Can there be a discussion
of Islam that is not STUPID???

By Farish A. Noor
OtherMalaysia.Org
http://www.othermalaysia.org/content/view/116/55/


It is interesting to reflect on the asinine times we live in, particularly if like me, you are involved in that nebulous thing called ‘Inter-cultural dialogue’. Over the past four weeks I have been engaged in numerous rounds of dialogues between Western Europeans and Muslim migrant communities in Amsterdam, Paris and Berlin, and in every single one of these encounters I came across stereotypes of Muslims and Islam that were so shallow and puerile that I am almost embarrassed to recount them here. Worst still these pedestrian musings on Islam and Muslims were not the offerings of everyday punters, but those who claimed to be well-known and admired scholars and historians.

In one of these exchanges I was told the following: that ‘Islam is a fascist, woman-hating, Christian-killing, gay-bashing macho male ideology of hatred that was built on fourteen centuries of conquest and bloodshed, murder and rape. That is why there cannot be integration of Muslims into Europe, because the Muslims that we have here are the savages of the Arab world who are barbaric, violent and brutal. They do not believe in reason and the Enlightenment and Islamic civilisation has not produced anything scientific, rational or humane.’ Try substituting the word ‘Muslim’ for ‘blacks’ and one would see how far-fetched and racist such claims really are.

Now why is it that whenever we speak of Islam and Muslims today some of us think they have the licence to drop their IQ level by a hundred points or so? Is talk on Islam a licence to say anything dumb, offensive, provocative, just for the sake of riling up the masses and grabbing a few headlines? A politician in Holland has even stated that there should be a ban on any reading of the Qur’an, on the grounds that it can be compared to Hitler’s Mein Kampf. Others claim that all Muslims are determined primarily by their religion which happens to be irrational, unscientific and anti-Enlightenment.


I was struck by the wilful blindness of these so-called ‘liberal’ and ‘rational’ Europeans themselves, and their inability to put things in relative perspective and to interrogate their own presuppositions about themselves. In my own work as an academic-activist I have tried to deconstruct the grand narratives of official history, be it on the level of the state or religion. I am also aware of the fact that the writing of history is a contested process and that more often than not the writing of history is done by the victors and not the defeated marginalised voices of any community. Is it a surprise then that the history of the West has been only a history of white, male, middle-classed voices? Where is the history of women and women’s participation in politics, economics and nation-building? Only recently with the advances made by Feminist historiography and deconstructive history by the likes of Simon Schama have we seen the writing of history that is inclusive, plural and popular.

Now the conscious historian will inform you that there were (and remain) counter-currents to such dominant grand narratives all along, both in the West and in the Muslim world. (As there are liberal progressive counter-currents against orthodox conservative Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity and Judaism.) Furthermore, all civilisations and cultures exist in relational terms and develop in relation with and to others: It would be farcical to claim that the European Enlightenment was merely an auto-generated case of isolated genius, for we all know that European civilisation developed by interaction with Muslim civilisation; as did Muslim civilisation develop in relation with and to Chinese, Indian and Persian civilisation.

Of course today Muslims the world over are hostage to a history that is determined either by ruling elites or their conservative lackeys such as the Wahabbis of Saudi Arabia. From the pens of these conservative sectarians, we get only a static account of Muslim history that is told from the point of view of Kings, Sultans and dictators- such as the history of Iraq that was written during the time of Saddam Hussein, or the skewered history of Arabia written by the pro-establishment Wahabbis.

But here again the question needs to be raised: How was this historical erasure made possible, and who were the agents behind such erasure? Well, unfortunately the finger of blame also points to the ‘enlightened’ West, who regarded dictators like Saddam Hussein and the Saudi royal family as their strategic allies.

The rise of conservative, fundamentalist, sectarian and violent Islam was aided and abetted by Western states during the Cold War, leading to the rise of men like Saddam Hussein, the anti-Soviet Mujahideen and later the Taliban who have done so much to destroy the plural legacy of the Muslim world. Yet today Western liberals accuse Muslims of having no history and that their own history is one of violence. Where is the enlightened spirit of auto-critique and self-awareness here?

Surely liberals in the West should not be surprised to see the rise of fundamentalist Muslim regimes the world over when it has been their own Western governments that have supported those very same anti-Christian, anti-women, anti-gay regimes in the first place, ostensibly for the sake of strategic alliances but fundamentally to safeguard the West’s much-needed supply of oil?

I am by no means excusing fundamentalist conservative Muslims here, for there are indeed right-wing Muslims who can only be described as fascist in the real sense of the word. But in the same way that Muslims today need to get out of their shell and stare reality in the face, so do Europeans who claim to be ever-so enlightened and liberal. Europe’s Enlightenment project created not only its own discontents but also anomalies.

To suggest that every single European today is the product of this historical process would be so simplistic as to beggar belief, and borders on the ridiculous. For should that be the case, then perhaps we can ask how enlightened the Europeans were when they colonised Asia and Africa. Look at the world map and see how so many patches of the earth today – ranging from North America to Australia – are reminders of a colonial expansion that was motivated by irrational greed, irrational racism, irrational hatred for the Other, and not the values of reason or universal humanism.

Tell me, was it Kant or Descartes who told the colonisers to invade and occupy Australia, and exterminate the aborigines of Tasmania and then hang their heads as trophies? Or skin the bodies of North American Indians to make boots and tobacco pouches? Where was the European Enlightenment then? Asleep?

--------------------------
Prof. Farish Ahmad-Noor is a political scientist and historian at the Centre for Modern Orient Studies (Zentrum Moderner Orient), Berlin, and affiliated Professor at both Universitas Muhammadiyah Surakarta (UMS) and Sunan Kalijaga Islamic University, Jogjakarta. He is the author of 'Writings on the War on Terror' (2006),

The problem is that the West have changed, somewhat. We Muslims need to.

quote:

Originally posted by ksazma:
The problem is that the West have changed, somewhat. We Muslims need to.

Care to elaborate, expound a little more on some of the changes Muslims need to adopt.
The reminder is good for the believer.

Kaz; I agree conditionally. I am impressed by Sayyid Hosein Nasr's thinking on this issue. He said that change is always good when it comes from within. But not through external imposition. He called it cultural hegemony. Just because the west has "discovered" some new crap, we must necc. go along with them? When homosexuality was bad for them, they used to put that taint on the Muslims and all the arabs. Now it is suddenly "good" for them, they are trying to show Muslims are pervasively homophobic.
For Muslims and chinese philosophers, change comes slowly and after much thought (sometimes too much); for the west: it must only come when THEY decide it, and they also want to decide who must change, what must change, and when it must change..and that such change must be subservient to western interests. That is, you will admit, a problem...

They can toss thge Lackawanna six in prison for ten years each..for doing NOTHING truly proveably illegal...but they can sentence someone who drove drunk and killed an innocent teenager to......3 and a half years in jail.
The guy I gave evidence against in a terrorism trial got 20 years for what? Having a wild dua on his person. No killing. But the drunk driver got 3 and a half. SHould Islamic law go that route?
somehow, while I do advocate for changes, I am leery of going the western secular route...look at the chaos in our courts.

quote:

Originally posted by Fu Real:

quote:

Originally posted by ksazma:
The problem is that the West have changed, somewhat. We Muslims need to.

Care to elaborate, expound a little more on some of the changes Muslims need to adopt.
The reminder is good for the believer.

Read any piece on us reflecting on western problems and we have to go back 1000 years to make reference. We can go back to yesterday for Muslims problems. Just consider all the Muslims being killed in Iraq by their fellow Muslims who claim to be more practicing Muslims than the ones they kill.

We are always forced to bring up the inquisition, crusade or like this person did, the injustice done during colonialism. Need any more examples?

Oh, one change that Muslims can adopt right now is stop killing other people. That will be a good start.

quote:

Originally posted by dara shikoh:
Kaz; I agree conditionally. I am impressed by Sayyid Hosein Nasr's thinking on this issue. He said that change is always good when it comes from within. But not through external imposition. He called it cultural hegemony. Just because the west has "discovered" some new crap, we must necc. go along with them? When homosexuality was bad for them, they used to put that taint on the Muslims and all the arabs. Now it is suddenly "good" for them, they are trying to show Muslims are pervasively homophobic.
For Muslims and chinese philosophers, change comes slowly and after much thought (sometimes too much); for the west: it must only come when THEY decide it, and they also want to decide who must change, what must change, and when it must change..and that such change must be subservient to western interests. That is, you will admit, a problem...

I don't disagree with you here. I am, however, more concerned with what we Muslims are doing. After all, charity begins at home.

quote:

Originally posted by dara shikoh:
They can toss thge Lackawanna six in prison for ten years each..for doing NOTHING truly proveably illegal...but they can sentence someone who drove drunk and killed an innocent teenager to......3 and a half years in jail.
The guy I gave evidence against in a terrorism trial got 20 years for what? Having a wild dua on his person. No killing. But the drunk driver got 3 and a half. SHould Islamic law go that route?
somehow, while I do advocate for changes, I am leery of going the western secular route...look at the chaos in our courts.

We all know that hs is run by a bunch of idiots. Look who is their leader. :))

Muslims don't have a problem with what they do for the belief in Allah. It is what they do to others that are concerning. We pray like we should. Fast, give zakaah like we should. Of course, the imaams will try to impress on us that we are not doing enough. :))

It is the way that we treat others or how we think of them that is keeping us away from what Muhammad ibn Abdullah was all about.

quote:

Originally posted by ksazma:

quote:

Originally posted by dara shikoh:
Kaz; I agree conditionally. I am impressed by Sayyid Hosein Nasr's thinking on this issue. He said that change is always good when it comes from within. But not through external imposition. He called it cultural hegemony. Just because the west has "discovered" some new crap, we must necc. go along with them? When homosexuality was bad for them, they used to put that taint on the Muslims and all the arabs. Now it is suddenly "good" for them, they are trying to show Muslims are pervasively homophobic.
For Muslims and chinese philosophers, change comes slowly and after much thought (sometimes too much); for the west: it must only come when THEY decide it, and they also want to decide who must change, what must change, and when it must change..and that such change must be subservient to western interests. That is, you will admit, a problem...

I don't disagree with you here. I am, however, more concerned with what we Muslims are doing. After all, charity begins at home.

point taken. good one.

quote:

Originally posted by ksazma:

quote:

Originally posted by Fu Real:

quote:

Originally posted by ksazma:
The problem is that the West have changed, somewhat. We Muslims need to.

Care to elaborate, expound a little more on some of the changes Muslims need to adopt.
The reminder is good for the believer.

Read any piece on us reflecting on western problems and we have to go back 1000 years to make reference. We can go back to yesterday for Muslims problems. Just consider all the Muslims being killed in Iraq by their fellow Muslims who claim to be more practicing Muslims than the ones they kill.

We are always forced to bring up the inquisition, crusade or like this person did, the injustice done during colonialism. Need any more examples?

Oh, one change that Muslims can adopt right now is stop killing other people. That will be a good start.

U hadda write this, eh? Now andre gonna kick my butt, because I have no answer. :-)

A few years ago, nobody said anything bad about Muslims. Europe accepted them, Great Britain accepted them, and then they repaid the hosts by bombing their trains and buses.

I am convinced a large percentage of muslims suffer from brain freeze from too much fasting, or simply lack any form of intelligence. It is no wonder non-muslims think there is a correlation with Islam and ignorance. Of the 2 billion or so muslims, how much do you think ever read the Quran?

quote:

Originally posted by Terry Ishmael:
A few years ago, nobody said anything bad about Muslims. Europe accepted them, Great Britain accepted them, and then they repaid the hosts by bombing their trains and buses.

That is a blatant lie. However I will not go any further since I find this argument rather stupid and I have better things to do with my time.

However, I do suggest that Muslims need to get out of the apologist mode and do some reading of their own rather than accuse others of what they are guilty of.

Ah think TI being tongue in cheek.

quote:

Originally posted by dara shikoh:
Ah think TI being tongue in cheek.

Then I man sorry for the remark.

I was watching bridges tv yesterday and they played a segment of a speech from Sherman Jackson. He was talking about a post modern America and the man leashed into an attack on the white establishment calling it a supremacist society. He then went on to say that the Muslim achievements in America far exceeds that of the white establishment but the facts are being suppressed.


Dara, I was in your neck of the woods a few weeks ago and I must say the place nice baaad. I stayed in La Jolla.

From my own observation, the Muslims were getting some recognition, thanks to the interfaith activities. Then came 9/11 that upset that apple cart. Suddenly we had to start back from scratch with some of our donations confiscated because they were deemed being used for illegal activities.

What is Sherman talking about? Where do our accomplishments surpass those of the White establishment? Wishful thinking, I must say.

"Speak the truth, even if it is against yourself or your kin" Let us keep this in mind.

quote:

Originally posted by Abu Jihad:

quote:

Originally posted by dara shikoh:
Ah think TI being tongue in cheek.

Then I man sorry for the remark.

I was watching bridges tv yesterday and they played a segment of a speech from Sherman Jackson. He was talking about a post modern America and the man leashed into an attack on the white establishment calling it a supremacist society. He then went on to say that the Muslim achievements in America far exceeds that of the white establishment but the facts are being suppressed.


Dara, I was in your neck of the woods a few weeks ago and I must say the place nice baaad. I stayed in La Jolla.

They do have a new imam at the mosque here....and he is really good. The abu bakr mosque. Yes, this place is nice..which is why I have a problem..becuase I am getting offers from better universities...but i don't want to put up with their winters...

quote:

Originally posted by ksazma:
From my own observation, the Muslims were getting some recognition, thanks to the interfaith activities. Then came 9/11 that upset that apple cart. Suddenly we had to start back from scratch with some of our donations confiscated because they were deemed being used for illegal activities.

What is Sherman talking about? Where do our accomplishments surpass those of the White establishment? Wishful thinking, I must say.

"Speak the truth, even if it is against yourself or your kin" Let us keep this in mind.

Kaz I see what you are saying. But when it comes to guys like Sherman, don't forget that Abu's summary was extremely truncated. SJ is good...and he may have been coming from the humanist perspective, or the theory, van Sertima's that Muslims had been here before Columbus and interacted harmoniously with the natives rather than kill them. I don't know. But as Ibn Taimiyya said, when one hears a report, before one agrees or disagrees, one has to make sure he has the complete thing. That being said, you just made me remember Zaid Shakir..he came here and I walked out of the lecture. He was spouting the nonsense about afroislam that i found absolutely nauseating.

quote:

Originally posted by dara shikoh:

quote:

Originally posted by ksazma:
From my own observation, the Muslims were getting some recognition, thanks to the interfaith activities. Then came 9/11 that upset that apple cart. Suddenly we had to start back from scratch with some of our donations confiscated because they were deemed being used for illegal activities.

What is Sherman talking about? Where do our accomplishments surpass those of the White establishment? Wishful thinking, I must say.

"Speak the truth, even if it is against yourself or your kin" Let us keep this in mind.

Kaz I see what you are saying. But when it comes to guys like Sherman, don't forget that Abu's summary was extremely truncated. SJ is good...and he may have been coming from the humanist perspective, or the theory, van Sertima's that Muslims had been here before Columbus and interacted harmoniously with the natives rather than kill them. I don't know. But as Ibn Taimiyya said, when one hears a report, before one agrees or disagrees, one has to make sure he has the complete thing. That being said, you just made me remember Zaid Shakir..he came here and I walked out of the lecture. He was spouting the nonsense about afroislam that i found absolutely nauseating.

you right, I was giving an excerpt from an excerpt. He did give some examples such as academics etc (props to guys like you:):)). The bottom line is that you have to be careful about what you use as your reference point for comparison. This is what he was emphasizing in his speech.


I am sorry you dont like Zaid, he is cool by me, but not of the same academic caliber as Sherman and a few others.

Sherman, as you point out, is a scholar. Zaid comes from a supposed sufi background..but they don't act like the sufi philosophy requires. He might be cool...but when one wants coolness and spirituality..one meets Abdul Aziz Sachedina. Zaid spends time having his introducers talk about his qualifications..and then it sets up an anticlimax. Sherman on the other hand..I have never heard him speak...lets his material do the talking. I don't know where he got his Ph. D from, but his stuff is excellently researched, even if one disagrees with anything, he can represent.

quote:

Originally posted by dara shikoh:
Kaz I see what you are saying. But when it comes to guys like Sherman, don't forget that Abu's summary was extremely truncated. SJ is good...and he may have been coming from the humanist perspective, or the theory, van Sertima's that Muslims had been here before Columbus and interacted harmoniously with the natives rather than kill them. I don't know. But as Ibn Taimiyya said, when one hears a report, before one agrees or disagrees, one has to make sure he has the complete thing. That being said, you just made me remember Zaid Shakir..he came here and I walked out of the lecture. He was spouting the nonsense about afroislam that i found absolutely nauseating.

In which case, I stand corrected. Ma'salaam.

quote:

Originally posted by ksazma:

quote:

Originally posted by dara shikoh:
Kaz I see what you are saying. But when it comes to guys like Sherman, don't forget that Abu's summary was extremely truncated. SJ is good...and he may have been coming from the humanist perspective, or the theory, van Sertima's that Muslims had been here before Columbus and interacted harmoniously with the natives rather than kill them. I don't know. But as Ibn Taimiyya said, when one hears a report, before one agrees or disagrees, one has to make sure he has the complete thing. That being said, you just made me remember Zaid Shakir..he came here and I walked out of the lecture. He was spouting the nonsense about afroislam that i found absolutely nauseating.

In which case, I stand corrected. Ma'salaam.

Bhai, there was nothign being corrected. Ah just happen to think that Sherman knows his stuff..and that summaries can be misleading.

Not all Muslims bombed the trains and buses of in the LOndon.

Europe refuse to accept the Muslims even after many generations are born there.

Europe wants to define European culture on their terms

They refuse to accommodate the Muslims

Britian is doing her best to redefine what is british. I