Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
27 of 27 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
A Fascinating Challenge to Orthodoxy, September 17, 2003
Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na'im, as a scholar of Islam and law, offers an analysis of Islamic decline and possible reformation that is much more clearly delineated and rigorous than the cultural accounts given by authors like Bernard Lewis. An-Na'im's argument rests on the separation of "historical Shari'a" (often wrongly treated as if it were itself divine revelation) from the essence of Islam itself, as revealed by the early tenure of Mohammed in Mecca, before he moved to Medina and grappled with the difficult and immediate imperatives of political power.
Like a good lawyer, An-Na'im's case in "Toward an Islamic Reformation" unfolds like a geometrical proof, proceeding deductively from an axiom (a universal principle of reciprocity) and reasoning from there; namely, that all peoples have rights of self-determination, as long as they don't clash with others' rights of self-determination. To this norm, An-Na'im adds two sociological observations. The first is that Muslim majorities are now becoming politically assertive, exercising their right to self-determination, which is in itself a healthy thing. However, the second observation is that the hitherto weakened and disorganized condition of the Muslim community has usually been attributed to departure from "true" belief and practice, as well as to outside interference by non-Muslims. Thus, An-Na'im reasons, secular solutions to social problems will not appeal to most Muslims. Even the doctrine of necessity (darura) is not enough, although it has been used with some degree of success in the past, because only a truly Islamic solution will satisfy Muslim demands for self-determination. Thus, any proposed reforms must be seen as Islamic in origin.However, An-Na'im here makes a strong case that the implementation of "historical Shari'a" (he calls it historical, obviously, to emphasize its man-made, temporal quality), while seen as a solution by many (due to the yearning to go back to tradition), will likely oppress others, and limit their right to self-determination, because it conflicts with modern norms of constitutionalism, human rights, international law and criminal justice. However, historical Shari'a was constructed by early jurists, written for a specific time and place, and does not come directly from revelation. So, given that secular and Shari'a solutions both are inadequate, the question becomes: how can Muslims' rights vis-à-vis others be exercised, while also being legitimately limited in accordance with universal principles (and the earlier, more tolerant words of Mohammed)? An-Na'im acknowledges that any attempt to answer this question and "evolve" alternative principles will be difficult, due to the likely suspicion that tampering with the weight of tradition will inflame, but must be done, and can be based directly on revelation. This is the task that he sets himself to in the second half of the book, once he has demonstrated how Shari'a: 1) is man-made; 2) is non-divine; 3) originally arose for political expediency; 4) goes against the early word of Mohammed (much of which it "abrogated" under the doctrine of naskh); and 5) will likely violate the rights of non-Muslims, women, slaves, etc., and be incompatible with the very idea of the nation-state, international law, and human rights. In this, An-Na'im is clearly a modernist, in that he takes the nation-state, etc. as a given, and holds that there are benefits from secularism that would be lost (self-expression, women, religious minorities, slavery) if Shari'a were to be implemented. He also makes a very specific negative judgment about the application of Shari'a in today's "fundamentalist" states (Iran, Sudan), arguing that "it has created more problems than it has solved" (67). While an "anti-imperialist" might take issue with this statement, arguing that the worst excesses of fundamentalism are preferable to "western" institutions, An-Na'im's mission is to make Islam palatable to western institutions, and vice-versa, by "rehabilitating" the "early Mohammed" in much the same way that neo-Marxists drew upon the "Young Marx" to get away from the stale determinism of scientific socialism. Thus, the early Mohammed of the Mecca period is portrayed as a tolerant, "reasonable" leader, while the Mohammed of the Medina period, and the later rulers under whom Shari'a developed, were forced to adapt their ideas to the expediencies an extremely harsh, violent political world. What is An-Na'im's program for rehabilitating Islam from the legacy of this world? The four main areas of law concerned are constitutionalism (how can Islam reconcile itself to self-determination, but with limits on power?), criminal justice (how can Islam democratically enforce Islamic justice without violating the rights of non-Muslims?), international law (how can Islam reconcile itself to interactions between nation-states, some of whom will be non-Muslim?), and human rights (how can Islam leave behind the legacy of subordinate status for women, slaves and non-believers, and grant universal rights to all people?). While the program is well-argued and eloquently framed, obviously drawing much inspiration from the mentorship of the Sudanese reformist martyr, Mahmoud Taha, An-Na'im himself, though an optimist, admits that the book is not likely to receive a warm reception in the Muslim world. Though he doesn't admit it, part of the problem with this reception might be a feeling that he is engaged in sophist apologism for the West, finding parts of Islamic teaching to justify a wholesale adaptation to modern, secular developments. For those Muslims who feel their identity under attack, and thus advocate a return to tradition, the particular tradition that An-Na'im cites might seem a bit too conveniently Western. And after all, arguing that the Prophet went against his own early teachings out of expediency might seem unfathomable for one who believes that everything the Prophet did was divine!
|
|
|
17 of 17 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Superb, groundbreaking scholarship, November 1, 2001
This is a wonderfully refreshing work on the possiblity of reforming Islamic law. Na'im's basis stems from Mahmud Taha's work on the evolutionary nature of the revealed Qur'an. The basic thesis is that the Meccan suras were abrogated through naksh in favor of the later Medinan verses due to political and social circumstances of early Islam. Na'im takes up Taha's argument, that God gave differing foundations for Shari'a, the earlier, tolerant, pluralistic Meccan one being the ideal for which all must strive for. Na'im argues that in order for Islamic peoples to align themselves according to their faith with univeral notions of human rights, a new Shari'a needs to be derived from the earlier Meccan suras. Na'im points out that Shari'a isn't divine in nature, as it is human interpretation of certain portions of the Qur'an. Very well researched and congruent with the universal principles that all faiths share. Also check out Taha's original work on the evolutionary revelation, translated by Na'im, called "The Second Message of Islam".
|
|
|
4 of 6 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
Intriguing, but Unrealisitic and Philosophically Weak, January 29, 2007
An Na'im's "Toward an Islamic Reformation" is a fascinating excursion into the evolutionary aspect of Islamic law. Without repeating previous comments, I will get to the core of his thesis and the problem with it. In essence, he states that since Islamic law evolved from a Makkan to a Madinan stage, it can "de-evolve" back to the Makkan stage. It was in Makkah where the Prophet gave his statements about tolerance and freedom of religion, while in Madinah those concepts were withdrawn. As Islamic jurisprudence argues that earlier revelations that are contradicted by later ones are abrogated, An Na'im is arguing for reverse abrogation, stating that the Madinan stage of Islam was necessary then, but is not needed now. This is the core of his argument.
Now the problems. First, An Na'im is asking for Islamic jurists to ignore 1,300 years of fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence) to engage in reverse abrogation. One must ignore a good portion of the writings of al-Tabari, Ibn Kathir, Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn Qayyim, al-Mawardi, not to mention large sections of hadith collections (al-Bukhari, Imam Muslim, al-Tirmidhi, Abu Dawud, etc). While not wishing to appear as a nay-sayer, this is simply an impossible task. He simply has no Qur'anic or hadith basis for saying that Islam can backtrack and abrogate much of the Madinan message.
This highlights the second problem he encounters is the amount of abrogation. For anyone who has even done a casual examination of the hadith and Qur'an regarding war and jihad, one can see that there would be large sections of both (more of the former) that would require abrogation. Large portions of the sayings and deeds of the Prophet and his Companions (the "Salafi") would have to be virtually ignored. Considering the fact that the Prophet on numerous occasions indicates that one must follow his sayings and deeds to live his Islam makes this extremely difficult.
But the third problem is possibly the most damning... and dangerous. Let us say it succeeds. Let us speculate that, yes indeed, Islam engages in reverse abrogation and the violent and warrior sections of the hadith and Qur'an are now ignored. What is to prevent an abrogation of the reverse abrogation in the future? What is to stop a group of Imams and other leaders from standing up later and calling for the re-imposition of the Madinan passages calling for war and jihad against those who refuse to give their Islam? Islamic law, rather than a higher law such as in the Judeo-Christian tradition, is really a series of juristic pronouncements, with the schools of law having difficulty finding agreement on anything. For example, the schools of law cannot even agree on how many phrases are in the adhan (call to prayer), let alone anything else. Thus, there is no core law that can prevent a return to the Madinan stage. This may buy us time, but will present no permanent solution. The world will see a temporary respite, and then a return to more violence, more killing, and more devastation, all in the name of the expansion of Islam.
In reality, we have seen such a reversal before. For the last 300 years, prior to the Islamic Resurgence Movement (starting about 50 years ago), Islam was relatively contained. With virtually no money they had little influence in the world as a whole. Thus we saw virtually no Islamic terror operations and the like. But now that Islamic organizations have money and wealth, the jihadists have surged forward on the offensive. Thus, we have been down this road before, and a philosophical attempt to reform Islam, while well-intentioned, is stillborn from the beginning.
I simply do not see how An Na'im's thesis, intriguing as it is, can prevent this in the future.
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
by Charles Kurzman
by Abdulaziz Sachedina
by Fazlur Rahman
See all 37 books citing this book
