Pedantic semantics

When it comes to politics and ruling, the Muslims seem divided between two competing camps, each with distinctly different political agendas: the secular establishments representing the ruling classes, political parties and intelligentsia, and the emerging Islamist movements representing the more politicised Islamic organisations and the growing religious grass-roots. Each camp also claim the loyalty of a fair number of esteemed Muslim scholars.

On the face of it, the two schools appear diametrically opposed to each other, with each presenting a mutually-exclusive view towards politics and matters of ruling and public life. However, beyond the rhetoric and accusations, it could be that the two schools are in fact more similar than they might first appear. It may well be that the areas of contention have more to do with semantics and pedantry than substantial differences on matters of creed or ideology.

And just to be clear about that, semantics is defined as:

the language used (as in advertising or political propaganda) to achieve a desired effect on an audience especially through the use of words with novel or dual meanings.

Pedantry is similarly defined as

undue display of learning; slavish attention to rules and details; excessive concern with minute details of formalism; narrow, often ostentatious concern for book learning and formal rules.

Listening to what is being said by both sides, it would appear that the main areas of controversy can be grouped under three main (closely-related) headings:

1. Are all actions subject to the Shariah, including those relating to politics and ruling?


2. Does man have the right to legislate, or is that only for Allah?


3. Can legislation be taken from "other than Islam"?

While both parties appear to differ bitterly on the answers to these three questions, in the following three entries I shall examine some of the main arguments put forward, and attempt to show how bridging the gulf between the two viewpoints can often be achieved simply by listening. I believe in most cases, the difference of opinion is somewhat artificial and the debate often exaggerated, leading to unnecessary polarisation, entrenchment and animosity. If only both sides were to agree on the use of a common language, perhaps the current stalemate could be broken.

This discussion is continued in a series of entries:

• Politics of permissibility
• The right to legislate
• Did you say "Kufr"?