This column was originally published in the April 2nd, 2011 edition of The Kingston Whig-Standard
As we cheer on the struggle for democracy and civil rights in many of the Arab countries, we know there are challenges. One of the critical issues is the role of religion in politics – especially any inclusion of the objectives of “political Islam.”
Though the majority of Arabs are Muslims, there are also Christian and Jewish Arab citizens, and so it is vital to see how the religion of the majority may be integrated into a democracy.
Groups, such as the Muslim Brotherhood and Wahabbis, preach that as God is sovereign in all aspects of living there can be no separation of state and religion. Those Muslims who uphold such views insist that their beliefs are based on examples from Muslim history, especially the early period.
Islamic scholar, Asma Afsaruddin, in her book – The First Muslims: History and Memory – writes about the reality of the earlier period, and then addresses the differing interpretations of that period of history by reformists and Islamists. Muslims harken back to the first three generations of Muslims, identified as Pious Forbears – al salaf al salih, for models of “good” Muslims. Afsaruddin includes the generations covering the period of 570 CE- 855 CE, identified as Companions of the Prophet, their Successors, and the Successors of the Successors. The more familiar, modern term is salaf or salafiyya and the Anglicized Salafis.
Afsaruddin challenges the position of Wahabbis that they follow the teachings and practices of the Pious Forbears – salafiyya.
She argues it is quite the opposite as the Islamists/ Wahabbis follow the practices and beliefs of the later period, a period which initiated a number of deviations from the period of the Pious Forbears. This research is significant as it challenges long – held misinterpretations by Islamists/Wahabbis which are the underpinnings of “political Islam.”
She demonstrates how certain social attitudes and legal rulings prevalent after the 9th century had veered away from Quranic perspectives on these issues. As examples, apostasy is not a punishable offence according to the Quran, but by late 8th century, many legal scholars stated that apostasy is punishable by death.
The early active participation of women was eroded as the Byzantine and Near Eastern notions of female propriety, including seclusion, began to gain ground amongst Muslims.
The concept of ummah now narrowly defines the community of Muslims, but is not in keeping with the Quranic use which included the communities of Christians and Jews.
In the Treaty of Medina, circa 624, the Prophet Mohammad made contracts with the multi-tribal and multi faith groups, and membership was based on honourable dealings, sincere friendship, mutual counsel and avoidance of treachery, not on the basis of religion.
The schools of jurisprudence were established by the ninth century, with the Hanbali being the more conservative. It is this legal school which is connected with Wahabbism and Saudi Arabia.
Muslims cannot be divided into clear cut groups, but there are marked differences between those who are more conservative/ traditionalists and those who are reformist/modernists. Their interpretation of history, historical figures, the role of religion in politics, what is immutable, and what is changeable are part of the contemporary discussion.
Afsaruddin is careful in defining individuals as “Islamists” because not all believe in the goals of Islamism, and there are many traditionalist Muslims who do not fall into either defined groups of reformists or Islamists.
Her definition of Islamism is of a “highly politicized version of Islam whose genesis occurred in the early 20th century largely as a reaction to the abolition of the caliphate in 1924, and to the debilitating effects of Western colonization.”
The prominent issues for Islamists are the establishment of an “Islamic state;” the definition of political authority; assumed immutability of “sharia;” the status and role of women; and the nature of jihad.
Islamists claim that as God is sovereign and the only source of political authority, humans cannot form a government based on any other model. They inaccurately see the Treaty of Medina as the first model of an Islamic state with religious laws governing all matters. The slogan “Islam is the solution” is meant to convey to the world that Islam addresses all issues of religion and politics as a system, not only as a faith.
Regarding women, Islamists emphasize the roles for women as wives and mothers who require male guardianship, and limit their access to public sphere. Women are seen as emotional while men are rational.
They interpret Muslim family laws as prohibiting the intermingling of sexes, mandating veiling for women, recognizing men’s guardianship of women, permitting conditional polygamy, and clearly demarcating other rights and duties of men and women.
These beliefs and practices are in contradiction with the reality of the period of the first three generations.
On the other hand, the reformists/modernists insist on the inherent adaptability of Islamic principles and their congruence with modern liberal principles of democratic government, civil society and gender equality. They argue these points from within the context of Islam and with the rereading of religious texts.
Afsaruddin concludes that reformists, and not Islamists, are more closely aligned with the more open, flexible practices of the Pious Forbears.
One can only hope scholarly research such as this will filter down to the ordinary Muslim so she can challenge the prevailing narrow and illiberal teachings of many political groups, mosques and men.
