Muslim modernist reformers are intellectually dishonest. Many are merely using religion as a means to mobilise people for their modernisation projects. That is the bold claim made by secular Syrian thinker Sadiq Jalal al-Azm. But he nevertheless admits that reform of Islam is badly needed.
He jokingly calls himself the 'official atheist of the Arab world'. Since the publication of his book Critique of Religious Thought in 1969, Sadiq Jalal al-Azm is one of the most prominent secularist thinkers in the Muslim world.
The now retired professor of European philosophy at the University of Damascus belongs to a generation of western-educated intellectuals who, contrary to their expectations, gradually saw the Muslim world turn more and more religious. Being an atheist became increasingly dangerous, but Sadiq al-Azm never felt the urge to leave.
He divides his time between Damascus and Beirut and universities in Europe and the US. He also spent a few months in the Netherlands, at the NIAS research institute in Leiden. In the Netherlands, he is a well-known figure because some of his work has been translated into Dutch and in 2004 he was awarded the prestigious Erasmus prize, together with two Muslim modernist thinkers: the Moroccan Fatima Mernissi and the Iranian Abdolkarim Soroush.
What is the difference between you and modernist reformers such as Fatima Mernissi and Abdolkarim Soroush?
"People like Mernissi and Soroush pretend to reform Islam from the inside. They reform Islam as good Muslims. The group to which I belong does not do this. I want to reform the thinking of Muslims too, but I never pretended to do this from inside Islam or as a Muslim. I never made a concession on this matter."
 |
|
Sadiq Jalal al-Azm
|
So they are pretending?
"Since the 19th Century, modernist thinkers have been haunted by rumours that they are not real believers, that they merely use religion as a means to mobilise people for reforms. And they even say so themselves: Until today, many of these reformers argue that, if you want to convince the people, you have to speak to them in their 'own language', that is to say: in religious terms.
This may be a valid argument, but it also reveals the instrumental way in which they think about religion.
I admit that it is easy for me to criticise them: I am a man of ideas, a public intellectual who is sometimes called upon to give his supposedly studied judgement on matters of public interest. I'm not involved in organising people and directing movements and so on.
Let me put it this way: In my view there is a division of labour in this effort of modernising Muslim societies.
Both approaches are valid. We need people who work on the inside and we also need people who work from the outside. But personally I think there is a certain intellectual dishonesty in this claim to reform Islam from the inside."
Can Islam be reformed at all?
"I think so, but it requires a departure from the literal text of the Koran. That's a radical step, because the Muslim masses cling to the idea that the Koran is literally true. But it is obvious that the literal text of the Koran simply cannot be applied in modern society.
Take for instance the corporal punishments prescribed in the Koran. Radical Islamists want to impose them, but they are a minority.
The majority of Muslims have split personalities on this matter: They insist that this is the penal law of Islam and at the same time they admit that it is inapplicable. What I propose is to resolve this contradiction and officially state that the shari'a corporal punishments are obsolete.
The problem is that most of my colleagues who claim to reform Islam from the inside do not address this problem, probably because they fear it will alienate them from their audiences. Modernists such as Fatima Mernissi keep playing this game of quoting texts of Koran and Prophetic Traditions in support of their case, implicitly assuming the literal truth of these texts. And if they do not find anything that supports them, they twist and torture the meaning of the text until it suits their demands.
 |
|
Nasr Hamid Abu Zayd: the Koran is a historical text
|
But what about more radical reformers such as Nasr Hamid Abu Zayd who look at the Koran as a historical text and admit that it can no longer be literally applied?
People like Abu Zayd are more honest in asking the question: What can the Koran mean to us today, in light of modern scientific knowledge? But what annoys me is that they keep speaking in the name of the 'real Islam.' Historically speaking, Muslims are divided among hundreds of groups who all claim that they possess the 'real' or 'true' Islam.
As a critical intellectual you can't seriously claim that you possess the 'real Islam'. All you can say is: This is the way it makes sense to me personally."
Some people believe that religion is on the rise again in the whole world, and especially in the Muslim World.
"I think the process of secularisation is irreversible, in Europe and the US but also in the Muslim world. The present so-called revival of religion is just some sort of last spasm, a desperate effort to cling to something that in fact has already disappeared. In the Muslim world, Islamists present themselves as an alternative for western culture, but they do not really have an alternative: Their slogan 'Islam is the solution' is an illusion. Islam simply cannot solve the problems of the 21st Century.
That becomes clear as soon as the Islamists come to power: All islamist regimes end up in dramatic failure. That some Islamists today turn violent and even suicidal, is only an indication of their failure to realise their plans. Eventually Muslims will have to wake up to the reality that they are no longer the masters of history, but a deprived and underdeveloped minority in the global community. Only when Muslims face this reality, they will be able to proceed."
Tags:
Damascus,
dangerous.,
European philosophy,
Islam,
Muslim,
Muslim world,
reformers
Carlos Borjal,
21-02-2008
- USA
The fundamental problems with Islam as a religion is it does not have a central authority that oversees behavior, dogma, and uniform code of practice. Unlike the Christian Churches, although fundamentally flawed and fragmented themselves has the Pope or Patriarch as central figures that dictate policy. Every mosque in the Muslim world has an Imam who interprets the Koran their own way, each open to misunderstandings, intentionally or not intentionally. The other flaw is, if it is a flaw at all, there is no separation between political issues and religious issues within the Koran, they are both treated as the words of God. If one has to study the Shariah Law, the depth of its meaning is so complex that simplifying it requires scholars and conventions to come up with easy to understand language for all intellectual levels to digest. Remember this is meant to be understood by ordinary people as well as the very bright. Fundamentalists and radical Islam found and filled this vacuum to take advantage of this complexity to represent themselves as the true believer using the word “jihad” and “fatwa” very so carelessly to serve their wicked purpose. It is up to the main stream Muslims to get together in mass and correct this misconceptions otherwise there will never be peace between Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. Which by no accident, has common beginnings in the name of Abraham.
Brian H,
29-05-2007
-
Khalid,
Of course Mohammed lied. He had everything to gain, and went on to a very successful career as a warlord and became rich from the business dealings of one of his wives (the adult one). He changed his story several times, and in any case, as noted above, the whole tale is an oral tradition carried down for centuries -- partly because Mohammed was illiterate. Of course, there is the question: can a deranged peasant subject to fits and hallucinations lie? Does the question even matter? Not to be partisan here: the Christian gospels were also kept only as oral records for centuries, and extensively edited and purged by church powerbrokers before the approved version was written down. Seems to be a common theme.
Curtis,
30-03-2007
-
I enjoyed most of the article, and as an agnostic I can sympathize with most of the arguments. I disagree with the rather arrogant notion regarding secularization. The question was "is religion on the rise", and he responds that "secularization is inevitable", as if "secularization" equates to atheism. This is false. At least in the USA we have found a fairly good balance between religious beliefs (which continue to be strong in the majority of Americans) and a separation of religion from the state. But this does not mean that religion is going away. Nor should it. We regularly see that the lack of religious values leads to increasingly destructive and hedonistic behaviors. I'd say that not only is religion NOT going away, there is a growing sense that it's absence is a clear threat and thus a rebirth of evangelical activities to promote it. So, atheists, get over yourselves. As long as there are humans, there will be a need for religion.
Jan Velema,
29-03-2007
- CANADA
Muslim reformers are not the only religious to be intellectually dishonest. Any one that calls themself a Muslim, Christian, Jew, Budhist, Nazi, etcetera, etcetera is not intellectually dishonest but intellectually stunted.
Bernadette de Wit,
29-03-2007
- The Nederlands
I appreciate Mr. Sadiq Jalal al-Azm's intellectual honesty and I sincerely hope he is right about islamism being a last spasm. But how many citizens will have to die before this last spasm will cease to rage?
Also Mr. al-Azm underestimates the multicultural forces in Western governments and local authorities, who tolerate intolerance and reinforce muslims to take their religion literally.
As for Ameer Rashid: you are describing an islamic utopia that have never existed in reality, as al-Azm, points. Islamic societies are not less crimimal or violent than Western societies. We pay a price for freedom because freedom creates more gains in science, technology, economy and individual well-being.
Also, do not forget that muslim immigrants are overrepresented in Western-European crime statistics.
abdulrahman,
29-03-2007
- usa
I like when these so-called intellectuals come along and give all sort of foolish suggestion that the Quran is irrelevent today, but they never specifically give you point by point why it is irrelevent. And they would always like to point out disingeniously how "Islamic regimes" end up in failure, while clearly everyone knows that those regimes never see the day-light before they are totally squashed by inside and outside forces. All we can say to them is keep up with your propogandas.
Frank Walter,
29-03-2007
- Germany
That the Koran is the literal word of god is a highly juvenile notion which simply cannot be taken serious by any person who understands the workings of pure logic.
Of course, by now we have already reached the point in time where the very teachings of Charles Darwin are being challenged via 'educated' islamists only to support the general indoctrination of the islamic belief system (literal word of god) which would rather have a planet in the shape of a plate, despite our logic secular science, that has by now proven it is not so. Now the islamists are telling us that all is only a foul streak of propaganda and in reality the planet is indeed flat since the words in this 'holy' book are indeed literally the words of god.
Our secular logic is nothing but a trick, our physical inventions are nothing but a well constructed method to let us see the world in this way... In real reality the batterycell of a mobile phone is laden with the power of god, we cannot have invented it. God has given us his words with the most particular rules to the most particular situations in life, via the prophet that is so widely and enormously honored by the believers of these literal words from god. These texts were only written ca. 2 centuries after the actual? life of that prophet...before that time the content of these texts/stories were transferred only by word of mouth, which is impossible. It would have to span aproximately 6 generations of mankind without a written word... Should one consult logic to look at this deep stagnant claim then it cannot sustain in the light of day. So, one has to assume that no logic must be used to look at the essence of these texts, no logic gives way to indoctrination, and indoctrination produced the worst ethic mistakes of mankind that have been recorded... It is simply not possible that the Koran contains indeed any literal words of god to humanity...
Now, to change the viewing angle of ca. 1,3 bio. people on this matter is quite a challenge, even without the instant killings that rise from such notion is it a next to impossible task considering the speed of modern life, as well as non-preparedness of the other ca. 4+ bio. people who do not want to regress into a state of non-logic dictatorial indoctrination without a chance to question matters of nature since god has already given a literal rule for everything...
The conflict that presently is nourishing itself from the utter opposition of viewing angles between camps seems to move ever sturdier into the direction of mass-application of military hardware ordnance... until one or the other takes the upper hand and writes the new future...
Taken by the word then the islamic believer loves death on the end of his life,
while most other human beings love life before their deaths.
anders,
28-03-2007
- Netherlands
Koran binding on all humanity? Not according to the Koran that states it is only for those who did not yet receive the message, the Arabs. Even 'binding' does not mean that humans have a duty to enforce it on other humans. Quran or Koran, this is not Arab alphabet therefore not for Arabs to decide spelling.
Bill,
28-03-2007
- Scotland
I thoroughly enjoyed this article. Since I was around 10 years old I have understood that all religion is patently absurd. The observation that, “The present so-called revival of religion is just some sort of last spasm, a desperate effort to cling to something that in fact has already disappeared.”, is absolutely correct. It is painful for us all. As mankind continues to grow up and reach maturity (still several generations away I fear) there will continue to be violence and bloodshed as the ego-centric ‘teenager’ that is the human race comes to terms with the fact that the world isn’t intrinsically fair and it will just have to roll up its sleeves and get on with the hard job of making a decent life for itself. I am convinced that once the human race rejects religious belief in favour of rational systems of governance we will truly start to become one big, happy family - of grown ups.
George Rockingham,
28-03-2007
- France
Ammar Khalid,
I will call it the Koran if I please. Your logic is poor and has been used (to equally poor effect) by Christians to establish the divinity of Jesus (presumably you don't believe that). You draw a false conclusion because you have created a false dichotomy. The choice you give, if the Koran is not the word of God, is that either your prophet was mad or he lied. There is a third option, he could simply have been mistaken. He was out in the desert, possibly dehydrated. In those circumstances it is not unusual for people to hallucinate. Maybe he did think he heard the voice of Gabriel, maybe he belived he continued to hear it until the Koran was complete. The point is that no one knows, and you cannot cite the Koran as proof of its own veracity - that just won't wash.
Of course there is a fourth option, that Muhammad did not take part in the process at all, and that the Koran is nothing but a mutation of older Jewish and Christian texts, with a singularly Arab slant.
Some Sunni sects use a differnt version of the Koran (one that omits those portions that call Christians and Jews people of the Book), so unless God has told different things to different people, one of these two further options are far more likely to be true than the story contained in the Koran itself.
Ameer Raschid,
27-03-2007
- Turkey
Punishments in Islam ae designed to prevent crimes and are by necessity draconian. Murder,adultery, theft are epidemic in Western societies, including alcoholism and compulsive gambling. In an Islamic state every effort must be made to prevent these crimes by providing social justice and an atmosphere that does not tempt people to commit crimes. Western jails are overcrowed and do not suceed very well in preventing those released from returning again, perhaps committing a more serious crime. Capital punishment is now outlawed in the EU but still allowed in several US states without being considered barbaric. Muslims need to be reformed through an educational system that not only teaches rules but provdes a positive atmosphere where people can learn from example. Spiritual development is the primary goal along with a sociial system that prevents exploitation and encourages brotherhood. Worship without concern for the poor and underprivelged is unacceptable.
Atheists and intellectuals who feel themselves above the committed believers may call for reform but only sincere believers with a comprehensive knowlege of Islam are in a position to implement Islam in a manner that does not contradict its essential nature.
Today, the number of qualified scholars is very small and we need a reformation of Islamic education to produce those who can engage in discourse at the highest level to overcome the objections of those who feel that Islam is not suitable for the modern age.
Ammar Khalid,
ammar.khalid@gmail.com,
27-03-2007
- UK
Well it is the personal view of Nasr Hamid Abu Zayd that Quran (and not Koran, mind your language please) and Sadiq Jalal Azm that is a historical book and nothing more than that. Of course as an athiest he cannot believe this book has been sent by God to the last prophet Muhammad. But just for the sake of logical reasoning i.e. wihtout getting emotional, see my reasoning below:
1- Muhammad PBUH is a man who claims God talks to him and Quran is the literal word of God and not his. (Agreed?)
2- Now there are two possible alternatives: Quran is not the word of God (rather Muhammad's own) or Quran is the word of God.
2.1 If Quran is not a word of God, then it is word of Man or Muhammad. This means:
2.1.1 Muahammad PBUH lied
2.1.2 Muhammad PBUH was insane
However, very strong evidence points contrary to any of the above. There are links on internet for your own investigation e.g. http://www.brifkani.com/who_wrote_the_quran.htm
http://islam-guide.com
3- Now to the other alternative, if Quran really is a word of God sent down to Muhammad PBUH as revelations, then it is binding on all humanity, let alone should be evolved.
Hope my logic is okay, email me if you have questions
