In the common Muslim perception, human rights should be subjugated to God’s rights. Thereby they neglect the rights of people who are condemned as heretical or who threaten the religious establishment. Is there an alternative Islamic interpretation?
The conversation Novriantoni and Ramy El-Dardiry, members of the Liberal Islam Network (JIL), had with Prof. Dr. Khaled Abou El Fadl, Professor of Islamic law at UCLA, could shed some more light on this matter.
The discussion took place at the Hilton Hotel in Jakarta on Saturday 24/7, during Dr. Khaled Abou El Fadl’s visit to Indonesia.
JIL: Dr. Khaled, suicide bombing seems to be a trend among Muslim radicals nowadays. Hashem Saleh, a Syrian intellectual, said that Muslims are focusing on ‘kamikaze . What is your opinion on suicide bombing in the name of Islam?
KHALED ABOU EL FADL: First, I refuse to associate this trend with the concept of Jihad. The concept of Jihad is very much different to today’s suicide bombings. Jihad also differs from the holy war in the Crusade period, which developed from the doctrine of self-purification through bloodsheds. In the idea of holy war, murder is regarded as a mechanism to approach God and war is regarded as sacred. Hence, any cruelty in war will not be seen as a form of barbarism.
On the contrary, jihad always relies on the power of da’wah (missionary endeavor) and the absence of vengeance feeling. In jihad, you should not assume yourself to be a killer, nor should you sacrifice the enemy because it is God’s will. In the concept of jihad, war is always regarded as something bad (‘syarr ), an inevitable evil (‘syarrun dlarûrî), and we have to avoid it (‘kurhun). War is only permitted to liberate Muslims from tyranny or to defend them from attacks. That is the concept of jihad.
I think performing Jihad by suicide bombing is connected with modernity; it did not originate from Islamic moderate literature. Psychologically, the fantasy of eternal life in the hereafter endorses those bombers. My critique is that the bombers’ concept of Jihad has neglected Quranic pre-requirements about the detailed preparation of war. Their objective of jihad is not to liberate (fath ), but to ruin, in order to resist western domination. Here we can see differences between the concept of Jihad based on moral principles, and the strategy of offensive suicide bombings, which are influenced by revolutionary ideologies from the 1960s.
JIL: Thus, you deny the association between suicide-bombing and the concept of Jihad in Islam.
It is not about the suicide bombing, but about murdering people without differentiating between the aggressor (muhârib ) and the non-aggressor (‘ghaira muharib ). Fikh (Islamic jurisprudence) has prohibited this kind of random killing (‘qatlul ghîlah). Qatlul ghîlah is a form of murder, where the object does not have any chance to defend himself or herself. Ethics is very prominent in fikh literature, particularly in relation to war (hirâbah). We should not kill the incarcerated, children, women, and weak men. The suicide bombers view infiltrates the ideology of jihad. Those suicide bombers foresee resistance upon the West and therefore they declare other Muslims as apostate.
Clearly, we saw this with the murder on the Egyptian ambassador in Iraq and the repeating attacks on Shiites there. I think such actions are a consequence of Wahabism, which views Shiite to be outside Islam and who should hence be fought. Persons like Abdurrahman al-Zarqawi called Muslims apostate and allowed killing them. I guess he never read about assimilation theory (‘nazariyyat tatharrus ) which deals with the question whether it is allowable to kill Muslims in order to reach the enemy, if the enemy and Muslims are mixed.
JIL: Do you agree on their effort to resist western hegemony?
I do not deny the problem of western hegemony. However, we have to raise the question: what is the core of this hegemony and how do countries like China, Japan, Iran, South Korea, North Korea, and Turkey escape from it? We forget that the most effective weapon and the symbol of today’s glory are science and technology. Do not forget that we have to build an incorrupt and an anti-authoritarian state. We have to choose between a despotic state and a welfare state. We need a system that opens the gate to science and culture, that manages the problem of environmental pollution, provides clean water, and reduces the spread of diseases. Technology is the only answer to those matters. I think, resisting western hegemony should start by fighting corrupted states. Preparing the khail (horse) to fight the enemy in the Qur’an, nowadays means preparation of knowledge and technology. Anyone who masters knowledge and technology will control the world.
JIL: What do you think about the kind of religious reformation as proposed by Afghani and Abduh?
Yes, religious reformation is necessary besides reformation in other fields. In the religious discourse, fikh must not be used as an oppressing instrument. Religion should not support despotism. My book on authoritative and authoritarian fatwas criticizes the misuse of religion for such objectives. Religious reformation must be based on remembering God. This is not a simple point. Many consider that progress will be achieved by increasing the number of legal restrictions and the enforcement of Islamic law or (precisely) part of the Islamic school of thought. To me, the foundation and the principle of religion are about remembering God, which is very personal and regarded with morality. We have to be accustomed to live with moral ideals. No civilization can be based on pragmatism. Every civilization is primarily established upon idealism or dreams. That moralist dream puts you in a noble position.
We also have to lead society towards the principle of gentleness (‘al-hilm ). It is impossible to build a civilization on the principle of violence. The suicide bomber is wrong when he believes that he will build civilization through destruction. I stress that there is not a single civilization built on destructiveness. All civilizations are built on a moral foundation, intellectual activities, and innovations. The Greeks loved knowledge, and now the Americans and Europeans respect knowledge. To some extend, Japanese as well. The glory of Islamic civilization in the past was built based on knowledge. Briefly, the key is a revolution towards knowledge. Destruction will never succeed in building a civilization.
JIL: How can we make idealism as a foundation of a civilization?
Idealism does not come coincidentally. Anyone who learns Islam will know that the main objective of Islamic law is the promotion of human benefit (‘li mashâlihil `ibâd ), which respects humanity or humanism. We have to excavate the humanistic value of Islam. A book written in the third century of Hejra mentioned that when there is a contradiction between laws; the more humanistic one (‘arfaq bin nâs ) should be chosen. The non-Muslim American thinker, George Maqdisi wrote a book on humanism in Islam, The Rise of Humanism in Islam . I agree with Maqdisi’s view on humanism in Islam. He stated that Islamic civilization arouse out of the notion on the urgency of respecting humanity and humanism, a notion that believes in human’s dignity as a ‘fitrah or nature.
JIL: But humanism is now absent from almost all regimes in the Muslim world!
Throughout the history of Islamic civilization, there have always been regimes that play with power, while ulema who wanted to be close with the financial sources did not carry out their controlling function. The ulema think that as long as the ruler defends the rights of God, it will guarantee them God’s reward. They forget about the importance of stimulating the regime to increase human welfare. Yet, fikh manuscripts in the second, third and fourth century of hejra, emphasized on the importance of maximizing human benefit. Besides, modesty is becoming a marginalized value in Islam, and violence becomes dominant nowadays. People forget about the liberator aspect in Islam, which actually was the strength of Islam when it faced the preceding authoritarian civilizations such as the Persian and the Roman. Those civilizations based on physical and mental occupation on their people.
JIL: Dr. Khaled, the leader of the attack on Ahmadiyah in Bogor denied his violation of human rights. To him, God’s rights are above human rights. How do you see that?
I will compare our viewpoints with the viewpoints of previous ulema. Classical Muslim ulema asserted that violation of human rights would not be forgiven except by the concerned man, while violation of the rights of God will be taken care of by God himself. Humans should not claim to be the representative of God. In the concept of ‘tawheed, Allah is very capable to protect His personal rights. Therefore, we have to be more careful not to violate human rights. In Islam, God will not forgive violation of human rights, except if the man concerned forgives. A caliph or a ruler should not abolish anyone’s rights, except if those individuals violated others’ rights. The views of Ibn Araby, a jurist of the Hanafi school of thought who wrote ‘Ahkâmul Qur’ân, are amazing in this aspect since it was available in the fourth century of Hejrah.
I say that people who argue that they have to prioritize God’ rights over human rights, are ignorant about the classical fikh literature of the previous ulema. Those ulema stated that human rights must be prioritized over God’s right (‘haqqul insân muqaddam `ala haqqil Ilâh ), because Allah is well capable of defending His rights in the hereafter, while humans have to defend their own rights. Referring on such an understanding, I will defend whoever oppressed, whether Muslim, Christian, Ahmadi, Bahai or Hind. Since every kind of oppression and occupation are forms of tyranny and no Muslim should be silent when seeing tyranny.
Once, I defended the constitutional rights of the Ahmadiyah. When I succeeded, one of Ahmadi asked me, “do you still believe that I am a Muslim?” I answered, “That’s not my business, since that is God’s concern. I don’t know what is in your heart and I have never wanted to check it.” then I asked him, “Is it necessary for me to believe that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is a prophet?” he was surprised. I continued, “The matter is simple. I do not believe in the prophecy of Ghulam Ahmad. If you believe that prophecy does not stop, and believe that Ghulam Ahmad is a prophet too, it is your business”. Then I stated that I disagree with them and hope that God will accept both their view and mine.
JIL: Is it any good to regard a sect as heretic and deviant from Islam?
To me, the heretic claim and stigmatization is no more important nowadays. Baha’i claimed to be Islamic once, but they left the five principles of Islam. Therefore, it is hard to categorize them as Muslim. When they finally established a new religion, it is their own business. They worship God with their Baha’I methods. Whether God accepts their religiosity or not, is not my concern.
Therefore, I would like to quote Ali bin Abi Talib’s words in this case: “There are two kind of humans: your brother in religion and your brother in ethics (al-nâs shinfânî immâ ikhwânukum fid dîn aw ikhwânukum fil khuluq).” I would like to ask, where is that enlightened spirit of Ali in today’s life? I think we neglect verses on tolerance and do not want to speak about it, nor do we want to disseminate it. Yet, this is the strength of Islamic morality.
JIL: Indonesian ulema refer to Pakistan and Saudi Arabia in dealing with the case of Ahmadiyah. To them, to tolerate “heretic sects” is to be part of western values, which are tolerant.
We have to read the Islamic history comprehensively. The book of ‘Maqâlâtul Islâmiyyîn written by al-Asy’ari dealt with many sects in Islam. Throughout history, the Druz were allowed to live in the Muslim world. Ahmadiyyah people are praying, fasting and reciting syahadat (Islamic profession of faith), while Druz people are not. However, they were allowed to live. The Nushairiyyun group is even worse. They believe that Ali bin Abi Thalib is God and they believe in the concept of Trinity. They think that the angel Gabriel actually wanted to reveal God’s message to Ali, but he was mistaken and he revealed it to Muhammad instead.
We could say that they are the top of apostasy. However, they are not being oppressed or fought. Some of them live in small groups up to now. To me, the wisest way is to think about how to respond. The experts of fikh and theology in the past, such as al-Juwaini, al-Ghazali, Ibn Taymiyah etc have written books to reject heretic groups.
JIL: However writing books is not enough for them. Many radicals insist on annihilating them with the excuse of protecting Islamic doctrine.
Do you know what the consequence will be when Indonesia would imitate Saudi or Pakistan? Ahmadiyah grew even faster in Pakistan after its prohibition. That is a reversal reflection of oppression politics. The fast growth of Ahmadiyah is not because it is pleasing doctrine, but because of people’s huge sympathy with them.
In Saudi Arabia, the heretic sects survive although they are hidden. I have been crying in meeting some irrational groups. Those groups developed in the two holy places, Mecca and Medina. They all moved underground. To me, the solution lies in building an open dialog with them. I have to emphasize that tolerance does not require you to be a real relativist and to say that all beliefs are true. Tolerance means I believe in this and I believe that it is true, however if you believe the opposite, I should not be forced to believe and I will never attack you on the other hand.
JIL: You argued that we could find the basis of pluralism and tolerance from Islamic principles. Could you elaborate on that?
Yes. In fact, we do not need secularism as long as we can show and uphold the notions of tolerance and humanism within Islamic literature. However, it is problematic that we are facing many Muslims who left their intellectual culture. I read humanist literature of Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism and Buddhism. I tried hard to learn Hebrew in order to read the Talmud in Hebrew language. I also tried to read the bible in Latin and studied Aramaic to read it in its original version. I concluded that humanism and inhumanism could be found in every holy book. This is God’s way to test our maturity.
Human nature and reason have to differentiate between good and bad things, between what to take and what to leave. If we want to follow the devil’s nature, we can use the bad sides of holy books, for example by glorifying murder by adopting the story of David in the Bible. To me, this story is sadistic. Nevertheless, did westerners build their civilization by adopting these kinds of stories? They could have done that but they did not. They choose the humanistic part of their tradition and lay their civilization on those humanistic principles.
Every civilization was initially established on religious principles. Religious thinkers focused their discussion on the positive aspects of their past literature, and then modified it. In some aspect, their thoughts seemed to be like classical Muslim thinkers. One asked Thomas Aquinas about the noblest moral principle in the world. His answer was the concept of ‘enjoining what is virtue and discouraging what is bad’, which is definitely influenced by Islamic literature. From the concept of ‘amar makruf nahi munkar (enjoining what is virtue and discouraging what is bad), Aquinas formulated his notions about natural rights in ‘Summa Theologica. Afterward, religious thinkers completed his humanist thoughts.
The Islamic thought in the classical period is associated with the notion of human rights and the concept of nature. In his book ‘al-Wajîz, Imam al-Juwaini said that honoring humanity is a nature that Allah gave to humans. Based on that principle, Abu Hanifah (Muslim jurist) released his slave Halimah. Here, al-Juwaini was clearly associating the notion of honoring human rights and the concept of nature. It means that you still have to honor human rights.
JIL: Hence, today we must prioritize the humanist face of Islam.
The root of Islamic humanism has to be re-explored in order to build Islamic civilization. We should not be trapped in blindly following (‘at-tab`iyah al-`amyâ ) the west or refusal (‘al-rafdhiyyah al-`amyâ), which disables us to see the benefit of something like humanity, merely because it is western.
To me, the suicide bombers who resist the west have the fantasy of being accepted well before God since they have fed up of the world. This is a form of criminal frustrations ( ya’sun ijrâmî). They do not want to learn, read, and make innovations. All are too difficult for them. What is easy though? Exploding one self, going to God and hoping for heaven.
Therefore, violence is a form of laziness to me. Those people do not want to use their reason, to learn, to analyze the matter carefully, to argue and to make a dialog. As Muslims, we have complained a lot. We complain since we are oppressed and do not know what to do. My question is this: what have you done in order to deserve honor from Allah? Do we love knowledge and therefore Allah honors our dignity, as He mentioned in Quran?
Complains and laziness are viruses from which Muslims suffer today. We just want to enslave others, while Allah will not help anyone who likes to enslave. We destroy the world order while God dislikes it. We make laws but not the ones that are against tyranny and oppression.
Webpage
