4.8. THE MOVEMENT AND DIALOGUE WITH OTHERS
The Movement should not confine itself in the next phase to addressing itself: it must enlarge its scope to address others as well.
Many Islamic writers and men of thought write for themselves, I mean that they write for those who follow their steps and advocate their ideas, not exceeding the limits of what they have to say to each other, as if there were no other people on this earth besides themselves. If they get out of this circle, they write only to the other Islamic groups which share Islam and its call with them but use different means and adopt different concepts.
When they do leave that second circle, they write for the religious in general, regardless of whether they, the religious, were members of any groups or movements.
Now that the Islamic Movement has attained its zenith and broadened its base, it should address itself to those who differ with it in ideology and trend and not leave them to their old, inherited ignorance and mistrust of Islam and its advocates without trying to provide them with guidance or light their path.
It is high time for the Islamic Movement to abandon its self imposed isolation, so that it may regard all Muslims as part of it and enter with them into a dialogue between itself and them first and then between itself and them on one side and opposing, even antagonist, parties on the other side. Perhaps the rational, quiet, academic dialogue will make the reluctant become sure, give confidence to the uncertain, calm down the anxious, and may be even alleviate the animosity of those with a grudge. Allah the Almighty says, (It may be that Allah will establish love and [friendship] between you and those whom you [now] hold as enemies. For Allah has power [over all things]; and Allah is oftforgiving. Most merciful) [Surat AlMumtahana: 7].
I recall here the invitation I received some years ago for participating in the symposium called “The Islamic Awakening And The Woes Of The Arab World” which was held in Amman, Jordan.
The participants in that symposium included Muslims, Christians, Communists and nationalists of every color. Some of the brothers with whom I discussed the symposium were of the opinion that I should not go, so that my participation might not be used for giving a tint of legitimacy to such symposiums that do not follow a proper Islamic line.
However, I did not heed these fears and vivid imaginations that see a ghost behind every corner. I accepted the invitation and presented a paper that was published in a separate book later. My presence and the presence of a number of Islamists, including Dr. Hassan AlTurabi, Fahmy Hewaidi and Kamel AlSherif, had a very significant effect in making the voice of Islamists heard through the moderate Islamic trend, which I believe in and advocate. Despite the small number of lslamists, their influence was the strongest, and their voice was best heard.
I will never forget what one of the participants, a nationalist Christian, said to me at the lunch table. He said, “We have changed our opinion about you completely”. I asked, “And what was your opinion?” He replied, “that you are a hard-liner and a fanatic”. I said, “Where did you get this idea about me? He answered, “I don’t know, but, frankly, that was our impression about you”. I asked “And now?” He said, “Now we have learned through seeing, hearing, discussion and direct contact what has changed this unfair idea about you completely. We now see you as a man who respects logic, refers to reason and knows how to listen to the other opinion as a man who is not stubborn or adamant, but extremely flexible and tolerant”.
What I want to convey by telling this story is that direct contact and reasonable, quiet dialogue that is held on equal footing is in the interest of the Islamic Movement, which stands to gain from it and will lose nothing at all in it.
I can testify to that myself out of my experience in all the meetings that comprised both Islamists and nonlslamists. the latest of which was the “Issues Of The Islamic Future” symposium in Algeria.
Therefore, we say that the motto of the Islamic Movement in the next phase should be “Welcome to dialogue with others”.
By others, we mean those who differ with the Islamic Movement in their ends, means, attitudes, ideologies and their very creeds.
The Movement has to welcome the dialogue with all those who differ with it and keep up the dialogue with those with whom it has already started discussion.
It should also seek to enlist the support of all the Islamic forces that agree with it on the main issues and general principles, including both groups and individuals who have intellectual and academic influence.
The Quran orders us to hold dialogues with those who differ with us, not to regard them as hopeless cases and isolate ourselves from them. It says, ( Invite [all] to the way of your Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching; and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious) [Surat AnNahl; 125].
All that the Quran requires is that the argument, the dialogue, be in ways that are best, i.e. with the best means that ensure persuasion of the mind and awakening of the heart. A marvel of the Quranic expression is evident in this verse, as the Quran deems it enough for preaching to be beautiful, but would only accept argument, or dialogue, that is performed in ways that are best, because preaching is usually directed at someone who already agrees, while argument is directed at someone who does not agree and therefore should be addressed in the best manner.
The Dialogue With Rational Secularists
The required dialogue also includes holding a dialogue with secularists, I mean with those of them who are rational and fair and would be willing to hear the Islamists and understand what the Islamists advocate and want.
Those secularists are originally Muslims. Many of them still declare proudly that they are Muslims, and some evenperform the Muslim rites, praying, fasting and perhaps also going for umra or hajj.
However, their problem is that they never came to learn Islam properly as is the problem with many of the cultured like we said earlier for they never had a chance to take the teachings of Islam from their original, pure sources, nor meet with scholars and men of thought, but have taken their religion from orientalists or (Christian) missionaries or their disciples, or even formed their perception of Islam through the pathetic state of affairs of Muslims or from what they read or hear from extremist or deviated people who claim to belong to Islam.
Anyway, their upbringing, education and way of life never gave them the chance to know an Islam that is clear of the impurities that afflicted it in past and present, including misconceptions, misapplication and misuse.
Besides, the glamour of Western civilization at its zenith has coupled with the darkness that prevails in the Muslim World, which has sunk low in all aspects of life, to provide some excuse for secularists to misjudge Islam and the Islamic sharia and way of life and believe that the way out of the present dilemma lies in following in the steps of the West when it wished to achieve progress. For the West shook itself free of religion and its institutions and clerics, using science as its sole vehicle to reach out to building, innovation, production and creativity, until it has mastered the powers of nature for man’s comfort and prosperity.
We started the dialogue with secularists in Cairo in the summer of 1985 with the historic symposium held in Dar AlHekma on invitation by the Physicians Association. The Islamists were represented by Sheikh Mohammad AlGhazali and the author, while the only representative of secularists was Dr. Fuad Zakariya.
The symposium received a warm welcome from journalists and men of thought, as it was a manifestation of the importance of dialogue among the various sides in the same homeland.
Many writers, including Fahmy Huwaidi, mentioned several benefits of this meeting, the most significant of which being that each side listened to the other directly.
However, I found a shortcoming in the meeting: that it took the form of a debate between Islamists and secularists, not a dialogue.
A debate breeds heated discussion, especially if there is a large audience.
Besides, the representative of secularists in that dialogue was an obstinate man who did not have the least flexibility, tolerance or modesty that could make him listen and understand what the other side of the dialogue had to say so that he might learn something about Islam, of which I regret to say that he was abysmally ignorant.
He actually realized the weakness of his position and the flimsiness of his argument, so he went to the newspapers to which he was contributing articles and started a ferocious, slashing attack on the audience in general, Islamists in particular and myself by name.
That attack forced me to reply by explaining the whole issue in my book “Islam And Secularism Face To Face”.
Once again, what I am calling for here is “dialogue” not “debate”. The word “debate” in itself gives an impression of challenge and a desire to win, with each side trying to deal the other a fatal blow.
I do not think that such a debate could do much good, as neither side would be likely to give ground or abandon its stand as a result of debate, but may even become more obstinate and fanatic.
A debate may be accepted only if the Islamic side is embarrassed as a result of challenges by the other sides that leave it no option but to accept the challenge in order to avoid being accused of fleeing the confrontation and deserting the battlefield.
But the principle is dialogue in which proper manners are observed, as the Quran urges us to “argue in ways that are best”.
The Dialogue With Rational Rulers
Another type of dialogue that is required is the dialogue with wise, rational Muslim rulers who do not take an aggressive stand based on [different] doctrine against Islam; for those rulers who adopt a different doctrine and stand against Islam are useless: they are a hopeless case because they would like nothing better than to see Islam wither and go to total obliteration, but (Fain would they extinguish Allah’s Light with their mouths, but Allah will not allow but that His Light should be perfected, even though the Unbelievers may detest [it]) [Surat AlTauba: 32].
However, there are also those rulers who do not hate Islam but fear it, and their fear is in most cases due to their ignorance of the facts about Islam and the characteristics of Islam’s Shari’ah and Call. Many of these rulers should be excused, of course, as they have not had a chance to know Islam as it really is, and get their knowledge from the pure sources and the trustworthy scholars. In that ignorance, they are just like the members of our cultured elite that we have mentioned. The concepts are jumbled in their heads, and fact and fiction are one to them.
If Allah the Almighty sends to such rulers those who explain to them true Islam as a whole without division, as a pure subject without innovations, and as a simple matter without difficulty, showing them the good things that Islam carries for the individual, the family and the community, and the evils it wards off to protect the Nation’s morale and material property, and if they accept that explanation with an open heart, they will certainly change and adopt attitudes that will be different in part or whole towards Islam and its Call. For rulers are only human, just like us, and they can change and become influenced and convinced in such a way as to change their ideas and behavior.
History is full of examples of rulers who changed under the influence of wellmeaning ulema and scholars.
Many of the rulers who are apprehensive of Islam have adopted such an attitude under the influence of false warnings by their illintentioned advisers or conspiracies by the “devils” abroad.
This type of rulers can be reached by addressing the goodness that still remains in their hearts and stirring the Muslim blood that still runs in their veins, and also by assuring them that they will retain their thrones and their powers, at least for the time being, if they give freedom to the Call of Islam to discharge its mission of raising the youth to the values of right, good and purity, protecting them from intoxicants, drugs and prostitution. and countering the destructive principles that will be the ruin of the ruler and the ruled alike.
There is nothing against holding such a truce, or agreement, with rulers, even though the Movement may not approve of their behavior or their affiliations, for the Movement, guided by the fiqh of balances, believes that such a position would be better than abject refusal or continuous animosity towards them.
However, a word of warning is in order here: such an attitude must never be a prelude to flattery or lipservice to these rulers. There is a big difference between pacification and hypocrisy towards them!
The Dialogue With Rational Westerners
Another important dialogue is required from the Islamic Movement, despite the fact that the path of such a dialogue will be strewn with difficulties and obstacles: it is the dialogue with the West.
There are several differences between us and the West. There is a difference of religion, as the West is predominantly Christian while we are Muslim. There is difference of trend, for the West is materialistic and realistic but we are spiritual and idealistic. There is difference of politics, because the West is, in most cases, on the side of Israel and against us, though this attitude may differ in its strength from one Western country to another.
However, we cannot do without a dialogue with the West.
It is the West that has been ruling the world for centuries and it owns the civilization that prevails in our contemporary world, whether we like it or not. It ruled our countries and occupied our land for varying durations, then left voluntarily or against its will, but still affects us directly or indirectly, and influences our decision makers one way or another. Its influence on the minds and wills of our rulers cannot be denied, either.
Moreover, it is no longer possible for a group of people to live alone with its creed and principles, isolated from the world around it, in its own Utopia. The fluid technological changes in the field of communications have actually made the world a “global village” as one writer said.
Therefore, a dialogue with the West is a farida and a must for us, so that we may make Westerners understand what we want for ourselves and others, and because we are preachers of a Call, not hunters for loot; messengers of mercy, not carriers of bad omens; advocates of peace, not callers for war; supporters of right and justice, not helpers of wrong and injustice.
Our mission is to guide the confused humanity to the Way of Allah and link earthly life to the Hereafter, Earth to Heaven and human being to human being, so that a man may like for his fellow man what he likes for himself and hates for him what he hates for himself, and so that mankind may be cured of the illness of all nations: envy and grudge. For this renders humanity bare of religion.
We know that the West still looks at us through the gloomy perspective that has mired its outlook to us since the Crusades and has nestled in the hearts of most Westerners till this day.
Many of the West’s free and fair thinkers have admitted to that fact, including Gustave Le Bon, the French philosopher and sociologist, who said it frankly in some of the footnotes of his book, “The Civilization of the Arabs” When a Western scholar delves into Islamic causes, he assumes a character other than his normal, independent one with which he deals with all issues, and becomes biased and anti Islamic even if he does not realize it.
The same was recently said by the orientalist Montgomery Watt in his book “What Is Islam?” We also see the spirit of the Crusades raising its head from time to time in various fields.
We see its influence in the West’s attitude towards Israel, the aggressor, and towards the Palestinian people, the victimized.
We see its influence in the West’s attitude towards the Christian Lithuania and the Muslim Azerbaijan in the Soviet Union.
We see its influence in the actions of French, Spanish and Italian officials who are motivated by their fear of the Islamic trend in Algeria.
We see its influence in the West’s attitude towards the issues of southern Sudan, Eritrea, Kashmir, the Philippines and other political Islamic issues.
We see its influence in several social issues, the most important of which is that of Salman Rushdie who shed his skin and betrayed his Creed and his Nation. And in the issue of the “Hijab (Islamic dress) in France” and how a country that proclaims itself as the mother of freedom could not tolerate a few Muslim girl students whose religion required them to be modest in their dress and who sought to please Allah and avoid Hell with their attire, but the land of freedom and human rights did not give them the right of seeking Allah’s pleasure in a purely personal matter.
Unfortunately, the spirit of the Crusades is present in attitudes and situations that defy counting. Even Turkey which is a country that has panted after the West for twothirds of a century and imposed the West’s secularism on its Muslims by sword and bloodshed, driving the Islamic Shari’ah out of every corner was unable to gain the favor of the West when it applied for membership of the European Common Market, and the Chancellor of West Germany explained the reason for turning its application saying, “Turkey has a culture that is different from that of the West. It has a Muslim culture, while we have a Jewish, Christian culture”.
However, we would despair of the west or leave it alone as a hopeless case that can never be swung around with dialogue, even though our culture is different from their culture, for can there be a dialogue except between two different sides? Let it then be a dialogue of culture, as it was called by the famous man of thought Rajaa Garoudi …. let it be a dialogue of cultures, not a conflict of cultures. And why should not we hold a dialogue with the West when the Quran has laid down for us the practice of dialogue with those who differ with us, thus making dialogue a means of advocating the Call of Allah.
Moreover, the Holy Quran tells us of the dialogue between Allah and the worst of His Creation, Iblis [Satan]. Allah the Almighty did not close the door of dialogue in the face of the damned. Iblis. And what a dialogue it was! a dialogue with the Lord of the Worlds.
Read these verses of Surat Sad: (Behold, our Lord said to the angels, “I am about to create man from clay: When I have fashioned him (In due proportion) and breathed into him from My spirit, fall down in prostration unto him”. So the angles prostrated themselves, all of them together: Not so Iblis: he was haughty, and became one of those who reject Faith. [Allah] said, ‘O Iblis, What prevents you from prostrating yourself to one whom I have created with My hands? Are you haughty! Or are you one of the high [and mighty] ones? Iblis said, “I am better than him: You created me from fire, and him from clay.” [Allah said, “Then get out from here: for you are rejected, accursed. And My Curse shall be on you till the Day of Judgment”. Iblis said, “O my Lord! Give me then respite till the Day the [dead] are raised.” [Allah] said, “Respite then is granted you till the Day of the Time Appointed”. Iblis said, “Then, by Your Power, I will put them all in the wrong, Except Your servants amongst them, sincere and purified [by Your Grace]”. Allah said, “Then this is the Truth and the Truth I say. That I will certainly fill Hell with you and those that follow you, every one) [Surat Sad: 7185].
And also let the dialogue with the West be on more than one level:
On the religious level,
On the intellectual level,
And on the political level
Source: Islamic Basics by Yusuf Al-Qaradawi
Comments
John Doe
23/3/2019Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.
John Doe
23/3/2019Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.
John Doe
23/3/2019Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.