What Does It Mean to be a Muslim in a Secular Country?

Naqshbandi

``I think we will gradually develop our own European Islam with its roots in classical orthodoxy but removed from all of the cultural baggage and ties of our parents` homelands and distinctly European in style. ``

I agree, but I think European/North American Muslims will then be burdened by European cultural baggage instead of that of their parents`. I also think that while this transition is being taken place under our watch we must facilitate at this time to the emergence of a sort of Islam that is free of any cultural baggage at all - a sort of truly global Islam. Now that when world has shrunk into a village and means of communication have been facilitated immensely as compared to the times when this Empire of Faith was spreading in its initial stages. I think it is responsibility of us - the parents - at this stage to make that happen rather than burdening it solely on the shoulders of our offspring.

There is also the important aspect of free will and who has access to it. Algerian French Muslim girls and young women dont have much of a choice in between the forced dress code at school and the forced hijabing as policed by ``authentic`` Muslim male community in their housing projects. Several Muslim women scholars have pointed out that Algerian women in Algeria had more rights over what they wore in Algerian villages than they do in France...

Saminasha

Please shove your free will on enlightened French first, they are the one who have enforced a strict dresscode closing the doors of education and employment for Muslim women thus.

Interesting article.

I think people tend to overdo the whole, “decline of the Muslim world” argument. Much of this has started happening since 9/11. Before one can make such an argument, one has to first objectively, and not emotionally, figure out where the Muslim civilization fits into the hierarchy of civilizations, in the present-day world. Unfortunately, just like the religious brigade over does its explanations of the eventual rise of the Muslim Ummah, similarly the secular brigade over does its explanations of its eventual decline. Both groups present solutions, which are too theoretical to solve any practical problems: the former stating, “If we could only Islamasize ourselves, the later stating if we could only secularize ourselves.”

My personal opinion is that not much will change whether we Islamisize or secularize ourselves. Only minor changes will occur in either case, if they are not supported by other massive structural changes. As an example, the two most dysfunctional and destroyed countries in the Muslim world, at the moment, are Afghanistan and Iraq. The former was very Shariah-based. The later very secular.

But, back to the argument of where the current Muslims countries stand in respect to other civilizations. Some objective statistical criteria that can be used are the Human Development Index of the UN and migration patterns of the people in the world. People don’t migrate from one place to another for religious or secular reasons. They move for economic reasons. This is why maulvis leave a Shariah-based Sudan and end up in secular France. And why Hindus leave a secular India and end up in a Shariah-based Saudi Arabia.

Huntington, in his classic, “Clash of Civilizations,” divides the civilizations of the world into the following categories:

Sinic
Japanese
Hindu
Islamic
Orthodox
Western
Latin American
African
Buddhist

We need to evaluate where the Muslim civilization sits, currently on the HDI etc. with respect to the other civilizations on the above list, to first establish a baseline, before critiquing. And then figure out what the reasons are, and which direction we are moving, e.g. is the average Muslim better off than the average Hindu or Bhuddhist or African etc.?

I think the Islamic civilization is quite a bit better off than some of the civilizations on Huntington’s list. Yet people regularly predict doomsday scenarios for the Islamic civilization, including individuals who, themselves, line up to migrate to Muslim civilization nations. Huntington stated the following, “It is my hypothesis that the fundamental source of conflict in this new world [the post-Cold War era] will not be primarily ideological or primarily economic. The great divisions among humankind and the dominating source of conflict will be cultural.”

Is the conflict in France a cultural one, a religious one, or one between religion and secularism? And why is so much attention being paid to the future of the Islamic civilization, when certain others are far poorer and more backwards? Is it because the Islamic civilizaiton is in conflict with the USA, while a much poorer African civilization is not? Or is it because the other civilizations are going to pass the Islamic civilization, and it will find itself at the bottom of the barrel These are the questions that first need to be answered…………..before coming up with solutions.

More on this later.

For those interested the following book is worth reading:

``British Muslims between assimilation and segregation: Historical, legal and social realities`` Dilwar Hussain, Nadeem Malik and Mohammed Siddique Seddon ISBN 0860373541

Also for those in the UK there is a film being shown at 22:00 on Thu 13th Jan 2005 on Channel 4 titled ``Yasmin``. Based on a true story it portrays the life of a British Asian woman pre and post 9/11 and the changes this event has on her life.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Urstruly,

Well, its not that simplistic. Jane Kramer points out in a recent New Yorker piece on the issue of French Muslim schoolgirls is that alot of these fundamentalist patriarchical self proclaimed Islamic groups want to impose an interpretation that isnt even authentic to Algeria...and they are using the bodies of their female population to do it. The boys are targetted-but not as starkly by both state and community spheres.

Employment and education are crucial for the women of the Algerian French underclass. But do you think the ``vanguards`` of Islamic values in these projects are really concerned about these issues when they are harrassing and raping young women who dont comply with hijab? One must take into account these points of serious conflict and violence-and who is acted against more brutally. Men play their posturing and parading games-but the working class female population bears the brunt of this ``oppression`` in both spheres.

Saminashah

You could be right to a certain extent but wouldn`t it be better from feminist`s point of view to not close the doors of education and employment on a woman regardless of what she choses to wear. The education itself has an enlightening value, we all agree. May be that education will in turn bring in the necessary cultural change that you are hoping for. But your appraoch seems to be that a woman has to take her sharlwar off in order to qualify for education and getting herself employed.

re: #23 by Urstruly

Mr. Urs-not-so-truly:

``But your appraoch seems to be that a woman has to take her sharlwar off in order to qualify for education and getting herself employed. ``

Your twisted mind is trying to put words in Saminasha`s mouth. Scarf is not Shalwar. Or maybe in Pakistan :). Even scarf issue is limited to public schools. I think it doesn`t apply at private workplace.

Urs,

My approach is in the effort of protecting a woman or girl`s right to make decisions for herself without fear of physical, psychological, or political violence. Can you say that?

``My approach is in the effort of protecting a woman or girl`s right to make decisions for herself ``

Then you must condemn those who want to take her shalwar off as vhemently as you condemn those who want her to keep her shalwar on. That way your words wont sound hollow.

Urs,

As usual, your argument runs along broad crayon strokes. IF a girl child, teenager or woman WANTS to wear a hijab, it is HER decision.

If she DOES NOT want to wear a hijab, it is HER decision.

And if you read my comments carefully, you`ll notice that I do NOT support institutions that force a female to do something she does not want to do-within her civil rights.

Now, Netizen brings up a good point: can you distinguish between a scarf and a shalwar or is this another example of fundo humor?

Saminashah

I do not agree with your statement. As a girl child, teenager, or a minor as long as she is living under my roof, she will have to keep her shalwar on. That is because I am legally responsible for her welfare and I will act in best interest of her as I will deem fit. As she becomes legally adult and she becomes responsible for her own life only then she can make her own choices. If she finds a man who doesn`t care much whether her shalwar is on or off - good for her; and if she can`t find such a man then she will have to make compromises or shit happens all the time - unfortunately that is how life is.

Man is only that free.

Urst,

And of course, that is why you have no use for civil or secular rights. But the rest of us in the real world have to negotiate these things. And I am on the side of the female population, not their wardens.

saminasha

I don`t get it. Do you want state to take over female children from their parents? Are you impying that state can take care of children better than their parents? Your stance in #29 thus contradicts that in #27; either you are for it or against it, you have to make up your mind.

Urs,

Yes Ustruly Drama Queen Superstar, that is exactly what I want. I want girls to be either treated like mindless objects that needed to be covered up by their overbearing patriarchs or I want girls to be treated like mindless objects that need their hair liberated by the French state. Now, can you take your nuanced and complex argument to some other undeserving interactor who will entertain it, as I am busy? thanks!