Opinion - Leader Page Articles   

Who is a "moderate" Muslim and how?

Hasan Suroor

Moderation has come to be defined in such narrow terms post- 9/11 that many of those now hailed as moderates, by Western governments desperately seeking Muslim allies, would have been judged differently in more normal circumstances.

THE "MODERATE" Muslim, who is routinely urged to stand up and take on the radicals, has become a bit of a cliché in the current debate on Islamist extremism. For few have a clear idea who exactly they mean when they talk about moderate Muslims. Moderate in relation to what and whom?

Admittedly, moderation is a relative term but it has become even more relative in the so-called war on terrorism with its limited aim of putting an end to violence rather than engaging in the more complex task of tackling ideas and issues that breed it. So, anyone who does not advocate violence, ipso facto, becomes a moderate and an ally even if he or she holds potentially obscurantist views on important issues such as individual freedom, women's rights, and freedom of speech, among others.

Moderation has come to be defined in such narrow terms in the post- 9/11 climate that many of those who are now hailed as moderates by Western governments, desperately seeking Muslim allies in their campaign against terrorism, would have been judged rather differently in more normal circumstances.

A case in point is the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB), its largest Muslim organisation and officially recognised as the most moderate face of Islam in the country. Its general secretary Iqbal Sacraine has been knighted in recognition of his contribution to inter-faith dialogue, though his critics say that he has been rather more useful in delivering Muslim votes to the Labour Party. But how "moderate" is he?

As Salman Rushdie has recalled, "this is the same Sacraine" who, in 1989, led the book-burning campaign over Satanic Verses. He endorsed the fatwa against Mr. Rushdie saying that given the supposed enormity of his offence, "death is perhaps too easy" for the author. Footage of his inflammatory speeches against the book and Mr. Rushdie was replayed by the BBC recently in a controversial programme that challenged his and the MCB's moderate credentials. Asked whether he would still respond the same way if the Rushdie affair were to be replayed his answer was eloquently vague. But shorn of the many "ifs" and "buts," it amounted to a mumbled yes.

"If Sir Iqbal Sacraine is the best Mr. Blair can offer in the way of a good Muslim, we have a problem," Mr. Rushdie wrote in The Times arguing that the choice of Mr. Sacraine illustrated the "weakness of the Government's strategy of relying on traditional, but essentially orthodox, Muslims to help eradicate Islamist radicalism."

True, but it also highlights a sad truth: the lack of choice when it comes to finding moderate Muslims who also have sufficient influence in the community. There are not too many who fit the bill. Not that the community does not have moderate figures but, from a government's point of view, it is no good promoting leaders who may be epitomes of moderation but are not taken seriously by fellow-Muslims whose views it wants to change.

It is that old leadership crisis, and the liberal Muslim intelligentsia has contributed to it by behaving as a "secular" elite afraid of soiling its hands with "sectional" issues — thus handing over the space to opportunistic elements. Essentially, Mr. Sacraine and other mainstream leaders like him are products of a leadership vacuum and they benefit from crisis situations, which suddenly make them an important link with the community.

Prime Minister Tony Blair may talk passionately about combating ideas that produce terrorists but his Government's instinctive reaction when bombs are flying around is to get hold of someone who can help put out the fire. The logic is that if someone like Mr. Sacraine and his friends can be of use what is wrong in wooing them? And if a knighthood here, a peerage there, and invitations to Downing Street can help raise their profile and make them more respectable in the community, well, why not?

What Western governments are looking for are orthodox but non-fanatical "insiders" (as against secular "outsiders") — people who have enough acceptability within the community and can invoke the authority of Islam to denounce terrorism. It is argued that a message couched in an appropriately religious tone and delivered by seemingly "devout" Muslims who are in "communion" with the community has a greater chance of being given a hearing than a lecture on reforms by secularists whom the community regards as too elitist and detached.

The argument has short-termism written all over it and suggests that there is neither a strategy in place, nor a political will to help Muslims find a more dynamic leadership. But then governments everywhere tend to prefer to do business with the devil they know, especially when the choice is limited and it may take years and a lot of hard work to find an alternative, which may or may not live up to the expectations. At least, the frontline leadership of the Muslim Council of Britain can talk the talk and, when under pressure, is good at making appropriate noises. Indeed, it has been doing that rather well since 9/11, sometimes even in the face of opposition from the more hardline groups. The Government fears that the alternative to the MCB could be even worse. So, in the present climate the choice, really, is not so much between moderates as between whoever is less of a hardliner.

Having said that, leaders from a traditional mould can — if they wish — play a positive role for the simple reason that conservative Hindu and Muslim faith groups feel more comfortable with them than with secularists who remain on the fringes of community life. It is a mistake to dismiss all traditional leaders as necessarily obscurantist, communal and backward-looking. No doubt, most happen to be status quoists and have a vested interest in keeping the community backward in order to maintain their hold on them, but there have been many exceptions both among Hindus and Muslims. Many of the reforms in the Hindu community were spearheaded by traditional and deeply religious figures, and one of the most prominent Indian Muslim reformers, Syed Ahmed Khan, the founder of Aligarh Muslim University, also came from a "traditional" background.

Traditional and modern

Sir Syed was a practising Muslim who acknowledged the importance of religion but, at the same time, he was also a modern man, and was able to mobilise the community around a modernising agenda. What is more, as The Daily Telegraph writer Mihir Bose notes, it was in the "depth of Muslim despair" (not very different from the situation today) that Sir Syed emerged to lead them to modernity — encouraging them to free themselves from "customs and beliefs that were outdated and hidebound."

Another "traditional" leader who became a major Muslim reformer was the late President Zakir Hussain, one of the founders of Jamia Millia Islamia. (Ironically, seeds of narrow Muslim nationalism and separatism were sown not by "traditional" leaders but by a highly westernised, secular and modern figure like Mohammed Ali Jinnah.)

People like Sir Syed and Dr. Zakir Hussain were able to separate religion from politics and, more importantly, they had a vision for the community, which the present-day leaders lack. Mr. Sacraine and his counterparts in other countries are, essentially, ambitious politicians in search of a constituency and an agenda — and a community feeling under siege is just what the doctor ordered.

Mr. Rushdie has dismissed Britain's Muslim leaders as a "joke" saying "nobody follows them"— a description that would fit most of the current crop of Muslim leaders the world over. But where is the alternative?

The "silent majority," which supposedly wants a more liberal leadership, has been silent for so long that one has begun to suspect if it even exists! Time for hand-wringing is over, and the silent majority should do something about it.

For starters, the secular elite needs to get off its high pedestal and start engaging with ordinary Muslims — not as dispensers of wisdom lecturing them on their backwardness or problems with Islam but as partners. It is going to be a hard slog, and hands are going to get dirty. But given the stakes, it might be worth trying.

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Stories in this Section

Restoring a historical bond
Centres of excellence in research
Who is a "moderate" Muslim and how?
A test for India's foreign policy
Mystery of India's nuclear exports
Searching for the right formula for success
The latest Shakespeare conspiracy
Iran: George Bush is the real threat
In bad taste
Change in stance
Inappropriate
Laudable
Mehbooba's plea
Ban on plastic bags

Copyright © 2005, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu