http://archives.dailytimes.com.pk/editorial/19-Mar-2004/second-opinion-mehmood-mirza-s-tough-question-khaled-ahmed-s-urdu-press-review
Columnist Mehmood Mirza wrote in Jang (22 January 2004) that reconciling Islamic piety (taqva) with modern economy was problematic. The concept of "rizq-e-halal" (rightly earned livelihood) was difficult to observe because the economy today was much more complex than in the early days. Islam prohibited stockpiling (zakhira andozi) and speculation (satta) and lack of thrift. Piety on the other hand was a psychological state. Its achievement whenever possible was complicated by the contradiction between concept and reality. Islam is interpreted two ways. One school says land should belong to the state and therefore the tenant should be free to hold land at the expense of the feudal. The other school interprets freedom to hold private property under Islam as the right of the feudal to rule over tenants.
No one can examine the authenticity of "taqva" except through noble action, but this action is guided by rules that are not clear. Modern economy is so different from the ancient and medieval economic conditions shaping the "fiqh" that it is cruel on a pious man to suffer merely because of anachronism. Mr Mirza here implies the complexity of "savings" today and the primal edict of subjecting one's savings to needless risk. Lack of thrift is an edict that would lay waste the economic paradise of Southeast Asia based on people's savings linked to interest rates. Stock markets that power the world economy are "satta", a form of gambling. Islam tends to be interpreted as a totalitarian doctrine but this doctrine has been superseded by other doctrines after the failure of the Soviet type of economies. Should we experiment when the results are already available in the form of data?
Columnist Mehmood Mirza wrote in Jang (23 January 2004) that the concept of freedom in the interpreted Islam was problematic. Moral limitations under Islam become intellectual limitations (in the sphere of the arts and political thought) as ideology refused to take the variant point of view. Can Muslim society survive without freedom of thought? Western capitalism based on selfishness was not favoured by Islam but capitalism in the West had been able to harness selfishness to ethics. In Islamic societies however capitalism had led to corruption and lack of justice. Economic backwardness because of restricted freedom of thought was unforgivable under globalisation. Should the Islamic world remain backward? One school thinks that all property belongs to the state but can statism help a modern state in its growth?
The moral clashes with the intellectual. The intellect requires more freedom than the cleric is willing to grant or else he would be replaced by men of intellect. Ideology fashioned on the basis of revelation not only disallows a variant point of view it also prohibits any reformulation of the concepts from within to avoid failure in practice. If a religious law fails because it is out of sync with reality it is not the law which is changed but reality. The Soviet Communist Party brought reform from within by changing the political paradigm; the Chinese Communist Party brought reform from within by changing the economic paradigm. The ideological state was capable of changing its dogma because it was based on a dialectic. Can a revealed dogma be modified for the sake of survival? In Iran, can the moderates alter the concept of "vilayat-e-faqih"? So far they have failed. The dogma looks like becoming tougher in order to get the moderates out of the way. In Pakistan we heighten popular disaffection by simply not acting on the shariah we have enforced through laws about stoning to death and cutting of hands.
Columnist Mehmood Mirza wrote in Jang (22 January 2004) that reconciling Islamic piety (taqva) with modern economy was problematic. The concept of "rizq-e-halal" (rightly earned livelihood) was difficult to observe because the economy today was much more complex than in the early days. Islam prohibited stockpiling (zakhira andozi) and speculation (satta) and lack of thrift. Piety on the other hand was a psychological state. Its achievement whenever possible was complicated by the contradiction between concept and reality. Islam is interpreted two ways. One school says land should belong to the state and therefore the tenant should be free to hold land at the expense of the feudal. The other school interprets freedom to hold private property under Islam as the right of the feudal to rule over tenants.
No one can examine the authenticity of "taqva" except through noble action, but this action is guided by rules that are not clear. Modern economy is so different from the ancient and medieval economic conditions shaping the "fiqh" that it is cruel on a pious man to suffer merely because of anachronism. Mr Mirza here implies the complexity of "savings" today and the primal edict of subjecting one's savings to needless risk. Lack of thrift is an edict that would lay waste the economic paradise of Southeast Asia based on people's savings linked to interest rates. Stock markets that power the world economy are "satta", a form of gambling. Islam tends to be interpreted as a totalitarian doctrine but this doctrine has been superseded by other doctrines after the failure of the Soviet type of economies. Should we experiment when the results are already available in the form of data?
Columnist Mehmood Mirza wrote in Jang (23 January 2004) that the concept of freedom in the interpreted Islam was problematic. Moral limitations under Islam become intellectual limitations (in the sphere of the arts and political thought) as ideology refused to take the variant point of view. Can Muslim society survive without freedom of thought? Western capitalism based on selfishness was not favoured by Islam but capitalism in the West had been able to harness selfishness to ethics. In Islamic societies however capitalism had led to corruption and lack of justice. Economic backwardness because of restricted freedom of thought was unforgivable under globalisation. Should the Islamic world remain backward? One school thinks that all property belongs to the state but can statism help a modern state in its growth?
The moral clashes with the intellectual. The intellect requires more freedom than the cleric is willing to grant or else he would be replaced by men of intellect. Ideology fashioned on the basis of revelation not only disallows a variant point of view it also prohibits any reformulation of the concepts from within to avoid failure in practice. If a religious law fails because it is out of sync with reality it is not the law which is changed but reality. The Soviet Communist Party brought reform from within by changing the political paradigm; the Chinese Communist Party brought reform from within by changing the economic paradigm. The ideological state was capable of changing its dogma because it was based on a dialectic. Can a revealed dogma be modified for the sake of survival? In Iran, can the moderates alter the concept of "vilayat-e-faqih"? So far they have failed. The dogma looks like becoming tougher in order to get the moderates out of the way. In Pakistan we heighten popular disaffection by simply not acting on the shariah we have enforced through laws about stoning to death and cutting of hands.
No comments:
Post a Comment