|
The Dilemma
Of The American-Muslim - Understanding Of Islamic History Not
Of Medieval History: Examining Theocracy And Liberty
Posted By Hakim Abdullah hakim.abdullah19@gmail.com
I am an American by birth, and my views
though painstakingly shaped and molded to represent my
understanding of the "Ideal Muslim" are in fact also
influenced by my American upbringing. And so, when I say to
you "On Theocracy and Liberty" keep in mind that the
lens from which I speak is that of an American-born Muslim. As
it were, during my college years when questioned on the
position of Islamic Law (Shari'a), I would get upset
and feel hurt and under-attack, but that was mainly because I
didn't have any kind of defense. Like many Muslims I was not
knowledgeable of Arab and Muslim history beyond the 4th
Rightly Guided Caliph.
This search lead me to argument after
frustrating argument because I could find no non-Muslims - at
the time - to stand in defense of anything Islamic! It was
shocking, because it seemed to me that if all of my non-Muslim
colleagues rejected my core beliefs than what do they think of
me! Nevertheless, I came to accept the dilemma but what made
the most significant impact on my acceptance of this dilemma -
the dilemma of the American-Muslim - is an understanding of
Islamic history, but not medieval history, we are talking more
about history between the late 18th (Romanticism) and mid 20th
centuries (Modernism). It was during this period that many of
the problems we face in our present-day society originated,
which brings me to the topic of this article.
One discussion in particular, stayed with me for a long time
and prompted a new interest in me about the Arab-Muslim World.
The question was concerning Theocracies, like that of Sa'udi
Arabia and how I feel about the effect it plays on Islam. How
does a theocracy effect liberty? But more importantly, how is
Islam, the religion - which was instituted to bring certain
Liberties to the oppressed and enslaved - effected by
statehood and the governing policy which becomes the
environmental and conditional standard of the Muslims living
under it. In other words, it seems that like any religious
expression, Islam reflects the conditions which Muslims are
subject to. For instance Khaled Abou El Fadl suggests that,
"[T]hose growing up in despotic
cultures will tend to understand their religious faith in
ways that affirm their authoritarian experience. The same is
true for people who grew up within a pluralist and
democratic cultural experience; they will tend to understand
their religion in ways that affirm tolerance, personal
choice, and greater individual freedom." (K. Abou El
Fadl, The Great Theft: Wrestling Islam from the
Extremists)
So much that for many Americans and other
Westerners, Islam as a religion and Muslim's religious
expression is identified with those who are most visible to
them. Which is interesting, because those most visible to
Americans and other Westerners are not the Muslims in their
own communities, but those of foreign societies - gaining
attention through the popular and media-frenzied mainstream -
who incidentally, are often at the center of some conflict as
the cause or victim. And despite claims by President Bush
saying that Islam is,
"...a faith based upon peace and
love and compassion..."
Concluding that Islam is a religion
committed to,
"...morality and learning and
tolerance..."
Conversely, the popular non-Muslim opinion is that Muslims are a threat, this has been discussed, debated and polled since the "War on Terror" began. Though assuming Muslims a threat is an ignorant and hypocritical position, I can certainly understand. Yet I will stand to affirm my disagreement and suggest that Islam and Muslims are not a threat and has never been a threat to the security of this country until a confusion came between statehood and Islam, and herein lies the problem at hand.
For example, in many opinions around the
world, Islam has become synonymous with Sa'udi Arabia's
religious expression. But the truth of the matter is that
Sa'udis implementation of Islam in statehood, society and
culture is specific to Sa'udi Arabia. And since Sa'udi Arabia
- whose wealth and religious expression is part and parcel
with its statehood and policy making - is so influential, it
then becomes a model and archetype which is then used to
generalize Muslims everywhere, leaving little room for
assumptions outside of Muslims as a homogeneous group which
reflect the Sa'udi model.
But this is incorrect thinking, in fact historically, Islam had a very unique governing system where the Islamic Schools of Jurisprudence - who were publicly and not state funded - by way of the 'ulema supported Islamic thought in various forms which included a powerful liberal movement by jurists like Muhammad al-San'ani and more well known scholars like Rashid
Rida.
Comparatively, this system created a system of checks and balances that could rival the efficiency of the U.S. Senate. It should be noted that the religion of Islam, its fundamental values; intellectual framings and social infrastructure, in effect brought clarity and freedom from psychological and cultural trappings of Arabia during the pre-Islamic period (jahiliyyah). It did this by declaring and supporting individual liberty despite race, religion and gender, yet unifying these groups under a codified ideal among the community.
On the other hand the Sa'udi model declares
and aims at restriction and governance using the power of the
state to create a standard as suggested by Abou El Fadl,
"According to this model, which became very influential among puritanical Muslims, the newly intrusive powers of the state restricted personal liberty and forced its unwilling subjects to abide by a very specific code of conduct, all in the name of God's law."
(K. Abou El Fadl, The Great Theft: Wrestling Islam from the
Extremists)
In effect these conditions between Islam
and the influential Sa'udi State have perhaps made the Sa'udi
model - the restrictive, controlled and literalist Sa'udi
model of Islam - the standard for millions of people, Muslims
and non-Muslims alike, all around the world. And though I
believe in Shari'a I don't think that a theocracy
implemented by a static monarchy is the optimum implementation
of Shari'a. In fact, I think the Sa'udi model not
only restricts Muslim society but Shari'a itself
preventing the powerfully dynamic potential which is inherent
in the religion of Islam. There is no need to reject a
political position achieved by way of Islamic values and
terminology. More specifically, there is no need to denounce
Shari'a in order to accept liberty, what needs to occur is an
understanding that Islam is not homogeneous and that various
political factions exist within Islam - just as in secular
politics - which are currently be! ing lumped together as
Islamism or political Islam.
Therefore, I agree that ones societal
upbringing is reflected in their religious expression as
suggested by Khaled Abou El Fadl. What this means for Muslims
is that Muslims who have grown up in a pluralist society must
be more visible in order to shift the current identification
of Muslims from the Sa'udi model to a more realistic and
global model, reflective of the greater community of Muslims.
|
