Pak Tea House » History, Identity, Islam » Looking for an Islamic Reformation I: Myths of the Golden Age
Looking for an Islamic Reformation I: Myths of the Golden Age
There is however a new thought process (or lack thereof) that has captured imagination of a few uneducated youth, usually A-Level dropouts from the UK, though their rank and file include a few professionals as well. They call themselves the Hizb-e-tahrir, and are agitating for something that they call “Khilafah”. They reject the nation state and present a vision of a utopia. They say that with the coming of the Khilafah, all ills of the Muslim world will vanish, and Islam will rise once again as the greatest ideology in the world. To prove their point, they rely on certain myths about Islamic history that have pervaded the Muslim psyche and stunted its intellectual growth. The purpose of this article is to debunk some of these myths:
The golden age of Islam is specified as between 7th century AD to the 16th Century AD when the Islamic Empires reached their zenith, in political and military might as well as scientific advancement.
Myth No.1: Muslim Rulers of the golden age were pious and adhered strictly to tenets of Islam, which is why they constituted the most advanced civilization on the planet.
This is completely untrue. With the exception of the 4 pious caliphs and a few rulers here and there, the great majority of the Muslim rulers of this age suffered from the same frailties of humanity as any Muslim alive today. Some of them drank, some liked women and had huge harems, others liked men and many a combination of any of the above. The history of Islam as documented by Tabari, Yaqoobi, Ibn-e-Asir and Ibn-e-Khuldun lends enough evidence to safely conclude that the myth above is simply is figment of an overactive Islamist imagination.
The success of the Muslims as successful scientists, thinkers, writers and medicine men had little to do with their religious piety. If you look at the lives of the greatest philosophers and scientists of the time, you will realize that a great number of them were agnostics if not completely atheists. Avicenna, Razi, and Omar Khayam were not orthodox believers.
Their success had more to do with the existing intellectual climate of the Muslim world which encouraged creativity and freedom of thought. Slowly Muslims moved away from this culture of tolerance, and adopted a narrower course which led to the stagnation that we complain of today.
Myth No.2: The Muslims of the classical age lived under the Islamic system of government called the Khilafah.
The myth here lies in the definition of “Islamic system of government” called the “Khilafah”. Any system of government has certain elements that distinguish it from other governments. These elements concern themselves with 1) How the government is formed? 2) What are the institution of this government 3) How is this government changed?
In no period of Islamic history and in no document of Islamic literature do we find any such system laid down. The earliest political entity that we find in Islam is the confederation of Medinan Tribes under the leadership of our Holy Prophet (PBUH) based on a man made constitution known in history as the “Mesaq-e-Medina”. The constitution and the government that resulted from it was political and not spiritual. Muhammad Bin Abdullah (PBUH) commanding the confidence of the Muslims of Medina, was the natural leader of this arrangement. Each tribe was autonomous in most matters except in their dealings with each other. The final arbiter of that was the Prophet (PBUH) himself and he decided according to the existing laws of the time, without any divine intervention.
Even during the period of the pious Caliphate we see that the election of each Caliph was different from the other. Consider:
1) Hazrat Abu Bakr Siddique (RA) was elected by notables after the demise of the Holy Prophet.
2) Hazrat Umar Bin Khitab (RA) was appointed by Abu Bakr and confirmed through “bait” by the rest.
3) Hazrat Usman Ghani (RA) was elected through an electoral college of 6 notables.
4) Hazrat Ali bin Abu Talib (KW) was the next obvious choice confirmed by the faithful
Which of these systems will be considered Islamic? Furthermore the Islamic rule during this earlier period was more of a confederation of tribes, as it was necessary in the existing tribal system. As the Islamic Empire expanded, the requirements forced the Muslim leadership to adopt the existing secular system of the time i.e. Monarchy. As we read more of the history of the Arabian Peninsula we become aware of an intensely political struggle that raged in a very secular fashion that had little to do with religion and more politics.
Islam as an ideology does not give a political system. Instead it seeks to reform the individual who can then go on to work diligently and honestly within the system. Political system is result of evolutionary thought, and not the result of ideology. Ideology thus works within the system to establish itself, but it is not concerned with the working of the system as such.
Myth No 3: Muslims of the Golden Age were united under one Caliphate, which is why they were successful.
Muslims of the golden age were never united. Since the time of Usman (RA), the Islamic world has been deeply divided. First it was the division between the supporters of Ali (RA) and supporters of Usman (RA). This was the manifestation of the century old power struggle between the Banu-Hashim (Holy Prophet’s tribe) and Banu-Ummaya (Abu Sufiyan’s tribe) that predated Islam. When Usman was murdered, Ali(KW) was accused by most of Usman’s supporters as being complicit of the act. Two wars were fought in this time that completely wrecked the unity of the Muslim world:
1) Battle of Jumal/Camel : Hazrat Aisha (RA), the mother of the faithful, launched a campaign against Hazrat Ali (KW). Some of the greatest companions of the Holy Prophet (PBUH) met their end at this battle.
2) Battle of Siffin: Muawiyyah, the cousin of Usman, went to war with Ali (KW). Ultimately he became the overlord of Syria, while Ali (KW) was the ruler of the remainder.
During Ali’s time, a band of brigands and extremists broke away and created their own movement within Islam. They were known as the Khawarij. One of these Khawarij murdered Ali (KW) and brought the pious Caliphate as we know it to an end. Thus the irony of Islamic history is that 3 of its 4 most pious caliphs were assassinated. Is this the Islamic unity we talk of? After Ali(KW), his son Hassan(RA) was chosen to lead the Islamic Empire. He abdicated in the favor of Muawiyah in return for a fixed pension. Before Muawiyah died, he nominated his son Yazid to be the ruler in his place. We all know the tragedy of Karballah, which led to the massacre of 72 of the Holy Prophet’s closest family.
The struggle between Banu Ummaya and Banu Hashim rose to surface once again, when a branch of Banu-Hashim, the Banu Abbass challenged the authority of Banu Ummaya. The Ummayads were over thrown and the house of Abbass inherited the Caliphate. Meanwhile the last heir to the throne, Abdul Rahman fled to Spain where he formed the rule of the ummayads again. In Egypt, in the 9th century the Fatmids established their rule. They were Ismaili Shiites from the sevener school of Shiite thought.
Thus for nearly 3 centuries the Islamic world had 3 distinct states that often allied themselves with non-Muslim powers against other Muslim powers. By the 11th and 12th centuries the Islamic world consisted of many strong sultanates such as Ghaznavi, Ghori, Seljuk, and later Zengi, Ayubi, Khawarzim, Ghulaman, Tughlaq, and Mameluke. While the Abbassid Caliph still ruled in Baghdad but his power was limited to a small area around that grand city. Perhaps the most telling aspect of “Islamic unity” of this time was the fact that when the crusaders attacked the holiest sites of Islam, not single call for Jehad was given by the Caliph of Islam. It got even worse when in the 13th century, the Caliph in Baghdad invited the Mongol warlord Genghis Khan to destroy the Khawarzim rule in Turkestan. The Caliph of Islam aided in the complete destruction and devastation of one of the biggest Muslim empires of the time. Ofcourse a few decades later the same Mongols under the leadership of Helagu destroyed Baghdad and put an end to the Abbassid Caliphate.
The Ottoman Empire was founded by a central asian adventurer named Osman. The Sultan of this Empire was not always the Caliph. The title of Caliph was adopted out of political expediency. This title brought obedience with it. The conqueror of Constantinople, Sultan Mehmet Fateh, is rumored to have even fancied becoming the head of the Orthodox Christian church. When Ottoman Empire reached its height, it was rivaled by two other great Muslim Empires i.e. Safavids in Persia and Mughals in India. The Safavids were shiites and therefore automatically hostile to the Ottomans who were largely sunnis of the Hanafi sect. The Mughals appear to be mostly unconcerned with the Ottoman Empire. They did have some contact with the Safavids and the relations between the two empires were cordial. It is clear that the Mughals did not consider the Ottoman Empire to be a Caliphate but merely another different sovereign empire.
The history of Islam, especially the golden age of Islam, is full of instances of narrow parochial, sectarian and tribal divisions. The Islamic world was never united, and it is highly unlikely that it will ever be united in the future. This is not to say that the Muslim identity does not exist. In fact there is a very strong sense of Muslim identity that exists all through out the Muslim World, but how one views one’s own identity is quite another matter. There is no one definition of a Muslim, and there is no one way of being a Muslim. While the mobilization and temporary unity of Muslims is possible for a perceived threat or injustice, but there will never be any agreement on the nitty gritty. The way forward is to accept the diversity of views, cultures, languages, and nations within the Muslim ummah. Pipe dreams of “Khilafah” will never bring together Muslims, but will bring more heartbreak to an already devastated community.
Filed under: History, Identity, Islam · Tags: Islamic History, Myths about Islam, Reformation, Renaissance
39 Responses to "Looking for an Islamic Reformation I: Myths of the Golden Age"
Leave a Reply
Recent Comments
- Kaalchakra
said Akb
Those who detest Mullahs so strongly have a... - Fingolfin
said PTH
i second Raj here. typing those posts takes t... - MA
said Dear Saad, Well done my friend on writing such a n... - saad
said Ahem: Bit like Mr. Gandhi and Mr. Nehru, the older... - AKB
said Islamophobia: Washington’s New Form Of Coloniali... - AKB said What's in a name?? Calling yerself 'ibn e Ahmed' w...
- AKB said Calling the Mullahs will only make them say you ar...
- tajender
said Perfidious Tajender Hooliganism”.
i pity u pe... - ahem
said to saad
Imagine a bus with two steering wheels... - ben 10 games online said Paktehouse.net is the best and biggest website of...
[...] By Yasser Latif Hamdani The modern age is characterized by the existence and the acceptance of nation state as a legal entity in the world order. Islamic world is no exception. Early 20th century saw the rise of nation states in the Muslim world. The process started with the emergence of the Republic of Turkey. The [...] Go to Source [...]
very interesting. pray continue. Do tell us about your ideas about if reformation is possible and how ?
so far hizb ut tehreer is concerned, it is a particular British Phenomenon, whereby second and third generation descendents of Kashmiri/Paki/subcontinental migrants (with a massive gaping generational gap and disconnect) have been hoodwinked by Arabic speaking Salafi/Whabbi scholars (with Saudi money as the biggest financial contributor). then there is added toxic mix of racism, failure to integrate, economic difficulties, identity problems, lack of political oppurtunities, British and US foreign policy and its clear and present hypocricy, which fuels it on.
Lets hear more about your ideas of ‘ how’ ?
Dear PTH moderation please remove the above post by naqli YLH from california or some other place on the west coast in the US.
Thanks.
Azhar,
Hizbut tahrir was going very aggressively into Pakistan …but was rejected by everyone.
I do have solutions and shall present them in due course of time.
YLH: Neem Hakim khatra-e-jan, Neem Mula khatra-e- Iman.
The above article is just another example of your shallow knowledge and your dishonest skills of distorting facts to win an argument.
The real points that you have either missed, or have deliberatly ignored are the fact about the formation of the first republic and its broad contours. the first republic (and thats the only system of governmnet that Muslims consider when they think about political Islam, after that is corruption of the original idea which by the way includes Ummayad, Abbasid and Ottoman dynasties that you have made the centerpiece of your argument). The firt republic lasted only forty years,but its roots went beyond 623 and can be traced to the Government of the city of Mecca and the council of Hateem. After the prophet’s demise the system was maintained and strengthened by the commonwealth of muslims and it is a distortion to suggest that it was only because of the four caliphs that the system was sustained.You only refer to the mode of election of these four caliphs entirely ignoring the role the shora, of parties and groupings, of voting and sufferage.
No serious muslim would even consider the dynastic rules that you have figured as part of the Khilafa as Khilafat (Republic), that part is known as the Malukiat(Monarchy) and has been criticised as a disease in islamic politics, you may want to read Iqbal on this subject!
The first republic has the same value for the islamic civilization what ancient and original idea of Rome is to the western civilization. It has all the elements of modern governance, an original written constitution, first in the history of mankind, election and accountability, separation of powers, judicial and policing system and military administration. We just have to look closely at these forty years to figure out the outlines of a modern democratic system of governance. And in case Muslims ever are able to find that republic again, I believe it wont be very differnt than the American democracy with certain differences.
The other point that needs to be understood is that the Islamic republic is not about a golden age or hegemony, or an empire the idea is essentially about social justice, the idea is about power to the people, about welfare and about supermacy of the divine law. The people who talk about the golden age and empires are essentially Imperialists who want to use Islam and its principles for their respective nefarious ends and are an imperial manifestation of Jinnah and FLN, those who use Islam to forward their respective politics.
Saad Abbassi sb,
Welcome back, long time since we last met. I think you have (as usual) not read the piece properly. YLH has himself said that the various “Caliphates ” which followed the Khilafat-e-Rashida were all political stunts and that the claim that they were true Caliphates are mythical.
Regards
Sa’ad Abbasi has a problem actually reading what is written. His inability to read a comment before mouthing off is legendary.
Now he has brought in Jinnah as well … Jinnah atleast never alluded to any golden age of Islam and beyond saying that democracy was central to Islamic principles (presumably what Saad Abbasi is saying ie social justice, equality for all) made any use of Islamic doctrine.
Had Saad Abbasi read the article he would know that I am creating distinction between modern system of govts including Islamic republic and the nostalgic harking back to “khilafah”. Hizbut tahrir considers the Ottoman Empire a Khilafat for example.
Interesting read.Look fwd to next part.I think the comment about Arab (oil money) influence in last 30-40 years is in itself needs an article by itself.How has that influenced( if at all) things as they stand today in many Islamic countries?
Excuse the ‘typos’ in the above comment
)
hahaha….now an DELETED is going to teach us about myths about DELETED!
yaar…why dont you go and read the DELETED and do DELETED? leave us DELETED alone
amir mian,
The reason I am not an Ahmadi -despite my highest regard for them as human beings and for the contributions they’ve made to Pakistan’s development – is primarily because Ahmadis follow the Hanafi Islamic Jurisprudence to the letter and spirit… and are victims of the same retrogressive and dogmatic stagnation that most of the Sunni community is.
If – god forbid- I were to ever associate myself with an existing sectarian/religious affiliation on merit I would choose to follow the Fiqah-e-Jafaria or Jaffari Islamic Jurisprudence… which is both more rational and progressive than the subsequent fiqahs that Islam has been subjected to.
I hope that makes things clear for you…
who is the ahmedi by the way Saad abbasi or YLH?
what is the locus standi of ahmedi’s in the muslim world? please enlighten
ohh sry didn’t see YLH’s comment he has already clarified
Alok mian,
He is accusing me of being Ahmadi because I have often supported their rights (including the right to be called Muslim which is denied to them thanks to an amendment in the constitution in 1974) in Pakistan and pointed out their contributions to the Pakistan Movement and Pakistan in general.
Apparently that makes me an Ahmadi… which would be alright if I was one… except that I have reached a point where I could care less about these standpoints.
God forbid anyone call Abbasi an Ahmadi … he would hit the roof.
YLH wrote an article on some issue related to Muslims.Already in line with the ‘comment tradition’ Jinnah, Ahmedias, Gita, Pooja etc have made an appearance.Soon it will be Gandhi and other assorted blokes who will be discussed.Maybe ‘pinkos’ too……
YLH ke article par hardly any debate/comment/discussion.
i live in mumbai…i see a lot of ahmedis,bohris,Aga khanis….some are quite discernible with women wearing colourful burqas and men wearing a diff kind of cap…..have also seen the picture of some bearded guy in lots and lots of shops..apparently they call him ‘bada mullah’ is it? stays in bombay no?…..dont know much though….
also last weekend had gone to junagadh…stayed at a well managed hotel at gir forests….the chap had a photo of a very elite foreign looking gentleman…whom later ppl told me is aga khan….then this chap husein told me that they run lot of charitable things….including a big bank (development credit bank)…..and lot many things
to tell you the truth wherever i see diversity(the more exotic the better) is quite pleasing to my eyes….never know why people /muslims get offended by them……until recently i thought they were muslims….infact in india have never heard muslims saying that these ppl are not muslims…..
on the otherhand the wahabis(dont know if they are legit or illegit muslims) send a shiver down my spine….
were the shahs of Iran descendants of safavid’s? what about seljuk turks?
alok…
They are Muslims.
Karachi and Islamabad are full of Aga Khanis … but I think you are confusing Aga Khanis with their rival group the Bohras- they are the ones with the colorful burqas … in Pakistan they are based in Karachi mostly. Aga Khanis are quite secular and modern and hence don’t have any Burqahs. Ahmadis are completely different… they are basically a Sunni Islamic sect which believe in a non-law-giving prophet after Prophet Muhammad who they consider the last sharia-giving messenger.
BTW the father of the present Aga Khan – Prince Aly Khan- was Pakistan’s most famous diplomat and Ambassador to the UN. He was quite the personality in the west (and quite famous for having married Rita Hayworth).. I think Aga Khan III (the first president of Muslim League) chose Karim Aga Khan to succeed him because of Aly Khan’s exploits globally.
All of Pakistan’s major hotel chains are owned by Aga Khanis… and ofcourse Jinnah himself was born Aga Khani though he apparently became a Twelver Shia of the Khoja variety (interesting they- the Khoja twelvers- follow Hindu inheritance law) later in his life.
Seljuk Turks were Turks… and Shah of Iran was the Qajar dynasty which replaced the Safvids I think.
Firstly, I don’t believe these myths – and I agree that they are myths – are as widespread as you make it out to be.
Those that call for, aspire towards or believe in a Caliphate for the Muslim ummah are not necessarily A-level dropouts from the UK, and many do not adhere to any particular political/religious group such as the one you mentioned.
The concept as I understand it, is basically that in your allegiance and loyalty as a Muslim lies with Islam first and foremost; your nation-state is only a secondary matter. Try reading up on a couple of articles by Muzzafar Iqbal in The News during the recent Middle East events to get a clearer picture.
Lastly, even as you remove all these myths, why then is a caliphate such a bad idea? My own as yet limited knowledge of Islam has made it quite clear that the system given to Muslims is exactly the one that you are so cynical about. Moreover, do you not see that there is a wisdom behind not elaborating a very concrete method of choosing the Caliph (although that is the least of anyone’s concern right now as this debate only comes once the importance and need of the Caliphate is recognized) and only certain clear instructions are available as to what kind of a person he may be?
You give sound reasons for what you assume has been the war-cry of some groups not sharing your opinion. However, your assumption is flawed in the first place as most of these groups would not be calling for a Caliphate based on the reasons you have given, but quite different ones altogether.
YLH has yet again brought the idea of Secular (called La-Deeniyat in Urdu) ideology to this forum.
A while back a bunch of Secular-minded people got together in US and called a “Secular Islam Summit” in order to further Secular ideas and ideology. Following is a list of people that were invited as “experts” on this subject.
Irshad Manji: Self-proclaimed lesbian. I’m not name-calling, you can search her on Google.
Ibn Warraq: Self-proclaimed Ex-Muslim. Mr. Warraq has left the deen of Islam but was invited at the Secular Islam Summit as an expert speaker.
Tawfiq Hamid: Self-proclaimed ex-terrorist.
The speaker’s list in itself talks much about the people and idea they are calling towards. I would challenge each and everyone of you (including Mr YLH) to do a simple litmus test.
On the other hand let’s look at the people warning us against this extremist secular ideology. I would highly recommend readers to listen to the following lecture by a renowned Islamic Scholar from US.
Secularism: The Greatest Danger Facing Islam – Shaykh Hamza Yusuf
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMPmMUibmYY
Go to your local mosque at Fajr time and do a survey to see how many people think that secularism is according to Quran and Sunnah.
Make a list of Islamic scholars (living and dead) and see their opinion on secularism.
As far as the question of Pakisan’s ideology comes, the answer lies with Iqbal rather than Jinnah. This shayr from Iqbal will suffice:
“Qaum madhab se hai madhab jo nahi tou bhi nahi
Jazba-e-baham jo nahi mehfil-e Anjuman bhi nahi”
YLH: Well that might not entirely be my fault, you write painfully dull, so one has no choice but to skim:) will try to read again!
YLH: Re-read it comments still remain the same sorry! you are just making and trying to win an argument by twisting historical facts to suit you r arguments.
Waris Ali,
I don’t think you’ve bothered to read the article really but a few comments nonetheless:
1. On whether it is Jinnah or Iqbal who should be followed in so far as national ideology goes- and whether Iqbal has even a fraction of the role in determining Pakistan’s ideology, you may read http://hotelmohenjodaro.blogspot.com/2009/02/allama-iqbal-is-he-relevant.html
2. 1 notwithstanding, the article and the present series is inspired by Allama Iqbal’s lectures published in book form as “Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam”.
3. I don’t have a high opinion of these so called Islamic scholars, least of all Hamza Yusuf who I’ve met. Needless to say if people like Hamza Yusuf are our guides now … we as Muslims will never rise above our current predicament and shall remain wedded to age old superstitions and backward ideas that have been used to keep us behind the rest of the world. At the very least it won’t help us get back to the golden age of reason that Islam experienced.
By the way there is some confusion about golden age here. There is no doubt that Muslims had their golden age… when they were the most advanced civilization on the planet. I think it was Hoodbhoy who said that had aliens landed in 1oth century AD, they would have held Arabs to be the flagbearers of modernity, civilization, science and technology. My point was that this golden age did not depend on religious piety.
Hope the point is clear.
Saad,
That says more about your reading comprehension than my arguments.
Have a good day.
Not wanting to get into the ‘religious’aspects of this issue as they are clearly emotive in nature……any civilisation that tries to walk fwd with head permanent;ly turned towards a real or imagined golden age is bound to make little or no progress.
This is exact same reason that Hindus too are very wary of RSS type of harking back to a golden era.These eras Muslim and/ or Hindu must have been good but they can not become replacement models for ground realities of today.Choose the best,lose the rest and march looking fwd should be the ideal ‘mantra’.
Maujamdar Sb: thankyou its been a while, no thats not what YLH is not trying to say, if you read that piece again you will see that he has lumped the first republic with monarchy, what he basically doing is confusing and confounding of things. Without even reading the rest of his theisis i know his conclusion which will be, whenever this reformations series concludes ,is that “Islam has no political system, we should adopt the western democracy” Now I dont have anything against western democracy, its a good system among other systems, however, its not readily palatable in Muslim societies because the western democracy is based on certain political theories such as of sovereignty, of suffrage, of power structures, as well as moral and legal postulates, which ofcoure are entirely different in the Islamic discourse. In my opinion a republic founded on the Islamic principles would be more acceptable in Muslim socities though in form it just might be something like the American democracy, but it will also differ in respects of popular sovereignty, system of elections etc .
What Mr. hamdani is doing amounts to denigarating a valuable historical experience which can be used to build a modern Islamic republic. Please note how he has highlighted the difference of election methodology of the first four Caliphs ignoring the spirit behind it and and then he quickly moves on to Ummayads and Abbasids and the rest. That is what is either dishonest, or represents a lack of knowledge.
He furthur goes on and suggests “In no period of Islamic history and in no document of Islamic literature do we find any such system laid down”. Wrong again, the Islam prescribes Republic as the system of government, because the prophet practiced it in his life, and being a Muslim involves, accepting the precepts of the Prophet as binding. Mr. Hamdani has dismissed that fact as a confederation of tribes. All republics both modern and ancient were and are essentially confederations of tribes, at one time these tribes were represented in terms on Bani Hashim and Bani Ummaya, yet at another time they might become the tribe of the corporations and the tribes of the workers or the tribes of the Republic and the tribes Democrats, its about the times that man lives in and not about change in humman instincts.
The prophet could easily declared himself the King of Medina, because at that particular juncture the city of Yathrib was in process of choosing a king the had chosen the person, Abdullah bin Abi Salool a leading notable of the city and even a crown of pearls was ready for his coronation ceremony. Now that is a piece of evidence which shows prophet leaning towards a more democratic system of government, the holy prophet became the final arbitar among the tribes and thus sort of a president of a governing council. And during hi life time this intial system of governance was strengthened and expanded, till by the end of the first republic this very system of governance was being used to administer a territory stretching beyong 2 million sqaure miles. And yet Mr Hamdani is dismissing it as an aberration!!!!
Saad Abbasi,
It seems to me that this is what you want to see. There is a very clear distinction between the republic of the Khilafat-e-Rashda and the subsequent Malookiat and I have made it abundantly clear.
Now you can go on in circles but that shows your own ignorance and inability to comprehend simple and plain English language… not to mention your inability to read before commenting.
Sa’ad if we take your disourse on this issue as the correct one even then the question remains,what is it that has held back Muslim countries from evolving some kind of a governement system in atleast some countries that comes closest to the precepts of the Prophet?They have had centuries to experiment and hone a system that could work.There are so many Muslim countries but not one seems to have inspired the Muslims around the world to copy/follow that model.
There is so much talk of jehad,actual jehad,blaming others but no actual state that seems to work for ‘all’Muslims, addressing their varied aspirations.
Maybe it is this vacumn that the militant sorts try to occupy….just a thought.
Quote from the article:
“The earliest political entity that we find in Islam is the confederation of Medinan Tribes under the leadership of our Holy Prophet (PBUH) based on a man made constitution known in history as the “Mesaq-e-Medina”. The constitution and the government that resulted from it was political and not spiritual. Muhammad Bin Abdullah (PBUH) commanding the confidence of the Muslims of Medina, was the natural leader of this arrangement. Each tribe was autonomous in most matters except in their dealings with each other. The final arbiter of that was the Prophet (PBUH) himself and he decided according to the existing laws of the time, without any divine intervention.
Even during the period of the pious Caliphate we see that the election of each Caliph was different from the other. Consider:
1) Hazrat Abu Bakr Siddique (RA) was elected by notables after the demise of the Holy Prophet.
2) Hazrat Umar Bin Khitab (RA) was appointed by Abu Bakr and confirmed through “bait” by the rest.
3) Hazrat Usman Ghani (RA) was elected through an electoral college of 6 notables.
4) Hazrat Ali bin Abu Talib (KW) was the next obvious choice confirmed by the faithful
Which of these systems will be considered Islamic? Furthermore the Islamic rule during this earlier period was more of a confederation of tribes, as it was necessary in the existing tribal system. As the Islamic Empire expanded, the requirements forced the Muslim leadership to adopt the existing secular system of the time i.e. Monarchy. As we read more of the history of the Arabian Peninsula we become aware of an intensely political struggle that raged in a very secular fashion that had little to do with religion and more politics.
Islam as an ideology does not give a political system. Instead it seeks to reform the individual who can then go on to work diligently and honestly within the system. Political system is result of evolutionary thought, and not the result of ideology. Ideology thus works within the system to establish itself, but it is not concerned with the working of the system as such.”
I think it is quite clear that I have drawn the distinction between the Khilafat-e-Rashda (and if I hadn’t, I would say so) and the Malookiat that followed.
It is not as much as “Islam does not give a political system and we should adopt western democracy” but rather democracy is not western or eastern and that Islam’s idealism can work within any system i.e. monarchy, tribal confederation and democracy.
The real difference is on this line: “western democracy is based on certain political theories such as of sovereignty, of suffrage, of power structures, as well as moral and legal postulates, which ofcoure are entirely different in the Islamic discourse”
I reject this notion. I think Islamic discourse accepts sovereignty of the people, suffrage, power structures and legal postulates that are now associated with Western democracy.
The difference between western democracy and its eastern – dare I say Islamic- democracy would be that the latter would have at its civic base Islam as inspiration whereas west has built on judaeo-christian moral framework.
YLH,
I agree with you completely with respect to your comment on the Fiqh Jafria.
It gives a better share to women (just check the share other fiqhs give the grandmother), it does not recognize the triple talaq which is actually a biddat (innovation).
Also, it requires two witnesses for divorce, which the other fiqhs do not.
Vandana,
Ancient Islam was very progressive and dynamic. Rapid strides were made in Algebra, Astronomy, Chemistry and many other sciences.
Unfortunately, later, Islam was trapped in morass of medievalism, and since then, it has not been able to extricate itself from this trap.
Dynamic thinking and a modernist approach are the need of the hour.
Thanks for the reply and clarificationMilind.My question still is : are Shias any better off than Sunnis in the matters of progress and dynamism?
There are Caliphate supporters in all varieties. Some look for golden age of the time immediately around the death of the Prophet, others picking up subsequent Caliphate dynasties that were abound throughout the history. There are a few problems with this Utopian vision; utopia by definition means an imaginary land.
For the first four caliphs, as much as they did admirable governance during nascent Islamic days, the divisions and governance was less than ideal. Two of the caliphs were murdered, there were allegations of nepotism against one of them, there were deep schisms developing in the society right after prophet’s death due to choice of caliphs, and the methods of their elections varied with each caliph. Tarek Fatah, a notable Muslim secularist (horrifying isn’t it) in Canada has written an excellent book “Chasing a Mirage: The Tragic Illusion of an Islamic State” explaining the events of the power struggle and bloodshed that happened during the reign of first four caliphs. This is a touchy subject, so let’s just say that the role model of the first golden age is far less than ideal that many of us would like it to be.
The Islamic period did enjoy its comparatively golden age, but the Abbasids in Baghdad and Fatimids in Egypt were periodically far more tolerant to allow reason to flourish. A free thinking sect arose in the early Islamic period called Mutazzalites, who gave a lot more importance to reason and rationality than the fatalists rooted in the religious creeds. The rise of Mutazzalites was more a symptom of the Muslim society allowing much generous freedom of thought, something that was virtually non-existent in the Europe of the Dark Ages. The freethinking strain in the Muslim society lost due to the combination of Mutazzalites’ own autocratic ways, as well as the definite move by the Muslim society towards religious fatalists which was probably a result of the inevitable fall of dynasties due to the geographic cataclysms during those centuries.
The tragedy is that at one level, our right wing colleagues recognize that progress made by the West in social and scientific disciplines was a direct consequence of getting rid of the religious grip that had stifled the quest for rationality for more than a thousand years. Yet the same approach is suddenly not workable for the Muslim world, because it means separating the religion completely from the state. I have noticed there is an antipathy here regarding the word secularism; for some reason recognizing that we are humans first and foremost and have equal fundamental rights irrespective of our religion or caste becomes abominable as it excludes Islam as the principle arbiter of the societal values.
Adnann
Vandana,
To the best of my knowledge Shias are better off in those areas. However, they have their own challenges..
Shias are certainly better off if you consider that their fundamentalism has produced Islamic Republic of Iran which is despite its pitfalls and flaws integrating women into the work force and sending satellites into space autonomously.
Compare this to the Islamic Emirate that the Taliban created or the treatment of women in Saudi Arabia or Sudan …
YLH,
The Shia tradition has always been to honor women. The esteem in which Shias hold Hazrat Khadija, Hazrat Fatima and Sayyida Zainab is testimony to this.
What Ayatollah Khomeini said about women in Iran was, “The Iranian women are in the vanguard of the Islamic Revolution. The nation belongs to them.”
In this I will have to agree with Yasser. Shias are more progressive than ther Sunnis. Apart from the examples he cites, I’d come to this conclusion from my personal experience too.
Indian Shias, for example, treat their women a lot better than the Sunnis and are, generally, less dogmatic.
Interestingly, Shias are also economically better off (I think). At least this holds true for the Bohras.
However, I have no idea why this is so. Maybe Yasser or someone else might care to shed some light on this.
Re the Iran Shahs. The Qajar dynasty died out and was replaced by the Iranian Majlis, I think circa 1925. Reza Khan assumed the title of Shah of Iran under the Pahlavi dynastic title.
The Iranians too were Sunni till the end of the 15th century when Ismail as Shah declared himself a twelver Shia and insisted on his subjects converting to that school of the faith.
Is the minor degree of latitude allowed by Shia to their women folk sufficient to consider them more progressive than their Sunni bretheren? Do non Muslim commentators feel sufficiently free of their own religious bigotries to comment on the faith of others? One needs to tread warily here.
only twellvers shia`s are original muslims becouse their imams are from holy family of our beloved prophet Muhammad,pbuh ,thats why shia`s are more secular becouse shia`s know actual islam that is peace and safty of all human being..sunni religions founder father abu huraira was jew amir muavia was enemy of islam who become muslim after the quraishs were defeated in mecca by muslims,muavia was father of sunni leader yezid the killer of imam hussain hazrat muhammads grandson,abu hanifa was son of Hindu/parsi father of kabul,so sunni religion is defferent from ISLAM which now known as shia Islam.