Islam, the West and the Challenges of Modernity. Tariq Ramadan

corresponds, more or less, to the status of a fundamental law – the constitution (in that it allows its formation) – vis-à-vis national legislations. ⁴ One finds therein the general orientation, and the fundamental principles and laws which should respect the legislative instances of diverse communities. This respect does not, however, mean that national legislations will be identical everywhere. Instead, we shall see that the principles are general enough to allow the formulation of very diversified laws. For Muslims, this frame is of Divine origin and the directives which are related to it are intangible. This is what is understood – here in public affairs – by the term al-rabbāniyya, which consists of placing action in a permanent link with the remembrance of the Divine ordinances.

      On an ethnological level, we can say that the sources imply a concept of the universe, of man and his organisation of the city as a system of values and as a culture which engenders a mode of structuration which is proper to it. Incidentally, nothing is more legitimate than to assert that Islam, in Muslim majority countries, is a fact which should be taken into account. To think that only French or English legislations are good, no matter to which populations they are addressed, smacks of colonialism. What a great number of Muslim intellectuals say today is that Islam is their point of reference; it is part of their history and identity. To deny this is to want to amputate a part of their being by imposing the idea that Western norms are the only universals (we note, in passing, that this view reveals the nonsense of its own conclusion). That this point of reference be religious is not sufficient to disqualify it, under the pretext that it will take us back to the most obscure periods of human history. Moreover Islam, and this is indeed proof for them, has a law which codifies barbarity and the most inhuman of punishments. It is, therefore, concluded that one cannot, under the pretext of respecting religions and cultures, admit the inadmissible. ⁵ It is appropriate here to recall that references to religious tradition are present in a great many Western countries’ constitutions. These clearly mention religion (at least the ones they recognise) and even go so far as to limit access to the crown or presidency on the basis of religion, for example to Catholic or Protestant. ⁶

      As for the second objection, we limit ourselves here to pointing out that the general principles of Islam are both exigent and open. Moreover, they orientate human beings towards respect for justice and the dignity of everyone. Louis Gardet, reminding of the central place of the Qur’ān, rightly clarifies this as follows: “But in fact the Qur’ān is the seal of prophecy. It operates for men, and until the Judgement of the end of the world, the ‘separation of good and evil’. Now, that which God has thus decreed ‘good’ in the Qur’ān finds itself taking a number of principles, which are objectively of morals and natural laws. These include observing justice, keeping one’s word, respecting ‘the rights of God and men’, etc. It has prescribed obedience to those who hold power. But it has also ordained the faithful to ‘consult one another’. On voluntary and uniquely positive bases we find ourselves joining, in fact, a certain number of facts that are susceptible of founding a democratic notion of authority.” ⁷ This reflection is interesting because it looks beyond the simple fact of referring to the Qur’ān, and that it is the holder of a prescribed message. Louis Gardet points out that similarities exist between certain fundamental principles decreed by the Islamic sources and the foundations of natural law, even if their formulations are different. This author mentions further the Islamic notion of shūrā which is at the heart of the thought of the ‘ulamā’ (savants) and intellectuals in the political domain. Shūrā, then, is the first major principle that we must study.

b. The notion of shūrā

      Shūrā is the space which allows Islam the management of pluralism. The Arabic word signifies “consultation”, “concertation” or “deliberation”. It appears in several instances in the Qur’ān. However, two verses are generally cited, since it is from these that the principle of general orientation is conveyed. In Sūra 42 which has the same name (al-Shūrā) we read:

      … but what is with God is better and more enduring for those who believe and put their trust in their Lord. And those who avoid the heinous sins and indecencies and when they are angry forgive, and those who answer their Lord, and perform the prayer, their affair being counsel between them, and they expend of that We have provided them… (Qur’ān, 42:36–8)

      Gradation, here, owes nothing to chance and we should notice, after qualifying the believer on the moral plane, an expression of the classification of attitudes. Response to God (meaning here the following of His ordinances), the performance of prayer (the second pillar of Islam after the testimony of faith), then, on the collective plane, the practice of deliberation and supportive social engagement. Thus, the formulation is clear, the very fact of submitting to God on the personal level does not mean that there exists ready-made solutions to settle collective affairs. We have said, above, a word about the concertation (the same verbal root) which must exist between the wife and the husband on the question of weaning the child. In the same way, the faithful are characterised here by the fact that they deliberate among themselves on the subject of their affairs. We know that the Prophet (peace be upon him) continually practised concertation with his Companions, and the traditions which report this are numerous. Whenever a situation, about which no revelation had intervened, presented itself the Prophet (peace be upon him) used to listen to those around him and consequently take decisions. Upon the first confrontation with the people of Makka at Badr, Muḥammad called his Companions: “O people! Share with me your views.” Ibn al-Mundhir asked him whether the placement chosen for confrontation was the object of a revelation or whether it was a personal decision. The Prophet responded that it was his own choice. Ibn al-Mundhir suggested a different strategy which meant the Muslims taking up a different position. Muḥammad (peace be upon him) yielded to this argument and moved his entire army. In running affairs, the Prophet (peace be upon him) himself took into consideration and distinguished the absolute origin of the principles and the relativity of his own personal opinion. This, as it is in this instance, even in a situation which might determine the life or death of the whole community.

      This fact is even more explicit in the context of the revelation (sabab al-nuzūl) of the second verse which acts as a point of reference. Before the Battle of Uḥud, there were different views about whether to advance to encounter their Makkan adversaries or whether to wait for them. The Prophet was of the opinion that they should wait. However, upon deliberation, it was the other view, following the opinions of the majority, which prevailed. The Muslims advanced, thus, and after the actions taken in the fight whereby a group did not follow their orders, the Muslims lost the battle. It was in these conditions of defeat that the verse in question was revealed:

      It was by some mercy of God that thou wast gentle to them; hadst thou been harsh and hard of heart, they would have scattered from about thee. So pardon them, and pray forgiveness for them, and take counsel with them in the affair; and when thou art resolved, put thy trust in God; surely God loves those who put their trust in Him. (Qur’ān, 3:159)