Shall We Dance?

The case of the dancing Sheikh...

Islamic Pluralism vs Monoism

Having been inactive as a blogger over the last month, there are a great many things which I want to write about. We live in, alas, interesting times and there has been plenty of grist for the mill in this last month of 2007. But first up, I want to draw attention to a recent article at the Pak Tea House on the 'Dynamics of Change in Islamic Law'.

Here is a quote:

In my view, the most important crisis that Muslim society miserably failed to handle during Islam’s sojourn into modernity is diversity. By diversity, I mean religious heterogeneity in any form, may it be the pronouncement of legal injunctions, opinions regarding societal norms or something as personal as individual religious practices.

Therefore, whether it is the abundance of contradictory fatwas on issues as diverse as women leading prayers to Muslims attending Christmas celebrations to Islamic prohibition of images to what constitutes death, Pakistani brothers arguing about the bare heels of a Chinese sister during Hajj or my grandma’s queasiness while watching me pray in a manner other than our family’s religious school, there is an invisible urge to see a kind of religious monism; a CONSENSUS based on an almost Utopian unity of intelligibility, opinion and action.

I would go as far as contending that pluralism, when it manifests itself in any of the above forms does not resonate well with the conventionally perceived absolute nature of religious discourse. And this perception, while breeding religious exclusivism and thus extremism, also undermines the true rationalistic nature of Islamic legal tradition.

Its an interesting article about an important [perhaps even 'key'] issue in Islamic societies. I left the following in the comments section of the post:

Thanks for your post - you have addressed a very important issue. However you should also try to see this attempt to 'see a kind of religious monism' in its historical context - part of the attempt to bureaucratize and rationalize a wide variety of norms in to one acceptable set is about trying to build an Islamic 'identity' in the modern sense. I am not sure if this has always been the case.

Reading about Ibn Batuta's travels in the Islamic world of the middle ages, one is struck by the sheer variety of norms of dress, behaviour, interaction between sexes and ritual in different parts of the Islamic world. Nowadays many would view this diversity through the lens of an idealized 'correct' form of rituals and norms, with the different societies being placed on a scale of being more or less religious. But this strikes me as a very modern conceit.

If there is such a thing as an 'Islamic civilization', then it must embrace its own diversity. It was the pluralism of Islam in the classical age - which causes so much confusion and division amongst those seeking a 'pure' Islamic law - which is its most striking feature, as well as, perhaps, the foundation of its greatest achievements.

I'll try and flesh out these ideas here on my blog later.

"...what exactly is this nebulous entity known as the Muslim community?"

An old, but nonetheless truly interesting article by Kamila Shamsie in the Guardian about this odd thing known as the Muslim community. And well written too.

IZ

Maulana Abdul Rashid Ghazi on Giulani

Came across this article on the net. Its an NBC reporter's interview of Maulana Abdul Rashid Ghazi (of lal masjid fame). This is how it begins:

“In New York when Rudy Giuliani was mayor and he closed the brothels and all those things, no one said he was an agent of the Taliban, did they?” Maulana Abdul Rashid Ghazi shot back to a question about the creeping Talibanization in Pakistan’s capital, Islamabad. He was referring to Giuliani’s campaign in the ‘90s to clean up Manhattan’s Times Square, ridding the area of strip clubs and X-rated video stores.

My, my, but this is most interesting. We must concede the point to Mr. Ghazi. The rest of the article is mediocre blah, and the comments from readers that follow the usual uninformed blend of racism and ignorance from a variety of perspectives.

But there's an interesting point to be raised here. Something, that is readily apparent to anyone who has been exposed to people with the kinds of views Mr. Ghazi has and the kinds of books they read and ideas about the world and how it works, that they hold. So-called Islamic fundamentalism is very much a product of the modern, globalised world. It is in fact a phenomenon of modernity.

There's an endless recycling of rubbish by so-called experts in the media about how Islam is against modernity, it has to 'catch-up' or 'reform' or reconcile itself with modernity etc. There is endless analysis of the writings of Syed Qutab, deconstruction of the writings of Tariq Ramadan (who no one has heard of outside the west). I've had people who have never met a Muslim in their lives quote some obscure saying of the prophet no one has ever heard of to me and tell me that it is because of this that 'they' want to kill 'us'.

Most people with 'extreme' views that I know, watch CNN, read Samuel Huntington, get corporate sector jobs, parrot ideas popularized by Christain fundamentalists about the evils of science/the west/communism/atheism and for the most part have little concern with what the 'experts' believe they are guided by. Almost every single one insists that 'traditional' or 'uneducated' Islamic practice is wrong and must be reformed. They present their own views as the correct or true interpretation of Islam.

In fact, much like in the Reformation, where the traditional, "superstitious" Christianity of the peasantry was rejected by Protestants who offered up their own, educated interpretations as the true Christianity.

There's much more to be said on this topic, but at the moment I have neither the time nor inclination. Suffice to say, when Maulana Ghazi is inspired by Giulani, you know that many of the assumptions made by experts in the media need to reassessed.

IZ

Patil on the Veil; Shobhaa De on Patil.

Another storm in a teacup. First, the Congress-backed candidate for the ceremonial post of president in India urges Hindu women to throw off the veil, and adds a little bit of historical revisionism to urge them along. This doesn't go down too well with historians or Muslims. Shobhaa De writes a scathing article on Patil's candidacy, calling for an appraisal of her as a candidate "without this stifling regional tokenism and gender symbolism."

I'm pretty impressed with Shobhaa De's article. I thought she was just a trashy romance novelist. Well, she is, but I suppose there's more to her than that.

Also worth quoting is a bit from the Times of India article on the origins of the veil amongst Hindu upper caste women in India:

"Over time, seclusion came to be combined with purdah/ghoonghat and became a signifier of female respectability amongst the higher classes, and part of the feminine code of modesty. That is why it was also observed among elderly female relatives."

This is actually a very good summing up of why the hijab is becoming so popular amongst the Pakistani urban middle and upper classes. Its a signifier of gentility and respectability. It also asserts a connection to an 'authentic' Pakistani (defined as Islamic) identity amongst social groups that have historically been excluded from sharing power in the state apparatus and have therefore been alienated from the older form of "authentic" Pakistani identity which tended to have a very narrow class base.

IZ

The Debate Club

The lower house of parliament in Pakistan once again covered itself in glory by passing a resolution condemning the knighthood of Salman Rushdie. In the National Assembly the Minister for Religious Affairs, Ejaz-ul-Haq, the son of the former American-backed military dictator, Zia-ul-Haq, and a stalwart of the Musharraf government, said that if someone blew up Rushdie in a suicide bombing, they would be justified.

After this caused an uproar amongst the opposition, he once again took the floor to say that he did not condone terrorism and hadn't meant to justify it.

One shakes one's head in wonder at the sheer stupidity of it all. Lets first take a look at Ejaz-ul-Haq. The man is an imbecile, whose personal contacts with the ISI and Jihadist establishments are questionable to say the least. In his position as Minister of Religious Affairs he has received millions of dollars of funding from the U.S. and Britain to "reform" Madressahs. These reforms consisted of convincing Madressahs to register with the government in return for being recognized as universities. A Madressah "degree" is now on a par with a degree from Karachi University as far as employment opportunities go. He proudly appeared on TV to proclaim that he was the man responsible for having terrorism charges dropped against Maulana Abdul Rashid Ghazi (of Lal Masjid fame) and having him released from custody two years ago. (One of the participants in a plot to assasinate Musharraf had used one of Rashid's cars to move about.)

The funny thing is that this isn't the first time Ejaz-ul-Haq's big mouth and love for suicide bombing have come out into the open. Here's a quote from Pervez Hoodbhoy's article 'Waiting for Enlightenment':

The federal minister for religious affairs, Ijaz ul Haq, speaking at the launch of a book authored by a leading Islamic extremist leader on “Christian Terrorism and The Muslim World,” argued that anyone who did not believe in jihad was neither a Muslim nor a Pakistani. He then declared that given the situation facing Muslims today, he was prepared to be a suicide bomber.

Now perhaps we shouldn't expect anything better from a buffoon like Haq, but what about the Assembly as a whole? What possible business is it of the parliament of Pakistan who the British government confers a knighthood on? Does Ghana pass judgement on who receives the sitara-i-imtiaz in Pakistan?

Partially this kind of stupidity is the result of Musharraf's rape of the constitution over the last 7 years. The Parliament, which is meant to be a legislative body, has been stripped of its legislative functions and has become little more than a pulpit where people rant and rave about whatever might get them on to the news. This is why it spends its time routinely condemning, amongst other things, plays, wedding feasts, Indian missile tests, renovation works in Jerusalem, American air strikes in Afghanistan, newspaper cartoons and people who destroy mosques in Iraq even though they don't know who they are. When minority representatives complained about government apathy over the vandalisation of the Sikh Gurudwara Nankana Sahib temple in September 2004, the National Assembly manfully swung into action and condemned the desecration.

What else could they do?

IZ

Edit: This article has been significantly edited from its original.

IHT on Women in Algeria

Here is an interesting article on women in Algeria. What makes it doubly interesting is that the author is obviously struggling with the idea that in this case, what are commonly described as 'modernity', 'moderation' and 'Islamisation' are part of the same trends. Maybe those terms need to be rethought?

IZ

Re: Debating American Islam

Slate.com recently published an illuminating online discussion on Islam in America. Particular emphasis was placed by one of the interlocutors on the idea that America was successful in integrating Muslims because of its culture of tolerance and acceptance, as well as the American tradition of bringing faith into the public realm.

Its an interesting argument and I think Mr. Aslan may be on to something, but I do think he downplays what is probably the most crucial aspect of the relative success or lack of success in the integration of Muslims in the west. To quote from his article:

After all, the majority of European Muslims come from impoverished immigrant families, while the majority of Muslims in the United States are either middle-class converts or educated immigrants. Sixty percent of Muslims in the United States own their own homes. Believe it or not, the median income for a Muslim household in America is greater than it is for a non-Muslim household.

I think there is something vital in understanding integration in these facts. Taking Britain as a case in point, the majority of Muslim immigrants came from Pakistan and Bangladesh during the economic boom years of the 50s and 60s to work in textile mills and other low-paying working class jobs. By the late 70s most of these mills had closed down and by the 80s, the working class as a whole was under relentless attack by Thatcherism and the whittling away of a range of welfare services.

It was under these circumstances that there was both a growing racism against 'Pakis' for taking away scarce jobs, as well as a growing reaction amongst 2nd generation immigrants against the traditionalism and quietism of their parents as well as the perceived threat of a racist British society. The 80s also saw a boom in the funding of fundamentalist Salafist ideology, since it was seen by the U.S. and its Saudi ally as a useful vaccine to secular Socialism and Communism and Iranian revolutionary Shiism. An industry of ideological materials (textbooks, schools, mosques, community centres etc.) developed and by the 90s had firmly lodged themselves in the ghettos of poor immigrants that existed in Europe. This reactionary ideology never reached critical mass in the U.S. due to the lack of Muslim ghettos and the highly mobile nature of the American urban or suburban middle and upper classes (which doesn't mean it doesn't exist, just that it has not been able to entrench itself fully).

IZ

Whats in A Fatwa?

Thomas Friedman another 'New York Times Best-selling author' and much admired columnist has made a lucrative career out of being an "expert" on the Middle-East. But for someone who is supposed to be a pundit on matters Islamic, he seems to display a curious ignorance of newsworthy middle-eastern goings-on. In an article in the New York Times, back in July 2005 he fumed "To this day - to this day - no major Muslim cleric or religious body has ever issued a fatwa condemning Osama bin Laden."

This is an often-heard theme, repeated time and time again. From atop his marvellously hypocritical high-horse Dan Simmons thundered on this very same theme when calling for religious genocide:

Most of the world, especially since 9/11, has been waiting for a rousing and unqualified renouncement of suicide bombings, jihad, persecution of infidels, fatwas, honor killings, and other Muslim atrocities from the silent majority of Muslim clerics and devout Muslims.

Now Dan Simmons' fulminations may be, well if not excused, at least absolved of the expectation of intelligence given that his understanding of life, the universe and everything is based primarily on the neo-librel or neo-fascist writings of chest-thumping, arm-chair, poli-sci majors who know neither history, nor journalism, nor indeed reality outside the confines of their dens. However, Thomas Friedman's bald lies really should be seen in a much more serious light. After all, as the most renowned writer in the best-selling AND most respected newspaper in the United States he has a duty to at least know what he is writing about. Alas this proves not to be the case.

Juan Cole provided a very good round-up of some of the major Muslim clerics who have issued rulings about Osama bin Laden. I suppose its difficult for many people to figure out the value or importance of these fatwas. But some of them are from some very major figures. What was interesting was the statement declaring that all 8 schools of Islamic jurisprudence are equally 'Islamic' and that none have the right to declare adherents to any other as unIslamic. That's a major step in the right direction. The only problem is that it doesn't go far enough in my opinion... what about Qadiyanis or others who might not fall inside the 8 schools?

IZ