Let's Have a Decent Conversation
The article(Connecting Religion and Politics) published on 6th Feb, 2019 on the Readings page of GK, in response to my column(Factoring Religion in Politics), following points may be noted
Point 1: I have been accused of using vague expressions like a) “spiritual democracy”.
Please ask Iqbal you own to disown his “vague” expression. Murad Hofffman’s concluding paragraph in Islam in the 21st century advocates and explains this spiritual democracy and sounds like a perennialist though he isn’t known to be one. b) culture being “grounded in metaphysics” – this is the most clear statement a Muslim is expected to make as part of his creed. Why forget my repeated use of term metaphysics as scientia sacra, science of First Principles that grounds ilm al-aqeedah? Religious roots of culture grounded in Metaphysics can’t but be unalterable against “civilizational and ideological formations,” - the point is well noted by Alija Izatbegovitch, among others.
Point 2: I have catalogued Islamic ideology with “majoritarianism".
This is empirical/genealogical fact about appropriation of Islam in subcontinent. All know that two nation theory and separate land/federal structure for Muslims was premised on demographic data and distrust of minority in democracy or invoking majoritarianism.
Point 3: I have made tenuous (and self-defeating) assertions about Jinnah, Azad and Iqbal.
I have made no assertions, tenuous or tenable but only recorded well known facts. I have cast no frame to frame them but only noted how religion was invoked in divergent ways. I again affirm, with Jinah and dozens of Jinah scholars and his major biographers, that Jinah was opposed to both theocracy and to that idea of secularization which ignored spiritual democracy or moral resources of Islam.
Point 4: I have adopted the term Political Islam as intellectual submission.
Expressions with similar import (al-Islam al-siyasi/deen ki sayasi tabeer) have been widely used by Muslims and mainstream Muslim Ulama besides political scientists. What a charge to accuse all of them of intellectual submission!
Point 5: I have jaundiced view of Islamic movements.
If reasoned critical view is called jaundiced I gladly own the charge that applies to major Ulama and political theorists whom I quote.
Point 6: I have bias towards perennialism?
Perennilaism is, as one of the most respected authorities on comparative religion Huston Smith informs us, the most comprehensive view available that avoids biases of exclusivists..
Point 7: Brother Umar endorses the term Islamic ideology.
The term Islamic ideology is contradiction in terms. Ideology is a loaded term from Western political thought. It doesn’t describe Islam, a religion, a metaphysic or deen. Diverse scholars have pointed out why/how it distorts Islam. The argument that the notion of State is Western institution incompatible with Islamic Governance, is shown by Hallaq, for instance in The Impossible State.
Point 8: My allusion to Salafis, Ikhwan, Hamas is phoney comparison.
Did I compare them or just note that all invoke Islam for political ends or politics for religious purposes thus justifying juxtaposing them?
Point 9: I seem to deny existence of unified Ummah.
Bewildering legal and theological responses in Islamic tradition are included in Islam as Imam Ashari pointed out. I have been emphasizing the point in many columns. So can diverse political responses be consistent with one Ummah conception. My writings on Ismail Faruqi have already clarified my position on unity of Ummah. Bewildering responses is empirical fact. I wish to understand them all and not condemn beforehand some as inauthentic.
Point 10: I homologize Ghamidi with secularism.
Really? Where?
Point 11: Ignorance of the methodological issues of mainstream Islamic theological episteme leads me to the wrong conclusions.
Traditional Ulama whose claim to guard and understand this mainstream theological episteme can’t be disputed have faulted advocates of political Islam on theological grounds. I have only noted their point and not proposed any personal opinion.
Point 12: Iqbal talks about exclusiveness of Muslim faith and uniqueness of Ummah.
One can quote scores of verses and scores of pages from his lectures and letters, the whole of Javid Namah and the very fact that he was essentially a Sufi thinker for instance that all militate against attributing exclusivism to him. Iqbal called for reconstruction of religious thought using tools of philosophy and mysticism while ideologues of political Islam usually suspect both philosophy and mysticism. Iqbal affirms Islam’s uniqueness and not exclusivism. Ironically the verse quoted contradicts author’s agenda as Tawheed, we all know, unites Islam with other revealed religions such as Judaism. Iqbal denies lsamonationalism by identifying large identity (transnational) of Islam. Iqbal would be poles apart from the claim of Syed Qutb that judges every religious or traditional or modern culture as batil or jahili. Iqbal championed revival of Muslims/Islam and not what is called Islamism/Political Islam.
Point 13: Confounding faith, animism and totemism.
Confounding faith, animism and totemism is neither intended in nor warranted from my write up. I wish brother Umar consider reading works on theology of culture or masterly studies on religion and culture to note if any ground for his apprehensions exists
Point 14: I am over relying on sources other than the divine.
I should, because the Divine Book directs us all as it directed Muslim philosophers, sages and scientists to books of self and cosmos, to numerous sciences, to history, to all “other than” divine sciences to decipher signs.
And lastly:
Dozens of studies on Political Islam have established its problematic understanding of both religion(Islam) and politics, discrepancies in its theory and practice, its problematic non-traditional kitty of concepts/tools, its counterproductive history and catalogue of failures and gross misreadings of world traditions and modernity – to be analyzed in future columns.
https://www.greaterkashmir.com/news/opinion/let-s-have-a-decent-conversation/314513.html
Point 1: I have been accused of using vague expressions like a) “spiritual democracy”.
Please ask Iqbal you own to disown his “vague” expression. Murad Hofffman’s concluding paragraph in Islam in the 21st century advocates and explains this spiritual democracy and sounds like a perennialist though he isn’t known to be one. b) culture being “grounded in metaphysics” – this is the most clear statement a Muslim is expected to make as part of his creed. Why forget my repeated use of term metaphysics as scientia sacra, science of First Principles that grounds ilm al-aqeedah? Religious roots of culture grounded in Metaphysics can’t but be unalterable against “civilizational and ideological formations,” - the point is well noted by Alija Izatbegovitch, among others.
Point 2: I have catalogued Islamic ideology with “majoritarianism".
This is empirical/genealogical fact about appropriation of Islam in subcontinent. All know that two nation theory and separate land/federal structure for Muslims was premised on demographic data and distrust of minority in democracy or invoking majoritarianism.
Point 3: I have made tenuous (and self-defeating) assertions about Jinnah, Azad and Iqbal.
I have made no assertions, tenuous or tenable but only recorded well known facts. I have cast no frame to frame them but only noted how religion was invoked in divergent ways. I again affirm, with Jinah and dozens of Jinah scholars and his major biographers, that Jinah was opposed to both theocracy and to that idea of secularization which ignored spiritual democracy or moral resources of Islam.
Point 4: I have adopted the term Political Islam as intellectual submission.
Expressions with similar import (al-Islam al-siyasi/deen ki sayasi tabeer) have been widely used by Muslims and mainstream Muslim Ulama besides political scientists. What a charge to accuse all of them of intellectual submission!
Point 5: I have jaundiced view of Islamic movements.
If reasoned critical view is called jaundiced I gladly own the charge that applies to major Ulama and political theorists whom I quote.
Point 6: I have bias towards perennialism?
Perennilaism is, as one of the most respected authorities on comparative religion Huston Smith informs us, the most comprehensive view available that avoids biases of exclusivists..
Point 7: Brother Umar endorses the term Islamic ideology.
The term Islamic ideology is contradiction in terms. Ideology is a loaded term from Western political thought. It doesn’t describe Islam, a religion, a metaphysic or deen. Diverse scholars have pointed out why/how it distorts Islam. The argument that the notion of State is Western institution incompatible with Islamic Governance, is shown by Hallaq, for instance in The Impossible State.
Point 8: My allusion to Salafis, Ikhwan, Hamas is phoney comparison.
Did I compare them or just note that all invoke Islam for political ends or politics for religious purposes thus justifying juxtaposing them?
Point 9: I seem to deny existence of unified Ummah.
Bewildering legal and theological responses in Islamic tradition are included in Islam as Imam Ashari pointed out. I have been emphasizing the point in many columns. So can diverse political responses be consistent with one Ummah conception. My writings on Ismail Faruqi have already clarified my position on unity of Ummah. Bewildering responses is empirical fact. I wish to understand them all and not condemn beforehand some as inauthentic.
Point 10: I homologize Ghamidi with secularism. Really? Where?
Point 11: Ignorance of the methodological issues of mainstream Islamic theological episteme leads me to the wrong conclusions.
Traditional Ulama whose claim to guard and understand this mainstream theological episteme can’t be disputed have faulted advocates of political Islam on theological grounds. I have only noted their point and not proposed any personal opinion.
Point 12: Iqbal talks about exclusiveness of Muslim faith and uniqueness of Ummah.
One can quote scores of verses and scores of pages from his lectures and letters, the whole of Javid Namah and the very fact that he was essentially a Sufi thinker for instance that all militate against attributing exclusivism to him. Iqbal called for reconstruction of religious thought using tools of philosophy and mysticism while ideologues of political Islam usually suspect both philosophy and mysticism. Iqbal affirms Islam’s uniqueness and not exclusivism. Ironically the verse quoted contradicts author’s agenda as Tawheed, we all know, unites Islam with other revealed religions such as Judaism. Iqbal denies lsamonationalism by identifying large identity (transnational) of Islam. Iqbal would be poles apart from the claim of Syed Qutb that judges every religious or traditional or modern culture as batil or jahili. Iqbal championed revival of Muslims/Islam and not what is called Islamism/Political Islam.
Point 13: Confounding faith, animism and totemism.
Confounding faith, animism and totemism is neither intended in nor warranted from my write up. I wish brother Umar consider reading works on theology of culture or masterly studies on religion and culture to note if any ground for his apprehensions exists
Point 14: I am over relying on sources other than the divine.
I should, because the Divine Book directs us all as it directed Muslim philosophers, sages and scientists to books of self and cosmos, to numerous sciences, to history, to all “other than” divine sciences to decipher signs.
And lastly:
Dozens of studies on Political Islam have established its problematic understanding of both religion(Islam) and politics, discrepancies in its theory and practice, its problematic non-traditional kitty of concepts/tools, its counterproductive history and catalogue of failures and gross misreadings of world traditions and modernity – to be analyzed in future columns.
https://www.greaterkashmir.com/news/opinion/let-s-have-a-decent-conversation/314513.html
Comments
Post a Comment