Islam and Modernity: An article in Dawn

I know there has been questioning of the need or even the concept of mdernity in Islam. Here is an article that puts forth a need for atleast a look at the issue with respect to international politics. I think Afzaal makes valid points on most issues but I disagree with some points.


Islam and modernity
By Afzaal Mahmood

Former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, in an article published in The Guardian, has compared militant Islam to Bolshevism and advocated massive use of force against it. “Islamic extremism today”, she writes, “like Bolshevism in the past, is an armed doctrine. It is an aggressive ideology promoted by fanatical well-armed devotees. And, like communism, it requires an all-embracing long-term strategy to defeat it.”

Applauding American success against “Islamic terrorism”, Mrs. Thatcher has favoured strikes at “other centres of Islamic terror” in Africa, South-east Asia and elsewhere. Also, she asks the West to cripple Muslim “rogue states” like Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya and Sudan because they are “enemies of western values and interests”.

Mrs. Thatcher’s call for a crusade against militant Islam is almost an endorsement of what Professor Samuel Huntington forecast some years ago in his monumental work, The Clash of Civilizations: the next round would be between Islam and the West.

If the “second crusade” prediction comes true it will be a titanic global tragedy. But the worst sufferers will be Muslims because, unlike the Richard-Saladin crusade, this will be an altogether unequal contest. It is high time religious leaders and intelligentsia in the Islamic world got together to ponder a strategy that nails the lie that Islam is an aggressive, hostile, intolerant and terror-loving religion. It should be clear to us by now that the only way to present the true image of Islam is by getting out of the downward spiral of ignorance and obscurantism, fanaticism and delusion, poverty and oppression, rage and self-pity, hate and spite, violence and suicide bombing.

We have to convince the militants that terrorist attacks have harmed Islam and Muslims more than their enemies. We have to persuade that hijacking planes, bombing shopping centres, burning women and children, slaughtering innocent civilians, killing and getting killed in order to get a ticket to heaven is a most flagrant violation of the Quranic injunctions, Islamic morality and the humane teachings of the holy Prophet.

We cannot get out of the mess in which we find ourselves today unless we first look for the real reasons for our decline. This applies to Pakistan as much as to any other country in the Islamic world.

The prerequisite for an objective analysis is to abandon the prevailing culture of victimhood. Instead of asking “what did we do wrong?” we are asking “who did this to us?” Like the ancient Romans, who put the blame for the decline of their civilization on the outsiders, we have acquired a tendency to create scapegoats and blame others for our problems. First we blamed the Crusades, then the Mongol invasions, then the western imperialism of the 19th and 20th centuries, and now the American and the Jewish “conspiracy” for the decline of the Islamic world. But the bitter truth is that the success of our adversaries has been not the cause but the consequence of our weakness and decadence.

When Europe was living in dark ages, the Islamic world was a global leader in science, technology, statecraft, culture and the arts. The four great centres of Islamic civilization - Spain under the Moors, India under the Mughals, Iran under the Safavids and Turkey under the Ottomans - flourished as long as they kept pace with the changing times. Their decline began when they turned away from the path of reform and regeneration, resisted change, and stifled intellectual inquisitiveness and creativity.

Just one example will bring home the point. In 1492, after the fall of Grenada, the last outpost of Muslim rule in Spain, the Spanish Jews, because of Christian persecution, migrated to Turkey with their printing presses. They were granted permission by the Sultan to print books in the capital and other cities on one condition: they would not print any books in Arabic characters. Until the 18th century, books were printed in the Ottoman lands in Hebrew, Greek, Armenian, Syric and occasionally Latin characters, but not in the script used by the Turks and their Muslim subjects.

By losing receptivity to change and being impervious to thought we lost our sense of adventure, our curiosity in the new and the unknown. That was the reason the Renaissance, the Reformation and even the scientific revolution passed unnoticed in the Islamic world. In a nutshell, we fell behind because we failed to come to grips with new ideas and changing times.

The larger crisis of the Islamic world - Pakistan’s in particular - is not political or economic. The larger crisis is of a civilization that has become aware of its inadequacies but is too confused (or fearful?) to walk the path of reason and adopt the intellectual means to move ahead and regain its glory. This largely explains our social, political, economic, cultural and institutional backwardness.

The Muslim intelligentsia continues to live in two different worlds - the medieval and the modern. The Christians, the Jews, and others have adjusted their dogmas to the demands of modernity and science. But we have not resolved the conflict between obscurantism and modernism with the result that we continue to be torn between the contrary pulls and demands of two different worlds - one long dead, the other in full bloom and still evolving.

The Islamic world is faced today with a number of dilemmas. One of them, of recent origin, has attracted little attention. While Islamic zealots are denouncing and rejecting western civilization, a mass Muslim migration to Europe and North America is in full swing for reasons of economic and educational betterment. There are now 1.3 million Muslim immigrants in Britain, 3.2 million in Germany and 4.2 million in France. Figures for other West European countries are not available, but their number is also large. In North America, Islam is the fastest growing religion because of Muslim migration. 600,000 Muslims are living in New York city alone.

According to orthodox Muslim jurists, for a Muslim to live under non-Muslim rule is undesirable, and according to some, even forbidden. The classical jurists laid down that a Muslim could live under non-Muslim rule only under a dire necessity, like the practical need of a trader for a short- or long-term visit to a non-Muslim land or if a Muslim community was conquered by an infidel invader.

But what is happening today is something unique in Islamic history. Great numbers of Muslims are migrating from Islamic countries to non-Muslim lands, of their own free will, willingly subjecting themselves and their families to non-Muslim governments and non-Muslim personal laws and sending their children to be educated in non-Muslim schools, colleges and universities. The mass Muslim migration to Europe and North America will have profound implications for the West as well as for the Islamic world

The surprising thing is that most of these Muslim immigrants come from traditional and conservative societies. Being in an environment, totally alien to their beliefs and ways of life, some of them react by joining the “Tableeghi” ranks and some seek to ease their religious conscience by sporting long beards and wearing ankle-high shalwars or pyjamas to assert their Muslim identity.

After September 11, a serious debate is going on in the West whether Muslim immigrants can fit into the liberal western society. German foreign minister, Joschka Fisher, whom no one would consider racist or illiberal, remarked in May that it was necessary to find out whether Islamic traditions and teachings were compatible with the values of modern western societies. His remarks are all the more significant because most of Germany’s Muslims are Turks whose attitude towards Islam is much more relaxed than that of Pakistanis.

Is Islam an aggressive, hostile, intolerant and retrograde religion, as its opponents and denigrators claim it to be? It is for us to give the lie to this propaganda because the quality of faith depends on the quality of men who practise it. In Pakistan as much as in other Islamic countries, we have to abandon the culture of victimhood and get out of the groove of hate and spite, rage and self-pity. Instead of blaming others for our problems, we should objectively look into the whys and wherefores of our decline. La Rochefoucauld’s perceptive saying - “nature endowed us with pride to spare us the pain of knowing our imperfections” - applies equally to individuals as well as nations.

We are living in an interdependent world of accelerated changes; our times are moving so fast that unless we heed the wake-up call, the world will soon pass us by and treat us as a lost tribe. We have to regain the lost spirit and habit of inquiry and analysis, reform and regeneration to get out of the rut of moral chaos and intellectual stupor and decline.

Our best hope lies in reason, free discussion, receptiveness to thought, openness, synthesis and harmony, pluralism, tolerance, accommodation, and seeing the other fellow’s point of view. If we continue to ignore these virtues, the future will become even more bleak for us than the present.

Re: Islam and Modernity: An article in Dawn

I'll add to this list:

Claiming exclusivity to divinity, cussing non-muslims. Even the non-violent 'pious' muslims mut understand that there are all kinds of religions gods and beliefs in the world and each one of them have as much right to claims of divinity and superiority. Islam is just one of those religions.

Unless muslims downsize the role of religion with such thoughts (it is one amongst many, it is just a religion) they will continue to be obsessed with it and will not agree to change

Re: Islam and Modernity: An article in Dawn

Peace

First of all I would like to state that this article is more suited for the political crowd.

Secondly I think that the reporter/journalist Afzaal Mahmood has made a major blunder. He has quoted twice Lady Thatcher where she claims the need to address 'Islamic extremism' and 'Islamic terrorism'. Both of these are not Islam per se. So when Muslims read this and take up a stance of apologetic counter argument we often find ourselves establishing a clearer dichotomy between the radicals and the orthodox within our own people. Furthermore when Muslims use this as canon fodder to promote progressiveness within the deep rooted aspects of Islam, that too is an insult to intellect and morality.

Thirdly, if we wanted to solve the problems we should do more to speak with and encapsulate the people who form the splinter groups. Most of the people who join them are people from ruined families. This shows that the majority of Muslims are doing nothing to support and manage these people allowing them to be taken under the wing of Muslims with half-baked militia incentives. We want to dialogue with non-Muslims trying hard to explain that 'please police of the world we don't bite those others are misled' makes us look pathetic. Rather we should be outwitting and intellectually superior and reason with those splinter group people to understand that all is not at loss even if we are being killed ... there is no reason to go manic, patience and live to claim victory over our own emotions.

Fourthly, a clear distinction needs to be made between terrorists and rogue states. According to the dictates of democracy every country has a right to be 'rogue' as long as it adheres to the principles of certain global ethics. I refrain from the term 'human rights' because the available list is a sham as it only reflects those ideals from the states that contributed to it.

Fifthly, our hope should be that the Deen of Islam is dominant and respected by all people. If this means harmony and synthesis is forsaken so be it, harmony and synthesis should be a goal for us to achieve but not when it means that Muslims will be required to denounce every aspect of their Islamic identity. Somewhere a line must be drawn. The People of the Ditch were of no option but to jump into the flames. They lost according to the world view. But they won a great victory in reality. They surpassed the illegitimate wishes of the king. What I am saying here is that defeat and slaughter of Muslims is not a indication in itself of us being in the wrong. Might and grandeur are not the criteria for right and pain and suffering the criteria for wrong.

For StirCrasy:

Muslims should never cuss non-muslims. The difference between other world religions and Islam is that it is the only order that is named and sanctioned by the Deity. Islam has been chosen for us by God, if you demonstrate other relgions have either been named by God and called the best way then we can speak. God is the Lord of all mankind and the Qur'an addresses mankind as well as just Muslims in parts, so when say something on behalf of or to humanity in a way that seem condescending take it up with God ... not us.

Re: Islam and Modernity: An article in Dawn

I agree that Islam needs modernization in several respects without which it will continue losing relevancy.

I also think people should stop making statements such as "it is the only religion sanctioned by God" - because every religion can claim that but more importantly it is that evil thought that is at the root of why the jihadis go around justifying their crimes against humanity in the name of Quran and the pesudo-pious simply spread that notion thus acting as prep school for jihadi mentality.

Obviously I use the term jihadi as it is widely understood today - just to show how failure to change has corrupted even noble notions.

Re: Islam and Modernity: An article in Dawn

Peace again Tariq Akhtar

Islam is gaining ground with many people becoming Muslim. It is modernising itself with a new set of adherents, rather than changing its essential message.

It is the statement in the Qur'an which is the Word of God that makes Islam sanctioned by God, you can make that claim too, then all you need to do is show us the scripture which says as much to that effect.

Your use of the word 'Jihadi' is intended to insult there is no other reason for using it. And not to worry I'm not offended easily. The thought of Islam being sanctioned by God does not give anyone the right to kill or enforce religion, because Islam is merely chosen for us and selected as the Best Way, to faciliate your Freedom to Choose, God gives us no right to bind you to our sets of principles. You should know this by now. The same message needs to go to the splinter groups so we can embrace and reunify the Ummah and not let people either dilute Islam or disunite the Muslims more than we are already.

Re: Islam and Modernity: An article in Dawn

Interesting discussion there!

Psyah - you ask TA to show you a 'scripture' that makes another religion sanctioned by God. What did you mean by that?

Isn't Christianity sanctioned by God with Bible?

Isn't Hinduism sanctioned by God with the Vedas?

The answer to your question seems quite obvious, so what did you mean by that?

Re: Islam and Modernity: An article in Dawn


I have often heard this argument on this forum, and in my mind its a complete non-issue.

If I am in a catholic mass and the priest says that only those who believe in Jesus to be their Lord and Savior will go to paradise, do you think I should ba offended? Not at all. Its a christian gathering, and it is their belief that their faith is better than everyone else's (thats why they are christian). So there is no need for them to be politically correct and say EVERYONE will go to paradise. Similarly muslims have the belief that only true Muslims will have a higher place in the after life. Those who do not subscribe to this viewpoint, should just take a chill pill, or get on board a faith that also claims the same.

I am not commenting on other points, or on the topic of modernity in Islam, I just wanted to comment on this one point.

Re: Islam and Modernity: An article in Dawn


Talk about condescending...

Do you really not see how that is a belief only held by Muslims and is in no way subjective? It is soley based on faith.

Your "proof" of it being the only sanctioned religion is that it was chosen by and named by God? You're kidding me. Does that mean that the only pretty people are the ones who tell people they are pretty? (those are generally the ones that are ugly on the inside).

Perhaps it was the cleverness of the scripture's authors to put such non-intellectual, but appealing-to-the-uneducated masses type exclusivity. If one doesn't believe the scripture to be true, obviously the claims to be the best wouldn't be true either.

Re: Islam and Modernity: An article in Dawn

Peace StirCrasy

Sanctioned by God means:

The Word of God should say that HE CHOSE "XXX" FOR US and that IT "XXX" IS THE BEST WAY, in the Words of God it should say this ...

Re: Islam and Modernity: An article in Dawn

Peace Seminole

No actually I am saying something else. I am providing a method of comparing who has the claim of Divine sanction. I am not at this stage providing evidence of whether that is true or not, but simply who is making the claim?

I for one am not making the claim it is the Qur'an making the claim.

Let's give every scripture the benefit of the doubt of being true. Now look to all scripture and find where it says that "This is from God" or "God has chosen for you this "XXX" religion as a way of life" ... you will find it in Qur'an but where else? It may be there, please look for it.

If we then get two or more candidates for the name of the chosen faith then we move on a deeper comparison. I hope you understand?

Re: Islam and Modernity: An article in Dawn

I fail to understand how the claim of "this is from God" means anything. If the scripture is not true, obviously this claim isn't either. It's not as though only God could have have come up with that not-so-clever declaration.

Re: Islam and Modernity: An article in Dawn

Now contrast that with a religion that says whether you pray to Krsihna or Allah, if you do good you will do good now and after. THAT is a difference and leads to tolerance.

Re: Islam and Modernity: An article in Dawn

Why?

Re: Islam and Modernity: An article in Dawn


True, but that is not a fundamental belief amongst fundamentalists of *most *faiths.

Re: Islam and Modernity: An article in Dawn

Only got one thing to say.....................Look who is calling the Kettle Black.:D

Re: Islam and Modernity: An article in Dawn

I say modernization is relative and ever changing. Religious teachings are divine. (I mean the religious teachings in its spirituality and ultimate meaning...such as not dwelling on shalwar kurta but instead on the modesty it wants to see)

The article in Dawn brings no new thinking about the majority of muslims. Majority of muslims are unnecessarily drawn in to a battle they never wanted to be the part of.

Muslims around the world are in harmony with current time and some more than their limited resources can even allow. Islam is in majority in Asia but Asia is the most populated part of the world also with many financial and geo-political conflicts. Even then, countries like Indonesia and Malaysia are not so far behind the current time. (Spare me from Bali event please)

Those who watch or read propaganda media have illusion of seeing muslims as 'fundamentalists, illiterates, fanatic and backward'. There are well educated, scientists, philosphers and teachers who wear traditional clothes, have long beard and women who wear abaya or hijab.

Unfortunately many ill-deeds are present in people from every religion, every country and every walk of life. (Irish conflict). Muslims are not to be blamed of world wars I and II which happened not too long ago. If God forbid a WWIII happens, I am confident it will not be muslims who would start it or play a major role in. Mass murders in communist countries were not the fault of muslims. Please do not get the idea that muslims did not commit crimes in the past. They did get thrown out of the powers eventually.

Anyone who has technological superiority has also better means of portraying himself as the best in the world.

News get filtered. Good deeds from selected people or group of people are ignored and highlighted from other group of people.

The point is that the writer of this article needs to get out a little more.

Peace psyah,

Who says that?
Which Islamic country has officially declared them out of Islam?
Do these gentlemen have to declare in the National ID card form from Pakistan, that they are non muslims, as it is official requirement for all non muslims?

We can all say that he/she is out of Islam but the fact of the matter is they are part of Islam based on their own understanding, until there are guidelines from the authorities regarding who is in or who is out. Fatwas from, this cleric or that cleric does not matter on a big picture scenarios. If government implement rules based on the fatwas then only it makes sense and is accepted as official stand of the nation.

regards