The New Nation - Internet Edition

The political system of Islam

Dr Javed Jamil

As will be seen in the verses, the Qur'an sets basic but distinct and categorical guidelines for the development of political system; for Islam encompasses the life of individual as well as society; and society is not conceivable- at least in the modern world, without an elaborate administrative and political setup. Therefore, it could not be possible that God would not have given explicit instructions in this regard. Islam means peace, and is defined as submission to God, because the real peace cannot be achieved without wholly submitting to the injunctions of God. The grand objective of Islamic political system therefore, is to ensure peace at all levels. And peace cannot be achieved without taking three basic steps: first, enjoin the righteousness and forbid evil; second, ensure justice; and third, foster unity and brotherhood. It is this trio that forms the foundation of the Islamic political setup.

Before understanding Islamic political system, however, let us have a brief look into the development of modern political ideology.

The political revolution in the West was masterminded by the economic fundamentalists. The political experts of the West, under the impact of the ongoing industrialisation, felt the need to initiate a movement for the establishment of democracy which they described as a system of "the government of the people, for the people and by the people". The slogan of people's rule was indeed fascinating. It cannot be said with certainty whether the onset of the movement of democracy had direct involvement, or not, of the economic fundamentalists. But sooner or later, they were able to fathom the extraordinary potential in the on-rushing political developments for the growth of their ideology. A system other than the people's government was now incomprehensible; for a government that would be periodically changed would be easily manoeuvrable. The political hierarchy would not only be far more accessible than the monarchs; it would also be in no position to ignore the interests of the business-world; for the politicians required free flow of money for electioneering and other political functions. The manufacturers and traders would not mind parting with a small loaf in hope of greater returns. The movement for democracy could not have been successful, if the dons of the world of business had not been kind to it.

The history soon witnessed the birth of different forms of democratic systems. Little wonder that the democracies prospered primarily in those lands where the industrialisation was in full swing. Multiple-party democracy was the obvious choice; for, in party-less democracy, the individual leaders might have ignored the interests of the market as soon as they seized the reins of power. On the other hand, the parties had long-term interests, and it was more improbable for the parties to forget the pre-election promises.

Though the avowed goal of democracy has been to fulfil the long cherished aspirations of the people, and to work for their all-round betterment, it has miserably failed in guarding itself against the damaging intrigues of the vested interests, particularly the industrialists. The power can be seized only at the Hastings; the big business either fields its own candidates, or more often, it supports a political party that is expected to best serve its interests. Any meaningful electioneering requires not only huge funds, but also other extreme methods including the use of muscle-power, facilitating the entry of criminals. Thus a permanent nexus has developed between politics, organised crime and industry. This is true of almost all the big democracies of the present world. The bracket has extended itself to include the bureaucracy, administration and media. Elections are regularly held and the people can exercise their right to franchise.

But the issues on which the elections are contested are usually such as suit the game-plan of the economic fundamentalists. The media creates and un-creates issues, and the masses are beguilingly reconditioned into thinking the way the media thinks. Politics has become highly expensive and hazardous. The word "moral" has ceased to exist in the political lexicon. Anyone with semblance of conscience does not dare to venture into the political arena that has become a playground for the rich and the criminals. The upright and educated have, in fact, developed repugnance for it. Not only the politicians have harmonious relations with the criminals, the criminals have themselves developed fascination for politics; in the absence of any strict legal criteria for candidates, the undesirable elements gain a sort of legitimacy once they enter the election fray after joining one of the parties that are expected to fare well at hustings. It is much more tedious for an intellectual or social activist to convince the party stalwarts of his claim for party ticket; the criminals' wish to become people's representatives is expressly granted. Once they enter the Parliament or the assemblies, they acquire a distinct halo of respectability and esteem; big functions are organised to shower encomia on them for their "services" to the nation. After a few years of politicking, they become veterans, and ministerial chairs are, often, occupied by them. The ongoing politicisation of criminals breeds criminalisation of politics, and the criminalisation of politics enhances the prospects of the economic fundamentalists.

Had democracy been properly put into practice, it might have been a sacred blessing for the common people. It might have guaranteed them a lion's share in power; and their rightful needs and aspirations might have been truly realised. It still holds true that they can, successfully, overthrow any government out of power. It is therefore mandatory for a party in power to keep the masses in good humour. But, in reality, the remote controls of almost all governments remain in the hands of the big business. Through media that blossom under its auspices it succeeds in enchaining the imagination of the people. The disinformation campaign in the media is too effective to permit them independent thinking and judgement. Consequently, the real issues hardly surface into prominence, and the minor, insignificant and frivolous matters are made to appear as big issues that do not haunt but hunt the mind of the common-man. The political bigwigs, when they ascend a public rostrum to deliver speeches that usually have plenty of rhetoric; cry their hearts out for the poor and the downtrodden. But in the comforts of their ministerial offices, they minister only to their industrialist benefactors, and their beneficences are gifted back multifold through convenient adjustments in policies and rules and regulations, grants of licences and ministerial orders for their products or services. All through their terms, the problems of the masses never bother them; but as the expiry of their term and the new elections approach, they again revert back to their favourite theme: concern for the poor. A few schemes favouring them, though marginally, and often only on the paper, are announced with great media hype. If they return to power, they are back in paradise; if not, still, they have great many privileges to enjoy themselves throughout their lives. And, of course, as opposition, they have now more opportunities to stand on the rostrum, and harangue about the necessity to raise the standards of life of the poor; for that to happen, the best course for the public is to bring them back in the next election.

As has been emphasised in previous chapters, Islam does not pinpoint its injunctions; it rather, sets boundaries, and within the area inside these boundaries, which is quite big, man is free to choose his way. Islam does not provide an elaborate arrangement of various institutions needed for political setup; it only defines premises that can be developed in an elaborate system, flexible enough to adjust to the requirement of a particular time.

The fundamental principles of Islam's political ideology may be summed up as follows:

First, in an Islamic system, the ultimate sovereignty belongs to none but God Almighty, and therefore, no laws and regulations can be framed which violate God's injunctions. The Qur'an, being the word of God, is to be consulted and kept supreme in all policy matters.

Second, the best interpreter of God's injunctions can be none other than the Prophet himself; therefore, to understand God's commands better, the sayings and doings of the Prophet have to be taken into account.

Third, there shall be a leader of Islamic Government, who has to be followed in all matters unless he violates the commands of God. The leader should be chosen from among the best followers of Islam; and he should command the approval of Islamic nation.

Fourth, the leader, while administering the affairs of the state, shall consult the people (or their representatives); and their wish should be given due importance in decision making.

Fifth, an Islamic Government shall continuously endeavour to propagate the message of God.

Sixth, an Islamic Government shall continuously endeavour for global peace, and for attaining this purpose, it can, whenever required, develop friendship with the unbelievers (i.e. non-Muslim groups, organisations or countries) who have not been taking active participation in anti-Islamic activities.

Seventh, it is the duty of Islamic state to make best efforts possible to redress grievances of the oppressed people, irrespective of the religion or race of the oppressor or the oppressed.

Eighth, Islamic State will ensure peace at all levels.

Ninth, Islamic State will make every possible effort to improve the lives of the people within the bounds of God.

It follows from the above that the political setup, as advocated by the Islam, is closer to Democracy than any other form of Government, namely Monarchy, Oligarchy or Dictatorship. But it has certain basic differences with the western democracy. First, while in Western Democracy, the people are the real sovereign and they can make any law, whatever its implications, if the numerical majority supports it, the people in an Islamic Democracy are free to legislate only within the bounds set by God.

For example, the British Parliament, amidst the mounting of pressure by the public and the politicians, legalised homosexuality. Such legislations are impossible in an Islamic system. Second, while in a Westernised democracy, the personal character of the candidates for the leadership of the nation has very little to do with the eligibility for the post, in an Islamic system, the ruler and his associates are expected to possess exemplary characters.

The natural corollary of this, if applied to the modern society, is that, in an Islamic political system, while all people are free to vote (except those involved in serious crimes), only those are free to contest the elections, who have not been found involved in any of the prohibited activities, have sufficiently good knowledge of Islamic jurisprudence and carry out the obligatory duties as enjoined by God. The biat system prevalent since the early days of Islam is very close to the voting system of the present time.

Re-interpreting Ramadan

Ramadan seems to mean being hungry by day, and laying tables full of fatty fried foods and high calorie treats by night. Shelina Zahra Janmohamed asks: have we completely missed the month of fasting's messages of moderation and spiritual liberation?

As the credit crunch takes us into its firm grip, you might be forgiven for thinking that Muslims would be particularly prepared for tightening their belts. I put forward this bold thesis, as we get ready to begin fasting in the month of Ramadan, a month highlighted for physical restraint and a rejection of excess. With years of experience in control and temperance, Muslims should be well-prepared to exercise moderation and eschew extravagance, but is that really the case?

The Qur'an advises those who believe, that fasting is prescribed for them, as it was for those who came before them so that "…you become of those who are conscious of God." Physical restraint in all spiritual traditions - which includes but is not limited to Islam - is directly related to a blossoming of the spirit, and therefore a closer relationship to the Divine.

If you listen to any explanation of the spiritual and physical meaning of Ramadan and why Muslims fast, one of the key reasons that features will undoubtedly be along the lines of…to remember those less fortunate than ourselves who have less to eat than we do. It makes perfect sense as an explanation: Muslims deny themselves food and drink (and other physical pleasures) during daylight hours, which create painful hunger pangs and a parched state of dehydration that offers a mild and temporary hint of the traumas and difficulties that people suffering food shortages, droughts and famines around the world must suffer. But this very weak and brief pain is tempered by the knowledge that within some hours - even if the number of those hours reach double digits - we will be tucking into food and drink again.

It is of no doubt that the hunger and thirst that we experience during Ramadan is something we would never ordinarily feel. And in that sense it allows us a peek into the lives of those who are truly suffering and can have no respite from the shortages of food and comforts that we take for granted. Our experience is incomparable in magnitude and it would be arrogant and patronising to complain that we now 'know how it feels'. But it can soften our hearts and at least give us a glimpse of the suffering that others go through, within the parameters of our own lives.

However, whilst we may be living the physical experience - albeit briefly - have we really grasped the meaning and spiritual experience? As soon as the adhaan (call to prayer) rings out at maghrib (sunset) time as the sun sets, we all settle down to heaving tables of our favourite foods. Tables buckle under the weight of specialities made for each individual's palette. Every child is cooked their favourite, starters are multifarious and highly calorific and main courses include several varieties. Not to mention the many sugar-filled and fatty desserts which slip so easily and pleasurably past our lips. For those from the sub-continent, think Samosas, bhajias, halwa, kebabs, pakoras. It comes as no surprise that many people leave the month of Ramadan heavier and more rotund than when they started.

This is not to mention the hours and hours that are ploughed into culinary production. You might imagine that the reduced number of meals and the reduction in appetite might mean that less cooking needs to be done. Instead, the kitchen is on full alert for a greater stretch of the day - and night. It is usually the women who lead the culinary preparation and it is right that the cooks want their families to be well-taken care of. But if we started to look holistically at the purpose of Ramadan - to free ourselves from our physical indulgences and open up possibilities of spiritual exploration that we otherwise deny ourselves - we might find that all that additional time spent cooking could actually be used to maximise our gains from Ramadan. By not eating, and by having to cook less, Ramadan suddenly offers a huge amount of extra time (at least three hours saved by avoiding breakfast and lunch and perhaps more if dinner was a light simple meal) which could be devoted to activities we all claim we do not have time for - lingering over prayers, reading Qur'an, community service, mediation and reflection. If you don't cook that extra plate of samosas will it really make that much difference to the iftar (breaking of fast) experience? But if you spent all that extra time to read a few pages of the Qur'an - especially in the month of Ramadan when the value and merit is so much greater - imagine what impact that could have.

Eating and drinking in the hours of dark becomes a festival of indulgence at the polar opposite of the hunger and thirst we underwent for a few paltry hours. We acquire bipolar disorder - riding high in the daylight hours and then binging at night. What does that say about our understanding of the very meaning of hunger as empathy, hunger as freedom from the physical and release into the spiritual? We have followed the literal rules of Ramadan, but what about the meaning? Instead of physical restraint and spiritual freedom, we have greater indulgence and have blinded ourselves to the spiritual opportunities. Ramadan is not only about feeling the pain of those less fortunate, but about being able to distinguish and implement the very concepts of moderation rather than excess.

(Source: Muslim News. Shelina Zahra Janmohamed has her own blog at www. spirit21.co.uk)

Social cohesion excluding Muslims?

Inayat Bunglawala

Several UK newspapers at the end of July 2008 published worrying news stories based upon a new report entitled 'Islam on Campus' by the Centre for Social Cohesion (CfSC) and a YouGov poll also commissioned by the CfSC. The website of the CfSC explains its purpose as trying to generate: "New thinking that can help bring Britain's ethnic and religious communities closer together while strengthening British traditions of openness, tolerance and democracy."

The newspaper headlines included: 'A third of Muslim students back killings' (Sunday Times); 'One third of British Muslim students say it's acceptable to kill for Islam' (London Evening Standard) and 'Killing for religion is justified, say third of Muslim students' (Sunday Telegraph).

You can see how these headlines are designed to bring people 'closer together' can't you?

Now I have written previously about my misgivings concerning the "findings" of several agenda-driven anti-Muslim outfits falsely posing as think tanks. And this particular case has proved to be no different. A look at the YouGov poll revealed that a far more ambiguous question was actually posed to the Muslim students who took part in the survey.

The question was: "Is it ever justifiable to kill in the name of religion?"

The responses were as follows:

Yes, in order to preserve and promote that religion (4%)

Yes, but only if that religion is under attack (28%)

No, it is never justifiable (53%)

Not sure (15%)

Are the results really that surprising given that, "Yes, but only if that religion is under attack" can bear so many different meanings? Now it is very likely that the vast majority of those who answered 'yes' to the above question were thinking of a scenario where Muslim majority countries were under attack by hostile forces. After all, Islam is not a pacifist religion and allows the use of violence to defend oneself and one's family, property and homeland. Would it be too cynical to suggest that the question may have been worded deliberately vaguely in order for the CfSC to obtain the results it wanted?

The Director of the Centre for Social Cohesion is an excitable chap called Douglas Murray. He wrote a book a couple of years back called Neoconservatism: Why We Need It. He has lavished praise on the 'ex-Islamist', Ed Husain, and more pertinent to this article, Murray has publicly expressed views about Muslims that give us a better idea of what he understands by "social cohesion".

In a February 2006 speech entitled 'What Are We To Do About Islam?' delivered at the Pim Fortuyn Memorial Conference in The Hague, Murray asked: "Why is it that time and again the liberal west is crumpling before the violence, intimidation and thuggery of Islam?"

Ah, those liberals, eh? So what did Murray propose to do about this then?

"I promised to propose some of the solutions to this problemt"

Oh good, so let's hear your number one option.

"All immigration into Europe from Muslim countries must stop."

Now we're getting somewhere! Are all black people to be excluded too, or would advocating that position more obviously contravene our racial discrimination laws? Yes, I think it might, so perhaps it is best to stick to Muslims. Anything else you have in mind?

"Conditions for Muslims in Europe must be made harder across the board: Europe must look like a less attractive proposition."

A prophet! You appear to have anticipated Martin Amis's outburst in which during a 'thought-experiment' he advocated that the Muslim community be made to suffer "until it gets its own house in order". And what sort of suffering did Amis have in mind? In his own words, "Not letting them travel. Deportation - further down the road. Curtailing of freedoms. Strip-searching people who look like they're from the Middle East or from PakistantDiscriminatory stuff, until it hurts the whole community and they start getting tough with their children."

Come on Mr Murray, surely you can match that?

"And of course it should go without saying that Muslims in Europe who for any reason take part in, plot, assist or condone violence against the West (not just the country they happen to have found sanctuary in, but any country in the West or Western troops) must be forcibly deported back to their place of origin."

But of course. And what about those Muslims who are born in Europe and have European citizenship but are convicted of terror-related acts, should we treat them like other criminals or can we be a little bit more stern?

"Where a person was born in the West, they should be deported to the country of origin of their parent or grandparent."

Mr Murray, you appear to have planned for everything! A solution for every eventuality. Almost a final solution one might say! How about those Muslims who are overseas though. Can't we do something about them too?

"Abroad we must continue our work at taking the war to the terrorists. We are winning that war, and we should extend that war."

Yes, social cohesion, you say. You know I think I understand just exactly what you mean.

(Source: Muslim News. Inayat Bunglawala is a well-known Muslim activist. He writes a regular blog column for the Guardian's Comment is Free website and is also a co-presenter of the Politics and Media Show on the Islam Channel.)

Top Muslim immigration judge retires

Hajira Talbot

After spending 39 years in the courtroom, Senior Judge at the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Tribunal, Khurshid Hassan Drabu, is swapping his powdered wig for gardening gloves. The respected immigration judge retired at the end of July and spoke to The Muslim News about his illustrious career and his plans for the future.

Judge Drabu came to the UK in 1971 from Srinagar, Jammu & Kashmir, to become a barrister. He soon gained a reputation as the leading law immigration and human rights lawyer in the UK. He remembers a time that the laws in the UK were not geared towards protecting the rights of ethnic and religious minorities and says the system has greatly improved since the seventies.

"I have seen the worst of times for immigrants, especially Asians and Caribbeans," recalls Judge Drabu. "It was very difficult for them to secure family rights and bring their families into the UK. Unbeknown to many, young brides were subjected to virginity tests at airports in the early 1970s." This, according to Judge Drabu, was done by immigration officials to prevent the entry of young wives who had not previously co-habited with their husbands.

The early years of his work as an immigration lawyer made Judge Drabu a witness to some horrifying travesties of justice. According to Drabu, hundreds of families have been divided because wives and children were subjected to rigorous interviews, including questions such as the appearance of livestock or pets or the colour of wedding dresses. Any discrepancies were used as the basis for the refusal of family visas.

"After the introduction of DNA testing in the judicial system, I managed to persuade the authorities to conduct a sample DNA test of 100 families which the Government believed to be broken," recalls Judge Drabu. "These tests were carried out in 1986 and 1987 and concluded that 89% had been refused wrongly. This was a huge miscarriage of justice.

"All this indicated an immigration system of this country driven by race, and that is not something to be proud of. However, the Human Rights Act has helped immensely. The problem is that immigration laws are constantly changing. There are so many different laws and the immigration agenda is often hijacked by politicians driven by irresponsible members of the media who create hype against immigrants."

Despite the restrictions and responsibilities of being a judge, Judge Drabu has managed to stay active in the community and he was instrumental in founding the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) in 1995, an organisation he has continued to support and advise through the years.

A former deputy director of UKIAS and Deputy Legal Director and Head of Litigation for the Commission on Racial Equality, Judge Drabu was the recipient of the Good Citizenship Alija Izetbegovic Award at the Muslim News Awards for Excellence ceremony in 2007. He is also a founder trustee of the Kashmir Medical Relief Trust and was the chairman of the Kashmiri Association of Great Britain from 1997 to 2005 and of Art Asia, Southampton from 1998 to 2002.

Judge Drabu leaves behind an illustrious legacy in a judicial system notorious for its lack of ethnic minorities. But has the judicial system made enough progress to reflect the diversity of this country? Judge Drabu says there has been some progress, but that it has been slow. "There have been times I have felt rather isolated," recalled the judge. "There have been some difficult times, but I managed to stand my ground."

In 2001, Judge Drabu was made Honorary Advisor on Islamic Affairs to the Ministry of Defence and he can be credited for the implementation of policies which give Muslim Armed Forces employees the right to wear the hijab, have access to halal food and take time to observe salat (daily obligatory prayers). In a groundbreaking development, the Armed Forces have employed their first Imam to provide religious advice and support to the approximately 350 Muslim members of the Armed Forces.

"I have never campaigned for Muslims to join the Armed Forces, but I became an advisor to the MoD in order to implement policies that would fully accommodate the requirements of Muslim officers." According to Judge Drabu it was a huge achievement to get the MoD to move forward after being "stuck in the past" and agree to change the way they treated Muslim employees.

"I don't buy the argument that by joining the Armed Forces you are joining the battle against Islam," said Judge Drabu. "For us as Muslims, we have to participate in mainstream things and stand up and say 'This is my country too, and you can't do this.' "

Judge Drabu said that it was unfortunate that levels of discrimination against Muslims in particular, and ethnic minorities in general, was still "very high".

"In this civilised country with its civilised laws, there still remains too much discrimination and a deep fear and hatred of Islam. This is not helped by the actions of those of our own people who use our noble faith to forward their own political agenda. Absolutely nothing can justify the killing of innocent civilians. I can understand the frustrations but we need to engage and participate more in mainstream organisations and institutions and we will certainly make a difference.

(Source: Muslim News)