Islam and the west - what Muslims should do?
Submitted by Tarique on Wed, 05/07/2008 - 17:50.
* Indian Muslim
Asghar Ali Engineer,
Muslims and the West seem to be on collision course. I read every day in
Urdu papers about the
conspiracies the West hatches to attack and destroy Islam. Western
countries do something or
the other which offends Muslims and results in protests, street
demonstrations and at times
results even in violence. Huntington's book, 'Clash of Civilizations',
Rushdi's novel 'The
Satanic Verse's' controversy, Taslima Nasreen's warm reception by European
countries, Pope
Benedict's statement about Islam, the Danish cartoons and now a member of
the Netherlands's
parliament making a film Fitna have all struck headlines. This new
controversy has seized the
Muslim world.
Some Muslims argue that West is enemy of Islam and keeps on attacking
Islam and Muslims to
serve its own agenda. Some even argue there is limit after all and how
long Muslims can
tolerate these attacks. They must act to stop this war against Islam. Many
burn the flag of the
country concerned or trample it underfoot, some give call for boycott of
goods manufactured in
that country and some even threaten to indulge in violence.
The ways our newspapers report, give an impression as if all in the West
are hostile to Islam,
and all Muslims are bent upon violent protests. But this is far from true.
The Muslims should
understand that all Westerners are not supporters of whatever some
Westerners do, and
Westerners should understand that all Muslims do not appreciate violent
protests. It is also
not true that Western governments patronize anti-Islam cartoons, films or
novels. Nor
governments of Muslim countries can be held responsible for violent
demonstrations.
The matter in fact is very complex, and intellectuals on both sides should
understand these
complex issues involved and make constant efforts to promote proper
understanding and smoothen
mutual relations. Unfortunately such serious attempts are not being made
or even if made do not
get proper projection in the media. I would like to make a few suggestions
in this regard to be
seriously considered.
First, we must mutually appreciate our cultural differences which are
responsible for a great
deal of misunderstandings between the West and the Islamic world. The West
has by now a long
tradition of secular democracy, freedom and human rights. The Islamic
world is still not
conversant with such concepts. It has not even ushered in to democracy;
and there is no concept
of secular democracy or human right in this part of the world.
Europe has undergone a long struggle against the Pope and the Church to
win its right to
criticize. The religion as propagated by the Church, the freedom of its
press and certain other
fundamental rights. There was a time when the church did not tolerate any
criticism or
deviation from its theology which had the status of divine injunction.
Deviationists were
severely punished. Even by death or by burning them at stake. Religious
persecution had assumed
serious proportions.
Since the West had won the rights against the Church after great
sacrifices, it is not prepared
to give them at any cost, and considers them almost, as sacred as the
religious injunctions. It
was because of this that philosophers like Bertrand Russell wrote a book
like Why I am not a
Christian and ridiculed in this book many doctrines propounded by the
Church. Several books and
articles were written attacking even Christianity and continue to be
written even today.
Recently a book has been published which questions even existence of
Christ. The author quotes
several documents to prove that Christ never existed and what church
preaches is mere mythology.
Whether such a state of affairs is desirable or not is a matter of values
to which one
subscribes. Today in the West, especially in Europe freedom, secularism
and human rights have
status of what religious doctrines had in the medieval age. And in
democracy these rights have
to be ensured without which democracy may lose its meaning. Now it can
also take extreme forms
e.g., right to ridicule, right to mock at authorities, and political
cartoons often make a
caricature on mock at the false claims of political authorities.
Political cartoons are frequently used to ridicule political leaders. Now
the question is
whether cartoons can be drawn to ridicule religious leaders or not, and if
so, can one draw
cartoons of founders of religions who are held in high esteem by their
followers? It is of
course a matter of ones perspective. Many would insist that it is
sacrilegious to draw such
cartoons and some would insist it is part of ones fundamental rights.
Salman Rushdi too insists on his right to ridicule religious authorities,
and mocks at Gabriel
and Prophet's (PBUH) wives. The West defended him saying it is part of his
human rights or
fundamental rights. Western culture as it has developed over the last one
century, promotes
even sacrilege as part of ones rights as people in the West insist
sacrilege is the ultimate
right in democratic culture.
It was for this reason that the West defends persons like Salman Rushdi,
or Danish cartoonist
who mocked at the Prophet and showed bombs in his turban. When Muslims
protested more papers in
European countries published these cartoons in support of the right of the
cartoonist. This led
to even more protests in Islamic world. Similarly Taslima Nasreen is
perceived as one who is
persecuted by Muslims and she is projected as a brave woman who must be
accorded warm reception
to appreciate her courage and fortitude.
When Muslims protest, the Western media dub it as act of "fundamentalism"
and "religious
fanaticism" and condemn it as unbecoming behaviour of enemies of media
freedom. The West
emphasizes on individual rights, and 'individual is at the centre of all
rights'. There is no
concept of collective rights in the Western culture. In democracy
individual enjoys all the
rights available in the constitution. Also, there is concept of separation
of church and state
which is quite central to secular democracy.
We would now throw light on what prevails in the Islamic world today and
why there is such
sense of confrontation between Western values and values prevalent in the
Muslim world today.
The West, instead of outright condemnation of these acts, must try to
understand value system
of the Islamic world. This value system is undoubtedly more feudal than
democratic. Individual
rights are subsumed in community rights. There is no concept of
full-fledged human rights.
Religion is sacred and divine and above any criticism including all its
social and cultural
traditions. Love and respect for tradition are universal and beyond the
pale of any criticism.
Often vested interests exploit this situation to their advantage and put
many practices not
remotely religious, also beyond pale of criticism. Even governments,
declaring themselves as
Islamic, try to shun criticism.
Once you declare something as 'Islamic', it becomes so difficult to
criticize it and all sorts
of vested interests, particularly the rulers, pass off their
mis-governance also as 'Islamic'.
Add, to these, low levels of secular education, and the picture becomes
complete. There is
hardly any awareness among Muslim population of the real issues. Also
there is no open society
and democratic governance.
As there is no democratic governance, there is no concept of human rights.
Any such concept is
limited to a few intellectuals who cannot air their views publicly. In one
International
conference in Morocco a couple of years ago, I met several Arab
intellectuals who were highly
critical of many traditional practices and autocratic governance in the
Arab world. It gave me
great pleasure.
II
Islamic world and its values
As is well known Islamic world is yet to go through democratic revolution
and hence there is no
concept of individual and fundamental rights. There are various reasons
for this which needs
another article to discuss. It is important for the Western world to
understand and comprehend
this vital difference between two cultures.
Religion and religious values are quite central to Islamic countries or
for Muslims who are
living in countries like India. Though India is constitutionally a secular
democratic country
it still lacks modern rational and secular outlook. Indian society too,
despite political
democracy, lacks what can be called 'social democracy'. Traditional
religion has strong grip
over the minds of the Indian people and much more so, in the case of the
Muslims.
India at least has political democracy. Islamic world, by and large, does
not have even that.
In Islamic world traditional religion and religio-cultural values reign
supreme. There is
absolutely no rational intellectual tradition spread all over society.
Even if there are a few
intellectuals who care for rational approach, they are isolated and are
hardly heard with
respect. Often they have to pay heavy price for their intellectual
conviction.
It should suffice to give two examples as to how such intellectuals have
to suffer. One example
is of Prof. Fazlur Rehman, a noted Islamic scholar who was also believer
in Islam and Islamic
values. However, he had different understanding of the nature and meaning
of revelation (he
never denied revelation per se) and he also believed in rational approach
to Islam. There was
hue and cry when he published his ideas about the nature and meaning of
revelation and he not
only had to resign as director of an Islamic institution, he had to leave
Pakistan and teach in
Chicago University for rest of his life.
Another example is of Abu Zayd Nasr, an Egyptian scholar who had studied
in al-Azhar, the
renowned Islamic University in Cairo and also later taught there. He also
expressed his ideas
about revelation (tanzil) and its interpretation (ta'wil); which were not
in accordance with
traditional thinking. He was tried in a court of law for sacrilege and the
court ruled that he
was no more a Muslim and hence his married wife became harami (prohibited)
for him. Both Zayd
Abu Nasr and his wife escaped and found refuge in Holland, and he has been
teaching there ever
since.
Both Fazlur Rehman and Zayd Abu Nasr were respected scholars of Islam but
did not subscribe to
traditional views about revelation and paid heavily for their views. Both
were believers and
had profound knowledge of their religion but were not conformists and so
had to pay a price.
Their views were considered sacrilegious and deviationist. In this
atmosphere of total lack of
freedom even within the framework of religious beliefs, one can understand
the reaction of
Muslim theologians and politicians (who always want to be on the right
side of 'Ulama) if
persons like Rushdi or Taslima Nasreen or Danish cartoonist, express their
views.
The Westerners must understand that the whole value system in Islamic
world is very different
from their own. In traditional Islamic societies religion and religious
traditions are
considered holy and beyond pale of criticism. Also vested interests
exploit this for their own
advantage. Often even mis-governance is projected as 'Islamic' and any
criticism is banned.
Add to this lack of any democratic values and awareness of human rights
and low levels of
literacy and the picture is complete. Most of the Muslim countries are
governed by autocrats
who are completely insensitive to people's rights and any movement for
human rights is crushed.
It will take long time to usher in democratic values in Islamic world.
Entire education system
is to produce conforming minds.
However, there are intellectuals who are critical of this state of
affairs. I met many of them
in an international Islamic conference in Morocco a couple of years ago.
It was highly
refreshing to listen to them criticizing lack of democratic rights in
Muslim countries and the
disproportionate role-played by traditional 'Ulama. However, this is
limited to a few
intellectuals and even these intellectuals are unable to publicly
criticize their governments,
or even 'Ulama in their countries.
Also, let westerners know that religion and religious traditions are very
much integral part of
people's lives in Islamic world. These are not only sacred but lived
traditions for them. The
western perspective is very different. For them, except those who belong
to Church, religion is
far from sacred. It is democracy and freedom of thought that is sacred. It
is part of human
rights to mock at religion. Thus these are two different worlds. They must
appreciate this
world view of Muslims. If they have intimate knowledge of Muslim world and
their religious
traditions and cultural values probably there will be no such
confrontation.
Also, those Muslims who have migrated from Muslim world and live in
Western countries, carry
these cultural values with them, are greatly disturbed when they see their
religious traditions
being insulted. The film Fitna made by a member of the parliament of
Netherlands, is the result
of such confrontation. Such people have hardly any intimate knowledge of
Muslim societies, let
alone of the Qur'an.
Some Westernized and secularized Muslims like Salman Rushdi, Hirsi Ali and
others also take
completely westernized view and attack traditional Islamic values, and
they are naturally
lionized by western media and projected as great champions of human
liberty and human rights.
This has created an atmosphere of Islamophobia in Western countries. What
is needed is dialogue
between representatives of these two value systems – Western and Islamic –
to end the
atmosphere of confrontation.
Films like Fitna are not going to make things easy. They would lead to
further intensification
of confrontation. There are rightist elements in Western countries who
want confrontation, not
peace between the two value systems. Maker of the film, Fitna, is well
known rightist
politician. He could not be persuaded even by the Prime Minister of
Netherlands not to make the
film. He had definite rightist agenda.
What Muslims should do?
As it is necessary for Westerners to appreciate Muslim cultural viewpoint,
it is also necessary
for Muslims to understand Western point of view and their respect for
democratic values and
human rights. While it is true that many Western scholars and media
persons are rightist in
their political agenda and attack Islam deliberately, there are many other
who criticize Islam
and Muslims as they feel many Muslim beliefs are undemocratic and
anti-modern. They cannot
understand why Salman Rushdi should be killed for his criticism or mockery
of Islamic beliefs.
It is his right to do so, especially in a Western country where the
culture of democracy and
human rights prevails.
Even while opposing views of Salman Rushdi, or Taslima Nasreen or Danish
cartoonist, there is
no need to get violent. Muslims must prove through our conduct that Islam
is a religion of
peace and tolerance and individual dignity. The Qur'anic teaching is not
to abuse others or
insult others. The Qur'an requires Muslims even not to abuse others gods
lest they should abuse
Allah out of ignorance (6:109). Even if others attack out of ignorance we
must be dignified in
our opposition to their views of Islam.
Qur'an also says that even while debating with people of the Book, debate
in the best possible
manner. Thus Qur'an says, "And argue not with the people of the Book
except by what is best
save such of them as act unjustly." (29:46). Qur'an is saying all this
when democratic culture
or democratic rights were totally unknown. Even while disagreeing we must
respect other's
views. This is Qur'anic culture. Qur'anic culture is culture of tolerance.
Tolerance is one of
the best values of civilized people. Islam came to create a new human
person. This human person
is called m'umin by Qur'an and mu'min means believer – believer in best
human values like
justice, compassion, tolerance and wisdom.
As Muslims we must also reflect critically whether we seriously believe in
these values. These
values are so important that they represent Allah's names in Qur'an –
Allah is just,
compassionate and wise. If we believe in Allah we must believe in these
values and if we
worship Allah we must practise these values making them part of our lives.
Then and then only
we can call ourselves as believers!
Today Muslims are thought to be most intolerant and fanatic. Why? Should
we not seriously
reflect on this situation? All sorts of vested interests abound among us
styling themselves as
Muslims and leaders of Muslims. They often mislead us. Islam was torch
bearer of 'ilm
(knowledge) and we have become torch bearers of ignorance. Our 'Ulama (it
means those who know)
represent ignorance rather than knowledge. They acquire nothing but
traditional knowledge of
Islam and are narrow minded, sectarian and totally ignorant of world they
live in. They still
believe that the Greek knowledge once studied by their ancestors as final
and even sacred. This
is what is taught under m'aqulat (rational sciences) in madrasas.
It is we Muslims who have made persons like Salman Rushdi, Taslima
Nasreen, Hirsi Ali and
others as great heroes of the Western world. Had Muslims not protested
violently and issued
fatwas to kill them, they would have been unknown entities. This way we
have brought nothing
but disgrace for Islam and Muslims. Some Urdu papers use word mal'un and
mal'unah (those
accursed by Allah) even while giving news about them. When Muslim media
behaves so
irresponsibly how can we expect western media to behave with dignity?
Disagreeing with their
views does not mean invoking curses for them.
There are selfish political leaders who want to cash in all such
opportunities for their
political interests. These opportunistic leaders exploit innocent Muslim
religious sentiments
for promoting their own interests. We have become emotional instead of
rational. We instantly
sacrifice rationality on the altar of emotions. In Qur'an wisdom is the
highest value and
Qur'an says, those who are given wisdom have been given good in abundance.
Muslim intellectuals should also shed their fear and come out boldly for
defence of Islamic
values of tolerance and wisdom. If we really care for positive values of
Islam we must oppose
such opportunism as displayed by our politicians and ignorance and
sectarianism displayed by so
called 'Ulama. The Prophet (PBUH) said that best form of jihad is speaking
truth on the face of
tyrant ruler. Time has come to speak out truth in the face of those who
exploit Islam for their
selfish ends. They are not really defenders of Islam but defenders of
their own interests.
Will we come out in defence of true Islam?
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com
**
|
