Technorati Tags: alice kneen, richard stone, city circle, islam, liberalism
Last night, as previously mentioned, City Circle held a debate between Alice Kneen of Magdalen College, Cambridge, proposing the motion that Islam was incompatible with liberalism, and Dr Richard Stone of the Commission on British Muslims and Islamophobia, opposing. I got there about 15 minutes late, which was probably more than halfway through Ms Kneen's speech. She was predictably naming all the things about Islam which in her view made Islam incompatible with liberalism (the execution of apostates, etc.). (More: Towards God ...[1], [2].)
After that, Richard Stone was introduced. He described himself as a "half-full, half-empty" sort of person, meaning that he preferred to call a glass half-full rather than half-empty. He described an incident he had witnessed some years ago, in which he had attended a meeting involving black and white churches, in which a woman from the Carribean got sick of what she saw as platitudes about respecting and understanding other religions, particularly Judaism, and "snapped", getting up and telling those present that it was the duty of Christians to preach to everyone, including Jews. The others, Dr Stone said, were very hostile to what she had said.
Stone is Jewish himself, and in his mid-60s, and told us that when he was young the Jewish community wanted to be more English than the English, discouraging anyone from wearing Jewish skull-caps for example, and as the years wore on the community became more confident in asserting its identity. He also said that in recent years, in the wake of the Second Intifada, being Jewish had become rather less fun, but that he was always made to feel very welcome when he went to visit mosques.
Asim Siddiqi, the City Circle's chairman, gave his own speech, in which he attempted to "defend Islam" by advancing his version of it, with much talk of ijtihad. He also at one point mentioned scholars who thought there should be some sort of moratorium on the hudood laws which some believe are out of step with the values of the time. Fairly standard modernist stuff.
After the three of them had finished, they opened the floor up to questions, which they decided for some reason had to be done in rounds of three - that is, three people asking questions to the panel which were to be answered together, before another three were posed. I got to ask one in the first round, which was - a point Dr Stone failed to make in his speech - what the rulings in Islam that liberals find objectionable have to do with the situation in this country? The question was not directly answered because the panellists deemed that it had been adequately answered in answers to the two other questions, which I didn't think it had.
The point was that such matters are invariably raised as veiled threats to the community: why should you have the same civil rights as everyone else in this country when you would deny them to non-Muslims under Islamic rule? Later on, Dr Stone did partly address this, noting that followers of no other religion are currently required to justify aspects of their religion the way Muslims have been.
Ms Kneen was asked to define what liberalism meant, and she offered the usual definition of coming out of the Enlightenment, of belief in freedom, progress and "uncertainty". One Muslim brother asked if the codes upon which liberalism is based, such as the European Convention on Human Rights, were immutable, suggesting a similarity between the respect the religious show to their scriptures and the respect liberals show their codes and conventions. She replied that this particular convention is a more recent development, based on values which had existed for much longer. (In fact, I pointed out to the brother that he should have cited the UN convention, that being a more universally-applied code than the European Convention which, as its name implies, applies only in Europe.) Later on, she opined that liberalism was based on Judeo-Christian values, which certainly raised a lot of eyebrows at the back of the hall where I was sitting.
Most of the questions aimed to flesh out what Kneen meant by liberalism and how exactly Islam was incompatible with it; the situation of, for example, what would happen if Muslims were to gain control of Parliament was discussed (as one questioner mentioned, the prospect of a Catholic takeover was cited as a reason for denying Catholics civil rights well into the 19th century). Dr Stone suggested that if this happened, they would most likely be as liberal or as conservative as others. Another suggested that Ms Kneen had based her judgements about Muslims on the behaviour of "rude boys" she had met in her research in the north - young men with a very strong Muslim group identity, but not exactly religious; she replied that she had spoken to many different types of Muslims and not just "rude boys". Another rebutted the suggestion that Tariq Ramadan and Zia Sardar, linked to the "hudood moratorium" idea, were scholars, and said that in deriving rulings from the Qur'an and the hadeeth, it was necessary to study the tafseer, or the meanings of the verses.
I noticed that a fair proportion of the audience consisted of middle-class, "modern" Muslims (if the number of Asian-looking women without hijabs and modern shalwar-kameez-like clothing on is anything to go by). I'm not sure how popular Asim Siddiqi's suggestion that Islamic values consisted of justice and a few other things which did not include tawheed (monotheism) was among the City Circle regulars, though; one of the panellists seemed to think that the audience might not be too familiar with how Muslims up north think and act, as if none of them were drawn from the working-class Muslim communities in places like east London.
The evening failed to address what I consider the biggest issue arising out of any "compatibility" debate: what do you mean by compatibility? Do you mean that large numbers of the two groups involved cannot live together? Or that members of one group should not be in alliance with the other? To repeat my earlier point, the issue of compatibility between Muslims and "westerners" is usually raised by those hostile to Muslims as well as to Islam itself, as a means of rebuffing Muslims' demands that their sensibilities be respected, or for Muslim schools, hijab rights and the like. "You don't accommodate us in your countries; why should we accommodate you?" If that is not what the suggestion of incompatibility is about, why bring it up at all?
Liberalism developed from "enlightenment values", but as a reaction to and criticism of judaeo-christian [and muslim] values such as killing people who say the wrong thing. The fact that most jews and christians now quite sincerely believe that enlightenment values are judaeo-christian could be used to argue that muslims could follow the same route. The fact that the quranic basis of islam makes much bigger claims for its reliability and absolute truth argues against it.
It's better to express values negatively rather than positively- do not say what people have the right to do but say what they do not have the right to do. It actually leaves a much wider field of options for them.
This topic is always brought up by both Jews and Christians. However the question that really needs to be asked is the Bible compatible with liberal ethics?
I have a post on my weblog explaining the biblical view of apostacy.
What could have been a stimulating debate was ruined by an complete failure to define her terms by Ms Kneen.
Whilst Dr Stone countered her argument with mostly anecdotal stories from his exerpiences as a white middle class jew, Ms Kneen refered constantly to her "extensive field work" with muslims in Oldham as being hard and fast evidence that that Islam is incompatible with liberalism.
The muslims of Oldham are mostly from Mirpur, a moutainous, tribal region in the north of Pakistan. They practise a minority cult of Islam known as Barelwi. Their culture is extremely conservative, extremely racist and wholly unIslamic.
I am from this area and know third generation Mirpuri Muslims who struggle to speak fluent English. I know Elders who tell their children that people who dont speak Urdu or Punjabi cannot be Muslim. This is the level of ignorance amongst this community.
Ms Kneen presented her research into this community as reserach into Muslims and used her finsings - they are racist , conservative people - to evisence her argument. This is a major flaw as her resarch was not into Muslims, but in to Mirpuri people. and used this to construct her argument.
At no point did Ms Kneen define her terms - her research was into people from a conservative, tribal culture who practice a minority cult of Islam which is only found in Pakistan. These people do not represent Muslims, Asians or even Pakistanis. She did not say what liberalism means - (is she a follower of the marquis De Sade?) Nor did she say what compatible means. An extremely, flawed, lazy and totally non credible argument.
a minority cult called Brelvi?????????
Is that like the minority cult called Deoband, Salafy or ahle-a-hadith.
All you're demonstrating is your ignorance dear.
I was there, I managed to get the last question of the day in which went unanswered. Were you the guy who asked the question about what significance the topic has to Muslims living in the UK?
Yes.
Yusuf, would I be correct in assuming that you were somewhat surprised by the City Circle's modernist approach? I am not surprised - the City Circle primarily consists of 'yuppie' Muslim professionals, mainly of South Asian origin - some of them work in banks or deal with interest/riba in similar ways. Most of them are not that aware of Islam, and probably think of the Circle as a 'trendy' club to hang out in and meet other brown-skinned people, preferably of the opposite sex. That's certainly my impression ARUM from many years ago, which used to be frequented by or even managed by City Circle types.
Hence, no surprise at the daft ideas espoused there.
For those who like to read between the line, a quick clarification: the above is not meant as a blanket condemnation of everything City Circle does, and certainly not of every individual member. Like any other organisation, I am sure they have their fair share of practising and decent Muslims too, but in my experience, many did not seem that way inclined and the organisation as whole seemed to encourage this 'laissez-faire' or DIY approach to the deen.
As-Salaamu 'alaikum,
AAR: Yes, I was rather suprised because I remember attending another CC event several years ago at Toynbee Hall, at which Muhammad Shareef gave a presentation about Shaikh Uthman Dan Fodio which was very orthodox. Unless that was another City Circle?
I am not sure if that was, or was not, another City Circle.
The City Circle does organise some fairly decent events - for years, Abu Muntasir used to come and give monthly (or fortnightly? I forget) lectures which were obviously quite orthodox (and more so than his current views!). I imagine these events are organised to present a plurality of views; the management may not agree with all that is being said, but probably believes that 'all ways are equally valid', the orthodox, the modernist and the demented..! :-)
If they are referring to liberalism in the classical sense, then they basically mean John Locke. In a nutshell it means that government is made in a state of nature to protect life, liberty and property (particularly the last one), and that these are its only legitimate ends.
City Circle gets criticised for being a trendy club for "yuppie" muslims.
As long as i have attended, CC has never aspired to be a "deen" circle where one would go to study fiqh etc. Its success lies in its conitual engagement with influential non muslims. And I don't mean it holds fun days where the gora from next door is invited in to have a plate of biryani either.
Whilst there is a social element and free mixing of sexes, I cannot think of another circle - short of being a think tank - which is levering influence in media, academia and politics as CC does.
As Dr Stone stated on the talk last Friday, it is those who are willing to take a step forward and engage who get their point across.
For those who call CC liberal, laissez faire etc and regard people who engage as sell outs, keep banging your drum! Diversity is the strength of the Ummah.
Liberalism developed from "enlightenment values", but as a reaction to and criticism of judaeo-christian [and muslim] values such as killing people who say the wrong thing. The fact that most jews and christians now quite sincerely believe that enlightenment values are judaeo-christian could be used to argue that muslims could follow the same route
We should endeavour to talk about these so-called values in relation to human purpose/destiny.
So, what is the purpose of man’s existence?
Do these so-called “enlightenment values” provide a theory of how to realise one’s purpose in existence or at least contribute to achieving that purpose?
Any attempt to discuss enlightenment values in isolation from these questions is a form of intellectual masturbation (really sorry for the language!)
The enlightenment values or its proponents do not seem to be able to provide any clear-cut definition of their aims and objectives particular in guiding man’s action in society or regulating man’s relationship with the world around him.
Fluffy words and sound bites are not enough if you are serious about solving the dilemma of the situation you now find yourself (i.e. your own very existence) and then the regulation of society and creating harmony and promoting "virtues". Where are you going?
Religious values on the other hand (Judaism, Christianity, Islam which may allow the “killing” of people who say things with the intention to distabilise the spiritual/moral fabric of a society), claim to be designed to lead man to the fullest meaning of his existence through spiritual/moral guidance on how to interact with himself and the world around him – a means to reaching Eternal bliss. So, here, we see a clear and unmistakable intent from the outset however unmodern or un-21st century. No blurs, no politics, no confusion.
This is what is lacking in the non-religious or half-baked religious perspectives; nothing is clear, they do not say exactly what it is they are on about. What is your mission, what are you trying to accomplish both in the short term and/or in the long run?
The fact that the quranic basis of islam makes much bigger claims for its reliability and absolute truth argues against it. It's better to express values negatively rather than positively- do not say what people have the right to do but say what they do not have the right to do…. It actually leaves a much wider field of options for them.
Koranic basis of Islam makes a claim for its own reliability because its moral, social, political, etc recommendations (or stipulations) are very consistent with its (prior) definition of human purpose, also consistent with its initial declaration/exposition of what it is we are here for. It’s reliability should be measured against the goals it sets out to achieve
and what it prescribes in order to achieve those goals. This is what makes a value system sound and reliable. And if you believe your values are reliable, then you ought to also see them as absolute (relative to everything else you know), otherwise why would you be wasting your time with a set of values that you deem inferior.
It's better to express values negatively rather than positively- do not say what people have the right to do but say what they do not have the right to do…. It actually leaves a much wider field of options for them.
When you express values negatively rather than positively, i.e. a negation without any affirmation, how would anyone understand what you are trying to say. You may indeed want to leave a much wider field of options for people to figure things out – but how much time have they got with an infinite amount of options. You need to offer some clarity with regards to your intention otherwise you may well be a deceiver or are deceived/deluded. Even Allah (God), the most transcendent, most ineffable cared to express himself in scriptures, how much more "enlightened" earthlings like us. Either you don’t express any values at all negatively or positively (i.e you assume the station implied by silence is golden - and this may indeed be the true enlightenment), or you express what you intend positively with some confidence (however erroneous) so that we know where you stand..…you are only required to have some modesty and humility and are aware of the margin of error with which you are expressing those values and more importantly you ought to be prepared to change your values it as soon as something better comes your way. And this is the approach that led the likes of Malcolm X to Noble and High rank which he has attained (Allah be please with him),
Indeed the same goes for our very Islam. The Koran say let them produce something better that the Koranic message if they can, …so if a muslim should find something better (a’udhubillah) than his/her Islam, then he should go for it. Why believe in a religion in which you are not confident about?
The shahada teaches us how to express ourselves:
yes, we start with a with a negation which should delight you:
There is no god….
So, what are we going to do with this statement operationally? As you rightly pointed out, it does leaves you with a billion and one options. But how are we going to live our lives based on reliable references when we have a billion competing options at the back of our enlightened mind. This is pure darkness, like being left in the lurch.
Hence, the affirmation:
...Except God (Allah).
We learn and know this from the Prophets and it comes with clarification and detailed operational codes. This is what makes man human and whole, not the expression of open-ended negative values under the pretext of enlightenment. We need Prophet guidance to come to our rescue, we need more than “enlightened” philosophies. Perhaps you can begin to guess how serious it could be to undermine such Prophetic guidance, it is literally like destroying the world.
.....
Dear zara zidane,
Are you the same Zara who studies in UCL pharmacology. If os - its me Michael Enwia.
Let me know either way - my e-mail is menwia@hotmail.com
Regards,
salut esk t le seur de zidane