>From http://bandung2.blog.co.uk/2008/09/24/comment-the-qur-anic-revolution-4774347
COMMENT: Revolution in The Qur’an
Peace Be Unto Those Who Follow Right Guidance.
In an article entitled Islam: Religion or Ideology? published on 26 July 2006, Imam Zaid Shakir, scholar-in-residence and lecturer at the Zaytuna Institute, stated the following:
As Muslims we may well continue in our various struggles. However, those struggles would be better informed by the revolutionary teachings of Bakunin, Georges Sorel, Rosa Luxemburg, Lenin, Mao, Che Guevara, and others than by the revelation given to our Prophet Muhammad, Peace and Blessings of God upon him. In some circumstances, we could possibly muster a credible defense against any number of threats confronting us. However, at the end of the day, we may find that we have very little left to defend.
[More:]
I take issue with Shakir’s assertion that if, as Muslims, we are to struggle, and if those struggles are to be revolutionary in nature, then they “would be better informed by the revolutionary teachings of Bakunin, Georges Sorel, Rosa Luxemburg, Lenin, Mao, Che Guevara, and others than by the revelation.” This is because The Qur’an appears to allude to the phenomenon of ‘revolution’ (Arabic inqilaab, from the verb qalaba meaning “to turn around, turn about, turn upward, upturn; to turn, turn over; to turn face up or face down; to turn inside out or outside in; to turn upside down; to tip, to tilt over, topple over; to invert, reverse; to overturn, upset, topple; to capsize; to roll over; to subvert, overthrow; to change, alter, turn, transform, convert, transmute; to transpose; to exchange”) in the following two signs/messages (ayaat):
(26:227) … And those who oppress/create imbalance/displace things from their rightful place (alladheena-zalamoo) will now come to know through what reversals (munqalab) they will be overthrown/overturned (yanqaliboon).
(3:127) In order that He (God/Allah) may cut off a part of those who reject/conceal (The Truth) (alladheena-kafaroo), or repel them such that they are overthrown/overturned (yanqaliboo), frustrated.
While I agree that The Qur’an does not lend support to the type of revolution with which figures such as Marx, Bakunin, Sorel, Luxemburg, Lenin, Mao, Guevara and others have been identified – that is, revolution based on a historical/dialectical materialism of one stripe or another – I think it is incorrect to conclude, thereby, that The Qur’an rejects the notion of revolution per se.
According to Mahar Abdul-Haq states in Educational Philosophy of The Holy Qur’an (1990),
The Qur’anic philosophy of life disagrees with all [dialectical] views. It says that ‘Haqq‘ or the constructive forces of truth and ‘Batil‘ or the destructive forces of falsehood remain at war with each other but Haqq (i.e. Truth and Reality) is always victorious, though it is sometimes overshadowed by falsehood. As Truth wins after every conflict life passes on progressively from one stage to another. At the next stage falsehood again challenges the Truth in newer form and the battle is again arrayed. Truth wins, as it must always win, and life steps on to the next stage of evolution. The victory of Truth results from the power of constancy, patient perseverance, and determined efforts of the righteous [emphasis added]. (pp.310-311)
On this view, the tension between a thesis and its anti-thesis is not resolved in a synthesis (as in Hegelian/Marxist philosophy), nor is there a cyclic movement between the two (as in Maoism).
Abdul-Haq bases his interpretation of the relation between haqq and baath’il on a number of verses in The Qur’an including, most importantly, the following:
(21:18) Nay, We hurl that which is lasting and beneficial (al haqq) against that which is transient and detrimental (al baath’il) and it shatters it; and behold, that which is transient and detrimental (al baath’il) perishes! And woe be to you for the (false) things that you ascribe (to Him)!
There are certain problems with Abdul-Haq’s conception – notably, his assertion that there are two ‘forces’ in the universe, a position that lends support to a dualistic/Manichean conception of reality that is inconsistent with the radical tawheed (unitary worldview) presented in The Qur’an.
As Umar Ibrahim Vadillo states in The Esoteric Deviation in Islam (2003),
The Muslim affirms: la hawla wa la quwwata illa billah [No movement and no power except by Allah]. It implies that there are not two forces in the universe. There is only Allah. It is typical of the esoteric theology to say that the world is divided into two forces fighting each other, the good versus the evil or the darkness versus the light or the truth versus the false. ‘Haqq is fighting Batil’ – this is a typical dualist statement. But it is impossible. Batil, ‘falsity’, cannot stand against Haqq, because there are no two powers except in the imagination of the mushrikun [those who associate partners/powers with Allah]. (pp.734-735)
This position is supported by Syed Naquib Al-Attas who, in Islam and Secularism (1978), maintains that
The Islamic worldview is not be construed as a dualism, for although two elements are involved, yet the one is independent and subsistent while the other is dependent upon it; the one is absolute and the other relative; the one is real and the other a manifestation of that reality. (p.89)
Peace
Takhlees 