The Nature of Idols - Continued - Part 5
Next you assert:
“In the case of Palestine, this is clearly an invasion by a non-Muslim
force with the intent to remove Muslims from their land – a textbook
case for jihad.”
While I am not so naïve as to suppose that the Israeli state, supported
by many Jews – both secular and religious – has hands that are free of
blood, theft, oppression, dishonesty, torture, exploitation, and all
manner of injustice, I also am not so naïve as to suppose that the Palestinian
people – both secular and religious – have hands that are free of blood,
oppression, dishonesty, theft, torture, assassination, exploitation,
and all manner of injustice. The leaders of Hamas, Fatah, and the PLO
are not devoid of corruption, error, and oppression.
I remember when the first intifadah took place in 1987. The weapons of
choice by the participants of that uprising were rocks as, like Prophet
David (peace be upon him) they slung them at, as irony would have
it, the Goliath of Israel.
I saw a television piece on the intifadah in which a Palestinian picked
up a small stone and asked a journalist if he knew what this was. The
journalist appeared somewhat confused, and the Palestinian answered
that it was gold.
The man went onto explain how when Palestinians sought to attack
the aggressor – i.e., Israel – with small stones against the military
might of the Israeli state, the public relations value was worth its
weight in gold, and, indeed, much world opinion was swung
away from Israel and to the Palestinians during that period of time.
Now, all too many so-called religious leaders in Palestine have
become lazy, impatient, and foolish. Almost all of the good will which
was created during the first intifadah has been lost in the explosions
of suicide bombings.
Many of these so-called leaders have become the dupes of those
clever evil-doers in Israel who know exactly how to push all of
the buttons of the Palestinian psyche and can induce the
Palestinians to engage in the revenge game of tit for tat. The
Palestinian leaders who advocate a philosophy of violence
are doing precisely what their Israeli oppressors want –
to keep Palestine destabilized with an endless cycle of revenge-
driven murder and destruction and, thereby, gift wrap the
plausible deniability and reframing which the Israeli state
covets to provide them with an excuse to go back into Palestine
and punish the terrorists, as well as generate a great deal of collateral
damage.
Spiritually speaking, the Israelis who support such oppression
are fools, but, so too, are the Palestinians who permit themselves
to be manipulated by a counter-terrorist strategy that is designed
to keep the Palestinians in a state of chaos, mayhem, destruction,
poverty and despair. The Israelis, despite all their vaunted
military and political might, have not been able to crush the
Palestinian spirit, and, so, why do those Palestinian leaders who
favor violence suppose that they will accomplish through armed
conflict what the much superior forces of Israel have not been
able to accomplish?
If either side in this internecine conflict are of the belief that
God is an admirer of any facet of their exercise in nafs and
dunya, then, they are operating under a huge dysfunctional
and debilitating delusion. The killing, the destruction, the
oppression, the assassinations, the theft, the power-mongering,
and the deceit on both sides will continue, because no one seems
to have the sense to understand that the only one who is happy
about that state of affairs is Satan – and he is laughing at everyone
involved because both sides talk about God, justice, truth, love,
beauty, peace, rights, and so on, yet few, if any, of the participants
appear to have the courage or intelligence to change their fate:
“God does not change the condition of any people unless they
themselves make the decision to change. If God wills any hardship
for any people, no force can stop it. For they have none beside Him
as Lord and Master. [Qur'an 13: 11]
Indeed, if one takes an example from the history of the Jews –
an example which is attested to in the Qur'an -- one of the worst
periods of oppression in recorded history which lasted for many
more years than has the present oppression of the Palestinians by
the Israelis, was when Pharaoh subjugated the Jews and reduced
them to the status of slave laborers and bare subsistence living.
The Jews were delivered from their terrible predicament not by
force of arms, but through the Grace of Allah.
When one depends on oneself, not much, if anything is possible
except as God permits. When one depends on God – as Moses
and Aaron (peace be upon them both) did, then, virtually
anything becomes possible.
Now, it seems that all too many Israelis look to their history
with extensive blindness and fail to see that they now have
become Pharaoh and are seeking to reduce Palestinians to
subsistence living. The Israelis are oppressing the Palestinians
just as Pharaoh used to oppress the Jews. The Israelis are
seeking to humiliate and denigrate Palestinians at every turn as used
to be the case with respect to the Jews during the time of Pharaoh.
The Qur'an says:
“In their hearts is a disease and Allah has increased their disease
and grievous is the penalty they incur because they are false to
themselves.” [Qur'an, 2: 10]
The Prophet Muhammad is reported to have said:
“Help your brother, whether he is an oppressor or he is an oppressed
one.” People asked: “O Allah's Apostle. We understand why one should
help a person if that individual is oppressed, but how should we help
that person if that individual is an oppressor?” The Prophet is reported
to have replied: “By preventing him from oppressing others.”
If the Palestinians who are violent do not wish to help their Jewish
brothers and sisters or their own community, then, they can continue
on their present course of destruction. But, if they really want to
help themselves and their Jewish neighbors, then, they need to find
non-violent ways of helping the Jewish people to stop oppressing
themselves through their oppression of other people.
You continue on with:
“Allah says, “Fighting (al-qitaal – more at 'combat') is prescribed
for you, and you dislike it. But it is possible that you dislike a
thing which is good for you, and that you love a thing which
is bad for you. But Allah knows and you know not.”
(Koran 2:216).
This Quranic ayat does not begin: 'O ye who believe'. So, to whom is
it addressed?
Is the Qur'an saying that all Muslims should become engaged in
al-qitaal. Or, is the Qur'an addressing -- first, foremost, and primarily
– people in the time of the Prophet who are involved in a specific
time, place, and situation … while addressing those who come
later in only a very indirect manner – that is, as a possible reminder
that under the appropriate circumstances, there may be occasions in
which armed conflict becomes necessary and one may dislike it? But, for
those of us who do come later, for those of us who are not necessarily
caught up in the same sort of circumstances as was the Prophet
Muhammad (peace be upon him) and his followers, who is to determine
what constitutes the appropriate set of circumstances when
al-qitaal may be necessary?
Truly, as the Quranic ayat which you cite says at its end – “Allah knows
and you do not.” Consequently, I am wondering who it is that claims
to know what God knows -- but we know not -- with respect to whether
fighting is prescribed for one in any given set of circumstances?
The mission of the Prophet is one thing. That mission carried certain
responsibilities which were unique to the function of a Prophet.
I feel it may be presumptuous for anyone today to assume that he
or she is on some sort of Prophetic-like mission in which the same
sort of responsibilities exist now as existed in the time of the
Prophet. I feel it is presumptuous for anyone today to assume that
he or she has the right, like God, to prescribe fighting for anyone
else.
When people misread or misunderstand the Qur'an and try to
induce others to believe that God is commanding something to
be done when this may not be the case, then, a very dangerous
step is being taken. Indeed, for such people it may be the case
that:
“Their commerce profited them not, and they are not rightly
Guided. [Qur'an, 2: 16]
And, possibly, it may be that people who like to fight may
'love a thing which is bad for them' when circumstances do
not warrant it.
You go on to state:
“The Prophet (upon him peace) himself said that “I have been
commanded to fight people until they testify that there is no
god but Allah and that Muhammed is the Messenger of Allah,
and perform the prayer, and pay zakat. If they say it, they have
saved their blood and possessions from me, except for the rights
of Islam over them. And their final reckoning is with Allah.” (related
in Bukhari and Muslim).”
You seem to miss the obvious. The Prophet is reported to have
said that he was commanded to struggle with people under certain
conditions. The Prophet did not say: We have been commanded
to do this or that Muslims have been commanded to do this.
In addition, as far as the Hadith you cite is concerned, the Prophet
indicated that if people fulfill the conditions which are mentioned,
then “they have saved their blood and possessions from me”. He
didn't say they had “saved their blood and possessions from”
Muslims.
The Prophet was commanded to fulfill his prophetic function.
He did this.
He is a Prophet. We are not, and we should try not to arrogate
to ourselves functions and responsibilities which may belong
exclusively to a Prophet and not necessarily to the generality
of Muslims.
You go on to make reference to a Hadith of the Prophet – namely:
“To go forth in the morning or evening for the cause of Allah is
better than the whole world and everything in it.” (related in Muslim)
is often used in the context of jihad – and that can certainly be
one of the causes of Allah – but, obviously, its meaning has broader
implications.”
As is alluded to in the last sentence of the foregoing excerpt from
your e-mail, the way or cause of God may be broadly construed
to include a variety of activities which transcend and are completely
unrelated to the theme of armed conflict. Moreover, while it is true
that some people do seek to equate the cause of Allah with jihad in
the sense of armed conflict, it is also true that many of these same
people seek to induce people to believe that only armed conflict will
do as the cause of Allah, and, in so doing, they commit an error of
fundamental proportions.
You follow up with:
“A truce may be called for various reasons, but only for a
period of ten years as set by the example of the Treaty of
Hudaybiya, though such a truce can be renewed after it expires.
Anab, it seems that you are unaware that the treaty which you
talk about in your pod-cast as an example of Muhammad's
(upon him peace) love for peace was not a permanent treaty.”
Actually, I am quite aware that the treaty of Hudaibiya was
not a permanent document, as I am also aware that the non-Muslim
side was the first to break that treaty and that this, in turn, led, in time,
to the final conquest of Mecca. The point of my referring to the
the treaty of Hudaibiya had nothing to do with whether it was a
permanent or temporary arrangement. Rather, the treaty was used
as an example of the Prophet's willingness to make concessions
to the other side, as well as an example of his willingness to not
remain attached to even issues of doctrinal importance -- such as
when he was prepared to cross out references to himself as the
Messenger of Allah in order to gain an arrangement that would
lead to a peaceful environment that was conducive to the
spread of Islam.
I also used the case of the treaty of Hudaibiyah as an example
of how Muslims often don't know when they are well off.
Even some of the associates of the Prophet were grumbling
because they saw things through a very jaundiced understanding
rather than through the lens of insight – as I am sure there are
some Muslims who listened to the previous pod-cast and
considered the idea of swapping sovereignty and land for
Palestinians in exchange for the right of Jews to build their
temple on the Temple Mount as being a ludicrous, if not
sacrilegious idea.
You, then, go on to maintain:
“The People of the Book are respected in the sense that they
have a revealed religion form Allah and are permitted to
practice their religion but must pay the poll tax as a token
of their submission to Muslim authority. Indeed, in a religious
context, it must be Islam above all other religions and
philosophies. Tolerance may seem anomalous with what is
said above, but …”
and, then, you go on to cite verses 255 through 257 from the
second Surah of the Qur'an.
Within the aforementioned two verses, one finds: “let there be
no compulsion in Deen”, so, I am getting a little confused
about all the talk of fighting, force, battle, and armed conflict.
Furthermore, I'm more than a little confused about the idea
of someone having been given a revealed Deen, and, yet,
that revealed spiritual tradition seems to be treated by
you as something other than essential Islam -- although some
of the exoteric aspects of these traditions may differ from what
the followers of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).
may observe. I am not aware of any other Deen other than Islam,
so, I am wondering what this other revealed Deen is if it is not
Islam in some sense of the term?
You say that non-Muslims must pay the poll tax as a token of
their submission to Muslim authority. Yet, this seems to
be saying that Muslims are trying to encourage other human beings
to commit shirk and submit to something other than Allah.
In addition, it is not the People of the Book who are to be humbled
by being compelled to pay a poll tax to the Prophet, but, rather, the
Quranic ayat to which you refer clearly indicates that the poll tax is
directed toward those who are rejecters of faith – including those
who come from People of the Book but have rejected their own
Prophets and Books of revelation.
Furthermore, you said earlier in your e-mail that:
“The poll tax is usually defined as a five percent tax on all
income (a better deal than what the IRS gives us, in my opinion)
paid by all People of the Book living in Muslim lands and is a
religious requirement.”
Since Muslims are only required to pay 2 ½ % on yearly savings
above and beyond their needs, and since this is incumbent only
on those people who are sufficiently wealthy to be so fortunate
as to have yearly savings, then, I really don't see the justice or
fairness in demanding, as a religious requirement, that people
of the Book be treated as second class citizens in which they
not only have to pay twice what Muslims have to pay, irrespective
of whether they can afford to do so or not, but, as well, they must
calculate the underlying percentage on the whole of what they own,
rather than merely on what has been saved over the course of a year.
Moreover, whose religious requirement is this so-called poll
tax? Are you saying that it is a religious requirement of Muslims
to impose this tax, or that it is the religious requirement of
non-Muslims to pay it?
Presumably, you are saying it is the former – that is, Muslims
have a religious obligation to impose a poll tax on non-Muslims
who are living in their lands. However, while the imposing of
tax on non-Muslims may have been indicated by the Qur'an with
respect to those who reject faith, I think you have your percentages
and character of the tax somewhat mixed up. The tax was not as
tribute to Muslim authority, but to Divine ordination, and the
equitability of the tax – even with respect to non-Muslims -- was that
in exchange for the money given, non-Muslims would receive services
from the Muslim authorities, including protection against brigands and
invading armies.
In other words, if people – whatever their spiritual orientation might be
-- are going to be living within the boundaries of a given state, and if those
people are going to enjoy some of the services of that state, then, it is only
fair that they should give something toward underwriting the costs of
providing those services. This is a matter of equitability and reciprocity
rather than a paying of tribute to Muslim authority.
The nature of the religious obligation is not the imposition of a tax,
per se, but, rather, the establishment of an equitable arrangement between
a government and its citizens. The issue is one of justice and
equitability, and it is not a matter of a religious obligation to either
assert Muslim authority, qua authority, or to try to oppressively
extort money from people of the Book with nothing of value
being given back in return. Duties of care run in both directions.
Finally, the humbling of the non-believers and rejecters of faith
(and, again, this is not directed toward People of the Book) is
before the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) whom the
rejecters of faith hated. Consequently, the humbling being referred
to in the Quranic ayat you cite is not necessarily in relation to
Muslims per se. People ought to show respect and have humility
in relation to their treatment of a Prophet, who is dear to God,
and if they cannot observe this adab, then, they will be humbled
by God in one way or another – one of these ways is to have to pay
a tax to a Prophet whom they dislike and in whom they do not
believe.
Toward the end of your e-mail, you say:
“Above, I stated that the Temple Mount, the Masjid Al-Aqsa, was
the qibla before Mecca and will be again after Mecca is destroyed …”
I'm not sure what your authority is for asserting that qibla will
revert to the direction of Jerusalem following the destruction of
Mecca about which the Prophet spoke in relation to some of signs
of the Latter Days, but there certainly is nothing in the Qur'an
of which I am aware that would justify such a contention. When Jesus
(peace be upon him) returns, he will do so under the banner of the
Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), so why should there be
any change with respect to the guidance which has been given
in the Qur'an?
It is the precincts which are sacred, not just the buildings that
have been established there. This is true in the Temple Mount
and it is true with respect to Sacred Precincts in Mecca.
The Jewish people believe that the center of the universe runs
through the Sacred Temple. I have heard it said that for Muslims
the center of the universe runs through the Ka'ba and that, metaphysically
speaking, the Ka'ba sits beneath the Divine Throne.
God was once described by someone as a circle whose center is
everywhere and whose circumference is nowhere. Whatever the
shortcomings of this definition may be, the foregoing idea does
suggest the possibility that the nature of reality is such that it can
accommodate multiple centers of the universe. Be this as it may,
the prayer niche is an empty space in Islam indicating both the
Presence and Absence of the Divine, as well as the fact that Divinity
is not a thing and, consequently, is neither this nor that, but, rather,
an emptiness which gives expression to fullness.
The Ka'ba marks a point of intersection between the physical and
spiritual worlds. The Ka'ba is not the object of prayer, but, rather,
it is a sign post pointing in the direction of That which is both
imminent in, as well as, transcendent to, all of Creation.
Therefore, whether, or not, there is any building present at the Ka'ba
is irrelevant, since it is to God that we pray. Both the Ka'ba and the
Qibla, or direction of prayer, are but reminders of this central
theme of Islam.
| Return to Menu | Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Next |
|
