William andrew kopwe the open university of tanzania

4.3.3 Hermeneutical Difference

Hermeneutics⁹⁷ is the grand determinant of application of a given interpreted text. The hermeneutical approach answers two questions in this study: Firstly, what makes the Muslims in the Country to demand for further Sharī’a implementation while they practice their religion rightfully? Secondly, what part of Sharī’a and to what extent should be applied? Hermeneutics has been a major point of departure among Muslim groups in Tanzania Mainland concerning these questions. There is a great diversity in the approach of Sharī’a implementation between the mainstream-Sunni Muslims and the revivalists-Ansār Sunna Muslims in the Country according to their scriptures. The dichotomy affects strictness, and parts of Sharī’a demanded to be implemented in the Country.
The mainstream Sunni Muslims are moderate and they are not seeking for total Sharī’a implementation in Tanzania. For them, Sharī’a cannot be fully implemented in this Country because of contextual issues including pluralism and the Country’s secularity. They openly say that they are not for changing Tanzania into an Islamic Country. They argue that Islamic law should not touch non-Muslims. However, they argue that Muslims be given their rights of implementing Sharī’a.⁹⁸ They even go further saying that even the Muslims themselves will not be coerced to follow Sharī’a if they do not feel the need. A sheikh in Dodoma quoted Qur’ān saying that: “Let there be no compulsion in religion. Truth stands out clear from error; whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things” (Surah 2 256)”.⁹⁹ Therefore, neither Muslims nor non-Muslims should be forced to follow Sharī’a in the Country. This Sunni Muslim comprises the majority in the Country. Most of them are under the auspice of BAKWATA. They are the ones that Luanda is cited saying:

It is important in discussing the religious challenges to the secular nation-state project to make a distinction between mainstream Muslims and those that espouse extremist positions. The generality of Tanzanian Muslims have not advanced any demands for the creation of a Muslim nation-state. Rather, it is those Muslims who can be characterized as fundamentalist who have demanded the creation of an Islamic nation-state in Tanzania” (Olukoshi and Laakso, 1996:170).

The revivalist revivalists Ansār Sunna Muslims view of Sharī’a implementation in the Country is different from that of Mainstream Muslims. For them, the world is divided into two parts. The first is Dār al-Islam, the land or Country of peace or the abode of Islam. This is the land which is under Sharī’a (Islamic law). The other part of the world is Dār al-Harb, the land of war. This is the land which is not under Islamic Sharī’a, or in which Muslims are not in political control. The revivalists openly say that they want Tanzania to be dawla Islamiyya (Islamic state) and Sharī’a be fully implemented.
For them, Sharī’a should not bind Muslims only, but it will have to touch all people in the Country because Sharī’a stipulated everything, even how non-Muslim and Muslims relate in the Country. Sharī’a is from God and God did not say there is any part of Sharī’a that should not be applied.¹⁰⁰ The study by Mohammed Ayoob (2009) concerning hermeneutical tension between revivalist Muslims and traditionalist ‘ålamā in the so called Islamic countries may probably be the best for the evaluation of Tanzanian context. Tension between the two groups was due to the fact that the ålamā were conservative to the old Islamic way of life which seemed to the modernist and revivalist as unable to meet the modern challenges facing Islam in the modern world. Therefore, individual lay Muslims who studied other educations than Islamic theology exercised their ijtihād and came up with the conclusion that the four Sunni schools of law are not enough to be the sole sources of Islamic law. These people decided to contextualize Islam in order to answer current challenges of Islam. These are the sources of revivalist Muslims in the world. They started by question the authority of ålamā in the interpretation of Muslim authority. This resulted into new hermeneutics which stressed into going back to the Islam of the ancestor which proclaimed utopia by promising answers to the issues and problems of Muslims in the world once Sharī’a is strictly practiced. The dichotomy among Muslims concerning interpretation of the official sources of Islam poses a great challenge in the conceptualization of Sharī’a and its application.
The revivalist approach of Muslim text, with its emphasis on Sharī’a implementation to bind both Muslims and Christians in the Country, makes it important to review through the work of some reputable Muslim scholars’ concepts on the issue of pluralism and Sharī’a implementation. The study done by Sirry (2009) is an invaluable model for this study. He presents exegesis done by reputable classical Muslim exegetes on the Qur’an text which speaks about religious pluralism as a starting point. Then he brings interpretation of modern Muslim scholars on the given agenda. ‘—lamā agree that, in Islamic understanding, pluralism is divinely ordained.¹⁰¹ Cardinal source of pluralism in Islam, especially, in the issue of who should be touched by Sharī’a implementation is from the following Qur’ān text:

To thee We sent the Scripture in truth confirming the scripture that came before it and guarding it in safety; so judge between them by what Allah hath revealed and follow not their vain desires diverging from the truth that hath come to thee. To each among you have We prescribed a Law and an Open Way. If Allah had so willed He would have made you a single people but (His plan is) to test you in what He hath given you: so strive as in a race in all virtues. The goal of you all is to Allah; it is He that will show you the truth of the matters in which ye dispute (Surah 5: 48).

To find out consensus of the majority concerning the text, Sirry surveys exegesis of the text made by reputable Muslims scholars such as Muqātil b. Sulaymān (d.150/767), al-Zakhshari (d.538/1144), Tabarsil (d.548/1153), Fakhr al-Dīn al-Razī (d. 707/1209), al-Tabari (d.310/923), Ibn Kathir (d.774/1373) and al-Qurtubī (d.671/1272). All of them had similar view of the text. Two scholars give very significant translation for the application of Sharī’a. Al-Qurtubī (1997:199) interprets the verse as “God has made the Torah for its people, the Gospel for its people and so the Qur’an for its people; and this plurality is in terms of laws and rituals. For the foundation of all religions is tawhīd where there is no difference between them.”
According to al-Qurtubī, every religion has its Sharī’a and that people should not be obliged to follow others’ Sharī’a. On the other hand, Muqātil ibn Sulaymān, who is the earliest scholar among those who are mentioned here, considers the text to be talking about the three Abrahamic religions, each one of them being given a distinctive approach of Sharī’a. Muqātil ibn Sulaymān is quoted saying that:

The Sharī’a of the people of the Torah on [the punishment for] unlawful killing is retribution (qisās) with no blood money (diya), and stoning for a married man and woman who commit adultery. The Sharī’a of the people of the Gospel on [the punishment for] unlawful killing is forgiveness, no qisās for them nor blood money, and their Sharī’a on adultery is whipping (jald) without stoning. The Sharī’a of the people of Muhammad, peace be upon him, on [the punishment for] unlawful killing is qisās, blood money, and forgiveness, and their Sharī’a on adultery is whipping for unmarried and stoning for married [men and women] (ibn Sulaymān, 1979: 482).

According to Sirry, all of the above mentioned reputable Muslim exegetes agree in principle that, since Muhammad and his people are not obliged to follow laws of the earlier communities, then other communities are also not bound to the Sharī’a of Muhammad. He quotes al-Rāzī saying that when the Qur’ān says “For each one of you we have appointed a law and a way” indicates that “every prophet is autonomous with a specific Sharī‘a, and that excludes the people of any Prophet from being accountable to the sharīa of other Prophets”.
Modern Muslim scholars such as Nurcholish Madjid (Indonesia), Asghar Ali Engineer (India), and Abdulaziz Sachedina (United States) as presented by Sirry, show that “Qur’an presents religious pluralism as a divine mystery that must be accepted as a given to allow for smooth inter-communal relations in public life”. Qur’ān is humanistic, pluralistic and democratic by nature. The salafiyya (ancestors) of Islam have lived according to those values of the Qur’ān. This is well expressed by the Maddinan Constitution which guaranteed good relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims found there. The Constitution shows that Muhammad himself had engaged in pluralism and good relationship with people of the book found in Medina when he went there during his hijra (migration) in 622 A.D. Ishaq says that “The apostle wrote a document concerning the emigrants and the helpers in which he made a friendly agreement with the Jews and established them in their religion and their property, and stated the reciprocal obligations [of the people of the book]” Guillaume (1955:231-233). Also when Muslims captured Jerusalem in 638, the Khalifa (successor of Muhammad) ‘Umar wrote a letter to people in Jerusalem which guaranteed them peace and safety of their properties.
Unfortunately, there are massive of interpretations of Surah Al-Maida: 48 which deviate from above mentioned Qur’ān reality. Qur’ān presents religious pluralism as a divine mystery that must be accepted as given to allow for smooth inter-communal relations in public life (Sirry, 2009). Surah Al-Maida: 48 is a manifestation of religious pluralism in Islam. Therefore, if the revivalists Muslims in the Country are to live according to the salafiyya, they should abide by the tolerant and democratic ethos of the Qur’ān as practiced by Muhammad and followed by the salafiyya. This argument shows that the Ansār Muslims version of Sharī’a application in Tanzania is liable to dispute by other Muslims and non-Muslims as it was even responded by both groups.¹⁰²
The former President of Tanzania Ali, Hassan Mwinyi, who is also known as sheikh, had similar consent of God’s ordination of religious difference among human beings. Mwinyi showed this concern when he addressed the nation right after fundamentalist Muslims in Dar es Salaam plundered pork meat shops. Mwinyi said since this Country is secular, everyone is allowed to eat what he or she likes. This made him to be known as mzee ruksa (the one who allows ‘everything’).