Some new answers have been submitted and others will be submitted at a later time. Thank you for your cooperation.
Answer
.
Name
Mohammed
-
Profession
teacher
Question
In Mediavel Spain, under Muslim control and afterwards, our fuqaha have once elaborated the concept of fiqh of minorities – which reminds us of our own way of dealing with minorities in the Muslim countries. In what way can this concept still be useful today?
Answer
Minorities have never constituted a problem in muslim history, whether in Muslim Spain or elsewhere. Thus, Islamic history never repressed minorities, whether religious, or ethnic. This is because of the great principle established by Islam which is the freedom of faith: There is no compulsion in religion. This led to the recognition of all faiths, and not only Jews and Christians. The great Andalusian scholar Ibn Abdul Barr recognizes even pagan religions. The term dhimmi from dhimmah in Islam means the right to citizenship or nationality. Hence under the Islamic state all schools of thought, faiths, and ethnicities co-existed peacefully. The experience of al-Andalus represents a special model which distinguishes the view of the other in Islam, which gave rise to a pluralistic society, and on the other hand the Catholic view of the other and religious freedom, which led to its extermination of Muslims and Jews when it was victorious. Just as it later repressed and exterminated other denominations. This is the reason which led the West to find religious freedom only following secular revolutions which recognized such freedom of faith and the rights of minorities, such that Muslims ike us can for the first time live in the West. So what was achieved through Islam, religious freedom, could only be achieved in the West through secular revolutions. Our presence in the West is made possible by secularity and not Christianity. While Christianity in the Muslim world, continued to live under Muslim protection.
Name
Asma
- United States
Profession
Student
Question
In the aftermath of 9-11 acts, we saw a "wild" media campaign against Muslims and Islam. Can we still talk about interfaith dialogue?
Answer
Faiths and principles, religious, intellectual and political are tested at times of crises, such as times of war. There is no doubt that western democracies which presented themselves as models of ideal societies, in the field of freedoms and human rights, pluralism and coexistence, 9/11 constituted a test for them. Unfortunately they have not succeeded greatly in this test. We see this through the laws which are hastily passed with obvious discriminatory bases, taking these governments towards the model of police states in the third world which had been condemned by western countries. It is true that there are still differences between western democracies and police regimes, but there is genuine fear that the police mentality dominates decision making as the protector of security. This does not mean that we are in purely police states, for there ae still in western democracies, pluralism, free press, there are still mosques and Muslim associations, and non-Muslims individuals and organizations who still call for dialogue and reason, rather than submitting to impulsive reactions. There is still the necessity and possibility of calling for dialogue and coexistence between civilizations, alongside the Pentagon ideology promoting the clash of civilizations.
Name
Malik
- United States
Profession
Teacher
Question
How do you evaluate the situation of Muslims in the world after September 11 terrorist acts? Do you agree that Muslims are going into deeper situation after the alienation of our scholars and thinkers who even became targeted by many Muslim ignorants, by insulting hem? Do you think that people like Bin Laden and Zawahri will bring us peace and the dynamism of dialogue after we lost that?
Answer
There is no doubt that the tragedy of 9/11 which is still surrounded by ambiguity and doubt, was a catastrophe for Islam and Muslims, and relations between Islam and the West. All anti-Muslim forces found it a great opportunity to repress their victims further, from Hindu extremist, to the Russians in Chechnya, to Muslims in China, to the anti-immigrant right-wing extremists, to the police regimes of Muslim countries which had become burdened and cornered by their Islamist opposition and of course, Sharon against the Palestinians. All these exploited these events and clang to the American Bulldozer to crush their opponents, claiming to be victims of the same 'Terrorist danger', requesting to marginalize and suspend all declarations of human rights and democracy, to leave space for 'eradicating terrorism'. Hence all enemies of Islam, and of freedom, and all weapon traders found a valuable opportunity in this. We, the Muslims, believe that Allah, the Just, the Most Merciful, The Most Powerful, will not leave us alone in this battle, because we are oppressed, and have no relation to 9/11. The Islamic movements, its leaders and thinkers, from the beginning, rather condemned this evil crime, as an aggression against innocent victims, however strong our anger towards America as the greatest supporter of dictatorships, those of Israel, and the rest of dictatorships in the Arab and Muslims world and elsewhere. Our religion teaches us the principles that "No soul shall be held responsible for the sin of another". Thus, we believe that 9/11, despite its importance and great magnitude, is but one event in history, which will pass, and the course of humanity will go back to its natural progression, as a battle between the oppressed and the tyrants, and that Allah is Just, and He will help the oppressed and lovers of freedom to regain their denied rights, whether it is usurped lands of Palestine, or the rights of peoples to democracy and regaining their resources from the hegemony of capitalist forces. We, the Muslims believe in the dynamism of history and the alternation of powers, and 9/11 proved that, that history has not ended or stopped, but is rather at a very dynamic point, and that the minority that dominates all weapons and resources today, which repress their peoples, which only represent a minority of humanity cannot dominate forever, and the majority will become more aware of their rights, and their mutual support and solidarity, despite their diverse religions, will unite, such as the Islamic movement, the anti-globalization movement, these movements which are resisting peacefully, through popular actions, petitions, demonstrations, through institutions of civil society local and international, including human rights organizations, are what gives us hope, after faith in Allah, in regaining justice, peace and freedom, not only for Muslims but for humanity as a whole.
Name
Mustafa
-
Profession
Question
Some Muslims think the west is an opportunity for Islam to develop without the burden of the tradition, the intolerance that leads people to practice "takfirism" and the current lack of freedom in the Muslim world. Do you agree?
Answer
Islam, with its fundamental principles, is a universal religion. However, that was only translated into a historical reality, in this era, as a result of the barriers of religious extremism and dictatorships which stood against the liberation movement of Islam. It took centuries, after the secular revolutions in the west which established liberties such as freedom of faith, which made it possible for Islam to spread throughout the world, without any wars or armies. We may thus regard the greatest achievement of Islam in the 20th century to be the liberation of its lands of foreign invasion, leaving only some remaining lands under occupation where mujahideen are resisting and will soon inshallah liberate those lands like others before. As for the second achievement, it is the spread of Islam in the world, such that there is no city or village where there is no mosque, no Muslims, no women in hijab, no Muslim services such as schools and centers. This achievement is extremely important, both for Islam and the West. It is so for Islam, because it gives it the opportunity to express its humanistic universal message. It also gives it the opportunity to contribute to the solution of the crises of modern civilization, which has lost its spirit, meaning, and glorified money and power, and interest. It is also important for Islam because it gives it the opportunity to develop Islamic thought in civilized developed environments, where it finds freedom, while it lacks it in its original lands, leading to the spread of extremist thought. How can we expect the concept of democracy and elections to develop under feudalistic, tribalistic regimes. It is then no surprise in such environments that we see fatwas prohibiting elections, and the participation of women, for every regime gives birth to concepts of the same nature. Muslims who live in democratic societies are required to develop the concept of Shura- consultation in Islam, the principle of "No compulsion in religion", such that they may accommodate the achievements of western civilization in this field, which are valuable, for it has made it possible for peaceful competition and coexistence between all trends to exist, and compete for power. This new born Muslim presence in the West is not only positive for Islam, but also for the West. For Islam is a mercy for the worlds, and not an Arab or ethnic religion, a humanistic message, and the West's need for Islam is no lesser than the Muslims' need for the West. The West, despite its great achievements in the fields of technology, administration, economics, it remains without guidance, without light to lead it to peace, to a meaning for life, and to spiritual and social relations which make Man's view of fellow human beings not one of exploitation, but one of mercy and cooperation, to re-build families and social relations, based on the fact that humans are essentially one family, from the same mother an and father, created by one God, that all religions have one origin, that justice is the highest value, and that God-consciousness is the needed provision, that preparation for meeting Him after death is the main motive for human action. The Muslim minority in the West is of extreme importance for both parties, and constitutes a bridge between the two civilizations and religions, which will save the world from the spectre of wars. Our advice to Muslims in the West is to be God-conscious and realize this opportunity granted to them by Allah to be ambassadors of Islam, presenting its mercy, justice and peace. That they have sincerity and allegiance, after all, to their countries which have given them refuge and opportunities for security and well-being. They should make every effort to develop a western Muslim culture, just as we have Arab Muslim culture, Turkish Muslim culture, Persian Muslim culture, Indian Muslim culture, etc. Islam is one, when it is revealed, but when it reacts with the earth, it establishes a new equation with it, which differs from one place to another and from one time to another. Muslims can thus contribute, for instance, to developing a new discipline in Islamic jurisprudence- that of Muslim minorities.
Name
Mohammad Dioup
-
Profession
Question
What should be the priorities of Muslims in the West?
Answer
Despite the fact that Islam has lived and prospered in many Western countries, such as al-Andalus, the Balkans, and presented a unique model of pluralism, as a result of religious extremism, it has also fallen victim to attempts of eradication and has declined. Today, to a certain extent, this extremism has weakened, giving way to freedom of faith and other liberties, Islam has regained its universal dimension, and as we said before, it is now found everywhere. However, this presence remains threatened with the rise of extremist trends, such as the FN in France, the BNP in Britain, in Denmark, Germany, etc. and the rise of Islamophobia which call for a new holocaust, this time with Muslims as the victim. The priority for this newborn Muslim presence in the West is to preserve this presence and face the threats surrounding it, just like any plant in a new environment, in order to set its roots firmly, it needs to establish a good relation with its environments, its soil, water, air, the condition for its survival is that it builds a good relation with its environment. Establishing this presence, as a priority, requires two things: The first is to preserve their community relations, based not on their ethnic origins, whether they be black, Arabs or Asians, which is also important from a political point of view to defend their collective rights. They must establish centers, schools, professions, and leisure centers, which are essential for their survival. Many a Muslim group, even in the US, became lost after becoming cut from their original communities and at the same time not establishing good relations with the new environment leading to their dissolution. The second condition is that they should not live in a ghetto, isolating themselves from their political, economic and cultural environments, because that also threatens their presence. Muslims should seek to establish alliances with their environment. For instance, any mosque or Islamic centre, in order to survive, must be seen by its non-Muslim neighbors, as a friend, rather than an enemy, or an alien body, they should contribute for instance to social work, to education, to environmental work. If the Islamic centre, on the contrary, only creates chaos in parking places, noise, disrespects laws, then no power can protect it, if it is surrounded by enemies. Thus, the essence of Islam is that it is a mercy for the worlds. If that mercy is not expressed by Muslims, by their mosques and centers, by our actions and behavior, then our presence will undoubtedly be threatened. Thus relations of partnership, at the political, cultural and social levels, with our non-Muslim environment, so that we are seen as something beneficial and positive, rather than a threat to its interests, that is a condition for our presence. For instance, it is negative for Muslim presence to present itself as a rupture with anything fundamental and positive in its environment, as an enemy of democracy, of the arts, of women's participation. Then it would be reasonable for the majority to feel threatened and fear any expansion and increasing influence of the Muslim minority. Thus moderation, balance, cooperation, respect of the other, active participation, are among the most important factors for survival and growth of the Muslim minorities. Academic excellence, achievements in the fields of sports, finance, participation in relieving victims of crises are all essential for the survival and growth of minorities.
Name
riad
-
Profession
Question
Muslims are right to complain about discrimation in Europe. But some western and christian intellectuals are now talking about the needs for reciprocity - they offer recognition of Muslim rights in the West, in return for an equal recognition of pluralism in the Muslim world and in Islamic countries. How are we supposed to react to these proposals?
Answer
There is no doubt that the regimes ruling Muslims today do not present the right, or positive model. These regimes do not represent the will of the people, for they are not elected. The Islamic movements are mainly in the opposition, and not in power. There are tens of thousands of prisoners in Algeria, Tunisia, Egypt, and elsewhere, the majority Islamists, but also others.The surprising thing is that these regimes which repress their peoples, draw their legitimacy from power (Tunisia, with a population of 9 million has 130,000 police force, which exceeds the ratio of policemen of Britain with a population of 60 million) and from the support of Western democracies. The relation between these regimes and their peoples is one of oppression and persecution. Despite the fact that some of those persecuted are non-Muslims, the repressive machine crushes the Muslim majority. This majority dreams of equal rights with minorities, for when a Christian or Jew is killed or imprisoned in those countries, a very rare event, it would cause a massive reaction abroad. But when leaders of opposition movements are persecuted, it is seen as natural, and no cause for concern. In brief, we can declare that in general there is no persecution of minorities in the Muslim world, but there is rather persecution of the majority. This is unfortunately not a new phenomenon. For many centuries, despotic regimes have been ruling the Muslim world. Minorities continued to live in peace and safety. Thus, non-Muslims have no lessons to offer us in the field of treating minorities. If they wish to intervene, they may support the majorities which are persecuted. In Egypt, Iraq, Syria, I do not know of Christians in prison. Persecution is the lot of the majority. Muslims in Tunisia for instance, wish that their mosques would receive some of the protection and respect given to churches and synagogues- while we believe they deserve protection and respect. We strive to achieve the same rights.
Name
Tariq
- United Kingdom
Profession
Question
Assalamu 'alaikum
You have been living in the UK for some time now and have no doubt studied the situation of the Muslims here and in the west in general. What in your opinion is the area in which we, Muslims here in the UK, should be devoting our efforts. There has been much talk of the necessity for us to get involved in parliamentary lobbying and monitoring etc. Is this really the way forward for us here?
and where is the position of classical islamic scholarship in the priority scale for UK muslims.
Answer
I believe that there is a natural evolution happening on the ground for the Muslim minorities. The first priority and first social activity was the building of mosques, just as the first Muslim community began in Medina. Then they established mosques, businesses, particularly those related to their religious needs such as halal meat, libraries, Islamic clothes, student unions, and women’s associations.
Today, Muslims are entering the field of the media, whether in the press, on the Internet, to express their presence through TV and radios. They have also felt the need for forming religious scholars in the West, thus establishing the Islamic university in France, and similarly here in the UK, where several institutions have been established expressing the various schools of thought. Muslim minorities are growing and evolving, new organs are developing in this young body, the latest of these is political participation. They have begun to realize their importance as a large community, and the threats and challenges they face, particularly from the pro-Zionist lobby and right-wing extremists. They are now making efforts to influence decision making, particularly in decisions that affect their presence and their rights.
What is the priority out of these fields? All these activities were born in a natural way, because they express the need of the Muslim presence to defend itself and rise to the challenges surrounding it. I do not perceive any deficiency in this or that there is competition between these fields, but rather see them as complementing one another. But if we were to focus on one of these fields, then it is important to invest in the economic field, for most of this community are either unemployed or have low-paid jobs, or in marginal businesses, they have not entered the mainstream economic field, because of restrictions and the weak cooperation in the community preferring individual efforts. All other activities depend on the economic field. Another field is that of education and raising their children Islamically, providing an Islamic environment, nurseries, schools, of a high educational standard which would enable Muslim students to pursue their education in prestigious universities which produce the elite of this country. Muslims are still not investing in their education, which has made their contribution modest and their presence in the elite negligible, such that the Muslim body is a large body, but with a small head. We need to expand our expertise and professionalism. All activities depend on the Muslims' ability to unite their efforts, to stand united. Unfortunately, Muslims today are as if they await imposition of unity by European countries, just as Belgium required the Muslim community to elect a leader to represent it with which the government can communicate, and France may do the same. Will we wait as minorities, in a similar way that Muslim countries depend on external orders, to unite? Extremist groups in the West represent an obstacle before this unity. For Muslims have always been united by tendencies of balance and moderation, and have suffered disunity as a result of extremism, which claims to monopolies Islam and rejects any different opinion, excommunicating it as a first step to exterminating his presence, if possible.
Name
Nusseiba
-
Profession
student
Question
For us Muslims living in the west, born and bred here, can we consider the European democratic and secular regimes as Islamically acceptable?
Answer
In general, we accept any system that gives us and others the fundamental freedoms and rights such as the right to live, to expression, faith, and freedom from injustice and repression. For these freedoms represent a necessary framework for living as religious minorities, to live our Islam, and to call to it. That is what our Prophet peace be upon him called the Meccan society to, when they rejected Islam. He proposed a second option, with the slogan "Leave me to address the people"- which in modern terms is freedom of expression. Thus, the Prophet (pbuh) sent a group of his companions to a non-Muslim society, in Abyssinia because it offered these freedoms, or as the Prophet (pbuh) said, a land "where there is a king who does not oppress people". It is known that the establishment of justice is the greatest objective of the missions of prophets "We have sent our messengers with clear signs, and sent down with the Book, so people may establish justice" (surat al Hadid). The scholars of Islam have established the principle that Islamic rule can only be based on justice, and that Allah, the most Just, supports the just nation, even if it is not Muslim, and does not support the unjust nation, even if it is Muslim. These millions of Muslims who have left Muslim countries for Western non-Muslim countries did not flee from Islam, but for injustice, and they did not seek Kufr, but sought justice. Hence, we are with justice, even if not founded on Islam, and we are against injustice, even if supported by some fatawa. And the whole earth is Allah's for the Muslim. Wherever he finds justice, and he can practice his religion and call to it, it is his country. Here we may cite the statement of the great reformer Muhammad 'Abduh when he visited the West that he found Islam and no Muslims, while he left in the Muslim countries Muslims, but no Islam- despite the exaggeration of this statement. For Muslims have not abandoned Islam, but some of its civilizational principles, such as justice, freedom, unity.. While the West did not express all principles of Islam, but only some of its civilizational dimensions such as freedom, independence of the judiciary, open debate, respect of popular will, and that made them closer to civilizational Islam, and thus we migrated here, fleeing backwardness which Islam abhors, foremost political despotism. Wherever the name of Allah can be mentioned freely and where the Muslim can publicly practice His religion, that land is suitable as a country for him. The scholar An-Nawawi wrote that one of the fundamental definitions of 'Daar al-Islam' is that it is the land where the Muslim finds safety for himself, his property, honor, and can publicly practice his religion without any fear.
Name
Abdel
-
Profession
Question
Muslims in the West are suffering immensely from the consequences of 11/9 – islamophobia, discrimination, suspicion, violence. If before our presence was justified by our dawah, today the best Islamic answer seems to be the hijrah, the migration to a safer land such as some of the Muslim countries. What are your views on the matter? Otherwise, why should we stay?
Answer
This way of thinking is incorrect, unrealistic, extremis and harmful, and it should be abandoned. First of all, we are talking about 50 million Muslims, and not about some small elite looking for a preferred place of residence. I do not know of any Muslim, or non-Muslim country, opening its arms wide open to receive such a number. It is well known that acquiring nationality is hardest in Muslim countries. Arab, Muslim immigrants may live and work in an Arab Muslim country for half a century without acquiring nationality for himself or his children, but lives in a status of 'without-nationality'. Secondly, it is extremist thinking because it is based on a wrong assumption that these millions went to the West to call to Allah, while the reality is different. Some of these are from the indeginous population, some were immigrants seeking work, education, or freedom, and Dawah to Allah is not the only motive which makes immigration permissible. The Muslim wherever he may be on God's earth, seeks to establish his religion, for the whole earth is a pure mosque, as the Prophet peace be upon him said, and he strives to call others, according to his ability. It is extremist to consider these millions as motivated by Da'wah. Thirdly, it is harmful, as it forbids what is permissible for Muslims "Say traverse the earth" "To seek benefits for themselves", whether for this life or the next, no one can restrict their lives and deprive the non-Muslim inhabitants of an opportunity to co-exist with Muslims and become familiar with their religion, perchance they may be guided through them, through neighborly relations, marriage, cooperation. Why do we restrict the space that has been made permissible for us?
It is also extremist because it issues an absolute judgment that all opportunities for da'wah are not impossible. While in fact, despite the rise in Islamophobia, it has not reached general persecution, like the persecution of Muslims in al-Andalus, or the Balkans, and furthermore does not reach the level of persecution of Muslims in the best of Muslim countries, where there is no dignity for humans. It is true that thousands have been arrested in the US based on suspicion, and that there are unjust discriminatory laws against Muslims, we have not heard that it has gone beyond that level to a widespread genocide and burning of mosques. We must not exaggerate, and must deal with reality objectively, and should strive to extinguish fires, rather than kindle them further.
Name
Ali
-
Profession
Question
According to what I have heard, Dr. Ghannouchi has taken a brave stance in calling for the replacement of the concept of dhimma by equal citizenship rights to all regardless of religion (including that of ruling an Islamic country). How do you respond to accusations of being westernised? In other ways, how can we Islamically justify this decision?
Answer
Attacks through labels, instead of rational arguments do not lead to any benefit. The concept of Dhimma is not something that one should be ashamed of. For in a particular historical phase which did not even know the concept of religious freedom, but was rather characterized by persecution of those who had a different faith, and by brutal religious wars, Islam called for freedom of faith, and recognized, as a consequence, religious pluralism and on that basis established its social and political system. The Prophet peace be upon him established the first religiously pluralistic society, and the Sahifa, the first written Constitution, recognized the rights of citizenship for all, calling it Dhimma, or nationality. Jews in Medina had the nationality of the Islamic state, and the Sahifa considered them part of the Ummah ("The Muslims and the Jews of Median are one Ummah distinct from all others", an Ummah which is here not that of creed, but the political Ummah- and this is nationality).
Islamic jurisprudence, unfortunately, did not elaborate all Islamic political concepts. It did not develop the Sahifa towards equal rights for all citizens of the state, just as it did not develop Shura towards establishing pluralism and recognizing the Ummah as the source of legitimacy, as a result of the domination of despotic regimes. On the contrary, other branches of Fiqh, which were unrelated to governance, were developed. This gave non-Muslim citizens of the Islamic state rights, which were the minimum basic rights enjoyed by Muslims, at least in theory, for in practice their rights were enjoyed fully in general, and repression was the lot of the majority under despotism.
This state was called "Ahl al-Dhimmah". This concept is a concept of Fiqh, not of religion, not a fundamental binding concept, for the Sahifa did not use that term, nor was it used in the Qur'an. Where it was used in the Sunnah, it was in the context of warning against any injustice to non-Muslims. Thus contemporary scholars, such as AbdulKarim Zaydan, Salim al-'Awwa, Shaykh al-Qaradawi, were right to highlight the non-binding nature. of this term, especially if our non-Muslim brothers perceive some negative meaning in it. In addition, the contemporary Muslim states, as noted by Dr, Salim al-'Awwa was not established on the basis of fat'h- conquest, like the early Muslim states which have ended with foreign occupation, but rather on the basis of liberation, to which all citizens, Muslim and non-Muslim, contributed which makes them all equal partners in their countries. This makes issues like, for instance, al-Jizya, irrelevant in this context, because al-Jizya was the tax paid by non-Muslims to be exempt from Jihad, while in contemporary states, all citizens are required to defend their countries, and there is no distinction between Muslims and non-Muslims in that respect.
What we have mentioned is not, as some may think, something brought by western influence, but is rather well-rooted in the book of Allah and the Sunnah of our Prophet (pbuh), and is expressed in the first experience of model implementation of Islam in Medina which was undermined and veiled from us by despotism which reigned for centuries. In reality, Muslims today would have been very happy to enjoy in their Muslim countries the rights enjoyed by ahl-al-Dhimmah in Muslim societies, despite their being incomplete, for they gave non-Muslims a position that is better than that of the majority of Muslims today and throughout history, and better than that of Muslim minorities in the West today, despite the theoretical recognition of their citizenship. All Muslim governments, old and contemporary, had Jewish and Christian ministers, while we find no Muslim ministers or ambassadors or representatives in western governments despite the presence of millions of Muslims in the West.
Name
Tarik
-
Profession
Question
Assalamu aleikum Dr.Rachid Ghannouchi. I am a great fan of yours and your ideas about contemporary islam. You have been speaking about "islamizing modernity" for many years now. What are the most important feautures of this project?
Barakalofik. May God protect you, and keep in good health.
Answer
No, our project is not Islamizing modernity or modernizing Islam, because that would imply in both cases linking the future of Islam and its concerns and progress to the “West” as if that were the ultimate potential of thought and civilization in the light of which everything must be determined. No, “the West” as Garaudy says is but one “event” in the course of history of civilization. It has made important contributions, but the lacking and even destructive aspects of hatred and catastrophes it has given rise to especially in the realm of values, human relations and the balance in human nature and in the environment are no less, if not more, significant than its achievements.
Hence we must not restrict our horizons when thinking about our Islam seeking solutions for our problems and those of humanity, to the “West” and in relation to it- close or far from it, “with it or against it” according to the logic of President Bush. If we do that, we would be undermining our Islam and doing an injustice to ourselves and our religion and furthermore to humanity as a whole. I realize that liberating oneself from the West away from the extremes of being dazzled by it and seeking to imitate it blindly and becoming its subordinate, or adopting the hostile reaction emanating from childish impulses, and instead dealing with the West as one scene as part of the history of civilizations- despite its being today the dominant one presented as the ultimate and ideal and sole opportunity for civilization, I know that such liberation of one’s view is not an easy task.
However it is a necessary condition for the revival of Islam and the preservation of its leading and pioneering character. Only that would give it the chance once again to carry the message of guidance which it has brought for the salvation of humanity, while respecting every civilizational achievement and accommodating it within Islam after determining its beneficial value and the wisdom it contains, for wisdom is the sought-after possession of the believer, he takes it wherever he finds it. The message of Islam did not come as a rupture with previous messages, but rather to correct and complete them. Thus, that was the stance of the Muslims, when they understood the essence of their religion. They interacted with other civilizations and adopted any civilizational heritage of value, benefiting from all the civilizations of their time without any absolute rejection or subordination. They expressed gratitude for that and recognized the achievements of others, such that they called Aristotle the “First Teacher”.
That was the necessary condition for the universality of Islam and its humanism, as it interacted with all races, languages, cultures, preserving what is true and beneficial in them, incorporating it in its melting pot. We must do the same today with all civilizations and not only with that of the West, to analyze them well, understand them and submit them to the criteria of revelation and the needs of our Ummah. What we need and its benefit is established we may take it and be grateful to its people and seek to find its position in our religion, for it must undoubtedly have a basis there, since we believe that Islam came to realize the interests of humans and their happiness in this life and the next. We would reject all that revelation forbids, warns against, for it must be devoid of any wisdom or benefit, or its harm must outweigh the benefit, even if it appears to be otherwise to our short-sighted limited view.
Thus it is not a matter of modernizing Islam, nor Islamising modernity. For the first methodology reduces Islam to subordination to the other and dissolution in the other, that is it has condemned it to extermination, which is what happened to almost all ideologies of this era which submitted- or on which submission was imposed- to the logic of modernity, leading them to permit what was forbidden in their beliefs and dissolved its base of reference replacing it with that of modernity, to the extent of permitting sexual deviance, gambling, occupation, the usurpation of peoples’ resources, accepting relativity of morality.. Unfortunately, this is what westernizing groups have been trying to do for over a century under the slogan of “modernization” through undermining the fundamentalist (usuli) methodology established by the great scholars of Islam since Imam Shafi’i, that methodology which regulated the rules of understanding the revealed texts, so that human intellect may seek to find the divine ruling in modesty and humility, through the logic of the Arabic language, the explanations of the Prophet peace be upon him, his companions and their followers, and in no way creating or imposing anything on them.
The methodologies of those ‘modernists’ such as Hamid Abuzid and others like him, aim in the end to submit Islam to secularization, to rule Islam rather than be ruled by it. They want an Islam without Shari’ah- a ‘Christianization’ of Islam, imposing western secularization on it, following the model of Protestant and Jewish reformation. However, they are only fighting against a strong current, for Islamic revealed texts contain truths that are of such clarity, certainty and precise meaning, which leave no room for random interpretation. This is what caused the failure of extremist Sufi schools led by Ibn ‘Arai and al-Hallaj, to turn the texts of Islam into surrealist art. New attempts will not be more successful than those attempts, for the fundamentals of Islam resist molding and distortion- that is its creed, its halal and haram, its principal laws and aspects “He it is Who has sent down to thee the Book: In it are verses basic or fundamental (of established meaning); they are the foundation of the Book” (Surat Al- ‘Imran). In addition to those there are allegorical verses which may be interpreted through ijtihad, which represent the majority, and ignoring them will lead to the other extreme of rigidity, intolerance and takfir, while the other extreme deals with all texts as allegorical and changing. As always, the straight path is that which is balanced between rigidity and laxity.
Name
Omar Sadiq
-
Profession
Question
Is (western) modernity against islam? What should we combat in it? And how can we distinguish between the good and the bad? The Taliban forbade the internet, because it can lead people astray. I used to be against this, but recently I realised the satanic temptations that can lead any Muslim to commit grave sin. What should we do? reject this modernity, change it, or adopt it wholesome?
Answer
Democracy is a vast concept with many features and meanings, some of which are agreed upon while others may vary from one cultural milieu to another. As for what is agreed upon, it is the understanding of democracy as a known political system applied in many countries, where the ruling system is founded on the principles of equality between all citizens and drawing its legitimacy from the will of the people expressed through regular fair pluralistic elections to choose the representatives of the legislative power and that of the executive power- elections which are equally open to all adult citizens regardless of creed, ethnicity, etc. so as to guarantee the alternation of power between organized parties, and guarantee citizens their rights to protection from injustice through safeguarding the independence of the judiciary, freedom of press, of association, belief, worship, ownership, movement, establishing a family and guarantees of a dignified life.
Details of this system may vary from one country to another- for instance, the electoral process, the relation between the various authorities, which does not undermine the democratic nature. The intellectual bases of democracy may also vary in their relation to religion for instance- while they must all recognize religious freedom- as some may be more antagonistic to religion and insistent on separating it from public life as is the case in France for instance, which had only recognized the separation of religion and state in the early 20th century. Others may be more tolerant towards religion to the extent of allowing the formation of democratic Christian or Jewish or Islamic parties, while in other systems, the relation between religion and the state may be so close that there is no recognized separation as in the English system where the Queen heads both the religious and the political authorities. This illustrates that the philosophical foundations of democracy may be varied and diverse. Thus secularity is not a necessary philosophical foundation for democracy. Historical and modern experience has shown the possibility of non-democratic secular regimes such as the Fascist, Nazi, Communist, Turkish, former Iranian systems and many of the Arab regimes such as the Tunisian one. And vice versa, that s the possibility of having democratic non-secular systems such as the British or Norwegian models to some extent, and one may also in a way include the Iranian, Yemeni, Moroccan and Jordanian systems.
Hence, democracy, can be understood as a system of mechanisms which may operate on various intellectual, philosophical and religious foundations- Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, and – why not- Islamic. Islam is rather the religion which is most welcoming of such a system, and ready to interact with positively, as a result of the great principle of “No compulsion in religion” which implies no compulsion in politics. Also the principle of Shura- consultation, and the importance and emphasis places on the Ummah and the majority, consensus, as emphasized by the scholars. This is also so because of the principle of ennoblement of Man and regarding him as the khalifah- vicegerent of God on earth, and because of the duty of enjoining the good and forbidding the evil, the duty of Nasihah- offering sincere advice, of bay’ah- oath of allegiance, the ahl-al-hall wal-‘aqd, etc. In fact, the mechanisms of democracy are what can transform the Shura of Islam from simply a value and an admonition to being a political system realizing the objective of Islam- that decision making should take place through consultation of citizens and should not be monopolized by an individual or a minority “who conduct their affairs by mutual Consultation” (Surat al-Shura). These mechanisms are among the most valuable contributions of western civilization to human political thought, and are the closest to Islam.
Democracy, like all else in the realm of human intellect, remains open to development and liberation from many negative aspects it has suffered, most importantly being linked to the modern nationalist state and its lack of any moral or spiritual guidance to prevent it from legislating oppression and aggression towards the weak, committing evil forbidden sins, following the desires of the powerful even if they led to destruction of the environment, monopoly of resources, division of humanity into a despotic greedy minority and a majority suffering poverty, disease and oppression. Western democracy has created, in the framework of the dominant materialistic philosophy, a world with unprecedented scientific and technological development, yet one which is threatened in an unprecedented way with absolute destruction and annihilation. In fact, it is the democrats who possess the instruments of the destruction of this world, not once, but tens and hundreds of times. It is a giant with no heart, no vision, no guidance and no wisdom. In this context, Islam can benefit from western democracy, and it may benefit from it.
As for the stance vis-à-vis the Internet, it can only be- as a general stance- to welcome this great development which ahs brought members of the human family together in the easiest and fastest way. It is a qualitative advanced extension of the telegraph, telephone, fax, radio, TV.. If we believe in the universality of Islam and the duty of every Muslim to convey the message of Islam to present it to the world, then we should be the first to welcome these divine facilitations which have broken all barriers and opened all forts and thick walls built by the tyrants, old and new, in the face of the call of Islam, following the example of Fir’awn “"I but point out to you that which I see myself” (Surat Ghafir).
However the Fir’awn of this age cannot, after the advent of the internet and satellite TV, aspire to practice such control which was possible for those before him due to the backwardness of technology, necessitating long wars which had the objective, not of imposing Islam on people for that is forbidden and impossible, but of eliminating tyrants in order to enable the freedom of expression, to convey the message of Islam to the people to be accepted or rejected. After the Internet and satellite revolution, and the collapse of political and religious dictatorships, and the recognition of the right of humans to freedom of faith and expression, there is no longer any need for such wars. The alternative today is to maximize the benefit which may be achieved through informative jihad through the internet and the media, etc. As for the evil that is found in these networks, that is the decree of Allah- that is to test the believers and their strength of will to protect themselves and their families from evil and to use these networks to learn their religion and present it to others. Statistics show today that the ideology which shows the greatest competition in using the Internet, with immoral sites, is Islam. Would this dialogue we are having have been possible had Allah not facilitated access to the Internet? Can anyone deny the role played by satellite TV in revising the Ummah and renewing its determination, and even achieving the unity which politicians failed to achieve- intellectual and spiritual unity which leads to solidarity.
The Internet and Satellite TV, like other means and instruments with which we have been tested by Allah to practice our freedom through them- choosing what is right or what is wrong, paradise or hellfire, just like planes, cars, water, air, knives, weapons, hearing, sight and so on. They can all be used in various ways. Should we then ban their use out of fear that they may corrupt so and so, ignoring its great potential in benefiting and reforming society. A person with weak faith and self-discipline has no right to deprive the Ummah of the blessings of these instruments in order to preserve his religion. What is needed is to strengthen our awareness, our will, our tarbiyah, good company, closeness to Allah and seeking His help, in order to utilize our freedom and the opportunities open to us, rather than seeking to restrict freedom and isolate one from the flowing current of life, in which the Muslim must be brave rather than fearful, responding to the Divine call “They said: "Assault them at the Gate: when once ye are in, victory will be yours; But on Allah put your trust if ye have faith."” (Surat al-Maidah)
Name
Syed
- United Kingdom
Profession
IT Manager
Question
I leave in the Uk where the banks charge and give interest.
In regards of receiving interest, I know this is haram for Muslims to consume this hated act of Allah.
But is it permissible to get the interest and donate it to a muslim cause (charaty, orphans, mosque) rather then the banks take it and invest it in their goverments. Leading to buying weapons that can be against Muslim Countries.
I do not except to receive reward.
Answer
Please submit your question in tomorrows Islamic Finance Session with Dr. Monzer Kahf. This is not the appropriate forum for this question.
Name
umar
-
Profession
Question
I read in an interview of Osama Bin Ladin by a Muslim reporter of a Pakistani English newspaper that Osama does not consider the death of even the Muslims on Sep 11th as a crime. Even though he does not mention scholars who support this claim, he does mention that there are such scholars. He explains by example that if a robber takes a child hostage, the father of the child is allowed to overcome the robber even if the result will harm his son. Please explain this because I do not find this to be sensible argument or action and if I am confronted with people from the West and they bring this statement of Osama with them, how am I to respond?
Answer
Regardless of the extent of reliability of the American version of the tragic events of 9/11, any person with any human conscience, even if not a Muslim, would never regard it as a source of joy to see thousands of innocent lives of ordinary people, women and children from diverse religious backgrounds, with no proven links to the crimes committed directly by the American administration against the children of Iraq, or indirectly through its unconditional support of Nazi Zionism in Palestine.
There is no difference between the killing of one of those people, and the killing of one of us, you or I, for any of us could have been there. Thus Islam considered the killing of one soul to be equivalent to the killing of all humanity. Has there been any recognised Muslim authority which had issued a fatwa declaring war on the United States and all its inhabitants, making their lives legitimate targets, including the 8 million Muslims living there? No one can claim that, nor can anyone assume that role, for no one has appointed him. All these claims- first if we believe the narrations and reports- are only claims about the Shariah and an injustice to the Muslims and dragging them into monstrous situations in which they were not consulted, nor do they have any interest or benefit in them, situations which will only benefit the enemies of Islam who are targeting its principles, its Ummah, its causes and its minorities “and every People plotted against their prophet, to seize him” (Surat Ghafir).
“"Our Lord! Forgive us, and our brethren” (Surat al-Hashr)
Name
samir
-
Profession
political science student
Question
According to many intellectuals, secularism is useful for Muslims in Europe, in India, in America. Why is it not so good for Islamic countries? What would be the impact on minorities -Peoples of the Book and others - of an Islamic state?
Answer
The Islamic stance regarding secularity may seem to follow the logic of double standards which we condemn in others. However, it is not so, it is more a reflection of the difference of fatwa and ruling according to the situation, which is a rule of Fiqh.
It is true that Islam has entered the West through the door of secularity and found prosperity and safety thanks to it. As long as the West remained under the rule of the Church, Muslims were unable to establish themselves in the West whether as traders or visitors or in any quality.
After reflection, one finds that Muslims do not owe their presence, nor their relative rights in the West to secularity, but rather to democracy, because the Fascist Soviet secularity spared no effort in exterminating tens of millions of Muslims and their civilizational heritage, as was done by secularity everywhere where it was not accompanied with democracy, like in Arab countries, in the Muslim world and elsewhere, in a similar way to the rule of the Church.
Moreover, the rise of the extremist right in more than one Western country which is akin to the church heritage, is a bad omen for all immigrants and particularly for Muslims. Hence, secularity as such is not necessarily linked to tolerance, pluralism and freedom, and Islam owes it nothing. As for democracy, then yes it is the ally of Islam in the West and everywhere else. Whenever it is undermined, then Islam is more vulnerable to harm, and the same goes for people of all different religious backgrounds, as clearly highlighted in the aftermath of 9/11 and the deterioration of the state of individual and public liberties.
Because it was in the context of modern western civilization that democratic experience emerged and evolved with the recognition of the equal rights of all citizens regardless of their religion, all within the context of secular revolutions and the subsequent recognition of the values of pluralism and –relative- tolerance towards those who are different, some have promoted the illusion that there exists a necessary link between secularist philosophies on the one hand, and on the other the democratic experience, human rights and tolerance. Such claims hold that the way to democracy and human rights must pass through partial secularization, that is the neutralization and marginalisation of Islam in the sphere of society’s problems and its political, economic, moral, educational and other fields, and restricting it to the personal sphere, or complete secularization, that is open war on religion on all levels.
Furthermore, placing the tolerance and pluralism seen in western societies in the balance of deeds of secularity- even if we accepted such a link between secularity and democracy which is untenable- does not translate into a similar link in the Muslim world. The Muslim historical experience in this regard has been completely different. All races and all religions- revealed or other- coexisted, including pagans- which can still be found in Iraq where the most powerful and most lasting Islamic state existed. There was an open atmosphere which attracted people and talents from all ethnicities and religions, and which gave refuge to those repressed even by their own co-religionists.
This supports the fact that the pluralism achieved in the modern west, and tolerance of those who are different- even if Muslim- on the basis of secular philosophy and in contradiction to the heritage and will of the Church, was achieved thanks to the higher civilisational standards established by Islam. The most ancient Christian churches and denominations, Jewish synagogues and Torah scrolls are to be found today in the Muslim world. Tolerance of religious minorities under the Islamic state reached such an extent that some Muslim scholars complained of their influence through high official positions as ministers, etc. in Islamic state, at a time when prosperous cities and villages with rich cultures, trade, civilization and culture of coexistence between different religions were being destroyed in al-Andalus.
The civilization and tolerance achieved under Islam were achieved in the West under secularity, and furthermore higher standards were achieved under the former. The Muslim world did not witness the worst forms of despotism and isolation of the State with respect to its society and its reliance on violence, nor ethnic and religious discrimination, except under the modern Arab and Muslim secular states. This led to the emergence of such problems as the “Kurdish problem”, the “Berber problem” which were unheard of under the rule of Islam when all ethnicities found space to express creativity and excellence and even leadership without any discrimination, while all these problems emerged under the modern secular nationalistic states.
This proves that the path of Muslims towards civilization, tolerance, democracy and scientific development must pass necessarily through Islam and nothing else, because of Islam’s pluralistic tolerant uniting nature and its deep roots in the collective conscience of the Ummah making it the only call to which the Ummah will respond and which will motivate it to revive its will and efforts whether in struggling against occupation, or striving to achieve development, unity, tolerance or democracy. For no development is possible outside the deep and fundamental cultural heritage rooted in the conscience of the Ummah.
Name
Burhan
-
Profession
Question
We hear a lot about the fiqh of minorities these days. Can our distinguished sheikh tells us what it is? Is it like the dhimma for christians in the Muslim world, but reversed for Muslims in the West?
Answer
The Fiqh of minorities is a new branch of Islamic Fiqh. That is because Islamic Fiqh evolved under the rule of the dominant and vast Islamic state, and even in historical phases where Muslims were a minority, in the beginning in newly conquered lands, they were the rulers and the possessors of civilisational superiority, and did not need to greatly elaborate the Fiqh of Dharuraat- necessities- for instance.
However, when they were persecuted, and their rule collapsed as in al-Andalus befor expulsion or conversion were imposed on them, and even in those conditions where a Fiqh of minorities could have been developed from which modern Muslim minorities- representing around a third of all Muslims- could benefit, such development did not take place.
Perhaps that was because those events occurred at a time when Fiqh had entered the stagnant period of Taqleed- imitation- and also because those conditions did not last long enough to necessitate the elaboration of new Fiqh, as the Church authorities abandoned their commitment to respect the relative rights of Muslims and soon opted for ethnic and religious cleansing. This led to the adoption of the known fatwa that “Daar al-Islam” which is the land where the rules of Islam are established and where its rituals can be practiced publicly, is the land where a Muslim may reside, and if a land lacks those characteristics, then the Muslim must emigrate to a land where those are fulfilled.
That was the opinion of prominent scholars such as al-Wansharissi of Morocco regarding the Muslims of Spain after the collapse of their state. Another prominent scholar like Imam al-Maziri of Tunis issued a fatwa allowing them to remain in their land, hoping that the victorious may be guided through them and those lands may thus become again a land of Islam, just as the Tartars embraced Islam after invading the lands of Islam. However, history supported the fatwa of al-Wansharissi, as those who remained in al-Andalus were forced to convert to Christianity, and the same happened to the Muslims of Southern Italy after the collapse of Muslim rule. Thus Christian fanaticism prevented the development of the Fiqh of minorities.
In contrast, the relative democracy and tolerance in the West today has opened the door for new opportunities for the presence of Muslims as minorities, necessitating solutions for their new problems emanating from the sources of Islam. In this context, we saw the birth of the European Council for Fatwa and Research headed by Shaykh al-Qaradawi, and similarly in the US in order to develop this branch of Fiqh- the Fiqh of minorities. This Council has studied in its sessions the issues of halal meat and food products, economic issues such as insurance, grants, issues related to worship such as prayer times when natural signs distinguishing Maghrib and ‘Isha are no longer clear in the summer, social issues such as housing, mortgages, loans, family issues such as the ruling on civil marriages and divorces, the ruling on women reverts and their non-Muslim husbands, etc. It is a Fiqh which deals with regulating the private matters of the Muslim community outside the lands of Islam, where one cannot demand the the implementation of Shariah as the majority of citizens are non-Muslims.
Name
Moustapha
-
Profession
Question
Following the Islamic Awakening, Muslims everywhere are calling for the implementation of the holy sharia law. Should we as Muslims living in the West call for its implementation too, at least for those matters concerning us (family law, etc)? And where do we draw the line between the private and the public? For example, should we campaign against abortion, homosexuality, or focus instead on having our halal meat and slaughter our animals in the Aid days?
Assalamu aleikum
Answer
The rules of Shariah do not give rise to the desired fruits of happiness in this life and in the hereafter until they are implemented comprehensively as beliefs, worship, rulings, morals, etc. which can only occur in a Muslim society.
However, people live in varying circumstances, for there is no fixed state, but people’s conditions are rather in constant flux, alternating between power and powerlessness, health and illness, dominance and weakness. It is part of the eternal nature of Islam that it is suitable for all times, places and conditions and states. Just as it fulfilled the needs of Muslims in the desert, it fulfilled their needs in the cities, and just as it fulfilled their needs when they were the rulers, and the majority, it must also fulfill their needs when they are weak minorities as is the case now when they are scattered in many lands and mostly in a state of domination, requiring them to resort to the Fiqh of necessities, of assuming duties according to ability, choosing the lesser of the two evils, the Fiqh of masalih- interests and maqasid- objectives.
Thus, when it is not possible to demand the full implementation of Shariah, Muslims may regulate their own affairs as a minority with its own specificities in food, dress, worship, family life, mosques, children’s education, etc. That should also be accompanied by efforts to fulfill the duty of calling non-Muslims to Islam through various means, seeking to do so through addressing the problems of that particular society and the challenges it faces such as the problem of drugs, homelessness, breakdown of the family, the rise in crime. The Sariah is for the Muslims a religion and an interest. For others it may be simply a rational interest.
It would not be surprising if Americans or others in secular societies where crimes of murder, rape, sexual deviance, etc. are on the increase, after repeated failures of all attempts to limit such an increase, may accept some rules of the Shariah, not as a religion but as a social interest- that is if Western Muslims and fair experts on Islam can present the Islamic rulings and formulate them in modern rational terms. That would be a means of da’wah to Islam through careful study of western civilization and looking in the ‘pharmacy’ of the Shariah for some cures. That is not impossible, as we believe that Islam is a mercy for the worlds, that is for Muslims and non-Muslims. Thus we must look in it for this mercy for the two parties.
Allah knows best, this may require considering as relative or re-interpreting or reviewing the statement of Shahid Sayyid Qutb “Take Islam as a whole, or leave it”. That is true on the level of beliefs, but on the level of implementation of rulings, Islam can be seen as many aspects and levels, and just it was revealed in stages, it can also be implemented in stages. The duty of the Muslims, wherever they may be, is to carefully contemplate their situation, to define their needs, to precisely and adequately diagnose their problems then look in the ‘pharmacy’ of Islam for the appropriate cure, with firm belief that they will find there the cure of every illness and the solution for every problem, either in explicit texts or in maqasid- objectives.
