The word Islam has the dual meaning of ‘peace’ and ‘submission’. Islam seeks peace not just for its own sake, it is an essential precondition for, and consequence of submission to, the ‘will of God’, the creation of the circumstances in which the life of faith can be implemented in all aspects of human existence. So, why does Islam today appear to be synonymous with violence? And why are those who claim to be following the ‘will of God’ so bent on the path of war? As Anwar Ibrahim, the former Deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia, asked in an article written from prison, how ‘in the 21st century, could the Muslim world have produced a bin Laden’? Or, as many supporters of Anwar, whose only crime is standing up against the corruption and despotism of Mahathir Muhammad, Malaysia’s Prime Minister for two decades, are asking: why is the Muslim world so crammed with despots, theocrats, autocrats and dictators?Or, to put it another way: why have Muslim societies failed so spectacularly to come to terms with modernity?
These are not new questions. I have raised them many times. Other writers and scholars have asked the same questions; most notably, Kanan Makiya in his Cruelty and Silence (Penguin, London, 1994). But after September 11, these questions have acquired a new poignancy and a much broader currency. However, such debate and earnest discourse has some notable features. The debate is conducted, for the most part, by Muslim intellectuals and writers living and working in the west, though they enjoy a readership and close links within the Muslim world. The reason is not hard to find. Living in the west requires a direct response to the circumstances and human dilemmas of modernity; it also permits more ready access to sources of Muslim scholarship than in most Muslim countries; within the Muslim world dissent, wide ranging intellectual inquiry and argument has little if any public scope. So the central debate on the contemporary meaning of Islam is, in its most challenging form, doubly marginal. It occurs outside Muslim nations, where any attempt to apply its ideas is blocked by existing power structures and entrenched vested interests. In the west it is hardly known, being the concern of a minority within a minority it is almost inaudible and invisible. Furthermore from a western perspective it is not consistent with popular perceptions of Islam, nor the real politik of relations with the Muslim world.
Defining the predicament of modern Muslim nations and Islam in the modern world is not difficult. Ascribing reasons is an equally effortless procedure. Muslims have tended to look to outsiders for answers to these questions. It is apparent, despite all the posturing of governments that the fate of the Muslim world is affected and determined by decisions taken elsewhere, there is a widespread sense of dispossession and powerlessness. Therefore, much energy goes into providing a critique of the actions and consequences of the centres of power, the nexus of western governments, economy, industry and popular culture where modernity is manufactured and exported to its recipients in the Muslim world.
For example, Muslims are quick to point out the double standards of America, both in its domestic rhetoric and foreign policy. The American support for despotic regimes, its partiality towards the Israelis, and a long series of covert operations that have undermined democratic movements in the Muslim world. There is truth in these assertions. But such truths cannot explain nor provide all the answers. Indeed, the most significant answers lie deep within the history, social practice, intellectual and political inertia of Muslims themselves. Holding a mirror to our own faults is the place Muslims are just too reluctant to look. And unless the Muslims re-examine their own assumptions, their own perceptions of what it means to be a Muslim in the twenty-first century, peace – in any meaningful sense – will continue to elude us.
The question of peace, then, is tied up with a re-examination of the meaning and nature of Islam in contemporary times. Muslims believe that their identity is shaped by the best religion with the finest arrangements and precepts for all aspects of human existence and the most glorious of all human histories. Muslim rhetoric is shaped by the ideals of Islam where all is sacred, nothing secular and justice the paramount duty. The problem, as acknowledged by all concerned, is that many Muslims, as individuals and nations, are neither expressly Islamic nor all that just. The problem of flawed humanity is answered, in the deepest core of Muslim being, by the unquestionable need to be more Islamic. So, we are constantly retreating to a more and more romanticised notion of ‘Islam’. Time after time, we have watched as the definition of what is ‘Islamic’ in contemporary times and circumstances is shrunk and reduced to pathological levels. Our most sacred concepts have been monopolised and hijacked by under-educated clerics, by obscurantist sheikhs and ‘ulema’ (religious leaders), fanatics and madmen.
This process of reduction itself is also not new. But now it has reached such an absurd state that the very ideas that are supposed to take Muslims towards peace and prosperity are now guaranteed to take them in the opposite direction. From the subtle beauty of a perennial challenge to construct justice through mercy and compassion, we get mechanistic formulae fixated with the extremes repeated by people convinced they have no duty to think for themselves because all questions have been answered for them by the ulema in previous times, men far better than themselves, but long dead. And because everything carries the brand name of Islam, to question it, or argue against it is tantamount to voting for sin.
Peace will elude the Muslim world as long as we Muslims continue to perform violence on our own ideas and concepts. Let me illustrate the nature of this violence by looking at two very common Muslim concepts: the notions of jihad (struggle) and ijma (consensus) that shape much of Muslim identity and outlook.
-Ziauddin Sardar
(Source: acupoffreshair)
There is this Hadith, from Imam Malik’s Muwatta, where three people enter into the Mosque where The Prophet is sitting with others in a circle, teaching a lesson. One joins the circle, one sits outside of the circle, and the other leaves.
The Hadith then goes:
“When the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, finished, he said, ‘Shall I tell you about three people? One of them sought shelter with God, so God gave him shelter. The other was shy, so God was shy to him. The other turned away, so God turned away from him.’”
The first level to the Hadith is clearly directed towards these three individuals, but when I thought about it a little bit more, I thought about myself, and how I approached God.
If you are active about learning, about seeking God, God will come to you. While it is clearly metaphorical, as God does not have these human emotions or motives, I think it underlines something deeper, in ourselves, that we seldom mention, but always complain about.
It is not God’s job to convince you of Him, only to inform you of His presence and His mercy; it’s our job to reflect that reality in our actions and beliefs.
Insha Allah, I pray that we can truly seek out God’s Grace so that we may better ourselves and others, on this earth, so that we can stand proud before our Creator on that Day.
Wazir Khan Mosque in Lahore, Pakistan (1634)
First mosque in Australia located in Marree, South Australia. The mosque was built in 1861 by Afghan cameleers.
The Great Mosque of Xi’an. Shaanxi, China.
![partytilfajr:
“(2) Defeated have been the Byzantines (3) in the lands close-by; yet it is they who, notwithstanding this their defeat, shall be victorious (4) within a few years: [for] with God rests all power of decision, first and last. And on that day will the believers [too, have cause to] rejoice” [30:2-4] Muhammad Asad
This is from Surah Ar-Rum, or The Byzantines, and it was revealed about six or seven years before the Hijra. I mention that because it is within these verses that we see actual and tangible prophecy from God upon events that will occur. It is something to be in awe of, and I truly mean that, so allow me to explain why:
These verses are referring to the war between the Byzantines and the Persians, and the Muslims identified with the Byzantines (as fellow monotheists) while the pagan Quraysh sympathized with the Persians who they thought, by defeating the Byzantines, would show how feeble the idea of One God was for a society’s success.
The pagan Quraysh had good reason to be confident, the Persians had conquered parts of Syria and Anatolia, which is what is referred to in The Qur’an “the lands close-by,” which was near the center of of the Byzantine Empire. By 613 they took Damascus, in 614 they took Jerusalem, Egypt fell in 615ish, and by then the Persians were actually besieging Constantinople itself.
Things were looking pretty bad.
This Surah was revealed around 615 or 616, so the Byzantines seemed that they were about to be destroyed and the Muslims despaired, while the pagan Quraysh were confident of Persian victory.
Think of it this way, it was as if they were rooting for sports teams, on steroids, and each side (the Muslims and the pagans) were rooting for a team that they thought reflected their values, so the winner would illustrate who’s values worked better. This is a simplification, but I just want to illustrate how they sort of saw this relative today. It also shows how insignificant the Arabian pennisula was, in that, neither the Persians or Byzantines cared to conquer it. I say this, because it would be Islam that would allow these Bedouins to become worth anything, and nothing else.
Anyways, so what do we have? The Prophet then revealed that God predicts the Byzantines are going to win this war. Now, imagine this like someone telling you that some team, down a billion to 1, is going to win with just a little bit left in the game. You’d laugh. You’d be like, “okay… sure buddy.” Right?
The Quraysh did exactly that. They derided The Prophet, and even the Muslims were despondent, as it seemed that the Byzantines were clearly about to crumble. The term that Muhammad Asad translates to “a few years” is bid’ which can mean a number anywhere between three to ten.
Six years later, in 622, the tide turned in favor of the Byzantines. Emperor Heraclius drove the Persians out of Asia Minor in that year, and by 624, he carried the war into Persian territory. By the end of 626, ten years later, the Persian armies were completely routed by the Byzantines.
People asked for tangible proof of not only God’s existence, but that The Prophet was actually God’s Apostle. This is one of the many proofs of this, and there are many others such as this. Regardless, it just goes to show you how unwilling the Quraysh were to listening to The Prophet. They ask for signs of God, but what they were really asking for was “what’s in it for me?”
It is a lesson for us to learn. When we ask for a sign from God, are we asking because we simply want to know of God or to have our faith reinforced? Or are we seeking out a method to simply serve our self-interest, not for our destiny, but for our fleeting interests in this world? I think when you seek God sincerely, His Signs become self-evident, but when you are not, there is something inside that you must deal with, and that might not be some evil self-interest, but something that you must deal with first, which is why I firmly advocate understanding yourself as a means towards understanding your Faith.
I pray that we have genuine belief in Almighty God, and that we keep that faith to our last breath. I pray that we are able to represent our Faith, the Faith of Adam, Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad, as sincerely, honestly, and faithfully as we possibly can. I pray that we heed the words and signs of God, not to be superior to others, but to excel in this world, to help others, so that we may face Our Creator without fear and with pride in being His faithful servant. Insha Allah, I hope that what I have written is correct and that whatever is wrong, I beg and plead, O Lord, that you please correct me in whatever way you see fit.
Ameen.](http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m1cs0fUNr61r7nq2no1_500.jpg)
“(2) Defeated have been the Byzantines (3) in the lands close-by; yet it is they who, notwithstanding this their defeat, shall be victorious (4) within a few years: [for] with God rests all power of decision, first and last. And on that day will the believers [too, have cause to] rejoice” [30:2-4] Muhammad Asad
This is from Surah Ar-Rum, or The Byzantines, and it was revealed about six or seven years before the Hijra. I mention that because it is within these verses that we see actual and tangible prophecy from God upon events that will occur. It is something to be in awe of, and I truly mean that, so allow me to explain why:
These verses are referring to the war between the Byzantines and the Persians, and the Muslims identified with the Byzantines (as fellow monotheists) while the pagan Quraysh sympathized with the Persians who they thought, by defeating the Byzantines, would show how feeble the idea of One God was for a society’s success.
The pagan Quraysh had good reason to be confident, the Persians had conquered parts of Syria and Anatolia, which is what is referred to in The Qur’an “the lands close-by,” which was near the center of of the Byzantine Empire. By 613 they took Damascus, in 614 they took Jerusalem, Egypt fell in 615ish, and by then the Persians were actually besieging Constantinople itself.
Things were looking pretty bad.
This Surah was revealed around 615 or 616, so the Byzantines seemed that they were about to be destroyed and the Muslims despaired, while the pagan Quraysh were confident of Persian victory.
Think of it this way, it was as if they were rooting for sports teams, on steroids, and each side (the Muslims and the pagans) were rooting for a team that they thought reflected their values, so the winner would illustrate who’s values worked better. This is a simplification, but I just want to illustrate how they sort of saw this relative today. It also shows how insignificant the Arabian pennisula was, in that, neither the Persians or Byzantines cared to conquer it. I say this, because it would be Islam that would allow these Bedouins to become worth anything, and nothing else.
Anyways, so what do we have? The Prophet then revealed that God predicts the Byzantines are going to win this war. Now, imagine this like someone telling you that some team, down a billion to 1, is going to win with just a little bit left in the game. You’d laugh. You’d be like, “okay… sure buddy.” Right?
The Quraysh did exactly that. They derided The Prophet, and even the Muslims were despondent, as it seemed that the Byzantines were clearly about to crumble. The term that Muhammad Asad translates to “a few years” is bid’ which can mean a number anywhere between three to ten.
Six years later, in 622, the tide turned in favor of the Byzantines. Emperor Heraclius drove the Persians out of Asia Minor in that year, and by 624, he carried the war into Persian territory. By the end of 626, ten years later, the Persian armies were completely routed by the Byzantines.
People asked for tangible proof of not only God’s existence, but that The Prophet was actually God’s Apostle. This is one of the many proofs of this, and there are many others such as this. Regardless, it just goes to show you how unwilling the Quraysh were to listening to The Prophet. They ask for signs of God, but what they were really asking for was “what’s in it for me?”
It is a lesson for us to learn. When we ask for a sign from God, are we asking because we simply want to know of God or to have our faith reinforced? Or are we seeking out a method to simply serve our self-interest, not for our destiny, but for our fleeting interests in this world? I think when you seek God sincerely, His Signs become self-evident, but when you are not, there is something inside that you must deal with, and that might not be some evil self-interest, but something that you must deal with first, which is why I firmly advocate understanding yourself as a means towards understanding your Faith.
I pray that we have genuine belief in Almighty God, and that we keep that faith to our last breath. I pray that we are able to represent our Faith, the Faith of Adam, Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad, as sincerely, honestly, and faithfully as we possibly can. I pray that we heed the words and signs of God, not to be superior to others, but to excel in this world, to help others, so that we may face Our Creator without fear and with pride in being His faithful servant. Insha Allah, I hope that what I have written is correct and that whatever is wrong, I beg and plead, O Lord, that you please correct me in whatever way you see fit.
Ameen.
Yes, I am full of doubts and sometimes, particularly when I find a passage of the Qur’an too difficult, I face severe doubt.
But as the twelfth century Muslim thinker and theologian, al-Ghazali, once said, no one believes unless they doubt. I think doubt is a constant companion of belief. One struggles to find answers - sometime the answers one produces satisfy, other times they do not. Often, as Maulana Mawdudi and others have pointed out, questions raised in one part of the Qur’an can be answered from another part. But not always. So there are times when one can’t produce any answers at all. Here, I think you have to live with the fact that some questions can never really be answered; and with the reality that our struggles with ultimate questions of life and meaning are perpetual.
Ziauddin Sardar
(Source: acupoffreshair)
