伊斯蘭法(Sharia)在西方媒體的描述下，成為斷手斷腳的野蠻法律。但從穆斯林觀點來看，這種論述過於簡化與偏頗，且忽略特殊時空背景因素。
穆斯林學者認為伊斯蘭法目的是保護穆斯林個人與社群不受到傷害。實踐伊斯蘭法的目的是促進公眾利益、實踐社會正義與社會多元性。以下是一位研究伊斯蘭法的作者在半島電視台英文網站發表的文章。
文章綱要如下
1. 穆斯林為何需要伊斯蘭法？
2. 批評當前穆斯林國家對伊斯蘭法的極端詮釋，如蘇丹。
3. 何謂伊斯蘭法原則？
4. 引用數位古代穆斯林學者對伊斯蘭法與政治的評論。
5. 當前穆斯林領導人如何實踐伊斯蘭法原則？
穆斯林學者認為伊斯蘭法目的是保護穆斯林個人與社群不受到傷害。實踐伊斯蘭法的目的是促進公眾利益、實踐社會正義與社會多元性。以下是一位研究伊斯蘭法的作者在半島電視台英文網站發表的文章。
文章綱要如下
1. 穆斯林為何需要伊斯蘭法？
2. 批評當前穆斯林國家對伊斯蘭法的極端詮釋，如蘇丹。
3. 何謂伊斯蘭法原則？
4. 引用數位古代穆斯林學者對伊斯蘭法與政治的評論。
5. 當前穆斯林領導人如何實踐伊斯蘭法原則？
"Islam was never meant to be a prescribing force that dictates how society should be like," writes Ghilan [AP]
|
Islam does not seek to
turn its adherents into a monolithic group, but instead celebrates diversity
and pluralism.
Last Modified: 25 May 2013
17:18
Mohamed Ghilan is a
neuroscience PhD candidate at the University of Victoria, Canada, and a student
of Islamic jurisprudence.
The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life recently released their latest
results from a
survey of Muslims around the world on religion, politics and
society. Although there is wide variability, it seems
that most Muslims want Sharia (Islamic Law) to be the governing law of their
countries and to play an important role in the political process.
However, although the majority of Muslims agree on the general principle of
applying Sharia, they do not seem
to agree on what that term means. Given the diversity of
understanding and sources one can be exposed to in the Islamic tradition, this
disagreement should not come as a surprise.
A romanticised history leading to failed reality
Although valid religious reasons might be cited from average Muslims for
the desire of Sharia, the lack of Islamic education and
awareness about how Sharia operates raises a flag to dig deeper into their motives.
Children in the Muslim world are typically exposed to a romanticised and
utopic historical account of how Muslims of the past were. It is an image of
saints walking upon the Earth fulfilling the commandments of God and striving
for more self-purification, while at the same time studying the world and
contributing to science and the advancement of human knowledge at a miraculous
rate. They are taught that Muslims today have strayed
away so far from Islamic teachings that God is punishing them by depriving them
from what the West has accomplished.
What has been lost on Muslims today is the methodology of
"how" to be a Muslim. In selling their hypothetical utopia of the days that have
passed, those who teach Islamic history in the Muslim
world have inadvertently switched the focus from how one can be a practising
Muslim who contributes to the greater good of society, to focusing on
attempts to replicate the exact way past Muslims supposedly lived. Hence, many Muslims today are working hard to bring about quantum
mechanical speculations to reality and take everyone back in time away from
"evil" modernity. One way they do this is through advancing their
various versions of Islamopolitics.
Winston Churchill said that "tact is the ability to tell someone to
go to hell in such a way that they look forward to the trip". This tact is
exemplified in the contemporary experience of the failure of Islamopolitics in
Sudan. As Nesrine Malik pointed out last
year in response to another oppressive act of the Sudanese
government in the name of Sharia, Islamic rhetoric in politics was initially
"a way of paying lip service to religion for the government to gain
legitimacy". She mentioned how this false
cloak of religiosity now serves as a "potent tool that allows the
government to apply punishment harshly (but inconsistently) whenever it feels
the need... to invoke the emotive power of religious offence".
Aside
from siphoning as
much as $9bn out of the impoverished country, Sudanese President
Omar al-Bashir is also charged with the
Darfur genocide where he is accused of trying to wipe out
three non-Arab ethnic groups. The propaganda machine
al-Bashir employed to recruit young men to commit these atrocities based its
message on a call for Jihad. This is the consequence of an Islamopolitical
movement's rise to fame and popularity, then to power, and finally to
hegemony and oppression in the name of religion.
Misunderstanding Sharia
The situation as it stands today is not a positive one. Not only do many
Muslims have a caricatured conception of different political models, they have
also done a disservice to Islam by presenting a caricatured simpleton image of
what in reality is a rich and very complex tradition. As the author of Islam and the
Destiny of Man Charles le Gai Eaton would put it, Islam has become a "Boy Scout religion" where one
simply opens up the book of rules and implements them. Moreover, such a
presentation of Islam has made it seem to be unable to address modernity.
Islam was never meant to be a prescribing force that dictates
how society should be like. Rather, it acts as a filter that
can be taken in various societies and seeks to
eliminate ailments and celebrate their healthy aspects. In other words, Islam does not seek to turn its adherents into a monolithic
group, but instead celebrates diversity and pluralism. Numerous verses
in the Quran explicitly state this such as, "Another of His signs is the
creation of the heavens and earth, and the diversity of your languages and
colours. There truly are signs in this for those who know" [30:22].
Another verse states that God "made you into races and tribes so
that you should get to know one another" [49:13]. Even when it comes to
diversity of religions or an outright disbelief in God, the Islamic message is
about asserting that people have the right to self-determination. In fact, according to Islamic ethos, belief is of no value if
people do not have the freedom to disbelief.
In contrast to the Islamopolitical worldview, which sees that man was
made for religion, the Islamic worldview asserts that religion was revealed for
man, and this can be practically shown by way of an example. Feisal Abdul Rauf,
the imam and author who was at the forefront of the Ground Zero
mosque controversy in New York, published a
paper in the University of St Thomas Law Journal in which
he systematically shows how the American Declaration of
Independence, Bill of Rights, and Constitution are all consistent with Islamic
Law. What this paper shows is the fallacy of assuming Islam as something
foreign to be brought in place of already existing paradigms.
In addition, it also confirms a statement Averroes - the
12th century Spanish Andalusian Muslim polymath - made about Sharia, which is
that "God created the intellect and revealed the Sharia, and the two will
not contradict". In fact, the attempts to ban
Sharia law can be viewed as comical from an Islamic legal
perspective because it would entail undermining one's own legal system and
banning laws that are already in place.
Interestingly, the use of Islam as a platform
with slogans and promises of a better tomorrow is not a permissible act
according to the same Sharia these movements are calling for. Even if a slogan is
changed in order for it not to carry a religious connotation,
the presence of a religious name for a party like the "Muslim
Brotherhood" poses a problem.
Within the first two pages of the Quran is a verse that says, "When
it is said to them 'do not cause corruption in the land', they say, 'we are
only putting things right', but really they are causing corruption, though they
do not realise it" [2:11]. One of the insights from this verse noted by
the commentators of the Quran is that we should always be weary of those making
claims about rectifying current states. In Islamic history, whenever a
political movement arose with the claims of "applying the rule of
God", it was never a positive experience for the masses. For those that
came under their dominion it was expected of them to walk a very thin
line.
Many Muslims might object and exclaim that Islam is a complete way of
life. However, the assertion of Islam being a
"complete religion" and a "system" does not mean that it
sets out specific details about every single aspect of life. If that
were the case it would never be able to cope with progress and modernity. Rather,
it comes with general prescriptions (as opposed to descriptions) that have
objectives which things can be tailored for. The objection really stems from a
lack of recognition of the distinction within Islamic Law that Muslim jurists
have always recognised.
Islam can be generally divided into two branches: acts of
worship and acts of worldly transactions. The acts of worship have indeed
been set out in detail and the juristic principal that governs them for a
Muslim is that all acts of worship are impermissible except those which have
been prescribed by the Sharia to be performed. In contrast, the juristic
principal governing the acts of worldly transactions is that all actions are
permissible except those that have been singled out by the Sharia to be impermissible.
The
relevance of the principal governing worldly transactions relates to the role
humans must play in the world. As per the Islamic worldview, God did not create
human beings with intellects so that they can turn them off and behave as automatons
merely carrying out orders. Part of being in this world
is using the intellect to deliberate, reflect and make choices that can later
be reassessed in light of their consequences. Although some specifics
are dictated, and general guidelines are given, human
reason must play an active role during its presence in the world.
Islamic perspective on politics
Several
Muslim jurists have written various works on the role of religion in politics.
One of the best definitions for politics as understood in Islam is one given by
the early jurist Ibn Aqeel (d 1119) who said:
Politics is whatever action that brings the people closer to
rectification and further from destruction, even if it wasn't something
dictated by the Prophet or no Revelation has come down regarding it.
One of most prolific and often-quoted jurists in the Islamic tradition
(ironically more so by modern Saudi clerics than others) was Ibn Qayyim
Al-Jawziyya (d 1350) who pointed out a problem that continues to
this day. He said:
The fault is not with the religion. Rather, it's
with those who close every door to cultivating beneficial interests;
investigating the higher objectives of the Sacred Law; reflecting on the
consequences and priorities; and they constrict for people what God as expanded
for them and they waste for them many benefits by their
lack of understanding, stubbornness, and dogmatism. On the opposite
extreme are those who disregard the Sacred Law completely, don't stop at the
limits of God, don't restrict themselves to the Revelation, and turn religion
into malleable dough in their hands to shape it into whatever form they see fit
based on their egos, whims, and desires.
Raghib Isfahani
(d 1108), a prominent Muslim philosopher and political theorist, divided
politics into two types: the politics in which an individual deals with his own
affairs, and the politics employed by an individual to manage the affairs of
others. Ibn Khaldun
(d 1406), quite possibly the most prominent Muslim political theorist and one
of the pioneers in codifying the discipline of sociology, noted that proper
adherence to religious principals elevates the people from tribalism and allows
them to see beyond their own immediate interests. This is due to having an
absolute reference point that they all must go back to. In other words, when
everyone's focus transcends him or herself to an absolute higher power, only
then can they overcome personal interests for a higher cause.
Islam versus Muslims
The human element must be brought to the forefront of this conversation.
The way in which Islam is being considered the driving force behind
Islamopolitical movements as if it is an autonomous agent removes
accountability from the people within those movements. While
their desire for economic and social reform is commendable, their approach is
highly questionable.
After nearly a century of religious oppression by dictators,
delegitimised Islamic institutions and romanticised historical accounts that at
times may not be grounded in reality, all one has to do
is organise an Islamopolitical party, and highly educated Muslims will go along
with their delusion. Without economic, social and health care plans, and a deep
understanding of how modern geopolitics operate, these parties will fail.
But their failure will not be their own; in the minds of people it will be a
failure of Islam.
Much of the supposed conflict Muslims view with regards to separation of religion and politics has more to do
with a false perception in their minds than with an objective reality. It is
also their knee-jerk reaction to reject anything non-Muslims do as if the quality
of any action is judged by who carries it out. Sharia is an organic activity
that involves human intellect.
The current struggle is between rationalist
Muslims who want to bring forth the Islamic tradition in its complete
spectrum and dogmatist Muslims who think
classical political works written in completely different contextual realities
have some divine quality or sanctity to them. More importantly, Muslims need to
come to terms with the fact that progress is not going to come from political
parties that exploit the population's emotional connection with Islam as a
means to gain power.
Mohamed Ghilan is a neuroscience PhD candidate at the
University of Victoria, Canada, and a student of Islamic jurisprudence. He
blogs here and has an active
self-titled podcast on iTunes.
Follow him on Twitter: @mohamedghilan
You can follow the editor on Twitter: @nyktweets
The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not
necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy.
留言
張貼留言