Questions I asked a few years back on H-World Forum » »
I would like to ask certain questions to the specialists on this forum. But before that, I would rather give a brief background. I have studied the Medieval Indian history fairly well. And my exposure to the nature of Muslim rule comes from that. Consequently, I can also understand (political & historical) things relating to areas of Central Asia; partially that of West Asia and to some good measure that of the Islamic areas in the 19th and 20th century viz Ottoman (and its succesor Turkey), Egypt, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Indonesia.
But what really beats me is the Philosophy & its related aspects- in this regard, it being the Koran. Some questions often confound me. And I wish to ask them here. I must also say, that I have not yet got the opportunity to read the Koran. (for that matter the only complete religious text that I have read is the Bhagwad Gita, which is hardly religious & that too a very nice translation by Juan Mascaro, which is its best translation in my opinion)
Coming to the point, my questions are:
1) Koran is said to be a monolithic religion & all the social and political aspects of the Muslims are said to be derived from it. In this regard, it is often said that Islam aims at world conquest. The obvious reference is to the concept of Islamic brotherhood. Now, we know that such things are not really possible at a political level. So we have (as I have read) references to the political doctrines developed by political theorists like Abu Yusuf Yaqubi, al-Farabi, al-Marwardi, al-Ghazli etc (all 10th-11th cen AD) who would accord for the defacto independence of rulers, eventhough the brotherhood thing would be maintained at a theoretical level. So my question is, what exactly is the position of Koran in this respect? Does it really speak of world conquest? or is it merely a matter of interpretation?
2) There is the contentious issue of jehad. Now as I get it, the interpretation ranges from scholar to scholar. Liberal interpretation would prefer war against inner wrongs. The rigid interpretation would be war against non-belivers (by implication, non Muslims). So what does Koran actually say? [If I can give example from medieval Indian history, some medieval scholars have used jehad even for battles in which both the fighting sides were Muslims! And not just that, many a times, such armies contained Hindus as well on the side of the army that was favoured by the scholar!]
3) There is this difference in status between the infidle (or non believer or Kafir) and the zimmie. Now what exactly does the Koran say as regards the fate of the infidle? (usually, I have come across interpretations where it is said that either the infidle should be converted or should cease to exist.)
4) In medieval India, the Hindus were off course infidles (in the Islamic theological eyes); but the Sultans would not listen to any theologians. The Hindus were given the status of zimmie. Now the question arises, is that of jizia. The zimmie has to pay this religious tax of jizia. Now what exactly does Koran say about it? What is the rationale behind it as given in Koran? [I understand that the status of zimmie gives religious freedom to the followers of religion like Christianity and Judaism on payment of the defined religious tax]
5) We often come to hear of Sharia. Is this something contained in Koran or is it a derivative of the four traditional schools of jurisprudence (Hanafi etc: Hanafi, I understand is considered the most liberal). What exactly is the relation between Koran and these four schools of jurisprudence and Sharia?
6) What is the legal position of a fatwa? To what extent is the fatwa a binding thing? Now, in this regard, I understand that fatwa is one issued by teh religious head. But in the medieval Indian History, we find instances eg. Akbar who proclaimed himself as farr-i-izdi (divine effulgence). At no place is he a nasir-amir-ul-mommin (deputy to Khalifa). While a Khalifa is a religious-cum-political chief of the Ummah; in Indian context, none of the Mughals paid even theoretical allegiance to the Khalifa. Consequently in such situation, what position could be said of the Ulema (in such a state whose ruler does not pay allegience to Khalifa), and in such situation what role or position or validity the fatwas of such ulemas would have?
7) Another area is that of slavery. While slavery as an institution has existed in varying measures in nearly all the pre-modern kingdoms, we find that some kind of official recognition to this institution and some kind of accentuation of this institution under Islamic rulers (at least in India). So, my question is: is there anything in Koran that legitimise this institution or this institution was only a part of the pre-modern syndrome of the political authorities?
8) To what extent it would be right or wrong to say that Islam is a rigid religion. Moreover, to what extent it is a religious-cum-political religion? To what extent the connection between the two exist in Koran?
I understand that I am putting my questions to dispassionate Historians who won’t be swayed by the recent occurrences while replying to these questions. (I might add, our heart goes out for the victims of 9/11.) I would also add that though, I wouldn’t have liked to put these questions in an FAQ kind of thing, but couldn’t help with any other understandable format. Thanks!