Since it was announced that the Islamic scholar Dr. Adnan Ibrahim is visiting Moroc for the first time, a controversy debuted among supporters and rejectors of the visit, because of the fact that he was originally invited by the ministry of endowments and Islamic affairs to give lectures in Ramadan. This is not the first time a controversy occurs around Dr. Adnan; wherever he goes and whenever he is watched and listened to, he is used to “destabilize” the dominant current religious understanding (of Islam).
Adnan Ibrahim (born in 1966) originates from Palestine. He resides in Austria since the 1990s. He is well-known for being the “enlightened” intellect and preacher, with his appearance and “destabilizing” and “disturbing” thoughts; in his mosque and on his pulpit, he is used to talk about the lives of the prophet’s companions with extreme audacity, as well as talking about “holy” religious figures among Muslims. Additionally, he denies some of the common beliefs in the Islamic heritage; such as the coming of Mehdi, the coming of Jesus, and some hadiths in Sahih Al-Bukhari. Furthermore, he approves of philosophical statements and scientific theories; such as Darwin’s evolution theory and others.
All of that caused a waterfall of criticism to fall on his head. Nevertheless, the scholar who studied medicine and Islamic sciences in the University of Vienna was capable to absorb vast amounts of knowledge in various intellectual and scientific fields, the thing that made many relevant experts to approve of his knowledge in their fields.
Because of his visit to Morocco, Dr. Adnan met with “TelQuel” and had a long interesting interview (of 3 parts). This is the first time he meets a media outlet from Morocco. In the interview, a lot of intellectual and religious topics were discussed -some of which still rise controversy amidst religious communities- such as: freedom and liberties in an Islamic society, the conflict between heritage and modernization, secularism, conflict between moderate Islam and extremism / violence, the illusion of ‘political Islam’ , reformation groups / initiatives, … and other topics that Dr. Adnan speaks his opinion about in detail.
Welcome to Morocco, Dr. Adnan. Thank you for having the time for this interview. First of all, how do you define yourself regarding the intellectual conflicts we live in?
I would say I am a ‘border’ person, living between two grand cultures, absorbing knowledge from both, and am happy about that. Saying this, I am also aware of my favoritism and the favoritisms of both cultures. I consider my roots far deeper than to be denied, hence I do all I can to live within both cultures; the first one gives me the roots without which I will melt and die, and the second gives me the space and part of nutrition, and keeps me on track in the modern age we are living in.
I deeply believe that my religion and heritage are not depleted, and that they are -if correctly received and analyzed- capable of enriching our (modern) age with a high degree of competence, even they are capable of saving mankind, and correcting their path.
I adore the truth, and consider loyalty to it as a form of worship to God and a way to be closer to Him. Moreover, I see that seeking the truth is an extensive continuous process, and see that searching for it as charming as having to struggle for it – that is if it was oppressed and attacked. If that is the case, then it is no surprise that I would eventually collide with some people who want me to be obedient to prepared frames (of thinking) and already-finished schemes (of thinking) that some of which consider the benefits/profits as aims instead of knowledge, and domination instead of discovery.
I -to a far extent- think loudly, and while doing so, raise questions more than answers. These questions move the stagnant water, and plant the seeds of questioning here and there, so that the questions would be addressed (either by me or) by the fellows who walk the path of knowledge; everyone through their own eyes and perspectives.
You spent long years studying and doing ‘Dawah’ (inviting people to Islam), and in the last decade, you extensively influenced a large number of Muslims. However, many criticize that your intellectual statements and stances are sometimes changing and contradictory?
Anyway, criticism is a definite indication that the health of the community started to recuperate. As for my case, I honestly don’t think that most of the criticism I got -and of course what some others also got- was actual criticism; it was rather pure taunts and insults. As you well know, there is a huge difference between criticism and taunting. Unfortunately, the tie that connects us Muslims in this modern age with criticism -in its strict scientific meaning- is still extremely loose, thus many people equate the desire to criticize to the desire to destroy; they would use criticism as a beautiful title to be used as a means for an ugly aim.
Regarding the point that says my statements are changing or contradictory, I would say the answer depends on specifying the definition / what we mean by those words. As for me, I consider loyalty to fundamentals and aims with the changing in the stance and perspective is a praised virtue, and a required flexibility, and I would consider the opposite case (changing the fundamentals) as opportunism and whimsicality.
Is Adnan Ibrahim still believing that the human is prioritized over the religions?
As for the prioritization of the human over the religions, if we consider that religions -and I specifically mean the Godly ones- came for the purpose/sake of earth and its builders (humans), not for the purpose/sake of heaven (God) since heaven absolutely doesn’t need earth, then the statement (of prioritization) may seem contradictory; how can this aspect of priority be applied? Actually, there is no contradiction / conflict between the human and religions, exactly the same way there is no conflict between the patient and the medication, or the hungry and food. If there was no conflict in the first place, it is needless to search which should be prioritized.
However if we understand your question to be about the ‘human practice of religion’ rather than ‘religion’ itself, then things get a lot clearer, especially when we talk about the two types of practice: the understanding, and the application. The ‘organized religions’ -that transformed religions into a social institution- consider religion as a specific system of faith that is closer to isolation, or as dogma and organized rituals, and as codification of roles and practices, and as (the existence of) a temple and clerics. This may be -but not necessarily- strictly hierarchical. Religions in this sense degraded the human -give or take- , and favored the clerics and the official authority over the peoples. This even went as far as sacrificing the lives of millions of people, under deceiving slogans, while the real aim was the will of domination and benefits for a limited number of (elite) persons.
Sacrificing individuals for the sake of mere faith is an outrageously criminal practice which totalitarian regimes excelled in throughout history.
From this perspective, I never hesitate to confirm the necessity of interpreting (which leads to different understanding of) the core manuscripts that founded the religion, and the necessity of selection among (the materials) of the religious heritage, while favoring certain selected parts. This will lead to making the religion a moral power allying with the human in all meanings. And by ‘human’ I mean the humankind, not certain exclusive followers for religion A or religion B, even if they were half of humanity or three quarters of it. Sacrificing individuals for the sake of mere faith is an outrageously criminal practice which totalitarian regimes excelled in throughout history. If this happened again in the name of religion, then this would cause a definitive ‘new moon situation’ (total deletion) of the religion, especially in an age where we accumulate universal convictions -supported by wide practices- of the importance and sacredness of the individual.
You worked (researched) a lot on the topic of liberty, including your PhD thesis, while you were in a “democratic and free” environment. How do you evaluate the practice of freedom/ liberty in the Arabic and Islamic contexts? More accurately, is it allowed for non-Muslims -under the liberty frame- to practice their rituals in Islamic countries, including the right to publicly invite others to their religion?
In the last decades, the referred action (publicly inviting others to their religion) unfortunately deteriorated in an extremely worrying manner, due to the rise of extremist doctrines/ideologies that are highly exclusive and narrow in their religious intellectual perspective. Anyway, this is something that happened before in our history at many stages, however, it did not reach the amount and spreading-level that would make the pages of that history black. On the contrary, such stages were generally an exception from the general rule that marked our history regarding this point, as was testified by several non-Muslim (scholars/historians), such as Thomas Arnold, Georges Corm, and Amin Maalouf.
But the noticeable thing is that there is a repetitive pattern, hence is verified throughout our entire history. This pattern applies on our modern age now -no exceptions- ; whenever the Muslims were strong and confident both culturally and militarily, they show a high degree of tolerance and flexibility, and when they are weak and regressing materially and morally, the amount of tolerance will shrink accordingly, and the dominant atmosphere is filled with intolerance and exclusivity.
The free inspection of the core founding manuscripts of Islam would reveal -without exhaustion or affectation/preciosity – that the rights of non-Muslims to practice their rituals and invite others to their religions and defend them are guaranteed, protected rights. This unfortunately is not sufficiently highlighted -not even close to sufficient- in the Muslims’ modern literature, although The Holy Quran is full of verses that -for example- invite the people of the book (Christians and Jews) to discussion/debate, and furthermore these verses present their (the people of the book) viewpoints; an example on that is the verses of chapter “Aal-Imran” that documented the argument/debate of the prophet -God’s mercy and bless on him- with the Christian delegation of Najran.
Our history is overcrowded with the incidents where Muslim scholars were having debates with the heads (leaders/scholars) of Christians, Jews, and other people from other religions. Some of these debates used to take place in the courts of the Caliphs and ministers..
From the modern (Muslim) scholars who expressed their opinion about the right of non-Muslims to invite others (including Muslims) to their religion is Abul A’la Maududi in his letter regarding the rights of Dhimmis (people of the covenant = non-Muslims under Muslim rule) in 1948, although he himself is one of the biggest modern fundamentalists. Ismail Al-Faruqi is another example (from the modern era).
As for our history, it is overcrowded with the incidents where Muslim scholars were having debates with the heads (leaders/scholars) of Christians, Jews, and other people from other religions. Some of these debates used to take place in the courts of the Caliphs and ministers, such as the debates of Timothy I in the court of the Abbasid Caliph Al-Mahdi, and the debate of the bishop of Harran Theodore Abu Qurrah with Kulthum Al-Attabi in the court of the Abbasid Caliph Al-Ma’mun. Interestingly, the non-Muslim debaters were freely extending their arguments and expressing their opinions that aim to refute Quran and claim that the prophecy of Muhammad is a forgery. They even authored books that have audacious titles for this purpose, such as the book “Refutation of the Quran” by Abu Nuh Al-Anbari, and the treatise against Muslims by Dionysius bar Salibi, and the books of Yahya ibn Adi, and Eliya of Nisibis, and Boutros Al-Bitrasi, and before all of those the treatises of John of Damascus.
As an Imam and an intellectual scholar in the European society -which is a modern one- , you try to show the enlightenment side of the Islamic heritage. Could you find an exit or a “magical spell” -if I may say- to get out from the “modernity vs originality” crisis?
I will be honest and direct; I would say: on the personal level I really -since approximately the last two decades of my life- don’t feel this crisis. This is because of my full conviction -which is religiously justified through reading the (religious) manuscripts- in several issues/topics. I totally uplifted -from my mind and consciousness – the burdens that a modern Muslim may face, especially if they were living in a free Western society.
On top of these issues/topics, is my belief that the human is the priority of priorities, and that freedom is the priority of the human, and on top of the freedoms is the freedom to think, to believe, and to express, and after those come the rest of the known rights and freedoms of humans. Moreover, I was able to reach the understanding that allows for a vast perspective regarding the fate of non-Muslims; where this understanding is free from exclusivity, and allows for re-discovering the Quranic scripts in this regard in an astonishing way owing to the amount of openness and inclusivity of those scripts, as well as their realism and deep humanity.
I have not fallen prey to the narrow scientism trend, which many modernists are suffering from. Equally, I have not fallen prey to the extremist textual trend that inflicted many fundamentalists, and underrates science, replacing it with (religious) text as an absolute source of witnessed truth..
In terms of practical Sharia rulings, rest assured that I am favoring towards the essence and aim of the ruling, especially in the section of treatments / transactions and its sub-sections. This makes me deal with the rulings in a more practical and flexible manner, that considers the appropriate importance of the contexts, not only for the purpose of applying these rulings -also known as “Tahqiq Al-Manat” in the terms of the Fiqh fundamentals- but also for deriving (enacting/making) these rulings in the first place.
As for the sources of knowledge I have not fallen prey to the narrow scientism trend, which many modernists are suffering from. Equally, I have not fallen prey to the extremist textual trend that inflicted many fundamentalists, and underrates science, replacing it with (religious) text as an absolute source of witnessed truth. Rather, I adopted a composite perspective that combines sense and mind, revelation and intuition, every aspect in its respective field, following the model of “Non-overlapping magisteria” which was favored by the late Stephen Jay Gould in his famous work. This provided me with the sufficient courage to re-read the (religious) text in the light of science regarding the topics that are fundamentally in the field of science, and at the same time this dismissed the burden of completely submitting to the text regarding the topics that are fundamentally in the field of the text. This way, I was not expatriated from my modern era, and at the same time I did not repudiate my religious beliefs.
Most likely, such an approach -with its simplicity and clarity- will raise the question regarding the massive amount of literature about the conflict between modernity and heritage in our modern Islamic intellect. From my viewpoint, this is due to the fact that both parties -modernists and traditionalists- are being extreme, which widens the gap between them even more.
This extremism -in turn- can be tracked back to the failure in understanding the essence of the issue at hand; managing the modern age with the understandings of the heritage in general and in details is a process that is sentenced to definitely fail, because it ignores the contexts, and is repudiating towards what mankind accumulated throughout history from scientific and intellectual gains. Equally, the process of repudiating the heritage and the desire to discard it will fail with the same amount, because it repudiated the spirit of the Ummah and obliterates the most important of its identifiers.
What do you think about the role of the reformation schools-of-thought, and the intellectual and religious projects/endeavors, in light of the existence of the “Political Islam” organizations/ movements?
From my point of view, the attempts of Jamal Ad-Din Al-Afghani and his friend Imam Muhammad Abduh from one side, and the ‘Salafi’ movement that was established by Muhammad ibn Abd Al-Wahhab -although very different from the first one, and the people’s evaluation of both schools is also different- , and the less known movement of Imam Ahmad ibn Abd Ar-Rahim -also known as Shah Waliullah Dehlawi in the Indian subcontinent- , and Muhammad ibn Ali As-Senussi in Libya, and Sir Syed Ahmad Khan in India -founder of Aligarh Muslim University- ; all of the previous and the first two movements -which were much more influential- can be considered as schools, because of a set of considerations that are well known to any observer.
As for what came after those movements, there were two totally different types; the first one represents inherently dynamic movements -that are known recently as ‘political Islam’ movements- or fundamentalist movements. After evaluating their literature and works, it seems that the knowledge-reformation was not in the core of their interests, but it was rather delayed until after seizing political power, such that their reformation project/endeavor starts from the top not from the base. As for the other type, they are as you mentioned, mere intellectual projects /endeavors that neither any of which was capable to be transformed into an intellectual school.
‘Political Islam’ movements massively contributed in the failure and abortion of the work of the numerous reformation schools.
From my point of view, ‘Political Islam’ movements massively contributed in the failure and abortion of the work of the numerous reformation schools, especially Imam Muhammad Abduh’s school. These movements lack a solid and sound knowledge-reformation program, and this is proven by many of their grand attendees -such as Youssef Qaradhawi and Ahmad Al-Assal and Jamal Ad-Din Atiyyah- , they mentioned from an early time that these movements’ brain is so much smaller than its body; the first one shrinks with time, while the second grows and inflates. Since they have this attribute, they stood helpless in front of the emerging of interceptive movements -if we may use that term- that have self-destructive characteristics, partially through extensively judging others as infidels -being governments or citizens- , and partially through shifting the role of ‘Jihad’ -that should be only for defending countries and their independences- , into being applied inside of the nation and inside of its core.
Additionally, the intersection and alliance that occurred between some of the ‘political Islam’ movements -that aim only for political power- and the ‘Salafi’ school -especially the Saudi version- that aim for the “reformation” of intellect and behavior, resulted in extremely dangerous outcomes that implicated our Muslim world in a bloody conflict with the superpowers / large nations, out of which Islam itself and its nation came out losing with the biggest loss (distortion of Islam). It is obvious that I am referring to Al-Qaeda, ISIS, and any others like them.
What about the difference in intellectual projects/ endeavors; would that affect the progress of reformation?
Different intellectual projects/endeavors are numerous, even if some of them were more like contributions that does not reach the level of an integrated project that is aware of its capabilities and its aims, such as the works of Jamal Ad-Din Qasimi, Rashid Rida, and Shakib Arslan in the Levant, and the works of Muhammad Iqbal, (..) and Allal Al-Fassi in Morocco, and At-Tahir ibn Ashur in Tunisia, and Bachir El Ibrahimi in Algeria, and Nasr Abu Zayd and Hassan Hanafi and Abu Al-Qasim Haj Hamad and Mohammed Arkoun, and Mohammed Abed Al-Jabri, and Taha Abdurrahman, and Gamal Al-Banna, and Muhammad Shahrur, and the International Institute of Islamic Thought, and others whom are all in the second half of the 20th century and the 21st century.
I express my optimism and the optimism of every one who wants reformation and modernization and the change that would save us from the cultural stumble which we fell in for centuries, and resurrect us again as a nation capable of doing the good that others have preceded us in doing, and then sharing it.. by making life kinder and more virtuous, and making the world more peaceful, just, and merciful.
The difference lies in the interests and considerations of these works and projects/ endeavors, not to mention the differences in the methods and approaches followed. This actually requires several scientific theses on the MSc and PhD levels in order to evaluate and compare the differences. In this regard, I would just express my optimism and the optimism of every one who wants reformation and modernization and the change that would save us from the cultural stumble which we fell in for centuries, and resurrect us again as a nation capable of doing the good that others have preceded us in doing, and then sharing it.. by making life kinder and more virtuous, and making the world more peaceful, just, and merciful, and making the human more capable of accompanying the existence, by understanding it and harnessing it.
It is obvious that this optimism and the open welcome of every contribution to the path of reformation and modernization does not mean the blind acceptability to every person and every saying, but rather it means rewarding the dedicated/handworker/hard-thinker, and the blessing of the try and care. Based on that, most likely the cultural election will work, exactly on the way of [Then, as for the foam, it passeth away as scum upon the banks, while, as for that which is of use to mankind, it remaineth in the earth.] (Surah Ar-Ra’d, v.17).
Does the religious reformation need political will and support?
Our history contains some suggestive examples in this regard, of great statesmen who surrounded themselves with scholars and reformers who advised and were keen on the interests of the nation and the stability of the state, such as Omar bin Abdul Aziz and Muzaffar bin Mahmoud, among the kings of Ahmedabad, the capital of India at the time, and after him Sultan Alam Kir Orang. Zeb, a descendant of Tamerlane. Modern European history also provides us with a number of luminous examples in this regard, including Roger II, King of Sicily, the best of its Norman kings in terms of supporting science and embracing scholars. Among its most famous men was the famous Muslim geographer, Al-Sharif Abu Abdullah Al-Idrisi, and he represented the Medici family in Florence, which extended its rule for nearly three hundred years (from 1434 to 1737), which led to the birth of the Renaissance by sponsoring the arts and sciences. Other families, such as the Sforza family, the Visconti family, and other large families participated in this. After the Holy Roman Emperor, Charles V, sentenced Martin Luther to death, at the behest of the Pope of Rome, he was saved only by the intervention of the Prince of Saxony, who succeeded in hiding him from sight for an entire year. The German princes were the strongest supporters of Luther, at the time they were in conflict with the German Empire. For his part, Luther recommended that these princes – who numbered 500 – establish their own churches to sever the connection of the local churches with Rome, and to eliminate the Supreme Council of Churches.
The Age of Enlightenment also witnessed many examples of the patronage of kings – despite the fact that they were single-minded despots – for a number of prominent men of the Enlightenment, including Frederick the Great and the Empress of Russia, Catherine II, known as Catherine the Great, whose court was full of men of the Enlightenment. These just tyrants are the ones who inspired Imam Muhammad Abduh to say: The East rises through a just tyrant, a tyrant who coerces those who disavow their responsibilities to stand for their responsibilities, and a tyrant who forces people to have compassion among themselves, and who coerces neighbors into being fair between each other, and who forces the people to follow his opinion by intimidation for their own benefits… He is more to them than he is for himself. Is there, in the entire East, not a similar tyrant among its people, just among its people, through whom justice can do in fifteen years what reason/rationality alone cannot do in fifteen centuries?
And what can be concluded from this regarding the current situation?
One may see that the political system that is expected to support religious reform projects from this perspective; as much is its stability is as much as it is free from the taint of reform projects being used to justify its conditions and justify its practices. Whatever it is, one of the most prominent lessons dictated by the recent era, with all the episodes of conflict and violent warfare it has witnessed, is that every interpretation of religion that is closer to spreading the values of mercy and tolerance, and the culture of openness and dialogue with others, will save the nation a lot of harm. suffering, and will bring it closer to completing modernization and development projects in an atmosphere that is more prepared and better capable.
In religious reform, we either accomplished the task successfully, or we left it for someone who did not do well to accomplish it, which would make the matter more difficult and terrifying.
Since religion is a necessity that cannot be ignored, especially in the Muslim world, it is necessary to deal with the file of its reform and renewal in a way that fulfills its purposes and spirit, by meeting the requirements of the soul and the aspirations of the mind, and supporting society with its virtuous values and positive traditions, and in a way that achieves communication with heritage and presence in the modern era at the same time. In religious reform, we either accomplished the task successfully, or we left it for someone who did not do well to accomplish it, which would make the matter more difficult and terrifying.
In your view, do political Islam and religious movements, at the present time, have a role in consolidating the values of tolerance and coexistence with other religions, or do you see them as worsening the situation and no longer being needed in societies?
The concern of political Islam is not to consolidate the values mentioned, but rather at the heart of its concern is to gain political power, and can we forget the statement of one of the major symbols of political Islam – indeed the most prominent of them at that time – in 1997 that Copts in Egypt are not permitted to enter the national army and that they must pay the jizya, which means The concept of “people of the Dhimmah” is still considered valid in their understanding, and the fatwas prohibiting the construction of churches and places of worship for non-Muslims in cities and towns that were conquered by Muslims by force. For several years, we have seen a group of the most prominent symbols and theoreticians of political Islam, whose only concern in many of their programs and televised meetings is to provoke our Christian brothers in the homeland by undermining their book, history, and beliefs, and disgusting them with the accusation of conspiring against the state and the nation and storing weapons in the churches, so that they can pounce at them at the appropriate time. Etc. of this nonsense and lies.
Political Islam, with its semi-totalitarian tendency and its past-historical reference, which is essentially of a jurisprudential nature, contradicts to a large extent the project of the modern civil state with its well-known references and which is based on equal citizenship.
Whoever is honest with the facts knows with certainty and from the shortest path, that political Islam, with its quasi-totalitarian tendency and its past reference, which is essentially of a jurisprudential nature, contradicts to a large extent the project of the modern civil state with its well-known references and which is based on equal citizenship. Under the best formulas of political Islam movements, the non-Muslim will, at his best, be nothing but a second-class citizen. This is a proposal that is no longer acceptable at a time when our societies are becoming more diverse and disparate in terms of beliefs and ideas, after being open to the wider world to an unprecedented degree, and also in light of the spread of human rights organizations based on references with an almost global dimension. We have seen and felt how these movements have succeeded in splitting societies vertically, even within mosques, which are supposed to belong to God, and in which only God should be called. This raises concerns that have objective justifications regarding the fate of non-Muslims, among whom are of course apostates from Islam, in the rule of these movements. It is important to point out the fact; How did the practical practice drove these movements – in Turkey and Tunisia in particular – to resort to adopting a different approach than what they had announced before, under the title of separating advocacy from the political, which in reality is a masking of the separation between the religious and the political, which means in reality a return to the secular proposition or the secular solution.
So, what is your prediction of this Political Islam?
I do not see any promising future for political Islam movements. Their future is behind them, not in front of them. On the day when it was able to monopolize the advocacy scene – so to speak – with its mobilizing and financial capabilities, in light of an intellectual and cultural climate that was largely homogeneous, in addition to its almost closing itself in on itself, far from the global references for human rights, and the broader and most diverse sources of thought. Back on the day when they used to give a promise that will captivate the hearts of its mass bases, a promise that has not been tested and its feasibility and effectiveness have yet to be tested on the ground through practice. Now all that is in the past. (…)
Is Wahhabism thought still influencing Islam and Muslims?
Certainly, thought does not ask for permission to leave, as an individual leaves a gathering, but it fades away and retreats little by little, just as a season fades away from the seasons of the year, not in an hour or in a day. Who makes the mistake of not noticing the severe blows that this narrow ideology has received in the last decade? These blows caused it to recede to a degree that signals its demise soon, God willing. The same applies to fundamentalist thought in general.
With the growing incidents of violence in Europe by those affiliated with extremist groups, the decline of the model of “implementing Sharia,” and in light of the “forced integration” of Muslims into the secular system and coexistence with it, is it possible today for Islam to reconcile and accept secularism as a system of government, in the Arab world as well?
Our Arab world, essentially from the moment of independence that ended the state of Western colonialism, has been living to a large extent – if we go beyond the typical paragraph in the constitutions of these countries related to Islam being their official religion and Sharia the primary source of legislation – a state of state secularism, and in more than one way, with the caveat that secularism of the state does not necessarily mean its democracy, nor even its liberalism. The system of government in communist countries, for example, led by the former Soviet Union, and in fascist countries, led by Nazi Germany, was secular, not religious. With this note, I have made clear the type of secularism that I sympathize with, and the type that I warn against.
A state’s secularism does not necessarily mean its democracy, nor even its liberalism.
Every reading of established and marginal religious texts – a reading of which multiple versions are available – leads to a denial of the state’s right to dictate doctrine, obliges the relevant state institutions to stand at the same distance from different religions and groups, and demands equal rights for citizens on the basis of citizenship alone, without Religion or belief as a dividing line in this regard, but as a reflection on the path to secularization of the state. The growing awareness among contemporary Muslims of the effectiveness of the civil state on the one hand, and the role of secularism in ensuring the civil state on the other hand, at the moment when our Arab world is suffering from bloody nihilistic conflicts that invoke religious sectarianism, with the growing awareness of the necessity of separating the subjective and the accidental in religion, and the realization that everything that serves hegemonic and tyrannical goals is inherently inconsistent with the essence of religion, no matter how consistent it may seem with the goals of organized religion; All of these are in favor of the secular idea, especially with the realization that secularism is not a doctrine or a universal vision that can compete with religion, or compete with it in its robust field and role. Rather, secularism, in its essence, is not suitable to describe the individual except for one consideration, and that is his conviction in it as a description of the state and the nature of its rule, which allows the presence of a deeply religious and ardent individual in his own sphere at the head of a secular government or state.
Secularism is not a doctrine or a universal vision that can compete with religion, or compete with it in its robust field and role. Rather, secularism, in its essence, is not suitable to describe the individual except for one consideration, and that is his conviction in it as a description of the state and the nature of its rule.
You may notice that the Islamic political movements that have been allowed to exercise power or participate in it, in the recent period, have demonstrated in practice that the extent of their success depends on the extent of their harmony – even if practically, without confronting their popular bases with the difficult truth – with the secular program in managing and exercising power; the thing that revealed the true nature of needs and entitlements, far from the forms of theorizing that in one way or another sought for the mobilization of the masses, with excessive emphasis – which may not be devoid of opportunism if it they were aware of it, and naivety if it was overlooked – on the religious character of authority.
But, in your opinion, why did the ISIS project “succeed” in governance, and the so-called moderate Islam project did not succeed?
To begin with, allow me to disagree with you. What are the signs of the success of ISIS’ project in governance? Is it in carrying out mass massacres, or in slaughtering prisoners and burning them alive, or in terrorizing the innocent and flogging civilians for the most trivial violations, or in reviving the institution of slavery and slave markets, or in inciting a child to kill his parents, a relative to kill his relative, and violating the sanctity of mosques by blowing them up with those who kneel and prostrate in them? Or is it the intimidation and displacement of Christians and Yazidis who were among the people of the region for hundreds of years, and the captivity of their women and marketing them as slaves and concubines, or the destruction of the heritage of the region, which represents its cultural memory and attests to the antiquity of its contribution and even its establishment of human civilization…etc. Assuming that ISIS achieved this success, this success has become a thing of the past, and faster than many expected.
If there is any success for ISIS, it is in distorting the image of Islam in a global way as has never happened before, and in alienating a generation of young Muslims from their religion.
In my opinion, it is ISIS that does not find two analysts agreeing on a single analysis of its situation. Ambiguity surrounds this organization in all its aspects, and intelligence fingers are strongly present in everything related to this organization, and many conflicting parties had conflicting interests in supporting it, but as for who / which government benefited in the end, and came out with the biggest profits, it has become clear these days. If there is any success for ISIS, it is in distorting the image of Islam in a global way as has never happened before, and in alienating a generation of young Muslims from their religion and forcing them to throw themselves into the arms of skepticism and atheism as they disbelieve in religion, and with the troubles this brings and the sufferings it creates. As for moderate political Islam and its project in governance, it is nothing more than a large bubble that deceived people for a period of time, only to finally reveal itself into nothing, and this is not the place for detail.
A recurring question that is still searching for a satisfactory and adequate answer: Religious violence still draws from its interpretation of the religious text, that is, from the Qur’an, the Sunnah, and the sayings of scholars… and from Islamic history as well. How do you see a way out of this problem?
The answer to this question lies in a number of points, which are complementary and do not conflict:
1- From ancient times, Imam Ali bin Abi Talib understood the heart of the issue, when he said: “The Qur’an is a bearer of (many) aspects (different interpretations), and it is a line written between two covers, which cannot speak, but rather men can pronounce it”. The text, whether religious or non-religious, is not immune to interpretation, no matter how brief or exaggerated, prudent or trivial, original or trite it may seem. Hence, the battle is no longer a battle of texts, but a battle of readings (interpretations) of texts, and since it is so, at the end of the analysis it will be transformed into a battle of authorities, whether political, scientific, elite, or popular. At each end, you will find a text of authority, which does not necessarily coincide with the authority of the text. Rather, in most cases, the authority of the text will be a dependent variable, and a genitive of authority, so that it becomes a text of authority.
The text, whether religious or non-religious, is not immune to interpretation, no matter how brief or exaggerated, prudent or trivial, original or trite it may seem.. At each end, you will find a text of authority, which does not necessarily coincide with the authority of the text.
2- Religion, with its texts and concepts, is present in an exaggerated manner in our contemporary public culture, which makes the approach to various issues conditional on the text, which can be called the textual tendency. This is a tendency that has opened a wide door for all those who do good and bad to speak in the name of religion on sensitive and serious issues. This is in light of the chaos of references, due to the absence of unified, reliable references in our contemporary Islamic world. If the reliable reference is supposed to have cognitive credibility, such that its interpretation motives are of a referential nature, and the interpretation process is governed by established methodological controls, then what unfortunately happened is that the interpretive motives of fundamentalist groups, regardless of their diversity, came from an ideological nature, and did not govern the interpretive process with the aforementioned methodological controls. Rather, they suffered from various systematic deficiencies, which are difficult to detect before the mass bases of fundamentalist advocates and the heads of extremist movements.
3- The process of interpretation would have been more disciplined and protected against absurd adventures if there had been an established culture that nurtured and conveyed the general purposes of religion, and projected them into the process of interpretation and Ijtihad, as well as communicating with the world and interacting with it through give and take, but the shock of the military encounter with the West that our Islamic world suffered from A little more than two centuries ago, at the beginning of the colonial era – and from which it did not recover properly – produced Islamic proposals / concepts that were closed in the concern of identities, reducing the complex self to some of its components that were mistakenly conceived as rigid components that transcended time and contexts. Hence these futile efforts for the sake of a puritanism that breaks with the values and horizons of the era in favor of reviving the values of a bygone era and resurrecting it anew.
The shock of the military encounter with the West that our Islamic world suffered from A little more than two centuries ago, at the beginning of the colonial era – and from which it did not recover properly – produced Islamic proposals / concepts that were closed in the concern of identities
On the other hand, the sudden openness to the Western world, especially in the depth of its intellectual, political, and social systems, created a worrying absence of cultural homogeneity in the Muslim world. You began to see neighboring, quarreling, and incompatible cultures in various spaces. The university, the institution, the street, television, theatre, and various thought and media platforms, including the newspaper, magazine, and book, and finally the Internet and well-known social media platforms. This situation of intense polarization has often produced conflicting intellectual preferences that invoke forms of conflicting interpretations.
In this context, don’t you notice that the rising and new generations, with modern technologies, have become more daring (i.e. more critical of what they receive) towards religious texts and narrations (especially mythical ones); It is as if the mind has evolved! Therefore, does this put a test to the founding text of Islam (and faith in general) and the evolution of the mind?
Certainly. This audacity and this development are due to constant exposure to a stream of knowledge free from all restrictions, flowing from four corners of the world and from various cultures and references. This raised the ceiling of debate and the ceiling of expectations regarding every question or problem. More than all of this, it has disturbed many, very many, of what used to be accepted in our culture, and may be included in the list of definitive and decisive matters. Our opinions and preferences are no longer judged by our intellectual and religious traditions alone. Rather, our traditions are judged by broader frameworks and cross-border references of all kinds; Cultural, geographical, ethnic, and linguistic. It is a completely unprecedented situation, but it is an opportunity for the first time to test the validity of our religious text for universality.
Our opinions and preferences are no longer judged by our intellectual and religious traditions alone. Rather, our traditions are judged by broader frameworks and cross-border references of all kinds
If all thought is a game of comparison, as Einstein once said, then this time all heritage and all religion will become a challenge of comparison. The benefits of this openness are greater than – perhaps – most of us appreciate. Some of them are represented in rereading religion and formulating its speech that will be read to the ears of the world, and this time not from the position of the dominator, but from the position of a peer conversing with its peers, and in a way that is supposed to answer the challenges of the world, not the challenges of our own (Islamic) world, and in a way that meets the needs of the world, not just our own needs, and in a way that meets the world’s standards, not what satisfies our own standards.
There are still some thorny issues that have not convinced the current era, including inheritance, polygamy, the hijab, the freedom to break the fast in Ramadan, sexual freedom, etc. Do we need a comprehensive renewal of the jurisprudential legislative system (which controls the constitutionalization of laws), or a renaissance movement for Islamic awareness and thinking… or other solutions?
The renaissance movement of awareness does not conflict with the renewal of the jurisprudential system. Rather, this renewal arises as soon as it occurs as evidence of the existence of this movement of awareness. From the point of view of jurisprudential principles, every reasoned ruling is supposed to change when its reason changes. It is a highly rational rule, with enormous explanatory and transformative power, and its primary field of operation is transaction rulings. I do not see any obstacle to implementing it in its field in the required manner except stagnation and fear of innovation. This does not prevent that the approach to understanding and interpreting religious text also needs, in addition to activation, renewal and revolutionization, and every new thing can be tested with criteria that scholars and thinkers strive to establish, such as the ability of the new thing to work in harmony with the purposes of Sharia law and its general spirit, especially what is indicated by detailed texts regarding an issue.
/ End of the interview.
He was interviewed by Ghassan Al-Kashuri, a Moroccan journalist and researcher
interested in religious and philosophical affairs.
أضف تعليق