Dutch debate on Islam replays centuries-old argument
Dutch debate on Islam replays centuries-old argument
Michel Hoebink of Radio Netherlands about the Dutch islamdebate:
The recent commemoration of last year’s murder of the filmmaker and writer Theo van Gogh, has led to a revival of interest in the ongoing Dutch Islam debate. Newspaper columnist Paul Scheffer argued in the NRC Handelsblad that Islam – in order to reconcile itself with a modern democratic order – needs to rethink some of its basic tenets about freedom of religion.
Last week, the authoritative paper published two very interesting reactions to Mr Scheffer’s plea for Islamic reform: one by Somali-born liberal conservative MP Ayaan Hirsi Ali and another by Islam researcher Robbert Woltering.
Unfavourable to women?
According to Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Scheffer’s belief in the possibility of reforming Islam is naive. Ms Hirsi Ali backs her argument with her widely-publicised conviction that the ‘true doctrine of pure Islam’ – as it can be read in the Koran and the Traditions of the Prophet Mohammed – calls believers to commit violence against unbelievers and is unfavourable to the rights of women.What Paul Scheffer holds for enlightened liberal Muslims, says Ms Hirsi Ali in her commentary, are in fact not Muslims who have left this pure Islam behind them but who have not yet confronted it. They are non-practising Muslims who sooner or later will reveal their ‘true ’nature’ and turn into practising ones.
Correct interpretation
The MP’s argument provoked an ironic commentary by Robbert Woltering, Islam researcher at the Leiden Institute for the Study of Islam in the Modern World (ISIM). Ever since the coming of Islam, Mr Woltering argues, Muslims have been quarrelling about the question as to what is the correct interpretation of Koran and the Prophetic Traditions.Now, at a time that the answer seems further away than ever, the historical quest has come to an unexpected apotheosis, he writes, in – of all possible places – the Dutch parliament, where Ms Hirsi Ali recently revealed that she herself has discovered the True Doctrine of Pure Islam! Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s discovery, says Mr Woltering, will most probably please Mohammed Bouyeri, the fundamentalist who murdered Theo van Gogh. But it will be a disappointment for all those Muslims who mistakenly thought that Islam respects the rights of women and tells them to live in peace with their non-Muslim neighbours.
Replaying the debates
Woltering’s last remark is significant because it alludes to the fact that the debate between Dutch critics and defenders of Islam is, in many ways, some sort of replay of the ongoing debates between fundamentalists and reformers within the Islamic world. Ayaan Hirsi Ali may be a declared critic of fundamentalist Islam, but in fact she is in full agreement with her opponents about the true nature of Islamic religion. On the other hand, Robbert Wolterings implicit plea, that Islam cannot be reduced to a single literalist essence but can be interpreted in many different ways, is in many respects similar to the views of Muslim modernists.Differences run deep
The contemporary debate within Islam is not just a debate between those who favour a conservative and those who favour a modern interpretation. The difference goes deeper than that. It is a debate between literalist fundamentalists and modernist reformers about the very legitimacy of interpretation itself. This debate is also as old as Islam; it finds a clear expression, for instance, in the debate between the rationalist Mu’tazilites and literalist Hanbalites in the 9th century. Fundamentalists believe that the text of the Koran should be literally applied in all times and places, without asking for any rational reason, simply because God tells us to do so. Modernists believe that Islam can be interpreted and re-interpreted in many different ways, in order to meet the demands of different places and ages.
