Synopsis:
This book represents a chronological account of opposing ideologies between the Moderates and Puritans of the Islamic faith. The author posited a claim that Puritans dominates Moderates in a politico-power dynamics game. He is also distraught with the illogical misconceptions of some non-Muslims, albeit to misunderstanding the Islamic theology.
It is divided into two parts: the first is explaining the origin, rise and contemporary puritanical ideologies, while the second is an exuberant and elaborative explanation between the significant differences of Moderates and Puritans on specific issues like laws, democracy, human rights, women's role, Jihad, terrorism and et cetera.
He ended his writings through advocating a collective effort of all Muslim Moderates around the world to militantly fight the creed of the Puritans and unite to show to the West the true message of Islam in a moderate sense. This envelopes an internal dichotomy of the Islamic faith with different interpretations but having a singular religion. “The Great Theft” is recommendable to all Muslims and non-Muslims to deeply understood the conflict and help eliminate the dilemma that keeps the burden illuminating in the image of Islam throughout the humankind.
Critique:
Understanding this book needs someone's extensive knowledge about Islam before commenting. However, as a research student we are obliged to make the most rational and critical assertions in scrutinizing the complexity of the book's phenomenon, or it will be a postmortem tragedy, if illogical reasoning was upheld. This book is salient in the new era of Islamic generation especially considering Western's prisms about the religion. Giving its retorted significant rhetorics to the midst of recognition, might be intangible.
El Fadl is truly a Muslim scholar in his own respect by presenting different contentions and a hallow demarcation on the contrasting views between the Moderates and the Puritans. He clearly manifests the characteristics between this two major entities on the spectrum of the public sphere. He coherently shows with no empty vagueness in his cluster of ideas with supporting details and credible sources that would enlighten the Islamic bashers, haters and delusionists over the competency and convictions of a true Muslim.
He vehemently classified Moderates as somewhat Modernists, Reformists, or Progressives (but differences lies in some aspects), while Puritans as Islamists, Fundamentalists, Militants, Extremists, Radicals, Fanatics, and even Jihadists. But I contends that somehow Moderates can be Militants or Fundamentalists vice versa in some views congruous to posited Islamic fundamental tenets.
There are various literature in Islamic Fundamentalism that represents a Moderate or Puritanical ideas (which interprets Islamic scriptures in a very obscure “literal” way), and because of this, there would be a thick line gap between these two entities. Although, basic principles can represent similar views between the rivals, still a big difference makes the two a true rivals in thinking, opinions, presentations, beliefs and somehow faith as well.
The confusing part is that since we are all in the same umbrella of the same religion “Islam” or in short we're all Muslims having the same faith and belief, however, different knowings (a.k.a. Wisdom) juxtaposed to incongruent and sometimes inconsistent interpretations on the Holy Qur'an, Sunna, and Hadith and other Islamic scriptures (classical to contemporaries) represent a big diversity and questionable disunity. Leaving various Muslim sects, tribes, and other race in a cluster of chaos and conflicts that would lead to formulated customs, folklores and mores (with respect to different cultural affinity to maintain its identity) inconsistent to the Qur'anic expressions (texts), Islamic morality and theology.
Political scientist would answer; because of different real politik inhibited in the nature of human being (mind-set), Anthropologist would say geographical and ethnic groupings play a big role in deprecating the above question, and some Islamic scholars would say it's because of the moral personhood associated in the over-all upbringing of an individual. Quite a bizarre way of manifesto and logic?
There are so many arguments and disapprovals in comprehending Islamic jurisprudence, for Moderates “rationality” is a dominant discourse, while to Puritans “rationality” is a western concept and it's evil in nature. Puritans would always stand on the divinity of Shari'a and other Islamic laws just to validate its actions and implementations. Moderates will contest that in the Muslim world there is an existing “Islamic Intellectual Heritage,” thus it should be preserved, developed and improved. Islam should not be used for any political cause e.g. The Al Saud family conniving with the British, Americans, and Puritans (Wahhabis et al) is an unprecedented, unpopular and abhorrent act of deprivation to Islamic morality and theology. Least we say it is an evil in the context of advocating the true essence of Islamic principles.
I was shocked and could not imagine that in the history until the contemporary of the Saudi state, they had been the perpetrators of tainting the prestigious reputation of Islam. I mean they are the custodian of the two holiest cities in the Muslim world and anytime (in their foreign policy) can directly affects the imagery of all Muslims in the world. I suggests that Mecca and Medina should be in the hands or administration of a respective Muslim body like the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) to maintain equal treatments particularly during pilgrimage.
In his subsequent sections like “God and the Purpose of Creation,” “The Nature of Law and Morality,” “Approaches to History and Modernity,” “Democracy and Human Rights,” “Interacting with Non-Muslims and Salvation,” “Jihad, Warfare, and Terrorism,” and “The Nature and Role Women” all were intensively defended by El Fadl through his moderate way of thinking... a paradigm of pure intellectual Muslim heritage contrasting and opposing the illogical views and stands of the Puritans. The question here is that did he really represents the totality of puritanical message (or selected ones) concomitant to his moderate defense. He was once accused of being a stealth Islamists due to the new image portrayed by Islamism... that there's a direct road for a Moderate going to a path of becoming a Puritan.
Although, I am skeptical of the western claim that there's a thin line for both school of thoughts, it's still lacks empirical validations or grounds for such a claim characterized by ignorance. Another enquiry, can Muslim's convictions surmised or mitigate Western's misconceptions about Islam? A rather difficult to answer, since, the media badly represents the image of Islam, as an ugly and sometimes a harsh provocations stating blasphemous and erroneous beliefs due to damage and negative impacts that had committed by the puritans in giving them the protruded essence of Islam.
If only resources from the moderates amassed and show force to negate the bad image of Islam by using a tool of massive communication... good thing that there's now an Al Jazeerah (English version) in the US disseminating the other story happening in Iraq and other Muslim places. Placing Islam (as the second biggest religion) in the limelight of international arena with an objective of telling the true essence of Islam in a moderate way.
Consequently, as a Muslim we should understand (be open-minded) in criticizing Western concepts and their religion for the purpose of an interfaith dialogue vis-a-vis with its neologisms. The Puritans must develop a deep understanding or have a self-evaluation, assessment whether there are consequences at stake if these particular laws are effective (for the betterment of the majority) or a stagnant with the ever-evolving changes in the Muslim environment and not just rely on divine validations.
Ethnocentricism should be overlook paralleled to a sense of dignity and moral piety in asserting its nature of being a sacrosanct and supremacist especially globalism is a hegemonic force in the international community. If the puritans don't take my advice seriously, I suggests that the substantial resolute will be the conclusion stated by El Fadl in his book, that the Moderates must make a stand now, be more vocal with its convictions and fight extensively those Puritans in a legal and academic moot.
A.M.Nassef
No comments:
Post a Comment