In my previous piece on ‘Purifying the Creed from Secularism’, I urged the necessity for UK Muslims to unite against the rebranding of Islam to a weak religion banned from the public domain. One that has no vision or influence on the social, political and economic life of human endeavours. The holy Qur’an is full of verses instructing and commanding Muslims to unite and hold tight on to the rope of Allah. Conversely, there are numerous prohibitions in the Qur’an and Ahadith against disunity and division:
Allah says: “Hold fast, all of you, to the cord of Allah, and be not divided. Remember the blessing of Allah upon you: When you were enemies to each other, and He brought your hearts together, so that, you became brothers through His blessing. You were at the brink of a pit of Fire, then He saved you from it. This is how Allah makes His signs clear to you, so that you may take the right path. There has to be a group of people from among you who call towards the good, and bid the Fair and forbid the Unfair. And it is these who are successful. Do not be like those who became divided and fell into disputes after the clear signs had come to them. Those are the ones for whom there is a grave punishment’’. [3:103-105]
The Prophet Muhammad instructed Muslims to be united and warned of the evil effects of disunity. One such Hadith is recorded by Imam Muslim in which the Messenger of Allah said: “Verily Allah likes three things for you and disapproves three things for you: He is pleased with you but you worship Him and disassociate anything with him; that you hold fast to the Rope of Allah and not to be scattered (disunited); and He disapproves for you irrelevant talk, persistent questioning, and wasting of wealth.”
Not understanding the need and imperative nature of unity, and not working towards it creates prejudices among Muslims. They create emotional, physical, social and psychological barriers which hinder the realisation of the maqsad [purpose] of our existence in this world – to be God’s vicegerents and witnesses unto the mankind.
What I mean by ‘unity’ is unity of purpose, not unity of opinion. The unity that Muslims should be aspiring for and working towards should be one that unifies the purpose and objective as believers in the oneness of Allah (Tawhid) and the belief in the hereafter; not a unity which is predicated upon everyone looking, eating and dressing alike, as manufactured robots.
As human beings created and fashioned by the Creator, He decreed that we spread into nations and tribes so me may know one another. He understands the emotional, physical and psychological differences inherent in us. As such, even the Ahkam (rulings), duties and responsibilities of Muslims vary according to ability and circumstance. We are not charged to fulfill an act outside our ability or remit, ‘Allah does not place on a soul (burden) beyond its capacity’. The Prophet also understood this aspect and tolerated and approved the different perspectives and views that the Sahaba (companions) adhered to.
We should recognise that uniformity is an impossible and unachievable goal – those seeking a utopian vision of unity and who predicate their Islamic activities upon such unrealistic foundations are in denial of the reality and Islamic vision of the world and society.
Unity should also be one based on reality and practicality, a realistic unity. In the Qur’an and the Ahadith there are clear, unambiguous commandments and prohibitions which no Muslim can disagree with, such as the obligations: of worshiping Allah alone, of prayer, fasting, paying Zakah, pilgrimage, to observe Hijab, brotherhood, to be kind to parents, of establishing an Islamic society; or the prohibition of adultery, murder, theft, fornication, alcohol and other intoxicants, division and splitting.
The unity we should be calling Muslims to, must be predicated upon these matters and not issues of secondary and peripheral concerns such as: obliging people to adhere to the same Madhab (school of Fiqh), appearing the same, and following the same means of Da’wa.
Mufti Muhammad Shafi’, who was the father of Mufti Taqi Usmani of Pakistan, narrates: “Once I saw Maulana Anwar Shah Kashmiri in a very sad mood. ‘What is the matter’, I asked. ‘I have wasted my whole life’, he said. ‘You have spent your entire life in spreading Islamic teachings. Thousands of your disciples are themselves Ulema who are serving the religion. If that is a waste, what hope can anyone else have?’ I insisted. ‘Look, what has been the main thrust of all our efforts’, he replied. ‘It has been to show why the Hanafi School is better than others. Imam Abu Hanifa did not need this. His grandeur did not need our approval. Imam Shafi’, Imam Malik, and Imam Ahmed ibn Hanbal could not care less about it.
‘All that one can ever prove in these matters is that a certain position is right but has the probability of being wrong and the other position is wrong but has the probability of being right. Moreover, these issues will not be resolved even in the hereafter. For Allah will not humiliate Imam Shafi’, Abu Hanifa, Malik, or Ahmed bin Hanbal by showing that they were in error’.
Then he added: ‘Today when the roots of Islam are under attack, we have been busy taking care of the leaves.’ [Adapted from two talks of Mufti Muhammad Shafi', the late Grand Mufti of Pakistan, given in 1963 by Khalid Baig]
Another great article…. may Allah accept your efforts.
Akhi Abdullah, I would like your input in regards to:
If there is a difference between modernism and secularism( in regards to the current attempt in re branding Islam)?
JazakAllah for that brilliant article.
It’s sadly true that often when unity is sought, ‘unity of opinion’ is demanded rather than ‘unity of purpose,’ with the claim that disunity is the product of differences in opinion. What is overlooked is that the real cause of disunity is the inability to respect the natural differences, both in opinions and otherwise, created inherently within us to enrich and diversify us. And if we try to unite on such peripherals rather than the essential unambigious aspects of faith, we’re fighting a losing battle against a natural system and paradoxically creating further disunity.
Salam,
Shukran for your blog posts combating secularism – it’s commendable that we are opening up our field of da’wah to go beyond the family/personal sphere (not to mean they are of less significance).
Just a couple of points of clarification though regarding ‘unity of purpose’ and whether this is the same as ‘muslim unity’:
1. Differences are a Godly kawni reality based on divine wisdom: “If Allah had willed He would have made man one ummah but to test you in that which he gave you”. So mankind will differ along the lines of iman and kufr, with all its types and varieties.
Then amongst Muslims, it is also a Godly kawni decree thaty Muslims will differ as the hadith clearly prophesises the existence of 73 sects. Our job is not to expect that we can prevent these fundamental differences between the wider Muslim nation (as that is impossible), but to ensure we are upon and call others to the correct sect and way, that which adheres to the understanding and following of ‘what I (the prophet) am on and my sahaba’. This is the one in which unity is a true realty and is incumbent – hence the term (used by the sahaba themselves) Ahlus-sunnah wal- jama’ah (the people of sunnah and unity/community), and ‘ahlul-bid’ati walk ikhtilaaf’ (the people of innovation and differences/disunity). (I will insist on using these traditional terms despite the way they’ve been hijacked and abused by dodgy trends in recent times).
This group – ahlus-sunnah – is the one which is united despite its fiqhi differences as the sources and principles upon which it is based are sound and agreed upon by all its members – regardless of what (legitimate – and i stress this word) results they deduce from them. This is exactly how the Sahaba were united despite their differences in fiqh – their sources and principles and way were the same.
Fiqhi differences have never been for them a matter to cause disunity between ahlus-sunnah (yes, scholarly debate and discussion can take place, and we may condemn/criticise/advise each other, but that does not and should not mean disunity – as we are agreed upon the same foundations, sources and principles). At the same time, ahlus-sunnah clearly understood its lines and never blurred them with ahlul bid’ah.
So there is bound to be fundamental and unavoidable differences amongst the wider Muslim naation, and true unity that can and must be achieved is that of ahlus-sunnah wal-jama’ah. In that sense, this is the only true ‘Muslims unity’ that has been acheived, can be achieved and should be achieved.
2. As for uniting against secularism, then certainly we can unite AGAINST something with more or less anybody in fact (it’s a tactical/strategic move at the end of the day and depends on benefits/harms). This is not exactly the same as creating ‘Muslim unity’, but rather uniting against a common target. Nor is it restricted to Muslims alone, as we can ‘unite’ even with non-Muslims against a common opponent (with regualtions), as the verse says: “And co-operate on goodness and Taqwa, and do not co-operate upon sin and transgression”.
However that does not mean non-muslims and muslims are united as one people or something as there are clear fundamental differences. Likewise, even the various sects of Islam may be united against a common opponent (the issue of working with Iran to oppose Israel comes to mind) but does not meant that Shiism and sunnism is united as one. In this sense, uniting WITH others AGAINST a common opponent does not necessarily equate with ‘Muslim unity’.
So in summary, we should unite and call for ‘Muslim unity’ under the principles of ahlus-sunnah – true unity is only achievable in this way – but be aware that we can and should work with/’unite’ with others – even of ahlul bid’ah (and even non-muslims where applicable) against secularim for example as well as other opponenets and evils in general. However, we must simultaneously ensure that the lines between us and others are never blurred so that no one mistakenly assumes that working with others of fundamental defference to us means adopting their ways or accepting them.
Wallahu a’alam
Wassalaam.
Assalamu Alaykum,
Pray all is well.
Siyamist: Secularisation, modernisation and westernisation are used interchangeably by many Islamic writers. Secularism and modernity go hand in hand and one cannot be imagined without the other. According to Dr Rachid Ghannoushi, secularisation and modernisation in the Muslim ‘context’ [world] is the process of westernisation i.e, a process attempting to impose ‘western’ values and ideals on Muslims. If the Muslims want to be ‘modern’ they have to relent to the western powers and yield to the way of life alien to the Muslim context [world].
As Muslims we are not against ‘modernisation’ since this is what Islam seeks from us. Islam is a complete way of life for all people, times and places. Therefore, there is no problem in that but we have to understand what we mean by modernisation. According to Ghannoushi, there is a distinction between western modernisation and the modernisation programmes pursued by the secular leaders of the Muslim world. The west experiences a ‘’genuine modernity’. The hallmark of this process in the west is threefold: the emancipation of humans securing their right to freedom of choice, the generation of scientific and technological progress, and the establishment of a democratic system and reasserting the sovereignty of people. [R.Ghannoushi by Azzam Taminmi, p 123]
The above elements of modernisation, theoretically and in principle, are completely compatible with the principles of Islam since values like ‘democracy’ [some aspects of it are compatible with Islam], human rights, industrial and scientific progress are all Islamic concepts and values which have recourse in the Qur’an and Sunnah.
As Muslims, we are completely opposed to what Dr Ghannoushi calls ‘’pseudo-modernity’’ or false modernity. This is a type of modernisation used by the secular elite of the Muslim world to deconstruct Islam and its heritage. Its central role is not to achieve economic and industrial betterment but to totally secularise the society which strips, compartmentalises, incarcerates Islam and the role it ought to play in the public domain to just mere superficial and symbolic actions and rituals devoid of any purpose or real and genuine attempt to secure benefit for the complete human being as a creature which requires spiritual and physical nourishment.
The effect of this false modernisation through the secularisation of the Muslim world can bee seen clearly in the Muslim countries like Tunisia where according to Ghannoushi was a successful attempt to colonise the Muslim world [its also correct for Much of the Muslim world][. So modernisation and secularisation from this angle is an attempt to colonise the Muslims ideologically, culturally and materially and impose dunyawiy and heretical concepts among the Muslims which are complete antithesis to the principles of Islam.
We have to stress, as Muslims we are not against Modernisation if this means working towards a sustainable economy, a good industrial programme, and agricultural growth, technological and scientific advancement and so on and so forth. The Muslims were pioneers in these fields. While the Muslims of Spain, for example, excelled in these areas the west [Europeans] were still in the dark ages and would often send their educated elites to the Muslim world to learn the various sciences and crafts from the Muslim scientists, engineers, doctors, physicians and the like, and according to many this brought about the renaissance in Europe.
What the Muslims have been doing is copying the west and buildings lofty structures and, to a certain extent have been successful, but have completely failed in building men who would carry the message of Islam to the world.
Wallahu ‘alam
Wassalam
Abdulllah Hasan
Salam,
RRR, thank you for the contribution.
wslm