Hence Islam is, at bottom, a restorationist ideology, a back-to-basics movement whose attitude to Judaism and Christianity is fundamentally benign. Although Osama bin Laden uses the term "jihad" in the most literal sense, Abdul Rauf writes that the word does not refer to literal warfare so much as "the psychological war we wage within ourselves to establish the kingdom of God...both in our individual life and in our collective communal lives"--a concept of inward, moral struggle with which Jews and Christians are not unfamiliar. Despite fundamentalist calls for an explicitly Muslim society governed by Muslim law, Abdul Rauf argues that Islam is only theocratic to the degree that it urges the state to acknowledge God as "the ultimate ruler," a notion of divine power as a guiding force that, as we have seen, would not have troubled Eisenhower one bit. As for Shariah, the notorious legal code that Americans associate with forced amputations and the stoning of adulterers, What's Right With Islam maintains that Shariah should be understood first and foremost as a moral framework for the promotion of five all-important facets of human existence: life, mind (i.e., psychological well-being), religion, property and family. Since many or even most Americans also embrace such goals, Abdul Rauf contends, the United States is a better Muslim society, more "Shariah-compliant" even, than any number of regimes in the Middle East.

Clearly, Abdul Rauf is using the term "Muslim" the same way that Victorians used "Christian," i.e., not so much to connote a specific bundle of rituals and beliefs but as a euphemism for all that is decent and upright. Even if he's stretching things a bit, the fact that he is able to make such an argument suggests that there is no reason that Islam, both inside and outside the United States, cannot remodel itself along Western liberal lines. If Islam is what Muslims say it is, then who is to say that the revamped, secularized version advanced by Abdul Rauf is incorrect? But is modernization really so easy? Here and there, he lets slip a few hints that the fit may not be as easy as he would like us to believe.

As Shariah-compliant as America may be, for instance, What's Right With Islam suggests that it could become even more so if it permitted Muslims to establish their own Shariah courts in such areas as family law, a notion that would no doubt cause feminists and others to blanch with horror. (Do we really want mullahs determining child custody and property division in divorce cases?) While arguing that Islam respects the rights of Christians and Jews, he acknowledges that it makes no allowance for those who reject the idea of a supreme being altogether. Even if mullahs do not go about issuing fatwas against atheists and freethinkers, the implication is that, even at its most liberal, Islam will remain deeply uneasy in a society in which many people regard skepticism and free expression as the highest virtues. Abdul Rauf also defends the veil, on the grounds "that covering up...can actually empower women by allowing them to rise above fashion, appearance and figure," provided, of course, that such covering up is "purely voluntary." But such words are extremely problematic in this context. While the hijab has served as a symbol of resistance to Western colonialism in Algeria, Palestine and elsewhere, it is simultaneously a sign of submission to an alternate form of authority in the shape of religion and patriarchy. It is a sign that the wearer has surrendered her free will. Yet volition is the one thing that a free individual cannot voluntarily relinquish.

But the real trouble comes when What's Right With Islam returns to those glorious days when Mohammed presided in person over the nascent Muslim community and justice supposedly reigned. "For Muslims," Abdul Rauf writes, "this era of life in the company of the Prophet in Medina remains the finest example and model for the good society on earth. Every revival attempt throughout Islamic history has been an attempt to recreate this ideal." What this means, in essence, is that whenever Islamic society goes awry, the automatic response among the faithful is to draw it back to some halcyon period in the seventh century, when the word of God was all that mattered. Later, Abdul Rauf argues that Islam is not directly to blame for the dreadful treatment of women in all too many Muslim countries. Rather, responsibility lies with Muslim jurists who "regarded the custom (adah, 'urf), or common law of a society, as a source of law when the Quran or the sunnah was silent on an issue. Thus, what was custom in a particular time or place found its way into Islamic law."

Well, that's all right, then. Rather than mandating such oppression, all Islam has done is to provide a legal framework that has allowed it to continue for centuries on end. In writing about all that's right with Islam, Abdul Rauf has inadvertently put his finger on something that is deeply, grievously wrong.

• « Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• Next »

• Get The Nation at home (and online!) for 75 cents a week!
• If you like this article, consider making a donation to The Nation.