A Sufi' Way of Gifting Books to Libraries Through Patreon.com

If you would  like to learn how to have access to a software package that contains 40 books(exploring all manner of subjects ranging from: The Sufi path, Islam, shari'ah, religion, and spiritual abuse, to: Science, evolution, psychology, cosmology, quantum physics, philosophy, political science, constitutional law, education, and 9/11), 39 pieces of floetry, 10 episodes of the Sufi Study Circle Podcast, and five videos (including an hour talk on revivalism and an half hour talk entitled: 'An Appeal to Christians, Jews and Muslims'), please read the following material.

-----


The Sufi path is a (not the) way of seeking truths concerning the nature of one's relationship with Being. I have had two spiritual guides in my life -- one was authentic and one was a charlatan, and both individuals had something to teach me about myself, life and the nature of my relationship with Being.

Struggling to establish the truth is of fundamental importance to any mystical pursuit. However, without character, the search for truth tends to become very dysfunctional, and, therefore, those who have aspirations concerning the mystical path (whether Sufi or otherwise) come to understand the importance of seeking to acquire qualities of: Honesty, fairness, patience, tolerance, nobility, courage, humility, gratitude, generosity, perseverance, self-sacrifice, equanimity, forgiveness, friendship, love, and compassion.

The following are a few truths concerning my life. To what extent those truths helped me to develop and realize any of the foregoing traits of character is a more difficult issue to  assess.

----

I am 73 years old … hoping to become 74 in September.

I was born in Colorado but grew up in various parts of Maine. The year  (1962) that I graduated from high school in north-central Maine there were 44 students in my school, 11 of whom were in my class.

After high school, I went to Harvard College. I've often thought that, perhaps, individuals at the Harvard medical school might have wanted me for experimental purposes, but a mistake was made, and a letter of acceptance emerged from the wrong department.

I began university with a pre-theological major. However, before finishing university, I transitioned through a number of majors including: Physical science, philosophy, and, finally, social relations (an interdisciplinary curriculum involving sociology, anthropology, and psychology) before graduating with honors.

Within 6 months following graduation, I went to Canada to protest the Vietnam War. While in Canada, I was initiated into a Sufi mystical order and, in the process, became a Muslim.

Shortly after stepping onto the Sufi path, I entered a doctoral program in education at the University of Toronto. Due to a variety of issues, 17 years passed before I was able to obtain my degree.

To make a very long story mercifully much shorter, my graduation only became possible after I fired my original thesis committee and went about cobbling together my own oral examination committee. Following their examination of me, that committee (which consisted of several physicists, a linguist, two specialists in the philosophy of science, as well as several other individuals) voted to accept (by a tally of 7-0) my dissertation on hermeneutical field theory .

Several years before I obtained my doctorate, my spiritual guide passed away. Feeling the need for further guidance, I went in search of another teacher, and, several years later, found someone.

Initially, the new teacher seemed ideal. However, it took me 11 years to discover that he was a charlatan.

Despite the difficulties entailed by those 11 years, I learned a great deal about myself, other people, the Sufi path, and life. In many respects, those 11 years helped to constructively (if rather painfully) complement what I had learned from my first spiritual teacher (someone whom I consider to have been quite authentic).

During the foregoing period of time, I moved from Toronto to Ottawa and, then, to New York, New Jersey, and, finally, back to Maine. For the final 4 or 5 years of that 11-year time frame, I was -- with the exception of a few odd jobs here and there -- both unemployed and couch-surfing (in fact, for more than a year, I slept on the floor of an office managed by a friend of mine, and the logistics of removing myself from the office before workers arrived for the day was always a challenge).

Six months, or so, after arriving back in Maine, I went to work for my brother in his insurance firm. When my brother sold his business a year, or so, later, the new owner decided not to keep me on and, as a result, I went through several more years of unemployment and semi-homelessness (my age, education, "checkered" past, lack of a vehicle, and living in an economically depressed area all served as obstacles to obtaining gainful employment).

I finally got a position as an adjunct professor of psychology in a local university. This lasted for about six years before the opportunities associated with that position began to dissipate.

I resigned and began to devote my time to writing full time. Although I had written and published several books prior to moving to Maine, my career as a writer didn't really begin to blossom (in terms of production but not in terms of financial success) until after I resigned from my day job and retired at age 63.

To date, I have written 39 books (mostly non-fiction), 39 pieces of floetry (poetry set to music), as well as produced a DVD. While over the last 10-12 years, I have managed to sell 3,000, or so books, in some 20 countries, making money as a writer of books is fairly difficult to accomplish (especially since, for the most part, I do not engage in advertising), and, consequently, if my motivation for writing was financial, I would have stopped generating books a long time ago.

My written works explore an array of topics. These range from: Quantum physics to: Cosmology, psychology, political science, constitutional law, religion, evolution, mysticism, spiritual abuse, 9/11 (no conspiracies are advanced but plenty of questions are asked), shari'ah (I think about this in a manner that is very different than many, if not most Muslims, do), terrorism, mythology, economics, philosophy, and education.

Last year I died … several times. Not only were the percentages running fairly high against my surviving the ordeal, but even if I did survive, only a small number of people who experienced what I did actually escape suffering neurological deficits, of one kind or another, as a result of such problems.

After being put in a medically induced coma for several days, I was brought back to consciousness and went through a couple more days of medication-psychosis (i.e., this condition was caused by the drugs that I had been given to help keep me alive). During this phase of things, I was operating under the delusion that the medical staff was going to kidnap me, ship me overseas, and, then, have my body parts harvested to be sold on the black market.

Naturally, given the foregoing circumstances -- or what I thought those circumstances to be -- the idea of escaping from the hospital seemed like a rational thing to do. Despite having been tethered to the hospital bed by a series of restraints to help manage my medical situation, I somehow managed to pull free from the system of restraints and, subsequently, began to pull out many -- but not all -- of the tubes that were running in and out of me.

Blood started flowing in every direction. Fortunately, the nursing staff was able to stop me from doing any real damage to myself while they wrestled me back under control.

A day later, the medication-psychosis passed. My sensibilities returned, and I began to work toward recovery.

Last summer (some seven months after dying), my wife and I took to a trip to the Boston/Cambridge area. One of the purposes of this trip was to make some inquiries at Harvard to determine whether the University might be interested in receiving some of my books as a gift.

I left a 5-volume set of books with the staff at Widener Library along with a covering letter. In that communique, I indicated that I would like to gift to Harvard the set of books that I had left at Widener Library during my visit. In addition, I indicated in the letter that I was probably one of the most prolific, diverse, innovative, and, for a variety of reasons, unknown Muslim/Sufi writers in North America, and, if the people at Widener were interested, I would be quite willing to donate whatever other books of mine in which they might be interested.

Less than a week later, I received a letter from a librarian at Harvard indicating that Widener would be quite happy to accept whatever additional books I would like to send. So, I sent him the rest of my body of work -- including several CDs of floetry and a DVD (An Appeal to Christians, Muslims, and Jews) that I had made.

The foregoing series of events eventually gave birth to the idea of wanting to do the same sort of thing for a variety of other libraries … a sort of Johnny Appleseed project with books taking the place of apple seeds. However, although I paid for the books that I sent to Harvard, I really don't have the financial wherewithal to repeat the process in conjunction with other libraries since supplying such material costs approximately $900.00 for all 40 books (as well as CDs and DVDs) plus the added costs required for packing and shipping those books, and this is one of the reasons why I have signed up with Patreon.

I believe the perspective that is given expression through the foregoing works is fairly unique and has something constructive to offer to civil discourse. To reduce that message down to its bare minimum, I am committed to exploring how the idea of inalienable sovereignty is at the heart of both western and Islamic approaches for trying to understand, as well as bring to fruition, the constructive potential that is inherent in the relationship among human beings, society, and reality.

I do not profess to have all of the answers or even any of the answers. Nonetheless, I feel that my work might serve as a useful resource for anyone to consult and critically push against in his, her, or their own search for the truth concerning the nature of that individual's relationship with Being.

-----

To gain access to the foregoing Bridge software package, go to:

Patreon

and pledge your support, and you will be provided with a link that gives you access to the aforementioned package. By participating in the patreon program, you also will be helping to provide libraries with learning materials that will enhance their current holdings.

A Challenge to Atheists and Believers Alike

The fourth volume in the Final Jeopardy series of books has just been completed. It's title is: Final Jeopardy: Religion and the Reality Problem. (or the Kindle edition). Its length is 562 pages. 

Some of the topics that are discussed in the aforementioned book are: Free will, suffering, consciousness, nihilism, mythology, Carl Jung, Joseph Campbell, Friedrich Nietzsche, evolution, morality, irreligion, sacredness,  mysticism, and spiritual abuse. While most of the book is fairly general in nature, there are some sections of the book that explore -- at least in outline form -- certain facets of the Sufi Path as those aspects relate to some of the foregoing topics.

Among other things, the foregoing book critically explores, in some depth, the ideas and arguments of a number of atheist writers, including: Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, Bart Ehrman, Greg Epstein, Victor Stenger, John Allen Paulos, Stuart Kauffman, and Darrel Ray. I believe their perspectives (both individually and collectively) are fraught with a variety of problems. 

More specifically, the aforementioned individuals often tout their books -- or this is done or their behalf by individuals who are like-minded -- as being works of reason and science. Unfortunately, both reason and science often seem to be in short supply in those works. 

People are free to believe whatever they like. Moreover, I have no desire to take that freedom away from them. 

I do not know what, if anything, will happen to the foregoing individuals after death (and two of them -- namely, Christopher Hitchens and Victor Stenger -- might already have some insight into this matter). Similarly, I have no idea what fate lies in wait for me beyond the far (but drawing ever closer) horizons that circumscribe my Earthly life. 

I don't dislike atheists, nor do I dislike people who are committed to a different form of spirituality than I am. Furthermore, I do not harbor ill-will toward any of them. 

Like me, they are human beings who are attempting to do the best they can with the limited information they have. Quite frankly, I hope that things turn out felicitously for them in any number of ways, but all of these considerations are way beyond my pay grade. 

However, as has been said: "People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones." All of the individuals identified previously have spent considerable amounts of time engaged in throwing stones at the idea of religion, and, yet, if one looks at the structural properties of the conceptual houses from which they are lobbing their linguistic projectiles, one is able to develop a fair understanding with respect to just how fragile, flimsy, and vulnerable the foregoing conceptual structures often are. 

I do not have a problem with someone who criticizes the hypocrisy of people who claim to be religious and, then, proceed to act in ways that run contrary to basic principles of decency, morality, fairness, humanity, and character. And, in fact, there are many criticisms -- with which I would tend to agree -- that the individuals who previously were identified by name tend to level against those who are engaged in all manner of religious hypocrisy. 

Nonetheless, when the foregoing authors try to generalize from the acts of individuals and, in the process, offer blanket criticisms concerning the nature of religion, they become engaged in activities of confabulation in which they conflate and confuse their own invented imaginings concerning existence with the actual nature of religion. In the process, they arbitrarily define and frame religion according to their own likes and dislikes.

The nature of religion is very simple to state. It gives expression to an individual's search for the truth concerning the nature of one's relationship with Being/Reality. 

Some individuals engage the foregoing sort of search in very constructive, character-driven ways. Other individuals do so in very destructive, abusive, and problematic ways.

The truth -- whatever it turns out to be -- is sacred, hallowed ground and is deserving of both our veneration and commitment. Nonetheless, none of us (whatever our beliefs might be) is justified in supposing that what we believe is necessarily synonymous with the truth concerning the nature of reality.

Therefore, perhaps there should be some degree of humility present in the foregoing sort of search in order to allow for the possibility that one just might be wrong about what one believes the nature of truth to be (whether such beliefs are oriented in a theistic or non-theistic manner). Unfortunately, this sort of humility often seems to be missing from the works of many of the previously mentioned individuals.  

There are a number of atheists who have trashed a few of my books on religious issues -- especially ones that are critical of the writings of Sam Harris. They have done so without even reading what I have said, and I know this because their criticisms lack the specificity of someone who has gone through what has been written and, then, points out specific examples of what they believe to be problematic with whatever I might have put forth in a given book. 

I don't mind if someone has a legitimate criticism of something that I have said. However, the sorts of reviews being alluded to in the previous paragraph tend not to be exercises in honesty.

Such individuals provide negative "reviews" of some of my books based not on a sincere and genuine desire to engage in a dialog about the nature of reality but because they wish to try to control what other people do, and do not, read. Apparently, they believe that if they can place my writings in a negative light, this will discourage potential readers from purchasing those books ... but the tactic hasn't succeeded since, to date, I have sold thousands of books in different parts of the world.

Nevertheless, what some of the individuals who write blanket, negative reviews concerning my work are actively engaged in doing is not a matter of trying to provide genuine assistance to others with respect to the latter's search for truth. Instead, the former individuals wish to interfere with, or undermine, the possibility that any given seeker after truth might undertake her or his search in a manner that might lead to conclusions other than what such negative reviewers wish to impose upon the unsuspecting readers of those reviews. 

By becoming engaged in the foregoing sorts of activities, such individuals are immersed in processes of spiritual abuse and proselytizing on behalf of atheists everywhere. Given that those people often consider themselves to be antithetical to all manner of spiritual abuse and proselytizing, their activities are rather -- to say the least -- ironic in character.

Unlike the foregoing individuals, there was one atheist -- an individual from Canada -- who wished to remain an atheist but who indicated in his review that, nonetheless, he found the arguments in one of my books on religion to be both intelligent and well-reasoned. I appreciated that review more than most -- even more than some reviews that were written by people who agreed with me -- because despite the fact that the gentleman from Canada didn't accept my perspective, nevertheless, he was willing to take the time to read what I had said and, after having done so, was willing to acknowledge that despite whatever reservations he might have about my ideas, he was of the opinion that the book was not just an exercise in irrational, incoherent, ideological rhetoric. 

I hope people -- whether they believe in God or they don't -- will take the time to read the real world version of: Final Jeopardy: Religion and the Reality Problem (or the Kindle edition). I hope people -- irrespective of whether they agree or disagree with what the foregoing book says (or do a bit of both) -- will be interested in pursuing such ideas in an honest, sincere, fair, and humanistic fashion. 

I believe the foregoing book is written in such a way that anyone who reads it -- regardless of their conceptual orientation --  will come away with new ideas on which to critically reflect. My intention is to challenge people to re-think a variety of issues rather than to denigrate individuals whose ideas are being critically explored during Final Jeopardy: Religion and the Reality Problem. 

Shari'ah: A Muslim's Declaration of Independence - Part 12

A Few Comments Concerning The Issue of Regulating Public Space

There has been a great deal of confusion in the Muslim community swirling among questions about the possible relationship between, on the one hand, what may have been done in the lifetime of the Prophet -- as well as during the lifetimes of the Companions of the Prophet over the course of the reign of the first four caliphs -- in relation to the issue of regulating public space, and, on the other hand, what may be appropriate to do today in relation to the same issue involving the regulation of public space. The root of the term ‘hukumah’ [governance] refers to a process of seeking to assist an oppressor not to oppress, and such assistance includes helping those who would exercise this responsibility – that is, political and religious leaders … i.e., the government itself – to refrain from any inclination existing within such governance to oppress, exploit, or abuse those whom such governance is supposed to be protecting from these very problems.

The Qur’an says:

“And if there had not been Allah’s repelling of some people by others, certainly there would have been torn down cloisters, and churches, and synagogues, and mosques in which Allah’s name is much mentioned; and surely Allah will help the one who helps His cause; most surely Allah is Strong, Mighty. [Qur’an, 22:39-40]

Hukumah or governance is one of the means through which Allah repels the oppression of some people by others. Moreover, it is important to note that God alludes to the right of those who worship in cloisters, churches, synagogues, and mosques to all be free to remember, worship, and invoke the name of God in their own manner.

There is a Hadith which relates the story of Abu ‘l-Husayn, a companion of the Prophet, whose two sons had been converted to Christianity in Medina by two Syrian merchants and then accompanied those merchants back to Syria. When Abu ‘l-Husayn heard of this, he went to the Prophet and sought permission to go after his sons and bring them back – not only to Medina but to Islam. In answer, the Prophet recited the Qur’an: “There is no compulsion in Deen, truly the right way has become clearly distinct from error.”[Qur’an, 2:256] Upon hearing the foregoing, Abu ‘l-Husayn let his sons go their own way.

When Abu Bakr Sidiq (may Allah be pleased with him) was Caliph [died in the 13th year after hijrah and was Caliph from 632 A.D. to 634 A.D.] he sent the Muslim army into Syria. As he did so, he issued the following guidance:

“When you enter the land, kill neither old men, women, nor children. … Establish a covenant with every people and city who receive you peacefully, give them your assurances, and let them live according to their laws.”

The Prophet, as well as the first four caliphs, all made decisions concerning the regulation of the public space, but these decisions were not shari‘ah, per se. As has been pointed out repeatedly during this essay, shari‘ah is an expression of a person’s private spiritual journey in search of reality or the truth concerning human existence and the place of such existence in the scheme of things, whereas the decisions of the Prophet and the first four Caliphs were particularized applications of their understanding of, and insight into, the nature of Divine guidance which had been given to them and were intended to address the circumstances, history, conditions, problems, cultures, capabilities, and issues of those times.

As the Prophet was instructed to say:

“This is my way. I call to God– I and whoever follows me being certain.” [Qur’an, 12:108]

Just as the appropriate times for fasting, pilgrimage, and prayers are to be observed within a certain timeframe, so, too, there may be an appropriate timeframe or contingency-based set of considerations concerning the application of certain other facets of the Qur’an. However, in order to determine the truth of such matters, one needs to call upon Allah – not books of fiqh, jurisprudence, judicial precedent, or legislation.

In the Qur’an, the Jews are told that they should have judged matters in accordance with the guidance which had been given to them …

“And why do they make you – Muhammad – the judge when they have the Taurat wherein is Allah’s judgment?” [Qur’an, 5:43]

The Qur’an also indicates that Christians should be judging matters in accordance with the guidance [Injeel] which had been given to them …

“And the followers of the Injeel should have judged by what Allah revealed in it; and whoever did not judge by what Allah revealed, those are they who are transgressors.” [Qur’an, 5:47].

Moreover, the Prophet is also told in the Qur’an that if the Jews and Christians come to him for purposes of seeking judgment in a matter, then:

“… judge between them or turn aside from them, and if you turn aside from them, they will not harm you in any way; and if you should decide to serve as a judge, then judge between them with equity; surely God loves those who judge equitably.” [Qur’an, 5:42]

The choice of whether, or not, to decide issues which were brought to him by people from the Christian and/or Jewish community was up to the Prophet. He was made keeper over their affairs and, in fact, the Prophet was reminded – as noted in the foregoing commentary – that both the Christian and the Jewish peoples had been given their own means of deciding matters through the Torah of Moses and the Injeel of Jesus (peace be upon him).

The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is no longer with us in a physical form. The Companions are no longer with us in a physical form.

For the most part, we do not have access to the intentions through which the Prophet or the first four caliphs made their decisions and judgments concerning the regulation of public space. If the Prophet were with us now as a physical presence to which we had ready access, one cannot be sure that he necessarily would decide matters today concerning the regulation of public space exactly as he did more than 1400 years ago when circumstances, conditions, history, culture, and needs were very much different than they are today. Yet, there are people today who have arrogated to themselves the presumption that they know what the Prophet would do or how he would decide matters concerning the regulation of public space if he were here with us in the present set of circumstances.

It is reported that a person wanted to place a book written by Imam Malik in the Sacred Mosque. Apparently, the idea behind that individual’s desire was so that people coming to the Sacred Mosque might discover the book, read it, and, God willing, learn something from its contents. When Imam Malik heard about the person’s desire to place one of the Imam’s books in the Sacred Mosque, Imam Malik indicated that he was not in favor of such an action.

Imam Malik is reported to have said: “The companions of the Messenger of Allah disagreed about the branches and dispersed to different countries, and each one is correct.” He further commented: “The people have handed over to them positions, and they heard hadith and they examined reports, and each people takes what was handed over to them, and they yield to Allah with it. So, leave the people alone and what they choose for themselves in every country.”

The Qur’an reminds us that:

“… for every one of you did We appoint a law and a way, and if Allah had wished He would have made you a single people, but that He might try you in what He gave you, therefore strive with one another to hasten to virtuous deeds; to Allah is your return of all, so He will let you know that in which you differed;” [Qur’an, 5:48]

Prior to becoming Caliph, Hazrat Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) said:

"Listen to me, ye people. Those of you who worshipped Muhammad know that he is dead like any other mortal. But those of you who worship the God of Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) know that He is alive and would live forever."

Then he repeated a passage from the Qur’an:

"And Muhammad is no more than an apostle; apostles have already passed away before him; if then he dies or is killed will you turn back upon your heels? And whoever turns back upon his heels, he will by no means do harm to Allah in the least and Allah will reward the grateful.” [Qur’an, 3:144]

Public space should be governed in a way that prevents oppression, exploitation, or abuse of any kind to undermine or interfere with people’s basic right – which is granted by God – to decide the spiritual direction of their path in life. This is a right and a freedom which each human being has so long as whatever acts arise out of such choices do not spill over into the lives of other individuals and, in the process, adversely or problematically affect the latter’s ability to freely chose and act with respect to their own individual course in life.

The public space, or commons, should be governed through principles of justice, equitability, peace, tolerance, integrity, honesty, charitableness, freedom, compassion, balance, harmony, and the sort of mediated settlements which help limit, if not eliminate all together, all forms of oppression, persecution, abuse, and exploitation. A public space governed in accordance with the foregoing qualities will, if God wishes, generate the type of environment which may prove to be most conducive to the exercise of the basic right to choose between good and evil – a responsibility which belongs to each and every human being.

If one looks to the example of the Prophet, the public space of his community was regulated in accordance with all of the foregoing considerations. He did not force people to pursue shari‘ah but, rather, regulated public space in such a way as to provide people with the fullest opportunity to individually pursue shari‘ah as rigorously as the latter individuals were so inclined to do as long as that pursuit did not infringe upon the right of others to do as they were inclined to do with respect to their own individual journey of shari‘ah. Moreover, quite frequently, the Prophet made judgments concerning the regulation of public space which were in accordance with pre-Islamic, customary practices of the Arab or Jewish tribes.

The Qur’an instructed the Prophet to:

“Say: ‘This is the truth from your Lord’, then, whoever wills let him believe, and whoever wills let him disbelieve.” [Qur’an, 18:29]

At another juncture the Qur’an informs the Prophet:

“You shall remind; you are entrusted to remind. You are not a watcher over them.” [Qur’an, 88:21-22]

And, at another point, the Qur’an indicates:

“Say, ‘Obey Allah, and obey the Messenger.’ If they refuse, then, he is responsible for his obligations, and you are responsible for your obligations. If you obey him, you will be guided.” [24:54]

Moreover, the Qur’an states:

“The guiding of them is not thy duty (O Muhammad), but Allah guides whom He will.” [Qur’an 2: 272).

If, according to the Qur’an, the Prophet is not responsible for the guiding of people to God, and if the duty of the Prophet is not to watch over whether, or not, people pursue shari‘ah, and if God is making it clear that it is up to the individual as to whether he or she believes in the truth which has been sent through the Qur’an and that each person has her or his own responsibility with respect to God, then, why do Muslim religious scholars, imams, theologians, mullahs, leaders, and the like all believe they have duties and responsibilities which were not entrusted to the Prophet? And, in the light of the foregoing considerations from the Qur’an, what is the source of their authority for assuming such duties and responsibilities?

Some religious scholars, would-be leaders, and theologians point to the following Quranic ayat as a possible source for what they consider their ‘rightful’ authority over people:

“O believers! Obey Allah, obey the Rasool and those charged with authority among you. Should you have a dispute in anything, refer it to Allah and His Rasool, if you truly believe in Allah and the Last Day. This course of action will be better and more suitable.” (Qur’an 4:59)

When would-be leaders cite the foregoing verse and seek to use it as an authority for expecting, if not demanding, that others should be obedient to the former, those who approach things in this manner are not only making several questionable assumptions, but, as well, such individuals often tend to act contrary to the full text of the guidance. More specifically, an assumption is being made that the sort of ‘authority’ to which the previous Quranic verse alludes is referring to worldly authority as opposed to spiritual authority, and a further assumption is being made that such individuals have been “charged” or given responsibility by God – or the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) -- to exercise authority over other individuals. Furthermore, when disputes arise in the community, then, contrary to the guidance of the Qur’an, such religious and political leaders often do not refer the matter to either Allah or the Prophet, but, instead, attempt to decide the matter according to their own theological likes and dislikes – with the assistance of imams, mullahs, and religious scholars who are loyal to those leaders -- and, then, seek to impose – forcibly, if necessary -- their decisions on others.

The Prophet had a unique position within the Muslim community. Under the Divinely-sanctioned circumstances surrounding such a standing, the public, for the most part, did not wish to place constraints on what the Prophet could and could not do. This would have been antithetical to the nature of his position and the Divine authority in which his position was rooted – something which, after all was said and done, most [but not all] people in the community acknowledged and accepted.

However, there were those who came after the Prophet [and I do not necessarily have the four ‘righteous Caliphs’ in mind here] who enjoyed something very similar to the status of the Prophet within the Muslim community. As a result, those individuals became rulers in a more or less absolute sense without necessarily having that status sanctioned by Divinity, even though, obviously, such rulers were permitted by God to do whatever they did.

The Prophet had appointed no one to succeed him with respect to the regulation of public – as opposed to spiritual – space. On the other hand, the individuals who followed the Prophet as leaders of the community often were supported through the general trust of the public with respect to the presumed character, morality, piety, and good intentions of whoever it was that became ruler.

Once someone was elected to lead the community – and this was usually by a small group of individuals rather than the community as a whole – or in those cases where a current caliph appointed a successor – and this tended to be the case quite frequently because fathers tended to appoint their sons as their successors -- the general public would be required, en masse, to take ba’yt, or an oath of allegiance, with respect to the individual who would be king or sultan. Unfortunately, such a process offered few, if any, avenues through which a person might opt out of that oath or agreement either before or after the oath of allegiance was to be given, nor did that system permit or encourage the general public to play much of a rigorous, active role in determining who would be ruler or whether, or not, there should only be a single leader for the community -- as opposed to some sort of system of self-governance in which shura or consultation was used as the means through which to address the problems which confront a given community in accordance with the Quranic guidance which says:

“And their rule is to take counsel among themselves …” [Qur’an, 42:38]

In addition, apparently, many people forgot what Hazrat Abu Bakr Siddiq (may Allah be pleased with him) said upon becoming Caliph:

“Obey me as long as I obey Allah and His Prophet. When I disobey Him and His Prophet, then obey me not.”

Hazrat Abu Bakr Siddiq (may Allah be pleased with him) was alluding to the right of people to opt out of their oath of allegiance to him – or to any leader. The determining factor was not the identity of the leader, but, rather, the determining factor was whether, or not, such a person was acting in accordance with the guidance of the Qur’an or the example of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).

The belief that there should be just one leader who was either given or assumed authority to do whatever he deemed to be appropriate became corrupted within a fairly short period of time following the passing away of the Prophet. When this sort of corruption was thoroughly entrenched and became institutionally calcified, many people apparently had considerable difficulty grasping the idea that the Qur’an actually served as, among other things, a Bill of Rights that was intended to protect people against oppression, exploitation, or abuse from their political or religious leaders. This sort of difficulty was maintained and perpetuated through the manner in which, on the one hand, the sultans and kings, and, on the other hand, various imams, qadis, muftis, and theological scholars would engage in reciprocal back-scratching among themselves with respect to mutually framing the historical situation in such a way that the majority of the community were induced to believe that both the leaders and their theological accomplices were the proper guardians and representatives of Sacred Law, despite the fact that many of these individuals might not have recognized the nature of Sacred Law or shari‘ah even if the former tripped over the latter.

The regulation of public space is one issue, and the pursuit of shari‘ah is quite another matter and completely independent of how public space is to be regulated. To seek to impose on others, through the public space, one’s own ideas about what the nature of the spiritual journey ought to involve is to engage in a form of spiritual abuse.

When anyone – imam, mufti, theologian, scholar, leader, qadi, mullah – seeks to control the spirituality of another human being, then, that the former individual has transgressed due limits and has entered into the realm of spiritual abuse or exploitation, and, therefore, oppression. As the Qur’an reminds us:

“Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress the limits, for God does not love the transgressors. [Qur’an, 2:190]

“… tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter.”[Qur’an, 2:191]

“And fight them till there is no more oppression, and Deen should only be for Allah, but if they desist, then there should be no hostility except against the oppressor.” [Qur’an, 2:193]

The foregoing is not sanctioning leaders to force Deen upon people, but, rather, the foregoing ayat is a reminder to everyone – especially leaders -- that Deen belongs to Allah and should not be interfered with or undermined by anyone. Moreover, when Deen – that is, the process of nurturing and enhancing the relationship of an individual with God, and, indeed, this is the cause of Allah -- is subject to oppression, then people have the right to resist such aggression so long as the form of that resistance does not transgress due limits of propriety, and one of the limits of propriety is that resistance should only be directed toward those who are being oppressive … no one else.

Indeed, as the Qur’an makes clear elsewhere:

“The blame is only against those who oppress human beings with wrong-doing and
insolently transgress beyond bounds through the land defying right and justice.” [Qur’an, 42:42]

The foregoing remains true even when the ones who are doing the oppressing are the very ones – in the form of religious or political leaders – who supposedly have assumed responsibility for protecting the people against such oppression.

Scholarly debates, rigorous research, discussions, informal conversations, symposia, conferences, round-table sessions, formal talks, books, articles, podcasts, television programs, documentaries, educational programs, and so on, are all legitimate venues through which to exchange views, ideas, and various considerations concerning problems, questions, and issues of spirituality. The foregoing are all legitimate venues through which people may consult with one another on such matters – provided there is no compulsion or oppression involved in these activities either with respect to the matter of attending these sort of exchanges or with respect to having to abide by what is said during those sessions.

In this respect, the Qur’an indicates:

“Call to the way of your Lord with wisdom and goodly exhortation, and have disputations with them in the best manner.” [Qur’an, 16:125]

Although the foregoing guidance was specifically addressed to the Prophet, and although the calling others to the way of God is not the responsibility of a non-Prophet, nonetheless, when one engages in discussions with others concerning various issues, problems, and questions affecting the quality of public space, one still can follow the sunna of the Prophet in such matters and, thereby, seek to do so “with wisdom and goodly exhortation, and have disputations with them in the best manner.”

“O ye who believe! Be upright for Allah, bearers of witness with justice, and let not hatred of a people incite or seduce you not to act equitably; act equitably, that is nearer to piety (taqwa) , and be careful with respect to Allah, surely Allah is aware of what you do.” ‘Qur’an, 5:8]

The public space or commons should not be operated in accordance with any philosophy or theology of public policy which imposes economic, legal, political, physical, moral, intellectual, educational, or cultural agendas on the members of the community who inhabit that public space. The sole task of governance is to guard against the emergence of any kind of oppression, exploitation, or abuse which may arise within the community or which threatens such a community from an external source.

Moreover, all members of the community have a duty of care toward themselves and others to contribute to helping those who are entrusted with governance to succeed in their sole task and responsibility concerning the struggle against oppression, along with the close cousins of oppression – namely, exploitation and abuse.

God:

“… made the balance, That you may not be inordinate [exceed limits, or transgress boundaries] in respect of the measure. And keep up the balance with equity and do not make the measure deficient. [Qur’an, 55:7-9]

The balance, the measure, equity, and taqwa are all expressions of truth and justice. They are all expressions of the Sacred Law. They are all expressions of a realized shari‘ah.

Determining the hukm or realities of such truths are challenges to which, God willing, individuals must aspire. They are not challenges which can be imposed on people or with respect to which compulsion is appropriate.

On the other hand, the ones who are entrusted to exercise governance have a duty of care to assist oppressors not to oppress others -- including themselves. Indeed, the Prophet is reported to have said that one should “Assist any person who is oppressed – whether Muslim or non-Muslim.”

The primary forms of oppression, exploitation and abuse come in the form of those actions which are likely to undermine or interfere with an individual’s God-given right to pursue, or not pursue, the realities and truths of Sacred Law and shari‘ah according to the nature of that person’s capacity, circumstances, level of understanding, inclinations, and God’s Grace … so long as the exercise of such choice does not interfere with, or undermine, the right of others to address such issues in their own manner. All other expressions of oppression, exploitation, and abuse are variations on the foregoing theme.

*****************