Muslims should insist on a serious engagement with the full spectrum of Islamic thought and practices. There can be no Muslim movement that does not engage the very “stuff” (textual and material sources) of the Islamic tradition, even if some of us would wish to debate what “stuff” that should be and how it ought to be interpreted. The engagement with the weight of the tradition might be uneasy at times, occasionally inspiring, now and then tedious, and sometimes even painful. Still, we should believe that it is imperative to work through inherited traditions of thought and practice. In particular cases, we might conclude that certain pre-existing interpretations fail to offer us sufficient guidance today. However, we can only faithfully claim that position after – and not before – a serious engagement with the tradition. To move beyond certain past interpretations of Islam, we have to go critically through them.
It is not difficult to find people from a Muslim background who tackle issues of social justice, disparate distribution of wealth, oppression of Muslim women, etc. However, it has been an experience that too often such activism lacks the necessary engagement with the specifics of Islamic tradition. Such programs for social reform could just as easily come from Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, Secular Humanist, or agnostic progressives. Perhaps this partially explains why the progressive agenda has held little appeal for many Muslims worldwide, who have correctly detected that those who espouse these otherwise valuable teachings are simply giving an “Islamic veneer” to ideologies such as Marxism or Capitalism. Some have leveled charges in the past that Muslim voices speaking up for justice are simply parroting the secular ideology of socialism dressed up in Qur’an and hadith.
To state the obvious, a Muslim agenda has to be both progressive and Islamic, in the sense of deriving its inspiration from the heart of the Islamic tradition. It cannot survive as a graft of Secular Humanism onto the tree of Islam, but must emerge from within that very entity. It can receive and surely has received inspiration from other spiritual and political movements, but it must ultimately grow in the soil of Islam.
Some interpretations of Islam in both the past and the present have been part of the problem. While the ongoing interpretations and implementations of Islamic ethics guided by justice and pluralism can be part of the solution, but it cannot be rigid forever, as time and circumstances changes. Islam is a dynamic religion, as shown by various traditions that has shown it evolving towards the better. To introduce an Islamic term, one might state that the progressive Muslim project represents an ongoing attempt at an Islamic ijtihad, or committed critical thinking based on disciplined but independent reasoning, to come up with solutions to new problems. This progressive ijtihad should be our jihad.
In the aftermath of September 11, 2001, the term “jihad” is all too familiar to most people. To both the Muslim fanatic and the Muslim-hating xenophobe, jihad is simply “holy war” declared by Muslims against Westerners. For the Muslim apologist, jihad is instead purely the inner struggle against one’s own selfish tendencies. Neither interpretation takes into consideration the possibility of engaging and transforming the social order and the environment in a just and pluralistic fashion that affirms the humanity of us all.
It is vitally important to recognize that “jihad” is etymologically related to the concept of ijtihad. In Arabic, concepts that share the same trilateral etymological derivation are essentially linked to one another. “Jihad” and ijtihad both come from the root ja-ha-da, meaning “to strive,” “to exert.” For progressive Muslims, a fundamental part of our struggle (jihad) to exorcise our inner demons and bring about justice in the world at large is to engage in a progressive and critical interpretation of Islam (ijtihad).
An essential part of the progressive ijtihad is to account for and challenge the great impoverishment of thought and spirit brought forth by Muslim literalist exclusivists. If we dehumanize and demonize the literalist exclusivists, we have lost something valuable in our quest to acknowledge the humanity of all human beings. Gandhi was right: “It is quite proper to resist and attack a system, but to resist and attack its author is tantamount to resisting and attacking oneself, for we are all tarred with the same brush, and are children of one and the same Creator.” This is a great challenge.
No comments:
Post a Comment