Dawn Friday Articles

Social reform and Islam By Asghar Ali Engineer
Friday, 10 Jul, 2009 | 12:44 AM PST WHENEVER one talks of religion and reform, one faces stiff opposition from traditionalists and is accused of reforming a religion which is divine.

In the past, eminent social reformers like Sir Syed Ahmed Khan, Justice Ameer Ali, Maulvi Chiragh Ali, Dr Mohammad Iqbal and others have faced such opposition.

One should not forget that religion as we inherit and practise it is a mix of divine injunctions, theological formulations and indigenous customs and traditions. Everything in religion is not divine. And certain divine injunctions also have a certain social context which changes over a period of time, while certain divine injunctions are totally transcendent and eternal in nature.

This distinction is also of great relevance for a reformer. Commentators of the Quran also developed a volume of literature called asbab al-nuzul i.e. occasions of revelation of various Quranic verses. They tried to understand Quranic verses in the light of what preceded their revelation. Thus, context becomes important.

In matters of Sharia too jurists and eminent founders of various schools of law recognised the role of aadat i.e. customs and traditions of Arabs, because Sharia was developed primarily in the Arab society. Many jurists of subsequent generations also, therefore, recognised the importance of aadat of places where Islam spread later. Thus a changing social context as well as local customs and traditions cannot be elevated to the status of the divine as is often done by Muslims of later generations.

Changing cultural and historical contexts and new developments may necessitate change and reform. Without such change the vitality and dynamism of a religion is lost. The change would not mean changing the eternal, divine injunctions. If religious injunctions are divided between ibadat and mu’amalat (worship and social norms), then mu’amalat deals with what is between human beings and is certainly open to change, while ibadat deals with what is between an individual and Allah, which cannot be changed.

Certain injunctions pertaining to women have generated a great deal of controversy from the 19th century onwards. The conservative ulema oppose any change in respect of not only Sharia laws pertaining to women but also those pertaining to aadat. Everything is considered divine and no change is admissible. These days we have the hijab controversy after the French president talked of banning the hijab in France. One can certainly term President Sarkozy’s intentions as undemocratic and interfering with personal freedoms. But one should not forget that there is hardly any unanimity among Muslim theologians, much less among Muslim intellectuals, about the form of the hijab.

The Quranic verse 24:31 is subject to different interpretations. It is hardly established by any Quranic verse that women should completely cover their faces, revealing only their eyes. Verse 24:31 pertains to zeenah (adornment), not to veiling one’s face. It is also disputed whether purdah predated Islam, as Maulana Shibli Nomani shows in his article on purdah, or whether it came into existence much later, in the 7th century Hijrah (13th century AD), as Justice Ameer Ali maintains. If Maulana Shibli is right than perhaps purdah became Islamic as part of aadat, i.e. customary Arab law.

Whatever it is, a social reformer has to discuss the role of women in society where a whole range of issues are involved rather than just the hijab. Even if some kind of veil is recommended by the Quran, it should be analysed if doing so curbs the social role of women, as is the norm in traditional Muslim societies. In Saudi Arabia, for instance, women are virtual prisoners and subordinated to men’s authority.

It is an irony that all theologians swear by gender equality in Islam and then proceed to restrict the role of women in the social, economic and political spheres. Darul Uloom, Deoband once issued a fatwa that women cannot contest elections; Saudi Arabia does not allow women to vote in municipal elections (there are no other elections in that country).

Besides, Muslim theologians have also prohibited new inventions. In the 19th century, several fatwas declared loudspeakers haram; so was the use of a watch while praying. The church had also prohibited the use of the lock much earlier in Europe when it was invented. In our own times when heart transplants became possible they were declared haram, and I saw a lengthy article by a prominent aalim in India arguing why heart and other transplants were haram. Later on it was declared permissible under the doctrine of zaroorah i.e. necessity of saving a human life.

We need to develop a proper understanding of social change vis-à-vis the essential part of religion, which is immutable, and what is permissible to change and reform. Unfortunately, there is a woeful absence of such a theory in Islamic theology today. Muslim theologians and intellectuals must come together and develop such a theory.

The writer is an Islamic scholar and chairman of the Centre for Study of Society and Secularism, Mumbai.