A big thumbs up goes to Imam Zaid Shakir for speaking for the Muslim Ummah when he wrote the article, "Obsessed With Defemation and Falsehood."
The article was, of course, in response to the hate propaganda film, "Obsession" made by... (you guessed it) an Israeli organization by the name of the Hasbara Fellowship Program, "which aims to train students to be effective pro-Israel activists on their college campuses" (NYTimes, Karen W. Arenson). The producer was Raphael Shore, "a 45-year-old Canadian who lives in Israel" (Arenson) who made the film with the hope that it would "spur action against Islamic terrorism" [which is, in all honestly, the most vague of labels. I mean, what the hell does the word 'Islamic terrorism' imply? Does it tell us who, among the world's 1.84 BILLION Muslims, are referred to as terrorists, or, does it simply want us to assume that all those who follow the religion of Islam [hence the word Islamic terrorism] are terrorists?]. Shore goes onto define this label by (of course) his own opinions, and supports his opinion with pictures and videos of fanatical suiciders, power hungry dictators, and the ever inflammatory link to Hitler.
I will give him credit for mentioning (exactly twice, once at the beginning and once at the end) that not all Muslims are terrorists. However, this is after showing over an hour worth's of mind bogglingly, jarred connections between how "islamic terrorism" is extremely prevalent in Muslim societies all over the world. So, thank you, Mr. Shore, for calling out that most of my community are power hungry, fanatical suiciders hell bent on destroying the world. At least you implied that there is a .001 fraction of us who are not. What a rosy picture you paint.
Anywho, I don't want to be sidetracked, so let me get to the point: I'm writing this not because I want to publicize the movie any more than it's already been publicized (I'd like to see it die a well deserved death alongside other such propoganda from the Zionist state), but because I would rather that someone hear of it from me, an American Muslim, instead of finding out about it through another source, who would have either 1.)Their own agenda or 2.) Be so thoroughly brainwashed by the falsehood in the movie that they are rendered incapable of any orignial foresight into logical, clear facts, leading them to spit out exactly what they've heard in the movie, regardless of the fact that history negates these falsehoods completely.
Whew! Felt good to get that off my chest.
But, of course, I (unlike the producers of this film) don't like to label an entire race or group or nation of people upon the views or charactor or actions of a few and usually small minority of idiotic people who happen to want to force their views and ideology upon others. [And yes, I'm being purposefully vague as to who this small group of people are so that I may further stress the fact that these groups exist in every society, large or small, progressive or backward, and that to judge said society upon their views is to look at that society through a very narrow lens.]
I don't believe (as do the producers of this film) that all American's are really as ignorant/stupid/lazy as goes the stereotype. I believe that we are able to check the facts of history ourselves, and realize that this film is bieng distributed, RIGHT BEFORE ELECTIONS, for a very specific reason. I also don't believe I have to spoonfeed my readers the message. You get it, don't you?
Thus, I present to you, an article written by one of America's foremost speakers on Islam and the West, Imam Zaid Shakir, and implore you to read it. If you've seen the movie, then I'm practically begging you to read it; afterall a mind is a terrible thing to waste, and a lifetime obsessing over hate is even worse.
Sumeyya
Imam Zaid's Article: http://www.newislamicdirections.com/nid/articles/obsessed_with_defamation_and_falsehood/
Showing posts with label Muslims Speak Out. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Muslims Speak Out. Show all posts
Friday, October 10, 2008
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Forgivenes and Justice: Meditations On Some Hadiths
Written by: Abdal Hakim Murad, from http://www.masu.co.uk/
(1) The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) prayed for pardon for his people, and received the reply:
‘I have forgiven them all but acts of oppression, for I shall exact recompense for the one who is wronged, from his oppressor.’[1]
In the Qur’an, God is just, and requires justice; but he is also forgiving, and requires forgiveness; in fact, its references to the latter property outnumber those on justice bya ratio of approximately ten to one. [2] Islamic theology has not always been clear how the ensuing tension is to be resolved. ‘My Mercy outstrips My wrath’ is a well-known divine saying,[3] but one which nonetheless is far from abolishing God’s wrath. Indeed, a righteous indignation about injustice is integral to the prophetic representation of God’s qualities, and from the earliest moments of its revelation, the Qur’an links God’sexpectations of His creatures to justice towards the weak. Often the same texts are explicitly eschatological, affirming that those who do not uphold God’s justice in thisworld will be at its receiving end in the next. Indigenous Arab religion can expect a stern retribution, given that its demands are for tribal solidarity, not for the upholdingof universal canons of justice.[4] The idol cannot demand justice, only retribution (tha’r); and the prophetic vocation must therefore link the destruction of paganism with the establishment of a code of justice which overturns Arab norms by refusing to discriminate between the tribes. This hadith is to be read against the background of clan vendettas: instead of seeking collective retaliation against a miscreant’s tribe, the victim of injustice is to appeal to the new law, and to recall that all apparent imbalances will have a just settlement at the judgement seat.
(2) There is an act of charity [sadaqa] to be given for each part of the human body; and for every day over which the sun rises there is a reward of a sadaqa for the one who establishes justice among people.[5]
Justice (‘adl) is due balance (i‘tidal): it is impartiality. The same word is employed to describe the balance of the body’s four humours. When these are in balance, right thinking and health are the consequence. When they are not, the Qur’an speaks of the last day when ‘their tongues, their hands and their feet will bear witness to what they used to do.’ (24:24)
To purify the body from the disorders which both engender and result from sin, a system of worship is gifted in revelation, which culminates in the placing of the forehead, the symbol of human pride and of self-oriented thought, upon the earth. The tongue ‘gives charity’ by praising God, and by speaking words of reconciliation.The hands do so by working to earn a lawful income, and by striving to right wrong sin society. Taken together, the purifying ‘charity’ offered by the parts of the believer’s body always has a social impact, the highest aspect of which must be to ‘establish justice’, not only by avoiding unbalanced temptations, but by working to establish a political order in which justice is safeguarded. Political work is thus conceived as a sacrifice. Never is political authority ‘sought’, in the conventional profane understanding, for a hadith says: ‘Do not seek political power, for if you obtain it byseeking it, it will be given power over you.’[6] This refers to a selfish, egotistic pursuit(hirs) of power, rather than to the selfless seeking of power for the sake of the establishment of justice for others.[7] The model is the Prophet, peace be upon him, who endangers himself in order to establish God’s justice in a feuding Arabia, and who ends his life in holy poverty, despite the advantages he could have gained from having been born into the aristocracy.
(3) I have forbidden injustice for Myself, and have made it forbidden amongst you, so do not oppress one another.[8]
Here God himself is speaking: this is a so-called ‘Holy Hadith’ (hadith qudsi).[9] This text establishes that the ‘political’ life is not dissociated from the ‘religious’; not just because the believer should recognise an integrated set of values in all he or she does, but also because by cultivating the political virtues we conform ourselves to the ‘qualities of God’. Hence the often-cited hadith, ‘Emulate the qualities of God.’[10] In this somewhat Platonic understanding, the ground of ethics is in God, whose detailed moral excellences are the source of human values. The alternative is seen, at least byAsh‘aris, as a form of dualism. The ruler’s subjects may thus recognise his actions asmoral by reference to revelation, and will consider any injustice as a blasphemy against God. Leaving political decisions to individuals who reject justice as a blessing grounded in a heavenly archetype is to cultivate the mentality of Pharoah, who ‘exalts himself in the land’, and ‘divides its people into groups’. (Qur’an, 28:4)
(4) Umm Salama narrated: ‘God’s Messenger, upon him be peace, never went out of my house without raising his eye to the sky and saying: “O Lord God! I seek refuge in You lest I stray or be led astray, or slip or be made to slip, or cause injustice or suffer injustice, or do wrong or have wrong done to me”.’[11]
The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, as a saintly being who has ‘emulated God’s qualities, must manifest His justice as well as His mercy. Here Islam and Christianity tread very different paths. The Christ of the Gospels, despite incidents such as the ‘cleansing of the Temple’,[12] preaches a passive witness; the Prophet of Islam also receives persecution patiently, but also strives to establish justice politically, with a mercy that may come through rigour. No doubt this is not the result of a deep clash between ideals, but rather is the consequence of incommensurable contexts: Islam, too, advocates non-confrontation when oppressed by a massively powerful empire;[13] and Christians have moved away from the pacifism of the Gospels, fearful of the consequences of failing to control tyrants. Yet in the founding stories the differing emphasis is clear. Some Muslims have regarded this as grounds for reproach: according to Shabbir Akhtar, ‘a Muslim face toface with a Pilate would have given the Roman chap a lot more to do than merely wash his hands’;[14] a view that neglects the cautious stance of classical Muslim jurists over resistance against overwhelming odds. But a characteristically Muslim optimism about the reformability of structures is also, no doubt, at work.[15]
(5) God’s messenger, peace and blessings be upon him, said: ‘Whoever sees something he dislikes in his ruler should be patient, because whoever leaves the community [jama‘a], even by one fraction, and then dies, has died the death of the Age of Ignorance [jahiliyya].[16]
This hadith forms part of a substantial body of revealed texts which seem to insist on political quietism in the face of misconduct by rulers. Unsurprisingly, it lay at the centre of a storm of controversy. Most Sunni scholars maintained the view that once a caliph had been chosen (ikhtiyar), it became unlawful for Muslims to rebel against him. For the Hanafis (the most widespread school of law), ‘if the ruler is oppressive, or corrupt, he is not to be deposed,’ the reason being the fear of civil war (fitna), which had been the besetting evil of the Age of Ignorance before Islam. This quietism was resisted by the Mu‘tazilite and Kharijite sects, by many Twelver Shi‘ites, and also by some Shafi'i Sunnis.[17] The institutional separation of the ulema class (ahl al-qalam), who were funded by their own mortmain endowments (awqaf), from the ruling family and its military formations (ahl al-sayf), which reached its peak in the Ottoman theory and practice of religious statecraft, nonetheless gave the preachers the duty of condemning the sultan’s abuses, and defending the interests of the poor and weak.[18]
In the late twentieth century the classical Sunni view came under fire from radical reformers. Khomeini, departing from Sunni and Shi'i tradition, advanced a theory of governance by the religious scholar (vilayet-e faqih), while in the Sunni world individuals frustrated by the religious establishment’s reluctance to challenge abuses bypost-colonial regimes repudiated the old quietism, and advocated militant struggle against governments which, they held, were answerable to Western powers rather thanto the values of their own subjects, and were hence unworthy of Muslim allegiance.Typically, and ironically, it seems that this sea-change in Muslim political thought is the result of Western influence.[19]
(6) God’s Messenger, upon him be peace, then made the rounds of the House, and prayed two rak‘as of prayer. Then he went to the Ka‘ba, and, holding its door-jamb, said: ‘What do you think I will do?’ They replied: ‘The son of a brother, and the nephew of a mild and merciful man!’ [This exchange was repeated three times.] Then God’s Messenger, upon him be peace, said: ‘I declare, as did Joseph: ‘There is no blame upon you this day. God shall forgive you; and He is the most merciful of the merciful.’ (Qur’an 12:92) And they left the mosque as though they had been raised from their graves.’[20]
The tension between justice and forgiveness is given an iconic representation by this account of the Blessed Prophet’s approach to the defeated Meccans, a moment whichis the political culmination of his career. The Meccan elite had sought to assassinate him, and to eliminate his fledgling community in Medina. Now helplessly in hispower, they must have expected annihilation, in accordance with the accepted Arab principles of vendetta. Instead, they are freed, and are not taken to task for their actions. Even Hind, wife of the Meccan leader Abu Sufiyan, a woman who had paid for the assassination of the Prophet’s uncle, Hamza, and had then chewed on his liver on the battlefield of Uhud, was not punished. Instead, the Prophet (peace be upon him) chooses to quote Joseph’s words, spoken as he forgave his errant brothers who were finally in his power in Egypt.
Such a scene recalls the moral arguments which surrounded Nelson Mandela’s Truth and Justice Commission in South Africa.[21] The rule of a corrupt ethnic elite was at an end; the policy of fomenting discord between tribal groups was terminated. As the Prophet peace be upon him goes on to say, ‘People are all the children of Adam, and Adam is ofdust.’[22] What purpose could be served by strict justice?
Major symbolic moments in the history of Mecca are often given eschatological significance. The city itself is a sanctuary (haram), declared such ‘on the day God created heaven and earth.[23] As such, it stands a little outside human justice. For many jurists, those who seek asylum in its mosque may not be dislodged, whatever their crime. And the Hajj is clearly an anticipation of the Judgement, when all shall congregate to stand before God. Muslim eschatology represents the same tension between justice and forgiveness. On one hand, it insists that ‘whoever has done an atom’s weight of good, or evil, shall see it,’ (99:7-8), for ‘there is no injustice on that day.’ (40:17) Yet on the other hand, justice is tempered. The principle that God’s mercy outstrips His wrath dominates the scene, and, as with the conquest of Mecca, the figure who represents the inclusion of forgiveness in God’s justice is the Prophet, peace be upon him. Just as he offers an amnesty to the sinners of Mecca, Muslim orthodoxy believes that he intercedes for humanity before the judgement seat. Terrified of God’s justice, humanity takes refuge beneath the Prophet’s banner, since he is the only one who is not saying ‘Myself! Myself!’ Instead, he cries, ‘My Lord! Save! Save!’, and the strict application of God’s justice appears to be set aside, in favour of mercy. The Mu‘tazilites, preoccupied with justice above all other divine qualities, were obliged to reject these hadiths.[24] But for mainstream Sunni sources, it is thus, supremely, that the Prophet becomes ‘God’s Beloved’ (Habib Allah).[25]
(7) God’s Messenger, upon him be peace, said: ‘I smile because of two men from my nation, who shall kneel in the presence of the Lord of Power. One of them says: ‘O my Lord, grant me retaliation for the wrong which my brother did to me.’ And God says: ‘Give your brother that in which he was wronged.’ ‘O Lord,’ he says, ‘none of my righteous works remain.’ Then God the Exalted says to the man who made the demand: ‘What shall you do with your brother, seeing that none of his righteous works remain?’ And he replies: ‘O my Lord! Let him bear some of my burdens in my stead!’ And God’s Messenger wept, as he said: ‘Truly, that shall be a fearsome Day, a Day when men have need of others to bear their burdens.’ Then he said: ‘God shall say to one who made the request: ‘Lift up your head, and look to the Gardens.’ This he does, and he says: ‘O my Lord! I see high cities of silver, and golden palaces wreathed about with pearls. For which Prophet shall they be, or which saint or martyr?’ And he said: ‘They belong to whomsoever pays me their price.’ ‘O my Lord,’ he says, ‘And who possesses such a price?’ ‘You possess it,’ he replies. ‘And what might it be?’ he asks, and He says: ‘Your forgiveness of your brother.’ ‘O my Lord!’ he says, ‘I have forgiven him!’ Then God the Exalted says: ‘Take your brother’s hand and bring him into Heaven.’ Then God’s Messenger recited His word: ‘Fear God, and make reconciliation among yourselves.’ (Qur’an 8:1)[26]
Adjacent to the doctrine of intercession in the classical theology manuals is the concept of radd al-mazalim, the ‘Restoration of Wrongs’. We shall be burdened, not only with direct punishment from God, but with the sins which others are relieved of in order to compensate them against us for our wrongdoing against them. On that day, ‘God shall take the horned sheep’s case against the hornless one.’[27] Here, according to this well attested hadith, humans as well as God have an opportunity to forgive.
Towards the close of the classical Friday sermon, the preacher recites the Qur’anic passage which runs: ‘God enjoins justice and goodness.’ (16:90) The first is clearly not sufficient; or the second would not have been mentioned. Islam’s is a God of justice,but also of mercy. The extent to which the latter virtue can override the former in political life can only be defined in a very limited way in books of law. In Islamic legal culture, which grants the judge more discretion than the heavily statutory jurisdictions of the West, the judge has much room for mercy. In the Religion of Wisdom and Compassion, which deeply trusts human beings, it is no surprise that he should have been given this privilege. But his responsibility is grave, and if he is to escape God's own Rigour, he must first defeat his ego. Sufism, the schoolroom of the selfless virtues, thus becomes the most fundamental juristic science.
For the footnotes [too long to add in here], please see:
http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/ahm/HadithsonJustice.pdf
(1) The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) prayed for pardon for his people, and received the reply:
‘I have forgiven them all but acts of oppression, for I shall exact recompense for the one who is wronged, from his oppressor.’[1]
In the Qur’an, God is just, and requires justice; but he is also forgiving, and requires forgiveness; in fact, its references to the latter property outnumber those on justice bya ratio of approximately ten to one. [2] Islamic theology has not always been clear how the ensuing tension is to be resolved. ‘My Mercy outstrips My wrath’ is a well-known divine saying,[3] but one which nonetheless is far from abolishing God’s wrath. Indeed, a righteous indignation about injustice is integral to the prophetic representation of God’s qualities, and from the earliest moments of its revelation, the Qur’an links God’sexpectations of His creatures to justice towards the weak. Often the same texts are explicitly eschatological, affirming that those who do not uphold God’s justice in thisworld will be at its receiving end in the next. Indigenous Arab religion can expect a stern retribution, given that its demands are for tribal solidarity, not for the upholdingof universal canons of justice.[4] The idol cannot demand justice, only retribution (tha’r); and the prophetic vocation must therefore link the destruction of paganism with the establishment of a code of justice which overturns Arab norms by refusing to discriminate between the tribes. This hadith is to be read against the background of clan vendettas: instead of seeking collective retaliation against a miscreant’s tribe, the victim of injustice is to appeal to the new law, and to recall that all apparent imbalances will have a just settlement at the judgement seat.
(2) There is an act of charity [sadaqa] to be given for each part of the human body; and for every day over which the sun rises there is a reward of a sadaqa for the one who establishes justice among people.[5]
Justice (‘adl) is due balance (i‘tidal): it is impartiality. The same word is employed to describe the balance of the body’s four humours. When these are in balance, right thinking and health are the consequence. When they are not, the Qur’an speaks of the last day when ‘their tongues, their hands and their feet will bear witness to what they used to do.’ (24:24)
To purify the body from the disorders which both engender and result from sin, a system of worship is gifted in revelation, which culminates in the placing of the forehead, the symbol of human pride and of self-oriented thought, upon the earth. The tongue ‘gives charity’ by praising God, and by speaking words of reconciliation.The hands do so by working to earn a lawful income, and by striving to right wrong sin society. Taken together, the purifying ‘charity’ offered by the parts of the believer’s body always has a social impact, the highest aspect of which must be to ‘establish justice’, not only by avoiding unbalanced temptations, but by working to establish a political order in which justice is safeguarded. Political work is thus conceived as a sacrifice. Never is political authority ‘sought’, in the conventional profane understanding, for a hadith says: ‘Do not seek political power, for if you obtain it byseeking it, it will be given power over you.’[6] This refers to a selfish, egotistic pursuit(hirs) of power, rather than to the selfless seeking of power for the sake of the establishment of justice for others.[7] The model is the Prophet, peace be upon him, who endangers himself in order to establish God’s justice in a feuding Arabia, and who ends his life in holy poverty, despite the advantages he could have gained from having been born into the aristocracy.
(3) I have forbidden injustice for Myself, and have made it forbidden amongst you, so do not oppress one another.[8]
Here God himself is speaking: this is a so-called ‘Holy Hadith’ (hadith qudsi).[9] This text establishes that the ‘political’ life is not dissociated from the ‘religious’; not just because the believer should recognise an integrated set of values in all he or she does, but also because by cultivating the political virtues we conform ourselves to the ‘qualities of God’. Hence the often-cited hadith, ‘Emulate the qualities of God.’[10] In this somewhat Platonic understanding, the ground of ethics is in God, whose detailed moral excellences are the source of human values. The alternative is seen, at least byAsh‘aris, as a form of dualism. The ruler’s subjects may thus recognise his actions asmoral by reference to revelation, and will consider any injustice as a blasphemy against God. Leaving political decisions to individuals who reject justice as a blessing grounded in a heavenly archetype is to cultivate the mentality of Pharoah, who ‘exalts himself in the land’, and ‘divides its people into groups’. (Qur’an, 28:4)
(4) Umm Salama narrated: ‘God’s Messenger, upon him be peace, never went out of my house without raising his eye to the sky and saying: “O Lord God! I seek refuge in You lest I stray or be led astray, or slip or be made to slip, or cause injustice or suffer injustice, or do wrong or have wrong done to me”.’[11]
The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, as a saintly being who has ‘emulated God’s qualities, must manifest His justice as well as His mercy. Here Islam and Christianity tread very different paths. The Christ of the Gospels, despite incidents such as the ‘cleansing of the Temple’,[12] preaches a passive witness; the Prophet of Islam also receives persecution patiently, but also strives to establish justice politically, with a mercy that may come through rigour. No doubt this is not the result of a deep clash between ideals, but rather is the consequence of incommensurable contexts: Islam, too, advocates non-confrontation when oppressed by a massively powerful empire;[13] and Christians have moved away from the pacifism of the Gospels, fearful of the consequences of failing to control tyrants. Yet in the founding stories the differing emphasis is clear. Some Muslims have regarded this as grounds for reproach: according to Shabbir Akhtar, ‘a Muslim face toface with a Pilate would have given the Roman chap a lot more to do than merely wash his hands’;[14] a view that neglects the cautious stance of classical Muslim jurists over resistance against overwhelming odds. But a characteristically Muslim optimism about the reformability of structures is also, no doubt, at work.[15]
(5) God’s messenger, peace and blessings be upon him, said: ‘Whoever sees something he dislikes in his ruler should be patient, because whoever leaves the community [jama‘a], even by one fraction, and then dies, has died the death of the Age of Ignorance [jahiliyya].[16]
This hadith forms part of a substantial body of revealed texts which seem to insist on political quietism in the face of misconduct by rulers. Unsurprisingly, it lay at the centre of a storm of controversy. Most Sunni scholars maintained the view that once a caliph had been chosen (ikhtiyar), it became unlawful for Muslims to rebel against him. For the Hanafis (the most widespread school of law), ‘if the ruler is oppressive, or corrupt, he is not to be deposed,’ the reason being the fear of civil war (fitna), which had been the besetting evil of the Age of Ignorance before Islam. This quietism was resisted by the Mu‘tazilite and Kharijite sects, by many Twelver Shi‘ites, and also by some Shafi'i Sunnis.[17] The institutional separation of the ulema class (ahl al-qalam), who were funded by their own mortmain endowments (awqaf), from the ruling family and its military formations (ahl al-sayf), which reached its peak in the Ottoman theory and practice of religious statecraft, nonetheless gave the preachers the duty of condemning the sultan’s abuses, and defending the interests of the poor and weak.[18]
In the late twentieth century the classical Sunni view came under fire from radical reformers. Khomeini, departing from Sunni and Shi'i tradition, advanced a theory of governance by the religious scholar (vilayet-e faqih), while in the Sunni world individuals frustrated by the religious establishment’s reluctance to challenge abuses bypost-colonial regimes repudiated the old quietism, and advocated militant struggle against governments which, they held, were answerable to Western powers rather thanto the values of their own subjects, and were hence unworthy of Muslim allegiance.Typically, and ironically, it seems that this sea-change in Muslim political thought is the result of Western influence.[19]
(6) God’s Messenger, upon him be peace, then made the rounds of the House, and prayed two rak‘as of prayer. Then he went to the Ka‘ba, and, holding its door-jamb, said: ‘What do you think I will do?’ They replied: ‘The son of a brother, and the nephew of a mild and merciful man!’ [This exchange was repeated three times.] Then God’s Messenger, upon him be peace, said: ‘I declare, as did Joseph: ‘There is no blame upon you this day. God shall forgive you; and He is the most merciful of the merciful.’ (Qur’an 12:92) And they left the mosque as though they had been raised from their graves.’[20]
The tension between justice and forgiveness is given an iconic representation by this account of the Blessed Prophet’s approach to the defeated Meccans, a moment whichis the political culmination of his career. The Meccan elite had sought to assassinate him, and to eliminate his fledgling community in Medina. Now helplessly in hispower, they must have expected annihilation, in accordance with the accepted Arab principles of vendetta. Instead, they are freed, and are not taken to task for their actions. Even Hind, wife of the Meccan leader Abu Sufiyan, a woman who had paid for the assassination of the Prophet’s uncle, Hamza, and had then chewed on his liver on the battlefield of Uhud, was not punished. Instead, the Prophet (peace be upon him) chooses to quote Joseph’s words, spoken as he forgave his errant brothers who were finally in his power in Egypt.
Such a scene recalls the moral arguments which surrounded Nelson Mandela’s Truth and Justice Commission in South Africa.[21] The rule of a corrupt ethnic elite was at an end; the policy of fomenting discord between tribal groups was terminated. As the Prophet peace be upon him goes on to say, ‘People are all the children of Adam, and Adam is ofdust.’[22] What purpose could be served by strict justice?
Major symbolic moments in the history of Mecca are often given eschatological significance. The city itself is a sanctuary (haram), declared such ‘on the day God created heaven and earth.[23] As such, it stands a little outside human justice. For many jurists, those who seek asylum in its mosque may not be dislodged, whatever their crime. And the Hajj is clearly an anticipation of the Judgement, when all shall congregate to stand before God. Muslim eschatology represents the same tension between justice and forgiveness. On one hand, it insists that ‘whoever has done an atom’s weight of good, or evil, shall see it,’ (99:7-8), for ‘there is no injustice on that day.’ (40:17) Yet on the other hand, justice is tempered. The principle that God’s mercy outstrips His wrath dominates the scene, and, as with the conquest of Mecca, the figure who represents the inclusion of forgiveness in God’s justice is the Prophet, peace be upon him. Just as he offers an amnesty to the sinners of Mecca, Muslim orthodoxy believes that he intercedes for humanity before the judgement seat. Terrified of God’s justice, humanity takes refuge beneath the Prophet’s banner, since he is the only one who is not saying ‘Myself! Myself!’ Instead, he cries, ‘My Lord! Save! Save!’, and the strict application of God’s justice appears to be set aside, in favour of mercy. The Mu‘tazilites, preoccupied with justice above all other divine qualities, were obliged to reject these hadiths.[24] But for mainstream Sunni sources, it is thus, supremely, that the Prophet becomes ‘God’s Beloved’ (Habib Allah).[25]
(7) God’s Messenger, upon him be peace, said: ‘I smile because of two men from my nation, who shall kneel in the presence of the Lord of Power. One of them says: ‘O my Lord, grant me retaliation for the wrong which my brother did to me.’ And God says: ‘Give your brother that in which he was wronged.’ ‘O Lord,’ he says, ‘none of my righteous works remain.’ Then God the Exalted says to the man who made the demand: ‘What shall you do with your brother, seeing that none of his righteous works remain?’ And he replies: ‘O my Lord! Let him bear some of my burdens in my stead!’ And God’s Messenger wept, as he said: ‘Truly, that shall be a fearsome Day, a Day when men have need of others to bear their burdens.’ Then he said: ‘God shall say to one who made the request: ‘Lift up your head, and look to the Gardens.’ This he does, and he says: ‘O my Lord! I see high cities of silver, and golden palaces wreathed about with pearls. For which Prophet shall they be, or which saint or martyr?’ And he said: ‘They belong to whomsoever pays me their price.’ ‘O my Lord,’ he says, ‘And who possesses such a price?’ ‘You possess it,’ he replies. ‘And what might it be?’ he asks, and He says: ‘Your forgiveness of your brother.’ ‘O my Lord!’ he says, ‘I have forgiven him!’ Then God the Exalted says: ‘Take your brother’s hand and bring him into Heaven.’ Then God’s Messenger recited His word: ‘Fear God, and make reconciliation among yourselves.’ (Qur’an 8:1)[26]
Adjacent to the doctrine of intercession in the classical theology manuals is the concept of radd al-mazalim, the ‘Restoration of Wrongs’. We shall be burdened, not only with direct punishment from God, but with the sins which others are relieved of in order to compensate them against us for our wrongdoing against them. On that day, ‘God shall take the horned sheep’s case against the hornless one.’[27] Here, according to this well attested hadith, humans as well as God have an opportunity to forgive.
Towards the close of the classical Friday sermon, the preacher recites the Qur’anic passage which runs: ‘God enjoins justice and goodness.’ (16:90) The first is clearly not sufficient; or the second would not have been mentioned. Islam’s is a God of justice,but also of mercy. The extent to which the latter virtue can override the former in political life can only be defined in a very limited way in books of law. In Islamic legal culture, which grants the judge more discretion than the heavily statutory jurisdictions of the West, the judge has much room for mercy. In the Religion of Wisdom and Compassion, which deeply trusts human beings, it is no surprise that he should have been given this privilege. But his responsibility is grave, and if he is to escape God's own Rigour, he must first defeat his ego. Sufism, the schoolroom of the selfless virtues, thus becomes the most fundamental juristic science.
For the footnotes [too long to add in here], please see:
http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/ahm/HadithsonJustice.pdf
Wednesday, January 2, 2008
Habib Ali al Jifri: On Violence, Suicide Bombings, and Women in Islam.
Habib Ali al-Jifri
- Founder of Tabah Institute, United Arab Emirates
- Sheikh Habib Ali al-Jifri traces his lineage to Imam Hussein, grandson of the Prophet.
- Born in Yemen, but currently residing in Cairo, Habib Ali studied Islamic jurisprudence from local scholars in the Hadramawt. He would later found the Tabah Foundation for Islamic Studies and Research in the United Arab Emirates, an institution promoting the study of traditional Islamic sciences. Habib Ali has given numerous speeches espousing the need for tolerant and moderate discourse in Islam.
Muslims Speak Out
By: Al Habib Ali Al Jifri
First Question: What is Jihad? Under what circumstances does Islam sanction the use of violence? What would you tell would be suicide bombers who would invoke Islam to justify their actions?
THE ISLAMIC TRADITION UNEQUIVOCALLY CONDEMNS ANY TYPE OF AGGRESSION TOWARD INNOCENT CIVILIANS.
Islam does not sanction armed struggle except when opposing an aggressor who occupies another’s land or in order to help remove oppression from oppressed peoples.
The concept of jihad in the Islamic tradition carries the meaning of exerting all of one’s resources and energies in order to arrive at the realization of truth, preparedness to make sacrifices for the sake of doing good, and reaching out to others with goodness, seeking nothing in return save the contentment of God.
The root of the word “jihad” in Arabic is to struggle or endure hardship; expending energy & resources. When this is applied to the Islamic context it becomes the effort to advance goodness and enlightenment. This is the doctrinal understanding found in the original and defining religious texts.
The greatest expression of jihad is the struggle (Ar. mujahada) against the ego in order to bring about its spiritual purification and growth. This jihad is known as the “Greater Jihad” amongst Muslims.
Other forms of jihad are: the Jihad of “word”; the Qur'an tells us: {and struggle against them with it (i.e. with the Qur'an)} (Qur'an, Chapter: 25, verse: 52). The Prophet (peace & blessings upon him) said “the best jihad is that of speaking a word of truth to an unjust ruler”. Other forms include the jihad of educating, the jihad of building functional economies and eradicating poverty, and the jihad of politics, diplomacy and constructive policy creation. However, it is the jihad against injustice, which can include armed struggle as a last and conditional resort, that has dominated the spotlight in our times. As the reality of Jihad has to do with reaching the truth, doing goodness, and reaching out to others with this goodness, armed struggle really has no place here except in two circumstances:
1. Defense against an aggressor (conditioned by right ethical conduct); or
2. To secure for people the freedom to choose their own path to religious truth.
THE ISLAMIC TRADITION FORBIDS SUICIDE; IT FORBIDS ANY FORM OF HARM TO INNOCENT PEOPLE. THE ISLAMIC TRADITION ADVOCATES THE RULE OF LAW IN THE STRONGEST TERMS.
Islam forbids the taking of life so what drives the suicide bombers to just that?
The question about suicide bombings is misleading in that it tends to be framed in such a way as to focus on the “suicidal” nature of the act alone. However, there is something worse at the heart of this. It is the issue of the treachery, the betrayal of the trust that all innocent people must be permitted to assume as part of a mutually dependent social order. This observation in turn, leads into another question. Is this any more or less horrific than a person who sits behind a button which he presses – bringing death and destruction to thousands – and then returns to his routine without an afterthought? No, both are horrific, and both require humanity to wake up and take responsibility for its actions.
Two things tend to be confused here, one of them is agreed upon, the other is a point of difference.
1. The one we all agree upon is that the crime of these people is that of taking innocent lives, as well as the additional devastation that it brings. This is something which was forbidden by Islamic Law 14 centuries ago, only later to become rejected by modern human conscience.
2. The point of difference here is in the silence of the unasked question: who is responsible for these young people reaching such a point of despair that they would actually want to blow themselves up and others along with them?
Are they alone in the perpetration of such acts? Or can we add to the list of responsible parties the absence of mature and holistic Islamic learning. An absence that has left gaps in people’s understanding of their religion, gaps which extremists are all too quick to fill with disinformation which perpetrators then proceed to act upon. One of the teachings of Islam (which the perpetrators of such acts have missed) is that no matter what hardships and afflictions a person experiences, it can never justify doing anything which contradicts Islam’s ethical framework.
Will it ever be possible to reach a point where people can feel safe from the specter of being accused of “terrorism” for simply positing questions about the extreme injustices and oppression experienced by societies in the Developing South? Injustices driven by pressure from quarters which exert an undue influence on the international community and its institutions rendering them incapable of protecting citizens from such iniquities to the point that young people despair of having a fair legal system, or fair international institutions. These young people may then find themselves listening to the voices which call for vengeance justified by misinterpretations of sacred texts; giving young people promises of paradise in exchange for their miserable situation. Wherever injustice reigns supreme, and hope is lost you find suicide.
In normal criminal cases we give a lot of importance to the forensics and the background of the crime and hold accountable the society which gave rise to the criminal personality; while still holding the criminal responsible for his actions. In the case of the crimes perpetrated by these bombers our accountability is even greater; and the need for investigation and analysis greater still. It is a sad situation that we have arrived to; rectification and healing will require maturity and courage from all communities.
I repeat: Islam categorically condemns the acts carried out by the bombers on the Twin Towers of New York, the Trains in Madrid, the London Bombings and all other attacks aimed at innocents.
Lastly I am grateful for those who have opened a channel of dialogue for individuals seeking to work together and extend bridges between people of sagacity, for the purpose of reclaiming the mantle of leadership from the hands of extremists on all sides who would lead our world into discord and instability. Increasing the circle of dialogue, understanding, and the clarification of differing viewpoints is a reassuring indicator for the future of our small and intimate world.
Second question: No response.
Third question: What are the rights of women in Islam? How does Islam’s view of male and female equality differ from the Western view?
FAIRNESS TAKES PRECEDENCE OVER TOKEN FORMS OF EQUALITY.
The mistreatment and abuse – mental, physical, and social – of women takes on multifarious forms. Some of those forms are based on a misunderstanding and misuse of religious teachings; while it should be known that any person who mistreats a woman or girl in any way is not called anything but a criminal in our Shariah legal framework.
However, there is a conflation that takes place between the oppression of women versus the philosophy of radical equality on the one hand and the detailed differentiation between a mono-one-size-fits-all gender equalization along with a complete disregard for the immense role that women play in society as mother, educator, caregiver, and homemaker on the other. Real equality is to pay the same due respect to the roles that only a woman can play in society that is granted to other socio-political roles; roles that she very often maintains the capacity to perform also if provided the same opportunities. It remains one of the injustices of our age that the criteria for “success” and “worth” have been centered on everything except the qualities and accomplishments of our mothers and those who care for us, imbue us with our identities, and raise our children. We must however, not neglect the situation of many, many women worldwide who have no choice except to play the role of both mother & father, nurturer & provider because of the extreme difficulty of their circumstances. For these reasons I find myself in need of emphasizing that it should be mutual completion of one-another that should be the foundation of the relationship between genders; rather than the cacophony of wrestling voices that we hear today in the talk of gender rights.
Posted by Al Habib Ali Al Jifri on July 23, 2007
washingtonpost.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
