Cross posted at Muslim Bloggers Alliance
Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said in a famous hadîth: “No one truly believes until he wants for his brother what he wants for himself.”
We have all heard and studied this hadith from the days of Sunday School. We have all heard it in various lectures and sermons.
We have all understood this hadith to be teaching us that the perfection of our individual faith is not solely a process involving oneself and Allah but it also incorporates the dynamics between oneself and the Ummah. Meaning that one can never achieve complete faith in a social isolation – it can only be achieved through the respectful interactions with other fellow Muslim brothers.
Sounds about right so far, eh?
Well not according to the renowned Dr. Abdullah Bin Bayyah. In this otherwise excellent posting on Suhaib Webb’s blog, Sh. Bin Bayyah explains the Prophet’s reference to brother as meaning ‘humankind brother’, not solely a Muslim brother:
"The value of “human brotherhood” is being joined with that of “love” in these words of our Prophet (peace be upon him). Before somebody accuses me of reinterpreting this hadîth for my own purposes, they should know that this is the understanding of the scholars from centuries back.
For instance, the leading Hanbalî jurist, Ibn Rajab said: “The brotherhood referred to in this hadîth is the brotherhood of humanity.” [Sharh al-`Arba`în al-Nawawiyyah]
The same is asserted by al-Shabrakhîtî and many others."
If you know me, you’ll know that I'm very accepting of this broader interpretation. I have no problem with it as I feel it's this approach that will bring about the true spirit of the Sunnah of our beloved Prophet (saw). I do believe that we Muslims have far too long advocated an exclusivist philosophy where non-Muslims are seen as the ‘other’ (especially ironic since we are the first to object when we Muslims are ‘otherized’ by the West) and it is this unique interpretation that will alleviate many unnecessary tensions between Muslims and non-Muslims.
What I do find problematic is why this interpretation has been dusted off from the bookshelves of traditional fiqh and is now receiving some airtime. How come it took us several centuries to publicize this interpretation?
In my opinion, and I don’t wish to project this onto the sincere intentions of scholars such as Sheikh Bin Bayyah, political considerations have come into play. The socio-political context in which we live is compelling us to find varying interpretations to well-known Islamic ‘principles’. We find this especially common in discussions on jihad, apostasy, and polygamy.
My concern is that, in our post-9/11 environments, we are performing intellectual gymnastics with our classical fiqh in search of opinions that are more palatable to the non-Muslim world.
I do realize that the bipolar worldview of classical scholars (dar al-Islam and dar al-Harb) is being replaced by a more pluralistic outlook wherein a new Islamic paradigm is *possibly* being developed. So it is understandable that previous majority interpretations are being replaced by minority, or even altogether new, opinions.
I do acknowledge that opinions once held as absolute truths need to be re-evaluated in the context of our times (that is what Ijtihad is all about), but we must equally be conscious of the circumstances in which this re-evaluation is taking place. Are we defining the issues based on the needs of the Ummah or are they being dictated to us by our very own critics?
I mean is apostasy or FGM such a serious global epidemic in the Ummah that it needs to trump other more rampant problems such as misogyny, illiteracy, and corruption? But since our critics choose to focus on the former two, we too must dedicate all our efforts to analyzing those issues.
And once we accept their prioritizations of our problems, how far will we go to appease them in redressing said problems?
Will polygamy go the way of slavery or concubinage, explained away as social aberrations that were tolerated in past Muslim societies only to become phased out and prohibited?
Will the Islamic concept of jihad be stripped of its military aspect and become a spiritual struggle against the devil?
If the term ‘brother’ in the hadith I began with is allowed to be interpreted as the 'human brotherhood' variety, will all other instances of ‘brother’ in our textual sources be allowed such an interpretation?
I think we all agree that the doors of Ijtihad need to be reopened (that is if you are of the opinion that they were ever closed), but I really wish that this development were taking place under the impartial patronage of Muslim scholars, independent of the suggestions by the critics of Islam. I find the uninvited tentacles of the West’s call for Islamic reform all too present in such fiqhi exercises.
WAW
1 day ago
13 comments:
Thanks Naeem,
This blog hit home with me.
Assalamu alaikum
Just wanted to make several comments.
Firstly, ijtehad itself was never really closed off. There are different levels of ijtehad because their are different types of mujtahids. Their is the absolute mujtahid (i.e. the founder of a school of law who does ijtehad on the very principles of jurisprudence itself), the madhaib mujtahid (a person who can weigh opinions between schools) and the madhab mujtahid (a person who can weigh the various opinions within a school). The second and third levels of ijtehad have always existed since antiquity. Its the first level of ijtehad that has pretty much been closed off. Not because their is no need for it, but its simply impossible for someone to engage in ijtehad on the fundamental principles of jurisprudence since the texts have a limited amount of interpretations. All possible interpretations have been exhausted and for a person to go back to the sources and develop a unique understanding of these principles would require him to evaluate all present and past juristic principles. The quantity of information is simply too great for a single person to master. It might be possible for a supercomputer in the future, but not by a human being. So again, ijtehad has never been closed off. It occurs every day by scholars all over the world.
Secondly, fiqh rulings are based upon the circumstances of the people and the particular conditions which they live in. Thus, merely because a scholar deviates from the "classical" opinions of that school doesn't make him deviant. His fatwa has to be given in the context of the questioner, the environment he lives in, the social, political, and economic conditions, etc. So if Shaykh Bin Bayyah took this particular interpretation, it doesn't necessarily mean he's doing it to please the kuffar, but to make benefit for the Muslim community in the West. Different fiqh rulings take priority over other fiqh rulings. For example, Umar (radhi allahu anhu) waived the hadd punishment for stealing during a famine. Now, a hadd punishment is a punishment that is obligatory since it is from Allah (subhana wa ta'ala), however the social conditions were as such that the people were not blameworthy because they had no choice. As such, the literal construction of the law was subjugated to the objectives of the law (maqasid al-shari'ah).
So when Shaykh Bin Bayyah is giving a fatwa on a particular subject, its within the context of the Western Muslim community and what benefits them and what benefits them might be different from the benefit that was derived from scholars living within the classical era.
Thats why fiqh is beautiful and so is ikhtilaaf because it creates flexibility without the extreme laxity of Christianity and the excessive and irrational legalism of Judaism. Islam is truly a moderate deen.
Those are my thoughts.
May Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) grant us tawfeek. Ameen.
masalama
AA- Jinnzaman,
Thanks for you thoughts...I agree with most of what you said.
With regards to Sh. bin Bayyah, I never claimed his usage of the minority opinion was 'deviant', I simply questioned the timing of it.
Of course the faqih and mufti must remain keenly aware of their daily surroundings when making a judgment, but they also must be in tune with the soci-political climate in which they are operating. They must be alert to the outside insidious factors at play and must remain steadfast to their own principles.
Listen, there are soo many other texts that point to Islam's respect and honor of mankind (regardless of faith), so why do we have to comb through the books of fiqh in search of minority opinions? Its simply not a wise political move.
With a little research, most people can see right through such tactics. For example, we can't simply cite the hadith of the lesser jihad/greater jihad as the end-all definition of jihad. A cursory look at Islamic history will show the jihad was never limited to the struggle against the nafs. We must be honest and balanced when presenting our Islamic principles.
With regards to the less-used definition of 'brother', why not acknowledge that Islam *does* place a greater sense of loyalty to other Muslims by their fellow Muslims, while also mentioning that the life of any person (regardless of faith) is priceless and equal to all of humanity.
What's wrong with that? Its honest, fair, and balanced.
Finally, JZ, you seem to have taken Sh bin Bayyah's action as purely a fiqh-related issue, in which case you are absolutely correct. However, I choose to see it in the broader context of our social and political atmosphere...and that is where I see the problem.
Allah knows best.
WA-
Naeem
JZ, I was thinking some more about the status of real ijtihad in the Ummah and although its obvious, as you pointed out, that certain types of ijtihad have never ceased, I tend to believe that the *real* innovative thinking is extremely lacking.
While the Ulema have remained consistent in tackling contemporary issues relating to taharah (purification) or prayer, where is the ijtihad on modernism (and its countless sub-branches), free-market capitalism, and liberal democracy?
I haven't seen the traditional Ulema produce anything on par with the ijtihadi efforts of some non-traditional scholars (such as Khalid Abu Fadl). Only example that comes to mind is Maulana Ashraf Thanwi and his 'answer to modernism'...
Assalamu alaikum
Well we seem to be in agreement for the most part.
With regards to minority opinions, they are still valid fiqh opinions and there's nothing wrong with following a minority opinion if there is a need or benefit to the community. I also don't see it as sugarcoating because one is still presenting a valid legal verdict. It would only become problematic if they ignored or neglected to mention the other texts. I don't think Shaykh Bin Bayyah was doing that, I think he was just trying to respond to some of the extremism in our community where people have reduced Islam to merely a form of social or political identity and have divested it of its ethical and spiritual components. There are many rights that humanity has over the Ummah. Just because it hasn't been mentioned in a single compilation doesn't mean that they don't exist individually.
Also, with regards to Khaled Abou El Fadl, his importance is overstated. His theses are awesome, but his published books are just lame. On the authoritative and the authoritarian made such blatant mistakes in the science of hadeeth that even a novice talib ul 'ilm would be able to correct him.
Trust me, our Ummah is in good hands. The 'Ulema are out there working their hardest to bring benefit and ward harm. The problem is really the lack of publicity and respect of lay people to those opinions. Especially the Hanafi madhab man, we've got some lions for intellectual argumentation. :)
masalama
With regards to ijtehad on free-market capitalism there is Mufti Taqi Usmani (btw, if you want to see a critique of Mufti Taqi Usmani, check out the al-ghazzalian's blog who are probably on the forefront of a traditional critique of modernity). With regards to democracy, there is Dr. Said Ramadhan al-Buti's "Freedom in Islam" which is available at www.sunnipath.com
There's a plethora of literature and fatwas out there, if a person searches in the right place.
:)
I'm not sure how much more ijtehad is required on these subjects.
Perhaps what is needed is a compilation of various fatwas. That would be a great accomplishment for the American Muslim community: a compilation of fiqh rulings pertaining to the particular legal issues of our community.
masalama
Salaam JZ-
"The problem is really the lack of publicity and respect of lay people to those opinions. Especially the Hanafi madhab man, we've got some lions for intellectual argumentation."
If these efforts in ijtihad are in fact present and are merely suffering from a 'lack of publicity' and 'respect of lay people', I would argue that the problem is with the ijtihad - sorta like the myriad schools of thought (outside the popular 4) that existed at one time but were lost due to their unpopularity.
An ijtihad is only as good as its following. If the Ulema are locked away in their ivory towers coming up with answers for the modern Muslim that no one knows about, what good is that?
Maybe, as you said, I need to study more...thanks for the references...I will definitely be looking them up!
"Perhaps what is needed is a compilation of various fatwas. That would be a great accomplishment for the American Muslim community: a compilation of fiqh rulings pertaining to the particular legal issues of our community."
Yes, that would be nice for us intellectual couch potatoes. :-)
WA-
It is very exasperating for people like me to hear things like "we Muslims have far too long advocated an exclusivist philosophy".
Funny thing is, most young American Muslims often dismiss the way Islam was traditionally interpreted and practised (Hanafi, Shafi'i, Maliki, Hanbali, and the two Shi'a schools) as either "medieval" or "bid'a-ridden". I am not a scholar so I can't speak of whole schools, but I am a person brought up by traditional Hanafi parents (South Asians--who make up a good 30-50% of the Ummah) and who had my early education in government schools in (then traditionally Maliki) Northern Nigeria. And I have always understood "brother" in that hadith to mean "the next man". Man. Not Muslim.
And the curriculum in Northern Nigeria, my parents' upbringing--all of that was not put in place because "political considerations have come into play". It was what a *lot* of very traditional Muslims held to be their faith.
I know WHY he did it, but it is very vexing that my brother Naeem has to say things like "...this otherwise excellent posting..." and "Before somebody accuses me of reinterpreting this hadith for my own purposes, they should know that this is the understanding of the scholars from centuries back."
I say that in a lot of these matters, we only need look back half a century to what the conventional wisdom was in the Muslim world. And I am not defending the misogyny, illiteracy, and corruption that a lot of Muslim cultures were ridden with. I am an activist who grew up in Northern Nigeria and Pakistan and have worked in the field of human rights on the ground in Pakistan. I follow affairs in India very closely and have friends and relatives there.
But American and Western Muslim friends have often asked me in the last few years, as I got involved in organizations and efforts that carried the "progressive Muslim" label, "..but, but Islam is progressive in its nature; why do you need to say 'progressive Muslim'?" This kind of issue is exactly why.
I have often had to say to people: Islam told us to be nice to our neighbours. Not to our *Muslim neighbours*. The Prophet and Awliya and Ulema down the centuries have set an example of good conduct and actively looking out for the welfare of even their Jewish neighbours. A story is told of one aalim, of how he had a neighbour, who just happened to be Jewish, who would intentionally disturb him, especially during worship. Then, for a few days, the disturbance stopped. The aalim took it upon himself to find out and discovered that the man was ill or something--I forget the exact details--and took it upon himself to help. THAT was the Islam I was brought up in. And I am thirty-six. My upbringing was not changed because of events in 2001 or since. Today, do most of us even know the names of our non-Muslim next door neighbours?
Islam is by definition progressive and humanistic; but how we often understand it, especially how we have come to understand it in the last 2 or 3 decades, and how Muslims have come to practise it, is not at all humanistic, humane or compassionate. Looking for your own tribe is not compassion. It is not Ihsan. It is parochialism. Being just only to members of your own tribe is not adl. It is discrimination.
Wa Allah Aalam, but in my very "naqis" opinion, that should be pretty obvious to anyone who reads the Qur'an--and most of the folks here seem much more formally educated in what we called "Islamic Religious Knowledge" in in the Nigerian educational system. Where the Qur'an wants to refer or address Muslims, it says "Ya Ayyuhal Momineen", or "Ya Ayyuhal Muslimeen". But in other places, it refers very clearly to "Rabbin Nas, Malikin Nas". Do go back and read the verses on compassion. For example:
Surah 60, Verse 8: 8. Allah forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) Faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: for Allah loveth those who are just.
Tell me He is not telling you that he will love you for being kind to non-Muslims--who are not belligerent towards you.
In my late 30s, and having lived under more than half a dozen military dictators, all forms of corruption in the Third World, and at the receiving end of the American Media, there is little that surprises me. But I have to admit that it amazes me no end that whether a Muslim should be kind and humane towards non-Muslims is even a question.
Wa Allahu Aalam, indeed!
Salaam Br. iFaqeer,
Very well-put. I couldn't have said it better myself. I am in complete agreement that we need to bring down the barriers between us Muslims and our non-Muslim neighbors.
However, we must do this while remaining intellectually loyal to our tradition.
If you say that in your upbringing, you were taught that the cited hadith used the term 'brother' to refer to all mankind, that's great!
But it must be clear that the majority of traditional scholars did not share that view.
That being said, am I promoting such a reading onto ALL of our tradition (ie. that only Muslims are worthy of our mercy, compassion, love, friendship, etc.)?
Absolutely not.
We all know the countless instances in which the Prophet (saw) showed immense respect for his fellow human (regardless of faith). *That* is the Sunnah of the Prophet(saw)!
But let us not mix that with the lesson of *this* specific hadith.
But I hope my bigger point was not lost in the discussion of this hadith - namely that we must not sacrifice our principles, as distasteful as they may seem to our critics, simply in attempting to appease them.
My point, Brother Naeem, is that there's a lot more compassion for non-Muslims in our traditions than a lot of the conversations amongst "Western Muslims" would leave us believing.
I fear that in stressing that we won't change ourselves due to external pressures, we over-react that don't even pay attention to the internal pressures and necessities.
There's a video I have seen on the web of a lecture by Zaid Shakir or someone, in which a young person asks him, after his lecture, if he heard him right when he said that it is our duty, as Muslims, to be kind and just (I forget the exact words) in our dealings with people. The young man's question was whether it was a duty to deal well with Muslims or all of humanity.
Why did the student feel the need to ask that question? In that case, the question wasn't even whether a non-Muslim falls under the rubric of "brother"; just whether we should behave well with them.
That's what scares me.
AA- iFaqeer,
Thank you for your thoughts. I share this concern with you as well...I mentioned it in my original post:
"I do believe that we Muslims have far too long advocated an exclusivist philosophy where non-Muslims are seen as the ‘other’ (especially ironic since we are the first to object when we Muslims are ‘otherized’ by the West)..."
We need to stop looking at the world through the 'us vs. them' glasses.
WA-
Naeem
I really like this discussion. Although I think part of your view comes from the idea that we are somehow pandering (in a sense - maybe i shoudlnt use such a negative word) to the West, and that is why we shouldn't look critically at ourselves. I agree with you in idea, but I think muslims are on the defensive now, and scholarship has been lacking in giving responses. Now they are scrambling a little to try and keep muslims sane. I don't want to present a negative view of scholarship, as I think this is due to the quantity of scholars and not the quality. Hazrat Maualana Thanvi and Mufti Taqi Usmani and his father Shafi Usmani are excellent examples of scholars that are(/were) forward looking and thinking.
Sophister,
"..we are somehow pandering (in a sense - maybe i shoudlnt use such a negative word) to the West, and that is why we shouldn't look critically at ourselves."
Slight correction, if I may. I do beleive that we are pandering to the West, BUT that is not a reason for us to stop looking critically at ourselves.
We should continue to be self-critical, but out of sincerity to our intellectual traditions, not out of any derived political benefits.
assalaam alaykum. I am in agreement with the original posting. The Sharia is there to first and foremost safeguard our deen. Any ease in this life can never take precedence over the absolute ease of the next life (this is from the course I took about Islamic jurisprudence at sunnipath). We are cautioned by our beloved Prophet to hold fast to the main jammah. Shaykh Nuh has given a dars on minority fiqh of which the audio is going around the web. It is the opinion of the ulema of Damascus that minority fiqh as it has evolved into is batil.
We have so many challenges in the west but so do all the muslims in the world each having to carry a personal burden. Our reward inshallah will be with Allah.
Post a Comment