In the first of four chapters, Hashemi challenges the widely held beliefs that have been used to argue the incompatibility of religion and liberal democracy. He begins his deconstruction through a historical examination of the role played by religion in Western democratization. Piggy-backing on Fernand Braudel’s longue durée view of history and Michael Walzer’s work on the influence of Puritans on modernization, Hashemi extracts lessons to help understand political evolution in the Muslim world. Contrary to conventional wisdom, he argues, many of our ideals evolved out of clashes and bargaining. We should not expect otherwise from the Muslim world.

Read more at Faisal Kutty’s blog.

Abul ‘Ala Mawdudi says:

The civilization on which the world’s intellectual, moral, ethical, political and economic system is based is grounded in three basic principles, the first of which is secularism.

Secularism–which can be referred to as dunyawia or la-deenia. The basic premise of secularism is that God, His guidance and His worship are matters that belong to the personal domain of an individual. Outside of this personal domain, all worldly matters must be viewed from a strictly worldly perspective, divorced from any religiosity, based purely on human intellect and man-made moral and ethical systems. In worldly matters, it must not matter what the God Almighty states, or what He has revealed in the Scriptures.

This dogma started in the West due to the fundamentalism and backwardness of Christian theologians. However, with the passage of time, this reactionary dogma became the permanent way of life and the first pillar of the modern civilization. Under this modern way of life, religion became a private matter between a human being and God–a simple sentence that became the slogan of this way of life. Under this system, if your conscious leads you to believe that there is a God who must be obeyed, you should obey and worship that God in private. But that God of yours has no authority on anything other than your personal, private life. Under the system of secularism, God has no place when it comes to inter-human interactions.

Social, educational, economic, legal, parliamentary, political and bureaucratic systems are independent of God and His Will. Whatever relates to these aspects of life must be decided based on human whims and wishes independent of God. It is considered wrong, in fact backward and ignorant, to even raise the question: what did God say about these matters?

And as far as the individual life is concerned, so that as well has been rendered God-less due to the purely worldly (secular) education and a religion-less society. Today, very few people consciously reach the conclusion that there is indeed a God who must be obeyed. Sadly, even the personal connection with God is absent in those who are at the forefront of shaping our culture today.

The notion that God and religion only relate to ones personal affairs is a whimsical one that has become independent of any need for rational argument. If you were to look at it rationally, it is obvious that the God Almighty cannot be half-god. He is either the Lord of the entire universe, private and public, or He is not. If He is not the Creator, the Lord, the Almighty, then there is no need for a personal connection with Him. It is utterly useless and frivolous to obey such a being who has no authority and no control over what happens on this Earth. On the other hand, if this God is in fact the Creator and the Lord of this universe, then it makes no sense that his jurisdiction would be limited to ones private affairs only. It makes no sense that two men, both of whom are individually under God’s jurisdiction, become independent of that very God as soon as they interact with each other. If God himself divided up the matters like that, there should be some proof for that. And if human beings invented these limits on God’s jurisdiction, then is this plain transgression against the Lord of this universe?

Only a man devoid of all intellect can claim to obey God in his private life and yet transgress against him so openly in the public affairs.

How foolish must one be to argue with a straight face that individually, we must obey God, but as soon as these individuals come together to form a community, no obedience to God is owed.

And it is even harder to understand that if we don’t need God is our family affairs, in our towns and cities, in our schools and colleges, in our markets and businesses, in our parliaments and government buildings, in our courts and civil secretariats, in our barracks and police stations, in our war and peace, then why do we need this God at all? Why should we obey this God in any matter whatsoever? Why even waste time in worship of such an utterly useless god?

This is the intellectual side of this issue. If we examine the secular dogma from a practical perspective, its results are extremely horrendous.

The reality is that whenever we sever our ties with God in any aspect of our lives, we connect those ties with the Satan. In reality, there is no such thing as our private life. Human beings are wholes, and their entire life is a communal life. The very birth of this man takes place from the interaction of his mother and father. As soon as opens his eyes in this world for the first time, he is part of a family. As he grows up, he interacts with the society, his family, his town and his nation. He has to deal with, and live within, the socio-economic and political systems around him.

Human beings rely on their countless social connections for their very survival.

And it is only God Almighty who can show human beings how to negotiate these social connections in a manner that is just and equitable–and most importantly, permanent. Where man becomes self-sufficient and independent of God, the permanency of these social norms disappears, and along with it goes the justice and peace that God enjoined upon us. This is so because once we remove ourselves from the Eternal Intellect of God Almighty, we are forced to rely on our deficient and inexperienced minds.

Where laws and regulations are based on whims and desires–or rather the human experience and intellect–we see these laws and regulations change regularly. You can see for yourself that every aspect of human interactions is overwhelmed with tyranny, injustice, corruption–and ultimately the lack of trust that shakes the very foundations of a society.

All human matters have been consumed by the selfish desires of man. Whether it is the relationship between two human beings or two nations, every relationship has become crooked. Every individual, every group, every social class, every nation, as far as their circle of influence can take them have made rules and regulations that serve their own interests at the expense of others. The powerful rarely think about the externalities of their actions; and why should they as long as they have the power? The only time someone restricts their self-interest is when they are afraid of the other party’s power and strength.

And we should know well that power is not the name of any compassionate and just being. It is brute force, and you can never establish equity with brute force. The dilemma of power is that the powerful don’t restrict themselves to getting what is their fair share; their selfish desires lead them to pushing every boundary they can, taking every advantage possible.

So the consequence of secularism is nothing but that whosoever adapts that as a way of life is destined to a life of no purpose, no responsibility and slavery of the self; whether it is adapted by an individual, a group, a nation or a league of nations.

He is indeed a pehnomenal man. His achievements in the field of da’wah are exemplary and he is truly an inspiring man. His lectures have helped me immensely in discussions with my Hindu and Christian colleagues. Yet, I can’t understand why people love his speeches as much as they do.

Comparative religion is an important field given the pluralistic society we live in. But comparative religion is only useful if it is used in the field of da’wah. Yet of the many thousand people at the Journey of Faith conference, I doubt that more than a handful will ever use the knowledge imparted by Dr. Naik in a useful manner.

I don’t disagree that when Dr. Naik speaks in India, he often converts whole villages to Islam in one sitting. Allah has indeed given him a gift. However, that gift loses its value as the relative education level of his audience goes up. For a simple-minded villager, it is easy to be impressed (and the simplicity of Islam is indeed impressive), but for an educated urbanite, it is just as easy to think that “there must be another rationale.” For that audience, a much more personal approach is necessary.

But where the audience is primarily Muslim and primarily non-da’wah oriented, I wonder how useful it is to discuss comparative religion? Could it be done in a different way for it to be more useful?

Not misguided beliefs.

Not incorrect practices.

Not confusion between religion and culture.

But the wrong aqeedah.

Now this might just be me but I find anyone who claims such a thing about someone else’s aqeedah to be either very brave or an ignorant fool. As I see it, aqeedah is one of those very personal matters that unless you sit with a person and discuss for a good length of time, it is impossible to tell whether it is the person’s creed that is wrong or whether he or she is confused about some other–relatively mundane–aspect of Islam.

And yet, I find in our community in Toronto self-proclaimed Imams who label whole groups and organizations as people who have the wrong aqeedah.

Given how central is aqeedah to ones belief, an incorrect aqeedah can become a matter of belief and disbelief … and labelling someone as having a wrong aqeedah is just a more polite way of labelling someone a kaafir. And given what the Prophet SAW said about the one who considers a fellow believer a kaafir, I wish that people wouldn’t take such matters so lightly. And I pray that Allah SWT will guide these “Imams” and help them guide Muslim youth to a better way of dealing with differences of opinion.

To be honest, I was at one point a supporter of Taliban. That was a long time ago when they were the rulers of Afghanistan. I countinued by support of them through public executions and stonnings. I even supported them when the Buddhas lost their faces in the Afghan mountains. I prayed for them as U.S. airforce and Northern Alliance closed in on them in the days after the 9/11 … so much so that the night the attack on Afghanistan started, I became cried myself to sleep. But then came the suicide bombings, followed by Taliban of Pakistan, and my support for  them took a nose dive.

I have never been a supporter of suicide bombings; could never reconcile my head around it. True, I did passively support them once upon a time in the Palestinian context because scholars, who understand Islam much more than I ever will, condoned the modus operandi. As soon as the suicide bombings started killing Muslims, I knew that it has gotten out of hand. Whatever their intentions were as they started, whatever the end is that they have in mind, those intentions and those ends cannot justify such brutal means.

Today, I see Taliban of Pakistan as a disease that has to be rooted out. Not because I oppose their desire of forming an Islamic State–but because based on the means they have assumed to get to that objective make it clear that these people are not capable of forming a true Islamic State. This caravan of brutality and tyranny will only lead to a brutal and tyrinnical state, which will be far worse than anything Pakistan has now.

And for that reason, I view with extreme apprehension the fact that Taliban of Pakistan were able to get the government buy-in to establish their own legal system–nizaam-e adl–in Sawat. If peace was the objective here, I am afraid this peace is going to be short-lived and will only fuel the Taliban supporters.

Truly, successful are the believers

Allah SWT uses the word falah here, which is the antonym of khusror loss. In Surah al-Asr, Allah SWT says that “verily, man is in great loss.” Here, the qualities of those who avoid that loss (i.e., the believers) are mentioned.

It is important to remember that these verses were revealed when the community of Islam was in its infancy and going through extreme hardships.  The few who had accepted the call to Islam were persecuted by their own families and in their own homes. After years of da’wah, only a handful had accepted the faith. Many of them had run away in the middle of the night to Abyssinia in search of a better, more peaceful life. And it is precisely at this time that Allah reveals to Muhammad SAW that the believers have attained success; for the criteria of success and failure in God’s eyes is different than what human beings can perceive. While we are handicapped by the narrowness of our perspective, Allah SWT talks about the eternal truths. And while the followers of Muhammad SAW were tortured in the scorching desert heat of Makkah, Allah SWT knew well that within a matter of a decade the tables will be turned and the persecuted will prevail.

The question then is, who are the faithful servants of God who deserve such glad tidings of success? What are their characteristics? What do they do  that makes them deserving of such success?

If we reflect upon the qualities listed in the next few verses, we will see the role model of Muhammad SAW emerging before our eyes. And verily, that is the standard of life we must aim to emulate to attain salvation.

Who humble themselves in their prayer

The word used in the verse is khushu,which refers to the total submission of mind and body when standing in front of God Almighty in salaat. This is the state where the heart is filled with the awe of Allah SWT and that awe is reflected in the sublime movements of the body. According to Alusi, Rasul Allah SAW once saw someone fidgeting with his beard during the salaah and he said, “had his heart been in a state of humility the organs of his body would also have been in a state of humility before God.”

In short, khushuis to feel the majesty of Allah SWT, to feel his sublime presence so much so that we actually act as though we see God Almighty Himself.

Who turn away from all that is frivolous

The word used is laghw, which means anything and everything that is of no benefit, that is irrelevant and useless. All things, be they the words uttered by the tongues, actions of the limbs or thoughts of the minds–if they have no utility, no beneficial purpose, they are frivolous. And a heart that is occupied with the remembrance of Allah SWT has no time for the useless matters.

Who are active in observing purification

The word used is zakaah, which is commonly taken to mean charity one gives out of his wealth. However, linguistically, the word zakaah refers to purification (i.e., purification of wealth by taking out of it what does not belong to one but to the poor of the community and hence making the rest lawful for consumption). The same word can apply to the rest of the resources at one’s disposal: our lives, our health, our families. The criteria for successful living is that in everything we have, we recognize the rights of others–and especially the rights of those who have less than we do.

Who guard their private parts; except from their wives from those whom they rightfully possess; for with regard to them, they are free from blame. But those who seek beyond that, such are the transgressors.

Islam does not forbid fulfillment of sexual desires; nor does it relegate them to something that must be despised. Rather, Islam encourages fulfillment of such desires within the parameters assigned by Allah SWT. These limits are placed to preserve the sanctity of a family since the family is the basic unit of the community; a cradle in which the next generation grows and develops. If the community is to remain a healthy community, it is essential that the families are healthy–and that is only possible when both spouses can trust each other.

Who are faithful to their trusts and their covenants

Another essential for maintaining a healthy community is to ensure a community in which trust and honesty are the norms. Rasul Allah SAW went as far as to say, according to Imam Ahmad, that “one who is not true to his trust is devoid of faith, and he who does not keep to his commitments is devoid of religiosity.”

Who are diligent in their prayers

The salaat is mentioned again due its paramount importance in developing the character of a believer. Rasul Allah SAW said that it is salaat that distinguishes a believer from a non-believer; and certainly as Allah SWT said, it is salaat that keeps one away from all that is mukir (false), fahshaa (indecent) and baghii (transgression).

These shall by the heirs who will inherit paradise. Therein they shall abide.

Of the many novel theories and ideas discussed by Dr. Auda, one that immediately caught my attention–and my fascination–is his proposed classification of Levels of Authority of arguments and how these levels interact with what he calls the Current Sources in Islamic Law. Reading this section of the book provided me a new framework for understanding the many present day fiqhi debates and arguments.

Levels of Authority

The Most Common Levels: Sound, Supporting Evidence, Invalid

Dr. Auda states that much of the early-day fiqhi debates (or what he calls usuli debates) drew upon two levels of legitimacy or authority of arguments supporting any ruling: sound proof (hujjah) and invalid / unsound proof (batil). In some instances, the jusrists would use arguments that were not strong enough to be considered ‘sound’ on their own, but that could be used as ‘supporting evidences’ or ‘additional justification’ for a ruling.

Examples of supporting evidences include accepting disconnected ahadeeth from certain highly regarded tabii (e.g., Ibn al-Musayyab) as supporting evidence, even though such a hadith would generally be considered batil. It was also possible that with developments in fiqh, uloom al-hadith and evolution of human society, an evidence might at times be relegated from a ‘sound’ level to a ‘supporting evidence’ level.

Two Additional Levels Developed Slightly Later: Interpretation and Minor Criticism

In certain cases, the jurists arrived at rulings using tawil, or interpretation, of the sources that is different from the commonly accepted interpretation in original commentaries of the sources. Some jurists argued that such a re-interpretation was valid, as long as it met certain conditions: (1) conformity with the linguistic rule of correctness; (2) conformity with the normal, customary use in the language; and (3) conformity with the general principles of Islam.

For example, the Shafii jurists used tawil to include vegetables in the pool of zakatable items, despite the hadith that states there is no ‘sadaqah’ on vegetables. The Shafii jurists restricted the meaning of the word sadaqah in the hadith to voluntary charity, instead of the commonly held view that it, in this case, referred to Zakat.

In some cases, some jurists also made use of minor criticism–whereby they would criticise an argument without discrediting it in the usual binary manner.

Recent Additions: Apologetic Interpretation and Radical Interpretation

In the modern era, Dr. Auda argues, two additional levels of authority have appeared. On the one hand, we have jurists who–though not changing the original ruling–would provide an apologetic purpose for why the ruling made sense and is acceptable. This was often done where the ruling contradicts a modern value or a modern norm. Dr. Auda uses the examples of allowance for polygamy (‘it is necessary due to the natural imbalance between men and women’) and chastisement of women mentioned in the Quran (‘it is allowed but only with a toothbrush’). Note, that these jurists preserved the original ruling but provided a previously unused explanation for the ruling.

On the other hand, there are jurists who–when faced with the same dilemma–choose to reinterpret the text such that the ruling itself is changed. These re-interpretations might not contradict the dictionary meaning, but are at odds with the commonly used meaning of the words in the Arabic language. Dr. Auda uses the same examples of allowance for polygamy (‘it is restricted to marrying widows’)  and chastisement of women (‘mentioning a similie or advice to them’).

Conclusion

While Dr. Auda argues that this multi-dimensional, non-binary model of assessing the validity of arguments is necessary, he presents that we need to view these categories as levels on a spectrum of validity. He orders the above levels in the order of decreasing validity as follows:

1. Sound Proof
2. Apologetic Re-interpretation
3. Interpretation
4. Supportive Evidence
5. Minor Criticism
6. Radical Re-interpretation
7. Void

The reason for apologetic re-interpretation being ranked so highly is because it does not change the original ruling; whereas the radical re-interpretation fundamentally changes or restricts the scope of the original ruling.

Current Sources of Islamic Law

The traditional sources of Islamic law were various and can be found in the books of fiqh. However, Dr. Auda right points out that jurists today no longer use these sources of Islamic law–not all of them anyways and not in the traditional order of priority. Instead, a new list has started to emerge in the recent times–that he calls the current sources of Islamic law. These curernt sources of Islamic law are pegged at varying levels of authority (listed above) by jurists from different schools and tendencies. The current sources of Islamic law are:

1. Verses of the Quran
2. Prophetic tradition
3. Islamic higher interests (masalih)
4. Rulings from traditional schools of fiqh
5. Rational arguments
6. Modern value and human rights

Again, Dr. Auda places these six on a spectrum that moves from Revelation to Human Experience as we move from the top of the list towards the bottom. That is to say that modern values and rational arguments can be put forth as evidences for ijtihad even if there is no basis for it in the revealed sources. Similarly, rulings can be made based on revealed sources even if they might appear to contradict modern values and notions of human rights. An example that I can think of is the modern value of freedom of sexual orientation, which would be in contradition with the revealed sources.

Why I Liked This Analysis?

Dr. Auda goes into further detail on how jurists from various ‘tendencies’ in modern Islam would are likely to use each of the six sources he listed and at what level of authority would they place these sources. I will not go into those details in this post. However, I do want to briefly mention why I found this analysis to be particularly helpful.

Far too often, we find fatwas that are contradictory. Our tendency–as general masses–is to label jurists as “too conservative” or “too liberal” based on their fatawa. Sometimes, I have seem people not understand certain seemingly liberal rulings by an otherwise conservative jurist–something we are likely to call “funny” fatwas.

Instead of labeling people, if we start thinking about fatwas and the evidence behind the fatwa within this framework, we might start to understand the ‘tendencies’ behind those fatwas more accurately. Learing to look into the evidence and evaluating it on the scale of authority is not for everyone, but those who can do it will find it immensely helpful in making personal decisions that are more congruent with the essence of the Islamic law.

The question is, what can we do with all that is going on? What part can you and I play?

Action Plan to Help Our Brothers and Sisters in Gaza

The following action plan is adapted from muslimmatters.org, a website that is doing a great job of leading the effort in this regard.

1. Duaa: make duaa for those who are oppressed and against the oppressors.
2. Donate: find a way to donate, even if it is worth as much as half a date, for your brothers and sisters. It is not how much we raise that matters. It is how many of us show that we care.
3. Call Gaza: one amazing way to show support for our brothers and sisters under siege is to call them. How? Dial any of these numbers and replace the last four digits with random ones. A few tries and you will be connected to someone. Tell them that you are making duaa for them and that you haven’t forgotten their suffering. Or click here for what you can say in Arabic. The numbers to call: +972-8284-XXXX / +972-8282-XXXX / +972-8255-XXXX.
4. Write to or call your political leaders: whether you are in a Muslim country or a non-Muslim country–and especially if you are in a Muslim country–call your elected representatives and demand that their government be more forceful in their condemnation of Israeli aggression.
5. Write editorials and call into radio shows: the Zionists have an army of 5,000 bloggers who are dedicated writers into newspapers and who monitor comments on every news story. Any story that turns even slightly negative on Israel, they are responsible for takin attention away from Israel and justifying their genocide. Let us counter that wherever, however we can.

This war is being fought in Gaza and on the Internet. Let’s do our part wherever we can.

Any philosophical debate on God and His existence invariably comes down to what philosopher’s call contradictions between God’s power and ability to do whatever He wants to, His love and mercy, His justice, and the fact that there is so much suffering in the world. If God is all-Powerful, all-Merciful and Just, then why do people suffer in this world? Why would God allow disease and natural disasters? Why would there be any evil on this Earth?

Question of Evil in Judaism and Christianity

The question is indeed a difficult one if you base your understanding of God and evil on the corrupted Christian and Jewish sources. In Judaism, for example, God is this aloof creator, uninterested in what happens on this Earth. The Jewish scholars dealt with the question of evil by arguing that once God created this world, He looked after it for a while, but then He left it to run on its own–having found other interests for Himself. Another idea that took hold within the Jewish tradition is the tradition of the “great scale.” It is said in their tradition that God has set the time of Messiah’s coming by putting Messiah on one side of the great scale, and the suffering of the righteous people on the other side of the scale. Suffering and evil is therefore necessary for the Messiah to appear and for the world to find redemption.

The Christian tradition, too, betrays an undestanding of God that is heavily tainted by other religions of the time. The early Christian scholars were heavily influenced by dualism of Manichaeism–a view of the world where God is the Lord of Good and Satan is an independent lord of evil. The concept is often depicted an Yin and Yang in the Eastern philosophy, where yin and yang are two opposite forces continuously at war–a war between good and evil. Another way Christianity dealt with the question of “why do bad things happen to good people” by introducing the idea of the original sin. By claiming that man in inherently sinful due to the sin of Adam and Eve, there is no such thing as a good person.

Suffering and Evil In Islam

The Islamic understanding of why there is evil in the world is altogether different from the Jewish and Christian understanding. The Satan, in the Islamic tradition, is only able to tempt people who decide to follow him out of their own freewill, which is given to them by God. The only power lies with God, who is Just and Merciful, All-Powerful and All-Knowledgable. The evil does not exist despite God’s mercy; it exists due to God’s mercy.

If Allah wanted to make this world a world free of suffering, then there would be no test in it. If one believes in this world being a transitory world, then the question of evil becomes a limited question–for hardships suffered on a journey with a beautiful desitnation are no hardships at all. Moreover, Islam teaches that there is some hidden goodness behind every suffering, a master plan that is not immediately clear to the limited human mind. This is perhaps best captured by the storyof Moses and Khidr in Chapter 18 of the Quran.

And As Far As Rationality is Concerned

When trying to understand God rationally–and one must believe in God rationally–one must also accept the limited nature of human rationality. We know rationally that God exists by the intricate beauty of His creation, by the day and the night, by the planetary motions and the perfection of His creation. But we must also understand that once we know that a Higher Power exists, we must defer to that Higher Power to tell us more about Himself. The fact that human mind cannot comprehend the master plan of God, is not proof enough that God does not exist. And simply because we don’t understand what good can come out of the evil that is around us, does not mean that there is no good that can be had.