It seems that some Muslims may not understand the concept of a public discussion without resorting to the demonization of their adversary:
----
http://www.theamericanmuslim.org/2005apr_comments.php?id=697_0_38_0_C
In the spring of 2001, the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, Shaykh Abd al-Aziz ibn Abdallah Al al-Shaykh, issued a fatwa condemning suicide attacks in the name of Islam.(4) Though the fatwa in question was actually issued via an interview in a London-based Saudi newspaper (the daily al-Sharq al-Awsat), the few sentences that addressed the question of suicide bombings were later taken up in the Egyptian press and were perceived as a desecration of the icon of Palestinian resistance the martyr/shahid. In the spurious and emotional non-debate that was staged in the press following the initial report, it became evident that the mediatic space was simply being used by a deafening majority of Egyptian ulama, as a staging post to launch a counter-fatwa campaign against the Saudi mufti.
Far from discussing the legal arguments deployed by the Saudi fatwa, or from acknowledging the embededness of the fatwa in the Saudi national context, and by no means engaging in a meaningful debate about the issue of terrorism and moral means of resistance, the Egyptian counter-fatwas were in effect hijacking the Palestinian cause to serve national agendas- one of which was the parading of Egypt as mouth-piece of Arab public opinion, and the representation of its ulama as the conscience of the global Muslim community.
Of late we have seen similar instances of non-debates taking place in other parts of the Muslim world. In Malaysia, a raid on a popular disco carried out by the countrys morality police led to the arrest of about a hundred Malaysian youths. Subsequent reports on the event pointed to the systematic abuse, humiliation and harassment of the youths concerned at the hands of the state-sponsored vigilantes. Following the media exposure of the event, some Muslim groups have come out in protest against what they see as the abuse of the law and the fundamental liberties of Malaysian citizens. Other Muslim groups have come out in defence of the vigilantes and have called for continued moral policing in the country.
What is evident however is the fact that neither side has really managed to engage in an open debate with the other on terms that are mutually acceptable.
Most recently, on 18 March 2005, a landmark event took place in Manhattan, New York, when the Islamic scholar Dr. Amina Wadud led a public mixed-gender Friday Jumaah prayer. Despite Dr. Aminas long and proven record of standing up for Islam and the rights of Muslims the world over, and despite the stand she has consistently taken on issues of human rights and socio-economic inequalities;
she and the organizers of the prayer event were summarily branded by their critics as those who had strayed from the true path of Islam. In the non-debate that ensued slander was poured on the character of Dr. Amina in particular, culminating in a fitnah campaign designed to destroy her standing and credibility both as a woman and a Muslim. Adding another twist to the demonisation campaign against her, Dr. Amina was then linked to a host of other actors and agents worldwide, in an attempt to create a chain of equivalences that linked her to other unrelated events and developments.
In all these unrelated cases, a pattern can be seen: It would appear as if the ethics of differences of opinion has gone out of the window a long time ago. Rather than engaging with the argument of the Other on a rational, intellectual basis, we have instead been fed a steady stream of lies and innuendo intended for no other purpose than character assassination: The fatwa of Shaykh Abd al-Aziz was taken out of context and re-presented as a critique of the Palestinian struggle instead (thus foreclosing any debate on the issue of terrorism). The condemnation of the heavy-handed and abusive methods of Malaysias morality police was re-presented as a defence of hedonism and rampant debauchery in turn. Dr. Aminas landmark role as the first woman to lead a mixed-gender Jumaah prayer the spiritual dimension of which was entirely overlooked was re-presented as a closet attempt to undermine the fundamental tenets of the faith. In these cases, the detractors not only failed to address the points that were being raised by the fatwa/protest/prayer in question; but seemed to be going out of their way to re-present the issues so as to create the impression that Islam/Muslims were being undermined and attacked from within. The attempts to link some of the actors (such as the association of Sisters in Islam with Dr. Amina), despite the fact that they have agendas and priorities of their own, also added to the conspiracy theories that are currently circulating in many parts of the Muslim world.
How and why has it come to this? One would hope that Muslim societies would be able to address the challenges that stand before them in an open, tolerant and adult manner.
Yet the non-debates that we have seen thus far seem to reinforce the stereotypical view that Muslim societies are structurally unable to develop fora of discussion that are constitutionally guaranteed and enforced. This raises the most elementary question of all: Does such a thing as a Muslim public space actually exist?
Where is the Public Space in Muslim societies? Or does it exist at all?
In this day and age, when talk of civil society and the democratisation process is ever-so-trendy in political, technocratic and NGO circles, there seems to be the unstated understanding that developments in the contemporary Muslim world mirror those that are taking place in other parts of the world, notably the developed North. This assumption, however, is both historically incorrect as well as politically misleading as it overlooks the very simple and obvious fact that practically every single Muslim-majority country is under the state of military, dictatorial or authoritarian law/government.
