Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) established the doctrines that Allah is beautiful and loves beauty (Sahih Muslim, Hadith No. 131), that He is good and accepts only that which is good (Sahih Muslim, Hadith No. 1686), and that He loves to see the effects of His blessings and favors on people (Jami’ al-Tirmidhi, Hadith No. 2963).

This implies that since Almighty Allah loves beauty, He created everything perfect and beautiful. Moreover, He also wants His servants to do so, that is, to love beauty, be beautiful and generate beauty through words, deeds, character, garments, general outward appearance, and the cultural and civilizational creations of theirs.

In doing so, however, people must subscribe to and apply only the highest heavenly standards of goodness and beauty, without contaminating them with the effects of their intrinsic inadequacies, myopia and whims. It is on account of this that Islam abhors ugliness with all its physical and metaphysical dimensions and features. It does so, for example, as much in evil speech, disposition and conduct, as in ungodly elements of culture, art and architecture.

Through the infinite realm of aesthetics, Muslims are biddento maintain the established supreme standards of beauty on earth. Islamic aesthetics in behavior, manners, thought, culture, art and architecture is only an extension of the created and revealed heavenly artistic order, deriving therefrom its strength and identity.

External beauty is the theophany of inner beauty, just as external ugliness is a manifestation of inner defects and ugliness.Beauty lies at the heart of existence. It is not simply a subjective state existing only “in the eye of the beholder”.

Beauty is meant to be universal and ever-present. The Arabic most common word for beauty is “jamal”. However, related to the same word are the words “ijmal”, “jumlah” and “jamala”, which mean, respectively,“generalization, totality, and to gather or accumulate to excess”.

Islam establishes that beauty is a human right and life’s standard thing. It is a necessity for the soul as the air we breathe and the food and water we consume are for the body.

Beauty is the rule and, at the same time, symbol and quintessence of goodness. Ugliness, on the other hand, is an anomaly and exception. It is equivalent to evil. In Arabic, the word “qubh” means both ugliness and evil.

Beauty is additionally associated with reality and its undeniable existence, and ugliness with unreality and nonexistence. Indeed, the ugliest thing is the mere absence and perversion of Truth, and the imposition of the inventedand deceitful substitutes.

It is only man who can create ugliness. He does so when he turns his back on Heaven and its guidance, and becomes unable to find the correct course forward.

Another word in Arabic for beauty is “husn” (“hasan” is beautiful and “hasuna” to be beautiful). The word’s various derivatives attest to the above-mentioned point of beauty’s righteousness, absoluteness and totality. Some of the most important concepts derived therefrom are goodness and excellence (hasan), virtue and good deed (hasanah), kindness and good outcome (husna), benevolence and merit (ihsan), to do good and excel (ahsana), benefactor and doer of good (muhsin).

It goes without saying that beauty, goodness and Truth are indivisible in Islam. According to Seyyed Hossein Nasr, the Qur’anic term “al-muhsinun”, which is normally translated as “the doers of good”, can also be translated as “those enmeshed in beauty”. Hence, such Qur’anic idioms as “Allah is with the doers of good (al-muhsinin)” (al-‘Ankabut, 69), and “Allah loves the doers of good (al-muhsinin)” (al-Baqarah, 195), could likewise be understood and translated as “Allah is with those enmeshed in beauty” and “Allah loves those enmeshed in beauty”, respectively.

Beauty originates from the highest plane of the transcendent Presence, descending upon and engulfing the hearts of its devotees and servants. It targets the heart because the heart is not only the seat of emotions and piety, but also of intelligent faculties. With the heart, people understand and intelligently appreciate things and experiences, including beauty. As an essentially spiritual thing, beauty is most attuned to the dispositions and competences of the human heart and soul.

The eyes signify no more than a lower level in the hierarchy of means and capacities for knowledge as well as Truth acquisition and appreciation. Thus, in connection with comprehending and following Truth, the Qur’an says that it is people’s hearts by which they reason and learn wisdom, on the basis of the inputs of their ears by which they hear – and by extension, their eyes by which they see. Then the Qur’an affirms what the root cause of inappropriate visions and the lack of wisdom is: “For indeed, it is not the eyes that are blinded, but blinded are the hearts which are within the breasts” (al-Hajj, 46).

The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: “Verily, Allah does not look at your appearance or wealth, but rather he looks at your hearts and actions” (Sahih Muslim, Hadith No. 2564).Clearly, in Islam, on the whole, the forms and mere appearances are secondary to the spirit and substance of things, playing second fiddle to them. Form follows substance and Truth.

The goal of human life is to beautify the soul through goodness and virtue and to make it worthy of offering to God Who is the Beautiful. That is, the goal of human life is to be beautiful, live beautifully, return to the Beautiful, and be admitted into Paradise which is the highest representation of pleasure and beauty, the culmination of its bliss being beholding the Beauty of the Face of the most Beautiful and most Beloved.

Plato also said that beauty is the splendor of Truth.

The age of ugliness

Following the advent of modernity as a ubiquitous way of life and modernism as its philosophical wing, things dramaticallyforever changed. It was a time when, generally, all religious, moral and traditional principles and values were rejected (nihilism), when sensual self-indulgence became a norm (hedonism), when nothing as regards the ultimate Truth was considered either known or knowable (agnosticism), when man and his scientific and technological legacy became deified (humanism), when nature became desacralized and turned into a mere utility (naturalism), and when religion became secularized and God either humanized or relegated to the ambit of absurdism.

That was a time when beauty as a gift of God – to borrow Aristotle’s term – was compromised, and when ugliness (the absence of true beauty), at once as a concept and sensoryactuality, took over and started to reign supreme. Such was the case because once the spiritual, moral and intellectual mutinies came to pass, Truth becamedefiled and forsaken by the modern man once and for all.

What remained was the ubiquity and abyss of doubt, uncertainty and faithlessness, constituting anything but a conducive environment for breeding and enjoying authentic beauty. As John Ruskin, the leading English art critic of the Victorian era, said: “Nothing can be beautiful which is not true.”

One wonders if a person does not believe in God and has no connection with Heaven, what his understanding, source and criterion of beauty could be.

Indeed, one of the greatest offences against Divinity was committed when Protagoras, a Greek philosopher who lived around the 5^th century BC, declared that “man is the measure of all things”. That precept denoted that people, rather than God or any revealed moral law, are the ultimate source of ontological significance and value. Protagoras is thus regarded as the first humanist.

However, humanism as a systematic philosophy or a belief system did not come to pass until the European Renaissance, a period between the 14^th and 17^th centuries.New humanism standards of beauty, which centered exclusively on man and his existential contexts, were then born.

The celebrated masterpieces of Leonardo da Vinci, Michelangelo, Raphael, Giovanni Bellini, and others, were not as much beautiful as they represented the watersheds and benchmarks in the cultural, plus ideological, transition from the Middle Ages to modernity. Such masterpieces were priceless, just as any other sacred symbols and objects are priceless. The mentioned polymaths are regarded as icons of Renaissance and, at the same time, “prophets” and harbingers of modernity. 

Notwithstanding its many great contributions to the wellbeing of humankind, modernity – whose precursor was Renaissance -eventually destroyedauthentic beauty. Nonetheless, in order to gratify the insatiable human thirst for beauty and the beautiful, modernity provided its own alternatives,especially in the fields of art, architecture, entertainment, literature, fashion and media. However, since such fieldsembodied unconsecrated worldviews and value systems, they, more often than not, served up either distorted and misleading versions of beauty, or diverse forms of outright insolent ugliness.

There is even a “cult of ugliness” which is associated with the arrival of modern art and its rejection of all classical beauty ideals and its embracing of ugliness, i.e., relative and subjective beauty. “Modern art’s impulse was to destroy beauty”, was a verdict of Barnett Newman, a leading American artist of the 20^th century.

This “cult of ugliness”, according to Seyyed Hossein Nasr, “has now also spread to the Islamic world, which knows many mosques that are in no way behind their Western counterparts in ugliness (a large number of horrendously ugly churches). They do not, however, represent Islamic art or thought but simply external influences.”

The whole thing is reminiscent of the parable of “the emperor’s new clothes”. Everybody knows there is something seriously wrong in the ways our lives unfold, but not many peopledare to question the status quo for fear that they will be branded regressive and retarded. It will take a lot of institutional, rather than individual, guts to “shout” – and prove – that the emperor, actually, has no clothes.

Cities and their architecture

As a result, our modern cities are ugly because they have been converted into concrete jungles. Their forms and functions provide evidence of man’s separation from nature – yet his very self – and his professed domination over it. Citiesbecamethe physical loci of all the crimes associated with unrestrained materialism, consumerism and hedonism as modernity’s foremost creeds.

In such milieus, there is less and less space – and tolerance – for traditional and religious forms of architecture and art. Cities became necropolises of traditions and man’s innate spiritual and moral innocence.

There is nothing left in the modern man with which he can genuinely beautify and regenerate his cities and the whole of his built environment. Everything he does, by and large, is superficial, hollow, short-term and boring. Concurrently, though, everything seems deceptively glossy and, of course,vainglorious, reflecting the character of the maker.

Man’s life is increasingly becoming mechanized and programmed, with little thinking and much less emotions. Substance is as good as nonexistent. Beauty is a false glitter, and is only skin or surface-deep.

No wonder that at the core of the manifesto of modernist architecture reside such dogmas as, for instance, “less is more” (Ludwig Mies van der Rohe), “ornamentation is crime” (Adolf Loos), “the house is a machine for living in” (Le Corbusier), and “form follows fantasy” (the slogan of deconstructivism or new modern architecture, which was opposed to Louis Sullivan’s slogan “form follows function”).

Art

Our modern art is also essentially ugly because it is either rendered for its own sake, needing neither justification nor any particular end to serve, or it expresses but the personal feelings and visions of artists.

In the former scenario, art, inspired by the philosophy of Immanuel Kant, upholds “the autonomy of aesthetic standards, setting them apart from considerations of morality, utility, or pleasure” (Encyclopedia Britannica). In the latter scenario, art is subjective, individual andeccentric. It is often associated with the creative and powerful rendering of personal confusion, skepticism, bohemianism and ambiguous abstraction.

Either way, art oscillates from one extreme to another, deviating from and betraying its fundamental purpose and mission. In that case, artemerges as a form of “ingenious, interesting and charming ugliness”. It is nihilistic and subversive.

For example, it is sometimes said about Pablo Picasso, one of the greatest artists of the 20^th century, that he was just a big show-off most of whose work is inherently trivial. Each case represents a unique piece of autobiography.  To understand Picasso’s works, one must regard them as “anecdotes or snapshots of a particular moment in his life” (Germaine Greer).

At best, excellent art excellently and ingeniously poses greatest life questions. Bad art does so poorly. And questions without answers remain just that: questions, and so, doubts and anxieties.Therefore, art is fine – and beautiful – only as far as it goes.

Popular culture

Furthermore, our modern everyday life activities and passions are impressed with the elan vital of ugliness because they are infused with the spirit of popular culture, which is an upshot of modernity and its sacrilegious philosophical penchant.

Popular culture was always linked with lower classes and poor education. Its rise could be traced back to the emergence of the distinct and somewhat influential middle class spawned by the Industrial Revolution as the first complete manifestation of modernity. Popular cultureinstantaneously became affordable and accessible.

Popular culture is often contrasted with the official or high culture of the upper class (aristocracy and nobility). It is likewise regarded as frivolous and “dumbed down”. Some yet perceive it as one-dimensional, consumerist, sensationalist, immoral and corrupt. It is perhaps best represented in the domains of such cultural products as arts, music, film, television, radio, literature, fashion, sports, advertising, print media and internet culture.

In the wake of the Industrial Revolution, relentless scientific discoveries and technological dynamics created in people a sense of perpetual expectation, hope and insatiability. People wanted more of everything, and that those things be always better, faster and brighter. There was so much in life to be experimented and enjoyed by everybody. Opportunities were limitless and on hand.

Life was not to be wasted on lethargy, traditionalism and religious conformity. It was to be lived to the fullest. Excessive and abstract intellectualism, as well as religiousness, were not welcomed either.

Suddenly, people felt about life as though they were kids in a candy store. It was as if the rising middle class was bent on taking matters into their own hands. The irony was that in terms of serving as authority and a point of reference, the intellectual and cultural elitesnow became treated by the masses in the same way as the elites had treated the traditional and religious authorities. Things came full circle.

The elites and their high culture becamemore and more bereft of influence and credibility. Due to their centuries-old inability to solve mankind’s perennial ontological quandaries, and lead to the right path, the elites (including religious leaders) were perceived as inadequate, yet failures. The past and its traditions were ever more loathed and rebuffed.

The only solution was to live in the moment and for the self. As Friedrich Nietzsche put forth that in this world, we should live our lives to the full and get everything we can out of it. The only issue was how best to do that in “a godless, meaningless world”.Beauty wasonly that whichgenerated and enhanced people’s hedonic and, to some extent, rational pleasures.

Consequently, pure philosophy, art and religion, as exclusive intellectual pursuits and potential behavioral compasses, were increasingly losing their sway and appeal in favor of the rapid advances of empirical science and technology. The latter was the source of every modernist legitimacy, including the questions of goodness and beauty, in that they were making everyone’s life interesting and enjoyable.

Machines and gadgets were turned into objects of love and worship. As Bertrand Russel said: “Machines are worshipped because they are beautiful, and valued because they confer power.” The same holds true insofar as all the other objects of people’s biological needs and desires were concerned.

This explains, for example, why many people nowadays – especially youth – are addicted to, yet worship, their smart phones, allowing their gadgets to shape their lives. Rather than being in control, they found themselves controlled.As a result, smartphones became a symbol of popular culture and people’s behavioral idiosyncrasy.Their ostensible trademarks are beauty, empowerment and relative affordability. They are windows to the world, self-determination and freedom.

Smartphonesand the way people use them further stand for a microcosm of modernity’s lack of spiritual and moral compass. It is obvious that people are both the culprits and victims of modern civilization’s spinning out of control, with popular culture being the arena of stars and mainproceedings.

Popular culture soon developed into a prevalent and almost universally accepted phenomenon. It became part of the mainstream. High culture could not stem the tide of the former’s growth and spread because the elites lived in ivory towers, even though, with respect to the actual value and substance,high culture fared no better than popular culture. In their own respective ways, they both personified and promoted untruth, uncertainty, nonconformity and loss of purpose and direction.

However, without right worldviews and proper orientations in life, thosedevelopments later proved detrimental for the whole of mankind andtheir planet earth. The results were out-and-out ugliness, repugnance and sin, which, in collaboration with other transgressions of the modern man, led to the destruction of personal moral values, the family institution, human relationships, and the harmony and order of nature.

The loss of beauty

Consequently, genuine beauty became all but extinct. It became a scarce luxury that could be enjoyed only by certain categories of people. It became most expensive.The global art market is estimated today to be $64 billion worth (Gaby Del Valle).

Cultural and aesthetic junk was made available for the masses within the provinces of shopping centers, sports venues, mass media, literature, entertainment, fashion, dance, music, cinemas, cyber-culture and even education.The lowest of values were encouraged so long as there were happy takers (consumers), and the matters could be commercialized.

Everything was subjective and good enough,as beauty was “in the eye of the beholder”. Beauty was banalized, trivialized andaimed principally for financial and other material gains. People were happy because they could express themselves and make their voices and banal preferences heard. In terms of their vain and inconsequential life missions, the domain of popular culture proved an expedient medium for people’s self-actualization.

Ugliness thus was promoted in the name of beauty, backwardness and primitiveness in the name of progress and civilization, ignorance in the name of knowledge and education, and wretchedness in the name of happiness. So much so that authentic beauty, both as an idea and palpable reality, was often openly despisedand poked fun at. Chances are that it will soon join the grades of absolute Truth and virtue, which are neither deliberated, nor seriously pursued, by anybody.

Without a doubt, today’s modern civilization is predominantly junk. People own many things, but are in reality indigent. Living in the Information Age, they are educated, but ignorant, let alone wise. They talk so much to one another, but are bad communicators. They seem happy, but are discontented. They furthermore seem to be enjoying life, but are suffering.

Just as consuming much junk food destroys gradually our health and body, so does consuming junk components of culture and civilization destroy our total being. It destroys our humanness.

Modern ungodly civilization is an experiment that went horribly wrong.

This ubiquitous sentiment perhaps prompted Musa Ćazim Ćatić, a famous Bosnian poetof the early 20^th century, to supplicate to God in one of his poems: “O God! Grant me a sense of beauty (and save me thereby).”

Life is an endless and multi-tiered confrontation between good and evil. It is abattleground in every sense of the word. Almighty Allah says that He created life and death “to put you to the test and see which of you is most virtuous in your deeds” (al-Mulk, 2). As such, this life is the only opportunity to secure the pleasure and blessings of the Creator and the bliss of the Hereafter.

Man is the main protagonist in such a state of affairs. He is the most restive, fretful and anxious being. That is why sometimes, with proper guidance and virtue on-board,man can be like an angel, but at other times, without proper guidance and virtue, he can be worse than devil. He can be the worst and most dangerous animal.

As Aristotle once said, without virtue, man is the most unholy and the most savage of animals, and the worst with regard to lust and gluttony.

Mark Twain also said that “of all the animals, man is the only one that is cruel. He is the only one that inflicts pain for the pleasure of doing it.”Hence a Latin proverb “Homo homini lupus”, which means “A man is a wolf to another man.” Both Sigmund Freud and Thomas Hobbes – among others – subscribed to the message of themaxim.

At any rate, life is what life is and what its Creator wanted it to be. It is not what weineptly perceive, or as a result of our fantasies would like it to be.

Life is an objective reality. It is not simply a subjective state existing in the “mind of the perceiver”.

Just like beauty, which is also a dimension of objective reality, and which is not a subjective state present only in the “eye of the beholder”. Beauty is what beauty is, regardless of what people might feel and say about it.

We do not – and cannot – live life according to our own limited will and foolish fancies, but according to the infinite will and wise plan of the Creator and Sustainer of life. Life is so beautiful, meaningful and consequential for the formerscenario to be the case. Only such as have lost clarity and a sense of purpose and direction, and have allowed their pride and self-centredness to take over instead, can entertain such an incongruous proposition.

Today in the age of globalization and internet when all sorts of corruption and mischief have spread throughout the land, sea, air and space, when Islamophobes dominate the world and public opinion, and when there is so much rule and power concentrated in the wrong hands, which are constantly being used for wrong ends – to be a Muslim, live and defend Islam, is a unique challenge.

Moreover, this is a time when, ironically in the name of progress, civilization and modernity, man kills more of his own kind, destroys more ecosystems, and causes more species to go extinct than any other animal on earth.

Intellectual, spiritual and moral anarchiesalso reign supreme. Agnosticism, atheism, nihilism and hedonism are the rules of the day. To be sceptical, immoral, faithless and ignorant as regards truth and virtue, is championed as aform of self-worth and integrity. In addition, faith, certainty and righteousness, and their people, are persistently challenged, disparaged and put on endless ontological trial.

Perhaps Nietzsche summed up the sentiment best when he declared that “God is dead.” According to him, this life of ours is a largely meaningless business of suffering and striving, driven along by an irrational force that we can call will. Thus,in this purposeless world we should live our lives to the fullest, and get everything we can out of it. It is a never ending vain struggle where only the fittest survives.

In short, this is a time – and Almighty Allah knows best – about which the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) warned that: Islam will revert to being strange as it began (so give glad tidings to the strangers); following true Islam will be like grasping a hot coal; true knowledge will be taken away (will vanish) and ignorance will prevail; deceit will be widespread to the point where people will believe liars but disbelieve those who tell the truth, and will trust those who are treacherous but distrust those who are trustworthy; the power and authority will be in the hands of incompetent individuals; intoxicants will be consumed in great quantities; immorality will be prevalent and common; and bloodshed will increase. At the same time, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) highlighted all these as the signs and portents of the end of time and the Day of Judgment.

The problems are so many and so overwhelming that one who is still guided and would like to contribute something for the benefit of Islam, Muslims and the whole world, often tends to lose focus and resoluteness. Yet, his will and even hope are put at stake. Struggling for inspiration and drive, one starts wondering what exactly he can do and whether his small contributions will be of any benefit whatsoever. One wonders how his few drops of goodness can even compare with an ocean of organized and institutionalized malevolence and sin. Before he even starts, such a person wants to give up.

The above attitude is wrong because of the following.

Islam is intentions and efforts, rather than results, oriented. That is fair, because the former is in our hands, whereas the latter is not. It will be unjust to burden a person with that which is beyond his ability and control. It is thus Allah’s rule that He does not burden people beyond what they can bear.

In essence, we do not have to change anything. We should only keep trying. We need to take care of ourselvesmost importantly, that is, of what is precisely under our jurisdiction, and then try of what is possible around us. Allah takes care of the rest, which is beyond us but never escapes His ever-present attention and guardianship.

Our duty is to live and diewith knowledge and certitude, responsibly and with honour and dignity. We should always try to be assets, not liabilities. If we cannot be useful and productive, we should not make the situation more difficult.

Furthermore, in the on-going confrontations between good and evil, we do not have to be generals, leaders, or commanders. Being just soldiers of truth – outwardly even anonymous ones – is good enough. Allah knows about everyone, his efforts and contributions, and He knows the extent of everyone’s sincerity and purity of his intentions as well as goals. Nothing will be underestimated or wasted. What is important is to participate sincerely, and not to be among those who do nothing, are indecisive and lethargic, and demotivate and weaken others. In Islam, generally, quality takes precedence over quantity, and substance over form.

For example, we hear that the participants in the battle of Badr procured the most remarkable status with Allah, for it was the first and most decisive battle in Islam. However, out of fewer than 400 Muslims who participated, wedo not know – or hardly do – many of them. They were simple and little known soldiers and companions of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). Nonetheless, they were Badr participants, about whom the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: “Perhaps Allah looked upon the people of Badr and said: ‘Do what you wish, for I have forgiven you’” (al-Bukhari and Muslim).

The same could be said about a great many members of all the subsequent historic battles and their martyrs, such as the battles of Uhud, Khandaq, Fath or conquest of Makkah, Hunayn, Yarmuk, Qadisiyyah, Constantinople, etc. Many persons were virtually unknown and undistinguished. Nevertheless, they were fighters for the sake of Allah and on His path (soldiers of truth), as a result of which they were granted greatest rewards and highest stations in Paradise.

This is because we are supposed to do things not for people, and not even for ourselves, but for Allah Who isal-Shakur, which means the Most Appreciative, the Grateful, the Recognizer and the Rewarder of good, Who multiplies our good deeds and abundantly rewards for yet the slightest good that we do.

In this manner, a person may be unknown or unappreciated on earth, but is highlyesteemed and recompensed in the spiritual kingdom. Those who possess this outlook cannot be ensnared by Satan whose primary objective is to dishonour and degrade people and discourage them from doing good. Satan lies in wait and tries to convince people that they are useless andcontemptable. Instilling apathy, despondency, pessimism and uncertainty in the minds and hearts of people, without doubt,is Satan’s most potent weapon.

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Spahic Omer

International Islamic University Malaysia

In life, there is only truth, as a reflection and confirmation of the Absolute Truth, Almighty Allah (al-Haqq). What we think of and call falsehood is imaginary. It does not really exist. It is only a temporary and conditioned absence of truth.

Likewise, there is only light in this earthly life, for Allah is the Light of the heavens and the earth, which is the source and quintessence of the former.

There is no actual ontological darkness. Its existence, too, is illusory. What we perceive as darkness is no more than a transient and conditioned absence of light.

Even Satan, the incarnation of evil, was not created and preordained as such. He only chose to be so, and was granted by the leave of Allah to operate in such a role until an appointed term.

There is nothing that is intrinsically evil. Evil is only that which some people, under the sway of Satan’s whispers, concoct, while manipulating and abusing certain innocent components of life. In other words, evil is aconsequence of some people’s devilish creativity.

Accordingly, we should never unduly worry about the provisional existence of falsehood and its closest ally, darkness. Neither Satan should be a person’s greatest worry. Rather, what we should worry about is the absence of truth and light. If they are brought about, falsehood and darkness, as a result, will instantaneously fade away and vanish.

That is so because the two elements cannot coexist. Truth and light are the antidotes for falsehood and darkness respectively. Similarly, a true believer and servant of Allah is the antidote for Satan and his advances: “Feeble indeed is the cunning (strategy or plots) of Satan” (al-Nisa’, 76).

This is the message of the Qur’anic verse (ayah): “And say, ‘Truth has come, and falsehood has perished. Indeed is falsehood, (by nature), ever bound to perish’” (al-Isra’, 81).

An example of this is a person who comes for a purpose to a dark room. Certainly, the person will not panic, nor be put off, because of the room’s condition. The only thing he will be concerned about is finding a switch to turn on the lights. That is, he will worry about and attend to the real things.Doing so will solve all his problems. The presence of darkness in the room and its being an obstacle will not even cross his mind. There is darkness in the room justbecause the lights are turned off.

As indispensable as they are, at the heart of truth and light lies freedom. It is their soul. In equal measure, at the center of darkness and falsehood lie denial of freedom and its mishandling. Allah declares: “And say: ‘The truth is from your Lord, so whoever wills – let him believe; and whoever wills – let him disbelieve (reject the truth)’” (al-Kahf, 29).

By freedom it is meant not merely to do whatever and whenever one wills. Rather, freedom means to independently know what is needed to be done to self-actualize, and to be able to do it freely without interferences and constraints.

The meaning of true freedom

Just as there are only truth and light, likewise there is only freedom. Impediments and limitations are artificial. There is a direct object targeted by its subject with nothing standing between them.

That is the way Almighty Allah created and sustains life.

The whole universe exalts and declares the praises and glory of its Creator. As such, it serves at once as a testimony to, and sign of, truth. The same holds true as regards the earth and man in his capacity as Allah’s vicegerent on it.

Man has been created free and on al-fitrah, which is a pristine and natural state of purity as well as disposition to worshipping the Creator and living His Absolute Truth. It is a primordial instinct for man to draw ever closer to his “heavenly”, so to speak, origins.

Accordingly, man’s task is but to stay the course and ward off everythingthat could divest him of his honorable status and his most prized possession: freedom. He only needs to actualize and cherish his recollection of Allah and the truth of Islam – as the only religion in the sight of Allah and the only heavenly-sanctioned life paradigm.

Mansimplyneeds to remain himself and be free. His life, though physically confined to the earth, is to establish reciprocal relationships with the Divinity. He is also to ascertain and unleash the infinity of his metaphysical self,and as such, get access to the infinite meanings, experiences and splendor of the transcendent realm.

Man will realize that the best road to freedom is to identify his being and his limited domain with the ultimate spiritual domain, and to lose himself in serving it. The path to happiness and self-realization will then become unobstructed and clear too.

It follows that servitude to Allah alone denotes the truest form of emancipation and freedom. It guarantees enduring elation in the spheres of consciousness, knowledge and attitudes. In this manner, there is no limit to people’s confidence, enthusiasm, hope and faith.

However, what many people today call freedom is the most awful form of enslavement and oppression. People have turned their backs on the Heaven, worshipping, in turn,brief material things, their animal desires, and self-styled ambitions and goals. Thus trapped, they have become the slaves of their own egos and wants. Much-talked-about freedom is as much a fraud as any other professed value and existential meaning and purpose.

Preservation of freedom a must

One of the main aims of incessantly sending Holy Prophets to mankind was to enlighten and free man from whatever forms of religious, cultural and civilization enslavement that he might have invented and imposed upon himself. Another aim was to eliminate all the influences and their protagonists, which were supporting the morbid trends.

The order of things, both natural and man-generated, were thus to be restored. The freedom and purity of man, together with the pristineness and wholesomeness of life and earth, were to be brought back as closely to the state of their primordial selves as possible.

And that, surely, ought to signify the core, as well as pinnacle, of the notion of sustainability and of each and every authentic sustainable development drive. Little wonder that Islam through its legal doctrine of maqasid al-shari’ah (objectives or purposes behind the rulings) gives the idea of sustainability a great deal of attention.

The intention was to promote freedom as the greatest asset of man, and to spawn generations of free men and women,who will then constitute free societies. It proved time and again that freedom, coupled with genuine faith, is most powerful and undefeatable. Whenever fully instituted, its triumphs were ensured, and its adversaries never stood a chance.

Freedom is without equal. The only thing that its opponents can do is to slow its march to success by a variety of forgery and exploitation means.

The case of Prophet Musa (Moses)

For example, the Qur’an explains that Pharaoh, even though of the greatest corrupters and makers of mischief on earth, was ostensibly powerful and successfulmerely because he oppressed his people and broke them up into different sects and parties. Simply put, he denied them their freedom, dictating afterwards the terms of their material and spiritual wellbeing.

Allah says: “Indeed, Pharaoh exalted himself in the land and made its people into factions and sects, oppressing a sector among them, slaughtering their (new-born) sons and keeping their females alive. Indeed, he was of the corrupters” (al-Qasas, 4).

Hence, when Prophet Musa (Moses) was sent to Pharaoh and his establishment, and had to confront his magicians in an epic duel between truth and falsehood, he put emphasis all the way through on the idea of people’s physical and spiritual freedom. He demanded that his people, the Children of Israel, be released from the centuries-old slavery in Egypt to the freedom of the Holy Land in Palestine and its Jerusalem and al-Masjid al-Aqsa (Canaan).

The key moment was the contest with the magicians. Musa used that opportunity to destroy the myth of Pharaoh’s greatness and invincibility. He wanted to bring home to the people that Pharaoh’s designs were nothing but a scam of the highest order, the beginning and main cause of which were his acts of denying people their basic right of freedom and a clever manipulation of everything else directly and indirectly related to it.

Musa thus proposed that his contest with the magicians – the face of Pharaoh’s ideology and regime – be held on the day of the Festival and that the people be gathered in the early forenoon (Ta Ha, 59). Musa wanted everybody to be there and witness first-hand the fatal blow to Pharaoh’s government and its ungodly schemes. He also wanted them to do so in the morning during the brightness of the day when human perceptive powers are sharpest and visions surest and most definitive.

Musa wanted to trigger a chain reaction that would start with the emancipation and freedom of people’s minds and souls, leading up to their physical freedom and the freedom of their total being. And that spelled a disaster for Pharaoh, for nothing could stem the tide of freedom and its vast ramifications for injustice and tyranny. The situation manifested itself in the Magicians’ instantaneous prostration to God – following Musa’s triumph and their as well as Pharaoh’s emphatic defeat – sincerely repenting and rejoicing at their discerning of truth and their tasting of the true meaning of life and liberty.

When Pharaoh threatened the magicians that he will punish them for their betrayal by cutting off their hands and their feet on opposite sides, and by crucifying them on the trunks of palm trees, they – as finally free people enabled to distinguish truth from falsehood and to think freely – calmly responded to Pharaoh and his threats: “Never will we prefer you over what has come to us of clear proofs and (over) He who created us. So decree whatever you are to decree. You can only decree for this worldly life. Indeed, we have believed in our Lord that He may forgive us our sins and what you compelled us (to do) of magic. And Allah is better and more enduring” (Ta Ha, 72, 73).

Moreover, when Musa miraculously left Egypt with his people (an event called the Exodus), and when they stood at the threshold of the Holy Land, the meaning and significance of true freedom again came to the fore, perhaps most dramatically.

The Children of Israel were asked to enter the Holy Land and fight their enemy, the land’s occupiers. They were promised victory if they did so. However, they declined, rebelled and defied the divine orders.

In reality, there was more to the insubordination and rebellion of the Children of Israel than meets the eye. The incident demonstrated that for the Children of Israel, true freedom was a farfetched proposition. Though physically free, they were still saddled with a spiritual and mental bondage.

Consequently, they were denied entry to the Holy Land for forty years. That was a punishment, firstly for their appalling spiritual and psychological state, and secondlyfor their resisting of Allah’s command, resulting in them wandering in the wilderness uncertain of where they should go and what they should do. After forty years have elapsed, only then were the Children of Israel allowed to go in.

Yet, there is another dimension to theepisode.

The Children of Israel were taken out of Egypt to the Holy Land with the aim of settling therein and creating a civilization of their own. The age of slavery, ghettos and diaspora was over.

However, they proved incapacitated and well short of the qualifications required for the fulfilment of the task. If they were allowed to proceed in such a state to their destination to undertake the demanding process of civilization-building, they would have caused in the long run more damage and pain than benefit and overall goodness, not just for themselves, but also their future generations. Unquestionably, such are the gravity, intricacy and two-sidedness of the civilization-building enterprise.

During the forty years of life in the wilderness, a new completely free generation of the Children of Israel was raised. They were not part, nor did they carry the scars, of the Egyptian bondage, and were raised under the watchful eye and painstaking guidance of Prophets Musa and his brother Harun (Aaron). As such, they were qualified to enter and inhabit the Holy Land and perform what was expected from them.

Lessons learned

The message conveyed thereby is that great civilizations are engendered and built, not copied, imported or purchased. To do so, power, armies, land, people, resources and other sheer quantitative variables are not enough. What is needed most is all-inclusive human development steeped in complete and authentic freedom. A corollary of this blend is creativity – freedom’s sister – that recognizes no imposed false boundaries, nor point of reference.

The strength of a civilization depends on the strength of its people’s creativity, freedom and holistic human development. A deterioration in any, or all, of the three leads to a commensurate deterioration in the body of a civilization.

Perhaps, today’s Muslims could learn an invaluable lesson from the history of the Children of Israel. Repetitive calls for a renaissance of Islamic civilization could be heard loud and clear almost in all corridors of the Islamic and Muslim cultural presence. Much efforts, time and resources are poured into the idea. Nonetheless, very little progress has been made thus far; the reason being either the total negligence, or merelypartial treatment, of the three most critical components, the triplets: freedom, human developmentand creativity. Apparently, the priorities have been misconstrued and mixed up.

There is no Islamic renaissance as long as the interests of politicians and political parties, governments and their narrow agendas, royalties, and certain institutional entities, are venerated and served at the expense of the interests of the Islamic message and the Muslim Ummah (community) en bloc. The two are simply incompatible.

For example, how can there be a renaissance in education when many new universities are built but no adequate academic freedom is ensured, and the last thing students are taught in their curricula is creativity and creative, along with critical, thinking? Or how can there be a renaissance in politics, economic development, art and architecture when corruption and diverse forms and levels of dishonesty are rife at every level of countries’ institutional presence and operation? In this way, freedom and creativity become highly politicized and maltreated, and so, turned into forms of suppression and banality. If openly promoted, freedom and creativity may yet become dangerous for the establishments.

Some people just seem to be happy about ubiquitous hypocrisy, and about building castles in the air and leading an unrealistic existence removed from the pressures and challenges of everyday life.

Most Muslim countries are well into the second and third post-colonial generation. Yet, they are still wandering in their socio-economic, political, cultural and educational wilderness, not knowing exactly where to go and what to do. They are being mercilessly tossed about by modern ideological and cultural undercurrents. If the Children of Israel needed the lifespan of one generation to turn things around, one wonders how long today’s Muslims need to do the same. Certainly, getting rid of cultural and intellectual colonialism will be the best thing to start with.

The case of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and his mission

When Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) migrated from Makkah to Madinah with his companions, he did so – as is often emphasized – due to the pressing safety and security concerns, which to some extent is true. However, he did so, primarily, because he realized, after thirteen years of trying, that Makkah – ill-disposed and hostile as it was -was proving deficient for the implementation of Islam as the religion of freedom, cultural refinement and civilizational consciousness and growth. Other alternatives, therefore, had to be sought.

Madinah turned out to be everything Makkah wasn’t. It was an epitome and receptacle of the earliest manifestations of Islamic civilization. Central to this new culture was the liberation of people from worshipping and submitting themselves to anything and anybody other than the Almighty Creator. People were governed by higher spiritual and moral standards than such as pertained to their own personal, tribal, or traditional interests.

The stage was set for the new code of conduct when the Prophet at the beginning of the Charter, or Constitution, of the multi-ethnic and multi-religious city of Madinah clearly stated that its citizens, Muslims and non-Muslims, formed one nation – ummah. The content of the Charter oozed throughout the assurance and facilitation of peace and concord, combined with human freedom, dignity and productivity.

Madinah was a truly free and progressive society. It was a model that all subsequent Muslim societies and urban centers tried to emulate. It was a stage where integration, supreme justice and human rights prevailed, where equal opportunities for all were provided, and where, perhaps for the first time in human history, inter-faith dialogues and positive interactions – especially between the followers of the Abrahamic religions -on a regular basis transpired.

The new traditions have been enumerated in the following Qur’anic words: “Indeed, Allah orders justice and good conduct and giving to relatives and forbids immorality and bad conduct and oppression. He admonishes you that perhaps you will be reminded” (al-Nahl, 90).

It should be observed that the emphasis in the verse is on a communal, reciprocal and all-embracing good behavior, transcending for a while the parameters of religion, traditional customs and social mores.

It was owing to that that Madinah was thus called. The name “Madinah” is derived from the words “maddana” and “tamaddun”, which mean “to civilize” and “civilization” respectively. Apart from the word “tamaddun”, the word “hadarah” is also employed in Arabic to imply civilization. “Hadarah” (civilization) is derived from the words “hadara”, “hudur” and “hadir”, which mean “to be present”, “presence” and “he who is present” respectively.

That denotes that in Islam, for a civilization to materialize and grow, the presence of enlightened, free, visionary and dedicated people is essential. Their mere presence will ensurethe provision of conducive conditionsand facilities for a civilization. Their roles and productivity will be the cause, and the advancement of civilizationalingredients the effect. 

Undoubtedly, the Islamic message was always about such a developmental exemplar. Islam aims but to create free, dignified, devoted and productive persons whose societies will then be shaped in their own image.

Why did Muslims fight?

Islam and Muslims also fought simplyto ensure that those noble principles are upheld. They did not fight because of the empire-building and colonization impulses – although many chapters of Muslim long history are stained by the deeds of a number of individuals and groups who deviated from the established patterns. By and large, wars were sometimes defensive in nature, and at other times with the intention of removing impediments to freedom, justice and conveyance of truth.

On account of that,in Arabic, “conquest” means “fath”, which means “opening”; that is to say, opening places and territories, together with people’s hearts and minds, to the message of Islam, after which it was entirely up to people if they wanted to follow or reject it.Islamic conquests could additionally be interpreted as acts of ensuring and disseminating freedom, and its protagonists as “freedom-fighters”.

Hence, the conquest or takeover of Makkah, for example, is termed “Fath (Opening of) Makkah”. Also, the renowned book of a Muslim historian, Ahmad b. Yahya al-Baladhuri, on Muslim conquests is called “Futuh al-Buldan”, which means “Openings (futuh, plural of fath) of Lands (Countries)”.

All Islam and Muslims everwantedwas freedom: freedom for themselves and for others. Islam does its best to remove all the obstacles and veils that may stand in the way.Reason for this is thatIslam as the truth revealed by the Absolute Truth (al-Haqq)fears nothing and nobody. It wants to create milieus rooted in justice, transparencyand trust, in that they are most conducive to its thriving. Only against the backdrop of such socio-political and intellectual settingscan Islam’s true colors be perfectly displayed, and can others be able to see and appreciate them. By advocating freedom for others, Islam and Muslims, in effect, work for their ownbenefits. It is a long-term strategy that eventually secures a huge dividend yield.

This approach was epitomized in the Prophet’s sending of letters to the world’s leaders, inviting them to Islam and proposing that they, too, become instruments of these new heavenly-authorized concepts of freedom, life and justice. The gist of a letter to Heraclius the leader of the Romans, for instance, read: “I invite you with the invitation of peace. If you establish peace, then you will find peace and God will double your reward. If you turn away, you will bear the Arians’ sins (for your perpetuation and facilitation of their misguidance and errors).”

Furthermore, when ‘Uqbah b. Nafi’ – a Muslim general who “conquered” much of the North Africa, including present-day Algeria, Tunisia, Libya and Morocco – reached the Atlantic Ocean, he kneeled down, raised his hands towards the Heaven, and said: “O Allah, be my witness that I have taken Your Message up to the end of the land; and if this ocean were not in my way, I would have proceeded to fight the pagans until none would be worshipped except You.”

‘Uqbah b. Nafi’ spoke and reported to Almighty Allah alone, instead of his ego and any of his soldiers, peers, or superiors. He was answerable but to the Divinity.

Towards the same end are the Caliph ‘Umar b. al-Khattab’s words to his governor in Egypt: “What makes you enslave the people, who were born from their mothers in freedom?”

Islam’s famous credo that “there is no compulsion in (acceptance of) religion” (al-Baqarah, 256) is universal. It contains all, not only physical, but also non-physical cultural, psychological and spiritual elements. Just as there should not be compulsion in accepting religion, similarly, there should not be compulsion in not accepting religion either. Freedom needs to work both ways.

Freedom and missionaries

Muslims are sometimes accused of being extremely intolerant towards missionary activities that target them and their Islam, especially in Muslim-majority countries. However, that charge is completely wrong and unfounded.

Muslims are only against secretive and clandestine proselytizing activities in their midst, whereby certain individuals’ and groups’ weaknesses and vulnerabilities are aimed to be exploited. That is perceived as grossly unfair and opportunistic a course of action. In the process, people’s freedom is being negated, at worst, and manipulatedandswayed, at best. And that is the crime Islam and Muslims go all out to prevent from happening.

Inherently, Islam and Muslims are not against anybody.What is more, they are open to dialogues, interactions and debates with the proponents of anyideology and religion, in any setting and under any conditions where openness and honesty are observed. By the way, that is exactly the core mission and purpose of Islam as the embodiment of truth.

Whoever wants to directly and sincerely share – and debate – his ideas, beliefs and values with Muslims, he is always most welcome. This can be done anywhere, including the most important centers of Islamic spirituality and scholarship. But the sessions are to be conducted directly and publicly. Let all people have an opportunity to witness and comprehend truth and its antitheses, allowing the spirit of Prophet Musa’s victory over Pharaoh and his magicians to live forever.

Therefore, Islam and Muslims are in no way against missionaries. They are just against their covert strategies and methods. Dealing (openly debating) with missionaries, in point of fact, could be turned into one of the most potent means of da’wahislamiyyah (promoting Islam and inviting people to it).Islam’s and Muslims’ firm position is a reflection of their detestation of darkness, confusion, lack of spiritual freedom, deceit and double-dealing.

In addition, what Islam and Muslims are ready to offer others in their midst, that is exactly what they want and expect from others when in their own midst, no more and no less. For example, today in the West where Muslims are extreme minorities, all that Muslims want is freedom and their basic human rights. They do not want, nor expect, anyone to love them, or accord them some special favors. Freedom will be sufficient, for Islam when it is free it is an unstoppable force (and itsadversaries know that, hence all the noise, campaigns, movements, etc., against it).

However, such by no meansis the case. The inference can be corroborated by the fact that in many circles in the West, it is stereotyped that Islam is a religion of violence, terrorism and narrow-mindedness, that it is fundamentally anti-West and anti-integration, and that it harbors the ideas of exclusivism and clash of civilizations. In some places, that is part of an official national doctrine.

Those views – which are so flawed that they border on the insane and ridiculous – clearly demonstrate that Islam and Muslims are not as free as they should be, and as purported and publicized. Besides, they are constantly at the receiving end of endless malicious campaigns. A great many aspects of those crusades are attempted to be secretly transported through missionaries to the Muslim lands – and minds – as well, for which reason theyand their activities are not welcome. Missionariesand their clandestine tactics are risk to freedomand,at the same time, its antithesis.

This also proves that the edifice and fortitude of Western civilization thrive on fabrications, deceit and exploitation. Never were truth and morality its forte.

A word on apostasy

Finally, apostasy is also loathed and severely dealt with in Islam because it represents exploitation and ill-treatment of freedom.

There is no apostasy per se, as no true Muslims will ever apostatize or renounce their Islamic faith. This assessment has been nicely encapsulated in the words of Heraclius, who said to Abu Sufyan b. Harbthat nobody who embraced Islam became displeased and discarded it because “this is (the sign of) true faith, when its delight enters the hearts and mixes with them completely” (Sahih al-Bukhari).

What is called today apostasy, by and large, is all about ignorance, negligence and vested interests, coupled with fraudulence and outright exploitation.

At the personal level, an apostate is held accountable for failing to take advantage of Islam’s and his own freedom, and to establish that Islam is the absolute truth and to embrace it as such.

This is when apostates are original Muslims – in which case the societies and their institutions are also to be blamed for breeding causes and so, allowing such things to happen. Sometimes, admittedly, apostates are the victims of a higher and institutionalized dereliction and confusion.

When apostates are former converts, they are to be held accountable twice as much. Reason is that they misused their freedom of belief and choice twice: firstly when they ostensibly became Muslims, and secondly, when they left Islam’s fold. Needless to say that freedom is a trust from Allah upon man. Hence, he must take it very seriously and responsibly. His destiny in both worlds depends on it.

At the social level, when apostates start championing and spreading their spiritual and intellectual disorders to others, the matter takes on a different, yet critical, character. In that case, Islam – as the religion of both personal and collective experience and wellbeing, and as the religion of spiritual, cultural and civilizational development – is being targeted and undermined by its former dishonest members. All Muslims and their cultures, as well as civilization, as a result, feel affected.

This type of apostasy is a form of treason. It is the crime of betraying the entire Muslim community (Ummah) and its interests. And like in most cases of treason, a person guilty of it shall suffer death as a maximum punishment. Most importantly, his crime will be, apart from maltreating and abusing his own freedom, his deliberate attempts to influence others to do the same.

Definitely, neither annulling, nor abusing, of freedom is acceptable.

Prof. Dr. Omer Spahic

Abdullah b. Rawahah was a leading companion of Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him). He was from the rank of Ansar (the Helpers, or the local inhabitants of Madinah). Moreover, he was a scribe and poet. During the battle of Mu’tah in the 8^th year after Hijrah against the forces of the Byzantine Empire, he was third in command. He was killed in the same battle.

After the battle of Khaybar in the 7^th year after Hijrah against the renegade Jews, the Jews were defeated and an agreement was signed. According to the agreement, the Jews were allowed to remain on their lands and in their fortresses, while obliging them to pay half their agricultural yield to the Prophet’s state.

The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) then appointed Abdullah b. Rawahah to estimate the agricultural produce of the Jews and to make sure that the taxes were duly paid, as per the agreement.

However, the Jews attempted to bribe Abdullah b. Rawahah, most probably with the jewellery of their women, so that he would estimate the amount of their harvests less, and would generally go easy on them.

When he realized what the Jews were up to, Abdullah b.Rawahah got upset, yet insulted, and in such a state said to them: “By Allah! I have come to you from the one who is the dearest of all creation to me (Prophet Muhammad), and you are the most unpleasant and disgusting creatures of Allah in my view (especially so now after this evil attempt of yours). You are more hated by me than an equivalent number of apes and swine. What you offer me is bribery, which is illegal. We never accept it.”

Then, immediately after that, he told them something unheard of: “However, (you can rest assured that) neither my excessive love for him (the Prophet), nor my excessive hatred for you will prevent me in the slightest from being just with you.”

In other words, Abdullah b.Rawahahindicated to the Jews that his judgment will in no way be affected by his emotions, or any other internal or external factors. He was taught that justice must be relationships and emotions-blind. It must transcend the levels of human intrinsic and acquired variabilities.

After all, justice, both as a concept and human way of life,is honourable and pure, and must be preserved as such. It is divine. Only by promoting and practicing authentic justice can humans and their societies be elevated to higher planes of meaning, proficiency and experience.

Thus, according to the Qur’anicvocabulary and spirit, justice is always associated with piety, goodness, truth andvictory, while injustice is associated withfalsehood, maliceandspiritual, as well as moral, darkness and bankruptcy.

Through the holy prophets, justice was presented to man as one of the greatest heavenly gifts. Man is not, and cannot be, the source of justice. God and His revelations are. Conceiving and actualizing absolute justice greatly outweigh man’sabilities. Hence, man can only be the target and conduit of divine justice. All forms of human justice are but shadows, or offshoots, of God’s justice.

When the Jews heard the words ofAbdullah b.Rawahah, they were stunned. What they just witnessed and heard was a jaw-dropping stuff. As People of the Book (ahl al-kitab), they together with the Christians knew more about faith and virtue than others from those who did not follow the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). They were closer to the secrets of the truth-related treasures than anybody else, notwithstanding their actual relationship with the same truth.

The impact was so powerful and overwhelming that the Jews could not hide theiramazement. Instantaneously, they retorted, rather intuitively: “This is the foundation upon which the heavens and earth were created (and are sustained).”

What did the Jews in reality hear and see, what was sospectacular about it, and what did they actually mean by their response?

The answer is twofold.

First, the Jews saw in Abdullah b. Rawahah an embodiment of Almighty Allah’s final revelation to mankind through Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him). They saw a phenomenon and realm. The last thing they saw was a biological being called Abdullah b. Rawahah.

As it is known, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) aimed primarily to create or develop people (human capital). Everything else was secondary and in service of people. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) knew that it was people who would create and sustain, or undermine and destroy, civilizations. It was people furthermore from whom all good and evil could originate, and to whom all the consequences, good or bad, were to return.

Man and his overall wellbeing topped the priorities. Everything was subjected to the stimulating and facilitating of the noble life mission and purpose of man. No surprise that the dignity of man in relation to his life, property and other human rights, is the holiest and most sanctified thing in Islam.

Justice is an instrument of preserving and elevating human honour and dignity. Since the latter is established by nobody else but Allah, the former, too, needs to be from the same metaphysical source. It needs to match the heavenly character of human distinctive qualities and to satisfy their delicate requirements.

The Jews witnessed in Abdullah b. Rawahah an epitome and physical representation of this extraordinary worldview. The whole philosophy was transported from the world of abstract ideas to the world of palpable realities, and so effectively through the behavioural model ofonly one person.

The case of Abdullah b. Rawahah also served as an example and evidence of the triumph of Prophet Muhammad’s entire prophet-hood mission. Apart from being his envoy, Abdullah b. Rawahah was also a prototype of the Prophet’sabove all spiritual and moral conquests.

Against the backdrop of Abdullah b. Rawahah’s personality andconduct, one could discern the spiritual and moral deficiencies of the Jews, who stood for the antitheses of everything Abdullah b. Rawahah exemplified. Everything that Abdullah b. Rawahah was, the Jews weren’t, but were supposed to be.

Second, the Jews saw in Abdullah b. Rawahah the true meaning of justice, which is universal andall-pervading. It permeates the whole universe (the heavens and earth), cascading down to,and manifesting itself perhaps most impressively at the plane of human relationships and their daily interactions.

What this furthermore means could be extracted from the Qur’anic chapter (surah) al-Rahman, verses 7-9.

In it, Allah firstly reveals,in verse 7,that He has raised high the firmament (the skies or heaven) and set up the measure or the balance of justice (mizan). This denotes that justice is a heavenly virtue and that the heavens have been created and are sustained on the basis of both mathematical and spiritual balance.

The word used is mizan, which means balance, measure and scale. Thereby it is meant justice, because justice is to place and keep things in their rightful places, and to allow them to function to the best of their capacities. Justice is synonymous with balance, measure, equilibrium and perfect harmony. Yet, it is their clearest indicator. That is how the scale became a symbol of lawand justice; hence, the concept of the lady of justice.

Then in verse 8, Allah says that He did what He did so that truth and justice could aboundthroughout His creation. The creation of the heavens set a templatefor man, Allah’s vicegerent on earth, putting the onus on him to comprehend, promote, sustain and extend the same existential patternto the spheres of not only his customary, but also highestrelations.

Allah says: “In order that you may not transgress due balance (mizan) (the measure of what is right and just)” (al-Rahman, 8).

It stands to reason that this is the most consequential form of what we call today sustainability and sustainable development. This principle marks the beginning and end of all authentic sustainability drives.

The same idea is further reinforced by the succeeding verse: “So establish weight with justice and fall not short in the balance (mizan)” (al-Rahman, 9).

This implies that in accordance with the heavenly mathematical and spiritual pattern, and the implications of his honourable status as the vicegerent of earth, man is bidden to be just and truthful in all his dealings and transactions: with his own self, other people, the rest of creation, and of course in his obedience to Allah’s commandments.

This is the only way for the human world to be just, balanced, harmonious and peaceful, just as it is the case with the heavenly realm. Man is to replicate the justice, balance and equilibrium of the heavens down on the earth.

Abdullah b. Rawahah – like the other companions (sahabah) in their capacity as the products of the Prophet’s school and development system – was a microcosm and living example of that sophisticated paradigm. The Jews knew that and could not hide their astonishment. So, they reacted the way they did.

In passing, some examples of what Tanakh or Hebrew Bible (the Old Testament) says about total justice and the precision, balance and harmony of the world are found, for example, in: Isaiah 40:12, 51:4-5, Deuteronomy 16:20, Leviticus 19:15, Psalms 33:5.

Finally, this extraordinary Islamic view of justice is best summed up in these two Qur’anic verses: “O you who have believed, be persistently standing firm for Allah, witnesses in justice, and do not let the hatred of a people prevent you from being just. Be just; that is nearer to righteousness. And fear Allah; indeed, Allah is acquainted with what you do” (al-Ma’idah, 8).

“O you who have believed, be persistently standing firm in justice, witnesses for Allah, even if it be against yourselves or parents and relatives. Whether one is rich or poor, Allah is more worthy of both. So follow not (personal) inclination, lest you not be just. And if you distort (your testimony) or refuse (to give it), then indeed Allah is ever, with what you do, acquainted” (al-Nisa’, 135).

Boycott not only Products, but also Ideas and Values

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Spahic Omer
Kulliyyah of Architecture and Environmental Design
International Islamic University Malaysia
E-mail: spahico@yahoo.com

Of late, there has been much talk in the Muslim world about boycotting certain products to impact principally the economy of Israel’s proxy, the United States, which is appropriate and timely, and ought to be supported by all legitimate and effective means.
However, the most important “items” are missing from the lists given. What is left wanting, and what is, at the same time, a moral imperative for the insatiable Muslim consumers,
is an ardent and sustainable call for coming to terms with and boycotting inappropriate and questionable cultural and civilizational ideas, values, trends, theories and institutions. While the former is short-term, the latter is a long-term strategy with much more effective and lasting results. The call must be rooted in and driven by rationalism, rather than emotional outbursts and even dysregulation.
Sure, we happily and insatiably consume the products in question, and have problems parting with them, because of our intellectual, spiritual and cultural contamination that arrives from obviously inappropriate and questionable epistemological, ideological and civilizational sources.
It follows that consuming problematic products is an effect, while devouring ideas and values is a root cause. Focusing on the effect but neglecting the root cause will never solve the predicament we suffer from, neither permanently nor completely. What’s more, it even can render the whole situation all the more difficult and thorny.
It is high time, therefore, to really wake up, and embark on a more comprehensive, appropriate and tenable course of action. It is high time to show more respect towards ourselves at all levels of existence and thus secure more respect from others.
If not, the boycotting of Israeli, American and some other products by most of us will be a short-lived affair, as short-lived as the brutal and ubiquitous slaughtering of innocent Palestinians is active. When such operative brutalities are over (normally in a few weeks’ time, after some novel military experiments have been carried out), our readiness to continue economic and psychological jihad correspondingly subsides. Only when the atrocities resume, as an annual, or at most biennial, Israeli-American routine, do many of us suddenly wake up again
and start the whole process of intensive campaigning and boycotting all over again. And the recurring futile, queer and somewhat droll cycle goes on indefinitely.
Several examples of Islamic ideals and values that we have bartered cheaply — partially or completely — for some one-dimensional and spirituality-free western alternatives are those pertaining to man (and woman), family, life and death, the universe, urban and human development, wealth acquisition, distribution and consumption, education, society and social relations, politics, fashion, art and entertainment. Simply said, life in its totality and with all its dimensions, physical and metaphysical, has been targeted. As a result, Muslims have become a nation (ummah) bereft of its genuine and intrinsic purpose, worth and identity, cultural and civilizational philosophy, vision and mission, while at the same time priding themselves on artificially constructed historical and socio-political legacies, disorienting and vague present-day struggles and undertakings, as well as on sets of false and delusional future hopes, aspirations and dreams.
That said, our external maladies are but reflections of our internal and far more complex and devastating malaises and confusions. Our external troubles are brought forth and nurtured by our inner emptiness and worthlessness. Our cultural and civilizational lethargy and dependency are attributable to our spiritual and intellectual deficiencies and waywardness.
Admittedly, so numerous, pervasive and advanced are our disorders and ailments that it is very difficult to pinpoint what exactly the remedies are, where to start and how to map and execute the potential plans, programs and schemes. Nonetheless, one thing is absolutely clear. It is a time for some decisive action if we were ever to have any significant say on future developments that concern not only Muslims but also all humanity. Hence, every constructive initiative, plan and program, and at any plane of the Islamic presence, which aims to bring Muslims back to their intrinsic selves, their identity, culture and history, and above all, to their spiritual and ethical norms and values, is to be most sincerely welcome and wholeheartedly supported by all Muslims. Excellent coordination and mutual support between different initiatives and programs are to be also ensured. All levels: individuals, family and institutions, are to be targeted thereby. Everyone must repeatedly ask himself/herself what he/she is able to contribute to the cause, and how and where he/she can do more. Discharging the individual duties of self-assessment and enjoining what is good and forbidding what is evil (al-amr bi al-ma’ruf wa al-nahy ‘an al-munkar) is to be stepped up like never before.
The prime objectives of those programs and plans, as well as their methods of implantation, are to revolve mainly around people’s intellectual, spiritual and moral awakening, enlightenment and growth. They, in a nutshell, are to aim at correctly conceptualizing and optimizing the dynamism and universalism of the notion of the first Islamic revelation: “iqra’” (read, recite, study, explore, observe) (Surah al-‘Alaq, 1) with which Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) both initiated and ultimately succeeded in changing forever the course of human history and civilization. Indeed, almost every civilizational good that humanity enjoys today is due to such holistic changes and transformations attributed to Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and those who came after him and followed in his footsteps. It’s no wonder that in Islam all good and righteousness are associated and are synonymous with light and appropriate knowledge and wisdom, whereas all evil and falsehood are associated and are synonymous with darkness, ignorance and blind following.
However, it must be unmistakably emphasized that only those activations of “iqra’” which are unified with the precept of “in the name of your Lord” (Surah al-‘Alaq, 1) are recognized and approved by Islam. There is no place for separation, or conflicts, between the two as they complement and exist for each other. The Prophet (pbuh) consequently besought God for protection against the types of knowledge that procure no benefit, that is to say, any form of knowledge that does not bring us closer to our Lord, nor does it contribute to the purification and illumination of our souls and minds. No knowledge or education, which does not lead to the real and everlasting good of this world and the Hereafter, that is deemed proper and worth undertaking.
Getting to an Islamic holistic intellectual and spiritual awakening is an extremely serious and demanding task. It requires major contributions and high-spirited concerted efforts of many parties from across the wide spectrum of society: central and local governments, institutions and establishments, educators, professionals, NGOs, students and the general public. Certainly, relevant governmental departments, bodies and institutions, schools, colleges and universities, both private and public, are identified as the most relevant agencies and their people as the most important protagonists in spearheading and managing the implantation of the said project. The responsibilities of those parties are the biggest on account of their most vital roles in society. It goes without saying that in case of failure, especially if such happens due to deliberate mediocrity, indifference and apathy, their share of blame will be the biggest one as well.

Without doubt, it is owing to this undeniable actuality that in the International Islamic University Malaysia (IIUM), a university subject titled “The Islamic Worldview” is taught in all Faculties (Kulliyyahs). Accordingly, each and every student must register and pass the subject which is a graduation requirement. The subject is taught in such a way that its topics and contents are not only dealt with conceptually, but are also attempted to be integrated into the relevant epistemological fields, such as human sciences, economics, law, engineering, art, architecture, medicine, information technology, etc. The subject of “The Islamic Worldview”, it stands to reason, serves to students as an eye-opener and a wake-up call, rather than serving as no more than an information, data and theories provider. It is all about critical and creative thinking from Islamic perspectives, as well as about paving the way for the demanding prospect of amalgamating the secular and religious, the material and spiritual, and the theoretical and practical dimensions of Islam as a complete way of life.
The objectives that the academic subject in question strives to achieve are, firstly, to acquaint the students with the profound meanings, characteristics, foundations and objectives of the Islamic and selected non-Islamic worldviews; secondly, to make the students comprehend the major aspects of the Islamic worldview and their vast implications for life, thought and personality and society building; and thirdly, to enable the students to identify some foremost challenges faced by contemporary man and society, and to discern how Muslims should respond to them. To many, including the author of this paper, the subject of “The Islamic Worldview” is a microcosm of the complete educational philosophy and system of the IIUM which, as its noble mission, promotes and tries to accomplish the principles of internationalization, Islamization, integration and comprehensive excellence.
This is so because in Islam, the ultimate goal of education is to produce exemplary men and women who will not only be excellent professionals, but also excellent citizens, parents, spouses, neighbors, friends, etc. That is, they will be able to function in all contexts as excellent vicegerents and trustees (khalifahs) on earth, an honorable title accorded to us by our Creator and Master. Raising and educating our young men and women in the spirit and under the aegis of some conflicting and alien-to-Islam ideologies and value systems is not just a moral disaster and an act of perpetuating the predicaments and maladies that incessantly cripple the minds and souls of Muslims, but also an act of betraying perhaps the weightiest of trusts that has been placed upon the shoulders of governments, institutions, schools, colleges and universities, and the shoulders of all the personnel linked, one way or another, with those bodies and establishments. Definitely, our future lies in the hands of our children (students). Misguiding and mis-educating them signifies a collective cultural and civilizational suicide.
In view of all that, Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) used to implore Allah to enlighten and educate him first, and then to enable him to translate that most crucial life segment into the realm of tangible life realities, that is, to enable him to act befittingly in all situations. He used to pray: “O Allah, show me the truth as the truth, and enable me to follow it. O Allah, show me falsehood as falsehood, and enable me to stay away from it.”
Finally, the gist of the subject matter discussed above has been comprehensively encapsulated in the words of Allah that He will not change the condition of a people, or a community, until and unless they change what is in themselves. (Surah al-Ra’d, 11)
Thus, ours is to change what is in us and within our domains. Allah will then take the lead in altering and improving that which is beyond us and beyond our capacities. We must not forget that the latter is not automatic. Rather, it is conditioned by the former and the quality of its execution. The greatest irony would thus be to get obsessed with trying to solve the issues which belong exclusively to Almighty God and His “jurisdiction”, but at the same time neglect what is incumbent upon us as individuals and groups and what belongs to our own “jurisdiction”. Unfortunately, nowadays many Muslims tend to do just that. Trivialization has taken precedence over prioritization.
About the Author:
Dr. Spahic Omer, a Bosnian currently residing in Malaysia, is an Associate Professor at the Kulliyyah of Architecture and Environmental Design, International Islamic University Malaysia. He studied in Bosnia, Egypt and Malaysia. His research interests cover Islamic history, culture and civilization, as well as the history and philosophy of Islamic built environment. He can be reached at spahico@yahoo.com; his blog is at www.medinanet.org.

Following the Qur’an, Sunnah, Ahl al-Bayt and the Companions

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Spahic Omer
International Islamic University Malaysia
E-mail: spahico@yahoo.com

Undoubtedly, the doctrine of the imamate was the most salient doctrine in all Shi’ism. It constituted a nucleus around which almost every other doctrine, conviction and canon revolved, and was influenced by it, one way or another. The presence of an Imam in every age, it follows, is a must. In their capacities as the spiritual and political successors to Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), Imams play the role of the divinely appointed authorities on all matters of faith and law in Muslim society. Their quality of being infallible is at once essential, considered necessary and assured.
As a result, Shi’is believe that the Sunni orthodox caliphs before ‘Ali were usurpers who usurped from ‘Ali his right to succeed the Prophet (pbuh). Those companions of the Prophet (pbuh) who neither supported nor sided with ‘Ali before and during the bloody civil wars, and, much worse, who supported and later accepted Mu’awiyah as caliph, as well as the subsequent Umayyad establishment, are to Shi’is far from being righteous. Some have even been accused of out-and-out hypocrisy as well as apostasy, having betrayed the Prophet (pbuh) and his will and command concerning, most importantly, the matter of succession and leadership.
The righteousness of the companions after the Prophet’s death could be assessed by the extent of their de facto and palpable support and loyalty towards the household of the Prophet (pbuh) (ahl al-bayt) and their noble struggle and cause, which, if truth be told, connotes support for the Prophet (pbuh) and his heavenly mission. Without a doubt, the companions (sahabah), their immediate successors (tabi’un), and the latter’s successors (atba’ tabi’in), with their outstanding status and position in descending order as the best generations after the Prophet (pbuh), had more than a few chances to prove themselves and to display their right colors, because throughout the said epochs the members of ahl al-bayt went from one stern trial and tribulation to another. They and their valiant undertakings were in dire need of truly righteous individuals and ardent supporters. However, in the end many failed to stand up and be counted.
While trying to ascertain the superiority of ‘Ali and ahl al-bayt over the rest, believing that the imamate belonged firstly and exclusively to ‘Ali and then to his descendants with Fatimah, the Prophet’s daughter, on the grounds of clear designation and unambiguous appointment by the Prophet (pbuh), many Shi’is ultimately went to the point of slandering the leading Prophet’s companions and declaring them unbelievers, or at least accusing them of injustice and hostility for usurping ‘Ali’s succession right, and then when his deferred appointment finally came, for failing to fully side with him and subsequently with his progeny.
Shi’is try to substantiate their fundamental doctrines with proofs explicitly or implicitly derived from both the Qur’an and Sunnah. One of those proofs is the Prophet’s words that he was leaving two things to the people to follow, lest they go astray. Those two things are the Holy Qur’an and the members of his family (ahl al-bayt). (Sahih Muslim; Jami’ al-Tirmidhi)
Indeed, this is one of the strongly established hadiths (traditions) and has been transmitted through many chains of transmission and in different versions. Both Shi’is and Sunnis agree on its authenticity and validity.
The Holy Qur’an and ahl al-bayt are thus not to be separated. They will remain legitimate and applicable till the end of days, complementing each other in leading and guiding the people. Whoever follows them, therefore, will not fall into error and will reach true felicity in both worlds.
In Shi’ism, by ahl al-bayt or the “members of the household” and “progeny” it is not meant all the descendants and relatives of the Prophet (pbuh). Rather, specific individuals are only meant, especially those “who are perfect in the religious sciences and are protected against error and sin so that they are qualified to guide and lead men. For Shi’ism (Ithna ʿAshariyyah or Twelvers), these individuals consist of ‘Ali b. Abi Talib and his eleven descendants who were chosen to the imamate one after another.” (Allamah Tabataba’i)
However, as regards the same authentic Prophet’s words, the scholars considerably differ concerning the exact meaning and extent of ahl al-bayt. In any event, apart from ‘Ali, Fatimah, Hasan and Husayn, the wives of the Prophet (pbuh), too, are included as members of ahl al-bayt, because the Qur’an mentions the whole idea in the context of lengthily addressing the wives of the Prophet (pbuh), (al-Ahzab, 28-34). It follows that other daughters of the Prophet (pbuh) are also included within the definition. According to some accounts, the members of the Prophet’s family are the family of ‘Ali, the family of ‘Aqil, the family of Ja’far and the family of ‘Abbas, since they were not permitted to receive charity after the Prophet (pbuh) had died. Some scholars went so far as to extend the concept to the whole of the Banu Hashim and the Banu al-Mutallib. Some even thought that the whole Ummah (Muslim community) is the family of the Prophet (pbuh). (Tafsir Ibn Kathir; al-Nawawi’s Sharh Sahih Muslim)
Furthermore, not only that the Prophet (pbuh) is reported to have said that he was leaving the Qur’an and ahl al-bayt to the people to follow, but also, as per another authentic tradition, he said that he was leaving the Qur’an and his Sunnah (traditions and way of life) also to be followed. (Muwatta’ Malik b. Anas)
What is the relationship between these two proclamations of the Prophet (pbuh)?
These two bona fide statements of the Prophet (pbuh) not only do not contradict each other, but also greatly support and explain each other. In their most profound actual meanings, they are like one. The Prophet’s Sunnah, as a way of life, was perfectly typified by each and every member of his household, certainly more than anyone else, due to their constant proximity to and most intimate contacts with the Prophet (pbuh) which allowed them to be the immediate, and often first, recipients of his knowledge, wisdom and counsel. That qualified them to become the legitimate sources of Islamic jurisprudence, as well as the ideal exemplars to be emulated by the succeeding generations of Muslims. Hence, the way of life of the members of the Prophet’s family – spirituality-wise — was in many ways the way of life of the Prophet (pbuh) himself. Talking about the way of life of the Prophet’s family members is as good as talking about the way of life (Sunnah) of the Prophet (pbuh). This status of the Prophet’s family members was possible, principally, because of the successful functioning of the Prophet’s family as an institution and his houses as family education and development centers.
At any rate, however, in the two above mentioned traditions of the Prophet (pbuh), it is meant that the Holy Qur’an, first, the Prophet’s Sunnah, second, and then the members of the Prophet’s household, and by extension the closest companions of the Prophet (pbuh), are guarantors that a person, or a society, that sticks to and follows them will not go astray. As a small digression, Muhammad Abu Zahrah stated that although both traditions (hadiths) are very sound and mutawatir (successive narration), the state of being mutawatir of the one with the words “the Qur’an and Sunnah” is stronger than the same state of the one with the words “the Qur’an and ahl al-bayt”.
It was owing to this undeniable veracity that the wives of the Prophet (pbuh) were instructed to keep maximizing the roles and functions of their houses, while unreservedly enjoying personal and family comfort, privacy and security in them. Their houses were to be transformed into the centers of learning and spiritual upbringing for the members of ahl al-bayt (the Prophet’s family), wherefrom all other Muslim houses and households were bound to benefit. Their personalities, similarly, were to be transformed into inestimable sources of knowledge and guidance, ultimately positioning themselves as legitimate and substantial references to the Ummah (community). The Qur’an says: “And stay quietly in your houses, and make not a dazzling display, like that of the former times of ignorance; and establish regular prayers, and give Zakat and obey Allah and His Messenger. And Allah only wishes to remove all abomination from you, you members of the Family (ahl al-bayt), and to make you pure and spotless. And recite what is rehearsed to you in your houses, of the Signs of Allah and His Wisdom: for Allah understands the finest mysteries and is well-acquainted (with them).” (al-Ahzab, 33-34)
Surely, this was one of the reasons why the wives of the Prophet (pbuh) are called in the Qur’an “the Mothers of believers” (ummahat al-mu’minin) (al-Ahzab, 6). By analogy, the Prophet (pbuh) could also be looked at as the father of, or a fatherly figure to, believers. He is therefore reported to have said at the beginning of one of his hadiths (traditions): “I am like father to you, teaching you…” (Sunan Abi Dawud) The Qur’an reveals that Prophet Lut described the women of his nation as his daughters (Hud, 78). That said, it becomes apparent why some scholars — as mentioned earlier — were of the view that the whole Ummah (Muslim community) is the family (ahl al-bayt) of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh).
Finally, in a somewhat reconciliatory tone, Fakhr al-Din al-Razi, in his tafsir (exegesis) Mafatih al-Ghayb suggested that a Shi’i precept that the members of ahl al-bayt are like the ship of the Prophet Nuh (Noah), and whoever embarks upon it will be saved, and a Sunni principle that the Prophet’s companions are like stars, so whomsoever the people follow, they will be guided – could be integrated into one broad and flexible ideology where both parties, to some extent, could be brought together. However, that hypothetically suggested ideology would be closer to the Sunni sentiment, by reason of their unbigoted and unprejudiced position on ahl al-bayt, than to the Shi’i sentiment, owing to their fairly rigid and opinionated position on a number of the Prophet’s companions. Fakhr al-Din al-Razi said in the context of explaining the meaning of a verse No. 23 from the Qur’anic chapter al-Shura (Consultation) that the verse illustrates the obligation of loving and honoring at once ahl al-bayt and the companions of the Prophet (pbuh). However, such a feat could be achieved only if one follows the examples of the people of ahl al-sunnah wa al-jama’ah who amalgamated the love of ahl al-bayt with the love of the companions. Anything short of this modus operandi will not work.
Fakhr al-Din al-Razi then went on to elaborate that the people were in a sea of religious duties and responsibilities (bahr al-taklif) and were pounded by waves of doubts, greed and lusts. They thus needed two things: firstly, a “ship” free from all defects and cracks; and secondly, the rising and luminous guiding stars. So, when a person embarks upon a strong ship and sees those bright guiding stars, he looks forward to having a safe journey for the conditions were perfect. Similarly, the people of ahl al-sunnah wa al-jama’ah in the past boarded a robust ship of love for ahl al-bayt and directed their gazes towards the guiding stars of the Prophet’s companions, trusting and hoping that by the grace of God they will thus navigate to a point of securing happiness and wellbeing in this world and in the Hereafter.
Call for Sunni-Shi’ah Dialogue
Surely, if that blueprint worked before, it could still work today for both Sunnis and Shi’is. Today, more than ever, Sunni-Shi’ah relations stand at a crossroads whereby the worth and prestige of the whole Ummah are at stake. Whether a course of hope, understating, dialogue, tolerance and even compromise, or a course of bigotry, prejudice, fanaticism, aggression and myopia, will be undertaken, it is entirely and solely up to Sunnis and Shi’is to decide, at individual and institutional levels, for the consequences of which they alone will be answerable. Nobody else will ever care; and nobody else ever did.
A series of unconditional, earnest and sincere Sunni-Shi’ah dialogues, it follows, is a must. The sooner the matter kicks off, the better. Obviously, such is the current Muslim situation that both mainstream Sunnis and Shi’is are set to lose nothing thereby, gaining almost everything. It is a startling phenomenon that many of us proudly call for and actively participate in dialogues with Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, etc. – which is completely correct – but spurn the prospect of doing the same with those who share with us the same Qur’an, Prophet, God, qiblah and most fundamental religious beliefs, rites and values. Sunnis and Shi’is have more in common than what appears to casual observers. What can genuinely unite or bring us closer to one another greatly outweighs that which at present painfully alienates and separates us. The latter is to be meticulously reviewed and re-evaluated against the background of the former.
If the major and unfounded reciprocal prejudices and preconceptions are done away with and transcended by both sides, if the scourge of dodgy and manipulative politics, which is at once a continuation and a side-effect of a long and complicated history, is triumphed over at best or mitigated at least, and if a great many fluid fiqh or jurisprudential matters are put into perspective in the spirit of ethics of disagreement (adab al-ikhtilaf), what will then remain in front of us are the core Islamic subjects which are common to all of us but which have been greatly obscured and even deliberately manipulated. Some of those fundamental Islamic themes which ought to bring and keep us together, and to eclipse and counterbalance those matters which divide and keep us apart, are worshipping and obeying the only God, following the Qur’an and the perfect example of the Prophet (pbuh), the brotherhood and unity of all Muslims, the inviolability of the life, blood, property and honor of each and every Muslim, socio-economic justice, freedom, human dignity, education, development, security, moderation, tolerance, open-mindedness, tackling the common threats and enemies of Islam and Muslims from within and without, etc. These themes and their spirit and magnitude, coupled with joint sincerity, transparency and goodwill, are to constitute a platform for every Sunni-Shi’ah dialogue initiative. Their revitalizing and ultimate realization are to signify the goal of all such schemes and projects.

This article is based on the author’s forthcoming book: “The Origins of Shi’ism and Sunnism”.
Dr. Spahic Omer, a Bosnian currently residing in Malaysia, is an Associate Professor at the Kulliyyah of Architecture and Environmental Design, International Islamic University Malaysia. He studied in Bosnia, Egypt and Malaysia. His research interests cover Islamic history, culture and civilization, as well as the history and philosophy of the Islamic built environment. He can be reached at: spahico@ahoo.com; his blog is at: www.medinanet.org.

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Spahic Omer
Kulliyyah of Architecture and Environmental Design
International Islamic University Malaysia
E-mail: spahico@yahoo.com

This is one of 25 identical stucco window grills in the al-Aqmar Mosque. The right small circle contains the name “Muhammad” and the left one “‘Ali”.

A Sunni Response

So, therefore, during the lengthy and somewhat ideologically antagonistic Fatimid rule, Sunni-Shi’ah conflicts were intensified more than ever before. Throughout the same epoch, furthermore, modeling Shi’ism in general, and Isma’ilism in particular, as a conglomerate ideology and a comprehensive system of thought was perfected. This, in turn, called for the total crystallization of the concept of ahl al-sunnah wa al-jama’ah and the establishment of its exact implications, contents and parameters in the midst of the rife and epidemic sectarianism with numerous protagonists involved. Bringing into the mix the nuisance of Mu’tazilah, obviously, the matter was becoming much like a tit-for-tat tactic, making many impending moves and designs rather predictable. It goes without saying, therefore, that the fall of the Fatimids – as well as the fall of the Buyids – came as a great relief to many Muslims. In their wake, efforts were doubled for the all-embracing explication, propagation and implementation of Sunnism whenever and wherever such was considered necessary and possible. The wounds caused by the Buyids and Fatimids needed a long time to heal, and so, no sooner had they gone than certain measures were taken lest similar tribulations should recur, at least not in a foreseeable future and with the same intensity and scope. Restoring Sunnism, both conceptually and functionally, topped the agenda of everyone concerned.

Thus, for example, it is said about the Ayyubids, who deposed and succeeded the Fatimids, that they embarked on vigorously strengthening Sunni Muslim dominance in the region by introducing into Egypt, Syria and Jerusalem the concept of madrasah. Madrasahs were constructed in all Ayyubid major cities. They functioned primarily as academies of religious sciences aiming to teach and promote Sunnism and to try to convert Shi’is and Christians to Sunni Islam.[1] The Ayyubids built scores of madrasahs in support of all four Sunni madhhabs, namely the Shafi’i, Hanafi, Maliki and Hanbali madhhabs. In the mid-7^th AH / 13^th CE century, which signified the final phase of the Ayyubid reign, some estimates suggest that in Damascus alone there were 40 Shafi’i, 34 Hanafi, 10 Hanbali, and three Maliki madrasahs.[2] Comparable, or slightly lower, figures, it stands to reason, existed in Cairo, Alexandria, Aleppo and Jerusalem as well. When the traveler Ibn Jubayr (d. 614 AH /1217 CE) was in Damascus in 580 AH / 1184 CE, which was the early phase of the Ayyubid dynasty under Salahuddin al-Ayyubi (Saladin), he commented that there were 20 madrasahs in the city and they all symbolized the pride of (Sunni) Islam.[3] Such was the intellectual climate under the Ayyubids that their rulers’ wives, sons and daughters, commanders and nobles established and financed numerous educational institutions as well. What was really unusual of the time — some accounts reveal — even some common people followed suit. In Egypt alone, about 18 madrasahs, including two medical institutions, were established by commoners.[4]

What is more, there were Ayyubid madrasahs wherein teaching was jointly conducted according to all four recognized madhhabs. Such madrasahs, surely, stood out as the most authentic Sunni establishments where mutual collaboration, acceptance and tolerance among the major Sunni sections and systems of thought were both preached and practiced. One of such madrasahs in Cairo was the Madrasah al-Salihiyyah which was founded by Sultan al-Malik al-Salih Najm al-Din Ayyub (d. 647 AH /1249 CE) in 641 AH / 1243 CE. Al-Maqrizi, while dwelling on this madrasah, observed that that was the first time in the history of Egypt that teaching was performed according to all four madhhabs at one place.[5] Truly, the age of the Ayyubids was the age of Sunni learning and its numerous institutions. Educational institutions were regarded as prestigious institutions in society. In the words of Abdul Ali, “an idea of their importance may be derived from the fact that it was not possible to get a job in the government for anyone who did not receive his education in a madrasah.”[6]

On the same note, Sunnis were increasingly resorting to idolizing their spiritual and intellectual leaders and heroes, and to architecturally glorify them. A culture of inventing and venerating “Sunni saints” was steadily creeping in. As an illustration, the grave of Shafi’i, at once the symbol and tower of strength of Islamic orthodoxy, became extremely popular for Sunnis in Egypt. Shafi’i’s saintly personality and remarkable spiritual and scholarly legacy were revered, by some even venerated, not only in Egypt, but also beyond throughout the Muslim world. This practice was further popularized by the fact that Salahuddin al-Ayyubi (Saladin), the victor over the Fatimids, founded a madrasah dedicated to the Shafi’i madhhab of the Islamic law near Shafi’i’s grave. Later, a mausoleum with a wooden dome over Shafi’i’s grave was erected in 608 AH /1211 CE by the fourth Ayyubid ruler al-Malik al-Kamil (d. 636 AH /1238 CE), whose grave, along with his mother’s, is also under this dome and a few steps away from Shafi’i’s grave. This “is the first officially sponsored mausoleum to be built for a Sunni theologian after the extinguishing of the Isma’ili Fatimids in 567 AH /1171 CE. It is also the largest detached mausoleum in Egypt. Paradoxically, the Fatimid practice of building domed mausoleums for ‘Alid (Shi’i) saints as a means of promoting their Shi’i agenda and gathering popular support for the Fatimid Imams was adopted by the same leaders who eradicated all signs of Shi’ism in Egypt. In fact, this mausoleum is regarded as the symbol of the triumph of orthodoxy over heterodoxy.”[7] Similarly, a mausoleum and madrasah in the name of Abu Hanifah, another symbol and pillar of strength of Islamic orthodoxy, were erected in Baghdad in 459 AH /1066 CE, approximately 11 years after the Sunni Saljuqs had retaken the ‘Abbasid capital from the Buyids.[8]

Surely, it was not by chance that during the Fatimid period, as well as that of the Buyids, some major works on elucidating, defending and rationalizing Sunnism and its creedal, jurisprudential and ethical beliefs and practices were composed. Abu Ja’far al-Tahawi, who was the first to officially use in academic circles the idiom ahl al-sunnah wa al-jama’ah, died around 24 years after the establishment of the Fatimids in Ifriqiyah, and two years before the emergence of the Buyids.The science of heresiography was basically born during the same period in question. Some of the most celebrated heresiographers, such as Shahrastani (d. 548 AH/ 1153 CE) and Abu Mansur al-Baghdadi, lived then. In the same vein, the most eminent speculative theologians, such as Abu al-Hasan al-Ash’ari, Abu Mansur al-Maturidi, Abu Bakr al-Baqilani and Abu Hamid al-Ghazali also lived during the same critical era. It was thus natural for Abu Hamid al-Ghazali to compose a book against Isma’ilis and the Isma’ili doctrines entitled Fada’ih al-Batiniyyah (Ignominies of the Esoterics). The name of al-Mawardi (d. 450 AH /1058 CE), a jurist of the Shafi’i madhhab, could be mentioned here as well. His significance lies in the fact that he contributed a vital share in philosophically and jurisprudentially reasserting and shoring up the authority of the ‘Abbasid caliphs, and with it the legitimacy and authority of the caliphate as an institution, in the face of the unrelenting Shi’i menace. Al-Mawardi wrote a famous book called al-Ahkam al-Sultaniyyah (the Ordinances of Government). In it, an influential statement of Muslim (Sunni) political theory was made. Details were also furnished concerning the significance and functions of the caliphate government, which under the Buyids were rendered vague and indefinite. Lastly, that the sixth and final Sunni canonical hadith collection was completed just around the appearance of the Fatimids as a religious and political force ought to be mentioned, too, although such a feat took place in distant Khorosan. The last of the six hadith collectors was al-Nasa’i, who died in 303 AH /915 CE, six years after the Fatimids had established themselves as the overambitious rulers of Ifriqiyyah in 297 AH /909 CE.

Not even the fields of art and architecture were overlooked. After the departure of the Shi’ah nuisance from the scene, many purely religious buildings, erected especially by the Ayyubids, Mamluks and Ottoman Turks, were meant to display a Sunni spirit and character. Those buildings often featured, as part of their rich decorative styles and strategies, Qur’anic verses where the Prophet’s companions are recognized and honored. The al-Fath or Victory chapter, or certain sections thereof, was often used for that purpose.[9] A wide genre of verses with general meanings pertaining to the importance of following the Prophet (pbuh) (the Sunnah), unity, cooperation and brotherhood (jama’ah) also featured prominently. Inscribing the names of the four rightly-guided caliphs, plus the names of several foremost companions of the Prophet (pbuh), in particular those most abused and insulted by Shi’is, such as Talhah and Zubayr, was very popular too, principally with the Ottoman Turks. Writing the names of ‘Ali’s sons: Hasan and Husayn, was likewise favored, thereby hinting at the Sunni position towards ahl al-bayt and at the essence of what we earlier called “Sunni Shi’ism”. Even some authentic hadiths (traditions) and those Qur’anic ayat or verses that either explicitly or implicitly refer to the theme of the excellence of ahl al-baytand how excellently they are to be treated, have occasionally been used for the purpose, like, for example in Cairo, in the funerary complex of Shafi’i, in the mosque cum mausoleum of Husayn whose grounds allegedly contain the head of Husayn b. ‘Ali, and in the mosque cum mausoleum of Sayyidah Nafisah who was the great-granddaughter of Hasan b. ‘Ali.Although the last two buildings were initially built by the Fatimids, as part of their booming funerary architecture meant for the members of ahl al-bayt, they were later fully embraced by Sunnis following the demise of the Fatimid caliphate, and were keenly restored and rebuilt several times by members of subsequent Sunni dynasties, especially by the Mamluks and Ottoman Turks. It stands to reason that the Ottoman Turks had an extra motivation for their actions of advocating “Sunni Shi’ism” because they every so often were engaged in military campaigns against Safavids who established the Ithna ʿAshariyyah Shi’ah branch as their official state religion. Some key Muslim territories, including the city of Baghdad, a couple of times exchanged hands between the two arguably most powerful Muslim empires of the day.

It is noteworthy that the Fatimids were also inclined to decorating their buildings with the same al-Fath or Victory Qur’anic surah or chapter. Each one of the al-Hakim, al-Azhar and al-Aqmar mosques features that chapter or some of its sections. However, the Fatimids had their own Shi’ism and Isma’ilism-loaded interpretations of the notions of victory (al-fath) and sahabah or the companions of the Prophet (pbuh). Needless to say that the victory meant the victory of Isma’ili Shi’ism in territories that at one point stretched from North Africa and Sicily to Palestine and Syria, as well as to Yemen and Hijaz, with the two holy cities of Makkah and Madinah, and hopefully one day elsewhere not only in the Muslim world but also in the world at large. That is why, in the same way, one of the gates of the Fatimid Cairo was called Bab al-Futuh or the Gate of victories, and another Bab al-Nasr or the Gate of (divine) help. Whereas the idea of the companions implied those companions of the Prophet (pbuh) who after the Prophet’s death stayed the course, did not deviate from the right path, nor became hypocrites or apostates, and did not let down those subsequent Shi’ah Imams whose contemporaries they became. For the same reason, on the face of it, the mosque of al-Hakim repeatedly used for its numerous stucco window grills these Qur’anic words as an informative decoration component: “And certainly We wrote in the Book after the reminder that (as for) the land, My righteous servants shall inherit it.” (Al-Anbiya’, 105). Parenthetically, as a small digression, the mosque of al-Azhar had a significant portion of the al-Fath chapter engraved twice on it: firstly inside a praying arcade as part of the Fatimid al-Azhar, and secondly on the outside facade of the ‘Abbasi riwaq and madrasah (1315 AH / 1898 CE) built as a part of the ever expanding Sunni al-Azhar as a social, political and educational center. This is yet another piece of evidence accentuating a segment of the perennial Sunni-Shi’ah struggle for one’s ideological legitimacy and supremacy at the expense of the other, and how, at times, similar ways and means were resorted to, albeit with different intensities, interpretations and ethos.

The complex of the Mamluki Sultan Qansuh al-Ghuri (d. 922 AH / 1516 CE) could be taken as an interesting illustration. The complex contains a portion of the al-Fath or Victory Qur’anic surah or chapter both on the inside and outside facades of some of its component buildings. The complex likewise contains inside as well as outside a proclamation that in a way represents the core of the Sunni creed. The proclamation asserts the unity or tawhid of God, the prophethood of Muhammad (pbuh), and then implores God to bless and protect the family of the Prophet (pbuh) (ahl al-bayt) and all of the Prophet’s companions (sahabah). The complex of al-Ghuri and its decorative aspects become all the more significant on account of its strategic location. The complex buildings flank the street of al-Mu’izz Li-Dinillah, the main artery of the Fatimid Cairo. The complex is also in the vicinity of the al-Azhar mosque. It consists of a mosque-madrasah, a Sufi khanqah, a caravanserai, a mausoleum, a sabil (public fountain) and a kuttab (school for beginners). Similar assertions of Sunni faith – albeit only once – are found inside the madrasah of the Mamluki Sultan al-Ashraf Barsbay (d. 842 AH / 1438 CE) as well, which lies just a stone’s throw away from the complex of al-Ghuri, on the western side of the al-Mu’izz Li-Dinillah street.

The Mosque of al-Hakim.

The Fatimids, it could be thus inferred, were among the first in Islamic civilization who used the power of writing signs on buildings in order to advance and publicize their ideological struggle. The earliest Muslim example of using buildings and building decoration systems as a means for promoting a spiritual mission and cause could be traced back to the creation of the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem which was initially completed in 72 AH /691 CE at the order of the Umayyad caliph ‘Abd al-Malik b. Marwan (d. 86 AH /705 CE). Via the ways the building and its decorative styles and strategies were perceived, planned and executed, the local Jewish and Christian population was mainly targeted. However, the way the Fatimids made recourse to utilizing the power of letters and symbols on buildings for advertizing and promoting their struggle and cause was like what nobody has ever seen before. The relatively small mosque of al-Aqmar (the Moonlit, or Gray mosque) in Cairo founded by Ma’mun al-Bata’ihi (d. 519 AH /1125 CE), vizier of the caliph-Imam al-Amir Biahkamillah (d. 525 AH /1130 CE) in 519 AH /1125 CE, is an ideal extant illustration of this Fatimid tradition. A striking feature of the building is the decoration of its projecting portal and the entire front façade which faces the major al-Mu’izz Li-Dinillah street which, in turn, forms the main axis of the city of Cairo stretching from Bab (Gate) al-Zuwayla in the south to Bab (Gate) al-Futuh in the north, and virtually dividing the city into two corresponding parts. The hood of each niche on the mosque’s façade is composed of radiating flutes with a central medallion. The following Qur’anic words are inscribed in a concentric circle medallion over the imposing entrance portal: “…Allah intends only to remove from you the impurity (of sin), O people of the (Prophet’s) household, and to purify you with (extensive) purification.” (Al-Ahzab, 33). In the centre of that medallion are the names of Muhammad and ‘Ali. Inside another two smaller medallions at right and left wings there is the name of ‘Ali encircled with the name of Muhammad written 5 times. Moreover, at each of the mosque’s two corners which flank the mosque’s front wall, there are three small niches, one above the other two, wherein the following Qur’anic words: “Indeed, Allah is with (the top niche) those who fear Him (the bottom right niche) and those who are doers of good (the bottom left niche).” (Al-Nahl, 128), are engraved. On both sides of the top niche there are discs the right one having the name of Muhammad and the left one of ‘Ali. Hence, the top portion can be also read as: “Indeed, Allah is with Muhammad and ‘Ali”. In the whole of the mosque, in addition, there are 25 elaborately decorated stucco window grills with the names of Muhammad and ‘Ali etched inside two small discs placed almost in the middle on the right and left of each grill. Inside the right disk is the name of Muhammad and in the left one the name of ‘Ali. Of those 25 intricately embellished stucco window grills, 23 face the interior of the mosque and two the exterior. The latter is part of the rich decorative style and language of the mosque’s front facade. And finally, above the praying niche or mihrab of the mosque, tributes for the Fatimid (Isma’ili) Imams and caliphs are evidenced. That said, ornamental deep and shallow niches, as well as flat arches, with their hoods composed of radiating flutes with or without circle medallions being placed either in the center or independently next to those niches and arches — irrespective of whether there are inscriptions or not in the midpoints of those medallions – denote, perhaps, the most recognizable features of the Fatimid art and architecture. To Irene A. Bierman, circle disk medallions are “immediately recognizable by Isma’ilis as the sign of Isma’ilism.” What is more, the hood composed of radiating flutes, or the ribbed shell hood, with its pierced medallion in the mosque of al-Aqmar was the prototype of all the later cusped, ribbed, blind, keel-arch decoration which remains somewhat vogue in Cairo’s buildings. As a matter of fact, both fluted niche hoods and a brand of medallions as simple and inelaborate decorative media existed in Egypt even before the Fatimids, as evidenced by the way the mosque of Ahmad b. Tulun (d. 271 AH / 884 CE) had been decorated. However, the Fatimids perfected those media and made sure that ever after they remained integral to the vocabulary of diverse Islamic art and architecture in Egypt and beyond. Without a doubt, elaborately decorating the front facade of the al-Aqmar mosque with intriguing inscriptions suggestive of Shi’ism, plus setting the façade at a different angle from the rest of the mosque to ensure that it faced onto, and was parallel with, the main al-Mu’izz Li-Dinillah street, radiated certain messages to both Shi’is and Sunnis. To the former, it was a message of intrinsic unanimity, espousal, endorsement and even craved-for revival, bearing in mind that at the time of the mosque’s construction, the Fatimid power was rapidly on the wane and was marred by the loss of some important territories to the Crusaders, as well as by the escalating internal schism. The founder of the mosque, the vizier Ma’mun al-Bata’ihi, therefore, was known as the restorer of “Shi’i orthodoxy”. To Sunnis, on the other hand, the front façade of the mosque and the way it was positioned and adorned was an oblique and, at the same time, unaggressive message that insinuated Sunni religious inferiority, inadequacy, and an urge for soul searching as to who exactly was right and who was wrong. Hence, unlike the fanatical initiatives of al-Hakim, which caused widespread resentment and hostilities, and so, their speedy rescinding, the more amiable ones, such as the ornamental styles and themes of the mosque of al-Aqmar, remained undisturbed and operative. Aside from being planned to face and be parallel to the main city’s street and its artery, so as to convey the intended messages to the meant audiences, it likewise was not by chance that the al-Aqmar mosque for the same socio-political and spiritual purposes was located near the site which was occupied by two great Fatimid palaces. As a result, the whole area, and the part of the al-Mu’izz Li-Dinillah street, which adjoined the palaces and stood in the vicinity of the mosque, were always bustling with life. There rarely ever were anywhere in the city more people, shops, institutions and generally life activities than in the said areas. This applied not only to the Fatimid era, but also to the subsequent Ayyubid and Mamluki eras, as hinted by Ibn Battuta (d. 779 AH /1377 CE) who visited the city of Cairo in 727 AH / 1326 CE. Moreover, in the mosque of al-Hakim, there is a huge medallion with the names of Muhammad and ‘Ali etched in its center. The medallion serves as an ornament and is positioned just above the mosque’s praying niche (mihrab). Bearing in mind the time difference between the mosque of al-Hakim and the al-Aqmar mosque, and between the reigns and years of the people responsible for their construction, it seems as though the medallion functioned as a precursor for what later emerged with slight design and content variations as a distinct Fatimid trend. On the same note, inside the mausoleum of Sayyidah Ruqayyah, a daughter of ‘Ali b. Abi Talib whose mother, however, was not Fatimah but another wife of ‘Ali, in the center of the hood of a praying niche there is a medallion in the center of which the name of ‘Ali is carved. The name is framed with the name of Muhammad etched in an interlocking fashion six times. What’s more, just above the niche, the following Qur’anic words with reference to the Prophet’s household are inscribed: “Allah intends only to remove from you the impurity (of sin), O people of the (Prophet’s) household.” (Al-Ahzab, 33) The mausoleum was built by the Fatimids in 528 AH / 1133 CE. That was a facet of their conspicuous culture of architecturally glorifying some of the deceased members of ahl al-bayt, genuinely or otherwise. Parenthetically, it was the Shi’ah at large who contributed one of the greater shares to the evolution of funerary architecture, or the architecture of dead, within the fold of Islamic culture and civilization. As soon as they arrived in Egypt, it seems that the Fatimids went on an offensive with regard to using and manipulating the great potential of signs, symbols and canon writing. Thus, just above the Fatimid Cairo’s Bab (Gate) al-Nasr on a panel, and on the city’s wall adjoining the Bab (Gate) al-Futuh in a band, there are identical inscriptions which read as follows: “In the Name of Allah, the most Compassionate, the most Merciful; there is no god but Allah, the only One without a partner; Muhammad is Allah’s messenger; ‘Ali is Allah’s wali (friend and one vested with the authority of God).” We have already mentioned that the Cairo walls and its gates were of the early structures erected in Egypt by Jawhar al-Siqili, the conqueror of the place and the builder of Cairo. Both inscriptions faced the outside of the city. That means that every visitor to it was first and foremost welcomed by, and reminded of, their meanings, significance and role in shaping the Fatimid society, mind and culture. Correspondingly, the mosque of Ahmad b. Tulun, which had been built exactly 94 years before the arrival of the Fatimids in Egypt, has a stucco panel with an elaborate arabesque whose highlight are the words: “There is no god but Allah; Muhammad is Allah’s messenger; ‘Ali is Allah’s wali or friend”. But to an insightful observer, such decorative panel is an alien addition to the mosque and its extremely modest and straightforward decorative style, especially in terms of the panel’s placement, content and design. The panel rather looks like an adopted and directly transported element from the subsequent decoration and embellishment realms of the mosques of al-Hakim, al-Azhar, al-Aqmar and indeed of all the other Fatimid buildings, in particular those of the later periods. At any rate, it is believed that the decorative panel was part of what is today called “the Fatimid mihrab or praying niche” inside the mosque of Ahmad b. Tulun. The Fatimid mihrab was one of a few mihrabs that existed inside the mosque. This additionally boosts an argument that the mosque of Ahmad b. Tulun had somewhat a special place in the Fatimid psyche, as a result of which much of the form of its colossal and massive colonnades and the spacious courtyard served as a source of inspiration for the same inside the mosque of al-Hakim. As a small digression — finally — even the Shi’ah Buyids in the Muslim East, especially in Baghdad, adopted moderately a similar approach in their own ideological confrontations with Sunnis. On the mosques, as well as on some erected posts and signboards, the standard words “Muhammad and ‘Ali are the best of people; he who is content (with that) is grateful, and he who rejects (that), is an infidel” were regularly inscribed, now and again even with gold. But this campaign’s intensity and scale were rather restricted and one-dimensional, so to speak. They were no match for those which the sophisticated Fatimid ideological promotional drive and machinery epitomized and set in motion.

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Spahic Omer Kulliyyah of Architecture and Environmental Design International Islamic University Malaysia E-mail: spahico@yahoo.com

The Mosque of al-Azhar.

The Shi’ah Fatimids were a major Isma’ili Shi’ah dynasty. They founded their own caliphate, in rivalry with the ‘Abbasids, and ruled over different parts of the Islamic world, from North Africa and Sicily to Palestine and Syria. The Fatimid period was also the golden age of Isma’ili thought and literature. Established in 297 AH /909 CE in Ifriqiyah (today’s Tunisia, Western Libya and Eastern Algeria), the seat of the Fatimids was later transferred to Egypt in 362 AH /972 CE, and the dynasty was finally overthrown by Salahuddin al-Ayyubi (Saladin) (d. 590 AH /1193 CE) in 567 AH /1171 CE, when the fourteenth and last Fatimid caliph, al-‘Adid li Dinillah (d. 567 AH /1171 CE), lay dying in Cairo. The Isma’ilis came into being after the death of Ja’far b. Muhammad al-Sadiq (d. 148 AH/ 765 CE), the sixth Shi’i imam. Jaʿfar’s eldest son, Isma’il (d. 158 AH/ 774 CE) was accepted as his successor only by a minority, who became known as the Isma’ilis. Those who accepted Jaʿfar’s younger son, Musa b. Ja’far al-Kazim (d. 183 AH/ 799 CE), as the seventh Imam and acknowledged his successors through the 12th Imam became known as Ithna ʿAshariyyah (Twelvers), the largest and most conservative of the Shi’i sects. Certain of the Isma’ilis (known as Waqifiyah, or Stoppers) believed Isma’il to have been the seventh and last Imam and were designated as Seveners (Sab’iyah), while the majority of the Isma’ilis believed the imamate continued in the line of the Fatimid caliphs. However, the term Seveners, in some circles, is applied to all the adherents of Isma’iliyyah. The time between the seventh Imam and the emergence of the first Fatimid Imam and caliph, by and large, is shrouded in a myriad of mysteries and controversies. As a result, several Isma’ili sub-sects were formed and got separated from the Isma’ili mainstream. The time in question — a period of more than a hundred years — is marked by the likelihood of an interim occultation which was followed by the intensive Isma’ili da’wah or a secret religio-political movement designated as al-da’wah al-hadiyah (the rightly guiding mission). The Isma’ili or Fatimid da’wah or mission culminated in Ubayd Allah al-Mahdi Billah (d. 323 AH /934 CE), the fourth da’i or missionary of the Isma’ili mission, openly declaring himself as Imam and the first Fatimid caliph. At first, Isma’ili missionaries became established in many parts of the Islamic state, preaching a doctrine of revolution against the Sunni order and the ‘Abbasid state. After a number of unsuccessful risings, the Isma’ilis were able to establish a firm base in Yemen. From there they sent emissaries to North Africa, where they achieved their greatest success. By 297 AH /909 CE they were strong enough for their Imam, who had been in hiding, to emerge and proclaim himself caliph, with the messianic title of mahdi (the divinely guided one). This marked the beginning of a new state and dynasty, the Fatimid state and dynasty. For the first half-century the Fatimid caliphs ruled only in North Africa and Sicily, where they had to deal with many problems. Most of their subjects were Sunnis of the Maliki school; others — a substantial minority — were the Khawarij. Neither group was well disposed toward the Isma’ili doctrines of the new rulers, and they offered stubborn resistance to them. From North Africa, the Fatimids aimed to expand to the East. In 359 AH /969 CE, they conquered the Nile Valley and advanced across Sinai into Palestine and southern Syria. In the process, the city of Cairo, which became the capital and, at the same time, a symbol of the Fatimid triumphs and presence, was built. Hence the name Cairo, or al-Qahirah in Arabic, was given, which means “the Vanquisher”. Naser Khosraw (d. 481 AH/ 1088 CE), a famed 5th AH / 11th CE century traveler from Iran who visited Cairo, commented that the city was so called because the Fatimid army had gained victory there. Also, for the same reasons, as part of the nascent Cairo urbanization scheme, building the mosque of al-Azhar as a focal point of the city was commissioned. The meaning of the mosque’s name is “the mosque of the most dazzling”. Customarily, moreover, the mosque’s name is thought to allude to the Prophet’s daughter Fatimah (d. 11 AH/ 632 CE) who was given the title al-Zahra’ “the shining one” to show Muslims’ admiration of her moral and physical characteristics. However, this was seen as a desperate attempt by the Fatimids to enhance and authenticate their claims that they were genuine descendents of Fatimah, something which remained highly controversial until today. That was likewise meant to symbolize the chief spiritual objective of the Fatimid existence and mission, that is to say, illuminating the right path to the people and safely guiding them towards, and on, it. Isma’ili doctrine stressed the dual nature of Qur’anic interpretation, exoteric (zahir) and esoteric (batin), and made a distinction between the ordinary Muslim and the initiated Isma’ili. The secret wisdom of the Isma’ilis was accessible only through a hierarchical organization headed by the Imam and was disseminated by da’is (missionaries), who introduced believers into the elite through carefully graded levels. In addition, the Isma’ilis share with the rest of their Shi’ah brethren some of the most fundamental Shi’i teachings and principles. For example, they all share “the belief in the permanent need of mankind for a divinely guided, sinless and infallible Imam, who, after the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), would act as the authoritative teacher and guide of men in all their spiritual affairs. This Imam was entitled to temporal leadership as much as to religious authority; his mandate, however, did not depend on his actual rule. The doctrine further taught that the Prophet himself had designated his cousin and son-in-law ‘Ali b. Abi Talib, who was married to the Prophet’s daughter Fatimah, as his successor under divine command; and that the imamate was to be transmitted from father to son among the descendants of ‘Ali and Fatimah, through their son Husayn until the end of time. This ‘Alid Imam was in possession of a special knowledge or ‘ilm and had perfect understanding of the exoteric (zahir) and esoteric (batin) meanings of the Qur’an and the commandments and prohibitions of the Shari’ah or the sacred law of Islam. Recognition of this Imam, the sole legitimate Imam at any time, and obedience to him were made the absolute duties of every believer.” The Faṭimid rulers pursued their aim of establishing the universal Isma’ili imamate. The Fatimid caliphate was a regime at once imperial and revolutionary. At home, the caliph was a sovereign, governing a vast empire and seeking to expand it by normal military and political means. Its heart was Egypt; its provinces at its peak included North Africa, Sicily, the Red Sea coast of Africa, Syria, Palestine, Yemen and Hijaz, with the two holy cities of Makkah and Madinah. Control of these was of immense value to a Muslim ruler, conferring great religious prestige and enabling him to exploit the annual pilgrimage to his advantage. Furthermore, the Fatimids ruled their imperial domain as both caliphs and as, more importantly, Imams in the full Shi’i sense of that term which made them the supreme authority in all religious as well as secular affairs. For the Isma’ilis “the reigning Imam had a status equivalent to that of the Prophet (pbuh), except that he did not receive revelation from God. In all other respects the Fatimid rulers were the divinely ordained successors of the Prophet (pbuh), heirs thus to the full extent of his sanctity and sacral authority. Isma’ili doctrine was thus intimately bound up in the progress of Fatimid government.” Accordingly, as an illustration, in the first cities thoroughly controlled by the Isma’ilis in North Africa, such as Qayrawan and Raqqadah, the first Fatimid Imam and caliph, Ubayd Allah al-Mahdi Billah, issued a decree, ordering it to be invoked from the pulpits of mosques. He prescribed invocation of blessings upon himself after the invocation of blessings of God upon the Prophet (pbuh), ‘Ali, Fatimah, Hasan, Husayn and the Imams from his posterity. This same tradition continued with all the Fatimid rulers throughout their tenures as Fatimid Imams and caliphs, and all over their vast domains. The Fatimids existed in what could be described as the twilight of the Islamic golden age. By the time they arrived at the Islamic religious, intellectual and civilizational scene, the Muslim world was in rapid decline. The matter was compounded and further exacerbated by the advent of the Shi’ah Buyids (323-447 AH /934-1055 CE) who controlled most of modern-day Iraq and Iran, including the city of Baghdad, the capital of the ‘Abbasid caliphate. The Buyids might have been at first the followers of the Zaydiyyah branch of Shi’ism, but later converted to the Ithna ʿAshariyyah (Twelvers) branch, as the idea of the occultation of the twelfth Imam appears to have been more suitable and more politically attractive to them. Besides, they were not of ‘Ali b. Abi Talib’s descendents. They were a dynasty of Daylamite origin (today’s Gilan province in Iran along the Caspian Sea). Luckily for the rest of the Muslim world, especially Sunnis, the Isma’ili Fatimids and the Imami or Ithna ʿAshariyyah (Twelvers) Buyids were perennially at odds with each other, even confronting one another along the Syria-Hijaz-Yemen line. The Buyids regarded the Fatimids as agents of a hostile power. In their capacity as the Imami or Ithna ʿAshariyyah Shi’is, they also must have regarded the Isma’ili Fatimids as deviationists. According to Murtada Mutahhari, “the Isma’ilis are so-called Shi’is who believe in six Imams. But all the Twelve Imami Shi’i scholars are unanimous in the opinion that in spite of their belief in six Imams, the Isma’ilis stand at a greater distance from the Shi’i faith than the non-Shi’i sects. The Sunnis, who do not believe in any of the Imams in the same sense as the Shi’is do, nevertheless are nearer to the Shi’is than these ‘Six Imami Shi’is’. The Isma’ilis, on account of their batini (esoteric) beliefs and secretive practices have played a treacherous role in the history of Islam and have had a big hand in causing serious deviations in the realm of Islam.” The time when the Fatimid cause and mission reached their peak, was a time when much of the Muslim world was in disarray. It was an inter-state system with unstable components, fluid boundaries and powerful non-governmental, inter-state movements. The main religious groupings were not territorially defined. Conceptually, too, much ambiguity still lingered pertaining to a host of issues and quandaries. Religious sectarianism was rampant. Each sect, or group, aspired to convert all the others to the “right path”. Macro and collective unity, cooperation and brotherhood, consequently, were rather illusory. They were the matters of the past. The condition impeccably corresponded to the Qur’anic disclosure: “…Of those who have divided their religion and become sects, every faction rejoicing in what it has.” (Al-Rum, 32). Thus the Muslim Ummah was on the “right track” to reach the nadir of its existential turmoil. The stage was getting perfectly set for the occurrence of the most devastating events ever witnessed by Muslims, i.e., the Crusades during which Muslims lost Jerusalem to the invading Crusaders, precisely in 493 AH /1099 CE, and the subsequent loss of Baghdad as the capital city to the invading Mongols in 657 AH /1258 CE which spelled the end of the ‘Abbasid caliphate. The Fatimids promised the masses that they will restore the leadership of Muslims to ahl al-bayt whose legitimate rights to leadership had been successively usurped by the Umayyads and the ‘Abbasids. The ‘Abbasids were especially targeted because at the time of the Isma’ili or Fatimid da’wah and throughout their subsequent existence as an independent state, they stood at the helm of the Muslim Sunni leadership, and also because the ‘Abbasids, while rising against and successfully overthrowing the Umayyads, made the same promises. They capitalized on the strong ahl al-bayt sentiment, thus attempting nothing but to garner wide public support for their own designs and plots. In the end, however, the ‘Abbasids let many people down, above all the Shi’ah and ahl al-bayt sympathizers, by deceiving them and manipulating their moral and material support. Ultimately, the Isma’ili and Fatimid missionaries won an increasing number of converts among a multitude of discontented groups of diverse social backgrounds, such as landless peasantry and Bedouin tribesmen whose interests were set apart from those of the prospering urban classes. The missionaries also exploited regional grievances. According to Farhad Daftary, therefore, “on the basis of a well-designed da’wah strategy, the da’is were initially more successful in nonurban milieus, removed from the administrative centers of the ‘Abbasid caliphate. This explains the early spread of Isma’ilism among rural inhabitants and Bedouin tribesmen of the Arab lands, notably in southern Iraq, eastern Arabia (Bahrayn) and Yemen. In contrast, in the Iranian lands, especially in the Jibal, Khorosan and Transoxania, the da’wah was primarily addressed to the ruling classes of the educated elite.” In due course, by acquiring political power and then transforming the embryonic Fatimid establishment into a flourishing empire, Isma’ilis presented their Shi’i challenge to ‘Abbasid hegemony and Sunni interpretation of Islam. “Isma’ilism, too, had now found its own place among the state-sponsored communities of interpretation in Islam. Henceforth, the Fatimid caliph-Imam could claim to act as the spiritual spokesman of Shi’i Islam in general, much like the ‘Abbasid caliph was the mouthpiece of Sunni Islam.” The Fatimids aimed to extend their authority and rule not only over the entire Muslim Ummah, but also over the regions of the world inhabited and controlled by non-Muslims. Hence, when supplicating after a Jumu’ah sermon for al-Mu’izz Li-Dinillah (d. 365 AH /975 CE), the first Fatimid caliph-Imam who moved from Ifriqiyah to Egypt following the creation of Cairo, the prayer leader in the mosque of ‘Amr b. al-‘As in Egypt implored God to unite the whole Muslim Ummah in submission to the Fatimid caliph-Imam, whom he called in his supplication the rightly guided commander of the faithful (amir al-mu’minin). He also prayed for Muslims’ hearts to get united in their loyalty and devotion to the new ruler, and that God makes him inherit the easts and wests of the earth, just as He had promised in the Qur’an for His faithful servants. This supplication was made in the presence of Jawhar al-Siqili (d. 382 AH /992 CE), the most important military leader in Fatimid history and the conqueror of Egypt and builder of Cairo. It was made in the mosque of ‘Amr b. al-‘As in 358 AH /968 CE, the year Jawhar al-Siqili arrived in Egypt as a conqueror and laid the foundation of Cairo, and about one year before building the mosque of al-Azhar commenced. The prayer leader read out the mentioned supplication from a label, which shows that the supplication was prepared earlier for him and he just had to read it out verbatim. In 362 AH/ 972 CE, the caliph-Imam al-Mu’izz Li-Dinillah arrived in Egypt and stayed in a just-completed caliphal palace complex inside a just-completed walled city of Cairo. At its peak, the Fatimid empire encompassed and supplications for its leaders, as well as for its Shi’i ancestors, were read across territories in North Africa, Sicily, the Red Sea coast of Africa, Syria, Palestine, Yemen and Hijaz with the two holy cities of Makkah and Madinah. The Fatimid caliphs-Imams, therefore, used to prepare and send the covering (kiswah) for the Ka’bah in Makkah every year during the pilgrimage season (hajj). The caliph-Imam al-Mustansir Billah (d. 487 AH /1094 CE) did so twice a year. As soon as they arrived in the new territories, the Fatimids went about intensifying their propaganda against the ‘Abbasid rule. They doubled their efforts towards uprooting the ‘Abbasids and installing themselves as lawful leaders. Weakening and discrediting Sunnism, while enhancing and venerating Shi’ism, stood at the heart of the same plan. Thus, the goals, means and strategies of the Isma’ili da’wah (mission) took on some unprecedented moves which would have been unlikely were it not for the creation of the Isma’ili and Fatimid empire. As a result, as early as in 359 AH /969 CE in the mosques of Egypt as part of adhan (call for prayers), the words “come to the best of deeds”, as a symbol of Shi’ism in a area, were added. That routine continued until the arrival of Salahuddin al-Ayyubi (Saladin) in Egypt when the Fatimids were cast out, following which Sunnism and its jurisprudence and creed were officially reinstalled. Moreover, no sooner had he arrived and settled down in Cairo in 362 AH/ 972 CE, al-Mu’izz Li-Dinillah wrote to Egypt’s religious leaders, acquainting them with a new Shi’i-Isma’ili creed as the future official state creed, that after the Prophet (pbuh), the best person was the commander of the faithful (amir al-mu’minin), ‘Ali b. Abi Talib. In the same year, commemorating the anniversary of the Prophet’s alleged appointment of ‘Ali b. Abi Talib as his successor at Ghadir al-Khumm, took place for the first time in Egypt. The following year, in 363 AH/ 973 CE, a major Shi’ah festival of public wailing and mourning on the anniversary of the death of Husayn, accompanied by collective visiting of Shi’ah tombs such as those of Nafisah bt. Hasan b. Zayd b. al-Hasan b. ‘Ali b. Abi Talib (d. 210 AH /825 CE) and Kulthum b. Muhammad b. Ja’far b. Muhammad al-Sadiq, was likewise observed, resulting in a chaos and skirmishes that involved a number of Shi’is and non-Shi’is. However, according to Ibn Taghribirdi (d. 874 AH /1469 CE), publicly observing the anniversary of the death of Husayn, with all the formal rites and ceremonies that are normally associated with it, did not occur until the year 366 AH / 976 CE, three years later than what al-Maqrizi (845 AH /1441 CE) in the earlier narrative has mentioned. Ibn Taghribirdi explicitly wrote that that was the first time when such abhorrent custom was held in Egypt, and it persisted until the demise of the Fatimid state. Nonetheless, it seems that the two masters of Egypt’s history did not contradict each other. What al-Maqrizi had in mind, in all probability, was the celebration of the said event by the commoners, which however was yet to get an overt seal of approval and full-fledged support from the Fatimid government, and which in some circles was part of a popular culture even prior to the arrival of the Fatimids. So, therefore, with or without the Fatimids, the culture of elaborate and heartrending memorializing of Husayn’s martyrdom would have continued with different degrees of scope and intensity. On the other hand, what Ibn Taghribirdi wanted to convey, presumably, was the full-scale commemoration of the festival with the Fatimid government leading the way. The first occasion thus could be seen as a precursor to the second one which needed a few years to fully materialize. This explanation becomes more plausible when we remember that in the territories controlled by the Fatimids, most people were and remained Sunnis, so they had to be extremely careful when issuing and applying edicts, in particular during the early years of their rule and in connection with those matters which were highly sensitive. That said, Farhad Daftary maintains that, by and large, the Fatimids behaved leniently towards Egyptians, declaring general amnesty upon their arrival in Egypt as victors. “Subsequently, the Fatimids introduced the Isma’ili madhhab only gradually in Egypt, where Shi’ism had never acquired a stronghold. Fatimid Egypt remained primarily Sunni, and the Shafi’i madhhab, with an important community of Christian Copts. The Fatimids never attempted forced conversion of their subjects and the minoritarian status of the Shi’ah remained unchanged in Egypt despite two centuries of Isma’ili Shi’i rule.” However, there were times when such leniency and tolerance were replaced with relative fear and hostile attitudes and practices. The two patterns were intermittent and the Fatimid rulers with different levels of involvements were responsible for them. It is for example reported that a man in Cairo was beaten and dragged through the streets of the city merely because he possessed a copy of Malik b. Anas’s work, al-Muwatta’. This other side of the coin, surely, al-Suyuti had in mind when he said that the Fatimids in the process of establishing their Shi’i madhhab in Egypt eliminated the leaders of the three Sunni schools of jurisprudence or madhhabs: the Maliki, Shafi’i and Hanafi schools. They did so by means of condemnations, executions and banishments. In the same vein, Ibn Taghribirdi charged the Fatimids with the felonies of extinguishing the Sunnah of the Prophet (pbuh) and decimating the intellectual elite. He thus did not hesitate to declare that the Fatimid claims that they were genealogical heirs of ‘Ali and Fatimah were a sheer forgery, indirectly implying that the exterminators of the Sunnah and the persecutors of the scholars, the true and only inheritors of the Prophet (pbuh) and his heavenly legacy, cannot be associated even indirectly with ahl al-bayt or the household of the Prophet (pbuh), let alone be their successors. Ibn Taghribirdi explicitly said about the caliph-Imam al-Mu’izz Li-Dinillah that he was not noble; he was just a pretender. He narrated that when he arrived in Cairo, he gathered all the city’s nobles. He then unsheathed his sword and said ominously: “This is my lineage”. Next, he distributed lots of gold to them and said: “This is my account.” All those who were present then responded: “We heard, and we obeyed.” On account of the Fatimid caliphs-Imams’ certain repulsive religious novelties, it was a custom for the people to prostrate themselves and say a prayer when a caliph-Imam passed. Furthermore, about the caliph-Imam al-Hakam, Ibn Taghribirdi narrated that he was a controversial personality beset with extremes. For example, he loved knowledge but often harassed and killed scholars; he loved reforms but often persecuted and killed reformers; at times he was generous, but at other times he was miserly even about the things which nobody was ever miserly about. He killed an incalculable number of scholars and other righteous individuals. So controversial a personality was al-Hakim that even such blasphemous ideas as transmigration of the soul from one person to another (tanasukh al-arwah), the incarnation of God, and prohibiting the permissible and permitting the prohibited, were associated with him and his time in power. Consequently, he is often referred to as the “mad caliph” due to whose actions the people, apparently not only Sunnis but also a great many Shi’is, were constantly very infuriated. For most Sunnis, he was an outright apostate, an infidel. Moreover, for the purpose of realizing their multifaceted socio-political and ideological objectives, the Fatimids created a number of distinctive traditions and institutions, the most remarkable ones, perhaps, having been those related to teaching and learning. The da’wah as the lifeblood of the Isma’ili movement and the Fatimid regime was mainly concerned with the religious education of converts, who had to be duly instructed in Isma’ili esoteric doctrine. For that purpose a variety of teaching sessions addressed to different audiences were organized. Some sessions were private in nature and others public; some were for women and others for men. There were also public lectures on Isma’ili law or jurisprudence which was adopted as the official system of religious law in the Fatimid state. “But the Isma’ili legal code, governing the juridical basis of the daily life of the Muslim subjects of the Fatimid state, was new and its precepts had to be explained to Isma’ili as well as non-Isma’ili Muslims. As a result, public sessions on the Shari’ah as interpreted by Isma’ili jurisprudence, were held by al-Qadi al-Nu’man (d. 351 AH/ 962 CE) and his successors as chief qadis (judges), after the Friday midday (Jumu’ah) prayers, in the Fatimid capital.” Public disputations with Sunni scholars were also occasionally held. The main objective of those meetings was to expound the Shi’i foundations of the new Fatimid regime and the legitimate rights of ahl al-bayt to the leadership of the Islamic community, and to elucidate how illegitimate the purported rights of the Sunni ‘Abbasids and their Umayyad predecessors to the same mantle, were. Understandably, an institution of public and semi-public debate or dispute was known to the Fatimids from the days of their first victories in North Africa, in that they were originally a proselytizing organization and then a proselytizing government. Their development and continued existence, to a large extent, depended on it. Paul E. Walker said that “from the first days of their victory in North Africa and before the liberation and advent of al-Mahdi, the brothers Abu Abdullah al-Shi’i and Abu al-‘Abbas orchestrated a series of munazarat (disputations or debates) in which one or the other of them tested the leading non-Isma’ili figures from Qayrawan and the former territories of the Aghlabids. As a direct result, substantial numbers of former Hanafis and Shi’is, plus some others, converted and joined the Fatimid movement.” Teaching sessions were held most regularly and most systematically in mosques which functioned as community centers, in the Fatimid caliphal palace complex, in private houses, and in some newly emerged institutions of learning such as Dar al-‘Ilm (the House of knowledge). Libraries with massive collections of books were also built, the most significant of which was the one incorporated into the Dar al-‘Ilm. As a small digression, Dar al-‘Ilm was founded in 395 AH / 1005 CE by the third (sixth overall) Fatimid caliph-Imam in Cairo, al-Hakim (d. 412 AH / 1021 CE). It was an educational institution where a wide variety of religious and non-religious sciences were taught. Many Fatimid da’is (missionaries) received at least part of their education at the Dar al-‘Ilm. By later Fatimid times, the Dar al-‘Ilm more closely served the needs of the da’wah. Clearly, the establishment was a true institute for advancement, preservation and propagation of knowledge and with no other purpose. “In many respects it was unprecedented, although the Bayt al-Hikmah (the House of wisdom) frequently cited as a foundation of the ‘Abbasids some two centuries earlier in Baghdad, was a possible model.” For the same reasons entailed in the da’wah, during the reign of the first (fourth overall) Fatimid caliph-Imam in Egypt, al-Mu’izz Li-Dinillah, the process of codifying Isma’ili law attained its climax. It was done mainly through the efforts of al-Qadi al-Nu’man, the foremost Fatimid jurist. Al-Mu’izz Li-Dinillah “officially commissioned al-Qadi al-Nu’man, who headed the Fatimid judiciary from 337 AH/ 948 CE in the reign of the third Fatimid caliph-Imam al-Mansur (d. 342 AH/ 953 CE), to promulgate an Isma’ili madhhab. His efforts culminated in the compilation of the Da’a’im al-Islam (the Pillars of Islam), which was endorsed by al-Mu’izz Li-Dinillah as the official code of the Fatimid dawlah. The Isma’ilis, too, now possessed a system of law and jurisprudence as well as an Isma’ili paradigm of governance.” That the mosques were playing a major role in the Fatimid da’wah and their general educational systems, plus a very few governmental institutions as well as private residences, could be corroborated by what al-Maqrizi wrote about the evolution of the madrasah (school) institution. Al-Maqrizi said that the madrasah as an independent and systematic educational institution did not materialize until the 5th AH/ 11th CE century, and its birthplace and early flourishing were in the Muslim East, i.e., in Khorosan, Iran and Iraq. The madrasah phenomenon did not officially spread in Egypt until the arrival of the Ayyubids, following their ousting of the Fatimids in 567 AH /1171 CE. Madrasahs founded for teaching and disseminating Sunnism were an effective measure for uprooting Isma’ili Shi’ism and replacing it with Sunni orthodoxy in territories formerly controlled by the Fatimids, much like the Saljuqs’ tactics against the Shi’i Buyid dynasty in modern-day Iraq and Iran after they had overthrown them, especially in Iraq, approximately a century ago in 447 AH /1055 CE. Exactly those developments in the Muslim East as regards the downfall of the Shi’i Buyids and the rapid rise of the Sunni Saljuqs, and the critical role of madrasahs in their wake, al-Maqrizi had in mind when he affirmed that the madrasah phenomenon came about only in the 5th AH/ 11th CE century and in the East. As to the Fatimid era, it was a transitional period in which the mosque’s perennial function as a learning center was gradually developing into an institution, but still remained both physically and conceptually under the jurisdiction and framework of the mosque as a community development center. Madrasahs’ full and autonomous institutionalization came to pass in the timeframe mentioned by al-Maqrizi. It came to pass firstly in the regions which he also mentioned, and thence the new educational trend expanded to the rest of the Muslim world. About a century, or so, later, it arrived in Egypt too, with the arrival of the Ayyubids. Thus, al-Maqrizi said that in the absence of madrasahs in Cairo – one of the reasons having been the fact that the Fatimids followed a different (Shi’i) madhhab from the (Sunni) madhhab of most of the Muslims in Khorosan, Iran and Iraq, subsequent to the toppling of the Buyid Shi’ah dynasty there, as a result of which the two blocs vastly differed not only concerning the substance and interpretation of various aspects of the Islamic message, but also concerning the ways, means and procedures of knowledge incubation, propagation and delivery – the official study circles were held firstly in the mosque of al-Azhar, then in the mosque of ‘Amr b. al-‘As. When Naser Khosraw visited Cairo in the 5th AH /11th CE century, he remarked that in the mosque of ‘Amr b. al-‘As, as part of its astonishing function and ambiance, there were always teachers and Qur’an-readers. Al-Maqrizi also mentioned Dar al-‘Ilm (the House of knowledge) set up by the caliph-Imam al-Hakim, and that the house of Ya’qub b. Killis, the first Fatimid vizier in Cairo, served as an Isma’ili educational center where Isma’ili jurists and other erudite men used to gather, learn and teach. The vizier himself was an outstanding scholar. He composed several books some of which were used as main references in Isma’ili scholarship. About further educational activities of the vizier Ya’qub b. Killis, Paul E. Walker wrote that in the year 378 AH /988 CE, he “asked the caliph (al-‘Aziz Billah, d. 386 AH /996 CE) for a grant of funds as stipends for a group of fuqaha’ (jurists) and he then provided for them a cash stipend in an amount suitable for each one. He ordered that they acquire a house in the vicinity of the al-Azhar mosque and renovate it to suit their purpose. On Fridays they would assemble at the mosque and hold a halqah (study circle) in it following the noon prayer and lasting until the ‘asr (afternoon) prayer. In addition, they were to receive a grant out of the funds of the vizier each year. There were thirty-five individuals in this group.” Based on this account, the vizier appears to have created a residential college associated with the al-Azhar mosque for the teaching of Isma’ili creed and jurisprudence. An indication of an endowment that might perpetuate the college’s existence beyond the vizier’s time is especially significant in terms of mapping out the history of the madrasah phenomenon. Paul E. Walker went so far as to claim that the vizier, in fact, created the equivalent of a madrasah at the al-Azhar mosque. The claim, however, is not far from truth because the pointed out events clearly reveal that by the end of the 4th AH /10th CE century, the transition of teaching and learning activities from a mere function or a purpose of the mosque as a community development center, regardless of how advanced such function or purpose might have been, to an independent and self-sufficient educational institution, was maturing and was approaching its completion. There were no madrasahs as full-fledged institutions affiliated with al-Azhar until approximately the middle of the Mamluki era in the early 8th AH /14th CE century. Furthermore, the vizier Ya’qub b. Killis employed a portion of his personal wealth for the support of a cadre of scholars and intellectuals who were attached to his private retinue and who participated as an audience in numerous public and semi-public munazarat or debates that often featured, among a wide array of Muslims, local Jews and Christians of different factions. Reviling and insulting a number of leading companions of the Prophet (pbuh) was a well known Isma’ili norm. After the establishment of the Fatimid state, the matter was taken to a whole new level. Insulting and abusing the companions was done more commonly, more systematically and more freely. The most responsible caliph-Imam for the misdemeanor, certainly, was al-Hakim. Apart from the conventional practices and means, he in the year 395 AH / 1004 CE ordered that near the entrances to the mosques and in the streets, insults and abuses against Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, ‘Uthman, ‘A’ishah, Talhah (d. 36 AH/ 656 CE), Zubayr (d. 36 AH/ 656 CE), Mu’awiyah and ‘Amr b. al-‘As (d. 44 AH /664 CE), be written. He also asked his state administrators outside Cairo to follow suit. However, two years later he rescinded his malicious initiative, although the practice of disparaging the companions continued unabated till the end of the Fatimid tenure. Al-Maqrizi furnishes us with far more details about those actions of al-Hakim. He said that both the interior and exterior of the mosques, with no section thereof left, were covered with insulting and cursing phrases. The doorways of shops, houses, tombs and bazaars were also used for the same purpose. The insulting and cursing slogans were either written or engraved, using color and sometimes even gold.

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Spahic Omer
Kulliyyah of Architecture and Environmental Design
International Islamic University Malaysia
E-mail: spahico@yahoo.com

Islam is a religion that aims to ascertain, uplift and sustain the honor and dignity of man. In Islam, man is God’s vicegerent on earth. Every terrestrial component has been created for the purpose of accommodating and facilitating the fulfillment of man’s noble mission of vicegerency. Man resides in the center of Islam’s universe. As such, the creation of man stood for the last segment in a long formative process of creation during which everything that there is came into existence. It signified the pinnacle of God’s act of universe creation that went through six stages. Moreover, God created Adam, the first man and father of humanity, with His own Hands and in His own Image, as Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) revealed. (Sahih Muslim) This means that “Adam has been bestowed with life, knowledge, power of hearing, seeing, understanding, but the features of Adam are different from those of Allah, only the names are the same, e.g., Allah has life and knowledge and power of understanding, and Adam also has them, but there is no comparison between the Creator and the created thing. As Allah says in the Qur’an: ‘There is nothing like Him, and He is the All-Hearer, the All-Seer’ (al-Shura, 11).”
Hence, when God created Adam, angels, the most sublime and infallible creatures, were summoned to witness the final divine act of creation. Upon its completion, they were asked to prostrate themselves before Adam, that is, to prostrate to God, for there is no prostration except to God alone, and to acknowledge thereby the merit and wisdom of God’s handiwork, and to accord respect to Adam and his existential capacities as the crown of divine invention. The Qur’an describes the dramatic occurrence as follows: “And (mention, O Muhammad), when your Lord said to the angels: ‘Indeed, I will make upon the earth a successive authority (khalifah, vicegerent).’ They said: ‘Will You place upon it one who causes corruption therein and sheds blood, while we declare Your praise and sanctify You?’ Allah said: ‘Indeed, I know that which you do not know.’ And He taught Adam the names – all of them. Then He showed them to the angels and said: ‘Inform Me of the names of these, if you are truthful.’ They said: ‘Exalted are You; we have no knowledge except what You have taught us. Indeed, it is You who is the Knowing, the Wise.’ He said: ‘O Adam, inform them of their names.’ And when he had informed them of their names, He said: ‘Did I not tell you that I know the unseen (aspects) of the heavens and the earth? And I know what you reveal and what you have concealed.’ And (mention) when We said to the angels: ‘Prostrate before Adam’; so they prostrated, except for Iblis. He refused and was arrogant and became of the disbelievers.” (Al-Baqarah, 30-34).
Islam exists because of man; it is meant for him. Man, in turn, exists because, and for, Islam, to be shown how to live in complete service to his Creator and Master, and to be shown the way to self-assertion and deliverance in both worlds. Thus, the most important knowledge that Islam grants man is the knowledge about himself, his Lord and his relationship with Him, and about the life phenomenon and his place as well as role in it. Indeed, this is the greatest blessing that man enjoys in Islam. It is a demonstration of man’s honorable and dignified position that he occupies in the hierarchy of Islamic beliefs, values and principles. It is due to this that the Qur’an often articulates such testimonials as, for example, “We have indeed created man in the best of moulds.” (Al-Tin, 4); “Verily We have honored the Children of Adam…” (Al-Isra’, 70); “Do you not see that Allah has made subject to you whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth and amply bestowed upon you His favors, (both) apparent and unapparent?” (Luqman, 20); “Read and your Lord is Most Honorable, Who taught (to write) with the pen, taught man that which he knew not.” (Al-‘Alaq, 3-5).
It goes without saying that the ultimate objective of the Islamic message is the preservation of a believer and his honor and dignity. This translates into the preservation of his religion, life, lineage, intellect and property. There is nothing on earth that is more inviolable than a believer, his blood, property and honor. There is nothing that supersedes him in importance. Everything on earth exists in order to make possible and then sustain a believer’s lofty position. All things and events play second fiddle to his status. Even holy messengers were sent and revelations revealed for the purpose. Based on the divine Will and Letter, life systems, ordinances and practices are concocted for this same end as well. Accordingly, cultures and civilizations are judged only on the basis of how genuinely they were human honor and dignity-oriented and how much they succeeded in making such enterprise a reality. It was due to this that the Prophet (pbuh) is reported to have communicated to the Ka’bah while circumambulating (tawaf) it: “How pure you are! And how pure is your fragrance! How great you are! And how great is your sanctity! By Him in whose hands lies the soul of Muhammad, the sanctity of a believer is greater with Allah than even your sanctity (i.e., the Ka’bah). That is (the sanctity) of his property, his blood and that we think nothing of him but good.” (Sunan Ibn Majah)
A companion of the Prophet (pbuh), ‘Abdullah b. ‘Umar (d. 74 AH/ 693 CE), once when he looked at the Ka’bah, reproduced the gist of those Prophet’s words and said to the Ka’bah: “How great you are! And how great is your sanctity! But the sanctity of a believer is greater with Allah than even your sanctity (i.e., the Ka’bah).” (Sunan al-Tirmidhi)
The Prophet (pbuh) also said during his farewell pilgrimage in a sermon which denotes a blueprint for every Muslim civilizational awakening: “Verily, your blood, property and honor are sacred to one another (i.e., Muslims) like the sanctity of this day of yours (i.e., the day of Nahr or slaughtering of the animals of sacrifice), in this month of yours (the holy month of Dhul-Hijjah) and in this city of yours (the holy city of Makkah).” (Sahih al-Bukhari)
It is thus natural that at a collective level, believers are seen as brothers and sisters to each other. (Al-Hujurat, 10). They constitute one Ummah or community. The best among them are only those who are most God-conscious, or most righteous. (Al-Hujurat, 13). The best among them, furthermore, are those who are most beneficial to the Ummah as well as to the whole of mankind. In their unity, mutual compassion and cooperation, the similitude of believers is like a wall whose bricks enforce and rely on each other. They are like a solid cemented structure held together in harmony and strength, each part contributing strength in its own way, and the whole held together not like a mass, but like a living organism. Believers are further related to each other in such a way that if one of them (a part of an organic and formidable formation called the Ummah or the community) is troubled by a problem of any kind, the rest of the body parts will remain disturbed and restless until the matter became cured. As a result, some of the most outrageous sins in Islam are those which are related to violating and damaging the honor and dignity of a believer, as well as those which are related to the betraying, dividing, weakening and undermining the Ummah or the community. The Qur’an proclaims: “Indeed, those who like that immorality or scandal should be spread (or publicized) among those who have believed will have a painful punishment in this world and the Hereafter.” (Al-Nur, 19)
“And hold firmly to the rope of Allah all together and do not become divided. And remember the favor of Allah upon you — when you were enemies and He brought your hearts together and you became, by His favor, brothers. And you were on the edge of a pit of the Fire, and He saved you from it. Thus does Allah make clear to you His verses that you may be guided.” (Alu ‘Imran, 103).
At any rate, Islam is as much a personal experience and struggle as it is a collective endeavor and mission. Islam cannot be totally and thoroughly accomplished individually, or in small groups. Islam is a religion of, and thus aims at, society, life in its totality, and civilization. Islam is a religion of collectively inhabiting the earth and making together the world a better place. Islam is a religion of pragmatism and human nature. It is a simple and natural thing. It denounces everything that is unnatural, injurious and inhuman. It denounces everything that stands on the way of people’s individual spiritual and intellectual advancements, and collective civilizational affirmation and rise. Simply put, Islam denounces anything that puts man’s honor and inviolability, as well as his communal predilection and responsiveness, at stake.
It was because of this underlining character of Islam, surely, that after Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) had received in the cave of Hira his first revelation, and with it his divine appointment as the final messenger of God to people, where heretofore he used to spend long periods contemplating and reflecting on the spiritual depression and failures of the world around him, he subsequently never returned to the cave. He did not return because Islam is not a religion of isolation and separation to be practiced by certain ascetic individuals or groups away from the masses and the pressing realities of life. It must be pointed out that the whole process of the Islamic transformation project started right in the cave of Hira, but not with the words of, for example, “pray” or “fast” or “perform pilgrimage”, etc., but rather with the words “Read (iqra’) in the name of your Lord Who created. He created man from a clot. Read and your Lord is most Honorable, Who taught (to write) with the pen, taught man that which he knew not.” (Al-‘Alaq, 1-5). The Prophet (pbuh) was asked – as is anyone who subscribes to Islam and Muhammad’s mission – to read, study, try to solve and make known the problems and maladies of his people, as well as of the world and life in general. This is strongly suggested by the notions of God as the Creator and Guardian, and man as the guided and taught mortal completely dependent on God, which are enfolded in the above mentioned verses. Accordingly, the Prophet (pbuh) once said that a Muslim who socializes with people and puts up with their provocations and annoyances, is better than a Muslim who does not socialize with people – i.e., lives alone — and does not put up with their unpleasant deeds. (Sunan al-Tirmidhi)

About the Author:

Dr. Spahic Omer, a Bosnian currently residing in Malaysia, is an Associate Professor at the Kulliyyah of Architecture and Environmental Design, International Islamic University Malaysia. He studied in Bosnia, Egypt and Malaysia. His research interests cover Islamic history, culture and civilization, as well as the history and philosophy of Islamic built environment. He can be reached at spahico@yahoo.com; his blog is at www.medinanet.org .