William andrew kopwe the open university of tanzania

4.4.7 Religious and Political Toleration

The above survey of the political-religious reality shows that, Tanzania has never been able to separate religion from the state, despite the fact that, constitutionally, it has claimed to be so. In Tanzania, two critical perspectives are prominent concerning state-religion-society relations. First, religious groups have great influence in the Government. Second, the Country acknowledges the belief in God, ‘the God’ who is not of any religion. The second position counts more to this study since the State acknowledges God. Neutrality of ‘the Tanzanian God’ presupposes two possibilities. That God is universal an embraces either religions or the God is exclusive and does not recognize any of the religions in the Country. But contextual analysis of Tanzania directs us to the option that the Tanzanian ‘God’ embraces all religions. To embrace all religions has to do with acknowledging all religions, which implies embracing the multi-religious roles of the religions. This challenges the state to create a level ground for all religious groups in the Country.
Traditionally, it has been understood by people that secularism creates a neutral ground for all religious groups in a pluralistic Country and frees the Government from the influence of religion. But this has not been the case always. The concept introduced by Jefferson (1802), “the wall of separation between the church and state”, is alien to Islam. According to (Gellner, 1981:1) “Islam is a blue print of society”. In Islam, everything in the life of the human being, here and hereafter, is stipulated in the divinely given law. Hence, there is no justification of such separation of society in parts. Any talk of separation of state from religion is against Islamic understanding of state-religion-society of dīn wa dawla (religion mixed with politics). Therefore, secularism is not in consonant with Islam.

4.4.8 Prudence

Tanzania is a Country where Christian and Muslims are doing so many things together peacefully. They do so because of prudence among themselves. The issue of Christian-Muslim relations will be discussed later. The aim here is to show that Sharī’a implementation in the Country can be solved by gentlemen’s and gentlewomen’s agreements and not through legal ways. This Country has already witnessed several issues being resolved by prudence. The issue of the Presidential position whereby Christian and Muslim Presidents have been alternating can be cited as an example. This is neither a Constitutional nor a legal thing but it is prudently done so as to create harmony and tranquility in the Country.¹⁵⁹
Also, there are many things in Christian-Muslim relations which are done not because of law, but because of amicability and good relations between the two communities. One example is the issue of slaughtering animals for meat, where Christians ask Muslims to slaughter for them. It does not mean that Christians cannot slaughter animals nor is it illegitimate for Christians to slaughter their animals for meat. But they ask Muslims to slaughter for them just because they want their Muslim brothers and sisters not to be offended when they are invited by Christians for a meal. Also, Christians do not want to offend Muslims when they go to buy meat in shops. The use of such philosophy may provide prospect for Sharī’a implementation in the Country.
Prudence also refers to the whole issue of being ready to see one religious group in the Country given a special favor by the Government. There has been a tendency in the Country for members of one religious group to decide to be against benefits or favor of other religious group in the Country, even if those benefits do not affect other religious groups in the Country, or even if those benefits could help other religious in the Country. Sharī’a implementation can be tolerated by the non-Muslims by agreeing to what extent the Government should fund the Sharī’a implementation in the Country.

4.4.9 Supports from Non-Muslims

Non-Muslim attitude of Sharī’a was broadly discussed under the topic of challenges facing Sharī’a implementation in the Country. Non-Muslims, particularly Christians, have proved to be in support of Sharī’a implementation in the Country. However, the major question is to what extent Sharī’a should be implemented and how should Sharī’a implementation in Country be managed. Church leaders of different denominations showed that they do not have problems with Sharī’a implementation in the Country under three conditions. First, Sharī’a and its implementation should not be Government institution. Second, Sharī’a should touch only Muslims in the Country. Third, Sharī’a which will be implemented in the Country should not grab Human Rights of people in the Country.
The last condition has to do with the philosophy of Human Rights and religious convictions. This is not easy to determine as an outsider of a religion. Religion is essentially of the inner life, it follows that it can be truly grasped only from within. But beyond a doubt, this can be better done by one in whose inward consciousness an experience of religion plays a part. There is but too much danger that the other (the non-believer) will talk of religion as a blind man might of colors, or one totally devoid of ear, of a beautiful music composition (Norléne, 2002).
Above argument can well be explained by the theory of the phenomenology of Religion. This it as a science which seeks to describe religious phenomena while suspending truth judgments through bracketing, hoping to allow the subjective religious facts to speak for themselves (Ataman, 2005). Habel (1993) considers phenomenology of religion as a sympathetic study of religious phenomena, implying that one should not pass judgment on the truth of a particular set of beliefs. Norman Sharpe (1975) says one should be agnostic bout any truth regarding all religions as essentially human phenomena. Phenomenology of religion is a methodology of studying religion by allowing the believers or the belief to express the truth therein from within. ‘The devotee is always right’, Phenomenology of religion describes religious phenomena in terms consistent with the orientation of the worshippers.¹⁶⁰ Therefore, though there are standards of Human Rights as per the 1948 declaration, they are not enough for one to judge what is right and what is wrong in the light of faith and religion. The Human Rights Declaration is still a disputable issue by different people in the world, particularly Muslims.
With the context of first and second and conditions given by Christians concerning Sharī’a implementation, some church leaders say that “We do not have any problem with its practice if for instance they decide that that Court will be ran by Muslims. And if they choose their own |§∙ī and run their Courts just like what we are doing in CCT and TEC, we will have no problem with it”.¹⁶¹ This consent shows that there are prospects in implementing Sharī’a in the Country because if the Muslims do not involve the Government in the implementation of Sharī’a and that the Sharī’a, in any sense, does not touch the Christians, the Christians do not have problem with Sharī’a. Therefore, Sharī’a implementation is possible in the Country if Muslims, non-Muslims and the Government come together and discuss the issue, not by arguing, nor by demonstrations or offering statements, but open dialogue.

Probably the strongest arguments provided by Christians who support the institutionalization of the |§∙ī Court by the Government were that of the Chief Justice, Augustine Ramadhani. He worked in Zanzibar as a Chief Justine for ten years. He then became a Chief Justice in the Tanzania mainland until he retired. He had gathered a lot of experience in the issue of |§∙ī Courts and their challenges. Through this experience, Ramadhani supports the reintroduction of |§∙ī Courts as Government institutions. In his paper presented to the CCT Bishops in Dodoma¹⁶² Ramadhani said that there are reasons for the reintroduction of |§∙ī Courts in the Country. There are no problems with the cost of running them because even if they are not there the cases which require |§∙ī Courts are there and are taken care by the Government’s funds. Furthermore, there are Courts for different groups of people in the Country. These include Labor Tribunal, Housing Tribunal, Commercial Court and High Court Land Division. These Tribunals deal with some sections of the populace, but their operations are funded by the Government. Therefore to have special Courts for a certain section of citizens (The Muslims) in the Country is not an abnormal thing or peculiar. He concluded that it should be remembered that Muslims are more in numbers than business people in the Country. Yet the business people are having their own tribunal. Why shouldn’t the Muslims be given similar opportunity? With such a comment, the Chief Justice shows that it is possible for the Country to institute and fund the running of the |§∙ī Courts.