CONFESSIONS (cont'd)

Over the previous few months or so I have been frequently asked questions, in the wake of my last few articles on being a traditional-yet-Liberal Muslim, and of Islam NOT being a religion of the right. For the purposes of space, time, and--in all honesty--the attention span of potential readers, I refrained from elaborating exhaustively on some of the postulations I made. Perhaps now is the time to build on the developments of past articles and further detail their positions.

The first question that seems to always arise in response to my claims of being a 'liberal' Muslim is how I can reconcile Islam, and some of the absolutes that it undeniably professes, with the relativism that sits at the root of modern day liberal ideology. First, it is important to establish that I am a liberal in my political ideology only. I don't attempt to use liberalism as a means to guide the spiritual or moral quests in my life. For such exigencies, I have my religious faith. Yet, I am also not trying to say that I have compartmentalised my moral, political, economical, and spiritual thoughts into fragmented facets of ideology. Rather, my liberal underpinnings affect everything from personal ethics to my understanding of theology, or even to the scholars I appreciate.

Now, when I say 'liberal' underpinnings, I mean a predisposition to look at issues holistically and teleologically, even if this requires a more expansive interpretation of facts or issues than meets the eye empirically. It is this very intrinsic bias that forges the nuances of my understanding and subsequently my hermeneutics (scriptural interpretation), ethics, and politico-economic thought. Yet it is important that any such tendency be limited by fundamental religious teachings and morality where such can be objectively discerned from primary religious sources.

It is perhaps this very fact that distinguishes me, as a traditional practising Muslim, from others such as the Progressive Muslims of Canada, who tend to squander the true substance of Islam leaving it a substitutable ideology with no distinct utility. In other words, rather than subjugate religion to ideology, I believe the relationship should function precisely the opposite. Where there is a conflict or overlap between religion and ideology, objective religious parameters must supersede. However, given my tendencies, I would be predisposed to find as 'liberal' an opinion as possible, while remaining true to the objective tenets of Islamic theology and law (read my earlier article on how much of what is considered 'Islamic law' today is merely the structures created by Muslims who use religious profession to validate cultural mores. When this excess baggage is excised, Islam's flexibility that has allowed it to flourish and exist across many cultural and epochal lines is restored).

Allow me to engage you with an example. Homosexuality has been prohibited in Islam since its inception, something that is clearly established in the Qur'an. The objective for such a principle was clear, the biological perseverance of humanity. Hence, I would disagree with a person who attempts to say that Islam allows homosexuality; this object-based principle is intransigently inscribed in the Qur'an, obviously the most definitive source of knowledge in Islam. Further, there has been no discernible change in human biology that would warrant reevaluation on the basis of this objective.

However, whereas some earlier predominantly Muslim civilisations may have chosen to persecute homosexual individuals on the basis of their social stigmatization, it is important to keep perspective. While it is true that homosexuality is not permitted in Islam, it is not nearly the greatest 'sin' committed by humans (In fact, as far back as the 8th Century, Imam Abu Hanifa recognised the dichotomy between the act, and the actor. While the act may be impermissible, its commission did not place one outside the fold of Islam.). Disbelief in, and the association of deities with God are the greatest, followed by other enormities (major sins) such as crimes like murder. Yet, on a daily basis many Muslims have favourable dealings with atheists and polytheists without having any sense of contempt, and rightfully so. Why then is there utterly disproportionate hostility towards those who merely perform a personal sin justiciable with God alone? It may very well be that by committing such acts homosexuals contravene traditional Islamic principles, yet so do those who drink, fornicate, lie, or even Muslims that miss their obligatory prayers. We live peacefully and with respect amongst such people everyday. Perhaps most importantly, it is relevant to remember the words of Jesus when he said: "Let he who is free of sin cast the first stone". There is not a person amongst us today who is inoculated from performing personal sin. Who are we then to judge others when we have no true understanding of their plight and varying pathologies?

It is scientifically clear today that homosexuality can have its roots in human biology, by which I mean to include chemical processes at work in the body. Subsequently, biology is very much a determinant of psychology and human behaviour, giving rise to the many moral and cerebral dilemmas we grapple with on a daily basis. These dilemmas form the basis of our 'tribulation' as people. For people, the interaction between their bio-chemical underpinnings and their social nurture can create dispositions and tendencies to perform certain acts. For example, a person hardwired in such a way as to have a bad temper and short fuse, can in a particular social setting become a violent criminal. Yet, it is the moral 'struggle' to fight these predispositions that forms the basis of this individuals tribulation in life, by which God will gauge/assess his candidacy for salvation in the hereafter. The same goes for a Muslim who has homosexual tendencies. Many Muslims ask how a person can be born gay if God intended it be an unlawful act. A person who is born with such a biological disposition has this as part of their tribulation in life, which is not any different than everyone else and their unique situational tribulations.

This is where the issue of relativism versus absolutism arises. How can a person who embraces absolutisms such as the Oneness of God and the Prophethood of Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him) also be a liberal who, by his ideology, must then subscribe to notions of relativism and the maxim of 'to each his own'. Remember that relativism in and of itself cannot logically be asserted to mean that EVERYTHING is relative and that there are no absolutes, as this would make it an absolutism. Relativism thus is logically self limiting. Hence, one can induce that relativism, to the extent that it is LESS than an absolute (thereby allowing the existence of absolutes) cannot preclude belief in the same (absolutes). To this effect, I believe in relativism as a mechanism by which we can enjoy dialogue and peaceful coexistence.

A Muslim must believe in the absolute reality of Monotheism and Muhammad as the last Messenger, above and beyond all else. This, he or she believes, is an absolute that applies universally. Yet he or she would have access to knowledge of this absolute by circumstances and religious experiences (Hidayah in Arabic, 'divine guidance'), resources that others who do not share in these beliefs may not have had at their disposal. Hence, how can that Muslim then expect others who have NOT had the benefit of similar resources and experiences to subscribe to belief in, and have knowledge of these absolutes? This is where relativism applies. Even if a Muslim does believe in certain absolutes, the fact that others DO NOT subscribe to them does not falsify the absolutes. It simply means that the others do not have the ability, or willingness, to 'see it that way'. Hence, a person's inability to subscribe to the aforementioned absolutes is in most cases, relative to their circumstances, contingent upon whether God has given them the unique collage of experiences that would amount to Hidayah ("Divine Guidance"). Even in the instances where it IS the conscientious choice of one not to subscribe to said absolutes, society and individuals would have no way of ascertaining such. Hence it would be unjust to speculate on the nature or value of this person's spiritual disposition, and thus immoral to attempt to impose such spiritual absolutes upon them.

Further, if one TRULY believes in certain absolutes, then he should have no issue with others critically examining them for their intrinsic worth, instead of feeling the need to impose them upon others. Any person with true belief or faith, regardless of their spiritual denomination, must also believe that such scrutiny, in the end, can only lead to the verification of their beliefs.

That is, of course, IF they truly believe.