CONFESSION OF AN ORTHODOX MUSLIM

I have a confession.

It is one that is likely to shock many people reading this article. No sooner will readers have read the confession itself that presuppositions and generalizations will fly, a stigmatization will be engaged, and some may consider boycotting this website. All i ask is that you read and allow me to explain my position before drawing whatever conclusions you will.

I am a liberal Muslim.

Still here?

I am a liberal Muslim. If I could hear the thousand whispers going through readers minds they would probably sound something like this:

"What? He's a gay-hugger?"
"That means he must believe in the ultimate corruption of
society, devoid of morality..."
"So he believes in criminal rights?"

Allow me to preface by explaining that terms such as 'liberal' and 'conservative' only have a value when juxtaposed alongside an external standard within a spectrum. That being said, the mere fact that I possess unalterable religious values would be enough to indict me on charges of 'conservatism' by many North Americans. However, since I identify myself primarily as a Muslim, it is that spectrum that I will use to benchmark myself.

Those who are acclimated with political and ideological theory will be the first to point out that there are many strands, definitions, and manifestations of 'liberalism'. Allow me to substantiate why I identify myself as a 'liberal Muslim' and what I do not intend to accompany this label. From a political standpoint I believe that every person is sovereign in their own right, subject only to God. Institutions such as polities and state-structures only have the right to intervene in this sovereignty if it presents a material risk to the rest of those within the community. Hence, the private sphere ends ONLY where the interests of the individual begin to conflict with that of society. As such, no human or any product of human construct has the legitimate right to interfere with the private affairs of an individual, except where those private affairs become deleterious to those around him.

What I DO NOT intend to imply with this self-annointed moniker is the notion that the practise of Islam is subject to those who are practising, allowing a Muslim to practise as he will as long as he or she beleives in God. In fact I would like to categorically denounce any affiliation with the platform of so-called 'Progressive Muslims' such as Tarek Fata or Irshad Manji.

For Islam to be Islam as intended by Allah and His Messenger (PBUH), there is an objective standard that must be met that gives Islam its strength. One way my 'liberalism' departs with many Muslims however, is that I donot believe that Muslims, or Muslim establishments have the right to 'police' or attempt to control the behaviour of other Muslims, or even to judge them (save for those circumstances where one has a right to do so (for the purpose of marriage, assessing qualification for a position, etc.,). In many ways, an attempt to 'judge' other Muslims as morally or religiously inferior to oneself is at best an incursion to the business of others, and at worst an attempt to control the behavior of others over whom one has no right.

Of course there are many who will point to the Prophetic saying "He who sees his brother performing a wrong, let him correct it with his hand, then with his tongue, and then let him hate it with his heart..." While this may be valid, many don't consider other sayings such as (Min husnil islaami mari'i, tarkuhu maala ya'neehi') 'Among the best characteristics of a Muslim, is that he leaves that which does not concern him" or where the Prophet (Peace Be Upon Him) implored Muslims to offer '71 excuses' as to why a Muslim may be performing a questionable or ostensibly forbidden act, and then to offer 71 more when those were exhausted.

Any duty a Muslim has to correct the behaviour of another remains only to the extent that such can be done without harming the latter. There is the story of Abdul Qadir Jilani, who once noticed a person performing Wudu (ablution) incorrectly. Rather than confronting the person, it is reported that he asked the man to correct him if he was performing his ablution incorrectly,
implicitly delineating to the man the proper procedure of performing the wudu, without offending him. The objective is to 'correct' the behaviour, and if one's words or actions will not do so but rather offend the person, then the objective is not being served and the corrective action is useless, if not undesirable. Further, in keeping with the 'spirit' of Islam, its obvious that such 'correction' should be done with goodwill and in a manner that has the spiritual best interests of the disaffected person in mind. Condescending behavior, malicious activity, terror, and acts of vigilantism are clearly not intended by this rule. For those who contest on the grounds that I am not a scholar must then show me even one case in the Prophetic tradition where he acted CONTRARY to the aforementioned principles.

As for judging others, perhaps the greatest reason why one should refrain from such is the simple fact that God tests everyone differently. As such, every person has intrinsic weaknesses that form the basis of their tribulation as humans. In the Qur'an, God says "No soul is burdened more than it can bear". Hence, the mere fact that God has tested a person indicates that the person has the ability to overcome this trial and succeed. It stands to reason then, that the greater the test, the greater God's esteem of the person's potential, irrespective of whether or not it is ever realised. For some people, the tribulation is homosexual inclinations, for others it is alchohol or indulgence in the opposite sex. Everyone has such weaknesses, yet some are tested much more rigorously than others. Think of judging others as the equivalent of maligning a person from war-torn Bosnia for not having pursued an education, despite not having any of the opportunities that many here in North America are afforded. Such would be sheer arrogance, and underappreciative of the advantageous existence God has granted us with life here. Similarly, we don't know what opportunities another person may have had to either become more religious or increase in their spiritual cadence. Afterall, God is not looking for results, or a bottom line. Rather, He is looking for a person to make the best of his potential given the circumstances within which he is placed. Only God has knowledge of the varying opportunities he has granted everyone and only He then is privvy to judge.

Nevertheless, note that by 'judging', I intend only judgement that is passed on another's religious spirituality or other acts that are strictly of a personal nature. For example, there are acts such as alchoholism or homosexuality that are prohibitted by God. However, in most cases these 'crimes' do not have a victim. Hence, they then fall squarely within the private realm, which is solely the concern of that person and God alone. In fact, it is important to realise that as Muslims we do not dislike the actors in such commissions, but rather the actions.

However, there are also acts that society needs to be able to judge in order for its proper function. Such offenses occur where the individual's spirituality (or lack thereof) becomes deleterious to those outside his person, such as a person who commits rape or murder. In these instances, the individual clearly had a weakness, and their failure to overcome this weakness caused an outward manifestation injurious to another, which now makes the issue the concern of the society around him. That society must then have the legitmacy to pass judgement and mete out penalties. However, this authority should only be viewed as a neccessary evil, and is only legitimate while being implemented in accordance with principles of due process and procedure.

This is an important distinction to make. Without due process, there can be no judgement or sentencing. For so called 'muftis' and 'mullahs' to be passing fatwas to kill 'infidels' or 'enemies of Islam' extra-legally, is absolutley absurd and against any true Islamic precedent. While the Prophet (PBUH) was in Mecca as a commoner, no acts of vigilantism, terror, or murder were performed at his behest; Islam has no place for such vices. The only sentencing that the Prophet would have passed on someone would be when he became the head of state in Medina and was acting in the capacity of the state judge. In fact, given the personal oppression and humiliation he faced while in Mecca, he would be as justified as anyone in defending himself with pre-emptive acts of vigilantism and spearheading a violent revolution in Mecca. However, the message he chose to make was decidedly clear: Islam would be spread with peace and compassion, not on the back of violently vindicating personal and community rights. What right do we have to abrogate this message?

This brings us to the definitive characteristic of being a 'liberal' Muslim. A liberal Muslim, or even scholar, is one who understands that the spirit of the law supercedes the letter of the law. If the letter of the law is ever implemented in a manner that contravenes the spirit, then the law or principle no longer has any meaning and is simply a formalistic implementation devoid of any of the direction and purpose that is essential to a legal system. The letter of the law is a time-specific means that is the product of measuring the spirit of the law (objective) against the conditions and neccessities of the time. The spirit of the law however, is a timeless objective, the implementation for which there can be many measures employed.

One example of this would be the law against theft. The spirit of this law would be to protect the integrity of one's individual property by deterring individuals from willfully stealing that which belongs to others. Yet Saydna Umar, the second Caliph, was once faced with a man who had stolen under the duress of starvation during the times of a great famine. The punishment for theft was to sever the hand of the thief, which Umar refused to do. Severing the hand of a man who was stealing out of necessity did not meet the objectives or the spirit of the law. Moreover, he saw the man's starvation as a failure of the state to provide the basic necessities of life for all citizens. Hence, he further placed a moratorium on severing the hands of any thieves during the famine so as to not contravene the spirit of the law.

This is never more of an issue than when the issue of 'corporal' punishment (Hudud) comes into play today. Many Muslims accross the world push for a formalistic implementation of 'shariah' simply because, as Dr. Tariq Ramadan puts it, it is a more visual assurance of Islam. What many don't realise however, is that in most of these cases they are calling for a formalistic implementation where the necessary preconditions do not exist. Hudud is merely a penal consequence of committing an act against the existing legal framework. A legal framework CANNOT be said to exist without the rule of law. In many of countries where 'shariah' (and I use the term, VERY loosely) is in effect, the only people who are meted out hudud penalties are the poor, or women. Aristocrats, members of royal families, and heads of state are seldom subject to the law, if at all.

Clearly, this is not the rule of law as demonstrated by the Prophet (Peace Be Upon) when he swore that he would sever the hand of even his own beloved daughter Fatima if she stole, or when Umar flogged his own son, the corporal punishment for fornication. Hence the spirit and objective of the hudud penalties and the entire shariah framework was to instill the rule of law and order into the entire community; random and partial implementation is in many ways worse than lawlessness. If this underlying 'spirit' is not being carried out, then simply enacting an arm of the law without the body is not only useless, but dangerous. It's time to show patience and realise that the most effective changes are made from the bottom up, rather than from the top down.

This is the challenge facing our scholars and us today: we have lost sight of the 'spirit' of our religion. Many feel the overwhelming need to be 'literalist' in their interpretation to counter many foreign ideas that have inevitably come with the changes of the modern world. Many others feel the need to follow formalistic interpretations of Islam that offer a counterimage to what they deem to be foreign impressions on their native lands. While such responses might seem natural to observers, they have come at the price of losing the true spirit of Islam, without which little remains. In a day and age where the term jihad (literally 'struggle') is misunderstood and misrepresented by Muslims and non-Muslims alike, it is the struggle to prevent such ideologies and interpretations from hijacking Islam altogether that will determine the fate of Islam and Muslims for quite some time.