Disclaimer: I read Quran in the light of science, philosophy, ethics, and public policy. This is not a theological discussion, but some rational thinking shaped by the Quran.
“It is not fit for a prophet that he should take captives until he has thoroughly subdued the land. You believers settled with the fleeting gains of this world, while Allah’s aim for you is the Hereafter. Allah is Almighty, All-Wise. Had it not been for a prior decree from Allah, you would have certainly been disciplined with a tremendous punishment for whatever ransom you have taken.” (Al-Quran 8: 67-68)
I had difficulty to comprehend these verses for long. They were revealed after the Battle of Badr, the first battle between the pagan Meccan and the nascent Muslim community in Madinah. The Muslims achieved a total victory and took 70 prisoners of war including many chieftains. The regulations regarding war booty or prisoner of wars had not been yet revealed.
The Prophet (a) called his companions for the consultation. The majority’s opinion was to free them with appropriate ransoms. The minority opinion was to execute them. The Prophet (a) adopted the majority opinion. If someone was unable to pay the money but was literate. His ransom was to teach 10 illiterate children in Madinah how to read and write. What can be more human and merciful than those arrangement.
However soon after, the divine revelation came down suggesting that the taking prisoners of war for ransom was such a wrong decision worthy of tremendous punishment. This is not the first time, I had difficulty to understand some verses. It happened many times to me. Most of the time it has been due to my lack of domain knowledge.
There are still verses that I don’t comprehend. The Quran is the guidance to mankind for the eternity. I do think that there would be verses incomprehensible for our time and age. But one day humanity will understand them due to the new insights of their time and context.
For the case of these two verses, my lack of knowledge in political science especially how state structures have been changed between the time of the Prophet (a) and ours was the main reason. I had missed the point “until he has thoroughly subdued the land”.
The nature of modern-day states is fundamentally different than the tribal and empire states during the time of Prophet (a) in a sense that modern states are Westphalian state. Peace treaty of Westphalia (1648) established the right to govern in the state’s territory without external interference called national sovereignty. Empires were expansive territories ruled by an omni powerful Emperor. His persona was the state and law. The people were not citizen but his subjects with no rights except his wishes and mercies.
His territorial borders were expanding or shrinking depending on his military feats. Legendary warriors like Alexander the Great or Changi’s Khan was going East or West and continuously expanding their empires as long their military power prevailed. Conquering foreign lands was the most glorious thing to do.
Now a global community of international law and moderately effective international organizations such as the United Nations (UN) became a reality. The state’s sovereign territorial border is largely defined and recognized by UN. The right to declare and to wage war, once the very essence of sovereign king or nation, is becoming more and more of bygone era.
The concept of conquest does not exist anymore. It is now considered as illegal invasion and how hard it has become. Simply look at the ultimate financial and social cost that USA has paid in Afghanistan and Iraq, despite their decisive military victories in the battle fields and all the deaths and destructions they have caused in both countries by their military fire powers.
Nowadays, we live in nation state. Our borders are defined by national sovereignty and protected by international law. People is the owner of the country. The government is in service of the people. Our citizenship rights in both war and peace time are ensured by universal human rights. So, when I had read those verses through the optics of current nation states, national sovereignty and universal human rights, it felt like so inconvenient truth.
However, in a world where national sovereignty was absent and the conquest were something of ultimate glory, keeping the enemy subdued was the only viable option for mere survival. Indeed, the very next year Meccan pagan attacked again with many times more forces, which is known in the history as the battle of Uhud. The Muslim community suffered the worst defeat with 70 martyrs. The Prophet (a) was himself severely injured, if not almost killed. If those chieftains had been executed the year earlier, most probably the battle of Uhud would not have happened.
When I learnt the difference between our nation states and the tribal states, it helped me understand better not only the logic of the prophetic wars but also all those political decisions of the era regarding expulsions of some tribes or pre-emptive strikes to some other tribes etc.
While it saved me from some of my supposed inconvenient truths but took me to the new ones. Suddenly, with the changed state structures, the model of khalifate style Islamic state seemed to me any more plausible. Because it was originally framed upon the social contract where only the victor had the right to be the head of state, and people were his subjects. Now people as citizen became the owner of the states and the rulers as governments became their subjects.
Islamic states had never been exclusive states of only Muslim populations. Most cases the non-Muslims were the demographic majority like Moghul’s India. It was religiously inclusive, economically just. It ensured religious freedom for all. While non-Muslims were supposed to pay poll tax (called Jijya), the Muslims were liable to pay the obligatory charity of a fixed percentage upon their wealth known as zakat. However, it was politically exclusive in the sense that the high office of head of the state known as khalifah should remain in the hand of Muslims. The khalifah would be democratically elected by the Muslims and committed for the Islamic law in the country.
Historically, this model had no problem. When Muslims conquered a land, they replaced the king or emperor. Naturally, the non-Muslims became their subjects. It was very natural that the non-Muslim had no access to be the head of the state. In this context, the religious freedom and economic justice that the rightly guided khalifah offered to the non-Muslims had been unprecedented in the history. They had their representation to the Khalifah and many of them became very powerful advisers of the Khalifah.
However, in a modern-day nation state, there are no subjects but citizen. Every citizen has the natural right to be the head of state. The proposition for a khalifate like politically exclusive state is fundamentally contradictory with the equal citizenship concept of a nation state.
It is not only Islam, but any ideology-based state be it Islamic Iran or Communist China and Cuba is in contradiction with the concept of equal citizenship and meaningful votes. In those countries, the religious or ideological others have no meaningful political participation, though their lives can be equally secured by the welfare states.
In many Muslim majority countries, Islamic movement-oriented parties became mainstream political parties. They have long back left their revolutionary path, participated in electoral politics and became de facto vanguard for the democracy of the country. However, their literature did not change regarding their commitment to reestablish the khalifate, which put them nationally and internationally under suspicion about their final objectives. Many think that once they are in the power, will break away from the liberal rule of the game.
According to Francis Fukuyama, the author of libera democracy and its discontent, due to this suspicion, the West tend to support dictators and despots in the Muslim majority countries out of the fear that given the free and fair election, the Islamist would be in the power. As a result, the democratic credentials and reputation of the West as an honest development partner have been severely damaged in the Muslim world. In recent past, the American war on terror had been brutally used by the authoritarian governments in the Muslim world not only against political Islamists but also against common practicing Muslims just to create a regime of fear, thus, hold onto the power without any accountability.
When people accuse the West of their misery under the corrupt national government and want to eliminate the Western patronage from the country, most of the time they present Islam as the alternative solution. The common people in the West interpret those aspirations as an expression of hatred against Western liberal democracy and their lifestyle shaped by personal freedom of choices. Thus, it has created a vicious feedback loop of mutual mistrusts between the West and the Muslim world enabling further the rise of populist demagogues in both sides.
The fundamental question is whether Islam allows liberal democracy in the sense of freedom of thought and speech, equal citizenship and meaningful votes for all? My answer is yes if we understand one simple thing that outside the sphere of rituals like five times prayers a day or fasting during the month of Ramadan, Islam did not bring any new dresses, foods and drinks or states. Rather Islam brought principles regarding existing dress code, food and drinking behaviour and state systems etc.
During the time of the Prophet (a) the Islamic principles of state crafts were applied upon empire state structure. Now we must apply them upon nation state and equal citizenship framework. We must present Islam to all citizen not as state imposition but as a better choice option for them.
Islamic movement would be a social and community movement. The role of their activism would be to create Islamic solutions for all worldly problems (e.g., spiritual and environmental) and present it to the people for their choices. Their political goal would be to establish a neutral state vis-a-vis freedom of thought, belief, religion, and culture to protect the choices of all people.
The Quran said,” Let there be no compulsion in religion, for the truth stands out clearly from falsehood. So, whoever renounces false gods and believes in Allah has certainly grasped the firmest, unfailing handhold. And Allah is All-Hearing, All-Knowing (Al Quran 2:256). While for a practicing Muslim, the choice would be and should be very clear, nevertheless, it should remain a choice and a clarion call for others.
If we want the Uighur Muslims, Rohingya Muslims and Palestinians all they be treated as equal citizen in their own country; we must want all Muslims and non-Muslims be equal citizen in our ideal state with equal opportunity and accesses to its political processes and powers.
The world is not a perfect place, but we all aspire to have one. We may all hold our different visions for it. But if our perfect world only serves us, then very quickly we will lose any credibility to run for it. We must live together side by side. The only way we will be able to flourish ourselves if we create spaces for others to flourish. We need an enormous force of Islamic arguments and not the arguments of forces by state power.
Comments