In a two-part interview with the Qatari daily Al-Raya
recently, Dr. Abd Al-Hamid Al-Ansari, former dean of the faculty of Shari’a and
Law at the University of Qatar, expressed his unconventional views on a variety
of religious topics. Dr. Al-Ansari calls for radical changes in Islam from a
religious, not secularist, perspective.
Excerpts from the interview:
On tolerance
Fanaticism is the source of the disease and the source of all
manifestations of the backwardness from which we suffer: tyranny, divisiveness,
dependence, and terrorism. But fanaticism is a primeval flaw which began (in the
competition between) different Islamic groups to be ‘the group that shall be
saved,’ according to the traditions relating to the end of time, with every
group claiming... that it is the only one that will be saved while the others
will go to perdition…
We must address this despicable fanatical sectarianism with
practical and viable solutions. We must purge the school curricula of all
sectarian implications and enrich them with the values of tolerance, and
acceptance of the other who is different in school of faith, ethnic group,
religion, nationality, or gender.
The great amount of talk about Islamic tolerance is useless
if the laws of the land discriminate among the citizens… We must recognise that
in our societies minorities suffer from an improper situation, from unfair
deeds, from unequal treatment, and from various forms of discrimination by the
State or by the Muslim and Arab majority. These minorities suffer greatly, and
the outside world knows it...
On separating religion from politics
We do not deny that there were grave injustices caused to
other peoples in the wars of Islam after the era of the Righteous Caliphs, that
is, from the Umayyad period to the Ottoman period. If Muslims perpetrated grave
deeds, others perpetrated even worse ones. Similarly, these wars were not only
those of Muslims against others.
But whatever these grave deeds may have been, the Muslims, as
one of the world’s peoples, were responsible for them – not Islam, its values,
and its just and humane precepts. Thus, when we teach Islamic history, we must
remove sanctity from the behaviour of individuals, however high their status. We
must distinguish between the needs of the religion and the demands of politics
and rule.
Teaching history one-sidedly and superficially and linking it
to religion in order to justify excesses and mistakes is very dangerous to the
future of the younger generation. Perhaps this selective and arrogant way of
teaching history is one of the extensions of the aggressive terrorist thought
that torments our society...
Companions of the Prophet not infallible
The Companions of the Prophet have no sanctity and are not
infallible. We have the right to assess their political behaviour negatively or
positively without (this being considered) defamation of any one of them. We
know that the greatest civil war took place during their time, and it was the
greatest catastrophe, which broke the strength of the Muslims.
Freedom of faith
Freedom of belief is a strong element in the Koranic and
prophetic texts and in the historical facts, beginning with the early era. As
long as nature is diverse, and Allah created us different in everything – colour,
religion, language, nationality – it is natural that our choices will be
diverse, in belief, way of thought, imagination, style, and laws, and that we
have freedom of choice...
The issue of belief and disbelief is a personal issue that is
not the business of the regime; that must be distant from State or society’s
interference. Guidance in the right path is (solely) from Allah...
On dhimmis
The distinction that existed between Muslim and dhimmi
during early Islam and throughout the previous generations has disappeared in
our times, in the modern State. There is no justification for discriminating
between citizens because of their belief, religion, or gender, and there is
nothing in the principles of Islam that contradicts such non-discrimination. On
the contrary, (non-discrimination) is obligatory according to the principles of
justice, social needs, politics, and the needs of national unity.
On restricting polygamy
There (we)re a number of humane justifications that turned
polygamy into something accepted at that time (of the Prophet), and a means of
protecting homes that were in danger of collapse – and this is in contrast to
what happens now, when polygamy destroys stable homes. (Today, however),
polygamy is the source of many social tragedies. The courts are full of the
problems stemming from it. Therefore, there is a need to restrict polygamy with
rules that will limit its negative effects on the family, on the younger
generation, and on society.
On women’s right to preach
It is the right of the woman to deliver sermons from various
religious, media, cultural, political, and educational pulpits, because this is
a form of ‘encouraging virtue and prohibiting vice’ and this is part of the
social responsibility that is shared between the sexes. It is her right to be
appointed to posts of judging, giving jurisprudent opinion, supervising public
morality (hisba), and religious preaching, and the ruler has the right to
enable women to do this.
But the Friday sermon has special status. It was always in
the hands of men, because the deliverer of the sermon leads the worshippers, and
among us a woman leads prayers for women, not for men. n
