Muslim Orthodoxy vs. Religious, Political, and Social Innovation (Book Notes: In the Shadow of the Prophet)

For many in the West, Islamic societies appear backward in just about all possible measures: scientific, technological, political, social, etc. This isn't just prejudice and misunderstandings. Many Islamic societies are very backward, regressive, and reactionary - this is deliberate and a direct consequence of some common, authoritative teachings of Islam.

In In the Shadow of the Prophet: The Struggle for the Soul of Islam, Milton Viorst writes:

Today’s ulama have not strayed from the Islamic vision that their predecessors defined, in crafting the shari’a, a thousand years ago. They accept the centrality of the Quran, which, having been imparted directly by God, provides mankind with divine guidance. Complemented by the sunna, it makes up the shari’a, which contains all the wisdom that the society requires. Bennabi, the Algerian thinker, laments that the notion “Islam is a perfect religion” has been transformed over time to “We are Muslims; therefore, we are perfect.” Convinced of Islam’s perfection, the Islamic establishment rejects any legal revisions to accommodate either new learning or new needs, much less human reason.

This concept teaches Muslims that all bid’a, religious innovation, is human presumption. One Islamic thinker notes wryly that, when Islamic believers debate, they score highest with accusations of bid’a. The ban on bid’a renders all non-Islamic learning suspect. The ulama see literacy itself as tempting the masses from God’s truth. In much of the Arab world the ulama have been persuaded only very reluctantly to accept the teaching of science and mathematics. Muslim orthodoxy would prefer to confine learning to the holy scriptures, to avoid undermining the faith.

It is true that Judaism and Christianity, as revealed religions, share Islam’s aversion to theological change. But Islam extends the interdiction to society as a whole, a power the other two lost long ago. This power imposes a reticence toward initiating change that lies near the core of the culture’s economic and social underdevelopment.

The first thing to keep in mind, of course, is not every Muslim society is backward. Some may not be as advanced in medicine or science as most industrialized nations of the West, but their lagging behind must be attributed to things other than Islamic leaders actively promoting the virtue of never changing or learning anything new. Important examples of how Muslim societies can be democratic and/or work for social progress include Turkey and Indonesia.

The presence of strong counter-examples does not, however, do anything to change the fact that the dominant trend in Muslims societies is more regressive than progressive. That this trend is strongest in Arab nations than non-Arab Muslim nation suggests that part of the problem may lie in Arab culture than in Muslim doctrine — and it has been argued quite forcefully that Islam has been colonized by Arab culture, especially that of Saudi Arabia, and that Muslims need to break free of this.

It is implausible, however, that entire blame can be laid at the feet of Arab culture, Saudi Arabia, or anything outside of Islamic tradition. Even if it is not the sole source of problems, Viorst appears to be quite right in identifying the traditional resistance to and condemnation of innovation as a principle source of Muslims’ problems today. Without innovation and change, nothing can ever be improved.

This won’t appear to be a problem for those who think that because Islam is perfect, then Muslims are also perfect, but that’s a clearly a sham to all those who witness the vast differences of wealth and power between the West and the Middle East. Extremists can cite conspiracies as the reason for the differences, but they are fighting a rear-guard action in order to deflect attention from their own mistakes.

Islam hasn’t always taken a hard line against innovation and change, though. I think that there is a connection between Islam’s political fortunes and the willingness of Islamic leaders to accept changes. When they are on top, they can be magnanimous and allow for some innovations on the margins — given their relative power and status, they haven’t seen the changes as serious threats. When Islam’s political fortunes are low, however, every change is perceived as threatening — unity must be maintained against all enemies and this encourages stiffer resistance to innovations of all sort.

None of this is unique to Islam, obviously — what I describe above is common human psychology and politics. It does, however, create a vicious circle within Islam because the resistance of innovation or change only ensures that the political fortunes of Muslim societies won’t change readily — if at all. Reform is necessary if improvements are to be made, and contrary to what Islamists assert the reforms that are needed are not to impose an absolute, orthodox Islamic law on all of society. So long as the status of Muslims societies remains low, however, support for reform will be difficult to find.

 

Read More Book Notes from the Book Reviews on this site.