Progressive Muslims: On Justice, Gender and Pluralism (63 page)

Simply put, if a political project begins with the premise that opposition and confrontation are the engines of change, then one cannot simply discard confrontation and conflict as redundant once the initial revolutionary moment is enacted. Dialectical movements tend to be on the lookout for new enemies all the time, as an opponent is required to give the revolution its identity. This in turn means that the constitutive Other will also remain as a perpetual presence, like a ghost that does not abandon its victim. The Islamist project (like many other religious and secular dialectical projects) has been haunted by ghosts from the beginning.

The second problem relates to the relationship between ethics and politics in Islam. Islam, as we all know, places ethics at the forefront of all human relations. Even in cases of outright military conflict, ethics plays a vital role as a mediating force. Countless books have been written over the centuries to remind Muslims of their moral and ethical obligation to the enemy in times of conflict. We are told that Muslims do not have the right to torture their victims, kill their prisoners, destroy their property, do harm to civilians, and so on. What is more, so great is this moral imperative that Muslims are not even allowed to slander their opponents lest this diminishes their human identity and status as fellow creatures in the eyes of God. It is for this reason that racist caricatures and dehumanizing propaganda against the enemy are frowned upon. Muslims need to remember that even their mortal enemies are fellow human beings, the creation of the same God. This reminds us of the fundamental unity of all things, a principle emphasized time and again in the notion of
tawhid
(unity of God).

Dialectical opposition flies in the face of Islamic ethics and undermines the universal basis of Islam by creating and perpetuating not only false dichotomies but also violent hierarchies between the self and other. It dehumanizes the other, reducing the other to a subject whose human potential and status are diminished in our eyes. Islamic ethics, on the other hand, reminds us of the need to recognize the subjectivity of the other all the time. It is also there to remind us that the other can and should be seen as our friend and potential ally as soon as hostilities cease. It is often stated that Islam is a religion of peace, and this is true,

but only if we realize that this peace can only be realized when Muslims acknowledge the fundamental humanity they share with others.

I would therefore argue that a dialectical understanding of the self which is based on a hierarchical division of “self” and “other” and which subjugates the other to a lower register to the self is fundamentally divisive and dangerous. Rather than bringing us any closer to the realization of the Islamic project (which is a project that seeks the full realization of our human potential and subjectivities as individuals and collectivities) it actually detracts us from it. In fact, dialectics does little service to the cause of Islam and Muslims: by perpetually framing the other as the predatory enemy, it divides rather than conquers. It introduces contingency and chaos in a world that should be redeemed and united instead. If Islam is meant to unite humanity, dialectics divides it. How, then, can dialectics serve the ends of Muslims?

It is clear that adopting a dialectical approach to the question of the other has actually marginalized and alienated us Muslims from the rest of humanity. Rather than reaching out to the world as a whole and accepting our common brotherhood and sisterhood with humanity in general, we have stuck to our own corner and engaged in a solipsistic self-referential monologue with ourselves. No amount of sincerity and conviction on our part will help us communicate the message and values of Islam to the world as long as we view the rest of the world as alien and antithetical to us. One does not “convert” an enemy by emphasizing one’s radical difference and hostility to the other. What is needed here is a reconceptualization of the
umma
that gives equal recognition and respect to the other as well.

RR EE -- VV II SS II TT II NN GG TT HH EE OO TT HH EE RR :: AA NN DD DD II FF FF EE RR EE NN CC EE

LL II VV II NN GG WW II TT HH PP LL UU RR AA LL II SS MM

Realism and flexibility are among the most important features of Islamic methodology.
6

Looking at the state of the world as a whole in the context of the aftermath of September 11, I feel that there is a desperate need for Muslims to re-learn the norms and rules of dialogue and communication. For despite the painfully and brutally obvious suffering that has been inflicted upon us, Muslims have not been able to communicate our pain and anxieties to the outside world (which at times may even be the neighbor next door), for the simple reason that we think of them as the
outside
world. The division between inside and outside, in-group and out-group, has been so forcibly enforced by this dialectical outlook which we have foisted upon ourselves that we have effectively exiled ourselves from the rest of humanity. When the Palestinian mother cries amidst the rubble of her home, searching for the bodies of her children buried underneath, her pain is seen as somewhat “exotic” and “incomprehensible” by some. When the Bosnian son bears his heart and vows to avenge the death of his siblings who were killed

by some murderous mercenaries, his cry for justice is seen instead as an irrational cry for blood. Somehow the agony of Muslims is presented as being somewhat less than human, or beyond the frontiers of intelligibility. Less than, or more than, or other than human, Muslims are often seen as being radically different. Much of this is due to our own introvertedness, born and bred in a climate of suspicion and frustration.

There is not much that we can do about the deliberate falsification and re-construction of the image of Islam and Muslims in the mainstream global media. Despite protests to the contrary, the world is still being fed a stream of instrumental fictions about Islam and Muslims that continue to frame us as being radically “Other.” But we can – and I would argue, must – take the first step by abandoning such a dialectical approach ourselves in order to extricate ourselves from this hopeless impasse. The Muslim world has every right and duty to communicate its anger, pain, frustration, and fears to the rest of the world. But it must do so with intelligence, with honesty, and with compassion not just for Muslims, but for all of humanity.

The first thing that has to be attempted is a self-critique of ourselves and our own notions of identity and difference. For so long the Muslim world has been trapped in a dialectical impasse of its own making. The time has come for us to utilize the tools of contemporary social sciences and critical theory to interrogate some of the fundamental notions of identity and belonging which have shaped and colored Muslim politics for so long. The Muslim world needs to recognize, accept, and even celebrate the internal differences and plurality within itself. The myth of a homogeneous and static Muslim world, forever paralyzed in frozen time, must be exposed for what it is: a discursive strategy and little else.

In order to engage in any meaningful dialogue with the Other, the Muslim world must first begin by opening the way for dialogue within. This can only happen if we learn to accept the internal differences within our collective body, and the presence of a cacophony of voices in our midst. For centuries the heterogeneous reality of the Muslim world has been deliberately and tactically suppressed by conservatives who fear the release of a Babelian chorus of dissent and heterodoxy. There remains still today the fear of risk and contingency bordering on the pathological. Pluralism in Islam has been frowned upon, suppressed, denied, and even hounded on the grounds that it would undermine the unity of the commune itself.

But progressive Muslims would argue that pluralism is a fact of life and a feature that is found in all civilizations, cultures, and belief systems, and is certainly not unique to Islam. To contain these internal voices and energies does not erase or negate their presence: they merely mutate and disguise themselves in a multiplicity of subaltern voices, a plethora of hidden transcripts that adds to the instability of the collective itself.

If by creating the political and social conditions conducive to it we manage to open up the doors of speech, thought, and difference within the Muslim world,

we will be able to look at the Muslim collective as it truly is for the first time. Rather than present to ourselves and others a static and one-sided face, we need to recognize the multiplicity of voices and faces that make up the collective Muslim portrait
in toto
. Not only would this be a richer, more colorful, and complex face, it would also be a more honest one. We need to see the true multiple faces of normative and living Islam, warts and all.

Recognizing the multiplicity within ourselves opens the way for us to recognize the multiplicity of the other as well. It would mean that we would be able to look at the West (and the rest) for what it truly is: a complex assembly of actors and agents, interests, beliefs, values, and ideas that may not be completely in harmony with each other. It may also help us realize that in the midst of that confusing and complex heterogeneity that is the other are also values, beliefs, and ideas that are common to ours. The poor in the Muslim world may come to realize that their poverty is shared by others beyond their faith community as well. Muslim women will come to realize that their lot is a common one, shared by women outside the frontier of
dar al-Islam
(Abode of Islam).

The recognition of the other as similar to the self is the first step toward building effective collaborative coalitions and alliances that may actually help us Muslims get our point of view across and to understand the point of view of the Other. Only then will the moment arrive when Muslims can work hand in hand with non-Muslims on matters that affect all of humanity as a whole, and not the
umma
exclusively.

Several examples come to mind. During the anti-apartheid struggle in South Africa and the civil rights movement in the United States, for instance, we saw how Muslim groups managed to achieve considerable political success when they realized that their lot and fate was tied to the fate of others. It was the recognition of common human concerns that allowed them to work with others, pushing for progressive change in society for the good of all. This was a non- exclusive understanding of victory and political success. It is my belief that Islam’s success must be the universal success of all, and that our concerns cannot stop at the borders of the Muslim community.

II SS LL AA MM

BB II

LL AA

HH UU DD UU DD
:: II SS LL AA MM WW II TT HH OO UU TT

BB OO RR DD EE RR SS

My argument in this paper has been that the cause of Islam and Muslims has not been adequately served by the narrow and exclusive understanding of identity and difference on the part of some Islamist groups and movements. I have called for a different approach to the whole question of Muslim identity and its relation to the other: one that recognizes the internal differences and pluralism within the Muslim
umma
itself, one that problematizes its own identity while addressing the multiplicity and difference of the other, and one that seeks to identify the common threads that bind us to others.

Some might question or even object to such an approach on the grounds that it somehow threatens to dissolve the unity of the
umma
, or that it renders it vulnerable to critiques from outside. But this would be a groundless objection, for we have tried to problematize precisely these false dichotomies that have created the boundaries that need to be interrogated in the first place. Fear of the dissolution of the
umma
presupposes the unity and fixity of the
umma
in the first place: a discursive fiction at best that may have served politically utilitarian goals in the past but which has become a burden on the
umma
of today, living as we do in a pluralist and multicultural world. What is needed, in short, is a view of
Islam bi la hudud
, an Islam that is without borders and truly universal.

There are at least three areas where such a universal approach to Muslim concerns, extending beyond the limited confines of the
umma
, can help us all.

The question of Palestine/Israel

The enduring conflict in Palestine and the prolonged sufferings of the Palestinian people have been a major factor affecting the tone and tenor of Islamist politics worldwide. Israel’s relentless onslaught on the people of Palestine and America’s tacit support of its client state have helped only to complicate and worsen the situation in the Middle East. They have also contributed significantly to the radicalization of Arab resistance movements in the region, which in turn has had a knock-on effect by radicalizing Islamist movements worldwide. In fact, some might argue that the radicalization of Islamist politics the world over has been the result of the deliberate and systematic policies of persecution by the Zionist regime in Tel Aviv, and that Islamist politics worldwide has been held hostage by them.

One of the biggest problems faced by Muslim groups and movements today is to communicate the plight and suffering of Palestinians to the outside world. Despite the demonstration of sympathy and support for the Palestinian people, Palestine is still seen as a “Muslim problem” owing to the fact that it has been communicated via the medium of a religio-political discourse. But it was not always the case: the struggle of the people of Palestine began as a collective struggle fought by a pluralistic and multi-religious society. Palestinian activists have come from different religious, class, cultural, and ethnic backgrounds. The same could be said of the Moro struggle in the southern Philippines, which brought together Muslim and Christian Moros in a common struggle to resist Manila’s hold on them.

These struggles, however, soon encountered serious obstacles and were dashed on the rocks of
realpolitik
. As the list of failures and compromises grew longer, morale dipped and a sense of hopelessness set in. This opened the way for radical groupings with exclusive agendas like HAMAS and the MILF (Moro Islamic Liberation Front) to appear on the scene. These groups in turn injected the struggle of the Palestinians (and Moros) with a heavy dose of religiocentric