Ijtihad is back in vogue among Muslim theologians; slowly, reluctantly but surely, says a Nadwi scholar
Issues of Muslim Political Thought in Modern Age
By Dr M. Ghitreef Shahbaz Nadwi, New Age Islam
15 June 2012
Abstract: In modern age a lot of work has been done in various branches of Islamic sciences. And as it is done in absolute Islamic Sciences such as Quran, Hadith, Fiq etc, likewise invaluable work appeared on Islamic politics, Islamic Economy etc. In the same way a great deal of work has come up in this area There are scholars who feel it sufficient to repeat the statements from classical fiqh, but there are some who dared to say something new and who come up with new ideas.
In this paper we are going to examine what additional work has been done on the subject with special reference to the works appeared in the last decade of the twentieth century and in the first decade of the 21 century.
Classical Muslim political thought, is the area, like other areas, in which we have to rethink and reshape our mind. Hence one modern day Muslim jurist of the stature of Dr Yosuf Alqarzawi expressed the view that, a lot of work regarding the Islamic political thought in the context of modern age, remains yet to be done. And for that matter Ijtihad (free reasoning) and ideological remodeling are utterly needed. (1)
This prospect is based on the fact that when Islamic Fiqh was compiled, the world of Islam was the super power of that era, and was either ruled by a universal Caliph or by the all powerful sultans who too, at least, on ideological plane, were not challenging the Caliph's authority .So these sultans and satraps also were paying their obeisance, though only in name, to him. In that atmosphere the political principles , developed by Muslim Jurists and also writings that appeared on Muslim political ideas , mostly, were based on theoretical rhetoric, and therefore it is but natural now, that they seem to lack the dynamism and vibrancy to respond properly to new issues and challenges, posed by the modern age. For instance majority opinion of classical Fiqh in relation to the question that if a non-Muslim state doesn't wage an aggression against an Islamic state, yet the latter's relations with it will be based on permanent hostility and a condition of peace with it could only be endured, on the discretion of the government.
As a matter of fact this policy is no longer relevant, simply because this majority opinion that re-conciliatory situation should be an exception and not a rule, is not practicable now, nay, it is ludicrous and not at all justifiable in the changed world scenario. And this is where Orientalists rightly accuse Islamic Fiqh of lacking the modesty model; meaning, that whenever Muslims are in a ruling position this Fiqh gives them a detailed guidance how they work and what their public conduct should be. But in the situations of modesty, e.g. when Muslims are in subjection, in minority, or not in equal position, it is unable to guide them, and hence Muslim minorities are feeling embarrassment in adjusting themselves to their respective countries. To my mind, same is the case in the given situations of today's India, wherein Muslims are not in a ruling position nor they compete others on an equal footing, yet at least constitutionally, they are not a second rate citizens either, and somehow they are sharing power .But no doubt they are in a minority position and are always worried about their minority character.
Here are some issues I intend to shed some light on so as a serious discussion could be started.
Discriminative attitude: To Professor Najatullah Siddiqui, in today's world in a Muslim state it will not be appropriate to differentiate between its Muslim and non Muslim citizens, the state, rather, must deal with them all on equal terms. (2) Because in the position of dichotomy how it be possible for us to voice our concern about Muslim minority rights and to demand a fair dealing with them? He questioned (3)
Dhimmi and Jizyah: The most reliable thing about Jizya is that, it was a pre-Islamic tax, which was in vogue in Iran, and it in no way contradicts civil rights of Dhimmis, (protected people) guaranteed by Islam nor it reduces a Jizya payer to a second rate citizen. Because these terms were never meant to degrade or abuse them. Traditions of this effect are all cooked and baseless one.(4) It had been imposed on non Muslim citizens of Islamic state as a state tax. And it was justified on the count that state was bound to protect them in case of a foreign invasion. And this is why non-Muslims who were doing army service in the state were exempted from it.
Also Muslim citizens of the state had to pay in terms of Zakat and alms, more burdensome taxes than Jizyah. And since both are a religious obligations and mandatory financial forms of worship, they were not to be taken from non Muslims. So, instead of, a very slight tax in terms of Jizya was made due on them.(5) Although Umer Farooq (the second caliph of Islam) had had a very lenient approach towards Dhimma and Jizyah: that if non Muslims have any reservation in the usage of these terms for them, then Muslims on their part, should avoid to use them, rather they can use words like alms Sadqat and so on.(6) It may be noted here that many modern day scholars are of the opinion that Jizya will not be taken in today’s Islamic countries.(7) as stated by a young and brilliant scholar from Pakistan who tried to interpret Jizyah in new light and supported his viewpoint with several Jurists and scholars of past and present times. One scholar put a question as: “Whether it is necessary to bring non Muslims under Islamic rule and impose Jizyah on them? In this age the like that was in the past. The second important thing is that with the availability of peaceful Dawah means to convey the message to non Muslims, how can we justify to wage jihad against them to bring them under the jizyah ruling?
In fact this was an action in accordance with an old fashion which was in vogue at those times. Now it requires to evolve and build up a new opinion on the matter, for , the Muslim world in its current weak position is not able to conquer a non-Muslim country and impose Jizya on its population in the first place, secondly, keeping in view the forces at play now, and tremendous changes, that are there, it is very unlikely, even for an able, model and purely religious minded Muslim to be allowed in the light of Quran, Sunnah and the objectives of Shariah, to wage an aggressive armed onslaught on non-Muslims, as was in the past.”(8)
Apostasy: The general popular notion about apostasy that is conversion from Islam to another religion is that one who commits the sin deserves to be put to death. Notwithstanding the death penalty on a mere apostasy, is also being regarded a thing in utter contradiction with freedom of expression, the essential faith of modern times. In this regard there are several liberal voices supported by some jurists of the first century itself. Javed Ahmad Ghamdi Inayatullah Subhani and Waheeduddin Khan have expressed their viewpoint in difference with the popular and traditional interpretation on apostasy.(9)
Darul Islam and Darul Harb: Among these issues that are related to Dhimmah is the division of world between Darul Harb ( abode of war ) and Darul Islam ( abode of Islam or of peace).As a matter of fact this division was not of a perennial nature, this was a reflection of a necessity of an age. A ground reality and an expression of a de jure fact. Now when the phenomenon has changed completely, this term which was in vogue in past times, has become outdated now.
Today the discourse around this Fiqhi division of world seems to be irrelevant also because the distances of borders are vanishing and with the sway of globalization and new information technology geographical lines and boundaries are becoming meaningless now.
One more thing and it is rather ironical that Islam and Muslims are freer in non Muslim countries than they are in Muslim countries. AR Momin rightly comments: “It is a general perception among us that Muslims of Islamic countries have full freedom to act upon their religious duties, while they have problems to safeguard their religious rights as well as in maintaining of their cultural identity (in non-Muslim majority countries). This impression may be true in some particular cases but in an absolute sense it is untrue. The fact of the matter is that in most of the western countries Muslim girls are studying in universities doing Hijab and wearing scarf, while in a Muslim country like Turkey, it is strictly banned in universities and in government offices to wear a Hijab or scarf. Muslim women of India have constitutional advantages and rights more than they have in most of Arab countries.”(10)
New forms of government: Dr Asrar Ahmad was a staunch protagonist of revival of Khilafah (caliphat) system in our age, yet he was having a practical approach towards several forms of government in modern era as he quipped: “Khilafah system in form is nearest to that of presidential form of government. I have always been saying that parliamentary and presidential systems both are valid and their various forms like that of unitary, federal or con-federal all are valid……..There in the world different political system are prevailing now, as unitary presidential, federal presidential, con-federal presidential, unitary parliamentary, federal parliamentary and con-federal parliamentary. All these six forms are valid to me’’.( 11 )
Secularism and Democracy: In relation to new trends in Islamic polity it is imperative to deal with Secularism and Democracy; the two modern day popular political concepts. When we talk in Indian context its significance is doubled. Many ulama and particularly those who belong to Islamic and radical movements are vehemently opposing both the two ideas, but there are some wise voices too in this regard. Here we are going to summarize what Abdul Haq Ansari averred on the subject: “Secularism is applied in two contexts; in one it is a particular concept of life, according to which religion or Divine revelations could only be believed in the personal part of human life. AS far as the collective areas of life are concerned, it must be administered solely by human reason and experience and not by any revealed knowledge. In the second context Secularism is a basic concept of the state policy: that state in principle, can’t believe in a religion, seeking interference in the state affairs. Yet in the detailed applications of this theory, there are three kinds of states in the world.
(a) Anti religion, like that of Communist states of recent past history
(b) Religion friendly (in individual sense only)like the most states of the world.
(c) States impartial and unbiased to various religions and faiths. (India is a secular state in the last two senses)
Democracy: Democracy also connotes three meanings: 1-The state in which sovereignty goes to public domain and wherein sources of law are the people of the country and not any individual, dynasty, or group. (2) The form of government in which elected public representatives rule the country and it is not inherited to a dynasty or class or some privileged persons. Also in it there is a provision to change the hands from elected representatives to other elected representatives. In other words people can dethrone their rulers by dint of election and in this way can punish them also.(3) Democracy is a name of certain values too, including freedom of speech, thought and action, freedom of religion and creed and other fundamental rights, rule of law and equal opportunities to every citizen etc.
And thus according to first meaning Democracy is in clash with Islam, because in Islamic state sovereignty is only for God and not for the masses. Nonetheless there is no contradiction between Islam and Democracy when it comes to both the last meanings.( 12 )
Ulama of the subcontinent (or a great chunk of them) have been dynamic in their political approach, so around 1970 Jamiatul Ulama Hind unanimously decided that freedom struggle from now onwards, should be carried on political plane and not in the battlefield. While it was these very Ulama who had shed their blood in the freedom war of 1857 as well as in the battle fields of Balakot and Shamli etc. And after the English recaptured Delhi, these were the first victim of unending English rage, their ruthless torture, macabre killing and indiscriminate hanging. But now they have changed their policy and have accepted the Gandhian Philosophy of “Non violence” whom they were considering in conformity with Islam.
Mohammad Miyan a leading figure of the Jamiyyatul Ulama, has given his arguments for this change of mind.(13) He has gone to the extent that non violence in the given times is also a form of jihad, nay, a rather best form of it.(14) This means that on the arena of Islamic political thought in the given global situations, a rethinking into some theories and perceptions of old jurists and writers can be done. And the process is obviously going on.
For example modern day jurists the likes of Yosuf Alqazawi, Taha Jabir Ulwani, and Wahba Alzuhaili et al, have given new opinions on some burning issues such as assuming citizenship of non Muslim countries, going in to civil services, voting and being candidates under non-Muslim governments, taking governmental jobs, military services, and membership of Assembly or Parliament and also accepting higher ministerial, judicial, and bureaucratic portfolios and responsibilities etc. Scholars have rightly been saying that “since human society by nature is ever changing and is prone to new challenges to no end, this is why Shariah has directive principles for new arising questions.
So keeping in view the modern day circumstances and challenges, it is imperative to reinterpret some related Fiqhi issues in a new light. (15) Hence some jurists, like Yousuf Alqarzawi, are rightly calling for a rethinking in to such issues and problems. (16) To Najatullah Siddiqi ''The most important thing is the concern towards new circumstances which are demanding a new approach.''(17) Several thinkers and writers advice western Muslim Diasporas to behave as permanent citizens of their respective countries and be benefited by all its rights and privileges while doing all its duties in the best manner (18).
Tariq Ramadan urged them to perform all duties related to citizenship, including struggle for justice and equality in solidarity with other religious groups.(19) Sidqi Dejani is also of this opinion.(20) . To Rashid Ghannoshi (the ideologue with whose guidance popular Arab uprising was successful in Tunisia) it is uncalled for for a Muslim minority to be at odds with the political system of their country and be behind, waiting for the conditions to change on their own. He said that, ‘for them the best option is to do, in collaboration with secular democratic forces, attempts at establishment of such a secular political system, wherein human rights are respected, including those essential interests whose protection is sought in Islam, such as safety of self, interests, wealth, freedom, and of course, religion itself. Which includes Islamic faith and creed, Muslim personal law and other Islamic values and ethos, whose protection and preservation is fully warranted.(21)
Moreover he questioned what will be a theological imperative (واجب شرعي) in the light of Shariah injunctions, in circumstances when it is impossible to establish a democratic Islamic system. In this case how can we avoid to partake in the struggle to establish a secular democratic system? As put by Ibn Khaldun that if it is unlikely to establish the rule of Shariah, then the rule of reason must be formed.(22) To Ghannoshi, going far away from the common cause never be justified and the Shariah obligation is that Muslims should participate individually and en bloc, to form such a secular system.(23)
Conclusion:
With what we mentioned above in brief, you can grasp an idea about the process that is going on, though very slowly, in academic circles Yes, there is certainly an ambiguity, a feeling of reluctance to explore new avenues of thought in this regard. Yet, it is said that 'something is better than nothing '. This bodes well for good in coming days.
References:
1-see Yusuf Alqaezawi, Politics and Religion (Arabic) chapter Muslim minorities and politics, available on net
2- Prof.Najatullah siddiqi, Islam, Economics and literature, MMI publishers New Delhi. p:419
3-Ibid
4-yahya Nomani, What is Jihjad, p: 134-135
5-Ibid p: 270-275
6-Ibid
7-Ibid
8-Sulatan Ahmad Islahi, The role of Muslim minorities (Urdu) Fikro Agahi, Bhormau Takia Kalan Azam Garh, second edition 2002 p: 44
9-prof.A R Momin, Sociology of Islamic Fiqh, Mutalaat quarterly (Urdu) vol: 4 Issue: 4Octobar-December 2009 institute of objective New Delhi,
10-Asrar Ahamad Khilafah system in Pakistan, possibleties, prospective and mode of its forming
11-Abdul Haq Ansari, Secularism, Democracy and elections. M MI publishers, P: 6-7
12-Mohammad Miyan,Ulmae Hind ka Shandar Mazi,Maktaba Rashidia,Krachi,1096; vol:5 chapter 9
13-Ibid
14-Prof, A R Momin Sociology of Islamic Fiqh, Mutalaat quarterly Urdu vol: 4 Issue 4 Octo-December 2009 Institute of Objective Studies New Delhi
15-Prof. Najatullah Siddiqi, Objectives of Shariah, MMI publishers New Delhi P: 191(Urdu)
16- Ibid P: 182
17- Ibid
18-Ibid
19-Ibid
20-Ibid P: 186
21-Ibid P: 186
22-Ibid P: 186
·
· Dr M.Ghitreef Shahbaz Nadwi is the director of Foundation for Islamic Studies New Delhi and can be reached at: mohammad.ghitreef@gmail.com