The Great Theft: Wrestling Islam From the Extremists (13 page)

Another liberal thinker whose writings, due to sustained

Saudi pressure, were made to disappear was a Yemeni jurist named Muhammad al-Amir al-Husayni al-San‘ani (d. 1182/1768). Al-San‘ani died about a century and a half before Rashid Rida, but like Rida he was one of the founding fathers of the liberal Salafi creed. Like Rida, al-San‘ani praised ‘Abd al-Wahhab as a Salafi reformer and even wrote a celebratory poem in his honor. However, unlike Rida, once al-San‘ani learned of the vast atrocities committed by the forces of ‘Abd al-Wahhab, he refused to play the role of the apologist for an inhumane form of Islam and condemned ‘Abd al-Wahhab in a new strongly worded poem.
83
Perhaps if more Salafi writers had chosen to follow in the footsteps of al-San‘ani instead of Rida, Salafism could have retained its liberal orientation, and perhaps it would not have been so easy for the Wahhabi creed to co-opt it. Maybe if Salafism had stayed liberal, it could have been used to resist the spread of Wahhabism. However, with Saudi Arabia bankrolling the Wahhabi creed, it is doubt- ful that anything could have effectively stemmed the spread of the Wahhabi influence.

Because of Saudi Arabia’s extensive influence, it is not sur- prising that the reaction to al-Ghazali’s book was frantic and explosive, with a large number of puritans writing to con- demn al-Ghazali and to question his motives and competence. Several major conferences were held in Egypt and Saudi Ara- bia to criticize the book, and the Saudi newspaper
al-Sharq al-Awsat
published several long articles responding to al- Ghazali in 1989. Notably, perhaps as an indication of Saudi influence and contrary to what one would expect, most of the books written against al-Ghazali were published in Egypt, not Saudi Arabia.
84
Many of al-Ghazali’s critics made the highly implausible claim that al-Ghazali was not well educated in Is- lamic law, while others accused him of being awestruck by the West, or simply of treason. It is difficult to assess whether

the virulent response to the book was indicative of any anxi- ety felt by the puritans over losing their grip over Muslims because of the power of al-Ghazali’s arguments. In any case, the response to al-Ghazali’s book was, to say the least, intim- idating to any other Muslim scholar who would dare to un- dertake a similarly self-critical approach. It was simply much safer to stick to apologetics or popular political causes and to leave the issue of Wahhabism alone.
85

Muhammad al-Ghazali died shortly after suffering through the controversy that surrounded his book. I knew al-Ghazali, and I know that he agonized over the future of Islam and the fate of Salafism. But al-Ghazali’s book has come to symbolize a cry of protest over the transformation of Salafism—a trans- formation that ultimately undermined much of the efforts of the liberal reformers writing at the end of the nineteenth and beginning of the twentieth centuries. In the past fifty years, Salafism has regressed from a potentially modernizing force to an apologetic discourse. But wedded to Wahhabism, it gave birth to the vigorous, potent, and at times lethal, puritan movement.

four

THE STO RY OF

CONTEMPORA RY PURI TANS

P

uritan movements took things to their logical extreme. The bonding of the theologies of Wahhabism and Salafism pro- duced a contemporary trend that is anchored in profound feel- ings of defeatism, alienation, and frustration. The product of these two combined theologies is one of pronounced alien- ation, not only from the institutions of power of the modern world, but also from the Islamic heritage and tradition. Puri- tanism is not represented by formal institutions; it is a theo- logical orientation, not a structured school of thought. Therefore, one finds a broad range of ideological variations and tendencies within it. But the consistent characteristic of puritanism is a supremacist ideology that compensates for feelings of defeatism, disempowerment, and alienation with a distinct sense of self-righteous arrogance vis-à-vis the nonde- script “other”—whether that “other” is the West, nonbeliev- ers in general, so-called heretical Muslims, or even Muslim women. In this sense, it is accurate to describe the puritanical orientation within Islam as supremacist, for it sees the world from the perspective of stations of merit and extreme polariza- tion. Instead of simple apologetics, the puritan orientation re- sponds to feelings of powerlessness and defeat with uncompromising and arrogant symbolic displays of power, not only against non-Muslims, but even more so against fel-

low Muslims, and women in particular.

Two of the main issues that distinguish puritans from other Muslims are (1) whether the religious text is intended to regu- late most aspects of life, and (2) whether aesthetics or an in- nate human capacity to reflect upon and realize “the good” is possible.

Not surprisingly, puritans exaggerate the role of the text and minimize the role of the human agent who interprets the religious text. The puritan orientation anchors itself in the confident security of texts. It uses religious texts like the Qur’an and books of Prophetic reports and traditions like a shield in order to avoid criticism or to escape challenges that mandate the use of reason and rationality. According to puri- tans, not only does the text regulate most aspects of human life, but also the Author of the text determines the meaning of the text, while the reader’s job in engaging the text is simply to understand and implement, as if the meaning of the text is al- ways clear. In the puritan paradigm, subjectivities of the inter- preting agent are irrelevant to the realization and implementation of the Divine command, which is fully and comprehensively contained in the text. Therefore, the aesthet- ics and moral insights or experiences of the interpreting agent are considered irrelevant and superfluous.

But in my view, far from being respectful toward the in- tegrity of the text, the puritan orientation is abusive toward religious texts. Their approach to religious texts is inconsistent and hypocritical, because it empowers its adherents to project their sociopolitical frustrations and insecurities upon the text. In fact, despite their claims of objectivity, the puritan orienta- tion forces religious texts to validate the social and political frustrations and insecurities of its adherents. If the adherents of this orientation are angry at the West, for example, they read the religious text in such a way as to validate this hostil- ity. Similarly, if the men of this orientation feel the need to

compensate for feelings of powerlessness by dominating women, they read the text to validate the subjugation and dis- empowerment of women. In every situation, we find that the proverbial arm of the text is being bent and twisted to validate whatever the puritan orientation wishes to do. All along the puritans claim to be entirely literal and objective, and to faith- fully implement what the texts demand without their personal interference. This claim is simply fraudulent and untrue be- cause in every situation we find that the puritan reading of the text is entirely subjective.

Elsewhere, I have described the dynamics of puritanism vis- à-vis the text as thoroughly despotic and authoritarian. Con- sistently, religious texts become whips to be exploited by a select class of readers in order to affirm reactionary power dy- namics in society.
1
This is why al-Ghazali described the puri- tans as
hadith
hurlers—they use the inherited tradition and law to silence their opponents and to stunt critical or creative thinking. This is especially the case when it comes to dealing with subjects that the puritans believe are Western inventions, such as human rights or aesthetics.

The adherents of puritanism, unlike Muslim apologists, no longer concern themselves with co-opting or claiming Western institutions as their own. Under the guise of reclaiming the true and real Islam, they proceed to define Islam as the exact antithesis of the West. Apologetic attempts at proving Islam’s compatibility with the West are dismissed as inherently de- featist.

The puritans argue that colonialism ingrained Muslims with a lack of self-pride or dignity and convinced Muslims of the inferiority of their religion. This, they maintain, has trapped Muslims in an endless and futile race to appease the West by proving Islam’s worthiness. According to the puritan model, in reality there are only two paths in life: the path of

God, or “the straight path”; and the path of Satan, or “the crooked path.” By attempting to integrate and co-opt Western ideas such as feminism, democracy, or human rights, Muslims have fallen prey to the temptations of Satan, they argue, by ac- cepting ungodly innovations (
bida‘,
sing.
bid‘a
).

Puritans believe that Islam is the only straight path in life, and such a way must be pursued regardless of what others think and regardless of how it impacts the rights and well- being of others. Importantly, according to puritans, the straight path (
al-sirat al-mustaqim
) is firmly anchored in a sys- tem of Divine laws or specific commandments that trump any considerations of morality or ethical normative values. Put dif- ferently, a group of very specific commandments and rules de- lineate and define the straight path of God, and there is no room in this outlook for reason-based moral or ethical specu- lative thought. Therefore, in the puritanical outlook, God is manifested through a set of clear and precise legal commands that cover nearly all aspects of life, and the sole purpose of human beings is to realize the Divine manifestation by duti- fully and faithfully implementing the Divine law. In the puri- tan paradigm, God is represented (manifested) in earthly life by a set of laws, and human beings have no choice but to obey. Puritans insist that only the mechanics and technicalities of Islamic law define morality; there are no moral considera- tions that can be found outside the technical law. This fairly technical and legalistic way of life is considered inherently su- perior to all others, and the followers of any other way are considered either infidels (
kuffar
), hypocrites (
munafiqun
), or the iniquitous (
fasiqun
). Anchored in the security and assured- ness of a clear, precise, and unequivocal law found in the Qur’an and the Sunna, the puritans believe it is easy to differ- entiate between the rightly guided and the misguided. The rightly guided obey the law; the misguided either deny, at-

tempt to dilute, or argue about the law. Any method of thought or process that would lead to indeterminate results, such as social theory, philosophy, or any speculative thought, is part of the crooked path of Satan. According to the puri- tans, lives that are lived outside the Divine law are inherently unlawful and are therefore an offense against God that must be actively fought or punished.

There is a real irony in the way puritans approach social and political issues that they believe originated in the West. In fact, the contradictions that plague various aspects of the puri- tan approach in this regard border on the schizophrenic. As I mentioned earlier, puritans reject inquiries into philosophy, political theory, morality, and beauty as too subjective—and, even worse, as Western inventions that lead to nothing but sophistry. With the majority of the puritan leadership com- prised of people who studied the physical sciences, such as medicine, engineering, and computer science, they avowedly anchor themselves in the objectivity and certitude that comes from empiricism. According to puritans, public interests, such as the interest in protecting society from the sexual lures of women, can be empirically verified. However, in contrast, they say, moral or ethical values and aesthetic judgments about what is necessary or compelling cannot be empirically quanti- fied, and therefore must be ignored. So values like human dig- nity, love, mercy, and compassion are not subject to quantification, and therefore cannot be integrated into Islamic legal judgments.

Because aesthetic judgments are considered anathema and humanism is waved away as a Western corruption, puritans render the humanistic legacy of the Islamic civilization irrelevant as they ignore the accomplishments of past generations of Mus- lims in fields such as philosophy, the arts and architecture, po- etry and music, moral and ethical theory, and even romanticism

and love. Puritans ignore the fact that long before there was a Western influence, Muslims wrote volumes upon volumes on love, beauty, and chivalry. If anything, this puritan attitude only augments the sense of disoriented rootlessness keenly felt by many modern Muslims. But even more, puritans conve- niently ignore that one can as easily—or even more easily— claim that empiricism itself is a Western invention. (Of course, I am not claiming that empiricism is indeed a Western invention. Rather, I am pointing out that puritans ignore the fact that, like humanism, empiricism is not a Western invention but simply a part of the shared heritage of humanity.)

In the final analysis, whether puritans, with their various approaches and accomplishments, have contributed, or can contribute, to honoring God’s Kingdom on this earth is a question I am not prepared to engage here. But in my view, it is clear that the impact of puritans on the Islamic intellectual heritage, and on the humanistic and universalistic orientations within Islam, has been nothing short of devastating.
2

In light of the recent attention focused on the issue of terrorism, it is important to note that Bin Laden, Ayman al- Zawahiri, and the Taliban, as well as most extremist Muslims, belong to the orientation that I have called puritan. Bin Laden, although raised in a Wahhabi environment, is not, strictly speaking, part of that creed. Wahhabism is distinctively intro- verted; although focused on power, it primarily asserts power over other Muslims. Militant puritan groups, however, are both introverted and extroverted: they attempt to assert power over and against both Muslims and non-Muslims. As populist movements, they are a reaction to the disempowerment most Muslims have suffered in the modern age at the hands of harshly despotic governments and interventionist foreign pow- ers. In many ways, these militant groups compensate for ex- treme feelings of disempowerment by extreme and vulgar