KHUTAB V: 20. MEANS AND OBJECTIVES
20. MEANS AND OBJECTIVES
One
of the prominent scholars in Islam in the 20th century was the late
Shaykh Muhammad al- Ghazālī. He was born in Egypt on 22 September 1917 and died
in Saudi Arabia on 9 May 1996 at the age of 78. Before he was born it was said
that his father had seen al-Imam al-Ghazālī in his dream, and told him the he
would have a son, and advised him to name him his name, al-Ghazālī. His father
accepted the advice and called him “Muhammad al-Ghazālī” expecting a good omen with al-Imam al-Ghazālī.
Shaykh Muhammad al-Ghazālī was a scholar, an
Islamic thinker dā ‘iyah (Islamic propagator) and a prolific writer. He was
nicknamed عَبْقَرِيُّ
الدَّعْوَة (“the genius of Islamic call”) and أَدِيْبُ الدَّعْوَة
(“the man-of-letters of Islamic call”). His criticism towards his contemporary
ruling regimes in Islamic world gave him troubles in Egypt as well as in Saudi Arabia. He wrote more
than 50 books. One of his books is entitled السُنَّة النَّبَوِيَّة بَينَ أَهْلِ الفِقْهِ .. وَ أَهْلِ
الْحَدِيْث (“The Prophetic Sunnah between Experts of
Fiqh and Experts of Ḥadith”). The book was very popular that it was reprinted
seven times in the year it was published in 1989. One of many interesting
topics in this book is entitled وَسَائِل وَ غَايَات (“Means and Objectives”). He deals with what
is changing and what is permanent in the field of jihād and shūrā.
Citing the ḥadīth of the
Prophet s.a.w. that said: أَنْتُمْ أَعْلَمُ بأُمُورِ دُنْيَاكُم
(“You know better your worldly affairs”) he said that the worldly affairs
belong to human efforts, Muslims as well as non-Muslims. Prophets sent by Allah
were not to teach people crafts and skills, not as engineers of physicians. The
core of their messages was to explain the beliefs, the acts of worship,
morality and purifying the souls and the community. They propagated teachings
which regulate human relations with their Lord, with their fellow human beings,
and to make them ponder their return to their Lord as pious people.
There are other fields similar to
those of worldly affairs dealing with freedom of movement, invention, and
competition. They are the means which are inevitable to achieve the decided
religious objectives, where the believers are left to find the way to achieve
it, and where no obligatory laws are mentioned. For example, the obligatory prayer which has to be performed
the way it was detailed by the law giver (Allah), and to be acted upon without
addition or reduction.
On the other hand, jihad in
fighting the enemy, although it is also obligatory, but its tools and
regulations have no specific forms (models). With the change of weapons from
swords and arrows to cannons and rockets, the old regulations also changed. Ribāṭ
al-khayl (“steeds of war) would change into building airports and modern
fortresses, establishing institutes of chemical, nuclear and astronomy
sciences, etc. In the past man bought his own weapon by his own money. He took
care of it, and trained himself with it. Whenever he heard the call to the
battle-field, he went out walking or riding his horse specially trained for
fighting. If he became martyred he would leave behind widows and orphans. If he
was wounded, he himself had to bear the expense of his treatment. In such
condition, the regulation of ghanīmah (booty, spoils of war) had to be
applied, and its imposition is just. Many divine texts explain it and fix its
shares.
Today conditions have radically changed. It is the state that recruits
individuals in general. It feeds, clothes, and equips the enlisted young man
with arms to be fully prepared to fight in the battlefield. It treats him if he
is wounded, and if he died, it honours him and takes care of his family. As
long as he lives he receives salary which could increase with the increase of
his rank. This system of having regular forces has become an inevitable
necessity. Defending the country can no longer be relied on volunteers or
individual conditions. Otherwise, this would make nations be trampled down in
the crowd of the living and in the oppression of the strong.
With this new regulation the regulation dealing with spoils of war also
changes completely. The state establishes new direction in punishing war
criminals and treating the good and the bad. Based on this changing situation
the Prophet s.a.w. divided the shares of the booty in the battle of
Khaybar, one share for the infantry and two shares for the horse. The horse
rider will have one share, so that he and his horse will have three shares of
the booty. Abu Hanifah rejects this view citing another hadith stating
that the horse rider will have two shares, and the infantry will have one
share, and the horse as an animal will have nothing rather than two shares,
while the infantry will have only one. However, Shaykh al-Ghazālī said this
issue has been closed, as winning the war depends mostly on more sophisticated
and accurate arms, such as armoured cruisers and planes. The principle laid
down by the Prophet that the one who killed his enemy (in the battlefield) the
booty will belong to him is also no longer applicable.
Allah says in the Qur’ān dealing
with the booty, as follows:
وَاعْلَمُوا أَنَّمَا
غَنِمْتُمْ مِنْ شَيْءٍ فَأَنَّ لِلَّهِ خُمُسَهُ وَلِلرَّسُولِ وَلِذِي الْقُرْبَى
وَالْيَتَامَى وَالْمَسَاكِينِ وَابْنِ السَّبِيلِ إِنْ كُنْتُمْ آَمَنْتُمْ بِاللَّهِ
وَمَا أَنْزَلْنَا عَلَى عَبْدِنَا يَوْمَ الْفُرْقَانِ
يَوْمَ الْتَقَى الْجَمْعَانِ وَاللَّهُ عَلَى كُلِّ
شَيْءٍ قَدِيرٌ (الأنفال:41)
And
know that whatever of war-booty that you may gain, verily, one-fifth of it is
assigned to Allah, and to the Messenger, and to the near relatives [of the
Messenger] (and also) the orphans, the needy and the wayfarer, if you have
believed in Allah and in that which We sent down to our slave (Muhamad) on the
Day of criterion (between right and wrong), the Day when the two forces met (in
the battle of Badr); and Allah is Able to do all things. (Q.
8:41)
Then we may rashly say that falsehood cannot come to the
Qur’ān from before it or behind it [as
mentioned in Q. 41:42], and that its texts will remain forever, and nothing can
abrogate it. We, then, wonder what this
verse means. Shall we give four-fifth of the booty to the army and the
remaining one-fifth to the rest of the recipients mentioned in the verse?
Shaykh al-Ghazālī in this case leans to the view of Imam Malik that the
one-fifth share in the booty is only one way, and the state is not incumbent to
apply it, if it sees any benefit in other than that one-fifth. It has to be
viewed in wider perspective.
Imam Malik based his view on the case where the
Prophet unexpectedly divided the booty of the battle of Ḥunayn solely among freedmen which almost saddened his
companions until he explained the wisdom behind it. Imam Malik also gave as
evidence what the Caliph ‘Umar ibn
al-Khaṭṭāb did with the conquered land. He refused to give the
four-fifth of it to the conquerors, but gave them a portion from the tax
imposed on it. The Muslim scholars in the mass consider this solution belonging
to al-maṣāliḥ al-mursalah (public interests). There is no doubt,
according to Shaykh al-Gazālī, that ‘Umar’s initiation was more reasonable and
more significant in Islam and the Muslims.
Unlike ablution in which there is no room for
individual opinion, the equipment of jihad and its means are not fixed
or put in calculation, and therefore, reason is its main source. There is no
objection to bring the most modern arms from the West or from the East, and
there is no objection that we are trained by experts from any colour or faith;
what remains is that to use them according to the rules of honour taught by
Islam.
Like the shūrá(mutual
consultation) which is a great principle, the means of its actualization and
the application of its equipment have not been fixed yet. Apparently, this is
due to the difference of environments and cultural levels. We notice this case
even in a nation with high civilization.
What is important is to fulfill the security and
methods which render the shūrā a protected reality, so that individual
despotism will disappear, and political paganism will die, and the right view
will prevail without obstacle, and the qualified man will come forward without
resentment.
But these cannot be achieved without faith and
morality. The Islamic East had copied the Western democracy when it was in
its low phase in its history: baffling
forgery in elections, and political paganism took its way in the midst of a
halo of false support of people. A number of Muslim rulers killed thousand
people to achieve glory and to make their names hailed by people.
We have to clarify the difference between legal
opposition and revolution which destroys the structure of the community, or
between obligatory criticism and armed offence. Modern democracy considers
opposition as part of general rule of the state. This opposition has a leader
recognized, and with whom mutual understanding could be achieved without any
restraint. The ruler is a human being, some would support him and others would
oppose him, and none of the two deserves respect more than the other. This is
what we are having in Australia, the ruler under Prime Minister Kevin Rudd of
the Labor party, and the opposition is led by Tony Abbot of the Liberal party.
Soon, we shall have an election to decide which of the two parties wins the election.
This view of al-Ghazālī is very close to the teachings
of the rightly guided caliphs. ‘Ali ibn Abī Ṭālib, for example, did not attack
those who opposed him, but he said to them: “Keep your opinion if you wish on
condition not to create confusion and not to spill blood.” So, this great man
‘Ali wanted a creative opposition, not a destructive one, and he did not
consider the opposition against him as munkar (reprehensible). He said
to the Khawārij (those who opposed and abandoned him): “Be as you like to be,
between you and me is that no blood spill, no engagement in highway robbery,
and no injustice committed. Otherwise, I would declare war against you.” So,
any opposition against the ruler does not constitute fighting it, unless it
poses a threat to the country. Ibn ‘Umar narrated that the Prophet said: مَنْ حَمَلَ عَلَيْنَا السِّلَاحَ فَلَيْسَ
مِنَّا (رواه أحمد) "Whoever carries arms against us is not one of us" (Reported by . Aḥmad)
Shaykh al-Ghazālī asked this rhetorical question: “Is
fighting Islam under the pretext of fighting extremism a kind of democracy?” He
said that there are rulers in the Arab and Muslim world who extremely hate what
Allah has revealed, and become furious
if they see a girl covering her head and her shoulders, and reject angrily any
outcry to cancel the rules brought by the imperialist world when it
occupied their countries. He asked: “Is it democracy, or an extension of
the old humiliation and Crusade attack on the Muslim world?” There were rulers among them who wanted to
kill people in the name of people, and to bury freedom in the name of freedom.
This case reminds me of the old Arabic proverb: يَبْنِي
قَصْرًا وَ يَهْدِمُ مِصْرًا (“He builds a palace, but he destroys a
city”)
Shaykh Muḥammad al-Ghazālī
expressed this view 24 years ago in 1989. What he wanted to say is that Islam
is not a static and rigid religion, as some would claim, but a dynamic one.
However, those who misunderstand it will become extreme, and act contrary to
the spirit of its teachings. (CIVIC, 28June, 13)
المصادر:
محمد الغزالي. السنة النبوية بين أهل
الفقه و أهل الحديث. القاهرة: دار الشروق , 1989.
المكتبة الشاملة
Comments
Post a Comment