Category Archives: Islam

Why is the West ahead of Islam?

(this is an abridged version of an interview conducted by Beata Janowska with Professor Marek Gensler, of the University of Łódź (Poland). The interview was published in Gazeta Wyborcza on 21 March 2016. The translation and the choice of images are mine).

14523

Henri Bechard Interior of the Amrou mosque ca 1870

In the eleventh and twelfth centuries, a question arose in the Arab and Latin civilisations of what to do with philosophy. The response was different in each of these two civilisations. In your view, it was a key moment which paved the paths of the Muslim world and Europe. In the eleventh century, the Arabs were far superior to the Latins in their knowledge of philosophy.

Yes, the Arabs knew philosophy incomparably better than the Latins because they inherited ancient philosophy directly from the Greeks. When they conquered Egypt in the seventh century, the Mouseion in Alexandria was still a major intellectual institution of the ancient world. The legacy of Aristotle and Plato, or rather of the whole philosophical tradition, was very much alive in Alexandria at that time.

The Latins hardly knew Aristotle, because only a few of his minor texts were translated into Latin before the sixth century. Previously, there was no need for translations because everyone who dealt with philosophy knew the Greek language. When the Western Roman Empire collapsed, and the dark ages began between the sixth and tenth century, contacts with the Greek world had weakened. People no longer understood Greek and all the important texts were lost or were in Byzantium and therefore inaccessible. Nevertheless, Aristotle was still believed to be a great philosopher because he appears as such in the works of St. Augustine.

There were at that time important philosophical centres in Syria.

This is another story, they were created by refugees from Athens. In 529, the emperor Justinian ordered the closure of pagan schools, or more precisely, forbade non-Christians to teach in them. This resulted in the transfer of the Alexandrian school to Christians and that transfer occurred through an arrangement between Christians and pagans. In Athens, however, the philosophical school was closed because the Athenians did not want to negotiate with Christians and preferred to emigrate to Hellenised Syria which was then controlled by the Persians.

In Syria, they translated Neoplatonic texts first into Syriac and then, when the Arabs took over those lands, into Arabic. This work continued in Baghdad, the new capital of the Muslim empire, where a school was established at the court of the caliph. From the fifth to the eighth century, interesting things were done in philosophy in the Eastern Roman Empire, of which the Latins were not aware of because of their separation from Byzantium. In contrast, the Arab conquerors of the Roman provinces in the south and east of the Mediterranean showed great interest in the philosophical thought of the conquered population.

Did the Arabs learn Greek?

They employed Greeks and Syrians as translators. Syrians were often were bilingual and, as their Semitic language is close to the Arab language, it was not particularly difficult for them to translate philosophical texts into Arabic. Porphyry, the disciple of Plotinus, was a Syrian. There were schools established at the courts of Muslim rulers because the Arabs, unlike the Latins, believed that the monarch should be educated. The Arabs accepted the Greek ideal of an enlightened ruler. The sons of emirs and sultans had to learn philosophy, often from textbooks written specially for them.

In Islam, education was not associated with religion and science was secular in nature. Islam did not develop theology in the Western sense. When Muslim lawyers needed logic, they learned it from ancient thinkers, while doctors studied biology from the same source. However, most Muslims did not think that they could learn anything from pagans about God.

Why did philosophy and theology come close to each other in the West?

Unlike Islam and Judaism, Christianity treats its holy texts as dictated by the Holy Spirit to specific people at a specific time. That is why they have a supernatural element, but also human. The task of the theologian is to extract the revealed truth from a text written down by a human being. The holy text must be freed from the accretions of human origin, and expressed again to be understood by a new generation. St. Augustine said that no one understands fully the message of holy books. Acculturation of the holy texts is therefore necessary for every believer.

AlbertusMagnus

Tommaso da Modena Albertus Magnus 1352

Do you mean that one has to interpret Biblical texts anew in order to reconcile them with the level of knowledge and way of understanding of the world at a particular time?

Christians were aware of this from the very beginning. The first theological school was established in Alexandria by Clement at the beginning of the third century, when paganism still prevailed. Origen, who received solid philosophical and philological education at that school, distinguished three levels of interpretation of the revealed text. The first is the somatic or bodily level which involved a literal reading of the simple truths such as the Ten Commandments. The second level, which is psychic, refers to the soul. At this level, moral truths are dissected from the sacred texts for a particular time and place. For example, in the Old Testament, polygamy was allowed, and now it is not. Why? After all, it is not possible for God to change His commandments and indeed, He did not change them, only Man learned to read them differently. That’s what God allowed at the times of Abraham, it became unacceptable when mankind developed new sensitivities. People now understand that having four or five wives is a bad idea. It’s better to have one, lifelong companion. Moral progress affects the interpretation of the biblical texts whose meaning can be adapted to a particular period in the history of mankind.

The third and highest level of Origen’s scheme is called pneumatic as it involves the spirit (Gr. pneuma) and not the soul. At this level, the Bible is being interpreted allegorically to gain knowledge of Man as a creature of God and of God himself. This is the theology in the strict sense i.e. the speculative theology. This is what Christianity managed to gain through philosophy. Without philosophical conceptualisation, we would be doomed to a literal reading of the Bible.

As it is in Islam and Judaism?

In Islam and Judaism, the sacred text is treated as revealed in full, without the human element. In the Torah, which contains the Mosaic laws, there are rules governing nearly all aspects of life and there is not much room for speculation, though Judaism is still much more open than Islam. On the other hand, the Arabs believed that as long as religion does not intersect with science, everything is fine. Religious Islamic law is disconnected from ethics. Metaphysics is also absent. Muslims rejected it as a tool to know God, because there is no place in Islam for a discussion about God as the first cause.

Initially, Muslims showed great enthusiasm for philosophy and there was even a kind of speculative Muslim theology developed by scholars of the Koran, Mutazilites, but later philosophy was considered as unhelpful in spiritual development. Muslims began to wonder whether the extraction of pure knowledge from the Qur’an about God and creation is indeed necessary and whether it leads to salvation. Maybe this is an expression of arrogance of reason which leads people astray? Christians in the West also have such doubts. The eleventh century is a time of great dispute about the value of philosophy, both among Christians and Muslims.

These concerns are best expressed by St. Peter Damian (1007-1072) and Abu Hamid Al-Ghazali (1058-1111). 

Damian, a Benedictine monk, came to the conclusion that the development of philosophy went too far. Young and ambitious monks had the audacity to discuss issues such as, What it means that God is omnipotent. Is He omnipotent in such a way that even the principle of contradiction does not apply to Him? Damian was irritated by such deliberations because, being well educated, he sensed that the philosophy began to drift dangerously, freeing itself from theology, and soon it could happen that the philosophy would begin to dictate the terms to theology.

Did Damian believe that the teaching of philosophy should be forbidden?

He wanted to see theology above philosophy. This order was determined by the Augustinian concept of goods, according to which the knowledge of God is the supreme good, so that what serves this aim is also good, including philosophy. However, when philosophy ceases to be a means to this end, and sets itself other goals, it becomes evil because it distracts man from God. Damian worried that philosophy began to separate itself from theology as an autonomous discipline and to impose scientific requirements on theology. He wanted philosophy to be ancilla theologiae, a servant of theology. If philosophy does not want to play this role, it should be discarded.

Al-Ghazali rejected philosophy for slightly different reasons.

Both Damian and Al-Ghazali were scholars and long-time teachers of philosophy. Al-Ghazali studied, commented and taught philosophy until he had a kind of mystical vision that changed his life. He gave up teaching, went on a pilgrimage to Mecca, and travelled a lot. He abandoned teaching to venture on the mystical search for God. In his famous work The Incoherence of the Philosophers, he criticised the philosophical approach to God as erroneous and of little value. He did not say that philosophy is bad but that it is inferior to mysticism. Such views were voiced in Islam before, however, it was Al-Ghazali who triggered the loss of interest in philosophy among Muslims who gradually abandoned speculative theology which anyway was in an early stage of development. Interestingly, Al-Ghazali also distrusted the systematic study of Qu’ranic law and the emphasis on orthodoxy by its guardians. He maintained that Sufis, or mystics, are closer to God.

Prayer_in_Cairo_1865

Jean-Leon Gerome Prayer in Cairo 1865 

Did Al-Ghazali recommend the abandonment of philosophy for religion?

In the eleventh century, Islamic mysticism went beyond its religious frame, with eminent Sufis suggesting that God is too great to be constrained within one religion. In all religions, mystics are censored because of individualism in their approach to faith. Nowadays, Islamic fundamentalists blow up the tombs of famous Sufis because individualism makes Sufism heretical. Christianity experienced similar problems, as mysticism often leads to heresy.

In the eleventh century, philosophy and science were synonymous. For as much as one could grasp a thing scientifically, one could only describe it in the concepts of philosophy. Even medicine was in fact the practical use of natural philosophy. The emancipation of science occurred in later centuries. A major step on this road was the appearance of universities in Europe in the thirteenth century, with the autonomy of studies and research in various departments. At the faculty of liberal arts, people were free to philosophise in a secular context; they were even forbidden to deal with religious issues. They were only bound by the principles of correct reasoning and by the correspondence between thought and reality. Interestingly, students at the faculty of theology engaged in thought experiments by using the procedures of so-called secundum imaginationem, which are exercises to imagine an entirely hypothetical situation such as, for example, God commanding us to hate Him. This idea was later developed by philosophers and eventually incorporated into the study of nature as an idealisation, that is the representation of a hypothetical state of nature stripped of certain elements which are non-essential from the point of view of the hypothesis under investigation.

For the development of science, it is important to develop complicated theories and to define concepts. Without philosophy and theology, there might not be such giants of science as Newton and Leibniz.

That’s right. Theology was a discipline for pioneering a new type of scientific hypotheses, which were later tested empirically. In science, verification was carried out by experiment, while in theology it was affected by reference to the tradition of religious dogma and the examination whether new theses are consistent with it, or lead to contradictions.

Laurentius_de_Voltolina_001

Laurentius de Voltolina

If the West rejected philosophy at that time, would science also be rejected? Was it a decisive point in the fate of Western civilisation?

Yes indeed, although it is difficult for us to accept that this is the case because for the past three centuries we got accustomed to the idea that science is the avant-garde of knowledge and theology is of little consequence. But in the Middle Ages, science found protection under the wings of theology. Regrettably, people now see the the Middle Ages in pejorative terms. Reputation of the Middle Ages suffered greatly during the Enlightenment. Most people nowadays cherish the Renaissance which supposed to be a period of the restoration of antique tradition. In fact, modern science is the legacy of antiquity and the Middle Ages, in which the achievements of antiquity were enriched and developed further.

Mystical knowledge also involves intellect which is however engaged in contemplation rather than speculation. Mystical experience cannot be shared with others. Unlike philosophy, mysticism cannot be taught. Mystical knowledge does not require a conceptual apparatus because the mystical union is inexpressible.

In the West, the position of philosophy was defended by St. Anselm (1033-1109), the archbishop of Canterbury.

The authority of Anselm was instrumental in the continued duration of philosophy as an inalienable component of education. He strongly supported the autonomy of philosophy. Justifiably, Anselm is called the father of scholasticism. He claimed that philosophy is absolutely necessary as an element of education and without education one cannot acquire the knowledge of God.

sc

Ludwig Deutsch The Scribe 1911

In the Arab world, science was defended by Averroes (1126-1198).

Averroes was aware of the damage caused to philosophy by Al-Ghazali, and in response to it he wrote The Incoherence of the Incoherence in which he provided arguments against mysticism. According to Averroes, philosophy it is the highest form of theology because only philosophy uses abstract terms, being the subtlest and most sophisticated of all possible forms of expressions as the language of the abstract. Philosophy is capable of expressing matters concerning God as the supreme cause in the fullest and most precise way. Averroes did not differ in that from Aristotle who argued that philosophy leads to the knowledge of God as the first mover. By knowing the causes of things we attain perfect knowledge.

But he failed.

Averroes could play the same role in Islam as Anselm did in Christianity but he had insufficient authority as a religious thinker. He was a kadim, or Islamic judge, a person of great importance but not important enough to save philosophy. He was accused of the lack of piety, because he claimed that philosophy, not religion, is the surest path towards God. As a result, he had to flee from his native Cordoba to Africa. Averroes was treated as a heretic. After him, the authority of philosophy crumbled to dust and even his pupil Ibn Arabi abandoned philosophy for mysticism. Averroes is the last great scholar and philosopher of the Arab world.

In the East, there were no universities in the Western sense because there was no room for autonomous faculties. The University in Cairo, founded in the tenth century, is only a religious school. Over the following centuries, only remnants of philosophy needed by medics and lawyers were preserved in Islam. It is a sad paradox that, when in the twelfth century the Latins literally rushed to the Arab philosophy, and the great Arab scholars were read with admiration in Europe, the thinkers of the Muslim world already switched to mysticism. When universities flourished in Western Europe and became institutions of higher learning in the full sense of the word, science almost completely froze in the Arab world.

We can say that in the relay race of human progress, the baton was taken by another player at the very last moment.

Leave a comment

Filed under Christianity, God, Islam, philosophy, religion, Uncategorized

Islam must modernise itself. An interview with a Muslim writer

Polish-born writer Piotr Ibrahim Kalwas lives in Alexandria, Egypt, together with his wife and son. He is a Muslim with a difference. His Islam incorporates humanism, openness, tolerance and free thinking. Kalwas explains his views in an interview published in a Polish online magazine, natemat.pl (the translation is mine).

kalwas

You converted to Islam 13 years ago and emigrated to Egypt 5 years ago. What seduced you in Islam?

It is a very private question and the answer is lost a little in the past. It was certainly a quest for the meaning of life, religion, and for a point of support in life. I has always been interested in religions. At some point, I started to read various holy books, one after another, and I was captivated by the Qur’an. I started going to the mosque in Warsaw, attended “lessons” there, and somehow slowly it all began.

People make comments in social media that the Qur’an is not a pleasant book. There is a lot of killing in it, and cutting off heads, etc.

It depends on who reads it. As with any holy book, it is a matter of interpretation. We know how the Gospels were read by Inquisitors, Crusaders and all those who sowed violence in Christianity. The same can be done with Qur’an and that’s what jihadists and Islamists are doing.

But it is also true that in the Qur’an, which is the text written in the Arabian Desert fifteen centuries ago, we find fragments that from the perspective of cultural humanism seem threatening. I’m not trying to sweep them under the carpet, as it is done by many Muslims. There are controversial verses in Qur’an and worst of all, their interpretation has not changed for centuries.

With the exception of small  modernist movements, these verses are treated literally by Muslims. They urge Muslims not to befriend Christians and Jews, to kill unbelievers, to beat women and cut off the hands of thieves.  This may give rise to fear. I agree that such passages should be re-interpreted and treated symbolically and metaphorically.

So Islam should adapt to the times?

Yes, because Islam is not developing intellectually. Any attempt to change the interpretation of the Qur’an is regarded by most Muslims with suspicion, if not with rage. Qur’an has ossified. It contains archaic messages that frighten people. This must change.

Except that in Islam – in Sunnism – there is no hierarchy, as in the Catholic Church. Therefore it’s more difficult to develop one interpretation.

It is true that theoretically the clergy exists only in Shia Islam where ayatollahs decide about everything. But Sunni Islam also has its institutions, Egypt’s Al-Azhar University and universities in Mecca for example. This is also the Islamic clergy, which unfortunately has solidified into conservative and archaic thinking. All fatwas issued through the centuries by the clergy do not bring anything new. On the contrary, they move Islam backwards. When I sometimes listen to the arguments of various Arab sheikhs on TV, I feel like I’ve just listened to scholars from 100 or 200 years ago. This is a vicious circle of traditionalism.

On the other hand, the community of the faithful is also backward and cannot cope with the ever changing modern world. What does the large part of aggression of Muslims towards the West come from? From the lack of understanding, from envy, from powerlessness of the people who do not know which way to go.  Should they choose the way of modernity? But that’s the West. Religiosity? But which form of it if fundamentalism lurks everywhere. It all adds up to the image of Islam. Islam is a poorer relative of other religions, not only intellectually, but also materially.

Do you think that the greatest error of Muslims is their literal interpretation of the words from fifteen centuries ago? Is this the root of all the problems?

Yes, I think this is the main root of backwardness of the Muslim world. Its centre is the religious perception of reality. This is visible in education which is of very low quality. Someone once said that Egypt is a country that invents the most significant ideas in the Muslim world – the worst and best. In Egypt, education is really bad. And yet a thousand years ago Egypt radiated education and knowledge. Arabs often mention the wonderful time of the Caliphate which extended from Spain to India.

Maybe you just want Islam in the European version?

What counts are the facts. There is no science here, no new ideas are being invented, no significant literature is being written, there is nothing happening here intellectually. But there is terrible poverty. Not only European Muslims but also some young people in Muslim countries ponder about what is happening, whether they will always be poor, copying everything from the West, or will they participate in creating the modern world?

There has been a slippery slope here for centuries. At the same time, it is difficult to find out what people really think because many of them have an inferiority complex towards the West. When asked about their world, they are reluctant to talk, often being suspicious of foreigners. It is a characteristic of closed societies – people suspect foreign interference, which will apparently make their lives even more difficult.

You’re talking about the reform of Islam. But how do you cope yourself with the most controversial passages of the Qur’an? By ignoring them?

Yes. I’m not saying that they are not true, I do not deny the holiness of the book. I conclude that God, in his wisdom, could reveal verses that are no longer valid if they are not interpreted anew. So I ignore some of them and I reinterpret other passages on my own. Take, for example, the cutting off the hands of thieves. When asked, an Egyptian will declare his strong opposition to such practices. On the other hand, surveys show that 80 per cent of Egyptian population supports this type of punishment.  Where is the truth? It’s hidden and concealed.

There are verses in the  Qur’an, like those about marriage for example, that refer to the concrete reality of fifteen centuries ago. They were revealed in the desert. How can they be presented to someone who, for example, adopts Islam in Greenland? After all, they are completely at odds with the modern world, culturally and even geographically. These verses require continuous interpretation. And when the Qur’an is not being interpreted, it dies – just like any other book. At the moment, certain verses or hadiths are dead, empty, because they cannot be adapted to other cultures. It’s wrong to understand them literally as some converts and neophytes do.

So you don’t agree with the position of women in Islam?

Of course not. I treat women the same way as any other creature. The vision of women’s role in the society from 1500 years ago cannot be transplated to our modern world.  Everything was revealed in certain time and place. Even the Buddhists have interpreted and re-interpreted their religion or philosophy all the time through the centuries, and that’s why their religion is alive. The same happens in Christianity, although after centuries of stagnation.

You choose different things from Qur’an in such a way that really nothing is left of it.

This is only my vision, that’s just what I practice. I do not impose my vision on anyone. I am a devotee of individualism, which in Islam barely exists. Here, a community is everything, all follow the sheikh, the imam or ulema. I myself interpret Islam in my own way and as this religion has no pope or a central authority, I believe that every Muslim should act in a similar manner. Meanwhile, in Egypt 30 per cent of people cannot read or write, so what do you expect? Unfortunately, one cannot expect independent thinking and reflection.

What would be your general conclusion about Islam. Is it a good or bad religion, of peace or war?

Let’s be honest. Most Muslims follow the traditionalist and conservative interpretation of Islam. This does not mean that these people are bad. They are usually very hospitable, kind, and would not hurt even a fly. The overwhelming majority of Muslims also hate terrorism and do not want to have anything to do with it. At the same time, their thinking is traditionalist and sometimes fundamentalist.

There is also a small minority, a handful of people like me who want to change Islam. Because traditionalist thinking among Muslims will not move this world forward by even one step. The Muslim world does not need a revolution in the sense of overthrowing everything, it needs the enlightenment that can only come from Muslims themselves.

[What do you think about the critics of Islam?]

I do not pay any attention to those who write hateful comments about Islam. Mind you, some Muslims also use a similar language. One can often observe that both sides are barking at each other in social media. Often it is just hatred … but keep in mind that there are voices that criticise Islam from a legitimate position. They do not intend to offend but to stimulate a fruitful re-examination of Islam among Muslims. I read such comments with interest and often agree with them. I think that criticism and self-criticism are the basis of intellectual development.

… Islam is a religion that requires total engagement and refers to every aspect of life… It all requires deep reflection. Anyone can become either a monster with bombs in his pockets and boots, or he can follow the path of love and knowledge. For me, these are the two most important things.

(this is an abridged version of an interview which is available in Polish at http://michalgasior.natemat.pl/131929,polski-muzulmanin-z-egiptu-piotr-ibrahim-kalwas-polscy-konwertyci-przestaja-myslec-i-klepia-islamkie-pacierze)

3 Comments

Filed under God, Islam, religion

Islam. An enumeration of its characteristics

islam

Islam suffers from the excess of sacrum – there are too many aspects of the lives of Muslims that are beyond rational discussion because they are regulated by a divine decree. They were supposedly revealed by God and cannot be changed. This is the case of faith rather than reason, the orientation towards the holy text rather than external reality, and the direction towards the past rather than the future. In order to revive its glory, Islam must re-Hellenise itself and venerate Ibn-Rushd rather than Al-Ghazali. The latter’s sola fide (only faith) must be replaced with the former’s fides and ratio (faith and reason) as the foundation of Islam. Islam must recognise that modern civilisation can only be built on three pillars of rationalism, empiricism and humanism. At present, Islam has a number of distinct, mostly problematic, characteristics such as:

the centrality of the holy text,

the primacy of the holy text over visible and tangible reality,

no innovation in the matters of faith,

orientation towards the past,

the times of Muhammad treated as a reference point for future generations,

idealisation of the beginnings of Islam,

divine voluntarism which requires total submission to the will of God,

God knowing both universals and particulars,

God’s Word preceding the universe,

God being sovereign ie omnipotent and not necessarily benevolent,

the absence of the concept of natural causality (God intervenes in every action and is present between the cause and the effect),

low awareness of the role of Aristotelian philosophers (Mutazilites) in the early history of Islam,

the rejection of the Aristotelian tradition of Averroism in Islam which was replaced in the twelfth century by fideism of Al-Ghazali; Al-Ghazali initiated the process of de-hellenisation in Islam, while Europe was going in the opposite direction,

misunderstanding of the causes of Islam’s glorious past; contrary to what most Muslims think Islam was triumphant until the twelfth century not because of Islam as such but because of the incorporation of the Greek thought and the fusion of faith and reason,

modern world  seen as the corruption of the idealised past,

no priesthood,

no religious hierarchy,

no separation of church and state,

Quranic literalism,

proselytism,

sectarianism manifesting itself in the treatment by Muslims of denominations within Islam other than one’s own,

the suppression of sufism,

the leading role of the Arabs which is often resented by non-Arabs,

puritanical versions of Islam in the Middle East and syncretism in south-east Asia,

sharp distinction between what is haram and halal,

Manichaeism evident in the dualistic system of dar-al-Islam (the House of Peace) and dar-el-Harb (the House of War),

Millenarianism,

essentialism and a-historicism,

fear of modernity,

religious concepts and vocabulary used in the description of the modern world,

visionary and radical conservatism in social matters and sometimes in politics,

the concept of ummah which delegitimises nation states and elevates local grievances to global issues,

a weak sense of belonging to a nation,

the concept of truth being of divine origin rather than being understood as the correspondence of thought and external reality,

orthopraxy, which means that one has to observe correctly strict rules in everyday behaviour, rather than orthodoxy,

jihad or the pressure to seek perfection,

ritual forms of capital punishment (decapitation and lapidation),

blasphemy treated as a serious transgression and severely punished,

corporate punishment, including flogging,

strict dietary laws,

strict dress code,

faith-based and ritualised ethics,

ossified rules of social behaviour,

strict rules of sexual behaviour,

prohibition of homosexual acts,

the sharp division between the sexes,

the inequality of women,

utter sexualisation of the female body,

strong blood ties,

social conservatism,

the obligation to protect the honour of the family, going as far as killing a family member to protect it,

fasting during Ramadan,

self-flagellation and self-mutilation by Shia Muslims in celebration of Ashura,

genital mutilation (in some regions),

the concept of jahiliyyh which prevented Muslims from absorbing knowledge from the antiquity (after Al-Ghazali),

the concept of the caliphate in which the ruler combines secular and religious authority,

communitarianism,

theocentrism,

iconoclasm,

strict monotheism,

puritanism,

memorisation of Quran seen as a noble activity and admiration for hafizes, or those who know the whole Quran by heart,

strong feeling of ressentiment towards the West,

tendency to blame the West for its own failings,

confrontationism,

fear of acculturation,

the conviction that the Islam’s past glory can only be revived through Islamisation,

self-absorption and distrust of the non-Islamic world,

the feeling of oppression by external powers,

the syndrome of besieged fortress,

the feeling of righteousness,

hyper-sensitivity to criticism,

inflexibility of religious convictions,

distrust of secular institutions,

secular governments perceived as a force of corruption,

tendency to legitimise terrorism as a weapon of the powerless,

in the eyes of Westerners, anachronistic concepts and vocabulary,

rejection of democracy,

no freedom of speech,

weak state institutions, with governments overcoming their weaknesses by brutality towards the people,

the authorities treating people as subjects rather than citizens,

governments ruling rather than governing,

the lack of democratic mechanisms that would ensure a smooth transition of power,

The alienation of elites from the wider population,

Indigenous neo-colonialism, with narrow groups that have political power behaving like colonial authorities towards their own societies,

the political role of the army in many Muslim countries as the supposed guarantor of stability, while in fact the army acts as the defender of the status quo and its own interests,

tribalism,

religious universalism co-existing with ethnic allegiances,

apostasy punishable by death.

Leave a comment

Filed under Islam