The crises occurring within the Muslim world glares into the face of a tradition twisted by a century and a half of neglect and hubris. The vacuum triggered by the fall of the Ottoman Caliphate ushered in what has become an era of unprecedented degradation to a system of law rooted in 1400 years of scholarship and consensus. The magisterium class in Islam, despite its often nonlinear approach, upheld the established methods of evaluation and ruling, has been largely replaced by haphazard individuals who openly disdain the legitimacy of the recognized schools of legal thought. Interestingly, those largely responsible for the destruction of the caliphate were, and in many quarters continue to be, in collaboration with those forces generally hostile to Islam, while simultaneously, deriving legal opinions from fringe elements that exist within Western ideologies. This has resulted in a climate of anti-intellectualism and contempt for those striving to maintain the classical institution of teaching and learning established by contemporaries of the Prophet (عليه السلام), ultimately culminating in a loss of direction for those seeking his path and the continued decay of the ummah itself.
Showing posts with label shari'a. Show all posts
Showing posts with label shari'a. Show all posts
19.3.11
The Obligation of Environmental Stewardship in the Shari‘a
‘We offered the Trust to the heavens, the earth, and the mountains, yet they refused to undertake it and were afraid of it; mankind undertook it–they have always been inept and foolish.’ (33:72)[1]
Among the innumerable mercies Allah ta'ala has bestowed upon His creation in the Shari’a is the relationship between humanity and the natural environment. The Qur’anic narrative establishing a khalifat Allah fi’l-ard or vicegerent is fundamentally unique within the monotheistic tradition in which humanity’s relationship to earth is described as steward rather than an owner. Both in the passages of the sacred text and the prophetic traditions pertaining to creation demonstrate an inherent harmony ingrained within the core dimensions of Islam. As with many Qur’anic injunctions, there is an infinite revealing of knowledge taking place with the unfolding of time and our increased understanding of creation through the evolution of the sciences. As modernity illustrates, however, it is only by the Grace of Allah that the seeker of knowledge strives to comprehend revelation utilizing the blessing of the intellect. Dismissing the Divine element in the quest for understanding is to our spiritual peril as environmental degradation is to our existence.
Among the innumerable mercies Allah ta'ala has bestowed upon His creation in the Shari’a is the relationship between humanity and the natural environment. The Qur’anic narrative establishing a khalifat Allah fi’l-ard or vicegerent is fundamentally unique within the monotheistic tradition in which humanity’s relationship to earth is described as steward rather than an owner. Both in the passages of the sacred text and the prophetic traditions pertaining to creation demonstrate an inherent harmony ingrained within the core dimensions of Islam. As with many Qur’anic injunctions, there is an infinite revealing of knowledge taking place with the unfolding of time and our increased understanding of creation through the evolution of the sciences. As modernity illustrates, however, it is only by the Grace of Allah that the seeker of knowledge strives to comprehend revelation utilizing the blessing of the intellect. Dismissing the Divine element in the quest for understanding is to our spiritual peril as environmental degradation is to our existence.
17.4.10
A Concept of Freedom
Most people would agree that the fundamental difference between humans and animals is the ability to reason. In Islam, we learn that this is indeed the case. Animals act out of instinct as opposed to calculated analysis or a rational concern for the well being of others. What may be considered an inferior trait is quite arguable, however. After all, animals are less capable of acting out of malice or against moral law or din, as such, whereas humankind is accountable to God for each and every action committed. As it relates to the Day of Judgment, Yawm al-Din, Allah ta’ala informs us: “…whoever has done an atom’s weight of good shall see it, but whoever has done an atom’s weight of evil will see that.” (99:7)
8.7.07
Somalia: Unnecessary Tragedy
Not a day goes by that I am not repulsed by US military actions around the world. It’s so overwhelming that to take the time to select and zero in on one specific event becomes a bit of a slippery slope. It’s almost as if by addressing one war crime, one is guilty of neglecting another. This is in part why I have not spoke on current events for some time- the atrocities carried out by my government are simply too frequent and obscene to stay abreast of.
While the task of selection is a daunting one, with the world’s eyes half open to what’s continuing in Iraq, there is another blip that has probably attracted five minute’s worth of coverage on the six o’clock news in the United States: Somalia.
Like most places that the American government sees through its crosshairs, and whose flag-waving patriots couldn’t locate on a map if their troops occupied it for ten years, Somalia is once again the target of US aggression. The average Jack may be able to reach back far enough to the gruesome images of the bodies of the American soldiers that were drug through the streets of Mogadishu in October of 1993− a display of hatred that is difficult to imagine− a hatred that mirrors the lynchings of African Americans from the not-too-distant past. Of course, in war, that fearsome detestation for the other is what soldiers are ingrained with during basic training (after all, it's a far greater challenge to get people to kill those they see as equals).
Although a brief summary of modern Somali history is fragrantly unjust, considering the immense human suffering that has over swept its population over recent decades, it remains necessary if one is going to attempt to address the current tragedies of its people, especially in regard to US and Ethiopian involvement.
The history of clashes between Somalia and Ethiopia are not unlike similar conflicts resulting from post-colonial circumstance that have occurred throughout the world. Such is the legacy in light of the post imperial powers in charge of redrawing the world map, following WWII, albeit to the detriment of those living within the new boundaries. In 1949, Ogaden, a region that now comprises roughly 25% of Ethiopia’s territory along the western boarder of Somalia and encompassing the impetus horn of Africa, became part of Ethiopia, as decided by the Allied powers of the UN- powers that, based on their history within the continent, lacked any genuine concern for the inhabitants of the land− a fact that remains unchanged to this day.
The ignition for war between the two countries was henceforth sparked by the fact that the population of Ogaden consisted of predominantly ethnic Muslim Somalis. Following the independence of Somalia from fascist Italy in 1960, Somali militias made several incursions into Ethiopia until 1964, when the two signed a peace agreement. Like many post colonial countries, animosity was furthered by interference from the Soviet Union and the US− the later supporting Ethiopia. This tug-of-war continued until the Ogaden War of 1977-78. In typical Orwellian fashion, the US and USSR switched sides, but not before the USSR betrayed Somalia by simultaneously supporting Ethiopia− reminiscent of US support of Iran and Iraq during their bloody conflict a decade later. Following the official withdrawal in 1978, Somalia became a client state of the US in exchange for air bases until they were no longer useful with the ending of the Cold War in 1988. It should not be neglected to mention that during this time, the US propped up Siad Barre, a brutal dictator who, according to Africa Watch, was responsible for between 50-60,000 killings.
Support for Barre’s rising totalitarianism and Ethiopian interference would lead to the outbreak of civil war 1991, an event which the US had hoped would showcase its “humanitarian intervention” impulse, thereby legitimizing the inflated pentagon budget. Had the US been sincere, they would have supported the ousting of Barre rather than supporting his reign of terror in the years prior. Coupled with the trademark of American arrogance and their support for Barre, the PR campaign ended in disaster, leading ultimately to the US withdrawal.
After a decade and a half of horrific conditions brought on by the civil war, the Islamic Courts Union (ICU) wrestled power out of the hands of the warlords who’ve made the country a living hell since 1991. After a bitter struggle to restore order back to Somalia, the ICU finally prevailed over Mogadishu and for the first time in nearly twenty years, stability began returning to the war ravaged region. Although after their retreat, the warlords claimed they would be able to establish a dialogue with the ICU, in reality, they intended to do nothing of the sort.
More than 500 power hungry warlords-turned-ministers are to thank for the sustained chaos that enveloped Somalia and who supported the opposition to the ICU. The motive for the chaos was, of course, financial. When the warlords are in control, all commerce must first be routed through them, which in turn line their pockets. It should be no surprise then that the so-called president of Somalia, Abdullahi Yusif, is himself a warlord, nor should it be a shock to anyone that the United States government backed the alliance of warlords against the ICU, along with Ethiopia and Italy. Not that it matters much to the US, but their support for the warlords is a direct violation of the UN arms embargo, a charge which the Bush administration initially denied and later had the audacity to apply against supporters of the ICU. While it is a fact that to arm either side of the confrontation violates the embargo, not only does the US cry foul when its interests are at stake, they go further by alleging false claims about those fighting on behalf of the ICU. None of this is new to their bag of tricks, however.
Interim President Yusif has spoken out against US support for competing warlords, claiming that they ought to cooperate with the government. What he left out was the fact that most of these warlords are MPs of the government and are the same people who elected him to rule the country in 2004 during a meeting in Kenya- how’s that for legitimate? The MPs (warlords) have learned a lot from US policy by giving their militia another Orwellian title “The Alliance for the Restoration of Peace and Counter-Terrorism.” Fighting terrorism had nothing to do with the warlords joining forces; rather, it was set up an offensive to maintain their hegemony over the region. The ICU, on the hand, was established to regain peace and security in Mogadishu, a struggle which they achieved.
By the 2nd of June 2006, thousands rallied in the streets to protest against the US support for the warlords who have ruled the streets for so many years. Three days later, the warlords retreated. Stability for Somalia was gradually settling in as warlord-operated checkpoints used to extort money from motorists came down, prices dropped in the marketplace that was no longer ruled by thugs, and robbery and kidnapping was quickly becoming a thing of the past. Then came reports of (US-trained) Ethiopian troops crossing the boarder in support of the interim government. To assure the interim administration, Sheik Sherif Ahmed, one of the leaders of the ICU stated that they were “making it clear that we are not planning to attack Baidoa, Kismayo or any other third region in the country. We want to work with whoever who wants to return peace to Somalia.” Meanwhile, the US accused the ICU of harboring foreign terrorists, a charge they denied.
By August, a formal system Shari’a or Islamic Law, had been devised and implemented to govern Mogadishu. Those of us who have been moved to tears at the horrific suffering Somalis have endured for so long breathed a sigh of relief and held a glimmer of hope that life in Mogadishu might finally return to normal. Markets opened, bribery ceased, women could freely walk the streets again. Criminals were tried and sentences were employed under the eye of the public. When concerns about a Taliban-style regime being formed, ICU chairman Sheikh Sharif Ahmed, assured them that no such intentions existed within the ICU leadership. In September, the ICU did move into to Kismayo as support for their leadership began increasing. As an indicator of the support they were earning, this move occurred without a single casualty. Moreover, by this time, they were able to bring stability to all ports in the southern region of the country. By November, khat, a highly addictive drug, commonly used stimulant, known to cause aggression and health ailments, was banned. (This is the same drug that was so often used to numb the emotions of child fighters, known for random murders throughout the country during and after the civil war.)
Also in November, murmurs of concern began to be heard within the UN Headquarters in New York. A report issued by the UN Security Council stated that the ICU had received military support Iran, Syria, and a host of others. The report also alleged that ICU fighters assisted Hezbollah against the Israelis and labeled the growing influence of the ICU as “instabile.” Instable to whom? Are we supposed to believe that the American government has the interests of the Somali people on its agenda? How can anyone who has stirred up the biggest hornet’s nest in modern times claim concern over instability? Stability is the one thing that the ICU has proven it is capable of implementing. Could it be relied on to support this new change in the country? The answer has long been understood. So what if the ICU is getting support from its allies? If it is against international law to receive support from one’s allies when in dire need and to return the favor when called upon, how exactly would the Bush administration classify its own illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq? Furthermore, how would it categorize its “Coalition of the Willing”? Further still, is lending military support to Ethiopia immune to the embargo that those providing aid for the ICU are charged with violating? At least in Somalia, the takeover brought stability and had been welcomed by the people. “For, Of and By the People,” isn’t that the idea behind Democracy? The vast majority of Iraqis want the US out− and yet the claim remains to be voiced by the administration that the US military has brought democracy to the people. Apparently, President Bush equates bombing civilians as democracy in action.
By the end of December, Ethiopian troops moved in and attacked areas under the governance of the ICU, despite calls for immediate withdrawal by the African Union. The advance was basically tantamount to ensuring a return to instability and humanitarian crisis. To avert another catastrophe, the ICU Mogadishu abandoned without a fight. Immediately, looters robbed the new market places and the people went into hiding again. Anyone paying any attention whatever to the events unfolding would have to cover their mouths to prevent from vomiting at what has unfolded since.
In January, Ethiopia, against the wishes of the AU, have vowed to remain in the country to maintain “stability.” Then, on January 10th, on my way home from school, I was listening to the radio when I learned that the US had finally carried out the unthinkable− it unleashed its bombs on yet another civilian target, killing hundreds of people who an interim government official said "may have involved very senior Islamist court leaders." May have? Like who? Sharif Ahmed, a moderate, trusted by the people? Before launching a fatal attack, should not the attackers be certain that the action being carried out will be limited to the people they're going after? By the way, who gave them this free writ of assasination? Of course the US takes its warn-out excuse to terms once again, saying it was an attack against a member of al-Qaeda. Somehow that absolves them of any wrong doing in regards to the civilian deaths, or as they’re fond of deeming it: “collateral damage.”
Again, one has to question how American aggression against a Muslim population will bring about stability. How long will it take before the Pentagon understands that such attacks only incite more al-Qaeda violence? It is the equivalent of an open invitation to terror. It plants the seeds of more discontent against victims who see groups like these as the only way to assert themselves. Just as the likelihood of revenge violence increases when someone murders another’s family in America, the same is true of others half a world away. Give a gun to a teenager who’s mother was killed by a lunatic and see what happens− especially when the killer goes unpunished. Case-in-point: the ten fold instances of suicide bombing since the invasion of Iraq. The same will happen again and again in any Muslim country the US assaults. It’s been well established that such responses have soared once the US has become involved in military offensives. The continued aggression against the people of Somalia will only continue worsening the situation. What the West fails to comprehend is the fact that the Somali people overwhelmingly respect Islamic Law. That’s not to say that they desire a Taliban-style dictatorship (in fact, the Taliban was about as unislamic of any such state ever to exist). It is to say that secular law is not held in nearly the same regard as Shari’a. As one Somali elder told me, “the people respect the book [the Qur’an], take it away and we see the situation that results.” Add to the fact that outside forces deemed hostile to Islam are responsible for the worst carnage in fifteen years, after a short-lived peace brought about by the leadership of the Islamic Courts Union. The only way to restore peace and stability is to allow Somalis to return to self-rule without interference from those who do not belong there to begin with. Until then, offer your prayers for the people of that tortured land that they will again live in peace.
While the task of selection is a daunting one, with the world’s eyes half open to what’s continuing in Iraq, there is another blip that has probably attracted five minute’s worth of coverage on the six o’clock news in the United States: Somalia.
Like most places that the American government sees through its crosshairs, and whose flag-waving patriots couldn’t locate on a map if their troops occupied it for ten years, Somalia is once again the target of US aggression. The average Jack may be able to reach back far enough to the gruesome images of the bodies of the American soldiers that were drug through the streets of Mogadishu in October of 1993− a display of hatred that is difficult to imagine− a hatred that mirrors the lynchings of African Americans from the not-too-distant past. Of course, in war, that fearsome detestation for the other is what soldiers are ingrained with during basic training (after all, it's a far greater challenge to get people to kill those they see as equals).
Although a brief summary of modern Somali history is fragrantly unjust, considering the immense human suffering that has over swept its population over recent decades, it remains necessary if one is going to attempt to address the current tragedies of its people, especially in regard to US and Ethiopian involvement.
The history of clashes between Somalia and Ethiopia are not unlike similar conflicts resulting from post-colonial circumstance that have occurred throughout the world. Such is the legacy in light of the post imperial powers in charge of redrawing the world map, following WWII, albeit to the detriment of those living within the new boundaries. In 1949, Ogaden, a region that now comprises roughly 25% of Ethiopia’s territory along the western boarder of Somalia and encompassing the impetus horn of Africa, became part of Ethiopia, as decided by the Allied powers of the UN- powers that, based on their history within the continent, lacked any genuine concern for the inhabitants of the land− a fact that remains unchanged to this day.
The ignition for war between the two countries was henceforth sparked by the fact that the population of Ogaden consisted of predominantly ethnic Muslim Somalis. Following the independence of Somalia from fascist Italy in 1960, Somali militias made several incursions into Ethiopia until 1964, when the two signed a peace agreement. Like many post colonial countries, animosity was furthered by interference from the Soviet Union and the US− the later supporting Ethiopia. This tug-of-war continued until the Ogaden War of 1977-78. In typical Orwellian fashion, the US and USSR switched sides, but not before the USSR betrayed Somalia by simultaneously supporting Ethiopia− reminiscent of US support of Iran and Iraq during their bloody conflict a decade later. Following the official withdrawal in 1978, Somalia became a client state of the US in exchange for air bases until they were no longer useful with the ending of the Cold War in 1988. It should not be neglected to mention that during this time, the US propped up Siad Barre, a brutal dictator who, according to Africa Watch, was responsible for between 50-60,000 killings.
Support for Barre’s rising totalitarianism and Ethiopian interference would lead to the outbreak of civil war 1991, an event which the US had hoped would showcase its “humanitarian intervention” impulse, thereby legitimizing the inflated pentagon budget. Had the US been sincere, they would have supported the ousting of Barre rather than supporting his reign of terror in the years prior. Coupled with the trademark of American arrogance and their support for Barre, the PR campaign ended in disaster, leading ultimately to the US withdrawal.
After a decade and a half of horrific conditions brought on by the civil war, the Islamic Courts Union (ICU) wrestled power out of the hands of the warlords who’ve made the country a living hell since 1991. After a bitter struggle to restore order back to Somalia, the ICU finally prevailed over Mogadishu and for the first time in nearly twenty years, stability began returning to the war ravaged region. Although after their retreat, the warlords claimed they would be able to establish a dialogue with the ICU, in reality, they intended to do nothing of the sort.
More than 500 power hungry warlords-turned-ministers are to thank for the sustained chaos that enveloped Somalia and who supported the opposition to the ICU. The motive for the chaos was, of course, financial. When the warlords are in control, all commerce must first be routed through them, which in turn line their pockets. It should be no surprise then that the so-called president of Somalia, Abdullahi Yusif, is himself a warlord, nor should it be a shock to anyone that the United States government backed the alliance of warlords against the ICU, along with Ethiopia and Italy. Not that it matters much to the US, but their support for the warlords is a direct violation of the UN arms embargo, a charge which the Bush administration initially denied and later had the audacity to apply against supporters of the ICU. While it is a fact that to arm either side of the confrontation violates the embargo, not only does the US cry foul when its interests are at stake, they go further by alleging false claims about those fighting on behalf of the ICU. None of this is new to their bag of tricks, however.
Interim President Yusif has spoken out against US support for competing warlords, claiming that they ought to cooperate with the government. What he left out was the fact that most of these warlords are MPs of the government and are the same people who elected him to rule the country in 2004 during a meeting in Kenya- how’s that for legitimate? The MPs (warlords) have learned a lot from US policy by giving their militia another Orwellian title “The Alliance for the Restoration of Peace and Counter-Terrorism.” Fighting terrorism had nothing to do with the warlords joining forces; rather, it was set up an offensive to maintain their hegemony over the region. The ICU, on the hand, was established to regain peace and security in Mogadishu, a struggle which they achieved.
By the 2nd of June 2006, thousands rallied in the streets to protest against the US support for the warlords who have ruled the streets for so many years. Three days later, the warlords retreated. Stability for Somalia was gradually settling in as warlord-operated checkpoints used to extort money from motorists came down, prices dropped in the marketplace that was no longer ruled by thugs, and robbery and kidnapping was quickly becoming a thing of the past. Then came reports of (US-trained) Ethiopian troops crossing the boarder in support of the interim government. To assure the interim administration, Sheik Sherif Ahmed, one of the leaders of the ICU stated that they were “making it clear that we are not planning to attack Baidoa, Kismayo or any other third region in the country. We want to work with whoever who wants to return peace to Somalia.” Meanwhile, the US accused the ICU of harboring foreign terrorists, a charge they denied.
By August, a formal system Shari’a or Islamic Law, had been devised and implemented to govern Mogadishu. Those of us who have been moved to tears at the horrific suffering Somalis have endured for so long breathed a sigh of relief and held a glimmer of hope that life in Mogadishu might finally return to normal. Markets opened, bribery ceased, women could freely walk the streets again. Criminals were tried and sentences were employed under the eye of the public. When concerns about a Taliban-style regime being formed, ICU chairman Sheikh Sharif Ahmed, assured them that no such intentions existed within the ICU leadership. In September, the ICU did move into to Kismayo as support for their leadership began increasing. As an indicator of the support they were earning, this move occurred without a single casualty. Moreover, by this time, they were able to bring stability to all ports in the southern region of the country. By November, khat, a highly addictive drug, commonly used stimulant, known to cause aggression and health ailments, was banned. (This is the same drug that was so often used to numb the emotions of child fighters, known for random murders throughout the country during and after the civil war.)
Also in November, murmurs of concern began to be heard within the UN Headquarters in New York. A report issued by the UN Security Council stated that the ICU had received military support Iran, Syria, and a host of others. The report also alleged that ICU fighters assisted Hezbollah against the Israelis and labeled the growing influence of the ICU as “instabile.” Instable to whom? Are we supposed to believe that the American government has the interests of the Somali people on its agenda? How can anyone who has stirred up the biggest hornet’s nest in modern times claim concern over instability? Stability is the one thing that the ICU has proven it is capable of implementing. Could it be relied on to support this new change in the country? The answer has long been understood. So what if the ICU is getting support from its allies? If it is against international law to receive support from one’s allies when in dire need and to return the favor when called upon, how exactly would the Bush administration classify its own illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq? Furthermore, how would it categorize its “Coalition of the Willing”? Further still, is lending military support to Ethiopia immune to the embargo that those providing aid for the ICU are charged with violating? At least in Somalia, the takeover brought stability and had been welcomed by the people. “For, Of and By the People,” isn’t that the idea behind Democracy? The vast majority of Iraqis want the US out− and yet the claim remains to be voiced by the administration that the US military has brought democracy to the people. Apparently, President Bush equates bombing civilians as democracy in action.
By the end of December, Ethiopian troops moved in and attacked areas under the governance of the ICU, despite calls for immediate withdrawal by the African Union. The advance was basically tantamount to ensuring a return to instability and humanitarian crisis. To avert another catastrophe, the ICU Mogadishu abandoned without a fight. Immediately, looters robbed the new market places and the people went into hiding again. Anyone paying any attention whatever to the events unfolding would have to cover their mouths to prevent from vomiting at what has unfolded since.
In January, Ethiopia, against the wishes of the AU, have vowed to remain in the country to maintain “stability.” Then, on January 10th, on my way home from school, I was listening to the radio when I learned that the US had finally carried out the unthinkable− it unleashed its bombs on yet another civilian target, killing hundreds of people who an interim government official said "may have involved very senior Islamist court leaders." May have? Like who? Sharif Ahmed, a moderate, trusted by the people? Before launching a fatal attack, should not the attackers be certain that the action being carried out will be limited to the people they're going after? By the way, who gave them this free writ of assasination? Of course the US takes its warn-out excuse to terms once again, saying it was an attack against a member of al-Qaeda. Somehow that absolves them of any wrong doing in regards to the civilian deaths, or as they’re fond of deeming it: “collateral damage.”
Again, one has to question how American aggression against a Muslim population will bring about stability. How long will it take before the Pentagon understands that such attacks only incite more al-Qaeda violence? It is the equivalent of an open invitation to terror. It plants the seeds of more discontent against victims who see groups like these as the only way to assert themselves. Just as the likelihood of revenge violence increases when someone murders another’s family in America, the same is true of others half a world away. Give a gun to a teenager who’s mother was killed by a lunatic and see what happens− especially when the killer goes unpunished. Case-in-point: the ten fold instances of suicide bombing since the invasion of Iraq. The same will happen again and again in any Muslim country the US assaults. It’s been well established that such responses have soared once the US has become involved in military offensives. The continued aggression against the people of Somalia will only continue worsening the situation. What the West fails to comprehend is the fact that the Somali people overwhelmingly respect Islamic Law. That’s not to say that they desire a Taliban-style dictatorship (in fact, the Taliban was about as unislamic of any such state ever to exist). It is to say that secular law is not held in nearly the same regard as Shari’a. As one Somali elder told me, “the people respect the book [the Qur’an], take it away and we see the situation that results.” Add to the fact that outside forces deemed hostile to Islam are responsible for the worst carnage in fifteen years, after a short-lived peace brought about by the leadership of the Islamic Courts Union. The only way to restore peace and stability is to allow Somalis to return to self-rule without interference from those who do not belong there to begin with. Until then, offer your prayers for the people of that tortured land that they will again live in peace.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)