Following the recent publication of an article co-authored by Dr
Hassan Rezaei and myself(1), a young intellectual sent me the thoughtful
message below. I thought it might be of interest for other people also
wondering about how the concept of Sharia works in different interpretations,
and so am posting our exchange.
Assalamu Alakum Mahmood,
I just read your article on Christian Monitor. Very well written! Christian Monitor never ceases to amaze me. They seem to be the fairest and most academic and scholarly in what they report (as opposed to CNN, etc...)
I do have a question about your methodology, if you dont mind me asking. I only ask out of interest to understand and not to point fingers...
Do you think comparing Irans experience with Sharia (Shia interpretation) makes for an intellectual comparison with the experience of Sharia in Sunni countries (e.g. Saudi Arabia, Egypt)? I feel the comparison can be misleading and prove disappointing for a few primary reasons:
a) Shia believe scholarship and leadership must resign with the family of the descendants of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), while Sunni Muslims believe it is a matter of credentials and merit (more democratic if you will.)
b) the sources of sacred literature, aside from the Quran are drastically different between Sunni and Shia, which can lead to opposite extremes. I know you already discussed the idea of competing interpretations, but this will surly have a much larger emphasis when comparing the two different bodies of thought (sunni and shia.)
I look forward to your response...
Thanks
...
Here is my response:
Salam ....,
Thank you for your thoughtful remarks and questions. I’ll offer the following thoughts in response.
If we consider the possibility that Sunni ontology has more democratic potential than it presently appears, I think it would be much easier for Sunni scholars to interact with the ideas in this proposal. The thing is that the article is based on the experiences of 1979 Iranian revolution and what we can learn from them. It is meant to be a sort of warning to Islamic countries, so to learn from each other’s mistakes, and hence avoiding making similar ones. But you are right; it requires some sense of common cause and belief and is less easy to interact with if the differences between Sunnism and Shiism are made primary or taken for granted.
This is why, in the article, we were not talking about the theological differences between Sunnism and Shiism, but about Sharia(s) in general as something that is shared between both Shia and Sunni versions of Islam (despite what most Wahabbite Muslims believe). The article thus does not focus on the details of differences and subdividisions in Sharia and fiqh as practiced, but about the purpose and goals of religion and Sharia in general. We would of course assume that from this basis we would need to have further conversations. From this point of view, Sunnism and Shiism are in fact close to each other, especially the form of Sharia which was implemented after the 1979 revolution in Iran . Of course, there are some differences between the two. But we would suggest that the common denominator is the Koran. We have based our proposal entirely on principles which are embedded in Koran, for methodological reasons, so that both Sunnis and Shiis can interact with it.
The other point is that Khomeini’s particular formulation of Shiism was astonishingly similar to Sunnism during the Omavid and Abbasid dynasties. During these times (and after), Sunnism had authenticated power and interpreted domination as an indicator righteousness, or what in Sunni fiqh is called الحق لمن غلب (in other words, the argument that being right is determined by who wins). The Shii ontology and fiqh, in contrast, was critical to this approach and understanding of right. Soon after the Iranian revolution, Khomeini, with his particular doctrine of the Islamic state, disregarded this Shia approach and followed the path of the Sunni state religion of Omavids and Abbasids.
Also, as Sunni scholars Abuzid (ابوزید) and Abed-Al-Jaaberi (عابد الجابری) have shown, the process of establishing and realising the principles of fiqh, through the faqih’s intellect (عقل فقیه), has been deeply influenced by Greek philosophy and logic, primary Platonic and Aristotelian. It is thus no wonder that many Muslim scholars are calling Aristotle the first master. However, we know that there is much within this philosophy which also authenticates power, particularly in so far as it is based on principles of dichotomy. This Hellenised approach to fiqh was begun by Shafiee (شافعی) and Shia scholars adopted it around two centuries later. In other words, one of the things we would like to call into question is not just the relationship between our existing interpretations of Sharia (and democracy), but of the origins and politics of those interpretations themselves, to see how we could develop new ones and have more open conversations about the problem.
About CSM, I should agree with you. We were also amazed by their open-mindedness and amazing professionalism, as well as the respect they have for their readers. This article exchanged hands many times as they wanted it to be written in a way that their readers, many of whom are not academics, can understand. In effect, they wanted an academic article that used non-academic language.
Thanks again for your interesting questions.
Take care,
Mahmood
Salam ....,
Thank you for your thoughtful remarks and questions. I’ll offer the following thoughts in response.
If we consider the possibility that Sunni ontology has more democratic potential than it presently appears, I think it would be much easier for Sunni scholars to interact with the ideas in this proposal. The thing is that the article is based on the experiences of 1979 Iranian revolution and what we can learn from them. It is meant to be a sort of warning to Islamic countries, so to learn from each other’s mistakes, and hence avoiding making similar ones. But you are right; it requires some sense of common cause and belief and is less easy to interact with if the differences between Sunnism and Shiism are made primary or taken for granted.
This is why, in the article, we were not talking about the theological differences between Sunnism and Shiism, but about Sharia(s) in general as something that is shared between both Shia and Sunni versions of Islam (despite what most Wahabbite Muslims believe). The article thus does not focus on the details of differences and subdividisions in Sharia and fiqh as practiced, but about the purpose and goals of religion and Sharia in general. We would of course assume that from this basis we would need to have further conversations. From this point of view, Sunnism and Shiism are in fact close to each other, especially the form of Sharia which was implemented after the 1979 revolution in Iran . Of course, there are some differences between the two. But we would suggest that the common denominator is the Koran. We have based our proposal entirely on principles which are embedded in Koran, for methodological reasons, so that both Sunnis and Shiis can interact with it.
The other point is that Khomeini’s particular formulation of Shiism was astonishingly similar to Sunnism during the Omavid and Abbasid dynasties. During these times (and after), Sunnism had authenticated power and interpreted domination as an indicator righteousness, or what in Sunni fiqh is called الحق لمن غلب (in other words, the argument that being right is determined by who wins). The Shii ontology and fiqh, in contrast, was critical to this approach and understanding of right. Soon after the Iranian revolution, Khomeini, with his particular doctrine of the Islamic state, disregarded this Shia approach and followed the path of the Sunni state religion of Omavids and Abbasids.
Also, as Sunni scholars Abuzid (ابوزید) and Abed-Al-Jaaberi (عابد الجابری) have shown, the process of establishing and realising the principles of fiqh, through the faqih’s intellect (عقل فقیه), has been deeply influenced by Greek philosophy and logic, primary Platonic and Aristotelian. It is thus no wonder that many Muslim scholars are calling Aristotle the first master. However, we know that there is much within this philosophy which also authenticates power, particularly in so far as it is based on principles of dichotomy. This Hellenised approach to fiqh was begun by Shafiee (شافعی) and Shia scholars adopted it around two centuries later. In other words, one of the things we would like to call into question is not just the relationship between our existing interpretations of Sharia (and democracy), but of the origins and politics of those interpretations themselves, to see how we could develop new ones and have more open conversations about the problem.
About CSM, I should agree with you. We were also amazed by their open-mindedness and amazing professionalism, as well as the respect they have for their readers. This article exchanged hands many times as they wanted it to be written in a way that their readers, many of whom are not academics, can understand. In effect, they wanted an academic article that used non-academic language.
Thanks again for your interesting questions.
Take care,
Mahmood
(1): http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2012/0523/Egypt-elections-Sharia-can-support-democracy
هیچ نظری موجود نیست:
ارسال یک نظر