To embrace both specificity and plurality is the challenge of religion, writes Ammar Ali Hassan* Religion, to some, is one of various modes of "behaviour" that come to make up a given culture; it is an amalgamation of inherited customs and traditions that evolves over time, sometimes through contact with other cultures, religions and, perhaps, non-religious aspects of those cultures. To others religion is something far deeper than behaviour; it is either a complete, discrete, self-sufficient and unalterable entity, or else it has the ability to absorb "newcomers" from other religions or religious traditions, taking from them the wheat and discarding the chaf, while remaining itself, whole and intact, the original purity from the time of its revelation untainted. Some Muslims, of the latter view, maintain that Islam should distance itself from other cultures and declare war on alien customs and traditions which they say represent a reversion to the jahiliya, the period of ignorance before the revelation of Islam. They call for tactics ranging from radical reforms to taking over and changing society by force in order to purge it of impurities. Other Muslims appeal for tolerance and compassion, holding that society be persuaded by means of reason to retain those facets of behaviour that are beneficial and to reject deleterious influences and arguing that an open mind be kept to alternative, constructive and well-intended opinions. In practical terms, the purity or immaculacy of the Islamic "creed" exists at its point of origin, before coming into contact with other beliefs or practices. It is also to be found in "Qur'anic discourse," as it was divinely revealed, as opposed to the "theological discourse" of man. It is impossible to speak, however, of a "pure Islamic cultural discourse" or a discourse that can lay claim to awareness of a discrete and unadulterated body of untainted knowledge, values and modes of behaviour. The reasons for this are several. From the outset of the dissemination of the call of Prophet Mohamed there was a conscientious drive to retain what were regarded as the virtues and praiseworthy forms of behaviour of the jahiliya period and to transform or uproot those that were regarded as immoral and pernicious. Since then moderate Muslims, cognizant of the spirit of Islam and its preference for peaceful means of dissemination, continued to operate on the basis of this "realistic" approach. On the other hand, the very concept of "discourse" has grown highly complex, both in form -- it is conducted across and attuned to a broad diversity of modes of communication: oral and written, material and symbolic, purely audio and audio visual -- and in content, as it is weighed with a full gamut of contemporary ideas and political, social, economic, cultural and religious issues. Such a complex and intricate structure cannot be reduced to a single authoritative concept, except in the broadest sense and only where, for example, the private sphere encounters the public, or a particular cultural heritage encounters the common human legacy. Nor can we speak of a single, monolithic Islamic cultural discourse, for the simple reason that Muslims do not live in a single "cultural region". Muslims are to be found in all the world's continents; some live in fertile river valleys, others in rugged mountains, some in arid deserts; they are members of diverse and complex cultures, whether European, African, Asian or South American. Moreover, even within a given place, it is impossible to identify a single Islamic cultural discourse. In any Muslim nation we find official and unofficial discourses, open- minded and close-minded discourse, moderate and extremist discourse, fundamentalist and Sufi discourses, and so on. In addition, many Islamic nations contain peoples of diverse ethnic or linguistic backgrounds, or of diverse cultural backgrounds that have left their imprint on the original culture that derived from Islam. Thus, within any given country several Islamic cultural discourses exist side-by-side, except, perhaps, within those small conformist Islamist organisations and groups, affiliation to which transcends ethnic and linguistic backgrounds. To this must be added the fact that to many Muslim scholars and intellectuals, the concept of Islamic discourse is extremely broad. Dr Youssef Al-Qaradawi, for example, holds that "the discourse that is addressed to the people -- Muslims and non-Muslims alike -- in the name of Islam with the purpose of disseminating the Islamic calling, or instructing people in matters of faith such as Islamic principles and Islamic law or prayer and behaviour towards one's fellow man, or clarifying the position of Islam towards the fundamental questions of life, such as the relationship between man and the world, the individual and society, the spiritual and the material, the theoretical and the practical... is as broad and comprehensive as Islam, itself, is. It comprises the individual and his body, his mind and his soul; it comprises the family, from marital relations to the relations of parents to children, the relations between siblings and the relation between mothers and the children in their wombs; it comprises the whole of society and the various classes and religious, ethnic, linguistic and economic strata in society; it comprises all Muslim peoples of all nations; it comprises the state whose task is to safeguard religion and manage worldly affairs; and it comprises the entire world, to which it directs its appeal and with which it assesses its relationship so as to cooperate towards the realisation of good and godliness, to join the fight against evil, aggression, tyranny and exploitation, and to support the oppressed and underprivileged, be they men, women or children." Al-Qaradawi does not limit Islamic discourse to the purely spiritual or canonical. Rather, he maintains, it embraces innumerable other facets from non-canonical ethical questions to social issues and problems to a host of contemporary local and international political and economic issues. It is impossible for a discourse so broad and comprehensive and that touches on so many moral and practical issues not to have interacted and converged with the discourses that exist within human society at any given time or place. But, as Al-Qaradawi indicates, Islam, itself, is all-embracing, both conceptually and in terms of its genesis. Islam means "submission to the will of God, may He be praised and exalted". This is an exhortation to man to be an obedient and faithful servant of the Lord, to believe in Him and His oneness, to depend upon Him and to observe His presence in every utterance and every act one undertakes. In addition, the Qur'an states that Islam preceded the call of Prophet Mohamed. Not only does it refer to Abraham as "the first Muslim (person who submitted to God)," it indicates that Islam was the religion that God revealed and brought to earth with the creation of Adam. Thus, regardless of the names mankind has given this religion, such as Judaism or Christianity, and of the succession of prophets that preceded Mohamed, the source of these callings is one and their essence is one, and any alteration to or departure from that original source and essence is the product of man, whether by erroneous interpretation or deliberate fabrication. It follows, then, that the Qur'anic verses, "The religion before God is Islam (submission to His will)" ( The Family of Imran, 19) and "Whosever seeketh a religion other than Islam, never shall it be accepted of him" ( The Family of Imran, 85), must be understood in this context: the religion has one source and essence and it gave rise to a diversity of divine callings and a succession of prophets. It follows, too, that the concept of divine favour or selection is contingent upon man's actions and his performance of the duties ordained by God, and that the notions of the Jews as "God's chosen people," or the Christians as "the salt of the earth and light of the world," or the Muslims as "the best of Peoples brought to mankind" are not eternally and universally applicable absolutes independent of the actions performed by and the conditions or temporal circumstances affecting the members of these communities. Finally, all religions, without exception, experience a dynamic interplay between the particular and the universal. Missionary movements, at their strongest, claim to have a "value system" applicable to all peoples. At their weakest, when their religions are targeted by conflicting movements and more powerful forces, they appeal to others not to interfere in their private spiritual lives and religious affairs, not to force an alien culture on them, to respect their individuality, and to honour the principles of cultural plurality and religious tolerance. This does not mean that evangelism is unrealistic, impractical or contingent upon temporal conditions. Rather, it means, above all, that if a religious calling is to be universal and truly seek to offer spiritual and moral guidance to mankind, it must do so as a faith, in the sense of a system of beliefs, religious tenets and rights of worship, not as a distinct and definable mode of culture. Not only is the latter approach beyond its capacity, it serves little good. Rather, good comes from furnishing existing cultures with a general moral framework that is not inimical to plurality and diversity, and that does not seek to exclude or eradicate any particular group or society. * The writer is director of the Centre for Middle East Studies and Research in Cairo.
