On the question of an Islamic 'reformation'
Writing in the Times, Salman Rushdie this week outlined his view that the Muslim world is in dire need of an equivalent to the Reformation; a process by which Islam would move on from the dogmatic, strict interpretation that it now favours, and recognise that the Koran is a historical product of a time and place – 7th century Arabia – and that its central tenets are subject to interpretation.
Leaving aside the slight, yet palpable, suggestion that he is merely agitating for the release of his forthcoming novel (which purportedly tackles Islamic extremism), Rushdie does indeed raise a number of interesting points. In the years since Muslim extremism became such a topic of concern in the West (which predates the attacks on the USA by nearly a decade), thousands upon thousands of words have been poured onto the subject of what can be done about Islam, and how it can be rid of the elements which cause well-educated individuals to wish to blow themselves up on packed trains, or fly jets into skyscrapers.
That he should highlight the Protestant Reformation as an exemplary model is an interesting conceit. Part of the Reformation’s appeal was that of a nascent nationalist fervour – the kind of which had never been experience to such a degree by the Christian faith. The Middle East, on one hand, has experimented with secular, pan-Arab nationalism, yet Nasserism is regarded now by most as a failure and by some of the radical members of Islam as sacrilegious. Meanwhile, the arch-nationalism of Pakistan has resulted in the ‘Muslim bomb’ and a potential nuclear flashpoint in the Indian subcontinent.
One thing all too often lacking from discussion of the moribund state of Islamic debate in the modern era is the fact that, traditionally, Islam has been a religion of enlightened and reasoned dialogue. The term ijtihad refers to a practice in Islamic law whereby decisions are reached by the examination and verification of both the Koran and the Sunnah, the Prophet Mohammed’s sayings. In the first few centuries after the Prophet’s death, ijtihad lent Islam a tolerant and pluralistic tone, whereby interpretation of Koranic verses were shifting and open to discussion, and laws divined according not to a ‘true’ (in any sense of the word) meaning but through the rational analyses offered by the mujtahid, or scholar.
By the time of the retreat from Al-Andalus in the late 15th century, the tradition had largely died out. What replaced it, and as Rushdie highlights has remained until the modern era, is a strictly dogmatic, literalistic interpretation of the Koran that has led to a stymieing of open thought and an increasingly restricted tolerance of alternative readings. As Karen Armstrong noted in the Guardian, it is this blinkered outlook that has led those who wish to create death and destruction to seek vindication in lines such as “slay unbelievers where you find them”. Removed from contextual anchoring, deprived of the epithets of tolerance, compassion and regard for others, such lines can justify any number of tragic excesses.
The tricky part, of course, is that it is relatively easy for us in the West to discuss in dispassionate tones the hows and whys and wherefores of changes in Islamic practice. Yet in a religion which, particularly in the Middle East, considers itself under constant siege from Judaeo-Christian ‘crusaders’, our views do not hold much weight and indeed will inevitably be interpreted as mendacious and entirely self-serving. The talk of freedom and democracy, and America’s supposed desire to bring them across the wider Middle East, have backfired spectacularly and – as can be seen daily in Iraq – spawned an entirely new generation of individuals who will pay the ultimate price to inflict harm on their enemy. As a Muslim, Rushdie may well have more influence, yet his notoriety following the publication of the Satanic Verses, after which he was (and to many remains) an apostate who should be put to death, surely precludes any equitable analysis.
Indeed, it is difficult to know where exactly to look for a change in the Muslim world. Tariq Ramadan is rightly lauded for his belief that Muslims living in Europe should integrate fully with their home countries, in the process rejecting the idea of the umma. Ramadan sees no real conflict in living in a modern, largely secular West, and being a Muslim; yet he remains a strict literalist when it comes to the issue of Koranic interpretation.
It is surely only by divorcing the literalist teachings of the Koran from their implementation in modern society that we can hope for better relations between Islam and the West. Yet it cannot be willed on by divisive figures such as Rushdie, or the lesser-known (and bitter because of it) Irshad Manji, a self-styled ‘Muslim refusenik’ with a terminally swollen ego, who seems to believe that Islam is a malleable object that should be conformed to fit one particular ideology – her own. The reformation, if there is to be one, must come from within.
Leaving aside the slight, yet palpable, suggestion that he is merely agitating for the release of his forthcoming novel (which purportedly tackles Islamic extremism), Rushdie does indeed raise a number of interesting points. In the years since Muslim extremism became such a topic of concern in the West (which predates the attacks on the USA by nearly a decade), thousands upon thousands of words have been poured onto the subject of what can be done about Islam, and how it can be rid of the elements which cause well-educated individuals to wish to blow themselves up on packed trains, or fly jets into skyscrapers.
That he should highlight the Protestant Reformation as an exemplary model is an interesting conceit. Part of the Reformation’s appeal was that of a nascent nationalist fervour – the kind of which had never been experience to such a degree by the Christian faith. The Middle East, on one hand, has experimented with secular, pan-Arab nationalism, yet Nasserism is regarded now by most as a failure and by some of the radical members of Islam as sacrilegious. Meanwhile, the arch-nationalism of Pakistan has resulted in the ‘Muslim bomb’ and a potential nuclear flashpoint in the Indian subcontinent.
One thing all too often lacking from discussion of the moribund state of Islamic debate in the modern era is the fact that, traditionally, Islam has been a religion of enlightened and reasoned dialogue. The term ijtihad refers to a practice in Islamic law whereby decisions are reached by the examination and verification of both the Koran and the Sunnah, the Prophet Mohammed’s sayings. In the first few centuries after the Prophet’s death, ijtihad lent Islam a tolerant and pluralistic tone, whereby interpretation of Koranic verses were shifting and open to discussion, and laws divined according not to a ‘true’ (in any sense of the word) meaning but through the rational analyses offered by the mujtahid, or scholar.
By the time of the retreat from Al-Andalus in the late 15th century, the tradition had largely died out. What replaced it, and as Rushdie highlights has remained until the modern era, is a strictly dogmatic, literalistic interpretation of the Koran that has led to a stymieing of open thought and an increasingly restricted tolerance of alternative readings. As Karen Armstrong noted in the Guardian, it is this blinkered outlook that has led those who wish to create death and destruction to seek vindication in lines such as “slay unbelievers where you find them”. Removed from contextual anchoring, deprived of the epithets of tolerance, compassion and regard for others, such lines can justify any number of tragic excesses.
The tricky part, of course, is that it is relatively easy for us in the West to discuss in dispassionate tones the hows and whys and wherefores of changes in Islamic practice. Yet in a religion which, particularly in the Middle East, considers itself under constant siege from Judaeo-Christian ‘crusaders’, our views do not hold much weight and indeed will inevitably be interpreted as mendacious and entirely self-serving. The talk of freedom and democracy, and America’s supposed desire to bring them across the wider Middle East, have backfired spectacularly and – as can be seen daily in Iraq – spawned an entirely new generation of individuals who will pay the ultimate price to inflict harm on their enemy. As a Muslim, Rushdie may well have more influence, yet his notoriety following the publication of the Satanic Verses, after which he was (and to many remains) an apostate who should be put to death, surely precludes any equitable analysis.
Indeed, it is difficult to know where exactly to look for a change in the Muslim world. Tariq Ramadan is rightly lauded for his belief that Muslims living in Europe should integrate fully with their home countries, in the process rejecting the idea of the umma. Ramadan sees no real conflict in living in a modern, largely secular West, and being a Muslim; yet he remains a strict literalist when it comes to the issue of Koranic interpretation.
It is surely only by divorcing the literalist teachings of the Koran from their implementation in modern society that we can hope for better relations between Islam and the West. Yet it cannot be willed on by divisive figures such as Rushdie, or the lesser-known (and bitter because of it) Irshad Manji, a self-styled ‘Muslim refusenik’ with a terminally swollen ego, who seems to believe that Islam is a malleable object that should be conformed to fit one particular ideology – her own. The reformation, if there is to be one, must come from within.
posted by DN at 10:49 PM
1 Comments:
nice informative posting; i like to think that positive change is always possible, despite the polarized state of affairs both religious and political. let's hope it happens!
Post a Comment
<< Home