|
|
H O M E | OUR PLAN | OUR POLICY | CONTACT US |
Articles on Khalifah |
||||||||||||
The Caliphate: A Case Study in Confusion By Abdul Hamid Abu Sulayman, pp110-118 A. Un-Islamic Concepts and Terminology There is a great deal of confusion in Islamic studies regarding foreign systems and the political terminology used in them. This confusion is due to the researchers’ insufficient knowledge of the foreign systems on the one hand, and the inadequacy of their approach on the other. These drawbacks are further augmented by thoughtlessly striving to catch up with the standards of the so-called “civilized” world. Under such pressure research is hastily conducted and consequently not only fails to achieve the desired goals but also adds to the confusion, lack of discrimination, and uncertainty. 1. Democracy These two related concepts of democracy and sovereignty are alien to our culture. Nonetheless, Muslim scholars have given them undue importance both as academic terms and as concepts. Some scholars go so far as to argue that they are in tune with the spirit and teachings of Islam and have to be adopted into Islamic thought and political systems. The Are is no doubt that there are some apparent similarities between these concepts and the overall spirit of Islam. Unfortunately, these concept contain un-Islamic elements which our scholars have failed to detect. Through this failure, Islamic thought has inherited a kaleidoscopic phenomenon in which the pursuit of insignificant similarities has brought about undesirable notions that completely distort an already blurred vision. Democracy, both as a concept and a system, has ancient roots in Western history, thought, and philosophy. It does not signify merely the procedural measures of choosing political leaders. It is a natural extension of the materialistic philosophy that regards man as a physical entity whose value is measured in terms of the pragmatic or utilitarian sense of his usefulness to the “state,” society, and the world. The spiritual aspect of man’s existence, which is his real value, is not stressed in this system. In essence, democracy is no more than an amalgamation of individuals who, by forming a majority, assume the right and the power to propagate their personal interest, while making minimal concessions to minorities. This is the reason why concepts such as majority, minority, election, party system etc., are of paramount importance in Western political systems. Since these systems are based on secular foundations, any concepts of justice cannot be of real value to the individual or to society. Indeed, the systems provide legal loopholes for the strong to gratify their personal interests at the expensecal systems. Since these individual or to society. Indeed, the systems provide legal loopholes for the strong to gratify their personal interests at the expense of the weak. Although al-Shura aims at choosing the proper leadership, establishing checks and controls over them, and arriving at decision accepted, appreciated, and supported by the public, it is not the same thing as democcracy, which seemingly seeks to achieve similar purposes. By definition, al Shura, derives a philosophical perception essentially different from that of democracy. This difference lies in the notion of justice as a concrete fact of existence which man arrives at through his own nature and Divine revelation, and which he endeavors to attain irrespective of his personal desires and interests. As a method, the system of al Shura provides the procedure whereby Muslims sit together and deliberate upon important matters to arrive at and be bound by conclusions in the light of the philosophical concepts of justice. If the issue under consideration does not concern justice but a case of preferring one to the other, there is no harm in adopting measures such as voting, abiding by the point of view of the minority, etc. the same measures could be restored to if the discussion reached a deadlock in the absence of an authentic analogy. But even here, no decision should be taken until everybody has had the chance to express his or her opinion and cite relevant evidence. Hasty decisions,insufficient investigation, and blind imitation will not bring about the reform we desire. If we concentrate on the philosophical background of the concepts pertaining to this or that system, we will able to develop insight into the nature of Islamic political systems, whose processes for arriving at and executing decisions are totally different from those of the West. Blind Westernization will not cause us to drift away from our avowed goals but will ultimately lead to catastrophic results. 2. Sovereignty Some Muslim scholars have introduced the concepts of sovereignty into Islamic thought, arguing that the pledge of loyalty by individual persons to the Caliph confers sovereignty on the ‘Ummah. Others disagree with this view on the grounds that since Divinely revealed knowledge is the only source of the Shariah, no mortal can be vested with such powers. Thus, the term sovereignty applies to Allah alone. In my opinion any debate on the merits or demerits of this term with the intention of adopting or rejecting it does no service to Islamic thought. It distorts rather than clarifies the vision. Sovereignty is a Western concept deeply rooted in the gradual evolution of Western systems. On all occasions it was resorted to in order to determine who should be entrusted the responsibility of decision making in the field of politics and legislation. It first emereged during the confrontation between the monarchy and the feudal lords who gained power by uniting together during the emergence of the European nationalist states. Eventually the term sovereignty was used to indicate the placing of political and legislative power in the hand of the representative of the people. This become politically evidenct after the broadening of political participation and the mergence of new classes which sought to achieve position of influence within the competing industrial and commercial communities. Arguments about adopting or rejecting this term clearly show not only insufficient awareness of the nature of the Islamic constitution but also the inability to distinguish between the varying levels of decision-making in Islamic systems. It is incorrect to assume that any one authority or level of authority in the legislative affairs of the ‘Ummah is absolute. Nor is it correct to assume that legislative bodies do not exist in the Muslim Ummah. To dispel any misconceptions in this regard, we have to be aware of the different legislative levels on the basis of which we can determine the fields of specialization in Muslim communities. The basic constitutional elements, which are the fundamental principles and values revealed in the Quran, cannot be questioned or tampered with. They must be accepted as they are. But legislation at the level of the daily concerns of existence and to which we do not find any direct reference in the Quran or the Sunnah can be handled by the specialist bodies in the various sectors of the Ummah. If we reject this, how we can possible explain Islamic practices such as “Ijtihad,” “Ra’I,” (opinion) and “Tarjih (preponderance).”? If the outcome of such efforts is not called “legislation,”what else can we call it? In practice many of our differences and disputes are settled through the previously mentioned channels, which neither permit confrontation over the source of the decision taken or cause enmity between the deliberating parties. There is no place for victory or defeat. Blind imitation of Western systems ultimately leads to confusion in defining the spheres within which the various bodies conducting the affairs of the Ummah should behave in accordance with Islamic teachings. Mixing the two systems by adopting the concept of sovereignty leads either to depriving the Ummah of the power of decision-making and turning it over to an individual who behaves according to his own personal interpretation of what is right and wrong, or placing absolute authority in the hands of the Ummah irrespective of whether the structure is compatible with the spirit of Islam. Sovereignty has no place in the framework in which the Islamic political structure is organized, but it does exist in the workings of the basic legislative spheres. The issue posed is not whether the source the source of decision-making is revealed knowledge or the Ummah. The real issue, needed for the implementation of a properly Islamic system, is a method which enables the Ummah to practise its role and authority in accordance with the true purpose and spirit of Islamic teachings. This method is necessary to understand properly the nature of the Islamic framework, its evolution, and the challenges it has encountered since the Umayyad period, as well as to sustain a commitment to its future. 3. Separation of “Church and State” In the absence of a clear-cut Islamic literature in the field of political science, Muslim scholars continue to pose the question whether Islam is a state, a religion, or both. This debate entails feelings or embarrassment in Muslim scholars whenever there is a call for the restoration of the Caliphate in our age. These two issues amply demonstrate the success of orientalists and hostile non-Muslims in confusing and misleading the thought of scholars. By raising these issues our attention has been diverted from more useful engagements. Indeed, in the absence of a proper method and research, we will never attain any larity of vision, and will continue to mistake trivial issues for importance ones. Comprehensive insight into Islam reveals that it does not sanction any form of separation between religions and politics. Islam signifies that concepts such as the nature of the Creator, good and evil, the Hereafter, etc., all aim at giving proper guidance to man’s behavior at the individual as well as at the social level. This point is too obvious to be elaborated upon. But the fact remains that there are conditions which have resulted in unnecessarily prolonged and futile discussions on the preceding themes. These conditions are: the non-Muslims distorted picture of Christianity; Muslim awareness about the crisis of knowledge; Muslim dissatisfaction with the existing systems and an urgent desire to find an easy way out of the crisis. Thus enemies of Islam were able to take advantage of this situation by writing about Islam in a manner that would make the non-perceptive Muslim believe that they were praising it. They would glorify it as a legacy full of indisputable Divine secrets that ignore the social needs of human existence. Once that un-Islamic idea had been inculcated, they began to hammer the minds of Muslims with concepts such as mastery, racism, nationalism, secularism, and communism-all of which are contrary to the purposes, principles, and values of the teachings of Islam. The end result for the Muslims in confusion, decadence, and incapacity. The issues of the Caliphate is representative of a state of confusion among Muslims over Islamic ideals, values, principles, and their historical application in Muslim societies. Generally it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to reinstitute historical systems in their entirety. This makes the hope of re-establishing the Caliphate system only a remote possibility, especially if the system is interpreted as a practical embodiment of political organizations. This is true whether such hopes are entertained by orientalists or Muslim scholars, irrespective of the degree of accurate perception in such interpretations. It needs to be emphasized that the Caliphate is no more than an Islamic term denoting the establishment of a social and political system in Islam. Any system, whatever its from, based on the requirements of time and place can be in keeping with the Caliphate systems provided that it adheres to the Islamic fundamentals regulating the spiritual and mundane affairs of the Ummah. No true Muslim would accept a system that is not based upon and committed to that Islamic purpose. The caliphate system is an ideal for which every Muslim must strive. But our struggle should not be clouded by transcendental or historical misconceptions. Nor should we be misled by those who have no respect for our Islamic identity. Such efforts require perseverance, determination, and originality. B. Political Studies in Muslim Universities The main theme of this essay is the need for the Islamization of knowledge in general and that of political science in particular. The first prerequisite in the process of Islamization is to have a clear idea of the reality of Islamic political studies. Without going into details one could say that texts pertaining to Islamic political studies are no more than handful of personal reflections of Islamic constitutional law, administration, biographies, and laws regulating war and peace. Despite the narrow scope, or perhaps because of it, they occupy a marginal place in most academic curricula. These studies are insufficient because:
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
||||
|
|||||||
