Today, in most minds, the words "liberalism" and "Islam" can come together only to form an oxymoron. However, this was not the case a century ago. The Islamic world was still much less open and democratic then the West, but most intellectuals and statesmen of that world were self-declared liberals.
One of the vanguards of this forgotten trend was an intellectual group in the late Ottoman Empire -- which then covered almost the whole Muslim Middle East -- called Young Ottomans. (Not to be confused with the later Young Turks, who were more secular and nationalist.) The Young Ottomans were both pious Muslims and committed liberals, who believed that the only cure to Muslim societies was to import the liberal democracy of the West and re-articulate it in Islamic terms.
The most prominent Young Ottoman was Namık Kemal, who saw liberty as the secret of the West's ascendance, but also believed that Islam had the same ideal in its core. "Being created free by Allah, man is naturally obliged to benefit from this divine gift," he wrote in his journal Hürriyet ("Freedom") in 1868. "[Thus] state authority should be realized in the way which will least limit the freedom of the individual."
Thanks to such idealistic calls, and also the pragmatic need to keep the multi-religious empire intact, the Ottoman State, the very seat of the Muslim Caliphate, realized very important reforms in the 19th and early 20th centuries. The powers of the sultan were limited by law, while citizen's rights were guaranteed. Non-Muslim peoples of the empire, who used to be "protected" but unequal according to classical Islamic law, gained the status of equal citizenship. The Ottomans accepted a liberal constitution in 1876, and then elected a parliament, which welcomed many Greek, Armenian or Jewish deputies, along with Turkish, Arab or Albanian ones.
In the same era, the Arab intelligentsia was also living what Arab historian Albert Hourani called "the liberal age." One of the prominent reformists, the Egyptian scholar Muhammad Abduh, who traveled in Europe, famously said that in Paris he saw "Islam without Muslims," and on his return to Egypt he saw "Muslims without Islam." He felt, in other words, that all the good things Muslim societies should have were in the West but not in Islamdom. He and his followers were only proud that Islam did not share Europe's virulent anti-Semitism, which then was rampant in countries such as France.
Most of these late 19th or early 20th century Muslim liberals -- who are commonly known as "Islamic modernists" -- looked back at the formative centuries of Islam, and discovered some liberal themes buried under the weight of stagnant traditions. First of all, they found tolerant references in the Quran -- verses declaring, "there is no compulsion in religion." Besides, they noticed that some of the troubling hadiths (sayings attributed to Prophet Muhammad) might not be authentic, and could be representing only the misogyny and the bigotry of some medieval men. They, therefore, wanted to re-read the Quran in the light of the modern age.
Quite notably, this was the dominant intellectual trend in the Muslim world a century ago. Yet, again quite notably, it failed. Instead, the authoritarian ideology called "Islamism" gradually dominated the scene, to establish reactionary political parties, tyrannical regimes and even some terrorist offshoots.
But why? Why Islamic modernism failed and gave floor to radical Islamism?
My short answer to that big question, which I explore more deeply in my book, is the change in political context: At the end of the first quarter of the 20th century, the Ottoman Empire fell, giving rise to more than a dozen nation-states, almost all of which were colonized by European powers. Colonization inevitably led to anti-colonization, and replaced liberalism with a reactionary collectivism. The question, "How can we be like the West?" got replaced by "How can we resist the West?"
For worse, the post-colonial regimes in most Muslim nations turned out to be secular dictatorships, which oppressed the Islamic pious, only to push them further toward Islamism. In Iran, for example, the "modernist" Reza Shah, banned the veiling all women, ordered his police to patrol the streets to tear the chadors off, and executed the ayatollahs who protested his measures. As a response, the first modern Islamist terrorist movement, the Fadayan-e Islam (Devotees of Islam), was born, and it began assassinating the Shah's men. Secular violence had created its Islamic mirror image.
Unfortunately, these two extremes -- secular authoritarianism versus Islamic authoritarianism -- created a vicious cycle in the modern Middle East, whose latest byproducts even hit the West.
Fortunately, though, we might be at the dawn of a new era, in which the vicious cycle can be broken. The Arab Spring, at least in Tunis and Egypt, offers an important ground, whereas my country, Turkey of the new century, which defeated its own secular authoritarianism without falling prey to Islamic authoritarianism, offers an important example. If we are lucky, more democracies can soon emerge in the Middle East, and Islamic liberalism, which is actually not that much of an oxymoron, can be reborn.
Mustafa Akyol is a Turkish journalist, and the author of the just-released 'Islam without Extremes: A Muslim Case for Liberty.'
Follow Mustafa Akyol on Twitter: www.twitter.com/AkyolinEnglish
Juan Cole: An Arab Spring for Women: The Missing Story From the Middle East
Liberal and moderate movements within Islam - Wikipedia, the free ...
SFU Public Affairs and Media Relations - Egypt, Islam, Liberal ...
When Discussing Islam, Liberal Media Can Only Reach for 'Bigotry ...
How to Be a Liberal Muslim - wikiHow
A Liberal Pakistani Muslim Speaks - The Dish | By Andrew Sullivan ...
If only that were entirely true. The ruling AKP has not brought "Islamic Authoritarianism" per se. But is has moved towards authoritarianism nonetheless. Important journalists have been jailed for criticizing Prime Minister Erdogan or his supporter the lslamic Gulen Movement. In the last election decidedly dangerous rhetoric against the minority Alevi community was part of Erdogan's campaign. Notice I am criticizing Erdogan and the AKP not for being Muslim but for being authoritarian and starting a dangerous trend against freedom of the press and towards communal politics.
Peace/Salaams/Shalom
Geez you could be my favorite muslim here on HuffPo!
I don't know how much you know about Turkish politics. The AKP are a lot like the Republicans--pro-capitalist, corporatist and reliant upon a conservative religious base to get elected. The Gulen movement have tied together conservative Islam with a pro-business and nationalist agenda. They sell themselves in the West as the antidote to Bin Laden--as if there are only two flavors in Islam to choose from. They have by the way opened tons of charter schools in America so of course lots of Republicans love them. There are Islamophobes who hate them because they are Muslims. I have no affinity with them on that xenophobic score. It doesn't bother me that they are Muslim. It bothers me that they are rich, powerful, deceptive and seem to exist largely to increase the cult they have built around their leader Fetullah Gulen and his ability to influence Turkish politics. As a progressive I am opposed to them for the same reasons I oppose the Tea Party and other reactionary movements.
Peace and Ramadan Mubarak.....
Remember, AKP can be voted out of office if Turkish people chose so, but you cant vote out a military coup. Its best to see Turkey in some historical perspective...
Islamophobophobia: Politically Correct Persecution
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqUuTaK-zMo&feature=youtube_gdata
But all good things must come to an end.
I am tired now, being a heart patient, and must go upstairs to rest.
Take care and good night.
@Damn Damien quoted: Quran 8:13--14, 9:33, 48:13
8:13-14 state:
"(13) This, because they have cut themselves off from God and His Apostle: and as for him who cuts himself off from God and His Apostle – verily, God is severe in retribution. (14) This [for you, O enemies of God]! Taste it, then, [and know] that suffering through fire awaits those who deny the truth!"
----
As you can see, in order to better make a sense out of these two verses, one needs to read the verses preceding them and a few the follow.
So I don't understand what @Damn Damien is trying to show. Nevertheless, Sura 8 is about the Battle of Badr, which was the first battle the tiny Muslim community at the Prophet's time had to fight in self-defense when a great many of the Pagans were much better armed to annihilate it.
============
Qur`an 9:33 states:
"(33) He it is who has sent forth His Apostle with the [task of spreading] guidance and the religion of truth, to the end that He may cause it to prevail over all [false] religion – however hateful this may be to those who ascribe divinity to aught beside God."
----------
Again, what @Damn Damien quoted is different from the above verse. So I don't understand what he was trying to convey.
Due to space limit, I will stop here.
Also, even if it is useful to know the historical backdrop for the "revelation" of any verse, these are supposed to stand for all time.
If the Quranic verses were only meant for a time and place, then what pray is the basis for Islam in the 21st Century?
So if I made a mistake, I apologize.
Even if certain verses were a result of some historical events, their meaning and the principles we draw from them are timeless.
For example, if a few verses were revealed when the Muslims were being persecuted, their timeless meaning is in the way the Muslims and non-Muslims should behave when they themselves are persecuted even if they are living now.
Moreover, the verses of the Qur`an are in Arabic, and they still possess etymological value, that is, one can dive into the meaning of the Arabic words through their stymological study, that is, by examining their roots and then looking at the various shades and meaning.
On top of it, these verses, historical as they may be, use symbolic language, so their symbolic meaning is infinite.
The specific instructions would apply only to the specific situations, though. If Islam literally taught the things its critics suggest, there's no way that it would be a major religion, or on par with major religions; a truly violent, divisive system doesn't have any power to it.
For instance, taken in context, the Quran's verses, related to fighting, to infidels, to peace, and so on, provide relative advice concerning fairness, prioritizing peace, willingness to fight for what is right, keeping one's heart and motivations pure, and so on.
At least that's how all Muslims I've ever talked with interpret it, and what mainstream Islam teaches.
I quoted: (Quran 8:13--14, 9:33, 48:13)
[I]f any contend against Allah and His apostle, Allah is strict in punishment. Thus (will it be said): "Taste ye then of the (punishment): for those who resist Allah is the penalty of the fire." It is He who hath sent His apostle with guidance and religion of truth to proclaim it over all religions even though the pagans may detest (it). And if any believe not in Allah and His Apostle, We have prepared for those who reject Allah a Blazing Fire!
@Tolerant insists that I "misquoted" the Quran. Anyone is welcome to verify.
(S)he lost the argument in two steps. End of story.
In the traditions, this number is 124,000.
So the Truth has been revealed to many a nation, and many of them, including the natives, have within them traditions that have come from the Sacred.
The Qur`an also talks about two entities within each human being: a) the Self, which is individual and is something we chistle and mold throughtout our lives, and b) the Soul, which is the Divine Spark that contains all attributes of the Divine.
The Soul functions like the Sun and shines its Divine Light onto the individual self, which functions like the moon.
The more we move away from the lower aspects of the self, which cast a veil upon the self, lower qualities, such as self-ego, self-pride, anger, arrogance, sense of superiority, lack of love, peace and compassion, etc., the intense the light of the Soul that shines onto the self, which then reflects the higher Divine qualities.
This way, the ability to receive guidance is within each of us, regardless of our outer religious or non-religious paths.
All we have to do is to control the ego and become more and more selfless, and spend time in contemplation, meditation and in natural surroundings.
Frithjof Schoun, Seyyed Hossein Nasr, Rene Genon, Martin Lings and William Chittick have done a superb job of explaining this, as have Shaykh Fadhlalla Haeri and Kabir Helminski.
You can easily tell because of what you yourself said: "The Soul functions like the Sun and shines its Divine Light onto the individual self, which functions like the moon."
The concept of reflected light etc. (from the Sun to the Moon then to Earth) did not figure in the knowledge of those who composed the Quran.
These are modern commentaries on the Quran in the (reflected) light of all other mystic thoughts and traditions.
[2.136] Say: We believe in Allah and (in) that which had been revealed to us, and (in) that which was revealed to Ibrahim and Ismail and Ishaq and Yaqoub and the tribes, and (in) that which was given to Musa and Isa, and (in) that which was given to the prophets from their Lord, we do not make any distinction between any of them, and to Him do we submit.
or another way to think about this is that the previous communities are sometimes mentioned as object lessons, cautionary tales so that Muslims don't repeat the same mistakes... and in that light consider
[2.111] And they say: None shall enter the garden (or paradise) except he who is a Jew or a Christian. These are their vain desires. Say: Bring your proof if you are truthful.
or
[16.36] And certainly We raised in every nation an apostle saying: Serve Allah and shun the Shaitan....
[10.47] And every nation had an apostle; so when their apostle came, the matter was decided between them with justice and they shall not be dealt with unjustly.
I am here to have a discussion and not an argument.
How is it end of story? Please elaborate.
I asked you to prove that the Qur`an teaches terrorism.
You did not do that.
Instead, you asked me about the Jizya, which is not what the discussion was about.
Know that feeling that one has won an argument is a sign of arrogance and self-pride, and self-ego, all of these are attributes of the lower self.
And our path is about moving away from the lower aspects of the self.
So, if you feel that you have won an argument against me, then I am the first one to congratulate you.
But, please forgive me, if you are categorizing our discussion as an argument and it is a matter of win or lose, then I'd rather not engage in any discussion with you.
Thanks,
Take care, there is no love lost. I respect you as a fellow human being and wish you nothing but the best.
Maybe you could argue that when told that the third option was death, they raised an arm against the falling sword; and in doing so lost their non-combatant status. But, who in this day would think that it's a valid argument?
You also took our little exchange out of context.
Here is the exchange (for complete posts, scroll down to see that thread):
You stated: "Sadly, no one buys that anymore......."
I stated: "The Truth doesn't need for someone to acknowledge. It exists on its own.........." I then gave a link to the video recording of a Muslim scholar in which he elaborates on his fatwa against terrorism, and challenged you to prove from the Qur`an that Islam teaches terrorism.
You stated: "What if they refuse to convert or pay the Jizya? Is that a criterion for judging the lack of innocence of a civilian?!..."
Which I thought was changint the subject and I also felt that you did not watch that video.
So I said: "Please watch that discourse and then ask questions. It's discourteous"
==========
So I don't understand why you felt that you won an argument.
That said, if winning an argument is your objective, then I congratulate you and step away as arguing is not my objective; a healthy exchange of ideas and discussion is.
Thanks,
Isn't that a piece of history?
Mainstream Islam does teach that the harming of innocents/non-combatants is prohibited. One of the most famous verses in the Quran is the one which states that if someone takes an innocent life, it will be as if they have slain the "whole of humanity" (and if they save an innocent life, it will be as if they have saved the whole of humanity) -- Quran 5:32.
While there are Puritans who read a holy text, there are gnostics who read the same text but come to a different understanding.
A drastic case in point is that the Mathnawi of Rumi is considered to be an esoteric commentary on the Qur`an.
Now, how many people are aware of that or even believe it?
The reason I have pointed it out is to suggest that the reality is much more complex than some of us realize.
The only serious complaint I have is that we keep staying to help them rebuild the house. I say screw it, let them live in rubble for a while. Yeah it sucks for the innocent civilians, but then it was their neighbors who started it, maybe they should turn to their mullahs to rebuild.
---
There is nothing "Islamic" about terrorism. So the above term is invalid.
As to why liberalism and democracy have not taken hold in the Islamic world - it has, in many countries with large Muslim populations. Indonesia comes to mind. It has not happened in the Middle East and Africa and i think the author's reason for that (Colonialism, followed by anti-West reaction to colonialism) makes sense.
The answer lies in politics, not religion.
My hope is that Arab Spring is the beginning of a new era.
http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2011/03/16/bomb-hits-office-of-liberal-indonesian-islamic-group-defending-ahmadis/
Indonesia has won praise for largely defeating Islamic terror, but a recent spike in religious intolerance could heighten risk concerns for foreign investors counting on improved stability in Southeast Asia’s largest economy and the world’s most populous Muslim nation.
-------------
No. "Ummah" is mentioned in the Quran once, in the whole book.
“You are the best nation brought out for Mankind, commanding what is righteous (Ma'ruf, lit. "recognized [as good]") and forbidding what is wrong (Munkar, lit. "unrecognized [as good]")…” [3:110].
There are similar references in the Bible.
By your criterion, since Christianity says that men are superior to women, Christianity is all about domination over women.
Regarding Indonesia, just because they have terrorists (as UK had IRA members and supporters) does not take away from their democratic system.
---
Then how do you explain the existence of Sufism within Islam? Not only Sufism, but an overwhelming majority of the Tablighis are apolitical.
You have the uncanny ability to copy and paste, but no ability to comprehend what you copy and paste and defend it.
Hence, your refusal to quote releveant verses from the Qur`an when I requested you to do that to prove an assertion of yours.
My guess is that you had this anti-Islam, anti-Muslim rant ready for posting at the mention of Islam on any thread, because it is clear that you either didn't bother to read the article, or failed miserably in comprehending what is said.
BTW, I could make the same exact argument against Christians and Christianity (complete with quotes from the Bible), as you did against Muslims and Islam. I won't, because that would be just as off-topic as your comment.
The author writes: "[T]hey found tolerant references in the Quran -- verses declaring, 'there is no compulsion in religion.'"
What do you think he means by 'They found?' Had nobody before them read the entire Quran?
But, wait! I already explained how these verses are correctly considered as ABROGATED.
What I wrote above is what could be said in 250 words or less. If these arguments can't get past me, what hope did the Young Ottomans have getting it past the "scholars of Islam?"
The author and many others seem to think that they can justify liberalism from within Islam. All have failed; take M.A. Jinnah and Pakistan, for example.
I can understand that most Muslims find it hard to state it outright. What's your argument?
Many Muslims were first brought to America from Africa as slaves and then forced to convert out of Islam.
So Islam has been presence in America for quite some time.
Your characterization that the Muslims are somehow foreignors is invalid.
Besides, the Muslims work extremely hard for the betterment of the larger society, have great work ethics and family values and are generally very pious.
And this does nothing but enrich the Western society.