Using meaningless terms in politics is one thing, but basing one’s religious views on meaningless statements is far more damaging. The sad fact is, this is a very common practice, and one that goes completely unnoticed in our midst.

Before I present the “touchy” example I would like to talk about, let’s begin with a not-so-controversial example, so I can define what I mean when I say that words can be “meaningless.”

If I was to say: “I stand for justice,” you won’t find it difficult to understand the statement. You will know that by “justice” I mean being fair and respecting people’s rights. After all, that’s what justice means. You might, at first, think that my statement is clear and quite meaningful. But you’ll soon realise that you have no clue what I mean.

Why?

Because I haven’t told you what I believe “fairness” means, and what I think “people’s rights” are. The statement is meaningless because it can have opposite meanings. “Justice” is a term used by every political party to describe the policies it advocates. For capitalists, capitalism is just, and communism is unjust. For communists, capitalism is unjust, and communism is just. Each has his own definition of justice. In order to understand my statement, you’d have to know what I mean by justice, and how my worldview translates into practical policies.

It’s just as meaningless as saying: “I have opinions,” because you haven’t stated what your opinions are (unless you’re trying to distinguish yourself from chimps).

For a statement to be meaningful, its relation to reality must be clear. In our example of justice, it is important to associate the word with the principles and practices I support, so you can know whether you support my view of justice or not. Without this clarification, the word “justice” doesn’t have a clear reference.

So how does this tie in with religious views?

Take the following statement: “Islam is compatible with human nature.”

While Muslims the world over pride themselves on following the only religion that’s compatible with human nature, they overlook the fact that they don’t know what “human nature” is in the first place!

Many Muslims haven’t stopped to think what human nature means, while others have come to define human nature according to their understanding of Islam (when it should be the other way around)! Either of the two ways, you can replace “Islam” in the above statement with the name of any other religion you wish.

To make the statement meaningful: How would you define human nature? How did you come to define it this way? And in what ways is Islam compatible with human nature?

He was once in a social gathering (i.e. a deewaniya) here in Kuwait, when a man running in a local election came in and was encouraging the attendees to vote for him. My brother-in-law recognized the man, and so he asked him: “In your campaign slogan, you say that you are working for change. What do you mean by that?”

The man replied: “Change is what people want.”

In other words, “change” is a buzz-word people want to hear, and this man doesn’t even know what it means, but used it anyway to win votes!

The odd thing is, even those who are mesmerized by the word “change” don’t know what it means! All they can associate with the word is relief from their existing problems.

However, change isn’t necessarily a good thing. It all depends on the direction this “change” will take us in.

I think, by now, you know why I’m making this point: many of Barack Obama’s supporters were mesmerized by his slogan: “Change We Can Believe In” (and other slogan variations, which were centered on the “change” theme) without really knowing what he means by this word, or what sort of policies he advocates.

Words such as: change, hope and justice are totally meaningless in political discourse because they could mean anything. The speaker means one thing (if he knows what it means in the first place, unlike our local politician I mentioned earlier) and the listeners understand it the way they want, and assume that this is what the speaker meant.

I don’t deny that Obama will bring about change, but I’m not too sure his supporters will be happy with the change he brings.

The Process

Before I discuss the issue of Islamization thoroughly, we need to remember that Islamization is the process of installing Islamic law as the source of legislation. This means that Islamic law was not the law, and the case is made for its adoption by the country, not in 5 or 10 year’s time, but now.

For the Islamists, it is not part of their vision to see Islamic law being used in the country in the distant future, but this is at the top of their agenda, and they are pushing for it at every chance they get.

The Rise of Islam

While the case is made by the Islamists that Islamic law is the solution we are in desperate need of to tackle our personal, social, economic and political problems, they overlook the fact that the process of Islamization that they are promoting is contrary to the way in which Islam itself was promoted by the Prophet (peace be on him and his family).

Islamists want to make use of the law in order to change people’s moral conduct. But the Prophet never approached morality in this way. Islam did not begin as a government or any other political establishment. It began as a moral movement that promoted a re-evaluation of society’s beliefs and customs, and offered a worldview that promoted individual thought and upright character.

Islamic scholars usually draw a distinction between the verses of the Holy Koran that were revealed in Mecca (i.e. during the early days of Islam) and the ones revealed in Medina (i.e. the later stages of Islam) because the former concentrated more on beliefs, principles and moral virtues, whereas the latter dealt with civil law, warfare, political relations, etc. The process of Islamization reverses the formula, and rather than begin with moral guidance through rational persuasion, they seek to promote morality through political force.

The Law and the Culture

It is important to bear in mind that the rise of Islam demonstrates the Islamic way of bringing about social reform. In other words, it presents us with the process we must use, if we wish to act in accordance with Islam. We cannot simply work towards the end results (Islamic beliefs, upright conduct, etc) while overlooking how these issues are meant to be approached. And we certainly cannot look for shortcuts, which is what the Islamists are looking for.

By using the threat of force, the Islamists hope that they can mould society in any way they wish. They completely ignore the validity of their process, and do not take into consideration the role culture plays in a society.

Islam sought to change the culture before it established the law. The Prophet wanted to change the way people thought, not by intimidation or compulsion, but with reason. He wanted to change their conduct, not by force or with threats, but by setting an example and encouraging others towards the values he was promoting.

The prohibition of intoxicants is usually given as an example of how Islamic law did not immediately demand that alcohol be banned from Muslim society. The Prophet gave the reasons for why people should not drink alcohol, but he did not prevent people from drinking, nor did he punish them for drinking.

Islam came to instill the values that are proper to a prosperous society, and the law came later on to codify the moral values that society upheld and consented to.

Looking at the Islamist approach to politics, we find that the Islamists seek to add more restrictions on people so they can develop in them the values the Islamists associate to Islam. In other words, the less people know, the less choices they have and the less they can do, the more moral they can become.

There is total disregard for the current values that people uphold, no use of reasoning to promote “Islamic” values and no consideration for the consequences their policies will have on people’s personal adoption of Islamic values. Islam has to be obeyed, no matter what people think or how they feel about it.

Is this an Islamic attitude?

Understanding the Law

Apart from the fact that the Islamist agenda ignores the actual process the Prophet used to introduce Islam in Arabia, it also makes unsubstantiated claims about the nature of Islamic law and misinterprets the law through false principles and wrong application of Islamic teachings. We will look at all these issues, and relate them to some positions the Islamists in Kuwait took regarding a couple of issues.

“Islamic law is unchanging”

The most popular claim Islamists make regarding the nature of Islamic law is that it is unchanging, and is suitable for all times and all places. This is a claim Islamists find difficult to think beyond or without. It forms the framework of their thinking, and they cannot understand Islam in any other way. They view change as something negative (which is one of the reasons why they are conservatives) and think that it creates uncertainty and undermines Islamic teachings. Besides, God knows the nature of man and his needs, and God’s knowledge cannot become outdated.

But this is a claim that the Prophet neither made nor acted on. Islamic law went through several changes during the time of the Prophet, and the study of Islamic law takes into account the abrogated verses (Ar. mansukh, i.e. the verses whose application is replaced) and the abrogating verses (Ar. nasikh, i.e. the verses that came to replace the abrogated verses). This is something stated in the Holy Koran, and Islamic teachings don’t hide this fact.

So if Islamic law went through several changes during the time of the Prophet, is it appropriate for us to say that from the Prophet’s death onward, Islamic law cannot be changed?

For us to answer this question appropriately, we must take into account why Islamic law should be open to change.

It is narrated that Imam Ali (peace be on him) was asked about the Prophet’s instruction for the Muslims to dye their hair, and whether Muslims were still obliged to do so. Imam Ali replied that, during the early days of Islam, the Muslims were a minority and subject to abuse. The Prophet encouraged the Muslims to dye their hair so that they can appear more youthful in relation to the rest of society, and thereby presenting themselves as a strong community. But after the Muslims became powerful, it is no longer necessary to give such an impression.

It is also recorded that the second caliph, Caliph Umar, suspended corporal punishments during a drought.

What both incidents show is, at least, an understanding of Islam amongst prominent Muslim figures that Islamic law was open to change, given the conditions in which the Muslims live. And not only do Islamists overlook conditions (conditions are subject to change, and Islamists do not like change), they also ignore the context in which Islamic law was implemented during the time of the Prophet. “Why did the Prophet give such a ruling?” is not a question Islamists tend to ask, which distorts their understanding and, therefore, implementation of Islamic law.

Islam in Context

In a lengthy narration on the abrogated and abrogating verses, Imam Ali pointed out that many Islamic rulings were not based on universal laws, but were an extension of the existing customs of Arabia. This, Imam Ali explained, was part of God’s mercy in that He did not introduce laws to a people that they were unable to cope with, or which strongly conflicted with their expectations.

And while Islamists may rationalize the universal applicability of Islamic law, they must be aware of the rulings which are bound by the society in which Islam was born, and which prominent Islamic figures, such as Imam Ali, who is regarded as one of the key interpreters of Islam, did not claim to be universal.

Distorted Teachings

As I have already mentioned in the article “the Islamization of the Law,” the interpretation of Islamic law is a crucial element that we need to address before we can claim that the law we are promoting is actually Islamic (i.e. in accordance with God’s message).

There are many principles that need to be taken into consideration when interpreting Islamic law, and I have only touched on some of them. But to help explain the Islamist interpretation of Islamic law, I would like to look at two issues that were raised in Kuwait by Islamists:

Banning Valentine’s: Apart from the fact that this is a top-down approach to promoting Islam, the Islamists wanted to ban the celebration of Valentine’s because they considered it indecent, and because it is a celebration that Islam does not recognize. Not every interpretation of Islam would accept these arguments. For one thing, celebrating Valentine’s is only indecent depending on the individuals celebrating it. No one can claim that it is indecent for a married couple to celebrate Valentine’s.

As for Valentine’s being a non-Muslim celebration does not immediately cast it off as forbidden for the Muslims to celebrate. Islamists have low tolerance for celebrations and occasions that do not belong in the Islamic calendar. Some even object to celebrating birthdays, including the Prophet’s birthday, because it’s a day that the Prophet himself did not observe.

But, again, the interpretation of Islamic teachings does not make it clear whether the Islamist interpretation is justified or not, and it certainly cannot speak on behalf of all Muslims.

Opposing the weekend shift: When Kuwait wanted to shift its weekend from Thursday-Friday to Friday-Saturday, the Islamists opposed the move, and claimed that regarding Saturday a holiday is Islamically forbidden, because it imitates the Jews, which the Prophet has warned the Muslims about.

What the Islamists failed to recognize is what sort of imitation the Prophet has warned the Muslims about. The Jews worship a single God, but does that mean the Muslims have to be different, and worship two gods? The Jews observe a day of rest, so does this mean the Muslims cannot regard Friday a day of rest?

The imitation the Prophet warned us about is not in their observance of the Sabbath, or any other religious ritual, but it is in the ways they have deviated from God’s instructions. The Islamists have incorrectly applied an Islamic teaching to an issue to which the teaching did not apply.

We, therefore, see that the Islamist call for Islamization is not what the Islamists make it out to be. It is not a pure application of Islamic law, since they have dismissed the Islamic process of promoting Islam, they do not understand the nature of Islamic law, nor interpret its teachings correctly. Rather than be drawn towards Islamization by judging the call from a distant, we must try to understand exactly what is meant by it, and to listen carefully to what is being called for.

What is Islamization?

In essence, Islamization is changing the source of a country’s civil law from a secular source to Islamic law (Sharia). Many Muslim countries regard Islamic law as one of the sources of legislation, whereas Islamization demands that it becomes the sole source of legislation. Islamization is the process of adopting Islamic law as the law of the land. This is an important point to bear in mind. Islamization does not only defend the use of Islamic law as the source of legislation, but makes a case for its adoption as such. In other words, it is not simply in favour of Islamic law, but makes a case against its alternatives.

The case is made for the Islamization of the law based on the argument that God, who has revealed the religion of Islam, has also revealed to us the laws by which we should govern our lives and our social affairs. And since we are Muslims, we are expected to judge and rule according to God’s laws, and no other law. Besides, since God is our creator, He is more acquainted with our needs and knows what the most suitable political system for us is. Man-made laws, on the other hand, are limited by the ignorance of those who made up the law.

Secular law, according to the Islamists, is based on ignorance and a limited view of existence. Secular law is perceived as materialistic and lacking a broader vision that encompasses spirituality and morality. Besides, secular law either perceives the government, or the citizens, as the authority in the country, whereas the Islamists regard God as the ultimate authority. Therefore, the law should be dictated by Him, and to accept an alternative is a sign that we are undermining God’s authority and ignoring His blessings, of providing us with a political system that is designed according to His knowledge of mankind. “The Creator knows His creation more than His creation knows itself.”

The fact that Islamic law is not the source of legislation in Muslim countries is viewed by the Islamists as the primary source of the ills that the Muslims are living through. By adopting Islam as the source of the law, we will be able to overcome our political, economic and social problems. Without Islam as the source of law, the Muslims are destined to fall and face further ills and agonies.

This is the foundation of the argument for the Islamization of the law. But if we dig deeper into the message being presented, we will realise how misleading and meaningless it is.

Why is it Misleading?

The Problem of Interpretation

The argument for the Islamization of the law is overly simplistic. It is based on the claim that our understanding of Islam is correct, and that we have understood the message of Islam and its laws precisely how God wants us to understand it. In other words, how we will implement Islamic law will be the way that God wants us to implement it. The only obstacle standing in the way of an Islamic heaven on earth is the acceptance of Islamic law as the source of legislation. Everything else, apart from possible corruption, will be Islam in practice.

However, the very fact that Muslim scholars disagree over what constitutes Islamic law, and that the schools of thought in Islam disagree on almost every possible issue in Islamic law, should be a sign that what we consider to be “Islamic law” might not be what God intended the law to be. If we have misunderstood God’s law, it is no longer divine. It does not come with God’s sanction. Our understanding of the law must exactly match what God has ordained. Any distortion in the interpretation of Islamic law renders it man-made. There is no escaping this fact.

The questions that we should ask are: What interpretation of Islam will we recognize as God’s law? Why would we accept this interpretation over every other interpretation? Will all Muslims be judged according to one interpretation, or will each sect be judged according to its own interpretation of the law?

The claim that Islamic law is divine, only according to the interpretation of the Islamists, is far-fetched. In the least, the Islamists need to offer proof for why their version of the law is divine. To simply make the claim in order to win support for their agenda is misleading. Before calling for the Islamization of the law, the issue of interpretation should be addressed.

The distinction is made by the Islamists between God’s law and man-made law, when the issue of interpretation reveals that “God’s law” could be just as “man-made” as any other law, if it is misinterpreted. But a law that is enacted with divine authority, when it lacks God’s sanction, is much worse than any man-made law, because it will commit injustices in the name of God, and quash any opposition to the oppression, in the name of God.

Misrepresenting the Alternatives

Islamists don’t represent secular laws as they are, but they attach labels to them to undermine their credibility. The issue of “man-made” law is intended to undermine the value found in secular laws, since their origin is human ignorance (as if humans are incapable of reaching valid conclusions through reason and observation). As I have mentioned above, Islamic law can be just as man-made, depending on how accurate the interpretation of it is, but presented as though it was divine, making it far more dangerous than any secular law.

The greatest danger found in the call for the Islamization of the law is the blame it places on Western political systems for the social ills found in Western countries. In other words, it is taken for granted that the political system causes moral corruption, with total disregard for the role culture plays in society. That is, the incidents of rape, crime, violence, substance abuse, etc. aren’t considered social ills, but the consequences of the political systems found in the West. This is not only a grave misrepresentation, but goes to show how the Islamists plan on reforming society. I will re-visit this issue in a future post.

Defining the Problems and the Solutions

It is important to note that the political and social problems taken into consideration when presenting the case for Islamization are defined according to Islamist terms. Segregation is a clear example of this. Does Islam actually prohibit interaction between the opposite genders? And are mixed schools (or mixed gatherings, in general) to blame for the social problems that the Islamists have claimed them to cause?

The case for Islamization defines its own problems and its own solutions. Before accepting these definitions we must question their credibility.

Why is it meaningless?

For an agenda to be meaningful, it must have a specific meaning. It cannot hold more than one conflicting meaning. An agenda that “means everything” means nothing. Therefore, the very fact that Islamization doesn’t actually define which interpretation of Islamic law is being referred to, what this will practically mean and how will the law be executed makes the issue of Islamization completely meaningless.

Those who support Islamization, in the name of implementing God’s laws, do not know what they’re getting themselves into, what kind of political system they are calling for and what sort of society they will be living in.

Why is the Call to Islamization Popular?

The primary reasons for the popularity of Islamization is that it is both misleading and meaningless. People accept the claim that it is a call to the implementation of God’s laws, without realising how complex a task it is to actually define what God’s laws are. They assume that, as Muslims, it is their obligation to judge by God’s law, and readily accept the call of anyone who seems to demand that we fulfill our obligation.

Everyone who accepts the call to Islamization has associated his or her own understanding to “Islamization.” They offer their own explanations to what sort of society they would be living in, and what kind of laws will be enacted, but fail to realise that those in power may have an entirely different understanding to what “Islamic law” actually is.

The popularity of the call to Islamization is the crossroads between hope and the desire for change, and those who have placed their hope in Islamization believe that the Islamists can deliver on their promises, as though God Himself has promised a positive outcome.

In this article I would like to look at how these axes come into play in politics.

The Primary Axis

Political outlooks usually demonstrate what axis one considers to be the most important of these axes. There is usually one or two axes that a political view focuses on, and the role of the other axes is either undermined or completely ignored. However, this does not mean that the ignored axes are absent from the picture. It only means that they did not receive the attention they deserve. This is especially true since power has had close to a monopoly on our political thinking, even though we may not be aware of it.

For example, democracy is often advertised as “power to the people,” yet the rights of minorities are often overlooked. The focus is on recognizing the power people have to bring about change in their countries, without considering the limits of this power, or the consequences of a democratic system. The issue of democracy, alone, can be approached from different angles, placing the focus on the different political axes.

One can make a case for democracy by pointing out that any policies that are democratically enacted have the consent of the people and are, therefore, authoritative, without the need to resort to force or any display of power.

Others might view democracy as a battle between competing factions (identities), and see democracy as being oppressive towards minorities, because their views and interests might not be properly represented.

There are also those who do not place so much emphasis on the right to vote and the “will of the majority” as they do on the right to freedom of speech and association. They demand that any implementation of democracy in a country should take into account the rights of the individual to express his views and to cast his vote based on his own beliefs, without his rights being limited by what the majority might wish to dictate. That is, even though democracy recognizes the authority of the people, it cannot undermine the rights of the citizens.

Some people choose to highlight the failures of a democratic system in protecting the rights of its citizens, considering such failures a restriction on the freedom citizens are meant to enjoy.

The focus (or primary axis) in a political outlook plays a major role in the development of that outlook, and the extent to which the other axes will be taken into consideration.

There are some political outlooks that, by their nature, place more emphasis on one or two axes over all others. Dictatorship places a great deal of emphasis on power and authority. Feminism places its emphasis primarily on identity (by gender) and power. Liberalism places its emphasis on rights and freedom. Theocracy places its emphasis on (divine) authority. Nationalism places its emphasis on identity.

When considering any political outlook, you must identify where the emphasis is placed, and what the outlook’s opinion of the other axes is.

The Definition of Each Axis

Political outlooks differ mostly on their definition of each axis. Rights are defined in a number of ways, which are often contradictory. Capitalism regards private property a right, whereas Communism regards property the right of the public. Power can be defined in military terms or in political terms (e.g. the power of the vote). Authority can be seen to belong to God, the government or the people. Identity can be defined based on race, gender, nationality, culture, religion, etc.

To determine whether you agree or disagree with any political outlook, you must first determine whether you agree with the definition given to each axis. What is considered power? Who has authority? How are people identified? What are the rights of the citizens, and does the government have rights? What is the freedom the citizens are entitled to?

By looking at where the focus of a political outlook lies and how it defines its terms, you can come to a better understanding of its aims and potential consequences. It is meaningless to rally behind a candidate that calls for “justice” or “freedom” without knowing what he means by them.