Religion and politics: intersections and influences

Religion and Politics

All religions aim to provide a code of life for mankind. Apart from other tenets, this code establishes laws that govern all areas of man's life. Thus the laws established by the religion Islam are termed as Shariah. The term Shariah means all of the Islamic Laws and is derived from four basic sources. These sources are The Holy Quran, Sunnah, Ij'ma (consensus) of the Companions (Sahabah) and Qiyas or analogical deduction. These laws are not just limited to areas such as marriage or divorce; rather, the Islamic laws cover every action performed by an individual or a society. The term Shariah is also synonymous with Fiqh. However the term Fiqh means knowledge of all the Islamic Laws (Shariah). It can also be taken to mean the Knowledge of the sources from where the Islamic Laws (Shariah) have been extracted.

Shariah or Islamic Laws are divine ways to preserve societies and individuals. However their application to the modern societies has always given birth to criticism from all quarters. This is primarily because those not in favor of their application in essence can always condemn them on religious grounds. Therefore, if we look closely, it will be seen that it is not the Islamic nature of the Shariah that a person would be in disagreement but the fact that the he does not approve of the Law itself. For instance, according to Shariah murder is punishable by a death sentence. However a similar law is practiced in the Western societies such as the United States without any link to the Shariah although the proponents of capital punishment cannot argue against them targeting religion as a ground. This shows that the application of Shariah itself is not so much a problem but the essence of the Laws, which can also be found in societies that have no connection to Shariah whatsoever. Other than this, application of Islamic Laws has also become a problem because of the political lobbies, which have interests that might clash with the Islamic interests.

It is important to note here that the Islamic Laws are only applicable to Muslims. However modern-day Muslims, are sometimes not in favor of the application of Shariah because they are not inclined towards following all the given tenets of Islam. As a result, it becomes increasingly difficult to apply Shariah.

In this paper, we focus on the Malaysian society, which is composed of Muslim, Hindu and Buddhist communities in order to support our argument. Furthermore we will take the example of Nigerian society which is again not a singular element society but is composed of Muslim and Christian communities. However both the societies are Muslim majority areas and the governments have separate Shariah courts where cases, pertaining to Islamic Laws are tried.

This paper therefore seeks to understand the problems that are encountered while applying Shariah in any given society partly because of the individual opposition to the practice of religion and partly because of the role, politics play. Adding to this is also weakness and insufficiency of certain factions to be able to apply Islamic Laws in totality, which results in either haphazard application of Shariah or no application at all.

It is important to study this area for the simple reason that the modern societies are experiencing religious revivalism and with this experience, comes the application of religion on all aspects of a society such as Laws. Religion has, once again come to the fore to push forward its own religio-political agendas on societies all over the world. In many parts of the world today, religion is therefore the strongest factor in national politics. This phenomena is not only limited to just Islam but can also be witnessed in the form of Christian evangelicalism in the United States of America, in the emergence of a number of cults and alternative movements in Japan and the revival of the Orthodox Church in Russia.

In all of these cases, the challenge is similar. How do modern societies cope with the application of religion? For instance the application of Islam and its laws in a modern, moderate and multiracial society of Malaysia. For this purpose, we have to first study the concept of Islamism.

Islamism' is a concept so vague and encompassing that it can be interpreted in a variety of ways. In a country such as Malaysia, it refers to the concept of collective groupings, political parties and social movements made up of politically active followers of Islam (Fatimi, 1963). This concept would include everything from Non-governmental Organizations (NGOs), research institutions, collectives or social movements etc. The other angle to this provides a more restrictive definition where Islamism is any sort of political or social activity undertaken by leaders of the Muslim world. Rejecting neither of these and accepting both, we can say that 'Islamism' in its most basic form refers to any and every kind of social, economic, cultural or political project that is connected with Islamic tenets in some way or the other. In short, Islamism is a platform for all those who share the same Islamic discourse and moral vocabulary.

The application of Shariah also is a rather revivalist concept, staying dormant for a long period. With the alleged return of Islam, the application of Shariah has also become an issue. This is because Islamism is a wave that is currently being witnessed in numerous and large pockets. It will not be wrong to say that Islamism has returned to the world today. Though Islam has never left the scene for the plain fact that as long as its followers are alive and increasing, Islam and Islamism will always remain visible, it has definitely begun to be more visible. This is because of the successive Islamist revolutions the world over such as the Islamisation of Pakistan under Zia'ul Haq and the Iranian revolution since when Islamism has made an explosive comeback on the global political scene.

The return of Islam should be understood within the context of moral and political degeneration. It was earlier believed that Religion would be left at the side in the rush towards economic and material development. It was also argued that with the fall of communism and the consequent consolidation of the capitalist development, the world would witness a new era of growth and free trade. This was to be accompanied by the creation of a new class who would be able to detach itself from blood, ethnicity and race. It was hoped that with economic development, such attachments would simply be given up and instead a new awareness of the need for Human Rights and Civil Society would surface. However, mass genocide and sectarian conflicts, for instance in Bosnia, Serbia, Kosova, Chechnya, Rwanda, Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka, Myanmar, Indonesia and Timor have left room for something more than just material development and success. Free markets and the free flow of capital and human resources have not managed to cut the strings of attachment to roots. Moreover despite the apparent influence of western humanism, western liberalism and western democratic values has not actually established itself beyond the Western world. Hence there remain large pockets of communities that still hold onto traditional values and ideas. In fact there is outright resistance to Western thoughts and ideals. It is for these reasons that the revival of Religion, in particular Islam has taken.

However though there is a vacuum that a religion can fill, it becomes increasingly difficult when it comes to applying the laws of a religion. This is because though general populations might be in favor of religion and its tenets but the accused on which the law is being applied, would take every stand to appeal against it in order to go free. This process attracts all those groups whose interests either get hurt by application of Islamic Laws or who fear that Islam might gain supremacy as a religion and also as a religio-political order if practiced. They, as a result, combine to oppose application of Shariah. Taking for example, Malaysia, the 1999 elected Islamic party always faces hindrances from all quarters when it comes to application of Shariah.

During the elections of 1999, the Pan-Malaysian Islamic Party won victory at the polls (Joceline, 2000). PAS won a total of 27 parliamentary seats, which allowed them control of two states in the northeastern region of the Malay Peninsula. These states were Kelantan and Trengganu. Needless to say, PAS has heavy Islamic agenda, which includes application of Shariah or Islamic Laws in all areas of life. Therefore as soon as the PAS took over the state of Trengganu the new Chief Minister Ustaz Abdul Hadi Awang put forward a number of new Islamic laws and regulations that were designed to islamize the two states (Joceline, 2000). These laws included the kharaj tax on non-Muslims and a new one regarding dress codes that would make it compulsory for all Malay-Muslim females to follow the state government's Islamic dress code. It is important to note here that none of the measures introduced by PAS in Trengganu were radical steps. The same laws were introduced a few years back in the neighboring state of Kelantan after the elections of 1990.

PAS had won a major victory at the polls in the general elections of 1990 along with the allies in the Angkatan Perpaduan Ummah (APU) coalition. This brought the party control of the northern state of Kelantan. The slogan of the party, 'Membangun Bersama Islam' ('Developing With Islam'), swept away a majority since the Islamist party had severed all of their ties with the nationalist-Islamists of the past. The Islamist party had, by then, evolved to become the most outspoken and aggressive defender of Islamisation in the country. The leaders of the party in the 1980s and 1990s comprised of religious functionaries who had played the most important in breaking away from the nationalist-Islamists. such as Tuan Guru Nik Aziz Nik Mat who was given the position of Chief Minister after the PAS' victory in Kelantan (Joceline, 2000). He was the first Ulama in Malaysia to hold such a position in government. The president of PAS, Ustaz Fadzil Mohd Noor, backed the idea to select the Tuan Guru as the Chief Minister reasoning on the basis that it would be in the interest of the party. In his words, it would bring PAS closer to realizing its ultimate political goal, which was to create an Islamic state under the government of the Alim Ulama. Thus it was this aim that resulted in establishment of Shariah.

Immediately after taking power as the Chief Minister of Kelantan, the Murshid'ul Am of PAS introduced a set of reforms to the administration of the state. The foremost thing that he did was to change the legal system of the state to that of an Islamic one, which was based on the Shariah. This was followed by ceasing to issue the gambling licenses, barring organizations from using advertisements that displayed women in public and banning all sorts of contemporary or traditional cultural practices. These practices included rock concerts, wayang kulit, Mak Yong and Manora dances that the Ulemas had deemed un-islamic. Moreover the government forbade holding public events including religious ones like nashid performances where there was a chance for men and women to mix together. Moreover the government started campaigning to increase awareness among women regarding wearing islamic hijab or the tudung (head scarf). This was followed by a reduction in the granted expenditure and privileges of politicians and administrators in the state's civil service. There were certain legislations that were not exactly Islamic Law in nature but were introduced to create an Islamic environment. One such step was to begin all state events and assemblies with the recitation of the Surah al-Fatihah and conclude with the Surah al-Asr and the Tasbih Kafarah. Furthermore signs saying 'Allahu Akbar', 'Alhamdullillah' and Subhan'allah' were put throughout the state. However PAS' steps were not limited to being effective locally. Some of the amendments proposed by the party leaders had even greater consequences for the rest of the country as well. The most significant among them was the introduction of Islamic Hudud law through the adoption of the Kelantan Shariah Criminal Code by the Kelantan State Assembly in 1993. As a result of this, all 36 members of the Kelantan State Assembly passed the Kelantan Shariah Criminal Code (II) bill in November 1993. The Shariah Code bill was conceived by a drafting committee that was composed of the leaders of PAS and its most prominent Ulema. The chairman of the committee was Ustaz Abdul Hadi Awang, the PAS leader whose influence extended to the neighboring state of Trengganu. The Kelantan Shariah Code was thus developed under the leadership and guidance of Ustaz Hadi Awang and was designed to meet the goals set by the party. When it finally reached the State Assembly, it passed without dissent.

The Shariah bill included the usual Islamic Laws. It defined a number of Hudud offences that were punishable according to Islamic law. Part I of the bill listed the following Hudud offences: Sariqah (theft), Hirabah (robbery), Zina (unlawful sexual intercourse), Qazaf (wrongful accusation of Zina), Al-li'an (wrongful accusation of Zina by a husband against his wife), Liwat ('unnatural sex' involving anal intercourse- i.e. sodomy), Musahaqah ('unnatural sex' between women), Ittiyan almaitah (necrophilia), Ittiyan albahimah (bestiality), Syurb (intoxication or consumption of liquor) and Irtidad or Riddah (apostasy). Apart from the ones mentioned above, the bill also included provisions for Qisas (revenge killings) and Diyat (blood money) in the case of crimes of murder or homicide (Ismail, 1995)

With such an all-encompassing and strictly Islamic legislation, came an equally all-encompassing reaction. The Federal Government took the move as a direct offense against the administration of the state (Mohammed, 1994) and challenged the Islamist party to turn the bill into law and to put it into practice. Not only the federal government but also various other quarters raised criticism. Human rights NGOs and civil society activists condemned it as an abuse of human rights. Religious leaders from the other communities argued that it would further alienate the non-Muslims within the country. It is important to note here that many of the crimes indexed under the Shariah Bill proposed by PAS were already listed as offences under the Civil Code. Therefore it was not the listing of the crimes themselves as offences that bothered the critics but the way they were punishable. Critics of PAS' Shariah bill denounced it as "archaic," ill-adapted and discriminatory. It was argued that the bill was "an anachronistic attempt to impose in modern times and upon modern Muslims of good faith what is not the essence or culmination of Islamic law but only Islamic law in its most archaic, provisional and historically unevolved form" (Othman, 1994). Other criticisms that were leveled against the PAS by the critics included the argument that the bill contained fundamental contradictions and loopholes, which provided room to discriminate against women and other religious minorities. Moreover the critics condemned the imposition of the death penalty for the crime of Murtad/Irtidad (apostasy) and feared for the status of non-Muslim offenders and victims. This gave birth to the inevitable debate regarding contradictory and incompatible polarities: the Shariah of Islam and the demands of Modern democratic society.

Hence the process of application of Shariah became cumbersome with criticism coming not only from non-Muslim quarters but also Muslim factions. Apart from individual hesitation of modern Muslims to follow as directed, the non-Muslim factions took it as an opportunity to speak against the PAS so that the political power and influence of the party somehow be reduced. These are the problems that are generally faced by any party or government if Shariah is applied to the existing legal system.