As a practicing Muslim Egyptian-American, it is common to have to explain (and often rationalize) my "way of life" to well-meaning acquaintances. Tiptoeing through these explanations, I must stress that while religion or culture affect many of my decisions, they are not sole determinants of my life choices. I also have to take painstaking care to qualify that not ALL Egyptians or Arabs or Muslims live their lives like I do, and that my answers DO NOT and CANNOT generalize to 2 million Arab-Americans or 3.5 million Muslims in the US, 80 million Egyptians a world away, or the nearly 1.5 billion Muslims globally.
Nevertheless, my interlocutors can't resist the temptation to twist and shape my explanations to fit the greater narrative they'll use to explain those "funny" or "peculiar" (for the PC among them) things that Muslims (all 1.5 billion of them) do. What's worse, if my data doesn't seem to fit into that greater arc of knowledge they have constructed from years of marinating in Fox news or MSNBC, it gets discarded, like a statistical outlier in their mental dataset. Although frustrating, my interlocutors aren't being bigoted on purpose, they're average folks who just don't know better.
Unbeknownst to them, they inherit a rich, scholastic tradition of ignorance. In academia, this practice has a pointed history. For centuries, scholars have attempted to twist and reinterpret the history and politics of Muslims, Arabs, and the Middle East around distinctly American or British narratives. Intellectual giants, like Edward Said and others, criticize the legitimacy of this approach, arguing that it fails to recognize the nuanced differences between "the West" and "the Muslim World" and that more critical, objective assessments of these differences are in order. They highlight a fundamental flaw of this kind of thinking, which they call Orientalism: it assumes that Muslims or Arabs are more motivated by their religion or culture than their Western counterparts, because these religions or cultures are not as well-understood by the Western mind as their own.
Just as my well-meaning acquaintances pigeonhole me, orientalists attempt to fit the history and politics of Muslims or Arabs into a greater arc that is dominated by cultural or religious stereotypes. For example, a classic orientalist construction would be equating Islam and terrorism--recently, Juan Williams, a liberal pundit, suggested that those in "Muslim garb" on airplanes made him nervous, implying that their overtly Islamic outward appearance would suggest them to be more likely to commit terrorist attacks. Rather than acknowledge heterogeneity in thought and behavior among practicing Muslims, this framing suggests that Islam, uniquely, is the driving force behind terrorism.
Orientalist framings have, expectedly, also come to dominate the public discourse about the most recent news from the Middle East. En masse, the Egyptian people are demonstrating unequivocally for their freedom. Their demands? Fundamental human rights that many of us take for granted every day--freedom of speech, equal protection under the law, freedom from arbitrary arrest or detention, freedom to peacefully assemble, and the right to choose their representatives. Under the brutal dictatorship of a shameless despot (who has milked his $70 billion fortune from the bread money of Egyptian peasants), they have suffered quietly for over 30 years.
American ideals should call us to support their freedoms, and those of oppressed peoples the world over. After all, we believe that all men are created equal, and that among their unalienable rights are those to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Frustratingly, however, our public discourse regarding Egypt has focused less on the noble American ideals with which we often describe ourselves, and more on comparisons between Egypt and Iran, or the role of the Muslim Brotherhood.
In lock step with the orientalist narrative, this racist framing of Arab and Muslim behaviors overemphasizes the roles of religion and culture in motivating the revolution we are witnessing and ignores the collective will of the Egyptian people to be free. Just like the synonymization of Islam and terrorism, our preoccupation with Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood appeals to the orientalist need to explain the Egyptian struggle for self-determinism via religiously or culturally stereotyped explanations. In succumbing to this simplistic and misguided framework, we fail to acknowledge the will of the Egyptian people to reclaim their country and the legitimate grievances against which they demonstrate.
Although when I'm asked about my religion or culture, it may be annoying that questioners often seek to stereotype my answers relative to what they've seen or heard about Muslims or Arabs in the media, ultimately, this prejudiced tendency among individuals has little consequence on my daily life. But when we allow this inherently bigoted thinking to aggregate and take hold in our public discourse, it has real implications on the lives and livelihoods of those whose agency we distort. Abroad, we use this rationale to justify our fear of Egyptian democracy, just as it has been used at home to excuse our assault on the dignity and civil liberties of our Arab-American and Muslim-American neighbors.
Follow Abdulrahman El-Sayed on Twitter: www.twitter.com/elabdul
Far be it from me to try to convince you of my sincerity, if I haven't already.
You are certainly are a test sent from God. Jan, do you ever do anything besides sit at a computer and cut and paste your info from the Internet? Jan…have you EVER been to a mosque and seen these things you post here actually taught inside a Muslim house of worship or at a Muslim school? You sit at your computer and you assume to teach me my faith. I go to mosque. You are using an antiquated spelling that does not reflect the Arabic: QURAN; 9:29 (not “Koran”!). No modern Muslim interprets the verse you cite literally as a call to impose Islam on non Muslims BECAUSE IN AT LEAST THREE OTHER PLACES IN THE QURAN, MUSLIMS ARE ORDERED NOT TO IMPOSE THEIR RELGION ON ANYONE WHO DOES NOT BELIEVE. So even if we take the verse you cite, in fairness, there are clearly verses, which you never seem to notice, that say neither Prophet Muhammad nor the believers can decide matters of faith for any individual outside of themselves. The most obvious text for someone on your level is called Surah Kafirun. At the mosque, we're constantly reminded of Surah 2, verse 256. We are universally taught that the “Koran” texts you are trying to cite is limited to the exact situation the Prophet was in and not a general order for all Muslims. There's NO debate because you can't tell me that you have EVER been to a mosque or a Muslim country. CAN YOU?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cairo_Declaration_on_Human_Rights_in_Islam
or those Muslim leaders who advocate violent jihad and claim that the peaceful passages of the Koran (or Quran, if you choose another transliteration, but as a scholar you should know that there is a wide variation in acceptable transliterations, and you cannot apply the rules of political correctness to the subject of transliteration) have been abrogated or take other similar positions.
You are assaulting the messengers. We are not your problem. It is Muslims that push for very regressive positions, who want strict literalism, who believe that Mohammed should be upheld as a model of human decency and perfection that all Muslims must emulate, and so on.
So direct your ire in the right direction.
What follows is the entirety of page xx of Umdat al Salik.
[CERTIFICATION OF AL-AZHAR]
IN THE NAME OF ALLAH, MOST MERCIFUL AND COMPASSIONATE
Al-Azhar
Islamic Research Academy
General Department for Research, Writing, and Translation
Mr. Nuh Ha Mim Keller
Amman, Jordan
Peace be upon you, and the mercy of Allah and His blessings.
To commence: In response to the request you have submitted concerning the examination of the English translation of the book ‘Umdat al-salik wa ‘uddat al-nasik by Ahmad ibn Naqib in the Shafi’I school of jurisprudence, together with appendices by Islamic scholars on matters of Islamic law, tenets of faith, and personal ethics and character: we certify that the above-mentioned translation corresponds to the Arabic original and conforms to the practice and faith of the orthodox Sunni Community (Ahl al-Sunna was al-Jama’a). There is no objection to printing it and circulating it.
The stamping of the pages of the above-mentioned work with the seal of the department has been completed.
May Allah give you success in serving Sacred Knowledge and the religion. Peace be upon you, and the mercy of Allah and His blessings.
Composed on 26 Rajab 1411 A.H./11 February 1991 A.D.
General Director of Research, Writing, and Translation
Fath Allah Ya Sin Jazar [signed]
Muhammad ‘Umar Muhammad’ Umar [signed]
Seal of al-Azhar [stamped]
General Department for Research, Writing, and Translation
This is the exact verbiage which leads me to feel they are certifying the quality of the translation (from Arabic to English), rather than certifying the content of the translation as official Islamic law, as you have said many times.
Any comment on that?
"we certify that the above-mentioned translation corresponds to the Arabic original and conforms to the practice and faith of the orthodox Sunni Community (Ahl al-Sunna was al-Jama’a)."
============
Some Muslims clearly disagree with you.
It's not hard to understand why when K. 9:29 is interpreted this way in Sharia law:
Umdat al salik:
THE OBJECTIVES OF JIHAD
o9.8 The caliph (o25) makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians (N: provided he has first invited them to enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they will not, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam by paying the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya, def: o11.4)—which is the significance of their paying it, not the money itself—while remaining in their ancestral religions) (O: and the war continues) until they become Muslim or else pay the non-Muslim poll tax (O: in accordance with the word of Allah Most High,
(K. 9:29)
o25.2
(H: The caliphate is a communal obligation (def: c3.2) just as the judgeship is (S: because the Islamic community needs a ruler to uphold the religion, defend the sunna, succor the oppressed from oppressors, fulfill rights, and restore them to whom they belong).)
Here's a great article on what Shariah is and how it has evolved over time in Muslim societies. More imporantly the article shows that there is great potential for a successful cohesion of Islamic values and democracy.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/16/magazine/16Shariah-t.html?_r=1
You did say "some Muslims" ..... but how many is some?
One? Five? More than that? Any idea?
Also: any idea what the context of either of those quotes is, historically? Just curious - I find that understanding the historical context of a statement or a piece of writing is extremely helpful in clarifying what may have been meant by the author or speaker.
Finally, doesn't the whole argument of "some Muslims {believe x,y,z}" seem kind of .... backwards, to you?
Wouldn't it be better to determine what Muslims believe by listening to or reading what they actually say, with an eye an ear (at least one of each) to the more recent expressions being preferred?
Or, as one commenter very reasonably suggested, maybe actually asking some Muslims?
====
And so you should show this, or else you cannot blame others for being skeptical. Particularly when there are unanswered voices in your community proclaiming the opposite, very loud and very often. And no response to speak of from the rest of the Ummah.
If Egypt can emerge from its current situation into a functioning peaceful democracy that upholds human rights, then you might have some credibility.
But the past record shows that Egypt might very well be headed down the same path as Lebanon and Iran and Iraq and Turkey and Indonesia and Pakistan and any number of other Muslim countries that were just about to break out from an ugly history, but instead chose a different path.
You might want democracy and freedom. Most Egyptians might want that too. That doesn't mean you will get them, even if the current regime just vaporized overnight. Remember, most Iranians did not particularly want the mess they are in either. And polls and surveys of the Egyptian people do not show that most even want freedom; I have very little confidence that they know what democracy is, to be honest, even though slightly more than half claim that is what they seek.
So make the world believers. Show us that you can do it. Until then...you will pardon us if we remain slightly cautious and skeptical. After all, the Muslim world is brimming with very threatening comments and statements. So you have to actually show us that you can deliver.
Please double check the above statement against the facts:
1) 50% of Lebanon is Christian and elections that are fair (everyone is unhappy even the winners !)
2) Iran had a democratic government that we (the US) toppled and installed the Shah (Schwarzkopf memoirs, the CIA man, father of the military man)
3) Iraq... CHOSE a different path.. ?? are you kidding?
4) Turkey is 90% Islamic and has free, fair, and representative elections and electorate.
5) Indonesia also 90% Islamic and has managed to elect a woman president
6) Pakistan, 99% Islamic and has been a dictatorship (with elections) since inception.
We have all the weapons, and we are using them, mostly against the Muslim/Arabic world, and you think they should give us assurances for us to feel better, did I understand you correctly ?
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/le.html#People
Being occupied for years and years by the Syrian Army and subject to extortion by a Shiite militia funded and armed by Iran is not the best situation for "free and fair" elections. Having your President assassinated by these foreign groups is not indicative of a "free and fair" political system. Having the investigation into the murder suppressed out of fear of these foreign occupying groups is not a sign of a "free and fair" political system.
(2) The situation in Iran was and is far more complicated. The Iranians "toppled" many of their own elected and appointed leaders before and since.
(3) Iraq did not have to descend into sectarian and intertribal violence. Iraq did not have to have such a contentious last election and difficult negotiations. Iraq did not have to allow Islamic extremists to take hold of life on the streets, killing bakers for baking the wrong shape of bread and people selling ice and using the wrong shaving methods because they are "unIslamic". Iraqis chose this path. And they are still suffering.
Should the US have intervened? I was not in favor of intervening, even in the first Gulf War to save Kuwait. But Iraqis have made the worst of a bad situation.
(4) Turkey was 50% Christian 100 years ago and is now 99% Islamic because they are so awful to Christians. The Islamic Alevi minority (10% of the population) is discriminated against and treated unfairly. The Orthodox Church is subject to all sorts of restrictions. Kurds are treated worse than 2nd class citizens. Armenians are treated badly and Turkey cannot even admit the genocide against them a century ago.
Not only does the hypothetical moderate majority(?) not have no words, it has no actions!
It is not so much the extent to which Islam is present in the daily lives or political culture of the people of the Middle East, but instead the extent to which Islam appears to dominate certain interest groups which are capable of organizing political control over nations such as Egypt.
Using Egypt as the example, there is the Muslim Brotherhood, an organization that publicly proclaims its interests as including greater religious intrusion into the civil society and mechanisms of government. Americans in general and especially the well educated as a rule do not support religion in government and I think this is reflected in the discourse. Admittedly, the discourse is deeply colored by a fear of the other, in the form of Islam, however, it is clearly not the only concern.
Perhaps promises from the Muslim Brotherhood to sit back and not run candidates for the presidency will calm down some fears, but I believe only a total commitment to the separation of religion and state, led by groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood, can be successful in dispelling them entirely.
The most convincing declaration of the differences between the Islamic world and the West came from the Islamic countries of the Organization of the Islamic Conference. In 1990 they repudiated the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights with the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam:
"ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN
To U.N. General Assembly’s Third Committee (A/C. 3/39/SR.65, para. 91-95) Dec. 7, 1984.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which represents a secular understanding of the Judeo-Christian tradition, cannot be implemented by Muslims and does not accord with the system of values recognized by the Islamic Republic of Iran; this country would therefore not hesitate to violate its provisions, since it had to choose between violating the divine law of the country and violating secular conventions."
Not one of the 56 member nations of the OIC subscribes to the UDHR. Article 18 of the UDHR is among the offenders: it guarantees freedom of conscience--the right to change religions without retribution. That's not allowed in the Sharia law that is the only reference point in the Cairo Declaration.
The UDHR's guarantee of gender equity also does not accord with Sharia standards. Freedom to marry anyone and freedom of speech and freedom of sexual identity also conflict with Sharia law.
What does this have to do with Orientalism?
2) I don't see how you can link Iran or OIC stances, and "Sharia standards" that vary from place to place, with the author's view on Orientalism distorting Egypt's freedom.
I am pointing out that Muslims themselves do this by rejecting the values to which Westerners aspire. Traditional Islam (as expressed in Sharia law) is opposed to liberal democracy by choice, not because of a slander by Orientalists.
My reading of the Cairo Declaration is that the Sharia standards it defers to are those of the major schools of Sunni and Shia jurisprudence--Sharia law.
Sharia law does not vary from place to place. Like all jurisprudence, it is written down in stable form. What does vary from place to place is the overriding of Sharia law by civil law and the degree to which the Sharia elements are enforced.
Dear President Obama,
From here at Tahrir Square, it seems clear that you are a very confused person. In your heart, you obviously want Egypt to become a democracy — what rational, ethical person wouldn't? Yet it seems that you are being fed such a sream of propaganda and dire warmings about a take over of America's most important Arab ally by Islamists and other anti-American forces that you seem to have decided to sell Egyptians up the river Nile in order to protect US "interests" against this frightening prospect.
I have a solution for you to break the impasse inside your head; come to Tahrir Square now, before its too late. Spend one afternoon, or better one night, and I can assure you all doubts about which side in this epic struggle to support will be erased.
Mr President, why is it you and your chief aides can't just look squarely into the camera and say that Egypt needs democracy now? Not tomorrow, not in 7 months. Now. People aren't stupid, you know. They understand that reform means changing things just enough, giving just enough freedom here and there, so that the game can be called and business returned to normal, with the system that Mubarak, aided by tens of billions of American taxpayers's dollars, has spent 30 years erecting.
(Much more written at posted site)
Otherwise we can only see it as a political choice between the status quo (a peaceful Egypt) vs the historical quo (a disruptive/warrior Egypt). Please, at least put forth a leadership that is willing to fight the fight based on a plan that makes sense and do it soon! Otherwise you face the ominous specter that Suleiman will be leading the charge.
===
Actually there is not a lot of evidence for that.
It began with Gibbon and his sweeping 3the Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire” and continues until today. A closer look at who the Middle East experts have been in the last decade and how they have portrayed the region to a naive public with little interest in history, has led to the distortion of a single Muslim voice and what this voice pretends to want. NYTs editorialist Frank Rich could not have been more succinct:
That’s the legacy of years of self-censored, superficial, provincial and at times Islamophobic coverage of the Arab world ….has led to a ……. decade’s worth of indiscriminate demonization of Arabs in America ( and elsewhere) — and the steady rise in Islamophobia.
Arab Islamic culture is rich and has made significant contributions to human progress and history. Why not work that angle for a while and try to figure out what ya'll might have done to allow non-violent Western powers to repress your trip to the modern world?