[MannoFr]

Posted by Br. 'artistic muslim' here:



The Incoherence of Yasir Qadhi

This essay is a response to some recent statements by Yasir Qadhi in relation to secularism and American nationalism, as well as to some of his comments on jihâd.

1. Support for Secularism

Qadhi asserts that

… the vast majority of one’s personal religious laws can easily fit into and be accommodated by the laws of any secular democracy, and it is for this reason that many Muslims who come from religiously repressive regimes actually prefer to live in non-Muslim lands. [1]

According to his own website, Qadhi believes the Islamic response to secularism cannot be found in the works of classical scholars, let alone the Qur’an and Sunnah, since secularism is an entirely new phenomenon:

“What do we do as practicing orthodox Muslims living in secular lands, when our religion demands one thing and the land demands something else?” In Qadhi’s opinion, the answer to this question has yet to be formulated properly. We do not have an answer. We cannot look up the answer in some medieval textbook because this situation has never existed before. [2]

Secularism does not, as suggested by Qadhi, pose a new set of problems for Muslims. It is only a recent tactic adopted by some of those who refuse to submit to the command of Allah. Historically, whenever people have chosen to reject the Sharî‘ah, they have offered a competing social, legal and religious system in its place. This system might take the form of a monarchical, clerical or democratic nation state. The identity and particular form in which the challenge to God’s rule is framed is irrelevant. What matters is the tyrannical stance taken by those who reject the authority of the Sharî‘ah and in offering an alternative (however devised) to God’s law, make themselves lords besides Allah. The Pharaoh said to his people, ‘I am your Lord [Rabb], Most High.’ [3] The Arabic term rabb [pl. arbâb] refers to anyone who has the authority and the power to command and control others. The Prophet told us that the Jews and Christians took their priests and rabbis as [arbâb] besides Allah. A Companion pointed out that the Christians never worshipped their priests, to which the Prophet responded that accepting someone’s authority to make law was itself worship of them. [4] If a secular state takes it upon itself to tell people what is lawful and prohibited, and to do so in opposition to the law of Allah, there is no reason to argue that a Muslim’s response to it should be any different from his response to those who claimed Allah’s lordship in the past. Now if the conflict between Islam and secularism is not essentially new, then one fails to see why a new response to it needs to be framed in Washington D.C. and why the example of the last Prophet in dealing with authorities set up as rivals to God does not suffice. To call for ‘re-thinking’ on this settled topic seems like a poorly disguised attempt to create a new fiqh of whims and submission.

2. American Secularism

Qadhi has gone even further in his support of American secularism and nationalism:

… a cursory reading of the vision that the founding fathers had for this country tells me, as an educated intelligent human being, that they did not wish for there to be a clash between religion and politics. They did not want to place people in an either/or scenario where one is asked, “Do you love your God more or your country?” They wanted you to be able to be a religious person in your own right and to realize that this is a civic country that has a certain modus operandi that does not challenge one’s religious identity. [5]

This country of America was founded upon the basic principle of not wishing to interfere in personal religious laws, and of allowing those who chose to live here the ultimate freedom to morally oppose the decisions of its government and courts if they chose to do so, regardless of whether that disagreement stemmed from religious sentiment or other sources. The founders of this country did not wish to challenges its citizens’ loyalties – they did not wish to ask whether a citizen loved his Creator more or his country more. In short, they did not wish to make the new republic a totalitarian regime. [6]

Definition of Religion

Qadhi’s understanding of religion here needs to be exposed for what it is. The meaning of the word religion can change depending on who is using it and why. When Qadhi talks of personal religious laws not interfering with secularism, he is accepting a secular definition of religion. Traditional religious thinkers have always regarded religion as primarily a matter of actions of the body: charity, prayer, fasting (sadaqah, salâh, sawm) and the heart: humility, hope, fear, (or khushû‘, rajâ’, khawf) etc. These practices are seen as necessary to lead a pure individual and collective life. One of the fundamentals of Muslim belief [‘aqîdah], based on numerous verses and ahâdîth, is that imân, faith, consists of actions of the heart, actions of the tongue, and actions of the limbs. [7] By contrast, for secularists and their supporters such as Qadhi, there is no conflict between secularism and religion because religion, for them, is a person’s belief in certain propositions and doctrines which does not need to interfere with his social obligations as determined by the State. This is why Qadhi, somewhat ludicrously, defends American secularism for allowing religious people the freedom to ‘morally’ oppose the decisions of the government and the Courts. In fact, every legal and political system in the world can tolerate moral opposition to itself, so long as moral opposition (belief) is not translated into action. Secularism is happy for religion to be a set of theories and beliefs, primarily about the next world, while Islam is not satisfied unless it inspires action in this one.

The tension between religion and secularism, therefore, is inherent and perpetual. Secularism, by definition, is the idea that a person can serve two authorities: his God in his private life and his state in his public life. Islam, by contrast, says that man may only serve one master: God. Someone who cannot see this has little knowledge of Islam or secularism, whatever scholarly pedigree he might like to claim. Qadhi has also demonstrated his ignorance in matters of ‘aqîdah by suggesting that American Muslims can ensure their orthodoxy by taking orthodox ‘theory’ from the texts and then applying it in light of their own situation. [8] A more obvious concession to secularism is impossible to imagine. Qadhi, and his followers, need to be reminded that unless our ‘aqîdah and imân matches that of the Salaf in every aspect of belief and practice, we cannot claim to be following their way.

On American Secularism

Qadhi’s support for American secularism as somehow more tolerant of religion than other varieties is even more perverse. While secularism itself can come in ‘soft’ or ‘hard’ forms, American secularism, as many experts acknowledge, is associated with particularly militant form of nationalism which seeks to drive out religion from public life and replace it with a cult of the state. This is something Qadhi’s revered founding fathers themselves acknowledged when they argued for “the Necessity of a Publick Religion,” in the United States, one which would celebrate not only the cult of the nation but also demand a form of religious loyalty from citizens. [9] Jefferson called the Declaration of Independence a “holy purpose” and said that the physical objects associated with this document should be preserved ‘ … like the relics of saints, [to] help to nourish our devotion to this holy bond of Union.”[10] He recommended, for instance, that the desk on which he signed the Declaration of Independence be “carried in the procession of our nation’s birthday, as the relics of the saints are in those of the Church.” [11] As the American statesman Carlton Hayes pointed out, Americans are also taught to revere their national shrines (Independence Hall), national relics (the Liberty Bell), national holy scriptures (the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution), national martyrs (Lincoln) and national holy feasts (the Fourth of July). [12] These are all aspects of a cult of nationality which ensures that citizens put their loyalty to the state above and beyond their loyalty to everything else, particularly religion. These nationalistic beliefs are further reinforced in state schools, one might as well call them madrasas where children are taught to revere the nation, honor its pious predecessors and commit the pledge of allegiance to memory by rote memorization. Hegel, the famous philosopher of the Enlightenment described the State as ‘the march of God on earth.’ [13] Now it might be unfair to expect Qadhi to have read or understood Hegel but when George W. Bush has a better understanding of the world than you, it is time to worry. ‘American patriotism,’ the American President proclaimed in 2002, ‘is still a living faith.’ [14]

To argue that secular states like America have a policy of neutrality towards all religions is therefore ludicrous. On the contrary, states such as America are involved in a religious battle to drive out religion itself. They do this exporting, preaching and propagating their own values such as freedom and equality. Religions with an active social agenda are anathema to such societies. As the astute political thinker de Tocqueville argued, the French revolution although avowedly a political movement to spread liberty and equality, was as religious in having its soldiers, apostles and martyrs across the world as Islam. [15] Muslims should be smart enough not to embrace and celebrate the ‘equality’ offered by secular states as sign of their tolerance. Such equality is actually a sign of the secular state’s absolute opposition to any gradations of rank which are based on religion. The Qur’an presents such claims of equality as a danger, not as a positive trait:

‘They wish that you reject Faith, as they have rejected (Faith), and thus that you all become equal. [16]

An equality based on mutual suspension of religious commitment is not one which any Muslim should celebrate.

On the J-Word

But if my loved ones, wealth, material possessions, if my country allows me to express that loyalty and makes that loyalty flourish and does not hinder that loyalty, then in that case, I can give my love and my loyalty to my parents, my children, yes, even to money and possessions, and even to nation-states. [17]

Qadhi’s comments on jihâd are another example of his deliberate misreading of Islamic texts and his ignorance of the secular world order. He unsuccessfully tries to hide a tension which is visible for all to see. His claim that his loyalty to America does not hinder his loyalty to Islam is contradicted by the fact that in order to be loyal to his country he is required to condemn Muslims resisting injustice across the world, not to mention those at home.

Once again, Qadhi misses some fairly basic truths about the secular world order. The first is that the secular state seeks complete control over violence and the taking of life, historically the function most associated with religious rules and rituals. At the same time, secular states regard religious violence as inherently wrong and people like Qadhi seem to have assented to this taxonomy by unequivocally condemning religious violence and explaining away nationalistic state violence. For Qadhi, state violence can be tolerated but religious violence must always be condemned. The second basic truth is that violence is not something incidental in the history of nationalism, it is endemic to it. Nation states use a variety of means to drum up nationalistic fervor in support of their wars. [18] Historically, more people have been killed under the banner of nationalism, particularly after the rise of secularism and the supposed era of peace ushered in by the League of Nations and the United Nations, than any other comparable period. The record of American violence in Nicaragua, Chile, Korea, Vietnam etc. shows how grossly inaccurate it is for Qadhi to portray American violence today as a reaction to the attacks of 9/11. America has never needed a 9/11 to be violent. [19] If these realities can no longer be expressed openly in the current political climate in America, then the least one is entitled to expect of a Muslim is silence, rather than an open celebration of the supposed tolerance of his country and a condemnation of Muslims exercising their right to self defense.

Qadhi’s followers should remember that they will be judged not according to his ever changing standards of right and wrong but according to the teachings of the Quran and Sunnah. Both of these sources indicate that in order to be a believer, a person must love the believers who are loved by Allah and must dissociate himself from the disbelievers who are hated by Allah.

Indeed there has been an excellent example for you in Ibrahim (Abraham) and those with him, when they said to their people: "Verily, we are free from you and whatever you worship besides Allah, we have rejected you, and there has started between us and you, hostility and hatred for ever, until you believe in Allah Alone," [20]

Foremost amongst those who deserve our loyalty, love and support are those believers who are fighting in the way of Allah, [21] We are also commanded to fight for those who are oppressed:

And what is wrong with you that you fight not in the Cause of Allah, and for those weak, ill-treated and oppressed among men, women, and children, whose cry is: "Our Lord! Rescue us from this town whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from You one who will protect, and raise for us from You one who will help." [22]

According to Qadhi’s reasoning, Muslims in other countries should also abandon Muslims in America if the latter were being oppressed and tyrannized. How would that conduct compare with the conduct of the Muslims described by the noble Prophet in an authentic hadîth which talks about the signs of the Hour, in which Muslims will be commanded to hand over a group of Muslims to the disbelievers and they will refuse to betray them, choosing to fight jihâd rather than to abandon their brethren:

The hour will not come until the Romans camp in al- A‘mâq or in al-Dâbiq. An army will come out from Madînah to meet them, composed of the best people on earth at that time. When they face one another, the Romans will say, ‘Do not stand between us and those whom you took prisoner (and converted to Islam); let us fight them. The Muslims will say, ‘No, by Allah, we will not stand aside and let you fight our brothers.’ So they will fight. One third will flee, and Allah will never accept their repentance, one third will be killed and they will be the best of martyrs in the sight of Allah; and one third will attain victory and will never be influenced by fitnah.’ [23]

Endnotes

[1] Yasir Qadhi | God’s Law and Man-Made Laws: Muslims Living in Secular Democracies | MuslimMatters.org
[2] Divided Loyalties or Imagined Conflicts? Muslims in America | Yasir Qadhi | Baltimore | IlmFest 2009 | MuslimMatters.org
[3] Sûrah al-Nâzi‘ât, 25.
[4] Tirmidhî, al-Jâmi‘, 3095. Graded hasan because of its supporting narrations.
[5] Divided Loyalties or Imagined Conflicts? Muslims in America | Yasir Qadhi | Baltimore | IlmFest 2009 | MuslimMatters.org
[6] Ibid.
[7] For example, the following hadîth narrated on the authority of Abu Huraira, in which that the Messenger of Allah (may peace and blessings be upon him) said: Faith has over seventy branches or over sixty branches, the most excellent of which is the declaration that there is no god but Allah, and the humblest of which is the, removal of what is injurious from the path: and modesty is the branch of faith. Hadîth # 55, Sahîh Muslim. This hadîth clearly establishes that faith consists of deeds of the heart (modesty), of the tongue (the declaration of faith) and the limbs (removing what is injurious from the path).
[8] My Reflections on the New York Times Article | MuslimMatters.org
[9] Emilio Gentile, Politics as Religion, trans. George Staunton (Princeton: Princeton University Press) 2006, 17-18 cited in William T. Cavanaugh, The Myths of Religious Violence: Secular Ideology and the Roots of Modern Conflict (Oxford: OUP) 2009, 115.
[10] Pauline Maier, American Scripture: Making the Declaration of Independence (New York: Knopf, 1997), 186–87, cited in Cavanaugh, The Myths of Religious Violence, 115
[11] Ibid.
[12] Carlton J. H. Hayes, Essays on Nationalism (New York: Macmillan) 1926, 107-108, cited in Cavanaugh, The Myths of Religious Violence, 117.
[13] Kenneth Minogue, Politics: A Very Short Introduction, (Oxford: OUP) 2005, 41.
[14] The American Faith
[15] Bernard Crick, Democracy: A Very Short Introduction, (Oxford: OUP) 2005, 54.
[16] Sûrah al-Nisâ’, 89.
[17] Divided Loyalties or Imagined Conflicts? Muslims in America | Yasir Qadhi | Baltimore | IlmFest 2009 | MuslimMatters.org
[18] Michael Billig, Banal Nationalism, (London: Sage), 2002.
[19] Noam Chomsky, Power and Terror, (New York: Seven Stories Press), 2003
[20] Sûrah al-Mumtahinah, 4.
[21] Sûrah al-Saff, 4: ‘Verily, Allah loves those who fight in His Cause in rows as if they were a solid structure.’ Sûrah al-Tawbah, 71: ‘The believers, men and women, are helpers, supporters, friends, protectors of one another, they enjoin all that Islam orders, and forbid from all that Islam has forbidden; they perform prayer, and give the charity and obey Allah and His Messenger. Allah will have His Mercy on them. Surely Allah is All-Mighty, All-Wise.
[22] Sûrah al-Nisâ, 75.
[23] Sahîh Muslim # 2897.

[mod note: please do not post links to banned sites]