Once again we are celebrating one of the great festivals in Islam. Eid al-Fitr is indeed a festival of recurring happiness for all Muslims who endured physical and material sacrifices during the auspicious month of Ramadan. This day we contemplate our physical, intellectual and spiritual advances made during a period of intense and committed fasting. We also remember the physically and cognitively disadvantaged, the poor and needy, the sick and deceased, the orphan, and all those Muslims and non-Muslims who experience moments of unjustifiable vulnerability. We pray that Almighty Allah continue to have mercy and compassion on us.

In this Eid al-Fitr message I raise concerns about the daunting social, economic, cultural and political challenges which our Ummah (community) has to contend with. I cannot imagine that Muslims in celebrating their happiness would remain unperturbed about the catastrophic ramifications which Western democratic discourse has enacted. This message attempts to accentuate some of our predicaments we have to address if we were to become noble vanguards against the dominance of Western modernity which has gained much ascendancy in the name of democracy. To begin, I am not suggesting that deep democratic discourse with its emphasis on invoking the collective will of the people through shared, rational and intersubjective deliberation is in itself a harmful discourse. I am also contesting any claim that deep democracy with its constitutive actions of cultivating tolerance, respect, reconciliation and a sense of humanity are in any way violating human rights and denying to humans their basic civic liberties. My main contention is that democracy as it is practised in Western political arenas, in particular dominant democracies’ attitudes towards Muslims and Muslim-oriented countries, spawns a concern that something is inherently wrong with the premises of Western liberal democracy.

The question arises: What seems to be wrong with global democratic agendas and how can Islam contribute towards reshaping Western modernity’s democratic agenda. Firstly, the biggest political sphere of democratic discourse has been associated with the activities of the United Nations (UN). Unfortunately, as Muslims we have witnessed the negotiations, bargaining, threats and veto on the part of the dominant powers which have characterised the world body over the past decade. Resolutions have mostly been implemented which saw the cultural, economic, political and social decline and incessant suffering of nations such as Palestine, Afghanistan, Iraq and Chechnya. Seldom have Muslim majority countries really contested UN decisions since their reluctance to challenge the United States (US), Britain and Russia has led to undesirable consequences in Muslim majority countries – Afghanistan and Iraq continue to be humiliated, and Palestine and Chechnya remain oppressed. To say that Islam can do something to change the undesirable situations in Muslim majority countries seems to have become an unachievable pipedream. Yet, we claim to have the perfect and complete din and that Allah Almighty is always on our side. Reality suggests that Muslims are not doing enough to alleviate their humiliation and suffering. And unless, Muslim majority countries begin to show some resilience against Western hegemony and concretise their collaborative efforts (which by now has been alarmingly absent), their voices on a political, cultural and economic level would remain muted!

Secondly, as Muslims from Africa, more specifically Southern Africa, we have been most adversely affected by colonialism, racism and imperialism which have been further propounded by famine, hunger, poverty, violence and hostility on our continent. Democratic forces in the name of development and human upliftment accuse us from betraying our own people – only witness the civil wars on the African continent, political corruption, human rights violations and domestic violence. Unless we begin to seriously enact our virtues of tolerance, respect, caring, human dignity, rationality and love for the other, as Muslims we have little chance of changing our own contexts (particularly our families) and on a broader scale our African continent. Therefore, I contend that Muslims begin to use their greeting on this glorious Eid to foster lasting co-operative and dignified relations which would invariably impact on our society and continent. This is where Islam can offer possibilities to counteract and reduce stereotypes and biases about Islam’s apparent opposition towards democracy. Islam is definitely opposed to a notion of democracy which creates conditions whereby people are exploited, manipulated, controlled, marginalised and repressed such as we find on the African continent. Nations have been exhorted to democratise, yet the masses remain poor, underprivileged and unemployed. This is so, since democratic change has brought about stability for a neo-liberal market economy to succeed with its emphasis on individualistic competition, profit and an apparent disregard for people. This is the type of democratic change Islam finds abhorrent and detrimental to human flourishing, that is to say, human happiness.

Thirdly, democracy as propounded by Western modernity and which undoubtedly has permeated our society advocates a notion of liberality whereby freedom to live together without being contractually bonded in marriage, physical expression in an adulterous fashion, the right to abortion on demand, homosexual relations and irreligiousity have been associated with the rights of individuals and communities. This kind of democratic decadence has become the main reason as to why our social services have become hospitals for proponents of such morally corrupt practices. Islam reifies the right of individuals and communities, sanctifies loyal marital relations, and condemns wicked and seductive exposure of the human frame – all actions necessary to cultivate a common good based on an ethics of trust, sincerity, honesty and mutual understanding.

Finally, education (as all serious-minded philosophers would continuously remind us of) needs to be reconstructed beyond the parameters of what has become sham democracy. Western liberal democracy advocates critique and challenging, yet many institutions propound and implement a notion of education which enslaves and reduces the mind of the intellectual to slavish acceptance of what abusive authority envisages. Our education system is being geared towards an economic labour market underscored by competition and profit. The ‘outcomes’ we are teaching our students have the potential to make them intellectual junkies since they are taught to be instrumentally rational and vicious. Islam undermines an education system which does not inculcate in people a sense of reasoning and compassion. But, since our education systems are dominated and funded by corporate elites and controlled by bureaucrats and apathetic technocrats who understand very little about education for humanity, dare I say democracy, our institutions would inevitably fail in their efforts to produce good persons – persons who can become good citizens.

Let the lessons we have learnt through our fasting and Eid al-Fitr inspire us to enact meaningful Islamic discourse which has the potential to counteract and reconstruct sham democratic discourse! Allah Almighty says in the Glorious Qur`an: “And among those We created is a community which guides by truth and thereby establishes justice” (Quran, al-`Araf, 7:181)

Eid Mubarak

Kullu ‘am Wa antum bihayr!

Glorified and Exalted is He (Allah) who took His slave Muhammad (May the Peace and Blessings of Allah Almighty be upon him) for a journey by night from Al-Masjid al-Haram to al-Masjid al-Aqsa, the neighborhood whereof we have blessed, in order that We might show him of Our Proofs. Verily, He (Allah Almighty) is the All-Hearer, the All-Seer (Al-Isra, 17:1)

And follow not that of which you have no knowledge. Verily the hearing, and the sight and the heart, of each of those one will be questioned (Al-Isra, 17:36)

Critical, rational inquiry has been the work of Muslim philosophers for a long time: al-Farabi’s persuasion consists in offering argumentative reasons for holding a certain position; ibn Sina’s dialectics involves a process of rational argumentation; al-Ghazzali’s practical reasoning and autonomy of the moral agent value independence of the rational mind. Mulsims who are not critical are often criticised for not being agents of rational inquiry, which to my mind is a justifiable criticism. This paper explores what Muslims ought to do in order to be considered as critical and rational (deliberative).

I

I begin this paper by offering an account of what it means to be a rational (deliberative) inquirer. The above-mentioned verses clearly establish a conceptual link between the auspicious “journey” (al-Mi`raj and al-Isra) undertaken by the Holy Prophet (May the peace and blessings of Allah Almighty be upon him) and the notion of deliberative rationality. This claim is supported by the Qur’an’s reference to Allah Almighty’s attributes of Hearing and seeing and humankind’s cognitive capacities of hearing (sam`a), seeing (basr) and spiritual cognition (fuad). These cognitive human capacities ought to be the basis of any type of critical engagement. The point about deliberative rationality is that it forecloses any form of human engagement which demands that people offer some justification for what they think, understand and do. Justification often takes the form of giving reasons for what one does and attempting to persuade others of the “reasonableness” of one’s reasons. For instance, a person offers reasons why she holds a particular view and in turn attempts to persuade others of the “reasonableness” of her views, that is, why her views are acceptable and should hold sway. But then, offering reasons is not sufficient to lead to understanding. Rather, one’s reasons need of the kind to persuade others of their “reasonableness” before understanding can be considered a legitimate outcome. Therefore, offering reasons does not necessarily result in understanding. Instead, one needs to persuade others by having one’s reasons put to question by others – learning to move from merely having reasons towards subjecting one’s reasons to evaluation by others. Only when one has subjected one’s reasons to critical scrutiny by others, and others in turn have found one’s reasons persuasive, can one begin to talk tentatively about understanding. Put differently, one has offered reasons and in turn others have found one’s reasons persuasive, that is to say, others have understood one’s reasons. But perhaps others have not understood one’s reasons, which means that others have not regarded one’s reasons as convincing – a situation which also involves understanding, that is, understanding that one’s reasons are not persuasive.

The point about having reasons and persuading others through one’s reasons involves having the capacity to do this. A person gives an account of her religious views by offering reasons which others (perhaps non-Muslims) might find persuasive or not. If her reasons are persuasive, she has demonstrated a capacity to make independent rational judgements, since rationality can be linked to offering persuasive reasons. But then, having the capacity to make rational judgements on her own also presupposes that she has knowledge about the things which she makes rational judgements on. “These things” can be ideas, concepts, opinions, interests and even choices of others. When she is able to make independent rational judgements, she then has knowledge of others, which also implies that she must have engaged with knowledge of or about others.

The point about engaging with others in order to persuade others of one’s reasons has some bearing on what it means for human interaction to be deliberative. Without engaging with others we cannot impute to others the kind of reasons for their actions that are intelligible to us that would enable us to respond to them in ways that they too can find intelligible. In other words, we can only understand others and respond to them in ways which could be intelligible if we could justify to others why we find their reasons “reasonable” or not. In this way, engaging with others through a justifiable multi-directional proffering of reasons contributes towards rational action which is deliberative. Hence, the Qur`anic reference to sam`a (hearing). Certainly if one hears, one ought to have engaged with the thoughts of others which one might have found to be persuasive and rational.
II

What does it mean for rational human action to be deliberative? As has been argued previously, deliberative rationality involves offering persuasive reasons through interacting with others to ascertain why they hold certain views or not and why they do certain things and not others. However, deliberation involves more than just offering persuasive reasons when one engages with others. Earlier I alluded to the fact that one has to subject one’s reasons to critical scrutiny by others. Once this happens, one is held accountable by and to others for the “reasonable” conclusions one has reached. But then, firstly, one also needs to “stand back” or detach oneself from one’s reasons and to ask if this or that particular reason is in fact justifiable or not. Here one moves away from merely having reasons for acting towards being able to evaluate those reasons – a matter of having basr (seeing or having gained insight). And when one evaluates one’s reasons one would invariably set out to revise them or abandon them or replace them with other reasons. In this way, one not only becomes critical but also deliberative in the sense that one detaches oneself from one’s own reasons to revise or abandon them in the light of what others (with whom one engages) have to offer. We come to know when we are able not just to evaluate our reasons as better or worse, but also when we detach ourselves from the immediacy of our own desires in order to imagine alternative realistic futures through engaging, deliberatively with others.

My potential critic might justifiably claim that offering persuasive reasons in deliberative action mostly favours those who possess the skills of rhetoric, eloquence and articulation, while others who lack the capacity to express themselves in communication with others might actually be excluded from deliberation. Deliberative rationality is imperfect and one is challenged to move beyond its limitations. I shall now attempt to address some of the limitations of being a rational (deliberative) inquirer.

III

Certainly in the South African Muslim community where the majority of people’s language of communication in society is not necessarily their mother tongue, eloquence and rational articulation would seem to curtail their aspirations to make arguments more persuasive. Thus, to expect argumentation to be persuasive seems to be elitist and exclusionary, since people with less eloquence and rational articulation might become marginalised in pedagogical conversations. Such kind of deliberation is competitive and agonistic and privileges those who know the rules of the language discourse, privileging dominant communication styles. If this argument is right, setting out to teach deliberative rationality is likely to silence some people, advantaging those who know eloquence and deliberative argumentation. Therefore, deliberative argumentation also needs to endorse greeting, rhetoric and narrative (storytelling). Greeting enables participants to recognise what one another has to say, which in turn establishes conditions for deliberation and relations of trust. Rhetoric (an attempt to grab people’s attention) allows speakers to listen carefully what others have to say, thus building respect for the viewpoints of others. However, rhetoric does not simply mean that one has to listen uncritically to what others have to say. Sometimes deliberations could be uneasy, for instance, provocative or even threatening. But respect has the effect of participants not abandoning the conversation through lack of trust in what each has to say to the other. It is for this reason that narrative or storytelling, which enhances the possibility of understanding the contending viewpoints of different people, albeit in terms of values, experience, culture, language and ethnicity becomes apposite. Narrative thus creates opportunities for people who might be less eloquent and articulate to tell their individual stories, but which are now shared collectively amongst participants as socially situated knowledge not available from just one position.

The idea of narrative can be linked to the notion of deliberative rationality. Individual and collective ideas, experiences, values and cultures brought about through deliberation in a Muslim community, have to be shared with others in the same community. Narrative offers rich possibilities for deliberative engagement in our community, since it creates conditions for Muslims to listen and appreciate the points of view of others who might not be Muslim. It is this capacity on the part of Muslims to value different viewpoints which helps to advance deliberative rationality in our multi-cultural societies. However, the question arises whether greeting, rhetoric and narrative (as moments of deliberative rationality) can lead to people becoming full participants in deliberative engagement? To address this question, I shall argue that disadvantaged groups – even if they fully participate – are unlikely to be able to influence debate appropriately.

IV

Disadvantaged groups (those who might not be as eloquent and articulate), even if afforded opportunities to fully participate in pedagogical conversations, are least likely to shape deliberations, since the potential does exist that everything they say might not be “heard and understood”. This makes sense, considering that in deliberations more advantaged groups – those who put forth arguments about the world which rest on premises which are more generally accepted by other members of such groups, since they are deemed to be more rational and articulate – seem to dominate. In deliberations with people from disadvantaged groups (by language of course) I have often encountered moments whereby more eloquent persons have posed the question: “What do you mean?” which suggests that claims of disadvantaged people were perhaps not comprehensible to more articulate persons. Of course the argument can be used that more eloquent and articulate people have different experiences of the world and would invariably question some of the assumptions of the linguistically disadvantaged. For instance, in South Africa many Muslims might claim that to question elders would not be feasible, since in traditional homes authority remains unquestioned. This idea might be rejected as outrageous, since more articulate and advantaged groups consider questioning, challenging and debate as salient features of deliberation. In this case, the deliberation is unlikely to be substantively inclusive and therefore, from the disadvantaged group’s point of view, unlikely to be legitimate.

It is in this regard that I propose that Muslims need to learn how to express themselves in terms others would naturally understand, that is, to master the language of power in one’s community, country and the world. On the one hand, learning to master the dominant language seems to be necessary if one wants to be an effective member of a deliberative conversation. This requires that one learns how to listen to others irrespective of how unappealing or confused their claims might appear on the surface. Similarly, it also requires that we learn to express ourselves in ways that others might find palatable and easier to hear and understand. This requires that we as Muslims should learn and speak the “language of power” (in South Africa this language is undoubtedly English) that is not intrinsically our own. This aspect of deliberative rationality is of special interest to me for two reasons.

First, learning and mastering a language of power could create conditions whereby relations of trust among deliberative inquirers could be nurtured. It builds confidence in people when all participants feel comfortable in expressing themselves in a language (as “insiders” although really “outsiders”) the other understands and can respond to.

Second, learning a language of power not only relates to expressing good ideas about culture, society and politics linguistically but also meaningfully. By this I mean that what might not be considered a good idea for deliberative participants of a multi-cultural, multi-racial, multi-ethnic or multi-religious group needs to be made clear in a language they best understand. For instance, the negative effects of poverty and famine could be made clearer to people who are not perhaps familiar with cases of hunger and suffering.

Of course, learning a language of power is not without its dilemmas. Certainly in South Africa, acquiring a language of power (which in this instance is English) could further widen the gap between Blacks (the majority population group) and White, Coloured and Indian students, most of whom have not mastered a Black indigenous language. One would not necessarily consider an African language a “language of power”, but it is certainly a compelling language to acquire in a post-apartheid society, where the achievement of reconciliation and social justice could be enhanced through mastering the indigenous languages of the previously racially oppressed and marginalised. It would certainly enhance the process of reconciliation if our communication with fellow-South Africans (the majority of whom are Black) was given a higher priority. Similarly, learning a “language of power” might also reduce the emphasis on people having to acquire some sense of understanding the indigenous African cultures and ethnicities of the country’s majority population. But then, the effects of a globalising world are placing considerable demands on people, certainly all South Africans including Muslims, to cope with the stark realities of what could be considered as one-sided information disseminated through “technologies of power” such as the Internet, nightly news, lobbyists and organs of state power. The ideas disseminated through these “technologies of power” pose a challenge to Muslims, which I contend can be attended to by means of their learning a “language of power”. Only then will we seriously be traversing a path of deliberation – a journey which conceptually underscores one of the distinct lessons of al-Mi`raj and al-Isra; a matter of using one’s fuad or spiritual organ of cognition.

Professor Yusef Waghid, DEd (UWC), PhD and DPhil (Stellenbosch)

`Allama hul bayan’ – And He (Allah Almighty) taught humankind Intelligence (Surah al-Rahman)

This meeting was not just a social gathering attended by `ulama, professionals, academics and educators, but also one characterised by a heightened sense of intellectualism, emotion and the quest to cultivate dialogical partnerships among different Muslim higher education institutions in the Western Cape: for now, Jami`at al-Qurra, Dar al-Arqam (affiliated to the Muslim Judicial Council) and ICOSA (Islamic College of Southern Africa). These established institutions had a single purpose in mind: to engage critically in a just conversation about the future of Islamic higher education in the Western Cape. And for now, they succeeded!

Professor Ahmad Muayiddin, a political economist, NEPAD (New Path for African Development) negotiator and invited guest, quite fittingly restated the need for Muslims to use their intelligence. His contention is that much of what is wrong with Muslim society all over the world can be attributed to a lack of using one’s intelligence. I agree since intelligence is conceptually related to emotion and wisdom which, if not enacted could exacerbate Muslim divisiveness – a situation in turn, Muslims cannot afford to let happen. Much of what has been argued for in his thesis about a perceived decline in Muslims’ contribution to knowledge production and the economy can be related to a confusion and error in knowledge which can lead to despair and hopelessness amongst Muslims. Yet, there is also an endearing feeling of hope which emanates from several of the positional presentations which ensued. This article attempts to capture some of the most significant propositions which constituted our deliberations.

I

Any potential Muslim higher education merger, partnership or collaboration (I prefer dialogical relationship) cannot be successful without a strong element of leadership. Leaders are not just people or individuals who assume authoritative roles based on unequal power relations. Rather, they are intellectual and intelligent beings that possess the capacity to cultivate in others (those who follow them) a sense of humanity. In other words, when leaders can instil in others capacities such as rational reflection and argumentation, the ability to justifiably criticise their leaders, and to be non-dogmatic and agents of critical inquiry, they have emerged as true leaders. When leaders cannot accept justifiable criticism and pretend that the construction of knowledge is through transmission – they alone know forms of truth – then, the ability to lead should seriously be questioned. I have no doubt that we have excellent leaders in our community, and the possibility to transform the Muslim community into a more vibrant critical voice should become our major priority. This meeting could be a catalyst to spark off a spiral of recruitability and respect amongst leaders and lead, where people challenge one another and honour one another through debate, refutation and practical rationality. Not once did I encounter feelings of hostility and antagonism when points of view were challenged and refuted. What I have identified could be described as a need for a form of pragmatic leadership; one which cultivates in others capacities to challenge and to refute, since we only seem to respect others when we challenge them and accept their justifiable criticism of us. If this were to be an indication of things to come, then our ensuing dialogical moments would really evolve in morally worthwhile activities with some purposive end in mind.

II

Certainly the meeting accentuated the importance of critical engagement. Critical engagement invokes an understanding of public participation whereby all legitimately interested groups not only have to explain and justify their points of view, decisions or choices, but should also make their arguments reasonable to others and by which they are to be held morally accountable by and to others for those arguments. Muslims have to participate and to lay down morally justifiable rules of engagement such as to care for the viewpoints of others. This form of engagement demands that participants be capable of justifying their views of how things should go to others, it requires that they be open to a multiplicity of points of view, and it requires that a person be capable of taking other persons’ points of view seriously enough to accommodate them.

Put differently, critical engagement creates space for a rational process of deliberation in which Muslims have to explain the basis of their actions to others without harshness and intolerance. Such a notion of critical engagement should be tied to a number of character traits our education institutions need to foster: a tendency to rationally justify one’s actions to others, openness towards others’ views and opinions and to take other people’s interests seriously as on equal footing with one’s own.

III

What should happen to Muslim higher education policy discourse? There is little doubt that South Africa’s economic-rationalist agenda for higher education policy discourse cannot be wished away, since higher education’s main benefit has become private, which in turn justifies the levying of fees upon individuals. That economic rationalism has led to the corporatisation of higher education is evident from the fact that Islamic higher education institutions are expected to raise a much greater proportion of their own revenue, enter into business enterprises, acquire and hold investment portfolios, encourage partnerships with private business firms, compete with other institutions in the production and marketing of courses to students who are now seen as customers, and generally engage with the market for higher education. The meeting acknowledged that such an understanding to our ensuing dialogical relationships could position as favourably in the future and in turn, offer much hope to our youth!

IV

Finally, the meeting fully endorsed the threats of the post-modern or should I say anti-Muslim challenge. It is perhaps unfair to equate these two challenges since post-modernism demands that we pay more attention to the marginalised other, that is, those peoples such as Muslims that have been excluded from resources of higher education discourse for a long time. In this regard, post-modernism’s engagement with the other could open up possibilities for Muslims to become more visible in higher education discourse in this country. But then, post-modernism also threatens to undermine the fabric of our Islamic identity since, religion and religiosity have become dangerous truths for the post-modern mind. I do not think that Islam should simply ignore these challenges but rather cultivate in our people a sense of hope and willingness to produce counter-arguments and strategies for these real threats. And, we can only do so by being and becoming empowered through knowledge – knowledge which equips us both with the rational sciences and revealed sciences.

I commend every participant for having been part of a momentous occasion in our Muslim legacy. Let us continue to become practical reasoners willing to face up to the challenges of a globalising knowledge society!

* Attendees whose names I can remember include: Shaykh Yusuf Booley, Mr Shreff Abass, Dr Yusef Lalkhen, Dr Ismet Booley, Moulana Ahmad Mukaddam, Shaykh Ighsan Taliep, Mr Reshard Jedaar, Dr Salie Abrahams, Moulana Ihsan Hendricks, Dr Abdul Wahab Barday, Imam Alie Gierdien and many more important people.

This meeting was held in Cape Town, South Africa on 30th July 2003.