The unending debate over whether Islam and democracy are compatible has become obsolete and has finally been put to rest. Thanks to the doggedness of university-based Islamic intellectuals, more than their ulama or religious cleric counterparts, a plethora of scholarly research papers have been published in the last two decades under the phenomenon or rubric of “Political Islam”.
But what constitutes political Islam, admittedly, cannot be encapsulated in a neat and concrete definition of its exact ideas and practices that is acceptable to all. Arguably, the views and processes are constantly under reconstruction by critical players of political Islam — through leaders and their political parties, communities and institutions.
Historically, it refers to the political dynamics generated by the activism of those political players, who strongly believe in and advocate Islam’s continued relevance in respect of the functioning of the state and society.
More specifically, it was a direct response to European colonialism and an engagement during the post-colonial era of political contestation for power. Early successes of these first-generation Islamist political parties underscored the need to complete the process of independence and achieve meaningful freedom from the shackles of any leftovers of imperialism.
European colonialism left an enduring legacy among many in Muslim majority countries, who believed the colonialists were out to replace their Islamic identity and culture and fragment the indigenous legal codes.
Simply put, it was the struggle to reassert an Islamic identity in the socio-political context that gave rise to political Islam and the concept of the Islamic state based on the shariah.
Their rhetoric, fixated on the Islamic state and a narrow legalistic interpretation of shariah, was perceived as exclusivist and oftentimes retrogressive, invariably with a nuanced siege mentality of sorts. This inevitably alienated a sizeable voter base among middle-ground Muslims, non-Muslim minorities, liberal-secularists and the business community.
Fast forward, the first generation of Islamist political parties evolved and metamorphosed, but were now eclipsed by a second generation of political parties with a broader electoral appeal — inclusive, progressive and with more comprehensive programmes.
Driving this “generational shift” was essentially a renewed interest in the maqasidi (objective-based) approach of Islam and the shariah by political leaders attracted by the surge of interest in maqasid by Muslim academics and intellectuals in the universities.
Having to address the dramatically changing realities of modernity, plurality and critical challenges appearing on the political stage, a revival of interest in maqasid was most apt and timely. Given their political acumen, leaders of the second generation foresaw the pertinent need for a maqasidi approach as their critical saviour and political trajectory.
The cases of the AK Party of Tayyib Erdogan of Turkey and most recently En-Nahdah of Rachid Ghanoucchi in Tunisia are most illustrious. Their narratives speak evidently for the exciting future of contemporary political Islam. But let us defer that discussion for another occasion.
But what is the maqasidi approach and what is maqasid, you may ask. And how will it be different from the political approach of the first generation Islamist political parties? Will it not be mere rhetoric or, as claimed by some, an infatuation of sorts of disgruntled Muslim political activists?
Briefly put, the word “maqasid” means objectives or intent and a maqasidi approach means an objective-based approach. To enlighten readers, it rejects the literal reading of sacred texts and emphatically embraces the objectives, higher intents, spirit and wisdom of the message of the Quran, the Prophetic traditions and the shariah as a whole.
To quickly reiterate, the first major contribution to the maqasid in the modern era was Muhammad al-Tahir Ibn Ashur’s (died 1973), who published the book, Maqasid al-Shariah al-Islamiyah in 1946, which was translated into English and republished in 2006. This book is arguably the most scholarly attempt in the 20th century to develop and apply the theory of maqasid after the magnum opus, Al-Muwafaqat by the master architect of maqasid, Abu Ishaq Al-Shatibi (died 1388).
Expressing the need for an objective-based approach to shariah in the light of modern realities, Ibn Ashur discussed the preservation of justice, the family system, the freedom of belief, orderliness, civility, human rights, freedom and equality as objectives of Islamic law relevant to a theory and practice of maqasid as-shariah.
It essentially promotes the common good and benefit, prevents and protects from harm, pursues the communal quest for justice with fairness and mercy (adl wal ihsan); preserves public interest (maslahah ammah) and mutual benefit while seeking to attain the well-being of the citizenry and humanity at large.
It is both an ideological and a methodological approach to Islam that undertakes to truly embody “Islam as a grace and mercy unto all” (Rahmatan lil ‘Aalamiin). In this regard, it is quite opposed to the punishment-driven and prohibition-based legalistic Islam propagated by the first-generation Islamic parties.
Be that as it may, let us now attempt to elucidate the contrasting embodiment of an exclusive approach of a first-generation Islamic political party, as opposed to a maqasidi approach, with an example closer to home.
Granted, the nation is beset with deepening racial fault lines, distressing religious bigotry, endemic leakages and corruption, colossal embezzlement, a yawning disparity between the “haves” and the “have-littles”, to mention but a few perennial problems.
But very regrettably, all that the Islamist party of the first-generation type could offer is the relentless effort of presenting a Private Members Bill — an amendment to the Syariah Court (Criminal Jurisdiction) Act 1965 (Act 355), hereinafter referred to as RUU-355, tabled by the Pas president, and now arguably dubbed the “hudud bill” by its worried-sick detractors.
Yes, it couldn’t have come at a worse time, you may retort. Call it what you may, RUU-355 is about to be tabled again in the coming parliamentary session.
While the writer and the party he represents have no qualms about supporting and advocating the strengthening of the Syariah Court (SC) in more meaningful ways than the mere hiking of its punishment limits, it takes serious issue with the way the bill was framed and now, its “inadvertent” consequences.
Assuming the RUU-355 bill is passed by the bi-cameral Parliament, will raising the limit of punishment above the infamous “formula of 3-5-6” to the hilt, if you may, help in any significant way towards solving the debilitating problems that have plagued this nation? Is this the most urgent reform or the “be all and end all” of political Islam? Let’s get real!
Very evidently, the first-generation Islamist political parties are in a time warp. Dismantling the remnants of the colonialist legacy is a jihad that must be religiously undertaken. It is the narrative of the first-generation Islamist and, by extension, their jihad call for RUU-355 to be supported by all sitting Muslim parliamentarians from both sides of the divide.
Acting otherwise would be tantamount to betrayal, or worst still, forsaking the Islamic faith. There are plenty of cases of opponents being ostracised, including the appalling comments levelled against the parliamentary opposition chief.
The bigger question ceases to be what actions are most appropriate and pertinent to truly empower Islam and the SC, or more importantly to address the nation’s malaises. Instead, it has been reduced to “you’re with us [RUU-355] or against us in this Islamic struggle”.
Religious personalities quite oblivious of the issues at hand, were not helpful in “enlightening” the citizenry. Entrenching the siege mentality, that Islam is under threat, is indeed deplorable. Incidentally, the name-calling of kafir harbi on the non-Muslim detractors of RUU-355 was most unfortunate, totally misplaced and flawed.
In this darkest moment of the nation, all is not doom and gloom. Only in the dark sky, will you see the stars. Now, more than ever before, the nation is in dire need of a maqasidi approach to Islam.
It is the pronouncement of “human dignity” (17:70) and the “brotherhood of man” (49:13) as the maqasid or objectives of the creation of men, as enshrined in the verses of the Quran that will effectively combat the abuse of Islam to poisonously divide and segregate the nation.
The worldview of maqasid unequivocally calls for the peaceful coexistence of all races, religions and cultures, with a great deal of tolerance (tasaamuh) and mutual care (ta’awun) so as to promote human dignity, self-respect, brotherhood and social equality.
It is the maqasidi approach that calls for distributive justice and accountability that will effectively address both income and wealth disparity and corrupt practices and cronyism.
It is the maqasidi approach that will reinvigorate the “Fiqh of Muwatinun” (jurisprudence on citizenry and citizenship) which recognises all citizens as equal partners, hence forging true allegiance and genuine patriotism to the nation, regardless of race, faith and conviction.
We are all citizens... “Kulluna Muwatinun”!
But will we ever see a truly maqasid-based political Islam changing the Malaysian political landscape?
Dr Dzulkefly Ahmad is the strategy director of Parti Amanah Negara
Save by subscribing to us for your print and/or digital copy.
P/S: The Edge is also available on Apple's AppStore and Androids' Google Play.