In this essay Professor Isma'il Al Faruqi discusses "Islam as Culture and Civilization" from different aspects:
Not relativism
Islamic culture and 'Urubah (Arabness or Arab culture)
The view of ultimate reality
The view of truth
The view of man
The view of nature
The view of society and history
The view of beauty
Following is the first part of this essay:
Culture is the consciousness of values in the totality of their realm, implying at its lowest level an intuitive awareness of their respective identities and of the order of rank properly belonging to each of them, as well as a personal commitment to their pursuit and actualization. At its highest level, this consciousness of value implies, in addition to the foregoing, a discursive knowledge of values, of their mutual relations and order of rank, of the history of the growth processes by which consciousness has achieved the said level of awareness, as well as a self-conscious collective commitment to the pursuit and actualization of the totality of values. Consciousness of any one value does not constitute culture, the latter being a perspective of the realm of values impossible to obtain without their totality being in view. What is often called monistic axiology, whether it is the survival ethic of primitive man or those implicit in a number of "isms" by which human life or culture have been defined in modern times, is not awareness of a single value, but a reordering of the whole realm of values under the dominion of the one value recognized by that axiology as the prime, or first, determinant and definiens of all other values. That is why it is possible to speak of the culture of hedonism which defines and ranks all values in terms of their contributions to pleasure, or of the culture of asceticism which defines and ranks all values in terms of their contribution to the denial of the processes of life. Each is a different perspective of the total realm of values. The same is true of the culture of communism, of national socialism and democracy, as it is of group-designated cultures such as the German, Italian, French, Indian, Chinese or Japanese culture. Though unlike any one of these, Islamic culture is nonetheless a perspective on the realm of values. To analyze it as such, to lay bare the internal structure of values as Islam perceives them, is the object of this chapter.
The foregoing definition of culture does not necessarily commit us to a relativist view. In fact, the Islamic position is the very opposite of relativism. Cultural relativism holds every culture to be an autonomous whole, a hierarchical structure of values sui generis, which though subject to description, stands beyond critique, as it were, by definition. It denies the possibility of criticism on the grounds that the criteria are therefore themselves always culturally determined, and hence falling within the culture to be evaluated; that it is impossible for humans to rise above their own cultures and build any supracultural methodology, or system of criteria and norms in terms of which historical cultures may be criticized. A culture, relativism asserts, can hence be neither justified nor criticized, its very factuality constituting its own justification. The comparative study of religions, or of civilizations, is equally alleged to fall in most cases into the same predicament. Through and through it is, and should be, descriptive. It can only Eeport, analyze, compare and contrast its findings in the various cultures, religions or civilizations. But it cannot criticize, judge, or evaluate its data because the criteria by which such work is possible are themselves the data in question.
Cultures, religions and civilizations are said to enjoy that same autonomy which makes each its own judge. Surely, each has laid claim to universalism, to address itself to man as such, to speak of religion as such. Nonetheless, relativism asserts that all their claims were vain; because while purporting to be universal, they were in reality mere inflated provincialisms. In their investigations of men, anthropology, psychology, history, sociology and even philosophy - all these disciplines have in modem times toned down their ambition of describing man or reality or truth as such quite drastically. They reduced their claims to analyzing given configurations of humans, of their thought and behaviour, their given systems of ideas or life. None has nowadays the boldness or strength to speak about men, reality or truth sub specie eternitatis.
This is not the place to consider critically why the Western spirit has come to this reduction of its area of competence, or how it lost its nerve and retreated from its Christian Scholastic or rationalist Enlightenment goals. Suffice it here to emphasize two points. First, like religions and civilizations, cultures do not conceive of themselves as of one among many, not as systems whose truth and viability are only probable. "Probable truth" has no adherents committing their whole lives and energies to its pursuit, certainly no soldiers willing to lay down their lives for it. If all there is to the claims of the various cultures and religions was a mere probability, they would have never commanded the enormous energies - mental, physical, emotional - of the millions over the long centuries required for their generation, crystallization and flowering. Indeed, if their factuality indicates anything, it is that their base is firmly established on the rock of faith, on an unquestionable conviction whose object is the world in toto, humankind, reality as such. Second, culture, at least in its higher stages, must have developed its perspective of the valuational realm only after considering numerous options. By definition a perspective suggests the possibility of other methods of ordering, for no value may be assigned the order of rank proper to it without the possibility of relating it to its neighbouring values. But to assign an order of rank is to judge that a certain value has indeed priority over another which has different or contradictory content.
Co-existence of contrary claims, of contrary obligations, of opposite norms and imperatives, which is what the relativist thesis demands, is not only not productive of culture, but it appeals only to the mediocre. No worthy mind can rest when faced with contrary claims to truth or goodness or beauty. Such claims necessarily set the mind in motion to seek a higher principle in terms of which the contradiction may be solved and the differences composed. The human mind will not give up the search without satisfaction. True, such principles may not always be conscious, explicitly stated in the given literature; but their existence is absolutely indubitable. At the very least, they must be assumed; and it is the task of the analyst and comparativist to uncover and articulate them, to place them under the light of reason and understanding.
This leads us to affirm that there is no culture which does not make a meta-cultural claim to truth, to goodness and beauty. The problem is how far meta-cultural assumptions of a given culture are truly universal, how far they correspond with reality, and whether or not they are necessary; how far the culture in question is conducive to the usufruct of nature, the doing of the good works, the felicity of all humans, the cultivation of beauty. Islamic culture certainly makes this claim, namely, that it purports to speak for all humans and for all times. Its claim is that its contents are essential to humanity as such, that its values are absolutely valid for all men because they are true, and its perspective of the valuational realm the only one which fully corresponds with the order of rank inherent in each value. This absoluteness of Islamic culture did not make it intolerant of the ethnic subcultures of its adherents, of their languages and literatures, of their folk customs and styles. But it has distinguished the culture of Islam from 'adah, literally, the local custom, the provincial content, which Islam tolerated even to the point of regarding it juristically acceptable, but which it has always kept in the place proper to it. Such a position is one of subservience to the culture of Islam, which was assigned the status of determining the essence and core of Islamic civilization in tow.
Only Islam acknowledged provincial culture as content of the ethos of Islam proper, and managed to maintain a universal adherence and loyalty to it amid the widest ethnic variety of the globe. Bushmen from equatorial Africa, Europeans and Chinese, Indians and Berbers, as well as the ethnic mixtures of the Near East, the world's crossroads of civilizations, all participated in Islamic culture just as they should, building their unity and hence their definition on the culture of Islam and, under its guidance, continued to keep, develop and promote their hundred ethnic sub-cultures.
The standpoint of Islamic culture, therefore, is not that of cultural relativism.
Agree:10 Disagree:4 Neutral:4
Monday, December 22, 2008
Thursday, November 6, 2008
The Role of Colonization on the Political System of the Muslim World
by IslamReligion.com
The Quran and the Sunnah have been the guide of Muslim political and moral activism throughout the centuries. The example of how the Prophet Muhammad and his companions led their lives and developed the first Muslim community serves as a blueprint for an Islamically guided and socially just state and society.
More than a prophet, the Prophet Muhammad, may the mercy and blessings of God be upon him, was the founder of a state. In the era of the Prophet Muhammad and his successors, all Muslims belonged to a single community whose unity was based upon the interconnection of religion and the state, where faith and politics were inseparable. Islam expanded from what is now Saudi Arabia across North Africa, through the Middle East and into Asia and Europe. Historically, Islam has been the religious ideology for the foundation of a variety of Muslim states, including the great Islamic empires: Umayyad (661–750), Abbasid (750–1258), Ottoman (1281– 1924), Safavid (1501–1722), and Mughal (1526–1857). In each of these empires and other sultanate states, Islam was the basis of the state’s legal, political, educational, economic, and social institutions.
By the 11th century the Islamic world was under attack by the Turks and the Mongols. They were not conquered by Islam; rather, they entered the Islamic world as conquerors and converted to Islam over the following centuries.
Over the last two centuries the Islamic world has been under another transformation from the West. The Europeans who came in the 19th and 20th centuries to militarily colonize the Muslim world did not convert like the Turks and Mongols. For the first time, Muslims were politically subjugated by the European empires of Russia, Holland, Britain, and France.
The 20th century was marked by two dominant themes: European colonialism and the Muslim struggle for independence. The legacy of colonialism remains alive today. Colonialism altered the geographical map of the Muslim world. It drew the boundaries and appointed leaders over the Muslim countries. After WWII, the French were in West and North Africa, Lebanon, and Syria; the British in Palestine, Iraq, Arabian Gulf, the Indian Subcontinent, Malaya, and Brunei; and the Dutch in Indonesia. It replaced the educational, legal, and economic institutions and challenged the Muslim faith. Colonial officers and Christian missionaries became the soldiers of European expansion and imperialism. Christianity was seen by the colonialists as inherently superior to Islam and its culture. This attitude can be seen in the statement of Lord Cromer, the British counsel in Cairo from 1883-1907, “…as a social system, Islam has been a complete failure. Islam keeps women in a position of inferiority…it permits slavery…its general tendency is intolerance towards other faiths…”
European colonialism replaced Muslim self rule under Islamic Law, which had been in existence from the time of the Prophet Muhammad, by their European lords. The colonialists were modern Crusaders – Christian warriors going out of their way to uproot Islam. The French spoke of their battle of the cross against the crescent. The only difference was that the Europeans came, this time, not with cavalry and swords, but with an army of Christian missionaries and missionary institutions like schools, hospitals, and churches, many of which remain in Muslim countries to this day. The French seized the Jami’ Masjid of Algiers and turned it into the cathedral of Saint-Philippe with the French flag and cross on the minaret, symbolizing Christian domination.[1]
The Muslim world’s centuries of long struggle with Western colonial rule was followed by authoritarian regimes installed by European powers. The absence of stable states has led many to ask whether there is something about Islam that is antithetical to civil society and rule of law. The answer to this question lies more in history and politics than in religion. Modern Muslim states are only several decades old and they were carved out by European powers to serve Western interests.
In South Asia, the British divided the Indian subcontinent into India and Pakistan, giving portions of the Muslim-majority state of Kashmir to each of them. The conflicts that resulted from these actions have led to the deaths of millions in the communal warfare between Hindus and Muslims, the civil war between East and West Pakistan that led to the creation of Bangladesh, and conflicts in Kashmir over Indian rule that persist to the present day. In the Middle East, the French created modern Lebanon from portions of Syria, and the British set the borders for Iraq and Kuwait and created a new entity called Jordan. They also created a new country called Israel, ousting non-Jewish locals and taking land once belonging to Christians and Muslims and surrendering it to a foreign Jewish authority. Such arbitrary borders fed ethnic, regional, and religious conflicts including the Lebanese Civil War between Christians and Muslims, the occupation of Lebanon by Syria, the Gulf War, which resulted from Saddam Hussein’s claim to Kuwaiti territory, and the Israel-Palestinian conflict which need no further explanation.
Political and economic models were borrowed from the West to replace the Islamic political and economic systems after independence from colonial rulers in the mid-twentieth century, creating overcrowded cities lacking social support systems, high unemployment, government corruption, and a growing gap between rich and poor. Rather than leading to a better quality of life, Westernization led to the breakdown of traditional family, religious, and social values. Many Muslims blame Western models of political and economic development as the sources of moral decline and spiritual malaise.
Unelected governments, whose leaders are kings, military or ex-military officers, rule the majority of countries in the Muslim world. State power is heavily reliant on security forces, police, and military, and where freedoms of assembly, speech, and press are severely limited. Many Muslim states operate within a culture of authoritarianism that is opposed to civil society and a free press.
In addition to influencing those who came to power in emerging modern Muslim nation-states, Europe, and later America, forged close alliances with authoritarian regimes, tolerating or supporting their non democratic ways in exchange for, or to ensure, Western access to oil and other resources.
When people ask themselves why the Muslim world is distraught with violence and unrest, the answer can surely be found in the colonial interference, both past and present, in the region. Therefore, any future success depends upon returning to a society which is governed by the principles of the people who live in it, one in which all its affairs are governed by Islam.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnotes:
[1] Some of the early imperialist policies of the colonial powers carried not only economic, but religious and cultural agendas. The French, for example, sought to replace Islamic culture with their own by, among other measures, imposing controls on Islamic courts and suppressing many Muslim institutions. After transforming the Grand Mosque of Algiers into the Cathedral of Saint-Philippe, for example, the archbishop of Algiers announced a missionary plan to “save” Muslims from “the vices of their original religion generative of sloth, divorce, polygamy, theft, agrarian communism, fanaticism and even cannibalism.” Azim A. Nanji, ed., The Muslim Almanac (Detroit: Gale Research, Inc., 1996), p. 123; Arthur Goldschmidt Jr., A Concise History of the Middle East, 3rd ed. (Boulder, Colo.:Westview Press, 1988), p. 231; John L. Esposito, The Islamic Threat: Myth or Reality?, 3rd ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999), p. 50; Fawaz A. Gerges, America and Political Islam: Clash of Cultures or Clash of Interests? (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999).
The Quran and the Sunnah have been the guide of Muslim political and moral activism throughout the centuries. The example of how the Prophet Muhammad and his companions led their lives and developed the first Muslim community serves as a blueprint for an Islamically guided and socially just state and society.
More than a prophet, the Prophet Muhammad, may the mercy and blessings of God be upon him, was the founder of a state. In the era of the Prophet Muhammad and his successors, all Muslims belonged to a single community whose unity was based upon the interconnection of religion and the state, where faith and politics were inseparable. Islam expanded from what is now Saudi Arabia across North Africa, through the Middle East and into Asia and Europe. Historically, Islam has been the religious ideology for the foundation of a variety of Muslim states, including the great Islamic empires: Umayyad (661–750), Abbasid (750–1258), Ottoman (1281– 1924), Safavid (1501–1722), and Mughal (1526–1857). In each of these empires and other sultanate states, Islam was the basis of the state’s legal, political, educational, economic, and social institutions.
By the 11th century the Islamic world was under attack by the Turks and the Mongols. They were not conquered by Islam; rather, they entered the Islamic world as conquerors and converted to Islam over the following centuries.
Over the last two centuries the Islamic world has been under another transformation from the West. The Europeans who came in the 19th and 20th centuries to militarily colonize the Muslim world did not convert like the Turks and Mongols. For the first time, Muslims were politically subjugated by the European empires of Russia, Holland, Britain, and France.
The 20th century was marked by two dominant themes: European colonialism and the Muslim struggle for independence. The legacy of colonialism remains alive today. Colonialism altered the geographical map of the Muslim world. It drew the boundaries and appointed leaders over the Muslim countries. After WWII, the French were in West and North Africa, Lebanon, and Syria; the British in Palestine, Iraq, Arabian Gulf, the Indian Subcontinent, Malaya, and Brunei; and the Dutch in Indonesia. It replaced the educational, legal, and economic institutions and challenged the Muslim faith. Colonial officers and Christian missionaries became the soldiers of European expansion and imperialism. Christianity was seen by the colonialists as inherently superior to Islam and its culture. This attitude can be seen in the statement of Lord Cromer, the British counsel in Cairo from 1883-1907, “…as a social system, Islam has been a complete failure. Islam keeps women in a position of inferiority…it permits slavery…its general tendency is intolerance towards other faiths…”
European colonialism replaced Muslim self rule under Islamic Law, which had been in existence from the time of the Prophet Muhammad, by their European lords. The colonialists were modern Crusaders – Christian warriors going out of their way to uproot Islam. The French spoke of their battle of the cross against the crescent. The only difference was that the Europeans came, this time, not with cavalry and swords, but with an army of Christian missionaries and missionary institutions like schools, hospitals, and churches, many of which remain in Muslim countries to this day. The French seized the Jami’ Masjid of Algiers and turned it into the cathedral of Saint-Philippe with the French flag and cross on the minaret, symbolizing Christian domination.[1]
The Muslim world’s centuries of long struggle with Western colonial rule was followed by authoritarian regimes installed by European powers. The absence of stable states has led many to ask whether there is something about Islam that is antithetical to civil society and rule of law. The answer to this question lies more in history and politics than in religion. Modern Muslim states are only several decades old and they were carved out by European powers to serve Western interests.
In South Asia, the British divided the Indian subcontinent into India and Pakistan, giving portions of the Muslim-majority state of Kashmir to each of them. The conflicts that resulted from these actions have led to the deaths of millions in the communal warfare between Hindus and Muslims, the civil war between East and West Pakistan that led to the creation of Bangladesh, and conflicts in Kashmir over Indian rule that persist to the present day. In the Middle East, the French created modern Lebanon from portions of Syria, and the British set the borders for Iraq and Kuwait and created a new entity called Jordan. They also created a new country called Israel, ousting non-Jewish locals and taking land once belonging to Christians and Muslims and surrendering it to a foreign Jewish authority. Such arbitrary borders fed ethnic, regional, and religious conflicts including the Lebanese Civil War between Christians and Muslims, the occupation of Lebanon by Syria, the Gulf War, which resulted from Saddam Hussein’s claim to Kuwaiti territory, and the Israel-Palestinian conflict which need no further explanation.
Political and economic models were borrowed from the West to replace the Islamic political and economic systems after independence from colonial rulers in the mid-twentieth century, creating overcrowded cities lacking social support systems, high unemployment, government corruption, and a growing gap between rich and poor. Rather than leading to a better quality of life, Westernization led to the breakdown of traditional family, religious, and social values. Many Muslims blame Western models of political and economic development as the sources of moral decline and spiritual malaise.
Unelected governments, whose leaders are kings, military or ex-military officers, rule the majority of countries in the Muslim world. State power is heavily reliant on security forces, police, and military, and where freedoms of assembly, speech, and press are severely limited. Many Muslim states operate within a culture of authoritarianism that is opposed to civil society and a free press.
In addition to influencing those who came to power in emerging modern Muslim nation-states, Europe, and later America, forged close alliances with authoritarian regimes, tolerating or supporting their non democratic ways in exchange for, or to ensure, Western access to oil and other resources.
When people ask themselves why the Muslim world is distraught with violence and unrest, the answer can surely be found in the colonial interference, both past and present, in the region. Therefore, any future success depends upon returning to a society which is governed by the principles of the people who live in it, one in which all its affairs are governed by Islam.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnotes:
[1] Some of the early imperialist policies of the colonial powers carried not only economic, but religious and cultural agendas. The French, for example, sought to replace Islamic culture with their own by, among other measures, imposing controls on Islamic courts and suppressing many Muslim institutions. After transforming the Grand Mosque of Algiers into the Cathedral of Saint-Philippe, for example, the archbishop of Algiers announced a missionary plan to “save” Muslims from “the vices of their original religion generative of sloth, divorce, polygamy, theft, agrarian communism, fanaticism and even cannibalism.” Azim A. Nanji, ed., The Muslim Almanac (Detroit: Gale Research, Inc., 1996), p. 123; Arthur Goldschmidt Jr., A Concise History of the Middle East, 3rd ed. (Boulder, Colo.:Westview Press, 1988), p. 231; John L. Esposito, The Islamic Threat: Myth or Reality?, 3rd ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999), p. 50; Fawaz A. Gerges, America and Political Islam: Clash of Cultures or Clash of Interests? (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999).
Monday, October 6, 2008
Britain: Muslim Youths
By Iftikhar Ahmad
(Adapted)
Muslim children face lots of problems of growing up in two distinctive cultural traditions and value systems, which may come into conflict over issues such as the adherence to religious and cultural traditions and the role of women in the society. They are confused because they are being educated in a wrong place at a wrong time in state schools by monolingual teachers. Muslim youths become angry, frustrated and extremist because they could be mis-educated and de-educated by the British schooling. The conflicting demands made by home and schools on behaviour, loyalties and obligations can be a source of psychological conflict and tension in Muslim youngsters.
There are also the issues of racial prejudice and discrimination to deal with, in education and employment. They have been victim of racism and bullying in all walks of life. According to DCSF, 56% of Pakistanis and 54% of Bangladeshi children has been victims of bullies. The first wave of Muslim migrants were happy to send their children to state schools, thinking their children would get a much better education. Then little by little, the overt and covert discrimination in the system turned them off. There are fifteen areas where Muslim parents find themselves offended by state schools.
The right to education in one’s own comfort zone is a fundamental and inalienable human right that should be available to all people irrespective of their ethnicity or religious background. Schools do not only belong to state, but also belong to parents. It is the parents’ choice to have faith schools for their children. Bilingual Muslim children would need state funded Muslim schools with bilingual Muslim teachers as role models during their developmental periods. There would be no signifant benefit of having a non-Muslim teacher or child in such a Muslim school. There are hundreds of state schools where Muslim children are in majority. In my opinion, all such schools could be designated as Muslim community schools. An ICM Poll of British Muslims showed that nearly half wanted their children to attend Muslim schools. There are only 143 Muslim schools. A state funded Muslim school in Birmingham has 220 pupils and more than 1000 applicants chasing just 60.
The majority of anti-Muslim stories are not about terrorism but about Muslim culture - the hijab, Muslim schools, family life and religiosity. Muslims in the west ought to be recognised as part of the western community - not as an alien culture.
(Adapted)
Muslim children face lots of problems of growing up in two distinctive cultural traditions and value systems, which may come into conflict over issues such as the adherence to religious and cultural traditions and the role of women in the society. They are confused because they are being educated in a wrong place at a wrong time in state schools by monolingual teachers. Muslim youths become angry, frustrated and extremist because they could be mis-educated and de-educated by the British schooling. The conflicting demands made by home and schools on behaviour, loyalties and obligations can be a source of psychological conflict and tension in Muslim youngsters.
There are also the issues of racial prejudice and discrimination to deal with, in education and employment. They have been victim of racism and bullying in all walks of life. According to DCSF, 56% of Pakistanis and 54% of Bangladeshi children has been victims of bullies. The first wave of Muslim migrants were happy to send their children to state schools, thinking their children would get a much better education. Then little by little, the overt and covert discrimination in the system turned them off. There are fifteen areas where Muslim parents find themselves offended by state schools.
The right to education in one’s own comfort zone is a fundamental and inalienable human right that should be available to all people irrespective of their ethnicity or religious background. Schools do not only belong to state, but also belong to parents. It is the parents’ choice to have faith schools for their children. Bilingual Muslim children would need state funded Muslim schools with bilingual Muslim teachers as role models during their developmental periods. There would be no signifant benefit of having a non-Muslim teacher or child in such a Muslim school. There are hundreds of state schools where Muslim children are in majority. In my opinion, all such schools could be designated as Muslim community schools. An ICM Poll of British Muslims showed that nearly half wanted their children to attend Muslim schools. There are only 143 Muslim schools. A state funded Muslim school in Birmingham has 220 pupils and more than 1000 applicants chasing just 60.
The majority of anti-Muslim stories are not about terrorism but about Muslim culture - the hijab, Muslim schools, family life and religiosity. Muslims in the west ought to be recognised as part of the western community - not as an alien culture.
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Struggling with Semantics
The war against terror is also a war of words.
Diaa Rashwan skips through the synonyms
Al-Ahram Weekly Online
6 - 12 December 2001
Issue No.563
The international crisis triggered by the 11 September attacks on Washington and New York has spawned an interesting breed of synonyms. In a game of political semantics, words have been forced to mate, binary oppositions resuscitated, and conclusions twisted to serve various vested interests.
The most obvious example is that of jihad and terror. Many Western politicians, academics and media professionals now use the two words interchangeably. The word game, however, knows no limits. We have terror/ national resistance, Arab and Muslims/fanatical terrorists, Islam and Arabs/barbarism, enduring freedom and infinite justice/war, the West/human civilisation, the international anti-terror coalition/the United States and its allies, and cluster bombs/food packages.
All these pairs suggest that the two sides of the dichotomy are in fact similar. A word is chosen, turned around, coupled with a target word, and then used interchangeably with it. With persistent repetition, the two parts become one in an act of linguistic wizardry that can cause serious damage.
The need for synonyms is as old as language, but as the media gain an ever greater grip on modern life, the creation of synonyms is becoming a veritable cottage industry. The media-led invention of a special new language is due either to sheer ignorance or to malicious intent. The combination of jihad and terror, which gained relevance in the aftermath of 11 September, is no benign coincidence. It is part of an ongoing war.
In this war, the United States and its closest allies have the advantage of an awesome media machine, capable of rearranging concepts and restructuring language, which has assumed a key role in managing the crisis and manipulating world opinion. Since the Gulf War -- even since the fall of the Berlin Wall and the Romanian "revolution" against Ceaucescu -- the Western media have been powerful tools for the United States and its allies in the campaign to reshape the world, in reality and ideology.
In the ongoing war against "international terror," Muslims and Arabs are the villains du jour; so jihad, a perfectly legitimate concept, is being equated with the horrifying goals of terrorists. The trick is standard fare for spin doctors: choose a word with sinister connotations and associate it with a concept you wish to discredit. Then use the two interchangeably, until the difference between them is forgotten.
Jihad and terror were good candidates. The two concepts share one trait. Jihad, under certain conditions, may involve the use of violence. The two concepts are different in almost every other sense. But once the differences are swept under the rug, through the constant abuse of language, jihad and its proponents evoke only images of violence and suffering. The same game can be played with national resistance, to impugn legitimate struggle against occupation and discredit opponents of global capitalism.
The war of words aims to obscure the meaning of jihad, reduce and twist the term, banish it to the territory of terror. Jihad al-nafs, a struggle for self-improvement and purification, is excised from the concept. All that remains is the image of terror, loathsome, menacing, and ugly.
The only way we can deal with this is to refuse to play. The word games are a crime against language. They should be deconstructed and shown to be empty of meaning. The two words must be dissociated, then returned to their true meanings.
Theoretically, the "terror" side of the equation should be easy to deal with. Most people would agree that terrorism is the use of force to frighten or kill civilians in order to attain illegitimate ends. The practical implications, however, are more difficult. The West sees the 11 September attacks as "terror." But the actions of US forces against civilians in Afghanistan are seen as a legitimate "war" on terror. Likewise, the West refrains from labelling Israel's occupation, massacres and mass detentions as anything more than the "excessive use of force." Acts of resistance by the Palestinians, meanwhile, are invariably described as "terror."
What we need, then, is a practical definition of terror. Since it is almost impossible to formulate a definition that satisfies everyone, perhaps it would be a good idea to formulate an Arab and Islamic definition of terror, in line with international law. At the same time, it would be appropriate to emphasise that Islam explicitly prohibits terror. This effort could take place through one of the two key international organisations of the Arab and Islamic world: the Arab League and the Organisation of the Islamic Conference. Public figures, religious scholars, and intellectuals from Arab and Muslim countries should participate in that effort.
As for jihad, historical and religious information abounds. Jihad, most Muslim scholars would agree, is of two types. Jihad al-nafs, as mentioned above, refers to the individual's striving to attain a higher moral ground. The other form of jihad is directed against those who live outside the umma (the Muslim community); that is, against non-Muslim countries and peoples. In both types of jihad, a Muslim may choose among four weapons: the heart, speech, the hand, and the sword.
Jihad against those outside the umma is of two types: defensive and offensive. The first is the duty of all Muslims: to defend their faith, life, land, and honour against attacks by non-Muslims. Offensive jihad is the duty of the "Muslim state": to try and integrate non-Muslim peoples and zones into the land of Islam -- that is, to convert people to the monotheistic faith of Islam and bring them into the umma. In both cases, jihad is conducted under rigorous restrictions. First, it must involve no threat to the lives, security, honour, and property of civilians and non- combatants.
Since there is no central Islamic state that encompasses all Muslim societies, it can be argued that the concept of offensive jihad, in the sense of conquest, is no longer valid. The essence of the term, however, remains applicable. It is still possible to enlarge the umma -- the community of Muslims -- through persuasion and dissemination of the faith, peaceful activities in which the media and various Muslim communities can take part.
As for defensive jihad, it is essentially a form of "national resistance" that is legitimate, under international law, as a means of confronting foreign occupation and aggression. Defensive jihad, in the sense of national resistance, does not need to emanate from a central authority. From the Islamic point of view, it is the duty of all capable Muslims to defend their land against foreign assault and occupation.
* The writer is an expert on Islamist movements at the Al-Ahram Centre for Political and Strategic Studies.
© Copyright Al-Ahram Weekly. All rights reserved
Diaa Rashwan skips through the synonyms
Al-Ahram Weekly Online
6 - 12 December 2001
Issue No.563
The international crisis triggered by the 11 September attacks on Washington and New York has spawned an interesting breed of synonyms. In a game of political semantics, words have been forced to mate, binary oppositions resuscitated, and conclusions twisted to serve various vested interests.
The most obvious example is that of jihad and terror. Many Western politicians, academics and media professionals now use the two words interchangeably. The word game, however, knows no limits. We have terror/ national resistance, Arab and Muslims/fanatical terrorists, Islam and Arabs/barbarism, enduring freedom and infinite justice/war, the West/human civilisation, the international anti-terror coalition/the United States and its allies, and cluster bombs/food packages.
All these pairs suggest that the two sides of the dichotomy are in fact similar. A word is chosen, turned around, coupled with a target word, and then used interchangeably with it. With persistent repetition, the two parts become one in an act of linguistic wizardry that can cause serious damage.
The need for synonyms is as old as language, but as the media gain an ever greater grip on modern life, the creation of synonyms is becoming a veritable cottage industry. The media-led invention of a special new language is due either to sheer ignorance or to malicious intent. The combination of jihad and terror, which gained relevance in the aftermath of 11 September, is no benign coincidence. It is part of an ongoing war.
In this war, the United States and its closest allies have the advantage of an awesome media machine, capable of rearranging concepts and restructuring language, which has assumed a key role in managing the crisis and manipulating world opinion. Since the Gulf War -- even since the fall of the Berlin Wall and the Romanian "revolution" against Ceaucescu -- the Western media have been powerful tools for the United States and its allies in the campaign to reshape the world, in reality and ideology.
In the ongoing war against "international terror," Muslims and Arabs are the villains du jour; so jihad, a perfectly legitimate concept, is being equated with the horrifying goals of terrorists. The trick is standard fare for spin doctors: choose a word with sinister connotations and associate it with a concept you wish to discredit. Then use the two interchangeably, until the difference between them is forgotten.
Jihad and terror were good candidates. The two concepts share one trait. Jihad, under certain conditions, may involve the use of violence. The two concepts are different in almost every other sense. But once the differences are swept under the rug, through the constant abuse of language, jihad and its proponents evoke only images of violence and suffering. The same game can be played with national resistance, to impugn legitimate struggle against occupation and discredit opponents of global capitalism.
The war of words aims to obscure the meaning of jihad, reduce and twist the term, banish it to the territory of terror. Jihad al-nafs, a struggle for self-improvement and purification, is excised from the concept. All that remains is the image of terror, loathsome, menacing, and ugly.
The only way we can deal with this is to refuse to play. The word games are a crime against language. They should be deconstructed and shown to be empty of meaning. The two words must be dissociated, then returned to their true meanings.
Theoretically, the "terror" side of the equation should be easy to deal with. Most people would agree that terrorism is the use of force to frighten or kill civilians in order to attain illegitimate ends. The practical implications, however, are more difficult. The West sees the 11 September attacks as "terror." But the actions of US forces against civilians in Afghanistan are seen as a legitimate "war" on terror. Likewise, the West refrains from labelling Israel's occupation, massacres and mass detentions as anything more than the "excessive use of force." Acts of resistance by the Palestinians, meanwhile, are invariably described as "terror."
What we need, then, is a practical definition of terror. Since it is almost impossible to formulate a definition that satisfies everyone, perhaps it would be a good idea to formulate an Arab and Islamic definition of terror, in line with international law. At the same time, it would be appropriate to emphasise that Islam explicitly prohibits terror. This effort could take place through one of the two key international organisations of the Arab and Islamic world: the Arab League and the Organisation of the Islamic Conference. Public figures, religious scholars, and intellectuals from Arab and Muslim countries should participate in that effort.
As for jihad, historical and religious information abounds. Jihad, most Muslim scholars would agree, is of two types. Jihad al-nafs, as mentioned above, refers to the individual's striving to attain a higher moral ground. The other form of jihad is directed against those who live outside the umma (the Muslim community); that is, against non-Muslim countries and peoples. In both types of jihad, a Muslim may choose among four weapons: the heart, speech, the hand, and the sword.
Jihad against those outside the umma is of two types: defensive and offensive. The first is the duty of all Muslims: to defend their faith, life, land, and honour against attacks by non-Muslims. Offensive jihad is the duty of the "Muslim state": to try and integrate non-Muslim peoples and zones into the land of Islam -- that is, to convert people to the monotheistic faith of Islam and bring them into the umma. In both cases, jihad is conducted under rigorous restrictions. First, it must involve no threat to the lives, security, honour, and property of civilians and non- combatants.
Since there is no central Islamic state that encompasses all Muslim societies, it can be argued that the concept of offensive jihad, in the sense of conquest, is no longer valid. The essence of the term, however, remains applicable. It is still possible to enlarge the umma -- the community of Muslims -- through persuasion and dissemination of the faith, peaceful activities in which the media and various Muslim communities can take part.
As for defensive jihad, it is essentially a form of "national resistance" that is legitimate, under international law, as a means of confronting foreign occupation and aggression. Defensive jihad, in the sense of national resistance, does not need to emanate from a central authority. From the Islamic point of view, it is the duty of all capable Muslims to defend their land against foreign assault and occupation.
* The writer is an expert on Islamist movements at the Al-Ahram Centre for Political and Strategic Studies.
© Copyright Al-Ahram Weekly. All rights reserved
Thursday, August 7, 2008
The Origins of Extremism: Theology or Reality
Written by Ms.Soumaya Ghanoushi Sep 04, 2007
Language is not a transparent medium or a neutral instrument, but is overwhelmed with power strategies. Language not only reflects worldviews and modes of life, it articulates and dictates them such as to preclude any possibility of separating terminologies from their contexts. This is most evident in the bulk of Western intellectual and political discourse on Islam. Indeed much can be read into the deceivingly simple words President Bush or Prime Minister Blair use to characterize the blood chilling catastrophic events of September 11th; "the attacks" we are told "are an assault on the free civilized world". Before such a world stands its anti-thesis an enslaved barbaric world, one that encapsulates all that "we" are not. The far stretching lands of Islam loom largely in this bleak uncivilized sphere. If the modern West is dynamic the world of Islam is stagnant, if it is governed democratically and honors self-ownership, Islam is plagued by a despotism that crushes the individual altogether out of existence. If it is rigorously rational, the world of Islam is the embodiment of raving instincts and wild emotionalism.
The practice is also popular amongst a great many Western intellectuals, journalists and academics who, reminiscent of 18th Century Christian missionaries, urge us to promote 'our' Western "values everywhere from Burma to Saudi Arabia, Iraq to Chechnya" as a leading columnist in the Guardian daily newspapervehemently proclaims. Islam is thus transformed into a silent passive object laid bare before their gaze, stigmatized categorized and tried, a "world- picture" to use the words of the well known German philosopher Martin Heidegger. In this vortex of comments and analyses, Islam's voice remains unheard.
The 19th century European traveler's distant detached observations of the strange ways of the Muslim other, the Christian missionary, colonial administrator and military general's representations of the remote world of Islam are now replaced by ones by journalists, Islamologues and so- called experts. And while medieval christians dissociated the historical success of Islam from its doctrinal and philological sources - which were deemed false and indeed fraudulent -, modern and present day Western intellectuals almost unanimously attribute the decadent historical condition of Islam to its beliefs and value system. While Medieval theologians insisted that Islam's historical accomplishments did not validate its claim as a true revelation - Christianity being the one and only right path to God -, their modern secularist heirs fervently insist that the roots of the backwardness of the Muslim world are to be traced back to its religious texts. Intensely intricate labyrinthine social and political phenomena are thus uprooted from their historical contexts in a bid to consolidate a portrayal of Islam as a "deficient", "stagnant" religion, a warrior blood thirsty religion that glorifies slaughter and aggression against its enemies on the outside, while oppressing minorities and subordinating women internally.
Even those of little if any knowledge of Islam and its intensely complex historical condition, movements and traditions have now entered this unrestricted open market. Thus on the basis of translated scattered fragments pulled out of their interpretive contexts, with no knowledge of any of the great languages of Islam, and no awareness of the complexities of Muslim society, many do not hesitate to declare that Islam is an "intolerant" barbaric religion.
With no concern for the most elementary requirements of responsible objective scientific research parts of verses are extricated from their contexts and combined with other fragments to distort the general meaning, Quranic verses are confused with sayings of the prophet, talk of otherworldly punishment and reward is represented as rules determining treatment of non-believers in this world. And daily we witness the hideous spectacle of ignorance, arrogance and prejudice parading freely across the larger part of the countless analyses, columns and articles on Islam and its world that stretch across pages and pages of newspapers, glossy magazines and academic reviews.
Verses are quoted selectively with no mention of exhortations to peace, which almost in every case follow teachings on conduct in armed struggle. "Thus, if they let you be, and do not make war on you, and offer you peace, God does not allow you to harm them" (4:90)". Nor indeed is there any mention of the verses that form the bulk of the Quran that enjoin Muslims to treat with respect those of other faiths. "Let there be no coercion in religion" is the rule it lays down for the treatment of those of other convictions. A special status is reserved for Jews and Christians, whom it refers to as "the people of the book". Judaism and Christianity are not regarded as other religions but as intrinsic to Islam itself. Their God is its God, their prophets its prophets.
In fact not only is Islam tolerant to these religions, since tolerance implies dualism and a fundamental difference between the subject and object of tolerance, it identifies itself with Judaism and Christianity and enjoins upon its adherents religious respect and devotion to the Prophets and revelations of these two great religions. It is indeed striking that while no religion preserved the shrines of another in its own base and enabled them to flourish in its midst except Islam, none has been so deeply misrepresented and cruelly disfigured as Islam has been.
Difference according to the Quran is not only to be tolerated and accepted. It is to be celebrated as the object of creation itself. The Q'uran emphatically notes " "And had your Lord so willed, He could surely have made the whole mankind one single community, but He willed it otherwise, and so they continue to differ save among those on whom God has bestowed his grace and for this He has created them.".
The principle governing relations between humans is, the Quran tells us, atta'aruf or acquaintance. Addressing humankind it insists: "O people! We have formed you into nations and tribes so that you may know one another" (49: 13)--not to conquer, convert or subjugate but to reach out toward others.
If such is Islam's conception of relations between human beings why we must ask do many extremist tendencies manifest themselves on its surface?
If we are to gain insight into the grave phenomena emerging in the Islamic world, we must free ourselves of the blind naïve essentialism characteristic of a great many analyses of the problem, which seek theological explanations for highly complex historical phenomena. The intensely intricate nature of the Islamic socio-political situation marked by striking contradictions and strong tensions is better understood when viewed within the context of the waves of Western imperialist expansion, of the crises of the post-colonial state and the reality of social deprivation, economic dependence and decadent educational systems unable to fill the vacuum generated by the erosion of traditional learning centers, along with the marginalisation of the Muslim masses from the political system.
The situation has been further complicated by American foreign policies in the Middle East, its backing of Israel's 34 year illegal military occupation of the West Bank and Gaza and insistence on an increasingly pa inful embargo on Iraq which according to Columbia University researcher Richard Garfield led to the death of 06,000 to 220,000 children between 1991 and 1998. The West's support of despotic totalitarian regimes that annihilate all margins of freedom and stifle all voices of dissent proves to be another principal source of frustration.
The US is widely regarded by many in the Middle East as a crucial obstacle in their struggle for freedom from oppression. It is indeed interesting that the most despotic states in the Middle East region are those who have the closest ties with the USA and its Western allies. One indeed may legitimately ask if such totalitarianism is the product of Islam or whether it is the creation of Western policies themselves.
It is to West's hegemonic self-engrossed policies in the region that we should turn if we are to understand the causes of the great turmoil shaking Muslim societies to their very depths. Much to the horror of the journalists and intellectuals acting as the "enlightened missionaries" of new colonialism, it is America's statesmen, generals and moneymen that hold the key to our search for the origins of so- called Islamic fanaticism and extremism, not the texts of the Qu'ran or the tradition of Islam's Prophet as they never tire of repeating.
Language is not a transparent medium or a neutral instrument, but is overwhelmed with power strategies. Language not only reflects worldviews and modes of life, it articulates and dictates them such as to preclude any possibility of separating terminologies from their contexts. This is most evident in the bulk of Western intellectual and political discourse on Islam. Indeed much can be read into the deceivingly simple words President Bush or Prime Minister Blair use to characterize the blood chilling catastrophic events of September 11th; "the attacks" we are told "are an assault on the free civilized world". Before such a world stands its anti-thesis an enslaved barbaric world, one that encapsulates all that "we" are not. The far stretching lands of Islam loom largely in this bleak uncivilized sphere. If the modern West is dynamic the world of Islam is stagnant, if it is governed democratically and honors self-ownership, Islam is plagued by a despotism that crushes the individual altogether out of existence. If it is rigorously rational, the world of Islam is the embodiment of raving instincts and wild emotionalism.
The practice is also popular amongst a great many Western intellectuals, journalists and academics who, reminiscent of 18th Century Christian missionaries, urge us to promote 'our' Western "values everywhere from Burma to Saudi Arabia, Iraq to Chechnya" as a leading columnist in the Guardian daily newspapervehemently proclaims. Islam is thus transformed into a silent passive object laid bare before their gaze, stigmatized categorized and tried, a "world- picture" to use the words of the well known German philosopher Martin Heidegger. In this vortex of comments and analyses, Islam's voice remains unheard.
The 19th century European traveler's distant detached observations of the strange ways of the Muslim other, the Christian missionary, colonial administrator and military general's representations of the remote world of Islam are now replaced by ones by journalists, Islamologues and so- called experts. And while medieval christians dissociated the historical success of Islam from its doctrinal and philological sources - which were deemed false and indeed fraudulent -, modern and present day Western intellectuals almost unanimously attribute the decadent historical condition of Islam to its beliefs and value system. While Medieval theologians insisted that Islam's historical accomplishments did not validate its claim as a true revelation - Christianity being the one and only right path to God -, their modern secularist heirs fervently insist that the roots of the backwardness of the Muslim world are to be traced back to its religious texts. Intensely intricate labyrinthine social and political phenomena are thus uprooted from their historical contexts in a bid to consolidate a portrayal of Islam as a "deficient", "stagnant" religion, a warrior blood thirsty religion that glorifies slaughter and aggression against its enemies on the outside, while oppressing minorities and subordinating women internally.
Even those of little if any knowledge of Islam and its intensely complex historical condition, movements and traditions have now entered this unrestricted open market. Thus on the basis of translated scattered fragments pulled out of their interpretive contexts, with no knowledge of any of the great languages of Islam, and no awareness of the complexities of Muslim society, many do not hesitate to declare that Islam is an "intolerant" barbaric religion.
With no concern for the most elementary requirements of responsible objective scientific research parts of verses are extricated from their contexts and combined with other fragments to distort the general meaning, Quranic verses are confused with sayings of the prophet, talk of otherworldly punishment and reward is represented as rules determining treatment of non-believers in this world. And daily we witness the hideous spectacle of ignorance, arrogance and prejudice parading freely across the larger part of the countless analyses, columns and articles on Islam and its world that stretch across pages and pages of newspapers, glossy magazines and academic reviews.
Verses are quoted selectively with no mention of exhortations to peace, which almost in every case follow teachings on conduct in armed struggle. "Thus, if they let you be, and do not make war on you, and offer you peace, God does not allow you to harm them" (4:90)". Nor indeed is there any mention of the verses that form the bulk of the Quran that enjoin Muslims to treat with respect those of other faiths. "Let there be no coercion in religion" is the rule it lays down for the treatment of those of other convictions. A special status is reserved for Jews and Christians, whom it refers to as "the people of the book". Judaism and Christianity are not regarded as other religions but as intrinsic to Islam itself. Their God is its God, their prophets its prophets.
In fact not only is Islam tolerant to these religions, since tolerance implies dualism and a fundamental difference between the subject and object of tolerance, it identifies itself with Judaism and Christianity and enjoins upon its adherents religious respect and devotion to the Prophets and revelations of these two great religions. It is indeed striking that while no religion preserved the shrines of another in its own base and enabled them to flourish in its midst except Islam, none has been so deeply misrepresented and cruelly disfigured as Islam has been.
Difference according to the Quran is not only to be tolerated and accepted. It is to be celebrated as the object of creation itself. The Q'uran emphatically notes " "And had your Lord so willed, He could surely have made the whole mankind one single community, but He willed it otherwise, and so they continue to differ save among those on whom God has bestowed his grace and for this He has created them.".
The principle governing relations between humans is, the Quran tells us, atta'aruf or acquaintance. Addressing humankind it insists: "O people! We have formed you into nations and tribes so that you may know one another" (49: 13)--not to conquer, convert or subjugate but to reach out toward others.
If such is Islam's conception of relations between human beings why we must ask do many extremist tendencies manifest themselves on its surface?
If we are to gain insight into the grave phenomena emerging in the Islamic world, we must free ourselves of the blind naïve essentialism characteristic of a great many analyses of the problem, which seek theological explanations for highly complex historical phenomena. The intensely intricate nature of the Islamic socio-political situation marked by striking contradictions and strong tensions is better understood when viewed within the context of the waves of Western imperialist expansion, of the crises of the post-colonial state and the reality of social deprivation, economic dependence and decadent educational systems unable to fill the vacuum generated by the erosion of traditional learning centers, along with the marginalisation of the Muslim masses from the political system.
The situation has been further complicated by American foreign policies in the Middle East, its backing of Israel's 34 year illegal military occupation of the West Bank and Gaza and insistence on an increasingly pa inful embargo on Iraq which according to Columbia University researcher Richard Garfield led to the death of 06,000 to 220,000 children between 1991 and 1998. The West's support of despotic totalitarian regimes that annihilate all margins of freedom and stifle all voices of dissent proves to be another principal source of frustration.
The US is widely regarded by many in the Middle East as a crucial obstacle in their struggle for freedom from oppression. It is indeed interesting that the most despotic states in the Middle East region are those who have the closest ties with the USA and its Western allies. One indeed may legitimately ask if such totalitarianism is the product of Islam or whether it is the creation of Western policies themselves.
It is to West's hegemonic self-engrossed policies in the region that we should turn if we are to understand the causes of the great turmoil shaking Muslim societies to their very depths. Much to the horror of the journalists and intellectuals acting as the "enlightened missionaries" of new colonialism, it is America's statesmen, generals and moneymen that hold the key to our search for the origins of so- called Islamic fanaticism and extremism, not the texts of the Qu'ran or the tradition of Islam's Prophet as they never tire of repeating.
Friday, July 4, 2008
The Arrogance in Ignorance & Knowledge
(Adapted)
Have you noticed that controversy mostly revolves around power and control? Respect and disrespect are rooted in inequality, which is often the powerplay between superiority and inferiority, and a battle with blindspots and arrogance.
One would sometimes come across people who will say: “I KNOW that!” and those who give the impression that they know, while hiding behind their ignorance when they do not really know. Across the Muslim world today there are also innumerable "experts" without the benefit of even the "minimum required" religious education and training. As for the audiences, they readily confuse eloquence with scholarship. If a person is a good writer or speaker, then that qualifies him or her sufficiently to speak on deep Islamic issues, and if the person carries the magic title of "Dr." - the Dr. sickness, that would certainly fill any gaps in his authority. It does not seem to matter if such a person's educational achievement is only in gynecology or business administration, journalism or nuclear science, physics or animal husbandry. Instead of using their expertise to develop Islamic models in these areas, they rather interpret the Qur-aan and Ahaadiith, give Fataawaa, or even do Ijetihaad on Muslim affairs and fowarding ideas that have been disastrous when mixed with secular concepts.
What is more, we also make a virtue out of this catastrophe by bragging that we have broken the "shackles of blind following" and opened direct access to the original sources of Islamic teachings. Do we know the danger? (What are the dangers that are lurking in this process? Are they real dangers or merely personal fears? On the other hand, choosing someone to act as Amiir for a task group does not require this person to hold an Islamic or other Degree. Also, leading others in Solaah deals with the best among them in the group, which once again is not the absolute right of someone with an Islamic Degree. Such a person can certainly not guarantee success before ALLAAH with claims that s/he has an Islamic Degree.)
However, instead of taking a chance and basing it on hearsay and random readings, one should have a desire to obtain Islamic knowledge along a specific path and then be driven by this desire to acquire it throughout one's life. No doubt, one is forever a seeker/student of Knowledge and can never claim to be an 'Aalim. As such, I believe in words such as "capable", etc. because the commonly used word "qualified" excludes the many "able" persons. Being qualified does not necessarily mean "able" nor does capable mean that the person is not qualified.
For a change, let us also visit a Daarul-'Uluum where they are screening candidates for admission to the next Iftaa class. The top scorers from the regular 'Aalim course were given a test and just the top ten from the test will be brought for an interview. They are tested not only for their knowledge of Arabic and religious texts but also their ability to understand complex real life situations and to communicate well. Once they graduate, they will do an internship for years under qualified and experienced Muftis. Even the best of their teachers will consult others when they face a difficult issue. After exercising the best of caution, they will learn to say "Allaah knows best" at the end of their answers or the people saying: "But the Shaykh said so!" or "But he's a Shaykh!" or "He's a graduate of..." (Is advanced Islamic learning then only for those with the best intellects or should this not be open to any Muslim wanting to acquire it? Are we then creating a priestly class or personality cults at the expense of the humbly able?)
Muslims are, nonetheless, led by the 'Ulamaa_ — i.e Muslim scholars trained in Islamic law — who have determined how Muslims should understand Islaam and the world for centuries. With this defined conception of religious knowledge, the Muslim world began to lag behind in its production and consumption of knowledge (Khan, 2006).
Modern scholarship has often viewed the premodern Islamic legal Tradition as a highly rigid structure. It is defined as being in opposition to the social and political institutions of society that is resistant to change once its fundamental principles and doctrines during the age of formative legal development had been articulated (Zaman, 2002).
The Muslim world often ask whether it is Halaal to eat gummy bears — or if one can marry two sisters simultaneously, and questions on whether it is okay to join the WTO and whether democracy is a good idea. While the 'Ulamaa_ are “trained” to answer the first two questions, contemporary reality appears to be outside their domain (Khan, 2006).
Whereas the social sciences are more interested in understanding and describing the world as it is with an empirical focus rather than postulating on how it ought to be, it is unlike Islamic sciences, which are essentially normative paradigms (Khan, 2006).
However, if we look at the word Anfus (internal world) mentioned along with Afaq (external world) in 41:53, it shows that science is not confined to the laws of physics but encompasses all the social sciences as well. The latter of which have to be developed by practical research. This is an important distinction, which means that the 'Ulamaa_ should not only be trained traditionally but also in psychology and sociology, or sit alongside Muslim psychologists, sociologists and social scientists who will otherwise also carry out research into the Islamic sciences.
In the best traditions of this Ummah, Imaam Maalik considered his knowledge as a trust. When he knew something to be right or wrong, no intimidation could stop him from declaring so. It was his Fatwaa that divorce given under compulsion is invalid that earned him the wrath of the ruler (as it implied that a pledge of allegiance given under compulsion was also invalid). He was punished with lashes and at every strike he said, "I am Maalik bin Anas and I declare that divorce given under compulsion is invalid." (Who among us will be prepared to undergo this today?)
Imaam Maalik bin Anas (b. 93 AH, d. 179 AH) was one of the greatest Islamic scholars of his time. Among his 1300 disciples were people from all walks of life; rulers, judges, historians, Suufis, poets, and scholars of Qur-aan, Hadiith, and Fiqh. The Khaliifah (Caliph) himself attended his class as an ordinary student along with others.
Yet it was the same Imaam Maalik who was more likely to say "la adrii" (I don't know) or "la ahsin" (I don't know it very well) in response to the constant flow of queries directed toward him. Once a person approached him and told him that he had come from Marrakesh --- after a six month journey --- only to ask a question. "My people back home are waiting for your answer", he said. After hearing the question Imaam Maalik replied, "Please tell your people that I do not know the answer to your question." In one case he was asked forty-eight questions and in response to thirty-two of them he said, "I don't know." It was commonly said that if somebody wrote down Imaam Maalik's answers to questions, he could easily fill pages with "I don't know" before writing a real answer.
The reason for this extraordinary care was nothing but a deep sense of accountability before Allaah. It was the caution of a person who was standing between Hell and Heaven, fearful that one wrong step could lead him to the former. "Before you answer a question about religious law, visualize that you are standing at the gates of Hell and Heaven", he used to advise others.
Of course, he was not alone. Ibn Jariij used to attend the Majelis (sitting) of Abdullaah ibn 'Umar (R.A.). "In answer to more than half the questions he used to say I don't know." Ibn Abii Layla saw 120 Sohaaba (companions). "Whenever one of them was asked a question he wished that someone else would answer it."
Nor was this caution restricted to Fiqh (Islamic Law). In interpreting the Qur-aan or the Hadiith, they exercised the same care. Imaam Muslim whose Sohiih Muslim is unanimously considered second of the two most authentic collections of Hadiith, had set for himself only the task of Hadiith collection leaving the job of interpreting them to others. He was so concerned about this that he did not even divide the book into chapters for such classification would amount to interpretation.
They were the authoritative source on Islamic teachings, having devoted their lives to learning and practicing them. They knew very well the tremendous burden inherent in a statement that begins with "Allaah Ta'aalaa says", or "The Prophet, Sollal Laahu 'alayhi wa Sallam, says". For stating something that is not so means that a person is attributing something to Allaah or the Prophet that is not true. What can be a greater sin than that! They always remembered that it is Haraam to give Fatwah without knowledge. They always remembered the Hadiith, "Whoever interprets the Qur-aan without knowledge should make his abode in Hell."
Fast forwarded to today and you find yourself in a totally different world. The vast confusion and ignorance of even elementary subjects in religious teachings among the seemingly "educated" classes today is unprecedented. Today, one can find all sorts of un-Islamic ideas and practices, conjectures, whims, and desires finding approval in concocted "Ijtihaadom". There is a famous saying in Urdu. "A pseudo doctor is danger to life - A pseudo religious scholar is danger to faith." The resulting death and injury is not physical in this case and is therefore less visible. But no amount of bragging can hide the fact that this is the equivalent of allowing unlicensed and untrained people to practice medicine. Others again will use this saying to protect their own interests. The reasons for this malaise are complex except for two:
First, the schooling of our "educated" people included very little or no Islamic education. Plainly, "they do not know and they do not even know that they do not know", and this is when the blind following starts.
Second, many of us harbour great mistrust of those who have received formal Islamic education. In turn, this is also based on ignorance of what constitutes such education. All that is known is that it is foreign (a sort of black box) and what is made known is that there is something wrong with it.
(Can anyone in all honesty declare that an alternative that misses each of these features is better?) Yes, A PEP-UP! That is, [A]lways [P]articipate and expect [Equality] in the [P]artnership - [U]phold these [P]rinciples.
ALWAYS...
Participate: It is far easier to be gossip mongers, fence sitters and arm-chair critics. If we remain in our comfort zones and sit back and expect others to be pro-active, we can expect to see the same faces in multiple profiles. We don't need a situation where there are more chiefs than Indians and where the Indians also want to act as chiefs, for the Qur-aan clearly states,"Indeed, He (ALLAAH) does not love the proud" [16:23]. Our elders need to stand out from among the crowds, and be counted and respected, and they must also give others space to reach their full potential with much less gatekeeping.
Equality: Everyone brings along a Basket of Knowledge and life experiences, which allow for the changing roles in an expert-ignorant relationship. This also applies in a student-teacher relationship where both are able to contribute or add to the Basket of Wisdom within the framework of the Sharii’ah.
Partnership: Islaam has no place for glory-seekers, egoists or egotists and eletist groups who simply battle to achieve their objectives. And raising barriers shows a lack of transparency and accountability. This Ummah not only needs people of sound intelligence and reasoning, but also "other capable" Muslimuun who are "able" to go the extra mile or even deeper to guide the Ummah to what is best at all times.
Uphold these Principles.
- M. Tahir Farrath -
Download pdf copy at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NZ_Muslims_Islamic_Forum/files/NZ%20Muslims%20Articles%20and%20Papers/Arrogance_in_Ignorance_&_Knowledge.pdf
or
http://groups.google.com/group/the-islamic-study-circle/web/Arrogance_in_Ignorance_&_Knowledge.pdf
Have you noticed that controversy mostly revolves around power and control? Respect and disrespect are rooted in inequality, which is often the powerplay between superiority and inferiority, and a battle with blindspots and arrogance.
One would sometimes come across people who will say: “I KNOW that!” and those who give the impression that they know, while hiding behind their ignorance when they do not really know. Across the Muslim world today there are also innumerable "experts" without the benefit of even the "minimum required" religious education and training. As for the audiences, they readily confuse eloquence with scholarship. If a person is a good writer or speaker, then that qualifies him or her sufficiently to speak on deep Islamic issues, and if the person carries the magic title of "Dr." - the Dr. sickness, that would certainly fill any gaps in his authority. It does not seem to matter if such a person's educational achievement is only in gynecology or business administration, journalism or nuclear science, physics or animal husbandry. Instead of using their expertise to develop Islamic models in these areas, they rather interpret the Qur-aan and Ahaadiith, give Fataawaa, or even do Ijetihaad on Muslim affairs and fowarding ideas that have been disastrous when mixed with secular concepts.
What is more, we also make a virtue out of this catastrophe by bragging that we have broken the "shackles of blind following" and opened direct access to the original sources of Islamic teachings. Do we know the danger? (What are the dangers that are lurking in this process? Are they real dangers or merely personal fears? On the other hand, choosing someone to act as Amiir for a task group does not require this person to hold an Islamic or other Degree. Also, leading others in Solaah deals with the best among them in the group, which once again is not the absolute right of someone with an Islamic Degree. Such a person can certainly not guarantee success before ALLAAH with claims that s/he has an Islamic Degree.)
However, instead of taking a chance and basing it on hearsay and random readings, one should have a desire to obtain Islamic knowledge along a specific path and then be driven by this desire to acquire it throughout one's life. No doubt, one is forever a seeker/student of Knowledge and can never claim to be an 'Aalim. As such, I believe in words such as "capable", etc. because the commonly used word "qualified" excludes the many "able" persons. Being qualified does not necessarily mean "able" nor does capable mean that the person is not qualified.
For a change, let us also visit a Daarul-'Uluum where they are screening candidates for admission to the next Iftaa class. The top scorers from the regular 'Aalim course were given a test and just the top ten from the test will be brought for an interview. They are tested not only for their knowledge of Arabic and religious texts but also their ability to understand complex real life situations and to communicate well. Once they graduate, they will do an internship for years under qualified and experienced Muftis. Even the best of their teachers will consult others when they face a difficult issue. After exercising the best of caution, they will learn to say "Allaah knows best" at the end of their answers or the people saying: "But the Shaykh said so!" or "But he's a Shaykh!" or "He's a graduate of..." (Is advanced Islamic learning then only for those with the best intellects or should this not be open to any Muslim wanting to acquire it? Are we then creating a priestly class or personality cults at the expense of the humbly able?)
Muslims are, nonetheless, led by the 'Ulamaa_ — i.e Muslim scholars trained in Islamic law — who have determined how Muslims should understand Islaam and the world for centuries. With this defined conception of religious knowledge, the Muslim world began to lag behind in its production and consumption of knowledge (Khan, 2006).
Modern scholarship has often viewed the premodern Islamic legal Tradition as a highly rigid structure. It is defined as being in opposition to the social and political institutions of society that is resistant to change once its fundamental principles and doctrines during the age of formative legal development had been articulated (Zaman, 2002).
The Muslim world often ask whether it is Halaal to eat gummy bears — or if one can marry two sisters simultaneously, and questions on whether it is okay to join the WTO and whether democracy is a good idea. While the 'Ulamaa_ are “trained” to answer the first two questions, contemporary reality appears to be outside their domain (Khan, 2006).
Whereas the social sciences are more interested in understanding and describing the world as it is with an empirical focus rather than postulating on how it ought to be, it is unlike Islamic sciences, which are essentially normative paradigms (Khan, 2006).
However, if we look at the word Anfus (internal world) mentioned along with Afaq (external world) in 41:53, it shows that science is not confined to the laws of physics but encompasses all the social sciences as well. The latter of which have to be developed by practical research. This is an important distinction, which means that the 'Ulamaa_ should not only be trained traditionally but also in psychology and sociology, or sit alongside Muslim psychologists, sociologists and social scientists who will otherwise also carry out research into the Islamic sciences.
In the best traditions of this Ummah, Imaam Maalik considered his knowledge as a trust. When he knew something to be right or wrong, no intimidation could stop him from declaring so. It was his Fatwaa that divorce given under compulsion is invalid that earned him the wrath of the ruler (as it implied that a pledge of allegiance given under compulsion was also invalid). He was punished with lashes and at every strike he said, "I am Maalik bin Anas and I declare that divorce given under compulsion is invalid." (Who among us will be prepared to undergo this today?)
Imaam Maalik bin Anas (b. 93 AH, d. 179 AH) was one of the greatest Islamic scholars of his time. Among his 1300 disciples were people from all walks of life; rulers, judges, historians, Suufis, poets, and scholars of Qur-aan, Hadiith, and Fiqh. The Khaliifah (Caliph) himself attended his class as an ordinary student along with others.
Yet it was the same Imaam Maalik who was more likely to say "la adrii" (I don't know) or "la ahsin" (I don't know it very well) in response to the constant flow of queries directed toward him. Once a person approached him and told him that he had come from Marrakesh --- after a six month journey --- only to ask a question. "My people back home are waiting for your answer", he said. After hearing the question Imaam Maalik replied, "Please tell your people that I do not know the answer to your question." In one case he was asked forty-eight questions and in response to thirty-two of them he said, "I don't know." It was commonly said that if somebody wrote down Imaam Maalik's answers to questions, he could easily fill pages with "I don't know" before writing a real answer.
The reason for this extraordinary care was nothing but a deep sense of accountability before Allaah. It was the caution of a person who was standing between Hell and Heaven, fearful that one wrong step could lead him to the former. "Before you answer a question about religious law, visualize that you are standing at the gates of Hell and Heaven", he used to advise others.
Of course, he was not alone. Ibn Jariij used to attend the Majelis (sitting) of Abdullaah ibn 'Umar (R.A.). "In answer to more than half the questions he used to say I don't know." Ibn Abii Layla saw 120 Sohaaba (companions). "Whenever one of them was asked a question he wished that someone else would answer it."
Nor was this caution restricted to Fiqh (Islamic Law). In interpreting the Qur-aan or the Hadiith, they exercised the same care. Imaam Muslim whose Sohiih Muslim is unanimously considered second of the two most authentic collections of Hadiith, had set for himself only the task of Hadiith collection leaving the job of interpreting them to others. He was so concerned about this that he did not even divide the book into chapters for such classification would amount to interpretation.
They were the authoritative source on Islamic teachings, having devoted their lives to learning and practicing them. They knew very well the tremendous burden inherent in a statement that begins with "Allaah Ta'aalaa says", or "The Prophet, Sollal Laahu 'alayhi wa Sallam, says". For stating something that is not so means that a person is attributing something to Allaah or the Prophet that is not true. What can be a greater sin than that! They always remembered that it is Haraam to give Fatwah without knowledge. They always remembered the Hadiith, "Whoever interprets the Qur-aan without knowledge should make his abode in Hell."
Fast forwarded to today and you find yourself in a totally different world. The vast confusion and ignorance of even elementary subjects in religious teachings among the seemingly "educated" classes today is unprecedented. Today, one can find all sorts of un-Islamic ideas and practices, conjectures, whims, and desires finding approval in concocted "Ijtihaadom". There is a famous saying in Urdu. "A pseudo doctor is danger to life - A pseudo religious scholar is danger to faith." The resulting death and injury is not physical in this case and is therefore less visible. But no amount of bragging can hide the fact that this is the equivalent of allowing unlicensed and untrained people to practice medicine. Others again will use this saying to protect their own interests. The reasons for this malaise are complex except for two:
First, the schooling of our "educated" people included very little or no Islamic education. Plainly, "they do not know and they do not even know that they do not know", and this is when the blind following starts.
Second, many of us harbour great mistrust of those who have received formal Islamic education. In turn, this is also based on ignorance of what constitutes such education. All that is known is that it is foreign (a sort of black box) and what is made known is that there is something wrong with it.
(Can anyone in all honesty declare that an alternative that misses each of these features is better?) Yes, A PEP-UP! That is, [A]lways [P]articipate and expect [Equality] in the [P]artnership - [U]phold these [P]rinciples.
ALWAYS...
Participate: It is far easier to be gossip mongers, fence sitters and arm-chair critics. If we remain in our comfort zones and sit back and expect others to be pro-active, we can expect to see the same faces in multiple profiles. We don't need a situation where there are more chiefs than Indians and where the Indians also want to act as chiefs, for the Qur-aan clearly states,"Indeed, He (ALLAAH) does not love the proud" [16:23]. Our elders need to stand out from among the crowds, and be counted and respected, and they must also give others space to reach their full potential with much less gatekeeping.
Equality: Everyone brings along a Basket of Knowledge and life experiences, which allow for the changing roles in an expert-ignorant relationship. This also applies in a student-teacher relationship where both are able to contribute or add to the Basket of Wisdom within the framework of the Sharii’ah.
Partnership: Islaam has no place for glory-seekers, egoists or egotists and eletist groups who simply battle to achieve their objectives. And raising barriers shows a lack of transparency and accountability. This Ummah not only needs people of sound intelligence and reasoning, but also "other capable" Muslimuun who are "able" to go the extra mile or even deeper to guide the Ummah to what is best at all times.
Uphold these Principles.
- M. Tahir Farrath -
Download pdf copy at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NZ_Muslims_Islamic_Forum/files/NZ%20Muslims%20Articles%20and%20Papers/Arrogance_in_Ignorance_&_Knowledge.pdf
or
http://groups.google.com/group/the-islamic-study-circle/web/Arrogance_in_Ignorance_&_Knowledge.pdf
Monday, June 23, 2008
Interconnectedness of the Qabiilah with the Bonds in Faith
Bis-Mil LAAHIR Rahmaanir Rahiim.
You might be wondering about the word "Qibiilah". A Qabiilah (tribe) in the Arabian desert was organized in clans. The nucleus of the tribe was the Khaymah (tent), which represented a family. An encampment of tents formed a Hayy and members of one Hayy constituted a Qawm (clan). A number of kindred clans grouped together formed a Qabiilah (Hitti, 1961).
The name of each clan is prefixed with Banuu, which means the "descendants of" or children. Thus, the members of each clan are invariably blood-related. While tribal members share in common all pasturage, water and cultivable land, only the tent and its contents belong to the individual.
When family members move abroad today, they no longer enjoy the usual support from their family. They may feel disconnected and become dysfunctional as they face the culture shock and transition. Unless people reach out to welcome them into an extended family and vice-versa, they would become strangers among strangers (estranged among even their own countrymen), and sadly loose their customary beliefs and values in this new environment. Certainly, people do bring along their "baggage", and because each person is different, those who are settled should be tolerant and not indulge in spreading Fitnah that would usually harm such people. So the Qabiilah I am referring to is based on the Arabic proverb:
Rubba Akhin laka lam Talidehuu Ummuka
"There is many a brother for you to whom your mother has not given birth."
In some cases the words Akhii (my brother) and Ukhtii (my sister) are the very words most frequented by the tongue of the Muslim. Oftentimes though, a Muslim may feel disappointed or let down by his brother, the very feeling of which is a contradiction of what the word brother represents to the Muslim and the Arabs, as told in part by the etymology of the word itself.
Ola Shoubaki mentions that some linguists believe that the word Akh is derived from the word Aakhiyyah that refers to a piece of rope where the two ends are attached to a small stone or stick and buried in the ground. It was used to tie a horse or other animal in place so that it does not wander off. In this way should one be attached to one's brothers, so that we do not wander off from one another (which is clearly the mother-of-all Buddy systems). Then there is the verb Khaala, which has two different forms that also differ in pattern and meaning, but let us concentrate on the first meaning, namely "to do proficiently" or "to perfect".
This meaning allows us to recognise the importance and status of the maternal uncle and aunt, and indeed our obligations as maternal aunts and uncles, who are called the Khaal and the Khaalah because they are supposed to "take care proficiently" of their family. And this may be one reason why the maternal aunt in Islaam is afforded the status of the mother when the mother is absent. There is also the situation where the bigger brother takes charge of the little brother/s.
Thus, Islaam invites to social cohesion or a single Ummah and Tamim al-Barghouti, a Palestinian poet, writes:
"The desert is said to impose unity, homogeneity - and therefore equality on all the creatures, because sand is everywhere, and in the end everything turns into sand. A sense of continuity and unity of the universe might have been present in the desert community of Bedouin Arabs.
Taking a second look at antonyms, one can see that most words relate to power and knowledge. The continuous fighting for water and means of livelihood among Arab tribes, the temporality of life and the cruel paradox of the desert coupling monotony and uncertainty, might have resulted in an instinctive position on power.
Power is temporary, and is in itself meaningless. Temporary power is therefore the same as weakness, master and slave will both die in the end, so would the seer and the blind, and the blind might be more of a seer than the one whose eyes are wide open.
Power and knowledge become meaningful only if the result is something that is not temporary. To Arabs, all physical objects will in the end vanish and turn to sand, but ideas will remain. Thus, power is necessary only to create legacies, memories, epics, legends and poetry. One could trace this idea well into the pre-Islamic era. After the advent of Islaam, the concept of legacy was replaced with the concept of the afterlife." Therefore, we must somehow be continually reminded that the Messenger of ALLAAH (S.A.W.S.) said:
Laa Yu_minu Ahadukum hattaa Yuhibba li-Akhiihii maa Yuhibbu li-Nafsih
"None of you [truly] believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself." [Al-Bukhaariy.]
As mentioned earlier, the brother should be like an Aakhiyyah and ensure that his companion is kept close to the mark and does not wander too far away from it, but if it should happen, his brother shall draw him back to it. Although we should act as one - each of us is also unique, and in terms of tribes, ethnicities or cultures, ALLAAH (S.W.T.) mentions this uniqueness as follows:
"O Mankind, we have created you male and female, and made you nations and tribes that you may know one another. Lo, the best of you, in the sight of ALLAAH, is the best in conduct. Verily, ALLAAH is the Knower, Aware." (49:13)
Commentators have said that the word Shu'uub used is the plural of Sha'b, referring to a large group of people of the same origin (like a nation). This then consists of clans and tribes. The largest in this arrangement is called a Sa'b, and the smallest is the 'Ashiirah. Abuu Araaq stated that Shu'uub and Sha'b refer to non-Arab nations whose lineage is not preserved whilst Qabaa-il refers to Arabs whose lineage is well-preserved. This is followed by Amaa'ir (tribal districts), then Butuun (tribal sub-districts), then Afkhaadh (sub-tribes) and finally Fasaa-il (clans). Tafsiir Jalaalayn provides the following example: Khuzaymah is the Sha'b, while Kinaana is the Qabiilah, Quraysh is the Imaarah, Qusayy is the Batn, Haashim is the Fakhdh, and 'Abbaas is the Fasiilah.
The colonialists have destroyed our history through their imperialism, and this does not also exclude slavery, adoptions and subsequent marriages, etc. So without being boastful, we may have to take a step back to define ourselves clearly, and then be proud of who we are and our way of being. Being clear of one's identity can be quite liberating. In this regard, we need to ask: Who am I? Where do I come from? What is my place or family of origin? What is our "Cultural Identity"? Do we have one? What does it look like? Does it resemble some dominant culture? If you/we are not clear about this, then you/we are in an "Identity Crisis!" However, this process must conform with the Sharii'ah, for our Nabiy was asked:
"O Prophet of ALLAAH! What is 'Asobiyyah?" He replied: “That you support your nation (or tribe) in oppression.” [Abuu Daawuud # 5119]
So there appears to be praiseworthy and blameworthy 'Asobiyyah. To understand this, we need to understand the history of the Arabs. The evil side of Tribalism, Nationalism, Patriotism, Racism, Prejudice, Institutionalised Discrimination, etc. cause all sorts of Internalised Oppression within a group or community and to society through unified oppressive social structures that emphasise control in terms of organic solidarity as opposed to mechanical solidarity. Essentially, the rule then is "Do no harm!" A praiseworthy principle then is that "If you do not know yourself well, you will not be in a position to fully know others". This also implies the following: "If you don't know yourself, how CAN you know others?"; "Speak about yourself (it or to him, her, them) and not about others"; and "Explore your own life (attitude, behaviour or ways) instead of prying into another's life" and forming conclusions.
Furthermore, a genealogy or genogram is helpful for such purposes as Miraath (inheritance), Mahaariim, etc. It is also a natural tradition in Islaam to preserve narratives. Our history is in our stories, which are stories of humanity. Therefore, we need to keep the fire burning so that that history is not forgotten and our heritage remains. The least we can do is to keep our stories alive so that they are remembered and retold by the children. Amidst the very great and rich cultural diversity, whatever we leave behind are treasures that will enable the next generation to continue the journey. Are there any substantial ones? Surely, it's not only a culture of inequality, conflict and disagreement.
With regard to this Qibiilah that is based on the mentioned proverb and Hadiith, it would be necessary to fully understand the collective nature of an "extended family" around the meaning of Akhwiyyah (brotherhood). Being selective or isolating oneself and excluding others will never foster this brotherhood. Since another group of linguists believe that the word Akh is derived from the word Wakhaa, it refers to an aim, endeavour or desire. This is because the two brothers or sisters, Ikhwaan or Ikhwah (brethren) would share these ideals in such a way that they are as one. There are various Muslim cultures that the Ummah identifies with, but there is the Islamic culture as the main way of life. The Nabiy (S.A.W.S.) said:
“...Now people are of two kinds. Either believers who are aware or transgressors who do wrong. You are all the children of Aadam and Aadam was made of clay… If they do not give this up (i.e. pride and arrogance in the glorification ancestors) Allaah will consider them lower than the lowly worm which pushes itself through dung.” (Abuu Daawuud and Tirmithiy)
As history will show, the bonds of faith and courage would often unite to become stronger than the bonds of blood and connection. So as we go about rediscovering ourselves, we also need to ask ourselves, "Are we bonded in Faith and Courage? How?"
- M. Tahir Farrath -
Download pdf copy at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NZ_Muslims_Islamic_Forum/files/NZ%20Muslims%20Articles%20and%20Papers/Interconnectedness_of_Qabiilah_with_Bonds_in_Faith.pdf
or
http://groups.google.com/group/southern-african-muslims-connexion/web/Interconnectedness_of_Qabiilah_with_Bonds_in_Faith.pdf
You might be wondering about the word "Qibiilah". A Qabiilah (tribe) in the Arabian desert was organized in clans. The nucleus of the tribe was the Khaymah (tent), which represented a family. An encampment of tents formed a Hayy and members of one Hayy constituted a Qawm (clan). A number of kindred clans grouped together formed a Qabiilah (Hitti, 1961).
The name of each clan is prefixed with Banuu, which means the "descendants of" or children. Thus, the members of each clan are invariably blood-related. While tribal members share in common all pasturage, water and cultivable land, only the tent and its contents belong to the individual.
When family members move abroad today, they no longer enjoy the usual support from their family. They may feel disconnected and become dysfunctional as they face the culture shock and transition. Unless people reach out to welcome them into an extended family and vice-versa, they would become strangers among strangers (estranged among even their own countrymen), and sadly loose their customary beliefs and values in this new environment. Certainly, people do bring along their "baggage", and because each person is different, those who are settled should be tolerant and not indulge in spreading Fitnah that would usually harm such people. So the Qabiilah I am referring to is based on the Arabic proverb:
Rubba Akhin laka lam Talidehuu Ummuka
"There is many a brother for you to whom your mother has not given birth."
In some cases the words Akhii (my brother) and Ukhtii (my sister) are the very words most frequented by the tongue of the Muslim. Oftentimes though, a Muslim may feel disappointed or let down by his brother, the very feeling of which is a contradiction of what the word brother represents to the Muslim and the Arabs, as told in part by the etymology of the word itself.
Ola Shoubaki mentions that some linguists believe that the word Akh is derived from the word Aakhiyyah that refers to a piece of rope where the two ends are attached to a small stone or stick and buried in the ground. It was used to tie a horse or other animal in place so that it does not wander off. In this way should one be attached to one's brothers, so that we do not wander off from one another (which is clearly the mother-of-all Buddy systems). Then there is the verb Khaala, which has two different forms that also differ in pattern and meaning, but let us concentrate on the first meaning, namely "to do proficiently" or "to perfect".
This meaning allows us to recognise the importance and status of the maternal uncle and aunt, and indeed our obligations as maternal aunts and uncles, who are called the Khaal and the Khaalah because they are supposed to "take care proficiently" of their family. And this may be one reason why the maternal aunt in Islaam is afforded the status of the mother when the mother is absent. There is also the situation where the bigger brother takes charge of the little brother/s.
Thus, Islaam invites to social cohesion or a single Ummah and Tamim al-Barghouti, a Palestinian poet, writes:
"The desert is said to impose unity, homogeneity - and therefore equality on all the creatures, because sand is everywhere, and in the end everything turns into sand. A sense of continuity and unity of the universe might have been present in the desert community of Bedouin Arabs.
Taking a second look at antonyms, one can see that most words relate to power and knowledge. The continuous fighting for water and means of livelihood among Arab tribes, the temporality of life and the cruel paradox of the desert coupling monotony and uncertainty, might have resulted in an instinctive position on power.
Power is temporary, and is in itself meaningless. Temporary power is therefore the same as weakness, master and slave will both die in the end, so would the seer and the blind, and the blind might be more of a seer than the one whose eyes are wide open.
Power and knowledge become meaningful only if the result is something that is not temporary. To Arabs, all physical objects will in the end vanish and turn to sand, but ideas will remain. Thus, power is necessary only to create legacies, memories, epics, legends and poetry. One could trace this idea well into the pre-Islamic era. After the advent of Islaam, the concept of legacy was replaced with the concept of the afterlife." Therefore, we must somehow be continually reminded that the Messenger of ALLAAH (S.A.W.S.) said:
Laa Yu_minu Ahadukum hattaa Yuhibba li-Akhiihii maa Yuhibbu li-Nafsih
"None of you [truly] believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself." [Al-Bukhaariy.]
As mentioned earlier, the brother should be like an Aakhiyyah and ensure that his companion is kept close to the mark and does not wander too far away from it, but if it should happen, his brother shall draw him back to it. Although we should act as one - each of us is also unique, and in terms of tribes, ethnicities or cultures, ALLAAH (S.W.T.) mentions this uniqueness as follows:
"O Mankind, we have created you male and female, and made you nations and tribes that you may know one another. Lo, the best of you, in the sight of ALLAAH, is the best in conduct. Verily, ALLAAH is the Knower, Aware." (49:13)
Commentators have said that the word Shu'uub used is the plural of Sha'b, referring to a large group of people of the same origin (like a nation). This then consists of clans and tribes. The largest in this arrangement is called a Sa'b, and the smallest is the 'Ashiirah. Abuu Araaq stated that Shu'uub and Sha'b refer to non-Arab nations whose lineage is not preserved whilst Qabaa-il refers to Arabs whose lineage is well-preserved. This is followed by Amaa'ir (tribal districts), then Butuun (tribal sub-districts), then Afkhaadh (sub-tribes) and finally Fasaa-il (clans). Tafsiir Jalaalayn provides the following example: Khuzaymah is the Sha'b, while Kinaana is the Qabiilah, Quraysh is the Imaarah, Qusayy is the Batn, Haashim is the Fakhdh, and 'Abbaas is the Fasiilah.
The colonialists have destroyed our history through their imperialism, and this does not also exclude slavery, adoptions and subsequent marriages, etc. So without being boastful, we may have to take a step back to define ourselves clearly, and then be proud of who we are and our way of being. Being clear of one's identity can be quite liberating. In this regard, we need to ask: Who am I? Where do I come from? What is my place or family of origin? What is our "Cultural Identity"? Do we have one? What does it look like? Does it resemble some dominant culture? If you/we are not clear about this, then you/we are in an "Identity Crisis!" However, this process must conform with the Sharii'ah, for our Nabiy was asked:
"O Prophet of ALLAAH! What is 'Asobiyyah?" He replied: “That you support your nation (or tribe) in oppression.” [Abuu Daawuud # 5119]
So there appears to be praiseworthy and blameworthy 'Asobiyyah. To understand this, we need to understand the history of the Arabs. The evil side of Tribalism, Nationalism, Patriotism, Racism, Prejudice, Institutionalised Discrimination, etc. cause all sorts of Internalised Oppression within a group or community and to society through unified oppressive social structures that emphasise control in terms of organic solidarity as opposed to mechanical solidarity. Essentially, the rule then is "Do no harm!" A praiseworthy principle then is that "If you do not know yourself well, you will not be in a position to fully know others". This also implies the following: "If you don't know yourself, how CAN you know others?"; "Speak about yourself (it or to him, her, them) and not about others"; and "Explore your own life (attitude, behaviour or ways) instead of prying into another's life" and forming conclusions.
Furthermore, a genealogy or genogram is helpful for such purposes as Miraath (inheritance), Mahaariim, etc. It is also a natural tradition in Islaam to preserve narratives. Our history is in our stories, which are stories of humanity. Therefore, we need to keep the fire burning so that that history is not forgotten and our heritage remains. The least we can do is to keep our stories alive so that they are remembered and retold by the children. Amidst the very great and rich cultural diversity, whatever we leave behind are treasures that will enable the next generation to continue the journey. Are there any substantial ones? Surely, it's not only a culture of inequality, conflict and disagreement.
With regard to this Qibiilah that is based on the mentioned proverb and Hadiith, it would be necessary to fully understand the collective nature of an "extended family" around the meaning of Akhwiyyah (brotherhood). Being selective or isolating oneself and excluding others will never foster this brotherhood. Since another group of linguists believe that the word Akh is derived from the word Wakhaa, it refers to an aim, endeavour or desire. This is because the two brothers or sisters, Ikhwaan or Ikhwah (brethren) would share these ideals in such a way that they are as one. There are various Muslim cultures that the Ummah identifies with, but there is the Islamic culture as the main way of life. The Nabiy (S.A.W.S.) said:
“...Now people are of two kinds. Either believers who are aware or transgressors who do wrong. You are all the children of Aadam and Aadam was made of clay… If they do not give this up (i.e. pride and arrogance in the glorification ancestors) Allaah will consider them lower than the lowly worm which pushes itself through dung.” (Abuu Daawuud and Tirmithiy)
As history will show, the bonds of faith and courage would often unite to become stronger than the bonds of blood and connection. So as we go about rediscovering ourselves, we also need to ask ourselves, "Are we bonded in Faith and Courage? How?"
- M. Tahir Farrath -
Download pdf copy at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NZ_Muslims_Islamic_Forum/files/NZ%20Muslims%20Articles%20and%20Papers/Interconnectedness_of_Qabiilah_with_Bonds_in_Faith.pdf
or
http://groups.google.com/group/southern-african-muslims-connexion/web/Interconnectedness_of_Qabiilah_with_Bonds_in_Faith.pdf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)