ISLAM and SLAVERY
Core Values and the Necessity of Change
Core Values and the Necessity of Change
Seyed
Amir Akrami was until recently a Lecturer at the Al-Mahdi Institute in Birmingham,
England. Before coming to Eastern Mennonite University (EMU) as a visiting Muslim scholar, he was a member of the Iranian Institute of Philosophy. He is a member of the academic board of the Institute for
Interreligious Dialogue, a non-governmental organization based in Iran, and has
served as Secretary for Inter-Religious Dialogue at the Organisation for
Islamic Culture and Communication in Tehran. He is interested in Islamic studies, inter-religious relations, philosophy of religion and pluralism. Akrami holds a BA in Islamic
Studies, MA in Religions and Mysticism, and PhD in the philosophy of religion.
Yago: Amir, you are welcome to this blog where we are
attempting to name and deconstruct the energies of enslavement that
keep perpetuating inhumanity in today’s world. One of the assumptions of this
blog is that there is nothing “out there.” We are called
to analyse enslavement from a lens that creates space for
self-criticism. We are subjects of history. This applies to every Religion.
Religion has played a very controversial role dialoguing along history with the
energies of enslavement. In previous interviews of this blog, we have named few
instances where Religion betrayed its original purpose. We have talked about
the role of patriarchy, our anthropomorphic experience of God, our
disconnection with the web of life, our lack of enough acknowledgement of
historical harms caused by misleading decisions of religious authorities.
In this interview I
invite you to share the wonderful richness of the Islam and its contribution to
our experience of God. I also welcome you to explore areas within the Islam
where its core values have been ignored, where an imperiaslistic and merely
human translation of them has taken place.
So, let us begin exploring slavery in the context where the Islam was born. Islamic views on slavery first developed out of the slavery practices of pre-Islamic Arabia. In order to understand the Islam in context, what can you say about the slavery practices of pre-Islamic Arabia?
So, let us begin exploring slavery in the context where the Islam was born. Islamic views on slavery first developed out of the slavery practices of pre-Islamic Arabia. In order to understand the Islam in context, what can you say about the slavery practices of pre-Islamic Arabia?
Amir: Undoubtedly, Slavery in pre-Islamic Arabia
was a common practice. Many merchants would bring slaves from different regions
and sell them in Mecca. We need to bear in mind that tribal wars were quite common
which would normally lead to one tribe becoming triumphant resulting in
enslaving many people from the beaten tribe. There were specific markets where
slaves would be bought and sold. It was not uncommon that if one was not able
to repay his debt he would become the slave of the creditor. Also sometimes
people would gamble and the looser would become the slave of the winner. War
captives becoming slaves of the victorious army was also quite common as it
happened between the Romans and Persians many times. These are highly important
facts that we need to consider if we want to have a better understanding of the
relation between Islam and slavery.
 |
| Pre-Islamic Arabia, including trade routes |
Yago: Muhammad would send his companions like Abu Bakr and Uthman ibn Affan to buy slaves to manumit them. Many early converts to
Islam were the poor and former slaves like Bibal ibn Rabah al-Habashi who was
an African of Ethiopian heritage companion of Islamic prophet Muhammad, born in
Mecca and who is considered as the first muezzin chosen by the prophet himself.
The prophet Muhammad himself said that one of best deeds is to free an slave.
What can you say about the attitude of the prophet Muhammad related to slavery
and the oppression suffered by the people of his time?
 |
| Islamic miniature from Persia depicting Bilal giving the call to prayer. |
Amir: One thing is certain that Muhammad did not
abolish slavery and the reason is that, I think, it was socially and
economically impossible to do. Nevertheless, he tried to make the situation far
better for slaves and that is the reason why, as you mentioned in the question,
many slaves were among his companions and immediate followers in his time. To
explain this point more clearly, one can see in the Quran that humans are
understood to be God’s representative or vicegerent on earth (Quran, 2:30) and
this applies to all humans not some of them. Furthermore, the Quran regards
humans as the bearers of God’s trust (Quran, 33:72) and again this applies
indiscriminately to all humans. Moreover, humans are created from one soul or
spirit (Quran, 4:1) and there is no preference or superiority among people
except through piety and consciousness of God (Quran, 49:13). More
specifically, in the Quran, 90:13 we find explicit encouragement of freeing
slaves. The prophet of Islam said: there is no superiority for an Arab over a
non-Arab or for a white person over a black one except by God-consciousness. He
also said that people are equal like the teeth of a comb. The first Shi’i Imam,
Ali, said: do not be servant of anyone because God has created you free. It is
also very important that the Quran considers justice to be one of the most
salient objectives of all the prophets (Quran, 57:25). All these indicate that
slavery cannot be compatible with Islam. However, as I mentioned earlier,
Muhammad was not able to eradicate or abolish the institution of slavery because
that was tantamount to making such a radical revolution in his society that his
time was not prepared for it. Nevertheless, he tried to ameliorate the
situation by introducing and implementing mechanisms whereby the conditions
under which slaves lived would improve. One important thing that the prophet
did was to limit slavery to prisoners of war and to the children of two slave
parents. He also said that one of the best actions is to set slaves free. He urged owners to treat slaves like human
beings.
Yago: You say that “we should not assess the
attitude that the prophet Muhammad took with regard to slavery on the basis of
our own criteria and sensitivities of the 21st century.” Could you expand your view on this regard?
Amir: This is very important. On many issues such
as slavery, women rights or minority rights we tend to evaluate the far past
with the standards of our present time. We know that slavery was finally
abolished in the second half of the nineteenth century. Women are still
struggling for their equal rights even in Western societies. Given all these
examples, it would be anachronistic to expect the Prophet of Islam to abolish
slavery in his time. Drastic social or political changes need time and the
confluence of many historical factors and elements to make it possible for them
to occur. If we assess the conditions of the past societies with our twenty
first century criteria we are committing a major intellectual mistake that
would hinder us from understanding those societies appropriately. To me the
fact that the Prophet of Islam was not able to abolish slavery is not
problematic at all but what is problematic is for a Muslim individual or
society in our time to argue from that historical fact for the impossibility or
undesirability of abolishing slavery in Muslim societies now.
 |
| Qur'an |
Yago: In Islamic law the topic of slavery is
covered at great length. The Qur’an (the holy book) urges, kindness to the
slave and recommends their liberation by purchase or manumission. At the same
time the Qur’an see slavery as an exceptional condition that can be entered
into under certain limited circumstances. The Qur’an includes multiple
references to slaves, slave women, slave concubinage, and the freeing of
slaves. What can you say about the stand of the Islamic law and the Qur’an
related to slavery?
Amir: As I said earlier, Slavery was quite common
in the Arab society and Muhammad tried to limit it and also urged Muslim to
treat their slaves in a humane way. That is why there are so many references to
various legal rulings and also ethical precepts by which he attempted to make
the situation better. From what we have
in the rules of the Qur'an and the Sunnah of the Prophet one cannot argue that
there is no place for slavery in Islam. Although Muhammad tried to improve and
gradually humanise the conditions of
slaves, limit slavery and encourage Muslim to set their slaves free, there are
many rules in the Qur'an and the Sunnah that fly in the face of anyone who would
argue that Islam abolished slavery. But the main question is whether a Muslim
like me, who lives in the twenty first century, should still think of slavery
as something that Islam would endorse or not. In other words, should generally
a Muslim regard the social and economic conditions existing in the seventh
century Arabia, of which slavery was part and parcel, as something necessarily
and essentially inherent to Islam or, alternatively, should one think of it as
something external to Islam and hence changeable.
Also closely related to this
question is another important question as to whether Muslims now should stick
to the existing rules on slavery and embrace it or should reject slavery on the
basis of the ethical spirit of Islam which promotes and emphasizes justice,
compassion and equity. I am of the view that the socio-economic conditions of
the seventh century Arabia were not inherent to Islam and, therefore, if we
live in a totally different cultural and socio-political conditions, as we do
now, we can forget about those rules regarding slaves in Islam and rather
highlight the ethical dimension of Islam which is evidently against any kind of
cruelty, injustice, violence and encourages peace, equity and compassion. We
should always keep in mind that Muhammad said that he became a prophet of God
to ‘complement moral virtues’ and our present moral standards and sensitivities
undoubtedly abhor slavery. The issue of slavery is part of the whole general
question of whether and how Islam can be compatible with the human rights. My
general answer is that if we stick to the corpus of Islamic rulings on slavery,
which exist in Fiqh (the legal dimension of Islam) there is no way to reconcile
between Islam and human rights but an emphasis on the ethical aspect of Islam
can lead us to an interpretation of the religion that is compatible with the
human rights.
 |
| Jonathan E. Brockopp |
Yago: According to Jonathan Brockopp, the idea of using
alms for the manumission of slaves appears to be unique to the Qur’an. Also the
Qur’an provides for emancipation of a slave as a means (or in one case, a
requirement of) demonstrating remorse for the commission of certain sins. Could
you expand on this?
Amir: As was briefly mentioned earlier, the
Prophet employed some ethical and legal measures to improve slaves’ situation.
One was to use Zakat (Islamic term for alms) to free slaves and another was to
accept freeing slaves as Kaffarah (Islamic term for compensation) for some
shortcomings and mistakes or sins. These were among the concrete ways in which
Muhammad encouraged freeing slaves.
 |
| Slaves in a market (Yemen, 13th century). |
Yago: The “Arab” slave trade is sometimes called
the “Islamic” slave trade. Patrick Manning states that religion was hardly the
point of this slavery. What can you say on this regard?
Amir: I think my previous points would make it
clear that ‘Arab’ slave trades cannot be really called Islamic because Islam is
essentially against slavery but it can be called Islamic in the sense that the
traders were Arabs and mainly Muslim. One needs to make a distinction between
Islam as a religion and Islam as a culture or civilisation, like the difference
between Christianity and Christendom.
Although these are related but one needs to make it clear that when we
use Islam in precisely what sense we are using them.
Yago: According to Sharia, slaves are considered
human beings and possessed some rights on the basis of their humanity. In
addition, a Muslim slave is equal to a Muslim freeman in religious issues and
superior to the free non-Muslim. For a variety of reasons, internal growth of
the slave population was not enough to fulfil the demand in Muslim society.
This resulted in massive importation, which involved enormous suffering and
loss of life. How has been perceived and interpreted the non-Muslim along the
history of the Islam? How has this affected in the inhuman appropriation of
slaves especially in western and eastern Africa by the Arab slave trade?
Amir: I do not have any good knowledge of what
happened in Arab slave trade in Western or Eastern Africa. I do not think that
the prophet of Islam took non-Muslims as slaves because they were not Muslim.
He and his companions and followers tolerated 13 years of persecution, torture
and expulsion by their enemies in Mecca and finally had to leave that city and
go to Medina. There he made a treaty with the Jews and part of it was to
support each other against their enemies. They broke that treaty by going to
Mecca and inviting Muhammad’s enemies to come to Medina and attack the Muslims.
They initiated the war and it was common to take the captives of the war as
slaves. So the slaves were not taken because they were not Muslim but because
they were taken as war captives.
 |
| The Abbasid Revolution |
However, in the history of Islam and
particularly in the Abbasid period, because of the animosity between their
Muslim empire, which one can argue that had not been established on Islamic
values, and the Byzantine empire the tendency to think of any non-Muslim as
enemy and launching wars to expand territory in the name of Islam started to
take form. This resulted in taking non-Muslims war captives as slaves but, I
think, it was part of the rivalry between the two empires one of which happened
to bear the name of Islam. Again here we face the question of how and where to
draw a line between what a religion endorses and what the culture or
civilisation formed on the basis of that religion does. As I have argued in my
paper entitled ‘Particularity and Universality in Revelation’, I do not think
that Islam, as understood from the Quran, is essentially against adherents of
other religions or their religions. Rather, I think the Quran invites to a kind
of pluralism in which other religions can have a very high status. Therefore, I
don’t think that during the time of the Prophet non-Muslims were taken slaves
simply because they were not Muslim. My understanding of Islam sees no
justification for any inhumane treatment of any human being under any pretext
but this is obviously compatible with accepting that in the history of Islam,
for example in the 14th and 15th centuries in North
Africa, many Muslims have treated non-Muslims in inhumane ways by enslaving
them about which I, as a Muslim, am ashamed and for which I apologize.
 |
| Main slave trade routes in the Medieval Age |
Yago: In one particular theological current in
the Islam the most important name, attribute, or quality of God is Just. God’s
Justice. This has very clear social and political implications in their theology.
How does God’s justice shape the Islam understanding on slavery?
Amir: This is highly relevant and important. I
already touched upon it but now need to elaborate. All Muslim theologians
accept that Allah is just and justice is one of his significant attributes.
However, there is a very interesting diversity over what it means and how much
emphasis one puts on it. One fundamental difference occurs between the Ash’arites
and the Mu’atazelites (both being tendencies among the Sunni Islam) and the
Shi’ites here side with the latter. The former hold that whatever God commands
is just (something like divine command theory in ethical philosophy) and the
latter maintain that whatever is just God commands it. The view of the Mu’atazelites means that, apart from
religion or sharia, human intellect or reason can come to see what is just and
unjust or good and evil whereas the Ash’arites deny this possibility. Their
view naturally leads to a very literalistic and narrow-minded interpretation of
Islam whereas the Mu’atazelites’ view makes room for human rational capacities
to play an important role in understanding religion. The clear implication of
the Mu’atazelites’ view is that if we now find slavery unjust then we should
come to realize that it is against Islam and unacceptable. This is just one
example but I am sure any thoughtful reader can see the far-reaching
implications of this more rational tendency in Islam for many relevant new
issues that the Islamic world faces today.
 |
| Mauritania: Slavery's last stronghold |
Yago: Slavery was abolished only very recently in
several Arab countries like Mauritania, Saudi Arabia and Sudan. The “Arab”
slave trade has continued, on one form or another, for at least 14 centuries.
Why has been so difficult the abolishment of slavery in Arab countries?
Amir: I have already talked about this question
but another point here seems to be in order. Religions are not abstract
entities. They may start with a pure spiritual intention of the founder but
later on in their history they become tainted by many different factors. They
become humanised in the sense that they take all good and bad human qualities
on of which is greed. So it is no surprise that for many centuries not only in
the Islamic world but in the whole world slavery becomes so deeply ingrained in
various cultures that it is hard to eradicate. Still in many Islamic and
non-Islamic societies women are suffering and even in Western countries black
people and women are not treated in the way that white people and men are. I
had a friend in Britain who told me that he had applied for some jobs there
with an Islamic name and also with a Western name with the same qualities under
the both names. He said under his Western name he had found many jobs but under
his Islamic name just one or two. We still have a long way to go to create a
just human society.
Yago: In your article Particularity and Universality in Revelation you conclude that “a
more comprehensive approach to the Qur'an can substantiate the view that the
text makes a distinction between, on the one hand, some essential and minimal
teachings and a set of moral and spiritual attitudes and values closely linked
to them, which can be called islam, and, on the other, the historical
manifestations or expressions of those essential components of salvation in the
various forms of human religiosity with all their particularities, such as
Judaism, Christianity and Islam. The universality is accorded to islam
rather than to the various historical expressions. Therefore, I propose this as
a conclusion that according to the Qur'an islam is universal whereas
Islam is particular, and there is no logical contradiction here.” How can you
apply this conclusion to the core values of the islam and the historical manifestation of the Islam with regard to
slavery? What is the role of interpretation of the Qur’an according to the
dominant rules and values and social conditions of each time?
Amir: The main point of that article is to
establish that one can clearly find in the Qur'an a kind of pluralistic approach
to other religions which means that there is no warrant for any sort of looking
down upon other religions. There are core beliefs and values that the Qur'an
calls islam, different from Islam, and they can be found in all religions and
thus there is no place for any attitude of superiority. All religions are valid
and valuable ways to the Truth and salvation. Therefore, there is absolutely no
room for treatment of non-Muslims as inferior and hence deserving to be treated
as slaves.
Yago: One of the most outstanding customs at the
time of the Prophet was a total inequality between men and women. He tried to
improve the situation of women but he couldn’t revolutionize it, he couldn’d
make it totally equal. What was the strategy of the Prophet and how far
religious authorities within the Islam have understood and follow Muhammad’s
revolutionary spirit on this regard?
Amir: This is one of the examples of how
different understandings of Islam along the Mu’atazelite and Ash’arite lines
can have clear implications. If we grant a wider role to human intellect in
understanding religion, as the Mu’atezelite do, then we are able to see that we
should not stop where Muhammad stopped in his attempts to improve women’s
situation of his society. Rather, we should understand his efforts as
suggesting a clear direction towards a more just society where any injustice
should be resisted and removed. Many historians, for example Karen Armstrong in
her book "Muhammad. A prophet for our time," agree that he brought many improvements in
women’s conditions. But the problem is that, unfortunately, many Muslims think
that he has done all that could be done and we have no share to do. They fail
to recognize that, he was not able to change many things in his society,
including slavery and the inferiority of women, because deeply seated cultural
norms and customs are not easy to transform and they take a lot of collective
intellectual efforts and, more importantly, socio-economic
developments to change. Now that we are living in the twenty first century and
are able to see that the inferiority of women runs contrary to justice then we
need to do our share by revisiting and reinterpreting those aspects of Islamic
theology and jurisprudence related to human rights in general and women rights
in particular which do not square with our human understanding of justice and
rectify them. I think injustice or discrimination against women in many
societies, and especially in Muslim countries, are modern forms of slavery that
we need to abolish.
Yago: You say that “in all our religious traditions
we have struggled with the fact that religious beliefs have figured much more prominently
than our human common values. So in a Muslim context a Christian would be
considered automatically inferior because of non-being a Muslim.” What is the
current situation of religious minorities in Muslim countries? Are their basic human
right of free association to religion being respected?
Amir: There seems to be more progress than before
in Muslim countries with regard to respecting people of other religions. This
is mainly due to more relationship which is the result of more communications
in the modern world. People are increasingly coming to realize that people of
other religious traditions are equally good human beings and the culture of
human rights is becoming more widespread and taking deeper roots around the
world. These are very important and promising developments that everyone should
welcome and foster. However, in some Muslim countries there are problems that
we need to be aware of and try to resolve.
In Egypt, in Nigeria and some other
African countries the relations between Muslims and Christians are not good and
we need to work to reduce the tensions there and promote the culture of peace
and reconciliation. Religious leaders bear a heavy responsibility here to
direct their followers towards more peaceful relations with adherents of other
religions. They are the ones to whom most religious people listen.
Unfortunately, they are sometimes also the root cause of many problems as they
do not have an appropriate and timely understanding of their religion and are often
influenced by evil political affiliations and aspirations which lead to
hostility and tension. Many Christians are, unfortunately, suffering human
rights violations in Iran. We need to see a change in the attitude of some
Iranian clerics and political authorities regarding the rights of other
religions in the country. They need to realize that they must respect people of
other religions not only verbally but practically by distancing themselves from
a strict and unacceptable interpretation of Islam that has not worked in the
last 34 years and shift towards a more pluralistic and at least tolerant
understanding of Islam that would respect and implement human rights of people
of other religious traditions. I hope that the recent presidential election in Iran,
which happened some days ago, would also bring about a good change in that
context as well.
 |
| Slave Trade |
Yago: Murray Gordon comments that “unlike Western societies which in their opposition to slavery spawned anti-slavery movements whose numbers and enthusiasm often grew out of church groups, no such grass-roots organizations ever developed in Muslim societies. In Muslim politics the state unquestioningly accepted the teachings of Islam and applied them as law. As a result, in no part of the Muslim world was an ideological challenge ever mounted against slavery. The political and social system in Muslim society would have taken a dim view of such a challenge.” What can you contribute on this?
Amir: I do not agree with that generalisation. I think that if we look at almost all religious traditions, as far as their scriptures and theologies are concerned, there isn’t much against slavery and in fact there are many references that implicitly or explicitly support slavery or at most they are silent or indifferent towards it. The fact that anti-slavery movements happened in the Christian world had mainly to do with the socio-economic developments that took place in the modern world, especially the 18th century, and this can also explain why the Islamic world has not made equal progress. The main problem in Muslim countries is this socio-political regress, compared to the brilliant progress that Muslims had in the 11th and 12th centuries, and the fact that Muslim leaders failed to strike a balance between the ethical and spiritual dimensions of Islam, which would pave the way for anti-slavery movements, with its legal dimension in which there are all the rules about slavery.
Yago: You say that the advancement in technology
and networking in Western countries has been fundamental in the shaping of a
more human society. The Muslim world has been left very much behind on this
regard. You also say that we have to be patient and to give time to the Muslim world
to get a deeper understanding of our basic human rights. The journey is a
struggle. They are not religious beliefs which are the most important thing to
pay attention to; it is about our humanness, our attitudes towards others,
compassion, moral and spiritual values what in the end matters. In this regard,
in which way religious beliefs can become a real obstacle in our search for our
real humanity? What is the role of our moral and spiritual journey compared
with our inherited religious beliefs?
Amir: I think I have already at least partly
answered that question but let me elaborate on that a little bit. We know that
all religions consist of various dimensions such as doctrinal, ethics, legal,
spiritual, institutional and so on. One
can generally say that the fundamental and sometimes irreconcilable differences
between the religions occur when they relate to each other on doctrinal and
legal levels and convergence and sympathy occur when they relate on ethical and
spiritual levels.
 |
| Rumi |
Rumi says: "the
disagreement of mankind is caused by names; peace ensues when they advance to
the reality (denoted by the names)". That is why I think more emphasis on the
ethical and mystical traditions of the religions provides a better ground on
which we can foster interfaith engagement. When we study Islamic and Christian
mysticism, for example Rumi and Thomas A. Kempis, we are able to see that they
have much more in common than we would find in Christian and Islamic
theologies. My personal view is that, without denying the fundamental
importance of theology, it is ultimately the ethical and spiritual dimensions
of religions that speak to our soul and direct our actions and attitudes, or
perhaps they should do so.
Yago: You say that “there have been always
hundreds of sects within Islam, so Islam has a real internal diversity,
but at the same time the constant reliance on the authorities has paralyzed its
development to some extend.” You point out to the tradition of the reformers,
Muslim scholars emerging form the 19th century in different parts of
the Muslim World. They are trying to empower the individual Muslim at the grassroots
level, making him/her self-critical towards the chronic dependency on the
interpretation of the Qur’an by people in authority. They give a high value to
the role of the intellect. Could you introduce us this movement and the current
impact in the Muslim World?
Amir: The Mu’atazelite tradition, mentioned
earlier, was perhaps the first rational movements in Islam that would lead to a
less authoritarian interpretation of the religion by its emphasis on God’s
attribute of justice and their ethical philosophy which made room for human
intellect to play a significant role in understanding religion. The Shi’i
tendency also stressed rationality and produced an intellectual theological
heritage that could have had non-authoritarian implications though the legal
emphasis in the Shi’i tradition did not allow this implication to take
practical roots.
In the modern world, the socio-economic backwardness of the
Islamic world compared to the West has awakened many Muslim intellectuals to
think about ways in which they can reinterpret Islamic sources and revitalise
the religion to redress their problems. The common tendency, I think, among
many of these intellectual efforts is to make a distinction between what is
essential and constant in Islam and what is changeable or accidental. There are
various formulations and articulations of this distinction but, I think, the
common thread is to distinguish between those Islamic thoughts, values and
principles that are beyond time and those injunctions and precepts that are time-bound.
One common conclusion is that many
things of what we have in the Islamic tradition, particularly Fiqh and
specifically the inter-personal aspect of it, are time-bound and hence subject
to change. Rules on slavery happen to belong to this realm and, therefore, can
change and this change must be in the direction of abolishing slavery and
announcing it, in its all ancient and modern forms, as totally unacceptable.
This orientation, quite common among Muslim intellectuals, would also lead us
to resolve many problems of inequality that women face in the Muslim world as
well.
Yago: Richard Rohr, in his book The Naked Now,
says that the ego hates change. And that different religions have the same ego
resistance. This ego resistance leaves many folks with the peculiar attitude
that might be stated in this way: “One of us is wrong, and it is surely not
me”. This pattern of thinking is typical of fundamentalist of all religions.
(p. 91) You say that “all what we find problematic in all religious traditions
has to do with its outer layer and not with its core values. The people in
authority tend not to make that distinction and they live from the outer layer.
This paralyzes the fulfilment of the prophet Muhammad’ vision, for example
towards women." Why is so difficult to take to its full logical implications and
conclusions the prophet Muhammad’s vision? Why is so difficult to read the
values and signs of our time?
 |
| Muslim Woman |
Amir: It is difficult for all of us to change our
habits and deeply rooted thoughts and values because, at least partly, we take
these things to be part of our identity and changing our identity is like
killing ourselves, like suicide, and very few people are willing to do that.
The main helpful insight here, I think, is that we, as religious people, need
to recognize that truth is more important than our identity. Of course, our
religions are hugely identity forming things in our lives but at the same time
they all teach us to be truth-oriented and invite us to free ourselves from
different things that, consciously or unconsciously, put us in bondage and
quite often our attachment to old theologies or religious concepts function as
our bondage. We need to strike a balance between our identity and the
transformative truth in our religions and, given our overinflated identity,
often this means to sacrifice it for the truth. Religions are first and
foremost for the transformation of our hearts which would ensue in our actions
and this means that although identity is important but not at the expense of
the truth.
Yago: You support many Muslims scholars around
the world who have said and are saying that there should be absolutely not
inconsistency between our understanding of religion and what credible science
or philosophy tell us. Could you expand on this? Could you give us concrete
examples related to the interpretation of the Qur’an?
Amir: Yes, that is right. The examination of some
modern commentaries of the Qur'an reveals that those Muslim scholars that have
become familiar with modern scientific findings could not have remained content
with old commentaries and tried to reinterpret many verses in new ways. The
main reason is that if you come to see, for example, that the evolution theory
is scientifically correct then you cannot understand the Qur'an in a way that is
not compatible with it. The general direction is to make various parts of our
knowledge cohere together; otherwise we would have a fragmented mind or
something that is called cognitive dissonance.
Of course, all these happen
after the emergence of the natural science which has successfully challenged
the authority of religion on scientific matters. This does not mean that
whatever is claimed by scientists are correct, as there is always ample
disagreements between them, but it means that if for a particular theologian or
exegete of the Qur'an a particular scientific theory seem to be correct then
he/she cannot understand the relevant Quranic passages in an opposite way. They
need to bring consistency and a holistic coherence between various parts of
their knowledge of the world. To give you one example, one contemporary Shi’i
scholar who became aware of how natural science understands the way in which
meteors are thrown in the space has come up with a new interpretation of one or
two references in the Quran to meteors. He says that we cannot understand those
verses literally anymore, as was the case with pre-modern exegetes of the Quran,
and we need to interpret them metaphorically.
 |
| Amina Wadud |
Many feminist interpretations of
the Qur'an, such as the one by Amina Wadud, can serve as other examples where an
scholar of Islam cannot remain content with old interpretations which for him
or her did not take into consideration new findings in the natural science,
humanities or even common sense point of view.
Yago: You ask yourself: “What is the good ideal
political system in a Muslim State?" You elucidate that it starts by a theological
origin but it normally leads to a sometimes unacceptable political and
social-economic situation that creates what we call new forms of slavery that
originates at the State level. In today’s 21st century many people
have not the conviction and willingness and satisfaction to accept the
authority of the State-Religion. Could
you expand on this?
Amir: I think if we can learn from history one
lesson is that normally religious states, which give prominence to not only one
religion but often to one limited interpretation of one religion, have led to
imposition, coercion, and violence and these phenomena are all the true enemies
of all religions. This clearly means that a religious state serves the opposite
objectives of genuine religiosity.
Many religious people, especially in the
Islamic world, tend to ignore the fact that we are living in a multi-cultural
and multi-religious world and having religious states means the imposition of
their religious values and rules on those who do not prescribe to them and this
is unacceptable. One thing religions are quite far from is imposition. The
Qur'an explicitly says that there is no coercion in religious matters and
coercion is a modern example of slavery. However, this does not mean that
religion has nothing to do with politics, as some people may think. Religious
individuals and organisations can and should make their voice heard and
participate in the political process in order to change it from the bottom of
the society by convincing people rationally that their solutions to social
problems are better than the secular ones.
Yago: You say that the most problematic areas
that we urgently need to address are the situation of non-Muslim and women in
Islamic societies. Many Muslim scholars around the world are now conscious on
the fact that according to basic human values of the Islamic Tradition this
attitude to non-Muslim and women is unacceptable. Could you elaborate this
comment?
Amir: Yes, I think women and religious minorities
issues are among the most pressing ones in Muslim societies. I have already
alluded to these but let me elaborate here. Women in Muslim countries are
facing some inequalities that need to be addressed. For example, according to
the dominant interpretation in Iran they cannot become president or
high-ranking judges. Their inheritance and the value of their testimony in the
court are half those of men. They have to wear headscarf even if they do not
want to. These are some examples showing that they do not enjoy equal rights.
Also various religious minorities, especially Christians and Baha’is are under
a lot of pressures. These problems need to be theologically and politically
addressed.
Yago: You say that “the key is to empower people
to have open minds and a pure consciousness, and pure conscience which will
allow them to think on the ethical/moral golden rule.” This pure consciousness
is the mystical mind we all need to have in today’s world. At this point in
history what is the contribution of the Muslim Mystics towards this process of
reformation in the Islam?
 |
| Ibn'Arabi |
Yago: What has been the contribution of the
Muslim mystical tradition on social and political issues?
 |
| Muhammad Iqbal |
 |
| Najeeba Syeed-Miller |
Yago: Muslim Scholar Najeeba Syeed-Miller says
that “is important to do perspective taking to be academically successful, but
also to be a fully conscious and engaged human being. How do we have engagement
that allow us to begin to appreciate the world from someone else perspective?
When it comes to religion this is by far the hardest thing to do.” You also mention that in order to live the
ethical golden rule we have to develop a strong imagination. What is the role
of imagination in the reformation of Islam?
Amir: The ethical golden rule is highly
emphasised in all religions. The prophet of Islam said that one does not taste
what faith is unless one likes for him/herself what one likes for others. I
think this rule is essential to everything in religion and the main function of
religions, if understood and practiced properly, is to make it possible for us
to live according to this rule. It is also important to contemplate over
various intellectual and practical implications of this rule. But in order to
put this rule into practice one has to be able to see the situation of others,
their problems and sufferings, one has to put himself in the shoes of others
and this is not always easy. I think reading literature, especially good
novels, helps us cultivate a stronger imagination whereby one can transpose
oneself into the situation of others. This is one way of strengthening our
imagination necessary for preparing us to realize the moral golden rule.
Yago: The Muslim mystic Ibn al-Arabi said that "my
religion is the religion of love," I go wherever it takes me. How al-Arabi
inspires us in our journey towards radical inclusiveness?
Amir: Yes, his poem is very inspiring. We need to
bear in mind that this very pluralistic poem does not come from someone whose
mind, according to some contemporary writers, has become tainted by modern
thoughts. He lived in the 12-13th centuries far before the
renaissance and modern era. It comes from a deeply committed and practicing
Muslim whose profound spiritual insight and mystical experience led him to say
that: my heart has become able to take all forms. It is a pasture for gazelles,
for monks an abbey. It is a temple for idols and for whoever circumambulates
it, the Kaaba. It is the tablets of the Torah and also the leaves of the Koran.
I believe in the religion of Love whatever direction its caravans may take, for
love is my religion and my faith.
 |
| Transcendence |
Yago: At the very core of the Muslim tradition is
said that whatever you think of God in the most precise way is your own
creation and you should get rid of it. How does this challenge the temptation
to live the Muslim faith with rigidity?
Amir: This is very important. As a Muslim, we
need to worship God not our thoughts however sharp, mature and developed we may
think them to be. Rumi puts this beautifully: "I need to have an idol and at the
same time I need to break it too." What he means is that in order to worship God
we need to have a concept and a perception to be able to relate to the Divine,
otherwise we cannot relate to nothingness or some entity without any quality.
At the same time we need to be aware that that is our construct and does not
correspond to the reality of the Transcendent as it is. This can help us to see
that when even our most fundamental religious belief, namely our understanding
of God, is limited and relative, then all the rest of our theological beliefs
and doctrines are to be thought of critically. We need to take a critical
stance towards our religious beliefs if we are really religious.
Yago: Amir, I very grateful for your contribution to this blog. It has been very inspiring to journey with you. Now, we have a more realistic and sincere knowledge of the Islam. Thanks for your openness and self-critical spirit. You have enlightened us!
Amir: Thank you Yago for the interview and all your efforts to bring to the fore the important question of slavery in its old and modern forms.
