Tariq Ramadan最新評論。希望未來也能寫出像Ramadan教授這類的文章。
Islamism—or “political Islam”—is not dead. Those who have proclaimed its demise, or trumpeted the advent of a “post-Islamist” era, are wrong, as events in Africa, the Middle East and Asia clearly show. Islamism is not about to disappear, or even to fundamentally mutate. My thesis—my ideological stance, my hope—is that we must go beyond political Islam, and develop a critique of Islamism in all its forms.
Before explaining why I am taking this position, there are three points to bear in mind. Such is the confusion today, so tendentious and often so
grotesque are the arguments, that our first duty is to clarity.
First: the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt or Ennadha in Tunisia
enjoy popular and electoral legitimacy in their respective countries; all
democrats must respect the verdict of the ballot box. One may well disagree with the decisions and positions of the
Islamists in power, but nothing can justify a military coup
d’État, as in Egypt—meaning that the non-violent demonstrators
who are calling for the military to withdraw are right to reject manipulation
by the generals. The crucial question is not whether democracy is possible with
Islamists in power—assuming that democratic norms are respected—but whether
even a semblance of democracy can exist under a military establishment that has
never once in more than sixty years respected those norms. In Tunisia, internal
destabilization, whether through harmful maneuvering
by Islamists of the extreme literalist persuasion, or by their fundamentalist secularist
counterparts, must not be allowed to undermine the
legitimacy of the country’s institutions. The unjustifiable
cannot be justified in the name of ideological differences with the people’s
elected representatives.
Second: the problem of terminology. Confusion is rampant; no one knows exactly who or what “Islamism” means. The term, which has now become powerfully pejorative, can be applied to movements ranging from al-Qaeda (worldwide, and most recently in northern Mali) to the legalists of Ennadha and the Muslim Brotherhood by way of the Justice and Development parties in Turkey and Morocco (with certain reservations), and up to and including the Iranian regime. It is hard to believe that the confusion is being maintained, and the terminology being utilized purely by chance. Meanwhile the petro-monarchies of the Gulf, those wealthy allies of the West, whose authorities affirm that democracy is un-Islamic, regimes that apply the Shari’a in its most legalistic and repressive form and that forbid women from social and political participation, are never described as “Islamists” even though their policies and practices form the essence of political Islam.
Furthermore, the various Islamist
parties or organizations must be described accurately: some are non-violent, reformist and legalist; others are
literalist and dogmatic, while still others are violent and extremist. Without such an understanding, no serious scientific or political
analysis is possible. While the focus of this article is
on the reformist and legalist movements, it will touch on all Islamist trends
(based on the assumption that the proponents of political Islam seek state
power).
Finally, it should be perfectly clear that
my critique of Islamism is in no way an endorsement of the positions and
political programs of its opponents. For more than sixty
years, self-styled “liberal,” “progressive,” “secular” or even “leftist” (each
term positively connoted) forces have been unable to put forward serious
alternatives for extracting their countries from crisis. Opposition to the “retrograde Islamists” is not enough to
ensure ideological or practical credibility. In fact, some of the “liberal” factions have in the past
proved friendly to dictators, and enjoyed close contact with the West, all the
while unable to understand their own fellow citizens; often they have glossed over their divisions and their lack of
political influence by simply claiming to be united against the “Islamists.” These factions lack a mass base, a fact their leaders are all
too aware of. Thus our critique of the former cannot be seen as acceptance of
the views of the latter. No, our aim is to describe the deep crisis of
political consciousness in Muslim majority societies, spanning all ideological
horizons.
The time has come go beyond Islamism. When, in the early twentieth century, the first manifestations
of Islamism took root and organized form in the Middle East, Africa and Asia, most of them shared a triple objective: to free their societies from
colonialism, to return to Islam in order to resist cultural Westernization, and
to expound theses and principles similar to those of Latin American liberation
theology, that is, social justice with priority to the poor and
the downtrodden. They were religiously conservative,
socially and economically close to their peoples, and believed as a matter of
course that the nation-state was the best vehicle for liberating their
countries from the multi-faceted yoke of colonialism. Whether or not one agreed with these movements, it was at least
possible to understand their ideological and political orientation.
The world has changed, and everything suggests that Islamist
organizations, such as the Muslim Brotherhood and other legalist and reformist
groups, have not kept pace with world-historical developments, with shifts in international relations, and, most of all,
with the new paradigm of globalization. In addition, state power, which in the
beginning was understood as a means to social, political, economic and cultural
reform, emerged as an end in itself, perverting both the intentions and the
actions of a significant number of Islamist movements. These factors have combined to create, over time, a disconnect
between the oft-repeated claims of the Islamist movements, which have
maintained substantial popular support, and their inability to respond to the
challenges of the new era. Having become nationalist
Islamist movements, their obsession with the state eventually led to them
neglecting fundamental economic issues, major cultural concerns, and even
failing to address the basic questions of freedom, citizenship and individual
autonomy. Driven into opposition, totally committed to (and imprisoned by) the
desire to legitimize their participation in the democratic process as credible,
open and dependable in the eyes of the West, the Islamists have
become a reactionary force that, in the name of pragmatism, with one compromise
after another, have preserved their religious references while voiding them of
their potential for social, economic and cultural liberation.
How remote we are from a new interpretation of our
scriptural sources, or from a peoples’ liberation “theology” that would give
absolute priority to the poor and the oppressed; that would, finally, see
social and political relations in economic and cultural terms. The Islamists, today, have no
credible or viable economic alternatives to offer. In the name of their obsession with international recognition,
they have bowed down before the imperatives of the dominant capitalist economy.
The religious reference has become a strictly reactive and a strictly
protective one, directed primarily against the permissive excesses of the West
and Westernizers. It has forfeited its ability to offer an ethical approach to
education, social justice, the environment, culture and communication. There have been frequent populist attempts to enlist religion for
emotional, identity-related or electoral ends.
It is all well and good to celebrate Turkey’s economic
success, not to mention its leaders’ demonstrated competence and pragmatism
(while not forgetting to criticize the absence of some basic freedoms, and the
tendency to monopolize power); it is fine to hail the
development of Islamist thinking in Egypt and Tunisia, or the emergence of a
civil state with Islamic references rather than a theocratic “Islamic state.”
But their words remain predominantly slogans, reactions to attacks upon the
assumption of power, and not the basis of a clear, original, truly imaginative
political project. The programs of the legalist and
conservative Islamists have little to show for themselves except by way of
proving that they too are capable of doing quite as well—or, as badly—as their
opponents with regard to their widespread inability to bring about substantial
change.
Perhaps it is time to review priorities, to shift the paradigm; perhaps it is time for political Islam to cease being
intrinsically political. After a century of opposition to the power structure
and a few decades of actually wielding power, Islamism has
become an ideology of means and of management. It has nothing to offer in terms
of broader significance except by way of reaction to “Western aggression” or to
the “enemy within.” Muslim majority societies will never
be able to emancipate themselves as long as they are chained to such a
restrictive, reactive vision. The peoples’ need for meaning, for dignity and
for spirituality, far removed from an ethereal concept of faith, religion and
rules, must be heard. The task before us is to rethink the ultimate goals of
human action, and to develop the contours of an individual and social ethics as
a true alternative to the unjust and inhuman world order. The need for meaning,
for freedom, for justice and dignity has never been greater; today’s Muslims need a holistic philosophy of ends; they need to
escape from the chaotic management of means that political Islam has been
reduced to. Muslim majority societies are crying out for an
intellectual revolution, a revolution that is as radical in its essence as it
is courageous in its objectives.
Far from the wielders of power, remote from petty politics
and politicians, the time has come to reconcile ourselves
with the depth and breadth of the Islamic civilizational tradition and its
wealth of meaning that establishes rules in the light of the objectives of
dignity, freedom, justice and peace. The Muslim peoples
of today urgently need to reassert themselves. Crucial to the process are
spirituality and mysticism: not those of a certain form of Sufism that, not
wishing to “take part in politics,” ends up by playing the game of powers (and
colonisers), but of the quest for self an authentic Sufism never separated from
human, social and political (by way of wise and just government)
considerations. It is not enough to affirm that freedom must come before the
“Shari’a”; what is lacking is a thoroughgoing reflection on freedom in the
modern age, and the superior objectives (maqasid) of the Path (ash-Shari’a) that
supercede its reduction to a body of regulations presented as God’s intangible
laws. What ash-Shatibi provided us with, in his synthesis of the “objectives of the
Shari’a, - which is actually a “philosophy of law -, must be thought for
the notion of freedom : we need a “philosophy of liberty” that cannot be
constricting, reactive or dogmatic but must be broad, holistic and liberating,
valid for women and men alike.
There is a sore need of young scholars (ulama) of both sexes,
of intellectuals who will show a modicum of courage. While respectful of the message and the immutable rules of
practice, they must imperatively seek reconciliation with the intellectual
audacity of those who have given the age-old Islamic tradition its strength. Against the institutions that have often shaped them, that are under
state control and intellectually enfeebled (such as al-Azhar or Umm al-Qura
today), the young Muslim generations must free themselves, make their presence
felt and give new meaning to the dynamics of a civil society that is no longer a passive onlooker, or simply complain, and
display their indignation, or explore new ways of acting, new and alternative
visions. Yet they must remain faithful to themselves, while resisting the
established order.
The challenges are huge, but in freeing itself from the
obsession with “politics”, a thought-based movement must elucidate the terms of
a counter-power that sees the liberation of peoples through education, social
involvement, alternatives to the dominant economy, through cultural and
artistic creativity. Internally, I have mentioned the intellectual challenges
of propounding general ultimate goals, and of developing a global vision that
can guarantee autonomy and justice. The question of internal divisions, between
Sunnis and Shi’a and between conflicting schools of thought (even between
religious and secular), must take priority. The issues that
fuel this division are often serious, but just as often patently ridiculous. It
is the obligation of the scholars, of free intellectuals and activists to
release themselves from the trap (which today’s Islamists sometimes maintain at
the cost of snaring themselves and drowning). Muslims are not alone in their
resistance. Not only is it urgent to establish relations between the North and
the Global South, and leave behind the biased “Islam-West” nexus; it is vital
that we explore the potential of new educational, scientific and cultural
partnerships with the peoples of Latin America, Africa and Asia. Muslim
thought, which drew its sustenance from the idea that it should make all wisdom
its own, regardless of its source, has become isolated, has turned inward upon
itself and has become desiccated by its inability to study, to promote exchange
with and to draw profit from other civilizations, cultures and societies. The
Islamists are no exception: obsessed by the North, they have lost their
bearings…and the South (does the Qibla, which focuses the gaze on the center
and gives it meaning, not accord the same value and the same dignity to the
entire periphery?).
The Islamists of today have developed a conservative message,
one that seeks only to adapt. The contemporary Muslim
conscience must free itself from this message, and renew its commitment to the
reformative and near-revolutionary power of the human and spiritual content of
its tradition, which calls equally for reconciliation with self and openness to
others. A cycle is ending; renewal beckons. By becoming better acquainted with
our heritage, by determining our priorities, and making better use of the new
tools at our disposal we will be able to attain our goals: freedom, dignity and liberation. The paradox lies in the fact that today’s Muslims, lacking
self-confidence, are the wardens who hold in their trembling hands the keys of
their own prison.
留言
張貼留言