|
| |
|
After throwing light on the socalled "religious
extremism," pointing out aspects of its true nature and characteristics and revealing
its most important causes, motives, and stimulants, we now need to outline a remedy for
it, its means, and methods. It should be emphasized at the outset that the remedy is
inseparable from the causes and must, therefore, be as varied and complex as the causes
themselves are. Needless to say, no magical touch can put an end to extremism or bring
back the extremists to the line of moderation. The malaise afflicting the soul and mind of
mankind is far more deeply rooted than we think, and consequently more difficult to treat.
Extremism is essentially a religious phenomenon with a variety of psychological, social,
and political dimensions. As such, all of these aspects must be tackled from an Islamic
point of view.
I do not agree with the determinists who hold either
society alone or the prevailing economic conditions responsible for the causes of the
phenomenon, while they ignore the actions and behavior of the young, whom they consider to
be totally helpless. It is unjust to hold the young alone responsible and to exonerate the
society, the regime, and its governmental departments especially those in charge of
education, guidance, and the media. The responsibility is in fact mutual, and each partly
played an important part. The Prophet (SAAS) said: "All of you are guardians and
responsible for your wards and the things under your care."1 Therefore, we intend to
discuss in the following part the duties that should be played by society in order to
overcome extremism, as well as the duties of the youth to resist this destructive
tendency.
|
I have already pointed out that the inner contradictions
and the chaos which characterize presentday Muslim societies, as well as the
estrangement of these societies from Islam, have significantly contributed to the birth
and spread of extremism. Therefore, these societies must play a positive role in the
remedy. The initial step for a Muslim society is to acknowledge and confirm its genuine
commitment to Islam. This cannot be achieved through a verbal declaration or expression,
or through a set of slogans or a clause in the constitution stating that "[slam is
the official religion of the state," but only through true adherence to the teachings
of Islam.
Islam is a comprehensive system of life. It invests its
divine character in life and guides it along an ethical direction; it sets up the
framework, the landmarks, and the limits which govern the movement and goals of life,
always keeping it on the right path, protecting it from pitfalls or from straying. For
this reason, Islam consists of beliefs which can enrich the mind, of 'ibadat which purify
the heart, of morals which purify the soul, of legislations which establish justice, and
of manners which beautify life. To be really Islamic society must commit itself to Islam
in its totality, unlike the Israelites who adopted only parts of the Torah but ignored the
rest. Consequently, Allah (SWT) admonished them in the Quran:Then is it only a part of the
Book that you believe in, and do you reject the rest? But what is the reward for those
among you who behave like this but disgrace in this life'? And on the Day of Judgment they
shall be consigned to the most grievous penalty.
Furthermore, for a society to be Islamic it must be willing
to apply Allah's injunctions and the Sunnah of His Prophet (SA'AS) on all the affairs and
aspects of life: social, economic, political, or intellectual. This is the requisite of
iman: But no, by the Lord, they can have no [real] faith, until they make you judge in all
disputes between them, and find in their souls no resistance against your decisions, but
accept them with the fullest conviction .
And:
The answer of the believers, when summoned to Allah and His Messenger, in order that He
may judge between them, is no other than this: they say, "We hear and we obey."
It is such as these that will attain felicity .
Our societies must endeavor to eliminate this obvious
contradiction we believe in Islam both as a divine creed and a Shariah, but we have
abandoned its Shariah and disregarded its guidance and moral teachings.
These we have replaced with imported systems and alien ideologies from both the East and
the West yet we still claim to be Muslims!
Our rulers must understand and realize that they are in a Muslim land and are ruling
Muslim peoples who are entitled to be governed in accordance with the teachings of their
religion. Constitutions, laws, educational systems, etc., must all reflect and express the
people's beliefs, values, and traditions, which must also be guided, consolidated, and
disseminated via the media. The economic and social policies-at local and international
levelsmust be formulated within the framework of these beliefs and must serve their
goals. The failure of the rulers in Muslim countries to live up to these legitimate
expectations is utterly unacceptable and is in stark contradiction to Islam.
Indeed, these rulers' defiance of the conscience of Muslims
in most Muslim countries has become intolerable. Some of them openly reject Islam and
express their commitment to an Eastern or a Western ideology. Moreover, they deprive Islam
of any form of expression. Even the mosque and its religious activities are manipulated to
express support for regimes and rulers. Those who dare to object are harshly and severely
punished. Other rulers in Muslim countries profess to be Muslims, but their concept of
Islam is a version of their own coinage and satanic whims. They pick and choose, accepting
that which serves their own egotistic pursuit, and discarding that which does not appeal
to them! What they themselves "believe" and declare to be "Islamic" is
the "truth," and what they reject is "bat l." In this contention, they
disregard all the interpretations of the venerable forebears, as well as their renowned
successors and contemporaries. They unscrupulously disagree with the whole Ummah, ignoring
the established traditions of the companions of the Prophet (SA'AS), the jurists, the
interpreters of the Quran and Hadith. They see no need or reason to consult any of these.
Such a ruler considers himself to be a faqih, an interpreter, a narrator, a mutakallim,
and a philosopher.
Such a ruler claims to be that one man to whom there is no
second. He does not see any need to learn anything even from the Prophet Muhammad (SA'AS)
himself, claiming that he relies on the Qur'an alone, forgetting that the Prophet (SA'AS)
is the interpreter of the Qur'an. In this respect Allah (SWT) says: "He who obeys the
Messenger, obeys Allah". Nevertheless, some of these rulers allow the operation 0f
Shariah pertaining only to private affairs, as well as insignificant opportunities for
talks about Islam on the radio and on television; they also permit a column in a daily
newspaper to appear on Fridays only. Its theme-if any-is confined to religion in its
Western Christian conception as a relationship between the conscience of the individual
and his Creator. It has nothing to do with either society or life; Caesar and the Lord
each gets that which belongs to him! Theirs is the concept of "religion" as
"faith" without Shariah, a "din" without an Islamic state, private
"'ibadah" without any dawah, jihad, or an obligation to command the common good
and prohibit evil and the undesirable. If a person condemns something as wrong, criticizes
certain deviations, advocates a call for the right path, confronts basil, either from the
platform of a mosque or in a newspaper, he is harshly reminded that he has exceeded all
bounds by mixing religion and politics! For such rulers there is neither a place for
religion in politics, nor politics in religion. All this contradicts, of course, the
teachings of Allah (SWT) and the Sunnah of His Prophet (SA'AS), as well as the practices
of the companions and Tabi'un. It is indeed high time for our rulers to realize that there
can neither be stability in their societies nor hope for their peoples except treal
commitment and adherence to Islam. 'Umar ibn al Khattab (RA'A) said: "We had been the
lowest of nations, but Allah honored us with Islam. Should we try to attain honor through
means other than Islam, Allah will debase us." Furthermore, unless Shariah is
applied, our societies will continue to breed extremists, religious or otherwise.
The second step of the remedy pertains to the attitude of
the Society towards the youth. To begin with, we-the old-must not address them from ivory
towers, showing a superiority or a disregard for them. This attitude is bound to create a
deep rift which will force them to refuse to trust or listen to us. Equally, we must not
fail to understand them or to have insight into the deep recesses of their lives and the
reality of their concerns. Our attitude towards them should not only be that of accusation
mainly concerned with publicizing their demerits, exaggerating their negative
characteristics and suspecting and discrediting their intentions and actions in an
endeavor to prove them eligible for the most severe punishments. On the contrary, we
should first and foremost treat them with paternal and brotherly love, making them feel
that they are a part of us, our beloved ones, and the hope of the future of the
Ummah.
Through love and compassion, rather than through accusations and arrogance, we can come
nearer to them. We should stand in their defense since allegations from all directions are
raised against themtrue and false, wellmeaning and malicious. If we cannot assume the
role of the defender, for one reason or another, we should at least stand firmly for the
application of justice, which neither punishes without evidence nor sides with either the
claimant or the defendant.
One of our defects is our tendency to make hasty,
generalized final and conclusive judgments on social issues. This is often done without
listening to the defense of the accused or the evidence citedan attitude devoid of any
sense of justice. Many people rush to judge these youth without actually knowing them,
without mixing With them in order to find out how they think, feel, behave, and react.
Many judge them all through the behavior of a few, despite the fact that the majority
cannot be held responsible for the deeds and behavior of the minority. It is for this
reason that Muslim jurists legislated that the judgment passed on the majority is binding
on the whole but not vice versa. Furthermore, some people pass final judgments on a person
on the basis of one single instance of behavior for which he may have had his own motives
and specific personal circumstances. If his accusers but listen patiently to his
justifications, they may change their minds. In any case, no final, changing moral
judgment should be passed on a person on the basis of one or two actions. A person
should-in the light of the following Quranic verse-be evaluated on the basis of the
totality of his actions and behavior: "Then those whose balance [of good deeds] is
heavy, they will attain salvation".
On the other hand, there are people who judge the youth
through their own personal conception of what religion is and what it means to be
religious. In the opinion of such people, these youth Muslims are merely eccentrics
suffering from psychological problems. This may be true of a small number, but on the
whole the youth are psychologically sound, the sincerity of their deeds is
unquestionable their private and public practice and performance are, indeed,
harmonious. They are free from any dichotomy between belief and practice, between what
they publicly profess and what they cherish in their hearts. I myself have known very well
many of these young Muslims in many Muslim countries; I bear witness that I found strength
in their iman, firmness in their convictions, truth in their words, and sincerity in their
work. I also admire their love for the truth and hatred of basil, their ardor for
disseminating the divine message, their determination to command the common good and
forbid evil and the undesirable, their zeal for jihad, their concern for Muslims
everywhere in the world, their aspiration for the establishment of an Islamic society
which lives in accordance with the teachings of Allah (SWT), is guided by Islam, and
disciplined by Shariah and its ethical values.
My meetings and contacts with these youth have convinced me
of the tremendous differences between our traditional Islamic conception and theirs; they
are committed to a new vital Islam which opposes our own wornout traditional belief.
Their ',man is warm and ardent while ours is cold; their determination to righteousness is
solid and unflinching while ours is apathetic; their hearts fear Allah (SWT) and are full
of love for Him-their hearts beat with His remembrance in their constant recitation of the
Qur'an. One must also acknowledge their determination to recapture the true Islamic spirit
and to reconstruct life according to it. I know that many of them spend whole nights in
ibadah, offer siyam during the day, ask Allah's forgiveness at dawn, and emulate good
deeds It is for this reason that many people, including myself, entertain the hope that
the future of Islam will, in shaa Allah, be realized through the determined endeavors of
these youths. This is why I have declared on several occasions in Egypt that the young
generation who grew up in righteousness and piety is the real treasure upon which Egypt
could build its hopes. They are more valuable than any material considerations.
I equally believe that whoever tries to suggest a remedy
for this issue must show balance, justice, and openmindedness. Otherwise, such a person
is himself bound to display extremism while discussing the phenomenon and suggesting its
remedy. The first characteristic of balance in this regard is to avoid exaggerating the
manifestations of the alleged phenomenon, making much fuss about nothing, thereby
spreading fright and terror. This, unfortunately, is our customary tendency in dealing
with such issues. Exaggeration is extremely damaging because it distorts the facts, upsets
the criteria of judgment, blurs vision, and contaminates clear thinking. Consequently, any
verdict for or against the issue is bound to be either unjust or, at least, incomplete.
It is regrettable that a great deal of what has been or is
being said or written in the aftermath of the crisis resulting from the authorities' clash
with the Muslim youth in Egypt and the emergence of socalled "religious
extremism" is not free from exaggeration and excessiveness in the attempt to tackle
the issue. These attempts are influenced by the inconducive, illwilled atmosphere shared
by the majority of people against the youth. This attitude provoked the Egyptian
sociologist, Dr. Sad al Din Ibrahim, who observed their phenomenon to respond to this
campaign directed against the youth in an article published in al Ahram newspaper. Dr.
Ibrahim pointed out that those who have taken part in analyzing this issue are actually
ignorant of its rudiments.
Indeed, it would have been more proper if these people had
kept silent or had approached the subject with truth and fairness, examining the
phenomenon in a realistic and balanced manner.
But this requires qualities which these people do not
possess. A balanced opinion would take into consideration the fact that religious
extremism is often a reaction to another opposing extremism such as permissiveness and
laxity in religious matters or cynical attitudes towards religion. Therefore there should
be an attempt to bring both extremes to the moderation of Islam. The very nature of living
occasionally sets one form of extremism against another in order to create a balance, a
concept found in the Qur'an:
And did not Allah check one set of people by means of another, the earth would indeed be
full of mischief: But Allah is full of bounty to all the worlds. Strangely enough the
extremist Muslim youth are unfairly treated but other extremist groups-especially those
who lead an immoral and totally irreligious life are not condemned. Nor are such people
ever imprisoned or subjected to harsh punishments. Jusrequires that both types of
extremism be condemned.
Is it fair then to put all the blame on and direct our vexation at the youth who live for
and in accordance with the teachings of Islam-those who regularly perform their
salah,
eschew prohibitions, lower their gaze, and guard their modesty and chastity; those who
carefully investigate what is lawful and what is prohibited; those who adhere adamantly to
what they believe to be an Islamic norm of behavior such as growing a beard, wearing
abovetheankle clothes, using mouthcleaning siwak; those who avoid vain talk, who
never smoke, and prudently spend their money on what is useful? Is it fair to condemn
these young people who have grown up in piety and righteousness, however excessive and
strict they may be, while we keep silent about the immorally permissive behavior of others
among whom it is hard to distinguish between the "male" and the
"female"? Morally as well as intellectually Westernized, the latter have been
completely uprooted from Muslim culture. Is it fair to make so much fuss about and condemn
socalled "religious extremism" and yet keep silent about "irreligious
extremism"? Is it fair to disparage and sneer at a young woman who veils her face
because she is convinced that her action is in tune with Islamic teachings and through
which she seeks Allah's acceptance, and yet keep silent about another who walks about in
the streets or seashores or appears on television or movies almost naked, deliberately
seeking to provoke the instincts, claiming that she is simply exercising "personal
freedom'' which is sanctioned by the constitution? Do constitutions provide for
"personal freedom" with regard to nakedness and banality but prohibit it with
regard to modesty and chastity?
If society had stood against those who were immoral and irreligious and had endeavored to
change all the manifestations of evil, the phenomenon of "religious extremism"
would never have existed in our countries. Even if it could have appeared-for one reason
or another_ its impact would have been less significant than it is at present. We also
need to acknowledge that extremism is universal, manifesting itself in various ways and
areas, such as religion, politics, thought and behavior.
There are indeed many very active nonMuslim religious extremist groups; they have
neither been condemned by the world-as Muslim groups have been-nor have they been treated
by their countries as the Muslim groups have been in theirs. We have seen Jewish religious
extremism in Zionist Israel, being embodied in parties and organizations that declared
their principles and aims without any fear or shame Moreover, the Zionist state, formed by
ursurping a Muslim land, was ideologically based on religious extremism and deduced from
lewish Scriptures and the Talmud, as well as from their belief to be God's chosen people
and the divine masters of the world, and that violence is lawful for them to achieve their
goals. The Christian kataib ("Falangists") groups in Lebanon similarly exercise
extreme forms of violence and practice religious extremism; they slaughter Muslims,
mutilate their bodies, cut off their private parts and put them in their mouths, assault
Muslim women, burn Muslim religious books (including the Qur'in), and seek to degrade
everything related to Islam and Muslims all this being done in the name of Christianity
and Christ, the Apostle of peace and love, who addressed his followers: "Love your
enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you. . . if anyone hits you
on the right cheek, let him hit the other one too".
Moreover, we have witnessed many forms of Christian
religious extremism all directed against the Muslims, not only in Lebanon, but also in
Cyprus, Eritrea, the Philippines, as well as in other places and countries. It matters
little whether it is Catholic extremism, Orthodox extremism, or Protestant extremism; it
is Christian extremisma new Crusade.
Furthermore, almost every year extremist Hindu religions
groups massacre many innocent and peaceful Muslims. The irony is that those who slaughter
human beings in cold blood prohibit the slaughter of animals because they claim it is
cruel and merciless to kill a living creature! For this same reason, they do not kill mice
but allow them to eat up the wheat that grows in millions of acres. All of these
creatures, they claim, should not be harmed because they have "souls"! But these
people never hesitate to slaughter Muslims, as if the latter were the only beings devoid
of souls!
In addition to all this we have to realize that we live in
an age of uneasiness, anxiety, and rebellion generated by the spread of a materialism
which has twisted human thought and behavior. Although man has succeeded in landing on the
moon, he has failed miserably to realize his happiness on earth. It is obvious that the
twentieth century has witnessed rapid progress in all the fields of science, a development
which only brought about materialnot spiritual-prosperity. This, however, has not been
able to create the happiness and peace of mind for which so many of its beneficiaries had
hoped. On the contrary, it has caused an everincreasing number of people-like the
hippies to feel lost and confused, and to rebel against this "modernization"
by going back to nature. For them, life has no meaning, and civilization has failed to
answer their persistent questions: Who am I? What is my message? Where did I come from and
to where am I going? Such anxiety and rebellion found an echo in our countries as well,
where it led either to irreligiosity or to a greater commitment and adherence to Islam.
Some young Muslims found the answers to their questions in Islam and therefore turned to
it with warmth and often with excessive zeal.
It would be unreasonable to expect peace and tranquility in the present age of rebellion,
or moderation and balance in a world characterized by extremism. Nor would it be logical
to demand from these enthusiastic young people the "wisdom and maturity" of
their elders. Man is, in a sense, a product of his environment. The secret services must
abandon their harsh methods, torture, and assassinations. We must spread and encourage an
atmosphere of freedom, welcome criticism, and reactivate the practice of our forebears in
advising each other. We have an example of this in the practice and the following words
of' Umar ibn al Khattab: "May Allah bless the person who points out my faults to
me." Hence he always encouraged and supported those who advised or criticized him.
One day while he was with a group of his companions, a man
said to him: "O, Caliph, fear Allah..."'Umar's companions were angered by this,
but he asked them to let the man express himself freely, saying: "There is no good in
you if you do not speak up (like this man), and there is no good in us (the rulers) if we
do not listen (to your advice and criticism)."
On another occasion, 'Umar addressed his audience: "If
any of you sees any deviation in me, it is his duty to put it right." Upon hearing
this, a bedouin stood up and said: "By Allah, if we see any deviation in you, wc will
put it right with our swords (i.e., even if we have to use force)," 'Umar was not
angered, but was pleased enough to say: "Al Hamdu /i Allah that there are Muslims
ready to use their swords to put 'Umar on the right path."
An atmosphere of freedom produces ideas which can be
rationally discussed and analyzed by the learned, either to be adapted and adopted or to
be discarded and rejected and eventually disappear. Otherwise ideas are bound to thrive
secretly, to be nurtured covertly, and to eventually take roots, develop and grow until
they become dominant and strong, taking people by surprise because they were neither aware
of their birth nor development. Deviant thought and understanding are the sources of
extremism, and sound thought and correct understanding must therefore be utilized in its
treatment. It is indeed a grave mistake to resort to power to counter deviant thought;
confused thoughts must be carefully, patiently, and intellectually rectified. The brutal
methods adopted by tsecret police, by leaders of military coups who torture and kill
whoever disagree with them, cannot possibly put an end to extremism. They may succeed
temporarily, but they will ultimately fail in their endeavor. If one extreme group is
crushed, another-even more violent-is in the making.
The first duty then is to create a rational Islamic
awareness based on an enlightened fiqh in the teachings of Islam: a fiqh of deep insight
which does not concentrate on the marginal issues only but on the essentials as well; a
fiqh which relates the parts to the whole, the branches to the roots, the hypothetical to
the definitive; a fiqh which seeks judgments from the original sources, not only from the
branches. Creating such an awareness and developing such a fiqh among the extremist is not
easy. Moreover, to change the beliefs and convictions of people needs sincere effort,
great patience, and the support and guidance of Allah ta 'ala.
Those in authority imagine-or are led to believe-that such
changes can be easily effected by the media. They think that these channels can alter the
intellectual as well as the spiritual convictions of people in the direction they desire.
They either unwittingly or deliberately ignore the fact that the statecontrolled media
and their spokesmen, agents, and agencies are incapable of actualizing the required
changes and consciousness, because the form and substance of such endeavors are totally
rejected by the youth. This has been attempted by various regimes in different countries
where the authorities exploited some ulama' and speakers to lecture prisoners in order to
brainwash them. But all these lectures, speeches, and sermons were mocked and failed
miserably to achieve that end. The aspired imparting of knowledge can only be realized by
'ulama who are free from the crippling influence of authority-scholars who enjoy the
confidence of the youth because of the originality of their knowledge and the
impeccability of their religious convictions. In addition, this requires a naturally
conducive atmosphere free from the false promises and intellectual terrorism which prevail
behind closed doors. Furthermore, such transformation cannot be achieved overnight through
lofty inculcation and martial orders. On the contrary, it requires free encounter'
constructive dialogue, and mutual communication, all of which are needed to realize this
goal in the long run. What I wish to emphasize in this respect is the danger of
confronting one form of intellectual extremism with another; that is, confronting
obstinacy with obstinancy, bigotry with bigotry, reacting to a misdeed with another
misdeed. The danger manifests itself, for example, in a tendency to accuse of kufr the
extremists who accuse others of being kufar. Perhaps some of the people who adopt such an
attitude cite the following hadith as evidence of the truth of their claim: "He
himself who accuses a Muslim of kufr commits kafr:' The truth is that if we behave in this
manner, we fall into the same pitfall. However, the hadith under consideration does not
include a Muslim who accuses another Muslim of kufr as a result of judicial
misinterpretation and misunderstanding. This can be demonstrated by authentic ahaith as
well as confirmed events in the lives of the companions (RA'A).
We have a good example in the attitude of the caliph
'Alir
ibn Abu Talib (RA'A) towards the Khawarij who fought him and unjustly accused him of the
kind of repulsive abominations that could not be hurled against an ordinary Muslim, let
alone Ali, the most renowned and courageous Muslim hero, the cousin of the Prophet
(SA'AS)
and his soninlaw. Nonetheless, 'Ali condemned the Khawarij's false and nugatory
allegations without branding them kuffar, as they had done to him. Furthermore, he
accommodated them in the fold of Islam thinking well of their intention.
Hence when the people asked 'AII whether the Khawarij were
kuffar, he replied: "They have escaped kufr...." The people persisted:
"What are they then?" 'Ali answered: "Our brothers in the past who wrong us
today!" This means that the Khawarij are to be judged as those committing baghy, not
as kuffar or murtaddin. Bughat-in this case-are those who do not obey a just Muslim imam
on the basis of a judicial misinterpretation.
If such people are powerful and rebel against the imam, he
should not hasten to fight them, but should send to them people who can rectify their
errors by arguing nicely, wisely, and patiently with them in order to prevent the shedding
of Muslim blood and to preserve Muslim unity If they persist in their attitude and
initiate war, they should be fought until they abide by Allah's command. But during
fighting, those of them who flee from the battlefield should not be persecuted, nor should
their wounded or prisoners of war be killed, their women should not be taken captive, and
their belongings should not be confiscated. They are to be treated as Muslims who are
fought only because they constitute a menance to the Ummah, since the aim is not to
exterminate them but to bring them back to the fold of Islam. Convictions can neither be
altered by force nor by the threat of the sword.
Another instance of' Ali's attitude is worth mentioning as
evidence of the unprecedented level of the freedom of expression-especially that of the
opposition-attained in the early days of Islam; a level which other countries achieved
only many centuries afterwards. The Khawarij dissented because they rejected 'All's
acceptance of arbitration claiming that: "The [command] is only Allah's." Ali
replied to this with his laconic, proverbial saying: "This is a word of truth twisted
in the service of basil." In spite of their opposition to him, 'All told them clearly
and frankly: "We are committed not to prevent you from .salah in mosques, nor from
your share in booty, nor to initiate fighting with you unless you create corruption in the
land (of Islam)." Thus 'All granted the opposition-the
Khawarij-all these rights, although each of them was a
fully trained, armed soldier capable of taking up arms at any moment. It is also worth
pointing out in this respect that although an authentic hadith describes the Khawarij as
dissenters there was a consensus among the 'ulama'to refrain from branding them as
kaffar,
and sanctioned fighting and killing them, and although they themselves have branded all
Muslims kuffar. Al Imam al Shawkani says in Nayl al Awtar:
Most of the Sunni jurists are of the opinion that the Khawarij are Muslims on the basis of
their witnessing that there is no God but Allah and that Muhammad is His Messenger, and
their regular observance of the other pillars of Islam. Their sinfulness is the result of
a reliance on an erroneous interpretation on the basis of which they held all other
Muslims to be kuffar. This led them to proscribe their opponents and to openly accuse them
of kufr and polytheism.
Al Khatabi says:
Although the Khawfirij have strayed from the right path, Muslim 'ulama' are unanimously
agreed that they are an Islamic group. Therefore they have permitted intermarriage with
them and eating the animals they slaughter. Furthermore they should not be considered
kuffar as long as they continue to adhere to the fundamentals of Islam.
'Iyad says:
This was probably the most complicated issue for the mutakallimun until the faqih
'Abd al
Haqq asked Imam Abu al Ma'ali about it. The latter refused to decide, asserting that to
accommodate a kafir in the fold of Islam or to expell a Muslim from it is a very serious
religious matter. 'Iyad added that the qadi Abu Bakr al Baqillani has also refused to
decide, saying that: The people (the Khawarij) did not profess kufr but have uttered
things which can lead to kafr.'
Al Ghazali says in al Tafriqah bayn al iman wa al
Zandiqah:
One has to be extremely cautious about banding people kuffar. To leave a thousand kuffar
alive is less serious a wrong than to shed the blood of one Muslim.
Ibn Battal says:
The majority of 'ulama believe that the Khawarij do not stand outside the fold of Islam.
'All was asked whether the people of Nahrawain (who were Khawfirij) were
kuffar. He
replied: 'They have escaped kufr." Ibn Battal is also of the opinion that the
Khawfirij are to be considered bughat if they dissent and initiate war. The
'ulamat have
agreed that the issue of takfir [to brand people or individuals kaffar] is a dangerous one
with grave consequences.
|
The first duty of the Muslim youth is to rectify their
views and thoughts with a view to knowing their din on the basis of clear evidence and
Understanding and according to a proper methodology. The right start is acquiring the
proper methodology of comprehending Islam, and of dealing with themselves, people and
life.
Historically, Muslim scholars have established certain
principles and methods which have enhanced the proper comprehension, and deduction of
matters and issues whether supported by texts or not. This led to the establishment of the
science of usul al fiqh: a discipline which studies the methodology of deriving laws from
the sources of Islam and of establishing their juristic or constitutional validity. Thus,
they established the principles of the controlling and controlled evidence, the subject
and object of controlling aspects of evidence: the main and the subsidiary, the imperative
and the negative, the general and the particular, the absolute and the restricted, the
pronounced and the comprehend. They also established the total aims of the Shariah, such
as safeguarding people's welfare, counteracting evil and harm; they divided needs into:
essential, necessary and comforts. This is indeed a unique science of which there is no
equal, and of which Muslims have the right to be proud. In addition, there are other
principles and rules of fiqh which may not be available in the books of usul but are found
in various books on usul al tafsir and Qur'anic sciences, as well as usul al hadith, and
Hadith sciences. In addition to these, there are various rules and principles scattered in
books of beliefs, hadith interpretation, and jurisprudence which can be observed by those
who have acquired an insight into the purpose of Shariah and its innermost recesses.
What is required, therefore, is not a shallow understanding
of the texts but rather a deep knowledge and a genuine comprehension of the purposes of
Qur'anic verses and the ahad'ith. The fiqh, the awareness, and the knowledge required must
take the following into consideration
First: Knowledge of and insight into Shariah cannot be complete without
considering all the particular aspects in relation to the general context of the entire
truth of Islam. To issue a judgment a Quranic verse or a hadith must be interpreted in the
light of other ahadith, the Sunnah of the Prophet (.SA'AS) as well as the practice of the
companions (RA'A), and must be understood in the light of the Qur'an and the general
context and purposes of Shariah. Otherwise there will be a defect in this understanding,
and a confusion in deduction and derivation which could create contradictions in Shariah
and subject it to ridicule and to calumniations.
For this reason, Imam al Shatibi set two conditions for
ijtihad: (1) understanding the purposes of Shariah in its totality, and
(2) the ability to derive and to draw conclusions on the basis of this
understanding.' This can only be fulfilled when there is a deep and wide knowledge of the
texts, especially the ahaith and the traditions, in addition to an insight into the
reasons, the events, the circumstances, and the purposes of each text, as well as an
ability to distinguish between the eternal and unalterable and those formulated to meet a
temporary need, an existing custom or tradition, or certain transient circumstances which
can be changed when the latter change.
One day I was lecturing on proper Islamic dress for women, according to the Qur'an and
Sunnah, when a person in the audience said that the hijab mentioned in the Qur'an must
include an additional outer covering. I replied that the hijab is not an end in itself,
but rather a means for decently covering those parts of the body which the Shariah
prohibits to be exposed. In this sense, it can differ from one place and time to another.
But the man shouted furiously that the garment required is very clearly specified in a
Qur'anic text, and we therefore have no right to change it. He cited the following verse:
O Prophet! Tell your wives and daughters and the believing women, that they should cast
their outer garments over their persons (when abroad). That is most convenient, that they
should be known (as such) and not molested.
I replied that the Qur'an sometimes specifies certain means and methods that were suitable
and common at the time of the revelation, but were never meant to become permanently
binding if better or similar ones are found. The following example is sufficient enough to
demonstrate my point. Allah (SWT) said:
Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of
war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies of Allah and your enemies.
The steed is specifically mentioned above because it wasat the time of revelation-one of
the most powerful means known at the time. But there is indeed no reason why Muslims in
our times and in earlier days should not use tanks and armored vehicles to achieve the end
referred to in the above verse, i.e., to strike fear into the hearts of the enemies of
Allah (SWT) and of the enemies of Muslims. Similarly, the woman's outer garment could be
any dress which satisfies the objective expressed in verse that Muslim women should be
recognized and not molested.
If such is the case of the Qurian, which has an eternal and comprehensive nature, it is
only logical that the Sunnah is even more open to such an examination. The Sunnah comprise
a multitude of teachings, the legislative and the nonlegislative, the general and the
specific, the eternal and the changeable: a change necessitated by a change in the reasons
and the exigencies. In issues and matterrelated to eating, drinking, and dressing, for
example, there are legislative as well as nonlegislative Sunnah. Eating with the fingers
rather than with silverware is not compulsory. The former method was more natural and
suitable to the simple life and nature of the Arabs at the time of the Prophet
(SA'AS).
However this does not mean that using a spoon is haram (unlawful) or makruh (condemned or
discouraged), since it is now so widely available that it in no way indicates any
extravagance or excess. But this does not apply to silver or gold tableware, the use of
which has clearly been forbidden. Similarly we have to abide by the injunction to eat with
the right hand as the purpose of this teaching is fundamental and unalterable, and because
it seeks to establish a uniform custom among Muslims, directing them to follow a
righthand approach in everything. The Prophet (SA'AS) ordered us: "Say bism Allah
[before you begin] and eat with your right hand." In another hadith he said:
"None of you should eat or drink with his left hand, because Satan eats and drinks
with his left hand." Furthermore, during the Prophet's time, Muslims had no idea
whatsoever of sieves, which were later known and used to advantage. Could this be regarded
as a prohibited innovation or a hateful practice? of course not.
Another example is the issue of wearing a short thawb (garment), which pious young Muslims
adhere to and insist on wearing despite the problems which it creates for them, as if it
was one of the fundamentals of Islam. These young people put forth two arguments:
(1) The dress has to be a short thawb because this is the type of dress the
Prophet (SA'AS) and his companions (RAA) used. They further believe that other costumes
lead us to imitate the kufar, a practice prohibited in Islam; and (2) It has to be short because there are ahadith which prohibit wearing
belowtheankle izar or thawb such as: "The part of an izar which hangs below the
ankles is in the Fire. With regard to the first argument, the Prophet's Sunnah knawn to us
is that he wore whatever was available to him. For this reason, he wore shirts, robes, and
izars. The Prophet (SA'AS) also wore garments and garbs made in the Yemen and Persia,
which were embroidered on the sides with silk. He also wore Tmarnah (cap) with or without
a turban. Al Imam Ibn al Qayyim says in Al Hady al Nabaw':
The best guidance is the Sunnah of the Prophet (SA'AS), the things he regularly
practised,
ordered, and encouraged people to do. His sunnah in dressing is that he used to wear
whatever was available for him whether made of cotton, wool, or linen. He is known to have
worn cloaks from the Yemen, green cloaks, jubbah, garments with fulllength sleeves,
shirts, pants and robes, shoes and slippers. . . He used, sometimes, to grow a plait in
the back.
The textile industry was unknown then, so people used to
wear clothes imported from the Yemen, Egypt, and Syria. In our time, we wear- without any
inhibition-underwear, head coverings, shoes, etc., which were unknown during the Prophet's
time. Why then this excessive fuss about the thawb in particular?
As for the argument of imitating the kuffar, we are actually prohibited from imitating
their distinguishing characteristics as followers of other religions-such as sporting
the cross, wearing ecclesiastical costumes, celebrating nonMuslim festivals, all of
which indicate adherence to a different religion. Ibn Taimiyah explained all this in
detail in his book: Iqti'al Sirat al Mustaqim fi Mukhalafat Ahl al Jahim. With the
exception of such conspicuous matters, judgment is made on the basis of intention and
purpose. If a Muslim deliberately imitates the kuffar, he would be held blameworthy on the
basis of his intention. But if a person unintentionally does things which the kuffar do,
or chooses something which is easier for him, or for his job such as wearing the
"overalls" by a factory worker or an engineer, he is not to be held blameworthy.
Nonetheless, it is more becoming of a Muslim to distinguish himself from nonMuslims in
all material and spiritual matters to the best of his ability. The gist of the matter is
that wearing a short thawb is more desirable' but wearing a long one is not prohibited if
it is just a habit and is not meant to show arrogance, as has already been pointed out.
All the examples given above pertain to purely personal behavior. In that capacity they
are less serious than the issues related to the community as a whole, the affairs of the
state, and international relations which are more complex and constitute a danger to the
community, the state, and humanity at large in the absence of an insightful jurisprudence
which takes into consideration the proper dimensions of human needs and social interests.
When we ca]l for the resumption of a true Islamic lifestyle and the establishment of a
truly Islamic society led by an Islamic state, we must recognize the fact that we live in
a world in which human relations are interrelated and complex, ideologies are numerous,
distances are shrinking, and barriers are beginning to collapse. It is a world that has
become smaller than ever before due to unprecedented technological progress We must also
take into consideration the fact that the community includes the powerful and the weak,
men and women, adults and children, the righteous and the transgressor. This diversity
must be taken into consideration when we seek to guide, legislate, or give
fatiawa.
A Muslim who seeks Allah's pleasure may choose to place restrictions on himself and stick
to the most extreme and cautious opinions in his endeavor. He can deprive himself of all
the means of entertainment such as singing, music, photography, television, etc. But can
any modern state afford to do without these? Can any effective journalism do without
photography? Can any ministry of Interioror passport office, immigration or traffic
department-or an educational institution do without photography which has become the most
important means of discovering and preventing crimes and forgery? Can any contemporary
state ignore the times it exists in and deprive its subjects of the invaluable services of
television and rely only on the radio, on the grounds that television depends upon
photography which is haram as some students of "religious education" argue these
days?
In short, what I wish to emphasize here is that a person's restrictions on himself may be
tolerated and accepted, but it would be intolerable and indeed unacceptable to force these
restrictions upon the various groups in the community as a whole. The Prophet said:
Whoever leads people in salah should shorten it because among them are the weak, the old,
and those who have business to attend to. This guidance on leading people in salah is also
applicable to leading people in any aspect of life.
One of the most serious problems is the failure of some religious people to take account
the fact that the ahkam of Shaniah are not equally important or permanent, and therefore
different interpretations can be permitted. There are hypothetical judgments which mainly
deal with transactions, customs' and manners. These are open to ijtihad.
Disagreement-based on authentic ijtihad-on these issues represents no harm or threat. On
the contrary, it is a blessing on the Ummah, and demonstrates flexibility in Shariah and a
spaciousness in fiqh. There were indeed differences of opinion and disagreement among the
Prophet's companions (RA'A)-as well as their successors on various issues. But such
disagreement never caused or created illfeelings or disunity among them.
On the other hand, there are a.hkam dealing with matters of faith, belief, and
'ibadah
which are firmly established in the Qurian and Sunnah and ijma'(consesus), and which have
become definitive and categorical. Although they are not requirements of din, they
represent the intellectual and behavioral unity of the Ummah. Deviation from these ahkam
is a deviation from Sunnah: it is sinfulness, prohibited bida (innovation), and could lead
to kufr. In addition, there are those a,hkam which must be necessarily known and obvious
toall people, learned or otherwise. Rejection of these ahkam is a clear denial of Allah
(SWT) and of His Prophet (.SA'AS). There should be differention between ahkam based on
fundamental or subsidiary issues, whether proven textually or by ijtihad; there should
also be differentiation between the categorial and the hypothetical ahkam in texts, and
between the necessary and the unecessary ahkam in din. Each has its status.
Our great fuqaha have differed widely in their interpretation of some issues, and one can
indeed ftnd various opinions on a single issue. There is disagreement, for example, on the
heinous sin of murdering a Muslim under duress. Should the punishment fall upon the
murderer or upon one who compelled him to do it? or should it fall upon both or neither,
since the crime was not completely premeditated and committed by a single person? All
these possibilities were voiced and supported by some fuqaha' Even within each madhhab we
find different opinions, narrations, ways, and approaches among the 'ulama' Suffice it to
say that the subject of that disagreement within Imam Ahmad's madhhab-which is established
on and follows tradition-has included enough opinions and narration to fill a
twelvevolume book, al In.saf fi al Rajih min al Khilaf.
In view of this, young Muslims should be fully aware of the issues which are open to
disagreement and those which are not. But more importantly' they should know the standard
norms of behavior practised in settling differences and disagreements. They must learn
adab al khilaf (ethics of disagreement),'! which we have inherited from our a'immah and
'ulama' We must learn from them how to be openminded and tolerant toward those with whom
we disagree about subsidiary religious matters. How can we differ and disagree yet remain
united brothers who love and respect each other and who refrain from exchanging
accusations? First of all, we must realize that disagreements on marginal and subsidiary
matters and issues are natural. There is indeed a Divine wisdom in making a few a,hkam in
Shari'ah categorical in both their definitiveness and meaning, and in making hypothetical
ones which constitute the bulk of a,hkam and on which there is broad scope for fruitful
disagreement.
It is a blessing that Allah (SWT) has bestowed on some
Muslim ulama' the ability to ascertain, to examine closely, and to decide on matters of
disagreement without prejudice against any madhhab or opinion. These include the following
a'immah: Ibn Daqiq al 'Id, Ibn Taymiyah, Ibn Qayyim, Ibn Kathir, Ibn Hajar al 'Asqalai, al
Dahlawi, al Shawkani, al San'ani, and others. But differences are bound to arise and
continue because they are deeply rooted in the nature of man, life, language and -Divine
commandment. Attempts to eradicate these differences will fail, because they will actually
be battling against human nature, against life, against all sunan. As we have already
mentioned, disagreement based on authentic ijtihad which does not create discord or
disunity is a blessing for the Ummah and an enrichment of fiqh. Objective disagreement in
itself poses no threat if it is coupled with tolerance and openmindedness, and if it is
free from fanaticism, accusations, and narrowmindedness. The Prophet's Companions differed
among themselves on many issues and practical a,hkam, but they still never condemned one
another and had very cordial and strong relations. 'Umar ibn 'Abd al 'Aziz said: "I
never wished that the Prophet's companions had rot had disagreements. Their disagreement
was a mercy."
Different interpretations even emerged during the life of
the Prophet (SA'AS). These were sanctioned by him, and he did not single out one party or
group for blame. Immediately after the battle of the Akzab, the Prophet (.SAAS) said to
his Companions: 'whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day must not perform ,salat al asr
until he has reached [the dwellings of] Banu Qurayzah. Some of the Companions found. This
practically impossible, and therefore performed salat al Asr before reaching their
destination. Otherswho were literalists-only performed salah when they reached the
dwellings of Banu Qurayzah as the Prophet (SA'AS) had asked them. When the Prophet
(SA'AS)
was told, he approved of the action of both parties although one of them must have been
wrong.
This clearly indicates that there is no sin in acting upon
an interpretation which is based on solid evidence, sincere genuine intention and ijtihad.
Ibn al Qayyim described those who applied the essence of ahadith as Ahl al Qiyas (analogy
applicants) and those who applied the letter of a,hadith as Zahiriyah (literalists).
Unfortunately, there are people these days who not only
assume that they know the whole truth and all the answers, but who also try to coerce
other people to follow them, believing that they can eradicate all madhahib and
disagreements and unite all people in one single stroke. They tend to forget that their
own understanding and interpretation of the texts are no more than hypotheses which may be
right or wrong. Moreover, no human (i.e., no 'alim) is infallible, even though he may
satisfy all the conditions and requisities of ijtihad. All that is certain is the reward
he will obtain for his ijtihad, whether it was right or wrong, should the intention be
sincere. Therefore, such people would achieve nothing except the creation of an additional
madhhab! It is strange and absurd that while they disapprove of people's adherence to
different madhahib, they themselves try to persuade people to imitate them and follow
their new madhhab.
No one should jump to the conclusion that I reject their
call for adherence to the texts or their own interpretations and understanding. This is
absolutely the right granted to everyone who can fulfill the conditions of ijtihad and its
means. No one has the right to close the gates of ijtihad which were opened by the Prophet
(SA'AS) for the whole Ummah What I do reject is their selfpresumption, arrogance,
vanity, and disregard for the findings of their learned predecessors, their disrespect for
the fifh we have inherited from our great forebears. I reject their false claim that they
alone are right, as well as their erroneous impression that they can eliminate disparity
and disagreement and unite people on one opinion-their own.
One of the followers of this "oneopinion"
school asked me once why all Muslims should not agree on the juristic opinion supported by
the text I replied that the text first has to be authentic and accepted by all, its
meaning has to be plain, and it should not be contradicted by another text, whether
stonger or similar in evidence. There should be full agreement as regards the three
preceding points. A text may be regarded as authentic by an imam, but another imam may see
it as weak or as authentic but without proven evidence justifying its given meaning; a
text may be regarded as general by an imam but as particular by another, or it may be seen
as absolute or restricted; it may also be regarded as categorrical or abrogated. Such
variance leads to producing different ahkam i.e. something may be wajib or haram,
mustahabb or makruh. In short all these difference fall within the considerations pointed
out by Ibn Taymiyah in his book, Raf al Malam an al A'immat al A'lam, and mentioned by
Waliy Allah al Dahlaw' in his book, .Hujjat Allah al Balighah, and in his, al Insaf fi
Asbab al Ikhtilaf, and detailed by al Shaykn 'Al. al Khafif in his book, Asbab Ikhtilaf al
Fuqaha' Let us consider the following ahadah:
1. "Any woman who wears a gold necklace will be made to wear a
similar one [made] of fire on the Day of Judgment. And any woman who wears gold earrings
will have a similar one [made of fire] on the Day of Judgment.
2. "Whoever desires his beloved to wear a ring [made] of fire [on
the Day of Judgment], let him give him [her] [to wear] a gold ring. And whoever desires
his beloved to wear a necklace [made] of fire [on the Day of Judgment], let him give him
[her] [to wear] a gold necklace. And whoever desires his beloved to wear a bracelet [made]
of fire [on the Day of Judgment], let him give him [her][to wear] a gold bracelet. But you
can do whatever you please with silver.
3. It is also related by Thawban (RA'A) that the Prophet (SA'AS) warned
his daughter Fatimah (RA'A) against wearing a gold chain. In response, she sold it, bought
a slave with the money, and set him free. When the Prophet (SA'AS) was told of this, he
said: "Thanks to Allah (SWT) who rescued Fatimah from the Fire.
Justists have different attitudes toward these ahadith:
1. Some have examined their isnad and, finding them weak, rejected
them and considered them insufficiant for prohibition, which requires clear cut evidence
and careful investigation, especially with respect to matters of general concern and which
Muslims have generally accepted.
2. Others have agreed that the isnad is correct but that the ahadith
have been revoked because other evidence in other sources have permitted women to adorn
themselves with gold. Al Bayhaqi and others have reported the consensus on this matter
which has been accepted in fiqh and become a standard practice.
3. Some considered the ahadith applicable to those who have not given
zakah on the gold they have, basing their opinion on other ahadith which have not,
themselves, escaped criticism. Furthermore. zakah on women's jewellery is a subject of
disagreement among the different madhahib.
4. Some jusrists argue that these ahaith seek to warn women who vainly
adorn themselves with gold, deliberately intending to draw attention to their wealth. Al
Nasal also reported some ahadith which are relevant to this issue under the title: Bab al
Karahiyah li al Nisa'.fi Ihar Hilal Dhahab (Disapproval of Women's Display of Golden
Jewelry). Other jurists say that they are related only to excessive adornment out of
vanity or pride.
5. In our own times, Shaykh Nasir al Din al Albani has come out with an
opinion different from the consensus on permitting women to adorn themselves with gold,
which has been accepted by all madhahib for the last fourteen centuries. He not only
believes that the isnad of these ahadith is authentic, but that these texts are
categorical in this matter; i.e. prohibiting gold rings and earrings. In this he disagreed
with the consensus of the fiqh of all madhahib and the practice of the Ummah throughout
the past fourteen hundred years.
Has the existence of these ahadith prevented disagreement
on their authenticity or guidance? Can the modern "traditionalist school"
eradicate disagreement and unite all people on one opinion on the basis of ahadith or a
tradition which they use as evidence? The answer is clear enough: people will continue to
disagree and differ amongst themselves, and this will, in shaa Allah, pose no danger or
problem. Allah ta 'ala says: "To each is a goal to which Allah turns him".
In this respect, I feel inclined to admit that the
religious leader who, in this age, has understood the essence and ethics of disagreements
was hasan al Banna (d. 1949). He brought up his followers to believe in and adhere to
these ethics. Despite his unflinching commitment to the cause of Muslim solidarity and his
sincere efforts to unite the various Muslim groups and make them agree at least on minimum
Islamic concepts and principals, as is clear from his own known work al Usul al
'Ishrun,
he was convinced of the inevitability of disagreement on the subsidiary issues and the
practical ahkam of Islam. This he has eloquently discussed in many of his messages which
have proved to be useful In Dawatuna (Our Da'wah), al Banna spoke of the characteristics
of his da'wah as being general ones which neither patronize a particular sect nor advocate
a particular line of thought. Interest is in the core of din and its essence; it hopes
that all endeavors are united so that a more fruitful work can be done to produce greater
results; it supports truth everywhere; it likes consensus and dislikes eccentricity; it
attributes a great deal of the mishaps which have befallen Muslims to misguided
disagreement and to disunity; it believes that love and unity are the major factor of
their victories, and that the only hope for invigorating and revitalizing the presentday
Ummah lies in reviving and adopting the practice of the early generations of Muslims. But,
in spite of his strong belief in the necessity of unity and dislike of disunity, al Banna
wrote:
We believe that disagreements on subsidiary religious issues are inevitable for various
reasons, the most important of which are:
Intellectual differences resulting from the level of intelligence and depth of knowledge,
the multiplicity and interrelatedness of the facts, and the inherent ambiguities of the
Arabic language which are bound to affect the interpretation of the texts. In all these
people are different, and therefore disagreement is inevitable.
The abundance of the sources of knowledge in some parts of
the Islamic world and their scarcity in other places is also an important factor. Malik
said to Abu Ja'far: "The Prophet's companions scattered into remote regions, each
group possessing specific knowledge. If you were to force them to follow one opinion you
would create fitnah.
There are also cultural differences. Al Shafi'i (RA'A) used to give different fatawa in
accordance with the different conditions prevailing in Iraq and in Egypt. In both cases he
used to base his verdict upon what he believed to be truth.
The opinion of the imam toward the narrator is another factor. One imam may consider a
narrator fully reliable, but another may have doubts about the same narrator and
consequently refrain from taking what he has transmitted in full confidence.
Also, a cause of difference lies in assessing the evidence
of ahkam; some give precedence to people's practices over ahadith narrated through by one
single narrator, etc.
For these reasons we believe that a consensus on subsidiary religious matters is not only
impossible but incompatible with the nature of din, because such a demand is bound to
generate rigidity and excessiveness, which are contrary to the Islamic imperatives of
flexibility, facilitation, and simplicity. Doubtless, these virtues will enable Islam to
meet the requirements of all times.
Furthermore, we understand the reasons of those who
disagree with us on subsidiary and marginal issues. Such disagreement does not affect our
mutual love or cooperation, as we are all contained within the comprehensiveness of Islam.
Aren't we all Muslim, required to like for our Muslim brothers what we like for ourselves?
Why disagreement then, and why cannot each of us have our different opinions, and also try
to reach an agreement, if possible, in an atmosphere of candor and love?
The companions of the Prophet (SA'AS) had disagreed in
fatwa, but that did not create any disunity or rupture. The incident of the salah and Banu
Qurayzah is a case in point. If these who have known the ahkam better than us have had
their disagreements, isn't it absurd that we maliciously disagree with each other on
frivolous matters? If our a'immah, who more than any one else know the Qur'an and
Sunnah,
have had their disagreements and their debates, why cannot we do the same? If there was
disagreement on even clear and wellknown subsidiary issues, such as the
fivetimesaday adhan, which were supported by texts and by tradition, what about the
more delicate issues which are subject to opinion and deduction?
We also need to remember that during the time of the
Caliphate, disagreements were referred to, and settled by, the
Caliph. Since there are no caliphs these days, Muslims must
find a judge to which they can refer their case. Otherwise, their disagreement will lead
to another disagreement.
Finally, our brothers are fully aware of all this and have consequently more patience and
openmindedness. They believe that each group of people has specific knowledge and that
in each da'wah there are elements of truth as well as falsity. They carefully investigate
the truth and accept it, and they try with amicability to convince those who are wrong. If
the latter are convinced it is indeed very good, but if they are not they remain our
Muslim brothers. We ask Allah to guide us and to guide them.
The above is a brief summary of Imam al Bannas views on
juristic disagreements and his attitude toward them. It clearly shows his deep knowledge
of Islam, of history, and of reality.
I would also like to relate an ancident in al Bannas life-which could have been the
experience of other 'ulama'as well-to illustrate these concepts and views. One day during
Ramadan, al Banna was invited to deliver a lecture in a small village in Egypt. The people
in that village were divided into two groups which held different opinions regarding the
number of raka 'at in salat al tarawih. One group argued that according to the tradition
of' Umar ibn al Khattab (RA'A), they should be twenty. The other group insisted that they
must be eight, maintaining that it was known that the Prophet (SA'AS) never exceeded this
number at any time. Accordingly, each group accused the other of bidah, and their
disagreement reached a dangerous level, almost leading to open physical conflict. When al
Banna arrived they agreed to refer the matter to him.
The way he handled this event is instructive to all of us. He first asked: "What is
the juristic status of salat al tarawih?" The answer was: "A
sunnah, and those
who perform it are rewarded, those who do not are not punished." He then asked:
"And what is the juristic status of brotherhood among Muslims?" The people
replied: "fard [Obligatory], and it is one of the fundamentals of Iman." He then
concluded: "Is it therefore logical or permissible according to Shariah to abandon
afard for a sunnah?. He then told them that if they preserved their brotherhood and unity
and each went home and performed salat al tarawIh according to his own genuine conviction,
it would indeed be far better then arguing and quarreling.
When I mentioned this to some people, they said that al Bannas action was evasivean
escape from the truth, i.e., from pointing out the difference between a sunnah and a
bidah. This, they insisted, is the duty of a Muslim. I replied that this is a matter where
there is room for different opinions, and that although I perform eight raka 'at, I do not
accuse those performing twenty of bidah. They persisted that making a decision on such
matters is a duty which a Muslim must not evade. I insisted that this is true when the
choice is between halal and haram, but in matters on which the juristic schools of thought
have had their disagreements and, consequently, each one of us his own view, there is no
need for bigotry or zealotry.
Many fair Muslim ulama have clearly sanctioned this. The
following quotation is from one of the .Hanabilah books entitled Sharh Ghayat al
Muntaha:
Whoever rejects an opinion reached by ijtihad does so because of his ignorance of the
status of the mujtahidun who will be rewarded, be they right or wrong, for their
laborious, timeconsuming findings in this respect. Those who follow them commit no sin,
because Allah has ordained for each of them that to which his ijtihad had led him, and
which becomes part of the Shariiah in that respect. There is an example in the permission
to eat, out of dire necessity only, the meat of a dead animal. However, this is prohibited
for a person who deliberately chooses to do so. Both of these are wellestablished juristic
verdicts.
Ibn Taymiyah says in al Fatawa al Misriyah:
Consideration of unity [among Muslims] is the right course. The basmalah can be uttered
loudly to fulfill a commendable interest. It is also advisable to abandon the preferable
in order to create harmony and intimacy, just as the Prophet (SA'AS) gave up the
rebuilding of the Ka'bah [on the foundations laid down by Ibrahim] so as not to alienate
1the people of Makkah]. The a immah, like Imam Ahmad, are of this opinion with regard to
the basmalah, to replace the preferable with the acceptable in order to preserve unity.
Ibn Taymiyah referred to the following hadith with regard to the building of the
Ka'bah.
The Prophet (SA'AS) said to 'Aishah (RA'A): "Had your ople not been in jahilyah (the
attitudes and mentality of preIslamic time) until recently, I would have rebuilt the
Ka'bah on the foundations [laid] by Ibrahim."
Ibn al Qayyim also discussed the issue of qunut in Salat alfujr. Some people have
considered qunut as bidah, others as supererogatory to be practised in times of hardships
as well as other times. In his book Zad a1 Ma'ad, he argues that the Prophet's Sunnah
sanctions qunut during the times of hardship, and that this has been accepted by hadith
scholars who follow what the Prophet (SA'AS) did. They therefore did qanut at the times
the Prophet (SA'AS) is known to have done qunut and abstained from it at the times he is
known to have abstained from qunut They see qunut as a sunnah and abstaining from it as
also a sunnah Therefore they neither object to those who continually do qanut or to those
who abstain from it, and they do not consider it bidah. Ibn al Qayyim writes:
A proper posture to ask Allah's blessings and to offer thanks to Him is when a person
stands up after kneeling in Salah. The Prophet (SA'AS) did both in this posture. It is
acceptable for the imam to utter qunut prayers these loudly so that the people behind him
can hear. 'Umar ibn al Khatt.ab raised his voice when reciting the Fatihah, and so did Ibn
'Abbas during the salah for the dead in order to let people know that it is sunnah to do
so. Such practices are subject to acceptable disagreement; neither those who do them nor
those who refrain are blameworthy: the same applies to raising the hands during
Salah, the
various ways of tashahhud, adhan, iqamah, as well as the types of hajj as
ifrad, qiran and tamattu'
Our purpose is only to mention the Prophet's Sunnah, which
is our guiding principle in this book and which we seek to investigate. Having said that,
I wish to point out that I have not tried to deal with what is permissible and what is
not. Our concern is with the permissible practice which the Prophet (SA'AS) used to choose
for himself, and which is the best and most perfect. If we say that there is no indication
in his Sunnah that he consistently performed qunut during Salat ul Fajr or uttered the
basmalah loudly, this does not mean or indicate that we should consider consistency in
performing them as makruh? or bidah. It only means that his guidance is the best and most
perfect.
Moreover, an individual is permitted to continue his salah
behind an imam of a different madhhab even if he believes that the latter has done
something which nullifies his ablution, or makes his salah nugatory, if the imam's madhhab
permits that. Ibn Taymiyah says in al Fawakih al Adidah:
Muslims are unanimous on the admissibility of performing Salah behind each other as was
the practice of the Companions and the Tabi'un, as well as that of the four great jurists
of Islam. Whoever rejects this practice is a straying mabtadi' who deviates from the
teaching of the Quran, Sunnah, and the consensus of the Muslims.
Although some of the companions and the Tabiun uttered the basmalah loudly and other did
not, they nevertheless continued to perform Salah behind each other. So did Abu Hanifah
and his followers, as well as al Shafi'i and others who used to perform salah behind the
Malikiyah in Madinah, although the latter did not utter the basmalah, neither loudly nor
in their hearts. It is said that Abu Yusuf performed Salah behind al Rashid who had been
cupped.'9 Because al Imam Malik has given afatwa that there is no need to renew ablutions
in thicase, Abu Yusuf continued his salah behind al Rashid.
However, Ahmad ibn Hanbal was of the opinion that ablution
must be done after cupping and nosebleeding. Confronted with a hypothetical situation
whether a member of the congregation who notices a discharge of blood from the imam, who
does not renew his ablution, should continue his Salah behind him, Ibn Hanbal said:
"It is inconceivable not to perform Salah behind Said ibn al Musayyab and
Malik." He then added that there are two considerations in this issue:
(1) If the man is not aware of anything that
invalidates the imam's Salah he should continue behind him. This is agreed upon by the
forebears and the four great jurists; and (2) If he was sure that
the imam has done something which renders him impure, such as touching his genitals or
women out of sexual desire, cupping or vomiting, and did not renew his ablution, he then
must act according to his best judgment, because this is an issue about which there is a
great deal of disagreement. The majority of our forebears are of the opinion that the
salah of those behind such an imam is valid. This is the opinion of Malik's
madhhab, but a
second opinion in al Shafi is and Abu Hanifah's. Most of Ahmad's texts support this
opinion, which is the correct one.
|
Knowledge of, end fiqh in, din help in the assessment of
the value as well as the status, in the Shariah, of actions and duties which have their
specific place in the scale of the commandments and the prohibitions. Such knowledge
prevents any confusion regarding status, variations, or similarities concerning the
juristic value of actions. Islam has given a specific value to each specific action
according to its positive influence on life or according to the degree of damage and
negative effect which it may create.
Among the commandments there is the mustahabb, (the commendable) action, the neglect of
which is not punishable but the performance of which is rewardable. There is also the
confirmed Sunnah of the Prophet (SA'AS) such as things which he always did, never
neglected, but did not categorically command others to do. The companions (RAA) used to
neglect some of these to prove that they were not wajib. For this reason, both Abu Bakr
and 'Umar used to refrain from offering dhabihah (animal sacrifice). Another type of wajib
according to some madhahib, is that which is commanded but not categorically ordained.
Fard is that which is categorically and unequivocally obligatory and whose performance is
rewarded and negligence punished; failure to observe it is fisq, sinfulness, or iniquity;
failure to believe in it is kufr.
It is common knowledge that fard is classified into two
categories: fard kifayah (collective obligation), and fard ayn (individual obligation).
The individual obligation has to be performed by each Muslim. The collective obligation,
on the other hand, entails no punishment on those who have not participated in it if
others have done so. Individual obligations are further classified. The most important are
those faraid which are considered in Islam fundamental articles of faith: the shahadah-
i.e., the act of witnessing that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is His
Prophet, Servant, and Messenger, the verbal content of that act-salah, zakah, siyam, and
hajj for those who can afford the journey. There are other fara'id of a lesser status than
the aforementioned, but they are still absolutely compulsory. There is no doubt that Islam
gives precedence to fard ayn over fard kifayah. Thus kindness and submission to parents,
which is fard ayn has precedence over jihad, as long as it is fard kifayah. A son is
therefore not allowed to participate in jihad without the prior consent and permission of
the parents. This is enshrined in authentic ahadith. Moreover, a fard ayn which is
connected with the rights of the community has precedence over another fard ayn which is
connected with the rights of an individual, or a number of individuals, like jihad and
devotion to parents. Therefore in the case of foreign aggression against a Muslim land,
jihad becomes fard ayn with a precedence over the rights of parents. Further, fard has
precedence over wajib, wajib over sunnah, and confirmed sunnah over mustahabb. Islam also
gives precedence to acts of common social nature over those which concern individual
kinship, and prefers acts which benefit more than one person to those which only benefit
an individual. For this reason Islam prefers jihad and fiqh over personal 'ibadah,
reconciliation between warring parties over voluntary salah, siyam, and sadaqah.
Similarly, "a just ruler is rewarded more for his adherence to justice for a single
day than he is for his performance of voluntary 'ibadah for sixty years".
Some of the grave mistakes committed by Muslims during the
period of decline and decadence are outlined below:
1. They neglected-to a great extentthe collective duties of concern
to the whole Ummah such as scientific, industrial, and military advancement and
excellence, without which Muslims cannot attain strength or power. They neglected
ijtihfid, inference of ahkam, da'wah, and the opposition to unjust rulers.
2. They also neglected some individual fard ayn obligations, or at
least underrated their value, such as the obligation on every Muslim to command the common
good and to prohibit evil and the undesirable.
3. They gave more attention to some of the fundamental pillars of
faith at the expense of others; thus they paid more attention to Siyam during Ramadan than
Salah. That is why those who offered Siyam were more than those who performed
Salah,
especially among the women. There were indeed those who never prostrated before Allah
(SWT) in prayer.
Moreover, there were those who gave more attention to salah that zakah, although Allah
(SWT) combined both in twentyeight places in the Quran, which made some of the
Companions (RA'A) said that "The salah of a person who does not give zakah is
invalid.' And it is for this reason that Abu Bakr al Siddiq swore to declare war on those
who failed to equate between salah with zakah.
4. They attached more importance to some nawafil (supererogulataries)
than they did to furud or wajibat. This can be observed in the practice of the Sufis, who
concentrate on rituals, dhikr, and tasbih and neglect collective duties such as
condemnation of corruption and resistance to social and political injustice.
5. They paid more attention to individual 'ibadah, such as salah and
dhikr, and neglected the collective 'ibadah such as jihad, fiqh, reconciliation between
people, and cooperation in the dissemination of righteousness, piety, compassion, and
tolerance.
6. Finally, most people attached a great deal of importance to
subsidiary matters at the expense of fundamental issues such as belief, Iman, and tawhid
(unization of God), as well as the goal of moral and spiritual efforts, i.e., the seeking
of Allah's pleasure.
The prohibitions are classified into the following: those
which are makruhat (hateful) but do not entail punishment; those which are detested but
not categorically prohibited and are therefore nearer to haram than halal. The
mutashabihat (doubtful) are those not known to many people and are therefore committed out
of ignorance. Those who commit then commit haram. The categorical haram (unlawful
prohibitions) are those detailed in the Qur'an and Sunnah. Allah (SWT) says: "Why
should you not eat of [meats] on which Allah's name has been pronounced, when He has
explained to you in detail what is forbidden to you?.
These prohibitions are divided into two: major and minor.
The minor ones can be expiated by the performance of religious devotions such as
salah, siyam, and charity. We learn in the Qur'an that "Good deeds remove those that are
evil. In the Prophet's traditions we learn that constant adherence to the five daily
salawat, salat al jumuah, and siyam, during Ramadan expiates whatever minor sins a person
may commit in between if he avoids the major ones. Those can only expiated by genuine
repentance. The worst of these sins is shirk-the association of other beings with
A(SWT)-a
sin which is never forgiven:
Allah does not forgive that partners should be set up with Him; but He forgives anything
else to whom He pleases; to set up partners with Allah is to devise a sin most heinous
indeed.
Next in order are sins mentioned in ahdith such as:
disobedience to parents, bearing false witness, sorcery, murder, usury, taking liberty
with the property and money of orphans, and false accusationespecially of fornication-of
chaste Muslim women. Defectiveness and confusion have resulted from the following:
1. People are more busy trying to stem makruhat or
mutashabihat than maharramat and the negligence of wajibat. Also, their concern is for
those matters on which there is disagreement as to whether they are halal or haram, rather
than those matters which are categorically haram.
2. Many people are too absorbed in trying to resist
the minor rather than the major and mortal sins such as fortunetelling, sorcery,
consecration, using the tombs of certain people as places of salah and
ibadah, making
animal sacrifices for dead people, seeking help from the dead and so on. Such sins
contaminate the purity of tawhid.
Similarly, people, i.e., individual Muslims, are different.
Some religious youth commit a gross mistake when they look at and treat people as if they
were similar and equal in their knowledge, endurance, iman, etc., and therefore fail to
distinguish between the people at large and the learned and committed Muslim; between
those who have only recently embraced Islam and those whose beliefs are wellestablished;
between the weak and the strong; in spite of the fact that there is room in Islam for
every one of these according to their status and their readiness. In recognition of these
natural differences, Islam provides opportunities for perseverance and facility,
fara'id,
and nawafil, and the obligatory and the voluntary. Hence Allah (SWT) says:
Then We have given the Book for inheritance to such of our servants as We have chosen: but
there are among them some who wrong their own souls; some who follow a middle course; and
some who are by Allah's leave, foremost in good deeds. That is the highest grace.
In this respect, the person who wrongs himself has been
defined as he who commits prohibitions and whose observance of the obligatory duties is
incomplete. And the person who follows a middle course is he who performs only the
obligatory duties and eschews prohibitions. The person who is foremost in good deeds"
is he ``who, in addition to performing the obligatory as well as the recommended, eschews
not only prohibitions, but also the recommended against as well as the doubtful acts All
these types of people, including the person who wrongs himself are included in the fold of
Islam, and belong to the chosen Islamic Ummah to whom Allah (SWT) has given the Quran:
"Then We have given the Book for inheritance to such of Our servants as We have
chosen. It is therefore wrong and indeed nonsensical to exclude people from the fold of
Islam and the Ummah simply because they have wronged themselves. It is equally wrong to
fail to recognize and admit such classification and to treat people as if they are all
foremost in good deeds Consequently, enthusiastic young Muslims should not hasten to
accuse other Muslims of fisq, to show animosity and antipathy toward them simply because
they have committed some minor sins or some acts on which judgment is obscure and on which
there is contradicting evidence, and which cannot therefore be considered as absolutely
haram. In their own sincerity to their cause, these young people have forgotten that the
Qur'an has clearly distinguished between minor and major sins or faults: the former do not
exclude the Muslim from the fold of Islam and can be expiated by eschewing the latter.
Allah (SWT) says:
Yes, to Allah belongs all that is in the heavens and on earth. He rewards those who do
evil according to their deeds, and He rewards those who do good with what is best. Those
who avoid great sins and shameful deeds, only [falling into] small faults, verily, your
Lord is ample in forgiveness.The core of the principle for tolerating small faults or sins
lies in the interpretation of the Arabic word Iamam (small faults). There are two
important interpretations of Iamam which we must not overlook. Ibn Kathir says the
following is his own interpretation of verses 255256 in Surat al Nisa':
The word muhsinun has been interpreted to mean those who
avoid great sins and shameful deeds, i.e., the major prohibitions. If such people commit
small faults, Allah will forgive and protect them, as He promised in another verse:
"If you [but] eschew the most heinous of the things which you are forbidden to do, we
shall expel out of you all the evil in you, end admit you to a gate of great honor. Those
who avoid great sins and shameful deeds only commit small faults, which is a clear
exclusion since small faults lamam are subcategories of minor sins and shameful acts.
Ibn Kathir then mentioned the following: Ibn
'Abbas said,
"I have not come across things which are closer to lamam than in the following hadith
narrated by Abu Hurayrah:
Allah has decreed for Adam s son [Man] his share of fornication which he will inevitably
commit. The fornication of the eye is the gaze [to look at things which a person is
forbidden]; the fornication of the tongue is the utterance; the inner self wishes and
desires, and the private parts testify to this or deny it.
Hence, Ibn Mas'ud and Abu Hurayrah say that lamam includes gazing, winking, kissing, and
approaching sexual intercourse without committing actual fornication.
The other interpretation of lamam is also related by Ibn
Abbas to mean a person who commits a shameful deed but repents of it. He then quoted a
line of a verse which can be paraphrased to mean: "Allah, O Your Forgiveness is
plenteous, because there is no one among Your servants who does not commit small faults.
Abu Hurayrah and al Hasan supported the above. Some also argue that lamam are those which
are committed by a person without seriously giving them consideration, and not very often.
All this means is that there is enough room in Islam for everyone who does not
persistently commit great sins, because Allah's mercy extends to all those who repent.
One of the most instructive Islamic examples for teaching
people how to overlook the small mistakes and faults of those who perform the obligatory
duties, as man is not infallible nor an angel, comes from the attitude of 'Umar ibn al
Khattab (RA'A). It is related23 that some people went to Abd Allah ibn'Umar when he was in
Egypt and told him that they observed that many teachings of the Qur'an were not being
adhered to by their contemporaries, and wanted to question the Caliph, 'Umar ibn al
Khattab, about this matter. 'Abd Allah then took. them to 'Umar (RA'A) in Madinah. When
'Umar met 'Abd Allah, the latter informed him of the purpose of the visit and of the
people who came with him. 'Umar (RA`A) then asked Abd Allah to arrange for a meeting. When
the people from Egypt came to the meeting, 'Umar (RA'A) turned to the nearest of them and
said: "Tell me truly, have you read the whole Qur'an?" The man answered in the
affirmative. Umar then asked him, consecutive questions: "Have you yourself strictly
followed its teachings in your intentions in order to purify your heart and to reflect on
your actions'?" The man answered in the negative. 'Umar (RA'A) then asked: "Have
you strictly followed its teaching in your gaze [by not looking at things which Allah has
prohibited], in your utterance, and in your living'?" To each of these the man
answered in the negative. 'Umar (RAA) then asked the same questions of the other members
of the group who all answered in the negative to each question.
'Umar (RA'A) then said: "How can you demand from him
[the Caliph, in this instance 'Umar himself! to force people to adhere to your own
understanding of Allah's Book when you yourselves have failed to do that as you have
admitted? Our Lord knows that each one of us is liable to commit some evil actions."
He then recited the following verse: "If you [but] eschew themost heinous of the
things which you are forbidden to do, we shall expel out of you all the evil in you and
admit you to a gate of great honor.
Turning to the group he asked: "Do the people of
Madinah know why you are here?" When they answered in the negative, he then said:
"Had they known, I would have made an example of you [by severe punishment]."
This incident is narrated by Ibn Jarir in Ibn Kathir's tafsir, and Uqbah approved its
authencity and isnad.
With this farsighted knowledge and insight into the Qur'an, 'Umar was able to settle
this issue immediately on the spot, and therefore prevented an infiltration of bigotry and
zealotry. Had he shown any leniency in the matter, a great fitnah with farreaching grave
consequences could have been initiated.
|
Another aspect of fiqh lacking in extremists is to cherish
a sympathetic understanding of and a deep appreciation for the varying levels of
individual abilities limitations and circumstances which may hinder other Muslims in
coping with the requirements of ideal Islamic life. It would be a great mistake to expect
or demand all people to become martyrs like Hamzah ibn Abd al Muttalib (RA'A) by firmly
standing up against the perpetrators of oppression, injustice, and exploitation, and to
sacrifice everything for the cause of da'wah. This is a virtue which none but the
exceptionally persevering few can aspire to or actually realize. Some people may be
content with only quietly voicing the truth; others may even resort to complete silence
out of their conviction that the prevailing conditions have reached such a dominance that
it is futile, and probably dangerous, to object openly or try to change things. Others may
believe that reform must begin from the bottom, not from the top, and thus direct their
efforts towards individuals who they believe are capable of effecting the desired change
and reform after being armed with clarity of vision and purpose, though the eradication of
Westernized and secular regimes and systems cannot be realized without a deeprooted and
longterm collective struggle led by a popular Islamic movement and based upon clearcut
objectives, welldesigned methods, andfortitude.
However, the Shariah justifies -even requires- silence on
seeing munkar(evil), if it will lead to a greater munkar. This is in keeping with the
Islamic axiom that a Muslim can choose to endure a lesser evil lest a greater one may
result thereof. Such a choice is sanctioned by the Qur'an, and is especially obvious in
the story of Musa ('AS) and his brother, Harun ('AS), who were commissioned to preach the
divine message to Pharoah and his people. Musa ('AS) ascended Mount Sinai and left his
people with Harun ('AS) as deputy. But as soon as Musa ('AS) had left, the Israelites
began to worship a golden image of a calf, as was suggested to them by the Samiri, and
refused to listen to Harun's dissuasions against such deviation.
Harun had already, before this said to them: "O my
people! You are being tested in this: for verily your Lord is Most Gracious: so follow me
and obey my command." They had said "We will not abandon this cult, but we will
devote ourselves to it until Musa returns to us.
Finding them adamant, however, Harun ('AS) kept silent.
When Musa ('AS) returned and discovered the deviation of his people, he was angered and
full of grief, rebuked Harun ('AS) and was very rough with him:
"O Harun! What kept you back, when
you saw them going wrong, from following me? Did you then disobey my order?".
Harun ('AS) replied:
"O son of my mother! Seize [me]
not by my beard nor by [the hair of] my head. Truly I feared lest you should say: 'You
have caused a division among the children of Israel, and you did not respect my words!'
".
Harun ('AS) considered the preservation of the unity of the
community until its leader returnedso that he would not be accused of taking a hasty
decision and of initiating-discord, a good reason for his silence. This is relevant to the
hadith, mentioned earlier, in which the Prophet (.SA'AS) said that he would have destroyed
the old Ka'bah and rebuilt it on the foundations laid down by Ibrahim ('AS) but for his
consideration of the fact that his followers had only recently abandoned their paganism.
Other examples are to be found in the Prophet's command to Muslims to endure the injustice
of their rulers if they do not have the power to oust them and replace them with righteous
ones, lest this should create an even greater fitnah and discord and lead to catastrophic
results, such as the shedding of Muslim blood, the loss of property, and instability
without having achieved any tangible result. Such rulers may therefore be tolerated
unless, of course, the condition reaches a clearcut deviation and kufr or
riddah. The
Prophet (SA'AS) said in this respect: "Unless you witness open kufr for which you
have evidence from Allah."
Both instances clearly demonstrate the importance of maintaining unity in the face of an
uncertain success. On the other hand, it is instructive to the dreamy idealists who want
Muslims either to be absolutely perfect in observing Islamic teachings or to leave the
fold of Islam altogether. For them there is simply no midway. In the opinion of such
idealists physical force is the only method which should be used to change munkar
overlooking the other two ways: with words and with the heart, and that all this depends
on the ability and circumstances of the individual. They seem to have forgotten the fact
that Islam does not sanction overburdening people whose different abilities and
circumstances must always be taken into consideration. The Shariah has certainly taken
into consideration different circumstances and certain necessities to the extent that in
compelling circumstances, the prohibited becomes lawful and the waj b is abrogated. Ibn
Taymiyah's discussion of this is very apt. He writes:
Allah (SWT) has told us in many places [in the Qur'an] that.
He places no burden on people greater than that which they
are capable of. He said: "On no soul does Allah place a burden greater than it can
bear". Also: "But those who believe and do righteousness, no burden do We place
on any soul but that which it can bear, and: "No soul shall have a burden laid on it
greater than it can bear" , as well as: "Allah puts no burden on any person
beyond what He has given him".
Allah has also commanded man to obey Him as best he can. He
said: "So heed Allah as much as you can". The believers themselves have prayed
to Him: "Our Lord! Lay not on us a burden like that which You laid on those before
us. Our Lord! Lay not on us a burden greater than we have the strength to bear".
Allah (SWT) accepted their request. All these texts, therefore, show that He does not put
a burden on a person which the latter cannot fulfill, contrary to the philosophy of the
predeterminist Jahamiyah; He does not punish those who fall into error or forget,
contrary to the fatalist Qadariyah, and the rationalist Muitazilah.
The point to be emphasized is that if a ruler, an imam, a
scholar, a jurist, or a mufti, etc., exercises ijtihad to the best j of his ability and
with a genuine heal of Allah, his ijtihad ·:is that which Allah has asked of him, and He
will not be punished if his verdict is wrong. This is contrary to the predetermined
Jahamiyah who view a mujtahid as obedient to Allah but may or may not have reached the
truth. This is contrary, also to both the Qadariyah and the Mu'tazilah, who view all those
exercising ijtihad to have reached the truth; their attitude in this regard is basil
(false).
The same is granted to the kuffar: those who received the
Prophet's da'wah in the land of kufr, recognized him as the Messenger of Allah, believed
in what was revealed to him, and obeyed Allah as best they could- like the Negus and
others- but could not emigrate to the homeland of Islam and could not adhere to the
totality of the Shari'ah, either because they were not permitted to emigrate or because
they were not allowed to practise their beliefs openly; and those who had no one to teach
them Islamic Shari'ah. All those are believers among the people of Jannah, in shaa Allah.
Examples are the believer among the people of Pharaoh, the wife of Pharaoh, and Yusuf the
Truthful ('AS) who called the people of Egyptwho were kuffar-to iman and monotheism
although he was unable to tell them all that he knew about Islam. But they still refused
to listen to him. In the Quran, the believer among the people of Pharaoh said to them:
"And to you there came Yusuf in times gone by, with clear signs, but you ceased not
to doubt the mission for which he had come. At length, when he died, you said, "No
apostle will Allah send after him".
Moreover, although the Negus was the king of the
Christians, they did not obey him when he asked them to embrace Islam. Only a small group
followed him, and therefore, when he died there was no one to perform sa/ah on him.
However the Prophet (SA'AS) performed salah on him in Madinah where a large number joined
the salah as the Prophet (.SA'AS) told them of the Negus' death and said: "A
righteous brother of yours from the people of Abyssinia has died," The Negus,
however, was unable to adhere to a great number of the teachings of Islam, and he did not
emigrate to the homeland of Islam, participate in jihad, nor perform hajj. It is also
related that he did not perform the five salawat, nor siyam, or give zakah, because these
would reveal his conviction to his people whom he could not go against. We know for sure
that he could not apply on his people the judgments of the Qur'an, although Allah has
commanded His Messenger to apply these judgments on the People of the Book if they seek
Him. Allah also warned the Prophet not to let the People of the Book persuade him to
deviate from even part of what Allah has revealed to him.
'Umar ibn Abd al 'Aziz (RA'A) encountered a great deal of
animosity and suffering because of his unwavering commitment to justice. It is believed
that he was poisoned because of this. However, the Negus and others like him are happy in
Jannah, although they did not adhere except to that part of the Shariah which they were
able to, and although they applied the laws and judgment which were applicable.
|
Islam is the religion of rational and critical minds. This
is why one of its fundamental goals is to make man aware of the paramount significance of
gradation, fortitude, and maturity. Haste is an inherent characteristic of man in general,
and of the young in particular. Indeed, haste is an outstanding characteristic of our own
age. It has made our youth eager to saw the seeds today and to harvest the next day. But
Allah's will in His own creation does not allow that: a tree goes through stages of
growth, short or long, before it bears fruit. The very creation of a human being
illustrates this very clearly:
Then We made the sperm into a clinging clot; then of that clot We made a [foetus] lump;
then We made out of that lump bones and clothed the bones with flesh; then We developed
out of it another creature. So blessed be Allah, the best Creator.
A child is born, breastfed and weaned, then he/she
gradually grows from childhood to maturity. Similarly, life gradually moves from one stage
to another until Allah's sunan (patterns) are realized. Islam began as a simple ~n, then
gradually the obligatory duties were introduced, the prohibitions prescribed, and
legislative matters detailed. Gradually, the structure took full shape, and Allah's favors
and blessings were diffused everywhere. Then the following verse was revealed:
Thisday have I perfected your religion for you, completed My favor upon you and have
chosen for you Islam as your religion. Such development and stages are plain enough",
but they are rarely, at all, observed or acknowledged.
The enthusiastic young people are outraged by the
corruption that surrounds them as they witness, and daily live, the rapidly worsening
condition of the Islamic Ummah. The common concern initiates group meetings; they
undertake to put things right, to salvage what is worth keeping. But in their haste and
enthusiasm, they lose clarity of vision, they begin to daydream and build castles in the
air, believing that they can blot out all forms of corruption and falsehood in addition
to; establishing the ideal Islamic state overnight. They underestimate or
disregard the incalculable obstacles and pitfalls that
exceed their means and potential. Their dilemma is like that of the man who asked Ibn
Sirin to interpret a dream for him: he dreamed that he was swimming on dry land, flying
without wings. Ibn Sirin told him that he too was a man of too many dreams and wishes.
'Ali ibn Abu Talib (RA'A) warned his son: " . .and beware of relying on wishes, for
they are the goods of fools"
It is common knowledge that corrupt realities cannot be
changed by immature strategies based only upon good wishes and intentions It is pertinent
here to draw attention to an invaluable book: Hatta Yughayyiru Ma fi Anfusihim (Until They
Change That Within Their Souls) written by the Syrian scholar Jawdat Sa'id. The book
discusses the "patterns of change of the soul and of society" and its title is
derived from the following two Quranic verses:
Verily, never will Allah change the condition of a people until they change it themselves
[with their own souis].
And:
Because Allah will never change the grace which He has bestowed on a people until they
change what is in their [own] souls. True to its title, this book is a deep social and
psychological study in light of the teachings of the Quran. One of the best parts of the
author s introduction is the following:
There are those among young Muslims who have the readiness and the determination to
sacrifice their lives and wealth for the cause of Islam. Unfortunately, there are only a
few among them who choose to spend their lives pursuing a serious research in order to
perfect a particular discipline or clarify an obscure truth. For example, problems such as
the dichotomy between belief and behavior, between what is professed and what is actually
done. Such issues pose questions which badly need objective and wellinformed answers
without which any constructive reform is impossible. The sluggishness of existing studies
is due to the fact that the Islamic world has not yet fully realized the importance or the
necessity of research due to its common belief that: '`The sword is mightier than the
pen" rather than "Think before you leap." These different perceptions
remain in total confusion: neither the real relationships nor the natural order in them
were studied or comprehended.
Moreover, the conditions of iman have not yet been carefully studied in the Muslim world.
This does not mean that Muslims have not learned the fundamentals of iman and of Islam.
But by this we mean the psychological conditions, i.e., that which must be changed within
the soul, because this change brings about the fruition of iman, that is, the condition of
conformity between action and belief.
It is still believed that selfsacrifice and sadaqah are the highest of virtues without
serious consideration of that which makes these so. Mere sacrifice cannot realize goals in
the absence of its wellplanned, wellthought strategies. This conception encourages
young Muslims to sacrifice their lives and wealth yet fails to make them endeavor and
persevere to study and to comprehend. Another reason is that selfsacrifice could result
from a momentary impulse; but the pursuit of knowledge demands unflinching perseverance,
consciousness, critical analysis, and insight, all of which ensure continuity and enhance
success. Yet, many young Muslims enthusiastically embark upon deeds and studies in various
fields, but after they start their enthusiasm begins to wane, they give way to boredom and
eventually discontinue what they have started.
We must investigate these impending attitudes to discover the causes of such inalertness
to, and discontinuity of, serious studies, all of which occur as a result of specific
causes and factors which cannot be detected by hasty minds.
The trend to look for the hasty reform and change of reality in the absence of
selfchange and consciousness is equally absurd. Feeling the impact of the present
reality on our condition is one thing, but consciousness of our own roles (i.e., that
which is in ourselves) in perpetuating it is quite another. This is indeed what the Qur'an
seeks to teach humans by explaining what happens to them, and by emphasizing the
following: that the core of the problem is "that which is in the self or the
soul," not an external injustice. This is the essence of historical and social change
which the Qur'an sanctions. Failure to realize this plain truth blurs our vision and
initiates those pessimistic and submissive, or despotic and ; nonIslamic, philosophies.
The gravest selfinflicted injustice is, indeed, the faito
perceive the inherent subservient relationship between man, the universe, and society. As
a result, man misjudges his own abilities and fails to put himself where he can harness
human and natural potential to advantage in accordance with the sunan inherent in these.
Accordingly, we can say that two attitudes are open for the human mind when confronted
with a problem: to believe that the problem is governed by certain patterns and can
therefore be solved and controlled; or to believe that it is mysterious and supernatural
and therefore not governed by any patterns, or that such patterns cannot be revealed.
Between these two extremes there are numerous other intermediate attitudes: each
hypothesis has a practical result which is relatively reflected in the attitudes and
behavior of people depending on the direction they adopt.
The failure of Muslims to live in accordance with the
teachings of Islam is a problem which is easily proved. Even when the problem is accepted,
the question still remains: which of the foregoing attitudes should Muslims take? The
discussion of the issue in such a way as to bring it to the awareness of the Muslim will
help him to determine his attitude toward the problem and to abandon the ambiguous
attitude which he might take. In many cases, when the two attitudes are entangled and
therefore paralyze the effect of each other, the issues remain ambiguous. A solution
requires, to a great extent, a sound hypothesis.
|
Below is the dialogue which took place between a young
Muslim enthusiast and myself. He asked and I answered:
Q: Are we not following haqq
(truth) and our opponents following basil (falsehood)?
A: Yes, indeed.
Q: Has not our Lord promised us that haqq will triumph over basil, and iman over
kufr?
A: Yes, and Allah (SWT) will never break His promise.
Q: So, what are we waiting for? Why do we not wage war against batil?
A: Our religion instructs us that
victory is governed by certain sunan and conditions to which we must adhere. Had it not
been for such considerations, the Prophet (.SA'AS) would have declared war on paganism at
the beginning of the Makkan period. He would not have tolerated performing ,salah at the
Ka'bah when it was surrounded by idols.
Q: What are these sunan and conditions'
A: First, Allah (SWT) does not make haqq triumphant simply because it is so; but He makes
it victorious through the united body of the righteous and brotherly people who believe in
Allah ta 'ala. This is clear from the following verse: He it is that has strengthened you
with His aid and with the believers, and has put affection in their hearts.
Q: But what about the angels who descended to aid ,haqq against batil, such as those who
aided the believers during the battles of Badr, al Khandaq, and Hunayn?
A: The angels are there and will come to the rescue of the believers when Allah
(SWT) so
wills. However, they will not descend in a vacuum: there must be true believers down here
on earth who strive to make ,haqq prevail and who need aid from heaven to strengthen them.
The Qur'an is clear on this issue as is clear in the following verse which was revealed
during the battle of Badr: Remember your Lord inspired the angels [with the message]:
"I am with you. Give firmness to the believers. I will instill terror into the hearts
of the unbelievers".
Q: If there are true believers, would that ensure victory?
A: They have to spread Islam to the best of their abilities, multiply their
numbers, and conduct dialogues with their opponents in the hope of convincing them of the
truth of their claims. In this way they will obtain the power to encounter their enemies.
It would be irrational for one single person to attempt to stand up against a hundred or a
thousand The maximum number mentioned in the Qur'an of unbelievers that a true believer
full of vigor and determination could stand up against is ten: O Prophet! rouse the
believers to fight. If there are twenty among you, patient and persevering, they will
vanquish two hundred; if a hundred, they will vanquish a thousand of the unbelievers .
But in times of weakness, the numbers are different:
For the present, Allah has lightened your [task1 for He knows that there is a weak spot in
you: But [even so1, if there are a hundred of you, patient and persevering, they will
vanquish two hundred, and if a thousand, they will vanquish two thousand, with the leave
of Allah For Allah is with those who patiently persevere.
Q: But our adversaries are always on the alert; they have excelled in sabotaging
our endeavors to spread the divine word.
Q: But our adversaries are always on the alert; they have excelled in sabotaging
our endeavors to spread the divine word.
A: This certifies the claim that there is an indispensible condition without which no
victory can be guaranteed, i.e., patience in the face of suffering, perseverance in the
face of defiance and provocation. The Prophet (SA'AS) told his cousin 'Abd Allah ibn
'Abbas that "Patience is a prerequisite of victory." This is also the advice of
Allah (SWT) to His Prophet (SA'AS):
Follow the inspiration sent unto you, and be patient and constant until Allah decides, for
He is the Best to decide .
And in another verse:
And be patient, for your patience is but from Allah, nor grieve over them, and do not
distress yourself because of their plots, for Allah is with those who restrain themselves
and those who do good.
Also:
So patiently persevere, for verily the promise of Allah is true. Nor let those who have
[themselves] no certainty of faith shake your firmness.
And:
And therefore patiently persevere, as did [all] messengers of inflexible purpose; and be
in no haste about the [unbelievers].
And again:
Now await in patience the command of your Lord, for verily you are in Our eyes, and
celebrate the praises of your Lord while you stand forth.
Q: But we may patiently persevere
for too long without ever succeeding in establishing an Islamic state which will apply the
Shari'ah, resurrect the Muslim Ummah, and once again raise the banner of Islam.
A: But, do you not in the meantime instruct an ignorant person, guide someone to
the right path, or lead another to repent? When he answered in the affirmative, I added:
This is a tremendous achievement which brings us closer to our goal. The Prophet
(SA'AS)
said: "If Allah enables you to guide one person [to the Straightforward Path] it is
better for you than all the best breed of camel [you may possess]." Furthermore, the
obligatory duty which we will be asked to account for is to make da'wah, to instruct and
work, but not necessarily to achieve our aims ourselves. We must sow love and pray to
Allah (SWT) for a great harvest. The Qur'an indeed, instructsus:
And say:
"Work [righteousness]: .Soon will Allah observe your work and His messenger, and the
believers. Soon you will be brought back to the Knower of what is hidden and what is open.
Then will He show you the truth of all that you did".
|
| |
|