- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 11,600
- Reaction score
- 1,344
- Location
- Georgia
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
Excerpt:
An-Na’im is a principled advocate of democracy and human rights, but from within his own Islamic tradition. He warns that if liberal freedoms are seen simply as Western values, they will never be accepted by the Muslim world. As he writes: “I know that if I, as a Muslim, am faced with a stark choice between Islam and human rights, I will certainly opt for Islam.” For this reason, he takes strong issue with the many writers — the latest is Anthony Pagden in “Worlds at War” — who posit an unbridgeable divide between Western enlightenment and Muslim intolerance. Such an outlook, An-Na’im says, is self-defeating. It can never win adherents in the countries where tolerance and civil liberties are needed most, and is likely only to aggravate problems.
An-Na’im’s approach is entirely different. He argues that human rights and democracy are not only consistent with Islam but must be adopted by Muslims if Islam is to remain true to itself. He begins by insisting that Islam requires human freedom, including the right not to believe, since religious belief must be voluntary or it is not belief. “Belief in Islam, or any other religion, logically requires the possibility of disbelief.”
His next point is that Sharia, the Islamic code of laws that all Muslims agree to adhere to, is not static; it changes over time in response to changing social and historical conditions. Sharia, An-Na’im says, is a product of fallible human interpretation, even if what is being interpreted are divinely given commands. And since Muslim scholars disagree “on almost every conceivable subject,” Sharia needs the flexibility and openness of a secular, liberal state. “Freedom of dissent and debate,” he writes, “was always essential for the development of Sharia.” An Islamic state that imposes a single version of Sharia is a violation of Islamic belief and a contradiction in terms.
By a similar reasoning process, and with citations from the Koran, An-Na’im argues for equal rights for non-Muslims and apostates, as well as for women. He acknowledges that traditional interpretations of Sharia granted no such rights. But as conditions change, Sharia must change too (while retaining Islam’s essential message).
Is An-Na’im correct? Among other things, he holds up a mirror to the West, pointing out that those who insist Islam is intrinsically and necessarily anti-liberal have the same view of a static and unchanging Sharia as the most retrograde elements in the Muslim world. He is also critical of the West’s secular absolutists, who want to use government to impose their particular nonreligious point of view on believers. An-Na’im’s concept of a secular state is of a neutral referee assuring a level playing field for competing points of view; France’s headscarf law does not rise to his standard of freedom.
Changing Islam From the Inside - NYTimes.com
This same conversation is going on in Saudi Arabia and in Egypt.
An-Na’im is a principled advocate of democracy and human rights, but from within his own Islamic tradition. He warns that if liberal freedoms are seen simply as Western values, they will never be accepted by the Muslim world. As he writes: “I know that if I, as a Muslim, am faced with a stark choice between Islam and human rights, I will certainly opt for Islam.” For this reason, he takes strong issue with the many writers — the latest is Anthony Pagden in “Worlds at War” — who posit an unbridgeable divide between Western enlightenment and Muslim intolerance. Such an outlook, An-Na’im says, is self-defeating. It can never win adherents in the countries where tolerance and civil liberties are needed most, and is likely only to aggravate problems.
An-Na’im’s approach is entirely different. He argues that human rights and democracy are not only consistent with Islam but must be adopted by Muslims if Islam is to remain true to itself. He begins by insisting that Islam requires human freedom, including the right not to believe, since religious belief must be voluntary or it is not belief. “Belief in Islam, or any other religion, logically requires the possibility of disbelief.”
His next point is that Sharia, the Islamic code of laws that all Muslims agree to adhere to, is not static; it changes over time in response to changing social and historical conditions. Sharia, An-Na’im says, is a product of fallible human interpretation, even if what is being interpreted are divinely given commands. And since Muslim scholars disagree “on almost every conceivable subject,” Sharia needs the flexibility and openness of a secular, liberal state. “Freedom of dissent and debate,” he writes, “was always essential for the development of Sharia.” An Islamic state that imposes a single version of Sharia is a violation of Islamic belief and a contradiction in terms.
By a similar reasoning process, and with citations from the Koran, An-Na’im argues for equal rights for non-Muslims and apostates, as well as for women. He acknowledges that traditional interpretations of Sharia granted no such rights. But as conditions change, Sharia must change too (while retaining Islam’s essential message).
Is An-Na’im correct? Among other things, he holds up a mirror to the West, pointing out that those who insist Islam is intrinsically and necessarily anti-liberal have the same view of a static and unchanging Sharia as the most retrograde elements in the Muslim world. He is also critical of the West’s secular absolutists, who want to use government to impose their particular nonreligious point of view on believers. An-Na’im’s concept of a secular state is of a neutral referee assuring a level playing field for competing points of view; France’s headscarf law does not rise to his standard of freedom.
Changing Islam From the Inside - NYTimes.com
This same conversation is going on in Saudi Arabia and in Egypt.