" It
is great tragedy that Muslims have reified
Shari’ah instead of values it is based on. One
has to understand philosophy of law. No law,
however exalted philosophy it is based on, can
become permanent. Only the values on which these
laws are based can be treated as permanent.
Unfortunately Muslims, even jurists, are unable
to make this important distinction. They treat
Shari’ah as divine instead of principles, it is
based on. Principles have been given by the
Qur’an and hence are divine.
Shari’ah laws have been made by human beings and
hence, at best, they are honest human approach
to understand divine intentions in given
circumstances. If circumstances change,
understanding can also change and hence this
change of understanding will be reflected in
changed laws. This, in no way, will affect,
divine principles and values."
--the author
IS PROGRESSIVE ISLAM POSSIBLE?
By Asghar Ali Engineer
Many people talk about progressive Islam. Is
progressive Islam possible? Many are sceptical.
But some maintain Islam need not be preceded
with any attribute like ‘progressive’. Islam
itself contains the attribute i.e. it is
inherently possible. Why such contradictory
positions? It is not surprising as Shari’ah-based
rigid Islam and the Qur’an-based Islam make all
the difference.
Again the question arises why this contradiction
between the Shari’ah-based and Qur’an-based
Islams? We will throw light on this in this
paper. The Shari’ah-based Islam tends to be
inflexible and non-responsive to modern
conditions. Thus the practiced Islam is far more
rigid and inflexible than the Qur’anic Islam
which is based more on values than on customs
and traditions.
No religion comes into existence in a vaccum. It
bears the stamp of the society the religion is
borne into expect otherwise is to fly in the
face of reality. Islam was also borne in a given
society which had its own customs and
traditions, its own economy and its own
geography and history. The Qur’an, undoubtedly a
divine revelation, every verse of which carries
divine stamp, also cannot be totally a
historical, though it transcends bounds of
history in moral and spiritual matters.
Thus Islam took concrete shape in given
historical conditions and Shari’ah laws imbibed
Arab customs and traditions. These customs and
traditions are known as ‘adat in the
Shari’ah terminology. What is unfortunate, these
‘adat too became integral part of
Shari’ah along with the Qur’anic injunctions.
Apart from this the Islamic jurists were also
confronted with many problems when Islam spread
to other parts of the world. And the Shari’ah
law being the only state law of the time, it had
to resolve these problems by resorting to
qiyas (analogical reasoning). Thus qiyas
also became part of Shari’ah methodology in view
of these new problems.
As it was bound to happen the doctors of Islamic
law differed from each other on many
formulations of juristic issues and thus many
schools of law came into existence of which four
survived in the Islamic state. It is extremely
interesting to study the evolution of these laws
in the then given societies and early debates
among Islamic jurists. It is a very fertile area
for research in evolution of Shari’ah laws.
Over period of time these laws evolved by early
jurists became ‘divine’ and doctors of law in
subsequent period refused to re-visit these
laws. It was forgotten that ethos of early
medieval society, along with Arab ‘adat
have gone into genesis of these laws. The whole
Shari’ah became divine and hence immutable.
Though learned Islamic theologians know this but
they also let people think that the Shari’ah is
wholly divine in order to perpetuate their
hegemony. Also, no present-day jurist wants to
be outcaste in an orthodox society.
Those modernists, who wish to re-visit these
Shari’ah laws get isolated in an overwhelmingly
orthodox Muslim society. This causes great deal
of frustration among modernists who at times
despair and even become rebels. This frustration
is, to say the least, quite counterproductive.
One needs tremendous patience and understanding.
Without changing the societies, one cannot bring
about much needed changes in the Shari’ah law,
especially because it carries the stamp of
divinity.
One also has to understand that the power of the
‘Ulama depends on hegemony of the Shari’ah law.
If changes are brought in, these ‘Ulama who have
been born and brought up in an orthodox milieu,
have not developed modern skills and are unaware
of modern developments, fear any change as it
will deprive them of their skills and powers and
hence oppose any change in the name of ‘divine
law’.
Those who wish to reform and change, must
understand this and first work hard to bring
about changes in the society before changing the
‘Ulama. As long as the attitude and
understanding of the people does not change, it
will be near impossible to bring change among
the ‘Ulama. Of late identity problems are
assuming more complex dimensions and it is
becoming even more challenging to usher in
social change.
In the globalized world new challenges have
emerged and religion and religious identity have
assumed much greater importance. The west now
considers Islam as a principal enemy and a
source of terrorism. It also considers Islam as
backward and unsuitable for modernization and
progress. The US foreign policy and pro-Israel
attitude creates strong resentment among Muslims
and they tend to cling more and more to orthodox
Islam. Even educated Muslims give more
importance to clinging to received Islam. Also
popularity of western pop culture creates own
powerful reaction.
It is not possible to ignore these challenges.
It makes the task of reformers ever more
difficult. The process of change started since
19th century in the Islamic world
when it came into contact with colonial rule.
But orthodox Islam has proved quite tenacious.
Greater the confrontation between the west and
Islamic world, more difficult to bring about
change.
Any project for reform and change is seen as
western conspiracy or westernization of Islam.
Also, thanks to the powerful interests of USA in
retaining kings, sheikhs and military dictators
in Islamic world, democracy is conspicuous by
its absence in the world of Islam. Ironically
the western scholars blame Islamic teachings for
absence of democracy in Muslim countries.
Due to absence of democracy it becomes even more
difficult to bring about social change in Muslim
societies. One finds collaboration between
dictatorial regimes and orthodox ‘Ulama. Thus
these ‘Ulama support these dictatorial regimes
and in turn they look after the interests of
orthodoxy. The modern intellectuals thus find it
difficult to create social support for progress
and change.
Another strange dilemma the Islamic world is
today faced with is the fast pace of external
modernization (i.e. modernization of
infra-structure, use of computers, television,
electronic communication and other modern
amenities) and stiff resistance of inner change.
At best it creates more mental confusion and at
worst rejection of modern science and
reinforcement of orthodoxy. It is not easy to
resolve this dilemma. Those intellectuals who
successfully and creatively try to resolve this
dilemma are far and few in between.
It is also interesting to note that the oil rich
Middle Eastern countries are keen consumers of
electronic and industrial goods, but have no
willingness to usher in industrial revolution in
their own countries. Thus at base the societies
remain essentially feudal and this is the reason
why the Islam developed during medieval ages
still appeals to them. As the social base
remains stagnant education system also does not
change. In many Arab countries, for example,
education still remains quite narrow sectarian
and orthodox. Thus with such unresponsive
education system one cannot hope to create
modern thinking.
Several intellectuals and critics of education
system in the Arab countries have pointed out
that the syllabi create intolerance not only
towards other religions but towards other
Muslims sects also. If education system is so
narrow how can it prepare young minds for
responding creatively to new ideas and social
change. Nothing less than thorough overhauling
of education system is needed. This realisation
is dawning on the authorities after some of
these countries were struck with terrorist
violence. But looking to delicate balance of
forces in their country quick change is not
possible.
These are some of the challenges being faced by
the Muslim countries and Muslim communities in
various countries. Even comparatively more
developed countries like Malaysia still carry
dead weight of the past and Malay identity
asserts itself in the form of Muslim identity.
The Malays until yesterday were quite backward
compared to Chinese and Indians and thus Malay
identity got politicized for assertion and Malay
identity carried its own dead weight and hence
domination of conservative ‘Ulama in religious
affairs. One cannot neglect these social and
political factors if one wants to understand
domination of conservative forces in the Islamic
world.
The example of Turkey and Algeria are quite
interesting. Both countries had modernizing
dictatorships. But one should remember that
imposing modernization without any change in
social base, often proves counterproductive.
Kamal Ataturk forced people to accept
westernization. People accepted westernization
out of compulsion rather than any inner change
and Islamic Party reappeared after some time.
Still military holds ultimate power and does not
allow assertion of religious identity. Thus at
heart Turkey continues to be religious.
Algeria had adopted socialism during Ben Bella’s
time. Of course military overthrew him and
seized power. It rejected socialism but imposed
secularism. The people of Algeria by and large,
continued to be quite religious and when
elections were allowed in 1990 the Islamic
forces won. The military did not allow them to
assume power and violence burst out which still
continues.
Iran also went through the same experience
during the Shah’s regime before it was
overthrown by the Islamic revolutionaries. The
Shah also imposed westernization and
modernization from above. He abolished veil and
made wearing of miniskirts and western dress
compulsory. Same thing was attempted by King
Amanullah of Afghanistan during thirties. He too
paid the price and had to abdicate his thrown.
This makes it abundantly clear that
modernization cannot be imposed from above. The
Western societies underwent evolution for more
than two centuries before secular forces could
entrench themselves. In those societies
modernization developed along with
industrialization and thorough changes at the
base. Modernization grew from below rather than
being imposed from above.
It is interesting to note that western societies
were faced with very different kind of
challenge. Society was changing due to
industrialisation and rapid progress in science
and technology while the Church was trying to
impose orthodoxy from above. Thus sharp
contradictions developed between the Church and
social forces of change. Since the very base was
getting transformed Church couldn’t win. Victory
was destined to be for modernism.
In Islamic world the process is just the
opposite. Social base is entirely stagnant and
few intellectuals mostly educated in western
countries desire change from above. Even a
profound scholar of Islam like Mohammad Abduh of
Egypt, deeply influenced by western society,
could not usher in change. He was outmaneuvered
by the conservative ‘Ulama. Conservative Islam
is destined to be on the margins of Muslim
countries. Countries like Syria and Morocco,
where modernization seems to be maintaining
upper hand, has been kept going by
dictatorships. The core is very much
conservative in these countries. Conservative
core can reassert itself if lid is
off.
II
We would now like to deal with core teachings of
Qur’an and the social movement in the
pre-Islamic Arab society to which Qur’an was
responding and the reasons why it succeeded. The
Qur’an was responding to social change taking
place in the Meccan society and it was the
kuffar (unbelievers in the Qur’anic
language) who were resisting change. Change was
needed at two levels: at the moral and spiritual
level and social and political. While change at
moral and spiritual level found greater
resistance, at social and political level there
was lesser challenge.
Morally and spiritually Meccan society was not
only stagnant but also degenerating.
Inter-tribal corporations which were formed for
carrying on international trade, brought
windfall profits and consequent concentration of
wealth. This concentration of wealth in the
hands of a few resulted in neglecting even
tribal morality. On the other hand, idol worship
got associated with and symbol of spiritual
stagnation and promotion of superstition. All
sorts of superstitions were prevalent in the
Meccan Arab society when Mohammad, the Prophet
of Islam, was born.
The Meccan Arabs, most dominant, wealthy and of
high tribal status, were quite proud of their
newly acquired wealth and thought this wealth
was eternal and their ultimate power (see
Qur’an, chapter 104). Thus they became amoral in
their attitude and as it often happens with neo
rich conspicuous consumption became their only
religion thus bringing spiritual degeneration
among them. Some tribal customs and traditions
were becoming positive obstacles in the process
of change like sexual amorality, maltreatment of
women and burying girl child alive apart from
several others.
There was no tradition of acquiring knowledge
and reading and writing was practically unknown.
Ignorance and superstitions were thus order of
the day. Taking pride in ones ancestry was
highly prised. This was the only asset for them.
They never strived for any higher truth or
spiritual values. One can say there was total
spiritual vacuum. The only religion of the book
around them was Christianity but the Arabs were
reluctant to accept it as it was basically
associated with Roman imperialism, which they
hated. The Arabs were fiercely independent and
would not barter their independence with
anything.
No society can exist in total moral and
spiritual vacuum. Though few of its people were
wealthy but mass of the people were poor and
neglected. It was causing social tensions in the
Meccan society. Tensions were assuming explosive
proportions as we learn from pre-Islamic history
of Mecca. Also some Qur’anic verses of Meccan
origin like chapter 104 and chapter 107
indicate.
Thus it is interesting that the Qur’an responds
to these problems and social tensions in Meccan
society and lays great emphasis on knowledge (‘ilm),
social and economic justice through
redistribution of wealth to the weaker sections
of society and moral and spiritual uplift.
These were exactly the main problems of the
Meccan society before Islam. Thus Islam emerged
as a revolutionary movement and also moral and
spiritual force.
Its emphasis on knowledge, on justice and moral
and spiritual dimension of human life makes it
inherently progressive. Thus one need not add
‘progressive’ to word Islam. Knowledge itself is
liberating and combined with separate emphasis
on justice makes it relevant much beyond its
time of emergence. Islam of course responded to
human social, moral and spiritual needs on
different levels: immediate as well as
transcendental.
Islam of the Qur’an has strong sympathy for
weaker sections of society. The verse 28:5 is
clear proof of this strong sympathy with the
weaker sections of society. Women also belong to
this section and hence Qur’an is the first
revealed book that accords equal rights to
women. The progressive scholars have often
referred to the verse 2:228 which clearly
stipulates equality of rights.
Not only this Qur’an concretely spells out her
rights in marriage, divorce, inheritance and
property she has been accorded equal dignity
(see 17:70). Giving equal rights to women was,
beyond any doubt, a unique contribution of
Islam. To be ‘progressive’ this gender equality
plays an important role. No one can claim to be
progressive without accepting gender equality.
However, what is tragic is that these
progressive dimensions of Islam were lost soon
after social customs and traditions of Arab and
non-Arab societies to which Islam spread.
Pre-Islamic traditions proved to be more
tenacious than one would think. Embracing Islam,
or any religion, does not mean one completely
gets emancipated from pre-conversion social and
cultural values and ethos. Specially, the
attitude towards women did not change. This
attitude even got reflected, as pointed out
before, in the attempts of the Islamic jurists
to interpret the Qur’an and hadith.
The Shari’ah-based Islam thus incorporates such
attitudes of the jurists who were product of
their own society. Triple divorce is the best
example of this attitude. This was essentially a
pre-Islamic practice which the Prophet (PBUH)
had condemned in no uncertain terms and Qur’an
did not approve of it either. The verse 2:229,
on being carefully read, makes it very clear.
Yet, unfortunately, jurists used this very verse
to hold validity of triple divorce in one
sitting.
Of course there have been exceptions to the
rule. Jurists and scholars like Ibn Taymiyyah
refuted with convincing arguments the validity
of triple divorce. This form of divorce, goes
against the very spirit of the Qur’an and robs
women of their dignity. How can men be allowed
to throw a woman out by pronouncing three words
even years of marital ties when the Qur’an
requires arbitration before divorce (4:35).
Some of the Shari’ah laws deprive women of their
human dignity and they again become a mere
chattle as she was before emergence of Islam.
Thus it is necessary to go back to Qur’an-based
Islam as the Shari’ah -based Islam has severe
limitations. While the Shari’ah-based Islam
carries the stamp of medieval period,
Qur’an-based Islam remains universal. It is
universal Islam that is relevant to our age and
ages beyond our own whereas the Shari’ah-based
Islam remains confined to the time period when
it was formulated.
It is great tragedy that Muslims have reified
Shari’ah instead of values it is based on. One
has to understand philosophy of law. No law,
however exalted philosophy it is based on, can
become permanent. Only the values on which these
laws are based can be treated as permanent.
Unfortunately Muslims, even jurists, are unable
to make this important distinction. They treat
Shari’ah as divine instead of principles, it is
based on. Principles have been given by the
Qur’an and hence are divine.
Shari’ah laws have been made by human beings and
hence, at best, they are honest human approach
to understand divine intentions in given
circumstances. If circumstances change,
understanding can also change and hence this
change of understanding will be reflected in
changed laws. This, in no way, will affect,
divine principles and values.
Today scholars and intellectuals living in 21st
century face new challenges, particularly, in
respect of gender parity. Old Shari’ah laws
cannot meet these new challenges successfully.
It is, therefore, necessary to make necessary
changes in these laws. It will implement
Qur’anic values more effectively than the old
laws. The resistance from orthodox ‘Ulama is
more out of fear for their power rather than
sanctity of the Shari’ah. Sanctity of Qur’an is
more important than sanctity of the Shari’ah, at
best, is an instrument and Qur’an fundamental.
To uphold Qur’an and Qur’anic principles is more
important than upholding Shari’ah laws and
practices. |