|
Whose
Islam?
By
Khalid Baig
Whenever there is any talk
of following Islam in the collective life of any Muslim country, one inevitably
hears a rhetorical question. Whose Islam? Always the question is posed by those
who want an easy out. But in addition to antipathy or hostility to Islam, which
is generally recognized, it also shows an intellectual dishonesty that is not
as widely perceived.
Actually the question is
borrowed from elsewhere---without the least effort to judge its applicability
in case of Islam. Nevertheless, it is a valid question when posed in the context
of, say, Hinduism, Christianity, or Judaism. Hinduism cannot even agree on its
own definition or its articles of faith. ("Hinduism is whatever a Hindu
believes in.") There is no unified code or source for a code, just some
vaguely defined cultural traditions.
In case of Christianity,
the Bible could be a central unifying instrument. The trouble is there is not
one, but hundreds of them---none of them in the original language of its revelation.
Whose Bible? Whose translation? Whose interpretation? (Bible critics argue that
the Bible can be quoted in support of just about any cause). The same is true
of Judaism, where even the question "Who is a Jew?" remains a bone
of contention. (The common ground in Israeli Jewry is not based on theology
but only on a common goal of oppressing the non-Jews).
In fact it was the problems
with and within Christianity that lead to the doctrine of separation of Church
and State in the U.S, the world leader now trying to export that ideology to
the rest of the world. A little bit of history may be helpful here. A lot of
those who came to the U.S from Europe were religious people. For example, in
1630 when John Winthrop reached Massachusetts Bay, the would-be governor of
the new colony declared to his followers: " We are entered into Covenant
with Him...we shall be as one body, always having before our eyes our Commission
from God to walk in His ways and to keep His Commandments and His Ordinance
and His Laws...so that the Lord, our God may bless us."
But not everyone agreed
on what was presented as "His Laws". After all, these were, personal
opinions of the religious authorities. What else could one expect in the absence
of a well preserved Revealed Text and well preserved Prophetic interpretation
of that Text. An obvious problem with this is that you can have as many contending
interpretations as there are experts --- and vested interests --- willing to
define them. Thus the question "Whose religion?" became relevant and
there was no practical answer. As religion became a divisive force that could
not hold the country together, it had to be relegated to the private space to
protect it as well as the State. So a century and a half after Winthrop the
framers of the constitution of the United States firmly embedded the doctrine
of separation of Church and State in it.
Exactly the opposite is
true in case of Islam. Here Allah's Book has been miraculously preserved in
the original language of its revelation as has been the language of its revelation
itself. The sayings of the Prophet, Sall-Allahu alayhi wa sallam, along with
a complete account of his life down to the smallest details has also been preserved.
As even a child knows, the question "Whose Qur'an?" is as absurd as
the question "Whose Bible?" is relevant. The Shariah is rooted in
Qur'an and Sunnah. With the twin rock-solid foundations plus historic continuity,
Islam remains a sure and uncompromised source of guidance unlike any other.
Aren't there big differences
between various schools of Islamic law? Not only are there various schools,
but there are divisions within the schools themselves, some might point out.
For example in the countries of the Indian sub-continent, where the great majority
of Muslims belongs to the Hanafi school, there is this unbridgeable chasm between
the Deobandi and Bralevi groups. What is generally not realized is that there
is no difference on issues of law or fiqh between these groups. While there
is disagreement between them over certain practices, they rely on the same authorities,
quote from the same books, and follow the same exact code of law right down
to the minutest details.
The four major schools of
fiqh certainly have differences between them. Yet the relevance of these differences
to Islamization of a society are vastly exaggerated, while the common ground
between them is ignored. Just consider, are there any differences between them
regarding the articles of faith? The pillars of Islam? The meaning of good and
evil? The definition of right and wrong? Sources of law? Moral values? Role
of government? The relationship of individual and the society? The role of women
in society? The fact is that on all of these issues there is no difference between
them. Yet these are central issues when organizing the collective life of any
society.
For example, Islamization
of education system means helping the students develop an Islamic outlook. In
science they should see the signs of Allah. In history they should see the working
of Allah's Laws that determine the rise and fall of nations. Islamization of
the media means aligning their methods and goals with Islamic morality, throwing
out a system that appeals to people's baser emotions as a means to attracting
their attention and their money. Islamization of the economic system means replacing
the injustice and irresponsibility of a riba based system with the justice and
responsibility taught by Islam. It means developing a society in which affluence
and poverty are not viewed as achievements and failures but only as different
conditions that carry with them different sets of rights and responsibilities.
Now let us ask, which of
the above is hampered by the differences between various Islamic schools? Which
of these require us to ask the question "Whose Islam?" before we can
proceed?
In map making, the prevalent
European Mercator projection system introduces distortions making some areas
much bigger and others much smaller. For example Greenland is in reality much
smaller and Africa is much bigger than the maps show. A similar distortion has
been introduced in the religious maps of the Muslim world that vastly enlarge
our areas of disagreement and tremendously reduce our common ground, thereby
portraying the picture of "so many irreconcilable versions of Islam".
That, unfortunately, sometimes the distortions may be done by insiders does
not change the fact of distortion. It is time we realized that there is something
wrong with that picture and with the question: "Whose Islam?".
[reproduced with permission
from www.albalagh.net]
Date/Time Last Modified: 6/18/2002 8:05:21 AM
© 2004, Human Development
Foundation. All rights reserved.
1350 Remington Road, Suite W, Schaumburg, Il. 60173
Toll Free: (800) 705-1310 | Email: info@yespakistan.com
| Privacy Policy
|
