Why Muslims mix religion and politics

Press, 27 November 1979, Page 16

Why Muslims mix religion and politics

By WILLIAM SHEPARD, lecturer in religious , studies at the University of Canterbury. Dr Shepard has made a special study of the Muslim world.

Recent events in the Muslim world, such as the latest oil crisis, New Zealand’s lamb deal with Iran, and the current occupation of the United States embassy in Teheran, underline the interdependence of the Muslim and non-Muslim worlds and hence the need for increased understanding of Islam by Westerners. One point that has been hard for us to understand has been the close relation between religion and politics in the Muslim world. Secular assumptions are so thoroughly ingrained in most of us that we find it almost impossible to appreciate the seriousness with which Muslims take this relation. It is probably for this reason that no Western expert, to my knowledge, foresaw Ayatollah Khomeiny’s rise to power in Iran before it actually happened. One reason for our difficulty is that our assumptions about the nature of religion and its proper relation to politics depend to a considerable degree upon our picture of Jesus, who is the primary religious “hero” for our culture. Since Jesus is generally pictured as non-violent and relatively apolitical, we tend to assume that this is the proper role for religion. Even those who do not consider themselves Christians share these cultural assumptions. For Muslims, however, it is the prophet Muhammad who occupies the role of primary religious “hero” and who influences assumptions about the nature and role of religion in a comparable way. A brief survey of his career, therefore, may help us to understand Muslim attitudes better. Muhammad was born about 570 A.D. in the Arabian city of Mecca, a commercial centre dominated by large

merchants engaged in the caravan trade. The Meccans’ transition from a nomadic way of life was still relatively recent, however, and tribal institutions were beginning to be inadequate to cope with the social stresses — especially the weakening of tribal solidarity and the growing disparity of wealth — engendered by the new commerce. Religiously they recognised Allah as a creator, but somewhat remote God, and mostly directed their worship to divine beings viewed as intermediaries. Their ethical values were grounded in conceptions of tribal honour and loyalty. Muhammad was born into one of the poorer branches of the ruling tribe, but by the age of 40 he had achieved a life of relative comfort largely due to a reputation for integrity and competence. At this pont he had a series of visions that he interpreted as the angel Gabriel, announcing that he was a prophet and was commissioned to convey a message from God to man. This message was revealed from time to time in short sections of the next 22 years arid soon after collected together to form the Qur’an (Koran), the Muslim scriptures, believed to contain the exact words of God as communicated by Gabriel. It emphasised the exclusive worship of Allah as the only God and obedience to His will, and constituted a major challenge to the Meccan way of life. For example, it urged the rights of the poor and the weak at a time of growing disparities of wealth and power. The wealthy leaders of Mecca therefore opposed Muhammad’s preaching and subjected him and his small group of Muslim followers to varying degrees of

harassment and persecution. For some years they suffered this and sought peacefully to spread the message, but in the year 622 Muhammad accepted an invitation to move to the city of Medina, about 250 miles away, with most of his followers. This event is known as the Hijrah, or “emigration.” Once in Medina Muhammad soon established himself as its political leader and began to reform political and social life according to the teachings of the Qur’an. These developments, however, constituted a major challenge to the prestige of the Meccans and conflict between them and the Muslims was inevitable. , So there ensued a series of skirmishes and battles — at times like guerrilla warfare — and complex negotiations among tribes and factions. After eight years Muhammad had by a combination of military prowess and political acumen so isolated the Meccans that they gave up, and by the time of his death two years later he was well on his way to unifying all of Arabia under the banner of Islam. Muhammad is not viewed by Muslims as divine and so does not hold among them quite the position that Jesus does among Christians, but he is generally respected and beloved as the best man who has ever lived and as the exemplary model of what a Muslim life should be. It is quite obvious that this model contrasts at important points with that which Westerners find in Jesus. Christianity arose in the relatively ordered world of the Roman Empire and could survive as a pacifist minority group for some three centuries before achieving political dominance. In the tribal anarchy of Muhammad’s Arabia the Muslims had either to conquer or be destroyed — there was no alternative. In fact, Muhammad tried the path of non-violence for some 12 years and turned to

force with considerable reluctance. In the context of the customs of the time, and in view of the fact that his community was fighting for its survival, he usually acted with maximum generosity. Contemnorary mores, for example, dictated that a man might either kill or hold for ransom an enemy taken in battle. Of some 43 prisoners taken in the first major battle, Muhammad killed only two of his most inveterate opponents and the poor among the prisoners were eventually returned without ransom. In a society in which vengeance was a noint of honour, he forgave all but about five of his bitterest enemies at the time of his final victorv over Mecca. For Muslims Muhammad’s career dramatically illustrates the fact that ultimately religion and politics cannot be separated, and this recognition is enshrined in their calendar, according to which a new century began last Wednesday. They chose to begin their era not with Muhammad’s birth, nor his death, nor even the date of his first revelation, but rather with the Hijrah, the point at which he became the political leader of a community. For them the Islamic era truly began only when Islam began to be a political

system. But a political system inevitably involves the use of force, and for this reason Muslims feel that Muhammad, with his violence, provides a more adequate model than Jesus. Jesus’s command to turn the other cheek is noble, they say. but too often impractical. The Qur’anic command is more practical: it commends turning the other cheek in many situations, but permits appropriate retaliation and commands it where the community interest is at stake. In fact, Muslims point out, Christians have not been able to live by Jesus’ ethic. From the days when Christianity first came to power in fourth century’ Rome to Bishop. Muzorewa in ZimbabweRhodesia today, Christians have not scrupled to use force when they thought it necessary. Since Jesus was nonviolent, however, he did not

provide Christians with appropriate guidance for the use of necessary force. Perhaps, some Muslims have suggested, this helps explain why violence has often got out of control in Western history. It is not the intention here to settle the question whether Jesus or Muhammad, finally, provides the better model to govern our views of religion and politics. It is clear, however, that at the least a forceful case can be made for Muhammad’s model, and we need to appreciate the influence of this model among Muslims. (The life and teachings of Muhammad are not the only model for Muslims. Also important. particularly for Iranians, is his grandson, Husayn, whose martyrdom is commemorated in the Muslim world on Friday. An article on Husayn, by Dr Shepard, will be printed later this week).