By Imam Zaid
The recent “Teddy-Bear” crisis in Sudan illustrates the failure of many
Muslims to understand a stark reality; one that if left misunderstood will
probably lead to a lot of unnecessary bloodshed in the Muslim world, and
destroy the opportunity for many western, non-Muslim people to benefit, at a
mass level, from the many positive aspects of Islamic teachings. That reality
is that the strategic preeminence of the Muslim world is long gone, possibly
forever.
Were it not for oil, only three Muslim nations, Turkey, Indonesia, and
Malaysia would be among the worldÂ’s fifty largest economies, in terms of Gross
Domestic Product (GDP). Turkey, a nation of 70 million people, ranks
nineteenth. However, its GDP is equaled by Sweden, a nation of 9 million
people. Egypt, which ranks fifty-first, also has 70 million people. Its GDP is
smaller than that of New Zealand, a nation of 4 million people. The twenty-two
Arab states combined have a GDP smaller than that of Spain. It has to be
understood that military strength is a function of economic strength.
In strategic terms, it is certainly true that Muslims have proven to be
dogged guerilla fighters able to wear down and expel invaders in debilitating
wars of attrition. However, the ideologically-driven conflicts of the
twenty-first century, unless current trends are drastically changed, will not
be guerilla wars. They will be conventional wars, which may involve tactical
nuclear weapons used against Muslim peoples and their armies. These wars will
not be wars of occupation. Rather they will be wars whose purpose is to utterly
destroy what will be presented as an irrational, imperialistic force that poses
an existentialist threat to the West, Israel, or India. In this latter type of
warfare, Muslims have been systematically routed in recent history, and the
strategic gap between Muslims and any potential rivals in the Twenty First
century, in this regard, is rapidly widening.
How does the “Teddy Bear Crisis” fit into this discussion? It could be viewed
as an attempt on the part of an embattled Sudanese government to project power
vis-Ă -vis the West. As that power cannot be realistically projected in a
strategic sense, it was exercised against a hapless Western citizen, Ms.
Gilliam Gibbons, who became an inadvertent symbol of western hegemony. That
pathetic exercise of power, which here in the West only generated more hatred,
misunderstanding, animosity, and in some quarters just plain pity towards Islam
and Muslims, represents a failed opportunity to present western people a view
of the loftier legal and ethical teachings of Islam. Such teachings are
increasingly lost as our community, globally, becomes ever more deeply
entrenched in a stultifying literalism and an empty legalism that drains the
religion of its ability to speak to a global audience at a principled, ethical
level.
The great Egyptian poet, Ahmad Shawqi, mentioned in a line of verse, “Nations
are none other than the ethical systems that support them. When that system
goes they will soon follow.” This line articulates the very essence of the
Islamic mission. The Prophet Muhammad, peace upon him, mentioned, “I have only
been sent to perfect good character.” [1] Therefore, real religiosity is to be
found in character and higher ethics, not in the mere conformity a legal code
divorced from all other considerations. Unfortunately, increasingly throughout
the Muslim world we find calls for the strict implementation of the law,
unqualified by a healthy interaction with ethical ideals. The result of this
situation is the legal travesties we increasingly witness in that world,
ranging from the punishment of rape victims, to the recent teddy bear
situation.
Were the Sudanese government not trapped in such legalism there would not
have been a crisis. Fundamental principles of our religion and its law would
have prevented such a sad episode. First of all, while we are bound to protect
the honor of the Prophet, peace upon him, we are also taught that actions are
judged based on the intention accompanying them—Al-‘Amalu bin-Niyyat. In the
case in question no insult was intended, particularly on the part of the
teacher. The fact that the idea to name to the teddy bear Muhammad came from
the children in the class and not from the teacher along with the fact that
they were trying to honor the toy by choosing the best possible name for it
clearly witnesses to that.
Secondly, ignorant people are not held accountable for actions they undertake
while not knowing that they are Islamically unacceptable. Such individuals are
to be pardoned and educated, not punished and castigated. God mentions in the
QurÂ’an, The servants of the Merciful walk with reverent humility across the
earth, and when the ignorant address them they respond, peace. (25:63) AlQadi
Abu Bakr Ibn al-‘Arabi mentions that one of the meanings of the ignorant in
this verse is “non-Muslims.” [2] Imam Tabari comments, “When they are addressed
by those ignorant of God concerning the things He dislikes of reprehensible
speech, they respond with good speech, and an appropriately upright level of
discourse.” [3] Imam Ibn Kathir adds:
When ignorant people speak foolishly to them with foul language they do not
respond in kind. Rather, they pardon and overlook [those slights] and only
speak well, as was the case with the Prophet, peace and mercy of God upon him,
the abuse of the ignorant only increased him in forbearance. [4]
Ibn Kathir mentions the prophetic example. This is very important, for the
Prophet, peace upon him, responded very differently to those who intentionally
ridiculed and defamed him with the objective of undermining and belittling the
prophetic office, and those who abused and insulted him out of ignorance. In
the former cases his response was firm and stern, while in the latter case he
was gentle and forbearing. One of the clearest examples of this is the instance
when a desert Arab approached the Prophet, peace upon him, grabbed his cloak
and pulled it so hard that its edge scratched the base of the ProphetÂ’s neck,
peace upon him. The man then said, “O Muhammad! [5] Order that I be given
charity from the wealth God has deposited with you!” The Prophet, peace upon
him, turned to him, smiled, and ordered that he be given something from the
public treasury. [6]
Although this issue does not get to the heart of the matter at hand, it sheds
insight on the spirit that should govern how we understand the law in such
instances. To merely see the law as a set of strictures that must be
dogmatically enforced under all circumstances is to make a mockery of the
religion. The above incident and many similar ones also gives us insight into
what the Prophet, peace upon him, might have done is such situations as the one
we are commenting on.
A related issue is the fact that in many areas of the law new Muslims are
exempt from certain rulings. In many different issues we will read the caveat,
“…and he/she knows of the prohibition [of a certain action].” If he/she does
not know then they are not liable for their actions. If that is the case for a
new Muslim, what then should be the case of a non-Muslim?
Just as a case can be made for the ignorance of the teacher in question, a
case can be made for the fact that she made a mistake by Islamic standards. The
legal definition of a mistake is the unintended consequence of an intentional
action. She intended to honor the bear with a name that would evoke tenderness
and concern for the animals that the bear represented. However, she
inadvertently slighted of the Prophet, peace upon him. Mistakes of this type
involve no sin with God, and in the view of the majority of scholars they
involve no legal consequences.
The Prophet, peace upon him, mentioned in this regard, “God has pardoned—for
my sake—from my community, that done in error, forgetfully, or through
coercion.” [7] God mentions in the Qur’an, There is no sin on you for mistaken
actions, rather [sin accrues] for that which you undertake intentionally, and
God is oft-Forgiving, most Merciful (33:5). Similarly, God does not take you to
task for carelessness in our oaths, rather He takes you to task for the
intention of your hearts, and God is oft-Forgiving, most Forbearing (2:225).
Our religion teaches us that an error is not held against the one committing
it. If it is accompanied by an effort to do good then that effort is actually
rewarded. The Prophet, peace upon him, stated, “If a judge asserts himself and
arrives at the truth he will have two rewards. If he asserts himself and errs
he will have a single reward.” [8] The scholars mention that in the latter case
he will be rewarded for his effort, even though it resulted
in a mistake. These narrations express aspects of the divine law that are
indispensable if it is to maintain its lofty status in this age of overly
polemical, antagonistic political discourse.
Muslim authorities, even more than individual Muslims, have to think of the
long-range consequences of their actions. One of our legal principles is
considering the implications and ramifications of our actions—an-Nadharu ila
al-MaÂ’alat. In this case, the actions of the Sudanese government have created a
situation where a stark contrast can be drawn—a contrast amplified by skillful
journalistic techniques—between the principles and compassion of Muslims and
non-Muslims.
The Muslims are presented as so uncompassionate and inconsiderate of any
higher human virtues that they will victimize an unwitting innocent person in
an effort to uphold the law and allegedly defend the honor of the Prophet,
peace upon him. The non-Muslim is presented as so principled and compassionate
that she will forgive those who have actually oppressed her, and plead for
understanding and empathy for Muslims. The impact of such a contrast on
unsuspecting non-Muslims, and increasingly many Muslims is extremely
unsettling.
A final aspect of this issue we wish to discuss is the nature of civil
society in the Muslim world. In classical Islamic society, civil society was
extremely strong as opposed to a weak and decentralized state. The actions of
individual citizens were the key to social order and a high degree of civility
and social morality (Akhlaq) prevailed. In such an environment, reporting
crimes and misdemeanors to state authorities was a last resort. The
institutionalization of a western model of the authoritarian state into the
Muslim world, one of the worst aspects of the western political tradition, has
altered the nature of that type of civil society.
Now we have the idea that the “Islamic” state is to be the ultimate arbiter
of all things Islamic, great and small, despite the fact that the divine law
discourages elevating transgressions to state authority for adjudication. Had
civil society been stronger in Sudan, the “teddy bear” situation would have
been handled in the local neighborhood, and stayed there. The parents of the
children involved would have informed the teacher and their children—who
actually suggested naming the bear Muhammad—of the inappropriateness of their
actions and the affair would have ended. Even if those outside of the circle
immediately involved had learned of the situation they would have realized that
it was best left as an affair isolated to the school and individuals in
question.
In a global village where the real battle is the battle for hearts and minds
is this sort of narrow-minded legalism the best Islam can offer? I think not.
However, as long as we continue to prioritize politics and strategic affairs,
our decided weakness, over principles and prophetic ethics, our potential
strength, we are going to move from shameful crisis to shameful crisis and we
will find our religion floundering in the wake of frantic mobs, massacred
civilians, and non-issues elevated to the status of definitive statements of
our commitment to the defense of our Prophet, peace upon him, and our religion.
At the end of the day, in light of contemporary global realities, our best
defense of the Prophet, peace upon him, will never come through the mindless
enforcement of a sterile legal code divorced from the principles that give it
real meaning and substance. Rather it will come through living lives that
reflect the fullness of the prophetic teachings and using those teachings to
shine rays of light on an increasing dark and troubled world.
Notes:
[1] Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Musnad al-Imam Ahmad b. Hanbal (Beirut: MuÂ’assasah
ar-Risala, 1999/1420), 14:513.
[2] Al-Qadi Abu Bakr Ibn al-‘Arabi, Ahkam al-Qur’an (Beirut: Dar al-Fikr, nd),
3:451.
[3] Imam Ibn Jarir at-Tabari, JamiÂ’ al-Bayan fi TaÂ’wil al-QurÂ’an (Beirut: Dar
al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyya, 1997/1418) 9:408.
[4] Imam Abu al-Fida’ Isma’il b. Kathir, Tafsir al-Qur’an al-‘Adhim (Beirut,
Sidon: Maktaba al-‘Asriyya, 1996/1416), 3:305.
[5] Addressing the Prophet by his first name as opposed to an honorific title
is an insult to him. Appropriate addresses would be terms such as O Prophet! O
Messenger of God! God has commanded the believers in the QurÂ’an, Do not address
the Prophet as you address one another (24:63). In other words use proper and
honorific terms of respect for him
[6] Sahih al-Bukhari, #5809; Muslim # 1057
[7] Ibn Majah #2045; Ibn Hibban # 7219
[8] Al-Bukhari # 7352
saiyed shahbazi
www.shahbazcenter.org
