Abdullah al-Naim and the Future of Sharia
Abdullah An-Naim is a human rights activist, he tries to reform sharia to make it relevant to human rights. The foundation of al-Naim's thought is based on the necessity of establishing universal law. He considers Islam a universal religion which means that Islamic law must be applied universally as well. However, the reality shows that Islamic law is considered rigid and unable to answer modern issues. Various interpretations, theories, and reforms have been put forward to carry out and to completely remodel Islamic law to make it relevant to the universal concepts. Therefore, it is necessary to analyze the concept of sharia and its relation to human rights in depth.
Abdullah al-Na'im sees Sharia as an actual development and has always been related to the Muslims' historical experience. In fact, al-Naim does not deny that the Qur'an and Sunnah are the sources of Sharia, but he criticizes certain things that he thought it is necessary to criticize. This criticism is of course related to the enforcement of both sharia and human rights. Even if when these two sources do not answer the interests of Muslims in general. An-Na'im argues that as long as Muslims remain faithful to the historical sharia framework, they will never truly achieve the reformation and the functioning of Islamic public law. He further explained that the al-Quran and Sunnah are the Islamic response to the past concrete reality, but both are also sources of modern Sharia as an Islamic response to the present concrete reality. The enactment of historical Sharia for modern times will only lead to the Islam law weaknesses in the world view. On the other hand, Sharia provisions must be understood in the modern context. Therefore, it is necessary to do a re-interpretation or even the total interpretation of the Sharia provisions in the al-Qur'an and Sunnah.
Regarding the connotation of human rights as individual rights that are developed from the modern European view of natural law. These rights continue to develop in the West until it become the international legal standards. With the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights, these rights have now become international law. Although there is some debate going around about the origin of its universality. Al-Na'im takes a premise that there are universal standards on human rights that are attached to international law and even every attempt must be aimed at implementing them practically so that the principle of respecting and protecting human rights is described as a basic international principle that states and countries have no rights to refuse because of their agreement. According to him, if it is interpreted correctly, then Islam in its substance, is aligned with international human rights legal norms. For example, there is discrimination against non-Muslims and approving the use of violence against them, which are slavery, and discrimination against women, where women are usually not allowed or capable of using the same rights and legal capacities as men.
This view of Shari'ah that seems to limit human rights is justified by the historical context. So it is necessary to improve the existing situation and not allow or say that this view is still justified. Because, according to al-Na'im, sharia still needs to be revised from an Islamic point of view to maintain universal human rights. The historical context of Shari'ah (Madaniyah verses) contradicts the basic principles of the United Nations' goals that prioritize international peace and security and also uphold and encourage respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms for everyone without differing any language or religion. It could be said that it focused more on human rights standards that were “violated” by the shari'a, for example, the prohibition of slavery and discrimination that are based on gender and religion.
Al-Na'im not only tries to reform the basic perceptions of traditional Islamic law but also to transform them because he also campaigns for a new comprehensive system of Islamic law which is believed to provide a basis that is more suitable to the current Islamic life. This is a comprehensive formulation in dealing with political structures, social orders, criminal law, international law, and human rights. If you look closely, al-Na'im's thoughts are nothing new. He only wanted to reiterate what he had previously stated in his work, Towards an Islamic Reformation, which essentially rejected the government intervention in the implementation of Islamic law because he considered this to be contrary to the nature and purpose of Sharia itself, which could only be carried out voluntarily by its adherents. According to Al-Naim, Sharia will lose its authority and religious value if it is implemented by the government. He emphasized the importance of maintaining the government's neutrality towards religion and institutional separation between Islam and the government so that sharia can play a positive and enlightening role in the lives of Islamic people and society.
In many ways, Al-Naim's idea is very absurd, because several legal instruments in Islamic Sharia require government intervention to prevent mess and chaos. In this implementation of criminal law, economic arrangements, marriages, divorces, wills, and so on, it is difficult to imagine the government staying neutral. For example, in the Indonesian context where the affairs of Islamic education, marriage, zakat, Islamic funerals, and others, have involved government intervention, and it is going well. Previously, he offered the possibility of implementing Sharia through democratic channels. He said that to make Islamic law a public regulation and law, it should get approval from what he called a public reason. Eventually, Al-Naim quickly bound it within the framework of modern constitutionalism and international human rights principles. At first glance, the concept that An-Na'im offered seems to be logical and soothing. He provides fresh air for Muslims to carry out their Sharia law. Moreover, Na'im firmly stated that every law and public regulation must reflect the community's beliefs and values. Logically, if the public wants the application of qishash, hudud, polygamy, and various other legal products that have been strongly criticized, these laws then should be adopted and made into public law regulations. But apparently, Al-Na'im refused this. Because in his opinion, these laws contradict human rights norms, values, and principles. That is why, Abdullah an-Naim's thoughts received both positive and negative responses, some appeared to support and some rejected. There are pros and cons of Abdullah al-Naim's thoughts.
Here, An-Na'im seems to be inconsistent. On one hand, he wants democracy, but at the same time, he is also authoritarian, forcing something that society doesn't want. Al-Na'im also seems to be inconsistent in appreciating human rights principles. What made An-Na'im absolutely and idealize the International Convention of Human Rights? Isn't it also a product of the human mind which is influenced by the socio-political setting and the secular religious philosophical framework of its founders? Then for what reason did An-Na'im make these human rights have binding legal force on other world communities? Through his book, Islam and Secular State, it can be concluded that An-Naim wanted to show the dynamic relationship between Islam, the government, and politics. He wants to persuade Muslims and non-Muslims to support and promote the relationship between these three and to participate in dealing with issues related to public policy and state law.
The need for Sharia reformation and its set of logical methods is based on the assumption that the current Sharia positions and formulations are deemed to be not relevant anymore and are even considered to be contrary to the principles of modern rights and human rights. Abdullah Ahmed An-Na'im is one of the Muslim thinkers who is considered an expert on human rights, expressing his thoughts on the need for sharia reformation. The interesting issue to be studied from Na'im's thoughts is his view which tends to "deify" secular law to support human rights with its argument that secular law has existed in history and appeared to be a "hero" in enforcing human rights values, which must be respected by all of the people. On the other hand, he ignores the role of Sharia which he thinks is unable to solve human rights problems in the world, moreover, he sees Sharia itself as "problematic" which means it must be amended to comply with the international human rights declaration.
Post a Comment for "Abdullah al-Naim and the Future of Sharia"