The Urgency of Inventing a Democratic Islam
By
Akbar Ganji
27 March, 2015
The growth of Islamic terrorist groups and the ongoing
carnage in many Islamic countries have attracted worldwide attention. Many view
Islam as a religion that condones violence. Undoubtedly, the Holy Quran
contains verses that authorize use of violence. Although such verses were
specific to the era of Prophet Muhammad 1,400 years ago, their abuse in the
21st century represent gross violations of human rights. There are also some
states, such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the Arab nations of the Persian Gulf that
present themselves as Islamic states, but are only dictatorial regimes.
Such state of affairs has given rise to all sorts of
claims about Islam, such as "Islam cannot be reformed," or
"Islam and respect for human rights are incompatible," or "the
Quran is a manifesto for violence," and "Islam and the radical
Islamic terrorist groups are one and the same and there is no hope for an
enlightened Islam."
Let us suppose that all the claims against Islam --
not what is done in Islam's name -- are actually true. Then, the question is,
what can we do? What political strategy should be followed in order to improve
the situation?
The
Structural Limitations on Political and Moral Decision Making
The aforementioned questions would have been easy to
address, had we been dealing with only several thousand terrorists. But, the
reality is that there are 1.6 billion Muslims who make up the majority in 49
countries. Even in Europe, Muslims represent about 6 percent of the population,
a significant number. To them, Islam is still part of their identity. So, what
can be done about such a huge number of Muslims and large number of Islamic
nations?
Rational people do not pursue impossible dreams. Thus,
consider what is impossible:
First, it is impossible to eliminate Islam. Any religion that addresses human
beings' existential questions and gives them identity cannot be eliminated.
Second, it is impossible to convert all Muslims to non-Muslims, because they
are mostly born in Islamic countries, and live and pass away there.
Third, it is impossible to kill all Muslims.
Fourth, it is impossible to be in a permanent state of war with Muslim
nations.
Fifth, it is also impossible to cut off all relations with Muslim countries.
Peaceful existence is a universal ideal. But, even if
"national interests" and "free market" are the only ideals
of Western nations, they cannot be materialized without peace and stability.
Only the military-industrial complex benefits from war and destruction, for
which the price is murdering millions of innocent people and creating a huge
refugee problem. Thus, we should search for solutions that lead us to peace and
respectful co-existence of all nations. To achieve such a goal, several facts
must be understood:
First, Islam and Muslims do not represent a monolith entity. Throughout
history the vast majority of Muslims have been moderate. They also do not have
the same interpretations of the Islamic teachings, nor do they practice their
religion to the same degree.
Second, Islam does not make up the complete identity of any Muslim, because
there is no singular identity for all, and people's identity is a product of
many different factors.
Third, the United States and its allies have played a leading role in
creating the jihadist groups in Afghanistan, and creating conditions in Iraq,
Libya and Syria that gave rise to such terrorist groups and, thus, must accept
responsibility for them. General Wesley Clark, former Supreme Commander of U.S.
European command, has said "our allies created the Islamic State [also
known as the ISIS or ISIL] to confront the Lebanese Hezbollah." Most
importantly, in an interview on March 17 President Obama acknowledged the role
of the United States in creating the ISIS, saying, "ISIL is a direct
outgrowth of Al-Qaeda in Iraq that grew out of our invasion, which is an
example of unintended consequences, which is why we should generally aim before
we shoot." But, in a previous article by this author it was argued that
the current situation in Iraq cannot really be considered as an "unintended"
consequence of invading Iraq, as many senior U.S. officials had actually
predicted the current conditions.
Fourth, without understanding Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia we cannot gain a
better and deeper understanding of the Islamic State. Wahhabism has a tight
relation with Islamic terrorism. But, this is willfully ignored by Western
powers because of Saudi Arabia's importance.
Fifth, we must pay particular attention to the social environment and
background, such as poverty, discrimination, dictatorship, corruption, vast
unemployment, and feeling of social humiliation and insult, which give rise to
radical Islamic groups.
Sixth, we must reject the notion that Islam cannot be reformed. No religion
is the same as the one preached by its original prophet.
Why
Should Democratic Islam Be Invented?
Even atheists and Islamophobes cannot escape the
aforementioned realities. Thus, they must ponder them and decide what their
social responsibilities are, and which worldwide strategy can lead not only to
peace, but also cultural pluralism.
All religions are the product of their societies in
which they rose, and all have undergone changes throughout history that are
directly related to the social changes in their regions. Their evolution will
continue. Every religion has several "languages" -- tools for various
interpretations of its teachings -- some of which favor peace, while others
advocate war. Thus, even if "democratic Islam" has not been
"invented" yet, we must do it.
British historian Eric Hobsbawm argued that traditions
have been invented. Religions too represent inventions. Thus, inventing a
democratic Islam that is compatible with respect for human rights and
pluralism, and an Islam that considers all citizens as equal is not only
possible, but also imperative and desirable. Islamic nations and Muslims need a
democratic Islam that would help them get rid of their dictatorial regimes and
social inequalities, and allow them to live freely under secular democratic
regimes.
And, if the West and Westerners desire peaceful co-existence
with the Islamic world, they must also help invention of democratic Islam.
We cannot reduce Prophet Muhammad and the Holy Quran
to violence and war. We cannot extend a religious order or verdict that was
issued fourteen centuries ago to the present era, and believe falsely that if
they were executed then, they can be implemented forever, and have as much
validity in our era as they did over a thousand years ago. The Quran speaks,
for example, about slavery but, except for such terrorist groups as Boko Haram
and the Islamic State, no Muslim accepts slavery. The most comprehensive
slavery system was in the United States, but that too was abolished in the 19th
century.
My Main
Claims are That
First, similar to the Bible and the Old Testament, Quran has multiple voices.
Second, History has shown that Islam can be reformed.
Third, the Quran has been and will be a manifesto for Muslim pacifists.
Fourth, the Quran is a book of blessing and dignity.
Fifth, Islam has never proposed any guideline for an "Islamic
government" and, thus,it is a secular religion. If we recognized this, we
have taken a serious step toward laying the foundation for democratic and
anti-discrimination governments in Islamic states.
Sixth, there are interpretations of the Islamic teachings that are completely
compatible with respect for human rights.
These concepts have been invented and developed by
enlightened and modern Muslims. Those that are opposed to Islam might argue
that a democratic Islam will not be a genuine Islam, and will have no relation
with the original one. But, if this is true, it should also be true about
Christianity and Judaism, because 2,000 or 4,000 years ago there was no concept
of democracy or respect for human rights; they were invented and developed by
modern human beings.
History indicates that, as societies developed, Jews
and Christians developed religions that are compatible with democracy and
respect for human rights. The Old Testament declares,
"When you march up to attack a city, make its
people an offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates, all the people
in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. If they refuse
to make peace and engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. When the Lord
your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. As for
the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may
take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the Lord your
God gives you from your enemies. This is how you are to treat all the cities
that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.
However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an
inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them-the
Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites- as the Lord
your God has commanded you."( Deutoronomy 20:10-17).
Jesus, the prophet of peace and mercy, declared,
"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace
to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. Or, I have come to
turn "'a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a
daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law--a man's enemies will be the members
of his own household.' Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is
not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not
worthy of me. Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy
of me." (Matthew, chapter 10, verses 34-48).
The understanding of the Christians of the Crusade era
of such verses was vastly different from our current one. When President Obama
spoke about this fact, he wascriticized harshly by some, but only because he
had spoken the truth.
Thus, just as Jews and Christians did not stop being
Jew and Christian by setting aside and rejecting the verses in their holy books
that espouse violence, Muslims will also not leave Islam if they do the same.
Putting a stop to calls for violence must be a fundamental pillar of inventing
a democratic Islam.
As another example, consider the Old Testament's
position regarding homosexuality:
"If a man has sexual relations with a man as one
does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be
put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."( Leviticus 18:22).
On the other hand, the Quran recommends no punishment
for homosexuality. If Jews and Christians do not execute the Old Testament's
order regarding homosexuals, why would Muslims become non-Muslims if they
accept the order?
Saying no to inventing and developing democratic Islam
will only spread Islamophobia that presents Islam as a religion of violence
that cannot be reformed, which will not only be incompatible with peace and
harmony, but will also provide the background for permanent war and
destruction. In that case, the only "viable" way would be to murder
all Muslims, or occupy the Islamic nations forever.
Anyone and any group, whether religious, secular or
atheist, that accepts peace and respect for human rights as humane ideals must
support the invention and development of democratic Islam. Those who advocate
violence will pursue war, treating Islam like a cancerous tumor that must be
removed. That will only lead to further bloodshed.
This article was translated by Ali N. Babaei.
Source:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/akbar-ganji/inventing-a-democratic-islam_b_6906402.html?ir=India