A weekend in Dubai! Thoughts on a Thoughtful Meeting

This was not a shopping weekend, but it is hard to miss and resist the fusion of souk and mall in this glitzy city. The Institute of Ismaili Studies invited me to speak to their alumni on how one may think of moral philosophy in a modern world. More challengingly, how might such a philosophy be taught by secondary school teachers.

It turned out to a great meeting, allowing me to reflect deeply on the kind of issues that I have been thinking about for a long time. These are preliminary thoughts shared on this blog.

Allow me a short digression. What really impressed me was the participants at this meeting. They were men and women who were involved in one or other way in education. Some of them were experienced, while others were recent graduates or still students. They were not only involved in Islamic religious education, but these issues clearly were most important for them.

Having read about the Aga Khan and seen a video documentary two years ago on how the Ismaili are facing modernity, I was surprised to come across very similar concerns among them about living in a modern world. I thought that they had overcome what many other Muslims were grappling with. They were concerned about the image of Muslims and rising tide of Islamophobia, suspicious of American foreign designs and policies on Muslims, and also about permissive values infiltrating religious  communities.

At the same time, though, they were clearly interested and willing to confront difficult questions thrown at them. I was here for 2 of the 3 days, but saw enough of a deep and critical engagement with the three of us invited to speak.

The first talk was presented by Dr. John Hull on religious education. He began with his view of education in general, and then presented a Christian theology of education for the modern world. He argued that freedom was the central distinction and pre-occupation of humanity. This quality was given to both men and women as part of the special creation of God. Created in the image of God, creativity was their destiny. And education should be directed to this goal. Moreover, he added, all religions should and were able to develop an argument for primary value of freedom. There was a place for training and even indoctrination in an educational system, but freedom was and ought to be the ultimate goal.

Prof. Liam Geron followed with an equally provocative thesis the next day. He traced the history of the Enlightenment in Europe and its antagonistic relationship with religion. Whilst championing the cause of ‘Man’ and of freedom, the Enlightenment and the liberal state were deeply committed to the suppression of religion. He also related the failed promises of the Enlightenment to rid humanity of barbarisms. In the name of science, state and the pursuit of wealth, the Enlightenment and its successors unleashed terrible wars and mass killings on humanity. Moreover, he turned to the modern liberal state as the inherited legacy of the Enlightenment. It too was committed to the elimination of religion from having any influence in society. Homing in on schooling, he showed how systematically religious education was prevented from playing a constructive role in the life of individuals and society. In the war against terror, religion was being used to serve the ends of the state.

I followed later with a talk on ethics and modern Islam. I began where Prof. Gearon did with the Enlightenment thinker Kant. However, I presented two interpretations of the Enlightenment. The first was lead by Alasdair MacIntyre who argued that there was no ethics possible in the aftermath of Kant. Having  destroyed all foundations of an ideal model of life, Kant could only bequeath a future devoid of ethical commitment. Against this judgment, however, I presented the argumen of Abd al-karim Soroush who recognize value in the ethical heritage of the Enlightenment. Turning the ethical heritage of the Middle Ages on its head, the Enlightenment provided a basis for science and development that made ethics possible. Going on from this modern ambiguous heritage, I turned to present how contemporary Muslims related to ethics. Using the example of human rights, I pointed out how identity had become a major obstacle in thinking about ethics and human rights. I then turned to the ethical heritage of Islam, and proposed that a close and critical reading might be helpful. As an example, I provided an overview of Al-Mawardi’s Adab al-Din wa ‘l-Dunya.

I hope to share my reflections on this meeting in another Blog, and perhaps a more detailed paper. My reflections will include a really interesting article that I read of Armando Salvatore on Muslims and the European public sphere.

Burning the Qur'an, Recognition and a Spot on Global TV

This is a Blog that has taken much longer to write....

I started with Terry Jones last week but then could not complete it. So I will leave my early (and still relevant) reflections here, but then complete them with related ideas on religious discourse in the public sphere.

Terry Jones, pastors to 50 in Gainesville, is a famous man. He is known to almost everybody on the planet who has access to TV, news and the Internet. It does not take much these days to get on Global TV. In spite of the latter's increasingly contracting attention span, a threat to burn the Qur'an, draw the Prophet Muhammad, or insult Muslims is a sure way to get you a spot.

Of course, one cannot credit the Terry Jones of this world for single-handedly turning free speech into media attention. Mass media provides a spectacle that is both fascinating and tempting. It appeals to a human emotion for recognition, so central to human interaction. Recognition takes place when we talk to each other, when we also argued with each other.  In all aspects, recognition is a kind of self-affirmation even when the other is attacked.

What kind of affirmation comes from public mass media, though? What does it say about Terry Jones?

I am not inclined to go a psycho-analytical route. I will leave that to the experts, but perhaps to Jones himself.

With my research project on Islam and public life, I have become more aware of taking into consideration early pre-modern conceptions of the public life in general. And this includes readings in the Qur'an.

In the last couple of weeks, reading thru the Quran has alerted me to many ways in which the believer is asked to respond to Other. I mean here the other who refuses to believe.

The responses are varied. One of those is to be ready to take up arms. But this is not the only one, not even the dominant response.

There are equally many others. Two of these are very interesting. The first is to recognize that the unbeliever is under the impression that what he or she does is good. The phrase used is "tazyin a'malikum" which can be roughly and literally translated as "beautification of your deeds." The perception created is that the bad deed (in the eyes of the believer) appears beautiful and good to the doer.  A second one is related but with the same effect. The heart of the unbeliever has been sealed (tubi'a). God has caused this.

There may be  others. However, these two at least put the onus on the believer to take a stand in the situation.  Condemnation is clear, but it is prefaced by a certain orientation. The other's misguidance is regarded as self-inflicted. Misguidance is given an aesthetic dimension, a beautification. The second option, of course, is that God has closed the path to good for the man. This perspective is again condemnatory from a believer's perspective. However, it lifts the blame even further from the Other. He or she is now firmly blocked from the Truth.

These values may be imporrtant for thinking about public spheres of competing perceptions and perceptions of Truth.

For now, I wonder if these perceptions of reprehensible behaviour have resonance in how Muslims respond to public insults (or perceived insults)? I have heard that US Muslims have the sense that they are under constant attack, under deep scrutiny.

More importantly, what do such responses offer for such a public? And how can this be contrasted by what Muslims actually feel today under the conditions of a modern public? If recognition is denied them by a public that is increasingly hostile, are they taking recourse to these kinds of perceptions?

Admissions Policy: Does not Race have a history?

An informative debate was held at UCT on its Admission Policy on 3 Sept 2010. The spotlight fell on how and why UCT has chosen race to address the imbalance in the student profile at the University.
UCT might be an eiite university, but the issues raised at the meeting reflected much wider concerns:

From the revolution that never happened, to the skewed manner in which race was being applied, to the failure of the schooling system, to the desperate desire for schooling, and to the racial profile of class. 

The meeting was supposed to be a debate, but it turned out to have been an opportunity to present yet another list of unsolvable quandaries. All of them were important, but the speakers seemed to be throwing juggling balls or pins around at each other and towards the audience.

As I was listening and trying to keep as many of these missile in flow, I thought that there was more than one had to add. It is not something to replace the others, but crucial for the set.

It is very clear that race, imported from the past, plays a big role  in our country. Looking back at the last 16 years though, race has acquired a new history. A new layer consisting of several strands has been added to the Racial Classification Act of apartheid. One of these strands is government legislation as well as practices. And this often receives the lion's share of attention.But there are others, as the history of race is not over in South Africa. I am thinking about racial perceptions and practices that have been changed or consolidated: that blacks have proven themselves to be incompetent, or that whites  have really benefited from BEE.There are a myriad other ways in which race is thought and practiced. The post-apartheid record does not merely consist of living in the shadow. Race is sprouting new directions that wait for our attention.

Race was taking on new meaning, adding to the apartheid legacy but quite distinct.

What does this mean for UCT's policy of admissions?

Not so sure, but we should keep juggling perhaps.

Halal and Public Identities

The University of Cape Town showcased its latest Research Report (2009) at a special event on August 16, 2009. As itstarted at 5pm, Prof. Visser and later the Vice-Chancellor, Dr. MaxPrice, were keeping an eye on the time to sunset. This was no mystery, as theytold the audience that the proceedings had to be concluded by the time the Muslims could break their fasts for Ramadan. Both special Halal food and prayerfacilities were arranged for the event.

This was not unusual for South Africa, butI want to use this event to reflect on the kind public religious identities inscribed by food. I also want to use this opportunity to reflect on theparticular direction that a Halal industry and an accommodating public seem to be moving Muslim identities.

These remarks by Prof. Visser and Dr. Price drew attention to the presence of Muslims. In particular, all who knew me expected that I had been fasting, and also expected that I would turn to the special food prepared for me. I felt trapped in these expectations. I suspect that they also thought that those Muslims present would make use of the prayer facilities.

As I left the room at the end of the meeting, the Halal food was left untouched and unopened at the entrance of the hall. Apologies to the organizers of the event, particularly Ms. Pather.

It is amazing how consumption patterns and provision make an impact on a meeting. The intention to provide the right choice of meals is clearly noble, but the effects that flow from these are not often considered. For one, they tend to pigeon-hole South Africans in all sorts ofways.

More importantly, with respect to Islam at least, these provisions are driven by a growing Halal industry that leaves little room for individual choice. One is bombarded by pamphlets, e-mails, SMSs and Friday preachers to be on the lookout for Halal certificates, preferably those issued by the authors of these missives and not those of the competition.The Halal industry also directs well-meaning public servants to provide special food. This is the least they can do for cultural diversity.

The halal industry is driven by two powerful forces. The commercial one is probably the stronger of the two. The second, identity, should not be ignored though. The Halal sign has become a powerful symbol of Muslim identity. It announces the presence of Muslims in a neighborhood or city. Moreover, it helps Muslims to express their identity in a clear and unequivocal way.

But what is the substance of the identity? How is this identity constructed? I submit that Halal identities are constructed in a highly restrictive way. They are driven by an overwhelming asceticism; a visceral repulsion towards all kinds of foods. And that list continues to grow as Halal authorities scan food production. Food technology becomes very important, as trace elements of insects, pork and other abominable foods are marked and identified. These days, sweets, milk, water and even toothpicks appear on these lists.

And it appears that this is how public bodies like UCT are presented with halal requirements. The presence of suppliers, of course, makes this all easy.

This particular outlook is a far cry from another approach to Halal, one that in my view is presented in the Quran. In comparison with the one I have described, this one may be called liberalizing.

It struck me as I was reciting the Qur’an one morning. I suppose that I was drawn to this view  because I had always wondered why food regulations in the Qur’an were mostly presented as an  exception to the rule: “He has only forbidden you…” (2:173 and 16:115); “Why should ye not eat…” (6:119); “"In what has been revealed to me, I find no food prohibitions except …” (6:145). The restrictions are mentioned, but they are presented in a general framework of permissibility. To say “all is permissible except this” is very different from“only this is permissible.” Contemporary halal identities live by the latter, but the former dominate the Qur’anic syntax.

In my reading, Verse (6:145) declared some exceptions of food that should be avoided. Before this, however, there are two pages that review food taboos among the Arabs. These include human sacrifice (perhaps cannibalism?), food specially reserved for men and women, and parts of certain animals should not be consumed at all. This verse is followed by a reference to Jewish dietary law, the main point here too being that the latter is too demanding.

In this inter-textual reference, the verse(6:145) does not restrict Muslims to certain foods. It makes everything permissible except “dead meat, or blood poured forth, or the fleshof swine … or, what is impious, (meat) on which a name has been invoked.”

Permissible (halal) food is presented as a relaxation of dietary rules among Arabs and the Jews. Identity was still being constructed through food, but in a completely different way from what we have become accustomed to. Identity was produced in a process dominated by a relaxation of dietary rules, not their increasing restriction.

Identity cannot be avoided in our complex society. However, we can look closer at how and to what effect they are constructed. One could have an identity defined by exclusion, or one defined by inclusion.

Is the Prophet Muhammad Special?

Published 27 May 2010 on http://blogs.uct.ac.za/blog/tayoblog

The latest Zapiro cartoon seems once again to put this question in the public domain. Muslims are getting hoarse, shouting at the top of their voices that the Prophet is beyond depiction and beyond any criticism. Cartoonists reply that there is nothing really sacrosanct that their art cannot touch, and touch up.

Zapiro’s current cartoon makes an entirely different point about Muslims and their lack of humour, but it is this particular question that receives attention in the public debate. Is the Prophet Muhammad so off-limits that the freedom of expression should be curtailed? Is he really as sacred as the freedom of expression?

This question seemed very relevant to theological debate within Islam, the significance of which has escaped most commentators. Zapiro and other cartoonists, in a completely unintended way, may be playing an important role in restoring a sense of balance in how Muslims view the Prophet Muhammad.

Muslim responses to any cartoon on the Prophet appeared to take the usual route. If we can believe the papers, there are threats against Zapiro and the M&G, and there are calls to express anger with restraint. Interestingly, Muslim responses orbit around the freedom of expression. They are hurt, angered and insulted, they say. Zapiro has gone too far! They will not sit still in the face of this provocation! All these responses orbit around expressions and representations. They hardly go beyond the right to represent something.

There is a kind childishness in Zapiro’s latest cartoon. He has simply taken up the challenge, put up this time in Pakistan, that the Prophet Muhammad would not be depicted on computers in that country. Zapiro signed up for that challenge, as many others have done in defiance of Pakistan’s equally juvenile attempt.

It is not always childishness in the cartoon depictions of the Prophet, though. Very often, there is evident glee in tearing down sacred symbols in the name of freedom of expression. With one stroke, cartoonist claim to be underdogs against the onslaught of religion. In the process, though, the real centres of power are left untouched as the faith and belief of ordinary people everywhere are laid to waste.

Perhaps, however, we should go beyond the freedom of expression in this case. The special nature of the Prophet is a highly significant point in Islamic theology and ritual practice. Perhaps, just perhaps, the cartoons might be an important contribution in this domain. Zapiro was clearly having fun, but his buffoonery was telling us something about the sacred and the human.

I turn your attention to the study of comparative religion, where scholars have pointed to the oscillating nature of religious biographies. Sometimes, these biographies emphasized the human nature of important religious figures; while at other times, they emphasized their special, divine qualities. There is a subtle and enduring balance and tension between these two poles.

This tension is clearly evident in the Qur’an, and in subsequent Islamic historical recollection of the Prophet. In the Qur’an, the Prophet Muhammad is asked to tell his contemporaries that he is “is merely a human being like you.” At other places, he is set apart from his followers: “Muhammad is not the father of any of you, but a Messenger and a Seal of the Prophets.”

When the Prophet Muhammad died, we are told in tradition that one of his eminent companions threatened to cut off the head of anyone who dared to make this claim. Another more closer companion of Muhammad reminded him that “Muhammad was merely a messenger,” and in fact mortal. Even in this anecdote, one can see a tension between an elevation of Muhammad, and his humanization.

What does Zapiro have to do with this religious artefact? In my view, quite a bit! And in order to understand this, one has to appreciate something about modern Muslim religious debates.

As in the past, the tension between the human and special nature of the Prophet is found in modern Muslim religious debates and conflicts. At the heart of an ongoing debate, also in South Africa, lies the tendency in popular Islam and Sufism to focus on the Prophet Muhammad as the foundation of human existence, the door through which salvation and mercy flows. His metaphysical existence forms the ground of all existence.

Against this trend, reformist movements emphasized the Prophet’s role as conveyor of divine truth. The emphasis is on his role as transmitter. One might see this as a de-sacralizing movement in its own right. However, this reform movement has also emphasized the absoluteness of his words and deeds. Thus, within this de-sacralization, Muslim have elevated his every word and deed to an extent never seen before in Islamic history. The general trend is that his words and deeds should not be the subject of reflection, nor open to deliberation over values. They should be approached as absolutes, carried out without any human interrogation.

In short, all movements in modern Islam emphasize the utterly divine nature of the Prophet. One turns to his person as the foundation of human and non-human reality. The other turns his personality into an absolute.

In Modern Islam, the Prophet Muhammad has lost balance between his human and extraordinary nature. In desperation against secularization, Muslims have emphasized the extra-ordinary nature of Muhammad. The humanizing element, clearly in the Qur’an and in Islamic tradition, has been forgotten.

But all is not lost in this mad, globalizing world. Religion is no longer only the product of intense theological debate and discussion. It takes place in cafes, at dinner tables, in newspapers, but most of all on the Internet. For the humanity of the Prophet, moreover, it might just take place in a cartoon.

In spite of themselves, the cartoonists might be doing a service to Islamic theology. Their humanization of the Prophet Muhammad, particularly clear in Zapiro’s cartoon, could be taken a reminder to Muslims to re-examine their divinization of the Prophet Muhammad.