by Robert D. Crane and Safi Kaskas
Introduction
The biased perception of Islam, common especially in America, results not only because extremist Muslims resort to reactionary violence and claim that this is Islamic, but because American Muslims do not necessarily understand the essence of Islam as it applies contextually to the contemporary scene and if they do they fail to explain it in ways that Americans can understand.
Biased perceptions about Islam and Muslims result also, especially in Europe, from bias against all religions, because in European history religion has been a cause rather than a cure for conflict.
Changing the perception of Islam in the West requires education about the common essence of all Abrahamic religions, as well as credible demonstration of this essence in practice. Muslims, Christians, Jews and others must join in solidarity to rehabilitate the role of religion in the world, in both essence and practice, by providing a new paradigm of faith-based, compassionate justice for public policy guidance.
The following four questions must be asked and answered.
I. Do Faith and Religion Have a Future?
In a secular world, many people ask whether there is a future for faith and religion. One should distinguish between the two. Faith is belief in the unseen, in transcendent reality, in the ghaib. This is part of human nature and has provided purpose to human life since the first appearance of sentient life on earth. Faith is universal and eternal and therefore has a future. Faith is the essence of religion.
Religion is the response to faith in both individual and community life. Religion is the pursuit of knowledge about higher truth and the translation of knowledge into moral practice.
There are many religious paths in the search for absolute truth, and there are many forms of practice, but all are designed for the same purpose, which is to worship the Absolute in thought, word, and deed, whether we call it God or Gott or Dios or Allah.
God tells us in Surah al Ma’ida 5:48, “Unto every one of you have we appointed a [different] governing system of law (shir’ah) and a [different] way of life (minhaj). If Allah had so willed, all humanity would have been a single community. God’s plan is to test you in what each of you has received [in both scriptures and inspiration]. So strive as in a race in all virtues. The destination of all people is to God”.
Put differently, the future of faith and religion is the difference between essence and appearance. Many scholars distinguish between Christianity in the form of Christ’s teachings as essence and Christendom as what one sees. Christianity is both a faith and an ideal system of practice, whereas Christendom may differ radically from Christianity itself.
The same is true of Islam and Islamdom. Research for a 77-page chapter on “The Spread of Islam” for the 800-page, three-volume textbook, Islam and Muslims, prepared by Mohammad Ali Chaudry and myself for the Center for Understanding Islam, suggested that the faith of Islam spread most rapidly when the Muslim empires were weak and slowly when they were strong. They spread most successfully in places like Indonesia where there were no Muslim empires and where the rulers actually opposed the spread of Islam.
The reason may have been that Islamdom often was un-Islamic, just as it is in many places today. Islam as a faith is spreading in America today precisely because it faces so many obstacles, just as it did 1444 years ago when the Angel Gabriel first revealed to Muhammad, salah Allahu ‘alayhi wa salam, that he was to be a Prophet and Messenger of God.
II. What Is the Core of the Essence?
The future of Islam is up to Allah, but the future of Muslims is up to every person through one’s observance of the first two essentials in the universal Islamic value system. These two, known as taqwa and ‘adl, are the core of the essence of Islam as a religion. Taqwa is loving awe of Allah in response to Allah’s love of every person. Taqwa is also submission to Allah as the source of truth, love, and justice. ‘Adl is love of compassionate justice as a framework for expressing our love for each other. As Cornell West of Tikkun Olam puts it, “Justice is what love looks like in public”.
The Prophet Muhammad emphasized the importance of seeking truth and justice, but he posited the motivation for the search in the constant Qur’anic emphasis on love, as developed in my book published in January, 2010, The Natural Law of Compassionate Justice: An Islamic Perspective. A favorite prayer of Prophet Muhammad, salla Allahu 'alayhi wa salam, and of Imam Ali, 'alayhi al salam, and of millions of Muslims ever afterwards, was Allahumma, asaluka hubbaka wa hubba man yuhibbuka wa hubba kuli ‘amali yuqaribuni ila hubbika, “O Allah, I ask you for your love, and for the love of those who love you, and for the love of everything that can bring me closer to your love.”
The Qur’an uses several different terms for various nuances of love. For example, in Surah Maryam (Mary) 19:96, Allah uses the term wadda. “Verily, those who attain to faith and do righteous deeds will the most Gracious endow with love”, saya’alu wudda, i.e., bestow on them His love and endow them with the capability to love His creation, as well as cause them to be loved by their fellow men. This is immediately followed by 19:97, “and only to this end have we made this [divine scripture] easy to understand and in your own language, O Prophet, so that you might convey thereby a glad tiding to the God-conscious”, thereby indicating that this gift of love is inherent in the guidance offered to humans through divine guidance.
Islam is known as a religion of peace, salam, which comes from submission to the only Being worthy of human submission, namely, God. In classical Islamic thought, as developed from the third through sixth Islamic centuries, peace as the essence of Islam results from justice, and justice is merely the expression of truth and love in a communal context.
The most profound verse in the Qur’an as a source of faith-based justice is Surah al An’am 6:115, wa tammat kalimatu rabbika sidqan wa ‘adlan, “The Message of your Lord is completed and perfected in truth and in justice.” This teaches that justice is an expression of truth and that truth originates in the transcendent order of reality, indeed from the Being of God, not in man-made law.
Perhaps the second most profound verse is Surah al Shura 42:17, which emphasizes the concept of balance, known as mizan. This is central to all classical Islamic thought in every aspect of both personal and social life. “It is God Who has bestowed revelation from on high, setting forth the truth, and [thus given man] a balance [wherewith to weigh right and wrong].” This verse of the Qur’an teaches that divine revelation through the various prophets in human history is considered to be a balance, an instrument placed by God in our hands by which we can weigh all issues of conscience.
A third profound teaching of the Qur’an is the importance and power of choice, of which the most important instance is freedom of religion and the freedom to interpret divine guidance in the practice of justice. The concept of choice is central, because, without freedom to choose, neither balance nor justice would have any meaning. The power to choose between good and bad is the greatest gift from the Creator to the created, but it is also a profound test for every person, every community, and nation, every civilization, and humanity itself.
The Qur’an emphasizes the importance of the basic power to choose between purposes or higher paradigms of thought, because the choice shapes the governing agendas of both persons and communities and thereby controls action. According to the Qur’an, the choice that has determined the rise and fall of entire civilizations throughout human history is between the pursuit of transcendent justice and the pursuit of material power as an ultimate goal in life.
The balance to be maintained in every civilization as embodied in every world religion is among order, justice, and freedom. This paradigm of balance teaches that order, justice, and freedom are interdependent. When freedom is construed to be independent of justice, there can be no justice and the result will be anarchy. When order is thought to be possible without justice, there will be no order, because injustice is the principal cause of disorder. When justice is thought to be possible without order and freedom, then the pursuit or order, justice, and freedom are snares of the ignorant.
A key to traditionalist American thought, based on the spiritually-based Scottish Enlightenment, which was the opposite of the secularist “Enlightenment” in Europe, is the distinction, now almost forgotten, between freedom and liberty. This fundamental distinction in thought, symbols, and action is portrayed in David Hackett Fischer’s monumental 851-page tome, Liberty and Freedom: A Visual History of America’s Founding Ideas, Oxford University Press, 2005. In classical or traditionalist American thought, freedom implies positive action to pursue higher values as the essence of justice, as distinct from mere liberty, which refers negatively to rejection of restraints on freedom of action. The Preamble to the American Constitution lists and prioritizes five purposes. Justice comes first, followed by domestic order, the common defense, and prosperity, and lastly comes liberty, which is merely the result of the first four.
Without consensus on the proper nature of order, and of justice and freedom as essential parts of a single whole, rather than as independent pursuits, no civilization can continue to exist. The twin roles of religion in all of its traditionalist manifestations, including the monotheistic and “revealed religions”, and especially Islam, are the spiritual well-being or happiness of every person and the maintenance of consensus on the responsibilities and rights necessary to live in an ordered society.
Students of comparative legal systems differ on whether there is an essence to any particular religion and to any given legal system, or whether each religion is an accumulation of human practices and every legal system is a composite of accidentals developed in response to changing exigencies. Relativists, including even self-styled progressivist Muslims, would like to contextualize Islam out of existence.
Islam is by far the best example of a religion that has very self-consciously developed a sense of its own essence and sharply distinguished this from any perverted interpretation and practice by self-professed Muslims. Whereas in Christianity the essence is considered to be love, in Islam the essence is considered to be justice as a derivative of love.
III. What is the Role of Normative Jurisprudence in the Essence of Islam
In Western positivist law, which by definition is entirely manmade, law exists only to the extent that it is enforced. In Islam, if the law has to be enforced it has failed, because the purpose of Islamic law is primarily educational as a set of guidelines for action.
What are these guidelines? Some of the best minds in human history developed this set of guidelines over a period of many centuries. These guidelines are known as maqasid al shari’ah or the ultimate purposes of the shari’ah, or as the kulliyat or universal principles, or as the dururiyat or essentials.
Very briefly, these may be categorized as eight irreducible purposes, about each of which a separate chapter was written in the unpublished book, Rehabilitating the Role of Religion in the World: Laying a New foundation on Faith-Based, Compassionate Justice, most of which was posted in the ezine, www.theamericanmuslim.org, on May 30 through June 7, 2009 . The first is haqq al din (the right to freedom of religion), haqq al nafs (respect for the human person and human life), haqq al nasl (respect for marriage and human community), haqq al mahid (respect for the physical environment), haqq al mal (respect for the universal right to economic opportunity and ownership of productive property), haqq al hurriyah (respect for the universal right of self determination or political freedom), haqq al karama (respect for human dignity, especially gender equity), and haqq al‘ilm (respect for the rights to free speech, publication, and association).
These maqasid or purposes and their subordinate levels of specificity are portrayed graphically as follows in Chapter 5, “Universal Principles of Human Responsibilities and Rights in the Shari’ah” from the textbook, Islam and Muslims, by Drs. Muhammad Ali Chaudry and Robert Dickson Crane, The Center for Understanding Islam, 2011:
Guide to the Detailed Charts on the Maqasid al Shari’ah
Chart No.
Maqasid al Shari’ah Covered
Additional Reference
Chart 5.1 I. Respect for Divine Revelation
(Haqq al Din) Chapters 1 and 2
Chart 5.2 II. Respect for the Human Person
(Haqq al Nafs) Chapter 18: Interfaith Cooperation
Chart 5.3 III. Respect for Family & Community
(Haqq al Nasl) Chapter 15: Democracy
Chart 5.4 IV. Respect for the Environment
(Haqq al mahid) Chapter 16: Islam and Ecology
Chart 5.5 V. Respect for Economic Justice
(Haqq al Mal) Chapter 5: Social & Economic Justice
Chart 5.6 VI. Respect for Political Justice
(Haqq al Hurriyyah) Chapter 15: Democracy
Chart 5.7 VII. Respect for Human Dignity
(Haqq al Karamah) Chapter 14: Gender Equity
Chart 5.8 VIII. Respect for Knowledge
(Haqq al ‘Ilm) Chapter 17: Education
Chart 5.1
Universal Principles of Human Rights and Responsibilities
1. Respect for Divine Revelation
PRIMARY
(Maqasid- Purposes)
SECONDARY
(Hajjiyat- Goals)
TERTIARY
(Tahsiniyyat - Objectives)
ILLUSTRATIVE ACTIONS
(A’mal)
1.
Respect for Divine Revelation
(Haqq al Din)
(continued…)
Belief in One God
Islam
Arkan al Islam ………… →
(Pillars of Islam)……….. →
Submission to the Will of God, the first level of faith.
The Five Pillars of Faith:
- Declaration of Faith (Shahadatain)
- Prayer (Salah)
- Charity (Zakat)
- Fasting (Saum)
- Pilgrimage (Hajj)
See details in chapter 1.
Iman
Arkan al Iman (‘Aqida)…→
(Creedal Principles of Faith)
Practicing pure faith with sincerity in one’s heart thus achieving the second level of faith. ‘Aqida or Belief in:
Existence of God (Tawhid)
Angels (Mala’ika)
Divine Scriptures (Kutub)
All the Prophets (Nabi, Rusul)
Day of Judgment (Qiyama)
Absolute Power of God (Qadr)
See note on Shi’a Aqida .
See details in chapter 1.
Other Elements of Iman:
- Loving Awe of God (Taqwa)
- Love of God (Hubb)
- Reliance on God (Tawakkul)
Ihsan
Achieving perfection in worship based on one’s personal awareness of God’s presence, love, and compassion. The Prophet Muhammad said, "[Ihsan is] to worship God as though you see Him, and if you cannot see Him, then indeed He sees you.” (Hadith of Gabriel.)
Absorption of oneself in the presence of God (Fan’a)
Eternal presence of God (Baqa’a)
Chart 5.1 (… continued)
Universal Principles of Human Rights and Responsibilities
1. Respect for Divine Revelation
PRIMARY
(Maqasid- Purposes)
SECONDARY
(Hajjiyat- Goals)
TERTIARY
(Tahsiniyyat - Objectives)
ILLUSTRATIVE ACTIONS
(A’mal)
(…continued)
1.
Respect for Divine Revelation
(Haqq al Din)
Freedom of Religion
Spiritual Purification (jihad al akbar) Personal relationship with God (Taqwa and Hubb)
Repentance and forgiveness (tauba and ghafr or maghfirah)
Kindness and softness with others (haina wa laina)
Peaceful reconciliation
Good deeds (a’mal al salihat)
Unity in Diversity
Equality in human dignity
Universal conditions for salvation
Equality of prophets
Diversity of legal systems:
- shar’: universal principles of normative law (maqasid) for all communities;
- shar’ah / minhaj: individual communities, e.g., separation of church and state”; and
- shari’ah: for Muslims only, -including specific punishments
Chart 5.2
Universal Principles of Human Rights and Responsibilities
II. Respect for the Human Person
PRIMARY
(Maqasid- Purposes)
SECONDARY
(Hajjiyat- Goals)
TERTIARY
(Tahsiniyyat - Objectives)
ILLUSTRATIVE ACTIONS
(A’mal)
2.
Respect for the Human Person
(Haqq al Nafs)
Respect for the Human Soul
(Haqq al Nafs and Haqq al Ruh)
Personal spiritual renewal
Peace Making and Peace Keeping Societal renewal (tajdid)
Peace through justice (jihad al kabir)
Conflict resolution
Respect for Life (Haqq al Haya)
Doctrine of the just war (limits on the use of violence to protect the human rights of self and others) Just Cause and Intent
Violence only in self defense
Legitimate authority
Last resort (attempts at conflict resolution must precede use of violence)
Probability of success (realistic assessment of the threat and consequences)
Benefits must exceed the harm
Minimize civilian casualties
Cessation of hostilities on offer of peace
Protection and return of prisoners of war
Avoidance of vengeance after war
Duty to Protect the Unborn Recognizing that God provides for all.
Recognizing the rights of the unborn.
Stressing the role of marriage and family
Abstinence education to prevent pregnancy outside of wedlock
Adoption
Chart 5.3
Universal Principles of Human Rights and Responsibilities
3. Respect for Family & Community
PRIMARY
(Maqasid- Purposes) SECONDARY
(Hajjiyat- Goals) TERTIARY
(Tahsiniyyat - Objectives) ILLUSTRATIVE ACTIONS
(A’mal)
3.
Respect for Family & Community
(Haqq al Nasl)
Personalism:
Every community gets its meaning and sovereignty from its individual members, each of whom is subject to the ultimate sovereignty of God.
A community with a common sense of the past, common values in the present and common hopes for the future should have legal standing in international law.
Right to economic self determination
Right to political self determination
Right to International Recognition
Sacred Nature of Marriage
Equal Rights Right to own property
Rights to choose a spouse
Equal right to divorce with different procedures
Right to education
Right to work
Right to community leadership
Equal access to a Masjid
Equal Responsibility Equal responsibility to care for the elderly
Equal responsibility for household chores
Separate Responsibility Inheritance based on different responsibilities by gender (See Appendix J and Chapter 14)
Women’s right to retain and spend own earnings
Women’s primary right to custody of young children
Women’s primary responsibility to nurture young children
Men’s primary responsibility to provide for personal and financial security of the family.
Chart 5.4
Universal Principles of Human Rights and Responsibilities
4. Respect for the Environment
PRIMARY
(Maqasid- Purposes)
SECONDARY
(Hajjiyat- Goals)
TERTIARY
(Tahsiniyyat - Objectives)
ILLUSTRATIVE ACTIONS
(A’mal)
4.
Respect
for the Environment
(Haqq al Mahid)
Stewardship of creation (khilafa)
Respecting the balance of all that God has created
Respecting the Sacredness of nature
Preserving Ecological Diversity
Preserving the Ecological Balance (mizan)
Conducting Scientific Study of Life
Creating Awareness of the Issues through Education
Conducting Cost-Benefit Analysis
Shaping Environmental Policy
Developing Institutions
Developing Environmental Laws
Implement conservation policies:
• Protect the Atmosphere
• Protect Water Resources
• Protect the Forest
• Develop alternative energy resources
• Develop Organic Farming
• Limit the use of harmful pesticides
• Limit use of chemical fertilizers.
• Limit nuclear weapons
• Limit deep-well drilling
• Protect Wildlife
Chart 5.5
Universal Principles of Human Rights and Responsibilities
5. Respect for Economic Justice
PRIMARY
(Maqasid- Purposes)
SECONDARY
(Hajjiyat- Goals)
TERTIARY
(Tahsiniyyat - Objectives)
ILLUSTRATIVE ACTIONS
(A’mal)
5.
Respect for Economic Justice
(Haqq al Mal)
Personal Responsibilities
(Fard ‘Ain)
Personal Ethics
Avoid immoral economic activities (bribery, unfair trade practices, gambling, sale of alcohol, pork, etc.)
Concern for the Poor
Charity for the poor (Zakat and Sadaqa)
Interfaith and broad community volunteering
Respect the sacred nature of private ownership of the means of production.
Broaden capital ownership
Remove barriers in access to capital credit
Introduce pure credit based on prospective future wealth
Tax reform
Two-tier monetary policies (elimination of interest on self-financing loans)
Capital homesteading for individuals and for Community Investment Corporations
Provide a Safety Net for the Disadvantaged
Institution building
Universal Health Care
Institution building
Chart 5.6
Universal Principles of Human Rights and Responsibilities
6. Respect for Political Justice
PRIMARY
(Maqasid- Purposes)
SECONDARY
(Hajjiyat- Goals)
TERTIARY
(Tahsiniyyat - Objectives)
ILLUSTRATIVE ACTIONS
(A’mal)
6I.
Respect for Political Justice
(Haqq al Hurriyyah)
Responsibility of Leaders and Followers to God
(Khilafa)
Practice Virtue in Public Life
Education to develop an awareness of God and virtue
Participatory Political Democracy
(Shurah)
Open and Responsive Political System
Institution building (broadly representative parliaments)
Consensus Building Among Community Leaders (Ijma)
Through the Six Estates:
Leverage the strengths of all institutions to bring out the best for the good of all.
Executive
Legislative
Judicial
Media
Think Tanks & Foundations
Academia
Independent Judiciary
Equal Justice Under the Law (‘Adl)
Institution building
Freedom of movement, residence, and citizenship
Policy formulation
Institution building
Chart 5.7
Universal Principles of Human Rights and Responsibilities
7. Respect for Human Dignity
PRIMARY
(Maqasid- Purposes)
SECONDARY
(Hajjiyat- Goals)
TERTIARY
(Tahsiniyyat - Objectives)
ILLUSTRATIVE ACTIONS
(A’mal)
7.
Respect for Human Dignity
(Haqq al Karamah)
Gender Equity
Right to own property
Build social consensus for recognition, respect, and implementation of these rights for women guaranteed by Islam more than fourteen centuries ago.
Rights to choose a spouse
Equal right to divorce with different procedures
Right to education
Right to work
Right to community leadership
Equal legal right to be a witness, originally limited for women in commercial transactions
Equal access to a mosque
Respect for all of the Principles of Islamic Law
Divine Revelation
Institution building
Respect for the Human Person
Family & Community
Environmental Justice
Economic Justice
Political Justice
Human Dignity
Knowledge
Chart 5.8
Universal Principles of Human Rights and Responsibilities
8. Respect for Knowledge
PRIMARY
(Maqasid- Purposes)
SECONDARY
(Hajjiyat- Goals)
TERTIARY
(Tahsiniyyat - Objectives)
ILLUSTRATIVE ACTIONS
(A’mal)
8.
Respect for Knowledge
(Haqq al ‘Ilm)
Duty to Seek Knowledge
Divine Revelation(Wahy)
Apply the knowledge through Ijtihad in order to pursue the good and avoid the bad. (amr-bil-ma’ruf and nahi an al munkar )
Natural Law (‘Ain al Yaqin)
Rational Thought (‘Ilm al Yaqin)
Freedom to Acquire Knowledge Policy formulation regarding:
Freedom of Speech
Legislation for implementation
Freedom of Press
Freedom of Assembly
Duty to Share Knowledge
Outreach Policy and Planning to preserve and expand knowledge
Teach by Example
Build Educational Institutions
These norms or guidelines constitute the essence of Islamic jurisprudence. They provide a sophisticated methodology for understanding the Qur’an and evaluating the ahadith, so that the rules and regulations or ahkam can be applied justly according to their purpose.
In fact, however, there are two essences, one formative and the other derivative, which must be maintained in a dialectical balance. Human rights as the intellectual essence is an essential derivative of a prior essence, which is love, both hubb and ‘ishq, coming from beyond the human intellect. In systems terminology, there is an input/output balance. The input is transcendent, known as the batin, and the output is immanent, known as the dhahr.
The Qur’an teaches in Surat al Isra’ 17:70, Wa lakad karramna Bani Adam, “We have honored the children of Adam”. As a consequence of being honored by Allah we all deserve to have human rights regardless of our choice of religion or lack of such choice. The ability of a state to provide and guaranty these rights to its citizens is the only justification for its existence.
The dialectic between batin and dhahr is similar to the dialectic in all of creation, from the atom all the way to black holes, but especially between the theory and practice of law. In the intellectual processing of what Christians call moral theology but Muslims call merely normative law, the theory should influence the practice, but the practice should also influence the theory. In Islamic jurisprudence and in Islamic thought generally, the theory itself comes from the transcendent source of divine guidance, as best human beings can understand it in the open-ended search for truth. But this understanding must also reflect the experience of practice in a changing space-time universe. The essence is indeed unchanging, but its application is or should be in constant flux, because that is the nature of reality.
The controversial question then arises, is there really a difference between thought and law, since transcendent law is the basic framework of reference in Islamic thought, whereas in the Western positivist paradigm human thought is the framework for law?
One might look at this new perspective on the shari’ah by using the analogy of the hourglass. The shari’ah is like an hourglass which transmutes the transcendent into the immanent by means of the art of intellectual processing. This processing from input to output is what Allah in the Qur’an refers to as the jihad al kabir or “great jihad,” the intellectual jihad, which is the only jihad specifically mentioned in the Qur’an, Surah al Furqan 25:52, wa jihidhum bihi jihadan kabiran, “struggle with it [divine revelation] in a great jihad.” The other two, the jihad al akbar and the jihad al saghrir, are mentioned only in the ahadith.
The shari’ah would have two essences, the input of love and the output of human rights. Without eternal input there will never be any lasting output, since, as Rumi puts it, love is the reason for the creation of the universe. Quite simply, who would care about justice unless one were motivated by love? This, of course, would explain why in recent times justice has gone out of style.
In all of this we should remember the wisdom of “the throne verse,” the Ayah al Kursi, Surah al Baqara 2:255, Ya’alamu ma bayna ‘aydihim wa ma khalfahum; wa la yuhituna bi shayin min ‘ilmihi illa bi ma sha’a, “He knows all that lies open before men and all that is hidden from them, whereas they cannot attain to any of His knowledge except what He wills [them to attain].
IV. Human Rights: the Basis of Political Legitimacy
One of the great blessings that God bestowed upon us is the ability to recognize where we are and to wonder about why we are here and where we are going. The second great blessing is the ability to choose in reaching answers. The third great blessing was divine revelation sent to help guide us to Him, culminating in the Qur’an.
These privileges given to all human beings can only be translated in today’s world as basic human rights as defined in the Qur’an in general and later through maqasid al shari’ah. The verse cited above on honoring the children of Adam, Surah al Isra’ 17:70. is manifested in the first ten amendments to the American Constitution, known as the Bill of Rights, and in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on December 10, 1948.
As indicated in Surah Maryam 19:96-97, quoted above, these God-given rights are universal. Hence, the primary role of government is to insure and secure every citizen’s ability to enjoy these God given rights. In fact, no human being should be held responsible for his deeds on earth in the Day of Judgment in the absence of these basic rights so necessary for our individual ability to choose freely between the guidance sent to us from God and all other choices. Lack of freedom generally creates oppressive circumstances, especially fear, that often limit our ability to choose and can divert our choices toward issues such as basic survival.
Absence of basic human rights and lack of freedom will create oppressive circumstances similar to those that led the second Khalifah Omar to exempt a thief from being punished because the society did not provide the right opportunity to earn an honest living and feed oneself and one’s family. Any government, especially one that claims to follow the teachings of the Qur’an, that fails to ensure the citizens these basic rights thereby loses its legitimacy, its reason to exist.
V. Can Muslims Change the Perception of Islam
through a Grand Strategy of Paradigm Management?
The perception of Islam in America can be changed only if Muslims think big through what we might call paradigm management, and only if the paradigm to be managed is American.
Policy making in America consists of balancing special interests in the pursuit of power, but this balancing takes place in pursuit of agendas formed largely in the think-tanks and in the media. These agendas, in turn, are shaped by paradigms formed primarily in academia. Muslims usually start at the wrong end of the policy process, usually by lobbying against something after the policies have been set and can no longer be changed.
The two opposite poles of paradigmatic management are power and justice. The NeoCons exemplify the power paradigm, whereby everything is measured in terms of the unilateral imposition of American power, mainly military, to prevent chaos in the world. This approach is based on fear and on reaction to real or perceived threats to global stability.
The opposite paradigm is justice, which is best exemplified by President Barack Obama, though he cannot escape the power of those whose only goal is power.
Early in his term, in Cairo President Obama gave a remarkable speech despite the firm resistance of practically everyone in his Administration. He had to bulldoze his way to even mention the word justice in this first major foreign policy address to the world. Six times the speechwriters took the word justice out of the carefully managed speech, but each time he put in back in. When he read the final version of the speech on the flight to Cairo he found that again the word justice had been deleted, so without prior clearance he put it back in with spades by using the word seven times.
On May 22, 2010, at the Westpoint graduation ceremonies he issued another revolutionary call for justice as the framework for American policy, both domestic and foreign. Although he focused on the role of the military, he made it clear that “we will be stronger if the world is just”, and he spoke of an “international order of liberty and justice”.
He knew instinctively that he must introduce a new paradigm before he can move the ship of state to follow up through action. The paradigm of justice calls for pursuing justice as the route to order, and not the other way around. The justice paradigm warns that attempts baldly to impose order produce only more disorder and make justice impossible.
A week later, on May 27th, President Obama released a 52-page National Security Strategy paper, as required by Congress, in which he reiterated several times the main points of his Westpoint address. He pointedly rejected George W. Bush’s focus on counter-terrorism as the organizing principle of security policy. He pointedly avoided the use of the word “Islamic” anywhere in this 52-page paper and stated that “efforts to counter violent extremism are only one element of our strategic environment and cannot define America’s engagement with the world.”
In his personal introduction to the document, President Obama wrote that, “Our long-term security will come not from our ability to instill fear in other peoples, but through our capacity to speak to their hopes.”
The document on its first page noted that in recent times “inequality and economic instability have intensified” as threats to “the universal aspiration for freedom and dignity.” He called for “renewing American leadership” through “moral example” and stated that, “The most effective way for the United States of America to promote our values is to live them”.
President Obama’s first formal national security report called for the pursuit of “enlightened self-interest” through “an international order based on rights and responsibilities”. Most significantly it stated, “We recognize economic opportunity as a human right”. In Islamic teachings this is possible in the modern capital-intensive world only by removing the institutional barriers to broadened capital ownership, so that every person as a basic human right would have access to earnings both from wages and from profit dividends.
President Obama emphasized throughout his first national security report the importance of never compromising American values in the pursuit of security. “Our struggle to remain true to our values and Constitution” he said, “has always been a lodestar, both to the American people and to those who share our aspiration for human dignity, … for if we compromise our values in pursuit of security we will undermine both.”
Perhaps the most important single statement was his promise and call for global justice: “Our engagement will underpin a just and sustainable order – just because it advances mutual interests, protects the rights of all, and holds accountable those who refuse to meet their responsibilities; sustainable because it is based on broadly shared norms and fosters collective action to address common challenges”.
Muslims can change the perception of Islam in the West, first of all, by addressing the goal of so-called “grand strategy”, which is to manage the paradigms of thought that shape history. Muslims by heritage are well equipped to shape paradigmatic thought because historically Muslims have developed justice into a framework ideally suited for the modern world, even though Islamdom often has not practiced it any better than has any other civilization.
Secondly, Muslims can change the perception of Islam by helping to renew America. Lobbying for Muslim interests will not spread better understanding of Islam, even though such lobbying is necessary. Policymakers and their advisers will listen to Muslims only if Muslims can contribute to pursuing what is best for America’s enlightened interests. They can best do so by working with visionary American leaders to carry out their visions.
We can change the perception of Islam, and indeed of all religions, only by rehabilitating the essence and practice of religion not as the cause of injustice, but as the only cure. In politics, visionary leaders can overcome the seemingly insuperable obstacles and barriers of special interests only if and to the extent that Muslims, Christians, and Jews cooperate in solidarity to turn the essential vision of all religions into reality, in sha’a Allah.
end
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Who Needs Reconciliation?
By
Safi Kaskas
Following my previous two essays; “Reconciliation: The choice of peace makers” and “360 degrees love”, friends wrote and asked what is so urgent? Why so much focus on reconciliation? Who needs reconciliation? Who needs to be engaged in this effort and why? Are American Muslims ready for this and do they need it? And are the churches in the U.S. ready to accept Muslims as their neighbors when so many are saying that the enemy is Islam?
To an observer, the trend in the U.S. especially among church goers in general and Evangelists in particular is of growing anti-Islamic sentiments. “In a recent conference, the speakers participating in "Jihad: America's Third Rail," an "unofficial" panel at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), wanted their standing-room only audience to know that there's more to fear than jihad – it's Islam itself that is the threat.
"Everyone knows Islam is a religion of peace that has been hijacked by a tiny minority," said Robert Spencer, sarcastically and to a great amount of applause and guffaws. Spencer, executive director of Jihad Watch and associate director of the Freedom Defense Initiative, which he recently founded with Atlas Shrugged blogger Pamela Geller, told his audience everyone believes that "like they believe in Santa Claus though no one has ever seen it."” Fox News, 19 February 2010.
In Small-Town, USA, loving one’s neighbors is nice. However, when Small-Town is divided and one half of its population is throwing rocks at the other half, reconciliation stops being a luxury and become an urgent need. Your neighbor becomes your enemy and it is more urgent to learn to love your enemy if you are to obey Jesus.
As an American Muslim, I saw and felt the tension experienced by all Americans after the 9/11 terrorist attacks and until this minute, Muslims in the States and beyond, are suspects. They were all put on the defensive through the media and they never stopped trying to prove their innocence. For them, explaining to others what Islam is all about became an urgent necessity especially in view of the hate theology preached by Islamophobics .
However, no one in the media ever pointed out that on September 11th, Islam in the USA was also attacked. Many Muslims died in the WTC tragedy and the rest of them became hostages to fear, intimidation and insecurity about their future . “All the progress they had made for the last 50 years is reversed and some immigrant Muslims even started to question whether they should go back to the country they came from. Of course, those American Muslims like my children who were born here have no place to go. This is their home” .
During that infamous morning my wife Eman was in our house in Fairfax, VA with my boys Omar and Yasser who were attending George Mason University. I was in Saudi Arabia’s Eastern Province doing a project for a Saudi Prince. My wife suddenly came on the Hotmail Messenger and asked me if I was watching TV. I didn’t know what she was talking about as I was busy, intently working on a business plan. She said, “Oh my God, a plane hit the World Trade tower and another plan is going to hit the second tower!” She sounded horrified, and she asked again, “Are you watching?!” I could tell from her voice I should stop what I was doing, so I asked what channel to turn to. She said CNN, or any station. I turned to CNN to see the most horrifying event I witnessed ever. A plane hit the second tower as I glanced at the screen. Suddenly it dawned on me this is not an accident, but a disaster of colossal dimension was taking place in front of my eyes. Additional disastrous events took place that day to make it one of the darkest days ever for American Muslims.
My wife and I spoke several times that day. We were confused, angry and scared. That evening my wife called to tell me that she was afraid and worried about the boys’ safety. Her friend Muna suggested that she join friends at the Cedars, a community refuge, for prayers. This was her first visit to the Cedars where she was welcomed and felt among friends but most importantly the group started praying and my wife was in for the surprise of her life. The group was praying for Ousama Binladen’s forgiveness. This was the first time this Muslim woman was exposed to the concept of loving your enemies. I remember the long conversations I had on the phone with my wife about that concept and about Jesus. Human sense teaches us to kill our enemies while Jesus teaches us to love them. Talking about Jesus and his teachings seemed to take our minds away from the tragedy that surrounded us to another dimension of love. While 9/11 was a disaster for many, it was my first exposure to love, Jesus-style. However, to know Jesus, to really know Jesus, comes with a heavy price. Once you know him and you decide to follow his principles, you need to be ready to put up with a lot of ignorance and hatred that surrounds you.
“Why did they do that?” is a deceptively simple question which sadly opened a key phase in the U.S. recent engagement with the Muslim world which began with the tragedy of 9/11. It is a distressing question because it immediately disclosed, through the simple use of the word “they”, an implicit and dangerous lumping together of Muslims in all their diversity with the perpetrators of these attacks. This move was made all the easier when a common denominator of Islam was specifically invoked by those who claimed responsibility. The fact that the perpetrators had invoked Islam in the justification of their violence made it all too inviting to commit the error of moving from the quantifier, “some”, to “all” and thus connecting all Muslims with the violence. Too many were sadly willing to take that which was committed by a tiny few and place the blame upon all. This error has again and again been refuted, but its effects clearly linger on and forging this linkage has sadly been one of the greatest successes of those committed to acts of terrorism.
But beyond this, it has generated a deeper difficulty, in that it has allowed the context of Muslim- West dialogue to be framed by disaster with a consequent tendency to focus the goals of dialogue in preventative and negative terms. Rather than beginning by asking what the ideal state of Muslim-West relations should be, the tendency is to ask merely what can be done to avoid further disaster.
In view of this threat, it seemed that Muslims needed to take the initiative toengage others. Thankfully, Muslims throughout the world have risen to this challenge.
In the wake of the devastating terror attacks of September 11, 2001, the Islamic world has openly sided with the United States against the terrorists. The misconception in the United States, that all Muslims hate Americans, is easily proven to be false by the outpouring of sympathy and cooperation offered by the Islamic world since September 11. This response is not solely confined to countries with which the United States gets along, but every state with a Muslim majority in the world, with only two exceptions (Afghanistan and Iraq). Even states that the United States views as hostile - Libya, Syria, Sudan, - have not only condemned the attacks, but have offered their resources on behalf of the United States led effort against international terrorism.
Every time a Muslim speaker stands in front of an American audience he will be eventually asked the obvious question: if you are against terrorism, why you don’t publically condemn it? “How many times does (one) need to publicly and unconditionally condemn violence and terrorism against innocent civilians? How many times does (one) need to state that more Muslims have been victims of Al Qaeda terrorism than members of other faiths. How forcefully do (one) need to say that my religion does not condone violence, by reminding myself and my audience of the Qura’nic verse that says: “if anyone kills a person—unless in retribution for murder or spreading corruption in the land—it is as if he kills all mankind, while if any saves a life it is as if he saves the lives of all mankind..” 5:32.
Why do I have to account for the despicable acts of fellow Muslims with whom I have no contact or relations? Why conversely, am I not rewarded or at least acknowledged for the thousand and one acts of kindness performed by fellow Muslims every day? I am not a lesser Muslim because of the acts of a few extremists who may profess my faith. Does it make you less of Christian with Timothy McVeigh and Adolf Hitler being Christians? Does it make you less of Jew because Dr. Baruch Goldstein--who massacred thirty Moslems in a mosque in Hebron, was a Jew”?
The predictable question that follows the first one will always be: If most Muslims are moderate, why don’t Muslim leaders condemn terrorist acts? Again I go through the list of Muslim leaders that condemned the 9/11 terrorist acts and all subsequent acts of terrorism. In fact, I personally don’t know any Muslims that condone terrorist acts.
‘The recent developments in the United States constitute a form of injustice that is not tolerated by Islam, which views them as gross crimes and sinful acts.’ ---Chairman of the Senior Ulama’ Board in Saudi Arabia, Shaikh Abdulaziz Al-Shaikh, 9/15/01
We’ve identified, through simple research, several websites that carry condemnation of the tragic attacks of 9/11 from various Muslim leaders. This goes to illustrate the international reaction to the terror attacks of the fifty-one countries around the world in which Muslims constitute the largest single religious community. In many of these instances, the American press has not gone out of its way to show these state's responses, or the American reaction to these state's positions. Little attention has been paid to the detailed responses of most of the Islamic world. At the same time, the Western press has afforded disproportionate coverage of those tiny minorities who publicly praised the attacks, from the thirty children in occupied Jerusalem to the couple hundred demonstrators in Somalia and Nigeria. We recommend this site http://iir.internetactivist.org/for a comprehensive response by country. The purpose of this site is to set the record straight and to show that the United States does have the sympathy and cooperation of the vast majority of the world's 1.6 billion Muslims. For these moderate peaceful Muslims, the question is, do they have the sympathy of Americans – especially the conservative Evangelists and American churches in general?
A young Muslima (feminine) told me that “since 9/11, easily a million Muslims have died in Iraq and Afghanistan, directly or indirectly, as a result of the invasions. We mourn the “terror” attacks that killed 3000 people (including Muslims). But despite the injustice that is being perpetrated against Muslims in Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon and Pakistan, we turn to the West and offer sympathy, empathy, support and cooperation. Are we receiving the same sympathy from Americans? Why not turn around and demand that they show the love they were ordered to show their enemies? Is a Muslim life less valuable than an American one? How can they condemn Islam and Muslims when they have been the cause of more destruction, sorrow, war than has ever been perpetrated by the Muslim world”?
Why not “first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye” Matthew 7:5.
Do American Evangelists need reconciliation with American Muslims and Muslims in general?
What do American Muslims want and what do American Evangelists want? Do they share enough common ground to build on the bridges of reconciliation?
Muslims are fairly new to the American scene. In general I don’t know if they share common views on domestic issues. Nor do they all have the same commitment to Islam. They are not that well organized and I cannot identify a leadership that claims to represent or speak for all American Muslims. However they all have the same concern about their constitutional rights. They came to the States for various reasons but chief amongst these reasons is the issue of freedom followed by the issue of opportunity; the freedom to express one’s self, to meet freely, to worship freely or not to worship; freedom from taboos and cultural inhibitions that limit one from reaching his maximum potentials. Constitutionally guaranteed liberties are essential to all American Muslims and equally important is to be able to fulfill your potential and to live the American dream. So why are American Muslims perceived as a threat? Usually, when invited to speak about Islam, I am asked about “Wahabies” and how strong is their influence among Muslims? An often heard comment is “you are nice, but what about those “Wahabies”, they support terrorism don’t they?”
I know the so called “Wahabies” in fact there is no such thing as Wahabies . But the American media insist on using this term to stereotype Saudis. The majority of Muslims at this time have realized that fanatic views and support of violence against civilians will result in catastrophes for Muslims in Muslim majority countries such as Saudi Arabia and in other countries such as the United States. The intellectual Saudis also realize that the only door open nowadays is the door of dialogue with the other. In addition King Abdullah, of Saudi Arabia, the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques, is personally and strategically for dialogue and reconciliation. So is there a real threat from Muslims? Yes. This threat is from those very frustrated Muslims that see the U.S. not as it is represented by President Obama but as a cartel of the Military Industrial Alliance along with the Neo Cons that went to Iraq under false pretenses, destroyed it, fragmented it and caused hundreds of thousands of Iraqis to lose their lives. They see the U.S. as the country that will back Israel right or wrong against Palestinians who are losing their houses, their land and their lives every day on live television, while consecutive American Presidents give lip service to the two states solution.
The Palestinian/Israeli problem and justice to the Palestinians are important issues to all Muslims whether Americans or not. Muslims see that Palestinians have the right to their land and to their own state, based on United Nations resolutions. This is the same official stand of the American government. The Palestinians’ rights issue is deeply rooted within the psyche of every Muslim. Muslims perceive what happened to the Palestinian people to be a great injustice and they perceive the United States’ unconditional support for Israel to be unfair and oppressive. They also perceive the Evangelists’ unwavering support to Israel to be theologically motivated and unfair to at least Christian Palestinians. The Muslim public does not necessarily understand why this is taking place. These views and the continuous oppression of Palestinians perpetrated so arrogantly by the Israelis settlers on live television, amounts to giving the fanatical Muslims a weapon to use against the United States. So what do Muslims want? The two States solution that President Bush called for in Annapolis and President Obama is calling for since he took office. This is thought to pull the rug from under the extremists and allow the moderates to engage in true reconciliation in the Middle East.
Traditionally, American Evangelists are known for their unwavering support to the State of Israel. The roots of Evangelical support for Israel lie in the long tradition of Christian thinking about the millennium.
As the year 1800 approached, John Nelson Darby (1800-82), a renegade Anglican priest from Ireland, popularized and systematized eschatological themes while simultaneously developing a new school of thought which has been called "futurist premillennialism."
Through Darby's influence, premillennial dispensationalism became a dominant method of biblical interpretation and influenced a generation of evangelical leaders, including Dwight L. Moody. Perhaps the most influential instrument of dispensational thinking was the Scofield Bible (1909) which included a commentary that interpreted prophetic texts according to a premillennial hermeneutic. Another early Darby disciple, William E. Blackstone, brought dispensationalism to millions of Americans through his best seller Jesus Is Coming (1882). Blackstone organized the first Zionist lobbying effort in the U.S. in 1891 when he enlisted J. P. Morgan, John D. Rockefeller, Charles B. Scribner and other financiers to underwrite a massive newspaper campaign requesting President Benjamin Harrison to support the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine.
Similar efforts were under way in England, led by the social reformer Lord Shaftesbury, who, like Blackstone, was so taken with Darby's eschatology that he translated it into a political agenda. These seeds of the Christian Zionist movement preceded Jewish Zionism by several years. Loni Shaftesbury is also credited with coining an early version of the slogan adopted by Jewish Zionist fathers Max Nordau and Theodor Herzl: "A land of no people for a people with no land." Both Lord Arthur Balfour, author of the famous 1917 Balfour Declaration, and Prime Minister David Lloyd George, the two most powerful men in British foreign policy at the close of World War I, were raised in dispensationalist churches and were publicly committed to the Zionist agenda for "biblical" and colonialist reasons.
The new generation of Evangelicals set as their goals to abandon a militant Bible stance. Instead, they would pursue dialogue, intellectualism, non-judgmentalism, and appeasement. They further called for an increased application of the Gospel to the sociological, political, and economic areas. Not all conservatives are pleased with the new direction. One author has termed it "the apostasy within Evangelicalism."
Who else needs reconciliation? Do Evangelists and Muslims need it? Yes they do. Especially when Evangelists are at times more Zionists than the Israelis. The Muslim/Christian tension in the States is in many ways related to the Middle East Conflict. “One thing I can tell you, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is somewhat unique in America in that it is a foreign policy issue, with vital foreign policy and national security implications, but it functions more like a domestic political issue. I was serving at the State Department in the lead up to Annapolis and it was incredibly clear that we did not have a sizable, organized constituency in support of US leadership for conflict resolution in the Holy Land.
All this points to the importance of building a constituency in Western democracies to advocate for international leadership to support peace in the Holy Land ”.
Actually Todd Deatherage as a diplomat was very polite when he made this statement. He meant to say that there are forces in the U.S. that are opposed to peace in the Middle East. These forces are mainly Evangelist groups who understand that the second coming of Jesus is related to certain biblical prophecies that they understand in a particular dispensationalist perspective.
At this juncture, wrote Donald Wagner on November 4, 1998 it appears that the hard-line Likud position has the backing of both houses of Congress, the major Jewish lobbies, and the Christian Right. President Clinton and those who advocate the Israeli Labor Party peace formula, or the Oslo Accords, have little leverage with Likud. Palestinian Christians and their supporters fear that the Christian Right's alliance with Likud may in the end serve as a self-fulfilling prophecy, heightening tensions in the region and leading to a new round of conflict in the Holy Land, which the Christian Zionists will readily interpret as "the final battle."
So who are the main players in this human dilemma? They are the American Muslims in particular and Muslims in general, American Evangelist Christians and the Israelis. All of this points out toward a path for action. But before we talk about this path of action let us examine the field where all this action is taken place. In fact the players are all competing to influence the flow of a great river called the American public opinion. The flow of this river is affected by a major current called the conservative movement and inside this movement you will find the Evangelical Christians. But again if you look closely you will find a struggle to claim Jesus. Each one of these groups is fighting to claim Jesus for themselves except the Palestinians. Some of them already follow Jesus and are wondering why are they ignored by their fellow Christians.
Some Arabs want to defend the Palestinian rights by building a lobby in Washington similar to APAC, others hold the view that what was lost through force can’t be recovered except through force. As a peace maker I see the rights of the Palestinians attained when they stop being victims and become peace makers. Of course this sounds like a puzzle and it is until you listen to the teaching of the Prince of Peace who taught us how to have the ultimate victory against an aggressor. When faced with aggression, do not seek revenge and retaliation but seek forgiveness and reconciliation. When a person is faced with oppression, his reaction will either pull him down to the same level as the oppressor when he responds violently, or raise him above when he responds with love and forgiveness.
During the February 2009 National Prayer Breakfast, my wife Eman heard Sami Awad from Bethlehem talking about loving your enemy as a command from Jesus to all. Jesus, Sami said, did not ask us to consider loving our enemies or to think about it but he ordered us to love our enemies. I met Sami a few months afterwards and heard him speak about living and suffering under the Israeli occupation, yet he had to love his enemy. This is not someone living in Denver, CO thinking about how to sort intellectually the issue of loving your enemy, but rather someone just like Jesus living under occupation and suffering the wrath of the occupier yet having the ability to show love and compassion toward his oppressor.
How should the three main players of this triangle; Muslims, Christians and Jews, respond to this challenge they are facing at this time in history? One alternative is already being exhausted, the one that says maintain military superiority and subjugate the other. Israel is excelling in this role. But after sixty years of military superiority it was not able to achieve long sought after peace. The U.S. is following the same path, encouraged by forces that find it easier to accept the loss of the best of our American young men and women and a huge number of Muslims lives in a war of attrition and call it collateral damage, instead of following the teaching of the Prince of Peace that will lead to eternal success.
On October 13th 2007 in A Common Word Between Us and You , 138 Muslim scholars, clerics and intellectuals unanimously came together for the first time since the days of Prophet Muhammad to declare that common ground exists between Christianity and Islam. The signatories to this message came from every denomination and school of thought in Islam. Every major Islamic country or region in the world was represented in this message, which was addressed to the leaders of all the world’s churches, and indeed to all Christians everywhere.
A Common Word Between Us and You was first presented at a conference in September 2007. In the letter, the authors and signatories suggest that the most fundamental common ground between Islam and Christianity, and the best basis for future dialogue and understanding, is the love of God and the love of neighbor.
While the message was mainly directed to Christian leaders, it did not go unnoticed by Jewish scholars. Many took a very positive stand and applauded this reconciliation movement:
“we noted, said the Joint Communique of the Chief Rabbis of Israel and the Archbishop of Canterbury, the recent letter from Muslim scholars and religious leaders to the Christian Churches. The 'Common Word', though addressed to Christian Churches, also makes clear its respect for Hebrew scripture in citing directly from the Book of Deuteronomy and in acknowledging the inspiration that this provided for their understanding of the Quranic teachings on the unity and love of God and of neighbour. In promoting these values we commit ourselves and encourage all religious leaders to ensure that no materials are disseminated by our communities that work against this vision.” .
In a letter to “A Common Word” Peter Ochs said: “The world, says Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, rests on three things: Hadin, HaEmet, V'Hashalom: on justice, truth, and peace (Pirke Avot, 1:18). God bless “A Common Word” and receive it as a powerful contribution to the peace, truth, and justice that uphold the world. This Word is worthy of the tradition of Aaron, and it enhances and extends the tradition of the sage Hillel, who taught that the “disciples of Aaron love peace and the pursuit of peace, love their fellow creatures and seek to draw them to the study of God’s word” (Pirke Avot, 1:12) .
“All too often, religion is associated with violence and intolerance, and the compassionate ethos, which lies at the heart of every major faith, gets pushed to the sidelines. The assertion of the principle of love, which is so central to both the Muslim and the Christian traditions, should be paradigmatic of the religious response to the fearful realities of our time. We must reclaim our traditions from the extremists. Unless the major faiths emphasize those teachings which insist upon the absolute holiness of the "other", they will fail the test of the 21st century. The coming together of Muslims and Christians, who have such an unhappy history of hostility, is a beacon of hope and an example to the whole of humanity ”.
Love is our only hope. It is at the heart of the teachings of Jesus and the Qur’an. In Fussilat (41:34), God says, “Good and evil cannot be equal. [Prophet], repel evil with what is better and your enemy will become as close as an old and valued friend.”
The Bible teaches: “You shall not avenge, but love your neighbor as yourself, I AM THE LORD” ( Leviticus 19:18).
This isn’t just about reconciling Muslim and Evangelicals; it’s about the future of faith in the United States. It is about whether people of faith can live together based on the best their religions have to offer. When our country is divided and one half of its population is throwing rocks at the other half, reconciliation stops being a luxury and become an urgent need. Your neighbor becomes your enemy and it is more urgent to learn to love your enemy if you are to obey God. So this is about whether we want to let God down and fight in His name rather than love each other in His name. It is your choice. I have already made mine.
Safi Kaskas
Following my previous two essays; “Reconciliation: The choice of peace makers” and “360 degrees love”, friends wrote and asked what is so urgent? Why so much focus on reconciliation? Who needs reconciliation? Who needs to be engaged in this effort and why? Are American Muslims ready for this and do they need it? And are the churches in the U.S. ready to accept Muslims as their neighbors when so many are saying that the enemy is Islam?
To an observer, the trend in the U.S. especially among church goers in general and Evangelists in particular is of growing anti-Islamic sentiments. “In a recent conference, the speakers participating in "Jihad: America's Third Rail," an "unofficial" panel at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), wanted their standing-room only audience to know that there's more to fear than jihad – it's Islam itself that is the threat.
"Everyone knows Islam is a religion of peace that has been hijacked by a tiny minority," said Robert Spencer, sarcastically and to a great amount of applause and guffaws. Spencer, executive director of Jihad Watch and associate director of the Freedom Defense Initiative, which he recently founded with Atlas Shrugged blogger Pamela Geller, told his audience everyone believes that "like they believe in Santa Claus though no one has ever seen it."” Fox News, 19 February 2010.
In Small-Town, USA, loving one’s neighbors is nice. However, when Small-Town is divided and one half of its population is throwing rocks at the other half, reconciliation stops being a luxury and become an urgent need. Your neighbor becomes your enemy and it is more urgent to learn to love your enemy if you are to obey Jesus.
As an American Muslim, I saw and felt the tension experienced by all Americans after the 9/11 terrorist attacks and until this minute, Muslims in the States and beyond, are suspects. They were all put on the defensive through the media and they never stopped trying to prove their innocence. For them, explaining to others what Islam is all about became an urgent necessity especially in view of the hate theology preached by Islamophobics .
However, no one in the media ever pointed out that on September 11th, Islam in the USA was also attacked. Many Muslims died in the WTC tragedy and the rest of them became hostages to fear, intimidation and insecurity about their future . “All the progress they had made for the last 50 years is reversed and some immigrant Muslims even started to question whether they should go back to the country they came from. Of course, those American Muslims like my children who were born here have no place to go. This is their home” .
During that infamous morning my wife Eman was in our house in Fairfax, VA with my boys Omar and Yasser who were attending George Mason University. I was in Saudi Arabia’s Eastern Province doing a project for a Saudi Prince. My wife suddenly came on the Hotmail Messenger and asked me if I was watching TV. I didn’t know what she was talking about as I was busy, intently working on a business plan. She said, “Oh my God, a plane hit the World Trade tower and another plan is going to hit the second tower!” She sounded horrified, and she asked again, “Are you watching?!” I could tell from her voice I should stop what I was doing, so I asked what channel to turn to. She said CNN, or any station. I turned to CNN to see the most horrifying event I witnessed ever. A plane hit the second tower as I glanced at the screen. Suddenly it dawned on me this is not an accident, but a disaster of colossal dimension was taking place in front of my eyes. Additional disastrous events took place that day to make it one of the darkest days ever for American Muslims.
My wife and I spoke several times that day. We were confused, angry and scared. That evening my wife called to tell me that she was afraid and worried about the boys’ safety. Her friend Muna suggested that she join friends at the Cedars, a community refuge, for prayers. This was her first visit to the Cedars where she was welcomed and felt among friends but most importantly the group started praying and my wife was in for the surprise of her life. The group was praying for Ousama Binladen’s forgiveness. This was the first time this Muslim woman was exposed to the concept of loving your enemies. I remember the long conversations I had on the phone with my wife about that concept and about Jesus. Human sense teaches us to kill our enemies while Jesus teaches us to love them. Talking about Jesus and his teachings seemed to take our minds away from the tragedy that surrounded us to another dimension of love. While 9/11 was a disaster for many, it was my first exposure to love, Jesus-style. However, to know Jesus, to really know Jesus, comes with a heavy price. Once you know him and you decide to follow his principles, you need to be ready to put up with a lot of ignorance and hatred that surrounds you.
“Why did they do that?” is a deceptively simple question which sadly opened a key phase in the U.S. recent engagement with the Muslim world which began with the tragedy of 9/11. It is a distressing question because it immediately disclosed, through the simple use of the word “they”, an implicit and dangerous lumping together of Muslims in all their diversity with the perpetrators of these attacks. This move was made all the easier when a common denominator of Islam was specifically invoked by those who claimed responsibility. The fact that the perpetrators had invoked Islam in the justification of their violence made it all too inviting to commit the error of moving from the quantifier, “some”, to “all” and thus connecting all Muslims with the violence. Too many were sadly willing to take that which was committed by a tiny few and place the blame upon all. This error has again and again been refuted, but its effects clearly linger on and forging this linkage has sadly been one of the greatest successes of those committed to acts of terrorism.
But beyond this, it has generated a deeper difficulty, in that it has allowed the context of Muslim- West dialogue to be framed by disaster with a consequent tendency to focus the goals of dialogue in preventative and negative terms. Rather than beginning by asking what the ideal state of Muslim-West relations should be, the tendency is to ask merely what can be done to avoid further disaster.
In view of this threat, it seemed that Muslims needed to take the initiative toengage others. Thankfully, Muslims throughout the world have risen to this challenge.
In the wake of the devastating terror attacks of September 11, 2001, the Islamic world has openly sided with the United States against the terrorists. The misconception in the United States, that all Muslims hate Americans, is easily proven to be false by the outpouring of sympathy and cooperation offered by the Islamic world since September 11. This response is not solely confined to countries with which the United States gets along, but every state with a Muslim majority in the world, with only two exceptions (Afghanistan and Iraq). Even states that the United States views as hostile - Libya, Syria, Sudan, - have not only condemned the attacks, but have offered their resources on behalf of the United States led effort against international terrorism.
Every time a Muslim speaker stands in front of an American audience he will be eventually asked the obvious question: if you are against terrorism, why you don’t publically condemn it? “How many times does (one) need to publicly and unconditionally condemn violence and terrorism against innocent civilians? How many times does (one) need to state that more Muslims have been victims of Al Qaeda terrorism than members of other faiths. How forcefully do (one) need to say that my religion does not condone violence, by reminding myself and my audience of the Qura’nic verse that says: “if anyone kills a person—unless in retribution for murder or spreading corruption in the land—it is as if he kills all mankind, while if any saves a life it is as if he saves the lives of all mankind..” 5:32.
Why do I have to account for the despicable acts of fellow Muslims with whom I have no contact or relations? Why conversely, am I not rewarded or at least acknowledged for the thousand and one acts of kindness performed by fellow Muslims every day? I am not a lesser Muslim because of the acts of a few extremists who may profess my faith. Does it make you less of Christian with Timothy McVeigh and Adolf Hitler being Christians? Does it make you less of Jew because Dr. Baruch Goldstein--who massacred thirty Moslems in a mosque in Hebron, was a Jew”?
The predictable question that follows the first one will always be: If most Muslims are moderate, why don’t Muslim leaders condemn terrorist acts? Again I go through the list of Muslim leaders that condemned the 9/11 terrorist acts and all subsequent acts of terrorism. In fact, I personally don’t know any Muslims that condone terrorist acts.
‘The recent developments in the United States constitute a form of injustice that is not tolerated by Islam, which views them as gross crimes and sinful acts.’ ---Chairman of the Senior Ulama’ Board in Saudi Arabia, Shaikh Abdulaziz Al-Shaikh, 9/15/01
We’ve identified, through simple research, several websites that carry condemnation of the tragic attacks of 9/11 from various Muslim leaders. This goes to illustrate the international reaction to the terror attacks of the fifty-one countries around the world in which Muslims constitute the largest single religious community. In many of these instances, the American press has not gone out of its way to show these state's responses, or the American reaction to these state's positions. Little attention has been paid to the detailed responses of most of the Islamic world. At the same time, the Western press has afforded disproportionate coverage of those tiny minorities who publicly praised the attacks, from the thirty children in occupied Jerusalem to the couple hundred demonstrators in Somalia and Nigeria. We recommend this site http://iir.internetactivist.org/for a comprehensive response by country. The purpose of this site is to set the record straight and to show that the United States does have the sympathy and cooperation of the vast majority of the world's 1.6 billion Muslims. For these moderate peaceful Muslims, the question is, do they have the sympathy of Americans – especially the conservative Evangelists and American churches in general?
A young Muslima (feminine) told me that “since 9/11, easily a million Muslims have died in Iraq and Afghanistan, directly or indirectly, as a result of the invasions. We mourn the “terror” attacks that killed 3000 people (including Muslims). But despite the injustice that is being perpetrated against Muslims in Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon and Pakistan, we turn to the West and offer sympathy, empathy, support and cooperation. Are we receiving the same sympathy from Americans? Why not turn around and demand that they show the love they were ordered to show their enemies? Is a Muslim life less valuable than an American one? How can they condemn Islam and Muslims when they have been the cause of more destruction, sorrow, war than has ever been perpetrated by the Muslim world”?
Why not “first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye” Matthew 7:5.
Do American Evangelists need reconciliation with American Muslims and Muslims in general?
What do American Muslims want and what do American Evangelists want? Do they share enough common ground to build on the bridges of reconciliation?
Muslims are fairly new to the American scene. In general I don’t know if they share common views on domestic issues. Nor do they all have the same commitment to Islam. They are not that well organized and I cannot identify a leadership that claims to represent or speak for all American Muslims. However they all have the same concern about their constitutional rights. They came to the States for various reasons but chief amongst these reasons is the issue of freedom followed by the issue of opportunity; the freedom to express one’s self, to meet freely, to worship freely or not to worship; freedom from taboos and cultural inhibitions that limit one from reaching his maximum potentials. Constitutionally guaranteed liberties are essential to all American Muslims and equally important is to be able to fulfill your potential and to live the American dream. So why are American Muslims perceived as a threat? Usually, when invited to speak about Islam, I am asked about “Wahabies” and how strong is their influence among Muslims? An often heard comment is “you are nice, but what about those “Wahabies”, they support terrorism don’t they?”
I know the so called “Wahabies” in fact there is no such thing as Wahabies . But the American media insist on using this term to stereotype Saudis. The majority of Muslims at this time have realized that fanatic views and support of violence against civilians will result in catastrophes for Muslims in Muslim majority countries such as Saudi Arabia and in other countries such as the United States. The intellectual Saudis also realize that the only door open nowadays is the door of dialogue with the other. In addition King Abdullah, of Saudi Arabia, the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques, is personally and strategically for dialogue and reconciliation. So is there a real threat from Muslims? Yes. This threat is from those very frustrated Muslims that see the U.S. not as it is represented by President Obama but as a cartel of the Military Industrial Alliance along with the Neo Cons that went to Iraq under false pretenses, destroyed it, fragmented it and caused hundreds of thousands of Iraqis to lose their lives. They see the U.S. as the country that will back Israel right or wrong against Palestinians who are losing their houses, their land and their lives every day on live television, while consecutive American Presidents give lip service to the two states solution.
The Palestinian/Israeli problem and justice to the Palestinians are important issues to all Muslims whether Americans or not. Muslims see that Palestinians have the right to their land and to their own state, based on United Nations resolutions. This is the same official stand of the American government. The Palestinians’ rights issue is deeply rooted within the psyche of every Muslim. Muslims perceive what happened to the Palestinian people to be a great injustice and they perceive the United States’ unconditional support for Israel to be unfair and oppressive. They also perceive the Evangelists’ unwavering support to Israel to be theologically motivated and unfair to at least Christian Palestinians. The Muslim public does not necessarily understand why this is taking place. These views and the continuous oppression of Palestinians perpetrated so arrogantly by the Israelis settlers on live television, amounts to giving the fanatical Muslims a weapon to use against the United States. So what do Muslims want? The two States solution that President Bush called for in Annapolis and President Obama is calling for since he took office. This is thought to pull the rug from under the extremists and allow the moderates to engage in true reconciliation in the Middle East.
Traditionally, American Evangelists are known for their unwavering support to the State of Israel. The roots of Evangelical support for Israel lie in the long tradition of Christian thinking about the millennium.
As the year 1800 approached, John Nelson Darby (1800-82), a renegade Anglican priest from Ireland, popularized and systematized eschatological themes while simultaneously developing a new school of thought which has been called "futurist premillennialism."
Through Darby's influence, premillennial dispensationalism became a dominant method of biblical interpretation and influenced a generation of evangelical leaders, including Dwight L. Moody. Perhaps the most influential instrument of dispensational thinking was the Scofield Bible (1909) which included a commentary that interpreted prophetic texts according to a premillennial hermeneutic. Another early Darby disciple, William E. Blackstone, brought dispensationalism to millions of Americans through his best seller Jesus Is Coming (1882). Blackstone organized the first Zionist lobbying effort in the U.S. in 1891 when he enlisted J. P. Morgan, John D. Rockefeller, Charles B. Scribner and other financiers to underwrite a massive newspaper campaign requesting President Benjamin Harrison to support the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine.
Similar efforts were under way in England, led by the social reformer Lord Shaftesbury, who, like Blackstone, was so taken with Darby's eschatology that he translated it into a political agenda. These seeds of the Christian Zionist movement preceded Jewish Zionism by several years. Loni Shaftesbury is also credited with coining an early version of the slogan adopted by Jewish Zionist fathers Max Nordau and Theodor Herzl: "A land of no people for a people with no land." Both Lord Arthur Balfour, author of the famous 1917 Balfour Declaration, and Prime Minister David Lloyd George, the two most powerful men in British foreign policy at the close of World War I, were raised in dispensationalist churches and were publicly committed to the Zionist agenda for "biblical" and colonialist reasons.
The new generation of Evangelicals set as their goals to abandon a militant Bible stance. Instead, they would pursue dialogue, intellectualism, non-judgmentalism, and appeasement. They further called for an increased application of the Gospel to the sociological, political, and economic areas. Not all conservatives are pleased with the new direction. One author has termed it "the apostasy within Evangelicalism."
Who else needs reconciliation? Do Evangelists and Muslims need it? Yes they do. Especially when Evangelists are at times more Zionists than the Israelis. The Muslim/Christian tension in the States is in many ways related to the Middle East Conflict. “One thing I can tell you, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is somewhat unique in America in that it is a foreign policy issue, with vital foreign policy and national security implications, but it functions more like a domestic political issue. I was serving at the State Department in the lead up to Annapolis and it was incredibly clear that we did not have a sizable, organized constituency in support of US leadership for conflict resolution in the Holy Land.
All this points to the importance of building a constituency in Western democracies to advocate for international leadership to support peace in the Holy Land ”.
Actually Todd Deatherage as a diplomat was very polite when he made this statement. He meant to say that there are forces in the U.S. that are opposed to peace in the Middle East. These forces are mainly Evangelist groups who understand that the second coming of Jesus is related to certain biblical prophecies that they understand in a particular dispensationalist perspective.
At this juncture, wrote Donald Wagner on November 4, 1998 it appears that the hard-line Likud position has the backing of both houses of Congress, the major Jewish lobbies, and the Christian Right. President Clinton and those who advocate the Israeli Labor Party peace formula, or the Oslo Accords, have little leverage with Likud. Palestinian Christians and their supporters fear that the Christian Right's alliance with Likud may in the end serve as a self-fulfilling prophecy, heightening tensions in the region and leading to a new round of conflict in the Holy Land, which the Christian Zionists will readily interpret as "the final battle."
So who are the main players in this human dilemma? They are the American Muslims in particular and Muslims in general, American Evangelist Christians and the Israelis. All of this points out toward a path for action. But before we talk about this path of action let us examine the field where all this action is taken place. In fact the players are all competing to influence the flow of a great river called the American public opinion. The flow of this river is affected by a major current called the conservative movement and inside this movement you will find the Evangelical Christians. But again if you look closely you will find a struggle to claim Jesus. Each one of these groups is fighting to claim Jesus for themselves except the Palestinians. Some of them already follow Jesus and are wondering why are they ignored by their fellow Christians.
Some Arabs want to defend the Palestinian rights by building a lobby in Washington similar to APAC, others hold the view that what was lost through force can’t be recovered except through force. As a peace maker I see the rights of the Palestinians attained when they stop being victims and become peace makers. Of course this sounds like a puzzle and it is until you listen to the teaching of the Prince of Peace who taught us how to have the ultimate victory against an aggressor. When faced with aggression, do not seek revenge and retaliation but seek forgiveness and reconciliation. When a person is faced with oppression, his reaction will either pull him down to the same level as the oppressor when he responds violently, or raise him above when he responds with love and forgiveness.
During the February 2009 National Prayer Breakfast, my wife Eman heard Sami Awad from Bethlehem talking about loving your enemy as a command from Jesus to all. Jesus, Sami said, did not ask us to consider loving our enemies or to think about it but he ordered us to love our enemies. I met Sami a few months afterwards and heard him speak about living and suffering under the Israeli occupation, yet he had to love his enemy. This is not someone living in Denver, CO thinking about how to sort intellectually the issue of loving your enemy, but rather someone just like Jesus living under occupation and suffering the wrath of the occupier yet having the ability to show love and compassion toward his oppressor.
How should the three main players of this triangle; Muslims, Christians and Jews, respond to this challenge they are facing at this time in history? One alternative is already being exhausted, the one that says maintain military superiority and subjugate the other. Israel is excelling in this role. But after sixty years of military superiority it was not able to achieve long sought after peace. The U.S. is following the same path, encouraged by forces that find it easier to accept the loss of the best of our American young men and women and a huge number of Muslims lives in a war of attrition and call it collateral damage, instead of following the teaching of the Prince of Peace that will lead to eternal success.
On October 13th 2007 in A Common Word Between Us and You , 138 Muslim scholars, clerics and intellectuals unanimously came together for the first time since the days of Prophet Muhammad to declare that common ground exists between Christianity and Islam. The signatories to this message came from every denomination and school of thought in Islam. Every major Islamic country or region in the world was represented in this message, which was addressed to the leaders of all the world’s churches, and indeed to all Christians everywhere.
A Common Word Between Us and You was first presented at a conference in September 2007. In the letter, the authors and signatories suggest that the most fundamental common ground between Islam and Christianity, and the best basis for future dialogue and understanding, is the love of God and the love of neighbor.
While the message was mainly directed to Christian leaders, it did not go unnoticed by Jewish scholars. Many took a very positive stand and applauded this reconciliation movement:
“we noted, said the Joint Communique of the Chief Rabbis of Israel and the Archbishop of Canterbury, the recent letter from Muslim scholars and religious leaders to the Christian Churches. The 'Common Word', though addressed to Christian Churches, also makes clear its respect for Hebrew scripture in citing directly from the Book of Deuteronomy and in acknowledging the inspiration that this provided for their understanding of the Quranic teachings on the unity and love of God and of neighbour. In promoting these values we commit ourselves and encourage all religious leaders to ensure that no materials are disseminated by our communities that work against this vision.” .
In a letter to “A Common Word” Peter Ochs said: “The world, says Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, rests on three things: Hadin, HaEmet, V'Hashalom: on justice, truth, and peace (Pirke Avot, 1:18). God bless “A Common Word” and receive it as a powerful contribution to the peace, truth, and justice that uphold the world. This Word is worthy of the tradition of Aaron, and it enhances and extends the tradition of the sage Hillel, who taught that the “disciples of Aaron love peace and the pursuit of peace, love their fellow creatures and seek to draw them to the study of God’s word” (Pirke Avot, 1:12) .
“All too often, religion is associated with violence and intolerance, and the compassionate ethos, which lies at the heart of every major faith, gets pushed to the sidelines. The assertion of the principle of love, which is so central to both the Muslim and the Christian traditions, should be paradigmatic of the religious response to the fearful realities of our time. We must reclaim our traditions from the extremists. Unless the major faiths emphasize those teachings which insist upon the absolute holiness of the "other", they will fail the test of the 21st century. The coming together of Muslims and Christians, who have such an unhappy history of hostility, is a beacon of hope and an example to the whole of humanity ”.
Love is our only hope. It is at the heart of the teachings of Jesus and the Qur’an. In Fussilat (41:34), God says, “Good and evil cannot be equal. [Prophet], repel evil with what is better and your enemy will become as close as an old and valued friend.”
The Bible teaches: “You shall not avenge, but love your neighbor as yourself, I AM THE LORD” ( Leviticus 19:18).
This isn’t just about reconciling Muslim and Evangelicals; it’s about the future of faith in the United States. It is about whether people of faith can live together based on the best their religions have to offer. When our country is divided and one half of its population is throwing rocks at the other half, reconciliation stops being a luxury and become an urgent need. Your neighbor becomes your enemy and it is more urgent to learn to love your enemy if you are to obey God. So this is about whether we want to let God down and fight in His name rather than love each other in His name. It is your choice. I have already made mine.
The Abrahamic Creed
“I believe in one God our Creator and the creator of this universe, a loving, compassionate and personal God Who created us with the ability to know and to choose. Hence, I choose to worship Him and to honor Him because He deserves to be worshiped and honored. Out of love to us He revealed a message of guidance about Himself, the reason we were created and how we should best honor Him and honor each other. Out of love for Him I choose to love all human beings and allow each to worship Him according to one's own traditions. I pledge not to abuse or oppress others and to promote peace, prosperity and freedom through companionate justice for all.
Out of gratitude to my Creator, I pledge to respect the planet He allowed us to inhabit and the universe at large. I pledge not to abuse our planet's resources nor to try to control the natural laws our Creator has put in place.
I pledge this out of deep gratitude to Him for the countless blessings He bestowed upon me and I look forward to the day I return to Him to account for what I have pledged”.
Out of gratitude to my Creator, I pledge to respect the planet He allowed us to inhabit and the universe at large. I pledge not to abuse our planet's resources nor to try to control the natural laws our Creator has put in place.
I pledge this out of deep gratitude to Him for the countless blessings He bestowed upon me and I look forward to the day I return to Him to account for what I have pledged”.
Saturday, March 6, 2010
360 degrees love
By
Safi Kaskas & Friends
The reaction to my essay Reconciliation: The choice of peacemakers encouraged me to shed more light about the reconciliation process. What is the next step? What should people do to get involved in a reconciliation effort? Who is qualified to engage in this kind of activity?
On October 13th 2007 in A Common Word Between Us and You , 138 Muslim scholars, clerics and intellectuals came together unanimously for the first time since the days of Prophet Muhammad to declare that common ground exists between Christianity and Islam. The signatories to this message came from every denomination and school of thought in Islam. Every major Islamic country or region in the world was represented in this message, which was addressed to the leaders of all the world’s churches, and indeed to all Christians everywhere.
“A Common Word Between Us and You” was first presented at a conference in September 2007. In the letter the authors and signatories suggest that the most fundamental common ground between Islam and Christianity, and the best basis for future dialogue and understanding, is the love of God and the love of neighbor.
The hope is that this document will provide a common constitution for the many organizations and individuals who are carrying out interfaith dialogue throughout the world. Not only can “A Common Word” give us a starting point for cooperation and worldwide coordination, but it does so on the most solid theological ground possible: the teachings of the Qu’ran and Prophet Muhammad , and the commandments offered by Jesus Christ in the Bible. Despite their differences, Islam and Christianity not only share the same Divine Origin and the same Abrahamic heritage, but the same two greatest commandments.
In “Loving God and Neighbor Together: A Christian Response to A Common Word Between Us and You” a response was drafted by scholars at Yale Divinity School's Center for Faith and Culture. It was endorsed by almost 300 Christian theologians and leaders.
“As members of the worldwide Christian community, we were deeply encouraged and challenged by the recent historic open letter signed by 138 leading Muslim scholars, clerics, and intellectuals from around the world.
What is so extraordinary about A Common Word Between Us and You is not that its signatories recognize the critical character of the present moment in relations between Muslims and Christians. It is rather a deep insight and courage with which they have identified the common ground between the Muslim and Christian religious communities.
What is common between us lies not in something marginal nor in something merely important to each. It lies, rather, in something absolutely central to both: love of God and love of neighbor.
Given the deep fissures in the relations between Christians and Muslims today, the task before us is daunting. And the stakes are great. The future of the world depends on our ability as Christians and Muslims to live together in peace. If we fail to make every effort to make peace and come together in harmony you correctly remind us that "our eternal souls" are at stake as well. We are persuaded that our next step should be for our leaders at every level to meet together and begin the earnest work of determining how God would have us fulfill the requirement that we love God and one another. It is with humility and hope that we receive your generous letter, and we commit ourselves to labor together in heart, soul, mind and strength for the objectives you so appropriately propose ”.
Hence, when I proclaimed the two love commandments to be basis for reconciliation, I did so with the theological backing of many Muslim and Christian leaders.
I also proclaimed that reconciliation is relational. An examination of this statement is necessary, so that we can better understand how to start the reconciliation process and how we should proceed.
The two commandments of love are the following:
“ ‘You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ / This is the first and greatest commandment. / And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbour as yourself.’ / On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.” (Matthew 22:34-40)
So the first commandment concerns itself with loving God with all one’s heart, soul and with all one’s mind. This commandment is about one’s relationship with his Creator. In that sense, it addresses a private relationship; one that is only known and fully understood and appreciated between the individual and his Creator. While this relationship needs nurturing, it will always remain essentially private. Though both Muslims and Christians worship the same God, it is not within the realm of reconciliation to discuss the nature of God.
Both Muslims and Christians accept the first commandment and all similar teachings. In the New Testament, Jesus said: “Hear, O Israel, the LORD our God, the LORD is one” . "You shall worship the Lord your God and him only shall you serve. " The Qur’an similarly teaches: ”Say, 'My Lord has guided me to a straight path, an upright religion, the faith of Abraham, a man of pure faith. Nor did he associate anything with God.' 162Say, 'My prayers, my devotions, my very being and death are all in the hands of God, Lord of all the Worlds; 163He has no partner. This is what I am commanded, and I am the first to submit my will to Him.' 164Say, 'Should I seek a Lord other than God, when he is the Lord of all things?' Each soul is responsible for its own actions; no soul will bear the burden of another …. (Al-An’am, 6:162-164). Moreover, Prophet Muhammad said: The best remembrance is: ‘There is no god but God’…
Expanding on the best remembrance, the Prophet Muhammad also said: The best that I have said—myself, and the prophets that came before me—is: ‘There is no god but God, He Alone, He hath no associate, His is the sovereignty and His is the praise and He hath power over all things’. The phrases which follow the First Testimony of faith are all from the Holy Qur’an; each describes a mode of loving God and devotion to Him.
Getting involved beyond the point of accepting the oneness of God to a discussion of His nature should not be the task of those seeking reconciliation. One’s relationship with the Creator and the way He is worshiped should be personal. My proposal is that we leave it out of the reconciliation effort and focus upon the second commandment.
The second commandment addresses our relationship with our neighbor. But who is your neighbor? Jesus answered this question with the parable of the good Samaritan. This parable is found in the Gospel of Luke, chapter 10, verses 25-37.
“One day an expert in religious law stood up to test Jesus by asking him this question: “Teacher, what should I do to inherit eternal life?” Jesus replied, “What does the law of Moses say? How do you read it?” The man answered, “‘You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, all your strength, and all your mind.’ And, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’” “Right!” Jesus told him. “Do this and you will live!” The man wanted to justify his actions, so he asked Jesus , “And who is my neighbor?”
Jesus then replied with a story:
“A Jewish man was traveling on a trip from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he was attacked by bandits. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him up, and left him half dead beside the road. By chance a priest came along. But when he saw the man lying there, he crossed to the other side of the road and passed him by. A Levite walked over and looked at him lying there, but he also passed by on the other side. Then a despised Samaritan came along, and when he saw the man, he felt compassion for him. Going over to him, the Samaritan soothed his wounds with olive oil and wine and bandaged them. Then he put the man on his own donkey and took him to an inn, where he took care of him. The next day he handed the innkeeper two silver coins, telling him, ‘Take care of this man. If his bill runs higher than this, I’ll pay you the next time I’m here.’ “Now which of these three would you say was a neighbor to the man who was attacked by bandits?” Jesus asked. The man replied, “The one who showed him mercy.” Then Jesus said, “Yes, now go and do the same.”
In this parable Jesus is trying to say that the one you perceive as your enemy can, in fact, be considered your friend. In reality, everyone that you encounter on your journey through life is your neighbor and should be loved.
But how do you love your neighbor? Do we wait until we encounter someone on the side of the road who has been attacked by bandits? More relevant is how does an employee love his boss? How does he love his colleagues at work? How does a woman love her husband or her father-in-law? And how does her husband love her? Can one love others if he/she does not love themselves? How can you give what you don’t have? When you look in the mirror, what do you see? Do you like who you are? Are you at least happy with yourself? Have you made peace with yourself and accepted the unique person you are?
At the heart of all the elements that make up your life experiences - family, friends, intimate relationships, and work - is you. This is why the rules of love begin with a rule not about relationships with others, but rather about the one you have with yourself.
There is a distinction between "you" and your "self." Your self is the core of your being, the essential entity that exists irrespective of your personality, your ego, your opinions, and your emotions. It is the small, sacred space within you that houses your spirit and soul. "You" are the observer, coach, editor, and critic who survey your thoughts, words, feelings, and behaviors and determine how much of your essential self is shown to others.
The quality of the relationship between you and your self is paramount, for all your other relationships are based on it. This relationship acts as a template from which all the unions in your life are shaped, setting the quality, tone, and texture for how you relate to others and how they relate to you. It establishes a working model of how to give and receive love …
Each one of us has needs that are different from the hierarchy of physical and survival needs as defined by Maslow (1970). These are emotional needs and they are called Relational needs as they emerge out of our social connectedness, and help sustain and nurture our emotional attachments to others.
Relational needs are the needs that grow out of human interaction, and being aware of these needs in ourselves and in others can help develop and nurture human relationships. Being aware of these needs can also help us gain insight into the feelings, behaviors and motivations in ourselves and others. So loving your neighbor is about understanding your neighbors’ needs and meeting them to the best of your ability.
All people experience these relational needs and they are present in all components of our life, from cradle to grave. Often these needs are out of our awareness, but they push into our awareness if they are not being met.
When relational needs are not met, they become more intense, more pressing, and are experienced as emptiness, a longing, or a nagging loneliness. Some people may become frustrated, angry, or aggressive in the face of unmet needs, or they may become depressed, lose energy and hope. They may also develop beliefs about their life such as “There’s nobody there for me” or “There’s no use trying” or “Nobody can be trusted” as a way of explaining the inner distress they feel . Hence the importance of Prophet Muhammad teaching: “smiling when you meet your brother is an act of charity” and further, “the best among you when you meet is the one that first gives his salutation of peace”.
These needs are shared by all human beings; they are intrinsic characteristic of our God-given identities, an inescapable part of being human.
According to current studies of the subject of relational needs, there are five general characteristics of needs:
1- Needs are cross-cultural
2- Needs exist in all generations
3- Needs are lifelong and continuous
4- It is OK to have needs; Neediness is not a defect
5- We cannot meet our own needs; they can only be met in the context of meaningful relationships.
Beyond the five characteristics of general needs there are also specific relational needs that are shared by all human kind. As we will see, we each have the opportunity to both “receive” and “give” these relational needs as we live life to the fullest in our relationship with God and our neighbors. These ten relational needs can be demonstrated as follows:
1- Acceptance: The need for acceptance revolves around receiving others willingly and unconditionally (even when their behavior has been imperfect) and loving them in spite of any differences that may exist between you.
2- Affection: The need for affection revolves around expressing care and closeness through physical touch, actions that represent affection and through words such as “ I love you” or “I care about you”
3- Appreciation: The need for appreciation revolves around expressing thanks, praise, or commendation, particularly in recognition of someone’s accomplishments or efforts; appreciation has a specific focus on what a person “does”.
4- Approval: The need for approval revolves around building up or affirming another person, particularly for “who” they are (as opposed to what they do). It is also met by affirming both the fact and the importance of your relationship with another person.
5- Attention: The need for attention revolves around conveying appropriate interest, concern, and care. Addressing this need requires us to take notice of others and make an effort to enter into their respective worlds.
6- Comfort: The need for comfort is about caringly responding to a hurting person through words, actions, emotional responses and physical touch. Meeting this need requires us to truly hurt with and for another person in the midst of their grief or pain.
7- Encouragement: The need for encouragement is about urging others to persist and persevere in their efforts to attain their goal and by stimulating them toward love and good deeds.
8- Respect: The need for respect is about valuing one another highly, treating one another as important, and honoring one another with our words and actions.
9- Security: The need for security revolves around establishing and maintaining harmony in our relationships and providing freedom from fear or threat of harm. This process involves mutual expressions of vulnerability, the deepening of trust and the successful resolution of conflict.
10- Support: The need for support is about coming alongside others and providing gentle, appropriate assistance with a problem or struggle.
Though we obviously all have needs—one question still remains—why do we long for comfort, attention and security ? After all, God could have created us without any needs whatsoever. Should we then conclude that our needs represent flaws in our design? The answer must be a resounding “No!” So why do we have needs?
1- Our neediness encourages humility and valuing of relationships.
So far, we have seen that (1) everyone has needs, and (2) we cannot meet our own needs. Therefore, we can only conclude that, in order to have our needs met, we must look beyond ourselves. We are not to live as an “island” unto ourselves. Our relationships in life can provide meaning and fulfillment.
2- Our neediness encourages interdependence.
Just as our neediness and our inability to meet our own needs compels us to value relationships, so it should also motivate us to support and encourage one another. We cannot live our lives as if we were computerized robots on an assembly line, doing our own thing with no regard for the needs of others.
Fortunately, a number of relationships serve to promote interdependence and mutual fulfillment of needs. At the most axiomatic level, many of us have been granted the blessings of healthy marriages and other close family relationships, which serve as environments within which we both give and receive loving care in order to meet one another’s needs.
In addition, through friends, colleagues and community, we are challenged to look for ways in which we can give to the needs of others, as well as meet our own.
3- Accepting the reality of our needs helps us to develop a heart filled with compassion for others.
Our ability to respond effectively with care and compassion toward others is closely tied to our willingness to admit that we have needs.
The sad truth is that those who tend to deny their own needs often lack compassion for others who are in need. Having chosen to adopt an attitude of self-reliance, they are likely to respond to neediness in others by thinking, “Why should I care about their needs? If they have problems, they should take care of them themselves!” As we come to accept the reality of our own needs and to humbly receive care and compassion, we are in turn empowered to respond to the needs of others with genuine feelings of compassion and concrete acts of kindness.
4- Admitting our needs frees us to both receive and give care.
It is difficult to give others what we have not received. A woman who was never comforted as a child may find it incredibly challenging to offer words of comfort to her own children. A man whose parents failed to consistently display affection for him may struggle to adequately express his affection for his wife. An employer who has rarely received encouragement from others may find it hard to effectively encourage his employees.
By contrast, those who have had their own needs met are much better equipped to meet the needs of others. But in order to have our needs met, we must first admit that they exist. When we willingly acknowledge our neediness, we allow ourselves to receive care and we are better able to give more freely in return.
5- Meeting the needs of others expresses care and produces community ties.
If we desire to decrease the number of divisions within our families, communities, and cultures, we must begin by increasing care. Countless conflicts and breakdowns can be traced to a lack of trusting, caring relationships between marriage partners, family members, business and country leaders. How do we demonstrate that we truly care for one another? By meeting each other’s needs. As loving care is increasingly demonstrated through mutual fulfillment of needs, divisions are mended and unity is strengthened.
Knowing one’s self and emotional needs helps us understand how to satisfy these needs relationally. This, in my opinion, will produce healthy individuals, healthy families and healthy social networks and communities. Additionally there is accumulative social capital that will form through these interactive healthy relations.
Social capital is a sociological concept used in business, economics, organizational behavior, political science, public health and the social sciences, in general, to refer to connections within and between social networks. For the past decade, social capital has resonated strongly with communities across America attempting to improve residents’ quality of life and overall well-being.
The accumulated social capital forming out of loving God and loving neighbors might be measurable as suggested by a study done in November 2001 . The study argues that the idea that many sociological and economic outcomes are determined not only by market forces, but also by factors related to the nature and quality of people’s social, non-market interactions underlies the very active research program on “social capital”.
Sociologists and political scientists have long stressed social capital’s importance . And, a number of studies by empirical economists document correlations between social capital and positive economic outcomes across different communities and countries, and over time . One of these studies is the Social Capital Community Benchmark Study . It has enabled us to better quantify and measure social capital, and we are still exploring the most effective ways, settings and activities to build social capital and increase civic engagement.
Loving our neighbor is a command given to us by Jesus Christ and confirmed centuries later by the Qur’an and the teachings of Prophet Muhammad . Both the Muslim and Christian traditions have taught all along that this command falls into the realm of good ethics. However, Jesus Christ went further and proclaimed that to Love God and your neighbor summarized all the Law and the Prophets.” (Matthew 22:34-40).
I am proposing that there is more to the two commands than an order for simple good behavior. Perhaps they are the basis God gave us to build a healthy and a prosperous society. Their inherent value is significantly broader than the common conception of right and wrong. They might be the gateway to "the good life", the life worth living, which is held by many philosophers to be more important than traditional moral conduct.
Relationships are at the core of who we are as humans. From Greek dramas to the current top ten music charts, nearly every artistic expression is about relationship: songs of love lost and found, tales of our deepest longings and greatest tragedies. Whether it is an individual broken heart, or whole families and society's devastated by relationships gone bad, relationships reflect our deepest human struggles. They are the source of our most profound joy and pain. Relationships are what we are willing to kill and die for… what we long for most… what keep us up at night. It is in relationships that we find out who we are as humans, and what matters most in life.
Relationships are at the heart of faith, reflecting the fact that we as humans have been created as social creatures. Jesus identified the central message of the law and prophets relationally.
From love to hate, relationships are at the depth of sin and at the height of moral virtue. Compassion, sacrifice, forgiveness, trust, betrayal, murder, adultery and revenge—each is rooted in relationship. It is at the heart of both ethics and worship.
A relational focus entails that we place love as our highest priority above orthodoxy, placing righteousness over being right. The mark of good doctrine is the fruit it bears. A relational faith cares more about relationships and people than it does about being right. In fact, according to Scripture, a theology that is unloving is not right. Of the necessity of love for the neighbour, Prophet Muhammad said: “None of you has faith until you love for your neighbour what you love for yourself.”
One can go through life trying to be the best he can according to materialistic ends, the wealthiest, the most powerful, or instead, become what God has created one to be; a loving and humble servant to others. This is best expressed in one of the fondest prayers of the Prophet Muhammad “My Lord, I ask you for Your love, and for the love of everyone who loves You, and for the love of everything that will bring me closer to Your love”.
So what is the next step? Take a deep look inside and make sure your heart is reconciled to your Creator. Then you can then take a look around you and love your neighbors. This will include people that you don’t like at all. Liking likable people does not require any effort. It is the people that you don’t like that you need to pray for and ask God to forgive and to bring to the straight path. This is the true essence of the 360 degree love.
What is the end result that we should look forward to? To turn into a better person that loves his family, a servant to his community and a leader. You may also end up having a tender heart that brings tears to your eyes every time you remember God or see his blessings.
Who is qualified to engage in this kind of activity? You and I; everyone who has a personal relationship with God and everyone we have a relationship with. It is a vertical relationship with God and 360 degrees of horizontal relationship with others.
In short, all of us are qualified to engage in reconciliation. God loves us all, shouldn’t we do the same?
Safi Kaskas & Friends
The reaction to my essay Reconciliation: The choice of peacemakers encouraged me to shed more light about the reconciliation process. What is the next step? What should people do to get involved in a reconciliation effort? Who is qualified to engage in this kind of activity?
On October 13th 2007 in A Common Word Between Us and You , 138 Muslim scholars, clerics and intellectuals came together unanimously for the first time since the days of Prophet Muhammad to declare that common ground exists between Christianity and Islam. The signatories to this message came from every denomination and school of thought in Islam. Every major Islamic country or region in the world was represented in this message, which was addressed to the leaders of all the world’s churches, and indeed to all Christians everywhere.
“A Common Word Between Us and You” was first presented at a conference in September 2007. In the letter the authors and signatories suggest that the most fundamental common ground between Islam and Christianity, and the best basis for future dialogue and understanding, is the love of God and the love of neighbor.
The hope is that this document will provide a common constitution for the many organizations and individuals who are carrying out interfaith dialogue throughout the world. Not only can “A Common Word” give us a starting point for cooperation and worldwide coordination, but it does so on the most solid theological ground possible: the teachings of the Qu’ran and Prophet Muhammad , and the commandments offered by Jesus Christ in the Bible. Despite their differences, Islam and Christianity not only share the same Divine Origin and the same Abrahamic heritage, but the same two greatest commandments.
In “Loving God and Neighbor Together: A Christian Response to A Common Word Between Us and You” a response was drafted by scholars at Yale Divinity School's Center for Faith and Culture. It was endorsed by almost 300 Christian theologians and leaders.
“As members of the worldwide Christian community, we were deeply encouraged and challenged by the recent historic open letter signed by 138 leading Muslim scholars, clerics, and intellectuals from around the world.
What is so extraordinary about A Common Word Between Us and You is not that its signatories recognize the critical character of the present moment in relations between Muslims and Christians. It is rather a deep insight and courage with which they have identified the common ground between the Muslim and Christian religious communities.
What is common between us lies not in something marginal nor in something merely important to each. It lies, rather, in something absolutely central to both: love of God and love of neighbor.
Given the deep fissures in the relations between Christians and Muslims today, the task before us is daunting. And the stakes are great. The future of the world depends on our ability as Christians and Muslims to live together in peace. If we fail to make every effort to make peace and come together in harmony you correctly remind us that "our eternal souls" are at stake as well. We are persuaded that our next step should be for our leaders at every level to meet together and begin the earnest work of determining how God would have us fulfill the requirement that we love God and one another. It is with humility and hope that we receive your generous letter, and we commit ourselves to labor together in heart, soul, mind and strength for the objectives you so appropriately propose ”.
Hence, when I proclaimed the two love commandments to be basis for reconciliation, I did so with the theological backing of many Muslim and Christian leaders.
I also proclaimed that reconciliation is relational. An examination of this statement is necessary, so that we can better understand how to start the reconciliation process and how we should proceed.
The two commandments of love are the following:
“ ‘You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ / This is the first and greatest commandment. / And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbour as yourself.’ / On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.” (Matthew 22:34-40)
So the first commandment concerns itself with loving God with all one’s heart, soul and with all one’s mind. This commandment is about one’s relationship with his Creator. In that sense, it addresses a private relationship; one that is only known and fully understood and appreciated between the individual and his Creator. While this relationship needs nurturing, it will always remain essentially private. Though both Muslims and Christians worship the same God, it is not within the realm of reconciliation to discuss the nature of God.
Both Muslims and Christians accept the first commandment and all similar teachings. In the New Testament, Jesus said: “Hear, O Israel, the LORD our God, the LORD is one” . "You shall worship the Lord your God and him only shall you serve. " The Qur’an similarly teaches: ”Say, 'My Lord has guided me to a straight path, an upright religion, the faith of Abraham, a man of pure faith. Nor did he associate anything with God.' 162Say, 'My prayers, my devotions, my very being and death are all in the hands of God, Lord of all the Worlds; 163He has no partner. This is what I am commanded, and I am the first to submit my will to Him.' 164Say, 'Should I seek a Lord other than God, when he is the Lord of all things?' Each soul is responsible for its own actions; no soul will bear the burden of another …. (Al-An’am, 6:162-164). Moreover, Prophet Muhammad said: The best remembrance is: ‘There is no god but God’…
Expanding on the best remembrance, the Prophet Muhammad also said: The best that I have said—myself, and the prophets that came before me—is: ‘There is no god but God, He Alone, He hath no associate, His is the sovereignty and His is the praise and He hath power over all things’. The phrases which follow the First Testimony of faith are all from the Holy Qur’an; each describes a mode of loving God and devotion to Him.
Getting involved beyond the point of accepting the oneness of God to a discussion of His nature should not be the task of those seeking reconciliation. One’s relationship with the Creator and the way He is worshiped should be personal. My proposal is that we leave it out of the reconciliation effort and focus upon the second commandment.
The second commandment addresses our relationship with our neighbor. But who is your neighbor? Jesus answered this question with the parable of the good Samaritan. This parable is found in the Gospel of Luke, chapter 10, verses 25-37.
“One day an expert in religious law stood up to test Jesus by asking him this question: “Teacher, what should I do to inherit eternal life?” Jesus replied, “What does the law of Moses say? How do you read it?” The man answered, “‘You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, all your strength, and all your mind.’ And, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’” “Right!” Jesus told him. “Do this and you will live!” The man wanted to justify his actions, so he asked Jesus , “And who is my neighbor?”
Jesus then replied with a story:
“A Jewish man was traveling on a trip from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he was attacked by bandits. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him up, and left him half dead beside the road. By chance a priest came along. But when he saw the man lying there, he crossed to the other side of the road and passed him by. A Levite walked over and looked at him lying there, but he also passed by on the other side. Then a despised Samaritan came along, and when he saw the man, he felt compassion for him. Going over to him, the Samaritan soothed his wounds with olive oil and wine and bandaged them. Then he put the man on his own donkey and took him to an inn, where he took care of him. The next day he handed the innkeeper two silver coins, telling him, ‘Take care of this man. If his bill runs higher than this, I’ll pay you the next time I’m here.’ “Now which of these three would you say was a neighbor to the man who was attacked by bandits?” Jesus asked. The man replied, “The one who showed him mercy.” Then Jesus said, “Yes, now go and do the same.”
In this parable Jesus is trying to say that the one you perceive as your enemy can, in fact, be considered your friend. In reality, everyone that you encounter on your journey through life is your neighbor and should be loved.
But how do you love your neighbor? Do we wait until we encounter someone on the side of the road who has been attacked by bandits? More relevant is how does an employee love his boss? How does he love his colleagues at work? How does a woman love her husband or her father-in-law? And how does her husband love her? Can one love others if he/she does not love themselves? How can you give what you don’t have? When you look in the mirror, what do you see? Do you like who you are? Are you at least happy with yourself? Have you made peace with yourself and accepted the unique person you are?
At the heart of all the elements that make up your life experiences - family, friends, intimate relationships, and work - is you. This is why the rules of love begin with a rule not about relationships with others, but rather about the one you have with yourself.
There is a distinction between "you" and your "self." Your self is the core of your being, the essential entity that exists irrespective of your personality, your ego, your opinions, and your emotions. It is the small, sacred space within you that houses your spirit and soul. "You" are the observer, coach, editor, and critic who survey your thoughts, words, feelings, and behaviors and determine how much of your essential self is shown to others.
The quality of the relationship between you and your self is paramount, for all your other relationships are based on it. This relationship acts as a template from which all the unions in your life are shaped, setting the quality, tone, and texture for how you relate to others and how they relate to you. It establishes a working model of how to give and receive love …
Each one of us has needs that are different from the hierarchy of physical and survival needs as defined by Maslow (1970). These are emotional needs and they are called Relational needs as they emerge out of our social connectedness, and help sustain and nurture our emotional attachments to others.
Relational needs are the needs that grow out of human interaction, and being aware of these needs in ourselves and in others can help develop and nurture human relationships. Being aware of these needs can also help us gain insight into the feelings, behaviors and motivations in ourselves and others. So loving your neighbor is about understanding your neighbors’ needs and meeting them to the best of your ability.
All people experience these relational needs and they are present in all components of our life, from cradle to grave. Often these needs are out of our awareness, but they push into our awareness if they are not being met.
When relational needs are not met, they become more intense, more pressing, and are experienced as emptiness, a longing, or a nagging loneliness. Some people may become frustrated, angry, or aggressive in the face of unmet needs, or they may become depressed, lose energy and hope. They may also develop beliefs about their life such as “There’s nobody there for me” or “There’s no use trying” or “Nobody can be trusted” as a way of explaining the inner distress they feel . Hence the importance of Prophet Muhammad teaching: “smiling when you meet your brother is an act of charity” and further, “the best among you when you meet is the one that first gives his salutation of peace”.
These needs are shared by all human beings; they are intrinsic characteristic of our God-given identities, an inescapable part of being human.
According to current studies of the subject of relational needs, there are five general characteristics of needs:
1- Needs are cross-cultural
2- Needs exist in all generations
3- Needs are lifelong and continuous
4- It is OK to have needs; Neediness is not a defect
5- We cannot meet our own needs; they can only be met in the context of meaningful relationships.
Beyond the five characteristics of general needs there are also specific relational needs that are shared by all human kind. As we will see, we each have the opportunity to both “receive” and “give” these relational needs as we live life to the fullest in our relationship with God and our neighbors. These ten relational needs can be demonstrated as follows:
1- Acceptance: The need for acceptance revolves around receiving others willingly and unconditionally (even when their behavior has been imperfect) and loving them in spite of any differences that may exist between you.
2- Affection: The need for affection revolves around expressing care and closeness through physical touch, actions that represent affection and through words such as “ I love you” or “I care about you”
3- Appreciation: The need for appreciation revolves around expressing thanks, praise, or commendation, particularly in recognition of someone’s accomplishments or efforts; appreciation has a specific focus on what a person “does”.
4- Approval: The need for approval revolves around building up or affirming another person, particularly for “who” they are (as opposed to what they do). It is also met by affirming both the fact and the importance of your relationship with another person.
5- Attention: The need for attention revolves around conveying appropriate interest, concern, and care. Addressing this need requires us to take notice of others and make an effort to enter into their respective worlds.
6- Comfort: The need for comfort is about caringly responding to a hurting person through words, actions, emotional responses and physical touch. Meeting this need requires us to truly hurt with and for another person in the midst of their grief or pain.
7- Encouragement: The need for encouragement is about urging others to persist and persevere in their efforts to attain their goal and by stimulating them toward love and good deeds.
8- Respect: The need for respect is about valuing one another highly, treating one another as important, and honoring one another with our words and actions.
9- Security: The need for security revolves around establishing and maintaining harmony in our relationships and providing freedom from fear or threat of harm. This process involves mutual expressions of vulnerability, the deepening of trust and the successful resolution of conflict.
10- Support: The need for support is about coming alongside others and providing gentle, appropriate assistance with a problem or struggle.
Though we obviously all have needs—one question still remains—why do we long for comfort, attention and security ? After all, God could have created us without any needs whatsoever. Should we then conclude that our needs represent flaws in our design? The answer must be a resounding “No!” So why do we have needs?
1- Our neediness encourages humility and valuing of relationships.
So far, we have seen that (1) everyone has needs, and (2) we cannot meet our own needs. Therefore, we can only conclude that, in order to have our needs met, we must look beyond ourselves. We are not to live as an “island” unto ourselves. Our relationships in life can provide meaning and fulfillment.
2- Our neediness encourages interdependence.
Just as our neediness and our inability to meet our own needs compels us to value relationships, so it should also motivate us to support and encourage one another. We cannot live our lives as if we were computerized robots on an assembly line, doing our own thing with no regard for the needs of others.
Fortunately, a number of relationships serve to promote interdependence and mutual fulfillment of needs. At the most axiomatic level, many of us have been granted the blessings of healthy marriages and other close family relationships, which serve as environments within which we both give and receive loving care in order to meet one another’s needs.
In addition, through friends, colleagues and community, we are challenged to look for ways in which we can give to the needs of others, as well as meet our own.
3- Accepting the reality of our needs helps us to develop a heart filled with compassion for others.
Our ability to respond effectively with care and compassion toward others is closely tied to our willingness to admit that we have needs.
The sad truth is that those who tend to deny their own needs often lack compassion for others who are in need. Having chosen to adopt an attitude of self-reliance, they are likely to respond to neediness in others by thinking, “Why should I care about their needs? If they have problems, they should take care of them themselves!” As we come to accept the reality of our own needs and to humbly receive care and compassion, we are in turn empowered to respond to the needs of others with genuine feelings of compassion and concrete acts of kindness.
4- Admitting our needs frees us to both receive and give care.
It is difficult to give others what we have not received. A woman who was never comforted as a child may find it incredibly challenging to offer words of comfort to her own children. A man whose parents failed to consistently display affection for him may struggle to adequately express his affection for his wife. An employer who has rarely received encouragement from others may find it hard to effectively encourage his employees.
By contrast, those who have had their own needs met are much better equipped to meet the needs of others. But in order to have our needs met, we must first admit that they exist. When we willingly acknowledge our neediness, we allow ourselves to receive care and we are better able to give more freely in return.
5- Meeting the needs of others expresses care and produces community ties.
If we desire to decrease the number of divisions within our families, communities, and cultures, we must begin by increasing care. Countless conflicts and breakdowns can be traced to a lack of trusting, caring relationships between marriage partners, family members, business and country leaders. How do we demonstrate that we truly care for one another? By meeting each other’s needs. As loving care is increasingly demonstrated through mutual fulfillment of needs, divisions are mended and unity is strengthened.
Knowing one’s self and emotional needs helps us understand how to satisfy these needs relationally. This, in my opinion, will produce healthy individuals, healthy families and healthy social networks and communities. Additionally there is accumulative social capital that will form through these interactive healthy relations.
Social capital is a sociological concept used in business, economics, organizational behavior, political science, public health and the social sciences, in general, to refer to connections within and between social networks. For the past decade, social capital has resonated strongly with communities across America attempting to improve residents’ quality of life and overall well-being.
The accumulated social capital forming out of loving God and loving neighbors might be measurable as suggested by a study done in November 2001 . The study argues that the idea that many sociological and economic outcomes are determined not only by market forces, but also by factors related to the nature and quality of people’s social, non-market interactions underlies the very active research program on “social capital”.
Sociologists and political scientists have long stressed social capital’s importance . And, a number of studies by empirical economists document correlations between social capital and positive economic outcomes across different communities and countries, and over time . One of these studies is the Social Capital Community Benchmark Study . It has enabled us to better quantify and measure social capital, and we are still exploring the most effective ways, settings and activities to build social capital and increase civic engagement.
Loving our neighbor is a command given to us by Jesus Christ and confirmed centuries later by the Qur’an and the teachings of Prophet Muhammad . Both the Muslim and Christian traditions have taught all along that this command falls into the realm of good ethics. However, Jesus Christ went further and proclaimed that to Love God and your neighbor summarized all the Law and the Prophets.” (Matthew 22:34-40).
I am proposing that there is more to the two commands than an order for simple good behavior. Perhaps they are the basis God gave us to build a healthy and a prosperous society. Their inherent value is significantly broader than the common conception of right and wrong. They might be the gateway to "the good life", the life worth living, which is held by many philosophers to be more important than traditional moral conduct.
Relationships are at the core of who we are as humans. From Greek dramas to the current top ten music charts, nearly every artistic expression is about relationship: songs of love lost and found, tales of our deepest longings and greatest tragedies. Whether it is an individual broken heart, or whole families and society's devastated by relationships gone bad, relationships reflect our deepest human struggles. They are the source of our most profound joy and pain. Relationships are what we are willing to kill and die for… what we long for most… what keep us up at night. It is in relationships that we find out who we are as humans, and what matters most in life.
Relationships are at the heart of faith, reflecting the fact that we as humans have been created as social creatures. Jesus identified the central message of the law and prophets relationally.
From love to hate, relationships are at the depth of sin and at the height of moral virtue. Compassion, sacrifice, forgiveness, trust, betrayal, murder, adultery and revenge—each is rooted in relationship. It is at the heart of both ethics and worship.
A relational focus entails that we place love as our highest priority above orthodoxy, placing righteousness over being right. The mark of good doctrine is the fruit it bears. A relational faith cares more about relationships and people than it does about being right. In fact, according to Scripture, a theology that is unloving is not right. Of the necessity of love for the neighbour, Prophet Muhammad said: “None of you has faith until you love for your neighbour what you love for yourself.”
One can go through life trying to be the best he can according to materialistic ends, the wealthiest, the most powerful, or instead, become what God has created one to be; a loving and humble servant to others. This is best expressed in one of the fondest prayers of the Prophet Muhammad “My Lord, I ask you for Your love, and for the love of everyone who loves You, and for the love of everything that will bring me closer to Your love”.
So what is the next step? Take a deep look inside and make sure your heart is reconciled to your Creator. Then you can then take a look around you and love your neighbors. This will include people that you don’t like at all. Liking likable people does not require any effort. It is the people that you don’t like that you need to pray for and ask God to forgive and to bring to the straight path. This is the true essence of the 360 degree love.
What is the end result that we should look forward to? To turn into a better person that loves his family, a servant to his community and a leader. You may also end up having a tender heart that brings tears to your eyes every time you remember God or see his blessings.
Who is qualified to engage in this kind of activity? You and I; everyone who has a personal relationship with God and everyone we have a relationship with. It is a vertical relationship with God and 360 degrees of horizontal relationship with others.
In short, all of us are qualified to engage in reconciliation. God loves us all, shouldn’t we do the same?
Thursday, February 25, 2010
The Golden Rule, Metalaw, and the Maqasid al Shari'a: Toward a Paradigmatic Revolution
by Dr. Robert D. Crane
The history of humanity is one of expanding our horizons on earth as we bump into others like ourselves. As we “bump into” sentient beings from foreign planets, perhaps the shock will help us overcome our religious tribalism so that in awe we can in the future expand our vision beyond our own physical home and also to higher dimensions of reality.
We might even reverse the Golden Rule, which is enshrined in all of the world religions. Contextually designed for earthbound humans, it now reads, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”. Under the new moral guidelines of a still higher metalaw, the Golden Rule might read, “Do unto others as they would have done unto themselves”. Any other approach might destroy all life. This is the core of metalaw, which could provide the guidelines for new disciplines in the study of peace, prosperity, and freedom through compassionate justice both on earth and throughout the universe.
Islamic scholars centuries ago developed this metalegal perspective in what is known as the maqasid al shari’a, which is the science of ultimate ends. This is based on the common purpose of all sentient beings and even of every plant and animal in its own way, which, in turn, is based on study of their common origins.
In the Qur’an, Surah al Rahman 55:6, we read, wa najmu wa al shejaru yasujdan, “and the stars and the trees bow down to God”, but in ways you do not understand. As developed in my book, Rehabilitating the Role of Religion in the World, in the section on the shari’i principle or maqsad of haqq al mahid (environmental justice), this is developed further by reference to Surah al Nur 24:31: “Are you not aware that it is God whose limitless glory all [creatures] that are in the heavens and on earth extol, even the birds as they spread out their wings? Each [of them] knows how to pray unto Him and to glorify Him. And God has full knowledge of all that they do, for God’s is the dominion over the heavens and the earth, and with God is all journey’s end”. Allah tells us in Surah al ‘Isra 17:43-44, “And there is not a single thing but extols His limitless glory and praise. But you [O humans] fail to grasp the manner of glorifying Him”. The Qur’an summarizes all this in the simple phrase, “Wherever you turn, there is the face of God.”
The Qur’an speaks of an inner truth in Creation. Thus, in Surah al Hijr 15:85 we read: wa ma halaqna al samawat wa al ‘ard wa bainahum ille bil haqq, “and We have created the heavens and the earth and all that lives in between with an inner truth”. This is repeated again and again in different contexts, in Surah Yunus 10:5, Ali-i Imran 3:191, Hajj 22:18, and Sad 38:27, where the term batilan is used and best translated as “meaning and purpose”.
Introducing Surah al Hijr 15:85 is 15:75, which reads ina fi dhalika l’ayatin li al mutawasimin. “In this are messages for those who can read the signs”. The root word wasama in its fifth form tawasama means to watch or examine closely. Both of the classical commentators Razi and Zamakshari say that mutawasim means “one who applies the mind to the study of the outward appearances of a thing with a view to understanding its real nature and its inner characteristics”.
The Maqasid al Shari’ah
This search for the inner or higher truth of reality is the highest purpose of the maqasid al shari’ah as meta-legal guidelines for human responsibilities and rights, in accordance with the basic Qur’anic principle expressed in Surah al An’am 6:115: tama’at kalimatu rabika sidqan wa ‘adlan, “The Word of your Lord is fulfilled and perfected in truth and in justice”.
The theory is simple. All the revealed religions contain a universal paradigm of thought. Muslims call this Islam. It is based on an affirmation that there is an ultimate reality of which man and the entire universe are merely an expression, that therefore every person is created with an innate awareness of absolute truth and love, and that persons in community can and should develop from the various sources of divine revelation, including natural law or the Sunnat Allah, a framework of moral law to secure peace, prosperity, and freedom.
What is this system? Using current phraseology, the answer is simple. It is justice. This is the core message that activists of every religion should put front and center.
Within the last two or three years for the first time in decades of fruitless political activism in America, Muslims have finally begun to revive the necessary guidance of classical Islam in the universal purposes (maqasid) or universal principles (kulliyat) or essentials (dururiyat) of the maqasid al shari’ah as the applied essence of Islam in the world and as the only winning paradigm for America and for Muslims in America or anywhere else in the world or in the universe.
The Great American Experiment was founded on it. The Constitution of the United States of America starts with a Preamble that declares the priorities of its purpose. This starts with the pursuit of a unity through justice, national defense, domestic order, prosperity, and freedom. Freedom comes last because it is the product of justice. Only through leadership in promoting the natural law of justice can Muslims help America recover its lost tradition and become what its founders envisioned, which is to be a moral model for all of humankind.
The Prophet Muhammad, salla Allahu ‘alayhi wa salam, strove to develop the believer’s conscience through adherence to principles and values, known as the Sunnat Allah or natural law. This became known later as the synergism of three sources, namely, Divine Revelation or haqq al yaqin, observation of the physical laws of the universe or ‘ain al yaqin, and human reason or ‘ilm al yaqin to understand the first two primary sources. The values and principles were just as important as their source. The Prophet and especially his follower ‘Ali, radi Allahu anhu, showed a way to transcend narrow and self-centered group allegiance in the tribalistic and negative form of asabiya in favor of primary loyalty to universal principles themselves.
These universal principles or maqasid were developed over a period of centuries into what became the world’s most sophisticated code of human responsibilities and rights. They are spelled out in three of my recent books. The first one is The Natural Law of Compassionate Justice: An Islamic Perspective, Read 1 Communications, 224 pages, released in January 2010. The second is a 560-page textbook, entitled Islam and Muslims: Key Current Challenges, The Center for Understanding Islam, February 2010, And the third, for release in the summer of 2010, is entitled Rehabilitating the Role of Religion in the World: Laying a New Foundation on the Natural Law of Compassionate Justice, which has a detailed discussion on the origin and historical development of the maqasid, as well as a lengthy chapter on each of the eight maqasid as I understand them. The most advanced study of Islamic normative law as an expression of Metalaw, however, is Professor Jasser Auda’s Maqasid al Shari’ah as Philosophy of Islamic Law: A Systems Approach, IIIT, 2008, 347 pages.
The first universal principle or maqsad is known as haqq al din. This requires respect for religion. At a secondary level, known as the hajjiyat, this maqsad means that religion should be neither prescribed nor proscribed in public life, that is, neither institutionalized nor forbidden. This hajja, as developed by the first great successor to Al Shatibi, namely, Mufti Ibn Ashur of Tunisia in 1946, is basic to every level of metalaw.
The next universal principle, haqq al nafs, requires respect for the individual person. At the secondary level it requires respect for sentient life. At the still more detailed level, known as tahsinniyat, it teaches the limiting principles of the just war doctrine.
The next maqsad requires respect for the community, haqq al nasl, which is sacred because its component members derive their individual sovereignty directly from God. This is the other side or dimension of asabiya, which Ibn Khaldun distinguished from the negative form known as tribalism. This positive form of community loyalty permits authority and sovereignty to ascend from God through the human person upwards from the nuclear family to every higher level of community, including the nation and even all of humankind. This sacred form of sovereignty is the opposite of the positivist concept enshrined in Western international law as we were taught it at Harvard Law School. The Islamic concept of sovereignty turns the Western secular concept of the state on its head, because Western secularist jurisprudence declares that ultimate authority comes not from God but from whoever can impose order by force over fifty-one percent of any given territory. For example, this Islamic concept declares that the Palestinian people are inherently a sovereign nation, whereas Western international law declares that they do not exist.
The fourth maqsad, which has always been assumed but rarely spelled out as an irreducible principle of the Sunnat Allah is haqq al mahid (from wahada) or respect for the physical environment.
These first four of eight maqasid al shari’ah are what I call the transcendent or guiding principles. These are followed by four implementing maqasid.
Briefly, the first of the four is haqq al hurriyah, which requires governmental institutions adequate to promote the self-determination of persons, communities, and nations, based on the four hajjiyat known as khilafa, shurah, ijma, and an independent judiciary. This concept of political freedom is basic to the founding concept of government introduced in the West by the American Revolution, which in turn was based on the Scottish Renaissance.
All of America’s founders condemned democracy as the worst possible form of government, because by definition democracy, as exhibited in the French Revolution, vested ultimate authority not in God but in whoever could manipulate the masses to support elitist oppression. The opposite of a democracy is a republic, which by definition is based on the concept that the legislature is charged with seeking and implementing justice from the higher authority of God, that the Executive branch of government is charged with carrying out the will of the legislature, and that the Judicial branch of government is responsible to assure that both of the other branches are properly doing their job. In 1787, at the Constitutional Convention, when Benjamin Franklin was asked whether the Framers of the Constitution had created a republic or a monarchy, he replied, “A republic, if you can keep it.”
The second of the four applied maqasid is haqq al mal or economic justice. This requires respect for the decentralization of power through institutional reform, especially in the creation of money and credit designed to promote the universal right of access to individual ownership of wealth producing assets. This diffusion of capital ownership, while respecting the property rights of all existing owners, is key to reducing the growing wealth gap within and among nations, which is the primary cause of radicalism and has always been the primary cause of civilizational suicide.
The final set of maqasid requires respect for human dignity (haqq al karama), especially through gender equity, and respect for knowledge (haqq al ‘ilm or ‘aql) through freedom of thought, speech, and assembly.
These eight universal principles and purposes of sentient life are the key to the rise and fall of civilizations. Civilizations fall, usually in the midst of wars, when pessimists see growing inequities and fail to respond as agents of change or when they seek change through blind destruction. Both individual persons and entire civilizations die when they abandon the transcendent mission implanted in human nature and seek only to survive. Civilizations rise when optimists follow a higher vision and challenge the status quo by perfecting what is good but can be better. As brought out in my book Shaping the Future: Challenge and Response, Tapestry Press, 1997, 159 pages, it is a matter of challenge and response.
Unfortunately, most nations in our world have became at best bi-polar societies which alternate between seeking justice and seeking physical power as ultimate ends, without appreciation for the fact that the pursuit of justice is the most reliable road to security and peace. The goal should not be to empower only oneself but to empower others. Any perspective that raises an ideology of power, whether economic, political or military, to the level of an ultimate end and rejects justice as a guiding paradigm in either domestic or foreign policy inevitably will lead from cosmos to chaos.
The key to justice and to just governance, on earth or anywhere else, is education. Education should be designed to shape the paradigms of thought that govern public life. The paradigm shapers control the agendas as developed by think-tanks and the media. It is a truism, not absorbed by Muslim think-tanks, that whoever controls the policy agenda controls policy.
Thomas Jefferson, who drafted America’s Declaration of Independence and was its third president, taught that people can remain free only if they are properly educated, that education consists primarily in learning virtue, and that no people can be virtuous unless both their private and public lives are infused with awareness and love of God. In his days, the virtues were other words for what today are known as human responsibilities and rights, and these were considered together as the very definition of justice.
God, through his mercy, has given every person, as well as every nation, the freedom to become what they are intended to be. Their true identity is not what they may falsely try to construct, but rather what they in potential have been created to be. One’s purpose, both as a person and as a community, therefore is to become what one is, metaphorically speaking, in the eyes of God.
This search for the inner or higher truth of reality is the highest purpose of the maqasid al shari’ah as metalegal guidelines for responsibilities and rights, in accordance with the basic Qur’anic principle expressed in Surah al An’am 6:115: tama’at kalimatu rabika sidqan wa ‘adlan, “The Word of your Lord is fulfilled and perfected in truth and in justice.”
The motivation for seeking to become what God has created one to be is best expressed in one of the fondest prayers of the Prophet Muhammad, salla allahu ‘alayhi wa salam: Allahhuma, asaluka hubbaka, wa hubba man yuhibbuka, as hubba kulli ‘amali yuqaribuni ila hubbika, “O Allah, I ask you for Your love, and for the love of everyone who loves You, and for the love of everything that will bring me closer to Your love”.
The history of humanity is one of expanding our horizons on earth as we bump into others like ourselves. As we “bump into” sentient beings from foreign planets, perhaps the shock will help us overcome our religious tribalism so that in awe we can in the future expand our vision beyond our own physical home and also to higher dimensions of reality.
We might even reverse the Golden Rule, which is enshrined in all of the world religions. Contextually designed for earthbound humans, it now reads, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”. Under the new moral guidelines of a still higher metalaw, the Golden Rule might read, “Do unto others as they would have done unto themselves”. Any other approach might destroy all life. This is the core of metalaw, which could provide the guidelines for new disciplines in the study of peace, prosperity, and freedom through compassionate justice both on earth and throughout the universe.
Islamic scholars centuries ago developed this metalegal perspective in what is known as the maqasid al shari’a, which is the science of ultimate ends. This is based on the common purpose of all sentient beings and even of every plant and animal in its own way, which, in turn, is based on study of their common origins.
In the Qur’an, Surah al Rahman 55:6, we read, wa najmu wa al shejaru yasujdan, “and the stars and the trees bow down to God”, but in ways you do not understand. As developed in my book, Rehabilitating the Role of Religion in the World, in the section on the shari’i principle or maqsad of haqq al mahid (environmental justice), this is developed further by reference to Surah al Nur 24:31: “Are you not aware that it is God whose limitless glory all [creatures] that are in the heavens and on earth extol, even the birds as they spread out their wings? Each [of them] knows how to pray unto Him and to glorify Him. And God has full knowledge of all that they do, for God’s is the dominion over the heavens and the earth, and with God is all journey’s end”. Allah tells us in Surah al ‘Isra 17:43-44, “And there is not a single thing but extols His limitless glory and praise. But you [O humans] fail to grasp the manner of glorifying Him”. The Qur’an summarizes all this in the simple phrase, “Wherever you turn, there is the face of God.”
The Qur’an speaks of an inner truth in Creation. Thus, in Surah al Hijr 15:85 we read: wa ma halaqna al samawat wa al ‘ard wa bainahum ille bil haqq, “and We have created the heavens and the earth and all that lives in between with an inner truth”. This is repeated again and again in different contexts, in Surah Yunus 10:5, Ali-i Imran 3:191, Hajj 22:18, and Sad 38:27, where the term batilan is used and best translated as “meaning and purpose”.
Introducing Surah al Hijr 15:85 is 15:75, which reads ina fi dhalika l’ayatin li al mutawasimin. “In this are messages for those who can read the signs”. The root word wasama in its fifth form tawasama means to watch or examine closely. Both of the classical commentators Razi and Zamakshari say that mutawasim means “one who applies the mind to the study of the outward appearances of a thing with a view to understanding its real nature and its inner characteristics”.
The Maqasid al Shari’ah
This search for the inner or higher truth of reality is the highest purpose of the maqasid al shari’ah as meta-legal guidelines for human responsibilities and rights, in accordance with the basic Qur’anic principle expressed in Surah al An’am 6:115: tama’at kalimatu rabika sidqan wa ‘adlan, “The Word of your Lord is fulfilled and perfected in truth and in justice”.
The theory is simple. All the revealed religions contain a universal paradigm of thought. Muslims call this Islam. It is based on an affirmation that there is an ultimate reality of which man and the entire universe are merely an expression, that therefore every person is created with an innate awareness of absolute truth and love, and that persons in community can and should develop from the various sources of divine revelation, including natural law or the Sunnat Allah, a framework of moral law to secure peace, prosperity, and freedom.
What is this system? Using current phraseology, the answer is simple. It is justice. This is the core message that activists of every religion should put front and center.
Within the last two or three years for the first time in decades of fruitless political activism in America, Muslims have finally begun to revive the necessary guidance of classical Islam in the universal purposes (maqasid) or universal principles (kulliyat) or essentials (dururiyat) of the maqasid al shari’ah as the applied essence of Islam in the world and as the only winning paradigm for America and for Muslims in America or anywhere else in the world or in the universe.
The Great American Experiment was founded on it. The Constitution of the United States of America starts with a Preamble that declares the priorities of its purpose. This starts with the pursuit of a unity through justice, national defense, domestic order, prosperity, and freedom. Freedom comes last because it is the product of justice. Only through leadership in promoting the natural law of justice can Muslims help America recover its lost tradition and become what its founders envisioned, which is to be a moral model for all of humankind.
The Prophet Muhammad, salla Allahu ‘alayhi wa salam, strove to develop the believer’s conscience through adherence to principles and values, known as the Sunnat Allah or natural law. This became known later as the synergism of three sources, namely, Divine Revelation or haqq al yaqin, observation of the physical laws of the universe or ‘ain al yaqin, and human reason or ‘ilm al yaqin to understand the first two primary sources. The values and principles were just as important as their source. The Prophet and especially his follower ‘Ali, radi Allahu anhu, showed a way to transcend narrow and self-centered group allegiance in the tribalistic and negative form of asabiya in favor of primary loyalty to universal principles themselves.
These universal principles or maqasid were developed over a period of centuries into what became the world’s most sophisticated code of human responsibilities and rights. They are spelled out in three of my recent books. The first one is The Natural Law of Compassionate Justice: An Islamic Perspective, Read 1 Communications, 224 pages, released in January 2010. The second is a 560-page textbook, entitled Islam and Muslims: Key Current Challenges, The Center for Understanding Islam, February 2010, And the third, for release in the summer of 2010, is entitled Rehabilitating the Role of Religion in the World: Laying a New Foundation on the Natural Law of Compassionate Justice, which has a detailed discussion on the origin and historical development of the maqasid, as well as a lengthy chapter on each of the eight maqasid as I understand them. The most advanced study of Islamic normative law as an expression of Metalaw, however, is Professor Jasser Auda’s Maqasid al Shari’ah as Philosophy of Islamic Law: A Systems Approach, IIIT, 2008, 347 pages.
The first universal principle or maqsad is known as haqq al din. This requires respect for religion. At a secondary level, known as the hajjiyat, this maqsad means that religion should be neither prescribed nor proscribed in public life, that is, neither institutionalized nor forbidden. This hajja, as developed by the first great successor to Al Shatibi, namely, Mufti Ibn Ashur of Tunisia in 1946, is basic to every level of metalaw.
The next universal principle, haqq al nafs, requires respect for the individual person. At the secondary level it requires respect for sentient life. At the still more detailed level, known as tahsinniyat, it teaches the limiting principles of the just war doctrine.
The next maqsad requires respect for the community, haqq al nasl, which is sacred because its component members derive their individual sovereignty directly from God. This is the other side or dimension of asabiya, which Ibn Khaldun distinguished from the negative form known as tribalism. This positive form of community loyalty permits authority and sovereignty to ascend from God through the human person upwards from the nuclear family to every higher level of community, including the nation and even all of humankind. This sacred form of sovereignty is the opposite of the positivist concept enshrined in Western international law as we were taught it at Harvard Law School. The Islamic concept of sovereignty turns the Western secular concept of the state on its head, because Western secularist jurisprudence declares that ultimate authority comes not from God but from whoever can impose order by force over fifty-one percent of any given territory. For example, this Islamic concept declares that the Palestinian people are inherently a sovereign nation, whereas Western international law declares that they do not exist.
The fourth maqsad, which has always been assumed but rarely spelled out as an irreducible principle of the Sunnat Allah is haqq al mahid (from wahada) or respect for the physical environment.
These first four of eight maqasid al shari’ah are what I call the transcendent or guiding principles. These are followed by four implementing maqasid.
Briefly, the first of the four is haqq al hurriyah, which requires governmental institutions adequate to promote the self-determination of persons, communities, and nations, based on the four hajjiyat known as khilafa, shurah, ijma, and an independent judiciary. This concept of political freedom is basic to the founding concept of government introduced in the West by the American Revolution, which in turn was based on the Scottish Renaissance.
All of America’s founders condemned democracy as the worst possible form of government, because by definition democracy, as exhibited in the French Revolution, vested ultimate authority not in God but in whoever could manipulate the masses to support elitist oppression. The opposite of a democracy is a republic, which by definition is based on the concept that the legislature is charged with seeking and implementing justice from the higher authority of God, that the Executive branch of government is charged with carrying out the will of the legislature, and that the Judicial branch of government is responsible to assure that both of the other branches are properly doing their job. In 1787, at the Constitutional Convention, when Benjamin Franklin was asked whether the Framers of the Constitution had created a republic or a monarchy, he replied, “A republic, if you can keep it.”
The second of the four applied maqasid is haqq al mal or economic justice. This requires respect for the decentralization of power through institutional reform, especially in the creation of money and credit designed to promote the universal right of access to individual ownership of wealth producing assets. This diffusion of capital ownership, while respecting the property rights of all existing owners, is key to reducing the growing wealth gap within and among nations, which is the primary cause of radicalism and has always been the primary cause of civilizational suicide.
The final set of maqasid requires respect for human dignity (haqq al karama), especially through gender equity, and respect for knowledge (haqq al ‘ilm or ‘aql) through freedom of thought, speech, and assembly.
These eight universal principles and purposes of sentient life are the key to the rise and fall of civilizations. Civilizations fall, usually in the midst of wars, when pessimists see growing inequities and fail to respond as agents of change or when they seek change through blind destruction. Both individual persons and entire civilizations die when they abandon the transcendent mission implanted in human nature and seek only to survive. Civilizations rise when optimists follow a higher vision and challenge the status quo by perfecting what is good but can be better. As brought out in my book Shaping the Future: Challenge and Response, Tapestry Press, 1997, 159 pages, it is a matter of challenge and response.
Unfortunately, most nations in our world have became at best bi-polar societies which alternate between seeking justice and seeking physical power as ultimate ends, without appreciation for the fact that the pursuit of justice is the most reliable road to security and peace. The goal should not be to empower only oneself but to empower others. Any perspective that raises an ideology of power, whether economic, political or military, to the level of an ultimate end and rejects justice as a guiding paradigm in either domestic or foreign policy inevitably will lead from cosmos to chaos.
The key to justice and to just governance, on earth or anywhere else, is education. Education should be designed to shape the paradigms of thought that govern public life. The paradigm shapers control the agendas as developed by think-tanks and the media. It is a truism, not absorbed by Muslim think-tanks, that whoever controls the policy agenda controls policy.
Thomas Jefferson, who drafted America’s Declaration of Independence and was its third president, taught that people can remain free only if they are properly educated, that education consists primarily in learning virtue, and that no people can be virtuous unless both their private and public lives are infused with awareness and love of God. In his days, the virtues were other words for what today are known as human responsibilities and rights, and these were considered together as the very definition of justice.
God, through his mercy, has given every person, as well as every nation, the freedom to become what they are intended to be. Their true identity is not what they may falsely try to construct, but rather what they in potential have been created to be. One’s purpose, both as a person and as a community, therefore is to become what one is, metaphorically speaking, in the eyes of God.
This search for the inner or higher truth of reality is the highest purpose of the maqasid al shari’ah as metalegal guidelines for responsibilities and rights, in accordance with the basic Qur’anic principle expressed in Surah al An’am 6:115: tama’at kalimatu rabika sidqan wa ‘adlan, “The Word of your Lord is fulfilled and perfected in truth and in justice.”
The motivation for seeking to become what God has created one to be is best expressed in one of the fondest prayers of the Prophet Muhammad, salla allahu ‘alayhi wa salam: Allahhuma, asaluka hubbaka, wa hubba man yuhibbuka, as hubba kulli ‘amali yuqaribuni ila hubbika, “O Allah, I ask you for Your love, and for the love of everyone who loves You, and for the love of everything that will bring me closer to Your love”.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
