By Khalid B. Sayeed, Professor Emeritus, Queen’s University Kingston, Canada
When we say that certain countries are at war with one another what we are saying is that certain countries with their political and social systems are at war with their rival social and political systems. Osama bin Laden has been condemned for unleashing terror against the United States. It was apparent that he was opposed to the whole American system with its capacity to undermine or penetrate what bin Laden regarded as ineffectively organized Muslim political and social systems.
There must have been a method in his madness for he did not just launch a ferocious and inhuman assault on New York and Washington. He chose the twin towers of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. These he thought were the nerve centers from which the muscles of America’s global military and economic systems radiated. His attacks, inhuman as they were, demonstrated a design to disrupt the global reach of America’s economic and government systems.
We are suggesting that, if for certain reasons Muslims believe that their Islamic system is in fundamental disagreement with America’s global system, Muslims should not resort to such hasty and inhuman assaults. Muslims should think carefully as to whether they can develop their own system or systems to oppose western strategies and interests. Such an opposition between world systems can be conducted peacefully in order to win world public opinion and support.
Many Muslims constantly assert that they have their own political, social and moral systems. The problem is that such assertions are not backed by any concrete policies and strategies. Until such a systematic effort to evolve certain strategies and policies is made, the claims that Muslims make on the basis of certain Qur’anic exhortations are mere claims without much strength or energy.
Zakat is one of the major pillars of the Islamic religious and moral system. Zakat is not just charity tax levied by a government or society. It is based on the central idea that the poorer sections in the community have rights or claims on the wealth of richer or more prosperous income groups. When viewed and implemented in such a fashion, zakat becomes the major instrument of social justice.
Social justice in an Islamic system flows from the bottom up whereas the capitalist welfare system in the west is basically a trickle down strategy. In the Islamic system of social justice, the key process is redistribution of both income and power. In the western capitalist system there tends to be concentration of power and wealth in the upper income groups. The system in the west tends to work because many western countries are endowed with such enormous resources of wealth and technology that they keep their societies relatively satisfied even though there are pockets of poverty and discontent down below.
There are other components of the Islamic social system, which are at best moral exhortations at present. The right to ask questions should exist as the central sub-structure of the shura (consultative council or assembly -- reference to shura is chapter 42, verse 38). Shura in the Quran is stated along with other injunctions like obedience to God and constant observance of prayers. The Qur’an states “Muslims conduct all matters of common concern in consultation among themselves.”
Professor Fazlur Rahman states that shura represents a pre-Islamic democratic institution. He also points out that the Qur’an commanded the Prophet himself (3:159) “to decide matters only after consulting the leaders of the people”. (Major Themes of the Qur’an, page 43)
T.E. Lawrence in his ‘Seven Pillars of Wisdom’ refers to his own observation of rustic, illiterate members of a tribe addressing the tribal meetings and displaying great oratorical gifts of communication.
Thus, the Qur’an is encapsulating the ongoing practices and traditions of the Arab community. To assert, as some of our dictators tend to do, that democracy cannot be practiced in a community consisting of an illiterate majority is nothing but a cloak for justifying despotic rule. Thus, in this sense, Qur’anic pronouncements regarding the right to ask questions and desirability of setting up consultative practices become springboards for new thinking and ideas which will move a community forward and closer to genuine democratic practices and institutions.
The central idea that one needs to grasp is that exhortations or ideas have to be anchored in certain concrete activities. Otherwise, as we see in Muslim countries, the right to ask questions and the shura institutions are mostly exhortations. These exhortations acquire life, blood and energy only when they are anchored in concrete activities at all levels.
A key component of the Islamic system is the concept of ulul al-bab (men of understanding) or yatafakkarun. In chapter 3, verses 190 and 191, the Quran states:
Behold! In the creation of the heavens and the earth,
And the alternation of night and day,
There are indeed signs for men of understanding.
Men who celebrate the praises of God.....
And reflect on the creation of the heavens and the earth (Translations of Yusuf Ali and Mohammad Assad combined) (Arabic verses)
Ulul al-bab or men of understanding are not often the ulama. Men of understanding are those who are occupied in learning. The ulama by and large tend to be those who have learned all there is to teach. As the saying goes, he who learns from one occupied in learning drinks of a running stream. He who learns from one who has learned all there is to teach drinks from the green mantle of a stagnant pool. Many ulama exhort us to pray and fear God for He knows everything. Khomeini said: “Pray as much as you like; it is your oil they are after -- why should they worry about your prayers?” (Hamid Algar, ‘Islam and Revolution,’ page 39)
In several instances, the Qur’an itself suggests to you how to translate exhortations into concrete strategies. There is the oft-quoted verse, which states: God changes not what is in a people,
Until they change what is in themselves (their hearts and souls).
(Arabic verses)
In this verse is embedded the concept of thaghyir (change). Does change come by mere thinking or do human beings have to undertake the further activity of establishing their control over resources, which can be gleaned from the skies and whatsoever is in the earth? This is the concept of thaskhir. The verses referring to control of resources are 31:20 and 45:13.
The concept of change in thinking processes has to combine with the concept of control over resources. It is in such fusion and translation of concepts that the intellectuals or men of understanding can play a vital role. What is the Qur’an constantly suggesting? Exhortations have to be converted into concrete activities or strategies. Most of the time our ulama are content with mere exhortations in their khutbas. The process through which variant readings are put together to form a composite text is known as conflation. This process of conflation enables us to see that certain terms or values can be converted into a public philosophy or an ideology. Can this public philosophy shape and influence human behavior in such a way that a community or society develops? We have referred to zakat. The purpose of zakat is redistribution of wealth and power. Wealth is supposed to flow from the rich to the poor so that the rich and the poor become members of a compassionate and cohesive community. When this process starts, a loose tribal society of powerful tribal leaders who dominate their poorer or dependent members starts changing into a cohesive and more integrated society. Such a cohesive or integrated society develops the capacity to manage vital resources like land or agricultural processes and oil. It is well known how oil with its enormous potential to create industrial wealth, if controlled by an independent national society, can convert a dependent or stagnant society into a prosperous society.
Muslims in Arab and Persian societies did not pursue this process and the result was foreign exploitation. One recalls Richard Nixon’s statement when he said, “Now oil is the life blood of modern industry, the Persian Gulf region is the heart that pumps it, and the sea routes around the Gulf are the jugular through which that life blood passes.” Thus one witnessed in the Middle Eastern societies that the Saudis and other sheikhs remained at the top and dominated their societies. These societies remained under western influence and control and the rulers became “friendly tyrants”. They were friendly towards their imperial masters and tyrannical toward their own people.
This regime of friendly tyrants was viewed by certain nationalists like Khomeini as western domination, which imposed galling humiliation on the people in the Middle East. Thus Osama bin Laden in all his bitterness refers to “a million innocent children dying at this time as we speak, killed in Iraq without any guilt. We hear no denunciation; we hear no edict from the hereditary rulers .... The least that can be said about those hypocrites is that they are apostates who followed the wrong path... “
His words reveal intense or even exaggerated sense of indignation. However, the challenge that a Muslim society faces is how to respond to this sense of anger and humiliation. A positive way of responding to the challenge is to examine systematically how a Muslim society can convert its traditions or values into a coherent public philosophy, which will transform the state of dependence or stagnation into a society that is both independent and vibrant. We have suggested that perhaps a coherent public philosophy can be developed out of the values and modes of action that the Muslim society has inherited from the Qur’an.