Some
Problems -1
(1)
Explanations:-
Question:-
It is noticeable that when questions are
asked there are all kinds of explanations. There is little consensus among
Muslims. And some explanations satisfy some questioners but not others, and some
do not satisfy some people at all or are not even understood. Though your
explanations seem quite clear to many people, others have the same problem with
them. Any comments?
Comment:-
People differ in inherent temperament as well
as in what they have acquired from their culture and experiences in their
particular environments, and the efforts they make at processing the data of
experience. This produces certain kinds of Mental Systems that differ between
individuals. They differ also according to the amount of knowledge and the
degree to which it is systematised and how much of it they are aware. Things
can only be understood if they fit into these systems.
The explanations given also depend on these
systems and are different points of view of the same thing rather than
different things. This is like looking at a house or complex structure from
different angles.
The greater the amount of knowledge the
closer one gets to the truth and also to agreement between people about.
Therefore, the solution to differences of opinion is progressive increase in
knowledge.
However, if an area of experience is
circumscribed by definition and rules then it is easier to obtain all the
knowledge relevant to that area and obtain a consensus. Vagueness in the
boundaries owing to definition or rules will still allow differences to exist.
But such vagueness is inevitable when dealing with real things because all
things exist in a larger context and have links with things outside the area..
However, explanations can be of seven kinds:-
(a) Factual and descriptive.
(b) Personal, which give expression to
feeling, emotion and motives
(c) Intellectual and Philosophical, using
abstract and often obscure concepts.
(d) Systematised with a view to promote
understanding.
(e) Symbolised and allegorical.
(f) Those coming from deeper experiences in
the heart.
(g) Those meant to induce experiences and
awareness of truths rather than convey information.
My articles are meant for category (d).
(2) Re: Zakah:-
Question:-
With regard to a limited area bounded by
definitions and rules:- Does one need to pay zakah on one's retirement savings
such as the Registered Retirement Savings Plan (RRSP) that we have here in
Canada, or 401K as there is in the U.S.?
Comment:-
Is this a question about Charity in general
or just about the obligatory part?
Charity in general does not have limits at
all except in so far as you give everything away to your own detriment, and
become a case for charity for others. From an objective point of view, a person
should also be a case for charity to himself.
“They will
ask you what they are to expend in charity, say: Whatsoever good you expend it
should be for parents and kinsmen, and the orphan and the poor, and the son of
the road (wayfarers); and whatsoever good you do, verily, of it Allah is
Aware." 2:215
Charity means
benevolence and mercy and does not only refer to money or material goods, but
to anything that benefits physically, socially, mentally, psychologically and
spiritually including time, effort, service, advice, knowledge, training,
skills, help, facility, and good example.
But Zakah requires that two and half percent
of surplus be paid for charity voluntarily. The surplus is calculated as the
excess after all needs and obligations are discharged. I do not think that it
is difficult to see that you calculate Zakah obligation after you have paid
into The Retirement Saving Plan and that when you have retired and are paid out
by that Plan, then Zakah must be calculated on what you have after you are paid
out.
However, is the money you paid into the Plan
an investment from which the Profit is added to the final income? Or is it
interest on what you save? If it is then it is haram.
Question:-
Could the income tax that is deducted from one's
pay cheque be construed as a form of Zakah as it provides the state with the
resources to help its citizens, e.g., moneys paid to those who are on welfare?
Comment:-
Income Tax is an obligation to the State,
payment for the services that it provides. It is not a voluntary payment. It is
not Zakah. It is often used for doubtful or evil purpose e.g. maintaining large
armies and developing weapons of mass destruction in order to bully and invade
other countries. The part of it that is used for Charity work might be
construed as personal charity. This is usually paid separately as National
Insurance.
But it is an obligation on the part of the
payer of Zakah to see that the charity goes to where it is needed to do good
work. In fact, the payer of taxes has no control. Unfortunately, the State pays
out in immoral ways, often to encourage things like irresponsible sexual
activity or swindling. From the Islamic point of view, Charity should be given where it is
needed, whether asked for or not, in secret or openly, and where it will do the
maximum good and is not negated by any harm to the recipient such as causing
humiliation or dependence. Though immediate needs should be catered for, the
better use of charity is to enable people to help themselves and become
independent and self-determined e.g, by giving them the machinery, means,
advice, knowledge, skills, health, motivation etc. so that they can set up
their own businesses, lead a socially, psychologically and spiritually
beneficial life.
The money in taxes comes out of the payers
income, so that his surplus is reduced. Therefore, the total he is obliged to
pay in Zakah is also reduced. It could, therefore, be argued that Income Tax
already takes away a part of Zakah.
(3) Lying
Assertion:-
On a recent TV programme Iqbal Sacranie, the
leader of the Muslim Council of Britain, which claims to represent British
Muslims and is accorded a leadership role by the British Government, paid a
warm tribute to Shaikh Yassin as the founder of Hamas. When the interviewer insisted
he was a terrorist ideologue, Sacranie responded by saying, "Those who
fight oppression, those who fight occupation, cannot be termed terrorists -
they are freedom fighters..." The logic of this position is clear: If the
end I seek is just, I may use unjust means to obtain it. One often comes across
this 'logic'.
I find an echo of it in the Muslim position
on lying, which is grounded in the Hadith. Lying is generally forbidden but in
some circumstances permitted;
The Christian (Catholic) position is simple:
lying is forbidden. The Mosaic commandments forbid lying, and Jesus said that
Satan is a liar and the father of lies.
Comment:-
It is a question of priorities, whether the
Good or the True comes first. From the religious point of view the Universe has
a purpose and goal and it is that which creates everything that exists. Human
inventions are also not true when described, but made true when manufactured.
But the purpose, goal or value system is also
a transcendental Truth.
According to the Quran:-
"This day have I perfected for you
your religion, and completed My favour unto you, and have chosen for you as
religion Al-Islam. But he who is forced by hunger (or dire need), not inclined
wilfully to sin, verily, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful." 5:3
It is what is done consciously and
intentionally that determines what is right or wrong.
So the motive justifies the act. But this is
not the same as saying that the means justify the ends. This is because we have
to take into consideration all consequences of the ac, not just the means
adopted. The overall consequences must be better than before the act is done,
and the good must be maximised. That is, if the total good could have been
better by a different act, then not doing it makes it evil to the extent of the
difference.
But when the good is done, it becomes a
truth. The value or goal to maximise good is a Truth and the motive to do this
must be true.
But it is not an unusual or unethical
position to take that, in order to genuinely avoid hurting or harming someone,
a truth is wholly or partly concealed from them or modifies.
But note that all statements in so far as we
do not have absolute knowledge of all circumstances are lies to various
degrees. When a
statement is made it is an action that has a purpose and is judged by ethics.
Even when it refers to something true about the world it is selects and
isolates some features and excludes others. Consider the following statements
about the same event:-
“There was an
explosion in an area of City A that caused some damage, injuries and
deaths.”
“There was an
explosion in City A that killed 50 people.”
“There was an
explosion in Country B that killed 10 women and children”
“Terrorists
caused an explosion in a busy city centre killing innocent people”
“Extremist
fanatics exploded a bomb near a mosque killing 10 worshippers.”
“Members of
an Islamic Organisation exploded a bomb in a crowd killing 7 Christians.”
All these
statements could be true, but are partial truths and part of the truth is the
motive of the person making the statement. The question is: what is the purpose
of the statement and how does the speaker see things? The same events can be
stated in a number of different ways. The meaning of the statement will vary
with the person making the statement, the person who hears and interprets it
and the circumstances to which it relates. The social and political situation
affects the meaning as does the faith of the speaker or listener whether he is
Muslim, Christian or of an adherent of some other system of belief.
(4) Terrorism
Critic:-
But to return to the logic of the many Muslim
spokesmen who justify terrorism, that is, justify injustice; why do the Islamic
scholars not speak out and roundly condemn these pernicious and corrupting ways
of thinking?
Comment:-
Many Muslims have condemned
"Terrorism". I have done so myself several times. But those who have
a bias in favour of one and against another community are never satisfied
because of selective perception.
However, if we are to be just as Islam
requires, then we must condemn it where ever it comes from. We condemn
terrorism by Muslims but also by the US and other governments and
organisations. We do not justify any of this. These critics of Muslims are
often not to be very fair. They prefer to support and justify what ever and who
ever serves their own interests and to oppose whatever and who ever does not.
We note that there are unjustified wars and
other immoral acts and there are criminals who do them. We note that all States
prosecute and punish criminals. We note also that the OT as well as the Quran
does teach retaliation against injustice and oppression.
Now how is this justified seeing that the act
of retaliation consists of harming the criminal and the oppressors and
invaders, who are mass murderers? Why do all States prosecute criminals and
punish them?
Clearly, the purpose of retaliation is to act
as deterrent and extract a natural payment or lawful consequence, to teach the
criminal that his action causes harm as he can see when done to him and to
prevent him and others from doing it again, and to stop the spread of that evil
because it goes unopposed without payment. The result should be to prevent a
greater evil in future than the act of retaliation involves and, therefore, to
do a greater good than now exists.
But, of course, people often do not learn the
lesson, criminality continues and so does the retaliation until the lesson is
learnt or negotiations are entered into and treaties made.
Now Jesus taught forgiveness as does Islam.
Islam combines the Jewish "eye for an eye" with the Christian
forgiveness - the former is a social law and the latter is a spiritual law.
That is to say, the person who forgives not only transforms the energy of
resentment in himself to reconstruct himself, but also transforms the society.
He does this by putting a stop to the chain of cause and effect where the
resentment caused by injury leads to further injury which leads to resentment
which leads to injury....and so on, and, in a closed society, returns to the
originator and out again.
"The guerdon of an ill-deed is an ill
the like thereof. But whosoever pardons and amends, his wage is the affair of
Allah. Lo! He loves not wrongdoers. And whoso defends himself after he has
suffered wrong - for such there is no blame against them. The blame is only
against those who oppress mankind and wrongfully rebel in the earth. For such
there is a painful doom. And verily whoso is patient and forgives - Lo! That
verily is the steadfast heart of things." 42:40-43
But forgiveness does not always work and is
seen by some psychopaths as license to continue their criminal activity.
Forgiveness is generally conditional on acknowledgement of wrong and
repentance.
So we cannot condemn those who retaliate
against the oppressors, but we can condemn those who harm innocent people.
But are those who support the oppression
really innocent. Are not the US
and other governments hounding and prosecuting persons who they think are
supporting terrorists?
(5) Faith
Critic:-
A Muslim suggested that Faith is "firm
belief in something for which there is no evidence." Such so-called faith
is by definition irrational, that is, it is unreasonable and indefensible. Christians,
on the other hand, are called upon, in the New Testament to give reasons for
their faith when asked, that is Christian faith is reasonable and the NT
supplies the evidence and the testimony.
Comment:-
That definition of faith is the common one that
scientists and other rationalists accept. But scientists have faith in science
and many others have faith in reason.
To give reasons for one's faith is not the
same thing as being reasonable or that one's belief in something is reasonable.
Apart from this the belief in the supremacy of "reason" is itself
unreasonable. How do you prove that reason is reasonable? Is it not the case that the
ultimate purpose of reason, of a rational argument, is to create belief? But
faith is more than simple intellectual impersonal belief which is useless if it
has no application. Faith refers to the real belief that manifests in action,
something on which conscious life is built as opposed to mechanical,
unintelligent or conditioned behaviour. Life depends on belief, and existence
(E) depends on correct living (L) with respect to the objective world, and
correct living depends on correct belief (B). B > L > E. Therefore, the
primary importance of the cultivation of correct belief is clear. But this can be established by
several methods not just reason.
Where did you get the idea that the NT asks
for the use of reason. What Jesus says is that only those who are of God
understand the things of God. (John 8:47). Paul does say in 1 Thessalonians
5:21, "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." But he
explains in Romans 12:12 "And be not conformed to this world: but be ye
transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good,
and acceptable, and perfect, will of God."
Unfortunately, people mistake their own
fantasies, prejudices, acquired opinions and self-interested whims for reason.
It is only after following an appropriate discipline that the faculty for
perception of truth develops. The Quran tells us:-
"And follow (or pursue) not that of which
you have no knowledge; verily, the hearing, the sight, and the heart, of all of
these it shall be asked (to give an account). And walk not on the earth proudly
(insolently); verily, you can not rend the earth asunder, nor can you stretch
to the height of the mountains." 17:36-37
"Follow what is inspired in you from
your Lord; there is no god but He, and shun the idolaters." 6:107
"O you who believe! Be you steadfast
in justice, witnesses for Allah, though it is against yourselves, or your
parents, or your kindred, be it rich or poor, for Allah is nearer both than
either. Follow not, then, lusts (prejudices, superstitions, passions), so as to
act unjustly (or with bias); but if you swerve or turn aside, Allah is well
Aware of what you do." 4:135
"Say: O people of the Book! Exceed
not in your religion other than the Truth, and follow not the lusts
(prejudices, fantasies, superstitions) of a people who have erred in the past,
and who lead many astray, and who go astray from the Even Path." 5:77
"Then set your purpose for religion
as a man upright by nature - the nature made by Allah in which He has made men;
there is no altering (the laws of) Allah's creation; that is the right
religion, but most people do not know " 30:30
"Surely, We have created man in the
best of moulds. Then We reduced him to the lowest of the low; Save those who
believe and act right; for theirs is a reward unfailing." 95:4-6
"But most of them follow naught but
conjecture (suspicion, fancy, guesswork, speculation); verily, conjecture can
by no means take the place of (or avail against) truth. Verily, Allah is Aware
of what they do." 10:37
"O mankind! There has come to you a
direction (guidance, exhortation) from your Lord, and a healing for the disease
in your breasts, and a guidance and a mercy for believers." 10:58
In fact, of course, human beings have other
faculties apart from reason and they are much more than reason. They have
sensations, perception, insight, motives and the capacity for action. A human
being is more than reason.
Muslims are interested in truth. That is the
goal, not reason which is a means. Truth is something built-in into us - we are
formed of the materials, energy, processes, laws and principles that exist in the
Universe and we have the potentialities and the creativity that exist in the
fabric of existence. Whatever is consistent with that is true and we need but
become aware of this and we have the faculty for that. The perception of truth
depends on that faculty.
As is now well known among psychologists and
others, reason is an instrument that goes anywhere where the motives lead it.
It is a means of solving problems. You need to have a pure motive and goal if
reason is to reach it.
Reason, moreover, varies in quality and
quantity with different people. So that what one person thinks is reasonable is
not so to another. Does everyone understand Einstein's reasoning? And is the
conclusion he reached necessarily wholly true?
Ultimately, what is false dies out because it
involves inconsistency and self-contradiction. The Truth survives and what
survives is the Truth.
"And say: Truth has come, and
falsehood has vanished! Verily, falsehood is ever bound to vanish." 17:81
"But each soul earns only on its own
account, nor does any laden soul bear the burden of another. Then unto your
Lord is your return, and He will inform you concerning that wherein you
differ." 6:165. See also 9:94, 10:29, 29:8, 31:15 etc.
"For each of you have We appointed a
Law and a traced out Path. Had Allah pleased He would have made you one nation,
but that He may try you by that which He has given you. Therefore, vie with one
another in virtue. Unto Allah will you all return, and He will then inform you
concerning that wherein you dispute." 5:48
----------<O>----------
Contents