The Great Theft: Wrestling Islam From the Extremists (22 page)

tant puritan movements, it is highly unlikely that Saudi Arabia will cease to be the main sponsor of puritan theology in the Muslim world. However, it is very likely that the Saudi gov- ernment will try to persuade puritan movements to rechannel their fervor and zeal to fighting heretical Muslims (liberals and feminists) while leaving Western countries alone.

According to puritans, Britain and France were the chief en- gineers behind the continuing conspiracy against Islam. But as the United States became the dominant superpower in the world, it became the main culprit in this conspiracy. After the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and the wars in Bosnia and Chechnya, Russia was added to the list of countries that are hostile to Islam. Until the recent invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq by the United States, puritans used to believe that Russian methods were brutish while American methods were more subtle and behind-the-scenes conspiratorial.

There is another assault upon the Muslim world for which puritans blame the West as a whole, and the United States in particular. According to puritans, military domination is only a small part of the process of asserting domination and he- gemony over the Muslim states. More lethal and penetrating are cultural invasions that consist of spreading Western fash- ions, habits, and values throughout the Muslim world. This cultural invasion takes many shapes and is implemented by a multitude of mechanisms. The rulers, who in reality are agents of the West, allow for the entry of Western shows, music, and art, and establish Western commercial and educational institu- tions all over the Muslim world. Puritans also believe that Westerners seek to convince Muslims that Western institu- tions, such as democracy, are fundamentally superior to Is- lamic institutions, such as the caliphate. Puritans believe that through this process the West will always ensure that the Mus- lim world remains weak and ineffective on the world scene.

The point of the Western cultural invasion is to deconstruct authentic Islamic values and preempt the possibility of the re- turn of the Islamic Golden Age. In essence, this is the reason for the often-noted puritan hostility to the West.

Puritan hostility to the West is inseparable from the colonial experience and the failed Muslim states in the postcolonial pe- riod. Many of the Muslim governments are not only despotic, but they also failed to develop and modernize their states so that these countries could have an industrial and technological infrastructure that is competitive on the world market, and puritans, for the most part, blame the West for that failure. Of course, the ongoing conflict with Israel and its military and technological superiority strongly contributes to this puritani- cal worldview. One of the reasons the puritans are so opposed to peace with Israel is due to their belief that Israel’s very pur- pose for existence is to defeat and humiliate Muslims as part of the overall Western strategy of containment against the Muslim world. The second main reason has to do with the holy status of the Mosque of the Dome in Jerusalem. There is no question that Jerusalem and especially the Aqsa Mosque occupies a very special place in the hearts of most Muslims; it is considered the third-holiest city in Islam. As an indication of the place of Jerusalem in the Muslim mind, it ought to be re- membered that much Muslim blood has been spilled through the centuries trying to defend or liberate Jerusalem from the onslaught of the Crusaders. Therefore, Israel’s occupation of Jerusalem and control over the Mosque of the Dome fuels much of the puritans’ hostility to peace with Israel.

Puritans are not opposed to modernism, but, somewhat in- consistently, they believe that modernity is a culturally biased concept. For puritans, the culture of modernity, with its con- cepts of human rights, women’s rights, minority rights, reli- gious freedom, civil society, pluralism, and democracy, is

largely Western, and therefore both alien and alienating. How- ever, puritans strongly distinguish between the culture of modernity and modernization. Often this amounts to differen- tiating between modernization and Westernization—the for- mer is acceptable but the latter is not. To become truly modernized, according to the puritans, means to regress back in time and recreate the golden age of Islam. This, however, does not mean that they want to abolish technology and scien- tific advancements. Rather, their program is deceptively sim- ple—Muslims should learn the technology and science invented by the West, but in order to resist Western culture, Muslims should not seek to study the social sciences or hu- manities. This is the reason that a large number of puritans come to the West to study, but invariably focus their studies on the physical sciences, including computer science, and en- tirely ignore the social sciences and humanities. Armed with modern science and technology, puritans believe that they will be better positioned to recreate the golden age of Islam by cre- ating a society modeled after the Prophet’s city-state in Me- dina and Mecca.

Although the puritan position involves a lot of play on words, it ultimately makes little sense. In effect, puritans equate modernity and the progress of history to a point of ul- timate human achievement. By claiming that to truly modern- ize, humanity should regress to the Islamic Golden Age, puritans are simply affirming their belief that history reached its true peak at the time of the Prophet and the Rightly Guided Companions. The difference, however, is that puritans believe that contemporary technology and sciences could be exploited in order to empower themselves sufficiently so that they could pursue their sociopolitical utopian vision.

As noted earlier, the study of certain fields, such as philoso- phy or democratic theory, are considered sinful by puritans.

Furthermore, puritans warn Muslims against taking courses about Islam in Western universities, because they believe that Western scholars will use the opportunity to confuse Muslims and place doubt in their hearts. Moreover, Western scholars are thought to expose Muslims to heretical Islamic sects such as the Mu’tazila (rationalists) and Shi’ia sects. Being exposed to historical corruptions and forms of heresy, according to the puritans, will only cast doubt in the hearts of Muslims about the straight path of the true Islam. The sad reality is, however, that by rejecting all these fields of study, puritans actually aug- ment their intellectual insularity and isolation in the contem- porary age.

Puritans go even further than rejecting particular intellec- tual fields. It is a basic tenet of the puritan belief system that Muslims must affirmatively adopt cultural practices that are in opposition to the West. But this type of cultural resistance most often takes superficial forms. So, for instance, puritans insist that Muslims should not use toothpaste when cleaning their teeth, but should rather use a little twig known as the
miswak
. The reasoning behind this is that Muslims must do everything possible to distinguish themselves from non- Muslims, and also that the Prophet himself used to clean his teeth with a
miswak
. The Prophet
did
in fact use the
miswak
to clean his teeth, but toothpaste was not invented at the time. I must admit that I find the selective logic of puritans rather curious. For instance, so far puritans have not prohib- ited the use of umbrellas, although the Prophet and his Com- panions did not use umbrellas. However, puritans do prohibit the wearing of neckties, considering them a corrupt Western innovation (
bid‘a
). They do not prohibit the wearing of un- dergarments, although that form of apparel was not available at the time of the Prophet, yet one Saudi puritan jurist has prohibited the use of brassieres if worn to augment the size of

the breasts. This, he claimed, would be a type of fraudulent practice.

The premise of puritan thinking is that it is imperative that Muslims be different in substance and form from non- Muslims. Therefore, puritans insist that instead of applauding by clapping hands, Muslims should shout out in unison three
takbir
s (yelling “God is greatest” three times). According to puritans, Muslims must be different—regardless of the useful- ness of any given practice. The effect of this puritan stance is quite odd. Whether a lecturer delivers an inspired and brilliant oration or delivers dull, monotonous drivel, in all cases, all lecturers are entitled to the three unspirited
takbir
s. The same logic is behind the prohibitions against celebrating birthdays and also against giving flowers to the ill—all are declared to be Western practices, and therefore Muslims must reject them and do something completely different or opposite. The pecu- liar thing is that although puritans insist on declaring their re- jection of the West by adopting alternative forms of appearance, they have no qualms about using Western weaponry and technologically advanced products such as cell phones and computers.

The puritans’ anti-Westernism is a core part of their reac- tion to modernity as well as a central part of their identity. Having idealized a small portion of Islamic history and de- clared it the golden age, their developmental compass is set toward the past. However, intellectually they are not rooted in this past—they are too impatient and too absolutist to be able to gain a sophisticated understanding of history, even if it is the history of Islam. So on what basis can they build their sense of identity? I have noticed, for instance, that the way puritans decided to dress themselves has had much more to do with the images invented by Hollywood than with what was actually reported in historical sources about the way

Muslims used to dress at the time of the Prophet. From his- torical sources, we learn that at the time of the Prophet in the sixth century, men would often be dressed in one piece of clothing that would rarely cover their full bodies, and the cloth was often dusty and full of tears and holes. Wearing several garments and a full turban was a sign of exceptional wealth. Dyed clothing was more expensive and could not be afforded by the majority. But the puritan’s image of the au- thentically dressed Muslim shows that they are more famil- iar with Hollywood and Egyptian films than with actual historical sources. This is just one illustration of the fact that puritans formed their identity as a reaction to the West, and not as a historically based attempt at achieving Islamic au- thenticity. In many ways, the puritans locked themselves into a persistent cycle: they alienated themselves from modernity by imagining a perfect and ideal past; but the more alienat- ing modernity became, the more they idealized the past; and more they idealized the past, the more undesirable the mod- ern age became—and so on.

Moderates do not believe that Islam reached the height of its potential at the so-called golden age of Islam or even at the time that the Prophet lived. Islam’s potential is everlasting, and the future could bring a greater fulfillment of that potential than the past. Therefore, moderates are interested in history because it contains the record of the successes and failures of the past. Moderates do not believe that history can be made to repeat itself. Rather, each historical period presents its unique set of challenges that must be met by studying and paying careful attention to the demands of the present and the lessons of the past. This means that there is no need to apologetically idealize the past—the mistakes of the past must be admitted and learned from, while the successes must be celebrated but not idolized. Islam, for moderates, is a progressive force that

offers never-ending opportunities for greater moral and ethical achievements in every new age.

According to one Prophetic tradition, wisdom and knowl- edge have no nationality and therefore, regardless of the source, Muslims are free to learn as long as they use this knowledge to serve God and pursue Godliness on this earth. Thus one of the distinguishing attributes of moderates is that they take full advantage of the scientific advancements in the social sciences and humanities. Moderates believe that ad- vancements in these fields improve our awareness of social dy- namics, behavioral patterns, political and economic structures, the role of civic society, and the function of institutions. It is not possible to achieve the moral and ethical objectives of the Islamic faith without understanding the particular and specific demands and challenges of each age. It is also not possible to fulfill our obligations as agents of God and discharge the duty to enjoin the good and forbid the evil without understanding the evolving and shifting circumstances and conditions of human beings. As noted earlier, besides enjoining the good and forbidding the evil, the Qur’an instructs Muslims to civi- lize the earth and avoid corrupting it by shedding blood and spreading strife and fear. Therefore, moderates believe that the human legacy is indivisible, and Islam, through the efforts of Muslims, must contribute to the effort to civilize the earth and avoid its corruption.

Moderates try to strike a balance between the necessary flexibility in dealing with modernity’s unique challenges and the need for historical authenticity. The balance is struck dif- ferently by different Islamic thinkers, but the essence of the challenge is to reconcile the Islamic historical legacy with the advances made in knowledge and also in the new ways of ac- quiring knowledge achieved in modernity. The modern age has achieved new realizations about knowledge, memory,

perception, comprehension, point of view, reality, and so- ciopolitical structures, and the Islamic tradition must be able to engage the new paradigms of the contemporary age. For in- stance, in the modern age there have been many studies about such subjects as the reliability of human memory and the ac- curacy of human testimony, the meaning and roles of gender and class, and the social effects of despotism and the function of civic societies. The question that moderates struggle with is: How do these new understandings and realizations inform the Islamic tradition, and how could the Islamic tradition con- tribute to these new understandings and realizations? In all cases, moderates do not ignore modernity as irrelevant and they also do not dismiss Islamic history as an aberration.

The relationship of moderates with the West is multifaceted. An anecdotal story sheds light upon the various facets of this re- lationship. At the beginning of the twentieth century, the Egyp- tian moderate scholar Rafa’a al-Tahtawi visited Paris, and he was extremely impressed by the city. He noticed that the city was clean, well-organized, and beautiful, and that Parisians were hardworking, punctual, well-educated, and productive. Upon returning to Egypt, Tahtawi made a comment that be- came well remembered but controversial. Tahtawi said: “In Paris, I saw Islam but there were no Muslims, but in Egypt, I see Muslims but there is no Islam.” The statement is clearly an ex- aggeration, but what Tahtawi meant to say is that Parisians un- wittingly accomplished the moral values of Islam although they were not Muslims. In Egypt, on the other hand, people were Muslim, but the moral values of Islam remained unfulfilled. For Tahtawi, the ideal Muslims would be hardworking, punctual, educated, and advanced. To be backward, ill-informed, and undisciplined is inconsistent with the Islamic ideal.

Tahtawi’s statement illustrates a tension in the thought of moderates. Moderates believe that there are certain values,

such as justice, equity, honesty, diligence, creativity, productiv- ity, and punctuality, that are universally desirable and merito- rious. Some have described these as the “civilizing” values— values that lead to social and economic advancement, and to civilization. Moderates believe that when it comes to fulfilling these values, Islam obligates Muslims to be at the forefront and to set a powerful moral example for others. However, many Muslim societies fail to adopt these civilizing values and therefore remain underdeveloped and backward. Meanwhile, the West has managed to adopt these values and be at the forefront of civilization, and so the West is admired and re- spected by the moderates. The liberal democratic thought of Muslim moderates often leads to their persecution in their homeland and they find refuge and freedom only in the West. It is an unfortunate sociological fact that many moderate scholars, because of the dictatorial governments of their coun- tries of origin, are imprisoned and tortured in their homelands and they escape to the West because of the democratic institu- tions of these countries.

The prevailing moderate attitude toward the West is one of respect and also one premised upon an insistence that Islam not be defined in reaction to the West or as the antithesis of the West. Guided by the moral and ethical values of Islam, moderates tend to scrutinize Western cultural practices and at- tempt to adopt the best of these practices and avoid the worst of them. The range of adopted or rejected practices could be very wide. For instance, all moderate scholars object to the Western cultural practice of dating, especially by minors. But this does not mean that moderates believe that the state should be able to interfere to regulate dating practices. The vast majority of moderates also object to beauty contests or the modesty (immodesty) standards that are tolerated in most Western states. A considerable number of moderates find the

widespread practice of at-will employment and the ease by which employees lose their jobs Islamically offensive.
3
But so much of Western culture is not only Islamically acceptable, but even desirable; and in their writings moderates often praise Western habits such as punctuality, academic freedom, and the sense of civic duty.

Most moderates, however, strongly disagree with Western, and especially U.S., foreign policies toward the Muslim world, and especially the Middle East. Moderates disagree about the objectives or reasons behind these policies, but most moderates are particularly displeased with the unequivocal support Israel receives from the United States at the expense of the Palestinians. However, one of the distinguishing character- istics of the moderates, as opposed to the puritans, is that they do not believe that the clash between Muslims and the West is inevitable. More significantly, moderates believe that the way for Muslims to progress and for their countries to become more democratic and developed is to engage in self-reflection and self-criticism and to work to address the causes of under- development in Muslim countries. Most moderate Muslims do not deny the historical effects of colonialism and imperialism, but as a matter of principle they refuse to turn them into scapegoats and then use these scapegoats as ways to avoid taking responsibility for the historical failures of Muslims. For instance, unlike puritans, moderate Muslims do not believe that Israel is responsible for the failure of the various Middle Eastern states to develop, modernize, or democraticize.

As far as the issues raised in this chapter are concerned, in the view of the majority of moderate Muslims, the most prob- lematic aspect in the puritans’ approach is their practice of defining Islam as whatever the antithesis of the West might be. For moderate Muslims, this is an offensively whimsical way of defining a religion. Puritans rely on Divine commandments or-

dering Muslims not to follow Jews and Christians blindly, and they also rely on some isolated traditions attributed to the Prophet Muhammad advising Muslims to distinguish them- selves in appearance from non-Muslims. But as to the Divine commandments, puritans misunderstand their purpose. The commandments were intended to advise Muslims to be dis- cerning and reflective as they choose their course in life. As to the isolated traditions, they are too historically contingent and too unreliable to serve as a basis for determining what and how God wants Muslims to be. Most importantly, puritans transform Islam into a creed for which the purpose is to negate and even spite others, and this risks transforming Islam into a creed that is so absorbed in superficialities to the point of becoming frivolous. Moderate Muslims take their religion far too seriously to accept the often spiteful and reactionary methodologies of the puritans.

nine

DEMOCRACY AND HUMAN RIGHTS

I

n today’s world, many Muslims and non-Muslims believe that democracy and human rights are fundamentally at odds with the Islamic faith. In my view, the issue of whether Islam can support and bolster a democratic order that respects indi- vidual rights is by far the most important challenge con- fronting Muslims today. Without doubt there are many different models for successful democratic governance, and it would be deceptive to pretend that all human beings around the world agree on the specific rights that ought to be recog- nized as fundamental and universal for all human beings. However, the core set of issues confronting moderates and pu- ritans alike is whether, as a matter of principle, people ought to have the collective right to choose or elect their government and to determine the set of laws that govern them. More specifically, the issue is whether devout Muslims can commit to a system that recognizes the sovereignty of human beings over their own affairs. Alternatively, are Muslims duty-bound to recognize that God is the sovereign and that God’s sovereignty precludes human beings from being free to con- duct their own affairs as they see fit? In short, do Islamic the- ology and law affirmatively prohibit Muslims from believing

in and implementing a democratic system of government?

The issue of human rights raises a similar set of problems, and in fact in many ways the challenge of human rights is inextricably intertwined with the challenge of democracy. It is very doubtful that any system of governance except democ- racy is capable of supporting the kind of procedural guar- antees necessary for the protection and promotion of individual human rights. However, when thinking about the issue of Islam and human rights, it is necessary to distinguish between several pertinent questions, each one raising a dif- ferent set of problems. One issue is whether Islamic law pro- vides for its own unique set of individual rights that might coincide in certain respects or perhaps conflict with the human rights recognized by the international community. Al- ternatively, if Islamic law does not already provide for its own list of individual rights, is it possible for contemporary interpreters to delve into the Islamic intellectual tradition and extract and articulate a set of rights that are consistent with the Islamic faith? Put differently, can contemporary readers of Islamic texts interpret them in such a way that supports a regime of individual human rights that is entirely new and novel in Islamic history?

There is, however, another possibility that Muslims cannot but confront, and that is whether the Islamic tradition is fun- damentally at odds with the idea of individual rights. In other words, is there something in the Islamic tradition that does not allow Muslims to recognize or believe in individual rights? A somewhat different question is whether certain Islamic laws—for instance, laws regarding the share of women in in- heritance, the testimony of women in criminal matters, vari- ous matters involving the rules of marriage and divorce, or particular criminal penalties—are inconsistent with current standards of international human rights, and if so, is it possi- ble to change either Islamic law or international human rights