A Sufi master has said that, God willing, there isn't anything which cannot be accomplished if one has courage and patience. Since patience will be touched upon in a later chapter, the present reflections will concern courage.
The mystical tradition is not an easy path. This is so for many different reasons.
First of all, one must consider the forces which will be aligned against one if one decides to undertake the mystical quest. These forces of opposition have a formidable array of weapons at their disposal.
One's own ego will be applying constant pressure for one to cease and desist from one's efforts in this direction. The ego will fight a war of constant harassment which is designed to wear the individual down through a steady stream of: confusion, doubts, desires, pressures, ridicule, fears and anxieties.
The ego also will fight a rear guard action intended to resist and ambush every attempt by the individual to gain spiritual strength, commitment, and focus on the path. For example, one may discover, courtesy of one's ego, many, seemingly plausible excuses for why one's time and energy should be devoted to non-spiritual activities.
Alternatively, one just may feel too tired at the moment to observe the requirements or discipline or duties of the path. "Tomorrow, tomorrow", whispers the ego. This chant has a pleasant, mellow, relaxing quality to it.
In addition to the campaign of the ego, there will be substantial opposition from the world. The world has great need of, but no use for, sincere mystics or spiritually inclined individuals.
The world is a bordello of sensual delights. The world is a playing field in which all sides are vying for power and control according to a set of rules that would make Australian no-rules football look excessively authoritarian. The world is a cesspool of greed, malice and selfishness which generates an odor that, by comparison, would make the stench of manure a welcome change. The world is a gigantic mirror being polished by the mineral oil of self-adoration. The world is a killing field whose executioners are equal-opportunity haters of considerable enthusiasm.
One could go on at great length in the foregoing way. However, enough has been said to give the drift of things vis-a-vis the condition of the worldly perspective.
The bottom line is this. The world stands for a state of mind and heart from which qualities such as decency, compassion, integrity, faith, honesty, love and fairness have been exorcised. As such, the worldly orientation tends to consider the ideas of spirituality or mysticism to be either stupid or obscene or obscenely stupid.
Some people of the worldly persuasion are aggressively hostile to spirituality and mysticism. Some people in the worldly camp have impeccable manners and would never dream of being rude to people whom they believe to be fools.
Some people who are inclined to the worldly way of things are supremely indifferent to, if not bored by, mystical and spiritual pursuits. Some proponents of the worldly orientation are amused, in a slightly contemptuous way, by any talk of spirituality or mysticism. Some of the worldly people are just totally mystified why anyone could find mysticism and spirituality of any interest or value, although they are prepared to accept everyone's right to spend time as one chooses.
Unfortunately, we are all contaminated, to varying degrees, by worldly forces. The aforementioned hostility, indifference, bemusement, contempt, and perplexity exists within us in a variety of guises. Because we are citizens of the world, our egos have a long-standing exchange program with a spectrum of worldly forces.
To swim against the numerous, raging, ugly currents of the world and the ego requires a lot of courage. To fight against the terrorist tactics of the world and the ego cannot be done except with courage. To experience the dark night of the soul created by the dance of the ego and the world takes courage.
To face the unknown and not run away demands courage. To be willing to leave what is familiar and comfortable, while journeying through the unfamiliar and, often, uncomfortable terrain of the mystical path, presupposes courage.
To place trust in one's spiritual guide, is an act of courage. To become committed to the mammoth task of reclamation involved in the spiritual reconstruction of one's life is a pure act of courage.
As if the world and the ego were not bad enough antagonists with which to have to contend, one also must deal with the demands of the rational mind. This poses an extremely complicated problem since the rational mind is what we usually rely on to evaluate experience and make judgements.
Most of us tend to believe rather strongly that if an evaluation or judgement is not rooted in rational analysis, then, we are being irrational. To speak of non-rational modalities of understanding appears somewhat of an oxymoron - at least, this is the conclusion of the rational mind.
To ask the ears to understand the way of the eyes, sounds unreasonable. To expect the nose to have insight into the world of proprioceptors, is disorienting to our rational sensibilities.
After all, ears and eyes are different structures entailing different processes and functions. Similarly, olfactory phenomena are quite different from the phenomena dealt with by sensors dealing with the orientation of muscles, tendons and joints.
Nonetheless, the rational mind believes it has the capacity to understand the ways of the heart and spirit. This is so despite the fact that Sufi masters have confirmed, and are agreed, that the latter phenomena are entirely different from, in structure, function and process, the workings of rationality. Like many other aspects of human existence, the rational dimension is presumptuous in the manner in which it seeks to extend its sphere of influence beyond its limits of effectiveness and appropriateness.
When one is taking an intelligence test, if one should try to force large, round pegs into small, square holes, this is taken as a sign of diminished capacity. How ironic that the rationality which conceived of such a test should insist on forcing the large, round pegs of spirituality and mysticism into the small, square holes of rationality.
The eye cannot see beyond its capabilities. The ear cannot hear beyond its capabilities. The nose cannot smell beyond its capabilities. The mind cannot understand beyond its capabilities.
There is, as the rational mind will be quick to point out, a major difference between, on the one hand, the nose, eye and ear, and, on the other hand, the mind. More specifically, in the former case, we have a fairly good idea of what the limitations are in each sensory modality. However, in the case of the mind, we have not yet, for the most part, discovered what the limitations of the mind are in terms of discovery, creativity and invention.
Some rational minds believe the sky, so to speak, is the limit. Effectively, this suggests there is no limit, given sufficient time and funding, to the rational mind's capacity to penetrate the secrets of the universe.
Extrapolating from ignorance does not seem a rational thing to do. Since we have no firm idea of what, in essence, rationality is or what makes it possible, we really have no idea of what the parameters of this capacity are.
Nevertheless, against reason, the rational mind is adamant it should have the final say in all matters of evaluation, judgement and understanding. The rational mind will take extreme umbrage with anyone who disagrees with its pronouncement in this regard.
The rational mind will inundate and intimidate one with formulae, tables, equations, statistics, mathematical functions, diagrams, experiments, research, debates, symposia, forums, journal articles, and so on proving that the rational mind is right and everything else is wrong. The rational mind will cajole, badger, ridicule, boast and flutter its big blues at one to convince the individual of the errors of his or her ways with respect to issues of non-rational modalities of understanding.
Sometimes, rational minds, upon reflection, may assert something of the following sort. We accept the possibility there may be different modalities of knowing. Nonetheless, the rational mind will suggest, directly or indirectly, that priority and preference should be given to rationality in the analyzing, evaluating, judging and understanding of most matters.
Sometimes, in order to bolster this claim of priority, the rational mind will remind us of what has been done for the world through rationality. Looking at the world and its history, one might wonder if such 'proof' cannot as easily be used against rationality as it can be used in its defense.
To confront the rational mind, with all its eloquent oratory, is an act of courage. To stand firm in one's search for the reality of the unseen, despite the impressive, dazzling feats of logic, science, philosophy and mathematics, is to have courage. To be willing to walk, alone if necessary, against the bitter winds of outraged reason, is to show courage.
Reason rails against the modes of understanding of the heart and the spirit. The tirade comes not only from without, it comes from within. Take courage.
Friday, September 16, 2005
Friday, September 09, 2005
Spiritual Abuse -- The internet connection
Someone has described an addiction as something one continues to do long after reality or experience has shown one that the behavior is destructive or problematic. If we leave aside the issue of whether the Internet is addictive in the classic sense (that is, does discontinuing Internet activity lead to symptoms of physical withdrawal), and if we put aside the issue of trying to distinguish between a habit and an addiction, one might say that there are potentially addictive dimensions related to interacting with the Internet.
If a person has a deep yearning for essential, meaningful contact with others, a person tends to go in search of that which may be satisfy this yearning. Like most addictions, being attracted to something because one believes it may be a solution to one's problems in life, plays a role in the formation of addictive behavior.
A Sufi master might say that the seeds of addiction are sown when an individual, mistakenly, believes that some given substance, liquid, drug, object, or relationship is a doorway to some dimension of Divinity -- a dimension of Divinity which will take away pain, or fear, or anxiety, or memory, or unhappiness, or loneliness, or low self-esteem, or a sense of in competence with respect to life in general. Some people see the Internet in this fashion -- as something which, on the surface, appears to have the capacity to administer to whatever problems may have led one to investigate or be attracted to the idea of the Internet in the first place.
False spiritual guides, like all abusive predators, seem to have a fundamental grasp about some of the ways in which people who are emotionally, psychologically, socially, interpersonally, and/or spiritually vulnerable tend to behave. Such predators are very sensitized to the signs and indications shown by others that indicate yearning, need, problems, loneliness, and so on.
Like a bottle of alcohol, a packet of heroin, a line of cocaine, a cap of Ecstasy, or a potential new round of sexual partners, the slippery slope of addiction begins with an encounter with something which seems to be able to administer to the deep need we have to be healed and healthy. In the beginning, whatever the choice of addiction may be, it seems to provide a sense of well-being, an emotional/physical high, a sense of meaning, purpose, identity and methodology for being able to continue on in such a new altered state of awareness about one self and life.
Maybe, the substance, or whatever, helps us to forget ourselves, or, maybe, it helps us to think about ourselves in a more genteel light, or, maybe, it helps us to diminish the importance of certain kinds of problems and issues, or, maybe, it provides us with a sense of control over our lives, or, maybe, it is a way to express our disdain for the world, or, maybe, it induces us to believe that we have found God, or, maybe, it helps cast life in rosier glow, or, maybe, it removes a sense of meaningless that has been eating away at our hearts and sense of identity. Whatever the curative properties seems to be, the seeds of addiction tend to become established when we go on what learning theorists refer to as: an intermittent, variable, reinforcement schedule.
Essentially, this means that a person finds some experience sufficiently pleasurable, meaningful, powerful, enhancing, or attractive that the experience of this reward begins to serve as a carrot which motivates one to seek out a repeat of the original experience that one found so powerful or pleasurable or meaningful. However, because the sought after reward does not come every time (intermittent) or comes in ways which are variable (the precise 'high', if you will is never quite the same as originally or initially experienced) and because we tend to become somewhat habituated to even pleasurable experiences, our seeking behavior becomes more intense and, as a result, we tend to become more committed to certain forms of behavior which we believe, on the basis of past experience, will lead, eventually, once again, to what we seek, but, alas in reality, do not always lead to the desired mode of satisfaction (reinforcement).
When our seeking behavior begins to undermine our own well-being, or interferes with our capacity to make good judgments, or begins to destroy the fabric of our lives (socially, emotionally, psychologically, spiritually, and physically) because we are unable to withdraw from the behaviors which we insist -- evidence to the contrary -- will lead us to the promised land of whatever form of satisfaction or fulfillment or problem solving we were seeking, originally, through such behavior, then, at that point, a person may be controlled by an intermittent, variable reinforcement schedule of learning which is shaping, coloring, and organizing everything one feels, thinks, and does. At that point, a person is exhibiting addictive or addictive-like behavior.
Using the foregoing as a backdrop for discussion, then, one could say that under certain circumstances, one's interaction with the Internet could be considered to have addictive-like qualities or properties. If, for example, one continues to go to chat rooms or interact with certain persons through the Internet even though, somewhere within one, there is a recognition that the interaction is poisonous, problematic, hurtful, destructive, or inviting us to behave in ways which we might not do otherwise, then, the person who continues to do this is exhibiting addictive-like behavior.
Whether one wishes to call such a pattern of behavior an addiction may only be a matter of semantics and definitions. The real issue of importance is that an individual is engaged in a sequence of behavior over which they have lost, to some degree, control and that such behavior is leading to problems in one's life.
False teachers will use techniques such as love-bombing (which is a combination of flattery, positive affirmations, encouragement, seemingly unconditional expressions of love, and so on) to exploit an individual's vulnerabilities and induce 'highs' in that individual which will become the fulcrum around which the leverage of bringing about more and more compliance and commitment of an individual because a person doesn't want to lose the 'high' which was associated with the love bombing.
Love bombing is something which can be done easily over the Internet. In fact, the structure of anonymity, together with the way that the Internet camouflages the great physical distances that often separate people, means someone can say almost anything over the Internet in the way of a promise or commitment and never have to back it up with any real-world, substantive acts.
In addition, there is another aspect of the Internet which helps a fraudulent teacher to forge cohesive bonds with unsuspecting, vulnerable individuals whom the former wish to exploit in one way or another. Like radio, the Internet, often engages our imaginations, because the people with whom we are interacting are faceless, voiceless mysteries, and, therefore, we tend to create our own images of what people are like based on the clues which we given by the other participant(s).
Sham teachers use this dimension of the Internet to feed people only the kinds of information the false teacher wishes in order to induce the unsuspecting person to create a certain kind of image of the false teacher -- an image which well be in the false teacher's best interests. This image is constructed from so-called 'biographical facts' which are total inventions -- such as: place of residence, past experiences, personality, temperament, interests, and so on.
By parasitically latching onto the imaginal faculty of another human being, the false teacher induces the unsuspecting person to, little by little, construct precisely the kind of image the false teacher wishes the individual to have of the false teacher. Oftentimes, what happens is that a person is induced by a false teacher to develop a dependent relationship with a fictitious, phantom individual who has been constructed by the imagination of one person with the help of the false teacher's various campaigns of manipulation, disinformation, lying, deceit and so on. In this sense one is lured into having an addictive-like relationship with someone who, in truth, resides only in one's imagination -- which makes withdrawing from such behavior doubly difficult because one carries around within one the very image from which one needs separation.
If a person has a deep yearning for essential, meaningful contact with others, a person tends to go in search of that which may be satisfy this yearning. Like most addictions, being attracted to something because one believes it may be a solution to one's problems in life, plays a role in the formation of addictive behavior.
A Sufi master might say that the seeds of addiction are sown when an individual, mistakenly, believes that some given substance, liquid, drug, object, or relationship is a doorway to some dimension of Divinity -- a dimension of Divinity which will take away pain, or fear, or anxiety, or memory, or unhappiness, or loneliness, or low self-esteem, or a sense of in competence with respect to life in general. Some people see the Internet in this fashion -- as something which, on the surface, appears to have the capacity to administer to whatever problems may have led one to investigate or be attracted to the idea of the Internet in the first place.
False spiritual guides, like all abusive predators, seem to have a fundamental grasp about some of the ways in which people who are emotionally, psychologically, socially, interpersonally, and/or spiritually vulnerable tend to behave. Such predators are very sensitized to the signs and indications shown by others that indicate yearning, need, problems, loneliness, and so on.
Like a bottle of alcohol, a packet of heroin, a line of cocaine, a cap of Ecstasy, or a potential new round of sexual partners, the slippery slope of addiction begins with an encounter with something which seems to be able to administer to the deep need we have to be healed and healthy. In the beginning, whatever the choice of addiction may be, it seems to provide a sense of well-being, an emotional/physical high, a sense of meaning, purpose, identity and methodology for being able to continue on in such a new altered state of awareness about one self and life.
Maybe, the substance, or whatever, helps us to forget ourselves, or, maybe, it helps us to think about ourselves in a more genteel light, or, maybe, it helps us to diminish the importance of certain kinds of problems and issues, or, maybe, it provides us with a sense of control over our lives, or, maybe, it is a way to express our disdain for the world, or, maybe, it induces us to believe that we have found God, or, maybe, it helps cast life in rosier glow, or, maybe, it removes a sense of meaningless that has been eating away at our hearts and sense of identity. Whatever the curative properties seems to be, the seeds of addiction tend to become established when we go on what learning theorists refer to as: an intermittent, variable, reinforcement schedule.
Essentially, this means that a person finds some experience sufficiently pleasurable, meaningful, powerful, enhancing, or attractive that the experience of this reward begins to serve as a carrot which motivates one to seek out a repeat of the original experience that one found so powerful or pleasurable or meaningful. However, because the sought after reward does not come every time (intermittent) or comes in ways which are variable (the precise 'high', if you will is never quite the same as originally or initially experienced) and because we tend to become somewhat habituated to even pleasurable experiences, our seeking behavior becomes more intense and, as a result, we tend to become more committed to certain forms of behavior which we believe, on the basis of past experience, will lead, eventually, once again, to what we seek, but, alas in reality, do not always lead to the desired mode of satisfaction (reinforcement).
When our seeking behavior begins to undermine our own well-being, or interferes with our capacity to make good judgments, or begins to destroy the fabric of our lives (socially, emotionally, psychologically, spiritually, and physically) because we are unable to withdraw from the behaviors which we insist -- evidence to the contrary -- will lead us to the promised land of whatever form of satisfaction or fulfillment or problem solving we were seeking, originally, through such behavior, then, at that point, a person may be controlled by an intermittent, variable reinforcement schedule of learning which is shaping, coloring, and organizing everything one feels, thinks, and does. At that point, a person is exhibiting addictive or addictive-like behavior.
Using the foregoing as a backdrop for discussion, then, one could say that under certain circumstances, one's interaction with the Internet could be considered to have addictive-like qualities or properties. If, for example, one continues to go to chat rooms or interact with certain persons through the Internet even though, somewhere within one, there is a recognition that the interaction is poisonous, problematic, hurtful, destructive, or inviting us to behave in ways which we might not do otherwise, then, the person who continues to do this is exhibiting addictive-like behavior.
Whether one wishes to call such a pattern of behavior an addiction may only be a matter of semantics and definitions. The real issue of importance is that an individual is engaged in a sequence of behavior over which they have lost, to some degree, control and that such behavior is leading to problems in one's life.
False teachers will use techniques such as love-bombing (which is a combination of flattery, positive affirmations, encouragement, seemingly unconditional expressions of love, and so on) to exploit an individual's vulnerabilities and induce 'highs' in that individual which will become the fulcrum around which the leverage of bringing about more and more compliance and commitment of an individual because a person doesn't want to lose the 'high' which was associated with the love bombing.
Love bombing is something which can be done easily over the Internet. In fact, the structure of anonymity, together with the way that the Internet camouflages the great physical distances that often separate people, means someone can say almost anything over the Internet in the way of a promise or commitment and never have to back it up with any real-world, substantive acts.
In addition, there is another aspect of the Internet which helps a fraudulent teacher to forge cohesive bonds with unsuspecting, vulnerable individuals whom the former wish to exploit in one way or another. Like radio, the Internet, often engages our imaginations, because the people with whom we are interacting are faceless, voiceless mysteries, and, therefore, we tend to create our own images of what people are like based on the clues which we given by the other participant(s).
Sham teachers use this dimension of the Internet to feed people only the kinds of information the false teacher wishes in order to induce the unsuspecting person to create a certain kind of image of the false teacher -- an image which well be in the false teacher's best interests. This image is constructed from so-called 'biographical facts' which are total inventions -- such as: place of residence, past experiences, personality, temperament, interests, and so on.
By parasitically latching onto the imaginal faculty of another human being, the false teacher induces the unsuspecting person to, little by little, construct precisely the kind of image the false teacher wishes the individual to have of the false teacher. Oftentimes, what happens is that a person is induced by a false teacher to develop a dependent relationship with a fictitious, phantom individual who has been constructed by the imagination of one person with the help of the false teacher's various campaigns of manipulation, disinformation, lying, deceit and so on. In this sense one is lured into having an addictive-like relationship with someone who, in truth, resides only in one's imagination -- which makes withdrawing from such behavior doubly difficult because one carries around within one the very image from which one needs separation.
Wednesday, September 07, 2005
An Essay from Streams to the Ocean - Hope
When Sufi masters speak about hope, they are not referring to a condition of merely longing for something to be the case. Hope which is not rooted in a foundation of struggle, work and sacrifice is nothing but an idle fantasy.
From the perspective of Sufi masters, hope gives expression to a certain kind of working relationship with God. On the one hand, as indicated above, hope cannot exist in a context devoid of the individual's spiritual efforts. We must seek out, and strive for, God in a sincere fashion. Our struggle in this respect must be persistent. We should not be stingy in either the personal or material resources we expend on this undertaking.
On the other hand, we must have a very clear understanding that our efforts, in and of themselves, are not enough. If our spiritual hope lies in our abilities and possessions we are sadly deluding ourselves.
Practitioners of the Sufi path maintain that what comes to us from God is far more important than what goes to God from us. Effort, struggle and sacrifice are merely sincere signs of our working relationship of hope with God.
Besides our efforts, the essence of hope is a trust or confidence in God. Sufi masters indicate we must have confidence God did not create us arbitrarily or as a whim or as part of some game. We must have confidence God created each of us for a spiritual purpose.
To be confident our existence has spiritual meaning and value, is to invest hope in our relationship with God. Among other things, this means there are reasons for our struggling toward God.
Sufi masters maintain God wishes to be known by us. They stipulate that although God will always know us, God especially would like to know us when we are in the condition of knowing Divinity.
The shaykhs of the Sufi path indicate God wishes to be loved by us. They point out that while God always will love us, God especially would like to love us when we are in the condition of loving Divinity.
Practitioners of the mystical path note that God wishes to be served by us. They specify that even though God always will provide for us, God especially would like to provide for us when we are in the condition of serving Divinity.
Sufi masters contend each of us has a unique capacity for knowing, loving and serving God. By realizing the purpose of our life, we realize the unique potential which God has intended for us.
In a sense, God is investing hope in us, just as we are investing hope in God. More specifically, God has provided each of us with a unique spiritual potential. On the basis of this potential, God hopes we will struggle to realize its value.
God is trusting us and is placing confidence in us to do the right thing with respect to our spiritual potential. The right thing is to trust in God to help us realize the secrets and value of our spiritual potential in the way in which God intended should be the case.
Sufi masters indicate we must have confidence God is busy with the work of providing us with everything necessary to help us free ourselves from our ego and, thereby, help us realize our essential identities. We must have confidence God already is doing what needs to be done in this respect, even before we have done our part.
We must have confidence God wants us to succeed in the purpose of life. We are the ones who fail God in this process. God never fails us.
The ups and downs of life, the contractions and expansions, the pains and pleasures, the satisfactions and frustrations, the guidance and ignorance, the light and darkness, the veiling and the unveilings, the giving and the taking away, as well as the success and failures of life, are all loci of manifestation of God's Names and Attributes.
They are all part of the spiritual curriculum of Divinity with which we must struggle in order, hopefully, to reflect on, contemplate, learn, remember and implement the spiritual lessons of life.
In providing us with the aforementioned curriculum, God's hope for us is that we come to understand: (a) we have never been away from Divinity, despite appearances to the contrary; and, (b) Divinity has never been away from us.
God's hope for us is that we come to realize: (a) we constantly have been meeting with God all of our lives through the forms of the different Names and Attributes by which God relates to us in our day-to-day lives; and, (b) all of these meetings have been arranged for our spiritual benefit. God's hope for us is that we will return to Divinity well pleased by, and well-pleasing to, God.
The books of revelation sent to us by God, as well as the prophets, saints and spiritual guides provided for us by God, are all signs of, so to speak, bilateral hope. On the one hand, God hopes we will take advantage of the guidance being offered through these different modalities of Divine assistance in order to realize our essential purpose for being. On the other hand, we can hope guidance is being extended to us as an expression of the Divine wish for us to permit our lives to be transformed in a manner which actively and accurately would reflect God's hope for us.
Our hope is nourished by God's Compassion, Beneficence, Mercy, Forbearance, Forgiveness, Love, Kindness, Strength, and Protection. Our hope is sustained by the many opportunities God gives us to move toward Divinity.
Our hope is activated by the manner in which God encourages us to have pure, sincere intentions toward Divinity. Our hope is decorated when God grants us good actions with which to clothe our naked intentions.
Our hope is given tensile strength by the way God calls us to task in this life while we still have time to work on correcting our weaknesses. Our hope is raised up in spiritual flight when God grants us spiritual states and stations of nearness in response to our hope.
From the perspective of Sufi masters, hope gives expression to a certain kind of working relationship with God. On the one hand, as indicated above, hope cannot exist in a context devoid of the individual's spiritual efforts. We must seek out, and strive for, God in a sincere fashion. Our struggle in this respect must be persistent. We should not be stingy in either the personal or material resources we expend on this undertaking.
On the other hand, we must have a very clear understanding that our efforts, in and of themselves, are not enough. If our spiritual hope lies in our abilities and possessions we are sadly deluding ourselves.
Practitioners of the Sufi path maintain that what comes to us from God is far more important than what goes to God from us. Effort, struggle and sacrifice are merely sincere signs of our working relationship of hope with God.
Besides our efforts, the essence of hope is a trust or confidence in God. Sufi masters indicate we must have confidence God did not create us arbitrarily or as a whim or as part of some game. We must have confidence God created each of us for a spiritual purpose.
To be confident our existence has spiritual meaning and value, is to invest hope in our relationship with God. Among other things, this means there are reasons for our struggling toward God.
Sufi masters maintain God wishes to be known by us. They stipulate that although God will always know us, God especially would like to know us when we are in the condition of knowing Divinity.
The shaykhs of the Sufi path indicate God wishes to be loved by us. They point out that while God always will love us, God especially would like to love us when we are in the condition of loving Divinity.
Practitioners of the mystical path note that God wishes to be served by us. They specify that even though God always will provide for us, God especially would like to provide for us when we are in the condition of serving Divinity.
Sufi masters contend each of us has a unique capacity for knowing, loving and serving God. By realizing the purpose of our life, we realize the unique potential which God has intended for us.
In a sense, God is investing hope in us, just as we are investing hope in God. More specifically, God has provided each of us with a unique spiritual potential. On the basis of this potential, God hopes we will struggle to realize its value.
God is trusting us and is placing confidence in us to do the right thing with respect to our spiritual potential. The right thing is to trust in God to help us realize the secrets and value of our spiritual potential in the way in which God intended should be the case.
Sufi masters indicate we must have confidence God is busy with the work of providing us with everything necessary to help us free ourselves from our ego and, thereby, help us realize our essential identities. We must have confidence God already is doing what needs to be done in this respect, even before we have done our part.
We must have confidence God wants us to succeed in the purpose of life. We are the ones who fail God in this process. God never fails us.
The ups and downs of life, the contractions and expansions, the pains and pleasures, the satisfactions and frustrations, the guidance and ignorance, the light and darkness, the veiling and the unveilings, the giving and the taking away, as well as the success and failures of life, are all loci of manifestation of God's Names and Attributes.
They are all part of the spiritual curriculum of Divinity with which we must struggle in order, hopefully, to reflect on, contemplate, learn, remember and implement the spiritual lessons of life.
In providing us with the aforementioned curriculum, God's hope for us is that we come to understand: (a) we have never been away from Divinity, despite appearances to the contrary; and, (b) Divinity has never been away from us.
God's hope for us is that we come to realize: (a) we constantly have been meeting with God all of our lives through the forms of the different Names and Attributes by which God relates to us in our day-to-day lives; and, (b) all of these meetings have been arranged for our spiritual benefit. God's hope for us is that we will return to Divinity well pleased by, and well-pleasing to, God.
The books of revelation sent to us by God, as well as the prophets, saints and spiritual guides provided for us by God, are all signs of, so to speak, bilateral hope. On the one hand, God hopes we will take advantage of the guidance being offered through these different modalities of Divine assistance in order to realize our essential purpose for being. On the other hand, we can hope guidance is being extended to us as an expression of the Divine wish for us to permit our lives to be transformed in a manner which actively and accurately would reflect God's hope for us.
Our hope is nourished by God's Compassion, Beneficence, Mercy, Forbearance, Forgiveness, Love, Kindness, Strength, and Protection. Our hope is sustained by the many opportunities God gives us to move toward Divinity.
Our hope is activated by the manner in which God encourages us to have pure, sincere intentions toward Divinity. Our hope is decorated when God grants us good actions with which to clothe our naked intentions.
Our hope is given tensile strength by the way God calls us to task in this life while we still have time to work on correcting our weaknesses. Our hope is raised up in spiritual flight when God grants us spiritual states and stations of nearness in response to our hope.
Sunday, September 04, 2005
Introduction to New Book The Sufi Lighthouse: Illuminating Spiritual Abuse
Introduction
Spiritual abuse assumes many different forms. Such manifestations may be mild, or they can be quite intense and malevolent.
No religious or mystical tradition is immune from the presence of spiritual abuse, for, wherever there are people who are seeking to become closer to essential truths, purpose, and meaning, there will be individuals seeking to generate counterfeit currency to offer to those who are unaware of, or incautious toward, the dangers which lie in wait along the spiritual path.
Some instances of spiritual abuse may involve gullible individuals who are induced to become committed to a ‘guide’ or teacher who, when examined even superficially in an impartial manner, may exhibit many of the warning characteristics of a spiritual charlatan. Unfortunately, in many other cases, the problem of recognition with respect to a given ‘false teacher’ becomes much more difficult and subtle.
Just as there are hack engravers and master engravers who are involved in the production of counterfeit money, so, too, there are huge differences in the level of ‘artistry’ exhibited by those who would pass themselves off as authentic spiritual guides. Some fraudulent guides are fairly easy to spot, but there are others who present a far greater challenge.
Spiritual abuse may occur in neighborhood churches, mosques, temples, centers, and other places of religious/spiritual gathering. This problem also may take place in much more exotic and/or remote settings.
Fraudulent teachers may call themselves a guru, shaykh, rimpoche, monk, priest, imam, apostle, avatar, or minister. They also may call themselves educators, revolutionaries, political leaders, and freedom fighters.
All forms of terrorism, whether these be acts of individuals or of states, presuppose the existence of spiritual abuse. Terrorism cannot occur unless someone -- a leader, master, or authority figure -- uses techniques of undue influence to induce other people -- followers, initiates, devotees, citizens -- to commit atrocities in the name of Divinity, spiritual purity, Justice, and Truth. All such forms of inducement are expressions of spiritual abuse.
The present book, The Sufi Lighthouse: Illuminating Spiritual Abuse, arises out of my experiences with a spiritual charlatan who called himself a Sufi shaykh or guide. Although a number of chapters within this book entail discussions which focus on themes that are steeped in the terminology of Islam, in general, and the Sufi Path in particular, much of this book is of relevance to anyone who is interested in, or struggling with, problems of spirituality and mysticism, irrespective of the particular tradition with which he or she may identify.
In addition, sometimes, it is easier to recognize a problem in one’s own life when one is, first, introduced to a given issue in a context which, initially, seems to be far removed from one’s everyday commitments and priorities. More specifically, while some of the chapters of The Sufi Lighthouse: Illiminating Spiritual Abuse have a specific Sufi/Islamic flavor to them, anyone who has an interest in spirituality will be able to feel a sense of resonance with the issues and problems which are being discussed in conjunction with the Sufi mystical tradition.
Furthermore, there are many other chapters in The Sufi Lighthouse: Illuminating Spiritual Abuse which are written in a way that, hopefully, will provide a more universal appeal to readers who come from a non-Muslim, and/or non-Sufi background. In other words, these other chapters explore themes which have an applicability to a variety of spiritual traditions beyond that of Islam and the Sufi path.
There are many people within the Sufi/Muslim community who will give lip service to the idea that there have been and, probably, are some individuals who, in both the past and the present, have sought to pass themselves off as authentic spiritual guides, when, in truth, they were, or are, spiritual counterfeits. However, these same people who may be willing to give lip service to this issue tend to feel that it is unseemly and, somehow, inappropriate to suppose that this is issue is anything more than a marginal, incidental, isolated, and occasional problem.
Based on my research of the past several years, the problems being addressed in this book are both substantial and pervasive. This does not mean that everyone who calls himself or herself a spiritual guide is a charlatan, for I do believe, on the basis of personal experience, that authentic, Sufi teachers do exist in this day and age, but, nonetheless, at the same time, I believe -- based on my own experiences, research, and the communications of many people from different parts of the world -- there are an array of spiritually abusive relationships that are being inflicted on thousands of people by Sufi charlatans in countries around the world, including the United States and Canada.
This problem is not small. It is huge, but all too many people within the Sufi/Muslim community are in denial about the existence of such spiritual abuse and seem to feel that if they just pull the covers up over their heads, the problem, like any good boogeyman, will just disappear into the night. This may have worked when one was a child, but it will not work now.
Perhaps, because of the events of 9-11, Muslims and Sufis are feeling so defensive that they believe any attempt to publically examine the issue of spiritual abuse within the Sufi/Muslim community is ill-considered under the present circumstances. The search for truth will always be an inconvenience for those who have vested interests to protect.
I, obviously, am of a different opinion. In fact, I believe that the shadow cast by the tragedy of 9-11 offers a tremendous opportunity to begin to critically examine the dynamics and nature of spiritual abuse -- both within Muslim and non-Muslim communities.
This is my belief for a number of reasons. Foremost among these reasons is the following one: spiritual abuse was at the heart of the 9-11 tragedies -- not only in terms of the histories of the individuals who plotted and carried out such acts of terrorism (although I am not suggesting, here, that any of those individuals claimed to be a Sufi or had a Sufi teacher), but also in relation to the histories of those government and media figures around the world who, either intentionally or unintentionally, helped bring about a set of circumstances which were conducive to the occurrence of the events on 9-11.
At first blush, the problems of spiritual abuse in the Sufi/Muslim community might seem to have little to do with the events of 9-11. However, when one begins to probe the matter further, one starts to understand that the dynamics and factors which are in play in the realm of spiritual abuse in conjunction with the Sufi path, also are in play in the realm of terrorism and the abusive effects which international economic and political policy have upon the souls of people throughout the world.
Beginnings are always difficult. But, begin we must.
Although the primary focus of the present work revolves about the issue of spiritual abuse, virtually all of the principles, themes, and dynamics which are explored in the following pages are fully applicable to a wide variety of situations in which abuse is being perpetrated even though the nature of such abuse, at least on the surface, may appear to be removed from the mystical quest. The dynamics of personal relationships, families, schools, organizations, corporations, and governments are all capable of giving expression to abusive relationships ... in fact, one might wish to argue that abuse, whatever its particular mode of manifestation, constitutes a violation of another individual’s basic rights as a human being such that the latter’s search for truth, meaning, purpose, and identity are undermined, disrupted, thwarted, and/or corrupted by another person or group of people (or both).
One should feel free to read the essays in whatever order one likes. Although the chapters are, hopefully, complementary with respect to each other, they also can be read independently of, and do not presuppose, one another.
The above book is dedicated to: Bilquees and Dr. Baig ... My traveling companions along the road toward greater understanding. By the Grace of God, they helped me journey through the valley of the shadow of doubt and to fear no evil.
Spiritual abuse assumes many different forms. Such manifestations may be mild, or they can be quite intense and malevolent.
No religious or mystical tradition is immune from the presence of spiritual abuse, for, wherever there are people who are seeking to become closer to essential truths, purpose, and meaning, there will be individuals seeking to generate counterfeit currency to offer to those who are unaware of, or incautious toward, the dangers which lie in wait along the spiritual path.
Some instances of spiritual abuse may involve gullible individuals who are induced to become committed to a ‘guide’ or teacher who, when examined even superficially in an impartial manner, may exhibit many of the warning characteristics of a spiritual charlatan. Unfortunately, in many other cases, the problem of recognition with respect to a given ‘false teacher’ becomes much more difficult and subtle.
Just as there are hack engravers and master engravers who are involved in the production of counterfeit money, so, too, there are huge differences in the level of ‘artistry’ exhibited by those who would pass themselves off as authentic spiritual guides. Some fraudulent guides are fairly easy to spot, but there are others who present a far greater challenge.
Spiritual abuse may occur in neighborhood churches, mosques, temples, centers, and other places of religious/spiritual gathering. This problem also may take place in much more exotic and/or remote settings.
Fraudulent teachers may call themselves a guru, shaykh, rimpoche, monk, priest, imam, apostle, avatar, or minister. They also may call themselves educators, revolutionaries, political leaders, and freedom fighters.
All forms of terrorism, whether these be acts of individuals or of states, presuppose the existence of spiritual abuse. Terrorism cannot occur unless someone -- a leader, master, or authority figure -- uses techniques of undue influence to induce other people -- followers, initiates, devotees, citizens -- to commit atrocities in the name of Divinity, spiritual purity, Justice, and Truth. All such forms of inducement are expressions of spiritual abuse.
The present book, The Sufi Lighthouse: Illuminating Spiritual Abuse, arises out of my experiences with a spiritual charlatan who called himself a Sufi shaykh or guide. Although a number of chapters within this book entail discussions which focus on themes that are steeped in the terminology of Islam, in general, and the Sufi Path in particular, much of this book is of relevance to anyone who is interested in, or struggling with, problems of spirituality and mysticism, irrespective of the particular tradition with which he or she may identify.
In addition, sometimes, it is easier to recognize a problem in one’s own life when one is, first, introduced to a given issue in a context which, initially, seems to be far removed from one’s everyday commitments and priorities. More specifically, while some of the chapters of The Sufi Lighthouse: Illiminating Spiritual Abuse have a specific Sufi/Islamic flavor to them, anyone who has an interest in spirituality will be able to feel a sense of resonance with the issues and problems which are being discussed in conjunction with the Sufi mystical tradition.
Furthermore, there are many other chapters in The Sufi Lighthouse: Illuminating Spiritual Abuse which are written in a way that, hopefully, will provide a more universal appeal to readers who come from a non-Muslim, and/or non-Sufi background. In other words, these other chapters explore themes which have an applicability to a variety of spiritual traditions beyond that of Islam and the Sufi path.
There are many people within the Sufi/Muslim community who will give lip service to the idea that there have been and, probably, are some individuals who, in both the past and the present, have sought to pass themselves off as authentic spiritual guides, when, in truth, they were, or are, spiritual counterfeits. However, these same people who may be willing to give lip service to this issue tend to feel that it is unseemly and, somehow, inappropriate to suppose that this is issue is anything more than a marginal, incidental, isolated, and occasional problem.
Based on my research of the past several years, the problems being addressed in this book are both substantial and pervasive. This does not mean that everyone who calls himself or herself a spiritual guide is a charlatan, for I do believe, on the basis of personal experience, that authentic, Sufi teachers do exist in this day and age, but, nonetheless, at the same time, I believe -- based on my own experiences, research, and the communications of many people from different parts of the world -- there are an array of spiritually abusive relationships that are being inflicted on thousands of people by Sufi charlatans in countries around the world, including the United States and Canada.
This problem is not small. It is huge, but all too many people within the Sufi/Muslim community are in denial about the existence of such spiritual abuse and seem to feel that if they just pull the covers up over their heads, the problem, like any good boogeyman, will just disappear into the night. This may have worked when one was a child, but it will not work now.
Perhaps, because of the events of 9-11, Muslims and Sufis are feeling so defensive that they believe any attempt to publically examine the issue of spiritual abuse within the Sufi/Muslim community is ill-considered under the present circumstances. The search for truth will always be an inconvenience for those who have vested interests to protect.
I, obviously, am of a different opinion. In fact, I believe that the shadow cast by the tragedy of 9-11 offers a tremendous opportunity to begin to critically examine the dynamics and nature of spiritual abuse -- both within Muslim and non-Muslim communities.
This is my belief for a number of reasons. Foremost among these reasons is the following one: spiritual abuse was at the heart of the 9-11 tragedies -- not only in terms of the histories of the individuals who plotted and carried out such acts of terrorism (although I am not suggesting, here, that any of those individuals claimed to be a Sufi or had a Sufi teacher), but also in relation to the histories of those government and media figures around the world who, either intentionally or unintentionally, helped bring about a set of circumstances which were conducive to the occurrence of the events on 9-11.
At first blush, the problems of spiritual abuse in the Sufi/Muslim community might seem to have little to do with the events of 9-11. However, when one begins to probe the matter further, one starts to understand that the dynamics and factors which are in play in the realm of spiritual abuse in conjunction with the Sufi path, also are in play in the realm of terrorism and the abusive effects which international economic and political policy have upon the souls of people throughout the world.
Beginnings are always difficult. But, begin we must.
Although the primary focus of the present work revolves about the issue of spiritual abuse, virtually all of the principles, themes, and dynamics which are explored in the following pages are fully applicable to a wide variety of situations in which abuse is being perpetrated even though the nature of such abuse, at least on the surface, may appear to be removed from the mystical quest. The dynamics of personal relationships, families, schools, organizations, corporations, and governments are all capable of giving expression to abusive relationships ... in fact, one might wish to argue that abuse, whatever its particular mode of manifestation, constitutes a violation of another individual’s basic rights as a human being such that the latter’s search for truth, meaning, purpose, and identity are undermined, disrupted, thwarted, and/or corrupted by another person or group of people (or both).
One should feel free to read the essays in whatever order one likes. Although the chapters are, hopefully, complementary with respect to each other, they also can be read independently of, and do not presuppose, one another.
The above book is dedicated to: Bilquees and Dr. Baig ... My traveling companions along the road toward greater understanding. By the Grace of God, they helped me journey through the valley of the shadow of doubt and to fear no evil.
Monday, August 29, 2005
The Sufi Lighthouse Book Pre-Release Notice
The Sufi Lighthouse, Illuminating Spiritual Abuse, consists of 52 chapters, more than 500 pages, and, God willing, will be available for purchase in about three weeks. If you would like to preorder your copy, contact Anab at Anab@spiritual-health.org
Thursday, August 18, 2005
TERRORISM, DISSOCIATION, AND SPIRITUAL ABUSE Part 4 of 4
Some extremist ‘jihadists’ refer to Quranic verses such as:
“True believers are only those who have faith in Allah and
the Messenger of Allah and have left doubt behind, and who
strive hard in Allah’s cause with their possessions and
their lives. They are the ones who are sincere.” (49: 15).
These terrorist leaders use verses such as the foregoing to manipulate those who are already vulnerable to dissociative states brought about a variety of political, economic, social, physical, and spiritual trauma and push the latter further into dissociation. Such so-called leaders -- who, in reality, are nothing but spiritual abusers of others -- argue that if anyone has doubts about the violence which is being advocated, or if they are not willing to kill themselves while striking out at, and slaying, the enemies (including women and children) of Allah, then, such individuals are not true believers, and they are not sincere, and they have no faith in Allah and the Messenger.
Unfortunately, people who already are in a state of dissociation due to other circumstances in their life usually do not have a lot of emotional, intellectual, and spiritual tools to counter arguments like the foregoing. Such people do not want to be pulled further into the pain of dissociation that is encompassed by such charges, and, consequently, it is often easier for them to comply with the manipulation of spiritual charlatans who are inclined to violence than to have to try to ward off questions about their alleged lack of faith and sincerity in relation to Allah and the Messenger.
Similar things could be said about individuals in the U.S. who, out of trauma concerning the destruction of the World Trade Towers, do not wish to be pulled or pushed further into dissociation by having, as well, to defend against the charges of those among their fellow Americans who claim that those who are not willing to join in and kill whomever (including women, children, the elderly, and non-combatants) is indicated by government leaders with respect to the Twin Tower tragedy, are not true patriots or are traitors to democracy, or are not lovers and defenders of freedom. Like their counterparts among Muslims elsewhere in the world, there are many people in the U.S. who do not have the emotional, intellectual, and spiritual tools which are necessary to resist such attempts to manipulate those who are in a state of dissociation and, as a result, are vulnerable to becoming victims of the spiritual abuse which is being perpetrated by government “leaders”. After all, Jesus (peace be upon him) never killed anyone, and he did not advocate the killing of anyone, but this little fact of inconvenience does not seem to deter those who consider themselves Christians -- which, supposedly, means those who follow the teachings of Jesus (peace be upon him), the Christ -- from being willing to commit acts of violence or terrorism … neither of which would have met with the approval of Jesus (peace be upon him).
There was, and is, another stratagem adopted by many fundamentalist, and fanatically oriented jihadists . This includes: (1) the kharijis, a sect which arose during the Caliphacy of Hazrat ‘Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) -- which ended in 661 A.D. -- and who (i.e., the kharijis) considered all Muslims who did not accept their interpretation of Islam to be infidels who should be killed and who, as well, developed the idea of a continuous armed conflict against all people who disagreed with them; (2) Shiekh ul-Islaam Taqi-ud-Deen Ahmad ibn Taymiyyah (1268-1328) who wrote extensively about jihad and who glorified the idea of jihad as being superior to Islamic obligations of fasting, the hajj (greater pilgrimage) and the umrah (lesser pilgrimage); (3) Muhammad al-Wahhab (1703 – 1792), founder of the radical, puritanical, and dogmatic theology which, today, is known as Wahhabism and which calls for a return to medieval Islam as the only solution to the problems facing the Muslim community); (4) Rashid Rida (1865-1935), who founded the salafiyyah movement which has the goal of seeking to bring about a return among Muslims to what was claimed to be the pure Islam of the pious forbearers (the salaf) of early days; (5) Hassan al-Banna (1906 – 1949), founder of the Islamic Brotherhood in Egypt which rejected all western approaches to government and advocated violence to establish governments that would rule according to Shari’ah; (6) Sayyid Qutb (1906-1956), who expanded upon the teachings of Hassan al-Banna and called for, among other things, the assassination of any government leaders who were considered to be standing in the way of a return to Islamic rule ; (7) Muhammad Abdus Salam Faraj (1952 – 1982), implicated in the assassination of Anwar Sadat and author of the booklet, Al-Faridah al-Gha’ibah (The Neglected Duty), which sought to argue that all problems facing Muslims were due to a failure of the Muslim world to consider jihad -- in the sense of armed, violent conflict -- to be a mandatory duty of Islam for every Muslim in relation to all non-Muslims and anyone who was considered to be ‘insufficiently Muslim’; (8) Abdullah Azzam (1941-1989), a Palestinian whose most well-known works – In Defense of Muslim Lands, and Join the Caravan -- sought to make jihad an armed, global tool of violence and after he was assassinated in 1989, the group which he founded, Makhtab al Khadimat, was taken over by bin Laden; and, (9) Shiekh Omar Abdul Rahman, who is now serving time in a U.S. prison for his part in the pre-9-11 bombing of the World Trade Center.
The stratagem being referred to in the opening sentence of the previous paragraph concerns the claim that Allah demands the establishment of an Islamic state which will rigorously and meticulously apply the Shari’ah to all facets of the lives of people living in such a state and require that all people within the state observe Islam. This idea is directly contradicted by the aforementioned Quranic verse (2: 256) which indicates that there can be no compulsion in matters of Deen (that is, the sphere of faith-oriented activities).
However, if one is not satisfied that the foregoing limitation which is being placed on the relation between the state and its citizens is authentic, then, consider the following verses from the Qur’an:
“Whatever benefit comes to you (O man), it is from Allah,
and whatever misfortune befalls you it is from your own
self; and We have sent you (O Prophet) to mankind as an
apostle; and Allah is sufficient as a witness.
“Whoever obeys the Apostle, he indeed obeys Allah; and
whosoever turns back, then, We have not sent you as a
keeper over them.” (4: 79-80)
Or:
"Say (O Muhammad): "This is the truth from your Lord,”
then, whoever wills let him believe, and whoever wills
let him disbelieve.” (Qur’an, 18: 29)
And, again:
“You shall remind; you are entrusted to remind. You have
no power over them." (88: 21-22)
And, finally:
"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)
In the foregoing Quranic verses, the Prophet is being told that neither is it his responsibility to be an enforcer with respect to whether, or not, people turn back from Deen, nor does the Prophet have any power over such individuals. The Prophet also is being informed that each person is responsible for his or her own choices concerning matters of Deen, and if a person chooses to disbelieve, then, leave that individual free to do so, but those who obey the Prophet will be rightly guided.
The Prophet is reported to have encouraged people to repent of their sins to God rather than report them to him. However, if a Muslim did insist on confessing sins to him -- a sin for which a penalty, of some kind, was associated -- then, as a matter of acting in accordance with Divine guidance concerning applying the penalty which God had indicated for such actions (and not as a result of any requirement to compel people in matters of Deen) -- a judgment would be made, and, where indicated, a punishment would be enacted.
Once, during the time when Hazrat ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) was Caliph, he was walking about the city and was accompanied by someone. When the two passed a walled compound behind which could be heard a great deal of revelry, the person walking with the Caliph turned to him and in a manner which suggested that sinful things were happening on the other side of the wall, he asked if Hazrat ‘Umar knew what was going on in that compound. Hazrat ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) is reported to have said: “It is not my task to sniff out the sins of other people.”
The task of a Muslim ruler is neither to establish an Islamic state nor to enforce Shari’ah in the sense of compelling people to observe Deen in a particular way. The task of a Muslim ruler is to act with equitability and righteousness. The task of a Muslim leader is not to impose Shari’ah on others (‘there can be no compulsion in matters of Deen’ – Qur’an 2: 256) but to impose the real Shari’ah on himself or herself so that she or he will be able to act with equitability and righteousness and not oppress others.
When the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), by the Grace of Allah, defeated the Meccans and their allies for the final time, he forgave them, placed one of the local people in charge, and returned to Medina. He did not charge this person with the task of establishing an Islamic state.
In Volume 4, Book 53, Number 387 of Muslim, Abu Humaid As-Saidi narrates that:
“We accompanied the Prophet in the Ghazwa of Tabuk
and the king of 'Aila presented a white mule and a
cloak as a gift to the Prophet. And the Prophet wrote
to him a peace treaty allowing him to keep authority
over his country.”
The King of ‘Aila was not charged with the task of establishing an Islamic state. This same sort of arrangement prevailed, as well, in other instances where the Prophet signed peace treaties. In other words, those with whom the Prophet negotiated peace treaties were not charged with the task of establishing an Islamic state but were only required to observe the conditions of the peace treaty.
Prior to the time when the Prophet passed away, he had not instructed people to establish an Islamic state. In fact, no particular form of government was indicated, but whoever governed was expected to govern in accordance with principles of equitability and righteousness.
In the Qur’an one finds the following verses concerning the issue of equitability:
“O you who believe, equivalence is the law decreed for
you when dealing with murder - the free for the free, the
slave for the slave, the female for the female. If one is
pardoned by the victim's kin, an appreciative response is
in order, and an equitable compensation shall be paid. This
is an alleviation from your Lord and mercy. Anyone who
transgresses beyond this incurs a painful retribution.”
(2:178)
“O you who believe, you shall be absolutely equitable, and
observe Allah, when you serve as witnesses, even against
yourselves, or your parents, or your relatives. Whether
the accused is rich or poor, Allah takes care of both.
Therefore, do not be biased by your personal wishes. If
you deviate or disregard (this commandment), then Allah
is fully aware of everything you do.” (4:135)
“During the Sacred Months, aggression may be met by an
equivalent response. If they attack you, you may retaliate
by inflicting an equitable retribution. You shall observe
Allah and know that Allah is with the righteous.” (2:194)
“O ye who believe. Be steadfast witnesses for Allah in
equity and let not hatred of any people seduce you so
that you do not deal justly (with them). Deal justly,
that is nearer to your duty.” (5: 8)
“They are upholders of lies, and eaters of illicit
earnings. If they come to you to judge among them, you
may judge among them, or you may disregard them. If you
choose to disregard them, they cannot harm you in the
least. But if you judge among them, you shall judge
equitably. Allah loves those who are equitable.” (5:42)
“Allah does not enjoin you from befriending those who
do not fight you because of religion, and do not evict
you from your homes. You may befriend them and be
equitable towards them. Allah loves the equitable.” (60:8)
Elsewhere in the Qur’an believers are warned to be equitable in matters of commercial transactions, the conducting of loans, as well as in the treatment of orphans, adopted children, spouses, and slaves (and as with many other issues such as consumption of alcohol and the rights of women, the trend of reformation in the Qur’an was toward encouraging Muslims to free slaves, not keep them or take them, but if slaves were maintained, then, these individuals had the right to be fed, clothed, and treated in the same way as other members of the family). Equitability is a re-current theme throughout the Qur’an.
Righteousness is also a theme which is reiterated and emphasized throughout the Qur’an. Being pious, just, grateful, patient, kind, charitable, compassionate, honest, sincere, loving, tolerant, forgiving, repentant, humble, modest, and one who does not transgress due boundaries, are qualities which are advocated throughout the Qur’an.
The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is reported to have said:
“Muslims are brothers and sisters in Deen, and they must not
oppress one another, nor abandon assisting each other, nor
hold one another in contempt. The seat of righteousness is
the heart; therefore, that heart which is righteous does
not hold a Muslim in contempt.”
A Muslim is anyone who submits to God, and who believes in the Last Day, and who tries to act in accordance with the qualities of righteousness, and who seeks to abide by the Deen of God. One should not be too quick to jump to conclusions about who is, and who is not, a Muslim … and, therefore, one should not be too quick to jump to conclusions concerning whom one must not oppress, nor whom one should avoid abandoning in assistance, nor whom one should treat with righteousness.
The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is reported to have said:
“I have been given all the Names and have been sent
to perfect good character.”
Principles of equitability and righteousness are at the heart of good character. If one has lost confidence in the capacity of the tools of faith -- such as equitability and righteousness -- to assist others and to help one refrain from oppressing them, and if one believes that violent, armed conflict is the only solution to problems, one fails to understand that is not possible to violently impose good character on others and, therefore, the purpose for which fundamentalist, extremist jihadists claim to be fighting -- the establishment of Islam -- will always be doomed to failure. Good character can only arise through struggle within oneself, not through imposition from without.
There are some advocates of violent, armed conflict -- such as Muhammad 'Abd al-Salam Faraj (author of the Neglected Duty) -- who believe that it is not necessary to make any plans for what should be done after the time of jihad (in the sense of armed conflict), but, rather, one should just pursue jihad and, then, God will provide what is needed later on. How foolish, ill-considered, and illogical!
If one is prepared to trust in God to look after things following jihad -- in the sense of armed conflict -- then, why not trust in God to look after things prior to, if not independently of, armed conflict? If one is prepared to use tools of violence in the way of God because one believes that such a tool has been sanctioned by God, then, why not be equally prepared, if not more so, to use the tools of faith which have clearly been sanctioned by God in the Qur’an and in the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him)?
Why are fanatic, fundamentalist, extremist jihadists so intent on reducing the tools of Islam down to nothing but violence when such a reduction cannot be justified either by the full array of teachings of the Qur’an or by the traditions of the Prophet? These are individuals who have lost their faith in the tools of faith, and, yet, they are promoting themselves as the defenders of faith.
The tendency of people who have lost their faith in the tools of faith is to spiritually abuse others and to oppress them. People who have lost their faith in the tools of faith must resort to delusional systems of thought because they have lost contact with the only thing which is capable of putting them in touch with spiritual truth -- namely, real, authentic, sincere faith that God’s guidance concerning principles such as equitability and righteousness have a far greater capacity for transforming individuals and society than tools of violence and oppression could ever have.
Tools of violence are limited, stop-gap measures for extreme sets of circumstances which rarely exist. Tools of faith encompass an unlimited array of opportunities for pursuing principles of equitability and righteousness which are intended to provide the primary means through which one engages struggle within oneself, in relation to others (both believers and unbelievers), and with all of life.
The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) understood this truth (as did all Prophets). The Qur’an bears witness to this truth (as do all Books of revelation). Unfortunately, those who are inclined to making violence the solution to everything neither understand the foregoing truth, nor do they bear witness to it in their lives.
Those who have lost faith in the tools of faith and who advocate violence and oppression as the solution to all problems create delusional belief systems concerning the teachings of God and the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). The truth will not permit them to advocate what they are advocating in the way they are advocating it, and, as a result, the only recourse they have -- if they are not prepared, spiritually speaking, to acknowledge the truth of things -- is to create delusional belief systems which seek to justify what they are doing as being in accordance with the wishes of, and by permission of, God … neither of which is true.
Those who are in a state of dissociation (due to political, social, economic, international, historical, and/or personal trauma) are vulnerable to the delusional teachings of those who worship violence like an idol. The reason why those who are in a state of dissociation are vulnerable is because the psychic, emotional, psychological and spiritual pain of dissociation is very intense and eats away at the fabric of the soul.
For such a person, meaning, purpose, identity, motivation, and truth are very elusive, whereas, doubt, anxiety, fear, alienation, depression, hopelessness, helplessness, directionless, loss of identity, and de-personalization are all too real, prevalent, and intense. A person in such a condition of dissociation will grab onto almost anything if they are led to believe that what is being acquired will permit them to escape the pain of dissociation.
Terrorist leaders are individuals who understand the condition of dissociation and the kind of vulnerability to which that state opens people up. Terrorist leaders, and the theologians, imams, government leaders, and jurists who support them, are spiritually abusive individuals who exploit that vulnerability by (1) locating individuals who are in a state of dissociation, (2) initiating the latter individuals into a delusional framework which undermines whatever remnants of faith are present in the person who is in a dissociated state and, thereby, (3) inducing such a person to abandon the tools of faith and to pick up the tools of violence as a way of solving problems -- both personal and collective.
Terrorist ‘leaders’ -- whether of the state-sponsored, small group, or individual variety -- are very clever in the techniques used to manipulate and exploit people who are in a state of dissociation. For instance, such leaders often get individuals to sign contracts and/or make videos about their coming exploits and, by doing this, those leaders have a means of pushing the individual back into a dissociative state by labeling anyone who does not follow through on a terrorist act to be: cowardly, a traitor, an unbeliever, one who lacks faith in God, someone who has betrayed the community, or a person lacking in character
The foregoing technique has an unsettling resonance with something, unfortunately, which also happens in so-called democratic, free societies in relation to people who object to the use of violence and oppression as a means of solving problems (whether domestic or international in nature). People who advocate using the tools of faith rather than tools of violence to solve problems are often threatened with a barrage of accusations concerning their loyalty, patriotism, rationality, and/or commitment to democracy, and such labeling is intended to push people into the pain of dissociation and, thereby, either punish them for speaking out, or silence them through the specter of being pushed further toward the condition of dissociation.
In Muslim’s collection of hadith, one finds the following narration of Bibi A’isha:
“Allah's Apostle said, "If somebody innovates something
which is not in harmony with the principles of our religion,
that thing is rejected." (Volume 3, Book 49, Number 861)
To insist on using the tools of violence as the primary and best, if not only, way of dealing with the problems which face the Muslim community, is an innovation which is not in harmony with the principles of Deen -- when the latter is considered in its entirety and issues are not removed from their proper context. Consequently, in accordance with the teachings of both the Qur’an and the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) such an approach should be rejected.
The delusional teachings of extremist, fundamentalist jihadists gives expression to shirk -- that is, the associating of partners with God. This is so because, in reality, such individuals are inventing a religion of their own and they have declared themselves lords of such a religion and, as well, they not only consider themselves to be the ‘prophets’ of this new religion, but they consider the words which issue forth from their mouths to be the word of God. As the Qur’an indicates:
“Shall we tell you who will be the greatest losers in
their works? Those whose striving goes astray in the
present life while they think they are working good
deeds.” (18: 104)
The spiritual abusers who constitute the terrorist leaders, together with those vulnerable individuals whom become infected with the delusional teachings of those so-called ‘leaders’ concerning the nature of jihad and Islam, both pursue strivings of the foregoing sort. These are individuals who have forgotten, or who never knew, that the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is reported to have said:
“Shall I not inform you about a better act than fasting,
charity, and prayer? – making peace between one another.
Enmity and malice tear up heavenly rewards by the roots.”
When those who govern -- whether Muslim or non-Muslim -- do not observe the principles of equitability and righteousness (principles with which all spiritual and humanist traditions tend to be in agreement) and, as a result, oppress those whom they govern, then, people have the right to resist such oppression, injustice, and unrighteousness through whatever combination of the tools of faith that may, God willing, help the oppressed to overcome oppression, and in the process, serve the best interests of the oppressor as well. The purpose of such resistance is not to establish an Islamic state, nor to impose Shari’ah on the community, but, rather, to reinstate principles of equitability and righteousness as the proper tools of governance.
A state should be governed neither by secular nor religious principles. A state should be governed by those principles of equitability and righteousness which help create, God willing, a safe and protected environment through which people will have the opportunity, without being compelled in either a secular or a religious direction, to strive and struggle toward realizing one’s essential potential and identity.
Anyone who believes that the terrorist phenomenon is going to be defeated by waging a war on terrorism in which indiscriminate violence is used as the antidote to the indiscriminate violence of terrorism has just handed terrorists a major victory. Using indiscriminate violence and oppression to combat the oppression of terrorist violence does nothing but pour oil onto a raging fire, both spreading the fire and making it more intense.
Every violation of human rights, every curtailment of freedom, every subterfuge concerning constitutional principles, every show of force which results in “collateral damage”, every imprisonment of innocent people, every expression of contempt for the international community, every penny which is spent benefiting government contractors more than it does people who are being oppressed, every form of oppression which is brought about by occupying forces, every opportunity for real democracy which is undermined by the imposition of sham democracy, every denial of the real causes which help push people into dissociative conditions -- all of the foregoing mistakes of the “war on terrorism” can be woven into the fabric of the delusional paradigm of terrorists in the most problematic way. More specifically, it is not the delusion which can be shown to be completely false that constitutes the most difficult problem facing those who wish to try to realistically address the issue of terrorism … rather, one of the biggest obstacles facing the search for peace involves those terrorist-oriented delusional systems which are laced with actual exemplars of inhumanity, cruelty, and oppression that have been committed by the other side and, thereby, lend a ring of truth and authenticity to the other false claims by the propagandists of terrorism (whether in the form of theologians, jurists, government leaders, self-styled revolutionaries, or imams).
Every time indiscriminate violence and oppression are used in an attempt to quell the tide of terrorism, one has difficulty differentiating the so-called ‘good’ (because it comes from us not them) forms of terrorism from those ‘evil’ forms of such activity which are perpetrated by those whom we condemn -- and, in truth, both varieties of terrorism and oppression are equally reprehensible. Once one resorts to using the same tools of violence as extremist, fundamentalist jihadists, then, the tools of faith which are the only tools that, God willing, have the chance to solve the problems which underlie terrorism, become lost in the shuffle and with this loss, so, too, are opportunities lost for making real, lasting progress with respect to the many problems and forces which play key roles in the etiology of the dissociative states that render people vulnerable to the delusional systems of the proponents of terrorism.
Terrorism (whether state sponsored or that of a small group or set of terrorist cells) is an expression of spiritual abuse. The spiritual abuse is perpetrated through the intention of so-called ‘leaders’ to exploit and manipulate someone who is in a state of dissociation and to assist the latter out of that condition through a delusional system which undermines faith and is intended to induce people to replace the tools of faith with tools of violence.
As such, the intention of terrorist leaders is very similar to the intention of spiritual charlatans. Each seeks to undermine faith through initiating vulnerable people into a delusional perspective that helps lower the threshold against committing acts (violent or otherwise … with respect to one's self or in relation to others) that are contrary to the actual requirements of spiritual etiquette.
There are legitimate forms of jihad and there are illegitimate forms of jihad. The legitimate forms of jihad have nothing to do with indiscriminate violence and, with the exception of very special and limited circumstances, have nothing to do with violence. Rather, all forms of legitimate jihad -- whether in the form of speaking the truth in the face of tyranny, or the performance of a Hajj which is accepted by Allah, or struggling and striving against the problematic urgings of the desires and motivations of the nafs (the seat of rebellion against Divinity in a human being) -- have to do with refining moral character through sacrifice, and not with sacrificing moral character (as well as the concomitant tools of faith which are associated with such character) through committing violence against others.
There are legitimate forms of mysticism, and there are illegitimate forms of mysticism. The legitimate forms of mysticism require the assistance of someone who is not a spiritual charlatan, just as the pursuit of authentic jihad (which only very rarely requires armed conflict and when this is truly necessary must be pursued within strict guidelines) requires assistance from those who are well ensconced in the tools of faith, rather than the tools of violence.
--------------
To further pursue ideas related to the problems and issues surrounding the process of making a constitution which is built around principles of equitability and righteousness, please link to O Canada: Whose Land, Whose Dream?)
Anab Whitehouse
“True believers are only those who have faith in Allah and
the Messenger of Allah and have left doubt behind, and who
strive hard in Allah’s cause with their possessions and
their lives. They are the ones who are sincere.” (49: 15).
These terrorist leaders use verses such as the foregoing to manipulate those who are already vulnerable to dissociative states brought about a variety of political, economic, social, physical, and spiritual trauma and push the latter further into dissociation. Such so-called leaders -- who, in reality, are nothing but spiritual abusers of others -- argue that if anyone has doubts about the violence which is being advocated, or if they are not willing to kill themselves while striking out at, and slaying, the enemies (including women and children) of Allah, then, such individuals are not true believers, and they are not sincere, and they have no faith in Allah and the Messenger.
Unfortunately, people who already are in a state of dissociation due to other circumstances in their life usually do not have a lot of emotional, intellectual, and spiritual tools to counter arguments like the foregoing. Such people do not want to be pulled further into the pain of dissociation that is encompassed by such charges, and, consequently, it is often easier for them to comply with the manipulation of spiritual charlatans who are inclined to violence than to have to try to ward off questions about their alleged lack of faith and sincerity in relation to Allah and the Messenger.
Similar things could be said about individuals in the U.S. who, out of trauma concerning the destruction of the World Trade Towers, do not wish to be pulled or pushed further into dissociation by having, as well, to defend against the charges of those among their fellow Americans who claim that those who are not willing to join in and kill whomever (including women, children, the elderly, and non-combatants) is indicated by government leaders with respect to the Twin Tower tragedy, are not true patriots or are traitors to democracy, or are not lovers and defenders of freedom. Like their counterparts among Muslims elsewhere in the world, there are many people in the U.S. who do not have the emotional, intellectual, and spiritual tools which are necessary to resist such attempts to manipulate those who are in a state of dissociation and, as a result, are vulnerable to becoming victims of the spiritual abuse which is being perpetrated by government “leaders”. After all, Jesus (peace be upon him) never killed anyone, and he did not advocate the killing of anyone, but this little fact of inconvenience does not seem to deter those who consider themselves Christians -- which, supposedly, means those who follow the teachings of Jesus (peace be upon him), the Christ -- from being willing to commit acts of violence or terrorism … neither of which would have met with the approval of Jesus (peace be upon him).
There was, and is, another stratagem adopted by many fundamentalist, and fanatically oriented jihadists . This includes: (1) the kharijis, a sect which arose during the Caliphacy of Hazrat ‘Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) -- which ended in 661 A.D. -- and who (i.e., the kharijis) considered all Muslims who did not accept their interpretation of Islam to be infidels who should be killed and who, as well, developed the idea of a continuous armed conflict against all people who disagreed with them; (2) Shiekh ul-Islaam Taqi-ud-Deen Ahmad ibn Taymiyyah (1268-1328) who wrote extensively about jihad and who glorified the idea of jihad as being superior to Islamic obligations of fasting, the hajj (greater pilgrimage) and the umrah (lesser pilgrimage); (3) Muhammad al-Wahhab (1703 – 1792), founder of the radical, puritanical, and dogmatic theology which, today, is known as Wahhabism and which calls for a return to medieval Islam as the only solution to the problems facing the Muslim community); (4) Rashid Rida (1865-1935), who founded the salafiyyah movement which has the goal of seeking to bring about a return among Muslims to what was claimed to be the pure Islam of the pious forbearers (the salaf) of early days; (5) Hassan al-Banna (1906 – 1949), founder of the Islamic Brotherhood in Egypt which rejected all western approaches to government and advocated violence to establish governments that would rule according to Shari’ah; (6) Sayyid Qutb (1906-1956), who expanded upon the teachings of Hassan al-Banna and called for, among other things, the assassination of any government leaders who were considered to be standing in the way of a return to Islamic rule ; (7) Muhammad Abdus Salam Faraj (1952 – 1982), implicated in the assassination of Anwar Sadat and author of the booklet, Al-Faridah al-Gha’ibah (The Neglected Duty), which sought to argue that all problems facing Muslims were due to a failure of the Muslim world to consider jihad -- in the sense of armed, violent conflict -- to be a mandatory duty of Islam for every Muslim in relation to all non-Muslims and anyone who was considered to be ‘insufficiently Muslim’; (8) Abdullah Azzam (1941-1989), a Palestinian whose most well-known works – In Defense of Muslim Lands, and Join the Caravan -- sought to make jihad an armed, global tool of violence and after he was assassinated in 1989, the group which he founded, Makhtab al Khadimat, was taken over by bin Laden; and, (9) Shiekh Omar Abdul Rahman, who is now serving time in a U.S. prison for his part in the pre-9-11 bombing of the World Trade Center.
The stratagem being referred to in the opening sentence of the previous paragraph concerns the claim that Allah demands the establishment of an Islamic state which will rigorously and meticulously apply the Shari’ah to all facets of the lives of people living in such a state and require that all people within the state observe Islam. This idea is directly contradicted by the aforementioned Quranic verse (2: 256) which indicates that there can be no compulsion in matters of Deen (that is, the sphere of faith-oriented activities).
However, if one is not satisfied that the foregoing limitation which is being placed on the relation between the state and its citizens is authentic, then, consider the following verses from the Qur’an:
“Whatever benefit comes to you (O man), it is from Allah,
and whatever misfortune befalls you it is from your own
self; and We have sent you (O Prophet) to mankind as an
apostle; and Allah is sufficient as a witness.
“Whoever obeys the Apostle, he indeed obeys Allah; and
whosoever turns back, then, We have not sent you as a
keeper over them.” (4: 79-80)
Or:
"Say (O Muhammad): "This is the truth from your Lord,”
then, whoever wills let him believe, and whoever wills
let him disbelieve.” (Qur’an, 18: 29)
And, again:
“You shall remind; you are entrusted to remind. You have
no power over them." (88: 21-22)
And, finally:
"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)
In the foregoing Quranic verses, the Prophet is being told that neither is it his responsibility to be an enforcer with respect to whether, or not, people turn back from Deen, nor does the Prophet have any power over such individuals. The Prophet also is being informed that each person is responsible for his or her own choices concerning matters of Deen, and if a person chooses to disbelieve, then, leave that individual free to do so, but those who obey the Prophet will be rightly guided.
The Prophet is reported to have encouraged people to repent of their sins to God rather than report them to him. However, if a Muslim did insist on confessing sins to him -- a sin for which a penalty, of some kind, was associated -- then, as a matter of acting in accordance with Divine guidance concerning applying the penalty which God had indicated for such actions (and not as a result of any requirement to compel people in matters of Deen) -- a judgment would be made, and, where indicated, a punishment would be enacted.
Once, during the time when Hazrat ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) was Caliph, he was walking about the city and was accompanied by someone. When the two passed a walled compound behind which could be heard a great deal of revelry, the person walking with the Caliph turned to him and in a manner which suggested that sinful things were happening on the other side of the wall, he asked if Hazrat ‘Umar knew what was going on in that compound. Hazrat ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) is reported to have said: “It is not my task to sniff out the sins of other people.”
The task of a Muslim ruler is neither to establish an Islamic state nor to enforce Shari’ah in the sense of compelling people to observe Deen in a particular way. The task of a Muslim ruler is to act with equitability and righteousness. The task of a Muslim leader is not to impose Shari’ah on others (‘there can be no compulsion in matters of Deen’ – Qur’an 2: 256) but to impose the real Shari’ah on himself or herself so that she or he will be able to act with equitability and righteousness and not oppress others.
When the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), by the Grace of Allah, defeated the Meccans and their allies for the final time, he forgave them, placed one of the local people in charge, and returned to Medina. He did not charge this person with the task of establishing an Islamic state.
In Volume 4, Book 53, Number 387 of Muslim, Abu Humaid As-Saidi narrates that:
“We accompanied the Prophet in the Ghazwa of Tabuk
and the king of 'Aila presented a white mule and a
cloak as a gift to the Prophet. And the Prophet wrote
to him a peace treaty allowing him to keep authority
over his country.”
The King of ‘Aila was not charged with the task of establishing an Islamic state. This same sort of arrangement prevailed, as well, in other instances where the Prophet signed peace treaties. In other words, those with whom the Prophet negotiated peace treaties were not charged with the task of establishing an Islamic state but were only required to observe the conditions of the peace treaty.
Prior to the time when the Prophet passed away, he had not instructed people to establish an Islamic state. In fact, no particular form of government was indicated, but whoever governed was expected to govern in accordance with principles of equitability and righteousness.
In the Qur’an one finds the following verses concerning the issue of equitability:
“O you who believe, equivalence is the law decreed for
you when dealing with murder - the free for the free, the
slave for the slave, the female for the female. If one is
pardoned by the victim's kin, an appreciative response is
in order, and an equitable compensation shall be paid. This
is an alleviation from your Lord and mercy. Anyone who
transgresses beyond this incurs a painful retribution.”
(2:178)
“O you who believe, you shall be absolutely equitable, and
observe Allah, when you serve as witnesses, even against
yourselves, or your parents, or your relatives. Whether
the accused is rich or poor, Allah takes care of both.
Therefore, do not be biased by your personal wishes. If
you deviate or disregard (this commandment), then Allah
is fully aware of everything you do.” (4:135)
“During the Sacred Months, aggression may be met by an
equivalent response. If they attack you, you may retaliate
by inflicting an equitable retribution. You shall observe
Allah and know that Allah is with the righteous.” (2:194)
“O ye who believe. Be steadfast witnesses for Allah in
equity and let not hatred of any people seduce you so
that you do not deal justly (with them). Deal justly,
that is nearer to your duty.” (5: 8)
“They are upholders of lies, and eaters of illicit
earnings. If they come to you to judge among them, you
may judge among them, or you may disregard them. If you
choose to disregard them, they cannot harm you in the
least. But if you judge among them, you shall judge
equitably. Allah loves those who are equitable.” (5:42)
“Allah does not enjoin you from befriending those who
do not fight you because of religion, and do not evict
you from your homes. You may befriend them and be
equitable towards them. Allah loves the equitable.” (60:8)
Elsewhere in the Qur’an believers are warned to be equitable in matters of commercial transactions, the conducting of loans, as well as in the treatment of orphans, adopted children, spouses, and slaves (and as with many other issues such as consumption of alcohol and the rights of women, the trend of reformation in the Qur’an was toward encouraging Muslims to free slaves, not keep them or take them, but if slaves were maintained, then, these individuals had the right to be fed, clothed, and treated in the same way as other members of the family). Equitability is a re-current theme throughout the Qur’an.
Righteousness is also a theme which is reiterated and emphasized throughout the Qur’an. Being pious, just, grateful, patient, kind, charitable, compassionate, honest, sincere, loving, tolerant, forgiving, repentant, humble, modest, and one who does not transgress due boundaries, are qualities which are advocated throughout the Qur’an.
The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is reported to have said:
“Muslims are brothers and sisters in Deen, and they must not
oppress one another, nor abandon assisting each other, nor
hold one another in contempt. The seat of righteousness is
the heart; therefore, that heart which is righteous does
not hold a Muslim in contempt.”
A Muslim is anyone who submits to God, and who believes in the Last Day, and who tries to act in accordance with the qualities of righteousness, and who seeks to abide by the Deen of God. One should not be too quick to jump to conclusions about who is, and who is not, a Muslim … and, therefore, one should not be too quick to jump to conclusions concerning whom one must not oppress, nor whom one should avoid abandoning in assistance, nor whom one should treat with righteousness.
The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is reported to have said:
“I have been given all the Names and have been sent
to perfect good character.”
Principles of equitability and righteousness are at the heart of good character. If one has lost confidence in the capacity of the tools of faith -- such as equitability and righteousness -- to assist others and to help one refrain from oppressing them, and if one believes that violent, armed conflict is the only solution to problems, one fails to understand that is not possible to violently impose good character on others and, therefore, the purpose for which fundamentalist, extremist jihadists claim to be fighting -- the establishment of Islam -- will always be doomed to failure. Good character can only arise through struggle within oneself, not through imposition from without.
There are some advocates of violent, armed conflict -- such as Muhammad 'Abd al-Salam Faraj (author of the Neglected Duty) -- who believe that it is not necessary to make any plans for what should be done after the time of jihad (in the sense of armed conflict), but, rather, one should just pursue jihad and, then, God will provide what is needed later on. How foolish, ill-considered, and illogical!
If one is prepared to trust in God to look after things following jihad -- in the sense of armed conflict -- then, why not trust in God to look after things prior to, if not independently of, armed conflict? If one is prepared to use tools of violence in the way of God because one believes that such a tool has been sanctioned by God, then, why not be equally prepared, if not more so, to use the tools of faith which have clearly been sanctioned by God in the Qur’an and in the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him)?
Why are fanatic, fundamentalist, extremist jihadists so intent on reducing the tools of Islam down to nothing but violence when such a reduction cannot be justified either by the full array of teachings of the Qur’an or by the traditions of the Prophet? These are individuals who have lost their faith in the tools of faith, and, yet, they are promoting themselves as the defenders of faith.
The tendency of people who have lost their faith in the tools of faith is to spiritually abuse others and to oppress them. People who have lost their faith in the tools of faith must resort to delusional systems of thought because they have lost contact with the only thing which is capable of putting them in touch with spiritual truth -- namely, real, authentic, sincere faith that God’s guidance concerning principles such as equitability and righteousness have a far greater capacity for transforming individuals and society than tools of violence and oppression could ever have.
Tools of violence are limited, stop-gap measures for extreme sets of circumstances which rarely exist. Tools of faith encompass an unlimited array of opportunities for pursuing principles of equitability and righteousness which are intended to provide the primary means through which one engages struggle within oneself, in relation to others (both believers and unbelievers), and with all of life.
The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) understood this truth (as did all Prophets). The Qur’an bears witness to this truth (as do all Books of revelation). Unfortunately, those who are inclined to making violence the solution to everything neither understand the foregoing truth, nor do they bear witness to it in their lives.
Those who have lost faith in the tools of faith and who advocate violence and oppression as the solution to all problems create delusional belief systems concerning the teachings of God and the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). The truth will not permit them to advocate what they are advocating in the way they are advocating it, and, as a result, the only recourse they have -- if they are not prepared, spiritually speaking, to acknowledge the truth of things -- is to create delusional belief systems which seek to justify what they are doing as being in accordance with the wishes of, and by permission of, God … neither of which is true.
Those who are in a state of dissociation (due to political, social, economic, international, historical, and/or personal trauma) are vulnerable to the delusional teachings of those who worship violence like an idol. The reason why those who are in a state of dissociation are vulnerable is because the psychic, emotional, psychological and spiritual pain of dissociation is very intense and eats away at the fabric of the soul.
For such a person, meaning, purpose, identity, motivation, and truth are very elusive, whereas, doubt, anxiety, fear, alienation, depression, hopelessness, helplessness, directionless, loss of identity, and de-personalization are all too real, prevalent, and intense. A person in such a condition of dissociation will grab onto almost anything if they are led to believe that what is being acquired will permit them to escape the pain of dissociation.
Terrorist leaders are individuals who understand the condition of dissociation and the kind of vulnerability to which that state opens people up. Terrorist leaders, and the theologians, imams, government leaders, and jurists who support them, are spiritually abusive individuals who exploit that vulnerability by (1) locating individuals who are in a state of dissociation, (2) initiating the latter individuals into a delusional framework which undermines whatever remnants of faith are present in the person who is in a dissociated state and, thereby, (3) inducing such a person to abandon the tools of faith and to pick up the tools of violence as a way of solving problems -- both personal and collective.
Terrorist ‘leaders’ -- whether of the state-sponsored, small group, or individual variety -- are very clever in the techniques used to manipulate and exploit people who are in a state of dissociation. For instance, such leaders often get individuals to sign contracts and/or make videos about their coming exploits and, by doing this, those leaders have a means of pushing the individual back into a dissociative state by labeling anyone who does not follow through on a terrorist act to be: cowardly, a traitor, an unbeliever, one who lacks faith in God, someone who has betrayed the community, or a person lacking in character
The foregoing technique has an unsettling resonance with something, unfortunately, which also happens in so-called democratic, free societies in relation to people who object to the use of violence and oppression as a means of solving problems (whether domestic or international in nature). People who advocate using the tools of faith rather than tools of violence to solve problems are often threatened with a barrage of accusations concerning their loyalty, patriotism, rationality, and/or commitment to democracy, and such labeling is intended to push people into the pain of dissociation and, thereby, either punish them for speaking out, or silence them through the specter of being pushed further toward the condition of dissociation.
In Muslim’s collection of hadith, one finds the following narration of Bibi A’isha:
“Allah's Apostle said, "If somebody innovates something
which is not in harmony with the principles of our religion,
that thing is rejected." (Volume 3, Book 49, Number 861)
To insist on using the tools of violence as the primary and best, if not only, way of dealing with the problems which face the Muslim community, is an innovation which is not in harmony with the principles of Deen -- when the latter is considered in its entirety and issues are not removed from their proper context. Consequently, in accordance with the teachings of both the Qur’an and the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) such an approach should be rejected.
The delusional teachings of extremist, fundamentalist jihadists gives expression to shirk -- that is, the associating of partners with God. This is so because, in reality, such individuals are inventing a religion of their own and they have declared themselves lords of such a religion and, as well, they not only consider themselves to be the ‘prophets’ of this new religion, but they consider the words which issue forth from their mouths to be the word of God. As the Qur’an indicates:
“Shall we tell you who will be the greatest losers in
their works? Those whose striving goes astray in the
present life while they think they are working good
deeds.” (18: 104)
The spiritual abusers who constitute the terrorist leaders, together with those vulnerable individuals whom become infected with the delusional teachings of those so-called ‘leaders’ concerning the nature of jihad and Islam, both pursue strivings of the foregoing sort. These are individuals who have forgotten, or who never knew, that the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is reported to have said:
“Shall I not inform you about a better act than fasting,
charity, and prayer? – making peace between one another.
Enmity and malice tear up heavenly rewards by the roots.”
When those who govern -- whether Muslim or non-Muslim -- do not observe the principles of equitability and righteousness (principles with which all spiritual and humanist traditions tend to be in agreement) and, as a result, oppress those whom they govern, then, people have the right to resist such oppression, injustice, and unrighteousness through whatever combination of the tools of faith that may, God willing, help the oppressed to overcome oppression, and in the process, serve the best interests of the oppressor as well. The purpose of such resistance is not to establish an Islamic state, nor to impose Shari’ah on the community, but, rather, to reinstate principles of equitability and righteousness as the proper tools of governance.
A state should be governed neither by secular nor religious principles. A state should be governed by those principles of equitability and righteousness which help create, God willing, a safe and protected environment through which people will have the opportunity, without being compelled in either a secular or a religious direction, to strive and struggle toward realizing one’s essential potential and identity.
Anyone who believes that the terrorist phenomenon is going to be defeated by waging a war on terrorism in which indiscriminate violence is used as the antidote to the indiscriminate violence of terrorism has just handed terrorists a major victory. Using indiscriminate violence and oppression to combat the oppression of terrorist violence does nothing but pour oil onto a raging fire, both spreading the fire and making it more intense.
Every violation of human rights, every curtailment of freedom, every subterfuge concerning constitutional principles, every show of force which results in “collateral damage”, every imprisonment of innocent people, every expression of contempt for the international community, every penny which is spent benefiting government contractors more than it does people who are being oppressed, every form of oppression which is brought about by occupying forces, every opportunity for real democracy which is undermined by the imposition of sham democracy, every denial of the real causes which help push people into dissociative conditions -- all of the foregoing mistakes of the “war on terrorism” can be woven into the fabric of the delusional paradigm of terrorists in the most problematic way. More specifically, it is not the delusion which can be shown to be completely false that constitutes the most difficult problem facing those who wish to try to realistically address the issue of terrorism … rather, one of the biggest obstacles facing the search for peace involves those terrorist-oriented delusional systems which are laced with actual exemplars of inhumanity, cruelty, and oppression that have been committed by the other side and, thereby, lend a ring of truth and authenticity to the other false claims by the propagandists of terrorism (whether in the form of theologians, jurists, government leaders, self-styled revolutionaries, or imams).
Every time indiscriminate violence and oppression are used in an attempt to quell the tide of terrorism, one has difficulty differentiating the so-called ‘good’ (because it comes from us not them) forms of terrorism from those ‘evil’ forms of such activity which are perpetrated by those whom we condemn -- and, in truth, both varieties of terrorism and oppression are equally reprehensible. Once one resorts to using the same tools of violence as extremist, fundamentalist jihadists, then, the tools of faith which are the only tools that, God willing, have the chance to solve the problems which underlie terrorism, become lost in the shuffle and with this loss, so, too, are opportunities lost for making real, lasting progress with respect to the many problems and forces which play key roles in the etiology of the dissociative states that render people vulnerable to the delusional systems of the proponents of terrorism.
Terrorism (whether state sponsored or that of a small group or set of terrorist cells) is an expression of spiritual abuse. The spiritual abuse is perpetrated through the intention of so-called ‘leaders’ to exploit and manipulate someone who is in a state of dissociation and to assist the latter out of that condition through a delusional system which undermines faith and is intended to induce people to replace the tools of faith with tools of violence.
As such, the intention of terrorist leaders is very similar to the intention of spiritual charlatans. Each seeks to undermine faith through initiating vulnerable people into a delusional perspective that helps lower the threshold against committing acts (violent or otherwise … with respect to one's self or in relation to others) that are contrary to the actual requirements of spiritual etiquette.
There are legitimate forms of jihad and there are illegitimate forms of jihad. The legitimate forms of jihad have nothing to do with indiscriminate violence and, with the exception of very special and limited circumstances, have nothing to do with violence. Rather, all forms of legitimate jihad -- whether in the form of speaking the truth in the face of tyranny, or the performance of a Hajj which is accepted by Allah, or struggling and striving against the problematic urgings of the desires and motivations of the nafs (the seat of rebellion against Divinity in a human being) -- have to do with refining moral character through sacrifice, and not with sacrificing moral character (as well as the concomitant tools of faith which are associated with such character) through committing violence against others.
There are legitimate forms of mysticism, and there are illegitimate forms of mysticism. The legitimate forms of mysticism require the assistance of someone who is not a spiritual charlatan, just as the pursuit of authentic jihad (which only very rarely requires armed conflict and when this is truly necessary must be pursued within strict guidelines) requires assistance from those who are well ensconced in the tools of faith, rather than the tools of violence.
--------------
To further pursue ideas related to the problems and issues surrounding the process of making a constitution which is built around principles of equitability and righteousness, please link to O Canada: Whose Land, Whose Dream?)
Anab Whitehouse
Wednesday, August 17, 2005
TERRORISM, DISSOCIATION, AND SPIRITUAL ABUSE Part 3 of 4
The creation of categories such as Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb is exploited by radical, violence-prone extremist leaders in a number of ways. For instance, once one has constructed a category of people who are described as being beyond the pale of Islam (i.e., Dar al-Harb), then, it becomes a quick hop, skip and a jump to begin referring to everyone in such a category as infidels, unbelievers, apostates, idol-worshipers, and people of jahili [that is, those who supposedly exemplify the qualities of spiritual ignorance -- jahiliyyah -- which existed in Arabia prior to the advent of the Prophetic mission of Muhammad (peace be upon him)].
For example, consider the following verse of the Qur’an:
“You shall fight back against those who do not believe in Allah,
nor in the Last Day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His
messenger have prohibited, nor do they abide by the religion
of truth -- among those who received the scripture -- until
they pay the due tax, willingly or unwillingly.” (9: 29)
Some individuals attempt to use the foregoing as justification for waging war against Christians and Jews because they claim that the latter groups do not “abide by the religion of truth” They claim that this verse gives Muslims permission to fight and wage war against such groups.
Such an understanding is problematic in a number of ways. First of all, individuals who argue in this manner cannot convincingly demonstrate -- via the complete set of teachings given expression through the Qur’an and Hadith … not just partial, distorted, and selectively edited versions of these texts -- that Allah intends for the foregoing verse to apply for all times and to all Muslims, rather than to just the Prophet and the circumstances of that period of history.
There appears to be a general belief among many Muslims that because the Qur’an is a book of Divine guidance, then, this means that whatever occurs, or is said, in relation to the Prophet is applicable to everyone else. However, the fact of the matter is there are differences between the Prophet and other Muslims.
For more than thirteen years -- a time encompassing the period of time in Mecca and the first several years after hijra, or migration, from Mecca to Yathrib (later Medina) -- God did not permit Muslims to defend themselves through armed conflict. This was the case despite the many forms of abuse -- including a two year period of siege in which the Prophet, members of his family, and followers were nearly starved to death -- which were directed against Muslims, in general, and the Prophet, in particular.
At a certain juncture following hijra and prior to the Battle of Badr, permission came for the Prophet to organize the defense of Muslims against aggression. Over the next five or six years, there were a number of armed battles which took place, and, yet, through all these conflicts, no more than 250 non-Muslims were killed and an even smaller number of Muslims lost their lives.
Following the conquest of Mecca by Muslims, there were a number of minor conflicts with several regions near Mecca and Medina, but these were handled largely through the tactic of siege rather than armed battles. Toward the last few years of the Prophet’s life, there was peace in the land.
Why do modern-day, fanatical, fundamentalist extremist jihadists automatically assume that the part of the Prophet’s life which should be used as a model for conduct is armed conflict rather than the non-violent approach -- despite substantial provocation -- which characterized the vast majority of the Prophet’s life? Why do these modern-day jihadists automatically assume that the Divine permission which was given to the Prophet with respect to the waging of war under certain circumstances necessarily accrues to all ensuing generations of Muslims? Why do modern-day jihadists only treat those portions of the Qur’an which mention armed conflict (and there are only about 164 verses, out of some 6,000, or so, total verses in the Qur’an which deal with these matters) in terms of the permissions to fight which is given rather than the many prohibitions which place due limits on such permission, and rather than on the many other non-violent spiritual lessons which are woven into the Quranic text surrounding, as well as within, such verses? Why do modern-day jihadists accrue to themselves the same spiritual authority and stature of the Prophet and, therefore, arrogantly presume that God necessarily will extend to them the same permissions concerning armed conflict that was accorded to the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) or that the Prophet approves of what they are doing?
Secondly, in relation to the Quranic verse cited toward the beginning of this post, Christians and Jews do believe in God as well as the Last Day, and they prohibit many, if not most, of the same things which Allah and the Prophet prohibit -- such as: killing, stealing, dishonesty, corruption, injustice, adultery, not respecting one’s parents, and so on. Even the dietary prohibitions given through the Qur’an are observed by Jewish people and should be observed by Christians because such prohibitions are in the Old Testament which, supposedly, is accepted by Christians as the Word of God and, and, yet, many Christians have been spiritually misled by their so-called church leaders into supposing that such dietary permissions and prohibitions do not apply to them.
Thirdly, the foregoing Quranic verse refers to those who do not abide by the “religion of truth among those who received the scripture”. This raises a variety of questions.
For instance, with respect to the identity of those individuals who are alluded to as those who do not abide by the religion of truth, there is some ambiguity -- at least on the surface of the Quranic text -- both with respect to who they are and the precise way in which such people are not abiding by that ‘religion of truth’. In addition, one wonders who, beside Allah and the Prophet, is qualified to make such a judgment?
Whose conception of the “religion of truth” is to serve as the standard against which all other understandings are to be measured? -- that of the Wahhabis? that of the philosophers? that of the fundamentalist theologians? that of jurists? that of the jihadists who treat everyone as an apostate and infidel except those who believe and act as they do? What proofs can be offered that such interpretations are acceptable to God? Why should only the opinions of theologians and jurists be considered in such matters, and why doesn’t the quality of such theological and juridical opinions seem to matter as much as the fact that these individuals are willing to give their blessings to violence and armed conflict against anyone who disagrees with them?
Moreover, to what extent must someone not abide by the religion of truth before one can wage war against them? After all, none of us is perfect. We all make mistakes for which we are in need of God’s forgiveness, if not, as well, the forgiveness of our fellow human beings.
Consequently, to one extent or another, there are few, if any, of us who do not, in one way or another, fail to abide by the religion of truth. If this were not so, we would not be encouraged to seek God’s forgiveness. If this were not so, the Qur’an would not have indicated:
“If Allah were to take humankind to task for their wrong-doing,
God would not leave on Earth a living creature, but God reprieves
human beings until an appointed time. (16: 61)
Is one to assume that in the earlier Quranic verse (i.e., 9: 29), God is instructing human beings to make constant war on one another no matter how trifling the manner may be in which someone does not abide by the religion of truth and despite the fact that, notwithstanding the mistakes which someone may make, that, nonetheless, such people still do believe in God, the Last Day, and the things which have been prohibited by God and the Messenger? And, just how does God’s directive that there is to be no compulsion in matters of Deen fit into the alleged directive that Muslims are supposed to fight anyone who does not abide by the religion of truth?
God is not saying things in a contradictory way. Human beings -- such as would-be terrorist leaders -- are imposing contradictions upon the sacred texts by failing to take into consideration the entire body of teachings and how those teachings can modulate one another in ways which give human beings a lot more degrees of freedom concerning the manner in which one abides by ‘the religion of truth’ than are fanatical, fundamentalist, violence-prone, extremist jihadists who are trying to induce people to adopt a delusional framework through spiritually abusive techniques of misrepresenting the teachings of the Qur’an and the Prophet.
In addition to the foregoing considerations, the Quranic verse (9: 29) noted previously, indicates there is still a remedy which permits Muslims to avoid having to fight back even if those other individuals do not believe in God, nor the Last Day, nor prohibit what God and the Prophet forbid, nor abide by the ‘religion of truth’ -- even if they are among the people who have been given scripture. More specifically, if those who satisfy the foregoing conditions pay Jizya (a tax on non-Muslims), then, not only is no fighting required, but the paying of the Jizya tax is the end of the matter and there are no further requirements which need to be imposed on such people with respect to matters of belief or abiding by the ‘religion of truth’.
In the time of the Prophet, there was a legitimate source of authority through which reasonable judgments about such matters could be made. Furthermore, the requirement for paying Jizya extended only to those who lived within territory controlled by that legitimate source of authority. In other words, Jizya was not a tax which could be levied on just anyone by just anyone.
For hundreds of years, now, there are serious questions which can, and should, be raised about whether most of the people who currently govern in the Muslims world -- or who, in the past, have governed in the Muslim world -- constitute legitimate sources of authority. In fact the very issue of what it means for someone to be said to possess a legitimate source of authority (and on what grounds and in whose opinion) or whether such individuals are spiritually competent to make judgments about various social and individual matters (such as Jizya or collecting it) -- all of these matters are still very much unsettled within the Muslim world. Consequently, there also are serious questions which need to be asked today about who, if anyone, in the Muslims world has the legitimate, God-given spiritual authority to even ask for Divine permission to fight back against those who do not believe in God, nor the Last Day, nor prohibit what God and the Messenger prohibit or who do not abide by ‘the religion of truth’ -- and such matters are quite apart from the issue of defending oneself, or one’s family, or one’s community against unjust, unprovoked aggression.
Just because someone issues a fatwa (theological decree concerning legal issues), or just because someone speaks Arabic, or just because someone has attended this or that madrassa (school), or just because some people recognize someone as a spiritual authority, or just because someone has certain degrees or a certain educational pedigree – none of this necessarily means anything in and of itself. Unfortunately, these days, there are a lot of irresponsible, spiritually ignorant, abusive ‘leaders’ (among both alleged Sufis, as well as their exoteric namesakes) who call themselves shaykh or sheik who seem to believe that they are Divinely qualified to tell other people how to live their lives.
There are many individuals who are claiming that all manner of spiritual permissions have been given to them. However, claiming this, and actually being given such permission, are not necessarily the same thing -- especially when there are many questions which those people need to answer with respect to the fact that they seem more interested in inventing their own religion than following the full guidance given by God through the Qur’an and through the quality of character of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).
Above and beyond the many questions which have been raised in the foregoing discussion, there is the question of why anyone would prefer the tools of violence over the tools of faith? Why, in other words, should fighting back -- even when permission is given -- always have to be understood to mean violent, armed conflict? Why can’t fighting back mean employing the tools of faith? Wasn’t the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) reported to have said: “If someone treats you with nafs (the lower soul), then, treat them with ruh (spirit)?”
Yes, there are times when fighting back, in the sense of armed conflict, may be unavoidable. But, surely, discretion is the better part of valor.
The Qur’an indicates that “oppression is worse than murder” (2: 217). Yet, many of those who claim to be conducting jihad, in the sense of armed conflict, against the infidels are, themselves, guilty of much oppression, including against themselves, in relation to matters of truth.
In Volume 3, Book 43, Number 624, one finds the following hadith which is narrated by Anas:
Allah's Apostle said, "Help your brother, whether he
is an oppressor or he is an oppressed one. People
asked, "O Allah's Apostle! It is all right to help
him if he is oppressed, but how should we help him
if he is an oppressor?" The Prophet said, "By
preventing him from oppressing others."
Almost all those who have committed themselves to armed conflict against those whom they consider to be infidels, apostates, unbelievers, jihilist are guilty of oppressing others because they indiscriminately use tools of violence and oppressive compulsion. In the process, many innocent lives are destroyed.
Those who are inclined toward violence seem bereft of the tools of faith which, God willing, might open up the possibility of peaceful means for resolving difficulties. Unfortunately, most of these violence-prone individuals appear to have lost faith in the tools of faith -- the very tools for which they claim to be fighting and which they claim people are not practicing and the absence of which they cite as the cause of all the problems which face the Muslim community.
Fanatical, extremist, fundamentalist jihadists need to be restrained from oppressing others. However, using violence to restrain these individuals is neither, necessarily, the only option or the best option. Preferably, such individuals need to be shown that what they believe and what they are being taught and what they are teaching and what they are trying to bring about is delusional in character and an expression of spiritual abuse (which is always oppressive), and as such, is not, at all, an accurate reflection of God’s guidance in the Qur’an or the example provided by the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).
Once an individual jettisons considerations of discernment in such matters -- as extremists frequently are intent on doing -- then, one will begin to see certain verses of the Qur’an, along with various hadiths selectively and inappropriately used in conjunction with the members of such artificially constructed groups.
For example, verses such as:
"And say not of those who are killed in the Way of
Allah, "They are dead," Nay, they are living, but
you perceive (it) not." (2: 154)
or,
"And if you are killed or die in the Way of Allah,
forgiveness and mercy from Allah are far better than
all that they amass (of worldly wealths, etc.)."
(3:157)
or,
"Think not of those who are killed in the Way of
Allah as dead, Nay they are alive, with their Lord,
and they have provision. They rejoice in what Allah
has bestowed upon them of His Bounty …” (3:169-170)
or,
"But those who are killed in the Way of Allah, He
will never let their deeds be lost." (47:4)
are cited, and potential converts to the terrorist cause are told that being killed in the way of Allah (Shaheed) is just the flip side of the coin of killing others in the way of Allah. Furthermore, the way of Allah is equated with performing jihad, and, then, jihad is restrictively interpreted to mean engaging in armed conflict against whoever is labeled and demonized as being infidels, apostates, unbelievers, and jihili by the extremist leaders.
In truth, all of the Quranic verses concerning armed conflict are specifically focused on the permission to engage in defensive wars which was given to Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) by God. At a certain juncture, a pledge (sometimes referred to as the Pledge of Ridhwan) was taken by those who were traveling with the Prophet at a place called Hudaibiyah, near Mecca. The nature of this pledge, which was taken by both men and women, was to give support to the Prophet and to be willing to engage in armed conflict whenever called upon to do so by the Prophet.
The pledge was directly accepted by the Prophet. However, as the Qur’an indicates:
“Surely, those who pledge allegiance to you, are pledging
allegiance to Allah. Allah approves their pledge; He
places His hand above their hands.” (48:10)
The Pledge of Ridhwan took place in the month of Dhul Qadah, 6. A.H. No fighting ensued immediately following the taking of this pledge, but, rather, a peace treaty was negotiated.
When the aforementioned treaty had been drawn up, it began with “In the Name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful.” The Quraish objected to this and wanted it struck from the accord. The Prophet had those words struck from the agreement.
Then, the Quraish objected to the fact that the document was signed with the name of Muhammad (peace be upon him), Messenger of Allah. They indicated that this was the very issue with which they most disagreed and wanted this removed from the agreement as well. The Prophet complied.
The treaty contained provisions and conditions which a number of the Muslims, who were accompanying the Prophet, felt placed Muslims at a tremendous disadvantage and which they believed were almost entirely favorable to the Meccan forces opposed to the Prophet. Some of the Muslims grumbled about, and were unhappy with, the terms of the accord.
The Prophet noticed the visible lack of pleasure with the accord and addressed the matter, asking the Muslims with him why they were upset with the treaty. After informing him of their concerns, the Prophet indicated that, in point of fact, the treaty was a great victory because it gave them the opportunity, free from hostilities and in an atmosphere of peace, to invite people to Islam.
Indeed, many people accepted Islam during this period of negotiated peace. And, the peace ended when the non-Muslims broke the conditions of the treaty, and it was the breaking of the treaty by the non-Muslims which led to subsequent armed conflict over the next several years.
The Qur’an mentions the pledge taken by the Muslims at Hudaibiya in the following way:
“Indeed Allah was pleased with the believers when they
gave their Bai`at (pledge) to you, (O Muhammad ) under
the tree, He knew what was in their hearts, and He sent
down ‘As Sakinah (calmness and tranquillity)’ upon them,
and He rewarded them with a near victory." (48: 18)
How many of modern-day radical, fundamentalist terrorists who call themselves Muslim understand that the reference to the “near victory” mentioned in the foregoing Quranic ayat may have been an allusion to the establishing of peace through non-violent means which followed soon after the collective making of the pledge of allegiance? Many so-called modern-day “jihadists” mention the Pledge of Ridhwan -- albeit in a distorted way which, through misdirection, seeks to transform a willingness to die into a willingness to kill -- and, yet, these same “leaders” fail to mention that such a pledge was immediately followed not by war but by a peace accord.
In the treaty of Hudaibiyah, the Prophet permitted, among other things, one of the most basic, recurring themes of the Qur’an -- namely, ‘in the Name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful’ -- to be removed from the document, and, as well, he permitted his own role as a Prophet to be denied and struck down. Where is the battle cry of the ‘jihadists’ in these actions of the Prophet … a battle cry which supposedly demands that the duty of all Muslims is to wage war against the pagans, unbelievers, infidels or people who are under the influence of the times of jahiliyyah and force these individuals to submit to Islam?
Presumably, modern-day jihadists would assassinate the Prophet as an apostate because he abdicated his responsibility -- according to them -- of observing the alleged duty to participate in violent, armed conflict against anyone who would not submit to Islam. Presumably, modern day jihadists would consider the Prophet to be a leader of insufficient and inadequate faith because he was inclined to use tools of faith first and foremost and would only sanction armed conflict under very specific and narrow set of conditions, as a last resort after other, peaceful, avenues had been met with rejection and hostility.
Modern-day, fundamentalist jihadists are spiritual charlatans who selectively distort the Qur’an, the Hadiths, along with Islamic history, in order to re-frame matters in a way that can be used to induce those who are in a state of dissociation to commit violence and feel as if they (those in a dissociative state) are serving the wishes of God and the Prophet when nothing could be further from the truth. This is spiritual abuse of the worse kind.
Extremist, terrorist leaders attempt to argue that the permission for armed conflict spoken of in the Qur’an, along with the Prophetic/Divine acceptance of pledges concerning participation in armed conflict are both in perpetuity and universal in character. In other words, they are claiming that such verses of the Qur’an give carte blanche permission to anyone and everyone to engage in armed conflict against whomever is labeled as unbelievers, apostates, or infidels, and, moreover, such extremists are alleging that the pledge of anyone -- regardless of circumstances, time, and intentions -- concerning his or her willingness to engage in armed conflict against whomever will automatically be accepted by the Prophet and Allah.
All such arguments are nothing but theological speculation and presumption. In fact, consider the following from Bukhari which is narrated by Nafi’:
“During the affliction of Ibn Az-Zubair, two men came to Ibn
'Umar and said, "The people are lost, and you are the son of
'Umar and a companion of the Prophet, so what stops you from
coming out and joining the conflict?" He said, "What stops
me is that Allah has prohibited the shedding of my brother's
blood."
They both said, "Didn't Allah say, 'And fight then until
there is no more affliction?’
Ibn ‘Umar said "We fought until there was no more affliction
and so that worship would be for Allah Alone, while you want
to fight until there is affliction and until the worship
becomes for other than Allah."
(Volume 6, Book 60, Number 40)
Through another group of sub-narrators, Nafi narrated the following hadith:
“A man came to Ibn 'Umar and said, "O Abu Abdur Rahman!
What made you perform Hajj in one year and Umra in another
year and leave the jihad for Allah's Cause though you
know how much Allah recommends jihad?"
“Ibn 'Umar replied, "O son of my brother! Islam is
founded on five principles, i.e. believe in Allah and
His Apostle, the five compulsory prayers, the fasting
of the month of Ramadan, the payment of Zakat, and
the Hajj to the House (of Allah).
“The man said, "O Abu Abdur Rahman! Won't you listen
to why Allah has mentioned in His Book: 'If two groups
of believers fight each other, then, make peace between
them, but if one of then transgresses beyond bounds
against the other, then you all fight against the one
that transgresses. (49.9) and:--"And fight them till
there is no more affliction "
Ibn 'Umar said, "We did this, during the lifetime of
Allah's Apostle when Islam had only a few followers.
A man would be put to trial because of his religion;
he would either be killed or tortured. But when the
Muslims increased, there was no more afflictions or
oppressions."
Interestingly enough, and perhaps related to the foregoing comments of ibn ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) -- who was the son of Hazrat ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) -- is the following tradition. More specifically, there is a long hadith narrated by Hazrat ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) in which a stranger, who showed no signs of travel upon his clothes, came to the Prophet one day while the latter was seated with a number of Companions. The stranger proceeded to question the Prophet about the nature of Islam, Iman (faith), and Ihsan (spiritual excellence).
Nowhere in the answers given by the Prophet to these queries by the stranger was there any mention of jihad as being one of the five duties of a Muslim, or of jihad being one of the six basic articles of faith, or of jihad being the essence of spiritual excellence. And, yet, when the Prophet asked Hazrat ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) if he knew who the stranger was and Hazrat ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) replied in the negative, the Prophet is reported to have said:
“That was Gabriel (peace be upon him) and he has come today to teach you your Deen”
When the assassination of Hazrat Hasan (may Allah be pleased with him) was being plotted and plans were set in motion to trick his wife into poisoning him, Hazrat Hasan (may Allah be pleased with him) did not declare jihad against those who were plotting against him even though he knew about the plot and knew that his wife was involved. Instead, when he was dying from the poisoning, he warned his wife about the dangers which lay in wait for her at the hands of those who had induced her to poison him (her conspirators were going to assassinate her after she completed her permission).
When Hazrat Hussein (may Allah be pleased with him) traveled a great distance to stand up to, and resist, the oppression of Yezid, Hazrat Hussein (may Allah be pleased with him) did not compel his companions and family to engage in armed conflict. Rather, he gave them all the opportunity to withdraw from the situation and save their lives -- which they chose not to do and, as a result, almost all of them were slaughtered.
Whenever the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) participated in armed conflict, it is reported that he never raised a weapon against those who were opposed to him. The extent of his physical resistance was that, from time to time, he would pick up the arrows which had been shot at the Prophet, as well as the Muslim warriors surrounding him, and, then, hand the arrows to the Muslim archers.
The Prophet was always in the thick of battle because taking his life was the primary focus of his adversaries. Yet, he did not wield a weapon or try to kill anyone even though he was constantly under attack during such battles.
His jihad was of the very highest order of striving. He was willing to sacrifice his own life and all that he possessed for the sake of God, and, yet, he did not take the life of others.
At the battle of Badr, which is the first, major armed confrontation between Muslims and non-Muslims, the Prophet picked up some pebbles from the ground and threw them in the direction of the opposing forces. After this happened, the far superior and better equipped army of those who sought to exterminate the Prophet, Muslims and Islam all scattered, apparently perceiving themselves to be under attack by strange beings who filled the hearts of the Muslim opposition with tremendous fear. The Qur’an informed the Prophet about this occasion with “it was not you who threw when you threw. God is the one Who threw.” (8: 17)
God had given the permission for Muslims to defend themselves in the battle of Badr. The Prophet complied with the Divine directive in a relatively non-violent manner.
Contrary to the claims of modern-day, extremist ‘jihadists’, the Prophet did not pursue a policy in which polytheists must accept Islam or die. For example, Muhammad (peace be upon him) is reported to have said:
“When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite
them to three courses of action. . . . Invite them to
(accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from
them and desist from fighting against them. . . . If
they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya
[the tax on non-Muslims which is fairly nominal]. If
they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off
your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah’s
help and fight them”. (Sahih Muslim, book 19, no. 4294).
First, one should understand that the foregoing counsel was given in relation to a situation in which a Muslim ambassador was assassinated in Byzantium territory. Secondly, the foregoing hadith refers to polytheists and not to people of the Book, or people who believe in God, or people who believe in the Last Day, or to converts. Thirdly, the polytheists are to be invited -- not compelled -- to accept Islam, for, indeed, as the Qur’an stipulates -- and as modern-day, extremist ‘jihadists’ are averse to remembering: “There shall be no compulsion in religion: the right way is now distinct from the wrong way.” (2:256) Fourthly, as long as such polytheists pay the Jizya tax (and Muslims, themselves, are required to pay zakat, so something is not being imposed on non-Muslims for which Muslims do not have a counterpart in financial responsibility in relation to the community), then, no further action is indicated, and they should be left alone. Fifthly, there is absolutely no indication about whether, or not, the foregoing hadith was meant to be a universal principle applicable across all time or was intended only for the circumstances which existed at that time. Finally, if polytheists refuse to pay the jizya tax, it does not necessarily follow that the only way of fighting with them is to kill them or do violence against them.
One could apply economic sanctions against them. Or, one could interact with them in non-cooperative, but non-violent ways. One could keep one’s social distance from them and not take them as allies or friends. Or, one could refuse to help defend them against other people who aggress against them.
With respect to anyone who was seeking to oppress the Prophet and the Muslim community, the Qur’an says:
“If they resort to peace, so shall you, and put your trust
in Allah. He is the Hearer, the Omniscient.” (8: 61)
The Qur’an did not say that the Prophet shall resort to peace only if the antagonists surrender to Islam. The guidance was unconditional and revolved only around the issue of whether, or not, those who were being hostile sought peace.
One of the favorite Quranic verses of modern-day, extremist jihadists is sometimes referred to as the ‘Sword Verse’. This verse says:
“Once the Sacred Months are past, (and they refuse to make
peace) you may kill the idol worshipers when you encounter
them, punish them, and resist every move they make. If they
repent and observe the obligatory prayers and give the
obligatory charity, you shall let them go. Allah is Forgiver,
Most Merciful.” (9: 5)
Just prior to the foregoing verse is a Divine reminder that:
“If the idol worshipers sign a peace treaty with you,
and do not violate it, nor band together with others
against you, you shall fulfill your treaty with them
until the expiration date. Allah loves the righteous.”
(9: 4)
Just after the so-called ‘Sword Verse’ there is guidance (9: 6) about how the Muslims should provide safe passage to any of the idol worshipers who request it so that such a person can hear the word of God and, then, the individual should be permitted to return to her or his people.
Furthermore, when one considers the ‘Sword Verse’, itself, in the context of the Quranic guidance which comes both before and after that verse, there are a number of factors which should be taken into consideration. First, the permission to fight is being given only if the idol-worshipers refuse to make peace. Secondly, Muslims are not being given permission to actively seek out such idol worshipers but, rather, Muslims are being told that ‘if’ the idol-worshipers should be encountered, and if they refuse to make peace, and if one is not bound by any treaties with them, and if they are not seeking safe-passage, and if they do not repent for their aggression, then, one has a variety of options -- namely, one may, if necessary, kill them, or one may punish them in some non-lethal and, possibly, non-violent way, or one may seek to resist (again, possibly, in non-violent ways) every non-peaceful move they make, or one may accept their becoming Muslim. Thirdly, one needs to emphasize that Muslims are not being specifically ordered to kill idol-worshipers but, rather, this is just one possibility among a number of options -- although, not surprisingly, those who are inclined to violence always wish to indulge their predilection for violence and conveniently forget that God is providing an array of alternatives. Fourthly, and, perhaps, most importantly, there is nothing to indicate that the Divine guidance expressed through the ‘Sword Verse’ is intended to serve as carte blanche permission for all Muslims who come after the Prophet to be able to kill idol-worshipers or to engage the latter in armed conflict.
Finally, and once again, attention needs to be drawn to the fact that the ‘Sword Verse’ refers to idol worshipers or polytheists -- not to people of the Book, not to Jews, not to Christians, not to those who believe in God, or the Last Day, or who seek to do deeds of righteousness for the sake of God. Although modern-day, extremist jihadists seek to try to expand the category of ‘idol worshipers’ to include everyone with whom they disagree or who disagrees with them, or whom they consider to be ‘insufficiently Muslim’, or whom they consider to be apostates, or whom belongs to another faith tradition, or are secular leaders, or whom they consider to be infidels, the so-called ‘Sword verse’ applies only to idol worshipers/polytheists, nonetheless, the mental gymnastics of fanatical, extremist jihadists are just part of the package of techniques they have to spiritually abuse those who are vulnerable as a result of the latter’s condition of dissociation due to a variety of personal, social, political, economic, historical, and spiritual circumstances.
Some of these modern-day, extremist jihadists refer to the Quranic verse:
“For this reason did We prescribe to the children of
Israel that whoever slays a soul, unless it be for
manslaughter or for mischief in the land, it is as
though he slew all men; and whoever keeps a soul alive,
it is as though he kept alive all men; and certainly
Our apostles came to them with clear arguments, but
even after that many of them certainly act
extravagantly in the land.” (5: 32)
They use the foregoing verse as justification for committing free-wheeling aggression against other than idol worshipers, claiming that those whom the terrorists oppose are precisely those individuals who are spreading mischief and corruption in the land. How convenient!
The Qur’an verse above does not specify what constitutes mischief. Consequently, the arguments of extremist jihadists concerning the meaning of the foregoing Quranic verse are rather presumptuous and self-serving.
However, if one reflects upon the rest of the Qur’an, then, one might suppose that the real mischief makers are those who continue to commit aggression and resist overtures to peace, or those who seek to oppress and tyrannize believers (of all stripes), or those who are polytheists and are seeking to destroy believers (of all stripes), or those who are driving believers (of all stripes) from their homes or who are actively preventing believers (of all stripes) from worshiping Divinity. Somewhat ironically, the activities of modern-day, extremist jihadists tend to qualify such jihadists as being the very sort of mischief makers to whom they claim to be opposed.
One might also note in passing that it is interesting that the ‘Sword Verse’ only mentions prayer and zakat in reference to the conditions which the idol-worshipers are to observe if they are to be let go. Nothing is said about the first pillar of Islam concerning the bearing witness that ‘there is no reality but Divinity and that Muhammad is the Messenger of God’. Furthermore, there is nothing said in the verse about those who repent having to observe either fasting or Hajj.
When -- for their own self-serving, non-spiritual goals -- fanatical, extremist ‘jihadists’ seek to broaden the notion of who is to be considered to be an infidel, or a corrupter of the earth, or a polytheist, or an unbeliever, or an apostate, or one who is under the influence of jahiliyyah (ignorance), or one who is ‘insufficiently Muslim’ -- that is, all of the categories of human beings with respect to whom the ‘jihadists’ claim that a ‘real’ Muslim is not only justified in killing in the ‘way of Allah’, but, nay, has a religious duty to do so -- some of these fundamentalist fanatics wish to make women, children, the elderly, and non-combatants as legitimate targets for violence. In truth, there is no Quranic support for such delusional ideas, nor is there any justification for this in the traditions of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).
In Book 21, Number 21.3.9 of Muslim, one finds the following tradition:
“Yahya related to me from Malik from Nafi from
Ibn Umar that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah
bless him and grant him peace, saw the
corpse of a woman who had been slain in
one of the raids, and he disapproved of
it and forbade the killing of women and
children.”
In another tradition, the following is reported:
Yahya related to me from Malik that he had
heard that Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz wrote to one
of his governors, "It has been passed down to
us that when the Messenger of Allah, may Allah
bless him and grant him peace, sent out a raiding
party, he would say to them, 'Make your raids
in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah.
Fight whoever denies Allah. Do not steal from
the booty, and do not act treacherously. Do not
mutilate and do not kill children.' Say the
same to your armies and raiding parties,
Allah willing.
Peace be upon you."
Book 21, Number 21.3.10 of Muslim reports the counsel of Hazrat Abu Bakr as-Siddiq (may Allah be pleased with him) -- the first Caliph, father in-law and close companion of the Prophet – namely:
"I advise you ten things: Do not kill women or
children or an aged, infirm person. Do not cut
down fruit-bearing trees. Do not destroy an
inhabited place. Do not slaughter sheep or
camels except for food. Do not burn bees
and do not scatter them. Do not steal from
the booty, and do not be cowardly."
In addition, as noted previously, the Quranic verse 5: 32 indicates that whoever kills another human being for “other than manslaughter or corruption in the Earth” it is as if such an individual killed the whole of humanity. How is it that women, just because they are women, or children, just because they are children, or the elderly, just because they are elderly, or a Muslim who one considers to be ‘insufficiently Muslim’ have – according to some fanatical ‘jihadists’ -- suddenly become perpetrators of corruption in the Earth and, therefore are worthy of being killed … despite the fact that the Qur’an, the Prophet (peace be upon him), and Abu Bakr Siddiq (may Allah be pleased with him) all teach something quite different?
------------
God willing, Part 4 should appear tomorrow.
Anab Whitehouse
For example, consider the following verse of the Qur’an:
“You shall fight back against those who do not believe in Allah,
nor in the Last Day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His
messenger have prohibited, nor do they abide by the religion
of truth -- among those who received the scripture -- until
they pay the due tax, willingly or unwillingly.” (9: 29)
Some individuals attempt to use the foregoing as justification for waging war against Christians and Jews because they claim that the latter groups do not “abide by the religion of truth” They claim that this verse gives Muslims permission to fight and wage war against such groups.
Such an understanding is problematic in a number of ways. First of all, individuals who argue in this manner cannot convincingly demonstrate -- via the complete set of teachings given expression through the Qur’an and Hadith … not just partial, distorted, and selectively edited versions of these texts -- that Allah intends for the foregoing verse to apply for all times and to all Muslims, rather than to just the Prophet and the circumstances of that period of history.
There appears to be a general belief among many Muslims that because the Qur’an is a book of Divine guidance, then, this means that whatever occurs, or is said, in relation to the Prophet is applicable to everyone else. However, the fact of the matter is there are differences between the Prophet and other Muslims.
For more than thirteen years -- a time encompassing the period of time in Mecca and the first several years after hijra, or migration, from Mecca to Yathrib (later Medina) -- God did not permit Muslims to defend themselves through armed conflict. This was the case despite the many forms of abuse -- including a two year period of siege in which the Prophet, members of his family, and followers were nearly starved to death -- which were directed against Muslims, in general, and the Prophet, in particular.
At a certain juncture following hijra and prior to the Battle of Badr, permission came for the Prophet to organize the defense of Muslims against aggression. Over the next five or six years, there were a number of armed battles which took place, and, yet, through all these conflicts, no more than 250 non-Muslims were killed and an even smaller number of Muslims lost their lives.
Following the conquest of Mecca by Muslims, there were a number of minor conflicts with several regions near Mecca and Medina, but these were handled largely through the tactic of siege rather than armed battles. Toward the last few years of the Prophet’s life, there was peace in the land.
Why do modern-day, fanatical, fundamentalist extremist jihadists automatically assume that the part of the Prophet’s life which should be used as a model for conduct is armed conflict rather than the non-violent approach -- despite substantial provocation -- which characterized the vast majority of the Prophet’s life? Why do these modern-day jihadists automatically assume that the Divine permission which was given to the Prophet with respect to the waging of war under certain circumstances necessarily accrues to all ensuing generations of Muslims? Why do modern-day jihadists only treat those portions of the Qur’an which mention armed conflict (and there are only about 164 verses, out of some 6,000, or so, total verses in the Qur’an which deal with these matters) in terms of the permissions to fight which is given rather than the many prohibitions which place due limits on such permission, and rather than on the many other non-violent spiritual lessons which are woven into the Quranic text surrounding, as well as within, such verses? Why do modern-day jihadists accrue to themselves the same spiritual authority and stature of the Prophet and, therefore, arrogantly presume that God necessarily will extend to them the same permissions concerning armed conflict that was accorded to the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) or that the Prophet approves of what they are doing?
Secondly, in relation to the Quranic verse cited toward the beginning of this post, Christians and Jews do believe in God as well as the Last Day, and they prohibit many, if not most, of the same things which Allah and the Prophet prohibit -- such as: killing, stealing, dishonesty, corruption, injustice, adultery, not respecting one’s parents, and so on. Even the dietary prohibitions given through the Qur’an are observed by Jewish people and should be observed by Christians because such prohibitions are in the Old Testament which, supposedly, is accepted by Christians as the Word of God and, and, yet, many Christians have been spiritually misled by their so-called church leaders into supposing that such dietary permissions and prohibitions do not apply to them.
Thirdly, the foregoing Quranic verse refers to those who do not abide by the “religion of truth among those who received the scripture”. This raises a variety of questions.
For instance, with respect to the identity of those individuals who are alluded to as those who do not abide by the religion of truth, there is some ambiguity -- at least on the surface of the Quranic text -- both with respect to who they are and the precise way in which such people are not abiding by that ‘religion of truth’. In addition, one wonders who, beside Allah and the Prophet, is qualified to make such a judgment?
Whose conception of the “religion of truth” is to serve as the standard against which all other understandings are to be measured? -- that of the Wahhabis? that of the philosophers? that of the fundamentalist theologians? that of jurists? that of the jihadists who treat everyone as an apostate and infidel except those who believe and act as they do? What proofs can be offered that such interpretations are acceptable to God? Why should only the opinions of theologians and jurists be considered in such matters, and why doesn’t the quality of such theological and juridical opinions seem to matter as much as the fact that these individuals are willing to give their blessings to violence and armed conflict against anyone who disagrees with them?
Moreover, to what extent must someone not abide by the religion of truth before one can wage war against them? After all, none of us is perfect. We all make mistakes for which we are in need of God’s forgiveness, if not, as well, the forgiveness of our fellow human beings.
Consequently, to one extent or another, there are few, if any, of us who do not, in one way or another, fail to abide by the religion of truth. If this were not so, we would not be encouraged to seek God’s forgiveness. If this were not so, the Qur’an would not have indicated:
“If Allah were to take humankind to task for their wrong-doing,
God would not leave on Earth a living creature, but God reprieves
human beings until an appointed time. (16: 61)
Is one to assume that in the earlier Quranic verse (i.e., 9: 29), God is instructing human beings to make constant war on one another no matter how trifling the manner may be in which someone does not abide by the religion of truth and despite the fact that, notwithstanding the mistakes which someone may make, that, nonetheless, such people still do believe in God, the Last Day, and the things which have been prohibited by God and the Messenger? And, just how does God’s directive that there is to be no compulsion in matters of Deen fit into the alleged directive that Muslims are supposed to fight anyone who does not abide by the religion of truth?
God is not saying things in a contradictory way. Human beings -- such as would-be terrorist leaders -- are imposing contradictions upon the sacred texts by failing to take into consideration the entire body of teachings and how those teachings can modulate one another in ways which give human beings a lot more degrees of freedom concerning the manner in which one abides by ‘the religion of truth’ than are fanatical, fundamentalist, violence-prone, extremist jihadists who are trying to induce people to adopt a delusional framework through spiritually abusive techniques of misrepresenting the teachings of the Qur’an and the Prophet.
In addition to the foregoing considerations, the Quranic verse (9: 29) noted previously, indicates there is still a remedy which permits Muslims to avoid having to fight back even if those other individuals do not believe in God, nor the Last Day, nor prohibit what God and the Prophet forbid, nor abide by the ‘religion of truth’ -- even if they are among the people who have been given scripture. More specifically, if those who satisfy the foregoing conditions pay Jizya (a tax on non-Muslims), then, not only is no fighting required, but the paying of the Jizya tax is the end of the matter and there are no further requirements which need to be imposed on such people with respect to matters of belief or abiding by the ‘religion of truth’.
In the time of the Prophet, there was a legitimate source of authority through which reasonable judgments about such matters could be made. Furthermore, the requirement for paying Jizya extended only to those who lived within territory controlled by that legitimate source of authority. In other words, Jizya was not a tax which could be levied on just anyone by just anyone.
For hundreds of years, now, there are serious questions which can, and should, be raised about whether most of the people who currently govern in the Muslims world -- or who, in the past, have governed in the Muslim world -- constitute legitimate sources of authority. In fact the very issue of what it means for someone to be said to possess a legitimate source of authority (and on what grounds and in whose opinion) or whether such individuals are spiritually competent to make judgments about various social and individual matters (such as Jizya or collecting it) -- all of these matters are still very much unsettled within the Muslim world. Consequently, there also are serious questions which need to be asked today about who, if anyone, in the Muslims world has the legitimate, God-given spiritual authority to even ask for Divine permission to fight back against those who do not believe in God, nor the Last Day, nor prohibit what God and the Messenger prohibit or who do not abide by ‘the religion of truth’ -- and such matters are quite apart from the issue of defending oneself, or one’s family, or one’s community against unjust, unprovoked aggression.
Just because someone issues a fatwa (theological decree concerning legal issues), or just because someone speaks Arabic, or just because someone has attended this or that madrassa (school), or just because some people recognize someone as a spiritual authority, or just because someone has certain degrees or a certain educational pedigree – none of this necessarily means anything in and of itself. Unfortunately, these days, there are a lot of irresponsible, spiritually ignorant, abusive ‘leaders’ (among both alleged Sufis, as well as their exoteric namesakes) who call themselves shaykh or sheik who seem to believe that they are Divinely qualified to tell other people how to live their lives.
There are many individuals who are claiming that all manner of spiritual permissions have been given to them. However, claiming this, and actually being given such permission, are not necessarily the same thing -- especially when there are many questions which those people need to answer with respect to the fact that they seem more interested in inventing their own religion than following the full guidance given by God through the Qur’an and through the quality of character of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).
Above and beyond the many questions which have been raised in the foregoing discussion, there is the question of why anyone would prefer the tools of violence over the tools of faith? Why, in other words, should fighting back -- even when permission is given -- always have to be understood to mean violent, armed conflict? Why can’t fighting back mean employing the tools of faith? Wasn’t the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) reported to have said: “If someone treats you with nafs (the lower soul), then, treat them with ruh (spirit)?”
Yes, there are times when fighting back, in the sense of armed conflict, may be unavoidable. But, surely, discretion is the better part of valor.
The Qur’an indicates that “oppression is worse than murder” (2: 217). Yet, many of those who claim to be conducting jihad, in the sense of armed conflict, against the infidels are, themselves, guilty of much oppression, including against themselves, in relation to matters of truth.
In Volume 3, Book 43, Number 624, one finds the following hadith which is narrated by Anas:
Allah's Apostle said, "Help your brother, whether he
is an oppressor or he is an oppressed one. People
asked, "O Allah's Apostle! It is all right to help
him if he is oppressed, but how should we help him
if he is an oppressor?" The Prophet said, "By
preventing him from oppressing others."
Almost all those who have committed themselves to armed conflict against those whom they consider to be infidels, apostates, unbelievers, jihilist are guilty of oppressing others because they indiscriminately use tools of violence and oppressive compulsion. In the process, many innocent lives are destroyed.
Those who are inclined toward violence seem bereft of the tools of faith which, God willing, might open up the possibility of peaceful means for resolving difficulties. Unfortunately, most of these violence-prone individuals appear to have lost faith in the tools of faith -- the very tools for which they claim to be fighting and which they claim people are not practicing and the absence of which they cite as the cause of all the problems which face the Muslim community.
Fanatical, extremist, fundamentalist jihadists need to be restrained from oppressing others. However, using violence to restrain these individuals is neither, necessarily, the only option or the best option. Preferably, such individuals need to be shown that what they believe and what they are being taught and what they are teaching and what they are trying to bring about is delusional in character and an expression of spiritual abuse (which is always oppressive), and as such, is not, at all, an accurate reflection of God’s guidance in the Qur’an or the example provided by the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).
Once an individual jettisons considerations of discernment in such matters -- as extremists frequently are intent on doing -- then, one will begin to see certain verses of the Qur’an, along with various hadiths selectively and inappropriately used in conjunction with the members of such artificially constructed groups.
For example, verses such as:
"And say not of those who are killed in the Way of
Allah, "They are dead," Nay, they are living, but
you perceive (it) not." (2: 154)
or,
"And if you are killed or die in the Way of Allah,
forgiveness and mercy from Allah are far better than
all that they amass (of worldly wealths, etc.)."
(3:157)
or,
"Think not of those who are killed in the Way of
Allah as dead, Nay they are alive, with their Lord,
and they have provision. They rejoice in what Allah
has bestowed upon them of His Bounty …” (3:169-170)
or,
"But those who are killed in the Way of Allah, He
will never let their deeds be lost." (47:4)
are cited, and potential converts to the terrorist cause are told that being killed in the way of Allah (Shaheed) is just the flip side of the coin of killing others in the way of Allah. Furthermore, the way of Allah is equated with performing jihad, and, then, jihad is restrictively interpreted to mean engaging in armed conflict against whoever is labeled and demonized as being infidels, apostates, unbelievers, and jihili by the extremist leaders.
In truth, all of the Quranic verses concerning armed conflict are specifically focused on the permission to engage in defensive wars which was given to Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) by God. At a certain juncture, a pledge (sometimes referred to as the Pledge of Ridhwan) was taken by those who were traveling with the Prophet at a place called Hudaibiyah, near Mecca. The nature of this pledge, which was taken by both men and women, was to give support to the Prophet and to be willing to engage in armed conflict whenever called upon to do so by the Prophet.
The pledge was directly accepted by the Prophet. However, as the Qur’an indicates:
“Surely, those who pledge allegiance to you, are pledging
allegiance to Allah. Allah approves their pledge; He
places His hand above their hands.” (48:10)
The Pledge of Ridhwan took place in the month of Dhul Qadah, 6. A.H. No fighting ensued immediately following the taking of this pledge, but, rather, a peace treaty was negotiated.
When the aforementioned treaty had been drawn up, it began with “In the Name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful.” The Quraish objected to this and wanted it struck from the accord. The Prophet had those words struck from the agreement.
Then, the Quraish objected to the fact that the document was signed with the name of Muhammad (peace be upon him), Messenger of Allah. They indicated that this was the very issue with which they most disagreed and wanted this removed from the agreement as well. The Prophet complied.
The treaty contained provisions and conditions which a number of the Muslims, who were accompanying the Prophet, felt placed Muslims at a tremendous disadvantage and which they believed were almost entirely favorable to the Meccan forces opposed to the Prophet. Some of the Muslims grumbled about, and were unhappy with, the terms of the accord.
The Prophet noticed the visible lack of pleasure with the accord and addressed the matter, asking the Muslims with him why they were upset with the treaty. After informing him of their concerns, the Prophet indicated that, in point of fact, the treaty was a great victory because it gave them the opportunity, free from hostilities and in an atmosphere of peace, to invite people to Islam.
Indeed, many people accepted Islam during this period of negotiated peace. And, the peace ended when the non-Muslims broke the conditions of the treaty, and it was the breaking of the treaty by the non-Muslims which led to subsequent armed conflict over the next several years.
The Qur’an mentions the pledge taken by the Muslims at Hudaibiya in the following way:
“Indeed Allah was pleased with the believers when they
gave their Bai`at (pledge) to you, (O Muhammad ) under
the tree, He knew what was in their hearts, and He sent
down ‘As Sakinah (calmness and tranquillity)’ upon them,
and He rewarded them with a near victory." (48: 18)
How many of modern-day radical, fundamentalist terrorists who call themselves Muslim understand that the reference to the “near victory” mentioned in the foregoing Quranic ayat may have been an allusion to the establishing of peace through non-violent means which followed soon after the collective making of the pledge of allegiance? Many so-called modern-day “jihadists” mention the Pledge of Ridhwan -- albeit in a distorted way which, through misdirection, seeks to transform a willingness to die into a willingness to kill -- and, yet, these same “leaders” fail to mention that such a pledge was immediately followed not by war but by a peace accord.
In the treaty of Hudaibiyah, the Prophet permitted, among other things, one of the most basic, recurring themes of the Qur’an -- namely, ‘in the Name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful’ -- to be removed from the document, and, as well, he permitted his own role as a Prophet to be denied and struck down. Where is the battle cry of the ‘jihadists’ in these actions of the Prophet … a battle cry which supposedly demands that the duty of all Muslims is to wage war against the pagans, unbelievers, infidels or people who are under the influence of the times of jahiliyyah and force these individuals to submit to Islam?
Presumably, modern-day jihadists would assassinate the Prophet as an apostate because he abdicated his responsibility -- according to them -- of observing the alleged duty to participate in violent, armed conflict against anyone who would not submit to Islam. Presumably, modern day jihadists would consider the Prophet to be a leader of insufficient and inadequate faith because he was inclined to use tools of faith first and foremost and would only sanction armed conflict under very specific and narrow set of conditions, as a last resort after other, peaceful, avenues had been met with rejection and hostility.
Modern-day, fundamentalist jihadists are spiritual charlatans who selectively distort the Qur’an, the Hadiths, along with Islamic history, in order to re-frame matters in a way that can be used to induce those who are in a state of dissociation to commit violence and feel as if they (those in a dissociative state) are serving the wishes of God and the Prophet when nothing could be further from the truth. This is spiritual abuse of the worse kind.
Extremist, terrorist leaders attempt to argue that the permission for armed conflict spoken of in the Qur’an, along with the Prophetic/Divine acceptance of pledges concerning participation in armed conflict are both in perpetuity and universal in character. In other words, they are claiming that such verses of the Qur’an give carte blanche permission to anyone and everyone to engage in armed conflict against whomever is labeled as unbelievers, apostates, or infidels, and, moreover, such extremists are alleging that the pledge of anyone -- regardless of circumstances, time, and intentions -- concerning his or her willingness to engage in armed conflict against whomever will automatically be accepted by the Prophet and Allah.
All such arguments are nothing but theological speculation and presumption. In fact, consider the following from Bukhari which is narrated by Nafi’:
“During the affliction of Ibn Az-Zubair, two men came to Ibn
'Umar and said, "The people are lost, and you are the son of
'Umar and a companion of the Prophet, so what stops you from
coming out and joining the conflict?" He said, "What stops
me is that Allah has prohibited the shedding of my brother's
blood."
They both said, "Didn't Allah say, 'And fight then until
there is no more affliction?’
Ibn ‘Umar said "We fought until there was no more affliction
and so that worship would be for Allah Alone, while you want
to fight until there is affliction and until the worship
becomes for other than Allah."
(Volume 6, Book 60, Number 40)
Through another group of sub-narrators, Nafi narrated the following hadith:
“A man came to Ibn 'Umar and said, "O Abu Abdur Rahman!
What made you perform Hajj in one year and Umra in another
year and leave the jihad for Allah's Cause though you
know how much Allah recommends jihad?"
“Ibn 'Umar replied, "O son of my brother! Islam is
founded on five principles, i.e. believe in Allah and
His Apostle, the five compulsory prayers, the fasting
of the month of Ramadan, the payment of Zakat, and
the Hajj to the House (of Allah).
“The man said, "O Abu Abdur Rahman! Won't you listen
to why Allah has mentioned in His Book: 'If two groups
of believers fight each other, then, make peace between
them, but if one of then transgresses beyond bounds
against the other, then you all fight against the one
that transgresses. (49.9) and:--"And fight them till
there is no more affliction "
Ibn 'Umar said, "We did this, during the lifetime of
Allah's Apostle when Islam had only a few followers.
A man would be put to trial because of his religion;
he would either be killed or tortured. But when the
Muslims increased, there was no more afflictions or
oppressions."
Interestingly enough, and perhaps related to the foregoing comments of ibn ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) -- who was the son of Hazrat ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) -- is the following tradition. More specifically, there is a long hadith narrated by Hazrat ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) in which a stranger, who showed no signs of travel upon his clothes, came to the Prophet one day while the latter was seated with a number of Companions. The stranger proceeded to question the Prophet about the nature of Islam, Iman (faith), and Ihsan (spiritual excellence).
Nowhere in the answers given by the Prophet to these queries by the stranger was there any mention of jihad as being one of the five duties of a Muslim, or of jihad being one of the six basic articles of faith, or of jihad being the essence of spiritual excellence. And, yet, when the Prophet asked Hazrat ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) if he knew who the stranger was and Hazrat ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) replied in the negative, the Prophet is reported to have said:
“That was Gabriel (peace be upon him) and he has come today to teach you your Deen”
When the assassination of Hazrat Hasan (may Allah be pleased with him) was being plotted and plans were set in motion to trick his wife into poisoning him, Hazrat Hasan (may Allah be pleased with him) did not declare jihad against those who were plotting against him even though he knew about the plot and knew that his wife was involved. Instead, when he was dying from the poisoning, he warned his wife about the dangers which lay in wait for her at the hands of those who had induced her to poison him (her conspirators were going to assassinate her after she completed her permission).
When Hazrat Hussein (may Allah be pleased with him) traveled a great distance to stand up to, and resist, the oppression of Yezid, Hazrat Hussein (may Allah be pleased with him) did not compel his companions and family to engage in armed conflict. Rather, he gave them all the opportunity to withdraw from the situation and save their lives -- which they chose not to do and, as a result, almost all of them were slaughtered.
Whenever the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) participated in armed conflict, it is reported that he never raised a weapon against those who were opposed to him. The extent of his physical resistance was that, from time to time, he would pick up the arrows which had been shot at the Prophet, as well as the Muslim warriors surrounding him, and, then, hand the arrows to the Muslim archers.
The Prophet was always in the thick of battle because taking his life was the primary focus of his adversaries. Yet, he did not wield a weapon or try to kill anyone even though he was constantly under attack during such battles.
His jihad was of the very highest order of striving. He was willing to sacrifice his own life and all that he possessed for the sake of God, and, yet, he did not take the life of others.
At the battle of Badr, which is the first, major armed confrontation between Muslims and non-Muslims, the Prophet picked up some pebbles from the ground and threw them in the direction of the opposing forces. After this happened, the far superior and better equipped army of those who sought to exterminate the Prophet, Muslims and Islam all scattered, apparently perceiving themselves to be under attack by strange beings who filled the hearts of the Muslim opposition with tremendous fear. The Qur’an informed the Prophet about this occasion with “it was not you who threw when you threw. God is the one Who threw.” (8: 17)
God had given the permission for Muslims to defend themselves in the battle of Badr. The Prophet complied with the Divine directive in a relatively non-violent manner.
Contrary to the claims of modern-day, extremist ‘jihadists’, the Prophet did not pursue a policy in which polytheists must accept Islam or die. For example, Muhammad (peace be upon him) is reported to have said:
“When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite
them to three courses of action. . . . Invite them to
(accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from
them and desist from fighting against them. . . . If
they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya
[the tax on non-Muslims which is fairly nominal]. If
they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off
your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah’s
help and fight them”. (Sahih Muslim, book 19, no. 4294).
First, one should understand that the foregoing counsel was given in relation to a situation in which a Muslim ambassador was assassinated in Byzantium territory. Secondly, the foregoing hadith refers to polytheists and not to people of the Book, or people who believe in God, or people who believe in the Last Day, or to converts. Thirdly, the polytheists are to be invited -- not compelled -- to accept Islam, for, indeed, as the Qur’an stipulates -- and as modern-day, extremist ‘jihadists’ are averse to remembering: “There shall be no compulsion in religion: the right way is now distinct from the wrong way.” (2:256) Fourthly, as long as such polytheists pay the Jizya tax (and Muslims, themselves, are required to pay zakat, so something is not being imposed on non-Muslims for which Muslims do not have a counterpart in financial responsibility in relation to the community), then, no further action is indicated, and they should be left alone. Fifthly, there is absolutely no indication about whether, or not, the foregoing hadith was meant to be a universal principle applicable across all time or was intended only for the circumstances which existed at that time. Finally, if polytheists refuse to pay the jizya tax, it does not necessarily follow that the only way of fighting with them is to kill them or do violence against them.
One could apply economic sanctions against them. Or, one could interact with them in non-cooperative, but non-violent ways. One could keep one’s social distance from them and not take them as allies or friends. Or, one could refuse to help defend them against other people who aggress against them.
With respect to anyone who was seeking to oppress the Prophet and the Muslim community, the Qur’an says:
“If they resort to peace, so shall you, and put your trust
in Allah. He is the Hearer, the Omniscient.” (8: 61)
The Qur’an did not say that the Prophet shall resort to peace only if the antagonists surrender to Islam. The guidance was unconditional and revolved only around the issue of whether, or not, those who were being hostile sought peace.
One of the favorite Quranic verses of modern-day, extremist jihadists is sometimes referred to as the ‘Sword Verse’. This verse says:
“Once the Sacred Months are past, (and they refuse to make
peace) you may kill the idol worshipers when you encounter
them, punish them, and resist every move they make. If they
repent and observe the obligatory prayers and give the
obligatory charity, you shall let them go. Allah is Forgiver,
Most Merciful.” (9: 5)
Just prior to the foregoing verse is a Divine reminder that:
“If the idol worshipers sign a peace treaty with you,
and do not violate it, nor band together with others
against you, you shall fulfill your treaty with them
until the expiration date. Allah loves the righteous.”
(9: 4)
Just after the so-called ‘Sword Verse’ there is guidance (9: 6) about how the Muslims should provide safe passage to any of the idol worshipers who request it so that such a person can hear the word of God and, then, the individual should be permitted to return to her or his people.
Furthermore, when one considers the ‘Sword Verse’, itself, in the context of the Quranic guidance which comes both before and after that verse, there are a number of factors which should be taken into consideration. First, the permission to fight is being given only if the idol-worshipers refuse to make peace. Secondly, Muslims are not being given permission to actively seek out such idol worshipers but, rather, Muslims are being told that ‘if’ the idol-worshipers should be encountered, and if they refuse to make peace, and if one is not bound by any treaties with them, and if they are not seeking safe-passage, and if they do not repent for their aggression, then, one has a variety of options -- namely, one may, if necessary, kill them, or one may punish them in some non-lethal and, possibly, non-violent way, or one may seek to resist (again, possibly, in non-violent ways) every non-peaceful move they make, or one may accept their becoming Muslim. Thirdly, one needs to emphasize that Muslims are not being specifically ordered to kill idol-worshipers but, rather, this is just one possibility among a number of options -- although, not surprisingly, those who are inclined to violence always wish to indulge their predilection for violence and conveniently forget that God is providing an array of alternatives. Fourthly, and, perhaps, most importantly, there is nothing to indicate that the Divine guidance expressed through the ‘Sword Verse’ is intended to serve as carte blanche permission for all Muslims who come after the Prophet to be able to kill idol-worshipers or to engage the latter in armed conflict.
Finally, and once again, attention needs to be drawn to the fact that the ‘Sword Verse’ refers to idol worshipers or polytheists -- not to people of the Book, not to Jews, not to Christians, not to those who believe in God, or the Last Day, or who seek to do deeds of righteousness for the sake of God. Although modern-day, extremist jihadists seek to try to expand the category of ‘idol worshipers’ to include everyone with whom they disagree or who disagrees with them, or whom they consider to be ‘insufficiently Muslim’, or whom they consider to be apostates, or whom belongs to another faith tradition, or are secular leaders, or whom they consider to be infidels, the so-called ‘Sword verse’ applies only to idol worshipers/polytheists, nonetheless, the mental gymnastics of fanatical, extremist jihadists are just part of the package of techniques they have to spiritually abuse those who are vulnerable as a result of the latter’s condition of dissociation due to a variety of personal, social, political, economic, historical, and spiritual circumstances.
Some of these modern-day, extremist jihadists refer to the Quranic verse:
“For this reason did We prescribe to the children of
Israel that whoever slays a soul, unless it be for
manslaughter or for mischief in the land, it is as
though he slew all men; and whoever keeps a soul alive,
it is as though he kept alive all men; and certainly
Our apostles came to them with clear arguments, but
even after that many of them certainly act
extravagantly in the land.” (5: 32)
They use the foregoing verse as justification for committing free-wheeling aggression against other than idol worshipers, claiming that those whom the terrorists oppose are precisely those individuals who are spreading mischief and corruption in the land. How convenient!
The Qur’an verse above does not specify what constitutes mischief. Consequently, the arguments of extremist jihadists concerning the meaning of the foregoing Quranic verse are rather presumptuous and self-serving.
However, if one reflects upon the rest of the Qur’an, then, one might suppose that the real mischief makers are those who continue to commit aggression and resist overtures to peace, or those who seek to oppress and tyrannize believers (of all stripes), or those who are polytheists and are seeking to destroy believers (of all stripes), or those who are driving believers (of all stripes) from their homes or who are actively preventing believers (of all stripes) from worshiping Divinity. Somewhat ironically, the activities of modern-day, extremist jihadists tend to qualify such jihadists as being the very sort of mischief makers to whom they claim to be opposed.
One might also note in passing that it is interesting that the ‘Sword Verse’ only mentions prayer and zakat in reference to the conditions which the idol-worshipers are to observe if they are to be let go. Nothing is said about the first pillar of Islam concerning the bearing witness that ‘there is no reality but Divinity and that Muhammad is the Messenger of God’. Furthermore, there is nothing said in the verse about those who repent having to observe either fasting or Hajj.
When -- for their own self-serving, non-spiritual goals -- fanatical, extremist ‘jihadists’ seek to broaden the notion of who is to be considered to be an infidel, or a corrupter of the earth, or a polytheist, or an unbeliever, or an apostate, or one who is under the influence of jahiliyyah (ignorance), or one who is ‘insufficiently Muslim’ -- that is, all of the categories of human beings with respect to whom the ‘jihadists’ claim that a ‘real’ Muslim is not only justified in killing in the ‘way of Allah’, but, nay, has a religious duty to do so -- some of these fundamentalist fanatics wish to make women, children, the elderly, and non-combatants as legitimate targets for violence. In truth, there is no Quranic support for such delusional ideas, nor is there any justification for this in the traditions of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).
In Book 21, Number 21.3.9 of Muslim, one finds the following tradition:
“Yahya related to me from Malik from Nafi from
Ibn Umar that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah
bless him and grant him peace, saw the
corpse of a woman who had been slain in
one of the raids, and he disapproved of
it and forbade the killing of women and
children.”
In another tradition, the following is reported:
Yahya related to me from Malik that he had
heard that Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz wrote to one
of his governors, "It has been passed down to
us that when the Messenger of Allah, may Allah
bless him and grant him peace, sent out a raiding
party, he would say to them, 'Make your raids
in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah.
Fight whoever denies Allah. Do not steal from
the booty, and do not act treacherously. Do not
mutilate and do not kill children.' Say the
same to your armies and raiding parties,
Allah willing.
Peace be upon you."
Book 21, Number 21.3.10 of Muslim reports the counsel of Hazrat Abu Bakr as-Siddiq (may Allah be pleased with him) -- the first Caliph, father in-law and close companion of the Prophet – namely:
"I advise you ten things: Do not kill women or
children or an aged, infirm person. Do not cut
down fruit-bearing trees. Do not destroy an
inhabited place. Do not slaughter sheep or
camels except for food. Do not burn bees
and do not scatter them. Do not steal from
the booty, and do not be cowardly."
In addition, as noted previously, the Quranic verse 5: 32 indicates that whoever kills another human being for “other than manslaughter or corruption in the Earth” it is as if such an individual killed the whole of humanity. How is it that women, just because they are women, or children, just because they are children, or the elderly, just because they are elderly, or a Muslim who one considers to be ‘insufficiently Muslim’ have – according to some fanatical ‘jihadists’ -- suddenly become perpetrators of corruption in the Earth and, therefore are worthy of being killed … despite the fact that the Qur’an, the Prophet (peace be upon him), and Abu Bakr Siddiq (may Allah be pleased with him) all teach something quite different?
------------
God willing, Part 4 should appear tomorrow.
Anab Whitehouse
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)