THERE is a
story that the devil sits on a throne, and that each day all the demons report
back to him. The reward for the one who has perpetrated the worst possible
deeds on earth, gets a chance to sit on the devil’s throne and to boast. And because
the devil’s court is a house of naked envy, all the other demons get jealous,
and want to destroy the one on the throne.
So when the devil
takes back his seat, the ‘victorious’ evil spirit finds itself thrown to the
dogs of malice. The braggart that had previously enjoyed a few moments of
notoriety – which he sees as fame – is soon set upon like a pack of hyenas, and
forgotten.
A Sufi Shaykh,
who passed on a few years ago, once said times had got so bad that even the
devil himself was beginning to feel ashamed. A man of wit, even until the end,
there is a definite barb in what the Shaykh said, as atrocity follows atrocity.
In our
community, I have begun to wonder recently whether our own devil wears not
Prada, but the self-imposed title of a ‘mufti’. Harsh, yes. But in a world of
isms, especially sectarianism, anonymous local cyber gangsters – supporting a swarm of these ‘muftis’ – have been pouring hate, vitriol, and specifically polytheism
and kufr, on a recently built Shi’ah mosque in Cape Town.
Poor people are
rooting in the dustbins outside their palatial homes, their brothers and
sisters are crying for help in the townships, the youth are asking questions –
and yet, these ‘muftis’ (there seem to be no women in their ranks) – blithely condemn
others on a manner of issues, and even regard them as a threat to their faith.
There are some serious questions here: firstly, if someone else’s beliefs are threat to yours, have you not considered that they might not be threat to mine?
Secondly, in
traditional Islam, classical Ahlus Sunni Islam a mufti is an honoured position
bestowed upon a learned elder by other learned elders, usually in the area of
Usul ul-Fiqh, the understanding and application of Shari’ah. In classical Ahlus
Sunni Islam, a mufti is a solitary title given to the most senior, experienced
jurist in a city, or a country. It is, therefore, surreal that we should have so
many ‘muftis’ in South Africa.
Thirdly, there
is the irresponsible abandon with which things are declared forbidden in this ‘mufti
universe’, this done without adequate legal argument, maslahah (the concept of social benefit) or consideration of valid opposing
views – all pre-requisites of fiqh.
In addition. the
willingness to indulge in takfir – in our case a blanket declaration of
unbelief on others one disagrees with creedally, or even politically – is another symptom of the ‘mufti’ disease, and
contrary to the tolerant spirit of the Ahlus Sunnah. And in case ‘tolerance’ is
seen as a weakness, Sayyidina ‘Ali – the fourth Caliph – once threw an orator out of the mosque when
he failed the tests of a scholar.
On the question
of takfir, all the Righteous Caliphs, Sayyidina Abu Bakr, Sayyidina ‘Umar, Sayyidina
‘Uthman and Sayyidina ‘Ali were always very reluctant to declare unbelief. This
tradition was carried on by the famous legal imams, Imam Malik, Abu Hanifah,
Imam Shafi’i and Imam Hanbal, as well as Ja’fr al-Sadiq.
Consequently, the
obsession by some to declare a newly constructed Shi’ah mosque a ‘temple’ and a
‘house of kufr’ is a case of blind intolerance. It is, tragically, symptomatic
of the sectarian culture of takfir, which has so bedevilled the Muslim
community in recent decades – and in no small measure, is thanks to the house
of Sa’ud and the dangerously reductionist notions of Ibn ‘Abd ul-Wahhab.
Yes, Sunni and
Shi’ah do enjoy differences; some present testing academic questions. Unfortunately,
space does not allow for anything more than an acknowledgment of this, but we
are not trivialising things. What is more important here is to consider the
adab ul-ikhtilaf, the honourable manner of dealing with difference – recommended
by all scholars, via the example of the Prophet.
The point is
that traditional Ahlus Sunnah scholars, whilst expressing their academic concerns
about Shi’ism, have never declared the Shi’ah as polytheists or kafirs, and for
over 1,400 years have allowed them to perform the Hajj cheek-by-jowl with
Sunnis.
Historically,
scholars of the Al-Azhar – such as Shaykh Shaltut of the pre Sisi era – have regarded
Shi’ism as another ‘madh-hab’, or school of thought. Anyone who is
uncomfortable with this, is free to contest it with the tools of Islamic
discourse.
In countries
such as Iraq, Syria, Pakistan, India, Afghanistan and Yemen, Shi’ah lived peacefully
with Sunnis for centuries until the dark clouds of 20th century sectarianism –
introduced by the takfiri psychosis of Al-Qaeda, the Taliban and Da’esh – gathered
on our horizon. And dwelling on, or bemoaning, Zionist-western backed conspiracies
serves no purpose, because we are the people who have to deal with the curse of
takfiri sectarianism.
As we know, its
worst excesses have manifested themselves in Syria, Iraq and various eastern
and western capitals at the hands of Da’esh. The recent Sinai massacre,
shocking in its execution and brutally inhumane in its bilious justification, is
but the most recent example of the bloodthirsty spleen of preaching hate and
takfir in the name of God.
Our local ‘muftis’
and their anonymous acolytes – pouring petrol on the local Shi’ah community whilst
waving a match – need to understand the consequences of their inflammatory and thoroughly
seditious behaviour. The
Sinai massacre, after all, is the tragic end-game of takfir – and if we don’t
heed the warning now, we are all doomed.
No comments:
Post a Comment