Citizen Muslim
Islamic philosopher Tariq Ramadan asks a fundamental question. Is it possible for a devout Muslim living here to also be a responsible and loyal American? As a member of what Ramadan calls the Other, I find it disturbing it even needs to be asked. It isn’t trivial and Ramadan doesn’t ask it on behalf of Muslims. He asks it of Muslims because they ask it of themselves. We have people living among us who are unsure of the answer, millions of them apparently, some of them second and third generation Americans. More than a few have concluded the answer is no. Their devotion to Islam supersedes and is incompatible with any duty to their adopted country. The question cuts to the heart of what Americans have been asking since 9/11. What on earth are these people so angry about and what in heavens name does it have to do with us? In attempting to answer Ramadan directs his comments to those Muslims living in the West for whom religion is at the center of daily life, Muslims who are struggling with a very real identity crisis. Ramadan isn’t proposing an interfaith dialogue, though he thinks one is important. He is proposing an intra-faith dialogue. He wants to reopen a debate that has been closed for a thousand years.
At issue is the long held Islamic view of a world divided into two parts, dar al-Islam and dar al-harb, the abode of submission and the abode of war. This view didn’t originate in the Koran or with the Prophet. It was developed later by Islamic scholars to offer a code of conduct for Muslims living in or traveling through areas not subject to Islamic rule, places where any exercise of an alien religion was usually restricted and often prohibited. Muslims in these conditions were called not to compromise their faith, to remain apart, at all costs to avoid assimilating. Sometime around the 10th century it became pretty much accepted dogma throughout Islam. It still is. It is a view that has been noted with alarm by modern Western commentators. It is at the root of the attitude among many Muslims to reject as un-Islamic all things Western. Ramadan argues that the doctrine can and should be revised in light of changed circumstance. It is no longer an appropriate view of Europe or of North America because in the modern West the Muslim is free to practice his religion.
Ramadan draws an all-important distinction between faith and culture. Islam requires Muslims to dress modestly but exactly how that applies in different societies is open to interpretation. There is also a difference between what is required by law and what is permitted. That alcohol may be legal does not force one to drink. There may be occasions when civil law presses an individual to violate his conscience, to participate say in an unjust war, but those occasions are rare and there are ways for Muslims to deal with them short of outright rejection of the offending legal system. Islam has adapted to differing cultures before. Indonesians are very different from Pakistanis and they can both be authentically Islamic.
This all seems obvious to us, the Other. That it does not seem obvious to so many Muslims is incomprehensible. Americans are accustomed to immigrants. We expect them to become naturalized, take their citizenship seriously, participate fully in our society, make it their own, even take on leadership roles. Ramadan wants his fellow Muslims to do that too, and he believes they will. He certainly believes they can, and without compromising their religion.
At issue is the long held Islamic view of a world divided into two parts, dar al-Islam and dar al-harb, the abode of submission and the abode of war. This view didn’t originate in the Koran or with the Prophet. It was developed later by Islamic scholars to offer a code of conduct for Muslims living in or traveling through areas not subject to Islamic rule, places where any exercise of an alien religion was usually restricted and often prohibited. Muslims in these conditions were called not to compromise their faith, to remain apart, at all costs to avoid assimilating. Sometime around the 10th century it became pretty much accepted dogma throughout Islam. It still is. It is a view that has been noted with alarm by modern Western commentators. It is at the root of the attitude among many Muslims to reject as un-Islamic all things Western. Ramadan argues that the doctrine can and should be revised in light of changed circumstance. It is no longer an appropriate view of Europe or of North America because in the modern West the Muslim is free to practice his religion.
Ramadan draws an all-important distinction between faith and culture. Islam requires Muslims to dress modestly but exactly how that applies in different societies is open to interpretation. There is also a difference between what is required by law and what is permitted. That alcohol may be legal does not force one to drink. There may be occasions when civil law presses an individual to violate his conscience, to participate say in an unjust war, but those occasions are rare and there are ways for Muslims to deal with them short of outright rejection of the offending legal system. Islam has adapted to differing cultures before. Indonesians are very different from Pakistanis and they can both be authentically Islamic.
This all seems obvious to us, the Other. That it does not seem obvious to so many Muslims is incomprehensible. Americans are accustomed to immigrants. We expect them to become naturalized, take their citizenship seriously, participate fully in our society, make it their own, even take on leadership roles. Ramadan wants his fellow Muslims to do that too, and he believes they will. He certainly believes they can, and without compromising their religion.
posted by Onfoot at 9:46 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home