How Do We Save The Muslims?

 Nadhlatul Ulama Indonesia (NU) argues jurisprudential reform prerequisite for developing genuine Islam

Here is an article by James Dorsey about Saudi Arabia. You can click on the link for the full article. I have truncated this:

Saudi columnists bolster calls for reform of Muslim religious law.

By James M. Dorsey

Taliban bans on women having unintended consequences.
bans sparked calls for reform of Muslim religious law in Saudi Arabia
Saudi wields moral authority in Muslim world because of Mecca and Medina.
Taliban's repression of women prompted the calls. (OSTB : Really?)
calls by prominent Saudi opinion makers for reform of religious law 

moves to bring Islamic law into 21st-century 
debate what constitutes 'moderate' Islam

 

recent Saudi reforms involved social change not jurisprudential reform
women's driving, women's professional rights, Western-style entertainment 
UAE one of Muslim world's most socially liberal countries

NADHLATUL ULAMA (NU) INDONESIA

debate on 'moderate' Islam preserve of NU
world’s largest, most moderate Muslim civil society from Indonesia
NU advocates reform of religious jurisprudence
to deprive militants abusing Islamic law to justify violence
NU argues jurisprudential reform prerequisite for developing moderate Islam
NU rejects enmity towards non-Muslims, discriminating infidels (fiqh)
in religious terms, Saudi playing catch-up with NU
2019, 20,000 NU scholars eliminated 'kafir' in Islamic law
NU called for replacing "caliphate" with nation-state
and anchoring UN charter in Islamic jurisprudence

My Comments:

1.  First of all may Allah swt forgive me for using the word Islam and Muslim so loosely here.  If you read this blog you will notice I use the word Islam and Muslim very sparingly and certainly very carefully. 

Islam and what are known as Islamic countries or Muslim countries may not always be in parrallel. 

Iran is considered an Islamic country yet Shiaism (the official version of their religion) is a crime here in our country. 

Oman has an "Ibadi" majority and its ruling clan is "Ibadi".  If I say that the Ibadis are a sect who are traceable to the Khawarij or Kharijites it will raise debate. (That is the nature of religion, everything is debateable). You can Google 'Ibadi' and find out for yourself where on the spectrum they sit. 

Then you have the Wahabis in Saudi Arabia and also in Qatar. Another 'strain' of religion that has its own peculiarities. 

Of course we all know the Taliban.

It is easier (and also more polite) to address people with the names they have given themselves : shia, ibadi, salafi, wahabi, sufi etc. It would also be more accurate. 

In relation to the human race, the larger question is relevance. This is where all of the above folks fail quite badly. I have said before that if an alien spaceship were to suddenly appear out of the sky and suck them (shia, ibadi, salafi, wahabi, sufi etc) all up would it make a difference to the rest of the world? Will the world miss them? Or will the world miss you?

Lets provide some "relevant in relation to". 
Meaning what is the relevance of say 'x' in relation to say 'y'.

Lets take dogs. Dogs will not find many "muslims" relevant to them because dogs are disliked or even hated. 

But dogs are very relevant in the lives of many other people. For example search and rescue dogs.

 

If you are the banking system that makes the entire world function so well you may not find "islamic banking" relevant to you because it does not function in the same way.

If you are a female and non-Muslim who can go about your daily tasks unhindered  you may not find the dress codes and other gender specific norms in places like Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan relevant to you.

If you are a restaurant or fast food franchise patronised by people of all nationalities and faiths all over the world you may still not be relevant to Muslims unless you are certified as permissible. 

If you believe in democracy, the voting process (which is now prevalent around the world - including China) you may not be relevant to those people who call for rule by the mullahs, who want to rule under their version of "god's law" etc.  

If you believe in freedom of speech to discuss anything you want freely and without fear of prosecution or persecution (which is now also quite prevalent around the world) then you will find those religious laws that restrict free speech not RELEVANT to you.  A case in point is "religious certification" or 'tauliah' just to speak about religion - a "criminal offense" punishable by religious law if you are not "certified".

So if the relevance of the human being hinges upon your relations with other human beings (and animals) around you then your relevance to other human beings can be determined by how much other human beings will miss or not miss your absence if a spaceship pops out of the sky and sucks you up.

Will your neighbours miss you? 

Will they miss your Toyota, your Lenovo, your masala tea?

Will your neighbours miss your "no freedom of speech allowed here"?

Or will your neighbours rejoice that you have been sucked up by an alien space ship? That the world is a better place without your presence? What a sad fate that will be. 

If the world will not not miss your absence then what about your acclaimed role as rahmatan-lil-alameen ? A 'mercy to the worlds'?

That is why cocoons and ghettos are still vogue. Safe zones and comfort zones where everyone looks like you, dresses like you, walks like you, thinks like you, talks like you, sounds like you and eats like you. 

Where all of you just want to be just like you. 

 

2.  What is the solution to the mess which the so many varieties of "muslims" have put themselves into? 

My view is that all the discussion above (reflected in James Dorsey's article) is just a waste of time. 

it is simply evidence of the muslims being more and more irrelevant in the world. You are of little or no use to your neighbours. You are of little or no relevance to your neighbours. You have become citizens of Coccoonistan. You live inside cocoons.

So what is my solution? It is too simple. It is called freedom of speech.

For example, I must say that as much as I do not agree with the Taliban or the Wahabis or whoever - I fully respect (and will guarantee) their right to belief and their right to speak. The Taliban must be given the full freedom to say what they want. The Wahabis must be guaranteed the right to believe in whatever it is they wish to believe. 

Having their right to speak is the basis of Islam in the Quran. 

 

Surah 39:18  "Those who listen (yastamee'u) to all speech (al-qawla), and follow the best thereof (ahsanahu): these are the ones whom Allah has guided, and these are the ones endued with understanding". 

You have to listen to all speech. Then you decide which is good and the best. And which speech is not good.

To be able to listen to all speech you must allow everyone to say what they want to say without throwing stones at them and without throwing them in jail. Even the Taliban and the Wahhabis.

And we must educate the Taliban and the Wahabis to accept the same thing - you too cannot throw stones at your fellow human beings or throw your fellow human beings in jail or kill them just because they say things that you do not agree with.

What does this mean in the Malaysian context? It means Malaysia must abolish the "blasphemy laws" that we have in this country. In Malaysia they are camouflaged as the "religious criminal enactments"  but they are exactly what they are ie "blasphemy laws". 

Insulting religion, insulting the Nabi, straying from the orthodoxy etc etc are just excuses to use state sanctioned force and state sanctioned violence against any religious views that you do not agree with.  

Because what exactly is 'insulting religion', 'insulting the Nabi', what exactly is orthodoxy is not precisely defined.  They are all debateable. And a 35 year old Civil Servant, earning his Civil Servants salary and pension, with his degree in shariah law, sitting as a judge in a shariah court is in no position to decide on issues which have been disputed among the muslims for over 1,400 years now.  

Islamic societies have been doomed since the day they began restricting the freedom to speak - especially about religion. Islamic societies have been doomed ever since they began criminalising personal religious practises (or the lack thereof) of the people. You interfere into the people's personal lives - your society becomes doomed.

As long as they do not abolish these restrictions they will remain doomed. And NOT RELEVANT.

A real picture : Muslims from Arab countries and Africa willing to jump into the sea to escape from 'Islamic countries' and seek refuge in western countries in Europe. Arab countries have so much oil and wealth. So what does Europe have?

The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of MMKtT.