An interesting article appeared in the SMH today.
Ghena Krayem (of UMWA lineage) and Haisam Farouche (LMA's surfing Imam) sought to re-assure Australians about the prospect of the limited application of Islamic Sharia. In fact, the Grayem and Farouche went further and suggested Australia might benefit from the selective introduction of aspects of Islamic Sharia.
The central message went a little like this: 'look guys, we are not really that different from you. What you want is what we want, and what you believe in, we believe in. So no cause for concern here.'
Sometimes I question why Muslims choose to treat the Australian public with so much disdain. Even the most elementary study of Islam by Australians would reveal the great disparity between Islamic values and Australian values, between Islamic law and Australian law, and between Islamic modes of social construction and Australian forms of social construction.
Ghena Krayem (of UMWA lineage) and Haisam Farouche (LMA's surfing Imam) sought to re-assure Australians about the prospect of the limited application of Islamic Sharia. In fact, the Grayem and Farouche went further and suggested Australia might benefit from the selective introduction of aspects of Islamic Sharia.
The central message went a little like this: 'look guys, we are not really that different from you. What you want is what we want, and what you believe in, we believe in. So no cause for concern here.'
Sometimes I question why Muslims choose to treat the Australian public with so much disdain. Even the most elementary study of Islam by Australians would reveal the great disparity between Islamic values and Australian values, between Islamic law and Australian law, and between Islamic modes of social construction and Australian forms of social construction.
I understand it is easy to criticise the efforts of others, so I will start by sincerely listing the positives of this piece:
a. The authors were trying to reach out to non-Muslims
b. The authors sought to explain Islam in a way Australians think
c. The authors were seeking to demonstrate the beauty/benefit of Islam
d. The shiek, in particular, was willing to engage with the wider community, and in a way that resonates with his target audience
e. The authors were trying to do what they believe to be in best interest of Muslim community
f. The authors covered many subjects in a short piece, but cannot be expected to cover every subject in one article
For these reasons and more, the authors should be genuinely commended.
Ok, now let's move on to some constructive criticism. These are mere random thoughts and are in no particular order.
1. There exists a fundamental contradiction in the logic of this article - are you the same or are you different? You cant have it both ways.
2. If you are the same same (in principle and in practice) then why is there a need for alternative arrangements?
3. If islamic sharia ('as a system') is not 'that different' from 'our own legal system' then why is there a need to apply sharia? Why cant the principles and practices expounded by sharia ('as a system') be achieved through existing legal arrangements?
4. If two 'systems' overlap on particular considerations, then does it necessarily follow that the two systems are more or less the same (i.e., 'not that different')? Would we suggest Christianity and Islam is the same because both religions instruct their womenfolk to cover their heads? Would we suggest Capitalism and Islam is the same because both systems discourage state interference in the normal functioning of economic affairs?
5. If the Islamic sharia ('as a system') is 'not that different' from Australia's legal system, then it is implicitly acknowledged that there are some differences. But what are those differences, and are such differences understated?
6. How can you seperate the systems of Islam from the aqeedah of islam? Wouldn't such a detachment fail to achieve the objectives of the Sharia?
7. Dont we follow the ahkam of Islam (i.e., the sharia) because it is an order from of Allah (swt), seeking His (swt) pleasure alone? We don't follow the sharia for any tangible benefit, despite the tangible benefit being a consequence of applying the hukm but not its motivation.
8. How can you detach the Australian legal framework from its ideological and constitutional basis? Australia's legal framework is rooted in the authority extended to it by the people whereas the sharia is rooted in the divine authority of Allah (swt).
Can you expect the ahkam of Islam to be applied in Australia because it is considered an order from Allah (swt)? Obviously no, but if aspects of the sharia were to be incorporated into Australia's legal framework then it could only be applied as the manisfestation of the will of the people (in this case, those Muslims who accept their matters to be resolved according to sharia) and not as the order of Allah (swt).
This does not necessarily present an 'functional' obstacle to Australian law, but it cwould certainly serve as a longer-term ideological challenge to the authority of Australian law. Why would this be so? Because the adoption of sharia abitration is indicative of a mindset that places a greater imperative on the need to be bound by the dictates of Allah (swt) as opposed to the dictates of man.
Is this in itself a problem? If it was merely a personal preference, then no. But if this mentality started permeating society, and the proponents of this view started advancing this view in society, then perhaps.
9. The introduction of limited sharia would serve as a double edged sword for the Muslim community. Why?
a. it would derive its authority from australian law
b. the abritration would have to be voluntary in nature (i.e., can't compel Muslims to adhere to Islam, and participants would have the luxury of opting in/out)
c. Sharia would be defined within the paramters of Australian law
d. Muslims would be compelled to accept overriding (and potentially adverse) decisions instructed by higher authorities (appellate courts and others)
e. Muslims would have to accept the partial application of sharia, which pragmatically speaking is better than nothing, but Islamically speaking would result in the obedience of Allah (swt) in some matters and the disobedience of Allah (swt) in other matters. Unacceptable questions like who decides which aspects to apply, and of what priority, and of what consequence would invariably arise.
f. The systems of islam are interdependent. The selective application of the various tenets of Islam would create more problems than it would solve.
10. Regarding the politics of the proposal:
a. The question of integration undoubtedly rears its ugly head. The message to the Muslim community is unambigiously clear: 'we'll give you some rights if you accept some responsibilities'. But what are those responsibilities, and what are the implications? This is a matter the Muslim community needs to debate quite thoroughly.
b. We must keep in mind the experience of those Islamic groups in Muslim countries that have been co-0opted into mainstream political processes. Certainly the experiences in the Islamic world are not entirely analagous to the realities of Muslims in the West, but the gains achieved by the Islamic parties in the Islamic world have been insignificant and temporary at best and have come at an enormous cost - the most significant of which is the acquiesence of Islam and the Muslims to the authority of kufr.
c. But are Muslims in the West even thinking this far, and should they be thinking in these terms?
4. If two 'systems' overlap on particular considerations, then does it necessarily follow that the two systems are more or less the same (i.e., 'not that different')? Would we suggest Christianity and Islam is the same because both religions instruct their womenfolk to cover their heads? Would we suggest Capitalism and Islam is the same because both systems discourage state interference in the normal functioning of economic affairs?
5. If the Islamic sharia ('as a system') is 'not that different' from Australia's legal system, then it is implicitly acknowledged that there are some differences. But what are those differences, and are such differences understated?
6. How can you seperate the systems of Islam from the aqeedah of islam? Wouldn't such a detachment fail to achieve the objectives of the Sharia?
7. Dont we follow the ahkam of Islam (i.e., the sharia) because it is an order from of Allah (swt), seeking His (swt) pleasure alone? We don't follow the sharia for any tangible benefit, despite the tangible benefit being a consequence of applying the hukm but not its motivation.
8. How can you detach the Australian legal framework from its ideological and constitutional basis? Australia's legal framework is rooted in the authority extended to it by the people whereas the sharia is rooted in the divine authority of Allah (swt).
Can you expect the ahkam of Islam to be applied in Australia because it is considered an order from Allah (swt)? Obviously no, but if aspects of the sharia were to be incorporated into Australia's legal framework then it could only be applied as the manisfestation of the will of the people (in this case, those Muslims who accept their matters to be resolved according to sharia) and not as the order of Allah (swt).
This does not necessarily present an 'functional' obstacle to Australian law, but it cwould certainly serve as a longer-term ideological challenge to the authority of Australian law. Why would this be so? Because the adoption of sharia abitration is indicative of a mindset that places a greater imperative on the need to be bound by the dictates of Allah (swt) as opposed to the dictates of man.
Is this in itself a problem? If it was merely a personal preference, then no. But if this mentality started permeating society, and the proponents of this view started advancing this view in society, then perhaps.
9. The introduction of limited sharia would serve as a double edged sword for the Muslim community. Why?
a. it would derive its authority from australian law
b. the abritration would have to be voluntary in nature (i.e., can't compel Muslims to adhere to Islam, and participants would have the luxury of opting in/out)
c. Sharia would be defined within the paramters of Australian law
d. Muslims would be compelled to accept overriding (and potentially adverse) decisions instructed by higher authorities (appellate courts and others)
e. Muslims would have to accept the partial application of sharia, which pragmatically speaking is better than nothing, but Islamically speaking would result in the obedience of Allah (swt) in some matters and the disobedience of Allah (swt) in other matters. Unacceptable questions like who decides which aspects to apply, and of what priority, and of what consequence would invariably arise.
f. The systems of islam are interdependent. The selective application of the various tenets of Islam would create more problems than it would solve.
10. Regarding the politics of the proposal:
a. The question of integration undoubtedly rears its ugly head. The message to the Muslim community is unambigiously clear: 'we'll give you some rights if you accept some responsibilities'. But what are those responsibilities, and what are the implications? This is a matter the Muslim community needs to debate quite thoroughly.
b. We must keep in mind the experience of those Islamic groups in Muslim countries that have been co-0opted into mainstream political processes. Certainly the experiences in the Islamic world are not entirely analagous to the realities of Muslims in the West, but the gains achieved by the Islamic parties in the Islamic world have been insignificant and temporary at best and have come at an enormous cost - the most significant of which is the acquiesence of Islam and the Muslims to the authority of kufr.
c. But are Muslims in the West even thinking this far, and should they be thinking in these terms?
Let us consider the reality of Muslims as individuals and as communities in the West.
Our existence in this country indicates our acceptance of the conditions of citizenship (whether by birth or naturalisation), and so we explicitly recognise the authority of Australian government and its institutions.
But acknowledging the authority of an institution is vastly different to believing in the institution and the values upon which it is constructed. The contract of citizenship does not deprive us of our beliefs and attitudes, and so we still must believe in the correctness of Islam and possess the desire to live by it. The contract of citizenship is not an excuse to not live by Islam.
Our existence in this country indicates our acceptance of the conditions of citizenship (whether by birth or naturalisation), and so we explicitly recognise the authority of Australian government and its institutions.
But acknowledging the authority of an institution is vastly different to believing in the institution and the values upon which it is constructed. The contract of citizenship does not deprive us of our beliefs and attitudes, and so we still must believe in the correctness of Islam and possess the desire to live by it. The contract of citizenship is not an excuse to not live by Islam.
The key difference between the Islamic lands and Western lands is the absence of an immediate and overriding imperative upon Muslims in Western societies to alter their domestic political landscape. Muslims living in the Islamic lands do carry this overriding obligation, and as a consequence direct all political efforts towards this objective.
The implication of such a distinction is that Muslims in the Islamic lands do not recognise either the legitimacy of their rulers or the systems they represents, and consequently work to bring about comprehensive political change. By contrast, Muslims in Western societies do recognise the legitimacy of Western governments as governments of the people, although they do not believe in the values upon which these governemnts are formed.
So in this respect Muslims in Western societies can be expected to engage with government in accordance with the parameters defined by Islam and the contract of citizenship.
d. Muslim communities in the West need to reconcile the immediate realities of Muslim life with idealism of Islamic objectives. Does there exist an inherent contradiction? No, but if we proceed with political niaviety then the pragmatic demands of everday life will very quickly overwhelm our Islamic idealism.
e. The practicalities of Muslim engagement is matter requiring the immediate and sustained attention of the Muslim community in Australia. How do we advance the interests of the Muslim community without compromising our Islamic principles?
On this point, we need to distinguish between the needs of the Muslims in Australia and the needs of the Muslims globally. The securing of local necessities should not be at the expense of our global priorities. Many a time, community initiatives have been held hostage to domestic political considerations such as questions of allegiance and the demands of partisan politics. This is an unacceptable mode of operation for the Muslim community.
The proponents of the Sharia initiative may have good intentions aiming to serve the immediate needs of the Muslim community, but we must ensure this proposal (and countless others) do not become tools in the hands of integrationists. We would be niaive to believe we can beat the system!
f. The proposal is good and bad. No Muslim should reject the option of settling matters (however limited or abitrary) according to sharia, but is it ok to ask for it? This will require further investigation.
Some other side points:
i. Why do we have to be so defeatist and apologetic in our approach? Employing such terms as 'our country' and 'our democracy' is not only wholly unconvincing, it is deceitful. What the authors mean by these terms is entirely different to their political origins.
If you ask the authors whether they believe in the concept of a nation state, and the construction of identity around national borders, and the advancement of the national interest even to the detriment of other peoples, then you would almost definitely receive a resounding no. If you ask the authors whether they would accept the sovereignty of man to transend the soveriegnty of Allah (swt), then you would similarly receive a resounding no. So claims to nationhood and democracy are just plain dishonest.
ii. It is similiarly dishonest to protend one can seperate the sharia of Islam from the aqeedah of Islam. The former is built upon and is an extension of the former. Detaching the sharia from its roots would strip the ensuing legalities from any Islamic validity.
iii. The entire article (and to be more precise, the entire fracas that has become the sharia debate) is another example of minority thinking. The authors should reflect deeply upon the implications of 'westernising Islam' and seeking to fashion Islam in this country within the bounds dictated by Australian law. We should think deeply about the implications of interpreting Islam through a Western lense. This is a matter that goes to the heart of Islamic aqeedah, and the consequences will be felt by generations to come.
iv. It would be niave to believe that Australia will ever accept the introduction of sharia (in its complete and unadulterated form) without first adopting its aqeedah. Even with the proposed limited application on only a protion of the Australian population, Australians will first have to accept the legitimacy of Sharia as an alternative legal framework - a matter that many have correctly described as an affront to their beliefs.
v. We must all seek to present Islam as it is, i.e., as a comprehensive way of life with views and solutions for every aspect of life. We commit a grave injustice upon both Islam and the Australian people if we persist with an artificially constructed alternative.
vi. Muslims must stop pretending they are the same as everybody else. Muslims possess a unique set of beliefs, a unique values systems and unique method by which all of life's problems are addressed. It is this uniqueness that makes Islam and the Muslims so attractive. If the Muslims were the same as everybody else, this entire discussion would be utterly redundant.
vii.. Our differences are our blessing. We must emphasise these differences. We have a unique aqeedah, unique views, unique attitudes and unique solutions that both Australia and the rest of the world desperately require. We must be confident enough and bold enough to speak in such unequivical terms.
There is immense goodness in the Muslim commnity both in Australia and the rest of the world. Our hearts are in the right place but our minds sometimes leads us elsewhere. We need to ensure that we seek to fashion our realities in accordance with Islam and not vice-versa. This way, we ensure the productive advancement of both the Muslim community and the wider society.
No comments:
Post a Comment