Justice in the Embrace of Wisdom and Compassion
by
Shaykh Seraj Hendricks
Part 2
In
his clemency towards those in his power, in his empathetic recognition of what
is rightfully due to his fellow Muslims, and in his sympathy for the less
fortunate, the Prophet (SAW) has left a legacy that needs – given the crisis
and urgency of our times – to be re-excavated quite desperately. In reality we
merely need to open our eyes, but we recognize, as Islam teaches us, that few
things of worth will come our way without a bit of effort. Let us look at a few
instances of the above-mentioned qualities.
Few
examples in history can equal the compassion the Prophet showed towards his
defeated enemies on the occasion of the “Opening of Makkah” to Muslims.
Earlier we looked at the cause that led the Muslims to march to Makkah. Let us
take a brief look at the manner in which that victory unfolded.
The
people he faced in Makkah were the same people who went to war against him at
Badr and Uhud, and who placed them under siege in the Battle of Khandaq. They
were the same people who slaughtered the likes of Muslims such as Sumayya. They
were the same who plundered and pillaged the homes of Muslims in Makkah and
forced them to flee to Madinah. They were the same too, who caused them to flee
to Ethiopia during the early stages of Islam in Makkah. Here they now stood
defeated, and, literally, at the complete mercy of the Prophet. And what mercy
was shown to them!
His
first words to them were: “O honoured Quraish, what do you expect of me
today?”
They
replied: “Only the best! For you are a gracious brother, the son of a gracious
brother.”
The
Prophet responded: “Go, for today you are all free!”
Amidst
the dignified ambience of this victory, a woman – one of the party of the
victorious Muslims – was seen running in frantic search of a long separated
son of hers. She found him and they cried in the embrace of each other’s arms.
A group of companions in the company of the Prophet witnessed this moment. The
Prophet, in classic reiteration of the spirit of the occasion, said to them:
“Know that the mercy of Allahu Ta’aala towards His servants are greater than
the mercy and compassion shown by this mother towards her child.” These mighty
warriors of Islam, prepared and determined for the highest sacrifice at any
time, were seen, at the words of the Prophet, with tears flowing down their
faces.
As
an example of his empathetic recognition of what is rightfully due to others we
cite the incident of Sawaad ibn Ghuzaiyya. The prophet and his Companions were
preparing for the Battle of Badr. The time for salaah (prayers) had approached
and the Prophet straightened the rows of the Companions in preparation for the
salaah. He used a spear to do so and inadvertently hurt a companion (Sawaad ibn
Ghuzaiyya) by pressing him in the stomach with the tip of the spear.
“You
have hurt me, O Prophet” retorted Sawaad. “So allow me, in the name of the
One Who has sent you with the Truth and Justice, to requite myself.”
The
Prophet removed his garment and ordered him to requite himself. Sawaad, instead,
bent forward and kissed the stomach of the Prophet. The Prophet was astonished
and asked him what caused him to do that. Sawaad replied: “There has come to
pass what you now see (meaning that a battle is about to ensue and that he could
possibly die in it), and it is my wish that my last act would be that my skin
touched yours.” The Prophet then made a special prayer for him. (Ibn Hibban)
As
an example of his sympathy for the poor we cite the case narrated by Ibn Majah
and Tabrani. The hadith states that an angry Bedouin approached the Prophet and
demanded that the Prophet settle a debt that the Prophet had incurred from him.
Incensed at his rudeness a group of Companions reprimanded him and said: “Do
you know to whom you are speaking?”
The
Bedouin simply replied: “I am demanding what is my right!”
More
astonishing for everyone though was the Prophet’s response. He said to his
Companions: “Why are you not on the side of the aggrieved party?”
After
having made the necessary arrangements to repay the Bedouin he once again turned
to his Companions and said: “It is indeed a blessed community in which the
weak and poor can claim their rights without fear of reprisals.”
Our
two fountains of grace – the Quran and the Sunnah – are replete with
examples of remarkable instances of compassion. In fact the Quran, while
indicating to us that it is permissible to requite an injustice, nevertheless
reminds us that to forgive is better. We need to bathe ourselves in the waters
of mercy and compassion.
In
the domain of the relative – marked by our earthly existence in the form of
the dunya – Muslims have always accepted the reality of contest and challenge.
But by far the most serious challenges to the integrity of Islam have been those
of a belligerent secularism – which marks an “external” one; and that of
Kharijism (or its neo-kharajite variant in the form of Wahhabism) and the ghulat
(extremists) of the Shiahs, both of which emanate from within the ranks of
Islam.
On
the side of belligerent secularism – and there can be little doubt that there
are benign forms that espouse a healthy mix of tolerance and fair-mindedness –
the advocates of this line, particularly in its forms and expressions of popular
culture, have a massive problem with the morality of Islam. This explains, in
part at least, the animosity expressed by huge segments of the popular media
against Islam. On the ideological side – and not least of all in its Marxist
versions – Islam has suffered quite ruthlessly. The suppression of Islam under
the erstwhile communist Soviet Union and China is sufficient evidence of this. Nevertheless,
there are far broader issues linked to secularism in general that concern us
here.
During
the 20th century secularism managed to fashion itself into an
“orthodoxy” accompanied by all the so-called fervour of the more standard
religions. Its chief article of faith being Darwin’s “Theory of Evolution”
cultivated close to the end of the 19th century. While the origins of
a codified secularism might be sought for in ancient Greek philosophy (which
Muslims ironically handed over to the West), its real presence can be located in
17th century Europe from the time of Descatres (1596-1650).
Descates’ philosophical myth “I think, therefore I am” had an enormous
impact on the new humanism and scientific spirit of the time. The spirit of the
Renaissance and Reformation that mushroomed in its wake was severely opposed by
the Christian Church in Europe. They lost the battle and reinvented themselves
as a modern Christian West in the 20th century. It was an emasculated
Christianity, however, that emerged from the debris of this battle.
On
the other hand, compared to that of Christianity in Europe, the trajectory of
the Muslim struggle took a completely different route. For approximately 800
years Muslims were the leaders of the world in virtually every domain. The Dark
Ages of Europe in fact coincided with what is called the Golden Age of Islam.
History, particularly the type which most of us learnt, has its “blind
spots”. So perverse has the infection of these blind spots become that one
often hears one Muslim accusing a fellow Muslim of belonging to the Dark or
Medieval Age. One wonders to which “age” they refer? It seems that we are no
longer content to consider the purveyor of one view simply “wrong” or
“right”. Least of all are we prepared to allow for a margin of legitimate
differences of opinion. In fact to consider another Muslim a fanatic in his/her
views has a strangely more authentic ring about it. Fanaticism is not always the
product of a particular age, or even exclusive to a particular profession.
It’s a mindset.
Our
route, however, was – as mentioned earlier - a different one. For hundreds of
years, under the inspiration of the Quran and Sunnah, they set about cultivating
different forms of knowledge – whether in the sciences or the arts. Not a
single scientist, despite their controversial views at times, was burnt at the
stake. Nevertheless, through all the resplendence of their development they were
destined to collapse. Their attitudes towards others underwent a change. Muslim
attitudes towards Christians, mentioned earlier, unfortunately took an
increasingly contemptuous turn after the abortive crusades of the 11th,
12th, and 13th centuries. Muslim attitudes gradually
hardened towards a people whose rights they religiously observed before. At the
same time, from Bukhara to Baghdad, the Mongols were raining terror and
destruction on the Eastern flank of the Islamic world. The ravages wrought by
them on those Muslims, including their material and intellectual culture, were
far more savage and destructive than people often care to admit. While a
separate case could be made for the internal decadence of the Muslim Empires, it
remains nevertheless an oversimplification that they merely decayed at the hands
of rigid Ulama and corrupt politicians. Another case could be made, too, for
their sense of general complacency vis-à-vis a “backward” world that
surrounded them. It behoves us though, as Muslims, to give as much attention to
the Mongolian invasion as we do to the Crusades in our historical analysis of
issues.
By
the 18th century Muslims started to feel the brunt of their internal
weaknesses as they experienced one defeat after another at the hands of the
colonizing powers. By the start of the 20th century nearly the entire
Muslim world was under the domination of these powers. Muslims had finally lost
their footing as world leaders. The Muslim experience of being reduced in this
way after 800 years of world domination – a privilege few other civilizations
enjoyed at that scale – was a profoundly bitter one.
The
reactions that this experience spawned in the Muslim communities across the
world, while commendable in a limited way, have proven for a large part to be
quite as painful. Numerous
groupings and movements emerged, each with a strident claim to possessing the
truth of Islam. The unfortunate consequence of these narrow and truncated brands
of Islam was that it ignited a level of internecine hatred and violence on the
one hand, and aggression towards everything non-Muslim on the other, that was
hardly witnessed in its history before. On the edge of a simple difference of
opinion, one is declared a “kafir” (unbeliever) at the hands of this
bigotry. The non-Muslim world on
the other hand is one big monolithic demon.
There
can be little doubt that this neo-Kharajite takfir industry – and quite
explosive when in competition with the ghulat of the Shiah - emerged as a
consequence of the teachings of Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab, and taken to even
further extremes by those who claimed to be his followers. This industry –
supported by massive financial reserves – proclaimed itself as the new
“Islamic Renaissance”. Hardly an “Islamic Movement” that asserted itself
during the 20th century was unaffected by this tendency. With the
recent emergence of a dynamic new scholarship amongst “mainstream” Muslims
that has at once been able to articulate the authentic spirit of Islam and take
cognisance of contemporary realities, this is hopefully set to change.
Nonetheless, we cannot fool ourselves into believing that we have not known any
conflict during the long course of our history, but we can quite confidently say
that we have known better days. The question we as Muslims have to ask ourselves
is this: “Do we need to reinvent our Islam in this aggressive way?” Are the
pangs of dislocation so blighting that it is necessary to become the agents of
self-destruction – where the more punishment we mete out the more damage we
are doing to ourselves? In the process, unfortunately, we are carving ourselves
out as meat for a rabid, but influential segment of the international media.
“Perhaps”
as Akbar Ahmad says in his book Postmodernism and Islam, “in the atmosphere of
violence and blind hatred, of injustice, and inequality, they have a certain
logic in their position. At least they will be heard.”
“Nevertheless”
he continues, “violence and cruelty are not in the spirit of the Quran, nor
are they found in the life of the Prophet, nor in the lives of saintly men.”
Akbar is in my view quite correct. We do not need to reinvent Islam in the
spirit of belligerence and mindless violence. The ethical and spiritual values
of Islam have a timeless efficacy. In the same way that they determine how we
interact with our fellow human beings and the natural environment around us,
they also determine how and to what use we should put the instruments of human
invention and ingenuity. It is precisely at this level that the neologisms of
the new “Islamic Renaissance” failed completely. Overwhelmed by the military
and technological superiority of the conquering powers they rapidly concluded
that it was the Ulema, Sufism, and a host of other apparently decadent Muslim
practices that acted as the causes of our decline. In their “renaissance”
the Ghazalis, Rumis, Umar al-Farids etc constituted the greatest aberration in
Islam. The four legal schools of thought – hopelessly misunderstood by them
– epitomised the most acute disease within the world Muslim community, namely,
taqlid (imitation). This position of theirs created the space for them to punt
their own mujtahids (independent legal scholars). Claims that the doors of
ijtihad (independent and learned interpretation of the law) had been closed by
backward and reactionary Muslim scholars resonated as an article of faith in
their circles.
The
premises upon which this “renaissance” constructed itself were two:
1)
The Muslim world had lost out on technology and therefore had to
modernise itself.
2)
The Muslim world was plagued with kufr (unbelief), shirk (polytheism),
and bid’ah (innovation). These had to be removed with immediate effect and
through violent means if necessary.
In
the first case we did not need mujtahids – not of their kind anyway – to
tell us this. Moreover, their understanding of “modernity” has proved to be
sadly wanting in many respects. Maryam Jameelah’s disillusionment with Mawlana
Mawdudi, for example, was rooted in what she considered to be a naïve
understanding on his part of certain aspects of modernity. Previously, Jameelah
herself was a firm proponent of “movement” Islam.
In
the second case, the majority of Muslims rejected their charges of kufr etc. but
remained silent through fear of their lives or injury. Even today in their
meetings and “mass” gatherings many a dissenting Muslim will resort to
self-censorship through similar fears.
The
above may be considered the chief premises upon which “renaissance” Islam
built itself. As for the consequences, they were no less deplorable. In place of
the Ghazalis we have the Abu Sayyafs and Bin Ladens. In place of the madhhabs
(schools of thought) we have organisations such as the al-Hijrah wa l-Tafir, the
Gama’at al –Islamiyyah etc. All of these being little more than armed clones
– in Islamic attire – of French Revolutionary and Marxist varieties.
If
our concern is the continued existence of Islam, our love for Islam, or justice
for all in the event of Islam regaining its proper position in world affairs,
then we need to temper our conduct with wisdom and compassion, not hatred and
aggression. Our legacy, and particularly that up to the Crusades and the
Mongolian invasion, is one we can learn from immensely. Needless to say there
are outstanding examples of Muslim conduct at every level even after that
period. There is also the wisdom of our “saintly
men” throughout these trying times.
Images
of Islam that are beamed across the globe today stand in stark contrast to the
code of conduct enunciated by the Prophet (saw) – the supreme symbol of
selflessness and mercy. Admittedly many of these images distort the message of
Islam. Some of them are designed to do so. But we have to admit too, that there
is sufficient lunacy within our own ranks to keep the bigots who detest Islam
the most in business for a very long time. My concern, however, is not so much
with the bigots outside of Islam as it is with those within Islam.
As
an observation on this condition of Muslims in the “present hour” I would
like to quote from a paper by Gai Eaton (Hassan Abdul Hakeem) entitled “Islam
Today”. It concerns the intellectual rigidity within the Muslim ummah. To
understand this rigidity, or fanaticism, he proposes what he calls a “Theory
of Leakage”. After speaking about the essentials of Islam that constitute
matters of certainty in our perspective – such as acknowledging that Allah is
One without partner, that Muhammad (SAW) is the final and conclusive messenger,
and the Quran is His (Allah’s) word, eternal and unalterable – he ventures
to advance the view that a peculiar confusion of categories has invaded our
understanding of things. To explain this confusion he says: “Since we are
accustomed to being certain about the essentials, we tend very easily to lend
this same quality of certainty to convictions, beliefs, and opinions which carry
upon them the mark of human fallibility. In other words, the sense of certainty
leaks out from its proper domain into the realm of relativity, which is, almost
by definition, the realm of uncertainty. We are not content to believe that our
personal opinions are correct. We make them articles of Faith, claim that they
are infallibly based upon the Quran and Sunnah, and condemn as kafirs all who do
not share these opinions. That is what I would define as fanaticism, and it is a
source of weakness in the Ummah. What we most need, if we are to cooperate
together for the general good is a touch of humility concerning our opinions. If
we cannot achieve this then we are likely to face a bleak future.”
Understanding
the distinction between the shari’ concepts of “Ma huwa m’alum min ad-Din
biddarura” (or self-evident certainties) and that which is “Mujtahad fihi”
(the product of human intellectual effort), and, above all, the simple truth
that “what we need most…is a touch of humility” are what generally
distinguished the earlier generations of Muslims from later generations.
A
cursory glance at the conduct of any of the first four Khalifs will easily
imprint upon our understanding the prominence of this virtue in their lives.
Sayyidna
Abi Bakr’s (RA) first words during his inaugural khutba (sermon) as khalifa
were: “I have been appointed by you as leader, but I am not the best of
you…”
Sayydna
Umar’s (RA) inaugural speech in acknowledging and asking Allah to rid him of
his human shortcomings must remain as one of the greatest expressions of
humility.
We
need hardly mention the examples of Sayyidna Uthman (RA) and Sayyidna Ali (RA).
But
I leave it to one more distant in time from the Prophet to reinforce the point.
That is the Umayyad Khalifa, the only one worthy of note in this dynasty, Umar
ibn Abdul Aziz.
It
came to his attention that a son of his had bought a ring to the value of one
thousand dirhams.
Umar
wrote to him saying: “I have been informed that you a bought a ring to the
value of one thousand dirhams. I now order you to sell it and to feed a thousand
hungry people from the proceeds. Then acquire for yourself a metal ring and
write upon it the following statement: ‘May Allah have mercy upon a person who
knows his true worth.’”
In
arrogance, self-righteousness, a passional hatred of the other, in the glaring
weaknesses of aggression and violence, the future indeed seems “bleak”. But,
with a touch of humility and in a climate of wisdom and compassion, it need not
be so. It is in this spirit too, that I understand the words of Allah:
“Do
not let others’ hatred of you cause you not to be just, be just for that is
nearer to Taqwa (righteousness).” (5:8)
Indeed
we still have – intact – the Quran and the Sunnah of the Prophet Muhammad
(SAW). Today, despite our apparent weaknesses, we can still speak with pride
about this revelation. On the positive side, it is no wonder, with this
unaltered compendium of grace (baraka) still between our hands, that Islam still
remains the most practiced religion on earth. Even more so, it is no wonder that
Islam remains the fastest growing religion in the world with thousands of people
entering into the fold on a daily basis. This applies particularly to women who,
despite the fact that they are regularly singled out for belittlement in the
media and who are still gravely and very un-Islamically disadvantaged in many a
Muslim country today, are ahead of men on a 5:1 ratio in their embracement of
Islam. I am personally convinced though that Muslim women hold one of the keys
to the future of Islam. But in the latter facts there lies another lesson. And
that is that Islam (or more precisely, its continued existence) is neither
entirely dependent on our deeds or misdeeds, nor on the frailties or
vicissitudes of our egos. On the contrary, it is subject to a Will far greater
than our own, and that is the Will of Allah.
But
as responsible (mukallaf) human beings – and as Muslims in particular –
there can be no excuse for bad behaviour. Each one of us is charged with the
duty of upholding the highest virtues espoused by the Quran. The one virtue that
almost singularly encapsulates the character of being Muslim is humility. This
is expressed by the following verse:
“And
the servants of (Allah) the Most Gracious are those who walk on the earth in
humility…” (25:63).
Humility,
as Eaton recounts above, creates the space for a productive exchange of views
and opinions. It is a virtue, as he has correctly located, that enables us to
recognise that things of an absolute nature ultimately belong to Allah alone.
But it is also that virtue that provides the key to wisdom and compassion –
the two necessary correlatives of justice. Without wisdom and compassion justice
can easily take the form of tyranny and retribution. It would do us well to
remember that it is often the way of Satan – the supreme symbol of egotism –
to masquerade in the garb of virtue and piety.
Shaykh
Seraj Hendricks
Azzawia
Mosque
8 October 2002