This article was published in Newstateman, UK, 6th April 2006
For decades reform has been on the agenda in the Muslim world. Everywhere things are changing and Muslims are struggling to respond to new challenges. Fierce debates have arisen between those who want reform and those who argue that it will mean either a betrayal of the principles of Islam or a dangerous westernization. Though we face deep and alarming crises of religion, of science, of politics and of economics, as well as a crisis of identity, the differences between us over what we should do seem intractable.
Central to our debate is the concept of ijtihâd, which means the critical reading of the key Muslim textual sources – the Qur’an and the Prophetic traditions, known as the Sunna. Through ijtihâd we ought to be able to sustain a historically grounded approach to these sources while at the same time employing human creativity to respond to the particular problems of our age.
Yet so grave is our crisis that there is now a breakdown in Muslim thought in fields as essential as education, science, democratisation and respect for fundamental human rights. Why are we unable to move forward? And how can we extricate ourselves from this downward spiral?
Part of the problem is that Muslim scholars agree neither on the definitions nor on the interpretation of a number of concepts that are central to Islamic terminology. Take sharia. Literalists and traditionalists view sharia as a body of law that forms a closed, timeless universe opposed to any evolution or any reading that takes history into account.
Many reformists, conversely, define sharia as the “the path of fidelity to the principles of Islam”. They believe that the fields of creed and religious observance are distinct from those of social affairs: in the former the prescriptions of the Qur’an and hadith are immutable; in the latter, they should work in tandem with human rationality.
The reformist trend is present in virtually all Muslim communities, yet the results of reform in the past century have been unsatisfactory. This reflects a deficiency in the reformist approach itself. For decades we have studied the writings of reforming scholars who re-examined the texts and offered new interpretations, but this approach has proved too reactive. By its nature, work that is oriented exclusively toward the texts struggles to keep pace with emerging situations.
Our scholars lack the necessary deep understanding of the complex issues of the modern world with which their judgements must deal.
Though they speak about economy, natural and social science, they have in fact little to offer in any of these fields. When they pronounce on current matters their rulings often contradict one another, and we are unable to decide which of them is best qualified. To make matters worse, they jealously guard their authority in religious prescription (fatwâ). When, for example, specialists in the so-called “profane” sciences try to assist in formulating contemporary Muslim jurisprudence, their efforts are often resented as dangerous intrusions. Though they may have relevant expertise, unless they are specialists in Islamic law they find their opinions dismissed. This is where the need for radical reform is greatest.
Our task is to shift the centre of gravity back to the fundamentals of Islamic jurisprudence. For the texts are not the only normative references in Islamic law. The universe – the “book of the world”, to use the expression of the great scholar al Ghazali – represents a source equal to the texts. Instead of being pushed to the margin, scholars and specialists in applied sciences and social sciences must become important contributors to contemporary Islamic ethics.
Their mastery of contemporary knowledge positions them eminently to guide the religious scholars’ deliberations, and to produce a transformative, ethically-driven reform rather than the necessity-driven adaptations of today.
Textual interpretation specialists, though their competence is beyond dispute, do not have exclusive ownership of ijtihâd. They must be joined at the table by women and men versed in other fields who can help find new directions for reform that are both faithful to Islamic principles and fully engaged with the issues of the day.
We desperately need spaces for ijtihâd that reconcile ordinary Muslims with their references by restoring their right to speak, their competences and their authority. The tasks at hand are immense: promoting a critical spirit and educational reform; developing a Islamic ethics of science; proposing alternatives in global economics; transforming the status of women in Muslim communities; creating civic societies and managing violence.
To achieve the radical reform we need and hope for, we must shift the centre of gravity away from the religious scholars and back to the centre of the Islamic universe. All must participate and each individual’s conscience must awaken. Alongside our scholars of the texts, in other words, we need scholars of the contexts.
The role of the West and its intellectuals is important: in their questions, their constructive criticisms, their ability to listen to the multiplicity of Muslim voices (and not only those that please them) they can become partners in our revolution. In this dynamic, all parties will discover shared values. Though we may not all walk together on the same path, we can and must commit together to making this world better, together. We do not want modernization without soul or values; we want ethical reform. We want to transform the world in the name of the justice and human dignity that, sadly, are often forgotten in the current inhumane global (dis)order.
Very interesting Pr Tariq.
Changing the center of gravity and allowing each individual to express its opinion.
In the field of economics for instance, which you mentioned as well, how do you go about it? Nowadays, there are plenty of profesional muslims in the area of auditing, banking, financing, advising…and very aware of the problem of riba for example.
How do you work, when on the one hand you have people depicting “islamic finance” as gimmick, no fundamental sharia substance, and on the other hand, the superpower of interest-based economy?
Moreover, if in the english speaking countries, islamic finance has seen some good progress so far, there is nothing and really nothing in the french speaking countries.
Any ideas, advise on how we can move things.
See an initiative in France: http://www.aidimm.info
With regards to those who dispute the use of the term “reform”: the word can be used in a variety of senses, and clearly, Dr. Ramadan’s use is not one that is threatening to Islam itself, but rather, quite faithful to our religious roots. To try to translate it into Arabic and then dispute the Arabic word is counterintuitive – just pick an Arabic word that properly grasps the meaning implied.
As to the article’s thesis: might I humbly suggest that in most cases, it is not that the ‘Ulema lack “secular knowledge”, or that secular scholars need to engage in the Ijtihad processs, but that the Muslim scholars themselves need to take their duty more seriously. I find the stance of many Islamic scholars, especially those in the west, to be problematic: on the one hand, they want to maintain an aura of being “traditional”, and yet, they often present themselves (especially in the media) as being quite modern. When speaking to the media, or giving public talks, they often present ingenious reinterpretations to show Islam’s compatibility with, say, human rights; but when they return to their teaching/religious institutions, they re-embody the “traditional”, as if there need be no change from it. While they play this chameleon game, they fail to plant solid roots of Ijtihad and modern interpretation; their thoughtful interpretation and approach wither into bad apologetics as they fail to put their critical thoughts into writing. They fail further by not educating their students with critical minds, preferring to have them memorize classical Fiqh rulings.
The real challenge, I think, is not to get “secular scholars” to play their part, but to get our Islamic scholars to make thoughtful and lasting contributions by openly acknowledging the need for fresh insight, and committing these insights to writing. And Allah (swt) knows best.
How to Lose Your Job at a Saudi Newspaper
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/14/AR2006041401116.html
By Fawaz Turki
Saturday, April 15, 2006; Page A15
I was unceremoniously fired this month by my Saudi newspaper, a leading English-language daily called Arab News.
It didn’t matter that I had been the senior columnist on the op-ed page for nine years or that my work was quoted widely in the European and American media, including this paper. What mattered was that I had committed one of the three cardinal sins an Arab journalist must avoid when working for the Arab press: I criticized the government.
The other two? Bringing up Islam as an issue and criticizing, by name, political leaders in the Arab or Islamic world for their brazen excesses, dismal failures and blatant abuses.
Never mind that a newspaper cheapens and debases the idea of the journalistic enterprise when it enjoins its commentators against being critical of the government that it is supposed to be a watchdog over.
Never mind the absurdity of preventing your contributors from touching on the issue of Islam, a social ideology whose embrace by jihadists is the top news story in the world today.
And never mind that Arab society — a society that remains broken in body and spirit more than a half-century after independence — needs very much to engage in serious self-assessment and to promote an open debate in the media among intellectuals, academics, political analysts and others about why Arabs have failed all these years to meet the challenges of modernity.
But those are the stringent, not to mention pathetic, rules that determine how the Arab press conducts its business.
You play by these rules or you’re cut off.
The problem is that if stringing words together is the only way you know how to make a living, you end up eating humble pie and playing the game by whatever rules they set for you.
Sometimes all it takes is a phone call to someone high up in your paper from a semi-literate government official who couldn’t run a lunch counter, or a fundamentalist imam who hasn’t read a half-dozen decent books in his life, or perhaps a disgruntled diplomat at a Muslim or Arab embassy in Riyadh who didn’t like what you had to say in your column about his country. The result is the same: Your career is ruined.
Sometimes, if you’re lucky, you will have an editorial page editor who likes your work, and he’ll cut you a bit of slack and lobby on your behalf behind the scenes, often at the risk of losing his own job. But even in this case, three strikes and you’re out.
My first provocation was — horror of horrors — to criticize Egyptian leader Hosni Mubarak after he cracked down on human rights activists several years ago.
My second occurred soon after the failure of the Camp David accords when I called for the resignation of Yasser Arafat as head of the Palestinian Authority.
My last was to write about the atrocities Indonesia had committed during its occupation of East Timor from 1975 to 1999.
For that transgression, my Saudi paper showed no mercy. I was out the door.
No questions asked, no explanations given.
You don’t write about atrocities committed by an Islamic government — even when they’re already documented in the history books — and hope to get away with it.
But this is not just the story of an Arab journalist losing his job.
It is a story with implications for the current American administration’s efforts to “introduce” the Arab countries to democracy, of which independent, free media are a major building block.
What Arabs, including those masquerading as their newspaper editors, have yet to learn is that a free press, a truly free press, is a moral imperative in society. Subvert it, and you subvert the public’s sacrosanct right to know and a newspaper’s traditional role to expose.
If the Western democracies work better than many others, it is because to them the concept of accountability, expected from the head of state on down, is a crucial function of their national ideology.
What Arabs have yet to learn, in addition to that, is that newspapers are not published to advance the political preferences of proprietors, or the commentary of subservient analysts who turn a blind eye to the abuse of power by political leaders running their failed states.
Democracy may be a political system, but it is also a social ethos.
How responsive can a country be to such an ethos when its people have, for generations, existed with an ethic of fear — fear of originality, fear of innovation, fear of spontaneity, fear of life itself — and have had instilled in them the need to accept orthodoxy, dependence and submission?
The Arab world today, sadly, remains a collection of disparate entities ruled for the most part by authoritarian regimes that rely on coercion, violence and terror to rule, and that demand from their citizens submission, obedience and conformity.
And that includes those citizens who call themselves “journalists,” to whom, by now, responsibility to truth and logic has become irrelevant.
In this atmosphere, it is regarded as an example of reportorial acumen to write on the op-ed pages of prominent Arab journals about how the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks were the work of Israeli agents, how the death of Princess Diana was the result of some diabolical plot by British intelligence to end her life rather than see her married to an Arab Muslim, how Monica Lewinsky was an agent-in-place, put in the White House by the “Jewish lobby” — and so on with other infantile whimsies.
For Arabs, there is still a great divide between word and world.
You can embrace conspiracy theories with impressive ease, and be accorded by your editors the right to pontificate about any foolish thing you want, but don’t dare write about the malfeasance of political leaders in Egypt and Palestine, or the atrocities of a fellow-Muslim government in East Timor.
The price you must pay for such offenses if you work for the Arab press is heavy indeed.
Fawaz Turki is a journalist living in Washington and the author of several books, including “The Disinherited: Journal of a Palestinian Exile.” His e-mail address is [email protected].
Once again, Professor Ramadan, thank you! Thank you for your enlightened thought, courage, leadership and sensitivity in responding to the needs of Muslims in the modern world! Thank you for expressing views that so many in the West have held, but have not been to express with such strong foundations. Your words resonate with my very soul and consciousness, and, as a woman I am touched by your continual emphasis on the need for a critical reflection on what it truely means to do justice to ourselves and others – in short, how to be truly human!
Traditional scholars in the West avoid the questions that so many raise and that you have touched on, much to our dismay. They hold on to the their authoritative positions, not allowing others to comment (let alone criticise) but refuse to assume the leadership that such roles should imply. It is almost as if they think that by ignoring these issues, they will merely go away. Whereas Muslims in the West are constantly challenged over questions of justice and human rights, we are given no support, while those in Muslim countries suffer from the silence of these imams.
If this article was only to be the Mission statement (or dare I say it, Manifesto) of every Muslim organisation, we would be on a journey towards real and positive change. I, and those that I work with at a grassroots level, always value and look forward to your amazing insights about contemporary events.
S Clark, AUSTRALIA
I am confident that you have articulated what most educated and cultured muslims are aspiring to. However, not only is the centre of gravity lying in the hands of people who are entrenched in their own ideas and unwilling to discuss; that placment is protected by governments and political systems that would rather keep it that way.
Looking at a pragmatic solution one can only see ijtihad taking place in exile. Be it exiled in other countries or right inside us and our families. It can only take building the reformed principles as we build and raise the characters of our children and our grandchildren on a new basis. and the beginning would be networking.
Well said Professor Ramadan.
Hamdy El-Hakim – Edmonton – Canada
Reformation is not quite a right word. In arabic it stands for “islah”, but how can you change a shape of a religion, when Allah in Quran said that He completed the Din? Tajdid is possible, but islah is forbidden.
Ustad Ramadan, how can you argue “The universe represents a source equal to the texts”, when Quran was not created and is a word of Allah, as for a universe – it is a creation. True, law of Allah subdivides into two spheres: shari and qawni, both should be considered (may be equally), but THEY ARE NOT EQUAL, Allah knows the best.
Ijtihad really should be done not by a single person (since it is rather impossible to gather all necessary attributes in one individual), rather by a committee of ulema, among which there are to be found as specialists in sharia, as well specialists in modern sciences and especially social sciences.
Reform is a very strong word. When it is mentioned many start to associate it with Christian reforms and such people as Martin Luther and Calvin. Reform of Din is impossible, it would be demolition of the religion. What possible – it is reform of people attitudes towards religion, and of their understanding.
As salamu alaikum!
I agree with your comments Professor Ramadan. What we need are a new generation of Islamic scholars grounded in both Islamic and secular sciences. This vision is not being stressed enough in the Muslim world. Be the best in both the dunya and the akhira by learning Islam and worldly knowledge. We are too obsessed with the dunya only or the akhira only – this is at the heart of the problem. The proper balance between the two and how to achieve this balance needs to be realized. This balance can be achieved as a result of studying both Islamic and secular sciences.
This entails that Muslim universities in the Muslim world create dual degree programs such as BA/PhD in Islamic Studies combined with science, engineering, medicine, or social science degrees. The vision has emerged and now is the time to start implementing it. As Muslims of Europe and North America, we must take the lead in realizing this vision. The Islamic University of Rotterdam and many Islamic institutions in America such as Al-Maghrib Institute are attempting to implement this vision. We must all join in and implement it.
With regards to those who dispute the use of the term “reform”: the word can be used in a variety of senses, and clearly, Dr. Ramadan’s use is not one that is threatening to Islam itself, but rather, quite faithful to our religious roots. To try to translate it into Arabic and then dispute the Arabic word is counterintuitive – just pick an Arabic word that properly grasps the meaning implied.
As to the article’s thesis: might I humbly suggest that in most cases, it is not that the ‘Ulema lack “secular knowledge”, or that secular scholars need to engage in the Ijtihad processs, but that the Muslim scholars themselves need to take their duty more seriously. I find the stance of many Islamic scholars, especially those in the west, to be problematic: on the one hand, they want to maintain an aura of being “traditional”, and yet, they often present themselves (especially in the media) as being quite modern. When speaking to the media, or giving public talks, they often present ingenious reinterpretations to show Islam’s compatibility with, say, human rights; but when they return to their teaching/religious institutions, they re-embody the “traditional”, as if there need be no change from it. While they play this chameleon game, they fail to plant solid roots of Ijtihad and modern interpretation; their thoughtful interpretation and approach wither into bad apologetics as they fail to put their critical thoughts into writing. They fail further by not educating their students with critical minds, preferring to have them memorize classical Fiqh rulings.
The real challenge, I think, is not to get “secular scholars” to play their part, but to get our Islamic scholars to make thoughtful and lasting contributions by openly acknowledging the need for fresh insight, and committing these insights to writing. And Allah (swt) knows best.
In the call for change, Reformation is a dangerous word to use, since it implies reforming Islam around the current situation (Western ideals and way of life- i.e. Secularism) – rather than changing the situation around Islam and its ideals (i.e. the re-establishment of the Islamic system and way of life in the Muslim world).
The Reformation of the Catholic Church was called for by Secularists under the banner of Reforming Christianity’ and need for new Bible Exegesis’ (Ijtihad) – thus they took the Bible verse “render unto Caesar was is Caesar’s and unto God what is God’s” and re-interpreted it to prove’ that Secularism did not contradict Christianity- thus they twisted the Bible to fit their ideas and politics and make them palatable to fellow Christians; much like some Muslims are doing today. Islam doesn’t need a Reformation but rather a Revival (a term used much more often in the Islamic texts- emphasising bringing back the deen to life and its affairs).
The key to Revival, is intellectually elevating the thinking of the Muslim world upon the Islamic basis and purifying it from foreign thoughts and ideas, while striving politically for the comprehensive implementation of Islam in all areas of life (i.e. a Islamic Khilafah), such that the true beauty and enlightened manner of Islam is appreciated and put on show for all humanity. Then Islam will be able to solve the multitude of problems facing not only the Muslims, but all humanity and use modern technology under the correct context and use of Ijtihad, that would develop science and technology at a much faster rate than that encountered in the west. For Islam doesn’t have Patenting laws nor Copyright (both western hadharah concepts) – thus it is not restricted in its dissemination of knowledge and research within its own society, -and in a society based upon the Islamic purpose and use of Ijtihad- the world would truly witness a vibrant and dynamic civilisation- just like it had in the past and will do again in the future soon inshallah.
Assalamu’alaykum
We’re missing the key issue:
It’s not about affronting different contexts, new social circumstances, as opposed/unrelated one to another; it’s about affronting the dynamics!
Christianity resigned to that task.
Dynamics is driven by inner oppositions and the dialectics between the opponents that create processes of power.
Modernity brought:
-communism, that wanted to abolish opposition and processes replacing it with common understanding and property, butand failed
-liberalism, that releases the dynamics by providing the individuals with liberty, equality and rights and private property; opening up the structures of power, pluralize. The driving force of a free market’s profiting interests leads us to the mentioned Global disorder – although individuals do find improved rights, at least in theory, in the Centrum.
What do Islamic societies propose?
Islamic societies never managed to affront and occupy the dynamics – instead, that was ignored.
Abuse of power led to social oppression and injustice, patriarchal power abuse led to women’s oppression; corruption, decadency and finally a recessive position in the dynamics of Global development.
-Societies simply boil of inner oppositions and conflicts that bring up processes; we can’t freeze justice, love, prosperity and peace.
-Principles of right and wrong, faith, taqwa/ihsan, just don’t govern processes.
-Social-human processes actually co-exist with them and manage to ignore each other!
We need tools/systems that can affront social phenomenon besides our Deen, so that we can turn back to It and acknowledge its way and teachings, its Law, Sharia, out of our ways, our created, processing nature.
Yes, in this dichotomy:
“Word, Being, Permanent”
vs
“Creation, Existing, Processing”
Humans and the universe belong to the created and processing.
Sharia, as a result of humans receiving and contemplating og he Word, is part of both sides!
and therefore becomes a meeting-point, a space for reciprocal interaction.
Maybe such awareness could make Islamic societies able to affront dynamics and overcome their disease and its recessive position.
wassalam
AndyKhadidja
Assalamu alaikum,
Half the time Tariq ramadan is vague and unclear on what he is talking about.
I been in born and lived in the west and he is calling for somekind of reform in Islam?
That is the most stupid and absurd thing I heard, most of the time he is vague. The reform that is needed is by the muslim themself and that is going back to the Quran and the sunnah, on the understanding of the salaf.
All this integration and stuff he mostly parrots might aswell come from the politicians (as lately the western trend of vulgar aimed at Muslims). He is mostly vague it makes you wonder what he is one about. I am also been born and raised here, and their is totall lack of Islamic Education in the muslim youth, and muslims in general been fine living in here and he talks about his imaginary freind integraton like he knows what it is.
I apologies if I caused offense, I find most of his argument spurious and flimsy at best with vague terminology thrown here and there.
Wassalam,
What do you suggest then? Isolate ourselves and get nowhere. It’s -as I understand TR- not about becoming less muslim, but building ourselves up, through islam. Nothing wrong with that.