|
Articles & News
Sects and
Sectarianism - A Practical Approach to Unity
Whenever someone offers "Islam" as the only possible solution to
the myriad problems afflicting our country, the question that
immediately props up is: "Whose Islam?" This is a valid
question, and all the different sects and factions, especially
all those groups and parties who are working for Islamic
revival, must arrive at a consensus in this regard. Otherwise,
it is obvious that the sectarian and partisan approach __ which
is quite prevalent today among the Muslims, especially in our
part of the world __ will remain the biggest impediment in the
establishment of a true Islamic State.
The realization is growing that Islam is, in fact, the only
solution to the evil remains of Colonialism and the only answer
to the threat of New World Order. But, regrettably, there is
very little cognizance of the biggest hurdle in achieving this
goal: our own internal strife and the menace of sectarianism.
Any meaningful progress towards the establishment of an Islamic
state is impossible unless we find a solution to this issue.
There is a tremendous onslaught of Zionist hegemony under the
guise of the New World Order. The Arabs are practically in their
pocket. It is only our part of the Muslim world __ consisting of
Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, as well as the Russian and Chinese
Turkestan __ that has a potential for offering a substantive
resistance to their nefarious designs. How can we unite the
diverse people inhabiting this region? The only cement that can
bind them is Islam. But again, all efforts to create a solid
Islamic bloc in this region are going to be unsuccessful unless
a lasting and workable solution to the problem of sectarianism
is found.
The Qur'anic Answer to Sectarianism
The most fundamental point that needs to be noted in this regard
is the distinction between Deen and Shariah. According to the
Holy Qur'an, all the prophets and messengers throughout human
history have taught the same Deen __ Islam __ the essence of
which is to accept Almighty Allah (SWT) as the sovereign and
ruler of the universe and the prophets as His representatives.
Thus, we see that all the messengers demanded two things from
their respective nations: worship Allah and obey me. It means
that, during the days of Prophet Noah, Islam consisted of
worshipping Allah and obeying Noah (AS). In the times of Prophet
Hud, Islam consisted of worshipping Allah and obeying Hud (AS).
During the age of Prophet Moses, Islam consisted of worshipping
Allah and obeying Moses (AS). Similarly, now that the
institution of Prophethood has concluded after reaching its
zenith in the person of the last messenger, Muhammad (SAAWS),
the essence of Islam for all times to come will consist of two
things: to worship Almighty Allah (SWT) and to obey Prophet
Muhammad (SAAWS).
We know that the Shariah __ or the code of life __ given by
Almighty Allah (SWT) to Prophet Moses (AS) and through him to
his people was very different from the one given to Prophet
Muhammad (SAAWS), even though both of them taught the same Deen,
i.e., Islam. It follows that it is possible for different
messengers to have different teachings regarding the details of
law, rituals, customs, etc., but that all these differences
remain well within the broader circle of Deen, which has
remained unchanged throughout human history.
Consider the implications of this basic fact taught by the Holy
Qur'an. It means that, irrespective of how divergent their views
and practices may be, as long as the different Muslim sects
agree to worship Almighty Allah (SWT) and obey Prophet Muhammad
(SAAWS), all of them will remain inside the broader circle of
the Muslim Ummah. Unless there is a categorical refusal by a
group of people to submit before the clear injunctions of the
Holy Qur'an and those of Prophet Muhammad (SAAWS), any schism or
cleavage won't happen. Since all the different sects (Madhahib)
in Islam __ whether Hanafi, Shafa'i, Maliki, Hanbali, Zahiri,
Salafi, or Jafari __ are unanimous that the commandments of the
Qur'an and the Sunnah are binding upon them, none of these
represent any defection from the fold of Ummah.
Although various schools of thought among the Muslims differ
concerning the principles or rules of interpreting the Divine
law, all can be united on the basis of the original sources of
guidance, the Holy Qur'an and the Sunnah of Prophet Muhammad (SAAWS).
Just as the same Deen can manifest itself into a number of
different codes of life __ for example the Shariah of Moses (AS)
and the Shariah of Muhammad (SAAWS) __ it can also manifest, at
a secondary level, into numerous schools of jurisprudence, all
of which are in agreement regarding the fundamentals but
differing in minor issues of detail.
Disagreements are Unavoidable
There is a crucial distinction between expressing differences of
opinion and creating rifts and antagonisms in the community.
According to the Holy Qur'an, the diversity and variation that
we find everywhere in the universe is a sign of Almighty Allah's
infinite creativity. People differ greatly in their aptitudes,
priorities, intelligence levels, and preferences. Therefore,
even when it comes to the interpretation of the teachings of the
Holy Qur'an and the Sunnah, knowledgeable and sincere scholars
will inevitably differ with each other. There is absolutely
nothing wrong with differences of opinion concerning
interpretations of the same injunction of the Qur'an or the
Sunnah, just as there is nothing wrong when judges differ in
their interpretations of the law or Constitution. However, the
point is to view such a disagreement as an academic and
technical one, and not to let it become a reason for creating
discord and rivalry.
The friction prevalent between various Muslim schools of
jurisprudence is rather unfortunate. But it must be kept in mind
that this sort of animosity is never caused by sincere
disagreements, rather it is always a result of the sinister
desire to dominate and subjugate others. If disagreements are
combined with sincerity of intention and uncompromising loyalty
to the Qur'an and the Sunnah, then such disagreements are
certainly desirable and beneficial in the sight of Islam. But
sometimes these differences of opinion are exaggerated and
grossly misused by the belligerent and formalist type of
self-proclaimed "scholars", and it is only then that they result
in unnecessary bitterness and strife.
Islam has reached its ultimate perfection and fulfillment with
the advent of Prophet Muhammad (SAAWS), in the sense that the
Holy Qur'an and the Sunnah of Prophet Muhammad (SAAWS) will
remain the only sources of guidance for the entire humanity, for
all times to come. Since there are not going to be any more
prophets, it follows that it is now up to the learned people
from among the Ummah __ who are well-grounded in the knowledge
of the Qur'an and Sunnah as well as other related sciences __ to
deliberate over the Divine and Prophetic injunctions in order to
provide the framework for new legislation and codification of
the Islamic law.
Another upshot of the belief in the termination of Prophethood
is that a disruption or rift will be created within the ranks of
the Ummah only when someone challenges the authority of Prophet
Muhammad (SAAWS). Therefore, in the entire fourteen hundred
years of Muslim history, only those sects were unanimously
declared as non-Muslims who had refused to accept Prophet
Muhammad (SAAWS) as the supreme authority. Thus, a consensus of
opinion among the Ulama with regard to the verdict of apostasy (Takfeer)
is found only with reference to those sects who had adopted for
themselves a new "prophet", Qadianism being a case in point.
The extraordinary spirit of tolerance and magnanimity, which was
very much in vogue during the early centuries of Islamic
jurisprudence, must be revived among the Muslims of today. Our
Ulama should realize that Islam is much more than mere pedantic
debates over minor points of law and trivial theological
distinctions. Our own history has shown how damaging this
constant preoccupation with basically futile controversies can
be. Instead of broadening the intellectual horizons, such
pursuit only serve to render the mind incapable of comprehending
as to what is really at stake. Minor judicial and theological
disagreements should never be allowed to cause hard feelings
among the members of the Ummah. Our objective should be the
establishment of the Deen of Allah, rather than the domination
of one sect by another.
Since all Muslim sects agree that the "Straight Path" consists
of obeying Prophet Muhammad (SAAWS), their mutual disagreements
regarding the interpretation of Shariah can be easily reconciled
and harmonized, once they realize the urgent and acute need for
a united and cohesive Ummah. The most significant point in this
respect is that the envisioned Islamic State will not be able to
function for even a single day if such unity is not achieved.
Legislation in the Islamic State
The immense amount of work that was done by earlier jurists,
while still valuable to a large extent, will not be able to meet
the practically infinite demands for fresh legislation in the
future Islamic state. How shall we deal with the very practical
issue of legislation once an Islamic state is finally
established? The ideal solution would be to bind the legislative
Assembly or Shura, through an unambiguous article of the
Constitution, that it cannot formulate any law that is repugnant
to the Qur'an and the Sunnah. The jurists and scholars belonging
to various schools of thought will deliberate and discuss and
argue among themselves regarding the resolution of contemporary
issues, the solutions of which are not found explicitly in
either the Qur'an or the Sunnah. These scholars would make use
of the whole corpus of the Islamic literature on jurisprudence
without any bias or discrimination. A number of "think-tanks"
can be established for this sort of research, but without
legislative authority, in order to avoid any resemblance with
theocracy. These institutions and academies can indirectly guide
the members of the Assembly as to the kind of laws that are
harmonious with the spirit of Qur'an and Sunnah.
Of course, the gates of Ijtihad would have to be re-opened if we
are to run a modern Islamic state. Equally obvious is the fact
that the jurists and scholars of the Islamic Shariah will
continue to disagree with each other as to which of the numerous
possible solutions of a particular issue is closest to the
spirit of Qur'an and Sunnah. Again, there is no harm in such
disagreements. All these various solutions can then be discussed
and pondered over by the members of the legislative Assembly,
and the best possible law shall be formulated by them in
accordance with majority vote.
There still remains the possibility that the legislative
Assembly might commit a mistake, whether intentional or
inadvertent, by passing a law that is, in fact, contrary to the
teachings of Shariah. In that case, either the President can
refuse to endorse the bill, asking the legislature to review its
decision, or a citizen can approach the judiciary to plead that
a violation of the Constitution is being committed. The Supreme
Court will obviously seek the opinion of the representatives of
the government as well as legal experts and religious scholars,
and it will be then up to the judges of the highest Court to
decide if indeed a transgression of the Shariah has occurred. If
the Court were to find that the new law is, in fact, repugnant
to the Shariah, it will have the prerogative to declare it null
and void, forcing the Assembly to start the whole process all
over again.
That the Ulama in the future Islamic state would not insist on
following any particular school of jurisprudence is,
unfortunately, not an immediately attainable ideal. It would
take time to convince the followers as well as the religious
scholars of various schools that, instead of demanding that all
law-making should conform to the rules and principles laid down
by their particular Imam, they should rather accede to give
primacy to the original sources of guidance __ the Qur'an and
the Sunnah __ in the larger interest of Islam as well that of
the Muslims. However, till the time that such a consensus is
achieved, legislation in the Islamic state can continue on the
basis of that school of jurisprudence which is followed by the
majority. For example, legislation in Pakistan can be done on
the basis of majority Fiqh, which is the school of Imam Abu
Hanifa. It may be noted that this is a pragmatic, not an ideal,
approach.
Since there can only be a single "law of the land" in any given
country, it follows that the adherents of all other schools of
jurisprudence, by accepting legislation based on the majority
Fiqh, would have to sacrifice their own emotional attachment to
their specific Imam for the greater good of the Ummah. It is
also obvious that, in case the majority Fiqh is used as the
basis for legislation, the Islamic state would give complete and
absolute freedom to all its citizens concerning their private
and personal affairs. That is to say, although the "Public Law"
would conform to the principles of one school of jurisprudence,
all citizens would be free to practice their own Fiqh in matters
of worship, rituals, marriage and divorce laws, etc. The state
would never interfere at all in these matters.
Futility of the Sectarian Approach
We must realize that the present atmosphere of conflict and
disharmony prevalent between various Muslim sects is utterly
useless and futile. Each one of these various sects have more
than a thousand years of history behind it. It is nothing more
than a delusion that one faction can somehow eliminate the
other. Can the Shia Muslims force their particular ideas on to
the Sunnis? Can the Sunnis ever succeed in wiping out the Shias?
Can the followers of Imam Abu Hanifa ever eradicate the
followers of the Salafi school of thought? Can the latter
exterminate the former? The answer is too obvious to mention.
We must read the writing on the wall. We must recognize that it
is simply impossible to either disregard the existence of
different sects in Islam or to try and remove in an artificial
manner their long-standing disagreements. The correct approach
is to accept the right of each sect to practice what it believes
to be true in the private and personal sphere and, at the same
time, to try and work out an understanding with regard to the
practical issue of legislation in an Islamic state, as described
above.
Can the Shia and Sunni Muslims unite?
While it is relatively easy to work out an accord between the
various schools of Ahl al-Sunnah, it is much more problematic to
deal with the issue of Shia vs. Sunni. The divide of
disagreement is much broader and deeper between the Shia and the
Sunni Muslims, as compared to that between the different schools
within the Sunnis. This is primarily because, even though both
sects turn to the same Qur'an for guidance, they have totally
different sets of books on Hadith. This fundamental difference
in the respective frames of reference of Shia and the Sunni
Muslims is, indeed, a very significant one. But Iran has already
dealt with this problem and so can we.
The solution that is adopted by the government of Iran after the
revolution of 1979 is workable all over the Muslim world. It is
clearly stated in their Constitution that the law of the land in
Iran would be based on Fiqh Jafari, but the followers of all
other schools would be free to practice their own Fiqh in their
private and personal affairs. This highly ingenious but equally
simple and uncomplicated approach represents a really
enlightening lesson for the entire Muslim Ummah.
Whenever an Islamic state is established in Pakistan, the
Constitution can be amended to the effect that the process of
legislation shall be based on the Hadith collections and the
schools of Fiqh that belong to the majority, that is, those of
Ahl al-Sunnah. At the same time, the Shia minority would be
given the same status in Pakistan which is given to the Sunnis
under the Iranian Constitution. While the Public Law would
follow the beliefs and concepts of the majority, the Shias would
enjoy total freedom to practice their own Fiqh in all private
and personal matters, including that of Zakat.
Another controversial issue is that the Shia doctrine of Imamate
is in sharp conflict with the Sunni belief in Caliphate. The
Caliph among the Sunnis is to be selected and elected by the
Muslims, whereas, for the Shia, the political and the religious
leadership of the Muslim community is vested in the Imam, who is
divinely inspired, sinless, and infallible. How can we reconcile
such diverse viewpoints?
As a matter of fact, there is no practical need for a
reconcilement with reference to this particular point. The
majority of the Shias living in Pakistan are Ithna Asharis, or
the "Twelvers", who believe that the twelfth Imam disappeared
and went into seclusion in the year 874 C.E., and, therefore,
they are now supposed to await his return (Intizar). In the
meantime, the Shias are required to follow their religious
experts who interpret the Islamic law for the community. In the
absence of their authentic Imam, the Shia doctrine of Infallible
Imamate is not going to pose any practical problems. Both the
Sunni and the Shia Muslims are, therefore, in the same boat,
because both have to look up to their religious scholars and
Ulama for guidance, and also because both believe in the
possibility of and the need for Ijtihad.
One cannot over-stress the urgency of achieving a state of
internal cohesion and unity in the Muslim Ummah. And, as we have
seen, there is, indeed, a simple and practical approach towards
that unity. The question is whether or not we are mature enough
to go beyond our present state of debilitating sectarianism.
Written By S. K. Hashmi
|
