Places

You know,

if some muslims in the future ever get to read these words, I wonder what they will see

when they look out over the muslim world. Will it be anything like now?

When you look at history, you have to wonder

how much of today's political realities

will be more than a passing note in tomorrow's history.

When a future historian looks at the muslim world,

will they still be defining places by the same kind of politics?

Will they still be looking at

nations bordered by straight lines,

defined and bequeathed to those living there

by their colonisers?

And how did the muslims get into that condition?

What happened?

What reduced the muslim peoples to servitude?

What caused their colonisability?

What happened to the golden age of Islam?

Why did it stop?

What was the political context to the decline?

Well, it does seem to have accompanied a closing in of the muslim mind.

Because along with the development of the golden age

there developed various fields of academic study related to aspects of Islam.

And the more that depth of study required specialised language to discuss,

the more they defined terms that of their nature defined Islam itself.

And with that language now being beyond non-specialists,

that left Islamic definitions in the hands of a new professional class

interposed between muslims and their understanding of God's Will for them,

the muslim equivalent of a priesthood.

Which led to that priesthood seeing themselves

not just as arbiters of understanding,

but also as adjudicators of God's authority,

declaring the infallibility of their legal opinions with ijma,

closing the gates of ijtihad,

and eventually restricting religious thought

to a handful of legal frameworks.

The intellectual world of Islam

became locked in a narcissistic

legalistic obsession with itself.

The founders of the great schools of law

all insisted that their pronouncements

were not to be seen as categorical or authoritative,

as they might change their minds about things later,

yet within a few generations

the study of law was reduced to comments on their opinions,

or comments on comments,

or comments on comments on comments.

Always looking backwards

and rejecting anything new,

afraid of change,

always ready to forbid the unfamiliar.

For hundreds of years after the invention of the printing press,

shari'a lawyers were insisting that it was

forbidden to print the Qur'an,

and more recently legal discussions continue

as to whether wudhu is required

when reading the Qur'an on a mobile phone.

Shari'a lawyers looked back to prior rejection of imagery,

and thought they could exclude photography, cinema and TV from the muslim world,

but of course, eventually, inevitably,

they were overwhelmed by everyday realities,

and the Shari'a followed along.

Times change,

and the muslim world changes along with them.

The muslim umma as it spreads across the map

has not suddenly become immune to history,

and its power struggles will take place,

and its borders will shift,

and a constant flow of new faces will be seen on screens.

History as it is lived gets faster as you get older,

but a lifetime is just a blink of an eye in history,

and who knows what history looks like from tomorrow?

How will that Islamic crescent be divided internally?

Will the faces representing its nations

be better known for their severity or their piety?

Or both?

And what are they representing?

Post-colonial countries,

with legal and administrative power systems left by foreign rulers to deal with,

ended up with quite a considerable variety of results.

Usually some kind of democratic system would have been envisaged,

but armies don't always see eye to eye with the population.

So I expect there will still be absolute rulers aplenty,

dictators, despots and tyrants,

kings and generals,

along with the populations accepting their authority.

And to most of the non-muslim world,

those national leaders will no doubt still

be seen as representing Islam,

a point of reference

to associate with muslims and what is Islamic.

And the Islam of those leaders may be deep and sincere,

but it may alternatively be anything from a few token cultural norms

to full on weapons grade hypocrisy.

The face of international Islam

as seen in the non-muslim world

is particularly important for muslims living in that world as a minority.

Perhaps in the future, muslims in Scotland

will have found ways to disentangle themselves from being identified with the cultural norms of other countries,

and will have established a deen appropriate for them,

and a way of life that can be recognised as their own.

But all thought of future politics

must be constrained by consideration

of how humankind itself deals with the impending collapse of the global eco-system,

fires and floods, and weather catastrophes,

the planet trying to shake some sense into humanity.

Perhaps the umma of the future will be leading the way,

at the forefront of environmental regeneration.

Perhaps someone has discovered a new clean use for oil.

Perhaps they will have re-greened the Sahara.

I wonder if they've looked to the Hijra

and found a way to show compassion to large scale populations

running from disaster.

Will muslim men and women be an example to the world?

sharing their riches?

providing food and shelter?

empathising with others and caring for humanity?

Perhaps, once again,

being muslim will be something

that attracts non-muslims to be the same.