I want to draw attention to a pattern of thought, of which positivism is perhaps the clearest example. The positivists thought that natural empirical science was uniquely capable of resolving disputes, by virtue of recourse to empirical 'data', because such data were supposed as theory neutral. This fails because, as Kuhn showed, all such data have to be described in order be applied to the falsification of verification of any competing theory, and since there are always different ways to describe the data, depending on the theoretical framework, all such data is theory laden. Let's say that the data have to be described to become 'manifest'. So positivism held out the promise that in data, we have a theory neutral, or absolute truth, which can be used as a standard for rendering absolute judgments between competing theories because it is 'manifest' - it can be described and codified in terms which are themselves absolute. So this is what I mean by Manifest Absolutism. I intend to contrast this to what we might call a Transcendent Absolutism, according to which there is an absolute Truth, but which transcends any possible description or codification. Thus, when the absolute becomes manifest to us, such manifestations necessarily become contingent, limited, perspectival, and subject to critique and negotiation (though not subject or relative in the sense that all descriptions are equal).
Now, the manifest absolutism of positivism is just a variation on a general manifest absolutism, in the name of "reason", which is the whole Enlightenment project / 'modernity'.
My suggestion is that, having advanced that promise / threat to the world it had colonized, the Enlightenment also broadcast a kind of seductive temptation to others to mimic this same grandiose claim, but on their own respective terms. Thus, for example, the Qur'an and Sunnah (or rather certain 'authenticated' hadeeth) take the place of 'data' in the positivist scheme, as a theory neutral given by which all differences should be susceptible to absolute resolution. Consequently, if there are any differences, then someone is rejecting the data.
Elsewhere in the world, similar patterns are developing. Possible because of the final failure of Enlightenment values to supply a unifying cultural force, and the subsequent fracture of Western society into different cultural factions, each attempting to make totalizing, non-negotiable demands in the name of its own version of the 'given'.
Now this implies that before, there was a different pattern where tension between divergent systems of thought and value was accepted as irreducible and irresolvable in any absolute sense. Rather, it was take for granted that negotiated settlements between rival values at even the most basic level are unavoidable. This of course means also accepting that some incidents of violence are unavoidable. But here, the challenge is to minimize violence by seeking negotiated settlements wherever possible - not by seeking and imposing a manifest absolute standard of judgment to resolve all disputes once and for all. (Determine the right and eliminate all opposition). In the premodern, as far as I know, there was no 'war to end all wars.' And even if there were here and there, that is still in contrast to the current situation which seems to be a 'war to end all wars of all against all."

So my suggestion is the problem of 'manifest absolutism', the framework of thought that forces us to think that its only alternative is absolute relativism, and which prevents us from thinking the transcendent absolute and accepting manifest best guess.

The esteemed Chair suggests that the answer to parochialism, narrow-mindedness, intolerance, and violence that are observable among today's Muslims is to turn to cosmopolitanism, which Dr. Khairudin sees as integral to Islamic teachings. In his definition of cosmopolitanism, "all share a common humanity accountable to God and ... each bears moral responsibility towards others." One needs to ask, what is uniquely Islamic about this definition? Common humanity accountable to God and bearing moral responsibility are essential teachings of Christianity too. Nor does this definition tell us what cosmopolitanism actually is. "A style of thought, a habit of seeing the world, or a way of living" - all of these are devoid of content and context.

It seems to me that tolerance, open-mindedness, and diversity are seen as synonyms for cosmopolitanism. Yet, one could be firmly rooted in nation-state paradigm, and be tolerant, open-minded, and supportive of diversity at the same time. Again, this doesn't tell us what cosmopolitanism actually is. Such descriptions and definitions of cosmopolitanism are simply not cosmopolitan enough.

Cosmopolitanism could perhaps be better described in ethical terms - as a set of firmly held moral principles and commitments that transcend territoriality, ethnic-centeredness, and exclusivism. Such moral commitments produce thought, habits, and ways of living that are cosmopolitan in nature.

This brings me to an important question: in the world of nation-states, borders, visas, and other limitations, is it possible to speak of cosmopolitanism outside the imaginary world of abstract ideas and personalized ethics? In other worlds, is cosmopolitanism only a figment of our imagination, with no real-world implications? The historical examples Dr. Khairudin cites are historical precisely because they were only possible in times when such national boundaries and limitations on human interaction and travel did not exist to the extent they do today. So, we arrive at a paradox: in today's world of instant communication and the ability to see the world through a camera lens in real time, we are no less strangers than we were in the past where such facilities did not exist. Or, if we wanted to be provocative, where does cosmopolitanism find easier place to reside: in our world of nation-states, or during the age of the caliphates?

From my perspective, the more important issue is not whether Muslims are cosmopolitan but whether intellectuals and other elites can connect sufficiently with the ordinary people that they talk about to realise that of course Muslims are already cosmopolitan.

As Khairudin has touched upon, Islamic theology has many rich traditions that promote and advocate cosmopolitanism, pluralism, respect for diversity, engagement with those who are different, and collaboration. This is why today the annual Hajj pilgrimage can be described as one of the most cosmopolitan gatherings that human civilisation has ever produced since it involves the coming together and the collective worship of millions of people from all parts of the globe with a common purpose.

For me, the question 'Can Muslims be Cosmopolitans?' is problematic for two reasons:

1. It implies that there is a bloc known as 'Muslims', who are heterogeneous and consistent in their behaviour. On the contrary, Muslims are an extremely diverse and eclectic mix of millions and millions of people and so there are all sorts of diversity amongst them which needs to be recognised for a balanced view.

2. It implies that Muslims are exceptional from other people, and pose specific and unique problems. I would suggest that amongst Muslims there are just as much opportunities and challenges as can be found with any other 'community', and so questions like this generate an unnecessary scrutiny of Muslims as though they are particularly problematic.

One area where I may disagree with Khairudin is his suggestion that 'South East Asian Islam' is more progressive than Islamic interpretations that exist in other parts of the world. Rather, I would suggest that there are many cosmopolitan interpretations of Islam to be found in Africa, the Middle East, South Asia and beyond, and further, I would also point out that South East Asia has also witnessed its fair share of problematic and sometimes violent interpretations of Islam.

In conclusion, I would disagree with the sensationalist suggestion that Muslim youth are being regularly seduced by anti-cosmopolitan views, or that fundamentalism is on the rise. Instead, while recognising that these currents do indeed exist and can end in destruction, I would suggest that the vast majority of Muslims, whether young or old, are as comfortable living in a diverse and globalised world as any other people, and that we should resist the temptation to stigmatise Muslims by treating them as somehow an exceptional problem.

On the other hand, I agree with you to two other things.

One is the part about intellectuals vs. the 'ordinary people'. Yes, I think perhaps problems with diversity emerge at the ideological level in ways that they would not in the 'lived life' level. So intellectuals might have a special problem with cosmopolitanism that 'ordinary people' don't. Ideology calls for the 'manifest absolute' as I described in my post. Lived religion can keep the Absolute transcendent and deal with the always approximate business of negotiation diverse perspectives in world.

Second, I agree that we should not assume that anti-cosmopolitanism is rampant among Muslim youth. This is part of assuming that widespread 'salafism' is anti-cosmopolitan. Actually there are many angle from which salafism appears far more cosmopolitan that the 'traditional' Islam as usually defined in opposition to it. The latter is always described as 'local' for example.

Salafism carries the problem of the manifest absolute but transcends territory. The 'traditional' is usually local, ethnic, and nationalistically bound. Sympathy for Muslims elsewhere or the Ummah is frowned on as 'extremist'. Which is more anti-cosmopolitanism we may discuss.

The Chair has asked a deliberately provocative question which warrants a careful response. As other contributors have already alluded -it’s not so much ‘Can Muslims be cosmopolitan?’ but rather what do we mean by the concept, on whose terms and what is preventing it occurring? There is no shortage of historical and contemporary examples of Muslim cosmopolitanism -they have been documented extensively in numerous studies such as Seema Alavi’s recent Muslim Cosmopolitanism in the Age of Empire (2015) and Khairudin’s forthcoming Muslim Cosmopolitanism: Southeast Asian Islam in Comparative Perspective (2016). I think one the most pressing questions is pragmatic -if we agree on its necessity -how can the spirit of cosmopolitanism within Muslim societies be fortified against the forces of religious intolerance and state authoritarianism?

The presented argument (Muslim cosmopolitanism should be promoted and developed into a social practice of Muslims everywhere and realistically in Muslim majority societies) is based on a set of assumptions that are somewhat problematic if taken at face value. For any useful conversation to take place we need to be careful in formulating and supporting our both historical and political assertions with a set of arguments that are empirically anchored.

What is most interesting here is the idea of cosmopolitan potential (e.g. shared morality, ethics, epistemology etc.) that is somehow inherently imbedded in the broader Islamic discursive tradition – and which has been manifested, expressed, promoted and practices during the considerable periods within Islamicate societies (think of Baghdad ca. 850-950, Cordoba (ca. 930-1030), the 16th cent. Istanbul etc.)

Here we predispose that it means that the cosmopolitan Muslims would have to develop/assert/reclaim a more inclusive notion of what it means to be a member of humanity/society/citizenry. This is something we most likely all agree on. If this is indeed what Khairudin has had in mind, then in order for that thought and argument to prevail and potentially affect (a substantial number of) Muslims’ consciousness and practices it will be necessary to demonstrate this argument from “within” of the broad Islamic discursive tradition.

One structural argument that might support my above concern is what I perceive as a cultural and political effect of postcolonial struggle wherein Muslim intellectuals have struggled with some of the consequences of modernity (e.g. institutionalized authoritarianism). For example, we are all aware of a rise of social mobilization against both internal and external repression (throughout the 20th century) of Muslim polities. This struggle has arguably both channeled the existing and exacerbated further a sense of collective anxiety and suspicion towards domestic and international political authorities. In order to alleviate and counter much of the the negative effects of this collective anxiety, confusion and destructive behavior, it is suggested that we discuss and perhaps articulate a cosmopolitan “way of thinking” within which Muslim populations can recognize their various identities as legitimate – but which is also rooted in the ummatic epistemic framework (this clearly needs explaining!).

This would mean that the identified Islamic universal discursive principles, common denominators if you so will, (should) have capacity to facilitate open-ended dialogue between intellectuals, the general public and all other willing conversation participants. Nevertheless, to have a productive engagement on the level of community it is crucial to identify the parameters of such a dialogue (e.g. various meanings and practicalities of justice etc.), support building (a) space(s) for constructive and critical conversations (e.g. online platforms, innovative public meetings etc.), but also build (civil society) institutions within which such conversation can flourish evolve, and survive. It seems to me that various such conversations are already taking place in many corners of the Islamicate majority/minority societies and that needs to be taken into account during the course of this conversation (think of Critical Muslim Studies initiative, various decolonization projects etc.).

Let me first thank most sincerely Khairudin and the panel members for their wonderful contributions to what is a lively and enriching conversation.

In this comment, I wish to share a few observations and pose a few questions.

There is, I believe, a need to clarify the intention behind the title chosen for this forum. As I see it, it is first and foremost an invitation to Muslims and non-Muslims alike to reflect on how Islam is travelling in the present period, when it comes to embracing diversity in its various forms. If we take this to be the starting point, then two questions immediately arise. First, which historical or contemporary settings offer especially useful examples of Islam engaging in the discourse and practice of cosmopolitanism? And secondly, what is it that Islam can bring to the cosmopolitan table?

Let me then short-circuit a theoretical discussion of competing views of cosmopolitanism, and focus instead on the challenges posed by a world in rapid transition. This is a world in which diversity, be it racial, ethnic, linguistic, cultural, religious, philosophical or ideological, is at the centre of contemporary life, and an integral part of many of our most intractable conflicts.

Is religion generally – and each of the major faiths in particular –  part of the problem or part of the solution? The role of Islam is critical, especially in the light of its demographic profile – 1.6 billion adherents as of 2010, expected to rise to 2.8 billion in 2050. It is fair to say that the prospects of cosmopolitanism will rest largely on the mindset and conduct of the world’s three largest groupings: Christianity, Islam and secularism.

Though cosmopolitanism centres primarily on the question of diversity, there is far more to it than just tolerating or even respecting difference. The question is whether we are able to embrace this multidimensional diversity as one of the great assets of human civilisation. I would go so far as to say that embracing cultural diversity in its various forms is as critical to our survival as is preserving biodiversity. Do the various religious traditions share this view? If so, what meaning and content do they give it in their teachings, their forms of worship, their educational and other institutional practices, and the everyday conduct of their adherents?

Here a couple of further clarifications are in order. There is a danger, arising largely from Western-centric notions of cosmopolitanism, of relegating a cosmopolitan outlook simply to the international or global domain. But cosmopolitanism needs to be at least as much at work in our local communities, in the places of study, work and recreation, in the way social services, whether it be in health, education, urban planning or architecture, are understood and delivered. It needs to infuse our political processes at the local, provincial and national levels, and inform the agendas of regional institutions, whether it be the European Union, the African Union or ASEAN. In all these spheres a religiously inspired cosmopolitanism has much to contribute.

The question then is: What does Islam currently bring to the cosmopolitan table? What are the unique resources and insights which Islam can contribute – as a non-Muslim I believe these to be of inestimable value. We should also consider the factors which variously impede or facilitate such contribution? It need hardly be said that where diversity is not embraced within the fold of a given religion, it is difficult to see how it can be effectively embraced with other faiths or belief systems.

Of course, all these questions are as applicable to other major religions as they are to Islam. We should expect the answers they offer to have elements of commonality but also of difference.

Dear All,

I wish to thank everyone for the insights thus far. The contributions clearly demonstrates that the topic at hand is something that affects us all, be it Muslims or non-Muslims. Let me address one by one the many intriguing questions that have been raised above as a means to bring our discussion further: 

Ermin Sinanovic asked whether “in the world of nation-states, borders, visas, and other limitations, is it possible to speak of cosmopolitanism outside the imaginary world of abstract ideas and personalized ethics? In other worlds, is cosmopolitanism only a figment of our imagination, with no real-world implications?

My response to this is that cosmopolitanism is both an ideal as well as an actual mode of social life. It is an ideal in that theorists such as Emmanuel Kant imagined a world where human beings would eventually transcend with their ethnic, national, cultural and religious identities, putting in as an alternative to such forms of identification the idea of being a citizen of the world, of a part of and concerned with the welfare of all mankind. Kant’s ideal was not realized in his own homeland where racism and national jingoism thrived well into the age of empires and the world wars that killed millions. If Kant was alive in the twentieth century, he would be the first to say that the Europeans were never close to the cosmopolitan ideal, even among themselves, what more with the rest of mankind. This prompted a decolonial theorist, Walter Mignolo, to declare that Kant’s cosmopolitan ideal “should be taken as a local ideal of a cosmopolitan world, the European idea. Since such imperial cosmopolitanism now is untenable, it is necessary to reduce Kantian legacies to size for there are many other local histories in which cosmopolitan projects emerge.”

To Mignolo, “cosmopolitanism” could be readily found in the Global South, especially before the coming of capitalist modernity and neo-imperialist globalization. Although Mignolo did not cite any examples of cosmopolitanism as it was lived by Muslims, recent research on the subject bears testimony that Muslims have been cosmopolitan since the advent of Islam during the time of the prophet Muhammad. This may partly explain the spread of Islam in many parts of the world especially in Asia and Africa. The sense of belonging to the world and the idea that Muslims are morally responsible towards all of mankind prompted missionaries, scholars and traders to travel to all parts of the world to spread the universal message of Islam.

A recent collection of essays entitled Cosmopolitanisms in Muslim Contexts demonstrate how Muslims in many parts of South Asia and Africa manifested cosmopolitan tendencies and intermingled easily and peacefully with non-Muslims. Similarly, Kai Kreese and Edward Simpson’s, ‪Struggling with History: Islam and Cosmopolitanism in the Western Indian Ocean, shows how vibrant cosmopolitan cultures flourished among communities based in port cities. Seema Alavi’s, Muslim Cosmopolitanism in the Age of Empire drives home the point that the claim that cosmopolitanism is but imaginary among Muslims is not at all true. Rather, cosmopolitan visions and practices was kept well and alive even under the ambit of empire.

In sum and to answer Ermin’s questions in a straightforward manner, cosmopolitanism not only a figment of our imagination. There have been real-world implications as seen from these studies. Can Muslims be cosmopolitan? The answer is resoundingly yes. Have all Muslims be cosmopolitan? No but the balance sheet of history tells us that Muslims have by and large been embracing of others in their societies especially in Southeast Asia where hybridity and syncretism are celebrated and puritanism shunned. The question that we need to address then is: can we use the tem “Muslim Cosmopolitanism” to describe the manner to which Muslims manifest cosmopolitan tendencies and sensibilities?