This is a transcript of my khutba (sermon) last Friday (August 30) at the ISGH Main Center. It was precipitated by a long email exchange with a British-Egyptian Economist friend of mine, who ended our exchange by quoting Bertrand Russell: "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt."
In the traditional liturgical beginning of the sermon, I recited the verses:
(O, people of faith, have the proper measure of God-wariness, and do not die except in a state of submission to Allah (Islam); and hold fast collectively to the cord of Allah, and do not create divisions among yourselves; and recall the blessing of Allah on you when you were enemies and He reconciled your hearts so that you became - by his blessing - like brothers; and you were at the precipice of a pit of fire, then he saved you therefrom; this is how Allah shows you his signs so that you may be guided)
Allah also tells us in the Qur'an that there is no escaping some measure of fitna of one form or another:
(Alef, lam, meem; did people think that they will be left to claim that they have faith without being testes; verily we have tested those who came before them, and verily Allah will know the truthful and know the liars)
The meaning of fitna
that concerns us today is the one that refers to fissures in society, divisions that can turn fatal, like the ones currently witnessed in Syria and to a lesser extent in my native Egypt. It was painful to witness in Egypt a few weeks ago how people on all sides of the issue were so polarized, seeking information only from the sources that tell them what they already believed to be the case, in perfect illustration of the confirmation bias well documented by psychologists
When there is bloodshed, it is often very difficult to assign the full blame. In this regard, the Prophet (pbuh) said:
(If a man feels safe for his life from another, and the latter kills him, then the killer comes on the day of judgement carrying a banner of treason)
and he (pbuh) said:
(If a man trusts another to preserve his life, and the latter kills him, then I absolve myself from the killer, even if the one he killed was an infidel).
Thus, all life is sacred and all murder of noncombatants (Muslim or otherwise) is absolutely forbidden. The second quoted Hadith means that the killer in this case does not get the intercession of the Prophet (pbuh) on the day of judgement -- a terrible punishment.
In the meantime, we have the verses that state:
(And kill them wherever you find them, and expel them from the land from which they expelled you, and fitna is worse than murder, but do not fight them in the Holy Masjid if they fight you there, then if they fight you, kill them, for that is the punishment of the infidels, then if they desist, verily Allah is most forgiving and merciful; and fight them so that it would not be fitna and religion would be for Allah, then if they desist, then do not transgress except against the unjust)
So, we are ordered to fight those who are unjustly creating fitna, because it is worse than murder. But who started the fitna. There are often multiple views on this, and we are only allowed to declare war against the transgressors if we are sure.
My message to you today, whatever side you are on in the conflicts that I have mentioned, is: "Please do not be so sure."
In order to understand the complexities of fissures in society and when they occur, we refer to the following Hadith. Its context is that the Prophet (pbuh) had sent Abu `Ubaydah ibn Al-Jarrah to collect the jizya from Bahrain (as you may know, jizya was the tax paid by non-Muslims under Muslim protection, who did not need to serve in the army; whereas Muslims had to serve in the army and also paid zakah, a wealth tax). After the Prophet (p) had finished fajr prayer, he was about to walk back to his home, adjacent to the masjid, in order to rest for a bit as was his custom. But then, a group of men blocked his access to his home. The Prophet (pbuh) smiled and said knowingly:
(I guess you have heard that Abu `Ubaydah has returned with some money)
They said yes, and he (pbuh) said:
(Then have glad tidings and expect what you were hoping for; verily, by Allah, I do not fear poverty for you, but I fear that the world will be open for you as it was open for those before you, and you will compete for it as they competed, and thus it will ruin you as it ruined them.)
Thus, the Prophet (p) warned us that competition for resources is the most dangerous source of fissures in society that can turn ruinous.
In this regard, it is often difficult to determine what is truly religious and what is political when considering fissures in society that turn bloody. For that reason, I will give you a few examples of these difficulties even during the time of the four rightly guided Caliphs:
The first is the well-known disagreement between Abu Bakr (r) and Umar (r) over one category of the people that were fought by Muslim armies right after the death of the Prophet (pbuh). Some like to whitewash history and try to make it clear that all the tribes that Abu Bakr fought were apostate (murtaddeen), but that was not correct. Some of the tribes were categorized as "those who refused to send zakah" (مانعي الزكاة). These tribes made the shahada profession and performed all the rituals of Islam, including paying zakah, but they only decided to spend it locally instead of sending it to the central treasury in Madinah (for those who know some fiqh, you know that it was later determined that it is better to spend your zakah locally, to remove the poverty of the people with whom you deal on a daily basis). So, Umar (r) determined initially that these people should not be fought, while Abu Bakr (r) swore that he would fight anyone who did not give him even a single rein that they used to send to the Prophet (p). After a long debate, which involved different understandings of the relevant Hadith, Abu Bakr (r) convinced Umar (r) that the right decision was to fight them.
This shows how difficult the issue can be: `Umar was rarely wrong on most issues, his opinions were at times supported by later revelation, and was dubbed by the Prophet (p) as Al-Farouq (the one who separates right from wrong).
In the event, it is impossible to know what would have happened had Abu Bakr (r) not done that. Perhaps the state of Islam at the time required sending as much of the resources as possible to the central treasury, otherwise, Islam may have disintegrated and become a footnote in history. The important point here is to recognize that this was a decision of statesmanship
, not religion, although Abu Bakr (r) had to convince Umar (r) by convincing him that his understanding of the relevant Hadith was incorrect. In the end, Muslims killed Muslims explicitly over zakah money that was not sent to the central treasury during the life of Abu Bakr, as Abu Bakr (r) himself said as per the report of Imam Malik:
(Later, Umar sent back some of the seized properties of the women and children of the tribes whom Abu Bakr had fought).
And as we go forward, we see that during the time of Umar (r), the Arabs of invading armies were allowed to create a class system, wherein the tribe of Quraysh was at the top, followed by other Arab Muslims, followed by the non-Arab Muslims (called mawali), and finally the non-Muslims (called dhimmi). He was assassinated by Abu Lu'lu'a, a Persian who was dismayed by the perceived subjugation of his people and their centuries-long culture.
Then came `Uthman (r), who was a rich Muslim but gave up most of his wealth and lived on a small stipend from the Muslim treasury. However, he was accused in his old age of nepotism for appointing people from his clan (who were successful businessmen and therefore good at administration) in important positions. When the rebels came to kill him, `Ali (r) donned the helmet of the Prophet (p) and wore his sword and went to fight the rebels to protect `Uthman (r), but the latter refused to have a single drop of Muslim blood spilled on his behalf. In the event, his own blood (r) was spilled, because some rebels felt that he was not distributing resources equitably because of these appointments that he made.
Then came the grand fitna. `Ali (r) wanted to fight before `Uthman (r) was killed, but it was very difficult to fight after he became Caliph, especially since many constituents -- most notably Mu`awiya (r) in the Levant -- refused to accept his leadership of the community. Instead of helping to find an agreement, some of `Ali's advisors were concerned that Mu`awiya was only interested in the wealth of the Levant, and some of Mu`awiya's advisors felt the opposite way. The result was no reconciliation and rivers of blood that have not dried to this day.
Fast forwarding to today, before we support the spilling of blood of this group or that, we should first wonder if there are financial dimensions to these groups wanting to claim the right to rule. In most instances, we will find that -- as the Prophet (p) warned us -- the source of our ruinous divisions is nothing more than competition over worldly resources. Even when dressed up in religious or nationalistic rhetoric, we should look for the ulterior motives underneath. Only then can we have some doubt about our view of who is 100% right and who is 100% wrong, and this measure of doubt, however small, can bring the parties to the negotiating table to seek a peaceful solution. Only then can we rediscover the unity, by blessing of Allah, to be saved from the current situation of standing, once again, at the precipice of the pit of fire.