Naeem's Blog

Most Americans are well aware of the recent travails of the US Government in finalizing their federal budget. In making his case for balancing the budget, Obama argued that “every day, families sacrifice to live within their means. They deserve a government that does the same."

However, Ted Rall makes his counter-argument against this myth that American families are thrifty and keen on balancing their personal budgets. In addition to informing us of the facts (the average family has a debt of nearly $11,000), he posits this interesting scenario:

“If consumer credit vanished, the corporato-capitalist system currently prevailing in the U.S. would deteriorate from its current, merely unsustainable form into total chaos. Without credit cards and other loans citizens would seethe, trapped between the mutually irreconcilable forces of falling wages and the aggressive advertising and marketing of products they would never be able to afford. There would only be two possible long-term outcomes: revolution, or the ruling classes would be forced to pay substantially higher wages to workers. To corporate elites, the latter choice would be too unpalatable to countenance.”

Of the two possible outcomes of a credit-free society that Rall discusses, the latter (paying higher wages to workers) is a very intriguing situation. It would undoubtedly cut into the colossal wealth of the top one percent, but the resulting economic justice would provide for a far more acceptable standard of living for the majority.

Such a course of action, I believe, is promoted by the Islamic economic ethos. This is but one example of what the Shariah would provide to its participants – a more just economic system, where capitalistic greed is not given the absolute free reign it has been afforded by modern-day capitalism.

Too bad such intellectual thought exercises are missing from the discussions on Shariah.

Instead, let us continue the fear-mongering and adventures in disinformation. After all, why bother trying to understand the intricate details of Islamic economic jurisprudence when it’s so much easier to simply pass off scary images of bearded Mullahs, honour killings, and dhimmi taxes as wholly representative of Shariah?

I just finished reading this CNN piece written my Muslim Comedian, Dean Obeidallah. In it, he addresses the recent GOP-concocted ruckus over the role of Sharia in the US. It’s not the least bit surprising that politicians are using islamophobic rhetoric to stoke the flames of fear among the masses. It’s a tactic that has been successfully used since 9/11.

But what is surprising is the troubling attitude that American Muslims have towards the Sharia. Why are so many Muslims so quick to write off the Sharia as an ideal system for all of humanity? Shouldn’t we be confident that the divine precepts set forth within the Shariah provide what is best for all of mankind?

I understand that due to decades of misinformation, the Shariah is equated with oppression, stoning, and forced conversions. But instead of working to clear up these blatant misconceptions and properly present the beautiful, humane aspects of Islamic law, why are so many of us turning our backs on the Shariah and agreeing with the public sentiment that it has no place in America?

Huh?!

Why have we become so ashamed of the Shariah, like that proverbial crazy uncle whose embarrassing antics make everyone uncomfortable, eventually wishing he would just go away?

After all, if the commandments of Allah (swt) had been in place in America, I am convinced that the catastrophically oppressive system of interest-based banking would not have bound countless struggling families by the economic shackles that have enslaved them to their financial masters.

If the Shariah were implemented in America, hundreds of billions would not have been squandered on the military-industry complex at the cost of healthcare programs, educational reforms, and battling poverty.

If the Shariah ever became a legal reality in America, the beautiful Prophetic axiom “Do not harm and do not reciprocate harm” (La Darara wa La Dirar) would become the overarching principle of America’s foreign policy.

If the Shariah ever found its way into the Supreme Court, carbon emissions, climate change, and other environmental concerns would trump every corporation’s right to grotesque profits.

If the Shariah laws were applied in America, human dignity would return to its proper place above the politically manipulated concept of human freedom.

If the Shariah was the law of the land, universally acknowledged vices such as gambling, alcohol, and pornography would not be sanctioned by the state.

If the Shariah came to be at the national level, economic hitmen and corporate jackals, with the support of the American government, would not freely roam the earth looking for lands to rape and populations to fleece.

The Shariah covers all aspects of human life and contrary to the picture some American Muslims are presenting about the Shariah, it is NOT restricted to one’s personal life. It provides guidelines for politics and economics, international relations and domestic policies, scientific research and spiritual purification, social relations from the nuclear family all the way to the global level.

It does away with man’s arrogant proclamation that he knows what is best for him. Verily, his Creator knows better.

So, I would boldly declare that I am a strong proponent of the Shariah becoming established not only in America, but throughout the world. Just allow me the time and respect to explain what that entails.

The New York Times has a very profound piece on Sh. Yasir Qadhi (here is his response to the NYTimes piece). I found the article very telling because of the way the writer is able to communicate the internal struggles of an American Muslim leader in navigating the murky waters of 21st century Islam in a politically charged America.

While there are many points worthy of addressing, I would like to focus on the Jihad issue, not because it is a core Islamic principle or a major concern for Muslims worldwide, but because it was used to demonstrate the difficulties Sh. Yasir is facing. It’s clear from the article that he is struggling to tread a fine line. And sadly, I think his lot will be of someone attempting to simultaneously sit on two stools only to fall flat on the floor.

His sincerity I do not doubt. His rejection of the pseudo-salafi movement is proof enough for me. I am simply weary of any efforts, and this includes the sincere efforts of his contemporaries, such as Imam Zaid Shakir, to appease American sensitivities while remaining faithful to our deen.

In their efforts to find this hallowed middle ground, are they leading American Islam through a ‘maturation’ process that will leave it emaciated, a hollow skeleton of its original teachings? Will we conveniently cast aside the teachings that find little resonance in modern-day Western life? I speak not of polygamy or wearing the niqab or growing a beard, but of the more substantial, macro issues such as Islamic governance or an economic model based on the Quran and Sunnah or the concept of Prophetic Jihad.

I find Western society, with all its declarations of human rights, deviously lulling for the modern-day Muslim. It will definitely award him the freedom to behold to his faith and practice all the personal rituals required of him - admittedly, moreso than most any Muslim nation in the world. But are personal rituals all that the Quran and Sunnah ask of us?

While I realize that Muslims across most of the Muslim world are incapable of voicing their thoughts on how to fully practice their faith, the issue with Islam in America is that too many Muslims have convinced themselves that they are being afforded the freedom to comprehensively practice their deen.

And that simply is not the case, as Sh. Yasir illustrates in quite a convincing fashion.

The fact that he has a legitimate reluctance in discussing the "J-word" demonstrates a lack of freedom of religion and speech. A police state isn’t the only way to quash these freedoms. An ignorant public in combination with pandering politicians and a willing media are equally as effective.

How many generations will it take to so completely water down basic Islamic teachings, such as Jihad, that they will become historical footnotes, kept alive in old dusty books in old dusty libraries?

Indeed, most of the Muslim world lags behind the Western world when it comes to basic rights, but at least there is no pretense of freedom. Muslims realize they are not free to practice their religion in the manner the Prophet (saw) and His companions did. And so, Muslims are biding their time, keeping alive the vision of a holistic implementation of Islam, waiting for the opportune time wherein such steps can be taken in a manner befitting the authentic teachings of the Prophet (saw).

Can the same be said of Muslims living in the West, where the latest manifestation of American Islam is pointing us towards a horizon where certain topics are simply eliminated from religious discourse? Scholars aren’t merely stating that these contentious issues are better left unaddressed – the trend is clearly headed towards a steady state where such issues are simply removed from the American Muslim conscious.

While Sh. Yasir may be struggling to walk this tightrope, I seriously fear that his future progeny may not even be given this opportunity.