 10:48 AM, Blogger Iqbal Khaldun said...

No of course not Bikhair. And what is this supposed to mean: “Come, you know what Pakistanis are like.”? As I’ve taken pains to note more than once now, one cannot simplistically just blame Islam. Yes, there is more to the situation in Sudan and Pakistan than just Islam. A lot more in fact. But I think ‘Islam’ does play a role, and we’re having a forum about Islam. Why this refusal to self-reflect on matters of faith?

As for Muslims being killed in Sudan, yes Muslims have died in Sudan. There are non-Muslim militant groups in Sudan who have committed atrocities, but there is more to their militancy than just these acts. Much the same thing could be said about Hamas or Hezbollah. It is too simplistic to label these groups terrorists. All of this reminds me of some of my family’s friends, notably the middle-aged men folk. Specifically, their refusal to accept the suffering of peoples other than Muslims. I’ve met more than a few of this type who assure me that the killing of Christians or gang rape of women in Pakistan is a Zionist conspiracy. Now I should note these people are exceptions not the norm. But they also happen to be well educated, middle class professionals. Many of them are fathers. There’s something troubling about a soul that cannot even accept the blemishes of their belief system, let alone stand criticism of it.

I’m sorry to ramble on about this issue. I must surely read like someone on a mission to debunk mainstream Islam. What I am trying to do (of course whether I do is for others to decide) is promote critical and skeptical thinking about our religious tradition. Now, more than ever, we need to do that. Why? Because, inter alia, when a minority such as ours is challenged the way it is, and many of us understandably feel insecure, it is very easy for otherwise absurd or anathematic traditions to be swept under the carpet. Sometimes I think we do this as a knee jerk reaction to pre-empt Western criticism of our faith, criticism which is more often than not disingenuous and does not seek to assist our understanding of ourselves. Nevertheless, amongst ourselves, we must begin the long road of self assessment and improvement.

 
At 1:42 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Assalaamu alaikum,

Iqbal, I honestly don’t understand what’s happening in Darfur. But in Pakistan, you can’t say that they actually follow shariah - and that’s not an insult to the Pakistanis, because I’d say the same about every other Muslim country. Number one, virtually all of them deal in riba.

But the things we hear about women being raped in Pakistan… Mukhtar Mai being gang raped on the order of a local council as punishment for something her brother supposedly did, or women being raped by police officers. That’s obviously got nothing to do with shariah, although, sadly, many people who hear about it will think that it does.

 
At 2:59 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Actually Iqbal, you missed my point. I meant that sharia has become a scape goat for regimes who cared for human rights anyway. These regimes are almost all secular and without any religious support.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home