al-Ahram Newspaper
Monday June 1, 2009
Monday June 1, 2009
Freedom and the limits of Freedom
Change Requires Both Reform and Renewal
GAZA
al-Ahram Newspaper
Monday June 1, 2009
We welcome President Barack Obama on the occasion of his upcoming visit to Egypt and his anticipated speech to the Muslim world. We hope that this visit will bring about improved relations, which I think can only happen through an improvement in political relations. In my opinion this can only occur through a series of practices and positions that the intellectuals and religious scholars of the Muslim world hope for. In order to be more specific, I have a few points that may be summarized as the following:
We would like there to be perpetually open channels for continuous scientific cultural, economic, and technological dialogue between us and the United States. This can only be achieved in an environment that respects international law and the resolutions of the United Nations as they are related to the central problem for Muslims, which is Palestine and the aggression committed against the Palestinian people in the form of occupation, blockades, settlements, and the denial of basic rights such as water, work, freedom of movement, education, and life. Additionally, the glaring physical aggression of arrests and murder, which we consider the United States of America to be capable of intervening positively in order to stand up for what is right and put an end to extremist voices that call for perpetual conflict and the reaffirmation of the concepts of occupation, tyranny, and the destructions of the rights of peoples.
Something to be aware of is that Islam is capable of thriving in every age and of building bridges with all civilizations. This is affirmed by history and all Islamic sources. This requires engaging in dialogue with moderate Islam and relying on it as an authoritative reference for mutual understanding between the Islamic world and the West. This is for the sake of a more illumined tomorrow and for balanced cooperation through which both the Muslim world and the United States will realize benefits in a just and continuous manner with neither party being transformed into mere objects for the acquisition of ends that conflict with their own interests and do not last. If we do this faithfully it will lead to the end of acts of genocide that breed more rage and complicate matters in the long run, which is what none of us want. Occupation can never be in accord with defending the rights of peoples or true and balanced cooperation which must be fostered between the Islamic world and the United States in order to bring an end to poverty, disease, ignorance, and to protect the future of humanity.
The basis for what we have mentioned is present in the Qur’an in a number of verses: Say: O People of the Scripture! Come to an agreement between us and you: that we shall worship none but God, and that we shall ascribe no partner unto Him, and that none of us shall take others for lords beside God. And if they turn away, then say: Bear witness that we are they who have surrendered (unto Him) [3:64], which is what calls us to love of God and love of neighbor. As for love of God, everything in our lives is based on love of God. The Qur’an says, Say: Lo! my worship and my sacrifice and my living and my dying are for God Lord of the Worlds. He hath no partner. This am I commanded, and I am first of those who surrender (unto Him). Say: Shall I seek another than God for Lord, when He is Lord of all things? Each soul earneth only on its own account, nor doth any laden bear another’s load. Then unto your Lord is your return and He will tell you that wherein ye differed [6:162-164].
As for love of neighbor, the Quran says, It is not righteousness that ye turn your faces to the East and the West; but righteous is he who believeth in God and the Last Day and the angels and the Scripture and the prophets; and giveth wealth, for love of Him, to kinsfolk and to orphans and the needy and the wayfarer and to those who ask, and to set slaves free; and observeth proper worship and payeth the poor-due. And those who keep their treaty when they make one, and the patient in tribulation and adversity and time of stress. Such are they who are sincere. Such are the God-fearing [2:177].
And the Prophet (may the peace and blessings of God be upon him) said, “None of you believes until they love for their brother – or their neighbor – what you love for yourselves.” And he also said, “Creatures are the children of God, so the most beloved of God among you are those who are of the most benefit to His children.”
In order to work towards peace in the region, and in the entire world, we must put an end to the slander against Islam and Muslims, which has portrayed Muslims as the greatest enemy of Western civilization, which is not true at all. These campaigns of slander led by some research institutes which continue to reiterate the old positions of orientalism and do not take into consideration a reality that is of the utmost importance, which is that reformist politics must originate and not imitate. This means that in order to last and have an effect in the world they must issue forth from the reality of their society, its cultural frame, the convictions of its people, their vision of the world, humanity, and life, and their traditional beliefs and religions that they follow. Without this, a politics of reform cannot survive and cannot have a real effect in the world in which we live. These institutes must not forget that diversity, which is a matter that is affirmed by modern democracy, must have a reality on the ground. Following from this is the necessity of respecting Islamic customs and putting a halt to suggestions of direct intervention in matters that are particular to this religion.
We pray to God most high that this visit is a good beginning and the occasion for a new understanding. We pray for sincere intentions in order to actualize a future that is more stable and more cooperative in building human civilization, for God is the most gracious of lords and the most gracious responder to prayers.
Monday June 1, 2009
We welcome President Barack Obama on the occasion of his upcoming visit to Egypt and his anticipated speech to the Muslim world. We hope that this visit will bring about improved relations, which I think can only happen through an improvement in political relations. In my opinion this can only occur through a series of practices and positions that the intellectuals and religious scholars of the Muslim world hope for. In order to be more specific, I have a few points that may be summarized as the following:
We would like there to be perpetually open channels for continuous scientific cultural, economic, and technological dialogue between us and the United States. This can only be achieved in an environment that respects international law and the resolutions of the United Nations as they are related to the central problem for Muslims, which is Palestine and the aggression committed against the Palestinian people in the form of occupation, blockades, settlements, and the denial of basic rights such as water, work, freedom of movement, education, and life. Additionally, the glaring physical aggression of arrests and murder, which we consider the United States of America to be capable of intervening positively in order to stand up for what is right and put an end to extremist voices that call for perpetual conflict and the reaffirmation of the concepts of occupation, tyranny, and the destructions of the rights of peoples.
Something to be aware of is that Islam is capable of thriving in every age and of building bridges with all civilizations. This is affirmed by history and all Islamic sources. This requires engaging in dialogue with moderate Islam and relying on it as an authoritative reference for mutual understanding between the Islamic world and the West. This is for the sake of a more illumined tomorrow and for balanced cooperation through which both the Muslim world and the United States will realize benefits in a just and continuous manner with neither party being transformed into mere objects for the acquisition of ends that conflict with their own interests and do not last. If we do this faithfully it will lead to the end of acts of genocide that breed more rage and complicate matters in the long run, which is what none of us want. Occupation can never be in accord with defending the rights of peoples or true and balanced cooperation which must be fostered between the Islamic world and the United States in order to bring an end to poverty, disease, ignorance, and to protect the future of humanity.
The basis for what we have mentioned is present in the Qur’an in a number of verses: Say: O People of the Scripture! Come to an agreement between us and you: that we shall worship none but God, and that we shall ascribe no partner unto Him, and that none of us shall take others for lords beside God. And if they turn away, then say: Bear witness that we are they who have surrendered (unto Him) [3:64], which is what calls us to love of God and love of neighbor. As for love of God, everything in our lives is based on love of God. The Qur’an says, Say: Lo! my worship and my sacrifice and my living and my dying are for God Lord of the Worlds. He hath no partner. This am I commanded, and I am first of those who surrender (unto Him). Say: Shall I seek another than God for Lord, when He is Lord of all things? Each soul earneth only on its own account, nor doth any laden bear another’s load. Then unto your Lord is your return and He will tell you that wherein ye differed [6:162-164].
As for love of neighbor, the Quran says, It is not righteousness that ye turn your faces to the East and the West; but righteous is he who believeth in God and the Last Day and the angels and the Scripture and the prophets; and giveth wealth, for love of Him, to kinsfolk and to orphans and the needy and the wayfarer and to those who ask, and to set slaves free; and observeth proper worship and payeth the poor-due. And those who keep their treaty when they make one, and the patient in tribulation and adversity and time of stress. Such are they who are sincere. Such are the God-fearing [2:177].
And the Prophet (may the peace and blessings of God be upon him) said, “None of you believes until they love for their brother – or their neighbor – what you love for yourselves.” And he also said, “Creatures are the children of God, so the most beloved of God among you are those who are of the most benefit to His children.”
In order to work towards peace in the region, and in the entire world, we must put an end to the slander against Islam and Muslims, which has portrayed Muslims as the greatest enemy of Western civilization, which is not true at all. These campaigns of slander led by some research institutes which continue to reiterate the old positions of orientalism and do not take into consideration a reality that is of the utmost importance, which is that reformist politics must originate and not imitate. This means that in order to last and have an effect in the world they must issue forth from the reality of their society, its cultural frame, the convictions of its people, their vision of the world, humanity, and life, and their traditional beliefs and religions that they follow. Without this, a politics of reform cannot survive and cannot have a real effect in the world in which we live. These institutes must not forget that diversity, which is a matter that is affirmed by modern democracy, must have a reality on the ground. Following from this is the necessity of respecting Islamic customs and putting a halt to suggestions of direct intervention in matters that are particular to this religion.
We pray to God most high that this visit is a good beginning and the occasion for a new understanding. We pray for sincere intentions in order to actualize a future that is more stable and more cooperative in building human civilization, for God is the most gracious of lords and the most gracious responder to prayers.
The Moral Ceiling of Intellectual Investigation
Rose El-Yousef
1 of 3
Islamic Discourse
Rose El-Yousef
2 of 3
When Jihad Turns From Struggle To Murder
Rose El-Yousef
3 of 3
Change Requires Both Reform and
Renewal
12/02/07 - Rose El-Yousef
There is a difference between change and creating change. The difference between them is intention and will, which require the formation of a plan and its implementation. Change happens automatically with the passing of time, the change of people due to life and death, the flow and intertwining of events, and the discoveries made, both in the sensory realm, as well as through the flashes of realization by which God provides openings to His servants in the realm of ideas. These discoveries later affect individual and group relations between people, and between countries and blocs. As for creating change, it involves studying reality and noting something that needs to be changed. This is where intention and will for that change appear and a person forms a suitable plan, which he implements to achieve his purpose or part of his purpose.
The expressions “reform” and “renewal” both fall into the category of “change”. Some authors of contemporary literature, according to their use of these two expressions, consider them to be synonymous, and use them interchangeably. I consider there to be a difference between reform and renewal. Reform assumes there is a deficiency in the world, which could reach the extent of a flaw, and which necessitates a certain amount of demolition and rebuilding. This is why reform also demands that one not submit to that which has been passed down, but consider that an error has been committed by those who have preceded us either in their understanding, their application, or both. This is the reason and justification for the process of demolition and rebuilding that puts an end to the current deficiency. With this concept of reform the idea of either a partial or a complete “epistemological rupture” can be accepted, based on the vision of the reformer, the extent of the reform, the extent of the desire, will, and intention to create change. Through this epistemological rupture the sources and tools of knowledge are criticized and new criteria for evaluation are formed. Thus the process of reformulating knowledge is carried out. All these are the first and essential steps in a plan of reform. Reform understood in this way usually faces strong resistance because firstly, it clashes with the prevailing culture, secondly, it puts forward an idea that hasn’t been tested before so there is fear of accepting it, thirdly, it formulates that idea in an original manner that differs from the formulations of established disciplines that have been studied and passed on from one generation to the next, and fourthly, because it describes a part of inherited knowledge as being deficient. Therefore, the task of reform is more difficult, and requires more time.
As for renewal, it is a process of adding something new that does not require demolishing or nullifying older knowledge, instead, it provides new things that are required by the times. The relationship of these additions to that which preceded is based on the concept of carrying out the duties called for by the times, that the predecessors successfully carried out the duties of their times based on the requisites of their era and their lives, and that you have duties of your time different from the duties of previous times. Therefore, although we respect inherited knowledge, we do not stop at it, and we do not oppose it, on the contrary, we respect it, add to it, and reformulate its methods to make them consistent with the new methods that we have added.
This is based on the idea of separating issues from methods. The issues are defined in our studies of grammar and syntax as the “complete sentence”, which consists in the Arabic language of a subject and a predicate, or a subject and a verb. A careful examination of the nominal sentence and the verbal sentence reveals that they are made up of two parts: a subject that we speak about, and something that we attribute to that subject, this is why we hear scholars of grammar refer to the subject (musnad ilayhi), the predicate (musnad), and predication (isnad). There are many different issues, they are as numerous as human expression, but when a person carries out the process of predication, they must apply certain methods or groups of methods in order to attribute the proper ruling to the subject. These methods vary based on the different fields that the issues fall under, such as the field of life where we say: the sun shines, or fire burns; or the mental and rational field with mathematical or geometric facts, which also have a sensory aspect in their application and benefits. There is also the transmitted field, where we say: the subject is in the nominative or indicative, or the object is in the accusative, which is not something that comes out of our creation or desire but has been transmitted to us in our inherited language. Similarly, there is the field of creation (al-wad’), where we agree on certain terms and expressions, such as formulation (ta’lif) in various sciences. Finally, there is the field of Islamic law, where we learn the commandments of shari’ah through detailed indications, such as when we say: prayer is obligatory, or bribery is prohibited. Therefore, the relation between the predicate and the subject is proving or refuting one towards the other.
Each field has its sources, its instruments that enable reaching its issues, and the conditions that must be satisfied by any researcher in this field. In fact, these three factors constitute methodology, that is why we see those who describe “usul al-fiqh” (principles of Islamic jurisprudence) as a methodology, since this science demonstrates the overall sources of evidence of fiqh (the sources), how to benefit from them (the instruments), and the state of the beneficiary (the conditions that must be satisfied by the researcher). The idea of not stopping at issues using methodologies, while sometimes reformulating them when needed in order to highlight them and explain their facts to the prevailing culture, is an important basis of the meaning of renewal.
Anyone aware of the current complex reality must reject the idea of dualities. Reform and renewal are not two contradicting concepts that cannot be combined; one should not side with reform and oppose renewal, or side with renewal and oppose reform, and people should not be classified as reformers or renewers, for the desired change could need both reform and renewal. In some cases, different ratios of the two may be needed at different times, where we might need more reform than renewal in a certain case, or vice versa, or they might both be needed in equal ratios. This liberation of these two terms is something that I consider to be of the utmost importance if we wish to examine the religious conditions in Egypt from the end of the eighteenth century until the present times. An awareness of these conditions enables us to understand the present in order to build for the future. We can try together to classify the events that occurred as “reform” and “renewal”, as well as categorizing reform further into a criticism of inherited knowledge or a deficiency in inherited knowledge.
We can begin by discussing a great scholar who represents a milestone in fiqh in Egypt and the Islamic world, Sheikh Abul-Barakat Ahmad Al-Dardir, born in 1127 Hijri and died in 1201 Hijri (1715 – 1786 AD). He was one of the leading scholars of the Maliki school of law, and was the religious authority for the country since he was the Grand Mufti of Egypt. This is mentioned in Al-Yawaqit Al-Thaminah” (“The Precious Pearls”), and he was mentioned by Al-Jabarti in the second volume of his history of modern Egypt. Followers of Sheikh Al-Dardir’s history will find that he carried out all three authorities: the legislative, the judicial, and the executive. This is a condition related to his times that has changed so that the concept of separating the powers was accepted, then implemented, and then became a necessity that could not be done without. This is not a kind of objectionable change or alteration; rather it is a requirement for the establishment of justice, order, and equality amongst humanity. The state has now become a state of institutions that agreed on a constitution that represents a social concept that disciplines and restrains human society in the manner desired by God the Almighty. These restraints on human society can be found in the Quranic chapter entitled “Women”, may God help me in deriving some of them in order to demonstrate the commandments of Islam regarding this issue.
Sheikh Al-Dardir was buried in his now well-known mosque, west of the Al-Azhar mosque. His home was near that mosque, and I have seen amongst its ruins something that resembled a gallows. Our teachers would explain to us that he used to carry out verdicts of execution, for he was a judge and an executor, and he was the commentator on Mukhtasar al-Khalil so he also acted as a legislative authority. Sheikh Al-Dardir was famous for following an ascetic and moral lifestyle, characterized by a strong opposition to the injustice imposed by rulers on their subjects. This was one of the main factors that combined all these authorities in his hands. There was one instance where Murad Beik, one of the Mamluks during the Ottoman era, attacked the homes of some Cairo residents and confiscated their possessions. The people then turned to the Sheikh, who led a revolution to recover the their usurped rights. When news of this reached Ibrahim Beik, who was Murad Beik’s partner in governing the country, he feared that this revolution could intensify, and sent to Sheikh Al-Dardir, seeking conciliation and apologizing for the actions of his partner, assuring him that he would return everything that had been pillaged, or pay compensation for it. There are several other similar situations where the Sheikh stood up to Ali Beik Al-Kabir, another leading Mamluk. The point of this story is that one hundred years later this situation of having the legislative, judicial, and executing powers in the hands of one person required much reform and renewal. This is why we call for any study to transmit consciously and to clarify the positive aspects of this situation and to attempt to strengthen them or reproduce them, as well as the negative aspects, in order to resist or change them.
Other examples worthy of being studied are those of Sheikh Hasan Al-‘Atar, Sheikh Ibrahim Al-Bajuri, Sheikh Salim Al-Bishri, Sheikh Muhammad Abdullah Darraz, Sheikh Muhammad Al-Sadek Arjun, Sheikh Abd al-Mut’al Al-Sa’idi, and Sheikh Abd al-Halim Mahmud. These scholars have not been studied and researched as they deserve to be as has been the case with Imam Muhammad Abdu, may Allah have mercy on his soul.
12/02/07 - Rose El-Yousef
There is a difference between change and creating change. The difference between them is intention and will, which require the formation of a plan and its implementation. Change happens automatically with the passing of time, the change of people due to life and death, the flow and intertwining of events, and the discoveries made, both in the sensory realm, as well as through the flashes of realization by which God provides openings to His servants in the realm of ideas. These discoveries later affect individual and group relations between people, and between countries and blocs. As for creating change, it involves studying reality and noting something that needs to be changed. This is where intention and will for that change appear and a person forms a suitable plan, which he implements to achieve his purpose or part of his purpose.
The expressions “reform” and “renewal” both fall into the category of “change”. Some authors of contemporary literature, according to their use of these two expressions, consider them to be synonymous, and use them interchangeably. I consider there to be a difference between reform and renewal. Reform assumes there is a deficiency in the world, which could reach the extent of a flaw, and which necessitates a certain amount of demolition and rebuilding. This is why reform also demands that one not submit to that which has been passed down, but consider that an error has been committed by those who have preceded us either in their understanding, their application, or both. This is the reason and justification for the process of demolition and rebuilding that puts an end to the current deficiency. With this concept of reform the idea of either a partial or a complete “epistemological rupture” can be accepted, based on the vision of the reformer, the extent of the reform, the extent of the desire, will, and intention to create change. Through this epistemological rupture the sources and tools of knowledge are criticized and new criteria for evaluation are formed. Thus the process of reformulating knowledge is carried out. All these are the first and essential steps in a plan of reform. Reform understood in this way usually faces strong resistance because firstly, it clashes with the prevailing culture, secondly, it puts forward an idea that hasn’t been tested before so there is fear of accepting it, thirdly, it formulates that idea in an original manner that differs from the formulations of established disciplines that have been studied and passed on from one generation to the next, and fourthly, because it describes a part of inherited knowledge as being deficient. Therefore, the task of reform is more difficult, and requires more time.
As for renewal, it is a process of adding something new that does not require demolishing or nullifying older knowledge, instead, it provides new things that are required by the times. The relationship of these additions to that which preceded is based on the concept of carrying out the duties called for by the times, that the predecessors successfully carried out the duties of their times based on the requisites of their era and their lives, and that you have duties of your time different from the duties of previous times. Therefore, although we respect inherited knowledge, we do not stop at it, and we do not oppose it, on the contrary, we respect it, add to it, and reformulate its methods to make them consistent with the new methods that we have added.
This is based on the idea of separating issues from methods. The issues are defined in our studies of grammar and syntax as the “complete sentence”, which consists in the Arabic language of a subject and a predicate, or a subject and a verb. A careful examination of the nominal sentence and the verbal sentence reveals that they are made up of two parts: a subject that we speak about, and something that we attribute to that subject, this is why we hear scholars of grammar refer to the subject (musnad ilayhi), the predicate (musnad), and predication (isnad). There are many different issues, they are as numerous as human expression, but when a person carries out the process of predication, they must apply certain methods or groups of methods in order to attribute the proper ruling to the subject. These methods vary based on the different fields that the issues fall under, such as the field of life where we say: the sun shines, or fire burns; or the mental and rational field with mathematical or geometric facts, which also have a sensory aspect in their application and benefits. There is also the transmitted field, where we say: the subject is in the nominative or indicative, or the object is in the accusative, which is not something that comes out of our creation or desire but has been transmitted to us in our inherited language. Similarly, there is the field of creation (al-wad’), where we agree on certain terms and expressions, such as formulation (ta’lif) in various sciences. Finally, there is the field of Islamic law, where we learn the commandments of shari’ah through detailed indications, such as when we say: prayer is obligatory, or bribery is prohibited. Therefore, the relation between the predicate and the subject is proving or refuting one towards the other.
Each field has its sources, its instruments that enable reaching its issues, and the conditions that must be satisfied by any researcher in this field. In fact, these three factors constitute methodology, that is why we see those who describe “usul al-fiqh” (principles of Islamic jurisprudence) as a methodology, since this science demonstrates the overall sources of evidence of fiqh (the sources), how to benefit from them (the instruments), and the state of the beneficiary (the conditions that must be satisfied by the researcher). The idea of not stopping at issues using methodologies, while sometimes reformulating them when needed in order to highlight them and explain their facts to the prevailing culture, is an important basis of the meaning of renewal.
Anyone aware of the current complex reality must reject the idea of dualities. Reform and renewal are not two contradicting concepts that cannot be combined; one should not side with reform and oppose renewal, or side with renewal and oppose reform, and people should not be classified as reformers or renewers, for the desired change could need both reform and renewal. In some cases, different ratios of the two may be needed at different times, where we might need more reform than renewal in a certain case, or vice versa, or they might both be needed in equal ratios. This liberation of these two terms is something that I consider to be of the utmost importance if we wish to examine the religious conditions in Egypt from the end of the eighteenth century until the present times. An awareness of these conditions enables us to understand the present in order to build for the future. We can try together to classify the events that occurred as “reform” and “renewal”, as well as categorizing reform further into a criticism of inherited knowledge or a deficiency in inherited knowledge.
We can begin by discussing a great scholar who represents a milestone in fiqh in Egypt and the Islamic world, Sheikh Abul-Barakat Ahmad Al-Dardir, born in 1127 Hijri and died in 1201 Hijri (1715 – 1786 AD). He was one of the leading scholars of the Maliki school of law, and was the religious authority for the country since he was the Grand Mufti of Egypt. This is mentioned in Al-Yawaqit Al-Thaminah” (“The Precious Pearls”), and he was mentioned by Al-Jabarti in the second volume of his history of modern Egypt. Followers of Sheikh Al-Dardir’s history will find that he carried out all three authorities: the legislative, the judicial, and the executive. This is a condition related to his times that has changed so that the concept of separating the powers was accepted, then implemented, and then became a necessity that could not be done without. This is not a kind of objectionable change or alteration; rather it is a requirement for the establishment of justice, order, and equality amongst humanity. The state has now become a state of institutions that agreed on a constitution that represents a social concept that disciplines and restrains human society in the manner desired by God the Almighty. These restraints on human society can be found in the Quranic chapter entitled “Women”, may God help me in deriving some of them in order to demonstrate the commandments of Islam regarding this issue.
Sheikh Al-Dardir was buried in his now well-known mosque, west of the Al-Azhar mosque. His home was near that mosque, and I have seen amongst its ruins something that resembled a gallows. Our teachers would explain to us that he used to carry out verdicts of execution, for he was a judge and an executor, and he was the commentator on Mukhtasar al-Khalil so he also acted as a legislative authority. Sheikh Al-Dardir was famous for following an ascetic and moral lifestyle, characterized by a strong opposition to the injustice imposed by rulers on their subjects. This was one of the main factors that combined all these authorities in his hands. There was one instance where Murad Beik, one of the Mamluks during the Ottoman era, attacked the homes of some Cairo residents and confiscated their possessions. The people then turned to the Sheikh, who led a revolution to recover the their usurped rights. When news of this reached Ibrahim Beik, who was Murad Beik’s partner in governing the country, he feared that this revolution could intensify, and sent to Sheikh Al-Dardir, seeking conciliation and apologizing for the actions of his partner, assuring him that he would return everything that had been pillaged, or pay compensation for it. There are several other similar situations where the Sheikh stood up to Ali Beik Al-Kabir, another leading Mamluk. The point of this story is that one hundred years later this situation of having the legislative, judicial, and executing powers in the hands of one person required much reform and renewal. This is why we call for any study to transmit consciously and to clarify the positive aspects of this situation and to attempt to strengthen them or reproduce them, as well as the negative aspects, in order to resist or change them.
Other examples worthy of being studied are those of Sheikh Hasan Al-‘Atar, Sheikh Ibrahim Al-Bajuri, Sheikh Salim Al-Bishri, Sheikh Muhammad Abdullah Darraz, Sheikh Muhammad Al-Sadek Arjun, Sheikh Abd al-Mut’al Al-Sa’idi, and Sheikh Abd al-Halim Mahmud. These scholars have not been studied and researched as they deserve to be as has been the case with Imam Muhammad Abdu, may Allah have mercy on his soul.
Al-Ahram January 5, 2009
Another evil aggression comes as part of a series of massacres that Israel has insisted upon committing during the past 60 years, starting with Deir Yassin through Qana. This is an aggression whose minor details have distracted us from the main problem; the occupation of land. People have begun raising disputes about the different sides of the conflict, pointing fingers here and there, and even making accusations of treason. However, the source of the problem has never once been mentioned. Israel, as an internationally recognized state, is described in all UN resolutions as an occupier of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, and that it still occupies the Golan Heights in Syria, the Shebaa Farms in Lebanon, and that it has previously occupied southern Lebanon, and the Sinai peninsula before that. We know that it did not leave except after it was dealt one military defeat after another, and that it held on to Taba for years until God liberated it through international law, and it also held on to Shebaa until God liberated it. All of these facts cannot be denied by anyone, even Israel, and have not been mentioned by anyone because the situation is considered a fait accompli. If Israeli injustice does not tire of covering up through the media in order to keep the status quo, we must also not tire of repeating our demands for our rights, for no rights are lost to whomever keeps demanding.
1. We [the Egyptians] have pursued peace so that the whole world may pursue peace, and we did this based on God’s words, “If they resort to peace, so shall you, and put your trust in God. He is the Hearer, the Omniscient.” (8:61). We have seen Israel continue its attacks and oppression and massacres, making the Palestinians choose between death or death, until the Palestinian people became fed up with their situation, such that we have seen them do what nobody has every done. We have seen their youth of all denominations - Muslims and non-Muslims, males and females - blow themselves up in the faces of their occupiers. When this occurrence first surfaced, religious scholars were not the ones who motivated these actions; rather it was their biter reality. Instead of studying this condition and revealing its reasons, we find most of the world laying the blame on Islam and Muslim scholars asking, “is this really Islam?” The answer is, “did Islam or any of its scholars command the youth to do that, or is it a phenomenon that emerged out of the reality of their situation?” We should seek the answer by studying their predicament. Likewise why do we not direct this question to Israel and ask it what drove people to sacrifice their souls, and how can you mistreat a helpless people to the point of despair that they take these actions?
When religious scholars like Sheikh Ibn Uthaymin forbade these acts, none of those youth paid any heed. When some supported these acts, their numbers neither increased nor decreased. When others said that there were two ways of looking at the matter, the people of Palestine did not listen to them for these acts were related to their bitter and shocking reality, a reality that has never been matched in history.
2. The situation in Gaza must bring us back to the origins of the problem. We must not occupy ourselves only with aid or statements and expressions of pain and condemnation. The origins of the problem is Israel’s occupation of the lands after 1967, the construction of settlements, the occupation of Jerusalem and its continuous cover-up in the media, refusal for the right to return of Palestinian refugees, and the excavations in the Al-Aqsa Mosque, with the purpose of demolishing it for the sake of an unverified legend. This is an exploitation of religion, any religion, for the sake of political games.
3. An inquirer asked if it would be allowable, due to this calamity, to raise one’s hands in prayer during the five daily prayers. I replied that according to the Hanafi, Shafa‘i, and Hanbali schools, raising one’s hands in prayer is allowed when we are faced with a calamity, such as fear, hunger, or disease, which are all conditions that exist with Gaza. However, followers of the Hanafi school of thought consider it permissible only in audible prayers: maghrib, isha‘a, and fajr. The followers of the Shafa‘i school permit it for all prayers, audible and silent. In a congregation prayer the imam should recite the prayer out loud, and an individual person in prayer prays silently. This process may continue for a maximum period of one month from the start of the calamity, after which it is stopped, for the Prophet (peace be upon him) would raise his hands in prayer for a month after which he would stop.
4. He then asked me, “how do we pray to God, and what do we pray for?” I replied that he should pray to God to awaken the people, and reunite them, and unify their word, and guide them to obey His commands and refrain from what He prohibited, and to open their souls to what pleases Him, and to raise them after they fall, and to empower them on Earth, and to help them perform prayer, pay alms, call for the performance of good deeds, and forbid evil, and to lead us away from any temptation, visible or hidden, and to grant us victory over our enemies and ourselves, and to grant us justice, and to lead us to the right path. Amen.
5. When danger occurs and another intifada emerges due to the continuous pressure of the Israelis, perhaps the usual uproar will be heard through questions to religious scholars. The leaders of Israel must listen to reason and understand that nobody would ever leave their land or rights or what they hold sacred, nor would they ever accept continuous assaults. If we want peace, we want it to be just and permanent, so that we may concentrate on developing the world instead of occupying ourselves with the frenzied desires of the Zionist state.
6. Finally, I call upon the Arab and Muslim world to unite in solidarity with the Palestinian people in the calamity that has fallen upon them due to the vicious assault launched by the occupying Israeli military. I urge the international legal system and all peace-loving forces in the world to interfere immediately in order to stop this unjust aggression inflicted on the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip. For what the occupying Israeli military is committing is a crime against humanity that requires the Arab and Muslim world to make a unified stand against the atrocities committed against helpless civilians by the occupying Israeli military. The United Nations and other international forces must intervene immediately to stop this war of mass genocide waged by the Israeli military machine, and to remove the blockade imposed on the Gaza strip, and to provide full freedom to the Palestinian people so everyone can live in peace and security.