The Nature of Idols - Continued - Part 4
Next, you maintain:
“As far as abrogating all previous religions, Allah says, “Whoever
seeks a religion other than Islam will never have it accepted of
him, and he will be of those who have truly failed in the hereafter.”
(Koran 3:85), i.e. one must practice the perfected religion of Islam.
I do not see either the Jews or Christians – and, actually, adherents
of a number of other faith traditions -- as necessarily seeking
a Deen other than Islam – although I will admit that in certain
respects they may be pursuing an earlier edition of Islam, and I
also will admit that Jews and Christians, like Muslims, suffer
from the fact that there are many different sects within their
communities, not all of which are necessarily correct.
However, I do disagree with your interpretation that “one must
practice the perfected religion of Islam.” Every person practices
some form of Islam, whether willingly or unwillingly, because
we all have to submit to the nature of Reality and to the
course of historical events which God has set in motion. We all
have to submit to the physical principles which govern the
universe. We all have to submit to the fact that we have
certain biological characteristics in which we are rooted.
Those individuals who are spiritually inclined seek to submit
themselves spiritually to God. They pursue and observe and
practice what they can of Islam as they understand it, and each of
us will be held accountable on the Day of Judgment, which is, yet,
another aspect of Islam to which we will submit, willingly or
unwillingly.
Islam may have been perfected. But, you and I, are not, yet,
perfected – although we may, each in our own way, aspire
to be better than presently might be the case. Many people
aspire to be better than they currently are, and, so I am unsure why
you and I should be cut some slack for our imperfections, while others
who also aspire for spiritual betterment ought not be cut any slack
for their imperfections.
You conclude the foregoing portion of your e-mail with:
“So, to sum up, Muhammed (upon him peace) is the last of
Allah's messengers, and through him Allah perfected religion thus
no other past or future religion will be accepted by Him.”
There are a number of issues which are being conflated in your
above statement. First, one could agree that Muhammad (peace be
upon him) is the last of the Messengers and one also could agree
that Islam came to be perfected through the Prophet.
Nevertheless, one could also argue that although known by another
name, Judaism is not really a Deen which is essentially different from
Islam. Yes, there are some new things which have been introduced
(e.g., a book of revelation in Arabic, and the requirement of pilgrimage
if one is physically and financially able to do so), and some new
modalities were given to already existing forms of worship (e.g.,
prayer and fasting), and, as well, some things were no longer
permissible (for example, consumption of alcohol – yet, even here the
Qur'an permitted the use of alcohol, as it had been permitted to the
Jews and Christians, until the behavior of some of the Arabs while
under the influence of intoxicants brought about a Divine prohibition.)
Nonetheless, the purpose and essence of Deen remained the same. The
Prophethood of Muhammad (peace be upon him) and the Qur'an did
not introduce anything of an essential nature that did not already exist in
the time of Adam (peace be upon him). Some of the details were
changed, but not anything of the essence. The Deen of Muhammad
(peace be upon him) was a completion of the teachings, values, guidance,
and methods that had been brought to humankind through earlier
Prophets and Books of revelation, including the Prophethood of Moses
and Aaron, as well as the Torah.
Were there unwarranted innovations which arose within Judaism? Yes,
there were, and the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) has
testified to this fact through the earlier quoted Hadith concerning
the existence of 72 sects in Judaism but only one of which is correct.
But, to keep things in perspective, there were also unwarranted innovations
introduced into the Deen of Muhammad (peace be upon him) by
Muslims who came after the Prophet.
So, when you say that no past or future religion other Islam
will be acceptable to Allah, to which Islam are you referring?
Are you referring to one of the 72 sects existing among
Muslims which are incorrect, or are you referring to the one
which is correct, and what is your evidence for your claim?
And, shouldn't we remember that one of the sects being
pursued within the Jewish community is correct and,
therefore, this really is an expression of essential Islam?
Moreover, we all would do well to remember the Quranic ayat
that says:
“Shall we tell you who be the greatest losers in their works? It is
those whose striving goes astray in the present life while they
believe they are working good deeds.” [Qur'an, 18: 104]
Most of us would like to believe that our striving in the present
life is not in vain – that we are doing deeds which are acceptable
in the eyes of Allah … but, the foregoing ayat indicates that
such may not be the case and, therefore, we ought to be
very cautious about being over-confident and arrogant with
respect to where in the scheme of things our beliefs, values,
and practices fit into the purpose of Creation.
This leads to a further point. Are you saying that only a perfected
Islam can be practiced? If so, then, who among us will be so
foolish as to claim that they are adhering to the perfected Islam
in a perfected way? And, if there are unanswered questions concerning
the degree of authenticity of the Islam one is pursuing and if there are
unanswered questions concerning the quality of that pursuit, then, what
business do we have judging the suitability of someone else's pursuit of
Islam?
Who is the better Muslim? Someone who observes all the five pillars
of Islam and, yet, is largely devoid of compassion, kindness, tolerance,
empathy, forgiveness, patience, charitableness, love, and humility. Or,
is there something of value to be said for those individuals who may
struggle, in one way or another, with observing the five pillars but
who sincerely seek to exhibit compassion, kindness, tolerance, empathy,
forgiveness, patience, charitableness, love, and humility in relation
to others?
Undoubtedly, the best case would involve a situation in which someone
does both with, by the Grace of Allah, equal facility – that is, observes
the five pillars as well as gives expression to the spiritual stations of
character. However, I suspect that someone who was able to accomplish
both facets of such practices would not be spending his or her time trying
to assess and judge the quality of Islam observed by another human being
… they would be too busy seeking, praising, remembering, worshiping,
serving, and loving their Lord.
You go on to say:
“Therefore, it may be said that in Abdul Malik's mind, from the Islamic
perspective, Jews building a third Temple was a non-issue for the
divine intention was that everyone follow Islam, which does not
require a Temple.”
If the foregoing captures the thinking of Abdul Malik, then, it is just
the sort of thinking which has so endeared Muslims to the rest of
the world. A temple is a house of worship. The names of God are
mentioned there. God is praised there. Prayer takes place there.
People remember God there. People serve God there. People come
together as a community of believers there. People give expression
to moral virtues there. People are on sacred ground there. Divine
revelation is recited there. Spirituality is pursued there.
Which of the foregoing activities is not required? Are you saying
that the world would be a better place if none of these activities
took place?
According to the Qur'an:
“Each one does according to his rule of conduct, and thy Lord is best
aware of the one whose way is right.” [Qur'an, 17: 84]
The last time I checked, Abdul Malik was not our Lord. So, I'm
wondering why, if his thinking was as you say it was, he
feels justified in usurping what is clearly a Divine and not a
human prerogative with respect to the proclaiming of awareness
concerning whose way is right.
Contrary to your contention, I don't consider such thinking to
reflect an Islamic perspective. In fact, in many ways, I would
consider such thinking to be antithetical to appropriate Islamic
adab.
In the next portion of your e-mail, you state:
“Essentially there are two worlds – Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb
– the definitions of which have changed over time. Many
shayukh that I know define Dar al-Islam as anywhere a
Muslim may practice the essentials of his faith peacefully while
Dar al-Harb is anywhere a Muslim is unable to practice the essentials
of his faith. These days, much of the world would be in different
shades of grey. It would be difficult to classify countries that
espouse equality, freedom, and tolerance as part of Dar al-Harb,
but some “democratic” countries in the West may blindly be on
that path.”
You know, I've looked in the Qur'an and I've looked in the Hadith,
and, so far, I've not come across any mention, definition, or
discussion of either Dar al-Islam or Dar al-Harb. You indicate that
the definitions for these terms have changed over time, and, perhaps,
this is because these terms give expression to changing theological
ideas which are being imposed on Islam by those who have their
own agenda – an agenda which is not necessarily Islamic.
I also find it strange that I probably have more freedom to practice
the essentials of Islam in North America, than I would have in
places like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan (under the Taliban),
Sudan (with its genocidal governmental militias in Darfur), Somalia
(under the present Islamic Courts militias), and so on. Whatever the
constraints may be for observing Islam in North America – and there
are some -- at least no one is seeking to oppress me with their conception
of Islam and threatening me with prison, death, punishment, and charges
of heresy should I decline their “invitation” to submit to their version of
Islam.
To be sure, the West has its own brands of imperialism, oppression, and
injustice. Moreover, from time to time, the West engages in the wholesale
slaughter (e.g., Cambodia, Vietnam, Iraq (twice), Indonesia, Native Peoples,
Panama, Guatemala, etc.) and exploitation of peoples around the world, including
Muslims … but, since the current topic has to do with where one can practice
the essentials of Islam in relative freedom, let's stick to that issue for the
present time.
You maintain:
“As for what is considered Dar al-Islam proper, it includes
those countries where the majority of people living there are
Muslims, and some may occasionally include areas in countries
where Muslims make a clear majority (as in western China) or
lands that were historically part of one of the past Islamic empires
but may be controlled now by non-Muslims (such as Palestine).”
This raises the question of what is a Muslim country? There are all
too many so-called Muslim countries which turn a blind eye to
the issue of honor killings and the mutilation of female
genitalia. There are all too many so-called Muslim countries
which oppress women and treat them as less than second or
even third class citizens. There are all too many so-called
Muslim countries which continue to practice slavery – and,
they do not even observe the appropriate adab when it
comes to this and which were clearly enunciated during the
time of the Prophet. There are all too many so-called Muslim
countries which do not feed or house their poor. There are all
too many so-called Muslim countries whose leaders steal from
their citizens and who expropriate resources which should belong
to everyone. There are all too many so-called Muslim countries who
borrow money from the IMF, and, then, not only rob their citizens of
essential social services as part of the conditions for obtaining
such loans but which enables the leaders to live in luxury and
benefit from the military aid that comes through such loans and
by means of which those leaders intimidate and oppress their
citizens, but, to add insult to injury, the leaders of these so-called
Muslim countries make the citizens foot the bill for the subsidization
of their own oppression and exploitation.
Next you say:
“It is also stated by Allah, “Fight those who do not believe in Allah
and the Last Day and who forbid not what Allah and His messenger
have forbidden – who do not practice the religion of truth, being
those who have been given the Book – until they pay the poll tax
(al-jiziah) out of hand and are humbled.” (Koran 9:29).
First of all, your English rendering of the Quranic verse is misleading.
The Qur'an does not say to fight the people of the Book, nor does it
say that the people of the Book are among those who do not practice
the Deen of truth. The Qur'an is instructing the Prophet to fight against
those among the people of the Book who do not practice the religion
of truth – indicating that a distinction is to be made between those
who are People of the Book who do practice the Deen of truth, and,
as well, there are some individuals within those communities to whom
a Book of revelation has been sent who do not practice the deen of
truth.
In addition, you seem to have missed the point that it was not
People of the Book who were being addressed in the ayat you cite,
but, rather, “those who do not believe in Allah, and the Last Day
and who forbid not what Allah and His messenger have forbidden
– who do not practice the religion of truth.” Jews do believe in God
and the Last Day, and there are many Jews who do practice the religion
of truth. Moreover, they also forbid many, if not most, of what
Allah and His Messenger have forbidden in the way of what
constitutes permissible and impermissible foods (alcohol being
something which was allowed to Jews and Christians but not
to Muslims), as well as with respect to general moral and
spiritual values.
Jews were commanded to remember the Sabbath and keep it
Holy. Muslims, on the other hand, were given the special prayers
of Friday and, then, permitted to go about their business throughout
the rest of the day – thereby, not being restricted in the same
manner as the Jews had been restricted with respect to conduct on
the Sabbath.
Are there slight differences here and there concerning prohibitions
and permissions when comparing Jews and Muslims? Yes, but
there is far more which binds us than separates us, and, therefore,
the Quranic ayat you site does not really apply to Jews.
The Qur'an says:
“Surely, those who believe, those who are Jewish, the Christians,
and the converts -- anyone who believes in Allah and believes
in the Last Day and leads a righteous life will receive their recompense
from their Lord. They have nothing to fear, nor will they grieve.”
[Qur'an 2: 62]
Virtually the same set of conditions is recited in 5: 69 of the Qur'an.
So, I really think that the Qur'an provides plenty of evidence
to strongly suggest that your understanding that People of the Book
are being referred to in the verse you cite – namely, 9: 29 – is
quite problematic and untenable.
Secondly, with respect to the verse of the Qur'an which you cited
earlier, the Prophet is not necessarily being told to kill people who
reject Allah and the Last Day or who do not forbid what Allah and
His Prophet have forbidden, or who do not practice the Deen of truth.
Rather, the Prophet is being told to fight them, and there are a lot of
ways to fight what people do other than through armed conflict. There
is such as thing as non-violent resistance and there were many times
when this is the form of fighting that the Prophet observed – and, the
treaty of Hudaibiya is a very good example of this as is the manner in
which the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) treated the
Meccans when they were finally conquered.
Thirdly, jihad should not be restricted to armed conflict. Speaking
truth to power is jihad. The Hajj which is accepted by Allah is jihad.
Engaging in the purification of one's nafs is jihad.
Jihad, as I am sure you know, means 'struggle'. Armed conflict may be
one form of struggle, but one cannot reduce jihad down to armed conflict
without distorting, in grotesque ways, the rich degrees of possibility and
freedom associated with this term.
Consequently, with respect to your contention that: “Most all scholars
(and certainly all scholars in the past) are of the opinion that when
non-Muslims invade a Muslim country from within or without, jihad
is obligatory,” there are certain qualifications which should modulate
such a perspective. To begin with, I doubt that you have read all scholars
of the past, and, so, I do not believe you are in a position to make the
sort of categorical statement you have made. Furthermore, in passing,
one might wish to raise the question of who is a scholar.
The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is reported to have
Said:
“Verily God does not take away knowledge from the hands of His
servants but takes it by taking away the learned so that when no
learned people remain, the ignorant will be placed at the head of
affairs. Causes will be submitted to their decision, they will pass
sentence without knowledge, will err themselves, and lead others
into error.”
Just as there all too many charlatans posing as authentic shaykhs,
so too today, there are all too many ignorant people posing as learned
scholars, and, as a result, a lot of people are being led into error.
People tend to misunderstand the nature of the Quranic command
to which you are referring and which I have quoted from you
earlier. God was not instructing Muslims in general to fight whoever
they believed to be among those who did not practice the Deen of truth,
but, rather, permission was being given specifically to the Prophet,
because it was the Prophet who had been given the Divine discernment
of when to engage in armed conflict and when to engage in some other
form of struggle.
Who among us in this day and age has the spiritual insight and discernment
of a Prophet which would permit us to understand when, and how,
and why to engage in the sort of struggle which involves, potentially,
killing others.
Lest we forget the momentous nature of such a decision, we
should remember what the Qur'an counsels in this regard:
“Whosoever kills a human being for other than manslaughter or
corruption in the earth, it shall be as if that person killed all of
humankind …” [Qur'an, 5: 31]
Now, there may be those who believe that they know, with
certitude, who the spreaders of corruption in the earth are, but
more often than not such people are like the individual who
came to Moses (peace be upon him) and manipulated the
latter to fight on that individual's behalf, and, as a result, a
person ended up dead. By the Grace of Allah, subsequently,
Moses (peace be upon him) came to understand that he had
been entangled in the machinations of another's person's nafs,
and, consequently, when the same individual as before sought
to induce Moses (peace be upon him) to fight on his behalf once
again, Moses (peace be upon him) refused the invitation.
Much of the Muslim world is like the foregoing situation
involving Moses (peace be upon him). So-called Muslim
leaders are always trying to induce one to become part
of their cause, but it is hard to know what manipulations
are going on amidst these overtures.
For example, in the 1980s, Iraqis and Iranians were, with the
assistance of the United States and Israel, killing one another by
the tens of thousands. Muslims are forbidden to kill one
another, and, yet, both sides were seeking assistance from
other Muslims to join them in the killing spree.
Was Iraq, with the encouragement of the US, the aggressor? Yes,
it was, but both sides were equally wrong because they both
committed atrocities which should never have happened if either
side cared anything about Islam … which apparently did not
seem to be the case.
Just because someone from the Taliban, or al-Qaeda, or Hezbollah,
or Hamas, or the Islamic Courts in Somalia, or the Muslim
militias in Darfur, or some terrorist organization, or some
shura council tells me that it is my duty to fight on their behalf,
I actually am not under any obligation to follow their way. In all
too many cases these groups are themselves spreaders of corruption
in the earth, and, God willing, like Moses (peace be upon him) I am
not going to permit myself to become caught up in the machinations
of another's nafs-based and dunya-based projects.
Do I believe that there is all kinds of evil going on in the world? Yes,
I do, but as the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) has
warned us, there will come a time when walking is better than
running, and standing is better than walking, and sitting is better
than standing, and lying down is better than sitting, and I believe
that such a time has come upon us.
I do jihad as God gives me the understanding and courage to do this,
and in the manner which, God willing, seems to be most judicious and
efficacious. Although God has said to obey those who have been
placed in authority over me, the so-called leaders of the world – especially
Muslim leaders -- have not been placed in authority over me, but, rather
almost all of them – even when elected – have deceived, cheated,
manipulated, bought, murdered, and/or usurped their way into
authority.
Moreover, the Qur'an also indicates that although we should obey our
parents, if they seek to bring us to something other Islam, then, we
have the right to not obey them, although even this must be done with
the appropriate adab as was the case with Prophet Ibrahim (peace
be upon him) and the respectful, caring, and kind manner in which
he treated his idolatrous father. So, if one is not obligated to
obey one's parents when they seek to induce us to submit to something
other than Islam, how little duty is owed to so-called Muslim leaders and
scholars who would seek to induce one to become entangled in their
struggles of nafs and dunya?
| Return to Menu | Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Next | Part 6 |
|
