HAS THE SHARIA BEEN APPLIED BEFORE?
Table of Contents
Islamists have said that the Islamic Sharia is the only rescue operation
capable of saving humankind from their confusion, bewilderment, anxiety,
turmoil, and evils. They have claimed that it has become an urgent need of
humanity, made necessary by the invalidity of the Western and Eastern
patterns of government, since these, they say, lack the element of
permanence. They have also claimed that, "The Sharia of Islam is the only
solution because it is above human inclinations and mortal defect. It is
not
subject to the criteria of right and wrong, since it is above trial. Above
all, it is divine law! These words are quoted from the books of Sayed Qutb
This Religion, The Future of this Religion, Guideposts on the Road, Islam
and World Peace, Toward an Islamic Society, and Under the Wings of the
Qur'an.
Even if we were to grant, for the moment, the truth of what they say about
the Sharia, and that it is in theory capable of resolving the political,
economical, and social difficulties of life, we could not for one minute
accept that it has been successfully applied at any point in history. If
you
were to study Egypt's history, for instance, you will find it completely
contradictory to the above-mentioned statement. We cannot judge that the
Islamic legislation in Egypt has been just with the Copts just because
Omar
Ibn al-Khattaab commanded the son of Amru Ibn al-Aas, Egypt's ruler at the
time, to be whipped for dealing unfairly with a certain Copt, nor because
Omar Ibn Abdil Azeez allotted a certain ****tion of the zakaat to be given
to
the dhimmis!!
We cannot take individual experiences and present them as the actual
events
of all the Islamic history of Egypt, and thus manage to account it as
honest
and equal. This would be an offence to the practical spirit in which
research and studies treating the subject of history ought to be carried
out.
Professor al-Aqqaad has stated, "Every allegation that is not backed up by
research, which in turn should be backed up by evidence, is a mere rumour,
if not a fable." If the research of Islamists into "the historical facts
of
Islamic legislation" were measured in reference to that statement they
would
prove to have been "a mere fable" of an imaginary application of the
Sharia.
In order to prove the truth of what we have said, let's look at the
history
of Islamic Egypt, just to certify our claim that even though the Sharia
might be accepted theoretically, its application is, for all purposes,
unacceptable.
1. Politically and Economically
Egypt's Islamic history of government has been characterised by two
things:
a. Absence of social justice
b. Dictatorial rule, which is unrelated to the Islamic principle of shura
(deliberation)
The Sharia stresses in its clauses the principle of wealth distribution
"so
that it [money] be not a thing taken by turns among the rich of you" (Sura
al-Hashr 59:7). Yet it was difficult for the Islamic governmental system
in
Egypt to implement such a clause. Accordingly, the judicial judgements of
the time implied that such clauses were to be merely committed to memory
and
not put into practice!
Muhammad Ibn Iyaas al-Hanafi re****ts in Amazing Events in History that
When Ahmad Ibn Tulun died, he left behind 10,000 dinars of gold, 7,000
Mamelukes (white slaves), 24,000 black slaves, 7,000 horses, 6,000 heads
of
mules and donkeys, 10,000 camels, 100 chests of pearls, jewels and rubies,
and an endless number of antiques, not to mention all the homesteads,
holdings and orchards. As for his son Khamraweh, he was a unique example
of
dissipation, luxury and extravagance. When he married his daughter Qatr
al-Nada to the caliph al-Mutadid, he furnished her with unprecedented and
almost legendary household effects. It was even said that he did not
withhold an antique or a rarity from her. The expenses of these effects
mounted up to a million dinars. He was not content with all this, so he
even
gave her a 100,000 dinars to buy in Baghdad the things she couldn't find
in
Egypt. He built her a palace at the end of each station to rest at, which
he
furnished with all possible conveniences and luxury to make her feel as if
she was in her father's palace. Certainly this outrageous foolishness took
its toll on the treasury."
Doctor Sayeda Ismaeel al-Kaa****f says in her book Egypt Under The
Ekh****dites, "Caphure left behind in his treasury after his death a
million
dinars' worth of jewels, clothing, weapons and personal belongings."
As for the Fatimids, the tales of tampering with public funds that were
told
about them outdo legends themselves. Old and new books of history alike
are
teeming with descriptions of their magnificent palaces and processions,
and
their enormous riches out of which they cheated the people.
In his research The History Of The Fatimid Empire Dr Hasan Ibrahim Hasan
wrote, "Al-Muizz had a sister named Sayedatul Mulk, who died during his
reign. On her death, they found in her possession 300 chests of gold, 74.8
kilograms of corundum and pearls, besides a ruby spatula weighing 126.36
grams."
The common m*****, on the other hand, were at this time suffering from
severe famines, plagues, droughts and lack of food. One need only point
out
the famine that took place under the Fatimid caliph al-Muntasir Billaah,
who
oppressed the nation for over 60 years. During his reign, many
hair-raising
calamities, catastrophes and atrocities broke out. It is enough to know
that
people had to eat the flesh of dogs and cats before they finally ate the
corpses of their own dead people. Historians even refer to that period as
"The Great Ordeal".
Al-Hanafi has detailed the events of this famine:
"A group of people would sit on the ****ngles of houses carrying with
them
ropes with grapnels attached to their ends. If a man happened to pass
under
them they would, in no time, throw those ropes on him and draw him up with
the grapnels. As soon as he would reach them, they would slay him
instantly
and eat him, bones and all! In the city of al-Fustaat (Old Cairo) was an
alley called "The Alley of the Plate," which had about twenty houses in
it.
Each house was worth 1,000 dinars. All the houses of that alley were sold
for a plate of bread, each house for a loaf. From that day on it was named
"The Alley of the Plate".
Of course the suffering of the Egyptians could have been less severe
during
that famine if the Muslim rulers, such as the ancestors of al-Muntasir
Billah, had not unscrupulously abused the national funds, living in an
unequalled and unrestrained dissipation. It is both tragic and comic at
the
same time that the other caliphs who succeeded him did not take a lesson
from "The Great Ordeal" and the calamities it involved. The caliph
al-Zaafir
Billah, for one, having assumed power (by appointment, not by election)
gave
himself up to merrymaking, orgies and drinking. To add oil to the fire, he
was in love with the son of his prime minister al-Abbaas, whom he used to
visit frequently, spending the night with him most of the time. Later he
gave him a present of a gold tray studded with 1,000 pearls. If the Sharia
had a substantial authority and a real competence to rule, as the
Islamists
claim it does, al-Zaafir Billaah would have been burnt alive as punishment
for his deviate behaviour!
Al-Qayyem al-Juzeh re****ts in his book The Legal Politics that Abu Bakr
burnt the homo***uals and let them taste the heat of fire both in this
world
and the one to come!! Yet Doctor Sayed Abdil Fattaah Aashur affirms:
"Homo***uality was so rampant among the Mameluke sultans and emirs that
whoever of them was enamoured of and satisfied with maids only was
considered deviate. Such was Sultan Hasan who was re****ted to have "had no
inclination towards boys as was the wont of the previous kings"!
What has been said in regard to the absence of social justice can be said
the more so in regard to the absence of democracy in the Islamic form of
government in Egypt. Rule over Egypt, along with his palaces and other
properties, was passed from one king to his successor as an inheritance.
The
Ulamaa, legal scholars, intelligentsia and the common people as a whole
did
not play any significant role in all this. Just as Arabic, the poet, has
declared, "Proprietors they are, yet they are not asked for their
permission."
2. Socially
Doctor Sayeda Ismaeel gives a faithful description of the social situation
in the Egyptian society under the Ekhshedites. She states:
"The only refuge the common m***** could resort to was superstitions and
the belief that the deceased saints could perform miracles. Many
charlatans
stepped out, some of whom spreading rumours about themselves to the effect
that they had seen the Prophet, Gabriel and Ali Ibn Abu Taalib. [The
Fatimids were ****ites.] Another claimed to have seen Abdurrahmaan Ibn
Muljim, the murderer of Ali, crying for help from the torment he was
suffering. People were so enthralled by them that they fell for what they
said. The m***** fell headlong into drinking wine, merrymaking and other
forms of entertainment, in both private and public gatherings. This was
not
restricted to young people only, but even older people and pious religious
scholars did not abstain. It was no embarrassment to the Ulama to listen
to
singers, both male and female. Brothels and gambling houses abounded and
homo***uality was rampant."
Moral dissolution and social corruption were not restricted to the sultans
and the emirs of the Ekh****dite empire. The caste system persisted with no
change even under the Fatimid rulers. Social maladies persisted just the
same. The Fatimids, just for good measure, imposed taxes on whorehouses.
Historians agree that when the Fatimid empire began to decline, weak
caliphs
assumed power, and the reins of government were in the hands of ministers.
Many massacres and coups were carried out, together with other atrocities.
The last of these atrocities was setting fire to al-Fustaat (a city to the
south of present day Cairo) under the last of the Fatimid caliphs,
al-Aadid
Billaah, at the inept instigation of his minister. The conflagration
lasted
for 51 days, and smoke could be seen from a distance of three days'
travelling (cf., the famous historian Ibn Abdul Hakam).
Social life under the Ayubite empire (excluding the reign of Saladin), was
deplorable. People sank beneath taxes which Saladin had previously
abolished. His son al-Azeez Billaah re-established them and made them all
the more onerous. Liquor was in wide circulation. Wine casks were even
carried in public without the least attempt at secrecy. The government
protected whorehouses and places where ha****sh was smoked, in order to
levy
heavy taxes on them. No one was able to object to places of debauchery.
Grinding ha****sh became a business that yielded money. Affairs were thrown
into a state of unrest due to the lack of justice and the abundance of
transgressions and debauchery (from Amazing Events in History).
One of the most im****tant manifestations of moral degeneration was the
spread of bribery amongst both rulers and subjects. It was so rampant that
al-Maqreezi said that corruption in his time was primarily due to the fact
that bribery had such a great influence on the way both the sultans and
the
religious leaders were appointed. It was impossible to become appointed to
the ministry, judge****p, vice-regency over the provinces, the office of
treasurer and other prominent jobs without paying exorbitant amounts of
money!
This is the Egyptian society that was governed by the Sharia for so many
centuries. Was it a remedy for its many maladies? Has the Sharia come to
the
rescue of the poor from the oppression of their rulers? No. It has rather
been a whip to lash their backs and a sword to cut their necks off
whenever
they thought of disobeying their governors. For disobedience to the
governors was reckoned as disobedience to the Sharia itself!
If we trace back the actual history of the application of the Sharia in
search of the society of freedom, brotherhood and justice, the search will
lead us further and further back in history till we come to the era of
Muhammad. Islamic studies, however, have certified that even this era was
not devoid of ambitions and motives that detract from the impartiality of
this society.
3. A PREDICAMENT ARISING FROM A DIFFICULT EQUATION
Table of Contents
The writings of the Islamic thinkers Abul Ala al-Mauduudi and Sayed Qutb
have played a momentous role in the establishment of the concept of
"sovereignty", which the "Islamic Awakening" adopted as its motto. From
that
time on Islamic groups began to recognise sovereignty in its desired state
as God's alone!
In more than sixteen books, aside from his commentary Under the Wings of
the
Qur'an, Sayed Qutb has endeavoured to propagate his theory of
"sovereignty".
This theory maintains that absolute wor****p (or servitude) of God is the
first pillar of the Islamic belief, which is represented by the Shahada,
"There is no god but God." The second component of the Shahada, which is
represented by the statement that "Muhammad is the Messenger of God,"
means
learning from the Messenger of God how to practise such wor****p.
On this basis, Sayed Qutb distinguished between two sorts of societies,
the
first "Islamic" and the second "pagan" (pre-Islamic). The Islamic society
is
characterised by being established on the basis of absolute wor****p (or
servitude) of God in all he commands, as represented and governed by the
Shahada, "There is no god but God." This wor****p consists in:
1. - Doctrinal conception
2. - Devotional ceremonies
3. - Laws and precepts
This gives rise to yet another dogma, that "Whoever does not believe in
the
oneness of God is not a servant (or wor****pper) of God. And whoever offers
devotional ceremonies to someone other than God is not a servant of God."
Hence another dogma (which is the dangerous one), that whoever receives
legal precepts from someone other than God is not a servant of God.
As for the pagan society, it is "all societies other than the Islamic
one."
To be more specific, it is the society that does not absolutely wor****p
(or
serve) God alone, such wor****p being represented by doctrinal conception,
devotional ceremonies and legal precepts. Sayed Qutb concludes that, on
the
basis of this definition, the expression "pagan society" embraces all
societies present now on earth! This includes the societies that claim to
be
Islamic. "These so-called Islamic societies," he argues, "are included
among
the others not on account of their belief in any other god but God,
neither
because they offer their devotional ceremonies to someone other than God,
but because they do not adhere to the wor****p of God in their life-style.
For even though they do not believe in the divinity of someone other than
God, yet by subjecting themselves to the sovereignty of someone other than
God, they attribute the most distinctive characteristics of divinity to
someone other than Him" (From Guideposts on the Road by Sayed Qutb).
Again Sayed Qutb explains this point in his book This Religion. He states:
"We are required to recognise the divine method so as to be truly
described as Muslims. The first pillar of Islam, which is the Shahada,
"There is no god but God and Muhammad is the Messenger of God," simply
means
ascribing divinity to God, may He be exalted, alone and not allowing any
of
His creatures to share with Him any of the characteristics of this
divinity.
The first of these characteristics is the right to absolute sovereignty,
which entitles Him to be the only law-giver of the people. The Shahada
cannot be valid and true except by acknowledging that God has the only
right
to set the absolutes according to which the lives of men are to be
regulated. All who claim for themselves the right to set the absolutes
which
regulate the life of a certain group of people are in fact claiming to be
the Deity, because they claim for themselves the greatest characteristics
of
the Deity - legislation!!"
The theory of "sovereignty" for which Sayed Qutb lived and died, gave rise
to the following ideas:
1 - The now existent society is a pagan one.
2 - The Islamic society vanished from sight many centuries ago.
3 - Muslims are not free to choose whether to apply the Sharia or reject
it,
since it is a revealed divine law.
4 - It is inevitable that a "Muslim group" should rise that will take upon
itself the onus of bringing the society back to its Islamic identity that
has been lost.
Cross-roads
Muslims throughout the Arab world realised how im****tant it is to restore
"the Islamic Empire," whose presence is "a legitimate imperative".
Therefore, Islamists started unanimously to rally themselves and work
together towards that goal. This initial unity among their ranks, however,
did not last long. They were fragmented and split when the time came for
the
second step - to restore the desired Islamic society. Thus Islam was
divided
into parties and factions, which held different views on the issue. Some
of
them maintained that jihad, fighting and opposing the pagan powers with
arms
and weapons was the only way to restore the Sharia. Others contended that
the legal channels, which the government sanctioned, were effective means
of
establi****ng the Islamic society. Yet others believed that the only
solution
was to withdraw from the arena and work towards bringing Muslims back to
the
domain of mosques and educate them in the ways of devout Muslims.
Thereupon,
some of them migrated to deserts and mountains, turning their back on
society altogether, claiming both rulers and subjects to be godless.
Despite
the apparently different methods used by Islamic units to apply the
Sharia,
there remains a main outline that was agreed on by all: The followers of
the
Islamic movement are to apply Islam first in themselves and in their
personal lives before they can found their Islamic society. Any article or
book on the Islamic movement refers in some way or another to the
statement
of Hasan al-Hudaibi, the founder of the Islamic Brotherhood Movement:
"Establish the rule of Islam in your souls, and it will be established on
earth. Your first battlefield is your souls. If you triumph over them, you
will be all the more competent to triumph over others. However, if you
fail
in your fight (jihad), you will have proved yourselves incompetent to
triumph over others." Sayed Qutb also said, "The Islamic society shall not
be established unless a group of people sup****t it with an uncompromising
faith and cling to it, endeavouring to make it a reality in people's
hearts.
These are to strive for that end with all that they have."
This single principle, however, which all the Islamic units agreed upon,
in
spite of their various and several approaches, is considered an outright
contradiction to the kind of Islam they understand. For Islam, as they
presented it, is a total and integral religion. By "total" they do not
mean
that it is merely a religion that combines doctrine and law, or body and
soul, or includes this life and the one to come. Totality and integration
in
the Islamic methodology are a form of integration that makes it difficult
to
apply one particular of it and ignore the others. It is supposed to render
divine absolutes acceptable to the people. We cannot, for example, apply
Islamic doctrine and ignore Islamic law, or vice versa. In both cases
totality and integration are lost, which in turn leads to the loss of
Islam,
both as a doctrine and a methodology. The Islamic Sharia originates from
the
doctrine, and is therefore an integral part of it (from The Future of this
Religion by Sayed Qutb).
Integration and totality extend even further to include integration
between
"the Sharia and the environment" in which it will be applied. This is an
inevitable integration. Separation between the two will automatically lead
to the extermination of both of them. If we apply the Sharia in an
environment pervaded by a pagan atmosphere, the multitudes of the people
will reject it. Likewise, if we apply a pagan law in an Islamic
environment
the multitudes will reject it. Integration between the environment and the
Sharia is necessary and inevitable.
According to this conception of the totality and integration of Islam, the
luminaries of the Islamic movements believe that the application of Islam
in
the lives of their followers, living as they are in a non-Islamic
environment, is a demand that contradicts the essence of Islam. It is even
impossible to comply with it. For the Islamic society, according to Sayed
Qutb, shall not be established unless a group of people rises up who will
decide to give its absolute wor****p to God alone, and will not let itself
be
subject to the wor****p of anyone but God. Then it will start to organise
practically its entire life-style according to this unadulterated wor****p,
purging its conscience from believing in the divinity of someone other
than
God, and its laws from instructions that did not come through God!!
Sayed Qutb says, "The Islamic theoretical rule must be represented by a
dynamic organic society from the outset. It must be separate from and
independent of the pagan assemblage, which Islam aims at annihilating.
Only
after this group has rid itself and its conscience of wor****pping someone
other than God, as far as doctrine, devotion and legislation are
concerned,
can it be called "Muslim". From this group the Islamic society will rise"
(from his book Guideposts on the Road). So in order to restore the Islamic
empire, a group must arise that will educate itself according to Islamic
methodology and manners, to live by them and evangelise them. That is to
say, as Sayed Qutb expresses it, "Islam must be represented by a dynamic
organic society."
Sayed Qutb states his case further in his book This Religion. He argues
that
the establishment of this Islamic society is impossible in the shadow of
the
ignorance of our present society:
"People who think that the moral code of Islam makes it a heavy yoke to
bear feel this only when they as Muslims live in a non-Islamic society.
When
this is the case, Islam with its morality will indeed become a heavy yoke,
breaking the backs of those who live with their pure Islam in a pagan
society, which almost annihilates these Muslims. Islam is a practical
system, which prescribes that people who live according to its precepts
must
live in an Islamic society."
He goes on to say that Muslims can only live in an environment created
especially for this point of view and its values, and not in a pagan
environment. Thus anyone wanting to be a Muslim has to realise that he can
live his Islam in an Islamic society, and is only dreaming if he thinks
that
he can realise his Islam as a lost fugitive in a pagan society.
Yet another writer, who is one of the greatest teachers of the biggest
Islamic movements, fell prey to the same contradiction. In his book The
Islamic Fiqh, Sheikh Muhammad al-Ghazaali emphasises over and over again
that the Islamic society can come forth only from an Islamic foundation
that
has been educated in the manners and principles of Islam. He further says
that there must be "true Muslims" before there can be a Muslim society.
However he discards this in two other books of his as impossible. In the
first, A Battle of a Qur'an, he says, "God's commands and interdictions
are
aimed at the environment in which a person lives inasmuch as they are
aimed
at the person himself. They are aimed at the environment to form it into a
certain shape and cast it in a definite mould. They are also aimed at the
person to annul or establish what he does. The rationale of this is
evident:
The strong eye cannot see in the darkness. There must be a medium that
enables it to see, so that it can discern what it wants." Then in his
research Views on the Qur'an, he says, "The effect of the environment on
human behaviour is undeniable. It is probable that environment is more
able
than genetics to form mankind and direct their future. Any system that
aims
at a personal direction for the individual cannot, by any means, ignore
the
pressure that his environment exerts on him. Neither can it ignore the
environment's inspiration, both the hidden and the manifest, which directs
him at its will. Controlling the environment is, therefore, an
indispensable
necessity for every earnest call. On that basis, Islam is a religion that
is
instituted for the soul, the society and the state all the same."
There is no way, then, to reach that desired society! But have the youth
of
"the Islamic Awakening" realised the extent of contradiction in this
difficult equation? The Islamic movement, on the one hand, charges them to
hold themselves aloof from the depravity of reality, while, on the other
hand, the environment imposes on them an inescapable reality! Therefore,
the
followers of the Islamic movement will have to choose between these three
alternatives:
1. - To revolt against this reality and environment and make it
conformable
with the methodology they want to apply.
2. - To withdraw from society, removing themselves to a cave or a desert
or
taking refuge on a mountain, so that they can practise their Islam away
from
the pressure of the pagan reality.
3. - To give up and relinquish Islam altogether.
These alternatives will not lead to a positive objective or give a
satisfying result. Choosing any of them has its negative effects,
detrimental both to society and to the individual, which may eventually
lead
to the destruction of both.
begin 666 MICHAEL AND RITA ANTRAIQUE.vcf
M0D5'24XZ5D-!4D0-"E9%4E-)3TXZ,BXQ#0I..D%.5%)!25%513M-24-(045,
M.T%.1"!2251!#0I&3CI-24-(045,($%.1"!2251!($%.5%)!25%510T*5$5,
M.TA/344[5D])0T4Z,#(Q+3(S,#,U-#<-"E1%3#M#14Q,.U9/24-%.C X,38X
M,3 U,S8-"E1%3#M(3TU%.T9!6#HP,C$M,S,W,3,R#0I!1%([2$]-13M%3D-/
M1$E.1SU154]4140M4%))3E1!0DQ%.CL[2FP@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Q-B\R("X],$0],$$],$0],$$@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
S-3 @[EMAIL PROTECTED]
($0]#0H@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
($4@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
)($$-"DQ!0D5,.TA/344[14Y#3T1)3D<]
M455/5$5$+5!224Y404),13I*;"!+:2!-86YG=6YS87)K;W)O(&YO(#$V+S(@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
],$0],$$],$0],$%*86MA<G1A(#$P,S4P(#TY-CTP
M1#T-"CTP04D@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
($\@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(%,@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
)3#M04D5&.TE.5$523D54
M.F%M87)I=&% 8V)N+FYE="YI9 T*14U!24P[24Y415).150Z9G)A:6YV=$!A
M='1G;&]B86PN;F5T#0I2158Z,C P-S T,394,30T,34V6@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
)$
"#0H`
`
end
|
