The Concept of Naskh
The principle of naskh or abrogation is recognized, in one form or another, by many religious scholars and theologians. Allegedly, this principle refers to the manner in which certain later manifestations of revelation are believed to nullify or overrule certain earlier instances of revelation.
Some people cite the following Quranic ayat in support of this approach to the Qur’an:
“Whatever communications we abrogate or cause to be forgotten, we bring one better than it or like it. Do you not know that Allah has power over all things?” [Qur’an, 2:106]
However, an assumption is being made concerning the precise identity of the communications to which God is referring in the foregoing verse.
For example, let us suppose that a people of an earlier time were given a revelation, and, then, over time, this revelation was forgotten by the people to whom it was given. Let us further suppose that God in his mercy then sent another revelation to replace the previous guidance.
According to the Quranic ayat noted earlier, the second revelation may be better than the first revelation in certain ways, or it may be like the revelation which had been sent previously. If the second revelation is better than the first in certain ways, only God knows what these ways are, and if the second revelation is like the first revelation, again, only God knows the nature of the likeness between the two.
Furthermore, in neither instance can one assume that anything in the first revelation has been replaced or nullified by aspects of the second revelation. The second revelation may be better than the first revelation because something has been added rather than taken away. Or, if the second revelation is like the first revelation, then, we are dealing with variations on certain themes rather than one revelation nullifying another.
So, even in the case where a second revelation wholly replaces a previous revelation in accordance with the foregoing scenario, one cannot assume that anything has been nullified in conjunction with the first revelation. Rather, the first revelation was forgotten, and, therefore, God sent another reminder to the people in question and, thereby, provided those people with, yet, another opportunity to be guided toward realizing life’s purpose.
Another Quranic ayat which sometimes is cited by those who believe that abrogation is a working principle inherent in the Qur’an is the following verse:
“And when We change one communication for another, and Allah knows best what He reveals, they say: You are only a forger. Nay, most of them do not know.” [Qur’an, 16. 101]
As is true with respect to the earlier Quranic ayat – namely, 2:106 – concerning the issue of God’s replacing of one Divine communication by another, people who understand this ayat in terms of the idea of abrogation or the nullification of an earlier Divine communications are making certain assumptions in relation to such an understanding. The fulcrum which leverages the guidance of the verse is this: “God knows best what he reveals” and the other side of this principle is that “most of them do not know”.
In what way is God changing one communication with respect to another such communication? Unless God discloses the nature of such a change, then, clearly, one is only guessing concerning such matters.
Does change necessarily give expression to a principle of abrogation? No, it doesn’t. There may be an array of changes which complement, supplement, enrich, or modify a given communication without abrogating or nullifying that which came previously.
Among those who accept the principle of naskh or abrogation, there are those who wish to argue that within one and the same revelation – for instance, the Qur’an -- later portions of the Divine communications which make up the contents of such a revelation are believed to nullify or abrogate certain earlier expressions of the Divine communications which are part of the same Book of Divine guidance. As an example of what such people have in mind, consider the following Quranic verses:
In 2:219 one finds: “They ask you [Muhammad] about wine and gambling. Say: In both there is sin and utility for people.”
In 4:43, one finds:
“O ye who believe, do not come to pray when you are in a state of intoxication, till you know what you utter.”
In 5:90 one finds:
“O ye who believe? Intoxicants and games of chance and sacrificing to stones set up and divining by arrows are only an uncleanness, the work of Shaitan; shun it therefore, that you may be successful.”
Those who accept the idea of abrogation as a working principle maintain that the last of the three ayats given expression here nullifies the first two verses of the Qur’an that have been listed. In other words, Ayat 2:219 indicates that there are both bad features as well as beneficial features which are associated with the consumption of wine or participation in gambling, but nothing is specifically said about abstaining from drinking wine or gambling.
One might note, however, that even in the case of 2:219, there is an indication that there are problems inherent in such activities. Perhaps, a reflective mind and heart might begin to consider what those problems were and what implications, if any, they carried with respect to how one went about living one’s life.
Ayat 4:43 informs people that one should not engage in prayers when one is in an intoxicated state – that one should know and be aware of what one is saying while one offers prayers. Despite this cautionary note, nothing is specifically said about abstaining from the consumption of intoxicants.
On the other hand, as was true in the case of verse 2:219 discussed earlier, there is a subtle hint given in Ayat 4:43 for those who might wish to reflect on the matter. More specifically, all of life is intended to be a matter of worship – indeed:
“And to your Lord turn all of your attention.” [Qur’an, 94:8]
And, as well:
“Whoever submits one’s whole self to Allah and is a doer of good has grasped the most trustworthy handhold.” [Qur’an, 31:22]
So, although there is no specific prohibitions in Ayat 4:43 about either consuming intoxicants or becoming intoxicated, and although the guidance is ostensibly only about staying away from prayers when one is in an intoxicated state, nonetheless, there is more to think about in conjunction with that verse than that to which one’s attention is being drawn with respect to the specific caution that is being given expression through the ayat in question. For example, among other possibilities, one might ask oneself the following: If one’s goal is God, and if one considers all of life a matter of worship, then, is it not the case that whenever one is intoxicated, there is a sense in which one is engaging the issue of worship in an intoxicated state?
Does this mean that one must refrain from the consumption of intoxicants? As far as verses 4:43 and 2:219 are concerned, no, it doesn’t. Does this mean that one must not become intoxicated? As far as verses 4:43 and 2:219 are concerned, no, it doesn’t.
Ayat 90 of Surah 5 indicates that if one wishes to be successful spiritually, then, consuming intoxicants and participating in games of chance should be avoided all together. Has anything really changed among 5:90, 4:43, and 2:219?
The difference is that what has been implicit in both 4:43 and 2:219 has now been made explicit. More specifically, if one wishes to, God willing, achieve spiritual success, then, one should refrain from consuming intoxicants and participating in games of chance.
The imperative mood of this directive in 5:90 is intended to influence the behavior of those who will listen to such guidance. The grammatical constructions in verses 4:43 and 2:219 are also intended to influence those whose hearts are receptive to what is being said.
In each of the three verses, warnings, cautions, and guidance are given. In two of the three verses one is being informed about the relationship between, on the one hand, intoxicants and gambling, and, on the other hand, what may be in one’s best interests with respect to living life, while in the other verse one is being informed about the relationship between the condition of intoxication and its potential effect on the quality and propriety of one’s prayers.
Can one choose to drink and gamble? Yes, one can because none of the three ayats nullifies or abrogates one’s freedom to accept or reject guidance.
However, if one is at all concerned about pursuing the actual purpose of life and, God willing, becoming spiritually successful in that pursuit, then, in all three of the foregoing ayats one is being guided in similar ways. Nothing has been abrogated or nullified.
The implicit has been made explicit. Something which already was present in the earlier two verses has been made manifest.
Another example of what is considered to be an instance of naksh or abrogation involves the issues of bequeaths, inheritance, and debt. In 2:180 of the Qur’an, one finds:
“Bequest is prescribed for you when death approaches one of you, if he leaves behind wealth for parents and near relatives, according to usage, a duty incumbent on those who guard against evil.”
In addition, Surah 4, verses 11-12, contains a detailed set of specific parameters laid out for distributing inheritance in conjunction with whatever debts and bequeaths may have been made previously. Indications are given that debts and bequeaths need to be given priority – although there is an allusion to the idea that one needs to take into consideration the possibility of harm which may arise out of the paying of a debt. In addition, a large set of permutations are set forth in these verses concerning possible scenarios of what should be done according to who survives a deceased individual.
Some jurists have come to the conclusion that verses 11-12 of Surah 4 abrogate or nullify the guidance of 2:180. This is especially so since some of these jurists site a hadith based on a solitary report attributed to the Prophet which indicates that there should be “no bequest in favor of an heir.”
Taking the last point first – namely, the idea that the Prophet is reported to have said that there should be no bequest in favor of an heir – if one believes in the relevance of taking into account what the Prophet says, then, the Prophet also has said that he wanted all collections of his sayings destroyed so that no one would possibly confuse or conflate what he said with God’s decrees. Consequently, while I believe that what the Prophet told people directly is important to those individuals being directly addressed, I believe the Prophet also placed a limit on the potential sphere of applicability of such sayings when he also indicated that collections of his sayings should be destroyed.
Secondly, when the Prophet said what he is reported to have said concerning the idea that there should be “no bequest in favor of an heir”, do we know whether, or not, the Prophet was addressing a particular individual or a group of individuals with the intention that what is reported to have been said by the Prophet concerning the issue of bequests and heirs – if it actually was said by the Prophet – was intended to serve as counsel for the person or persons who were being addressed and no one else? The answer is: ‘No, we don’t know what the intention of the Prophet was in this respect.’!
Is it possible that the Prophet may have meant that no single heir should be favored or be given priority over other heirs in the matter of bequests or that heirs should not be given preference to others in the matter of bequeaths? Possibly, but, once again, we really have no way of determining the intention with which the Prophet said what he is reported to have said concerning bequeaths and heirs.
Furthermore, whatever the Prophet may have meant with respect to the indicated solitary report, the Prophet also indicated – via his directive to have collections of Hadith destroyed -- that the context of applicability of what he may have said in this respect should remain with those who lived in his times and who were part of the Muslim community at that time. Otherwise, the Prophet would not have ordered that collections of his Hadith should be destroyed, thereby, limiting the sphere of applicability of what he said to those whom he directly addressed and who had committed such counsel to memory.
Beyond the foregoing considerations, I’m not sure there really is any conflict between the verses cited in relation to Surah 2 and Surah 4. The first verse [2:180] indicates that one should make plans for distributing one’s wealth as the time of death approaches, and that verse also indicates that leaving behind wealth for parents and near relatives is an important thing to do. However, the wealth which is to be left behind for parents and near kin need not be in the form of bequeaths.
Another consideration in the foregoing is that not every permutation concerning the possible combinations of heirs who might survive a deceased individual is listed in verses 11-12. So, how should one handle those cases which fall outside the boundaries which are indicated? -- maybe in accordance with the provisions of 2:180 in the Qur’an -- that is, to distribute one’s wealth in as equitable a manner as one is capable of doing.
Or maybe the reason for the existence of two instances of Quranic guidance [i.e., 2:180 and 4:11-12] concerning the issue of distributing wealth in the case of actual or approaching death is to provide people with options concerning these issues. These options are the parameters which help define the limits which God is establishing with respect to justice and equitability.
On the other hand, however one goes about the process of distributing one’s wealth and whichever option one chooses in dealing with this manner, the underlying counsel is that one should distribute one’s wealth in an equitable manner. One way – but not necessarily the only way -- of satisfying the issue of equitability is in conjunction with the method outlined in Surah 4, verses 11 and 12.
Thirdly, Muslims are enjoined by the Qur’an to be equitable. Since there may be additional issues of fairness, need, and differing contingent circumstances which should be taken into consideration with respect to dealing equitably with heirs, bequeaths, debt, and any possible harm which may arise out of such interacting variables in a particular set of circumstances, one may feel the need to bring such additional considerations of equitability to bear on these matters in order that the greatest quality and quantity of justice possible be done with respect to all affected parties.
The specific provisions outlined in Surah 4, verses 11-12 may be guidance for the individuals who lived in and around the times of the Prophet Muhammad. Those specific provisions may have been intended to serve the particular circumstances of Arabian society at that time, but when historical, cultural, and other contingencies change over time, then, one acts in accordance with the essential default principle concerning the importance of distributing wealth which is inherent in both Quranic excerpts -- 2:180 and 4:11-12 – although each of these sections deals with the same underlying issue from different directions and in relation to different contingencies.
Finally, irrespective of whatever specific decisions which may be reached by an individual as she or he seeks to comply with what that person believes to be true and just with respect to matters involving bequeaths, heirs, debt, possible harms, and equitability, nevertheless, these matters are, for the most part, not the purview of a government’s regulation of public space unless the manner of distribution chosen by individuals has a substantial potential for leading to the oppression of some by others. Indeed, the accumulation of wealth in the hands of the few inevitably does lead to the oppression of others, and, perhaps, this is one of the reasons why God indicates to humankind, through the Qur’an, that the distribution of wealth has a potentially central role to play in helping to place obstacles of equitability in the way of the sort of accumulation of wealth that all too frequently tends, in time, to lead to oppression of one kind or another.
I believe the foregoing considerations tend to shape the basic operating principles in such matters except, as noted, when the potential for the emergence of oppression is demonstrable as the result of some person’s decision to distribute wealth in a certain, possibly problematic manner. Even in the event of such potential for oppression, a preferred manner for handling such problems may be through mediation among various parties rather than through legal pronouncements or injunctions which are forcibly imposed on people.
However, such considerations notwithstanding, how a person handles these matters is, generally speaking, between the individual and God. God is the One Who will hold a person accountable for either fulfilling or not fulfilling the requirements of shari‘ah – not governments or religious jurists and courts or imams.
A third example mentioned by some as an expression of the principle of abrogation which, supposedly, is at work in the Qur’an is said to concern the issue of Qibla or the direction of prayer. For instance, in 2:144, one finds:
“…so we shall surely turn you to a qiblah which you shall like, turn, then, your face to the Sacred Mosque, and wherever you are, turn your face towards it…”
The foregoing guidance doesn’t really constitute an abrogation, per se, of anything. At the very most, it constitutes a slight modification of the way in which something already established is to be done.
More specifically prior to the foregoing revelation, Muslims sought to worship God through, among other possibilities, the act of prayer. After the revelation, Muslims still sought to worship God through, among other possibilities, the act of prayer.
Changing the direction of Qibla did not alter anything of an essential nature with respect to the basics of Islam. An external feature of the form of worship was modified.
Prior to the night journey and mi’raj of the Prophet, prayers did not have any specific external form. During the Prophet’s ascension, one of the gifts given to the Prophet, specifically, and to Muslims, in general, was the external form of the prayer.
This new form of worship did not alter or nullify any aspect of the essence of what is involved in prayer. As the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is reported to have said:
“Prayer is the sacrifice whereby every believer comes closer to Allah.”
Every instance of prayer is an exercise in sacrificing the interests of one nafs in order to remember God, and through such a sacrifice, one becomes purified so that one may enter a condition of taqwa through which, God willing, one may be brought closer to the reality of things through whatever truths God may disclose to the individual.
Similarly, in the case of the change in the external direction of Qibla, none of this altered the internal direction of Qibla which has always been to God. Indeed, the true Sacred Mosque is the purified heart of every believer, and one concentrates on the external form in order that one may be guided to remember that the external is but a reflection of the metaphysical realities within us. The true Qibla is the realization that:
“Wheresoever you turn, there is the Face of God.” [2:115]
As well as:
Wa huwa ma’akum aynama kuntum (And He is with you wherever you are [57:4]
In reality, what has occurred with respect to the issue of the change in Qibla is not a nullification of a prior Divine communication, but, rather Muslims were being informed that a timeframe of appropriateness had come to an end or had passed by with respect to the activity of prayer. That is, the external form of an activity – namely praying -- which had been entirely appropriate for Muslims to observe before the revelation concerning a change in the direction of Qibla was being modified and, as a result, the previous external form was no longer the appropriate external form through which to observe prayers.
The principle involved in the foregoing is not that of nullifying or overturning what previously had been sent. The principle is that everything has a context of appropriateness, and this principle is operative throughout the Qur’an.
In short, the revelation concerning the change in Qibla gives expression to an important principle involving the nature of Quranic guidance. What is appropriate is not a function of that which is unchanging with respect to understanding, but, rather, what is appropriate is a function of taking into consideration the manner in which guidance changes as a function of contingencies.
Attention is being directed to the importance of context. Attention is being directed to the importance of the manner in which the criteria of appropriateness changes with the nature of contingent factors and forces which surround historical and existential circumstances.
Just as, in some cases, subsequent revelation may alter one’s understanding of past verses or changes how one understands or engages spiritual practice, so, too, different God-granted insights into one and the same verse may change over time in a way that informs faith and practice and affects the manner in which one engages or understands other verses of the Qur’an in a manner that is different from what previously had been the case. This is how faith, knowledge, and wisdom increase – not through nullification, per se, but through the supplementing, complementing, modification, and enriching of one’s previous understanding concerning Divine guidance.
There is some indication that several of the Companions understood things in the foregoing sense. For instance, consider the following cases.
Despite the specific guidance of 9:60 in the Qur’an which stipulates who is to be a recipient of state funds – an ayat which includes the idea that winning over the hearts of certain people for the Muslim community is to included among such uses -- and although the Prophet, himself, always directed a share of the state funds toward such a purpose [namely, winning over the hearts of certain people for the benefit of the Muslim community], nonetheless, Hazrat ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) refused to direct a portion of community funds to such a purpose. He argued that during the time of the Prophet, Muslims were weak and in need of such support, but those times had passed, and the community no longer was in need of such assistance, and, therefore, the guidance inherent in 9:60 was, in the indicated sense, no longer relevant to the Muslim community – although this could change again, depending on contingent circumstances.
Hazrat ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) wasn’t abrogating or nullifying verse 60 of Surah 9. Rather, he was taking into consideration the appropriateness of the context or timeframe for the application of a given facet of guidance.
On another occasion, during the conquests of Mesopotamia and Syria, Hazrat ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) did not observe the requirements of 59:6-10 in the Qur’an which governed the distribution of ghana’im [booty or spoils of war]. Instead, he indicated that the state was more in need of such resources than individuals were, and if this were not done, then the Muslim armies in various territories could not be equipped or maintained.
Here, again, a decision was made that required one to compare the character of contingent circumstances in relation to specific provisions of the Qur’an which, superficially, may have been thought to govern such matters. The task faced by Hazrat ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) was to determine whether, or not, the character of the latter actually addressed the character of the former.
Apparently, Hazrat ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) decided that the nature of the hukm of the historical circumstances and contingencies with which the Muslim community was faced at that time was different from the nature of the hukm inherent in the guidance of Surah 59, verses 6-10. In doing this, he was not abrogating or nullifying this aspect of the Qur’an, but, instead, he was seeking to determine the conditions of appropriateness for applying one facet of Quranic guidance rather than some other aspect of such guidance.
Along these same lines, consider the following excerpt from Bukhari which is narrated by Nafi’:
“During the affliction of Ibn Az-Zubair [which took place after the Prophet had passed away], 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)
Once again, the foregoing tradition brings home the point that the task facing human beings is not just a matter of looking in the Qur’an and applying whatever one likes. One must try to understand the hukm – that is, the reality or governing principle – of both the situation in which one is involved, as well as strive to discover that hukm of the Qur’an which best serves the hukm of life’s circumstances.
This is an expression of ijtihad. This is not an expression of naksh or abrogation.
The issue of trying to struggle toward establishing what is an appropriate frame of reference for tying together certain existential contingencies with various facets of Quranic guidance is a theme which occurs again and again throughout the Qur’an. There are times and circumstances when it is appropriate to apply certain facets of guidance, and there are times and circumstances when it is not appropriate to apply such aspects of guidance.
Everything is about discernment and doing what is appropriate at the right time, and in the right way, and for the right length of time, and with the right intention before some other principle becomes more appropriate for one to pursue as circumstances change. Context and the nature of the contingency of events which come together and give that context the structural character it has is of fundamental importance. It is the context which calls out for relief from Quranic guidance and, therefore, it is, in a sense, the context which establishes the conditions which must be satisfied through the appropriate application of Divine guidance.
If one understands a situation, then, one also understands what one is looking for in the way of spiritual relief. By opening oneself up – in the unbiased manner of taqwa -- to the Divine Word, then, God willing, the solution to that context is given through what is most resonant in the one doing ijtihad in relation to a given situation.
The times for fasting, hajj, prayer, wuzu, zakat, and so on are all to be observed from within a given timeframe of appropriateness. When a given timeframe of appropriateness has passed, then certain guidance is no longer necessarily applicable.
For example, the Qur’an indicates that:
“Worship at fixed times has been enjoined on the believers.” [Qur’an, 4:103]
When the timeframe for a particular instance of worship has passed, then, one moves on to what is appropriate with respect to the changed timeframe. The ritual fast only occurs during the month of Ramadan, and when that timeframe has passed, then, the ritual fast cannot be observed -- although there are provisions for making up what may have been missed due to, say, travel or ill-health or for expiating the transgression of intentionally not fasting during the indicated timeframe. Hajj only occurs within a fixed timeframe, and when that period has passed, the rituals of Hajj are no longer operable – although one still can perform the lesser pilgrimage. The times for saying the five daily prayers exist within a fixed timeframe, and when that window of opportunity passes, then, one has missed the prayer – although one can offer prayers at a later time in the hope that such offerings will be accepted by God in exchange for the fixed prayers that were missed.
Appropriateness changes with circumstances, contexts, peoples, and contingencies. Therefore, the timeframes for the conditions of appropriateness pass into and out of existence. This is not to say that everything is relative or that there are no boundaries of propriety, because there are such boundaries, and God is continually warning people in the Qur’an not to transgress due boundaries. For example:
But whoever seeks to go beyond that, these are they who exceed the limits; [Qur’an, 23:7]
However, there is no principle of naksh or abrogation which is operative in the Qur’an. What is operative is a principle of appropriateness in which as the hukm or reality of circumstances change, then, one must go in search of the appropriate Quranic hukm to address and reflect such changes.
****************
Monday, August 18, 2008
Shari'ah: A Muslim's Declaration of Independence - Part 12
A Few Comments Concerning The Issue of Regulating Public Space
There has been a great deal of confusion in the Muslim community swirling among questions about the possible relationship between, on the one hand, what may have been done in the lifetime of the Prophet -- as well as during the lifetimes of the Companions of the Prophet over the course of the reign of the first four caliphs -- in relation to the issue of regulating public space, and, on the other hand, what may be appropriate to do today in relation to the same issue involving the regulation of public space. The root of the term ‘hukumah’ [governance] refers to a process of seeking to assist an oppressor not to oppress, and such assistance includes helping those who would exercise this responsibility – that is, political and religious leaders … i.e., the government itself – to refrain from any inclination existing within such governance to oppress, exploit, or abuse those whom such governance is supposed to be protecting from these very problems.
The Qur’an says:
“And if there had not been Allah’s repelling of some people by others, certainly there would have been torn down cloisters, and churches, and synagogues, and mosques in which Allah’s name is much mentioned; and surely Allah will help the one who helps His cause; most surely Allah is Strong, Mighty. [Qur’an, 22:39-40]
Hukumah or governance is one of the means through which Allah repels the oppression of some people by others. Moreover, it is important to note that God alludes to the right of those who worship in cloisters, churches, synagogues, and mosques to all be free to remember, worship, and invoke the name of God in their own manner.
There is a Hadith which relates the story of Abu ‘l-Husayn, a companion of the Prophet, whose two sons had been converted to Christianity in Medina by two Syrian merchants and then accompanied those merchants back to Syria. When Abu ‘l-Husayn heard of this, he went to the Prophet and sought permission to go after his sons and bring them back – not only to Medina but to Islam. In answer, the Prophet recited the Qur’an: “There is no compulsion in Deen, truly the right way has become clearly distinct from error.”[Qur’an, 2:256] Upon hearing the foregoing, Abu ‘l-Husayn let his sons go their own way.
When Abu Bakr Sidiq (may Allah be pleased with him) was Caliph [died in the 13th year after hijrah and was Caliph from 632 A.D. to 634 A.D.] he sent the Muslim army into Syria. As he did so, he issued the following guidance:
“When you enter the land, kill neither old men, women, nor children. … Establish a covenant with every people and city who receive you peacefully, give them your assurances, and let them live according to their laws.”
The Prophet, as well as the first four caliphs, all made decisions concerning the regulation of the public space, but these decisions were not shari‘ah, per se. As has been pointed out repeatedly during this essay, shari‘ah is an expression of a person’s private spiritual journey in search of reality or the truth concerning human existence and the place of such existence in the scheme of things, whereas the decisions of the Prophet and the first four Caliphs were particularized applications of their understanding of, and insight into, the nature of Divine guidance which had been given to them and were intended to address the circumstances, history, conditions, problems, cultures, capabilities, and issues of those times.
As the Prophet was instructed to say:
“This is my way. I call to God– I and whoever follows me being certain.” [Qur’an, 12:108]
Just as the appropriate times for fasting, pilgrimage, and prayers are to be observed within a certain timeframe, so, too, there may be an appropriate timeframe or contingency-based set of considerations concerning the application of certain other facets of the Qur’an. However, in order to determine the truth of such matters, one needs to call upon Allah – not books of fiqh, jurisprudence, judicial precedent, or legislation.
In the Qur’an, the Jews are told that they should have judged matters in accordance with the guidance which had been given to them …
“And why do they make you – Muhammad – the judge when they have the Taurat wherein is Allah’s judgment?” [Qur’an, 5:43]
The Qur’an also indicates that Christians should be judging matters in accordance with the guidance [Injeel] which had been given to them …
“And the followers of the Injeel should have judged by what Allah revealed in it; and whoever did not judge by what Allah revealed, those are they who are transgressors.” [Qur’an, 5:47].
Moreover, the Prophet is also told in the Qur’an that if the Jews and Christians come to him for purposes of seeking judgment in a matter, then:
“… judge between them or turn aside from them, and if you turn aside from them, they will not harm you in any way; and if you should decide to serve as a judge, then judge between them with equity; surely God loves those who judge equitably.” [Qur’an, 5:42]
The choice of whether, or not, to decide issues which were brought to him by people from the Christian and/or Jewish community was up to the Prophet. He was made keeper over their affairs and, in fact, the Prophet was reminded – as noted in the foregoing commentary – that both the Christian and the Jewish peoples had been given their own means of deciding matters through the Torah of Moses and the Injeel of Jesus (peace be upon him).
The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is no longer with us in a physical form. The Companions are no longer with us in a physical form.
For the most part, we do not have access to the intentions through which the Prophet or the first four caliphs made their decisions and judgments concerning the regulation of public space. If the Prophet were with us now as a physical presence to which we had ready access, one cannot be sure that he necessarily would decide matters today concerning the regulation of public space exactly as he did more than 1400 years ago when circumstances, conditions, history, culture, and needs were very much different than they are today. Yet, there are people today who have arrogated to themselves the presumption that they know what the Prophet would do or how he would decide matters concerning the regulation of public space if he were here with us in the present set of circumstances.
It is reported that a person wanted to place a book written by Imam Malik in the Sacred Mosque. Apparently, the idea behind that individual’s desire was so that people coming to the Sacred Mosque might discover the book, read it, and, God willing, learn something from its contents. When Imam Malik heard about the person’s desire to place one of the Imam’s books in the Sacred Mosque, Imam Malik indicated that he was not in favor of such an action.
Imam Malik is reported to have said: “The companions of the Messenger of Allah disagreed about the branches and dispersed to different countries, and each one is correct.” He further commented: “The people have handed over to them positions, and they heard hadith and they examined reports, and each people takes what was handed over to them, and they yield to Allah with it. So, leave the people alone and what they choose for themselves in every country.”
The Qur’an reminds us that:
“… for every one of you did We appoint a law and a way, and if Allah had wished He would have made you a single people, but that He might try you in what He gave you, therefore strive with one another to hasten to virtuous deeds; to Allah is your return of all, so He will let you know that in which you differed;” [Qur’an, 5:48]
Prior to becoming Caliph, Hazrat Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) said:
"Listen to me, ye people. Those of you who worshipped Muhammad know that he is dead like any other mortal. But those of you who worship the God of Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) know that He is alive and would live forever."
Then he repeated a passage from the Qur’an:
"And Muhammad is no more than an apostle; apostles have already passed away before him; if then he dies or is killed will you turn back upon your heels? And whoever turns back upon his heels, he will by no means do harm to Allah in the least and Allah will reward the grateful.” [Qur’an, 3:144]
Public space should be governed in a way that prevents oppression, exploitation, or abuse of any kind to undermine or interfere with people’s basic right – which is granted by God – to decide the spiritual direction of their path in life. This is a right and a freedom which each human being has so long as whatever acts arise out of such choices do not spill over into the lives of other individuals and, in the process, adversely or problematically affect the latter’s ability to freely chose and act with respect to their own individual course in life.
The public space, or commons, should be governed through principles of justice, equitability, peace, tolerance, integrity, honesty, charitableness, freedom, compassion, balance, harmony, and the sort of mediated settlements which help limit, if not eliminate all together, all forms of oppression, persecution, abuse, and exploitation. A public space governed in accordance with the foregoing qualities will, if God wishes, generate the type of environment which may prove to be most conducive to the exercise of the basic right to choose between good and evil – a responsibility which belongs to each and every human being.
If one looks to the example of the Prophet, the public space of his community was regulated in accordance with all of the foregoing considerations. He did not force people to pursue shari‘ah but, rather, regulated public space in such a way as to provide people with the fullest opportunity to individually pursue shari‘ah as rigorously as the latter individuals were so inclined to do as long as that pursuit did not infringe upon the right of others to do as they were inclined to do with respect to their own individual journey of shari‘ah. Moreover, quite frequently, the Prophet made judgments concerning the regulation of public space which were in accordance with pre-Islamic, customary practices of the Arab or Jewish tribes.
The Qur’an instructed the Prophet to:
“Say: ‘This is the truth from your Lord’, then, whoever wills let him believe, and whoever wills let him disbelieve.” [Qur’an, 18:29]
At another juncture the Qur’an informs the Prophet:
“You shall remind; you are entrusted to remind. You are not a watcher over them.” [Qur’an, 88:21-22]
And, at another point, the Qur’an indicates:
“Say, ‘Obey Allah, and obey the Messenger.’ If they refuse, then, he is responsible for his obligations, and you are responsible for your obligations. If you obey him, you will be guided.” [24:54]
Moreover, the Qur’an states:
“The guiding of them is not thy duty (O Muhammad), but Allah guides whom He will.” [Qur’an 2: 272).
If, according to the Qur’an, the Prophet is not responsible for the guiding of people to God, and if the duty of the Prophet is not to watch over whether, or not, people pursue shari‘ah, and if God is making it clear that it is up to the individual as to whether he or she believes in the truth which has been sent through the Qur’an and that each person has her or his own responsibility with respect to God, then, why do Muslim religious scholars, imams, theologians, mullahs, leaders, and the like all believe they have duties and responsibilities which were not entrusted to the Prophet? And, in the light of the foregoing considerations from the Qur’an, what is the source of their authority for assuming such duties and responsibilities?
Some religious scholars, would-be leaders, and theologians point to the following Quranic ayat as a possible source for what they consider their ‘rightful’ authority over people:
“O believers! Obey Allah, obey the Rasool and those charged with authority among you. Should you have a dispute in anything, refer it to Allah and His Rasool, if you truly believe in Allah and the Last Day. This course of action will be better and more suitable.” (Qur’an 4:59)
When would-be leaders cite the foregoing verse and seek to use it as an authority for expecting, if not demanding, that others should be obedient to the former, those who approach things in this manner are not only making several questionable assumptions, but, as well, such individuals often tend to act contrary to the full text of the guidance. More specifically, an assumption is being made that the sort of ‘authority’ to which the previous Quranic verse alludes is referring to worldly authority as opposed to spiritual authority, and a further assumption is being made that such individuals have been “charged” or given responsibility by God – or the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) -- to exercise authority over other individuals. Furthermore, when disputes arise in the community, then, contrary to the guidance of the Qur’an, such religious and political leaders often do not refer the matter to either Allah or the Prophet, but, instead, attempt to decide the matter according to their own theological likes and dislikes – with the assistance of imams, mullahs, and religious scholars who are loyal to those leaders -- and, then, seek to impose – forcibly, if necessary -- their decisions on others.
The Prophet had a unique position within the Muslim community. Under the Divinely-sanctioned circumstances surrounding such a standing, the public, for the most part, did not wish to place constraints on what the Prophet could and could not do. This would have been antithetical to the nature of his position and the Divine authority in which his position was rooted – something which, after all was said and done, most [but not all] people in the community acknowledged and accepted.
However, there were those who came after the Prophet [and I do not necessarily have the four ‘righteous Caliphs’ in mind here] who enjoyed something very similar to the status of the Prophet within the Muslim community. As a result, those individuals became rulers in a more or less absolute sense without necessarily having that status sanctioned by Divinity, even though, obviously, such rulers were permitted by God to do whatever they did.
The Prophet had appointed no one to succeed him with respect to the regulation of public – as opposed to spiritual – space. On the other hand, the individuals who followed the Prophet as leaders of the community often were supported through the general trust of the public with respect to the presumed character, morality, piety, and good intentions of whoever it was that became ruler.
Once someone was elected to lead the community – and this was usually by a small group of individuals rather than the community as a whole – or in those cases where a current caliph appointed a successor – and this tended to be the case quite frequently because fathers tended to appoint their sons as their successors -- the general public would be required, en masse, to take ba’yt, or an oath of allegiance, with respect to the individual who would be king or sultan. Unfortunately, such a process offered few, if any, avenues through which a person might opt out of that oath or agreement either before or after the oath of allegiance was to be given, nor did that system permit or encourage the general public to play much of a rigorous, active role in determining who would be ruler or whether, or not, there should only be a single leader for the community -- as opposed to some sort of system of self-governance in which shura or consultation was used as the means through which to address the problems which confront a given community in accordance with the Quranic guidance which says:
“And their rule is to take counsel among themselves …” [Qur’an, 42:38]
In addition, apparently, many people forgot what Hazrat Abu Bakr Siddiq (may Allah be pleased with him) said upon becoming Caliph:
“Obey me as long as I obey Allah and His Prophet. When I disobey Him and His Prophet, then obey me not.”
Hazrat Abu Bakr Siddiq (may Allah be pleased with him) was alluding to the right of people to opt out of their oath of allegiance to him – or to any leader. The determining factor was not the identity of the leader, but, rather, the determining factor was whether, or not, such a person was acting in accordance with the guidance of the Qur’an or the example of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).
The belief that there should be just one leader who was either given or assumed authority to do whatever he deemed to be appropriate became corrupted within a fairly short period of time following the passing away of the Prophet. When this sort of corruption was thoroughly entrenched and became institutionally calcified, many people apparently had considerable difficulty grasping the idea that the Qur’an actually served as, among other things, a Bill of Rights that was intended to protect people against oppression, exploitation, or abuse from their political or religious leaders. This sort of difficulty was maintained and perpetuated through the manner in which, on the one hand, the sultans and kings, and, on the other hand, various imams, qadis, muftis, and theological scholars would engage in reciprocal back-scratching among themselves with respect to mutually framing the historical situation in such a way that the majority of the community were induced to believe that both the leaders and their theological accomplices were the proper guardians and representatives of Sacred Law, despite the fact that many of these individuals might not have recognized the nature of Sacred Law or shari‘ah even if the former tripped over the latter.
The regulation of public space is one issue, and the pursuit of shari‘ah is quite another matter and completely independent of how public space is to be regulated. To seek to impose on others, through the public space, one’s own ideas about what the nature of the spiritual journey ought to involve is to engage in a form of spiritual abuse.
When anyone – imam, mufti, theologian, scholar, leader, qadi, mullah – seeks to control the spirituality of another human being, then, that the former individual has transgressed due limits and has entered into the realm of spiritual abuse or exploitation, and, therefore, oppression. As the Qur’an reminds us:
“Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress the limits, for God does not love the transgressors. [Qur’an, 2:190]
“… tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter.”[Qur’an, 2:191]
“And fight them till there is no more oppression, and Deen should only be for Allah, but if they desist, then there should be no hostility except against the oppressor.” [Qur’an, 2:193]
The foregoing is not sanctioning leaders to force Deen upon people, but, rather, the foregoing ayat is a reminder to everyone – especially leaders -- that Deen belongs to Allah and should not be interfered with or undermined by anyone. Moreover, when Deen – that is, the process of nurturing and enhancing the relationship of an individual with God, and, indeed, this is the cause of Allah -- is subject to oppression, then people have the right to resist such aggression so long as the form of that resistance does not transgress due limits of propriety, and one of the limits of propriety is that resistance should only be directed toward those who are being oppressive … no one else.
Indeed, as the Qur’an makes clear elsewhere:
“The blame is only against those who oppress human beings with wrong-doing and
insolently transgress beyond bounds through the land defying right and justice.” [Qur’an, 42:42]
The foregoing remains true even when the ones who are doing the oppressing are the very ones – in the form of religious or political leaders – who supposedly have assumed responsibility for protecting the people against such oppression.
Scholarly debates, rigorous research, discussions, informal conversations, symposia, conferences, round-table sessions, formal talks, books, articles, podcasts, television programs, documentaries, educational programs, and so on, are all legitimate venues through which to exchange views, ideas, and various considerations concerning problems, questions, and issues of spirituality. The foregoing are all legitimate venues through which people may consult with one another on such matters – provided there is no compulsion or oppression involved in these activities either with respect to the matter of attending these sort of exchanges or with respect to having to abide by what is said during those sessions.
In this respect, the Qur’an indicates:
“Call to the way of your Lord with wisdom and goodly exhortation, and have disputations with them in the best manner.” [Qur’an, 16:125]
Although the foregoing guidance was specifically addressed to the Prophet, and although the calling others to the way of God is not the responsibility of a non-Prophet, nonetheless, when one engages in discussions with others concerning various issues, problems, and questions affecting the quality of public space, one still can follow the sunna of the Prophet in such matters and, thereby, seek to do so “with wisdom and goodly exhortation, and have disputations with them in the best manner.”
“O ye who believe! Be upright for Allah, bearers of witness with justice, and let not hatred of a people incite or seduce you not to act equitably; act equitably, that is nearer to piety (taqwa) , and be careful with respect to Allah, surely Allah is aware of what you do.” ‘Qur’an, 5:8]
The public space or commons should not be operated in accordance with any philosophy or theology of public policy which imposes economic, legal, political, physical, moral, intellectual, educational, or cultural agendas on the members of the community who inhabit that public space. The sole task of governance is to guard against the emergence of any kind of oppression, exploitation, or abuse which may arise within the community or which threatens such a community from an external source.
Moreover, all members of the community have a duty of care toward themselves and others to contribute to helping those who are entrusted with governance to succeed in their sole task and responsibility concerning the struggle against oppression, along with the close cousins of oppression – namely, exploitation and abuse.
God:
“… made the balance, That you may not be inordinate [exceed limits, or transgress boundaries] in respect of the measure. And keep up the balance with equity and do not make the measure deficient. [Qur’an, 55:7-9]
The balance, the measure, equity, and taqwa are all expressions of truth and justice. They are all expressions of the Sacred Law. They are all expressions of a realized shari‘ah.
Determining the hukm or realities of such truths are challenges to which, God willing, individuals must aspire. They are not challenges which can be imposed on people or with respect to which compulsion is appropriate.
On the other hand, the ones who are entrusted to exercise governance have a duty of care to assist oppressors not to oppress others -- including themselves. Indeed, the Prophet is reported to have said that one should “Assist any person who is oppressed – whether Muslim or non-Muslim.”
The primary forms of oppression, exploitation and abuse come in the form of those actions which are likely to undermine or interfere with an individual’s God-given right to pursue, or not pursue, the realities and truths of Sacred Law and shari‘ah according to the nature of that person’s capacity, circumstances, level of understanding, inclinations, and God’s Grace … so long as the exercise of such choice does not interfere with, or undermine, the right of others to address such issues in their own manner. All other expressions of oppression, exploitation, and abuse are variations on the foregoing theme.
*****************
There has been a great deal of confusion in the Muslim community swirling among questions about the possible relationship between, on the one hand, what may have been done in the lifetime of the Prophet -- as well as during the lifetimes of the Companions of the Prophet over the course of the reign of the first four caliphs -- in relation to the issue of regulating public space, and, on the other hand, what may be appropriate to do today in relation to the same issue involving the regulation of public space. The root of the term ‘hukumah’ [governance] refers to a process of seeking to assist an oppressor not to oppress, and such assistance includes helping those who would exercise this responsibility – that is, political and religious leaders … i.e., the government itself – to refrain from any inclination existing within such governance to oppress, exploit, or abuse those whom such governance is supposed to be protecting from these very problems.
The Qur’an says:
“And if there had not been Allah’s repelling of some people by others, certainly there would have been torn down cloisters, and churches, and synagogues, and mosques in which Allah’s name is much mentioned; and surely Allah will help the one who helps His cause; most surely Allah is Strong, Mighty. [Qur’an, 22:39-40]
Hukumah or governance is one of the means through which Allah repels the oppression of some people by others. Moreover, it is important to note that God alludes to the right of those who worship in cloisters, churches, synagogues, and mosques to all be free to remember, worship, and invoke the name of God in their own manner.
There is a Hadith which relates the story of Abu ‘l-Husayn, a companion of the Prophet, whose two sons had been converted to Christianity in Medina by two Syrian merchants and then accompanied those merchants back to Syria. When Abu ‘l-Husayn heard of this, he went to the Prophet and sought permission to go after his sons and bring them back – not only to Medina but to Islam. In answer, the Prophet recited the Qur’an: “There is no compulsion in Deen, truly the right way has become clearly distinct from error.”[Qur’an, 2:256] Upon hearing the foregoing, Abu ‘l-Husayn let his sons go their own way.
When Abu Bakr Sidiq (may Allah be pleased with him) was Caliph [died in the 13th year after hijrah and was Caliph from 632 A.D. to 634 A.D.] he sent the Muslim army into Syria. As he did so, he issued the following guidance:
“When you enter the land, kill neither old men, women, nor children. … Establish a covenant with every people and city who receive you peacefully, give them your assurances, and let them live according to their laws.”
The Prophet, as well as the first four caliphs, all made decisions concerning the regulation of the public space, but these decisions were not shari‘ah, per se. As has been pointed out repeatedly during this essay, shari‘ah is an expression of a person’s private spiritual journey in search of reality or the truth concerning human existence and the place of such existence in the scheme of things, whereas the decisions of the Prophet and the first four Caliphs were particularized applications of their understanding of, and insight into, the nature of Divine guidance which had been given to them and were intended to address the circumstances, history, conditions, problems, cultures, capabilities, and issues of those times.
As the Prophet was instructed to say:
“This is my way. I call to God– I and whoever follows me being certain.” [Qur’an, 12:108]
Just as the appropriate times for fasting, pilgrimage, and prayers are to be observed within a certain timeframe, so, too, there may be an appropriate timeframe or contingency-based set of considerations concerning the application of certain other facets of the Qur’an. However, in order to determine the truth of such matters, one needs to call upon Allah – not books of fiqh, jurisprudence, judicial precedent, or legislation.
In the Qur’an, the Jews are told that they should have judged matters in accordance with the guidance which had been given to them …
“And why do they make you – Muhammad – the judge when they have the Taurat wherein is Allah’s judgment?” [Qur’an, 5:43]
The Qur’an also indicates that Christians should be judging matters in accordance with the guidance [Injeel] which had been given to them …
“And the followers of the Injeel should have judged by what Allah revealed in it; and whoever did not judge by what Allah revealed, those are they who are transgressors.” [Qur’an, 5:47].
Moreover, the Prophet is also told in the Qur’an that if the Jews and Christians come to him for purposes of seeking judgment in a matter, then:
“… judge between them or turn aside from them, and if you turn aside from them, they will not harm you in any way; and if you should decide to serve as a judge, then judge between them with equity; surely God loves those who judge equitably.” [Qur’an, 5:42]
The choice of whether, or not, to decide issues which were brought to him by people from the Christian and/or Jewish community was up to the Prophet. He was made keeper over their affairs and, in fact, the Prophet was reminded – as noted in the foregoing commentary – that both the Christian and the Jewish peoples had been given their own means of deciding matters through the Torah of Moses and the Injeel of Jesus (peace be upon him).
The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is no longer with us in a physical form. The Companions are no longer with us in a physical form.
For the most part, we do not have access to the intentions through which the Prophet or the first four caliphs made their decisions and judgments concerning the regulation of public space. If the Prophet were with us now as a physical presence to which we had ready access, one cannot be sure that he necessarily would decide matters today concerning the regulation of public space exactly as he did more than 1400 years ago when circumstances, conditions, history, culture, and needs were very much different than they are today. Yet, there are people today who have arrogated to themselves the presumption that they know what the Prophet would do or how he would decide matters concerning the regulation of public space if he were here with us in the present set of circumstances.
It is reported that a person wanted to place a book written by Imam Malik in the Sacred Mosque. Apparently, the idea behind that individual’s desire was so that people coming to the Sacred Mosque might discover the book, read it, and, God willing, learn something from its contents. When Imam Malik heard about the person’s desire to place one of the Imam’s books in the Sacred Mosque, Imam Malik indicated that he was not in favor of such an action.
Imam Malik is reported to have said: “The companions of the Messenger of Allah disagreed about the branches and dispersed to different countries, and each one is correct.” He further commented: “The people have handed over to them positions, and they heard hadith and they examined reports, and each people takes what was handed over to them, and they yield to Allah with it. So, leave the people alone and what they choose for themselves in every country.”
The Qur’an reminds us that:
“… for every one of you did We appoint a law and a way, and if Allah had wished He would have made you a single people, but that He might try you in what He gave you, therefore strive with one another to hasten to virtuous deeds; to Allah is your return of all, so He will let you know that in which you differed;” [Qur’an, 5:48]
Prior to becoming Caliph, Hazrat Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) said:
"Listen to me, ye people. Those of you who worshipped Muhammad know that he is dead like any other mortal. But those of you who worship the God of Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) know that He is alive and would live forever."
Then he repeated a passage from the Qur’an:
"And Muhammad is no more than an apostle; apostles have already passed away before him; if then he dies or is killed will you turn back upon your heels? And whoever turns back upon his heels, he will by no means do harm to Allah in the least and Allah will reward the grateful.” [Qur’an, 3:144]
Public space should be governed in a way that prevents oppression, exploitation, or abuse of any kind to undermine or interfere with people’s basic right – which is granted by God – to decide the spiritual direction of their path in life. This is a right and a freedom which each human being has so long as whatever acts arise out of such choices do not spill over into the lives of other individuals and, in the process, adversely or problematically affect the latter’s ability to freely chose and act with respect to their own individual course in life.
The public space, or commons, should be governed through principles of justice, equitability, peace, tolerance, integrity, honesty, charitableness, freedom, compassion, balance, harmony, and the sort of mediated settlements which help limit, if not eliminate all together, all forms of oppression, persecution, abuse, and exploitation. A public space governed in accordance with the foregoing qualities will, if God wishes, generate the type of environment which may prove to be most conducive to the exercise of the basic right to choose between good and evil – a responsibility which belongs to each and every human being.
If one looks to the example of the Prophet, the public space of his community was regulated in accordance with all of the foregoing considerations. He did not force people to pursue shari‘ah but, rather, regulated public space in such a way as to provide people with the fullest opportunity to individually pursue shari‘ah as rigorously as the latter individuals were so inclined to do as long as that pursuit did not infringe upon the right of others to do as they were inclined to do with respect to their own individual journey of shari‘ah. Moreover, quite frequently, the Prophet made judgments concerning the regulation of public space which were in accordance with pre-Islamic, customary practices of the Arab or Jewish tribes.
The Qur’an instructed the Prophet to:
“Say: ‘This is the truth from your Lord’, then, whoever wills let him believe, and whoever wills let him disbelieve.” [Qur’an, 18:29]
At another juncture the Qur’an informs the Prophet:
“You shall remind; you are entrusted to remind. You are not a watcher over them.” [Qur’an, 88:21-22]
And, at another point, the Qur’an indicates:
“Say, ‘Obey Allah, and obey the Messenger.’ If they refuse, then, he is responsible for his obligations, and you are responsible for your obligations. If you obey him, you will be guided.” [24:54]
Moreover, the Qur’an states:
“The guiding of them is not thy duty (O Muhammad), but Allah guides whom He will.” [Qur’an 2: 272).
If, according to the Qur’an, the Prophet is not responsible for the guiding of people to God, and if the duty of the Prophet is not to watch over whether, or not, people pursue shari‘ah, and if God is making it clear that it is up to the individual as to whether he or she believes in the truth which has been sent through the Qur’an and that each person has her or his own responsibility with respect to God, then, why do Muslim religious scholars, imams, theologians, mullahs, leaders, and the like all believe they have duties and responsibilities which were not entrusted to the Prophet? And, in the light of the foregoing considerations from the Qur’an, what is the source of their authority for assuming such duties and responsibilities?
Some religious scholars, would-be leaders, and theologians point to the following Quranic ayat as a possible source for what they consider their ‘rightful’ authority over people:
“O believers! Obey Allah, obey the Rasool and those charged with authority among you. Should you have a dispute in anything, refer it to Allah and His Rasool, if you truly believe in Allah and the Last Day. This course of action will be better and more suitable.” (Qur’an 4:59)
When would-be leaders cite the foregoing verse and seek to use it as an authority for expecting, if not demanding, that others should be obedient to the former, those who approach things in this manner are not only making several questionable assumptions, but, as well, such individuals often tend to act contrary to the full text of the guidance. More specifically, an assumption is being made that the sort of ‘authority’ to which the previous Quranic verse alludes is referring to worldly authority as opposed to spiritual authority, and a further assumption is being made that such individuals have been “charged” or given responsibility by God – or the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) -- to exercise authority over other individuals. Furthermore, when disputes arise in the community, then, contrary to the guidance of the Qur’an, such religious and political leaders often do not refer the matter to either Allah or the Prophet, but, instead, attempt to decide the matter according to their own theological likes and dislikes – with the assistance of imams, mullahs, and religious scholars who are loyal to those leaders -- and, then, seek to impose – forcibly, if necessary -- their decisions on others.
The Prophet had a unique position within the Muslim community. Under the Divinely-sanctioned circumstances surrounding such a standing, the public, for the most part, did not wish to place constraints on what the Prophet could and could not do. This would have been antithetical to the nature of his position and the Divine authority in which his position was rooted – something which, after all was said and done, most [but not all] people in the community acknowledged and accepted.
However, there were those who came after the Prophet [and I do not necessarily have the four ‘righteous Caliphs’ in mind here] who enjoyed something very similar to the status of the Prophet within the Muslim community. As a result, those individuals became rulers in a more or less absolute sense without necessarily having that status sanctioned by Divinity, even though, obviously, such rulers were permitted by God to do whatever they did.
The Prophet had appointed no one to succeed him with respect to the regulation of public – as opposed to spiritual – space. On the other hand, the individuals who followed the Prophet as leaders of the community often were supported through the general trust of the public with respect to the presumed character, morality, piety, and good intentions of whoever it was that became ruler.
Once someone was elected to lead the community – and this was usually by a small group of individuals rather than the community as a whole – or in those cases where a current caliph appointed a successor – and this tended to be the case quite frequently because fathers tended to appoint their sons as their successors -- the general public would be required, en masse, to take ba’yt, or an oath of allegiance, with respect to the individual who would be king or sultan. Unfortunately, such a process offered few, if any, avenues through which a person might opt out of that oath or agreement either before or after the oath of allegiance was to be given, nor did that system permit or encourage the general public to play much of a rigorous, active role in determining who would be ruler or whether, or not, there should only be a single leader for the community -- as opposed to some sort of system of self-governance in which shura or consultation was used as the means through which to address the problems which confront a given community in accordance with the Quranic guidance which says:
“And their rule is to take counsel among themselves …” [Qur’an, 42:38]
In addition, apparently, many people forgot what Hazrat Abu Bakr Siddiq (may Allah be pleased with him) said upon becoming Caliph:
“Obey me as long as I obey Allah and His Prophet. When I disobey Him and His Prophet, then obey me not.”
Hazrat Abu Bakr Siddiq (may Allah be pleased with him) was alluding to the right of people to opt out of their oath of allegiance to him – or to any leader. The determining factor was not the identity of the leader, but, rather, the determining factor was whether, or not, such a person was acting in accordance with the guidance of the Qur’an or the example of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).
The belief that there should be just one leader who was either given or assumed authority to do whatever he deemed to be appropriate became corrupted within a fairly short period of time following the passing away of the Prophet. When this sort of corruption was thoroughly entrenched and became institutionally calcified, many people apparently had considerable difficulty grasping the idea that the Qur’an actually served as, among other things, a Bill of Rights that was intended to protect people against oppression, exploitation, or abuse from their political or religious leaders. This sort of difficulty was maintained and perpetuated through the manner in which, on the one hand, the sultans and kings, and, on the other hand, various imams, qadis, muftis, and theological scholars would engage in reciprocal back-scratching among themselves with respect to mutually framing the historical situation in such a way that the majority of the community were induced to believe that both the leaders and their theological accomplices were the proper guardians and representatives of Sacred Law, despite the fact that many of these individuals might not have recognized the nature of Sacred Law or shari‘ah even if the former tripped over the latter.
The regulation of public space is one issue, and the pursuit of shari‘ah is quite another matter and completely independent of how public space is to be regulated. To seek to impose on others, through the public space, one’s own ideas about what the nature of the spiritual journey ought to involve is to engage in a form of spiritual abuse.
When anyone – imam, mufti, theologian, scholar, leader, qadi, mullah – seeks to control the spirituality of another human being, then, that the former individual has transgressed due limits and has entered into the realm of spiritual abuse or exploitation, and, therefore, oppression. As the Qur’an reminds us:
“Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress the limits, for God does not love the transgressors. [Qur’an, 2:190]
“… tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter.”[Qur’an, 2:191]
“And fight them till there is no more oppression, and Deen should only be for Allah, but if they desist, then there should be no hostility except against the oppressor.” [Qur’an, 2:193]
The foregoing is not sanctioning leaders to force Deen upon people, but, rather, the foregoing ayat is a reminder to everyone – especially leaders -- that Deen belongs to Allah and should not be interfered with or undermined by anyone. Moreover, when Deen – that is, the process of nurturing and enhancing the relationship of an individual with God, and, indeed, this is the cause of Allah -- is subject to oppression, then people have the right to resist such aggression so long as the form of that resistance does not transgress due limits of propriety, and one of the limits of propriety is that resistance should only be directed toward those who are being oppressive … no one else.
Indeed, as the Qur’an makes clear elsewhere:
“The blame is only against those who oppress human beings with wrong-doing and
insolently transgress beyond bounds through the land defying right and justice.” [Qur’an, 42:42]
The foregoing remains true even when the ones who are doing the oppressing are the very ones – in the form of religious or political leaders – who supposedly have assumed responsibility for protecting the people against such oppression.
Scholarly debates, rigorous research, discussions, informal conversations, symposia, conferences, round-table sessions, formal talks, books, articles, podcasts, television programs, documentaries, educational programs, and so on, are all legitimate venues through which to exchange views, ideas, and various considerations concerning problems, questions, and issues of spirituality. The foregoing are all legitimate venues through which people may consult with one another on such matters – provided there is no compulsion or oppression involved in these activities either with respect to the matter of attending these sort of exchanges or with respect to having to abide by what is said during those sessions.
In this respect, the Qur’an indicates:
“Call to the way of your Lord with wisdom and goodly exhortation, and have disputations with them in the best manner.” [Qur’an, 16:125]
Although the foregoing guidance was specifically addressed to the Prophet, and although the calling others to the way of God is not the responsibility of a non-Prophet, nonetheless, when one engages in discussions with others concerning various issues, problems, and questions affecting the quality of public space, one still can follow the sunna of the Prophet in such matters and, thereby, seek to do so “with wisdom and goodly exhortation, and have disputations with them in the best manner.”
“O ye who believe! Be upright for Allah, bearers of witness with justice, and let not hatred of a people incite or seduce you not to act equitably; act equitably, that is nearer to piety (taqwa) , and be careful with respect to Allah, surely Allah is aware of what you do.” ‘Qur’an, 5:8]
The public space or commons should not be operated in accordance with any philosophy or theology of public policy which imposes economic, legal, political, physical, moral, intellectual, educational, or cultural agendas on the members of the community who inhabit that public space. The sole task of governance is to guard against the emergence of any kind of oppression, exploitation, or abuse which may arise within the community or which threatens such a community from an external source.
Moreover, all members of the community have a duty of care toward themselves and others to contribute to helping those who are entrusted with governance to succeed in their sole task and responsibility concerning the struggle against oppression, along with the close cousins of oppression – namely, exploitation and abuse.
God:
“… made the balance, That you may not be inordinate [exceed limits, or transgress boundaries] in respect of the measure. And keep up the balance with equity and do not make the measure deficient. [Qur’an, 55:7-9]
The balance, the measure, equity, and taqwa are all expressions of truth and justice. They are all expressions of the Sacred Law. They are all expressions of a realized shari‘ah.
Determining the hukm or realities of such truths are challenges to which, God willing, individuals must aspire. They are not challenges which can be imposed on people or with respect to which compulsion is appropriate.
On the other hand, the ones who are entrusted to exercise governance have a duty of care to assist oppressors not to oppress others -- including themselves. Indeed, the Prophet is reported to have said that one should “Assist any person who is oppressed – whether Muslim or non-Muslim.”
The primary forms of oppression, exploitation and abuse come in the form of those actions which are likely to undermine or interfere with an individual’s God-given right to pursue, or not pursue, the realities and truths of Sacred Law and shari‘ah according to the nature of that person’s capacity, circumstances, level of understanding, inclinations, and God’s Grace … so long as the exercise of such choice does not interfere with, or undermine, the right of others to address such issues in their own manner. All other expressions of oppression, exploitation, and abuse are variations on the foregoing theme.
*****************
Sunday, July 13, 2008
Video - A Modern Peace Quest in Light of the Babel Problem
There is a new video from a talk given at Fordham University in Manhattan in April 2007 on the spiritual-health.org website. To view the video, click on the following link: View Video
Wednesday, July 09, 2008
Sufi Reflections Podcast - An Audio Directory of Current and Past Programs
A web page recently has been constructed at Sufi Reflections Podcast which contains two menus (one above the other) that provide links both to streaming audio versions, as well as downloadable MP3 editions, of all twenty-five completed programs of Sufi Reflections Podcast. When one clicks on any of the entries in the top menu -- which focuses on streaming audio versions of the Sufi Reflections Podcast -- one is taken to a web page which gives a brief overview of some of the main features contained in the selected streaming podcast. The foregoing description is followed by an audio box through which one can listen to the particular Sufi Reflections Podcast one has chosen.
The second menu on the Sufi Reflections Podcast directory noted above contains links to mp3, downloadable versions of all twenty-five Sufi Reflection Podcast programs. If one would rather not be tied to the computer while listening to any given edition of Sufi Reflections Podcast, then, one can download whichever program in which one might be interested. In fact, one can use the links provided in the first menu, noted above, to learn more about what a specific edition of a Sufi Reflections Podcast contains via the aforementioned program overviews, listen to a portion, and, then, decide if one would like to download the program through the links listed in the second menu of the foregoing audio directory for the Sufi Reflections Podcast.
All twenty-five programs of the Sufi Reflections podcast contain relatively brief Quranic recitation, along with poetry (often, although not always, from the writings of Jalal-ud-din Rumi -- may Allah be pleased with him), and several songs drawn from the magnatunes.com collection of artists. Below are brief descriptions for each of the podcasts:
-------------------
Sufi Reflections Podcast # 1
This program includes: an essay entitled "Discernment", a poem set to music with the title 'Aspirations', and a commentary called: 'Two Obligations'.
-------------------
Sufi Reflections Podcast #2
This program contains an essay entitled "Guidance", a poem set to music with the title 'Life, A Work In Progress', a short story called: 'Etymology', and a commentary called: 'A Study In Hypocrisy'.
-------------------
Sufi Reflections Podcast #3
This program involves an essay entitled "Love", a poem set to music with the title 'The Last Sermon', a short story called: 'Phoenix Rising', and a commentary called: 'Openings: A Critical Look at the book What's Right With Islam by Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf.
-------------------
Sufi Reflections Podcast #4
This program contains an essay entitled "Expansion", a poem set to music with the title 'Salaams For The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him)', a short story called: 'Dream On', and a commentary called: 'The Two Commandments which is a critical essay on a section of the book What's Right With Islam by Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf.
-------------------
Sufi Reflections Podcast #5
This program involves an essay entitled "Hatred", a poem set to music with the title 'Tears of Life', a short story called: 'Commitment's Reward', and a commentary entitled: 'Open Letter to the Muslim Community'.
-------------------
Sufi Reflections Podcast #6
This program contains an essay entitled "Spirit", a poem set to music with the title 'The Way Home', a short story called: 'What's Your Secret', and a commentary entitled: 'The Boundary Problem - Part 1' -- a critical examination of certain aspects of so-called Islamic law..
-------------------
Sufi Reflections Podcast #7
This podcast includes an essay entitled "Yaqueen (Certainty)", a poem set to music with the title 'Nature', a short story called: 'Asceticism', and a commentary entitled: 'The Boundary Problem - Part 2 -- a continuation of the critical examination of certain aspects of so-called Islamic law' which was begun in part 1 of the series.
-------------------
Sufi Reflections Podcast #8
This program contains an essay entitled "Identity", a poem set to music with the title 'The Guru', a short story called: 'Original Intent', and a commentary entitled: 'Terrorism - Part 1'.
-------------------
Sufi Reflections Podcast #9
This podcast includes an essay entitled "Fanaticism", a poem set to music with the title 'The Way Home', a short story called: 'Absence', and a commentary entitled: 'Terrorism - Part 2'.
-------------------
Sufi Reflections Podcast #10
This program contains an essay entitled "Balance", a poem set to music with the title 'The Last Sermon', a short story called: 'Artisan', and a commentary entitled: 'Terrorism - Part 3'.
-------------------
Sufi Reflections Podcast #11
This podcast includes an essay entitled "Jihad (Struggle)", a poem set to music with the title 'States: The Usual Suspects', a short story called: 'The Interview', and a commentary entitled: 'Terrorism - Part 4'.
-------------------
Sufi Reflections Podcast #12
This program contains an essay entitled "Zikr (Remembrance)", a poem set to music with the title 'Ode To Those Who Wage War On Peace', a short story called: 'The Snake Charmer', and a commentary entitled: 'Common Roots - Part 1' -- a critical examination involving part of a book What's Right With Islam by Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf.
-------------------
Sufi Reflections Podcast #13
This podcast includes an essay entitled "Government", a poem set to music with the title 'The Gift', a short story called: 'Crisis', and a commentary entitled: 'Common Roots - Part 2' -- a continuation of a critical examination involving part of a book What's Right With Islam by Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf.
-------------------
Sufi Reflections Podcast #14
This program contains an essay entitled "Hope", a poem set to music with the title 'The Human Condition', a short story called: 'Fantasy', and a commentary entitled: 'Common Roots - Part 3' -- a continuation of a critical examination focusing on part of a book What's Right With Islam by Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf.
-------------------
Sufi Reflections Podcast #15
This podcast includes an essay entitled "Ghayr (Other)", a poem set to music with the title 'Freedom', a short story called: 'Point Counterpoint', and a commentary entitled: 'The Nature of Idols'.
-------------------
Sufi Reflections Podcast 16
This program contains an essay entitled "Kun (Be, Become)", a poem set to music with the title 'AndThat Is Enough For Us', a short story called: 'When In Rome', and a commentary entitled: 'A Critical Response to the Nature of Idols - Part 1' -- a critical exploration of certain facets of what is referred to as Islamic law.
-------------------
Sufi Reflections Podcast #17
This podcast includes an essay entitled "Death", a poem set to music with the title 'Hands', a short story called: 'Poison And Its Antidote', and a commentary entitled: 'A Critical Response to the Nature of Idols - Part 2' -- a continuation of the critical exploration into certain facets of what is referred to as Islamic law which began in the previous podcast.
-------------------
Sufi Reflections Podcast 18
This program contains an essay entitled "Dhawk (Taste/Tasting)", a poem set to music with the title 'Mystical Poem', a short story called: 'What's In A Word', and a commentary entitled: 'A Critical Response to the Nature of Idols - Part 3' -- a continuation of a critical inquiry into certain facets of what are referred to as Islamic law which was explored in the two previous podcasts.
-------------------
Sufi Reflections Podcast 19
This podcast includes an essay entitled "Prophets", a poem set to music with the title 'Life, A Work In Progress', a short story called: 'The Curiosity Shoppe', and a commentary entitled: 'The Legacy of Babel' -- a talk given at an Abrahamic Interfaith Conference which took place at Fordham University.
-------------------
Sufi Reflections Podcast #20
This program contains an essay entitled "Expectations", a poem set to music with the title 'Explosive Questions For September 11th', a short story called: 'Cul-de-sac', and a commentary entitled: 'Qualities of a Teacher'.
-------------------
Sufi Reflections Podcast #21
This podcast includes an essay entitled "Jami' (Gatheredness)", a poem set to music with the title 'God Who Is Here', a short story called: 'DancingWith The Moon', and a commentary entitled: 'The Nature of Deen'.
-------------------
Sufi Reflections Podcast #22
This program contains an essay entitled "Hal' (States)", a poem set to music with the title 'Spiritual Longing', a short story called: 'The Other Side', and a commentary entitled: My Year Inside Radical Islam - A critique of a book by Daveed Gartenstein-Ross - Part 1'.
-------------------
Sufi Reflections Podcast #23
This podcast includes an essay entitled "Autonomy", a poem set to music with the title 'Gratitude', a short story called: 'The Storm', and a commentary entitled: My Year Inside Radical Islam - A Critique of a book by Daveed Gartenstein-Ross - Part 2'.
-------------------
Sufi Reflections Podcast #24
This program contains an essay entitled "Faith", a poem set to music with the title 'Invitation', a short story called: 'Mirror,Mirror', and a commentary entitled: My Year Inside Radical Islam - A Critique of a book by Daveed Gartenstein-Ross - Part 3'.
-------------------
Sufi Reflections Podcast #25
This podcast includes an essay entitled "Heedlessness", a poem set to music with the title 'Remembrance', a short story called: 'A Job Well Done', and a commentary entitled: 'An Absence of Reason: A Critique of The End of Faith by Sam Harris'.
-------------------
Sufi Reflections Podcast #26
This podcast includes an essay entitled "Idols", a poem set to music with the title 'Human Potential', a short story called: 'Inheritance', and a commentary entitled: 'An Absence of Reason: A Critique of The End of Faith by Sam Harris - Part 2'.
-------------------
Sufi Reflections Podcast #27
This podcast includes an essay entitled "Doubt", a poem set to music with the title 'Random Thoughts', a short story called: 'Bidding For Services', and a commentary entitled: 'An Absence of Reason: A Critique of The End of Faith by Sam Harris - Part 3'.
-------------------
The foregoing links take you to streaming audio versions of the indicated editions of Sufi Reflections Podcast. If a person would like to download any of the foregoing programs, all one has to do is go to Sufi Reflections Podcast downloadable MP3 and right click on the appropriate podcast in the second menu.
The second menu on the Sufi Reflections Podcast directory noted above contains links to mp3, downloadable versions of all twenty-five Sufi Reflection Podcast programs. If one would rather not be tied to the computer while listening to any given edition of Sufi Reflections Podcast, then, one can download whichever program in which one might be interested. In fact, one can use the links provided in the first menu, noted above, to learn more about what a specific edition of a Sufi Reflections Podcast contains via the aforementioned program overviews, listen to a portion, and, then, decide if one would like to download the program through the links listed in the second menu of the foregoing audio directory for the Sufi Reflections Podcast.
All twenty-five programs of the Sufi Reflections podcast contain relatively brief Quranic recitation, along with poetry (often, although not always, from the writings of Jalal-ud-din Rumi -- may Allah be pleased with him), and several songs drawn from the magnatunes.com collection of artists. Below are brief descriptions for each of the podcasts:
-------------------
Sufi Reflections Podcast # 1
This program includes: an essay entitled "Discernment", a poem set to music with the title 'Aspirations', and a commentary called: 'Two Obligations'.
-------------------
Sufi Reflections Podcast #2
This program contains an essay entitled "Guidance", a poem set to music with the title 'Life, A Work In Progress', a short story called: 'Etymology', and a commentary called: 'A Study In Hypocrisy'.
-------------------
Sufi Reflections Podcast #3
This program involves an essay entitled "Love", a poem set to music with the title 'The Last Sermon', a short story called: 'Phoenix Rising', and a commentary called: 'Openings: A Critical Look at the book What's Right With Islam by Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf.
-------------------
Sufi Reflections Podcast #4
This program contains an essay entitled "Expansion", a poem set to music with the title 'Salaams For The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him)', a short story called: 'Dream On', and a commentary called: 'The Two Commandments which is a critical essay on a section of the book What's Right With Islam by Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf.
-------------------
Sufi Reflections Podcast #5
This program involves an essay entitled "Hatred", a poem set to music with the title 'Tears of Life', a short story called: 'Commitment's Reward', and a commentary entitled: 'Open Letter to the Muslim Community'.
-------------------
Sufi Reflections Podcast #6
This program contains an essay entitled "Spirit", a poem set to music with the title 'The Way Home', a short story called: 'What's Your Secret', and a commentary entitled: 'The Boundary Problem - Part 1' -- a critical examination of certain aspects of so-called Islamic law..
-------------------
Sufi Reflections Podcast #7
This podcast includes an essay entitled "Yaqueen (Certainty)", a poem set to music with the title 'Nature', a short story called: 'Asceticism', and a commentary entitled: 'The Boundary Problem - Part 2 -- a continuation of the critical examination of certain aspects of so-called Islamic law' which was begun in part 1 of the series.
-------------------
Sufi Reflections Podcast #8
This program contains an essay entitled "Identity", a poem set to music with the title 'The Guru', a short story called: 'Original Intent', and a commentary entitled: 'Terrorism - Part 1'.
-------------------
Sufi Reflections Podcast #9
This podcast includes an essay entitled "Fanaticism", a poem set to music with the title 'The Way Home', a short story called: 'Absence', and a commentary entitled: 'Terrorism - Part 2'.
-------------------
Sufi Reflections Podcast #10
This program contains an essay entitled "Balance", a poem set to music with the title 'The Last Sermon', a short story called: 'Artisan', and a commentary entitled: 'Terrorism - Part 3'.
-------------------
Sufi Reflections Podcast #11
This podcast includes an essay entitled "Jihad (Struggle)", a poem set to music with the title 'States: The Usual Suspects', a short story called: 'The Interview', and a commentary entitled: 'Terrorism - Part 4'.
-------------------
Sufi Reflections Podcast #12
This program contains an essay entitled "Zikr (Remembrance)", a poem set to music with the title 'Ode To Those Who Wage War On Peace', a short story called: 'The Snake Charmer', and a commentary entitled: 'Common Roots - Part 1' -- a critical examination involving part of a book What's Right With Islam by Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf.
-------------------
Sufi Reflections Podcast #13
This podcast includes an essay entitled "Government", a poem set to music with the title 'The Gift', a short story called: 'Crisis', and a commentary entitled: 'Common Roots - Part 2' -- a continuation of a critical examination involving part of a book What's Right With Islam by Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf.
-------------------
Sufi Reflections Podcast #14
This program contains an essay entitled "Hope", a poem set to music with the title 'The Human Condition', a short story called: 'Fantasy', and a commentary entitled: 'Common Roots - Part 3' -- a continuation of a critical examination focusing on part of a book What's Right With Islam by Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf.
-------------------
Sufi Reflections Podcast #15
This podcast includes an essay entitled "Ghayr (Other)", a poem set to music with the title 'Freedom', a short story called: 'Point Counterpoint', and a commentary entitled: 'The Nature of Idols'.
-------------------
Sufi Reflections Podcast 16
This program contains an essay entitled "Kun (Be, Become)", a poem set to music with the title 'AndThat Is Enough For Us', a short story called: 'When In Rome', and a commentary entitled: 'A Critical Response to the Nature of Idols - Part 1' -- a critical exploration of certain facets of what is referred to as Islamic law.
-------------------
Sufi Reflections Podcast #17
This podcast includes an essay entitled "Death", a poem set to music with the title 'Hands', a short story called: 'Poison And Its Antidote', and a commentary entitled: 'A Critical Response to the Nature of Idols - Part 2' -- a continuation of the critical exploration into certain facets of what is referred to as Islamic law which began in the previous podcast.
-------------------
Sufi Reflections Podcast 18
This program contains an essay entitled "Dhawk (Taste/Tasting)", a poem set to music with the title 'Mystical Poem', a short story called: 'What's In A Word', and a commentary entitled: 'A Critical Response to the Nature of Idols - Part 3' -- a continuation of a critical inquiry into certain facets of what are referred to as Islamic law which was explored in the two previous podcasts.
-------------------
Sufi Reflections Podcast 19
This podcast includes an essay entitled "Prophets", a poem set to music with the title 'Life, A Work In Progress', a short story called: 'The Curiosity Shoppe', and a commentary entitled: 'The Legacy of Babel' -- a talk given at an Abrahamic Interfaith Conference which took place at Fordham University.
-------------------
Sufi Reflections Podcast #20
This program contains an essay entitled "Expectations", a poem set to music with the title 'Explosive Questions For September 11th', a short story called: 'Cul-de-sac', and a commentary entitled: 'Qualities of a Teacher'.
-------------------
Sufi Reflections Podcast #21
This podcast includes an essay entitled "Jami' (Gatheredness)", a poem set to music with the title 'God Who Is Here', a short story called: 'DancingWith The Moon', and a commentary entitled: 'The Nature of Deen'.
-------------------
Sufi Reflections Podcast #22
This program contains an essay entitled "Hal' (States)", a poem set to music with the title 'Spiritual Longing', a short story called: 'The Other Side', and a commentary entitled: My Year Inside Radical Islam - A critique of a book by Daveed Gartenstein-Ross - Part 1'.
-------------------
Sufi Reflections Podcast #23
This podcast includes an essay entitled "Autonomy", a poem set to music with the title 'Gratitude', a short story called: 'The Storm', and a commentary entitled: My Year Inside Radical Islam - A Critique of a book by Daveed Gartenstein-Ross - Part 2'.
-------------------
Sufi Reflections Podcast #24
This program contains an essay entitled "Faith", a poem set to music with the title 'Invitation', a short story called: 'Mirror,Mirror', and a commentary entitled: My Year Inside Radical Islam - A Critique of a book by Daveed Gartenstein-Ross - Part 3'.
-------------------
Sufi Reflections Podcast #25
This podcast includes an essay entitled "Heedlessness", a poem set to music with the title 'Remembrance', a short story called: 'A Job Well Done', and a commentary entitled: 'An Absence of Reason: A Critique of The End of Faith by Sam Harris'.
-------------------
Sufi Reflections Podcast #26
This podcast includes an essay entitled "Idols", a poem set to music with the title 'Human Potential', a short story called: 'Inheritance', and a commentary entitled: 'An Absence of Reason: A Critique of The End of Faith by Sam Harris - Part 2'.
-------------------
Sufi Reflections Podcast #27
This podcast includes an essay entitled "Doubt", a poem set to music with the title 'Random Thoughts', a short story called: 'Bidding For Services', and a commentary entitled: 'An Absence of Reason: A Critique of The End of Faith by Sam Harris - Part 3'.
-------------------
The foregoing links take you to streaming audio versions of the indicated editions of Sufi Reflections Podcast. If a person would like to download any of the foregoing programs, all one has to do is go to Sufi Reflections Podcast downloadable MP3 and right click on the appropriate podcast in the second menu.
Sunday, July 06, 2008
Monday, June 30, 2008
Sam Harris, The End of Faith, and An Absence of Reason - Part 1
The End of Faith by Sam Harris, The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins, and god is not Great by Christopher Hitchens are a trio of books written over a four year period (2004-2007) that seek to argue against, among other things, the existence of God, as well as to raise questions concerning the viability or even constructive relevancy of spiritual faith in today’s world – or, in the collective opinion of the three authors, any world at all. Although each of the aforementioned books goes about addressing such challenges in their own inimitable style , there also is a great deal of overlap among the three books with respect to the kinds of philosophical orientation, arguments, and criticisms that are given expression in the three books.
For example, all three of the aforementioned individuals do not believe in the existence of God. Indeed, their respective books are all variations on one, underlying theme – namely, attempting to demonstrate, at least to their own satisfaction and to the satisfaction of those who agree with them on such matters, that anyone who believes in the idea of a Divine Being is guilty of having abandoned reason.
The End of Faith was the first of the foregoing three books to be published. Moreover, both Professor Dawkins and Mr. Hitchens cite Sam Harris as being something of a kindred spirit -- if one may be permitted to use such a term in the current context – in relation to the, broadly speaking, religious issues with which each of these authors are concerned.
Although I have read all three books and, although there are specific themes within the books written by both Professor Dawkins and Mr. Hitchens which I may address at some later point in time, presently, I have decided to narrow my focus on the aforementioned book by Sam Harris. Despite limiting my critical attention in this manner, I believe that much of the discussion which follows carries many problematic implications for the works of both Mr. Hitchens and Professor Dawkins.
Before proceeding with my commentary concerning the book by Sam Harris, there are a couple of points which might be made in passing with respect to the other two works mentioned earlier. First, the title for Christopher Hitchens’ book – that is, god is not Great – is, in my opinion, something of a misnomer.
After having read his book I am quite willing to concede there are a number of points which he makes in his book with which I find myself in agreement. Nevertheless, despite my willingness to make such an admission, Mr. Hitchens’ real disagreement is not with God, per se, since, after all, Mr. Hitchens does not believe in God’s existence, but, rather, Mr. Hitchens’ beef is with people who have corrupted their souls through their self-serving and mistaken ideas about Divinity and, in the process, have become very destructive forces in the world. Consequently, a more appropriate title for Mr. Hitchens’ book might have been: People are not Great – something which, in all too many cases, many of us might sadly acknowledge to be a true statement.
Secondly, the title for Professor Dawkins’ book – that is, The God Delusion -- is a very catchy one whose possible meanings run in a number of directions. Of course, Professor Dawkins’ primary meaning in relation to the book’s title is that people who believe in God are delusional.
As is the case with the book by Christopher Hitchens, I find that Professor Dawkins has a great many valid points to make during the course of the latter’s book. Once again, however, as is true with respect to the book by Mr. Hitchens, Professor Dawkins wants to claim that anyone who believes in the existence of God is delusional, when, at most, all that his book shows is that, yes, unfortunately, it is true that some individuals do have delusional ideas when it comes to the issue of God. In fact, I strongly suspect that there are quite a few people who believe in God’s existence who would tacitly agree with Professor Dawkins on this issue even if they might never admit as much openly.
The foregoing considerations notwithstanding, there is at least one central flaw in the structural character of the argument being put forth by Professor Dawkins, and this problem is also present in the other two books as well. More specifically, the structural form of one of the main arguments being advanced in Professor Dawkins’ book is akin to the structural character of the following sort of scenario. One visits a mental hospital, takes notes on the delusional character which various inmates who reside in the asylum exhibit in relation to the idea of Divinity – including, perhaps, some of the attending physicians and psychologists -- and, then, one proceeds to write a book claiming that not only do the people residing in the mental hospital harbor many delusions concerning the existence of God, but, as well, all human beings who live beyond the walls of the asylum are also delusional with respect to their beliefs concerning God. The latter conclusion does not necessarily follow from the data which actually was gathered at the mental hospital.
However, even if such a conclusion contained some element of truth, one may have to treat this sort of conclusion with a degree of caution. After all, such a conclusion may carry some rather troubling implications with respect to the possible delusional status of the person conducting the research given that the individual in question is seeking to claim that the data collected in the mental hospital is applicable to everyone both within as well as outside of the asylum.
Similarly, Professor Dawkins makes an unwarranted inferential jump when he seeks to make the transition from, on the one hand, issuing a claim with which many people – both believers and non-believers – might agree – namely, that some individuals who believe in the existence of God, are quite delusional with respect to nature of such beliefs – to, on the other hand, concluding that ‘therefore, everyone who believes in the existence of God is necessarily delusional’. Furthermore, Professor Dawkins seems to fail to appreciate the ironic potential inherent in his book’s title with respect to the possible delusional character of his own ideas about God’s existence which are given expression through his book.
---------------------
In the opening pages of his book: The End of Faith, Sam Harris states in the first chapter – entitled ‘Reason in Exile’ – that:
“Your beliefs define your vision of the world; they dictate your behavior.”
Like many other facets of Mr. Harris’ book, the perspective being given expression in the foregoing quote is overly simplistic in a self-serving way. The term “self-serving” is used because one of the central purposes of Mr. Harris’ book is to put forth a series of arguments which purportedly show (although this is implied rather than directly stated) that, apparently, only people like Mr. Harris – individuals who have allegedly immunized themselves from the virulent plague of faith -- know and understand how to correctly reason their way through life in a manner which is entirely untainted by faith-based irrationality, and, apparently, only people like Mr. Harris are capable of developing systems of thought that will properly resolve – as much as this may be possible -- the problems faced by humankind.
Unfortunately, Mr. Harris sets about constructing arguments which he believes prove the veracity of his position by restricting the idea of ‘reason’ to reflect only what he believes the nature of reason to be. And it is instructive in this regard that nowhere in his book does Mr. Harris ever demonstrate that what he believes reason to be or how he uses his beliefs concerning reason in circular, self-serving ways gives expression to an objective, unbiased, rigorously empirical, non-arbitrary, and indisputably defensible way of doing things … except among those who think and believe as he does.
Returning to the foregoing quote – namely, “Your beliefs define your vision of the world; they dictate your behavior” -- this statement cannot withstand close examination even though there is a degree of truth contained in what is said. More specifically, it is not beliefs, per se, which necessarily either define one’s vision of the world nor, strictly speaking, do beliefs always dictate behavior.
For instance, what defines one’s vision of the world is a function of not only one’s ideas about how beliefs play off against one another in specific circumstances, but, as well, one’s vision is a function of the interaction of such things as: uncertainty, anxiety, fear, hope, one’s sense of identity, motivation, interests, conditioning, temperament, personal history, likes, dislikes, and so on – none of which are necessarily beliefs per se but, rather, are forces which shape and influence what and how we believe. We may develop beliefs about all these forces, but these forces that are in play are not necessarily coextensive with the beliefs one might have with respect to them … as we often discover when such forces stubbornly refuse to act in compliance with our beliefs such as when we believe, for example, that dieting, exercise, or not smoking are good for us and, then, come face to face with forces which exist, to some extent, beyond the horizons of our beliefs. Even when an individual is successful in such endeavors, the will power or commitment that helps lead to success in such cases is not a belief, per se, but some other kind of force that factors in to how one lives his or her life. In short, for many different reasons, we do not always act in accordance with our beliefs.
In addition, Harris tends to give the impression that everyone is clear about what he or she does and does not believe. This is not always the case.
Instead many people spend much of their lives trying to figure out exactly what they do believe about any given issue. Indeed, individuals may fluctuate among a variety of possibilities concerning such matters at different junctures in their lives as they evaluate life experiences, or individuals may do things without any clear sense of what beliefs are operative within such actions but, instead, are pulled here and there by appetites, emotions, desires, needs, and the like without giving a great deal of thought to what beliefs should govern such processes.
Moreover, even after arriving at such an understanding of the dynamics of one’s own belief system, one may, or may not, act on that belief – indeed, many of us do not act on things which we believe because, for instance, we may lack the courage to act on those beliefs, or we may lack the personal character to give expression to what we believe, or we may fear the consequences which acting on one’s beliefs might have upon one’s family, or we may be in conflict with respect to which of several alternative belief possibilities should be put in motion, or we may come to the conclusion that one should be patient about a given matter rather than act on a specific belief even though part of us may be inclined to act on such a belief rather than wait.
Of course, someone like Mr. Harris might try to argue that if a person operates in accordance with patience, this is because that individual believes in the importance and value of patience. However, deciding when to be patient or where to be patient or how to be patient is not necessarily a function of a determinate set of beliefs as it may be an expression of how subtle existential, experiential currents play off against one another within phenomenology … a dynamic in which beliefs may only constitute one of the many interacting currents. How one comes to be committed to the quality of patience may have more to do with the development of a wisdom or a principle that does not necessarily consist of a collection of beliefs but, rather, a feeling for life.
We may do what we do because it feels like the right or appropriate thing to do, If someone were to ask us which belief makes us feel this way, there may not be any belief at the heart of such a feeling. One’s understanding of things may not be the result of belief – although this could be the case – but, instead, one’s understanding is how one is hermeneutically linked with existence, and one may not be able to reduce any of this hermeneutical, existential phenomenology down to beliefs, reasoned or otherwise. Wisdom, insight, and understanding are not necessarily reducible to beliefs or reason.
Shortly after the foregoing excerpt from Mr. Harris’s book, one finds:
“A glance at history, or at the pages of any newspaper, reveals that ideas which divide one group of human beings from another, only to unite them in slaughter, generally have their roots in religion.” [page 12]
Once again, over-simplification rules the day as Mr. Harris unpacks his beliefs and ideas about the way things are alleged to be. Perhaps, if one only glances at history or the pages of a newspaper, then, one may come away with a superficial impression that religion is the root of all evil. However, if one actually takes the time to investigate the problems that divide human beings or unite them in slaughter of one another then one may not be able to point to religion, per se, but, rather, one comes to glimpse something of the forces such as ignorance, greed, selfishness, fear, a sense of inferiority or a sense of superiority, a desire for control, patriotism, as well as anger, hatred and contempt for the alien ‘other’, which are the real culprits underlying divisions and slaughter.
The spin masters and propagandists who orchestrate the divisions and slaughter for their own sense of personal aggrandizement, control, power, and pilfering of resources may seek to manipulate a people through selective, distorted, or invented theological interpretations of spirituality in order to induce citizens to serve, extend, and defend the vested interests of the leaders in the name of religion. However, behind most human divisions and slaughter, one does not tend to discover any sincere form of spiritual intent but, instead, a cacophony of all too human desires and weaknesses which have little, or nothing, to do with any sense of true spirituality.
In fact, many aspects of Mr. Harris’s manner of arguing in his book, The End of Faith, are disturbingly reminiscent of the same kind of demagoguery which is used by political and military leaders who seek to whip up destructive emotions, division, and enmity among a people so that such negativity may be channeled and shaped to be directed against the object of dislike and revulsion which people like Mr. Harris seek to convince those of ‘genteel civility’ to rise up against and smite down – socially, politically, legally, emotionally, and, if necessary, physically.
Mr. Harris claims on page 13 that:
“Our situation is this: most of the people in this world believe that the Creator of the universe has written a book. We have the misfortune of having many such books on hand, each making an exclusive claim as to its infallibility.”
To begin with -- and leaving aside, for the moment, the issue of whether the Creator only sent one book of guidance rather than many such books – one needs to draw a distinction between what, on the one hand, actually may have been sent in the way of spiritual guidance and how, on the other hand, people may have interpreted what had been sent. If person A tells something to person B and, then, B passes along to person C person B’s beliefs about what person A allegedly said, and it turns out that either person C misunderstood what person B said or person B misunderstood what person A said, then, why blame person A for the fiasco which transpires due to the mistakes of either person B and/or person C?
Yet, in effect, Mr. Harris may be arguing in a manner which is very similar to the foregoing. Rather than try to ascertain what may have been meant by, or the intention of, this or that book of Divine revelation, Mr. Harris wants to start his critique with people’s interpretation of that message or intent, and, he never seems to consider the possibility that he is dealing with – and, in a sense, has become like -- individuals who, such as person B above, busies himself or herself with propagating a message to others that totally distorts what was originally said, meant, or intended.
Mr. Harris goes on to say:
“Each of these texts urges its readers to adopt a variety of beliefs and practices, some of which are benign, many of which are not. All are in perverse agreement on one point of fundamental importance, however: “respect” for other faiths or for the views of unbelievers, is not an attitude that God endorses. While all faiths have been touched, here and there, by the spirit of ecumenicalism, the central tenet of every religious tradition is that all others are mere repositories of error or, at best, dangerously incomplete. Intolerance is thus intrinsic to every creed.”
Although Mr. Harris is directing the foregoing comments at different religious traditions, he might want to reflect on various portions of his own book and consider the message of intolerance which it appears to carry with respect to everything religious with which he disagrees. He seems to have little, or no, “respect” for the views of a multiplicity of believers from different spiritual traditions because he seems to show little evidence of truly trying to come to understand that, for example, not all Christians, Jews, or Muslims endorse the idea of intolerance toward those who believe differently from them. Apparently, Harris is too preoccupied with trying to lump together everything religious in one putrid pile as he seeks to point out how such spiritual traditions are – to borrow his own phrase – “repositories of error”. In short, Harris really doesn’t appear to be doing anything very much different than what he is accusing various proponents of different religious faiths of doing – namely, being intolerant, disrespectful, and hurling epithets at anyone who is ‘other’ or who resides beyond his horizons of belief and practice.
One can agree with Mr. Harris that there is far too much intolerance that is propagated through the invented theologies of self-appointed religious leaders of various religious traditions. However, stipulating to such a point does not automatically force one to accept the idea that God endorses and approves the idea of intolerance.
This leads to a crucial, pivotal set of questions at the heart of each and every spiritual tradition – whether theistic or non-theistic in nature. Some of these questions are: Why and how have we come to be? What is our potential? How might we go about fulfilling that potential? Who are we in essence? How should we treat others and interact with the rest of Being? What are the viable relationships among information, understanding, wisdom, and truth? What degrees of freedom do we have with respect to such matters?
The way in which I seek to answer the foregoing questions is entirely independent of how other people might be inclined to address such issues and vice versa. I can consider what the latter have to say, or I can reject it, but nothing necessitates that I have to be intolerant toward them or disrespect them in order for me to pursue the central issues of being human.
To have freedom of choice means that I have the capacity to accept, reject, reflect upon, modify, critique, explore, test, and question what others say or do. However, I can do all of these things without having to be intolerant of, or disrespectful toward, the ones whose ideas and actions I am considering … in fact, harboring intolerance of, and disrespect for, the views and lifestyle of others often proves to be counterproductive because such attitudes not only tend to skew and bias the process of seeking to find solutions to the questions which form the heart of Being, but, as well, such attitudes take away precious time, energy and resources from what should be the focus of my existential inquiries.
God has not instructed me that being intolerant and disrespectful is the raison d’etre of my existence. I do not believe that any authentic spiritual tradition teaches intolerance or disrespect as being central, or even peripheral, to the purpose and nature of Being.
Does this mean that I cannot or should not enter into exploratory discussions with others about such matters in the hopes of generating better approximations of truth and/or justice? No, none of the foregoing comments is meant to suggest that I should disengage from such interactive ventures, but there is an etiquette to such exchanges, and in this regard, hostile arguments, diatribes, vitriolic debates, propaganda, undue influence, and/or ego-driven debates are not part of the etiquette.
I learned the aforementioned principles of tolerance and respect through my spiritual guide. Such principles were not only reflected in what he said but, more importantly, they were given expression through what he did, especially during an abundance of very difficult and stressful circumstances.
My spiritual guide was a Sufi master or shaykh operating out of the Islamic spiritual tradition. However, there are others whom I have met and/or whose works I have read who operate out of other spiritual traditions – traditions that may carry different names -- but who, in essence, teach and give practical expression to the same kind of spiritual etiquette as did my teacher.
These mentors of the soul explore and apply the qualities of: love, patience, forgiveness, integrity, nobility, humility, tolerance, gratitude, compassion, empathy, equanimity, kindness, charity, friendship, sincerity, courage, equitability, self-sacrifice, magnanimity, diligence, and honesty. Intolerance and disrespect are an anathema to all of the foregoing principles, taken individually or collectively.
Consequently, on the one hand, I understand Mr. Harris’ frustration and concerns in relation to issues involving the promulgations and actions of the theologians or proponents of religious intolerance and disrespect. My spiritual guide experienced many of these same frustrations and concerns both from within the Muslim community, as well as from outside the Muslim community, and, as a result, he sought to counsel interested parties such as myself about the problems that tend to arise out of that kind of destructive atmosphere.
On the other hand, because I have experienced, first hand, the fact that there are those who are committed to spiritual traditions who do not at all fit within the scope of Mr. Harris’ criticism, I am inclined to believe that Mr. Harris often uses the wrong kind of instrument in his book to get at what he believes to be problematic. More specifically, he frequently uses the verbal equivalent of a dull chainsaw when a sharpened scalpel might be more appropriate.
On page 14 of The End of Faith, Mr. Harris states:
“We can no longer ignore the fact that billions of our neighbors believe in the metaphysics of martyrdom or in the literal truth of the book of Revelation, or any of the other fantastical notions that have lurked in the minds of the faithful for millennia – because our neighbors are now armed with chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. There is no doubt that these developments mark the terminal phase of our credulity. Words like “God” and “Allah” must go the way of “Apollo” and “Baal” or they will unmake our world. “
One would like to know what the empirical basis is for the idea that billions of our neighbors who believe in the metaphysics of martyrdom are now armed with “chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.”
One also wonders about which “billions of our neighbors” Mr. Harris has in mind or what proof he has that they believe in the “metaphysics of martyrdom”, and the literal truth of a book of Revelation, or other “fantastical notions”? To begin with, Mr. Harris seems to share the same misunderstanding about the metaphysics of martyrdom as do some of the people he seeks to criticize because martyrdom has never been about killing others but, instead, martyrdom always has been about the willingness to sacrifice one’s own life in the service of truth and justice for everyone, whether Muslim or non-Muslim.
What fantastical notions does Mr. Harris have in mind and what is his proof that they are fantastical? How many of these billions of people has Harris interviewed, and since Mr. Harris doesn’t read Arabic, then, what exactly does he mean by the “literal truth” of Revelation? In fact, what would anyone mean by such a statement because for every book of revelation there may a variety of possible deep understandings which are entailed by, or inherent in, or expressed through, the surface structure of the ‘revealed word’.
Or, let’s approach Mr. Harris’ previous statement from another direction. Britain, France, Israel, India, China, North Korea, Russia, Pakistan, and the United States all possess nuclear weapons. The United States is the only country, so far, which has unleashed nuclear terror on the world.
The anthrax which was released in the United States in the Fall of 2001 was made in a U.S. military lab. Unlike the weapons of mass destruction which were alleged by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, and Rice to be in Iraq but were never found, weapons of mass destruction – nuclear, biological, and chemical – do exist in the United States, and in the case of anthrax has been used against its own people by a person or persons unknown.
Alternatively, there is much speculation but very little hard evidence which is capable of demonstrating that Iran is well on its way to establishing a nuclear program. At best, the current situation is ambiguous because the nuclear fuels that are being refined and the centrifuges which are being built are capable of being used for peaceful purposes, but, under the appropriate circumstances, could become part of a weapons program. I have no idea what the intentions of the leaders of Iran may be in this respect, and I would not be in favor of Iran developing nuclear weapons if that were the intentions of Iran’s leaders.
On the other hand, the United States sponsored, subsidized and conducted a coup d'etat of a democratically elected government with respect to Iran back in 1953, and, then, helped to keep their chosen Peacock in power while he ran a brutal dictatorship with the help of a rigorously cruel and oppressive secret police which the United States helped to train. In addition, the United States not only encouraged Sadaam Hussein to attack Iran and gave military support to Iraq through much of the 1980s to continue these assaults, but, as well, the United States supplied Iraq with both biological and chemical weapons, and, then, knowingly looked the other way when these weapons were turned against both Iranians and Iraqis.
So, if the Iranians are seeking to develop nuclear weapons – something which if true is, I believe, a mistake – one should not forget the role that America has played in helping to create an atmosphere of fear in which people who have been historically traumatized by the United States and its surrogates on a number of occasions may be tempted to take foolhardy and ill-advised steps because of their fears – real and imagined -- concerning what they believe, based on past events, the United States or its surrogates may try to do Iran in the future. Already American corporations, politicians, and news media that have vested interests to promote and protect have been rattling sabers with respect to attacking Iran on the mere suspicion that the latter country may be seeking ways to defend itself against, among others, the United States -- a country which has proven its considerable hostility toward the sovereignty of Iran long before the hostage crisis during Jimmy Carter’s administration ever took place.
Does any of the American-orchestrated provocations against Iran justify the possible -- but, as yet, unproven -- development of nuclear weapons or any other form of terror with which Iran may, or may not, be involved? The answer is no, but let us not be naïve and ignore the role which the United States government and military has had in terrorizing people in many parts of the world, including the Middle East, and by doing so has played a considerable part to help create a situation that is fraught with danger for everybody on Earth.
If the current Iranian leadership is intent on developing nuclear weapons, then, yes, this would bring additional stress and toxicity to an already problematic world. If this were to occur, then, many people in the world would have further reason to fear the destructive possibilities already inherent in a very problematic situation.
If Iran should be induced to stop doing whatever it may be doing, then perhaps the United States should be induced to stop doing whatever it is doing in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere in the world to help instill fear in various countries. Unfortunately, it is a whole lot easier to bully a small country than to try to civilize a powerful country which suffers from bouts of megalomania which is quite capable of turning on anyone that gets in the way of its delusions concerning its assumed role in the scheme of things.
It is the United States, not the Muslim world, which has more than 700 military bases in approximately 130 countries throughout the world, including a growing number of such bases in Iraq in order to maintain its empire whether the people in the countries where those bases are located like it or not. It is the United States, not the Muslim world, which spends trillions of dollars on manufacturing weapons of war, both exotic and conventional. It is the United States, not the Muslim world, which has thousands of nuclear weapons in its arsenals and already has used several of these against another country. It is the United States, not the Muslim world, which is the biggest profiteer in the world in the sale of military weapons. It is the United States, not the Muslim world, which has given Israel billions of dollars in aid even as Israel has continued to act in violation of international law and numerous United Nations resolutions for more than 40 years through its occupation of Palestine, its annexation of territory through military means, its building of illegal settlements in occupied territories, and its building of a wall of partition through Palestine and the occupied territories. It is the United States, not the Muslim world, which, in the modern era, has sought to overthrow countries such as Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Guatemala, Nicaragua, and Chile – killing, maiming, and displacing millions of people in the process.
Iran may, or may not, be a source of some anxiety and fear concerning its future capacity to destabilize the world. However, the United States is already, in the here and now, a source of considerable anxiety as well as fear concerning its on-going role in destabilizing, invading, corrupting, and destroying peoples who oppose its wishes or those of its corporate sponsors.
Perhaps, contrary to what Sam Harris argues, it is not words such as “God” or “Allah” which need to go the way of “Apollo” and “Baal”, but, rather, it is words such as “democracy” and “capitalism” that need to be rehabilitated, especially when these ideas are imposed on people in a corrupted form with little, or no, thought be given to the destruction which the deviant, irresponsible forms of these ideas may bring to the peoples who supposedly are to be “liberated” through them. Understood and applied judiciously and with wisdom, democracy and capitalism have the potential to be great forces of constructive good, but when they are wielded about by those who are intoxicated with their own sense of acquisitiveness and power, these forces also have the capacity to lay waste to freedoms, rights, constitutions, communities, the Earth, and the human soul … and we see the evidence of this everywhere in the world.
For example, all three of the aforementioned individuals do not believe in the existence of God. Indeed, their respective books are all variations on one, underlying theme – namely, attempting to demonstrate, at least to their own satisfaction and to the satisfaction of those who agree with them on such matters, that anyone who believes in the idea of a Divine Being is guilty of having abandoned reason.
The End of Faith was the first of the foregoing three books to be published. Moreover, both Professor Dawkins and Mr. Hitchens cite Sam Harris as being something of a kindred spirit -- if one may be permitted to use such a term in the current context – in relation to the, broadly speaking, religious issues with which each of these authors are concerned.
Although I have read all three books and, although there are specific themes within the books written by both Professor Dawkins and Mr. Hitchens which I may address at some later point in time, presently, I have decided to narrow my focus on the aforementioned book by Sam Harris. Despite limiting my critical attention in this manner, I believe that much of the discussion which follows carries many problematic implications for the works of both Mr. Hitchens and Professor Dawkins.
Before proceeding with my commentary concerning the book by Sam Harris, there are a couple of points which might be made in passing with respect to the other two works mentioned earlier. First, the title for Christopher Hitchens’ book – that is, god is not Great – is, in my opinion, something of a misnomer.
After having read his book I am quite willing to concede there are a number of points which he makes in his book with which I find myself in agreement. Nevertheless, despite my willingness to make such an admission, Mr. Hitchens’ real disagreement is not with God, per se, since, after all, Mr. Hitchens does not believe in God’s existence, but, rather, Mr. Hitchens’ beef is with people who have corrupted their souls through their self-serving and mistaken ideas about Divinity and, in the process, have become very destructive forces in the world. Consequently, a more appropriate title for Mr. Hitchens’ book might have been: People are not Great – something which, in all too many cases, many of us might sadly acknowledge to be a true statement.
Secondly, the title for Professor Dawkins’ book – that is, The God Delusion -- is a very catchy one whose possible meanings run in a number of directions. Of course, Professor Dawkins’ primary meaning in relation to the book’s title is that people who believe in God are delusional.
As is the case with the book by Christopher Hitchens, I find that Professor Dawkins has a great many valid points to make during the course of the latter’s book. Once again, however, as is true with respect to the book by Mr. Hitchens, Professor Dawkins wants to claim that anyone who believes in the existence of God is delusional, when, at most, all that his book shows is that, yes, unfortunately, it is true that some individuals do have delusional ideas when it comes to the issue of God. In fact, I strongly suspect that there are quite a few people who believe in God’s existence who would tacitly agree with Professor Dawkins on this issue even if they might never admit as much openly.
The foregoing considerations notwithstanding, there is at least one central flaw in the structural character of the argument being put forth by Professor Dawkins, and this problem is also present in the other two books as well. More specifically, the structural form of one of the main arguments being advanced in Professor Dawkins’ book is akin to the structural character of the following sort of scenario. One visits a mental hospital, takes notes on the delusional character which various inmates who reside in the asylum exhibit in relation to the idea of Divinity – including, perhaps, some of the attending physicians and psychologists -- and, then, one proceeds to write a book claiming that not only do the people residing in the mental hospital harbor many delusions concerning the existence of God, but, as well, all human beings who live beyond the walls of the asylum are also delusional with respect to their beliefs concerning God. The latter conclusion does not necessarily follow from the data which actually was gathered at the mental hospital.
However, even if such a conclusion contained some element of truth, one may have to treat this sort of conclusion with a degree of caution. After all, such a conclusion may carry some rather troubling implications with respect to the possible delusional status of the person conducting the research given that the individual in question is seeking to claim that the data collected in the mental hospital is applicable to everyone both within as well as outside of the asylum.
Similarly, Professor Dawkins makes an unwarranted inferential jump when he seeks to make the transition from, on the one hand, issuing a claim with which many people – both believers and non-believers – might agree – namely, that some individuals who believe in the existence of God, are quite delusional with respect to nature of such beliefs – to, on the other hand, concluding that ‘therefore, everyone who believes in the existence of God is necessarily delusional’. Furthermore, Professor Dawkins seems to fail to appreciate the ironic potential inherent in his book’s title with respect to the possible delusional character of his own ideas about God’s existence which are given expression through his book.
---------------------
In the opening pages of his book: The End of Faith, Sam Harris states in the first chapter – entitled ‘Reason in Exile’ – that:
“Your beliefs define your vision of the world; they dictate your behavior.”
Like many other facets of Mr. Harris’ book, the perspective being given expression in the foregoing quote is overly simplistic in a self-serving way. The term “self-serving” is used because one of the central purposes of Mr. Harris’ book is to put forth a series of arguments which purportedly show (although this is implied rather than directly stated) that, apparently, only people like Mr. Harris – individuals who have allegedly immunized themselves from the virulent plague of faith -- know and understand how to correctly reason their way through life in a manner which is entirely untainted by faith-based irrationality, and, apparently, only people like Mr. Harris are capable of developing systems of thought that will properly resolve – as much as this may be possible -- the problems faced by humankind.
Unfortunately, Mr. Harris sets about constructing arguments which he believes prove the veracity of his position by restricting the idea of ‘reason’ to reflect only what he believes the nature of reason to be. And it is instructive in this regard that nowhere in his book does Mr. Harris ever demonstrate that what he believes reason to be or how he uses his beliefs concerning reason in circular, self-serving ways gives expression to an objective, unbiased, rigorously empirical, non-arbitrary, and indisputably defensible way of doing things … except among those who think and believe as he does.
Returning to the foregoing quote – namely, “Your beliefs define your vision of the world; they dictate your behavior” -- this statement cannot withstand close examination even though there is a degree of truth contained in what is said. More specifically, it is not beliefs, per se, which necessarily either define one’s vision of the world nor, strictly speaking, do beliefs always dictate behavior.
For instance, what defines one’s vision of the world is a function of not only one’s ideas about how beliefs play off against one another in specific circumstances, but, as well, one’s vision is a function of the interaction of such things as: uncertainty, anxiety, fear, hope, one’s sense of identity, motivation, interests, conditioning, temperament, personal history, likes, dislikes, and so on – none of which are necessarily beliefs per se but, rather, are forces which shape and influence what and how we believe. We may develop beliefs about all these forces, but these forces that are in play are not necessarily coextensive with the beliefs one might have with respect to them … as we often discover when such forces stubbornly refuse to act in compliance with our beliefs such as when we believe, for example, that dieting, exercise, or not smoking are good for us and, then, come face to face with forces which exist, to some extent, beyond the horizons of our beliefs. Even when an individual is successful in such endeavors, the will power or commitment that helps lead to success in such cases is not a belief, per se, but some other kind of force that factors in to how one lives his or her life. In short, for many different reasons, we do not always act in accordance with our beliefs.
In addition, Harris tends to give the impression that everyone is clear about what he or she does and does not believe. This is not always the case.
Instead many people spend much of their lives trying to figure out exactly what they do believe about any given issue. Indeed, individuals may fluctuate among a variety of possibilities concerning such matters at different junctures in their lives as they evaluate life experiences, or individuals may do things without any clear sense of what beliefs are operative within such actions but, instead, are pulled here and there by appetites, emotions, desires, needs, and the like without giving a great deal of thought to what beliefs should govern such processes.
Moreover, even after arriving at such an understanding of the dynamics of one’s own belief system, one may, or may not, act on that belief – indeed, many of us do not act on things which we believe because, for instance, we may lack the courage to act on those beliefs, or we may lack the personal character to give expression to what we believe, or we may fear the consequences which acting on one’s beliefs might have upon one’s family, or we may be in conflict with respect to which of several alternative belief possibilities should be put in motion, or we may come to the conclusion that one should be patient about a given matter rather than act on a specific belief even though part of us may be inclined to act on such a belief rather than wait.
Of course, someone like Mr. Harris might try to argue that if a person operates in accordance with patience, this is because that individual believes in the importance and value of patience. However, deciding when to be patient or where to be patient or how to be patient is not necessarily a function of a determinate set of beliefs as it may be an expression of how subtle existential, experiential currents play off against one another within phenomenology … a dynamic in which beliefs may only constitute one of the many interacting currents. How one comes to be committed to the quality of patience may have more to do with the development of a wisdom or a principle that does not necessarily consist of a collection of beliefs but, rather, a feeling for life.
We may do what we do because it feels like the right or appropriate thing to do, If someone were to ask us which belief makes us feel this way, there may not be any belief at the heart of such a feeling. One’s understanding of things may not be the result of belief – although this could be the case – but, instead, one’s understanding is how one is hermeneutically linked with existence, and one may not be able to reduce any of this hermeneutical, existential phenomenology down to beliefs, reasoned or otherwise. Wisdom, insight, and understanding are not necessarily reducible to beliefs or reason.
Shortly after the foregoing excerpt from Mr. Harris’s book, one finds:
“A glance at history, or at the pages of any newspaper, reveals that ideas which divide one group of human beings from another, only to unite them in slaughter, generally have their roots in religion.” [page 12]
Once again, over-simplification rules the day as Mr. Harris unpacks his beliefs and ideas about the way things are alleged to be. Perhaps, if one only glances at history or the pages of a newspaper, then, one may come away with a superficial impression that religion is the root of all evil. However, if one actually takes the time to investigate the problems that divide human beings or unite them in slaughter of one another then one may not be able to point to religion, per se, but, rather, one comes to glimpse something of the forces such as ignorance, greed, selfishness, fear, a sense of inferiority or a sense of superiority, a desire for control, patriotism, as well as anger, hatred and contempt for the alien ‘other’, which are the real culprits underlying divisions and slaughter.
The spin masters and propagandists who orchestrate the divisions and slaughter for their own sense of personal aggrandizement, control, power, and pilfering of resources may seek to manipulate a people through selective, distorted, or invented theological interpretations of spirituality in order to induce citizens to serve, extend, and defend the vested interests of the leaders in the name of religion. However, behind most human divisions and slaughter, one does not tend to discover any sincere form of spiritual intent but, instead, a cacophony of all too human desires and weaknesses which have little, or nothing, to do with any sense of true spirituality.
In fact, many aspects of Mr. Harris’s manner of arguing in his book, The End of Faith, are disturbingly reminiscent of the same kind of demagoguery which is used by political and military leaders who seek to whip up destructive emotions, division, and enmity among a people so that such negativity may be channeled and shaped to be directed against the object of dislike and revulsion which people like Mr. Harris seek to convince those of ‘genteel civility’ to rise up against and smite down – socially, politically, legally, emotionally, and, if necessary, physically.
Mr. Harris claims on page 13 that:
“Our situation is this: most of the people in this world believe that the Creator of the universe has written a book. We have the misfortune of having many such books on hand, each making an exclusive claim as to its infallibility.”
To begin with -- and leaving aside, for the moment, the issue of whether the Creator only sent one book of guidance rather than many such books – one needs to draw a distinction between what, on the one hand, actually may have been sent in the way of spiritual guidance and how, on the other hand, people may have interpreted what had been sent. If person A tells something to person B and, then, B passes along to person C person B’s beliefs about what person A allegedly said, and it turns out that either person C misunderstood what person B said or person B misunderstood what person A said, then, why blame person A for the fiasco which transpires due to the mistakes of either person B and/or person C?
Yet, in effect, Mr. Harris may be arguing in a manner which is very similar to the foregoing. Rather than try to ascertain what may have been meant by, or the intention of, this or that book of Divine revelation, Mr. Harris wants to start his critique with people’s interpretation of that message or intent, and, he never seems to consider the possibility that he is dealing with – and, in a sense, has become like -- individuals who, such as person B above, busies himself or herself with propagating a message to others that totally distorts what was originally said, meant, or intended.
Mr. Harris goes on to say:
“Each of these texts urges its readers to adopt a variety of beliefs and practices, some of which are benign, many of which are not. All are in perverse agreement on one point of fundamental importance, however: “respect” for other faiths or for the views of unbelievers, is not an attitude that God endorses. While all faiths have been touched, here and there, by the spirit of ecumenicalism, the central tenet of every religious tradition is that all others are mere repositories of error or, at best, dangerously incomplete. Intolerance is thus intrinsic to every creed.”
Although Mr. Harris is directing the foregoing comments at different religious traditions, he might want to reflect on various portions of his own book and consider the message of intolerance which it appears to carry with respect to everything religious with which he disagrees. He seems to have little, or no, “respect” for the views of a multiplicity of believers from different spiritual traditions because he seems to show little evidence of truly trying to come to understand that, for example, not all Christians, Jews, or Muslims endorse the idea of intolerance toward those who believe differently from them. Apparently, Harris is too preoccupied with trying to lump together everything religious in one putrid pile as he seeks to point out how such spiritual traditions are – to borrow his own phrase – “repositories of error”. In short, Harris really doesn’t appear to be doing anything very much different than what he is accusing various proponents of different religious faiths of doing – namely, being intolerant, disrespectful, and hurling epithets at anyone who is ‘other’ or who resides beyond his horizons of belief and practice.
One can agree with Mr. Harris that there is far too much intolerance that is propagated through the invented theologies of self-appointed religious leaders of various religious traditions. However, stipulating to such a point does not automatically force one to accept the idea that God endorses and approves the idea of intolerance.
This leads to a crucial, pivotal set of questions at the heart of each and every spiritual tradition – whether theistic or non-theistic in nature. Some of these questions are: Why and how have we come to be? What is our potential? How might we go about fulfilling that potential? Who are we in essence? How should we treat others and interact with the rest of Being? What are the viable relationships among information, understanding, wisdom, and truth? What degrees of freedom do we have with respect to such matters?
The way in which I seek to answer the foregoing questions is entirely independent of how other people might be inclined to address such issues and vice versa. I can consider what the latter have to say, or I can reject it, but nothing necessitates that I have to be intolerant toward them or disrespect them in order for me to pursue the central issues of being human.
To have freedom of choice means that I have the capacity to accept, reject, reflect upon, modify, critique, explore, test, and question what others say or do. However, I can do all of these things without having to be intolerant of, or disrespectful toward, the ones whose ideas and actions I am considering … in fact, harboring intolerance of, and disrespect for, the views and lifestyle of others often proves to be counterproductive because such attitudes not only tend to skew and bias the process of seeking to find solutions to the questions which form the heart of Being, but, as well, such attitudes take away precious time, energy and resources from what should be the focus of my existential inquiries.
God has not instructed me that being intolerant and disrespectful is the raison d’etre of my existence. I do not believe that any authentic spiritual tradition teaches intolerance or disrespect as being central, or even peripheral, to the purpose and nature of Being.
Does this mean that I cannot or should not enter into exploratory discussions with others about such matters in the hopes of generating better approximations of truth and/or justice? No, none of the foregoing comments is meant to suggest that I should disengage from such interactive ventures, but there is an etiquette to such exchanges, and in this regard, hostile arguments, diatribes, vitriolic debates, propaganda, undue influence, and/or ego-driven debates are not part of the etiquette.
I learned the aforementioned principles of tolerance and respect through my spiritual guide. Such principles were not only reflected in what he said but, more importantly, they were given expression through what he did, especially during an abundance of very difficult and stressful circumstances.
My spiritual guide was a Sufi master or shaykh operating out of the Islamic spiritual tradition. However, there are others whom I have met and/or whose works I have read who operate out of other spiritual traditions – traditions that may carry different names -- but who, in essence, teach and give practical expression to the same kind of spiritual etiquette as did my teacher.
These mentors of the soul explore and apply the qualities of: love, patience, forgiveness, integrity, nobility, humility, tolerance, gratitude, compassion, empathy, equanimity, kindness, charity, friendship, sincerity, courage, equitability, self-sacrifice, magnanimity, diligence, and honesty. Intolerance and disrespect are an anathema to all of the foregoing principles, taken individually or collectively.
Consequently, on the one hand, I understand Mr. Harris’ frustration and concerns in relation to issues involving the promulgations and actions of the theologians or proponents of religious intolerance and disrespect. My spiritual guide experienced many of these same frustrations and concerns both from within the Muslim community, as well as from outside the Muslim community, and, as a result, he sought to counsel interested parties such as myself about the problems that tend to arise out of that kind of destructive atmosphere.
On the other hand, because I have experienced, first hand, the fact that there are those who are committed to spiritual traditions who do not at all fit within the scope of Mr. Harris’ criticism, I am inclined to believe that Mr. Harris often uses the wrong kind of instrument in his book to get at what he believes to be problematic. More specifically, he frequently uses the verbal equivalent of a dull chainsaw when a sharpened scalpel might be more appropriate.
On page 14 of The End of Faith, Mr. Harris states:
“We can no longer ignore the fact that billions of our neighbors believe in the metaphysics of martyrdom or in the literal truth of the book of Revelation, or any of the other fantastical notions that have lurked in the minds of the faithful for millennia – because our neighbors are now armed with chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. There is no doubt that these developments mark the terminal phase of our credulity. Words like “God” and “Allah” must go the way of “Apollo” and “Baal” or they will unmake our world. “
One would like to know what the empirical basis is for the idea that billions of our neighbors who believe in the metaphysics of martyrdom are now armed with “chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.”
One also wonders about which “billions of our neighbors” Mr. Harris has in mind or what proof he has that they believe in the “metaphysics of martyrdom”, and the literal truth of a book of Revelation, or other “fantastical notions”? To begin with, Mr. Harris seems to share the same misunderstanding about the metaphysics of martyrdom as do some of the people he seeks to criticize because martyrdom has never been about killing others but, instead, martyrdom always has been about the willingness to sacrifice one’s own life in the service of truth and justice for everyone, whether Muslim or non-Muslim.
What fantastical notions does Mr. Harris have in mind and what is his proof that they are fantastical? How many of these billions of people has Harris interviewed, and since Mr. Harris doesn’t read Arabic, then, what exactly does he mean by the “literal truth” of Revelation? In fact, what would anyone mean by such a statement because for every book of revelation there may a variety of possible deep understandings which are entailed by, or inherent in, or expressed through, the surface structure of the ‘revealed word’.
Or, let’s approach Mr. Harris’ previous statement from another direction. Britain, France, Israel, India, China, North Korea, Russia, Pakistan, and the United States all possess nuclear weapons. The United States is the only country, so far, which has unleashed nuclear terror on the world.
The anthrax which was released in the United States in the Fall of 2001 was made in a U.S. military lab. Unlike the weapons of mass destruction which were alleged by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, and Rice to be in Iraq but were never found, weapons of mass destruction – nuclear, biological, and chemical – do exist in the United States, and in the case of anthrax has been used against its own people by a person or persons unknown.
Alternatively, there is much speculation but very little hard evidence which is capable of demonstrating that Iran is well on its way to establishing a nuclear program. At best, the current situation is ambiguous because the nuclear fuels that are being refined and the centrifuges which are being built are capable of being used for peaceful purposes, but, under the appropriate circumstances, could become part of a weapons program. I have no idea what the intentions of the leaders of Iran may be in this respect, and I would not be in favor of Iran developing nuclear weapons if that were the intentions of Iran’s leaders.
On the other hand, the United States sponsored, subsidized and conducted a coup d'etat of a democratically elected government with respect to Iran back in 1953, and, then, helped to keep their chosen Peacock in power while he ran a brutal dictatorship with the help of a rigorously cruel and oppressive secret police which the United States helped to train. In addition, the United States not only encouraged Sadaam Hussein to attack Iran and gave military support to Iraq through much of the 1980s to continue these assaults, but, as well, the United States supplied Iraq with both biological and chemical weapons, and, then, knowingly looked the other way when these weapons were turned against both Iranians and Iraqis.
So, if the Iranians are seeking to develop nuclear weapons – something which if true is, I believe, a mistake – one should not forget the role that America has played in helping to create an atmosphere of fear in which people who have been historically traumatized by the United States and its surrogates on a number of occasions may be tempted to take foolhardy and ill-advised steps because of their fears – real and imagined -- concerning what they believe, based on past events, the United States or its surrogates may try to do Iran in the future. Already American corporations, politicians, and news media that have vested interests to promote and protect have been rattling sabers with respect to attacking Iran on the mere suspicion that the latter country may be seeking ways to defend itself against, among others, the United States -- a country which has proven its considerable hostility toward the sovereignty of Iran long before the hostage crisis during Jimmy Carter’s administration ever took place.
Does any of the American-orchestrated provocations against Iran justify the possible -- but, as yet, unproven -- development of nuclear weapons or any other form of terror with which Iran may, or may not, be involved? The answer is no, but let us not be naïve and ignore the role which the United States government and military has had in terrorizing people in many parts of the world, including the Middle East, and by doing so has played a considerable part to help create a situation that is fraught with danger for everybody on Earth.
If the current Iranian leadership is intent on developing nuclear weapons, then, yes, this would bring additional stress and toxicity to an already problematic world. If this were to occur, then, many people in the world would have further reason to fear the destructive possibilities already inherent in a very problematic situation.
If Iran should be induced to stop doing whatever it may be doing, then perhaps the United States should be induced to stop doing whatever it is doing in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere in the world to help instill fear in various countries. Unfortunately, it is a whole lot easier to bully a small country than to try to civilize a powerful country which suffers from bouts of megalomania which is quite capable of turning on anyone that gets in the way of its delusions concerning its assumed role in the scheme of things.
It is the United States, not the Muslim world, which has more than 700 military bases in approximately 130 countries throughout the world, including a growing number of such bases in Iraq in order to maintain its empire whether the people in the countries where those bases are located like it or not. It is the United States, not the Muslim world, which spends trillions of dollars on manufacturing weapons of war, both exotic and conventional. It is the United States, not the Muslim world, which has thousands of nuclear weapons in its arsenals and already has used several of these against another country. It is the United States, not the Muslim world, which is the biggest profiteer in the world in the sale of military weapons. It is the United States, not the Muslim world, which has given Israel billions of dollars in aid even as Israel has continued to act in violation of international law and numerous United Nations resolutions for more than 40 years through its occupation of Palestine, its annexation of territory through military means, its building of illegal settlements in occupied territories, and its building of a wall of partition through Palestine and the occupied territories. It is the United States, not the Muslim world, which, in the modern era, has sought to overthrow countries such as Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Guatemala, Nicaragua, and Chile – killing, maiming, and displacing millions of people in the process.
Iran may, or may not, be a source of some anxiety and fear concerning its future capacity to destabilize the world. However, the United States is already, in the here and now, a source of considerable anxiety as well as fear concerning its on-going role in destabilizing, invading, corrupting, and destroying peoples who oppose its wishes or those of its corporate sponsors.
Perhaps, contrary to what Sam Harris argues, it is not words such as “God” or “Allah” which need to go the way of “Apollo” and “Baal”, but, rather, it is words such as “democracy” and “capitalism” that need to be rehabilitated, especially when these ideas are imposed on people in a corrupted form with little, or no, thought be given to the destruction which the deviant, irresponsible forms of these ideas may bring to the peoples who supposedly are to be “liberated” through them. Understood and applied judiciously and with wisdom, democracy and capitalism have the potential to be great forces of constructive good, but when they are wielded about by those who are intoxicated with their own sense of acquisitiveness and power, these forces also have the capacity to lay waste to freedoms, rights, constitutions, communities, the Earth, and the human soul … and we see the evidence of this everywhere in the world.
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Islamic Revivalism, Shari'ah and the Sufi Path
There is a new video from a talk given at the Sufi Circle, Long Island, New York, in August 2006 on the spiritual-health.org website. To view the video, click on the following link: View Video
Sunday, June 01, 2008
Anab's books now at Mobipocket
Bilquees Press books are now available in e-book format at Mobipocket. You may receive a free sample of each book after downloading the free reader. More books will be available in this and the Amazon Kindle format in the near future..
Bilquees Press Mobipocket e-books
Bilquees Press Mobipocket e-books
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)