A trend to reinterpret Islam

[Neo]

A trend to reinterpret Islam​

By Mubarak Ali

SCHOLARS have coined different terms to interpret Islam in view of the present political, social and economic condition of the Islamic world. Some of these terms are used to explain the existing situation. Here I shall try to explain these terms in their historical context.

One of the terms which is widely used is ‘political Islam’. Generally it refers to religion used for political motives. This is not a modern phenomenon. Religions were used by political authorities to legitimise their power in the past in most of the great civilisations.

Muslim rulers exploited it to further their own interests since ulema or religious scholars were also office-holders of the state and in this capacity they were ready to legalise all orders and commands of the ruler on the basis of religious teachings. There are a number of examples to show that whenever rulers needed a religious injunction (fatwa), it was immediately issued by the mufti and qazi according to their wishes.

When Akbar wanted to legalise his more than four authorised marriages, it was done by the Maliki qazi on the basis of Maliki jurisprudence. Interestingly, Akbar immediately dismissed the qazi after obtaining sanction for his marriages lest others took advantage of it. Thus there are a number of religious injunctions which approved usurpation, royal expenditure, killing of rebels and opponents, and declaration of war either against Muslims or non-Muslims. It is evident that throughout history whenever politics and religion were integrated those who wielded political authority used it in their favour.

In the modern period, we have witnessed the late President Ziaul Haq making use of the religious authorities to strengthen his dictatorship in Pakistan by violating democratic norms and justifying his brutal actions against his opponents.

The same pattern was followed by generals H.M. Ershad of Bangladesh and Jaafar Numeiri of Sudan to implement Sharia to get the support and sympathy of the people. In Saudi Arabia and Iran, Islam is used by the monarchy and religious oligarchy by interpreting it from their particular political points of view. Under such circumstances the people are helpless and do not react for fear of flouting religious injunctions.

In a democratic process religious parties also use religious slogans to exploit the sentiments of the people in order to win elections. Their assumption is that society can be reformed only after capturing state power. Therefore they interpret Islam as a complete political system which has no contradictions with democratic institutions and values.

Although there are some Islamic groups which reject this point of view and attempt to revive or reconstruct a political system based on orthodox Islamic teachings, which in their view is the only solution to the ills of the Muslim world, in order to pull themselves out of the state of decline and backwardness they find themselves in.

As far as the term ‘militant Islam’ is concerned, it is a product of colonialism. When in the 19th and 20th centuries European powers defeated the Muslim ruling classes and occupied their countries, the defeated rulers were not in a position to fight or to struggle against the occupation forces. Either they submitted to the colonial powers or just vanished from the political scene. Under these circumstances religious groups emerged to challenge the foreign powers and resist them.

These religious movements assumed the messianic form in a bid to bring Muslims into their fold and inspired them to fight for freedom and for the glory of Islam. In Algeria, Abdul Qadir claimed to be Imam and fought against the French to liberate his country. Mahdi in Sudan proclaimed himself the ‘Guided One’ and announced war against the Christians. He defeated General Gordon in the battle of Khartoum (1881) and shocked the British imperialists who considered defeat unthinkable.

In Libya Mohammad Ali Sannusi (1787-1859) fought against the colonialists and laid the foundation of resistance. In India Sayyid Ahmad declared holy war against the Sikhs and established an Islamic state in the NWFP.

However, these militant and messianic movements did not succeed in their goals. Although they had the spirit to fight and die for a cause they lacked modern knowledge to confront their enemies. As they were the early fighters of holy war they became models for the modern religious movements to follow. They became a great source of inspiration for them. Their heroism and martyrdom are greatly admired by religiously motivated young people.

The modern militant Islam is in one sense the continuation of the past. It is also a response to foreign occupation. Religion provides a tool to fight against the occupation forces. But they have the same problem their predecessors had: they lack modern knowledge to confront their adversaries. They rely on the West for technological know-how and are not in a position to create knowledge themselves and to use it for their own benefit. As consumers and customers, it is difficult for them to overpower their opponents either in the battlefield or in a conflict of ideas.

To counter political and militant Islam an attempt is made to preach and promote ‘liberal Islam’ which includes most modern values and traditions. Some Muslim states support this version of Islam to counter a militant and political Islam which is a threat to their authority. Sometimes western countries encourage ulema to propagate and preach liberal Islam in order to eliminate the threat of religious fundamentalism.

In both cases the attempt has failed because liberal Islam cannot develop and be popular in isolation. It requires political stability, economic prosperity and social justice. As nearly all Muslim countries are under the grip of dictators along with social inequality and economic exploitation, liberal Islam cannot have any appeal for common people.

In the West and the US some scholars are reinterpreting Islam from a liberal point of view. As they write in European languages their readers are either intellectuals or western-educated Muslims. Their point of view remains confined to a limited circle. On the other hand the traditional ulema who write in Arabic, Persian or Urdu have a wider circle of readership which is influenced by their ideas. Their version is more appealing to the public.

DAWN - Editorial; March 19, 2008

 

[mujahideen]

^^^^This is just stupid. Islam has only one interpertation and it will remian in its original form till the day of judgement.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

^^^^This is just stupid. Islam has only one interpertation and it will remian in its original form till the day of judgement.

That argument is pretty much rendered invalid by the existence of schools of thought such as those of the Taliban, the Iranian Mullah's and some of the "modern and liberal" schools of thought.

I would argue that the problem in Islam right now is that there is too much leeway, because of its decentralized nature and usage of even spurious hadith, which allows any Mullah (or not even) with a decent following to set up a "cult" based on his "interpretation" of Islam. Recent examples being Mullah Fazlullah of Swat, and currently a personality named Mangal Bagh who is leading the Lashkar e Islam.

 

[mujahideen]

That argument is pretty much rendered invalid by the existence of schools of thought such as those of the Taliban, the Iranian Mullah's and some of the "modern and liberal" schools of thought.
I would argue that the problem in Islam right now is that there is too much leeway, because of its decentralized nature and usage of even spurious hadith, which allows any Mullah (or not even) with a decent following to set up a "cult" based on his "interpretation" of Islam. Recent examples being Mullah Fazlullah of Swat, and currently a personality named Mangal Bagh who is leading the Lashkar e Islam.

Now I am not sure if I agree with you when you say Islam has a too much leeway or has a decentralized nature.
The point you made about poeple interpertuting Islam the way they see fit is a fact, and a crime of which most muslims are guilty of commiting, including myself. We want Islam to adopt to our way of life, but we are not willing to adopt to Islam. This is wrong.
When you say the fault is with Islam, I totaly disagree with you, Islam is not at fault, but we Muslims are at fault, who have made a mockey of our religion. Islam has only one interpertation, which if followed and obeyed properly is the most pure and perfect way of life.

 

[solid snake]

Too bad for those advocating the "true Islam" that it shall never be followed by any society at large. Individuals may follow what mujahideen has described as "one interpretation" but societies are large never will.

And how can it be said that there is one interpretation? Some Muslims believe the entire female form needs to be covered, some believe the hijab suffices, and some believe women can dress any way they want as long as they are not naked. Now tell me, which of these people are right? No matter who you pick as being followers of the "correct interpretation", you will have other Muslims disagreeing with you.

Islam is not like the Catholic church, which makes policies for Catholics worldwide. Whatever the pope says, everyone obeys. Whereas we can see how different Pakistan is to Saudi Arabia, the holy land of Islam. There is no grand Mullah of Pakistan, let alone any city. People follow whatever their local imam says. Hence, Islam has a very decentralized nature, which leads to a huge difference in the extremes of interpretation - both conservative and liberal.

Fact of the matter is people are now forming their own opinions about their religion and interpreting the book as they see it. They are refusing to let anyone else tell them what to think. This is for the middle class and the elite class only, and it's a good thing. Differences in interpretations ensures religion never enters politics. I want Pakistan to have a vast variety of religions and sects and beliefs, diversity is always a good thing in all forms.

 

[Energon]

Islam has only one interpertation, which if followed and obeyed properly is the most pure and perfect way of life.

Whose interpretation so far do you think is as close to the "ideal" as possible in todays world?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Icecold:

When I said that there is a "problem in Islam", I meant the "Islamic Community" rather than the religion itself. You are correct that we need to criticize the "interpretation" instead of the religion.

Now I would put issues such as HIjab, Mutaa, Halal/Haram in a "trivial" category. I think that when we look at various interpretations of Islam we have a tendency to get caught up in the ritualistic differences - The Shia Kalima is different, the Hadith they follow are different, who is the true successor to the Muhammad (PBH) etc. None of this stuff defines Islam - it is not Islam, and believing one way or another does not have any impact on ones life or faith.

I think the closest we can get to "the one true Islam" is by making an argument of the core beliefs espoused in the Quran - and I don't mean the five pillars, taken literally, they too are nothing more than rituals, and indeed the majority of the Muslim world treats them as such. We go through the motions of praying, of fasting, of making the pilgrimage.

But what is the truth behind those five pillars? It is about sacrifice for those who have little, for those who are weak. It is about empathy, sympathy, and submission to Allah. It is about giving to the poor and needy. It is about treating people, of all hues, creeds and faiths, with dignity and respect - It is about justice and equality. That is what the message of the Quran is, and that is what "the One True Islam" is, but we have chosen to define ourselves by ritualistic interpretations, rather than the philosophical message.

 

[Samudra]

You are correct that we need to criticize the "interpretation" instead of the religion.

This is off-topic, so you can let this go.

But why should religion not be criticized ? It is intellectual cowardice not to put religion under scanner - well, because the RELIGION says so! Only faith, and that is blind, is the basis of religion.

I'm earnestly attempting to arrive at an understanding of this philosophical message every other religion claims to proclaim. My rational mind refuses to believe that the any Godhead would create and sustain such an evil and suffering-ridden life system.

If only an iota of empathy and sympathy which you ironically claim is preached in books that also sanction enslavement, with all the due facade of sympathy and empathy instead of an outright rejection which is what I consider worthy of a self respecting man in this age, was left in this Godhead we'd see a much better world with zero kids killed by cancer.

Ergo the Godhead is berefit of such qualities and therefore one must question religion.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

This is off-topic, so you can let this go.

But why should religion not be criticized ? It is intellectual cowardice not to put religion under scanner - well, because the RELIGION says so! Only faith, and that is blind, is the basis of religion.

I'm earnestly attempting to arrive at an understanding of this philosophical message every other religion claims to proclaim. My rational mind refuses to believe that the any Godhead would create and sustain such an evil and suffering-ridden life system.

If only an iota of empathy and sympathy which you ironically claim is preached in books that also sanction enslavement, with all the due facade of sympathy and empathy instead of an outright rejection which is what I consider worthy of a self respecting man in this age, was left in this Godhead we'd see a much better world with zero kids killed by cancer.

Ergo the Godhead is berefit of such qualities and therefore one must question religion.

Samudra,

You can criticize "religion" if that alone is the terminology you use. It is the critique of a specific religion that crosses the line, for then you have lumped in all manner of people who follow that religion, from all ends of the spectrum.

I consider myself a Muslim, and follow Islam, however how I see my religion and interpret it is very different from how a Taliban Mullah views and interprets it. So it is a sensible distinction to make, of "interpretations of religion" vs "a religion itself".

On understanding the message - well the fact that you don't is why you consider yourself an atheist, whereas those who do understand follow their faith as they see it. Its a personal experience for every individual, and it should remain in the personal domain.

 

[Awesome]

Islam has been re-interpretted all throughout history.

The message of Islam remains constant. The interpretation of that message keeps changing.

Obviously we like to think we are moving towards the message's precise interpretation as human consciousness grows.

 

[mujahideen]

Whose interpretation so far do you think is as close to the "ideal" as possible in todays world?

Now I dont want to start a controversy here but I think the version that is interpreted and followed by the Imams of Kaaba. Now I doubt that that version has been changed. Again this is just my opinion other people have theirs.

 

[Samudra]

You can criticize "religion" if that alone is the terminology you use. It is the critique of a specific religion that crosses the line, for then you have lumped in all manner of people who follow that religion, from all ends of the spectrum.

Now if one were not to degrade to the extent some here do when it comes to Kaffirs and Yellamas precisely what is that I fail to see that grants religion more immunity than any other phenomenon on earth ?

Of course it is wrong to lump a few million people into a monolithic group when we are at criticizing a religion. But criticism we must remember is ultimately against the doctrine, the laws and way of life authorized by a so called authority or messenger of an alleged God.

I would imagine Christians of the earlier ages would have made the same argument about criticizing religion when science in Europe was beginning to bloom.

The history of alleged re-interpretation and multiple interpretation is we must admit an insult to human intelligence because we continue to subscribe to an ideology without rational thought, without proof, without common sense, without morals, justifying each and every major crime against what we perceive as humanity today and continuing to drum it into the heads of our children and our future generations. What moral cowardice it is to accept blindly that an alleged creator of all, the most benevolent, sympathetic and empathetic would put it on record that one man could become another's possession!

An outright rejection I'd think is the most appropriate course of action the moment a doctrine approves of slavery in any form and proposes submission to a higher being that rewards defectors with death.

Now I wonder what benefit shoving all pitfalls of religion under the carpet of misinterpretation brings us except that we continue to subscribe to a doctrine that is basically flawed in that it seeks to lead men to worship an alleged higher being whose actions as described by the doctrines and yarns spun by the leaders is immoral.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Your argument here, or I must say "multiple arguments", is why it is wrong to simply criticize "a religion" rather than a particular interpretation of that faith.


"Now if one were not to degrade to the extent some here do when it comes to Kaffirs and Yellamas precisely what is that I fail to see that grants religion more immunity than any other phenomenon on earth ?"

Religion shouldn't be granted that immunity. I have no quarrel with an atheist who expresses support for certain axiomatic values that the human race should be expected to apply, but I do have issues with atheists who espouse values that are derogatory towards other races, creeds and belief systems. I would make that distinction between atheists, and not lump them all into a "monolithic group" - my argument is that the same courtesy be extended towards religion.

That some who are religious do not extend that courtesy to the "Kaffir" is not just reason for an atheist or non-XYZ religious individual to follow the same path - unless you admit to stooping to the same low standards as they.

"But criticism we must remember is ultimately against the doctrine, the laws and way of life authorized by a so called authority or messenger of an alleged God."

And why are you against my doctrine of "equality, social justice, fairness and respect for all living things"? Or is it merely the fact that it is "authorized by a divine being" that you have issue with?

If the latter, I would argue again that your criticism must be directed at religion in general, rather than a specific religion, since the concept of divinity is central to almost all religions, and has nothing to do with the validity or truism of a "particular doctrine".

"I would imagine Christians of the earlier ages would have made the same argument about criticizing religion when science in Europe was beginning to bloom. "

That is not quite apt an allegory - I am not arguing that interpretations of Islam that are obscurantist and backward should be immune from criticism - I am arguing that there needs to be a distinction made between those interpretations and others that do support progress and axiomatic rights, and when criticism is simply of Islam (or any religion for that matter), the latter group gets lumped in when it shouldn't.

"The history of alleged re-interpretation and multiple interpretation is we must admit an insult to human intelligence because we continue to subscribe to an ideology without rational thought, without proof, without common sense, without morals, justifying each and every major crime against what we perceive as humanity today and continuing to drum it into the heads of our children and our future generations. What moral cowardice it is to accept blindly that an alleged creator of all, the most benevolent, sympathetic and empathetic would put it on record that one man could become another's possession!"

The "history of alleged re-interpretation and multiple interpretation" is exactly what the "secular/Western philosophical schools of thought" went through - it is exactly what Western societies went through in order for their consciousness to evolve to their current levels. Why do you see something inherently wrong with the same process taking place within religion?

The evolution/reinterpretation may be slower, because the structure of institutional religion has traditionally allowed itself to be manipulated to serve those who may be predisposed towards perpetuating cultural mores that may or may not have been in sync with the religious doctrine, but even those barriers are breaking down as Globalization and the information age allow peoples to experience that which was previously denied them, and explore outside of the restrictions they are traditionally subjected to.

The horrific religious violence of today is not simply a manifestation of some of the hateful interpretations of religion, it is also a manifestation of the rage and frustration, felt by those refusing to change, when confronted with the reality that this new age will not allow them to maintain the same control over religious philosophical evolution that was once exercised.

Just look at the symbolism of the targets - media outlets, the arts, Music, Education centers, sources that allow interaction with cultures and values from elsewhere. Even the rationale given by the perpetrators of these acts argues the same - "this is going to corrupt our youth - it will destroy our culture - it will corrupt our faith".

When you talk about "justifying crimes against humanity", I would argue that once again you cross into the area where there needs to be a distinction made between those "interpretations" that do "justify crimes against humanity", those that view history differently (and therefore do not view the events as being crimes, or any crimes having occurred), and those who do see those events as crime and condemn them.

You have with your comment lumped all of the above into the same category, of justifying crimes against humanity, when only the first group is deserving of that accusation.


"An outright rejection I'd think is the most appropriate course of action the moment a doctrine approves of slavery in any form and proposes submission to a higher being that rewards defectors with death.

Now I wonder what benefit shoving all pitfalls of religion under the carpet of misinterpretation brings us except that we continue to subscribe to a doctrine that is basically flawed in that it seeks to lead men to worship an alleged higher being whose actions as described by the doctrines and yarns spun by the leaders is immoral."

An outright rejection of what? Islam?

But I, and many others, follow an Islam that does not approve of slavery, that does not reward defectors with death, and whose doctrine as I have described earlier above can hardly be considered "immoral".

So how can you argue for an outright rejection of Islam, when my interpretation of Islam is diametrically opposed on so many levels to that of the Taliban, lets say? Condemn the particular interpretation that does subscribe to a hateful intolerant doctrine, condemn those who view it as a literal and static set of "do's and don't s" - but do not attribute to me values and beliefs that neither I nor my religion (my interpretation) endorse.

 

[MIG_ACE]

Now I dont want to start a controversy here but I think the version that is interpreted and followed by the Imams of Kaaba. Now I doubt that that version has been changed. Again this is just my opinion other people have theirs.

That's precisely the point isn't it? When everybody has his/her own interpretation who decides which one is "ideal"?

 

[mujahideen]

That's precisely the point isn't it? When everybody has his/her own interpretation who decides which one is "ideal"?

We need to have an open discussion on this topic. I mean it is probably not a topic I am capable of talking about, because quiet frankly I am no religious scholar. I just say what I know.