Chapter IV - Muslim ideologues of the twentieth century-II

* SAYYED QUTUB
* GHULAM AHMAD PARWEZ
* IMAM RUHULLAH KHOMENI
* DR. ALI SHARIATI 

SAYYED QUTUB [1906-1966]
Sayyed Qutub, an eminent Egyptian scholar,  believed that the Quran is the constitution revealed by God to regulate  all human actions in every conceivable situation. The Quran also repeatedly proclaims that accepting Islam means submission to the Shariah and the denial of all other laws. There is a wide gap between the "rule of Allah" and that of and  jahiliyya  (ignoring the divine ordained laws). If humans refuse to comply with the Shariah they would have to face some serious consequences for their act.

For Qutub a means for renewal of Islam and a crucial element in the re-establishing of political power is the understanding of the distinction between the Shariah and Fiqh. The Sharia, or divine law of Islam, as created by God and with the Quran as its primary source, is compete, perfect, and changeless. "Islamic society did not make the shariah," says Qutub, 'but rather the shariah made Islamic society.' The shariah delines the perimeter within which Islam operates. Fiqh or the science of jurisprudence, on the other hand, is open to change precisely because it deals with local applications in a changing world. In this understanding Qutub sharply criticizes those who hand on to the literal interpretation of fiqh and seem therefore to render it as eternal and changeless as the shariah.45

He attacked the Western civilization and said that it had already expended its effectiveness with nothing more to offer humanity, and was standing on a shaky foundation. He appealed to Muslims that they should not be blind with the grandeur of this materialistic culture and its technological achievements because it was on the path of destruction. Qutub proclaimed that it was unbecoming that Islam should become a slave of the West, submit to it and take instructions from it. 

Sayyed Qutub called the revolt against God's authority in the world as jahiliyya. He explained that after examination of the roots of contemporaneous living styles it became obvious that the entire world was drained in jahiliyya, and all the fantastic material opulence and sophisticated gadgets do not reduce this ignorance. He declared that the degeneration of humanity in the collectivist governments, the inequity endured by the people ruled by capitalism and colonialism was the effect of this resistance to the command of God, the denial of the distinction that God bestowed upon humanity.

Qutub argued that the present ignorance was not found in the elementary and crude form of the early jahiliyya but took the fashion of declaring that the liberty to establish values, to prescribe precepts of collective conduct, and to embrace any lifestyle rests with the people themselves without any consideration of God's decrees.

The solution suggested by Qutub for jahiliyya problem was the establishment of a new elite, a saleh jamaat (righteous group), among the Muslims that would struggle against the new jahiliyya as the Prophet had once did against the old jahiliyya. For him, Islam was not just theoretical discipline but was both aqida (belief) and a minhaj (program of action). The faith must be transformed into action. The vanguard must aim at the destruction of the jahiliyya with all its values, rules, leaders and legacy. This group should not yield because the option was between faith and disbelief and between Islam and jahiliyya.

For Qutub nationalism, socialism, secularism, capitalism, democracy and communism make up one thing that has originated in the West in direct antagonism with Islam. Islamic societies have given up their religion and degenerated into a state of jahiliyya something similar to what thrived before Prophet in Arabia. Qutub used the term as a characterization of the modern civilization of Europe that he interpreted as having again triumphed worldwide ever since Islam lost its position of supremacy.

He castigated "defeatist-type people" who wanted to restrict jihad to defensive war and declared that true religion was the fight against infidel oppression. For Qutub, jihad was the continuation of God's politics by other means. Qutub considered jihad as a responsibility that becomes binding on Muslims whenever the principles and legitimate regulations of Islam were breached or ignored. He argued that in this connotation jihad was a type of political effort that attempted to disable the adversary non-Muslim power so that Muslims were permitted to apply the Shariah.

Qutub shared many of the ideas of Sayyed Maududi with regard  to the world-view of Islam. He singly believed in the universality of Islam's message. He wrote: "Islam came to elevate man and save him from the bonds of earth and soil, the bonds of flesh and blood ... There is no country for the Muslim except that where the Shariah of God is established, where human relations are bonded by their relationship to God. There is no nationality for a Muslim except his creed which makes him a member of the Islamic ummah in the abode of Islam."46

He emphasized that Islam was markedly different from both liberalism and communism and was, in fact, a distinctive world-view which should be understood in its own terms. He criticized liberalism for its unlimited individual freedom, unjust economic system and disregard for the community's rights. He also criticized communism for its lack of concern for the individual's rights, and for imposing the dictatorship of one class over the others. Islam, in his view, provides a balance between the two systems. It is superior to both capitalism and communism in the sense that while the other two ideologies are solely materialistic, Islam takes care of both the material and spiritual needs.

Qutub considered the concept of social justice central to the Islamic polity: "Justice in Islam, in his view, denotes human equality as well as mutual social responsibility. He notes:[Islamic social justice] is a comprehensive human justice, and not merely an economic justice, that is to say, it embraces all sides of life and all aspects of freedom. It is concerned alike    with the mind and the body, with the heart and the conscience. The values with which this justice deals are not only economic values, nor are they merely material values in general; rather they are a mixture of moral and spiritual values together."47 

GHULAM AHMAD PARWEZ [1903-1984]
Ghulam Ahmad Parwez, an eminent Pakistani scholar, believes that Islam is not a religion in the limited sense of the word, as a form of worship, but a way of life. "Islam is neither a relationship between man and God, nor is it characterised by the experience of an individual of a subjective nature, but is essential a code of life, regulating the conduct of affairs concerning the individual as well as the collective life of human beings."48 

He believes in the supremacy of law in the universe and says that the Quranic conception of God is that of a God Who administers the universe according to law. "Along with faith in God, the distinguishing feature of the Islamic concept lies in the belief that God did not merely create the universe, but has also laid down definite laws to regulate the scope and functions of the various objects comprising it. The Law of Cause and Effect, and the Law of the Uniformity in Nature, among others, being of basic importance; and they deal with the external nature of the universe. He has, besides, prescribed definite laws regulating human life and its activities."49  Thus all arbitrariness is excluded from the life of man and the phenomena of nature. Everything happens according to the law of causation. But, Parwez says that if we go back tracing the causes and effects of things, we shall reach a stage where   we shall have to admit that the first link of this chain comes into existence without any cause.

However, the knowledge of the Divine Laws relating to the external universe is derived from a close observation of nature, scientific experiments and discoveries, but not so in the case of laws relating to human life and the regulation of its conduct which are communicated only through Revelation to the prophet."  He argues that it is this wherein Islam as a Din also distinguishes itself from the material concept of life which takes no cognizance of Divine Guidance by means of revelation.50

Parwez recognizes the Quran as an authoritative binding source containing the divine message. All other sources, such as the Sunnah and the rulings of Muslim scholars are not binding. True Islam is to be recovered from the Quran. He condemns scholastic tradition of the ulema, which has reduced Islam to a heap of rites and rituals.

"It should not, however, be misunderstood that the laws thus framed are rigid and hidebound with hardly any scope for progress or wanting in meeting out the exigencies of the ever-changing conditions of life in the progressive world. In fact, the Islamic State is fully authorized, after mutual consultations to legislate, within the framework of the Permanent Values, to provide for the needs of the time, and the body of laws thus promulgated could be altered and amended when necessary to suit the circumstance prevailing at a given time, with this essential provision that in no circumstance shall the framework of the Permanent Values be disturbed or interfered with.51  The permanent values, according to Parwez include: respect of human beings, unity of all humanity, freedom of conscience, tolerance, and justice.

For reviving Islam as a way of life the creation of an Islamic state is indispensable. Such an Islamic state would be based on the Permanent Values. "The order of life according to these Permanent Values is termed as the Quranic Social Order, or, in other words, the Islamic State."52 He argues that the ulema have reduced Islam to a madhab (ritualized form of worship meant to attain salvation) making it a religion in the same way like other religions. In reality Islam is a Din (way of life). The emergence of elaborate rituals and esoteric mysticism, the distortions introduced by the ulema and sufis have confined Islam to the domain of the spirit, leaving the matters of the world in the hands of secular forces. He lamented that the ulema, who wish to revive Islam as a Din, understand by that the revival of formalized Fiqh, which makes it a religion in the narrow Western sense.

Genuine Muslim scholars should be those who earnestly study the universe in the light of Quranic exhortations to reflect, probe and unravel the mysteries of nature. There can be no question of Quranic knowledge coming in conflict with the discoveries of science. On the contrary, science can find direction and guidance in the Quran for further deeper study of the natural phenomena.53   He was of the view that no scientific discovery can contradict the stories in the Quran. This of course means that the Quran is to be interpreted freely.

Ghulam Ahmad Parwez is far, more keenly aware of the importance of reason, though he is equally insistent on the limitations of human reason. The knowledge that reason does achieve is useful and valuable. However, "it is equally wrong to exaggerate the power of reason and claim that the whole of reality is within its ken. Only a few aspects of reality are accessible to reason and about them it does supply true and useful knowledge. We cannot understand  revelation, he declares, only by faith, nor through reason alone. What is needed for this purpose is a happy blend of the two. He is convinced that the Nabi (prophet) is enjoined not to demand blind obedience from men but to exhort them to think and ponder."54 Ibid.

IMAM RUHOLLAH MUSAVI KHOMEINI [1902-1989]
Imam Ruhollah Musavi Khomeini, founder of the Islamic revolution in Iran,  believed in the all-comprehensive nature of the Islamic system and felt that Islam was perfect and had no need to emulate alien ideologies. He called for an independent Muslim outlook by eliminating from the society both Western and Eastern ideologies.

He said that the Quran was not a book of fables but was meant to deal with everything in the world, especially the advancement of humanity. The Quran directed not only the spiritual life of mankind but also its government.

Khomeini believed that the Shariah was an all-comprehensive system in which all the requirements of humanity have been met, that includes not only concerns of family and society but also international relations, commerce, trade, agriculture.

To Khomeini all non-Islamic ideologies were evil and that all goodness belonged to Islam with the Quran as the ultimate guidance for every situation for every individual and the society as a whole.

Khomeini pointed out that Islam "is a religion where worship is joined to politics and political activity is a form of worship."55   To him politics was the highest form of religious undertaking and the establishment of an Islamic state was his ultimate goal.  Unlike other ulema, who were mostly apolitical, Khomeini was a firm believer in the concept of jihad as a means to establish the power of Islam worldwide, starting the establishment of Islam in Iran itself.

Khomeini, in order to justify the role of ulema in politics, expounded the theory of wilayat-e-faqiah by saying that the ulema should lead the struggle to establish the Islamic state although the people as a whole had a duty this way, the burden of the Islamic scholars was momentous and crucial. He states that fuqaha (religious leaders), as the representatives of the Twelve Infallible Shiite Imamas,  had the right to rule. In the absence of the Twelfth Imam, it is the responsibility of the just fuqaha, as the interpreters of the Shariah, to institute a social system for its execution and propagation. Khomeini declared that the faqih had the same power as that of the Prophet in supervising society.  Accordingly the fuqaha were trustees not merely because they gave juridical opinions, but because they fulfilled the most important function of the prophets, the creation of a fair social system through the execution of Islamic laws and regulations, meaning that the job assigned to the prophets must also be discharged by the fuqaha as a matter of trust.

He asserts: ...the true rulers are the fuqaha themselves, and rulership ought officially to be theirs, to apply to them, not to those who are obliged to follow the guidance of the fuqaha on account of their own ignorance of the law."56 

Khomeini blames the imperialists for the division of the Muslim community by establishing separate nation-states and urges the Muslims to overthrow the existing nation-states: " They have separated the various segments of the Islamic ummah from each other and artificially created separate nations...In order to attain the unity and freedom of the Muslim people, we must overthrow the oppressive governments installed by the imperialists and bring into existence the Islamic government of justice that will be in the service of the people."57 

Khomeini distinguishes between patriotism and nationalism. He regards patriotism as a natural sentiment but rejects nationalism because of two reasons: (a) it is contrary to the Islamic teachings; (b) it is an alien idea propagated by foreigners in order to divide the Muslim community. He notes: "To love one's fatherland and its people and to protect its frontiers are both quite unobjectionable, but nationalism, involving hostility to other Muslim nations, is some thing quite different. it is contrary to the Holy Quran and the orders of the most Noble Messenger. Nationalism that results in the creation of enmity between Muslims and splits the ranks of the believers is against Islam and the interests of the Muslims. It is a stratagem concocted by the foreigners who are disturbed by the spread of Islam."58 

He also blames the imperialists for imposing an unjust order: " ... the imperialists have also imposed on us an unjust economic order, and thereby divided our people into two groups: oppressors and oppressed. Hundreds of millions of Muslims are hungry and deprived of all forms of health care and education, while minorities comprised of wealthy and powerful, live a life of indulgence, licentiousness and corruption. The hungry and deprived have constantly struggled to free themselves from the oppression of their plundering overlords, and their struggle continues to this day."59 

Khomeini was one of the most clear-headed and determined leaders who argued that the struggle between the West and political Islam was not just between Western imperlialsim and Islam as a religion. To him, Islam represented a whole way of life and civilization and he, as a spokesman for the Third World nations, opposed what he termed the oppressors and imperlialists.

Unlike other religious leaders in other Muslim societies, he constantly preached to his people that they had to participate in a massive socio-economic revolution. He asked Iranians to wake up from the sleep that had been imposed upon them for several hundred years - not so much performing prayers but for initiating rapid economic and industrial change.

"Those who developed industries are just like us - one hand and two ears. But the difference is that t

they woke up before us and they put us tp slepp and used their forces to keep us in that situation… In every revolution in the beginning there are slogans. But after the revolution we have to act. Your hand should not be stretched either East or West. We don't want to be dependent. First, we have to wake up."60

DR. ALI SHARIATI  [1933-1977]
Dr. Ali Shariati, an eminent Iranian scholar, argues that  the two types of Islam that had confronted one another in Islamic history were "the degenerate and narcotizing religion" and "the progressive and awakening religion."  Shariati was convinced that Islam had been reduced by the traditional religious leaders, or ulema and others to a "degenerate and narcotizing religion" and had to be replaced by an Islam which could be progressive and dynamic. At the same time, he was against those Muslim intellectuals who immitate the Western ideologies which are being imported into the Muslim society "like canned and packed products to be opened and consumed."61

Shariati called for launching of a religious renaissance through which, by returning to the religion of life and motion, power and justice, will on the one hand incapacitate the reactionary agents of the society and, on the other hand, save the people from those elements which are used to narcotize them. By launching such a renaissance, these hitherto narcotizing elements will be used to revitalize, give awareness and fight superstition. He believed that returning to and relying on the authentic culture of the society will allow the revival and rebirth of cultural independence in the face of Western cultural onslaught.

He pleaded for the destruction of all the degenerating factors which, in the name of Islam, have stymied and stupefied the process of thinking and the fate of the society. Shariati also called for eliminating the spirit of imitation and obedience which is the hallmark of the popular religion, and replace it with a critical revolutionary, aggressive spirit of independent reasoning (ijtihad).

Shariati advocated that the anti-religious experience of Christianity in the Middle Ages cannot be extended to the Islamic world, whether its past or its present. "One cannot extend anti-religious feelings of Europe - stemming from the unique religious experience in the Middle Ages and the ensuing freedom of European society in the 15th and 16th centuries - to the Islamic world, because the culture of an Islamic society and the tradition which has shaped that society is utterly different from the spirit which under the name of religion ruled Europe in the Middle Ages. logically, therefore, one cannot judge and condemn both religions on the same ground. A comparison between the role of Islam in Africa and that of Christianity in Latin America illustrates my point."62

He believed that unlike what we are told it was not the negation of religion which created modern Western civilization but the transformation of a corrupt and ascetic religion into a critical, protesting and mundane Christianity. That is, Protestantism was the creator of modern Western civilization, rather than materialism or anti-religious sentiments which did not exist in the Renaissance.63

Therefore, an enlightened person in an Islamic society, regardless of his own ideological convictions, must, of necessity, be an Islamologist. Having understood Islam, he will in astonishment realize the grave and disastrous waste of the intellects and the efforts of the people due to "wrong start," misunderstanding, irrelevant appreciation and irrational connections.

An enlightened Muslim should be fully aware of the fact that he has a unique culture which is neither totally spiritual, as is the Indian culture nor totally mystical, as is the Chinese, nor completely philosophical, as is the Greek, and nor entirely materialistic and technological, as is the Western culture. His is a mixture of faith, idealism and spirituality and yet full of life and energy with a dominant spirit of equality and justice, the ideology that Islamic societies and other traditional societies of the East are in desperate need of.

He advised the Muslim intelligentia to obtain the raw materials from its contemporary society and social life. "There exists no universal type of enlightened person, with common values and characteristics everywhere. Our own history and experience have demonstrated that whenever an enlightened person turns his back on religion, which is the dominant spirit of the society, the society turns its back on him. Opposition to religion by the enlightened person deprives society of the possibility of becoming aware of the benefits and the fruit of its young and enlightened generation."64

An enlightened Muslim must know that the Islamic spirit dominates his culture and that the historical processes of his society, aswell as its moral codes, have ball been shaped by Islam. To fail to understand this, as the majority of our 'intellectuals' have, limits and restricts a person to his own irrelevant atmosphere.

Shariati thought that only the enlightened intellectuals and not the traditional ulema could spearhead an Islamic resurgence. "This can be accomplished through scientific research and logical analysis of political, religious, and philosophical ill-motives and class factors which had been at work throughout our history as well as through diagnoses of religious innovations, deviations and negative justifications that have occurred throughout history plus their negative social effect and ominous ideological and practical consequences in the lives of the Muslims.65

In the final analysis, Shariati points out that "the tragedy is that, on the one hand, those who have controlled our religion over the past two centuries have transformed it into its present static form and, on the other hand, our enlightened people who understand the present age and the needs of our generation and time, do not understand religion. As a result, our Islamic society, despite Islam with its rich culture and history which would have otherwise enabled it to emancipate itself, could not acquire the religious awareness necessary for its salvation. The intellectuals erroneously fought Islam and the reactionaries used it to narcotize the masses and to maximize their own gains. Meanwhile, true Islam remains unknown and incarcerated in the depths of history. the masses buried in their own static and restricted traditions. and the intellectuals isolated from the masses and disliked by them." Therefore,  "whereas our masses need self-awareness, our enlightened intellectuals are in need of "faith."66