Ethics of Disagreement III

(v) On adab

The real problem lies not in differing with people, but how we deal with these differences when they occur.

Adab cannot be translated into English. Etiquette refers to an external matter, whilst adab is fundamentally internal, though has an aspect which is witnessed externally. You can be arrogant yet have good etiquette, but you cannot be arrogant and have adab.

Adab comprises of two things:

   -  Al-tawadu`, humility – you believe that you are low

   -  Al-ihtiram, respect of others

If this is not something deeply rooted in your heart, it is hypocrisy. (1)

Many of the problems in the domestic environment occur due to a lack of adab. You feel you deserve respect instead of thinking yourself to be low and respecting others. Society teaches you reciprocity: “You respect me and I will respect you.” Islamic adab is that you respect others and think of yourself as low, irrespective of how they behave towards you. When you embody this, people will love you. People do not love you for following etiquette alone.

With regards to the adab of differing in opinion for people of knowledge (scholars, students), there are some principles:

     a) Have humility regarding your opinion, and have tolerance and respect of others - al-tasaamuh

Think: it could be possible that I am the one who is wrong. Be humble; it is just an opinion. God has made the world in such a way that the people who follow the truth will ultimately succeed. Abu Hanifah and al-Shafi’i did not receive revelation. However pious you may be, you are human and can err. You could be wrong. If you don’t take part in the argument, there will be no argument. Al-Shafi’i differed from Abu H and Malik, but respected them.

People say: if you pick the easiest or most convenient way to solve a problem, you are following your desires. But why is this only a problem for them when it comes to salah or acts of worship? In others areas, such as financial contracts, there is no such thing as a 'pure' hanafi. Even staunch followers pick and choose from other madhaahib to solve their problem. (2)

Islam did not come to teach people to make groups and have followers. This came after the first 3 centuries, following the Greek way of having schools. In Islamic tradition, the ulema were like doctors, treating people, not creating schools and collecting followers. Having particular schools of thought which you followed was a Greek tradition.

     b) Have an open mind, and make your teachings open - al-infitaah

Keep your mind open, understand the opinions of other people and be prepared to accept them if you are convinced. Make your teachings open and show your reasoning, so other people can also see and help you. 

No individual, text or school has an arbitrary authority in Islam. When people think this, it is dangerous, i.e. if someone is asked, “Why do you do this?”, and they say, “Because it is the fatwa of x, or in y book.” Rather, one ought to say, “I follow this based on this from the Qur’an and sunnah”. Teach people to obey God and His messenger, not to obey a school. (3) As al-Shafi’i said, “Both you and your teacher Malik need evidence.” If you can’t produce your argument, your fatwa has no validity. This is not the Catholic church.

Unity refers to a unity of attitude, not a uniformity of colour. We say that all colours are acceptable, we do not say that everyone has to be black or white.

With regards to what is said that the common people may be misled, then they should be trained to think and understand too, so that it is not that simply anyone can come and mislead them. If the people can be convinced with falsehood, then why can you not convince them with the truth?

Ibn Taymiyyah was in an environment where everyone opposed him, and he was imprisoned seven times. But he put out his arguments to the people, even though the people of bid’ah held political power. If your argument is proper and true and convincing, most people want to follow what their mind is convinced of. They are not inherently corrupt, except when their selfish interests come in the way. Openness will harm the people of bid’ah more than it will harm you. People will come to you from them. Openness ultimately helps the people of the truth if they are hardworking.

     c) Don’t impose your opinion on others

Abu Yusuf was in hajj with Harun al-Rashid, who had hijamah. He wanted to lead the prayer, so he asked Malik regarding this (as he knew Abu Yusuf’s opinion), and then led the prayer. Abu Yusuf prayed behind him, and when asked specifically, stated that leaving salah behind the imams for the likes of this was a sign of the people of bid’ah. There are many examples of the sahabah and salaf never needing to impose their personal opinion on others. (5)

Scholarship should be free. But, order in society is a different matter. This is a political issue that is faced by any government, and is no longer necessarily a matter of what is most convincing or evidence-based, but about policy and organisation. (4) Without order, a society cannot function. Abu H was free to think and teach what he wanted to, but the Abbasid rulers followed and implemented whichever system they chose to. Thinking, teaching and writing should always remain free. But rules are required to maintain order in society, irrespective of evidence or strength of argument. Even a weak opinion which maintains order in society is better than a strong opinion which does not.

Toenotes

(1) This was actually pretty awful for me, because I basically realised that I am, for the most part, an adab-less entity :( If I am completely honest, I rarely combine the two aspects (I wonder if there is something distinctly secular/Western about humility and self-esteem being mutually exclusive [but then what exactly it self-esteem anyway?]) I have excruciatingly high standards for sort of deference I imagine true adab to be, and I certainly wouldn’t meet my own standards (I know that’s not an excuse), but I’m going to make a conscious effort to remedy this inshallah. I like the point about etiquette. It’s so odd that polite society demands of one particular behaviours, but rather like the means and ends thing, the etiquette itself becomes the thing to be desired, and the aim, which would be presumably to think of others before oneself, put others at ease etc. falls by the wayside (rather like the hypocrisy necessarily entailed in gentlemen colonising the world). Also, I need to rethink my position on respect, but I think there is much more to this discussion. I suppose there is a degree of respect to which one is entitled to merely for being human (I have never disputed this), but are there then levels of respect that are achieved, and if so how; and in the event of that being bestowed by me, then who am I to afford this to someone (is it my respect? Why is that better or worse than that of anyone else? How does one evaluate the worth of respect?), and then are we not on that issue of reciprocity again which is the antithesis of real adab? (I can certainly respect someone who does not necessarily respect me [e.g. I feel them worthy of respect; they do not know me, or I don’t come up to their standards], but would I respect someone who openly disrespected me? And if not, is that more because of the slight to my ego, or because open disrespect of anyone [or is it me?!] precludes the state of being deserving of my respect?)

(2) I won’t go into this in detail here, but Sh. A made a really good case against the objection of lay people ‘picking and choosing’, in that he questioned the basis of why that was fundamentally problematic anyway. Surely it makes sense for people to choose the best way for them to solve their problem? There were several examples of this from the scholars. Fatwa has never been binding in any case; everyone has agreed that it is only qadaa that can ever be binding on an individual to follow.

(3) Al-Nisa, 4:59

(4) This is a really important point, and reminds me of why knowledge is not enough to be a scholar in the comprehensive sense (not simply an academic), and the knowledge of the world and society that is only acquired through living is required. I think one has to grow in age and maturity to really appreciate this point; 10 years ago, I would’ve had real difficulty accepting this, because it was inconsistent with my idealised world view (but if that’s the right way, then you have to do that). Yet it’s hard to balance the conflicting tensions, and we see this repeatedly in so many areas like the criminal justice system, substance use and harm reduction strategies etc.

(5) He gave lots more examples on this point and several others which I have in my handwritten notes but couldn’t be bothered to type in Arabic or translate. One day I hope to do that inshallah as several of them were pretty cool. 

Ethics of Disagreement II

(iv) 

On Virtues and Means

There is a difference between the fadilah, the virtue itself, and the wasilah, the means through which one attains this virtue. People may not be able to attain the fadaa’il independently, so the prophets taught the wasaa’il too, though the latter was not the main objective.

For example, fairness and justice is the fadilah. How you achieve this is the wasilah. The wasilah is not in itself virtuous. It could be that in a particular situation, the most fair system is a democratic one, allowing the members or relevant people to vote; if 52% (1) vote for a particular option, then we take that option. But it is not that system in itself that is virtuous. If the system can be manipulated and cheated, then it does not result in fairness, irrespective of whether it is democratic. (2) What matters is whether the government is fair in its dealing with the citizens, whether it is democratically elected or a monarchy or some other system. (3) Islam is interested in the virtue itself, not the means.

Fadilah can only come from the human mind, heart and action. It cannot be externally imposed. (4) At every point, it requires a human to think and make a judgement. If you make an effort to be fair to your family and treat them with kindness, even if you make a mistake, this is a virtue. However, if you leave that process to or a machine, or a random selection process, then it is not a fadilah. Virtue comes from your intention and decision. If there is no human judgement involved, it can never be a fadilah. Otherwise, even democracy is just a game, playing with numbers.

Obtaining the fadilah is not a game, or a superficial consideration. It may be said, “You need to treat people equally,” but that is not completely correct. You need to treat people fairly. Sometimes completely equal treatment helps achieve this, but sometimes it doesn’t. For example, men and women can never truly be equal. Women experience pregnancy and childbirth; in employment, they cannot be treated the same. They must be treated fairly, with kindness and respect according to their role. (5) Equality can help you attain fairness, but it is not in itself actual fairness. Understand the difference between the virtue and the means. One of the greatest confusions in modern times is the lack of distinction between, or inversion of, the means and the ends. (6) Food is supposed to be for energy, as a means; now food has become the end in itself. In fact, we are at the stage beyond that when food itself is harmful.

Similarly, when you follow a madhhab, it is not a virtue in itself. Following someone’s opinion is not a virtue. The virtue lies in how you carry out the act of worship. The madhaahib are simply means, or roads to the masjid. The virtue lies in praying in the masjid, not in which road you take to get there.

Toenotes

(1) Yes ok, he said 51% but I couldn’t resist. And actually, Brexit fits really well in this, considering all the poor gullible idiots who really believed they’d get £350m for the NHS.

(2) Chomsky: "The public relations industry, which essentially runs the elections, is applying certain principles to undermine democracy which are the same as the principles that applies to undermine markets. The last thing that business wants is markets in the sense of economic theory. Take a course in economics, they tell you a market is based on informed consumers making rational choices. Anyone who’s ever looked at a TV ad knows that’s not true. In fact, if we had a market system an ad, say, for General Motors would be a brief statement of the characteristics of the products for next year. That’s not what you see. You see some movie actress or a football hero or somebody driving a car up a mountain or something like that. And that’s true of all advertising. The goal is to undermine markets by creating uninformed consumers who will make irrational choices and the business world spends huge efforts on that. The same is true when the same industry, the PR industry, turns to undermining democracy. It wants to construct elections in which uninformed voters will make irrational choices. It’s pretty reasonable and it’s so evident you can hardly miss it." And if you could then, you certainly can’t after this political year!

(3) This is quite profound. It sounds very simple, and perhaps its simplicity makes me feel I’m not quite sure whether I fully agree with it. Though it certainly makes sense, it seems too simple a solution, perhaps even slightly glib, to do justice to a hugely complex area. Also, interestingly, I thought about how in the current climate this sounds radical, blasphemous even, to question democracy, and it is worrying that it should be like this. It reminds me of how passively affected we are by our environments, how your ability to think critically, and indeed what that means to you, is shaped almost entirely by forces beyond your control. What we consider to be freedom of speech, or in fact thought, occurs within a limited spectrum that is defined for us. S, I think you will like this by Talal Asad (Muhammad Asad’s son): http://escholarship.org/uc/item/84q9c6ft#page-6 (it’s a bit heavy but some really interesting points. Also, I learnt for the first time the difference between blasphemy and heresy).

(4)  But what of externally imposed structures to safeguard the fadilah – is this the role of the wasilah, functioning in an auxiliary manner? I wonder though, if there is a danger of throwing out the baby with the bathwater here. It is difficult to deny that we focus disproportionately on the means, but the means could also push one, so to speak, into the fadilah? Conversely, would Goodhart’s law apply here, where the process of making a surrogate measure the target in some way results in its losing the information which qualified it to do so initially? Think clothing and piety etc.  

(5) There is much that could be said here, and much of that depends on how exactly one defines equality, which is not synonymous with simply sameness. However, I don’t want to be the archetypal annoying feminist taking offence at everything. I’m waiting to read his book on feminism!

 (6) This is such an interesting topic. I don’t want to write extensively on this (though of course I can, because it’s a toenote, and it’s mine), but this resonates with me on so many levels in so many facets of my life, including those where I myself am guilty of being obsessed by process. (I actually quite liked the idea of having some kind of algorithm to dish out different intensities of kindness to people depending on various factors such as strength of blood relationship, kindness owed, how nice they are, how much I like speaking to them, how acceptable their hugs are, how infrequently they say patronising things to me etc. It would certainly make my life easier not to have to navigate such issues, destined inevitably as I am to fail :() Anyway, the most glaring example for me was the absolute mindlessness of NHS bureaucracy which is so preoccupied with the means that nobody even remembers what the aim was, *dark thoughts of the CQC*; we’re so busy trying to prove what we’re doing that all we end up doing is trying to prove what we’re doing and not actually doing it. Sounds a bit like studying kitab ul-salah in fiqh…

Ethics of Disagreement I

I know I said I’d write something on religion and culture next, but I’ve changed my mind as I’ve just finished listening to the Ethics of Disagreement talk, and thought I’d share that first. This is not from tafseer Surat ul-Baqarah (so technically not tasting words divine) but an Al-Salam seminar. (1)

(iii) 

On roots and branches

The fundamental problem we have is not understanding the deen itself. Deen is the way that God chose for people to worship Him. It is obedience to God and worshipping Him and He taught. Your nature and your mind can teach you that you ought to worship God, but only God can teach you how to worship Him. The deen must be learnt in the light of God’s revelation to the prophets. You cannot make deen yourself, irrespective of how clever you are. Even a prophet cannot alter the deen. (2)

Whilst the deen is revealed to a messenger, how it is practised in a particular time and context refers to the madhhab, i.e. the ulema’s understanding and explanation of the deen. The madhhab always comes from people who are not prophets, but have two qualities: expertise in their field, and piety / sincerity. (3) They are learned, and do not give fatwa to please anyone or because they are merely emotionally driven to, but give fatwa to please God alone. He or she may then be right or wrong; even if they are wrong, they will receive one reward.

Therefore, there is only one deen, but there can be many madhaahib. Madhaahib are opinions, so there are hundreds of them. A madhhab cannot come from God; it is not divine. Reward does not come from following a madhhab. One should not use the names of Abu Hanifah and Maalik to divide the ummah; they were closer to God than we are. (4)

The difference between usul and furu`

1 – The usul of the deen are the fundamentals that make up the deen: obedience to God, worship, belief in the Day of Judgement, honesty, kindness to the people.

2 – Furu` l-deen l-kubra – the branches through which the usul cannot be attained except through them, e.g. nearness to God cannot be attained except through prayer, kindness to the people cannot be attained without charity.

3 – Furu` l-deen l-sughra – the branches which support and strengthen the major branches, e.g. wudu.

Consider the following circles. They read from out inwards: usul, al-furu` l-kubra, al-furu` l-sughra, the Qur’an, Sunnah, ijma`, and qiyas. 

The differences are in the smallest circle.Your differing is irrelevant as you are still surrounded by so many circles.  

The problem is actually that you fundamentally don’t pray properly. Many details in fiqh arise because people don’t do these acts properly focusing on the essence, thereby creating problems which you need a solution for, and then the scholars differ in the solution. If you prayed with khushu`, you wouldn’t need a great many of the details. (5) If you are rewarded even if you make a mistake, why would you spend time arguing about these issues?  

(continued)

Toenotes 

(1) I was wondering to myself whether I ought to bother with this seminar as I’m ridiculously overwhelmed at the moment, and I haven’t listened to any of the actual Al-Salam lectures this term, so it seemed pretty silly to spend several hours on a topic that a) I find really boring, b) I already know about, and c) I already know Sh. A’s opinions on. I can’t remember the last time I wasted any space in my head to think about this; I thought it was only teenage durul-uloom kids that are into that kind of stuff these days. But I’m so glad I listened to it! There were so many things to think about, including links to group psychology and Ibn Khaldun’s `asabiyyah that I’ve been mulling over recently, and I love his way of being able to conceptualise quite complex or nebulous topics both coherently and in a way that is accessible to laypeople in a simple yet profound manner.

(2) Al-najm, 53:3-4

(3) I love this. It can apply to almost anything in life. If you can combine expertise with integrity to any field, you will do a good job. So many of the problems in the world today can be put down to a lack of one of these qualities: the experts who use their knowledge for personal or other gain, at the expense of humanity; or the well-intentioned idiots who create more harm than good.

(4)  I was thinking to myself, I wish I knew this 15 years ago then I wouldn’t have had to agonise my way through working it all out myself and being stupid along the way. Then it occurred to me that I wouldn’t have been, developmentally, in a position to accept it then. I needed to have thought a great many silly things in order to stop thinking them. Anyway, the last few years sound remarkably like A Vindication of the Opinions of X. S, do you remember the talk on aqeedah we went to when he said he didn’t believe in aqeedah and I thought, oh, he must be one of those naïve ivory tower academics who doesn’t mix with the proles? Now I don’t believe in aqeedah. Then I remember after he mentioned something about politics once thinking, oh, he must be one of those naïve ivory tower academics who doesn’t mix with the proles. Now I don’t believe in ‘Islamic politics’.  Anyway, now I also don’t believe in mudood, but that’s possibly just because life’s too short to waste time stretching :) (And there’s no point anyway: http://www.cochrane.org/CD004577/MUSKINJ_stretching-to-prevent-or-reduce-muscle-soreness-after-exercise)

(5)  Al-mu’minoon, 23:1-2