No foolproof systems!

WARNING: FOR MATURE READERS ONLY

Islamic Law and Constitution 
Sayyid Abul A'la Maududi (1960)

The usual rebuttal put forward by debaters of inter-faith dialogues when one is cornered with a difficult question is that the other should not talk about something that he does not understand. More often than not it is those who profess the Islamic faith are guilty of this. No one holds the chalice to knowledge and wisdom. It is not the stronghold of the privileged few but should be made available to anyone who desires to pursue that path. The mere recital of the rituals does not make one enlightened!

In the comfort of the company of a closed discussion group comprising close childhood friends with the same zest to acquire knowledge with an open mind, over a period of a few months, we were engaged deep into a myriad of sensitive topics including religions of the world.

One thing led to another and the non-hostile liberal-minded of different faiths amongst us found ourselves discussing the merits and demerits of implementing Syariah law in a nation! What better document to scrutinise on this subject than to peruse India-born Syed Abul A'la Maududi's magnum opus, his collection of talks on 'Islamic Law and Constitution'. Maududi is a contemporary of Jinnah who started his firebrand Islamic movement 'Jamaat-i-Islami' in British India about the same time as Hassan Al-Banna established the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt in 1928. Maududi was opposed to Jinnah's vision of a separate state for the Muslims in colonial India. He wanted to stay in the union but instead secretly planned to inculcate Islamic Law into the whole of India! Jinnah, on the other hand, did not want Sharia Law for Pakistan. He just did not want to be domineered by the Hindus after Independence.

With hard lined Islamists pressing hard for universal implementation of the sharia, I decided to perambulate the subject to appreciate for my own understanding what it was all about!

For most people, laws set aside by theologians are mere guidelines to manoeuvre the journey of life. It encompasses matters related to education, law, day to day administrative policies, commerce and in fact all fields of life. For a hardcore Islamist, this kind of good news should be there spread near and far for everybody to follow. And they would go to great lengths, even death (as they interpret jihad) to ensure that this God's revelation should be insisted on our day to day living. They want His law to prevail and supersede other man-made laws. They claim that divine laws stood the test of time and were applicable for eternity. The jihadist made this endeavour their raison d'être!

This book is a collection of Maudadi's series of lectures that he presented in Pakistan in its infancy as an independent country. He was stating his justifications for pushing for an Islamic State with strict Islamic Laws rather than a secular country with Muslims.

Everybody has the right to read and analyse for himself what sharia is all about. In the immortal words of Zunar, the celebrated Malaysian cartoonist, "even my pen has a stand, why not you?"

My understanding of Islamic Law is that it is a set of legal charter coded to ensure a certain level of humanity is upheld during the tumultuous environment of a war-like zone. Its legislations laid out the dos and don'ts during a war time situation. The rules are derived from the Quran, which is believed the verbatim words of God Himself, and the Hadiths and Sunnah, which were later complications of the words and conduct the Prophet Muhammad, the Messenger of God. Most people would say, our world has never been more peaceful, hence this type of desert law is not needed. Conversely, others would argue that war is still on-going and had never stopped, citing the Middle East and other civil wars. Hence, they would say that the Islamic Divine never goes out of vogue. And precisely the reason why it should be implemented.

For a non-believer (kafir) like me, scrutinising Maududi's writings and speeches on political Islam only reminds me of the many manifestos rolled out by Man before. Think of Communist manifesto of the liberation of the oppressed class, Nazi's Aryan race supremacy doctrine and Pol Pot's dogma of Mother Nature fulfilling our every need. You will find the same tone present here. It promises a utopia where politicians are just and all men are fair. They probably forgot to take to consideration of Man's innate feeling of jealousy, clanship, self-interest and his primitive desires that always comes in the way of doing the right thing (against the popular things).

Abul A'la Maududi

In the Sharia system, everyone should be a believer. That is the final aim of the Islamic State. Non-believers are termed dhimmis or 'the protected'. As long they stay within the confinements of the territory of the state, do not do anything activity deemed as treason by the State and pay their jizya which is a special tax levied on Non-Muslims for nation building, they as well as their property, faith and honour would be protected by their Muslim brothers. They need not (cannot) defend the state. That duty is left to the Muslims who would be required to pay zakat (property tax) which would be used for religious and charitable purposes.

Jizya is only limited to able-bodied males; women, hermits, handicapped are exempted.

Women, irrespective of their religions are treated more like a second-class citizen, expected to perform a pre-set of duties. Dhimmis cannot hold posts of ministerial powers and should not interfere with the affairs of the Muslims just like the Muslim would not disturb theirs. Women are deemed incapable to hold positions, perhaps only of those involving women and family affairs. A Hadith actually mentions that a nation that entrusts its affairs to a woman can never prosper. The Quran apparently says that men are in charge of women.

The courts would not conduct their trials as we know it. There would not be defence counsels. The desire to defend their clients at all cost for monetary gains is perceived as unethical. Instead, the accused has to prove his innocence to a panel of judges. Even though most modern studies suggest that corporal punishments do not actually deter anyone from committing crimes and it does not reduce the incidence of crimes in a locale, the practitioners of this archaic law are steadfast in the belief that limb amputations, stoning, whipping and decapitation are deterrents to prospective wrongdoers!

There are many assumptions in the suggested system. It is assumed that there is no need for amendments. If ever a doubt arises, a group of ulama would discuss and decide on the bets course of action. It is assumed that people actually want God's law on Earth. We must not forget from the experience of the Prohibition Laws in the 1930 US where a novel action actually results in more damaging outcomes; decline in legitimate production of alcohol did not result in reduced consumption. It only fueled bootleg industry, loss of state revenue and the rise in gangsterism.

The system thinks that Man is the not the best candidate to decide what is best for them. They are weak, emotional and crumble to the herd. There is a need for the elites to pen out what is good for them. But who is going to put the check and balance on the ruling class? It gets murky here. Even if the citizens of the land feel that their leaders are wayward and sinful, the people are not liberty to wage war against them if they still appear to fulfil their salat (obligatory prayers). A corrupt leader, as long as he appears pious to the public eyes, cannot be ousted! Does that not propagate despotism? With the pleasure of control of state media and communication, a dictator and his henchmen are set for life!

The message from all religions is to promote peace on Earth. If that is what Islam is trying to propagate, the seal-keepers of the religion need to improve their image and public relations. The image is dented so badly that a mammoth re-branding exercise is due!