Change is Coming to Islam

CHANGE IS COMING TO ISLAM
ZIAUDDIN SARDAR
in Times of India on 26 December 2009

The article explores the revival, philanthropy, radicalism, Sharia and reform. I have added my comments beneath and you are welcome to share your comments section – Mike Ghouse

ZIAUDDIN SARDAR London-based author of Desperately Seeking Paradise, Balti Britain: A Provocative Journey through Asian Britain, and many other books.

Last week, I took the Euro Star from St Pancras International station in London to Paris. Just after clearing immigration, I was stopped by a security officer. Nothing unusual in that, except I was the only one he stopped and questioned in literally thousands of passengers. I had some time to kill so I stood beside him to watch who else he interrogates . In 40 minutes, he only stopped two other people. The first was an old man clearly recognisable as a Muslim: beard, cap, badly-fitted suit, Arab (I guessed Tunisian) origins. The other was a person who strikes terror in the heart of every security officer: a Muslim woman in hijab.

This is perhaps the most noticeable feature of the passing decade for us Muslims. We are now universally regarded as objects of suspicion and subjects for interrogation.

The main reason behind this is the momentous atrocity that began the Noughties: the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington on September 11, 2001. It is hardly surprising that the last decade has been dominated by the consequences of that attack. Most of the negative as well as positive developments in the Muslim world during the last ten years can be traced to that fateful event.

Terrorism, however, was not new to the Muslim world: it had been a problem before 9/11. In Pakistan , Kashmir, Egypt, and in Palestine, the cycle of sectarian and ideological terror and counter terror had already cost innumerable lives. In Chechnya, Bosnia and occupied Palestine, Muslims were victims of what can only be described as state-sponsored terrorism. And the vast majority of the victims of this internal and external violence were Muslims.

But the 9/11 atrocity did create a new chapter. To begin with, it compounded a set of problems that existed for some time. For more than a generation , since at least the 'Islamic Revolution' in Iran, the political rhetoric in the Muslim world had been changing from the hyperbole of sabrerattling nationalism to macho militancy seeking to clothe itself in the legitimating mantle of Islam. The response to the 9/11 atrocity, the so-called 'war on terror' , took that tendency to a new height.

The 'war on terror' had a devastating impact both on the external realities of Muslim societies as well as on Muslim consciousnesses. It changed not only the course of history in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan but also served as a springboard for the revival of the Taliban and the emergence of new militant groups such as the Jemaah Islamiya in Indonesia and the radical Shabab in the Horn of Africa. It also laid the foundation for home-grown al-Qaida-inspired terrorism in Europe and America. The hatred of America in the Muslim world, a direct consequence of the 'war on terror' , also became an ideal substitute, in certain circles, for introspection and reflexive thought on the economic, social and political problems of many Muslim countries.

There were other consequences as well. Western reactions to 'Muslim terror' in Iraq and Afghanistan reinforced the negative views of Islam and Muslims. The fear and loathing of Muslims has been an integral part of European consciousness almost from the inception of Islam. Bloody terrorist campaigns by fringe Muslim organisations brought these anti-Islam and anti-Muslim narratives, 'the darker side of Europe' , to the fore. What was conventionally described as 'Orientalism' , a refined literary and scholarly way of ascribing radicalism, backwardness and violence to Muslims, was transformed during the Noughties into what came to be known as 'Islamophobia' : crude, unabashed religious discrimination and racism against Muslims.

Europe has seen a frightening rise in Islamophobia since the July 7, 2005 bombings in London . As 'Muslims in Europe: A Report on 11 EU Cities' , published last week by the Open Society Institute , shows, prejudice and discrimination are the routine, everyday experience of European Muslims in such cities as Antwerp, Berlin, Copenhagen , Paris and Stockholm. Riding on openly anti-Muslim tickets, far-right political parties have made considerable gains all over Europe - from Denmark to Italy, Belgium, Germany and Britain. Even the so-called moderate conservative parties now routinely employ anti-Muslim narratives that tell of an indigenous culture being 'swamped' by 'alien' and 'hostile' Muslims with their fundamentally incompatible attitudes to gender, sexuality and freedom of expression.

The much-vaunted freedom of expression was itself curtailed throughout much of the Muslim world as a result of the 'war on terror' . The outcome was predicted by Anwar Ibrahim, one of the most lucid voices of sanity in the Muslim world, in early 2002. Ibrahim, one-time founder of an Islamic movement and former deputy prime minister of Malaysia, was a major threat to the corrupt regime of the then prime minister, the autocratic Mahathir Muhammad. Mahathir had Ibrahim framed on homosexuality charges, and after a sham trial, sentenced to fifteen years in prison. The development of the 'Anwar phenomenon' , as it came to be known, kept Muslim intellectuals throughout the world gripped for most of the decade.

One consequence of the 9/11 atrocity, said Ibrahim in an open letter written from his prison cell, would be that "the nascent democratic movements in Muslim countries will regress for a few decades as ruling autocrats use their participation in the global war against terrorism to terrorise their critics and dissenters" . Indeed, this is exactly what happened in Egypt, Algeria, Jordan, Iran and many other Muslim countries.

The problem for Muslim societies, Ibrahim explained , was simple: "In the centuries when Islam created civilizations, men of wealth created pious foundations supporting universities and hospitals. Princes competed with one another to patronize scientists, philosophers and men of letters." That was then, now: "bin Laden uses his personal fortune to sponsor terror and murder, not learning and creativity, and to wreak destruction rather than promote creation. Osama bin Laden and his protégés are the children of desperation; they come from countries where political struggle through peaceful means is futile. In many Muslim countries, political dissent is simply illegal."

In many - but not in all. And this is where the dark clouds of the Noughties revealed their silver lining. While the centre of Islam - the Arab world, Iran, Pakistan - was embroiled in strife and turmoil, something very interesting was happening at the periphery. Muslim democratic movements in Indonesia and Turkey made substantial gains. A miracle was performed in Morocco: Islamic personal law was totally changed and transformed . In Malaysia, Anwar Ibrahim himself was released in September 2004; and went on to lead the opposition in April 2008 after an election that shattered the absolute dominance of UMNO, the corrupt ruling party of Malaysia.

The 2002 election in Turkey brought the Justice and Development Party (AKP) into power. Led by Recep Tayyip Erdogen, former mayor of Istanbul, the AKP has deep Islamic roots. Both its leaders and the mass of its supporters are committed Muslims . Almost immediately, AKP demonstrated that it was more committed to democracy than any other political party in Turkey.

The AKP used standard Islamic principles to realign Islamic politics towards democracy. Its leaders argued that politics in Islam has to be based on the Qur'anic concept of shura, or consultation, and therefore must be consensual and democratic. They introduced far-reaching reforms: death penalty was abolished, minorities were given more freedom , including the right to their own language education , and various aspects of human rights legislation were put on the statue books.

The AKP even tried to change the law to ensure that the military cannot intervene in the political process. And, as its resounding success in 2007 proved, AKP turned out to be an effective and efficient manager of the economy; it has been credited with being economically the most successful party in Turkey's history. The AKP has proved that Islamic politics need not be the sole preserve of the fanatics and the Mullahs. It can be an effective instrument to establish civic society and a thriving democracy.

Indonesia went through a similar transformation . The first direct presidential election in 2004 was a watershed for the largest republic in the Muslim world. Unlike Pakistan or Bangladesh, where the Islamic movements are marginalised and have never won more than three or four per cent of the votes, the Islamic movements in Indonesia are a mass phenomenon. Organisations like Muhammadiyah , Nahdlatul Ulama (NU) and Liberal Islam Network (LIN) have followers in scores of millions.

Since the return of democracy in Indonesia, these organisations have argued that Islamic politics is not about establishing a utopian 'Islamic state' where 'the shariah is supreme' but about creating a civic society where accountability, transparency and participatory democracy are the norm. Moreover, the shariah's overemphasis on formality and symbolism has drained it of all ethical and humane dimensions; and as such, it needs to be totally reformulated. Both democracy and Islamic law must evolve from below with the participation of the masses. This is the message that the largely young members of Muhammadiyah and LIN have been promoting in mosques, schools and universities throughout Indonesia. This outlook was the cornerstone of the peaceful settlement in 2005 of the long-running armed conflict in Aceh.

While the Islamic movement in Indonesia is still grappling with ways and means of reformulating the shariah, Morocco has provided a clear lead. The family law in Morocco, known as Moudawana, was based on the traditional Islamic rules on marriage, divorce, inheritance, polygamy and child custody. Women's groups and enlightened Muslim scholars had been campaigning for decades to change and reform it without much success. But 9/11 and its aftermath provided a new impetus. A special commission , which notably included women, was created with the specific task of producing fresh legislation based on the principles of Islam. The resulting family law, which was introduced on the statute books in February 2004, sweeps away centuries of bigotry and bias against women.

The new Moudawana allows a woman to contract a marriage without the legal approval of a guardian. Verbal divorce has been outlawed: men now require prior authorisation from a court, and women have exactly the same rights. Women can claim alimony and can be granted custody of their children even if they remarry. Husbands and wives must share property acquired during the marriage. Men are no longer the 'leaders' of the family; both husband and wife share the leadership role. The old custom of favouring male heirs in the sharing of inherited land has also been dropped, making it possible for grandchildren on the daughter's side to inherit from their grandfather, just like grandchildren on the son's side. As for polygamy, it has been all but abolished. Men can take second wives only with the full consent of the first wife and only if they can prove, in a court of law, that they can treat them both with absolute justice - an impossible condition.

Every change in the law is justified - chapter and verse - from the Qur'an , and from the examples and traditions of the Prophet Muhammad. And every change acquired the consent of the religious scholars. With the exception of the gripes of a few extremists , the new shariah has been widely welcomed, even by the Islamist political organisations. Justice and Development Party described the law as "a pioneering reform" that is "in line with the prescriptions of Islam and with the aims of our religion" .

If the shariah can be changed then anything and everything in the Muslim world is amenable to change. Not least in India, where the efforts of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board to declare 'triple talaq' null and void suggest stirrings of a forward movement. But the narrow-minded conservatives , in India as elsewhere, move quasi-statically . For sure, fundamentalism will continue to be with us for some time. But it is totally vacuous, based on nothing more than hateful slogans and, as such, is bound to wither away. Adaptation and emulation of the successful aspects of the Islamic movements in Indonesia, Malaysia and Turkey will increasingly become the dominant theme. As in the past, so in the future: the centre of the Muslim world will be slowly but surely transformed from the periphery.

By ZIAUDDIN SARDAR, London-based author of Desperately Seeking Paradise, Balti Britain: A Provocative Journey Through Asian Britain, and many other books

source: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/middle-east/Change-is-coming-to-Islam-/articleshow/5380563.cms

Comments by Mike Ghouse

Quote, "For sure, fundamentalism will continue to be with us for some time. But it is totally vacuous, based on nothing more than hateful slogans and, as such, is bound to wither away."

Indeed, fundamentalism is part of the whole, every group and every tradition will continue to hang on to some fundamentals as a safety niche, and it will be a part of the social fabric. We have to figure out working the least conflict route. It is good to see the follow up line which assures the common readers about the reduction of fundamentalism.

Quote, "the nascent democratic movements in Muslim countries will regress for a few decades as ruling autocrats use their participation in the global war against terrorism to terrorise their critics and dissenters"

I recall Indira Gandhi's emergency rule, where every petty officer in government abused the privilege given to him to run the organization effectively. They terrorized the people who worked under them. It was a nightmare.

Quote, "Princes competed with one another to patronize scientists, philosophers and men of letters."

The Muslims in America are working their way to volunteer their time and money to causes other than their own, wee need to accelerate that process and fully integrate in the society and be a part in contributing and participating towards the success of the society at large. We have to serve the needy, no matter who they are.

Here is an article I wrote, which has been published in an Indian Magazine as well, application is the same - Are Muslims a part of the American story? ...
http://wisdomofreligion.blogspot.com/2009/04/are-muslims-part-of-american-story.html

Quote, "The family law in Morocco, known as Moudawana, was based on the traditional Islamic rules on marriage, divorce, inheritance, polygamy and child custody. …..A special commission, which notably included women, was created with the specific task of producing fresh legislation based on the principles of Islam."

By using the word "traditional..." the author innocuously legitimizes that which was founded on mis-interpretations" as he beautifully segue into "producing fresh legislation based on the principles of Islam."

I admire the principles laid out in the Morocco's new Sharia law, it incorporates a fundamental principle that most "men" jurists in the past ignored, overlooked or deliberately suppressed.

The description of the day of accountability (Day of Judgment) is vivid – No one is responsible for the acts of others, it makes it clear that not even your prophet will come to rescue you; you stand alone with your good and bad Karma to take the next step. The prophet even told his daughter that, just because she is the daughter of the prophet, she is not going to get a free pass; she has to earn it – by doing good deeds. That is being good to God's creation; life and environment. It is about individual responsibility.

The law, any law is written to bring justice to an individual and the society, and laws produced with the free and willing participation of all its consumers would be sustainable and more importantly, it will be "just". . Although the intent of Sharia Laws was justice, it has many flaws in its public application, we have them in Texas too, we have hung too many innocent people. Sharia must be subjected to critical thinking, those who were critical were ignored; they were not given a listen due to the political climate which the Author describes it well, it was a similar climate when those laws were formulated.

Sharia Laws are not divine; we have to consistently hammer this. They are interpretations of what Qur'aan meant to the Jurists after the Prophet, it means differently to us in a pluralistic society. The production of those laws was in an exclusive environment and not the environment of Pluralism that Prophet had lived. Madinah document and other principles of Pluralism were in place during the time of prophet. ...

Thank God for the net and face book, freedom will become the supreme value for human kind .

By the way, the Moroccan Sharia laws are reflective of the laws we have in America, which are fair and carried forward with huge debates.

Your comments are welcome at: http://worldmuslimcongress.blogspot.com/2010/01/change-is-coming-to-islam.html#comments

~~~

Islamic Reform

The book is out now.

"Critical thinkers for Islamic reform" a collection of articles from contemporary thinkers on Islam. Your friend is one of the 35 people who have contributed towards the book.

The book is available at amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Critical-Thinkers-Islamic-Reform-Yuksel/dp/0979671574/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1242430729&sr=1-3

I am pleased to inform you that, the book "American Islam" will be out this fall. It is everything you always wanted to know about Islam and Muslims. Much of the inspiration is drawn from Sura Kafirun. http://quraan-today.blogspot.com/2008/07/sura-kafirun-un-believers.html

It is encouraging to see the moderate Muslims speak up, they make up 99% of the Muslim population. Just like all other groups, they want to get along with every one, and see that every human is cared for and do the best one can do.

Insha Allah one of these days I may get financial support from a few Muslims in forming the "Moderate Muslim Majority" to reflect the voices of Muslims for the common purpose of working towards a world of co-existence, by mitigating conflicts and nurturing goodwill among nations and communities. The formation is not to be against any one, but for the peace and justice for every one.

When Allah says "submit to my will", what is the latent wisdom in it?

Perhaps we can understand that in the context of our own lives; the family we have nurtured, the work we do, the home we live in, the car we drive, the food we cook or anything we work for is very dear to us, we want that to be intact and not go helter skelter. That is God's will - to have his creation live in peace and harmony and sustain itself - and God has given us a beautiful formula to live by; the Qur'aan, the book of guidance.

What is God's will? To surrender to him is to become like him, when we do that, there is no more "you and I", it is all of us, one inclusive community. One world under God.

To become like him occurs when there is no distinctions between any one of his creation, the whole creation belongs to him and he belongs to all. God wills that we live in peace and harmony and nothing but that. Islam is a beautiful religious formulas to peace, tranquility and equlibrium through justice. Our role as Muslims is to mitigate conflicts and nurture goodwill.

Mike Ghouse

Protection for reformist Muslims

Reformist Muslims need legal protection from blasphemy accusations http://worldmuslimcongress.blogspot.com/2008/04/protection-for-reformist-muslims.html

Thanks to the University Campuses in the United States and Canada in general, and the Canadian Media in particular for taking the lead in giving space for opposing opinions. The resolution by Canada protecting religion from "defamation" is welcome news. The American Media has a lot more to learn, moving from propaganda to news coverage, and being honest in giving equal caliber an equal time. Sadly, American media is more of a business than a true media.

The concerns of Tarek Fatah and Farzana Hassan about blasphemy accusations are real, however, they will not materialize in the United States and Canada, it speaks well of our laws that protect our freedom.

Thank God, they are the same laws that prevent Pat Robertson, Tom Crendo and their ilk from becoming terrorists; either scheming to bomb or assassinate leaders of other nations.

Democratic form of Governance is preferred by Muslims indeed that is how the Muslim history took roots; the first four political leaders called Caliphs were elected through consensus after campaigning and challenging. The Prophet did not pass the political mantle to his legitimate heirs to prevent a monarchial or a hereditary form of governance. There was a clear separation of church and the state, as the faith was complete and no clergy was assigned to carry on the religious business, it was up to the individual to follow the only thing prophet left; The Qur’aan. Today, over 2/3rds of Muslims live in democracies, and the rest would opt for democracy, if they have their freedom.

Though the Propaganda would have you believe that Muslims want the Caliphate, but ask the Muslims or do an in-depth survey, you will be surprised that only a very small percentage of Muslims may want to live in strict religious system, perhaps the same percentage as the Neocons wanting a Christian form of Governance. However, if you probe further and give the option between a Just and a religious government, they will go for the Just governance, as that is what Islamic government means to the Muslims. I hope the University of Pittsburgh takes on this task.

The Muslims in the United States and Canada are like any other community living and breathing the freedom sustained in these two great nations. In the 1400 years of Muslim history, Muslims have never seriously and publicly challenged the Sharia Laws, the Hadiths (verbal traditions ascribed to the Prophet) any where in the world as they have done here in the North American continent. In the last five years that I have been managing a few forums, I have observed remarkable rational attitudes among Muslims who are not only from our continent but from all over the world. The dogma is constantly challenged and new consensus is silently emerging.

In a few years Muslim will take on the responsibility of peace makers. They will constantly seek to mitigate conflicts and nurture goodwill for peaceful co-existence. God wants us to live in peace and harmony with his creation; life and mater. Indeed, that is the purpose of religion, any religion.

Mike Ghouse is a Speaker, Thinker, Writer and a Moderator. He is a frequent guest on talk radio and local television network discussing Pluralism, politics, Islam, Religion, Terrorism, India and civic issues. He is the founder of the World Muslim Congress, a group committed to building bridges and nurturing a world of co-existence. He also heads the foundation for pluralism, an organization committed to studying religious pluralism and pluralistic governance. His personal website is http://www.mikeghouse.net/ and his writings are on the above websites as well as several of the ancillary Blogs listed on the sites.

###

Reformist Muslims need legal protection from blasphemy accusations

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/hotline/2008/04/reformist-muslims-need-legal-protection.php

Farzana Hassan [president, Muslim Canadian Congress] and Tarek Fatah [founder, Muslim Canadian Congress]: "How long will it take the leadership of North America's traditional Muslim leadership to embrace the First amendment of the United Sates constitution and the doctrine of the separation of religion and state? Will the concept of freedom of expression survive ever-new challenges from the defenders of medieval traditions that bar any discussion or critique of religion?

These are questions bubbling below the surface right now, but eventually are bound to erupt into the open. Moreover, when they do, chances of a rise in overt racist backlash against Muslims of all shades and opinions is a likely outcome. Certainly, the events of the past few months provide ample evidence for this trend, with two human rights complaints making newspaper headlines and leading to fierce debates about the limits of free speech and what might constitute hate literature.

The first involved a human rights complaint against Ezra Levant, the editor of the defunct [Canadian magazine the] Western Standard, while the second, more recent one, was filed against Macleans magazine, by four Osgoode law students on behalf of the Canadian Islamic Congress. Needless to say, these complaints are justifiably interpreted as assaults on freedom of speech and conscience by Canadians both Muslim and non-Muslim, leading many to question the mandate of these commissions as well as the validity or otherwise of these human rights complaints.

Historically, orthodoxy has demanded abject compliance to the closed belief systems it guards. Therefore, the freedom to question, challenge, and evaluate dogma remains an elusive ideal for those who practice it, often at great risk to their lives and persons. Though in the West, "heresy" came to be accepted as valid religious expression in the seventeen hundreds in keeping with the first amendment; Muslim societies continue to be dogged by obscurantism and a stubborn resistance to modernity. Many a time, such intransigence results in lawsuits, human rights complaints and conspiracy theories against individuals perceived as threats to the status quo.

As an example, the United Nations Human Rights Commission (UNHRC) recently approved a resolution protecting religion from "defamation". Once again, the drivers of this move were Islamist organizations who refuse to tolerate the slightest dissent over religious matters. What these tyrants and monarchs from the Arab world fail to realize or choose to pretend otherwise is the fact that critics of Islamist ideologies are not opposing Islam as a religion, but the use of Islam as a political ideology that hides behind religion for protection, while seeking political ascendancy.

For Muslims who believe in challenging religious dogma, who actively pursue the goal of bringing about reform in Muslim societies and who advocate the separation of religion and state, this becomes a particularly threatening scenario as charges of blasphemy and apostasy often occasion calls for the execution of "apostates" and "heretics". A Turkish man recently convicted of "ridiculing god" faces the death penalty in a Saudi prison while secular and moderate Muslims living in the West are frequently the targets of death threats or bullying tactics to silence them one way or another.

The law in Canada and the United States must look into formulating legal measures that protect reformists within various faith traditions. In particular, given the serious consequences that secular and reformist Muslims face in their efforts to challenge orthodox positions, charges of apostasy and blasphemy leveled against them by fundamentalists should be criminalized as legal safeguards against such bullying and silencing tactics. The United States and Canada must look into introducing legislation that will protect such individuals from these accusations often laden with threats to their lives and security.

As long as Islamists around the world use Islam as a political ideology in the footsteps of such jihadi ideologues as Hassan Al-Banna, Syed Qutb, Abul Ala Maudoodi and Ayatollah Khomeini, their Muslim, and non-Muslim opponents will have the right to challenge this ideology with full vigour. Hiding behind the skirts of religion to avoid being critiqued, these fascist cults demonstrate not just cowardice, but a cunningness that is fooling large segments of the liberal-left intelligentsia in the West, which will be among the first to suffer if and when Islamists use liberal democracy to extinguish its light."

Opinions expressed in JURIST's Hotline are the sole responsibility of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of JURIST's editors, staff, or the University of Pittsburgh.