Criminal Defense Attorney 411 Directory

Archive for December, 2009

Hasan A. Yahya, Professor of Sociology

The Prophet of Islam said: “All the good can be achieved by mind, and there is no religion to those who have no mind.”

Two imminent thinkers met in a discussion about a complex matter concerning Islam. Burhan Ghalune a Tunisian thinker, and Muhammad Saleem al-Awwa, an Egyptian Islamist. While the first represents the intellect side, the second represents the Islamist side. The method of the discussion was logic and reasoning. One of the topics was the political system in Islam. While both are famous of their discussion methods, theoretical backgrounds, the discussion was between one of opponents of new nationalism, and the other one of the callers for Islamic moderate tide.

In spite of the call to unite the two currents of thought, the Arabist and the Islamist to save ideology and belief from racism and prejudice, religiously or racially, both currents still fighting to reach congruity of decisions concerning Arab and Muslim political systems.

Some Islamists tried their effort to come to a conclusion  by bringing both opposing currents to discuss important matters rather than competing to defeat on another in the Arab and Muslim world.

Islamists tried to reduce competition between the two currents, but consider religion as the basic force for any political system, while secularists (Arabists) consider religion as a moral rather than a political base of political system.  While this gap between the two was not fruitful to bring them together, or reduce the tension between the two.

Islamists point out that Islam as a religion should be the main ingredient of united Islamic or Arab state. Arabists  , however, believe that Arabism have to be the main ingredient of united Arab state. Saleem al-Awwa sees that nationalist far from faith is unreal, Burhan Ghalune sees that religion and nationalism should not be in conflict, and should reflect reality of the political state.

For Islamists, Islam is a state and religion altogether. Therefore, a state, should be Islamic in nature. For nationalists, they are more secularist, and ask for a state with no connection to religion as such, because the state has to control and administer all types of people with different religions and sects. Therefore, the rule of the law should control the state government, not the Shari’ah. If Shari’ah (Religious law) has to be applied, it should not be practiced on non-Muslims live under the state rules. Nationalists, in fact, believe that no religion in Politics, and no politics in religion.

While some may expected that the discussion will be competitive to win over the other, both thinkers believe that the political systems and society today are very complex, and nothing taken for granted, and forever. Therefore, ideas were not perceived negatively, but accepted with no intention to bring one side to integrate in the second.

Depending on Islamic authorities, both agree that there is no system on earth can be pure in theory or practice, therefore, differences among religious sects increase knowledge rather than create conflict, and the well-known Jamaliddin al-Afghani called Muslims not to take sides when it comes to religious sects, as Sunni and Shi’ai or any of the four fiqh (jurisprudence schools) for simple reason, worshipers have their own relation with God, without moderate person.

 While both approaches to political system as religious or nationalist is not perfect, When it comes to localism and globalism or universalism.  Where the first can be practiced, the second is larger to form morality on larger area may be the whole world, because morals of human rights, freedom of speech and nature protection has nothing to do with local beliefs, where all beliefs understand these slogans and respect them. It doesn’t need to be religious in order to be just and rational and respect the laws of the state. Because the state governs all population setions no matter what was their origin, or belief, or race.  

 To go back to the two currents, I would support initially moral standards, whither religious or secular, I support more the comprehensive conclusion made by the secularist Arabism,  in his saying  “The identity center for the state is not the religious or cultural, but  a totality of rules, principles, laws, and regulations which permit for individuals material conditions to open their abilities, talents and qualities  and to promote their thinking abilities to practice their religious or non-religious life, where they can be defined by that identity. The state is not substitute of  religion, or of any faith. It is a freedom and liberty  of laws supported by legal political, economic and religious morality”.  I may add here, that a modern state is broader than religion in everyday life, because  religion deals mostly and may be only with life after life, therefore, the state constitution have to be for all people rather than for certain people follow certain religion.

In conclusion, localism is not universal when it comes to belief, rather it follows patriarchal norms, or cultural norms even though described of having mercy and familial practices. Modern state is contrary to localism, needs institutions, administration to promote technologies, inventions, and decisions after mental discussion to serve the whole state, which contains all religions and sects.  Such state needs laws and rules to be applied to all people rather than certain people follow certain religion. A state suit a changing society in volume density, and needs, psychological and social, which needs manufactures, consumerism, and just distribution among all people of the state. Such justice will not be secured under certain religion which deals unjustly with other religions. Integration, in the writer’s opinion should be the approach to deal with the state. The state can integrate its followers (being Islamists or Arabists) under the law. Modern state, have to be secular, in order to secure justice and promote integration. (973 words) www.askdryahya.com