In Focus: Either... or There ought to be no fundamental conflict between religion and politics, for they serve different functions, writes Galal Nassar Political Islamists and seculars are at loggerheads these days, and not just in the Arab world. In Palestine, it is Hamas against Fatah. In Algeria, it is the Islamic Salvation Front against the government. In Somalia, it is the Islamic Courts against the government. In Sudan, it is north against south. In Yemen, it is the Huthis against the state. In Pakistan, the government sent the army against students barricaded in the Red Mosque in Islamabad earlier this month. Muslim and Arab blood is being shed every day. Combatants as well as bystanders, religious and secular people, die in their hundreds, as if Arab and Islamic blood is cheap. We find ourselves caught in a conflicted dualism, one in which each side wants to exclude the other. It is a dualism of right and wrong, true and false, faith and ungodliness. Each side wants to eliminate the other, in rhetoric as in reality, in mind as in power. Each side believes that its way is the right way and that its supporters must emerge victorious. So much for pluralism and co-existence. Each of the "enemy brothers" can be wrong in some way, and two wrongs don't make a right. Taking sides would only inflame the situation, break national unity, lead to bloodshed, and invite civil war. This is the logic of "either ... or" which dominated most Asian religions, Manichaeism, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, and the pre-Confucian religion of China. Subsequent Gnosticism was incorporated into most monotheistic religions, especially Christianity, as heavens were contrasted with earth, the needs of the soul with the needs of the body, this life with the afterlife, angels with devils. The conflict between two sides is not just about power, although it would seem so on the surface. What we have here is a cultural conflict between two opposite views. What we have here is, again, a mentality of "either... or." It is a conflict between two lifestyles, and therefore can only be resolved through dialogue and synthesis, even selectiveness. The aim would be to reach a third path, perhaps one similar to the Justice and Development Party in Turkey or the UMNO (United Malays National Organisation) in Malaysia. This is what the reform and revival movement in Morocco aims to achieve. Morocco has even developed its own version of the Justice and Development Party. In the current debate, the Islamists tend to make several mistakes. First, the mosque is turning into a state within the state, a power within power, and a government within government. This is of course unacceptable to any political regime, be it dictatorial or democratic, capitalist or socialist. A state can tolerate a struggle among its various branches, as is the case between the legal branch in Egypt and the executive and judiciary branches, or between military and civilian authorities in Turkey. But this dualism of power must not trigger open hostilities and national disunity. Second, encouraging virtue and discouraging vice is part and parcel of religious practice. Giving advice is part of religion. Both Ibn Taymiya and Ibn Al-Qayyem believe that hesba (or monitoring public morality) is a main function of the Islamic government. This function should be given to scholars, not to their students, and it should be performed through advice, not violence. Vice must not be fought through worse acts, such as filling mosques with guns, or bringing women, children and the elderly into the heat of battle. Advice is best given collectively, not through individuals or small doctrinal and ethnic groups, such as the "Front of Muslim Scholars". In Sharia, or Islamic law, consensus is always preferable to individual views. There are thousands of mosques that are similar to the Red Mosque. And there are representatives of the Islamic movement in parliament. Encouraging virtue and discouraging vice could have taken place in parliament. It could have taken place through the press. Rallying the public through peaceful means is the best way. Fighting isn't. This is why some Islamic scholars, speaking out of aversion to violence, suggested that the three methods of change attributed to a saying by the Prophet Mohamed needed to be reversed. Instead of using the hand first, then the tongue, then the heart, scholars argued that the heart should be used first, then the tongue, and then the hand. Those are the ways of giving advice, encouraging virtue, and discouraging vice. There is nothing wrong with speaking at the pulpit. But we cannot reduce the three phases of advice to one. In Islamic societies in Southeast Asia, there is a diversity of ethnicities, doctrines, and creeds -- the Baluches, Pashtuns, Shias, Hindus, Chinese and Malayans. According to Sharia, each sect should be governed by its own laws, just as Islam proffers about Christians and Jews. Some ulema (religious scholars) maintain that even the animists deserve their own laws. If a Muslim breaks a wine jar owned by a Christian or a Jew, he has to pay compensation, according to some scholars who maintain that Sharia applies only to Muslims. I believe that the task of maintaining the unity of a country, such as Sudan, is more important than applying Sharia in the south. So it is wrong for those wanting to encourage virtue and discourage vice to apply their ideas to non-Muslims. It is wrong to apply Sharia to the Chinese who run Turkish baths or massage facilities in Southeast Asia. Respecting the traditions of non-Muslims is part of Sharia. Let's remember that the Prophet Mohamed said, "He who hurts a non-Muslim hurts me." The encouragement of virtue and discouragement of vice must not be used as a stepping-stone for political power. The mosque is not the right venue for exercising political opposition. Mosques are for dialogue and advice, not conflict and fighting. The mosque is a moral, not a political, authority. It is a guardian, not an enforcer, of Islamic values. Political conflict must be confined to ballot boxes, the media, and democratic elections. Conversely, some governments and their apparatuses commit several mistakes. First, they refuse to listen to advice, including that given by people who want to encourage virtue and discourage vice. They refrain from confronting opinion with opinion, argument with argument, and evidence with evidence. Instead, they resort to weapons, siege, confrontation and killing. They reject mediation and dialogue. They remember the rights of the state and forget the rights of society. Mosques have an educational and social message. The same governments that are quick to repress the mosque tend to suppress civil society as well. They use the army in domestic battles, along with the police and other security services. The job of the army is to defend the country against foreign threats, not to defend one political party against its opponents. The army is an independent institution and must not be used as a tool by any political side. Once the army deviates from its course, a cycle of bloodshed becomes unavoidable. Let's not forget that we still live in an agricultural society, one in which vendetta is still rife. Innocent people would fall on both sides once the nation is divided. Second, they occasionally involve tribes in battle, as you can see along the Pakistani-Afghan borders. Let's keep in mind that tribes predate colonial borders, and therefore tend to live on both sides of those borders. Throughout their history, tribes offered moral guidance to both Afghans and Pakistanis. Islam is the main political force in Pakistan, and its popularity remains unrivalled to this day, despite a fledgling, usually elitist, liberalism. Through political pluralism and national dialogue, Pakistan can still form a broad-based national front and stand up to neo-colonialist forces and US domination. Dialogue -- not arms -- should govern relations between a government and its adversaries. Through dialogue, a third path can be found, one that combines the old and the new, the state and the people, the army and the public. It is through dialogue that governments should move from repression to freedom. And it is through dialogue that Islamic movements should move from conservatism to renewal. Turkey, Malaysia, Indonesia and Mauritania are useful examples for our volatile region.
