Islamophobia and the Next Holocaust

Here's a link to a nice piece by Ziauddin Sardar, which is the cover story in the latest issue of New Statesman:

The next holocaust
by Ziauddin Sardar
New Statesman - 5th December 2005

Here are some key excerpts from the article, which are followed by some of my own comments:

"Islamophobia is not a British disease: it is a common, if diverse, European phenomenon. It is the singular rock against which the tide of European liberalism crashes."

"But the overall factor in the fear and loathing of Turks, Richter says, is old-fashioned racism. 'I am afraid we have not learned from our history. My main fear is that what we did to Jews we may now do to Muslims. The next holocaust would be against Muslims.'"

"'It's economic injustice and inequalities that successive generations of Moroccan and Algerian Muslims have suffered in employment, housing and educational opportunities, as well as downright racism at the hands of French society,' he says. 'They have no means to survive. It is all about survival.'"

"Throughout our journey, we were surprised at how openly prejudiced people were against Muslims."

"Minorities are fine as menial workers, a subordinate class. It is when minorities seek to be upwardly mobile, to live the modern liberal dispensation in their own, distinctive way as self-assured, equal members of the national debate - and that was the desire of all the young Muslims I met - that the problems start and latent prejudice comes to the fore."

---

In spite of the valuable and disturbing (although unsurprising) observations of this article, I can't help but comment on Sardar's description of Ibn Rushd (a.k.a. Averroes), since what he says—as well as what he doesn't say—about him speaks volumes about his attempts to portray Islam as "progressive"—something which I consider to be inherently dishonest. Although to call Ibn Rushd a "philosopher" is certainly fair, calling him a "humanist" is rather questionable. This is because he certainly didn't adhere to the cosmological view that "man is the measure of all things", which is pretty much the hallmark of humanism and what is usually meant when this label is applied today. However, if by "humanist" Sardar simply meant that Ibn Rushd had rationalist tendencies and recognized the dignity and worth of all human beings to a degree not found in most other medieval thinkers (whether Jew, Chrisitian or Muslim), then I can accept that...although I think that there are plenty of other descriptions that would be more fitting.

However, what's even more telling about the last paragraph of the article is that Ziauddin Sardar fails to mention that Ibn Rushd was a respected jurist of the Maliki school who, in spite of some aberrations in the field of theology, endorsed a classical Islamic worldview with many of the trimmings, such as hijab for women, that liberal Muslims like Sardar seem to have such a problem with. Based on what Ziauddin Sardar has said in the past, I really doubt that that he's ready to embrace the fiqh of Ibn Rushd wholesale, thus Sardar’s endorsement comes across as somewhat half-hearted, if not outright devious and hypocritical. In case anyone is wondering what Ibn Rushd's scholarly views are, there's a two volume [(1)(2)] English translation of his well-known work of comparative fiqh entitled Bidāyat al-Mujtahid wa Nihāyat al-Muqtasid. Taking a detailed look at this detailed work of Islamic jurisprudence, which was produced very much within a traditional framework, should make one realize that if pushed, Sardar's endorsement of Ibn Rushd as a role model for modern Muslims would most likely become a pick-and-choose affair—as is usually the case whenever religious liberals are confronted with a religious text or traditional view. On these same grounds, I certainly object to the attempt to make Ibn Rushd seem like an erstwhile "progressive" by labeling him a "liberal", since this seems wholly inappropriate no matter how you slice it.

In the end, however, in spite of having trouble with some of the adjectives that Ziauddin Sardar chose to employ, I certainly endorse the spirit of what he was trying to get at. Indeed, not only was medieval Islam much more "tolerant" than medieval Christianity, I firmly believe that it is inherently more tolerant since its scripture and prophetic tradition clearly teach that other religions must be tolerated (although this, contrary to popular belief, doesn't amount to endorsing their current form as a viable alternative to Islam and way to salvation). Likewise, I think that our Ummah as a whole, including some of our 'ulama, needs to start focusing their attention on the "honourable and ethical", since it's the apparent lack of these two qualities, as well as mercy—the quality which is the hallmark of Islam, that has done so much to taint the image of Islam in the present age...wa Allahu 'alim.

Deen On...