A Quiet Revolution Grows in the Muslim World

[Hypatia]

A Quiet Revolution Grows in the Muslim World

“Today’s revolution is more vibrantly Islamic than ever. Yet it is also decidedly antijihadist and ambivalent about Islamist political parties. Culturally, it is deeply conservative, but its goal is to adapt to the 21st century. Politically, it rejects secularism and Westernization but craves changes compatible with modern global trends. The soft revolution is more about groping for identity and direction than expressing piety. The new revolutionaries are synthesizing Koranic values with the ways of life spawned by the Internet, satellite television and Facebook.”

 

[RedGecko]

Hi Hypatia

Welcome to the forums, and thank you for sharing this article. It offers hope for a better tomorrow. But I guess I am a little puzzled by a statement which was repeated twice.

For them, Islam, you might say, is the path to change rather than the goal itself.

…members of the post-9/11 generation are increasingly relying on Islamic values rather than on a religion-based ideology to advance their aims.

Do you agree with those statements? They seem to say that this new generation is preserving religious values, but distancing themselves from religion. Perhaps I misunderstood the meaning of those sentences, but wonder if that is the first step towards secularization. Certainly in the West we have many who would say they embrace Christian values, but who don’t attend church.

 

[Hypatia]

Hi RG, and thank you.

I have to admit, that while I like this article a lot overall, I was also a little puzzled by that first line. That was why I cut the quote where I did in my initial post. The first line you quote would suggest to me that they are using Islam for pragmatic reasons. I don’t think that is what the author meant, since it goes against the rest of the article, but it is not immediately clear what the author did mean. In any case, I do not agree with it.

As for the second line you quote: I do largely agree with it, and if the two lines are saying the same thing…well, ok then. But I think what the second means, and I believe this is accurate, is that the current generation is very very skeptical, suspicious and critical of the ulema (the religious authority) as it currently exists (whether this be in Saudi, Iran or Egypt, etc.) and in many cases of the Islamist political parties, those these are often still seen as the most effective means of producing change in countries like Egypt and Turkey.

But the rejection of the current ulema is not a rejection of Islam and is in many ways an attempt to renew the rich tradition of Islam that has in too many places been stripped away by the Islamic modernists (Wahab’s disciples in all their various 20th-21st century forms…esp. Saudi) or suppressed by the secularists (the Ba’athists in Syria and Iraq, the Kemalists in Turkey). [Along similar lines, I would say that most Muslims are unimpressed with the effect that secularism/liberalism has had on Christianity in “the West” also.]

If I can make any sense of the first line you quoted it would mean something like…we recognize that anything we accomplish in the name of Islam is always incomplete and must always be renewed. No one owns the Truth, because Truth (al-Haqq) is God. One is always on the way to Allah (swt), because nothing that is finite can be God.

just my personal thoughts.

 

[The_Fool]

Isn’t this just a backlash against the extremes they see in their society, and I am wondering if this is only in Turkey, as the examples seem to be. From what I recall, someone correct me in my errors, Turkish women have almost always had more leeway, traditionally, than say their non-Turkish neighbors.

All the same, the article reminded me of Shiraz, Hafez, and Sa’adi. Hafez, in particular, when he’s writing about prohibition. Criticism government for it’s failures, and always look to Truth, not the world, for prosperity. Hopefully, this quiet revolution won’t follow some of the more abhorrent modern global trends.

Well, may the world always remember:بنی آدم اعضای یک پیکرندکه در آفرينش ز یک گوهرندچو عضوى به درد آورد روزگاردگر عضوها را نماند قرارتو کز محنت دیگران بی غمینشاید که نامت نهند آدمی For those who cannot understand, it should be Sa’adi’s poem in front of the UN building.

 

[Hypatia]

Isn’t this just a backlash against the extremes they see in their society, and I am wondering if this is only in Turkey, as the examples seem to be. From what I recall, someone correct me in my errors, Turkish women have almost always had more leeway, traditionally, than say their non-Turkish neighbors.

All the same, the article reminded me of Shiraz, Hafez, and Sa’adi. Hafez, in particular, when he’s writing about prohibition. Criticism government for it’s failures, and always look to Truth, not the world, for prosperity. Hopefully, this quiet revolution won’t follow some of the more abhorrent modern global trends.

Well, may the world always remember:بنی آدم اعضای یک پیکرندکه در آفرينش ز یک گوهرندچو عضوى به درد آورد روزگاردگر عضوها را نماند قرارتو کز محنت دیگران بی غمینشاید که نامت نهند آدمی For those who cannot understand, it should be Sa’adi’s poem in front of the UN building.

When you think of all the giants that came out of Shiraz, it is pretty amazing.

Anyway…I thought most of the examples were in Egypt. It seems to me that Islamic culture in Egypt is incredibly diverse and pluralistic and that Egypt continues to hold a lot of promise for the future of Islam in Arabia (if we understand that as “the Arab speaking world”). There are clearly a different set of issues in Turkey, but I am not as familiar with Turkey.

 

[The_Fool]

Anyway…I thought most of the examples were in Egypt.

You’re right. How did I get Turkey stuck in my head?

And I just realized I have grammatical errors in the last post. Maybe I should eat something for breakfast.

Anyway, I’ll hold off on viva la revolution until I see it’s fruits. A good thing could always turn sour just when you least expect it… or never get off the ground.

 

[Ran]

When you think of all the giants that came out of Shiraz, it is pretty amazing.

Anyway…I thought most of the examples were in Egypt. It seems to me that Islamic culture in Egypt is incredibly diverse and pluralistic and that Egypt continues to hold a lot of promise for the future of Islam in Arabia (if we understand that as “the Arab speaking world”). There are clearly a different set of issues in Turkey, but I am not as familiar with Turkey.

If there is a quiet Islamic revolution happening in Egypt then it better be extremely quiet!

To Sunni Muslims Al-Azhar University in Cairo is the highest Islaim authority in the world. Students at that university are not allowed to question anything! Anyone who question any part of the standard lslamic teaching will most likely be arrested by the Egyptian Secret Police within the day and tortured until they confess what Christian or Jew converted them. To better understand just how quiet that revolution had better be I suggest reading about the experiences of Mark Gabriel (not his original name) in Egypt in his book Islam and Terrorism: What the Quran Really Teaches About Christianity, Violence and the Goals of the Islamic Jihad.

 

[mark_a]

Hello and welcome

"Today’s revolution is more vibrantly Islamic than ever. Yet it is also decidedly antijihadist and ambivalent about Islamist political parties. Culturally, it is deeply conservative, but its goal is to adapt to the 21st century.

Does this revolution have a name and a leadership?

Politically, it rejects secularism and Westernization but craves changes compatible with modern global trends.

Sounds like a plus to me!

The soft revolution is more about groping for identity and direction than expressing piety. The new revolutionaries are synthesizing Koranic values with the ways of life spawned by the Internet, satellite television and Facebook.

Where does this movement stand concerning life issues: Abortion, embryonic stem cell research, euthenasia, and contraception?

 

[Hypatia]

If there is a quiet Islamic revolution happening in Egypt then it better be extremely quiet!

To Sunni Muslims Al-Azhar University in Cairo is the highest Islamic authority in the world. Students at that university are not allowed to question anything!

Al-Azhar is very important to Sunni Islam and beyond, but to suggest that there is no questioning going on seems to be just malicious. It has a very good reputation as an educational institution. The ulema associated with Al-Azhar have also been fairly outspoken in their stance against the jihadists right from the start.

If anything there is the feeling among many Muslims that Al-Azhar is too close to the Egyptian government, which is a dictatorship by anyone’s estimation. They are helping to prop up a tyrant. The government has certainly used Al-Azhar to justify its repression of groups like the MB, and other political parties in Egypt.

That said, there is a kind of freedom of speech in Egypt, but it is one that you exercise at your own risk. You never know when journalists will be arrested, or a newspaper shut down. And as recent events show quite clearly, engaging in public demonstrations (which crosses over from speech to action in the eyes of the Egyptian government) will get you arrested in no time. It takes courage, which was the point of the article. Those are courageous people.

 

[melensdad]

That said,** there is a kind of freedom of speech in Egypt, but it is one that you exercise at your own risk**. You never know when journalists will be arrested, or a newspaper shut down. And as recent events show quite clearly, engaging in public demonstrations (which crosses over from speech to action in the eyes of the Egyptian government) will **get you arrested in no time. ** It takes courage, which was the point of the article. Those are courageous people.

It seems to me that you have no concept of ‘freedom’ if you have to qualify it with being arrested, shut down or requiring courage. In fact I see no difference between this paragraph and life under Godless Communism.

 

[Verisimilitude]

It seems to me that you have no concept of ‘freedom’ if you have to qualify it with being arrested, shut down or requiring courage. In fact I see no difference between this paragraph and life under Godless Communism.

Very true, except the difference is communists claimed the state had ultimate authority for life in this world because there was no afterlife whereas Islamists say god allah requires the state to define/enforce life for this world for entry into the next. Everything in Islam is qualified.

 

[manualman]

Interesting, it almost sounds like Islam’s version of evangelical, do-it-yourself, sola scriptura christianity. I suppose it is a normal human reaction to evidence of systemic corruption and abuse present in the established institutions.

In this ‘reformed Islam’ what is the attitude towards religious freedom. What are you obliged to do if your sister converts to christianity? (IMO, that’s the acid test question for any muslim!)

 

[mark_a]

What are you obliged to do if your sister converts to christianity? (IMO, that’s the acid test question for any muslim!)

This is a great question that I would like answered.

 

[Hypatia]

It seems to me that you have no concept of ‘freedom’ if you have to qualify it with being arrested, shut down or requiring courage. In fact I see no difference between this paragraph and life under Godless Communism.

That seems fairly naive. There are clearly various degrees of freedom of speech, and Egypt is far from the most restrictive examples one could name. Freedom of speech is clearly much more vibrant and ensconced in the civic life of United States than most anywhere else — compare speech restrictions, especially aimed at religious speech (and anti-religious speech) in various European countries. But that doesn’t mean there isn’t some degree of free speech in those countries.

This is not meant to be a terribly robust defense of Egypt. It is, as I said, a dictatorship, but it is no Saudi Arabia. There is a film industry, and a vibrant music scene. There are opposition newspapers and etc. There is certainly a very real kind of free speech present in Egypt, but you also live with the reality that the shoe could fall at any time.

Communists claimed the state had ultimate authority for life in this world because there was no afterlife whereas Islamists say god allah requires the state to define/enforce life for this world for entry into the next. Everything in Islam is qualified.

If this is meant to identify Egypt as an Islamist state it is hard to imagine how that could possibly be accurate. Indeed, the Islamists (e.g., the MB) are the main opposition in Egypt and they are so popular precisely because the state is a repressive dictatorship.

Interesting, it almost sounds like Islam’s version of evangelical, do-it-yourself, sola scriptura christianity. I suppose it is a normal human reaction to evidence of systemic corruption and abuse present in the established institutions.

To my mind this is one of the greatest myths floating around in “the West”: i.e., that Islam is undergoing or needs to undergo some sort of Protestant reformation. We have already suffered that debacle with the rise of the Salafi, or Islamic modernism. It has destroyed the history and tradition of Islam in the name of some pure moment in the past, trying to turn Islam into something dead and unhistorical. It is because the house of Saud has had such close ties with the modernists and has poured so much money into exporting modernism that the Saudis are viewed with such disdain throughout much of Islam (I would suggest a more nuanced view of Saudi is required, but the Kingdom is often its own worst enemy nonetheless).

Furthermore the ulema never has the kind of authority that the Catholic monarchy has, and Islam has never existed as an institution after the manner of the Christian churches. Tawhid ought to mitigate against such hierarchies and the centralization and extension of control…though of course the power hungry will always grope for more power.

 

[Verisimilitude]

If this is meant to identify Egypt as an Islamist state it is hard to imagine how that could possibly be accurate. Indeed, the Islamists (e.g., the MB) are the main opposition in Egypt and they are so popular precisely because the state is a repressive dictatorship.

Despite the dictatorship this can’t be denied and makes it an Islamist state;

Constitution Of The Arab Republic of Egypt:
Article 2
Islam is the religion of the state and Arabic its official language.
Islamic jurisprudence is the principal source of legislation.

What do you think would change if the MB came to power instead of the current dictatorship?

Would they be like Arabia?

Saudi Arabia - Constitution
Article 1
The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is a sovereign Arab Islamic state with Islam as its religion; God’s Book and the Sunnah of His Prophet, God’s prayers and peace be upon him, are its constitution, Arabic is its language and Riyadh is its capital.

Or Pakistan?

The Constitution of Pakistan:

1. The Republic and its territories
   (1) Pakistan shall be a Federal Republic to be known as the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, hereinafter referred to as Pakistan.
2. Islam to be State religion
   Islam shall be the State religion of Pakistan.

Or Iran?

Iran - Constitution
Preamble
The Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran advances the cultural, social, political, and economic institutions of Iranian society based on Islamic principles and norms, which represent an honest aspiration of the Islamic Ummah.

Islamists like bin Laden make claims like you have, calling these Islamic states not ‘true’ Islamic states, but the states themselves call themselves Islamists states in their constitutions.

As I said, everything in Islam is qualified such as you have done here.

 

[tomarin]

Despite the dictatorship this can’t be denied and makes it an Islamist state;

The problem here is you’re using “islamist” in an overly broad way. Using the same logic England would have to be considered a “Christian fundamentalist” state because it has an official church, the Church of England – it’s obviously not however.

Egypt is not an islamist state because it is not run by the islamist parties, it is run by secularists. The islamist parties are kept on a tight leash by the government of Egypt because they fear any organized dissent, especially when it is based on religious identity, a powerful force in that part of the world.

 

[The_Fool]

Verisimilitude, are you sure you aren’t arguing with Hypatia over schematics? I don’t think he’s using “islamist” the same way you are. From how you used it in the last post, it sounded like you define islamists as anyone who thinks Islam should be the state religion. I don’t think Hypatia defines it that way though. If I’m wrong, in all charity correct my errors, please.

 

[Verisimilitude]

The problem here is you’re using “islamist” in an overly broad way. Using the same logic England would have to be considered a “Christian fundamentalist” state because it has an official church, the Church of England – it’s obviously not however.

This goes back to the thread we were on regarding the political aspects of Islam and how they are largley indeterminate/indistinguishable from the religious aspects of the ideology since Islam is a system that incorporates both.

Since you mention England and the COE, the UK’s constitution says:

(4) There is no religious bar to the holding of public office except in the case of the Sovereign who must by law be a Protestant. The Church of England and the Church of Scotland are the established ‘official’ churches for state ceremonies of a religious nature. Their members, however, do not obtain any advantages from being members of an established church rather than of any other church.

The UK monarchy is maybe more similar to Arabia or Jordan except the UK is mostly symbolic since they do not makes civil laws while those others do make civil laws in accordance with the state religion- Islam.

Egypt is not an islamist state because it is not run by the islamist parties, it is run by secularists. The islamist parties are kept on a tight leash by the government of Egypt because they fear any organized dissent, especially when it is based on religious identity, a powerful force in that part of the world.

As such, other than possibly Vatican City there is no equivalent to a ‘Christian’ state as the many Islamic states as noted by their own constitutions. America may claim to be a Christian nation by some, disputed by others and though most politicians claim some form of the Christian faith it is not in our Constitution as the Islamic states do. Do you think the President of Egypt would admit being an Islamic secularist like Obama/Bush might be a secular Christian with respect to how they govern and make law?

Set aside the ‘freedom’ of a Republican or Democrat in America has to be any religion; can you tell me those political parties in Egypt that currently run the government are anything but Islamic?

I don’t think you or The Fool can restrict ‘Islamist’ to the purely religious term.

 

[tomarin]

I don’t think you or The Fool can restrict ‘Islamist’ to the purely religious term.

Then it becomes a largely meaningless term, since it encapsulates everything in an Islamic country.

I think the governing elites in Egypt are the inheritors of Nassar’s pan-arab movement, which was (is) largely secular. I think they play lip service to the importance of Islam in society (much as most of our politicians do with regards to Christianity, the notable exception here being George Bush, much to his credit) but for most it is just lip service; so to say that they run an islamic state on islamic principles is a colossal exaggeration.

The distinction I’m making here is the same that applies to the differences between Fatah and Hamas. One is a secular nationalist party (composed of muslims); the other an islamic nationalist party. What with the bloodshed between them, it would be a hard sell to assert that they are the same.

 

[Verisimilitude]

Then it becomes a largely meaningless term, since it encapsulates everything in an Islamic country.

Other meaningless terms:
Radical Islamic fundamentalist
Jihadist terrorist
Moderate Islamic governments

I think the governing elites in Egypt are the inheritors of Nassar’s pan-arab movement, which was (is) largely secular. I think they play *lip service to the importance of Islam in society *(much as most of our politicians do with regards to Christianity, the notable exception here being George Bush, much to his credit) but for most it is just lip service; so to say that they run an islamic state on islamic principles is a colossal exaggeration.

The importance of Islam in society? What does that mean?
If George Bush is your example of a leader putting the Christian faith into action and not just giving lip service to it then please justify actions taken under his term/leadership the Iraq war, open borders, and the unabated abortionas it regards the Christian ethic as you understand it.

The distinction I’m making here is the same that applies to the differences between Fatah and Hamas. One is a secular nationalist party (composed of muslims); the other an islamic nationalist party. What with the bloodshed between them, it would be a hard sell to assert that they are the same.

Fatah is Arafats PLO with a new coat, yet because Hamas and Hezbollah fire more mortars and kill more Israelis than Fatah currently does they are now the moderates. Can you show a difference between their ideologies or Charters? Why is Turkey considered a model moderate Islamic state but not Pakistan? In both countries their military (supported by US foreign policy/weapons/money) is the only thing from keeping the ‘radical’ elements in check.

You can’t have it both ways and remain intellectually honest. Is it a Christian ethic to have self determination for all people? Is it a Christian ethic obey legitimate civil law and actively oppose illigitmate law? I think it is but we do not do that as a nation or a people.