2003-03-19T07:55:27 Islam and individual freedom When I first mentioned that I was going to be blogging about Islamic libertarianism, darulharb posted the following question in my comments:

Modern understanding of libertarianism also places a great emphasis on individual (including, but not limited to, sexual) freedom. What would be the true Islamic state views on these? Jess curious.

Here is my response to him (also posted to the comments on that entry):

Fair question. Unfortunately, many Muslims do think that the state should be used to enforce every aspect of Islamic law, even veiling or prayer. I don't believe that this is correct.

First, the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) said "Actions are judged by their intentions". If I pray because I want to serve God, then I get the reward of serving God. If I pray because somebody told me to, then I don't get the reward of serving God. So forcing people to pray or complete other religious acts doesn't benefit them any in the Hereafter. Some people might say "well, at least they're praying and they'll benefit from it" but that's not true. More likely, they'll come to resent it and definitely not do it when they don't have to. That whole argument is completely void as far as I'm concerned.

Second, the Quran says "There is no compulsion in religion" (Surah al-Baqarat verse 256). In other places, it says that the Prophet's only duty was to convey the message, not to compel people to believe or to be in control over their actions (see for example Surah Yunus verse 99, Surah al-Kahf verse 29, and Surah az-Zumar verse 41). The hadiths also show that the Prophet (pbuh) followed these rules. He didn't force people to pray or wear hijab (modest Islamic dress) or do other things, he merely told them what was best for them to do and if they chose not to do it, that was on them.

I discussed the issue a bit here in specific reference to hijab. I believe the law should only be used to compel people if the aim is to prevent harm (to use an obvious example, it's right that there are laws against killing people).

The libertarian article touches on this briefly. The author, Imad ad-Dean Ahmad, writes (quoting ibn Khaldun) :

The purpose of the law is the preservation of civilization, that is "(1) of the religion, (2) the soul (life), (3) the intellect, (4) progeny, and (5) property"

That is, each person has a right to his or her religion, life, intellect, progeny, and property and the law's purpose is to protect these rights from being violated by others.

Acts that harm others or violate their rights should be punished by the law. Acts that harm only the self are God's exclusive preserve and people should leave it to Him.

]]> veiled4allah islam libertarianism reallysays analysis Al-Muhajabah Al-Muhajabah's Islamic Blogs Thebit 2003-03-19T08:42:09 Law the last facet to be implemented. The first step is to raise the moral conscious of the people through, say, the education system. That is because law comes out of morality - it is not the other way around, like most Muslim thinking, today, would have it.

Yes - Muslim society is not a Western secular society. Yes - fornication is viewed with disdain and contempt by such a society, and so maybe punished.

But it isn't the case of people walking around peering into peoples houses. The fact that four, and no less than four, witnesses, of good moral character, would be required, if ever such a punishment were to be implemented, gives its own explanation.

The Qur'an only sets two "religious" requirements on the state: to "establish the salaah, and collect the zakaah". In fact, a Muslim state has no allownace to collect any other form of "Islamic" taxation, other than the Zakaah - not even the Jizyah.

Nonetheless, the state may grant provisions to other minorities, as it sees fit. There is no "one size fits all" regime, that Muslims seem to suggest. This is between the state and the individual, who agree a contract i.e. "citizenship". And I cannot envisage why a non-Muslim must have anyless rights than a Muslim (i.e. the right to propogate their beliefs; the right to participate in government, and so on).

The aim of a Muslim society is different to purposeless drive of secular society - which by defnition has no purpose (if I may make the leap that secularism will ultimately result in atheism).

]]> starrysky 2003-03-19T09:14:20 assalamu alaykum

Long time since I haven't been here. Hope your doing well. Just my luck I came to your blog today and youre talking about Islam and freedom, especially the hijab topic. I just sent an email reply to my brother about an ariticle about hijab (I'll send you the article if you want) which examines how the interpretation of the ayah of hijab has changed over time, and that it came down as an ayah for the women in madinah to cover themselves because they used to show their thighs and bosoms, so the aya came down for them to cover themselves, so that they could be distinguished and people would not harm them. Basically its saying that hijab as a cover for the hair, as most people see it today, is not like that. Hijab is in modesty in dress... as in not wearing tight/short/ revealing clothing etc. Not in a triangular peice of cloth which covers the hair. Also, A few days ago I posted somthing about hijab in my blog.. So your article was an interesting read for me. :) This topic is surrounding me alot nowadays, I think its because of one of my friends was thinking about hijab.. long complicated story, and basically we've had alot of talks about it lately. Anwyays...
I guess I haven't been here for long, your new layout is really nice! And the comments layout! I love the live preview.. wow, theres even a spell check! I'm impressed! :)

]]> Al-Munaqabah 2003-03-19T09:43:59 Thanks for your replies, Thebit and starrysky. :)

Thebit - Regarding taxes beyond the zakat, the jizya is mentioned in the Quran (Surah at-Tawba ayah 29). It's true that the context of the verse applies it to if there had been a war and the non-Muslims were defeated and were now being incorporated into the Islamic state, but I'm not sure what your basis is for saying that the jizya is not authorized. I also mentioned in reply to a comment by Jonathan Edelstein on another blog entry that I think it would be valid for the state to levy additional taxes if the citizens were consulted and agreed to pay those taxes.

Starrysky - I've heard some of those arguments about hijab before, but I don't agree with them. I've written it up elsewhere on my website. Try A Study of Surah an-Nur ayah 31 which is the most comprehensive. To me, it's pretty clear that the hijab intended by the Shari'a is that which covers everything but the face and hands, and that includes the hair.

]]> profsadin 2003-03-19T10:29:32 There is also an interpretation of that Surah Al-Baqarah:256 to mean that there is no compulsion if one is not a Muslim; but that all the rules apply when one embraces Islam.

I guess this is a more strict interpretation of the one you gave, no discredit though. I just thought I'd add to the debate what I learnt in school :)

]]> Al-Munaqabah 2003-03-19T10:55:21 Thanks for visiting, sis! I've heard that interpretation before. No compulsion in the choice of religion is obviously part of the meaning, and the one addressed in the tafsir of the ayah. But I'm curious what the basis of these scholars for limiting the ayah to that meaning is. When I read the hadiths and the sirah, it seems clear that the Prophet (sAas) didn't compel any Muslims. If that's his interpretation of the ayah, that's the one I'm going to follow :)

]]> darulharb 2003-03-19T11:05:50 Yes - Muslim society is not a Western secular society.

You need to say no more. For me, the direct implication of these words is that whoever advocates and/or works towards the replacement of a Western secular society with Shariatopia -- no matter by how "peaceful" means -- is the enemy.

]]> Al-Munaqabah 2003-03-19T12:54:59 I can't speak for Thebit, of course, he'll have to speak for himself, but I have no desire to implement the Shari'a in a non-Muslim country. That would be pointless, since the Shari'a only applies to Muslims. I have never said otherwise (if you're confused about it, go back and read what I actually wrote in that blog entry).

I do however support peaceful means of propagating Islam in the "marketplace of ideas" in America in the hopes that more Americans will become Muslims. I'm sorry that you feel that makes me "the enemy" but I often sense that you would think that about me no matter what I said.

]]> Thebit 2003-03-20T04:59:14 Originally posted by darulharb -

For me, the direct implication of these words is that whoever advocates and/or works towards the replacement of a Western secular society with Shariatopia -- no matter by how "peaceful" means -- is the enemy.

It would be better if "House of War" were to re-read my post. Taking the trouble to digest and think about the others post is not to much to ask, I hope.

I did say that "law is the last facet to be implemented", implying that there must be a general acceptance of God in the society - this is obviously lacking in Western secular democracies. I am sure you can draw your own conclusions.

In addition, I take it that anyone placing Westernisms on to any other MUSLIM country (e.g. Algeria) can be regarded as an "enemy". Do calls for a MUSLIM state (I'm being very explicit now, Darulharb) to adopt a form of Islamic law count as enemies in your universe?

It seems to me that Darulharb is no better than our own "Islamists"; both find it easy to create enemies out of thin air.

Nonetheless, there is no axiom which states Muslims must do what Darulharb wishes, nor must they conform to western secualrism.

]]> Thebit 2003-03-20T05:06:06 Originally posted by Al-Munaqabah -

Thanks for your replies, Thebit and starrysky. :)

Thebit - [...] I'm not sure what your basis is for saying that the jizya is not authorized.

As is evident from my posting on Jihaad, I take my understanding based on the works of Islahi and his student Ghamidi. The Jizyah according to them was a divine punishment on those Ahl al-Kitaab who denied a Rasool among their midst, or the immediate followers of that Rasool. Both of those conditions no longer exist. Hence, it is not a permanent part of the Shari'ah.

I also mentioned in reply to a comment by Jonathan Edelstein on another blog entry that I think it would be valid for the state to levy additional taxes if the citizens were consulted and agreed to pay those taxes.

I agree. But my point was that there was no other form of taxation in the corpus of Islamic law.

All the best.

Salam `alaykum

]]> darulharb 2003-03-20T08:07:00 I'm sorry that you feel that makes me "the enemy" but I often sense that you would think that about me no matter what I said. Not necessarily. I do not like to think of you as the enemy, but you're most probably an irreconcilable opponent - if only because I do not subscribe to your beliefs and never will.

That being said, I do consider Western secular society to be the best system humanity has come up with so far. And even you readily admit that every single example of attempted Shari'atopia is a perversion of the supposed ideal. Once again, I can try and advance an argument that there is something suspicious about the ideology that lends itself to perversion so readily, but ultimately it doesn't matter much. Because even the "unblemished" Islamic ideals are deeply alien to everything I value. And those who would take my freedoms and, yes, my pleasures, away from me are most definitely the enemy.

]]> Al-Munaqabah 2003-03-21T08:42:27 If you believe that I want to force you or anybody to become a Muslim or to force any Muslim to do any religious observance, you haven't been reading my blog very closely.

]]>