Listen to: Loyalty: Creating Real Connections
Qala Allah Allah (SWT):
Quran: (4:135)
يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ كُونُواْ قَوَّامِينَ بِالْقِسْطِ شُهَدَاء لِلّهِ وَلَوْ عَلَى أَنفُسِكُمْ أَوِ الْوَالِدَيْنِ وَالأَقْرَبِينَ إِن يَكُنْ غَنِيًّا أَوْ فَقَيرًا فَاللّهُ أَوْلَى بِهِمَا فَلاَ تَتَّبِعُواْ الْهَوَى أَن تَعْدِلُواْ وَإِن تَلْوُواْ أَوْ تُعْرِضُواْ فَإِنَّ اللّهَ كَانَ بِمَا تَعْمَلُونَ خَبِيرًا
In our Islam, we wonder if we can be loyal to Allah, his prophet, our brothers and sisters overseas, and still be loyal to America. Can we be loyal to Islam and loyal to America at the same time? This seems to be a concern and a question that often emerges. My khutbah will not solely be political and about this notion of patriotism. My khutbah will focus on internal changes that we may need to make to create the relationships we need to develop and truly advance how we need to advance: educationally, spiritually and socially.
The paradigm shift - The mental shift:
These definitions and understanding of loyalty form the basis of my discussion today. As we can see, in none of these statements, by Allah, his messenger, or the companion, is mention made of being loyal to a particular person, place or thing. My argument is that we need to move away from or reduce the focus on loyalty to things (people, places, animals or things) and instead become loyal to principles. If you go online, and do a search on the topic, “can Muslims be loyal to America?” you will find numerous posts and discussions on the topic. You will find those who claim that Muslims can be loyal to America and they will cite verses that support it and cite precedent and practices that support it. You will also find those who say it is the land of war, land of disbelief and so you cannot support it. I will say only one thing on this, the delineations that are made with respect to dar al-islam and dar al-harb/ dar al-kufr are outdated and do not represent our current reality. The terminology was coined in the 13th and 14th century by Ibn Taymiyyah, a respected scholar, who looked at the Mongol invasion of “muslim territory” and wanted to give context for Muslims at that time. However, those philosophical delineations are not found referred to in the Qur’an and in Sunnah. It was a geo-political decision that was relevant to their geo-political reality. It is no longer relevant to ours. Our context is different, so our decisions based on the world must be different. Now, I do not want to spend a lot of time on this, because it is not the substance of my discussion. I just did not want to leave it hanging there, since you will hear these terms often as you get more exposed and deeper into the philosophical discussions about politics and loyalty in Islam. My contention is that we will continue to get bogged down with these superficial and mundane questions because we focus on loyalty to things. In referring back to the cited definitions above, we see that the discussion in on loyalty to principles and values, and not to any specific thing or place, bound by time or location.
Understanding citizenship:
I think the best way we can begin to discuss citizenship, is to understand that the idea we currently have about citizenship in our context, is a relatively new idea. The Treaty of Westphalia of 1648, were a series of treaties signed in Europe that established 2 things primarily: it began the delineation of the world into smaller territories governed by a sovereign ruler/body; and it established the precedent that foreign actors or agents could not interfere in domestic politics. This has been generally identified as the foundation for the current idea of the nation-state. Under this context, it is now understandable why it would be inevitable for us to ask the question, “to which state can and should we be loyal.” Now, keep in mind that this division, like many other divisions, arose out of conflict over land and religion. When we begin to ask the question, “Who am I,” which as I stated earlier, is a natural biological question you will begin to ask at this stage, you will naturally wonder if it is OK to identify yourself as part of a particular country. I argue that it is. It is perfectly OK to say that you are Muslim and Palestinian. It is perfectly OK to say that you are Muslim and Pakistani. It is perfectly OK to say that you are Muslim and South African. It is perfectly OK to say that you are Muslim and Chinese. Shouldn’t it be also perfectly OK to say that you are Muslim and American? If you claim that you are American, should you not also be loyal to the identity you claim? Understand that our hesitation to claim this identity is based on a history of colonization and imperialism. These things are facts. Europe had/has colonization tendencies and America has imperialist tendencies. These are just expansionist ideas for political and financial wealth. Muslim empires also had expansionist ideas. At various points in time in our history, we too sought to expand territory and governance. This is the baggage that Europeans have to contend with as well. So, both sides of the “perceived” divide understand that at various points in history, empires tried to expand. What does that mean for us today? Why is that important in understanding this discussion?
Basically, if we ask the question of what it means to be a citizen of a particular state, in our current context, then we need to acknowledge that:
Background for understanding citizenship:
Let us look at the Treaty of Medina, penned in 622 CE, or the first year of the hijrah. We need to understand why Muhammad (saws) made hijrah to Medina. Granted, the Muslims were being persecuted in Mecca. Granted, this was at the end of a 3 year embargo by the Meccans against the Muslim converts, who were forced to live on the outskirts of Mecca. However, we never here about how the tribes of Medina courted the Prophet to come to Medina. Headhunters, in the business world, are people who go looking for the right people for the job. The pagan and Jewish tribes of Median had been fighting for about a hundred years. They knew of Muhammad as an arbitrator, and wanted him to come to Medina to arbitrate their feud and bring a certain about of stability to the area. The also agreed to accept him not only as their arbitrator, but at their statesman or head of state. This is a significant part of the context for the migration. The Charter of Medina was then drawn up. Let us look at what it did to embody this idea of citizenship:
It then becomes easier to say clearly what you agree with and what you disagree with. What do I mean? Our old way of thinking forces us to look at loyalty in absolutist, zero-sum terminology. If America does something that we do not like, then it means we cannot be loyal to America. What if our home countries did something we did not like? Does that suddenly mean we can no longer be loyal to them? No, if we begin loyal to values and principles of human dignity, serving others, fighting for the oppressed, justice, equality, civility, then we begin to understand that our loyalty can transcend time and place. It becomes easier to say that certain foreign policy is unethical because it supports a group that oppresses another group. It becomes easier to say that the foreign policy of “blind support” that has been adopted with respect to Israel, against Palestine, can be rejected, because it does not value the principles of justice, equality and human dignity. We can also say without reservation, that the practice of going into a square with a bomb strapped to you has to be rejected because it does not value justice, equality and human dignity. It becomes easier and valid to see and say what is wrong. If we are global citizens, then Dr. King’s statement of “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere,” become true and meaningful to us, because irrespective of where we are: Indonesia, Brazil, Jamaica, England, Switzerland, Canada, Autralia, Egypt, Libya, etc., we can stand and say with a unified voice that if there is injustice, we will stand up against it. When we become loyal to principles, it should bother us when a Muslim is unjust or unfair, as much as when it bothers us when a non-Muslim is unjust and unfair.
What does it do for this community:
Some may argue that what I am saying might create a situation in which we are not loyal to anything, but become loyal to everything. That is not my argument at all. We are ascribing loyalty and respect to the places in which we find peace and relative sanctuary because of the fact that we have found peace and relative sanctuary. However, if that same place in turn begins to harm us, then we address the actions that the state/group/person is taking. This is the level of loyalty that is necessitated. This is the level of loyalty our faith demands. The Prophet (saws) said that if you see a wrong, then change it with your hand, your tongue or your heart. However, as we look at that, we have to understand that our actions too are bound by context and intention. Our words are bound by context and intention. If we are wrong, we cannot employ a wrong act to correct that injustice wantonly. There are boundaries to our responses and how we define those boundaries are contextual. There is no one size fits all. If we look at the verses and the Treaty of Medina for examples, we see that the only universal is the adherence to principles that are very much in line with the principles that America has espoused. It is very much in line with the principles that Australia espoused. It is very much in line with the principles that our Muslim countries espouse. However, when we stop being loyal to principles and we start being loyal to places and people, we begin to fall short. When we hold the nation-state as the beginning and end of our loyalty, then we begin to act unjustly. Loyalty to the nation-state is only one manifestation of our loyalty, but cannot be the sum of it.
Loyalty is not:
In a recent article by Marc Manley, he recounted the story of Ummayah bin Khalaf, a staunch opponent to Islam, and ‘Abd al-Rahman bin Awf, a Muslim who migrated to Medina with the Prophet, and is identified as one of the 10 Sahabah promised paradis, and was on the council of those who selected Uthman ibn Affan as the third caliph. These 2 men had formed a friendship before Islam, and attempted to maintain their friendship even after the advent of Islam under Muhammad (saws). According to ‘Ad al-Rahman, the men entered into an agreement: “I entered into an agreement with Umayyah Bin Khalaf, where Umayyah would protect my affairs [property and family] in Makkah and I would do the same for his in Madinah.” [Narrated by 'Abd al-Rahman Bin 'Awf - related in Sahih al-Bukhari 2301]
According to Marc Manley’s article, “Some time later, during the Battle of Badr, Umayyah was captured by his old friend ‘Abd al-Rahman Bin ‘Awf. Even though the two men found themselves on two opposite sides of a battle, ‘Abd al-Rahman Bin ‘Awf attempted to intervene on behalf of his old friend [who, as no small crime, had persecuted other Muslims, Bilal in specific, whom he tried to force a recanting of his testimony of "no god but God" by crushing Bilal underneath a rock]. Even to the very end, when a group of Muslims led by Bilal himself, sought revenge, ‘Abd al-Rahman protested on Umayyah’s behalf, going so far as to try and shield Umayyah’s body with his own.”
What were the principles he upheld here: justice, respect, honor, compassion. Did the others have a right to kill him, yes. He was in a battle against Muslims and may have killed Muslims. However, if we understand who Allah is, and who his Prophet was, there was more mercy than vengeance; there was more forgiveness that exacting of rights. These are the principles the Prophet (saws) left us with. These are the principles that are universal. These are the principles that make it easy for us to be good citizens, wherever we are. The principles are the cement that hold our faith, our communities, our societies, our countries together.
Part II
Brothers and sisters, we have a lot of work to do in order to get accomplished the things we hope to get accomplished. If we work hard at this concept of being loyal to bigger picture items, loyalty to the other things become easy. Loyalty to country, family, friends, etc, all become easier.
Action Plan:
Concepts that I am advocating - not as a one answer fits all, but as some things that come to mind:
It should make it easier for you to find what organization fits principles that you really want to work on and push forward, and makes it easier for you to commit to that.
It makes it easier to see that we are all part of one body, and one community, each having a different competitive advantage. Yes, some things may overlap, but it is not a competition for souls. We see the strength of the other organization, and we support that, because we are LOYAL to the principles that they espouse.
One mistake we have made is that we have started to focus on developing institutions in the hope that the institutions will help keep the people together. Muslims have become hyper-institutionalized. We continue to focus on the institutions, and forget that the people are people hold the institutions together, and in so doing, help the institutions reinforce a commitment in the people. It is a symbiotic relationship. However, it starts with the people, not the institution.
This is the level of loyalty and commitment we need to move toward. We need to move toward a loyalty that is not based on whimsical ideas and personalities, but a loyalty that is based on real values, qualities and principles that are espoused in Islam. If we do that, Insha-Allah, we will begin to create the type of social relationships and collective cohesiveness that is needed now more than ever, to rectify the emotional and social burnout that our youth and adults are collectively experiencing.
Qala Allah Allah (SWT):
Quran: (4:135)
يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ كُونُواْ قَوَّامِينَ بِالْقِسْطِ شُهَدَاء لِلّهِ وَلَوْ عَلَى أَنفُسِكُمْ أَوِ الْوَالِدَيْنِ وَالأَقْرَبِينَ إِن يَكُنْ غَنِيًّا أَوْ فَقَيرًا فَاللّهُ أَوْلَى بِهِمَا فَلاَ تَتَّبِعُواْ الْهَوَى أَن تَعْدِلُواْ وَإِن تَلْوُواْ أَوْ تُعْرِضُواْ فَإِنَّ اللّهَ كَانَ بِمَا تَعْمَلُونَ خَبِيرًا
- 4:135 - O YOU who have attained to faith! Be ever steadfast in upholding equity, bearing witness to the truth for the sake of God, even though it be against your own selves or your parents and kinsfolk. Whether the person concerned be rich or poor, God's claim takes precedence over [the claims of] either of them. [150] Do not, then, follow your own desires, lest you swerve from justice: for if you distort [the truth], behold, God is indeed aware of all that you do!
- 5:8 - O YOU who have attained to faith! Be ever steadfast in your devotion to God, bearing witness to the truth in all equity; and never let hatred of any-one [19] lead you into the sin of deviating from justice. Be just: this is closest to being God-conscious. And remain conscious of God: verily, God is aware of all that you do
- Prophet Muhammad (SAWS)
- From the constitution of Medina: “Loyalty is a protection against treachery.
- Abu Bakr (RA):
- “I have been given the authority over you, and I am not the best of you. If I do well, help me; and if I do wrong, set me right. Sincere regard for truth is loyalty and disregard for truth is treachery. The weak amongst you shall be strong with me until I have secured his rights, if God wills; and the strong amongst you shall be weak with me until I have wrested from him the rights of others, if God wills. Obey me so long as I obey God and His Messenger. But if I disobey God and His Messenger, ye owe me no obedience. Arise for your prayer, God have mercy upon you.”
In our Islam, we wonder if we can be loyal to Allah, his prophet, our brothers and sisters overseas, and still be loyal to America. Can we be loyal to Islam and loyal to America at the same time? This seems to be a concern and a question that often emerges. My khutbah will not solely be political and about this notion of patriotism. My khutbah will focus on internal changes that we may need to make to create the relationships we need to develop and truly advance how we need to advance: educationally, spiritually and socially.
The paradigm shift - The mental shift:
These definitions and understanding of loyalty form the basis of my discussion today. As we can see, in none of these statements, by Allah, his messenger, or the companion, is mention made of being loyal to a particular person, place or thing. My argument is that we need to move away from or reduce the focus on loyalty to things (people, places, animals or things) and instead become loyal to principles. If you go online, and do a search on the topic, “can Muslims be loyal to America?” you will find numerous posts and discussions on the topic. You will find those who claim that Muslims can be loyal to America and they will cite verses that support it and cite precedent and practices that support it. You will also find those who say it is the land of war, land of disbelief and so you cannot support it. I will say only one thing on this, the delineations that are made with respect to dar al-islam and dar al-harb/ dar al-kufr are outdated and do not represent our current reality. The terminology was coined in the 13th and 14th century by Ibn Taymiyyah, a respected scholar, who looked at the Mongol invasion of “muslim territory” and wanted to give context for Muslims at that time. However, those philosophical delineations are not found referred to in the Qur’an and in Sunnah. It was a geo-political decision that was relevant to their geo-political reality. It is no longer relevant to ours. Our context is different, so our decisions based on the world must be different. Now, I do not want to spend a lot of time on this, because it is not the substance of my discussion. I just did not want to leave it hanging there, since you will hear these terms often as you get more exposed and deeper into the philosophical discussions about politics and loyalty in Islam. My contention is that we will continue to get bogged down with these superficial and mundane questions because we focus on loyalty to things. In referring back to the cited definitions above, we see that the discussion in on loyalty to principles and values, and not to any specific thing or place, bound by time or location.
Understanding citizenship:
I think the best way we can begin to discuss citizenship, is to understand that the idea we currently have about citizenship in our context, is a relatively new idea. The Treaty of Westphalia of 1648, were a series of treaties signed in Europe that established 2 things primarily: it began the delineation of the world into smaller territories governed by a sovereign ruler/body; and it established the precedent that foreign actors or agents could not interfere in domestic politics. This has been generally identified as the foundation for the current idea of the nation-state. Under this context, it is now understandable why it would be inevitable for us to ask the question, “to which state can and should we be loyal.” Now, keep in mind that this division, like many other divisions, arose out of conflict over land and religion. When we begin to ask the question, “Who am I,” which as I stated earlier, is a natural biological question you will begin to ask at this stage, you will naturally wonder if it is OK to identify yourself as part of a particular country. I argue that it is. It is perfectly OK to say that you are Muslim and Palestinian. It is perfectly OK to say that you are Muslim and Pakistani. It is perfectly OK to say that you are Muslim and South African. It is perfectly OK to say that you are Muslim and Chinese. Shouldn’t it be also perfectly OK to say that you are Muslim and American? If you claim that you are American, should you not also be loyal to the identity you claim? Understand that our hesitation to claim this identity is based on a history of colonization and imperialism. These things are facts. Europe had/has colonization tendencies and America has imperialist tendencies. These are just expansionist ideas for political and financial wealth. Muslim empires also had expansionist ideas. At various points in time in our history, we too sought to expand territory and governance. This is the baggage that Europeans have to contend with as well. So, both sides of the “perceived” divide understand that at various points in history, empires tried to expand. What does that mean for us today? Why is that important in understanding this discussion?
Basically, if we ask the question of what it means to be a citizen of a particular state, in our current context, then we need to acknowledge that:
- The current nation-state is fairly new
- The current nation-state idea is predicated on difference, control and sovereignty
- The current nation-state idea presumes that there is an “other”
Background for understanding citizenship:
Let us look at the Treaty of Medina, penned in 622 CE, or the first year of the hijrah. We need to understand why Muhammad (saws) made hijrah to Medina. Granted, the Muslims were being persecuted in Mecca. Granted, this was at the end of a 3 year embargo by the Meccans against the Muslim converts, who were forced to live on the outskirts of Mecca. However, we never here about how the tribes of Medina courted the Prophet to come to Medina. Headhunters, in the business world, are people who go looking for the right people for the job. The pagan and Jewish tribes of Median had been fighting for about a hundred years. They knew of Muhammad as an arbitrator, and wanted him to come to Medina to arbitrate their feud and bring a certain about of stability to the area. The also agreed to accept him not only as their arbitrator, but at their statesman or head of state. This is a significant part of the context for the migration. The Charter of Medina was then drawn up. Let us look at what it did to embody this idea of citizenship:
- The God-fearing believers shall be against the rebellious or him who seeks to spread injustice, animosity, sin or corruption among the believers
- To the Jew who follows us (in not harming, hurting, etc) belong help and equality. He shall not be wrong nor his enemies be aided
- The Jews of Bani Auf are one community with the believers (they have their religion and the Muslims have theirs), their freedmen and their persons except those who behave unjustly and sinfully for they hurt themselves and their families
- The Jews must bear their expenses and the Muslims must bear their expenses. Each must help the other against anyone who attacks the people of this document. They must seek mutual advice and consultation and loyalty is a protection against treachery. A man is not liable for his ally’s misdeeds. The wronged must be helped.
- Quraysh and their helpers shall be given no protection
- The Jews of al-Aus, their freedmen and themselves have the same standing with the people of this document in pure loyalty from the people of this document. Loyalty is a protection against treachery. He who acquires anything, acquires it for himself.
- God approves of this document
- Spread no injustice
- Spread no animosity
- Avoid sin and corruption
- Pay your just due and bear your expenses
- Do not hold others accountable for your misdeeds
- Stand for the oppressed and the wronged
It then becomes easier to say clearly what you agree with and what you disagree with. What do I mean? Our old way of thinking forces us to look at loyalty in absolutist, zero-sum terminology. If America does something that we do not like, then it means we cannot be loyal to America. What if our home countries did something we did not like? Does that suddenly mean we can no longer be loyal to them? No, if we begin loyal to values and principles of human dignity, serving others, fighting for the oppressed, justice, equality, civility, then we begin to understand that our loyalty can transcend time and place. It becomes easier to say that certain foreign policy is unethical because it supports a group that oppresses another group. It becomes easier to say that the foreign policy of “blind support” that has been adopted with respect to Israel, against Palestine, can be rejected, because it does not value the principles of justice, equality and human dignity. We can also say without reservation, that the practice of going into a square with a bomb strapped to you has to be rejected because it does not value justice, equality and human dignity. It becomes easier and valid to see and say what is wrong. If we are global citizens, then Dr. King’s statement of “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere,” become true and meaningful to us, because irrespective of where we are: Indonesia, Brazil, Jamaica, England, Switzerland, Canada, Autralia, Egypt, Libya, etc., we can stand and say with a unified voice that if there is injustice, we will stand up against it. When we become loyal to principles, it should bother us when a Muslim is unjust or unfair, as much as when it bothers us when a non-Muslim is unjust and unfair.
What does it do for this community:
- If a sister comes to the imam saying that she is being beaten - no conflict on whether or not to act on it
- If a brother says that his wife is hitting him - no conflict on whether or not he should just deal with it
- If an imam of a community is actively striving to do right, and he makes a mistake, you forgive him the mistake and move on
- If America invades another sovereign state for an apparent financial reason, no conflict on seeing the act for what it is and speaking out on it
- If Israel wantonly kills and oppresses Palestinians claiming to be insuring the safety of its own population, no question condemning that act
- If a Palestinian or some other Muslim walks into a supermarket and blows himself up, no conflict condemning that act as well...
Some may argue that what I am saying might create a situation in which we are not loyal to anything, but become loyal to everything. That is not my argument at all. We are ascribing loyalty and respect to the places in which we find peace and relative sanctuary because of the fact that we have found peace and relative sanctuary. However, if that same place in turn begins to harm us, then we address the actions that the state/group/person is taking. This is the level of loyalty that is necessitated. This is the level of loyalty our faith demands. The Prophet (saws) said that if you see a wrong, then change it with your hand, your tongue or your heart. However, as we look at that, we have to understand that our actions too are bound by context and intention. Our words are bound by context and intention. If we are wrong, we cannot employ a wrong act to correct that injustice wantonly. There are boundaries to our responses and how we define those boundaries are contextual. There is no one size fits all. If we look at the verses and the Treaty of Medina for examples, we see that the only universal is the adherence to principles that are very much in line with the principles that America has espoused. It is very much in line with the principles that Australia espoused. It is very much in line with the principles that our Muslim countries espouse. However, when we stop being loyal to principles and we start being loyal to places and people, we begin to fall short. When we hold the nation-state as the beginning and end of our loyalty, then we begin to act unjustly. Loyalty to the nation-state is only one manifestation of our loyalty, but cannot be the sum of it.
Loyalty is not:
- Blind obedience - Think of when Satan seduced Adam and Eve. He swore to them that he was their sincere adviser. They blindly listened to him. This is not loyalty. I do not expect you to take everything I say here word for word. If you are loyal to the principle of truth and fairness, it is perfectly OK and encouragable for you to go out and question what I have said here... That is perfectly within your right, and some would argue that it is a responsibility.
- Commitment based solely on cultural or even religious ties - Think of the Treaty of Medina and even the Treaty of Hudaibiyyah. The Prophet (saws) attempted to break the pattern of alliances and allegiances based solely on blood ties. Even in the Treaty of Medina, it was left open that the agreements in it were binding on anyone (Muslim or not) as long as they were not unjust and as long as they were not sinners. This would transcend the cultural, blood and even religious ties.
- Conditional: You do not support a righteous principle or righteous action only if it has personal benefit for you. Even if you are not directly benefitting, and it is a righteous action, you should engage it and support it as best you can. In 4:72-73 Allah warns those who are only happy to engage in righteous action when something good happens, and are wary if a test comes to the group. Think of the civil rights era of the 1960s. THink of all the people who stood up for what was right. They were tested. Think of the people in Libya, Egypt, Tunisia, Syria, Yemen and Saudi Arabia, who are standing up for what it right, at their expense of their own lives.
- Hypocritical Actions: We do not say one thing and then do another. If the president of a country is loyal to a principle, then when that principle is violated, he speaks out against it clearly and passionately, without fear of political discontent (I will leave that point there...)
In a recent article by Marc Manley, he recounted the story of Ummayah bin Khalaf, a staunch opponent to Islam, and ‘Abd al-Rahman bin Awf, a Muslim who migrated to Medina with the Prophet, and is identified as one of the 10 Sahabah promised paradis, and was on the council of those who selected Uthman ibn Affan as the third caliph. These 2 men had formed a friendship before Islam, and attempted to maintain their friendship even after the advent of Islam under Muhammad (saws). According to ‘Ad al-Rahman, the men entered into an agreement: “I entered into an agreement with Umayyah Bin Khalaf, where Umayyah would protect my affairs [property and family] in Makkah and I would do the same for his in Madinah.” [Narrated by 'Abd al-Rahman Bin 'Awf - related in Sahih al-Bukhari 2301]
According to Marc Manley’s article, “Some time later, during the Battle of Badr, Umayyah was captured by his old friend ‘Abd al-Rahman Bin ‘Awf. Even though the two men found themselves on two opposite sides of a battle, ‘Abd al-Rahman Bin ‘Awf attempted to intervene on behalf of his old friend [who, as no small crime, had persecuted other Muslims, Bilal in specific, whom he tried to force a recanting of his testimony of "no god but God" by crushing Bilal underneath a rock]. Even to the very end, when a group of Muslims led by Bilal himself, sought revenge, ‘Abd al-Rahman protested on Umayyah’s behalf, going so far as to try and shield Umayyah’s body with his own.”
What were the principles he upheld here: justice, respect, honor, compassion. Did the others have a right to kill him, yes. He was in a battle against Muslims and may have killed Muslims. However, if we understand who Allah is, and who his Prophet was, there was more mercy than vengeance; there was more forgiveness that exacting of rights. These are the principles the Prophet (saws) left us with. These are the principles that are universal. These are the principles that make it easy for us to be good citizens, wherever we are. The principles are the cement that hold our faith, our communities, our societies, our countries together.
Part II
Brothers and sisters, we have a lot of work to do in order to get accomplished the things we hope to get accomplished. If we work hard at this concept of being loyal to bigger picture items, loyalty to the other things become easy. Loyalty to country, family, friends, etc, all become easier.
Action Plan:
Concepts that I am advocating - not as a one answer fits all, but as some things that come to mind:
- Education
- Good conduct
- Justice
- “O you who believe! Stand out firmly for justice, as witnesses to Allah, even if it be against yourselves, your parents, and your relatives, or whether it is against the rich or the poor...” (Quran 4:135)
- “O you who believe! Stand out firmly for Allah as witnesses to fair dealings and let not the hatred of others to you make you swerve to wrong and depart from justice. Be just, that is next to piety. Fear Allah, indeed Allah is well-acquainted with all that you do.” (5:8)
- Non-violence
- Compassion
It should make it easier for you to find what organization fits principles that you really want to work on and push forward, and makes it easier for you to commit to that.
- UMM - Social Development and public education with experts in industry
- Aqsa - Interfaith hub
- Quba - Scholastic Education with classically-trained scholars
- Masjid Muhammad - Political Activism with experienced political activists
- Masjidullah - Business orientation
- Masjid Freehaven - Youth empowerment and development
It makes it easier to see that we are all part of one body, and one community, each having a different competitive advantage. Yes, some things may overlap, but it is not a competition for souls. We see the strength of the other organization, and we support that, because we are LOYAL to the principles that they espouse.
One mistake we have made is that we have started to focus on developing institutions in the hope that the institutions will help keep the people together. Muslims have become hyper-institutionalized. We continue to focus on the institutions, and forget that the people are people hold the institutions together, and in so doing, help the institutions reinforce a commitment in the people. It is a symbiotic relationship. However, it starts with the people, not the institution.
This is the level of loyalty and commitment we need to move toward. We need to move toward a loyalty that is not based on whimsical ideas and personalities, but a loyalty that is based on real values, qualities and principles that are espoused in Islam. If we do that, Insha-Allah, we will begin to create the type of social relationships and collective cohesiveness that is needed now more than ever, to rectify the emotional and social burnout that our youth and adults are collectively experiencing.
No comments:
Post a Comment