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.