Ismail Faruqi Online

Tag: Sharia

  • The Ismail Faruqi Award Presentation Ceremony

    Reading Time: 4 minutes

    Anwar Ibrahim

    This bi-annual award to IIU scholars who produce outstanding, excellent and exemplary academic work was established in honour of the memory of al-marhum Professor Ismail Raji al-Faruqi who, during his lifetime, had made profound and invaluable contributions not only to Islamic scholarship but to learning as a whole.

    Indeed, I was most privileged to have been given the opportunity of knowing him personally, as a leading scholar of his generation and as a friend. To be sure, he exacted uncompromising intellectual standards and lived by a strict regiment of academic discipline. But, at the same time, he was never lost in mere philosophical abstractions. He was acutely conscious of the realities of the time and the condition of the contemporary ummah. In this regard, he exemplified the conjunction between theoretical learning, ilm, and the righteous deeds, amal salih. He devoted the best years of his life, before his death under tragic circumstances, to the upliftment of the ummah, in inspiring and guiding its youth especially.

    Perhaps his greatest legacy is the establishment of the International Institute of Islamic Thought. It was born out of his concern to revive the culture of learning in the hearts and the minds of the ummah. Through this institution he had enabled the mobilization of the intellectual resources of Muslims worldwide, bringing together scholars who had had Western education and those who had undergone the traditional Islamic disciplines.

    In conferring these awards, we are recognizing scholars who have contributed towards the realization of al-marhum al-Faruqi’s vision.

    It is our conviction that the continuing crisis of the ummah cannot be resolved without a genuine revitalization of the culture of learning at all levels. Most of the problems afflicting Muslim societies in this day and age can be attributed to illiteracy, ignorance and narrow-mindedness. For instance, the highest rates of illiteracy in the world are in Muslim societies. So is the incidence of gender discrimination and denial of the opportunity of women to receive an education. In fact, one can go on reciting a litany of the ills of the ummah, all of which would have prevented had we lived up to the imperatives of the Quran and Sunnah to acquire and disseminate knowledge.

    However, the mere acquisition of knowledge without exercising discernment and the exertion of one’s intellectual faculties can sometimes be even more dangerous than plain ignorance. In this connection, there is a general misconception among Muslims, be they laymen or jurists, that the application of the Shariah is a very simple and straightforward matter: all we need to do is to look at the established or classical texts on Islamic fiqh and the answers are to be found there. There is no need to really exert one’s intellectual faculties in order to derive the fiqh as regards the diverse problems we encounter daily in our contemporary situation. In other words, according to this thinking, present-day Muslims need only to consult the voluminous compendiums of legal rules established centuries ago during the classical period of the great jurists. Such a thinking also implies that anyone who does not apply, or finds difficulty in actually applying those existing rules, can only be either ignorant of them, or worse, perverse and impious.

    As we know surely, this conception of Islamic law is not only myopic but wholly untenable. The very fact of the growth and establishment of the four major sunni schools of law testifies to the dynamism of the Shariah via the doctrine of ijtihad.

    Unfortunately after the crystallization of the Madhahib, intellectual inertia set in which finally led to the closing of the door of ijtihad and it is no exaggeration to say that this condition of juristic malaise has persisted till today, give and take the occasional attempts by more forward- looking scholars and jurists to advocate the revival of Islamic juristic rethinking.

    This basic misconception together with this taqlid predisposition has also given rise to a literalist, legalistic and narrow approach to the application of the Shariah rules as expounded by the classical jurist themselves. In the process, there is a preoccupation more with the rules of the Shariah per se rather than its objectives or maqasid, such as the general establishment of peace and security, the promotion of societal welfare, the eradication of poverty, basically the establishment of a civil society. In the process, we have missed the forest for the trees.

    In the context of Malaysia today, this misconception is further compounded by the problem posed by those who, in their desire to gain political mileage, have called for the implementation of the hudud. It did not matter that the hudud laws they have drafted were not based strictly on established methodology of Islamic jurisprudence. Naturally the resultant Bill that was drafted contains serious contradictions and glaring defects in respect of such crucial matters as the scope of the crime, the nature of the evidence required as well as the punishment to be meted out. And worst, they have completely disregarded the paramount objectives of the Shariah itself. This is indeed a most retrograde move.

    Fortunately enough, recent developments in the Muslim world indicate a trend to refer to the intellectual tradition of the classical period of the great jurists. Although this is still more the exception than the rule, some ulama and writers of modern works alike are now attempting to relate the classical formulations of usul al-fiqh to modern socio-legal conditions. The chasm between theory and practice has developed a rather alarming degree. Perhaps this is what prompted Allama Muhammad Iqbal in his Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam to call for the transfer of the power of ijtihad from individuals to a duly constituted collective body with the power to legislate. It is noteworthy that the late Shaykh al-Azhar Mahmud Shaltut went even further by placing greater emphasis on the maslahah (policy based on public or common interest) advocating that, since the maslahah is bound to vary according to circumstances, jurists should be able to take into consideration changed circumstances and review previous consensus in order to realise the maslahah.

    The award recipient, Prof. Hashim Kamali, is one of the few contemporary scholars who have advocated an approach towards Islamic jurisprudence departing from the purely legalistic and literalist position. I believe he has taken the stand that the scope for the reinterpretation of the Shariah principles is wide and ever-expanding. He has called for a comprehensive and well-defined programme for prospective mujtahids which would combine training in both the traditional and modern legal disciplines. And in this regard, I must says that the International Islamic University should be well-poised to take up such a challenge.

    Thank you.

    Speech by Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim at The Ismail Faruqi Award Presentation Ceremony, International Islamic University Malaysia on the 28th of February 1995

  • Islam and the Tehran Hostages

    Reading Time: 5 minutes

    Certainly no Muslim may question the following principles, since they are Qur’anic and the Qur’an is for Muslims the only ultimate authority. These principles are not unique to Islam; rather, they represent some of the highest ethical standards of other human civilisations.

    1. Islam advocates a very personal, individualist ethic. “No soul may be charged with more than it can bear…No soul may be charged with the sin of another…To every person belongs what he/she has wrought and earned” (Qur’an 2:286 ; 6:164;: 53:39). These precepts have barred from the religious consciousness of Muslims any suggestion of vicarious guilt or vicarious atonement.

    2. Islam does not distinguish between humans and advocates a comprehensive universalism. The world community of Islam has integrated almost all the ethnic identities of earth into a single brotherhood governed by one law. “We created you from a single pair and made you tribes and nations that you may cooperate with and complement one another. Nobler among you is only the more righteous.” The Prophet admonished his people: “No Arab has priority over a non-Arab, and no white over a black and no black over a white –except in righteousness” (49:13).

    3. Islam is neither a religion of revenge nor one that teaches to turn the other cheek. The Biblical law of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth holds good for it, along with the teaching of forgiveness and magnanimity which it recommends. “If you are aggressed upon, attack the aggressor in the same measure with which he aggressed upon you… If the aggression stops, remember that God is forgiving and merciful” (2: 194, 192)

    4. Property is sacred. Even to enter another’s house without permission of its owner is a crime. Gifts made to public officials belong to their offices, not their persons. Theft, in any form, is punished by cutting off of the hand (5:41). This severity reflects Islam’s strict commitment to the notion of private property and its indignation at any violation of it.

    5. Further, Islam teaches that humans are innocent, not fallen; that they are created in the best of forms, capable of doing good as well as evil. The Qur’an declares that every human is born with a natural predilection to recognize God. His moral law and to incline to its fulfillment (30:30). This purpose, which the Qur’an calls “al amanah.” or the divine trust, provides meaning to human life and assigns to the actions of men and women cosmic significance (33:72).

    By virtue of this, humans are held in Islam higher than the angels (2:34). “Whoever kills one man,” the Qur’an asserts, “has killed the whole of humanity, and whoever has saved one man has saved humanity’” (5:32). There can be no better basis than this for human rights and dignity.

    6. Islam is a religion of justice. Human worth is measured in works and achievements. “Every atom’s weight of good or evil work is registered and on the Day of Judgment will be revealed and reckoned for or against ts author” (99:7-8). The very purpose of creation is that humans may prove themselves in their deeds. Life is a race in which those who do the good deeds will be the felicitous both in this world and the next. Blest or unblest, every person gets exactly what he deserves.

    7. Islam affirms every person’s responsibility for history. God has placed humanity within a malleable creation which He made subservient to them (14:32; 22:65). and equipped them with all the faculties necessary to transform creation as well as themselves into the ideal (90:8-10). Religion has no meaning in Islam other than this transformation, every act of which is an act of worship.

    Humans are expected to take history into their hands and knead it into what it ought to be. Realization of the absolute is not an eschatological hope, but the object of an activist engagement in life’s real processes. That is why the Muslim regards himself as responsible for justice throughout the world as well as at his own family home.

    These principles of ethics constitute the bases of Islamic international law. which Muslim jurists have developed and applied a millennium before Grotius, father of European international law. International trade and diplomacy, war and peace, citizens in states not their own. tariffs and douanes (Arabic terms!), embassies and naturalization, transit and visits, etc. — all these were subjects of very elaborate legislation, and they constitute materials in any Muslim legal training. The dominant objectives here as elsewhere are justice, as well as liberty and dignity for all.

    Inspired by Islam, the recent Iranian revolution has made Iran leap toward the restoration of liberty and dignity to the Iranian people whose human rights were openly violated, and whose wealth was plundered by the Shah and his regime. The hope of Iran to become an Islamic state is a hope for an open society where law is supreme and humans are equal: where government is for the commonweal but under the law: where society is internationalized by commitment to universal ends, to a world order of brotherhood and cooperation.

    What does such an Islamic state and, behind it, Islamic law say about the hostages of Tehran? They say unequivocally that the restriction of the physical freedom of any human is forbidden, except where that human is personally involved in crime. The employees of an embassy in a foreign capital do not fall in this category. Hence, in the eye of Islamic law, the seizure of U.S. embassy employees tn Tehran is illegitimate and unacceptable. Indeed. Islamic law recognizes that foreign envoys in the Islamic state enjoy full personal immunity and may not be treated except as envoys. They cannot be incarcerated or executed; they can only be expelled. However, if their conduct brings material damage to the Islamic state or its citizens, they will have to compensate for the damage inflicted.

    The Islamic law of nations equally condemns the harboring of criminals and of stolen wealth. There can be no doubt that the Shah, despite his longstanding friendship with the U.S.. has personally ordered the perpetration of innumerable crimes for which he ought to be brought to justice. And there can be no doubt that he and his entourage, have illegitimately appropriated billions of dollars from the public national wealth of Iran, which ought to be restored to the Iranian people.

    These charges stand at the root of that unfortunate downward spiral of action and reaction into which Iran and the U.S. have been thrown. True, it is the tradition of America to be the haven for the oppressed of the world, a tradition which gives us due pride. But it is a travesty to invoke that tradition to give harbor to criminals, or to share with them their stolen wealth.

    If, after all that has been said, seen and heard, the criminality of the Shah is contested and his facing justice is denied, it reflects our inability to distinguish between the sufferers of injustice and its perpetrators. For us Americans, this inability should be a far more serious matter than the whole affair of the Shah and his billions. It joins forces with Watergate to corrode the moral fiber of our society. Imperceptible as the corrosive change may be, its cumulative effect will adversely affect our future as surely as it did the fate of the ancient Roman Empire.

    From “Islam and the Tehran Hostages,” The Wall Street Journal (November 28, 1979): 24. For a background on the Iran hostage crisis, read here for details.

  • Why Islam?

    Reading Time: 8 minutes

    Within Islam, it is both legitimate and right to ask the question: “Why Islam?” Every tenet of Islam is subject to analysis and contention. No other religion is willing to subject its basic fundamentals of faith to such questioning.

    For example, Saint Thomas Aquinas, the most rational of Christian theologians, stopped the use of reason when it came to the basic fundamentals of the Christian faith. He then tried to justify faith. So to ask “Why Christianity?” is an illegitimate question. However, Allah invites the question, “why Islam?”.

    (more…)

  • Review of “Islam in the Modern National State” by Erwin I. J. Rosenthal

    Reading Time: 4 minutesIslam in the Modern National State by Erwin I. J. Rosenthal.
    Cambridge: The University Press, 1965. pp. 416. $10.50
    Review by Isma’il Raji al-Faruqi

    The problem of the relationship of Islam to the national state and the confrontation of its Law with modernity have been the subject of much controversy. Many books have appeared which seek to define the problems and evaluate tha solutions possible or proposed. This work is perhaps one of the most comprehensive. It surveys classical political thought in Islam as well as its gradual dislodgement from the centers of Muslim political power; it analyzes constitutional theories, contemporary reforms and the role of education in a number of Muslim states. The amount of information Dr. Rosenthal collected is quite impressive; and, where it is purely repetitive, the book undoubtedly takes its place among the best in the field.

    The book jacket announces that the author “writes always as a detached observer. He does not apply the categories of the West to what is essentially Muslim dilemma and problems.” This notwithstanding, it asserts “There has been no counterpart in Islam of the Reformation in the West and so [sic!], in the absence of radical reform, a vulnerable religious and political system has capitulated stop by step to a secular nationalism.” In Chapter I, entitled “The Hum Situation”, where the author analyzes the nature of the problem, he writes: “From Descartes on, philosophy and science in the West have been based on a new attitude toward God and the Universe…Nor must we forget the…principle of freedom of conscience which was first established in the realm of religion by Luther and his Reformation. This new spirit…produced the political philosophy of Hobbes and Locke, which in turn..triggered off the French Revolution…directed equally against political and ecclesiastical tyranny. There evolved a new concept of state and nation which…can easily be reconciled with deism, but not so easily with the God of revelation, the creator and ruler of the wilverse. Hence [sic!] Muslims must either choose between the sovereignty of God and the sovereignty of the people…” (p. 6). It is nothing short of amazing how — even when he expressly plans and commits himself to be objective, whén try as he may — the Western Islamicist is incapable of putting his own cultural predilections and prejudices in enoche. That Islam did not have “the Reformation”, “Descartes”, “Locke”, “Luther” and “the French Revolution” is neither a critique, nor a description, nor an understanding of Islam but a shallow piece of Westernism. One does not understand America by saying of it that it did not have a Genghis Khan!

    (more…)