Enlightened and moderate Islam
 

The Qur’aan and Sunnah, the twin sources of Islam, are unalterable. This means that all efforts to change Islam would have to rely on interpretation of these sources. Everyone knows this, including those who are now attempting to erect a "moderate and enlightened" version of a faith that by its own definition is a middle path. Given this self-definition of Islam, rooted in the Qur’aan itself, one wonders what the meaning of the new slogan of an "enlightened" and "moderate" Islam could be. What are its basic contours, and how does it differ from the Islam revealed fourteen hundred years ago?
 

These pertinent questions never seem to arise in the minds of those who call for this new moderate and enlightened Islam, whether they live in Washington, DC or Islamabad. To be sure, their demand is well understood. What they mean is simple enough: they would like to see an Islam that is primarily the concern of individual lives; that is to say, a religion practiced by individual believers in their homes or in mosques solely as the means to attain personal salvation. This version of Islam would have little to do with the collective life of the community of believers (the Ummah) and would certainly be indifferent to the brazen acts of cruelty and gross injustice upon which a new social, political and economic order has been built.
 

It would certainly be a religion that would not be the source of guidance and inspiration for resistance against aggression. In other words, the entire political foundation of Islam would be removed and the Qur’aanic terms like Jihad would be understood only in their limited sense as personal struggle against some nebulous inner conflict. It is also understood that the propagators of "moderate Islam" would like to see a radical recasting of the entire Muslim history in order to secure their formulation by eliminating or obscuring events and personalities which continue to inspire the contemporary men and women who defy the injustice inherent in the new world order built upon the wreckage of the colonies that emerged in the post-World War II era.
 

This "moderate Islam" calls for reconciliation, rather than defiance and opposition, as the route to resolving the problems imposed upon the Muslim world by the Western aggression. But if these words were to mean anything substantial, they need to specifically state what is meant by reconciliation in real terms. How can the aggrieved, the oppressed and the disempowered offer reconciliation?
 

There are two aspects of the contemporary conflict. The first has to do with Muslims and the second with their faith. However, just as they always blur the difference between science and technology, the empty rhetoric of OIC-brand institutions and generals and politicians of all hues and colours never keep the essential distinction between Islam and Muslims in view while formulating their half-baked versions of a new Islam. It should be clear to all that Muslims do not possess Islam; no one does. As a set of beliefs, revealed for all humanity, Islam remains a meta-historical faith with a definite worldview. This aspect of the conflict stems from the fact that this Islamic worldview is fundamentally opposed to the worldview that has emerged in the modern West during the last four centuries. Based on the ultimate triumph of human reason, the modern Western worldview differs from that of Islam in numerous foundational respects such as the origin, destiny and main concerns of human life on this planet.
 

This, however, should not have been the basis of conflict. After all, there have always been numerous philosophies and belief systems that have existed in human history, often side by side. The root of the present conflict is the fact that both modern Western civilisation and Islam have claims to universality, and the modern West has achieved the means to impose its claim on the rest of the world through naked aggression; this is the real root of the conflict: two opposing worldviews and belief systems equally insistent about their universality, with one of them attempting to impose itself on the rest of the world in the most aggressive manner ever witnessed in human history.
 

The champions of the new Islam would like to enter into some kind of bargain with the West on this aspect and accept some parts of their worldview in exchange for their acceptance of some parts of Islam. But this is precisely what is impossible. Recall that the Makkans had offered a similar deal to the Prophet of Islam, may Allah’s peace and blessings be upon him. And it was rejected, not by the Prophet, but Allah Himself in the clearest manner. Ignoring this impossibility, the propagators of moderate Islam would like to achieve this reconciliation through Ta’wiil (interpretation) of the source material to suit their ends. This impossibility imposes certain inherent limitations on this enterprise, based on the fact that Islam is not a religion put together in a piecemeal fashion; rather, it is a complete belief system that accepts no foreign element. Its tightly knit set of beliefs weaves individual lives with that of the community in a seamless manner. This built-in mechanism, which has protected Islam from becoming a docile faith, cannot be destroyed simply by reinterpretation of the sources.
 

This is not to say that interpretation does not matter. After all, there is a large body of impressive literature on the two primary sources of Islam that is, in this particular sense, nothing but interpretation. Whether it is the Qur’aanic exegesis or works dealing with various aspects of the life of the Prophet of Islam, may Allah’s peace and blessings be upon him, interpretation abounds in Islamic literature. This large body of literature has, however, never been able to replace the original sources; whenever a believer is faced with crucial choices, he or she always turns to the primary sources, rather than the interpretive corpus. These primary sources do not accept any reduction of faith to the sphere of the personal. This, then, is the cul-de-sac which all efforts to erect the dummy of a so-called "moderate and enlightened" Islam face?
 

This does not, however, mean that these efforts have no impact on the Muslim society. To be sure, these attempts have already produced tremendous results: restaurants selling pork chops in Kabul, wine shops in Karachi, gambling dens in the Gulf States and night clubs in Amman are indicators of the kind of polity that is being built through an "enlightened and moderate" Islam. Social implications of state policies have great impact on individual lives. Gambling dens, wine shops and nightclubs promote a particular kind of culture, just as mosques and madaris for learning Qur’aanic sciences promote a certain kind of culture. Of course, the argument being offered by the promoters of this culture is that no one is forcing any individual to patronise gambling dens or night clubs, but this is not a sufficient argument because in an Islamic polity, the state is responsible for promoting what is pleasing to the Creator and what has been revealed to humanity as the best way of life. When a state allows the opposite, it becomes a party to the promotion of something other than Islam.