Ideological resurgence of Islam By: Raja Masroor Hassan Qazi

The “traditionalist” Ulema and the “modern” Orientalists hold an essentially static view of Islam and interpret change and innovations produced by social and economic forces as impingements on established, therefore ordained, religious standards.

The Islamic civilization is the only one with which the territorial, religious, and cultural boundaries of the West have fluctuated for fourteen centuries. Islam’s relationship with the West has been continuous, frequently intimate, marked by protracted and violent confrontations and fruitful, though often forgotten, collaboration.

This unique history of the West’s encounter with a non-Western civilization undoubtedly left on both sides a heritage of prejudice and resentment. Yet, in this pattern of hostility, there were periods of accommodation. While our cultures were traditional, agrarian, and medieval, there existed a structural symmetry between them which accounted for a degree of equality in the exchange of ideas as well as products. Winners and losers manufactured and used the same weapons, traded in comparable goods, debated on familiar intellectual premises. There was a certain congruence of class interests and shared attitudes among the aristocrats, craftsmen, traders, and scholars.

A historically rigged intellectual tradition, then, continues to dominate Western perspectives on Islam. Its impact on Muslims too has been considerable. It has made the traditionalist Ulema more obdurate and closed to new methods of critical inquiry. It has led educated Muslims to neglect substantive contributions of Western scholarship to theological ideas and historical interpretation. Above all, it has stunted the creative and critical impulses of modernist Muslims by activating their defensive instincts.

In writing about Islam for a largely Western audience, a Muslim faces hard choices between explanation and exploration. One’s instinct is to explain the errors, deny the allegations, and challenge the overwhelmingly malevolent representations of Muslim history, ideals, and aspirations.

It is commonly asserted that in Islam, unlike in Christianity and other religions, there is no separation of religion and politics. In strict textual and formal legal terms, this may be true. But this standard generalization is not helpful in comprehending Muslim political praxis either historically or contemporaneously. In its most fundamental sense, politics involves a set of active links, both positive and negative, between civil society and institutions of power. In this sense, there has been little separation, certainly none in our time, between religion and politics anywhere. For example, Hinduism played an important role in the ideological and organizational development of the Indian national movement. Mahatma Gandhi’s humanitarian and idealistic principles of passive resistance and non-violence drew on Hindu precepts like Ahimsa. The Mahatma was challenged by fundamentalist religious parties like the Arya Samaj and the Hindu Mahasabha, and died at the bands of a Hindu fundamentalist political assassin. In Southeast Asia, including Vietnam, Buddhism and Buddhist institutions have been a potent force on both sides of the political divide.

In the United States, where the two major political parties have become increasingly indistinguishable on the basic issues of war and peace, the Christian churches have emerged as the primary platforms of political discourse, disputations, and even militancy. In a narrower perspective, the relationship of politics and religion may be discussed in terms of the links between religion and state power.

The political quietism of the Ulema has not been shared by all sections of the Muslim intelligentsia, and by no means by the majority of the Islamic community. There has, in fact, been a perennial tension between the moral imperatives of Muslim culture and the holders of power. It is difficult to recall a widely-known Muslim saint who did not collide with state power. Popular belief may have exaggerated the actual confrontations with contemporary rulers of men like the Persian saint, Mevlana Jalaluddin Rumi (1207-1273)-best known to the West as the founder of the mystic order of “whirling dervishes” the Indian Khwaja Muinuddin Chishti (l 142-1236), and the Moroccan saint, Sidi Lahsen Lyusi (1631-1691). But in this case, popular belief is the more significant indicator of political culture. It is equally important to emphasize that in each instance the collision was not incidental, a mere adding of lustre to the growth of a legend. Rather, it was a principal landmark in the making of a saint, in distinguishing the exceptional Muslim from the ordinary. In this conception of sainthood there is an admission, on the one hand, of the difficulty of achieving an alignment of piety to power and an affirmation, on the other hand, of a Muslim’s obligation to confront the excesses of political authority.

Historically, then, the Islamic community has lived in separate polities ruled by a wide variety of temporal authorities ranging from tribal chieftains to modern republics. These secular political entities have been ethnically, linguistically, and often religiously diverse. They have been subject to constant change brought about by dynastic challengers and popular insurrections and, occasionally, by somewhat religiously motivated reformist movements. Given its heterogeneity, observers of the Muslim world are impressed by the evidence of unity in Islamic peoples’ cultural, social, and political life. There is evidence also of a strong Islamic affinity across territorial and linguistic divides. This sense of solidarity has been based not merely on religious beliefs and practices but on a shared consciousness of history, and a commonality of values. In this respect, the Islamic civilization was, and to a lesser extent, remains inherently political. The values and linkages that defined the unity of the historically diverse Muslim community have been political in the deepest sense of the word. It should suffice here to mention only a few factors that produced, over the centuries, the patterns of unity – in – diversity – what scholars have called the “mosaic” of Muslim cultures.

In discussing the role of religion in contemporary Muslim politics, four points should be emphasized. First, the contemporary crisis of Muslim societies is without a parallel in Islamic history. Second, throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries the role of Islam in politics has varied in time and place. Third, the evidence of continuity with the patterns of the past has been striking. Fourth, in the 1980s, the trend is toward the growth of fundamentalist, neo-totalitarian Muslim movements. The phenomenon is contrary to the political culture and historical traditions of the Muslim majority. The still limited but growing appeal of the fundamentalist parties is associated with the traumas of Muslim political life, and the absence of viable alternatives to the existing state of affairs. A brief discussion of these points follows.

When a civilization reaches a point of fundamental crisis and perceptible decline, we see three responses. One may identify these as: (a) restorationist, (b) reconstructionist, and (c) pragmatist.

The restorationist is one that seeks the restoration of the past in its idealized form. This is the thrust of fundamentalism, of such movements as the Muslim Brotherhood in the Arab world, the Jamaat-i-Islami in Pakistan, the Sharekat Islam in Indonesia, and the Islamic government of post-revolution Iran. So far, these have been minority movements in the Muslim world. Without an exception, they have failed to attract the large majority of workers, peasants, and the intelligentsia. This was true even in Iran where the shift toward the current fundamentalist ideology began after the seizure of power.

The reconstructionist is one that seeks to blend tradition with modernity in an effort to reform society. This is the thrust of the modernist schools which have, intellectually and ideologically, dominated the Muslim world since the middle of the nineteenth century. The most influential writers and thinkers of modern Islam – Jamaluddin Afghani, Shibli Nomani, Syed Ameer Ali, Muhammad Abduh, Muhammad lqbal, Tahir Haddad, among others – have belonged to this school of thought; in political life their influence had been considerable until the rise of military regimes in many Muslim countries. This was true also in Iran where until after the Shah’s fall no significant group of Ulema had openly challenged the eminent Ayatullah Naini’s formulation in support of the democratic and constitutionalist movement (1904-1905), a position that was endorsed by the leading theologians of the Shia sect of Islam. For five decades, successive generations of Iranian religious leaders had reaffirmed this position. During the 1977-78 uprising against the Shah, all the politically prominent clerics of Iran, including Ayatullah Khomeini, had claimed to favor a pluralistic polity and parliamentary government. The first appointment by Khomeini of a social democratic government with Dr. Mehdi Bazargan as Prime Minister had seemed to confirm this claim. Above all, it should be noted that the mobilization of the Iranian revolution toward Islam had been the work of such lay Muslim intellectuals as Dr. Mehdi Bazargan, Jalal Ale- Ahmad and Abul Hasan Bani Sadr. The most important populizers of Islamic idealism were Ali Shariati, a progressive layman, and the Ayatullah Mahmud Taleghani, a radical religious leader. Although the Ayatullah Khomeini had been an important opposition figure since 1963, he was far from being the central figure he became in 1978. In January 1978, as the revolution began to gather momentum, the Shah’s regime did Khomeini the honor of singling him out for its most publicized and personal attack. From this point on, he became the counterpoint to the hated but central figure of the Shah. An explanation of his meteroic rise to charismatic power lies in the complex character of Iran’s disorganic development, which lent one of the objectively most advanced revolutions of history a millenarian dimension.

The pragmatist denotes an attitude of viewing religious requirements as being largely unrelated to the direct concerns of states and governments and of dealing with the affairs of the state in terms of the political and economic imperatives of contemporary life. The regulation of religious life is left to the civil society and to private initiatives. This approach has not been opposed by the reconstructionist school of intellectuals. As discussed earlier, it parallels the historical Muslim experience; as such, it is accepted both by the masses and the majority of the Ulema. Thus, wherever popular attitudes have been tested in open and free elections, pragmatist political parties and secular programs have gained overwhelming victories over their fundamentalist adversaries. In this realm of real politics one finds the resonances of the historical patterns discussed earlier. A few examples follow.

The trauma of Muslim life today is augmented by the fact that the resource-rich, strategically important heartlands of Islam are still subject to conquest and colonization. For the Palestinians, the era of decolonization opened in 1948 with the loss of the greater part of their ancient homeland. Now, they are being systematically dispossessed from its remnant, the West Bank and Gaza. In Lebanon, the refugees who fled in 1948, mostly from the Galilee, are being terrorized in Israel’s pursuit of its policy of “dispersion.” Jerusalem, a holy city and touchstone of Arab cultural achievements, has been unilaterally annexed, as has been the Golan Heights. Since the creation of the United Nations, only three of its members lost territories without being able to regain them. All three were Arab states. Only at the cost of betraying others and of isolating itself from its Arab/Islamic milieu did Egypt reclaim in 1982 the territories lost in 1967. Now Lebanon has joined the list of occupied countries; its ancient cities – Tyre, Sidon, Nabatiyyeh – are ruins. Beirut, the cultural capital of the Arab world, became the first capital city in the world whose televised destruction was watched by the world week after week. No Arab, no Muslim government budged except to suppress popular support at home. Their lucrative business with the United States the sole sustainer of Israel continued as usual. Never before had been so tragic the links between wealth and weakness, material resources and moral bankruptcy.  Never before in the history of Islamic peoples had there been so total a separation or political power and civil society.

In the breach there is a time bomb. When the moral explosion of the masses occurs, it will undoubtedly have a reference to the past. But its objective shall be the future. The past is very present in the post-colonial Muslim societies. That it is a fractured past invaded by a new world of free markets, shorn of its substance and strength, incapable of assuring the continuity of communal life does not make it less forceful. Its power derives from the tyranny of contemporary realities, and the seeming absence of viable alternatives. For the majority of Muslim peoples, the experienced alternative to the past is a limbo of foreign occupation and dispossession, of alienation from the land, of life in shanty-towns and refugee camps, of migration into foreign lands, and, at best, of permanent expectancy. Leaning on and yearning for the restoration of an emasculated, often idealized past is one escape from the limbo; striking out, in protest and anger, for a new revolutionary order is another. Occasionally, as in Iran, the two responses are merged. More frequently, they are separated in time but historically, organically, linked. Hence, in our time, religiously-oriented millenarian movements have tended to be harbingers of revolution.

The “hopes” that underlie popular support of religious movements in our time, Islamic or otherwise, are not really of the “past.” The slogans and images of religio-political movements are invariably those of the past, but the hopes that are stimulated by them are intrinsically existential hopes, induced and augmented by the contemporary crisis, in this case, of the Muslim world. The often publicized ideological resurgence of Islam (social scientists and the American media spoke as much of “resurgent” Buddhism in the 1960s) is a product of excessive, uneven modernization and the failure of governments to safeguard national sovereignty or to satisfy basic needs. In the “transitional” Third World societies, one judges the present morally, with reference to the past, to inherited values, but materially in relation to the future. Therein lies a new dualism in our social and political life; the inability or unwillingness to deal with it entails disillusionment, terrible costs, and possible tragedy. One mourns Iran, laments Pakistan, fears for Egypt.

Resurgence of Muslims by Muslim Murtaza

Muslim all over the world are currently facing multiple crises both from within and from without. On the one hand Muslim states have to face the extremist and misguided elements from within; on the other hand they have to safeguard their territorial integrity everywhere from external threats and have to protect their image and interests around the globe wherever their citizens are living. The Muslim names have been associated with militancy, intolerance and suicidal attacks world over. One of the most important reasons behind these problems is that the Muslim educational institutions have failed to deliver after the great havoc brought by the savage attacks of Mongols under Halaku Khan. In fact these institutions have never recovered from this blow even after the passage of centuries. Not only Muslims, but other Eastern nations, with the exceptions of a few, are also looking towards the west in order to avail from the qualitative institutions. Although there is no harm in availing from the wisdom of these institutions but ultimately the establishment of qualitative indigenous institutions is essential in order to prosper in the modern times as no nation can make progress based upon borrowed ideas.

A major problem facing Muslims since last century is that democracy is not being allowed to function in these countries. Wherever the democratic setups seem to go against the western imperialist interests, the governments are overthrown with the help of pro-western dictators and generals. The west fears that if democracy would be allowed to function in these countries freely, then they would not protect western interests. A case in point is that of Iran, when Musaddaq government nationalized the oil companies in 1950s it was overthrown by active US involvement and manipulation. Another example is that of Turkey; whenever Islamist parties seem to gaining ground in legislatures, the army or courts are instigated to overthrow and ban these parties. Yet another example is that of Sudan where Islamist party was not allowed to form the government even after winning the elections. Whereas the west advocates freedom of expression and democracy worldwide, they continue to support and protect the autocratic rulers of Arab states because of their own interests. On the one hand it is being said that Islamists in Iran, Afghanistan and elsewhere do not believe in freedom of expression and true democracy, on the other hand secularism and so-called liberalism are forcibly imposed upon Muslims. Although one can certainly not allow Islamists to impose their ideologies upon other people forcibly against their wishes, the same must be said for secular and liberal elements. No one should be forced to wear burqa or Niqab, but similarly no one should be forced to abandon burqa or Niqab (Government of France has recently banned Hijab and those wearing Hijab are facing tough time in Turkey for quite some time). Recently the court in Bangladesh has banned the Islamist parties from taking part in politics and the government has banned the books of Jamat Islami founder Abul Aala Moudoodi. These measures create wrong impression and force the people to adopt extremist approaches. The Islamists as well as the secular and liberal elements need to be tolerant of the ideas and beliefs of one another. The Islamist parties like Jamat Islami and Muslim Brotherhood should not be persecuted by force; rather they should be encouraged to participate in the democratic process. It would cause the evolution in their approach as is evident from the politics of ruling Islamist party in Turkey. Moreover, Turkey should be made the member of EU as denial of membership on the basis of its Islamic identity in spite of its liberal measures may one day lead it back to Islamic Restorationist view.

The imperialistic policies of west have caused great harm to themselves and the Muslims as well as non-Muslims. They trained and used the so-called Mujahidin against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan and in other areas of the world when it suited to their interests but the same Mujahidin have now turned against the western imperialism. It goes without saying that the approach of these so-called Mujahidin or militants is absolutely wrong and cannot be justified on any grounds. Nobody, be they militants or Americans, should be allowed to attack and kill the civilians in markets, schools, hospitals and let alone mosques and churches. These militants should be punished severely but at the same time the sympathies for them should be minimized by addressing the real problems and ensuring the prosperity because when the real problems are not solved amicably then the masses are frustrated and many people resort to desperate measures.

Another problem is that Muslims have allowed the growth of priest like hierarchy among them to be guided for spiritual matters and basic rituals. Whereas, at least every educated person should seek to posses the basic understanding of the Holy Quran and the simple matters of religion in order to avoid being misled by traditional greedy mullahs; instead majority of Muslims are ignorant of these basic things and are reliant on Mullahs even for such mundane things as marriage and divorce. During the early times of Islam, the secular as well as religious teachings were taught simultaneously but with the advent of modern schools and colleges the two have been separated between seminaries and western type schools. Moreover, those possessing religious education are devoid of modern education and those educated in modern means are totally ignorant of religious teachings thereby a wide gulf exists between the approaches of these two groups ultimately causing an eternal difference of ideologies between the two. Even though it is the personal choice of every person whether to act upon religious teachings or not, but at least an educated person must seek to gain some basic religious knowledge so as to be free of exploitations of so-called monopolists of the Heavens.

Regarding the Muslim history, it must be said that the history of Umayyad, Abbasids, Turks, Mughals and others should not be equated as the history of Islam but it should be treated as the history of Muslims and the same should be studied and treated just like that of other rulers during these times. Islam can neither be credited nor be blamed for the deeds of Muslim rulers even if they used the name of Islam to serve their own interests. History of Islam is something totally different from the history of Muslims. 

It is about time for the Muslims to start focusing on their present realities instead of eulogizing their past glories. They need an introspective approach and they should start owning their shortcomings and failures by eradicating their internal weaknesses and evils rather than just pointing out fingers at other nations and blaming them for all their ills and evils. This type of rationalization misleads the nations away from the solutions of the problems dooming them towards the eternal disgrace. The other nations may exploit the internal weaknesses and loopholes rather than working in vacuum and creating problems anew. So if the internal weaknesses are done away with, nobody would dare to exploit a nation. Given the present nation-state system, Muslims should focus upon their own countries and only then they might ultimately be in a position to advocate the cause of other oppressed Muslim and non-Muslims.  

The Muslims as well as the non-Muslims need to work out peaceful and accommodating worldwide policies for all religions and nations.  They need to exhibit tolerance and respect for other cultures and nations while adopting the good points from across the continents and avoiding to blindly follow every other innovation introduced by others whether practicable in the local environments or not. Peaceful coexistence is the requirement of modern times and dialogue of civilizations (suggested by former Iranian President Mohammad Khatmi) is needed instead of clash of civilizations. To promote and ensure such spirit the Middle East crisis may be solved by considering the Abdullah Formula seriously. This continuing problem has led to many wars and a lot of bloodshed and extremism worldwide. The Holy places may be placed under the control of United Nations and access to these places should be allowed to people belonging to all religions and nations. It is sorry to note that the successive governments of USA after President Bill Clinton have neglected to accord due importance to this bleeding problem. The realistic and early solution of Middle East issue would pave the way for long lasting peace and harmony throughout the world.

Islam does not offer a particular system of government for all times, rather it provides the general principles for the masses as well as for the rulers to adhere to in their overall conduct and lives. Even the four pious Caliphs were not chosen in a single manner therefore the details of the political system and the selection or election of the leaders is left open to be decided in the light of prevalent conditions and environment. It would be useless and futile to attempt to establish a unified worldwide system of Muslim Caliphate presently because there is a deep nationalistic and racial consciousness among the Arabs, Iranians, Turks and other Muslims clouding over their Muslim identity; the impotence, irrelevance and uselessness of OIC may be cited here as an example to elaborate the point. The efforts to restore past glory in shape of Islamic Caliphate are not practical enough. The emphasis of Muslim states should be placed upon alliances borne of mutual interests and principle-based standings instead of trying to establish worldwide Islamic Caliphate.

Presently western nations are overemphasizing the myths of Muslim saints and Sufis and downplaying that of orthodox religious scholars. During the history of Muslims, not only the Sufi saints but the orthodox scholars also raised their voice against the tyrannies of the rulers. Although peaceful coexistence is desired and should be promoted among Muslims as well as non-Muslims but it is not suitable to encourage all excesses in the name of Sufism. The USA is on record to have allocated funds for the promotion of Sufism in Pakistan and elsewhere. The western nations have overemphasized the perceived threat of militant Wahabi view of Islam and to counter that view they are promoting so-call Sufism that better suits their interests. Such an artificial approach would aggravate the situation as when the masses would realize that they are being led away from the true teachings of Islam in the name of Sufism, they would hit back and would further harden their approach therefore what is needed is that Sufism should be left on its own to flourish on the basis of its essence instead of imposing it by way of western money.

To conclude the discussion it can be said that Muslims cannot make progress until and unless they establish and institutionalize qualitative educational and scientific centers that can produce original thinkers in every field of the life. They should stop blindly following western ideas or rejecting them outright. What is needed is that western knowledge should be utilized productively to move forward from there and to start producing better ideas in our institutes. Economic growth and well being is another very important requisite of attaining respectful position among the nations. Muslims must seek to productively utilize their human and economic resources in order to become free of dependency on west. Muslims need leaders like Sir Syed Ahmed Khan, Mohammad Ali Jinnah, Kamal Ataturk and Mahathir Mohammad to lead them forward.

Islam,muslims and west by Hameedullah

here is need to understand the History of Islam and its origin and geographical impact on the people of Arabia who introduce new religion to other world. There is no second idea that Islam is most practical religion. It covers all dimensions of human life including religious, social, economic and political. It has been observed that that most of Muslims give more importance to religious side of Islam in modern time but totally ignore other dimensions. Western thinkers and philosophers has wrote so many books with political motivations in their mind. The basic problem with west is that they compare 1400 years ago situation with modern principles of ethics and laws that is just joke and nothing else when we logically look into matter.
Lets look at the history of Arabs who are people where Islam emerged first. Geographical conditions of Arabs has also impacted the shape of Muslim world which has nothing to do with basic philosophy of Islam. They first colonized other nation on the name of Islam and created large kingdoms and hereditary empires which are said to be Islamic but in reality there was nothing which could be called Islamic. From ummyads to Abbasids empire , one can not justify their attacks on Islamic principles because they served themselves not Islam.
Current socio-political environment of middle east is best depiction of ignorance of Arab world. They are dictators , brutally victimize their own people like Sadam in Iraq, Hussaini Mubarak in Egypt, Iran and few other countries. Saudi Arabia is one of major source of funding for Taliban ( Please refer Cristina lamb book on Afghanistan) who redefined the brutal face of Muslim.
West has been trying to get benefits from all situations in their own interests. once Taliban were good guys when they were fighting with Russia but now they are terrorists although their interpretation can not be justified on any ground or logic. after all they are people who have changed the world opinion in very bad sense towards Muslim. They have their own version of Islam which is very different from others. They believe in force but Islam is not religion of force but it teaches love and mutual harmony for other faiths too.
Islamic concept of democracy is not which western democracy based on one man one vote. That was democracy based on shura or grand council of intellectuals from all walks of life. It is commonly percieved that Islamic Shura means groups of religious people but one has to read the history of Islam not history of Muslims which is very much controversial and distorted.
Modern age of reason demands some basic changes in Muslim world in terms of economic structure of society, social interaction, legal means and interpretations of issues, Government structure and re-connection of logic, science and technology with social and cultural practices in Muslim world. I agree with that idea that West has monopolised the muslim affairs for their own intersts but we should not forget our ouwn ignorance. we are backward in all walks of life including, education, infrastructure, institutions and concept of Umma.
There is long path of struggle for common man to change the perception of west regarding his culture and faith. It is not only muslims who has been victim of western development but there are others who are worse affected like African nations, Sub-continent. There was popular slogan in 16th and 17th century that either blacks are human or not. In 18th and early 19th century whight man's burden theory, on which basis whole colonial process was justified by west that we are going to civilize them.
Basically It has been natural law that weak and oppressed has been victim of powerful and developed in modern sense. We need to change the conditions of Muslim world first then would be able to compete with other nations. There is lack of unity in Muslim world and Arab nationalism has further deprived the whole scenario in the favor of west. OIC is nothing but just meeting place and shaking hands with each other.

I am Voice of Voiceless

I am an ordinary men who thing like a common men on the earth. I am not some thing intellectual or writer or possess foreign degree. I am voice of voiceless and language of those people who can not speak due to various restrictions. I am desire of those, whose desired has been stopped, assassinated with different socio-religious norms .

my wishes are same which my people wish. I love because my land has taught me to be loved. I am peacefull because my faith's basic requirement is that one should be peaceful. I love every human because I am also human. I listen music because it has no religion and area but it possess universal qualities.

I love those farmers who cultivate for others. I love those tree growers who does not mean what is climate change but they benefit us and we modern people call them illiterate and nomads. I respect all those people who dedicate themselves for the cause of poor, vulnerable and voiceless. I can not separate my identity from every man and women who live on this planet and believe in mutual respect and love of all.