Syria became
a part of the Ottoman Empire in 1516. European machinations and intrigues
played a major role in the disintegration and dismemberment of the Ottoman
Empire. As World War I unfolded, the Ottoman Empire joined hands with the
Central Powers (Germany and Austro-Hungary) against the Allies (France, Great
Britain and Russia). The Allies declared war on the Ottoman Empire shortly
after the outbreak of the war. In 1915 the British entered into a secret pact
with the Sharif of Makkah, Hussein ibn Ali. The pact involved an armed revolt
against Ottoman rule under the Sharif’s command, for which Great Britain and
France would supply money, weapons and logistic support. In exchange, he was
promised an Arab kingdom in the event of Ottoman defeat. The Sharif organized
tribal groups from the Hejaz and Jordan and led them to attack Ottoman troops.
By the end of 1916 the French had given 1.25 million gold francs to the Arab
tribes who participated in the uprising. The British spent £220,000 a month on
the Arab fighters, who were also provided with rifles and machine-guns. By 1918
the Arab troops succeeded in driving the Ottoman forces out of the Hejaz and
other parts of the Arab region. Thomas Edward Lawrence, popularly known as
“Lawrence of Arabia,” the British secret agent who played an important role in
instigating the Arab revolt against the Ottoman Empire, wrote in 1916 that the
Arab revolt would be useful to the British Empire because “it matches with our
immediate aims, the break-up of the Islamic ‘bloc’ and the defeat and
disruption of the Ottoman Empire”.
British and
French troops seized Palestine in 1917. Amir Abdullah, who later became
Jordan’s first king, fought on the side of the British during World War I
against the Ottoman Empire. The British rewarded him for his loyalty by giving
him a fixed stipend and the control of Jordan. Italy, which had joined the
Allies against Germany and the Ottoman Empire, was promised a large part of
southwestern Anatolia. By the time the Treaty of Sevres (1920) was signed, the
Ottoman Empire had lost all the Arab provinces and ceded a large area of Asia
Minor to the newly created Armenian state. France and Britain also backed the
creation of an independent Kurdish state as part of the Treaty of Sevres, but
the idea fizzled out. The withdrawal of Russia from the war and the victory of
the Turkish nationalists saved Anatolia from being expropriated by Italy.
Though
Britain and France had made a promise to the Arabs at the beginning of the20th
century that if they rose in revolt against the Ottoman Empire and supported
the Allies they would be granted independence, they did not keep the promise
and the Arab region continued to be under British and French control. In 1920 a
short-lived independent Kingdom of Syria was established under Faisal I, but
after a few months France invaded Syria and deposed and expelled the king.
Under a League of Nations mandate, Syria came under direct French rule.
In 1916, in
the middle of the war, Great Britain and France, with the assent of imperial
Russia, hatched a conspiracy to dismember the Ottoman Empire and to divide the
territories that were under Ottoman rule between themselves. Mark Sykes, a
British diplomat, and Francois Georges-Picot, a high-ranking official of the
French government, were tasked with working out the modalities of the plot.
Sykes and Picot drew a map, according to which the coastal strip between the
Mediterranean and the river Jordan, Transjordan and southern Iraq were
allocated to Britain, while Syria, Lebanon, northern Iraq and south-eastern
Turkey would be under French control. Russia, according to the map, would
acquire the Ottoman provinces of Erzurum, Trebizon and Bitlis in Asia Minor.
The pact was kept hidden for more than a year until the Bolsheviks revealed it
after the 1917 Russian Revolution. In addition to geopolitical and strategic
factors, religious and sectarian considerations also played a role in the
division of the Ottoman territories among the Allies. For example, France
favoured the creation of a Christian-dominated state in Lebanon, which was
sliced out of Syria. Sykes and Picot’s map suggested that Palestine should be
given to Belgium, but on November 2, 1917 the British Foreign Secretary Arthur
James Balfour promised the Zionist Federation of Great Britain “the
establishment of a national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine. US
historian David Fromkin, in his book A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the
Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East (1989), calls
Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Israel and Palestine the “children of England and
France.”
Syria gained
independence from French colonial rule on 24 October 1945. However, French
troops did not leave the country until April 1946. This period of French
colonial rule, from 1920 to 1946, witnessed the rise of the anti-colonial
movement and Arab nationalism in Syria. The Muslim Brotherhood, founded by
Hasan al-Banna (1906-1949) in 1923 in Egypt, emerged as an influential social
and political force in Syria in the late 1930s in the context of rising
anti-colonial and nationalist sentiments. After independence, the Muslim
Brotherhood was pitted against secular nationalists, Communists, Bathists and
Nasserists. The Arab military defeat in the 1948 Israel-Palestine war enabled the
Muslim Brotherhood to expand its urban base, particularly in Damascus.
In 1958
there was a short-lived political union between Egypt and Syria. The idea of
the United Arab Republic, as the union was called, was mooted by the socialist
Ba’ath Party and was envisaged as a first step towards the creation of a
unified pan-Arab political entity. However, the United Arab Republic collapsed
in 1961 when Syria decided to secede from the union following a coup d’etat.
The Muslim Brotherhood supported Syria’s secession from the Egyptian-dominated
United Arab Republic. In the 1961 parliamentary elections the Muslim
Brotherhood won 10 seats. Following the coup d’etat by the Ba’ath Party in
1963, the Muslim Brotherhood was banned by the government.
Al-Kitlah
al-Wataniyyah (Patriotic Block) was a representative group of prominent Syrian
intellectuals and public figures who were committed to the goal of independence
from French colonial rule.
For
centuries, Syria has nurtured a climate of cultural diversity and pluralism and
tolerance and accommodation of different religions, sects, denominations and
schools of jurisprudence. This ethos of tolerance and accommodation has been
reinforced by the pervasive influence of Sufism on Syrian society. This offered expansive and inclusionary
social milieu.
Until the
1970s the study of Islamic family laws by Western scholars was largely
dominated by the agenda of the British colonialist’s Orientalist framework.
Western scholars and their local mercenaries generally focused on Islamic legal
texts, viewed Islamic laws as suffused with a patriarchical worldview, static
and unresponsive to changing circumstances. During the past couple of decades,
an increasing number of scholars, both Muslim and Western, have sought to move
away from this biased, dishonest, ahistorical and blinkered approach.
While in
reality Islamic Shariah is flexible and elastic and responsive to changing circumstances. There is really no conflict or
contradiction between reason and Islamic traditions. In choosing
options Islam prefers solutions that reduce hardships of people. One of the
distinctive features of Islamic civilization’s illustrious legacy of
jurisprudence is legal pluralism. Legal pluralism is generally defined as a
situation in which two or more legal systems coexist in the same society or
social field. The contemporary discourse on legal pluralism takes little or no
cognizance of the fact that a legal system may allow the coexistence of diverse
legal cultures and traditions within its fold. This, for example, is the case
with Islamic law. Legal pluralism in the
Islamic tradition is reflected in two distinct spheres:
(i)
the
coexistence of divergent interpretations and schools of Islamic jurisprudence
(ii)
the
recognition of the religious, cultural, legal and judicial autonomy of
non-Muslim minorities living in Islamic state.
The Prophet's Companions and the Followers had certain differences in
matters of jurisprudence, legal pronouncements and religious rituals. The Quran
says: “Allah desires for you ease and convenience, and not hardship” (2:185).
Further: “Allah does not burden a person beyond his capacity” (2:286).
The Prophet (SAAW) said: “Make things easy for people; do not make things
hard for them. Give them good tidings and do not make them turn away from
religion (by making things hard for them).”
Imam Shafi’i considered frogs, crabs and tortoises impermissible
for consumption while some other jurists did not prohibit their eating. Imam
Abu Hanifah was of the opinion that the quantum of blood money for a non-Muslim
citizen of the Islamic state should be the same as that for a Muslim. Imam
Malik and Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal, on the other hand, held that it should be half
of that of a Muslim, while Imam Shafi’i opined that it should be one-third.
What is note-worthy is
that, by and large, jurists, scholars and men of piety in the early centuries
of the Islamic era viewed legal differences in terms of convenience and ease
for the common people. They never doubted the honesty, integrity and sincerity
of their contemporaries. They never allowed differences in legal matters to
affect inter-personal relationships and viewed the legal differences among
their predecessors and contemporaries not as a bane or a hindrance but as a
blessing in disguise. Sufyan al-Thawri, for example, used to say: "Do not
say that the Ulama have differed in such and such matter; say, instead, that
they have provided convenience and ease for the people (by their difference of
opinion)." Abu Yusuf and Muhammad ibn Hasan al-Shaybani, the distinguished
followers of Imam Abu Hanifah, had certain differences in matters of
jurisprudence and legal pronouncements with their mentor. Yet, their opinions
were incorporated in the corpus of Hanafi jurisprudence. Hanafi scholars and
jurists have maintained that there is nothing objectionable if Hanafi scholars
and jurists reach a consensus in respect of an extraordinary case in an
extraordinary situation, whereby they give a legal opinion in accordance with
the principles and tenets of the Maliki school of jurisprudence, rather than
with those of their own Hanafi school. Thus, Hanafi scholars and jurists in
pre-independence India gave a ruling, which was endorsed by the majority of
ulama, in regard to the dissolution of a Muslim woman's marriage whose husband
had left her with no trace of his whereabouts.
In the early Islamic
period, some rulers sought to bring about uniformity and homogenization in
legal matters under the auspices of the state. However, they were dissuaded by
eminent scholars and jurists from doing so. During the caliphate of Umar ibn
Abd al Aziz, it was suggested that he should bring about uniformity and
consensus in respect of legal rulings, to which he replied: "I would not have
been very happy if Muslim scholars had not had any differences in legal
matters. The companions of the Prophet had certain differences in legal
matters. Therefore, anyone who follows the precepts of any of the companions is
on the right path". He then circulated an order through the Islamic
territories to the effect that the people of every region should abide by the
ruling over which the local scholars and jurists had reached a consensus. Once
the Abbasid caliph al-Mansur told Imam Malik that he proposed to circulate
copies of his books in every city and town, with the instruction that people
should follow only those books. Imam Malik dissuaded the caliph from doing
anything of the kind. He told him that people in different cities were
following the rulings of local scholars and jurists and that it was advisable
to allow this situation to continue. Likewise, caliph Harun al-Rashid told Imam
Malik that he wished to have the latter's celebrated work Al-Muwatta to be hung in the Ka'bah, so that the Muslim masses
could follow it in a uniform manner. Imam Malik advised him not to do so.
Islamic law makes it incumbent upon the Islamic state to
ensure the safety of its non-Muslim citizens and to protect their religious,
cultural, and judicial autonomy. In fact the Islamic state assumed
responsibility for the maintenance and even defence of Jewish, Christian and
pagan identities. The protection of minority rights under the Islamic
dispensation has no parallel in the annals of history.
The literature on different schools of Islamic jurisprudence
is incredibly vast and variegated and it is well-nigh impossible even for
scholars of Islamic law to be conversant with it. The need for compiling a
comprehensive and accessible encyclopaedic compendium on Islamic jurisprudence
has been felt for the past several decades. An international conference on
Islamic jurisprudence held in Paris in 1951 emphasized and recommended the
preparation of a compendium on Islamic law and urged Muslim countries to take
an initiative in the matter. In 1956 a committee was set up at the Faculty of
Shariah at Damascus University for preparing the blueprint of the project.
Shaykh Al-Zarqa, who was then teaching at the university, was closely
associated with the committee.
In 1961 the Egyptian Ministry of Awqaf took over the project
on Al-Mausuah al-Fiqhiyyah and
published 24 volumes over a period of six years. In 1967 the project was taken
over by the Ministry of Awqaf and Islamic affairs, Kuwait. Shaykh Al-Zarqa was
requested to oversee and supervise the project. The project has been completed
in 45 volumes. The Delhi-based Islamic Fiqh Academy has embarked upon the
translation of all the 45 volumes of Al-Mausuah
al-Fiqhiyyah into Urdu, with financial assistance from the Ministry of
Awqaf and Islamic affairs, Kuwait. The Academy has already translated and
published 12 volumes and work on the remaining volumes is underway.
Muslim
scholars and jurists, such as Al-Ghazali, Abu Islaq al-Shatibi, Ibn al-Qayyim
and Izz al-Din ibn Abd al-Salam, have dwelt at length on the guiding principles
and higher intents of Shariah (Maqasid al-Shariah). They emphasize that the
principles and provisions of Islamic law are essentially aimed at ensuring and
enhancing human well-being. Ibn al-Qayyim (d. 1350) says: "The basis of
the Islamic Shariah is wisdom and welfare of the people in this world and in
the Hereafter. This welfare lies in complete justice, mercy, well-being and
wisdom. Anything that replaces justice with oppression, mercy with harshness,
welfare with misery and wisdom with folly, has nothing to do with the
Shariah." Al-Shatibi (1194) says that the primary objective of Shariah is
the attainment, protection and perpetuation of the well-being of human beings
in this world and the Hereafter. He focuses on the concept of the common good
(maslaha) and argues that this principle provides the basis of the universality
and rationality of Islamic law as well as its flexibility in regard to changing
circumstances. Noah Feldman, a professor
of law at Harvard University, has pointed out that for most of its history,
Islamic law offered the most liberal and humane legal principles available
anywhere in the world.
Syrian born
Islamic scholar and jurist (Faqih) Shaykh Al-Zarqa’s approach to Ifta
(pronouncement of legal edicts on specific issues) was guided by a cardinal
principle of Islamic jurisprudence which emphasizes taysir (facilitation and
ease for Muslims) and the avoidance and mitigation of inconvenience and
hardships.
