By S. Arshad, New Age Islam
09 May 2018
Muhammad Asad was a
scholar of Islam who had converted from Judaism to Islam at the age of
26 years. After his conversion, he travelled extensively through the
Muslim world and studied the Quran and Hadith comprehensively. He
translated and wrote the commentary of the Quran which is one of the
best English translations of the Quran. After the Second World War many
Muslim nations became independent from the British Empire and the
question of the form of government for them was of the utmost concern
for them.
In 1932 Muhammad
Asad came to India and met Allama Iqbal who persuaded him to make India
his home and work for the spiritual premises of the Muslim confederation
of states within India he had envisaged. When India was divided and
Pakistan was born as a Islamic country, he became the first passport
holder citizen of Pakistan. He was appointed as Pakistan’s minister
plenipotentiary to the United Nations. The new-born nation of Pakistan
was struggling under the various ideological forces within the country
who tried to shape the political structure of Pakistan according to
their own vision.
Muhammad Asad saw in
Pakistan a great scope of experimenting with Islamic principles of
statecraft. Not only for Pakistan but also for other predominantly
Muslim countries that had attained independence and were trying to shape
themselves as Islamic countries but they did not have the theoretical
basis for making themselves Islamic countries in the truest sense of the
term, Muhammad Asad studies the Quran and the Hadith to draw an outline
of the Islamic state and government. As result, he came up with his
essays on the issue which later was compiled in the book titled
Principles of State and Government in Islam. This book presented the
theoretical basis for a clear cut idea of the form of an Islamic
government. This was possible because being a convert, he was free of
all the ideological and sectarian prejudices of a born Muslim and could
study the Quran and the Hadith with an open heart and liberal mind.
Muhammad Asad wanted
an Islamic state to be fully founded on Quran and Sunnah but on the
spirit of Ijtihad considering the needs and requirements of the Muslims
of the modern times. In his book he has given his idea of an Islamic
state. But before giving out his findings on the subject, he first asks
the question whether an Islamic state was necessary for Muslims to live
successfully as a religious community and if yes, what should be its
nature and form. He says:
“A state
inhabited predominantly or even entirely by Muslims is not necessarily
synonymous with an “Islamic state”: It can become truly Islamic only by
virtue of a conscious application of the socio-political tenets of Islam
to the life of the nation, and by an incorporation of those tenets in
the basic constitution of the country.”
As Maulana Abul Ala
Maududi envisaged that Muslims should strive to establish
Hukumat-e-Ilahiyya at all times and in all circumstances, Muhammad Asad
tries to answer this question in the following words:
“Does Islam
really expect the Muslims to strive, at all times and under all
circumstances, for the establishment of an Islamic state – or is the
desire for it based only on their historical memories? Is Islam really
so constituted that it demands of its followers a definite course of
political, communal action --- or does it perhaps leave, as other
religions do, all political action to be decided by the people
themselves in the light of the exigencies of the time? In short, is the
“mixing of religion with politics” a genuine postulate of Islam, or
not?”
Muhammad Asad feels
that for Muslims to live up to the expectations of the Quran and the
Sunnah, they should have a state of their own where they can fulfil
their duty of Amr Bil Marul WA Nahya an Al Munkar. For that he argues;
‘The enjoining of what is right and forbidding what is wrong (Al Amr Bil Maruf Wan Nahy An Al Munkar)
--- or to phrase it differently, the creation and maintenance of such
social conditions as would enable the greatest possible number of human
beings to live in harmony, freedom, and dignity. Now, it is obvious that
anti-social behaviour on the part of one person may make it difficult
for other persons to realize this ideal; and the larger the number of
such “rebels”, the greater the difficulty for the rest. In other words,
the community’s willingness to cooperate in terms of Islam must remain
largely theoretical so long as there is no worldly power responsible for
enforcing Islamic Law and preventing rebellious behaviour – at least in
matters of social concern - on the part of any of the community’s
members. This responsibility can be discharged only by a coordinated
agency invested with the powers of command (Amr) and prohibition
(Nahya); that is, the state. It follows, therefore, that the
organization of an Islamic state or states is an indispensable condition
of Islamic life in the true sense of the word.”
So he comes to the
conclusion that an Islamic state is indispensable for Muslims to be able
to fulfil the requirements of the Quran and the Sunnah. Since almost
all the Muslim scholars of the medieval and even 20th century were of
the view that since the Caliphate of the four rightly guided caliphates
was the most successful form of government that enabled Muslims to
achieve the highest degree of material and spiritual success and
prosperity, only Caliphate was the model form of government for Muslim
dominated countries. Those who opposed this idea were termed anti-Islam
and their reverence for the rightly guided caliphs was questioned.
Muhammad Asad has his own views on this issue. He writes;
“There has never
existed a truly Islamic state after the time of the Prophet and of the
Medina Caliphate headed by the Prophet’s immediate successors, the four
Rightly-Guided Caliphates, Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman and Ali. That Medina
Caliphate was truly Islamic in the sense that it fully reflected the
pristine teachings of both the Quran and the Prophet’s Sunnah and was as
yet unburdened by later-day theological accretions and speculations.
Whatever forms of state and government came into being in Muslim
countries after that first, earliest period were vitiated, in a lesser
or higher degree, by ideological deviations from the erstwhile
simplicity and clarity of Islamic Law, or even by outright, deliberate
attempts on the part of the rulers concerned to deform and obscure that
Law in their own interests.” (Author’s note)
He also criticizes
the Muslims’ preoccupation with Khilafat and their belief that only
Khilafat can lead Muslims to the power and glory first generation of
Muslims achieved. Muhammad Asad opposes this idea and belief of Muslims
and conservative Islamic scholars. He argues that Khilafat was the
earliest form of government and it was only an experimental phase not
the end product and that Muslims have advanced from the sixth century to
the 2oth or 21st century and so they should shape their state according
to the needs and requirements of the age.
“I am referring,
more particularly, to the idea prevailing among many Muslims, both in
the past and in the present, that there could be but one form of state
deserving the adjective “Islamic” ---- namely, the form manifest under
the four Rightly-Guided Caliphs – and that any deviation from that model
must necessarily detract from the “Islamic’ character of the state.
Nothing could be more erroneous than this idea. If we examine
objectively the political ordinances of Quran and Sunnah, we find that
they do not lay down any specific form of state; that is to say the
Shariah does not prescribe any definite pattern to which an Islamic
state must conform, nor does it elaborate in detail a constitutional
theory. The political law emerging from the context of Quran and Sunnah
is, nevertheless, not an illusion. It is very vivid and concrete in as
much as it gives us the clear outline of a political scheme capable of
realization at all time and under all conditions of human life. But
precisely because it was meant to be realized at all times and under all
conditions, that scheme has been offered in outline only and not in
detail. Man’s political, social and economic needs are time bound and,
therefore, extremely variable. Rigidly fixed enactments and institutions
could not possibly do justice to this natural trend towards variation;
and so the Shariah does not attempt the impossible.” P 23
He further writes:
“The outward
forms and functions of an Islamic state need not necessarily correspond
to any “historical precedent”. All that is required of a state in order
that it might deservedly be described as “Islamic” is the embodiment in
its constitution and practice of those clear cut, unambiguous ordinances
of Islam which have a direct bearing on the community’s social,
political, and economic life.”
Therefore, Muhammad
Asad is of the view that a modern Islamic country should be based on
modern political structure according that fulfils both the requirements
of the Quran and Sunnah and also corresponds to the political, social
and economic conditions of the time. So, he opines that the modern forms
of governments can be used by Islamic countries with variations that
suits them in the application of the Quranic nusus and ordinances.
However, he is against the use of Western terminology in the formation
of a Islamic state. Though it may take most of the features of the
modern Western forms of the state, it should make suitable modifications
and changes to make it compatible with Quranic principles. Therefore,
he is of the view the multiparty parliamentary democracy will be
compatible to Islam. He also finds that the presidential form of
government will be closer to the requirements of a model Islamic state.
He writes:
“In view of all this,
it would seem that a “presidential” system of government, somewhat akin
to that practiced in the United States, would correspond more closely
to the requirements of an Islamic polity than a “parliamentary’
government in which the executive powers are shared by a cabinet jointly
and severally responsible to the legislature. In other words, it is the
Amir alone to whom all administrative powers and functions should be
entrusted and it is he alone who should be responsible to the Majlis –
and through it to the people for the policies of the government.”
The basis of his
conclusion is that fact that in Islam, the head of the community is the
Amir or imam and he works in consultation with his close circle.
Consultation is the basic principle in all the affairs of the Muslims.
The Quran says; Amruhum Shura Baynahum (Their all communal
businesses are transacted in consultation among themselves). The Amir
will head the government who will work in consultation with his cabinet
ministers who are responsible to the people for their policies and
actions.
While shaping the
contours of an Islamic state, Muhammad Asad advises Muslims to avoid the
Western terminology because an Islamic state will be a pragmatic mix of
the old and the new. So he writes:
“Not infrequently we
find in the writings of modern Muslims the assertion that “Islamic is
democratic” or even that it aims at the establishment of a ‘socialist’
society; whereas many Western writers refer to an alleged
‘totalitarianism” in Islam which must necessarily result in
dictatorship.” While criticizing Muslim scholars, he probably kept
Allama Iqbal who had the view that ‘Social Democracy” was most
compatible with Islam. Muhammad Asad was against seeing the state of
Islam from the prism of Western terminology. Muhammad Asad’s democratic
state will be democratic in the sense that it will not be based on
secularism but on religious values and principles. For his opposition to
secularism, he gives the argues that:
“In a modern
secular state there is no stable norm by which to judge between good and
evil, and between right and wrong. The only possible criterion is the
“nation’s interest”. But in the absence of an objective scale of moral
values, different groups of people – even within one nation – may have
and usually do have widely divergent views as to what constitutes the
nation’s best interests. He has further said: “It has become evident
that none of the contemporary Western political system – economic
liberalism, communism, national socialism, social democracy and so forth
– is able to transform that chaos into something resembling order:
simply none of them has ever made a serious attempt to consider
political and social problems in the light of absolute moral
principles.”
Another example of
the defect of a secular system is that moral and ethical values are
ignored and suppressed in the name of freedom of expression and freedom
of belief and ideology. For example, the practice of homosexuality which
is a sin under Islam and other religions is permissible in a secular
state on the basis of personal freedom. More examples of social and
moral degeneration of society being promoted under the pretext of
secularism and freedom of expression can be presented. That’s why
Muhammad Asad believes that a government based on religious values will
be more humane and just. He writes:
“It is
reasonable therefore, to presume that a state built on the foundations
of religion offers an infinitely better prospect of national happiness
than a state founded upon the concept of a “secular” political organism;
provided, of course, that the religious doctrine on which such a state
rests – and from which it derives its authority -- makes full
allowance, first, for man’s biological and social needs, and second,
for the law of historical and intellectual evolution to which human
society as a whole is subject.” P 10
Therefore, an Islamic
state will be based on Shariah – that is the ordinances and injunctions
laid down in the Quran and the Sunnah.
“Thus, the real
source of all sovereignty is the will of God as manifested in the
ordinances of the Shariah. The power of the Muslim community is of a
vicarious kind, being held, as it were, in trust from God; and so the
Islamic state -- which, as we have seen, owes its existence to the will
of the people and is subject to control by them -- derives its
sovereignty, ultimate, from God. If it conforms to the Shar’i
conditions on which I have dwelt in the preceding pages, it has a claim
to the allegiance of its citizens in consonance with the words of the
Prophet”
However, about the
Shariah also, Muhammad Asad has his own unconventional views. He says
that the large volumes of Fiqhi deductions made a thousand years ago by
Islamic scholars under their own circumstances according to their
individual understanding of the Quran and Sunnah in the light of the
contemporary problems and issues has been given the status of Shariah
which is not correct. He says that the original Shariah is very short
and concise and based only on the nussus of the Quran and Hadith. He
says:
“It is the nusus
of the Quran and Sunnah – and only these – that collectively constitute
the real, eternal Shariah of Islam”. P13
“The real Shariah is extremely concise and therefore easily understandable.” P 14
For his conclusion, he gives the following arguments:
“As is well
known, not all the laws which form the subject matter of conventional
Muslim jurisprudence (Fiqh) rest on injunctions expressed in clear cut
terms of command and prohibitions in Quran and Sunnah. By far the larger
part of Fiqhi rulings are the outcome of various deductive methods of
reasoning, among which Qiyas (deductions through analogy) figures most
prominently. The great Fuqaha (jurists) of the past arrived at their
legal findings on the basis of their study of Quran and Sunnah, and
there is no doubt that in the instance of the foremost exponents of Fiqh
this study was extremely deep and conscientious. Nevertheless, the
results of these studies were often highly subjective: that is, they
were determined by each scholar’s personal approach to, and
interpretation of the legal sources of Islam, as well as by the social
and intellectual environment of his age.””p 11
“Originally, all such
rulings were intended by their authors to facilitate the application of
Shar’i principles to specific questions. In the course of time,
however, these rulings acquired in the popular mind a kind of sacrosanct
validity of their own and came to be regarded by many Muslims an
integral part of the Shariah, the Canon Law itself.” -
“Thus, the true
Shariah is far more concise and very much smaller in volume than the
legal structure evolved through the fiq’h of various schools of Islamic
thought.” P 12
Muhammad Asad asks
Muslims to take resort to Ijtihad in the formulation of the new shariah
taking into consideration all the necessities and needs of the time and
the challenges faced by the modern-day Muslims rather than sticking to
Fiqhi deductions made one thousand years ago by the scholars of that
time. He says that God wants Muslims to be a thinking community asking
in Quran numerous times to think, to ponder and to do research. In other
words Quran does not want Muslims to be parrots or a nation devoid of
creative thinking. He says;
“The Law-giver
meant us Muslims to provide for the necessary additional legislation
through the exercise of our Ijtihad (independent reasoning) in
consonance of the spirit of Islam. It must of course be understood that
any Ijtihadi legislation we may evolve under the inspiration of Quran
and Sunnah (occasionally even with the help of the Ijtihad of past
generation) will always be subject to amendment by the Ijtihad of those
who will come after us: that is to say, it can amount to no more than a
temporal, changeable law subject to the authority of the irrevocable,
unchangeable Shariah which is self-evident in the nusus of Quran and
Sunnah.” Page 14
So, to solve the
problem of different schools of Fiqh, Shafi’i, Hambali, Hanafi, Maliki
and Jafria, he suggests that the Majlis-e-Shura of the Islamic state
will select scholars of all the schools of Fiqh who will work on the
preparation of a common fiq’h which will be acceptable to the followers
of all the schools of fiq’h. He writes:
““The Majlis as
Shurah shall elect a small panel of scholars representing the various
schools of Fiqh, fully conversant with the methodology and history of
the Quran and the science of Hadith and entrust them with the
codification of Shariah laws.” P 103
However, he exhorts
Muslims to interpret the Quran and Sunnah with the spirit of ijtihad
because only with the spirit of Ijtihad, they can create a truly Islamic
society and state. Those who are of the opinion that only Khilafat is
the ideal form of government for an Islamic state live frozen in time as
they do not understand that the world has moved on from the sixth
century experimental age and new challenges and issues face the Muslims.
He writes:
“A state which
in the lifetime of the prophet embraced only agricultural and pastoral
communities with simple needs and comparatively static problems suddenly
became the heir to the most complicated Byzantine and Sassanian
civilizations. At a time when almost all the energies of the government
had to be directed toward military consolidation and ensuring the
minimum of administrative efficiency, new, staggering problems were
arising every day in the sphere of politics and economics. Governmental
decisions had often to be made on the spur of the moment and thus of
necessity many of them were purely experimental. To stop at that first
splendid experiment and to contemplate, thirteen centuries after the
Rightly Guided Caliphs, the organization of an Islamic state in exactly
the same form, with exactly the same institutions in which their state
was manifested would not be an act of true piety: it would be rather a
betrayal of the Companions’ creative endeavour.”
On Minorities in Islamic State
On the issue of
treatment of minorities or non-Muslims in a Islamic state, Muhammad Asad
has his own views influenced by his own understanding of the Quran and
Sunnah. He does not use the terms ‘Dhimmy’ and ‘Jizya’ while explaining
their status in a Islamic state. He believes that non-Muslims should get
equal treatment in the all the spheres of social life. He is also in
favour of giving them important posts in the government. However, he
says that a non-Muslim should not be given the post of Amir in a Islamic
state. For his view, he gives the following argument:
“They must be
accorded all the freedom and protection which a Muslim citizen can
legitimate claim: only the may not be entrusted with the key position of
leadership. One cannot escape the fact that no non-Muslim citizen –
however great his personal integrity and his loyalty to the state –
could, on psychological grounds, ever be supposed to work wholeheartedly
for the ideological objectives of Islam.”
However, in all the
other spheres of political life, the non-Muslims will enjoy all the
freedom and care because Muslims are called the best Ummah that cares
for all the humanity and not for Muslims alone. He writes;
“In order to overcome
the apprehensions of the non-Muslim world in general and of our
non-Muslim citizens in particular, we must be able to show that the
socio-political scheme of Islam aims at justice for Muslim and
non-Muslim alike, and that in our endeavour to set up a truly Islamic
state we Muslims are move by moral considerations alone. It is, in
short, our duty to prove to the whole world that we really intend to
live up to these words of the Quran:
“You are the best
community, raised for the welfare of the humanity because you enjoin
what is right and forbid what is wrong and have faith in God.”
In the end he sums up his message to the Muslims in the following words:
“The ideology of
Islam is as practicable or as impracticable as we Muslims choose to make
it. It will remain impracticable if we continue to confine our concept
of Islamic Law to the Fiqhi concepts of our past; but its practicability
will at once become apparent if we have the courage and imagination to
approach it with fresh unprejudiced minds and exclude from its orbit all
conventional, Fiqhi “deductions”. P 107
Source: Principles of State and Government in Islam by Muhammad Asad
New Age Islam, Islam Online, Islamic Website, African Muslim News, Arab World News, South Asia News, Indian Muslim News, World Muslim News, Women in Islam, Islamic Feminism, Arab Women, Women In Arab, Islamophobia in America, Muslim Women in West, Islam Women and Feminism
7:45 AM
Moderate Islamist here
0 comments:
Post a Comment