Muslims have a responsibility not only towards their own
community, but also towards humanity as a whole. For God enjoined
in the Quran:
"He it is Who hath made you regents in the earth; so he who
disbelieveth, his disbelief be on his own head." (Quran
35:39.
Muslims, as followers of the religion of peace, must uphold peace,
and enjoin peace in every possible way. For too long has the umma
been inward looking instead of outward looking. This unfortunate
trait has bred whole generations of Muslims who tend to have only a
one-sided view of the world. We mourn when we see pictures of
limbless Afghan children lying in hospital beds, but how many of us
pray for the souls of children who die in an earthquake in China?
We seek only the betterment of our umma, ignoring our other
responsibilities to the society that surrounds us. A society that,
we must remember, is as diverse in range as the ways Muslims
themselves practice their faith. Let's not turn a blind eye from
the fact that the divide between Muslims, most especially between
the Sunni and Shiite, has taken thousands of lives and consistently
torn the umma (the Muslim community) apart. Diversity does not only
exist in the world outside Darul Islam (House of Islam), but also
within it.
Muslims who have been raised in an introverted umma cannot help but
grow up in an environment of suspicion and distrust. There will
always be the inevitable THEM and US. With such an environment, it
is not a far step towards outright bigotry and intolerance of the
other faiths and races. A recent poll in Indonesia revealed that
almost 80% of Indonesians want other faiths outlawed. This
intolerance is a new phenomenon in Darul Islam itself. It is sad to
observe that the medieval umma had a far better record of "human
rights" than today's introverted umma. Another questionable
practice that may be a result of having Muslims who are inward
looking is the Malaysian policy of "selective meritocracy",
otherwise known as the bumiputra policy. The scheme only benefits
Malays, and not, I must stress, Muslims in general. Not even a
Chinese Muslim or an Indian Muslim is considered bumiputra, or
literally, sons of the soil. It is interesting to note that nowhere
in any Islamic school of jurisprudence will you find such a scheme
being recommended for a particular race. The Malay Adat
(traditions), after all, is not a god-given right! In fact, some
Adat practices out rightly contradict Islamic teachings!
The fact of the matter is this. Muslims do not have to be the
dominant community in any country. For many years, the Prophet and
his followers were only a minority in Mecca and Medina, who
struggled with the jihad of da'waah (preaching and charitable acts)
during times of peace, and the jihad in defense of the faith when,
and only when they were attacked by their enemies. In the Quran,
God paints out a clear picture of an Islamic community.
"Thus We have appointed you a middle nation, that ye may be
witnesses against mankind, and that the messenger may be a witness
against you. And We appointed the qiblah which ye formerly observed
only that We might know him who followeth the messenger, from him
who turneth on his heels. In truth it was a hard (test) save for
those whom Allah guided. But it was not Allah's purpose that your
faith should be in vain, for Allah is Full of Pity, Merciful toward
mankind." (Quran 2:143.7)
Islam is the path of moderation, where laxity and the opposing
force of excess are totally abhorrent principles. And yet, there
exist among us radicals who still insist that what they are doing
are Islamic in nature. That violence against non-believers is right
and justified by verses in the Quran. They perpetuate an
irreconcilable divide between Muslims and the "kafirs" (more
affectionately known as the unbelievers). Muslims who promote this
kind of dangerous divide obtain their reasons from the apocryphal
belief that Darul Islam is constantly in a state of warfare with
non-Muslims. Their idea stems from this verse in the Quran:
"O Prophet! Strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites
and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is the
destination." (Quran 9:73)
Radical Muslims who use this verse to justify their intolerance of
non-Muslim culture are taking this revelation totally out of its
context. If they would only bother to read the Quran further, they
would find that the verse actually continues:
"They swear by God they have said nothing while they did pronounce
the word of disbelief; they disbelieve after their commitment to
(live in) peace and they meditated a plot which they were unable to
carry out." (Quran 9:74)
The revelation refers to a plot made by the Prophet's enemies to
kill him when he was returning from Tabuk. The plot failed. Amongst
the plotters had been men from Medina, who had been enriched by the
general prosperity that followed the peace established through
Islam in Medina. As can be seen, the verse has nothing to do with
calling on Muslims to make war on ALL unbelievers and
non-Muslims.
By the same token, it is entirely possible to derive militant
teachings from the Bible by taking what Jesus said out of its
context.
"Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not
come to bring peace, but a sword." (Bible, Matthew 10:34)
Islamic scholars who equate jihad with holy war are treading on
very dangerous ground because Islam has never advocated violence as
a means to an end. Many people, non-Muslims and (sadly enough)
Muslims, think that jihad means holy war. But this is an impossible
definition.
Ibn Rushd, in his Muqaddimaat, divides Jihad into four kinds:
1. Jihad by the heart;
2. Jihad by the tongue;
3. Jihad by the hand and
4. Jihad by the sword.
He defines Jihad by the tongue as to commend good conduct and
forbid the wrong. A Muslim is only allowed to take up arms when he
or she is revented from carrying out his religious duties, or is
being treated unfairly. The Quran is extremely clear on this:
"Fight those who fight against you along God's way, yet do not
initiate hostilities; God does not love aggressors." (Quran
2:190)
Muslims are not allowed to provoke a conflict with anyone, Muslims
and non-Muslims alike. Even before the Prophet conducted Jihad by
sword against the unbelievers, he invited them peacefully, lodged
protests against their actions and strove to remove their
misgivings about Islam. When they refused, and waged a war against
him, there was no alternative but to fight back.
Jihad by the sword is only sanctioned when all other choices have
run out. It is the final resort, and represents a relentless stand
against all forms of persecution and unfair treatment. Despite
these stringent conditions, some Muslim jurists still enjoy quoting
seemingly militant verses from the Quran. Verses like this
one:
"You who believe, do not accept Jews or Christians as sponsors;
some of them act as sponsors for one another. Any of you who makes
friends with them becomes one of them. God does not guide such
wrongdoing folk." (Quran 5:51)
The question arises: How can we show kindness, affection and good
treatment to non-Muslims since God Himself prohibits Muslims to
take unbelievers as friends, allies and supporters? This verse,
therefore, is very popular amongst Muslims who believe that Jews
and Christians and other non-Muslims are the natural enemies of
Islam.
It must be understood, however, that this verse is not
unconditional, to be applied to every single Jew, Christian or
non-Muslim. Interpreting them in such a narrow-minded and barbaric
manner flatly contradicts the injunctions of the Quran, which
encourages affection and kindness to the good and peace-loving
peoples of every religion.
The verses cited above were revealed in relation to those people
who were hostile to Islam and made war upon the Muslims during the
Prophet's time. The Prophet's initial peaceful co-existence with
the Jews in Medina is a particularly telling example. It was only
after the Jewish tribes had betrayed the Muslims and overturned the
peace treaty that was in force that the Prophet decided to wage war
against them.
These radical elements thrive on the imaginations of people; more
specifically, Muslims who have little in the way of secular
education, and hang onto every word that their clergy, or ulema
says. In an Islamic utopia, faith, conscience, compassion and
reason should always be the driving force for political
considerations. Muslim leaders who struggle in a democracy face a
paradoxical task in trying to garner support and maintaining their
religious identity. Backed into a tight corner, these Muslims
leaders have little choice but to use religion to sway the people.
The focus of these leaders shifts from espousing a responsible and
humble interpretation of Islam to a faith that is emotional,
fierce, savagely besieged and armed with boundless hatred for the
unbelievers and alleged hypocrites. In other words, they learn to
play the "game", as we see every single time America or Great
Britain holds a presidential election.
In developing nations like Indonesia and Pakistan, where the
unemployment and poverty rate is high, such a dramatic
interpretation of Islam is a highly attractive one.
Within the peripheries of such an uneasy political climate, the
term hypocrite, or munafiqqin, is thrown about in a liberal and an
almost indifferent manner, usually towards the direction of fellow
Muslims who share the same faith, but not the same political party.
Opposition parties who are led by unbelievers, or kafirs, do not
even warrant a second glance. It is a topic not even the lowliest
Muslim politician would waste any time on.
Muslims today are splintered and disunited. Even in countries that
purport to be Islamic, Muslims are still a minority, divided more
often than not, by political aspirations. When political
considerations are placed before any need to maintain religious
unity, a country will be torn apart. This is very clearly
demonstrated in Indonesia, where the hearts and minds of its
Muslims are pulled this way and that by quasi-religious political
groups. Power is all they seek when they sanction their so-called
hatred of ALL unbelievers by their selective interpretation of
Islam. They quote verses from the Quran to justify their political
integrity and stir up rallies and demonstrations against their
government, not realizing that the Prophet himself discouraged such
practices.
Hudhaifa bin al-Yaman narrated: "The Prophet said, 'there will be
after me leaders who do not follow my guidance and do not follow my
sunna, and there will be among them men whose hearts are like those
of satan in the body of a human being.' And I asked the Prophet,
'What I should do at that time if I reach it?' He said, 'listen and
obey the ruler, even if he lashed your back and took your money,
listen and obey.'"
The hadith continues with this narration from Auf bin Malik: "O
Prophet of Allah, do you recommend that we fight them (the Muslim
wrongdoers)?" He said, "No, don't fight them as long as they do not
prevent you from your prayers. And if you see from them something
that you dislike, dislike their acts, do not dislike them. And do
not take your hand out from obedience to them."
And the hadith continues with Abdullah ibn al-Abbas's narration:
"if someone dislikes his ruler, he must be patient, because if he
comes against the ruler in a rebellious or destructive manner by
only a handspan and dies, he dies in a state of pre-Islamic
ignorance (jahiliyyah) and sin."
We will only understand why the Prophet said this when we look at
what happened in East Timor when so-called freedom fighters whose
initial goal was to break free of the Indonesian government
gradually expanded their activities to target innocent Chinese and
Christian minorities.
Extremism, hence, is not Islamic in nature. People who use religion
to cover their crimes are quite simply, nothing more than
bloodthirsty monsters. They belong to no race or religion, creed or
nationality, except to that special club who has seen such
"luminaries" as Hitler, Milosevic, Saddame Hussein and Attila the
Hun pass through its doors. They forget that the door only opens
one way.
Even so, the media has, sadly enough, made the Muslims' task of
dawaah more difficult and also more urgent. Compare the media today
with the people in Mecca who used to follow the Prophet around the
city, making fun of his preaching and his words. Despite his
insurmountable obstacles, he persevered, and never raised a finger
against his dissenters. He argued forcefully, but never in a brutal
manner. He sought salvation for his dissenters, not their demise.
He hated war, and loved reason and gentle behavior.
It is worrying that the media has had no compunction in publishing
responsible and verified articles. The typical media's excuse is
that they have to print out a diversity of views in order for the
reader to make an "objective" and "informed' decision about how he
is to see Muslims and their faith in general. How objective is
their "objectivity" when the only result of this is that innocent
Muslims all over the world are being targeted by hate-crimes? In
Britain alone, attacks on Muslims have soared to over 13 times the
average since the September 11th attacks. (Straits Times, 5th
January 2002). 12 Muslims girls wearing headscarves have been
sexually assaulted. This hatred and hostility to Muslims is not
confined to Britain alone. It is widespread, especially amongst
western countries.
Compare this to the events leading to the horrific massacre of more
than six million Jews in Europe. The propaganda machines of
European mass communication perpetuated reckless accusations that
the Jews were "different" and "culturally-alien". The propaganda
was so successful that German and Polish civilians had absolutely
no problems betraying their Hebrew neighbors to the secret police.
Even the Vatican had sheep's wool pulled over their eyes in the
brutal round-up of Jews in Europe. It is heartening that the Pope
has recently apologized for the Church's role in the genocide. But
after six million deaths, nothing can take away that shameful part
of history.
The media can continue to print all the diverse articles, but it
must at least acknowledge that it is contributing to the already
tense situation. This strain cannot be underestimated, because it
may very well cause a chasm to open between the races in Singapore.
In a way, the media is giving terrorists' groups like Al-Queda more
than enough rope to tie a noose around the neck of the whole great
republic of Singapore.
The Muslims in Singapore must realize that diversity is a fact of
life. We cannot turn away from it just as we cannot turn away from
the fact that we too have our own divisions and internal conflicts.
Muslims must stand together and unite in condemning and eradicating
all forms of violence and terrorism. Unity that is formed on the
tail of a violent act is false. Unity that is formed from the basis
of Islam, or peace, is the truest handhold. To do this, religious
teachers must first be persuaded to teach a more responsible form
of Islam. One that is at peace with itself; this more than anything
else. From this, a stronger confidence will emerge, and bring Islam
and Muslims into a new era of non-violence. Only when we have
strengthened our umma can we be credible. I am certain that this
newfound credibility will be significant in any request that we
want to make of our government. One example being that of the issue
of headscarves in our schools.
Throughout this essay, I have tended to ignore the external forces
that shape the Islamic identity. Forces like Israel's and America's
continued oppression of Palestinians, the paradoxical sanctions
imposed on Iraq etc. I have ignored these because I strongly feel
that whatever change must be done, has to begin from within the
community itself. Only when we stand united do we have the chance
to forge a fresh identity.
I love this country, please don't let it go up in flames.