Strategy and Statecraft

Ambassadors Ebrahim Rasool examines Sheikh al Qaradawi and Islam’s Fundamental Socio-Political Values.

In the last column we explored the Quran and Sunnah as constituting the original Art of War at the moment when the two superpowers of the time had fought each other to the point of exhaustion. This created an Interregnum, a pause in history when the unlikely and unexpected could breathe and take centre stage, as happened with the early Muslims who transformed their suffering in Mecca to statecraft in Medina through a set of carefully constructed strategic initiatives. We concluded the column with the question of whether there are conditions today that equates to a similar interregnum?

The passing of Sheikh Yusuf al Qaradawi (may Allah have mercy on him and elevate him to the highest abode) reminded me how very recently in 2012 we deliberated with him in Doha, Qatar in a very intimate gathering of Arab spring constitution writers, scholars like Sheikhs Qaradawi and Hassan Turabi, and other intellectuals, convened by the Center for Islamic Legislation and Ethics in an attempt to seize the political initiative in what I described as an interregnum: the remaining superpower, the USA, through President Obama had called the Arab masses to democracy and freedom with great rhetorical flourish in Cairo in 2009, and two years later those masses called his bluff with the Arab Spring. That the USA blinked and allowed the counter-revolution does not detract from the opening of new possibilities and dreams for the world of Islam, which had to be populated with matching Islam’s enduring values with the new ideas required for statecraft if the Arab spring could truly be sustained.

I was there representing what was regarded as the South African success story of a heroic struggle against inhumanity, a brave transition that meant co-existence of both the oppressed and the oppressor, a constitutional achievement of note, and the first generations of democratic governance characterised by humaneness and generosity. After explaining the logic of these, Sheikh Qaradawi joked with Sheikh Turabi that the Safir (Ambassador) was more rooted in Islamic Scripts than the A’limfrom Sudan. Sheikh Qaradawi then proceeded to respond to what he had absorbed with such vision, such grasp of what that moment occasioned by the Arab Spring had ushered in, with such clarity about the Islamic values that should underpin the post-revolution statecraft, that those 3 days sitting next to him stand out as of the most memorable in my life. He left me with a task that SA Muslims should be the authors of the Fiqh of Minorities and Citizenship because our Fiqh would be written with the blood of our ancestors.  

Sheikh Qaradawi’s address was the Islamic response to the strong hand of authoritarianism, patrolled by the surveillance state, and often justified by references to Islam. His address encouraged the uprising from 2011 because it created a rupture in the idea that authoritarianism is germane to Islam and acceptable to Muslims. Across the Muslim world the thirst for an alternative manifested itself, and although that alternative was not clearly articulated, formulated or even conceptualised, it had some key values that drove it.

The main values, articulated by Sheikh Qaradawi, rotated around concepts like inclusion, choice, equality, consultation in decisions, development, human dignity, human rights, and freedoms. The Arab Spring forced Muslims to define what would be the qualitative break with authoritarianism and what was the alternative to hundreds of years dynasties, theocracies, authoritarianism and strong government.

The easy cliché was the Islamic State, yet these too, had existing models with significant shortcomings. Even the idea of the implementation of Shariah, often meant the instrumentalization of shariah for authoritarian leaders, flaunting hudud, or curtailing the rights of women. 

The Arab Spring brought these tensions and contradictions to the fore and asked the fundamental question:  Now that we have identified what and who we are against, can we define what we are for? 

It was Sheikh Yusuf al Qaradawi who courageously and theologically stepped into the breach to define the values that were rooted in the Scripts of Islam which would be the cornerstones of this alternative statecraft.

SHEIKH QARADAWI’S FIVE FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS IN ISLAM

Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi in his advice to the participants unequivocally makes the case for freedom in Islam and concluded with a caveat: that an over-riding intent of Islam is to ensure that harm is prevented.  He thus argues that where there is the potential for harm, such freedoms should be subjected to well-founded limitations, but that this intent should never be construed as a licence for authoritarianism. He identified five areas where hurriyah or freedom is ensured textually in Islam.

Freedom of Expression and Opinion

Sheikh Qaradawi states that: “… Islam did not restrict opinions, even (of) those in conflict with its fundamentals and principles: or opposing its pillars and foundations.”  He draws from the Quran (7: 258) to illustrate that Prophet Abraham (s) gave Nimrod full opportunity to explain his point of view even to challenge the sovereignty of God in absolute contradiction to the core belief of Islam viz tawhid or monotheism. The response to this is not intolerance or persecution but the Quran (2:112) instead challenges: “Say – Bring your proof, if you are sincere!”

Similarly, the angel Iblees (Lucifer) was given the full opportunity to say the most heretical things.  This freedom is a freedom for an engagement between truth and its opposite.

Qardawi (ibid p.125) goes on to illustrate how a free exchange was always encouraged between the Prophet (s) and the citizens of the Muslim City State of Medina. The operative matter was whether citizens were questioning the divine instruction or the opinion of the Prophet: Hubab ibn Mundhir, at the Battle of Badr questioned the Prophet on his choice of location: “Is this location ordered by Allah, and shall we not discuss it at all, or is it the opinion for war and plot?”

In this atmosphere of complete freedom, the Prophet replied: “It is the opinion for war and plot.”

Hubab expressed himself as to why it was the wrong location, whereupon the Prophet replied: “You are right!”

Freedom of Belief

In the matter of freedom of belief, the central foundation is the absence of coercion: “There is no compulsion in religion; truth is distinct from misguidance.” [Q 2:256]. Moreover, the matter of choice is important: “To you your religion and to me mine.” [Q 111:6]. Not only is the absence of coercion and the presence of choice endorsed, so is the wisdom of diversity as a corollary to freedom: “And if your Lord had so decided, whoever is in the Earth would indeed have believed, all of them, altogether. Would you then compel humanity until they are believers?” [Q10:99].

Freedom to Think

The Quran is replete with invitations to think, reason, ponder and contemplate, in limitless ways: “I admonish you only that you rise up to Allah in pairs or singly, thereafter reflect!” … [Q 34:46] and: “’Say: Examine whatever is in the heavens and the earth,” [Q 10:101] and “… have they not travelled the earth with hearts to consider, or ears to hear with?  Surely, it is not the eyes that grow blind, but it is the heart within the breast that grows blind!” [Q 22:46] Qardawi says of these, and the many other such verses, that: “It is an invitation that provokes intellect, activates mind, evokes meaning of contemplation, and trains man to have certain vision and to think independently in the light of such major premises.”

These are, he argues, the foundation of intellectual and scientific freedom in Islam.

Freedom to Oppose Tyranny and Wrongdoing

The obligation to enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong, must presuppose the freedom to do so. Inherent to this must be the attendant freedoms to criticise and the freedom of expression.  The Quran [Q 31:17] establishes firstly, the obligation: “… and command the good and forbid what is wrong, and bear with resilience whatever afflicts you; for this indeed is firmness of (purpose) in the conduct of affairs.” Secondly, the Quran [Q 5:82] warns of the consequences, and therefore, establishes the freedom to oppose and to criticise: “Nor did they forbid one another the iniquities which they committed.  Evil were the deeds they performed.” Not criticising, expressing or opposing wrongdoing will have dire collective consequences, whereas the one who does criticise, express or oppose is advised to bear with stoicism the result of exercising this freedom.

This was a set of freedoms constantly ingrained into the Muslim community. The Prophet said: “When you see my nation afraid of calling the unjust ‘unjust’ in his face, then be certain they are the living dead.” The rightly guided Caliphs had the same approach: Abu Bakr (r) in his first speech said, “O people, if I am right help me, and if I am wrong, advise me. Obey me as long as I obey God and if I disobey God, never obey me!”

Similarly, Omar (r) said: “O people, whoever among you sees crookedness in me let him straighten me!” whereupon one offered to straighten him with his sword. Omar thanked God for such citizens. When he found the disagreement from one of the citizens, he thought about it and said: “You are right and I am wrong,” and quoted the Quran which said: “Above every person with knowledge, there is the One who is Ever-Knowing! [Q 12:76].

Sheikh Qardawi in discussing how to institutionalise such freedoms as the right to criticise, oppose and express, says: “There is no legal proof to prevent the existence of more than one political party in an Islamic state. Such multiplicity may be a necessity for our current era as it represents the safety valve against the despot… and the domination and control of all people.” He then warns against the dangers of opposition taking anarchic and violent forms, and therefore, political parties representing a large organised group can best fulfil this role. The form is either through a parliamentary system or even through peaceful demonstrations and protests. To underpin that not only should such freedom be limited to what you say, there is the episode when Omar (r) embraced Islam in the presence of the Prophet. Omar immediately enquired from the Prophet whether, if they were on the path of truth, they should continue to meet in secret, whereupon Omar said: “By God who has sent you with the truth, you shall call in public!” And with the Prophet’s approval they marched in orderly procession to the Kaaba and publicly performed their Islamic rites.

Freedom of Choice and the Right to Collective Decisions

The textual origin for this freedom comes from the Quran [42:38] where the politics of mutual consultation is established amongst other compulsory rites: “Those who respond to the call of their Lord, establish prayer, conduct their affairs by mutual consultation, and spend out of what we have provided for them.” The centrality of popular participation in the choice of leadership for people has no real contrary view in Islam.  Popular participation is the key to legitimacy of leadership.  The Prophet said as much: “The best of your rulers are those whom you love and who love you, and those who supplicate God in your favour, and you God in their favour. The worst of your rulers are those whom you hate and who hate you; and whom you curse and who curse you.” The politics of mutual consultation can take different forms by which popular participation is ensured. Sheikh Qaradawi derives from this principle of mutual consultation, the practice for collective and inclusive expression of the opinion or decision of the nation which could include democratic forms where leadership is elected through elections to parliament or direct elections for the president; where leadership is elected to manage public affairs and is held accountable;  and the core of such elections have evolved scientific forms and methods through suffrage, referenda, majority rule, plurality of political parties, the rights of opposition, the freedom of the press, the independence of the judiciary. He concludes: “Islam is in conformity with such core (ideas) and does not accept the rule of a despot!”.