pbs interview with chandra muzzaffar 2007

7/29/2019 PBS Interview with Chandra Muzzaffar 2007

1/15

How has the practice of Islam changed or the influence on Islam changed overthe last 20, 30 years in Malaysia?

As in a number of other post-colonial societies, Muslims in Malaysia have becomevery conscious of their Islamic identity. And they have sought and expressed that

identity in certain ways. In the case of Muslims in Malaysia, and to some extent,Indonesia, the urbanization process that had taken place over the last two or threedecades has been a very important factor.

If you look at Kuala Lumpur, say, 30 or 40 years ago, it was a largelynon-Muslim city. When Malays began to arrive in large numbers asthe result of urbanization and the new economic policy and so on,they needed to establish their identity in what was seen as a largelynon-Muslim environment.

And they chose those aspects of identity that best expressed theirdistinctive character, which is what happens very often when youwant to assert your identity. Now, this has meant that Muslims tend toemphasize -- some would even say overemphasize -- those elementswhich make them different from the others, distinguishes them fromtheir fellow citizens. This is not very healthy. But at the same time,Islamic resurgence of this sort has led to a search for a more authenticexpression of the self: What they are, who they are, what all this isleading to. These are questions that have to be addressed in anysociety, especially in a society that is confronted with the challenge of

modernization and globalization. You want to know what your placeis in the scheme of things....

Could you tell me what the key points are that have led to themisunderstanding of Islam in the West?

There are both historical and contemporary factors which wouldexplain this misconception of Islam within certain circles in the West.I suppose one should begin with the fact that Islam occupied parts of

Europe -- which had never happened to European civilization beforethat.

That was one of the factors. Then you had the Crusades, which was

A Malaysian

academic and social

activist who teaches at

the Center for

Civilizational

Dialogue at theUniversity of

Malaysia in Kuala

Lumpur, Muzaffar is a

critic of what he sees

as the damage and

oppression brought on

by indiscriminate

globalization in

countries of the third

world. Founder and

president ofAliron, a

multi-ethnic

Malaysian reform

movement dedicated

to justice, freedom,

and solidarity from

1977 to 1991, he is

now president of the

International

Movement for a Just

World, an NGO based

Page 1 of 15frontline: muslims: interviews: chandra muzaffar | PBS

20/04/2007http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/muslims/interviews/muzaffar.html


2/15

Christendom trying to, I suppose, impose its will upon the MiddleEast. And I use the term "Middle East" deliberately, because it wasnot just imposing its will upon the Muslim population; the Jews werealso victims of that process. And, some would argue, the OrthodoxChristians were also victims of that process. So it was basicallyWestern Christendom imposing its will with the Crusades, andbecause it stretched over centuries and it ended in defeat for theChristian princes. This, I think, had an impact on the psyche ofWestern civilization.

Then, of course, you had colonialism, which affected both sides andcreated a situation where the antagonism became even more serious.

Now, after the colonial period, I think of the major factor as being oil.The one commodity which is most important to industrial civilization,Western industrial civilization, happens to flow beneath the feet ofMuslims, in the Arab world in particular. And I think the desire tocontrol this source of power, as it were, on the part of the West hasheightened the antagonism between Islam and the West. Every timesomeone decides to nationalize oil, for instance, you find that thatperson is caricatured and ridiculed in Western media.

in Kuala Lumpur

which is concerned

with global politics

and social justice. In

October 1987,

Muzaffar was arrestedby the Malaysian

government under the

Internal Security Act

and released without

conditions in

December 1987. The

following year he was

nominated by Human

Rights Watch as a

monitor. This

interview took place

on Oct. 10, 2001.

It happened to people who were notnecessarily Islamic as such, like MohammadMossadegh in 1953 in Iran. And of courselater, the Iraqi Baathist leadership, which

was not Islamic as such. And it alsohappened in the case of the Iranianrevolution after 1979. So that I think isanother very important factor.

Now today, you have Muslim communitiesliving all over Europe. It's the Muslim that constitutes "the other" in Europe onEuropean soil today. Now there is also, I think, complicated relations between thetwo civilizations. So you have all these factors which have led to a certainmisconception of Islam and Muslims in the West. But let me also add very quicklythat I find that, in the last decade or two, there have been some very sincere and

serious attempts to overcome the prejudices and antagonisms of the past.

Do you think the Crusades actually affected the way Americans perceived theIslamic world? Can you take the American perception that far back?

This is an interesting question. To some extent, these historical events haveinfluenced the American perception, too, because America, in that sense, is part ofthe larger European Western civilization, and it carries that baggage, to some extent.

But I suspect that the more important factor has been the United States economicand geopolitical position in the world today. And this one should link with not justoil, but also I think the whole question of Israel. In the case of the United States of




3/15

America, more than in the case of Europe, I think Israel is a very important factor.The United States is perceived throughout the Muslim world as that superpower thatprotects Israel. And Israel is seen as the state that has usurped the rights of thePalestinians and the Arabs. The conflict of the last five decades, which has also got acertain history behind it, has made it very difficult for Muslims to accept the UnitedStates of America as a friend. So you can see how the whole question of Israel hasbedeviled relations between Islam and the West.

Talk about the impact of colonialization on the Muslim world.

As with other colonized people, Muslims were victims of the colonial process inalmost every sense. It's not just the loss of control over administration, politics, theeconomy. ... These are the more obvious aspects of colonialization.

What is not that obvious -- but is certainly far more insidious and perhaps in the long

run, much more fatal for the colonized -- was the colonization of the mind. This hashad a very profound effect upon people everywhere, and Muslims have reacted to it,partly because they are much more conscious than other colonized people of theirown history and of their own identity. This is why you'll find that, even in countrieslike India, where the majority of the population was Hindu, it was the Muslims whofirst asserted their will against colonial dominance in various parts of the BritishEmpire in India.

This is also true of colonized communities in other parts of the world. So I think thiswhole question of reasserting identity, discovering oneself, trying to define one'sspace -- it has become very, very important to Muslims everywhere. Partly becauseof historical process, which in the long run, is perhaps much more powerful than thecolonialism of the past, and that's globalization.

Can you tell me what the impact of globalization, the dominance of the Westhas had on the Muslim world? On Muslims?

There is the cultural dimension of globalization which Muslims are very consciousof. They feel that the sort of values and ideas, notions of living which are emanatingfrom the West and beginning to penetrate their societies, influencing their young in

particular, that these are harmful -- at least some of the more obvious aspects linkedto music and dance forms and films and so on. They see these things as injurious totheir own culture and identity. ...

They're also conscious of the fact that the global political system is dominated by theUnited States, to a great extent, and some of the other big powers. And somehowthere is perhaps wittingly, perhaps unwittingly, the exclusion of Islam from theglobal process. And they've also been reacting to that, I think.

How have Muslims reacted to the value crisis? What's been the reaction to it?

There have been I think two major trends. There is a dominant trend which is, to agreat extent, negative. Meaning that Muslims have become very conscious of the




4/15

fact of dominance and they have become exclusive. They have become inward-looking, in some respects. They have become very reactive and sometimes veryaggressive. While one can understand the historical circumstance that may havegiven birth to some of these trends and tendencies, I don't think there is anyustification for this from an Islamic point of view, or from the point of view of the

relations between civilizations.

Now there is a subordinate trend, which unfortunately remains very weak at thispoint in time. These are Muslims who say that, in the midst of globalization, youhave to reassert the essence of Islam. And that is its universalism, its inclusiveness,its accommodative attitude, its capacity to change and to adapt, while retaining theessence of faith. In other words, expressing faith as something that is trulyecumenical and universal. Now that is a trend which has its adherents in almostevery Muslim country, but it has remained on the margins.

Is there a tension between those two trends?

Undoubtedly, undoubtedly. One finds that in countries where this struggle has reallycome to the fore -- and the best example would be Iran -- the Muslim groups, whichtend to be inclusive and reactive, have very often fallen back upon their control withthe levers of power to assert their authority, which is what's happening in Iran.

But the masses in Iran seem to be on the side of the more reformist, progressiveuniversal approach to Islam, which I think is very revealing. What it shows is that, atthe level of ordinary Muslims, the sort of Islam which they want to be identifiedwith their self, with their society, their culture, their history, is an Islam that'sinclusive, that is universal.

This is why if you look -- not just at Iran where the reformists have so much supportamongst the masses -- if you look at other countries -- take Pakistan, for example, orBangladesh. Isn't it significant that in both these countries [with] huge Muslimpopulations, parties that define themselves as Islamic in a very narrow sense havenever had much support amongst the masses? And this is also true of Indonesia, theworld's most populous Muslim nation. Which are the parties that have supportamongst the people? These are parties which I associated with progress,development, reformist ideas.

But those [parties] that define themselves in very narrow Islamic terms don't getmuch support amongst the masses. So what this tells us is that the Islam of themasses is actually an Islam which is closer to the essence of faith as the reformistsand the progressives would see. But somehow that has not emerged as a powerfultrend, partly because of the control and the authority imposed by the narrow-mindedelements in Islam.

Can you describe for me in more detail the progressive, reformist vision of auniversal form of Islam?

If one tries to understand that vision in terms of very specific concerns, the moreuniversal approach to Islam would see as immutable, as perennial -- not lawspertaining to criminal punishment, nothing of that sort. What they would see as




5/15

immutable would be the laws of life and death and growth and decay; laws of thatsort which are universally acceptable. In other words, they will not be wedded to acertain interpretation of Islamic law. ... You prove your Islamic credentials bychopping off the hands or stoning the adulterer and adulterers and all the rest of it?Because that is not what defines Islam.

At the same time, the more universal approach would regard women as equal.Theywould regard the woman as calipha or viceregent and allow her to perform her role,both within the sphere of the home and the public sphere, without restricting her inany manner.

The more universal approach to Islam would regard minorities, for instance, asgroups that have the same rights as the majority community. They wouldn't make adistinction between the two. They wouldn't, for instance, say that certain offices arebarred to the minorities or that they can't participate in certain spheres of society.They wouldn't adopt that sort of approach.

The more universal approach to Islam would emphasize values -- universal perennialvalues which others can also identify with. And through that, they would establish abond with the other. And the other would cease to be "the other" within that moreuniversal perspective on Islam. The only identity that will count is one's humanidentity. That would be the real Islam. Because the whole purpose of Islamic seemsto me is to enhance one's humanity, to discover one's humanity.

To get to that point, there has to be a process of interpretation of sacred texts?

That's right.

Can you explain how that process has evolved, and how Muslims do that today?

In some respects, the clerics, the ulema in Islam, are stuck in a rut. What is importantis to look at the methodology behind interpretation, and use that methodology in avery creative manner. This is what is required. In other words, you go back tofundamental principles. See how they apply to the present. Look at the present in avery critical manner, and see how one has to perhaps bring about changes in one's

environment, so that some of these values and principles would flourish.

But that sort of creativity is not there amongst a lot of the clerics. What they havedone is to take laws from the past and say, "Look, let's apply them today withoutthinking about the contemporary situation." This, I think, is a product of a certaintrend in Muslim history. After the ninth century, one gets the impression that thisparticular approach to law, to rules, to regulations became stronger and stronger.And because of some of the convulsions that Islamic civilization went throughbefore colonialism -- I'm referring to the invasions from the Mongols, for instance,that destroyed some of the major centers of Islamic learning -- that trend becameeven more powerful within Islam.

They became very, very conservative, because they felt that they had to conservewhatever little they had, because huge centers of learning were destroyed. Baghdadwas destroyed in 1258. Other places like Bokhara, Samarkand, all those places were




6/15

destroyed as a result of these invasions. I think this is one of the reasons why theconservative approach to Islamic jurisprudence has become so strong. And this is theapproach adopted by the vast majority of clerics today all over the Muslim world.

So who is leading this [more progressive] form of interpretation?

I see it emerging from three sources. Number one, I see women playing a veryimportant role in the reinterpretation of Islam. Because if you look at some of thepositions taken by women theologians, you'll see that they are very concerned about,not just the role of women, but the larger challenges facing the Muslim world. Andthey want this process of reinterpretation to take place now.

It is significant that there are women theologians who are doing this, because what itmeans is that you have a whole gender community which would support this processof change. For changes to take place, you need that sort of force behind it. If you

look, for instance, at the way in which ideas on social welfare and social justiceemerged in the late 18th century, 19th century in Europe, you had a working classthat was behind these changes, which intellectuals nowadays are articulating. So Ithink something like that has to happen within the Muslim world. You need a wholegroup, a gender community, as it were, behind this movement for change.

Number two, I see it emerging within Muslim communities in the West. Why in theWest? Because in the West, you're challenged intellectually. You have to defineyour position. You have to try to understand some of your own precepts andprinciples. And that sort of intellectual challenge is very, very important. It'ssomething that is not happening in the Muslim majority societies where you havethis very sort of complacent attitude, where thought has stultified. You find thatcreativity is no longer there. It's all ossified. But in the West, it's different. They'rechallenged; they'll have to respond to it. So that's the second source.

And the third source would be elements within the middle class and amongst theprofessionals. You would find them all over the Muslim world. They have to rethinktheir positions, too. They just can't accept the theology that is handed down to themby the clerics. So these are the three very important sources which, to my mind, willbring about this new change.

But at the same time, there will be individuals from a clerical background who willalso play a role in this. If you look at what's happening in Iran and even if you lookat some of the other Sunni-majority Muslim countries, you find that there aretheologians who are very, very open-minded. And when they lend their weight andauthority behind these changes, it gives a tremendous boost to the movement forreform.

Is it possible at this point to predict how that tension, the struggle between [theprogressive and conservative] approaches to Islam will develop in the nearfuture?

In a sense, globalization and the changes that are being wrought in the largerenvironment would favor the progressives. ... As a result of globalization, societieseverywhere are becoming heterogeneous. In other words, "the other" is no longer




7/15

some theoretical construct out there. The other is a living reality. You have to relateto the other. That's bound to change your thought processes.

At the same time, you have the role of women, and that's again part of the wholeprocess of globalization. Women in Saudi, for instance, know what is happening totheir Muslim sisters in, say, Malaysia or Indonesia. As a result of that, they'll have tothink about their own situation. They are exposed to television. Internet is part oftheir lives. These are changes that one just can't stop. So I see globalization as aprocess which will aid the movement for change within the Muslim world.

Of course, it can also lead to very reactive stances. But in the long run, as hashappened in other societies at other points in time, the reactive approach would loseout to the more progressive, open, inclusive approach.

How will that progressive approach play itself out? Is that something that leads

to secularization and a comfortable relationship with the West? Or has it gotpotential to provide an alternative to the West and its values?

I do not see [it] leading to secularization, if by secularization, we mean a process bywhich the human being distances himself or herself from the revealed truth and fromthe sacred and the transcendent. If that's what one means by secularization, I don'tsee that happening. In fact, what I see happening is a process by which one becomesmore conscious of the transcendent, the sacred; but in such a way that you approachthe transcendent, the sacred in a rational, humane manner -- in a way in which thebest in the human being finds expression in this new set of relationships that mustemerge. ...

So the individual discovers his or her spiritual route. Not because someone has laidout certain rules and axioms for the individual but the individual discovering it onhis own, on their own, which is what's happening in certain parts of the West now.

So I see that as part of a larger historical process. In other words, what we may see atthe end of the day is a sort of intermarriage, if you like, between the spiritual essenceof our religious past and the humanistic essence of our secular present. And that maygive birth to a new civilization.

Has there been a history of positive relationships between Western civilizationand the Muslim world?

As in most other interactions between civilizations, there are always both positiveand negative dimensions. And if one looks at some of the positive aspects of thisrelationship, one could argue that the way in which centers of learning in the Westabsorbed knowledge from Islamic civilization in the earlier period through theIberian peninsula, in Sicily and even via the Crusades. The Crusades had a certaindimension to it which is not often emphasized. It was not just the wars. There wasalso the exchange of ideas by conquest and trade. You find that ideas pertaining toscience and technology and navigation, all those ideas crossed borders andboundaries. So that was positive.

You had a person who later became pope studying in one of the great centers of




8/15

learning in the Muslim world. And he adopted a very open approach towards Islam.There wasn't the antagonism that his predecessors had shown. So that sort ofinteraction had existed in the past. And one could argue that, at the level of themystics, there was a great deal of exchange -- even if some of it took place withoutthe mystics themselves being conscious of this. These were idea that traveled acrosstime and across boundaries.

Now if one looks at the modern period, I would say that as far as politics andgovernment go, Muslims have absorbed a great deal from the West, especially inrelation to democracy, human rights, democratic forms of governance. There's beenas great deal of absorption on the part of Muslims from the West. And I don't thinkthere's any Muslim society today, including those which have remained closed andcloistered, ... that can ignore the force of democracy. It's been one of the greatestpolitical forces of the 20th and 21st century.

It seems the West has forgotten about much of what Islamic civilization hasbrought to it. What do you think the main thing that has been forgotten that itshould try and remember and learn about its debt to Islamic civilization?

I suppose the debt that the West owes to Islam in the realm of science would besomething which the present generation should be made aware of, because science isso central to life in Western society. And if people are aware of the roots of science,and the evolution of science, the scientific method, for instance, which is so centralto scientific inquiry, if people become aware of this, then I think the attitude towardsIslam would also change.

And I suppose they should also be aware that there are ideas pertaining to inter-gender relations which would put Islam in a very positive light, because one doesn'tsee that today. One sees Islam partly because of the media, but partly because of thebehavior of certain Muslim groups as a religion that is somewhat contemptuous ofthe role of the woman. But if one is told, for instance, that chivalry as an ideaactually grew out of Islamic civilization, that it was absorbed by the West, that thereare all sorts of rights which are given to [to women], and these were rights that[Muslim] women enjoyed a 1,400 years ago. Now, if that sort of knowledge, thatsort of information is disseminated in the Western world, then I think Westernperceptions of Islam would change.

You talked about the colonization of the mind. Explain more about what thatprocess was.

The essence of the colonization of the mind is how it influences the way in which wesee ourselves, how we see the other, and the world as a whole. The way in which wesee ourselves, for instance, in the larger hierarchy of things. The Muslim, like theHindu, or the Christian, or the Buddhist who had been colonized sees himself asinferior to the West.

I think that perception is something that's very, very serious, because what it meansis that your history, your heritage, your patrimony, as it were, doesn't have the sortof status that it should enjoy. You begin to judge everything that you have in termsof the West. So that becomes the yardstick. It becomes the ultimate criterion for




9/15

determining whether something is good or bad.

You look at something very, very simple and yet profound, like notions of beauty.Why is that if you go to Shanghai, for instance, the mannequins now look veryCaucasian? They don't look Chinese at all. So there's a certain notion of beautywhich has come to be associated with the West. And others who will not be able toembody that notion of beauty, because physically, they are different. But somehowthey see that as the ultimate, as far as beauty is concerned. So there's somethingwrong. ...

And it goes [further], for instance, if you look at the way in which the colonizationof the mind expresses itself in things like the economy. We have come to accept themarket and the way the market functions as a sort of God-given truth, if you like.You know that this is the only way in which it can function. And yet we forget thatthis is something very recent in human history. Markets have existed for a very, verylong while, but markets operated in a different way. But today, you have a certainnotion of the market that has become all-pervasive.

One can say that of almost everything else. And I think this is what the colonizationof the mind is. If you look at textbooks used in many parts of the post-colonialworld, you'll find that the way in which they look at world history is conditioned bythis. The way in which they look at the history of their own societies somehow isdefined and determined by the colonial experience.

When I was in school, for instance -- and most of my primary and secondary schoolwas after [Malaysian] independence, after 1957 -- the history books told mygeneration that Francis Light had discovered Penang, Stanford Raffles haddiscovered Singapore. I mean, that is a lie. Because Penang and Singapore hadexisted before Francis Light and Stanford Raffles came to these places. They hadflourishing communities. They traded. They did all these things. They were part oflarger empires. And yet somehow, the history books will tell you that theydiscovered these places. That is the myth of discovery, which is very, verydangerous, because what it means is that you did not have a history before that. Youdidn't exist. This is what it means. And if you look at this myth of history, myth ofdiscovery, as it were, that is a very, very dangerous idea.

So I used to tell my students when I was teaching that it's not Francis Light thatdiscovered Penang; it's the people of Penang who discovered Francis Light standingon their shore one day. You know, this is what really happened.

So I think it's this process of rewriting history that has to take place. But at the sametime, one should be very careful about this. One should not go to the other extremeand deny everything that had happened, and try to glorify a past which should not beglorified. There are all sorts of warts and pimples on our own face, and we shouldacknowledge that. I find that sometimes Muslims, when they talk of their past andthe glories of the past, tend to ignore the dark side of history. That, I think, is wrong.

They must also acknowledge this openly that if you look at, say, the first fourcaliphs, three of them were assassinated. That is historical fact that you can't runaway from. There were factions, that there were feuds. You did not have stability forlong periods. You had corrupt caliphs. All these things are part of our history, and

we must be willing to acknowledge that.

And I think this is true of people everywhere. We must be willing to come to terms




10/15

with our past.

Some Muslims are reactive. Can you explain that process and how that--

What I just said is part of that process. When they look at history, for instance, thosewho are reactive tend to glorify the past without taking into account what had reallyhappened. They feel very uncomfortable when you tell them, for instance, that thereare other aspects of history that you must also be willing to acknowledge. Thereactive approach to Islam also, it seems to me, will regard certain principles andvalues as fixed in time.

It is a very static notion of the religion: that this is what it was, this was the ideal, wehave to go back to the ideal. They don't see going back to certain principles as anattempt to apply those principles to the present, [that] the important thing is todistinguish what is perennial from what is ephemeral.

There is another dimension to this reactive approach to Islam, to religion. There is atendency to reject the West in total, to a point where they will not acknowledge that,like all civilizations, it has its strengths and weaknesses. This is part of that reactivepsychology.

There are elements in Western civilization which parallel certain characteristics ofIslamic civilization. There are stupendous achievements as far as Westerncivilization is concerned, and some of those achievements have benefited theMuslim world. And that there has been a healthy interaction between the twocivilizations at different periods in history.

They would not be prepared to acknowledge all this. This, I think, is part of theproblem of that reactive approach -- a sort of very blind attitude towards one's ownhistory, and at the same time, a very myopic view of the world which does notacknowledge the strengths of other civilizations. ...

Some Muslims seem to turn to violence and to terrorism. Explain to me how thethinking that has led some people in that direction, how they've managed toustify it with a faith that seems to be predominantly about peace and justice.

This is something which is the product of a variety of factors. Sometimes it's justsheer desperation and frustration emerging from a situation which is totally out oftheir control. If, for instance, Palestinians resort to violence, it's largely because ofthe situation that they're in. And I would distinguish that sort of violence one hasseen in other parts of the world, while not justifying violence as a mode of politicalaction, which is my own ideological position.

I don't think violence is justified under any circumstances. Whether it's violence ofthe victim or the violence of the oppressor, I don't think there is any justification atall for violence. But the sort of violence which has come to be associated with

certain groups in the Muslim world which I personally abhor would be like theviolence of the Abu Sayyef in the southern part of the Philippines. They loot, theykidnap, they blackmail people, they target innocent civilians and all the rest of it. Isee this as a tendency that exists in all cultures and civilizations.




11/15

There are groups like that in Japan, in Italy, in Germany. It's not confined to theMuslim world in any way. The reason why they do this and try to justify this in thename of Islam is because they need an ideological basis. And what better ideologicalustification than something which is linked to religion? Because that carries with it

a very powerful emotional thrust. And they need that emotional thrust to justify whatthey're doing.

It's also a way, I suppose, of squaring with their own conscience. They do all thesekillings because they see it as something which is justified in the name of religion. Itbrings merit to them from a religious point of view. ...

How do you think Afghanistan and the Taliban fit into this tension betweenprogressive and literalistic interpretations of Islam?

I don't know whether the long drawn-[out] war in Afghanistan has had a certain

impact upon the psychology of the community as a collectivity. After the Sovietinvasion and the defeat of the occupying forces, one would have thought that theywould have rebuilt their society. But that did not happen, because the variousfactions began to fight with one another. As someone once said, the Afghans aresuch good fighters that they just can't stop fighting. And this is what has beenhappening.

And now you have a situation where the Taliban has emerged from the refugeecamps of Pakistan, actually, and consolidated their position. And I suppose for awar-weary people, the Taliban, with their very strict interpretation of Islamic lawand the capacity to enforce the authority, they have managed to win quite a fewadherents within the country. But I don't see that sort of approach to Islam gainingthe support of Muslims in other parts of the world.

You'll find that whenever the Taliban has done something which is outrageous, otherMuslims have spoken out against them. On the question of women, women beingdenied the right to work outside their home, a lot of Muslims came out against it.

When they destroyed those statues, not only Muslim movements, but Muslimgovernments came out openly against the Taliban. So the Taliban, in a sense, wouldbe an aberration, as far as the Muslim world goes. And I hope that's the way theWest will look at the Taliban -- as an aberration. Such aberrations have existed inother cultures and traditions at other points in history. So it's basically an aberration.I mean, I would like to regard the Inquisition as an aberration as far as Christianhistory is concerned. And I think the Taliban would be an aberration as far ascontemporary Muslim civilization is concerned. ...

[Regarding] worldviews and a Western worldview versus an Islamic worldview,what do you see as the differences between those two different ways of seeingthe world?

One should qualify the use of these two terms, "Islamic worldview" and "Westernworldview" by saying that these are generalizations. Reality is much more complex.

But having said that, at this point in time, one can argue that faith is perhaps the




12/15

principal distinguishing element between these two civilizations -- that Islam is verymuch a faith-based civilization. Everything, at least in the theoretical sense, centersaround faith, that you believe in God and as a result of that, you hold on to certainpractices and rituals. And you believe that politics should be conducted in a certainway, the economy should be run along certain lines and so on. All that emanatesfrom faith and the oneness of God and God's revelation over time and the place ofthe prophet Muhammad -- may peace be upon him. That's part of one's beliefsystem, rooted in faith.

Western civilization, contemporary Western civilization as a product of theenlightenment, is a civilization that centers much more around reason. It's anenlightenment of the head, not of the heart. If you look at the way in which theBuddhists, for instance, talk of enlightenment, it is from the heart. But in the West,it's basically, the head. It's a rational attitude, it's empirical, it's secular in the sensethat it's not linked to the revealed truth or to a scripture. It's different in that sense.

But if you begin to look at these two civilizations at another level, you'll find thatthere are a lot of similarities. Today, for instance, in the West there's tremendousconcern about the environment. That is a value, a virtue that exists in othercivilizations, from the Taoists and the American Indians, and to Islam. This is a veryimportant principle -- living in harmony with the environment.

And these are the meeting points that one should emphasize in a world wherecivilizational dialogue is, to my mind, the prerequisite for peaceful co-existence? Wereally have no choice. We have to learn from one another. We have to dialogue withone another. I've been very involved in this. I see this as my mission, to promotedialogue between civilizations and cultures.

You mentioned the environment as one example of what the West can learnfrom Islam. What other things do you think the West should and can learnfrom the Islamic world?

The nexus between faith and action, the way in which faith interpreted in a veryuniversal inclusive manner, the way in which faith can inform deeds in differentspheres of human existence. In politics, for instance, it would mean a more ethicalapproach to power. In the economy, it would mean a more ethical approach toprofits and to markets and so on. And the same thing with culture; a greateremphasis upon character, rather than what is sensate and immediate. And so on andso forth.

So I think that's where faith comes in, this link between faith and action that's veryimportant. As I said a while ago, it's faith interpreted in a very broad manner; itdoesn't mean that one has to attach oneself to a particular notion of God. It's a notionof transcendence and a certain sense of awe, the mystery of life. I think this has to berestored in our lives.

I find that this is something that really separates very ordinary Muslims and peopleof other faiths -- Buddhists, Hindus, Christians and in Asia and Latin America --from ordinary people in the West; this idea that life is a mystery, that there issomething transcendent beyond all this. This, I think, is very important....




13/15

You hear a lot about the desire for an Islamic state in Malaysia, et cetera. Canyou tell me where that desire for an Islamic state comes from, and what thelimitations are in its application?

At the root of it, it's the desire to live as a Muslim. This is what it is. So you want tocreate an environment, because the state is a vital ingredient in shaping theenvironment in which you live. You want to live in an environment where you canbe a Muslim in that sense.

But the notion of a state defined in certain terms, that you must have the Shariainterpreted in a certain way, you must have criminal laws or hudud laws applied in acertain manner, you must define the position of the woman in a certain way,minorities in a certain way -- this is something very recent. It's not part of earlyMuslim history.

Even if you look at the charter of Medina associated with the prophet, that charterdoesn't make the distinctions which Muslims make today when they talk of anIslamic state. [That is] a state which has embedded within its structures this notionof "us and them." It's very, very, strong. There is, in other words, no notion of acommon citizenship, as far as an Islamic state is concerned. And you find that veryoften it makes women second-class citizens and all the rest of it.

I am not an advocate of an Islamic state. At this point in time, I think Muslimsshould be talking about values. And given the way in which the world is a globalizedworld, one should be talking about values that one can share with other humanbeings....

[Some people] think that the idea of human rights is [somewhat] different in theWest and the Islamic world. Can you just clarify to me how that is seen?

Many of the rights which are enshrined in the Universal Declaration of HumanRights of 1948 are rights which Muslim political thought would be able to acceptand accommodate without any difficulty at all, whether it's freedom of expression orthe right to a fair trial, the right to food, shelter, the right to found a family. Thosethings are all there.

The difference is at another level. It is at the level of the underlying philosophicalpremises, because if you look at the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it is adocument which is postulated on the notion of the individual. Now, in the case ofIslam, as in some other civilizations, there is also a communitarian dimension that isvery important. So it's not just the rights of individuals; there is also a certain notionof the community that is very crucial. And you must bring that communitydimension into your articulation of rights.

To give an example of this, which it would be very pertinent to our discussion, youtake the Salman Rushdie phenomenon, the Salman Rushdie episode. He had acertain right as an individual, and he expressed that right. But in the course ofexpressing that right, Salman Rushdie hurt the collective feelings of a people. Andone would argue that one should have taken that into account, too, while saying,"Look, a person has a right to articulate his position, this freedom of expression.[But] there is also a collective notion of honor that a community has. Thecommunity felt that it had been demeaned, that had it had been denigrated.




14/15

So that sort of notion is something that one shouldn't ignore, either. So this issomething which Islamic philosophy is concerned about, where when you talk ofrights, you must also think of the communitarian dimension. ...

With the Rushdie affair, was this fatwa, this death threat, a suitable response?

A number of us wrote articles at that time criticizing Ayatollah Khomeini for issuingthat edict. We argued that it was wrong, because a Muslim has a right to leave hisfaith and to take whatever position that he wants. And one cannot compromise as faras that right is concerned. You can criticize him for what he wrote, which issomething else. But the right response to that is to write another book and attack theman. But you don't put him to death. That was wrong. I think most Muslimintellectuals were appalled at Khomeini's fatwa.

You mentioned the reform movement, progressive thinking about Islam. Butwhere do you see that most manifesting in Malaysia?

One, it is reflected in the way in which we have developed a notion of power-sharingbetween Muslims and non-Muslims that does not institutionalize the "us and them"dichotomy as would happen in, say, certain Islamic states. That, I think, is anexample of progressive thinking -- that you share political power because you're acitizen, you're a human being, you participate in the political process. That is anexample of progressive thinking.

Equally important, the rights accorded to women. We have Muslim women in thiscountry holding very high positions. The governor of the central bank is a woman.You have a few ministries whose heads -- these would be the bureaucrats -- whoseheads are women. You have three women ministers in the cabinet. And womendominate our public universities. The majority of students are women.

So women have been playing a very important role in this country. I would regardthat as a manifestation of progressive Islam. And, of course, the attitude toward theother, the houses of worship of the Buddhists and the Christians, the Hindus and soon. Their festivals are part of the national calendar. Every one of those festivals is anational holiday in this country with a Muslim majority. That is something which is

really beautiful. ...

What role do you think Muslims in the United States can have in shaping theexpression of Islam around the world?

Because they live in a society where they'll have to define their position and definetheir relationship with Islam on intellectual terms, they'll have to argue out theircase. They should help to strengthen the intellectual dimension of Islam, which isvery weak at this point in time.

They should also try to articulate a role for Islam which takes into cognizance themulti-religious environment of the United States, but also the multi-religious worldin which we live. And this, I think, would be yet another contribution that they can




15/15

make to Islam, and to the world as a whole.

And if they can also restore that notion of transcendence, of the sacred in the lives ofpeople -- this, I think, is very, very important. I think one of the reasons why thefamily is in a state of crisis is because that notion of the sacred has eroded, and thishas begun to affect relations within the family and relations within the largercommunity. So if one can restore a sense of, of the community, if the family can be avery important pivot of society again, then I think Muslims would have made acontribution to American society.

How would you sum up your vision of Islam as a spirituality, a way of life,culture and possibly a renewed civilization?

The essence of Islam's mission, as I see it as an individual Muslim, is to elevate ourhumanity, to make us more conscious of justice, to make us more conscious of the

unity and the brotherhood and sisterhood of the human family. This, I think, is themission of Islam: To restore to humanity that principle that is repeated over and overagain in the Quran, to believe in God and to do good. And this is all there is to it. Allthe other schisms and divisions that we see, to my mind are the products of thehuman beings' own failing, his or her own fallacies. But the strength of Islam lies inthis -- in making us more human.


pbs interview with chandra muzzaffar 2007

Documents