Ramadan, Tariq: Islam, the West and the Challenges of Modernity

“Our problem is one of spirituality. If a man comes to speak to me about the reforms to be undertaken in the Muslim world, about political strategies and of great geo-strategic plans, my first question to him would be whether he performed the dawn prayer (fajr) in its time.”

==========

In our Introduction we identified that for the women and men of the West, Islam seems to be resistant to any idea of modernity.

==========

The backdrop that is drawn is the expression of a kind of face to face between Islam and the West. A face to face whereby the latter is attributed a positive quality, representing the principle of openness and respect for humanist and democratic values. Inversely, Islam seems as negatively marked by archaism and tradition, of being locked up in old dogmatic categories, the denunciation of women, a barbarous penal code (rendered as Sharī‘a), and the denial of the freedom of peoples.

==========

When one looks at the state of Muslim societies, it is impossible to annul by a stroke of the pen the critiques made against us. They are well-founded when they evidence certain astonishing reflections and behaviours which we justify in the name of Islam. Among these are the privilege of Kings and Presidents, expedient justice, the illiteracy of women along with a variety of discriminations, each one more painful than the other, the narrow traditionalism of some ‘ulamā’ who decide and resolve questions away from any human reality in an absoluteness which only God knows. The facts are there, one must acknowledge and take account of them.

==========

To consider and take into account only the shocking daily events, or more broadly, the state of Muslim societies in order to conclude, in a definite fashion, that Islam cannot respond to contemporary problems is both erroneous and reductionist.

==========

We offered the trust to the heavens and the earth and the mountains, but they refused to carry it and were afraid of it; and man carried it. Surely he is sinful, very foolish. (Qur’ān, 33:72)

==========

To choose in ignorance and illiteracy is not really choosing, to steal while suffering from destitution and misery is not really stealing, and to respect under constraint and repression is not really respecting.

==========

Daily life today, however, makes things increasingly difficult: couples are separating, break-ups are multiplying and imbalances increasing. No one is pleased at this state of affairs, any reading of divorce, and single-parent family statistics can only be accompanied by bitterness and anxiety. Is this the price we have to pay for modernity? Are we facing an irreversible process against which the fight is in vain? Real, answers should be found to these urgent questions. The Islamic point of reference is, in the most clearest of fashions, opposed to this splintering process. If modernity can only be obtained at this price, then we understand why the Qur’ān and the Sunna reject the actualisation of such modernisation.

==========

One would also be right that the general orientations of Islam do not have a great deal to do with the daily lot of Muslims at the end of this twentieth century. Nor is it a question of heaping on the West a load of blames and insults, making “the enemy” guilty of all our own shortcomings. This would be to lie, and indeed to lie on two accounts. On the one hand by refusing to assume our own responsibilities, and on the other by demonising, in caricature and without any discernment, a “West” that we do not exactly know.

==========

Equally dangerous, is the attitude of some Muslims who think that it is enough to “return to Islam” in order that things be sorted out with one strike. In truth, the danger is twofold: The first is that it tends to present things in too simplistic and crude a manner. We convince ourselves that poverty will be resolved by the imposition of zakāt, that the economy will be cleansed by the prohibition of interest (ribā) and that society will be united because “the believers are brothers of one another”.

==========

Good intention, whether real or presumed, is thus rendered into a daily nightmare, this especially so when making a society more Islamic means prohibiting further, censuring permanently, reprimanding, imprisoning and punishing without respite. It, therefore, remains for us to ask ourselves how is it that a message which, at the source of the original permission, has put so much trust in men for the treatment of their affairs and, which has counted on their responsibility, ends up as the tool of a generalised suspicion which only a totalitarian and police regime can uphold. Formalism here kills the essence of the message, which it pretends to defend. It is indeed this betrayal that we find in the discourses of many a head of state and governments tell us that they want to apply the Islamic Sharī’a, and who in order to maintain themselves are equipped with an arsenal of the most repressive laws against their people. Whether military presidents, kings or princes, they candidly confuse the project of social reform, which is the real application of the Sharī‘a today, with the application of a penal code from which they will, at worst, only acquire greater power. It is a display of “Islamisation” used as a cover by dictators and from which many people suffer.

==========

Nowadays reference to the Sharī’a, in the West, has the effect of a bugbear. To see it applied is to start the sordid, detailed account of amputated hands, floggings, and so on and so forth. It is further seen as men’s moralist repression through which they impose on women the “wearing of the chador” as well as considering them as legal minors. Fed by such imagery, references to the Sharī’a appear as obscurantist confinement, medieval stubbornness, and fanaticism

==========

The Sharī’a aims at the liberation of man and not merely of whittling down liberties. The Islamic model must not be confused with the destruction that has been perpetrated by certain dictators in the name of the Sharī’a.

==========

Repeating at will that Islam asserts that there is “no constraint in religion” does not change the reality of pressure, and oppression, that some Muslim women today are subjected to. Moreover, we reproach those who have refused to submit as having opted for the bad “choice”. Yet we have often not presented to them the terms of any real choice. For certain women, it is a question of either blindly obeying amidst discrimination, or revolting amidst transgression

==========

At one time women used to trade, and participate in meetings; they were even in-charge of the market at Madina under Caliph ‘Umar. Furthermore, they engaged in social life in the seventh century. Is it possible to posit that a process of “Islamisation” at the end of the twentieth century will be rendered by a definitive return to home, house confinement and infantilisation? 28 By what twist of the mind have we managed to disfigure the Islamic message while asserting a willingness to defend it? Undoubtedly, as we have suggested above, it is because nowadays we think Islam more in contrast to “Western derivatives” than in function of its proper essence (which indeed has rules to be respected but which has no reactive twist). It is, therefore, necessary to return, serenely we must say, to the original teachings of Islam and allow women, at all levels of social life, to take an active part in the achievement of the reforms that we would like to bring forth. This is the prolongation of the education which they have the right to and which will allow them to run their affairs, to work, to organise themselves, to elect and be elected without any contravention of Islamic ethics or the order of priorities. Women must be able to play a social role. And if Islam clearly stipulates the priority of the family, this has never meant that a woman cannot move out of this space.

==========

In effect, one finds it hard, today, to hear a veiled intellectual who affirms her totally autonomous engagement and her claims for women while rejecting in a determined fashion the Western model. This attitude is more and more frequent in universities. Everywhere from Morocco to Bangladesh, from Norway to South Africa and passing by England, France and even Saudi Arabia, one meets with Muslim women who demand from the societies in which they live faithfulness and respect to, as well as a real application of, the principles of Islam. Against local customs, ancestral traditions, despotic patriarchy and daily alienation, they are convinced that more Islam means more rights and more freedom.

==========

Up until now, the West seems to be deaf to the force of this discourse, whereas everything lends itself to believe that it is at its source that tomorrow’s Muslim societies will be fashioned.

==========

The world of Islam, which is lately haunted by the gangrene of jihād, scares and terrorises minds.

==========

There were the crusades as there were also Muslim expansions; there were holy crusades and, thus, there were also “holy wars”, the famous jihād. Even if the West has happily gone beyond the initial stage of religious war and crusade, the spectator is indeed forced to notice that the Muslim world is still today lagging behind.

==========

This because we see everywhere groups, movements, parties and governments that call for jihād, armed struggle and political violence. The symbolical arsenal seems medieval and obscurantist, to say the least. Here also then the question arises, will Islam evolve?

==========

However, it would be naïve not to take account of the reality of conflict. The latter exists, and Revelation informs us, that they are necessary for the preservation of harmony and justice among men: Had God not driven back the people, some by the means of others, the earth had surely been corrupted; but God is bounteous unto all beings. (Qur’ān, 2:251)

==========

Thus, diversity and the conflicts which ensue are inherent to Creation. Man addresses the challenge of his humanity not in his rejection of pluralism and differences, but rather in their management.

==========

Had God not driven back the people, some by the means of others, there had been destroyed cloisters and churches, oratories and mosques, wherein God’s name is much mentioned . (Qur’ān, 22:40) Here, we note that monasteries, synagogues and oratories are mentioned before mosques. It is clearly a question of the expression of their inviolability and, at the same time, of the respect due to the adherents of different religions. The formulation cannot be more explicit: And if thy Lord had willed, whoever is in the earth would have believed, all of them, all together. Wouldst thou then constrain the people, until they are believers? (Qur’ān, 10:99) Difference of belief, as of colour and language, are facts which we must live with. Although we have already expressed this, it is appropriate to forcefully repeat it here. The first principle of coexistence in diversity is that of respect and justice.

==========

For the case which interests us here, it must be admitted that the West has reached a level of scientific mastery and outstanding specialisation. In its points of reference, this evolution commands admiration and all civilisations have to benefit from the dynamic of this rationality, as they can derive lessons from the progress achieved.

==========

Benefiting”, “deriving lessons” do not, nevertheless, mean submission. In the same way, it must be acknowledged that other civilisations and cultures propose a rich vision of the world, and that some of these have managed to preserve the basic values of life, and glimpses of their fundamental shape are beginning to be seen in the West.

==========

Islam, as other civilisations and in the same entitlement as any other culture, has nowadays to bring forth its contribution in the different domains of human thought and action. That this “religion” arouses the fears of the West is not something new. The conflict is several centuries old. What is new in our epoch is the differential treatment to which some Westerners subject other cultures. In evaluating the profound crisis of values in the West, the wisdom of Buddhist or Sioux thought are in this context legitimately singled out. Basically, it is “allowed” for these cultures to have differences on fundamental concepts because they are not dangerous to the West. As for Islam, the case is different. There are more than a billion faithful today, and a quarter of the planet tomorrow. For the West, the enriching specificity and constructive particularity of Islam are not sought. It is rather repulsive difference that is fixed in mind. The danger appears to be such, and the aggression against the model so evident, that only when the world of Islam speaks “our” language and borrows “our” tools are we going to acknowledge its positive presence.

==========

Thus, we could see the same intellectuals accuse, on the one hand, the Declaration of Human Rights for being too ethnocentrist in its formulation (when they defend the rights of South American cultures for example) and, on the other hand, set against Islam because it does not respect the text of 1948. This without being afraid of claiming one thing and applying its contrary.

==========

For the defenders of human rights, the founding text must be taken as it is. Any remark or criticism reflects an unclean positioning “which hides something”. In their view, to discuss the formulation of these rights or their universality is a dissimulated way of not wanting to respect them. One finds in the argumentation of their Muslim contradictors the same hastiness. According to the latter, these rights are based on reason alone and do not refer to the link which unites man with his Creator. As such, this Declaration is in opposition to the teachings of the Qur’ān and the traditions. Here we have reached, from one side as from the other, a conclusion slightly similar to the one we encountered regarding the question of democracy. Islam and human rights, then, cannot go hand in hand.

==========

It is, nonetheless, important to stop for a moment and consider that we cannot make such an economy in this debate. To read a text without taking account of the circumstances and context which brought it forth can lead to serious inconsequences.

==========

Without entering too much into the detail of historical elaboration, it should be pointed out that diverse English, French and American Declarations, since the seventeenth century, have been, first, the effect of a mobilisation of religious and humanist minorities desiring to defend their rights.

==========

Born and nurtured in the West by intellectuals who were battling against oppressive forces – themselves justified in the name of the absolute – the philosophy of human rights is marked, in its essence, by such an origin. Before being a universal tool, it indicates a moment of the history of the liberation of reason vis-à-vis dogma, and of the assertion of the individual and his autonomy against the oppression of a power and a religion which denied him. Thus, historically speaking, the process is of the order of a reaction. It was an attempt to assert oneself and liberate oneself from imposed duties that rights based solely on rationality were codified and declared. Whatever our desire to defend the rights of human beings, we find ourselves with the obligation to acknowledge that the dynamic which gave rise to these texts contains three basic characteristics. By its own history, it determines the primacy of rational norm. It bases itself on a defence of human autonomy. Lastly, it is the realisation of the rejection of any absolute.

==========

Other cultures, and Islam in particular, do not formulate the universe of coexistence placed at the level of rational norm only.

==========

As we have said earlier, human rights are the outcome of a historical process of liberation. The Islamic concept is differently based on an exigency of balance. It does not formulate rights in function of a threat of oppression, but rather with the idea that man is from the outset a responsible being 35 who must be accountable for his choice. Human rights exist in Islam, but they are, nevertheless, part of a holistic vision which orientates their scope. 36 The differences are substantial but they must not lead us to conclude the impossibility of dialogue between the two civilisations. On the contrary, if the source is different, it is nonetheless possible to find in Islam, (as indeed in the texts of Jewish and Christian traditions), orientations and fundamental principles of rights stemming from obligations which agree with those

==========

As we have said earlier, human rights are the outcome of a historical process of liberation. The Islamic concept is differently based on an exigency of balance. It does not formulate rights in function of a threat of oppression, but rather with the idea that man is from the outset a responsible being 35 who must be accountable for his choice. Human rights exist in Islam, but they are, nevertheless, part of a holistic vision which orientates their scope. 36 The differences are substantial but they must not lead us to conclude the impossibility of dialogue between the two civilisations. On the contrary, if the source is different, it is nonetheless possible to find in Islam, (as indeed in the texts of Jewish and Christian traditions), orientations and fundamental principles of rights stemming from obligations which agree with those emanating from the text of 1948.

==========

In fact, if the universality of human rights – as stated in the version of the 1948 Declaration – causes a problem for Muslims, this does not mean that Islam rejects or refutes any thought relating to human rights if understood as the protection of human dignity. On the contrary, all the juridical thought of Islam revolves, so much in the objective of its obligations as in that of its rights, around the respect and inviolability of the person, whether man, woman or child. Now that the points of reference are identified, the differences arranged and the similarities recognised, what is appropriate now is to look beyond a dispute over words to the means to achieve a concrete and better respect of human rights. To use the latter as an ideological tool which confirms Western superiority over other civilisations would be unfortunate.

==========

If there really exists a pluralism, and if there is a sincere will to engage in the coexistence of civilisations and cultures, then this must proceed from here. Imposing one’s norms on others will inevitably mean conflicts. But to call upon each religion and culture to develop from within spaces of protection for the dignity of woman, man and child is, in our view, the choice of the future.

==========

The worst enemy of human rights and the worst insult to the 1948 Declaration is not caused by Islamic, Indian or other differences, rather the worst enemy is indeed this variable utilisation of the most beautiful texts for the most sombre of interests. The worst insult lies indeed in this unconditional support for the most bloody and repressive dictatorial regimes ever to exist. This unconditional support coupled with “non–violent” inclination in discourse and which denounces the violence of those who are forced to take arms because of the suppression they live under.

==========

Political violence must be denounced, but how is it not possible to understand, from the depth of what gives meaning to the life of a human being, that after years of terrible repression, men mobilise themselves and decide to put a stop to such situations. For, if one must die being denied in one’s being, then one would rather die in dignity. This attitude is understood, but it certainly cannot be justified. However, with the same force one must say, and repeat, say and denounce, say and say again, that nothing justifies the sinister calculations of rich countries nor the passivity of their public opinion. Before God and before our consciences, nothing justifies them nor does anything enable the understanding of such a degree of acceptance and lassitude bordering on complicity.

==========

How can it be imagined that the inhabitants of the South, whether Muslim or not, still believe in the grandeur of human rights?

==========

It would be just as insane to ask the homeless, unemployed and those excluded from society to believe the sincere respect that their politicians have towards them. The problem of human rights today, like the problem of the rights acknowledged by Islam but which are violated every day, is that it still belongs to the domain of theory and intention while everything is allowed in practice.

==========

The same people who cite articles of diverse humanist declarations, and the same people who recite from memory a Qur’ānic verse or a Prophetic tradition, have blood on their hands and prisons consecrated to the denial of rights and to torture. The most beautiful poem which is stained with blood has a bitter tone.

==========

For example, there was, in Madina, a Jewish Centre of Education (Bayt al-Midrās) which the Prophet (peace be upon him) visited and about which he inquired after its state of affairs.

==========

Citizens who are not of Muslim confession are referred to as ahl al-dhimma or al-mu‘āhidūn – “those who have agreed a contract”. This contract is clearly a contract of protection of these persons and their fundamental rights. The State commits itself to offering them all the conditions which allow them to live in serenity. They are not subjected to the purifying social tax (zakāt), the third pillar of Islam, nor to military service. 41 They are obliged to pay a tax, jizya, which is the equivalent of a military tax, 42 although women, children, old men, the poor and the clergy are exempted as are all men who prefer to serve their country militarily rather than pay jizya.

==========

The citizens who are not of a Muslim confession participate fully in the social and political life of the society of which they are members. But for the function of the Head of State (devolved, in a society of a Muslim majority, to a Muslim), 40 they can be elected to any government post in accordance with their competence and without any discrimination. It is indeed this that ‘Umar did by naming a Christian as chief accountant in Madina. The same was done by a great number of his successors.

==========

The Prophet (peace be upon him) maintained with force: “Whosoever is cruel and harsh towards a mu‘āhid (one who is under a contract), restrains his rights, burdens him with that which he cannot endure or takes anything of his property against his will, I shall be myself his adversary on the Day of Judgement.” 45 This saying is clear, as is the saying which he uttered before his death, as reported by Māwardī: “Treat non-Muslim subjects well.”

==========

The Qur’ānic text, the practice of the Prophet (peace be upon him) and that of his Companions, though they offer the best examples, were not always respected as they should have been. Moreover, mention of these elements is not sufficient to resolve the important problems which Muslim societies are facing in their management of “minorities”. These principles should orientate us and not, in their ideal dimension, blind us about history and about the real status quo today.

==========

Moderation, from both sides, and acknowledgement of the positive contribution of the Islamic civilisation, without concealing its most sombre period, seems to be the wisest attitude. This equally means that one must admit that Islam is not reducible to some notions of which one offers a definition only in the light of the saddest events of its history, as was done concerning jihād, the dhimmīs or again the text of jizya. This clearly means that one must go beyond the frame of conflicting analysis alone whose only objective is to show that Islam, in itself, is a danger which threatens the progress of Western norms of coexistence. In other words, finally, one must acknowledge that along the centuries, civilisation has proposed and achieved models of coexistence between different communities based on respect and freedom of conscience and worship.

==========

For, there were indeed in the history of this civilisation, so much discredited today, spaces of pluralism, exchanges and relations. From the eighth to the eleventh century, at least, one must point out that coexistence, even when it was not always perfect, was real, institutionalised and administered.

==========

All the attempts which, after independence, have based their legitimacy on “modernity” and “the progressist scope” of their management have demonstrated their limits. From Nasser to Bourguiba and from Ben Bella to Asad, the failure is total and the principle of citizenship is everywhere absent. One realises, on the other hand, that the religious referent is today irreversible. Kings as the most secular heads of states derive their popular legitimacy from a constant reminder of their faithfulness to Islam. 56 The histories are not the same and the secularisation which was operated in the West is not achieved in the Muslim world, first and foremost, because the links between the religious, the political and the cultural are not the same.

==========

Unlike the West which is more or less relatively liberated of the religious in order to create an individual citizen, our epoch reminds us that it is within Islam that a dynamic must develop that enables a citizenship which is respectful of the values of each one.

==========

Who really wants today, in the West and with the governments of developing countries, education of the people and the achievement of a real pluralism in the societies of the South? The question must be clearly put. Behind the beautiful speeches based on human rights and democracy, the great powers support regimes whose least concern is to be representative. Democracy, here, supports dictatorial terror there.

==========

Should we really need reminding that an ignorant people, subjugated or silently suppressed, is the guarantee of the tranquillity of dictators, and when these latter are, themselves, the guarantors of the strategic security of countries of the North, then ignorance, subjugation and repression are, in one way or another, supported by the latter without any uncertainty.

==========

They will not hesitate to propagate the worst information on those who dare to contest this order of things. The latter used to be “communists”, “theologians of liberation”; now they are “fanatics, fundamentalists, and reactionary”, engaged Muslims, “Islamists”. Focus is put on the most radical groups in order to discredit all the oppositions. All in all, better a dictator than a “madman of God” who promises us beards and will impose veils. Hotchpotches make good progress and they will deny that there are moderates. “Sophisms” and “fraud” as Interior Minister, Charles Pasqua, said, for, deep down they are the same. On account of the

==========

They will not hesitate to propagate the worst information on those who dare to contest this order of things. The latter used to be “communists”, “theologians of liberation”; now they are “fanatics, fundamentalists, and reactionary”, engaged Muslims, “Islamists”. Focus is put on the most radical groups in order to discredit all the oppositions. All in all, better a dictator than a “madman of God” who promises us beards and will impose veils.

==========

Islam, in its fundamentals, is radically opposed to the existing liberal economic order. Not because the Islamic economy will be “socialist”, as has unfortunately been implied, but because, as we have shown in the preceding sections, the priority of the moral quality renders the economic activity dependent on values which are beyond it and which orientate it.

==========

It is indeed this that Roger Garaudy reminds us of: “Zakāt, i.e. a levy, not on revenue but on wealth, in order to ‘purify it’, stops any accumulation. Primitive jurisprudence, concerning this issue, excludes only the tools of work from zakāt (this is what we shall call today the means of production), and fixes its rate at 2.5%. This means that in 40 years (a generation) a private ‘property’ is entirely abolished and is returned to the community (the social fund constituted by Zak āt being consecrated to the needs of the community and to help the needy). No one, hence, can live an idle life solely by the inheritance of his family.”

==========

However, we know today that the model of development of the countries of the North is “non-exportable”. While 1.5 billion human beings live in ease, almost four billion have only the barest means of survival. The terms of exchange are unequal, exploitation is permanent, speculation is extreme and the monopolies are provocative. The prohibition of ribā, which is the moral axis around which economic thought in Islam is elaborated, calls believers to express a categorical rejection of an order which has respect only for profit and which suppresses justice and humanity.

==========

Any social force, any mobilisation of identity or a religious movement which calls, in the South, for more justice and the equitable repartition of wealth will be fought and suppressed with the explicit accord of the superpowers that are respectful, within their own frontiers, of human rights.

==========

A ḥadīth reports: “The Prophet declared: “The most perfect among the believers is the one who has the best character. The best amongst you are those who are best with their wives’”, reported by Tirmidhī.

==========

“Is there a culture where corporal punishments are inflicted on delinquents, where a sterile woman is repudiated and the adulterous woman sentenced to death, where the testimony of a man is equal to that of two women, where a sister gets only half of what her brother inherits, where excision is practised, where mixed marriages are prohibited and polygamy allowed?

==========

As regards the elected, Abū Mūsā al-Ash‘arī reported: “I entered upon the Prophet (peace be upon him) and I was accompanied by two cousins. One of them asked the Prophet (peace be upon him):‘O Messenger of God! Grant me the rulership of one of the provinces that God bestowed upon you.’ My other cousin made the same request. The Prophet (peace be upon him) answered: ‘By God, we do not entrust these functions to those who ask for it, nor to those who covet it.’ (Narrated by Bukhārī and Muslim.) As for the elector: “Whosoever employs (mandate for a function) a man from a community while there exists a more competent person than him (who is better accepted by God) has betrayed God, His Prophet and all Muslims.” (Narrated by Al-Ḥākim.) These two traditions render impossible, if we respect the principles of Islamic ethics, the type of electoral campaign, which we see in the USA and France, for example. Presentation of oneself and one’s image, worked out by public relations agencies, in order to appear “the best”, disparaging remarks about adversaries, permanent polls associated with the partisan spirit of the electors, are all to be registered as defects of the democratic ideal.

==========

The West is used to dealing with sources possessing a restrained, traditional culture such as the Indians of North America and the Aborigines of Australia. These enthnicities do not endanger the supremacy of rationalist and modernist points of reference. For the first time in two centuries, and in a more “confrontational” manner, that even the Chinese or Japanese horizon could not pose, the Islamic world contests the universality of Western values either

==========

The West is used to dealing with sources possessing a restrained, traditional culture such as the Indians of North America and the Aborigines of Australia. These enthnicities do not endanger the supremacy of rationalist and modernist points of reference. For the first time in two centuries, and in a more “confrontational” manner, that even the Chinese or Japanese horizon could not pose, the Islamic world contests the universality of Western values either by relativising or questioning them.

==========

This time, it is a question of a face to face and, there is nothing more normal than fear and tension. One may pour into one’s analysis the worst, and predict an inevitable conflict – a “clash” according to Huntington – between the West and Islam which will cause wars and mutual rejection. After Communism, it is assumed that Islam will endanger the modern gains of liberty, personal responsibility and comfort. Thus, it is necessary to protect oneself from it by any means because democracies have the right to guard themselves against horrors, as Bernard-Henri Lévy has said; or because there is, here, a play of power and because “liberal dictatorship” is fed by the productions of diabolic adversity, as pointed out by Jean-Christophe Rufin. It all depends.

==========

We can, nonetheless, hope that a real debate will take place. A debate that will offer the possibility of better knowing what Islam makes of the Muslim human being. One which will also allow legitimising of some of the claims which are so widespread today. It seems evident that we do find common values and requirements, similar orientations and identical objectives, just as it is no less evident that divergences also exist. Trying to understand, determining strong lines of dialogue and collaboration, not dissimulating irreconcilable points of reference, such seems to be the process of responsible men and women who have understood the meaning of what gerency (khilfa) on earth entails as well

==========

We can, nonetheless, hope that a real debate will take place. A debate that will offer the possibility of better knowing what Islam makes of the Muslim human being. One which will also allow legitimising of some of the claims which are so widespread today. It seems evident that we do find common values and requirements, similar orientations and identical objectives, just as it is no less evident that divergences also exist. Trying to understand, determining strong lines of dialogue and collaboration, not dissimulating irreconcilable points of reference, such seems to be the process of responsible men and women who have understood the meaning of what gerency (khilfa) on earth entails as well as the nature of humanist exactness.

==========

The tragic poet Aeschylus, as early as the sixth-fifth centuries before Christ, presented a more “modern” reading of this myth. Here, Prometheus is a civilising hero, one of the greatest heroes. In his Prometheus Bound, the titan appears as the supreme initiator of crafts and sciences; he gives fire to men and delivers them from the fear of death. It is through his opposition to the master of the world, the choleric Zeus, that he offers to men the greatness and peace of the soul. It is a strange reversal which interprets challenge positively and which legitimises rebellion.

==========

Prometheus is the guide and liberator in face of Divine authority that subjugates wills. Victor Hugo, in Le sens d’Eschyle, puts forward this “word of a man” facing progress: In the immense shadow of the Caucasus Since centuries, through dreaming, Led by men of ecstasy, Humankind marches ahead, Marches on earth, passes through, Goes, at night, in space, In infinity, in the bounded, In the azure, in the irritated tide, In the glimmer of Prometheus, The bound liberator! 2 Humanity’s march ahead, beyond the clouded epochs of obscurantism and submission, is carried “in the glimmer of Prometheus”. The figure of the titan, in that it represents the expression illustrating best the rejection of an imposed Divine order and the affirmation of human autonomy and greatness, traverses the ages and fashions the complex and strained relation which exists between God (in the Christian re-reading) and men.

==========

Revolted intelligence, the model of the “Rebel”, the determined affirmation of man, have been produced at the crucible of a long history and have fashioned a specifically Western concept of the relation with the Divine.

==========

The tormented nature which characterises, very early on, the experience of Faith in Christianity does not have any hold over the Islamic tradition. Adam and Eve have been forgiven, man is born innocent and his responsibility relates to the fact that he knows, according to the time and the place of his existence, how to read Divine signs and follow Revelation:

==========

The character of Prometheus, who had such an influence on the Judaeo-Christian tradition as on the representation formed in the West regarding the rapport between God and clerical authority, is absent from Islamic points of reference and traditions

==========

We are indeed dealing with two different universes of reference, two civilisations and two cultures. These have gone side by side and intermingled for centuries; and it seems that they are nowadays facing each other and it is imperative that we understand what profoundly characterises them.

==========

In his book Biographie du XXème siècle, Roger Garaudy points out concerning the West that: “Its principal contribution is not technique but criticism.” Further below he adds: “What Europe has contributed, from Socrates to Kant, from Kierkegaard to Marx, and from Nietzsche to Husserl, is not faith but doubt. This doubt is the trial of fire necessary to any real faith.”

==========

We can easily be persuaded that North Americans and Europeans are, nowadays, on the religious plane, children of this long history of mentalities which, since the Renaissance, has seen the critical mind encourage scepticism or Promethean temptation. The Divine presence is either doubted or repudiated; and very rare are those believers who are appeased by their Faith, and rarer still are those who practise it. When Faith is lived, it is often accompanied by a rejection of institutions, from Popes to Churches, from codified morality to religious obligations. “Modern” Faith has no need any longer for witnessing, very often we believe in private, alone and at a distance from public space whose objective seems to be making us “forget

==========

We can easily be persuaded that North Americans and Europeans are, nowadays, on the religious plane, children of this long history of mentalities which, since the Renaissance, has seen the critical mind encourage scepticism or Promethean temptation. The Divine presence is either doubted or repudiated; and very rare are those believers who are appeased by their Faith, and rarer still are those who practise it. When Faith is lived, it is often accompanied by a rejection of institutions, from Popes to Churches, from codified morality to religious obligations. “Modern” Faith has no need any longer for witnessing, very often we believe in private, alone and at a distance from public space whose objective seems to be making us “forget”.

==========

Freedom and ignorance have been confused with one another, whereas in ignorance there is no longer real freedom.

==========

The modern Western world is a Godless world; conceived as such, it leaves a choice to each person to find his way often at the cost of painful, inward splits.

==========

We notice increasingly, with younger generations, a religious illiteracy that cannot be but worrying. Under the pretext of “neutrality of public space”, religious education has disappeared or been reduced to one or two hours a week. The ensuing result is an ignorance, increasing in importance every year, of religious history and its main figures.

==========

Everything leads one to believe, in front of this scene of modernity, that we have reached, at the end of this twentieth century, the culmination of the Promethean experience. In truth, its completion is finished when the “stealer of fire” does not have any conscience about the existence of God, denying therefore that it is theft, and claiming himself to be the creator of the fire that he entertains

==========

The experience of Faith in Islam is not, up until now and even with Muslims living in Western capitals, of a similar nature. We can find many Muslims who acknowledge not practising their religion as they should, but very few are those who assert not believing at all.

==========

God’s existence is almost never doubted; this seems to be a natural daily given fact of men and women.

==========

At a time when the Churches are becoming empty, and when often only elderly people gather on Sundays; the mosques are, from one side of the planet to the other, multiplying and do not cease to be filled.

==========

In England, France, Belgium and the USA, identification with Islam or its discovery succeeds where repression or expensive social programmes have failed. How then do we explain this phenomenon which nowadays often scares Western people? Extremism is feared; and as there is a total absence of religious practice, wanting to practice becomes suspect, for it is already “too much”.

==========

There was talk of economic reasons; poverty and misery would make the tones of religiosity be born again (such a hypothesis has difficulty in explaining the commitment of rich traders and mobilisation at the university level). It has also been explained as a question of anti-Western reaction, a will to reaffirm a denied identity (this sociological hypothesis considers the “religious” fact as secondary and finds great difficulty in tackling the spiritual dimension). Finally, it was seen as a political manoeuvre from more or less extremist manipulators trying to seize power and not hesitating to deceive the masses (this last reading does not analyse the differently engaged social categories nor the nature of popular mobilisation).

==========

Economic or political reasons are not enough to explain the religious infatuation of populations, nor the nature of resistance to Westernisation in the Muslim world.

==========

Economic or political reasons are not enough to explain the religious infatuation of populations, nor the nature of resistance to Westernisation in the Muslim world. In order to do so, one must go back to the sources of Islam to grasp the nature and meaning of the Muslim Faith.

==========

There exists, therefore, at the heart of each man’s consciousness, essentially and deeply, an intuition and acknowledgement of the Creator’s presence. Just as the sun, clouds, wind, birds and all the animals naturally express their submission (a literal translation of the word islām), so does the human being have in himself an almost instinctive aspiration towards Transcendence.

==========

There exists, therefore, at the heart of each man’s consciousness, essentially and deeply, an intuition and acknowledgement of the Creator’s presence. Just as the sun, clouds, wind, birds and all the animals naturally express their submission (a literal translation of the word islām), so does the human being have in himself an almost instinctive aspiration towards Transcendence. This is the idea of fitra that has aroused numerous theological commentaries, because it is so central to the Islamic concept of the sacred. One finds it mentioned in Sūra ar-Rūm: So set thy face to the religion, a man pure faith – God’s original upon which He originated mankind. There is no changing God’s creation. That is the right religion; but most men know it not. 17 (Qur’ān, 30:30) A famous ḥadīth clarifies the sense of fitra cited in this verse: “every new-born child is born in the state of fitra, it is the parents that make him Jew, Christian or Zoroastrian.” 18 So, there exists in man a natural aspiration towards God.

==========

Here, there is no question of an original sin, an eternal fault or a challenge to the Creator. The one who does not believe, the infidel (kāfir), is the one who is no longer faithful to the original pact, the one whose memory is sleepy and whose sight is veiled.

==========

At a moment when, in the West, we are witnessing a profound crisis of values, a quasi general dissatisfaction with Jewish or Christian religious points of reference; when some, being thirsty for meaning and spirituality, turn to sects and other mystical groupings; at this very same time, the Muslim world is affirming a peculiar attachment to Islamic values and is expressing a permanent, daily religiosity with which the West is no longer familiar.

==========

Western culture admittedly has today “its” values which, despite the fact that they obviously do not meet the needs for meaning encountered in women, men and youth, represent a universe of reference that we are not going to question. But the Muslim world does not share that which is at the basis of this rationalism, values and points of reference. The two “cultures” are facing one another. For centuries now, we have witnessed many conflicts; but things nowadays are taking a peculiar turn as much because of the extent of populations and present dangers as due to the deep fractures that may ensue from these. We are, thus, at a crossroads.

==========

There is, therefore, an expectation of a “cultural revolution” or an aggiornamento of Islam. One should not deny that the Muslim world should evolve, be able to respond to contemporary challenges and that, in fact, the interpretation of religious points of reference should be refined in order to provide solutions for actual social, economic and political problems. The whole reflection developed in the present book testifies to this. But this absolutely does not mean that the Muslim world lags behind the Western model and that it must go through the same developments.

==========

The central notion of tawḥīd and the daily expression of therabbāniyya have consequences on the concept of life which renders the world of Islam necessarily and irremediably resistant to the evolution and influence of Western culture.

==========

In the entire Muslim world, one senses that there still remains a very strong imprint of the religious point of reference: this life is not the only life, each person will have to account one day for what he has done with his wealth, body and soul.

==========

Life and death have a meaning, the meaning of trial and the action of good: … who created death and life, that He might try you which of you is fairest in work. (Qur’ān, 67:2) These words resonate in the hearts of Muslims who remain attached to the values of Transcendence. Contrary to the idea that is widespread in the West, it is indeed hope that should preoccupy us when we observe that, despite a Western aggressive cultural invasion of our whole planet, the world of Islam asserts a Faith and values that are, by essence, incompatible with the cult of the means that has today become the rule.

==========

Monotheism and the Qur’ānic reference – the foundations of Islamic civilisation today – give a peculiar energy to Islamic spirituality: it prefers Faith over forgetfulness, being over having, finality over means, solidarity over individualism and quality over quantity.

==========

Nothing, or almost nothing, is said about these aspects of Islamic culture because there is a difficulty in thinking that something positive can come forth from a universe that is presented through images of “bearded men” and “veiled women”. This is a reductionist observation, one which is wanted by the powers that be and taken over by the media to make out that between the world of progress and that of Islam there is nothing but future conflict.

==========

One cannot free oneself from such summary conclusions if one does not take the time to deepen one’s reflection and understand why Muslims are opposed to the present expression of Westernisation. For, in the final analysis, they find therein nothing of what Islam teaches them in the matter of being: they have nothing against the technical means possessed by the West. On the contrary, that to which they cannot adhere is the modalities of their use through the will of power, domination and gain. This, very often, to the detriment

==========

One cannot free oneself from such summary conclusions if one does not take the time to deepen one’s reflection and understand why Muslims are opposed to the present expression of Westernisation. For, in the final analysis, they find therein nothing of what Islam teaches them in the matter of being: they have nothing against the technical means possessed by the West. On the contrary, that to which they cannot adhere is the modalities of their use through the will of power, domination and gain. This, very often, to the detriment of the dignity

==========

Islamic spirituality engages man to live in harmony while taking into account all the elements of his humanity. Living without forgetting death, meditating without neglecting the action of good and justice, knowing oneself to be alone and living among men, nourishing one’s spirit as one nourishes one’s body and remaining exacting in one’s search for balance. To be linked to values is tantamount to going beyond reductionist individualisms, love of goods and money and the expression of a limited sexuality towards “pleasure”, a new god imposing a new

==========

Islamic spirituality engages man to live in harmony while taking into account all the elements of his humanity. Living without forgetting death, meditating without neglecting the action of good and justice, knowing oneself to be alone and living among men, nourishing one’s spirit as one nourishes one’s body and remaining exacting in one’s search for balance. To be linked to values is tantamount to going beyond reductionist individualisms, love of goods and money and the expression of a limited sexuality towards “pleasure”, a new god imposing a new cult.

==========

To a Companion who asked him what is “the good”, the Prophet (peace be upon him) responded: “You have come to enquire about the good?” “Yes”, answered Wasiba. “Consult your heart”, said the Prophet, “for the good is that which appeases your soul and calms your heart. Sin is that which troubles you inwardly and causes embarrassment and vexation in your heart, even if people provide you with all possible juridical justifications.”

==========

To orientate is, therefore, tantamount to selecting among the great Western scientific discoveries that which is good for men and compatible with the values that are ours. The same approach is incumbent at the social and economic planes and up to and including artistic, televisual or cinematographical production. Respect for values always overrides the lure of gain. The selective approach is favoured by a number of Muslim intellectuals. The latter are demanding the powers that be to stop the thousands of hours of American and European programming that is screened on local channels at peak-hours.

==========

It is clear that the broadcasting and films that are “offered” by the North are not “free”: cultural invasion is a clear colonisation of minds that one knows “will bear fruit” in the long run. 24 There was, in this respect, talk of “censorship” pointing out that recourse to the latter would be a return to the Medieval period with its old stench of Inquisition. Yet, it is not a question of this: to accept everything, in the name of liberty, or in a more general fashion economic liberalism, is tantamount to participating in the creation of a culture of the jungle where “everything is allowed” since it is both liked by people and is profitable.

==========

What the West has accepted for itself, other civilisations do not want to share and it is their legitimate right to “sort out” the immense production of the North; even if this means transgressing the rules imposed by the capitalism of superpowers.

==========

This is not all; in a number of Muslim countries, such as Algeria, Tunisia and Egypt to cite but the most known cases, “experts” from the North come to advise the responsibles of education on the content of programmes and pedagogy in general. In Egypt, for example, a commission was created in order to rethink the educative courses at national level and half of it was made up of American experts. 25 This is, after all, something very worrying.

==========

Entire sections of populations think that their governments have sold their countries and cultures to the mirage of progress and “modernism” à la Western. Such a state of affairs causes violent reactions and sometimes in contrast to what one expects: rather than assisting in the acceptance of the West, a sentiment of rejection is created and this even where there is seduction. This is not due to what the West is, but rather to the way it is presented through films, television, broadcasting and publicity. The percentage of those who understand, can, and want to identify themselves with “modern” values is minute. In this sense, the West is responsible for the way it presents itself to other civilisations: the tones of “artistic” productions that are poured out on the channels of Muslim countries give a poor idea, an unhealthy one of what nourishes the minds of the North. How then can anyone be surprised by the tensions and rejections created by such a situation?

==========

The Western world, in the course of the last five centuries, has lived a revolution: the process of secularisation has not only liberated the social field from religious seizure but it has also, at the same time, been allowed to contest the soundness of its morality. Laic morality, referred to as the principle of reason, appeared from thence as a regulator.

==========

The formidable evolution of learning and techniques produced domains of specialisation in which acquired knowledge was far ahead of the reflection concerning the limits. The acquisition of means preceded the questioning on meaning: progress stimulated progress, mastery opened the doors for hope for an even more important mastery. Laic morality could not, by its essence, enable the management of this revolution. For, unlike religious morality, it is not encompassing. Being rational, it is naturally in consort with active rationality. However, we realise today that we no longer have the power to “master our mastery” of nature and techniques. Ours is an epoch of great fright whereby we are aware that “everything is possible”; that progress has developed techniques that can lead us to an even worse scenario, to the destruction of nature and men. Fundamental reflection, thus, becomes urgent and incumbent upon us all: interesting, then, that the end of the century is seeing a revival of ethics.

==========

Nothing is more feared, in the West, than reference to religious morality, and this in turn ends up by leading to no appreciation of any reference to God. There are several reasons for this, as we have seen, and foremost among them one must place the concrete actualisation of the Christian message as well as the historical conflicts between clerical authority, the humanists and rationalists. The terms “Revelation” and “Truth” have been banned: those who refer to them have left behind such a memory of narrow-mindedness, closeness of thought and attitude which is often so torturous that it cannot arouse anything but opposition and rejection. It is moreover this, almost natural, posture that is adopted by intellectuals in the West, when they hear from the mouth of their Muslim interlocutors, the words “God”, “Truth”, “morality” or when they see them permanently refer to the Qur’ān or to the Sunna. Regardless of how progressist they might be, or whether they are convinced that ethics today is still necessary, they do not recognise themselves in the universe of Muslim points of reference. In simple comparison with their Judaeo-Christian tradition, they feel that this universe is still “too religious”, dogmatic and stilted.34 If, moreover, as is the case today with the majority of intellectuals, they stick to what the media report to them on the Muslim world, then they are doubly confirmed in their various stances.

==========

The values of Islam call for fraternity, solidarity, respect for human dignity as well as respect for nature. Reinstated in their cultural compost, these notions find a dynamising symbolical force. These values are, by essence, opposed to individualism, exploitation, destruction of resources, the cult of technique and blind science.

==========

Muslim societies are still relatively preserved from the contemporary scourge of drugs. We are referring here to all kinds of drugs, that of the North (alcohol, medicine, tobacco) and that coming from the South (hashish, cocaine, heroin, etc.). The religious prohibition of alcohol and the forbiddance, by analogy, to consume any kind of stupefying substance, has played, and is still playing, an important safety role.

==========

Western influence, and this is not to its honour, has very negative consequences and is causing situations that the Muslim world did not hitherto know. The loss of values, nihilism, the idea of suicide, and blind violence are many “novelties” through which cultural invasion is knitting its web.

==========

In this sense, television and the cinema are causing havoc: everywhere it is economic profit which takes precedence. And governments “under-tutelage” accept uncomplainingly the rules of trade. They imprison those who give everything of themselves in order to teach the youth the foundations of their identity, the rules of social participation, the meaning and finalities of a life among human beings with deference to the link with God; and at the same time, in the name of modern freedom and liberalism, they open wide the doors of intimacies to a culture without values, a culture of violence, money and falsehood. Is, then, the violence of American societies the example? Does increased consumption of drugs present any hope? Are the rates of suicide and the number of rapes enviable? Admittedly, the West is not reducible to just this; but this should not be accepted from the West.

==========

We do not deny that today’s Muslim societies are not models of balance and well-being. Profound, ancestral links with the pre-Islamic tradition or simply local patriarchy does produce discrimination towards women.

==========

The gaze that a man must cast down, the hair that a woman must hide, the body that both have to protect and preserve, boil down to a Faith that takes its source in decency. It is about expressing, in our social life, that we are not a body, that our worth is not in our forms and that our dignity lies in respect of our being and not in the visibility of our appeals and seductions.

==========

The dislocation of the familial tissue, families that are increasingly broken (single-parent families, the ever-increasing divorce rate), the reign of a sexuality turned towards sole pleasure but which is often empty of meaning and respect, and the sale of bodies. The West, here also, seems to be losing control over its future.

==========

Today the superpowers and great commercial societies, in the name of liberalism, are inundating our planet with images and vogues à la Western. Show business stars, models and their private lives are reported in Kuwait, as they are reported in Rio, and Dakar. It is a question of cultural aggression, but the effects of which in terms of identity-based tension and feeling of rejection are not always taken into account.

==========

Such kind of (re)presentations from the West cannot but create ruptures between civilisations. And even if there is a share of caricature, it remains no less true in the eyes of innumerable traditional cultures, especially Islam, that the Western horizon does not seem to propose, in the facts, great projects of meaning,

==========

Such kind of (re)presentations from the West cannot but create ruptures between civilisations. And even if there is a share of caricature, it remains no less true in the eyes of innumerable traditional cultures, especially Islam, that the Western horizon does not seem to propose, in the facts, great projects of meaning,

==========

Such kind of (re)presentations from the West cannot but create ruptures between civilisations. And even if there is a share of caricature, it remains no less true in the eyes of innumerable traditional cultures, especially Islam, that the Western horizon does not seem to propose, in the facts, great projects of meaning, value and hope.

==========

A great many Muslims living in countries of the South share, with all inhabitants of the Third World, a kind of fascination for Western progress in the broader sense. One is sometimes astonished by, and one may even mock the contradictions in Muslims who seem so attracted by that which they claim to reject.

==========

The West presents an attractive visage when one considers the standards of training and breathtaking competence, the incredible technical performance, the respect for the human person, a very comfortable daily existence, permanent spare-time activities, and the freedom of morality. Whoever, in the Third World, is not, even slightly, attracted by this universe is not a human being.

==========

Faced with the torrent of images and information coming from the North – in which all seems to demonstrate that there is little preoccupation with God, the soul or good and evil – reaction can be fierce and violent. Such a reaction is indeed exactly of the same measure to the potential danger undermining the norms of identity. It is not rare to hear (in speeches whose objective is to protect oneself from Western drifts) caricatures accusing Western culture of the worst observable evils.

==========

The West which we are still confusing with the universe of Christianity, finds no favour in the statements of some Muslim theologians and thinkers who assert their Muslim identity in opposition to the United States and Europe. They are Muslims against the West, and all their reflection is fed by this cast of mind.

==========

This kind of attitude, which is emotional and immediate, exists and remains understandable regardless of its primary character. However, we cannot justify its excesses.

==========

One is tempted, in the West, to make contact with a third category of intellectuals. The latter are those who have accepted reference to Western norms, just as they have accepted and reproduced them. They think like “us”, they speak like “us” and they criticise the same follies. Moreover, they have this advantage, this enormous advantage, of being from “over there”. If their conclusions resemble ours, then it is sufficient confirmation of the soundness of our analysis. Trained, or not, in European universities and fed by Western culture, these intellectuals are, in the final analysis, little representative of the world to which, in appearance, they seem to belong. It is not enough to call oneself Ahmad, Tahir, Khalida or Malika in order to represent the majority tendency of Muslim culture in its Moroccan, Algerian, Berber or Touareg specificity.

==========

To refute cultural invasion is not, once again, tantamount to being anti-Western . It is rather an opposition to the rapport of force and to the will of hegemony of the symbolic universe of the West. It is an opposition not to its being but rather to its manner of being.

==========

… one may ask what ought to be the reactions of the people of the South regarding the speeches of the powerful of this planet about “human rights, democracy, and freedom”. What trust to put in them when they see them, for reasons of economic interest, collaborate with the most ignoble, terrorist or corrupt regimes? Saying such beautiful things, and then doing or allowing such dark ones.

==========

Muslim peoples do not any more have any great illusion regarding Western “good” will. The good Muslim today is not the most moderate one – we have learnt to convey the meaning of words. Rather, he is the most rich or the most strategically useful.

==========

One has without doubt not measured, in the West, the real symbolic scope of four events which have marked Muslim consciousness on a planetary scale.

==========

i. The Gulf War The allied operation, after the invasion of Kuwait on 2 August 1990 by Saddam Hussein’s army, has marked minds in the Muslim world. The “discrete massacre”, according to the title of Claude Le Borgne’s book, of the Iraqi people comes close to 300 thousand dead with an embargo which, today, continues to kill daily the most poor, plus the incredible armed mobilisation with, in addition, the American presence in Saudi Arabia, all have contributed to Muslim enlightenment. They were lied to, just as the whole Western world was lied to. 64 Who, then incited Saddam Hussein to invade Kuwait? What was the role of the then Ambassador April Gilespie? Was the real strength of the Iraqi army not known? Why have the Americans decided to leave the dictator in his seat? Such are but the apparent questions, mere cynical hints; we know better, henceforth, the intentions of the “saviours”.

==========

The Americans have reinforced their presence in this sensitive zone. As policemen, from now on, they will “protect” and submit to their order the very “open” sympathising monarchies. In addition, the “new regional order” needs Saddam Hussein. As pointed out by Paul-Marie de la Gorce in Le Monde Diplomatique, Hussein is useful: his presence justifies the embargo and the cessation of the production of Iraqi oil maintains the flows to a level that is profitable to American and Saudi resources. 65 Moreover, the “permanent” presence of danger allows the sale of significant arms ($19 billion in the 16 months that followed “Desert Storm”, $14.5 billion of which were to Saudi Arabia alone). 66 Such sales continue as do the revelations, at regular frequency, about the most crazy intentions of aggression that are allegedly blossoming in the mind of the dictator of Baghdad.

==========

American hegemony was total, falsehood permanent, broadcasting alienated and the theatricalisation masterly. Decisions came down like lightning, the UN was put under tutelage, the Security Council instrumentalised, and the world watched a worthy operation of the defence of the rights of peoples. Who then was deceived? What aroused the bitterness and disgust of a number of Western intellectuals and journalists, has awakened consciences, fervour and anger in the Muslim world. We know today what motivates the generous interventions of the West. Can we blame any person who feels in himself the expression of a violent drive in the face of so much cynicism?

==========

It is time that the people of the West became aware of the responsibility their respective governments share in the spread of violence on a planetary scale. The Gulf crisis has participated in the enterprise of rupture and clash between the Muslim world and the West.

==========

ii. Bosnia What to say, in comparison, about Bosnia? In the interval of only a few months, the fierce determination of the allies, the UN and the whole “civilised” world gave way to procrastination, never-ending discussions, superficial disagreements, the betrayal of promises and the desertion of Muslims when the most terrifying information and images were broadcast to the entire world.

==========

In the eyes of a great number of Muslims, Bosnia appears as tangible proof of the fact that a clash is going on and that the West is, clearly, at war against Islam.

==========

For the majority, there is a conviction that the West does not like Muslims. Who has got the means to prove the contrary?

==========

A Muslim is not anti-Western, by nature. However, from the shameful treatment to displayed arrogance, he can become so. The West seems to be doing its utmost to create such a reflex.

==========

Would the West let the world of Islam decide its own fate? Will Muslims declare a merciless war against Western civilisation? Such fears are, from now on, legitimate as are the fractures real.

==========

To a student who asked how the political and social organisation, in Islam, can fight against unemployment and inflation, a university professor responded: “In an Islamic society, there is neither unemployment nor inflation since everything is well organised.” Such answers which mix the ideal with oversimplification are dangerous. It gives the impression that Islam is a panacea to be applied without any great difficulty.

==========

If the expression “Islam is the solution” can serve as a slogan, it should nonetheless not hide the stages, the inescapable difficulties, the innumerable pitfalls which will accompany, hinder or oppose social reform. Societies with Muslim majorities are today going through very profound and complex structural and moral crises. The exact measure of such crises should be taken by referring to realities and not only to quotations taken from

==========

If the expression “Islam is the solution” can serve as a slogan, it should nonetheless not hide the stages, the inescapable difficulties, the innumerable pitfalls which will accompany, hinder or oppose social reform. Societies with Muslim majorities are today going through very profound and complex structural and moral crises. The exact measure of such crises should be taken by referring to realities and not only to quotations taken from the sources.

==========

Many Muslims, when they are questioned by Westerners, confine themselves to purely theoretical considerations and refuse to take into account the actual situation. Besides, some of them perceive and feel the legitimate question of their interlocutors as their manifestation of an opposition to Islam. All happens as if, feeling on edge, the person who does not at once share our views is an enemy.

==========

When Muslims speak among themselves, they are inexhaustible in criticism of their co-religionists and, more broadly, of the catastrophic state in which the Umma finds itself.

==========

The least that can be noticed, from Morocco to Indonesia, is a feeling of bitterness, malaise and deep disenchantment that is shared by a large majority of the people. The affective inventory is negative.

==========

We cannot reproach Westerners for their “double language” and turn a blind eye to our own. We cannot criticise at will American permissiveness or delinquency and then, always, remain silent about the hypocrisies of Saudi power, the Tunisian horrors or the blind violence committed in the name of Islam.

==========

Those who consider the West as an enemy feel that any criticism directed at Muslims is a kind of dishonest compromise especially if it is enunciated in the presence of Westerners.

==========

Besides, it seems clear that we are opposed to the economic and strategic policies of the West, and this does not mean that the West, in itself, is the enemy.

==========

We are at a crossroads and our epoch is decisive. Tension is noticeable, and no day goes by, in the West, except that there is reference to Islam, Muslims, and the “fundamentalist danger”. We are justified in fearing the worst: the clash between civilisations is not only theoretically possible, but we can also say that the signs of potential rupture are visible.

==========

They have heard so much talk about the “Islamist” or “Islamic peril” that this universe appears to Westerners to be suspect, cumbersome and hostile.

==========

Western culture, that has done so much to liberate itself from dogmas, now has difficulty in grasping the presence, or return, of “the religious”.

==========

The Islamic civilisation, with its reference to the Qur’ān and the traditions of the Prophet (peace be upon him), with its concept of the world and human beings, and with its history, is not reducible to the cultural, terminological or semantic categories of the USA or Europe. Admittedly, there were attempts from the North to drown the capitals of the South under a torrent of Northern products; but one realises that the people – from intellectuals who are Western trained to the most poor – react in a sharp manner the moment that the elements of their “intuitive culture”, to use François Burgat’s expression, are mentioned. They remain deep down, and in a peculiar way (as we have indicated at the beginning of this chapter), attached to Faith in God, their Religion, their civilisation and their culture

==========

This fact appears as a factor of opposition to Western hegemony; and incontestably it is. For the first time for centuries, the culture of science and progress finds itself in a position whereby it is contested. Tension is, therefore, legitimate

==========

The vivid forces of opposition to frantic and aimless “scientism”, “economism”, “technician society” and “progress” who, from intellectuals to scholars, express themselves and struggle in the West, can find in the Muslim world partners whose existence they do not even suspect.

==========

After the hope of “developments” of the 1960s and the 1970s, we have entered an era of “cynical realism” whose main trait is not to spare any illusion. Such fatalism, resignation, this somber colonisation of minds is the real peril that the West should face: no other danger threatens it in so profound a fashion; neither

==========

After the hope of “developments” of the 1960s and the 1970s, we have entered an era of “cynical realism” whose main trait is not to spare any illusion. Such fatalism, resignation, this somber colonisation of minds is the real peril that the West should face: no other danger threatens it in so profound a fashion; neither communism, Islam nor “the barbarians”.