|
|
THE PROJECTED ISLAMIC IDEAL
(Part 1)
by Anwar Shaikh |
It is a serious misrepresentation of any moral
or legal ideal to hold that one who commits murder, rape or robbery is a good
person, and therefore entitled to a great reward.
Though no Muslim likes to be subjected to such
atrocities himself, he feels a tremendous sense of pride, piety and probity when
he practises these brutalities on non-Muslims as jehad in the name of Allah, who
promises the highest prize i.e. paradise, for such heinous acts against
humanity. Can crime be justified in the name of God? And how can a crime-loving
God be respected or worshipped? The God who feels tickled when humans are
tortured to glorify Him, is not Divine.
Yet, the Muslims believe that nothing pleases Allah
more than such barbarities against non-Muslims. I think that it is a highly
blasphemous attitude toward God and requires an honest discussion to clarify the
issue. It is for this reason that I have been challenging the Muslim scholars
and divines all over the world for a frank, free and fruitful debate, but their
response, as expected, has materialized in a volley of fatwas only.
Since it is only the "India Post" of America
that has had the courage to initiate this debate, I must congratulate the
valiant ambassador of truth, which has serialized some of my essays to attract
the attention of some Muslims, who have put forward their own views in defiance
to mine, projecting the following as the Islamic ideal:
- Allah holds man in high esteem,
- Islam presented man with an utopic society, and,
- There is no coercion in Islam: a person cannot be
forced to accept or practise this faith against his will.
Since the attitude of correspondents has been emotional
rather than logical and scholarly, I may answer these points in reasonable
details:
1. Does Allah really hold man in high esteem?
The Koran explains this enigma in the myth of creation
as stated in Cow, 2:25
"And when thy Lord said to the angels,
'I am setting in the earth a viceroy.'
They said,"What, will Thou set therein one,
who will do corruption there, and shed blood,
while We proclaim Thy praise and call
Thee Holy?' He (Allah) said, "Assuredly I know that
you know not."
In simple English it means that in a meeting when Allah
told Angels that He was about to create man (Adam), who would act as His viceroy
on the earth, the angels spontaneously criticised the wisdom of this statement,
declaring that man being murderous and corrupt by nature, would turn this planet
into a place of horror. Allah retorted: "Assuredly I know that you know
not." Since man has proved himself to be the agent of mischief, misery and
malevolence, the angels' prediction has materialized in full details.
Surely, a person corrupt down to his core cannot be
praiseworthy, even if he is called a viceroy or prince; these are empty
epithets, having no genuine meaning at all. When these remarks are read with the
basic nature of man as allotted to him by Allah, then emerges his true status,
which clearly shows that man, by birth, is not commendable but condemnable. In
fact, on this issue, Koran advocates the Christian philosphy of sin.
Here is the Islamic point of view. See how Allah taunts
at the low birth of man.
(The Night Star, LXXXVI:5)
"So let man consider of what he was created;
he was created of gushing water
issuing between the loins and the breast bones."
The Koran further explains this derisory nature of man:
(The Prostration, XXXII: 7-9)
".....He (Allah) began the creation of man from clay:
Then He (Allah) made his (man's) seed from a
draught of despised fluid.
Then He (Allah) fashioned him (man) and breathed
into him of His (Allah's) spirit...."
The truth is that the Koran does not leave the reader in
any doubt about the mean status of man;
(He frowned, LXXX: 15)
"Perish man! How unthankful he is!
Of what did He (Allah) create him?
of a sperm drop...."
Why is Allah cursing man and reminding him of his low
status? Allah answers the question too;
(The Scatterers, 11:56)
"I have not created .... mankind
except to worship Me."
Allah wants to be worshipped because He desperately
desires to be praised. For example, the Koran begins with the words:
"Praise belongs to God." Again, the Cattle, VI:45, asserts
"Praise belongs to God, the Lord of all Beings."
How is God praised?
(Salvation, XXV:60)
"The servants of the All-merciful are
who pass the night prostrate to their Lord and
standing."
Again, the Koran adds:
(The House of Imran, III: 185)
"....There are signs for men possessed of
minds who remember Allah,standing and sitting
and on their sides...."
One can clearly see Allah's appetite for praise. His true
devotee must worship Him every minute of the day. This extreme for of
self-humiliation is the true adoration of Allah, who is not interested in man's
obligation to his relations and society.
A man, who is a father, a son, a bread-winner, a
patriot, must abandon all his worldly duties to eulogize Allah. Obviously, a
person with conscience cannot suspend his moral responsibilities; only a slave
can do so for having no intrinsic worth, whatever. The Koran uses the word
"ABD" for a slave and a true servant. Thus, man is servile by nature
and purpose. What real esteem can a slave have in the eyes of his master? His
value, if any, is proportionate to the servitude in relation to his owner.
2. Now, I return to the much-vaunted assertion of the
Muslims that Islam presented mankind with a utopic society.
Utopia refers to an imaginary state, first described by
Sir Thomas More in his Latin political romance (1516); it refers to any
imaginary state of perfection.
The first prerequisite for such a political state is
that it must be based on unbendable principle: it had got to be distinctly
dictatorial, oligarchic, communistic, democratic or despotic.
The plain truth is that an Islamic state is completely
ambiguous on this issue, and this fact is quite clear from the Rashida
Caliphate, which is supposed to provide the guiding principles of succession and
governance. The Prophet Muhammad claimed that he has been sent by Allah as the
Model of Behavior for mankind, and people must copy him even in the minor
details of their lives such `as eating, drinking, walking, talking, sleeping,
dressing, etc. The principle of succession, which forms the basis of governance,
and determines the socio-political nature of the society, he never enunciated
clearly. At his death, the problem of succession became very serious indeed; it
was resolved by Umar through a stratagem, and can be regarded as
quasi-democratic because it was established that the Caliph would not be elected
from any section of the Muslim community but Quresh, the tribe of Muhammad. This
is the reason that all the rulers of the Arab Empire, both in the East and the
West, were not onlyArab but also Qureshi.
Here the point to note is that these rulers were
hereditary sovereigns, and even the quasi-democratic rule adopted in the choice
of Abu Bakr, had collapsed. Umar (634-644), who succeeded Abu Bakr, was his
appointee. At his death-bed, Umar nominated a committee of six men to choose
Uthman (644-656), as his successor. The succession of the last Caliph, Ali,
(656-661) led to a civil war.
At this conjuncture, one must realize that the Shia
sect of Islam believes that only the members of the Prophet's family can be
legitimately chosen to rule the world of Islam. Therefore, Ali, the cousin of
the Prophet who also happened to be his son-in-law, was his true successor, and
therefore, Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman, the first three Caliphs of Islam were
usurpers. Holding them as impostors, the Shia express their indignation by
insulting them publicly in their annual mourning sessions. Evidently, Islam has
no particular principle of government and succession, but no utopia can be
established without clearly stated political doctrine.
One must note that the said four Caliphs, who have been
bestowed with godly reverence by their followers, were all murdered except Abu
Bakr, who suffered a natural death; he ruled only for about two years (632-34).
Do the murders of these Caliphs prove that an Islamic
state is a form of utopia? On the contrary, it demonstrates that Islam does not
have a political ideology at all. This is the reason that in some of the modern
Muslim states, we find theocracy, some have monarchy, some despotic rule, some
dictatorship, some democracy and some brute feudalism. Again, nobody precisely
knows the economic doctrine of Islam, which is an equally important constituent
of a utopian state; some faithful believe that it is a form of capitalism, some
think, it is an equivalent of communism, some call it socialism and some insist
that it is an exposition of individual charity based on personal piety, purity
and probity. The total lack of clarity on fundamental political and economic
doctrines, has led to terrible conditions in most of the Islamic countries by
way of human rights, distribution of wealth, education, health, dispensation of
justice, law and order, morality, personal safety, and so on.
The truth about the Islamic political theory is that it
advocates absolute dictatorship of Allah, who does not admit anyone's
association in His affairs. Since He cannot be seen or contacted, He imposes His
will on people thorugh His regents i.e. the Muslim rulers, who command in His
name as followers of the Prophet Muhammad. It can take several forms, but their
description lies outside the scope of this discussion.
Again, Islam is more than a civil dictatorship: it is a
military autocracy. The ruler may have a consultative body to advice him but its
advice is not binding on him; he can come to any decision he likes and it cannot
be legally disobeyed.
A Muslim faithful is free to employ secular methods of
evasion, prevarication and duplicity for setting up the Divine government. For
example, when Ali's succession was contested by Muawiyah, they decided to
resolve the issue by force of arms. Ali met his challengers on the plain of
Siffin, south of Al-Raqqah where actual encounter took place on July 28, 657;
his army of 50,000 comprised Iraqis whereas Muawiyah's soldiery consisted of
Syrians. Combatants on both sides were Muslims. They were to act as sacrificial
lambs on the ambitious power-altar of the two feuding heroes of Islam despite
the fact that, according to the Koran, murdering a Muslim is a grave sin,
punishable with the fire of hell.
Not only that, as Ali was about to win the battle, the
soldiers of Muawiyah raised copies of the Koran, fastened to the ends of their
lances. It was interpreted to mean that the war must be stopped at once and the
issue decided through arbitration according to the Koran. It was a stratagem, a
piece of trickery, legitimized by the Koran and supported by the hadith.
Hostilities were stopped at once, which was the main purpose of Muawiyah, who
was losing ground.
This ruse was reinforced by further deception; an
arbitration was set up. Ali was represented by Abu-Musa al-Ashari and Muawiyah
by Amr Ibn-al-Aas.They both were fully authorized and each had 400 witnesses to
watch and confirm the decision of the two arbiters. Of course, there are
different versions of their mutual verdict but it is usually believed that they
had agreed in private to depose both Ali and Muawiyah with a view to stopping
bloodshed of the Muslims and electing a new Caliph. However, when they met in
the assembly of 800 witnesses, the legitimate Islamic rule of war popped its
head again. It was Ali's representative Abu-Musa-al-Ashari, who first announced
the judgment, declaring that the caliphate of his master (Ali) was null and
void. On the contrary, Amr stood up and confirmed the legitimacy of Muawiyah's
claim. This betrayal wrought not only the political downfall of the house of
Muhammad but also eventually led to the massacre of the members, causing amongst
the Muslims a permanent division, which has been the bane of Islam through all
ages.
|
Previous
Essay
