Religion in Politics

Umer Hafeez
Jan 2, 2005

Since the inception of till the present day, has played an immense role in determining ’s politics and its role in the global order. Specifically, has been used to invoke strong sentiments in people and religious have relied on it to further their particular interests. I will attempt to show that a truly Islamic state for is not a viable option for a majority of people and parochial interpretations of have been used to propagate political objectives rather than stir a religious awakening in order for people to lead better lives.

Differences’ regarding how is interpreted to suit particular objectives has resulted in several factions within . Generally categorized, the Islamic world is dominated by apparently contradicting adversaries- the ‘traditionalists’, the ‘fundamentalists’ and the ‘modernists’. However, all three emphasize some role for in politics and view its relationship to politics in textual terms (Ahmad, 1984). Also, they hold a generally static vision of in the political sphere and take established as ordained by the Quran and the Sunnah as given. Therefore, changes as brought about by social and economic forces are viewed as impingements on these established and divine laws.

Herein lies the contradiction that makes an Islamic political system an unviable option for in the contemporary world. A materialist analysis of history will reveal and its laws to be the result of the objective material conditions present in seventh century Arabia. brought about a drastic social in those times and improved the lives of many. However, to rigidly stick to the same laws and political aspirations fourteen hundred years later seems like a recipe for disaster. One cannot ignore the material changes that have occurred and speeded by the capitalist since that time.

Historically, the influence that has had on the people of the sub-continent had been exploited to achieve particular objective interests. The use of slogans such as ‘ in danger’ has been used to invoke sentiments in people and for finding some basis of binding them together to eventually create a separate homeland. Similarly, religious parties that were against the creation of changed their core objectives and now rallied to create an Islamic state, citing this as the actual purpose for creating .
However, no religio-political movement or party has incorporated in a comprehensive the or traditions of in their programs and activities, nor have they set examples of lives lived, individually or collectively, in accordance with the cherished of the belief system they invoke. Instead they pick out whatever suits their political purposes, cast them in sacred terms, and invest them with religious legitimacy Also, almost all religious discourses are dialectically linked to each other, as in, darkness and light, evil and goodness. Hence, it is possible to detach and expropriate a part from the whole, divest it of its original context and purpose, and put it to political uses. Such a method is almost always ‘absolutist’ and one aspect of is used with complete disregard to another. This phenomenon distorts , debases tradition, and twists the political process wherever it unfolds (Ahmad, 1999).

A prime example of this is the misuse of the concept of ‘’. essentially means intense effort to achieve a positive goal. is not limited to physical but more importantly in Islamic terms, it is within the self and society to conquer , and above all to achieve piety and moral excellence. Most religious parties, however, hardly have a plan of action that would rid society of such evils by means of . Instead, they interpret solely in its exceptional sense and even though its premises are strictly described, they use it to recruit impressionable and to sponsor sectarian violence and in the name of ‘holy warfare’. Another example of this misuse is the so-called “” against the ex-Marxist Afghan and its Soviet ally, even though it was sponsored by a non-Muslim country-the .

Also, was based on a set of intellectual legacies, one of them being , the others philosophy, , aesthetics, and (Ahmad, 1999). However, religious parties seek to suppress the others and vehemently support the theological aspect of , which again leads credibility to the fact that certain aspects are taken into account to further particular objectives and others ignored.

Similarly, discriminatory laws against have come to epitomize the stand of Islamic parties and their continued insistence for the implementation of such laws does not bode well for who constitute almost half the .

Also, having moved from a phase where religious parties were against the conception of to fracturing civil society with religious, ethnic and sectarian violence, religious parties seem to offer no tangible solution to ’s problems. The period of the four pious caliphs is often cited as an alternate; however, it has to be realized that the caliphate then was under different material conditions. Specifically it was a tribal society in transition and the concept of nations and nation states had not evolved then. Therefore, an Islamic state based on those principles would not be a viable option in today’s global order. Moreover, there is no consensus among the Islamists even on the basic question of whether the Islamic state is going to be a hereditary , a dictatorship or a democratic republic (Gardezi, 2003). Further, there is no comprehensive plan for the mode of production in the Islamic state. Similarly, Sha’ria laws suited seventh century Arabia more than a state in the contemporary world. Also, the advocates of an Islamic state are more concerned with implementing ritual conformity and specific codes of conduct, even though they might be against social , and .

Also it is important to realize that the stringent Islamic as propagated by the Islamists is not shared by a majority of people. To begin to conceive of a workable Islamic state, this sort of a culture will have to strike its roots in ’s culture. However, with the controversial, discriminatory and removed-from-time nature of the political agenda for an Islamic state, parties would have to resolve to coercion to develop a culture compatible with an Islamic state.


Conclusion:

The stance of religious parties and their political agenda for has not been coherent or comprehensive enough to deal with the problems faced by . It has been shown that religious and have resorted to expropriating certain aspects of and ignoring others to suit their political interests. Also, an Islamic culture does not have its roots in ’s culture. Moreover, an Islamic state does not seem to be a viable option for a modern state since its understanding is derived from the conditions of seventh century Arabia. Taking all these factors into account coupled with the vast differences in interpretations that are associated with Islamic studies today, it would be good option to remove from the political sphere altogether. should remain a persons’ personal choice and should not be imposed on them. Therefore, a secular state where there is a clear dividing line between and politics and where every individual is free to practice his own or interpretation of could prove to be a better option for .


References:

• Ahmad, Eqbal. in Politics. 31 Oct. 2004
http://www.geocities.com/CollegePark/Library/9803/eqba l_ahmad/eqbal_religion_politics.html

• Ahmad, Eqbal. and Politics. Syracuse University. 30 Oct. 2004
http://www.bitsonline.net/eqbal/articles_by_eqbal_view .asp?id=44&cid=8

• Gardezi, Hassan N. The Politics of in : Islamic State or Shariía Rule. Web. 30 Oct. 2004
http://www.sacw.net/new/Gardezi140403.html