Two Revolutions, Two Religious Outcomes And Saudi Arabia: Preliminary Observation

Since Jamal Khashoggi was murdered in a grotesque manner, many social and political commentators have shared their views on the issue with the rest of the world. But there is a convergence in condemning the monarchical regime of Saudi Arabia. But it appears that there are some hardliners who are bent on defending Saudi Arabia on the basis of the perceived religious (Islamic) foundation of the Kingdom. As a student of religions and African Studies, I have always been interested in looking at the extent religion provides a linchpin for people's actions. As it stands, we are not very clear about the reason for the murdering of Khashoggi. What we know is that he had fallen out of favour with the Saudi regime and had gone into self-imposed exile in the United States. In the following paragraphs, I will share my thought on religion and politics and conclude on the situation in Saudi Arabia.

Two revolutions evolved different directions in the union between religion and politics. The first was the French Revolution and the second was the American Revolution. Both revolutions happened in the eighteenth century. While both revolutions were primarily political in disposition, they had religious ramifications. Religion, perhaps, serving as the fulcrum of human existence, determined how the political motif of both revolutions was directed. In the case of France, the outcome of the revolution pushed religion from the public square.

There was an attempt at creating a 'naked public square', where religion was to be a matter of private affair. Individuals were to keep religion to themselves and not to enter into the public sphere with their religious imaginations. In the case of the America (USA), there was an attempt at separating religion and politics without necessarily pushing religion to the backwaters of history.

Religion in America continued to play an important role in the evolution of the country’s politics. Perhaps, the history of the founding fathers of modern United States of America provides an explanation to why the outcome of the revolution had a different trajectory as far as religion was/is concerned. The Puritans, who migrated from Old England (Britain), left England to New England (America) for many reasons. Religion was one of such reasons. These Puritans wanted freedom of religious conscience. They were tired of religious repression in Old England. Eventually when they landed in America in the Mayflower Ship in the early seventeenth century, they had hopes that they could attain freedom of religious conscience. But far from religion being the foundation of America, America became deeply religious. The Puritans recognized the need for religious freedom, which over time birthed religious plurality.

In the case of France, the philosophes had railed against religion. They saw religion as part of the established order that perpetuated injustice on those on the margins of society. Concomitantly, religion was criminalized and forbidden to take the center stage in public discussion. Voltaire and Rousseau were upbeat that religion was bound to run into extinction, particularly as common sense provided answers to life's intriguing questions. For most of these philosophes, science and technology was fated to bury religion. The mood in France reflected the general mood of Europe at the time.

Since America's independence in 1776, religion in the US has undergone different phases. It has informed and shaped politics in the country. Different political actors have ridden on the back of religion (particularly Evangelical Christianity) to come to political power. In Europe, religion is said to be in recession. But many academics are involved in a debate as to whether Europe was ever Christian in the first place. However the direction of this debate, what is obvious is that America and Europe are religiously plural. It is the cocktail of religions in these two continents that has sustained the secular debate. As I have always argued secularism in Europe and America is not the same as the absence of religion. It simply means the need for all religions (once they do not pose a threat to human life) to observe the line of demarcation between the private and public spheres.

The secularization of America and Western Europe had some stint in the Muslim world. In Turkey, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk embarked on secularization mission. He shredded Sharia as the constitution of Turkey. He attempted at converting Qur'anic schools to science schools. In Iran, Reza shah waged relentless battle against the dominance of Islam. He was doubtful of the transforming power of Islam in the face of modernity. In Egypt, Gamal Abdel Nasser Hussein championed the secularization of Egypt. It must be mentioned that in all these countries, secularization was reversed when leadership changed hands.

The case of Saudi Arabia is quite different. And to discuss Saudi Arabia, we must note the difference between Islamic country and Muslim country. There is the temptation for some analysts to conflate the two. A Muslim country is a term used to refer to a country that has overwhelming Muslim population, and yet has a legal system that is not based on the Sharia. In such countries, the Sharia does not form the core of their legal system. Usually, some aspects of the Sharia (usually Personal Law) are informed by the Sharia, but they are mediated and distilled through laws that are not particularly biased in favour of any particular religion. Consequently, while countries such as Kuwait, Tunisia, Egypt, and Morocco have huge Muslim presence, the legal system is not based on the Sharia. On the other hand, Islamic countries are countries that are governed by the Sharia. These countries are not only demographically in favour of Islam; their legal system is based on the Sharia. Countries that are Islamic and operate on the Sharia include Saudi Arabia, Sudan (Khartoum), Iran, Yemen, Mauritania, and Brunei.

I must state that the enforcement of the Sharia may not necessary impact negatively on citizens. But the stifling of religious conscience in some Islamic countries has been a major blot on such countries. In Islam, questions about apostasy do not elicit a uniform response. As expected, sincere Muslims are sharply divided over the fate of religious apostate. The feasibility of the Sharia in contemporary political dispensation has also been questioned. Eminent scholars like Wael B. Hallaq and Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na'im have pointed out the impossibility of the Sharia as a legal system in the contemporary world. They have, therefore, pushed for reforms in the constitution of Islamic states.

The attempt to see Saudi Arabia as the prototype of heaven by some Muslims undermines any critical examination of the regime of the House of Saud. The location of two of the three holiest sites of Islam in Arabia (Mecca and Medina) has made Saudi Arabia divinely inviolable in the minds of many Muslims. Consequently, anyone who critiques Saudi's regime is considered anti-Islam (or Islamophobic). It is important for Muslims to come to terms with the fact that Islam is not the preserve of the Saudi monarch. Islam, as a religion, has multiple followers across the globe. These followers live under different political regimes and must have the right to contribute to determining the contours of the religion. Some practices in Saudi Arabia that are at odds with contemporary ways of doing things should be discarded. It will also be great to revitalize ijma and ijtihad as part of the attempts at reforming Islam. Christianity went through similar process during the sixteenth century reformation. The reformation in Christianity did not only break ecclesiastical powers, it paved way for the flourishing of scientific inventions.

I end with a quotation from the venerable Ali Mazrui who was convinced that: "Whereas the Qur'an is infallible, the interpreters of the Qur'an are fallible." There is no gainsaying that Muslims in the world must challenge any interpretation of the Qur'an that undermines intellectualism and scientific progress. Ibn Khaldun peeped into the modern world when he stated presciently that it is impossible to defer scientific matters to Mohammed, the prophet of Islam, who was simply a religious reformer. His concept of Asabiyyah should inform new debates directed at reforming Islam.

Satyagraha
Charles Prempeh ([email protected]), African University College of Communications, Accra