|
 any Islamophobes suggest that the concept of Ummah (community) is “entirely an invention” of the “neofundamentalists.” In his book, Globalised Islam: The Search for a New Ummah, the French sociologist Oliver Roy notes: "'Neofundamentalism provides an alternative group identity that does not impinge upon the individual life of the believer, precisely because such a community is imagined and has no real social basis."
To address issue, we need to understand the motive, which is to deny Muslims the right to self rule.
In fact, the majority of Islamic injunctions apply to the Islamic Ummah rather than the individual. The importance of society and laws governing social interaction in Islam therefore becomes
obvious. The governance of such a society requires Islam to
provide guidelines for the establishment of a just government
and the running of the State machinery. To deny Muslims
this opportunity, the concept of Ummah becomes the target of
Islamophobes.
The broad lines
of the civil, military, criminal, political and social legislation
of Islam, which are evident in hundreds of verses and in the
numerous authentic sayings of Muhammad (PBUH), are there for
implementation. The rules of Islam require the existence of
a State with the authority to organize the myriad of relationships
that characterize the society and the resources for producing
a favourable environment for the Ummah to live their
lives to fulfil the overall objective of human creation. These
values and principles and the spiritual aspect of governance
were effectively implemented in the lifetimes of Prophet Muhammad
(PBUH), and the times of the orthodox Caliphs, as well as some
Muslim rulers who came after them.
The clear message of the Qur’an — a book
that all Muslims, regardless of any classification by the neo-mods
and neo-cons, believe — puts three distinct responsibilities
on the shoulders of Muslims: individual responsibilities, responsibility
to bind the Ummah, and collective responsibilities as
an Ummah. Muslims find answers to all the above-mentioned
questions in verses 102 to 104 of Chapter 3 of the Qur’an.
Binding substance for Ummah
Verse 3:103 of the Qur’an is a lesson for
those who reject the concept and need of Muslim Ummah. Those who are fulfilling the requirement of verse
3:102 are told to come together and become Bunyan Marsus
(solid cemented structure). Teaming up and organising is quite
logical for achieving objectives that are beyond individual
capacity. Even for achieving morally negative objectives, people
on the same wavelength need to bind together and find allies.
Organisation on mass scale is definitely needed to spread the
word of Allah —a basic obligation of Muslims. To erect a Bunyan
Marsus, each individual, like bricks in a wall, needs to
harness perfectly his potentials. Therefore, instructions for
consolidating both individual components and the organisation
— the Ummah — follow each other in a logical sequence
in verse 3:102 and 103 respectively. There is a reference to
the Qur’an in the instruction to “Hold fast to the rope of Allah.”
Asmat means
protection in Arabic and A’etisam (3:103) mean to embrace
something for self-protection — imagine the way a baby embraces
her mother out of fear. Therefore, the order is “Wa’tasimu,”
to completely embrace the Qur’an — not portions of it; jami’an
— all together, and warns, “Wa la tafar-raqu” — and be
not divided amongst yourselves. According to Dr. Israr Ahmad
this is a reference to the Qur’an as to not divide among yourself
over the Qur’an.
The concept of Ummah was an entirely
new concept that superceded previous tribal and family allegiances,
although these tendencies kept coming back, particularly in
the case of the Ridda, or Revolt, which followed the
death of Prophet (PBUH).
The Qur'an says, "You shall not find a people who believe
in Allah and the latter day befriending those who act in opposition
to Allah and His Messenger, even though they were their (own)
fathers, or their sons, or their brothers, or their kinsfolk."Acceptance
of and allegiance to the Ummah, based on obeying Allah
and following His Prophet, became one's primary allegiance.
This means that the Ummah is not a nation-state based
on ethnicity or language. It is not surprising, then, that it
left the Arabs of the time somewhat bemused. Like the revelation
with its uncompromising statement of tawhid, the idea
of a community, based on the same principle providing core of
political cohesion, was entirely alien to them. In fact, it
was probably alien to just about everyone of the time. Indeed,
many ignored it in favour of 'asabiyya, or tribal solidarity.
The Ummah is further delineated in
the Qur'an where Allah says, "You are the best Ummah
brought forth to mankind - enjoining the good and forbidding
the evil and believing in Allah" (3:110), and "The
believers, men and women, are protector-friends of each other,
enjoining the correct and forbidding the incorrect" (9:71).
The Covenant of Madina stipulated that the
Muslims "Constitute one Ummah" and "All
believers shall rise as one man against whomsoever rebels or
seeks to commit injustice, aggression, wrong action or spread
mutual enmity between the believers, even though he be one of
their sons. ... All believers are banded together to the exclusion
of other men."
This, then, is the policy of the Muslims,
and it is clearly a political as well as a spiritual collective,
the one being a logical consequence of the other. Being a Muslim
necessarily entails certain political consequences.
The neo-mods limit Islam to individuals and
reject the idea of a collective Muslim identity, such as the
concept of Ummah. They call it one of the “most important
consequences of the enlightened tendency.” Since Islam is not
considered a complete code of life, freeing it up of its identity
is considered as a step towards all cultures and nations to
“lay the foundation of collective identity” and to the “acceptance of a convergence with other
religious traditions.” The neo-mods believe that only such an
amalgamation of Islam with other religions will enable Muslims
to “co-exist as equal citizens with non-Muslims.” It does not seem to be an easy proposition for the
survival of Islam and its believers.
Although Muslims were never a single entity
after the decline of the Umayyads, they remained thoroughly
connected and unified because of their common beliefs and life-style.
In the beginning of 20th century, seeds of racial prejudice
and nationalistic chauvinism were planted to weaken that sense
of brotherhood and winding up Khilafah. At the end of
20th century, rancid notions of “fundamentalist,” and many other
kinds of Muslims replaced these seeds. Growing disharmony is
a direct “benefit” of planting such seeds.
The insanity of fratricide that we witnessed
in Afghanistan and the Arab support to US in turning Iraq upside
down are examples of one of the manifestations of Divine punishment
that clearly warned Muslims of divisions and limiting Islam
to a few rituals and kept on classifying Muslims into different groups.
The Qur’an (6:159) has warned Muslims against dividing their
religion into different factions i.e.:
(a) making a distinction between one part
of it and another, take the part which suits them and reject
the rest; or
(b) having religion one day of the week and
the world the rest of the six days; or
(c) keeping "religion in its right place,"
as if it did not claim to govern the whole life; make a sharp
distinction between the secular and the religious; or
(d) showing a sectarian bias, seek differences
in views, to break up the unity of Islam.
Chapter 30 of the Qur’an clearly condemns
splitting into groups and inventing disagreements.
[10]
Celebrated analysts, such as
Daniel Pipes and Thomas Friedman, chant words that the ears
accept willingly and find pleasing: Freedom, democracy, liberation
and so on, but all they want from groups within Muslims is disunity
of the Ummah and worsening of its differences with
repeated calls for a “war within Islam.”
Collective
responsibilities and strategy for the Ummah
After reading verses 3:102-104 from the Qur’an, the question arises: what is the purpose behind
all these instructions for organisation, unity and the concept
of Ummah? The next verse provides three clear objectives
for the Ummah: “invite to good,” “enjoin what is right”
and “forbid the wrong.” It is a
masterstroke of description in three clauses. “Invite to good”
and “enjoin what is right” apparently looks the same, but other
verses of the Qur’an indicate that invitation to good is actually
invitation to the Qur’an. Another difference is that attitude and ways to
“invitation” are very different from “enjoining,” which come
in the sense of prescribing authoritatively or enforcing — one
step ahead of simple invitation to Islam (Dawah).
The third objective is al-nahy 'an al-munkar,
to “forbid the wrong.” The modern day concepts of freedom have
made us forget about this aspect of forbidding the wrong altogether.
Some Muslims consider themselves free based on the argument
that there is no compulsion in religion and we have the right
to interpret, reinterpret and if necessary invent in the light
of human agency. Despite their much-vaunted philosophy, the
neo-mods have yet to come up with an answer to the clear orders
from Allah for both enjoining the right and forbidding the wrong
at least nine times in the Qur’an. Furthermore, the Qur’an also provides the touchstones,
the permanents norms for evaluating as to what is good and what
is wrong without any doubts of relativity.
It shows that from the Qur’anic perspective,
individually as well as collectively, it is not permissible
to see evil, have the means to forbid it and still avoid forbidding
it under the misconception that imposition of law through state
is against the spirit of Islam. Forbidding from bad is only
possible if the state is empowered with law. Imposing of this
law for forbidding the wrong can never be against the spirit
of Islam. The rhetoric sounds nice that God wants free submission;
“He wants his believers to worship Him out of free choice, not
for fear of some state.” However, a state — Islamic or otherwise
— cannot remain a state, if it does not have the power or will
to forbid what it defines as bad.
One of the main grievances of the neo-mods
is that Allah’s sovereignty places limit on human freedom and
an Islamic State usurps freedom to practice religion according
to individual preference. Muqtedir Khan believes, “freedom comes
first, and only faith that is found in freedom has any meaning.” He is right in the sense that he is talking about
the real faith point of view, which is in fact
applicable in the Hereafter, not in the state affairs. As far
as an Islamic State is concerned, legal faith is valid.
Even a non-Muslim, pretending to be a Muslim for some ulterior
motives in a Muslim country, such as spying etc., shall be treated
as Muslim for legal purpose unless proved otherwise. The very
same problem was with Khawarij. There are two different aspects
of Islam — Legal and Real — both need consideration in their
right perspective. However, this argument is not valid if it
is challenging Muslims’ duty to keep others away from indulging
in sin. Muslims are not alone. Among others, the Qur’an specifically
mentions Banu-Israel for leaving aside the duty of forbidding
from wrong and crossing the limits set by Allah for them.
Enjoining what is right and forbidding what
is wrong (al-amr
bil-ma 'rouf wal-nahi an al-munkar) is the most fundamental
institution. In this regard, however, it is not that people
should only enjoy their freedom of expression, but it is also
a legal obligation. An Islamic society would not qualify as
an Islamic society — the Qur’an says it repeatedly — if it is
not actively seeking to correct the improper and promote good.
Snow,
David. “Collective Identity and Expressive Forms,” paper
is posted at the eScholarship Repository, Centre for the
Study of Democracy, University of California, Irvine, Year
2001 Paper 01-07.
The
realization that Islam, properly understood, is not a system
of social and political regulation frees up space for cultures
and nations—in the modern sense of those words—to lay the
foundations of collective identity. This opens the way,
in turn, to the acceptance of a convergence with other religious
traditions and universalistic moralities, beyond political
and cultural boundaries and in more than formal terms. It
also] opens the way to a full respect for civic spheres
in which Muslims can coexist as equal citizens with non-Muslims.
(Abdou Filali-Ansary, "The sources of enlightened Muslim
thought," Journal of Democracy Volume 14, Number
2 April 2003. Page 30-31).
Allah says: “Say: He has the power that He should send
on you a chastisement from above you or from beneath your
feet, or that He should throw you into confusion, (making
you) of different parties; and make some of you taste the
fighting of others. See how We repeat the communications
that they may understand.” (Al-Qur’an 6:65).
“Surely they who divided their religion into
parts and became sects, you have no concern with them; their
affair is only with Allah, then He will inform them of what
they did.” (Al-Qur’an 6:159).
“Turning to Him, and be careful of (your
duty to) Him and keep up prayer and be not of the polytheists.”
(Al-Qur’an 30.31). “Of those who divided their religion
and became schematics, each sect exulting in its tenets.”
(Al-Qur’an 30.32).
|
