Notes: New Islamic Directions

A Moment in Your Love

2009-07-12T06:45:01Z

To spend a moment in your love,
beyond this world of strife.
To know the beauty of your face,
beyond the realms of life.

To pay the price you ask of us
O Lord of life sublime!
To purge the darkness from our hearts
within this brief lifetime.

As babes we enter on the path
not knowing where it leads,
And then we fall into its snares…
our wounded hearts do bleed.

Perhaps the blood will purge our pain,
our love anew to grow.
Perhaps our wounds will heal our scars.
Perhaps our faith will grow.

Perhaps we’ll know a purer love,
beyond the fleeting nights…
and days we spend upon the path
that leads us to your light.

A Poetic Reflection OnThe Life of Muhammad Ali

2009-06-06T20:40:00Z

As we daily witness President Barack Obama making history as the first American president of African descent, it is critical for us not to forget the giants whose sacrifices have made his ascent possible. One of the those giants is Muhammad Ali. Here is a poetic reflection I penned regarding his significance both inside, and more importantly, outside of the ring.

Part One: Ali the Fighter

He floated like a butterfly and stung like a bee,
the greatest fighter the world has yet to see.

On one thing his opponents agree, they all got it right;
in the ring with Ali your life was in danger that night.

Had he lived in the time of Marciano, Joe Louis, or Max Schmeling,
his superiority over all of the former would be telling.

Had he fought Tyson or Holyfield at the height of his career,
on the list of heavyweight champions their names would not appear.

For his right was full of power and his left was relentless,
he’d whup people so bad he’d have to seek his Lord’s repentance.

So when you discuss the greatest heavyweight of all-time,
to mention any name other than Ali’s is a crime!

Part Two: Ali the Man

With the grace of a butterfly and the tenacity of a bee,
he struck many a blow against injustice and inequality.

Coming of age in an era of legal segregation,
he came to symbolize the highest values of the nation.

Standing up for the truth, defying the warmongering throng,
he declared, “I ain’t got no quarrel with them Vietcong!”

He refused to take up the gun and then pull the trigger,
quipping, “Ain’t no Vietcong ever called me nigger!”

Knowing when to attack and when to retreat,
he brought an entire nation to its feet;

Not to cheer his exploits going down in the ring,
but to fall right in line with Malcolm and King.

Willing to give up his title, the money, the lights,
he dedicated himself to another fight.

The fight for truth and justice to liberate lands occupied,
by the highest court in the land his case would not be denied.

To fight that particular battle was not a mean feat,
but in the arena of life he would know no defeat.

With a heart made of gold and a spirit to match,
he was able to rebuild his life almost starting from scratch.

With the fuel of love and the flame of good,
he lit the fire of hope in the hearts of many boys and girls in the ‘hood.

Not knowing the word “I can’t,” he was never deterred,
and because of his example many a dream was not deferred.

Now slowed by time and far removed from the training camp,
he will always be known as the people’s champ.

Either Way We’re Enslaved

2009-04-17T02:22:00Z

This poem is written by Hasna Abdul-Majid, the daughter of a longtime family friend, Saida Abdul-Majid. We first met them in Washington DC while I was a student at the American University. Hasna was born during those years. When we moved to New Jersey, I was pursuing a Masters Degree at Rutgers University, Hasna’s family stayed briefly with us as they were making their way to settle in Jersey City. One of the memorable experiences from those days was when little Hasna picked up a pair of scissors and proceeded to nonchalantly sever our phone cord. Hasna grew to become a very proficient Qur’an reciter and scholar, possessing an Ijaza from Syria. She is currently living and studying in Yemen. A deeply sensitive person she is also an accomplished poetess as the following piece reveals.

Either Way We’re Enslaved

My nafs…
The thoughts on my mind.
To think man could achieve a rank higher than angels,
always praising the Divine,
seems impossible for me Personally.
When I’m left to my own society,
I wonder…
“Am I made of lower stuff than others?”
Elements that come together in the form you see,
I feel as if I lack some inherent purity,
mixed with some hedonistic idolatry.

For what is base?

My purer tastes I succumb to,
my faith I have always have clung to,
but a darker self creeps behind me
attempting to ravage me…

Savagely!

Knowing in the dark I cannot see…

Clearly.

In this depression
I feel around,
blindly…

It takes advantage
of my diminished capacity.

Whispering doubt
about my own capability.

This comes when no one’s about…

When I feel empty and I am without Anyone,
to hold me,
tenderly scold me,
mother and mould me,
caress and enfold me…

I am cold.

See?

It is much easier to pass the time
in pursuit of fun.
Painting in the sun.
Beating on a drum.

Rather than sell yourself to the Almighty One.

But…
that is the Only worthwhile trade.
Either way we’re enslaved;

And we are all going to the grave.

So sell this life that is temporary,
full of difficulty,
for an ease that lasts
for Eternity.

Easier said than done…

But I turn to the Creator
of earth, sky, and sun; and
say…

Help me!

I beg you my Lord
to make you the only one that I truly live for;
the only one
that I absolutely,
resolutely,
unwaveringly, adore…

Make not my duties a chore,
but a pleasure;
in which I endeavor
daily to seek Your Face;
seek Your Mercy that others call grace and your Love!

Make my pursuits…

Not for lady Dunia,
but for Jennah’s fruits.

Hasna Abdul-Majid

I AM…

2009-03-27T12:17:00Z

"I AM...” is a poem by Hamza Abdul Malik who is one of our young scholars. Hamza, has memorized the Qur’an in both Warsh and Hafs and has studied Arabic and Shari’ah in Syria, Yemen, and is currently studying in Egypt. He wrote this poem after his wife’s eighty-year old grandmother took Shahada!

I AM…

I am who I am because..
Allah made me who I am

I am that dirty vagabond who sleeps in the alley,
but if it wasn’t for my prayers…
God would have punished the entire city,
but since He loves me so,
He shows them mercy and pity.
So don’t step on me when you see me sleeping
and don’t hold your nose up when you see me weeping,
For if you saw what my tears mean on the Day of Judgment
you wouldn’t be so fast in passing your baseless judgment.

I am that…
Muslim stripper that everyone hates,
who was “doomed to hell” or at least “at its gates”
but one night after the club closed I was in the streets…
and I saw a starving dog looking for something to eat,
so I used up the last of my dollars and nickels,
and I bought a hamburger and I took off the pickles,
and I gave it to the dog… and even though he still looked the same
little did I know that it was my fate that had changed
Allah saw this deed I did that no one thought of
so He gave me paradise just for me showing it so much love

I am that…
Muslim who prays five salats a day,
who stays in wudu to keep devils away,
who goes to the masjid and smiles to everyone, who..
goes to itikaf with his daughters and sons but…
eats the flesh of his sister’s and brothers and…
fights his father and curses his mother… and
doesn’t show mercy to his wife and his kids, so he…
punches his wife right under the eyelids… and he
beats his children as hard as he can cuz…
that’s only way he can feel like a man…
and Allah only gives him respite, so…
he could repent from his sins and set his record right… but
if he isn’t forgiven by his kids and his wife then…
he’s got a world of pain coming to him in the next life…

I am that…
Old woman eighty years of age whose…
got so much wisdom they call her a sage and..
she lays on the bed and before she dies she…
calls her granddaughter to come by her side… and
she tells her she’s ready to die with Islam… so
she tells her granddaughter, “go get the Quran..” and…
she reads the verse “Tell those who disbelieved: if they stop, all their past will be forgiven.”
and she stopped right there cuz her hands were shiverin’… and
she realized that she could not die a “kaffa” so she…
raised up her index and took her shahada… and
her hand fell and she took a gasp… and
that was the end because it was her last.. and
her life was sealed by that last saying so…
she went straight to Jenna without even praying…

I’m that..
orphan who never got a chance in his youth to..
share his talents and spit his truth… until
he left the hood and went to the woods to…
find seclusion and the essence of good… he
was inspired by God and was taught how to read… but
not in the way that we’d like to believe.
He.. reads the hearts, the souls and the mind
He… reads the heavens and reads its signs
He… reads the lines and he reads the lips
of.. the ancient prophets and the ancient scripts
and he… teaches the people through actions and deeds.. and he
carefully plants his wisdom in the hearts like seeds
he teaches the lesson that we can all learn…

“To Allah we belong and to Him we shall return”

While We Sleep…

2009-03-18T18:14:00Z

The following comment is by a sister who responded to one of the postings we made concerning our visit to Mali. What she mentions here is applicable to all of the Muslim parts of Africa, with the possible exception of Egypt and some other parts of North Africa. Generally speaking, as Muslims we are grossly neglecting Africa, the first Muslim majority continent, while our coreligionists are covertly and overtly being robbed of their religion and cultural heritage. May we be blessed to be more concerned and involved in stemming this nefarious tide.

*********************

Recently, I had the opportunity to accompany a team of fellow teaching candidates and Faculty of Ed. professors to Singida, Tanzania to help rehabilitate an orphanage our faculty has adopted. I went in expecting many inequities against orphaned children. The one that left my heart pierced was the reality of these children -named Fabiano, Rose and other non-indigenous European names. Many of these children wore crosses. But they were Muslim. As teachers, we’re taught of our many roles is to ensure we affirm identities and give agency to our students. These children ran to us, myself a “Hijabi” and another Kufi wearing brother, with a Qur’an primer in hand. This one boy recited verses of the Quran written at the back of the book. In the girls room, this little girl tapped her hand over the heads of some of the other girls, stating “Musalman”. When I raised my hands to my ears to ask through gestures if they prayed, one little girl called the Adhan. Another one ran, took off her shorts, and put on a longer, traditional Kanga skirt. Many of them are Muslim, its seen in their enthusiasm for Islam, but some of their names have been changed and they no longer consider themselves Muslims -overtly at least. Not only are they stripped of their religion, but also their family identity. It breaks my heart, but Allah guides and protects.

The brother on the trip stated, “Well, we can’t get angry at those that come here and help and in turn the children embrace there faith. We can only wonder, ‘Where are the Muslims?’”

Your journal answers his question. So, Alhamdulillah, of course there are many Muslims doing their part for an equitable world. May Allah bless you/them/us all, and move the entire Ummah to similar action, backed with sound intention (another struggle). Please pray for the children. Our faculty has applied for grants, please pray that they come through as the children and our team are both anticipating our return. I often wonder if we did them wrong by going, because they were devastated to see us leave, they cried as if their world crumbled, and that in no way was flattering. May Allah bless and keep them safe.

Gaza: In The Hangman’s Rope

2009-01-19T07:54:00Z

They see no death, no blood, no pain;
too blinded by an ancient claim.
So take the land, destroy the man,
and bomb the babe in mothers’ hands,
Uproot the olive, kill the dove,
to Hell with charity and love.
When those twain die, so too does hope,
a victim of the hangman’s rope.
And who is there to fear the Reaper
when no one is his brothers keeper.

Our tribe we must ourselves protect
with murder, which we must perfect.
So goes that atavistic claim,
to justify the bombs that maim,
to justify the phosphorous shells,
the fire of this worldly hell.
A worldly hell the Gazans know,
that testing ground, that weapons show.
But from that ground the will persists.
From pools of blood rise clench’d fists.
And then those fists hurl sticks and stones,
that smash the walls of stolen homes.

From mounds of rubble come the words,
of futile cries to just be heard.
Heard through the death, the blood, the pain;
that others have a valid claim.
And through the fog of war it’s clear,
no one alive would care to hear.
So kill them all so be their fate,
their claim is ours, but theirs can wait.
So take the land, destroy the man,
and bomb the babe in mothers’ hands,
Uproot the olive, kill the dove,
to Hell with charity and love.
When those twain die, so too does hope,
it’s Gaza in the hangman’s rope.

Jihad is Not Perpetual Warfare

2009-01-15T08:39:00Z

This article is reprinted here from my book Scattered Pictures: Reflections of an American Muslim. It is hoped that it will add a new dimension to the evolving debate concerning the idea that the only strategic option available for Muslims, regardless of their strategic strength or weakness, or their status as a majority or minority population, is armed struggle.

Jihad is Not Perpetual Warfare

One of the fundamental ideas underlying the argument of those who advocate a clash of civilizations between Islam and the West [1] is the thesis that Islam is a religion that advocates perpetual warfare. This warfare, in their formulation, is what Muslims know as Jihad. In his provocative book, Islam Unveiled, Robert Spencer unequivocally states:

The Jihad that aims to increase the size of the Dar al-Islam at the expense of the Dar al-Harb is not a conventional war that begins at a certain point and ends at another. Jihad is a “permanent war” that excludes the idea of peace but authorizes temporary truces related to the political situation [mudahanah]. [2]

Other Western writers and ideologues go further by linking the idea of Jihad to an effort by Muslims to obtain global domination. For example, Daniel Pipes, writing in the November 2002 edition of Commentary, states,

In pre-modern times, jihad meant mainly one thing among Sunni Muslims, then as now the Islamic majority. It meant the legal, compulsory, communal effort to expand the territories ruled by Muslims (known in Arabic as Dar al-Islam at the expense of territories ruled by non-Muslims Dar al-Harb. In this prevailing conception, the purpose of Jihad is political, not religious. It aims not so much to spread the Islamic faith as to extend sovereign Muslim power (though the former has often followed the latter). The goal is boldly offensive, and its ultimate intent is nothing less than Muslim domination over the entire world. [3]

As the pre-modern world never came totally under the sway of Islam, Jihad, in the formulation described by Pipes, meant permanent war. Pipes doesn’t see modernity mitigating this pre-modern tendency in Jihad, for he goes on to say,

In brief, jihad in the raw remains a powerful force in the Muslim world, and this goes far to explain the immense appeal of a figure like Osama bin Laden in the immediate aftermath of September 11, 2001. [4]

It is interesting that Spencer, Pipes, and others, buttress their arguments with formulations and concepts associated with classical Islamic political theory. However, their understanding presupposes a single, narrow reading of the Islamic tradition, based on certain ideologically determined parameters, which limit their ability to accommodate an alternative reading. For example, the often-cited division of the world into Dar al-Harb and Dar al-Islam fits well with attempts to explain the inevitability of a clash between Islam and the West. However, it does not really give us an idea of the nuances and complexities of those terms, nor the diverse ways in which Muslim thinkers, over an extended period of time, defined and actually applied them.

For example, both Abu Yusuf and Muhammad b. [5] al-Hasan ash-Shaybani, the two companions of Imam Abu Hanifah, viewed a land governed by the laws of the nonbelievers as constituting a land of disbelief, even if populated by Muslims. [6] Imam ash-Shafi’i viewed a land populated by nonbelievers who are not at war with the Muslims as not constituting Dar al-Harb. [7] Therefore, according to these definitions, most of today’s Muslim countries, which are governed by secular law codes, are not Dar al-Islam.

Conversely, most of the non-Muslim nations, which are at peace with the Muslim world, are not Dar al-Harb. To reinforce this point, let us ask, “Would Tunisia a Muslim country which prohibits Hijab and beards be considered Dar al-Islam?” Similarly, “Would Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, two conservative nations that waged war against the Muslim nation of Iraq be considered Dar al-Islam or Dar al-Harb?” Such such questions reveal nuances that clearly weigh against the simplistic arguments being advanced by a growing wave of anti-Islamic polemicists and pundits and their Muslim ideological equivalents.

The purpose of this article is to show that while Jihad, in one of its classical formulations, could be interpreted as supporting perpetual warfare; there is another reading that argues against that interpretation. In discussing the textual basis of that alternative reading, I will focus on Qur’an 9:5 [8] because of its centrality in the arguments of those endorsing the perpetual war thesis, both Muslim and non-Muslim, and Qur’an 9:29 [9] because of its implications for Muslim-Christian relations. I will also argue that with the notable exception of the Umayyad “Jihad State,” the latter reading has been more instrumental in shaping the foreign policy of Muslim polities, especially in the modern era. In making this point, I will briefly look at the “Jihad State” and present a thesis that explains its inevitable collapse.

A failure on the part of Western ideologues and policymakers to admit the primacy of this “anti-perpetual war reading” of Jihad will lead to tragic misunderstandings. These misunderstandings will only serve to deepen the growing resentment and distrust developing between America and the Muslim world and create a political climate conducive to catastrophic wars that could render the Islamic heartland an uninhabitable waste and greatly increase the likelihood of attacks against the United States as well as her interests abroad.

The “Jihad State” and its Collapse

In his masterful book, The End of the Jihad State [10], Dr. Khalid Blankinship argues that the only polity in the history of Islam to base its foreign policy on unmitigated warfare against the non-believers was the Umayyad dynasty, founded by Mu’awiyyah b. Abu Sufyan. However, this perpetual warfare policy was unsustainable and eventually led to the collapse of the Umayyad state during the reign of Hisham b. ‘Abd al-Malik. The reasons for that collapse can be summarized as follows:

1. The fiscal basis of the regime, predicated on war booty, collapsed.
2. The non-Muslim armies were able to regroup after initial setbacks and sometimes inflicted devastating losses on the Muslim forces.
3. The morale of the Muslim armies faltered; there were even instances where the Muslims refused to fight.
4. A power vacuum was created in the Syrian-Iraqi heartland of the empire. This led to an alteration of the balance of power between the Umayyads and their internal enemies and to the eventual overthrow of the empire by the Abbasids. [11]

The strategic and economic reasons leading to the collapse of the “Jihad State” are quite consistent with what Yale historian Paul Kennedy describes as occurring during periods of “imperial overstretch.” Kennedy says in that regard, “The triumph of any one Great Power in this period, or the collapse of another, has usually been the consequence of lengthy fighting by its armed forces….” [12]

He also observes,

Similarly, the historical record suggests that there is a very clear connection in the long run between an individual Great Power’s economic rise and fall and its growth and decline as an important military power (or world empire). [13]

Although Kennedy’s study focuses on the modern world, his observations provide at least a clue into the strategic and economic dynamics that were pointing towards the eventual collapse of the Umayyad state. These dynamics were noted by both the political and intellectual successors of the “Jihad State” and led to a reformation of the foreign policy of subsequent Islamic polities. The conclusion that mandated that reformation was that the “Jihad State” is unsustainable.

This conclusion is born out by the fate of the Ottoman Empire, an expansionist Muslim power that did endure into the modern world. Kennedy comments on the Ottoman decline,

Yet the Ottoman Turks, too, were to falter, to turn inward, and to lose the chance for world domination…. To a certain extent it could be argued that this process was a natural consequence of earlier Turkish successes: the Ottoman army, however well administered, might be able to maintain the lengthy frontiers but could hardly expand further without enormous costs of men and money; and Ottoman imperialism, unlike that of the Spanish, Dutch, and English later, did not bring much in the way of economic benefit. By the second half of the sixteenth century the empire was showing signs of strategic overextension…. [14]

In any case, the demise of the “Jihad State” led to a permanent restructuring of Muslim political praxis away from a scheme of permanent warfare against non-Muslims, to one which came, over time, to include protracted truces, formal diplomatic relations, and, in the modern world, membership in the international community of nation-states. More importantly, again, in the modern world, this restructuring of Muslim political praxis has led to the implicit and explicit recognition of the institutions and regimes which collectively work to make peace, not warfare, the dominant reality governing the relations between sovereign states. It should be noted that this emerging praxis sometimes conflicted with the theory of “Jihad as perpetual warfare,” a theory that remained in many legal and exegetical writings, even though, in the modern world, it is a theory that does not inform the foreign policy of even the most radical Islamic state.

The Perpetual Warfare Thesis: Textual Foundations

Our claim that there is a reading of Jihad that argues against perpetual warfare is not a novel one. Although their views do not represent the mainstream, there were many imminent scholars from the early generations of Muslims who saw Jihad as constituting a binding obligatory duty only in defensive circumstances or as a generally non-binding obligation. In both cases, the idea of Jihad as an unmitigated struggle for global domination is rejected.

Ibn ‘Umar was known to advance the idea of Jihad as a non-binding obligation. When he heard ‘Abdullah b. ‘Amr b. al-‘As mentioning the five pillars of Islam, and then adding Jihad as a sixth pillar, he strongly rebuked him. [15] Among the generation of the successors, and those following them, ‘Ata’, ‘Amr b. Dinar, Ibn Shibrama, and Sufyan ath-Thawri were all of the opinion that Jihad was voluntary. [16]

Among the scholars of the Maliki rite, Suhnun/Sahnun is mentioned as having said, “After the conquest of Mecca, Jihad became voluntary.” [17] Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr is quoted as saying, “[Jihad] is an obligation when one is in a state of insecurity, while voluntary when one is enjoying security. [18]
Among the proof texts marshaled by those holding these opinions are the following:

1. The conditionality involved in the verse, If they fight you, fight them. [19]
2. Mention of the idolaters initiating hostilities in the verse, Fight the generality of idolaters as they fight you. [9:35]
3. The order to fight mentioned in the verse, Fighting is prescribed for you… [2:216], is not to be taken as a binding obligation, rather as a voluntary act.

None of these proofs are irrefutable. Our point has been to mention that the idea of Jihad as both voluntary and non-expansive has existed since the earliest days of Islam.
One of the proofs buttressing the case of those Muslims [20] and non-Muslims who claim that Islam advances a theory of perpetual warfare is Qur’an 9:5, a verse sometimes referred to as the “Verse of the Sword.” This verse is said to abrogate all of the verses advocating restraint, compassion, peaceful preaching, mutual respect, and coexistence between Muslims and non-Muslims. Hence, many Western writers cite this verse to justify a state of permanent war between Muslims and non-Muslims. There are also numerous classical Muslim exegetes who explain the verse in a way that supports this perpetual war thesis. [21] However, a closer examination of this verse reveals that this is not how the vast majority of commentators have understood it.

In properly understanding the “Verse of the Sword,” one must place it in context. This verse is part of a series of verses, located at the beginning of the ninth chapter of the Qur’an, dealing with the polytheists. The first of these verses begins with the statement, [This is] a declaration of immunity from God and His Messenger to those polytheists with whom you have made pacts. [9:1] In the subsequent discussion of this declaration, many mitigating conditions, which argue against the idea of a perpetual, unrelenting war against non-Muslims, are mentioned.

First of all, many of the classical exegetes explain that these verses do not apply to Jews and Christians. Their discussion of the verses in question center on relations with the polytheists, to the exclusion of the “People of the Book.” For example, Imam al-Qurtubi (d. 671AH [22]/ 1272 CE), renowned for his exposition on the legal implications of the Qur’anic text, states, concerning the verse in question, “… it is permissible to [understand] that the expression ‘polytheists’ does not deal with Jews and Christians (Ahl al-Kitab).” [23] This opinion is reinforced by the interpretation of a related prophetic tradition, “I’ve been ordered to fight the people until they testify that there is no deity but God. …” [24] Imam Nawawi mentions in his commentary on this tradition, “Al-Khattabi says, ‘It is well-known that what is intended here are the people of idolatry, not the people of the Book (Jews and Christians).’” [25] Among contemporary exegetes, Dr. Mustafa al-Bugha says, commenting on the term for people (nas), which occurs in this tradition, “They are the worshipers of idols and the polytheists.” [26] Imam Abu Hanifa, Imam Ahmad, and most contemporary scholars are of the opinion that the polytheists who are to be indiscriminately fought were those living in the Arabian Peninsula. [27] As that area has been free from polytheism since the earliest days of Islam, according to their opinion, the order is now a dead letter.

Just as we can argue that the people who are to be fought against are not an unrestricted class, based on a classical understanding of the “Verse of the Sword,” there are also considerations governing when the restricted classes can be fought. In the verse preceding the “Verse of the Sword,” we read, … except those you have convened a treaty with from the polytheists; when they have not breeched any of its conditions, nor supported anyone in aggression against you, complete the terms of the treaty. [9:4]

Imam al-Qurtubi says concerning this verse, “Even if the terms of the covenant are for more than four months.”[28] This condition and others mentioned in the verses following the “Verse of the Sword,” lead Abu Bakr b. al-‘Arabi (d. 543AH/ 1148 CE), the great Maliki exegete and jurist, to conclude, “It is clear that the intended meaning of the verse is to kill those polytheists who are waging war against you.” [29] In other words, fighting them is conditional on their aggression against the Muslim community. This position, the permissibility to fight in order to repulse aggression, is the view of the majority of the Sunni Muslim legal schools as has been explained in great detail by Dr. Muhammad Sa’id Ramadan al-Buti in his valuable discussion of the rationale for Jihad. [30]

Another argument against the indiscriminant application of the “Verse of the Sword” is the view of many classical exegetes and jurists that it is abrogated by the verse, Then, when you encounter the disbelievers in battle, smite their necks; after you have routed them, bind (the prisoners) tightly. Then set them free or ransom them…. [31] The point to be made here is that if an indiscriminate, unconditional order has been given to kill the non-Muslims, how can one have a choice to free or ransom them?

Imam al-Qurtubi mentions that ad-Dahhak, ‘Ata’, and others are of the opinion that the above-mentioned verse [47:4] abrogates the “Verse of the Sword.” Ath-Thawri relates from Juwaybir, that ad-Dahhak said “[The verse] Slay the polytheists wherever you find them… is abrogated by the verse, Then set them free or ransom them….” [32] Imam at-Tabari (d. 310AH/ 922 CE), the dean of all classical Qur’anic exegetes, reaches the following conclusion concerning this latter verse, after mentioning the proofs of those who opine that it abrogates or is abrogated by the “Verse of the Sword”:

The correct opinion in this discussion, as far as we are concerned, is that this verse [47:4] is effective; it has not been abrogated. This is because the description of what constitutes an abrogating or an abrogated [verse], which has been mentioned in more than one place in this book of ours, occurs when it is not possible to join the two conflicting rulings advanced by the verses or when there is convincing proof that one of the rulings abrogates the other. [In this case] it isn’t farfetched to say that a choice has been given to the Messenger of God and those charged with the affairs of the community after Him between liberating, ransoming, or executing [the combatant non-Muslims]. [33]

Hence, Imam at-Tabari holds that the soundest opinion is to join between the two verses. This opinion serves as the basis for the sort of flexibility and moderation that has governed the policy of the Muslim community towards non-Muslims for much of its history. This attitude is supported by other verses in the Qur’an, all of which argue against the idea of indiscriminate or perpetual warfare against non-Muslims. Among them, God does not forbid from being kind and equitable to those nonbelievers who have not made war on your religion nor driven you from your homes. God loves those who are equitable. [60:8] and ...If they [the enemy forces] incline towards peace, then you should so incline, and place your trust in God. [8:61] and, ...Fight in the Way of God those who fight you, but do not initiate hostilities. God loves not the aggressors. [2:190]

Our discussion to this point has focused on Qur’an 9:5 because of its centrality in the argument of the advocates of the perpetual war thesis. Here, we wish to discuss some issues which arise from Qur’an 9:29. This verse is critical for Muslims in determining the parameters of our relationship with Jews and Christians. Unfortunately, this verse has been misunderstood by some Muslims and used to advance a theory of unending warfare between the Muslims and the People of the Book (the Jews and Christians). Sayyid Qutb, in his commentary on this verse advocates such warfare. [34] Dr. Sherman Jackson has examined some of the methodological flaws of Qutb’s argument in his valuable article, Jihad in the Modern World. [35]Jackson raises issues relating to alternative Qur’anic verses, which mitigate the harsh tone of Qur’an 9:29, as well as historical developments which force Muslims to reconsider the prevailing legal implications of the verse. Those developments center on the evolution of an international political regime, which has made peace the norm governing international relations. This situation is in opposition to pre-modern times when war prevailed.

Even a superficial reading of Qur’an 9:29 reveals that it cannot be the basis for a scheme that advocates perpetual war. Such a reading clearly indicates that fighting the People of the Book is conditional on their refusal to pay a nominal tribute (jizya) in exchange for protection from the Muslim authorities and exemption from military service. Despite the nominal nature of that tribute, there are those, Muslim and non-Muslim, who seek to use the verse as the basis for a scheme which totally humiliates Jews and Christians living in the Islamic realm. Such attempts are based on the interpretation of the term, wa hum Saghirun, as meaning “utterly subdued.” [36] However, classical exegetes differed on the meaning of this term. Imam at-Tabari mentions several sayings in that regard, including,

The legitimate interpreters differ as to the meaning of the word, “as-Sighar,” which God uses at this point [wa hum saghirun]. Some of them say that he [the Jew or Christian] pays it [the tribute] standing while the recipient is seated.

Imam at-Tabari also says, “Others say [it means] that they bring it themselves, walking, even if they dislike this.” In addition, he mentions, “Some say that its mere payment is humbling.” [37] All of these interpretations mentioned by at-Tabari and others [38] belie the idea that the Jizya is a tribute designed to “utterly subdue” or totally humiliate Jews and Christians living in the Islamic realm. Rather, the humility is to be manifested at the time of actually paying the tribute and not in debasing or demeaning treatment afterwards. The accuracy of this conclusion is born out by the fact that the expression wa hum saghirun is an adverbial clause describing the state of those paying the tribute at the actual instance of payment. For this reason, I have translated the relevant passage in this verse as, …until they pay the tribute out of hand, with all due humility. [39]

These exegetical understandings are reflected in the writings of the jurists. For example, the scholars agree that anything that would be deemed offensive to a Muslim is forbidden to visit upon a protected Jew or Christian. Anything that would demean, belittle, or oppress a protected non-Muslim is strictly forbidden. [40] This prohibition emanates from the prophetic tradition, “As for one who oppresses a protected non-Muslim or belittles or burdens him above his capability [if he employees him] or takes anything from him against his will, I will be his disputant on the Day of Resurrection.” [41] It is even forbidden to address him with such terms as “nonbeliever.” [42]

Furthermore, the tribute is not universally applicable. For example, it is not to be paid by women, children, unemployed men, those nursing lengthy illnesses, the terminally ill, the blind, the elderly, or bondsmen. In modern times, jurists are in agreement that the tribute mentioned in Qur’an 9:29 can be applied nominally as the type of taxes modern states levy against the generality of their citizenry. This is based on the precedent of ‘Umar b. al-Khattab in his dealings with Bani Taghlib b. Wa’il. When that Christian Arab tribe protested against the tribute as demeaning, ‘Umar accepted it from them, nominally, in the same manner the poor due was taken from Muslims. [43]

A full expose on this subject would be quite lengthy as there are many aspects of the issue I have not explored. Before moving to the third part of this article, I wish to examine a final issue as it has direct bearing on the situation currently confronting Muslims. It also presents an Islamic teaching that mitigates the permanence of warfare in Islam. This issue is associated with one of the foundational Islamic legal principles: “Harm is to be removed.” [44] This principle is based on the prophetic tradition, “There is no facilitating or reciprocating harm.” [45] One of the implications of this principle is giving preference to warding off harm over securing a benefit. Hence, even though Jihad has been legislated for Muslims, in circumstances where its prosecution threatens widespread harm to the Muslim community, it should be left. Al-Khatib ash-Shirbini states in Mughni al-Muhtaj:

If the non-Muslim forces are at least double the Muslim force … and if we feel that we will be annihilated with no chance of victory, it is incumbent upon us to leave [off war]. [46]

The current state of the Muslims clearly indicates that at this critical juncture in our history, we should think deeply about the implications of warfare in light of this jurisprudential principle. The increasing destructiveness of modern military technology and the growing gap between the West and the Muslim world are creating a situation where it is becoming increasingly difficult to achieve any of the objectives that underlie Islamic law through armed conflict. While Muslim nations may well be able to resist and possibly repulse armed aggression from the West, the price associated with such resistance has to be carefully assessed and alternative strategies of resistance considered. We will return to this issue in the second part of this article.

Implications of the Perpetual War Thesis

The above discussion should make it clear that there is a reading of the Islamic tradition that argues against the idea of Jihad as perpetual, indiscriminate warfare. Attempts to present Islam as the new communism, a system locked in a life and death struggle with the West, while making for good ideology, are fundamentally flawed and could lead to disastrous consequences for both the United States and the Muslim World.

In the aftermath of the Cold War, elements of this country’s foreign policy establishment had been searching for an enemy menacing enough to justify a huge and wasteful military budget. Throughout the 1990’s, rogue states and international terrorism emerged as the most pressing threats to US global interests. These two threats were eventually epitomized by Taliban-dominated Afghanistan, the ultimate rogue state, and Osama bin Laden, [47] the ultimate terrorist.

However, neither was considered a systemic threat, which could rationalize defense budgets exceeding 300 billion dollars annually. China was the only international actor whose stature could even remotely justify such spending. That being the case, confusion prevailed in the defense establishment with all departments preparing for inevitable budget cuts and restructuring. When Osama b. Laden was implicated in the attacks on New York and the Pentagon, a powerful incentive was presented to a small group of influential neo-conservative ideologues to find an underlying motivation that could explain the inevitable appearance of future Bin Ladens. Hence, the “Jihad as perpetual war thesis” arose. A perpetual threat to America would mean perpetual preparedness and perpetually large defense budgets to fight Bush’s “war that would last a lifetime.”

The Pentagon’s Quadrennial Defense Review Report, which was prepared to describe China as the greatest strategic threat to America’s international interests prior to September 11, 2001 was subsequently changed by the administration to present “… a scruffy band of terrorists – desperate fanatics who exist in tiny numbers and in many places – [as] their principal enemies for the indeterminate future.” [48]

Gabriel Kolko and others dismiss the strategic threat posed to US interests by radical Islamic groups. [49] The inherent weakness of those groups was illustrated by the ease with which the Saudi and Egyptian regimes were able to repulse the challenge of Bin Laden’s al-Qa’ida and Ayman adh-Dhawahiri’s al-Jihad al-Islami respectively during the mid-1990s. [50]
Despite the innate weakness of such groups, America can do little to destroy them owing to their diffuse nature. Her military machine has been designed to confront the large, standing, fixed-piece army of the former Soviet Union. What she will probably do is engage in jingoistic campaigns such as the 2001 Afghanistan war and the recent invasion of Iraq. These campaigns, while ostensibly undertaken to confront the evil of “terrorism” advance other aspects of her increasingly ill-advised agenda in the Muslim world and only add to the desperation and suffering of ordinary Muslims.

These campaigns will likely bring immediate military victories but long-term political disasters. They will help to create conditions that will swell the ranks of radical Islamic groups and engender a deep anti-Americanism throughout the Muslim world, making the realization of American interests in the region, without the use of direct force or increasingly venal and ruthless proxy regimes, virtually impossible. Unable to resist through conventional means, radicals are likely to resort to increasingly irrational terrorist attacks that are nearly impossible to predict or effectively combat.

As the pre-Iraq invasion anti-war movement indicated, the American public doesn’t desire such wars. Additionally, the draconian measures being taken by our government in the name of combating terrorism are leading to increasingly bold criticisms of America’s post 9-11 strategic posture. Domestically, this trend is illustrated by the increased skepticism greeting the efforts of the Bush Administration to explain the dubious claims it made to justify the invasion of Iraq.

Such wars are also undesirable to ordinary Muslims. As for the extreme elements within Muslim ranks, it is time for them to realize that inflammatory rhetoric, irresponsible terrorism, and delusional visions are no substitute for a realistic, pragmatic strategy of empowerment. Just as radical Islamic groups had no viable deterrent to American air power in Afghanistan, they possess no credible deterrent to the nuclear warheads, which have been turned away from their original targets in the former Soviet Union and redirected towards the major population centers of the Muslim world. In addition, a new generation of tactical nuclear warheads is being developed for use in battles that will ultimately be fought in the Islamic heartland along with conventional devises of unproven destructiveness, such as massive fuel-air explosive ordinances, electromagnetic weapons, particle-beam devices, and stun gases which can temporarily incapacitate the population of entire towns. [51]

We have seen the devastating effect of nearly 200 tons of depleted uranium (DU) used on armor piercing projectiles during the 1991 Gulf War. [52] Many areas of the Iraqi ecosystem have been contaminated for generations to come. The effects of the untold tons of DU used in the most recent Iraqi campaign will certainly lead to further human and ecological damage.
Similar environmental damage has been caused by tons of incinerated chemical and biological agents as well as spilled and incinerated crude oil and petrochemical derivatives. Unless the reigning climate of irrational confrontation is reversed, we can realistically anticipate similar ecological disasters and their associated human costs as well the possibility of a direct nuclear attack against the defenseless populations of the Muslim World. Mr. Bush has already threatened such an attack.

Changing the current political climate will require a thorough reassessment of all of its ideological premises. Rejecting the “Islam as permanent warfare” thesis is a big step in the right direction. An additional step would involve a total rethinking of our contemporary security paradigm. The current American policy of violent confrontation, vilification, and isolation will only increase the socioeconomic polarization, environmental destruction, and militarization which will combine to produce further instability and violence in the global system, especially in the Muslim world. Such tactics are part of a failed paradigm as the tragedy of September 11, 2001 has made painfully clear. If America acts with courage, wisdom, and vision, she can begin restructuring the international system in ways that truly enhance our collective security. Her failure to do so could lead to a series of increasingly deadly wars that will have no real winners. [53]

Notes:

1 Such a “clash” has been popularized by Sam Huntington in his 1993 essay and subsequent book, The Clash of Civilizations. See Samuel Huntington, “The Clash of Civilizations?” Foreign Affairs, vol. 72, no. 3 (Summer 1993).
2 Robert Spencer, “Islam Unveiled: Disturbing Questions about the World’s Fastest Growing Faith” (San Francisco: Encounter Books, 2002), 145.
3 Daniel Pipes, “Jihad and the Professors,” Commentary, vol. 114, no. 4, (November 2002) 19.
4 Pipes, 20.
5 “b.”: abbreviation for “bin” which means “son of.”
6 Muhammad Khayr Haykal, Al-Jihad w’al-Qital fil-Islam (Beirut: Dar al-Bayariq, 1996), 1:662-663.
7 Sa’id Abu Jayb, Al-Qamus al-Fiqhi (Damascus, Syria: Dar al-Fikr, 1988), 84.
8 This verse reads, But when the sacred months have passed, slay the polytheists wherever you find them, take them captive, besiege them, and lie in ambush for them everywhere.
9 This verse reads, “Fight against those People of the Book [Jews and Christians] who do not believe in God or the Last Day, those who forbid not that which God and His Messenger have forbidden, and those who do not accept the Religion of Truth until they pay the tribute out of hand with all due humility.”
10 Khalid Yahya Blankinship, The End of the Jihad State: The Reign of Hisham b. ‘Abd al-Malik and the Collapse of the Umayyads, (Albany, New York: State University of New York Press, 1994).
11 See Blankenship, 6-9 for a fuller summary of these causes.
12 Paul Kennedy, The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers (New York: Random House, 1987), xxii.
13 Kennedy, xxii.
14 Kennedy, 10.
15 Quoted in Haykal, 898.
16 See Abu Zakariyya Muhyiddin an-Nawawi, Al-Majmu’ Sharh al-Muhadhdhab (Beirut: Dar al-Fikr, n.d.), 19:268-269.
17 Quoted in Haykal, 893.
18 Haykal, 893.
19 Al-Qur’an 2:191.
20 In modern times, it is difficult to find many Muslims who advocate the idea that Jihad embodies a scheme of indiscriminant, perpetual warfare. An example is Bin Ladin’s infamous 1998 “fatwa” which advocated the indiscriminate killing of Americans and their allies and not all “infidels.” For a translation of the most virulent passages of that document, see Bernard Lewis, “License to Kill: Usama bin Ladin’s Declaration of Jihad,” Foreign Affairs vol. 77, no. 6 (November-December 1998), 14-19. A more textually grounded, though distorted, modern day Muslim interpretation of Jihad, an interpretation which moves closer to the idea of permanent war, is that of ‘Abd as-Salam Faraj found in Al-Farida al-Gha’iba, trans. Johannes J. G. Jansen, The Neglected Duty: The Creed of Sadat’s Assassins and Islamic Resurgence in the Middle East (New York: Macmillan, 1986). Both Faraj and Bin Ladin have been influenced by the writings of Sayyid Qutb, the Egyptian thinker whose seminal writings on Jihad and Muslim/non-Muslim relations have influenced many contemporary Islamic radicals. Qutb’s radical interpretation of Islamic doctrine can be found in his exegesis of the Qur’an, Fi Dhilal al-Qur’an, (Cairo, Egypt: Dar ash-Shuruq, 1996). His views on Jihad have been most cogently stated in Ma’alam fi’t-Tariq, translated as, Milestones, (Delhi, India: Markazi Maktaba Islami, 1988). This small treatise sets forth the clearest modern day Muslim statement of the Jihad as “perpetual war.” Qutb’s writings have exerted a powerful influence on a generation of Islamic thinkers and activists in the 1970’s and 1980’s. Their importance, therefore, cannot be minimized. However, with the revival of traditional learning in many Muslim societies, the spread of the same among converts during the 1990’s, and the strength of the political, anti-Jihad branch of the Salafi movement – the followers of Nasir ad-Din al-Albani.
21 For a forthright presentation of this idea, see for example, Ibn Juzayy al-Kalbi, At-Tashil li ‘Ulum at-TanzÏl, (Beirut, Lebanon: Dar al-Arqam, no date) 1:21-22.
22 AH: “After the Hijra.” The “hijra” is the migration of the Prophet Muhammad from Mecca to Medina which took place in 622 CE (Christian Era); this event marks the beginning of the Islamic calendar.
23 Al-Qurtubi, 8:72.
24 Versions of this hadith are related by Al-Bukhari: no. 1399, 1457, 2946; Muslim: no. 124 – 128; Abu Dawud: no.1556, 1557; At-Tirmidhi: no. 2607; and An-Nasa’i: no. 2442, 3091-3093.
25 An-Nawawi, Al-Minhaj, 1:156.
26 Dr. Mustafa al-Bugha and Muhyiddin Mistu, Al-Wafi: Fi Sharh al-Arbi’in an-Nawawiyyah, (Damascus, Syria: Dar al-‘Ulum al-Insaniyyah, nd), 47.
27 For a summary of the jurists’ views as to the lawfulness of unrestricted warfare against the polytheists of the Arabian Peninsula, see Haykal, 1456-1457.
28 Al-Qurtubi, 8:71.
29 Abu Bakr Muhammad b. al-‘Arabi, Ahkam al-Qur’an (Beirut, Lebanon: Dar al-Fikr, nd), 3:406.
30 See Muhammad Sa’id Ramadan al-Buti, Al-Jihad fi ‘l Islam, (Beirut, Lebanon: Dar al-Fikr, 1997) for an insightful discussion of the rulings and rationale for warfare in Islam. Unfortunately, no English translation is available to date.
31 Al-Qur’an, 47:4.
32 Al-Qurtubi, 16:227.
33 At-Tabari, Tafsir at-Tabari , 11:307.
34 See Qutb, Fi Dhilal al-Qur’an, 3: 1619-1650.
35 See in this regard Sherman A. Jackson, “Jihad in the Modern World,” The Journal of Islamic Law and Culture, 7:1 (Spring/Summer 2002), 22-24.
36 This translation of the term, “wa hum Saghirun,” is found in The Holy Qur’an: With English Translation (Istanbul, Turkey: Ilmi Nesriyat, 1996), 190.
37 At-Tabari, 6:350.
38 See for example, Ibn al-‘Arabi, 2:479-480.
39 See our translation of the entire verse in note 6 above.
40 For a discussion of this issue, see Haykal, 1467-1470.
41 Abu Dawud, 447, no. 3052.
42 Haykal, 1469.
43 Abu Bakr al-Bayhaqi, As-Sunan al-Kubra (Beirut, Lebanon: Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah, 1994), 9:315, no. 18,645.
44 For a discussion of the meaning, textual foundation, and application of this principle, see ‘Ali Ahmad an-Nadwi, Al-Qawa’id al-Fiqhiyya (Damascus, Syria: Dar al-Qalam, 2000), 287-293.
45 This tradition is included by an-Nawawi in his al-Arba’in, see al-Bugha, Al-Wafi, 239.
46 Al-Khatib ash-Shirbini, Mughni al-Muhtaj (Beirut, Lebanon: Dar al-M’arifa, 1997), 4:226.
47 We have retained the spelling popularized by the western media.
48 Gabriel Kolko, Another Century of War, (New York, NY: The New Press, 2002) 127.
49 For an insightful, balanced assessment of the threat posed by radical and other Islamic groups, see John L. Esposito, The Islamic Threat: Myth or Reality, (New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992). Especially useful is the final chapter, “‘Islamic Fundamentalism’ and the West.”
50 Attempts to overstate the strategic threat posed by Al-Qa’ida are disingenuous and dangerous. Although the threat of random acts of terrorism against American targets is quite real, that threat existed before September 11, 2001 as illustrated by the embassy bombings in Africa and the attack on the USS Cole. However, as a result of increased American vigilance, such attacks are far less likely today. Clearly, military aggression is no way to combat small group terrorism. One must note that it was military aggression, specifically the 1991 Gulf War, which turned Bin Laden, a former ally, against the United States. Virtually all accounts of Bin Laden’s life mention the Gulf War as a critical turning point. For a fairly objective, concise treatment of the evolution of Bin Laden’s war against America, see Gilles Kepel, Jihad: The Trail of Political Islam (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Belknap/The Harvard University Press, 2002), 313-322.
51 A variant of these stun gases was used by the Russians, with disastrous consequences, to end the siege of a Moscow theater by separatists in 2002.
52 For a thorough, if frightening, expose on the origins and dangers of depleted uranium weapons, including their connection to Gulf War Syndrome, see International Action Center, Metal of Dishonor, Depleted Uranium: How the Pentagon Radiates Soldiers and Civilians with DU Weapons (New York, NY: Depleted Uranium Project International Action Center, 1997).
53 For an informed critique of the contemporary global security paradigm and the outlines of an alternative arrangement, see Paul Rogers, Losing Control: Global Security in the Twenty-first Century (London: Pluto Press, 2000).

Order a copy of Scattered Pictures:

http://astore.amazon.com/nidpublishers-20/

Searching for Words

2009-01-07T17:38:00Z

As I pen these words, the people of Gaza are suffering a terrible fate. We pray that God brings them relief and replaces their state of insecurity and war with one of security and peace. As of yet, I have not found the words to write anything meaningful and intelligible about the situation. Perhaps, in the coming days, after I have returned from the current trip that has entered its third week, and I am in a more stable situation, personally, I can begin to make some sense of it all.

In the meantime, the words are missing. What can one say after everything has been said before? How many more tears can be shed after the tears have run dry? How many more protests can be undertaken when that being protested has been protested against, time and time again? How many more outrages can be condemned when each succeeding act becomes more outrageous than that preceding it?

In the void that ensues when words are absent, there is only confusion. The confusion of the powerless, who are left to wonder from where they will find the strength to yet again patch together the shattered remnants of a life turned upside down, for the umpteenth time; the confusion of the living, left to mournfully bury their dead, and to care for the maimed, when such scant resources are available to meet the needs of those who are whole. Yet through their confusion, they are strong, and they will find a way. They are dignified and ask not for pity. Perhaps they possess clarity.

Perhaps the greatest confusion is the confusion of the dead. This confusion includes both those who have physically expired, who are left to ask a question so poignantly posed in the Qur’an in the context of the female child buried alive, and hauntingly appropriate for all of the children who have been buried under the bomb-bequeathed rubble of Gaza: For what sin has she been killed? (Qur’an 81:8-9)

It also includes the living dead, the hollow people who have sold their souls to an even more hollow cause. Their ranks include the powerful. The confusion of the powerful is oftentimes rooted in their failure to see beyond their delusions to grasp the intensity of the suffering of those bearing the awful brunt of the consequences of their decisions. They are the prisoners of stale rhetoric that essentializes a meaningless existence; an existence rationalized through its loss of touch with reality, the drunken sailors on a ship being steered irreversibly towards wreckage. Would that they fain accept it is Satan who is at the helm!

When the smoke has cleared, some of them will claim victory. However, such a claim will only be an affirmation of their delusion. Despite their pretenses of power, they are truly weak. They are pathetic. It is they who should be pitied.

Yes We Can!

2008-11-05T12:17:00Z

The American people have spoken in a resounding voice, “YES WE CAN!” and with that refrain echoing into the night history was made as Senator Barack Hussein Obama was elected to serve as the next president of the United States. Senator Obama’s election as the first African American president illustrates that the politics of hope can trump the politics of fear, that every vote can and does count, that the youth of this nation are not a group of apathetic hedonists, and that the promise of peace is stronger than the prospect of war.

Americans turned out in record numbers to sweep the Republicans out of office and at the end of the day more votes had been cast for Senator Obama than for any other presidential candidate in the history of this country. Senator Obama’s resounding victory will not change America overnight. African American and Latino youth will continue to be carted off to jails and prisons in numbers tremendously disproportionate to their percentage in the overall population, people whose homes are on the verge of foreclosure will find little immediate relief from the president-elect and his yet to be assembled team, and the war profiteers will continue to make money hand over fist as the misadventures in both Iraq and Afghanistan drag on.

However, the coalition of forces that has come together to guarantee Senator Obama’s victory represents a powerful realignment in American politics; sincere whites who were feed up with the corruption, venality, and mendacity of the cabal in Washington, young people of all ages and races (the hip hop generation), a re-energized African American electorate, progressive Latinos, particularly in Florida and the Southwest of the country, and Muslims, yes Muslims, many of whom worked just as doggedly as Senator Obama’s other supporters, despite the stigmatizing of their faith and themselves in many instances.

It is the promise that this new coalition represents as much as the inspiring leadership of Senator Obama that in the long run will translate the prospect of change that drove so many during the long electoral campaign into the reality of change. The heavy lifting that will be required to make the sacrifices necessary to usher in a new day in American society will be undertaken, on the ground, by members of this coalition. The continued mobilization of the members of the communities that this coalition represents will be critical to the implementation of Senator Obama’s agenda. At the end of the day, for those who would take note, Senator Obama’s election demonstrates once again the truth of the old adage, “All politics are local.”

Senator Obama’s election also opens a new door for Muslims in America. Although his campaign wisely distanced itself from any overt public identification with Muslims, considering the reality of the negative public perception of Islam and Muslims in some quarters, it is quite clear that Senator Obama valued the support he received from the Muslim community. He appointed a liaison to the Muslim community, high ranking members of his team met with Muslim delegations, and his campaign was supportive of Muslim grassroots efforts such as “Muslims for Obama.”

The fact that Senator Obama was able to win such a resounding victory, despite the fact that his middle name is Hussein, and despite the fact that there was a concerted and well-funded effort undertaken via both the internet, and the “Obsession” propaganda campaign to smear him as a Muslim, indicates that the majority of the American people are prepared to judge people on their merits and to look beyond the scare-tactics that proved so fruitful for the Republicans throughout the post-9/11 era.

The nature of Senator Obama’s victory opens up a tremendous door of opportunity for Muslims. Now is the time for us to unify our ranks and to take advantage of the spirit of change that has dominated this electoral season to work for meaningful change in the policies of this country towards both the Muslim world and the developing world in general. If we can organize our community, harness the creative power and intellect of our youth, end the historical tendency of our community to shy away from public service, and create a viable agenda that moves away from the zero-sum, seemingly escapist political ranting that so many of us have inclined towards in the past, then perhaps we will begin as American Muslims to make our own history, in a constructive way, as opposed to sitting passively on the sidelines as others make their history and create painful facts that are so detrimental to our interests and the lives of our coreligionists and other oppressed people both here and abroad.

Go Forth Romantic Warrior!

2008-10-28T20:04:00Z

Go forth romantic warrior,
to slay the beast of self.
Go forth into the field of life,
and relish in the wealth.

Go forth romantic warrior,
transcend the chains of time.
Go forth beyond this world of strife,
to learn of life sublime.

Go forth romantic warrior,
no more shall your heart bleed.
Go forth to find your love so rife,
intention is your deed.

The Road Home

If the road endures for one more bend,
or twist, before we reach the end.
If our hope endures for one more day,
then surely we will find our way.

If we can fly where only eagles dare,
our hearts will find Him waiting there.
if our weary feet can onward trod,
our journey’s end will be to God.

Misunderstanding Not Treachery

2008-10-03T20:05:00Z

The blog entry I wrote several days ago in defense of Shaykh Hamza Yusuf was based on my misunderstanding of the events leading up to Shaykh Hamza’s participation the malaria eradication program sponsored by the Tony Blair Foundation in Los Angeles, September 25, 2008. In reality, it was a lot of misunderstanding and a breakdown in communication that led to Shaykh Hamza’s participation in that event and not any treachery or deceit on the part of the organizers. The organizers tried to communicate that the venue, sponsorship, and participants in the program had changed due to the cancellation of the original host. Unfortunately, due to the fact that Shaykh Hamza was traveling right up to the day of the program, he never received the above information.

As soon as this was clarified to me, I responded by immediately removing my post from the NID website, as what I had written did not accurately reflect what had actually happened. Although that message was only posted for a few hours, it spread far and wide. I now encourage anyone who still has that message posted on their websites to remove it, and replace it with this one.

To reiterate, there was no treachery on the part of the organizers in their dealings with Shaykh Hamza. No matter what your opinion of any of the organizers, you should not allow a false accusation against them to stand uncorrected. To do so is to deviate from the teachings of our religion.

I further encourage anyone who has been involved in the vital work to eradicate malaria, one of the few remaining public health scourges on this planet, to continue that work with anyone who is making a difference. This is an issue that should transcend politics, and it is an issue that Muslims should be highly motivated to be involved in because of the disproportionately high numbers of Muslims who are suffering from it.

At the end of the day, we have to be submissive to the truth and the pursuit of good and justice, wherever they are to be found. We have to work hard not to allow our passions, especially those that are stimulated by the fleeting vicissitudes of the world and time to move us away from the truth. Let us be ever mindful of the commandment contained in the following verse:

O you who believe! Stand up firmly for God, as witnesses to fairness, and let not the hatred of a group of people lead you to deviate from justice. Be just! That is closer to piety, and fear God. Surely, God is well-informed of all that you do. Qur’an 5:9

Imam Zaid’s ‘Id Khutbah

2008-10-02T02:12:00Z

I wish to extend warmest ‘Id Greetings to all of you. May Allah bless you all during this blessed season. Here is my ‘Id Khutbah. Insha Allah, you will find some benefit in it.
http://newislamicdirections.com/mediacast/id-khutbah-1429-2008/

May You All Have A Blessed Ramadan

2008-09-29T16:17:00Z

Drilling and Killing for God

2008-09-05T00:58:01Z

Yesterday, September 3, 2008, United States ground forces swept into Pakistan in a raid that resulted in the deaths of 21 Pakistani civilians. This raid has evoked outrage across Pakistan, and is a clear and unnecessary violation of Pakistani sovereignty. It comes in the context of increasing attacks in Afghanistan that are resulting in the deaths of a growing number of civilians. An example of such raids is the recent one on the Afghan village of Azizabad that reportedly resulted in the deaths of over 90 civilians, 50 of them children.

All of this is occurring during the evolving American election campaign in which both major party candidates, the Republican John McCain, and his Democratic rival Barack Obama, have identified Afghanistan as the “good” war that America should be directing the bulk of her military resources towards. If indeed America decides to expand its role in Afghanistan, then it is headed into a serious confrontation with grave implications for this country.

First of all, any expanded role for America in Afghanistan will necessitate an expanded role for American air power, a role that will inevitably result in more widespread Afghani civilian casualties. The rising number of civilian casualties will lead to a more popular and widespread Afghan resistance. As the Afghan resistance expands into a full-fledge Jihad, it will be far more than a fight against isolated Taliban units, although America will present an expanded conflict as a fight against the Taliban in order to maintain domestic support for what will be an increasingly unjust war.

Just as Al-Qaeda was a marginal element in the Iraqi resistance at the height of the national resistance against the American occupation in Iraq, the Taliban will not be the main engine of a heightened popular Afghan resistance. Despite this similarity, there are significant differences between the situation in Iraq and the possible situation in Afghanistan. First of all, although Iran was providing a level of tactic support and financing for various Shiite groups in Iraq, and the Saudis and other Gulf states were providing financial support for the Sunni insurgency, there was no regional state involved in a strategic conflict with the United States. This would include Iran, whose governing regime, since the 1990/1991 Desert Shield and Desert Storm operations, has maintained a carefully orchestrated détente with the Americans.

Hence, any outside support for various groups in Iraq was for the accomplishment of limited tactical objectives, which having been met, has led to a severe lessening of the support the various groups inside of Iraq are receiving from foreign states. This, more than the “success” of the so-called troop surge, has led to the lessening of hostilities in that ravaged country.

This will not be the case in Afghanistan. A resurgent Russia, having recently flexed its muscles in Georgia, would have tremendous interest, and the means to provide a popular Afghan resistance with weapons, money, and tactical support. The Chinese, wary of American advances in Asia, would also be tempted to support the Afghan resistance, although not as fervently or as openly as the Russians.

Furthermore, by expanding the conflict to border regions of Pakistan with raids whose greatest consequence thus far has been civilian deaths, the war will be tremendously unpopular in Pakistan. That will create circumstances that will lead to an almost unlimited number of Pakistanis joining the Afghan resistance. Furthermore, an agitated Pakistan will serve as the conduit to many fighters from outside of the region joining the fight as happened during the Soviet/Afghan war of the 1980s. This time instead of Afghanistan being the Soviet Union’s Vietnam, it will be America’s new Vietnam.

Should America, under an irrational war regime, and in the face of growing pressure from Israel, decide to attack Iran, then Iranian support for the resistance in Afghanistan will increase exponentially, as the end of an American/Iranian détente will result in the emergence of a far more hawkish Iranian policy towards the United States. This will drastically complicate the American position in Afghanistan, and likely result in the reemergence of an active Iraqi resistance to the ongoing American occupation of that country. Having shifted the bulk of its combat troops to Afghanistan, America will be extremely vulnerable to a rekindled conflict in Iraq.

Should such a scenario unfold the warmongers and profiteers will have a bonanza. The war that will last lifetime would be underway. However, other than those elements there would be no real winners. The funding requisites of such a conflict would strain to the limit the already exhausted, if non-existing reserves of this country, an oxymoronic reality brought about by the wonders of fractional reserve banking. Domestically, the American people, who will be convinced by a complicit, corporate-dominated media that they are sacrificing in order to deal a death blow to “radical” Islam will witness economic conditions reminiscent of the Great Depression.

The people of Afghanistan will experience another episode of displacement, social disruption and massive upheaval. In the face of growing casualties and domestic unrest, and with Islam and Muslims thoroughly demonized and dehumanized by a the ideological requisites of the “Great Terror War,” as it enters its hot phase, it would not be beyond comprehension to envision America resorting to the use of tactical nuclear weapons.

The sad part of what I had written thus far is that it is not a far-fetched scenario. With the warmongering rhetoric of both parties high, with a media establishment that clearly works to advance the interests of a war-intoxicated status quo, with the security-industrial complex evolving at speeds that even the military-industrial complex failed to reach during the years of its most pronounced development, and with a numb, largely apathetic citizenry, the likelihood of such a scenario as the one I have outlined above is all too real.

As we Muslims enter into the month of Ramadan, now is the time for us to redouble our efforts to join forces with those elements who are trying to reintroduce sanity into our national discourse. We must courageously move beyond the scare-tactics and irresponsible rhetoric of the political mainstream and move into the realm of principled, courageous and focused opposition to the forces of war, occupation and a jingoistic nationalism that thrives on the fears of cowards and belittles the vision of heroic defenders of deeper human values.

Contrary to the view of the assembled hosts in St. Paul, Minnesota (poorly imitated by their counter-parts in Denver a week earlier), war, environmental plunder, and a fascistic police state, are not solutions to this country’s problems. They will only serve to prolong its slow spiritual death. At the core the reigning American “way of life” is the idea that we can continue our rapacious, wasteful, destructive lifestyle while using our military, and growing security apparatus to silence any one who questions the sanity of the current arrangement, or has the audacity to demand their fair share.

What does all of this have to do with Ramadan? Ramadan, by putting the demands of the spirit first, allows us to imagine that another kind of world in possible. One based on empathizing with the poor, not exploiting their resources and occupying them. Ramadan also introduces to us a different kind of religious reality, one that weds God and community in a way that humbles us before God and does not arrogate us to pretend that we can play God.

For America to change, the reigning popular religion must change. That religion makes it too easy to murder people for profit. It makes it too easy to exploit the natural environment. It makes it too easy, in the words of one critic of the current religious mentality, “To drill and kill for God.” Ramadan, when its lessons are understood outlines a path of change. I will elaborate on this subject later, God-willing.

In the meantime, may your fasting be blessed and may the disheartening things we can think of never negate those thoughts, messages and practices that lift the spirit and sooth the soul. Ramadan Mubarak!

Peace and Justice in Islam

2008-07-23T21:41:01Z

We are living in a world where there could obviously be more peace. As Muslims, we realize this fact more than most people, as the peace of many of our brothers and sisters in various parts of the globe has been tragically disrupted –in Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, and other locales. Similarly, we are living in a world where there could be more justice. We read almost daily of assassinations in various parts of the world, where terrorist groups, military forces or intelligence services, oftentimes in summary fashion, declare victims guilty, and then proceed to execute them. Unfortunately, such unprincipled political behavior has become increasingly common in both the foreign and domestic policies of this country, causing untold damage to her image and credibility abroad.

These two issues, peace and justice, are joined in the slogans we hear from many activists, especially here in the United States, “No Justice, No Peace!” [1] This linkage is logical, as justice must be considered one of the indispensable prerequisites of any lasting peace. This article intends to briefly look at the ideas of peace and justice in Islam and explore their deeper significance in the life of a Muslim.

Peace

In the Arabic language, the word peace is derived from the radicals S-L-M. The scholars of language mention four closely related terms that can be derived from this origin: Salaam, Salaamah, Silm, and Salm. Raghib al-Isfahani says in his lexicon of Qur’anic terms, “Al-Salm and al-Salaamah mean freedom from any external or internal ruination.” [2] Based on that he mentions that true peace will only exist in Paradise, for only there will there be perpetuity with no end; complete satisfaction with no need; perfect honor with no humiliation; and perfect health with no disease. In this regard, God is known as al-Salaam, because He alone is described as being totally free from any defects or flaws. [3] This understanding of peace being, ultimately, a reality associated with a transformed world, is also understood in both Jewish and Christian theology. [4]

At the level of interstate relations, if we ponder the above definition, we can consider peaceful relations between nations as a condition where violence, a state inevitably involving both internal and external ruination, is absent. In this sense, war can be viewed as an aberrational state. The aberrational nature of war is made clearer if we consider that murder, the ultimate consequence of war, is considered an innovation, which destroyed the peace formerly existing among the human family. It is stated in a prophetic tradition, “No soul is killed unjustly, except that the elder son of Adam [Cain] shares in the stain of the crime. That is because he was the first to innovate murder [in the human family].” [5]

At the individual level, peace can be viewed as an absence of the ruinations of the heart. One free from such ruinations, will succeed, God-willing, when he/she meets his/her Lord. Therefore, he/she will enter safely into the Abode of Peace [Dar as-Salaam]. God says in that regard, “[On] the day no amount of wealth or children will be of any benefit. [The only one benefited] will be one who comes before God with a rectified heart.” [26:89]

If one reflects on these meanings, it should be clear that the wars, which Muslims have been involved in throughout our long history, do not nullify the validity of the statement, “Islam is the religion of peace.” What is meant by that expression, and God knows best, is that Islam provides a path for the human being to enter Paradise [Dar as-Salaam], and there he/she will know true peace.

Peace does have meanings wider than those mentioned above. One of the loftier objectives of our religious is to introduce into the world an ethos that facilitates the spreading of peace at every level. Our personal relations with our fellow Muslims should begin with the implementation of the Prophetic order, “Spread peace between you all.” [6] This order is so pressing that the Beloved Prophet, peace and blessings of God be upon Him, advised its indiscriminate implementation. He says at the end of a tradition in which he described one of the best forms of Islam, “Extent the greeting of peace, to those you know and those you know not.” [7] This is a very weighty matter, which calls for our deeper reflection. Its weightiness is illustrated by the fact that it is mentioned as being one of the things that completes our faith. The Prophet, peace and blessing of God upon Him, said in that regard, “You will not enter Paradise until you believe, and you will not believe until you love one another. Shall I indicate to you something that will surely lead to your mutual love? Spread the greeting and spirit of peace between yourselves.” [8]

Our relations with our spouses should also be characterized by peace. God admonishes us concerning those relations, “And peace is best.” [4:128] Similarly, in our relations with other nations, God commands us, If they [the enemy] inclines towards peace, then you should similarly incline, and place your trust in God. [8:61] As mentioned above, peace is the original state that prevailed in relations between individuals and societies. This opinion is based, among other narrations, on the saying of the Prophet, peace and blessings of God be upon Him, that Jesus, peace be upon him, “will return the world to a state of peace” [Yurji’ as-Salaam] after his appearance at the end of time. [9]

As we have explained above, the original state in human affairs is peace. One of the principles operative in our law is that we do not move away from the original ruling in any affair without a valid justification. Corporate greed and imperial hubris do not constitute legitimate justifications in this regard. This principle, coupled with the imperative of preserving innocent life, makes it imperative that we work to avoid war. The imperative to preserve innocent human life arises from the verse, Whoever saves an innocent life it is as if he has saved all of humanity, and whoever takes a life unjustly, it is as if he has murdered all of humanity. (Qur’an 5:32)

Justice

Our lexicographers define justice, variously, as, “To rule based on that contained in the Book of God and the tradition [Sunnah] of His Messenger, peace and blessings of God upon Him, and refraining from ruling based on empty opinion.” It is also defined as “extending inherent rights [to their possessors] equitably.” [10] This latter definition emphasizes the importance of equity as an essential aspect of distributive justice.

The concept of justice is one of the essential pillars in the maintenance of both the natural and social orders. God, be He Exalted, has said, …and He has established the scale, therefore, do not transgress in the scale [of justice]. Undertake the measuring with justice and do not cheat concerning the scale. [55:7-8] Justice, as many of our scholars point out, is one of the underpinnings of the order that has been established by God. This reality is also a foundation of a healthy social order. God says in that regard, O, You who believe! Be upright for God, witnesses to justice; and do not let your hatred of a people move you to a position where you are unjust. Be just, that is closer to piety. Be mindful of God! Verily God is well-informed concerning all that you do. [4:135]

This social aspect of justice has been beautifully summarized by Imam al-Qurtubi. He says, discussing the relationship between two words which are usually translated as justice [al-‘Adl], and distributive justice [al-Qist] “Justice is the basis of all human relations and a foundation of Islamic rule.” [11] This saying is illustrative of the meaning conveyed by the saying of God, Verily, We have sent Our Messengers with clear proofs, and We have revealed unto them the Scripture and the Balance in order that they lead people with Justice… [57:25]

Imam Mawardi has summarized the social implications of distributive justice in the following way:

One of the things that reforms worldly affairs is the principle of distributive justice. It facilitates amicable relations between people, engenders obedience to the Divine Law, and brings about the prosperity of countries. It is the basis of a thriving economy, strong families, and stable government. Nothing devastates the land nor corrupts the mind as quickly as tyranny. That is because there are no acceptable limits [to regulate tyranny]. [12]

For this reason, Ibn Taymiyya sees the responsibilities of Islamic government emanating from a single verse in the Qur’an, God enjoins that you deliver the Trusts to their rightful possessors. And when you rule over [or judge between] people, that you do so with justice… [4: 58] [13] The Noble Prophet, peace and blessings of God be upon Him, has said in this context, “Surely the most beloved of people with God, and the closest to Him on the Day of Resurrection will be a just leader. And the most hated of people and the furthest removed from Him will be a tyrannical leader.” [14]

Clearing himself from even an inadvertent association with oppressive, unjust acts, our beloved Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon Him, is reported to have said, “You bring your disputes to me for adjudication; perhaps one of you is less eloquent than another, and I rule against the wronged party on the basis of what I have heard. Therefore, if I inadvertently grant one of you something owed to his brother do not take it, for I am granting him something that constitutes a piece of Hellfire.” [15]

Our impeccably just Khalifa, Umar Ibn al_Khattab, relates the following penetrating words:

Verily, God sets forth parables for you, and He directs admonition towards you in order that hearts will be quickened. Surely, the hearts are dead until God quickens them. Justice has signs and portents. As for its signs, they are shyness, generosity, humility, and gentleness. As for its portents, they are embodied in mercy. He has [likewise] made for every affair a gate, and He has made that gate accessible by providing a key. The gate of justice is a deep consideration of consequences, and its key is otherworldliness. Consideration of consequences ultimately involves remembering death, and preparing for it by freely parting from one’s wealth. Otherworldliness involves dealing justly with everyone and being satisfied with what suffices. If one is not satisfied with what suffices him, no abundance will every enrich him.” [16]

Much of this discussion has focused on distributive justice. However, the Qur’an also places great emphasis on commutative justice. God commands in Sura an-Nur, Do not be moved by partiality to discriminate in meting out divinely legislated punishments. [24:2] The Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings of God be upon him, mentioned that one of the reasons behind the ruination of a nation is a lack of commutative justice. [17] In this context, he mentioned that if his very daughter were to steal, he would not hesitate to punish her to the full extent of the law. [18]

In summary, this brief discussion should make it clear to any fair-minded person that peace and justice are comprehensive concepts with deep implications. To be true to our appellation, Muslim, we have to be people committed to peace and justice. We must clearly illustrate to the world that our religion is indeed the religion of peace. However, our striving for peace must never allow us to be unjust, nor should it allow us to passively accept injustices.

We must take a stand for justice, as we are ordered in the Qur’an, Be you upright supporters of justice… [4: 135] However, that stand must go far beyond slogans, such as the one mentioned at the beginning of this article, and move into the realm of positive action. Action inspired by the Qur’an, and the words and deeds of our illustrious Prophet, peace and blessings of God upon him. These twin sources served as the basis for the just words and actions of our righteous forebears, some of which have been mentioned in this article.

Notes

[1]This slogan has been particularly popularized by the New York –based activist, Rev. Al Sharpton, and his followers.
[2]Raghib al-Isfahani, al-Mufradat fi Gharib al-Qur’an (Beirut:Dar al-Ma’rifa, no date), 239.
[3]Al-Mufradat, p. 239.
[4]See The Holy Bible, Isaiah, 9:6-7; and John 14:27.
[5]Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani, Fath al-Bari Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari (Damascus: Dar al-Fayha’, 1417/1997), 13:369, no. 7321.
[6]This Hadith is related by Imam Muslim, Imam Abu Dawud, and Imamal-Tirmidhi in their collections. Quoted in Abi Zakariyya Yahya ibn Sharaf al-Nawawi, Riyad al-Salihin, (Damascus: Dar al-Ma’moun Li al-Turath, 1994) 289-290.
[7] Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani, Fath al-Bari (Damascus: Dar al-Fayha’, 1997), 11: 26-27. The full text of the Prophetic Tradition follows: A man asked the Prophet (Peace and Blessings of Allah be upon) “Which Islam is best?” He replied, “That you provide food, and extend the greeting of peace, to those you know and those you know not.”
[8] This is the full narration of the Prophetic Tradition mentioned in note no.4 above.
[9] Prophetic traditions, which narrate this meaning are related by Imam al-Bukhari, Imam Muslim, and Imam Ibn Majah. See for example, Fath al-Bari, 6:599-600. The above quote is from the version of Ibn Majah. Imam al-Bukhari’s version mentions that Jesus will “…put an end to war.”
[10] These and other definitions of justice are mentioned in Salih ibn ‘Abdullah ibn Humayd, Nadr al-Na’im fi Makarim Akhlaq al-Rasul al-Karim (Jeddah: Dar al-Wasila, 2000) 7: 2792.
[11] Quoted in Nadr al-Na’im, 8:3153.
[12] Quoted in Nadr al-Na’im, 7:2793.
[13] See Ahmad ibn Taymiyya, Al-Siyasa Al-Shar’iyya (Beirut: Dar al-Afaq al-Jadida, 1983) 4-5.
[14] Abu ‘Isa al-Tirmidhi, al-Jami’ (Cairo: Dar Ihya al-Turath al-‘Arabi, 1938), no. 1329.
[15] Fath al-Bari, 5:354.
[16] Quoted in Nadr al-Na’im, 7:2811.
[17] This concept is mention at the beginning of the tradition where a lady from Bani Makhzum, one of the most aristocratic Arab tribes, stole something and the companions were moved to intervene for a lessening of her punishment. The Noble Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, responded, “O people! Those before you were ruined in that if a noble person among them stole something, they left him alone. On the other hand, if a lower class person stole something, they punished him!” See this narration in its entirety in Abi Zakariyya Yahya ibn Sharaf al-Nawawi, al-Minhaj: Sharh Sahih Muslim (Beirut: Dar al-Ma’rifa, 1419/1998), 11:186-187, no. 4386.
[18] Al-Minhaj, 11:186-187, no. 4386.