Politics of permissibility

In a previous entry, it was said that one of the points distinguishing the Islamists from the Muslim secularists is their attitude towards the Shariah and the jurisdiction of its rulings. In this and subsequent entries, I shall attempt to very briefly outline why I believe the two views have much more in common is at first apparent, and how the perceived incompatibility of the two political views is largely due to semantics and rhetoric.

With regards to the first point, the nature and jurisdiction of the Sharia, the secular school maintains that as a religion, Islam is mainly concerned with man's spiritual, moral and personal aspects, and has limited jurisdiction in the wider social context, and even less influence in matters of ruling. As such, they maintain that the affairs of the state, intended to organise public life, should not be influenced by religion, whose zone of influence is the individual.

The Islamists, on the other hand, argue that Islam is a complete way of life, encompassing the complete spectrum of human affairs and relationships, and cannot be divorced from the matters of the state. They go further, claiming that Islam is not only inherently political, but is also primarily concerned with achieving global superiority and dominance, and shaping the lives of all those fortunate enough to come under the influence of the single Islamic state.

Looking carefully at what each party is claiming, it is possible to construct an argument sufficiently close to each of the above positions to briefly bridge the gulf between them, allowing those in both camp open to independent thinking to engage in constructive dialogue or self-reflection.

The secularist argument, when rephrased in Islamist terms, simply states that the ruling class, like everyone else, are required by Allah to ensure their actions comply with Islamic law, i.e. that they carry out all their obligations and refrain from all prohibitions. The Muslim secularists don't generally have a problem with this, as Islam is deeply rooted in their cultural and religious heritage. To the secular ear, the Islamist argument sound something like this: the ruler is appointed by the people to implement Islamic law in public life, and the manner in which this justice is dispensed and this power manipulated must itself be according to Islamic law.

The difference between the two views seems to be in the understanding of what it means to comply with Islamic Sharia, and whether that is different from implementing it. It is generally agreed that every human action has an associated Islamic ruling, being either mandatory, rewardable, permissible, undesirable or forbidden; the differences arise when determining how these rulings are allocated.

The secularists would say that most actions, and in particular those in the public sphere, have not been addressed by the Islamic texts directly, and are therefore not covered by Islamic legislation, and are "permissible" by default. A Shariah-compliant government, from a secular point of view, is at liberty to use whatever means it sees fit to select and implement legislation to organise people's public actions within this "permissible" category. Such governance would neither legalise actions known to be prohibited in Islam, nor prohibit actions known to be obligations in Islam, and as such the Muslim secularists might be excused for wondering what all the fuss was about.

The Islamists would probably argue that no action is exempt from the all-encompassing Islamic Shariah, as the revelation deals with all aspects of human relations. To them, "permissibility by default" is akin to accusing the Creator of overlooking some actions in the revelation, and is strongly rejected. However they will concede that a large proportion of human actions does in fact fall under the "permissible" category, due to the existence of general evidences from the Islamic texts that indicate their permissibility.

The form of governance acceptable to such advocates would involve legislation being passed to organise public affairs within the this category because these actions are part of the Islamic Shariah, and hence implementation of such legislation is considered an implenentation of the Islamic Shairah. Bringing about such governance is considered an obligation (upon society) for which people should sacrifice their lives.

Notice how the difference between the two views is essentially semantic in nature: both parties agree that there is a category of Islamically-permissible human actions which have not been addressed explicitly by the Islamic texts. One party considers that sufficient to justify looking elsewhere when legislating in this area, while the other party considers permissibility to be an Islamic ruling in itself that must be adhered to when legislating in that area, in order for the legislation process itself to be permissible.

I can't see the difference between the two positions, in practice. Can you?

Examples of how these semantics are reflected in some Islamist literature will follow in subsequent entries, insha Allah.