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

AMERICAN DEMOCRACY

Ok, so this blogging stuff is slightly more than what I bargained for. Besides the fact that my original goals of posting something useful at least once a week is in ruins (more like once a month), I find I don't have barely enough time to thoroughly research a topic and put it up. What with school and work and life, its hard enough trying to keep myself motivated!

But, last week an opportunity came up that I had to write about. I mean literally, I HAD to write about it for my Sociology class. :) Not that I wasn't interested in the first place, but what better than a grade to force you to write about something interesting and very relevant? I edited the previous post (which was pretty much a rant about the topic); here's the more polished version:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TONY LAGOURANI EVENT (NOVEMBER 1ST, 2007)

Tony Lagourani, a young man who was recruited to Iraq in 2004 as an interrogator, gave some sociological insight into the abuse perpetrated by the soldiers in Iraq, particularly in Abu Ghuraib. His book, “An Army Interrogator’s Dark Journey in Iraq,” discusses his experience.

He arrived in Iraq during 2004, before any of the Abu Ghuraib scandals. Before he went to Iraq, he said, he and other interrogators had recieved "cultural training" -- from a man who had never even met an Arab or a Muslim. This was supposed to help them understand the people they would be interrogating. They were taught out of a book authored by an Israeli (government?) official which pretty much listed "Arabs as lying, cheating, driven by violence, and in every way different from 'normal' people." It even went on to say, and these are the speakers' words, "they have a different grip on reality... they are very violent." To sum up, it was a book which was trying to justify Israel's continued occupation and violence in Palestine and other Arab countries, geared towards a Western audience. This was thier cultural training. This is the mindset they had going to Iraq.

Further, Lagourani went on to say, that when he arrived in Iraq, they were given very vague instructions on how to interrogate the prisoners -- highly unusual because in the Army, as everyone knows, you are told what to do from Day 1: how to walk, talk, dress, act, how to carry out the most minute of duties. The army is not a place where one is told to "Be creative," there are rules for everything and the good soldier follows those rules out to perfection. Yet, in Iraq, the orders given from the generals were vague, 'make them talk'. They were told to use, and I quote, "stress positions, temperature (hypothermia), military dogs, sleep deprivation waterboarding [forceful drowning]" etc. to make them talk, and were not told what NOT to do; (there was a host of other things he mentioned, but this is merely what I scribbled down).

These forms of torture went on for days, if not weeks. “We were aware,” Lagourani said, “that these forms of torture violated the Geneva Convention for treatment of Prisoners of War, but our generals told us that these prisoners were not even covered under the Geneva Convention, that in fact, a new class had been created for them, ‘Enemy Combatants’.” Thus, he said, "we followed orders."

I lost track of the number of times Lagourani repeated this phrase: "we followed orders" or "we were ordered to do so" -- which is essentially the basic premise of Milgram's Experiment of 1961: that rational, normal, 'good,' people will continue to obey authority against their better moral conscience. This is a classic example where Milgram's experiment was proven to be right. Lagourani, and many other soldiers' claim was always, "we followed orders." They were conditioned since the first day in the military that to be a successful soldier, one would unquestionably obey authority.It's also an example of Zimbardo's Prison Experiment of 1971; that when given an unprecedented amount of power, even the most 'good' people will become corrupt and abuse that power. Because the soldiers guarding the prisoners at Abu Ghuraib had such power, and because the rules given to them on how to treat the prisoners were very vague, many soldiers misused their power and abused the prisoners.

Lagourani gives an example that supports this idea: He [Lagourani] was guarding a prisoner who had stolen a can of Benzene oil (the type to fuel heaters/stoves with). The prisoner had nothing to do with the war, nothing to do with terrorism. It was 3am in the morning, he [Lagourani] was sleep deprived (though obviously not as much the prisoners, whom were kept awake for weeks on end), and sick of being constantly under attack. He wanted to take his stress out on someone whom he could have complete dominance and control over.... Since there was no one else around [to stop him], Lagourani said, "I thought, you know what, screw it. I'm goanna beat the hell out of this guy." At this point, his moral consciousness caught up with him. Although he did not go through with the actual act, this example proves Zimbardo’s premise right – that even though Lagourani was, generally speaking, a good person, when put under stressful conditions and given extraordinary power, he was willing to abuse that power.

And finally, the Abu Ghuraib discussion also raised questions of deviances and norms. Was it, in fact, a deviant act for the few soldiers (according to the media, Lagourani stated otherwise) to abuse the prisoners? Or is it completely normal when everyone else, or the vast majority of soldiers, were committing the same act? To answer these questions, one has to look at the defenitions of a norm to define deviance. The two types of norms -- normal and normative --cover both these circumstances. Statistically (if we are to believe Lagourani [who said that most soldiers did abuse the prisoners], not the media) then this act was normal by all means. Because more than 50% of the soldiers in Iraq did abuse the prisoners, then the incidents at Abu Ghuraib are normal. However, if one looks at it through a "normative" defenition, based on values of equality and justice before the law, then this was defenitely a deviant act becaue the prisoners were not given basic human rights, and were violated of rights givent to them under the Geneva Convention, Article 3, that states, "[POW's] shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, including prohibition of outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment." Thus the defenition of deviance varies with the defenition of the norm.

The discussion raised important questions of American involvement in the Middle East, and the treatment of any people -- be it Iraqi's, Arab's, or American's -- in accordance with the most basic of human rights, that is, to be treated with dignity. Instead of American's asking "Why do they hate us?" the discussion begs the question "Why would they like us?!"

As one audience member put it, "How can I, as an American citizen, be proud to call myself an American, or even, truthfully call this country 'Democratic' when my administration allows and sanctions these acts to happen -- and continue?"

Abu Ghuraib was not a stranded event -- war crimes, especially with American soldiers [as they are always the occupier, not the one bieng occupied] are rampant simply because of the extraordinary power they [American soldiers] hold. We, as Americans, need to understand that these acts are bieng committed in our names and with our tax dollars. We must realize that to the world outside the US, "Americans" not "American officials" or the "Bush Administration" are the real perpetrators of the acts, and it is to us that they point the finger of blame.

Peace everyone, I'd seriously reccommend Lagourani's book if you want to learn more about this subject.

Sumeyya