A younger Ebrahim Rasool (right) with Mandela, April 1994. © Shafiq Morton |
Most South Africans know today that in principle they’re
equal on the playing fields of civil liberties. Under the constitution – which
is the overarching national mediator – every citizen is entitled to enjoy the
same rights, regardless of who is in power.
Our democratic model guarantees in turn that every community
is assured of its identity under the national umbrella. Christians, Jews,
Muslims, Buddhists, Rastas, Hindus, African traditionalists, atheists, gays –
and every group in between – stand on the same ground.
And whilst a few members of the above communities may sometimes
whinge that the constitution is too ‘liberal’, they certainly can’t complain
that it has marginalised them. Importantly, they enjoy freedom of association, freedom
of speech and access to power.
There are also few countries in the world today where its leaders
will happily visit mosques, temples, churches and synagogues, or identify with minority
communities on public platforms as former President Nelson Mandela has done.
In Europe, for example, one will have a better chance of
spotting a golden unicorn than witnessing the French President attending
Ramadan prayers, or the German Chancellor cutting the ribbon for an ashram.
South African community that has profoundly benefited from
the post-1994 constitutional framework has been the Muslim one. Constituting no
more than 5% of the national population, it has been empowered to contribute significantly
to all tiers of government, the economy and society.
South African Muslims are not only free to exercise their
dietary laws, build mosques and enjoy public gatherings such as festivals, but Islamic
personal law has finally been recognised after over 350 years of
non-recognition.
Recently, the South African situation was regarded as a
‘best practice’ model at a colloquium held in Paris entitled Living Where We Don’t Make the Rules.
Hosted by the World for All Foundation (headed by SA’s ambassador to the US,
Ebrahim Rasool) and the International Union of Muslim Scholars, experts from 22
nations gathered to discuss the lot of Muslim minorities around the globe.
According to Rasool, with 25% (half a billion) of the
world’s 2.2 billion Muslims now living as minorities, it was time to reflect on
‘the anguish that minorities often experienced’. This anguish was a struggle to
find synergy between the values of faith and the dominant culture on one hand, and
social and political hostility on the other.
Whilst he agreed that the context of minorities was broad – India
has a population of 160 million and Iceland barely a thousand – he felt that
questions such as globalisation, migration, secularism and extremism had
affected all communities and the 90-plus countries in which Muslims now resided.
9/11 and the ‘war on terror’ had had an impact, and only now
was the Muslim world beginning to ‘emerge out of a long night of hostility’.
For minorities who had faced this hostility whenever extremist fringes had grabbed
the headlines, it had been extremely difficult.
“Two top scholars at the colloquium, Prof Tariq Ramadan and
Ingrid Matson, both agreed that Islamophobia and Islamic extremism were
inextricably linked,” he said.
Rasool explained that the extremist vision of a jihad
between Muslim-dominated territory and non-Muslim dominated territory was debunked
as not representing mainstream thought. The colloquium had asserted that a Dar ul-Shahadah (a place of peace, free worship
and association) was the orthodox model.
“Infrastructure deficit was the most prominent refrain where
people said there weren’t enough mosques. There was also a strong call for
judiciary institutions, particularly in post-communist Central Asia.”
Rasool added that right across the board there was agreement
that countries should educate their own religious leaders on home soil, so that
they wouldn’t reflect influences alien to the cultures they were sent to.
“The question was: how do we train our scholars locally for
local needs? We need to develop indigenous scholars.”
On the question of Shari’ah (or Sacred Law) Rasool said that
a Cape Town scholar, Shaikh Seraj Hendricks, had stated that Muslim minority
communities were not here to subvert balanced constitutions, or even create a
‘sub-text’.
However, there had to be space for an application of
personal law in matters such as marriage, inheritance and halal food. Muslims
had to be allowed, like any other group, to live peacefully according to their
principles.
Rasool said that misrepresentation of Shari’ah within a
minority context had seen nine US states passing legislation that would in
future deny Muslims personal law on the most basic of issues. In France, where
secularism had turned ‘stifling’, lawmakers were talking of passing legislation
forbidding any kind of religious wear in public.
No comments:
Post a Comment