In answer to the video "Allah is NOT Forgiving, Merciful or Loving"
In the Quran, the central notion in matter of religious responsibilities is that a person's own taqwa, his God-consciousness, should be the primary driving force leading him to instinctively choose the right course of action.
This idea is rooted in the pervasive Quranic notion that mankind is ingrained with a spiritual fabric. That fabric, combined with the spiritual senses of perception 23:78,46:26,67:23,76:2 create an understanding of what is good and bad for the soul and helps hearkening the calls of the self-reproaching soul in place of the evil-inciting conscience whenever a moral crisis arises. It is with that implicit notion that the Quran in many places refers to the commendable deeds with the general term maaruf or accepted, and to the evil deeds as munkar/rejected.
Furthermore, besides the basic responsibilities of national defense, looking after the indigent and ensuring security, the sharia has very little to say about matters of administration. Its silence on the obligatory taxable amount of its Muslim citizen, which is the most basic means by which an administration can function, reflects this notion. It is left to those in governance to work out the details of Zakat depending on the needs of their society and state. This silence also allows for the passage of time where changing conditions and circumstances may require changes in the amount of Zakat levied.
The Quran therefore and neither the prophet elucidate a concept of an Islamic state, but of a just society, and the leader must be the embodiment and guardian of such equity and spiritual uprightness.
The verse 2:177 reiterating the issue of direction in prayer comes between verses discussing the laws of religion, it is a warning given to the Muslims that they should not fall into the error into which the previous people fell, who sacrificed the spirit of religion for the outward ceremonial. Internal purity goes in parallel with the external which is why the Quran refers to the Sharia/Law as the Book and the Wisdom 2:151 referring to the body and soul of the sharia respectively, to its commandments and their philosophy. The previous nations, namely the Jews, had neglected this aspect as Jesus amply demonstrates in the NT.
The essence of religion, we are here told 2:177, is faith in God and benevolence towards men which Allah compares to an uphill climb 90:11-20 or as Jesus eloquently describes in the NT
Matt7:13-14"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it".This important Quranic notion reflects even within its style, abruptly turning from topics of theology and spirituality, to matters of law. For example in sura nisaa, after a long passage dealing with questions on theology, the sura ends with a question on the law of inheritance, thus showing how interwoven moral exhortations and practical legislations are.
That is why there are no clear and unambiguous statements from the prophet as regards his succession, he left to the people to choose based on merit. In case of failure, it is considered the duty of every member of that society to uproot the corrupt leader(s).
The Shia on one side see the prophet's household as most justified in being the leaders of the ummah because of their proximity to the prophet and his teachings. They in fact argue that his household is divinely protected in terms of righteousness to allow them to embody the virtues of an islamic society.
The Sunnis on the other side believe that the prophet's companions are more warranted in being the leaders, again based on their proximity to the prophet and superior understanding of his teachings.
Both groups therefore, even though they differ as to where the leader must come from, agree that this leader must possess outstanding moral virtues.
A major aspect of the prophet Muhammad's leadership is combining authority, power and consultation, with mercy and gentleness. This combination is difficult to achieve, especially when one extends such integrity both to the public and private sphere, as he did. Many verses testify to those qualities of his as of paramount importance in the success of his mission 3:159,9:61,128,21:107,42:38,68:4. Not a single Muslim leader today embodies those leadership qualities as promoted in the Quran through the prophet's example. They were hardly found even among the first successors, hence their chaotic rule, and certainly not in the caliphs that came after them. 3 of the first 4 caliphs were killed. Had Abu Bakr's rule extended for more than two years, one can assume he would have known the same fate. After Ali, Muslim caliphs did not gain power through the consensus of a majority, despite the presence of disruptive and rebellious pockets, but by imposing themselves on their Muslim subjects. Their purely materialistic motives were also far detached from the original vision of the first 4.
For example, although the Ottomans expanded the caliphate in all directions yet not a single sultan made the trip to Mecca for pilgrimage. When one studies Islamic history following the prophet's death, seeing that even the likes of Ali whose integrity was undisputed but had nevertheless to battle internal opponents to the point he was assassinated, then what makes someone like ISIS leader Baghdadi remotely believe he could revive and establish a caliphate?
Neither the Quran nor the prophet promote the notion of an Islamic state. What Islam calls for is the end to religious persecution and all types of injustice. That is why the prophet never named a successor but laid the ground for a just and pious society, which should then naturally choose a righteous leader. If on the other hand the society lacks moral values, it will neither raise at its head a worthy leader, nor uproot a tyrant. Besides denouncing tyrants and their practices, the Quran equally condemns those living under tyrannical regimes and that become such obedient servants of the sinful leaders that they become their accomplices in crime, accepting every falsehood and suppressing every protest that is voiced in favor of the truth in order to firmly establish corruption in the land 43:51-4, instead of being upholders of truth and rising against falsehood among eachother and ultimately against the leaders of mischief
90:8-10"Have We not given him two eyes, And a tongue and two lips, And pointed out to him the two conspicuous ways?"103:2-3"..enjoin on each other truth, and enjoin on each other patience".
Yet we read a completely opposite directive in the HB in in Ecc10:20 that one should never rebel, neither openly or in secret, against this kind of rulers. This idea is the basis by which many rulers, ancient and more recent, especially from the Christian world, found justification for their ruthlessness and corruption.
Moral and spiritual degradation quickly spreads in such a society. That is why to enjoin what is good and to forbid what is evil, has been ordained on the Muslim community as a duty and the community which performs this duty has been declared to be the best community 3:104-10 as opposed to those, such as the Israelites as amply demonstrated in their own scriptures, as well as other nations, who not only did not forbid eachother from sin, but also ended up being assimilated by the polytheists in their midst 5:78-81,7:65 resulting in miseries that affected the community as a whole
8:25"And fear an affliction which may not smite those of you in particular who are unjust; and know that Allah is severe in requiting (evil)".
Such people, despite believing in God, deem it dangerous to do anything against their leaders' dignity, but as for the Creator and Lord of the universe, they do not attribute to Him the same dignity nor are they ashamed in transgressing His limits
4:108,71:13"What is the matter with you that you fear not the greatness of Allah?".
In Islam therefore, each individual has the duty to uphold the moral standards of the community, and the community has the collective responsibility to enforce these standards. Ideally, the moral health of individuals contributes to the moral health of society, while the moral integrity of society encourages and provides fertile ground for the proper moral and spiritual development of each of its members. This principle can be derived from the Quran’s charge to both individuals and the collective community that they enjoin right and forbid wrong 3:104, 110; 9:71.
There is thus no basis for the caliphate with an ideology for territorial expansion in either the Quran or in prophetic traditions. These wars did not happen under the prophet's authority. Neither the prophet nor the Quran approve of unprovoked aggression. The life and wars of the prophet testify to this.
"`Abdullah bin `Umar came to us and we hoped that he would narrate to us a good Hadith. But before we asked him, a man got up and said to him, "O Abu `Abdur-Rahman! Narrate to us about the battles during the time of the afflictions, as Allah says:-- 'And fight them until there is no more afflictions (i.e. no more worshipping of others besides Allah).'" (2.193) Ibn `Umar said (to the man), "Do you know what is meant by afflictions? Let your mother bereave you! Muhammad used to fight against the pagans, for a Muslim was put to trial in his religion (The pagans will either kill him or chain him as a captive). His fighting was not like your fighting which is carried on for the sake of ruling".
During the Prophet's lifetime, while the Quran was being revealed, no act of hostility was initiated by him against an enemy because of his religion. For instance, the Jews of Qaynuqa fought alongside Muslim ranks after Badr, a Jewish Rabbi fought and called upon his fellow Jews to fight alongside the Prophet against the Quraysh at Uhud, even many idolaters fought on the Prophet's side at Hunayn and al-Ta’if. The confusion about the tradition of war in Islam arises from the fact that the decision to join in these wars was given religious justification, because it is the right of every human being to have the freedom to choose his religion, Islam or else. Confusion is also due to the Muslims' enemies being identified by their religious beliefs in relation to Islam; kuffar, mushrikun and ahl al-kitab. There is no compulsion in religion, and until the end of days, ironically the same day which, those who deceptively level these false accusations against the prophet, think that all races and nations will be forcefully bowing to their God Zech14. The notion of divinely sanctioned conquests and subjugation, decimation of foreign population is purely a Judeo-Christian one.
The wars of the first 4 caliphs were the closest to the Quran's ideology of war in that it was actually a war of liberation of the oppressed people of the Roman, Persian and Egyptian nations from centuries of tyranny. There is a reason why the early Islamic state expanded with such speed, the local people did not resist and instead embraced the Muslim liberators that brought positive change in all aspects of their lives, whether they decided to convert or keep their own belief system. For example the Judeo-Christian population of Syria preferred Muslim rule to that of the Christian Byzantine empire. Seeing this phenomenon occuring all throughout the Muslims territories is what made some medieval jurists argue that the Islamic System is a much better one than any man-made law as it opposed oppression. The purpose of waging Islamic war, became in their eyes to spread the sharia, which includes laws accommodating non-Muslim communities. This supremacist view of the Islamic system is what made Ibn Khaldun argue that Islam had to ultimately spread globally, even by coercion. Throughout time, dominant powers viewed and still do, their societal order as superior, seeking to spread it by all means so as to safeguard their geopolitical interests. It is to be noted that Ibn khaldun maintained that warfare is intrinsic to human history, since immemorial times. He did not argue that cessation of warfare was something unthinkable to Islam. Prior to ibn Khaldun, other Muslim scholars the likes of al-Turtushi described wars as “social anomalies”. Al-Hasan ibn ‛Abd Allah compared wars “to diseases of society”.
The vast majority of Muslim scholars past and present, view war as a necessary remedy against aggression. Going back to ibn Rushd/Averoes, he reported the controversies of his time as to whether an enemy should be killed because of his hostility or solely for his religious difference and refusal to accept Islam. As one goes through the various legal opinions of the Muslim scholars throughout time and up until the modern era, what transpires is that their understanding of what is required of the Quran and the prophet in terms of warfare reflects the political and ideological environments in which they formulated their ideas. But the historical facts are clear; none of the wars in the times of the prophet and the early caliphs were done against a people solely because of their religious differences. The massive, but progressive conversions, could by no means be due to the fear of being enslaved by the Arab Muslims during the early Islamic conquests. Otherwise, we should expect many people to have renounced Islam following the military and political decline of Muslim power in the world.
No comments:
Post a Comment