The following is the translation of an Arabic article.
It is truly odd for the subject of “Ath-Thaqaafah” (culture) to occupy space within the research of any group working to bring change and particularly upon the basis of Islaam. The fact that is working for change upon the basis of Islaam means that it already possesses a great store and huge stock of experience, manifested in all of the attempts to bring change at the hands of the Anbiyaa’ (prophets) whom Allah has sent. A subject of this kind should not preoccupy the group at all and particularly as the last of these attempts to bring change was undertaken upon the hands of the seal of Prophets and Messengers, the Imaam of the Muslims and their example to follow until the Day of Judgement, and it was completely successful attempt by every measure or criteria.
When thinking about bringing change and included within that is the issue of the culture, it is necessary to return to their Seerah and follow their tracks, and specifically the Seerah of the Nabi ﷺ. That is because Allah sent our master Muhammad ﷺ to a people whom there was none further astray in misguidance. They worshiped stones, the strong devoured the weak (in society) and they were preoccupied in acts of vengeance for the most superficial of reasons, amongst other matters of misguidance upon the maximum levels of ignorance. And so he called them to Allah ‘Azza Wa Jalla and cultured and taught them until he had transformed them into a new mould with amazing success in the shortest of times. And when he taught them, he did not teach them except what Allah had taught him in respect to the Ayaat of the Qur’aan or Hadeeth which were being revealed to him. As for the Shar’a, then he ﷺ is our Uswah (best example to follow) and it is obligatory upon us to follow him in respect to what he did. From an intellectual or rational level, upon the supposition that he was not our example and his Deen was not our Deen, may Allah protect us from that, then it would not be right minded to pass an example and experience of this kind by without studying it and contemplating upon it.
By examining what the Messenger ﷺ did in respect to the culturing, we find that he did not give any regard or consideration to any culture other than what was revealed to him from Allah ‘Azza Wa Jalla; whether that was related to the subject matter of bringing change or related to the building of the personalities. His culturing, prior to the establishment of the Islamic State was related to the Aqeedah, ‘Ibaadaat (acts of worship), Mu’aamalaat (societal transactions) and Akhlaaq (moral behaviour and manners). Indeed, he even provided them with a thought about the “Uqoobaat (punishments) and the rest of the aspects of their lives. This culture continued after the establishment of the State, adding to it further culture related to the societal transactions and punishments. That was by way of the Qur’aan and the Hadeeth alone and not by other than them. This culture had an astonishing impact upon those who were cultured with it and had it not been for the decisive recurrent reports (Tawaatur) it would have been difficult for a person to believe the extent of the change that occurred in respect to those who were cultured with this culture.
Based upon this, the Jamaa’ah which wants to bring change upon the basis of Islaam and hopes to accomplish the same results, must culture its individuals with the same culture that he ﷺ cultured his companions with and that is the Qur’aan and the Sunnah. It represents a culture that does not transform the people into Daraaweesh (i.e. weak obliging followers), and if that was the case, then the Sahaabah would have been the first Daraaweesh, whilst the matter was certainly not like that.
Similarly, it is not correct for the group, any group, to occupy itself and its individuals with analytical culture in respect to what the Messenger ﷺ did. That is because this culture does not possess the power of the direct original culture in respect to changing the one who retains it. So, for instance, if we were to say that the Da’wah carrier must be tender with the people, then that is from the analytical culture. Even if it is correct, it nevertheless does not possess in terms of influence, impact and power, that which the statement of the Messenger ﷺ possesses when At-Tufail Bin ‘Amr returned to him from his people and said: O Messenger of Allah, I matter of Zinaa (fornication or adultery) has overcome me in respect to Daws (i.e. his people), to which he ﷺ replied: “O Allah guide Daws, but (nevertheless) return to your people and invite them”.
If we made the statement, for example, that the Da’wah carrier must embody pure sincerity, it doesn’t contain the power of impact that a single Hadeeth from among the Ahaadeeth about Ar-Riyaa’” (doing actions to be seen by others) does, like his Qawl ﷺ in the Hadeeth related by Abu Hurairah: “The first of the people to be judged on the Day of Judgement is a man who was martyred. He was brought and made aware of His favour and he acknowledged it and then He asked: What did you do with it? (i.e. with the favour bestowed upon him). He said: I fought for your sake until I was martyred. He said: You have lied. You fought so that it would be said that this person was courageous and indeed that was said. He then gave his command in respect to him and so he was dragged upon his face until he was thrown into the fire. Then there was a man who learned knowledge and taught it and recited the Qur’aan. He was brought and made aware of His favour and he acknowledged it and then He asked: What did you do with it? He said: I learnt knowledge and taught it and recited the Qur’aan for your sake. He said: You have lied. Rather, you learned so that it would be said about him that he was an ‘Aalim (knowledgeable person) and you recited the Qur’aan so that it would be said that he is a Qaari’ (reciter) and indeed that was (all) said. He then gave his command in respect to him and so he was dragged upon his face until he was thrown into the fire. And there was man whom Allah had given expansive means and provided with categories of wealth or property. He was brought and made aware of His favour and he acknowledged it and then He asked: What did you do with it? He said: I did not leave a path that you love except that I spent upon it for your sake. He said: You have lied. Rather, you spent so that it would be said that he (i.e. this man) is generous and indeed it was said (about him i.e. in the Dunyaa). He then gave his command in respect to him and so he was dragged upon his face and thrown into the fire”.
Or like the statement for example that the Da’wah carrier must represent Islaam walking upon the path, which does not possess the power of influence or impact manifested in the host of Ahkaam Shar’iyah which actually make him like that. That is because making him hear the Islamic culture through the study of the very texts of the Qur’aan and the Noble Prophetic Ahaadeeth, acts one thousand times more as a guarantee for him to be representative of Islaam walking upon the path or street. Also, our delving into analysing the stages of how to proceed so that this manner of proceeding becomes dominant, distances us away from the true understanding of the Seerah itself and takes away or diminishes the influence or impact upon ourselves … and so forth. The direct Islamic culture represented in the Shar’iyah texts themselves, if more effective, one thousand times over, upon the one studying them and occupies himself with them instead of occupying himself in the study of their Ahkaam and results.
When the Da’wah carrier says that he must strive to build the Islamic personalities and that the Da’wah carrier must be like so and such or that the groups must be like so and such, then either these matters are required from the Shaari’ (the Legislator) or not. If they are not required or demanded from the Shaari’, then we have no need for them at all and if they are required according to the Shar’a, then it is not possible for the human mind to be guided to the culture which by its nature produces that, as they are matters which are only produced by a specific defined culture which none but Allah ‘Azza Wa Jalla is knowledgeable about.
And Allah ‘Azza Wa Jalla has explained this culture and provided it to the Nabi ﷺ, and he ﷺ provided it to his companions, may Allah be pleased with them. The result of that was exactly as was required according to the Shar’a and that is because the Sahaabah were politicians and not Daraaweesh (feeble minded followers) and they were an Islaam walking upon the path. Their group was far removed from the reality of the school and it embodied the pure sincerity. They were exactly as was required in accordance to the Shar’a, and that was only as a result of the culture which they received at the hand of the Nabi ﷺ from the Qur’aan and the Sunnah. And any messing or playing around with this culture in its form or content, regardless of its slightness, means nothing other than defectiveness emerging in respect to the results. The failure of some to attain the hoped for or sought-after results was for no other reason except due to this culture being exposed by them to defectiveness.
This defectiveness does not necessarily mean the existence of incorrect culture or un-Islamic culture, the matter isn’t like that. Rather, if the objective is to attain personalities like those built by the Messenger ﷺ, then the culture that he provided to them definitely represents the closest (or soundest) manner of attaining those personalities. It is true that the presence of the Nabi ﷺ amongst them played a role in this, and what a role that was! However, that does not change the reality that this culture alone represented the guarantor for the attainment of the closest or best result and that his absence ﷺ makes the need to hold onto that culture in form and content even more important. That is because not every culture secures that result and even if the culture was correct.
So for example, the subject of the Takattul (party structure) did not at all represent a part of the culture of the Nabi ﷺ in respect to his companions, may Allah be pleased with them. Making it a part of the culture of the Jamaa’ah (group) means an inefficiency in respect to the injecting that the individuals of the group must be injected with and in turn it means an inefficiency in respect to the results, and that is actually what has taken place. If we were to apply scrutiny we would find that a subject such as this does not bind the Jamaa’ah (group) in origin. That is because what the group undertakes is either covered by the Ahkaam Ash-Shar’iyah or it is not covered by it. If it is the Ahkaam Ash-Shar’iyah which dictated a particular action to be undertaken by the group, then the Takkatul (party structure) and what it includes in terms of thoughts, then they (the individuals of the group) will not increase it in terms of certainty, whilst if the action was not required according to the Shar’a, then there is no value in it whatsoever.
If we were to present a specific example about the difference between the Hizb (party) and the Madrasah (school), then it is definite that the group’s adherence to the Hukm Ash-Shar’iy makes it completely removed from the reality of the school and brings the group out into existence completely as the correct thoughts of the Takattul (party structure) dictate it to be. Why then do we occupy our minds studying the difference between the party and the school? And why does a study such as this occupy some of our mind and time, at a time when that mind or time could be utilised to memorise and Aayah or a Hadeeth? Similar to that, is the discussion about the difference between the Rooh (spirit) and Roohaaniyah (spirituality), or between the Mantiq ul-Ihsaas (logic of sensation) and Al-Ihassas ul-Fikriy (intellectual sensation), or between the Fikrah (thought) and Tareeqah (method), or between the political Aqeedah and the spiritual Aqeedah. That is because these studies, regardless of the correctness or error in them, represent studies or examinations which there is no need for in origin. That is because they have absolutely no effect upon the ‘Aqliyah (mentality) of Zaid or ‘Amr from amongst the people and its effect does not go beyond it being representative of a matter of temporary impressment with knowledge, which has no power upon the matter of changing the human Nafs (person).
That is because every person has the potential tendency of both good and bad, stinginess and generosity, following a Deen and atheism, tenderness and harshness, oppressiveness and justice etc. For such a person to be changed, he requires Ahkaam (rulings) built upon an origin or basis that he is convinced of i.e. an Aqeedah. Then a Hukm dominates over the base or bad quality or attribute and consequently the person discards it and he replaces it with what the Shar’a has obliged in terms of commendable and praiseworthy attributes. Therefore, in respect to the Qawl of Allah Ta’Aalaa:
وَلَا يَغْتَب بَّعْضُكُم بَعْضًا ۚ أَيُحِبُّ أَحَدُكُمْ أَن يَأْكُلَ لَحْمَ أَخِيهِ مَيْتًا فَكَرِهْتُمُوهُ ۚ وَاتَّقُوا اللَّـهَ
And do not backbite each other. Would one of you like to eat the flesh of his brother when dead? You would detest it. And fear Allah (Al-Hujuraat: 12).
This Qawl dominates over the base or bad attribute or quality of a person and that is his inclination towards being critical of others in distinguishing himself from them, and so the person would discard that quality and replace it, for example, with the attribute of covering the faults of others, as has come in the statement of the Messenger ﷺ: “Whoever covers (the faults of) a Muslim then Allah will cover him in the life of this world and the hereafter” or with the encouragement to say good or be silent, as has come in his statement ﷺ: “Whoever believes in Allah and the Last day, then he should say good or be silent”.
And the saying of the Nabi ﷺ, for example: “Whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day, then he should honour his guest” dominates over the attribute of stinginess and removes it from the person and cultivates in its place the quality of generosity. And his statement ﷺ as it came in the Hadeeth Al-Qudsiy: “O my slaves, verily I have made Azh-Zhulm (oppression or injustice) Haraam upon myself and I have made it Haraam amongst yourselves, so do not oppress one another”, dominates directly over the attribute of oppressiveness originating from the love of survival and removes it from the Nafs (person) and cultivates the obligatory characteristic of ‘Adl (justness). And his Qawl (statement) ﷺ: “The one who cheats is not one of us” dominates over the greed or covetousness of the person and eliminates it when it makes clear that it is not from among the characteristics of the believers … and so on.
In addition, knowledge of this culture is not sufficient for it to have an impact upon the personality. Rather, it is necessary, from one angle, for the person to believe in the Aqeedah from which these Ahkaam have emanated and for him to continuously live with the Aayaat, Ahaadeeth and the situations calling for that, continuously in a state of remembrance and reminding himself with them. As for a Zaid or ‘Amr from among the people fully comprehending the difference between the logic of sensation and the intellectual sensation, or the definition of the society and quick thinking, or his attaining awareness about the thoughts of the Takattul (party structuring) or similar such thoughts. That is because these thoughts do not dominate over anything in respect to the character or innate nature of the human in origin.
As such, the relationship of these thoughts with the building of the Islamic personality is a secondary one and not primary, and it is far away from the culturing of the Nabi ﷺ provided to his companions. These types of studies, even if they provide some assistance to generate the personalities, nevertheless, when they become dominant amongst some it makes of them inheritors of the people of “Al-Kalaam” who find pleasure in theorising and contentment or satisfaction in that, without it having any impact upon their conduct or behaviour. These types of thoughts have clearly failed to build the Islamic personality and even if the proponents of these thoughts have admitted or acknowledged some of this failure they have not however paid attention or become alert to the treatment. That is because the deceptive bedazzlement attached to many of these thoughts have taken them away from considering them as a probable or possible cause for the failure.
Indeed, it is true that there are studies which are necessary which are not Ahkaam Shar’iyah, however it is not correct to be concerned with them apart from to the level or amount that is required to serve the Hukm Ash-Shar’iy itself. For example, the concern with political studies is only undertaken for the purpose of knowing the Hukm of Allah in respect to the ongoing events. When enough becomes apparent to us, from an event or incident, for us to be able to pass judgement upon it in terms of it being Halaal or Haraam, it is not valid, after that, to occupy our minds or thinking with more than that. If we were to do that, then what we are undertaking is not considered to be other than intellectual amusement. In the case where the Messenger ﷺ did not make a single political analysis throughout his life, we find that some of the Islamic groups have made of political analysis its daily bread. It was therefore natural for the failure in building the Islamic personality amongst its individuals to be a sure consequence resulting from this.
If we were to consider and contemplate upon any personality of any of the noble Sahaabah, may Allah be pleased with them, we would find that the enlightenment in respect to awareness always returned back to the awareness of an Aayah or a Hadeeth or awareness of both of them. So, we have the example of Abu Bakr As-Siddeeq, may Allah be pleased with him, exhibiting elevation to the peak of enlightenment when he stated: “Whoever from among you was worshipping Muhammad, then verily Muhammad has died. However, whoever was worshipping Alllah, then verily Allah is Hayy (Living) and does not die”. What was it that led him to this opinion? Was it not his correct understanding of the Aayaat of Allah ‘Azza Wa Jalla and the Ahaadeeth of the Nabi ﷺ connected to the subject matter? And we also see him adopting the wisest of decisions regarding the fighting of the apostates. What led him to adopt such a stance? Was it not the Aayaat of the Qur’aan and the Prophetic Ahaadeeth?
And we have the example of Khaalid bin Al-Waleed, a man of war, the likes of which it is normal to be far removed from providing thoughts, and yet upon his death bed he said: “I have fought around one hundred battles and there is not a handspan of my body except that it has been struck by a stab, strike or arrow, and despite that, here I am dying upon my bed just like the camel dies. And so the eyes of the cowards have not slept”. What level of enlightenment is greater than this upon the intellectual plain and what disposition (Nafsiyah) is more elevated than this upon the plain of undertaking the actions which the correct understanding of the Ahkaam Ash-Shar’iyah have obliged, all of which is far removed from preoccupation in political analysis and the difference between the party and the school. Would study and examination of the phases and stages (of the Da’wah), for example, produce the like of this ‘Aqliyah (mentality) or this Nafsiyah (disposition)?
In addition, the Sahaabah, may Allah be pleased with them, would become Muslim and carry the Da’wah immediately with all spontaneity and strive their utmost in undertaking it in the best of ways, without the Nabi ﷺ censuring or criticising them for that, and how could he censure them whilst he himself launched out into the conveyance by the mere Qawl of Allah Ta’Aalaa:
يَا أَيُّهَا الْمُدَّثِّرُ ﴿١﴾ قُمْ فَأَنذِرْ
O you who covers himself (with a garment). Arise and warn (Al-Mudath’thir: 1-2).
And so he arose and warned and did not sit for an hour in which to think about the conditions of circumstances of the society, defining it and what would lead to changing it. Just as he did not occupy himself in putting down outlines or weaving any plans related to the society before him and what it is upon where, for example, he would envisage that by doing a certain action that would lead to a particular result and so on.
The Sahaabah undertook what they did by their Imaan alone. They went out without any matter causing them to halt or preoccupy them and their whole focus was upon understanding what had been revealed to their Nabi in respect to an Aayah or a Hadeeth, and that alone. The result of that was the presence of personalities which had no equal that could be compared to them throughout the course of history. How could that not be the case, whilst the one who was teaching them was the Nabi ﷺ whom the divine revelation was descending upon from Allah ‘Azza Wa Jalla, and what education could be better than the education from Allah ‘Azza Wa Jalla? The result was therefore very natural because the teacher here was not just any teacher, but rather it was Allah ‘Azza Wa Jalla via His Nabi ﷺ.
And whoever wants to realise and accomplish the same results, then all he has to do is what they did, learn what they learnt and keep away from what they kept away from in terms of over indulgence in depth and be preoccupied in that which does not benefit. Otherwise it will be a continuous empty cycle without any significant result. And opinion other than this is nothing other than despairing efforts to convince oneself of romantic accomplishments which have no relationship with the reality at all and none believe them apart those of little influence who are seduced by delusional accomplishments.
Sheikh Abu Islam Yusuf Shaqeero, Palestine
Comments