The real issues in Islamic state
Why has there been a dramatic increase in calls for the establishment of Islamic state throughout the Muslim world? This baffles many, especially the non-Muslims.
Generally calls for Islamic state come from countries where totalitarian governments of varying degrees, forms and shapes exist and where all forms of opposition to the existing regimes are treated with contempt. In such regimes religious freedom is suppressed, corruption is rampant, fundamental rights are abused, freedom of speech and expression are non-existent, arbitrary arrests, detention and torture are common and dubious forms of democracy (if it exists at all) is justified on questionable grounds.
Often many of these leaders depend on western economic aid and military muscle to stay in power. Their hold on power does not depend on the level of public support they enjoy or do not enjoy. Their western masters are prepared to turn a blind eye on the widespread of human rights abuses in these countries in return for their oil, support, and loyalty. It is in this environment that the so-called fundamentalist movements flourish and calls for the establishment of Islamic state is louder.
Groups who spearhead these calls generally enjoy considerable support among the general public because their approaches are simple and their declared crusade against corruption, nepotism, abuse of power appeals to almost every decent human being.
And their calls for restoration of fair election, transparent and accountable government, abolishment of arbitrary laws, are long overdue in these societies. Although these are universal values and are not unique to any particular religion or a civilization, they have particular appeal to Muslims because Muslims have been starved of these very basic rights and legitimate expectation for many years. Muslims also find them more attractive because they are coated with religious terms.
Often support to these religo-political groups comes by default because the other alternative is to tolerate the existing corrupt and despotic regimes. The general public is not concerned about Hudud laws. They are more concerned in replacing the current despotic reign with a more humane regime. Hudud laws are not even essential to achieve this as most of the countries which have eradicated or reduced these evils are, in fact, non-Muslim countries. On the other hand, in a few countries where Hudud laws are in place, these evils have become part and parcel of the people's life.
But when these custodians of the religion do get a chance to govern the country, their priorities shift dramatically. Economic well being, educational upliftment, accountable and transparent governments, etc, take a backseat and the introduction of Hudud laws suddenly becomes the number one priority which they believe is the most important aspect of establishing an Islamic state. A great deal of time, money and resources is spent on this issue because they believe that once Hudud laws are in place all other good things in life would follow.
And most importantly they would have discharged their scared duty towards Allah - hence secured for themselves a place in Heaven. They believe that Hudud law, which includes cutting off the hands of the thief, stoning to death the adulterer, etc. should be implemented in the same way they were implemented during the time of the Prophet and his successors. Often Quranic verses are quoted (sometimes out of context) arguing that those who oppose Hudud laws are disbelievers, infidels, apostates, etc.
It is here the fundamental error occurs.
These religo-political movements tend to forget that Islamic state is an ideal or a means to an end and not an end in itself. That is why often those who advocate for its establishment find it hard to give a precise definition of Islamic state or the sort of state they would establish. Nevertheless they agree that implementation of Syariah, including Hudud laws, is essential, and that it should be done as close to the model of the Prophet and his companions as possible. Therefore, it is important to see the characteristics that existed during this period.
The most common theme in this period was justice, equality, and accountability. All the caliphs paid particular attention to these areas. Hudud laws were certainly not the most important concern for them. In fact, some Hudud laws like punishment for consumption of wine varied depending on the severity of the problem. In other words they took Hudud laws as a system of laws aimed at eradicating certain social ills and not as a static and impregnable tenet of Islam and Islamic law.
Advocates of Islamic state tend to forget this important distinction. In their over-enthusiasm they forget the objective of Hudud laws which are mostly borrowed from previous revelations like the Old Testament, was introduced as a system of penal law to prevent certain crimes which Islam and Islamic law abhorred.
It would be preposterous to suggest that the objective of Islam was to chop off the hands of the thief or to stone to death the adulterer. Rather, the objective was to prevent theft, adultery, consumption of alcohol, etc. which would, if allowed, destroy the five objectives of the Syariah which are protection of religion, life, intellect, lineage, and property.
Hudud laws are undoubtedly harsh. But they suited the temperaments of the war-torn Arabs at that time. They were swift, effective and suited to the barbaric nature of the Arabs who were the immediate recipients of Islamic teachings.
Just to give an example, there are pre-Islamic Arab poetry which describes how two tribes waged a savage war over hundreds of years. And the cause of the war - theft of a chicken! For such barbaric people only a deterrent system like Hudud laws would have worked. Further, Hudud laws were in accordance with the prevailing religious and customary laws at that time.
Therefore Hudud laws must always be seen as a system of laws introduced to eliminate certain crimes in the society. Islam would have adopted a different system if there were a more effective and efficient system at that time. Therefore, it would be against the spirit of Islam if Muslims continue to apply Hudud laws even when there are more effective systems and even when the Hudud laws have failed to prevent those crimes in the society. After all, it is the prevention of crimes, and not the punishment, which is important.
Often those who argue in these lines are branded as unbelievers, apostates, orientalists, etc.! It is this fear that is preventing a lot of Muslims from engaging in critical debates over the issue. This sort of forced censorship was alien to the early Islam where lively debates and discussions were not only tolerated but encouraged.
And because Hudud laws are a system of penal laws aimed at preventing certain crimes, it follows that the application of the law can be suspended in appropriate circumstances.
Before proceeding to elaborate those circumstances it should be pointed out that suspension of law is different from abrogating or amending the law. Suspension of the law is when the application of the law is set aside in appropriate circumstances. However, the law can be revived when the situation reverses.
Hudud laws cannot be abrogated or amended because their origin is in the Quran and the Sunnah. As such only Allah can amend or abrogate them. But this is no longer possible because Muslims believe that with the death of the Prophet Muhammad, the last channel of communication between Allah and human beings has come to an end.
Coming back to the circumstances in which Hudud laws can be suspended, there are at least two situations in which it can be done. Firstly, when the reasons for the law have ceased to exist, and secondly, when there are more effective methods of preventing those crimes. Here I intend to limit myself to the first issue, which is the more contentious. The question on which system of law is more effective can be resolved by empirical research.
The proposition that when the reasons for a particular law cease to exist the law itself ceases to apply is an accepted principle of Islamic jurisprudence.
It is for this reason we have a specialised discipline of knowledge in Islam called asbab al-nuzul, or 'the reasons for revelation', where Muslim scholars go to great lengths to find the reason for a particular Quranic revelation to ensure the rule is applied only to situations for which it was intended.
It was for this reason Umar, the second caliph of Islam, discontinued the payment to newly converts, called muallafat al-qulub. These payments were decreed by the Quran. However, Umar justified his action on the ground that Islam and Muslims were no longer weak and as such they did not need the assistance of these people. In other words because Islam was no longer weak, the reason for the application of the law had ceased to exist hence the application of the law must be suspended.
By his action Umar was clearly acting against the explicit injunction of the Quran. However, no one labelled Umar as an unbeliever or an apostate. No one suggested that Umar changed the Quranic laws. In fact, his action was accepted by the entire Muslim community at that time or at least there did not appear to be any major disagreement among the Muslim ummah over his action.
The point is if Umar can sidestep from a Quranic ruling, then other Muslims, including those of today, can do so. One cannot justify Umar's action on the ground that he was pious, a close companion of the Prophet, an eminent jurist and scholar, because Umar was still just another human being and the Quran - a revelation from Allah. Even the Prophet cannot change the Quran much less Umar.
The real issue here is not changing the Quran but it is suspension of a Quranic rule or a rule established by the traditions of the Prophet when the circumstances demand so.
Another example from the Quran would help to clarify the issue further. In the Quran there are references to slaves (Islam did not introduce it but tolerated and regulated it). However, there are no slaves in this world today. The absence of slaves means that these rules are suspended. No Quranic ruling is changed. In fact, these references are still there, as they would always be. Muslims continue to read and recite these verses. But their application has been suspended. But if, in future, slavery is revived, then the Quranic rulings will likewise be revived and the slave owners will have to accord Quranic protection to their slaves.
Advocates of Islamic state often attribute low crime rates in some oil-rich Muslim countries to Hudud laws. But unfortunately that is all we hear about these countries. What about other forms of crimes that are rampant in these countries?
Corruption, nepotism, totalitarianism, total absence of freedom of speech and press, suppression of women, the inhuman treatment given to the foreign workers, arbitrary arrests, detention, torture, etc. - to name a few - which are all against the explicit injections of Islam and Islamic law. How can one justify the existence of such crimes? Are we to trade Hudud laws for these other crimes?
Where Islamic state or Islamic order is in place such crimes should and must not exist. If they exist then it cannot be called an Islamic state, even if Hudud laws are in place or even if their constitutions cry out loud that Islam is the state religion, Islamic law is the law of the land and the Constitution is the Quran and the Sunnah.
In fact, if one looks closely to these so-called Islamic states, one would find that many advocates of Islamic state are unable to live in these countries due to their calls for more accountable and transparent governments. They are forced to find shelter in western democracies where they can speak and write without fear.
I sincerely believe that given choice, a lot of those advocating for the establishment of an Islamic state would rather live and work under the current illiberal environment of Malaysia than go to those few countries which claim to be Islamic states and have implemented Hudud laws.
This leads me to the question on what should PAS do? Should it give up the idea of establishing an Islamic state all together? And should other political parties continue to pressure PAS to give up its ideology?
The simple and straightforward answer to these questions is "no".
PAS is a religo-political party. We may dislike religious badges in politics but then racial labels, which are so much part and parcel of Malaysian political culture, are equally evil. We must always remember that a lot of support for the party is due to its religious outfit. Therefore, PAS must continue with its ideology if it were to retain this support. To give up that ideology is suicidal in political terms.
It is like asking Umno to stop championing the Malay cause or DAP from that of the Chinese.
Further, if PAS were to give up that ideology then there would be no difference between PAS and Umno. In such a scenario PAS will be forced to fight its arch enemy on policy grounds - an area where PAS still lags far behind, especially in terms of experience. Therefore, there would be no added incentive for Malays to support PAS, especially if Umno can sort out its internal problems and address certain issues that have been the subject of public debate in recent years.
Most importantly Umno's proven track record and its close association with the independence movement (although fast becoming irrelevant with the fading of that generation) would garner it more support. There is also real likelihood that if PAS were to throw its religious garment in favour of a secular political attire, or if it were to compromise on its stand on Islamic state, those splinters within PAS, some of which may even be militant, would emerge.
For the above reasons it appears that 'PAS=Islam' formula is the best option available for the time being.
But PAS must realise that it is one thing to have an ideology and quite another to achieve it. The party must recognise that there are hard realities within the country that would prevent it from achieving its objective.
Some of these realities include the multi-racial and multi-religious nature of the country, genuine fears of separatist movements in some parts of the country and the possibility of wealthy non-Muslims packing their bags and migrating to countries like Australia, New Zealand, the US, etc.
Sooner or later, PAS would have to take into account these and other hard realities in the country. It may be possible that PAS, like many hardline politicians and political parties, would reassess its priorities once in power. We saw a similar transformation in BJP of India. Comparable examples can be found elsewhere.
PAS must also realise that support for it is not always driven by religion. It has been the beneficiary of Umno's misfortune in the past, particularly following the political crisis in 1987 and again following the Anwar Ibrahim saga. It may benefit from Umno again in the near future if there was a struggle to fill the power vacuum that would result with Dr Mahathir Mohamad's departure. But this is support by default or, at best, conditional support that can, to a large extent, be reversed if Umno can create a conducive environment for these supporters to return to the party.
It is also important that Umno, too, realise that support for PAS is not always due to its Islamic outfit as pointed out earlier. Therefore, more Islamisation by Umno to attract the lost support is unlikely to succeed because Umno cannot be more Islamic than PAS. Therefore, those looking for purely religious solutions to their complex problems would always find PAS and its views more attractive.
Umno would, sooner than later, have to deal with the issue of Islamic state and Hudud laws head on. It cannot always dodge the issue and keep rejecting Hudud laws on technical grounds because this approach is flawed and has limits. Therefore, the current Umno approach towards the issues requires re-evaluation.
