http://www.newyorker.com/online/video/2006/10/09/islam
Although the debate launched numerous points of discussion, I was particularly interested in what Omar Ahmad, founder of Cair, and Abdullahi Ahmed An-Naim, author of Toward Islamic Reformation: Civil Liberities, Human Rights, and International Law had to say. They disagreed if Islam should be separated from Muslims, meaning whether or not Islamic thought is a Pristine prescription of ideas that should be perceived as such, regardless of how Muslims portray the religion in practice. Omar Ahmad's states that Islam is a set of guidelines which Muslims do not always follow. On the other hand, Abdullahi Ahmed An-Naim believes it is irrelevant to think a Pristine Islamic philosophy exists because Islam is what Muslims make of it. He went on to say that we have no other understanding of Islam, aside from the interpretation, representation and expression Muslims give it.
Before I saw this debate, I was of the opinion that Islam and Muslims should be seen as distinct. A hierarchical view represented the relationship between the transmitted knowledge of the Qur'an and the Sunnah to its manifestation in the lives of Muslims. Trying to emulate the Prophet (pbuh), his teachings in the Sunnah and guidance from God in the Qur'an, Muslims would always struggle to achieve perfection. As is the human condition, perfection would never be achieved. The idea of a Pristine normative set of guidelines was comforting to me. I knew that my soul would find ample material to reflect on and take as prescription to rectify flaws in my life. A Constant Internal Struggle. Everyday a Chance for Reflection and to Become a Better Version of Myself. I liked this idea.
But hearing this lecture, I start to question my stance. Is An-Naim correct in saying that Islam is an expression of Muslims, meaning a separation is impossible? My mind meanders through voices and expressions of Islam as I see in the ummah. The voices---the robbers of religion by stealing it as tool to rally power and support in nation-states; the desperate voice that violently uses religion for political reasons; the disillusioned voice that uses a personal experience as a global truth like Ayaan Hirsi Ali; the academic voices who see no clash between Islam and modernity; the intellectuals with no formal religious training but wish to heighten the level of discussion by using to Islamic thought to incite dialogue and reinterpretation; the immigrants trying to find an identity in their adopted land; the malleable youth voice afraid to carry the torch for future generations. This is Islam? While true that these voices represent some of the identities of Muslims, it is hard for me to swallow that Islam can only be seen in the way it is represented. I agree with some of voices, while others I see completely misconstrue the Islamic message and cannot be representative of the perfection that was the Prophet's life (pbuh) and in the Book with no doubt. I revert back to my original thought.
Islam is the Pristine message. Through the passage of time, it has stayed unchanged. The expression of Islam by Muslims has changed over time through interpretation. After inception, the ulema or scholars interpreted Islam for their time; it was all that they knew. Our times should reflect interpretation of the Pristine by scholars in a way that fits our reality. There is nothing wrong with that. To take issue with reinterpretation is to place Islam in a vacuum, completely voiding it of any historical impression.
I realize my worldview is a reflection of my own experiences and for me, everything is reduced to faith and prayer so others may not be as easily convinced. I know I will never live up to the message completely. But knowing I will always find perfection in the Pristine motivates me to struggle for better. I have a never-ending supply of bargaining chips to use as a means of becoming closer to the Creator. I find comfort again.
No comments:
Post a Comment