Islamic Political Thought: Why Introspection and Rethinking is a Must?
By
Dr. Mohammad Ghitreef, New Age Islam
28 November
2021
Much
Work Has Been Done In Islamic Thought In The Field Of The Revival Of
Traditional Sciences Such As Quranic Exegetics, Hadees' Legacy
Main
Points:
1. After Ibn
Khaldun and Al-Mawardi, there was no further evolution in Islamic political
thinking at all.
2. Muslim
thinkers did not develop new ideas based on human experiences.
3. Islamic
State played havoc in the region and more recently the Taliban rule in
Afghanistan is doing the same.
4. Secularism
in its European sense is an ideology and practice that excludes religion from
human life or at least restricts it to a private niche.
-----
Much work
has been done in Islamic thought in recent times, especially in the field of
the revival of traditional sciences such as Quranic exegetics, Hadees' legacy,
the printing of classical Fiqh literature, etc. What concerns us on some
contemporary subjects and current issues remained untouched until now.
The following lines will briefly highlight
some of the aspects in which, to me, introspection and rethinking is a must.
For the sake of brevity, only main points have been mentioned here and detailed
discussion has been avoided.
After Ibn
Khaldun and Al-Mawardi, there was no further evolution in Islamic political
thinking at all. For, Muslim political thought is text-based as Muslim thinkers
did not develop new ideas based on human experiences. What should have been a
natural evolution in Muslim political thinking did not continue. That is why on a practical level all Muslim
countries are compelled to adopt secular liberal western political systems
against which Islamists are waging jihad, save the Mid-East, where religious or
semi-religious monarchies and kingships are ruling the roost. That is why
Islamists everywhere are having only anachronistic ideas in this regard.
Clearly a
new discourse is needed, where you freely question, rethink in and discuss all
the questions arising from modernity, to develop a new jurisprudence relevant
to this age. Without this rethinking and revisiting the old set of political
norms that have become irrelevant now, we cannot imagine any breakthrough in
stagnant Islamic thought. Let me clarify my points citing some examples.
In a democracy, contrasting to army
dictatorship, monarchy or kingship the real emphasis is on the participation of
common people in governance. Not realizing this fact many Muslim scholars have
arbitrarily raised the issue of sovereignty of God while discussing the concept
of democracy. This is an additional and relative issue. No Muslim can challenge
God Almighty’s sovereignty in Muslim majority countries. The debate is
practical because people fear that in the name of Islam pure Mullahism would be
established. This is not surprising keeping in view the gory nature of now dead
ISIS caliphate that emerged in Mideast recently
The so-called Islamic State played havoc in
the region and more recently the Taliban rule in Afghanistan is doing the same.
However, in non-Muslim majority countries, the
demand for God's sovereignty will be futile. The secular polity is the best
option for these countries, and of course, Muslims in such countries do prefer
that option, but here lies the contradictory stand of Muslim intelligentsia and
Ulema.
That where
Muslims are in the majority they oppose the secular state vehemently and
wherein they are in the minority they want to keep, defend and protect
secularism, multiculturalism and such modern concepts.
Secularism
in its European sense is an ideology and practice that excludes religion from
human life or at least restricts it to a private niche. Obviously, no one among
the Muslim scholars can support this ideology in Muslim-majority countries. As
far as the countries where different religious units reside secular neutral
polity is the best policy for these multicultural, multi-lingual, and
multi-religious societies. Muslim intellectuals generally confuse the two and
talk non-sense about it. Yes, there are some exceptions too for example Saeed
Ahmad Akbar Abadi, Prof. Mushirul Haq, Maulana Wahiduddin Khan, and Dr. Abdul
Haq Ansari the ex-chief of Jamaat-e-Islami Hind, support secular state as it
does not interfere in the affairs of any faith community and is not biased to
any religious, ethnic or racial group, and where all citizens are equal in its
eyes and the rule of law is maintained.
Islamic
jurisprudence is full of old discussions of Darul Islam (abode of Islam) and
Darul Harb (abode of Kufr) but while these terms may have been relevant in the
Abbasid times, they are not relevant today. Now new terms need to be coined as
Khan termed the world as Dare Dawah and Qardawi termed it as Darul and as all
the world nations now are signers of the UN Charter and are bound to comply
with its rules and regulations. Likewise, the terms dhimmi, trusted citizen (Mustamin),
etc. are used for non-Muslim citizens in a nation of Muslim majority, but they
are not in accordance with the currently accepted concepts of citizenship. In
modern nation-states, all the citizens have the same constitutional rights in a
nation, for they are governed by their constitutions respectively. Yes, the
practical situation is indeed quite the opposite in many countries. It is not acceptable
for the modern mind to differentiate between citizens based on religion as some
are first-class citizens while some are considered second-rate ones.
The concept
of the punishment of apostasy is in conflict with the modern religious freedom
as seen by the majority of modern educated people and also against the explicit
text of the Qur'an ("There is no coercion in the matter of religion,"
2:256) as averred by the majority of Muslim modernists today. Of course, the
majority of Islamic scholars have through the ages been bearers of this notion,
but there has been another opinion about it from the first Hijra century
itself, which remained suppressed because this was not suited to the nexus of
kings, politicians, and mullahs. Wouldn't it be appropriate to put forth that
opinion in today's world?
The concept
of the blasphemy law and its application being vested in public hands is not
acceptable to the modern mind. It should be discussed thoroughly which is less
likely in Muslim societies. About 1500 people have been arrested under this law
in Pakistan since 1990. And more than 70 people have been extra-judicially
murdered. It often happened that on provocation by the clergy some people from
the masses have got up and killed the accused. While none of them could be
found guilty in the court and in some cases, the courts had even acquitted
them. Anyone can be charged with blasphemy in Pakistan if he dares to challenge
the behaviour of religious people.
Pakistan's liberal thinkers and intellectuals
speak out against this horrible situation but they are always in danger
themselves.
Punjab Governor Salman Taseer was assassinated
by non other than his own bodyguard, a religious extremist, for demanding the
repeal of inhuman blasphemy laws and showing sympathy for blasphemy accused
Christian lady Asia Bibi. And after his execution this assassin has become a
religious hero to a large section of people.
Strangely
the Hanafi Fiqh which is followed by the majority of Muslims in the
subcontinent does not confirm the death penalty in every case. It offers other
options too. But ironically in the subcontinent, the opinion of Imam Ibn
Taymiyyah is generally accepted and the consensus is claimed on it. The danger
lies herein that the general reaction of Muslims in blasphemy cases is to
punish the culprit immediately especially in Muslim majority countries, while
in the non-Muslim majority countries their reaction is limited to protests.
Maulana Wahiduddin Khan, Javed Ahmad Ghamidi et al have challenged this
traditional stand. Many other scholars hold the same view but do not express it
for fear of public backlash.
On the one
hand, the subject is very sensitive, it can be said safely that in this regard
Muslims do not understand the sensitivities of the West about the freedom of
thought which is almost a religion for Westerners and is considered as a Summum
Bonum of humanity.
The people
in the West do not understand the sensitivities of Muslims regarding the honour
of the beloved prophet (PBUH). So dealing with this subject and opening the way
for dialogue with the West is the need of the hour. One of the points related
to this is that theoretically blasphemy law includes insulting Allah, the Holy
Qur'an, the Holy Prophet, and any other prophet and there are many blasphemous
statements towards Jesus in the West but Muslims act violently only against the
humiliation of the Messenger of Allah. Why this disparity?
I lament
the bankruptcy of Indian Muslim leadership. Not learning any lesson from
Pakistan the AILMPLB is demanding to enact anti-blasphemy law here in India.
Today
practically no Islamic country demands Jizyah from its non-Muslim citizens. But
scholars and jurists in their writings and fatwas still insist on it and say
that it is prescribed by God to humiliate non-Muslims.
Moulana
Subhani has given a new opinion that Jizyah will not apply to the common people
nor is it a sign of humiliation of non-Muslims rather it is a political
settlement between combatant Muslim and non-Muslim states. Would it not be
appropriate to ponder upon this opinion?
In fact, when the compilation of Islamic
jurisprudence began, the Islamic world at that time was superior and the whole
Islamic lands were under one Caliph, or at least the authority of one caliph
was not being challenged ideologically and the Muslim Sultans were claiming
allegiance and fidelity towards the Caliph. The political principles that were
written down then and the writings Muslim thinkers left behind are mostly
ideological and do not contain any solution to the new problems of the present.
For example, they do not answer the question that if a non-Muslim country does
not commit aggression the Islamic State's relations with it will be based on
war or peace? Because most of the jurists say that a true Islamic state is
permanently at war with non-Muslim countries. Obviously, this opinion is very problematic
in today’s world and it leaves all the claims Muslims made that Islam is a
religion of peace and love suspect.
According
to some Muslim scholars, Islamic jurisprudence flourished under the rule of
Islam. For this reason, it gives detailed guidance to Muslims on the situation
when they are in power, but when Muslims are in a state of living under the
suzerainty of others or in the situation when power is shared as in India now,
then the Islamic jurisprudence is unable to provide guidance for such a
situation. The discourse of “jurisprudence for minority” has been created by
this practical need because Muslim minorities now constitute 40 percent of
their total population around the world.
Similarly,
there is no mechanism for the peaceful transfer of power in Islamic thought.
Due to which most of the history of Islam is full of court conspiracies, power
struggles between one Caliph, his sons, ministers, and all-powerful Military,
and consequent bloodshed. Much work remains to be done and in this regard,
Ijtihad and modern thinking are required.
---
Dr.
Mohammad Ghitreef is a Research Scholar with the Centre for promotion of
Educational and Cultural Advancement of Muslims of India, AMU, Aligarh.