Shvitz Search
Contribute
Featured Book
Featured Album
DAILY SHVITZ
| Muslim Philosopher, Reconstructionist Rabbi and Violence | |
 by Ali Eteraz, September 11, 2007
|
|
TAGS:
A couple of years ago I had the occasion of meeting a Reconstructionist Rabbi. As we were discussing my philosophy thesis -- which was on Nietzsche and an Indian-Muslim philosopher named Muhammad Iqbal -- the Rabbi shocked me when he said that not only did he know who Iqbal was, but that he was actively studying his works.
I can understand how the Rabbi became aware of Muhammad Iqbal – not only was Iqbal a friend of Bertrand Russell, Alfred Whitehead and Bergson and thus part of early 20th century philosophy – but he wrote a book called “Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam” which describes the religious experience as one that is lived and evolving; an experience that contains movement and change; an experience that borrows from the tradition but is not limited by it. These are principles at the heart of Jewish reconstructionism as well. In light of the fact that I was the only one the Rabbi had ever met who was thoroughly conversant in Iqbal, while the Rabbi was the only non-Muslim I had met who knew Iqbal well, one would imagine that we would spend the entire night talking about the book.
We did talk the whole night, but not about the book. Our conversation became waylayed by violence – not between us, but the reality of terrorism, suicide bombings, and to some extent, honor killings. That conversation, in itself, was quite interesting. I insisted that the violence was problematic per se, that it had no excuses, and to some extent no causes other than the fact that the texts made themselves amenable to such readings. He insisted that Western foreign policy had something to do with Muslim violence.
Yet, now that I think about it, I find it so saddening and depressing that we didn’t get to talk about Iqbal’s book. I get especially melancholy when I think what Iqbal would feel if he found out that eighty years on from his Islam-shaking book, a reconstructionist Rabbi and a reformist Muslim law student, opted to talk about cave-dwelling psychopaths, barbarous patriarchal fathers, and deranged anarchists, instead of talking about the Islamic legal tradition, about “the spirit of movement in Islam,” or, about “the spiritual democracy which is the ultimate aim of Islam.”
Iqbal’s time in the world was an interesting one. It appeared that in reaction against the colonial powers, Muslims had come together, and for the most part, were actively engaged in reconciling republicanism with religion, and liberalism with Islam. They were integrating their minorities; and basing the citizenship of their nations, not on religiosity or perceived piety, but on their shared nation-hood. Iqbal discuses almost all of these ideas in this essay from the Reconstruction, suggesting that Muslims ought to consider making a "League of Muslim nations" which is less concerned with Caliphates and more concerned with their internal well-beings. Yet, today, just a few decades later, various hardline organizations, like the Muslim Brotherhood, the Jamaat e Islami, and the Hizb ut Tahrir, all along with the Wahhabi machine, have created the conditions for a complete breakdown in Islam. Emanating from the fringes of these organizations came the terrorists and anarchists. Today, Iqbal’s vision, which presupposed the perpetuity of stability and peace, has now been replaced by entropy and chaos -- no one knows what will happen. The Sunni Islam of Iqbal's era -- which could give rise to nation-states -- seems to be teetering. The things that people who take interest in Islam talk about are, deplorably shameful, both in their content and quality. Suicide? Collateral Damage? Noncombatant immunity? Iqbal thought that none of these would ever be issues, so that when you read him, eighty years ago, he neither addresses them, nor conceives of their possibility.
Therefore, in that sense, Islamic “reform” appears to have gone backwards. Right?
But here is my conundrum, the more that I think about it, the less I can blame the reformists. It is not as if Islam ceased to produced liberal reformists of Iqbal’s ilk. There was Fazlur Rahman, and Muhammad Shahrour, and Amin Ahsan Islahi, and Abullahi an-Naim, and today Javed Ahmad Ghamidi, and a vast collection of second tier reformers, situated in hundreds of universities all across the world, all of whom have been emphasizing and re-emphasizing the themes that Iqbal set forth. Why has the influence of these people waned? Why isn’t Iqbal’s monumental poetic compendium -- he is also considered the greatest of two Indian poets of the 20th century -- on the lips of Muslims today like it was one hundred years ago?
Many people like to ask the question “what went wrong with Islam” and look back to colonialism or all the way back to the Mongol invasion. My submission is quite simple: sometime in the early third of the 20th century Islam was going to be OK; but something went wrong between 1935 and 2001. Why, today, when we should be talking about how Muslim states can better organize their systems, are we talking about non-state people, lone suicidal wolves, mercenary killers, and thugs? Western foreign policy clearly has something to do with the problem. It isn't the sole cause though, because as I've pointed out numerous times, fanatics pre-dated 20th century Western political hegemony (this time its American rather than British), and would post-date it even if the US were to remove all of our military bases. Still, when I see articles like this one (see the one on Iran), and consider the fact that even I, an extreme skeptic towards reformist successes, can't always blame reformists for not doing enough, I have to take a step back. Why are liberals, and conservatives, who care about Islamic reform, so unwilling to accept blame for our policies? If it is reasonable to expect that Chomsky speak out against Islamic radicals, I think it is extremely reasonable to expect that hawks, liberals, and conservatives stop creating a world which feeds, breeds, perpetuates violence.
 |
Ali Eteraz, 27, is a columnist for Jewcy, a politics and culture magazine. He also contributes regularly to the More... |
Five haredi rabbis who should be considered armed with control...
A high-tech investor and Holocaust survivor explains how paranoia...
How to do the low-carb holiday in a post-Heston world
The struggle against injustice begins on your plate
A conversation with the Jewish spies who broke the biggest case...
| Dev Blog | Privacy | Submissions | Contact | |  | | Comment Policy | About Us | FAQ | Masthead |
| Hosting provided by Tilted Planet | ||
Amar
Reform is not necessary!
Salaam bro,
It's nice to see a guy my own age writing in such an eloquent manner. Although I agree with some of what you write, I cannot help but feel that the Rabbi was hitting the right cord when he spoke of " Western foreign policy had something to do with Muslim violence".
However, you seem to speak of reformation. To say that the Deen of the Almighty would need reforming is quite a shock for me. The problems and the ills of the Muslim world are not a result of Islam but a result in the misinterpretation of it.
We, as Muslims, should not attack our own belief just because a few individuals do something that is not from Islam. Now is the time to unify the Muslims. Give them confidence that we are on the Haqq. We should not feel ashamed because of certain atrocities that may have occurred.
Finally brother, I have a blog which you may, or may not find interesting if you get the time. Feel free to email me.
http://themediaagenda.blogspot.com/
Wasalaam,
Amar
Muse
Equating political Islam with Islam
"I think it is extremely reasonable to expect that hawks, liberals, and conservatives stop creating a world which feeds, breeds, perpetuates violence."
Not only is it reasonable to expect this, but it must be demanded, and an end which must be worked towards.
Interesting essay overall, and that must have been one hell of a thesis. My only bone to pick is the essay's equation of the recent failures of political Islam with Islam, as though Islam only has the legal/political dimension and none else, such as in this statement: "sometime in the early third of the 20th century Islam was going to be OK; but something went wrong between 1935 and 2001." Islam as a whole is still going to be ok and isnt going anywhere. Although as Muslims we should recognize the craziness of the fringe lunatics and denounce it, we should not fall in the trap of defining our religion as a whole in reaction to their crimes and failures.
(p.s. I love the math equation thingies I have to solve to post.)
Adam Shprintzen
A few thoughts...
Ali,
Great post...am interested in your opinion on something. From a strictly practical, socio-political standpoint, I wonder where the phenomenon of Pan-Arabism (and the general spread of Arab-influenced Islam to non-Arab, Muslim lands) falls into the equation? And as a result, what has that meant to the identity of non-Arab Muslims?
mhpine
The role of oil wealth
Ali,
How much of Islam's current crisis do you attribute to the fact that billions of dollars in black gold happened to lie under the sands of Arabia, which starting in the 1930s, began filling the coffers of Islam's most puritanical and retrograde sect? Its my understanding that the Islamic tradition that was prevalent in South Asia relied on the Hanafi school jurisprudence and was far more open to incorporating the insights of modernity into Islamic law and society. Perhaps in a true free-market system, the ideas of Iqbal and others would have prevailed. But the Wahhabis were able to spend billions to build their madrassas, export their imams and spread their rejectionist vision of Islam. As a result, the more tolerant forms of Islam that had been dominant in Africa, South Asia and Southeast Asia are being crowded out. Can anything be done to reverse this trend? Does the American Muslim community have the resources to at least stem it on this continent?
David Kelsey
2 questions
Ali, I was wondering if you feel if the following factors had anything to do with Islamic radicalism.
1) Difficulty of traditional religions surviving in post-Creationist era, as opposed to fundamentalist versions of faiths, which fare much better.
2) Scent of victory, or at least, successful expansion.
Ali Eteraz
responses
Muse (and to some extent Amar),
You're right. I mean political/social islam. I think I used "Islam" because that is how Iqbal spoke. Read through the essay that I've linked to. He thinks of Islam as a comprehensive system in which political and social are tightly integrated with personal and spiritual (even though there is one part in the essay where he says that a separation of such spheres is consistent with Islam as well).
Your overall concern is noted. There is no such thing as reforming Islam, with a capital I.
Mhpine,
If you read the essay by Iqbal I've linked to, he discusses the flexibility of Hanafi Islam. Yet he also praises the spirit of localization that early Wahhabism introduced. In other words, even though Iqbal was a liberal, he could appreciate that puritanism, to some extent, had the effect of opening the faith up for a multiplicity of religious interpretations (after all, puritanism is usually a reaction to whatever is normative).
I do concur with you that oil wealth has had a lot of role to play in the definition of Islam over this century. Saudi Islam certainly has been exported, but I think we'd be wrong to think that the Saudi Government has been trying to take over the world for the sake of expansion. It really hasn't. SA has no territorial ambitions. It doesn't exactly go into neighboring countries. In fact, its military is so ridiculous that it relies on American troops for protection (we have made a nice ring in Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain and now Iraq) around the Kingdom. My sense is that SA is a sort of American colony. We are not like the old colonizers in that we try to take over the local society. Rather, we rely on the Saudis to prepare the world for us. I have to say that until the Bin Laden blow-back, the freaks that SA has been exporting for decades upon decades, always helped advance American interests -- as well as the localized dictators who pledged allegiance to the US.
Anyway, we can talk a lot about the geo-political incest between the US & Saudi Arabia (and to some extent all the dictators), but for now I just wanted to try and make the case that despite the fact that I am extremely demanding towards Islamic reform, I have not been able to escape the reality that America/American-Backed-Tools always f*ck up reform.
DK,
Could you clarify what you mean by the traditional/fundamentalist dichotomy. I have some sense, but I rather you flesh it out.
I have to think more about your second question.
http://alieteraz.com/
David Kelsey
Traditional versus Fundamentalist
Ali,
In Judaism, most Jews were once closest in terms of religious paradigm to what today we might call "Modern Orthodox." But today, Modern Orthodoxy is a minority viewpoint in the Jewish world. Most Jews are liberal (Reform, Conservative, Reconstructionist) or secular. The ultra-Orthodox world is increasingly the dominant form of the traditional Jewish world, and of course, even some of the Modern Orthodox have moved into a far-right militant Zionist understanding of Judaism.
One reason is that it is more difficult to simultaneously maintain a belief in both religion and the science of the times. It is easier, even if strange, to reject science in favor of a literal understanding of Creationism. Once you could embrace scientific method without seriously compromising faith. Today, it is much harder. Something has to give, and when it is scientific method, and when it is engagement with the secular world in a constructive way, this pits the respective faith against the world. This leads to radicalism of thought, and pressure upon others to do the same. Fundamentalists are then able to frame traditional adherents as illegitimate compromisers, even though the traditionalists are the ones often coming from an ancient paradigm of allowing for various viewpoints and expressions (including, of course, lenient viewpoints), as well as engagement with the larger world.
Muse
DK's comment
"Fundamentalists are then able to frame traditional adherents as illegitimate compromisers, even though the traditionalists are the ones often coming from an ancient paradigm of allowing for various viewpoints and expressions..."
I just wanted to say that I think this point really captures a large part of the problem - its interesting for me to learn that the same issue exists within Jewish communities as in Muslim ones. My question is why is it much harder today to reconcile science and faith than it was previously, such that tradionalists are pressured to radicalize?
zbird
to Muse
Muse, you ask why it's so much harder today to reconcile science and faith than it was previously. I think the answer is simply that as science advances, it explains more and more phenomena. One hundred and fifty years ago science had no viable explanation for how life appeared on this planet, so one could be committed to the scientific method while still believing in Creation. Then Darwin, Mendel, and others came around and, using the scientific method, showed that the Creation myth could not have literally happened, and certainly did not occur 5000 years ago. Because Darwin is inconsistent with Genesis, one story has to give.
--Z
mhpine
Modern science and modern faith
I actually think the bigger problem comes not from any specific scientific discoveries, but from the pace of modern scientific expansion and technological growth. Traditional Judaism was very skilled at adapting to gradual change, incorporating necessary innovations while formally keeping the system "unchanged." (My understanding is that despite the formal closing of "the gates of itjihad", traditional Islamic law found ways to innovate as well.) However, when faced with a radical change, such as the emancipation of the ghetto, or changes in the ancient math of reproductive biology, the traditional system broke down. Liberals discarded elements of the faith inconsistent with new scientific and social truths. Fundamentalists rejected acceptance of these new truths as incomptable with faith. Traditionalists are left in an increasingly untenable middle ground, which is why they have lost ground to both sides.
David Kelsey
Loss of Creationism
mhpine,
I think you are underestimating the change that alternatives to a specific belief in active God does to religion. Even recently, the fight between the Modern Orthodox and the ultra-Orthodox over Slifkin was the first massive overt traditional Jewish retaliation to the haredim in decades. Evolution and other related theories all challenging Creationism have harmed religious commitment more than social issues and challenges. Even 19th century ideas such as Marxism are all tied directly to rejection of an active God.
Blonde with Glasses
Self Preservation
SA's motivation for the exportation of wahabism stems from the need of self preservation. Enstilling its ideology on the rest of the Muslim world became paramount to maintaining control over its own population. Having many democracies within the region would have been suicidal for the monarchy not to mention for the great powers that relied on the monarchy. In effect, SA has basically McDonald's-ized Islam throughout the ME and the world and you can't even get a shake with those fries!
With that in mind .. it is understandable that the world asks the question "what went wrong with Islam" and I see that others have taken issue with how you answered that question. However, you answered the question within the context of the question and it did not seem, at least to me, that you were refering to Islam as a whole. Furthermore, the essay as a whole reiterated the various liberal scholars that have existed throughout the past century, questioned why these scholars have gone unheard and you have gone on to challenge the liberals and conservatives to accept the role that our policies play in the whole scheme of things. From where I sit, you have in essence completely ignored the role of the everyday Muslim in the grand scheme of it all. Please do not take this statement as a critique as it is understood that an essay needs to have a focus. However, I found it odd that some needed to jump to their defenses on certain items and that you in turn needed to explain yourself. Maybe I need some Muslim sensitivity classes to understand this phenomenon.
Phelps
I think that your timeline
I think that your timeline for the turn in bang-on, in that the change happened between 1933 and 1945. That is when many of the Arab Muslim leaders became infected with Nazi ideology (the Mufti of Jerusalem being the most prominent.) A combination of institutionalized racism, cruelty and totalitarianism became infused at that time, and hasn't been properly excised yet.
These ideologues were later propped up by Soviet support, and prospered under the Cold War.
Muslims Against Sharia
Reform Koran
<b>Many people talk about the need to reform Islam.
Now you can stop talking and start helping.</b>
With the help of our readers we went through the Koran and
removed every verse that we believe did not come from Allah, the Most Merciful,
the Most Compassionate. However, it is possible that we missed something, and
we could use your help. If you find verses in the <a href="http://www.reformislam.org/koran.php">reformed version of
the Koran</a> that promote violence, divisiveness, religious or gender
superiority, bigotry, or discrimination, please let us know the number of the
verse and the reason why it should be removed. Please email your suggestions to
koran-AT-reformislam.org.
When we finish editing process, we would like to publish
Reform Koran in as many languages as possible. If you could help with
translation or distribution of the Reform Koran, please email us at
koran-AT-reformislam.org. If you could provide financial support, please visit
our support page.
<a href="http://muslimsagainstsharia.blogspot.com/2007/12/horror-under-hijab.html">In
Memoriam of Aqsa Parvez.</a>
<a href="http://www.reformislam.org/reform.php">http://www.reformislam.org/reform.php</a>
Post new comment