t is
regrettable that unnecessary controversies and obfuscation have tended
to becloud the otherwise clear message of Islam. Many people believe
that our ulema have done more harm to Islam than our familiar enemies.
What our prophet brought to us was a religion for
the masses. It is a religion of common sense. It builds on our innate
sense of what is right and what is good. That such a simple and pure
religion should be wafted about by ‘scholarly’, long-winded and futile
disputations is unfortunate. Particularly problematic are the
statements by many Islamic leaders expressing their insistence on
establishing Shariah laws and their opposition to democratic and
secular forms of government.
Our ulema and scholars should instead expound on
what the Koran has to say about issues such as: 1) Getting along with
our non-Muslim neighbours; 2) Respecting the religions and beliefs of
non-Muslims; 3) Equality of men and women; 4) Freedom of speech,
freedom of thought and freedom to dissent; 5) Using only humane forms
of punishment of criminals; 6) Democratic forms of government; 7)
Secularism: separation of state from religion, and equal rights for
minorities; 8) Avoiding violence and considering murder of innocent
civilians to be an abominable act; 9) Resolving problems through
reconciliation and compromise; 10) Not being spiteful or vindictive;
and 11) Upholding the dignity of men and women.
The Koran does have enlightened, sensible and
useful things to say regarding all of the above points but,
unfortunately, these are seldom elucidated in Friday mosque sermons,
lectures or newspaper articles. Some progressive Muslims even advocate
“Islamic democracy” as something they consider to be desirable and
wholesome. This reduces members of religious minorities to
second-class citizenship. The plight of Hindus, Sikhs and Ahmadiyyas
in Pakistan, Bahai’s in Iran and Tamils in Malaysia is cautionary.
The state and the government are there to serve all
citizens and not to delve into matters of religious belief. A clean
separation between state and religion is necessary in all countries
that want to be considered civilised. Would Muslims in India or the
United States be happy if their countries became a “Hindu democracy”
or a “Christian democracy”? If such a state of affairs is not good for
us, it is not good for religious minorities in Muslim-majority
countries either.
In Germany, the Christian Democrats and Social
Democrats are both secular parties. Many West European countries are
nominally Christian, the queen of England, for example, is the
official head of the Church of England, but in practice these
countries are secular. However, in countries that call themselves
‘Islamic’, such a mature and moderate attitude is usually not seen.
The laws and Constitutions in ‘Islamic’ countries tend to gravitate
towards religiosity and intolerance. Although Indonesia has a secular
Constitution, in 2003 Aceh province was allowed to have partial
Shariah laws. In Turkey, the army has to watch like a hawk to ensure
that secularism is not jeopardised. The best thing for Muslim-majority
countries would be to introduce a constitutional dispensation such as
the first amendment to the American Constitution which flatly states
that the “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion”.
Ideally, political parties should not be based on
any religion. They should distinguish themselves from each other by
the economic, social, defence or health service programmes that they
offer as well as by the character of their leaders. But today
religion-based political parties are a fact of life. Consequently,
people may have the choice of voting for either a secular or a
religious party but even so it is imperative that the state has no
religion and the government is neither for nor against any religion.
The simple point is that “Islamic democracy” is just not true
democracy. If religion and state are not kept apart from each other,
they are both likely to be diminished. Religion flourishes best in the
private non-governmental sphere.
Both Iran and Pakistan have made a mockery of
Islam, and their governments have not been too successful either.
Paradoxical though it may seem, Islam and Shariah may have the best
prospects: to adapt, reform and flourish: in India and the United
States rather than in any Muslim-majority country. Shariah basically
requires that our laws be fair, just, equitable and sensible. Current
American laws and the amended Hindu laws are in many respects more
Islamic than Shariah laws as practised in many communities.
I find the distinction between deen (way of
life) and mazhab (religion) to be not very useful. Deen
and mazhab are the same as far as I am concerned. Trying to
distinguish one from the other introduces complexities in what is
supposed to be a simple faith for the masses. Islam for me is a matter
of faith (iman) in the unity of god and His expectation that we
shall be moral and righteous creatures. Having a rigid code setting up
a comprehensive system or “way of life” that extends to all aspects of
human existence sounds like a prescription for totalitarian or
authoritarian oppression.
