HEY MUSLIMS, LET US MAKE UP OUR MIND
LET US NOT PUZZLE AND MUDDLE ISLAM AND IT’S SHARI’AH
Strictly speaking, what I am going to say concerns mainly the Western Muslims. However, (theoretically at least) we claim that we are a single Ummah very sensitive to the pains of our sisters and brothers all across the globe. Hence what follows is addressed to the “Ummah” as a whole.
A little self criticism, an art we have totally forgotten will point to the glaring hypocrisy and double standards we seem to indulge in. We love the liberal principles of the West when it supports our customs and values and throw these principles overboard when they do not suit us. “Women should have a right to dress as they like” is our strong argument in defense of the head-scarf. However we hate this “right” when it comes to skinny jeans and short fitting shirts as discussed in my blog "Islamophobia? Yes. What about Christophobia? Yes? No?"
While we are perfectly justified in complaining and protesting about Islamophobia, it is our Islamic duty to assess and find out how “Islam” is behaving in areas where it holds a majority. Taken together, we can achieve a sense of balance and treat the problem with justice and equity as demanded by our Deen. We must compare the extent and the manifestations of the “phobia” on both sides. How does ugly gestures, sarcastic remarks, pulling the scarf, spitting on the face and vandalizing a masjid by “them” compares with bombings and mass killing by “us”.
At the birth of Islam, Christianity was already established in vast lands on the earth for about six centuries. As both were treading the same path there is long history of co-operation, confrontation, conflict — violent and non-violent — between the two Abrahamic Faith. As I have discussed earlier in my blog "Islamic Theological Approach to Beliefs and Doctrines of Ehle Kitaab - People of the Book - as dictated in the Quran" misinterpretation and wrong application of some Quranic Ayahs has led to a widespread and deeply entrenched notion among the rank and file of the Ummah that we cannot be friends and cannot trust Jews and Christians. I grew up like most of you with this conception. Surely this is Christophobia, albeit non-violent. The opposite sentiment, Islamophobia is similarly prevalent in the Christian world. This inter-action between the top two of the great religions is very unfortunate but equally real and authentic. It is felt in offices and work places and circulated in social media, talk shows, comedy broadcasts and lectures; generally speaking it is not a street phenomenon even though on occasions one leads to the other. Stephen Bannon, Bill Maher, Ted Cruz and of course our unique and remarkable president Donald Trump are the leading and prominent actors in this field.
The cataclysmic event on 9/11 has drastically and dangerously transformed the nature and dimensions and manifestations of this “phobia” between the two communities. In the latest form of this phobia there is “no Islam” on either side. The “Jihaadists” go out of the way to claim and demonstrate that they are conducting their nefarious activities in the service and propagation of Islam. Fortunately the Ummah seems to be united in regarding their game of death and destruction as totally against the laudable principles of Islam. They, the Talibaan, al Qaeeda and ISIS blare loudly and clearly that this is “all Islam” and we, the Ummah roar back that this is “no Islam”. Unfortunately and rather paradoxically the Ummah is not prepared to accept that there is also “no Islam” in the reaction to this “jihadism” — this post 9/11 garden variety of phobia. This current wave of phobia is fear and hatred against the Muslims for their killings and bombings — and not because of their faith. Just think calmly and fairly, which by the way is an important Shari’ah demand. We are sure the Jihaadi activities are not Islamic. When there is a reaction to these activities (whicn we have declared as non-Islamic), we raise the flag of “Islamophobia”. Is not the contradiction and double standard very obvious: deadly activities done in the name of Islam are labelled by us as against Islam but the reaction to these non-Islamic activities is branded by us as Islamophoblc.
Talking about terminology. Terms should clearly spell out the facts they are referring to. I strongly object to common but very misleading terms like “Islamic terrorism or Radical Islam”. It is clearly an inappropriate label. Our Divine religion is a total antithesis of violence and murder. “Radical Muslims or Muslim terrorism” sound proper and fair and factual. But, “Islamophobia” has become the buzzword for Muslims these days i.e. after 9/11. As I have explained earlier, this is inappropriate. It can preferably be labelled as “Muslimophobia”. However, I found a better and appropriate term instead, in an article in the Economist of February 11, 2017 "Act 'normal' or Get Out". It refers to Geert Wilders, leader of the anti-Muslim party (PVV) as “anti-Muslim populist” and then goes on to state that “Anti-Muslim populism” took off earlier (in the Netherlands) than elsewhere in Europe……” That’s it! This is the term that very properly and fittingly underlines and focuses on the real problem and emotions involved in the post 9/11 drama i.e. anti Muslim feelings rather than our favorite expression Islamophobia. The sooner we realise, the better for us, the Ummah. Once we are convinced of this, we will at least start looking for reasons for this feelings against us. And if we come across a genuine one, let us try and correct it. Allow me one suggestion to start with. Let us look at the problem as “members of Deen of Islam” with its laudable principles of justice and fair play rather than as “members of the Tribe of Islam” who glorify brutal dictators at home as lofty heroes of Ummah simply because of their posturing against the “the Great Satan, the enemy and killer of Muslims”. Nothing can be further from truth than the very popular and passionate formula: “what a Muslim does = Islam; what is done against a Muslim = Islamophobia.”
We do not accept and appreciate that we are indebted to the Liberal Values of the West
for many of the liberties we enjoy in this part of the world. It is not found in the rest of the planet. Certainly not in the Muslim majority countries. No we cannot be booked for the action of rest of Muslims, I agree. But as members of the Ummah we cannot summarily disown them.When a Muslim reneges, our immediate Verdict: “Kill him”. Simultaneously we demand that others should allow us the right to proselytization. As a matter of fact we take immense pride in our history of missionary activities. Building masaajid is a very popular and enthusiastic activity specially in non-Muslim areas. But in Muslim majority areas, building churches or synagogues is either disallowed completely or wrapped in layers of rules and regulations to delay or discourage such activity.
The Ummah needs to mature; move out of our fantasies and emotional bubble and do some adult objective thinking. This is the twenty First Century of multiracial, multiethnic, multi-religious national states. How do we intend to fit in with the classical Muslim world view of Darul Islam and Darul Harb, a single Muslim Ummah across the national boundaries, our romance with the concept of khilaafat i.e. a single ruler spanning across the globe and the strong opinion of the Muslim scholarship and enthusiastically embraced by rank and file of Muslims that Muslims alone have a right to rule the planet because we are the bearers of the true Divine religion. According to this principle, others are free to follow their religion but live under Islamic rule. “We have a right to these beliefs and entitled to act on it” is the response of many Muslims. I cannot question that. But here is the caveat. It gives the other side the natural right and reason to control and suppress us. As power and might is with them, do not be surprised if they act on it now.Till very recently this has not happened. Muslims and their families even with such views have migrated to the West and flourished because of the Western liberal values. Be warned, there is clear writing on the walls that this is probably changing. The pattern in Europe is clear and loud. Let me quote from the article “Act ‘normal’ or get out” which I have referred to earlier to illustrate the point I am making:
“There is something wrong with our country,” began an open letter to the Dutch people published last month. It went on to moan about those who “abuse our country’s freedom to cause havoc, when they came to our country precisely for that freedom”, and warned them to “act normal or leave”. The author was not Geert Wilders, leader of the anti-Muslim Freedom Party (PVV), but Mark Rutte, leader of the free-thinking Liberals (VVD) and prime minister of a country that presents itself as one of the most tolerant in the world. “Act normal” (doe normaal) is a common injunction in Dutch; it can mean “Don’t be obnoxious” or “Don’t be silly.” But here it had a dark, exclusionary ring.
Mr Rutte’s letter marked how much Dutch politics has changed as the country prepares for a national election on March 15th. The vote will test the strength of European populism in the era of Brexit and Donald Trump, and will be seen as a portent of the French and German elections later this year.”
In the recent elections in Netherland and France the extreme right were runner-up. Moving our of Europe, Brexit should be a reminder of the same trend.The rise of Donald Trump is the final proof. Thus the mood is slowly but surely changing. Our responsibilities as citizens are thrown at our faces in return for the liberties we enjoy in the West. This needs serious thinking and assessment for the welfare and status of your grand and great grand children.
While you will mull over my suggestion, I found some support for my views in an excellent article "Is Free Speech Good For Muslims" in the New York Times of March 27, 2017 by Mustafa Akyol who is a contributing opinion writer, a visiting fellow at the Freedom Project at Wellesley College and the author, most recently, of “The Islamic Jesus: How the King of the Jews Became a Prophet of the Muslims.” I can vouch he is good writer because the piece is very interesting and absorbing. I will edit some really relevant features from this write-up for my readers.
The author starts: “I recently watched a curious debate that took place in 2015 at the Free Press Society of Denmark. On one side was Geert Wilders, the far-right Dutch politician and anti-Islam campaigner whose ascendance to power was, I’m happy to say, checked by the elections in the Netherlands this month. On the other side was Flemming Rose, the journalist who angered many Muslims in 2005 by publishing cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten. The crux of the debate was what to do with Muslims and Islam in Europe. Mr. Wilders argued that the Quran must be banned and mosques must be shut down. Mr. Rose, in contrast, explained that this view is unacceptably authoritarian, and Muslims deserve freedom like everyone else. “You cannot deny Muslims the right to build a mosque or to establish faith-based schools,” he said, simply because some Europeans find them offensive.”
Having said this, the author points out that most Muslims will not be able to gauge the real meaning underlining this debate “Most Muslims watching this debate would probably sympathize with Mr. Rose, thinking he was defending them. Mr. Rose, however, was merely defending a liberal principle: freedom for all. It was the very principle that led him to publish the cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad — cartoons seen by many Muslims, including me, as offensive”. The author then goes on to spell out a glaring ambiguity in Muslim thought “This is just one of many manifestations of a paradox Muslims, especially those of us living in the West, face in the modern world: They are threatened by Islamophobic forces against which they need the protections offered by liberalism — freedom of speech, freedom of religion, nondiscrimination. But the same liberalism also brings them realities that most of them find un-Islamic — irreverence toward religion, tolerance of L.G.B.T. people, permissive attitudes on sex. They can’t easily decide, therefore, whether liberalism is good or bad for Muslims”.
This contradiction in Muslim attitudes is clearly visible when it comes to female dress. The author states “The same paradox can also be seen in the debates over female dress. When illiberal secularists in the West interfere regarding the outfits of conservative Muslim women — with bans on the burqa, the “burkini” or even just the head scarf — the defense is found within liberalism: Women have the right to “dress as they please.” This, of course, is a perfectly legitimate argument in a free society. But the idea that women can “dress as they please” doesn’t actually go over well with some Muslims — if that means, for example, tight jeans and miniskirts. In Saudi Arabia and Iran women are forced by law to cover their heads. In fact, in some ways Saudi Arabia is a mirror image of the culturally hegemonic dystopia that Mr. Wilders dreams of: a land where the scriptures and shrines of a foreign religion are banned — not the Quran and mosques, in this case, but the Bible and churches”.
Akyol then calls to attention a strong confusion in Muslim minds “This is not to say that Muslims who ask for freedom in the West must be held accountable for the lack of freedom in “Islamic” states. But it does mean that Muslim opinion leaders — imams, scholars, intellectuals — should give serious thought to a key question: Is liberalism a good or bad thing for Muslims? Should they embrace freedom or not?” I would like to suggest an amendment to this question: “Does our Shari’ah promotes liberalism and freedom?”
The author then goes on to provide some good and educational examples of oddities and inconsistencies in Muslim social behavior “Often Muslims support liberalism when it serves them and reject it when it does not. They use the religious freedom in the West, for example, to seek converts to Islam, while condemning converts from Islam to another religion as “apostates” who deserve death. Or ask for the right to freely organize political rallies in Europe, while you are crushing opposition rallies at home — as the Turkish government recently did during its spat with the Netherlands. Such double standards can be found in every society. Mr. Wilders himself, who cheers for “freedom” while aiming to ban the Quran, is a striking example. But some contemporary Muslims do it too easily, switching at will between “our rules” and “their rules.” The prominent Turkish theologian Ali Bardakoglu, the former head of the Religious Directorate, wrote about this “double morality” in a recent book and called on fellow Muslims to be more self-critical about it. Muslims should not be, he argued, “people who can surf between different value systems.”
Akyol ends his piece with a provocative and debatable quandary and predicament facing the present day Muslims. He offers a lucid and rational description of the problem and leaves us to find our own answers:
“The deeper problem is that Islam, as a legal and moral tradition, developed at a time when the world was a very different place. There was a very limited concept of individual freedom, as people lived in strictly defined communities. There were no notions of international law, universal human rights, the secular state or freedom of religion. Moreover, Muslims were often the dominant faith, making the rules to their advantage — such as tolerating non-Muslims as “protected” but inferior communities.
That premodern world is long gone. There is now an increasingly diverse world where boundaries fade, cultures meet and individuals roam. And the forces that try to reverse this trend — liberal globalization — are often the very forces that despise Islam and threaten Muslims.
Muslim opinion leaders have to decide where they stand. Do we Muslims want a free world with universal principles in which everyone, including us, lives according to their own values? Or do we prefer a segregated world where whoever grabs power imposes their values? And, if we choose the latter, what is going to protect us from all the Geert Wilderses of the world? In fact, what makes us any different?”
