March 10, 2006

An Impasse

Muzaffar Iqbal

Islam is Qur'an and Hadith, two texts. Texts do not speak; they need to be interpreted. We do not agree with Taliban-style interpretation; we want to interpret these sources liberally. This, in short, is the argument of Muslim “liberals”.

The Mullahs’ response to the liberals’ Islam is, by and large, a vociferous verdict of kufr—and that is where the matter ends.

The two camps do not communicate, but merely shout at each other. Between these two extremes, a large majority of Muslims keep on "living" Islam as they have received it through sources no one bothers to investigate.

Pitted against each other, and without any desire to engage in a constructive discourse, liberals and not-so-liberals come from all walks of life and academic disciplines. The same battle is fought over and over in academic circles, conferences, seminars, books, newspaper articles, and on electronic media. Hardened by the violent events that characterize our times, these two groups of Muslims are, in fact, creating a lot of confusion in the minds of ordinary people who do not know how to cognitively evaluate the positions held by either side. In the absence of such empowerment, they are left to their emotive responses which often—and not surprisingly—provide them the right answers and tell them whom to trust and whom not to trust. This is the strength of their faith. Like the farmer who teaches the Prince how to live his faith in Tolstoy's Anna Karenina, the simple Muslim folk have their hearts in the right place and this serves them best in times like ours when the educated are utterly confused about matters of religion.

What is the way out of this impasse? How can liberals and not-so-liberals come to some kind of mutual understanding about what Islam is? This, if not for their own sake, then for the sake of millions of ordinary Muslims who are forced to watch this ongoing battle on a daily basis.

Enough time and enough energy has already been wasted on the subject. There is hardly any need to restate the premises of both sides. What is needed is, in fact, an impassionate and reasoned discourse in which the two sides engage with hearts not hardened by verdicts of kufr or accusations of being stuck in the seventh century. What is really needed is an engagement of a new kind in which the discourse is recast, a new vocabulary is invented, and a new methodology is evolved. This can only happen if both sides realize the urgent need for communication.

For those who are sincere and understand the implications of the on-going war of ideas, time has come to break the deadlock. But before answers can emerge, the questions have to be restated in terms acceptable to both sides. For all practical proposes, the burden of restating the questions in terms which could be understood by the not-so-liberals is on the shoulders of the intellectuals who have learned the tools of breaking through the web of various secondary and tertiary level arguments to reach the primary premises. There are a few such individuals in both camps.

The basic arguments advanced by the liberals rest on their claim that Islam is two texts: the Qur'an and the Hadith. There is a problem with this approach; Islam is not the two texts, the Qur'an and Hadith, but the Qur'an and Sunnah. Sunnah is not only the verbal communications of the Prophet—may Allah's peace and blessings be upon him—but also his actual deeds, his way of walking, greeting, waking up, sleeping, traveling—in short, his way of living. For millions of ordinary Muslims, it is this Sunnah that is the real source of Islam. Unable to even read the Qur'an, let alone understand it, countless numbers of Muslims around the world live Islam on the basis of the living example of the Prophet. How do they know that this is correct? Simply through following others whom they have seen while they were growing up, and these elders had seen their elders do so, and their elders had seen their elders do so, and the chain goes back to the Companions of the Noble Prophet, may Allah's peace and blessings be upon him and may He be pleased with his distinguished Companions.

True, it is possible that certain practices may have been corrupted in this long transmission, but the internal system of transmission has guaranteed that the Prophetic example, as seen by his Companions, will remain uncorrupted as far as its broad outline is concerned. This is the reason for a remarkable consensus that has emerged in the Muslim world: all Muslims know that there are five prayers in a period of 24 hours, that the month of Ramadan is the month of fasting, and likewise for all other practices. Similarly, all Muslims know that that lying, stealing, fornication, drinking, eating pork, dressing indecently is not according to Islam.

Given this broad understanding of what constitutes the basics of Islam, Muslims have lived their Islam in various regions of the world for over fourteen centuries. It is true that within this broadly constituted tradition, certain peripheral issues have emerged at various times: do we say Ameen aloud at the end of the recitation of Surah al-Fatiha in our salah or do we do so silently; what is the position of our hands while performing salah; but these and similar issues do not make any difference in the actual deed and have never been construed as defining factors.

Today, Islam and Muslims face a totally new challenge because of the encounter of the Islamic civilization with Western civilization and, at this critical time, the most dangerous situation for Muslims has arisen due to their internal split. In order to bridge the gap between various groups of Muslims, it is imperative for the liberals and not-so-liberals to engage each other in a critical discourse. What are the common grounds for this engagement? What are the basic principles for such a discourse? How can the two sides begin to talk?

(To be concluded)

Back to the 2006 Contents                                                           Back to the Main Page