This is a cross-post by Usama Hasan
Bismillah. This is by Rashad Ali (edited by myself), in response to a discussion about whether or not Muslims can be loyal citizens of non-Muslim countries whilst remaining part of the fellowship of the people of God (which is what the Qur’anic term “ummah” means, eg in Surah al-Anbiya’ or The Prophets). It is reproduced here to stimulate discussion of this vital topic.
—
Ummah is not a simplistic Muslim political bloc in the Qur’an & Hadith. It is used at times to mean the faithful, as in the verse, “You are the best nation” (Al-Imran or the Family of Imran), although even Umar was said to have held the view that this referred primarily to the Companions. Sometimes in the political sense it does not imply folk of one religion only, but rather society as a whole, composed of different religions – as in the Sunnah description of the Jews and Muslims of Madinah as one Ummah (nation), separate from all other nations (ref: the Mithaq or Covenant of Madinah).
It was on this basis that jurists have explained the special tie that nations and people within a country have to each other. Sheikh al-Islam Syed Husain Ahmed al-Madani explains this point of the relationship with the nation in his book Islam aur Qaumiyat Mutahidda (translated into English as “Composite Nationalism & Islam”). This is why in fiqh terms it has always been the case that certain countries and empires can have treaties of peace with others whilst other countries/empires ruled over by Muslims don’t – this is a historic fact and a shar’i reality – see Sheikh Afifi al-Akiti’s fatwa refuting suicide bombing where he mentions this.
In Muslim belief, everyone from the time of the Prophet till the day of judgment is the Ummah of Muhammad (Sallallahu alaihi wasallam). Ibn Hajar explained in the Fath al-Bari that some (the ummah of istijabah) have accepted the Prophet’s invitation to Islam. Others are still being called and hence they are the Ummah of Da’wah. Sheikh Shinqiti also mentions this in his tafsir, the Adwa’ al-Bayan.
In classical fiqh terms, if you lived in a land then your relationship meant that even if that land was at war with the Muslim empires you took no part and it was forbidden to do so; in fact this was the case if you had a treaty with that country and others did not – as alluded to in the Qur’an itself. Sarkhasi elaborated further and explained that any country which gave Muslims safety to live and practice their religion and was attacked, then the Muslim living within that country should join the military ranks and fight to defend such a country, citing the example of Ja’far bin Abi Talib, who according to the Mujtahid Imam, fought alongside and gave support to the Negus of Abyssinia.
There is a further extension of this in fiqh terms related to defining the land as a homeland for Islam. Ibn Hajar al-Haytami gave the fatwa that any land or empire where Muslims could practice their faith belonged to Dar al-Islam (as the Shafi’i madhhab states) and therefore if it was attacked by rebels or foreigners the Muslim majority countries/empires were obliged to fight to defend its integrity.
So, I don’t think the simplistic approach of “We are one Ummah etc.” is quite clear in the text or in fiqh terms. It all depends upon the political and social analysis that is made and then we decide what is the most appropriate form of response. Today, scholars like Mufti Juday and Sheikh Ibn Bayyah have taken the view that we live in an unprecedented situation, where in the western world we are given citizenship rights, not subjects as all were in the past of the king or caliph, but citizens who can all participate in shaping the governance and laws and rules of our society. This is a new reality which allows the practice of faith and political rights and respecting difference and religious rights. This means we interact with it accordingly – we have a social contract in a metaphysical, political and religious sense. Our loyalty is to fulfilling such agreements and respecting these political and social agreements and our faith ensures such fealty and loyalty. As Allah says in the Qur’an, “Awfu bi l-’Uqud” (5:1) – fulfil your undertakings and obligations.
In this sense we are a part of this society and Ummah and we have responsibilities here and now which are our primary responsibilities. This is so, whilst not forgetting that we are a part of humanity, to whom we have responsibility also, as the Prophet said to the companions in a mass-transmitted authentic hadith as mentioned by Najm al-Din Haythami, “You do not have faith until you have mercy.” The companions responded, “We have mercy for one another.” The Prophet sallallahhu alaihi wasallam, replied, “You do not have faith till you have mercy, and you do not have mercy till you have mercy for mankind, each and every one of them (al-nas jami’an).” And yes, within it we do identify with our fellow Muslims, but not as an exclusivist brotherhood, as the Prophet included all people within the brotherhood of mankind, as indicated in the hadith, “None of you has faith till he loves for his brother (in the narration of Imam Bukhari in his Tarikh: ‘… loves for mankind’) what he loves for himself.” Imam Nawawi explained that “brother” here primarily referred to the non-Muslim brothers of the early converts to Islam, and so the hadith applies to non-Muslims (and Muslims) generally and hence to the whole of mankind.
33 Comments
Excellent post, now wait for Islamist trolls to turn up and start throwing accusations around which have no relevance to the topic.
It is an excellent post but fatally undermined by being posted on here- a blog which publishes articles rubbishing the same Quran, Hadith, blessed Prophet (peace be upon him) and following of the ulema this article’s credibility is based on.
The first commenter’s prediction was right in one!
If you find it uncomfortable reading it here you can go and read it on Usama Hasan’s own site.
We don’t need Usama ‘the out cast & confused’ Hasan to tell us that we can be loyal citizens his father is far more respected and admired than he. COuld we get some cross post from him??
LOL dont think Spittoon have read Usama’s article defending jihad -”Recapturing Islam from the pacifists”
The post was actually written by the ex-HT mujtahid Rashad Zaman Ali!
Usama edited it. Good post Rashad : )
I find it extraordinary, given the status of mujtahid in the Shi’a world, how easily such a title is bestowed on Sunni brethren – however HT deranged. On the other hand, every other semi-literate bigot is dubbed Shaykh – so should I be surprised?
“LOL dont think Spittoon have read Usama’s article defending jihad -”Recapturing Islam from the pacifists””
One of the reasons why Usama Hasan should be championed and respected is because he had the intelligence and the personal courage to renounce that nonsense. He is a remarkable man.
Of course Muslims can be loyal, my father fought for Britain against the Nazis, almost a million Muslims from around the world fought for the Empire during WWII alone, so we have earned our stay. However on the subject of loyalty, Britain has largely forgotten the role of Muslims during both wars. More than 1 million volunteered from British India alone.
More effort needs to be made to illustrate the role of Muslims and in turn that should create a better environment of belonging, attachment and loyalty.
Some of our brethren in British India were so loyal and lowly that they butchered their fellow Indians when commanded by General Dyer, now thats what you call dogged loyalty. We turned on ourselves for the sake of our paymasters something exhibited by some of you geeks. Mercy is wonderful but there comes a point where survival becomes paramount and a stance is crucial.
Essentially we can become loyal citizens and even moreso when we speak out against ills and double standards, our criticism is our patriotism, something you faggots are not in favour with.
However Spittoon does publish some good articles now and again.
“Essentially we can become loyal citizens and even moreso when we speak out against ills and double standards, our criticism is our patriotism, something you faggots are not in favour with.”
Yes it is quite right to speak out against ills and double standards of course. But does that preclude speaking out against the ills and double standards of Islamic extremism? What kind of “faggot” does that!?
There is no such thing as double standards when it comes to Islamic extremism, theres no gray area here. Extremism and Islam, immiscible, Islamic extremism an oxymoron. Only a fool could confuse the two!
Its just ironic to hear it from you, someone who usually refrains from criticising western interventions in foreign lands. You must feel very jolly and gay when you hammer your side of the story without ever airing some of the double standards projected by our own government.
Look, there are many Non-Muslim activitists who openly oppose our governments duplicitous endeavours but as soon as a Muslim criticises something similar he fears being labelled an extremist. I’d rather say it how it is and be honest and courageous enough to admit a wrong when I see it. To speak the truth is mandatory or does your version of Islam allow you to conceal your inner thoughts by administering a different public message.
The ambivalent rhetoric of the spittoon gang is ever present.
“Its just ironic to hear it from you, someone who usually refrains from criticising western interventions in foreign lands. You must feel very jolly and gay when you hammer your side of the story without ever airing some of the double standards projected by our own government.”
I never refrained from criticising the Iraq war which I was consistently against. I was, however, supportive of the NATO military intervention in Afghanistan to remove the Taliban and the continuing war there. Although recent developments and leaks suggest that intel-based tactics have suffered resulted in a loss of morale and resolve. A great pity.
There is nothing inconsistent with these positions. The problem occurs when opposing military wars conducted by the West is little more than a cover for the tacit support of Islamist extremists with the added relativist spin that they represent or serve the interests of the large majority of Muslim in their lands, when clearly they are fighting for their own particular cause and their attempts to establish totalitarian systems.
There is also a “separatist” tendency in Islamic discourse which attempts to represent all Muslims fighting revolutionary causes as unquestionably ethical and religiously sanctioned simply because Islam itself unfolded as a revolutionary ideal. This results in the unfortunate sight of sanctifying and championing any “revolutionary” cause no matter how depraved and evil their actions are. That, if anything, is “ambivalent rhetoric”.
You’re right, sorry for making such a slanderous attack, I had no idea that you felt that way about the war in Iraq. Forgive my accussations, I shall never use that kind of language again!
No problem!
I must be honest, this article makes several valid points, and I agree that we as Muslims portray little in the way of mercy but more in the way of spite.
We have a wonderful formula when it is properly enacted but for some reason we have failed to understand it, just take a look at the large representation of Muslims in British prisons. I’m afraid mass jahilliyah has taken over and we should look at ourselves before we blame others!
Of course Muslims can and are valued citizens of non Muslim countries. Not everyone can be as charming as Abu Farris or as noble as Stephen Schwartz of the Center of Islamic Pluralism but those are the breaks.
I want to thank Faisal for our exchanges at Harry’s Place. I don’t agree with you but I respect your opinions that I disagree with. I am a survivor of two terrorist attacks at the WTC so I do not expect you to grasp why Ground Zero is more than expensive real estate to me. That day changed my life forever and I dedicated myself to public service as just earning dollars wasn’t enough. It is a very special place to people like me who lived through it and people who watched in horror around the world.
Your disagreement is a different animal than that of a far left publicity hound who grasps the meaning of the site but wishes to annoy Americans at every point.
Beakerkin
Good to discuss the matter of the Ground Zero mosque with you on HP. It’s complicated, sensitive matter which can do without the simplistic hysterics that now dominates the Ground Zero story.
As usual, Hitchens is on the money:
http://www.slate.com/id/2263334/
We agree to disagree on this one.
I can’t ever convey what happened there twice to you. I hope you never see a fraction of what I saw and lived through. I used to think my Uncle was crazy when he described an inhuman burning evil smell of pure burning death and evil. I smelled that scent for weeks and that is a small part of it.
I work nearby and pass the site every day. It is not easy on me, but life isn’t meant to be. Ten blocks North of Ground Zero is a thriving mostly Pakistani business enclave. You can google the Pakistani Tea house Church St. Many businesses in that area are run by Muslims. Even the street vendors across from the Federal Building where I work are Muslims. In the old days as a younger officer I could walk across and grab some kebabs. Now that I have to mentor juniors my time is limited.
If everyone agreed it wouldn’t be America or my beloved NYC. NYC is a magical place that is its own world.
Beakerkin
Why does your sense of victimhood require you to play down the fact that there were dozens of Muslims who were also victims of 9/11? Are they merely an inconsequential detail of the terrorist attack?
Faisal
I am no victim. I am just an otherwise ordinary NYC resident who was there for it twice. All sorts of people died and I have not stated otherwise. 9-11 was a crime against humanity by people who were acting for what they thought was the cause of Islam.
This does not make the congenial Abu Faris or yourself responsible for crimes that were committed in the name of Islam. I have zero doubt that Farris would have risked his own life to save others as he is noble of spirit and values life.
We return to the old argument of detaching things from its history. One can not nor should not divorce Nazism from Auschwitz or Communism from Killings Fields and Gulags. 9-11 may not be neatly unhitched from Islam because you wish it so. The best you can do is point to that event like Steven Schwartz or Farris and state that this is not definition of Islam.
You really have a poor grasp on what that event means to NYC residents and many people who watched at home. This was the defining moment of my generation in the same way that Pearl Harbor or the assassination of JFK defined theirs. You can visit both sites and see history preserved and respected.
As for me, I decided to change my career on that day and became a federal officer.
I serve the entire American people and defend the Constitution. The fact that something is legal does not infer it is prudent.
For my generation placing an oversized 13 story Mosque in the shadow of ground zero shows a failure to grasp how the locals view the area. Even in very liberal NYC the public is overwhelmingly against this project. You are not familiar with NYC residents and I suggest you come here and see how the locals view Ground Zero. To us it is far more than mere expensive real estate.
Every year the Navy comes into NYC on Memorial day. My family arranges for me to take sailors around the city. The first thing sailors want to do is retrace my steps on that day. I am usually joined by extra sailors who wander into my story. I remind them I am no hero, but they see it otherwise.
You need to understand others see that day very differently. I strongly advise you
to rethink the dismissive tone you use to discuss that day. Even in far left Northern
Vermont 9-11 is a serious matter.
Beakerkin, I would be moved too if just one building was destroyed in my home town. Yet the same way that you feel so moved by 9/11 incident, where 5000 people died, in NYC, – a place where “history is preserved and respected” – I can imagine how Billions of people worldwide can NOT fathom how the LOCAL Afghan and Iraqis feel, about their own towns and cities – where HISTORY has been preserved since the beginning of Mesopotamian and earlier human civilizations.
Millions of Iraqi and Afghan citizens see in their eyes, not just the death of 5000 people or a twin towers, but entire historic provinces, villages and towns wiped out of millions of locals, all in the excuse of “war”. Just as you feel closely nostalgic about 9/11 – imagine how a local would feel about the destruction of a town e.g. Karbala – or Kandahar – which have been no less reverent through history & in Holy Books than Jerusalem or Mecca.
Multiply your reaction by a few million, and that MAY equate the sorrow felt by Iraq-Afghan locals. But their grief are declared bad journalism, far less exposed than Vietnam war – and only published ‘illegaly’ by Wiki-Leaks!!
So the counter-question to this topic could/should be “Can Non-Muslims be loyal partners of Muslim countries”? Should USA be allowed to build massive American structures in Iraq & Afghanistan, places which they demolished along with 100′s of millions of locals?
If a Mosque, the ultimate spiritual symbol, is questioned in an US city, why should mega Military Bases (the ultimate destruction symbol) be permitted in non-US countries? The video-game response to above questions is: bury those incidents of “history” and shake the hands of muslim-non-muslim symbols of hatred, and move on with the construction of mosques and bases in both places.
But the Non-Muslim answer is: “sanction the Arabs to their neck, until they all implode and disappear from the face of this earth, so that we can enjoy their riches & fossil resources” !!
Kgazi
Nobody is saying that no Mosques can be built in the USA. The vast majority of the opponents, including myself, want the Mosque built where the Muslim community in the area is located about ten blocks North. This is about respecting a historic point.
Moving onto the Iraq and Afghan situations
The USA does not intentionally target Mosques unlike religious lunatics who blow up mosques of rival sects. As far as Afghanistan one can spare me the hypocrisy of pretending a brutal regime that harbored terrorists who targeted civilians and blew up Bhudist Statues is unwarranted. Terrorists have used Mosques to hide in and protect themselves as well.
It is funny that you should talk about reciprocity. It is not an area where you can
really have a convincing argument. Saudi Arabia bans Churches and other religious sites. Even Egypt places restrictions on where Churches can be built.
Saying move a mosque North is far different from bans or very tight controls as in the case of Egypt. Perhaps you think of Americanism as McDonalds, Disney theme Parks and Military bases.
As for the last paragraph I think you need to sit down and read Indigenous People
Under the Rule of Islam by Fred P Isaac.
We may only get to the question of where do we go from here by taking a serious look at Islamic history and Western Values.
Step One
Muslims are not victims and have their own issues of injustices to other people
After step one then we get to step two which can be done when the Muslim community produces men with Freedom in their hearts who value all life in their soul like Stephen Schwartz of the CIP and Abu Farris.
Step Two
Where does Islam belong in the West.
Beside every other religion in a society that respects all religions, individual rights,
respects property rights and is based on secular law.
Step Three
What type of world do we wish to build?
We can not build a safe world when people wish to create global rule via sacred text or manifesto. However we can never allow the ends justify the means to become that which is evil.
We likely will never get to step three.
Hear, hear Beakerkin. Your last post hit the nail on the head. However I do think that Muslims are victims. Unfortunately for Kgazis’ arguement they are overwhelmingly the victims of other Muslims.
I’d love to know where you get your figures from Kgazi? Millions, then 100s of millions “demolished” by the west when as I said above the west wasn’t to blame in the majority of the cases, maybe even the GREAT majority. Is this hyperbole? Or do you actually believe what you say K?
Beakerkin,
The hypocrisy of “US values” is exposed in the Iraq war, period. Read Wiki Leaks.
The hypocrisy of Afghan “war” is exposed in US “accidentally discovering” $Trillion worth mineral resources, not in one spot, but spread all over Afghanistan after over 2 years of American mineral excavation.
The hypocrisy of “US freedom of religion” values and their “rebuilding Iraq & Afghan” rhetoric is exposed in NYC mosque fiasco.
John Stevens
Allright that should have been hundreds of ‘thousands’ of Iraq-Afghan civilians killed, displaced, or blown up. How about millions directly affected? Like that better?
Kgazi
What planet are you on?
The Mosque is going to be built with shady money because US law dictates it. The joke of a President is now saying what I have been saying the fact that something is legal does not infer that it is in good taste. Mayor Bloomberg has gone to war and probably destroyed his career on principle. It will be affirmed in court. Then again the USA and NYC are governed by real laws.
The fact that Muslims insist on building a mosque so close to the site of the greatest war crime committed against the American People . This crime was committed in the name of Islam. ( This does not infer that all Muslims are guilty) .
Spare me the idiocy. Where are the Churches in Mecca? Are you remotely familiar with the harassment of Copts in Egypt who must go through absurd rules to repair and build their churches.
As for Islam there are plenty of people who have grievances but do not run around
purposely slaughtering civilians. We can rattle off a list of groups who are oppressed and do not butcher civilians. With rare exception Muslims play word games with terrorism save the minority that are rare like Stephen Schwartz of the Center of Islamic Pluralism. The usual bit is blaming Al Queda while making excuses for it elsewhere. It is rare that a Muslim leader can get up and say terrorism
anywhere hurts the cause of Islam everywhere.
For a look at how actual nations deal with provocations kindly look how Russia has leveled Grozny. Of course shooting school kids in the back by drugged up terrorists
is a war crime. Taking a theatre in Moscow was also a war crime. In fact given the level of the crimes most nations are very restrained and allow a double game.
Afghans can end the war in seconds. Hand over the Al Queda suspects and Muhlah
Omar. If the USA were to borrow from Russia it would level whole cities en masse until it is done. Sorry, but Muslims have been playing the asymmetrical warfare a bit much.
I support Muslims of faith and convictions like Stephen Schwartz of the Center of Islamic Pluralism. Terrorism hurts the cause of Islam and prevents peace. In reality it exacerbates the suffering of Muslims when nations get tired and respond.
“This crime was committed in the name of Islam. ( This does not infer that all Muslims are guilty) .”
———————-
What a joke. The crime was committed by a handful of ciminals, who are not supported by the Islamic community, any criminal can commit any crime “in the name of Islam”. The Hindu leader Gandhi was killed by an Hindu fanatic, in the name of Hinduism – doesnt mean Hinduism is a criminal religion. But the planet you are from, is inferring not only all Muslims ARE guilty, but by linking the religion of Islam with the crime, you are failing to wafflle through to separate Islam itself from the crime. The greater US ‘mis-politics’ in MEast that actually creates these crimes, is further enhanced by these attitudes in NYC.
And of course, these Mollahs who proposed such a mosque plan, knowing the political attitudes of NYC, must themselves be clowns to make such a proposal, after all, if such a mosque is ever built (anywhere in NYC), the LAST person to enter that place will be me. Not interested in pursuing my spirituality in a hostile place like NYC.
So I am done with this comedy, and off to Laguna Beach for a dive. Adios muchacho.
Kgazi
3000 people were not incinerated in the name of Hinduism. 9-11 is a war crime against the people of the United States. Nor is there any rationale in blaming it on foreign policy.
Your comments about mosques in NYC are the product of ignorance. There have been plenty of mosques built in NYC since 9-11.
You need to grasp the magnitude of the crime of 9-11.
Beakerkin
Re: the 2002 Gujurat genocide – 2000 people were not incinerated and countless women raped in the name of Islam but in the name of Hinduism. Gujurat is a war crime against the Muslim people of the world. Nor is there any rationale in blaming it on foreign policy.
You need to grasp the magnitude of the crime of the genocide of Gujurati Muslims.
Eshan Jafari
That has zero to do with the WTC mosque.
If you wish to talk of India that is another thread.
“9-11 is a war crime against the people of the United States. Nor is there any rationale in blaming it on foreign policy.”
——
Beakerkin, the more you write the more brainwashing is exposed. Ha ha ha.
If 9/11 was a “war crime”, then who was the enemy ??
Beakerkin, what are your views on the following:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZpT2Muxoo0
Thanks
Jahan