‘Islams’ and Modernity

An understanding of diversity is being used to combat entrenched stereotypes of the Islamic and Muslim faiths which have permeated Western thought throughout the history of interaction between the two. A tendency to ‘other-ise’ Muslims obscures the plethora of differences – linguistic, ethnic, sectarian, socio-economic, national, historical, political and cultural – that stratify the Islamic world.

A cultural framework has structured the Western representation of Muslims, moulded by the position of dominance enjoyed by the West as colonial and imperial powers. This has inaccurately conflated a religion of 1.3 billion people into a single ‘culture’. The privileging of culture in defining Muslims stems from the historical representation of Muslims as a manifestation of the ‘other’, whereby the Orient was positioned as a contrasting image, idea, personality and experience to the West.

The historical predilection for viewing Muslims as a monolithic entity has changed slightly in recent years. Muslims are often now viewed through the prism of culture and religion, unadulterated by the influences of history, language and geography. Indeed, Bernard Lewis’s myth of ‘Muslim exceptionalism’ was propagated along these lines. It asserted that Muslims were outside the progress of history, and were unable to be analysed using standard social scientific theories because of unassimilable differences.

Following World War Two and de-colonisation, a new paradigm emerged. The response of Muslim societies was shaped not only by religion, but by a variety of other community-specific characteristics. For example, the practice of veiling has been increasing among Muslim women in Southeast Asia, as compared to the Middle East. It signifies a new historical consciousness which, in turn, espouses a new Islamic modernity.

However, a different response has occurred in Turkey, geographically at the opposite end of the Islamic world. The general elections in 1999 saw the election of the first veiled woman to the Turkish parliament. But she was prevented from taking her position and eventually pushed out of parliament because, according to Nilufer Gole, secularism had become “a fetish of modernity”.

The compatibility of Islam with modernity is illustrated by a number of key factors, including the decentralised structure of Islamic religious authority; the interpretive diversity of the Qur’an, Sunna and Hadith; and examples of contemporary Muslim-majority nations. However, a central issue animating this discussion has been the division over the term ‘modernity’. Criticisms about the usage of ‘modernity’ are twofold: firstly, that ‘modernity’ is a timeless, and therefore ephemeral, concept; and secondly, that the definition of ‘modernity’ is decidedly Eurocentric.

The potency of the first criticism is diminished when used in combination with the second. The second criticism is evidence that ‘modernity’ is not completely ephemeral but has tangible examples in the world, illustrating how individuals can intuitively understand its meaning. ‘Modernity’ is best thought of as existing on a continuum, rather than being a state of existence.

The second criticism is harder to dismiss. However, the foreignness of an idea should not be grounds for its dismissal. For example, what is wrong in principle with the concept of human rights, arguably a cornerstone of this Eurocentric modernity?

In addition, concern over the nature and extent of Muslim civil society has propelled discussion about the compatibility of Islam with modernity. Pluralism is seen to develop from a strong civil society and is arguably synonymous with modernity. Pluralism’s absence has been used to assert that Muslim societies are, according to Bryan Turner, “all state and no society”. The underdevelopment of civil society institutions represents a significant limitation on the development of Muslim societies, and reduces their complementarity with modernity.

In affirming the compatibility of Islam with modernity, one cannot ignore several unsavoury aspects of Islam endorsed by different schools of jurisprudence. Parts of Sharia, including laws concerning apostasy and corporal punishment, have elements that are incompatible with modernity. The theory underpinning Dar al-Islam (Abode of Peace) and Dar al-Harb (Abode of War), which delineates the world into duelling realms, can be confronting. Of course, it is reasonable to point out that the Old Testament has similarly confronting scenes. However, the difference is that large minorities of preachers and nation-states do not subscribe to these beliefs.

The desire of individuals to explore such matters is sometimes constrained by the unfair and distorted image of Islam in the West. Accordingly, the natural tendency is to balance out negative perceptions with unrealistically rosy depictions. Ultimately, it may prove more effective to recognise that the public has the patience and the intelligence to appreciate both the diversity and the divisions within Islam.