Can Muslims Be Cosmopolitans?

Many are saying that Muslims are parochial, closed-minded, and do not easily fit into multicultural, multifaith societies. Yet a contrary argument can be made that a cosmopolitan ethic is central to Islamic thought and practice.

This is the key proposition to be explored in a fascinating online forum to be chaired by Khairudin Aljunied, Associate Professor in the Department of Malay Studies, National University of Singapore. He will be joined by a distinguished panel of scholars and commentators.

Against the backdrop of violence in Africa and the Middle East, terrorist activity, and the rise of anti-Islamic sentiment in the West, the outlook for Islamic cosmopolitanism is a defining issue of our time.

Join us for this important conversation. 

Opening Comments From Chairs

Many Muslims today, especially among the young, are said to be increasingly swayed by the idea that there is no place for diversity in faith and beliefs in their respective societies. Added to this, the current literature has it that with the rise of Islamism and radical Islam, Muslims are more and more inclined to view non-Muslims as adversaries rather than allies in their endeavour to safeguard their identity and faith.

This is a rather questionable reading of the Islamic landscape, one that regrettably is rapidly gaining ground among many circles, both Muslim and non-Muslim. It is my contention that cosmopolitan sensibilities and cultures still have currency among Muslims globally.

‘Muslim Cosmopolitanism’ can be broadly defined as a style of thought, a habit of seeing the world and a way of living rooted in the central tenet of Islam, which is that all share a common humanity accountable to God and that each bears moral responsibility towards others.

Such a conception of cosmopolitanism differs from the present understanding of Western cosmopolitanism in that it acknowledges the place of religious values in secular life, and affirms the role of the divine in any discussion of what it means to be a cosmopolitan human being. Importantly, Muslim cosmopolitanism has persisted in many parts of the Muslim world from the time of the Prophet Muhammad to this very day as an ensemble of ideas, spaces, practices, dispositions, discourses and activities, notably in Southeast Asia, a region known for its peaceful, dialogical and gentler version of Islam.

Yet Islam’s openness to cultural and religious diversity is receiving little coverage in the media and even in scholarly writings or policy papers. This forum provides therefore a unique opportunity to explore further the potential of Muslim cosmopolitanism and consider concrete instances where such an outlook is actualised in practice.

It is my hope that the forum will also consider such promising policies and initiatives as inter-faith youth programs, sharing of religious spaces by different communities as well as other cultural activities in the form of music and the other performing arts which can go a long way towards popularising cosmopolitan thought and practice.

Khairudin Aljunied 

 

Responses

Manifest Absolutism

Comment: 

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.

0
How cosmopolitan are our definitions of cosmopolitanism?

Comment: 

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?

0
Definition of cosmopolitan

Comment: 

I completely agree that we need to work on defining "cosmopolitanism."
And the definition you suggest gets us somewhere but I think still needs some work:

"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."

The last statement doesn't help because its circular. We don't know what thoughts, habits, or ways of living are cosmopolitan in nature unless we already know what 'cosmopolitan' means.

As for the rest: " a set of firmly held moral principles and commitments that transcend territoriality, ethnic-centeredness, and exclusivism."

"a lack of firmly held principles and commitments, which transcends territoriality, ethnic centeredness, exclusivism."

What I am imagining here is a totally amoral person (without any strong ethical commitments) but who is nevertheless a 'citizen of the world', without any strong ethnic identity, prejudices, or exclusivism. This may fit, for example, the paradigmatic neo-liberal global businessman. I think we would call such a person cosmopolitan, as the term is normally used.
So, at least in terms of its normal usage, I think 'cosmopolitanism' does not carry with it any essential reference to a set of firmly held moral principles. So I would discard that part.

What's left is perhaps a little closer to the meaning:

Cosmopolitanism: "A type of thought, habit, and way of living that transcends territoriality, ethnic centeredness, and exclusivism."

0
Cosmopolitanism - modern and pre-modern

Comment: 

Cosmopolitanism obviously requires a certain material condition. One can transcend territory only in proportion to the means of doing so - either through travel, communication, education, etc.

Monotheism as a core worldview, of course, maximizes the potential of transcending territory. Since everything is God's creation, it is all His domain - the entire Cosmos. Every being is therefore a 'citizen' of a single universal order that transcends any geographic, ethnic, etc sphere. The principle makes cosmopolitanism of a sort possible for even the person who never leaves his village, but reads about Nabi Suleiman's understanding of the language of ants and acknowledging the validity of their very different life under God's domain.

This is transcending territory in imaginal, ideational sense, but I would argue is not for that fact 'unreal' or 'without real world implications'.

The present moment, on reflection, may not be so much different from the 'old days' in this regard, at least in the way you suggest. There are borders and visas, but these block travel for the poor and facilitate it for the rich. Before there were long distances and dangerous routes over land or sea. Again, this blocks travel for the poor and facilitates it for the rich. I don't think the question of the impact of these differences on the level of 'cosmopolitanism' is as straightforward as that.

I think the important question is how such mechanisms like borders and visas - and also the internet and global / social media - impact our way of 'thinking, habits, and way of living'. And they do in different ways. There is no doubt that global media seems to produce both a 'territory/ethicity' transcending discourse, as well as to facilitate nativist, 'anti-cosmopolitan' tendencies. This deserves a lot closer look. But on the face of this, these latter nativist trends seem to be in response to the perception that 'border' mechanisms are collapsing (complaints about immigration, etc.). But these are collapsing for the interests of the wealthy (cheap labor for capitalists) and against the working class (who cannot afford to travel over the border and who percieve their economic well being to be threatened by those who do).

And this indicates the fact that modern cosmopolitanism has been driven by the globalization of capitalism.

0
Is cosmopolitanism all good?

Comment: 

I agree with Moad's interventions. I was aware of possible counter-arguments to my initial post but due to lack of space I left it the way it was.

It seems to me that many of us are assuming that cosmopolitanism is good and an answer to some of the problems plaguing Muslims today. But the question could also be asked: what do we lose when we detach ourselves from local identities and assume only a cosmopolitan one? Attachments to land, family, place of origin etc. are deeply felt human connections.

To build on Moad's argument regarding the globalization of capitalism: couldn't it also be that modern cosmopolitanism is being promoted at the expense of local identities and affiliations so that global economic forces can have an easier time pillaging the earth and appropriating natural resources? Cosmopolitanism seats well with the de-territorialized financial operations where only a few know where the money is and how to move it around to their benefit by creating tax havens in areas of the world that are so insulated so no government would have access to what's going on.

Finally, tawhid as a worldview is such an important concept. As al-Faruqi reminds us, "If the world is to yield its fruits, it must be cultivated." Does cosmopolitanism devalue the earth, the land, and the local hence making world cultivation less important?

0
Can intellectuals be cosmopolitans?

Comment: 

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.

0
These are non-problems

Comment: 

I refer to this part:

"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."

So let me approach this with an analogy. Consider the question:

"Can humans breath underwater?"

Now I will suggest that this question is problematic for two reasons:

1. It implies that there is a bloc known as 'humans' who are homogenous and consistent in their behavior. But actually humans are extremely diverse.

2. It implies that humans are exceptional from other creatures, and pose specific and unique problems.

Now it seems to me that your objections to the question: "Can Muslims be Cosmopolitan" are basically similar to my objections to the question "Can humans breath underwater." And for similar reasons they are not valid objections.

First, it is understood that Muslims are not homogenous and absolutely consistent in their behaviour, but are diverse. But unless we want to claim that there is no such thing as a Muslim, then we must acknowledge that there is something in common between Muslims, and some degree of consistency in their behavior that constitutes their being Muslim. Thus, it is perfectly acceptable to pose the question whether this common factor or set or set of factors is compatible with cosmopolitanism.

Just as it is true that the fact the humans are diverse, but this does not entail that there is nothing in common between humans such that it makes sense to ask whether this common feature renders it us humans unable to breath underwater.

Really, I am seeing this style of objection all the time in social sciences, and it seems that it is possible to make this objection to anything anyone says about anything. Its not very informative.

Secondly, I don't see any implication, by the question, that Muslims pose a unique or specific problem with regard to cosmopolitanism. And in any case, if we do not, then let us show that through investigating the question, rather than just assume it and then invalidate the question based on that assumption.

0
These are non-problems

Comment: 

Dear Edward,

Thank you for offering some interesting responses.

No humans can breath under water and so making the generalisation that humans cannot breath under water is not problematic. However, generalising about whether all Muslims can or cannot be cosmopolitan is not equivalent because the spectrum of possibilities is infinite.

The question of whether humans can breath under water could also be considered as problematic because it projects a specific problem onto one species as if to presume that no other species has a problem with breathing under water, and that there is nothing to be problematised about anyone/anything other than humans.

The point I was trying to make was that 1. the question cannot be answered because the ontological status of Muslims as a single entity is redundant and 2. by posing such a question we are constructing a problem and therefore answering the question before we even realise it, by implying that "Muslims" and "cosmopolitanism" are innately at tension with one another, in a way that doesn't accept that this is probably not true, but also could be true for others.

Thank you again for your insightful contributions and I hope we will have further opportunities to learn from one another. I will give some more thought to your comments when I am swimming later and trying to breath under water :)

Yours sincerely,

Leon

0
Spectrum of possibilities

Comment: 

"However, generalising about whether all Muslims can or cannot be cosmopolitan is not equivalent because the spectrum of possibilities is infinite."

To say that the spectrum of possibilities with respect to Muslims is infinite, simply entails that there is no such thing as a Muslim.

For anything, that there be such thing, entails that there is a distinction between the thing and what it is not. That is, there are ontological limits. The limits define what the thing is. Without limits, there is no 'what' for the thing and therefore no thing.

Therefore, so long as we concede that there is such a thing as 'Muslims' (and therefore that any meaningful statement can be made about 'Muslims' at all), then we must concede that there is a limit as to how a something can be and still be a Muslim - and hence, the spectrum of possibilities is not infinite. So, for example, a stone cannot be a Muslim. But less obviously, a person who explicitly disavows Islam cannot be a Muslim. An atheist cannot be a Muslim. These are rather obvious.

So there is something that it is to be a Muslim. The spectrum of possibilities is not infinite, but finite.

Then it is not unreasonable to ask whether the cosmopolitanism is within the finite sphere of what is compossible with being Muslim.

Just as it is reasonable to ask whether breathing underwater is compossible with being human.

Also, to ask the question is not to assume that the answer is no. So I don't see on what basis you are claiming that, asking whether Muslims can be cosmopolitan is somehow tantamount to an assumption that we cannot be.

Your other objection seems to entail that we should not ask any question about anything unless we ask the same question about everything else. Indeed, part of this question involves asking whether others - or indeed anyone - can be 'cosmpolitan'.

These objections seem to me stock political gripes rather than intellectual observations.

0
Agreement

Comment: 

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.

0
conditional agrement

Comment: 

It is really important to note that intellectuals over-problematise issues that might be more clear cut in the pubic discourse. It is therefore important that intellectuals anchor their discussion in what public sees as a priority and start any discussion with those "common" place premises. They are, after all, in service of the public, right? With these concerns in mind, the discussion is made relevant and pregnant with much greater potential for change of public perceptions of cosmopolitan for instance.
The dichotomy between traditionalists and salaries is clearly a crude one and largely correct, but we can find vey important hybridity in the cracks of that dichotomy. I mean that Salafis are very diverse and are diversifying by the day. Many activist salaries are very keen on upholding the rigid personal practice and symbolism of piety, but are at the same time very tolerant of other Muslim expressions... I therefore see it as relevant for us to consider those overlapping (between traditionalism/Salafism/Sufism/Shiism) expression and real potential for cosmopolitan practice. This was alluded to by others in the conversation, but somewhat obscured with too much focus on formulating the ideal type of cosmopolitanism.

0
From theory to practice

Comment: 

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?

0
Framing the issue

Comment: 

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.).

0
Public comment from Izhar

Comment: 

Would the idea of a cosmopolitan Muslim be accepted by current governments? If not, how do we make it so that it will be generally accepted (volonté general) under the democratic process. In the seminar, I will attempt to view your ideas with respect to Rashid Ghannouce's Muslim Democrat.

1
Public comment from Andy Sopali

Comment: 

I've lived in Melbourne, Australia, over the past 7-years - a city that has attained the reputation for being the world's most liveable city for many years. I believe this is in no small part, due to the fact that Melbourne embraces the values, ideas and tenets of cosmopolitanism. As such, it is home to tens of thousands of Muslims - professionals, business people and students, who live there with their families. My family and I are amongst one of them.

We live in a suburb that's predominantly white Anglo-Saxons, whereas the number of Muslim households there is probably less than 20. We enjoy a cordial relationship with our non-Muslim neighbours, who took the trouble of looking after our property, while we were overseas performing our Hajj.

Our kids are all enrolled in secular-government schools, although we could have sent them to any one of the numerous Islamic colleges across Melbourne. This is because we believe that our kids can learn more about Islam and become better Muslims as well as share their religious beliefs with their non-Muslim friends in such an environment. This is something that we believe will not be possible, if they are enrolled in an Islamic college.

On a final note, I have in the past, received several queries from prospective Muslim families, who wish to relocate to Melbourne. They seem to be preoccupied with the idea of wanting to live in those suburbs around Melbourne that have a higher proportion of Muslim households. To put it bluntly, they wish to settle in a 'Muslim ghetto' where they can have easy access to Halal food, Islamic schools and mosques as well as other Muslim-friendly amenities. I'm quite annoyed by such queries and I would usually advise such individuals that they're better off staying put in their country of origin, be it Malaysia, Singapore, Brunei or Indonesia. There's no need to migrate to Melbourne and Melbourne certainly has had enough of such people.

1
What's the problem?

Comment: 

I fail to see how wanting to have access to halal food and mosques is a problem. People move to areas that have the things they need.

On your logic, people should all move to the barren desert or to Antarctica far away from the things they need in life.

That is just not how it works. And if this relates at all to Cosmopolitanism, then we should note that in reality Cosmopolitanism develops from people moving to places that offer them more of what they need, and not less.

Therefore, I don't see the desire of Muslims to want access to halal food and mosques as a compromise of their possible cosmopolitanism. Do we want to make eating haram food and not going to the mosque as a condition for Muslim cosmopolitanism?

On the contrary, the availability of halal food and mosques in Melbourne is a sign of cosmopolitanism.

0
Public comment from Greg

Comment: 

HI Khairuddin, 

Great initiative. 

Some questions on the definition as it is important that we all understand each other. 

i. How did this definition (below) came about? 
ii. Is there consensus on this definition?
iii. Are there other definitions of Muslim cosmopolitanism? 
iv. How is this definition below compare with the definition of cosmopolitanism in general

"Muslim Cosmopolitanism’ can be broadly defined as a style of thought, a habit of seeing the world and a way of living rooted in the central tenet of Islam, which is that all share a common humanity accountable to God and that each bears moral responsibility towards others."

Thanks very much Khairuddin. 

Salam hormat
Greg

1
Public comment from Robert Rands

Comment: 

Can Muslims be cosompolitans? Of course.

Can Christian or Muslim fundamentalists be cosmopolitan? 
I expect it's far more difficult, given the constraints on their belief systems.

1
Fundamentalists

Comment: 

Maybe the 'fundamentalists' of each religion are the cosmopolitans.
It seems to be true. They are the globalized ones. The most vibrant, growing Christian communities worldwide (including in Singapore) are the evangelical megachurch types - the 'fundamentalists'. They are capable of getting on board with the same program many different ethnicities in all parts of the world. Very global. Very cosmopolitan.

0
Public comment from Rod Bower

Comment: 

I agree with Robert Rands that Muslims can be cosmopolitan but that it would be far more difficult for fundamentalists (of any religion) to do so.

I wish to extend from there with an anecdotal observation that a greater percentage of Muslims seem to take a "fundamentalist" approach to religion than Christians (in Australia at least). I wonder if this is due to a greater insistence in Islam on the perfection of the Quran, whereas many Christians seem to accept that the Bible is a product of man that reflects a progressing understanding of God rather than an unchangeable snapshot of, and by, God. It seems that Christians are commonly happy to ignore some (usually older) parts of the Bible that they think are outdated, but I have not heard a sentiment like that from Muslims regarding the Quran.

I wonder if the idea of a "perfect, unchangeable" holy book makes it easier to believe that one has authority from God to demand certain behaviors of other individuals and of society.

I would like to hear some Muslim perspectives on this idea. Does it have any truth in it, and if so is it something that could be addressed in any way to make a cosmopolitan Muslim life more easily possible?

1
the explanation

Comment: 

The difference is that, the changes in moral values that moved Christians to re-interpret the Bible 'progressively' were not imposed by non-Christians. They were natural developments either embraced or imposed by other Christians.

But these 'progressive' values were experienced by Muslims as imposed by Christian colonizers. So what Christians think of as 'progressive' will almost always be experience by Muslims as 'repression.' The result is that in order to embrace that value system, a Muslim must name the colonization of Muslims and repression of Islam as 'progress.'

The fact is that Muslims are interpreting the Qur'an in terms of their own historical context, and they always have.

The thing is that the historical context for Muslims is just very very different than it is for Christians.

And you should keep your eye open on the growing fundamentalism among Christians, especially in the U.S. but worldwide.

This indicates that Christians are interpreting the Bible differently now, and this also indicates a change in their historical context.

0
ISLAM IN AN AGE OF PROFOUND TRANSITION

Comment: 

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.

0
Different Routes to Cosmopolitanism

Comment: 

Dear Joseph, you are right in pointing out that we need to highlight not just the commonalities in the experiences of cosmopolitanism but also where different traditions diverge even in their practices of diversity. I see great potential in this project in a sense that it can potentially be a thinking tool to map out the rules of engagement in the celebration of diversity. In my own research, I have examined two contemporary settings.

In my book Digital Culture and Religion in Asia, my colleague and I have examined how different religious traditions such as Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, neo-Shintoism and the Fallungong reinvent themselves given the challenges of contemporary society. We demonstrate that it is not just Islam, but almost all religions, are affected by this profound transition.

The other realm which I have done extensive research in, is popular culture. My latest book focuses on popular culture in Singapore and Australia. It is fascinating how young Muslims engage in a global youth culture while attempting to reconcile these activities with their religious identities. If there is one thing that my research has taught me is that cosmopolitanism exist even within Islam and among Muslims as there is more often than not a whole range of perspectives that can be found, say on music, for example.

Our role, I feel is to highlight the different routes to cosmopolitanism that have been taken and to resist the identity projects and labeling that have become a staple of today's politics.

0
Ermin: Muslim Cosmopolitanism is not an Imaginative Fiction

Comment: 

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?

0
Summarizing Discussions

Comment: 

We have had a vibrant discussion over the question of whether Muslims can be cosmopolitans. Most, if not, all of the  contributors agree that Muslims have been cosmopolitan in their approaches to both piety and social life. The potential of Muslims to continually manifest cosmopolitanism rooted in the Islamic faith while drawing from the ideas and cultures of peoples' from differing backgrounds is still alive and well. By way of closing this forum, I wish to address a few pertinent issues highlighted by some of the contributors, most of which I have discussed in greater detail in my upcoming book, Muslim Cosmopolitanism: Southeast Asian Islam in Comparative Perspective (Edinburgh University Press, 2016):

 1) Can we define Muslim cosmopolitanism?

 While the term ‘Muslim cosmopolitanism’ has been put to use by scholars working on various Muslim regions, no clear definition has been offered. As a concept, Muslim cosmopolitanism thus suffers from being used too loosely and too indiscriminately to describe anything that Muslims say and do which points towards some degree of inclusivity.

 Based on my study of Southeast Asian Islam, I offer here a fresh definition of the concept as an ensemble of ideas, spaces, practices, dispositions, discourses and activities. Muslim cosmopolitanism in Southeast Asia is a style of thought, a habit of seeing the world and a way of living that is rooted in the central tenet of Islam, which is that everyone is part of a common humanity accountable to God and that we are morally responsible towards one another. To embrace Muslim cosmopolitanism is to exhibit a high degree of receptiveness to universal values that are embedded within one’s own customs and traditions.

Internalising Muslim cosmopolitanism enables a person to be at ease with his or her own Islamic and cultural identities, promoting these identities as a means to enrich public understanding about Islam and Muslims while maintaining and embracing a tolerant attitude towards people of other backgrounds. It follows, then, that Muslim cosmopolitans approach varied ways of thinking about Islam and about life in an open-hearted and empowering way in the path to ensure the protection of faith, life, lineage, intellect, property and rights of all groups and individuals in society. As living embodiments of Muslim cosmopolitanism, they are committed to a set of practices and actions that are aimed at enlivening the spirit of compassion (rahmah), justice (adil) and consensus (musyawarah) in order to safeguard public interest (maslahah).

2) How has Muslim Cosmopolitanism been realized?

The processes of cosmopolitanisation have and is still taking place across a range of sites and spaces. In Southeast Asia, a place that I am most familiar with, Muslim cosmopolitanism is evidenced in the marketplace, where economic activities take place, Muslims and non-Muslims speak, exchange and bargain with one another and thereby sustain peaceful relationships. Fluid interactions between businessmen, traders and customers, and between Muslims and non-Muslims, each learning the subtleties of their respective cultures while appreciating one another’s differences and commonalities alike have shaped the texture of Muslim cosmopolitanism for close to a millenium.

Muslim cosmopolitanism is evidenced in sacred spaces as well. Mosques, for example, are not just devotional places. They are also projections of the cosmopolitan temperaments as seen in the aesthetics and architecture of these mosques that draw upon so many religious and cultural traditions. Mosques in Muslim Southeast Asia, in particular, live up to Ulf Hannerz’s suggestion that genuine cosmopolitanism entails ‘an intellectual and aesthetic openness toward divergent cultural experiences, a search for contrasts rather than uniformity’. Beyond the aesthetics, there exist a sharing of sacred space by Muslims and non-Muslims. Worshippers of different faiths to help one another in a spirit of mutual tolerance and cooperation to ensure the safety and welfare of their respective religious institutions.

This is perhaps not the place to cite all the examples discussed in the many books on Muslim cosmopolitanism, including my own. Suffice is it to state here that many elements of Muslim cosmopolitanism in Southeast Asia there may well mirror the incarnations of Muslim cosmopolitanism found in other regions, such as along the coasts of the Indian Ocean. I, therefore, depart from Humeira Iqtidar’s supposition that ‘given the immense variation within the category “Muslim”, it is not entirely feasible to conceive of a coherent and stable phenomenon called “Muslim Cosmopolitanism”’.

Muslim cosmopolitanism, to my mind, need not be a stable and coherent phenomenon in any given time and space. Much like Islam as a belief system and a cultural reality, different individuals and groups may understand and express cosmopolitanism differently in accordance with the demands of their milieus. They are, however, bounded by the shared conviction that Muslims are accountable to all of humankind and that they learn from each other and from the ‘other’. Purveyors of Muslim cosmopolitanism contribute to the making of plural societies, ensuring that peace, harmony and mutual respect are upheld just as they unceasingly oppose the forces of hate and disunity. They all come under the canopy of Muslim cosmopolitanism.

 3) What are the obstacles to growth of Muslim Cosmopolitanism in any society?

 A lot of attention has been given lately to the study of radicalism and fundamentalism linked to the religion of Islam. While such forces in society have resulted to the breakdown of Muslim cosmopolitanism, I am of the view that the main inhibitors of Muslim cosmopolitanism are modern secular states. Indeed, most studies of Muslim cosmopolitanism have neglected the role of the state. The reasons for overlooking the state are twofold. The foremost reason is the prevailing assumption that globalisation has effectively shifted the agency of states to interest groups, lobby organisations and grass-roots movements. These non-state actors have captured the attention of social theorists who have showed how they have shaped societal receptivity towards cosmopolitan ideals and defined cosmopolitanism from a bottom-up viewpoint, rather than a top-down perspective.

A related reason why states have largely been ignored has to do with the supposition that each state is generally concerned with the protection of its own security and citizenry. This has conditioned how states function; that is, they are generally insular regarding cosmopolitan projects because such efforts run contrary to state goals of inculcating national loyalty, commitments to the local culture and the defence of state sovereignty. Noting these trends in scholarship and in state–civil society practices, in a recent essay, Garrett Wallace Brown argues that, ‘for cosmopolitans, the agenda should be to think more inventively about how to make these everyday state practices increasingly more cosmopolitan’.

It is obvious to me that most modern states have yet to fully realise the ideal of being ‘responsible cosmopolitan states’. Their inability to be cosmopolitan and to foster Muslim cosmopolitanism is a consequence of the secular frames of reference that they have adopted for the management of Muslims and non-Muslims. That secular states in the world that we live in today have yet to become responsible cosmopolitan states is unsurprising given that the very notion of cosmopolitanism runs contrary to what most of these states stand for. These states shared an essential feature, which Talal Asad in his Formations of the Secular rightly puts it, the regulation of ‘all aspects of individual life – even the most intimate, such as birth and death – no one, whether religious or other can avoid encountering its ambitious powers’. Muslims, whose universalising visions and transnational ambitions were seen as affronts, had to bear the brunt of the punitive and regulative powers of these secular states that embraced nationalism as a vehicle for promoting unity in their countries.


States often seek to impose a sense of allegiance and loyalty that would glue society together to achieve the state’s ends. Conversely, Muslim cosmopolitanism stands for openness and non-exclusivity, oftentimes decoupled from national culture. This disjuncture becomes even more paralysing when states embrace secularist stances that are illiberal, authoritarian and prejudiced, and that privilege one group in society over others. We may safely conclude that the survival of Muslim cosmopolitanism in the Muslim world today since the creation of the nation-states has been the product of the will of ordinary Muslims, along with their non-Muslim compatriots, to rise above state provincialism. We can only hope that secular states today will eventually manifest the legacies and cosmopolitan outlooks of their predecessors. As for now, secular states in the the postcolonial world, are inhibitors rather than enablers of Muslim cosmopolitanism.

By way of concluding…

The spectres of secular fundamentalism, nationalist particularism, religious fundamentalism and state intolerance have each challenged our cosmopolitanism outlooks and sensibilities. Notwithstanding these challenges, Muslim cosmopolitanism has continued to thrive. I invite discussants and participants of this forum to encourage others to consider putting on new lenses in order for us to fully comprehend Muslim cosmopolitanism as it has been lived historically and at present. We must train our eyes to look beyond episodic moments of conflict and dissension. We must begin to see like cosmopolitans and appreciate the practices of the majority, people who have cohabited peacefully for many generations. Indeed, seeing like a cosmopolitan encourages us to pay close attention to those neglected activists and intellectuals who make universal values apparent in their discourses. Seeing like a cosmopolitan enables us to observe carefully the harmonious conversations between strangers in markets and sacred spaces, in the virtual and real worlds, between men and women, and between Muslims and non-Muslims, in whatever costumes they may be wearing, to construct a better world for us all. 

 

0
Summarizing Discussions and Closing the Forum

Comment: 

We have had a vibrant discussion over the question of whether Muslims can be cosmopolitans. Most, if not, all of the  contributors agree that Muslims have been cosmopolitan in their approaches to both piety and social life. The potential of Muslims to continually manifest cosmopolitanism that is rooted in the Islamic faith while drawing from the ideas and cultures of peoples' from differing backgrounds is still alive and well. By way of closing this forum, I wish to address a few pertinent issues highlighted by some of the contributors, most of which I have discussed in greater detail in my upcoming book, Muslim Cosmopolitanism: Southeast Asian Islam in Comparative Perspective (Edinburgh University Press, 2016):

 1) Can we define Muslim cosmopolitanism?

 While the term ‘Muslim cosmopolitanism’ has been put to use by scholars working on various Muslim regions, no clear definition has been offered. As a concept, Muslim cosmopolitanism thus suffers from being used too loosely and too indiscriminately to describe anything that Muslims say and do which points towards some degree of inclusivity.

 Based on my study of Southeast Asian Islam, I offer here a fresh definition of the concept as an ensemble of ideas, spaces, practices, dispositions, discourses and activities. Muslim cosmopolitanism in Southeast Asia is a style of thought, a habit of seeing the world and a way of living that is rooted in the central tenet of Islam, which is that everyone is part of a common humanity accountable to God and that we are morally responsible towards one another. To embrace Muslim cosmopolitanism is to exhibit a high degree of receptiveness to universal values that are embedded within one’s own customs and traditions.

Internalising Muslim cosmopolitanism enables a person to be at ease with his or her own Islamic and cultural identities, promoting these identities as a means to enrich public understanding about Islam and Muslims while maintaining and embracing a tolerant attitude towards people of other backgrounds. It follows, then, that Muslim cosmopolitans approach varied ways of thinking about Islam and about life in an open-hearted and empowering way in the path to ensure the protection of faith, life, lineage, intellect, property and rights of all groups and individuals in society. As living embodiments of Muslim cosmopolitanism, they are committed to a set of practices and actions that are aimed at enlivening the spirit of compassion (rahmah), justice (adil) and consensus (musyawarah) in order to safeguard public interest (maslahah).

2) How has Muslim Cosmopolitanism been realized?

The processes of cosmopolitanisation have and is still taking place across a range of sites and spaces. In Southeast Asia, a place that I am most familiar with, Muslim cosmopolitanism is evidenced in the marketplace, where economic activities take place, Muslims and non-Muslims speak, exchange and bargain with one another and thereby sustain peaceful relationships. Fluid interactions between businessmen, traders and customers, and between Muslims and non-Muslims, each learning the subtleties of their respective cultures while appreciating one another’s differences and commonalities alike have shaped the texture of Muslim cosmopolitanism for close to a millenium.

Muslim cosmopolitanism is evidenced in sacred spaces as well. Mosques, for example, are not just devotional places. They are also projections of the cosmopolitan temperaments as seen in the aesthetics and architecture of these mosques that draw upon so many religious and cultural traditions. Mosques in Muslim Southeast Asia, in particular, live up to Ulf Hannerz’s suggestion that genuine cosmopolitanism entails ‘an intellectual and aesthetic openness toward divergent cultural experiences, a search for contrasts rather than uniformity’. Beyond the aesthetics, there exist a sharing of sacred space by Muslims and non-Muslims. Worshippers of different faiths to help one another in a spirit of mutual tolerance and cooperation to ensure the safety and welfare of their respective religious institutions.

This is perhaps not the place to cite all the examples discussed in the many books on Muslim cosmopolitanism, including my own. Suffice is it to state here that many elements of Muslim cosmopolitanism in Southeast Asia there may well mirror the incarnations of Muslim cosmopolitanism found in other regions, such as along the coasts of the Indian Ocean. I, therefore, depart from Humeira Iqtidar’s supposition that ‘given the immense variation within the category “Muslim”, it is not entirely feasible to conceive of a coherent and stable phenomenon called “Muslim Cosmopolitanism”’.

Muslim cosmopolitanism, to my mind, need not be a stable and coherent phenomenon in any given time and space. Much like Islam as a belief system and a cultural reality, different individuals and groups may understand and express cosmopolitanism differently in accordance with the demands of their milieus. They are, however, bounded by the shared conviction that Muslims are accountable to all of humankind and that they learn from each other and from the ‘other’. Purveyors of Muslim cosmopolitanism contribute to the making of plural societies, ensuring that peace, harmony and mutual respect are upheld just as they unceasingly oppose the forces of hate and disunity. They all come under the canopy of Muslim cosmopolitanism.

 3) What are the obstacles to the growth of Muslim Cosmopolitanism in any society?

 A lot of attention has been given lately to the study of radicalism and fundamentalism linked to the religion of Islam. While such forces in society have resulted to the breakdown of Muslim cosmopolitanism, I am of the view that the main inhibitors of Muslim cosmopolitanism are modern secular states. Indeed, most studies of Muslim cosmopolitanism have neglected the role of the state. The reasons for overlooking the state are twofold. The foremost reason is the prevailing assumption that globalisation has effectively shifted the agency of states to interest groups, lobby organisations and grass-roots movements. These non-state actors have captured the attention of social theorists who have showed how they have shaped societal receptivity towards cosmopolitan ideals and defined cosmopolitanism from a bottom-up viewpoint, rather than a top-down perspective.

A related reason why states have largely been ignored has to do with the supposition that each state is generally concerned with the protection of its own security and citizenry. This has conditioned how states function; that is, they are generally insular regarding cosmopolitan projects because such efforts run contrary to state goals of inculcating national loyalty, commitments to the local culture and the defence of state sovereignty. Noting these trends in scholarship and in state–civil society practices, in a recent essay, Garrett Wallace Brown argues that, ‘for cosmopolitans, the agenda should be to think more inventively about how to make these everyday state practices increasingly more cosmopolitan’.

It is obvious to me that most modern states have yet to fully realise the ideal of being ‘responsible cosmopolitan states’. Their inability to be cosmopolitan and to foster Muslim cosmopolitanism is a consequence of the secular frames of reference that they have adopted for the management of Muslims and non-Muslims. That secular states in the world that we live in today have yet to become responsible cosmopolitan states is unsurprising given that the very notion of cosmopolitanism runs contrary to what most of these states stand for. These states shared an essential feature, which Talal Asad in his Formations of the Secular rightly puts it, the regulation of ‘all aspects of individual life – even the most intimate, such as birth and death – no one, whether religious or other can avoid encountering its ambitious powers’. Muslims, whose universalising visions and transnational ambitions were seen as affronts, had to bear the brunt of the punitive and regulative powers of these secular states that embraced nationalism as a vehicle for promoting unity in their countries.


States often seek to impose a sense of allegiance and loyalty that would glue society together to achieve the state’s ends. Conversely, Muslim cosmopolitanism stands for openness and non-exclusivity, oftentimes decoupled from national culture. This disjuncture becomes even more paralysing when states embrace secularist stances that are illiberal, authoritarian and prejudiced, and that privilege one group in society over others. We may safely conclude that the survival of Muslim cosmopolitanism in the Muslim world today since the creation of the nation-states has been the product of the will of ordinary Muslims, along with their non-Muslim compatriots, to rise above state provincialism. We can only hope that secular states today will eventually manifest the legacies and cosmopolitan outlooks of their predecessors. As for now, secular states in the the postcolonial world, are inhibitors rather than enablers of Muslim cosmopolitanism.

By way of concluding…

The spectres of secular fundamentalism, nationalist particularism, religious fundamentalism and state intolerance have each challenged our cosmopolitanism outlooks and sensibilities. Notwithstanding these challenges, Muslim cosmopolitanism has continued to thrive. I invite discussants and participants of this forum to encourage others to consider putting on new lenses in order for us to fully comprehend Muslim cosmopolitanism as it has been lived historically and at present. We must train our eyes to look beyond episodic moments of conflict and dissension. We must begin to see like cosmopolitans and appreciate the practices of the majority, people who have cohabited peacefully for many generations. Indeed, seeing like a cosmopolitan encourages us to pay close attention to those neglected activists and intellectuals who make universal values apparent in their discourses. Seeing like a cosmopolitan enables us to observe carefully the harmonious conversations between strangers in markets and sacred spaces, in the virtual and real worlds, between men and women, and between Muslims and non-Muslims, in whatever costumes they may be wearing, to construct a better world for us all. 

 

0

Contribute to this Forum

Read our copyright and privacy policy here.