|
Chairman:
Dr Najah Kadhim:
I hope that this session is going to focus on a number of
familiar questions. Some of these include what is the role
of Islam to establish an ideological state or to promote a
moral code. What is the relationship between the state and
Islam? Is Islamic governance, or hukum as we say in
Arabic indispensable to the Islamic faith.
There are a
number of questions related to this like is democracy,
rights, transparency, accountability, part of governance,
alien to Islam or they really part of our faith? We hope
that the talk by Dr Asghar Ali Engineer and the questions
which follow later on try and touch on a number of these
crucial points affecting the Muslims all over the world.
Dr Asghar Ali
Engineer:
Salam aleikum. This is a very important and controversial
issue: the Islamic state. In Islam religion and politics
cannot be separated. Basically it is not a Qur’anic
injunction. It was a situation requirement. Let us see
where Islam originates.
Islam
originated in a society which did not have any state. The
holy Prophet was born in Mecca which was a tribal society.
The tribal chiefs, whenever any decision had to be made, met
together and took a unanimous decision. If any decision was
not unanimous it was not enforceable. They had what is
modern terminology we would call a senate, billa.
There was no king, no head of state, no police, no
bureaucracy, no army, nothing! There was a complete vacuum.
There was only a civil society – no state. There was no
written law, there was no scripture, only tribal customs
were followed as in any tribal society.
Customs and
traditions were their main guidance. This is what the Qur’an
also says: you do not posses any scripture, any written law.
Only customs and traditions. And the main concern was with
certain values. The ideal suras of the Qur’an, the Meccan
suras, are all exaltations about justice, taking care of
orphans and widows. A tribal society was developing into a
commercial society in Mecca. It was a centre of high
international finance. Islam was not born in a desert, it
was born in Mecca a centre of high finance which was enroute
to the Roman Empire and the Silk Route which originated in
China and passed through Yemen then India and came to Mecca.
Then they would cross the great desert, the Rub Al Khali.
The Arabs
were just guides for crossing the desert but soon they
learned the trade and became traders themselves. We know
that the holy Prophet, in his early days, accompanied those
caravans to the Roman Empire on behalf of Khadija whom he
later married.
Going into
high finance yet there was no political authority and no
values, no state structure. And so the Qur'an was mainly
concerned with the weaker sections of society because the
tribal society was breaking, tribal bonds were breaking and
inter-tribal trade corporations were developing. They were
in need of a state because a society which is a centre of
high finance needs some governance, some state structure
but it did not exist because of the tribal form of the
society.
And the
earlier suras were mainly concerned with the weaker sections
because in a tribal society there is no poverty. No wealth
is generated in tribal society, there is no agriculture. In
the entire Rub Al Khali and Mecca there was no agriculture
and no production of wealth. It was only through trade
exchange of commodities
So in a
tribal society there is no concept of poverty: whatever is
there, is equitably distributed automatically. There is no
concept of weaker sections either. But in Mecca weaker
sections came into existence because of this new development
and they were being totally neglected. The rich traders
re-invested money and spent part of it on ostentation and
their own luxuries and totally neglected the weaker
sections. So the Qur'an was mainly concerned with them.
Look at
that man who collects wealth and counts it again and again
and thinks it will give him eternal life.
So what is
hutuma? It will reduce into pieces. There is a strict
warning about the social tensions which were developing
between the haves and have nots.
Look at
the person who throws away orphans, doesn’t feed them.
He deprives
them of little things, the basic needs. So there are
several suras strongly denouncing the concentration of
wealth and exalting the need to take care of the poor, the
orphans, the widows, the needy. This is the main thrust of
most of the suras in the Qur'ran - a very sharp denunciation
of the concentration of wealth.
That was the
main concern: to establish a society which is just, which
takes care of the weaker sections of society, the orphans,
widows, the poor and needy and no injustice is done to
anyone. Anyway the Prophet was persecuted. It is important
to note that the Prophet was persecuted not by the common
people in Mecca but by the powerful, rich international
traders because if they accept the logic of the Prophet then
they will have to dispense with their wealth and distribute
it. The logic of a trading society is to re-invest wealth
rather than to re-distribute it.
And secondly
if they listen to the Prophet those powerful traders will
have to obey an orphan, a poor boy because the holy Prophet
started as a poor man who had no wherewithal until he
married Khadija. So that hurt their arrogance. How can we
expect a poor man to lead us. That is why they persecuted
him. Not because he was denouncing idol worship. They
hardly bothered about worshipping anything, they were
worshippers of mammon. They were worshippers of wealth. And
because the Prophet attacked the concentration of wealth
they were hurt and because they were powerful and rich they
thought it was below their dignity to follow a poor orphan.
That is why the Prophet was persecuted.
He had to
migrate to Medina where the situation was altogether
different. It was an agricultural society where there was
production of wealth rather than simply exchange of wealth.
But Medina did not have any state structure either. The Jews
controlled the state structure. The main tribes of Medina
were fighting among themselves and the Jews were enjoying
the leadership in that situation.
When the
Prophet was there the power balance changed: the Jews lost
power and the power was transferred to the Prophet and his
followers. This was an entirely different situation. During
the life of the Prophet no state structure developed, even
in Medina. There was no police, no army, no bureaucracy -
everything was one entity. When the kufar of Mecca attacked
Medina the Prophet would appeal to the Jews and others.
It is also
important to note that the holy Prophet established a
society in which all were co-partners. He called the Jews,
the Pagans idol worshippers and of course Muslims and drew
up a treaty which is known as Missa Al Medina and formed a
community. Medina was a pluralist city with people of three
different religions: the Jews, the Muslims and the pagans.
He gave full
freedom to all three communities to follow their respective
religions. Jews were allowed to follow their religion and
their tribal traditions. There were different kinds of
tribes in Medina and each tribe was given the freedom to
follow its religion and also its tribal customs and
traditions. The pagans were there and the Muslims, of
course, were there.
So it was a
sort of pluralist society and the Prophet allowed all of
them to follow their respective religions. There was only
one condition that if Median was attacked it would be
defended by all and it was called Ummah Wahadah. The
concept of Ummah Wahadah is not of Muslims alone but of
Jews, pagans and Muslims.
So even in
Medina no state structure developed. There was no army and
if Median was attacked the Prophet appealed to all to
volunteer and there are several verses which induce people
to fight in the way of Allah.
I would also
like to draw your attention to the much misused word jihad.
The word jihad has not been used in the Qur'an for war.
There are two other words for war: harb and qital.
And fight
in the way of Allah those who fight you. And do not be an
aggressor: Allah does not allow aggression.
It is very
clear. So for war or fighting either the word harb or qital
is used. But in Arabic jihad does not mean to fight. It is
to make efforts. That is the root meaning of jihad. But
unfortunately in the post-Qur'anic period the meaning of
jihad changed completely and jihad was used for holy war.
That concept does not exist in the Qur'an. Even when the
Prophet was asked about jihad he said that the best form of
jihad was to speak the truth in the face of tyrant ruler. He
clearly defined jihad. But that is another story.
In Medina
there was no army, or bureaucracy. Everything was voluntary.
But as the situation developed the Prophet appealed for
various conditions. Even the Qur'anic injunction about
believers to enforce what is good and contain what is evil.
It is every believers duty, not the duty of the police or
any bureaucracy but of every believer.
The concept
of the state developed only in a very rudimentary form
during the period of the 1st caliph, Abu Bakr. But it
clearly took shape during the time of the second caliph
Othman. Conquest took place and a strong need arose for the
police and the bureaucracy. Othman prepared a diwan for the
first time. He took the concept of the paid army from Iran.
Otherwise the tribal concept in Arabia was that whatever was
looted in the war was distributed among the fighters - no
salary. For the first time diwan is developed during Hazar
Tuman's time. Then he starts paying soldiers a regular
salary.
Even the
concept of Bait Al Maal (The Treasury) was new. You will not
find it in pre-Islamic society. There was no tax system at
all. The concept of zakat, a tax, is given by the Qur'an.
Subsequently a treasury was established. During the
Prophet's time it was directly distributed and since there
was no salary whatever was acquired during war was
distributed among the people quite equitably.
This
continued even during Omar's time. The principle of justice
was most important in the distribution of this. We know in
history that somebody told Azar Tuman you have taken more.
He called his son. He asked him how much he took. This was
done to prove to civil society that they had not taken more
though they were rulers. By Omar's time it was quite a
sizable empire yet the caliph took only what the other
believers were given.
So the
concept of Bait Al Maal (the treasury) also developed after
the Prophet's death, not during his lifetime. The state
structure begins to develop after the death of the Prophet.
Because there was a total vacuum in that society - there
was no state. So a state was needed and that is why that
concept arose that in Islam you cannot separate politics
from religion.
What is din
here? This is most important. It should not be taken in the
sense of technical religion Islam but values. Even if the
Chengazi rules in this way it is acceptable. The Chengazi
came to mean rule without any value which is based on
oppression and exploitation. In that sense the modern nation
state or the Islamic state or any state in which there are
no values means rule without values and oppression.
You will see
in Qur'an there are four fundamental values: justice,
compassion, wisdom and benevolence. These are the most
important values of the Qur'an. Any rule without these
values would be a rule which would lead to exploitation and
oppression.
So any state
which makes these values its guidance is a proper state, a
proper governance. Governance must be based on these
values. And if you look at what has been called an Islamic
state throughout history these values were never followed
not even during those 20 years of Caliphate Al Rashidan
because by the time of Uthman, the Third Caliph there was
revolt in civil society and Uthman himself was
assassinated. It was perceived by mushriks that people of
Uthman's period have occupied all the important positions
and other Muslims were deprived of that.
You may have
read a very important work Fitnah Al Kubra by Taha Hussein
an Egyptian scholar who described what happened during
Uthman's time. And even the fourth caliph was assassinated.
Umar was also assassinated but it had nothing to do with a
revolt by civil society. He was assassinated by slaves. But
two other caliphs were assassinated by members of civil
society. More than 70,000 Muslims were killed in civil war
during those two caliphs time.
The caliph Al
Rashada really made sincere efforts to govern in accordance
with these values. But what happened in the entire history
of Islam, in 1400 years of history we will not find one
single state which was governed in accordance with these
Qur'anic values. On the contrary we have Umayyad rule which
was most oppressive and we have Najat who killed 100,000
Muslims and sent 50,000 Muslims to jail.
The very
founder of the Abbasid state shed blood. The entire Abbasid
rule was again based on oppression and exploitation. Then
of course there was never a central state and regional
states came into existence. After the fourth caliph the very
concept of Caliph disappeared. And then such a concept
developed that if a most oppressive ruler enforces salat
must be followed. He may be an oppressor but you have to
follow him because he is enforcing salat.
The entire
history of Islam shows that a state which was based on these
four fundamental values never developed. Take the
contemporary world. Show me one single Islamic state. They
all claim they are Islamic. Show me one single Islamic
country where these four values are followed. They claim to
enforce shariah but in a very ritualistic sense. If these
values are not followed what is the use of enforcing salat.
As far as worship is concerned be it salat, fasting, praying
that has to come from within - it can never be imposed. If
it is imposed we do it outwardly but there is no spiritual
content in it. You do not really need a state to enforce
these rituals. They are very spiritual in nature. If I pray,
I must pray because my inner being is desperate. If I fast,
I must fast because my inner soul tells me to.
Otherwise
they will be empty rituals. They have become empty rituals.
We pray five times yet we lie, we exploit. Throughout
Islamic history we had a feudal system. If we go by the
Qur'an and the Hadith there is no ownership of land at all.
Land belongs to Allah. You can never rent it. Shared profit
was condemned by the Prophet. But the whole feudal system is
based on shared profit, one quarter, one third or one half.
But the Prophet clearly said that a believer who does not
till land for more than three years should give it to one
who can till it. But a feudal lord sits at home on the land,
the peasantry works and he takes away half the produce. This
is oppression, a very negation of justice.
So on what
basis do we talk about and Islamic state. In the 20th
century many Muslim countries started declaring that they
were Islamic states. And what would they enforce?
Punishments. Henceforth we will cut off the hand of a
thief, stone adulterers. Is this a sense of Islamic state?
And ultimately on whom do they enforce these punishments?
Their political opponents.
In Pakistan
there is a lot of evidence about it. Zia Al Haq who declared
an Islamic state in the late 70s used to lash those
journalists for drinking who were writing against him.And he
would generously allow the officers to drink. They are bound
to have such a deep concept of an Islamic state because we
have no conscience. We want to punish our political
opponents. A friend of mine from Pakistan wrote a book: the
Press in Chains during Zia Al Haq's time. There was
no freedom of opinion which is again against Qur'anic
injunctions: la ikraha fin din which in a sense
means freedom of conscience. If there is no freedom of
conscience there is no dignity of the individual. How can
you have a just society?
I have
studied the Qur'an from the perspective of human rights as
well. I have written on that. In the Charter of Human Rights
declared by the UNO in 1948, clause by clause you will find
a mention of those things in the Qur'an. But show me one
single Muslim country which honors those human rights. What
Islamic state are we talking about?
In Saudi
Arabia if you don't pray you are lashed. This is a total
mockery. You are denying freedom of opinion, freedom of
conscience, you are denying the very dignity of individuals
and then you are enforcing prayers. Maruf does not only mean
fasting. It means all those values. Truth again is the
greatest value. Do we really have truthful Muslims in the
world who would really make truth part of their conscience
and practise nothing but truth. The surah will ask. I think
that represents the entire essence of the Holy Qur'an.
Truth and
patience go together. Speaking truth, practising truth
requires a lot of sacrifice and that sacrifice needs a lot
of patience. Imam Shafi that if only the Surah Al Ashraq had
been revealed that would have been sufficient.
Let us search
our own conscience. Do we pratcise it? Are we ready to make
sacrifices? Are we ready to be patient in the path of truth,
in the way of truth. And still we talk of an Islamic state.
It is most oppressive, denying all human rights so clearly
mentioned in the Qur'an and again Islamic society is known
for oppressing women as if they don't have any rights.
I am very
much pained by two things in the Islamic world: Violence and
the denial of rights to women. Islamic society
unfortunately has become notorious for these two things.
Violence was pre-Islamic, Islam came to do away with
violence, to establish peace and justice in the world.
Justice and peace - if there is no justice there cannot be
peace.
When we are
committing gross injustices in Islamic countries, we want to
take revenge on non-Muslims by killing innocent non-Muslims
and call it jihad. Islam came to establish both justice and
peace. Peace is very essential to the concept of Islam. It
is Allah's name, Allah's, Allah's name is salam. So when
Allah whom we worship, his name is salam, his peace. If we
want to worship him should se worship violence of peace.
Peace is very central to Islam. Violence was permitted only
under very extraordinary situations - when you are under
attack.
Let us
reflect ourselves. Are we harbingers of peace? Another
important value is compassion. If our God is compassionate
can we be cruel? Can we kill innocent people. Today Buddhism
is known as the religion of compassion. The Dai Lama always
talks of compassion. Why don't we hear a single Muslim
talking of compassion when he or she claims my God is
compassionate. Why don't we talk of compassion? Along with
Buddhism, Islam should be known as the religion of
compassion but it is known as the religion of violence.
There is
something wrong with our society. We have no right to
establish a state which is oppressive and not centered on
the din of Islam anyway. There is no single verse in the
Qur'an which talks of a state. It only talks of society. A
just, value-based, compassionate, peaceful society. Even
paradise is a place of peace and security. Which paradise
are we aspiring to enter - one where there is violence, a
total absence of compassion, justice, human dignity, truth.
Before we
talk of any state we should talk of these values and
according to me any state which practices these values is a
real Qur'anic form state be it a secular state, be it a
Western or Eastern state. Any state which practices these
values, which honors human rights is a truly Islamic state
and the Islamic state we talk about is based on oppression,
exploitation and denial of human rights. It simply enforces
rituals. That does not make it an Islamic state.
DISCUSSION
Dr Najah
Kadhim:
Thank you Dr Asghar for this enlightening talk. Let me start
by asking the first question. What about the verses in the
Qur'an which actually say : Rule among them by that which
Allah has sent down. This is in a number of chapters:
chapter four, chapter five, chapter 12. To me that does not
mean political power. It could well mean a source of
legislation. Some people may remind us of the vilayat which
is mentioned in the Qur'an and therefore we should establish
a state. These are the points mentioned by the Islamic
state. But vilayat could be established through social
empowerment, as you said social institutions that would
protect the rights of the citizens. So it could be achieved
socially rather than through political power. That is my
understanding. What is your take on it?
Dr Asghar:
The concept of vilayat, authority means you need a state
structure. Nobody says you can do away with the state.They
are all human beings. Simply becoming believers or non
believers they start practising those values. Authority is
needed but authority based on values. If there are no values
there may be a society without that authority which is
oppressive and unjust.
A state had
to come into existence but a state based on these values.
Not simply a formal concept of a state. A state for what? A
state is not an end in itself. We think as if the state was
an end in itself. The holy Prophet's style was far, far
better qualitatively then in any following era which
developed real statehood. In the Prophet's time there was no
statehood. And yet it was a much better society. That is why
the Qur'an talks of a just society, a society based on
values. There was no state structure yet it was much better
than following societies which had full statehood.
So a state
for what? This is more important. If a state is for
developing a society based on values then yes. It is not a
denial of state. The question is what form of state. A state
for what? A state for proper governance. A state for the
development of better human values, better human society and
in modern times we cannot live without a state.
Even Marx
thought of a stateless society but when the revolution took
place in Russia it became a most oppressive state. To make
everyone follow the principles of communism was the
greatest challenge so the state became more authoritarian
and more powerful though their concept was a stateless
society.
So nobody is
denying the state. We are discussing whether it is
indispensable. I said it is not indispensable. Take Sufi
Islam. It was based on developing their soul, enriching
their inner selves. So you don’t need any state, any
authority. They themselves voluntarily control their
desires. Also their primary thing was to control their
desires. If you read the history of Nazeem El Din Olia a
great Sufi of the Indian sub-continent. He used to fast for
352 days except for the days when fasting is haram. Why? He
started every day with a piece of bread dipped in water.
They wanted to control their desires. Without controlling
your desire you cannot be truthful, you cannot be patient.
They did not need a state authority. But we know all cannot
become like him so we need a state.
Dr Najah
Kadhim:
I think we do need a state. If you go back to the Middle
Ages the Mawaldi, Sultanic and what have you, and use those
values and try them today.
Question:
I am surprised there is no new concept of Ummah. To be an
Islamic state you must implement the rules of Islam. This is
not happening in Saudi Arabia or Pakistan. Islam is
empowering women. The West talks of human rights yet they
were burning witches. To implement the hududs you need a
state.
Answer:
I never said that a state is not needed. I am critiquing the
concept of an Islamic state. What is an Islamic state? If
Saudi is you model of an Islamic state it is better we do
not have any such state or Pakistan for that matter. In
that case it is better we do not have a state. You don’t
need to enforce shariah. Shariah should be practiced from
within. You do not need an outside authority to enforce it.
You don’t need a state to tell you to pray or to fast. I
already told you about it.
Again there is a misconception about hudud laws. They have
become most oppressive. In a society which is unjust, where
there is no distribution of wealth, how can you cut off the
hands of thieves. When people are dying of hunger,
starvation, if they steal would you cut off their hands?
There is a story from Harun Rashid. A man was brought to him
and it was said he had committed theft. What is the
punishment. Harun Rashid said cut off his hand. The man was
desperate that this hands are going to be cut off. He told
the caliph if my hands are cut off you should be given the
death punishment. Harun Rashid was shocked. Why the death
punishment. He said all the wealth is in your treasury and
we are starving. If I have committed theft there is a reason
for it. You are not distributing wealth. It is an unjust
society. So you should be given the death punishment for all
these injustices. So how can you impose these hudud.
In
a society which is not based on any values for us the hudud
laws have become an end in themselves. This is wrong. Hudud
laws are not an end in themselves. They also have a certain
philosophy and certain aims behind them.
This is the unfortunate part. We think salat is an end. No!
Is our salat of the quality which prevents us from all evil?
No we do more together. We pray and at the same time we
indulge in all evils. So hudud laws and shariah laws are
not an end in themselves. They are a means to achieve a
different kind of society. And there can be different means.
There cannot be a single means.
Question:
The current discourse about the idea of a state among
Muslims is dominated by the knowledge of current Islamic
movements. But the discourse is state centrist. The
formation of the state has become the absolutist end that
will solve all the problems. Because of the state centralism
people are confusing between state, government, society and
individuals. There is a kind of demarcation in the
conceptualization of what is state and what is government.
There are different types of government or governing
systems and the state is one.
Dr Najah
Kadhim:
Indeed, this is the political naivety of most Islamic
movements. They do not distinguish between the role of the
state and the role of the government and people talk about
khalifa. How are you actually going to accommodate the role
of the government. Is it considered a state or a government.
So there is no political format, there is no depth to the
ideas of state and politics. We are not actually against
the state as a concept but we say which model. The model
which we have at the moment is from the Middle Ages or
borrowed from other people like the state and society which
was developed 200 years ago with the onslaught of the
colonial powers. We are living in a global world. That is
why the role of the civil society is very important and
that is where social institutions should come in. That is my
take on it. We need a fresh look at the whole thing. We need
a modern theory of the state and fikr. We need a number of
things that we are lacking at the moment. What we have are
tools from the Middle Ages and we are trying to fill the
vacuum we have at the moment.
Comment:
That is what I am trying to say. There is a lack of
understanding and is not only among the Muslims themselves.
As a young kid I was involved in radical Islam and we were
told that the calipha was the golden, shining era of the
past. And that is the problem. It is projection of the past
onto the conditions of the present. So when you talk about
the state all we are doing is projecting modern conditions
onto the past. The sheikh needs to elaborate on this.
Dr Najah
Kadhim:
So what is your question.
Question:
Part of my question is basically......
Dr Najah
Kadhim:
He mentioned that a bedouin society would produce a bedouin
state and an advanced society would produce an advanced
state. It is as simple as this.
Dr Asghar:
All I am saying is that a state is a means to an end. A
good society is a society where there is justice and peace.
A society based on values. This is what the Qur'an wanted to
achieve but the Muslims never fulfilled their duties towards
this end. They only concentrated on rituals because an
oppressive state came into existence, they could not fight
its power and they thought they better concentrate on
rituals and that was their Islam.
Question:
The West is rich in political thought. The Muslims lack
this kind of scholarship and have skirted the issue of
society and state. Part of the solution is to encourage
real serious political and economic thinking in trying to
bring some of the concepts you mentioned now into modern
times. It is worrying that the radical activists talk of
imposing shariah on Britain. The Western state with all its
faults and problems is closer to the kind of state system
that offers some kind of dignity and rights more than we
ever have done.
Dr Asghar:
You see nobody can idealise Western states today. There may
be internal democracy. There may be some attempt to ensure
human rights within the country. But what are these states
doing to other countries. If they exploit other societies
than the state is not a good state. It cannot be an ideal
state at all if American attacks Iraq for cheaper oil and
provides cheap oil for the American people for a higher
standard of life. It cannot be a just state at all.
What I am saying is that whatever the government, if it is
enforcing its values, that is justice, benevolence,
compassion and wisdom it can be called an Islamic state to
can be called any state - this is the state which one
should set up.
Dr Najah
Kadhim:
That is what I am talking about in modern theory. Otherwise
we would have borrowed Western theory for our system, for
our culture.
Answer:
Unfortunately we are calling a feudal state an Islamic
state.
Dr Najah
Kadhim:
Yes.
Question:
I think the debate here is evolving around syntax and not
semantics. What is Islamic and what is not Islamic seems to
be creating a confusion. One way you call it a state in
which wisdom, compassion, benevolence and justice is
established. That is an Islamic state. That is what the
Qur’an describes. You refer to states which existed.
Whether or not they were Islamic is a different question.
It just expresses frustration about what happened
historically and what continues to happen today and you are
not presenting anything new. There are Islamic movements
which are seeking to establish a system by which governments
ensure social justice and values like benevolence and
compassion. You are not differing from them but you are
saying that what exists today is not an Islamic state and we
should aspire to something that is closer to the model of
the society of the Prophet. That is our frustration.
Dr Najah
Kadhim:
What is your answer?
Reply:
What is there today makes us unjust.
Dr Najah
Kadhim:
We are going by the examples we have today. The Taliban in
Afghanistan were one of the biggest drug producers in the
world. Other models have failed miserably.
Reply:
They may be Muslim countries but they are not Islamic. By
any standard they are not Islamic states. So when you say
such a such a country is an Islamic state you are
contradicting yourself and doing injustice.
Dr Asghar:
This is what I am saying. You are completing what I am
saying. They do not deserve to be called Islamic states at
all. But let me tell you the Qur’an does not refer to any
single concept of a state. Not in a single verse. It only
has the concept of society.
Question:
There must be a system to let us know what to do. And to my
mind this system is ijtihad which must be used to bring us
to the modern state. Iran is applying itjihad. In Iran there
are women judges now. I think the itjihad factor has to be
applied and this is missing to some extent.
Dr Asghar:
I don’t think Iran is a model either. The very concept of
vilayat al fikh. This means you are giving all the power to
one person. So it is a very negation of democracy. What
makes us think that the person will only be motivated by
those values and not by some selfish interests. You cannot
give all power to one person. He has to be answerable to the
people which he is not. So the law which is passed by
parliament has to be approved by that person. He can say no
and the peoples representatives have no meaning. I don’t
think there is ijtihad in Iran either. In fact the principle
of ijtihad is most needed today to come out of that frame of
mind in which Muslims exist. The principles of ijtihad is
there in Islam but no alim is permitting it. They say, we
have no qualification but what qualification do you need if
you have a knowledge of the Qur’an and the sharijah and it
was formulated in Medieval Ages. If you have a knowledge
of Islamic history and hadith that is more than enough for
ijtihad.
But
because they do not want to encourage ijtihad they say no
one is qualified to do it. All ulema and rulers in the
Islamic world are doing that. That is the real tragedy.
Ijtihad will be the dynamic principle of Islam which will
keep on updating laws because laws are based on values.
Values cannot change, laws should keep on changing
otherwise values will be injured. What we are doing is
worshipping shariah, saying that it is divine. It is
immutable, it cannot change. Let values be endured but laws
cannot change. This is very distasteful.
Question:
There is also the inner aspect of ijtihad. People may be in
authority but there is not an inner transformation of the
self. Ultimately I feel there needs to be a spiritual
revival, it is a means to an end. Salat is also a means to
an end in a slightly different way. People can do salat,
they can pray. A spiritual revival is necessary. In the very
early days of Islam there was a real emphasis on developing
God consciousness and reflecting on the natural world. The
natural world is a way of imbibing God consciousness.
Dr Asghar:
This is exactly what I have been emphasizing. There has to
be God consciousness and God consciousness means value
consciousness. God embodies those values. God is the
ultimate in justice, knowledge, compassion and wisdom. Let
us try to approach all the values ………….
Dr Najah
Kadhim:
But in a modern state do you need some kind of institution
with checks and balances………..
Dr Asghar:
Yes……..
Dr Najah
Kadhim:
This is what we said a few minutes ago. People use shariah
as a front and behind it they pursue their political
interests. We have one example after another. All the
society, all the peoples would play their role in actually
maturing the models. Like the First Republic and the Second
Republic in France and what have you. That was maturing,
one experiment after another which was a reflection of the
era whereas the government is a reflection of the status
quo.
Question:
I would like to ask a very direct question about Somalia
where the movement is defining itself as an Islamic
movement?
Dr Najah
Kadhim:
What is the question?
Question:
During the past ten years or so a lack of justice and
anarchy have resulted in a lot of injustice in Somalia. Now
during the past few months there is a movement which is
defining itself as an Islamic movement. Does Dr Asghar have
any comments on this.
Dr Asghar:
All these movements, once they come to power they degenerate
into the same way. Unless you establish a state and then
show that yes we are governing according to these values,
only then will it have meaning. In opposition I can say
anything but once I come to power my whole behaviour
changes. So the test lies in being in power and then
upholding those values and governing according to those
values.
I
come from India where the BJP is a Hindu inter-communal
party. But when it was in opposition its slogan was “party
with a difference”. We are clean, we are just, give us a
chance to govern the country. Now that party with a
difference when it came to power became a party of
differences, I think among themselves and turned out to be
much more corrupt than Congress. There was so much
bloodshed and killing of innocent people. In opposition you
can say anything but the test lies when you are in power,
how do you govern. That is most important. And we do not
have a single example of this in the post calipha period.
Dr Najah
Kadhim:
So what you are saying is that Muslims are no different to
other people, you have to take into account human nature and
that is why you need some kind of institutions and checks
and balances.
Question:
Brother, you are putting words into the doctor’s mouth that
he hasn’t said.
Dr Najan
Kadhim:
Just a minute, it is your opinion.
Question:
The Prophet spoke against wealth. That is when he was really
prosecuted. Isn’t that what is happening today against
Muslims because it is Islam that calls for justice. It
sticks to the values therefore the system is persecuting
Muslims at present. In India, for example, you have Sonja
Gandhi who was elected by the people. But they did not want
Sonja Gandhi as president. We are not tackling the real
issues which is the economic and the political system. If we
were true to our values we would stand up against the world
trade rules, for the environmental issue. Our Muslim
brothers all over the world are going to be bloodied,
killed and starved to death
Intervention:
And non-Muslims………..
Question:
This is my whole point. Muslims get so worked up. They need
blood pressure tablets to calm them down. It is just
ridiculous. We need to get involved with the movements,
whether its secular Muslim or whatever they call them and
start shaping the agenda within them. If we keep out the
media, who have their own agenda, will paint us the way we
do not like to be painted. This is getting worse. We need
to get involved with the system, to shape it and that is the
only way. That’s where it lies for the Muslims to get
involved with main stream organizations.
Dr Asghar:
To get involved you need democracy. If there is no democracy
how do you get involved? Can you get involved in Saudi
Arabia? Can you get involved in Algeria, Malaysia? There are
no human rights, no democratic rights? How do you fight
foreign governments. How do you fight against this or that
evil?
Comment:
I am not disagreeing with you. Here we have some kind of
democracy. I am talking about us here, where we are. There
is no points in speaking about what is happening in
Pakistan.
Dr Asghar:
You are right to get involved. You must get involved. You
are a member of this society, you are a citizen of this
country, of course you must get involved.
Dr Najah
Kadhim:
We are talking about social empowerment. Everyone must play
his or her role in the activities of society.
Question:
I would like to thank the speaker for his talk. I have a
comment and a question leading on from that. I appreciate
what you are saying that there is no injunction for a state
and the emphasis is on developing civil society.
Nevertheless in today’s age, particularly in Europe where
the situation is that nation states are in the ascendancy
and there is a big state consensus where we have come to
rely on the state to provide social institutions. That is
why I think work has to be done developing some ideas about
how the relationship between state and society should work.
My
question is this: given the ascendancy of nation states in
this period of time what concept of ummah should we have?
Does that concept of ummah mean leadership and if so by
what mechanisms could it be delivered?
Dr Asghar:
I want to state again that this rhetoric about the ummah
should be criticized. There has never been a single Muslim
ummah throughout Islamic history. Let us not go by the
rhetoric. Let us go by the reality whether it was during the
Umayyad, Abbasid or Safavid period, there never was in
practice the concept of ummah. We have always been divided
along ethnic lines, along cultural lines, along linguistic
lines, around our different nations. Had there been such a
concept in the first place there would not have been so many
different Muslim countries. There would have only been one
nation. I would like to refer to Jamal Abdel Nasser and his
discussion with the king of Saudi Arabia. Jamal Abdel Nasser
was talking about Arab nationalism. So once King Fahd told
him brother why don’t you talk of Muslim nationalism. Why
Arab nationalism? He politely said what do you have in
common with Indonesian Muslims, tell me. Can you found one
nation with them. Libya, Syria and Egypt came together to
form one federation. How long did it last? Two and a half
years. So where is the ummah. When the holy Prophet himself
included non-Muslims in the concept of Ummah what stops us
from doing that. When there was partition in my country,
Jinnah was talking of two nations, Muslims and Indians.
Mualana Hussein a great alim wrote a book challenging Jinah.
The name of the book is : Composite nationalism and Islam.
He quoted so many verses from the Qur’an and so hadiths to
show that nation has nothing to do with Islam and composite
nations should be accepted. He quoted Mecca and Media. When
our Prophet included non-Muslims in the nation city state
what right has Jinnah to talk about separate Muslim
nationalism.
People do not know about this. They just want to exploit
certain things or certain rhetoric politically. But you have
to be realistic at the same time. Muslims could never unite
and can never unite. What is happening in Sudan? Arabs are
massacring non-Arab Muslims, yet both are Muslims. Such a
massacre has been going on and we see it in several
countries like this
So let us not
go by rhetoric, let us go by reality and accept the nation
state as a reality. Whether we like it or don’t like it is
another question but the reality is that nation states
exist not only in Western countries but in Muslim countries.
There are so many nations. Would Saudi Arabia permit
Pakistani and Indian Muslims to settle there? No. After
every hajj season they start a campaign and throw away all
the Muslims who stayed back. A maulana made the same point
saying if I go to Saudi Arabia as an alim they will welcome
me. But after six months or one year they will say thank you
very much, you have lived here for a year now please go back
to your country. So as a Mulims Alim would I be allowed to
become a citizen of Saudi Arabia or any Muslim country for
that matter? No. So lets go by reality not by rhetoric and
the reality is that nation states are here, they are here
to stay. I cannot say for how long. I cannot predict that
changes that will happen tomorrow. But today it is reality
and the Muslims accepted that reality. They are divided.
They go to ten or fifteen years to another country for
employment and then they have to come back.
We
have to be realistic. Indian Muslims have nothing in common
with Indonesian or Malaysian Muslims. When I go there I
can’t even converse with them because I don’t know their
language. I would need an interpreter to talk to an Indian
or Malaysian Muslim. Even in my county when I go to Kerala,
Tamil Nadu I cannot talk with them because I do not know the
Tamil language. They are Indians, I am Indian but I do not
know the language and I need an interpreter. Both of us
should know English, then we can talk. I am talking to you
because I know English. Otherwise Muslims are speaking
different languages. In this congregation if I started
speaking in my language Urdu only two or three person would
understand. So we can’t even communicate with each other.
That concept was useful when Islam was confined only to
Arabia. The moment it went out of Arabia the whole reality
changed.
Dr Najah
Kadhim:
The theory that the true state did not exist can be
debatable using the example of Oman Ibn Abdel Aziz. The
treasury reached a level where they were paying peoples
debts and helping youth to get married. I think there is a
confusion in the semantics and using the words.
Organizations like Hizeb Al Tahrir is not working for an
Islamic state. It is working for the central Islamic
government. I think this is what is meant by caplipha. The
best way to describe khalifa would be as the central Islamic
government. I think I agree with Dr Asghar that Islamic
government is a good idea. I disagree with him that it is
unrealistic. I believe a central Islamic government did exit
and is realistic. I also agree with him that it is a means
not an end. I believe that some Muslim organisations today
treat the calipha or the Islamic government as an end. I
don't believe that. I think we should strive for it by not
propagating it but by being good Muslims and encouraging
others to be good Muslims. That is the way to eventually
establish the central Islamic government. It is not by
striking some military revolution in one country and then
that country claims to be the caliph and fights with other
countries and non-Muslims. I don't think that is the way.
The way is for Islamic countries to become better Islamic
states, better Islamic countries and then we can have
central government using a system like the UN.
Question:
I am asking why not treat the central Islamic government as
a realistic and an applicable end to some efforts we make
today. There were obligations in the age of the Prophet and
there was a state during the time of Omar Bin Adel
Asia..................
Dr Asher:
Omar Bin Adel Asia was poisoned because he was being very
idealistic. He could not rule more than two and a half
years. Can we by citing this example prove that there has
been an ideal Islamic state in Islamic history? Powerful
vested interests gave him no time because he was denying
them their exploitations and their injustices. They killed
him. It is very difficult to follow certain values and
ideals. If you believe a central Islamic state is possible
I do not want to come in the way of your belief. It has
never been there and it will never be there. Let us be
realistic. Simply being idealistic does not help. We have to
face harsh realities in life that no two Muslim countries
are prepared to come together.
Question:
There was a comment that Muslims in Saudi Arabia and
Malaysia have nothing in common. They have a common God. We
all worship one God and listen to the Prophet. How can you
say we do not have anything in common? We have a lot in
common. A Muslim from Nigeria is part of the amah. You
criticized Jonah. Okay. Jonah was cruised by a lot of
people.
Dr Asher:
What is happening in Baluchistan sir? What happened in
Bangladesh. India is not broken. Pakistan is already broken.
Question:
I detect a slight negativity from you about the ummah. I
understand where you are coming from. But at the same time
if we just take the example of Europe for hundreds of years
Europeans were involved in wars and there is a slight grudge
now between the French and the British. Yet Europeans have
been able to come together in a way where English without a
doubt is the linga franca. I went to Egypt and I thought I
was clever trying to speak a bit of Arabic. The average man
in the street tried to speak English to me. I went to
Angola, same thing. Europe has common currency, common laws,
there is a European parliament and take the United States.
By definition it is united. 52 states. There is a
possibility of a common culture when we have a common
religion. I am happy now that Bobbywood is being watched
throughout the Arab world. So why are we so
negative.Europeans who have been at war with each other are
now building very constructively.
Dr Asghar:
Thank you for this question. Compare comparable not
incomparable things. When considering the European Union
take geography and take the geography of the Muslim world.
How do you bring them together. All European countries who
have formed this union are democratic. They have
constitutions, they have laws which are passed
democratically through parliament. These countries have come
together and formed a confederation while still maintaining
their sovereignty. Each state maintains its sovereignty
whereas when you talk of one amah there is no concept of
sovereignty of different peoples. Amah is a religious
rhetoric when all will follow the same set of laws which
were framed in the medieval ages under totally different
conditions. So we must compare comparatively. If all Muslim
countries are situated geographically closer to each other
all are sovereign countries with democarcies, with
constitutions it is a different situation. But there would
be rhetoric of one amah there because one amah means one
community. And when you say one community all will follow
the same set of laws, and there will be sovereignty, no
different laws, no power to legislate. Those who are talking
of an Islamic state should just examine that concretely. It
implies a position of shariyah. Shariyah as it is as it was
inherited from earliest times when it was formulated. Now
even on matters of shariyah Muslims are divided: there are
safas, there are malakis, hanafis, Ismalis, there are so
many different schools. How do you bring them together and
make them follow only one shariah? Some will say we will
only follow the shafi school, others will say we will follow
the hanafi school, other will follow the Islami school. How
will you create unity? When you talk of one ummah mind that
concept. The European Union is a very different thing.
France has its own laws regarding hijab which other
countries may not have. There is a different situation,
different laws. It is a confederation, a political concept,
not a religious concept.
Question:
To what extent do you think that a historic, contextual view
of the Qur'an can undermine the idea that it is a
universal, timeless message? You share the analysis that
current governments that call themselves Islamic states are
not Islamic states for whatever reason. There are different
reasons. Am I right in assuming that your proscription is to
remove religion from public life, to remove shariyah from
legislation and make religion a matter of individual
consciousness.
Dr Asghar:
You see I do believe that religion is something very
personal and spiritual. When it comes to collectivity you
have to take so many other things into account, language,
geography, there are so many things, so many factors. You
cannot have one culture and one way of life. There are
different ways of life, different cultures that have to be
taken into account. Religion if you take it seriously has to
be individual where your inner richness, inner spirituality
matters, spiritual desires matter. That is the real practise
of religion. I don't believe in practising shariah in
religion because Qur'anic values are important not how those
values were interpreted in medieval ages. This is an
entirely different thing. But unfortunately we do not even
distinguish between values and laws which were made in
medieval ages. Values are permanent. Another thing: the
Qur'anic verses are of two categories contextual and
normative. The contextual ones can be seen historically
whereas normative values are universally applicable.
Question:
Who is to decide which are which?
Dr Asghar:
There is one contextual verse which all the ulema use to
suppress women, even today. Allah has given us the right to
beat women. These verses are quoted again and again by the
ulema to have the right to beat women. They do not even want
to read the meaning of daraba. It has several shades
of meaning and they have taken only one meaning, how it
was understood in medieval ages and they even insist today
that man has authority over women. That's not the Qur'anic
concept. Why this concept of asif al mansouf? Because it was
contextual. Normative verses are all value based whereas
contextual verses have some reference to that society and
the problems which were arising in the Arab society of that
time.
Question:
With all due respect to your academic background and
experience can I just ask you not to generalise by saying
all ulema, all Islamic states and so forth. Generalisation
is not an academic approach to anything. There are people
out there like yourselves who are great thinkers and who are
working to establish or guide people through ijtihad. That
would help better.
Question:
Don't you think there is such as thing as a global ethic.
Should international organisations be strengthened.
Shouldn't organisations like the OIC have more power? They
should not be dominated by Saudi Arabia but give a voice to
India, Malaysia and Indonesia where the majority of Muslims
live. You do not mention anything about international law
and international organisations.
Dr Asghar:
Yes, international law is important. In Islam during the
Islamic period there was international law. That was
developed in their own situation. Today international law is
very different qualitatively and it is applicable to Islamic
states as well. They are signatories and they cannot say it
is not Shariah law and we will not accept it. That is not
possible in the modern world.
Dr Najah
Kadhim:
I think now is a good time to finish. I would like to thank
Dr Asghar for his point view and for you taking part with
your comments. You have actually made the discussion very
stimulating. Thank you very much.
*Dr.
Asghar Ali Engineer was born in
Rajasthan, India in a Muslim Alim's family and was trained
in Tafsir, Hadith and Islamic jurisprudence. Later he
pursued secular education obtaining a degree in civil
engineering. But returned to Islamic learning.
Dr Ali subsequently got involved in the movement for
inter-religious harmony in which he has participated for the
past 40 years. He speaks several languages: English, Urdu,
Gujarati, Marathi, Arabic and Persian.
Has published 51 books on Islam
and inter-religious problems in India, South and South East
Asia and contributes regular articles to several newspapers
and research journals. He
was awarded several awards including the Right Livelihood
Award given by a Swedish Foundation also known as the
alternate Noble Award. He was conferred Hon.D.Litt by
Calcutta University and also by Jamia Hamdard University,
Delhi. He has lectured in several universities throughout
the world.
| 
