A Neccessary Re-Evaluation

Roughly eighty-eight years removed from the existence of a centralised Islamic state and over a century or two since the existence of a viable Muslim international power, many of us are confounded with the question of where 'Islam' went wrong. In a room of ten informed Muslims, ask the question of 'what went wrong' and you'll probably find just as many answers as people. In the end, you'll likely hear everything from the inability of the religion to adapt to the conditions of the modern world, to conspiratorial postulations about British and American designs to destroy the monotheistic faith, as theories.

To me the problem is much deeper, and a lot closer to home than we think. The problem in fact is NOT with 'the British' and is not with 'America'. The fact that many feel this way is in fact part of the problem that will be discussed later. First things first, the problem with 'Islam' today is not 'Islam', but rather 'Muslims'.

After all, was it not 'Islam' that was practised by Arabian, Persian, African, and Turkish Empires throughout Muslim civilisation's ascension and hegemony? Was it not 'Islam' that was practised by Empires whose subjects included Russian Orthodox Slavics, Catholics, and Jews (many of whom held high office) in a demonstration of unprecedented 'tolerance' in the pre-modern world? If Islam has been successfully applied to such a diverse spectrum of cultures and civilisations in the past, how can it suddenly be the problem today? The fact is, Islam has proven amicable to diverse conditions before and has been the driving force behind one of the most influential civilisations in the history of man, a claim that few other religions can make, if any. There is nothing intrinsic in the doctrines of Islam that would prevent it from adapting to the modern world as it has so readily embraced change and diversity before. The issue lay with our culturally created notions of the religion and how we feel it ought to be interpreted.

Culture by definition is the pattern of behaviour constructed by human beings to reconcile the rift between their biological needs and the environmental surroundings in which they are submerged. As such, it is clear that culture will change subject to a variation in conditions. There are no two places in this world where conditions are the same, and cultures invariably differ to reflect this diversity. Thus it would be foolish to think that a culture could be superimposed upon conditions that vary from those within which it was originally created. Doing so would not only defeat the purpose of a culture but undoubtedly lead to tension and irregularity.

So how does culture apply to my argument? Moving beyond biology, culture can also be inferred to include the structure humans create to connect the chasm between their core religious and moral values, and the social environment within which they live. Muslims bring with them many culturally varied brands of Islam, which is fine. Islam was meant to be amenable to culture, which allowed the prosperity of its followers for so many years across so many different ethnic and national lines. However, this becomes problematic when Muslims lose sight of where their underlying religious values end and the cultural extensions that they have created begin. It is this very conflation that the Prophet (Peace Be Upon Him) sought to avert when he warned his followers of the dangers of "bid'ah", or "innovation to religion". When something of cultural grounding becomes idiosyncraticly infused with religion, then Muslims have gone too far.

Let me give you an example. In many cultures Muslim females lead a very secluded and conservative lifestyle. In these lifestyles women may either wear niqaab (complete veil over the face) or refrain from entering the public space. These values represent many different cultural underpinnings. For example, in places like Damascus, or Hyderabad, much of this culture arose from the nobility, for whom it was a status symbol to not require the women of one’s house to go to the market place and purchase the necessities. Such work could be done either by a servant or a merchant coming directly to the home. Contextualise this in a society that is much more gender conservative and you will invariably have a more strict interpretation of religiously underwritten values of wariness towards gender interaction. The result would be a 'culture' of very little contact between the female, and the world outside the home. In effect, it would become ‘demeaning’ to have one’s wife or daughter to go the market place and in the open.

Over time, any attempted 'interaction' between the female and her outside world may be 'stigmatised' as it would go starkly against the grain of her society. Hence the particular expression of the principles of Islam would have reflected the social climate of that specific setting and would be entirely appropriate. Now, if said family were to move to Canada or the United States, this 'culture' would not only be inapplicable, but entirely inappropriate. In so saying, I DO NOT detract from the value of the cultures themselves. Rather, I emphasize the specific context within which the values originated, and how the entirely different conditions of the new setting render the old culture inapplicable.

Now, it is important to note that in the above scenario, there is nothing in the doctrines of Islam that would mandate such a lifestyle by the woman. Rather, the setting lent to a certain interpretation of the fundamental religious values that call for ‘civility’ and ‘modesty’ between the genders. However, outside of the physical parameters laid out in the Qur'an and Sunnah, what is 'modesty' in Spain may be 'lewdness' in India. These values are very subject to interpretation. Hence, the lifestyle is merely the CULTURE being created by Muslims, who in many cases can no longer make the divorce between culture and religion as time passes and it is here that the problem arises. In this scenario, it would be a disservice to consider the aforementioned culture to be part of the religion, as once it is so considered, it would destroy the flexibility of Islam that has allowed it to adapt time and time again to differing circumstances. This is one of the issues that plague the Muslim world today: a false indigenization of our cultures to Islam and a subsequent failed attempt to re-impose this body upon different conditions. While cultures are integral to human survival, remember that they serve specific settings: they must be reconfigured in reponse to situational change.

One such culture that has likely arisen from many Muslims being native to lands formerly colonised by Western powers, is a dichotomization between 'The West' (or so they are grouped by Muslims), and 'Islam'. It is an 'us' vs. 'they' approach that has not only alienated Muslims from much of the world, but has gone entirely to the detriment of every Muslim's CORE mission in life: the best possible projection of Islam in the image of the Prophet (Peace Be Upon Him). If you are estranged from your neighbours, they will not get an opportunity to find those qualities in you that may be of use to them, regardless of how many you may possess. The opposite is also true; Muslims living isolated in the world, especially in the West, are obviated from seeing those qualities in the 'Western' experience that can definitely be of remedial value to themselves.

What do I mean specifically? I mean aversion to protocol and process. Muslim-created polities everywhere in the world are routinely discarded by agents in pursuit of their own interests. Bribery is so common in the predominantly-Muslim countries (that I have been to) that it is hard for those accepting it to distinguish it from their salary. Even on a rudimentary level, you will find shoes at a mosque scattered everywhere but on the shelf, especially beyond the limit described in the 'No Shoes Beyond This Point' sign that is clear for all to see. It seems that since so many Muslims feel that they are the exception to the protocol, we have yet to develop a culture of deference to structure that would allow us to return to our days of pre-eminent contribution to humankind.

In many Western countries this predisposition towards protocol is obvious. There are systems in place where even the head of state can be held on trial for immorality. A disenfranchised man can sue the state for obtrusion into his 'inalienable' rights. Although the degree to which these structures are followed may differ depending on the people filling the institutions, the fact remains that standards of social justice (namely, the rule of law) and quality of life are far superior to any country that is predominantly Muslim, in countries such as Canada and the United States.

This culture of deference to protocol was not always so. Rather it was created by precedent. Precedents set by people such as President John Adams, the first head of state of the United States to lose an election in 1801. Despite having the apparatus of state at his disposal in a newly founded system not yet settled, he chose to step aside and honour the election of his adversary Thomas Jefferson. Hence, a very critical precedent, now taken for granted in the United States, was established.

A few years later John Marshall, the first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court made an unprecedented move and struck down a United States Law that granted him more power than originally intended for his position in the Constitution (Supreme Law of the Land). President Jefferson recognised the ruling of the court as being binding upon his government, and the contravening law was repealed. The precedent was thus established whereby the independent judicial branch of the United States could keep the Government in check, a cornerstone of the U.S system and any system of government that boasts to be democratic. Of course, it would be naïve to suggest the parties involved did not have their own motives, yet the important idea to remember is that ALL parties advanced their interests within the confines of the protocol, and in so doing, allowed it to develop even if it came at the expense of partial personal concession.

So what is the problem with Muslims today? The problem is that Muslims need to realise the difference between 'Islam' and ‘cultures arising from Islam' and learn to compromise the latter where necessary. The conflation of cultures with Islam has inhibited the religions ability to adapt to the contours of modernity and life in the West. Only when this confusion is eliminated, will we realise that there is nothing antithetical in Islam to life in the West, the modern world, or being a 'Westerner'. The fact is, much of what many believe to be 'Islam' is in fact 'cultures arising from Islam' and are therefore subject to adaptation and compromise. Part of this problem of maldeveloped culture is Muslims lack of heed for protocol and structure, a trait that can be borrowed from the North American political experience if need be. In the end, Islam is well, alive, and has never had to change in order to thrive. It is on the Muslims to recreate their culture in a way that would allow an appropriate application of Islam given the circumstances.