by Michael Posner
From Saturday’s Globe and Mail
first Published Friday, Nov. 04, 2011
On the cover of historian Niall Ferguson’s new book, Civilization: The West and the Rest, is a photograph of a gold-filigreed, antique French mantel clock lying on its side. Mr. Ferguson’s implication is clear: Like France’s 18th-century monarchy, societies don’t fall decorously. They topple – not without warning, perhaps, but nevertheless with astonishing speed and often messy consequences. And that, as he told The Globe and Mail’s Michael Posner, constitutes his book’s Code Red alert: Unless Western civilization contends with the myriad risks it now faces, it, too, may collapse – and sooner than one might think.
In your book, you take the West to task for a word I can barely pronounce, pusillanimity. What do you mean by it?
It’s from the Latin, for weakness or vacillation of spirit. It’s a nice word for cowardice or, in the vernacular, lack of balls. Pusillanimity of leadership is one of the big problems of our time. The institutional problems on both sides of the Atlantic can only be addressed with strong leadership, because they involve riding over the vested interests and privileges of powerful groups. We need to update the software, delete the viruses and reboot the machine, and that calls for massive political courage of the sort we don’t see much of right now.
Just ordered the book from Amazon.com. Our February Alislam-eGazette will be about Separation of Mosque-Church and State and Sharia Law and this book may offer me some insights.
If the West falls may Allah the Merciful cause it to fall into his Loving hands (metaphoric)and may Ahmadiyya Jama’at rebuild society in His way. Ameen.
I am an Ahmadi Muslim, and a doctoral student in the UK.
The only caution I would extend to the issue of the Separation of Mosque/Church and State is that sweeping generalisations have been made recently devoid of the historical realities that took place in Makkah and Madina during the time of the Prophet (saw) – which is the scenario with which most discussions on this topic begin.
Some modernist trends amongst some Muslims assert that there was no Islamic State in Madina, and even more surprisingly in Makkah on the Prophet’s (saw) return after the Victory.
This is a gross misrepresentation of the facts and of our history – Madina was such a religiously governed state that the practices and laws established therein gave birth to a full-fledged legal school – the Maliki Madhhab – which continues to this day and bases its principles of jurisprudence on the ‘Madhhab Ahl al-Madina’ (the way of the people of Madina) – that includes everything from rituals of prayer and principles of state and governance, and treatment of non-muslim minorities. This is not surprising as most of the legal principles in the Qur’an were Medinan verses – that is, they were revealed exclusively or principally in Medina.
Even more surprising is the assertion that Makkah was not a religiously governed state – this is simply not the case. There are many examples of this, and most pertinent to explain the point is the coercion of Sayyidna Hadrat Abu Bakr (ra) in forcing the (eventual) Apostates to pay the Zakat, or to fight alongside the Muslims in case of attacks, or ultimately to leave the area controlled by the Muslims as they would thus be a threat to the Muslim polity. Most notable is the issue that when Hadrat Abu Bakr (ra) approached this group to pay the Zakat, they said: “What was obligatory upon us was that which the Prophet made obligatory – now he is gone, it is no longer obligatory upon us.” Hadrat Abu Bakr (ra) responded on Oath saying that whatever Allah and His Apostle had made obligatory, that was what Hadrat Abu Bakr deems obligatory, and thus enforced them to pay the Zakat. As they effectively refused and became belligerents, Hadrat Abu Bakr (ra) was forced to fight them in what are now known as the ‘Ridda Wars’.
I think that we need to take a more realistic view of Islamic HIstory and inform our narratives of the separation of Mosque and State, rather than allowing recent examples (Pakistan and other modern Muslim States’ examples) to discolour our vision of the problem.
In fact, it is apparent that modern democratic theory would state that if a people in a country wanted a law – irrespective of whether it is Shari’a, Halakhic law, or secular law, the majority opinion would prevail – and issues of whether it should be religious or secular remain merely moot.
I would also suggest reading Talal Asad’s critique of Secularism. He is perhaps the foremost scholar in this area and the son of the renowned Muslim Commentator and scholar, Muhammad Asad.
And lest we forget, Andalusian Spain serves as a prime examples of a community governed by Shari’a law in which Christians and Muslim minorities lived under total protection from the state. We should also recognise that Islamic Law, and the Qur’an, claim to be universal and capable of cultural relativism, and thus pluralism. Just because other religious systems/laws of governance are somewhat indifferent to difference or pluralism, does not mean that the Shari’a or the Islamic Law has to be painted with the same brush. It is a very different system. Recent examples of Shari’a in practice may not show this, but that is a blotch on those States and those who ran them, not on the pristine and adaptable Shari’a.
Wassalaam
MuslimSunrise
Agree!