|
Dar al-Ahad (abode of treaties) and Dar al-Amn (abode of security) to capture the dynamics in
contemporary Muslim – non-Muslim relations in a globalized world. The argument is that old
categories and theoretical concepts to project relations between Islamic and non-Islamic states
are becoming obsolete. Going a step further, Ramadan (2005) has promoted the idea of
‘Western Muslims’ who are developing roots in Western societies while maintaining their
commitment to the principles of Islam. He rejects the idea that Islam’s distinct character as a
faith and culture is defined by its differences from the West. Raising the issue from legal,
political, constitutional and moral viewpoints, Hallaq (2012) argues that the Western modern
state is a misfit for modern Muslims. Islam emphasizes moral and ethical values in human
relationships while Western project of secular modernity lacks any moral foundations that render
Islamic model of governance, cherished by the Islamists, impossible in a West-dominated world.
The failures of Islamists in Egypt, Iran and Pakistan to establish genuine Sharia governance, as
he opines, have greatly damaged efforts to establish the Islamic state. Hallaq believes that
20
Islam’s own crises and the universal dominance of the West leave one option open – Muslims
should productively engage with the West.
In the contemporary context, the modernist school of thought has been further articulated by
three Egyptian scholars – Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, Tariq al-Bishri and Fahmi Huwaydi. They
promote the concept of al-wasatiyya (moderate and balanced position) to reconcile inter-Muslim
differences and the clash between Islam and the West, accepts modernity while preserving the
Islamic faith and culture, resents the imperialistic domination of the West over the Muslim
countries and advocates peaceful coexistence between the two rival civilizations (Baker 2005,
pp. 110–114). Heavily influenced by al-Afghani and ‘Abduh, the wasatiyya scholars accept
ijtihad as the best way to define and develop relations between the Muslims and the non-
Muslims in this global age. Considering that the Muslims are weak in the face of Western power
and influence, they seek to uphold an Islamic framework wherein Muslims can exercise their
rights to shape their future. Cooperation between Islam and the West is a desired outcome to
avoid the clash of civilizations and to maintain a peaceful world order. Qaradawi, in particular,
urges restraint in line with Qur’anic teachings and insists on ‘the universality of the law of
mutual restraining’ as a basic principle of international relations (Baroudi 2014, 5). But
Qaradawi sees mutual restraint as a mechanism to stave off the lawless jungle of international
relations where the strong swallow up the weak.
The traditionalists from both the Sunni and Shi’a sects of Islam have, however, renounced, and
they still demur, the modernists’ flexible approach to Western modernity and the possibilities of
dialogues between Islam and the West. Stern reactions came from Sayyid Qutb, discussed briefly
above, and Ayatollah Khomeini, the architect of the 1979 Iranian Revolution. Both religious
thinkers and leaders castigated the modernists’ acquiescence to Western modernity since
“rationalist epistemology erodes divine authority, expresses and accelerates Western power, and
inhibits the establishment of a legitimate Islamic social system” (Euben 2002, p. 34). Accepting
Western modernity, as they saw it, amounted to putting Islam in a subservient position, to a
denial of Islam’s glorious past as well as the revival of Islamic glory in the future. Reason,
according to them, was not a substitute for moral judgment or divine authority; faith must
triumph over reason (Tadjbakhsh 2010, 181). Qutb seriously took issue with Muhammad
21
‘Abduh, whom he branded as an apologist for Islam, and suggested to purge Islam of foreign
influences as a way to get rid of ‘ jahiliyya’. Khomeini, while discarding the old concepts of Dar
al-Islam and Dar al-Harb, introduced a new duality of the oppressed peoples and the oppressive
powers to explain international relations. He firmly believed that the Islamic state, modeled on
Qur’anic laws, stood for the oppressed, while Western as well as non-Western states built on
human authority were devoid of moral standards and they slipped into an abyss of arrogance and
a denial of God’s sovereign authority on earth. Khomeini upheld that Islam, being a complete
guide for humans all over the world, did not need to borrow Western secular modernity and
engage with the un-Godly West. His thinking, articulated in the book ‘Islamic Government:
Governance of the Jurist’ (Khomeini 1979), put the Islamic religious authorities at the center of
the post-1979 Iranian political system to strictly supervise the government’s policies and
activities to conform to Islamic laws, principles and values.
The modernists, despite the virulent attacks from the traditionalists, have opened up a new
chapter in the domain of Islamic IR. Their approach articulates a new world order that shuns the
traditionalists’ binary division of the world and supports co-existence with the West, an indirect
acceptance of the Westphalian system of states guided by human authority. The concepts of
umma and assabiya are thus compromised, a point the traditionalists vehemently object to
reconsider. The Islamic modernists further argue for a cautious adaptation to Western modernity
while not supporting a de-Islamization process in the Muslim countries. They believe that it is
possible for the Muslims to be modern and Islamic at the same time, without compromising the
basic laws and principles of the religion. Modernity is not an exclusive Western concept; there
can be Islamic modernity capable of initiating Muslims’ material progress and strengthening
their Islamic identity. Islam is not immune to the scientific pursuit of knowledge to improve
human social and economic conditions. That further exacerbates the epistemological differences
between the two opposing Islamic approaches to international relations.
Three main points remain at the heart of the Islamic modernist epistemology: i) reconcile Islam
with the West to avoid a perpetual clash of civilizations; ii) modernity is welcome as are the
preservations of the traditional Islamic identity and culture; and iii) global age requires an
amenable and applicable approach which ijtihad seeks to promote. In brief, the primary objective
22
of the Islamic modernists has been to promote the effective defense of Islam through modernity
and cooperation with the West where a ‘we’ versus ‘they’ prism ( Dar al-Islam versus Dar al-
Harb perspective) stands obsolete in the modern context. In that sense, the modernists take a
revisionist position, a position that refers to the Protestant Reformation in Europe, while
remaining within the parameters of Islamic classical texts.
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: | 
