The ‘Islamic state’, says Tahan, allows for all citizens to freely express their views. In such a situation it is but natural that differences will arise. Since freedom, equality and justice are the pillars of the Islamic order, the Islamic political system must accept the existence of political differences. Differences in matters of the detailed interpretation and application of the minor details of the Islamic laws (furui masail) are also but to be expected. Differences among the ulema may emerge because, being humans after all, they differ in their powers of understanding of various issues. Factors such as historical context also play a role in conditioning such differences. Given this, says Tahan, it is understandable that consensus may not be able to be arrived at on all matters. Hence, such differences must be accepted and accommodated, and should not become the cause of conflict and prejudice. Differences among the ulema on points of law can be sought to be overcome through debate and dialogue in a spirit of ‘love’ and ‘understanding’. Many Islamist groups have come to realise the need to respect and tolerate such differences, Tahan writes.
Several Islamist movements, Tahan laments, have attempted to forcibly suppress or even crush differences of opinion, some of them even having resorted to violence for this purpose. This, Tahan says, is because they ‘have not truly appreciated the import of differences in their true spirit’. Early Islamic history, on the other hand, provides numerous examples of how Muslim leaders allowed differences of opinion to be expressed. To accept the opinions of others when they are proved correct, says Tahan, is ‘a civilized and Islamic principle’, be it within the home and family or in politics. Rebutting the charge that this would encourage dissent and factionalism within the Islamist movements themselves, he says that the actual causes of ‘groupism’ within the movements are ‘egoism’, the ‘dictatorial mentality’ and the belief that no one but oneself or one’s party represents the truth.
Islamist movements, Tahan advises, must respect the opinions of their members, allow them to freely and fearlessly express their views, whether supportive or critical, and take them into consultation. Constructive criticism and respect for the views of others, says Tahan, is a must for the progress of these movements and of society at large. He alludes to several instances in the life of the Prophet Muhammad which clearly suggest that even among the early Muslims there were times when different opinions were articulated. The Prophet, he says, encouraged his followers to freely express their views, even though some differed from the others. In Islam, this respect for different views is given practical expression in the form of shura or consultation, through which the ruler takes decisions guided by the advice of others, he points out. Dissenting opinions are allowed to be aired and a decision is finally arrived at after weighing all views, in a search for the truth. The ideal Muslim ruler is not a dictator who rules according to his whims. Rather, he is guided by shura in his responsibility of implementing the rulings of the shariat. Muslims are to follow their ruler only insofar as he rules by the shariat, but not if he transgress it.
Blind following of the leader is sternly condemned in Islam, says Tahan. Rather, such obedience should be based on careful analysis, understanding and critical thinking. Obedience does not mean that the people cannot question the actions of their ruler. Tahan criticises those Islamist activists who, in the name of discipline and obedience, have resorted to ‘enormous crimes’ and ‘destructive actions’. He argues forcefully for the need for respecting differences and inner democracy within Islamist movements. This tolerance for different opinions, says Tahan, extends even to non-Islamic groups, who, in an Islamic state, are allowed to express their position, provided this is done peacefully and without in any way challenging the Islamic law. By thus accommodating differences, Islamist movements can pave the way for the establishment of a just political system, Tahan contends.
Acquisition of Political Power
The context for the emergence of contemporary Islamic movements was provided by the collapse of the Ottoman Caliphate in 1924 and Western imperialistic control over almost the entire Muslim world. Islamic movements emerged in various countries in Asia and Africa, seeking to liberate them from colonial rule and establish states ruled according to Islamic law. Some such movements chose to adopt peaceful preaching as a means to mould and build up public opinion in their favour and to then acquire political power, while others stressed that power should be immediately acquired at all costs, even through resorting to violent means, seeing Western-style democracy as a hollow sham designed to protect the interests of a small ruling class. By resorting to indiscriminate violence, Tahan notes, these groups have not only inflicted grave damage to the people but have also worked against their own long-term interests. Allying themselves with dictatorial regimes, or being inspired by their example, some groups styling themselves as ‘Islamic’, he notes, ‘turned to supporting the oppression of the people in the name of Revolution’. Armed insurrections generally cause much avoidable loss of life and suffering on a mass scale, and in this way, Tahan writes, ‘are not much different from military take-overs’.
Tahan is critical of some ‘Islamic’ groups who, in their quest for power, have resorted to extremism and terrorism in the name of jihad. This is no jihad, however, says Tahan, and in no way is it a service to Islam, either. On the contrary, it has given Islam a bad name, with Islam being sought to be equated with terror by those opposed to it. It has strengthened the opponents of the Islamists, and has given ruling regimes an excuse to clamp down on Islam in the name of weeding out ‘terrorism’. Hence, Tahan advises, Islamic groups must clearly announce that they have no link whatsoever with indiscriminate violence and the targeting of innocent people. To kill one innocent person, says the Quran, is tantamount to killing the entire human race, he tells his readers. Violence may, however, be resorted to, he says, in the struggle against oppressive regimes, when other means have been explored and have failed and if the political system forcibly denies any space to Islamic groups to function. Tahan here warns against the violence descending into indiscriminate killing of innocents or even into a war between different contending Islamic groups attempting to settle their scores, as in the case of Algeria, Syria and Afghanistan, where, he says, because of the continued violence, ‘the words jihad and mujahidin have caused humanity to hang its head in shame’. This has greatly weakened the Islamic movements, as a result of the loss in this spate of violence of thousands of Islamist cadres and by discrediting the movements in the eyes of many. It has also resulted in wide-scale destruction of property.
While Tahan insists that Islamic groups must continue to seek to acquire political power, he argues that the path forward is not that of armed revolt or terror and indiscriminate killing, but of democratic means of persuasion and preaching, which, he says, are in harmony with the spirit and teachings of Islam. This entails building up Muslims of ‘genuine Islamic character’, he says. Change must begin with the individual, strengthening his or her faith and commitment to Islam, for, as the Quran says, God does not change the conditions of a people until they begin to change themselves. From the home the movement progresses to society at large, and gradually the field is prepared for it to gather such public support as to enable it to acquire power without resort to violence.
In the process, Islamist movements might also need to enter into cooperation with other opposition parties, participate in elections, or share power with other parties in a ruling coalition. Care must be taken that all means that are adopted are fully legal. True, Tahan says, this path is a long one and entails great effort, but it is the only way to reach the goal with the least possible loss. He quotes in this regard Syed Abul Ala Maududi of the Jamaat-i-Islami as saying, ‘If the reigns of the army were put in my hands, I would use them to prevent an armed revolution’. Today, says Tahan, most Islamist groups have come to the conclusion that the path to acquiring political power is not through indiscriminate violence or armed insurrection or terror but through peaceful means of education, persuasion and using democratic and legal channels of building public support. Islamic rule cannot be imposed by force. Rather, it must be based on the willing consent of the people, and this can only happen through preaching and by convincing people about the Islamic programme. This path to political power is, however, a demanding one, Tahan recognises. Often, even Islamic groups who abide by legal means and emerge victorious in elections are ruthlessly denied power by ruling regimes backed by the West.
The issue of participating in coalition ministries is one that has caused great debate in Islamist circles, with widely differing opinion being expressed on the matter. In several countries, Islamic parties have shared power in coalition governments with secular parties, from the both the left as well as the right, and have also joined hands with them in the struggle against dictatorial and oppressive regimes. Some Islamic groups have condemned this as ‘un-Islamic’. Tahan, on the other hand, remarks that it would be ‘opposed to the practical spirit of Islam’ for the Islamic movement to remain aloof from other forces and refuse to dialogue with them. ‘Extremism’, he says, ‘will only render the movement hollow from within and lead it far from its goals’. Islamist groups might actually find it in their own interests as well as that of the Muslims at large to enter into coalitions with other forces and groups that do not necessarily share their goals. However, they must always keep in mind the fact that acquisition of power for its own sake is not their objective, and they must not compromise on their principles and ideology, the interests of the people and human rights and freedoms in the process. It is not appropriate for them, says Tahan, to adopt any means that are not democratic and legal in their attempt to acquire power. Before joining a coalition with other forces they must carefully examine the prevailing situation and convince themselves that by doing so they will be better able to serve the cause of Islam and of the Muslim community than by remaining in the opposition.
Tahan refers to the Prophetic example to buttress his case for the possibility of Islamist groups to enter into political agreements with other forces. He says a close examination of the life of the Prophet Muhammad clearly suggests that the early Muslims ‘entered into agreements with others, keeping in mind the prevailing circumstances’. Thus, when in Mecca, the Prophet entered into an agreement with his uncle, Abu Talib, who was not a Muslim, and who granted him protection from the unbelieving Quraish of Mecca. Faced as the early Muslims were with fierce opposition from the Quraish, he instructed some of his disciples to migrate to Christian-ruled Ethiopia, because, he said, the king of that country was just. In Medina, where the Prophet established the first Islamic state, he cemented a pact with the Jews and polytheists of the town, according to which the rights of all parties, Muslims as well as non-Muslims, were clearly spelled out, allowing for them to live in harmony with each other. In order to further strengthen the Islamic state and stave off attacks on it, the Prophet signed no-war pacts with several non-Muslim tribes living in the vicinity of Medina, according to which they and the Muslims were to come to the defence of each other in case of external attack. Likewise, he entered into an agreement with the non-Muslim Quraish of Mecca for several years when he and his followers came to Mecca to perform the umra. In the light of this, says Tahan, Muslims, following the Prophet’s example, can, indeed, enter into pacts with others, provided this is in the interests of Islam and does not go against its basic principles and beliefs. It is in this perspective, Tahan notes, that in several countries Islamic groups have co-operated with other political groups, both on the left as well as the right, because it was not possible for them to achieve their goals on their own.
However, Tahan warns, under no circumstances should Islamic groups ally themselves with forces of oppression and those who ‘wage war’ against Islam, because agreements with others can be entered into only for the sake of Islam and for winning human freedom. ‘Islam and oppression’, Tahan says, can never go together, and so ‘there can never be any unity between the slaves of Allah and the worshippers of oppression’. Agreements with others, in accordance with the Prophetic example, can be undertaken only for two reasons: either for the protection and promotion of Islam or to protect Muslims from calamity. The agreement between the Prophet and Abu Talib was undertaken in order to enable the Prophet to carry on with his preaching unhindered by the opposition of the Quraish. His agreement with the Jews and polytheists of Medina was motivated by a concern for the protection of the rights of the inhabitants of the city. Hence, inspired by the Prophetic example, Islamic groups may enter into agreements with other forces, if, after closely examining the prevailing situation, they come to the conclusion that by doing so they would be able to overcome certain obstacles in the path of their achieving their goals. It is also essential to ensure that by entering into such: an agreement, no hurdles would be placed in the work of preaching Islam, because that is the essential task of the Islamic movement. For these agreements to be successfully implemented, says Tahan, it is essential for Muslims to be united, for the leadership of the Islamic groups to be firm and strong and for their activists to be well disciplined. It is the duty of the leadership to explain to and convince the cadres of the movement about the necessity and the conditions of such agreements lest they begin to doubt their Islamic validity.
Taking note of the fact that regimes in Muslim countries allied to the West have consistently sought to keep Islamic forces away from the citadels of power, Tahan says that their claims to democracy are hollow. When Islamic groups express their willingness to enter the democratic political process by participating in elections, the ruling elites, fearful of power slipping out of their hands, voice the concern that if these groups were voted to power they would, once established, abolish democracy and institute a dictatorship. In this way, Islamic groups who have emerged clearly victorious in elections in several Muslim countries, such as Algeria and Turkey, have been brutally denied the right to assume power by the ruling elites and their Western masters who falsely claim to be ardent defenders of democracy. Tahan opines that this question is one that merits close examination by Islamic activists. He remarks that some ‘Islamic’ groups have taken an unrealistic stand in assuming that the masses are ‘full Muslims’ and all that is needed is the toppling of the rulers, ‘whom they brand as kafirs, through resort to violence, which they label as a jihad’. They believe that there is simply no possibility or scope for reform within the other existing parties and organisations, all of which they assume to have deviated from Islam. In their passionate, yet misplaced, zeal, they resort to terrorising people. Tahan says that such acts inflict grave damage on common people and only serve to give Islam a bad name.
The question of the transfer of power has not, says Tahan, received the attention it deserves by ideologues of Islamic movements. They sees themselves as enforcing God’s law and, therefore, for them to give up power once they have acquired it would, so they believe, be tantamount to working against their very raison d’etre. Tahan recognises that there may seem to be a contradiction here, between the Islamic movements’ insistence on democracy and seeking the views of the people, on the one hand, and the refusal, on the part of some sections of the movements, to give up power once they attain it if the people so demand. A way out of this seeming dilemma, he says, is the position adopted by the Ikhwan-ul Muslimin in Egypt. In a communique issued in March 1994, the Ikhwan declared that, ‘A logical consequence of our accepting the existence of multiple political parties in an Islamic society is that we affirm the possibility of a transfer of power from one to the other, and this is possible only through periodically-held elections’. Tahan also quotes from a fatwa issued by the noted Islamic scholar and activist, Shaikh Yusuf al-Qardawi, who says that if an Islamic party is voted to power but proves unable to keep its promises to the people and fails to act on its party programmes, and, consequently, loses the support of the people, it must respect the people’s opinion, admit its mistakes and transfer power to those who enjoy the support of the public. Thereafter, it must once again try to win the people’s support, albeit through legal means such as preaching, so as to, once again, to come to power.
Women and Politics
The issue of the role of women in politics has generated much debate within Islamist circles, and Tahan devotes an entire chapter to this question. He bitterly critiques those who believe that Muslim women should be restricted to a virtual ‘prison’ from which they should emerge only three times in their entire lifetime: the first time, when they ‘comes out of the womb of their mothers’, the second time, when they ‘enter the house of their husbands’, and the third time, when they are ‘taken to the burial ground’. In this way, Tahan rues, these ‘narrow-minded’ people seek to shackle women in chains, denying them the opportunity to meet each other, to express their views and to participate in political and community affairs. ‘Such restrictions’, says Tahan, ‘have no place in Islam’. Tahan refers to the life of the Prophet Muhammad to reinforce his assertion that women, too, should be allowed to play a role in the affairs of society at large. Thus, he says that when the Prophet received his first revelation from God, he was greatly fearful and told his wife, Hazrat Khadijah, about it. She comforted him, saying that God was with him. When the early Muslims, persecuted by the Quraish of Mecca, migrated, first to Ethiopia and then to Medina, there were several women among them, and, says Tahan, they ‘made great sacrifices’. Women, too, gave the oath of allegiance (baiat) to the Prophet. Muslim women at the time of the Prophet even participated in wars, giving water and food to male soldiers, tending to their wounds and taking the bodies of martyred fighters back to Medina.
Muslim women have an important role to play in the conduct of the consultative assembly which advises and guides the ruler of an Islamic state, says Tahan, and their advice must be taken into account. Women performed this function at the time of the Prophet himself, he argues. Women in Islam’s early history also played a part in the election of Caliphs. The Quran clearly says that Muslim men and women are ‘helpers of each other’, ‘enjoining the good and forbidding the evil’. Islam, says Tahan, has provided for an appropriate place for women and has granted her rights. They have the right to education and, if necessity demands, of employment and even the right to participate in political affairs. This is why several Islamist groups have been active among women as well, with some of them setting up their own women’s wings. Commenting on the differences of opinion among Islamist activists about the political rights of women in an Islamic state, Tahan approvingly refers to a communique issued by the Ikhwan-ul Muslimin of Egypt in 1994, which, he says, ‘has closed all doors for doubt and debate’ on the question. The communique clearly states that Islam in no way forbids women from participating in elections, for the Quran says: ‘Believing men and believing women are helpers unto each other. They enjoin what is good and forbid what is evil’. Women have the right not only to vote for electing members of the consultative committee (majlis-i-shura) or the Parliament but also to become, members of these bodies, and there is nothing in Islam that prevents them from doing so. Further, Tahan adds, ‘If men and women can participate on an equal footing in Parliamentary elections’, they should similarly ‘cooperate with each other within the Islamic movement, so that they can benefit from each other’s views’.
The Ikhwan’s communique goes on to state that barring the post of the head of state, women can be appointed to all public posts. As far as women judges (qazis) are concerned, Tahan notes that there is considerable dispute among the ulema on the matter, but says that the issue is one that requires the exercise of ijtihad or reasoning based on Islamic principles, after taking account the provisions of the shariat and the interests of the community, because there is no clear Quranic commandment on the issue. Given the rights that Islam has provided for women in the political domain, Tahan laments that most Islamic groups have given hardly any representation to women in their consultative assemblies and do not care to take their opinions into account in administrative matters. If women are denied their Islamic rights, Tahan warns, the Islamic movements themselves cannot prosper. Summing up his discussion of the various challenges facing contemporary Islamist movements, Tahan says that it is not his intention to ‘distort’ Islam or it force it into a ‘Western’ mould. He is critical of efforts that have been made to develop what some have called ‘Islamic liberalism’ or ‘Islamic socialism’, for that, in his view, is a caricature of Islam made to suit a different political agenda. He notes that in the contemporary world there are only two systems that are in force—democracy and dictatorship. Democracy upholds human freedom and rights, while dictatorship seeks to strangulate them. In this context, Tahan says, the Islamic movement has to make its position clear. He suggests that Islam shares much in common with democracy as he defines it. Democracy and Islam, he says, agree on the following: protection of human rights, full freedom, plebiscite, parliamentary elections, opposition parties, protection of minorities, transfer of power and women’s political rights.
Democracy, Tahan says, is a human invention, but it is ‘ a great success for the human mind’. Shura and Democracy share much in common. He refers here to a fatwa delivered by Shaikh Yusuf al-Qardawi in response to a question asking whether democracy is incompatible with Islam and is a form of disbelief (kufr) or falsehood (munkar). Qardawi’s reply was that it was ‘unfortunate’ that ‘these issues were being mixed up’, as a result of which for many it ‘becomes difficult to distinguish between truth (haq) and falsehood (batil)’, which opens the door for the hurling of fatwas of disbelief at others. He lamented that ‘It is simply amazing that some people outrightly condemn democracy as kufr and batil, whereas they have no knowledge at all about the truth of democracy’.
Tahan agrees entirely with Qardawi here, and says that Islamic groups must have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism, for that is not only a violation of democracy but is also against the against teachings and spirit of Islam. Protecting innocent lives is a fundamental tenet of Islam. Critiquing groups who have resorted to terror in the name of jihad, he says that such policies reflect a fundamental immaturity and a poor understanding of the prevailing conditions on the part of their leadership, which ultimately results in a calamity for the society at large, for the Muslim ummah as a whole and for the Islamic movements themselves. Tahan expresses the hope that Islamic activists would adopt a balanced policy, focus on creating awareness of what he regards as the true teachings of Islam, advocate justice and righteousness, crusade against evils and play a constructive role in the society, instead.
Tahan believes that extremism has today emerged as a global problem, and he locates its principal cause in the fact that its advocates believe that they possess a monopoly over the truth and that, therefore, there is no room for differences of opinion. They accuse all others of being kafirs and of straying away from Islam. Its most extreme manifestation is when usurping the life and the wealth of others is declared to be legal for them. Of the various forms of extremism, says Tahan, the most dangerous is religious extremism. In order to gain legitimacy for their stance, religious extremists seek fatwas from ‘corrupt’ ulema declaring others to be disbelievers, and then set about killing them. It will clearly not do, Tahan remarks, to dismiss extremism as simply a result of a conspiracy by external forces to which the extremists have fallen prey. There are other, internal causes as well, including wrong beliefs and interpretations of religion, poor training, weak and incompetent leadership, and a la
0 comments:
Post a Comment