The Humble I

Knowing, Doing, Becoming

Archive for the tag “Islam and progress”

20 Feb 2020
4 Comments

Footprints on the Sands of Time 7

We moderns have been persuaded that we each have ‘a right to think for ourselves,’ and we imagine that we exercise such a right freely and autonomously. But we are unwilling to acknowledge, despite the plethora of evidences and examples around us, that our every thought is (and continues to be) shaped by cultural influences and media soundbites; and that our opinions are being made to fit into a limiting pattern of thinking which serves to perpetuate the continued and totalising dominance of the monoculture. These reflection (previous Footprints can be read here) form part of an on-going conversation about Islam and modern Muslimness, and the urgent need to be heretics to the monoculture; learning to critically think anew.

♦

On the loss of all losses: It is better to lose some worldly thing for the sake of God than to lose God for the sake of some worldly thing.

≡

Wisdom behind creation of evil: God does create things He dislikes or hates, but only for the sake of a wise purpose He loves and is pleased with.

≡

Be moderate or to moderate; that’s the question: Political leaders seem to be tripping over themselves in their bid to be champions of ‘moderate’ Islam. But do they seek moderate Islam or to moderate Islam?

≡

On women, mosques, and today’s all-male mosque committees: When seeking women’s rights that are related to the mosque, advice must be given to the committee in good faith. Rights should be sought with the desire to venerate Allah’s laws and uphold the ways of the Lord, in contrast to cherrypicking what religious obligation to accept and thereby play fast and loose with the shari‘ah. Of course, women being part of mosques committees (not for the sake of some quota, or to tick the gender equality boxes; but from a conviction that they will add value, piety and professionalism to the currently dull, dim and lowbrow all-male mosque committees that have for too long tribally ruled the roost) is to be welcomed and encouraged. Perhaps then we might even see more Islamically enlightened activities, or some fairness and inclusiveness from most of our local mosques. I suspect that most Muslims in 21st century Britain, especially those born and raised here, are not interested in mosques that offer some belongingness primarily on the basis of a pride of Panjabis, a brethren of Bengalis, or a gang of Gujratis.

≡

On responding to the outrages of socio-political fortune: The believer is to withstand the injustices and political outrages of time, not with indifference or apathy, but with guarded perseverance, dignified response, and a sense of righteous anger that doesn’t burst at the seams or explode into uncontrolled rage.

≡

It’s about God, all else is a footnote: Purification of the soul is unlikely to come as long as we are seeking it. It will come when we are seeking Him.

≡

On love, through the Law: The shari’ah is there to instruct us which of our freely-chosen acts are pleasing to Allah and which displease Him; which win us His love and which His anger.

≡

On the theology of divine love: If our theology doesn’t help stoke the fire of intimacy with God in our hearts, then we are likely going about religion in the wrong way.

≡

On signs of real sincerity: True sincerity (ikhlas) isn’t just to single-out Allah for worship and to do things for His sake; it is to do so while not being moved by the sweetness of a compliment or the pain of criticism.

≡

On manufacturing an Islam that is all things, to all people: The rightly acting ‘ulema have long been concerned about pseudo-scholars, charlatans or the weak-spirited not turning Islam into as many things as modernity wants Religion to be. In that the Islamic texts are twisted and tortured so as to make them compliant with whatever “ism” that happens to be modernity’s prevailing mood or zeitgeist: be it humanism, secularism, materialism, or nationalism; and more recently: liberalism, feminism, or transgenderism. Their concerns, as it turned out, were wholly justified!

≡

Greater than unconditional love: Higher than giving our children our unconditional love which, of course, we must do, is to pray we can love them for God’s sake for the faith and the righteousness they hopefully live by.

≡

On the place of the divine rigour and beauty: Whoever claims we can be beholden to the Divine Beauty, before being disciplined by the Divine Rigour, is an imposter – all except the majdhub!

≡

On being true to the trust of teaching: Let the scholar or caller examine himself or herself on two accounts: [i] Am I fulfilling or betraying the trust of teaching; and [ii] Do I practice what I preach?

≡

On living a contented life: In Islam, the good and happy life entails: being God-centred, not self-centred; quick in fulfilling the rights of others; prudent in speech; thankful for what one has, not greedy for what one does not; doing righteous works; and not being satiated in eating.

≡

On timeless teachings and contemporary times: Being rooted in the old and deducing the new makes for a good scholar. 

≡

Muslim activism stuck in a spider’s web: Some ‘ulema were quick to realise that whatever political or religious spectrum Muslims advocate, most Muslim activism and movements that sought change, throughout the twentieth century till today, are locked in the logic of modernity, and only operate within its limiting, hegemonic parameters; its spider’s web. Islam, however, premised on the Adamic fitrah and the prophetic Sunnah, lies outside the monoculture’s plethora of philosophies, and so cannot be made subordinate to it. This is why Islam is, and continues to be, the great global dissent from the totalising ideology of liberal modernity.

≡

Life is a thing, when you learn you grow: The narrow minded alway see certainties in fiqh issues. But the learned know that fiqh issues are never as ironclad as the narrow minded imagine.

≡

On embracing the ways of wisdom: To know that one never gives walnuts to the toothless, or earrings to the earless, is part of true wisdom. 

≡

Let pride be born of the Spirit, not of the ego: In principle, we are proud to be Muslims; pride born, not of the ego’s arrogance (kibr), rather of gratitude for God’s guidance: We would not have been guided had God not guided us. [Q.7:43] For we can rightfully be proud if it’s without the ego; if it is godly and not worldly. In practice, it is rare for such pride to be without ego – even when it relates to pride in Islam’s revealed truths. Al-Ghazali once said: ‘How much blood has been spilt to promote the causes of the masters of the law schools!’ So whilst truth and the details of ritual correctness are indeed important, it must not be driven by sectarian pride, nor come at the cost of one’s own salvation: ‘Whoever has an atom’s worth of pride in his heart will not enter Paradise’ [Muslim, no.147] Hence if you know someone has opposed the Book, Sunnah, or ijma‘, ensure your state is one of gratitude to Allah for your guidance. Or better still, let us pray as Imam Ahmad would pray: ‘O Allah, whosoever from this community is upon other than the truth, believing himself to be upon the truth, return him to the truth, that he may be from the People of the Truth.’

≡

On doing things well and with excellence: The archer intends, not merely to hit the target, but rather to hit the actual bullseye. So in all things, let us heed the Prophet’s words ﷺ: saddidu wa qaribu – that is, ‘aim as well as you can;’ for once the arrow leaves the bow, the outcome is out of our hands. 

≡

On the signs of real knowledge: Truly beneficial knowledge should nurture four traits in a person: piety (taqwa) towards God, humility (tawadu’) towards others, detachment (zuhd) from worldliness, and spiritual striving (mujahadah) against one’s ego.

≈

Posted in a short read, footprints on the sands of time and tagged , , , ,
30 Oct 2013
26 Comments

British Muslims & their Strategies for Living in the UK

islam_687804448In H.G. Wells’ The Sleeper Awakes, Graham, a troubled insomniac in 1890s England, falls into a sleep-like trance that he does not awake from for over two hundred years. When he finally does come out of his slumber, he awakens to a world with wondrous technological trappings, yet staggering social injustice and growing unrest. Horrified by the stark contradictions and by the mass poverty, tyranny and malcontent in this disturbing technopolis, Graham says in utter anguish and regret: ‘We were making the future, and hardly any of us troubled to think what future we were making. And here it is!’

H.G. Wells wrote a number of books that he described as ‘fantasias of possibilities’, in which he explored the potential dangers of unchecked capitalism and technological advancement and the kind of society this could lead to. The grim dystopias he earlier envisaged would, in his later life, give way to a fragile optimism, a more hopeful future; but one where much evil would yet be in store for mankind.

It seems a fundamental human need to want to have an overarching life narrative. We human beings are tellers of tales who, it seems, cannot be happy unless we can see the world as a story. Wells’ healthy scepticism was well-founded. The great narrative that dominated much of the twentieth century was the myth that secular progress would ultimately liberate the human creature and bring into being global peace and human happiness. Two World Wars (secular wars) that maimed and killed in the hundreds of millions should have given a lie to this myth and disabused society of this falsehood. Instead, it was explained away by the priests of progress as a temporary glitch in the matrix of modernity.

Other secular horrors would follow in the hallowed name of progress and modernity. Yet the promise of a world where its worst evils would be eradicated – war, hunger, poverty and sickness – has still to materialise.

Of the two ‘versions’ of the secular story, communism and capitalism, it is the latter that has eventually triumphed. After the fall of the Berlin Wall, in 1989, some rejoiced in the “End of History”. From here on in, only one variety of governance would be legitimate: Western-style (or rather American-style) capitalist democracies. This, we are assured, is either the best of what there is or the least worst of what is on offer. The mandate for global democracy, though, is oftentimes seen by much of the world as a self-serving pretext for American military and economic interests. If the backlash to it increases and intensifies in its violence, it should come as no huge surprise.

♦

Secularism isn’t quite the Muslim story. To the degree that the Western secular story marginalises God and the quest for spiritual growth, to that extent it is at loggerheads with faith. Islam’s vision of society is not theocratic; it is, however, theocentric. Islam, wrote Shalabi, ‘provides man with a spiritual technology by which he may come to know his Creator, thereby fulfilling the function for which he was made, and it is precisely because this process is of such overriding importance that the function of society must rise above that of the provision of man’s material needs and must seek to provide him with the best possible environment in which to carry out this project of self-discovery and realization. Thus Islam’s concern with politics.’1

How the sharia (shari‘ah) applies in today’s world or how it is to shape public life or the public space in Muslim majority countries is, currently, an open-ended question. At present, there is no one model of how public life in Muslim countries ought to reflect religious values and laws. Indeed, given that the sharia is not a monolithic set of laws, and the extraordinary diversity of the Muslim world, there is unlikely to be a ‘one-hat-fits all-sizes’ model. It is something which Muslim jurists and policy makers need to resolve in their own lands and on their own terms, as they keep in mind that the sharia has something known as thawabit wa’l-mutaghayyirat – laws which are fixed and unchangeable, and those that are open to adaption and alteration.

Although it is true that some Muslims welcome the privatisation of faith and believe that life would be freer, easier and more progressive if religion were kept out of the public space, most still hold to the belief that the collective, socio-political concerns of believers are still best dealt with in the light of God’s guidance. Attempts to interfere with the public expression of Islam in Muslim majority countries, or thwart the right of Muslims to self–determination, is seen by many (not without rhyme or reason) as a war against Islam and the Muslim religious way of life.

As for Muslims living under British secular democracy, their reality is very different. The task for them is about how they can best remain conscientious believers, whilst being responsible citizens in a secular society. Here, four attitudes or strategies may be broadly discerned:

I

First, there is the bubble model. This is where Muslims accept their secular reality, but do their best to opt-out of engaging with wider society or appeal to secular legislation as far as possible. Instead, they insulate themselves, live out their lives according to their faith as best as can be done, and resort to sharia counsels to settle disputes on family issues, inheritance and some commercial matters. These sharia tribunals are similar to Jewish beth-din courts and operate within the framework of British law that currently permits third-party arbitration. Such isolationism, however, is religiously unwarranted and practically unwise.

II

The second outlook is one of engagement. As above, there is a firm commitment to putting one’s faith into practice, but emphasis is placed on participating in wider civil society and on forging alliances with others who also seek to defend more traditional values against a liberalism that grows ever more totalising and intolerant. There is increasing awareness that if we are to help guide Europe back to God, we need allies (like traditionally-minded Christians and Jews) who share a similar vision of a more spiritual, just and compassionate society and who have the will to question the liberal orthodoxies of the age. This is not merely about homosexuality, gay marriages, or the undermining of traditional marriage and family; it is deeper than that. Modernity is founded on a set of materialist assumptions about human nature which empties life of dignity, purpose and divinity – for we are, after all,  products of ‘mere chance’ – and in its sheer greed and arrogance has pushed the planet to the very edge of ecological destruction. Even when the materialist sees beauty in the world, it is no more than sentimentality. To him, the world is still only fodder for the human animal and grist for his mills.

That being so, Abdal Hakim Murad’s Contention [13/6] is possibly the only sane faith-based response to such a materialist Monoculture: ‘It is better to engage fully with the Monoculture from a position of dislike than to engage partly with it from a position of admiration.’

And while the secular Monoculture does not stop Muslims from theologically seeing non-Muslims as inferior, in terms of religious truths and recipients of God’s specific grace, it does require that they be seen as equals in terms of citizenship and political rights. Such a political courtesy is what believers ought to exemplify.

Moreover, secularism in its current liberal image is not too concerned with our creed or ‘aqidah, as it is the social conservatism of most Muslims. That is, Brussels couldn’t care less whether the divine attributes are open to ta‘wil or figurative interpretation, or what types of tawassul are sanctioned by Scripture. However, they are concerned about whether or not Muslims believe in feminism and sexual liberalisation, or accept the legitimacy of gay marriages and the homosexual agenda. So let us not be confused from whence the storm is coming.

While the unfailing light of Revelation tells us that the act of homosexuality is sinful and immoral, “Will you commit foulness such as no creature ever did before you? For you come with lust to men instead of women; you are indeed a transgressing people” [7:80-1], we needn’t voice our opposition to it in hostile rage or violence; but rather peacefully, calmly, without calling for persecution. Mercy is better than malice; understanding better than recrimination.

As for the inquisition or Islamophobia being dolled out by the liberal stalwarts against those who oppose certain sexual practices, let us respond with restraint, dignity and tolerance. And nor should their intimidation and bullying cause us to cower, or fail to state the correct ruling on the matter.

III

The third strategy is the Islamisation one, devotees of which feel obliged to overturn the secular order so that it accords with sharia laws. Here, it is not merely one or two liberal or secular deviations that are of concern; instead it is the entire secular edifice. Although peddled by right-wing Islamophobes and growing sections of the media as being the true agenda of most Islamic groups, it is a fringe view usually held by those driven by large helpings of religious zealotry, but little religious fiqh.

Not to be misconstrued, this in no way refers to the proselytising strategy which gives priority to the moral, spiritual and unitarian beliefs of Islam, and which uses the art of reason and persuasion, invitation and exhortation, to achieve its ends. Inviting to God and improving society in terms of social justice and moral and spiritual integrity, lies at the heart of a believer’s concern. Instead, what is meant by ‘Islamisation’ is that bent of mind which insists religion must be wedded to and bedded by politics, and is obsessed with forcing Islamic penal laws upon society at the expense of inviting it to Abrahamic monotheism (tawhid), the pillars of Muslim practice, and the moral legacy of Islam.

Hostility and confrontation characterise such extremists; violence is also not ruled out in this strategy. Angry young men holding placards denouncing the West, calling for beheadings, spouting intolerance of others, and basking in gratuitous offence of non-Muslims have become iconic of such mindsets.

No doubt, our personal moral values can and often do influence our political choices and actions. But religion’s attempt to force its standards onto wider society is likely to be met with vigorous resistance. For it is in the nature of human beings that whenever something is thrust down their throats, there is a reflex tendency to vomit it up again. Call to the path of your Lord with wisdom and kindly exhortation, and reason with them in the most courteous manner [16:125] cannot be ignored or overlooked here.

In fact, what is the wisdom behind raging for the Islamisation of Britain while anti-Muslim sentiment across Britain and Europe is rising to alarming levels? If anything, classical jurists, like al-Mawardi and al-Nawawi, stipulate that Muslims may reside as a minority in non-Muslim lands (provided they can practice and maintain the basic duties and prescriptions of their faith) without the need to seek for the dominance of Islamic law.2

This is also the view of Ibn Taymiyyah who – when speaking of the Muslim migrants to Abyssinia and its king, the Negus who, having secretly converted to Islam was not able to openly declare his faith – concedes: ‘The Negus was unable to implement the laws of the Qur’an since his people would never have allowed him to do so … Yet the Negus and those like him found their way to Paradise (al-najashi wa amthaluhu sa‘ada fi’l-jannah), even though they were unable to observe the rules of Islam or could only abide by such rules as could be implemented in their given circumstances.’3

Again, what is the logic in being obsessed with wanting the full force of Islamic law on a Britain that has all but eliminated prejudice against foreigners, gays and blacks, but where Islamophobia – prejudice against Islam – remains the last socially accepted form of bigotry. Strategies that eclipse the invitation to belief in God and faith in His beauty and oneness, by unnecessary demands for Islamic law, aren’t only at odds with religion and reason, they are damaging and dangerous too.

IV

The fourth strategy argues for a robust defence of secularism and liberal values. This is championed by an allegedly benign Islamic liberalism which, more often than not, shows itself to be as intolerant and narrow as the very extremists it so despises. It is a liberalism that aims to curtail anything distinctly Islamic to exit the home or mosque and enter the public space. Such an outlook is regarded, and quite understandably so, with deep suspicion by most Muslims, who see in this religious reductionism nothing but a pandering to the tastes of the times. It is seen more as a case of following hawa; whims, than following huda; right guidance! Their “reinterpretations” of religion are as reckless as they are repugnant. Such anxious-to-please, brow beaten Muslims are now popping up everywhere: yet ‘they are no use to their communities, or, ultimately, to their hosts, for they cannot function as healers, but only as a chorus of frightened eulogists.’4

♦

The above depiction isn’t the whole story, it is a mere outline. There are, for instance, large numbers of Muslims who have no strategy; no agenda. For they have either not given the issue much thought, or else it is about taking each day as it comes, trying to keep their heads above water in terms of carrying out the daily demands of their faith. What many of them do intuit, however, is that hostility towards Islam is likely to grow and intensify as secular (liberal) dogmas attempt to impose themselves on society and further suffocate the insights of faith.

≈

1. Islam: Religion of Life (USA: Starlatch Press, 2001), 21.

2. As per al-Nawawi, al-Majmu‘ Sharh al-Muhadhdhab (Beirut: Dar al-Fikr, 2000), 21:7.

3. Majmu‘ Fatawa (Riyadh: Dar ‘Alam al-Kutub, 1991), 19:218-19.

4. Murad, Commentary on the Eleventh Contentions (Cambridge: The Quillium Press, 2012), 68; no.39.

Posted in contemporary concerns, modernity & muslimness, politics & society and tagged , , , , , , ,
05 Dec 2012
11 Comments

The Juggernaut of Modernity

charging-bull-drawing-23Islam is an inherently conservative tradition, in the sense that a cardinal tenet of such a tradition is to conserve and preserve revealed truths, defending them against attack. Pivotal to this preservation are the ‘ulema or religious scholars. One hadith says: ‘This knowledge will be carried by the trustworthy of each generation. They shall rid from it the distortions of the extremists; the false claims of the liars; and the misinterpretations of of the ignorant.’ [Al-Bayhaqi, Sunan al-Kubra, 10:209]

But such conservatism can be a double-edged sword. For though it may be capable of preserving what is essential or precious, it has the potential – not only of being open, foreword-thinking and inclusive – but of being closed, highly sectarian and exclusive. Regrettably, some of the more hardline, ultra-conservative ‘ulema tend to characterise this narrowness only too well.

Also true is that many of today’s ‘ulema seem thoroughly stumped by modernity: their discourse about it barely extending beyond a few criticisms levelled against the West’s immorality and ungodliness. One crucial Islamic maxim insists: hukm ‘ala shay’ far‘un ‘an tasawwurihi – “Passing judgement about something comes after having [correctly] conceptualised it.” So without understanding the ideas or institutions that undergird modernity, how can we expect to come to grips with it and stand-up to it; or to at least navigate safely through it?

Yet all is not bleak. There are a number of more nuanced and informed ‘ulema, whose ranks seem to be growing steadily but surely. Observing the extremism of the radicals and the cowboy reforms of the liberals with a faint grin of disquiet, they are at pains to iterate to us words of realism and sanity:

♦

The first thing they point out is that modernity is a juggernaut, that has a tendency to flatten anything that comes in its way. Hence clashing with it head-on is unwise. Nor must it be a case of its uncritical acceptance or wholesale rejection. We seem to have an endless fascination with short term political issues, yet are largely ignorant of the wider trends of which these issues are merely the passing manifestations. Unless and until we Muslims become conscious of the larger trends of the age – until we learn to look past the zahir; the superficial externals, to the batin; the deeper realities – we will continue to flounder in our current predicament. One popular du‘a runs: Allahumma arina’l-haqqa haqqan wa’rzuqna itiba‘ahu wa arina’l-batila batilan wa’rzuqna ijtinabahu: ‘O God show me truth as it really is and cause me to follow it; and show me falsehood as it really is and turn me away from it.’

♦

Secondly; having stressed the above, such ‘ulema draw our attention to the following: The goal of Islamic civilisation has never been scientific or material progress. Instead, realising worship of God (tahqiq al-‘ubudiyyah) and seeking to perfect the human soul (tazkiyat al-nafs) are its goals. Its most holistic expression comes to us in the famous hadith of the Angel Gabriel [Cf. Muslim, no.8], where he taught that the religion, in its entire, is encompassed in the three dimensions of iman, islam and ihsan: beliefs, actions and spirituality. Or if you will: knowing, doing and becoming – knowing faith; doing works of faith; then becoming transformed by faith.1

For Muslims, as both individuals and societies, actualising these three levels of human life is the real measure of progress or success. Furthermore, it cannot be hidden from those familiar with Islam’s religious sources or history, that the optimum balance ever to be achieved in terms of these three din dimensions, was by the Muslim community in Madinah during the prophetic age. In fact, from then on it was to be (barring a few exceptions) a downwards spiral. The Prophet ﷺ said: ‘No time will come upon you except that the time after it shall be worse than it; until you meet your Lord.’ [Al-Bukhari, no.7068] He ﷺ also said: ‘The best of mankind is my generation; then those who follow them; then those who follow them.’ [Bukhari, no.2652; Muslim, no.2533] It isn’t surprising, then, that this “unique Quranic generation” is one that most Muslims look back upon with reverence, loyalty and a deep sense of nostalgia.

No doubt, nostalgia may so overwhelm some people that they could end-up trying to relive the past. The love affair with the Prophet’s Madinah may, if we get too dreamy, blur the distinction between what is descriptive in Madinah from what is prescriptive. But that, for the most part, can be mitigated by following qualified, contextual fiqh. Nostalgia for Madinah, as the ‘ulema say, in no way permits ignoring our context and reality. In other words, we have a duty to keep it real. Loyalty to the past doesn’t mean living in the past.

♦

Lastly, they remind us that as the End of Days approaches, various “Signs of the Hour” are anticipated. Among them is the increase in social commotions, seditions and civil wars – collectively referred to as fitan (sing. fitnah). Here the hadiths tell us: ‘There will be times of commotion in which one who sits will be better than one who stands; one who stands better than one who walks; and one who walks better than one who runs.’ [Al-Bukhari, no.3601; Muslim, no.2886] On being asked what to do in such times, the Prophet ﷺ advised: ‘Keep to your houses, control your tongues, keep to what you approve, leave what you disapprove, attend to your own affairs and avoid public affairs.’ [Abu Dawud, Sunan, no.4342]

The Shafi’i jurist and hadith master, al-Munawi (d.1031H/1622CE), said that keeping to your houses … clinging to what you approve means: to keep your head down and get on with whatever benefits your spiritual and worldly well-being.

Leaving what you disapprove mandates avoiding such affairs of people that you know to be contrary to the shari‘ah. This, along with thanking God for averting this sin from you, as well as censuring the wrong with civility, gentleness and patience, and with an inward serenity born of a conviction that – despite things seeming bleak – all is in His hand and is unfolding according to the divine plan.

Avoiding the affairs of the general public, al-Munawi wrote, implies that when enjoining good or forbidding evil is more likely to be ineffective at rectifying a fitnah or a social ill – either because of it being so widespread; or is too entrenched; or one simply fears for their own safety in doing so – there is a dispensation to not tackle the wrong. But one is still duty bound by faith to detest the wrong inwardly, and to knuckle down and carry out the cardinal demands made by religion.2

♦

Scholars say that the circumstance warranting this type of social disengagement have not quite come to a head yet. But they do speak of significant parallels between those times and our present one. So what do they counsel?

By no means are they agreed on a detailed plan or response. Though for a while now, a consensus has begun to take shape among them about the most appropriate course of action. Since modernity is a one-way street and religion is positioned in the wrong direction, the ‘ulema realise that any forward motion is fraught with danger. They are aware, too, of the need to steer a path between mindlessly reacting to modernity and timidly retreating from it.

Priority, they stress, is for Muslims to learn and maintain the fard al-‘ayn: those duties that are a personal obligation for Muslims to know and fulfil. They also enjoin living according to the Prophet’s Sunnah, peace be upon him, wherever we can; and as much as we can. This applies to the private sphere.

As for the public space, the advice is far more nebulous. Must we challenge modernity square on and brazenly confront its decadent wrongs? A mixture of textual indicants, received wisdoms, experiences and hindsights have all worked together to make this a wild or intemperate option, as far as the ‘ulema are concerned. Any policy of militant conflict is more likely to harm Islam than anything else. Instead, do what you are able to do in the public space, is their advise, and begin to develop strong institutions: civil, religious, educational and social. Furthermore, start to form Alliances of Virtue with like-minded non-Muslims so as to help build a better society – alliances aimed at working for justice, accommodation and coexistence.

What this needs is for us to take a more nuanced, wiser and courageous approach; an approach where the balanced and spiritual nature of Islam can better manifest itself. The approach must also be one that allows Islam to retain its voice as a prophetically-inspired dissent that engages the realities of the modern world. This sacred function of Muslims being dissenting witnesses is based on the verse: Thus have We made you a middle nation, that you may be a witness over mankind, and that the Messenger may be a witness over you. [2:143] With knowledge, justice, compassion and courage this is what we have been called upon to do: to be witnesses to tawhid, divine truths and delivery of the Message to a world retreating from the Sacred and plunging ever more into the profane!

≈

1. Iman, islam and ihsan have also be expressed as: law (shari‘ah), path (tariqah) and reality (haqiqah). Here, shari‘ah means: to worship only God; tariqah, intending only Him; and haqiqah, spiritually witnessing Him. Consult: Ibn Ajibah, Iqaz al-Himam fi Sharh al-Hikam (Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah, 2008), 23.

2. Cf. al-Munawi, Fayd al-Qadir (Beirut: Dar al-Ma’rifah, n.d.), 1:353; hadith no.626.

Posted in modernity & muslimness, politics & society and tagged , , , ,
29 Oct 2012
6 Comments

To Progress or Drift Dangerously Downstream?

StormTeacupProgress signifies a movement forward. But it tells us nothing about the actual nature of the movement. Is it downstream or upstream? Is it hurtling to danger or marching to safety? Is it a descent or an ascent? Is it a fall from Grace or a lifting of the Spirit? The fact that something marches forward progressively doesn’t mean it is necessarily a good thing. Cancer progresses, but no one considers it good. What I’m trying to say is that how do we know when progress is good, and what is the yardstick by which it is measured? One of Islam’s arbab al-qulub, or “spiritual masters,” has said: fi’l-harakah barakah – ‘in movement there is a blessing.’ Evidently, though, not every movement is blessed.

♦

The Prophet, upon whom be peace, said: ‘Be in the world as though you are a stranger or a traveller.’ [Al-Bukhari, no.6416] He also explained: ‘What have I to do with the life of this world. My example in regards to this worldly life is like that of a rider who rests for a while under the shade of a tree, but then moves on.’ [Tirmidhi, no.2377] In order for life to be a journey moving in the right direction, we must always move ‘upstream’ against the current – against the relentless pull of the world or dunya.

The late Martin Lings says in his Ancient Beliefs, Modern Superstitions, that until quite recently, such was the orientation of human societies the world over: the ‘boats’ were, so to speak, at least pointing upstream – whether the force of the current was actually carrying them downstream or not. But there came a time, wrote Lings, within the last two hundred years or so, when for want of the least effort needed to keep the front of the boats facing the right direction, a number of boats that were drifting downstream backwards were deflected to meet the current broadside on and thus to be, as it were, with no orientation whatsoever. In this vulnerable position of doubt, uncertainty and hopelessness it was not difficult for the current to turn them completely around until they were facing the way they were drifting: downstream. With shouts of triumph that they were ‘at last making some progress’, they called on those who were still struggling upstream to ‘throw off the fetters of superstition’ and to ‘move with the times’. A new creed was quickly cobbled together to justify this U-turn. It stated that man’s previous historical efforts to move upstream were reactionary, utterly pointless and misguided; yet despite all reactionary man’s folly and futility, they ‘couldn’t keep man in the dark night of ignorance’ and that ‘progress’ would surely win through. So by the twentieth century we had arrived at what was described by someone as ‘the glorious morning of the world’.1

♦

Struggling against the sweeping currents of dunya does not mean that believers are to cast aside the world, tending only to the work of faith and the Spirit. The Qur’an says: ‘But seek the abode of the Hereafter in that which God has given you, and do not forget your portion of the world, and be kind even as God has been kind to you. And seek not corruption in the earth; for God loves not corrupters.’ [28:77]

Yet remembering our portion of the world should not be taken to mean that material advances – in terms of science and technology, or the system of politics or economics adopted by a nation – are the true measures of progress. The Qur’an relates a number of narratives about previous civilisations and their technological “progress”. Yet when put side by side with their heedlessness or denial of the Divine Reality, such progress is seen for what it truly is: delusion and civilisational hubris. Informs the Qur’an: Have they not travelled in the earth and seen the fate of those before them. They were far mightier than them in power, and they dug the earth and built upon it more than they did. And their Messengers brought them clear signs. God wronged them not, but they wronged themselves. Evil was the end of those who dealt in evil, because they denied the signs of God and mocked them. [30:9-10]

Early Muslim pietists were at pains to instil in us the quintessential Quranic message, that mere material progress – ‘digging the earth and building on it’ – can never be the measure of any true, meaningful success. Islamic sources relate that in 28AH/649CE the first ever Muslim naval expedition was launched against Cyprus, which was under the rule of the Byzantine empire; now in its twilight years.

The Muslim army was quick to overrun the small Byzantine garrison and the Cypriots were soon paying tribute to the Muslims. On seeing the ease with which the people of this once powerful empire lay defeated and subdued, Abu’l-Darda – a Companion of the Prophet and worldly renunciant – began to weep. On being asked why he wept on the day God had granted victory to Islam and the Muslims, he answered: ‘Woe to you! How insignificant creation becomes to God when they neglect His commands. Here is a nation that was once mighty, powerful and had dominion. Then they abandoned the commands of God; so look what has become of them.’2

So in judging the contemporary world’s unrelenting drive for progress, believers need not concur with all the orthodoxies and popular assumptions of the age. Civilisational greatness or technological progress for their own sake, as may be seen, count for very little in the Quranic scheme of things. Digging the earth is one thing; burying the path to salvation is another thing altogether.

♦

In closing, then, let’s pose that all-important question again: How should change and progress be appraised?

For Muslims, insisted Gai Eaton, there can be only one test by which to assess change. Does it promote piety – awareness of the divine Presence – or diminish it? Does it lead an increasing number of men and women to the gates of Paradise, or encourage them to stray from God’s path? Does it reinforce the divinely revealed Law, or does it cloud the distinction between what is commanded and what is forbidden? Obviously, there are, he says, other considerations; but they must take a lower place in a fixed order of priorities: An increase in life expectancy is, of course, a good thing, but pointless if the additional years do not lead to an increasing awareness of the divine Reality which we are soon to meet. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with the ease and comforts the modern world provides, but these count for nothing if their soft embrace encourages us to forget our origin and our ultimate end.3

As the demands for Islam to progress and to adopt modern liberal doctrines intensify, we must ensure that – regardless of the pressure – we keep the ‘boats’ facing the right direction: namely, upstream. A certain amount of glitzy conceit usually accompanies those who wield political dominance in every age; and our age is no exception. But as believers, we needn’t be taken in by such posturing. We must not be enthralled by the superficial glitter of what is essentially a materialistic, atheistic Monoculture; and nor be blinded by the glare of its present might: Let not the strutting of the disbelievers in the land beguile you. [3:196]

As for the temptation to water down faith or gloss over Islam’s less “palatable” points, The Qur’an exhorts: Perhaps you may [feel to] leave out some of what is revealed to you, and your hearts feel strained that they say: ‘Why hasn’t a treasure been sent down for him, or an angel not come with him?’ You are nothing but a warner, and God is Guardian over all things. [11:12]

That is to say, the weakened spirit may ask itself: “What if I omit this religious ruling, or that duty, in order to better my liberal credentials: will God’s truth not be accepted more readily?” Yet we are told the truth must be delivered as it was revealed, and to skip over a portion of what is obligated would be to surely miss the point. We should, of course, be wise, patient, convivial and understand our context as best as we can; then leave the rest to God (or, as it is said, ‘do your best, then trust in God to do the rest’). For tahqiq al-‘ubudiyyah, “realising servitude to God,” is a Muslim’s unalterable direction of progression. Islam and the Monoculture must learn how to accomodate each other precisely on such a basis.

≈

1. See: Ancient Beliefs and Moderns Superstitions (Cambridge: Archetype, 2001), 37-8.

2. Ibn Hanbal, al-Zuhd (Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah, 1999), 117; no.763.

3. Consult: Gai Eaton, Remembering God: Reflections on Islam (Cambridge: The Islamic Texts Society, 2000), 25-6.

Posted in contemporary concerns, modernity & muslimness, politics & society and tagged , , , , ,

Post Navigation

%d bloggers like this: