The Muslim Condition: V

I would like to thank Atif Imtiaz, editor of the Bookviews section at DeenPort, for allowing me to reproduce a piece entitled "The Muslim Condition". I have serialised it into several parts and made some minor editions for the sake of presentation. May God reward his efforts. This is the fifth part of what will be a six part series.

Part V: 'Inside Islam'
It is important because Muslim identity politics and Muslim character development are two separate and often contradictory ways of working. For example, Muslim identity politics as it manifests itself today is about righteousness, victimhood, anger, pride, the advocacy of self, the blaming of others, the looking out for self and the looking down on others – all of these have been condemned by scholars of the heart. So though it may seem that we are championing Muslim causes, it may be through means that are un-Muslim. Imam Ghazali has written lengthy treatises in his Ihya Ulum ad-Din on the condemnation of pride and anger – both characteristic of identity politics and Ibn Ata’illah condemns self-righteousness and the looking down on others in his Hikam. Another problem for the Muslim identity paradigm is its lack of concern for personal morality. Morality in this paradigm is a public matter to be upheld and championed but only on those issues that affect the specific group concerned. This is because, as Young (1990) has noted, the nature of public policy dispute forces identity politics groups into cynical manoeuvrings to further their case. But morality, if it is to count (in an eternal sense), has to provide a compass for action beyond political posturing: a personal code that nurtures good character. Islam is therefore not a form of nationalism but an ethics. This affects the immediate outcome as well as people will listen to our complaints of the Muslim situation and our concern for the lack of public morality and accountability and then they will watch us in our everyday actions, and if they see a discrepancy then our case will be weakened. If we are calling for goodness and fairness at the global scale, then people will look to see if we ourselves have goodness in our little everyday behaviour. This point is sometimes extended to such an extent as to make it unreasonable but the issue here is one of methodology, our chosen trajectory of escape has to accept our sinful nature as part of our condition but then work to reduce the discrepancies.

Here we come to the second kind of Islam: 'inside Islam'. Its focus is upon the believer's immediate environment – primarily his self, and thereafter those whom he has to serve and then those whom he should serve if he can. This 'inside Islam' concentrates on the details, the small, regular acts of everyday behaviour – he attempts to secure some order and coherence to his life and thereafter provides whatever service he can (in his area of interest or concern) to those around him. For most this will be in their immediate vicinity, for some – but a minority - this will involve some 'outside' kind of work [1]. All of this community work is khidmah (service) – he recognises that he is only responsible for that which he is able. He feels the suffering of his fellow brothers and sisters but he also knows that endlessly talking about their suffering and the particulars of their political situation will not resolve the situation – he knows that if he is to be sincere to their suffering then his heart must move his limbs to action towards the general betterment of the ummah, as one of the Sufis says: 'If every man were to mend a man, then everyman would be mended'. But all of this moral energy can and must only come from a re-organisation of one's priorities and understandings. All of the above should come about as a result of recognising the true nature of things by distinguishing between that which is miniscule and that which is Magnificent, and by choosing between that which is temporary and that which is Eternal. Once these realities begin to dawn on one, and one submits oneself to the true nature of things, then the rest is merely a matter of following that which is logically obvious.

Ideology though only ever has a lasting influence, its effects tends to wither with time, as the real, immediate issues make themselves known. Talking about the khilafah makes way for talking about drugs, talking about the details of aqeedah makes way for talking about education, talking about Islam and democracy makes way for talking about disenfranchised youth, even on a personal level, ambition will have to make way for service, and more crucially than all of these, absence from the Kind and Gentle gives way to a longing and yearning for closeness. The various groups have begun to shed their ideological baggage, and it seems that at present the 'dawah scene' is in a state of flux. So how are we to agree on the way forward?

The first point has to be sincerity before the All-Knower. Imam Ghazali begins his Ihya Ulum ud-Din with a stinging critique of religion as industry. There is no doubt that much of what is becoming institutionalised within British Islam is religion as industry – small economies within small fiefdoms. The nurturing of sincerity at the heart of these small communities will be central to their success.

The second point has to be adab. Adab should become the universal Muslim language. It should be the marker by which we can identify each other: the way we talk, the way we look, the way we move our hands: all are indications of our hearts' state [2]. Adab also regulates our disagreements: did we raise our voice? Did we plot against our brother behind his back? In this sense, one measure of our Islamic-ness – or perhaps more appropriately, our closeness to the Divine – is our adab, even in matters of eating and personal hygiene. All of this regulation of behaviour is ultimately only obedience to the sunnah of the Messenger and a recognition of the Divine Command.

The third point has to be the following of madhabs. Take two common suggestions: 'I can derive my own law from the Qur’an and the hadith' and 'I want to follow a scholar who does not follow a madhab himself'. The first suggestion rejects taqlid. The second suggestion accepts the necessity of taqlid as long as it is to any authentic and well-recognised scholar. The first suggestion is no longer regarded as credible [3]. The second suggestion holds some weight amongst some Salafis, but they still have to show how the individual scholars that they wish to follow instead of the madhabs can somehow remain stronger when lined up against the scholarship of any of the four madhabs. If the salafis can arrive at a fiqh-related meeting point from which they can negotiate their interaction with others (without condemnation), then this could open the doors of mutual opportunity.

The fourth point has to be an agreement on the forbidden nature of killing people who are not directly involved in warfare. The jihadi argument has extended the limits of permissibility in this area and this perspective has leaked out into other groupings. What is required is the rejection of such points of view and the affirmation of the sacredness of all human life.

The fifth point then has to be an agreement on the problems that face the community. If the starting position is that working on extra-local platforms (beyond impacting the local community: the national and the international) is for the few and may ultimately only remain chimeral, then the focus for the majority of activists – that is those who wish to serve their communities – has to be their local communities. Without wishing to romanticise localism, there can be little doubt that the most effective form of intervention is local-based. This approach would require the outlining of strategies across major urban areas where those who share similar concerns could identify the key challenges that they wish to take on (and this should be closely followed by regular auditing of the extent of achievement within these projects). In mainly post-industrial areas, this would include an analysis of educational standards, delinquency, employment and health. A simultaneous awareness of avoiding exclusively negative strategies (i.e. beyond victimhood) would help protect against a worsening psychology, for example, through volunteering or mentoring schemes, outdoor clubs and artistic endeavours. In successful working environments the challenge may be more to do with a respect for the law as middle class communities seem to have less regard for obedience to the law. Essentially, this is about the fostering of an Islam within an urban environment, and I wish to suggest that the response will vary according to class demographics. As the world as a whole moves towards urbanisation, the challenge of making Islam work within a variety of city environments will become more urgent.

The sixth point concerns the level at which organisation is abstracted. Many of the organisations have maintained a national focus and this is an indication on the extent to which the parameters and the kinds of containers that we employ are determined by modernity which many of us have implicitly assumed. Even Hizb ut Tehrir, the most anti-nationalist of the groups, has a national leadership. But there is no reason why those who are committed towards khidmah have to organise at a national level, or for that matter at a regional or local level. They should organise at that level which makes most sense in light of the objectives that they wish to achieve, and it would be my contention that most of what we would wish to achieve can best be achieved while focused on individual cities. It is probably important here to note that ideology becomes more influential as one moves towards the national level of organisation. Otherwise, we should be united in our hearts by helping each other, being generous towards each other, respecting and honestly working with people’s territorialisms. Similarly we should turn away from disliked forms of social activities such as gossip, tale mongering, back-biting and pointless conversation - that is, we should account for our time as we account for our wealth. Those who do not adhere to such behaviours should be encouraged to change, as enjoining one another to truth and patience are two of the four Qur'anic conditions of success.

© S. M. Atif Imtiaz

[Read Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV and Part VI of this series.]

Notes
[1] This distinction between an 'inside Islam' and an 'outside Islam' concerns the psychology of a person more than his behaviour. Two people may behave the same in terms of level of activity, but psychologically, one may be with His Lord, and the second may be with society, that is, the news reports.
[2] For good expositions of Islamic adab see "The Way of Sufi Chivalry" by al-Sulami and "Islamic Manners" by A. Abu Ghuddah.
[3] For example, see "Why do we need Madhabs when we have Qur’an and Sunnah?" by N. Keller and "Understanding the Four Madhabs" by A. Murad.

Comments

[plimfix]

"Imam Ghazali has written lengthy treatises in his Ihya Ulum ad-Din on the condemnation of pride and anger – both characteristic of identity politics and Ibn Ata’illah condemns self-righteousness and the looking down on others in his Hikam."

Like so much ulemic discourse, Ghazali was oblivious to his elitist position. It's easy to condemn such feelings, until you actually find yourself in a situation where you are poor and oppressed. I find this kind of morality middle class, repressive and itself self-righteous. I think anger needs to be acknowledged and empathised with - but it should not be a tool of political action. Don't get even, get justice.

Wasalaam

TMA

[haroon]

I wonder if you know about Ghazali's dedication to his students, his supporting them, and his turning down huge salaries and prestigious government positions in order to remain with his students. It's easy to talk about how "elite" Ghazali was, especially if you clearly know little, if anything, about the content of his character. I don't see how you can equate condemnation of pride and anger with middle class virtues?