Fundamentalism, terrorism, democracy and Islam

Demonstrating in favour of Islamic rule

But Islam is a misunderstood religion: misunderstood by Muslims and non-Muslims alike. For this misunderstanding, practising Muslims are largely to be blamed, because they have failed in their primary responsibility to represent Islam.

Islam cannot be equated with fundamentalism. The origin and growth of fundamentalism has been described by the New Encyclopedia Britannica thus: "[A] conservative movement in American Protestantism arising out of the millenarian movement of the 19th century and emphasizing as fundamental to Christianity the literal interpretation and absolute inerrancy of the Scriptures, Fundamentalism came into its own in the early 20th century in opposition to the modernist tendencies in American religious and secular life. The roots of fundamentalism are found in the history of the American millenarian movement."

Certainly Islam has its own fundamental principles (which every religion has), and recognises the Bible to be a divine scripture (which in the last two millennia have been distorted beyond recognition), but the principles of Islam cannot be equated with Christianity (although there are similarities). In any event, and as its history suggests, fundamentalism is based on Christianity, and not on Islam. Islam is a very wide culture and flexible enough to accommodate new ideas, new thoughts, and new developments. It is therefore fundamentally wrong to equate Islam with fundamentalism.

Equally wrong is to equate Islam with extremism. Extremism means "being situated at the furthest possible point from the centre." Islam stands for moderation and recommends moderation and balance in belief, in worship, in conduct, in international relations, in war and peace. Muslims are by definition moderate. "You have been created as a moderate nation to be a witness for truth for mankind." (The Quran 2:143). In the long 23 years of the Prophet's prophetic life he followed the middle path: the path of moderation. He went for the soft option, if one was available. He brought far-reaching changes in the social, political, cultural, economic, and spiritual life of Arabia but those changes were brought gradually and constitutionally.

One example: There were 360 idols in the House of God, the K'aba. From day one of his prophethood, he had been preaching the oneness of God, and speaking uncompromisingly against those 360 false gods. His followers were prepared to do everything for him and for his cause. No sacrifice was too big. It was, therefore perfectly possible for him to organise a commando style attack on K'aba in an attempt to get rid of those gods. He was nowhere near that. On the contrary he prayed in the K'aba for long 13 years and waited for long 21 years -- until the conquest of Makkah -- when he, as head of the state, promulgated a decree to clear the House of God from false gods. Thus, finally, the cleansing was carried out constitutionally.

This is not to deny the existence of extremists in the name of Islam. There are. The July bombings in London and the August bombings in Bangladesh are recent examples. But extremists in the Muslim community are a very tiny minority and do not represent Islam. Any attempt, therefore, to equate Islam with extremism, and Islamists with extremists is wrong.

There are fears that if 'Political Islam' dominates a country -- Bangladesh for example -- it would cease to be a democracy. People will lose their right to dissent. And a theocratic state would be established "based on medieval legal and social practices and jurisprudence of Islam of yore."

First, there is no such thing as "political Islam" and "spiritual Islam." Islam is a complete code of life: a guidance for humanity. The fundamental objective of an Islamic government is to secure political, economic, and social justice for its citizens.

For example, under the present Bangladesh constitution, it is perfectly possible to transform Bangladesh into a modern welfare state based on the principles and values of Islam, and hardly any amendment would be necessary.

Therefore these fears are unfounded and may have been based on the examples of certain states which practice autocracy in the name of Islam. Second, separation of powers, independence of judiciary, constitutional guarantee for fundamental rights, freedom of speech, and above all, rule of law, are the corner stones of an Islamic constitution. Those are not mere slogans. Those principles were practised by the Caliphs of Islam. In modern constitutions, the head of the state is normally given immunity from prosecution. But the rightly guided Caliphs did not enjoy such immunity.

The fourth Caliph Hazrat Ali (RA) appeared before a court of law in Medina and lost the suit for recovery of his shield from the defendant -- a native Christian -- because of insufficiency of evidence. Does it not conclusively prove the independence of the judiciary when the Chief Executive of a country lost his case for want of evidence in a proceedings in which he himself was a witness? Think of the Masdar Hossain case in Bangladesh: the Supreme Court's 19-point directions for separation of the judiciary has remained unimplemented for long six years despite its own supervision and proceedings for contempt of court.

The most important fundamental right is the right to life. Was the second Caliph Hazrat Omar (RA) not on record to say, when famine broke out in Arabia -- that if a child died on the bank of Euphrates for want of food, "I fear I may be held responsible before my Lord, the Almighty"? At dead of night was he not found to carry on his back food to the house of an old lady? Was he not prevented by an ordinary citizen from delivering Friday sermon before he explained to the members of the public the source of availability of cloths for his long gown? Are these not supreme examples of transparency and accountability? Was it not in his time that because of fewer crimes on the street, the primary duty of the police force was to ensure that traders use proper scales for measurement and camels were not overloaded? 1400 years ago even animal rights were protected, yet today the world is witnessing the worst violations of human rights in Abu Gharib and Guantanomo Bay.

It is often said Islamists want "one man one vote for one time only." This allegation has no substance. Certainly there are certain differences between western democracy and Islamic democracy. Under the latter it would be beyond the powers of parliament to pass legislation to legalise single sex marriage, for example. But representative government is the basic feature of an Islamic democracy. No one has the right to lead unless he or she is an elected representative. During the time of the rightly guided Caliphs, democracy was not institutionalised, ballot boxes were not in use, but all four of them were elected through consultation.

It is said that Islam does not recognise the rights of women. The world knows very well that women got the right to vote in Germany in 1919, US 1920, UK 1928, France 1944, and Switzerland 1971. But in 7th century Arabia, women played an important role in the decision making process.

One incident was of highest constitutional importance. In a Friday sermon, the Second Caliph fixed the upper limit of the dower, arguing that this would stop the abuse of the system. One woman from the back bench protested: "Omar! This is beyond your jurisdiction. What has not been fixed by God himself, you have no power to do so." Instantly Hazrat Omar accepted the protest and did not proceed any further. Without that lone protest by that woman -- (history did not record her name because she was not notable) -- the Caliph's word would have been the law of the land enforceable through law courts.

This single incident speaks volumes about the rights of women in Islam, freedom of speech, women's role in making legislations and state affairs and the executive's eagerness to uphold the principles of rule of law and constitutionalism. Critics may tend to dismiss incidents like these as trivial and representing only the generous minds of the rulers of the day, but these are the constitutional precedents which would bind all Islamic governments for all time to come.