A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics
|
|
|
A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics | |
|
January 30, 2005Voices of IslamThe January Issue of Current History (which is, unfortunately, subscription only), has writings from Muslim scholars (translated from the original) on issues relating to the the state and religion, tolerance, and freedom of thought. The writings are interesting because they take Islam away from the militants and theocrats and present a religion that is not what we have been presented in recent years. They also, I think, are startlingly candid in some respects about Islam. I can't excerpt the articles, but I want to give some of the flavor. Gamal Al-Banna, an Egyptian, notes that the hardline interpretation of Islam (at least in Egypt) resulted in part from the repression practiced by the Nasser regime in the 50s and 60s. He argues that many of the militants had been tortured in Nasser's prisons and came out hard and impervious to what he calls "appeasement." Thus, he argues that terrorism arose originally from autocratic governments. Muhammad Shahrur says much the same thing, arguing that Islamic militancy arose largely because the modernist Arab governments failed to deliver and created a need for an alternative. He argues that the "central concern for the Arab Muslim world is the need to appreciate the urgent necessity of a second contemporary reading of the Koran and Sunna, guided by the imperatives of the world today." He advocates readings the focus on doctrines of constitutional jurisprudence, checking power and ensuring accountability to the people, "but these concepts were not found in the inherited traditional culture." Mohsen Kadivar talks about Freedom of Throught and Religion. He notes that the Koran states that "Duress is not permissible in religion." He says this means that "God has prohibited us from imposing faith on anyone, since forced faith and tyranny are not valid." And, "if non-Muslims or skeptical Muslims do not accept our reasoning, we do not have an obligation to impose our version of truth on them." Finally, Mohammad Boujnourdi, who is described as a "pragmatic" Iranian cleric, argues that "throughout history Muslims have been very tolerant people. We must emphasize this virtue among Muslims and in the world today." Moreover, toldrance means more than just allowing something. He says it "means respect, acceptance, and appreciation of the rich diversity of world's cultures, forms of expression and ways of being human." Thus, "with non-Muslims we should have dialogue and good relations, but we cannot accept things that are contrary to our religion." I think these are fascinating articles. I don't know whether these people reflect the consensus in Islam or not, but clearly, they believe that Islam has been hijacked by people with a radically different understanding of Islam. I would like to think that these writings are reasons for hope, in the sense that more people in the Muslim world will look askance at how their religion is being falsely portrayed to the rest of the world. On the other hand, it's probably naive to think that the other interpretation of Islam is not also supported by a lot of people and that, in many cases, it serves the ends of the powerful in these countries. To truly encourage political reform, I believe, will require that we engage the religion and encourage the empowerment of people like these scholars on their terms--ie, not as geopolitical pawns serving US interests, but as people working within the Islamic world to further its interests. Posted by Marc W. Schneider at January 30, 2005 04:16 PMComments
Saw a lecture by a guy this weekend talking about the same thing. He has studied with alot of Muslim Democrats who are sticking their necks out to help reform Islam or to put forward their interpretation of the state of politics and religon in Islamic societies. According to him, there are many Muslims with the same views and the current situation is similar to the debates surrounding Christianity during the American Revolution. Should Islam practice religious subjugation, tolerance, or liberty? Interstingly enough, the wording in the Constitution of Iraq says, "Islam is the official religon of Iraq and A source of the law"(NOT 'THE'). That seems small, but it's actually a big step. But his idea was the abrogation of peaceful verses over warlike verses (which the extremists adhere to) is the big battle being waged for Islam. This guy believes the scales are tipping in the Democrats direction (but admitted he didn't know who would win the debate), but he seemed to be overly optimistic when speaking about the world, in my opinion. His name was Joseph Kickasola, a professor at Regent University, a good lecture. Posted by: scott at January 30, 2005 05:12 PMIt seems to me we have to distinguish the religion itself from politics. I suspect some of the more radical interpretations of Islam result from a political need rather than a true theological interpretation, ie., people wanting to advance a radical political agenda have used Islam as their vehicle. In most of these countries, the governments have used religion (as did many South American and European autocracies) to maintain political control. If this is so, more open political systems might encourage less politicization of the religion. I suspect, in general, that a lot of what you see and read about Islam is tendentious in the sense that people present whatever fits their agenda. Of course, Current History obviously wants to present Islam in a more favorable light and would probably not publish articles advocating a more radical interpretation. So the fact that you have some scholars that interpret Islam in this way doesn't necessarily tell you what the balance of opinion is. Frankly, you can't simply disregard the more radical interpretations. They are hateful and scary and, while I would like to believe they don't reflect Islam in general, you can't ignore the influence that the radicals have in the Muslim world. It's fine to say that Islam has a tradition of tolerance, but when you see the statements that some of the clerics make about Jews (and Christians), you have to wonder what remains of that tradition. The fact is, the US and all the western countries are at least (or more) to blame for the rise of radical Islam. We have supported governments for years that essentially repressed political expression and that used religion to do it. I think we tended to look at Islam as this sort of backward, third world religion that kept people submissive and in their place so they didn't cause trouble. This served our immediate interests but it has obviously backfired. Posted by: MWS at January 30, 2005 05:30 PMWe in the West tend to confuse religion with culture (as well as politics). That is, Saudi Arabia's treatment of women is not reflected in Indonesia's selection of a female Prime Minister. Yet both countries are considered Muslim. Posted by: EG at January 30, 2005 10:43 PMThe Profesora mentioned an interesting link from literally the opposing corner from the Islamofascists: veiled4allah (at http://www.muhajabah.com/islamicblog/archives/veiled4allah/index.php). She's a Muslim pacifist. She has interesting links and posts from the the Islamic pacifist point of view. I think one difficulty that Americans are having with understanding what's going on in Islam and the Arab world is the notion of "the Arab Street." Imagine somebody talking about the US in terms of how "the American Street" feels. Now, to a certain extent, there is alot of that, because the media know that demonstrations are more interesting than people quietly forming opinions at home. But foreigners listening to that coverage could never understand or predict Bush winning elections, much less Iraq (hmm... that sure sounds familiar; maybe they should give up on the whole "Street" thing) (especially since, although well-intentioned, it's inevitably stereotyping). The reality is that all human societies have factions. All people wish for more freedom from others and, simultaneously, more power over others. Most people wish for peaceful lives. The same is true in Islam. With a media that's determined to turn single points of view into whole societies, it's hard to see that, but like western democracies, Islam has fascists, theocrats, as well as pacifists and secularists. Almost by definition, most Muslims aren't interested in jihad as a way of life, though some feel a guilty triumph in OBL because he managed a triumph over American symbols. We should think about societies in these factional terms, considering percentages and power of each party before worrying too much, rather than just watching the extremists yelling about the Great Satan. Posted by: Jon Kay at January 31, 2005 01:01 AMIBELIVE THAT IF A PERSON WAS BORN IN THE COUNTRY OF FIRST CIVILAZATION SURELY THEY WOULD BELIVE IN GOD. |
Archives
March 2006
February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003
Recent Entries
Dubai Out
Why So Long Between Democracies? Round One, Centrism Rock Lobster? Blackwell Releases "Worst-Treated" List "IRV" used in Burl., VT for mayor election. Great idea! Random Thread Election 2006: Round One A Proper Multiculturalism Bush proposes line item veto act - what's changed?
|
