"Rediscovering Islam" by Brigadier FB Ali

"It is necessary that we Muslims face up to the reality that the Islam that we profess, practise and preach today is not working. And has not worked for a long time. This is true both for our communal life as societies, and our personal lives as individuals.

In Muslim countries and communities around the world there is no shortage of mosques and preachers; prayer and fasting are common; millions perform the Hajj every year. Yet most of these societies are rife with corruption and injustice; poverty and illiteracy prevail; sickness and malnutrition are common. It is not just a question of resources; those Muslim countries that are lucky enough to have oil or other natural resources may have avoided some of these problems but face other serious ones (which are also common throughout the Muslim world) : lack of individual freedom and human rights; deep economic and social class divisions; materialism and consumerism; the status of women; the alienation of youth, etc.

This failure of Muslim societies to solve internal problems has been matched by their failures to deal with external challenges. In the 19th and early 20th centuries they were unable to withstand the European colonial and imperial tide that swept over them. Today, they are not able to effectively resist the external political, economic and cultural pressures to which they are subject, nor have they been able to keep up and cope with the rapid technological changes occurring in the modern world.

No Muslim society today, whatever its geography or history, can be pointed out as one where humanity has progressed, or as a model of how human beings should live. There has not been such a one for centuries.

At the personal level, for each Muslim there is a fundamental paradox that, whether we face it or not (and most of us do not), subconsciously undermines the central pillar of our faith. This pillar is our belief in Allah, in a Being who is all-powerful, all-knowing, all-just and all-merciful. But our daily observation and experience show that there is not much justice and mercy in the world; the strong and wicked prosper, the meek and innocent suffer; good deeds bear no fruit, bad ones reap rewards. Of course, not in all cases, not everywhere, not all the time, but frequently enough to raise the question : how can we reconcile this wide prevalence of injustice and suffering with our belief in a world in which a just and merciful God reigns supreme?" Brigadier FB Ali

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I was sent this excellent essay by Brigadier FB Ali, a retired officer of the Pakistan Army. His thoughts seem to me to express the distress which seems to be felt by many Muslims with regard to the apparent inability of societies and governments in the Islamicate World (Marshall Hodgson's word) to deal successfully with many of the internal and external issues that face them.

I have been telling audiences lately that there is a powerful and continuing dialog underway among Muslims trying to reach consensus about how the community of Muslims should address the world today.

This essay is an important contribution to that dialog. Perhaps the "Gate of Ijtihad" will be re-opened. Perhaps the Mu'taziliin will be justified at last.

The complete essay should be seen at the link below. pl

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Download rediscovering_islam.doc

Comments

[Freeman]

I should like to offer my sincere congratulations to Brigadier Ali for having perceived, at least in part, the realities of the world. He offers a modern interpretation of the koran which might be acceptable to many non-muslims who are of a religious mind.

However, at bottom, it's all religious wordsmithing. The bible, the koran the book of morman, the works of L Ron Hubbard, the writings of Marx, or even Milton Friedman, are all products of human thought, expressed in the context of the authors' time and containing the authors' predjudices, knowledge and ignorance.

To base one's lifestyle on the ideas of one or a few people writing hundreds or thousands of years ago, or of someone writing with an agenda in mind, is to willfully reject the knowledge and experience of the consolidated written record of academics from ancient history to moderm times.

May I urge you to take the next step, Ali, and recognise that the koran is just another book dictated by an illiterate individual who was totally ignorant of most of what we now know about the world. How could he have known that the flame of the sun was not put out every night in a pool of mud, or that the sex of a child is determined at the moment of conception?

Let's forget about those ancient myths of gods and an afterlife. This is it, and it's not a rehearsal. So, let's try to live together in peace and harmony, for we can be sure that the ultimate result of a major East-Weat conflict would be unnecessary death and suffering for countless numbers of us.

Regards,

[Cloned Poster]

I find this essay a tad propaganda. Look at US "Muslim" allies in the ME.

Pakistan....... Dictatorship
Lebanon........ Shia/HA given no real representive despite the population that support them.
Saudi Arabia... Where has all the oil wealth gone?
Jordan......... Sandhurst puppet Abdullah
Egypt.......... US $$$$$$$$ to keep the elite, happy.

As Ali says This failure of Muslim societies to solve internal problems has been matched by their failures to deal with external challenges. In the 19th and early 20th centuries they were unable to withstand the European colonial and imperial tide that swept over them.

They are still subject to colonial masters.

[W. Patrick Lang]

Freeman

What a strange thing! To respond to an insightful view of Islam with a general attack on religion. What a strange thing. Do you imagine that Islam isgoing to disappear from the earth? If you do, then you are foolish. pl

CP

A political response? Do you also think that Islam will disappear? pl

[Ellen1910]

I remember writing something along these lines a few years ago. Can't put my finger on it at the moment, but I'll pull my old files and see if I can locate it.

Ecclesiastes

[Babak Makkinejad]

Freeman:

Your statements and General Ali's can be criticized on many grounds - historical, political, religious etc. Below I will briefly state my criticism to both of you from religious grounds.

General Ali's ideas will always be marginal within the Muslim world until and unless he persuades significant numbers of Muslim Doctors of Religious Sciences that those ideas, in fact, have merit. The doctor's of religion in Islam play a similar, but not identical, role as lawyers in US; they interpret an arcane and rather esoteric body of knowledge for their societies and guard it for future generations.
I personally believe he has no chance of success not only in the present emotionally charged political climate but even in a calmer situation. You see, he states, “Quran is a record of the divinely inspired utterances of Rasul Allah”. This is identical to the view of certain Protestant Christians regarding the Old and New Testaments – it emphatically is not the view of the Jews, the Catholic Church, and Sunni or Shia Islam. By that utterance, bringing into question the authenticity of the Quran as the actual Word of God, he has undermined the basis of Islam – Quran as the Word of God.
That view of Islam might be acceptable to him and others but that view will be rejected by almost all Muslims. What he is suggesting is the creation of a new religion. I believe we already have any number of such off-shoots of Islam that he could join: Sikhs, Babis, Bahais, abd others.

Now to my disagreements with you:

Yes, human beings give rise to ideas but those ideas take over the minds of men and affect their behaviour. Your own country is just an idea for example. Your own ideas of governance, justice, politics are based, to a large extend, on the intellectual tyrannies of the dead men of Greece and Rome – not to mention men of the European Enlightenment. Your entire corpus of Law is derived mostly from the precedents established over hundreds of years in the application of English Common Law – from a country across the Ocean from you. Your polity, I hope you will admit, is also tradition-bound.

The critical aspect of the extant religions is not belief in after-life; it is the Faith that the life of the individual does matter – in the grand scheme of things. That though God is inscrutable and capricious (some would say Mad) he cares about the individual human life. This is the chief idea – after monotheism – that sustains these religions and the faithful. What you are alluding to will be of no comfort to billions of human beings and ultimately – it is a poor substitute.

Peace and Harmony are not the natural states of living matter. I cannot conceive of a society in which the application of violence will not be needed – at least from time to time. It is the tasks of a historian of the future to sift through the records to find the roots of the current confrontation between Western Protestant Christians and Sunni Muslim. (This is not a confrontation yet between all of Islam and all of West.)

[4 billion]

PL,

Regarding your comment 'Islam disappearing being a foolish notion', I go a step further and say Religion is disappearing. One only need look at Church attendences in Australia and Europe to see them diving faster than a Tsurugi over Okinawa.

[W. Patrick Lang]

4 what?

You need to come visit us simple minded people here. We are not so wise as those you mention, but, you knew that. pl

[subadei]

4 billion,

There is a vast world beyond that of the increasingly non-religious (and in some cases popularly shrinking) cultures you mention that both embrace religion and resent being marginalized as superstitious, backwater unsophisticates.

Freeman,

Best of luck in unweaving 2000+ years of societal fabric.

PL,
Hopefully General Musharreff has read this essay.

[Chris Marlowe]

As a student of history, the current situation in the Islamic Umma reminds me a lot of the situation of China in the 19th century, with the added complications of oil and religion.

The closest China came to having its land taken away (re the Israel/Palestine situation) was with the Treaty ports treaties of the 19th century; this finally came to a climax with the Japanese invasion of WWII. China has since recovered, and is now the world's greatest creditor nation with the fastest growing major economy.

I often ask myself what the ME countries can learn from China's experience? Pakistan, for one, is an Islamic country which has long had a cordial relationship with China.

My observation is that:

1. A country, people and region cannot begin to recover unless and until they recognize that only they have the future in their own hands; nobody else can be blamed in spite of all the historical injustices they have suffered at the hands of others. They must become brutally realistic with themselves in their assessment of their situation. Slogans will not do the trick.

2. The factors which make a country renew itself are learning through education, hard work and selfless sacrifice and strong family values, supported by the government and which then permeate to the people.

3. Religion can be used as a positive force or as a negative force. In a positive role, it can reinforce the characteristics mentioned above. In a negative role, it can be used to blame outsiders and justify violence against civilians (terrorism). (This is not a problem just with Islam; there are fundamentalist Christians in the US who behave in the same way. This has given all three of the Abrahamic religions a bad reputation in large parts of the world, especially those societies which are more secularized.)

4. Most of the Muslim world are led by relatively feudal leaders who are not well acquainted with the ramifications of modern technology and the importance of education. They do not set a good example for their people, many of whom are not equipped with educations which will give them the skills to prepare them for productive lives in modern society. Instead of making the investment in education and infrastructure, it is politically easier for the leaders to turn their peoples' anger against the Israelis and their allies.

5. During the Abbasid caliphate, the Muslim world, led by Baghdad, was one of the great centers of world culture and learning. If Muslim societies and their national leaderships turned their focus to education and national economic development, instead of being reliant on oil and blaming their misfortunes only on Zionism and its American and European allies, there is no reason they could not at least recover some of their greatness.

6. The world is complicated, and the Muslims are not entirely to blame. The west, and the US especially, are to blame for supporting a long and unjust occupation of the Palestinian people without bringing sufficient pressure on successive Israeli governments to pull out of the West Bank and Gaza. In this regard, the Bush 43 administration has been especially irresponsible. The American people are directly responsible for this, as they elected this administration in 2004. (The Bush administration was appointed by the Supreme Court in 2000, so I do not blame the American people for what happened that year.) At the same time, the world's economic dependence on oil has made things "politically complicated". It is in everyone's best interest to move away from oil as an energy source.

[FB Ali]

Babak,

The central point of my thesis is that the original, simple message of the Quran has been buried beneath this complex, man-made superstructure which is now the religion of Islam, and that Muslims need to go back to the original Quranic message. I am not addressing the clerics of this religion, but those in the Muslim intelligentsia who realise the limitations of this religion, both practical and theoretical, and are searching for a solution that does not entail abandoning Islam. To them I am saying : This religion is not the Islam that the Quran taught; that Islam is something that will fully meet your highest expectations of an ideology to live by, today and in the future.

I have no illusions about the size of the audience with whom this thesis might resonate; it will be very small. But if my argument is soundly based, I have hope that these numbers will grow over time. There are large numbers of educated, thinking Muslims who have lost faith in their religion, but are reluctant to renounce it.

Take another look at my essay; I am NOT advocating a new religion. What I say is that the Quran offers the basis for a way of life that befits a human being. Millions of people, Muslim and non-Muslim, actually live in this exemplary way. I am saying, this is Islam, not the religion that goes by this name.

[Mo]

I really couldn't disagree more with this essay. Primarily, and as a summary of his essay, Brig. Ali is confusing the problems of Islam in the modern world for authorities and the problems it brings to societies, ie the general populace.

Working backwards through his essay, his last paragraph speaks of a fundamental paradox, the paradox of a just God and the injustice in the world. The question isn't a paradox.

If there is no God, then all these natural travails are the natural order of things. All the injustice is a case of the survival of the fittest; If we are mere extensions of the ape world, then the cruelty and injustice is just an extension of our animal instincts.

Therefore the question is if there is a God, why allow these things to happen?

If you are religious then the answer is simple; A test of our faith, like Abraham as he had the knife to his sons throat, or Jesus in the desert; A test of our beleif in how we fight those injustices. Of course this is only true if you are religious. Theres no point a humanist responding that these are excuses because they are only excuses to a humanist and therefore a circular argument.

He states that no Muslim society today, whatever its geography or history, can be pointed out as one where humanity has progressed, or as a model of how human beings should live. There has not been such a one for centuries.

Humanity's progression comes through learning and the application of that learning into ideas and experiments. This requires a certain amount of infrastructure, political environment and state level encouragement. To blame the lack of contribution on Islam is churlish to say the least. It doesn't take a degree in history to know what progress humanity made when Islam had a leadership that encouraged and invested in science. The lack of contribution the Islamic world has made to Humanity since then cannot be attributed to a religion whose prophet told his followers to "seek knowledge, even if it be in China". Rather it is a result of 600 years of rulers, from todays corrupt, self-agrandising despots placed in their positions by the generosity of their colonial masters or via violent coups, through the Ottomans and to the final rulers of the Islamic empire, who have all have in their own ways, contributed to the de-education of the masses.

As a model of how human beings should live? Can Brig. Ali point us to a society that acts a paradigm of how human beings should live? One cannot use macro-sociolgy for such answers. If he is refering to every single individual in every single Islamic country, then he is offending a lot of people.

Simple answer: Show me an Islamic state ruled by Muslims.

I wil agree that Muslim societies have been unable to solve internal problems or external challenges so far. However, what is the point in the statement that in the 19th and early 20th centuries they were unable to withstand the European colonial and imperial tide that swept over them. Considering what happened to much of the indigineous populations that also suffered this tide, and considering the technological difference between those Empires and the people they colonised, I would say the Islamic world came out of it in rather better shape than some of the rest.
Today, they are not able to effectively resist the external political, economic and cultural pressures to which they are subject? I would disagree. I think quite a few of them are making a good stab at it and some of them are succeeding. Those that are succeeding are doing so precisely because they have been able to keep up and cope with the rapid technological changes occurring in the modern world; And more than that, they are using their own abilities to turn that technology to their advantage.

Finally, the lack of individual freedom and human rights; deep economic and social class divisions; materialism and consumerism; the status of women; the alienation of youth, etc. These are all the result of poor leadership; Leadership that in no country can be seriously said to be Islamic.

Brig. Ali, yes the Muslim world is in bad shape; Yes it needs work. But the problems have very little to with Islam itself. But things are improving. The colonial guard will be removed; If Mr Bush can be thanked for anything, it is for the fact that he has accelerated this process. A few more Nasrallahs, Nassers even Saladins and we will return to an Islamic world where our youth are not enjoined to perversions of our religion; An Islamic world where education, social justice and human rights, ideals that existed in the Islamic world long before the rest of the world wanted civilisation, are enshrined in society.

There are questions for the populace of the Islamic world to answer. But sorry, Brig. Ali's are not amongst them.

[jr786]

Ali writes:

No Muslim society today, whatever its geography or history, can be pointed out as one where humanity has progressed, or as a model of how human beings should live. There has not been such a one for centuries

As a Muslim, I'm ashamed to admit the truth of this statement, at the same time I would say that this lack of social justice, to which Ali alludes to several times, is not the fault of Islam but of Muslims. As Ali well knows, the ambition of the Islamists is to establish a just society in this sphere of existence, that they beleive such a society can only be achieved through the sharia of the 7th century does not belie the value of that ambition. It is the duty of all Muslims to pursue a just society, the question is how to do so. Yet who amongst us, other than the Islamists, calls out for justice??

The General's namesake, Ali ibn Abu Talib, was one of the finest men who ever lived. If Muslims could live up to the example that he set, let alone that of the Prophet (saw), then we Muslims would be proud. Our problems begin when we forget the spirit of Islam and focus on the letter, but that is our fault as bad Muslims, not the fault of Islam.

Brigadier Ali asks: how can we reconcile this wide prevalence of injustice and suffering with our belief in a world in which a just and merciful God reigns supreme?

We can't, becasue it is we who are in error. But we Muslims can ask how we have failed in living up to the temporal ideals of our faith, ideals that are based on justice and humanity.

[FB Ali]

ALL :

WHAT COL LANG HAS POSTED IS ONLY THE FIRST PAGE OF THE ESSAY ! THE FULL DOCUMENT (13 PAGES) HAS TO BE DOWNLOADED BY CLICKING ON THE LINK BELOW HIS COMMENTS.

I am grateful for many obviously sincere and well-reasoned comments - but they are all only on the first page of my essay. I would suggest the whole document be read to get a clear idea of what I am trying to say.

[Kevin Rooney]

FB Ali,
Thank you for such a sincere and heart-felt post. I can feel that you have thought and contemplated long and hard about this and really poured yourself into considering the question.
At this point in time, the situation of the Muslim world can easily seem hopeless. But I remember back in the mid-60s, during the Cultural Revolution, when China seemed hopeless too. It was roiled in chaotic anger and frustration, choking in poverty, seemingly unable to cope with the modern world, and digging itself an even deeper whole through fanatic devotion to a dogmatic version of its dominant creed (in the Chinese case, the cultural revolution version of Marxism-Leninism). And anyone in China who criticized the situation or called for a different direction would be met with violence and very possibly death. Yet 40 some-odd years later, contrary to any reasonable expectation, China has progressed by leaps and bounds.
I think China is a good comparison because after all the Muslim world and China were at the head of human progress at the same time and both fell within four years of each other and to the same force, the Mongol Horde. In fact, the very same army that destroyed Baghdad in 1254 was marched back to East Asia and toppled the Southern Sung dynasty in 1258. Although there were Ming China and the Ottoman and Safavid Empires, neither the Chinese nor the Muslim world fully recovered until the Chinese have done so in the past few decades. And both the Chinese and Muslim worlds were held back by their very past success, a past success that allowed the old ways to become rigid and unable to change.
What lessons might be available in recent Chinese history about how a once great civilization can find its way again within the modern world? One is the role of hitting bottom. On at least two occasions the Chinese people as a whole really seem to have gotten that "this is not working". One was the rejection of warlordism and the Nationalist party in favor of the Communists. And the second was the rejection of Maoist purity and poverty in favor of a more ordinary life and greater prosperity through Deng's reforms. Each time, China hit bottom and hit hard. Like an alcholic finally hitting bottom.
The Muslim world has somehow not fully hit bottom. Perhaps much of this is the fault of easy money from oil. An alcoholic with an inheritance can go on drinking far longer than an alcholic who has to work for a living.
But like the friends of the hopeless alcholic who worry for him and wish they could help, FB Ali and all wise friends of the Muslim world must stand by waiting for when the bottom finally is hit and the Muslim world says "OK. This is not working. We need to do something else." Then, there will be the opportunity to really help. And it is worth having the courage to get ready for that day even when we can not see when it will arrive.

[Chris Marlowe]

Brigadier Ali--

I read through all of your article, and have a few comments.

As a secular non-Muslim who has studied the Islamic faith and has deep respect for its teachings, I am a little disturbed at any arguments which hearken back to the purity of an early Islam, even though I think I know what you mean. In Christianity, there have been many sects which have hearkened back to an early "pure" form of the faith; this was Martin Luther's criticism of the Roman Catholic church which sparked the Reformation. The problem with any argument which reaches back to the time of Jesus or the Prophet is that its interpretation, more often than not, is highly subjective. In contemporary America, some of the fastest growing and richest churches are those which claim to go back to the "original" teachings of Jesus Christ. These churches and their congregations form the base of George W. Bush's support in the fundamentalist Christian community.

In modern Islam, this has been the same argument which has been put forward by the Wahhabists in Saudi Arabia. Unfortunately, their interpretation is highly puritanical, and suppresses the rights of women, contrary to the practices of Islam in sixth century Arabia. Christians cannot even get a church built in Saudi Arabia. This Wahhabism is vastly different from Islam during the period of the Abbasid caliphate in Baghdad, which was vastly more confident and broad-minded, and was much more tolerant of non-Muslims, with many Christians and Jews serving as ministers in government. During this period, talent and education trumped religious faith in importance.

In addition, Sunni Islam does not have a highly centralized central authority like the Catholic Church which can stand up to local politicians. The result is that it is totally dependent on the enlightenment of the rulers. Since they do not have much power, Muslim scholars and religious figures are left with arguing over interpretation of hadith and sharia in order to stay relevant in society.

Another thing which comes to mind is your argument for the doctrine of the Khilafat fil-Ard as a more rational interpretation of Islam. This argument occurred in 18th century America and Europe, it was called Deism. The most famous believer in this approach was Thomas Jefferson, who said that God was like a watchmaker (watches were the hi-tech of the 18th century), who wound up the universe and then let it run. This interpretation elevated human free will as the main causative agent in human affairs. Many of the Deist beliefs which were current at that time were reflected in the most important political document to come from that period, the US constitution.

In the modern world, I believe that this Deist interpretation is unlikely. Let me tell you why. I believe that the pace of change in the world, brought about by the forces of technology and globalization have made people uncertain about the future, and their children's future. They really don't know how things are going to turn out, or if they will even be relevant.

In this uncertain world, people who come from religious households often end up looking for simple answers to complex challenges. This is why evangelical Christianity has increased in popularity in the US, and why fundamentalist Islamists have blamed the evil west, with its support for Israel, as the cause of their suffering. This teaching not only has a following among the poor and uneducated, but among the more prosperous middle class. If we look at the backgrounds of Mohammad Atta and the 18 other attackers on 9/11, we find that they are well-educated people who would have had successful careers if they had not chosen their path.

It is always easier for politicians like George W. Bush and Osama bin-Laden to sell black and white "truths", than it is for intelligent people to sell 256 shades of gray. Both George W. Bush and Osama bin-Laden have a great deal more in common than they would like to admit. Both want to depict their societies as being on the defensive from a ruthless external assault, under attack from outsiders who want to kill their people and change their way of life. In this worldview, only George W. Bush and the Republic party, and Osama bin-Ladin and al-Qaeda are willing to defend their societies.

Ideologically and religiously, they are brothers who need each other, and they have an interest in perpetuating the conflict. That is the only way for them to stay in power and increase their influence.

[avedis]

While it may be tempting for some to blame the problems of the muslim world - or at least the relative problems when compared to the US, Europe and Europian exponents (like Australia) - on Islam or an interpretation of Islam, I think that doing so is misattribution.

Certainly societal conditions in the Muslim world are mirrored by certain non- Muslim societies; take, for example, the very Christian/Catholic country of Mexico (there are others). What does this do to the "it's all because of Islam" hypothesis?

A more attractive and reasonable hypothesis is that the societies under scrutiny here have evolved - or not evolved as the case may be - due to a lack of natural resources; natural resources that would allow the development of more ubiquitious wealth and hence a demand for more universal participation in governance, greater technological development, an ability to meet colonial world powers head on and eye to eye, to secure for more people an integral role in the economic and technological systems of the global community. These are the things that bring people from diverse cultures together. Economic ties and mutual dependence are more conducive to peace than anything else.

To over-simplify, in Europe or America anyone can invest in a bag of seeds, plant them, and enjoy a harvest. Those who do not farm are afforded other options by the natural world; cattle grazing, lumber, cotton, fishing, etc, etc In the troubled spots of the Muslim world, this is not the case. So what else is there? Religion to sooth as balm and anger and desperation to project outward and colonial powers to serve as all too convenient scapegoats, but the lack of resources is the cause. All else is symptom.

[Freeman]

Col:

You ask if I can imagine that Islam is going to disappear from the earth.

Well, foolishly, yes -- but not any time soon. I would guess a timescale of maybe a few hundred years after we have worked out how to manipulate the human genome so as to eradicate cancer, and are able to grow replacements for worn-out organs in situ. Hopefully, applications of this new science of Synthetic Biology, together with other developments in the construction of artificial intelligence and an understanding of how the human brain creates a personality, will lead fewer people to have an intellectual need to propagate divisive ancient myths, or for leaders to gain any credibility in the projection of their personal power through doing so.

"... But when I became a man I put away childish things."

Regards,

[Babak Makkinejad]

FB Ali:

Thank you for your reply.

I respectfully disagree.

For one thing, there are Muslim practices that are not explicitly mentioned in the Quran - such as male circumcision as a covenant with God - that are fundamental to that religion's practice.

Secondarily, by abandoning the Islamic Tradition - in contradistinction with the Quran - you are making the intellectual life of the Muslims poorer in religious, mystical, legal, and philosophical dimensions.

The concepts and ideas of the Quran have been elaborated and developed over centuries to actually address the needs of that time and place - disregarding them is akin to throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Moreover, while Islam is a simple religion compared to Christianity, the Quran is not a simple document conceptually - for example, the Second Surrah is a recapitulation - in a very dense manner - of certain ideas of Jewish Tradition. Which brings me to this: that you will need to interpret the Quran and thus you are back to the point where you need to have an intellectual infrastructure for the interpretation to proceed.

The Muslim intelligentsia, by and large and in my opinion, cannot rise up to the occasion. They are too unfamiliar with the Religious Sciences and their understanding of the Western Religious Thought is rather shallow to non-existent. They are not capable, in my opinion, of carrying out the program that you suggest (with which I disagree for the reasons I mentioned above.). They are worse than useless; they are divisive and misleading.

Over the last 50 years, in my opinion, there have been only two Muslim thinkers that have been able to move this load foreword and both of them were very deeply familiar with the Religious Sciences of Islam: one was Ayatollah Khomeini and the other was Fazl Al Rahman.

I am not unsympathetic with the need to revisit and revise large parts of the Islamic Legal codes. I think, in fact, you have a very good case in slavery for starting a discussion on that topic. And activities like that are already taking place in Iran and other Muslim states.

But I would like to point out that many Jews are in the same boat as Muslims when it comes to the obscurantism of their Doctors of Religion but they do not advocate such a radical approach (in my opinion) as yourself. And certainly the Catholic Church and the Buddhist Tradition accepts the "Tradition" as a large part of their religions.

[Babak Makkinejad]

Kevin Rooney:

In China they are killing female children and fetuses. This is akin to the pre-Islamic Arab practice of burying the girls alive. And what is so great about PRC? They destroyed the Chinese Tradition and all that have gotten left is crass materialism.

From a Muslim point of view China is in Darkness - Jahiliyya.

[Babak Makkinejad]

Mo:

The problem of injustice and pain in the world has been addressed many times:

It is in the Book of Job, it is in the Quran, and it is in the Book 9 (I think) of the Gitas.

The answer is that God wills it and he has his own inscrutable reason for doing what he does - as a man of Faith (and I do not care of which religion) you will bear it.

And I have seen people like that: "God wanted my son and wife to die." And they accept it. This is not a theoretical statement on my part.

[Chris Marlowe]

Babak--

To reduce China to a state of Jahiliyya (darkness) because of its "crass materialism" and because of the murder of girl babies and fetuses (these are individual actions, not government policy) is an insult not just to Chinese, but to Muslim thinking as well.

If China is so much in Jahilliya, then why do so many Muslim countries turn to China for economic, political and diplomatic assistance? China, as a culture, has existed longer than Islam and has prospered. It is now recovering from one of its many low points. There must be something right about the Chinese Jahiliyya then, wouldn't you think? How do you explain this from a purely "Islamic" POV? Besides, there are some 60M Muslims who choose to live under this regime.

Would it be better if the Chinese were still poor peasants? If they were poor, would that mean a rejection of "crass materialism"? So, are the Saudi royal families not materialist? This line of black/white thinking is insulting to everyone; if Muslims are so simplistic about Jahiliyya, then they deserve Bush/Cheney/Abrams and Osama bin-Laden. I do not think that most think that way.

I do not mean to defend everything that happens in China, or the Chinese government. There are many bad things which happen, but more and more, these are becoming isolated instances which are out of the norm. The US corporate media likes to report these out of context so that Americans will feel good about America. "Yes China is rich and successful, but girl babies continue to be murdered, blah blah blah." You get the picture.

I go to China frequently on business; I was there last week reading this blog. Kevin Rooney is much closer to the truth than you are.

[John Hammer]

Freeman, Look at the tremendous scientific breakthroughs of the last 100 years. Have they diminished the role of religion in general or Islam in particular. Why believe the next round of discoveries will?

4 bil, Christian Evangelicalism is growing in Australia, Brazil and Africa. Poland is intensely Catholic and religion is a more and more persistant force in Europe. Oh and if the modern envirnmental movement does not have all the hallmarks of a religion, what does?

[Freeman]

All:

Aside from my John Lennon "imagine" moment (above), I would also have to take issue over Brigadier Ali's understanding of science.

For example, he states that "... the sub-atomic universe appears to be as orderly and predictable as the wider universe." Well, actually, this is far from the case: the findings of quantum mechanics show that there is an indeterminancy about the speed and momentum of sub-atomic objects that makes Newtonian predictions about their behavior impossible.

On a more controversial point, he also takes the dogmatic view that human behavior is somehow a "notable exception" to the rules of physics. Again, not really, since according to respectable modern theories of neuroscience we are ultimately (extremely complex) state variable machines. This complexity means that our future actions/behavior cannot be predicted and so we have the illusion of "free will". If such a machine is heavily programmed from birth to believe in the gods it may be difficult, or even impossible, for it subsequently to shake off such beliefs, or indeed any other strongly fixed behavior such as its childhood language.

By the way, the expression of these thoughts does not mean that I do not believe in decent moral behavior, only that it does not require a spurious religious backing.

[Charles Cameron]

First, I would like to thank Brigadier Ali for his generosity in sending us his article, and Colonel Lang for hosting it.

*

As someone raised in the Christian tradition, I found it very helpful to read your Islamic description of that quality of the divine which lies at the heart of Christian understanding:

>> The love which the Quran extols is the one based on the term _rahma_. The root for this term is a name for the womb, and the term refers primarily to the nurturing, compassionate love that a mother has for her child. Maternal love is the foundation for our humanity; it is this (and the response it elicits in every human being: love of the mother) that enabled (even propelled) us to evolve to the human stage. <<

I had previously understood the word _rahim_ to refer to mercy as a divine attribute, and while mercy (like justice) appears to me to be a mode of love’s expression, it is instructive to read that in at least one manner of thinking within Islam, _rahim_ retains its more fundamental meaning.

The west has two major terms for love, _agape_ and _eros_, with _agape_ referring to the pure and (if I may put it this way) unalloyed love of the creator for creature, and of creature for creator, fellow creature and creation, _eros_ to a love which includes desire (the term is wider than our current use of the word "erotic" and includes also bonds of caring and affection). The nurturing love of creator and creature, understood through the analogy of the love of mother for child and the child’s reciprocal love of mother, seem to meld the virtues of these two forms of love. I very much appreciate the analogy.

Within recent Christian theology, Anders Nygren’s classic work, _Agape and Eros_ stands out as a treatment of the two kinds of love named in his title. I would be interested (putting it mildly) to see an equivalent comparative discussion of the meanings of _agape_ and _rahma_.

[Charles Cameron]

Col. Lang expresses the hope that the Gate of Ijtihad will be re-opened and the rationalism of the Mu'tazilites vindicated. Brig. Ali hopes for a return to the earliest Islam, without the “the elaborate structure that now passes for Islam” -- including not only the jurisprudential schools, but also the hadith. Bassam Tibi, in his book, _The Challenge of Fundamentalism_, writes:

>> A combination of these Islamic sources, the Sufi love of Ibn 'Arabi, the reason-based orientation of Ibn Rushd, the historicizing thought of Ibn Khaldun, and al-Farabi's secular concept of order, seem to me the best combination of cornerstones for an Islamic enlightenment. <<

I would very much appreciate both the Colonel’s and the Brigadier’s comments on Tibi’s proposal – together with those of Babak Makkinejad, David Habakkuk and any other interested parties.