Islamophobia In the West: How Muslims Should Respond ?

By Maulana Waris Mazhari            November, 19 2008              Muslim India

(Translated by Yoginder Sikand) 

Islamophobia is by no means a new phenomenon. Rather, it goes back to the earliest period of Islamic history. A massive storm of anti-Muslim hatred emerged and spread across large parts of the then Christian world with the expansion of Muslim political rule, from the early eighth century onwards. It was this that, in large measure, propelled the Crusades, which played a major role in propagating and perpetuating deeply-held negative stereotypes about Islam and Muslims in the West. A major role in this regard was played by the Church and Christian polemicists. They spread such erroneous propaganda about Islam which today many Christians themselves feel embarrassed about.

The legacy of this medieval Christian Islamophobic propaganda lives on even today. Thus, according to a recent survey conducted by an American Muslim organization, Council for American Islamic Relations, a fourth of Americans hold extremely negative views about Islam, and half of all Americans see Islam in a negative light. Only two per cent of Americans have a good knowledge of Islam. It can thus be said that despite the centuries of Muslim-Christian relations, most Westerners have no proper idea of what Islam actually is.

From the late eighteenth century, an increasing number of Western scholars and travellers began taking an interest in studying Islam and Muslim societies. This soon took the form of a veritable movement or a specialized discipline, known as Orientalism. From its inception, Orientalism was deeply influenced by the Christian missionary agenda as well as by Western imperialism, both of which it served. Although, in this way, Orientalism had a very stark negative dimension, it played a crucial role in seeking to bridge the divide between the West and the East. Orientalists produced a massive amount of literature on 'Oriental' societies, including on Muslim societies and Islam. According to Edward Said, in the period between 1800 and 1950 alone, Orientalist scholars penned some 60,000 books, mainly in different European languages, on West Asia.

Following the Second World War, Western and Muslim scholars began moving in the direction of seeking to understand each other in a more balanced and serious fashion. A major cause for this was the migration of a sizeable number of Muslim scholars to the West. Another reason was the emergence of serious initiatives to promote Muslim-Christian dialogue and harmony. However, the outbreak of the Islamic Revolution in Iran in 1979 led to the rapid upsurge of Islamophobic sentiments in the West. And, after that, it appears that carefully-organised attempts are being made on a menacing scale in the West to further fan these hatreds by seeking to project, through very poisonous propaganda, the image of Muslims as allegedly bloody monsters. The attacks of 9/11 gave a tremendous boost to this Islamophobic discourse, the ideological groundwork for which was done by self-styled Islamic 'experts' such as Samuel Huntington and Bernard Lewis.

The Present Context

The present context, following the events of 9/11, has proven to be horrific as far as Muslims are concerned. Islamophobia has now taken the place once occupied in the Western imagination by Anti-Semitism, and aggressive efforts are underway in the West directed against Islam and Muslims. Earlier, this was the handiwork mainly of certain extremist Christian evangelical groups, but now key political and social groups and forces in the West are also engaged in it. In fact, these groups and forces are, in a sense, even more virulent, and their propaganda and actions more hard-hitting, than that of fiercely anti-Muslim Christian organizations because, particularly in Europe, the latter do not enjoy overwhelming public support. It is clear that these forces are directly opposed to Islam as such, acting on the advice of the likes of Samuel Huntington, who argues that the underlying problem of relations between the West and Muslims is not 'Islamic fundamentalism', but, rather, Islam itself.

The anti-Islamic project and propaganda in the West can be attributed, then, to two basic forces: 'secular fundamentalists' and 'religious fundamentalists'. The former have a huge influence in Western governments, bureaucracies, multinational corporations, the media, universities, strategic think-tanks, charitable foundations and branches of the United Nations. These forces can, as I have suggested earlier, be regarded as a greater challenge and threat to Islam and Muslims than Western Christian and Jewish religious fundamentalists, because they have a much greater influence and say in their own societies as well as globally. They have a decisive role in moulding the opinions of governments and peoples. Unfortunately, Muslims focus all their attention and ire not on these forces but on Western religious fundamentalists instead.

Christian evangelicals and Christian Zionists in the West, Jewish Zionists in the West and Israel and Hindutva ideologues in India have worked to create a climate of Islamophobia throughout the world. There are now a vast number of fiercely anti-Islamic Christian preachers who receive the open support of American imperialists. They call themselves 'Doctors', 'Professors' and 'Reverends', and this gives them and their stridently anti-Islamic propaganda greater legitimacy among their flock.

Causes of Contemporary Islamophobia

Islamophobia can be traced to multiple causes. One of the most salient of these is the fact that Islam represents a particular ideology and way of life which is fundamentally opposed, in several crucial ways, to Western liberalism, consumerism and capitalism. Of course, and lamentably so, the Islamic ideology and system have nowhere been in existence in their full or proper form for centuries. Yet, the West regards these as a threat and challenge to the dominant Western world-view. To add to this, the West needs an enemy to seek to justify its global hegemony and its imperialist designs, particularly in poorer countries of the global South. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, it has conjured up Islam as its new opponent to serve this role. This has been facilitated by the obvious fact that today, with the decline of Communism, the only potent challenge that Western Imperialism and Capitalism face is from Islam.

Yet another factor fuelling the Islamophobic rage in the West is the alternative posed to the West by the Islamic moral code and its growing popularity and revival among Muslims in many countries. Unfortunately, the emotionally-driven methods that were sought to be used to enforce this code in Iran and Afghanistan by Islamic groups have further antagonized the West. To add to this is the issue of the strong relations between the West, particularly America, and Israel. In these countries, especially America, Jewish Zionist forces enjoy considerable economic and political clout, and Israel itself, which is at the forefront of global Islamophobia, serves as a major tool for American imperialism and for keeping the Arab world under American control

What the Muslim Response Should Be

In this context, the crucial question to ask ourselves is how Islamophobia, being so aggressively pursued and promoted by powerful forces in the West today, can be effectively responded to. Unfortunately, Muslim scholars and activists have not given this question much serious consideration, being guided mainly by feelings of revenge and reaction, mainly at the political level. They have not worked out any effective intellectual, instead of simply physical, response. Many of our intellectuals live in their own secluded ivory towers, doing nothing at all practical. To make matters worse, they are generally divided among themselves on narrow sectarian lines and seek to promote sectarian interests. Many of these people are actually working with, or being used by, Western anti-Muslim forces for their own ends.

Muslim scholars from South Asia have a particularly important role to play today in countering Islamophobia, because, unlike in several countries in the Arab world, there is much greater intellectual freedom in this region. South Asian Muslim scholars must devote adequate attention to studying and understanding the psyche, worldview and ideologies of various Islamophobic forces, their methods of working and the consequences of their activities and propaganda.

South Asian madrasas could have taken up this task more effectively than other Muslim institutions. Unfortunately, however, much of their syllabus is badly outdated and they have as yet developed neither the consciousness of the need to study the challenge of contemporary Islamophobia in a serious, scholarly fashion, nor the necessary intellectual tools needed for this purpose. For this to happen, madrasas must include such subjects in their curriculum as would enable their students to gain a proper understanding of modern social, political, economic and cultural conditions and challenges. This is indispensable for them to be able to provide effective and appropriate guidance to Muslims and to others as well in response to the phenomenon of mounting Islamophobia worldwide.
___________________________________________________________
Photo: In this photo the minaret of the Mahmud mosque is pictured close to a Christian church in Zurich, Switzerland. Photograph: Christian Hartmann/ Reuters.
(Source:'Islamophobia: Swiss far right seeks vote on minarets ban' by Ian Traynor, Europe editor, the guardian)
A graduate of the Dar ul-Ulum, Deoband, and the Nadwat ul-Ulema madrasa in Lucknow, Maulana Waris Mazhari is the editor of the New Delhi-based Urdu journal Tarjuman Dar ul-Ulum, the official organ of the Deoband Madrasa's Graduates' Association. He can be contacted on mazhariwaris@gmail.com

Muslims and the West

By Maulana Waris Mazhari    Muslim India

(Translated from Urdu by Yoginder Sikand)
The issue of strained relations between Muslims and the West is a long-standing one, and it has taken a new turn following the attacks of 9/11. In recent years, much has been written on the subject by both Muslim as well as Western scholars. Following the publication of Francis Fukuyama's The End of History and Samuel Huntington's The Clash of Civilisations in the late 1990s, a large number of Western scholars have concluded that reconciliation between Muslims and the West is impossible and that a clash between them is inevitable. Influential Western think-tanks have aggressively pursued this line of thinking, as have extremist religious and political forces, particularly Christian evangelicals and Zionist organisations, all across Europe and America. In this context, the crucial question arises as to how the situation can be changed, as indeed it must. Do Muslims have any proper strategy or programme in this regard? My answer is firmly in the negative.

Despite the massive anti-Western movements and sentiments that have characterised much of the Muslim world since the last one hundred and fifty years, the fact remains that Muslim intellectuals, particularly the ulema, have only a very superficial understanding and knowledge of the West. In actual fact, there has been no serious attempt on the part of Muslim scholars to properly study and evaluate Western thought, civilization and history. Today, our religious scholars' views about the West are about the same as the West had about Muslims and Islam several centuries ago in the wake of the Crusades. Many Muslim scholars have the same sort of stereotypical understandings of the West as the West had about Muslims at the time of the Crusades. Our religious scholars believe, and this is what they tell their followers, that the West simply stands for drunkenness, sexual license, immorality and all other sorts of wanton desires and pleasures. Because of this approach we have not been able to learn from the good things that the West has to offer, not even about aspects of the Muslim scientific heritage that the West had taken from us and had then built on. Instead, in many Muslim circles hatred of the West is considered to be the biggest sign of religiousness. This mentality was formed in the colonial period, and it should have been done away with the end of the European colonial empires. However, instead of that happening, it has been greatly reinforced and strengthened, and has now become so deep-rooted that Muslim reformers find it virtually impossible to combat.

Scores of institutions for the study of Islam and Muslim culture and history have been established in the West, and several Western universities have special departments concerned with these fields. They have produced a massive amount of literature. In contrast, there are probably not even two or three scholarly institutions in the Muslim world devoted to the study of the West using modern scholarly methods. Universities in Muslim countries should have set up departments of Western studies, and there should have been private- and government-funded institutions for the study of the West, but, unfortunately, these do not exist. We desperately need such institutions, to study Western history and culture in a critical yet dispassionate way, so that Muslims can understand what the limitations or drawbacks of contemporary Western civilisation are and also its virtues, which they could adopt.

Today, most Muslims have a double-standard approach to the West. On the one hand, many of them are vociferously opposed to the West and insist that Muslims should stay away from Western culture as far as possible. At the same time, many of them fervently desire to migrate to the West! I have been twice to America, where I met several Muslims who brand America as 'the Great Satan' but still continue to live there for the economic benefits and opportunities that America provides them. They show-off their American passports or, if they do not as yet have them, are impatiently awaiting the day when they would receive American citizenship. Why, one must ask, these double-standards? If these Muslims are so anti-America, why don't they leave that country and return to what they consider as dar ul-Islam, 'the abode of Islam', where many of them came from?

I believe that there are numerous aspects of Western culture and society that reflect the virtues that characterised the early history of Islam. In contrast, look at many Muslim countries, where groups that want to serve the cause of Islam are under severe restrictions. It is unfortunate that almost the whole focus of Muslim groups in the West is on seeking to get recognition for Muslim cultural identity, often to the point of excess. Take, for instance, the case of women's dress. Hijab or modest dress, is adequate, but some Muslims in the West make a big hue and cry demanding that the face-veil (naqab) be allowed, and some even go beyond that, unmindful of the fact that this might lead to further escalation of anti-Muslim sentiments in society. Some extremist self-styled Islamic groups in the West, such as the Hizb ut-Tahrir, even raise the simplistic slogan of establishing an Islamic Caliphate in the West, completely forgetting that the liberty to do all this is not available even in the so-called dar ul-Islam.

The real conflict between Muslims and the West today is in the realm of ideas. Militarily, Muslims were defeated by the West two centuries ago, and, far from seriously hoping to militarily overwhelming the West, Muslim countries are thoroughly dependent on them for military aid. To effectively defend themselves, Muslims must first intellectually understand the West, and for this we need a group of Occidentalists, counterparts of the West's Orientalists. But, unlike the classical Orientalists' approach to the Orient, these scholars should not be blindly critical of the West, but should, in an objective fashion, examine both the drawbacks and the virtues of the West. Most Orientalists, as Edward Said so brilliantly brought out in his magnum opus Orientalism, did not adopt such a balanced approach, and actually served as tools of Western imperialism, but the sort of Occidentalists that we require must seek to objectively evaluate the West.

Islamophobia in the West

Some time ago, I met a Muslim professor who teaches in an American university, and I asked him about the future of Muslims in America. He seemed very pessimistic about this, and even said that Western powers might one day ask their Muslim citizens to leave. Personally, I do not think that this would be an easy task. Muslim and Western countries are too inter-dependent for this to happen. This is why it is imperative for them to seriously work to counter the present climate of hatred and mistrust between Muslims and the West. Unfortunately, the simplistic approach and egotism of some Muslim groups in the West and the propaganda of some Christian and Jewish religious and semi-religious forces are giving a tremendous boost to Islamophobic sentiments across the West. The practice of the Prophet Muhammad was to seek to create normal or settled conditions and for this to accept the terms and conditions set by his opponents so that the climate of hatred and conflict could be done away with. This is also what Muslims must seek to do, without compromising on the necessities of their faith. Muslims must also desist from viewing the West and Western culture in stark, Manichaean terms. They must seek to learn from the good things that the West has to offer while abstaining from its draw-backs, for everything that is good, no matter what its source, is of value to the whole human community.
________________________________________________
Photo: Infront of the Danish Embassy, London, 4 Feb, 2006; Protestors and speaker separated from the Danish embassy by barriers and two way traffic along Sloane St. Photographers were only allowed access to a restricted area on the opposite pavement making taking pictures hardly worthwhile.

Maulana Waris Mazhari, a graduate of the Dar ul-Ulum Deoband, is the editor of the New Delhi-based Tarjuman Dar ul-Ulum, the official organ of the Old Boys' Association of the Deoband madrasa. He can be contacted on mazhariwaris@gmail.com

SIO President on Critique of Radical Islamism and Islamophobia

By Yoginder Sikand       New Delhi, 11/ 11/ 2008             Muslim India

Bishruddin Sharqi is the President of the Students' Islamic Organization (SIO) of India, the students' wing of the Jamaat-e-Islami Hind. The SIO is the single largest Islamic students' organization in India. In this interview with Yoginder Sikand, he talks about the issue of terrorism and the urgent need for improving inter-community relations in India.

Q: In the wake of a chain of deadly bomb blasts across India in recent months, the media is awash with stories of Muslim youths whom it accuses of being behind these attacks. How do you look at how the media has reported this issue?

A: It is clear that in many cases perfectly innocent Muslim youths have been picked up by the police and wrongly accused by them of being behind various blasts. I am not saying that not a single Muslim has been involved in any terrorist activities. It might be possible that, due to denied justice, a few Muslims might have engaged in some such acts. All terror attacks, no matter who their perpetrators may be, must be sternly condemned and those behind them must be punished according to the law. But my point is that in a vast number of cases, totally innocent Muslims have been wrongly accused of complicity. On the other hand, as is increasingly being shown, at least some of these blasts have been the handiwork of fiercely anti-Muslim Hindutva groups.

In a large number of cases of arrests of Muslims accused of being 'terrorists,' all we have are confessions given by the accused before the police, rather than statements given before magistrates, and this cannot be accepted as evidence in the courts because we know that very often such 'confessions' are forced after torture. But the media simply parrots the police version, without any proper investigation, to create the absolutely false spectre of Muslim youths being allegedly all set to detonate deadly bombs across the country. Things have become so bad that one can now even talk of 'media terrorism', with Islam and Muslims as the chosen target.

The SIO has also been a victim of this sort of vicious media propaganda, along with several other Muslim organizations that have nothing whatsoever to do with any sort of terrorism. To cite one instance, some months ago a leading TV channel claimed that an advertisement had appeared in an Urdu paper published from Malegaon appealing to Muslim youths to shift their allegiance from the banned SIMI to the SIO. Actually, that advertisement was a public appeal to register for a Quranic recitation programme. We've taken this TV channel to court and the noted lawyer and human rights activist N.D Pancholi is handling our case. This is just one instance of how very influential sections of the media are making a very concerted effort to manufacture the image of Indian Muslims as 'terrorists' and demonizing them without adducing any evidence.

Q: Why do you think this is happening?

A: Some sections of the media seem to be doing this knowingly and deliberately, and this has to do with a host of factors, including deep-rooted communal biases and prejudices. This probably also has to do with their desperate drive for profit, which they think they can hike by broadcasting sensational stories, even if these lack any veracity.

Q: How do you think this sort of what you call 'media terrorism' can be countered?

A: This is not an easy task, given the communal and economic interests that are involved. Perhaps we now need to think of evolving new and alternate media that are not driven by the lust for maximizing profit and that represent the interests, voices and concerns of the marginalized—not just Muslims alone but other such communities, such as Dalits and Adivasis, as well as peoples' struggles for justice and justice-based peace that are emerging across the country today. Obviously, in this regard, the Muslim media is far behind. The Urdu media is now almost wholly a Muslim concern, and so it cannot reach out to other people to counter the demonization of Islam and Muslims. The very limited English-language media owned by Muslims also has very few non-Muslims among its readers or listeners. Muslim leaders and organizations need to give much more attention than they hitherto have to the issue of developing and using the media to voice their views and to get them across to a broader, including non-Muslim, audience. Only then can the sort of 'media terrorism' that I referred to be countered. Fortunately, this is increasingly being realised by some Muslims today.

Q: The now-banned SIMI had adopted a very hardliner position, claiming that Muslims in India and elsewhere must struggle for the establishment of what it called a Caliphate (Khilafah). How do you view this approach?

A: Raising the slogan for Khilafah is not itself a crime. Any ideological movement will naturally raise slogans closely related to its creed. Ramarajya of Gandhiji and the Marxist dream of a classless society are examples of this. But how you will articulate them is the important question. Resorting to violence or preaching hatred of other communities for this purpose cannot be allowed, and Islam also forbids this.

As far as Islam is concerned, I think the approach always should be productive and positive. Theoretically itself, Islam admits pluralism. In a multi-religious and multi-ethnic society like India, groups working to create religious awareness have to recognize and respect the existing religious and cultural pluralism. But this concept of pluralism does means that you should abandon your cultural identity and ideological stance.

I think the major task before Muslim groups should be to seek to communicate the message of their faith to people of other faiths peacefully. Rather than enter into controversies with them, we should seek to work together with them on issues of common concern. This is what the Qur'an instructs us to do. You have to work along with other communities, gaining their cooperation and goodwill, rather than antagonizing them.

I feel that globally Islamic movements are realizing this. They are now understanding that the confrontational and violent path is futile and, indeed, counter-productive. They are now appreciating how crucial it is to work with and for people of other faiths, in the process reflecting, through their deeds, rather than just through their words or through their literature, the social message of Islam. So, now in Egypt, for instance, the leading Islamist movement Ikhwan ul-Muslimoon even has Coptic Christian Members of Parliament, and in Lebanon, Hizbullah works closely with some important Christian groups.

Q: Is that sort of thing happening with Islamic movements in India, too?

A: In India we have some twenty-five thousand non-Muslim associates and sympathisers who participate in and cooperate with our programs. In Kerala, where I belong, the SIO now has many non-Muslim sympathisers. The Solidarity Youth Movement, the vibrant youth wing of Jamaat in Kerala, has more than 500 non-Muslim members. In several colleges under the MG University, Kottayam, the Kerala University, Trivandrum, and the Calicut and Kannur universities, all in Kerala, the SIO has near about 20 Christian and Hindu members in students' union posts. We see ourselves not as a Muslim organization, but, rather, as an Islamic students' movement, and we regard Islam as being for the whole of humankind, not just for those who call themselves Muslim. This is why our work is not restricted to Muslims alone.

I think we need to broaden our focus further so that we can associate more effectively with non-Muslim students as well. In recent years our policy and programs concentrates more on taking up issues of concern to all students, not confining ourselves to just Muslims. In this regard, Kerala is well in advance of other states, where not just the SIO but several other important Muslim organizations have for quite a while now been devoting their attention to build relations and working together with people of other faiths for common social causes, particularly for peace and communal harmony.

Q: So, do you see Kerala as an exception?

A: I think Muslim organizations in other parts of India have much to learn from the Kerala example. Unlike in much of the rest of the country, the Kerala Muslims are an integral part of the 'mainstream'. They know the art of peaceful coexistence. They have been influenced not just by various Islamic reformist movements but also by the climate created by various reformist movements in other communities as well as by progressive social and political movements. In Kerala, unlike in much of the rest of India, Muslims play an active and important part in the decision-making process. What is most striking about Kerala, as I suggested, is its legacy of close relations and interaction between the different religious communities in the state, though, unfortunately, things are beginning to change there, too. The key question is of learning how to interact in a peaceful and friendly manner while still keeping one's identity intact.

I think one very effective and meaningful way of doing this is for people of different faiths to work together for common social causes—be it against immorality or against imperialism or struggling together for social justice. Let me cite a small but very meaningful example. Two years ago, the Kerala unit of the SIO organized a conference for medical college students in Trichur on the theme 'Not Medical Ethics but Life Ethics Itself'. Some 40% of the girls and boys who participated in the program were Christians and Hindus. All the boys, Muslims as well as others, stayed in the mosque, and while the Muslim boys prayed in the mosque we had arranged rooms for the Hindu and Christian boys to say their prayers also. This program was very successful, and for many of the participants it was their first experience of staying together with people of other faiths. If such experiments and efforts could be made at a larger level, they could have a significant impact in terms of promoting inter-community understanding and solidarity.

Q: So, what advice would you give Muslims to seek to counter the increasing demonization of the Muslims that is being encouraged by influential sections of the media?

A: My opinion is that rather than simply constantly repeating that they are not engaged in any sort of terrorism, Muslims must seek to give a social answer to this wrong allegation, and that is by engaging in constructive, peaceful and positive social work that benefits others as well. We need to develop and use positive energy rather than be forced to be constantly on the defensive.

For that, we need to have a positive agenda as an Ummah. The concept of "Ummah" stands for a society with a clear vision and strong and imaginative leadership that can lead according to this vision. In this way, by our actions, by making a positive contribution to society, we can show and make people feel what Islam, properly interpreted and really is. This would help counter the concerted efforts that are being made to portray Islam as allegedly synonymous with terrorism.

Ignorance of other communities is a major cause of communal prejudice, and so I am all for healthy and close interaction between Muslims and others. We need to communicate with each other, and religion is a grand discourse for such communication. Muslims need to come out of their ghetto complex. We must become more pro-active in promoting bridges between the different communities. We should abstain from emotionalism. Unfortunately, sometimes I feel that we react emotionally to issues when we should respond intellectually. Thus, for instance, as regards Tasleema Nasreen, I feel that the best way for us to respond is by answering her by writing, not by holding violent demonstrations. The same holds true for several other such challenges before us.

That's how the Prophet spread his message— by using his wisdom and intellect, not by charging up his companions emotionally. Take, for instance, the case of the Treaty of Hudaibiyah between the Prophet and his Meccan opponents of the Qureish clan. When the treaty was being signed, the Qureish insisted that the Prophet write his name simply as 'Muhammad, son of Abdullah', instead of 'Muhammad, Prophet of Allah'. The Prophet agreed to this demand. He also agreed that if any Muslim from Medina, where the Prophet had his base, came to Mecca, which was then controlled by his opponents, the Meccans need not return him to Medina, and at the same time also agreed that any Meccan Qureish in Medina would be returned to Mecca. Several of the Prophet's close companions were upset by the terms of the treaty, thinking that they was an insult to the Muslims. Yet, the Prophet agreed to these terms. The Quran described the treaty as a 'Great Victory', for the next year the Prophet entered Mecca along with his followers peacefully.

I think this single instance provides valuable lessons about how Muslims should respond to the challenges that they are faced with today.

Q: To come back to the issue of SIMI, what do you feel about the approach of radical Islamist groups, including SIMI, that condemn secularism and democracy outright as 'anti-Islamic'? In this connection, what do you feel about the views of Syed Abul Ala Maududi, the founder of the Jamaat-e-Islami, who had similar views?

A: The point is that Maududi Sahib, or any writer for that matter, needs to be studied and understood in his own social and temporal location and context. The sort of secularism that Maududi Sahib was confronted with when he fiercely opposed it was one that was vehemently opposed to religion, the sort that we can see in Turkey even now, but today there are other forms of secularism that are not so, that respect religion and religious freedom. Obviously, the way we view these forms of secularism must be different. The same is true for nationalism, which, in Maududi Sahib's time, was often equated with national chauvinism or even the deification of the nation. But today, in the age of so-called 'globalisation', the very notion and meaning of the nation-state have changed and are vastly different, so obviously the fiercely antagonistic posture adopted with regard to it by certain radical groups is not appropriate or realistic.

Most of these so-called Maududian views and comments were formed when India was still under the British. Maulana Maududi himself revisited and changed some of his own ideas after that. His advice to the Indian Jamaat after Partition was also to work peacefully and lawfully in a multi-religious and multi-ethnic society.

As I said, today, at the global level, Islamic movements are increasingly coming to realize that they need to revise the ways they have traditionally looked at issues such as secularism, democracy, religious pluralism and politics. The Jamaat-e-Islami of India is no exception to this trend. No movement, if it wants to stay alive, can remain obsessed with its founding individual and refuse to change. That's why, for instance, there are forms of neo-Marxism that have sought to move beyond Marx. Likewise, we need to re-define our approach. This the Jamaat-e Islami has itself been practically doing. So, while Maulana Maududi forbade voting for or participating in elections held under a secular Constitution, the Indian Jamaat shifted its position on this decade ago. It first allowed for its members to vote, and then for them to support certain parties. And now, in this age of neo-liberal economics, which is playing such havoc with the lives of the poor, we are taking an active role in working with non-Muslim human rights groups and popular movements. All of this naturally constitutes a major shift from the earlier approach of the Jamaat and Maududi himself.

Q: Has this global shift in the policies of various Islamic movements that you mentioned also impacted on the ways in which these movements conceive of what they call 'Islamic politics', particularly the notion of the 'Islamic state'?

A: Actually, the concept of Islamic State is highly misunderstood. It does not indicate a dictatorship where no other opinions and expressions will be allowed. The focal point of Maulana Maududi's views is the Qur'anic concept of Inil Hukmu illa lillah, that the real and ultimate source of power belongs to God, rather than to the state. When nation-states were the centres of power he talked about the state in connection with power. The need of the hour is to recognize the new non-state power centers of today and to realize Islamic ideas accordingly.

There is a growing feeling among various Islamic movements that what is of central importance now is to work at the social, economic and cultural planes, to provide services and solutions to people in these spheres, and that this sort of work might later help strengthen them politically. Because today no longer is the state as an institution that powerful, for power is increasingly shifting to other spheres—to the economy, the media, knowledge and so on. And so it is in these arenas that constructive work needs to be done.

In this regard I would like to cite the leading Tunisian 'Islamist' ideologue, Rashid Ghanouchi, who now argues that Islamic groups must desist from militant confrontation with the state, and, instead, must seek to cultivate or acquire social acceptance by providing concrete services to people. If people then accept them and themselves choose to be governed by an Islamic state then can such a state come into being.

So, in other words, I see that, increasingly, several Islamic movements are beginning to become more attuned to social realities and possibilities, and are also now increasingly realizing the importance of promoting inter-community solidarity, which I consider as a major issue today the world over.

========================================
Bishruddin Sharqi can be contacted on sendbishru@gmail.com