Q. You are obsessed with change. This is in fact, your critics argue, one of the main problems with your thought.

A. Wouldnt you be, if you see so much injustice, poverty and degradation all around you?

Q. But see social change as essential. A natural part of life.

A. I see change is normal; indeed, a natural part of life. And social change follows the patterns of overall change. It is normal and an integral part of life. However, the term social change is itself part of the western jargon of sociology and as such it reflects the values of the West. Whatever the value of Comte, Durkheim and Mannheim, it is Marx who has, more than anyone else, shaped western sociology. Indeed, Weber can be considered to be nothing more than a gloss on Marx. As such, I believe, western sociology assumes the Marxian dimension to a very large degree. The basic assumptions can be identified as: stratification of society (in classes), and the influence of economics on all spheres of society. Other cultures do not (necessarily) subscribe to these notions of society and hence sociology. In Islam, for example, society is structured not on the basis of class but piety (so the ideal theory goes). Furthermore, in western sociology change is itself a positive value. Again, other cultures do not see change itself as good. In Islam, change is not a value in itself. It can be blameworthy or praiseworthy and the society is suppose to exert and work towards positive change in Islamic terms. The value of change as perpetual and permanent is equated with the idea of progress; which is by definition good. All progress is progress and innately good. The binary opposite of progress is stagnation. Thus nothing should be allowed to impede change; and all obstacles to change are necessarily bad leading to reaction, decadence and death. Most non-western societies do not subscribe to such notions of progress. From social change to progress and from progress to development. This is the conventional western historic dynamic. What I say about progress also holds true of development.

Q. So, what are the primary agents of social change? What drives change?

A. In contemporary society, the dominant agents of change are science and technology. Plus fashion and zingiest. But this is hackneyed territory and I do not want to go into it. What I want to say is that different cultures have different notions of agents of social change. In Islam, the primary agent of social change is conceptual. It is a concept called ijtihad meaning reasoned and sustained struggle for innovation, positive change and uplifting progress. There are other concepts which have a bearing on this such as the notion of tajdid (renewal), islaah (correcting negative change) and istislah (promoting public interest). Theoretically, at least, change in Muslim society is brought about by exerting ijtihad and putting other concepts into practice. This is the kind of change I have argued for in Muslim societies.

Q. Do you assign any priority or instructions for determining which are the most crucial?

Yes. I always ask a simple question: Cui bono? Who benefits? It seems to me that almost all change in a globalised world benefits only certain societies and certain individuals and groups in those societies. On the whole, I am not really interested in change that leads to further marginalisation of the non-west or inner city poor in western societies. Neither am I interested in change that enhances the power of the corporations. My priorities are very simple: first the marginalised of the world wherever they are; second nature and environment; third knowledge. I judge all social change by this criteria: does it benefit the marginalised? The environment? Does it enhance our knowledge and understanding of our selves? I also think existing institutions are an impediment to positive change. The quest for sustainable society forces us to actually re-imagine society itself. We need the ability to transcend the existing poverty of thought and move forward to a future with new institutions based on new visions. I have seen, for example, how Muslim scholars tried to develop the idea of an Islamic economics (based on zero interest, the idea that land cannot be owned, notions of partnerships and cooperatives, and deep notions of social justice) using existing, conventional institutions. After 30 years of effort, we can safely say that they have failed. Existing institutions are innately unjust the injustice inherent in them (the bias towards the poor and environment, for example) is difficult to overcome. We need new institutions that are premised on the ideas of equality and social justice.

Q. Who is best placed to bring about positive social change?

A. You, me, everyone. Rivers are made of drops of water. Each drop of water must do the bit that is required. And we should work collectively to enhance our efforts. We tend to neglect the power of the ordinary people. An average Joe Bloggs or Sarah Smith has tremendous power even if he/she assumes that they are totally powerless. There is power even in absolute powerlessness. What is need is the will to change, struggle and fight for positive futures. And thats what I think is really lacking. Most of us are too comfortable and hence too complacent.

Q. You are critical of attempts to package Islam into a single ideology, or to view Islam as a simple set of rules and regulations that define everything from personal conduct to state power. At what point in your career did you discover or learn that this is not what Islam meant for you?

A. In the mid-seventies while living in Saudi Arabia. If you want to see the true manifestation of Islam as a one-dimensional ideology, simply look at Saudi Arabia. When I was first invited to come and work in Saudi Arabia, I felt as though I had won the lottery. It was the height of the oil-boom years in the late seventies, and I was going to join the newly established Hajj Research Centre at the King Abdul Aziz University in Jeddah. Saudi Arabia is, after all, the land of the two holiest cities of Islam: Mecca, the prime focus of every Muslim during daily prayers, the site of the Sacred Mosque with the Holy Kaaba - the House of Allah - and the goal of hajj, the pilgrimage that every Muslim must undertake at least once in his or her lifetime; and Medina, the city where the Prophet Muhammad laid the foundations of the Muslim civilisation. The emotional content of the words Mecca and Medina on a young Muslim looking for his first job cannot be measured on any human scale. I thought I was going to an Islamic paradise. But I soon discovered that when Islam and the state are one and the same thing, and when there is only one way of interpreting Islam and of being a Muslim, you end you with self-righteous fascism. If you believe that you possess the absolute truth, you naturally want to keep it pure and exclude everything that you see as falsehood. Moreover, you are keen to impose it on others whatever the cost. When you internalise Islam as a single ideology, you cease to be, in my opinion, human. . In their excessive zeal to be guardians of their brand of hyper-orthodox Islam, many Saudis have forgotten how to be human. When I first went to Saudi Arabia I thought I will discover a new level of humanity, a new, unparalleled appreciation of the dignity of difference. Instead, I encountered a type of religious xenophobia that I could not imagine. I realised then that Islam cannot be packaged into a single ideology. Later, revolutionary Iran and the Taliban further strengthened my belief. For me, Islam is all about knowing yourself as a human being. Before you can be a good Muslim you must be a good human being. Simplest, monolithic interpretations of Islam undermine this equation.

Q. The Ijmalis were perhaps the most dynamic group of Muslim Diaspora intellectuals whose vision and output is likely to remain unmatched for many decades. Why could you not institutionalise?

A. You insist on labelling me; and I insist on rejecting all labels. I am not a Diaspora anything. I do not feel displaced. I am not in exile. I feel totally at home where I am! The Ijamlis did not see themselves as Diaspora intellectuals they felt perfectly at home in the West because they were from and of the West. They emerged as a network before networks were in fashion. It is very difficult to institutionalise a network. The Ijamlis were a product of their time and existed as long as the network performed a useful function. They evaporated when the network was no longer needed. I do not really lament their demise. The world has moved on and we need new networks geared to contemporary times.

Q. Among the next generation of Diaspora Muslim public intellectuals, Tariq Ramadans ideas are perhaps closest to yours. Notwithstanding 9/11, why do you think it has taken a quarter of a century for your ideas to resurface in the public sphere?

A. Well, better late than never. When The Future of Muslim Civilisation was first published, I remember my friend Jerry Ravetz saying, dont expect anyone to understand it; it will take decades for many of the ideas in it to filter down. I think it is the job of reformers to be ahead of their time. Moreover, I am asking Muslims to transcend centuries of historical baggage and overturn deeply entrenched obscurantism. I have always seen this as a multi-generational task. Sometimes you need a crisis for certain reformist ideas to come to the fore. I think the total failure of the notion of Islamic state and the Islamic movement, as well as intellectual movements such as Islamisation of knowledge, has generated a sense of crisis. 9/11 has given this crisis an urgent spin to this crisis. So the time is now ripe for many of my ideas to come to the fore. Indeed, it is gratifying to see how so many of my ideas sometime with acknowledgement, mostly without acknowledgement have now been embraced in places like Indonesia, Malaysia, Turkey and in various European Muslim circles. But I do not believe that Tariq Ramadan and others have still caught up with the true import of my ideas.

Q. Talking of Europe, do you think that a European Islam is possible? Considering that Muslims are a minority, do you think that a minority can play an role in shaping new interpretations of Islam?

A. I think the first thing we need to appreciate is that Islam is not a monolithic entity. We can interpret it according to the situation we find ourselves in. The basic contours of Islam what we believe, they way we do our worship, the basic injunctions of the Quran and Sunnah are immutable; but the rest is open to interpretation. And, I think, that it is the duty of European Muslims to shape a European Islam based on their experience and understanding of both Islam and the contemporary European societies. So, I see the development of a dynamic European Islam, underpinning European Muslim identities, as an urgent social and cultural project.

To the question of minorities. Minorities have always played a great role in shaping Islam and giving it a sense of direction. The idea of hijra or migration that leads to the formation of a Diaspora is central to Islam. Our calendar itself starts with the hijra of the Prophet Muhammad from Mecca to Medina. And when the Prophet arrived in Medina, the Muslims were a minority. Moreover, throughout Muslim history, minorities have played a major part in transforming the centre. It was the scholars and thinkers of the periphery, such as Samarkand and Bukhara, who informed and changed the classical period. Think of the immense contribution of Moorish Spain clearly a minority in relation to the rest of the then Muslim world in building the Muslim civilisation. So being a minority is not necessarily an impediment to developing a civilisational project. I think European Muslims are well placed to undertake this project and, through their efforts, change the rest of the Muslim world itself.

Q. Do you think Turkeys membership can help this process? Is Turkeys exclusion from EU solely based on economical and social reason? How can they contribute to the debate about Turkey or learn from it?

A. Certainly. I think Turkeys membership of EU will provide a big boost to the confidence of European Muslims. It will confirm that Islam not only belongs in Europe but also has European roots. There are primarily two reasons for Turkeys exclusion from the EU. The first is racism pure and simple. Europe has never sees Turkey as part of itself; no matter how much Turkey saw itself as European. Western Europe has always suffered from a serious identity crisis and where Europe ends and the rest of the world begins, its boundaries, is an integral part of this identity crisis. So Eastern Europe, for example, is never actually seen as European but as a part of the East. This is why Slovakians, Romanians and Albanians are never accepted as fully-fledged Europeans. As the historic Other of Europe, Turkey is hardly likely to be seen as a true European state. The second is Turkeys human rights records. Indeed, this and the armys involvement in politics, is often used to justify European racism against Turkey. Now, this has nothing to do with Islam. In fact, the military justifies its involvement in politics and human rights abuses in terms of keeping Turkey secular and suppressing Islam. It is perfectly possible for Turkey to be ruled by a moderate Islamic elements, be free of human rights and freedom of expression abuses, thrive on plurality and develop a prosperous economy. What is not possible is for Turkey to be totally overshadowed by the army and be a free, pluralistic and democratic state. Only when the army cuts itself off totally from politics will it be possible for Turkey to fulfil the basic condition for inclusion in the European Union. And only then can it have the moral ground to fight the racist attitudes and deeply held prejudices that Europe holds about Turkey. I think this is happening. Europe cannot keep Turkey out of the Union for ever; this could have serious consequences for the EU itself. So, sooner or later, I think, Turkey will join the EU.

Q. You have upset lots of people with your thoughts on conversion to Islam. On the whole, you do not think this is a good idea. Why?

A. In my experience, many converts, if not most, converts come to Islam to seek certainty and simplicity, and perhaps a recognition that they need authoritarianism the three things I believe Islam is not about. Most converts tend to be more Muslims than the Muslims and take every minute aspect of Islam as they have been thought or have learned very, very seriously. If they happen to adopt the Wahabi way, they want everyones who does not have a beard to be declared an unbeliever, those who are not vigilant with their prayers are seriously lacking in faith, and want to impose Shariah law on everything and everyone. Now, I dont want to name names; but check out the opinions of some prominent white Muslims and you will see what I mean.

Theres another problem. Converts automatically assume leadership position. In America, Hamza Yusuf and in Britain Yusuf Islam and Abdul Hakim Murad are a clear example. In the eighties many white converts formed what was than known as Islamic Society of Britain (now it has changed a lot) and their declared purpose was to (1) lead the Muslim community because the immigrants were not capable of being leaders; and (2) represent Islam to the host community because the Subcontinental were a bad advert for Islam. I found many of its members to be totally obnoxious, and some were plainly and expressly racist. Indeed, converts only play the race card sometime consciously, sometimes innocently - viz a viz the Arabs. The Arabs, as you know, are deeply racist when it comes to white converts because they prove the superiority of Islam. They look up to them. And some white converts exploit this. In a strange way, converts also play a role in projecting a normal image of Islam. They are often brought on radio and television to make the point: look if a Yorkshire (for example) born lassie can convert to Islam, then it must be alright. Or at least cant be bad. I wouldnt say I am against converts per se. But I am concerned that many of them have extremists or very narrow views on Islam; and many impose themselves as leaders of the Muslim community.

Q. Yet your closest collaborator and co-author Merryl Davies is a convert from Wales.

Those coverts who retain a balance, take their newly adopted religion in their stride, make tremendous contribution all around. Consider the achievements, for example, of Mohammad Asad or Marmaduke Pickthall, both of whom translated the Quran. Converts that do not wear their Islam on their sleeves, or suffer from some kind of identity crisis, can be a boon to Muslim society. Unfortunately, such people are few and far in between. Merryl is one of them. She is so confident of her Welsh identity that she did not even bother to change her name. That says something!

Q. The Sufi Traditionalists claim that your ideas for an Islamic Science are devoid of an appreciation of spirituality and the soul. Would you say there is some truth to this?

A. Science is all about problem solving, it has nothing to do with the soul. You may find spirituality in nature but that is not the same thing as studying nature to understand it laws. Now I do think that values play an important part in shaping science; and these values can be spiritual values. But at the same time, I believe science to be socially objective and its results to be repeatable and applicable throughout all cultures. This view clashes with the Traditionalist notion that sees science as sacred, secret, concerned with the occult, and based on some sort of perennial philosophy. I make no apology for that. I reject this notion of science totally.

Q. In retrospect, do you feel you were too hard on Hussian Nasr, the champion of Traditionalist notion of science and the Bucaillists, who seek to justify the discoveries of science through a reading of the Quran. Their views remain mainstream among Muslims all over the world.

A. As I said earlier, I believe in speaking my mind, and stating the truth as I see it. I may be wrong; and often am. But I still prefer to speak truth to power. I dont believe that I was either hard or soft on Nasr or Bucaillists. It is for others to critically evaluate my arguments. My views often go against the mainstream. That doesnt really bother me. What does bother me is the lack of critical thought in Muslim societies. I think the mainstream views of Nasr and Bucaillists are pushing Muslim societies away from science. Muslims, I think, need to realise that there are no quick fixes in science you cant do science by contemplating the universe nor can scientific discoveries be made by simply reading the Quran. There is no substitute for rolling ones sleeves and going back to the laboratory.

Q. After 9/11, Muslims everywhere began to ask questions about their faith. Britains Muslims are racked with pain and soul-searching following the 7 July London bombs. What impact do you think these events have had and how do you interpret the debate?

A. I dont think September 11 marked a sharp departure soul searching has been going on in the Muslim world for decades. But 9/11 and 7/7 do bring certain questions into sharper focus. Why do Muslims feel so enraged? What kind of despair has modernity, postmodernism and western foreign policies engendered in non-western societies? We need deep answers to these question not the ridiculously facile ones provided by American politicians and newspaper columnists such as we - the rest of the world - are jealous of American success or we envy their democracy September 11 also raises some profound question for Muslim too. Why does Islam today appear to be synonymous with violence? And why are those who claim to be following the will of God so bent on the path of war? How in the 21st century, the Muslim world could have produced a bin Ladin? Why is the Muslim world so crammed with despots, theocrats, autocrats and dictators? Or, to put it another way: Why have Muslim societies failed so spectacularly to come to terms with modernity?

These are not new questions. I have raised them many times. Other writers and scholars have asked the same questions. But after September 11, these questions have acquired a new poignancy and a much broader currency. However, such debate and earnest discourse has some notable features. The debate is conducted, for the most part, by Muslim intellectuals and writers, who like myself live and work in the West, though they enjoy a readership and close links within the Muslim world. The reason is not hard to find. Living in the West requires a direct response to the circumstances and human dilemmas of modernity; it allows more ready access to sources of Muslim scholarship than in most Muslim countries; within the Muslim world dissent, wide ranging intellectual inquiry and argument has little if any public scope. So the central debate on the contemporary meaning of Islam is, in its most challenging form, doubly marginal. It occurs outside Muslim nations, where any attempt to apply its ideas is blocked by existing power structures and entrenched vested interests. In the West it is hardly known, being the concern of a minority of a minority, it is almost inaudible and invisible. Furthermore from a western perspective it is not consistent with popular perceptions of Islam, nor the real politick of relations with the Muslim World. I think, we need to ensure that this debate has the widest currency possible. Everyone must be involved in thinking about and attempting to answer these questions.

Q. This brings us to the vexed questions of democracy and liberalism. Are these concepts products of the imperialist West, as some Muslim writers argue? Do they have any place in Islam?

A. I think Islam does not have any problem with democracy; indeed, I would argue, that Islam is inherently democratic in that it seeks, without compromise, governance that is both accountable and participatory. Indeed, democracy and other western ideas, clash with Islam only when they conceive themselves as a doctrine of Truth or violates one of the fundamental notions of Islam. Only when democracy becomes wedded to atheistic humanism, becomes an arch ideology, and lays claims to being a dogma of Truth, or when secularism interprets itself as an epistemology, does it clash with the faith of Islam. As a mechanism for representative government, devoid of its ideological pretensions and trappings, democracy has no quarrel with Islam.

We can say the same about liberal humanism. Indeed, the West took humanism from Islam. And, if Europe was true to its origins, and if it had any integrity and self-respect, it would acknowledge that it learnt how to reason, what is the difference between civilisation and barbarism, and what are the basic features of a civil society from Islam. It was thinkers like ibn Sina, ibn Rushd, ibn Khaldun and al-Baruni who introduced humanism to Europe. Indeed, with these and other Muslim thinkers, Europe as a civilised idea is inconceivable. So there is nothing in humanism per se that is European or anti Islamic. But Europes unique role was the construction of liberal humanism as an arch ideology, as a grand narrative, into which all other narratives must be assimilated. It is this dimension of European humanism that we reject.

I think a major goal for us Muslims today is to rediscover our democratic and humanist roots. And, in the process, show Europe that there are other notions of democracy and other ways of being human. To some extent, that is also the goal of reformulating Islam as a transmodern outlook.

Let me distinguish between transmodernism and postmodernism and modernity. Transmodernism goes beyond modernity; it transcend modernity in that it takes us trans ie through modernity into another state of being. Thus, unlike postmodernism, transmodernism is not a linear projection. We can best understand it with the aid of chaos theory. In all complex systems societies, civilisations, eco-systems etc. many independent variables are interacting with each other in great many ways. Chaos theory teaches us that complex systems have the ability to create order out of chaos. This happens at a balancing point, called the edge of chaos. At the edge of chaos, the system is in a kind of suspended animation between stability and total dissolution into chaos. At this point, almost any factor can push the system into one or other direction. However, complex systems at the edge of chaos have the ability to spontaneously self-organise themselves into a higher order; in other words the system evolves spontaneously into a new mode of existence.

Transmodernism is the transfer of modernity from the edge of chaos, where it has brought the Muslim world, into a new order of society. As such, transmoderism and tradition are not two opposing worldviews but a new synthesis of both. Traditional societies use their ability to change and become transmodern while remaining the same! Both sides of the equation are important here: change has to be made and accommodated; but the fundamental tenets of tradition, the source of its identity and sacredness, remain the same. So we may define a transmodern future as a synthesis between life enhancing tradition - that is amenable to change and transition - and a new form of modernity that respects the values and lifestyles of traditional cultures.

In developing democratic, humane and pluralistic models of Muslim societies, that is a transmodern framework, it is important to think of the Muslim world beyond the straight jackets of governments. Most Muslim countries are governed by ultra modernists or ultra traditionalists neither of whom have any understanding of the complexity of the contemporary world or the urgent need to develop transmodern frameworks. We need to go beyond decision makers and involve ordinary people scholars, writers, activists, academics, journalists in our discussions. We will discover that most people have a critical but positive attitude towards both tradition and the West; and women will be as willing, if not more so, to participate in such discussions and the transformations they may initiate, as men. Transmodernism is not about conflict, or a false sense of aggrandisement, but about symbiosis between Islam and the West. Its aim must be to replace homogenising globalisation with what Anwar Ibrahim, the former Deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia, has called global convivencia that is, a more harmonious and enriching experience of living together.

Q. In Battle for Islam, you travelled across 5 Muslim countries, talking to everyone from catwalk models to military dictators. How was this visit different from all your previous journeys?

A. For one thing, I was accompanied by a television crew. For another, I had a good idea what I was looking for, the kind of conversation I wanted to generate, and how I wanted to mediate the end product. So in a sense it was an artificial journey. All television is mediated and constructed. Battle for Islam was no exception.

Q. Your many journeys have taken you to many places and brought you in contact with a multitude of personalities. Do you ever tire of travel? Can you see yourself ever stopping?

A. After each journey, I vow to stop. Somehow I never do.

Q. Some of your critics have suggested that sometimes you are too self-mocking and not serious enough.

A. I am very serious; but I do not take myslef seriously.

Q. What do you see yourself doing when you are 70?

Reading, writing, thinking, loving, regretting, and as usual, planting seeds that I hope would grow and prosper and turn the world into a garden.

From
Irish Times 13 June 2006

Back to Top

Ziauddin Sardar: The function of the writer is to illustrate that there are numerous ways to be human

What links the West and the Muslim world is that both have multiple identities, writer Ziauddin Sardar tells Arminta Wallace

I'm baffled and, if the truth be told, a little bit miffed. Ive phoned the writer and broadcaster, Ziauddin Sardar, at the appointed hour, only to be answered by an unshaven growl, which goes: "Can you call me back in one hour and half please?" The phone is then put down.

My mind goes into overdrive. Is Sardar being held by Islamic extremists who don't want him talking to the media? Or is his reluctance based on something more subtle, to do with the fact that Im a woman, maybe? And - most importantly of all - after this unexpected hitch, will I still make my deadline? Happily, I'm too busy to brood. I do something else, and 87 minutes later on the dot - hell hath no fury like a female hack scorned - I dial the number again.

"Sorry about this morning, and thanks for calling back," says the cheerful voice at the other end of the line. There is, it turns out, no more sinister explanation than that Sardar was out on the town until very late, celebrating the Orange Prize triumph of the British-
Jamaican writer, Zadie Smith, and her book, On Beauty.

"I was fast asleep when you phoned," he admits.

Interesting, though, how the mind works. I believe myself to be a reasonable person, well-disposed towards Islam - yet at the first sign of a hiccup in the course of an assignment involving an Islamic writer, even one whose ideas I've found to be particularly sympathetic, what's the first thing that occurs to me? Negative stuff to do with extremism and misogyny.

Just as well, then, that Sardar's talk at this week's Dublin Writers Festival, in association with Critical Voices, is titled Writing Connections: Bridging the Divide Between Islam and Europe.

"I think there is a serious gap of understanding between Islam and the West," he says. "In the West, the dominant view of Islam is the one that's presented by the extremists; but, of course, Muslims are a human community, and as with any human community you will get ranges of opinion, from one extreme to another with moderate and liberal in the middle. So I think the first thing to point out is that there are lots of varieties of Islam out there."

The problem is compounded, he adds, by the fact that the lack of communication works both ways.

"Most Muslims see the West in a mirror image of how the West has conventionally described the Muslims," says Sardar. "As licentious, violent, a monolithic body intent on invading Muslim countries, and so forth, with no distinction made between America and the various countries of Europe. So the first thing to do is to recognise that this divide comes from both sides."

Where there is a divide, of course, there is little or no space for dialogue - which allows both sides to claim they have a monopoly on truth.

"Believing in 'the truth' is very quickly transformed into 'we know the truth' - with a capital T," he says. "And from there to 'we own the truth'. This transformation from 'knowing' to 'owning' is very serious."

Like the communication divide, the truth divide also operates in a monolithic way, with Osama Bin Laden, for example, claiming that his version of Islam is the only correct one, while western secularists, in turn, insist that their version of liberal democracy is the only way to be human.

"The function of the writer is to illustrate that there are numerous ways to be human,"says Sardar. "Particularly writers of fiction. I think this is what really good classic fiction actually does."

It is surprising to hear Sardar mention fiction - or maybe not. As a quick glance at his biography on the online encyclopaedia, Wikipedia, shows, he has written books on an extraordinary array of topics, from Aliens R Us: the Other in Science Fiction Cinema through Thomas Kuhn and the Science Wars to the bestselling Why Do People Hate America? He has made films for the BBC, including the recently broadcast Battling for Islam. He edits the monthly policy journal, Futures, is co-editor of a critical journal of visual art and culture, and writes a column in the New Statesman, in which he discusses everything from the dilemma - for a Muslim man - of facial hair to the merits of alternative medicine.

This magpie range of interests is not accidental, but a result of
Sardar's philosophy of life.

"In the kind of world we live in, there's nobody who doesn't have multiple selves," he says. "And globalisation has enhanced this. Whatever happens around the world, we are aware of it almost instantaneously now - so we are becoming more and more conscious of these multiple selves.

"I have multiple identities. I'm British, I'm Pakistani, I'm a Muslim, I'm a writer, I'm a father. And each identity has rich overtones. So I must be careful to look at your identity, and that of others, in the same way; and when I write, I need to be sure that I represent you not as a monolithic entity but in your multiple selves."

He calls this his "Mad" notion, or Mutually Assured Diversity, and he sees it as a crucial ingredient of a multicultural globalised world.

"It's everybody's responsibility, and everybody's challenge, to move away from monolithic views towards this idea of mutually assured diversity," he says. "This is where, I think, writers and authors could present different communities in a different way."

In his autobiography, Desperately Seeking Paradise: Journeys of a Sceptical Muslim, Sardar has put his ideas about diversity into practice. The book is a kind of road trip through a dazzling variety of Islamic landscapes, from the interiorised mysticism of Sufi sheikhs to the sharia-based political activism of the Muslim Brotherhood. It also documents his personal journey and its many stopping-off points: a period as a socialist in Hackney; a hugely influential stint of study with a Sudanese tutor who had studied
Philosophy with Karl Popper; and, perhaps more influential than anyone (as the book is dedicated to her), his mother.

There is a wonderful scene where Sardar describes a mother-son debate on the thorny topic of firdous, or paradise, as it occurs in the Koran. While making an extremely astute proto-postmodernist point about holistic interpretations and the integrity of the text, this extremely astute mammy manages to remind the 14-year-old Sardar - gently but firmly - that he has been neglecting his prayers. Sardar laughs.

"Well, my mother is a very, very simple woman - simple, but not simplistic," he says. "She has an almost profound simplicity and she is a towering figure, not just in my life but in my sister's as well. She always insisted on two things only. One was that we should be educated to university level at least. And that we should be Muslims - but questioning Muslims, in spite of the fact that she herself is quite traditional. She didn't impose her tradition on us. But she did argue that her tradition should play a part in our lives now."

"She has," he adds with a chuckle, "just gone off to California to spend six months with my sister, who lives there. At the age of 73, she doesn't argue that much any more. She just smiles knowingly."

Sardar stresses that he is not seeking to minimise the difficulty of the international situation we find ourselves in. Nevertheless, he is adamant that writers - indeed, all of us - have a responsibility to move the debate forward, well away from the clash of fundamentalisms towards which conservatives claim the world is inevitably headed.
There is, he says, always another way of looking at things.

"When you look at the history of Islam from the perspective of the Crusades, it's almost totally a history of conflict," he says. "But this is just one interpretation. If you look at the history of Islam in Spain, for example, there's a history of co-operation and engagement as well - while the Crusades were going on at the same time.

"That's the thing about human life. Humans are capable of doing a number of different things - even contradictory things - at the same time. And that's what I think writers need to bring out. They really do have to illuminate the contradictions which enrich our humanity."

Writing Connections: Bridging the Divide Between Islam and Europe, a talk by Ziauddin Sardar, part of the Dublin Writers Festival is at
Project, Dublin, on Sat at 6pm

Back to Top

Soeryo Winoto, Kurniawan Hari, The Jakarta Post, Jakarta
15th October 2006

One of the world's foremost Muslim intellectuals, Zianuddin Sardar, recently came to Indonesia to participate in the Ubud Writers and Readers Festival, which he said was an important event to promote civil society.

Despite his tight schedule, he made time to sit down with The Jakarta Post for an interview, sharing his thoughts on various issues, including his latest book, Desperately Seeking Paradise: Journeys of a Skeptical Muslim. "Paradise is here and now. It's a real human place. A place where at the end of the day justice, law and morality prevail," he told the Post's Soeryo Winoto and Kurniawan Hari.

"If you deny the rights of men, you're not going to fulfill the right of God. You have to begin with yourself and the people around you," said the Pakistani-born British writer. Sardar, who has published over 40 books on various aspects of Islam, science policy, cultural studies and related subjects, and once wrote columns for two British publications, The Observer and The New Statesman, also criticized Muslim fundamentalists who, according to him, claim to know and even own the truth. "They think they don't only believe the truth but know and own the truth. If you own the truth, then your are God. They behave like they are divine creatures who have the right to impose what they believe on others. To me, that negates everything that Islam stands for," he said.

The following are excerpts of the interview:

Do you think paradise exists?

The answer is yes and no. Let me explain. First of all, as a Muslim, we do believe that we are accountable for what we do in this world. And there is going to be a final judgment or a final account of how good or bad we have been in this world. And the reward is, you know, paradise or not. That paradise need not be a physical place, in my opinion. In fact, it exists. In the book itself, it is essentially used as a metaphor. Within Islamic traditions there are various descriptions of what paradise is. But in the Holy Koran, paradise is very much a metaphysical and metaphorical construction. Therefore, it is left to imagination. For me, paradise amounts to a just and equitable place. As a writer, I always look for a just and equitable place. You always seek justice and equality.

Some say that paradise is just a term for an abstract place in the hereafter.
Well, it is an abstract place in the hereafter. That is true. I agree with that. But I also think that paradise is here and now. We tend to seek paradise as a mental construction.

This is not something unique to Muslims. In Western culture, we have the idea of utopia from Thomas Moore. There is the quest for utopia. But the problem with utopia, as the word implies, is that it is no place for no people. I am looking for a real place with real people. In a sense, my paradise is not a perfect utopian place. It's a real human place. A place where at the end of the day justice, law and morality prevail.

Do you think all Muslims are aware of the existence of paradise and that they are all preparing for it?

Muslims are preparing for accountability. All Muslims have a very strong notion of accountability before God. But the interesting thing is Muslims have a strong notion of accountability before God but they don't seem to have a strong notion of accountability before men. If you deny the rights of men, you're not going to fulfill the right of God. You have to begin with yourself and the people around you. The love of God stems from the love of fellow men.

It seems to me that Muslims become too obsessed with the right of God at the expense of the right of fellow beings. We pay a great deal of attention to rituals but we pay no attention to things like the rights of women, gender equality or poverty eradication, or economic development. Why? Because we don't think these have anything to do with Islam. We only think that the things that have something to do with Islam are going to the mosque, going for haj, fasting or giving alms.

Do you think each Muslim can gauge if he or she is going to paradise or not?

No. Nobody can do that, only God decides. You may think that you are the most pious Muslim in the world and you deserve a place in paradise. But you cannot say, only God decides. You may think that somebody else is very bad and is going to hell. But God may send him to paradise. It is God's decision. You cannot say that. There is a famous teaching in the Hadith (a compilation of Prophet Muhammad's deeds) about a prostitute who gave water to a dying dog. She goes to paradise because of one act of kindness. It is quoted in the book. So, you don't know. As a Muslim you have to constantly seek forgiveness. You also need constantly to seek forgiveness of fellow Muslims and other humans. We often tend to forget that.

Is it right to say that paradise is the final goal for all Muslims?

I think the final goal for all Muslims is to seek the pleasure of Allah. If I were given a paradise which keeps me from the pleasure of Allah, I wouldn't be very happy. For me, paradise is not just something that happens in the hereafter. Paradise is also something that happens now. I need to work out how in my daily life can I seek the pleasure of Allah.

In various ways the Koran tells us. I can seek the pleasure of Allah if, for example, I think, I reflect, I use my reason, I study nature. I can seek the pleasure of Allah if, for example, I am kind, generous and merciful toward my fellow man. I can seek Allah's pleasure if I try to make my environment clean and healthy. To me all these activities take me close to paradise. Paradise is not just after I die. But here and now as well. I need to do all these things.

If my Islam is reduced to nothing more than just praying and fasting then I am living in one dimension. In general, life is multidimensional.
Most Muslims tend to live one dimensional lives. They don't look at others. They try to impose one dimensional lives on others. We have fanaticism, violence and terrorism. They think they don't only believe the truth but know and own the truth. If you own the truth, then your are God. They behave like they are divine creatures who have the right to impose what they believe on others. To me, that negates everything that Islam stands for.

Do you consider yourself a moderate Muslim?

I think of myself as liberal or moderate. But I am also a fundamentalist. There are certain things fundamental about Islam. For example, what defines me as a Muslim is the fact that I believe the Koran is the word of God. That is very fundamental to my belief. If I don't believe it, I am not a Muslim.

I believe that Prophet Muhammad is the messenger of God. More than that he is the ideal example for me to follow. Again, this is fundamental. By that doesn't mean I have to live in a desert and cover my head or have a beard. What I need is that I have to capture his characteristics, his generosity and his forgiveness. He (Muhammad) believed in consultation. As a prophet he needed no consultation but he always went to the mosque and consulted with people. We have to learn the principle, not the appearance. You can have the longest beard in the world, but that does not make you the follower of the Prophet in my opinion.

How do you see relations between moderate Muslims and militants in Britain and other parts of the world?

The militants are very few and marginal. The vast majority of Muslims in Britain are moderate and liberal -- and conservative. The militants are marginal. However, the danger the tiny minority represents cannot be ignored. I think this tiny minority represents real danger. Something needs to be done by bringing them to the mainstream and having a dialog. I believe you cannot ignore these people. We need to engage these people, somehow. The more we ignore these people the more invisible they become to society. The more invisible, the more dangerous they become. The more visible we can make them, the less threatening they will be. We can make them visible by talking with them. We have to find the language to talk with them.

What is the cause of the increasing Islamic militancy?

I think there are two causes. The first is the external cause that is the foreign policies of the U.S. and Britain. A number of reports from intelligence services like the CIA and various British sources said that Iraq has contributed to (increasing) militancy and terrorism. What happened in Lebanon recently is also important (in increasing terrorism).

There is also the internal reason. Puritanism has made a major return in Muslim society. Perhaps, this has not existed for a very long time. This puritanism, fanaticism, is a result of not being able to engage with modernity. Indonesian Muslim cleric Abu Bakar Ba'asyir has no understanding of what power is in the contemporary world or modernity. Everything is seen from a simple slogan: Islam is the answer and the Koran is the law.
This is basically a very stupid mistake. If Islam is the answer, what is the question? If you don't understand the question, how are you going to come up with answers. The kind of fundamentalism he represents is all slogans with no programs. The only program is violence and imposing their own will because they cannot talk to people. There is no reason behind their idea.

This particular failure is very serious and Muslims need to engage with modernity. We need to understand the complexity of the world. We need to understand that power nowadays comes from a number of different sources. Contemporary power is based on knowledge and structure. Unless a society produces knowledge, it does not even understand itself. If a society cannot understand itself, how can it understand other societies and other cultures.

Knowledge is an absolutely essential requirement for any kind of power in contemporary society. Knowledge is not something that you can pursue in one day or one hour. It must be pursued perpetually. Knowledge is the notion of civil society. Without civil society, no country can have power. Look at the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union was a nuclear power and was supposed to be a super-power, but it had no civil society. It imploded.

You cannot have power of any kind unless you have a civil society, where individuals are respected as individual so they can pursue knowledge with total freedom, build institutions and transact business. Unless there is civil society, there won't be the dynamism needed to build a super-power. Look at Muslim countries. The country with the most power now is Turkey. It has practiced democracy for a long time. It has a strong civil society and strong economy. It is a knowledge-producing society. It is the most powerful Muslim country in the world, not because of its military but because of its civil society.

Are you saying that moderate Muslim scholars should have a dialog with militants?

I think dialog is essential. The first word of the Revelation of the Koran is: "Read!" When you read, you immediately ask questions and think. If you ask questions and think, you must talk to people. So dialog is a central component of Islam. If you look at the Koran, the Koran is asking questions from beginning to end -- just a series of questions. Have you not done this, have you not talked about that.

The Koran consistently asks questions, so that believers can ask similar questions to each other and discuss them. Maybe they agree or disagree. Sometimes they make a consensus, or ijma. This is how we define knowledge. Ijma involves everybody. It involves Basyir, the President and everybody in between.

So, a group of Muslims cannot do things unilaterally. No matter how strong they feel. Society has consensus on their opinion then they carry on. If the society don't make a consensus, they can agree or disagree and live with that. But I don't understand these people who constantly talk of Islam and sharia, or Islamic law. But basically in their behavior and actions, they have no respect for Islam.

Indonesia has moderate Muslims and a democracy, but at the same time corruption is rampant. How do you see this?
I believe Indonesia will become a great democracy. But the democratic tradition here is only a few years old. You have democracy but you don't have civil society. Part of the goal of Muslims should be to create a civil society. To create institutions. Muslims who want to be politically engaged should really be engaged in creating civil society. They can teach citizens about democracy, elections, representation, and qualification of representatives.

Politics for Indonesia has to be the construction of civil society. Politics in Indonesia is not about building an imaginary utopian Islamic state. Politics in Indonesia is about creating civil society. All the energy and attention of Muslim politicians should be directed to this. If the fanatics are really concerned about Islam, they should be helping to create a civil society.

An Islamic state and civil society don't go hand in hand. They are opposite. If you look at the Islamic states of Saudi Arabia, Iran or Sudan, they don't have civil society.
They violate everything that I believe Islam stands for -- human dignity, political accountability. They promote injustice and they are oppressive. They reduce Islam to one dimension. No system can exist in a single dimension. If you plant the same crops year after year, after seven years you kill the soil. Even the soil has different cultures and different crops.

"Muslim societies must discover a contemporary meaning of Islam''

Ziauddin Sardar, an internationally renowned Muslim scholar and the author of Desperately Seeking Paradise: Journeys of a Sceptical Muslim, represents one of the most authoritative moderate voices in Islam. Here, in a major intervention on the controversy over the cartoons of Prophet Muhammed published in the European media, he explores both sides of the debate and calls for "reformulating" Islam in contemporary terms.

Ziauddin Sardar:
"A segment of our community is intolerant and rigid. But not all Muslims should be seen in this light."

Even those who understand Muslim sensitivities feel the Muslim reaction to the cartoons of Prophet Muhammed has been excessive and is likely to reinforce the perception of the community as intolerant and too prickly.

The Muslim response has indeed been rather excessive. Threats and burning down embassies only further enforces the image of Muslims as violent and uncivilised people. I think this is a symptom of a larger problem: we do not know how to react to instrumental modernity on its own terms. The cartoons are not about freedom of expression; they are all about naked use of power and demonisation. They are not just maligning the Prophet; they are saying that he was intrinsically violent, that the creed he preached is violent, and hence all those who follow him are violent. In other words, Muslims are inherently violent and evil. No culture or people can tolerate such a level of demonisation. Last time, Europe demonised a people to this extent we ended up with the Holocaust. As far as I am concerned, these cartoons are a reflection of racism and Islamophobia that is now running rampant in Europe. It will not stop here. So we need a more considered response; something that demonstrates Muslims are not totally powerless. That means we need to rethink and reformulate Islam as a contemporary worldview. This does not mean we need to change or modify our religious notions; but it does mean that we need to use Islamic ideas and concepts to reformulate Islam as an outlook that goes beyond instrumental modernity and fashionable postmodernism.

There is a lot of talk again of a "clash of civilisations" in the wake of the cartoons controversy. How close are we to it?

To have a `clash of civilisations' you need at least two civilisations. When Gandhi was asked what he thought of western civilisation, he said `it is a good idea'. The `West' can hardly be described as a `civilisation' civilised societies do not go out of their way to demean and denigrate the values and cultures of other societies. `Islam' is a string of fragmented nation-states, largely ruled by despots. Even if Islam and the West have been clashing in history, there is no reason for us to accept the blunders of history as an inevitable course for the future. The two cultures can coexist with mutual trust and respect; and thrive together. The common ground between the two is far greater than their differences. The religious traditions of the two civilisations have a common origin in the Abrahamic traditions both Islam and Christianity trace their lineage to the Prophet Abraham. Western liberalism and humanism, it will come as a surprise to many, has its origins in Islamic thought and philosophy. Virtually all of Greek thought came to Europe via the Muslim world. Instead of seeing Islam and the West as two opponents, we can equally well see them as two siblings of the same historic parents. But there are people out there, on both sides, who are hell-bent on a clash. Indeed, it seems to be becoming a self-fulfilling prophesy. Sensible people everywhere need to stand up to this madness.

Why do you think Muslims are perceived the way they are rigid, intolerant, quick to take offence? Or is there a tendency to demonise the community?

Both. A segment of our community is intolerant and rigid. But not all Muslims should be seen in this light. One of the strongest features of contemporary Islam is its truly mind-boggling diversity. But it is true to say that most Muslims have developed a victimhood mentality something they need to transcend. The tendency to demonise the Muslim community has reached a frightening level in Europe. Recently, I travelled through Germany, Belgium, Holland, and France looking at perceptions of Muslims in these countries. I was appalled to discover the extent of fear and loathing against the Muslims. There is little doubt in my mind that fascism is making a come back in Europe.

I think that rigidity and narrow mindedness of certain quarters amongst Muslims in Europe is fuelling the rise of extreme right wing extremism. So European Muslims have a great burden on their shoulders they need to develop a dynamic European Islam, underpinning European Muslim identities, as an urgent social and cultural project. Now, minorities have always played a great role in shaping Islam and giving it a sense of direction. The idea of hijra or migration that leads to the formation of a Diaspora is central to Islam. Our calendar itself starts with the hijra of the Prophet Muhammad from Mecca to Medina. And when the Prophet arrived in Medina, the Muslims were a minority. Moreover, throughout Muslim history, minorities have played a major part in transforming the centre. It was the scholars and thinkers of the periphery, such as Samarkand and Bukhara, who informed and changed the classical period. Think of the immense contribution of Moorish Spain clearly a minority in relation to the rest of the then Muslim world in building the Muslim civilisation. So being a minority is not necessarily an impediment to developing a civilisational project. I think European Muslims are well placed to undertake this project and, through their efforts, change the rest of the Muslim world itself. This is the thesis I presented in my recent BBC film, Battle for Islam.

Is there a genuine gulf of understanding between Islam and the West in the sense of their respective understanding of individual freedoms, free speech, and the role of religion in society?

Islam has no problem with individual freedoms or free speech. The `gulf' between Islam and the West is the gulf of domination: western societies do not know how to handle difference and how to provide space for difference to exist as difference. The West posits this `gulf' in terms of its liberal humanist values. But the West took these values from Islam in the first place. If Europe was true to its origins, and if it had any integrity and self-respect, it would acknowledge that it learnt how to reason, what is the difference between civilisation and barbarism, and what are the basic features of a civil society from Islam. It was thinkers like ibn Sina, ibn Rushd, ibn Khaldun, and al-Baruni who introduced humanism to Europe. Indeed, without these and other Muslim thinkers, Europe as a civilised idea is inconceivable. So there is nothing in humanism per se that is European or anti Islamic. But Europe's unique role was the construction of liberal humanism as an arch ideology, as a grand narrative, into which all other narratives must be assimilated. It is this dimension of European humanism that has created a gulf not just between Islam and the West, but the West and the rest of humanity. The West must understand that freedom can be defined in a number of different ways; just as there are different ways to be modern. The world does not consist of one society, but a plethora of societies, each has the right to define itself and shape its destiny with its own notions and categories.

How do Muslims get out of the "bind" in which they find themselves, partly as a result of their own conduct and partly because of anti-Muslim prejudice?

I think the best way to do that is for Muslim societies to discover a contemporary meaning and significance of Islam. Indeed, in my opinion, serious rethinking within Islam is long overdue. Muslims have been comfortably relying, or rather falling back, on age-old interpretations for much too long. This is why we feel so painful in the contemporary world, so uncomfortable with modernity. Scholars and thinkers have been suggesting for well over a century that we need to make a serious attempt at ijtihad, at reasoned struggle and rethinking, to reform Islam. Reform, in my opinion, is long overdue. It is time we made serious attempts to rethink Islam in contemporary terms.

Back to Top