Tweet
True Islam or Islamic formalism?
By Mansoor Alam
BERNARD Lewis, a western scholar of Islam recently wrote a book with the title “What went wrong?” in which he analyses the causes of Muslim decline. It is a pity that non-Muslims are writing more books about Islam than we Muslims. That in itself is one of the causes of our present plight. It is time we started the process of introspection, for without it we will continue to remain divided and backward.
So let us begin by looking at the present state of the world of Islam. There may be disagreement on many things Islamic, but no one can deny that the world of Islam is in a state of turmoil, confusion and demoralization. The only countries out of 196 members of the UN that are under foreign occupation today are all Islamic: Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine. Muslims all over the world are like blind a man groping in the dark for the right way in the labyrinth of tradition, religion and superstitions. They are being pulled in two opposite directions at the same time: past and present; dogma and reason; status quo and progress.
The Muslims would like to believe and claim that they are one “Umma” (nation/people), but except having a common religion, they differ from each other as much as they differ from other nations — in politics, in economy, in culture, in race and even in religious beliefs.
They do not have a common political system as the Christian West has — democracy. The political systems currently prevalent in the Muslim countries encompass all forms of government that ever existed in human history. There is monarchy (Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Oman, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait UAE, Brunei), absolute dictatorship (Libya), mixed dictatorship (Tunisia, Egypt, Sudan, Syria, Yemen, Uganda and Eritrea), democracy (Turkey, Malaysia, Indonesia, Bangladesh), mixed democracy (Algeria and Nigeria), militarized democracy (Pakistan), theocratic democracy (Iran), and a foreign power-propped democracy (Afghanistan), which was a theocracy until recently.
Most of the Muslim countries have no working constitutions; no fixed tenure for its head of government and state, and no established form of transfer of power. Consequently, the death of a ruler requiring a change of government is almost always accompanied by confusion and uncertainty.
For instance, in the case of monarchies the successor may be a brother or son of the deposed or deceased king.
In the case of dictatorship, there is no system at all and transfer of power remains totally unpredictable. It can be to a son, to the next man in the hierarchy of power, to a military general and, if the people are sufficiently fed up with the previous ruler and stage a populist movement, to some form of short-term elected government. Even in the case of three democracies, it is only in regard to Malaysia that one feels reasonably confident that democracy has taken firm roots.
Since most Muslim countries do not have a working constitution, they do not have a stable political system either. Federalism is almost nonexistent and all powers are concentrated in the hands of a few at the centre. The concept of checks and balance or separation of power between the executive, the legislature and the judiciary is almost non-existent. Similarly, the rule of law is no more than the rule of the feudals, the oligarchs or the people in power whoever they may be. They consider themselves above the law, which applies mainly to the poor and the disadvantaged. The police generally behave like the henchmen of the powerful rather than as the protectors of the victim. The judiciary, supposed to be fiercely independent of the executive in an Islamic country, is weak and deficient and often subservient to it.
There is no common legal system prevalent in the Islamic countries. Most of these having been colonies of the West, have inherited the legal systems bequeathed to them by their colonial rulers. There is nothing inherently wrong with them because the same system is delivering justice in the western countries. However, since the religious class in Muslim countries believes that the implementation of Shariah is an indispensable responsibility of an Islamic state, some of these like Pakistan, Iran, (Afghanistan under the Taliban) and some others have been trying to incorporate Islamic laws in their legal system without much success.
This is so not only because of a lack of consensus among the Ulema of various sects on a common Shariah but also because of the difficulty of applying Shariah laws in the present-day circumstances. For example, take the case of theft for which the Quran prescribes the punishment of amputation of an arm.
The first difficulty one faces in this regard is, in what circumstances is theft regarded as theft in an Islamic state? If a hungry man steals food to live does it constitute theft? And how to categorize crimes like bribery, kickbacks, bank loan, and co-operative societies scams and tens of other types of theft?
Gen Ziaul-Haq introduced the Hudood and Blasphemy ordinances, but both have produced disastrous consequences. They have encouraged honour killings, made victims of rape guilty of adultery and let the rapist go scot free, innocent persons are arrested on a charge of blasphemy without prior investigation of the charge, and at times have been killed in prison or in public places after being acquitted.
The law of blasphemy is being used to take revenge, misappropriate property of the weak by the strong and incite the mob to lynch sweepers if they throw anything written in Arabic such as a piece of an Arabic newspaper.
In the realm of economy the situation is no different. The economic system ranges from a totally state-controlled sector to a free market economy. Even on important Islamic economic concepts such as Riba (interest), Zakat, Usher, Jizia and Kharaj a consensus is missing. No attempt has ever been made by any Islamic government or scholar to review or reinterpret them to meet the needs or aspirations of some-Islamic countries whose economies have nevertheless been integrated with the global economy. Consequently, most Islamic countries have abandoned the Islamic economic tenets in practice while paying lip-service to their continued desirability and relevance in the present-day context.
An attempt by General Ziaul Haq to impose compulsory deduction of Zakat from the savings account in banks only led to deeper polarization between Sunnis and Shias. More revealing of the real state of affairs was the use of several kinds of circumvention by a large number of Sunni Pakistanis with the active connivance of the banks to avoid compulsory deduction of Zakat.
Two most prevalent methods are 1) withdrawal of the amount from the savings account a few days prior to the deduction of the Zakat and putting it back in the savings account after the date for compulsory deduction has passed; 2) submission of a false affidavit by Sunnis that they belonged to the Shia sect to be exempted from compulsory deduction of Zakat. However, since the judgment of the Supreme Court exempting others two from it if they make a declaration that it is not compulsory in their sect, the same Sunnis have started reverting to their original sect.
Many Islamic countries are trying to introduce an interest-free banking system by allowing banks to operate interest-free accounts by those Muslims who would not like to pay or receive interest on their accounts. But all that is happening is a change of name from interest to “profit and loss” accounts or some other name, which operates on the same basis as the old interest bearing accounts.
So, where are we heading, towards Islam or away from it by trying to implement laws that are no longer relevant or implementable? Are long beards, short trousers, head-to-foot Hijab, change of names, etc., real Islam? The answer clearly is no; otherwise attire and appearance alone would determine the faith of a person. We, therefore, need to think deeply about the issues more realistically and accept the necessary changes rather than merely put a veneer of Islam on everything to deceive ourselves.
There are many causes of our decline but the one that stands out in our history is our refusal to think, reason, and question as we fear that it will destroy our faith. In the process we have also arrogated to ourselves the responsibility of protecting God, forgetting that God can take care of Himself and is not afraid of man’s attempt to understand the true nature of His creation and the outcome of such efforts. Man’s empowerment as manifested in his ability to determine gender of an unconceived child, to clone a living thing and even invent something frightfully destructive cannot happen without God’s knowledge or acquiescence.
We should have faith in the teaching of our Holy Quran that nothing happens without the will of God. That being so, let us make use of God’s greatest gift to mankind — the power to think and reason.
We should not be afraid of reason, logic and science because, while all the Biblical prophets were endowed with the power of miracles, our Prophet (pbuh) was endowed with the power of reason to turn the non-believers into believers.
The writer is a former ambassador.
http://www.dawn.com/2005/08/22/op.htm
By Mansoor Alam
BERNARD Lewis, a western scholar of Islam recently wrote a book with the title “What went wrong?” in which he analyses the causes of Muslim decline. It is a pity that non-Muslims are writing more books about Islam than we Muslims. That in itself is one of the causes of our present plight. It is time we started the process of introspection, for without it we will continue to remain divided and backward.
So let us begin by looking at the present state of the world of Islam. There may be disagreement on many things Islamic, but no one can deny that the world of Islam is in a state of turmoil, confusion and demoralization. The only countries out of 196 members of the UN that are under foreign occupation today are all Islamic: Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine. Muslims all over the world are like blind a man groping in the dark for the right way in the labyrinth of tradition, religion and superstitions. They are being pulled in two opposite directions at the same time: past and present; dogma and reason; status quo and progress.
The Muslims would like to believe and claim that they are one “Umma” (nation/people), but except having a common religion, they differ from each other as much as they differ from other nations — in politics, in economy, in culture, in race and even in religious beliefs.
They do not have a common political system as the Christian West has — democracy. The political systems currently prevalent in the Muslim countries encompass all forms of government that ever existed in human history. There is monarchy (Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Oman, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait UAE, Brunei), absolute dictatorship (Libya), mixed dictatorship (Tunisia, Egypt, Sudan, Syria, Yemen, Uganda and Eritrea), democracy (Turkey, Malaysia, Indonesia, Bangladesh), mixed democracy (Algeria and Nigeria), militarized democracy (Pakistan), theocratic democracy (Iran), and a foreign power-propped democracy (Afghanistan), which was a theocracy until recently.
Most of the Muslim countries have no working constitutions; no fixed tenure for its head of government and state, and no established form of transfer of power. Consequently, the death of a ruler requiring a change of government is almost always accompanied by confusion and uncertainty.
For instance, in the case of monarchies the successor may be a brother or son of the deposed or deceased king.
In the case of dictatorship, there is no system at all and transfer of power remains totally unpredictable. It can be to a son, to the next man in the hierarchy of power, to a military general and, if the people are sufficiently fed up with the previous ruler and stage a populist movement, to some form of short-term elected government. Even in the case of three democracies, it is only in regard to Malaysia that one feels reasonably confident that democracy has taken firm roots.
Since most Muslim countries do not have a working constitution, they do not have a stable political system either. Federalism is almost nonexistent and all powers are concentrated in the hands of a few at the centre. The concept of checks and balance or separation of power between the executive, the legislature and the judiciary is almost non-existent. Similarly, the rule of law is no more than the rule of the feudals, the oligarchs or the people in power whoever they may be. They consider themselves above the law, which applies mainly to the poor and the disadvantaged. The police generally behave like the henchmen of the powerful rather than as the protectors of the victim. The judiciary, supposed to be fiercely independent of the executive in an Islamic country, is weak and deficient and often subservient to it.
There is no common legal system prevalent in the Islamic countries. Most of these having been colonies of the West, have inherited the legal systems bequeathed to them by their colonial rulers. There is nothing inherently wrong with them because the same system is delivering justice in the western countries. However, since the religious class in Muslim countries believes that the implementation of Shariah is an indispensable responsibility of an Islamic state, some of these like Pakistan, Iran, (Afghanistan under the Taliban) and some others have been trying to incorporate Islamic laws in their legal system without much success.
This is so not only because of a lack of consensus among the Ulema of various sects on a common Shariah but also because of the difficulty of applying Shariah laws in the present-day circumstances. For example, take the case of theft for which the Quran prescribes the punishment of amputation of an arm.
The first difficulty one faces in this regard is, in what circumstances is theft regarded as theft in an Islamic state? If a hungry man steals food to live does it constitute theft? And how to categorize crimes like bribery, kickbacks, bank loan, and co-operative societies scams and tens of other types of theft?
Gen Ziaul-Haq introduced the Hudood and Blasphemy ordinances, but both have produced disastrous consequences. They have encouraged honour killings, made victims of rape guilty of adultery and let the rapist go scot free, innocent persons are arrested on a charge of blasphemy without prior investigation of the charge, and at times have been killed in prison or in public places after being acquitted.
The law of blasphemy is being used to take revenge, misappropriate property of the weak by the strong and incite the mob to lynch sweepers if they throw anything written in Arabic such as a piece of an Arabic newspaper.
In the realm of economy the situation is no different. The economic system ranges from a totally state-controlled sector to a free market economy. Even on important Islamic economic concepts such as Riba (interest), Zakat, Usher, Jizia and Kharaj a consensus is missing. No attempt has ever been made by any Islamic government or scholar to review or reinterpret them to meet the needs or aspirations of some-Islamic countries whose economies have nevertheless been integrated with the global economy. Consequently, most Islamic countries have abandoned the Islamic economic tenets in practice while paying lip-service to their continued desirability and relevance in the present-day context.
An attempt by General Ziaul Haq to impose compulsory deduction of Zakat from the savings account in banks only led to deeper polarization between Sunnis and Shias. More revealing of the real state of affairs was the use of several kinds of circumvention by a large number of Sunni Pakistanis with the active connivance of the banks to avoid compulsory deduction of Zakat.
Two most prevalent methods are 1) withdrawal of the amount from the savings account a few days prior to the deduction of the Zakat and putting it back in the savings account after the date for compulsory deduction has passed; 2) submission of a false affidavit by Sunnis that they belonged to the Shia sect to be exempted from compulsory deduction of Zakat. However, since the judgment of the Supreme Court exempting others two from it if they make a declaration that it is not compulsory in their sect, the same Sunnis have started reverting to their original sect.
Many Islamic countries are trying to introduce an interest-free banking system by allowing banks to operate interest-free accounts by those Muslims who would not like to pay or receive interest on their accounts. But all that is happening is a change of name from interest to “profit and loss” accounts or some other name, which operates on the same basis as the old interest bearing accounts.
So, where are we heading, towards Islam or away from it by trying to implement laws that are no longer relevant or implementable? Are long beards, short trousers, head-to-foot Hijab, change of names, etc., real Islam? The answer clearly is no; otherwise attire and appearance alone would determine the faith of a person. We, therefore, need to think deeply about the issues more realistically and accept the necessary changes rather than merely put a veneer of Islam on everything to deceive ourselves.
There are many causes of our decline but the one that stands out in our history is our refusal to think, reason, and question as we fear that it will destroy our faith. In the process we have also arrogated to ourselves the responsibility of protecting God, forgetting that God can take care of Himself and is not afraid of man’s attempt to understand the true nature of His creation and the outcome of such efforts. Man’s empowerment as manifested in his ability to determine gender of an unconceived child, to clone a living thing and even invent something frightfully destructive cannot happen without God’s knowledge or acquiescence.
We should have faith in the teaching of our Holy Quran that nothing happens without the will of God. That being so, let us make use of God’s greatest gift to mankind — the power to think and reason.
We should not be afraid of reason, logic and science because, while all the Biblical prophets were endowed with the power of miracles, our Prophet (pbuh) was endowed with the power of reason to turn the non-believers into believers.
The writer is a former ambassador.
http://www.dawn.com/2005/08/22/op.htm
It is veritable kaleidoscope!
