Imam Abdullah Haron in Shamis' "The Imam and I"

Khalid Shamis' documentary on Imam Abdullah Haron of South Africa is a masterly treatment of a man and his times. It brings out the multi-facetted dimension of the Imam, his colleagues in the Muslim Judicial Council, the Muslim community, and of course, the apartheid state.
Imam Abdullah Haron emerges in the documentary as a sensitive and courageous leader against the growing force of apartheid repression. Inspired by activist youth whom he invited to his mosque, he soon outstripped them in the services he offered to families of detainees and anti-apartheid activists. It was not long before he too became a victim, and was brutally killed in police custody in September 1969.
The producer of "The Imam and I" is the Imam's grandson, the son of his eldest daughter, Shamila, who had been sent to London to study. Khalid Shamis had heard a lot of the Imam, and felt that he was the grandson of someone important. We are grateful that he set out to find out more, and share the story with the rest of us.
The documentary consists of slices of the Imam's life and death. It includes elements of his position within the leadership of the Muslims, and its shameful silence. It also includes his innovative attempts to attract youth to the mosques, whilst raising funds for anti-apartheid activism with James Bond and other movies. Drawing on photographs and footage of the time, the documentary also reveals his great style and love for suits, fezzes, a shiny bald heard and a stylishly trimmed beard.
Most importantly, the documentary also raises some interesting questions. Some of these questions are thrown out briefly for deeper reflection. Khalid, for example, refers to the connection between London bombings and his search for knowing the truth of his 'terrorist' grandfather!
Others are more explicit, as for example, the silence of the leadership of the Muslim community when the Imam was imprisoned and then killed. Their reluctance  to raise their voices against apartheid was deafeningly portrayed! It contrasted strongly with Reverend Wrankmore's retreat and fast on a Kramat on Signal Hill!
At other times, though, the evidence presented raises questions, intended by Shamis or not. The  massive turn-out at the Imam's funeral contrasted with his isolation during imprisonment, and even more so with the fate of his wife, Galiema Sadan, and her two young children. The fate of a martyr was captured beautifully, and also painfully.
At the same time, however, the presence of thousands at the funeral by men, women and children, could not all be seen as hypocrisy. The death of a witness provided an opportunity for ordinary people to register their rejection and abhorrence of a wicked system. One may criticize them for not doing enough, but one cannot afford to miss the registration of protest.
Finally, in my view, the documentary left an impression of a complex ideology (if such a contradiction may be permitted). The Imam was inspired by an emerging ideological approach to Islam, which he hardly represented in his life and work. The footage did not even reveal this in his family and associates.
Islamism in full flow came later to Cape Town, and drew much of its strength on a greater range of books, ideas and a different style of Islam. Soon, it also drew on the Imam's fame as anti-apartheid activist in the name of Islam. This activism in the name of Islam, however, was different from Imam Haron in his family, his congregation, his fashion-statement and his activism.
In the last couple of weeks, I have had an opportunity to see a play and a film dealing with religion in Cape Town. Davis' play Mass Appeal was brilliant in its portrayal of religion between ideals and institutionalization, and Beauvois' Of Gods and Men (2010) brought home the meaning of witness  and sacrifice. It is amazing how religion flows through our secular society!
"The Imam and I" did not set out to prove a point about this or that religious value (it seems to me). It nevertheless portrayed the ordinariness of living a life of religious value. Imam Haron was serious but it did not prevent him from smiling, smart-looking, stylish and ready for some fun.

Islamic Newthinking: “We are all Christians!” and In Sha Allah Heretics!

I was privileged to observe and participate in a meeting in Essen, Germany, to commemorate and take forward the work of Prof. Nasr Hamid Abu Zeid who passed away about a year ago. Abu Zeid had made a significant contribution to the history of the interpretation of the Qur’an. However, he was not only interested in the topic for its historical value but searching for a way to read the Qur’an as a living text that spoke to the great demands of the day.

The meeting was attending by friends and colleagues who traveled with him on the same road. It was honoured also by the participation of Prof. Ebtehal Younes, Abu Zeid’s wife and professor at Cairo University. The meeting honoured both Abu Zeid and the path that he unlocked with his works, his friendship and his deep humanity.

As expected, the meeting was provocative and challenging. From the keynote presented by Prof. Shabestari (Tehran) on the first day, the focal point turned around the Qur’an. Prof. Shabestari asked what a new philosophy of language would be for a claim that the Qur’an was both revelation and Prophetic word. Prof. Barlas concluded the meeting with a plea to a return to the theology of the Qur’an, against the ‘anti-foundationalism of  Abu Zeid.’ There were also contributions that rejected any real future of the Qur’an (or religion) in Islamic Newthinking.

Clearly, all were agreed that a new theology or approach to the Qur’an in particular, and Islam in general, was long overdue. The participants were leaders in this search, and presented the meeting with reflections that honoured Abu Zeid and his work.

I would like to contribute with a reading of the substance of the meeting. In short, I think the speakers and commentators came close to admitting and arguing that we are or should be like Christians. Of course, none put in this way. But I could not help coming to this conclusion at the end of the 2-day meeting. And was further confirmed in my assessment when I looked back at my notes.

By way of substantiation and perhaps proof, let me explain. On the second day, Prof. Soroush opened the day with a challenge that Muslims have easily reconciled themselves to socialism, but could not do with liberalism and rights. He then challenged listeners with a question about how Muslims would produce such a theology of rights (arguing that it would be more difficult than anything that they had attempted thus far).

Prof. Barlas followed with her own thesis. Listening carefully to her argument, I could not help noticing how her claimed devotion to the Qur’an was nothing but a highly subjective reading thereof.She was, moreover, a witness to justice buried in the Qur’an through centuries of male witnesses. A young commentator alo praised her this "disclosure of God" in her reading of the Qur’an.
In my reading and listening, Barlas answered Soroush about where this theology of rights would come from. It was easy to find a theology of freedom in the Qur'an, but Soroush was clearly asking how Muslims would be persuaded (i.e. converted).

Rolling back to the first day, I recalled Prof. al-Azmeh arguing that the Qur’anic text was an aesthetic and at most a privatized religion. Prof. Sadiq Jalam al-Azm supported him by saying that Muslim Arabs have had nothing radical to offer (nothing radical enough for Islamic Newthinkig to put aside Islam and religion).

And my friend and colleague Prof. Esack pulled down all binaries and distinctions for a reading of the Qur'an. Beginning with the Jews and Muslims, he proceeded to question the contraries of human and non-human, the able and non-able, the living and mineral. We had arrived at the Kingdom of God, where the lion lay beside the lamb!

Translated, I head them saying: We are Christians! We should be Christians! We have no option but to become Christians! In fact, this declaration was relatively easy, even if it was not expressed in this way.

However, what the meeting struggled to find was if we were still Muslims! Everybody posed some interesting questions for the future. Those questions affirmed the history of Christianity in modern times, but only posed questions about the future of Islam. At least for Abu Zeid the music of the Qur’an was foundational, we were reminded by Prof. Younes. And Prof. Wadud was insistent that tawhid included women. Otherwise, Christianity was confirmed while Islam was put on a search.

When I thought about this, I was at first appalled by the implication. It reminded me once at a meeting in Brussels similar to this one when a Jesuit priest told me that only Christianity could accommodate modernity. I thought at the time that it was more likely the other way around. It also reminded me of an essay by Derrida entitled “We are all Christians.” And it reminded me of many similar reflections on how Christianity was made for modernity!

After the initial shock , I accepted this conclusion. I was not resigned to it, as I remembered how I have struggled with Islamic identity for some time now.

Once I gave up the block of identity, however, a new path opened for me. I was reminded how much Islam and Muslims (including the Prophet) had taken from the Christians. They too had become 'Christians' (okay, 'Jews' more accurately). I then also remembered how the Prophet and Muslims later took a ‘heretical turn.’ Both Jews and Christians were in turned incensed at this heresy.

And I thought that perhaps we should also embrace this silent implicit conversion. It might be best to declare this conversion, though, for ourselves and Abu Zeid's and our legacy. But unlike the born-again Christians of our times, we would probably soon declare our heresy.

I am not so sure if our meeting got to this threshold of heresy. We toyed with some ideas and thoughts, but mostly we were too busy declaring our conversion. It was a bit of an odd conversion, I suppose, since it included some angst for the next step.

Maybe heresy after conversion will be new thinking.