![What is 'progressive Islam'? [Part 1]](/assets/images/logo/placeholder.jpg){kind=logo}
What is 'progressive Islam'? [Part 1]
Farish A NoorPublished: Sep 20, 2004 4:31 AM | Updated: Jan 29, 2008 10:21 AM
Last August, I was invited to Indonesia by my friends in the Islamic Research and Pluralism Centre in Jakarta to speak on the topic of progressive Islam and the future of the Islamisation movement in the Malay archipelago
From Palembang to Jakarta, from Cirebon to Jogja, from Solo to Moluccas, I went back and forth to speak (I was worn out at the end!) and the same question arose repeatedly: What is progressive Islam? And what is likely to happen to the progressive Islamisation movement in this region?
This article is a compilation of the speeches I delivered. I hope it will answer several questions and doubts which have arisen.
Last August, I was invited to Indonesia by my friends in the Islamic Research and Pluralism Centre in Jakarta to speak on the topic of progressive Islam and the future of the Islamisation movement in the Malay archipelago
From Palembang to Jakarta, from Cirebon to Jogja, from Solo to Moluccas, I went back and forth to speak (I was worn out at the end!) and the same question arose repeatedly: What is progressive Islam? And what is likely to happen to the progressive Islamisation movement in this region?
This article is a compilation of the speeches I delivered. I hope it will answer several questions and doubts which have arisen.
I. Finding the compass and direction for progressive Islam. Can progressive Islam thrive under the dominance of Washington DC and its 'anti-terror war'?
One Muslim two qiblat
We live in a complex and complicated era. Most surprisingly and amazingly, even though the qiblat (The direction Muslims face during prayers) is still towards Mecca, when it comes to political matters, Muslim governments turn to Washington DC to determine their 'political qiblat'!
This phenomenon of 'one Muslim two qiblat' is a new phenomenon which stemmed from material, economic, political and structural factors. (Remember, it was not the handiwork of Washington DC genie!)
Recently, we witnessed the Olympic Games in Athens, Greece, which was so joyous. But we did not expect that at this time, when the strength of political Islam is going through its sunset period, an Olympic games of a different sort, that is, a race between governments and leaders of Islamic nations to the door of the White House in Washington DC, to obtain recognition and status as 'moderate Islamic nations'!
In the comical race, the leaders of Muslim nations were observed to behave in a variety of ways. Some ran haphazardly, with their sarongs almost falling off and Japanese slippers lost along the way. Some were more refined, neatly attired and dapper, with Mont Blanc pens and cultured speech, but their goals were still the same: they went to seek aid, dragging along their empty donation boxes.
As of now, several Muslim governments have won the 'moderate Islam' trophies they so longed for: Afghanistan, Pakistan, Malaysia and Indonesia.
Most strangely, the government of Afghanistan, led by Hamid Karzai, the former lobbyist for American gas and oil companies, has managed to secure the 'moderate Islam' trophy. Has the situation in Afghanistan returned to normal? Are women in the country free to join the general workforce, can they go to schools and receive an education like women in other nations?
Or has Afghanistan been considered a 'model Islamic nation' because it had been won over by America and its cronies? Has Afghanistan been considered a 'model Islamic nation' because its leaders comply with the wishes and political agenda of America, and were passionate supporters of America in its anti-terror war in the region?
And has Afghanistan been considered a 'model Islamic nation' because of the strategic and military roles it can play in Central Asia, so vital to the long-term ambitions of America and Western countries?
Model nation
Most strangely too, Pakistan, under the leadership of Pervez Musharraf, the military leader who grabbed power via a coup d'etat, also won the 'model Islamic nation' label. Has the situation in Pakistan returned to normal too?
Have the hardline militant movements in Pakistan (like the Lashkar-e-Taiba, Sipah-e-Sahaba, Jaish-e-Muhammad and others) which had previously been sheltered, patronised and promoted by the Pakistani military elite (including the Pakistani intelligence service, ISI) been disbanded?
Has the Pakistani political system, which is based on a feudal culture, been reformed? Or has Pakistan now been considered a 'model Islamic nation' because her leader was so compliant with the wishes and political agenda of America, and so eagerly supported America in its anti-terror war in the region?
And has Pakistan, like her neighbour Afghanistan, been considered a 'model Islamic nation' because of the strategic and military roles it can play in Central Asia, so vital to the long-term ambitions of America and Western countries?
Strange too when Malaysia and Indonesia, two neighbouring nations with similar background and culture in the Malay archipelago, were both recognised as 'model Islamic nations' by the American elite and the Western media.
Supposedly, both nations were 'model Islamic nations' with cultures and unique social forms, distinct from the bearded and turbaned sects and groups in Afghanistan.
It should be stressed that Malaysia and Indonesia have had close relationships with America for a long time. In the case of Malaysia, America had focused its attention on the country since the 1940s, after the imperialist British government has been defeated during the Second World War.
Communist ideology
Following Japan's defeat and the return of the English to Malaya, the American intelligence also established a presence here and began its undercover activities which were centred in the Chinatown area of Kuala Lumpur.
All through the Cold War years of the 1960s and 70s, the American military and intelligence had considered Malaysia as a most important ally, to the extent that Malaysia was viewed as a final bastion against the rise and spread of communism in Central Asia.
(They were concerned about Indonesia at that time due to the rise of the Partai Kommunis Indonesia [Communist Party of Indonesia], which was said to have close links with Sukarno)
Indonesia also had an intimate relationship with America, especially with the military and intelligence service of the country. Following the Gestapu 1965 incident, it was America which propped up the Sukarno military regime after he had been defeated by the reformasi movement in 1998.
It can even be said that the main factor which obstructed the rise of democracy in Central Asia is none other than the role played by America itself. It had patronised, sheltered and supported the two strongest dictators in this region - Suharto in Indonesia and Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippines.
All through the Cold War period from the 1960s til the 1980s, Malaysia and Indonesia played critical roles in the international political chess game in which developing Third World nations were considered as puppets, with the American political elite, business and military bloc (irrespective of whether the Democrats or the Republicans were in power) as puppet-master.
Colonial-era laws
From the era of John F Kennedy to Jimmy Carter to Ronald Reagan, Central Asia was made use of as the arena for a political contest which wasted billions of dollars and millions of Asian lives.
At this time, the two nations - Malaysia and Indonesia - have been admitted into a new arena, the 'anti-terror war' arena dreamt up by George Bush Junior and his neo-conservative supporters. Aside from Singapore, Thailand and the Philippines, Malaysia and Indonesia have played important roles in the anti-terror war in the Asean region recently.
The leaders of the two nations have been recognised as 'moderate Islamic leaders' and the system of government of the two nations viewed as 'models' for the whole of the Islamic world.
But can we say that Malaysia is a 'model' which should be used as an example, when the truth is that the Malaysian political system is still based on politics coloured by sectarian and racial understandings and values, and laws, including colonial era laws like the Internal Security Act (ISA), have been used to ensure the integrality of the country?
And can Indonesia be considered a 'model nation' for other Muslim nations, when we can see very clearly the rise once again of the military faction?
Basic human rights cases like the killings in Aceh have yet to be settled properly, but old leaders from the Suharto era like former General A M Hendropriyono have already returned to the national political arena.
Indonesia has also tried to enact new anti-terror laws, which are similar to the ISA in Malaysia. Is that an example of the vaunted 'moderate Islamic values' which should be emulated?
New scenario
Can it be said that the anti-terror war represents a new political scenario? Or is it just an old game, with the same old rules and penalties, except that the characters and vocabulary have changed somewhat? To answer that question, we need to examine a little of the background of the international political scenario and identify the developments which are new.
Most clearly, with the end of the Cold War era, the hegemony and power of developed nations can only be maintained if there is a new enemy to play the role of an antagonist which can unite the developed nations and revive the dynamics of the unbalanced power relationship which is based on the logic of oppositional dialectics.
Prior to the fall of the Soviet regime in Russia, American analysts like Samuel Huntington had forecasted that Western nations should be ready to face opposition from developing nations, especially Muslim nations.
This hegemony of ideas can be most clearly seen when Western brains and intellectuals who are viewed as 'liberals' like Gore Vidal [America] and Gunter Grass [Germany] expound ideas which are similar. Vidal even said that the time has come for all the Aryan nations [including America, Europe and Russia] to unite against the threat from Asia.
And Grass has said that Islam is akin to Fascist ideology and Nazism, and should be considered as a dangerous ideology. It is most strange for the liberals to use terminology and discourses which are the same as that of hard-line right-wing factions!
Recently, Western intelligence and intellectuals (especially those in America) tried to find ways to further weaken the Islamisation movement and cripple its momentum. One example of that can be seen when the RAND Corporation of America, a research institution which has links with the well-known American military, business and intelligence bloc, issued a report about 'Civil Democratic Islam'.
Progressive Islam
The author of the report, analyst Cheryl Bernhard, stated openly that in order to guarantee the power and economy of America in the future, the American government should try to instigate conflicts between the 'conservative' and the 'traditionalist' Muslim groups.
She then encouraged the American elite to support and aid 'moderate Muslim' groups, in order that they do not become more radical and dangerous to America and its agenda.
According to Bernhard's views, American's vision and long-term goal is to come up with a 'moderate' Islamic entity which is weak and passive, which cannot criticise the American hegemony, while at the same time can also be used as the avenue for several matters deemed as important to the liberals, including basic human rights issue, gender and feminist issues, democracy, and others.
These are the issues which are considered as 'hot issues' by activists, intellectuals, leaders and ideologues of Islamic movements. What's more, those Muslim governments which won the race to the White House door, have now been awarded 'moderate Islamic state' trophies as proof of their interest in, and awareness of, these issues too!
That manipulation and strategy has made the situation difficult for activists and progressive Islamic leaders worldwide. We, who consider ourselves as progressive Muslims, do not want to be lumped together with others in the 'moderate Muslims' category which President Bush, the RAND Corporation, the CIA and the American intelligence-military-business bloc is comfortable with.
But at the same time, we also want to promote values and democratic ideas, basic human rights, gender awareness, anti-racism and others too. The global political atmosphere and climate has squeezed and pushed us into a narrow and isolated corner.
Can progressive Islam thrive with President Bush and his right-wing cronies calling the shots? Surely not. Then which is the direction we should head towards? Where are our compass and pointers, O progressive movement?
To me, the answer is: Towards a more radical direction. But before moving in that direction, we must first return to an accurate definition of 'radicalism'.
Part II: Towards radical Progressive Islamisation.
From Palembang to Jakarta, from Cirebon to Jogja, from Solo to Moluccas, I went back and forth to speak (I was worn out at the end!) and the same question arose repeatedly: What is progressive Islam? And what is likely to happen to the progressive Islamisation movement in this region?
This article is a compilation of the speeches I delivered. I hope it will answer several questions and doubts which have arisen.
I. Finding the compass and direction for progressive Islam. Can progressive Islam thrive under the dominance of Washington DC and its 'anti-terror war'?
One Muslim two qiblat
We live in a complex and complicated era. Most surprisingly and amazingly, even though the qiblat (The direction Muslims face during prayers) is still towards Mecca, when it comes to political matters, Muslim governments turn to Washington DC to determine their 'political qiblat'!
This phenomenon of 'one Muslim two qiblat' is a new phenomenon which stemmed from material, economic, political and structural factors. (Remember, it was not the handiwork of Washington DC genie!)
Recently, we witnessed the Olympic Games in Athens, Greece, which was so joyous. But we did not expect that at this time, when the strength of political Islam is going through its sunset period, an Olympic games of a different sort, that is, a race between governments and leaders of Islamic nations to the door of the White House in Washington DC, to obtain recognition and status as 'moderate Islamic nations'!
In the comical race, the leaders of Muslim nations were observed to behave in a variety of ways. Some ran haphazardly, with their sarongs almost falling off and Japanese slippers lost along the way. Some were more refined, neatly attired and dapper, with Mont Blanc pens and cultured speech, but their goals were still the same: they went to seek aid, dragging along their empty donation boxes.
As of now, several Muslim governments have won the 'moderate Islam' trophies they so longed for: Afghanistan, Pakistan, Malaysia and Indonesia.
Most strangely, the government of Afghanistan, led by Hamid Karzai, the former lobbyist for American gas and oil companies, has managed to secure the 'moderate Islam' trophy. Has the situation in Afghanistan returned to normal? Are women in the country free to join the general workforce, can they go to schools and receive an education like women in other nations?
Or has Afghanistan been considered a 'model Islamic nation' because it had been won over by America and its cronies? Has Afghanistan been considered a 'model Islamic nation' because its leaders comply with the wishes and political agenda of America, and were passionate supporters of America in its anti-terror war in the region?
And has Afghanistan been considered a 'model Islamic nation' because of the strategic and military roles it can play in Central Asia, so vital to the long-term ambitions of America and Western countries?
Model nation
Most strangely too, Pakistan, under the leadership of Pervez Musharraf, the military leader who grabbed power via a coup d'etat, also won the 'model Islamic nation' label. Has the situation in Pakistan returned to normal too?
Have the hardline militant movements in Pakistan (like the Lashkar-e-Taiba, Sipah-e-Sahaba, Jaish-e-Muhammad and others) which had previously been sheltered, patronised and promoted by the Pakistani military elite (including the Pakistani intelligence service, ISI) been disbanded?
Has the Pakistani political system, which is based on a feudal culture, been reformed? Or has Pakistan now been considered a 'model Islamic nation' because her leader was so compliant with the wishes and political agenda of America, and so eagerly supported America in its anti-terror war in the region?
And has Pakistan, like her neighbour Afghanistan, been considered a 'model Islamic nation' because of the strategic and military roles it can play in Central Asia, so vital to the long-term ambitions of America and Western countries?
Strange too when Malaysia and Indonesia, two neighbouring nations with similar background and culture in the Malay archipelago, were both recognised as 'model Islamic nations' by the American elite and the Western media.
Supposedly, both nations were 'model Islamic nations' with cultures and unique social forms, distinct from the bearded and turbaned sects and groups in Afghanistan.
It should be stressed that Malaysia and Indonesia have had close relationships with America for a long time. In the case of Malaysia, America had focused its attention on the country since the 1940s, after the imperialist British government has been defeated during the Second World War.
Communist ideology
Following Japan's defeat and the return of the English to Malaya, the American intelligence also established a presence here and began its undercover activities which were centred in the Chinatown area of Kuala Lumpur.
All through the Cold War years of the 1960s and 70s, the American military and intelligence had considered Malaysia as a most important ally, to the extent that Malaysia was viewed as a final bastion against the rise and spread of communism in Central Asia.
(They were concerned about Indonesia at that time due to the rise of the Partai Kommunis Indonesia [Communist Party of Indonesia], which was said to have close links with Sukarno)
Indonesia also had an intimate relationship with America, especially with the military and intelligence service of the country. Following the Gestapu 1965 incident, it was America which propped up the Sukarno military regime after he had been defeated by the reformasi movement in 1998.
It can even be said that the main factor which obstructed the rise of democracy in Central Asia is none other than the role played by America itself. It had patronised, sheltered and supported the two strongest dictators in this region - Suharto in Indonesia and Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippines.
All through the Cold War period from the 1960s til the 1980s, Malaysia and Indonesia played critical roles in the international political chess game in which developing Third World nations were considered as puppets, with the American political elite, business and military bloc (irrespective of whether the Democrats or the Republicans were in power) as puppet-master.
Colonial-era laws
From the era of John F Kennedy to Jimmy Carter to Ronald Reagan, Central Asia was made use of as the arena for a political contest which wasted billions of dollars and millions of Asian lives.
At this time, the two nations - Malaysia and Indonesia - have been admitted into a new arena, the 'anti-terror war' arena dreamt up by George Bush Junior and his neo-conservative supporters. Aside from Singapore, Thailand and the Philippines, Malaysia and Indonesia have played important roles in the anti-terror war in the Asean region recently.
The leaders of the two nations have been recognised as 'moderate Islamic leaders' and the system of government of the two nations viewed as 'models' for the whole of the Islamic world.
But can we say that Malaysia is a 'model' which should be used as an example, when the truth is that the Malaysian political system is still based on politics coloured by sectarian and racial understandings and values, and laws, including colonial era laws like the Internal Security Act (ISA), have been used to ensure the integrality of the country?
And can Indonesia be considered a 'model nation' for other Muslim nations, when we can see very clearly the rise once again of the military faction?
Basic human rights cases like the killings in Aceh have yet to be settled properly, but old leaders from the Suharto era like former General A M Hendropriyono have already returned to the national political arena.
Indonesia has also tried to enact new anti-terror laws, which are similar to the ISA in Malaysia. Is that an example of the vaunted 'moderate Islamic values' which should be emulated?
New scenario
Can it be said that the anti-terror war represents a new political scenario? Or is it just an old game, with the same old rules and penalties, except that the characters and vocabulary have changed somewhat? To answer that question, we need to examine a little of the background of the international political scenario and identify the developments which are new.
Most clearly, with the end of the Cold War era, the hegemony and power of developed nations can only be maintained if there is a new enemy to play the role of an antagonist which can unite the developed nations and revive the dynamics of the unbalanced power relationship which is based on the logic of oppositional dialectics.
Prior to the fall of the Soviet regime in Russia, American analysts like Samuel Huntington had forecasted that Western nations should be ready to face opposition from developing nations, especially Muslim nations.
This hegemony of ideas can be most clearly seen when Western brains and intellectuals who are viewed as 'liberals' like Gore Vidal [America] and Gunter Grass [Germany] expound ideas which are similar. Vidal even said that the time has come for all the Aryan nations [including America, Europe and Russia] to unite against the threat from Asia.
And Grass has said that Islam is akin to Fascist ideology and Nazism, and should be considered as a dangerous ideology. It is most strange for the liberals to use terminology and discourses which are the same as that of hard-line right-wing factions!
Recently, Western intelligence and intellectuals (especially those in America) tried to find ways to further weaken the Islamisation movement and cripple its momentum. One example of that can be seen when the RAND Corporation of America, a research institution which has links with the well-known American military, business and intelligence bloc, issued a report about 'Civil Democratic Islam'.
Progressive Islam
The author of the report, analyst Cheryl Bernhard, stated openly that in order to guarantee the power and economy of America in the future, the American government should try to instigate conflicts between the 'conservative' and the 'traditionalist' Muslim groups.
She then encouraged the American elite to support and aid 'moderate Muslim' groups, in order that they do not become more radical and dangerous to America and its agenda.
According to Bernhard's views, American's vision and long-term goal is to come up with a 'moderate' Islamic entity which is weak and passive, which cannot criticise the American hegemony, while at the same time can also be used as the avenue for several matters deemed as important to the liberals, including basic human rights issue, gender and feminist issues, democracy, and others.
These are the issues which are considered as 'hot issues' by activists, intellectuals, leaders and ideologues of Islamic movements. What's more, those Muslim governments which won the race to the White House door, have now been awarded 'moderate Islamic state' trophies as proof of their interest in, and awareness of, these issues too!
That manipulation and strategy has made the situation difficult for activists and progressive Islamic leaders worldwide. We, who consider ourselves as progressive Muslims, do not want to be lumped together with others in the 'moderate Muslims' category which President Bush, the RAND Corporation, the CIA and the American intelligence-military-business bloc is comfortable with.
But at the same time, we also want to promote values and democratic ideas, basic human rights, gender awareness, anti-racism and others too. The global political atmosphere and climate has squeezed and pushed us into a narrow and isolated corner.
Can progressive Islam thrive with President Bush and his right-wing cronies calling the shots? Surely not. Then which is the direction we should head towards? Where are our compass and pointers, O progressive movement?
To me, the answer is: Towards a more radical direction. But before moving in that direction, we must first return to an accurate definition of 'radicalism'.
Part II: Towards radical Progressive Islamisation.
View Comments0