Islamic Political Ethics, edited by Jack Miles, is not the work of a singular author but a collection of long form essays by various experts. Although each portion can stand alone, all (except one) forward a general theme. Islam contains a moral history of teachings in regards to establishing political power. And, the interpretation of that history determines the degree to which an Islamic state can embrace modernity and principles of individual liberty.
Jack Miles first sets the tone by encouraging an intellectual look at religion; all religion. When specifically speaking of Muslims he encourages a greater community of Islam (umma) to do more to dispute the notion of war mongering fundamentalist zealots. Then Sohail Hashmi develops that general sentiment in his preface by calling for a reexamination of Islam, a rejection of fundamentalism for “Islamism” and challenges Muslims globally to do a better job of disseminating Islamic ethics rather than the draconian hate unfortunately associated with Islam.
In Civil Society and Government in Islam, John Kelsay looks at Mohammed’s life and how his example contributes to participation in politics. He asserts that within classical concepts of Islam there is a model for civil society and in more modern teachings on Islam this civil society is emphasized. He balances the ulama against the khilafa that seems, even for a reader not familiar with much of the history, a conveniently selective use of Islamic traditions. It is an elaborate way of making the very simple point that Islam does not preclude the possibility of civil society – even with the secularism the term ‘civil society’ implies.
Farhad Kazemi in Perspectives builds on Kelsay’s work by drawing a bright distinction between backward fundamentalism and more intellectual Islam. It is a theme repeated throughout proceeding essays. Kazemi bemoans a latent intelligentsia within the Muslim community and proposes a resurgence of that community to fight the social ills of gender and minority oppression common under the dominance of less progressive approaches to religion. Then in Conceptions, Hasan Hanafi develops this idea further by calling for a creative interpretation of Islamic texts to confront contemporary concepts of democracy. His ideas are reformist and could be described as a correction of Islam. According to Hanafi, civil society – even social contract democracy – is possible but an adjustment in the popular applications of the Qur’an must first be made.
In Boundaries, M. Raquibuz Zaman explores a type of Islamic ‘judicial review.’ The Islamic treatment of law is obviously more theocratic and absolute than Western civil and criminal jurisprudence. Then in Maintenance, Sulayman Nyang discusses the role of religion in dictating the limits of human behavior not just for religious purposes but to maintain social order. Both of these essays hint at but never provide a clear formula for the relationship between religion and law in a modern Arab state. Religion is necessary to help find governable consensus and maintain social order but beyond that it is unclear how people will divorce explicit beliefs on the will God to live under the rule of law.
Then Eickelman argues that modern Islam actually provides for moral pluralism (what he labels ‘ethical pluralism.’). He uses Islamic history to suggest a civil society that allows for pluralism. His best example is Turkey – often cited as the most successful secular state with religious citizenry. But, having already read Islamist Mobilization in Turkey by J. White, I know that even within that country there is an irrepressible wave of orthodox religiosity that threatens its secular institutions. While Eickelman makes a good case that a civil society can be both Islamic and respect pluralism, he fails to answer how and how likely this will occur.
Masud’s follow up essay on pluralism develops this thesis further to suggest that tolerance from Pluralism does not need to be ‘interpreted’ in Islam but ‘recognized.’ Citing many sources in the long and winding history of Islam, Masud cast the religion as a moral tradition that is, by itself, pluralistic. He also echoes previous calls for modernity and reformation in the form of reason.
Sohail Hashmi, the editor or the collection, parses the positive and negative effects of religion. Religion, when used correctly, creates a ‘human habitat’ of commonality and goodwill. Of course, religion can also be used to justify oppressive law and prevent social evolution that leads to the adoption of civil liberty protections. His concern is how to root a legal code in Islamic morals but provide for dissent and protection of rights.
Then there’s Bassam Tibi’s piece on War and Peace in Islam. This essay at the end reminds me of the children’s game where players are shown a grouping and asked which member doesn’t fit. Tibi argues that at the core of Islam is an antiquated system that calls for violence against non-adherents. He argues that Islam cannot be reformed, reinterpreted or reapplied to fit modern notions of democracy and tolerance because its nature is anti modernity.
The sad fact is, Tibi’s description of Islam as incompatible with intellectual or peaceful cultures is widely accepted today. Many people view the Western ‘war on terror’ as a war on the religion of Islam. The repeated message through the rest of the essays is that Islam in and of itself is not violent, hateful, misogynist, and archaic. Miles’ call for an intelligent ‘theology’… Kazemi’s preference for lay intellectuals in Islam to challenge fundamentalism… and Masud’s pining for recognition of pluralism (among others) reflect a central thesis of this book and others read in the course. Islam can be used to support systems that respect human rights and justice but only when interpreted with critical analysis and reason. The war mongering Taliban representation of Islam does not represent all of Islam. And the current image of the Muslim world as antithetical to modern democratic values is a product of history and politics and not any intrinsic deficiency in the religion.
The essays in Islamic Political Ethics do a superb job of showing what’s possible for any group of people wanting to follow Islam but establish a just state with democratic principles. It does not specify ‘how’ at a practical level. Much of the work also misses the opportunity to make broader statements about the use of religion as an alternative to reason and rational thought. In many ways, the harsh orthodoxy of Islamic fundamentalists mirrors Christian fundamentalists so influential in the United States today. The same argument is that ‘true’ Christianity – when interpreted with reason and applied with critical thinking skills – supports democratic principles while the agenda of cultural hegemony forwarded by many Christians would result in a state not unlike the most oppressive in the Middle East.
Broadening the analysis of Islam to a more universal criticism of how religion, any religion, can be used to affect politics would make statements about Muslims seem less like a criticism of any people and more a commentary on human nature. The trappings of Islam and the promise of Islam are both there and it is contingent upon what is brought out that conversely, and unfortunately, defines the religion. Neither another reformation of Islam or worldwide analysis of religion and political power (as a product of globalization) are out of the question. The outcome depends on the intra-faith competition between reason and orthodoxy and the agenda setting power of leaders and believers.
